Help please, can't decide which path to take. Upgrading from D750

[smirking]

There already a ton of replies so I don't want to say a bunch of redundant things that others have already said. I'll just say that as a photographer who shoots DSLR and mirrorless, I still prefer DSLRs when I'm doing actual work.

F-mount lenses are far from dead and you can get really great used F-mount lenses for less. Sure the mirrorless lenses have physical advantages, but really someone who totes a camera to take travel pics isn't likely to push the envelope enough to realize the technical benefits and while they're smaller, it's still a rather hefty hunk of gear to haul around.

A more meaningful switch might be to go mirrorless to get a different form factor that's a more portable camera... or as others have suggested, just find a more suitable lens.

 

[Boidem]

The flange distance isn't actually a huge deal other than lens compatibility at least once you get into the realm of mirrorless lenses.

Basically on a DSLR, you need space for mirror between the focal plane(film/sensor) and the back of the lens.

Why you care about that comes down to focal length of the lens attached. Basically, focal length(generally) is defined as the distance from the optical center of the lens to the focal plane when focused at infinity. On a simple lens design, the geometric center(halfway point between the front and rearmost element) is also more-or-less the optical center.

Most 24x36mm format SLRs have a flange focal distance of 40-50mm. That's not an issue when dealing with longer focal length lenses-say an 85mm or 105mm lens-as the optical center is naturally going to sit plenty far away from the focal plane and there's room for the lens mount, linkages, etc. Incidentally, you'll often find that lenses in this range of focal length are optically excellent and that comes down to the fact that they are fundamentally simple optically.

Of course this means that long focal length lenses can become unwieldy, so that's where the "telephoto" group comes in. Incidentally, "telephoto" refers to a specific optical design characteristic and is not a synonym for "long focal length" lens. A telephoto group added to a lens design shifts the optical center rear of the geometric center. Telephoto groups can be bought and used as their own separate add-on to a lens-we call those "teleconverters", but more often they're integrated into lens design. A lens designer doesn't want to go too extreme with shifting the optical center back as that introduces its own problems that can often be fixed with even more expensive optical solutions, but it's still there. For this reason, flange focal distance also doesn't really matter on telephoto lenses.

As a bit of a sidenote too since I also use Hasselblad V mount cameras-the flange distance on those is 60-some-odd millimeters(I've been working on this post way too long, this is a late addendum, and I don't feel like looking it up). The ubquitous "standard" V-mount lens is the 80mm f/2.8 Zeiss Planar. This is a big 6 element lens. It's also a slight retrofocus design. It's been widely known as long as I've been in medium format that the 80mm f/2.8 Planar fitted to a Rolleiflex of the same age as a given V-mount Planar is a better lens(plus is a simpler 5 element design and smaller). This bothered some Zeiss/Hasselblad engineers enough that they released the 100mm f/3.5 Planar-a non-retrofocus lens that's supposedly optically "perfect"(it's too rich for my blood and the 80mmm is good enough plus honestly better for my needs than a slower, longer lens).

Obviously too the mirror causes issues when you get to short focal lengths. On the Nikon F mount, this tends to start happening around the 60mm focal length, and of course as you get to shorter focal lengths this gets more pronounced. The solution to that is what's called a retrofocus design, which is essentially a "reverse telephoto" group that shifts the optical center forward of the geometric center. Even Nikon's 50mm lenses need some amount of retrofocus to work properly(and the very early F mount normal lens was actually 58mm to lessen the burden of this). Leicas and other rangefinders have always excelled at shorter focal lengths because, among other things, they can just keep scooting the rear element back further without worrying about a mirror in the way. Some early SLR lenses did this as well-they required mirror lock-up on the camera and an external viewfinder.

Mirrorless digital offers much of the same advantages as a viewfinder, but with an important caveat that's specific to digital cameras and not really a concern in film. The microlens array over digital sensors is sensitive to angle of incidence of light on the sensor. In any DSLR, even with designs like Canon EF-S lenses where the rear element location takes advatage of the smaller mirror possible in an APS-C format camera, there's no concern of the rear element being close enough for this to happen.

In any mirrorless digital, whether rangefinders or EVF cameras, that concern/possibility is very much there. Still, though, in general normal to wide normal lenses(say 35mm-50mm), which would be retrofocus designs on a (D)SLR, can be simple lenses. Even ultra-wides need a less extreme retrofocus design than for a mirror camera. Nikon has made two 14mm rectilinear f/2.8 lenses with 24x36mm coverage I'm aware of-a prime and a zoom. Both are big lenses, the zoom especially so, and are not particularly strong performers. There was also the 13mm manual focus prime, which is optically superb and almost totally distortion free(something the designers care less about in digital era lenses since it's so easy to fix in post or even in-camera) but is massive and also relatively slow. Everything I've seen of the Z mount 14-24mm f/2.8 is that it's smaller, lighter, and better than the F mount version.

And this to me is, optically, where I seem to see the most improvements in mirrorless optics. The teles I've seen look to be at best incremental improvements over their DSLR counterparts, and honestly if they were made in F mount I expect once wouldn't see much difference in their performance between say a Z7 and a D850. It's also telling to me that one of the more recent marquis lenses-the 120-300mm f/2.8-was made in F mount, although most speculation was that this was a 2020 Olympics prestige lens and for most Nikon invested sports photographers the D6 was going to serve them better than any Z mount camera then available. The D6 comes up short in resolution and absolute frame rate compared to the Z9, but everything I've seen is that it's a very capable camera for action and especially with focus tracking.

One other thing-the f/.95 Noct-Nikkor I'm pretty sure would not be possible on the F-mount thanks to mount diameter. If it were I expect Nikon would have made one as Canon made an f/1.0 lens in EF mount(the Canon and Leica f/.95 lenses were rangefinder lenses and free of retrofocus limitations).

Fantastic. I love photonerdy stuff like this.

I wouldn't really consider a 50 mm lens as a portrait lens.

Any lens can be a 'portrait' lens, just as any lens can be a 'sports' lens or a 'landscape' lens or whatever. I chose that example simply to show that MFT does not match up to FF when it comes to things like DoF, things that are important to photographers. Olympus does a 45mm f1.2, which equates to a 90mm lens, so definitely more of a 'portrait' lens, but again, the effective DoF is equivalent to a f2.4 lens, when 1.8 or larger would be far more desirable to portraitists.

Here's a comparison of a new Nikon Mirrorless camera and the OM-1 with some lenses to start out with

That's not really a like for like comparison though is it? For starters, you're pitting a Nikkor 24-120mm zoom against a Zuiko 40-150mm, which would be equivalent to 80-300mm. Totally different type of lens. You've chosen a 25mm f1.8 to match up with a 50mm f1.8, when the f1.2 version is closer in terms of DoF (still some way off though), and that costs double the Nikkor 50. Comparing the Nikkor 600mm f4 with the Zuiko 300mm is also not a good comparison, as the Nikkor is a much higher spec lens (regardless of effective focal length) with far larger glass elements that gives a much larger image circle. Compare the Zuiko to the Nikkor 300mm f4, even the newer PF version, and suddenly the Zuiko looks very expensive indeed. We can all cherry pick the information that suits our own argument, but it's not really very objective or meaningful if we do so. The MFT system is indeed smaller and lighter overall than a comparable FF system, but there's also lots of heavy compromises going on that affect IQ. I considered an MFT cam some years ago, when wanting a small, light 'travel' cam. I found the Olympus cams to be needlessly fiddly and unintuitive, and they would not have worked for me (as a manual shorter, using an Olympus cam would have been a pain). Beautifully small and light though. But then I have my 'phone... I ended up with a Nikon D3300 APS-C cam, and a 16-85mm zoom, which replicated my D600 and 24-120, only a lot smaller and lighter. IQ wasn't quite as good, particularly in low light, but it was more than adequate for travelling. Ironically, the Z6 plus 24-70 was its replacement.

 

[Boidem]

I think that is the problem these days. Most people don't care about design (in general) so we get crap products (not talking about cameras now).
Just look at the Monitors offering - its still crazy for me that no one really tries to make beautiful monitor apart from Apple. If more people demanded better quality then we would overall win in the end.

I agree quite a lot with this sentiment. I'm a big fan of the modern Apple design ethos (I wasn't so keen on the plasticky late 90s/early 2000s aesthetic, but it did at least look a bit more fun than most boring beige boxes that seemed to be ubiquitous prior to that time). My personal preference is for that sleek, modernist look of things; mid century, Braun, Bang und Olufsen, Danish design, minimalist etc. Although I can appreciate other styles too; Art Nouveau, Art Deco, even the fanciness of Victorian frippery. But by God are so many modern electronic devices hideous. Hideous. Swathes of black or 'silver' plastic that began in the 80s, and sadly seems to have not died out. When choosing a TV, we literally went for the least inoffensive one rather than worry too much about specs. I'm with William Morris; 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be beautiful or believe to be useful'. Very true. And this sense of aesthetics should not be limited; why can't we have better looking things? Take cars; how many current cars will ever be considered design classics in the same way as say early Porsches, The Ferrari 250, the Lamborghini Muira, The Citroen DS, even to the more 'mundane' such as the original Mini? None. All generic efficient boring wedges. In Black or silver. Jeeze.

With regard to the Studio Display though, I do think it's one of the most boring Apple products in quite a while. It is still, however, far better looking than pretty much any other separate display bar the Pro Display XDR, which is again quite boring form the front, but truly unique from the back.

The biggest issue with modern consumerism, form an aesthetic point of view, is that many things are simply made to a price, rather than a standard. Or 'designers' simply copy something else. Hence why we've seen so many other brands produce computer hardware that looks like Apple's stuff. But we've moved very much towards an age of blandness, where bold, new, exciting ideas are frowned upon, and individualism constrained. Computers might be pretty boring objects, but they don't have to look ugly.

Oh, yeah, cameras...

Actually I really like Leica's design ethos, and I love the look of the early Hasselblads, carved from a single lump of metal. Canon broke new ground with the T90, which spawned pretty much every single Canon SLR and DSLR since. Nikon brought in Italian design studios to hep make cams like the F3 and F4 so iconic. And now, the Nikon Zfc harks back to the legendary FM series of cams, with its bare metal look. Sony, though; hmm. They just look like so many other generic electronics these days. Instantly forgettable.

 

[kenoh]

I gotta say....I've never considered how a camera looks when I buy it. I'm more concerned with what it produces than what it looks like to others. Also probably the first and only time someone will say Leica looks like a toy.

Y'all are forgetting Fujifilm. 🙂 Although they only make crop and medium format, no full frame.

and they make some of the best lenses in the world as used by TV broadcast cameras and the space agencies.

 

[kenoh]

I know those 2 are meant to be amazing but in all honesty I don't like the look of them. They look more like a toy to me. I know they are not and I know Leica is considered one of the best (if not THE best) but it reminds me those plastic film cameras in the 90's. In fact, my first film camera was a bit like that.

I got Nikon because it was meant to be the great brand and Canon was second when I was getting my D90 in 2010 in San Francisco. Maybe, thats where I went wrong and maybe those 'toy' cameras would actually be suited better for me. Who knows.
Right now, I got used to the look of current cameras and Leica just looks like a toy to me even though I know its not. When Jony Ive designed the Leica - it was stunning but it still looked like a toy.
Maybe its the wrong angle though - Maybe thats what cameras should be in the first place. You have shutter speed, aperture and ISO buttons/dials and then thats it. Little joystick for AF points and done.

Maybe in the future we will go back to that and simplify. I don't know, I'm thinking out loud here. Its probably just a silly thought anyway. Ignore me

Jonny Ive designed a custom one off M camera the same as Audi did the M edition 60, he didn’t design the Leica cameras bought by mere mortals like me.

Leica’s ethos is to make it minimal, keep the experience pure. The SL is a Bauhaus design which polarised many peoples views. What is interesting is I handed my SL to my friend - a photographer - and despite it having no marking on the buttons, he was able to use it within 10 minutes and loved it. The colour science that makes the magic from the (I think Sony sensor) is wonderful.

The M series is a rangefinder which indeed is a different way of shooting to most mainstream cameras today. To say they look like your first film camera is because your first film camera was likely made to look like a Leica.

With the exception of a few lenses and a period in the latter half of the 20th century (where they built out of Canada) then they are all made in Germany by hand.

Are they the pinnacle of camera tech? No. Does their auto focus suck? Yep pretty much. An M only shoots 3 fps doesn’t have any auto focus or IBIS or film simulation modes but when you nail an image it pops in a way that I struggle to replicate on any other camera brand.

They are built like tanks and the images they make are just lovely.

 

[KaliYoni]

do I go full in now or keep renting and 'wasting' money or go full in later?

Just a quick thought: taking a financial markets approach to your decision making might help you simplify your thought process. By this I mean don’t forget that opportunity cost comes into play here. In other words, renting is not wasting money if you have another, more attractive or more productive use for the money you did not spend by renting instead of immediately buying. The same idea can apply to a buy now/buy later decision. If you currently have a better use for the money you would spend on a new camera and lenses bought right away (for example, paying off some high-interest rate debt or making repairs to a house), it might make sense to wait to buy.

Another factor, to my personal way of thinking, is that there is rarely any reason to regret waiting to upgrade camera gear if one’s current setup works well. Year after year, performance gets better in some way or prices decrease for a given set of features. So regret avoidance doesn’t have to play much of a role in your decision making.

 

[bunnspecial]

Just as a bit of a general comment on renting...

Buying BGN grade stuff from KEH and then turning around and selling it on Ebay, the last time I did that, will often be about a 20% hit on the initial price I paid. If I sell on a photo message board or elsewhere, those numbers look a lot better and it may only be a 5-10% hit.

Is that a significant amount of money? Yes it is, especially on higher dollar stuff. Do I buy things with the intent of turning right around and reselling? No.

With that said, when I still lived local to a place that did rentals, two weekend or week-long rentals were often about the same price if not a bit more than the loss I'd take buying and then turning around and reselling.

Yes, there's more initial cash outlay, but in my book it's still a net win if the purpose of renting is try-before-buying as I can just keep the item. Plus, I still see sample variation in lenses, and if I buy and try, the one I'm getting and decide to keep will be a known entity vs. trying one and then buying another.

Of course renting is a complex discussion and there are a lot of times where it DOES make sense. It's just hard for me to justify if, again, my ultimate intent is to own the item.

Then of course you have people like Ken Rockwell who at least claim to take advantage of generous return policies to "rent" items, but I don't advocate that strategy.

I should also mention that if one is averse to buying used as the OP says they are, renting can make sense as new to gently used prices are a much bigger financial hit.

 

[Freida]

very valid points also

 

[PrecisionGem]

Fantastic. I love photonerdy stuff like this.

Any lens can be a 'portrait' lens, just as any lens can be a 'sports' lens or a 'landscape' lens or whatever. I chose that example simply to show that MFT does not match up to FF when it comes to things like DoF, things that are important to photographers. Olympus does a 45mm f1.2, which equates to a 90mm lens, so definitely more of a 'portrait' lens, but again, the effective DoF is equivalent to a f2.4 lens, when 1.8 or larger would be far more desirable to portraitists.


That's not really a like for like comparison though is it? For starters, you're pitting a Nikkor 24-120mm zoom against a Zuiko 40-150mm, which would be equivalent to 80-300mm. Totally different type of lens. You've chosen a 25mm f1.8 to match up with a 50mm f1.8, when the f1.2 version is closer in terms of DoF (still some way off though), and that costs double the Nikkor 50. Comparing the Nikkor 600mm f4 with the Zuiko 300mm is also not a good comparison, as the Nikkor is a much higher spec lens (regardless of effective focal length) with far larger glass elements that gives a much larger image circle. Compare the Zuiko to the Nikkor 300mm f4, even the newer PF version, and suddenly the Zuiko looks very expensive indeed. We can all cherry pick the information that suits our own argument, but it's not really very objective or meaningful if we do so. The MFT system is indeed smaller and lighter overall than a comparable FF system, but there's also lots of heavy compromises going on that affect IQ. I considered an MFT cam some years ago, when wanting a small, light 'travel' cam. I found the Olympus cams to be needlessly fiddly and unintuitive, and they would not have worked for me (as a manual shorter, using an Olympus cam would have been a pain). Beautifully small and light though. But then I have my 'phone... I ended up with a Nikon D3300 APS-C cam, and a 16-85mm zoom, which replicated my D600 and 24-120, only a lot smaller and lighter. IQ wasn't quite as good, particularly in low light, but it was more than adequate for travelling. Ironically, the Z6 plus 24-70 was its replacement.

You are right about that first lens, I picked the wrong one. A better match for the Nikon 40-150 would be the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 Pro for $799 or 12-100 f/4 Pro lens for $1199.

Of course the Nikkor 600 has much larger and heavier glass, that's the whole point of the m4/3 system, and why the lenses are less expensive. I certainly the think the Zuiko 300 is a match for the Nikkor. But if you wanted more there is the new 150-400 f4.5 zoom Pro lens that is a 300 to 800 equivalent and even has a built in 1.25 teleconverter turning it into a 1000 mm or 2000mm equivalent and the price is $7499.

It seems for what you like to shoot, a very shallow depth of field is what you look for, but if someone was into wildlife then this 150-400 with 5 axis image stabilization couldn't be beat in a Nikon set up.

Shooting manual on the Olympus is no different than on the D750. Like I said I have both, and I have several of the very high end Nikkor lenses, but for me, the OM system gets used way more. The Olympus has better weathering sealing which for me is a big plus as I take it on Kayak camping trips.

 

[Boidem]

Of course the Nikkor 600 has much larger and heavier glass, that's the whole point of the m4/3 system, and why the lenses are less expensive. I certainly the think the Zuiko 300 is a match for the Nikkor. But if you wanted more there is the new 150-400 f4.5 zoom Pro lens that is a 300 to 800 equivalent and even has a built in 1.25 teleconverter turning it into a 1000 mm or 2000mm equivalent and the price is $7499.

It seems for what you like to shoot, a very shallow depth of field is what you look for, but if someone was into wildlife then this 150-400 with 5 axis image stabilisation couldn't be beat in a Nikon set up.

The thing is; if MFT truly were a viable alternative to FF, then many pros would have adopted it by now, because it offers big advantages as you say, of reach and portability. I'm not so sure about price, if you exclude the big telephotos. When I did my research, I found that like for like, the MFT system was more expensive for the kind of lenses I'd want. And not as good. Plus nowhere near as good for s/h choices. I know a couple of pro sports and wildlife photographers, and there's no way they'd swap their big, expensive Nikon and Canon systems for MFT. Because MFT just doesn't offer the image quality; a lot of the time you have to shoot in less than favourable light conditions, and need to keep the shutter speeds high, so high ISOs are essential. This is where MFT falls down; as good as it has become, it's still nowhere near FF for low light capability. It's simple physics. I sometimes shoot events and gigs, invariably in places with really crap lighting, and I have to push the ISO up to 3200 and beyond. My D600 was very good, my Z6 is another level better. A friend who shoots MFT can't get anywhere near the kind of results I can, because his cam just can't cope in such conditions. My Z6 can AF in light so low I can barely see, let alone focus a camera. So FF still, and always will, have the edge in ultimate IQ. Which, if you're a professional or just someone who cares enough, is essential. End of.

Shooting manual on the Olympus is no different than on the D750. Like I said I have both, and I have several of the very high end Nikkor lenses, but for me, the OM system gets used way more. The Olympus has better weathering sealing which for me is a big plus as I take it on Kayak camping trips.

Sounds like for YOU, the D750 is perhaps now overkill and the Olympus meets your requirements. That's fine. Tbh, my iPhone is more than adequate for a lot of 'holiday snap' type pics. But my Z6 is there if I need something a bit more capable. As for size and weight; I can carry my Z6, 24-70, 50 and 14-30 all in one very small bag. The weather sealing on this kit is excellent. As for shooting manual; When I tried the MFT gear in shops, it was a few years ago, OM-D M10 Mk2 I think was the cam I was looking at. Seemed that the controls were buried within menus rather than having dedicated dials or switches. Maybe that's changed. It was definitely far more fiddly than I wanted. And as for price; that cam with a 14-40 or so lens, was double the price of the better Nikon D3300 and kit 18-55mm lens. And hardly any smaller. I sold the kit lens and bought a 16-85mm lens s/h, so I ended up spending around £500. I was very happy.

 

[Boidem]

Leica’s ethos is to make it minimal, keep the experience pure

This sounds great as a marketing spiel, but in practice, it's not much more than that. Pretentious waffle imo. 'Keep the experience pure'. WTF does that even mean? It's just bullpoo really. Meaningless. Now don't get me wrong; I love Leica's design ethos, and I've always wanted a Leica (film cam, obvs). But the fact is, Leica make lifestyle gadgets rather than serious tools these days; the number of pros (as in those who buy their own kit, not the 'brand ambassadors who get given stuff as part of the marketing machine) who actually use Leica cams is very, very small indeed. Even back in the film days, I rarely saw Leicas being used by any serious pros (photojournalists etc). Most pros I know who've used Leicas, found them to be lacking compared to SLRs, in terms of composing shots, focussing,
flash, film advance etc. That's before you even get to the cost. One of my teachers was a journo who'd been in war zones, and as tough as Leicas were, they weren't as easily replaceable as a Nikon. A battered old F2 orF3 was the mainstay of the front line photographer. Ask Don McCullin.

I still want a Leica. A nice M6.2. With a fast 35 or 50. Mm.

But tell me; how much of this is about actually taking photos, as opposed to having a status symbol?

Lenny Kravitz Designed a $24K Leica with Faux Python Skin

Leica and rock star Lenny Kravitz have teamed up to unveil a new limited edition Leica M Monochrom. Called the "Drifter" Set, the new Kravitz-designed

petapixel.com

“The striking special edition set celebrates Kravitz’s dedication to visual storytelling and pays homage to his inspired, nomadic lifestyle,” Leica says. “A self-proclaimed drifter himself, the attractive set was designed with Kravitz’s vision of being a free spirit, always on the road and open to adventure – ingredients that ignite visual storytelling.”

I mean, please...

Then of course you have people like Ken Rockwell

Unfortunately we do. But such people can at least be ignored...

 

[JW5566]

Bit late to this one...

I switched from Canon to Nikon a couple of years ago, specifically from Canon DSLR to Nikon Z50 mirrorless, which was driven more by video needs and a low budget at the time. I've found the Nikon to be really good at both video and photos, I tend to use the Nikon for handheld photo shooting with an F1.8 lens under indoor lighting (product/display shots in retailers and shops) and am impressed by the performance at high ISO.

It also works well with the Z to F adapter, I have a 50mm F lens which works fine.

Video quality is also fine for my needs, mostly in a well-lit office for talking to video intros.

After two years, I have a couple of gripes. One is the lack of physical wired connection for a shutter remote, you have to do it wirelessly, so half pressing the shutter is not an option and that really annoys. Another is the frustrating reverse direction that Nikon use to screw lenses in, though that's maybe only annoying as I have muscle memory from Canon. Still, tightening a lens by turning it anticlockwise seems daft.

Finally, as someone who shoots wide more than narrow, the lack of wide Z lenses is a shame, more so as I am APSC and have a crop factor anyway.

(Other gripes are specific to video and the Z50, like the lack of tally light, the lack of power over USB, the lack of spare battery stock, the 30 min record limit).

I think in hindsight... for videography I think Sony could have been a better choice as the number of wide lenses is great. Fingers crossed the planned 12-28mm power zoom Z lens due "soon" will put Nikon back up there as a vlogging solution.

But in terms of actual quality of image and video... no complaints at all with Nikon. The photos from it are stunning.

 

[Boidem]

Finally, as someone who shoots wide more than narrow, the lack of wide Z lenses is a shame, more so as I am APSC and have a crop factor anyway.

Well, this is always going to be an issue for a smaller sensor. The 14-30 would at least offer you a 21mm equivalent at the wide end, or you could look for a wide F-mount lens such as the 10-20mm DX zoom, which offers almost the equivalent as the 14-30. And there's always the 3rd party options.

Speaking of 3rd party lenses; I've never had much fun with such, from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. They generally don't match up to the quality of Nikkor lenses, the exception being an ancient Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 zoom I bought in a kit with my F801s in 1994! That is actually an excellent lens. But the Sigma 120-400mm I bought for the D600, was dreadful, really poor, but luckily I was able to return it without loss. Wasn't so lucky with a Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 DX zoom for the D3300; again quite poor particularly nearer the edges of the frame. I lost out a bit on that one. It sort of worked ok on the D600 in FX mode, from 16mm up. But the 14-30 on the Z6 is streets ahead in terms of quality. I'd be wary of buying any 3rd party lenses again tbh; Nikon know what they're doing with glass.

 

[mollyc]

Bit late to this one...

I switched from Canon to Nikon a couple of years ago, specifically from Canon DSLR to Nikon Z50 mirrorless, which was driven more by video needs and a low budget at the time. I've found the Nikon to be really good at both video and photos, I tend to use the Nikon for handheld photo shooting with an F1.8 lens under indoor lighting (product/display shots in retailers and shops) and am impressed by the performance at high ISO.

It also works well with the Z to F adapter, I have a 50mm F lens which works fine.

Video quality is also fine for my needs, mostly in a well-lit office for talking to video intros.

After two years, I have a couple of gripes. One is the lack of physical wired connection for a shutter remote, you have to do it wirelessly, so half pressing the shutter is not an option and that really annoys. Another is the frustrating reverse direction that Nikon use to screw lenses in, though that's maybe only annoying as I have muscle memory from Canon. Still, tightening a lens by turning it anticlockwise seems daft.

Finally, as someone who shoots wide more than narrow, the lack of wide Z lenses is a shame, more so as I am APSC and have a crop factor anyway.

(Other gripes are specific to video and the Z50, like the lack of tally light, the lack of power over USB, the lack of spare battery stock, the 30 min record limit).

I think in hindsight... for videography I think Sony could have been a better choice as the number of wide lenses is great. Fingers crossed the planned 12-28mm power zoom Z lens due "soon" will put Nikon back up there as a vlogging solution.

But in terms of actual quality of image and video... no complaints at all with Nikon. The photos from it are stunning.

How wide do you need? There are numerous Z lenses that go to 14mm or 18mm, both full frame and crop style lenses, so also at different price points.

The 30min recording limit isn't a Nikon thing; it's my understanding all still cameras that also shoot video have this limitation to be classified as a "regular" camera; otherwise they are classified as a video camera and subject to different taxes in different jurisdictions. You can get addons to attach that record longer than 30 minutes from companies like Atomos.

 

[mollyc]

This sounds great as a marketing spiel, but in practice, it's not much more than that. Pretentious waffle imo. 'Keep the experience pure'. WTF does that even mean? It's just bullpoo really. Meaningless. Now don't get me wrong; I love Leica's design ethos, and I've always wanted a Leica (film cam, obvs). But the fact is, Leica make lifestyle gadgets rather than serious tools these days; the number of pros (as in those who buy their own kit, not the 'brand ambassadors who get given stuff as part of the marketing machine) who actually use Leica cams is very, very small indeed. Even back in the film days, I rarely saw Leicas being used by any serious pros (photojournalists etc). Most pros I know who've used Leicas, found them to be lacking compared to SLRs, in terms of composing shots, focussing,
flash, film advance etc. That's before you even get to the cost. One of my teachers was a journo who'd been in war zones, and as tough as Leicas were, they weren't as easily replaceable as a Nikon. A battered old F2 orF3 was the mainstay of the front line photographer. Ask Don McCullin.

I still want a Leica. A nice M6.2. With a fast 35 or 50. Mm.

But tell me; how much of this is about actually taking photos, as opposed to having a status symbol?

Lenny Kravitz Designed a $24K Leica with Faux Python Skin

Leica and rock star Lenny Kravitz have teamed up to unveil a new limited edition Leica M Monochrom. Called the "Drifter" Set, the new Kravitz-designed

petapixel.com

“The striking special edition set celebrates Kravitz’s dedication to visual storytelling and pays homage to his inspired, nomadic lifestyle,” Leica says. “A self-proclaimed drifter himself, the attractive set was designed with Kravitz’s vision of being a free spirit, always on the road and open to adventure – ingredients that ignite visual storytelling.”

I mean, please...




Unfortunately we do. But such people can at least be ignored...

I've never held a Leica, let alone shot with one. But I do know several people who use them and love them. It's my understanding the rangefinder experience slows them down and makes them consider the scene in front of them more (yes, I know Leica also makes the traditional SLR style camera too, as well as the fixed lens Q series). If a system causes a photographer to become more conscious and aware when composing and choosing settings, I think that's a good thing. Too many people use the spray and pray method now, just because they can, and then when they come in from shooting some birds on a lake they are left with 200 lackluster images to cull through.

I shoot film and recently got a medium format digital camera (and no, I actually don't need MF in terms of printing capability) and those also cause me to slow down and be more deliberate in a way that I don't need to with my Z systems. However, even shooting film for the past year and a half has had a spillover effect into using my Z cameras in that I do try to be more deliberate when holding any camera and not overshoot. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that per se, and I definitely overshoot at events like my son's lacrosse games, but for regular day to day imagery, I'm much more content to focus on quality over quanity, and I think people using the Leica gear are more in that category than the "shoot everything in front of me" category.

But I could be way off base about that, again, having never used Leica.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I've never held a Leica, let alone shot with one. But I do know several people who use them and love them. It's my understanding the rangefinder experience slows them down and makes them consider the scene in front of them more (yes, I know Leica also makes the traditional SLR style camera too, as well as the fixed lens Q series). If a system causes a photographer to become more conscious and aware when composing and choosing settings, I think that's a good thing. Too many people use the spray and pray method now, just because they can, and then when they come in from shooting some birds on a lake they are left with 200 lackluster images to cull through.

I shoot film and recently got a medium format digital camera (and no, I actually don't need MF in terms of printing capability) and those also cause me to slow down and be more deliberate in a way that I don't need to with my Z systems. However, even shooting film for the past year and a half has had a spillover effect into using my Z cameras in that I do try to be more deliberate when holding any camera and not overshoot. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that per se, and I definitely overshoot at events like my son's lacrosse games, but for regular day to day imagery, I'm much more content to focus on quality over quanity, and I think people using the Leica gear are more in that category than the "shoot everything in front of me" category.

But I could be way off base about that, again, having never used Leica.

Obviously depends on the subject, but 90% of the time I’m shooting one shot at a time. I could not stand sitting in front of a computer with 30 shots all practically identical and trying to work out which one is sharper or whatever.

 

[JW5566]

Well, this is always going to be an issue for a smaller sensor. The 14-30 would at least offer you a 21mm equivalent at the wide end, or you could look for a wide F-mount lens such as the 10-20mm DX zoom, which offers almost the equivalent as the 14-30. And there's always the 3rd party options.

The 14-30 is a good option, I agree, and I can either sell a kidney and go for the F2.8 or stick with the F4

However given the kit lens is 16mm, the extra 2mm ends up costing a lot.

Really to get to a decent wide angle on my Z50 and differentiate from my 16-50 kit lens then 10 or 12mm would be good. There's the Viltrox 13mm F1.4 that looks interesting.

The 10-20mm F-mount you mention is a good suggestion, thanks, I overlooked that. The F4.5 or worse is a shame but obviously the trade-off is a great price.

I'm waiting out though for the 12-28 powerzoom that's on their roadmap, as it combines power zoom with a wide angle.

I've never had much fun with such, from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. They generally don't match up to the quality of Nikkor lenses,

I agree, I remember the first Sigma wide lens I got for my Canon that had rave reviews, and it was so soft towards one edge. My Tokina full frame fish eye is also soft, the 100mm macro Tokina quite poor too. I've tended since to play safe and pay more £££ for first party lenses.

The 30min recording limit isn't a Nikon thing; it's my understanding all still cameras that also shoot video have this limitation to be classified as a "regular" camera;

This is largely gone now, the Z30 for example doesn't have this limit.

 

[smirking]

Obviously depends on the subject, but 90% of the time I’m shooting one shot at a time. I could not stand sitting in front of a computer with 30 shots all practically identical and trying to work out which one is sharper or whatever.

Good software makes culling a lot lot easier to do. One of the reasons I had such a hard time letting go of Aperture was that it had a fantastic and speedy culling workflow. Capture One Pro's latest release finally puts it in the same neighborhood for faster and easier culling.

That said, I hate pixel peeping too. That's one reason why I'll never get serious about product photography. I'll do 2-3 shots at live events so if someone's got their eyes closed or mouth agape, one of the other shots might come out.

 

[smirking]

I've found the Nikon to be really good at both video and photos...

A common complaint heard through the years from Canon shooters was that Canon was intentionally stunting video capabilities from their DSLR cameras because they didn't want to cannibalize the market for their video cameras whereas Nikon wasn't faced with any such dilemma.

I don't follow camera industry news, but I seem to remember that Canon's latest MILC cameras have finally taken the gloves off.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Good software makes culling a lot lot easier to do. One of the reasons I had such a hard time letting go of Aperture was that it had a fantastic and speedy culling workflow. Capture One Pro's latest release finally puts it in the same neighborhood for faster and easier culling.

That said, I hate pixel peeping too. That's one reason why I'll never get serious about product photography. I'll do 2-3 shots at live events so if someone's got their eyes closed or mouth agape, one of the other shots might come out.

I have a better solution. I don’t shoot people. Well not with a camera 😱

 

[mollyc]

The 14-30 is a good option, I agree, and I can either sell a kidney and go for the F2.8 or stick with the F4

However given the kit lens is 16mm, the extra 2mm ends up costing a lot.

Really to get to a decent wide angle on my Z50 and differentiate from my 16-50 kit lens then 10 or 12mm would be good. There's the Viltrox 13mm F1.4 that looks interesting.

The 10-20mm F-mount you mention is a good suggestion, thanks, I overlooked that. The F4.5 or worse is a shame but obviously the trade-off is a great price.

I'm waiting out though for the 12-28 powerzoom that's on their roadmap, as it combines power zoom with a wide angle.



I agree, I remember the first Sigma wide lens I got for my Canon that had rave reviews, and it was so soft towards one edge. My Tokina full frame fish eye is also soft, the 100mm macro Tokina quite poor too. I've tended since to play safe and pay more £££ for first party lenses.



This is largely gone now, the Z30 for example doesn't have this limit.

okay but the z30 is three years newer. you can’t fault the z50 for abiding by the rules required when it was released. 🤷🏼‍♀️

 

[kenoh]

This sounds great as a marketing spiel, but in practice, it's not much more than that. Pretentious waffle imo. 'Keep the experience pure'. WTF does that even mean? It's just bullpoo really. Meaningless. Now don't get me wrong; I love Leica's design ethos, and I've always wanted a Leica (film cam, obvs). But the fact is, Leica make lifestyle gadgets rather than serious tools these days; the number of pros (as in those who buy their own kit, not the 'brand ambassadors who get given stuff as part of the marketing machine) who actually use Leica cams is very, very small indeed. Even back in the film days, I rarely saw Leicas being used by any serious pros (photojournalists etc). Most pros I know who've used Leicas, found them to be lacking compared to SLRs, in terms of composing shots, focussing,
flash, film advance etc. That's before you even get to the cost. One of my teachers was a journo who'd been in war zones, and as tough as Leicas were, they weren't as easily replaceable as a Nikon. A battered old F2 orF3 was the mainstay of the front line photographer. Ask Don McCullin.

I still want a Leica. A nice M6.2. With a fast 35 or 50. Mm.

But tell me; how much of this is about actually taking photos, as opposed to having a status symbol?

Lenny Kravitz Designed a $24K Leica with Faux Python Skin

Leica and rock star Lenny Kravitz have teamed up to unveil a new limited edition Leica M Monochrom. Called the "Drifter" Set, the new Kravitz-designed

petapixel.com

“The striking special edition set celebrates Kravitz’s dedication to visual storytelling and pays homage to his inspired, nomadic lifestyle,” Leica says. “A self-proclaimed drifter himself, the attractive set was designed with Kravitz’s vision of being a free spirit, always on the road and open to adventure – ingredients that ignite visual storytelling.”

I mean, please...




Unfortunately we do. But such people can at least be ignored...

That was my words, not Leica's marketing department so thanks for that slap in the kisser.

This is the evergreen topic of debate. Is a Leica worth it? on paper, nope, in the hand, IMHO from experience yes for sure (standard model not a daft bling statement model).

I agree with the nonsense of these limited editions for hideous amounts of money and liken it to the watch world. A Rolex and a Casio both tell the time. Rolexes used to be used by professionals because they were very good and could be relied upon to perform compared to the alternatives. The alternatives caught up and new ways to do it evolved - the quartz movement, cheaper, easier to replace, more accurate. However it lost the essence of the watchmaker craft. Fountain pens vs ballpoints, ballpoints are much more convenient, cheaper and less maintenance but it is nicer to write with a fountain pen.

Same with the Leicas, Hasselblads, Phase Ones, Alpas, Linhoffs. Yes, for standard use cases they are a bit over the top. No, they dont have the bells and whistles. What they do have is a joy of using them, the minimalism and the purity of the craft, the jewel like mechanical engineering. The camera does what it does and does it well. Now, as they are hand made, not mainstream and dont sell in mass volumes so that makes them cost more compare a Seiko 5 to a Seiko ProSpex and a Grand Seiko for example or a Swatch vs an Omega same company different price points and different target markets.

When you refer to pros, be honest, you are over generalising a bit based on you knowing Sports and wildlife pros - Two areas of Photography that have very high very specific demands of the camera that arguably needed a DSLR never mind a Mirrorless until recently. Prior to the 70s Leica's were the weapon of choice the same as Rolexes were for commercial divers and military. Then the commodity players arrived producing cheaper mass produced alternatives and the market shifted so yes, Canon and Nikon took the market as it reduced the cost of kitting out photographers - especially those in hostile environments. There are a lot of pros that use Leica still for example:

Steve McCurry
Bruce Gilden
Joel Meyerowitz
Lynn Thomson
Ciril Jazbek
Justin Mott
Peter McKinnon (Canon stalwart, went Q2)
Peter Coulson
Henri Cartier-Bresson

Not all of these are old you will notice 😂

Yes, TTL camera designs took over and Autofocus was developed and tech crept in like tech does with everything. Leica kept their mechanical range - the M series going for those who wanted that type of camera. The same as in a world of Quartz watches, Rolex, Omega, Patek etc etc.... continued to make fine timepieces.

As for a status symbol, yes and no. Yes there are celebs who have them as accessories but then the only people who really recognise a Leica for what it is is someone who knows about cameras. I still shoot an M9 amongst other camera systems - it came out in 2009 and it takes beautiful images. The colours are wonderful, it is only 18mp but I enjoy using it. Apart from a few jokes on here, no one mentions it. As people on here who know me can attest, I have owned most of the camera systems out there (I hope to scratch my medium format itch at some point) and the one I keep going back to is Leica because I genuinely love using them - I am not a good photographer by any means but the Leica makes me happy. There isnt a new one out every year, so I am not on the constant refresh cycle anymore like I was with my Sony chapter and I have lenses made in Soviet era Eastern Europe that are beautiful and I have modern optics too. I enjoy using them and yes I like that people who don't know look at it and just think its a crappy old film camera or "it looks like a toy" as said earlier - the less attention it garners, the better IMHO.

Now, yes we see these "special editions" which are hideous in the main but they are the same as special editions for watches and pens and cars. If people will pay more for the same thing with a go faster stripe or a Lalique watch dial or special resin barrel (pen), then OK, if it makes them happy, so be it. It is not for me, I think they are hideously over priced for what they are. Hell, black chrome or black paint for £500 more bewilders me never mind daft leatherette wraps on them. Saying this, Jason Momoa usually has a few M film models with him when he is out and about. They are all bashed, worn, scraped, wonderful properly used.

I know a few pros who use a Canon or Nikon as their workhorse daily beater but choose a Leica for their personal camera - the one they take pictures of that mean something to them. I know of two high end fashion photographers who shoot Hasselblad Medium Format - the proper medium format not the smaller format in the Fuji or Hasselblad X series - and they both use their iphone. So it is an individual decision.

I think that the re-release of the M6 is an interesting one. I have an M4-P which is the poor relation in the Leica fold as it was made in Canada not Germany but it is essentially an M6 without the light meter and this is what I mean about the minimalist purity. It is just a joy to use. You spend your time getting the shot, not fiddling with the dials

but yes, there is a part of the Leica world that is form over function..... no getting away from it. £8K for a 50mm f2? Gold M6 for the Sultan of Brunei? they are having a laugh I agree. Even Canon and Nikon have their comedy expensive side. Look at the Canon 800 f5.6 at £20K! I bet it is amazing but £20K! outside your friends who need that reach and speed, not a lens for the masses.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I always bow to @kenoh knowledge on which camera brands are best. He has owned them all!

 

[Clix Pix]

Bit late to this one...

I switched from Canon to Nikon a couple of years ago, specifically from Canon DSLR to Nikon Z50 mirrorless, which was driven more by video needs and a low budget at the time. I've found the Nikon to be really good at both video and photos, I tend to use the Nikon for handheld photo shooting with an F1.8 lens under indoor lighting (product/display shots in retailers and shops) and am impressed by the performance at high ISO.

It also works well with the Z to F adapter, I have a 50mm F lens which works fine.

Video quality is also fine for my needs, mostly in a well-lit office for talking to video intros.

After two years, I have a couple of gripes. One is the lack of physical wired connection for a shutter remote, you have to do it wirelessly, so half pressing the shutter is not an option and that really annoys. Another is the frustrating reverse direction that Nikon use to screw lenses in, though that's maybe only annoying as I have muscle memory from Canon. Still, tightening a lens by turning it anticlockwise seems daft.

Finally, as someone who shoots wide more than narrow, the lack of wide Z lenses is a shame, more so as I am APSC and have a crop factor anyway.

(Other gripes are specific to video and the Z50, like the lack of tally light, the lack of power over USB, the lack of spare battery stock, the 30 min record limit).

I think in hindsight... for videography I think Sony could have been a better choice as the number of wide lenses is great. Fingers crossed the planned 12-28mm power zoom Z lens due "soon" will put Nikon back up there as a vlogging solution.

But in terms of actual quality of image and video... no complaints at all with Nikon. The photos from it are stunning.

Yes, if you're into videography along with stills shooting, Sony would be the better choice, both in terms of camera bodies and lenses. They offer several "Vlogging" cameras and also at least two wide-angle lenses with power zoom (16-35mm, 10-20mm). They also offer non-zoom wide-angle prime lenses, too, of course, including the amazing 12-24mm f/2.8.

 

[Clix Pix]

Obviously depends on the subject, but 90% of the time I’m shooting one shot at a time. I could not stand sitting in front of a computer with 30 shots all practically identical and trying to work out which one is sharper or whatever.

When I'm shooting wildlife -- squirrels, birds, etc. -- I usually have the A1 with a long lens on it, set to Continuous High + in order to get 20 fps (the camera is capable of doing 30 fps but I don't generally use that high of a speed). And, yes, if I am absorbed in watching the squirrel or bird and forget to lift quickly my finger from the shutter button, there's an awful lot of images to review later! LOL! It is kind of fascinating, though, too, to look at a sequence of, say, a bird, and see the subtle changes in movement they make, including blinking their eyes.

When I'm shooting something else, something stationary such as a flower or object in a closeup or macro, obviously I don't need 20 fps! I tend to use my A7R IV for macro and closeup work, so that camera is set up for shooting single-shot or sometimes Continuous Low. Sometimes I'll spend a lot of time with a subject, other times I may only take two or three shots total and that's it. Much depends upon the subject, the time I want and need to spend on it, etc. Sometimes photos are just for me, rather than for public consumption so if I fire off two or three quickies and that's it, they'll get minimal editing and I'm done. Other times I spend an afternoon outdoors shooting and then come home with a memory card filled with images, some of which I know I'll be sharing with others. For me the shooting is an integral part of the overall experience. Even if I were to spend an hour or more shooting something and in the end have nothing decent to show for it (rare, but it can happen) I still would have had the enjoyment of spending time with the camera.