Z6II vs Z7II…which to buy

[Anjin San]

I've just reread the various threads on this general topic here…so here goes with questions after that.

I've been shooting for a long time with my D7500 paired with a Nikon 18-300 and Tamron 150-600 G2 primarily although I have a Sigma 10-20 zoom and a Nikon 35/1.8 available when needed…along with the Nikon 18-55 from my wife's D7100 (Santa/honeybear updated her to a Z50). I shoot primarily nature, landscapes, wildlife, action/BIF, and travel images…little to no video or portraits. I'm upgrading primarily for newer tech, software, and sensors along with the improvements that time has provided to both sensor quality and AF capability. Some of it is obviously GAS (gear acquisition syndrome)…but as we recently sold our former 5th wheel RV home and RAM 5500HD tow vehicle…even after buying ourselves a second car there's an overall bump in available toy cash.

I can't decide whether the Z6II or Z7II makes more sense at this point. My original thought was the 7II so as not to lose effective reach that the D7500 and G2 give me…and I'll be getting a 500PF and probably the 1.4TC to go along with whatever Z body I get. I'm unsure yet whether to get the 24-70 kit lens and the 70-200/2.8 Z lenses or the 24-200…the former will give better IQ and low light capability than the latter for nature and wildlife but the 70-200/2.8 really isn't a very good travel lens due to weight. Reviews indicate the the 24-200 is pretty similar in performance to the 24-70 at the short lengths and that it is better than expected at 200 but not as good (obviously) as the 70-200 is, not to mention the aperture difference at 200.

The 6II has better IQ once you get past 800-1600 and much better once you get up toward 6400 or higher…so it's much better in low light…albeit at the cost of losing the DX reach factor which for distant subjects results in lower IQ due to pixels on target.

The 7II doesn't lose reach compared to the D7500 but at the expense of High ISO performance.

So…which one makes more sense?

If I go with the 6II…then the D7500 will go along with me on most hikes and wildlife outings so as not to lose the reach if I need it…although the 7500 will be in the backpack unless I need it.

If the 7II…then the D7500 probably won't go along unless I expect fast action as at this point the DSLRs are better for that since the reach factor isn't an issue.

Having had several email conversations with a couple of well recognized internet names…it's looking to me like the 6II is the better choice even if it means carrying two bodies…and that also gives me another thousand bucks or so for more Z lenses.

Secondary question…while in a perfect world getting both the Z 24-70/70-200 pair and the 24-200 for travel makes perfect sense…thats another $4,100 for the trio vs 900 for just the 24-200 and if I get just the pair then the 70-200 might not go along much on non nature travels due to weight which means no telephoto. So…what are thoughts on what makes the most sense there?

Costwise…even if I go with the 7II, 500PF/TC combo, and the trio of Z lenses…I can afford it but we're starting to talk real money there and while I can afford it once I get past 8K or 9K in total the bang for the buck thoughts start to happen. I'm not against spending more if it's worth it…and I realize that eventually whether it's worth it or not is a personal decision…but more thoughts and opinions area always good.

OTOH…my wife's Z50 is a really nice and light rig and it would make a great travel rig with the 2 kit lenses…but a bit low on advanced capabilities for much wildlife/action…I'm not really considering a second one of those as an option…yet…but it's another thought and once you start down the "what to buy" rathole it's hard to pull yourself out. If we ever do the African safari that we've talked about…the cost of the trip is so much that plunking down another 1000 for a second Z50 for backup and around the campfire shots makes sense there as well…and it might even make sense as a separate travel camera for the weight savings on top of whichever way I go with the above evaluation.

Thanks for inputs.

 

[jeffnles1]

I can't answer your question regarding the 6 or the 7. I can address my personal experience carrying 2 camera bodies around. To be clear, it's not a DX/FX thing as my 2 bodies are D500 and D7200 (and sometimes use a Sony RX-10). Usually when I carry 2 bodies is when I have a tele on one and a macro lens on the other. I enjoy shooting "bugs" and flowers when weather is appropriate but don't want to switch lenses to shoot wildlife when it presents itself.

So far, so good right? OK, here is the reality. I carry the macro equipped body/lens on a belt mounted clip (Peak Design) and the tele equipped over my shoulder (Black rapid) on a sling. The reality with wildlife, especially birds, is by the time I put the macro on the belt and swing the tele equipped one up, whatever I was trying to photograph is gone or has moved to some thick brush where I cannot get a photo. This happens a lot of the time, enough to make me wonder why carry the extra body. During the "COVID" lockdowns of summer 2020, we did a lot of slaking through the woods and photographing wildflowers in local parks. Honestly, I got to the point when I was going shooting flowers, I'd take the macro lens and my D500 leaving the tele at home.

You mentioned carrying the spare body in the backpack if you needed extra reach. I would ask myself in reality how much would that really be the case? Also, on those times when you need the extra reach, would you have time to unstrap the backpack, fish the spare body out of the pack, swap lenses, and shoot the scene? If it is wildlife, I would offer it would be rare.

Again, I can't help on the 6 vs 7 question. However if the only thing keeping you from going with the 7 is you will carry a spare DX body with you my experiences carrying 2 bodies may be of some value.

Hope this helps. Always nerve wracking to invest in a new camera but equally exciting when you pull the trigger to buy one. Keep us posted on what you decide.

Jeff

 

[FB101]

It comes down in the end to one thing only. How close can you get consistently to your subject? It's a matter or skill, experience, target and location. If you find yourself today always shooting at 600mm with the D7500 and cropping into the shots now and then... well I fear the Z6II will be a challenge. If you are actually using your zoom as a zoom across let's say 200 to 600mm with many shots between 200 and 400mm - then the Z6II will hit the nail on the head (well with the caveat of focusing speed through the FTZ adapter).
FWIW, I spent 2 months pondering the same issue and ended-up buying a D850 for barely more than a Z6ii and the same resolution as a z7ii - i know everything I am missing on with that move (live view of exposure, AF coverage, IBIS, AF accuracy...) but what I saved by not having to switch to a new mount more than paid for a 300pf and that lens is worth every damn $ and some

 

[DavidT]

With Topaz Denoise I wouldn't worry about the ISO performance of the Z7II.

 

[frdjohns]

Uhm, at the risk of being toasted by the mirrorless crowd, I don't understand why you feel the need for either new camera. From your original description, other than having something newer than what you own right now, what need are they attending to? I'm not sure that either the Z6II or Z7II will offer any real AF advantage over the D7500 and the image quality for all real-world purposes is excellent on the D7500. In my opinion (and that is all it is) the other big differences like EVF are simply not worth spending the money for. At the end of the day, I really don't think either of those bodies are going to do anything that improves your photographic results.

If it were me, I'd put the money aside and wait for the next generation of Z camera's to see if they offer any significant advantages in AF or IQ than what you have now.

(ok, now all the mirrorless folks can begin the flaming )

 

[jeffnles1]

Uhm, at the risk of being toasted by the mirrorless crowd, I don't understand why you feel the need for either new camera. From your original description, other than having something newer than what you own right now, what need are they attending to? I'm not sure that either the Z6II or Z7II will offer any real AF advantage over the D7500 and the image quality for all real-world purposes is excellent on the D7500. In my opinion (and that is all it is) the other big differences like EVF are simply not worth spending the money for. At the end of the day, I really don't think either of those bodies are going to do anything that improves your photographic results.

If it were me, I'd put the money aside and wait for the next generation of Z camera's to see if they offer any significant advantages in AF or IQ than what you have now.

(ok, now all the mirrorless folks can begin the flaming )

No flaming here, I tend to agree with you.

 

[BillW]

Are you planning to keep your D7500? If not, the Z7II might be the better choice, as it would allow you to crop, in camera or in post, to a similar field of view as your D7500.

I have used both DSLRs (D500 and D850) and Z bodies (Z7 and Z6) extensively over the last two years. I like them all, but find I generally pick up a Z body these days unless I expect a lot of BIF or other fast action, in which case I tend to take a DSLR. That said, the Zs are decent for BIF, especially for larger birds (e.g., eagles, herons, egrets and the like), although I have used them for swallows in flight too. And I expect the ZIIs will be better -- I got a Z6II for Christmas, but have not had a chance to use it for action yet.

I shot a lot this summer from a kayak in northern Minnesota. Loons, mergansers, eagles, osprey, golden eyes, herons, sandpipers, deer, beavers and the like. I mostly used the Z7 with a 500 mm PF and often a 1.4x TCIII. A kayak is pretty good for getting close to water birds, but even here I often cropped my images. On the other hand, at times the Z7 + 500 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII was too much lens (and I was not anxious to change lenses in a kayak), so I started also bringing my Z6 with either a 300 mm PF or 70-300 mm AF-P FX zoom for subjects that were "too close" where I did not plan to crop.

As to noise, I find I can usually get pretty good images with the Z7 up to IS0 6400. I tend to let the Z6 go to 12,800 if I need to do so. Noise reduction software such as Topaz Denoise AI and DxO Photo Labs Prime or Deep Prime can be quite helpful. If you display a Z6 and Z7 file of the same subject at the same size, you may also find less difference in noise between them than if you look to the pixel level.

Since I am still using DSLRs, I have kept my 70-200 f2.8E FL lens, as it works well with both DSLRs and Z bodies, and do not have the 70-200 S in Z mount. The F mount version is a great lens (I think the 70-200 S in Z mount is supposed to be a bit better optically) and I take it when I want f2.8 or the best image quality. I find I use it for landscapes, shots of animals that are nearby and for shots of animals in landscapes. I am glad I have it.

I have not tried the 24-200 lens in Z mount. A couple of friends have it and like it. When I want a lighter kit, I tend to take the 24-70 f4 (a very nice lens and priced reasonably as part of a kit) and the 70-300 AF-P FX lens. For a heavier kit that is better optically, I take the 24-70 f2.8 S in Z mount and the 70-200 f2.8E FL lens.

Good luck with your choice. You will love the 500 mm PF. And if you want to use the 500 mm PF with a 1.4x TCIII, the Z bodies are a great choice, as all the focus points (which cover the entire frame) work, even though the combination is f8. With a DSLR, you get only a small number of focus points near the center of the frame.

 

[Anjin San]

I can't answer your question regarding the 6 or the 7. I can address my personal experience carrying 2 camera bodies around. To be clear, it's not a DX/FX thing as my 2 bodies are D500 and D7200 (and sometimes use a Sony RX-10). Usually when I carry 2 bodies is when I have a tele on one and a macro lens on the other. I enjoy shooting "bugs" and flowers when weather is appropriate but don't want to switch lenses to shoot wildlife when it presents itself.

So far, so good right? OK, here is the reality. I carry the macro equipped body/lens on a belt mounted clip (Peak Design) and the tele equipped over my shoulder (Black rapid) on a sling. The reality with wildlife, especially birds, is by the time I put the macro on the belt and swing the tele equipped one up, whatever I was trying to photograph is gone or has moved to some thick brush where I cannot get a photo. This happens a lot of the time, enough to make me wonder why carry the extra body. During the "COVID" lockdowns of summer 2020, we did a lot of slaking through the woods and photographing wildflowers in local parks. Honestly, I got to the point when I was going shooting flowers, I'd take the macro lens and my D500 leaving the tele at home.

You mentioned carrying the spare body in the backpack if you needed extra reach. I would ask myself in reality how much would that really be the case? Also, on those times when you need the extra reach, would you have time to unstrap the backpack, fish the spare body out of the pack, swap lenses, and shoot the scene? If it is wildlife, I would offer it would be rare.

Again, I can't help on the 6 vs 7 question. However if the only thing keeping you from going with the 7 is you will carry a spare DX body with you my experiences carrying 2 bodies may be of some value.

Hope this helps. Always nerve wracking to invest in a new camera but equally exciting when you pull the trigger to buy one. Keep us posted on what you decide.

Jeff

Jeff…your thoughts about the spare camera in the backpack are certainly valid…and to be honest most of the time it probably won't happen unless I got a belt clip for it…but that's not really workable with a long lens on it…and I'm not likely to carry both the 500PF and the Tamron G2 on the same hike for weight. Mostly in the past I've carried the tripod in a case and the camera is on a Black Rapid strap with my typical 18-300 zoom…unless it's specifically a situation where I'm pretty sure the only things I'll be shooting are long range stuff…in that case the Tamron is on the body and strap. The more I think about it and considering the weight and accessibility issue the PD clip or similar is really the optimal use and I'm not really sure how much I would really take 2 bodies along.

 

[Anjin San]

It comes down in the end to one thing only. How close can you get consistently to your subject? It's a matter or skill, experience, target and location. If you find yourself today always shooting at 600mm with the D7500 and cropping into the shots now and then... well I fear the Z6II will be a challenge. If you are actually using your zoom as a zoom across let's say 200 to 600mm with many shots between 200 and 400mm - then the Z6II will hit the nail on the head (well with the caveat of focusing speed through the FTZ adapter).
FWIW, I spent 2 months pondering the same issue and ended-up buying a D850 for barely more than a Z6ii and the same resolution as a z7ii - i know everything I am missing on with that move (live view of exposure, AF coverage, IBIS, AF accuracy...) but what I saved by not having to switch to a new mount more than paid for a 300pf and that lens is worth every damn $ and some

The Tamron is mostly used at the long end…over the years I've discovered that getting close is good obviously but you can only get as close as you can get. Usually for me it isn't a stalking skill thing but an I'm on the boardwalk or cliff edge or across the river and getting closer isn't really an option. That was my original thinking that the Z7II was the better option and given Jeff's comments on carrying two cameras on the hike being harder that would still push me to the higher MP body. My only real concern with the 7II is the lower high ISO performance…the smaller pixels are more noise prone than the larger ones in the 6II but the more pixels on target is in opposition to that and it's hard to really know whether the more noise or the more pixels gives the best IQ. As another comment said…Topaz DeNoise which I have cures a lot of ills and I've seen numerous reviews of both giving pretty nice results in lower light conditions. I thought about the D850 as well…but mirrorless is pretty much the future as the handwriting is on the wall…with the extra weight it has, the more AF sensors in the mirrorless, and the ability to focus at higher apertures pretty much talked me out of that idea.

 

[Anjin San]

With Topaz Denoise I wouldn't worry about the ISO performance of the Z7II.

Definitely true as well…especially if one does as Topaz recommends and gets rid of the noise early in the PP workflow…although I have to admit that mostly I use LR's noise reduction since it is adequate for my almost exclusively screen destination for my images.

 

[Anjin San]

Uhm, at the risk of being toasted by the mirrorless crowd, I don't understand why you feel the need for either new camera. From your original description, other than having something newer than what you own right now, what need are they attending to? I'm not sure that either the Z6II or Z7II will offer any real AF advantage over the D7500 and the image quality for all real-world purposes is excellent on the D7500. In my opinion (and that is all it is) the other big differences like EVF are simply not worth spending the money for. At the end of the day, I really don't think either of those bodies are going to do anything that improves your photographic results.

If it were me, I'd put the money aside and wait for the next generation of Z camera's to see if they offer any significant advantages in AF or IQ than what you have now.

(ok, now all the mirrorless folks can begin the flaming )

No flaming here either…my thoughts were that the tech in the sensor is better 4 years on from the 7500, that FF has better IQ than DX is mostly what is driving my upgrade thoughts. Then once you get into FF models…the more focus points and high aperture focusing ability…along with weight…tends to suggest against the 850.

I did think about just waiting until the next model…but then when it comes out it will be should I wait for the next model and on and on…and while I'm not independently wealthy an upgrade is easily feasible from that standpoint and both the software and hardware are better 4 years on than they were before. In addition…spending the bucks for the 500PF makes the upgrade to FF more worthwhile in order to use the capabilities it provides…yes, it will work just fine on a DX body but the FF Z gives better results with the same lens as many here and elsewhere have noted and posted on.

 

[MartyD]

I will first say that I purchased a Z6 with 24-70 f4 when it was released as my FF sports and travel body and I have been very happy with it. I added the F mount 70-300 to travel with as well. I also have a D500 and the 200-500 for more reach and I own the 70-200 FL 2.8 F mount as well and use it on both bodies. The 70-200 FL f2.8 is a great lens and the Z mount is supposed to be better, that focal length is perfect for what I do but it may not be for you.

How do the new Z series teleconverters figure into this whole process? Especially with the 70-200.

I was really wanting to move to FF when I purchased the Z6 because I shoot a lot at 6400 ISO and up and I was tired of waiting for the D750 replacement. The Z6 has performed better than the D500 at higher ISOs but as others have said I am not sure it is as much of a factor now with the emerging technologies in noise reduction.

Part of the dilemma we are all facing in making these decisions is the F vs Z mount. Glass seems to have a much longer life than bodies so if we purchase F mount glass are we going to be limited in the future using the adapter with improved Z mount bodies or should we purchase the available Z mount glass now knowing we won't be able to use it on our F mount bodies. If the Z lens line up were complete it might be an easier decision. I am interested in adding a 300 f2.8 for my sports shooting but good used ones are hard to find and I am not sure I want to spend 5 grand on an F mount lens. (That will probably ruffle the feathers of the DSLR crowd but they will also be quick to point out that I would not be able to track them in flight with my Z6 - just trying to throw some humor into this dilemma!) I am actually hoping that they will release the 300 f2.8 in the Z mount soon and then I can consider it or there might be a number of good used F mounts available.

I love my D500 and would like to think there is going to be a Z series high end DX camera to replace it at some point but I am not so sure about that. I am also considering the Z7ii and sort of a best of both worlds solution. I am even considering renting a Z7ii when available for a week or so to give it a try at high ISO to see how it performs.

I think using two camera bodies is very situational. There I times when you can have two combinations available and choose the one that works best in the situation. There are also times when it is going to be what you have in your hands at the time is what is going to have to get the job done.

I never shot much video before the Z6, but shooting video using the EVF just seems so much more natural that I find myself often switching my Z6 back and forth from still to video.

In the end, whatever you decide, enjoy the equipment!

 

[Anjin San]

Are you planning to keep your D7500? If not, the Z7II might be the better choice, as it would allow you to crop, in camera or in post, to a similar field of view as your D7500.

I have used both DSLRs (D500 and D850) and Z bodies (Z7 and Z6) extensively over the last two years. I like them all, but find I generally pick up a Z body these days unless I expect a lot of BIF or other fast action, in which case I tend to take a DSLR. That said, the Zs are decent for BIF, especially for larger birds (e.g., eagles, herons, egrets and the like), although I have used them for swallows in flight too. And I expect the ZIIs will be better -- I got a Z6II for Christmas, but have not had a chance to use it for action yet.

I shot a lot this summer from a kayak in northern Minnesota. Loons, mergansers, eagles, osprey, golden eyes, herons, sandpipers, deer, beavers and the like. I mostly used the Z7 with a 500 mm PF and often a 1.4x TCIII. A kayak is pretty good for getting close to water birds, but even here I often cropped my images. On the other hand, at times the Z7 + 500 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII was too much lens (and I was not anxious to change lenses in a kayak), so I started also bringing my Z6 with either a 300 mm PF or 70-300 mm AF-P FX zoom for subjects that were "too close" where I did not plan to crop.

As to noise, I find I can usually get pretty good images with the Z7 up to IS0 6400. I tend to let the Z6 go to 12,800 if I need to do so. Noise reduction software such as Topaz Denoise AI and DxO Photo Labs Prime or Deep Prime can be quite helpful. If you display a Z6 and Z7 file of the same subject at the same size, you may also find less difference in noise between them than if you look to the pixel level.

Since I am still using DSLRs, I have kept my 70-200 f2.8E FL lens, as it works well with both DSLRs and Z bodies, and do not have the 70-200 S in Z mount. The F mount version is a great lens (I think the 70-200 S in Z mount is supposed to be a bit better optically) and I take it when I want f2.8 or the best image quality. I find I use it for landscapes, shots of animals that are nearby and for shots of animals in landscapes. I am glad I have it.

I have not tried the 24-200 lens in Z mount. A couple of friends have it and like it. When I want a lighter kit, I tend to take the 24-70 f4 (a very nice lens and priced reasonably as part of a kit) and the 70-300 AF-P FX lens. For a heavier kit that is better optically, I take the 24-70 f2.8 S in Z mount and the 70-200 f2.8E FL lens.

Good luck with your choice. You will love the 500 mm PF. And if you want to use the 500 mm PF with a 1.4x TCIII, the Z bodies are a great choice, as all the focus points (which cover the entire frame) work, even though the combination is f8. With a DSLR, you get only a small number of focus points near the center of the frame.

I will most likely keep the 7500 but it will mostly stay at home unless I convince myself that carrying 2 bodies on the hike makes sense…and the more I think about that the less likely I think it will happen. Like you…my images are almost always cropped…I almost always crop to 16x10 aspec ratio so that the images on the blog are a standard aspect and then I crop in to get as much of the subject in the frame as I can without cropping so much that IQ goes to hell because let's face it…10 pixels on the bear's eye just isn't all that great so in that case one crops out a bit to provide a little more scenery and not a portrait…as we know range and how heavy a long lens you are willing to carry and afford has a lot to do with that.

The big reason for the 500PF is that it's much lighter and shorter than the Tamron is and I frequently leave the Tamron in the car unless I really think the extra reach over my pretty light 18-300 will be needed.

In a perfect world…I would carry the 24-70 but it's simply too short to be a good all around travel lens…and the 70-200/2.8 is too heavy to realistically carry the pair as travel lenses…the 24-200 is only an ounce or so more than the 24-70 and about the same length collapsed so unless the IQ is really unacceptable it makes the optimum FF Z travel lens at least for the way I will typically use it.

If I start the shift over to Z mount bodies…which is pretty likely at this point…then I have to ask myself if it's worth spending any more money on F mount lenses…but then I'm getting the 500PF…but in that case there's no Z 500PF or 600PF on the roadmap and the longer ones on it are probably going to be heavier and more expensive than I'm willing to have so getting it in F mount seems to make sense. If there's a Z PF later on…I can always sell the F mount one and upgrade…again depending on what it costs.

 

[Anjin San]

I will first say that I purchased a Z6 with 24-70 f4 when it was released as my FF sports and travel body and I have been very happy with it. I added the F mount 70-300 to travel with as well. I also have a D500 and the 200-500 for more reach and I own the 70-200 FL 2.8 F mount as well and use it on both bodies. The 70-200 FL f2.8 is a great lens and the Z mount is supposed to be better, that focal length is perfect for what I do but it may not be for you.

How do the new Z series teleconverters figure into this whole process? Especially with the 70-200.

I was really wanting to move to FF when I purchased the Z6 because I shoot a lot at 6400 ISO and up and I was tired of waiting for the D750 replacement. The Z6 has performed better than the D500 at higher ISOs but as others have said I am not sure it is as much of a factor now with the emerging technologies in noise reduction.

Part of the dilemma we are all facing in making these decisions is the F vs Z mount. Glass seems to have a much longer life than bodies so if we purchase F mount glass are we going to be limited in the future using the adapter with improved Z mount bodies or should we purchase the available Z mount glass now knowing we won't be able to use it on our F mount bodies. If the Z lens line up were complete it might be an easier decision. I am interested in adding a 300 f2.8 for my sports shooting but good used ones are hard to find and I am not sure I want to spend 5 grand on an F mount lens. (That will probably ruffle the feathers of the DSLR crowd but they will also be quick to point out that I would not be able to track them in flight with my Z6 - just trying to throw some humor into this dilemma!) I am actually hoping that they will release the 300 f2.8 in the Z mount soon and then I can consider it or there might be a number of good used F mounts available.

I love my D500 and would like to think there is going to be a Z series high end DX camera to replace it at some point but I am not so sure about that. I am also considering the Z7ii and sort of a best of both worlds solution. I am even considering renting a Z7ii when available for a week or so to give it a try at high ISO to see how it performs.

I think using two camera bodies is very situational. There I times when you can have two combinations available and choose the one that works best in the situation. There are also times when it is going to be what you have in your hands at the time is what is going to have to get the job done.

I never shot much video before the Z6, but shooting video using the EVF just seems so much more natural that I find myself often switching my Z6 back and forth from still to video.

In the end, whatever you decide, enjoy the equipment!

I'm with you…if there was a high end DX body I would probably go that route…for my purposes the IQ is…mostly…good enough, but I'm thinking that the DX Z bodies are going to be lower level ones and we'll only see high end features in the FF Z bodies…obviously nobody but Nikon knows for sure but that seems to be the fleet average opinion of people and thoughts you see on the various web sites.

Except for the better high ISO in the 6II then the 7II would be the obvious choice for me as you don't lose any reach over the DX bodies…but there's the rub.

Two bodies…the more I think about and consider points ya'll have made…is less likely than I originally thought unless it was one of those "I'm only shooting BIF today" things. For most hikes…the additional weight and hassle of getting it out of the backpack isn't worth it and in a lot of situations as we all know opportunities are quick and fleeting so it's either on a PD clip or similar or probably not worth carrying. I'm only going to carry one long lens anyway…and whatever body it's on will be what gets the shot…typically if I think the long lens will be used a lot it's mounted and switching to the shorter one for landscape or flowers or macro stuff doesn't require quick reaction time anyway…and if I don't think there will be much long range opportunities it might even still be in the car.

 

[Rassie]

I had the D7500 - used it on the Nikkor 200-500mm for wildlife. A lot of what I shot was small birds, and sometimes I needed more reach although I was mostly happy with the reach so that I never felt a compelling need for a longer lens. In November 2019 I got the Z6 and kept both that and the D7500 until November of 2020. The lack of reach of the Z6 was not too much of an issue since I had the D7500 for when I needed more reach. Last November I traded both bodies in on a new Z6ii, and now my bird photography suffers from a lack of reach. The conundrum for me is to either add a TC-14Eiii to my 200-500mm lens, or to wait and replace that lens with the Nikkor Z 200-600mm and Z TC 14 when that new lens is launched. Time will tell.

For an African safari my 200-500mm or your 150-600mm lenses on a Z6(II) body are adequate for most animals and larger birds. Little birds, not so much, but I would be happy to do such a safari with the Z6ii only. There are so many other animals to photograph that missing out on some of the smaller birds would not be a big problem for me. You would be in a slightly better position with the 600mm of the Tammy.

I think perhaps we make too much of an issue of the noise performance at higher ISO between the Z6 and Z7 bodies. I never hear anyone complain of excessive noise in the D850, which has the same noise performance as the Z7(ii), same sensor if I'm not mistaken. The difference is that there is hardly a Nikon full frame camera with much better noise performance than the Z6(ii). Only the D5 , but I'm not aware of any other. So how often is any one of us likely to shoot under such conditions that you have to push ISO so high that we would absolutely need the performance of the Z6 over Z7? For myself I would not let the better noise performance of the Z6ii keep me from getting a Z7ii. Two reasons why I did not want the Z7ii was price and the large files I would have to cope with. Soon I would have had to start purchasing more storage capacity. More time handling larger files, etc.

I did two African safaris and both times I had two DX bodies with me. Considering the cost of a safari like that I did not want a camera failure to ruin it for me. I had the 200-500mm lens on one body and the 70-200mm F/4 lens on the other. I used both cameras almost equally for about 50% of my images with each. Occasionally we were too close to a large animal and then I had to use the 16-80mm lens.

If you're going to do that safari in the near future I would keep the D7500 as a backup, or alternatively beg, steal or borrow a second DX body. It would also help for when you need more reach. Otherwise the Z7ii could replace both D7500 and Z6 since one can crop the Z7ii image to more or less the same as the D7500 FOV, and retain the same number of pixels (20Mp) on the subject. A Z6 image cropped to DX leaves one with only around 10 Mp. I also guess some folks would see the slower frame rate of the Z7ii as a problem compared to Z6ii. For any other vacation or travel other than a safari I do not feel the need for a backup body.

Lenses: I got the Z 24-70mm F/4 S with the Z6 and I also have the Nikkor F-mount 70-200mm F/4. Since both of these lenses outperform the Z 24-200mm lens I'm OK to carry both when I go shooting or traveling. Also, the 70-200mm F/4 lens is much lighter and also smaller than a 70-200mm F/2.8 lens. I do think the convenience of the Z 24-200mm lens is worth considering for travel and other general photography. IQ should also be good enough for all but the most demanding of us.

 

[MartyD]

Except for the better high ISO in the 6II then the 7II would be the obvious choice for me as you don't lose any reach over the DX bodies…but there's the rub.

This is why I want to rent a Z7ii and try it at high ISOs. DPreview has their high ISO studio shot comparisons where you can select different cameras and ISOs and compare them. If I shoot at ISO 6400 on both the Z6 and the Z7 the noise on the Z7 might be greater but it is greater at a smaller pixel size spread across more pixels. I would guess that the noise of a D500 and a Z7 in DX mode would be pretty much the same. I have seen a few discussions online about this so that is why I would like to try it.

 

[Bigmo]

I would say save your money now and see what comes out in the near future. There hasn’t been any earth shattering improvements recently. Maybe a new offering in the near future will offer things you will not be questioning yourself on.

 

[Ado Wolf]

I am falling down the same rabbit hole.. and I keep changing my mind on buying a mirrorless camera. One minute I’m convinced that my actual D7500 is enough and a minute later I feel the need to have a mirrorless compact silent shooting camera.

not to complicate things, but how does the Z5 compare to the Z6ii? With the exception of lower frames per second and no focus stacking, does the auto focus hold up with the Z6ii? Top LCD isn’t important for me, and it does have the important specs like IBIS, Timelapse, and 24 MP FF sensor (not a BSI one though, just plane CMOS). But it is half the price! That means more money for lenses

as for the 24-200 zoom lens, I honestly tend to avoid any zoom lens that has a a zoom range bigger than 3X.. because this usually means IQ is compromised at one end of the range. That’s why the holy trinity are less than 3X (24-70,70-200..)

I agree with @jeffnles1when it comes to 2 cameras, in the sense that one does not have time to pull out a camera if you are photographing wildlife (either the moment is quickly gone, or the noise of opening the bag scares the critters away, speaking from experience). That is why the second camera I carry is uniquely for landscape (to avoid changing lenses in the field).

I wish you good luck, which ever way you decide to go!

 

[Rassie]

as for the 24-200 zoom lens, I honestly tend to avoid any zoom lens that has a a zoom range bigger than 3X.. because this usually means IQ is compromised at one end of the range. That’s why the holy trinity are less than 3X (24-70,70-200..)

That statement is true - to a point. Remember though that the Z lenses outperform their equivalent F-mount counterparts every time.
The Z-mount 24-200 mm is therefore not significantly worse than the F-mount 70-200mm F4 lens in terms of image quality. I would therefore be more comfortable with such a wide zoom range on a Z-mount lens.

In my opinion my Z6ii camera is just as capable for most kinds of photography as the D7500 that I had before. The main difference is the lesser reach of FX versus DX. I would be hesitant to consider the Z5 as equal to the D7500 or Z6ii in many respects. The Z5 does not have the dual processors found in the new upgraded Z6ii.

 

[Anjin San]

I am falling down the same rabbit hole.. and I keep changing my mind on buying a mirrorless camera. One minute I’m convinced that my actual D7500 is enough and a minute later I feel the need to have a mirrorless compact silent shooting camera.

not to complicate things, but how does the Z5 compare to the Z6ii? With the exception of lower frames per second and no focus stacking, does the auto focus hold up with the Z6ii? Top LCD isn’t important for me, and it does have the important specs like IBIS, Timelapse, and 24 MP FF sensor (not a BSI one though, just plane CMOS). But it is half the price! That means more money for lenses

as for the 24-200 zoom lens, I honestly tend to avoid any zoom lens that has a a zoom range bigger than 3X.. because this usually means IQ is compromised at one end of the range. That’s why the holy trinity are less than 3X (24-70,70-200..)

I agree with @jeffnles1when it comes to 2 cameras, in the sense that one does not have time to pull out a camera if you are photographing wildlife (either the moment is quickly gone, or the noise of opening the bag scares the critters away, speaking from experience). That is why the second camera I carry is uniquely for landscape (to avoid changing lenses in the field).

I wish you good luck, which ever way you decide to go!

Yeah...it really is somewhat rathole like...gotta agree with you there. The comments on the second body are spot on as I look at it more.

II’ve had great luck with my Nikon 18-300 as a travel lens and it’s good enough at long range if stopped down a bit...but I’m not a pixel peeper and I’m sure that the trinity lenses or primes are better technically...but for most purposes viewing on screen I’m not sure the difference is all that much all things considered...and the cost and weight/hassle of 3 lenses vs 1 for traveling makes the all in one more attractive for travel. Wildlife is another story...hence my plans for the 500PF to mostly replace my Tamron G2. I might end up getting it before the new body and see how things go...but that’s down the rathole again. If it works as I expect...maybe the 7500/500PF combo for wildlife and a second much lighter Z50 kit for travel makes sense as a way to go...waiting a year or so to see if we see a more highly featured DX mirrorless has some merit as well...although I personally don’t think we will see one...even though the engineering to use the 21 or 24 MP DX sensor with the 6II processors and software doesn’t seem that hard as it is mostly reusing things that already exist and the latest gen sensors as they improve with time. I really like my wife’s Z50 weight wise...it just needs more of the higher end features. That would obviously come with a higher price...and maybe Nikon doesn’t want to crowd the Z5 or 6II price from the low side to prevent sales cannibalization.

 

[Anjin San]

I had the D7500 - used it on the Nikkor 200-500mm for wildlife. A lot of what I shot was small birds, and sometimes I needed more reach although I was mostly happy with the reach so that I never felt a compelling need for a longer lens. In November 2019 I got the Z6 and kept both that and the D7500 until November of 2020. The lack of reach of the Z6 was not too much of an issue since I had the D7500 for when I needed more reach. Last November I traded both bodies in on a new Z6ii, and now my bird photography suffers from a lack of reach. The conundrum for me is to either add a TC-14Eiii to my 200-500mm lens, or to wait and replace that lens with the Nikkor Z 200-600mm and Z TC 14 when that new lens is launched. Time will tell.

For an African safari my 200-500mm or your 150-600mm lenses on a Z6(II) body are adequate for most animals and larger birds. Little birds, not so much, but I would be happy to do such a safari with the Z6ii only. There are so many other animals to photograph that missing out on some of the smaller birds would not be a big problem for me. You would be in a slightly better position with the 600mm of the Tammy.

I think perhaps we make too much of an issue of the noise performance at higher ISO between the Z6 and Z7 bodies. I never hear anyone complain of excessive noise in the D850, which has the same noise performance as the Z7(ii), same sensor if I'm not mistaken. The difference is that there is hardly a Nikon full frame camera with much better noise performance than the Z6(ii). Only the D5 , but I'm not aware of any other. So how often is any one of us likely to shoot under such conditions that you have to push ISO so high that we would absolutely need the performance of the Z6 over Z7? For myself I would not let the better noise performance of the Z6ii keep me from getting a Z7ii. Two reasons why I did not want the Z7ii was price and the large files I would have to cope with. Soon I would have had to start purchasing more storage capacity. More time handling larger files, etc.

I did two African safaris and both times I had two DX bodies with me. Considering the cost of a safari like that I did not want a camera failure to ruin it for me. I had the 200-500mm lens on one body and the 70-200mm F/4 lens on the other. I used both cameras almost equally for about 50% of my images with each. Occasionally we were too close to a large animal and then I had to use the 16-80mm lens.

If you're going to do that safari in the near future I would keep the D7500 as a backup, or alternatively beg, steal or borrow a second DX body. It would also help for when you need more reach. Otherwise the Z7ii could replace both D7500 and Z6 since one can crop the Z7ii image to more or less the same as the D7500 FOV, and retain the same number of pixels (20Mp) on the subject. A Z6 image cropped to DX leaves one with only around 10 Mp. I also guess some folks would see the slower frame rate of the Z7ii as a problem compared to Z6ii. For any other vacation or travel other than a safari I do not feel the need for a backup body.

Lenses: I got the Z 24-70mm F/4 S with the Z6 and I also have the Nikkor F-mount 70-200mm F/4. Since both of these lenses outperform the Z 24-200mm lens I'm OK to carry both when I go shooting or traveling. Also, the 70-200mm F/4 lens is much lighter and also smaller than a 70-200mm F/2.8 lens. I do think the convenience of the Z 24-200mm lens is worth considering for travel and other general photography. IQ should also be good enough for all but the most demanding of us.

Rassie...you make a lot of excellent points...especially the are we making too much of the ISO differences. While the 7II is more money...it’s still within the budget easily and more pixels are almost always good. Likewise the observation about the sensor and nobody complaining bout the 850 noise performance.
I’m definitely keeping the 7500 on hand...wouldn’t get much if I sold it used and there is too much to lose not having a spare body...in fact the safari whenever it comes will have at least 2 bodies along...both for spare and not changing lenses in the field purposes...and at the price of a safari already even a 3rd Z50 kit is only another grand which is peanuts in comparison...it’s light enough not to really be a hassle and provide close range shots.
I will have to think on the 70-200/f4 F mount...it is better than the Z24-200 and cheaper than the Z one...for travel it might be worth it for the better IQ. The 70-300 F is also an option and its lighter than that one albeit a higher aperture....but then the rathole starts and I wonder how much more cash to sink into F glass.

Another question comes to mind...is it better...or even possible...to use a Z TC or an F TC when using adapted lenses...or sould one stay away from the TC with adapted lenses since that introduces a 3rd set of couplings. I don’t know if a ZTC would even work with the FTZ between it and the lens. We’ve seen reviews and videos of people using an adapted 500PF with a TC...and I assume that was an F TC...but no idea really.

 

[FB101]

DPReview TV released their video review of the Z7ii this morning, you might want to check it out. In a nutshell they still praise the sensor but there are a few things to note as an action camera.

1. burst speed drops from 10 to about half with AF tracking engaged - it‘s probably not a huge deal because the animal AF tracking of Nikon is not working for wildlife yet so I doubt you’d use tracking. But it would be frustrating if they bring it via firmware update and now you are stuck with 5fps

2. the other comment they made is that the second card slot not being xqd, it is slower and slows the camera down if you use it for redundancy (and I assume for overflow as well). I wonder if the D850 has the same issue.

it will be interesting to see reviews by true wildlife photographers (Steve...) but I wouldn’t rush quite yet based on their initial comments

 

[FB101]

Another question comes to mind...is it better...or even possible...to use a Z TC or an F TC when using adapted lenses...or sould one stay away from the TC with adapted lenses since that introduces a 3rd set of couplings. I don’t know if a ZTC would even work with the FTZ between it and the lens. We’ve seen reviews and videos of people using an adapted 500PF with a TC...and I assume that was an F TC...but no idea really.

I have read and seen shots from folks stacking the TCs so it works. I’d still have concerns on the mechanical longevity of such a stack though.

 

[BillW]

DPReview TV released their video review of the Z7ii this morning, you might want to check it out. In a nutshell they still praise the sensor but there are a few things to note as an action camera.
...

2. the other comment they made is that the second card slot not being xqd, it is slower and slows the camera down if you use it for redundancy (and I assume for overflow as well). I wonder if the D850 has the same issue.

it will be interesting to see reviews by true wildlife photographers (Steve...) but I wouldn’t rush quite yet based on their initial comments

The second slot in a D850 or D500 is also an SD slot and raises the same issue. When using very fast SD cards, I have not found it to be a big issue. But I think it would be more of a problem if you used slow SD cards. I don't think the issue comes up in overflow mode until you are actually writing to the SD slot.

 

[FB101]

The second slot in a D850 or D500 is also an SD slot and raises the same issue. When using very fast SD cards, I have not found it to be a big issue. But I think it would be more of a problem if you used slow SD cards. I don't think the issue comes up in overflow mode until you are actually writing to the SD slot.

Thanks for the clarification. I now need to change my settings on the D500