The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Z6 or Z7 -- or both ???

JohnBrew

Active member
Jack, I am shooting my Z7 at 5:4 and 1:1. The FF files just get bogged down when I focus stack or stitch.
 

Photon42

Well-known member
The Z7 files leave nothing to desire for me. Quality is wonderful and easily better than my skills. For me it is the combined footprint of a possible kit along with very some very practical features, such as, bluetooth integration and a wonderful EVF which creates a package making me using it most of the time, despite other strong contenders in the household ...
I don't do sports, however, or birds in flight, for example. Finally, I sold my 810. Too large, too little extra to the z7 for my cases. Their primes are really outstanding and actually quite well priced in my eyes.
I can mount M lenses on it and get crisp and sharp images from it, IBIS certainly being a plus. The z7 actually is a good compliment to an M, as not being so much larger, and adding some very useful features.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
If you are going to go mirrorless why not the Leica SL2 ?
Price v performance doesn't justify it for me over the Z7. In fact, I am having a difficult time justifying the cost of a Z7, so am re-thinking the Z6 :bugeyes:
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Either way you go, both are showing a huge savings over the original list. 1K on Z7 and 575 on Z6.

Based on B&H price with rebates applied.

Paul C
 

DougDolde

Well-known member
Price v performance doesn't justify it for me over the Z7. In fact, I am having a difficult time justifying the cost of a Z7, so am re-thinking the Z6 :bugeyes:
I'm burned out on chasing the golden goose too. It is very bad on your bank account
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I'm burned out on chasing the golden goose too. It is very bad on your bank account
Especially since there is no such thing - only forum chatter...

my strategy is to sell two things before buying anything - has been working a treat for a couple of years...shows how sick with GAS I've been in the past..still plenty of bling to go.
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
I would claim that a Z6 or Z7 with a 14-30/4S + 24-70/4S + an adapted 70-200/4G ED are more than enough for any normal human being.
I'm just a simple man, who's call for a camera's ability are simple. And the Z7 are more than up to the job, satisfying me, and it do it in a very pleasant, solid and simple way.
I've got the 50S and 35S, but cutting down I could do fine with zoom's above (1/15 is fine with IBIS and normal focal length). Perhaps a 20/1.8S could be interesting for me as a walk around lens, as alternative to the 14-30/4.
There came some issues in with the 70-200/4 after firmwareupdate. But haven't got time to investigate in the new recent firmware and adjustment for the 70-200/4, and perhaps the new firmware got a positive effect on the adapted 70-200/4.
The combo of the Z and the S-lenses give a healthy contrast, super sharpness, and healthy colors. Well, perhaps a bit too healthy, but we are down to minor preferences.
But I often do miss the rendering of my old-fashioned (Jack to blame :p) lenses, 18/2.8D, 28/1.4D, 105DC, 135DC and 180/2.8D. "Unperfected" in the smeary and charming way. Luckily (or should I rather say sadly, while it often put you mentally in a schizophrenic consideration) I still got them all plus the Df, but fact is that I rather grab the Z7+14-30/4S or the 24-70/4S (depends the mood), (easily fits in my rather small Tamrac 3442 slingback, without being any heavy burden while walking) reaching out on the way towards the door, because of it's easy and superproof function, fast and non-mind-breaking (can't think of any other camera that is talking in such a simple, solid and precise language to me).
The Z7 for up to rather heavy crops and crispness.
(and holding a Z - it just fits in a way no other Nikon..and no other camera)
thorkil
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
The 70-200/4 is a very nice lens, but suffers from its lack of nanocoat, so has slightly low contrast. I suspect its lack of contrast also affects its AF performance, which is somewhat slow. But on the whole the form factor is great and I've gotten many shots I'm extremely happy with from it. I do wish Nikon will produce a 70-200/4 S that is as good as the f/2.8 only a stop slower and as compact as that allows.

The 24-70/4 S is an excellent lens. But I was shocked to discover it vignettes at under 28mm with my trusty old Heliopan 72mm Jet-Pola. (I think I got this in the 90s to use with an AI-S 85/1.4 originally!) This is a great polarizer with a rotational scale; not particularly deep or anything, but clearly a slim filter is called for with this lens... 72mm is kinda oddball these days though.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
The 14-30 S is also a great lens. The only shortcoming I've found with it is the shade is too shallow and I sometimes have to reach out to block direct sunlight from hitting the front element. I like the form factor though, which mandates a non-telescoping lens front, which means the shade is fixed to the widest angle of view. Maybe an adjustable shade would be a workable accessory, but then a hand or hat works pretty well too... :rolleyes:
 

robdeszan

Member
I was in a similar position, purchased the Z6 initially, coming from (in the DSLR world) from a d810 and df with custom focusing screens and magnifying eye pieces for increased manual focus accuracy. While I found the OVF faster and more accurate for manual focusing (fairly static people photography), the Z6 was the first camera in almost three decades where I wanted to use auto focus. Two reasons: I was no longer restricted to centralised focusing points only, I always hated focus + recompose technique, and I did not have to worry about focus shifts or miscalibration of lenses (although using Sigma's calibration dock on their art lenses got me the closest to having sharp images when it comes to body+lens calibration).

Other factors in favour, for me, were: much smaller size (not compromising on ergonomics) and in-body vibration reduction, it really does wonders, especially on higher MP count cameras.

After shooting the Z6 for a few months, I liked it so much I sold it and got a Z7, and despite being a more demanding camera on technique and ever-soooo-slightly less responsive AF, for me, it was predominantly the 5:4 crop I was missing on the Z6.

Z6 vs Z7 is a compromise of sorts, even though the high ISO images on the Z6 were gorgeous(!!!), yet the low-pass filter made everything too smooth (including low ISOs) on the Z6. Despite the Z7 images being noisier at higher ISOs I much prefer the natively sharper Z7 files throughout the entire ISO range.

I did look at the Fuji GFXr as a smaller body but the bulk of the equipment, no image stabilization and slower AF put me off. Although I absolutely loved the idea of having an XPAN crop aspect in the body for travel (but then I would never take it for travel as it is too bulky ;) )

It might be worth mentioning that I use the Z7 with 1.4 G prime lenses (35mm widest to 85mm the longest) and FTZ adapter, no issues whatsoever.

Pat
 
Last edited:

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
Some of the recent firmware features are nice, too. I have U3 set up for "dumb mode" where I can just hand the camera to someone to take a shot, with:
- Eye AF, Auto AF area
- AF-S
- AF on shutter
- AF assist light
- Auto ISO
- Single shot
- Rear preview enabled

I'll load U3, then set it to P mode and switch to the rear screen. U1 is my regular settings, and I'll use U2 if I want an alternative setup and quickly switch between them.

Basically, U3 is as close to a P&S as possible. I guess we call them smartphones these days? :) This way I don't have to explain the AF-On button, or any of the other settings. The Eye focus is brilliant for this since most of the time they'll be taking a photo of people (including me).

The 14-30 and 24-70 lenses have a control dial, roughly comparable to an aperture dial. With the 2.10 firmware it can be set to act as the aperture control. I really like that since that's where my left hand typically rests anyway! Wish the 35/1.8 S had the dial, also.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
It's time for me to consider the move. So who's compared both? Obviously the 7 has a more resolution, but how do they each perform relative to the other as far as color, noise and general IQ rendering? Looking at images, it appears both are highly capable (very highly). Yet they have distinct enough capabilities that perhaps a good case could be made for having one of each?

Next, which lenses? I like primes, but both the 14-30 and (both) 24-70's look like they can deliver pretty impressive results. Are the the 24, 35, 50 or 85 prime so good you consider them mandatory?

Thanks in advance, and images welcome!!!
Jack,

just reading this now but here my honest answer.

I tried both cameras and had several shootouts with both, I preferred the Z7 because of higher resolution obviously and it does video just fine for me. If I would be more into video then I would choose the Z6. Both are beautiful and excellent mirrorless cameras.

WRT lenses I tested most of the Z primes and all are stellar. You should be blown away with the results of these new 1.8 primes. WRT 24-70 both the F4 and the F2.8 are excellent, but I preferred highly the 2.8 version. Lies good in hand with these 2 cameras and delivers stunning results.

WRT mirrorless versus DSLR - I actually am shooting mirrorless since over 10 years now almost exclusively and meanwhile mirrorless has become so good that I would use it for all occasions and shooting scenarios. And if you already own a Nikon DSLR (as I know you do) I would simply keep that for when you ever want to shoot OVF again and call it a day.

But I should mention some encounter I had some days ago what describes a bit the way I am evolving and obviously will go over the next years as it might br also of interest for you. I tested the new Fujifilm X-Pro3 and this camera was just perfect for me - stealthy, lightweight, small, fast in all regards and with all lenses I tested it. Then I compared it in store to Nikon Z7 with 4/24-70 which is definitely known as a very light combo, and man - I turned the Nikon down and took immediately the X-Pro3 back in my hands - so great is the feel of that camera(system).

Now I DO DEFINITELY NOT WANT to convince anybody here, but for most of my shooting purposes a lightweight unobtrusive camera is obviously what I am looking nowadays for (after shooting Olympus mirrorless for many years). That Fuji system (which is BTW not new to me) could easily become my camera system for the next decade as it has several advantages over Olympus mainly based on the larger sensor but with still relatively small camera bodies and lenses.

Why am I writing this now? I think we all evolve in what we want and how we shoot and photograph and for me a lightweight and small but at the same time high quality system has become an absolute must for everyday shooting. So even the relatively small and compact Z system became already too big for me, let alone any DSLR based system. But that Fuji X system just rings almost all bells for me ....

Anyway all the best with your decision whatever it may be an happy shooting for the next decade :thumbs:
 

Photon42

Well-known member
This says it all. Very balanced and a great contribution :thumbs:

The part about the viewfinder not being always on is of great importance for me, and one of the reasons why I use Panasonic mirrorless, since it allows me to keep the EVF on at all times excepts when the camera goes to sleep. Many mirrorless cameras (I haven't tested Nikon for this) switches the viewfinder off as soon as you take the camera from your eye, and there's a delay before it switches on again. It's just a fraction of a second, but with the way I often take photos (environmental portraits and street photography in particular, sports of course), that interrupts my contact with the subject long enough for my brain to kind of "restart" the composition process. It's done to save battery life of course, but this is one of the great features of DSLR cameras: you don't have to worry about battery life. Well, almost... with my OM-1, I changed battery less than ten times in 30 years :ROTFL:
I do not see a setting to keep the viewfinder on at all times while the camera is switched on. However, you can tape the eye sensor right above the finder. Sort of a hardware switch ... :ROTFL: The switching lag is there btw, but in my eye acceptable - no pun intended.

Cheers
Ivo
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I do not see a setting to keep the viewfinder on at all times while the camera is switched on. However, you can tape the eye sensor right above the finder. Sort of a hardware switch ... :ROTFL: The switching lag is there btw, but in my eye acceptable - no pun intended.

Cheers
Ivo
I suppose that would also switch the bothersome LCD off permanently :thumbs: :ROTFL:

There's a solution to all this. It's called D780. Mirrorless technology with OVF and decent battery life :clap:
 

pegelli

Well-known member
There's a solution to all this. It's called D780. Mirrorless technology with OVF and decent battery life :clap:
Unfortunately not with the short mirrorless flange distance which for me is one of the main attractions, together with a magnified view in the viewfinder. But I guess everybody has different needs and wants so for some it will indeed be a great camera.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
The 300 PF is such an incredibly compact and good lens. It also works well with the TC-14EIII, although there is noticeable contrast lost and it's easily provoked to flare; by that I mean PF style flaring around very bright objects. PF style flaring really requires trying without the extender (point it at the sun basically), but for some reason the extender brings up the propensity significantly. As such, the combo works but requires careful use. I can't wait to get my hands on a 500 PF.

These were shot with the Z7 + 300PF + TC-14EIII at Myakka River SP near Sarasota, FL. M 1/350, f/5.6, auto ISO (around 100-400). I used Dynamic AF but in hindsight should have used spot as the camera likes to focus on the body rather than head/eye of something as small as a bird, but AF single spot tracking is pretty poor on the Z7. No serious shooting here, just trying things out. Verdict: serviceable in a pinch, and an easy combo to have on hand, but overall nothing to write home about.





 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
For my style of shooting, I'm honestly thinking now that a GFX 50 with the 32-64 lens is all I need... Bigger sensor for the look, great higher ISO performance. Yes it's a little larger than a Z6/7, but if I'm already carrying something other than my cell phone, it's not that much bigger.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Here's the biggest issue for me: I really dislike the 2:3 aspect ratio :thumbdown: I much prefer 3:4 or 1:1. 4:5 doesn't really work for me either, but I prefer it to 2:3 -- note that back when I shot 4x5 film, the "usable" film area was closer to 3:4 due to the film-holder borders. The Fuji is native 3:4 :thumbs:, but it's bulky :thumbdown:. The Nikon is native 2:3, has 4:5 and 1:1 so it nets a half :thumbup:, but it's certainly compact which nets it a :thumbs:. Both are highly adaptable to other lenses, another feature I like.

Soooo now I'm edging back into the Z camp. Currently agonizing over if 24MP cropped is enough for what I do -- and I feel it probably is for 90%, or is doubling the pixel count worth the extra $1000 for the 10% of the time I'd like to have it (and also the price of the 12-30 lens) or not... :banghead:

I've lost my local camera store so have no way to demo either, which of course makes the decision much more difficult.
 
Top