Z8 or Z6iii as Z7 Replacement?

[macwalter]

I am 76 in good health but not super strong. I have used both the Tamron 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500 and found both to be a bit too bulky for me to handle comfortably over the course of a day. I find the 100-400 to be adequate when I feel the need for a zoom but no doubt there are times when doing wildlife with the 600mm and a big bird like a great blue heron comes close, I can only enjoy its passing. The 100-400 is quite sharp very fast for BIF and can get these larger guys quite well. There is always compromise

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Don’t forget, if a once in a lifetime scene shows itself and you are strapped for focal length, that button you programmed “switch DX FX” will add x.5 your lens. It’ll only be 20MP, but I’ve seen some exceptional images from D500s.

 

[macwalter]

You get the same reach full frame vs DX mode and if your once in a lifetime decides to bolt you have a better chance grabbing a BIF shot if you have the full frame. DX mode gives you nothing unless you can’t acquire focus otherwise. It’s the same number of pixels on the subject either way. I have a button programmed to go to it on those rare occasions I feel the need. DX mode can make a small subject easier to see so for some that may work better for them. I prefer more working room but that’s just my opinion. I shot DX for years and when I got the d850 and went full frame I never looked back. That’s why for me the z6iii makes no sense unless you need to save money and don’t plan to do a lot of wildlife. Not only do you lose a bit of light with a DX sensor but also working room in the frame. The only way I could see a z6iii being better would be in low light high iso for landscape etc. and then you would likely use a tripod and could lower the shutter speed for better IQ. I may be wrong about this as it is not something I do. I do wonder if the amount of light is affected when you switch to DX mode on a full frame camera.

 

[stlsailor]

Don’t forget, if a once in a lifetime scene shows itself and you are strapped for focal length, that button you programmed “switch DX FX” will add x.5 your lens. It’ll only be 20MP, but I’ve seen some exceptional images from D500s.

You get the same reach full frame vs DX mode and if your once in a lifetime decides to bolt you have a better chance grabbing a BIF shot if you have the full frame. DX mode gives you nothing unless you can’t acquire focus otherwise. It’s the same number of pixels on the subject either way. I have a button programmed to go to it on those rare occasions I feel the need. DX mode can make a small subject easier to see so for some that may work better for them. I prefer more working room but that’s just my opinion. I shot DX for years and when I got the d850 and went full frame I never looked back. That’s why for me the z6iii makes no sense unless you need to save money and don’t plan to do a lot of wildlife. Not only do you lose a bit of light with a DX sensor but also working room in the frame. The only way I could see a z6iii being better would be in low light high iso for landscape etc. and then you would likely use a tripod and could lower the shutter speed for better IQ. I may be wrong about this as it is not something I do. I do wonder if the amount of light is affected when you switch to DX mode on a full frame camera.

The ideas that a Z8 for its extra resolution and then shoot in DX mode seem not to mesh with each other. I got some good images with my D750, so I agree that you can get good images with fewer MPs. But to plan to do that seems to contradict the advice for getting a Z8 over a Z6iii. From all I read, as said above, it's the same number of pixels either way. My understanding is that a person may want to shoot DX mode because (1) the image is larger in the viewfinder and so easier to see, again as mentioned above, (2) you crop the edges which are the least sharp. You may not want to because (1) you have more flexibility in where you crop, (2) you may be able to track a BIF better. There are likely other reasons I don't know. All in all, I'd shoot DX if I needed to, but I'm having trouble seeing very many instances where I'd need to. Yet I read that a lot of people like to shoot wildlife in DX mode. I must be missing something.

 

[stlsailor]

I am 76 in good health but not super strong. I have used both the Tamron 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500 and found both to be a bit too bulky for me to handle comfortably over the course of a day. I find the 100-400 to be adequate when I feel the need for a zoom but no doubt there are times when doing wildlife with the 600mm and a big bird like a great blue heron comes close, I can only enjoy its passing. The 100-400 is quite sharp very fast for BIF and can get these larger guys quite well. There is always compromise

My situation is somewhat similar and weight is one of my concerns about the 180-600. I debated a while before choosing the 400 over the 100-400 (the 180-600 was not available) and time will tell if that works out best or not. I'm anxious to get out and use it. I want to do that and see what I'm getting before I look too seriously at a next lens. I've gotten some nice images with my 70-200+TC even on my Z7, so I'm expecting to up that with the z8 and the 400mm. Then I can see whether a next step is what I want. Yes, there are always compromises.

 

[mjais]

I am new to the Z system and recently bought a Z8 and six lenses. I have no prior experience with a Z6 or Z7 (or version 2 of these).

The Z6 III was announced a few days after I bought the Z8.

I would always prefer the Z8 because I like to have more pixels (for landscape, cropping in wildlife) and I like the stacked sensor.
Also, as of today, to my best knowledge, the Z6 III does not (yet?) have Bird AF.

But there are a lot of great reviews for the Z6 III and I could have taken all of my pictures so far also with a Z6 III as well.
I plan do to a lot of BiF, so I guess the advantages of the Z8 will pay off then.

I really like the Z8, it's a bit daunting a first given all the features it has, but so far I am very happy with my purchase.
The Z8 (and the 6.3/800PF) were the main reason, I chose Nikon.

 

[macwalter]

The ideas that a Z8 for its extra resolution and then shoot in DX mode seem not to mesh with each other. I got some good images with my D750, so I agree that you can get good images with fewer MPs. But to plan to do that seems to contradict the advice for getting a Z8 over a Z6iii. From all I read, as said above, it's the same number of pixels either way. My understanding is that a person may want to shoot DX mode because (1) the image is larger in the viewfinder and so easier to see, again as mentioned above, (2) you crop the edges which are the least sharp. You may not want to because (1) you have more flexibility in where you crop, (2) you may be able to track a BIF better. There are likely other reasons I don't know. All in all, I'd shoot DX if I needed to, but I'm having trouble seeing very many instances where I'd need to. Yet I read that a lot of people like to shoot wildlife in DX mode. I must be missing something.

I am with you on this. The only time I go to DX is on a small bird in dense undergrowth and DX allows for better subject acquisition. I think some like to save HD space but I am aggressive about deleting photos I know I will never get to and it’s rare I have regrets about it. You can get excellent photos with pretty much any camera. I shoot wildlife mainly and like space for things like wing position and it’s more likely to clip wings with DX than FX. I am sure the z6iii will prove to be excellent just not for me. I like having 2 z8s both programmed the same way and make adjustments as desired on the fly.

 

[Woodpecker]

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?

1. The entire user experience with the Z8 was/is outstanding. Of all the things I would prioritize the AF capabilties, the versatilitiy and flexibility around customizing the control elements and partly also the resolution in combination with the stacked sensor.
2. Cropping can be often avoided by doing the right things in the right way and if I continue working on myself I might get better with that. Some of my best shots were made with 16,2 MP in the days with my D4s. Especially for landscape I am not sure, because it very much depends what you shoot these landscapes for.
   One thing I definitely would fancy are the user modes of the Z6 III.
3. Although these would have been available with Z6 (II) and Z7(II) already at this time switching to mirrorless was not an option to me. Thus I never owned aZ6 (II) or Z7 (II) and can'T answer question 3

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.

I use both the 100-400 and the 180-600, first of all because I like the flexibility with zooms. Another argument ist the MFD that is usually better with zooms compared to long primes. If I have to care for maximum quality I use the 100-400 al the way up to app. 350mm, because it takes a dip in resolution at the long end - although still being good at 400mm. From 350mm upwards I use the 180-600. The 100-400 is my "long pseudo macro", because is has low MFD and "replaces" my old 200mm f4 D Micro that refused to work with the Z cameras. For the "hardcore stuff" I use a 500 f4G with TC14 or even TC17 on the Z8 and the dinosaur works great, even with the TC17, that was know not to provide good performance with this lens on DSLRs due to their AF limitations.

If you think of the long end it might be worthwhile taking a closer look to F-mount super primes which can be purchased for good price these days and still provide excellent performance with an FTZ for a fraction of the price of Z lenses. The other part of the price might have to be payed not in € or $, but in carrying power - not so much for E seriens lenses.

 

[macwalter]

The older f4 primes can be gotten quite cheaply these days but boy are they heavy. You have to use a tripod or monopod with those guys. I have a freind who has the last 600mm f4 f mount and it is a great lens but it is still a beast to carry around. I tend to prefer primes myself but the 100-400 is great with such a close MFD.

 

[Woodpecker]

The older f4 primes can be gotten quite cheaply these days but boy are they heavy. You have to use a tripod or monopod with those guys. I have a freind who has the last 600mm f4 f mount and it is a great lens but it is still a beast to carry around. I tend to prefer primes myself but the 100-400 is great with such a close MFD.

Yup, that's right. And that's the reason why I like the 100-400 and the 180-600 so much for walking around.
But if you need to catch enough light under difficult conditions you need a big hole at the front end and then there is no alternative to the big guns.

I am not quite as old but starting to feel the limitations coming up for other reasons. This is one of the reasons why I dream of replacing my big old prime with a Z 400 TC. It is a dream of a lens in terms of IQ and at the same time so light that a combination of Z8 plus another TC would be light enough to pack it on my "travel animal lens" with a Flexshooter Mini and still stay about 50% clear of the load limit. That said, in this case the problem is not the age, it's the money .

 

[macwalter]

Yup, that's right. And that's the reason why I like the 100-400 and the 180-600 so much for walking around.
But if you need to catch enough light under difficult conditions you need a big hole at the front end and then there is no alternative to the big guns.

I am not quite as old but starting to feel the limitations coming up for other reasons. This is one of the reasons why I dream of replacing my big old prime with a Z 400 TC. It is a dream of a lens in terms of IQ and at the same time so light that a combination of Z8 plus another TC would be light enough to pack it on my "travel animal lens" with a Flexshooter Mini and still stay about 50% clear of the load limit. That said, in this case the problem is not the age, it's the money .

Are you meaning the z600f4tc or the z400f2.8tc. Either is great but beyond my means. I have a marriage to be concerned about! I do love the mid grade z glass. The 400 and 600mm primes. They work great and are so light. A tc combo would be divine though.

 

[Woodpecker]

Are you meaning the z600f4tc or the z400f2.8tc. Either is great but beyond my means. I have a marriage to be concerned about! I do love the mid grade z glass. The 400 and 600mm primes. They work great and are so light. A tc combo would be divine though.

I mean the Z 400 f2.8, which is certainly bigger and heavier than the smaller siblings, but I agree that thesa are very light and easy to handle - even more than the 180-600.
The big prime is nothing I use very often, but a good friend of mine has the privilege to live right inside a NP here and whenever I visit him or we travel together it is time for the big one. Today it's still my old 500 f4 and compared to this the z400 f2.8 is about 1 kg less !

All the best for the marriage

 

[macwalter]

I mean the Z 400 f2.8, which is certainly bigger and heavier than the smaller siblings, but I agree that thesa are very light and easy to handle - even more than the 180-600.
The big prime is nothing I use very often, but a good friend of mine has the privilege to live right inside a NP here and whenever I visit him or we travel together it is time for the big one. Today it's still my old 500 f4 and compared to this the z400 f2.8 is about 1 kg less !

All the best for the marriage

We are doing well! She was resistant when I decided to go mirrorless but she is an excellent photographer herself and while only using an iPhone these days she loves my efforts and when I showed her how capable the new z system was she backed off. Even the 5k 600mm pf was allowed after a while. But I would have to start earning income with photos to justify the increase in cost for a big prime.
if it were me I would go for the 600mmf4tc as I think 600mm is the sweet spot for birds and most wildlife. With f4 you can still do quite well in low light. I find 400mm is often a bit too short and have to crop a lot more than is ideal. I shot at this range for years then went to 500mm with the pf lens without a tc. I now have both the 400f4.5 and the 600pf. Both are good lenses and handle the ztcs well.

 

[Woodpecker]

We are doing well! She was resistant when I decided to go mirrorless but she is an excellent photographer herself and while only using an iPhone these days she loves my efforts and when I showed her how capable the new z system was she backed off. Even the 5k 600mm pf was allowed after a while. But I would have to start earning income with photos to justify the increase in cost for a big prime.
if it were me I would go for the 600mmf4tc as I think 600mm is the sweet spot for birds and most wildlife. With f4 you can still do quite well in low light. I find 400mm is often a bit too short and have to crop a lot more than is ideal. I shot at this range for years then went to 500mm with the pf lens without a tc. I now have both the 400f4.5 and the 600pf. Both are good lenses and handle the ztcs well.

Maybe I have to rethink my wishlist. After spending ages with the f8 limigtations on DSLR AF I am probably too hesitant to use TC's when they get me to f8 and slower - forgetting about the noise level in low light for a while. Somebody shared an example image that was taken with an adapted 500PF plus TC20E III. It's not low light but I think they are great

https://bcgforums.com/threads/if-you-had-to-choose-between-d500-z8-500pf.36804/post-412187

If the time comes and I have the money for one of the big Z's the difference from 400 to 600 shouldn't make a big difference anymore

 

[macwalter]

I have used both the 1.4tc and 2x tc on both the 400/4.5 and the 600pf. The 1.4 works great on both, f6.3 on the 400 which I used so much it almost lived on that lens til I got the 600pf which is sharpest wide open making it even better at that middle distance. The 600pf works great with the 1.4 but you are a f9 so you need decent light though less than you would think. I used the 2x on the 400 even though this combo is not recommended and I would agree with that recommendation but in good light you can get good shots at 800mm f9. However once again the 600pf with the 1.4 at 840mm at f9 is better by quite a bit. You really have to watch CA on the 400mm with TCs, this is much less of an issue with the 600/1.4tc. I have used the 2x on the 600mm but I handhold and 1200mm at f13 is a stretch even for mirrorless. I held off on the 600pf for a year because it wasn’t an f5.6 but Steve convinced me that it was worth selling my beloved 500pf and getting it. It is just as sharp maybe even better in the corners and handles great. I did not like the FTZ adapter with the 500pf,somehow it just didnt feel as good to me. I also love the control rings on the z glass, very useful. For me having a decent option for 840mm is well worth it. Now that I have the 600pf along with the 400 and two z8s I feel little need for the 2xTC but the 1.4 is with me at all times, just not living on the lens so much.

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

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?

Well. I have a Z9 and Z6iii. Why did I get the latter. You said -

I shoot mostly landscape, travel, and macro, but am starting to get into wildlife

That's why, not in that order.
For landscape I will just say with Pixel Shift you can put a checkbox next Landscape.
For travel, the Z6iii is exactly what I had hoped - smaller, but big enough for your bottom finger to grab the grip with a wildlife lens on it. I have the 600 PF. Agree with you the 180-600 is too heavy. The SD card slot makes it much easier for sharing with friends and social. My own high ISO and what I have seen from others is fantastic.
I don't print so the 24mp is plenty.
Some are saying it will get Bird detection, but if not ok. Watch the Wild Alaska video; he does fine with it, backing up what Steve said.
The $1,000 savings will get you a 24-120 which is a great travel lens.
IF you needed the MP for shooting far off or small wildlife the Z8 makes more sense but that's not your use case.

Hope that helps some.

 

[stlsailor]

For landscape I will just say with Pixel Shift you can put a checkbox next Landscape.
For travel, the Z6iii is exactly what I had hoped - smaller, but big enough for your bottom finger to grab the grip with a wildlife lens on it. I have the 600 PF. Agree with you the 180-600 is too heavy. The SD card slot makes it much easier for sharing with friends and social. My own high ISO and what I have seen from others is fantastic.
I don't print so the 24mp is plenty.
Some are saying it will get Bird detection, but if not ok. Watch the Wild Alaska video; he does fine with it, backing up what Steve said.
The $1,000 savings will get you a 24-120 which is a great travel lens.
IF you needed the MP for shooting far off or small wildlife the Z8 makes more sense but that's not your use case.

Hope that helps some.

Good points, and good logic.

 

[StarTracker50]

Wildlife? Z8.

 

[EricBowles]

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.

I do think the Z8 is slightly better for subjects like wildlife and landscapes. It does render slightly more detail than a 24 MP Z6iii or others of similar resolution. But that's not the only consideration, and the Z6iii is perfectly fine 95% of the time as a primary camera, and when it is not the primary camera the gap behind the Z8 is small enough that it makes little difference. The smaller file size of the Z6iii allows longer bursts and faster frame rates. The dynamic range of the Z8 and Z6iii is almost exactly the same, but if you crop one or the other you lose dynamic range. The base ISO 64 favors the Z8, but at ISO 100 and higher they are virtually the same.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

For my wildlife photography, subjects are generally large in the frame - even songbirds - without cropping much beyond DX proportions. When I'm cropping deeper, the photo is for web use or identification and does not need a large file from the Z8. Pre-release capture on the Z6iii delivers larger full sized JPEG files at 60 fps rather than 30 fps with the Z8. Slow motion 240p video is available uncropped with the Z6iii, while the Z8 provides 8k video.

I have previously printed large landscapes from the Z6, and the resolution is fine to a 16x24 print without any material upsizing. If needed, we have enhanced resolution in Lightroom, Photoshop, or with Topaz Photo AI or Gigapixel AI. We can easily double the size of the print to a 32x48 print and view it at arm's length. Furthermore, we have Pixel Shift in the Z6iii and Z8 for static subjects that need less noise or higher resolution.

The Z9 is the first Nikon flagship image that has 46 MP. Earlier flagship cameras for sports and journalism have all peaked at 24 MP because the file size is large enough to support almost everything that is needed. I do think the Z8 is a better camera than the Z6iii, but in terms of practical differences, there is probably more you can do with a Z6iii that can't be done with a Z8 than vice versa.

 

[stlsailor]

I do think the Z8 is slightly better for subjects like wildlife and landscapes. It does render slightly more detail than a 24 MP Z6iii or others of similar resolution. But that's not the only consideration, and the Z6iii is perfectly fine 95% of the time as a primary camera, and when it is not the primary camera the gap behind the Z8 is small enough that it makes little difference. The smaller file size of the Z6iii allows longer bursts and faster frame rates. The dynamic range of the Z8 and Z6iii is almost exactly the same, but if you crop one or the other you lose dynamic range. The base ISO 64 favors the Z8, but at ISO 100 and higher they are virtually the same.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

The Z8 arrived yesterday. Haven't had time to set it up yet so it's still hard not to second-guess. The timing of the Z6iii release and the end of the Z8 sale required a quick decision. The Z6iii might free funds for another lens, but then no one disputes the Z8 is a great camera. I'm beginning to think it's like choosing between apple and cherry pie. You get something and lose something each way. The dynamic range chart is interesting.

For my wildlife photography, subjects are generally large in the frame - even songbirds - without cropping much beyond DX proportions. When I'm cropping deeper, the photo is for web use or identification and does not need a large file from the Z8. Pre-release capture on the Z6iii delivers larger full sized JPEG files at 60 fps rather than 30 fps with the Z8. Slow motion 240p video is available uncropped with the Z6iii, while the Z8 provides 8k video.

I'm assuming you're using a long lens here much of the time. Until I recently picked up the 400 f/4.5 my longest lens was the 70-200 f/2.8 so reach has been an issue even though I've gotten some good wildlife shots with it. I tend to think if one has to choose 8K might be more advantageous over the long haul than 60fps, but I don't have enough experience with video to make that call. It's an interesting question.

I have previously printed large landscapes from the Z6, and the resolution is fine to a 16x24 print without any material upsizing. If needed, we have enhanced resolution in Lightroom, Photoshop, or with Topaz Photo AI or Gigapixel AI. We can easily double the size of the print to a 32x48 print and view it at arm's length. Furthermore, we have Pixel Shift in the Z6iii and Z8 for static subjects that need less noise or higher resolution.

I tend to overlook that enhanced resolution has changed the game a lot. That despite the fact that I use it quite a bit for old scanned photos.

The Z9 is the first Nikon flagship image that has 46 MP. Earlier flagship cameras for sports and journalism have all peaked at 24 MP because the file size is large enough to support almost everything that is needed. I do think the Z8 is a better camera than the Z6iii, but in terms of practical differences, there is probably more you can do with a Z6iii that can't be done with a Z8 than vice versa.

I think the last sentence summarizes why the decision has been so difficult. Were I to do it over, I think I might lean in favor of the Z6iii and use the saved funds towards a 600mm lens. Then again I really don't want to give up the Z8 now that I've got it in hand.

Thanks for a very thoughtful reply.

 

[wotan1]

If you went Z7 your purchase already indicates a preference for higher megapixel cameras.

While it is true that if you are able to fill the frame, a 24 MP camera will produce completely satisfactory results for anything that is intended for the screen or printed on anything short of poster size, for anything (such as wildlife) when you are not able to fill the frame, the higher megapixel camera especially when combined with a high IQ (usually prime) lens allows you to crop significantly and maintain fine detail. In this respect a 24 mp camera no matter how good cannot equal what the higher mp camera can do for you.

The Z7ii was my first mirrorless camera. I can tell you unequivocally that the Z8 is head and shoulders above any Z7 in performance. I still have my Z7ii but will only use it for simple stuff and usually only on pinpoint focus..

I thoroughly understand about the need for authority for major purchases. I have been married a long time and really want to stay that way. That means accepting orders from She Who Must Be Obeyed on the matter of spending. Not that I don't have selective hearing and offer passive resistance, Sometimes it is better to repent and apologize after.

The other issue is lens choice. Having made my own mistakes, I caution care in choice of longer lenses. Try to think long term and decide where you want to go and build up to it gradually. Certain lenses work well in combination, others are too close together.

Just as with camera bodies, a less sharp Z lens will work just fine for most purposes if you can fill the frame. But if you are going to have to reach and rely on dx or crop to make up the difference then the higher IQ lenses will do more for you. Thom Hogan does an excellent job of evaluating Z lenses and he has lists of which lenses work best in certain focal lengths. That is a good place to start.

You don't need to spend $14k or more on a lens to get high IQ. Most of the Z mount lenses are superior to F mounts. While not cheap some are quite reasonable and convenient compared to the super expensive primes. Thom Hogan did a review of Z telephoto lenses options:

Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount | Thom Hogan

What's the best telephoto option for a Z camera at 200-800mm?

www.zsystemuser.com

 

[macwalter]

Personally I don’t think you can go wrong either way. I have friends shooting Canon DSLRs with lower pixel count. Some are professionals. I only shoot raw so the pre-release function is not something I can do and there is no doubt in my mind that having more pixels is an advantage for wildlife photography. The z6iii has a mechanical shutter option and supposedly that can give you slightly better IQ but the difference is small. The z8 is an action camera plain and simple and if you are shooting static subjects and dont need to get close get the z6iii by all means. However if BIF etc. are your thing the z8 is the way to go. It has excellent buffer and frame rate and you have plenty of speed.

 

[Don_Logan]

Z8....it's a workhorse with minimal compromise beyond size and weight in certain situations.

 

[macwalter]

I love the z8 and don’t feel the need for another camera until they come out with an updated version then we’ll see. If it had the pre release feature in raw and maybe a little more frame rate. I would mind 30fps but it’s not critical. Also I would mind 50mps or even 60.

 

[stlsailor]

The other issue is lens choice. Having made my own mistakes, I caution care in choice of longer lenses. Try to think long term and decide where you want to go and build up to it gradually. Certain lenses work well in combination, others are too close together.

Just as with camera bodies, a less sharp Z lens will work just fine for most purposes if you can fill the frame. But if you are going to have to reach and rely on dx or crop to make up the difference then the higher IQ lenses will do more for you. Thom Hogan does an excellent job of evaluating Z lenses and he has lists of which lenses work best in certain focal lengths. That is a good place to start.

You don't need to spend $14k or more on a lens to get high IQ. Most of the Z mount lenses are superior to F mounts. While not cheap some are quite reasonable and convenient compared to the super expensive primes. Thom Hogan did a review of Z telephoto lenses options:

I've pretty much followed a strategy for my non-telephoto lenses. Haven't developed one yet for telephoto lenses beyond the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 400mm f/4.5. The article by Hogan was thought-provoking and will likely help when/if I'm ready to do that. A $14K lens won't be part of the package, though.