ZfC / Df Intuitive Learning

[Kenneth Rich]

This last couple of weeks has been rather quiet on the NikonGear Forum and I wonder if it is in some measure indicative of the intuitive nature of these two cameras' intuitive natures of their menu composure. There is no shortage of positive criticism of the Df's intuitive menu system, which no doubt endears it to owners, but I don't think I have ever seen similar comments on the newer Nikon darling and its  intuitive nature, or lack there of. What do owners/users of both cameras think? Is the newer camera a worthy inheritor of the Df praise? The fact that one is a digital reflex system camera and the other a mirrorless camera system shouldn't come into it. I am interested in your evaluations. This is not a question demanding a comparison of the two systems' but of their  ease of use. 

[Birna Rørslett]

Coming from the Df, handling of the Z fc is very easy and offer few surprises. There are video aspects of course, but these are easy to ignore if you don't intend to do video stuff. Z fc is lighter and somewhat smaller in size, which can be beneficial ever so often. For my hands both cameras handle with ease, as I don't have large hands.

The finder of Z fc is brighter and many might consider focusing manual lenses easier with the EVF. I'm not that enthusiastic as I find using in particular slower or wide lenses on the Z fc allows less precise focusing than the Df. To be fair, the latter has a split-image screen which is really helpful for such lenses.

The biggest difference for my use is that AF lenses can more easily  be integrated with Z fc operation, whilst Df is superb with manual lenses. For me it's not either-or, but both.

[Fons Baerken]

I find them to be two completely different cameras.
I like the Df for its special rendering and indeed made for manual lenses.
The Zfc is a modern dx format mirrorless cam small size snappy with a very different output.
Somehow mirrorless always reminds me of smartphone cameras a bit one dimensional!
And so the "imperfection of dslr" seems to be more organic and therefore closer to the human nature.

[Erik Lund]

I find them to be two completely different cameras.
I like the Df for its special rendering and indeed made for manual lenses.
The Zfc is a modern dx format mirrorless cam small size snappy with a very different output.
Somehow mirrorless always reminds me of smartphone cameras a bit one dimensional!
And so the "imperfection of dslr" seems to be more organic and therefore closer to the human nature.

I have the exact same observations

[Airy]

Given the very few comments on the Zfc, I'll revive this thread.
The camera is nice and light, latter is a good contrast with the Zf and the Df too; that's the positive aspect of having more plastic in a smaller package. No stabilizer (the Df has none either), so "steady hand" becomes, again, a cardinal virtue (like Df and even more because of the reduced inertia). The Zfc is not weather-sealed, which reduces a bit its universality: rainy days are a worthwhile subject, especially if you live in Northern France and close to the Atlantic.

The good surprises:
- I was always fond of 58mm lenses on the Df. To me at least, the FL seems natural for "spontaneous shooting" and it happens that the perspective offered through the viewfinder (together with the magnifying eyepiece) is close to that of the naked eye. Well, the Z 40/2 offers about the same benefits on the Zfc. Bottom line, I liked the Z40/2 on the Df, and I'll like it even more (but for different reasons) on the Zfc.
- The high ISO pics look somewhat grainy - more than with the Zf, a bit like the Z6ii that I had for a short time with that "pepper and salt" feel. But the result is not unpleasant to the eye. See for instance the attached shot of my favourite, infinitely patient subject. Exported from the RAW file, no noise reduction, 9000 ISO, shot wide open, AF on the face.

[Airy]

Now a pitch-dark ceiling shot at ISO 28800, something I won't generally do with any camera. Again, the Zf would be better, but this one is acceptable. There is sure some loss of detail, but the picture remains balanced, no nasty color shift... f/2.5, 1/60s, it did not push my luck (with the D700 or D800, the results would be much less nice, and I would get down to 1/15s, shoot three pics in a row and select the least blurred one to maybe get something similar).

[Airy]

So yes, quite portable and usable. I'll now get a Viltrox 23/1.4 (Birna's recommendation) and go for night shots next week.

[golunvolo]

Thank you Airy. I´ve always like the look of the camera bur I already have the z50II, which I think have the exact same output?

 I´ll love to see some night shots from you if you feel like it.

[Birna Rørslett]

Z fc thrives - and handles - better with smaller lenses. The Viltrox 23mm f/1.4 or 20mm f/2.8 is about perfect, and the latter is dead cheap as well. The very wide Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 is a splendid performer, but is on the large and heavy side, thus the new Viltrox 9mm f/2.8 (awaiting my sample now) might be the ultimate superwide for the DX camera. The Voigtländer 35mm f/1.2 is small, extremely well built and finished, and its manual focus feel is superb. There is an aperture ring, like that on the Viltroxes.

Going over to the native Z Nikkors, the 28mm f/2.8 SE and 40mm f/2 SE fit the Z fc nicely and make the camera handle well. A pity though they lack the aperture ring, but there is a chrome grip ring.

Some of the lighter weight, shorter F Nikkors, such as 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8, function well on the Z fc despite the FTZ adapter.

[Birna Rørslett]

The main reason I sold off my Z50 and replaced it with the Z fc, was the finder overhang. My goal of mounting the 'X-ray' class of lenses and achieve infinity focus would not be possible due to the finder intrusion.

My black Nikon Z fc with the Rodenstock TV-Heligon 50mm f/0.75 in its new, bespoke adapter. The clearance between finder and adapter is < 0.1mm, but there are sufficient number of air molecules between the two componens so the lens won't bind or scratch the finder. Infinity focus is now reachable, at last.

[Fons Baerken]

Dont forget the small pancake zooms like the 16-50mm f/3,5~6,3 vr makes for an excellent 'street-crawler'!

[Birna Rørslett]

Agree the "kit" lens 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6  is tiny yet very capable. I use it occasionally myself. However, it's not a 'high-speed' lens by any stretch of imagination, thus often a faster lens is required.

[ColinM]

Now a pitch-dark ceiling shot at ISO 28800, something I won't generally do with any camera.

Lovely Airy