Z6 or Z7 or Z50 (or whatever we'll see in another week or so with the Z6/7s/2/whatever they're called)

[Anjin San]

Z6 or Z7 or Z50

So…I’m starting to give serious consideration to upgrading to mirrorless and thought that getting the thoughts of all the smart folk here was a good idea…let me explain my current gear and what I shoot and then what I know about the current Z6 and Z7 capabilities before getting thoughts/recommendations.

Current:
D7500 with Nikon 18-300 and Tamron 150-600 G2 lenses. I shoot travel, wildlife, birds, and BIF.

Given the loss of the DX crop factor if I go to to an FF model…and I realize that there are other factors that affect IQ beyond pixels on target but pixels on target is a major contributor…putting my Tamron on the FF would be a net less of pix on target for Z6 and a net gain for the Z7…38MP is the crossover point. I really hate to give up any lens reach but can be convinced otherwise.

Price…I can afford any of the Z series models and might even get myself a 500PF lens and 1.4TC to go along with it although I would start with my Tamron and leave the potential upgrade to the smaller lighter 500PF for later.

I know that we’ll see the new versions of the Z6 and Z7 soon…but based on the current models I presume that the AF speed issues will be solved with the dual processors and the main difference will remain the larger MP size on the Z7 along with the . Yeah…file sizes and hence buffer is worse with the Z7…but for most action sequences I won’t exceed the buffer capacity anyway (it’s never been an issue on the D7500 and the Z’s are in the same ballpark).

So…am I over worrying about the extra MP that the 7 provides? If/when I get the 500PF and the TC I’ll still be a little behind in pix on target with the 6 but seriously and perhaps the better IQ of the larger sensor pixels will help overcome that.

The Z50…being a crop sensor…gets around the pix on target issue but the Z50 seems to be an entry level body and hence a downgrade in capability from the D7500. I’m going to get one of these anyway to replace my wife’s D7100 (weight and better lens reach with the 2 lens kit)…but (and I haven’t ever used any of the Zs so this might be incorrect) I think the 50 will be a downgrade for wildlife and BIF although the crop factor helps with the pix on target.

Whichever I get…6 or 7…I will most likely get the 24-300 Z mount zoom for my primary walk around/travel lens. Second most used lens will be my Tamron until/if I get the 500PF and TC…although that might be replaced by the 300PF and 2.0TC instead of the 500 and 1.4TC.

As I said…while the 7 is more expensive…budget wise it’s not out of line and while spending less is always better…sometimes spending more is worth it so cost isn’t my main consideration here. The main considerations…at least so far pending advice/comments from the aforementioned smart folk…are that the Zs give me less weight to carry and I really don’t want to lose IQ on BIF due to the loss of crop factor. I realize that getting closer is always better for the latter…but for any given situation that I’ve been in I always try to get as close as possible so that becomes mostly a non factor. If the bird is 100 yards away across the marsh…I really can’t get any closer than the boardwalk or dry land…and while I tromped through the swamps many a time back in college in the 70s…that’s unlikely any more.

I’ve thought about renting both the 6 and 7 for a week or so each…but that’s such a short period of time to both learn the camera and get test shots I’m not sure that would be much help.

Spouse and I are both 65 and while we still hike and get off the road to take shots we’re not spring chickens anymore…but we’re in great shape for our age with no physical limitations. Not sure if that helps with the thoughts/recommendations but wanted to be complete.

Thoughts/comments/recommendations? I'm not convinced either way to upgrade or not…just looking for options to think about…the wife and I mull over decisions like this for awhile and try to make the best decision possible.

 

[Rassie]

I've always had DX cameras from Nikon. D70S, D90, D7000, D7100, and last the D7500. My longest lens is the Nikkor 200-500mm. I've mostly been satisfied with the reach of the 200-500mm lens on the DX bodies. Good for all sorts of wildlife, including the little birds.

I had always lusted after full frame for its better IQ, but I didn't like the body to be larger and heavier compared to DX. The Z bodies, of course, changed all that. So last December I purchased the Z6. As I expected, its IQ is consistently better than the crop sensor D7500. Throw in the benefits of the EVF, and what's not to like? I like using the Z6 significantly more than working with the D7500, and I'll default to the Z6 all the time as far as possible. There is one exception - the lack of reach on the Z6 versus the D7500. Cropping the Z6 image to DX field of view is not feasible since one ends up with a 10MP image - half the resolution of the D7500. My bird photography, large and small, suffers often when I use the Z6. It's for that reason that I still fall back on the D7500 for much of my bird wildlife work.

The autofocusing speed on my 200-500mm lens drops by about 50% with the lens on the Z6 versus the D7500. I expect this to be resolved when Nikon launches the Z 200-600mm lens next year. This problem will likely also be resolved with the imminent introduction of the Z6/7 (11) in a few days. With more processing power those new bodies may very well increase the autofocus speed of my 200-500mm lens to equal to that of the D7500. I also expect that the future 200-600mm Z lens will work very well with a teleconverter, so that would be one way to increase the reach of the Z6 to equal to or better than the 200-500mm on a DX body. Another option, of course, is to purchase the Z7. Shooting that in DX mode nets an image of about 20MP resolution, about equal to the D7500. Having said that, I expect a Z6 image shot through a teleconverter on a Z lens will have better IQ than a Z7 image cropped to similar field of view without using a teleconverter. It becomes a cost/benefit analysis. Pay more for a Z7, or buy the lower cost Z6 and pay extra for the teleconverter with its resultant loss of light and potential difficulty focusing in low light.

All the above is what I'm wrestling with at the moment.

My wife upgraded from a D3300 to the Z50 and can't be happier. I've played with her Z50 a few times and its IQ is every bit equal to the D7500 (very likely even the same sensor). The Z50 also suffers from slow focusing with the long lens, so even though it has the same reach, I would still prefer the D7500 over the Z50 for birds when using the same F-mount tele lenses.

I don't think I've given you any definitive answers, but hopefully some stuff to think about. Heck, I'm to a large extent in the same boat.

PS: You mentioned the 24-300mm Z lens for a walk-around lens. Did you mean the 24-200mm, or is there a 24-300mm that I'm not aware of?

 

[Jason]

I'm waiting for the Z7II to come out hoping it will drive down the price of the D850.
Out of the Z lineup I would go with the Z7II providing the AF is improved. I actually had a Z7 but I unloaded it before the new version cut it's value. But be prepared, when they come out I would expect the price of the Z7II to be around $3200-3500. I doubt it will be the same as the current version for quite a while.

 

[fcotterill]

The benefits/costs of MILC vs DSLR are well known. Personally, it is above all Silent-Shooting, and second, Lighter weight compared to a D850. I found the existing Z7 balances well with both PF primes with TCs, and also the 70-200 f2.8E and 80-400 G. Bear in mind image quality takes higher knocks in quality at longer subject distances with a TC. And so does cropping especially.

The mirrorless cameras are improving fast, especially in Full-Frame options. which means we can expect a Used market swelled with "last year's" Zeds, together with Used prices dropping on excellent DSLRs ie D850. And more F-mount lenses will probably pile up in Used markets. Soon Nikon will have extended its MILC line up from entry DX - the Z50 and entry FX - the Z5 to the semi-pro Z 6II and Z 7II, and further out to full-spec'd Pro Z Camera.....

...As this week the rumours have hotted up even more with a possible "Z9". Its release may also coincide with a 400 f2.8S Nikkor. A pro Z camera and also Pro Z-Nikkors are a matter of time : especially to extend the reach of the 70-200 f2.8S for the Olympics etc. While many of us cannot afford/justify a full Z9 System (!), the technology will surely improve the more affordable Z products. The Z Roadmap should also have its 26 lenses 14 months from now: + a couple of additional surprises. If we also revisit rumours of a D880, Nikonians will be spoilt for choices across both the F and Z Systems

So by late 2021, we could be tempted by even more of a buyer's market, and eager upgraders will probably start offloading the current gear even sooner.

The glaring hole in this Z System line up is a Pro DX Z camera, call this a Z500. This will be a right winner If it integrates the AFC and full menus of the now legendary D500 and even better if Nikon can improve lowlight IQ of the sensor by a stop or more.

 

[fcotterill]

fyi Brad Hill's latest take with respect to wildlife in Pacific NW...
6 Oct 2020: Some Musings on the Nikon Z7 II

 

[Anjin San]

I had always lusted after full frame for its better IQ, but I didn't like the body to be larger and heavier compared to DX.


The autofocusing speed on my 200-500mm lens drops by about 50% with the lens on the Z6 versus the D7500.

Shooting that in DX mode nets an image of about 20MP resolution, about equal to the D7500. Having said that, I expect a Z6 image shot through a teleconverter on a Z lens will have better IQ than a Z7 image cropped to similar field of view without using a teleconverter. It becomes a cost/benefit analysis. Pay more for a Z7, or buy the lower cost Z6 and pay extra for the teleconverter with its resultant loss of light and potential difficulty focusing in low light.

All the above is what I'm wrestling with at the moment.

My wife upgraded from a D3300 to the Z50 and can't be happier. I've played with her Z50 a few times and its IQ is every bit equal to the D7500 (very likely even the same sensor). The Z50 also suffers from slow focusing with the long lens, so even though it has the same reach, I would still prefer the D7500 over the Z50 for birds when using the same F-mount tele lenses.

I don't think I've given you any definitive answers, but hopefully some stuff to think about. Heck, I'm to a large extent in the same boat.

PS: You mentioned the 24-300mm Z lens for a walk-around lens. Did you mean the 24-200mm, or is there a 24-300mm that I'm not aware of?

My alternate idea is that for where my shots end up…which is on the web almost exclusively…is that I probably won't really see much real improvement in as posted IQ unless the light is very low and that perhaps just sticking with DX and not losing the crop factor on the lens might be the way to go. I don't print and my shots are blog fodder of our travels…and I'm not trying to sell anything so that's another factor to consider as. well.

Regarding the autofocus speed…have you tried using the focus limiter switch as Steve suggested in his mirrorless performance tips video? Assuming your subjects are far enough out he thought that got the focus speeds pretty close.

Yeah…I'm wrestling with it as well…and if they came out with a mirrorless equivalent of the D500 I would probably just skip the FF entirely and save the weight and budget.

I am going to upgrade my wife to a Z50 as well anyway to replace her D7100…lighter even with the 2 lens kit and it will give her more reach than her current 18-55 lens…she's completely out of any wildlife shots and has declined my offer of a longer lens due to weight…but thinks that the 2 lens kit is a good idea for her. For me though…it's doesn't have enough frame rate for BIF to warrant changing from the 7500 unless you use the funky high plus or whatever it's called. That upgrade for her is in the near future and I'll play with it a bit as well to see how I like it…although I think it won't be the right answer for me.

The 24-300 was a typo…it's the 24-200 FF lens I would use for my walking around lens.

As I said…I think a mirrorless equivalent of the D500 is probably what I'm really looking for…and if it bumped up the MP some that would be outstanding for those long distance animals or birds.

 

[Anjin San]

I'm waiting for the Z7II to come out hoping it will drive down the price of the D850.
Out of the Z lineup I would go with the Z7II providing the AF is improved. I actually had a Z7 but I unloaded it before the new version cut it's value. But be prepared, when they come out I would expect the price of the Z7II to be around $3200-3500. I doubt it will be the same as the current version for quite a while.

I think I likely will agree…the Z7II is a better solution assuming the AF speed gets fixed which more processing power should do…and the focus limit switch on the lens will help focus speed as well. It's also cheaper than the 850 I think…and while the 850 is a fine professional level camera…it's heavier and bigger and that's going the wrong way on size for my needs. As I noted in my other reply…the Z500 would be probably the sweet spot and it would likely have the extra processor as well to keep the focus speed and frame rate up for sports/action/wildlife.

 

[Rassie]

My alternate idea is that for where my shots end up…which is on the web almost exclusively…is that I probably won't really see much real improvement in as posted IQ unless the light is very low and that perhaps just sticking with DX and not losing the crop factor on the lens might be the way to go. I don't print and my shots are blog fodder of our travels…and I'm not trying to sell anything so that's another factor to consider as. well.

Regarding the autofocus speed…have you tried using the focus limiter switch as Steve suggested in his mirrorless performance tips video? Assuming your subjects are far enough out he thought that got the focus speeds pretty close.

Yeah…I'm wrestling with it as well…and if they came out with a mirrorless equivalent of the D500 I would probably just skip the FF entirely and save the weight and budget.

I am going to upgrade my wife to a Z50 as well anyway to replace her D7100…lighter even with the 2 lens kit and it will give her more reach than her current 18-55 lens…she's completely out of any wildlife shots and has declined my offer of a longer lens due to weight…but thinks that the 2 lens kit is a good idea for her. For me though…it's doesn't have enough frame rate for BIF to warrant changing from the 7500 unless you use the funky high plus or whatever it's called. That upgrade for her is in the near future and I'll play with it a bit as well to see how I like it…although I think it won't be the right answer for me.

The 24-300 was a typo…it's the 24-200 FF lens I would use for my walking around lens.

As I said…I think a mirrorless equivalent of the D500 is probably what I'm really looking for…and if it bumped up the MP some that would be outstanding for those long distance animals or birds.

Neil, I can tell you that whether you post images on-line or whether you print them, the full frame images are just that little bit better. It is noticeable. I believe it's the dynamic range of full frame versus APS-C. The transitions from light to dark tones in the full frame images are smoother, and the FF bokeh also tends to be nicer, especially with wide-open apertures. I am so impressed with FF image quality that that's my default camera now. It's only when I need the extra reach or I'm shooting really fast-moving birds that I need the D7500.

As for focus limiter, yes, I do use that whenever possible. I recently went shooting ospreys and terns diving for fish and the D7500 would consistently lock focus onto the birds faster than the Z6. The same thing when I'm shooting little birds like warblers hopping from branch to branch. I've lost many shots with the Z6 because by the time it locks focus the bird has moved on already. It's also likely that the Z6 does not lock focus fast on the little birds in the foliage because the focus point gets distracted by other elements like twigs or leaves that fall under the focus point. See, the focus points on the Z6 are larger than on the D7500. The Z6 does have a pin-point focus mode where one can make the focus point real small for better accuracy, but that mode focuses even slower and is only available in AF-S, not AF-C. The D7500 locks focus fast enough that my keeper rate on the warblers in the foliage is much higher than with the Z6. Interestingly enough, I found with the ospreys and terns the Z6, once it locks focus it maintains focus pretty well and rarely loses focus - in that regard I almost think it's better than the D7500.

 

[Anjin San]

>>
Neil, I can tell you that whether you post images on-line or whether you print them, the full frame images are just that little bit better. It is noticeable. I believe it's the dynamic range of full frame versus APS-C.
<<

thanks Rassie...I will keep that thought in mind. IQ is certainly better with FF...but that gets countered somewhat by the more pixels on target that DX has over the Z6... it not the Z7...so you end up balancing better FF IQ vs better detail of more pixels. I would probably lean toward the 7 if I went FF based on the pixels on target...assuming that performance is otherwise the same between the 6 and 7. Since I’m retired...and can actually afford either...a little more $$ isn’t really a dral breaker all other things beyond MP being equal. Once we see what the upgraded Z models do I might see about renting one for a week and doing some tests myself to see whether its worth it to me. As I said, my primary reason to upgrade would be weight since it would be my traveling kit in addition to wildlife/BIF kit and I haven’t really compared total carry weight of either vs the D7500 ...but the body is slightly smaller and lighter and the 18-300 vs the Z 24-200 are almost the same size and weight.

 

[Rassie]

>>
Neil, I can tell you that whether you post images on-line or whether you print them, the full frame images are just that little bit better. It is noticeable. I believe it's the dynamic range of full frame versus APS-C.
<<

thanks Rassie...I will keep that thought in mind. IQ is certainly better with FF...but that gets countered somewhat by the more pixels on target that DX has over the Z6... it not the Z7...so you end up balancing better FF IQ vs better detail of more pixels. I would probably lean toward the 7 if I went FF based on the pixels on target...assuming that performance is otherwise the same between the 6 and 7. Since I’m retired...and can actually afford either...a little more $$ isn’t really a dral breaker all other things beyond MP being equal. Once we see what the upgraded Z models do I might see about renting one for a week and doing some tests myself to see whether its worth it to me. As I said, my primary reason to upgrade would be weight since it would be my traveling kit in addition to wildlife/BIF kit and I haven’t really compared total carry weight of either vs the D7500 ...but the body is slightly smaller and lighter and the 18-300 vs the Z 24-200 are almost the same size and weight.

Good points, Neil. I should clarify that if one can fill the frame with capable glass and being close enough to the subject so that one doesn't need to crop the Z6 image, the IQ will be better than that of the crop sensor every time. It becomes problematic when you need to enlarge the FF image because you have to crop off too much. It's for that reason that I still use my D7500 in specific instances.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Z6 or Z7 or Z50

So…I’m starting to give serious consideration to upgrading to mirrorless and thought that getting the thoughts of all the smart folk here was a good idea…let me explain my current gear and what I shoot and then what I know about the current Z6 and Z7 capabilities before getting thoughts/recommendations.

Current:
D7500 with Nikon 18-300 and Tamron 150-600 G2 lenses. I shoot travel, wildlife, birds, and BIF.

Given the loss of the DX crop factor if I go to to an FF model…and I realize that there are other factors that affect IQ beyond pixels on target but pixels on target is a major contributor…putting my Tamron on the FF would be a net less of pix on target for Z6 and a net gain for the Z7…38MP is the crossover point. I really hate to give up any lens reach but can be convinced otherwise.

Price…I can afford any of the Z series models and might even get myself a 500PF lens and 1.4TC to go along with it although I would start with my Tamron and leave the potential upgrade to the smaller lighter 500PF for later.

I know that we’ll see the new versions of the Z6 and Z7 soon…but based on the current models I presume that the AF speed issues will be solved with the dual processors and the main difference will remain the larger MP size on the Z7 along with the . Yeah…file sizes and hence buffer is worse with the Z7…but for most action sequences I won’t exceed the buffer capacity anyway (it’s never been an issue on the D7500 and the Z’s are in the same ballpark).

So…am I over worrying about the extra MP that the 7 provides? If/when I get the 500PF and the TC I’ll still be a little behind in pix on target with the 6 but seriously and perhaps the better IQ of the larger sensor pixels will help overcome that.

The Z50…being a crop sensor…gets around the pix on target issue but the Z50 seems to be an entry level body and hence a downgrade in capability from the D7500. I’m going to get one of these anyway to replace my wife’s D7100 (weight and better lens reach with the 2 lens kit)…but (and I haven’t ever used any of the Zs so this might be incorrect) I think the 50 will be a downgrade for wildlife and BIF although the crop factor helps with the pix on target.

Whichever I get…6 or 7…I will most likely get the 24-300 Z mount zoom for my primary walk around/travel lens. Second most used lens will be my Tamron until/if I get the 500PF and TC…although that might be replaced by the 300PF and 2.0TC instead of the 500 and 1.4TC.

As I said…while the 7 is more expensive…budget wise it’s not out of line and while spending less is always better…sometimes spending more is worth it so cost isn’t my main consideration here. The main considerations…at least so far pending advice/comments from the aforementioned smart folk…are that the Zs give me less weight to carry and I really don’t want to lose IQ on BIF due to the loss of crop factor. I realize that getting closer is always better for the latter…but for any given situation that I’ve been in I always try to get as close as possible so that becomes mostly a non factor. If the bird is 100 yards away across the marsh…I really can’t get any closer than the boardwalk or dry land…and while I tromped through the swamps many a time back in college in the 70s…that’s unlikely any more.

I’ve thought about renting both the 6 and 7 for a week or so each…but that’s such a short period of time to both learn the camera and get test shots I’m not sure that would be much help.

Spouse and I are both 65 and while we still hike and get off the road to take shots we’re not spring chickens anymore…but we’re in great shape for our age with no physical limitations. Not sure if that helps with the thoughts/recommendations but wanted to be complete.

Thoughts/comments/recommendations? I'm not convinced either way to upgrade or not…just looking for options to think about…the wife and I mull over decisions like this for awhile and try to make the best decision possible.

My wife is 72 and has bad feet and an artificial knee etc. and does not hike as far as I do she uses a Z50 with the Nikon adaptor and a Tamron 18-400 mm loves it and gets great results. I am 72 and chase birds all over in steep Idaho canyons and mountains on my own or following a falconer buddy and shooting the action. For long rough country days I use a D500 with no battery grip and a Tamron 18-400 the two set ups are almost identical in weight. My regular bird hunting rig is a D500 with the battery grip and the big EN EL 18 battery with the Tamron 150-600 G2 and my back up and low light go light rig is a D850 with battery grip and the big battery with a 500 PF or if mostly by car and want more versatility a Sigma 60-600 sport. My pro photographer pro line camera store owner muse sells Nikon, Sony and Canon and has tried all the mirrorless and like me at this time still prefers the D500 and D850 for birds in flight and wildlife. We both find them faster focusing and he is bothered more than I am by view finder black out in high speed continous shooting (CH) where we both have our cameras the vast majority of the time. Who knows if the rumor of the Z9 comes to pass it might be my first mirrorless. Keep in mind that when we get into the long glass you may not find any weight savings going mirrorless. The dedicated Sony mirrorless big glass set ups end up being heavier than a comparable Nikon DSLR and lens ... an older than me engineer friend discovered that much to his chagrin after jumping to the Sony without, as he put it, doing his engineering due diligence on the specs first

 

[Anjin San]

Good points, Neil. I should clarify that if one can fill the frame with capable glass and being close enough to the subject so that one doesn't need to crop the Z6 image, the IQ will be better than that of the crop sensor every time. It becomes problematic when you need to enlarge the FF image because you have to crop off too much. It's for that reason that I still use my D7500 in specific instances.

Would you mind emailing me a couple of shots so I can take a look at the difference? Any subject would do as long as it’s the same for both bodies. Something with your long lens say in the yard or something and shot from the same camera location so I can compare the with and without the DX factor...one with 6 and one with 7500...probably RAW would be best for comparison purposes. If you’re amenable to that...I can PM you my email or if you e got DropBox you could put them there and send me a link and I will download them. I understand if you don’t have the time or interest... it I’m trying to figure out whether I would be happy with the lower MP 6 over the 7 as opposed to the 7500.

 

[Anjin San]

My wife is 72 and has bad feet and an artificial knee etc. and does not hike as far as I do she uses a Z50 with the Nikon adaptor and a Tamron 18-400 mm loves it and gets great results. I am 72 and chase birds all over in steep Idaho canyons and mountains on my own or following a falconer buddy and shooting the action. For long rough country days I use a D500 with no battery grip and a Tamron 18-400 the two set ups are almost identical in weight. My regular bird hunting rig is a D500 with the battery grip and the big EN EL 18 battery with the Tamron 150-600 G2 and my back up and low light go light rig is a D850 with battery grip and the big battery with a 500 PF or if mostly by car and want more versatility a Sigma 60-600 sport. My pro photographer pro line camera store owner muse sells Nikon, Sony and Canon and has tried all the mirrorless and like me at this time still prefers the D500 and D850 for birds in flight and wildlife. We both find them faster focusing and he is bothered more than I am by view finder black out in high speed continous shooting (CH) where we both have our cameras the vast majority of the time. Who knows if the rumor of the Z9 comes to pass it might be my first mirrorless. Keep in mind that when we get into the long glass you may not find any weight savings going mirrorless. The dedicated Sony mirrorless big glass set ups end up being heavier than a comparable Nikon DSLR and lens ... an older than me engineer friend discovered that much to his chagrin after jumping to the Sony without, as he put it, doing his engineering due diligence on the specs first

Thnks...you’re right with the long lens on wildlife or BIF outings it won’t be much lighter... it forregular travel it will be. I think the Z9will be way more than I want to spend...because I would need high $$ glass to take advantage of what it will likely do...but one never knows...with the very high MP number than a 300PF or 500PF and a TC will give me plenty of pixels on target. I might end up with the Z for walking around and travel and stick with the 7500 for birds. At this point I’m still researching to see what might be interesting to have...at 66 I can afford whatever I want...but if I was to spend Z9 and glass money it has to be worth it...and as an amateur and blogger I’m not sure that $$ makes sense.

 

[fcotterill]

A little more detail on the possible specifications of the pending Z II cameras:

• The new Nikon Z6 II will start shipping in mid-November, the Z7 II in January 2021 (?)
• In 2021 a new 4K/60p with 1.7x crop will be released with a firmware update
• Expect up to 30% price increase over the Z6 ($1,797) and Z7 ($2,497) based on your location
• The Z6 II and Z7 II camera sensors are the same as in the Z6/Z7, the improved AF is coming only from the extra/new processor
• The new Z6 II /Z7 II battery grip will be called MBN-11
• The Nikon MBN-11 will have a shutter release button as previously reported and the electronic contact will be located in the battery compartment (similar to the Nikon D80/D90 grips)
• 14 fps for the Z6 II and 12 fps for the Z7 II
• Most improvements are in the eye and animal AF area and some tweaks in the AF-C mode
• AF improvements include low light situations, wide AF area, AF tracking, video recording
• New or improved energy-saving mode
• You will be able to update the Z6 II and Z7 II firmware via SnapBridge (Wow! finally!)
• Improved buffer (as previously reported): 99 with the Z6 II and 57 with the Z7 II
• You will be able to reverse the control/focus ring direction with one of the camera functions

Source: https://nikonrumors.com/2020/10/09/...7-ii-rumored-specifications.aspx/#more-150989

 

[Anjin San]

I had the D7100 for over 4 years before going for the D7500, which I loved! My longest lens was the 200-500 and that combo on a wimberley monogimbel last January in the Antarctic was just amazing.
in april I sold my dslr and ALL my lenses...now I’ve the Z6 with the 24-70/4, 70-200/2.8 and the TC-2. Bloody brilliant, for an amateur, I really couldn't want much more.

I might end up doing the Z only route myself... it giving up the Tamron 150-600 G2 reach would be hard...although with the Z7 and the 2.0 TC I would be getting pretty close for pixels on target for distant wildlife. My whole purpose with this thread is to get a bunch of ideas on what might fit what I want to do. I could actually solve all my problems if I was willing to spend 25K or so...and while I could afford to do that...nah, it’s too much. I could be persuaded to spend 8K or 10K as long as I wasn’t giving up pixels on target as compared to the D7500 since that plays an important role in IQ along with the larger pixels.

 

[Ron G]

I am seriously upset with Nikon. I've used Nikon bodies and lenses since 1967. I decided to move up to mirrorless very recently, only to suddenly discover that they upgrading the existing Z series with almost no warning. Had I known, I would have waited a couple of months to buy the series ii. Not cool Nikon.

 

[Replytoken]

Rereading this thread, two thoughts come to mind. First, is that you are looking for a weight savings (which I assume is when you are not photographing BIF). Make sure you are making an apples to apples comparison when looking at what you are giving and getting with a Z body. I have shot with both DSLR's and m4/3rd's mirrorless and lenses can make or break that weight "savings". Certainly when shooting BIF, the concept of weight savings partially goes out the window as it is mostly resting on your lens choice. New gear is always nice, but if you are really after weight savings, pay close attention.

Second, like many of us (and this definitely includes me near the top of the list), I sense you are struggling for a bit more lens reach. I have a D500 and even with the 200-500, I find that I do not fill the frame as I would like. What I am starting to realize is that more focal length or pixels is not going to get me the IQ that I need, but perhaps a better selection of places to shoot that allow me to get closer to my subjects might. Not to say again that new gear will not be enjoyable, but the more I look at images posted on forums form folks whose work I admire, the more I suspect they seek out places where they can get closer to their subjects, and that allows their skills and equipment to really shine. The D7500 is a mildly dense sensor, so a Z7 is not that much of a stretch, if at all. But, more pixel density tends to require better shot discipline as any unwanted movement has a greater ability to show up in your images.

Good luck,

--Ken

 

[Trentbif]

The glaring hole in this Z System line up is a Pro DX Z camera, call this a Z500. This will be a right winner If it integrates the AFC and full menus of the now legendary D500 and even better if Nikon can improve lowlight IQ of the sensor by a stop or more.

Yes, that. Gotta admit, ‘tis lonely here, being one of the few wanting to stay with DX. Additional lenses would help too.

 

[Anjin San]

I agree. I regretted giving up the 200-500, but in doing so I funded the TC-2 and with the improved IQ of the z over the D7500, it was a worthwhile trade off. By the end of next year I do hope Nikon will have something a lot longer in the z range....as per the road map. Meantime, I’m happy to wait. As an amateur, I don’t need the lenses to make a living.

Something to be said for the eventual longer lenses in the Z line…but who knows what they'll cost…and the current 70-200 really gives up a lot of reach even with the 2.0 TC as compared to anything DX.

 

[Anjin San]

Rereading this thread, two thoughts come to mind. First, is that you are looking for a weight savings (which I assume is when you are not photographing BIF). Make sure you are making an apples to apples comparison when looking at what you are giving and getting with a Z body. I have shot with both DSLR's and m4/3rd's mirrorless and lenses can make or break that weight "savings". Certainly when shooting BIF, the concept of weight savings partially goes out the window as it is mostly resting on your lens choice. New gear is always nice, but if you are really after weight savings, pay close attention.

Second, like many of us (and this definitely includes me near the top of the list), I sense you are struggling for a bit more lens reach. I have a D500 and even with the 200-500, I find that I do not fill the frame as I would like. What I am starting to realize is that more focal length or pixels is not going to get me the IQ that I need, but perhaps a better selection of places to shoot that allow me to get closer to my subjects might. Not to say again that new gear will not be enjoyable, but the more I look at images posted on forums form folks whose work I admire, the more I suspect they seek out places where they can get closer to their subjects, and that allows their skills and equipment to really shine. The D7500 is a mildly dense sensor, so a Z7 is not that much of a stretch, if at all. But, more pixel density tends to require better shot discipline as any unwanted movement has a greater ability to show up in your images.

Good luck,

--Ken

Yes…looking for weight savings when not doing wildlife hikes, you're right that most of it is the lens on those occasions…so adding up the total weight of both the wildlife and travel kit will definitely be part of the solution…but we might just end up carrying only the Z50 2 lens kit my wife is going to have in those situations and share, it really depends on what the primary purpose of the trip would be. Iceland we would carry 2 but Italy maybe only 1 since that's more of a sightseeing, eating, and wining thing.

Getting closer…while a great idea in theory is usually not actually practical…we're all (at least most of us) already getting as close as we can get either because of water or not scaring them off or whathaveyou. Back in my college days…tromping through thigh deep water in the Everglades was fun and exciting even with the moccasins and gators 'round…but those days are long gone and we prefer to stay on the bank. There's always the blind and staying in it for hours…but that's a big portion of the day that might or might not be worth the investment depending on what else is going on and/or what else you need to do that way. Good thought though.

I think everybody that takes images of wildlife want a longer lens…the trouble is that they start to get really expensive and really heavy…and unless you're making money with your images it's hard to justify spending the bucks or carrying the weight even if you can afford it and handle the carry…but as amateurs not making money one needs to keep it enjoyable. I've considered getting the 500PF and 1.4TC to replace my Tamron…would definitely be smaller and lighter combination but it's still F mount and you lose some AF speed with the Z adapter. I'm afraid that the longer lens in Nikon's Z timeline will be in the 'yeah, would be nice but no way I'm spending that much on it' range.

 

[Rassie]

Would you mind emailing me a couple of shots so I can take a look at the difference? Any subject would do as long as it’s the same for both bodies. Something with your long lens say in the yard or something and shot from the same camera location so I can compare the with and without the DX factor...one with 6 and one with 7500...probably RAW would be best for comparison purposes. If you’re amenable to that...I can PM you my email or if you e got DropBox you could put them there and send me a link and I will download them. I understand if you don’t have the time or interest... it I’m trying to figure out whether I would be happy with the lower MP 6 over the 7 as opposed to the 7500.

I’m away from home for the weekend - it’s a long weekend here. I’ll see what I can do for comparison pics. Can you send me an email in the meantime that I can reply to?

 

[Trentbif]

Neil, Both Z5 and Z50, using the walk-around 24-200mm lens. (for limited, dynamic range comparison of DX & FX formats).
This is the “Z5.”

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

 

[Trentbif]

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

This is the”Z50.”

 

[Trentbif]

Can‘t find button to delete message.

 

[Replytoken]

Getting closer…while a great idea in theory is usually not actually practical…we're all (at least most of us) already getting as close as we can get either because of water or not scaring them off or whathaveyou. Back in my college days…tromping through thigh deep water in the Everglades was fun and exciting even with the moccasins and gators 'round…but those days are long gone and we prefer to stay on the bank. There's always the blind and staying in it for hours…but that's a big portion of the day that might or might not be worth the investment depending on what else is going on and/or what else you need to do that way. Good thought though.

I think everybody that takes images of wildlife want a longer lens…the trouble is that they start to get really expensive and really heavy…and unless you're making money with your images it's hard to justify spending the bucks or carrying the weight even if you can afford it and handle the carry…but as amateurs not making money one needs to keep it enjoyable. I've considered getting the 500PF and 1.4TC to replace my Tamron…would definitely be smaller and lighter combination but it's still F mount and you lose some AF speed with the Z adapter. I'm afraid that the longer lens in Nikon's Z timeline will be in the 'yeah, would be nice but no way I'm spending that much on it' range.

I completely share your frustration with getting closer. I, too, often stand on the banks hoping for some closer action, and while I am not in a blind, it can still occupy a lot of time, especially when it is in December or January and I am fighting to stay warm. I have got some decent images, but I know that some folks hire rafting or boat guides to get out on the rivers during eagle season, and being that close, combined with reasonably good skills and equipment, is getting them shots I can only dream about. I don't say this to dissuade you from upgrading, as I have been wanting to upgrade to a Z6 type body for travel, but I am now trying to focus my efforts on better places to try and photograph BIF. I have a D500 with a 200-500mm. I know that I live in a cloudy part of the county in the winter and that I am always fighting for light, but if I cannot manage to pull off reasonably good shots with my rig, I may consider refocusing my efforts (no pun intended) to another type of photography than BIF.

Good luck,

--Ken