Time to switch? -- Edit: I guess not

[davidzvi]

As the Nikon Z lineup expands and I've sold off a few things I find I might be at a crossroads.

I sold off my PL15 and PL8-18 recently. My intent was to get the new O8-25 Pro with the proceeds. Then there is the announced O20 Pro, a focal length I'm fond of. I'd be happy to part with my P20 and PL25 for it. So.......

Should I sell my E-M1.2 and O12-100 and get a Z? with the Z24-200. Then get the Z14-30 instead of the O8-25 and O40?

Then I could keep my Pen F, O9 BCL, P14, and PL25 (or trade for the O25 for size and weight advantage). Then decide later about my S56 and O12-45 Pro.

 

[MoonMind]

Three things:

• I think that while the 12-100mm isn't smaller, it's optically better than the Z 24-200mm. That said, the 24-200mm is no slouch - I really enjoy that lens on the Z 6.
• The Z 14-30mm is great, period - and as your image shows, it's no bigger than the 8-25mm - however, that one is more versatile, at least on the long end.
• We all know what kind of job Olympus has done in the past with its PRO lenses - they're fantastic, and they're sturdy and reliable as anything, perhaps the haptically most satisfying and best build lenses of their type. I myself am completely sold on the Z 40mm - but it's the complete opposite in terms of build quality, not even fully sealed. But, as your image shows, smaller and lighter than the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 II (which, on the other hand, is fully sealed), and, judging from the very solid performance of the Z 28mm f/2.8, probably optically competitive. And Nikon offers wonderful f/1.8 primes anyway, should you want to "graduate" or upgrade ... I think the Z 40mm is fantastic news. I'll (pre-)order next week, I think ...

I'm a Z enthusiast - it's now my main system. So, I'm obviously biased. But you're talking about switching from a system that's absolutely top-notch and impressive all by itself.

There's a reason I've kept around so far - the system still offers a unique value when it comes to size (well, mostly) and lens choice.

All that said: Yes, you probably should switch (and pick the Z 6 II if you're unsure about the body) ...

M.

 

[mike3996]

Should I sell my E-M1.2 and O12-100 and get a Z?

Since you already have a full Olympus and µ4/3 setup it should be all about quirks and niggles you have with your current gear.

The image quality questions between Olympus and Nikon (each represent the best performance out of their respective sensor sizes) are interesting. The difference at base ISO is probably not going to be huge.

Is there a traditional reason for going FF: bigger quality prints, shallower DOF, better high-ISO performance? The way lenses render against larger image sensor is a positive factor too -- Nikon f/1.8 primes are great but I wonder if you have formed an opinion about Olympus's f/1.2 lenses?

Outside sensor size questions, there are questions such as autofocus performance.

Olympus does things their way (some poorly, in my opinion) but the big question is, will Nikon be any better? Their cameras do things their way but which fits the best, you have to think about.

 

[MoonMind]

The image quality questions between Olympus and Nikon (each represent the best performance out of their respective sensor sizes) are interesting. The difference at base ISO is probably not going to be huge.

The Nikon sensors, especially the 24MP ones, are a lot more versatile than the best sensors - highlight retention and recovery being the most obvious advantages, but also colour depth and overall dynamic range. However, if this matters depends on subject matter and, of course, your needs. I often am fully satisfied with what the E-M5 III and GX9 deliver.

M.

 

[mike3996]

I am sure the Nikons are better at all ISOs, high and low.

But the 20-megapixel Olympus chip is very, very, very, very very very good.

We all desire and chase the final percentages of image quality, but for once I want to voice a bit of reason out loud:
when considering switching systems, the other factors probably weigh in more than the IQ, at least in the battle between Olympus and Nikon.

 

[davidzvi]

....
I'm a Z enthusiast - it's now my main system. So, I'm obviously biased. But you're talking about switching from a system that's absolutely top-notch and impressive all by itself.
....

Yes I know and you have and have had a greater variety of systems than I, so I was kind of counting on you adding your two comments.

 

[davidzvi]

Since you already have a full Olympus and µ4/3 setup it should be all about quirks and niggles you have with your current gear.

The image quality questions between Olympus and Nikon (each represent the best performance out of their respective sensor sizes) are interesting. The difference at base ISO is probably not going to be huge.

Is there a traditional reason for going FF: bigger quality prints, shallower DOF, better high-ISO performance? The way lenses render against larger image sensor is a positive factor too -- Nikon f/1.8 primes are great but I wonder if you have formed an opinion about Olympus's f/1.2 lenses?

Outside sensor size questions, there are questions such as autofoc0us performance.

Olympus does things their way (some poorly, in my opinion) but the big question is, will Nikon be any better? Their cameras do things their way but which fits the best, you have to think about.

I came from Nikon, so there's that. Image quality isn't really a problem. None of the "traditional" reasons apply here other than maybe some better ISO. I have little interest in the Olympus f/1.2 primes, f/1.4 primes on m4/3 are enough. Likewise I've lean toward the new 28mm and 40mm primes for size over the f/1.8 options Nikon. I do like that Nikon went for the smaller, lighter, and cheaper f/1.8 options first over the f/1.2-1.4 primes. AF in both systems seems to be enough for my needs (though I wish my Pen F was phase AF, it helps in lower light). Nikon's system does seem simpler to use, which is a plus. There are still things that feel more natural when holding and adjusting a Nikon body. I really don't use half of the stuff my cameras can do and stuff still seems to get in my way every now and then, something I didn't find with my older and simpler Nikon or Olympus bodies.

There are things I like about my Olympus cameras. I really like that I have one system that goes from my bigger telephotos down to smaller bodies with tiny primes. And the way I have them setup they handle very similarly. As @MoonMind notes, the Olympus gear, especially the Pro stuff, is just super solid and great to handle and use. With the upcoming 20mm Pro and 1 of the 2 telephotos still on the latest roadmap I could be about 2 lenses away from a complete system setup with everything covered that I need. Nikon isn't there yet, I'd probably have to keep the Pen F or trade it for something like a Fuji X100v for a small EDC. And while the Nikon system is currently close in size to the larger Olypmus stuff, the 100-400 that I'll need to complete my system will probably be a lot bigger than the Olympus options will be. I mean right now I'm using the 75-300 which is smaller than the 12-100. There's also that both my current bodies are supported in LR 6.14 so I'd have to commit to finally upgrade or convert to DNG.

I got to play a little with a Z this morning, but it was pretty limited. Maybe next weekend I'll have a better chance.

 

[davidzvi]

Three things:

• I think that while the 12-100mm isn't smaller, it's optically better than the Z 24-200mm. That said, the 24-200mm is no slouch - I really enjoy that lens on the Z 6.
• The Z 14-30mm is great, period - and as your image shows, it's no bigger than the 8-25mm - however, that one is more versatile, at least on the long end.
• We all know what kind of job Olympus has done in the past with its PRO lenses - they're fantastic, and they're sturdy and reliable as anything, perhaps the haptically most satisfying and best build lenses of their type. I myself am completely sold on the Z 40mm - but it's the complete opposite in terms of build quality, not even fully sealed. But, as your image shows, smaller and lighter than the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 II (which, on the other hand, is fully sealed), and, judging from the very solid performance of the Z 28mm f/2.8, probably optically competitive. And Nikon offers wonderful f/1.8 primes anyway, should you want to "graduate" or upgrade ... I think the Z 40mm is fantastic news. I'll (pre-)order next week, I think ...

I'm a Z enthusiast - it's now my main system. So, I'm obviously biased. But you're talking about switching from a system that's absolutely top-notch and impressive all by itself.

There's a reason I've kept around so far - the system still offers a unique value when it comes to size (well, mostly) and lens choice.

All that said: Yes, you probably should switch (and pick the Z 6 II if you're unsure about the body) ...

M.

I'm assuming the same in the 12-100 vs 24-200.

Versatility of the 8-25 vs the 8-18 or 14-30 is the main reason I sold the 8-18.

Other than a desire to the latest why the Z6 II?

I owned both a MP beast (for it's day) 36mp D800 and the al-rounder 24mp D750. So I have some idea of the mp trade off between the two. Are there specific features of the Z6 II for a general, non action, non video shooter that make it that much better than a Z6 I or a Z5? Or a Z7 for that matter? I know the sensor in the Z6 and Z6 II is BSI where the one in the Z5 is not. Oldly it's the top lcd thet draws me to the upper models than the sensor.

 

[gryphon1911]

I’m slowly fading away from Olympus again. The Zfc and Z6 from Nikon are dominating the playing field right now. Honestly, I’ve had a hard time putting the Z fc down since I got it. Everything else has been sorely neglected.

Fuji is still holding a strong second place.

I’ll keep the m43 stuff I have as it is older and not really worth a whole lot anymore so not worth trying to sell or trade.

I do use the em1 and p12-60/2.8-4 as an EDC sometimes or the EM5.2 and P20/1.7 of I want to go minimal.

the big test is the wife. She usually loves the rendition of the images from m43 over anything else I have. However, since the Nikon z system, she has been preferring that imaging signature over olympus.

on the Z front, I do hope that Nikon continues the trend of having the faster primes and then the smaller f/2 or f/2.8 lenses.

I much prefer that, like how Fuji has modeled their primes after the Leica f/1.4 (summilux) and the f/2 (crons).

 

[MoonMind]

I'm assuming the same in the 12-100 vs 24-200.

Versatility of the 8-25 vs the 8-18 or 14-30 is the main reason I sold the 8-18.

Other than a desire to the latest why the Z6 II?

I owned both a MP beast (for it's day) 36mp D800 and the al-rounder 24mp D750. So I have some idea of the mp trade off between the two. Are there specific features of the Z6 II for a general, non action, non video shooter that make it that much better than a Z6 I or a Z5? Or a Z7 for that matter? I know the sensor in the Z6 and Z6 II is BSI where the one in the Z5 is not. Oldly it's the top lcd thet draws me to the upper models than the sensor.

Actually, I'd choose the Z 6 II because I have the Z 6 and Z 7 II, and while I like the Z 6 a lot (it's still my go-to body if ultimate IQ isn't a priority), the performance advantages of the Z 7 II are tangible - in almost all respects, it's quicker, and, to use a kind of metaphor, feels just competently laid-back, in control, very impressive. Now imagine the Z 6 II with its 24MP sensor - it'll be even more fluid in some respects (buffer). However, there's no real reason not to pick up a Z 6 - it's a great camera, and by extension, if you don't need that level of build quality, the Z 5 is an absolutely viable option, too - it sports the D750's sensor, still one of my all-time favourites, BSI advantages notwithstanding. I just think the Z 6 II will stay fresh for longer and is *the* universal body in the line-up now ... but that's just my take.

M.

 

[davidzvi]

Well step one. My Pen F, 12-45 Pro, P20 are gone. In their place I have new to me X100v and WCL (thanks @gryphon1911). Just in time for the Single In and a good way to start the new year.

So I about $1,000 plus An E-M1.2, O12-100 Pro, O75-300, PL25, S56, 9mm BCL, and flash. I could either just get the O8-25 Pro and have a pretty complete kit or end up with at least $3,000 through private sales.

If I do that what to get? Pretty sure no way I could manage everything I'd really want, even 2nd hand. (Z6 II, 24-70, 24-200 and, 14-30) First thought would be skip the 24-70 for now, a kit lens should become more affordable over time. The X100v + WCL + Digital TC should cover that range (the Digital TC on my x70 was actually pretty) . A Z5, 24-200, and 14-30 falls into "shouldn't be too difficult" since an Z5 and 24-200 is available from Nikon refurb for $1800; 2nd hand 14-30's seem to be around $900-$925.

 

[davidzvi]

A reevaluation of my current $$$ state. I'm actually in better shape than I thought.

So I'm thinking of 3 options:

1. If I get lucky with sales I might be able to swing (but it would be close):​

Refurb Z6II/24-70 combo + refurb 24-200 + 14-30 (plus a CE card & reader)​

I'd consider a used Z6 II, but there don't seem to be any.​

2. I should easily swing with a bit left for the 28mm and or 40mm prime:​

Z5/24-70 combo + 24-200 + 14-30 (plus a CF card & reader) Edit: just new SD cards​

That's even if I just went new and or refurb.​

3. OR (and this where I'm kind of leaning):​

Used Z5 + Used 24-70 AND keep my current kit with enough to add the Oly 8-25 Pro.​

There are 2 Z5's on FM for $860 - $875 and the 24-70 seems to be running around $450 - $475​

I probably wouldn't be able to add the Oly 20mm Pro just announced yet, but I still might consider selling off my PL25, S56, & P14 when it's released depending how big it actually ends up being.​

Option 3 lets me get my feet back into Nikon with the Z and gives me a different kit. If I went with Option 1 or 2 I'd getting something that would replace "some" of my current kit, but not all. Would it be enough with the X100v? Still to be determined.

I think I know the differences between the Z5 and Z6 as well as the improvement in the Z6 II. As much as I'd like the latest and greatest Z6 II, I'm just not sure it's really worth it. Is the Z5 really "slow" (in how it handles) compared to the Pen F, E-M1.2, or my old D800/D750? I'd love the status LCD, but at the same time I hate the idea of having to get other cards and a reader, especially since my new laptop/system has a built in SD card reader.

I did also finally subscribe to Adobe for the latest LR and support for the X100v as much as it hurts.

 

[AndyH44]

A reevaluation of my current $$$ state. I'm actually in better shape than I thought.

So I'm thinking of 3 options:

1. If I get lucky with sales I might be able to swing (but it would be close):​

Refurb Z6II/24-70 combo + refurb 24-200 + 14-30 (plus a CE card & reader)​

I'd consider a used Z6 II, but there don't seem to be any.​

2. I should easily swing with a bit left for the 28mm and or 40mm prime:​

Z5/24-70 combo + 24-200 + 14-30 (plus a CF card & reader)​

That's even if I just went new and or refurb.​

3. OR (and this where I'm kind of leaning):​

Used Z5 + Used 24-70 AND keep my current kit with enough to add the Oly 8-25 Pro.​

There are 2 Z5's on FM for $860 - $875 and the 24-70 seems to be running around $450 - $475​

I probably wouldn't be able to add the Oly 20mm Pro just announced yet, but I still might consider selling off my PL25, S56, & P14 when it's released depending how big it actually ends up being.​

Option 3 lets me get my feet back into Nikon with the Z and gives me a different kit. If I went with Option 1 or 2 I'd getting something that would replace "some" of my current kit, but not all. Would it be enough with the X100v? Still to be determined.

I think I know the differences between the Z5 and Z6 as well as the improvement in the Z6 II. As much as I'd like the latest and greatest Z6 II, I'm just not sure it's really worth it. Is the Z5 really "slow" (in how it handles) compared to the Pen F, E-M1.2, or my old D800/D750? I'd love the status LCD, but at the same time I hate the idea of having to get other cards and a reader, especially since my new laptop/system has a built in SD card reader.

I did also finally subscribe to Adobe for the latest LR and support for the X100v as much as it hurts.

You won't need, or be able to use a CF reader with the Z5 as it takes readily available and relatively inexpensive SD cards.
BTW - I've recently gone the Z5 route and couldn't be happier!

 

[davidzvi]

You won't need, or be able to use a CF reader with the Z5 as it takes readily available and relatively inexpensive SD cards.
BTW - I've recently gone the Z5 route and couldn't be happier

That should have just been new SD cards, error in "copy and paste",

 

[Bobby T]

I did also finally subscribe to Adobe for the latest LR and support for the X100v as much as it hurts.

Is Capture One not doing the free Fuji version any longer?

 

[davidzvi]

Is Capture One not doing the free Fuji version any longer?

They are still and I have it installed. But it's Fuji files only. So there are some adjustments I may make there, but I prefer to have everything in one place..

 

[MoonMind]

The Z 5 is a D750 with Z 6 autofocus and EVF - and in a shell that's mostly equivalent to the Z 6's, minus the display, CFE card, plus a bit more plastic. So, the performance, while different, will be comparable to the D750's *except for* tracking. But the newest Z algorithms are pretty solid, and the Z 5 can handle them. Burst rate is comparable to the D750, sensor performance is as it was.

To be honest, if I didn't own the Z 6, I'd go for the Z 5 - but for me, it's a seond body. The Z 6 is the more universally desirable body - with an even more versatile sensor and faster operation. The question is if you need that.

You know that I also own the E-M5 III - a size-reduced reincarnation of the E-M1 II. The Z cameras are quicker in overall operation and better at tracking. I don't know who told you or gave you the impression that the Z bodies were slow. They aren't. They're not uncannily fast either, just what I call fluid.

There's one AF quirk the Z cameras all exhibit, and that's an occasional "unwillingness" to focus on very small details; the E-M5 III does a better job at that, but frankly, even at its best, it can't keep up with the overwhelming majority of the Z 6's results in terms of overall acuity, not even with the PRO zooms; the Z 24-70mm f/4 S is already at least on par with the 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO (and the 12-45mm f/4 PRO - which in turn is sharper than the 12-40mm at the long end). And the Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S ... well, that's just something else.

Crucially, the three lenses you want to shoot in the first place (Z 24-70mm f/4, Z 24-200mm, Z 14-30mm) give you a kit that can "do it all" on a very satisfying level, the compact primes promise to be very appealing as well (the 28mm SE certainly is!). If speed is really important, I'd go for a used Z 6 over a new Z 5, your lens choice is pretty much ideal to explore the system.

Just one more thought: Add one of the f/1.8 primes - the Z 50mm f/1.8 S. It's an exceptional lens for a very affordable price, and it really gives you all the advantages of the Z system in one go. It packs small, is fully sealed and optically superb. The Z 40mm f/2 is smaller, lighter - but not sealed to the same degree, and certainly not as competent optically (to be clear, the Z 50mm f/1.8 S beats the venerable Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8!).

M.

 

[davidzvi]

.......You know that I also own the E-M5 III - a size-reduced reincarnation of the E-M1 II. The Z cameras are quicker in overall operation and better at tracking. I don't know who told you or gave you the impression that the Z bodies were slow. They aren't. They're not uncannily fast either, just what I call fluid.......

No one said they were "slow". It was actually your comment about noticing the Z7II was faster, more fluid. Slow / slower / fast / faster are all relative and personal impressions these days, gone are the days when DPR use to have a bunch of timing charts and table. So I was just looking for more of a familiar comparison between known cameras.

The Z 5 is a D750 with Z 6 autofocus and EVF - and in a shell that's mostly equivalent to the Z 6's, minus the display, CFE card, plus a bit more plastic. So, the performance, while different, will be comparable to the D750's *except for* tracking. But the newest Z algorithms are pretty solid, and the Z 5 can handle them. Burst rate is comparable to the D750, sensor performance is as it was.

To be honest, if I didn't own the Z 6, I'd go for the Z 5 - but for me, it's a second body. The Z 6 is the more universally desirable body - with an even more versatile sensor and faster operation. The question is if you need that........

I got a D750 in 01/2015, about 3 months after it was announced. It was my main body until I closed my business 06/2018. I can't think of any instances where it couldn't handle what I needed.

 

[MoonMind]

No one said they were "slow". It was actually your comment about noticing the Z7II was faster, more fluid. Slow / slower / fast / faster are all relative and personal impressions these days, gone are the days when DPR use to have a bunch of timing charts and table. So I was just looking for more of a familiar comparison between known cameras.


I got a D750 in 01/2015, about 3 months after it was announced. It was my main body until I closed my business 06/2018. I can't think of any instances where it couldn't handle what I needed.

Ah, I get it - sorry for misinterpreting your thinking, David! Yes, I think the Z 6 II will be the nimblest of the bunch, but I think the differences are gradual and only really noticeable when comparing the cameras directly. However, for the one-and-only Z body, I'd pick the Z 6 II over the Z 5 or Z 6 (or - Z 7 (II), for the matter!). I'm very happy with the Z 7 II because it delivers on all fronts, but the Z 6 is such a versatile camera that I still pick it up most of the time if I want a modern FF body (I'll take it with me tomorrow for a two-day workshop, together with the kit zoom - it's just all I'll need). If money's a bit tight, there's absolutely no major disadvantge to be expected by going for a Z 6 (especially used) or Z 5, but I think you'll be even happier with the Z 6 II.

Ah, yes, the D750 ... I still have mine, and I don't have any intentions of selling it - in fact, it's still my preferred body for shooting long lenses, especially zooms. It's just such a well-rounded DSLR - Nikon did superbly well on this one .. And I think it's a stroke of genius to make that sensor available in an inexpensive body like the Z 5 - again, if I hadn't bought the Z 6 way before the Z 5 was announced, I think the Z 5 would be my "second" body (again, truth be told, the Z 6 still gets as much use as the Z 7 II, if not more).

All the best - I think you'll find a way and you'll be happy with your choice. That said, I myself have held on to in spite of going all-in on the Z system - for size and, yes, also quality reasons. While I prefer the Nikons in bad weather, they can feel a bit heavy in a small bag - that's when I reach for the E-M5 III ... and I'm feeling very secure and don't have to bother about the camera not being just as well sealed as the FF Z bodies at two thirds the price, size and weight of those (for the setup).

M.

 

[davidzvi]

...... If money's a bit tight, there's absolutely no major disadvantge to be expected by going for a Z 6 (especially used) or Z 5, but I think you'll be even happier with the Z 6 II......

Well the difference between used Z5's and the cheapest Z6II I can find is around $1,000. So even though I might be able to swing it if I sold what I have, it's still more than the price of a lens or 2 (other than the 14-30).

........I myself have held on to in spite of going all-in on the Z system - for size and, yes, also quality reasons. While I prefer the Nikons in bad weather, they can feel a bit heavy in a small bag - that's when I reach for the E-M5 III ... and I'm feeling very secure and don't have to bother about the camera not being just as well sealed as the FF Z bodies at two thirds the price, size and weight of those (for the setup).

M.

If I had an E-M5.2 making a bigger shift would be easier given the value. I could easily keep just the E-M5.2 + 12-45 and a prime or 2 (or actually the 3 I still have (P14 / PL25 / S56). The kit would fit nicely in my Think Tank Retro 4.

Interesting, everything I've read notes that Olympus sealing at least as good or better than the big 3. It's one of the reasons I'm thinking hanging on to the E-M-1.2 + 12-100 and picking up the 8-25 as an all weather kit.