Nikon Z* mirrorless

trevorbray said:
Very good price...tempted ?
Click to expand...

Coming back to this yes a little.

Been having a look at figures etc and could sell my Sony gear and afford the Z6 with 24-70 and a used VRII 70-200.

My concern being AF tracking and focus speed with that combo and the Z6 in general as some reviews saying that AF in low light is not always accurate and I shout indoors quite a bit during the winter months.

How can the 24-70 be sooooooooo expensive outside the kit?!
 
JJ! said:
Coming back to this yes a little.

Been having a look at figures etc and could sell my Sony gear and afford the Z6 with 24-70 and a used VRII 70-200.

My concern being AF tracking and focus speed with that combo and the Z6 in general as some reviews saying that AF in low light is not always accurate and I shout indoors quite a bit during the winter months.

How can the 24-70 be sooooooooo expensive outside the kit?!
Click to expand...

JJ - i think the decision would very much depend on your long term thoughts.

The Sony & Nikon are both exceptional cameras; of that there can be no doubt!

At present some reviewers are saying the Z6 is better but in reality they are 'very close' and the body comes down to user preference really - rest assured the next generation from both manufacturers will be even closer and will come down to which name looks best on the camera! :D

We photographers know that the real investment is in the glass so this is really where you probably need to think before building a range of lenses up.

Nikon at present is behind in this respect but over time (like their F mount glass) they will have a very comprehensive range; I'd imagine that within 18 months it will already be good.

Nikon have introduced a new mount that their engineers promise all sorts and they have 'shunned' the Sony mount - that is debatable by many.

So really it will just be what system you are comfortable with in the end as the performance of either system will be within a 'gnats ******' of each other.

It doesn't help you in the slightest but my views - sorry :facepalm:
 
trevorbray said:
Good to hear. Have you ordered ?
Click to expand...

Ohh...so close to pressing the button...must resist, must resist.... :D:D

Joking aside, In the end, I've decided this time round no. Nothing to do with the Z6, (the more reviews I read the better it seems), it's just that since the order was originally cancelled with Panamoz, it's given me time to think. I already have 3 systems. An extensive micro four thirds system with 9 lenses (most pro), A Fuji X-H1 system with most of the lenses I need and a Nikon D500 with just the 16-80 and 200-500 (my wildlife set-up). As it is, I already have too much equipment so adding a 4th system would really just be me feeding my GAS affliction.

As wonderful as no doubt the Z6 is (never handled one), I know that from shooting full frame for many years (and plenty of weddings etc which I no longer do), I do know that I'm not really missing out on that much. Sure the Z6 will have better high ISO than the D500 and X-H1 particularly (probably ¾to 1 stop), but ISO 6400 is about my max anyway, and both the aforementioned cameras do pretty good up to that point (especially with a little NR). Also razor thin DOF was never my thing, and to get that in any case, on top of the Z6 combo, I'd have to start investing in FF lenses again, as I know I'd be frustrated with just the 24-70 and my 200-500 via the FTZ.

I definitely think a FF mirrorless is in my future, but not just yet. If I'm being 100% honest with myself, with what I have to hand at present, I'm not being limited in my photography by my current equipment, so like I said, it would really for me, just to get the latest and greatest. Maybe in hindsight, Panamoz did me a huge favour ?
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
JJ - i think the decision would very much depend on your long term thoughts.

The Sony & Nikon are both exceptional cameras; of that there can be no doubt!

At present some reviewers are saying the Z6 is better but in reality they are 'very close' and the body comes down to user preference really - rest assured the next generation from both manufacturers will be even closer and will come down to which name looks best on the camera! :D

We photographers know that the real investment is in the glass so this is really where you probably need to think before building a range of lenses up.

Nikon at present is behind in this respect but over time (like their F mount glass) they will have a very comprehensive range; I'd imagine that within 18 months it will already be good.

Nikon have introduced a new mount that their engineers promise all sorts and they have 'shunned' the Sony mount - that is debatable by many.

So really it will just be what system you are comfortable with in the end as the performance of either system will be within a 'gnats ******' of each other.

It doesn't help you in the slightest but my views - sorry :facepalm:
Click to expand...

I guess I'm fairly lucky that I am not invested in a system too much lens wise!

I have the Sony 70-200 2.8 and the cheap 35mm Samyang so long term I'm not yet commited.

Was a Nikon shooter for years but changed to Sony as enjoyed what mirrorless brought the table. But always enjoyed Nikon files and colours - guess a lot of it is that I am still not there yet in terms of being happy with my Sony files.

Not even seen or tried a Z6 - might hate it!
 
JJ! said:
I guess I'm fairly lucky that I am not invested in a system too much lens wise!

I have the Sony 70-200 2.8 and the cheap 35mm Samyang so long term I'm not yet commited.

Was a Nikon shooter for years but changed to Sony as enjoyed what mirrorless brought the table. But always enjoyed Nikon files and colours - guess a lot of it is that I am still not there yet in terms of being happy with my Sony files.

Not even seen or tried a Z6 - might hate it!
Click to expand...
Could you rent for a week?
 
T_J_G said:
As a wedding photographer, the silent shutter isn’t as useful as you think. If you use under certain lighting you get banding and anything with fast action you get that weird distortion.
Click to expand...

Ah yes - another knife in the mirrorless' back, I forgot about that one; though my mate's A9 doesn't seem to do it (at another 2x the price though!)

Dave
 
We wanted to see how the camera performed for fast action, so tried it out in two different situations. First, we went to an 'Extreme Air Sports' venue in California to see how the camera did with a (very) fast-moving child on ziplines and obstacle courses. When the subject really stood out from the background, the camera was able to track them. Most of the time, however, the camera latched onto the background and stayed there. Subject tracking simply wasn't reliable consistently in the real world, and given how cumbersome it is to use anyway, we found ourselves missing Nikon's '3D Tracking' available on its DSLRs.

The second thing we tried was shooting an 'ultimate frisbee' match using an adapted 70-200 F2.8 lens. Unlike the previous example, where there was time to tap on a subject to track, we specified an AF area (Dynamic mode) and kept the camera pointed at the subject. Generally speaking, the Z6 did quite well at refocusing as we followed the subjects around the field.

When it missed, it was almost always because the focus point was no longer on the subject. Even at 5.5 fps with liveview, the EVF refresh is a bit laggy with significant blackout between updates, making it difficult to see to where your subject is at any given moment. That makes it hard to keep your focus point over the subject consistently as it moves around the frame. This is where subject tracking can be immensely useful, but again we don't find it reliable or usable enough on the Z6.

Maybe I will wait for a bit!
 
Nikon have said a firmware update is imminent so I suggest you wait to see what that brings.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Ah yes - another knife in the mirrorless' back, I forgot about that one; though my mate's A9 doesn't seem to do it (at another 2x the price though!)

Dave
Click to expand...

That’s true but they’re expensive. I’ve got the a7iii and tried it at last wedding but got banding inside so I’ll probably just not use it.
 
T_J_G said:
That’s true but they’re expensive. I’ve got the a7iii and tried it at last wedding but got banding inside so I’ll probably just not use it.
Click to expand...

Yep silly price I reckon

Currently, although not perfect, I'm loving what the D750 does so much I can't see me changing cameras for years or until mine break!!!

Then, I might just buy more of them :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Yep silly price I reckon

Currently, although not perfect, I'm loving what the D750 does so much I can't see me changing cameras for years or until mine break!!!

Then, I might just buy more of them :)

Dave
Click to expand...

Not really silly when you consider how much 1Dxii or D5 costs. At current prices it's a bargain compared to the competition.
 
T_J_G said:
As a wedding photographer, the silent shutter isn’t as useful as you think. If you use under certain lighting you get banding and anything with fast action you get that weird distortion.
Click to expand...

I use the silent shutter on my A7III all the time during the ceremony and yeah sometimes there is banding but not that often.

For those that are looking at changing from a DSLR to mirrorless the evf which is a huge advantage is not the only reason to change.

Not having to fine tune lenses is also a massive bonus. Being able to have complete faith that only user error can be blamed for focus issues is a game changing feature that shouldn’t be underestimated.

Proper usable live view also makes a big difference it really does change the way you take photographs. For portraits, weddings etc. It makes it much easier to interact with the subject. The flip out screen is great for getting down low, which yes you can do with the likes of the D750 but DSLR live view is so poor in comparison.

Eye a.f is also very useful and is supposed to be coming to the Z series soon. Sony will also be getting animal eye a.f.

I have kept a couple of Nikon DSLR bodies although I rarely use them now. It’s difficult to go back to them, they feel so archaic in comparison.
 
I’m surprised nobody talks much about IBIS when considering the advantages of a z6/7. It doesn’t always help of course but there are times when it must be great. I love it on m4/3 and although I’m nowhere near ditching the fx dslr yet, I am looking forward to the day when I have a Full frame Nikon with all this stuff included.
 
gad-westy said:
I’m surprised nobody talks much about IBIS when considering the advantages of a z6/7. It doesn’t always help of course but there are times when it must be great. I love it on m4/3 and although I’m nowhere near ditching the fx dslr yet, I am looking forward to the day when I have a Full frame Nikon with all this stuff included.
Click to expand...

From what I have heard you can handhold shots down to 2 seconds with E-M1ii and that's really great. Can't really do that with Nikon or Sony so I don't really care for it for the most part since my shutter speed is generally high enough.
 
f/2.8 said:
Not having to fine tune lenses is also a massive bonus. Being able to have complete faith that only user error can be blamed for focus issues is a game changing feature that shouldn’t be underestimated.
Click to expand...

Probably a numpty question (I'm good at those!)... but can anyone tell me why the Z6 setup menu has an 'AF fine-tune' option? I thought mirrorless cameras made that redundant :thinking:
 
f/2.8 said:
For those that are looking at changing from a DSLR to mirrorless the evf which is a huge advantage is not the only reason to change.

Not having to fine tune lenses is also a massive bonus. Being able to have complete faith that only user error can be blamed for focus issues is a game changing feature that shouldn’t be underestimated.

Proper usable live view also makes a big difference it really does change the way you take photographs. For portraits, weddings etc. It makes it much easier to interact with the subject. The flip out screen is great for getting down low, which yes you can do with the likes of the D750 but DSLR live view is so poor in comparison.

Eye a.f is also very useful and is supposed to be coming to the Z series soon. Sony will also be getting animal eye a.f.

I have kept a couple of Nikon DSLR bodies although I rarely use them now. It’s difficult to go back to them, they feel so archaic in comparison.
Click to expand...

EVF is useful I can see that, but I'd not call it a huge advantage. I know how my camera meters and I know what's going to cause it problems; added to which it has a huge latitude for when I'm wrong - so useful yes, but I doubt hugely so for me

I've never fine tuned a lens, mine have always been fine and any focus error is far more likely to be my fault IME

Eye AF - yep I'd call that the 'game changer' of usefulness for me, but the Z6 doesn't have it - this one feature alone is what my A9 owning pal raves about most; even if it is added though you'll not get me to change to a 1-slot camera

Dave
 
Flashman said:
Probably a numpty question (I'm good at those!)... but can anyone tell me why the Z6 setup menu has an 'AF fine-tune' option? I thought mirrorless cameras made that redundant :thinking:
Click to expand...
Not a stupid question at all!

If the camera uses purely contrast-detect AF (CDAF), you wouldn’t need any sort of calibration. CDAF works in the same way as a human focusing a lens – you look at how sharp the image is, and if you’re not satisfied with the sharpness you move the focus point a bit in a random direction and see if it gets sharper or not. You repeat this process until you get a sharp image. This is a closed-loop, iterative process – closed loop means you adjust and then check your result, and iterative means you repeat the process until you’re happy with the outcome. The end focus position is probably about as good as you’re going to get (although you can never be quite sure as you have to adjust the lens to check, which might then mess up the focus!). The down sides are that CDAF is quite slow and requires good light.

Phase-detect AF (PDAF) looks at two paths of light coming to the sensor and with a single measurement can determine both the magnitude (how much you need to adjust the focus) and the direction (towards the camera or towards infinity). So one quick measurement can give you everything you need to know – then you drive the lens the right amount in the right direction and voila, perfect focus… in theory. In practice it relies on your measurement being accurate and the lens doing exactly what you tell it to. When the camera says move x amount in this direction, it assumes that x is the perfect amount, and the lens will correctly move to this point. This is an open-loop process with no iteration; you only get one bite at the cherry, and you don't check your answers.

So what happens if your lens motor/gearing is a bit worn and doesn’t behave quite the same as it did when it was new? What if the lens mount or lens elements are fractionally misaligned due to manufacturing tolerances or an accidental knock 6 months ago, and the focus isn’t measured quite correctly or the movement of the motor doesn’t quite move the lens element where is should be? These are the sorts of things can result in a fractional offset of the focus position, and an out-of-focus image. But as long as the focus error is fairly consistent, you can use AF Fine Tune to make it better.
 
DG Phototraining said:
EVF is useful I can see that, but I'd not call it a huge advantage. I know how my camera meters and I know what's going to cause it problems; added to which it has a huge latitude for when I'm wrong - so useful yes, but I doubt hugely so for me

I've never fine tuned a lens, mine have always been fine and any focus error is far more likely to be my fault IME

Eye AF - yep I'd call that the 'game changer' of usefulness for me, but the Z6 doesn't have it - this one feature alone is what my A9 owning pal raves about most; even if it is added though you'll not get me to change to a 1-slot camera

Dave
Click to expand...

I used to think an EVF wouldn't be that big of an advantage. I was completely wrong.

It's odd that you never needed to fine tune a lens, every Nikon lens and every third party Nikon lens I have ever owned has needed at least minor micro adjustment and I have had 18 different Nikon DSLR bodies and probably 60-70 lenses over the last 10 years or so. Every other professional photographer I know who shoots Nikon and Canon fine tune there lenses on a regular basis, usually every 3 months or so as focus shifts over time to try and keep on top of it. If you have never done yours it isn't because they haven't needed done, but that is your choice. Your lenses won't be fine, you might be surprised at the difference it would make if they where tuned. It is a lot of hassle to do though and I am delighted I don't have to do it any more.

I agree that currently the Z series isn't fit for purpose for most professional uses due to only having one card slot, which is why I switched to Sony.
 
nandbytes said:
From what I have heard you can handhold shots down to 2 seconds with E-M1ii and that's really great. Can't really do that with Nikon or Sony so I don't really care for it for the most part since my shutter speed is generally high enough.
Click to expand...

The Olympus stuff is pure witchcraft but then it's a small sensor so lower inertia probably makes it easier to implement but at the same time it's already at a deficit in light gathering terms vs a full frame sensor so swings and roundabouts...

But what I find interesting (I realise this isn't quite apples for apples) is that if I had a 12mm 1.4 lens on an Olympus body and 24mm 1.4 lens on a full frame body and I was shooting in very low light without a tripod or anything to lean against, I can more or less guarantee I'd get a much cleaner image from the Olympus. Because I might well be ISO 200 and 1 second exposure on the Olympus and 1/30 and iso 6400 on the full frame camera (if I've done my maths right!).

The circumstances in which this matters I admit are limited but two scenarios where I've found it important are shooting twilight stuff when you don't have a tripod (on a city break maybe where the wife would divorce me if I took a tripod out for an evening meal!) and another time recently was in the arctic circle on a family trip. Sun doesn't rise in late december so light levels always very low and often activities didn't really lend themselves to a tripod or big camera but I got some nice images with stabalised m4/3 and a cheapo 1.8 lens that I simply would not have got with my DSLR.

I guess what clouds things is that a couple of years ago there weren't really any fast stabalised primes but nowadays if I really wanted the ultimate for these scenarios, Tamron offer 35,45 and 85mm VC lenses so there are some good options now but IBIS gives you that option with every single lens you put on. Doesn't always help but I'm surprised by just how often it actually is useful.
 
snerkler said:
I have the AF-P 70-300mm and whilst it's a very good lens for the money I paid during the cash back deal, it has got the worst vignetting I have ever seen. I's blatantly obvious in the viewfinder let alone reviewing the image afterwards. Obviously it's a easy fix in post, but it's just surprising that a modern lens can be that bad, especially when the predecessor didn't really suffer at all.
Click to expand...

I bought this lens at the weekend to meet the cashback deadline so I could compare against the Fuji 50-140. OK --apples and oranges you all rightly say but so far the edge to edge sharpness and detail have been actually better and AF more reliable than Fuji's flagship with the X-Pro2 and it's only in the middle of the rage where the Fuji has better DoF control (as of course the Nikon extends to 300mm and f4.5 at the wide end is virtually indistinguishable from cropped sensor f2.8). I had not expected this of a lens which until yesterday cost £425! Early days of course. The vignetting is less than I'd expected, even at 300mm wide open, given the horror stories but is a simple PP fix anyway.
 
lunar22 said:
I bought this lens at the weekend to meet the cashback deadline so I could compare against the Fuji 50-140. OK --apples and oranges you all rightly say but so far the edge to edge sharpness and detail have been actually better and AF more reliable than Fuji's flagship with the X-Pro2 and it's only in the middle of the rage where the Fuji has better DoF control (as of course the Nikon extends to 300mm and f4.5 at the wide end is virtually indistinguishable from cropped sensor f2.8). I had not expected this of a lens which until yesterday cost £425! Early days of course. The vignetting is less than I'd expected, even at 300mm wide open, given the horror stories but is a simple PP fix anyway.
Click to expand...
You’ve still not convinced me, David. Though if you come up with a spare couple of grand I could be swayed! :)
 
Never really thought silent shooting would be any real benefit to me, but I have changed my mind on this.

Been doing a few dressage indoor events and its pretty quiet during that. You could always hear the D750 rattling off shots in the videos my friends were taking.

So not only can I now shoot without any noise (no banding or warping noticed on the A73 yet) I do not ruin peoples videos lol
 
Stephen L said:
You’ve still not convinced me, David. Though if you come up with a spare couple of grand I could be swayed! :)
Click to expand...

Sell off your Fuji stuff and that should give you that couple of grand :) . Regrettably, my own finances have now become a bit precarious for the time being :(. Seriously though, although I like what I've seen so far from the Z6, I'm not going to rush into any decision. There may be dealbreakers I have not yet come across. I was prepared to find that there really isn't much difference in IQ but I have to say for landscape and especially any sort of lowlight or very high contrast shooting, the difference is there. I reckon if I was more an action kind of photographer then the X-T3 might suit my needs better but I'm not. Best thing is is try and get a dealer to let you try it out!
 
JJ! said:
Never really thought silent shooting would be any real benefit to me, but I have changed my mind on this.

Been doing a few dressage indoor events and its pretty quiet during that. You could always hear the D750 rattling off shots in the videos my friends were taking.

So not only can I now shoot without any noise (no banding or warping noticed on the A73 yet) I do not ruin peoples videos lol
Click to expand...

exactly. I was doing a series of shots in a church yesterday and you feel so embarrased if you disturb the peace with shutter noise. In fact the Z6 is so silent, I wasn't sure at first whether I'd taken a picture at all.
 
lunar22 said:
Sell off your Fuji stuff and that should give you that couple of grand :) . Regrettably, my own finances have now become a bit precarious for the time being :(. Seriously though, although I like what I've seen so far from the Z6, I'm not going to rush into any decision. There may be dealbreakers I have not yet come across. I was prepared to find that there really isn't much difference in IQ but I have to say for landscape and especially any sort of lowlight or very high contrast shooting, the difference is there. I reckon if I was more an action kind of photographer then the X-T3 might suit my needs better but I'm not. Best thing is is try and get a dealer to let you try it out!
Click to expand...
I must admit that a search on Flickr brought up some excellent landscape shots. But it would have to be a grey purchase, which whilst I'm happy enough to use for lenses I'm more wary for bodies. Also, the nearest dealers, in Leeds, don't have stock and are still working on reservations. But never say never ...
 
Stephen L said:
I must admit that a search on Flickr brought up some excellent landscape shots. But it would have to be a grey purchase, which whilst I'm happy enough to use for lenses I'm more wary for bodies. Also, the nearest dealers, in Leeds, don't have stock and are still working on reservations. But never say never ...
Click to expand...
I was frankly surprised that a dealer in Stuttgart had a couple in stock. Anywhere locally and where I've looked in the UK have either had nothing or sold their initial stock to pre-orders, though they will start to drift in. As for grey market, Panamoz indeed seems to have excellent reviews but I'd also be wary of grey market cameras.
 
lunar22 said:
I was frankly surprised that a dealer in Stuttgart had a couple in stock. Anywhere locally and where I've looked in the UK have either had nothing or sold their initial stock to pre-orders, though they will start to drift in. As for grey market, Panamoz indeed seems to have excellent reviews but I'd also be wary of grey market cameras.
Click to expand...
E-Infinity have them, and I’ve been very happy with lens purchases ...
 
Stephen L said:
I must admit that a search on Flickr brought up some excellent landscape shots. But it would have to be a grey purchase, which whilst I'm happy enough to use for lenses I'm more wary for bodies. Also, the nearest dealers, in Leeds, don't have stock and are still working on reservations. But never say never ...
Click to expand...
lunar22 said:
I was frankly surprised that a dealer in Stuttgart had a couple in stock. Anywhere locally and where I've looked in the UK have either had nothing or sold their initial stock to pre-orders, though they will start to drift in. As for grey market, Panamoz indeed seems to have excellent reviews but I'd also be wary of grey market cameras.
Click to expand...

Over the last few years I’ve bought 9 bodies from Panamoz. Had to return one. Great service. Hassle free. Recommended.
 
I am currently looking at full frame mirrorless.

I am a Canon user at the mo but very tempted to jump ship to Nikon. The Z6 just seems a better camera in so many ways compared to the Canon R and the reviews I have seen ie DPReview, Google and YouTube seem to back this up
 
petrolhead said:
I am currently looking at full frame mirrorless.

I am a Canon user at the mo but very tempted to jump ship to Nikon. The Z6 just seems a better camera in so many ways compared to the Canon R and the reviews I have seen ie DPReview, Google and YouTube seem to back this up
Click to expand...

Similar story here. I’d previously had Canon and Nikon Full Frame. When I decided to return to Full Frame I had no lenses left to sway my decision.
Could easily have lived with either. Tried both in the hand and went with Nikon
Bought the 24-70 kit, very happy.
 
I previously had a D200 and then upgraded to a second hand D700. In the end, I found the D700 with accompanying lenses too heavy and I seemed to have inherited a dust magnet as well (a possible concern with the new system as well , though so far no issues at all and the cleaning is supposedly more effective than of old). Went completely mirrorless, eventually settling on Fuji after a period with m43 but did spend a while trying out a cheap D600 in 2017.

Frankly, the Z6 after two weeks exceeds my expectations in most areas. The standout is the quality of the lenses -- and here I'm talking about a kit lens and a consumer telephoto in the newish AF-P 70-300. The rendering may not quite match the wonderful Fuji 90mm but I'm thinking if this is what Nikon's "basic" lenses are, then I probably don't need much more. The new backlit sensor seems to me to retain both highlights and shadow detail better than the previous D600/750 generation. The other thing is the EVF which is actually acute enough to clearly see your focus and its dynamic range far exceeds my Fuji (admittedly only the X-Pro2).

There is one school of thought that whinge about AF tracking, one card slot and slight banding if you underexpose 6 stops and try to bring up the shadows. Hands up all those who ever needed to under-expose by 6 stops? I thought so..... Ok-- for a pure sports machine, you're probably better off with a Sony A9 or A6400 or even an X-T3.

Canon? It's the only major brand I've never shot but reviews and specs are mostly underwhelming.
 
lunar22 said:
Frankly, the Z6 after two weeks exceeds my expectations in most areas. The standout is the quality of the lenses -- and here I'm talking about a kit lens and a consumer telephoto in the newish AF-P 70-300. The rendering may not quite match the wonderful Fuji 90mm but I'm thinking if this is what Nikon's "basic" lenses are, then I probably don't need much more. The new backlit sensor seems to me to retain both highlights and shadow detail better than the previous D600/750 generation. The other thing is the EVF which is actually acute enough to clearly see your focus and its dynamic range far exceeds my Fuji (admittedly only the X-Pro2).
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up my own thought processes since I bought the Z6 too. A month or so ago my go to 'everyday' setup was a gripped D850 with L plate and 24-70 f2.8 VR at 2.6Kg. Since buying the Z6 I've barely touched the D850 and my go to camera is now the Z6 with the new 24-70 f4S which feels half the size and, at 1.2Kg, is less than half the weight of the D850 setup. I haven't noticed any drop in image quality with the new setup and I hardly ever shot at f2.8 on the 24-70 anyway. Handling is so much more intuitive (I love the 'i' menu) and is a pleasure to shoot with.

I moved out of my studio last month and am turning photography back into a hobby, if I was still shooting for business then I'd stick with DSLR for the time being (for all the very valid reasons often mentioned... card slots etc.) but for where I am now the Z ticks all the boxes... my D850 went on eBay yesterday!
 
I'm a D750 shooter at the moment. I have developed a hate for the colours in-doors compared to Canon 5D3/4. Especially tungsten and flourescent which some lovely venues have. I have tried to use the built in colour options but these are naff in quick changing situations and especially bad in mixed lighting conditions.

The reason I am bringing the above into this discussion is that EVF 'wysiwyg' is supposed to mean that I could potentially shoot and require minimal processing (one of the advantages of mirrorless right?) but the colours are so awful it takes ages to get them close to the Canon's - especially skin-tones. This is the reason why most of my friends have avoided Sony and now the new Nikon and instead gone with the Canon R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top