Discussion
Nikon is about to release the Z5 II and it is the first full frame mirrorless Nikon camera at a price point that is tempting me to 'upgrade'.
I currently have a D5600 having progressed from D40 through D3100. I would class myself as an enthusiastic amateur, taking all sorts of photos, generally using my DSLR.
The camera seems to get good reviews, the things putting me off are the extra weight, of both the body and lenses, and the lack of inbuilt flash.
I would go for the kit with 24-200 zoom, which I understand is the equivalent of my current 18-140. I can use the adapter with my other current lenses while I save up for more.
Anyone got any opinions on this camera.
I currently have a D5600 having progressed from D40 through D3100. I would class myself as an enthusiastic amateur, taking all sorts of photos, generally using my DSLR.
The camera seems to get good reviews, the things putting me off are the extra weight, of both the body and lenses, and the lack of inbuilt flash.
I would go for the kit with 24-200 zoom, which I understand is the equivalent of my current 18-140. I can use the adapter with my other current lenses while I save up for more.
Anyone got any opinions on this camera.
Not on the Z5 mkII, but I did previously own a Z5 mk 1.
It was a very decent camera, all the lenses I tried were good. Only sold as I changed to a Fujifilm GFX100s.
The 28-400mm lens is ridiculous for walkabout flexibility, but if you're worried about weight it might not be the best fit.
It was a very decent camera, all the lenses I tried were good. Only sold as I changed to a Fujifilm GFX100s.
The 28-400mm lens is ridiculous for walkabout flexibility, but if you're worried about weight it might not be the best fit.
Simpo Two said:
spookly said:
The 28-400mm lens is ridiculous for walkabout flexibility, but if you're worried about weight it might not be the best fit.
Or aperture - max f4 - f8...Still a very good lens to do everything (except low light and bokeh and shorter focal lengths).
He's talking about the 24-200mm, not the 28-400mm.
Regarding the camera in question, I'd have a go with a mirrorless before taking the plunge. I have a Z6, because I shoot a fair bit of video, but for stills I think I prefer my D750 and D500 handling.
As to built-in flash, I've only ever found that to be useful for a bit of well-balanced fill, or to trigger bigger flashes as an emergency backup if a dedicated trigger fails.
Regarding the camera in question, I'd have a go with a mirrorless before taking the plunge. I have a Z6, because I shoot a fair bit of video, but for stills I think I prefer my D750 and D500 handling.
As to built-in flash, I've only ever found that to be useful for a bit of well-balanced fill, or to trigger bigger flashes as an emergency backup if a dedicated trigger fails.
I've been looking at the Nikon Z cameras this week myself, as I'm also looking for an upgrade to my D7500.
Based on a few online reviews & articles, my conclusion is that the Z5 II is very similar spec & price as the older Z6 II.
I'm considering the Z6 III, but at £1,000 more expensive than either the Z5 II or Z6 II, I'm undecided whether the extra cost is warranted.
Based on a few online reviews & articles, my conclusion is that the Z5 II is very similar spec & price as the older Z6 II.
I'm considering the Z6 III, but at £1,000 more expensive than either the Z5 II or Z6 II, I'm undecided whether the extra cost is warranted.
Turtle Shed said:
He's talking about the 24-200mm, not the 28-400mm.
Regarding the camera in question, I'd have a go with a mirrorless before taking the plunge. I have a Z6, because I shoot a fair bit of video, but for stills I think I prefer my D750 and D500 handling.
I've only ever found that to be useful for a bit of well-balanced fill, or to trigger bigger flashes as an emergency backup if a dedicated trigger fails.
Whoops yes so he is.Regarding the camera in question, I'd have a go with a mirrorless before taking the plunge. I have a Z6, because I shoot a fair bit of video, but for stills I think I prefer my D750 and D500 handling.
I've only ever found that to be useful for a bit of well-balanced fill, or to trigger bigger flashes as an emergency backup if a dedicated trigger fails.
Built-in flash is one of those 'stages of a photographer' things; great at first then you realise how limited it is. Once you get used to a flashgun on top you don't miss it.
Watched a lot of previews of the Z5 II on youtube including ones from those plucky Canadians at Petapixel (whose opinions I trust) who all seem to think it's pretty fantastic as cameras go.
The problem for me is that I've been a long-time Nikon shooter, as the university where I studied photographic and electronic imaging sciences more than 30 years ago, lent out Nikon stuff. So I have a collection of Nikon gear including several DSLRs and film cameras (FM2, FE2, F90X, F100, D200 x3, D300, D700, D850) and lenses galore going back to AI and AI-S to AFD, AFS and a couple of Sigma Nikon-fit lenses - about 17 in all. Yes, I've got GAS.
But I've spent time playing with the Z mirrorless cameras and I much as I really WANT to like them, I just can't do it. There seem to be several factors that are turning me off it. Some of them are trivial and silly, and some are more important. For example I dislike the HUGE throat diameter of the system and can't see why it needs to be so big. It means lenses need to be fatter than they would on an F-mount, and also where are the smaller lenses? I love the handling characteristics of an F-mount DSLR with say a 50mm f/1.4 lens or even an 85mm f/1.4. Both lenses I mension are short and compact. But the equivalent lenses for Z-mount are HUGE. There don't seem to be any pancacke-style lenses, so while the Z-mount flange distance (distance between the mount flange and the sensor) is much shorter on mirrorless cameras, the lenses are so much longer and fatter that they over-compensate and make the cameras seem (to me) less unobtrusive. I'm also not a huge fan of Nikon's decision to do other flashy but unnecessary things, like putting LCD or OLED screens on their lenses to display things like focusing distance and aperture. I'd rather have a proper top LCD screen on the camera. And the control layout didn't immediately gel. Why is is such a big departure from the DSLRs?
I do own a mirrorless camera though, a Sony A7RIII with 24-70 f/2.8 GM and 12-24mm f/2.8 GM lenses. It's a truly excellent camera despite being a few generations old, but for me the Sony mirrorless system is just better-conceived. Perhaps because they've been making them much longer than Nikon, or perhaps it's just down to chance. But despite how great it is technically, I find myself still shooting with my Nikon DSLRs. They make me want to pick them up and I'm itching to get out and shoot with them no matter what the weather. So my Sony barely gets a look-in - I use it only when I'm travelling as it's significantly smaller than any of my Nikon DSLRs. I haven't bought too many Sony lenses as I'm still hoping that Nikon will make a mirrorless camera that I like. Perhaps the Z7 III or Z8 II when that appears.
Despite my Nikon mirrorless misgivings, I'm still a massive fan of the brand and the first thing I did when I visited Japan last November was to visit the Nikon museum at their new HQ in Tokyo. With my Sony in hand!!
The problem for me is that I've been a long-time Nikon shooter, as the university where I studied photographic and electronic imaging sciences more than 30 years ago, lent out Nikon stuff. So I have a collection of Nikon gear including several DSLRs and film cameras (FM2, FE2, F90X, F100, D200 x3, D300, D700, D850) and lenses galore going back to AI and AI-S to AFD, AFS and a couple of Sigma Nikon-fit lenses - about 17 in all. Yes, I've got GAS.
But I've spent time playing with the Z mirrorless cameras and I much as I really WANT to like them, I just can't do it. There seem to be several factors that are turning me off it. Some of them are trivial and silly, and some are more important. For example I dislike the HUGE throat diameter of the system and can't see why it needs to be so big. It means lenses need to be fatter than they would on an F-mount, and also where are the smaller lenses? I love the handling characteristics of an F-mount DSLR with say a 50mm f/1.4 lens or even an 85mm f/1.4. Both lenses I mension are short and compact. But the equivalent lenses for Z-mount are HUGE. There don't seem to be any pancacke-style lenses, so while the Z-mount flange distance (distance between the mount flange and the sensor) is much shorter on mirrorless cameras, the lenses are so much longer and fatter that they over-compensate and make the cameras seem (to me) less unobtrusive. I'm also not a huge fan of Nikon's decision to do other flashy but unnecessary things, like putting LCD or OLED screens on their lenses to display things like focusing distance and aperture. I'd rather have a proper top LCD screen on the camera. And the control layout didn't immediately gel. Why is is such a big departure from the DSLRs?
I do own a mirrorless camera though, a Sony A7RIII with 24-70 f/2.8 GM and 12-24mm f/2.8 GM lenses. It's a truly excellent camera despite being a few generations old, but for me the Sony mirrorless system is just better-conceived. Perhaps because they've been making them much longer than Nikon, or perhaps it's just down to chance. But despite how great it is technically, I find myself still shooting with my Nikon DSLRs. They make me want to pick them up and I'm itching to get out and shoot with them no matter what the weather. So my Sony barely gets a look-in - I use it only when I'm travelling as it's significantly smaller than any of my Nikon DSLRs. I haven't bought too many Sony lenses as I'm still hoping that Nikon will make a mirrorless camera that I like. Perhaps the Z7 III or Z8 II when that appears.
Despite my Nikon mirrorless misgivings, I'm still a massive fan of the brand and the first thing I did when I visited Japan last November was to visit the Nikon museum at their new HQ in Tokyo. With my Sony in hand!!
I've been pondering the Z cameras lately too, it seems like they have developed to a point now where I could potentially make the jump soon.
I have two systems at present:
Thanks to GAS I have quite a selection of lenses for both, but no longer telephotos for the Fuji (just the lightweight 50-230mm which is surprisingly sharp) as they are less common and more expensive while Nikon lenses are plentiful and easy to find second-hand.
I could see myself selling off the Fuji gear in future and buying a Z-series (finally going full frame), with the adapter to use my existing Nikon lenses - though some of mine are DX, and some of my most used lenses are third party (Sigma & Tamron) and might not autofocus on the Z adaptor. And even the Z5ii is bigger and heavier than the X-T3, so it's not quite a simple decision.
Tough call between the Z5ii and the Zf - much the same under the skin, it might be a choice between modern ergonomics vs physical control dials. I like the *idea* of the Zf having got used to physical control dials on the Fuji, but probably need to handle one first to see if the ergonomics work for me. All the reviews rabbit on about the retro design being its USP, I don't really even care about it looking retro but I do enjoy physical control dials instead of almost everything being digital button/menu based.
Anyway I think I'm just rambling now, using PH as a sounding board to straighten out my own thoughts about it! Any comments/advice welcome though.
I have two systems at present:
- Nikon D7200 which I mostly use for motorsport and wildlife (things that need longer lenses and better AF tracking, epic battery life helps too), though it is still pretty good for everything else too.
- Fuji X-T3 which I mostly use for landscape and casual walkabout use as its significantly smaller and lighter to carry while hiking etc, and I really enjoy the control system with physical dials. It's AF is quick enough and accurate but movement tracking isn't in the same league as the D7200.
Thanks to GAS I have quite a selection of lenses for both, but no longer telephotos for the Fuji (just the lightweight 50-230mm which is surprisingly sharp) as they are less common and more expensive while Nikon lenses are plentiful and easy to find second-hand.
I could see myself selling off the Fuji gear in future and buying a Z-series (finally going full frame), with the adapter to use my existing Nikon lenses - though some of mine are DX, and some of my most used lenses are third party (Sigma & Tamron) and might not autofocus on the Z adaptor. And even the Z5ii is bigger and heavier than the X-T3, so it's not quite a simple decision.
Tough call between the Z5ii and the Zf - much the same under the skin, it might be a choice between modern ergonomics vs physical control dials. I like the *idea* of the Zf having got used to physical control dials on the Fuji, but probably need to handle one first to see if the ergonomics work for me. All the reviews rabbit on about the retro design being its USP, I don't really even care about it looking retro but I do enjoy physical control dials instead of almost everything being digital button/menu based.
Anyway I think I'm just rambling now, using PH as a sounding board to straighten out my own thoughts about it! Any comments/advice welcome though.
Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 6th May 04:37
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff