Have your say: Best gear of 2023 - Reader's Choice Award winners and final vote!

I have to admit as a previous Z7II, now Z8 owner, me too would have like the Z8 to be a little more slimmed down. I love this camera, but not its size nor weight compared to my previous Z7II.

I like the 20-70mm F/4 and it covers a great range but it utilizes massive software corrections the most I have ever seen . I have an FE to Z adapter and was tempted by the focal range but every single wide angle shot would need to be corrected

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4475337602/photos/4393218/untitled-1

Forgot to add if I was still a Sony user and had the autocorrections I would certainly be tempted .

Yes, the Sony lens depends on a lot of software correction. I personally don't see anything wrong with that for most purposes but I have seen some criticize other brand lenses for doing so. I will keep this 20-70 in mind for when other brands release lenses that use in-camera software corrections.

I recommend this lens too, incredibly versatile. There is life out of prime lens and this one is very useful and less unwieldy and obtrusive than bringing several prime lens with us.

Why would anybody want a 20-70 rather than a 24-105 as a general walk around ‘do it all’ lens❓Answer - very few❗️Yes - OK for specific use cases - but general - no.

@ Thoughts R Us It is only really an issue for my use case as I would be adapting it to Z mount and not have the automatic corrections . As I say if I was in the Sony camp it would certainly have a lot of appeal

I agree with Kandid: the 24-105 f4 lens would be a better all around choice for most users. Nikon even has a very nice 24-120 f4.

I did say ‘to me’ and I do know why ‘ it is like that’ and I tried it. Camera design has advanced considerably and making retro inspired cameras is interesting but, again, to me, pointless (I have been taking pictures for nearly 60 years). And I am sorry you find my opinion annoying and boring but I did say it was my opinion and not a fact or even an argument. Each to his own and I am happy people like the Zf, but I do not like it as a camera but I do like it’s quality and attention to detail.

Nikon has a 24-70 f/4 lens, one of the best kit lenses they have ever made in my opinion, I use it all the time on my Z8.

20 vs 24 you cant't compare it.

I like the extra aperture of 2.8 and don't care if it is 24mm. A large aperture is much more needed than the 4mm

According to some guys in the forum f4 is completely useless, but maybe they still shoot on Nikon D70?

@madeinlisboa.... it all depends what you're shooting. If you're walking around tight streets of an old European city/town, 20mm is going to be more useful than 2.8. Never presume what's useful for others if its not useful for you.

"not out of reach of the masses"

"It's the ultimate kit lens for beginners"

The Sony 20-70 lens is $1100. That is out of reach for the masses for one lens. That is a lot to pay for a beginner on a kit lens.

Yes it seems to be a great and useful lens, but I don't get where people think this lens is so inexpensive to most people. Go up to the average person and ask them what they think about spending $1100 on a lens. I think we'd get some interesting responses and looks.

Most people don't realize how good the 20-70mm actually is. It's not just about the wider end. I never wanted an f/4 lens so bad. I'm just waiting for a good deal in my country.

@3Percent,

There are plenty of scenarios in which I think a 24-105mm or 24-120mm is a much better choice, indeed.

I suspect, however, that the %% of people looking for such a lens as a 24-105, relative to the %% of people who are looking to get into vlogging, or take selfies, or just people who are buying a 40-60 megapixel camera and don't mind cropping to APSC at the long end, ...will continue to favor the 20-70mm with each year that goes by.

35-150 2.0-2.8

C'mon Fuji makes some great gear let's not put that at the discussion.

However, in all honesty. Fuji missed the boat on both sides.

1. APS-C once king of sensor sizes seems to be in deep troubles falling between Full Frame and MFT. A jack of all trades, but master in none.

2. On the other side we have Fuji GFX, master in IQ, but it just doesn't want take off. Due to price, size, weight and inconvenient file sizes.

Imho, Fuji made back in 2016 a huge mistake by introducing the GFX instead of going FF, where they back in time could have easily taken the #2 spot after Sony, killing off Nikon and leaving Canon to be on the sideline.

Instead Fuji choose differently with the result now of starting to loose marketshare back to Nikon and becoming an even less important player in the market. I would not be surprised if in 10 years time APS-C wil either not exist any longer or will be in the same dwindling position as we currently see MFT with OMD most likely no longer being around.

Yes Fuji does make some great stuff. I don't think their GFX was a mistake and I do think it's taken off if you look at it from the perspective of medium format. A lot of people went to this medium format from FF thanks to Fuji.

If Fuji had entered FF mirrorless, even before Canon/Nikon, they still would have been eclipsed by them once they entered. And remember before Canon/Nikon went FF mirrorless, their FF DSLRs were selling well. Fuji was never going to compete in FF against the big three.

Now they have a nice niche. But the key is that it can grow. The camera market is becoming increasingly upscale. Eventually higher end FF buyers will be looking for the next move upward and FF bodies will have topped out in almost all metrics.

I could easily foresee a day when medium format becomes the next full frame, in that it becomes the large sensor high end format of choice.

Maybe, maybe not.
The market share for MF has always been around the 2%.
I credit Fujifilm for taking most of that segment. However they didn't grow the segment in any sense as it is still just 2% of the total market. This is quite in contrast to what Fuji predicted as being a sincere thread to Full Frame. The reality is that It didn't make any dent in the FF segment, nor did it actually change the segment share from total market.

All Fuji can say is they own this segment.
Which is an achievement for as long as there will be no other major players entering this segment.

We may think different and have different opinions on how we take and define the market. Which is fine.

But within a shrinking APS-C segment and loosing customers in this segment, while not truly being able to grow the MF segment and stagnate is not really a position you want to be in as a camera manufacturer. I still think this is not how Fuji had planned this to be. Not a total failure, but just a partial succes.

@Gourmet Chef,

I think quite oppositely from your sentiments about APSC and MF/GFX...

I think Fuji was smart to corner not just one but two markets that, while they may never receive the praise and glory that FF has, are still almost guaranteed to have at least some niche market/customers.

We have to keep in mind that over the last ~20 years, camera companies dropped like flies. From Olympus, to Pentax, to Minolta, nobody was safe. Heck, Kodak literally invented the digital camera itself, and they crashed and burned harder than all the rest.

I think that your points about Fuji making "mistakes" could therefore be seen this way: they played it safe, and it's paying off, just without as much hype or excitement as if they had tried to carve out a segment of the FF market.

In fact considering how "packed" the FF market got, (with not just Canon, Nikon and Sony, but also Pansonic, Sigma, and Leica all sharing a mount,) ...I think Fuji is well-positioned to, at the very least, survive.

...Now, if we want to talk about "mistakes", I think the biggest culprit (still alive today, albeit as a ghost/zombie now) ...is, by far, Olympus. The decision to stick with Micro Four Thirds was not wise, and they should have foreseen that sensors would not just improve, but also get significantly cheaper.

Their pairing, somewhat akin to Fuji's dual-format business model, should have been M4T (MFT?) plus full-frame. Since, unlike Fuji, Olympus has an incredible history of making some of the most amazing 35mm SLR lenses ever. A lot of the old Zuiko glass is downright legendary, and Olympus should have tapped into that niche market, as Pentax has (by some miracle) continued to do without even really embracing mirrorless technology much at all.

By that logic, wouldn't cameras and lenses for the least popular systems be ineligible for awards, since most voters wouldn't have used or tried them?

Voting for any products you don't own will be always subjective based on second hand opinion. I voted for the Plena lens because that's what I would buy if I had Nikon system. As it is I have the RF 135mm lens instead which is also great but still a little less than the Plena.

I have alot of respect for Canon as a Nikon shooter.

So do I. But to suggest the best product must be a canon product is denial of the facts. The Z9 and Z8 best any canon camera currently on the market…

The product choices seem too narrow, and biased. The only item that is not a niche product is the Nikon Zf.
Canon rules for better products for the masses and by market share. Product of the year voting should have included the R50 or R8 Using only tech as a barometer is way too narrow.

@myreality I wanted to clarify a misconception, as 'bias' is a strong word for what this ballot represents.

These choices are based on public voting. The R50 and R8 were on the first-round ballot but didn't get the votes needed for this next round of public voting.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6056997351/have-your-say-vote-now-for-best-camera-of-2023

Volume doesn't equal quality. Like McDonalds.

I get the impression that the OP's comment was meant more as humor, and it led to this serious discussion :)

Really MikeRan. Based on your response, you are not paying attention.

Strip away the marketing and explain to me how this product demonstrates a “redefined design approach” worthy of the price premium, the name, and a suggestion that this 135 is so vastly better than the other 135’s.

Almost non-existent vignetting. Makes the whole frame usable to a similar performance expectation as the centre. Consider noise (one example) for a moment. A one stop improvement in vignetting, depending on the image characteristics, might be equivalent to a one stop ISO improvement. If Nikon, Sony or Canon delivered a one stop noise improvement in their sensors, it would be front page news.

This is why I love the 28 1.4E but for sharpness rather than vignetting reasons. Compared to my 28 1.4D, it turns the edge into something usable, even more than usuable. My friends that frame their subjects in the centre have never really understood the benefit. But people that shoot portraiture like me, with subjects often on the edge, get it.

Is it revolutionary? No. But it is a real improvement that I would pay a thousand bucks for.

@MikeRan

So any 135mm f/1.8 is the same?
I do hope the rest of the photographic world doesn't get wind of your extraordinary insight, just imagine all the great lenses over the decades that would not have existed.

No one is saying 'Vastly better', in this field the differences are actually quite small but, like any performance measure, the last 1% of improvement is what really costs.

There was a T-shirt that said, "If I had to explain, you wouldn't understand". Rarely so applicable.

I’m afraid all that t-shirt means is that MikeRan is correct. Judging lenses is not a matter of faith but of measurement and observation - come back with the facts not the hyperbole…….👍
No one is saying it’s not a great lens - just not materially better than other great lenses….

I get great results with a "simple" Viltrox 75mm (112.5) on an aps-c body and that what it matters for me and my clients. And for a fraction of the price. This Plena is really overrated.

@ Kandid

Ok, here are two reviews by ephotozine, one for the Sony and one for the Nikon.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-fe-135mm-f-1-8-g-master-review-33641/performance

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-z-135mm-f-1-8s-plena-lens-review-36710

There is an MTF chart on each for direct comparison.

As you will see, the Nikkor at f/1.8, a very important area in the performance curve, is substantially sharper, both in the centre and the edge.

It's also worth looking at the comparison of chromatic aberration between the two.

I hope that is factual enough for you.

@MikeRan... J and I have compared his 135 to my Plena. The bokeh balls on his at the edge are shaped like football's. On the Plena, they are perfectly round still. From what I've seen of the Canon, the centre is twice as bright as the edges and corners. And needs to be stopped down to 5.6 for frame illumination to even. The Plena is special. $400 premium? We should get rid of that word. If we go down that road we should bring up the premium the a1 and R3 have over the Z8 and Z9 for "just like the others". I suspect the Plena has a tilt/shift type of image circle; way bigger than it needs to be to cover the sensor to give it the qualities it has.

PhilHarris
The Ephotozine articles are interesting. I would have assumed that the Sony and Plena had roughly similar performance re: sharpness etc. i am surprised by how much better the Plena is.

Good facts - it does seem superior (at least to the GM) in several respects 👍 . I’ll go buy that t-shirt….😊

Still not as good however as my Zuiko 135mm f3.5 that I bought new in Nairobi for £45 in 1985. GREAT focal length, sharp (not like these 😝) and weighed nothing….😊

I had the same comment in my mind. It looks like Nikon is the most popular gear among people and this is awesome, but why is doesn’t translate to their market share?

Light Pilgrim
People are invested in current systems and changing systems is expensive. Is the fancy new gadget superior enough to justify changing all the other gadgets in the system?

Truth to be told, when it comes to AF and sensor tech, the top free makers (Canon, Sony & Nikon) are really close now with their top tier cameras. However when it comes to the bottom tier of FF cameras, R8 changed the paradigm and dominates them all now. I just got the R8 and the AF you get, for the money you pay, is amazing. Basically R6 II AF and sensor.

And what is even better, the R8 / R6 II, despite not being BSI, is just amazing. Relatively fast read out speed means 40 FPS burst rates with insignificant rolling shutter, unless you pan really fast or photograph a golf club swing and similarly. Respectable dynamic range on par with the rivals or better, especially as the ISO grows & very good hi iso performance too.

To me the camera of the last year is R8, because it brings state of art AF and sensor - at its respective price point, to masses. And it would appear that most people voted so with their wallet. Canon 46%, Sony 26% and Nikon 11% of market share in 2023. Love my R8.

@mick232
You don’t deserve the reply but I’ll bite.
SAR posted that one of the largest Japanese stores Mapcamera unveiled what were the most sold cameras and lenses in 2023:

Cameras:

Nikon Z8
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
Nikon Z f
Sony α7R V
Sony α7 IV

Lenses:

Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
TAMRON 28-75mm F/2.8 Di III VXD G2 (for Sony E)
Nikon Z 180-600mm f /5.6-6.3 VR
SONY FE 20-70mm F4 G
TAMRON 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Di III RXD/Model A071SF (for Sony E)

Actually not true. Nikon is in a solid 3rd place ~ 12-15% of the market. Which is small compared to Sony/Canon, but based on their financials, profitable. And growing. To put it in perspective, Mercedes has about a 3% marketshare...

Granted, Nikon released two good cameras and some lenses this year, but that doesn't create a full line-up of competitive products. We'll see.

Nikon's mirrorless product line is growing mature and varied. From cheap and cheerful Z50 to the best 35mm sensor size camera you can get right now, the Z9. Of greater import, however, is the native lens selection for the system. And third party options, something Canon seems hell bent on not allowing.

That's really my only beef with Canon, the RF system is fine. Just no native Sigma or other 3rd party options, although you can attach EF with Canon's own adapter. Of course, you can attach EF to just about anything :-D

@ Opera207
What’s your source?

@Opera207 why not? The Zf is a visually more appealing camera, catered specifically to the audience who cares about that. It also happens to be a fan freakin' tastic camera with AF every bit as good as the Sony. Nikon knocked it out of the park with this one, so no surprise that it's selling like hotcakes.

"digital folding"

Yes! Super Ikonta D, Retina D! With leaf shutters, natch. If Cosina has to make them, fine.

I thought I was the only one.

I tried the Zf and felt rock solid in hand. The Z fc was not bad but disappointing.

"dials made of brass that not only feel much more secure than the Z fc, but will also wear with use the same as vintage cameras from the past."
The dials are brass -on top of the same electronic encoders used by everyone else...window-dressing.

As long as it lasts for a good few years (10+) it's fine. Modern digital cameras are not like film cameras, they are so packed with electronics, that they won't last for 30 years like an old Leica M.

Nikon is shipping Sony sensors so the Sony shills still win 🫢

Everybody buys from Sony semiconductor. Completely different division of the company. Sony could stop selling cameras tomorrow, and their sensor division would continue as before.

Nikon's financials would seem to indicate that they're selling at a healthy profit margin.

You don't have to agree, it is a free democratic vote. But few people share your opinion.

It's a vote. How do you get more democratic then that?

@Andyyy

Did you actually use the lens?

@GinoSVK

If you by do the same, you mean the same focal length/FOV, sure...but surely there's more to a lens...

No, not used it, just like the big majority of the voters.

The Canon and Sony 135/1.8’s are as excellent and you don’t have to pay an extra $400 for a fancy marketing name.

@MikeRan

Which is funny because Canon glass is often more expensive

I am fortunate enough to own the 135mm Plena.
In my opinion, it is deserving of the all praise it's getting.
I traded my favourite ever F-mount, the 105mm f/1.4 to get it and have no regrets, it's remarkable.

“Which is funny because Canon glass is often more expensive“
Everyone used to say the Sony glass was more expensive. They were simply the first to design a set of mirrorless lenses using the latest available technologies…. Now that nikon and canon have caught up with high end Mirrorless lens releases, their pricing has caught, and surpassed in some cases…

Anyway you aren’t really getting anything more for the extra money with this Z mount 135 aside from the z mount itself. All three are fantastic lenses.

@MikeRan
The recent Samyang 135mm AF is a superb performer for literally half the price of the Sony here in the UK . The Canon lens is £2599 £100 less than the Nikon. The Sony is a great buy { relatively speaking :-) } at £1550

The Nikon certainly gets very good reviews and "getting more for your money" is of course a matter of opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HibHyL1r-TQ

I like 135mm focal length but would love a smaller slower 135mm lens than these behemoths

The Samyang, Canon and Sony 135mm are all excellent, but the Plena is a unique design capable of images not available in other lenses. Whether you value the look achieved by these design parameters or not is a personal choice.

Plena stomps those other lenses. No, the Sony and Canon versions aren’t as excellent. I’d rank them 1. Plena, 2. Canon, 3. Sony

From Christopher's reviews, the Canon looked sharper than the Plena.

@andyyy it’s a portrait lens, all three are plenty sharp as is and minute differences in sharpness don’t matter and won’t be able to be realized without pixel peeping a test chart. What will be very apparent is the difference in bokeh and light transmission. You get a look with the plena that no other 135mm can give you. Test it out side by side and see for yourself.

Further I guarantee your customers couldn’t care less…

https://nikonrumors.com/2023/10/22/plena-vs-art-nikkor-z-135mm-f-1-8-s-plena-vs-sigma-135mm-f-1-8-dg-hsm-art.aspx/

Like I said test it out for yourself and see. I could easily tell the difference between the lenses in a blind test.

You’re right about one thing, customers. Most won’t care. However, a few will as I’ve had specific requests in the past for bokeh rendering the plena gives by some product clients. Wish I had it at the time.

Still the point stands. There is something unique about the Plena that the other 135s on the market simply cannot achieve.

That Nikonrumors comparison is poorly executed. None of those images would really show how Plena separates from the crowd. How the heck they concluded Plena vignettes more is beyond me. There’s major difference in vignette in favor of the Plena vs all the 135mm lenses.

Wow, it's "more" unique!!