no nikon Z6 orZ7 for me

[MMoretti]

While I can see the SD cost savings (and integration with SD slot-equipped computers), I only have SD on XQD/CFE for overflow on my Z8 and D850. Not so likely needed any more, though, with a 512 GB CFE as I infrequently shoot over 5-10 fps, and even less video.

 

[Mal Paso]

What about the older days when the shutter was manual. Sorry couldn't resist -- a friend has and used (for wildlife) a large format antique camera that she had to pull the 'lens cap' off, count out the number of seconds of exposure and then pop the cap back on. Oh, also had to insert a single frame of film at a time and do much of the photography while under a dark hood. Great photos resulted but nothing remotely (because not possible) close to the type of photos technology has made possible. And yes the photographer still counts, in a fundamental way! Cheers.

I have 2 4x5 film cameras with 7 interchangeable lenses from 65-1200mm that can do in camera corrections not possible with mirrorless even with shift lenses. My lenses all have shutters though as I shoot relatively fast film.

My point was the bird photo could have been easily focused by Human Eye. Maybe because I've been doing it for 60 years I've lost perspective but most of the time it isn't that hard.

Auto Focus is like Spell Check, still not as good as the human mind and needs supervision. You can upgrade hardware and get a better level of imperfect or grab the focus ring and make the shot.

 

[StefanSC]

Auto Focus is like Spell Check, still not as good as the human mind and needs supervision. You can upgrade hardware and get a better level of imperfect or grab the focus ring and make the shot.

Between the modern focus algorithms and the "by wire" focusing of most lenses, I highly doubt a human can focus a modern camera as fast or reliable as it's AF system.

 

[Doug Herr]

My point was the bird photo could have been easily focused by Human Eye. Maybe because I've been doing it for 60 years I've lost perspective but most of the time it isn't that hard.

Auto Focus is like Spell Check, still not as good as the human mind and needs supervision. You can upgrade hardware and get a better level of imperfect or grab the focus ring and make the shot.

I'm a newbie at this, been doing it for only 50 years. Subject detection is what led me to stop cursing autofocus (which I called almostfocus). Modern high-end mirrorless cameras although not perfect can focus more quickly and accurately and consistently than I ever could, even before arthritic hands.

 

[PhotoLover]

I have 2 4x5 film cameras with 7 interchangeable lenses from 65-1200mm that can do in camera corrections not possible with mirrorless even with shift lenses. My lenses all have shutters though as I shoot relatively fast film.

My point was the bird photo could have been easily focused by Human Eye. Maybe because I've been doing it for 60 years I've lost perspective but most of the time it isn't that hard.

Auto Focus is like Spell Check, still not as good as the human mind and needs supervision. You can upgrade hardware and get a better level of imperfect or grab the focus ring and make the shot.

There is no way I could use manual focus to keep focus on a BIF as well as my dSLRs do, and the latest mirrorless are even better. I'm skeptical you could do as well either! The AF grabs perched birds pretty fast too, faster than I could manually focus. Modern AF is amazingly fast and accurate with good lenses.

 

[wotan1]

We have computers because they can perform specified functions far faster and more accurately than a human being.

A digital camera uses computer power to perform functions we specify. The result is that we can photograph scenes and objects that are beyond the capability of a human being to perform.

Spying a bird in flight and getting the focus precisely on the bird's eye and following the bird, adjusting focus as needed, for something that may take fractions of a second is also impossible shooting manual.

We can't deny that computers in cameras allows us to do things we could not do on our own.

Tools are a fundamental part of our existence as a human being. Through history we have built better tools. A better tool is one that performs tasks that could not be performed by earlier too

Cameras like the Z9 are simply better tools. We use our human brain to figure out how and when to use them.

As a traditionalist I may prefer the old technology.

I do some woodworking. Often it is more satisfying to build something using hand tools instead of power saws and drills. We can build unique furniture that way and the very fact that it was built by hand makes it more valuable. But I would never want to build a house that way.

For me I might return to using a film camera if I want to craft some slow, deliberative images. But if I want to photograph birds in flight in the wild I am going to prefer a camera like the Z9.

 

[PhotoLover]

I'm a newbie at this, been doing it for only 50 years. Subject detection is what led me to stop cursing autofocus (which I called almostfocus). Modern high-end mirrorless cameras although not perfect can focus more quickly and accurately and consistently than I ever could, even before arthritic hands.

Interesting. I found the AF on my old 2014 Panasonic FZ1000 (1" sensor bridge camera) pretty decent, and I was wowed by the AF on my D7500 and then D500 for things like BIF. Fast and very accurate, with ability to track subjects well. Maybe once every two or three months I'll need to override AF manually for something like a bird perched in the middle of a thick bush (though usually single point AF works dandy for that).

That said, am looking forward to the day when I upgrade to something like a Z8 for the subject detection!

 

[Doug Herr]

Interesting. I found the AF on my old 2014 Panasonic FZ1000 (1" sensor bridge camera) pretty decent, and I was wowed by the AF on my D7500 and then D500 for things like BIF.

BIF is quite a broad category.

This kind of BIF was possible with manual focus (Leicaflex SL, Leitz 400mm f/6.8 Telyt-R):

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

​

other kinds of BIF are more challenging

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[PhotoLover]

BIF is quite a broad category.

This kind of BIF was possible with manual focus (Leicaflex SL, Leitz 400mm f/6.8 Telyt-R):

Thanks for posting, I especially liked the picture of the Yellow-headed blackbird. But ... my comment wasn't really about what could or could not be done with manual focus. People have had BIF shots for a long time; it was just harder. My comment mostly pertained to this remark you made:

Subject detection is what led me to stop cursing autofocus (which I called almostfocus)

and I said, and I certainly stand by that statement, that I think modern dSLRs have awesome AF. Things like the D500 and its FF cousins have excellent precise, fast AF. In my gallery, I have BIF, I also have macro and "semi-macro" shots (the later taken with both macro and telephoto lenses), all using the excellent AF. Getting something like a Hummingbird moth is hard (for me) since it is moves a lot and DOF at those distances is quite modest.

You may be able to get lots of great BIF shots with manual focus, but I can't. I'd have to rely upon techniques like pre-focusing at a known spot where the bird is likely to appear -- such as a nest -- shooting at a smaller aperture to get more DOF, maybe being not as close so the subject is further away (easier to get in the frame) and I have to crop more, etc. I mean, I do things like that sometimes (the dragonfly in flight in my gallery was taken partly by prefocusing on a spot where it would return to hover) but the AF on the dSLR used was excellent. I tend to use Nikon group AF for BIF, but for the macro like shots I'm often using single point AF keeping on the butterfly/dragonfly/etc eye. And wow, is that 10x easier for this guy than manual focus. You may be more skilled.

I don't know why you found AF prior to things like the Z8 and Z9 frustrating. I thought it was great! When I miss focus ... it's rarely the camera's fault and when it is the camera's fault, the conditions are such that I doubt I could do better manually.

 

[Doug Herr]

I don't know why you found AF prior to things like the Z8 and Z9 frustrating.

I wan't saying that manual focus is better. I posted the manual focus images to illustrate a much less demanding BIF, that not all BIFs are equally challenging. A flycatcher or blackbird catching an insect or a swallow is a far more demanding subject.

AF through a secondary mirror and secondary sensor is not nearly as accurate as AF on the imaging sensor, especially when either camera or lens is pushing the limits of the manufacturer's acceptable tolerances (that's what AF micro adjustment was supposed to compensate for), and I don't find AF on a wingtip or other body part as satisfying as focus on the eye. Eye AF on the sensor eliminates those problems. Having AF working over virtually the entire image area, with the camera tracking the subject's eye over the entire image area beats the h*** out of keeping a single AF point on the eye.

Many are finding that their lenses perform better on mirrorless cameras than on reflex cameras. The lenses didn't change, the focus accuracy did.

 

[PhotoLover]

I wan't saying that manual focus is better. I posted the manual focus images to illustrate a much less demanding BIF, that not all BIFs are equally challenging. A flycatcher or blackbird catching an insect or a swallow is a far more demanding subject.

AF through a secondary mirror and secondary sensor is not nearly as accurate as AF on the imaging sensor, especially when either camera or lens is pushing the limits of the manufacturer's acceptable tolerances (that's what AF micro adjustment was supposed to compensate for), and I don't find AF on a wingtip or other body part as satisfying as focus on the eye. Eye AF on the sensor eliminates those problems. Having AF working over virtually the entire image area, with the camera tracking the subject's eye over the entire image area beats the h*** out of keeping a single AF point on the eye.

Many are finding that their lenses perform better on mirrorless cameras than on reflex cameras. The lenses didn't change, the focus accuracy did.

You may be a more demanding photographer than I! Whether through luck or indifferent skill, I've so far not had any apparent problems with AF *accuracy* on my cameras. If the camera thinks it is in focus when the shutter opens, it is (there might be conditions like a fast bird moving directly at me being too fast for the AF, but in general, I've not seen issues with my gear). So while mirrorless avoids the need for calibration, so far I haven't seemed to need this. (I'm pleased at reports that the 500 pf (also with 1.4) works great on mirrorless as I love that lens).

I am certainly looking forward to having something like a Z8/9 with eye detect for the reasons you cite. That said, I've also found in practice that with my current gear, with BIF eyes are generally in focus using group AF, or sometimes a small dynamic area. It's very rare that I look at a bird shot and the eye is clearly not in focus (yes, it does happen, but seldom). Maybe if I was shooting more with 2.8 lenses (I use a 500 pf at 5.6, or sometimes a Tamron 100-400 at 8.0). I would be especially thrilled if eye detect AF in the mirrorless worked on insects and such, as my "in focus" rate is much lower on things like live butterflies, bees, etc, though of course with limited DOF and a moving target, that's harder. I'm using single point and doing the best I can most of the time. And obviously, eye detection/tracking making composing the way I want much easier.

But all in all, I think the good dSLRs have awesome AF and I've rarely been disappointed with them. Now, if you want to remdin me that the top mirrorless AF from Sony, Nikon, etc is much more awesome, I certainly won't disagree. But I've been happy with dSLR AF. That doesn't mean I couldn't get happier with mirrorless.

 

[Patty15]

I used a D850 for years finally making the decision to upgrade to a Z9 for many reasons. One of which is what Rassie mentions, the EVF. I love that I can make setting changes through the EVF without ever digging out my reading glasses. Everything else he mentions are also very good reasons. I've now added a Z8 to my gear and while I like the smaller size of it, to me my Z9 is my main bird/wildlife camera.

I will mention there are still times (not many) when I pull out my trusty D7500, pretty much for tight spaces like trying to photograph hatched eastern bluebirds in their nest box. My husband is much taller than I and he uses an inspection mirror to reflect the nest and I stand in front and below letting him know when I have it in the viewfinder. We try to keep track of our bluebird babies which have numbered more than 30 over the last few years.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Shari]

I don't have a Z6 or Z7 nikon camera and to be honest I would not touch one, even being a Nikon user for more years than I can remember. Why? because it only takes one SD card the other being the more expensive XQD card. Why on earth did they not make both slots as SD card holders beats me. Also looking at the nikon videos on them it seems to me they have thrown everything at them , they more it does the more to go wrong. I would rather spend time taking a photo than spending it on setting the camera up.

No I will stick with my D810 as long as possible even if it doesn't have 4k capabilities . Now if they made a D810/ with 4k I would be the first in line to buy

 

[Shari]

I used a D850 for years finally making the decision to upgrade to a Z9 for many reasons. One of which is what Rassie mentions, the EVF. I love that I can make setting changes through the EVF without ever digging out my reading glasses. Everything else he mentions are also very

good reasons. I've now added a Z8 to my gear and while I like the smaller size of it, to me my Z9 is my main bird/wildlife camera.

I will mention there are still times (not many) when I pull out my trusty D7500, pretty much for tight spaces like trying to photograph hatched eastern bluebirds in their nest box. My husband is much taller than I and he uses an inspection mirror to reflect the nest and I stand in front and below letting him know when I have it in the viewfinder. We try to keep track of our bluebird babies which have numbered more than 30 over the last few years. View attachment 78390

 

[Shari]

I don't have a Z6 or Z7 nikon camera and to be honest I would not touch one, even being a Nikon user for more years than I can remember. Why? because it only takes one SD card the other being the more expensive XQD card. Why on earth did they not make both slots as SD card holders beats me. Also looking at the nikon videos on them it seems to me they have thrown everything at them , they more it does the more to go wrong. I would rather spend time taking a photo than spending it on setting the camera up.

No I will stick with my D810 as long as possible even if it doesn't have 4k capabilities . Now if they made a D810/ with 4k I would be the first in line to buy

Have had Z7 since it first came out and am sticking with it at 81 years of age. Never had a problem with the one card. Take a lot of wildlife from where I live in . I cannot use z8 or 9 because of weight. Satisfied Nikon user. Sorry posted examples in too early. Senior moment

 

[ckwagg]

I learned a long time ago that the best camera one can have is the one in their hand.

 

[Patty15]

Have had Z7 since it first came out and am sticking with it at 81 years of age. Never had a problem with the one card. Take a lot of wildlife from where I live in . I cannot use z8 or 9 because of weight. Satisfied Nikon user. Sorry posted examples in too early. Senior moment

72 years here. The camera weight for me is not the biggest issue, it's the lens weight (and size) which I why I chose to get the Z600 6.3PF instead of the Z180-600 or the Z800PF. I'm glad that Nikon is giving us all choices to find what works best for us.

 

[fotogrob]

To each his own. I switched to mirrorless 3 years ago, and now I wouldn't use a DSLR ever again as long as I can help it.

I switched to mirrorless a year ago and wondered why I waited as long as I did.

 

[Airborne Soldier]

I don't have a Z6 or Z7 nikon camera and to be honest I would not touch one, even being a Nikon user for more years than I can remember. Why? because it only takes one SD card the other being the more expensive XQD card. Why on earth did they not make both slots as SD card holders beats me. Also looking at the nikon videos on them it seems to me they have thrown everything at them , they more it does the more to go wrong. I would rather spend time taking a photo than spending it on setting the camera up.

No I will stick with my D810 as long as possible even if it doesn't have 4k capabilities . Now if they made a D810/ with 4k I would be the first in line to buy

Then get the Z7II or Z6II.

 

[tclune]

Yep, and in those same old days we were driving cars without ABS brakes and skid control.....

You had a car? We had to saddle up the mule if we wanted to go to the general store...

 

[Mal Paso]

Walked 20 miles to school, uphill, both ways.

 

[Patty15]

Walked 20 miles to school, uphill, both ways.

lol. I was going to say barefoot in the snow too!

 

[O]

I don't have a Z6 or Z7 nikon camera and to be honest I would not touch one, even being a Nikon user for more years than I can remember. Why? because it only takes one SD card the other being the more expensive XQD card. Why on earth did they not make both slots as SD card holders beats me. Also looking at the nikon videos on them it seems to me they have thrown everything at them , they more it does the more to go wrong. I would rather spend time taking a photo than spending it on setting the camera up.

No I will stick with my D810 as long as possible even if it doesn't have 4k capabilities . Now if they made a D810/ with 4k I would be the first in line to buy

May i ask what do you mainly shoot and what is you most used lens.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

I don't have a Z6 or Z7 nikon camera and to be honest I would not touch one, even being a Nikon user for more years than I can remember. Why? because it only takes one SD card the other being the more expensive XQD card. Why on earth did they not make both slots as SD card holders beats me. Also looking at the nikon videos on them it seems to me they have thrown everything at them , they more it does the more to go wrong. I would rather spend time taking a photo than spending it on setting the camera up.

No I will stick with my D810 as long as possible even if it doesn't have 4k capabilities . Now if they made a D810/ with 4k I would be the first in line to buy

I guess you can't please everybody.

You are right. You shouldn't touch a more advanced camera if you aren't going to buy the necessary accessories required for it to perform optimally. I think you have made a great decision.

If you've already got an axe that works great, and are strong enough to use it, why waste money on a chain saw.

You forgot one other outstanding point. You can get away with smaller, cheaper, slower hard drives on your computer to process the D810 images although loading them into LR will take literally at least, 10 times longer due the difference in the read and write speed of the storage devices you are comparing. SD isn't just slower in the camera. The speed reduction is across the board in your workflow post shooting. If you're not in a hurry and have other stuff to do while files download to your PC transfer rates are meaningless.

Look at it this way.

This thought process is like complaining that your new Bugatti has an engine built to develop peak horsepower with 94 octane fuel to do the 275 mph that Bugatti owners love boasting about after spending 3 million for the vehicle before taxes. And then cruising around town everytime you need to fill up to find the wrong gas for a few nickels less that is guaranteed to make the valves knock and make it go real slow and puke like a sick dog when you try to pass (by Buggati standards).

Substitute any performance machine for the Buggati. A camera, a jet, a boat or a computer. Speed cost money...how fast do you wanna go?

It kind of puts a value on actually learning to use Nikon cameras and lenses as opposed to breaking out the credit card and expecting ones skill level to elevate proportional to their credit rating everytime Nikon annouces a new product. And BH starts a waiting list to attract all the hungry fish. Or are we looked upon more as sheep than fish in Nikon's eyes I wonder

If springing for the accesories is a deal breaker buying any new tech just doen't make sense. I think you made an excellent decision if optimal performance makes that little of a difference in your everyday photography.

If you are truly happy and enjoy using what you already have I have one last question. Why'd you even bring the subject up?

What was the reaction you expected when you posted it?

Happy shooting.

 

[realspeed]

Thank you all for your comments be them understanding or otherwise.

I think things are a bit different here in the UK for hobby photographers than in the USA. This applies even more so for those of us who have retired and living off a state pension. I suppose the question really is "am I jealous?" . The answer is definately not as at the age of nearly 79 the urge to learn how to get the best from a new model camera is very low on the must have list. For example it took me a long time to get my head around my panasonic camcorder menu.
Not being out to get into the "my photo is better than yours" battle , but just happy with the photos/videos one does for oneself suffices for me. if others like them that is a bonus.