Nikon Z6 and Z7 mirrorless

Messages
4,508
Name
Barry
Edit My Images
Yes
Not dissimilar to mine. 1 hormone injection (which lasts 3 months), then 20 days radio, alongside another hormone injection.
Unfortunately, not an 'exclusive club' - I was quite surprised it is now more common than breast cancer and 1 in 8 men contract this vile disease.

I had a radical robotic prostatectomy last March which wasmore or less a success (I may need some salvage radiotherapy). The shock was to find that my Surgeon noticed an odd growth on one of my kidneys from a scan but, as it was only the prostate he was interested in, the whole kidney wasn't captured. Another scan revealed a 3.5cm lesion on top of right kidney. Another Robotic surgery in July revealed another (primary) cancer and part of that kidney was removed. I owe that guy!

I feel ok... but it's a hell of a thing to deal with - even harder for my darling wife :(

Anyway, more decisions in life - Z6 or Z7? Can't make my mind up whether I need bigger files than I have with my D800 :) First world problems eh?
 

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
4,517
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Unfortunately, not an 'exclusive club' - I was quite surprised it is now more common than breast cancer and 1 in 8 men contract this vile disease.

I had a radical robotic prostatectomy last March which wasmore or less a success (I may need some salvage radiotherapy). The shock was to find that my Surgeon noticed an odd growth on one of my kidneys from a scan but, as it was only the prostate he was interested in, the whole kidney wasn't captured. Another scan revealed a 3.5cm lesion on top of right kidney. Another Robotic surgery in July revealed another (primary) cancer and part of that kidney was removed. I owe that guy!

I feel ok... but it's a hell of a thing to deal with - even harder for my darling wife :(

Anyway, more decisions in life - Z6 or Z7? Can't make my mind up whether I need bigger files than I have with my D800 :) First world problems eh?
I was offered robotic surgery, but after presentations from both the surgeon and the clinical oncologist, I gave the job to the radiotherapy department. Yes, I’m sure my wife is suffering more than me.

Re- Z6 or 7. @snerkler might want to input, but my view is that unless you need big files for cropping or printing reasons, the Z6 offers much better value for money. Just my opinion.
 
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
Unfortunately, not an 'exclusive club' - I was quite surprised it is now more common than breast cancer and 1 in 8 men contract this vile disease.

I had a radical robotic prostatectomy last March which wasmore or less a success (I may need some salvage radiotherapy). The shock was to find that my Surgeon noticed an odd growth on one of my kidneys from a scan but, as it was only the prostate he was interested in, the whole kidney wasn't captured. Another scan revealed a 3.5cm lesion on top of right kidney. Another Robotic surgery in July revealed another (primary) cancer and part of that kidney was removed. I owe that guy!

I feel ok... but it's a hell of a thing to deal with - even harder for my darling wife :(

Anyway, more decisions in life - Z6 or Z7? Can't make my mind up whether I need bigger files than I have with my D800 :) First world problems eh?
Crieky it's scary how common stories like this are, but it's great to hear that your treatment's been a success.

As for the Z6 vs Z7 debate, I would say that the Z6 is a better all round camera. Like the D8xx series, the Z7 is great if you want the absolute best detail and/or want to crop heavily. That being said I've had the D850 and Z7 but some of my favourite landscapes are from my D750.
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,508
Name
Barry
Edit My Images
Yes
I was offered robotic surgery, but after presentations from both the surgeon and the clinical oncologist, I gave the job to the radiotherapy department. Yes, I’m sure my wife is suffering more than me.

Re- Z6 or 7. @snerkler might want to input, but my view is that unless you need big files for cropping or printing reasons, the Z6 offers much better value for money. Just my opinion.
I went for the operation because it gave me further options later, if needed. Turns out my cancer was more aggressive than first thought. I was lucky it hadn't metastisised.

I'm tending toward the Z6 I must say.... I was doing weddings when I had the D800 but I think my need for huge files has dissipated.

Crieky it's scary how common stories like this are, but it's great to hear that your treatment's been a success.

As for the Z6 vs Z7 debate, I would say that the Z6 is a better all round camera. Like the D8xx series, the Z7 is great if you want the absolute best detail and/or want to crop heavily. That being said I've had the D850 and Z7 but some of my favourite landscapes are from my D750.
I have to say the kidney operation was nightmare (and comedy of errors) 4x trips to A & E and two of those in an ambulance - still, another story, but not for here!

My wife has a D750 and I have to say it's a beaut to use, even today... heavily leaning toward a Z6

Thanks to you both.
 

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
4,517
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I went for the operation because it gave me further options later, if needed. Turns out my cancer was more aggressive than first thought. I was lucky it hadn't metastisised.

I'm tending toward the Z6 I must say.... I was doing weddings when I had the D800 but I think my need for huge files has dissipated.



I have to say the kidney operation was nightmare (and comedy of errors) 4x trips to A & E and two of those in an ambulance - still, another story, but not for here!
Ouch! Hope you're recovering now.
 
Messages
4,508
Name
Barry
Edit My Images
Yes
Ouch! Hope you're recovering now.
Yes, thanks Stephen. Been back at work since September - 2x 4.5 hour operations and only had 6 weeks off in total since last March.
Got an ultra-sound kidney scan next Monday - fingers are truly crossed :)
 
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
that has to be the most amazing sentence and seque ever...!!

"I was lucky it hadn't metastasized. I'm tending toward the Z6 I must say.... "

Talk about real life matters to superfluous isn't in it.

Glad you guys are on the mend. Good luck to the pair of you.
 
Messages
4,508
Name
Barry
Edit My Images
Yes
that has to be the most amazing sentence and seque ever...!!

"I was lucky it hadn't metastasized. I'm tending toward the Z6 I must say.... "

Talk about real life matters to superfluous isn't in it.

Glad you guys are on the mend. Good luck to the pair of you.
Stoical and philosophical that's us. Once you're in this Club that nobody wants to join it's the only way to be! :)
 
Messages
597
Edit My Images
No
Fist post here! I bought a new Z6 in May last year. I've owned a D600 since 2003, and a D3300 between 2017-2019. The D600 has been a superb camera, I've never felt it has really let me down in any way. I'm constantly amazed by the results such modern digital cameras can produce. I wanted a smaller, lighter camera for travelling and more 'casual' use, so I bought a D3300. I found that to be excellent, but not quite up there in terms of IQ with the D600, particularly in low light. So I sold that and bought a Z6. I'm not familiar with many digital cameras, but the Z6 has proven to be brilliant at pretty much everything I've thrown at it. I shoot mainly people and human situations I suppose, but of 'travel' stuff, architecture, the odd landscape etc. I am very fussy about sharpness and low light IQ, and the Z6 has set new standards for me. I found the controls pretty easy to get used to, typical Nikon consistency, although I do prefer the D600 as more physical controls are on the camera body. I like the EVF; having been used to a 'proper' OVF, I've found most EVFs to be quite lacking, but this is another level, especially in low light situations, and when using older MF lenses. The ergonomics are good for me; I have small hands. I do wonder why Nikon didn't allow provision for a proper vertical control grip, as this really helps with longer lenses in portrait format. This is the camera's only real 'weakness' imo. I do feel the D600 is a slightly nicer camera to use, physically, but maybe that's because I'm so used to it, and the Z6 is still very 'different'. The body is significantly smaller than a DSLR, which is a bonus for travelling/putting in a small bag. But it still feel substantial and solid, really good quality. Feels better for me than say a Sony A7x. I have found the battery life to be significantly better than the official figures suggest, although I would carry a spare for a longer shoot. I do like that you can charge it with a USB cable. As for the single card slot; this hasn't been an issue for me, I have two cards anyway. I just wish they weren't so bloody expensive!!!

As for the pictures themselves; at lower ISOs, I don't find any noticeable difference between the Z6 and the D600. But as you push up to higher speeds, the difference starts to show. I shoot a fair amount in really dark places such as gigs etc, and the Z6 produces useable images right up to ISO 51,200. This is astonishing. The D600 is good to 6400, so I now have 3 extra stops to play with. It really is incredible what these cameras are capable of. The D3300 which it 'replaced', struggled beyond 1600 really. The IBIS also gives at least another 1-2 stops over a VR lens on the D600, in real world use, I've found. Coming from my film days many years ago, it's clear that modern digital cameras have surpassed the capabilities of film. What a time to be alive.

I only have the 24-70mm f4 and 50mm f1.8 Z-series lenses so far, and use the FTZ adapter for my F-mount lenses, but the sharpness particularly of the 50mm is stunning. I sold my 50mm f1.4G because of how much better the new Z lens is, in every way. Far more than makes up for that 1/2 stop or so difference. The little 'kit' zoom is also superb. I do sometimes use my 24-120mm f4 lens and the adapter, but that gives a pretty big and heavy combo, so the 24-70mm is preferable most of the time for general use. Planning to get the 85mm f1.8 Z lens at some point, and would also like the 14-30mm zoom.

In short though; the Z6 is obviously a step up from the D600 for low light use, and features such as eye detect AF are an added bonus. The difference isn't as great as say from the D3300 to the D600, or from my old D200 to the D600; those are significant steps. But I am a lot more pleased with my Z6 than I expected I'd be. It's a lovely camera. I'm very, very happy with mine!
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,849
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
Yes
Fist post here! I bought a new Z6 in May last year. I've owned a D600 since 2003, and a D3300 between 2017-2019. The D600 has been a superb camera, I've never felt it has really let me down in any way. I'm constantly amazed by the results such modern digital cameras can produce. I wanted a smaller, lighter camera for travelling and more 'casual' use, so I bought a D3300. I found that to be excellent, but not quite up there in terms of IQ with the D600, particularly in low light. So I sold that and bought a Z6. I'm not familiar with many digital cameras, but the Z6 has proven to be brilliant at pretty much everything I've thrown at it. I shoot mainly people and human situations I suppose, but of 'travel' stuff, architecture, the odd landscape etc. I am very fussy about sharpness and low light IQ, and the Z6 has set new standards for me. I found the controls pretty easy to get used to, typical Nikon consistency, although I do prefer the D600 as more physical controls are on the camera body. I like the EVF; having been used to a 'proper' OVF, I've found most EVFs to be quite lacking, but this is another level, especially in low light situations, and when using older MF lenses. The ergonomics are good for me; I have small hands. I do wonder why Nikon didn't allow provision for a proper vertical control grip, as this really helps with longer lenses in portrait format. This is the camera's only real 'weakness' imo. I do feel the D600 is a slightly nicer camera to use, physically, but maybe that's because I'm so used to it, and the Z6 is still very 'different'. The body is significantly smaller than a DSLR, which is a bonus for travelling/putting in a small bag. But it still feel substantial and solid, really good quality. Feels better for me than say a Sony A7x. I have found the battery life to be significantly better than the official figures suggest, although I would carry a spare for a longer shoot. I do like that you can charge it with a USB cable. As for the single card slot; this hasn't been an issue for me, I have two cards anyway. I just wish they weren't so bloody expensive!!!

As for the pictures themselves; at lower ISOs, I don't find any noticeable difference between the Z6 and the D600. But as you push up to higher speeds, the difference starts to show. I shoot a fair amount in really dark places such as gigs etc, and the Z6 produces useable images right up to ISO 51,200. This is astonishing. The D600 is good to 6400, so I now have 3 extra stops to play with. It really is incredible what these cameras are capable of. The D3300 which it 'replaced', struggled beyond 1600 really. The IBIS also gives at least another 1-2 stops over a VR lens on the D600, in real world use, I've found. Coming from my film days many years ago, it's clear that modern digital cameras have surpassed the capabilities of film. What a time to be alive.

I only have the 24-70mm f4 and 50mm f1.8 Z-series lenses so far, and use the FTZ adapter for my F-mount lenses, but the sharpness particularly of the 50mm is stunning. I sold my 50mm f1.4G because of how much better the new Z lens is, in every way. Far more than makes up for that 1/2 stop or so difference. The little 'kit' zoom is also superb. I do sometimes use my 24-120mm f4 lens and the adapter, but that gives a pretty big and heavy combo, so the 24-70mm is preferable most of the time for general use. Planning to get the 85mm f1.8 Z lens at some point, and would also like the 14-30mm zoom.

In short though; the Z6 is obviously a step up from the D600 for low light use, and features such as eye detect AF are an added bonus. The difference isn't as great as say from the D3300 to the D600, or from my old D200 to the D600; those are significant steps. But I am a lot more pleased with my Z6 than I expected I'd be. It's a lovely camera. I'm very, very happy with mine!
Welcome to TP. Great first post. Enjoy your Z. It is, as you say. Terrific.
 
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
I must admit to looking a bit green with envy over the Sony 200-600mm tele zoom lens. Seems like a real cracker at a very reasonable price. Can't wait for Nikon to have their native version (from their road map). I just hope it's like the Sony and internal zooming ?
 
Messages
17,197
Edit My Images
No

chris321

I like the ginger one
Messages
3,641
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve never been into super zooms, but the 24-200 looks tiny!

The Z range has made me think differently about my setup - I’m actually quite enjoying the slower (and smaller) zooms, and have picked up a couple of fast primes. The reduced size of everything compared to a 24-70 F/2.8 means I’ve got the camera on me much more often.
 

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
4,517
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve never been into super zooms, but the 24-200 looks tiny!

The Z range has made me think differently about my setup - I’m actually quite enjoying the slower (and smaller) zooms, and have picked up a couple of fast primes. The reduced size of everything compared to a 24-70 F/2.8 means I’ve got the camera on me much more often.
Is the 24-200 FX or DX? Just wondering if it were designed purely for the Z50? I'm very wary of the f6.3 aperture at 200mm. Obviously it's necessary to keep the size down, but even so ...
 
Messages
1,979
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
Is the 24-200 FX or DX? Just wondering if it were designed purely for the Z50? I'm very wary of the f6.3 aperture at 200mm. Obviously it's necessary to keep the size down, but even so ...
I believe that it's FX Stephen. It could be an extremely compact and versatile travel lens if it performs well across the zoom range. I could see me using a lens like this when I have my son at various motorsport events. It would minimise what I'm carrying alongside everything else we need to take, but give me a one lens solution for paddock and (some) track based photos. Had hoped it might be a little cheaper, but hey ho.

I am very interested to see reviews of the 20mm f1.8S. While it isn't cheap by any means, I'm pleasantly surprised it isn't launching at a higher price than the 24mm f1.8 S. If it performs as well as the other f1.8 primes released so far, I could see me with a prime setup consisting of the 20mm, 35mm, 50m and 85mm at some point in the (distant :LOL:) future.

Cheers,

Simon.
 

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
4,517
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I believe that it's FX Stephen. It could be an extremely compact and versatile travel lens if it performs well across the zoom range. I could see me using a lens like this when I have my son at various motorsport events. It would minimise what I'm carrying alongside everything else we need to take, but give me a one lens solution for paddock and (some) track based photos. Had hoped it might be a little cheaper, but hey ho.

I am very interested to see reviews of the 20mm f1.8S. While it isn't cheap by any means, I'm pleasantly surprised it isn't launching at a higher price than the 24mm f1.8 S. If it performs as well as the other f1.8 primes released so far, I could see me with a prime setup consisting of the 20mm, 35mm, 50m and 85mm at some point in the (distant :LOL:) future.

Cheers,

Simon.
Thinking about it (!) I suppose f6.3 is not much smaller than the f5.6 on my 70-300. I rarely use that lens, so a walk-about travel zoom could be useful. I've not yet seen any rumoured pricing for it - any ideas?

EDIT I've just seen that Nikon USA list it at $899.95. Wait for it to go grey, sell my 70-300, and it's a possibility.
 
Last edited:

chris321

I like the ginger one
Messages
3,641
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Thinking about it (!) I suppose f6.3 is not much smaller than the f5.6 on my 70-300. I rarely use that lens, so a walk-about travel zoom could be useful. I've not yet seen any rumoured pricing for it - any ideas?
That’s my thinking! And I have a 150-600 for ‘proper’ telephoto stuff!

it’s available for pre-order at a somewhat punchy $900 (£700), but given how much the other lenses have come down by, I’d imagine the price will settle somewhere around £500? Which is still a lot, but I could justify by selling by 24-70 and 70-300 if the 24-200 is good...
 
Messages
597
Edit My Images
No
I love my little 24-70 Z, it serves most of my needs in a lens. I do like my 24-120mm f4 F-mount zoom though; just the right balance between versatility and quality, imo. I've only ever found the 'superzoom' type lenses to be too heavily compromised to suit my requirements really. A 5x zoom is about as far as I'm prepared to go. I got my 24-120 at a very good price, 2/3 of what they now go for, and been very happy with it. Were an equivalent available for the Z, I think I'd be getting one. I can only imagine a Z version would be even better than the F version. But then; I went on holidays with my 24-70 and a 50mm and really old E-series MF 135mm f2.8, which is a surprisingly good lens. I didn't feel the need for anything longer really. For times when I do need a longer lens., I have the 70-200mm f2.8, which is stunning, but also bloody heavy and not exactly unobtrusive. But it's a tool, and I mostly use it in less than favourable light, so need the larger aperture. F4 isn't such an issue with a 24-70, and IBIS helps loads, but that f2.8 is a Godsend with the longer zoom. I'm sure Nikon will produce a 135mm f1.8 at some stage, but a smaller, lighter f2.8 version would be fantastic.
 
Messages
597
Edit My Images
No
There's a 24-105 on the roadmap so another option hopefully not too far away.
Well, there's certainly a 24-120mm f4 'planned', so let's hope that does materialise. It'll probably be bloody expensive though. The F-mount version is currently around a grand as it is. :eek: I'll be interested in the size of the Z-mount version; the F-mount 24-120 with the FTZ adapter is pretty bulky. Kind of works ok with the DSLRs, but does feel a bit cumbersome with the Z6. What I love about the 24-70 f4 is that it's such a neat compact size when stashed away. I was hoping that the f1.8 primes would be nice and small before they were announced, and my 50mm is a bit on the big size (bigger even than the f1.4G and FTZ), but at least it's IQ more than makes up for that.
 
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
I have to say, if the image quality is up there on the 24-200 I'll be getting one. On my micro four thirds system, my most used travel lens is the Olympus 12-100 F4 (24-200 equiv). I find it a brilliant set of focal lengths for almost everything when I'm travelling, and it's weather sealed like the Olympus (although probably not to the same extent). It's almost exactly the same weight as the Olympus lens (570g vs 561g for the Olympus), and size wise, @ 76.5mm x 114mm is almost identical to the Olympus @ 77.5mm x 116.5 mm.

Sure it's a stop and a bit slower at the longer end, but I'm pretty sure the FF sensor over the M4/3 sensor can make up for that.

That coupled with my Z6 or Z7 could be a killer travel combo.
 
Last edited:
Messages
900
Name
Doug
Edit My Images
Yes
My excitement for the 20mm 1.8 was dulled slightly when I saw the price tag :LOL:
 
Messages
174
Edit My Images
Yes
24-200mm is only 70g heavier than the 24-70mm f4, pretty impressive. It's weather sealed and has VR too.
It'll be interesting to see to what focal length its' F4 aperture extends...I'm sure there will be plenty comparisons to the 24-70/4 when it releases.
But let's get the 70-200 out first please :)
 
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
It'll be interesting to see to what focal length its' F4 aperture extends...I'm sure there will be plenty comparisons to the 24-70/4 when it releases.
But let's get the 70-200 out first please :)
That was my first thought too. I wouldn't have thought it stayed at f4 for long.
 
Messages
3,288
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I love my little 24-70 Z, it serves most of my needs in a lens. I do like my 24-120mm f4 F-mount zoom though; just the right balance between versatility and quality, imo. I've only ever found the 'superzoom' type lenses to be too heavily compromised to suit my requirements really. A 5x zoom is about as far as I'm prepared to go. I got my 24-120 at a very good price, 2/3 of what they now go for, and been very happy with it. Were an equivalent available for the Z, I think I'd be getting one. I can only imagine a Z version would be even better than the F version. But then; I went on holidays with my 24-70 and a 50mm and really old E-series MF 135mm f2.8, which is a surprisingly good lens. I didn't feel the need for anything longer really. For times when I do need a longer lens., I have the 70-200mm f2.8, which is stunning, but also bloody heavy and not exactly unobtrusive. But it's a tool, and I mostly use it in less than favourable light, so need the larger aperture. F4 isn't such an issue with a 24-70, and IBIS helps loads, but that f2.8 is a Godsend with the longer zoom. I'm sure Nikon will produce a 135mm f1.8 at some stage, but a smaller, lighter f2.8 version would be fantastic.
I think your right, none of the Z lenses seem to struggle with sharpness. Whilst I don’t think the new 24-200 will be Nikon’s sharpest lens I think it will be comfortably better than the F mount 24-120 and should prove to be a a nice travel lens. A Z6 and this lens could make an attractive alternative to an RX10 for travel.
 
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Well I posted a few pages back that I'd ordered (again) the Nikon 200-500. I actually had a change of heart and cancelled this and instead ordered the Nikon 300mm F4 PF VR along with the TC14-E III teleconverter.

Well they arrived yesterday and in less than ideal conditions (very cold and blustery), I gave the combo a run out yesterday on the Z7. Have to say to being very pleased. Even at quite high ISO's of around 4000, the images look great and crisp. So I now have over 400mm @ 45mp or over 600mm @ 20mp for my Nikon mirrorless system. Very pleased.





 
Last edited:
Messages
597
Edit My Images
No
I think your right, none of the Z lenses seem to struggle with sharpness. Whilst I don’t think the new 24-200 will be Nikon’s sharpest lens I think it will be comfortably better than the F mount 24-120 and should prove to be a a nice travel lens. A Z6 and this lens could make an attractive alternative to an RX10 for travel.
I'm not sure if it will be 'comfortably better' than the 24-120; that is already an excellent lens, and was very underrated until it started to be sold as a kit with the D750, and people realised just how versatile it really is. My experience of superzooms is that they are always compromised somehow, in terms of sharpness, distortion, aberration, etc etc. Putting such a range into one lens is always going to have to require some compromise. Then there's the relatively small aperture at the longer focal lengths; f4 is about as small as I can tolerate; working in low light conditions becomes difficult beyond that point. I don't feel the need for reach, as much as I do for IQ. I'd much rather have just one or two really good primes/short range zooms than a jack of all trades. But everyone's different. I've found that with say my 70-200mm, I'm mostly shooting at one end or the other anyway. So for me, a nice reasonably compact 200/180mm f4/3.2 lens would be great. Even a 135mm f2.8 would be lovely!
 
Messages
597
Edit My Images
No
Well I posted a few pages back that I'd ordered (again) the Nikon 200-500. I actually had a change of heart and cancelled this and instead ordered the Nikon 300mm F4 PF VR along with the TC14-E III teleconverter.

Well they arrived yesterday and in less than ideal conditions (very cold and blustery), I gave the combo a run out yesterday on the Z7. Have to say to being very pleased. Even at quite high ISO's of around 4000, the images look great and crisp. So I now have over 400mm @ 45mp or over 600mm @ 20mp for my Nikon mirrorless system. Very pleased.
Excellent shots! Good to see what can be achieved with a TC. Small birds are fiendishly difficult to photograph well, because they move so flipping fast! I think the 300mm is about as far as I'd ever really need to go with a lens. That PF version is so small; I was going to buy an older D series lens a couple of years ago, then the PF version came out, which was a real game changer in terms of size and weight. So I didn't buy the D lens. But then the PF was relatively so much more expensive. Then other considerations got in the way.
 
Messages
2,011
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Based on the new Canon announcement, anyone got any guesses as to Nikons next move? It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out now.

For me personally I'd love to see a Z8/9 with improved AF, dual card slots for CFEx grip as an option if not built in, and the 50/1.2 announced with it. Not many people seem impressed with the D6 announcement, and it looks like Canon may be going all in with a 1Dx matching D5 body. Very interesting times.
 
Messages
597
Edit My Images
No
I'd quite like to see an FTZ adapter that allows AF on older screw-drive AF lenses. This is the only major downside of the Z-system, imo, that it can't AF with so many excellent lenses. I do understand the issues around battery usage etc, but a mechanical FTZ with it's own batteries? Surely there'd be room for a couple of AAAs at least, if they perhaps eschew the tripod mount?

The FTZ sold separately is ridiculously expensive. £279? Canon's basic EF-R adapter is £100. Pretty much the same thing in terms of function (ok so the FTZ has the mechanical aperture control mechanism, but still). Knock it down to £150 at least. For £279, I'd be wanting that mechanical AF function at least. Come on Nikon!
 
Last edited:

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
4,517
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd quite like to see an FTZ adapter that allows AF on older screw-drive AF lenses. This is the only major downside of the Z-system, imo, that it can't AF with so many excellent lenses. I do understand the issues around battery usage etc, but a mechanical FTZ with it's own batteries? Surely there'd be room for a couple of AAAs at least, if they perhaps eschew the tripod mount?
The other side of the coin (being impartial to this) is that they may have decided that now is the time for a cut-off point - to cease full onwards capability of older lenses from a certain range to new bodies. Of course, we may end up with a third-party adapter which does just that, but not developed at Nikon's expense.
 
Top