Personal gear review

I think I'm coming out of my photography stagnation. At one point I was ready to sell all my gear and call it quits. My wife and my dad both talked me out of it. With my dad buying two of my lenses to hang on to in case I wanted them back later. I tried working with a 16-55 again, but that quickly didn't pan out. So I sold it and got my 33 1.4 back. Not long after I started getting my photo mojo going a bit. And now I have re acquired the 18mm 1.4 Just going to roll with the 18/33/50 kit for a while and try to focus just on shooting.
Congratulations Bobby. Sometimes it's hard. I know. Have you tried the XF18-55? It really is a superb lens, and so versatile. And I find OIS really useful.
 
The positive first impression I got from the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 made me think ... could this be the lens to finally supersede my oldest standard reportage zoom, the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8?

Here's a little size comparison, and yes, the Sigma is clearly smaller *and* lighter - quite a feat, considering that the Sigma covers the larger APS-C image circle.

DSC_3449.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


However, the Olympus is a flagship lens (it has had a very long life and has recently been updated - the optical formula remained unchanged, testament to its quality) and has obvious advantages over the Sigma; not only does it offer a greater range on both ends of the spectrum (24mm-e to 80mm-e vs 27mm-e to 75mm-e), but it's also weather-sealed, with the term describing the impressive prowess of the lens in that regard accurately (it's not just "resistant"). And of course, the OM-D E-M5 III is one of the best small stabilised platforms out there, in fact, *the* best in my view - but I haven't compared it to the Fujifilm X-S10 directly, another impressively small and well-spec'd APS-C camera ... The Z 50 isn't stabilised, and neither is the Sigma zoom, so it'd have other clear advantages to offer; after all, having to use the Megadap ETZ-21 means that whatever limited weather resistance the body and the lens would offer is basically compromised.

I've already mentioned that the Sigma is indeed smaller and lighter, making for a really pleasant and well balanced combo, while the E-M5 III/12-40mm f/2.8 setup definitely feels front heavy, though not overly so, I posted yesterday about my preference for the 12-45mm f/4 because it balances so much better - and that little warrior is optically the equal of its more ambitious sibling (it's actually the better lens on the long end). Yet, the f/2.8 maximum aperture means quite a bit of additional flexibility, so I'll stick to the 12-40mm for now. Here's the test shot at 40mm, 80mm-e:

EM530054.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Looks good to me ... However, the eagle-eyed will notice a bit of harshness (as in: discernable edges) to the bokeh rendering ... Apart from the physics in play, this is also a consequence of the very high contrast the lens provides. Sharpness on the 20MP sensor is great.

Now, here comes the Sigma ... a lens half the price and just about three quarters the weight of the Olympus (sorry for the very noticable differences in framing - I was standing in the same spot, though).

Z50_3602.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Sharpness is no worse (but also no better) than what the Olympus offers, bokeh is definitely smoother (even though the field of view is a tad wider at 50mm, 75mm-e). For half the money, I think we can call this a win, even if not by a huge margin.

However, all the assets the Olympus brings to the table are missing on the Sigma (and the Z 50 is no competition when it comes to weather proofing, anyway). So, in the end, I'm still impressed enough by the performance of the venerable Olympus - it offers slightly better contrast, equal, if not better sharpness and very good overall image rendering - to keep it. But I feel that my favourable first impressions of the Sigma are vindicated by this assessment as well.

If Sigma get their act together and offer native versions of this lens for the current mounts (X, Z, RF), they'd have even more of a winner on their hands.

For the time being, I'm very happy with having created an opportunity for myself to test this lens, and apart from all the central findings, all this speaks to the value of the Megadap ETZ-21 for me: Having access to the E mount ecosystem is definitely worthwhile, and not having to own a Sony body to make it happen feels quite satisfying in itself (I have nothing against Sony as such, mind - I just decided to make Nikon Z my go-to system for AF and stop maintaining several systems).

Where to go from here? It's not as if I had any specific needs or gaps to fill at the moment - but a truely compact 24mm lens would be very interesting to own, and Nikon doesn't offer one (yet, if we look at DX/APS-C only). The E mount market, on the other hand, offers a dizzying number of options, but I've already narrowed it down to either the Sigma 24mm f/3.5 C (a lens that doubles as a pseudo macro option) or the Sony 24mm f/2.8 G because those two are really small, yet offer aperture rings as well, and I'd love to test Megadap's claim of them working on Nikon Z bodies via the adapter. Having said that, this'd mostly mean just playing around with gear - it's not as if I *needed* another 24mm option because my diverse zooms offer plenty ... So, I'm in no hurry to decide, and there are other things coming up that look a lot more appealing (the Voigtländer APO-Ultron 35mm f/2 should become available by the end of November ...).

Anyhow, kudos to Sigma - and Megadap :)

M.
 
Olympus f/2 12mm ... ? Just a thought.
No - because that's :mu43:, not usable on the Z system (see my post).

There are reasons for me to keep :mu43:, mostly centered around size, stabilisation and sealing. The 12mm f/2 doesn't offer the latter, so, apart from a tiny advantage in bulk, isn't more appealing than the FF 24mm lenses. However, the adapter basically kills sealing - that's why I'm dithering (and probably *won't* get one of the 24mm options, at least for now).

But here's the thing: After getting the Voigtländer 23mm f/1.2 for the Z fc, my desire to use the GX9 with 15mm f/1.7, one of my formerly favourite combos, has all but gone. I'm pretty sure that If I had a comparably small, comparably tactile *AF* lens for the Z system, I might finally be able to convince myself to move on the GX9. The GX9 isn't sealed, its I.B.I.S. is of limited use and its EVF a nuisance (the actual panel, not the design), so I'd not lose any key assets. There's something else, though: :mu43: is still a very good option for assignments: The E-M5 III with 12-40mm f/2.8 and the GX9 with 35-100mm II fit into my EDC bag! For the Z 7 II with Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S, I need a special bag, or a huge one to also fit the D750 (or Z 6) with 70-200mm f/4G. The :mu43: combo does provide nice results in sufficient light, so is a real alternative in many cases. So, though rarely, it's really beneficial to have the small option around.

Overall, the GX9 is still a nice camera in use, but the Z DX bodies both handle a lot better (far less fiddly), and the Z fc fully covers the use case I see for the GX9 (though not the lenses I own for it - but the 28mm f/2.8 is a good start). But I guess I'll have to wait for Nikon to bring the 24mm DX and 26mm pancake to market to be able to fully judge things and move on.

Still, the benefit of the adapted 24mm would be that I'd be able to use it on the Z fx bodies as well. Both the Sigma 24mm f/3.5 and Sony 24mm f/2.8 are optically strong performers, on the level of the Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 and the compact Z lenses (at least!). So, I'd have a lens that could do double duty on my main system instead of one that'd limit me to a niche system (in *my* usage - not in general!).

It's a bit of a conundrum - but not a pressing one. The more I think about it, the more I think I really ought to wait ...

M.
 
Last edited:
And now for something completely different ...

This had to wait for a couple of days, but I'd just like to report a quirky, but overall truely rewarding experience.

I backed the NONS SL660 and wrote about some positive early impressions right after it arrived, but last weekend, I finally had time to put it through its paces.

Something that occurred to me: The camera feels like 80%-the-size, 50%-the-weight version of the Pentacon Six TL; not only are the main controls in very similar places, but the whole setup feels very much alike - down to a viewfinder that only offers a restricted impression of the center of the frame (even though the Pentacon Six TL is a little better at about 71%(!) coverage; the NONS shoots square images but only offers a rectangular crop; I'd put it at roughly 55% coverage ... more on that below). The two cameras also share their shooting pace, with the NONS conveniently offering a built-in light meter that very much works like a handheld one (the display is on the top right shoulder of the camera), but with the added convenience of the controls being the aperture and shutter speed dials of the lens and camera.

Z60_4943.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


In use, the similarties are quite striking and pleasing to me (I love the Pentacon Six TL). However, the NONS SL660's wooden grip is a stroke of genius; it's well made and transforms the handling of the camera without increasing the weight too much; furthermore, it allows for something you wouldn't expect to be important on a square format camera, but with this one, it is: "portrait" orientation. See, the slot for film ejection is on the right side of the camera; for the film to work (i.e. the chemicals being released on ejection in order to develop the image), the famous wide bottom border somewhat counter-intuitively ends up on the left side of the image in standard (landscape) orientation; if you choose portrait orientation with the grip on top (with the camera hanging easily from your fingertips, thanks to the grip), the frame will come out as expected. So, the visual clue (rectangle) in the viewfinder actually serves a purpose ... and you get pretty good at guesstimating the actual frame after a short while, anyway.

What's more, the NONS 50mm f/1.8 standard lens, while feeling quite generic (and being strangely oriented when mounted - the usual marks are slightly tilted to the right), is actually a solid performer that suits the camera perfectly. I think they use a formula similar to old Nikon 50mm f/1.8 designs, and at least stopped down a bit and at medium to far distances, results are fine. It's very difficult to focus the lens wide open, especially close up, though, but thanks to the ISO 800 film, at least under normal light, you rarely run out of usable shutter speeds. I went through a whole film, and eight of the ten frames, eight were usable, five of which were really good and among the best I ever created with an instant camera, at least IQ-wise, which is a fantastically high hit rate (I'm usually happy to get five usable frames out of ten). And again, that was achieved with the unassuming kit lens ... I'll scan (at least) the five frames you can see here (the fungus shot is pretty spectacular for an instant image - it's not that obvious in this image, though):

Z60_4944.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The light meter works pretty well for a simple non-TTL affair (the window is above the lens) - I checked it repeatedly against my Sekonic L-208, and the two showed meterings that only differed by a quarter of a stop at the most; the only thing that you need to take into account is a slight delay until the meter auto-refreshes (there's no button to press - the meter's live once you switch on the camera). In certain situations, it meters a little hot, so it usually pays to err on the side of underexposure (by a third to half a stop).

The mirror and shutter need to be cocked - just as with the Pentacon Six TL, there's no auto-return mirror; until you do that, you can neither use the viewfinder nor release the shutter, so you just have to wait with cocking the shutter to avoid losing any of the expensive frames. And since film ejection is manual too, multiple exposure is as simple as it gets. The button for frame ejection on the back of the camera (below the power switch) is very well thought through as well - it needs to be pressed for about two seconds before the frame is ejected, so accidental ejection is basically impossible unless you try something as unwise as holding the camera with just two fingers while placing one on the button ... not that I've tried (with film) ;)

Bottom line: This is the nicest current fully manual instant camera I've handled so far, and I've tried a few; it's big, but still fits into my EDC bag, and it's not at all heavy for its size while at the same time feeling nicely made, in spite of its plastic body. Shooting is straightforward, results are really good even with the inexpensive kit lens, and while the viewfinder was frankly a bit of a head-scratcher at first (I mean, why have a SLR if you can't really see anything approaching the correct framing?), it's actually workable. Furthermore, thanks to two mount adapters (Nikon F and Contax/Yashica), I have access to plenty of interesting lenses. I'm happy.

M.
 
Last edited:
And now for something completely different ...

This had to wait for a couple of days, but I'd just like to report a quirky, but overall truely rewarding experience.

I backed the NONS SL660 and wrote about some positive early impressions right after it arrived, but last weekend, I finally had time to put it through its paces.

Something that occurred to me: The camera feels like 80%-the-size, 50%-the-weight version of the Pentacon Six TL; not only are the main controls in very similar places, but the whole setup feels very much alike - down to a viewfinder that only offers a restricted impression of the center of the frame (even though the Pentacon Six TL is a little better at about 71%(!) coverage; the NONS shoots square images but only offers a rectangular crop; I'd put it at roughly 55% coverage ... more on that below). The two cameras also share their shooting pace, with the NONS conveniently offering a built-in light meter that very much works like a handheld one (the display is on the top right shoulder of the camera), but with the added convenience of the controls being the aperture and shutter speed dials of the lens and camera.

View attachment 344461

In use, the similarties are quite striking and pleasing to me (I love the Pentacon Six TL). However, the NONS SL660's wooden grip is a stroke of genius; it's well made and transforms the handling of the camera without increasing the weight too much; furthermore, it allows for something you wouldn't expect to be important on a square format camera, but with this one, it is: "portrait" orientation. See, the slot for film ejection is on the right side of the camera; for the film to work (i.e. the chemicals being released on ejection in order to develop the image), the famous wide bottom border somewhat counter-intuitively ends up on the left side of the image in standard (landscape) orientation; if you choose portrait orientation with the grip on top (with the camera hanging easily from your fingertips, thanks to the grip), the frame will come out as expected. So, the visual clue (rectangle) in the viewfinder actually serves a purpose ... and you get pretty good at guesstimating the actual frame after a short while, anyway.

What's more, the NONS 50mm f/1.8 standard lens, while feeling quite generic (and being strangly oriented when mounted - the usual marks are slightly tilted to the right), is actually a solid performer that suits the camera perfectly. I think they use a formula similar to old Nikon 50mm f/1.8 designs, and at least stopped down a bit and at medium to far distances, results are fine. It's very difficult to focus the lens wide open, especially close up, though, but thanks to the ISO 800 film, at least under normal light, you rarely run out of usable shutter speeds. I went through a whole film, and eight of the ten frames, eight were usable, five of which were really good and among the best I ever created with an instant camera, at least IQ-wise, which is a fantastically high hit rate (I'm usually happy to get five usable frames out of ten). And again, that was achieved with the unassuming kit lens ... I'll scan (at least) the five frames you can see here (the fungus shot is pretty spectacular for an instant image - it's not that obvious in this image, though):

View attachment 344462

The light meter works pretty well for a simple non-TTL affair (the window is above the lens) - I checked it repeatedly against my Sekonic L-208, and the two showed meterings that only differed by a quarter of a stop at the most; the only thing that you need to take into account is a slight delay until the meter auto-refreshes (there's no button to press - the meter's live once you switch on the camera). In certain situations, it meters a little hot, so it usually pays to err on the side of underexposure (by a third to half a stop).

The mirror and shutter need to be cocked - just as with the Pentacon Six TL, there's no auto-return mirror; until you do that, you can neither use the viewfinder nor release the shutter, so you just have to wait with cocking the shutter to avoid losing any of the expensive frames. And since film ejection is manual too, multiple exposure is as simple as it gets. The button for frame ejection on the back of the camera (below the power switch) is very well thought through as well - it needs to be pressed for about two seconds before the frame is ejected, so accidental ejection is basically impossible unless you try something as unwise as holding the camera with just two fingers while placing one on the button ... not that I've tried (with film) ;)

Bottom line: This is the nicest current fully manual instant camera I've handled so far, and I've tried a few; it's big, but still fits into my EDC bag, and it's not at all heavy for its size while at the same time feeling nicely made, in spite of its plastic body. Shooting is straightforward, results are really good even with the inexpensive kit lens, and while the viewfinder was frankly a bit of a head-scratcher at first (I mean, why have a SLR if you can't really see anything approaching the correct framing?), it's actually workable. Furthermore, thanks to two mount adapters (Nikon F and Contax/Yashica), I have access to plenty of interesting lenses. I'm happy.

M.

A great initial report and camera-in-progress review, Matt.
And.... damn! What a cool camera!!!
thank you for posting this
 
So, this is isn’t going to be your classic review; in fact, maybe more random ramblings than anything else.

I want to talk about my love-hate-relationship with the Panasonic Leica 15mm.

First off, I’d like to say that I think this is an outstanding lens - one of the best available for M4/3 and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it.

There is A LOT to like about the PL15:
  • build quality is exceptional
  • form factor is very nice and works with a lot of bodies
  • the manual focus ring turns butter smooth
  • the aperture ring is a godsend for the small Panasonics which don’t have two control wheels
  • the AF/MF switch is a very clever and good feature
  • DFD with Panasonic bodies, autofocus in general is very fast
  • good performance wide open
  • very fast max. aperture
  • very sharp
  • it’s a perfect indoor lens
However, I’m simply not that fond of it and while I certainly don’t suffer from buyers remorse (it’s not faulty and way too useful), the PL just doesn’t blow me away.
  • the optical performance is very good, but my P20 performs better - while that isn’t a dealbreaker (the P20 is just ridiculously good), it doesn’t make me happy, either
  • talking about the before mentioned aperture ring: while it’s nice for the smaller bodies, it’s a nuisance on others, because you’re going to nudge it and mess up your settings
  • its image rendering is very clinical - I’ve liked my P14 a lot more in that regard (thinking about it, this might be the main point)
  • while the autofocus is very fast, it also misses a lot more than I like it to, and we’re not talking about highly difficult background lighting situations here. The P20 is slower without a doubt - but it’s very accurate and reliable
I know I’m nitpicking here, and that’s exactly my problem: I don’t have a logical reason to dislike this lens, but still…

Now, you may say: dummy, it’s the focal length!
And I would like to agree with you, but I DID like the P14 - in fact, I like it so much, if I would have to choose between the two, I would take it over the PL15. While I gravitate more towards longer lenses like the P20, I don’t think it’s the core of my conundrum. Maybe it’s the price tag, maybe it’s simply illogical personal bias, but it’s a great lens that just doesn’t make me happy. The images it produces just ‚don’t speak to me‘, if you catch my meaning. If it wouldn’t be so useful, I would sell it and buy a P14 in a heartbeat.

Does anybody else have a really good piece of equipment and isn’t happy with it or am I alone in this?
I had a post here some time back (or was it over on mu-43?) The best lens I just don't like. I've owned the PL15 3 times, I think I'm finally cured of my "I need to try it again to make sure". I just like the P14 more (and the O17 1.8 for that matter).
 
I had a post here some time back (or was it over on mu-43?) The best lens I just don't like. I've owned the PL15 3 times, I think I'm finally cured of my "I need to try it again to make sure". I just like the P14 more (and the O17 1.8 for that matter).
I’ve gone through similar with the Fuji 16mm 1.4. Even transitioning it to the 18mm 1.4. My shooting style and preferences moved on past ultra wide. But in my mind I had to have one. Now I’m finally at a point that I don’t have either lens and not feeling like I have to get one.
 
I had a post here some time back (or was it over on mu-43?) The best lens I just don't like. I've owned the PL15 3 times, I think I'm finally cured of my "I need to try it again to make sure". I just like the P14 more (and the O17 1.8 for that matter).
It was on mu-43; if I recall correctly, it was the ‚inspiration‘ for my post here. :D

I’ve since started to love the PL15, though.
 
A little while back I went into the Shot on Film store here in Seattle (well, 20 min north of me). They have a rather exciting amount of stock in there, including a number of small fixed-lens rangefinders, a couple of Voigtlander Bessas, Minolta CLEs and Leicas... along with a lot of SLRs, as one might expect. The K-mount lens selection wasn't the biggest, but there were a few interesting pieces, including a SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 Macro, which was super small and intriguing to look at. The F series lenses are autofocusing and produced well before the digital era. Pentax Forums puts the beginning of this lens's manufacturing as 1987. Lenses of this era weren't optically corrected for the same things that they are now, so quality on a modern digital sensor can be variable and difficult to predict, however the folks at Pentax Forums had already tested out the lens in some depth, so I knew it had a good reputation. They were asking $75, which is on the high side, but I brought a couple of orphan SLR lenses I had sitting around and knocked it down to $50.

PXL_20230114_204317889.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I love the way the lens fits on the K-1. It's light and crazy small for a zoom with a reasonable variable aperture. Viewing through the viewfinder is not at all bad, not dim or dark thanks to the K-1's excellent, bright OVF. The lens barrel extends at the wide end a bit, and sits at its shortest when at 70mm. Speaking of focal lengths, it was and still is a very useful range for a full-frame sensor. The range, combined with the size, weight and slowest maximum aperture of f4.5 is just overall an excellent compromise.

Of course, if the lens had all these characteristics and was optically terrible, it wouldn't be very much fun to use. Fortunately, the performance is really very good. I am used to slight softness with older film-era optics, occurring in nearly every Pentax zoom from that era and even some primes. The HD FA 35mm f2 even has a bit of it wide open, despite being the "newest" offering for a 35mm lens (that's due to being an old optical formula, mostly... but Pentax isn't afraid for their lenses to show some character, which means slight optical flaws, even in their newer offerings). Some older Pentax lenses have virtually no softness, such as the Pentax-M 50mm f1.7, but that one suffers from some lack of contrast and muted colors on a modern digital sensor. So there are always tradeoffs.

The specific tradeoffs occurring with the 35-70mm are a bit of softness, especially at more open apertures but even occurring in low amounts when stopped down. This could be seen as the sensor outresolving the lens, since it doesn't seem to be glaringly worse outside of center and the characteristic remains even in the center. However, sharpening the images in post mostly removes the softness and what's left is a kind of vintage smoothness that I actually quite like. This lens refuses to be clinical while at the same time offering really good overall IQ. There is some fringing but actually a bit less (so far) than some Pentax primes I have tried. Images also have a sort of dimensionality to them that's hard to describe, a little different than what's called a "3D effect" but similarly there is a depth. I think it's a difference in rendering between elements at different distances that seems somehow different than just being different in relation to the focus plane, i.e. differing levels of sharpness.

One more note, the AF on this thing is really ridiculously fast and accurate, not just for an old lens but for any Pentax lens. I used it in low light conditions inside Pike Place Market and was quite surprised at how good it was at obtaining focus on moving subjects. Paired with the K-1 sensor, where I wasn't worried to set the aperture at f6.3 and shutter at 1/200, using TAv and letting the camera choose ISO, this was a very effective street camera. DXO easily rendered the noise away and set the colors where I wanted them using the Color Fidelity profiles. My new graphics card also sped up DXO software immensely throughout the editing experience, so in general I feel like most aspects of my photography got a bump up. Everything except the speed and capacity of the squishy processor behind my fluid-filled binocular lens orbs which I use to take in the world. I could use an upgrade there, but such is beyond my financial means.

52655685668_0fe82cfe03_b.jpg
IMGP2406_DxO by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

52655514899_2a5e782797_b.jpg
IMGP2424_DxO by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

52655749588_09790a961f_b.jpg
IMGP2462_DxO by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr
 
Kind of random point in time to state this, but: I've made my peace with the Canon G1X III.

I've kept on complaining about various aspects of the camera. But the truth is: It's a neat and unique little gem.

Do I wish it had the sensor of the Nikon Z 50 or Z fc? Yes.
Do I wish its low light performance and dynamic range were better? Yes.
Do I wish for more reach and an even sharper lens? Yes.
Do I wish the lens was faster? Yes.
Do I wish its O.I.S. was more reliable? Yes.
Do I wish for better physical connectivity? Yes.

However ... all the niggles mentioned notwithstanding, the G1X III is a great *package* that does exactly what it's supposed to do. Its sensor and lens aren't the best, but very good. It's the only APS-C compact with a zoom, and while the lens is not the fastest, it can be used wide open with impunity. Images have pleasing colour and contrast and show good detail; even though I'd love better high ISO performance, ISO 1600 is still great (not just good). The leaf shutter and the fantastic haptics, including a good EVF, make for a superbly quiet and stable shooting platform even at slow shutter speeds, so what the O.I.S. can contribute is often sufficient. The camera is commendably sturdy and fits into most jacket and coat pockets - a real walkaround companion, even in adverse weather, thanks to good enough sealing. It's a fantastic "no worries" camera, and it outperforms everything even remotely comparable; even Sony's 1" powerhouses can't compete in terms of pure IQ, and that's saying something. Of course, if Sony added the handling and build quality of the G1X III to a RX100 VII, I might reconsider. For now, the G1X III remains my zoom compact of choice - for all the right reasons.

M.
 
Kind of random point in time to state this, but: I've made my peace with the Canon G1X III.

I've kept on complaining about various aspects of the camera. But the truth is: It's a neat and unique little gem.

Do I wish it had the sensor of the Nikon Z 50 or Z fc? Yes.
Do I wish its low light performance and dynamic range were better? Yes.
Do I wish for more reach and an even sharper lens? Yes.
Do I wish the lens was faster? Yes.
Do I wish its O.I.S. was more reliable? Yes.
Do I wish for better physical connectivity? Yes.

However ... all the niggles mentioned notwithstanding, the G1X III is a great *package* that does exactly what it's supposed to do. Its sensor and lens aren't the best, but very good. It's the only APS-C compact with a zoom, and while the lens is not the fastest, it can be used wide open with impunity. Images have pleasing colour and contrast and show good detail; even though I'd love better high ISO performance, ISO 1600 is still great (not just good). The leaf shutter and the fantastic haptics, including a good EVF, make for a superbly quiet and stable shooting platform even at slow shutter speeds, so what the O.I.S. can contribute is often sufficient. The camera is commendably sturdy and fits into most jacket and coat pockets - a real walkaround companion, even in adverse weather, thanks to good enough sealing. It's a fantastic "no worries" camera, and it outperforms everything even remotely comparable; even Sony's 1" powerhouses can't compete in terms of pure IQ, and that's saying something. Of course, if Sony added the handling and build quality of the G1X III to a RX100 VII, I might reconsider. For now, the G1X III remains my zoom compact of choice - for all the right reasons.

M.
Kind of makes me wish Pentax would revisit the MX1 with a 1" sensor version (since APS-C seems like a lot to ask). There should be more options out there for this kind of camera than just this one APS-C and the Sony RX100 series, which have a very specific compact-camera design.
 
Kind of makes me wish Pentax would revisit the MX1 with a 1" sensor version (since APS-C seems like a lot to ask). There should be more options out there for this kind of camera than just this one APS-C and the Sony RX100 series, which have a very specific compact-camera design.
Well, there *is* the G5X II, a camera I keep looking at as an alternative to the G1X III (better range, brighter lens, smaller). But: no sealing, fiddlier (though a lot better than the RX100 series), worse EVF ... The MX1's design was great, though; I tried to find it locally, used or NOS, but no luck. And I'd not say no to re-issue of the Fujifilm X30 with an updated sensor, either. But both cameras wouldn't be able to replace the G1X III for me, I think. So yes, in my view, many makers lose out on the opportunity to provide a competitor to the G1X III, not least Canon themselves. However, my favourite would be a Nikon Coolpix A based camera with a pop-up (single action) EVF, a new (pretty short, but reasonably fast - f/4 throughout) zoom lens and the 20MP sensor I enjoy so much ... oh, and weather sealing. But that won't happen after they scratched the 1" series they had planned. Which means I'm stuck with the G1X III - but it's a good place to be stuck, to be honest. And for everything more ambitious, I own the GR III and X100V - both more niche, but impressive realisations of their respective purposes and paradigms (I don't consider them competitors - they're too different). Specifically, I didn't expect to be this taken with the X100V - but I'll postpone musing about that camera for another day.

M.
 
While shooting the Nikon Z fc for SiF 23, I was struck once more by how well this camera works with manual lenses - while its sibling, the Z 50, isn't a lot of fun at all with the same lenses. While the cameras are pretty different, I set them up more or less the same (i.e. equivalent control points to the same thing). So any differences in handling *must* be down to main body characteristics, right? After quite a bit of fiddling, it seems that I was right suspecting this.

DSC_3485.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


(Sorry for the somewhat rough shot, I'm only using this for demonstration purposes.)

The deep grip of the Z 50 makes it a fantastic camera to use big lenses on - in fact, I can shoot the combo you see above (Nikon AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E on the FTZ adapter) *with one hand*. At 300mm (450mm-e). Granted, some of this is due to the fact that the lens is light and nimble for what it is, but nevertheless, that's not something you'd expect.

However, if you use small lenses on the Z 50, the deep grip actually means that the fingers of your right hand are pretty close to the lens and obstructing your access to the base of said lens at any time. Crucially, I think Nikon know this - even the pancake kit zoom is very wide at its base, so even if things are getting tight, you have a comparatively large area to grip the lens at. When using something like the Laowa 10mm f/4 Cookie, things get really awkward - though thankfully, on the Cookie, the backward ring is actually the aperture ring - and it's clicked, too, so you'll know it when you move it. But even though the Cookie's focus ring is clearly more narrow and should provide good access, you'll regularily bump into yourself, so to speak. This is irritating - and it made me hold the camera more gingerly without really noticing it for quite some time, resulting in a lot more wobbliness (jitters in an EVF are really distracting!).

On the Z fc, on the other hand, shooting small lenses isn't a problem at all - your right hand basically sits flush with the body, and the slightly wider body makes for even less interference between the lens and your fingers. That's why even something as tiny as the Cookie works fine - let alone the 7Artisans 35mm f/1.2 II I'm using for the challenge. In fact, the very lens I considered a bit of a disappointment on the Z 50 works so well on the Z fc that I'm considering adding it to my all-prime travel kit for the Z fc (though I probably still won't - between the Voigtländer 23mm f/1.2 and 35mm f/2 APO, there's no need for it, really). As cheap lenses go, on the right body, this turns out to be a real gem in terms of rendering (it doesn't have the best technical IQ, though - but who'd expect that?).

Taking all this into consideration, the fact that you can add an additional grip to the Z fc may well mean that it's the more versatile, universally useful body than the Z 50, so, for many, the better choice. But if you *want* a grip, there's nothing better than the Z 50's - just know that you'll have to put up with more fiddliness than strictly necessary when shooting small, especially manual lenses. On the flip side, pair this with a slightly bigger lens (like the Z 18-140mm DX), and you'll get a combo with really fantastic handling.

For me, this leaves one piece of kit in kind of an awkward place: the Z 16-50mm DX kit lens. It's okay on the Z 50, but nowhere near as satisfying as the Z 18-140mm DX. And to me, it looks (and feels) out of place on the Z fc. So, I suspect it'll see even less use now the Z 26mm f/2.8 is around the corner ... I think that once the Z 12-28mm PZ DX becomes available, the Z 16-50mm DX will have to go.

Anyhow, I was debating the need for both DX bodies in my collection - now I'm certain I will keep them both because they really complement each other.

M.
 
Second installment, but bear with me ...

I took out the Z 6 with the Z 24-120mm f/4 S yesterday; this combo is supremely versatile and performs just great. So, basically nothing to complain about, right? Well ...

Yes and no. Of course, it's true that it doesn't get much better than this - and that the Z 24-120mm f/4 S is a *huge* step-up from the previous premium 24-120mm f/4G; not only is it much better optically, it's also way lighter, though even a bit taller. I used to own Sigma's really wonderful 24-105mm f/4 Art - optically, it could hold its own, but like Nikon's 24-120mm f/4G, it was a behemoth, really heavy even on a body with a fantastic grip like my D750.

So far, so good. So, what's this about? Take a look:

DSC_3486.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Maybe I should have removed the hood, but you'll still get my point: The old 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D is way smaller and lighter than the Z lens.

Nikon used to be the king of worthy mid-range zoom lenses - they were well made, well spec'd, optically quite good, not too expensive and certainly not *big*.

I'm not a fan of super-small, super-light low-budget lenses (like the Z 24-50mm) because they can be limiting. But I'm a bit put off by the fact that there aren't any true versatile mid-range zooms for Z mount. The closest you can get is the Z 24-70mm f/4 S - but that's really not mid-range, it's compact premium, as its price suggests, and it's too short on the tele end to be called versatile. The Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 is surprisingly good, but bigger and heavier than I'd like for the purpose of this argument. In fact, the best interation of this "gestalt" is the Z 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 DX - and it also doubles as a superzoom.

I'd love to have something like the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D (or the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G - but I personally prefer tele) for Z mount. Meanwhile, I'll actually pick the D750 over the Z 6 occasionally - because the combo shown above will just about fit into my usual EDC bag, while the Nikon Z combo will not ...

But when it's all said and done, usually, the Z 50 with its superzoom companion wins over both FX options. Oh, well ...

M.
 
Second installment, but bear with me ...

I took out the Z 6 with the Z 24-120mm f/4 S yesterday; this combo is supremely versatile and performs just great. So, basically nothing to complain about, right? Well ...

Yes and no. Of course, it's true that it doesn't get much better than this - and that the Z 24-120mm f/4 S is a *huge* step-up from the previous premium 24-120mm f/4G; not only is it much better optically, it's also way lighter, though even a bit taller. I used to own Sigma's really wonderful 24-105mm f/4 Art - optically, it could hold its own, but like Nikon's 24-120mm f/4G, it was a behemoth, really heavy even on a body with a fantastic grip like my D750.

So far, so good. So, what's this about? Take a look:

View attachment 365351

Maybe I should have removed the hood, but you'll still get my point: The old 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D is way smaller and lighter than the Z lens.

Nikon used to be the king of worthy mid-range zoom lenses - they were well made, well spec'd, optically quite good, not too expensive and certainly not *big*.

I'm not a fan of super-small, super-light low-budget lenses (like the Z 24-50mm) because they can be limiting. But I'm a bit put off by the fact that there aren't any true versatile mid-range zooms for Z mount. The closest you can get is the Z 24-70mm f/4 S - but that's really not mid-range, it's compact premium, as its price suggests, and it's too short on the tele end to be called versatile. The Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 is surprisingly good, but bigger and heavier than I'd like for the purpose of this argument. In fact, the best interation of this "gestalt" is the Z 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 DX - and it also doubles as a superzoom.

I'd love to have something like the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D (or the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G - but I personally prefer tele) for Z mount. Meanwhile, I'll actually pick the D750 over the Z 6 occasionally - because the combo shown above will just about fit into my usual EDC bag, while the Nikon Z combo will not ...

But when it's all said and done, usually, the Z 50 with its superzoom companion wins over both FX options. Oh, well ...

M.
Addendum. Canon gets a lot of bashing for their decisions about their RF mount and lens releases, but I've actually come to think people are just wrong about that.

Case in point: They've had one of those ultra-portable 24-105mm zooms for quite a while now. Granted, the 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM is really quite dim - but it's not that bad a lens at all for its price and size. And yes, the Canon RP isn't exactly what I'd call an ideal travel camera (no sealing whatsoever), but it's small, light and does a lot of things well. We could push this argument further by looking at the many small, affordable primes for the system - they may not match the Z primes for IQ, but they're available. Anyhow, back to the size aspect:

Here's a link to a size comparison with the Z 50 and Z 18-140mm DX:

Granted, I own the combo shown on the right, and I actually think it'll perform just as well as the Canon setup, if not better, but ... I could get the whole Canon set for not much more than the Z 18-140mm *alone* brand new at the moment. The Nikon Z 5 with Z 24-50mm is 350 CHF more than the RP with 24-105mm STM ... I've never been a Canon shooter, and the RP combo is still too expensive to be even remotely considered an impulse buy, but *that's* what I call a truely impressive entry point ...

M.
 
So, I have been going back and forth with gear working my way through a stagnant period in shooting. I went to an 18/35/50 lens kit. Then decided I wanted a simple two lens kit. So I met in the middle of 18mm and 33mm going with a 23mm. What I'm finding, for me. Is that while the 23mm 1.4 wr is an awesome lens. The 23mm focal length images I shoot are boring compared to other focal lengths. 23mm is a good safe, wideish lens. But it doesn't do as well for shooting people as the 33mm. And doesn't do as well shooting wide stuff as something like the 18mm or 16mm. Quality wise, all of the new Fuji primes are excellent. This comes down to a matter of which focal lengths give me the results I want. This means that most likely I will have to give up running with a simple 2 lens kit. Possibly going to a 4 lens kit. 18/23/33/50 kit, or 18/33/50/90.
 
Back
Top