Nikon Z* mirrorless

[JohnMcL7]

Clearly I've spent too much time away from DSLR cameras as I'm entirely forgetting how they work.

I find the C-AF tracking works a lot better on the A9 than the D750 but appreciate the D750 wasn't Nikon's top model for AF although I think part of that is I find it much easier tracking a subject with no blackouts. I'm thinking it's worth looking into hiring a Z9 for a couple of days and see how it does with my lenses.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

the Z6 and Z7 in both first guise and second models were just not good enough compared to the likes of Canon and Sony

What does this mean? Because when I bought my Z6, I did so after considering both Sony and Canon, and decided that the Nikon Z6 was the best choice for me (Vs the Sony A7iii I think, and the Canon R). Things like better ergonomics, IBIS, and the ability to use my old F mount lenses swayed things, but I wasn't impressed by the controls of the A7, and I felt the Z6 was better built than the others. So it's very much subjective. The others may have better features in some respects, but it all balances up ultimately really. There's no clear 'winner'. I woul;d be a better photogrpaher had I chosen either other brand, and I wouldn't be taking better pictures. This is the bottom line.

As for the Z8; it falls betwen the Z6/7 form factor, and the Z9. So just doesn't appeal to me. Not small enough for travelling, and ergonomically compromised for more 'heavy duty' shooting. Considering a control grip would push the cost of the Z8 up to £4350, yet actually end up larger and not as good ergonomically as the Z9, I'd rather just spend the extra on the flagship model really. I can see how and why the Z8 appeals though. But again; it's all subjective. I for one am very glad that Nikon have produced the Z6/7 form factor, and hope they continue with that.

 

[Hadge]

What does this mean? Because when I bought my Z6, I did so after considering both Sony and Canon, and decided that the Nikon Z6 was the best choice for me (Vs the Sony A7iii I think, and the Canon R). Things like better ergonomics, IBIS, and the ability to use my old F mount lenses swayed things, but I wasn't impressed by the controls of the A7, and I felt the Z6 was better built than the others. So it's very much subjective. The others may have better features in some respects, but it all balances up ultimately really. There's no clear 'winner'. I woul;d be a better photogrpaher had I chosen either other brand, and I wouldn't be taking better pictures. This is the bottom line.

As for the Z8; it falls betwen the Z6/7 form factor, and the Z9. So just doesn't appeal to me. Not small enough for travelling, and ergonomically compromised for more 'heavy duty' shooting. Considering a control grip would push the cost of the Z8 up to £4350, yet actually end up larger and not as good ergonomically as the Z9, I'd rather just spend the extra on the flagship model really. I can see how and why the Z8 appeals though. But again; it's all subjective. I for one am very glad that Nikon have produced the Z6/7 form factor, and hope they continue with that.

The auto focus and tracking on the Z6, Z7, Z6ii and Z7ii is just not up to some of the offerings from Sony or Canon. People had hoped updates would cure it but it's the internals that needed the update which obviously cannot be done. The Z8 puts this matter to rest as it's the same as the Z9. Please don't get me wrong, you can take excellent picture with the Z6's and Z7's but for my motorsport stuff they couldn't handle it. Yes they are great with F mount lenses, more so than the other brands adopting their lenses but I need better faster focus and tracking. For landscapes etc the Z7ii was sublime. But that's not my bag so I got rid.

 

[wilt]

The auto focus and tracking on the Z6, Z7, Z6ii and Z7ii is just not up to some of the offerings from Sony or Canon. People had hoped updates would cure it but it's the internals that needed the update which obviously cannot be done. The Z8 puts this matter to rest as it's the same as the Z9. Please don't get me wrong, you can take excellent picture with the Z6's and Z7's but for my motorsport stuff they couldn't handle it. Yes they are great with F mount lenses, more so than the other brands adopting their lenses but I need better faster focus and tracking. For landscapes etc the Z7ii was sublime. But that's not my bag so I got rid.

I agree. While there's nothing at all wrong with Z6/Z7 + mkII's image quality. I myself was looking for a step forward in af performance compared to equally priced DSLR's, not backwards. Whilst the Z8 is not a cheap camera, it's certainly good value for money against other brands and even the Z9. It's more than I wanted to spend but it gives me 99% of what I was looking for.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

The auto focus and tracking on the Z6, Z7, Z6ii and Z7ii is just not up to some of the offerings from Sony or Canon

I have read this, but not experienced it. For me, the AF is incredible, I have to say. But then I'm coming from a background of MF film photography, then single point AF, rather than with much more recent 'sports' cameras with the very best AF systems. So for me that would possibly be pearls before swine. I must say, I don't pay much attention to internet reviews, comparisons etc, because I'm perfectly happy with my camera. I'm able to get a very high success rate in terms of focussing, and eye AF is just amazing, the one tool that the Z6 gives me that previous cameras haven't. I often shoot in very demanding situations, with subjects moving around all over the place, often in very poor light, so having an AF system that is much better than what I could do, is a real boon.

So when I read about people complaining about/criticising the AF systems of X, Y or Z camera, I must say I find it somewhat bemusing. I totally accept that others' experiences are very different from mine, and that they have different technical needs. But I am left wondering if people are over-reliant on the technology, and if human skill is being replaced by 'AI'. I do think that the technical standard of sports photography has improved a lot with the modern digital technology, and new AF systems must be contributing to that. So I'm all 'for' improvements in tech.

Please don't get me wrong, you can take excellent picture with the Z6's and Z7's but for my motorsport stuff they couldn't handle it

You see, I've shot 'motorsports' with a D600 with focus tracking AF, and found it absolutely fine. I accept my experience is very limited here. And the D600 is not renowned as a great camera for AF. My Z6 is much better in that regard. So I suppose my point is that I feel 'if this is good enough, excellent even, just how good are the modern systems??!' with some incredulity. I am not criticising any individual here, but I also cannot help wondering if there's an element of bad workmen blaming tools etc. I'm sure there is. But I do like to have some degree of 'control' over my images, and that includes focussing. I don't want the camera taking over from me, because then any genuine creativity is lost.

 

[psybear]

I have read this, but not experienced it. For me, the AF is incredible, I have to say. But then I'm coming from a background of MF film photography, then single point AF, rather than with much more recent 'sports' cameras with the very best AF systems. So for me that would possibly be pearls before swine. I must say, I don't pay much attention to internet reviews, comparisons etc, because I'm perfectly happy with my camera. I'm able to get a very high success rate in terms of focussing, and eye AF is just amazing, the one tool that the Z6 gives me that previous cameras haven't. I often shoot in very demanding situations, with subjects moving around all over the place, often in very poor light, so having an AF system that is much better than what I could do, is a real boon.

So when I read about people complaining about/criticising the AF systems of X, Y or Z camera, I must say I find it somewhat bemusing. I totally accept that others' experiences are very different from mine, and that they have different technical needs. But I am left wondering if people are over-reliant on the technology, and if human skill is being replaced by 'AI'. I do think that the technical standard of sports photography has improved a lot with the modern digital technology, and new AF systems must be contributing to that. So I'm all 'for' improvements in tech.


You see, I've shot 'motorsports' with a D600 with focus tracking AF, and found it absolutely fine. I accept my experience is very limited here. And the D600 is not renowned as a great camera for AF. My Z6 is much better in that regard. So I suppose my point is that I feel 'if this is good enough, excellent even, just how good are the modern systems??!' with some incredulity. I am not criticising any individual here, but I also cannot help wondering if there's an element of bad workmen blaming tools etc. I'm sure there is. But I do like to have some degree of 'control' over my images, and that includes focussing. I don't want the camera taking over from me, because then any genuine creativity is lost.

If you get a chance, pick up a Canon R5 or R7 to see just how good a great AF tracking set-up can be. It's phenomenal. As someone who plans to get a Z8 at some point, I can only hope that it is almost as good (I already know from reviews that it isn't better) as I really want to stay with Nikon.

They do say that you don't miss what you don't know about and, until recently, I was happy enough with my Z6 and Z7 for my landscape photography. Then two things happened - I started to get an interest in bird photography and I tried out an R5.... The Z6/Z7 is useless in comparison with the Canon system, not even in the same ballpark. I was getting ready to jump systems to Canon but I think the Z8, with (probably) my Z6 as a hiking camera, will keep me Nikon.

 

[Hadge]

I have read this, but not experienced it. For me, the AF is incredible, I have to say. But then I'm coming from a background of MF film photography, then single point AF, rather than with much more recent 'sports' cameras with the very best AF systems. So for me that would possibly be pearls before swine. I must say, I don't pay much attention to internet reviews, comparisons etc, because I'm perfectly happy with my camera. I'm able to get a very high success rate in terms of focussing, and eye AF is just amazing, the one tool that the Z6 gives me that previous cameras haven't. I often shoot in very demanding situations, with subjects moving around all over the place, often in very poor light, so having an AF system that is much better than what I could do, is a real boon.

So when I read about people complaining about/criticising the AF systems of X, Y or Z camera, I must say I find it somewhat bemusing. I totally accept that others' experiences are very different from mine, and that they have different technical needs. But I am left wondering if people are over-reliant on the technology, and if human skill is being replaced by 'AI'. I do think that the technical standard of sports photography has improved a lot with the modern digital technology, and new AF systems must be contributing to that. So I'm all 'for' improvements in tech.


You see, I've shot 'motorsports' with a D600 with focus tracking AF, and found it absolutely fine. I accept my experience is very limited here. And the D600 is not renowned as a great camera for AF. My Z6 is much better in that regard. So I suppose my point is that I feel 'if this is good enough, excellent even, just how good are the modern systems??!' with some incredulity. I am not criticising any individual here, but I also cannot help wondering if there's an element of bad workmen blaming tools etc. I'm sure there is. But I do like to have some degree of 'control' over my images, and that includes focussing. I don't want the camera taking over from me, because then any genuine creativity is lost.

Excuse me? Bad workman blaming his tools? I think coming from using a D5, D4S etc etc and getting GREAT results I have something to compare the Z6 to and it's not in the same league as those cameras are vastly superior to your D600. You carry on with what you use and I'll stick to what I know sunshine.

 

[PeteStewardson]

Excuse me? Bad workman blaming his tools? I think coming from using a D5, D4S etc etc and getting GREAT results I have something to compare the Z6 to and it's not in the same league as those cameras are vastly superior to your D600. You carry on with what you use and I'll stick to what I know sunshine.

Don't feed the trolls

 

[wilt]

I have read this, but not experienced it. For me, the AF is incredible, I have to say. But then I'm coming from a background of MF film photography, then single point AF, rather than with much more recent 'sports' cameras with the very best AF systems. So for me that would possibly be pearls before swine. I must say, I don't pay much attention to internet reviews, comparisons etc, because I'm perfectly happy with my camera. I'm able to get a very high success rate in terms of focussing, and eye AF is just amazing, the one tool that the Z6 gives me that previous cameras haven't. I often shoot in very demanding situations, with subjects moving around all over the place, often in very poor light, so having an AF system that is much better than what I could do, is a real boon.

So when I read about people complaining about/criticising the AF systems of X, Y or Z camera, I must say I find it somewhat bemusing. I totally accept that others' experiences are very different from mine, and that they have different technical needs. But I am left wondering if people are over-reliant on the technology, and if human skill is being replaced by 'AI'. I do think that the technical standard of sports photography has improved a lot with the modern digital technology, and new AF systems must be contributing to that. So I'm all 'for' improvements in tech.


You see, I've shot 'motorsports' with a D600 with focus tracking AF, and found it absolutely fine. I accept my experience is very limited here. And the D600 is not renowned as a great camera for AF. My Z6 is much better in that regard. So I suppose my point is that I feel 'if this is good enough, excellent even, just how good are the modern systems??!' with some incredulity. I am not criticising any individual here, but I also cannot help wondering if there's an element of bad workmen blaming tools etc. I'm sure there is. But I do like to have some degree of 'control' over my images, and that includes focussing. I don't want the camera taking over from me, because then any genuine creativity is lost.

A bad workman does blame his tools, but a good workman wants to work with the best. Starting out in construction over 30 years ago I quickly learnt the difference between a £3 hammer and a £20 one. Sports and wildlife are the most technologic demanding genres of photography. Many great images have been taken through history with the cameras of that time. Technology moves on to make it easier for the photographer to capture the same images. While many are more than happy to continue using cameras long after they have been superceded many times, others are maybe pushing it's capability to it's maximum or beyond what it was designed for. True there is many that think the newest camera will make them a better photographer, but they're sorely mistaken. I would say I've never out grown a single camera with my skill, but certainly found many frustrating situations when one isn't up to the task. I shoot practically everything, so a one camera does all is perfect for me, rather than carrying two bodies. Others are happy with 4fps, single point auto focus, single card slot etc, but not me.

 

[PeteStewardson]

If you get a chance, pick up a Canon R5 or R7 to see just how good a great AF tracking set-up can be. It's phenomenal. As someone who plans to get a Z8 at some point, I can only hope that it is almost as good (I already know from reviews that it isn't better) as I really want to stay with Nikon.

They do say that you don't miss what you don't know about and, until recently, I was happy enough with my Z6 and Z7 for my landscape photography. Then two things happened - I started to get an interest in bird photography and I tried out an R5.... The Z6/Z7 is useless in comparison with the Canon system, not even in the same ballpark. I was getting ready to jump systems to Canon but I think the Z8, with (probably) my Z6 as a hiking camera, will keep me Nikon.

I have spent a decent amount of time with an R5, which is behind the R3/6ii/7/8 Canon offerings and I can hand on heart say that the R5 was as good, if not better at keeping focus and tracking than the Z9 depending on the situation. The Nikon subject detection and 3D tracking do have odd quirks even when locked on. You also have to use what I call AF gymnastics doing different types of AF handover from one mode to another a lot with the Z cameras. You don't in 99% of the time with Canon. When the mkii R5 comes out it will be even better.

I've owned nearly every Z camera, and definitely all the generations and until the Z9 I was never happy with the AF on any of them. The Z9 may not be as good sometimes but it works well enough once you get used to having every Fn button mapped to a different AF mode

Having had now over a year of issue due to arthritis having to lug around a Z9 was becoming a problem, and I was about to sell up completely and move to Canon, but then the Z8 came along. I straight swapped my Z9 for a Z8 ( financially anyway as I sold to grays but pre-ordered with Cliftons ) purely due to the weight, but in full knowledge it wouldn't' 'fix' my AF annoyances. Why?

Well I'm invested in the Z glass, I don't own any f mount now, and tbh I just like the Z glass far more than Canons. Plus the Nikon lenses have far less compromises. I also have owned Nikons for 30 years so I'm used to them. I haven't suffered any of the 'getting used to mirrorless' stuff I see many people complain about, I just picked up my first Z, went through he menus changing the settings I knew I would by default, and didn't think anything more of it. And the image quality in my opinion of the Nikon system cannot be beaten, for colour, contrast etc. I've stayed with the system for the glass and will just wait for the bodies to catch up. But I'm under no illusions that the Canon AF would have been far better, and now I'm at peace with that.

 

[psybear]

Z8 now in stock at E-infinity for £3599.

 

[psybear]

And at One-Stop Digital for the less competitive £3,738.99.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

Excuse me? Bad workman blaming his tools? I think coming from using a D5, D4S etc etc and getting GREAT results I have something to compare the Z6 to and it's not in the same league as those cameras are vastly superior to your D600. You carry on with what you use and I'll stick to what I know sunshine.

Sigh. I'll just reiterate:

I am not criticising any individual here, but I also cannot help wondering if there's an element of bad workmen blaming tools etc

There's no need for anyone to be so defensive. This is not a slight on your character or manhood or whatever. I'm genuinely interested in just how much technology has improved and is enabling better photography. Context. It's all about context.

A bad workman does blame his tools, but a good workman wants to work with the best. Starting out in construction over 30 years ago I quickly learnt the difference between a £3 hammer and a £20 one. Sports and wildlife are the most technologic demanding genres of photography. Many great images have been taken through history with the cameras of that time. Technology moves on to make it easier for the photographer to capture the same images. While many are more than happy to continue using cameras long after they have been superceded many times, others are maybe pushing it's capability to it's maximum or beyond what it was designed for. True there is many that think the newest camera will make them a better photographer, but they're sorely mistaken. I would say I've never out grown a single camera with my skill, but certainly found many frustrating situations when one isn't up to the task. I shoot practically everything, so a one camera does all is perfect for me, rather than carrying two bodies. Others are happy with 4fps, single point auto focus, single card slot etc, but not me.

I've been around from the beginning of effective AF systems, from the earliest Minolta and Canon systems, then with Nikon and so on. There has always been a consensus that Canon was slightly ahead of Nikon in terms of AF. Indeed; my Canon EOS1 had faster AF than my Nikon F4. With each generation of cameras, features like the AF improve. So I can understand how such improvements can aid the workman. I personally make choices about the level of tools/equipment I use for a variety of purposes, from woodworking/construction/DIY, to bicycles. I know from personal experience that a Festool tracksaw is significantly better than a cheapo BnQ special. I also appreciate that good tools tend to cost more. The Festool might be 10x more expensive than its cheaper rival. But I know which I'd rather have. So this isn't about questioning why individuals make such choices.

But surely we're now at a level where such 'improvements' are much smaller, incrementally, in real terms. IE; if an AF system took 1" to find focus in say 1990, then 1/2" in 1995, 1/4" in 2000 and so on, then the actual increment is ever smaller. Sure, 0.01" is twice as fast as 0.02", but who'd actually notice? I appreciate also the AI element of AF systems now; my Z6 can follow focus even if the subject is momentarily blocked. Clever. So I totally 'get' why people seek the latest gear with all the improvements. But there's the thing; photographers were producing pin-sharp images of sports way before AF was invented. Sure, much of that was down to skill and perhaps luck. And now, you don't need the same level of skill (or luck), which professionally must be a bonus. With one-off events and moments, you'd want to be as 'on it' as possible. Nothing like that crucial moment being marred because the focus isn't quite right.

But I wonder how many photographers would benefit from improving their skill, rather than simply buying ever newer kit to compensate?

 

[JohnMcL7]

I've used MF then early AF systems up until now and there's definitely not been the incremental changes you claim, there's been huge jumps in AF technology still occurring recently. I don't find motorsport is much of a test of AF as the subjects are large and generally moving in a predictable manner. I could show you a tricky action shot from an old Panasonic L1 (4/3 DSLR with the archaic Olympus three point AF system) and a similar one taken with a Sony A9 mk1 which would appear to back up your point except that doesn't tell the real story at all. It took a number of attempts to get the shot I wanted with the L1 to get the timing of the shot I wanted and in focus as well.

However the A9 mk1's incredible tracking AF performance (only referring to the A9 here as it's the one I use but applies to any of the current stacked cameras) can track and nail most of the shots which combined with 20fps and blackout free shooting means I can get pretty much the exact shot I want straight away, no luck needed or waiting on getting the timing I need. It's not question of skill, a camera like the A9 will get you many more keepers for action shots which means either less time if it's something repeatable or pretty much guaranteed to get the shot you want if it's something that's a one off.

There's only so far skill can take you and no matter how good you are, you're not going to be able to match the benefits of some of these high spec cameras. It's why such cameras exist and why all the professionals use such cameras. Through each generation of camera I've used there's been a noticeable improvement over time which levels off and then there's been a noticeable jump when I've changed to a camera with better AF and other improvements. I can certainly see some people don't need such improvements for their shooting or it's not worth the money but I absolutely wouldn't limit myself with a camera if there's something better regardless of my skill.

 

[Cordy]

I'm really pleased with my Z6ii and Z 50mm1.8 S lens.

Is there a reasonably priced macro lens that allows me to get a tad closer ?
Below is about as close as I can get to this potato flower which is about 30 mm high.
any recommendations much appreciated. -- edit, I have the FTZ adapter
John
DSC_0639 by Cordyii, on Flickr

 

[PeteStewardson]

If you have the ftz then the old 105 2.8 afs is worth a look. Or if wanting to get macro on a budget but keep to z mount the Nikon 50MC is a decent lens. Or try a used 105mc and not look back.

 

[wilt]

Sigh. I'll just reiterate:

There's no need for anyone to be so defensive. This is not a slight on your character or manhood or whatever. I'm genuinely interested in just how much technology has improved and is enabling better photography. Context. It's all about context.



I've been around from the beginning of effective AF systems, from the earliest Minolta and Canon systems, then with Nikon and so on. There has always been a consensus that Canon was slightly ahead of Nikon in terms of AF. Indeed; my Canon EOS1 had faster AF than my Nikon F4. With each generation of cameras, features like the AF improve. So I can understand how such improvements can aid the workman. I personally make choices about the level of tools/equipment I use for a variety of purposes, from woodworking/construction/DIY, to bicycles. I know from personal experience that a Festool tracksaw is significantly better than a cheapo BnQ special. I also appreciate that good tools tend to cost more. The Festool might be 10x more expensive than its cheaper rival. But I know which I'd rather have. So this isn't about questioning why individuals make such choices.

But surely we're now at a level where such 'improvements' are much smaller, incrementally, in real terms. IE; if an AF system took 1" to find focus in say 1990, then 1/2" in 1995, 1/4" in 2000 and so on, then the actual increment is ever smaller. Sure, 0.01" is twice as fast as 0.02", but who'd actually notice? I appreciate also the AI element of AF systems now; my Z6 can follow focus even if the subject is momentarily blocked. Clever. So I totally 'get' why people seek the latest gear with all the improvements. But there's the thing; photographers were producing pin-sharp images of sports way before AF was invented. Sure, much of that was down to skill and perhaps luck. And now, you don't need the same level of skill (or luck), which professionally must be a bonus. With one-off events and moments, you'd want to be as 'on it' as possible. Nothing like that crucial moment being marred because the focus isn't quite right.

But I wonder how many photographers would benefit from improving their skill, rather than simply buying ever newer kit to compensate?

Improving your skill and knowledge is the sure fire way to improve your photography.
I'm a member of the Z8 Facebook group and it beggars belief the simplistic questions some Z8 users ask, I think to myself you've just bought a £4K camera and don't have the basics of photography. There will always be the gear heads to either show off the latest and greatest or think it's the missing link to great images.
The camera companies need these people too, so I see it as someone supporting their brand.

I can imagine the number of images missed through the years due to limitations of the gear, even by knowledgeable professionals.
Everything evolves and advances, if it didn't we'd be driving the same make and model as the very first car.
I regularly see outstanding images taken with old, classic or even vintage cameras.

I've shot sports with many cameras and even with luck, some skill and a little knowledge found it frustrating to have a shot either side of the "action" shot.
More FPS removes a lot of the luck aspect, but still requires skill and knowledge.

It really comes down to what you want from your camera and how it performs for your needs. I wouldn't like to shoot a boxing fight with a D90, but I did many years ago.
I wouldn't like to shoot a track and field event with a D600, but I did again years ago. Because now there's better equipped cameras designed for those events.
Showing my age here, but ask Linford Christie to run in a pair of plimsoles for the 100m and he'd likely pick the very best from the top brands as he has the choice and they're clearly better suited to the task.

 

[Don Fischer]

As good as DSLR's seem to be today going mirrorless doesn'tt make any sense to me. I've got a D7000 and had it a number of years, No clue how to work everything. Hpow good does a picture actually need to be?

 

[viewfromthenorth]

As good as DSLR's seem to be today going mirrorless doesn'tt make any sense to me. I've got a D7000 and had it a number of years, No clue how to work everything. Hpow good does a picture actually need to be?

If what you have works for you, that’s fantastic - save your money and spend it on something more deserving.

But other people’s use cases (sports, wildlife, etc that require fast, accurate auto focus, wedding photographers benefitting from silent shutters, etc) or circumstances (e.g. health reasons necessitating a lighter set up) will be different to your own.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

I've used MF then early AF systems up until now and there's definitely not been the incremental changes you claim, there's been huge jumps in AF technology still occurring recently

I'm not so sure about 'huge jumps', particularly these days; changes seem to be smaller but more often, through firmware updates now. Back in the early days of AF, there were significant differences between systems; anyone remember the Nikon F501? Great little camera, but the AF was very slow. By the time the F4 and F801 came out, Nikon had improved the AF significantly. There was a noticeable difference between the F801/s and the F4 to; the F4 had faster AF motors. The F5 was a significant improvement over the F4, but then it has to be recognised that there were eight years of development between the two cameras. So; big jumps there, maybe, but as I said; as the AF speed gets ever quicker, so the actual size of those 'jumps' gets smaller. I doubt anyone could detect the difference in pure AF speed between a D5 and a D6; the improvements were more in AF tracking technology. And as for differences between say a D4 and a D600; the former is a 'professional' level camera and cost several times more. My Z6 has 6 years of development over the D600, so I expect it to perform better. I do notice an improvement in the pure AF speed (single point, AF-S) over the D600, but it's very 'small' in terms of fractions of a second. Barely perceptible. Put a Z lens up against an older mechanical AF lens, and yes, that's a significant difference. Z Vs F AF-S lenses, a much smaller and often imperceptible difference. I genuinely cannot say if the AF speed of my F-mount AF-S lenses is any quicker on my Z6+FTZ, than on my D600. I think I'd need specialist measuring equipment to determine that.

I don't find motorsport is much of a test of AF as the subjects are large and generally moving in a predictable manner

Shh! You'll upset some people on here with such bold claims!

I've shot sports with many cameras and even with luck, some skill and a little knowledge found it frustrating to have a shot either side of the "action" shot.
More FPS removes a lot of the luck aspect, but still requires skill and knowledge.

But isn't the skill level required less? As the technology is doing more of the work? I totally get why pros use the better cameras; the higher the hit rate, the more chance of getting paid. I totally get that. If I was shooting sports for a living I'd have the best gear, no question. But I'd want the equipment to compliment my own skills, not replace them.

It really comes down to what you want from your camera and how it performs for your needs. I wouldn't like to shoot a boxing fight with a D90, but I did many years ago.
I wouldn't like to shoot a track and field event with a D600, but I did again years ago. Because now there's better equipped cameras designed for those events.
Showing my age here, but ask Linford Christie to run in a pair of plimsoles for the 100m and he'd likely pick the very best from the top brands as he has the choice and they're clearly better suited to the task.

You see, photographers were able to capture action decades ago, and aside from some aspects of image quality that modern digital cameras offer, is there a real 'improvement' in the actual subjective merits of the images? Sure; modern media isn't so interested in creative or 'artistic' considerations, simply requiring an illustration of fact, but I suppose the more philosophical question is 'has technology improved photography'? I appreciate that's a discussion for another time, maybe. Worth thinking about though, imo.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

As good as DSLR's seem to be today going mirrorless doesn'tt make any sense to me. I've got a D7000 and had it a number of years, No clue how to work everything. How good does a picture actually need to be?

A very good question. I started digital photography 'properly', with a s/h Nikon D200. I quickly upgraded to a D600 because a) I wasn't a fan of the cropped format (I was using older 35mm era lenses), and b) the low light capability wasn't amazing. With the D200, the I could shoot up to ISO 1600, but anything beyond that was a noisy mess. Most images shot at ISO1600 I converted to B+W because of the unsightly noise. The D600 was a huge improvement; I could shoot as high as ISO6400 and get good images. I started shooting events; music, dance, performance etc, so need a camera that could cope well in mixed and often poor lighting situations. Imagine, moody basement 'Jazz Club' type venues. Flash was out because it disturbs performers too much. The D600 was great for several years. Then I decided to buy a Z6, as the new larger lens mount/shorter flange distance seemed to theoretically offer an improvement in IQ. In good lighting, there is no real difference in IQ. But just a few days after buying it, I shot an event with dreadful lighting, and the advantages of the Z6 were immediately apparent. I could now shoot much lower than ISO6400, and still get acceptable results. This was a 'game changer' for me. The RAW files were better to work on. Money well spent. And this was before the Eye AF updates came along, so the camera has only got better since. So whilst I was shooting good images previously, the new camera opened up more scope for image making. Hence why I understand why some photographers would go for higher end models. But I would have been happy continuing to use my D600 if I hadn't bought the Z6. You learn to work to the limitations of the equipment, and push the boundaries. If my Z6 broke or whatever, I could still carry on happily with my D600 with it's terrible AF and dreadful performance. Because I'd still have a fantastically capable photographic tool. Your D7000 is such a camera; unless you 'need' the updated tech, there's no reason to change. I don't intend to buy another camera any time soon. Because what I have now will do me for a few more years at least. I don't feel my inadequacies as a photographer (or human being, even) need lots of money throwing at them.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

I'm really pleased with my Z6ii and Z 50mm1.8 S lens.

Is there a reasonably priced macro lens that allows me to get a tad closer ?
Below is about as close as I can get to this potato flower which is about 30 mm high.
any recommendations much appreciated. -- edit, I have the FTZ adapter
John

The 50 f1.8Z is a fantastic lens, the best f1.8 50mm lens Nikon have ever made. Superlative. I was blown away by how good it is.

I have the older 105mm mechanical AF lens, which sadly won't AF with my Z6. I bought it very cheap in mint condition, to use with my D600. Brilliant lens, so sharp corner to corner even wide open. I am however considering the Nikkor 105mm Z lens, simply because it will allow focus stacking and AF. Everything I've read about it suggests it's yet another fantastic Z mount lens. But the AF-S 105 macro will work fine with the FTZ, and will be significantly cheaper than the Z mount version. And again, it's a brilliant lens. Nikon's micro lenses are renoned for their optical quality, and make great portrait lenses too. Very low distortion indeed; I use a 60mm micro for digitising old film negs and slides. The longer micro lenses will enable shooting from sightly further away (for a given reproduction ratio), so perhaps won't disturb small creatures as much as having to come in closer with a shorter lens.

 

[PeteStewardson]

A few talked with the Z8 over the last few days. Had limited ability to shoot since getting it but personally I'm seeing a slight AF improvement over the Z9, and Lightroom is processing the files much better ( it might also be processing Z9 files better but haven't checked )
This flower isn't an amazing photo really, but... it's at ISO 14400. Don't let anyone tell you this camera is bad at high ISO. No noise reduction applied, just straight into lightroom and a slight adjustment of the pink in the flower to make it look more like real life and exported.

 

[Hadge]

First weekend motorsport shoot with the Z8 alongside my Z9 and very impressed with it but then seeing as it's a baby Z9 it should be good. The feel in my hands felt good, the size is reminiscent of my old D850 and although I never really tested the battery to it's fullest I had plenty of life left when I returned home even after viewing lots of images at the race track.
I do miss the quick easy dial change on the left for changing the fps setting but it's just a case of learning to do it another way. I will hopefully try swapping the cameras over this weekend to see how they compare image wise using the same lens but this weekend was just about getting used to it. Well done Nikon.

 

[PeteStewardson]

First weekend motorsport shoot with the Z8 alongside my Z9 and very impressed with it but then seeing as it's a baby Z9 it should be good. The feel in my hands felt good, the size is reminiscent of my old D850 and although I never really tested the battery to it's fullest I had plenty of life left when I returned home even after viewing lots of images at the race track.
I do miss the quick easy dial change on the left for changing the fps setting but it's just a case of learning to do it another way. I will hopefully try swapping the cameras over this weekend to see how they compare image wise using the same lens but this weekend was just about getting used to it. Well done Nikon.

Could always change the Z9 to work the same for fps to aid muscle memory.

 

[DowntonMini]

Z8 in stock at Panamoz

Nikon Z8 Mirrorless Camera (Body)

Why Buy From Panamoz.com? Free 3 Year UK/EU/US Local Warranty 14 Day Money Back Guarantee Prices include taxes and duties All inclusive prices with no hidden fees Products are 100% brand new and in box Express shipping with insurance and tracking Delivery in 7-14 business days only Secure...

panamoz.com

Immediate dispatch and £300 off. It pays to go grey, but not as much as their stonking price on Z9s

I've just looked at this and cannot believe how good a deal the Z9 is I keep thinking I need (sorry want one) when the Z8 was announced with such similar specs I started thinking ok so a Z8 would be a good option but with such little difference it would be a tough decision between them the one thing the Z8 has over the Z9 is it's lighter

 

[DowntonMini]

I'm really pleased with my Z6ii and Z 50mm1.8 S lens.

Is there a reasonably priced macro lens that allows me to get a tad closer ?
Below is about as close as I can get to this potato flower which is about 30 mm high.
any recommendations much appreciated. -- edit, I have the FTZ adapter
John
DSC_0639 by Cordyii, on Flickr

I've got the FTZ and use my Sigma 105 in fact I'm a Macro day on Friday so will try and post some of the results.

I had an issue with my copy autofocusing on the Z7 I spoke to Sigma who had it in for a check it need a firmware update cost me less then £40 including postage there and back

 

[TG.]

the one thing the Z8 has over the Z9 is it's lighter

And this is what a lot of people have been waiting for, a true replacement for the D850 and from what I've read the Z8 is it, because of the size. It's easier for a landscape photographer anyway, personally I would of liked it in a Z6/7 body, then it would of been pretty much perfect for me, but you can never have everything, and let's face it, you will never please everyone with any brand of camera. However I get your point, if you were buying from say Panamoz or similar, the Z9 is a great deal compared to the Z8. The Z8 is still a couple of years away from me, unless I win the lottery of course

 

[SFTPhotography]

And this is what a lot of people have been waiting for, a true replacement for the D850 and from what I've read the Z8 is it, because of the size. It's easier for a landscape photographer anyway, personally I would of liked it in a Z6/7 body, then it would of been pretty much perfect for me, but you can never have everything, and let's face it, you will never please everyone with any brand of camera. However I get your point, if you were buying from say Panamoz or similar, the Z9 is a great deal compared to the Z8. The Z8 is still a couple of years away from me, unless I win the lottery of course

The one plus of the Z9 is the vertical grip - if you shoot a lot of lengthways shots that's a plus.

Nikon Z9 Mirrorless Camera (Body)

Why Buy From Panamoz.com? Free 3 Year UK/EU/US Local Warranty 14 Day Money Back Guarantee Prices include taxes and duties All inclusive prices with no hidden fees Products are 100% brand new and in box Express shipping with insurance and tracking Delivery in 7-14 business days only Secure...

panamoz.com

£3840

 

[TG.]

The one plus of the Z9 is the vertical grip - if you shoot a lot of lengthways shots that's a plus.

Nikon Z9 Mirrorless Camera (Body)

Why Buy From Panamoz.com? Free 3 Year UK/EU/US Local Warranty 14 Day Money Back Guarantee Prices include taxes and duties All inclusive prices with no hidden fees Products are 100% brand new and in box Express shipping with insurance and tracking Delivery in 7-14 business days only Secure...

panamoz.com

£3840

And the Z8 has gone down another 30 quid since they launched it last week, so the price is going in the right direction

 

[wilt]

It turns out that the problems I was having with import/thumbnail in lightroom being painfully slow was down to a faulty Delkin card.
I have two Delkin Black 150GB cards and one is very poor performance. Running a test with crystaldiskmark and it was averaging 40MB/s.
I had noticed that even reviewing the images in the Z8, it would pause every few images.
I've been in contact with Delkin and it seems that they're going to replace it.

 

[PeteStewardson]

For those that enjoyed my previous videos, I've been doing some exploration on buffering on the Z8

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAlLE_IVM6c

 

[Sootchucker]

Quick question time please. Unlike my Z6 & Z7 II bodies, the Z9 doesn't have the U1...U3 user settings on the mode dial but instead uses user banks (much like i guess the new Z8). Whilst these aren't quite as intuitive as the user settings of the lesser bodies, nonetheless I'd like to get them used. My question therefore is are the 4 user banks of the Z9 under the shooting and video menus exclusive to each other (i.e. can I set and name 4 banks for the photo side, and still have 4 unique names and settings for the video side) ?

 

[JohnMcL7]

Is there a UK release date for the Z8? One site is saying end of May but most seem to be saying preorder at the moment. I've found a place I can rent a Z9 for a reasonable price but depending on release date I've been wondering if I should put a preorder in for a Z8 I can cancel later.

I see Sigma have released three prime lenses in Z mount but not seen a roadmap or anything about what they plan to release next, is there anything out there yet? It's the 100-400mm I'd be interested in.

 

[sep9001]

Is there a UK release date for the Z8? One site is saying end of May but most seem to be saying preorder at the moment. I've found a place I can rent a Z9 for a reasonable price but depending on release date I've been wondering if I should put a preorder in for a Z8 I can cancel later.

I see Sigma have released three prime lenses in Z mount but not seen a roadmap or anything about what they plan to release next, is there anything out there yet? It's the 100-400mm I'd be interested in.

Z8 is already out but first batch has sold out, hence the pre order.

 

[sep9001]

Is there a UK release date for the Z8? One site is saying end of May but most seem to be saying preorder at the moment. I've found a place I can rent a Z9 for a reasonable price but depending on release date I've been wondering if I should put a preorder in for a Z8 I can cancel later.

I see Sigma have released three prime lenses in Z mount but not seen a roadmap or anything about what they plan to release next, is there anything out there yet? It's the 100-400mm I'd be interested in.

In stock here if you don’t mind an import

Nikon Z8 Mirrorless Camera (Body)

Why Buy From Panamoz.com? Free 3 Year UK/EU/US Local Warranty 14 Day Money Back Guarantee Prices include taxes and duties All inclusive prices with no hidden fees Products are 100% brand new and in box Express shipping with insurance and tracking Delivery in 7-14 business days only Secure...

panamoz.com

 

[Nikon f1.8]

anyone using Sigma lenses with there Z7ii as I'm going to LCE tomorrow to have a look at one. My biggest worry is that the lenses I have (all Sigma) might have problems with the camera and adapter. The salesman will probably say they will work but I want to be sure before I say I will take it.
Lenses are
24-105 f4 art
70-200 f2.8 sport
150-600 f5-6.3 contemporary

 

[wilt]

anyone using Sigma lenses with there Z7ii as I'm going to LCE tomorrow to have a look at one. My biggest worry is that the lenses I have (all Sigma) might have problems with the camera and adapter. The salesman will probably say they will work but I want to be sure before I say I will take it.
Lenses are
24-105 f4 art
70-200 f2.8 sport
150-600 f5-6.3 contemporary

FTZ-Compatible Sigma Lenses | Thom Hogan

Sigma lenses compatible with the Nikon FTZ Adapter

www.zsystemuser.com

 

[Nikon f1.8]

Oh dear no mention of the 70-200 sport

 

[JohnMcL7]

In stock here if you don’t mind an import

Nikon Z8 Mirrorless Camera (Body)

Why Buy From Panamoz.com? Free 3 Year UK/EU/US Local Warranty 14 Day Money Back Guarantee Prices include taxes and duties All inclusive prices with no hidden fees Products are 100% brand new and in box Express shipping with insurance and tracking Delivery in 7-14 business days only Secure...

panamoz.com

I don't mind grey imports if the price is good but it's not enough of a saving at the moment.

FTZ-Compatible Sigma Lenses | Thom Hogan

Sigma lenses compatible with the Nikon FTZ Adapter

www.zsystemuser.com

Useful list thanks and found my Tamron 150-600mm doesn't work which is annoying but the Sigma 12-24 does which I thought probably wouldn't.