Compared to the entry-level full frame mirror-less cameras of Nikon’s nearest competitors, the Canon EOS RP, the Sony a7II, and the Panasonic Lumix S5, The Nikon Z5 beats them all in both technical specifications and, importantly, price. And while the differences in the spec sheets are in some places marginal, there is a clear winner in the end.

So let’s compare the Nikon Z5 with the very similar cameras mentioned previously, with specific focus on what makes the Z5 the one to buy.

Specifications of the Nikon Z5

• Image Sensor: 24.3 MP FX BSI Sensor, 5.9µ pixel size
• Sensor Size: 35.9 × 23.9mm
• Resolution: 6016 x 4016
• Native ISO Sensitivity: 100-51,200
• In-Body Image Stabilization: 5-Axis
• Processor: EXPEED 6
• Dust Reduction: Yes
• Weather Sealing: Yes
• Body Material: Magnesium Alloy
• Shutter Speeds: 1/8000 – 30 seconds
• Shutter Durability: 200,000 cycles, self-diagnostic shutter
• Storage: 2× SD UHS-II
• Viewfinder: 3.69 Million Dot OLED Electronic Viewfinder
• Viewfinder Coverage: 100%
• Viewfinder Magnification: 0.8×
• Continuous Shooting Speed: 4.5 FPS
• Built-in Flash: No
• Autofocus System: Hybrid PDAF, 273 Focus Points
• AF Sensitivity Range: -2 to +19 EV (-3.5 to +19 EV with low-light AF)
• LCD Screen: Touch-enabled 3.2″ Tilting LCD with 1.040 Million Dots
• Movie Mode: 4K UHD @ 30 FPS, 1.7x crop
• HDMI Output: 8-bit 4:2:0, no N-Log
• Silent Photography Mode: Yes
• Intervalometer: Yes
• Focus Stacking: Yes
• In-Camera HDR Capability: Yes
• WiFi / Bluetooth: Yes
• Battery Type: EN-EN15c
• Battery Life: 470 shots (CIPA)
• USB Standard: Type-C 3.1
• Weight and Dimensions: 590 g (Body Only); 134 × 100.5 × 69.5 mm
• Price: $996

Experienced photo nerds will likely browse that spec sheet and settle on the last line of data – the price. It’s surprisingly low.

That we can get a camera this good for $996 is simply astonishing. And while $996 is a lot of money, no doubt, I can see by the specs that the camera we get for that money could satisfy the image-making requirements of most photographers for a long time to come. With a spec sheet that good, there’s very little reason to upgrade.

Nikon Z5 Mirrorless Camera

Buy the Nikon Z5 featured in this article from our partner, B&H Photo. Your purchase helps support the objective reviews and thoughtful content found on Casual Photophile.

The Nikon Z5 Compared to the Canon EOS RP

Canon has their own entry-level full frame mirror-less camera, called the Canon EOS RP. And it’s a very good camera. But when we really dive into its spec sheet we start to see that it falls just short of the Nikon in a few key areas. Here’s a list.

Nikon’s Z5 has in-body 5-axis sensor-shift image stabilization which works in both stills photography and video modes. The Canon EOS RP does not have in-body image stabilization whatsoever. Instead, Canon offers lenses with built-in optical image stabilization (IS lenses). These lenses are bigger and more expensive than those without IS. When shooting video (but not in stills photography), the Canon uses software-based digital image stabilization. This sounds neat, but it also slightly degrades image quality.

Nikon’s Z5 can shoot 4K video at 30 fps, where Canon’s EOS RP records 4K only at 24fps. While this isn’t a massive win for the Nikon, it’s still a win. Both cameras, incidentally, record 4K at a 1.7 crop factor, which is a big reason to consider upgrading to a higher level camera – but now we’re getting away from entry-level pricing.

The Nikon’s electronic viewfinder has higher magnification than Canon’s, 0.8x compared to 0.7x, and the Nikon’s is made up of 3.69 million dots where Canon’s is 2.36 million. Another win for Nikon.

The Canon only has a single SD card slot compared to the Nikon’s two slots. This is important for anyone who wants to use this camera professionally, as it’s critical to have redundant backups of images that can’t be replaced. Think, weddings, engagement photos, senior portraits – working photographer stuff.

Nikon’s camera costs $5 less than Canon’s. Okay, that really shouldn’t factor. But again, that’s a free cup of coffee or two if we choose the Nikon.

The Canon EOS RP does actually edge out the Nikon in a few lines of the spec sheet. Its LCD display can flip entirely around to a front-facing configuration where the Nikon’s only tilts up and down, and the Canon’s image sensor offers a couple of additional megapixels (Canon’s EOS RP sensor records 26.2MP compared to Nikon’s 24.3MP). Canon’s burst mode fires at 5 FPS compared to Nikon’s 4.5 FPS.

For me, the data points dominated by the Nikon are more critical than those claimed by the Canon. And that’s why I chose the Z5.

The Nikon Z5 Compared to the Sony a7II

The camera that I used professionally before switching to the Nikon Z5 was, in fact, the Sony a7II. And I couldn’t be happier with the decision to switch. While Sony’s camera is excellent, the Nikon is just better. Here’s where we see that on the spec sheet.

Nikon’s camera does 4K video and Sony’s does not. It only shoots as high as 1080p. That’s worse than the Canon and an easy win for Nikon.

Nikon’s electronic viewfinder is better than Sony’s, too. Sony’s EVF has the same resolution as the Canon EOS RP, at 2.36m dots compared to the Nikon’s 3.69m.

The Nikon, as already mentioned, has two SD card slots. The Sony, like the Canon, has one.

Possibly a subjective assessment here, but after years of shooting the a7II I’m comfortable reporting that the ergonomics of the Sony are cramped and painful, especially for extended shoots. The Nikon is an ergonomic dream. Its grip, balance, size, and weight are all perfect, and its button layout is intuitive and clean.

The Sony’s finish and durability aren’t as high quality as the Nikon’s. My Sony’s rubber thumb grip peeled away after a year, and the SD card slot door has always been flimsy and weak.

But most damning of all for Sony’s machine is the price. The Sony a7II has a list price of $1,398. That’s $400 more than the Nikon Z5. So, you pay more for… less?

The Nikon Z5 Compared to the Panasonic Lumix S5

Of all the competition on this list, it’s the Panasonic Lumix S5 that comes closest to toppling the Nikon Z5. But that really shouldn’t be surprising, considering that the Lumix S5 has a list price of $1,997 (nearly double the cost of the Nikon). And even though Panasonic seems to run a perpetual sale on the S5, that sale price still never drops below $1,497 ($500 more than the Nikon).

This higher price point realistically places the Lumix S5 as competition for Nikon’s up-specced Nikon Z6, rather than the entry-level Z5. But I include it in this comparison to better illustrate the point that we get a lot for our money with the Nikon Z5. It even competes with cameras above its class.

When we compare the Nikon Z5 to the Panasonic Lumix S5, the only appreciable difference is that the Lumix can shoot 4K video at 60FPS. If we’re happy with 4K video at 30FPS, the Nikon does that for $500 less.

Sample Images Made with the Nikon Z5

(Just imagine what a good photographer could do with one!)

Final Thoughts

Truth be told, all of the cameras mentioned in this article are amazing machines. As I said to my friend when he asked which full frame mirror-less camera he should buy; nobody makes a bad full frame mirror-less camera. The Canon EOS RP, the Sony a7II, the Panasonic S5, and the Nikon Z5 are all world-class, and any of them would do anything that the everyday photo nerd requires. But if I had to pick one, it’s the Nikon.

If only by a narrow margin, the Nikon Z5 is truly the best value camera on the market right now. It’s more feature-dense than the entry-level full frame mirror-less camera from Canon, and a much better camera (and value) than the Sony a7II. The only camera that could beat it is the Panasonic Lumix S5, but that camera’s priced so high that I find it unfair to measure it against the Z5.

The best endorsement that I can give a product is to use that product myself. The Nikon Z5 is the camera that I chose. And I chose it because, simply put, it’s the best value full frame mirror-less interchangeable lens camera available today.

Nikon Z5 Mirrorless Camera

Buy the Nikon Z5 featured in this article from our partner, B&H Photo. Your purchase helps support the objective reviews and thoughtful content found on Casual Photophile.

Shop for a Used Nikon Z5 on eBay

Get the best deals for a used Nikon Z5 at eBay.com. Your purchase helps support the objective reviews and thoughtful content found on Casual Photophile.

Follow Casual Photophile on Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

The post The Nikon Z5 is the Best Value Full Frame Mirror-less Camera Available Today appeared first on Casual Photophile.

It was a Nikon D7000 and for many years it was the only camera I owned. I still consider it one of Nikon’s best cameras – unbelievably well built and packed with a foolproof meter and excellent crop sensor. But from the moment a few weeks earlier when I’d shot my first roll of film (Fuji Superia in an all-but-destroyed Minolta) the writing was on the wall. I wanted to shoot film, and despite years of helping me become a better, more patient photographer, I was ready to drop my faithful digital camera like a bad habit. 

In the name of all things analog, I laid my D7000 as a sacrifice on the celluloid altar. I think I got $300 for the camera. It was enough to buy a Mamiya RB67 and a couple of lenses. I think I ran a total of five rolls of film through the Mamiya before it too was sold. I didn’t spend much time thinking about that camera after it left, but I often thought back to the D7000. 

Three years after selling my digital camera I found myself in the market for another. Between my time working in product photography studios I discovered that taking quality photos for my articles wasn’t easy or cheap without a digital camera. The process of researching which digital camera would work for me quickly became exhausting. Without meaning to sound trite, the terminology of digital imaging bores me to tears. Sensors, megapixels, processors, LCD screens – all these things are supremely uninteresting to me. Two people having a conversation about them is a better sleep aid than a cup of Chamomile tea spiked with Tylenol PM. 

Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t have a problem with digital cameras. Especially these days, they are the most capable imaging machines. And while I have my own opinions regarding the digital versus film argument, I have little interest in that never-ending debate. But digital cameras are boring things. They’ve always been uninspired, homogenized products, with a design ethos that survives from the nineties and has only in the last few years been challenged by new formats and upstart models. Canon’s entire approach since their adoption of autofocus has been delivering highly capable and advanced but supremely boring camera bodies. And Nikon has been making different versions of the F5 for 25 years. If I counted the number of digital cameras that struck me as having an interesting or inspired design, I wouldn’t need more than three or four fingers. But design isn’t everything – just ask anyone that uses Sony cameras. 

I had to remind myself of that fact while browsing the used market for my own digital camera. My needs were simple: something to use for product photos and perhaps for some faster lens reviews. I knew I wanted something full frame and the investment in Nikon lenses helped narrow down the potential brands. My small budget narrowed down the options even further. I settled on the Nikon D700, which by 2019 was into its second decade of existence. Eventually I found one that had been used by a professional as his backup body, meaning it was in excellent shape and had relatively few shutter actuations. Three hundred euros and a few days later I was holding my new old digital camera. 

In Craig’s recent article on the Nikon F100 he (quite correctly) called the D700 a relic in the digital world. But we’re in the relic business here at Casual Photophile, and a camera with the pedigree of the D700 deserves its due, even in 2020. So I thought I would share my experiences with the camera, where it’s worked for me and where it hasn’t.

A brief history of the Nikon D700

By 2005 Nikon was falling far behind Canon in the race for digital supremacy. For most of the decade, Canon had released both professional and compact-professional camera bodies with increasing amounts of capability and sophistication. Released way back in 2002, the Canon EOS 1Ds was the first to have a full frame sensor with 11.1 megapixels. The 5D Mark II debuted around the same time as the Nikon D700, also with a full-frame sensor, but this time with a far greater number of megapixels, 21.1! 

At the same time, Nikon was a company in second place with competitors starting to gain ground. Professional Nikon users were still shooting either the flagship 4.1 megapixel D2H or the 10.2 megapixel D200, both of which still used the company’s crop-sensor DX format. 

Their first shot at closing the gap was 2007’s D3. This new flagship camera was Nikon’s first with their new full-frame FX format. It was also the first to use Nikon’s new 32-bit Expeed processor and a new sensor with 12 megapixels. At the same time they released the D300, which was meant to be the top-of-class crop-sensor DSLR. The D3 showed Nikon’s commitment to professionals, and the FX system opened up DSLRs to decades of Nikkor lenses.

But an even bigger surprise was the release of the D700 only 11 months later. 

Technically the D700 is classified as a compact professional camera, but it would be more accurate to simply call it D3 Jr. It has the same EXPEED image processor as well as the 12.1 megapixel sensor. While the imaging between the two cameras is the same, the D700 lacks some of the D3’s functionality – namely that it’s shutter is good for half as many actuations (150K to the D3’s 300K), a slower fps rate, only one card slot and a different viewfinder that shows 5 percent less than the one on the D3. As compensation, the D700 offered over the D3 a pop-up flash and a self-cleaning sensor.

At $3,500 (in 2020 dollars) the D700 wasn’t a cheap camera and wasn’t aimed at the consumer market. The D700 offered working photographers the same capabilities of the D3 in a smaller package and with 22 percent less weight.

The spec sheet of the D700 was top of the line in 2008, but today it pales in comparison to Nikon’s current lineup, including the most basic FX-class entry. This has been good news for those of us looking for a full frame DSLR on the cheap, but are we really missing out by not having a D780 or D850? That’s what I’ll try to answer with my experiences with the camera. 

Build quality and design

Build quality is probably the only category in which I think the D700 actually beats out the newer Nikon cameras. This camera exists solely within Nikon’s “absolute unit” approach to camera design. While the weight will differ, there’s not a ton of difference between holding this, a D3 or even an F5. It wasn’t until I held Nikon’s newest DSLRs that I realized the extent to which manufacturers have moved toward light, nimble cameras. The D700 is neither of those things. Yes, it’s lighter than the D3, but put anything more than a small prime on the D700 and you’ll wish you had a wrist strap as well. The advantage to this is that the D700 feels like it was built to take abuse. 

From a design perspective, there’s not a lot to drool over. Nikon’s cameras (non-mirrorless) have generally all looked identical since the mid-nineties. Maybe that’s due to the fact that it’s more economical to produce camera lineups this way, or maybe Giorgetto Giugiaro has been designing Nikon’s cameras for too long. Regardless of the reason, the D700 isn’t a beautiful camera. It’s ergonomic and effective, but it won’t be the inspiration for any love ballads or even find its way onto an ironic t-shirt. As far as design and personality goes, the D700 is more Bill Lumbergh than Bill Blass.

Shooting experience and performance

When I first bought the D700 it was for taking photos for my articles. But it quickly became more than just a product camera. It doesn’t take too many rolls of film to hit home just how expensive shooting film really is. That’s not all bad – it certainly makes me think more about my subjects and budgeting my exposures. But the cost-per-frame often doesn’t give me too much confidence to experiment with exposure.

Last summer while photographing waterfalls I took both the D700 and my F4 loaded with Ektachrome. I really wanted a good photo on Ektachrome, but I knew that I’d spent $15 on the roll and that it would be a challenging exposure. Enter the D700, here I could blast away until I found the composition and exposure settings I liked, then copy those settings to the F4 and take my shot. This has made the D700 a valuable tool for my photography (even if the same could be said about every digital camera).

Other types of photography have also gotten easier because of the D700. I’ve always been a fan of long exposures and nighttime photography. There’s something really zen to walking around Berlin at night, setting up the camera, and dialing in my photos through trial and error. To do the same with Cinestill and a Minolta might give me cool results, but the photographic process would be much more intensive and defeat the purpose of the exercise. I’ve also done my first panoramic photos with the D700, taking 5 to 7 vertical images and stitching them together in post. It’s just a quirky thing I enjoy trying out, and I’ve only felt comfortable messing with the process using my D700.

“But it only has 12 megapixels!”

If we were to rank the most prominent subjects of modern camera reviews, debates and arguments, sensor size and pixel count stand above the rest. The unspoken consensus is that more megapixels equals more resolution, which is good for a number of things like file size, image detail, moire, print sizes and more. Most importantly it’s a single number that’s easy to generalize and turn into a catch all metric for digital camera quality. 

So if more megapixels means a better camera, wouldn’t that make the 12.1 megapixel D700 the equivalent of a 30-year-old that still talks about their high school sports triumphs? Once impressive, but clearly past its prime?

Nah. I think 12 megapixels is enough for most of us. 

We often talk about the number of megapixels without considering their quality, or the sensor they’re squeezed onto. And the sensor the Nikon D700 uses is really excellent, with really wonderful color and high saturation. As someone who was ready to die on the hill of “nothing can beat film,” I have to admit that I love what I’ve gotten out of this camera.

We also all seem to have an unspoken agreement that we insist on being able to print our photos at billboard size while ignoring that a shockingly low number of us are actually printing photos anymore. Yes, it’s true that you would struggle to get quality 20×30 inch print with a three digit dpi from the D700. When it comes to shooting film, are the scans we get back typically more than what the D700 gives us in RAW format? Very rarely.

While we’re on the subject of digital negatives I’ll admit a dirty little secret: I really love working with RAW images. I know it’s not as romantic as the darkroom and burning and dodging in “real life,” but after getting back bad scans of consumer film and being frustrated at their limitations in post-production, working with the flexible RAW files from the D700 feels luxury. And while editing thousands of RAW files, I’ve been amazed at the usable amount of data I’ve been able to pull out of shadows.

What I don’t like about the Nikon D700

As I said before, this is a heavy camera. Lugging it around with a zoom lens for more than an hour is a struggle. I’ve looked at getting a vertical grip for extra balance, but the thought of more weight frightens me. It’s true that the extra weight stabilizes the camera during use, but it’s also true that you lose weight when you have the flu. Then again, I seem to gravitate to heavy cameras like the husky-jean wearing Nikon F4 and Mamiya RB67, so it feels a little phony to dock points for girth.

If I were to pick out a single thing that I wish the D700 had it would be a lower native ISO. I look at the D850 and Z7 shooting as low as ISO 64 with lustful jealousy as I’m relegated to only shooting as low as ISO 200. Still, this complaint is really nitpicky. I’ve never been unhappy with any of the images I’ve shot at ISO 200 and I often struggle to find any noise.

Conclusion: The pros far outweigh the cons

When I bought my Nikon D700, it was the cheapest full-frame Nikon I could find. I didn’t expect to use it for anything more than product photography, and didn’t expect it to wow me as much as my F4 or even my F100. But in that time I’ve used it for product photography, newborn photography, landscapes, long exposures and as a daily walkaround camera. And it was with the D700 that I’ve made most of my favorite images over the last two years. 

Yes, it’s not as advanced as the D850. It’s not as dynamic as the mirrorless Z series cameras. It’s quantifiably inferior to nearly every other new camera made by Nikon and many other manufacturers. But qualitatively it’s not so cut and dry. Underneath its Milquetoast shell beats the heart of a survivor. 

The Nikon D700 does 98 percent of what 99 percent of us actually need. And it does it for ten percent of the cost of cameras that provide the other two percent. I’ll never sell my D700, and not only because I’ll never get back what the camera’s worth. I have no doubt that this camera will keep clicking for many years to come. And unless I suddenly turn into a completely different photographer, there will always be a need for it in my camera bag.

Get your own Nikon D700 on eBay

Find one at our shop, F Stop Cameras

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

The post An Unscientific Review of the Nikon D700 appeared first on Casual Photophile.

I used the camera during a week-long vacation to Walt Disney World in Florida. I used it on a beach for snapshots, for low-light shooting and long exposures at night, and as a macro camera chasing bees and fireflies. I spent a week with it shooting nothing but street photography. I took it (and my kids) to the zoo and shot portraits of the animals (by which I mean my kids). The quick takeaway – the Leica Q2 is a compact camera with an excellent full-frame sensor, an impressive lens, and intuitive classic controls. It’s a camera that can do it all with virtually no exceptions and just a few drawbacks (though one of them is significant). 

What is the Leica Q2?

Leica’s original Q released in 2015 and showed the world what Leica could do in the compact, fixed-lens digital camera segment. Listed at about half the price of the interchangeable lens digital M rangefinder, it was and remains an incredibly popular camera. Leica even released an aesthetically minimized version in the Leica Q-P earlier this year. 

Now four years after the original’s debut Leica’s released the improved Q2. Its brand new full frame CMOS sensor nearly doubles the original Q’s resolution, packing (a ridiculous) 47.3 megapixels into every frame. New weather sealing protects the juicy innards from dust and splashing water. The electronic viewfinder (EVF) is a much-improved 3.68 megapixel OLED unit boasting improved processing for as-lose-to-lag-free operation as we can get, and the battery pack has been upgraded to the one found in the pro-spec Leica SL (BP-SCL4). This increases shots-per-charge by 30% over the original Q, and though I didn’t count my shots, I know that a single charge repeatedly carried me through two full days at Disney World.

Improvements noted, many core features carry over from the Q. Like the earlier camera, the Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame digital camera. It’s got everything a modern digital camera should have, and plenty that many don’t. The previously-mentioned 47.3 megapixel sensor is fronted by an incredibly versatile hybrid shutter capable of a top mechanical speed of 1/2000th of a second and an electronic shutter capable of a mind-blowing top speed of 1/40,000th of a second. Sitting in front of this shutter is the camera’s 28mm F/1.7 Aspherical Leica Summilux wide-angle lens equipped with automatic optical image stabilization. 

These core specifications are already impressive, and the extra stuff packed into this body elevate the package above nearly any competitor product. There’s an incredible EVF, ISO range of 50-50,000, a 3” LCD touchscreen, a mechanically activated macro mode, manual controls of aperture and shutter speed plus available shutter-priority, aperture-priority, and full auto mode, a burst mode capable of a blistering 20 frames per second, 4K video (no external jacks), a hot shoe, and a tripod mount. 

Styling and Build 

What is possibly most stunning about all of these features is the compact and virtually featureless body into which they are all packed. Those who value minimalism in design will adore the Leica Q2. Like its predecessor, the Leica Q, it’s a visually sparse camera. Stylistically cleaner than even the original “Bauhaus” cameras of the film-burning Leica M series, there’s no digital camera as elegant as this. But elegance can also be severe.

Offered only in anodized black (at the moment – Leica typically releases silver and other special editions later in their cameras’ lifecycles), it’s a stealthy machine. Aside from the red dot adhered to the front, there’s very little on this camera that shouts “Leica,” or makes any kind of statement. 

It’s a dense and solid machine, feeling every bit as robust as the sixty-year-old mechanical Leica’s we film freaks know and love. I assume it’s made out of a mix of alloys; Leica says magnesium, but I’d also accept adamantium. I didn’t drop mine or scratch it to test. But during a particularly troublesome egress out of a sopping Pirates of the Caribbean boat, during which both the camera and my four-year-old daughter were hanging around my neck, it did swing around on its strap and hit me hard in the kidneys. It felt like passing a stone. 

In similar situations aboard the other torture vessels of Splash Mountain and Kali River Rapids, the camera was splashed copiously. I cringed slightly with every dousing, before remembering that the Q2 has earned an IP52 rating (having an IP52 certificate means that the device is protected from limited dust ingress and protected from water spray less than 15 degrees from vertical). I didn’t bring a protractor with me to Disney World, but the Leica Q2 did not fail.

Ergonomics and Usability 

The camera’s strict adherence to its no-frills aesthetic tickles the eyeballs, but tortures the wrist. The Leica Q2 weighs 718 grams, which is 78 grams more than the earlier Leica Q and more than 200 grams heavier than the Q2’s nearest competitor, the tragically-named Sony RX1R II. This weight, and the fact that the Leica Q2 features no front grip, creates an oblique feeling that it’s always trying to escape. On the back of the camera exists a precious indent fit only for the tiniest of thumbs, but it does little to inspire confidence.

The only thing that keeps this decidedly weighty camera from slipping out of the fingers is the diamond-patterned grip material that’s spread across the available space on the front and halfway along the sides of the camera. An additional indent on the front of the camera could have retained the Q2’s sleek, unbroken curves while also providing a handhold, but it’s likely that a lack of internal space precluded this option. In the end, the Leica Q2 is a camera to be held with two hands.

But as far as ergonomics are concerned, this is the camera’s only major shortcoming. In all other ways the Leica Q2 is a masterclass in usability and mechanical design. 

All dials, buttons, knobs, switches, levers, and controls sit exactly where they need to be, and all actuate with incredible precision. The mechanical macro switch, which twists and extends, revealing a second focus scale from within the seams of the lens barrel, is a guilty pleasure. The dampened smoothness as it slides into place is the kind of mechanical actuation that this website was built to obsess over. It is very pleasant. 

The back of the camera features refreshingly few controls. There’s a Play button for reviewing images, a Function button, a Menu button, and a directional pad. The menus contained within this camera are, similar to the Leica CL, direct, uncluttered, and uncomplicated. Take note, Sony.

The shutter speed dial is easily flickable with a finger or thumb. The aperture ring is where we expect it to be and actuates delightfully in 1/3rd stop increments. Though the camera’s autofocus mode is nearly flawless, some users will prefer manual focus. A manual focus tab on the underside of the lens is unlocked with a fingertip, which activates whichever manual focus aid the user has selected (magnification, focus peaking), after which it glides along like any manual focus Leica lens made in the past fifty years. Settling this tab back into its locked position automatically reactivates autofocus. This is smart. 

AF works extremely well. Faster slightly than the original Q, and much faster than the Leica M10 (that’s a joke – the flagship Leica rangefinder can’t autofocus) it offers multiple modes including subject tracking, face recognition, multi-field and single zone (225 fields). My favored method was to set the zone for the central focusing dot, set the back button focus to the thumb function button, and use the tried and true focus lock, recompose, shoot method. It’s also possible to simply tap the LCD screen on the back, after which the camera will focus where you tapped and take the photo. It’s like magic. Even when I forayed into the other methods (AF systems that I typically never use) I found nothing to complain about. I’m coming from the world of film cameras and manual focus – this thing is like stepping into a self-driving, supersonic hovercraft with complementary brick oven pizza.

The camera’s many programmable function buttons can be set to control whatever the photographer deems to be the most important parameters (as mentioned, mine were set to back-button AE and AF lock, and ISO control), and using these becomes second nature. The offset rear dial (used in aperture-priority mode to control Exposure Compensation) is slightly too offset, but forgivable since it is literally the only thing I have to complain about. 

Simply put, the Leica Q2 is a camera that works the way that a camera should straight out of the box. And if the photographer picks it up and finds a few controls aren’t mapped to his or her liking, well, he or she can simply map them until they’re correct. For users who grew up on film cameras or users who appreciate tactile, direct control, the Leica Q2 is hard to beat. 

Raising the camera to one’s eye automatically activates the Electronic Viewfinder (EVF). As mentioned, this OLED EVF is impressive, with 3.68 megapixels, increased sharpness and contrast compared with its predecessor, and slightly higher magnification as well (0.76x). It displays as much or as little information as the photographer desires, from a full display readout to simply a straight frame of what the camera sees. There’s no lag in good light and only minor lag in low light conditions. It’s without question the best EVF I’ve ever used. 

Lens, Sensor, and Image Quality

If you can’t make a good image with a Leica Q2, it’s not the camera’s fault. The lens, sensor, and software all combine to create digital images that are excellent (though not perfect, and in certain situations, not great). 

The 28mm F/1.7 Summilux lens is comprised of eleven elements in nine groups, with three aspherical elements. Optical image stabilization smooths things out at speeds under 1/60th of a second, and stays deactivated at faster speeds. This means we get the sharpest, cleanest images possible at all shutter speeds. The camera uses significant software correction when making both JPEGS and even raw DNG files. This does not bother me, personally, as the final image is typically all I care about when making images. If the end product looks good, I don’t much care how we got there. 

There’s some vignetting and extremely light chromatic aberration when shot wide open at F/1.7, and at larger apertures the lens also exhibits softness in the corners of the frames. However, stopped down to F/4 and smaller there’s nothing to complain about in good light.

The Q2’s sensor combines with the lens to make raw files that are packed with detail. Exposure latitude is strong, and dynamic range is good. We’re seeing results that are just slightly less impressive than the newest DSLRs, which is truly impressive in a camera of this size. And any substandard results only show in low light situations. Generally speaking, higher megapixel sensors tend to suffer more noise in low light, high ISO shooting. The Leica Q2 is no different. It is not a superlative low light shooter. While it’s technically capable of shooting at ISO 50000, images made at any ISO higher than 6400 are (to me) unusable. Luckily, with the incredibly quick F/1.7 maximum aperture, it’s usually pretty easy to keep the ISO within acceptable limits.

Removing the Red Dot-tinted Glasses

There were some rare moments of frustration with the Q2. As with any camera (or any thing, really) perfection is impossible. The rear LCD display control combines with the video record button, and this is mapped to the central dot of the directional pad on the rear of the camera. Pressing it toggles the information on the LCD screen and eventually sets the camera to video recording mode. There were times when I accidentally pressed this button and found myself unexpectedly recording video. It caused me to miss a couple of shots, though I did capture confused videos of the moments surrounding my intended photos (which is interesting). 

The Q2’s incredibly powerful burst mode can overload the camera’s brain, causing it to lock out functions as images are being recorded to the card. I bought the fastest card that this camera accepts and it couldn’t handle the workload. When shooting macro photos of flying bees, especially, this caused issues for me.

The much-bandied crop mode, which Leica promotes as allowing the Q2’s 28mm lens to act as a 35mm, 50mm, 75mm lens would, really does no such thing. Sure, it superimposes frame lines onto the rear LCD display or inside the EVF, and that’s nice for composing if one is accustomed to the rangefinder way of life, but these images are still just 28mm focal length images with pre-selected crop lines superimposed atop them. The lens obviously doesn’t render as a 50mm or 75mm lens would render, since depth of field is always that of a 28mm lens. 75mm cropped images are so cropped that the end image ends up being effectively a 7 megapixel shot. Not the best use of our expensive Leica. 

What’s more intrusive is that photos shot in crop mode automatically crop when imported into an editing program, which inevitably causes me to undo the crop and crop to my desired result. It just doesn’t work for me and my workflow. I’d rather record as much as I can and control the crop myself, or get the framing right when I release the shutter, or just be happy with a 28mm lens (which I am). This all turns the crop mode into something of a gimmick. 

The camera’s incredible sensor makes amazingly detailed images. But it does so at a cost. Every raw file I made (and I made over 1,400 images in my time with this camera) bit into my hard drive for an astounding 85 MB. This makes for a slower workflow than I’m accustomed to with my Sony A7. Arguably this point is less a knock on the Leica and more a knock on my 2017 iMac, but it makes me wonder if the Leica Q’s half-sized files make for a more livable situation. 

And lastly, there’s the big one – price. The Lecia Q2 is the only digital camera I want to own. That’s true. But with an MSRP of $4,995 it’s a big pill to swallow. My time with the Q2 has me eyeing the less expensive Q-P, or even the original Q, and contemplating if these cameras would be enough (I suspect they would, and those who own them already should not “upgrade” to the Q2). While it’s true that these cameras lack the weather-sealing and some of the control refinements of the Q2, it’s also true that they’re significantly less expensive. And then there’s the fact that I could buy five Ricoh GRIIIs for the same money I’d spend on one Q2, and it’s very likely that the images and experience making them would be just as good. 

Final Thoughts

But the gripes highlighted in the last few paragraphs aren’t deal-breakers. The Leica Q2 is an amazing camera and weeks after returning it to my friends at B&H, I still find myself attempting to talk myself into the purchase. It’s the most fun, engaging, and enticing digital camera I’ve ever used. To be clear, I think it’s worth the asking price.

The Leica Q2 is an everything camera. I could use it every day for the next ten years and not get bored, and its capability is so high that it shouldn’t become obsolete in all that time. It’s a camera that’s capable of everything that I need and want a camera to do – shoot my travels, make street photos and contextual portraits, record my family and make editorial style stills of our day-to-day lives, allow me to have fun with macro photography when the mood strikes. The Leica Q2 is simply a versatile and exciting camera, and it makes me want to take photos. And that’s sort of the most important thing that a camera can do. 

Want your own Leica Q2? Buy it from B&H Photo

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

[The Leica Q2 used in this review was supplied by B&H Photo, with whom we maintain an affiliate partnership. By shopping at any of our affiliates’ websites via the links in this or other articles on Casual Photophile, Casual Photophile may receive monetary compensation from our ad partners. These partnerships do not in any way influence editorial opinion or the content of our reviews.]

The post Leica Q2 – a Real World Camera Review appeared first on Casual Photophile.

I don’t mind when people tell me I’m wrong. I actually love it. I often find myself screen-capping dissenting opinions and any particularly insightful or angry comments that come through via the site or through Facebook or Instagram, and especially those that come in via email and private messages (these last ones being extra delightful given the added effort expended by the senders). I use them to think of ways to improve the site, and sometimes for a laugh (many thanks to that guy who told me to give up writing and pursue something else, “such as dying”).

Chill out, man.

But I digress. The point I’m making here is that when I mentioned that the Zeiss ZX1 got me all jazzed up, a bunch of cynical pessimists tried to tell me why I shouldn’t be jazzed (I also read a lot of these anti-jazzed comments on Zeiss’ own and other Youtube videos covering the yet-unreleased ZX1). I should make it clear here that differing opinions are great – I don’t expect the things that jazz me up to be the things that jazz everyone up. But since I have this lovely platform to fling my opinions out into the universe, I thought I’d use it.

Here’s why the Zeiss ZX1 has got me so jazzed up.

I have to stop saying “jazzed up.” Is thesaurus.com a site? Oh, it is. Nice.

Here’s why the Zeiss ZX1 has got me so stoked.

Reason Number One – The Core Product

It’s pretty difficult for my ashen heart to feel anything at all. I spend most of my waking hours waiting for, and then subsequently not being surprised by, the cruel twists of fate with which the unknown and malevolent overlord of the universe tortures us humans. I don’t get excited about much, and I ain’t getting stoked about a camera for frivolous reasons.

Oh, that new DSLR has Wi-Fi? Wow. I’m so stoked [read with sarcasm].

It’s only when a product does something totally new and interesting, or when it performs better than any of its competition, that my icy blood thaws incrementally and I achieve at least a modicum of stoke… stokeness… stoke-ocity?

Amazingly, the Zeiss ZX1 could introduce something totally new and be better than at least some of its competition, at least, on paper. This competition, from a specification standpoint, will be the Leica Q and the Sony RX1R II. Great cameras, but it’s looking like the Zeiss could come out on top, and that’s exciting.

The Zeiss ZX1 will have a 37.4 Megapixel CMOS sensor, which is quite a bit better than the Leica Q’s 24 MP sensor and just slightly worse than the Sony RX1R II’s 42 MP sensor. That’s good, because while image quality isn’t the most important thing in the world, it is really important, and more pixels always helps. By the numbers, the Zeiss holds its own in the sensor war and my stokage only increases.

The RX1R II sports a T* coated Zeiss Sonnar 35mm F/2 lens, while the Leica Q boasts a slightly wider and slightly faster 28mm F/1.7 Aspherical. Those are damn good lenses, and hard to beat. But the Zeiss also features the famous T* coating on its 35mm F/2 (a Distagon in this case), and there’s every reason to believe, given Zeiss’ nearly unmatched history of amazing glass, that we should expect the Zeiss lens to be at least as solid a performer as the ones on those other two cameras.

The Leica Q has a 3.68 MP electronic viewfinder – which is good, at about 1,280 x 960 pixels. But the Zeiss will have a full HD OLED EVF, outputting 1,920 x 1,080 pixels – better than the Leica and likely the equal of the Sony’s pop-up T* coated EVF. The Zeiss will also have a larger screen on the back – 4.34″ compared with the older cameras’ 3″ displays. Like the Leica Q’s screen, the Zeiss’ display is a touch screen, but unlike the Q’s screen, the Zeiss’ screen features a toolbar for instant editing with Adobe Lightroom – more on that later.

The controls on all three cameras embrace the retro-inspired physical controls of cameras past, which is great. If the Zeiss’ controls are as intuitive as the Leica Q’s, that’ll be a draw. If the AF system is as good or better than the Q and the RX1, Zeiss’ camera will completely edge the competition and I’ll be totally stoked.

I really have to stop saying “stoked.”

Give me a moment while I revisit thesaurus.com.

Reason Number Two – Zeiss is Trying Things

The second reason I’m so pumped up about the second coming of our lord and savior, Zeiss, is that they’re trying something risky, new, and different, and that should always be encouraged.

Zeiss hasn’t made a camera since they designed the ZM back in 2004, a 35mm film rangefinder. The Zeiss ZX1 will be their first digital camera, and they’re not playing it safe. They’ve created a really weird camera, and the only way this weird camera is going to be successful is if it’s also very, very good.

What’s weird about it? To start, it’s a fixed-lens camera. In an era where most people are content with the camera inside their telephone, and when professionals and enthusiasts are pretty happy with their DSLRs and full-frame mirrorless cameras, Zeiss is offering hardware that many people could easily argue against. It also has on-board memory (512 GB worth), which is an odd concept that seemingly no camera maker has considered (maybe for good reason). Will it be better than swapping out cards? It could be.

Then there’s the styling. Zeiss could have easily played it safe and jumped face first into the retro aesthetic that initially grabbed everyone’s attention when Olympus made their digital Pen and Fuji launched their X-series. But they didn’t. They chose a totally different angle. The ZX1 looks like a high design concept from ten years in the future. It’s sleek and elegant, and it looks like no other camera out there. Frankly, I’m glad. Classic cameras look great. Modern cameras made to look like classic cameras sometimes don’t. And even if they do, the aesthetic is getting a bit stale.

And of course, there’s that built-in Lightroom and integrated sharing, a key talking point and clearly the hook on which Zeiss is hanging their machine (details just below).

All of this adds up to big risk, and I get pumped up about this kind of risk taking. This is the kind of thinking that pushes everyone forward, and that’s great. But I also know that the people and companies who take these risks often run the blazing trail right off the edge of a gorge. We’ve seen it in every industry. There are plenty of failed visionary product designs lying atop a heap of broken dreams, wetly shining with their creators’ and under-served fans’ tears. The camera business is no different, and the stakes have been historically high; just research the many companies that tried to push forward their idea of a new standard, only to go bankrupt.

Zeiss are asking buyers to spend their money on one camera, one lens, some new ideas – and that’s it. And though what they’ve unveiled has gotten me pretty pumped, it may not be enough to get enough people pumped.

“Pumped” makes me cringe. Surely there’s a better word.

Reason Number Three – the Lightroom Thing

What might be most stimulating about the Zeiss ZX1 is the thing that every Zeiss rep can’t help but mention every forty-three seconds – it’s got Adobe Lightroom built in. The promise, of course, is that this will allow photographers to edit their images and distribute them via email or social media in seconds with its built-in Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. And while the announcement of built-in Lightroom probably moved the eyebrows of very few photo geeks, I think it could be a game-changer if implemented properly.

How to make it a success? That giant screen can’t hurt. The software must be easy-to-use, responsive, and accurate. And it has to save people time. If it does all this, the ZX1 may be the first of many cameras to offer this kind of real, robust editing in-camera. If I can take fifty product photos, edit them in-camera, and send them to my computer as finished images faster than it currently takes me to shoot, upload, edit, and export, that’s going to get me very stimulated.

The Zeiss ZX1 came out of nowhere. It’s trying new things and pushing boundaries. Will this entice enough photo geeks to make the ZX1 a sales success? Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, my contact at B&H Photo has promised to get a review unit into my hands as early as possible. Until then, I’ll happily remain jazzed, stoked, pumped, stimulated (and a bunch of other synonyms for “excited”) waiting for the Zeiss ZX1 to drop in early 2019.

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

The post Why the Zeiss ZX1 Has Got Me All Jazzed Up appeared first on Casual Photophile.