Buying into my first mirrorless.....

[buddy13]

Hello all . My first post on the forum.

Short background first. I am a 36 year old Mechanical Engineer from Malta (EU) who got 'seriously' into the hobby of photography 3 or so years ago. I have been really enjoying this hobby and try and grab my camera and go shoot outdoors every chance I get. I like shooting Macro, Street, Portrait, Landscapes and some Wildlife in no particular order.

I started with a fixed lens Olympus and then a Canon s95 many moons ago. Then 3 or so years ago, when my s95 died on me, I decided that I would buy my first 'real' camera.

I considered mirrorless and DSLR, but due to budget at the time, I went for a Canon 200D DSLR. A great little camera and surely I do not know of any mirrorless that could better it at the price. I bought it as kit with the 18-55mm EF-S. I then added the 50mm f/1.8 EF, 50-250mm f/4.5-5.6 EF-S and the 10-24mm EF-S & I learned a lot shooting that for a little over a year. I would take it with me everywhere.

I was reading a lot about photography and improving steadily. The 200D was then truly holding me back from making the photos I wanted, due to so few quick access buttons on the body and almost zero customization. It had a non existent buffer, a slow Continuous Release and focus through the (low quality) OVF was very basic.

After much research and deliberation, I had decided that my next camera would still be an APSc sized sensor, with a lot of customization, a great viewfinder, High Burst rate, good buffer and a snappy AF system. I considered Sony, but did not like how they felt in my hand. I narrowed down my options to either an X-T3 with 16-80mm f/4 kit or Nikon D7500 with 16-80mm f/2.8-4 kit. It took me forever to choose between the two, and it was literally a toss up, but in the end I went with the Nikon D7500 due to availability of lenses and staying with a DSLR platform. I must also say that 'Steve Perry' youtube channel swayed me in the direction of the Nikon as opposed to 'Theoria Apophasis'. I am not sorry at all for taking that decision at the time. It is a fantastic camera that really helped me up my photography, I have truly made it my own by customizing all the buttons to where I want them to be and the ergonomics on the camera are just superb. I have owned it a little over a year and added the below lenses during the time I had it.

• Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro
• Tamron DI VC USD 70-300mm f/4-5.6
• Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX
• Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G FX

Next up I will add a wide angle lens in the 10-20mm region. My needs would be all covered. However, and there lies the rub, I still find myself very much drawn towards the manual controls, lens with aperture rings and retro looks of the Fuji system. Also, the look/feel of the photos from the Fuji straight out of camera really draws me in. As much as I like a DSLR (for the OVF mainly), I also want to start shooting mirrorless too for some of the obvious advantages this brings to the table, for me being Live view EVF, portability and silent shooting.

So I once again find myself looking at the X-T3, however I love the D7500 too much, so the Fuji and Nikon would have to live together. I have a number of conundrums that come to my mind though. and I'd like to discuss them with you before I take the plunge.

1) Would it make sense to keep 2 APSc cameras of very similar quality and in same bracket (at least to me)?
2) Seeing that I am somewhat invested in the Nikon system, would it be better to fight the urge and in the future go for say the Z6 II, lose out on some of the Fuji niceties, but have the option to have interchangeable glass between it and the D7500 and greater Dynamic Range, Shallower DOF and better low light ISO?
3) How well does the Fringer adapter work with Nikon lenses on a Fuji body?

By now you must have got the fact that I am no brand snob. I buy cameras (and everything else) with my own hard earned money .

Apologies for the long post, but am really hoping that I managed to explain where I am and in hearing your thoughts and learning more on this forum !

 

[MikEm13]

I had the Fuji X-T3 when I bought a Z6_2. Decided, regretfully to sell it after purchasing the Z. The Fuji is one of the best, if not the best ASPC camera IMHO. I thought about repurchasing the X-T3 again but started seeing results from the Z 50 with the kit lenses. The iq is great along with great colors. The price is very fair on a new kit. I was lucky enough to find used Z 50 with both kit lenses at a good price so I bought it. The camera has really surprised me. I also like that I can use any Z system lens along with the kit lenses.

 

[Rassie]

I've been a Nikon shooter for many years now. Started with the Nikon D70S back in 2005, and then kept replacing the cameras with newer APS-C bodies until I ended up with the D7500. A great camera. I was drawn to the mirrorless cameras though, so purchased a Z6 two years ago and used that side-by-side with the D7500. Last November I sold both cameras and replaced them with the Z6II. I just love the mirrorless and I don't see myself going back to DSLR or crop sensor for that matter.

 

[buddy13]

Thank you all for your replies. Nice to hear each and every one's experience.

Also, out of my five lenses, the only one where I'm not happy with the sharpness is the Tamron DI VC USD 70-300mm f/4-5.6. Particularly @ f5.6 at 250-300mm.

Have you any experience with the 70-200mm f/4 ED VR Nikkor? I read it's a great lens. I will miss the 300mm reach though...fear this would then lead me nicely into the 200-500mm f/5.6 trap .

How would this (these?) work with FTZ adapter on a Z FF body?

Fuji released the XF 70-300mm F/4-5.6, which would almost certainly be superior to the Tamron. Giving me the reach I want, while saving some money in the process.

As you see, there is truly no right or wrong answer, hence I enjoy hearing first hand experiences to see which would suit my needs best.

 

[StefanSC]

Well, the new Nikon 70-300mm AF-P VR FX seems to be getting good reviews (Thom Hogan says it's a credible alternative to the 70-200 f4 VR), so it might be worth checking that out.

Other than that, I really like my Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR. It's lightweght (had the 70-200mm f2.8 VR 2 before this), and sharp across the frame and at all focal ranges and apertures on the D810 .

And it doesn't have to lead you in the 200-500mm f5.6 trap you can always go for the TC14 (though I have mixed experiences with this) or the 300mm f4 (even the older, AF-S D version is a brilliant performer).

Regarding Fuji, I gave the X-T2 a try when it came out and I really liked the camera. It was fun to use and had nice JPEGs. Didn't like the RAWs though as the LR had trouble interpreting the X-Trans sensor data.
But I would get one of the cheaper cameras (X-E3, X-T30, maybe an used X-T20) with the 18-55 lens and a prime or two as a walk around camera and keep the Nikon DSLR as a landscape/wildlife/nature rig.

 

[Rassie]

I use the Nikkor 70-200mm F/4 and the Nikkor 200-500mm F/5.6 lenses. Both were brilliant on my D7500 and they are even better on the Z6Ii. Unless the autofocus of a lens is absolutely perfectly fine-tuned on a DSLR I found all my lenses to be just that bit sharper on the Z bodies because of the better, more accurate AF systems used on the mirrorless cameras.

And here is something that nobody has mentioned yet - if you fine-tune autofocus of a zoom lens on a Nikon DSLR we know that fine-tuning only applies to the focal length at which the lens was tuned and does not apply to all the other focal lengths for that lens. The mirrorless AF accuracy naturally applies to all focal lengths. Even though the mirrorless cameras have the AF fine tuning feature included I have had no reason to tune my lenses. They focus perfectly on the Z6Ii.

 

[abc123brian]

I had switched from Canon to Fujifilm many years ago and used Fujifilm happily for many years. The lack of a quality long lens with Fuji made me consider options and I bought a used Nikon D750 and 200-500mm to use while waiting for Fuji to build something. I had the Fuji 100-400mm, but was not impressed with it. I found it be soft in many cases. The 200-500mm Nikon was much better on the D750. After the Z6 was out for a while, I decided to go check it out. I really liked the way it felt in my hand And ended up buying one to try. I had two complaints with my existing Fuji/Nikon setup: 1) the Nkon wasn’t mirrorless and I really liked the mirrorless shooting experience 2) The Fuji and Nikon used different batteries, chargers, lenses, so if I needed a long lens I had to take two cameras, chargers, batteries, etc. I thought if the Nikon Z6 could replace the D750 and the 24-70mm kit lens was decent, I could add the 70-300mm AF-P and have everything covered between 24-500mm in three lenses. This would work when I didn’t want to carry as much gear. Long story short, I really liked the Z6, I found the 24-70mm F/4 to be as good or better than the Fuji 16-55mm F2.8, the batteries lasted much longer, shooting the 200-500mm wasn’t an issue. I ended up selling 75% of my Fuji gear, added the 14-30mm Nikon, Z7, Z7ii, 500mm PF, 50mm F1.8S, and 24mm PC. While I really like the look of the Fuji and they are fun to use, the Nikon is better in every way for me. My X-T3 has been sitting on the shelf since.

 

[buddy13]

I use the Nikkor 70-200mm F/4 and the Nikkor 200-500mm F/5.6 lenses. Both were brilliant on my D7500 and they are even better on the Z6Ii. Unless the autofocus of a lens is absolutely perfectly fine-tuned on a DSLR I found all my lenses to be just that bit sharper on the Z bodies because of the better, more accurate AF systems used on the mirrorless cameras.

And here is something that nobody has mentioned yet - if you fine-tune autofocus of a zoom lens on a Nikon DSLR we know that fine-tuning only applies to the focal length at which the lens was tuned and does not apply to all the other focal lengths for that lens. The mirrorless AF accuracy naturally applies to all focal lengths. Even though the mirrorless cameras have the AF fine tuning feature included I have had no reason to tune my lenses. They focus perfectly on the Z6Ii.

Yes, I heard that. I would like to know why phase detection on a mirrorless camera would better that on a DSLR? I mean a DSLR has a dedicated AF unit while on a mirrorless this is embedded in the sensor, if nothing, I would expect the AF on the mirrorless be worse off due to restrains posed. Clearly not the case, as mirrorless are proving better than DSLRs here too. Just asking, as I find this interesting

I had switched from Canon to Fujifilm many years ago and used Fujifilm happily for many years. The lack of a quality long lens with Fuji made me consider options and I bought a used Nikon D750 and 200-500mm to use while waiting for Fuji to build something. I had the Fuji 100-400mm, but was not impressed with it. I found it be soft in many cases. The 200-500mm Nikon was much better on the D750. After the Z6 was out for a while, I decided to go check it out. I really liked the way it felt in my hand And ended up buying one to try. I had two complaints with my existing Fuji/Nikon setup: 1) the Nkon wasn’t mirrorless and I really liked the mirrorless shooting experience 2) The Fuji and Nikon used different batteries, chargers, lenses, so if I needed a long lens I had to take two cameras, chargers, batteries, etc. I thought if the Nikon Z6 could replace the D750 and the 24-70mm kit lens was decent, I could add the 70-300mm AF-P and have everything covered between 24-500mm in three lenses. This would work when I didn’t want to carry as much gear. Long story short, I really liked the Z6, I found the 24-70mm F/4 to be as good or better than the Fuji 16-55mm F2.8, the batteries lasted much longer, shooting the 200-500mm wasn’t an issue. I ended up selling 75% of my Fuji gear, added the 14-30mm Nikon, Z7, Z7ii, 500mm PF, 50mm F1.8S, and 24mm PC. While I really like the look of the Fuji and they are fun to use, the Nikon is better in every way for me. My X-T3 has been sitting on the shelf since.

That's quite a nice collection of camera gear you have amassed. Hats off to you mate .

Do you find a noticeable improvement in the IQ of say the Z6ii and X-T3 when shot at medium ISO (say up to 3200) in regards contrast, noise, sharpness etc.?

 

[dabhand16]

So I once again find myself looking at the X-T3, however I love the D7500 too much, so the Fuji and Nikon would have to live together. I have a number of conundrums that come to my mind though. and I'd like to discuss them with you before I take the plunge.

D7500 is a great camera, but for me the lack of ability to add a battery grip is a nono. I favour the D7200 or D500.

I started my digital journey over 20 years ago now. Nikon Coolpix 885 compact, then a D70s, a D300, D700, D810 and now a D850. You could say that Nikon is in my blood. I have about 10 lenses. covering 14mm to 600mm, the majority are f2.8 with a couple f1.8 and the 150-600 is f5-6.3.

Then about 3 years ago I got the urge to see what this mirrorless stuff was all about. I'd already fallen in love withthe Fuji XT-1 as it looked so much like my Pentax SV that I bought around 1965. Did not want to spend a lot so found a mint one and got a while box Fuji XF 18-55 cheap and to get more reach right now a used 50-230 XC. I loved the camera so much I sold it after 6 months, but only as I fell over an XT-2 that was bought as a second body, but never used! Great price too, so a no-brainer.

I was determined not to build another system and intended the Fuji to be a travel/lightweigh/take anywhere, anytime camera, but now find that I've not only got several lenses, but also a Fuji XT-4! I've got a manual adaptor so I can use my Nikon lenses on the Fujis and now an adaptor that gives my Nikon lenses AF on the Fujis too.

So now I still think of myself as a Nikon user in the main, but find the Fujis are getting much more use. My Fuji bag with a camera, grip 6 lenses and bits and pieces weighs the same as my Nikon bag with a body, 2 f2.8 lenses and the bits and pieces! Even my Fuji kit with two bodies, grips 2 sets of batteries has a carrying weight, unlike the Nikon system where I am selective as to what lenses go in the bag - and even then, it weighs a ton.

So here I am now with 2 systems in spite of me saying I would not do this. Says a lot for the Fujis. The Fuji lenses are top notch and now there are third party lenses available. The manual focus lenses like the Samyang/Rokinon are easy to use with focus peaking and a fraction of the cost and weight of AF lenses.

 

[Rassie]

Yes, I heard that. I would like to know why phase detection on a mirrorless camera would better that on a DSLR? I mean a DSLR has a dedicated AF unit while on a mirrorless this is embedded in the sensor, if nothing, I would expect the AF on the mirrorless be worse off due to restrains posed. Clearly not the case, as mirrorless are proving better than DSLRs here too. Just asking, as I find this interesting

This from Nikon's website:
The AF System in the Nikon new Z series mirrorless camera is inherently different than what is found in Nikon DSLRs. Why? Well, when using autofocus through the optical viewfinder, DSLRs use phase detect autofocus whereby the camera utilizes a separate autofocus sensor in the camera body. For DSLR Live View photography—contrast detect is used on the imaging sensor. The Z series cameras utilize phase detect autofocus placed directly on the imaging sensor and contrast detect autofocus (which is used when the camera deems it necessary to switch).

I don't know that I would see a separate dedicated AF unit as an advantage because manufacturing tolerances may create a discrepancy between where the AF unit thinks the lens should focus and where the lens actually focuses. Front-or back-focusing with different lenses on different camera bodies are classic examples of this. Having the AF sensors embedded in the sensor itself must theoretically ensure a more accurate focus.

 

[DRwyoming]

I don't know that I would see a separate dedicated AF unit as an advantage because manufacturing tolerances may create a discrepancy between where the AF unit thinks the lens should focus and where the lens actually focuses. Front-or back-focusing with different lenses on different camera bodies are classic examples of this. Having the AF sensors embedded in the sensor itself must theoretically ensure a more accurate focus.

Yeah, that's what I see as the big advantage of mirrorless AF systems - the AF is determined right on the image sensor using the same optical path.

Basically I'd say it breaks down like this:

- Making AF measurements on the same sensor ensures the same optical path to the AF sensors so you don't have mechanical misalignment issues between the actual sensor and the AF sensor (they're the same sensor in MILCs).

- Pure contrast based AF is fine from an accuracy standpoint, after all it's edge contrast that we perceive as sharpness, and it avoids some of the issues of aperture that impact phase detect systems as you don't need two separated light paths which can be limited in lenses with smaller maximum apertures. But contrast detect AF has a big downside which is while initially acquiring AF there's no information to know in which direction the AF is missing, the lens could be focused too close or too far but all the camera knows is the focus isn't optimal. So the camera iterates towards a solution but initially may move focus in the wrong direction and then have to backtrack. That can lead to slower AF times as the camera hunts for optimal focus.

- Phase Detect AF (PDAF) has the advantage of knowing in which direction the focus is off so it can move more quickly to an optimal solution.

- Hybrid, on-sensor solutions take the best of both worlds and acquire focus quickly but can fine tune using contrast AF which is very accurate but the downside is that it takes a lot of processing horsepower so some of the current mirrorless cameras that use this system are still not focusing as fast as top end DSLRs that use dedicated PDAF modules. Sony has shown this isn't an intrinsic problem with on-sensor PDAF and can be solved with good hardware and firmware design.

 

[jhallettbc]

I see that no one has mentioned the Nikon D780. I sold my 7200 and bought one and love it. When considering a new camera, I read reviews and thought long and hard about what was the best option for me. It is a huge improvement over the 7200, especially in terms of how good it is at high ISO's and the autofocus. Plus I was able to keep most of my lenses. I had considered the 850 but in Canada it is almost $2000 more and I just didn't think that was worth it for my needs. And switching to a mirrorless system for me was just too expensive. The live view on the 780 which uses the same mirrorless system as the Z6 provides very reasonable silent photography. For some reason I don't understand the 780 is not popular on this site. However I would suggest you give it a look.

 

[Rassie]

I see that no one has mentioned the Nikon D780. I sold my 7200 and bought one and love it. When considering a new camera, I read reviews and thought long and hard about what was the best option for me. It is a huge improvement over the 7200, especially in terms of how good it is at high ISO's and the autofocus. Plus I was able to keep most of my lenses. I had considered the 850 but in Canada it is almost $2000 more and I just didn't think that was worth it for my needs. And switching to a mirrorless system for me was just too expensive. The live view on the 780 which uses the same mirrorless system as the Z6 provides very reasonable silent photography. For some reason I don't understand the 780 is not popular on this site. However I would suggest you give it a look.

I haven't handled the D780. It has the same sensor as the Z6II so I expect low light capabilities and dynamic range to be identical between them so their image quality should be identical. One advantage the D780 has over the Z6II is that there is no viewfinder lag with the D780 at highest 7 fps burst rate. The Z6II only manages around 5.5 fps before EVF lag becomes a problem. In my own evaluation based on what I like in a camera that slower effectively usable burst rate on the Z6II is a small enough price to pay when I consider all the other advantages the mirrorless body offers compared to the DSLR. It's for compactness, lower weight and the many advantages of the EVF that I went for the Z6II instead of the D780. Plus it's less expensive than the D780, so I'm not sure why you say the mirrorless system is more expensive. Comparing prices between the two bodies at Henry's in the GTA the price for a Z6II body is $2,699.99 while the price for the D780 is $2,999.99. You do need the FTZ adapter for the Z6, so toss in the extra $329.99 for that and the Z6II with adapter is around $30 more than the D780.

As for autofocus I have no reason to believe the autofocus of the Z6II is any less capable than that of the D780 except for the fact that the FTZ adapter slows down the autofocus speed of some F-mount lenses. I cannot see Nikon continue developing DSLR cameras long into the future. I'm convinced the future is mirrorless and that's one of the reasons I replaced my D7500 with the Z6II instead of a new DSLR. The other reason is the benefits of the EVF. I don't need to take my reading glasses with me on a shoot any more because I don't need to look at the back LCD screen on the camera any more. I can see everything that someone would need to read on the back LCD inside my viewfinder and that is a huge advantage.

I think perhaps the reason that the D780 doesn't get mentioned much is because not too many folks have purchased one. A case can be made for purchasing a D5, D6, D500 or D850 because all these cameras outperform the Z6II and Z7II in terms of autofocus subject tracking, etc. so I understand when someone chooses one of those bodies for those reasons. In my view, though, the Z6II and Z7II are mostly equal to the D780 so I would guess more folks would buy into the mirrorless than go for a D780 if they purchased now.

 

[abc123brian]

Yes, I heard that. I would like to know why phase detection on a mirrorless camera would better that on a DSLR? I mean a DSLR has a dedicated AF unit while on a mirrorless this is embedded in the sensor, if nothing, I would expect the AF on the mirrorless be worse off due to restrains posed. Clearly not the case, as mirrorless are proving better than DSLRs here too. Just asking, as I find this interesting



That's quite a nice collection of camera gear you have amassed. Hats off to you mate .

Do you find a noticeable improvement in the IQ of say the Z6ii and X-T3 when shot at medium ISO (say up to 3200) in regards contrast, noise, sharpness etc.?

I have The original Z6 but the IQ should be the same or slightly worse (given Nikon may have improved the Z6ii somewhat). It really depends on the situation. in general, I found the IQ of the Fuji to be good. where i found it to struggle in with foliage in landscape photos, especially grasses. It never looked very detailed and the Z6 looks amazing In these photos. I noticed similar issues with the fur in wildlife photos. The Fuji lacked as much detail. This was at any iso. In other areas, the Fuji did great. to answer specifically on mid to high iso, the Z6 is the best camera I used by far. 3200 iso is very clean and detailed, maybe the equivalent of 800 on the Fuji in my estimate.

 

[dabhand16]

in general, I found the IQ of the Fuji to be good. where I found it to struggle in with foliage in landscape photos, especially grasses. It never looked very detailed and the Z6 looks amazing In these photos. I noticed similar issues with the fur in wildlife photos. The Fuji lacked as much detail. This was at any iso. In other areas, the Fuji did great. to answer specifically on mid to high iso, the Z6 is the best camera I used by far. 3200 iso is very clean and detailed, maybe the equivalent of 800 on the Fuji in my estimate.

Are you using Lightroom? This LR 'issue' is well documented and many people say that sharpening in LR needs to be very specific. There are many 'recipies' and one is: amount 70-100%, radius 0.5, detail 0 and masking 80. I'm sure that you will know that there is no 'one size fits all' and these settings are different to others that have been recommended, one of which says sharpening no higher that 40%. Others say that Capture One does a better job - and there is a free Fuji version - cut down of course that might be worth trying.

Some say it is the sensor design causing the issue, other say they have never experienced it! I've seen a series of images taken with an XT-2 at increasing ISO and they were very clean up to 3200 and well useable after that. the later sensors are supposed to be better. The XT-2 immages were taken in a Buddhist temple lit only with candle light and the shadow noise was, as I said, excellent. These were also processed in Lightroom.

 

[Rodamu]

If you are still committed to the APS sensor and you are satisfied with your Nikon lenses, your best bet is to buy a Nikon Z50 with adapter for your lenses. Although the top line 70-300mm lens is outstanding, I find it bulky and heavy on the Z50 plus it becomes a 105-450mm equivalent lens. I purchased the Z50 companion 50-250 mm lens and find it nearly as good as the 70-300 lens and prefer the 75mm equivalent low end. The Z50 and its lenses are light and compact: fitted with the 16-50mm lens the camera will fit in a large pocket.

 

[Ken Miracle]

My wife has a Nikon Z50 with the ftz adaptor and a Tamron 18-400 and it is an amazingly versatile combo. She has been a photographer far longer than I have and used Canon, Nikon film cameras, Canon and Pentax digital etc. over the years. This combo she says is by far her favorite, does all she wants, easy to handle and she gets great results.

 

[abc123brian]

Are you using Lightroom? This LR 'issue' is well documented and many people say that sharpening in LR needs to be very specific. There are many 'recipies' and one is: amount 70-100%, radius 0.5, detail 0 and masking 80. I'm sure that you will know that there is no 'one size fits all' and these settings are different to others that have been recommended, one of which says sharpening no higher that 40%. Others say that Capture One does a better job - and there is a free Fuji version - cut down of course that might be worth trying.

Some say it is the sensor design causing the issue, other say they have never experienced it! I've seen a series of images taken with an XT-2 at increasing ISO and they were very clean up to 3200 and well useable after that. the later sensors are supposed to be better. The XT-2 immages were taken in a Buddhist temple lit only with candle light and the shadow noise was, as I said, excellent. These were also processed in Lightroom.

No, I switched to Capture One to see if it resolved the issue. It did better with the details on the Fuji, but the Nikon is still far better.