Nikon Z* mirrorless

[snerkler]

The sony is OK, rather than being smacked hard with the ugly stick. TBH I don't even notice the looks, because it's got nothing outstanding about it.

Looks are a personal thing anyway tbh and I'm sure not a main reason to buy a camera I know I'll get flamed for this but the Sony's just don't look or feel as high level for some reason. Again wouldn't stop me using them, I'm a big fan and as you know if it wasn't for the grip room I'd have swapped to the Sony A7RIII from the D750, and now to the A9.

The lower cost comes in the amount of used kit available, so my slightly used A7III was £1350 instead of £2K+ etc. Plenty of used lenses about now with prices gradually getting more sensible.

But then what about the vast array of used DSLR cameras and lenses, even cheaper?

Why would people move? For better AF, for lenses that don't need adjustment for accurate focussing, for functionally useful live view, for small size (apparently not true for Nikon?) for a system that is having development applied instead of one that is legacy only, for sensors with greater resolution and better dynamic range. Granted some of those are only true for the Sony system at this stage because the other makes are lagging, but they'll surpass their DSLRs with their ML cameras eventually. One of the compelling factors behind buying the A7 was that the AF was reputedly better than the D750, and I'd become fed up with the poor AF of my D610 that was actually less good than in my entry level sony A58, so didn't really trust the AF of the D750 either.

I agree, inn the future mirrorless will be better than DSLR but I still think for the here and now there's not a compelling enough reason for a lot of DSLR users to swap. Better AF in mirrorless? Debatable comparing like for like, and even if mirrorless is better now is it significant enough to swap? If I had a D850 or D500 I wouldn't see a significant difference enough to swap for this alone. Likewise with a D5 or 1DX-II, is the A9 enough of an improvement?

TBH the D750 is an amazing camera, nailed pretty much everything. Yes the A7III is supposedly better but the D750 got the shots. I'll always have fond memories of it, my first FF camera and a camera that I had complete confidence in.

I'm not sure DSLR are legacy yet, or will be for some time. Nikon have a D760 coming out, the D6 and there's even talk of a D860, let alone what Canon have planned. I think we're more likely to see 'cross-over' cameras.

For pros, the choice must be about whether changing systems will enable they to get work that they'd otherwise not have, and better AF, better lenses and dynamic range might well be enough to justify investing. The wedding business seems to be a key place where this has already happened.

I'm no sony devotee or fanboi - just want a decent system that works well. My impression without handling a Z series camera is Nikon fumbled the ball when they should have scored. Canon were always going to do less well because their sensor tech is trailing and doesn't seem able to catch up, but with their experience in pro and enthusiast cameras Nikon should have looked ahead of the status quo and designed accordingly. I suspect they are actually getting better images from sony sensors than sony themselves, but that's not enough to be competitive.

I've been reading a lot recently and from what I can gather pros still have more confidence in the 1DX-II and D5 over the A9 (don't shoot the messenger ) and of course the pro network is still better. I do expect this to change over time, but in the here and now there's nothing to convince a lot of sport pros to switch, especially with the release of the 1Dx-III and announcement of the D6.

Only because they are pulling a fuji and baking the raws, Sony made it clear with the rii that they would keep the best sensors for their own cameras. What happens after the sensor is down to processing adjusts and baking into pp.

I"m not sure Nikon are baking the raws tbh, just the EXIF is causing Lightroom etc to apply NR and other such things, you can still choose to rest these to get a 'true raw'

 

[f/2.8]

Looks are a personal thing anyway tbh and I'm sure not a main reason to buy a camera I know I'll get flamed for this but the Sony's just don't look or feel as high level for some reason. Again wouldn't stop me using them, I'm a big fan and as you know if it wasn't for the grip room I'd have swapped to the Sony A7RIII from the D750, and now to the A9.



But then what about the vast array of used DSLR cameras and lenses, even cheaper?

I agree, inn the future mirrorless will be better than DSLR but I still think for the here and now there's not a compelling enough reason for a lot of DSLR users to swap. Better AF in mirrorless? Debatable comparing like for like, and even if mirrorless is better now is it significant enough to swap? If I had a D850 or D500 I wouldn't see a significant difference enough to swap for this alone. Likewise with a D5 or 1DX-II, is the A9 enough of an improvement?

TBH the D750 is an amazing camera, nailed pretty much everything. Yes the A7III is supposedly better but the D750 got the shots. I'll always have fond memories of it, my first FF camera and a camera that I had complete confidence in.

I'm not sure DSLR are legacy yet, or will be for some time. Nikon have a D760 coming out, the D6 and there's even talk of a D860, let alone what Canon have planned. I think we're more likely to see 'cross-over' cameras.

I've been reading a lot recently and from what I can gather pros still have more confidence in the 1DX-II and D5 over the A9 (don't shoot the messenger ) and of course the pro network is still better. I do expect this to change over time, but in the here and now there's nothing to convince a lot of sport pros to switch, especially with the release of the 1Dx-III and announcement of the D6.

I"m not sure Nikon are baking the raws tbh, just the EXIF is causing Lightroom etc to apply NR and other such things, you can still choose to rest these to get a 'true raw'

I know a lot of professional photographers from various different fields including sport, wildlife, fashion, glamour, portraits, news, and weddings and while my sample size is very small compared to the the amount of photographers there is working in these genres I feel the conversations I have had with them give me a good enough idea of where these guys are at on this.

From the sports guys some of them have switched too Sony. I went along with another photographer recently to photograph Northern Ireland's most recent home game, he uses A9's. I didn't expect to see anyone else using them but there was another two, so that was 3 out of the 20 odd or so that where there. I know from talking to these guys that a lot of them would love to switch to the A9 but the camera has nothing at all to do with why they aren't switching. These guys have invested tens of thousands of pounds in lenses for their DSLR systems and the cost to change is absolutely staggering. These guys aren't making a huge amount of money so it's going to be a long time before you see that start to change in a big way and it's more likely to happen with new shooters coming in rather than existing users switching just because of the cost of those big lenses. It is a similar situation for the wildlife guys as well again the cost of changing lenses is a massive concern.

The guys that shoot fashion, glamour and even portraits wouldn't be buying A9's as the majority are looking high res cameras. I know a lot who are shooting Sony A7RIII & A7RIV's, the high end guys shoot medium format mostly.

Press photographers have switched over to Sony's and the A9 in particular in a big way. Just as one example, I shot a commercial event recently for a local business and there was a few press photographers there and the vast majority were using A9's. I have seen this a lot at other events as well. I know a few guys who work for one particular press agency there is 8 full time photographers working for them 6 of them are using A9's. A few of the part time guys they have use A9's as well.

A huge amount of wedding photographers are using A9's, A7III's, A7RIII's. So much so it's quite rare to see people shooting Nikon any more. Canon still has a big influence and again it's not because of any performance issue with the A9 or other bodies it comes down to cost, not so much for the body but the cost of maybe changing out 8,9,10 lenses is significant. The video guys at weddings pretty much all shoot Sony, it is very rare that they use something else. You do get the odd Canon or Panasonic video guy but its quite rare in the last couple of years to see anything but Sony. Occasionally you do get a few using pro camcorders but they are mostly Sony camcorders and using e-mount lenses as well. There are of course exceptions and there are some who just wouldn't dream of changing because they have used Nikon or Canon since they started but in most cases with those that haven't switched it has come down to the cost to change.

The capabilities of the camera, no matter how good will always be out weighed by the cost to change for most professionals. Just say you are a pro sports photographer and shooting Nikon for example and you need to purchase a new body. Your options are buy a D5 at about 5k or buy an A9/A9II for less than 4k but then maybe have to spend another 12k on a 600 f/4, 11k on a 400 f/2.8 etc . Yeah they will get some money back from selling their exisiting equipment but the value of DSLR's and DSLR lenses has dropped through the floor and they are very difficult to sell. The market for the big lenses is also quite small. It just isn't financially feasible to do that considering how much they earn, it just wouldn't make any sense and so they are absolutely right to not switch from a business point of view.

Also, this is jut my own experience having shot Nikon for 20 odd years and having shot Sony for the last 18 months or so. Nikon pro support used to be excellent but in my last few years of shooting Nikon their level of service dropped through the floor. I suspect this is because of all the staff they have made redundant in recent years and how many times they have restructured the different departments, buts it's a mess. I had really poor service from them a few times. Again just my own experience but Sony pro support has been pretty good so far on the occasions I have needed to contact them.

 

[PeteStewardson]

My impression without handling a Z series camera is Nikon fumbled the ball when they should have scored. Canon were always going to do less well because their sensor tech is trailing and doesn't seem able to catch up, but with their experience in pro and enthusiast cameras Nikon should have looked ahead of the status quo and designed accordingly. I suspect they are actually getting better images from sony sensors than sony themselves, but that's not enough to be competitive.

I think Nikon did look ahead and got the design right. They kept the look and feel all Nikon users would expect, in fact I have yet to find a Nikon shooter that picked up a Z6/7 and thought anything of the menus or controls as everything was so familiar. They've hit the image quality spot on as well, I'm still sometimes stunned at how good the images are. Colours I think are close to the D700/D3 which is still my favourite sensor.

Not a single Z mount lens released has been less than superb. The lens lineup might not be huge yet, but a year in we have a nice range of lenses giving great IQ in a reasonably light weight package.

Where Nikon didn't hit it is AF, where it's catching up. It's simply not as reliably accurate as the Sony, but then the Sony is several generations of HW and software ahead right now so it's not a surprise I guess. The issue isn't that the AF is slow, or inaccurate, it's that it gets confused and isn't as 100% reliably accurate as we would all like. Realistically it's not bad at AF, it's just the bar is already high with the top line DSLR range, and Sony.

The biggest real place Nikon are suffering right now and seem to have dropped the ball is delivery times compared to the internet expectations. They announced the 70-200S lens for this year but it's clearly going to be late. The RAW video was announced, and CFEx support, but the FW hasn't come out for that yet. I don't think the 70-200 is a big deal because the previous and current F mount adapted versions of the 70-200 work perfectly. For me that S lens is going to have to offer something seriously special to make me swap my F mount. Which actually might be why it's delayed, it has to be as good or better than the 24-70/2.8s. They didn't give a time scale for the RAW or CFex support, just that it was to be in a future update. Clearly the RAW update would have been impacted by the legal issues surrounding it which didn't help here. But for all these things the keyboard warrior faction on the net are constantly bad mouthing Nikon. Not a day goes by on facebook where someone asks when the 70-200 is coming out ( I'm convinced they are asking to cause rants rather than it being a genuine question now ) and then the replies are huge numbers of people all angrily replying as if Nikon has sent their lives into bankruptcy and they're living in a ditch because Nikon didn't give them the lens they "need". But when challenged not one of them can give any reason for why they "need" this over the current adapted lens. Crazy stuff.

I'm hoping, and it's what I would do as a software development manager, that the RAW code, and CFEx update is all ready. Testing the CFEx could only just be about sorted due to the availability of production CFEx cards, and then getting it in the hands of some of the trusted ambassadors for trial. But If I'd been running the dev team I'd have had them working on some other updates. AF updates being the top priority as Canon seem to have leap frogged Nikon. I WOULD delay the FW update and see if there was more to give there. The reason, to create more of a big bang type update. Call it V3.00 with RAW Video, CFEx support, better AF all in one go. That in itself would give them a huge competitive advantage and do it in one go for maximum impact. I'm also wondering, based on rumoured specs for the D6, whether they were with the CFEx update adding internal raw video recording, but may remove that to prevent having to pay licensing.

Anyway I met a chap with a Sony A7ii & A7iii the other day and after we both swapped cameras a few times and played with the respective setups, we both agreed the Z6 had the edge on AF with the A7ii, but the A7iii was clearly the winner on AF. Except... He's now considering, and I say considering, making the switch. In fact when we parted ways he was talking about going off to see what he could part-ex the A7ii in for against a Z6. This is a guy who said he doesn't use the internet much, doesn't use facebook or forums, so essentially isn't polluted by the internet frenzy over the deficiencies. He actually seemed to enjoy using the Z6, and because he felt it was a bit better on AF than his A7ii which he was perfectly happy with anyway, he was looking at it. It reminds me I must drop him an email to see if he did trade it in.

 

[rookies]

I think Nikon did look ahead and got the design right. They kept the look and feel all Nikon users would expect, in fact I have yet to find a Nikon shooter that picked up a Z6/7 and thought anything of the menus or controls as everything was so familiar. They've hit the image quality spot on as well, I'm still sometimes stunned at how good the images are. Colours I think are close to the D700/D3 which is still my favourite sensor.

Not a single Z mount lens released has been less than superb. The lens lineup might not be huge yet, but a year in we have a nice range of lenses giving great IQ in a reasonably light weight package.

Where Nikon didn't hit it is AF, where it's catching up. It's simply not as reliably accurate as the Sony, but then the Sony is several generations of HW and software ahead right now so it's not a surprise I guess. The issue isn't that the AF is slow, or inaccurate, it's that it gets confused and isn't as 100% reliably accurate as we would all like. Realistically it's not bad at AF, it's just the bar is already high with the top line DSLR range, and Sony.

The biggest real place Nikon are suffering right now and seem to have dropped the ball is delivery times compared to the internet expectations. They announced the 70-200S lens for this year but it's clearly going to be late. The RAW video was announced, and CFEx support, but the FW hasn't come out for that yet. I don't think the 70-200 is a big deal because the previous and current F mount adapted versions of the 70-200 work perfectly. For me that S lens is going to have to offer something seriously special to make me swap my F mount. Which actually might be why it's delayed, it has to be as good or better than the 24-70/2.8s. They didn't give a time scale for the RAW or CFex support, just that it was to be in a future update. Clearly the RAW update would have been impacted by the legal issues surrounding it which didn't help here. But for all these things the keyboard warrior faction on the net are constantly bad mouthing Nikon. Not a day goes by on facebook where someone asks when the 70-200 is coming out ( I'm convinced they are asking to cause rants rather than it being a genuine question now ) and then the replies are huge numbers of people all angrily replying as if Nikon has sent their lives into bankruptcy and they're living in a ditch because Nikon didn't give them the lens they "need". But when challenged not one of them can give any reason for why they "need" this over the current adapted lens. Crazy stuff.

I'm hoping, and it's what I would do as a software development manager, that the RAW code, and CFEx update is all ready. Testing the CFEx could only just be about sorted due to the availability of production CFEx cards, and then getting it in the hands of some of the trusted ambassadors for trial. But If I'd been running the dev team I'd have had them working on some other updates. AF updates being the top priority as Canon seem to have leap frogged Nikon. I WOULD delay the FW update and see if there was more to give there. The reason, to create more of a big bang type update. Call it V3.00 with RAW Video, CFEx support, better AF all in one go. That in itself would give them a huge competitive advantage and do it in one go for maximum impact. I'm also wondering, based on rumoured specs for the D6, whether they were with the CFEx update adding internal raw video recording, but may remove that to prevent having to pay licensing.

Anyway I met a chap with a Sony A7ii & A7iii the other day and after we both swapped cameras a few times and played with the respective setups, we both agreed the Z6 had the edge on AF with the A7ii, but the A7iii was clearly the winner on AF. Except... He's now considering, and I say considering, making the switch. In fact when we parted ways he was talking about going off to see what he could part-ex the A7ii in for against a Z6. This is a guy who said he doesn't use the internet much, doesn't use facebook or forums, so essentially isn't polluted by the internet frenzy over the deficiencies. He actually seemed to enjoy using the Z6, and because he felt it was a bit better on AF than his A7ii which he was perfectly happy with anyway, he was looking at it. It reminds me I must drop him an email to see if he did trade it in.

That doesn't make sense if he got a A7iii he will know it a better camera already than the Z6 like you said. So why get a Z6 to be better than the A7ii when he got a A7iii

 

[trevjm]

That doesn't make sense if he got a A7iii he will know it a better camera already than the Z6 like you said. So why get a Z6 to be better than the A7ii when he got a A7iii

Maybe he simply wanted to try the Z6 out for awhile.... As Pete said, he held and tried out the Z6 whilst they were chatting...

 

[justa1972]

https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/nikon-z6-review

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z6

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-z6-review

https://www.t3.com/reviews/nikon-z6-review

 

[rookies]

https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/nikon-z6-review

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z6

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-z6-review

https://www.t3.com/reviews/nikon-z6-review

Yes it a very good camera I did enjoy it but if the AF was a bit better it would of been a keeper.. But I like to have the good AF as one of my dog runs like mad. Kids etc I just like peace of minds.

No one here is saying the Nikon is crap is there

 

[woof woof]

You guys seem obsessed with Sony.

 

[snerkler]

I know a lot of professional photographers from various different fields including sport, wildlife, fashion, glamour, portraits, news, and weddings and while my sample size is very small compared to the the amount of photographers there is working in these genres I feel the conversations I have had with them give me a good enough idea of where these guys are at on this.

From the sports guys some of them have switched too Sony. I went along with another photographer recently to photograph Northern Ireland's most recent home game, he uses A9's. I didn't expect to see anyone else using them but there was another two, so that was 3 out of the 20 odd or so that where there. I know from talking to these guys that a lot of them would love to switch to the A9 but the camera has nothing at all to do with why they aren't switching. These guys have invested tens of thousands of pounds in lenses for their DSLR systems and the cost to change is absolutely staggering. These guys aren't making a huge amount of money so it's going to be a long time before you see that start to change in a big way and it's more likely to happen with new shooters coming in rather than existing users switching just because of the cost of those big lenses. It is a similar situation for the wildlife guys as well again the cost of changing lenses is a massive concern.

The guys that shoot fashion, glamour and even portraits wouldn't be buying A9's as the majority are looking high res cameras. I know a lot who are shooting Sony A7RIII & A7RIV's, the high end guys shoot medium format mostly.

Press photographers have switched over to Sony's and the A9 in particular in a big way. Just as one example, I shot a commercial event recently for a local business and there was a few press photographers there and the vast majority were using A9's. I have seen this a lot at other events as well. I know a few guys who work for one particular press agency there is 8 full time photographers working for them 6 of them are using A9's. A few of the part time guys they have use A9's as well.

A huge amount of wedding photographers are using A9's, A7III's, A7RIII's. So much so it's quite rare to see people shooting Nikon any more. Canon still has a big influence and again it's not because of any performance issue with the A9 or other bodies it comes down to cost, not so much for the body but the cost of maybe changing out 8,9,10 lenses is significant. The video guys at weddings pretty much all shoot Sony, it is very rare that they use something else. You do get the odd Canon or Panasonic video guy but its quite rare in the last couple of years to see anything but Sony. Occasionally you do get a few using pro camcorders but they are mostly Sony camcorders and using e-mount lenses as well. There are of course exceptions and there are some who just wouldn't dream of changing because they have used Nikon or Canon since they started but in most cases with those that haven't switched it has come down to the cost to change.

The capabilities of the camera, no matter how good will always be out weighed by the cost to change for most professionals. Just say you are a pro sports photographer and shooting Nikon for example and you need to purchase a new body. Your options are buy a D5 at about 5k or buy an A9/A9II for less than 4k but then maybe have to spend another 12k on a 600 f/4, 11k on a 400 f/2.8 etc . Yeah they will get some money back from selling their exisiting equipment but the value of DSLR's and DSLR lenses has dropped through the floor and they are very difficult to sell. The market for the big lenses is also quite small. It just isn't financially feasible to do that considering how much they earn, it just wouldn't make any sense and so they are absolutely right to not switch from a business point of view.

Also, this is jut my own experience having shot Nikon for 20 odd years and having shot Sony for the last 18 months or so. Nikon pro support used to be excellent but in my last few years of shooting Nikon their level of service dropped through the floor. I suspect this is because of all the staff they have made redundant in recent years and how many times they have restructured the different departments, buts it's a mess. I had really poor service from them a few times. Again just my own experience but Sony pro support has been pretty good so far on the occasions I have needed to contact them.

That's good to hear, but I think it's fair to say that it's still the minority. You only have to watch football matches, Olympics (in which Sony themselves were disappointed by the uptake), F1 Moto GP etc etc to see that it's still predominantly Canon and Nikon, and of those it's predominantly Canon. Even at the BTCC the only camera I saw in the media centre that wasn't Canikon was Mike Inkley's Olympus.

I think Nikon did look ahead and got the design right. They kept the look and feel all Nikon users would expect, in fact I have yet to find a Nikon shooter that picked up a Z6/7 and thought anything of the menus or controls as everything was so familiar. They've hit the image quality spot on as well, I'm still sometimes stunned at how good the images are. Colours I think are close to the D700/D3 which is still my favourite sensor.

Not a single Z mount lens released has been less than superb. The lens lineup might not be huge yet, but a year in we have a nice range of lenses giving great IQ in a reasonably light weight package.

Where Nikon didn't hit it is AF, where it's catching up. It's simply not as reliably accurate as the Sony, but then the Sony is several generations of HW and software ahead right now so it's not a surprise I guess. The issue isn't that the AF is slow, or inaccurate, it's that it gets confused and isn't as 100% reliably accurate as we would all like. Realistically it's not bad at AF, it's just the bar is already high with the top line DSLR range, and Sony.

The biggest real place Nikon are suffering right now and seem to have dropped the ball is delivery times compared to the internet expectations. They announced the 70-200S lens for this year but it's clearly going to be late. The RAW video was announced, and CFEx support, but the FW hasn't come out for that yet. I don't think the 70-200 is a big deal because the previous and current F mount adapted versions of the 70-200 work perfectly. For me that S lens is going to have to offer something seriously special to make me swap my F mount. Which actually might be why it's delayed, it has to be as good or better than the 24-70/2.8s. They didn't give a time scale for the RAW or CFex support, just that it was to be in a future update. Clearly the RAW update would have been impacted by the legal issues surrounding it which didn't help here. But for all these things the keyboard warrior faction on the net are constantly bad mouthing Nikon. Not a day goes by on facebook where someone asks when the 70-200 is coming out ( I'm convinced they are asking to cause rants rather than it being a genuine question now ) and then the replies are huge numbers of people all angrily replying as if Nikon has sent their lives into bankruptcy and they're living in a ditch because Nikon didn't give them the lens they "need". But when challenged not one of them can give any reason for why they "need" this over the current adapted lens. Crazy stuff.

I'm hoping, and it's what I would do as a software development manager, that the RAW code, and CFEx update is all ready. Testing the CFEx could only just be about sorted due to the availability of production CFEx cards, and then getting it in the hands of some of the trusted ambassadors for trial. But If I'd been running the dev team I'd have had them working on some other updates. AF updates being the top priority as Canon seem to have leap frogged Nikon. I WOULD delay the FW update and see if there was more to give there. The reason, to create more of a big bang type update. Call it V3.00 with RAW Video, CFEx support, better AF all in one go. That in itself would give them a huge competitive advantage and do it in one go for maximum impact. I'm also wondering, based on rumoured specs for the D6, whether they were with the CFEx update adding internal raw video recording, but may remove that to prevent having to pay licensing.

Anyway I met a chap with a Sony A7ii & A7iii the other day and after we both swapped cameras a few times and played with the respective setups, we both agreed the Z6 had the edge on AF with the A7ii, but the A7iii was clearly the winner on AF. Except... He's now considering, and I say considering, making the switch. In fact when we parted ways he was talking about going off to see what he could part-ex the A7ii in for against a Z6. This is a guy who said he doesn't use the internet much, doesn't use facebook or forums, so essentially isn't polluted by the internet frenzy over the deficiencies. He actually seemed to enjoy using the Z6, and because he felt it was a bit better on AF than his A7ii which he was perfectly happy with anyway, he was looking at it. It reminds me I must drop him an email to see if he did trade it in.

I don't think Nikon dropped the ball with delivery times tbh, it takes a long time to get these things in place. Look how long it took Sony to get a decent lineup. Nikon are in a better position as you can use f-mount with negligible penalty. The fact of the matter is that the Z's just aren't up to the current market and as such why would many want to swap. Now I know some just expect Nikon (and Canon) to get it right straight off the bat, but systems need development and I for one am not surprised the Z's don't have Sony A7III performance. The fact is their first attempt is way better than Sony's, better than Sony's 2nd gen and not 'that' far off their 3rd gen so imagine where Nikon will be after 2-3 attempts

That doesn't make sense if he got a A7iii he will know it a better camera already than the Z6 like you said. So why get a Z6 to be better than the A7ii when he got a A7iii

As I've said before, AF performance is not the be all and end all, there's plenty more to a camera than that

 

[PeteStewardson]

That doesn't make sense if he got a A7iii he will know it a better camera already than the Z6 like you said. So why get a Z6 to be better than the A7ii when he got a A7iii

Better in what way? This is the problem with the internet The A7iii currently has more accurate AF, but the Z6 is better than his A7ii in AF. We actually chatted for over an hour, funnily enough we got chatting because we were both carrying Billingham bags and I asked which one it was. We got talking and moved on to cameras we were carrying. He was actually a rangefinder guy originally and moved to the Sony when he wanted a DSLR but got convinced in Jessops to buy the A7ii. He'd upgraded from there at some point. As it turns out he is on his 2nd A7iii because his first got damaged by getting wet in rain. I mentioned I wasn't worried about rain as I've never had a Nikon that's suffered with weather and have seen the Z6 used in conditions much worse than I'm likely to want to ever go out in here in the UK. We then started comparing. He had never held a Nikon of any sort and his first words were that's comfy. Then started to use it and although different from the Sonys he was enjoying the feel of it. I'd said he would be disappointed with the AF compared to his but after a few minutes he said he thought it was better than his A7ii. He'd been happy with the A7ii even though the A7iii was better.

Like I said we chatted for over an hour not concentrating on specs, but aspects of use that mattered to him. And the Z6 was a far better camera overall. For me the A7iii AF is awesome, but there wasn't anything else I liked over the Z6. So for me I'll wait for Nikon to just go that bit more on improving the AF, maybe a Z6-2 or something if needs be. For me, and many others, there is a lot more than just AF that's important, and actually a lot of those things make a camera 'better' for our use.

 

[PeteStewardson]

I don't think Nikon dropped the ball with delivery times tbh, it takes a long time to get these things in place. Look how long it took Sony to get a decent lineup. Nikon are in a better position as you can use f-mount with negligible penalty. The fact of the matter is that the Z's just aren't up to the current market and as such why would many want to swap. Now I know some just expect Nikon (and Canon) to get it right straight off the bat, but systems need development and I for one am not surprised the Z's don't have Sony A7III performance. The fact is their first attempt is way better than Sony's, better than Sony's 2nd gen and not 'that' far off their 3rd gen so imagine where Nikon will be after 2-3 attempts

I don't either. I'm disappointed in the AF for sure, but actually it's only in AF-C. If you use AF-S it's spot on every time in my use. Nikon just need a bit more time on it. As for delivery times, they've not promised anything on delivery time for FW, it's the internet that have decided they are late.

As I said, we compared to the A7ii and A7iii and the Z6 was somewhere in the middle. Not bad for a first attempt at a FF mirrorless.

 

[f/2.8]

That's good to hear, but I think it's fair to say that it's still the minority. You only have to watch football matches, Olympics (in which Sony themselves were disappointed by the uptake), F1 Moto GP etc etc to see that it's still predominantly Canon and Nikon, and of those it's predominantly Canon. Even at the BTCC the only camera I saw in the media centre that wasn't Canikon was Mike Inkley's Olympus.
I don't think Nikon dropped the ball with delivery times tbh, it takes a long time to get these things in place. Look how long it took Sony to get a decent lineup. Nikon are in a better position as you can use f-mount with negligible penalty. The fact of the matter is that the Z's just aren't up to the current market and as such why would many want to swap. Now I know some just expect Nikon (and Canon) to get it right straight off the bat, but systems need development and I for one am not surprised the Z's don't have Sony A7III performance. The fact is their first attempt is way better than Sony's, better than Sony's 2nd gen and not 'that' far off their 3rd gen so imagine where Nikon will be after 2-3 attempts
As I've said before, AF performance is not the be all and end all, there's plenty more to a camera than that

For an amateur maybe, were it seems some care more about "bells and whistle's" bluetooth etc. For a working professional everything else comes second to a.f performance and image quality as it should be, as the process of taking the images means nothing and the images themselves and the ability to nail them is the most important thing.

In most genres a.f performance is even more important than image quality as there is no point having great quality image if you are not able to capture them in the first place because A.F performance isn't good enough.

 

[f/2.8]

Better in what way? This is the problem with the internet The A7iii currently has more accurate AF, but the Z6 is better than his A7ii in AF. We actually chatted for over an hour, funnily enough we got chatting because we were both carrying Billingham bags and I asked which one it was. We got talking and moved on to cameras we were carrying. He was actually a rangefinder guy originally and moved to the Sony when he wanted a DSLR but got convinced in Jessops to buy the A7ii. He'd upgraded from there at some point. As it turns out he is on his 2nd A7iii because his first got damaged by getting wet in rain. I mentioned I wasn't worried about rain as I've never had a Nikon that's suffered with weather and have seen the Z6 used in conditions much worse than I'm likely to want to ever go out in here in the UK. We then started comparing. He had never held a Nikon of any sort and his first words were that's comfy. Then started to use it and although different from the Sonys he was enjoying the feel of it. I'd said he would be disappointed with the AF compared to his but after a few minutes he said he thought it was better than his A7ii. He'd been happy with the A7ii even though the A7iii was better.

Like I said we chatted for over an hour not concentrating on specs, but aspects of use that mattered to him. And the Z6 was a far better camera overall. For me the A7iii AF is awesome, but there wasn't anything else I liked over the Z6. So for me I'll wait for Nikon to just go that bit more on improving the AF, maybe a Z6-2 or something if needs be. For me, and many others, there is a lot more than just AF that's important, and actually a lot of those things make a camera 'better' for our use.

This never happened though did it? You made all of this up to push your Z6 agenda.


Z6 is just an A7II in a different body shape, it isn't better than an A7II a.f perfomance is very similar.

 

[PeteStewardson]

This never happened though did it? You made all of this up to push your Z6 agenda.


Z6 is just an A7II in a different body shape, it isn't better than an A7II.

oh dear.

 

[ancient_mariner]

When I say Nikon dropped the ball with the Z series, what I meant was that it wasn't sufficiently better than what the competition were going to launch by the time it was delivered. It's very hard to launch a me-too product without significant benefits to the customer over the main competition, but it seems to me this is what they did.

I'm not on FB, haven't taken part in many discussions comparing these cameras, but since a couple of Z owners seem to be taking part in the Sony A series thread I thought I'd wander over to see what was motivating them to do so.

Looks are a personal thing anyway tbh and I'm sure not a main reason to buy a camera I know I'll get flamed for this but the Sony's just don't look or feel as high level for some reason. Again wouldn't stop me using them, I'm a big fan and as you know if it wasn't for the grip room I'd have swapped to the Sony A7RIII from the D750, and now to the A9.

Looks ARE a very personal thing. A part of the reason for leaving Nikon was also build quality - the D610 I owned was disappointingly creaky for an enthusiast level camera, feeling if anything slightly inferior to that A58 I mentioned. I did briefly handle a D750 before changing, and it seemed like more of the same with some buttons moved slightly. However when I got the A7III out of the box it did actually feel better made (probably just 'honeymooning' but y'know) and although after 9 months of use I can tell you where the design is flawed, the D610 was disappointing in my hands from the first couple of days.

And the memory of the D600 shutter oil debacle was still fresh then too. My bias - if there is one - came from being a user, rather than a spectator.

So I guess really, for me, Nikon making an adequate camera was a failure and the only way it would have been a success was for it to have been a generation ahead of Sony, rather than one behind.

 

[twist]

That’s not entirely true. The Sony sensor devision is a completely separate business to the Digital Imaging business, so they can actually sell their off the shelf sensors to anybody who wants to buy them.
I think what actually happens in reality is that the prices of some the top Sony sensors like the 24mp BSI RS CMOS are too high for competitors to buy & install in their bodies to actually compete with Sony’s own offerings.
The end result is that nobody will pay the per unit price for the sensors, Sony DI obviously get them cheaper.
Song make some of the best sensors in the market, I wonder how many smart phones out their use them.

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/22/sony-keeps-best-sensors-cameras/

 

[snerkler]

For an amateur maybe, were it seems some care more about "bells and whistle's" bluetooth etc. For a working professional everything else comes second to a.f performance and image quality as it should be, as the process of taking the images means nothing and the images themselves and the ability to nail them is the most important thing.

In most genres a.f performance is even more important than image quality as there is no point having great quality image if you are not able to capture them in the first place because A.F performance isn't good enough.

I agree as far as pros are concerned, which is why I'd be totally amazed if any sports or wildlife pro are using a Nikon Z camera.

I'm not sure I'd say for "most' genres AF performance is more important than image quality, what about landscape, architecture, portraiture, fashion, maybe even wedding photography for some? Sport and wildlife yes, can't think of anything else off the top of my head (I'm sure I'll have forgotten something obvious ). At the end of the day there are those that prefer to manually focus as well.

Looks ARE a very personal thing. A part of the reason for leaving Nikon was also build quality - the D610 I owned was disappointingly creaky for an enthusiast level camera, feeling if anything slightly inferior to that A58 I mentioned. I did briefly handle a D750 before changing, and it seemed like more of the same with some buttons moved slightly. However when I got the A7III out of the box it did actually feel better made (probably just 'honeymooning' but y'know) and although after 9 months of use I can tell you where the design is flawed, the D610 was disappointing in my hands from the first couple of days.

And the memory of the D600 shutter oil debacle was still fresh then too. My bias - if there is one - came from being a user, rather than a spectator.

So I guess really, for me, Nikon making an adequate camera was a failure and the only way it would have been a success was for it to have been a generation ahead of Sony, rather than one behind.

The D600 and D610 weren't the best to be fair, and I wasn't a huge fan of the grip/ergonomics on them either. The D750 on the other hand was much better with the deeper grip, and of course they'd dialled in the AF etc.

What surprises me is that Sony have made one of the most comfortable cameras to hold imo (A77/A77-II), I'm not sure why they've not transferred some of these ergonomics to their mirrorless, likewise the multi angle LCD screen.

I don't agree with your opinion re the Z being a failure, but it's only an opinion. Sure it's not met their sales expectations but from what I can gather the mirrorless market itself hasn't taken off as much as manufacturers anticipated. The mass shift from DSLR to mirrorless just hasn't happened. Sony can see it as a success as their alpha SLT's weren't big sellers (in comparison) so the fact that the FF mirrorless has sold like they have is an improvement over what they had previously. What I'd find interesting would be to see the numbers of the original A7 sold in the first year compared to the Nikon Z's, does anyone have those stats?

Thinking about it, even if Nikon managed to bring out a Z camera with A7III performance from the get go I'm still not sure that there'd have been any bigger shift tbh. Maybe they'd have sold a few more but I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't have been significantly more.

 

[f/2.8]

Thinking about it, even if Nikon managed to bring out a Z camera with A7III performance from the get go I'm still not sure that there'd have been any bigger shift tbh. Maybe they'd have sold a few more but I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't have been significantly more.

I don’t think that is true at all there was massive amount of Nikon users that switched to Sony once the spec of the Z cameras was made available myself included.

We now have an A9II, an A9, an A7RIV and 4 x A7III and 14 e-Mount lenses. If the Z’s had of been the equivalent to the A7III we would still be using Nikon equipment.

 

[snerkler]

I don’t think that is true at all there was massive amount of Nikon users that switched to Sony once the spec of the Z cameras was made available myself included.

We now have an A9II, an A9, an A7RIV and 4 x A7III and 14 e-Mount lenses. If the Z’s had of been the equivalent to the A7III we would still be using Nikon equipment.

There were some on forums (yes I know you make a living from photography ), I'm talking about the big picture.

 

[snerkler]

This makes for interesting reading, mirrorless sales have actually dropped by a larger percentage than DSLR. Doesn't look good for the camera market as a whole

 

[Brazo]

ThaThe fact is their first attempt is way better than Sony's, better than Sony's 2nd gen and not 'that' far off their 3rd gen so imagine where Nikon will be after 2-3 attempts

They will be 2-3 generations behind Sony if they are still going of course and that is a big if.

But camera performance will flatten out and each generation will offer incremental improvements. The Sony A7 mk5 is already heavily into development phase and I can’t help but think that will Iron out the few remaining ‘creases’ in the model.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Presently at Heathrow and had a chance to handle Z6, EOS R and some Fuji cameras. They all have their own character, but TBH I'm not sure the Z6 is so much better than the A7III, sharing the same problem of insufficient vertical height to give a good grip, though the broadening of the Z6 handgrip at the top helps offset that a little.

Gotta go - gate now available.

 

[snerkler]

They will be 2-3 generations behind Sony if they are still going of course and that is a big if.

But camera performance will flatten out and each generation will offer incremental improvements. The Sony A7 mk5 is already heavily into development phase and I can’t help but think that will Iron out the few remaining ‘creases’ in the model.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the gen 2 Z’s have similar performance to the gen 4 Sonys, but even if they ‘only’ match the A7iii they’ll be seriously good cameras, especially when you add the better EVF and LCD and better ergonomics

I doubt we’ll be on the gen 5 Sonys by then.

 

[rookies]

It wouldn’t surprise me if the gen 2 Z’s have similar performance to the gen 4 Sonys, but even if they ‘only’ match the A7iii they’ll be seriously good cameras, especially when you add the better EVF and LCD and better ergonomics

I doubt we’ll be on the gen 5 Sonys by then.

It strange about the EVF as i was talking about that over in the sony thread saying the Z6 was better than the A9 and I was told it shouldn't be as they are the same...

 

[snerkler]

It strange about the EVF as i was talking about that over in the sony thread saying the Z6 was better than the A9 and I was told it shouldn't be as they are the same...

They’re the same resolution but resolution doesn’t tell you everything. I think the Z EVF is nicer to look at than the A9 too. The A7iii is lower res to boot.

 

[rookies]

They’re the same resolution but resolution doesn’t tell you everything. I think the Z EVF is nicer to look at than the A9 too. The A7iii is lower res to boot.

Yup kind of better colour or something but ive got use the A9 EVF now but at first it was strange

 

[snerkler]

Yup kind of better colour or something but ive got use the A9 EVF now but at first it was strange

Still a great EVF, we’re getting spoilt

 

[rookies]

Still a great EVF, we’re getting spoilt

Does it job no problem

 

[Doug]

After picking the camera up last weekend today was my first chance to take it out for a play. I popped in to Stratfor upon Avon for the 'Victoria Christmas Market'. I'm temporarily on crutches after dislocating my knee playing football last month so street photography was a bit harder than normal as I couldn't be as responsive!

Quite like the first one, the rest are a bit so so. Very pleased with the camera based on the incredibly limited initial outing! Would have preferred to use a prime but simply had to stick to the 24-70 to take up for immobility

 

[Gandalf]

@Doug .... totally agree, first is pleasing the rest are ok.

 

[snerkler]

Just seen Amazon are selling the Z6 body for £1299 (only 3 left in stock), that’s a great price and great value for money (relatively speaking).

 

[lionofjudah]

This makes for interesting reading, mirrorless sales have actually dropped by a larger percentage than DSLR. Doesn't look good for the camera market as a whole
0[/ATTACH]

With smartphones cameras now so good, giving aperture and speed control why would you buy a camera?
That said I’ve just ordered the Z50

 

[PeteStewardson]

They’re the same resolution but resolution doesn’t tell you everything. I think the Z EVF is nicer to look at than the A9 too. The A7iii is lower res to boot.

shhh f2.8 will be here to tell you it never happened and you made that up for propaganda.

 

[snerkler]

With smartphones cameras now so good, giving aperture and speed control why would you buy a camera?
That said I’ve just ordered the Z50

That’s definitely the major factor for the decline in cavers sales. DSLRs and mirrorless are becoming reserved for enthusiasts and pros, the casual shooter will just use their phone now.

 

[rookies]

That’s definitely the major factor for the decline in cavers sales. DSLRs and mirrorless are becoming reserved for enthusiasts and pros, the casual shooter will just use their phone now.

Maybe try it on the puppy might AF lock on better lol. Joking my friend

 

[Sootchucker]

Wow, I’ve been off the forum for a day and come back to see that the Nikon Z thread has been merged with the Sony thread

 

[mikew]

Wow, I’ve been off the forum for a day and come back to see that the Nikon Z thread has been merged with the Sony thread

That was my post but you beat me to it

 

[twist]

Wow, I’ve been off the forum for a day and come back to see that the Nikon Z thread has been merged with the Sony thread

Blame @snerkler

 

[snerkler]

Blame @snerkler

 

[srhmoto]

Wow, I’ve been off the forum for a day and come back to see that the Nikon Z thread has been merged with the Sony thread