Would I be mad to get a Z6ii and ONLY adapted lenses...?

T

TripleT

Messages
3
Edit My Images
Yes
Soooo, I've been eyeing up the Z5, and having done some maths I think I could probably actually stretch to a Z6ii IF I only bought F mount lenses.

From what I gather ( size disadvantage aside ) they should ( in theory) perform as well as on a DSLR? I know the Z lenses are better and newer and smaller, but they're also much more expensive!

Does anyone have any direct experience of using only adapted lenses on the Z6ii?

Also, do 3rd party lenses work too? If I do get the Z6ii I would love to be able to use a Sigma 35mm 1.4 on it ( my favourite lens ever from my DSLR days...!)

Any thoughts?
 
why not look at competitors if you cannot afford Nikon Z gear?
Sony has support from 3rd parties with cheaper lenses available and a healthy used market.
 
nandbytes said:
why not look at competitors if you cannot afford Nikon Z gear?
Sony has support from 3rd parties with cheaper lenses available and a healthy used market.
Click to expand...

I had thought about Sony but the camera I would be looking at would be an A7iii and I realise that there's likely to be a new one out in the near future. I'm not one for chasing the latest and greatest, but I'd be gutted if something way better came out a few months later.

Plus I love the files that I've seen coming out of the latest Nikon bodies ( subjective I know!)
 
TripleT said:
I had thought about Sony but the camera I would be looking at would be an A7iii and I realise that there's likely to be a new one out in the near future. I'm not one for chasing the latest and greatest, but I'd be gutted if something way better came out a few months later.

Plus I love the files that I've seen coming out of the latest Nikon bodies ( subjective I know!)
Click to expand...

you could also look at A7C.
A7III is pretty old and still keeps up with all the latest models from other brands. Its a good body and I am guessing new one replacing will be a good do-it-all type body just as A7III was.
But new body will be more expensive than buying an A7III.

If you shoot RAW you can edit your files to look like whatever.
 
Hi TripleT and welcome to TP :)

Would you be mad? Not at all, and I have been having the same thoughts, but to my mind using F mount lenses would have to be a temporary measure until I could afford to buy the Z lenses that I want.

Will the Z/F combination meet your requirements is a more important question and will depend on what you plan to shoot. From what I have read here and on other fora the main issue is that AF speed (and possibly reliability) is compromised making birds in flight and other rapid motion photography a bit hit and miss. If you think you can live with that then I would say go for it.

On the subject of 3rd party lenses, I'm not aware of any incompatability problems. Other's may know for user.

I hope that helps :)
 
Last edited:
If you've been eyeing the Z5 why make the jump to the Z6ii and not the Z6? I have the Z6 and just one Z lens but I tend to use mostly vintage MF lenses. I have the 24-70 f/4, which is a stunning lens and will shortly pick up the 14-30 to accompany it as my only two autofocus lenses. All the rest of my lenses are MF via one adapter or another.

To your question, you'll still get stunning results using the FTZ adapter and AF-S lenses so there's really nothing to concern yourself with there. The Z cameras do everything the DSLRs will do and often better, except maybe quick action/sports type photography.

Oh and if you are goimng that route, I have an "as new" FTZ adapter in the Classifieds right now that would say you £50+.
 
Why not stick with the Nikon DSLR then? They pretty much do everything you may need and come with still far superior true viewfinder and more natural form factor.

Out of the mirrorless I would think Sony is the best system for the only reason of plentiful and affordable lens supply. And in fact L-mount is getting there much faster than Canon / Nikon. From there the next logical step up is Fuji GFX medium format which is miles better and even a little cheaper than Canon.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Why not stick with the Nikon DSLR then? They pretty much do everything you may need and come with still far superior true viewfinder and more natural form factor.

Out of the mirrorless I would think Sony is the best system for the only reason of plentiful and affordable lens supply. And in fact L-mount is getting there much faster than Canon / Nikon. From there the next logical step up is Fuji GFX medium format which is miles better and even a little cheaper than Canon.
Click to expand...

IYO.

In some instances and in the opinion of some others a good evf can be far superior to any unaided optical system.
 
It would be mad to restrict yourself to F-mount lenses. You can adapt nearly all photographic lenses to the Nikon Z series. You won't get AF but I don't find that a big issue on well designed mirrorless bodies. When I got my first Sony e-mount (NEX6) I used it entirely with adapted MF lenses for the first 6 months, then finally added a native telephoto. I added another E-mount body ( A7ii) before getting any more e-mount lenses, & I still use adapted lenses as much as the native ones :)
 
To answer the original question: do whatever you feel will work for you and ignore the advice of people who will happily spend your money for you.

The name of the game is to take pictures and all sorts of weird and wonderful combinations have been used by photographers to achieve what they want. Just do what seems right to you.
 
woof woof said:
IYO.

In some instances and in the opinion of some others a good evf can be far superior to any unaided optical system.
Click to expand...

Re resolution Sony 9k evf may be something just about adequate. The Nikon is far from that.

But more importantly how do they handle extreme DR scenes. Like bright light late in the dusk. Do you see large white blobs or instead a lot of blackness? That would be one of my last weeks job out of the windows with that. How about sunset? Or do you just learn to live with missing (i.e. white or black) pieces in the viewfinder? Let alone the refresh rate which is most certainly not 240Hz yet.
 
TripleT said:
Soooo, I've been eyeing up the Z5, and having done some maths I think I could probably actually stretch to a Z6ii IF I only bought F mount lenses.

From what I gather ( size disadvantage aside ) they should ( in theory) perform as well as on a DSLR? I know the Z lenses are better and newer and smaller, but they're also much more expensive!

Does anyone have any direct experience of using only adapted lenses on the Z6ii?

Also, do 3rd party lenses work too? If I do get the Z6ii I would love to be able to use a Sigma 35mm 1.4 on it ( my favourite lens ever from my DSLR days...!)

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
If you already have F-mount lenses, especially AF-S lenses, then this could make sense, but if you're starting fresh then it would seem a pity to spend money on lenses you have to use with an adapter unless that's one of your particular interests (as in the vintage lens thread). Maybe start with the Z mount 24-70 that is reasonably priced in the Z6 II kit bundles? If money is really tight and you need a stopgap, I suppose you could add something like a secondhand AF-S F mount kit telezoom, some of which are pretty cheap. Or look at the original Z6 (MPB have several secondhand), but be aware that it doesn't take SD cards, which means you'll have to pay more for media even if you don't need the speed.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Re resolution Sony 9k evf may be something just about adequate. The Nikon is far from that.

But more importantly how do they handle extreme DR scenes. Like bright light late in the dusk. Do you see large white blobs or instead a lot of blackness? That would be one of my last weeks job out of the windows with that. How about sunset? Or do you just learn to live with missing (i.e. white or black) pieces in the viewfinder? Let alone the refresh rate which is most certainly not 240Hz yet.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've tried a decent evf equipped camera or not and even after that it'll come down to preferences or even how you perceive things. All I can say is, well I'll say two things actually. Firstly is that with an evf you'll see things that simply can not be seen with any unaided OVF and secondly that I used optical vf cameras for 40+ years and now I'd only go back with a gun to my head.

I didn't mean this to go on and potentially derail the thread, I just thought I'd add a bit of balance and an alternative view to the certainties you posted above.
 
woof woof said:
I don't know if you've tried a decent evf equipped camera or not and even after that it'll come down to preferences or even how you perceive things. All I can say is, well I'll say two things actually. Firstly is that with an evf you'll see things that simply can not be seen with any unaided OVF and secondly that I used optical vf cameras for 40+ years and now I'd only go back with a gun to my head.

I didn't mean this to go on and potentially derail the thread, I just thought I'd add a bit of balance and an alternative view to the certainties you posted above.
Click to expand...

I think it is very important that we answer the EVF DR question. There are scenes that far exceed 14bit rage, so it is very very very important.
 
woof woof said:
I don't know if you've tried a decent evf equipped camera or not and even after that it'll come down to preferences or even how you perceive things. All I can say is, well I'll say two things actually. Firstly is that with an evf you'll see things that simply can not be seen with any unaided OVF and secondly that I used optical vf cameras for 40+ years and now I'd only go back with a gun to my head.

I didn't mean this to go on and potentially derail the thread, I just thought I'd add a bit of balance and an alternative view to the certainties you posted above.
Click to expand...
I personally use both & find the resolution of the EVF on any of my mirrorless cameras is quite adequate for use. Even with the antique G1 (released in 2008 with a 1.44M pixel EVF) it did look better in the G5 (also 1.44M).
The 2.4M display in my newer Sonys is better & looks as sharp as any of my DSLRs.
High dynamic range has never been a serious issue with the EVFs, yes I've come across situations where I can't see everything at the same time, but that is every bit as much the case with OVFs.

In general the mirrorless bodies are those I prefer but unlike @woof woof I will happily still use my DSLRs (I took one out for a walk yesterday).
 
woof woof said:
I don't know if you've tried a decent evf equipped camera or not and even after that it'll come down to preferences or even how you perceive things. All I can say is, well I'll say two things actually. Firstly is that with an evf you'll see things that simply can not be seen with any unaided OVF and secondly that I used optical vf cameras for 40+ years and now I'd only go back with a gun to my head.

I didn't mean this to go on and potentially derail the thread, I just thought I'd add a bit of balance and an alternative view to the certainties you posted above.
Click to expand...

Quite agree, I'll never go back to an optical viewfinder.

The EVF is far superior for me in every respect for the photography I do.

I've certainly never heard of a pro tog saying "I can't use this, give me a DSLR".

And that's good enough for me.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I think it is very important that we answer the EVF DR question. There are scenes that far exceed 14bit rage, so it is very very very important.
Click to expand...
It's not a problem in real life. If you zoom in you can view dark areas without the bright ones - something you Can't do with a DSLR. I don't think the human eye can manage a 14bit dynamic range or even close to it. Our visual system relies on looking at parts of the image separately adjusting the eye's iris & lets the brain sort out the image. It often also gets things wrong!
 
I use old manual lenses on digital cameras quite a lot, here are some examples...

Tamron AD2 24mm lens on a Canon 5D...

Okehampton Shopping Arcade 5D IMG_9927.JPG

Tamron 90mm AD2 lens on a Canon 1Ds II...

Cinnabar Moth caterpillar on flower in garden 1Ds II 12CL8818.JPG

Tamron AD2 17mm on Nikon D600...

flower in garden D600 D60_4567.JPG
 
Last edited:
Petrochemist said:
I personally use both & find the resolution of the EVF on any of my mirrorless cameras is quite adequate for use. Even with the antique G1 (released in 2008 with a 1.44M pixel EVF) it did look better in the G5 (also 1.44M).
The 2.4M display in my newer Sonys is better & looks as sharp as any of my DSLRs.
High dynamic range has never been a serious issue with the EVFs, yes I've come across situations where I can't see everything at the same time, but that is every bit as much the case with OVFs.

In general the mirrorless bodies are those I prefer but unlike @woof woof I will happily still use my DSLRs (I took one out for a walk yesterday).
Click to expand...

If I simply had to have an OVF I'd consider an RF than an SLR. Maybe. That'd mean going back to film which itself is a horrendous prospect for me but for the pictures I take now losing the EVF would be a game changer.

I do realise that some love OVF's and the last one will have to be prised from their cold dead hand so what I've said here is just for balance and an alternative view but for me the advantages of mirrorless are just too numerous.
 
With a similar dilemma to you I bought a Z5 with a kit 24-50 Z lens and a separate 24-70 f4 Z lens. The plan is to sell the 24-50 lens. I didn't even buy the adaptor. I'm very happy so far, but I'm very much an amateur amateur and the z5 is probably over-specced for my skill level.

My previous Nikon stuff was DX, so my lenses would only have worked in crop mode. I was stranded with a Samsung NX camera when they pulled out of the market, so I was wary about buying f mount lenses, in case the value slides. The transition to mirrorless has ramped up a gear recently.
 
woof woof said:
If I simply had to have an OVF I'd consider an RF than an SLR. Maybe. That'd mean going back to film which itself is a horrendous prospect for me but for the pictures I take now losing the EVF would be a game changer.

I do realise that some love OVF's and the last one will have to be prised from their cold dead hand so what I've said here is just for balance and an alternative view but for me the advantages of mirrorless are just too numerous.
Click to expand...
You'd prefer a film rangefinder to a digital SLR, even though you love digital mirrorless? Did you have a traumatic experience with a Nikon D1 or something? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top