With the kit lens, this looks like Nikon is trying to do what Fujifilm did with their X cameras. Making things look vintage might be the opinion, but perhaps that is what a camera is supposed to be like. Not all the images are as sharp as what's possible today with the eye- or face-tracking technology we have, but perhaps that's the point: to enjoy shooting.
I suppose I'll lose this argument if you consider the colored options you get when you are willing to spend $200 more. Looking at the images in the review got me thinking about how it feels shooting with my Nikon FE2. I have a Nikon 50mm lens that basically stays on my FE2. I love the camera's form, but I would love autofocus, and not having to pay the film development fees every 36 shots. I think a lot of photographers who use film for their travels and personal lives will be thrilled about this. For this price, considering what you'll pay for a Nikon film camera in the same category, it's not a hard decision when looking at the once-off cost of the Z fc versus the long-term costs of developing film.
Here are the Prices:
- Nikon Z fc on its own: $956.95
- Nikon Z fc with 16-50mm lens (kit): $1,096.95
- Nikon Z fc with 28mm f/2.8 lens: $1,196.95
The Nikon Z fc shoots video too, with a monitor that can face the photographer, which makes it a camera suited to its user. But, if video is an important medium for you, this might not be the camera you need. This is not a camera you're going to do professional studio shoots or productions with. Its purpose is to take incredible images and look good around your neck while you walk around, just like what a Leica M series camera is supposed to do. I think it does that very well based on the video, and that if this is the type of camera you need, the 16-50mm kit lens comes at no added cost, even if it has a variable aperture and won't give you the ultimate separation or depth of field.
Good grief. The body shell is magnesium alloy, NOT plastic. It just has a black skin.
And if you are going to buy this camera for the retro controls and looks, why would you try hold it in your right hand as if it had big grip? Learn to cradle it in your left hand the way you would a film SLR of old. It frees you right hand to control aperture and shutter speed.
Don’t try to box the camera into a straight jacket by insisting it be used and held like the Z50.
And use a strap around your neck like cameras of old as well. You won’t drop it on the ground.
The focusing is improved over the Z50 as well, according previous reviews.
I used to watch this guy's videos some time ago until I quickly got fed up with his style. He talks and talks and not much worth listening comes out of his mouth. I can't understand why such videos find their way into Fstoppers.
Nothing to do with him constantly bagging on Nikon's AF not up to Canon's or Sony's?
No, btw, years ago it was the other way around. Who cares? The AF of my 8 year old D4 still does a fantastic job, so I don't.
Arguing about autofocus speeds is a bit like arguing which guitarist has the fastest fingers, never mind what the music actually sounds like. How compelling are the photographs you take, assuming you are working with equipment that suits you, is really all that matters.
Although a talented photographer can produce great images with a toy camera if they set out to explore what they can do with it.
If that's your best analogy, then, you are clearly way way way behind the times. Let me guess, "back in the old days..." lol smh
I can never understand why these reviewers care so much about who the camera is for. They railed on the Df because it didn’t have video, now they complain about the Zfc having an “identity crisis” because it has video. If they are such marketing geniuses, maybe they should get into that line of work.
Anyway, I’m a Nikon shooter (Z6, D500) and purchased the Zfc as a travel camera. I find it to be quite capable and fun to use (Unlike Mr. Fro, I do enjoy the experience of slowing down, immersing myself in an environment and searching for photos without relying on 11fps). For travel, I’m always looking for smaller/lighter without sacrificing functionality. I tried the Z50, but didn’t like it without the top LCD. I like to know what my camera settings are before I raise it to my eye. That’s why I like dials. My previous travel camera was an XPro2 which I had been using since it was released. It is a wonderful camera and I used it primarily with the f/2 primes. I was looking for something with a tilt screen and a smaller/lighter zoom. I considered an XT2/3, but find the Fuji zooms to be a bit too bulky (I also have some issues with the Fuji UI, that I won’t get into here). The 16-50 zoom is light, compact and provides excellent IQ. When I need faster glass, I can adapt MF primes and use focus peaking or use a Z prime.
Perfect camera? No, but excellent for my purposes. Looking forward to traveling again!