Changing gear

DSLR DX to FX

Previously I have talked about the journey from APS-C DX to full frame FX, and the different responses sensors demanded.

Then, I was moving from a Nikon D7100 to a D800. (I also had an Olympus EM1.) The D7100 was an excellent camera, and I had some decent DX lenses, but I was noticing the benefits of FX in camera club competitions, and thought I needed to change in order to develop my photography. Undoubtedly this was true and I made the move, but in retrospect perhaps I wouldn’t have traded in my D7100 but kept it… maybe.

DSLR FX to Mirrorless, taking MFT on the way

The move from a D800 DSLR to Mirrorless Z7ii was even more traumatic, which I undertook around 2 years ago, and do not regret it.

Though the FTZ adapter made the move easier, it wasn’t long before I realised that Z lenses are potentially better – because the Z camera lens mount has a wider throat and also the flange distance is much shorter. In a sense this was a huge change for Nikon, because previously many manufacturers would make a lens suited to F mount first and then adapt it (eg  Canon) because the opposite was true at that time. And Nikon’s lenses have always been top notch!

In to Z

The standard DSLR zoom was the Nikkor 24-85, I felt was a really good lens; my first Z lens was the 24-70 f4 S, just as good, though a trifle lighter and losing ½ stop of light at the wide end. I also had the 14-24 f2.8 Nikkor which had/has a stellar reputation, but soon got hold of the Z 14-30 f4 S… and I was amazed at the sharpness, and changed my approach radically. This lens is sharper, lighter, smaller – and has a filter thread to boot. It is now my go-to for most activity. Because the mirrorless Z7ii has in-body stabilisation I do not seem to need a wider maximum aperture, and modern software is vastly better at reducing noise.

Changing telephoto zoom was harder – I had a 80-400 f4-5.6 VR which was big and heavy but seemed good and sharp and also had an older 80-200 f2.8 zoom. I realised I needed something in Z mount and decided on the Z mount 70-180 f2.8 – it works well, and very well with the 2x z converter. So, the loss of two lenses for this range replaced by one was not a loss in IQ or weight. (One day I’ll go for the 180-600 z when (if) funds allow.).

I don’t take a tele zoom with me much, but like to do architectural and church photography – and love the manual Brightin Star 9mm f5.6. It is sharp even wide open and gives me great results. Sometimes I enjoy using the Laowa 15mm shift lens when in a tight corner, and also have a Nikkor 40mm f2 when I need a bright lens indoors – this is also very sharp.

I still use F mount lenses using the adapter – 105mm f2.8 Sigma macro, the unique Nikkor 105mm f2, Nikkor 16mm f2.8 fisheye – but picture taking slows down and seems less precise.

MFT still here

I had already been developing a mirrorless system via Olympus, having used an EM-5 for a while, then a EM-1 and later an EM-1ii. I now use an EM1-iii alongside my Nikon Z7ii. I am happy with both systems, and choose which one to take with me depending on the shoot. This decision comes down to two parameters – how much weight to carry and the nature of the subjects. Obviously there is some overlap between the two, but the Z7ii is much smaller than the d800, and some lenses are similar sized to Nikon equivalents.

Weight really matters: z lenses tend to be smaller and lighter than f mount, but most are still (necessarily) larger and heavier than mft equivalents.

For instance the Olympus 7-14 f2.8 Pro is an excellent lens but has little advantage to the Nikon z 14-30 that covers a similar focal length but seems lighter and more balanced despite the larger sensor on the camera, though the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 is just a smidgeon smaller/lighter than the z 24-70. For this focal length there is little difference in dimensions, but the Nikon Z has a full frame sensor with twice the resolution. (Yes, the Olympus can upscale image size in-camera to 60/80 MP, but any form of subject movement negates this advantage, and it takes several seconds to create the higher resolution image that can be frustrating. (BTW, I don’t feel those 60mp images are ‘better’ than full frame 46mp images.)). Extreme wide angle on mft can be covered by the Samyang 7.5 f3.5 fisheye that will convert images to rectilinear using the Imadio fisheye hemi plugin.

For longer focal lengths the Olympus system wins – the Olympus 40-150 f4 is extremely sharp, compact and its light weight gives a huge advantage over the Nikon 70-180. When shooting sports such as Cricket, the Olympus 100-400 f5-6.3 is superb for IQ, without handholding problems, and with a 2x converter goes to a full frame equivalent of 1600mm!

Walking/Landscapes/Travel

The Olympus system can also provide some very capable small lenses for travel: 9-18 f4-5.6 is tiny, the 14-150 f4-5.6 also capable. Primes such as the 45mm 1.8 or 60mm f2.8 macro also very small. The 60mm macro must be less than a quarter the size/weight of any F mount equivalent.

So: the 9-18 plus 14-150 plus Samyang 7.5 with the EM1-iii is a lightweight system, albeit with a small sensor covering 14-300mm focal length equivalents.

Nikon Z is catching up:

So: 14-30 f4, plus 24-200 f4-6.3 with brightin star 9 f5.6 is a system only slightly heavier bnut producing those lovely FX images.

Architectural

Olympus 7-14 plus 12-40

Nikon Z now wins hands down with 14-30, Brightin Star 9 and Nikon 24-70.

Sports/Birding

Depends on distance to sports performers – Nikon 70—360 (including TC) only gets you so far; the Olympus with its 100-400  gets to 1600 FF eq.

More conclusions/wish list:

Nikon: sell 50mm f1.4, Tamron 500 f8, Samyang 24 T/S to part fund 180-400

Olympus: sell em1iii for om3 or om1ii to make use of in-camera graduated nd filters and faster processing.

and don’t forget, I have a smartphone (Samsung Ultra)