Z6 vs Z7 high ISO? .. and which would you get to go with a D500?

[euanmax]

I'm considering adding a Z6 or Z7 (either gen 1 or 2) to my existing D500 to replace my Fuji X-T3 for general photography but also to use with both my PF lenses for some non-BIF wildlife applications or where wildlife isn't the main focus.

I've read two trains of thought regarding the high ISO performance of these cameras (I'm not talking about AF, more interested in noise and DR):

1) The Z6 is the better high ISO performer so better for low light applications.
2) If you downsample the Z7 images to match the Z6 there's little, if any difference?

I'm still not sure which way to go between the two.

I still envisage taking my D500 for serious action but if I was out hiking, I could imagine just taking the Z camera for landscape and packing the 300PF +1.4TC in case I saw some wildlife opportunity. Obviously the Z7 offers more cropping options but given the D500 would still be my choice if wildlife was the main focus, maybe the Z6 is the better choice? Certainly if it offered a low light advantage, I could use it more effectively at dawn/dusk for wildlife than the Z7/D500, but I've been confused by the differing views on their low light performance.

One thought I had was that the Z7ii may be able to fit the bill and replace the D500 but the early reports on the Z6ii are that the slideshow effect at high FPS hasn't been resolved. Perhaps this issue can't be resolved by the extra processor in the new cameras and is maybe a limit of the sensor.

Any thoughts, particularly from others who have the D500 and have added a Z camera would be much appreciated!

 

[JP Onstwedder]

I have a Z7 as well as a D500. I prefer the low light performance of the Z7 because the colours remain more accurate at higher ISO. With the latest noise reduction software (DxO Photolab 4 in my case) I’m happy to push the Z7 to 6400, 10000 at a push but the D500 is limited to 3200, for my taste. I suspect the Z6 is a little better than the Z7. For the AF performance see Steve’s reviews!

 

[BLev65]

I carry a pair of Z6 bodies (now one Z6II and one Z6) w/ a D500. I generally keep my 500mm lens on my D500 and 70-200 or 200-400 on a Z6. The third body is for my wide angle lenses. I can comfortably shoot my Z6 @ ISO6400. Topaz DeNoise cleans these files up beautifully.
While photographing grizzlies in the Khutzeymateen where I was shooting within 20 feet of bears from a Zodiac, I shot the 500PF on the Z6 and left my 70-200 on the D500... The Z6 just blew me away... the bear files were stunning despite the ISO's.
Here are a few examples

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.

 

[Jason]

If you want the best low light performance I would say Z7 is the way to go. You can use it in DX mode when you want more reach and skip the TC which would cost a stop of light. Or if light permits you could add the TC for even more reach.

 

[Anjin San]

I'm considering adding a Z6 or Z7 (either gen 1 or 2) to my existing D500 to replace my Fuji X-T3 for general photography but also to use with both my PF lenses for some non-BIF wildlife applications or where wildlife isn't the main focus.

My guess is that the 6 will give slightly better low light performance. One of the most heavily promoted advantages of FF is lower noise and better hoping ISO performance...the physics reason for this is the physically larger pixels in FF vs DX for similar MP sized sensors. For a high MP FF body like the 7...the actual pixel size is about the same as a DX body...so you lose the lower noise and better ISO that came from physics. Of course, the higher MP body puts more pixels on the subject than the lower MP FX body does...and in fact the pixels on target for high MP FX is about the same as DX (for the same lens) and the low MP FX actually puts fewer pixels on subject than DX...thus potentially lowering IQ.

these two effects are opposing...and we don’t have data yet...but from a strictly high ISO and noise standpoint physics suggests the 6 has an advantage...from a pixels on sub standpoint it is the o5er way around.

Downsampling the 7 to DX mode makes the MP about the same as the 6 but still with smaller pixels.

Me...I think that pixels on subject is a bigger contributor to IQ...so I will get a 7II if I upgrade to FX...but I admit I am concerned about the FPS loss and AF performance loss for BIF or action wildlife as compared to DX DSLRs so I’m still on the fence whether the upgrade makes sense to me. When we have side by side comparisons we will have some actual data to make decisions on.

 

[Steve]

The problem is, there's no right answer.

No matter what you do, there are going to be times the other camera would have been a better choice. The Z7 when downsampled to Z6 size still isn't as good at high ISO - it's close, I think within a half stop if I recall, but when you're really pushing it, that 1/2 stop is important.

Also, the Z7 has roughly the same pixel density as the D500.

Here are two schools of thought...

#1. Using both cameras. Consider getting a Z6 for when you can fill the frame or when the light is low and you need the best ISO performance. When the subject is too far away, the D500 will give you about the same pixel density as a Z7 cropped to DX (technically, the D500 gives you more pixels by 1MP or so). So, you sort of have the best of both worlds. This was essentially what I've done with my D5 and D500 setup. When I could fill the frame, I used the D5 (the Z6 in this case) and when I was too far, I switched to the D500.

#2 - One Camera. The only downside to the first point is that if you only have the Z6 or the D500 with you (not both), then you're stuck with the crop limitations of that camera. That's where the Z7 gets interesting. When I'm just out hiking, I tend to take the Z7 and 500 PF - that way, if I can fill the frame, great, lots of pixels on the critter. If I can't I can still crop anywhere from FX down to DX and still have a very useable image.

So, I think it comes down to how often you think you'll be in a single-camera situation.

 

[euanmax]

Thanks for all the feedback, much appreciated!

I think I'll start off with the Z6 (or Z6ii), it'll also allow more budget for lenses to start off with.

It looks like there's no right answer but if I'm going hiking, I think I'll just pack the D500 anyway for the situations where I encounter wildlife, carrying an extra 900g to save £1k in the price difference between the two Z bodies like a wise plan!

 

[BLev65]

The problem is, there's no right answer.

No matter what you do, there are going to be times the other camera would have been a better choice. The Z7 when downsampled to Z6 size still isn't as good at high ISO - it's close, I think within a half stop if I recall, but when you're really pushing it, that 1/2 stop is important.

Also, the Z7 has roughly the same pixel density as the D500.

Here are two schools of thought...

#1. Using both cameras. Consider getting a Z6 for when you can fill the frame or when the light is low and you need the best ISO performance. When the subject is too far away, the D500 will give you about the same pixel density as a Z7 cropped to DX (technically, the D500 gives you more pixels by 1MP or so). So, you sort of have the best of both worlds. This was essentially what I've done with my D5 and D500 setup. When I could fill the frame, I used the D5 (the Z6 in this case) and when I was too far, I switched to the D500.

#2 - One Camera. The only downside to the first point is that if you only have the Z6 or the D500 with you (not both), then you're stuck with the crop limitations of that camera. That's where the Z7 gets interesting. When I'm just out hiking, I tend to take the Z7 and 500 PF - that way, if I can fill the frame, great, lots of pixels on the critter. If I can't I can still crop anywhere from FX down to DX and still have a very useable image.

So, I think it comes down to how often you think you'll be in a single-camera situation.

Your #1 Strategy was my approach. I could not afford the D5 and good glass... I chose the glass and went with the Z6 to be an "affordable" D5. Had the D780 incorporated the D500/D850 AF module, I might have sold my two Z6 bodies and gone with that. Now that I have the Z6II, I am pleased with my D500/Z6II (+Z6 original recipe for landscapes) set. The AF system in the Z6II is quicker to lock on and definitely tracks better in AFC.

bruce

 

[Steve]

Your #1 Strategy was my approach. I could not afford the D5 and good glass... I chose the glass and went with the Z6 to be an "affordable" D5. Had the D780 incorporated the D500/D850 AF module, I might have sold my two Z6 bodies and gone with that. Now that I have the Z6II, I am pleased with my D500/Z6II (+Z6 original recipe for landscapes) set. The AF system in the Z6II is quicker to lock on and definitely tracks better in AFC.

bruce

Honestly, that strategy works well for me for years. Best of all worlds IMO.

 

[MartyD]

I will be following this thread!

I purchased the D500 when it was released and the Z6 when it was released. I have been happy with both purchases. My action shooting is probably 90% sports and 10% wildlife and it seems like right now it is way to little of either. I wanted to move to FF in order to get better high ISO performance. I was waiting for the D750 replacement to be released but could not resist the Z6. I shoot a lot of my sports at 6400 ISO and sometimes even higher. The 12 FPS and the AF performance on the Z6 have both worked fine in my situations. I don't shoot BIF. The Z6 performs better than the D500 at ISOs above 3200.

I am trying to decide if it is worth it to upgrade my Z6 to a Z6II, Z7II, or wait for what is next.

 

[Ado Wolf]

The problem with 1 camera is that it always appears to have the wrong lens at the time the shot presents itself. Whether it was my 70-200 and 11-16 combo, or my 300 PF and 24 mm combo, I always found myself switching between lenses many times during the hike. So having 2 Cameras is a great luxury. Apart from the weight, you are quick to switch cameras, and you reduce the risk of dust entering your camera (even more noticeable on mirrorless cameras).

I also considered the Z7 as All-in-One solution (using full FF and Crop Mode).. but it still lacks the AF acquisition speed of the D500 (in my case D7500), especially with F glass, since the FTZ adapter slows things down. We are still waiting on Feedback if this problem was resolved with the dual Processor on the Mark ii versions.

It's almost like Sophie's Choice. There is no 1 right answer, but you won't go wrong with any of the two options.

 

[Capelle Ch]

D810 + 24-120 mm F4 and D850 + 300 PF f4

 

[billklipp]

General rule of thumb. Jamming more pixels onto a full frame sensor (z7) means smaller pixels which means less light collecting ability. Fewer pixels on a full frame sensor (z6) means larger pixels which are better at collecting light.