Z fc - the thread

[Fons Baerken]

Zfc, 10,5mm fisheye, noise reduction at 1400 iso with Topaz Labs

[Hugh_3170]

The Zfc is a lovely looking camera, but for me, when I look at the small purpose built Micro Four Thirds (MFT) lenses from the likes of Olympus and Panasonic/Lumix, it still bothers me that the lenses in the DX/APS-C world have not gotten down to the lens sizes and weights to the extent that the MFT manufacturers have for that only slightly smaller format. 

If and when they do get more complementary DX lens sizes & weights, then sales of cameras like the Zfc & Z50 (and their counterparts from other makers) will surely benefit. 

Whilst it is good from a legacy perspective that the the DX bodies will accept the Z-mount FX lenses (and F-mount lenses via the FTZ adapter), it still seems most unfortunate to me that the Z mount DX lens line appears to look too much like their bigger brothers and sisters from the FX line rather than lenses designed from scratch in order to complement the smaller form mirrorless DX bodies. 

If  Birna's image of the Zfc with the 23mm Viltrox is anything to go by, then maybe manufacturers such as Viltrox might hopefully step in and fill this void?  Let us hope so.

Just my 0.02c worth.

Two friends and morning coffee.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The Zfc is a lovely looking camera, but for me, when I look at the small purpose built Micro Four Thirds (MFT) lenses from the likes of Olympus and Panasonic/Lumix, it still bothers me that the lenses in the DX/APS-C world have not gotten down to the lens sizes and weights to the extent that the MFT manufacturers have for that only slightly smaller format. 

The problem with the really small MFT lenses (ones that are true pancakes) is the image quality isn't that impressive. It may be good enough but review sites haven't really been that impressed with them.

Whilst it is good from a legacy perspective that the the DX bodies will accept the Z-mount FX lenses (and F-mount lenses via the FTZ adapter), it still seems most unfortunate to me that the Z mount DX lens line appears to look too much like their bigger brothers and sisters from the FX line rather than lenses designed from scratch in order to complement the smaller form mirrorless DX bodies. 

Which Z DX lenses did you have in mind?

At least the 16-50mm DX is very small.

[David H. Hartman]

Which Z DX lenses did you have in mind?

At least the 16-50mm DX is very small.

I agree with Hugh so I'll answer these two questions:

First the lenses don't have to be pancake lenses but they should not be FX size lenses. They should be proportional in size to the cameras they are designed for. There is no 35mm, 28mm or 24mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 lens in Nikon's Z DX line up and there should be. The Nikon 28mm f/2.8 NIKKOR Z Lens (SE) is a reasonable size but f/2.8 is far too slow and there is no need for it to cover FX if it is intended for use on a Nikon Z DX body.

The Nikon NIKKOR Z DX 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR Lens is smaller than it needs to be. It's OK as a low cost kit lens but f/6.3 is ridiculously slow for me. A better quality build 16-50mm f/3.5-4.5 would be a start but a 16-50mm f/4.0 would be what I would find reasonable.

If Nikon is serious about Z DX then there should be a high quality 16-55mm f/4.0 and f/2.8 zoom and it's size should be proportional to the Z50 and Z fc not to the Z7 II or Z6 II.

Here is a list of Z DX lenses for sale at B&H Photo today, 2021-09-09:

Nikon NIKKOR Z DX 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR Lens
Nikon NIKKOR Z DX 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR Lens
Nikon NIKKOR Z DX 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR Lens

They all have a maximum aperture of f/6.3 at the long zoom setting so NO sale! I believe they all have plastic rear bayonets so again NO sale!

I've mentioned the AF-D 28-70/3.5-4.5 Nikkor many times and noted that it is suitable for a D850. I've mentioned that it gives "decent" images wide open but if at all possible I stop down to f/6.3 to f/8.0. If I stop down an f/6.3 lens one stop I'm at f/9.0. That is ridiculous and about as far as I'm willing to stop down a lens on DX except maybe f/11 for macro. An f/6.3 maximum aperture lens is TOTALLY unacceptable for low light photography.

I would probably buy a Nikon Z fc if it had two function buttons on the front and I could buy quality Z DX lens or two that is proportional to the body. Given the Z fc's size and price point I've come to accept no IBIS. The lack of two function buttons on the face of the Z fc makes the camera unacceptable to me for casual guest events photography.

Again No plastic rear bayonet! I will not buy a lens with one! Even my 75-150/3.5 Nikon Series-E zoom had a chromed, bronze bayonet.

I'm not interested in collecting vintage rangefinder lenses (for myself) to use on a modern Nikon Z mount mirrorless camera. I find reading about them interesting and seeing photos of the cameras and lenses but I'm not a buyer.

I want quality Z DX lenses that are proportional to Nikon Z DX bodies or I'm not a buyer.

Dave

All typographical errors and loose logic is expressly intended! 

[Luc]

Dave, with your wishlist a switch to Fujifilm DX seems almost logical

[MEPER]

There is some information here about plastic vs metal mounts:
https://petapixel.com/2014/01/03/metal-mounts-really-better-plastic-lens-rentals-investigates/

I don't like plastic mount either but accept them on the two lenses I have. I feel confident that I will not need to have the plastic mount replaced as I am quite careful when I mount lenses. The good thing is that a plastic mount is very gentle to the camera mount. As indicated in article above is if plastic mount breaks then usually there is no other damage to lens and mount is easy to replace.

The 16-50 DX kit lens feels like higher quality than expected. It seems to have some metal parts and when "folded out" there is very little "play" and image quality is high. The lens also has VR which is nice when the body is without "IBIS".

A lens like 16-50 (and also a FTZ adapter) should be bought in a kit. Then a lot of money is saved. I got my Z50 together with 16-50 and FTZ and kit was discounted because box had been opened. So my 16-50 was almost "free".
What about 2nd hand prices on this lens?     should be cheap?

About the 6.3 aperture:
Lens performs well at 6.3 but does not give the OOF blur as a faster lens. But VR helps slow shutter speeds and higher ISO is also a possibility.

[MEPER]

Also "plastic" can be "many things" today but I am not a "plastic expert" :-)
Fiber reinforced "plastic" can be quite strong.

[Nasos Kosmas]

Yes I have got 16-50 that’s excellent lens on the wide range but no bokeh with the f 6.3
To gain some bokeh in DX I’m thinking this lens that looks very good in the very first reviews

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1659394-REG/viltrox_af_23_1_4_z_23mm_f_1_4_autofocus_lens.html

Dave: 18-140z not yet released

[Birna Rørslett]

I can confirm the Viltrox 23mm f/1.4 is excellent on the Z fc. A small package with the camera as well. A moderate price rounds off the advantages nicely.

[David H. Hartman]

Lens performs well at 6.3 but does not give the OOF blur as a faster lens. But VR helps slow shutter speeds and higher ISO is also a possibility.

Background blurring is not to be expected with a DX camera unless the subject is very close to the lens. For example a 70/2.8 lens will blur the background behind a person if the subject distance is about 2 meters but the blurred object will be quite recognizable. Even a 50/1.2 wide open won't give significant background blurring. This is as apposed to a 105/2.5 or 2.8 on FX which does a lovely job.

If I want less background blurring rather than more DX is the format choice. I've toyed with buying a D500 for macro, telephoto and where I'd like less background blurring. Now I'm thinking a Z7 II or Z6 II shooting DX with shorter lenses might work better for me.

To sum this up FX with longer lenses for more background blurring and DX with shorter lens for less background blurring.

Dave

[Hugh_3170]

It looks like Dave has beaten me here. 

As an Olympus MFT/M43  user, there is a consistent line of fast ( ~f/1.8 ) prime lenses such as the 12mm, 17mm, 25mm, 45mm, 60mm, and 75mm primes, which with the possible exception of the 75mm lens are quite small, built to a high standard,  and are in keeping with the size of the bodies they are designed to be used on.  Yes there are some larger examples from the Olympus and Panasonic stables, but there are a wide choice of modest sized lenses to be had.  (I do concede that my 17mm f/2.8 M.Zuiko pancake is very soft - although this is not true of all pancakes, e.g. my CV 40mm f/2.9 Ultron is quite sharp.)

I have certainly heard good things said about the Nikon Z DX 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR Lens, but it is slow at the long end.  Whilst I have not had the pleasure of using this lens,  I am somewhat spoilt by the Olympus 12-40mm constant f/2.8 maximum aperture lens, what with its great optical performance and high build standards.

In terms of the Nikon F-mount DX line what strikes me is that many have the similar diameters and bulk to their FX cousins - although often lighter due to their construction.

The problem with the really small MFT lenses (ones that are true pancakes) is the image quality isn't that impressive. It may be good enough but review sites haven't really been that impressed with them.

Which Z DX lenses did you have in mind?

At least the 16-50mm DX is very small.

[Fons Baerken]

Any news on the availability of the en-el25 battery, still out of stock?

[Luc]

Any news on the availability of the en-el25 battery, still out of stock?

Still not available. What a shame. I guess that's what forced Nikon to include USB-charging on the Z fc

[Nasos Kosmas]

USB charging is slower as checked on my z50, there is a need for extra battery
Some months ago I lost my MH-32 charger and I was forced to use usb 
I ordered a new charger and then I found the... lost one
Maybe I am the only one with two chargers for one battery

[Kenneth Rich]

Nasos, could you look where you "found" your "lost" charger- Ive misplaced one of my Df chargers, can't find it anywhere, and I know it came back to Canada from our European rivers  cruise, about five years ago. . .