- Messages
- 23,613
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
And on the flip side betters it in othersThe D500 is an outstanding camera. The Z6 in comparison to it falls short in a number of categories. But the Z6 is a good camera with outstanding lenses. Enjoy.
And on the flip side betters it in othersThe D500 is an outstanding camera. The Z6 in comparison to it falls short in a number of categories. But the Z6 is a good camera with outstanding lenses. Enjoy.
And on the flip side betters it in others
Looking forward to your thoughts mate as I was thinking if doing the same thing. Esp for the video side of it. I'll keep an eye on your findingsJust ordered a Z6, bye bye [emoji112] D500
True, that's why I said the Z6 falls short in "a number of categories" and not "all categories". I only have a Z6 now having sold my D500 and more recently my D850. So although it's not really comparable to either of them (One being crop and the other being the best DSLR ever made) I find it fits my needs well enough to use it.And on the flip side betters it in others
True, that's why I said the Z6 falls short in "a number of categories" and not "all categories"
Because he looks to be moving from the D500 to the Z6 and will most likely compare them once he has tried out the Z6. Many on here are very defensive about the Z series line up. While I enjoy using it I fully understand its short comings and although I've shot Nikon for many years, I'd consider myself someone who can accept criticism on Nikon products.
Every camera - yes, including my Z6 - falls short in some ways, and excels in others. The thing is to discover what those shortfalls are (if possible) and decide if they apply to your photography.Because he looks to be moving from the D500 to the Z6 and will most likely compare them once he has tried out the Z6. Many on here are very defensive about the Z series line up. While I enjoy using it I fully understand its short comings and although I've shot Nikon for many years, I'd consider myself someone who can accept criticism on Nikon products.
You can get the EVF to simulate how an OVF would behave but I wouldn't have it that way. Being able to see clearly in the dark through the VF is a godsend to me, with a DSLR I could sometimes lose the subject as I couldn't see clearly. YMMVWe have tried a few mirrorless cameras in anger, including a Nikon
What strikes me is the EFV is great when it's really bright, it's like using a loupe. But it's really confusing in real life where the brightness is kind of fixed vs the real world.
With a slr, you see what the real world looks like through the viewfinder. I don't need the crutch of wysiwyg, but I font need to be confused with a repersentation of the real world either. Exposures were off when using the EVF, but OK when setting camera manually after just looking around me
My second issue is that in the dark, the focusing doesn't compare to my DSLRs
Since I spend my night times shooting wedding parties, often outside with little light, for the moment the D5 stays in the bag, as that seems to always nail focus, whenever there is anything ightly visible to focus on
I think you may be right, it's very different., it probably will take me a while to bend my head around thatYou can get the EVF to simulate how an OVF would behave but I wouldn't have it that way. Being able to see clearly in the dark through the VF is a godsend to me, with a DSLR I could sometimes lose the subject as I couldn't see clearly. YMMV
With regards to exposures being off I would say that's more a case of. not being familiar with the camera. I've noticed that some of the later Nikons tend to underexpose (I noticed it with the D850 and Z7) but I think they do this deliberately to preserve the highlights knowing that shadow recovery is incredible. Once you know this, and if it's not to your liking you can just apply a global exposure compensation in the menu setting (not to be confused with the 'normal exp comp' so that exposures are to your preference. In other words it allows you to tweak the light meter. And another fantastic feature is that it lets you do this for each metering mode individually. Like anything, new gear takes a while to get familiar with and to get the best from it.
With regards to low light focussing I do think the Z's fall short here. I know they claim to be able to focus down to -6ev or something but from my experience I just don't believe that.
I suspect plenty do, whether it’s the best tool for the job is another matter entirely and one that will be subject to lots of different opinions!Without scrolling through 127 pages, does anyone use a z6 for wildlife with a 200-500 or something similar?
I'd say Sony A9-II and 200-600mmI suspect plenty do, whether it’s the best tool for the job is another matter entirely and one that will be subject to lots of different opinions!
NB if you just want to save time then the ‘right’ answer is a D500 and 200-500.
The ‘best’ answer however is a Sony A7 (3 onwards) and the Sony 200-600.
Absolutely but any A7 from mk3 and up will be better!I'd say Sony A9-II and 200-600mm
Lovely rendering lens that.So...I've just placed an order for a used Nikon 300mm F2.8 AF-S II (Non VR). Very curious how it works with the Z6. It's gonna be hell waiting next week
Going through my photos, I've found the 300mm/2.8 look really appeals to me (I've had the 120-300 Sigma before).
Specifically chose that version since it's the lightest of all Nikon primes and supposedly the fastest focusing as well....
So...I've just placed an order for a used Nikon 300mm F2.8 AF-S II (Non VR). Very curious how it works with the Z6. It's gonna be hell waiting next week
Going through my photos, I've found the 300mm/2.8 look really appeals to me (I've had the 120-300 Sigma before).
Specifically chose that version since it's the lightest of all Nikon primes and supposedly the fastest focusing as well....
So...I've just placed an order for a used Nikon 300mm F2.8 AF-S II (Non VR). Very curious how it works with the Z6. It's gonna be hell waiting next week
Going through my photos, I've found the 300mm/2.8 look really appeals to me (I've had the 120-300 Sigma before).
Specifically chose that version since it's the lightest of all Nikon primes and supposedly the fastest focusing as well....
Hang on, I thought this was a D lens which means it won't AF on the Z6 despite the fast focussing on a DSLR. But perhaps I've got something confused?
Hang on, I thought this was a D lens which means it won't AF on the Z6 despite the fast focussing on a DSLR. But perhaps I've got something confused?
I've shot wildlife with my Z6 paired with my 70-200mm and 1.4tc MKIII. It's fine for me but I had the 300mm pf and that's what I'll be getting again when funds allow. Z7 paired with the 300mm pf and 1.4tc would be a great compact setup, anything else is going to be big and heavy. I had the D500 and D850 and paired the 200-500mm with both them, due to the weight I had to sell them all, but they'd certainly be hard to beat at wildlife photography.
I'd be sticking to the Z7, 300mm pf and 1.4tc MKIII personally.
I'd be sticking to the Z7, 300mm pf and 1.4tc MKIII personally.
I know.That’s what I used.
I don’t think you’re over thinking it tbh, I think it’s more a case of the Z system still being in its infancy and not having what you want.Looking for words of wisdom from the folk on here. I currently have the Z twins (Z6 & Z7). My longest lens for the Z's is the Nikon 300mm F4 PF mated with the 1.4 MK III converter to get me to 420 mm F5.6. I seem to be at a junction now with my kit and what's most suitable for wildlife and bird photography.
Part of me is thinking of selling one of the Z's or just adding to them another D500 (I've had them before, but sold it when I got the Z's). Plusses are that my native lens length then extends to 630mm (effective) and combine that with the D500's superb AF and tracking, 10 FPS shooting and pretty much unlimitless buffer and it seems a good choice. The Z7 in crop mode is nearly the same as the D500, but obviously with just good rather than excellent AF and tracking, and a much more limited buffer.
However part of me is thinking that I've not given the Z7 (or Z6 for that matter), enough credit for being a bit of a jack of all trades and to persevere with it more. There's also the fact that adding a D500 is yet another body to just confuse matters when looking at which camera to take, and it just might be simpler sticking with the Z's ? Yes I know the other facts about the D500 vs Z7 are still true (AF, tracking, buffer etc), but if I'm honest I really do love the handling and feel of the Z bodies, much more than a DSLR.
The other option is just to get a longer lens for the Z7 so that it fills the frame more (and more AF points over the subject might mean better AF ?). My immediate choice would be the new(ish) Nikon 500mm F5.6 PF, but at £3.5k that's serious investment for the Z cameras. The other much cheaper options would be either the Nikon 200-500 F5.6, the Tamron 150-600 G2 or either of the Sigma 150-600 pair (sport or contemporary). Obviously firmware updates to the current V3 have improved AF on the Z's considerably, and we therefore don't know if Nikon has any further tricks up it's sleeves for the current Z's or if that's it, and better AF etc. will be reserved for the new Z cameras (whenever they are launched)
I know i also have my micro four thirds setup, but for the sake of this topic, let's leave them out of it, (as things might be happening to that system in the near future).
So what are peoples thoughts, or am i overthinking this or not ?
Didn’t take long for you to start banging the Sony drum Toby
Seriously, I can’t ever see the time where I don’t own a Nikon, and I do love the handling of the Z’s. I’ve had them for over 40 years and it’s just ingrained in me. The reason for the pair is simple. The Z7 was always going to be my landscape and (due to the megapixel count) was always going to be my nature camera as well. Z6 on the other hand has the right amount of pixels for a general everyday camera and obviously has better video capabilities and better lowlight performance than the Z7. It’s pretty much how it’s worked out and the 300 mm F4 PF is a great lens and the crop ability of the Z7 has given me some great photos. However as is the case now I want longer.
Of course the other option I didn’t mention is on Nikon’s Z roadmap they have a couple of longer lenses scheduled for next year, so I could just wait until then?
decisions decisions.
Haha, I knew I was opening myself up for that comment It was only a left field, although 'sensible' option.Didn’t take long for you to start banging the Sony drum Toby
I'm sure there'll be longer lenses in the future, assuming they stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic so you could just wait yeah. In the meantime you could buy a 'reasonably' priced used Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm that you can sell on for little to no loss.Seriously, I can’t ever see the time where I don’t own a Nikon, and I do love the handling of the Z’s. I’ve had them for over 40 years and it’s just ingrained in me. The reason for the pair is simple. The Z7 was always going to be my landscape and (due to the megapixel count) was always going to be my nature camera as well. Z6 on the other hand has the right amount of pixels for a general everyday camera and obviously has better video capabilities and better lowlight performance than the Z7. It’s pretty much how it’s worked out and the 300 mm F4 PF is a great lens and the crop ability of the Z7 has given me some great photos. However as is the case now I want longer.
Of course the other option I didn’t mention is on Nikon’s Z roadmap they have a couple of longer lenses scheduled for next year, so I could just wait until then?
decisions decisions.