Hello, Randy, and thanks for taking time to reply.

The Df was pretty special. I was initially drawn to it by the Fuji-like controls, but in practice, they were more of a hindrance than a convenience. This was mostly because Nikon has lenses that don’t have an aperture ring, which forced control compromises for the sake of compatibility from the start.

The real beautify of the Df, aside from its aesthetics, was the sensor which was lifted from the D4. It was “only” 16MP, so hardly high resolution even when it was introduced, but it was a low-light beast capable of shooting at ISO 12,800 with negligible noise. It’s also one of those sensors that has a particular “look” to it, much like Fuji’s 16MP X-Trans II sensor. It’s very “film-like” for lack of a better description.

It was a tough decision to part ways with the Df, but for the type of photos I take (mostly landscape, fine art, street, and travel) I’ve really come to appreciate the benefits of an electronic viewfinder. Optical viewfinders (and DSLRs for that matter) still have a place and do some things better, no doubt, but there’s something to be said for seeing exactly what your picture will look like before pushing the shutter button.

The Nikon Z bodies really have my attention, and it’s interesting that you’re giving the Z50 a go. The Z’s got a lot of bad press early on and Nikon came out of the gate with a pretty skimpy lens lineup, but they’ve changed that, and the original Z6 and Z7 got to be very capable cameras through firmware updates. I’m told their AF tracking is not among the best so people wanting to get birds in flight aren’t big fans, but my bird photography is all backyard songbirds. The Z9 looks absolutely incredible. It’s the camera pros needed to consider mirrorless, and it’s the camera Nikon needed to get back in the game.

I’ll be interested to hear or read about your experiences with the Z50 v the D7500!