Yes the Nikon Z when I tried them are quite familiar and also how it feels on the hand. The Z cameras are quite natural to migrate from a Nikon dSLR or a autofocus film SLR. The Z electronic viewfinder is also quite good without that sense of motion sickness. When I held it at a NZ wedding expo show here and they had the diff many brand sales reps letting you try the gear.
I went with a Fuji X-T1 cos cheaper and sick of paying retail new prices. It is more different than a Nikon Z but it is more compact.
Correcting myself before. M4/3 is 2x the lens to make it equiv to 35mm format. I know some photography friends one who has a 300mm prime 2x is 600mm he also has a TC so he can do wildlife and plane photography. 1.5x is APS-C which is my Fuji and others like the Sony A6000 series. I think full frame is superior but APS-C even a dated one like the one I have does the job for me .....
I didn't know you followed my example and took just a Rollei TLR to France! I made some of the best photos of my life on that trip. Now I'm going back through my archives and making a whole bunch of (mostly) 5x5 palladium prints from all my travel shots. I'm mixing up the media - most are from the Rollei, some others from my former Hasselblad kit, a few are from an RZ67, and some are from my Fuji XT1/XT2. Aside from the aspect ratios, there's little to tell between which camera shot which.Scott (Davis "the Flying Camera") Great to see you on this thread! Man after my own heart in this! The man whose encouragement to take a Rolleiflex TLR to France made that trip for me! Thank you... and again here.
...
No one else should either. Whatever someone needs to use to make their photos.... that's what they should use. All cameras are capable, and my preferences be damned. Follow your own hearts here. Scott... thanks for your balanced thoughts and encouragement! Solid stuff! People may forget that some of the early 35mm shooters were demeaned as shooting too small, but yes, they were, and no, it didn't really limit their output and what we see in it today without the blinders of decades ago.
That's how I see it. I don't see film and digital as being exclusive. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I don't understand the almost fanatic, entrenched views of some. Shooting digital photos of sports doesn't diminish my landscapes on film. Digitally post-processing a scan, for some almost heresy, enables me to do things that I just can't accomplish otherwise. And whatever film teached me (careful composition, proper exposure,..) I apply to digital shooting.... but somehow we have to defend digital or defend film? Maybe that says more about the stage we're at and about ourselves than we want? The more time I spend at this, the more I'm finding appeal in different approaches.....
I agree with that; It's actually difficult to buy a bad digital camera these days.I'm shooting a Z6, going for a Z7ii next.
I have been Nikon for a long time, shoot Nikon 135 because I have lenses. The Z series are smaller and ridiculously capable, but with older lenses (Anything that uses the screw drive) they don't autofocus. Never bothered me as I use it for things that I prefer to manual focus, so old favorite lenses work really well for me. And the Z glass with the mirrorless cameras is phenomenal. It's too easy to take ridiculously good photographs. WAY too easy.
I had just taken a shot on velvia of the passenger train, saw the freght train coming (it was not scheduled, so I didn't expect it) and was able to stand out in the water to get this shot. The slides are better, but not by much. (this is a little overprocessed, I was trying to make it look like the Provia slide I took the same day, but out of the camera it is still fantastic).
I almost never use it locally. Always carrying a film camera. But when I travel I use a 24mm or the 24-70 zoom and this Z6. it is really a great combo. Even with the kit lens it si tack sharp and easy to handle. Everything you want walking around for travel at a light weight.
The Z6 is also really good with video.
If you prefer SLR the D780 uses the same sensor and works well with older lenses. The D850 (a friend has one) is about the most amazing camera ever and will focus with any Nikon lens you have. They're both a little larger though.
Now, that testimonial aside, the Canons are as good. Maybe even better in many ways. The Sonys are as good, better in some ways as well. Sonys have more native lenses and do things like pixel shift which might be fun for scanning negatives. In fact, you cannot go wrong with ANY of the newest digital cameras, they're all that good.
I agree with that; It's actually difficult to buy a bad digital camera these days.
Rachelle, have you narrowed down your choices? I picked up a Nikon D850 a couple of years ago. I thought to myself if I'm going to get digital, it should at least compete with medium format. Cost me an arm and a leg for the body and lens, but it's been worth it. When I go to Japan, it would be my main camera, as I'm worried about airports buggering up my film.
In theory, yes. I've gone for the new Nikon Zfc - not one that was on my radar because I was looking for full-frame, but being recently released, and having handled one at Yodobashi I have to admit I really liked the ergonomics of it. Of course it means new lenses across the board, but I hope I can keep it down to 2 or 3 (one prime and 2 zooms most likely). That said, in looking for cameras I was really dismayed at the cost of them all (since I also need to buy a new iMac to replace the one I had that died last year) but realized if I could put the right spin on it, that I could use my research budget from work to pay for the camera and one lens and a few accessories. They agreed so I'm good to go that way.
have to admit I really liked the ergonomics of it. Of course it means new lenses across the board, but I hope I can keep it down to 2 or 3 (one prime and 2 zooms most likely).
I'm going to say straight up that handling is more important than FX vs DX anymore.
Do a search on Flickr for shots made with that combo- it may or may not have mild to significant purple fringing, because the lens wasn't designed to be used on digital sensors. I've had that before when using my Contax 85mm f1.4 on a Canon 5D mk1, and with my Contax 300 Tele-Tessar on my Fuji XT2. It only happens on the Fuji in certain circumstances, and is not horribly pronounced, so it can be dealt with in post, and the cost of getting a native Fuji lens with the same reach would be prohibitive, so I can live with it at the price point (I'm into the lens and the 2x teleconverter to the tune of $300-ish. A Fuji 100-400 zoom would run me close to $2K).Rachelle, I hope you will come back to this thread and tell us how you feel one you've used your Zfc for a little while.
I see that they make an adapter so that it can use F mount lenses... that's a plus. I would like to be able to use my 55 micro nikkor for copy work... but worried about whether the lens will really work well with APS-C... I wonder if it has a focus indicator like some of their earlier digital cameras had for using manual focus lenses... and options for white balance...
Rachelle, I hope you will come back to this thread and tell us how you feel one you've used your Zfc for a little while.
I see that they make an adapter so that it can use F mount lenses... that's a plus. I would like to be able to use my 55 micro nikkor for copy work... but worried about whether the lens will really work well with APS-C... I wonder if it has a focus indicator like some of their earlier digital cameras had for using manual focus lenses... and options for white balance...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?