The first Z camera and lens I purchased. I was immensely impressed out of the gate with not only the camera but the 24-70/4 S. I wish more companies made small f/4 zooms like this and paired them in kits.
I’ve shot Nikon as my primary system since I left Canon behind in 2012. I’ve owned and used cameras from, as far as I can tell, every current manufacturer save Phase One. Some stuck with me longer than others – I have pretty limited experience with Pentax DSLRs, for example. I’ve never been a brand loyalist in any sense; the idea of that is just silly no matter how you look at it. Obviously, there is a form of “sunk cost loyalty” once you’ve invested in gear. Leap frogging from one system to another because so-and-so has this summer’s best [insert whatever specification] is solely in the realm of spec-sheet chasing hobbyists, not that of a working photographer.
Of course, there come times – especially after many years – where you find your priorities, needs, or preferences have shifted, as has the camera and photography landscape. I continued using DSLRs as my primary bodies until Nikon released the Z series because, well, I simply didn’t get along with Sony bodies (I’ve probably owned and eventually sold more models of Sony than any other company – my first mirrorless camera was actually a Sony).
Despite the subject of this post, I still view the Nikon Z cameras as the absolute best all-around system on the market. They are handily the best ergonomically, with the Panasonic S series a close second, though at the expense of portability. Their sensor IQ is unsurpassed (though certainly matched) by anything below medium format. Their lens lineup is second to none in quality* and second only to Canon for overall selection if you include native adapters. In my opinion, their mirrorless lens system is absolutely brilliant: benchmark image quality along with their laudable decision to skip f/1.4 lenses and put everything into f/1.8 primes. And I won’t get started on the mind-blowing performance of lenses like the 16-50/3.5-6.3, 24-50/4-6.3, and 24-200/4-6.3.
Nikon’s phenomenal 16-50/3.5-6.3 DX kit zoom. Probably the best sub-$500 kit zoom I have ever used. Pairs great with the Z7 too, giving you the same 20MP resolution as the Z50.
*To be clear here: Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic… they all make amazing full-frame mirrorless lenses. But I see Nikon as having the overall best line-up when you consider image quality, size, price, options, and build quality. They went the right direction with affordable pro-level f/1.8 primes, great f/2.8 and compact f/4 zooms, and some absurdly good budget zooms (that’s where the “options” part comes in). Panasonic is doing something similar (20-60, 70-300/4.5-5.6, 70-200/2.8 and f/4, and now pro-level f/1.8 primes), but they lack the smaller options of Nikon (e.g. 24-50 and 16-50 pancakes) or the more affordable options (20-60 being an exception). Sony, lately, has very much impressed me with their compact f/1.4 GM primes, the 28-60, the newest G zoom lenses, etc. But… Sony’s lenses as a whole are not at the same level; many of their earlier lenses range from average to downright awful (most of their APS-C lenses are simply ok, often pretty poor). Even a number of their early Zeiss-badged lenses were quite poor (24-70/4 ZA). Lately, though, they’ve been killing it and of course they do have the largest ecosystem available… especially including third-party options.
Creative Commons License, Wikimedia Commons
Canon opted to kick off their full-frame mirrorless line by releasing two subpar bodies (EOS R and Rp) alongside ultra-fast, expensive, top-of-the-line glass (the 28-70/2 has to be commended, though – what an achievement). Yes, Nikon did this with the Noct-Nikkor f/0.95. What they didn’t do, however, is release two 85/1.2 lenses before they had a remotely affordable f/1.8 version. Canon decided to put resources into niche lenses like 600/800mm f/11 primes before a single f/4 wide angle zoom, a 50mm lens that isn’t dirt-cheap sub $200 or ultra-expensive over $2000, or a single prime lens below 35mm. I just don’t get it at all – and before I settled on what would end up being my first foray into another system, I kept coming back to Canon only to be immediately reminded why we haven’t gotten along in a decade.
*Canon, and sometimes other manufacturers, seems to think that professionals only use fast or ultra-fast glass. All you need to do is look at the popularity of Nikon’s 14-30/4, Sony’s 12-24/4, or Canon’s own 17-40/4L lens to see how much nonsense that is. These lenses are popular because they’re affordable, they’re all many people need, and they’re much smaller than faster f/2.8 alternatives. The same goes for f/1.2 primes. I have zero issue with the faster lenses being released – a 14-24 (or similar range), 24-70, and 70-200 at f/2.8 is a widely popular trio. F/1.2 primes are popular. It’s the apparent way Canon prioritized their lens releases that left me baffled, along with the release of legitimately unimpressive and poorly designed bodies out of the gate – bodies which screamed enthusiast but only had very expensive lenses to pair with. I’m sure the 28-70/2 is amazing, but let’s be honest… how many people bought it? I see it is a kind of halo product (like the Noct-Nikkor), except that Canon has continued the trend to this day – though they have tossed a few affordable lenses out here and there.
Again, they still don’t have a single prime lens below 35mm. That’s just plain damn strange.
I have to applaud Panasonic – I nearly went with their system to begin with. After using the S1, 20-60, and 24-105 lenses not too long ago (on rental for a job), I came away extremely impressed. The ergonomics are definitely the most “Nikon-like” (button/control placement, menus, overall design) and they just make sense. I found this true of the Panasonic G9 as well (the S1 is basically a leveled up G9). The lenses are very impressive. And it probably goes without saying, but no one comes close to Panasonic on the full-frame hybrid video front.
Panasonic S1 w/ 24-105/4 OIS
Creative Commons License, Wikimedia Commons
Sony. Boy oh boy. My first mirrorless camera was the a6000, not too long after it was released. I used it alongside my Nikon gear and I loved it at the time. Then I started doing work repairing cameras (and lenses) and, despite most of that work being on 35mm or medium format film cameras, over time I was able to use many (and I mean MANY) digital cameras. I eventually got the a6300, only to have Sony give those us of who bought it the finger when they released the a6500 eight months later. I even shot a few scenes for a ten-episode show with the a6300. I’ve also owned the a7, a7 II, a7R II, a7S II, a few RX100 models, and the RX10 Mark II (which I quite liked) – I’ve used, but not owned, the a7 III and a7S III.
There are many reasons why the first and second-gen Sony FF cameras aren’t great – I don’t think anyone would dispute that. They really came into their game with the third gen models. But every time I tried one, I just ended up missing my DSLR. For many reasons.
Things have changed, though. I no longer see any advantage to DSLRs; EVFs finally matured to the point where they’re simply transparent. With a nice EVF, I’m never actively aware that I’m looking at a digital display. Mirrorless autofocus has significantly improved, from tracking to new features like eye-AF. Lenses have improved. General technology itself has improved – once Canon and Nikon finally put all their resources into mirrorless, we’re seeing great improvements with every new release no matter whose name is on the front.
Sony a7R III. One of the cameras I considered, especially appealing given it can be found used for under $1800.
Photo by Ke Chun Yuan. Creative Commons License. Find the original here.
Sony was one of the top two most attractive options for me to move to – mainly because of their prevailing technology (especially autofocus, though others have caught or nearly caught up, especially Canon) and their massive native lens selection. Adapters like Nikon’s FTZ work wonderfully and are great to use while switching over or to fill gaps in the lens lineup, but I’d still rather have a native-mount lens any time. As I mentioned, I really love not only the types of lenses Sony has decided to release recently, but also how fantastic they are. The 28-60 compact zoom is identical to Nikon’s 24-50 in approach, just opting for a bit more on one end at the expense of the other. And both are truly excellent optics. Their 24/35/135 1.4 GM, 50/1.2 GM, and 20/35/85 1.8 G lenses are very good and surprisingly compact pieces of engineering. I’ve really loved the recent 70-350 G and the older 24-105 and 12-24 G zooms: stellar image quality but still affordable. Most of all, while I have not used them yet, I bend the knee to Sony for releasing the 24/2.8 and 40/50 2.5 G lenses. I used to beg Zeiss for f/2.5 or 2.8 versions of their Otus lenses – which they basically had in the Loxia line, but nothing for any other mount, let alone DSLRs. Nikon should be doing something similar with the upcoming 28 and 40mm pancakes, but I’d love to see a 24, 35, and 50 as well (Sony already has some great 35mm pancake options with the 35/2.8 Zeiss, Samyang 35/2.8, and the slightly larger Tamron 35/2.8).
So, with all my love for Nikon, why did I start to look elsewhere? It’s really a culmination of several factors that ended up compounding on themselves. This past year, with *flails arms* everything that’s happened, resulted in the need to do some gear downsizing. It also forced me to look ahead at where I want to go and be professionally and think about what I really need to do that and what is the most economical way to get there, even if some sacrifices have to be made. There’s also the elephant in the room, at least if you read pretty much any photography website: Nikon has not been doing well financially. They’ve closed a number of factories and significantly trimmed down their employ across the globe. In my logical brain, I know that these decisions are likely to help them succeed in the long run (reducing operating expenses generally does that). But the non-logical part of me can’t help but be worried.
Fujifilm X-Pro3. I actually loved this camera when I played with it. But, its price, lack of IBIS + grip support, and several other factors make it unsuitable when you’re trying to keep costs down, since it can’t be my main camera.
Creative Commons license, Wikiemedia Commons.
I don’t really buy into the idea that Nikon is doomed to fail – in fact, I think that’s very unlikely. However, it is true that they aren’t doing as well as they had hoped, nor as well as others. It’s also true that, unlike say… Sony or Panasonic or Canon… they don’t have other departments to lean on. Pentax is a fantastic example: the only reason they manage to keep releasing cameras and lenses is because their imaging department is a miniscule part of the company’s revenue. Off the top of my head, only Nikon and Leica are not in such a position. But Leica will continue forward as usual because they’re a niche, luxury brand with a comparatively small workforce and they don’t need to worry about someone else undercutting their prices or stealing their customer base. They also make cinema lenses and probably microscopes and whatever other stuff.
Obviously, I’d be lying if I said the Olympus situation didn’t knock a bit more fear into me as well. Which will turn out to be pretty ironic in part two of this.
If Nikon’s demise was truly my only concern, I wouldn’t even be writing this. I’m not selling my gear and switching brands over something like that. Hell, even if it happened, worst case scenario is that I’d sell my gear a few years down the road and still be able to switch systems just fine. I think it’s important to step back and not take for granted that most people, including myself, could do 99% of everything we want to with the lenses/cameras Nikon has already released (if you include F-mount via FTZ adapter for Z bodies).
However, like I mentioned, I was forced to 1) sell off some my lesser used gear (45mm PC-E Micro, Zeiss 2/50 Makro ZF.2 and Nikon 135/2 DC, just to name a few) and 2) think critically about the next 5+ years and what I want to do and what I would need to do it. There’s no longer leeway for hoarding expensive gear I only use every so often. Long story short, I’m working to branch out into a couple relatively uncharted waters for income work, while also focusing on some personal projects of mine. There’s a lot more to it than that, but that’s the basic gist.
So, where did I land with a new system? The answer is Fujifilm.
However, that’s far from the end of the story.
The rest of which will be in Part Two, coming soon.