Work has issued me a decent Nikon kit. To put it in a fairer light, work has issued me the “dream” kit from ten years ago, but 10 years is a long time.

The D750 is a dated model and I think is maybe the weak link. Files from this camera and the 24-70 or 70-200 are not as good as my M43 files. No misplaced loyalty of blind bias here. I tested, I looked and I saw.

The 14-24 is still one of the best wide angle lenses on the market, but it is almost 8 (!) times the weight of my new crush, the Pana-Leica 9mm, two stops slower and wider than I need, oh and does not fit my cameras without an adapter so it comes with Nikon attached. This lens and camera combination are a serious decision point when going out. Taking it is like me packing my full kit twice!

The 24-70 AF-S disappoints. I am not sure if mine has a life as hard as the dents and scratches on its barrel would suggest, but regardless, this lens is not a patch on my 12-40 or 12-60 MFT standard lenses, not even the kit one. Bad CA, poor sharpness at the long end, mediocre overall. It may well be the camera, but something is not up to the standard I have come to expect.

The 70-200 AF-S is basically brand new. This was late replacement for my predecessors’ kit when his older lens was deemed un-repairable. I have tried this and the performance it offers is in the ball park of my 40-150 f2.8 or f4 lenses, but still the camera is the weak link.

The 400 f2.8, a lens I should be tickled pink to be in the same room as, is quite simply a weaker combination on the D750, than the 300 f4 on the EM1x. I have really tried to warm to it, but every test I do and the work of the other two photogs with theirs, just underwhelms by comparison. I am not taking a lens the size of an anti tank rocket launcher out, just to get same-same or not even as good results and a kit that limits me in movement and other camera lens option (I regularly shoot with the above and the EM1.2 and 40-150 on the other shoulder). Again we are back to the camera as possibly the weak link.

When asked whether I would like to go D850 or a Z6 mk2 as an upgrade (we can only hope), I initially said D850. This is I feel the best SLR on the market at the moment, but solves few issues and makes the assumption that the D750 is the weakest link in the kit.

Would I take out the whopping 400 and D850?

Simple answer is no, because it offers me nothing I cannot get now, while limiting me in other ways.

I had a thought though. If I go the Z6 mk2, a camera that is likely not going to improve AF performance on the SLR lenses, but may match the D750, then I could order it with the excellent little 24-70 f4 (remember the Z mount offers a stop less DOF than the normal full frame depth of field, due to its massive mouth-so three stops less than MFT), and the new AF-S 70-200 and 14-24 adapted across, then I may have a good day kit to take the strain off my own gear and retain the mirrorless advantage. From here I can even buy a fast prime (85), although a second body and primes (G9) would be logical for video.

I could then be the test bed for the team, the other two photogs getting D850’s. Z9’s would solve all our issues, but a small provincial paper on a limited budget will not stretch to them.

The tele and the wide angle beasts above would then be backups for the team as a whole, just not me so much.

I have a lot of time for the move Nikon has made with their Z mount, being very similar to, if diametrically opposite to the MFT philosophy, so a hybrid Z/MFT kit would be fine, even fun, but the truth is, Nikon is only just coming out of their transition period aches.

If I could buy a dream hypothetical all Z kit with Z9 as the basis, then great, sign me up, but this transition period is less than exciting. As an aside I would likely go Canon though. Their lens landscape growth is more advanced and I trust the cameras more, especially in all the tiers below “top dog”.