A Nikon F Film Photograph Asks: Is the Nikon Z fc Right for Me?

I’ve been happily shooting a Nikon F film SLR for the past year or so. In a nutshell, film photography in general and my Nikon F in particular have made me excited about photography in a way that digital fails to do.

That said, however, digital photography has its own strengths, and I often get out with my little Canon M50 mirrorless camera. Very often I use that camera with adapted Nikkor non-AI F-mount lenses. I’ve grown to like the manual focusing experience using old glass even on digital.

When the Nikon Z fc came out a few years ago, I was immediately smitten. It coupled with Voigtlander’s 35mm f/1.2 lens seemed like a wonderful combination that offered a manual film camera-like experience but with the conveniences of digital.

My logical side brought me back down to earth, however. If I’m going to shoot digital, I reasoned, shouldn’t I just use a modern digital camera in its modern native form, boring as it may be, rather than a digital camera that tries to mimic a film camera? If I want that fully manual film experience, shouldn’t I just go for the real thing and stick with the Nikon F I already own and love using?

I keep careful track of my exposure settings when I use both my film and digital cameras. With film, I’m having to write down everything, of course: date and time, exposure speed, aperture, and film stock. When I use adapted film SLR lenses on my Canon M50, however, the camera captures everything and writes that metadata to the file... everything, that is, except aperture settings. I lose metadata about that one key corner of the exposure triangle if I don’t write it down, something that I don’t always feel like doing.

With my kit zoom lens on my Canon, my one and only modern digital camera lens, I of course get the full benefit of all metadata being recorded to file, but it’s not exactly my favorite lens in the world. I’d love to have another modern lens for my Canon. Part of me feels like my best bet is to invest just under $300 in a modern prime lens with normal focal length for my Canon M50, something like a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens. With that lens, I could easily switch back and forth from autofocus to manual focus, and my aperture settings would get recorded with all the other metadata.

I like using my M50: it’s enabled me to do good work, and I’m reluctant to give up on a camera that has been a reliable tool for me. But a good part of me is also reluctant to invest even another penny into a system that I know is on its way out.

Lenses available for the Nikon Z fc, on the other hand, make that system a very tempting alternative. In addition to its old-school cosmetics, the Voigtlander 35/1.2’s electrical contacts and its ability to communicate with the camera body is a *major* selling point for me in favor of that lens in particular. Moreover, I’d get a camera and lens combo that, on face value at least, looks like a joy to use.

On the downside, however, I’d have to shift my workflow that I’ve established around Canon’s ecosystem. I currently use Canon’s Digital Photo Professional to edits raw files, and I’d have to install and learn Nikon’s NX Studio. It’s not a huge deal for me to do so, but it’s a disruption nonetheless. For a variety of reasons, I’m very much unwilling to purchase anything like Adobe Lightroom. I do only minimal postproduction editing anyway.

I’ve also thought about going the full frame mirrorless route, something like the Nikon Z5. I'd get all the benefits of full frame, and, with an adaptor, I'd be able to use my non-AI F-mount lenses as they were designed to be used. But what’s on the market now doesn’t excite me, and I’d hate to plow a good sum of money into something I’m not really excited about. The rumored full-frame version of the Nikon Z fc seems like it’s worth waiting for, but I have a feeling that it’ll have a high price and will give me a serious case of sticker shock.

If I invested now in a Nikon Z fc, I’d get something that looks cool, as silly as that may sound, and offers the kind of shooting experience I have grown to like with the added benefit of lens communicating with camera body. But I feel like making that investment would mean I’d be giving up any plans to go the full frame route at least for a while. Instead, I’d be substituting one APS-C camera, my current Canon M50, with another, which logically seems kind of dumb to me especially since my Canon M50 is a solid performer overall.

I find myself caught in a dilemma, and I could use some outside perspective that may tip the scales one way or another.

Especially to those of you that have a Nikon Z fc and Voigtlander’s 35mm f/1.2 lens, how do you like the combo? Is there anything that really stands out? Do you have any unexpected dislikes?

Since you are already proficient with digital photography, go for the Z fc. The way a camera looks and feels is important to your attitude and success with it.

I'd consider the D700, D3, D800, D800E, D810, D850 as all these will work fully with AI Nikkors. These cameras all you to keep an internal manual focus database of focal length and maximum aperture, which will appear in your EXIF.

I've got a D3 along with a beautiful 1979 50mm f/2.0 AI Nikkor that works great.

There's also the Fuji X system which has the classic style many people like.

Also, there's Leica M which also has the classic style.

Studio NX is nice. It's my go-to for RAW. I don't use lightroom. I use gimp for anything afterward.

TL;DR.

Digital is better than film in every way.

”Film forces me to slow down.” The only way this is true, kind-of, is that once your shoot a film frame you don’t know whether it worked for a week (or until you process the film and print it yourself). Did that, for decades. I’ve taken just as long with digital shots as I ever did with my Hasselblad or 5x7 cameras. The difference is with digital I get to say “oh, s#..” and redo right away and not lose a once-in-a-lifetime experience. If you are not slowing yourself down to deliberately practice your craft with digital that is on you, not on the technology.

”Film looks different.” You are right. It looks worse, if you want a lifelike reproduction. If you like the graininess and limited color palette of film, great. You can get that with any number of “film simulations.”

Etc., ad nauseam. I realize I will set off a storm of how-dare-yous here, but don’t rationalize your decision not to move to an arguably better technology with nostalgic look-backs to a technology that is limited in every way that matters.

As a guy who cut his teeth on a battered FE and spent a month's worth of salary back then (Army days) on a used but better condition FM2 ...

Yeah. U r gonna LOVE the Z fc, as I do.

Currently $600 during the latest Nikon refurb sale. https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/refurbished-mirrorless-cameras/1671b/z-fc-refurbished.html

Add the new Z DX 24mm f/1.7 and for $900 u have a more versatile version of the wildly popular Fujifilm X100V with much better AF (I own both, and since the DX 24mm came out, I basically leave the X100V at home.)

My first camera was a Nikon FM. I now have a Zfc with the kit 16-50 lens. I can't sepak to the Voigtlander lens, but using the Zfc makes me very happy. Moving the dials for exposure compensation, shutter speed, and aperture is something I can do without raising the camera to my eye, and this permits minimal disengagement from my interactions (I usually take photos of other people while spending time with them, or of scenes while walking with other people). I keep reading how much more ergonomic the Z50 is, but to my hands the Zfc feels in the hand like what my hands learned a camera feels like. The retro design of the Zfc definitely increased  my joy of taking photos.

As someone who has the Z6II,  Z7,  Z50 and Zfc,  I can tell you that the Zfc is a whole lot of fun. I use adapted lenses and native Z mount lenses.

It does look like a fun camera.

I loved my FM2n back in the film days.

I'd still be using the FM2n if digital cameras hadn't come around.

capanikon wrote:

I'd consider the D700, D3, D800, D800E, D810, D850 as all these will work fully with AI Nikkors. These cameras all you to keep an internal manual focus database of focal length and maximum aperture, which will appear in your EXIF.

With the Z cameras you could also record FL and maximum Aperture in the EXIF if used with the FTZ.

In my view, using a DSLR for manual focusing is not fun, because the modern matt screens of DSLR are optimized for brightness, not for manual focus.

I've got a D3 along with a beautiful 1979 50mm f/2.0 AI Nikkor that works great.

There's also the Fuji X system which has the classic style many people like.

Also, there's Leica M which also has the classic style.

In my view, the best choice is the Z6 or Z6ii (with FTZ). If you have used a M50 you already have used a camera with modern controls. Plus sides: FX sensor,  IBIS, Minus side: No 'classic' appearance

I would recommend if possible that you go to a store and handle the Zfc first. I owned one for a while but ultimately sold it. It was a great camera but I expected the build quality of an FM and the Zfc felt more plastic to me. I ultimately got a used Df and that scratches the digitial/film mash-up perfectly. Voightlander has some great manual focus lenses in F mount too. Manual focusing will be much harder with the Df but it can be done. Don't get me wrong, Zfc is a nice camera but it didn't feel much like a film camera to me.

dleuen1 wrote:

I expected the build quality of an FM and the Zfc felt more plastic to me. I ultimately got a used Df and that scratches the digitial/film mash-up perfectly.

I've heard the Z fc is plasticy elsewhere as well. Haven't used one myself.

The Df looks like a jumbled monstrosity to me.

If Nikon wants to make a digital FM, then they should make a _DIGITAL FM_ ... you know ... make it just like the FM, which is a pretty perfect camera.

No autoexposure. No autofocus. Extremely simple. It's an absolutely brilliant camera that exemplifies how "less is more."

I do not expect Nikon to do this, coz of fear. Fear that they will turn off those who expect autoexposure, autofocus, video, etc.

But a guy can dream.

To truly create a digital FM would involve risk and Nikon is often (but not always, e.g. D1, Z 9)  too risk-averse to do that.

Gregory Gross wrote:

When the Nikon Z fc came out a few years ago, I was immediately smitten.

I'm prone to liking vintage stuff of all kinds, and the Zfc appeals for its nostalgia look.

Then, I hefted one at a camera store, and it just felt "cheap." So, if tempted to get one, I'd try to find one on the shelf somewhere to try out.

I am looking at this from the point of view of a former film photographer who owns both the Nikon FM2n (inspiration for the Zfc) and the Nikon F801S (a.k.a. N8008S) which is a predecessor to the modern Nikon digital ILC cameras. I bought the F801S about a year after I got the FM2n. Once I started using the F801S I only occasionally used the FM2n. I much preferred the way the F801S handled.

Modern digital Nikon cameras are based on a design that has been refined for decades. Zfc owners seem to really like their cameras. I have no interest in it.

If you can actually try one out in a store then you can figure out if the Zfc’s design works for you or not. Good luck with making a decision.