I rented a Zf for two weeks. I was impressed by the image quality, but not more so than cameras that have comparable sensors. I was underwhelmed by the physical design, ergonomics, size, and some aspects of performance. In my view, this camera represents bandwagon-jumping ("let's offer something to customers who want visual appeal and are abandoning Nikon for Fujifilm") without really being thoughtful about the design and usability.
First, the physical and visual design, because this is obviously the major differentiator in the sea of lookalike cameras out there. Nikon wants this to feel reminiscent of the FE or FM bodies from the days of yore. I own a bunch of those, and I can put them side-by-side and compare them. The Zf fails at this; it just looks tacky next to my FE2. It totally lacks the refined, sophisticated, subtle design. It looks like a brick with leather textured plastic. It's hard to explain how and why, but despite not having much larger measurements in any specific dimension, it ends up looking and feeling much bigger. It gives the impression of being about twice the size. Some of this comes from being larger at the ends and corners; the FE2 has tapered, slender ends and the Zf is bulky and square edge-to-edge, top-to-bottom, especially in places like the LCD screen hinge. I think it's a combination of factors working together to create this impression, and it's hard to point to any one thing. Overall, it feels like Nikon had really talented designers in the 70s, and it feels like the Zf was designed by a committee or some consultants or something—someone who really lacked a deep grasp of how to make it feel right.
Ergonomically, I found a lot to dislike too. For example, most of the buttons on the back are not reachable by thumb without shifting my right-hand grip. They are placed evenly-spaced along the right side of the LCD screen instead of being placed where I can reach them. So I have to open my right hand and twist it down to get my thumb onto them—and this is on a camera that's already hard to hold because it's got slippery plastic exterior. I also agree with DPR's official review gripes—their complaints about how hard it is to access some specific oft-needed functions in the menus, for example, like the Auto ISO minimum shutter speed.
The sensor is truly great (though so are lots of other contemporary peers/competition, so this is not all that big a differentiator). It produces lovely images, clean and with great colors. Nothing to complain about here. However, I use a lot of adapted lenses, and two things stood out to me in trying to adapt lenses to the Zf. First, the IBIS performance numbers don't hold up relative to other cameras with similar CPIA stop ratings. I could not get a shake-free image at 1/500th with a 500mm lens. I have no trouble doing that on a number of other cameras; I can push my shutter speed down to 1/250th and get a percentage shake-free on my Fujifilm X-T5, which has a much smaller, much higher-resolution sensor that is far more revealing of shake. But on the Zf I was able to see at least some shake no matter what. And the IBIS was active, in case you're thinking I had accidentally disabled it; it was clearly better with it on than off, but definitely, DEFINITELY not as effective as Fuji's or Olympus's or Sony's, not even close, so don't believe the "8.5 stops" rating. These ratings are never truly comparable between brands despite being designed to be, but in this case I give it maybe 3 stops rating in reality. The second thing that was pretty poor compared to other cameras, for adapting manual-focus lenses, was the configurability for non-CPU lenses. There's no opportunity to enter a lens name to be recorded in EXIF. The only thing you can do is set the focal length for IBIS configuration, similar to how Sony cameras implement it. And also similar to Sony, you have to scroll tediously and slowly through a selection of preset choices of focal length, you can't just dial in a number of your own choosing the way you can with Fuji, Olympus, and Canon. In the Zf's case, though, it's even worse. The selection they let you choose from is just senseless. It has mostly enough choices up to 200mm, but then it just jumps to 300mm, skipping over anything between, like 250mm. Why? Lots of lenses and/or combinations of lenses and converters, including many from Nikon's back catalog, fall into this zone. But then, expecting it to also lack any settings between 300 and 400, I found 360mm was an option, also a head-scratcher—what on earth is that useful for? It's not even a sensible lens+TC combination.
Overall I found the software side of the Zf to contain a lot of head-scratching senseless decisions like that; it's just one example, but to me it exemplified a lot of other things I stumbled across, again reflecting lack of deep design thinking in bringing this thing to market.
So in conclusion, for me the Zf is a lovely high-performance sensor and processor, mounted in a bizarrely under-designed body with bizarrely under-designed ergonomics and software/firmware, and then dressed up in a costume to make people think it harkens back to an era it definitely doesn't harken back to. I think they missed the mark on this one, by a very wide margin. I'm glad I rented; I would never own one.
First, the physical and visual design, because this is obviously the major differentiator in the sea of lookalike cameras out there. Nikon wants this to feel reminiscent of the FE or FM bodies from the days of yore. I own a bunch of those, and I can put them side-by-side and compare them. The Zf fails at this; it just looks tacky next to my FE2. It totally lacks the refined, sophisticated, subtle design. It looks like a brick with leather textured plastic. It's hard to explain how and why, but despite not having much larger measurements in any specific dimension, it ends up looking and feeling much bigger. It gives the impression of being about twice the size. Some of this comes from being larger at the ends and corners; the FE2 has tapered, slender ends and the Zf is bulky and square edge-to-edge, top-to-bottom, especially in places like the LCD screen hinge. I think it's a combination of factors working together to create this impression, and it's hard to point to any one thing. Overall, it feels like Nikon had really talented designers in the 70s, and it feels like the Zf was designed by a committee or some consultants or something—someone who really lacked a deep grasp of how to make it feel right.
Ergonomically, I found a lot to dislike too. For example, most of the buttons on the back are not reachable by thumb without shifting my right-hand grip. They are placed evenly-spaced along the right side of the LCD screen instead of being placed where I can reach them. So I have to open my right hand and twist it down to get my thumb onto them—and this is on a camera that's already hard to hold because it's got slippery plastic exterior. I also agree with DPR's official review gripes—their complaints about how hard it is to access some specific oft-needed functions in the menus, for example, like the Auto ISO minimum shutter speed.
The sensor is truly great (though so are lots of other contemporary peers/competition, so this is not all that big a differentiator). It produces lovely images, clean and with great colors. Nothing to complain about here. However, I use a lot of adapted lenses, and two things stood out to me in trying to adapt lenses to the Zf. First, the IBIS performance numbers don't hold up relative to other cameras with similar CPIA stop ratings. I could not get a shake-free image at 1/500th with a 500mm lens. I have no trouble doing that on a number of other cameras; I can push my shutter speed down to 1/250th and get a percentage shake-free on my Fujifilm X-T5, which has a much smaller, much higher-resolution sensor that is far more revealing of shake. But on the Zf I was able to see at least some shake no matter what. And the IBIS was active, in case you're thinking I had accidentally disabled it; it was clearly better with it on than off, but definitely, DEFINITELY not as effective as Fuji's or Olympus's or Sony's, not even close, so don't believe the "8.5 stops" rating. These ratings are never truly comparable between brands despite being designed to be, but in this case I give it maybe 3 stops rating in reality. The second thing that was pretty poor compared to other cameras, for adapting manual-focus lenses, was the configurability for non-CPU lenses. There's no opportunity to enter a lens name to be recorded in EXIF. The only thing you can do is set the focal length for IBIS configuration, similar to how Sony cameras implement it. And also similar to Sony, you have to scroll tediously and slowly through a selection of preset choices of focal length, you can't just dial in a number of your own choosing the way you can with Fuji, Olympus, and Canon. In the Zf's case, though, it's even worse. The selection they let you choose from is just senseless. It has mostly enough choices up to 200mm, but then it just jumps to 300mm, skipping over anything between, like 250mm. Why? Lots of lenses and/or combinations of lenses and converters, including many from Nikon's back catalog, fall into this zone. But then, expecting it to also lack any settings between 300 and 400, I found 360mm was an option, also a head-scratcher—what on earth is that useful for? It's not even a sensible lens+TC combination.
Overall I found the software side of the Zf to contain a lot of head-scratching senseless decisions like that; it's just one example, but to me it exemplified a lot of other things I stumbled across, again reflecting lack of deep design thinking in bringing this thing to market.
So in conclusion, for me the Zf is a lovely high-performance sensor and processor, mounted in a bizarrely under-designed body with bizarrely under-designed ergonomics and software/firmware, and then dressed up in a costume to make people think it harkens back to an era it definitely doesn't harken back to. I think they missed the mark on this one, by a very wide margin. I'm glad I rented; I would never own one.
