Z50ii vs R7

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

L

liamwallace

New member
Member's gallery
Been doing a bunch of research on getting a new camera including in this forum and I’m very interested in investing into mirrorless for a number of reasons but especially the improved AF. I’m using a APSC Nikon right now so I know that I really like the reach of an APSC so the Z50ii or the R7 seem like the logical upgrade. I know the r7 has a bigger sensor and frame rate but thought that it is worth considering the Z50ii as well due to its processor and the fact that Nikon has the 180-600 which is more affordable than the 100-500 which I would pair with the r7. Any thoughts on each camera versus the other would be great.
 
Member's gallery
I always find it very confusing when someone refers to a higher resolution sensor as “bigger” or “larger”. I’ve heard some prominent YouTubers do it too. Technically the Nikon sensor is physically bigger but lower resolution. The canon’s smaller sensor has a 1.6x crop factor compared to Nikon’s 1.5x.

From a perspective of which to get, my recommendation is to look at the available lenses that you see yourself buying or potentially wanting to buy. The 100-500 is 100mm shorter and has a smaller aperture but it’s also physically smaller. It’s smaller 7.1 aperture on the long end might be small, but the impact will be larger for someone who is already stretching iso as 5.6. If you shoot during brighter light it won’t make much difference. If you were decide you want to upgrade to a prime I find Nikon’s options significantly better, though at a higher cost.

I think either camera would be a good option as well as considering a Sony A6700 + 200-600 or Fuji X-T5 now that they have a few telephoto options.
 
Member's gallery
Your better bet is to rent both and try them. Each brand has its own ergonomics and quirks. It’s good to get it in hand and see if it “works” for you before anything else. You wouldn’t want to make a choice that seems right on paper but unsatisfying in hand.

From a practical point of view, each will work quite well for you. It’s a personal choice primarily.
 
Member's gallery
Another consideration: If you are already shooting APS-C, what lenses do you now own? If your current glass is Nikon F mount, then an FTZ, or FTZII, will allow you to use your current lenses on a Z50ii. While it is generally acknowledged that Z mount lenses out perform their F mount counterparts, that F glass will also focus better with a mirrorless camera than with a DSLR. At least, that has been my experience. There are many good reasons to consider a Canon camera, but if you're currently shooting Nikon, and don't want to replace everything all at once, the Z50ii is also a good choice.
 
Side by side the R7 seems to have a couple advantages. If I read the side by side right, no IBIS on the z50ii? Also faster frame rate on the R7. I really like my 100-500. Small, lightweight, good mfd and magnification, but the 200-800 also is quite good for its price range, just heavier and larger which is important to me.

cameradecision.com

Nikon Z50 II vs Canon R7 Detailed Comparison

Read our detailed comparison of the Nikon Z50 II vs Canon EOS R7 to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and decide which one to choose.
cameradecision.com
 
Member's gallery
spamalot1950 said:
Another consideration: If you are already shooting APS-C, what lenses do you now own? If your current glass is Nikon F mount, then an FTZ, or FTZII, will allow you to use your current lenses on a Z50ii. While it is generally acknowledged that Z mount lenses out perform their F mount counterparts, that F glass will also focus better with a mirrorless camera than with a DSLR. At least, that has been my experience. There are many good reasons to consider a Canon camera, but if you're currently shooting Nikon, and don't want to replace everything all at once, the Z50ii is also a good choice.
Click to expand...
Have a sigma 150-600 but I’ve heard it doesn’t work well on mirrorless bodies such as the r7 and r5. I know nothing about how it works on Nikon bodies.
 
Member's gallery
I cannot answer the 'which should I buy' question.

I purchased my R7 2 years ago (actually 23 months ago) and have been pleased in every way. I sold some Nikon DSLR gear and a couple other personal items to help fund the buy. I got the R7, 100-500, 100 macro, 24-105 F4. Later I purchased the 10-18 RF-S and the 16mm F2.8 STM. I have enjoyed using it for the past almost 2 years and have no serious complaints. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it the best camera ever made? I don't think so. Does it meet my needs as a nature and wildlife photographer who also does some video? Yes indeed it does.

Why did I not go to Nikon mirrorless when I was ready to make the switch?
1) the Z50ii was not available.
2) the 160-800 was still about 5 months out and probably another 6 months before broadly available.
3) Z8 was still 3 months away from being introduced
4) At 63 years of age, I wanted to learn something new. I had been shooting Nikon since approximately 1981. Sometimes we just need a change of pace to keep things interesting

To be honest, after being around my grandmother who had dementia and watching my mother slowly slip out of reality with dementia, keeping my brain sharp was a serious consideration. Will that prevent dementia? I seriously doubt it but keeping one's brain active is not a bad thing.

If I were making the decision today what would I do?
I don't know. I would give the Z50ii a serious look as well as the 180-600 lens. Like you, I enjoy using ASP-C. I was using D500 and D7200 before the R7, before the D7200, I had a D5100 so I am comfortable getting around the perceived shortcomings of the smaller size sensor.
I would also probably wait on an R7ii that is rumored to be introduced this year. There is always a risk of waiting on the "next big thing" but if it really is going to come out in the next few months I'd wait. Will I upgrade to the R7ii? It depends on what is improved

What would I change with the upcoming R7ii?
1) faster readout sensor. Rolling shutter can become evident. It is easy enough to configure the camera to quickly switch to mechanical shutter so the rolling shutter thing is not as big of a deal as some of the YouTube talking heads would lead you to believe but a faster focus, and less rolling shutter would be welcome.
2) faster AF in video mode.
3)All around, R5ii / R1 inspired autofocus (read new generation autofocus). Nothing inherently wrong with R7's autofocus just I would want the newest generation technology in a new camera.

I hope the perspective on my experience with the R7 is helpful in your decision process. Happy to talk more if you wish. I think the end answer to your question is there is no bad choice here. Look at the overall pros and cons and don't overlook the cost savings of using an FTZ adapter and your current Nikon glass.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
The 100-500 the op mentioned is f 4.5 to f7.1.
Click to expand...
Nikon and Sony have longer 200-600's that open to f/6.3, and cost $1000 less.

$3000 for a lens is not what I consider affordable, and at f/7.1 is poor value compared to the competition's 100-400/5.6's or 200-600/6.3's.

Are those 200-600's quite as sharp as that 100-500? No. But they'll objectively get you a better looking image because of the slightly better subject isolation and longer focal lengths.
 
Member's gallery
Over the past few years, the varying advice on decisions as to "Camera X or Y of System C, N or S?" have extended into countless forum threads, particularly as we're photographing in the era of rapid iterations of Mirrorless technology, which has apparently extinguished any relevance of the DSLR.

Rapidly evolving camera hardware is enabling the means to sample the RAW video stream at ever faster frame rates - with the benefits of PreCapture etc... exciting times, accessible if one can afford the latest& greatest ;) :) This is all part and parcel of the dynamic MILC market, tempting the consumer with the latest innovative features. We can expect more cameras with a global shutter, Partially-Stacked and fully Stacked sensor, better EVF, more Autofocus features etc.

Evolving faster than turnovers of DSLR tech over the preceding 2 decades, Mirrorless technology is very much a work in progress, particularly with the leading systems also investing their R&D in video (interfacing with still photography). As regards the retail market, well... we can expect mirrorless cameras of the relevant mount systems (aka brands) to continue leap-frogging each other with the latest innovations.

However, it's particularly helpful to the photographer on a budget that MILC Firmware updates are also turning over much faster than in DSLR era. Although update frequency and the new features differs greatly between the systems.

I agree with the wise advice, which is to invest in the Glass and recycle the camera(s); which in turn depends on when an improved camera supersedes the performance and features of one's current model with respect to personal needs. Trying to surf the crest of the tech wave is impossible as it is expensive to keep up with the "latest" camera, including this year's leading mid-tier model.
(Edited)
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
My 0.02c is select your lenses, with a graphical schematic as a guide, to compare Lens-Speed, Ergonomics, Performance with TC's, and obviously Focal Length. It's important to compare framing ability (aka 'Reach') in the currency of Pixels per Duck; for example 750-800-860-mm on FX approximates a 500-600 lens on DX (Crop Factor of 1.5).

Over the past 2 years, Nikon has been actively repackaging its Z9 AF system and control-interface into a series of more affordable cameras. These are the Z8 > Zf > Z6 III > Z50 II....as it stands: with unfilled gaps for a Z7 III and Pro DX (Z80)..... But then we hear there's a Z9 II on the relatively near horizon....and so on...

So right now, the most affordable option is to pair your lens(es) with a Z50 II or Z6 III. If one expands into a mixed Z and F system for wildlife, then buying Used F-mount telephotos can earn more dividends for the $

How important is the camera body

Well, I propose some loose and lighthearted discussion thread. How important is the camera body in wildlife photography? Many wildlife photographers are saying that You should always invest in lenses. But I feel it's not always true. Maybe if You already have a good, older body, and want to...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Last edited:
Mark_Laidlaw said:
Nikon and Sony have longer 200-600's that open to f/6.3, and cost $1000 less.

$3000 for a lens is not what I consider affordable, and at f/7.1 is poor value compared to the competition's 100-400/5.6's or 200-600/6.3's.

Are those 200-600's quite as sharp as that 100-500? No. But they'll objectively get you a better looking image because of the slightly better subject isolation and longer focal lengths.
Click to expand...

To me there is more to a lens than the maximum aperture, but I sure agree that is part of it. I think most Canon shooters that don't want the expense, size, and weight of the 600 f4 agree the 100-500 earns it's $3000 price tag. Also worth considering is the build quality and optical performance, also the design and the number and type of coated elements, how well the stabilization performs. The size and weight is also a trade off, usually faster means bigger and heavier, which is important in my kit. And weatherproofing and focusing speed and accuracy (the 100-500 has two 'motors'). Also I like that it focuses at 3 feet and has a high maximum magnification. Not saying the Nikon isn't fine, I'm sure it is fine. I just saying there is more to consider than the difference between f6.3 and f7.1. Isn't that just a third of a stop?
 
Member's gallery
I would definitely go R7 + 100-500 if you can afford it. That's probably my ultimate "budget" wildlife suggestion to anyone who asks.

With the R7 having better AF than the R5/R6, it's a great camera. And the 100-500 is my favorite zoom I've ever used.

With the z50ii unless you're splurging on a 400 4.5, 600 6.3, or 800 6.3 I don't think it would offer any advantage over the canon. I wouldn't go APS-C of any brand if I wasn't on a budget and trying to use small, lightweight, "cheap lenses".

Mark_Laidlaw said:
Nikon and Sony have longer 200-600's that open to f/6.3, and cost $1000 less.

$3000 for a lens is not what I consider affordable, and at f/7.1 is poor value compared to the competition's 100-400/5.6's or 200-600/6.3's.

Are those 200-600's quite as sharp as that 100-500? No. But they'll objectively get you a better looking image because of the slightly better subject isolation and longer focal lengths.
Click to expand...

Unless you're buying new, all of these zoom wildlife lenses can be had for similar prices. Sony 200-600 for $1400 or so, Nikon 180-600 for $1500 or so, and Canon RF 100-500 for $1800 or so.

I'd much rather have the best in class RF 100-500 at that price than the "ehhh it's okay" 200-600 or 180-600. Plus the 100-500 is more than 50% lighter than the other options, and much smaller. All great value adds.

If you really think the 200-600 or 180-600 will get objectively better images, you probably haven't used all of those lenses or don't know what objectively means.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
I would definitely go R7 + 100-500 if you can afford it. That's probably my ultimate "budget" wildlife suggestion to anyone who asks.

With the R7 having better AF than the R5/R6, it's a great camera. And the 100-500 is my favorite zoom I've ever used.

With the z50ii unless you're splurging on a 400 4.5, 600 6.3, or 800 6.3 I don't think it would offer any advantage over the canon. I wouldn't go APS-C of any brand if I wasn't on a budget and trying to use small, lightweight, "cheap lenses".



Unless you're buying new, all of these zoom wildlife lenses can be had for similar prices. Sony 200-600 for $1400 or so, Nikon 180-600 for $1500 or so, and Canon RF 100-500 for $1800 or so.

I'd much rather have the best in class RF 100-500 at that price than the "ehhh it's okay" 200-600 or 180-600. Plus the 100-500 is more than 50% lighter than the other options, and much smaller. All great value adds.

If you really think the 200-600 or 180-600 will get objectively better images, you probably haven't used all of those lenses or don't know what objectively means.
Click to expand...
Where can you get a 100-500 for $1800? On the third party camera websites like MPB they're like 2k.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
I would definitely go R7 + 100-500 if you can afford it. That's probably my ultimate "budget" wildlife suggestion to anyone who asks.

With the R7 having better AF than the R5/R6, it's a great camera. And the 100-500 is my favorite zoom I've ever used.

With the z50ii unless you're splurging on a 400 4.5, 600 6.3, or 800 6.3 I don't think it would offer any advantage over the canon. I wouldn't go APS-C of any brand if I wasn't on a budget and trying to use small, lightweight, "cheap lenses".



Unless you're buying new, all of these zoom wildlife lenses can be had for similar prices. Sony 200-600 for $1400 or so, Nikon 180-600 for $1500 or so, and Canon RF 100-500 for $1800 or so.

I'd much rather have the best in class RF 100-500 at that price than the "ehhh it's okay" 200-600 or 180-600. Plus the 100-500 is more than 50% lighter than the other options, and much smaller. All great value adds.

If you really think the 200-600 or 180-600 will get objectively better images, you probably haven't used all of those lenses or don't know what objectively means.
Click to expand...
The extra 100mm in focal length is very meaningful!
 
Member's gallery
ccyeung said:
The extra 100mm in focal length is very meaningful!
Click to expand...
It definitely is more helpful but on the R7 on the long end the 500 gives an effective focal length of 800mm which is already huge. Yes 600 on Z50ii is 900mm but at this long of a focal length I do not think the difference is super significant and a deal breaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top