Z8 or Z6iii as Z7 Replacement?

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

S

stlsailor

Member
Member's gallery
I've been planning a Z8 as a replacement for my Z7. Now the Z6iii has me wondering. I shoot mostly landscape, travel, and macro, but am starting to get into wildlife. I like some of the features of the Z6iii but don't really want to go back to 24MP. But if I did, I'm not sure what I'd be missing from not getting a Z8.
  • If you shoot a Z 8, what features/capabilities have proved to be useful enough that you'd choose it again over the Z 6 III?
  • Or, what do you see in the Z 6 III that would justify going back to a 24mp camera for landscape?
  • If you liked the size/weight of a Z6/Z7, then moved to a Z 8, were you satisfied with those characteristics of the Z 8?
 
Member's gallery
The additional resolution of the Z8 over the Z6iii for landscape is a main reason I've been leaning towards it. Glad you confirmed that's important for wildlife as well.
Jack McEwan said:
If you want to get into wildlife get the Z8 as the added resolution will prove valuable when cropping images. I have no experience with the Z6 III, but I’ve been shooting with a Z8 for over a year and in many respects prefer it to my Z9.
Click to expand...
I was looking to maintain the resolution of the Z7 for landscape shots; glad to know it's important for wildlife as well.
 
Member's gallery
The Z8 is the higher performing camera in most aspects. The Z6iii is smaller and lighter, about the same as your Z7. The Z8 will be larger, closer to a D500 size. I think the extra resolution is nice but I haven’t had issues with 24MP cameras being too few. I would prefer the Z8 in your case but I would probably be satisfied with the Z6iii.
 
Member's gallery
For wildlife the z8/9 is far more effective. You need the extra megapixels sometimes because you can crop for more reach. Reach issues come up all the time with wildlife because you can’t always fill the frame.
 
Member's gallery
Personally I used to shoot the D5 (and the D500)
Didn’t use the D500 much because I needed the best lowlight performance so sold it and bought a second D5.
Allways loved the output of the D5, nowadays I shoot Canon and love the leeway of the 45 MP sensor.
I wouldn’t revert to a lower resolution anymore.
(You figured that out already;))
 
Member's gallery
stlsailor said:
I've been planning a Z8 as a replacement for my Z7. Now the Z6iii has me wondering. I shoot mostly landscape, travel, and macro, but am starting to get into wildlife. I like some of the features of the Z6iii but don't really want to go back to 24MP. But if I did, I'm not sure what I'd be missing from not getting a Z8.
  • If you shoot a Z 8, what features/capabilities have proved to be useful enough that you'd choose it again over the Z 6 III?
  • Or, what do you see in the Z 6 III that would justify going back to a 24mp camera for landscape?
  • If you liked the size/weight of a Z6/Z7, then moved to a Z 8, were you satisfied with those characteristics of the Z 8?
Click to expand...
It's a tough call. I have a Z8 and Z6iii right now. I've been shooting for two days in Acadia with only the Z6iii and have not missed the Z8 at all. I already sold my Z7ii in favor of the Z8/Z6iii combination.

My first year with the Z6 I shot it over the D850 99% of the time - only using the D850 when shooting two camera. Even trips to landscape locations like Alabama Hills did not push me to a D850. I like the higher resolution, but there is no free lunch.

The downside of the Z8 is the files are larger, and that has implications when it comes to writing and processing files. Larger files take more time and fill the buffer and card more quickly. Smaller files allow faster frame rates, faster processing, and virtually immediate clearing of the buffer between bursts.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
It's a tough call. I have a Z8 and Z6iii right now. I've been shooting for two days in Acadia with only the Z6iii and have not missed the Z8 at all. I already sold my Z7ii in favor of the Z8/Z6iii combination.

My first year with the Z6 I shot it over the D850 99% of the time - only using the D850 when shooting two camera. Even trips to landscape locations like Alabama Hills did not push me to a D850. I like the higher resolution, but there is no free lunch.

The downside of the Z8 is the files are larger, and that has implications when it comes to writing and processing files. Larger files take more time and fill the buffer and card more quickly. Smaller files allow faster frame rates, faster processing, and virtually immediate clearing of the buffer between bursts.
Click to expand...
It's certainly been a tough call for me. The Z8 hasn't arrived yet, and I'm still second-guessing . I like the smaller form factor of the Z7 and when I finally held a friend's Z8 a couple of days ago, it was borderline. I'd not expect trouble adapting to it, but whether I will like it as much remains to be seen.

I'm surprised to hear that you shot the Z6 over the D850 back then even for landscapes. That's causing me to think. No free lunch makes me wonder what tradeoffs I've overlooked, even for landscape. For wildlife I've heard two schools of thought. One is you definitely want more pixels for cropping. The other is that you don't need them. Given your wildlife experience and what you're seeing now with the Z6iii, do you anticipate you might take a Z6iii or a Z8/Z9 much/most of the time? Considering resolution, but also other capabilities in the camera as well.

I did hear on one of the videos I watched that the Z6iii was not buffer limited. But I've had the impression that the Z8 was not either for practical purposes. That would make sense to me as the Z6iii has a partially stacked sensor but with smaller files, while the Z8 has a stacked sensor with larger files, if my thinking is right on that.
 
Member's gallery
From my experience two of the big draws of the Z 8 are that it’s physical larger than the smaller Z bodies and the higher resolution effectively turns it into a Z500 with the push of a button.

I have big hands and the 6 and 7 just feel cramped. I had a D7200 with a 200-500 and a Kirk collar as my wildlife kit. I had to go back to the OEM collar because my fingers wouldn’t fit between the collar and the camera grip.

The second is the resolution combined with the EVF makes it much easier to crop in camera. It is essentially a D850 and a D500 in one body. I realize I can shoot at 46 and crop to 20. But seeing the DX crop in the VF makes visualization much easier.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I would say for wildlife, macro etc. the z6iii would be excellent and fewer pixels may give you slightly better low light performance but if you are serious about wildlife the z8 is a better option. It is fast accurate and allows getting closer with more pixels. I have tow z8s and would consider a z6iii. The minute you put on sizable glass the smaller camera can be a detriment. The z8 is sizable but not too heavy.
 
Member's gallery
stlsailor said:
I've been planning a Z8 as a replacement for my Z7. Now the Z6iii has me wondering. I shoot mostly landscape, travel, and macro, but am starting to get into wildlife. I like some of the features of the Z6iii but don't really want to go back to 24MP. But if I did, I'm not sure what I'd be missing from not getting a Z8.
  • If you shoot a Z 8, what features/capabilities have proved to be useful enough that you'd choose it again over the Z 6 III?
  • Or, what do you see in the Z 6 III that would justify going back to a 24mp camera for landscape?
  • If you liked the size/weight of a Z6/Z7, then moved to a Z 8, were you satisfied with those characteristics of the Z 8?
Click to expand...
The Z6iii is a great camera but its not a Z8.
For Landscape the Z7 would be more suitable (unless your images are just for the internet) .. 🦘
 
Member's gallery
Captain Spaulding said:
From my experience two of the big draws of the Z 8 are that it’s physical larger than the smaller Z bodies and the higher resolution effectively turns it into a Z500 with the push of a button.

I have big hands and the 6 and 7 just feel cramped. I had a D7200 with a 200-500 and a Kirk collar as my wildlife kit. I had to go back to the OEM collar because my fingers wouldn’t fit between the collar and the camera grip.

The second is the resolution combined with the EVF makes it much easier to crop in camera. It is essentially a D850 and a D500 in one body. I realize I can shoot at 46 and crop to 20. But seeing the DX crop in the VF makes visualization much easier.
Click to expand...
I can see that. I've got smaller hands and when I held a D850 a few years back I didn't like it. I'm glad I didn't since it propelled my move into mirrorless. But that experience made me leery of the Z8 until I handled one. It seems to be an acceptable size for me even if not exactly optimal. I've not shot in DX mode because I haven't shot that much wildlife. But I can see for small birds, at least, it would be useful.
 
Member's gallery
macwalter said:
I would say for wildlife, macro etc. the z6iii would be excellent and fewer pixels may give you slightly better low light performance but if you are serious about wildlife the z8 is a better option. It is fast accurate and allows getting closer with more pixels. I have tow z8s and would consider a z6iii. The minute you put on sizable glass the smaller camera can be a detriment. The z8 is sizable but not too heavy.
Click to expand...
You're right on to why I asked this. I read that the Z6iii is better in lower light, though only slightly. I read that it also now has the focus modes of the Z8. That did make me curious as to the advantages of the Z8 at a substantially higher price. I'm still not sure I can answer that question with much specificity, but I did order the Z8. It's one thing that surprises me a bit that Nikon equipped the Z6iii as well as they did for the price. Eric's post above hit on some of the things that ran through my mind, and to an extent till do even after pulling the trigger. But then the Z8 hasn't arrived yet, either.
 
Member's gallery
I would think you will like it but we all have our preferences. I am totally into action and fast pace and coming from the d500-850( with the grip) I was amazed at how much easier it was to get onto quick flying birds etc. with the subject detection hi frame rate,no black out etc. when I had to send my z8 in to get it serviced I went out and shot with the d850, it was like a dinosaur! I never used it again and I loved that thing for years. I sold it and all my other dslr bodies and f mount glass and have no regrets. The 500of was the last to go but the 600 of is just as sharp, feels better without the FTZ adapter and gives you an extra 100mm for only a third of a stop less light. Not cheap but worth it imop. I have used any other z bodies except the z9 ,but that thing is a beast an overkill for me. I have no interest in going to fewer pixels and wouldn’t mind a few more. Newer CPUs and SSD hard drives can easily handle the files.
 
Member's gallery
macwalter said:
I would think you will like it but we all have our preferences. I am totally into action and fast pace and coming from the d500-850( with the grip) I was amazed at how much easier it was to get onto quick flying birds etc. with the subject detection hi frame rate,no black out etc. when I had to send my z8 in to get it serviced I went out and shot with the d850, it was like a dinosaur! I never used it again and I loved that thing for years. I sold it and all my other dslr bodies and f mount glass and have no regrets. The 500of was the last to go but the 600 of is just as sharp, feels better without the FTZ adapter and gives you an extra 100mm for only a third of a stop less light. Not cheap but worth it imop. I have used any other z bodies except the z9 ,but that thing is a beast an overkill for me. I have no interest in going to fewer pixels and wouldn’t mind a few more. Newer CPUs and SSD hard drives can easily handle the files.
Click to expand...
Interesting comparison between the D850 and the Z8. I'm expecting to like the Z8. I've read almost no one who didn't. The only wildlife lens I have at present is the 400mm f/4.5. Eventually I expect to add a longer lens. I've had no problems with files on my Z7, but then I have seldom shot long bursts so the volume of files is smaller. It sounds like that's not a concern.
 
Member's gallery
I have that lens and love it. It works well with the 1.4tc as well. Sometimes more reach helps and the step higher is a 600mm option. Aside from exotics you have two options. 180-600mm or the 600pf. The zoom is way less money, heavier but pretty sharp. I have heard it doesn’t do so well with a tc. Then you have the 600 pf. This lens is slightly bigger than the 400 f4.5 but virtually identical in its use. Also the 1.4tc works great so you can get 840mm just realize you need good light at f9. That is the way I went As I also have the 100-400 which is an excellent general use lens that will close focus to 3ft and can use the 1.4tc with decent results tho the 400 f4.5 is better in this regard.
 
Member's gallery
macwalter said:
I would think you will like it but we all have our preferences. I am totally into action and fast pace and coming from the d500-850( with the grip) I was amazed at how much easier it was to get onto quick flying birds etc. with the subject detection hi frame rate,no black out etc. when I had to send my z8 in to get it serviced I went out and shot with the d850, it was like a dinosaur! I never used it again and I loved that thing for years. I sold it and all my other dslr bodies and f mount glass and have no regrets. The 500of was the last to go but the 600 of is just as sharp, feels better without the FTZ adapter and gives you an extra 100mm for only a third of a stop less light. Not cheap but worth it imop. I have used any other z bodies except the z9 ,but that thing is a beast an overkill for me. I have no interest in going to fewer pixels and wouldn’t mind a few more. Newer CPUs and SSD hard drives can easily handle the files.
Click to expand...
I hung onto my D750 when I bought the Z8 thinking it would serve as a backup with the 24-85. A couple of weeks ago I picked up the 750/24-85 combo and had the same reaction. The camera is very lightly used but it just felt old. Like me. Old.

I started the process of selling it the next day.
 
Member's gallery
macwalter said:
I have that lens and love it. It works well with the 1.4tc as well. Sometimes more reach helps and the step higher is a 600mm option. Aside from exotics you have two options. 180-600mm or the 600pf. The zoom is way less money, heavier but pretty sharp. I have heard it doesn’t do so well with a tc. Then you have the 600 pf. This lens is slightly bigger than the 400 f4.5 but virtually identical in its use. Also the 1.4tc works great so you can get 840mm just realize you need good light at f9. That is the way I went As I also have the 100-400 which is an excellent general use lens that will close focus to 3ft and can use the 1.4tc with decent results tho the 400 f4.5 is better in this regard.
Click to expand...
I recently got the 400mm f/4.5 (after debating between it and the 100-400) and am planning to put it to some good use soon. Haven't given much thought to what's next, as learning the Z8 will take some time from what everyone says. May depend on what the budget allows then, but will at some point want to pick up something longer.
 
Member's gallery
Unless you need a 24mp sensor for low light performance, the Z8 is the natural upgrade from the Z7 or Z7II. The Z8 is superior in every way over the Z7/7II and the Z6 other than low light performance because of the higher mp sensor. Only the Z9 is a no compromise camera, the Z8 is a very close 2nd
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I got the 100-400 first as it was more versatile overall and took it to Brazil where I used it for a birding trip almost exclusively. On one trip to a jungle tower I used the 500pf with the 1.4tciii. I used the zoom with the 1.4tc as well and it did a good job. My next trip to Ecuador I got the 400 f4.5 and used it also with the 1.4tc and it did an even better job. It’s nice having better low light capabilities and I will keep that lens for that reason. I will say the 600pf is sharper wide open and I find myself using it more often now that I have it. I have read up on the exotic glass with built in TCs and although they are certainly more convenient, they are not sharper than adding one after, but these lenses being f4 or 2.8 will do better with a TC due to the faster aperture. The 400 f4.5 is not as sharp wide open so it is not quite as good with a TC but I have used it with both the 1.4 and 2 and it gave me good results. The 600pf is better with the 1.4 and still quite sharp. It’s tough to handhold 1200mm using the 2x at f13 but in theory it can be done. I handhold and though not a professional I am very picky about good detail and have been doing it a long time. The big exotics are too expensive and big for me. No doubt they are better but the difference is less than you might think in many cases.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for those thoughts. I had seen my possible next lenses as being either the 100-400, 180-600, or 600. The 100-400 was on the radar because when being around the coast I've gotten some shots that required less than 400 with my 70-200, so my thought was it would offer flexibility. The 180-600 because it gave me both reach and flexibility relatively inexpensively in what I've heard is a nice lens, though giving up something in sharpness for it. The 600, because it seemed to offer the best choice for more reach, budget permitting. You make a good case for the 600 that is causing me to think. As to the big exotics, I have never thought they made sense for me given the price and that I will keep shooting the things I always have in addition to wildlife. Helpful comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top