Did i made a mistake?

Jonjonfr wrote:

jjz2 wrote:

Interesting, what didn't you like about the Zfc, it seems like a pretty nice camera. To me, it reminds me of the original X-T1 a bit, which was a better size IMO than the current X-T4.

It's definitely a camera I've considered (paired with the 28 2.8) ... you can't even get them though.

Its a great camera. Its really light too. I just dont feel the same excitement as my other cameras. Also i did a test shot with GRIII and Z FC (might be bad comparison) on low light , same setting and for some reason. The files are a lot cleaner in GRIII. Its possible i just received a bad one. So i highly recommend downloading some raw files to check it but on my test it was not good for my taste.

Could be the IBIS if not on tripod?

Jonjonfr wrote:

New Day Rising wrote:

Jonjonfr wrote:

Hi All,

I usually shoot with XE2s and Pentax K3II are my main camera's. I decided i want a newer camera but i decided to go for Nikon z FC. I only took it one time for a hike but I'm just not feeling it.

What is it that you're not feeling - what is the problem?

Is one use sufficient for you to feel you've given the camera a chance?

Im thinking of exchanging it for XE-4, XT30 II, XT3/4. How is everyone's experience with the DR and AF of these cameras?

Most of my cameras are old (leica X2, xv, m8, sigma sdq, panny G85, k3II, X100, Xe2s) etc.

Thanks

J

Thats the thing, i feel like i havent giving it a chance to shine but the fun wasnt there. I took another walk in the park with son and i took a different camera with me. I guess the excitement is just not there compared to my other cameras.

The appeal of the Zfc is that its physical form is similar to older Nikon slrs like the FM, what the Nikon acolytes are droning on about.  Although it's a beautiful camera with nostalgic throwback appeal, technically it's nothing special.  I would give it a little more time before I gave up on it since shooting with something new takes a little effort. I use both Fuji and Nikon and find them both really good, but if you want to move over to Fuji I think any of the XTs, even an earlier one like the XT1 which is simpler to operate, would be a good choice.

Jonjonfr wrote:

Hi All,

I usually shoot with XE2s and Pentax K3II are my main camera's. I decided i want a newer camera but i decided to go for Nikon z FC. I only took it one time for a hike but I'm just not feeling it.

Im thinking of exchanging it for XE-4, XT30 II, XT3/4. How is everyone's experience with the DR and AF of these cameras?

Most of my cameras are old (leica X2, xv, m8, sigma sdq, panny G85, k3II, X100, Xe2s) etc.

Thanks

J

The effective DR, in practice, is AMAZING depending on your settings. I believe the DR is decent anyway but Fuji have a setting (i think in every Fuji body) called DR100, DR200 and DR400. HERE is a good video explaining how it works but it really does improve DR, especially in the HL side. In short it reduces analog gain to preserve HL DR, then uses digital gain (with increased ISO setting) to boost darker tones back to normal. The result is, IMO, a better effective DR in actual use, than even FF.

As for AF Fuji is very good. Not class leading but very good. Jack of all trades master of none type. Eye AF has been improved greatly in newer models. But there is a lot that is different between Fuji and that Nikon besides those two attributes, you will get plenty of help here if you need more info on the comparison.

Below is an example of how the DR setting changes the look of the shots, specifically how HL are rendered. Pay close attention to specular highlights on the nose. Both shot just minutes apart with identical lighting, one ceiling bulb and on-camera flash. Only difference was ISO and of course flash duration to match exposure. Both are OOC jpegs, Eterna film sim if i remember.

DR100, default

DR400 with an ISO 640 minimum

I traded my Z50 for a X-T3, it's almost the same camera as the Zfc. The lack of native lens options was a big one for me. I haven't regretted it one second.

KAAMBIC wrote:

Jonjonfr wrote:

Hi All,

I usually shoot with XE2s and Pentax K3II are my main camera's. I decided i want a newer camera but i decided to go for Nikon z FC. I only took it one time for a hike but I'm just not feeling it.

Im thinking of exchanging it for XE-4, XT30 II, XT3/4. How is everyone's experience with the DR and AF of these cameras?

Most of my cameras are old (leica X2, xv, m8, sigma sdq, panny G85, k3II, X100, Xe2s) etc.

Thanks

J

The effective DR, in practice, is AMAZING depending on your settings. I believe the DR is decent anyway but Fuji have a setting (i think in every Fuji body) called DR100, DR200 and DR400. HERE is a good video explaining how it works but it really does improve DR, especially in the HL side. In short it reduces analog gain to preserve HL DR, then uses digital gain (with increased ISO setting) to boost darker tones back to normal. The result is, IMO, a better effective DR in actual use, than even FF.

As for AF Fuji is very good. Not class leading but very good. Jack of all trades master of none type. Eye AF has been improved greatly in newer models. But there is a lot that is different between Fuji and that Nikon besides those two attributes, you will get plenty of help here if you need more info on the comparison.

Below is an example of how the DR setting changes the look of the shots, specifically how HL are rendered. Pay close attention to specular highlights on the nose. Both shot just minutes apart with identical lighting, one ceiling bulb and on-camera flash. Only difference was ISO and of course flash duration to match exposure. Both are OOC jpegs, Eterna film sim if i remember.

DR100, default

DR400 with an ISO 640 minimum

Thanks, that's impressive. I haven't used this function on one of the more recent bodies. It helps to reinforce the decision I am leaning towards that I have no need for a full frame system.

The DR100 image is by far the more interesting portrait, the second one is dull and flat in comparison.