Nikon Z50 User review 4 April 2020

I have for many years  been searching for my ideal compact camera.

This is one which gives me big camera image quality and user experience in a small camera package.

I deem this quest to have been a failure and have sold all my compacts except the Fuji X100V and that will probably go soon as I have difficulty engaging with that model due to its idiosyncratic ways and limited capabilities. 

The prospect of spending $8500 Australian for a Leica Q2 with handle and thumb rest does not appeal.

At the same time I have become increasingly disenchanted with the Micro Four Thirds (MFT) system which seems to have been marking time for the last few years with little real progress in image quality or performance for stills photographers.

I am also concerned that Olympus is making a loss on cameras, most of which are MFT  and 

Panasonic appears to be fully occupied by its attempt to break into the full frame market.

Then earlier this year along came the Nikon Z50 with some nice discount offers.

I have only a limited history with Nikon cameras consisting mainly of some compacts and bridge types, each of which had a nice lens but woefully slow processor and limited capabilities. None of them lasted long in my camera drawer.

The Z50 with 16-50mm kit lens is smaller than many MFT models yet has the larger APSC sensor and visibly better image quality.

It looked promising on paper so I bought one with both the 16-50 and 50-250mm kit lenses and have been pleasantly surprised by the capability, performance, image quality and ergonomics of this little camera.

Both the kit lenses have surprised with excellent image quality at all focal lengths and apertures.

With the 16-50mm lens mounted the Z50 is barely larger than many compacts yet delivers about 90% of the imaging capability of a full frame model such as the Z6 at half the size, mass and price.

Some initial reviews of the Z50 were disparaging.

One reviewer said it provided great handling (true) but a mediocre sensor (false).

Another panned the Z50 as a huge mistake (nonsense).

One review site dismissed the Z DX lenses as cheap feeling (true to the extent that the barrels and mounts are polycarbonate) and of inferior image quality (false).  

This same review site dismissed the Z50 image quality as inferior to that of other APSC models because it has fewer pixels (correct as to the pixels, incorrect as to the image quality on my careful tests).

My experience with the camera and lenses has been much more positive.

You can read about the specifications and featureselsewhere but basically the Z50 has all the attributes and capabilities of a current model ILC. It is specified very close to the level of the Z6/7 full frame models with which it shares many features.

It scores well in Setup, Prepare, Capture and Review Phases of  use. It provides a coherent and satisfying holding, viewing and operating experience.

My tests have shown that pixel count is much less important than other factors like lens quality, AA filter  and  stabiliser effectiveness. In practice I find the Z50 easily matches models with higher pixel counts for image quality.

20 Mpx without an AA filter can deliver a huge amount of subject detail. The Z50 delivers very good highlight and shadow detail, very good color rendition and very good high ISO noise performance which on my tests is only one EV step behind that of the Z6.

Both kit lenses complement the sensor very well.

Both deliver excellent sharpness right across the frame at all focal lengths.

Both produce negligible distortion and color fringing. Both control flare very effectively.

Both focus very fast with a high level of accuracy and consistency in single or continuous mode.

Both have excellent stabilisation which allows low shutter speeds to be used with confidence.

I would say these lenses redefine the budget kit lens genre. The Z DX 16-50mm is much better than the equivalent collapsing zooms from Sony and Canon.

Several reviewers have complained that the 16-50mm has a relatively small aperture of f3.5-6.3. I find that in practice this is no problem at all. Indoors I mainly want the wide end of the zoom which gives f3.5 which strikes a nice balance between speed and depth of field.  Outdoors there is more light and in any event I will likely be using f6.3-f8 for depth of field most of the time.

Some reviewers have criticised the Z50’s performance on the basis that Sony APSC models can run higher frame counts. I have a Sony RX10.4 which can follow focus on moving subjects at 24 frames per second but I never use that speed as it just generates too many files. Even the medium rate of 10 fps is faster than I need for most subjects.

In AFC and Continuous High the Z50 runs at 6 fps which I find is a very suitable rate for many moving subjects. With the 50-250mm lens I find focus accuracy is very high and the RAW buffer is 45 frames, which is excellent.

AF  speeds in AFS are virtually instantaneous.

The camera responds quickly to all user inputs.

So overall I find the performance of the Z50 very quick and reliable.

The Z50 body is sufficiently capable that with suitable lenses it could tackle just about any photographic task. Whether those lenses materialise remains to be seen. Nikon’s published roadmap of Z mount lenses for the next year or two lists only one DX model, an 18-150mm travel zoom. 

Nothing wrong with that but it appears DX users might have to mount FX models if they want to use primes. Unfortunately all of these to date are quite large although “compact” primes are on the roadmap.

Of course you can always mount an F mount DX lens via adapter but that defeats the whole purpose of the mirrorless exercise.

Nikon initially promoted the Z50 as a camera for non photographers.

Offering a device which makes photographs to people categorised as non photographers seems like a strangely mixed message to me.

If the logic of photography prevails and Nikon produces a few more interesting DX mount lenses, the Z50 should become very popular. It delivers a level of image quality and performance good enough for just about any purpose including professional assignments.

Since the advent of digital photography, cameras with the APSC sensor size have been by far the most popular interchangeable lens type for amateur photographers.

So one might expect this to continue but for some factors which I think could see APSC decline in favour of the so-called full frame (43mm diagonal) sensor size.

First, 43mm sensor cameras and lenses have come down in size and price compared to what they were a few years ago.

For instance my Canon EOS R (43mm sensor) with 24-105mm f4 lens is actually a little smaller than and about the same price as the EOS 40D ( APSC 27mm sensor) with EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 lens which I used 13 years ago.

Second, I think it is pretty clear that Canon, Nikon and Sony would much rather you buy one of their 43mm sensor models than one of their APSC models.

The reason is fairly obvious: The larger sensor versions generate more profit margin per unit than the crop sensor models. In a market with declining unit sales, profit per unit becomes pressingly important.

Actually I suspect that the very existence of digital APSC cameras was almost accidental, a by product of the fact that in the early days of digital photography  24x36mm  sensors and the cameras which housed them were prohibitively expensive.

I suspect that Canon, Nikon and Sony would get rid of APSC if they believed they could do so without alienating too many potential customers. In the meantime they starve their APSC catalogue of appealing bodies and lenses, perhaps hoping  that customers will move up to 43mm models of their own volition.

Third the camera buying user base is not only shrinking it is going up market. In a world where nobody actually needs a camera to take photos the purchase of a camera becomes a discretionary act and maybe a personal statement.

Amateur photographers with available funds are likely to buy that which they perceive as “the best” and that will generally be the most expensive model which the sales person can persuade them to buy. 

And that will generally be a model with a 43mm sensor.

So I suspect that the logic of marketing might in due course  prevail over the logic of photography and if that does happen the outlook for MFT and APSC cameras might not be very promising.

Fujifilm’s camera catalogue consisted of compacts and bridge cams until around 2014 when they implemented a major policy change starting with the X-T1. The compacts (other than the X100 series) disappeared and in their place came a succession of interchangeable lens models characterised by two features.

First they all use the 28mm APSC sensor, although Fuji decided to add medium format to their catalogue in 2018. But still Fuji does not offer cameras with the 43mm sensor.

Second, many of them use an elaborated and complexificated version of the type of control layout made famous by the Leica M series  interchangeable lens rangefinder models.

Yes I made up the word “complexificated” because I think it encapsulates quite nicely what I think Fujifilm has done to the design of camera controls. Made a complete mess of them in other words.

These cameras tend to polarise potential users into those who love them (yes, fujifans use the word “love” to describe their relationship with their cameras) and those who don’t…..love them at all and may find them to be awkward, idiosyncratic, frustrating things to hold and operate.

So for Fujifans there is no need to look elsewhere.

For the rest there are less idiosyncratic APSC options readily available and the Z50 is one of the best.