Thom Hogan

Today I've posted my complete review of the Nikon Z50II camera. In a few words: it's the best camera you can buy at its price point. Indeed, I've given it my Highly Recommended rating, which puts in the minority in Nikon's lineup.

In a few more words targeted to embarrass my friends at dpreview who need better copy editors: it is a baby Z9 generation camera. To be clear, babies have some limitations compared to adults, and that's exactly where the Z50II isn't a Z9: the Z50II has limitations the Z8 and Z9 don't, and even some that the Z6III doesn't. The real question you have to answer is whether you can live with those limitations. I hope my review helps you answer that question.

Meanwhile, today I've also published my Complete Guide to the Nikon Z50II. Because the Z50II is a complex camera, this book is several hundred pages longer than the one for the original Z50. It takes me a bit of time to work through new cameras and get my guides right because Nikon has this silly habit of making idiotic small changes that make no sense. For instance, why does the Z50II have Cycle AF-area mode assignable to a button when the Z6III doesn't? Finding and documenting all the little things that Nikon keeps fiddling with and tweaking is a time-consuming and exhausting process. And 100% unpredictable, too, as Nikon's small changes always seem random to me.

It appears that site after site is using the phrase "Nikon's first Cine lens" to describe the just introduced 28-135mm f/4 PZ lens. My Hollywood friends are saying Nyet to that. I agree. I'd call the new lens a sophisticated Video lens.

Lens for still cameras can skip a number of attributes that videographers and cinematographers value, and even among those latter two groups there are differences in opinion about what's necessary in a lens. So let me explain:

Beyond the attributes we'd associate with a still lens, here's how I see the differences:

• Video lens adds:
  • little or no focus breathing
  • power zoom capabilities, including speeds
• Cine lens adds to the Video lens attributes:
  • T-stop aperture specificity
  • parfocal (focus stays the same during zoom)
  • Does not change size in any way during zoom or focus (internal zoom, internal focus)
  • clear focus marking
  • 0.8 MOD gearing on all rings

The 28-135mm f/4 PZ fits into those things this way:

• Has little or no focus breathing
• Has power zoom, including speed control
• Does not have t/stop specification, so harder to integrate with other lens use on set
• Is only partially parfocal (from 55-135mm)
• Doesn't change size during zoom or focus
• Has no focus markings
• Does not have 0.8 MOD gear rings (though Nikon has shown someone's slip on addition to provide this)

Hollywood isn't going to see the 28-135mm f/4 PZ as a "Cine lens," therefore. If Nikon really wants to move RED (and themselves) forward in the high-end world, Nikon will eventually need to either supply or associate itself with a set of real Cine lenses. 

Another thing to note in all the discussion is that the Raptor-X is an 8K video camera that plays more to the cine crowd, while the Komodo-X is a 6K video crowd that is more attractive to the run-and-gun video crowd. However, note that the Komodo-X is a Super35 sensor camera, which is essentially APS-C or DX, so on the Komodo-X the new lens is effectively something closer to a 42-210mm f/4 lens. 

The way I look at all this is "it's a start." Nikon and RED still have a great deal to work out before the full synergy of their products will be demonstrated. 

I'll say this: from the standpoint of a wildlife photographer who goes deep into the wilds, the Komodo-X would be an excellent option now, as I could standardize lenses between both my still and video gear. If I were still supplying footage to the big animal shows, I'd be 100% on top of both the new Komodo-X and the new lens.

Not only a new option, but an option from Nikon themselves. Okay, not exactly Nikon, but RED (owned by Nikon). 

REDCINE-X PRO is an intermediary software product that is tasked with handling RED RAW, and now Nikon N-RAW, files. Up to this point, really only Blackmagic Design's DaVinci Resolve could handle files such as the 8K N-RAW the Z8/Z9 produces. DaVinci Resolve is a bit of a kitchen sink though, in that it has ingest, codec, grading, editing, and a host of other features all thrown into it. It's a big learning sink if you haven't been using it before. When the Z9 came out with 8K N-RAW, those that were using Final Cut Pro or Premiere found themselves without any N-RAW support initially, and eventually ended up using DaVinci Resolve, with all the hassles of trying to understand one of the world's most complex software products.

Ironically, RED had the same issue that Nikon faced: if you created RED RAW files, how did you edit them? REDCINE-X PRO was the answer: it allows you to grade and transcode RED RAW (and now Nikon N-RAW) files before sending them to your video editor of choice in a format they understand. That's why I used the term "intermediary" above: REDCINE-X PRO gets added to the workflow process between your ingest and your editing. 

What doesn't still seem to be enabled for N-RAW in REDCINE-X PRO is the ability to offload/transfer files from camera to computer directly (i.e. ingest). However, once you have a clip in REDCINE-X PRO there's a lot you can do with it, including frame rate overrides, pixel masking, syncing of audio, and much more than just basic image grading. Typically you'd export your work in Apple ProRes to your video editor of choice afterwards.

Bottom line, Nikon users now have a second free way of dealing with the N-RAW video that they create. If you're interested in more, go to the REDCINE-X PRO documentation page.

Speaking of .NEV files, I've added a new page on this site listing the file extensions for files you can find on your card after using them in a Z System camera.

It's a constant question, and particularly for me since I teach wildlife photography workshops: what Z-mount long telephoto lens should I get?

Buried in that question are three factors that need to be considered: (1) budget; (2) quality; and (3) handling (size/weight). I constantly get the "yeah I'd get that except for X" response to my suggestions, and X tends to always be #1, #2, or #3.

So let me try a different approach. You need something that gets you to 400mm, 500mm, or 600mm. We'll look at just those options. Why? Because if you don't need at least 400mm, you're not playing the game (;~), and if you need more than 600mm, then you don't currently have many choices that don't involve a teleconverter.

I'm going to tackle this by splitting the lenses into three budget groups: inexpensive, moderately priced, and expensive. I'll use list prices, even though we have some fairly hefty discounts in play at the moment. I'll also put the lenses in price order.

Here goes:

Inexpensive

• Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 VC — US$1200. On the large side, a little slower than most Nikkor options, optically very good (review coming). 
• Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 VC — US$1300. More compact travel size, optically excellent, focuses close (review coming).
• Nikon 28-400mm f/4-8 VR — US$1300. Smallest of the bunch for travel, but slowest of the lenses; surprisingly good optics, though you border on diffraction impacts and have to watch shutter speeds/camera handling at 400mm. 
• Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR — US$1900. On the large side, no real extra controls, with arguably best in class optics at 400mm.
• Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S — US$2700. Now you see why I down-graded my recommendation from Highly Recommended to just Recommended: Nice size, with good extra controls, but doesn't provide better optics for the extra money. Does focus close, though. 

Moderately Priced

• 400mm f/4.5 VR S — US$3300. If you can live with the fixed focal length, this lens has almost everything: compact and light, excellent controls, reasonably fast aperture, and excellent optics. 
• 600mm f/6.3 VR S — US$4800. Compact and light for the focal length, excellent controls, and excellent optics. 

Expensive

• 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S — US$14000. Big and heavy (in comparison to above), but top-of-the-line at everything else. Best optical choice, and clearly so. Built-in teleconverter is a huge sweetener.
• 600mm f/4 TC VR S — US$15500. Big and heavy (in comparison to above), but top-of-the-line at everything else. Best optical choice, and clearly so.  Built-in teleconverter is a huge sweetener.

So here's my advice:

1. Choose in the highest budget class you can afford. 
2. Within that class, consider only the focal length you truly need.
3. Pick the best lens optically, or pick the smallest/lightest lens; there is no "both." 

Here's where I'll get pushback: "but Thom, I need a zoom." Great, then you've picked the Inexpensive class of lenses, so just pick the best one for you. Right now that's likely to be the Tamron 50-400mm, Nikon 180-600mm, or Nikon 100-400mm. 

"But Thom, how does it handle teleconverters?" Oh, you picked the Moderately Priced group, then, as the Inexpensive lenses either don't support a teleconverter or don't do so well with them. Good news: Both the 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/6.3 work really nicely with the Nikon 1.4x teleconverter. 

"But Thom, I can't afford the expensive TC lenses and I seek the best." You once again picked the Moderately Priced group ;~). You'd be surprised at how well those two moderately priced lenses do. Yes, you've lost some light gathering and background separation. If you need more of those things than the 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/6.3 provide, well, by definition you've put yourself in the "price of a decent used car" territory. Rent the lens if you don't need it all the time. Or start saving up for it.

Now, with that said, I can say I've used every one of the above options at one time or another, and I've been pleased with the results. As I've noted before, the Tamron 50-400mm or the Nikon 28-400mm are excellent long telephoto choices with a Z50II. Surprisingly excellent.

You can get yourself all tied in knots by trying to analyze every last nuance and come up with the "best" solution. I'd defy you to tell me which lens I used on any image I've taken with all the above. We live in a world of Very Good Choices. Choose wisely.

________________

So, did you figure out what lens I used on the above image? Hint: it wasn't my usual 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S.

__________________

Bonus: Just before I posted this article I noticed a couple of comparisons in Internet fora that try to get to "what looks best" between some long telephoto lens choices. This is far trickier than you might think. For instance:

• Between best case (f/2.8) and worst case (f/8), there's a potential for three stops slower shutter speed (or higher ISO). Longer shutter speeds will tend to alias edges compared to higher ones. Higher ISO values will put noise into the mix, and noise reduction may not produce strong edges.
• Likewise, body can make a difference: a Z50II doesn't have sensor VR and thus also doesn't have Synchro VR. Like the previous item, this can begin aliasing edges if you haven't nailed handling and shutter speed.
• Comparing the same final cropped size of an animal between 400mm and 600mm will tend to always make the 400mm lens look worse.
• At 20mp DX and 45mp FX, f/8 is right at the diffraction impact start. While I don't generally call that "diffraction limited" I almost always measure a lower overall MTF at f/8 than I do at f/6.3 with these telephoto lenses. Note that even a 1.4x teleconverter puts you beyond f/8 with f/6.3 lenses. 
• The inexpensive lenses all have a tendency to lose some overall contrast maxed out (aperture, focal length) compared to the more expensive ones. Careful post processing can help make an inexpensive lens perform visually better.

In case you haven't figured it out, Step #1 is a critical one. If all you can afford is the inexpensive class, you're going to be compromising in some way.

In answering a question this weekend—sadly to someone who lost their home and cameras to the LA fires and now needs to replace gear—I realized that I haven't capsulized the way the Z9 generation cameras really differ where it might matter. Here's a quick table to try to fix that problem:

I've left the Zf out, as it's just a completely different kind of design and at the moment stands alone in its differences. For most things in the table, the Zf slots between the Z50II and the Z6III, as you might expect from the price.

What's remarkable in the four cameras shown above, though, is how close they come in both features and customization, which means that each is a fine stand-in (backup) for the next higher level. I find it relatively easy to move between these four cameras, as the menus, features, and customizations all are (surprisingly for once) consistent. Where a feature or customization isn't available on one of these four, it often is because it's not supported by hardware (e.g. multiple slot configuration is not something you find on a Z50II, 8K video can't be done on the 24mp Z6III). There are a couple of oddities that aren't included in one model or another, but these are rare and often have workarounds. 

One thing not in the above table is the Rear LCD. The bottom two models (Z50II, Z6III) have fully articulating (swinging) screens, the top two models (Z8, Z9) have dual-axis tilting screens. As you might guess from price, the Z50II has a lower dot count and brightness than the other three.

For what it's worth, this is the first time since the D1h, D1x, and D100 that we've had reasonably consistent UI and closely matching feature sets in the primary bodies from bottom to top. Once we got to the D2 generation, Nikon started making bigger and bigger deviations as they expanded the consumer and prosumer lines, though we did get some higher end "pairings" that were relatively consistent (e.g. D300, D3, D700, or the later D500, D850, D5). 

So what's missing? The Z5 and Z7 joining this Z9 generation consistency. I fully expect the Z5 to do that at some point, but I'm less sure about a Z7III, as it just becomes a lower cost Z8. It seems to me that the Z8II has to appear (with new abilities/features) before a Z7III makes sense.

As many of you know I've been working on a book about Nikon JPEG use (it’s going to be well into 2025 before it appears, so please don't pepper me with questions of "when?"). 

One thing that's come up in my research with users about JPEG use is that many prefer Fujifilm if JPEG files are what they are always creating. When I press these users on this, it turns out that this is partly because Fujifilm uses film names for their JPEG looks: e.g. Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, etc. Nikon's naming is a much more generic Auto, Standard, Neutral, Landscape, etc.

Moreover, Fujifilm's current cameras can display a full page of information about each look as you scroll through them:

Setting aside for the moment that I don't find any of Fujifilm's film simulations accurate to the way the named films depict a scene, doing things by using film names has two positive impacts for users: (1) it reaffirms the reason why they might want to use a simulation; and (2) for those who used film in the past, it matches the way they used to pick what they were using.

You might think this is a subtle difference, but consider Nikon's Picture Control naming for a moment, specifically Standard, Neutral, Landscape, Portrait, and Vivid. What if you're not photographing a landscape or a portrait, which Picture Control do you use and why? You seem to be left with the names Standard, Neutral, and Vivid to choose from, and no additional information to help you! 

Things get worse with the twenty Nikon Creative Picture Controls (Dream, Morning, Pop, Sunday, etc.). Basically you're on your own, and I hope you read the manual or my book on your camera and paid careful attention to the words we used in describing those Picture Controls (tip: I use more words than Nikon, and I display the same scene with each Picture Control in my books to give you an accurate visual reference). 

What I've found with a number of Nikon users is a form of analysis paralysis: the words don't give them enough information to make a useful decision, so they punt and just set Auto hoping it will do the "right thing." 

Let me cut to the cheat sheet: most of the film simulations and Picture Controls differ mostly in two specific things: contrast and saturation. So let me offer you some crude not-quite-equivalents (these do the same basic things, but not by exactly the same amounts):

• Baseline: Fujifilm Provia, Nikon Standard
• Turn it up to 11: Fujifilm Velvia, Nikon Vivid
• Dial it down: Fujifilm Eterna, Nikon Neutral

The problem with both Fujifilm and Nikon is that their other choices fall in between the above in some not-always consistent or easy to describe way. The Fujifilm Pro Neg and Astia choices all take out contrast, and the Pro Neg choices also takes out saturation. There's also nothing between Provia and Velvia in the Fujifilm Contrast/Saturation chart. With Nikon, we've got Landscape in between Standard and Vivid. 

Nikon unfortunately removed the function in their cameras that used to tell us how each Picture Control plotted in terms of contrast and saturation, including how far you could vary it with the sub-parameters. Now they've gone the opposite direction and, with the new Flexible Picture Controls you can create using your computer, give Z50II and Z6III users an overwhelming array of control in this regard. (If you want to see what the strange Recipes—pre-made Flexible Picture Controls by an odd assortment of creators—provides, scroll all the way to the bottom of the Nikon Japan page for Flexible Picture Controls where it says Picture Control Simulator, and click on one of the circular buttons below the sample pictures. Way to bury information, Nikon. But thanks for helping prove my point. ;~)

If you look carefully, you can see engineers trying to do the right thing, but the product marketing folk completely at a loss for how to describe and promote it, plus then removing the thing that allowed us to begin understanding what is happening. Thus, it all comes back to words, and we don't have many, so it's unclear what you do when the word doesn't match what you're photographing. For travel photography, for instance, should you use Standard, Neutral, Landscape, or Vivid? If there's a person in the image do we absolutely need to use Portrait? And what does Rich Tone Portrait do? 

So what's happening with my upcoming book on using JPEGs is this: part of it is turning into a dissertation on matching Picture Controls to intent. 

Fortunately, there's a practical workaround, and of all things, the best version of this just appeared on the Nikon Z50II via its Picture Control button: (1) tap the button, (2) now looking at your scene use the dial to select which Picture Control looks best (you can also use the Front Command dial or Direction pad to select sub-parameters, all while still viewing the scene you're trying to capture). 

If you don't have a Z50II, you can do something similar: (1) tap the I button, (2) navigate to Set Picture Control and select it (OK button), (3) use the Direction pad to select a Picture Control and other adjustments as you view the scene. One difference compared to the Z50II besides the extra steps: you see less of the scene this way, as the on-screen control structure takes up a more significant portion of the display.

Tip: In my presentation on Black Friday I did a very brief demonstration of how Flexible Picture Controls are useful to the wildlife photographer (for when they use pre-release capture). What I didn’t say is this: on that Z50II I can disable Picture Controls I’m not interested in. Meaning that I can more quickly navigate to one of my predefined ones using that Picture Control button. Hopefully Nikon sees how useful this is and adds this small change (ability to remove Picture Controls from choices) to the other cameras.  

Now that all the camera body gifts have been unwrapped and unboxed—including the ones you gave yourself—what follows next is the inevitable "which lenses should I get?" question. 

When I'm asked the question (or see it in forum posts) the most popular variant is not just which lens to get, but which of several, sometimes many, lens sets should they get. My response to that is usually "keep it simple, silly" (KISS). 

The proper starting out travel/versatility "kit" is simply the 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR for the DX bodies (Zfc, Z30, Z50II), or the 24-120mm f/4 S for the FX bodies (Zf, Z5, Z6III, Z7II, Z8, Z9). Why? Because they're both excellent mid-range zooms (and on DX you get some image stabilization that's not in the bodies). They both go from pretty wide to moderately telephoto, which is where you should probably start if you're thinking all-around usage.

KISS DX

DX is probably simpler to discuss than FX, because (buzz, buzz) the choices are few. The KISS principle says:

1. 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR
2. 12-28mm f/3.5-5.6 VR and 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR
3. 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR and 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR
4. 12-28mm f/3.5-5.6 VR and 28-400mm f/4-8 VR

That's exactly the order I'd suggest you consider your basic lens options. It's also the order of increasing capabilities. 

Low cost, fast aperture primes are proliferating in DX, but none have VR, so they lose some versatility (you start substituting faster aperture to get shutter speed). If you're getting lost in selecting a prime for a DX camera, you're really lost and should stick to the zooms until you really understand what's truly missing from your basic lens set (typically portrait isolation, which suggests 56mm f/1.4 or f/1.8). 

KISS FX

With FX it is far more easy to get lost in lens choices, as there are simply many more choices and the lens VR need is rendered mostly moot by sensor VR. Here’s my suggestions to consider (again in the order I’d suggest you consider them):

1. 24-120mm f/4 S
2. Any pair (or trio) of the Tamrikon f/2.8 zooms (17-28mm, 28-75mm, 70-180mm)
3. Any 24-70mm zoom paired with the 70-180mm f/2.8 zoom
4. The f/4 set: 14-30mm f/4 S, 24-120mm f/4 S, and I'm going to surprise you here: 400mm f/4.5 VR S
5. The f/2.8 trio: 14-24mm f/2.8 S, 24-70mm f/2.8 S, and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S

Again in the order you should consider, and (mostly) in the order of increasing capabilities.

Primes have also proliferated for FX, and since the FX cameras have sensor-based VR, you don't lose the extra versatility as you do with DX. But again, if you're getting lost in selecting a prime for an FX camera, you're really lost and should stick to the zooms until you really understand what's truly missing from your basic lens set (typically portrait isolation, which suggests 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.8). 

KISS Summary

If you're veering outside one of the base sets I noted above, then you apparently have specific needs or likes, and you probably already know what you're going to get. 

You need to be honest with yourself: are the photo opportunities you usually have ones where you want to carry your gear all the time with it being svelte and accessible, or do you really carry that 40-pound backpack stuffed with extra gear all the time, and have the time to pull out and set up exactly the right tool for the job? 90% of you are in the former category, I'll bet. More than two lenses just gets to be travel unfriendly, plus most of your photography is likely to happen as you travel (street photography, travel photography, landscapes on vacation, and so on). 

"Wait a second," you're going to argue, "if I'm going to photograph X today then I need a lens for X. Tomorrow may be different." Sure, but in so arguing you're also telling me you already know what lenses you need for all the photography "jobs" you are going to undertake. Perhaps you meant to ask "is the 20mm f/1.8 S or 24mm f/1.8 S the right lens for astrophotography?" ;~). 

What I'm talking about here is for the "got a new body, need a new basic lens set" crowd. These folk are going to have a hard time suggesting something better than the sets I outlined above. 

______________

Bonus: I'm always amused when someone does a deep analytical focal length dive on all the photos they've ever taken and comes back with the "I only use my zooms at the two extremes, so maybe I should just get two primes." Probably not. Yes, your lens is effectively equivalent to two primes, but you also don't have to be changing lenses with the zoom or carry an extra lens around with you. You also need to check whether or not you were using perspective properly at those two focal lengths, or just zooming from the same position.

This, by the way, is one of the reasons why Nikon needs its own version of the Sony 28-70mm f/2GM: that lens is what I'd call a top level 50mm f/2 prime, as well as a 28mm f/2, 35mm f/2, and 70mm f/2 prime that are all very near top level. Four excellent primes in one lens. Of course, I'm not sure anyone who has one is disciplined enough to use it that way; I'll bet they use zooming rather than controlling perspective most of the time ;~).