Z6 ii review by Ray Hennessy

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).

He echos a lot of my thoughts on the Z6ii. I honestly think AF is finally good enough for most wildlife work, but the biggest drawbacks are now the slower frame rate, lag, and viewfinder blackout (he's right - it's far too long).
 
Thank you for posting. The video answered a couple of questions for me.

Good to hear it was helpful 😊

He echos a lot of my thoughts on the Z6ii. I honestly think AF is finally good enough for most wildlife work, but the biggest drawbacks are now the slower frame rate, lag, and viewfinder blackout (he's right - it's far too long).

Yeah, I do agree - maybe it’s possible to adress some of these drawbacks with FW updates?
 
A long review, but very informative. Thanks for sharing. I think the AF tracking is something that can be improved in firmware. Algorithms can usually made more efficient and accurate. The blackout time is probably a limitation of the sensors.
 
I honestly think AF is finally good enough for most wildlife work,

Wow, that's a pretty strong endorsement already (the other limitations notwithstanding). Are you referring to continuous AF acquisition and "stickiness" or is eye-detection AF now as reliable as with Sony based on your experience so far?
 
Wow, that's a pretty strong endorsement already (the other limitations notwithstanding). Are you referring to continuous AF acquisition and "stickiness" or is eye-detection AF now as reliable as with Sony based on your experience so far?

I'm always in AF-C :)

Eye detection (and tracking mode for that matter) is nowhere near Sony's for wildlife. However, the normal AF modes in the camera, Single, Dynamic, etc, work well. AF isn't as fast as I'd like with adapted lenses (more of a problem of really close subjects), but it works and it's accurate. There's not nearly the hunting I had with earlier firmware versions of the Z6/7 and of most regular subjects it locks on and if you do your part, the images are sharp. It's certainly not my first choice for action or really active scenarios, but I use it with zero hesitation for normal wildlife.

The biggest trick of course is something those "normal" situations turn into action situations in a hurry.
 
I have always considered that 24MP in FX gave too few POI at the kind of distances I am forced to shoot birds say 60 yards. Any comments.
Me too...that’s the biggest issue with a possible shift to FF instead of DX. IQ and noise are better with the bigger sensor since the pixel size is larger...but the lower pixels on target with the same lens in my view outweighs those advantages in final captured image IQ and detail. If you go to a higher MP FF like the D850 pr Z7II...the pixel size is about the same as DX size so you lose the better IQ and noise performance but you keep the pixels on target. I don’t have the bodies to compare...but with similar pixel sizes then it seems to me that the trade up to FF really doesn’t help much...noise and IQ are the same and loss of crop factor gets balanced by more pixels. Would love to see a side by side comparison of the same lens on say a D7500 or D500 and a D850 or Z7 to see if there’s a noticeable difference. DoF might vary a little but that’s a subjective background difference and while we care about it...IQ and noise and detail are the main drivers.
 
Me too...that’s the biggest issue with a possible shift to FF instead of DX. IQ and noise are better with the bigger sensor since the pixel size is larger...but the lower pixels on target with the same lens in my view outweighs those advantages in final captured image IQ and detail. If you go to a higher MP FF like the D850 pr Z7II...the pixel size is about the same as DX size so you lose the better IQ and noise performance but you keep the pixels on target. I don’t have the bodies to compare...but with similar pixel sizes then it seems to me that the trade up to FF really doesn’t help much...noise and IQ are the same and loss of crop factor gets balanced by more pixels. Would love to see a side by side comparison of the same lens on say a D7500 or D500 and a D850 or Z7 to see if there’s a noticeable difference. DoF might vary a little but that’s a subjective background difference and while we care about it...IQ and noise and detail are the main drivers.

I am sure you watched Steve's archives as he has done some of the most in-depth comparisons i have seen on this topic; at least from the perspective of wildlife photography.

To paraphrase what I think I understood from the videos - before the launch of the D850, DX cameras had a real advantage to get more pixels on target. If shooting full frame, a focal multiplier was a better choice than cropping down to DX coverage as it was less destructive to image quality. But now that the D850 exists the pixel density being almost the same as the D500, you are better off with the D850 which gives you pretty much all the benefits of both worlds (I am sure I over simplify because there are hours of video on the topic) ie. you can do a high resolution landscape and crop to D500 quality with one single body. Or from a wildlife shooter angle, you get a 500mm full frame shot and a 750mm APSC shot in the same file.
 
I am sure you watched Steve's archives as he has done some of the most in-depth comparisons i have seen on this topic; at least from the perspective of wildlife photography.

To paraphrase what I think I understood from the videos - before the launch of the D850, DX cameras had a real advantage to get more pixels on target. If shooting full frame, a focal multiplier was a better choice than cropping down to DX coverage as it was less destructive to image quality. But now that the D850 exists the pixel density being almost the same as the D500, you are better off with the D850 which gives you pretty much all the benefits of both worlds (I am sure I over simplify because there are hours of video on the topic) ie. you can do a high resolution landscape and crop to D500 quality with one single body. Or from a wildlife shooter angle, you get a 500mm full frame shot and a 750mm APSC shot in the same file.

Yeah…watched pretty much all the videos…and I understand the 45MP D850 that becomes effectively a D500 if you shoot in DX mode…and I understand all about crop factor. With the 850 in DX mode you still get the benefit of the larger pixels so better noise and IQ in low light…but for normal light situations it's not clear why the 850 has better images than the 500 or 7500. For normal light…noise isn't much of an issue I wouldn't think although perhaps that's the major difference.

I'm still thinking on whether to upgrade my 7500 to something else…and if so what. Crop factor aside…any option that puts fewer pixels on target (bird or whatever) seems like overall a step backwards in image detail and no amount of better noise is going to solve the loss of detail. So…that leaves me with sticking with the 7500 for wildlife or stepping up to an 850 or Z7II. Either of those has essentially the same pixel size as the D7500 does…so any gain in noise is minimal and the loss of crop factor almost exactly balances out the higher MP in the 850 and Z7II from a pixels on target standpoint.

The 850 is also a much heavier body.

Looking at the Z glass roadmap…and recognizing that I'm unlikely to replace all my glass especially at the relatively higher prices the current offerings have over more amateur related glass…I'll likely be mostly using F mount lenses rather than Z for the foreseeable future…and I do have the 500PF on my buy list but that's about as expensive as I'm willing to go for a lens. Currently using a Tamron 150-600 G2 for wildlife and BIF but the 500PF is lighter and smaller and with the addition of the 14TC I'm not losing any effective focal length reach from the lens standpoint…and either the Tamron or the 500PF on the high MP FF bodies is a wash for pixels on target.

I'm starting to think that maybe keeping the 7500 for action wildlife and getting the Z6 (or perhaps the Z50) for travel and non wildlife situations might be the best overall answer…that way I could go in the woods with the 500PF on the 7500 and the lighter Z also along for non telephoto shots. In a perfect world…I would have infinite dollars and a sherpa to haul all the stuff around…my wife would object to being my sherpa and while I could easily afford another $10K or more for fast prime glass…the bang for the buck just doesn't seem to be there for my usage, hence my idea that the 500PF is about as expensive as I'm willing to go for glass…and if I like it then the Tamron will likely get sold as it's almost exclusively used at maximum zoom.
 
Ray Hennessy convinced me that 20 or 24 MP where sufficient for my needs; my gear is a D500 and 500 PF; I am very satisfied of the combo for my photos: most of them are taken at less than 30 feet, mostly small birds and occasionnaly shore birds; few BIF (I have to practice!); after seing some positive reviews on Z6II, but waiting for Steve analysis, my goal is to get a Z6II as a second camera, for wildlife, I will use it in low light situation instead of the D500, and bring it in the field with my 70-200 f/4 or my 300 PF; for landscape photos, I will get the new 14-30 f/4; lastly, it will be a lighter camera to bring when traveling in Europe, instead of my D500 and 17-55 f/2.8.
 
Cristobal....to match the 20 mp on your DX body you will need 45 mp in FX so the Z6 will be lacking
Only if I need to get the same DX cropping on the full frame, isn't it? I forgot to say that I have also a teleconverter TC14 E III; I understand that in low light situation, I will be penalized, unable anyway to use my 500 PF and the TC at f/8 to have the same result as with the D500. On the other hand, a lot of MP involves more memory cards, bigger external hard drives...
 
Only if I need to get the same DX cropping on the full frame, isn't it? I forgot to say that I have also a teleconverter TC14 E III; I understand that in low light situation, I will be penalized, unable anyway to use my 500 PF and the TC at f/8 to have the same result as with the D500. On the other hand, a lot of MP involves more memory cards, bigger external hard drives...
True…but memory cards and hard drives are cheap so getting bigger ones is a minor issue. Me…I'm waiting to see what the Z7II does…and I'm not sure I'll actually upgrade from my D7500 for wildlife action and BIF yet. As I said I might get a Z for non wildlife and travel situations to save weight…but for my output it's certainly not clear in that situation that even a Z6II is worth the extra cost over the Z50 for non wildlife and travel images…but if I do add mirrorless it will be the 7II or the 50. Gonna get a 50 anyway to upgrade my wife's 7100…lighter weight even with the 2 lens kit and much better reach than her current 15-55 lens for her needs. That will give me a taste of the Z family and depending on what I decide I want to do for myself I can easily see renting a Z7II for a few days for some side by side comparison shots before making a decision. One big drawback for the FF models is they're not really much lighter…the body is but lens weight for FF is comparable for both F and Z mount lenses and neither of us is really interested in heavier cameras as we get older, particularly for travel situations.

I keep waffling back and forth…on one hand Gear Acquisition System says buy new neat toys but on the other hand for almost exclusively web or screen output it's not really clear that new toys will make any difference in IQ for where the images are going…and in that case the cheap guy in me says save the bucks even though they're easily affordable if I was willing to spend that much.
 
@Neil Laubenthal I am in the exact situation as you.. Also D7500 with lots of F glass (instead of your Tamron I have the 200-500), the 500 PF is on my wish list but I currently cannot afford it. I too have been pondering on buying the Z50.. mainly light weight for Travel and Landscapes, as well as Silent Shooting for Wildlife. I am very happy with the D7500, but I would like to have a backup camera.

I watched a YouTube Video made by "the snap chick" (LINK) where she chose to keep the Z50 over her D500... it makes me think Z50 cannot be all that bad.. So once you do buy the Z50, please let me know what you think of it.
 
@Neil Laubenthal I am in the exact situation as you.. Also D7500 with lots of F glass (instead of your Tamron I have the 200-500), the 500 PF is on my wish list but I currently cannot afford it. I too have been pondering on buying the Z50.. mainly light weight for Travel and Landscapes, as well as Silent Shooting for Wildlife. I am very happy with the D7500, but I would like to have a backup camera.

I watched a YouTube Video made by "the snap chick" (LINK) where she chose to keep the Z50 over her D500... it makes me think Z50 cannot be all that bad.. So once you do buy the Z50, please let me know what you think of it.
Will do...likely will order since Xmas sales are on so my wife can get used to it and I can play with it.
 
He compares the Z6 II to the D4s, however the D4s is dated I wonder how it would compare to the D750 or D780. I still like my D850 and D500 for wildlife while I use the Z6 II for portrait and landscape.
 
@Neil Laubenthal @Ado Wolf a relative of mine has the Z50 and it seems like a decent replacement for the D7xxx line, but it Uses a smaller battery which didn’t seem to last anywhere near as long as my Z6/Z7. It reminded me of my X-H1 Fujifilm; always needing to be recharged. Maybe someone else has more experience with it and can say otherwise, but that was the standout shortcoming i noticed. The rest of it seemed nice.
 
@Neil Laubenthal @Ado Wolf a relative of mine has the Z50 and it seems like a decent replacement for the D7xxx line, but it Uses a smaller battery which didn’t seem to last anywhere near as long as my Z6/Z7. It reminded me of my X-H1 Fujifilm; always needing to be recharged. Maybe someone else has more experience with it and can say otherwise, but that was the standout shortcoming i noticed. The rest of it seemed nice.
Thanks…I ordered a second battery to go with it…it will be my wife's camera to replace her D7100. For weight reasons; she would only carry a single lens before and only wanted a 15-55 which gives her no tele capability at all. So she got the flowers and close up plant shots while I got the bird/elk/bear/whatever out a a distance and the waterfalls that required climbing out on rocks or standing in the water or whatever.

She finally got tired of the limited reach so getting the 2 lens Z50 gives her better reach overall and with the short lens on the camera and the longer one in her pocket/fanny pack she still has less weight to carry than the D7100. I did notice the smaller battery…but it's a smaller body so that's not unexpected…and would get a spare battery anyway so she doesn't run out walking around. The Z6/7 use the latest version of the same battery that the the 7100 and 7500 use but if I end up with one of them I'll get a second B version as well as carry my current A versions as backup batteries…they're the same size so I assume they will work albeit for not as long.
 
Back
Top