D850 --> Z

P

PaulMoz

Messages
43
Edit My Images
No
I know this has probably been done to death; but for my sanity would I be mad to swap/sell my D850 for a Z6/7?

I'm not a pro and mainly shoot landscapes, so no sports or birding. I'm also a proud new parent so finding time to get out in short supply and also wanting to take pictures of my family more often. I don't want 2 systems,so leaning towards the Z with a 24-70 and 50. I also want to stay with Nikon so not looking at others. Love the output from the D850 but pretty sure the Z6 would be enough for landscapes. Anything advice much appreciated, anyone else made the switch?
 
My advice would be to try one if at all possible. I went to mirrorless (Fuji XT-1) and hated it. I found the camera too small for my largish hands and was constantly hitting buttons inadvertently. I moved to the D850 and despite the extra weight, have no regrets. I know I’m probably in the minority, but you *might* have the same experience and regrets.
 
What benefits do you think the Z6 offers you over the D850?

Mirrorless cameras will definitely be the future (there'll be no other choice), but they're not the present (for me).

I keep hearing the siren call of the Z6 then I think about the (for me) limited benefit (improved liveview) it offers over a D750, and the drawbacks (reduced battery life, no autofocus on screw driven lenses), and the temptation becomes easy to resist. If I had the cash floating around to buy a Z6 I'd spend it on a used D4S.

(NB - I am not representative of the majority view on these matters. :LOL:)
 
happy haggis said:
My advice would be to try one if at all possible. I went to mirrorless (Fuji XT-1) and hated it. I found the camera too small for my largish hands and was constantly hitting buttons inadvertently. I moved to the D850 and despite the extra weight, have no regrets. I know I’m probably in the minority, but you *might* have the same experience and regrets.
Click to expand...

Sound advice yes, not actually had one in my hands so good point. I have used a fuji previously, albeit for a short period and quite liked it.
 
Ed Sutton said:
What benefits do you think the Z6 offers you over the D850?

Mirrorless cameras will definitely be the future (there'll be no other choice), but they're not the present (for me).

I keep hearing the siren call of the Z6 then I think about the (for me) limited benefit (improved liveview) it offers over a D750, and the drawbacks (reduced battery life, no autofocus on screw driven lenses), and the temptation becomes easy to resist. If I had the cash floating around to buy a Z6 I'd spend it on a used D4S.

(NB - I am not representative of the majority view on these matters. :LOL:)
Click to expand...

I'm drawn to the form factor of the Z especially with the 24-70, appreicate that goes away when you start adding the 2.8 zooms (when they arrive) but my thoughts being I'm more likely to use it on a casual basis, plus I do a lot of hiking/camping and I know it's not much but the space saving will help. Although this might just be GAS. Thanks for your reply, appreciate it.
 
I sold my D850 and D5 when I gave up my studio and retired from my photography business in December. Bought a Z6 to replace them and have no regrets at all. I think it has been implemented extremely well, the handling is intuitive to a Nikonian so there was no steep learning curve, the 'i' menu has been well thought out so I don't miss any of the old DSLR's buttons. Everything feels 'right' on it and it's a pleasure to shoot with... not to mention the size and weight saving over the DSLR's and the quality of the early lenses. I have the 24-70S and the 35S (with the 14-30S on pre order)... great quality in lightweight and compact packages. I just got back from a ski trip and had the Z6 with 24-70 in a sling bag with all the other gear you need to lug around a mountain... that's when you really appreciate the small size and light weight.

If you were shooting sports or wildlife then you may find the focus tracking to be a bit compromised over the D850 and may be better waiting for the next generation of ZEDs perhaps... but if that's not an issue for your style of shooting then I can't see how you would regret making the switch.

There's a Z thread HERE which is worth a look.
 
My view... yes you would be mad.

I own the D850 and I can't think of anything where it doesn't perform, it's a brilliant camera. The only reason to consider would be the smaller size/weight but in reality it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever to your photography. Having said that if you've money burning a hole in your pocket then it's a decent option if you want to stick with Nikon but if going mirrorless now I'd be more tempted by Sony, being a more mature product.

Simon
 
Last edited:
if you don't do much action you might like Z series and weight savings it brings. For me I wouldn't go back to shooting with an OVF, feels backwards.
Nikon has promised fw updates to improve the AF, so it may not be all that bad for continuous AF in future.
 
Last edited:
If you can live without the AF and resolution of the D850 then I don't see a problem, other than availability/price of native lenses.
I would like to try one out myself but it is merely interest, I know it wouldn't suit me as an alternative to the D850.
 
Have you been out in the sunshine without wearing a hat? Stick with the D850 and wait for the second generation of Z camera. Then decide. BTW, why would you want a lower resolution camera when the Z 7 is similar to that of the D850?
 
Ed Sutton said:
What benefits do you think the Z6 offers you over the D850?

Mirrorless cameras will definitely be the future (there'll be no other choice), but they're not the present (for me).

I keep hearing the siren call of the Z6 then I think about the (for me) limited benefit (improved liveview) it offers over a D750, and the drawbacks (reduced battery life, no autofocus on screw driven lenses), and the temptation becomes easy to resist. If I had the cash floating around to buy a Z6 I'd spend it on a used D4S.

(NB - I am not representative of the majority view on these matters. :LOL:)
Click to expand...

This is more or less where I'm at with full frame mirrorless options. I'll do it at some point but not yet. All of my historic concerns with mirrorless cameras have been addressed. It's just that they haven't yet been addressed in just one camera yet.

I really like what Nikon have done with the Z's but the lack of native lenses (for now) would be a drawback for me. And the AF performance for moving stuff seems a backward step from the best Nikon DSLR's (but lets see what firmware delivers).

Personally I'm happy to wait this one out and see what develops. And that's with my D800. If I had a D850, I think I'd be even more content to wait.
 
gad-westy said:
This is more or less where I'm at with full frame mirrorless options. I'll do it at some point but not yet. All of my historic concerns with mirrorless cameras have been addressed. It's just that they haven't yet been addressed in just one camera yet.

I really like what Nikon have done with the Z's but the lack of native lenses (for now) would be a drawback for me. And the AF performance for moving stuff seems a backward step from the best Nikon DSLR's (but lets see what firmware delivers).

Personally I'm happy to wait this one out and see what develops. And that's with my D800. If I had a D850, I think I'd be even more content to wait.
Click to expand...

There'll be a 'pro' Z sometime which will probably address the deficiencies - at a price!
 
Thanks for the replies, I do really appreciate your feedback. To be clear I know it's not going to improve my photography or trump the D850, I'm not expecting it to. But it does offer me a smaller package should I wish to use it for things other than landscapes (ie: out with the family). Think I'll sleep on it :)
 
PaulMoz said:
Thanks for the replies, I do really appreciate your feedback. To be clear I know it's not going to improve my photography or trump the D850, I'm not expecting it to. But it does offer me a smaller package should I wish to use it for things other than landscapes (ie: out with the family). Think I'll sleep on it :)
Click to expand...
Don't forget the benefits of having a EVF too :)
 
@Neil Burnell might be able to assist I am pretty sure he has just gone from D850 to Z7 and tagged here so he can comment if so, as you don't need the speed of auto focus I can really see why you would want to the weight saving alone and im sure the face detect would be great for the little one and landscapes on Z7 should be same as even though Nikon say its not the same the resolution and tests seem to say other wise, from what I have seen if you don't expose it properly and having recover the darks too much the focus overlay on sensor shows up but only when extreme processing is done.
 
Personally I wouldn’t do it, the D850 is amazing and surely it’ll cost a fair bit to change? Just get out and use the kit you have, the extra weight out of the D850 will keep you fit
 
I'm currently debating a D750 to Z6 or 7 swap, there is less pros for me in terms of weight saving (given the D750 is already quite slight) but if I had a D850 then there is a considerable weight saving to be had which may be a massive tick with your young family.
 
I originally wanted the Z7 but for the first 4-5 months, the import price was similar to the UK price so I bought the D850. I only changed as I saw that Panamoz were doing the Z7, FTZ and 24-70 F4 for £2800 and I managed to get them to price match at £2580. So I decided to sell the D850 and my 24-70 and I ended up paying £200 I think. Have to say I'm extremely impressed with the Z7 and especially the 24-70. I don't really need the faster 2.8 and had heard good things about the S-line 24-70, I have to say its possibly one of the sharpest lenses I've owned and that's including primes.

I've also tested the extreme processing as I was a little concerned with some reports, but I have seen zero patterns when recovering dark blacks and I've underexposed to the extreme to test it. My only gripe is I have dust spots already but I guess that's the joy of mirrorless!!!


Stu Meech said:
I'm currently debating a D750 to Z6 or 7 swap, there is less pros for me in terms of weight saving (given the D750 is already quite slight) but if I had a D850 then there is a considerable weight saving to be had which may be a massive tick with your young family.
Click to expand...
Hurry up and get the Z7 mate ;-)
 
I don't think you'd be mad tbh. I have the D850 and Olympus EM1-II and find that I favour the EM1-II due to the form factor. If I do want the absolute best AF performance, or want the absolute best IQ then I still use the D850 but for everything else I use the Olympus. The Z6/7 is almost the best of both worlds, especially if you don't need the AF performance. The only reason that I've not ditched two systems in favour of the Z series is that FF lenses are still bigger and heavier than the m4/3, and when you're talking long teles (of which there aren't any current native ones for the Z's) you're talking a big weight saving. For example I have the Panny 100-400mm (200-800mm eq) which weighs around 980g vs just over 1.9kg for the Tamron 150-600mm I had on the D850.
 
snerkler said:
I don't think you'd be mad tbh. I have the D850 and Olympus EM1-II and find that I favour the EM1-II due to the form factor. If I do want the absolute best AF performance, or want the absolute best IQ then I still use the D850 but for everything else I use the Olympus. The Z6/7 is almost the best of both worlds, especially if you don't need the AF performance. The only reason that I've not ditched two systems in favour of the Z series is that FF lenses are still bigger and heavier than the m4/3, and when you're talking long teles (of which there aren't any current native ones for the Z's) you're talking a big weight saving. For example I have the Panny 100-400mm (200-800mm eq) which weighs around 980g vs just over 1.9kg for the Tamron 150-600mm I had on the D850.
Click to expand...

You should really compare that to a similar lens like tamron 100-400mm or sigma 100-400mm both of which aren't that much heavier than Panasonic 100-400mm. You can equally crop the results from D850 to same size a m43 which will give you a resolution of 12.5mp. so what you gain by using E-M1ii is more resolution not more optical reach. A 100-400mm lens is a 100-400mm lens regardless of which sensor format you put it on.
 
nandbytes said:
You should really compare that to a similar lens like tamron 100-400mm or sigma 100-400mm both of which aren't that much heavier than Panasonic 100-400mm. You can equally crop the results from D850 to same size a m43 which will give you a resolution of 12.5mp. so what you gain by using E-M1ii is more resolution not more optical reach. A 100-400mm lens is a 100-400mm lens regardless of which sensor format you put it on.
Click to expand...
True, however as you say you're ending up with a 10-12.5mp image vs a 20mp one, and I often find I crop heavily on the Panny so on the Nikon combo you're going to end up with an image less than 1mp most likely. Also, I'm finding the IQ of the EM1-II and Panny 100-400mm better than the D850 Tamron 150-600mm combo, and that's before cropping the D850 image to match 800mm reach.

I thought about getting the Tamron 100-400mm as you suggest but I decided against it for a few reasons. The D850 and Tamron 100-400mm combo is circa 2.2kg vs circa 1.56kg for the EM1-II and Panny 100-400mm combo. In DX mode you're 'only' getting 600mm effective reach on the Tamron, and you're already starting to degrade the IQ. Also, the D850 AF system does not play nice with f6.3 lenses and only the f8 focus points work at the long end which can be a pain at times if you want to use an outer corner AF point for compositional purposes.

Obviously YMMV but I made my decision based on my wants and needs (y)
 
nandbytes said:
You should really compare that to a similar lens like tamron 100-400mm or sigma 100-400mm both of which aren't that much heavier than Panasonic 100-400mm. You can equally crop the results from D850 to same size a m43 which will give you a resolution of 12.5mp. so what you gain by using E-M1ii is more resolution not more optical reach. A 100-400mm lens is a 100-400mm lens regardless of which sensor format you put it on.
Click to expand...

Why? with everything else M43 related we have the whole equivalence thing shoved down our throats! until there's an advantage vs FF then things change. Take macro for example, with M43 you get greater DOF at similar apertures which is very useful, but it's never talked about, instead all we hear is the shallower DOF per aperture value on FF. The equivalent of the Pany 100-400 is a 200-800mm if equivalence means anything at all. If it was a 25mm we were talking about someone would be quick to point out it's more like a 50mm on FF ... we can't win! :D

Cropping is not the same as using the full sensor, no matter that sensor size, you'd be throwing way too much away. I mean why not just use the crop mode on the likes of a D850 for more reach?

As for OP's pondering, tough one there, you have one of the best FF bodies ever made, moving to a ML will be a big change, I did it in the past from the D800 with big hefty lenses to Fuji XT1 with tiny primes and it took a fair bit of getting used to. Once it grew on me though, I was never going back to such a behemoth of a body as the difference in IQ in controlled lighting is barely noticeable unless you extreme pixel peep. In this case it will be just the physicality of it, as the Z7 will have just as good IQ as a D850
 
Neil Burnell said:
I originally wanted the Z7 but for the first 4-5 months, the import price was similar to the UK price so I bought the D850. I only changed as I saw that Panamoz were doing the Z7, FTZ and 24-70 F4 for £2800 and I managed to get them to price match at £2580. So I decided to sell the D850 and my 24-70 and I ended up paying £200 I think. Have to say I'm extremely impressed with the Z7 and especially the 24-70. I don't really need the faster 2.8 and had heard good things about the S-line 24-70, I have to say its possibly one of the sharpest lenses I've owned and that's including primes.

I've also tested the extreme processing as I was a little concerned with some reports, but I have seen zero patterns when recovering dark blacks and I've underexposed to the extreme to test it. My only gripe is I have dust spots already but I guess that's the joy of mirrorless!!!



Hurry up and get the Z7 mate ;-)
Click to expand...
Thanks Neil - that's really helpful. Did you buy from Panamoz in the end? Sounds like you aren't regretting the decision. I could just about justify keeping the 850 if I get a Z6, although know you've got me thinking sell and get a Z7.".....Goes off to check prices" Can I ask if you use any lenses with the adaptor.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I don't think you'd be mad tbh. I have the D850 and Olympus EM1-II and find that I favour the EM1-II due to the form factor. If I do want the absolute best AF performance, or want the absolute best IQ then I still use the D850 but for everything else I use the Olympus. The Z6/7 is almost the best of both worlds, especially if you don't need the AF performance. The only reason that I've not ditched two systems in favour of the Z series is that FF lenses are still bigger and heavier than the m4/3, and when you're talking long teles (of which there aren't any current native ones for the Z's) you're talking a big weight saving. For example I have the Panny 100-400mm (200-800mm eq) which weighs around 980g vs just over 1.9kg for the Tamron 150-600mm I had on the D850.
Click to expand...

thank you - your thoughts pretty much echo why I'm thinking about this swap. Don't really use telephotos, so would just be my tamron 17-35 and the 24-70.
 
Stu Meech said:
I'm currently debating a D750 to Z6 or 7 swap, there is less pros for me in terms of weight saving (given the D750 is already quite slight) but if I had a D850 then there is a considerable weight saving to be had which may be a massive tick with your young family.
Click to expand...

Thanks Stu!
 
Cagey75 said:
Why? with everything else M43 related we have the whole equivalence thing shoved down our throats! until there's an advantage vs FF then things change. Take macro for example, with M43 you get greater DOF at similar apertures which is very useful, but it's never talked about, instead all we hear is the shallower DOF per aperture value on FF. The equivalent of the Pany 100-400 is a 200-800mm if equivalence means anything at all. If it was a 25mm we were talking about someone would be quick to point out it's more like a 50mm on FF ... we can't win! :D

Cropping is not the same as using the full sensor, no matter that sensor size, you'd be throwing way too much away. I mean why not just use the crop mode on the likes of a D850 for more reach?

As for OP's pondering, tough one there, you have one of the best FF bodies ever made, moving to a ML will be a big change, I did it in the past from the D800 with big hefty lenses to Fuji XT1 with tiny primes and it took a fair bit of getting used to. Once it grew on me though, I was never going back to such a behemoth of a body as the difference in IQ in controlled lighting is barely noticeable unless you extreme pixel peep. In this case it will be just the physicality of it, as the Z7 will have just as good IQ as a D850
Click to expand...

eh? I haven't said anything that's not factually correct. Even @snerkler agreed with me (who was the person I originally replied to).
Panny 100-400mm is a 100-400mm lens. Focal length is a physical attribute of a lens just like aperture. They don't change based on format.

The field of view and DoF does depend on the sensor size and can change depending on the crop factor.

Using 25mm lens on m43 would be like using 50mm lens on a FF sensor OR using 25mm lens on a FF sensor and cropping 4 times! :D
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
eh? I haven't said anything that's not factually correct. Even @snerkler agreed with me (who was the person I originally replied to).
Panny 100-400mm is a 100-400mm lens. Focal length is a physical attribute of a lens just like aperture. They don't change based on format.

The field of view and DoF does depend on the sensor size and can change depending on the crop factor.

Using 25mm lens on m43 would be like using 50mm lens on a FF sensor OR using 25mm lens on a FF sensor and cropping 4 times! :D
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who agrees with you if it's wrong, cropping is not the same as using a smaller sensor's full readout. So, again, to compare a 100-400 specifically designed for an M43 sensor to FF then you need to look to a 200-800, otherwise we throw all talk of equivalence out the window [be no harm] Cropping 4 times? you mean just once right? :D

Anyway, this won't help OP, just noticing this trend when it comes to equivalence, it only gets used when the advantage is with FF - not just here, but across the net
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
eh? I haven't said anything that's not factually correct. Even @snerkler agreed with me (who was the person I originally replied to).
Panny 100-400mm is a 100-400mm lens. Focal length is a physical attribute of a lens just like aperture. They don't change based on format.

The field of view and DoF does depend on the sensor size and can change depending on the crop factor.

Using 25mm lens on m43 would be like using 50mm lens on a FF sensor OR using 25mm lens on a FF sensor and cropping 4 times! :D
Click to expand...
Tbh I agree with both. A 100-400mm is a 100-400mm and it is only the crop factor which gives the different FOV. However, when comparing lenses across different formats I find it better/closer/more realistic to compare the equivalent focal lengths/FOV. After all, the reason equivalence came about for the masses was when the first switch to digital was made and you needed to work out why your 35mm format lenses all of a sudden gave a different FOV.

Crop lenses (m4/3, APS-C) are specifically designed for that system too so isn’t the image circle a different size compared to FF?
 
Cagey75 said:
It doesn't matter who agrees with you if it's wrong, cropping is not the same as using a smaller sensor's full readout. So, again, to compare a 100-400 specifically designed for an M43 sensor to FF then you need to look to a 200-800, otherwise we throw all talk of equivalence out the window [be no harm] Cropping 4 times? you mean just once right? :D

Anyway, this won't help OP, just noticing this trend when it comes to equivalence, it only gets used when the advantage is with FF - not just here, but across the net
Click to expand...

I am not wrong, you are.
Cropping is no different from using a smaller sensor's full readout. You'll even end up with similar dynamic range and ISO performance to that of smaller sensor. All you gain by using a smaller sensor is more resolution.

m43 sensor is 4 times smaller than FF is what I meant.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Crop lenses (m4/3, APS-C) are specifically designed for that system too so isn’t the image circle a different size compared to FF?
Click to expand...

Image circle is indeed different but for telephoto lenses it doesn't make a huge lot of difference because they need to be of a certain physical size.
You mostly make the weight savings on the wider end.
 
nandbytes said:
I am not wrong, you are.
m43 sensor is 4 times smaller than FF.
Click to expand...

Who said it wasn't? I was jesting at you saying you could crop 4 times, why not crop one time to that same size? :D And even then you'd still not achieve the same result - for better or worse. A 100-400 lens on FF is not the same as 100-400 on M43

Snerkler is right, the lenses for the M43 system are specifically designed with a completely different physical imaging circle for a completely different sensor size. They are not cropped ... they are build from scratch to suit. The sensor actually isn't cropped either, it's also specifically manufactured to that size. I mean their overall physical size gives that away. You can't use them on FF, so why do you insist on comparing apples to oranges? Is my 12-40 lens directly comparable to a 12-40 on FF? .. didn't think so
 
Cagey75 said:
Who said it wasn't? I was jesting at you saying you could crop 4 times, why not crop one time to that same size? :D And even then you'd still not achieve the same result - for better or worse. A 100-400 lens on FF is not the same as 100-400 on M43

Snerkler is right, the lenses for the M43 system are specifically designed with a completely different physical imaging circle for a completely different sensor size. They are not cropped ... they are build from scratch to suit. The sensor actually isn't cropped either, it's also specifically manufactured to that size. I mean their overall physical size gives that away. You can't use them on FF, so why do you insist on comparing apples to oranges? Is my 12-40 lens directly comparable to a 12-40 on FF? .. didn't think so
Click to expand...

well such a lens doesn't exist on FF and for a good reason ;)
also painting all lenses with same comparison brush won't work either. In this case i was talking specifically about lenses in long telephoto range where smaller formats don't make much weight/size saving since they need to be of a certain size (there are many example of this). But you do make some nice amount of saving at the wider end which I already mentioned above :)
 
nandbytes said:
well such a lens doesn't exist on FF and for a good reason ;)
also painting all lenses with same comparison brush won't work either. In this case i was talking specifically about lenses in long telephoto range where smaller formats don't make much weight/size saving since they need to be of a certain size (there are many example of this). But you do make some nice amount of saving at the wider end which I already mentioned above :)
Click to expand...

If you compare to a 200-800mm lens the size difference will be pretty significant. If I was to switch to FF I know I would want a 400mm for the bit of wildlife I shoot, I know when I had the 300 F4 in the past I ended up getting a 1.7x TC because even with cropping it wasn't getting me close enough to that Heron or Egret other side of the weir. When I had the Pany 100-300 I was pulling back a little in the same locations. I don't ever remember cropping down to a quarter of an image and getting the same as I can get without cropping on the smaller sensor. It might not be far off but you lose so much information through cropping. Now I would agree that you cannot afford to crop near as much with M43, you have to be more mindful when shooting, and it is nice with the higher MP FF sensors that you can be a bit looser. But like for like, a giant crop from FF isn't going to match up to a non cropped M43 image. Snerkler can test this as he has both, I'd be willing to bet on the non cropped image preserving more detail - he'd only have to stop down half as much too :D
 
nandbytes said:
Image circle is indeed different but for telephoto lenses it doesn't make a huge lot of difference because they need to be of a certain physical size.
You mostly make the weight savings on the wider end.
Click to expand...
One lens that I find quite astonishing is the Nikon 300mm f4 pf, it’s lighter than the Olly 300mm f4 :eek: It’s just a shame you can’t get a decent (in terms of AF) Nikon to m4/3 adapter ;)
 
Cagey75 said:
If you compare to a 200-800mm lens the size difference will be pretty significant. If I was to switch to FF I know I would want a 400mm for the bit of wildlife I shoot, I know when I had the 300 F4 in the past I ended up getting a 1.7x TC because even with cropping it wasn't getting me close enough to that Heron or Egret other side of the weir. When I had the Pany 100-300 I was pulling back a little in the same locations. I don't ever remember cropping down to a quarter of an image and getting the same as I can get without cropping on the smaller sensor. It might not be far off but you lose so much information through cropping. Now I would agree that you cannot afford to crop near as much with M43, you have to be more mindful when shooting, and it is nice with the higher MP FF sensors that you can be a bit looser. But like for like, a giant crop from FF isn't going to match up to a non cropped M43 image. Snerkler can test this as he has both, I'd be willing to bet on the non cropped image preserving more detail - he'd only have to stop down half as much too :D
Click to expand...
It’s difficult to say tbh as I think the Panny 100-400mm is a better lens all round to the Tamron 150-600mm lens even though I rated the 150-600mm highly. As such, even uncropped with the same framing I think the EM1-II 100-400mm combo is giving a smidge sharper images than the D850 and 150-600mm combo. Obviously if you then crop the 600mm to match 800mm FOV you’re going to degrade IQ further.

What you’d need to make a comparison like this is to have two lenses with identical sharpness and then compare one cropped vs one uncropped.

All I know is that I’m finding using the 1.6kg m4/3 combo a godsend compared to the 2.9kg combo of FF, and I’ve got no penalty in IQ either.
 
Jarad Polin has a 23 minute youtube video d850 vs z7 I think.

He is usually quite honest and he has used every Nikon ever made for the past several decades probably.
 
I would be waiting for the nk2 version. If Nikon can match the A7mk3 line with their next attempt I would take a serious look at switching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top