Nikon Rented a Z7.....

[AndyH44]

Thought maybe, just maybe I could replace my Z5 and Z50 with a Z7. Nope. Just can't see any appreciable difference for my needs, especially for the difference in $$$. I'm sure glad I didn't buy one to find out I didn't really need it!

 

[mike3996]

How was the Z7 with DX lenses (if you have any)? Was it ultimately worse than shooting the same lenses on Z50?

 

[RichardC]

Looking at the wide range of equipment and formats used by members of this site has been an eye opener for me.

In my view, the feature sets and image quality of the newest of the new are an important consideration for anyone upgrading from say, a 2015 purchase, or are completely new to digital photography.

For everyone else, the gains in upgrading are relatively small, often for relatively large amounts of money, even when switching formats.

That's not intended as a criticism, I like new stuff just as much as the next person, but modern cameras are so good that it's just how it is nowadays.

 

[AndyH44]

How was the Z7 with DX lenses (if you have any)? Was it ultimately worse than shooting the same lenses on Z50?

I.Q. was fairly equal but the nod goes to the Z50 for better (slightly tighter) cropping.

 

[William Lewis]

Both of my digital cameras are, according to some, elderly. The Nikon D7100 dates from 2013 and is rated at 24.1 megapixels. The Leica M 240 is also 24 megapixels and dates from, oh, 6 months earlier though I bought mine more recently. Both are several generations old.

I could go to a FX model (D750 of 2014?) of DSLR, I suppose, but I certainly have no need for an M10 much less an M11. These are both more than capable of doing what I need/want them to do.

 

[Brownie]

Looking at the wide range of equipment and formats used by members of this site has been an eye opener for me.

In my view, the feature sets and image quality of the newest of the new are an important consideration for anyone upgrading from say, a 2015 purchase, or are completely new to digital photography.

For everyone else, the gains in upgrading are relatively small, often for relatively large amounts of money, even when switching formats.

That's not intended as a criticism, I like new stuff just as much as the next person, but modern cameras are so good that it's just how it is nowadays.

This is true. There was a time when each new generation of sensor and processor meant a decent improvement in IQ, but it seems those gains are minimal these days. If you aren't jumping 2 or 3 generations IQ isn't going to be one of the bigger gains. It makes more sense to upgrade for features like tracking, buffers, burst rates, etc. where the sensor will have an effect on speed and accuracy more than IQ.

Kind of the same thing for lenses. It seems new releases have minor improvements, and then many are features. Sharpness has reached a peak. How in the world can you get much sharper, rendering, contrast, etc. than some of the lenses we have now? And when you have bargain companies like Rokinon/Samyang producing top notch products it's evident that unless some huge breakthrough or discovery is made, we're pretty much there.

 

[davidzvi]

Looking at the wide range of equipment and formats used by members of this site has been an eye opener for me.

In my view, the feature sets and image quality of the newest of the new are an important consideration for anyone upgrading from say, a 2015 purchase, or are completely new to digital photography.

For everyone else, the gains in upgrading are relatively small, often for relatively large amounts of money, even when switching formats.

That's not intended as a criticism, I like new stuff just as much as the next person, but modern cameras are so good that it's just how it is nowadays.

I'd go further back than 2015 in some cases, the 24mp sensor in the Z5 isn't that much changed from the one introduced in 2012 with the D600. Pretty darn good sensor than and now. Features of the body it's encased in are what's really changed.

@AndyH44 I think you might have been better off looking at the Z7II if you wanted to see new features. I'm not sure the added features are something you need, but as I recall AF and overall responsiveness were two of the biggest updates.

 

[AndyH44]

None of the Z7-II's "new features" are attractive to my needs, especially for the $$$$. Methinks you have failed to comprehend that I was looking for the Z7 to replace my Z5 & Z50 so that 1 body would do it for me. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. Oh, and the Z7 II with needed memory cards would cost more than what I have invested in ALL of my Nikon bodies and lenses combined!

 

[davidzvi]

None of the Z7-II's "new features" are attractive to my needs, especially for the $$$$. Methinks you have failed to comprehend that I was looking for the Z7 to replace my Z5 & Z50 so that 1 body would do it for me. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. Oh, and the Z7 II with needed memory cards would cost more than what I have invested in ALL of my Nikon bodies and lenses combined!

Actually no, you misunderstood that I was agreeing that there isn't enough difference between the Z5 and Z7 other than MP. That if you didn't need or see the MP advantage you'd have to look at a vII for features that might make a difference. And that I said I wasn't sure if the added features were something you needed.

 

[AndyH44]

I'd go further back than 2015 in some cases, the 24mp sensor in the Z5 isn't that much changed from the one introduced in 2012 with the D600. Pretty darn good sensor than and now. Features of the body it's encased in are what's really changed.

@AndyH44 I think you might have been better off looking at the Z7II if you wanted to see new features. I'm not sure the added features are something you need, but as I recall AF and overall responsiveness were two of the biggest updates.

Actually no, you misunderstood that I was agreeing that there isn't enough difference between the Z5 and Z7 other than MP. That if you didn't need or see the MP advantage you'd have to look at a vII for features that might make a difference. And that I said I wasn't sure if the added features were something you needed.

"I know you believe that you understood what you read, but I'm not sure you realize what you read is not what was really meant." (oldest daughter's favorite saying in H.S.)
And no, I absolutely don't need any extra features, but in-camera focus stacking would be nice.

 

[davidzvi]

Well you're only stated need seemed to be able to crop FX down to DX for the simulated "reach" or pixel density within the cropped area. Making so you could combine 2 in 1. One of the reasons I was able to sell off my Nikon gear originally was I realize many of my favorite images were taken with gear much less capable than where m4/3 was even 5 years ago.

So it doesn't surprise me that in a straight image to image comparison you didn't see much benefit.

But that size and weight tradeoff I wouldn't make, its why I have the two bodies I do. And unless Nikon has actually applied a blackout crop on Z cameras when a DX lens is attached, I would never buy something with that specific intended use, I hated using DX lenses on my FX bodies, just one more thing to mentally check before pressing the shutter.

 

[AndyH44]

To each his own.

 

[MoonMind]

And unless Nikon has actually applied a blackout crop on Z cameras when a DX lens is attached, I would never buy something with that specific intended use, I hated using DX lenses on my FX bodies, just one more thing to mentally check before pressing the shutter.

While you can have the Z bodies switch crop factors automatically (with all electronic lenses at least), I agree with the sentiment in the second sentence.

Interesting exchange to watch ... I for one love every bit of the benefits the Z 7 II offers over the Z 6. However, that doesn't take anything away from the merits of the Z 6 and Z 50 - both great bodies in their own right. In my experience, though, the Z 7 II takes everything the Z (FX) system stands for a tangible step further compared to the earlier bodies. It's not only about the resolution - even though for me, that was the decisive thing initially (or I could just have swapped the Z 6 for a Z 6 II). Yet the Z 7 II is just that crucial bit more fluid in all respects - while offering much higher resolution, it doesn't miss a beat.

I'm glad I kept the Z 6 around, though - it's my most used camera because I often simply don't need the extra horsepower of the Z 7 II. But if I do, it's great to have. And thanks to the technical improvements, it's no more of a hassle to use and shoot as a Z 6 would be - you can in fact treat it exactly the same, no need to worry about anything. For such a high resolution body, that's quite something ... I'm actually pretty sure that the Z 7 doesn't inspire quite the same amount of confidence, to be honest.

At the time being, I simply can't think of a camera to choose *over* the Z 7 II - it has so far prevented me successfully from looking into quite a few new arrivals or options (the M10-R, the M11, the Q2, even the A7R IV and SL2); at the same time, the Z 6 keeps on giving (even when compared to a S5 or A7 III; the A7 IV obviously beats it, but not in a way I find important enough). The Z 6 is now my "official" travel camera, too, because I've managed to put together a nice "minimal" setup as well, thanks to the arrival of the Z 40mm f/2 (and the addition of the Laowa 9mm f/5.6, but that's just my kind of spin ...).

As for the Z 50, well, it really depends what you compare it to; in my experience, it doesn't beat the Z 7 II by a long shot, in any shape or form, but I guess if you just mount a DX lens on the Z 7 (probably a tele, possibly a zoom), you're actually not going see any real benefits: The resolutions advantage is gone, and the Z 50 holds its own when it comes to AF. Nevertheless, the Z 7 has good I.B.I.S., a way bigger battery, better weather sealing ... It's bigger and heavier, though, and often, all you need is the Z 50 with a handy zoom (I'm referring to both the Z 16-50mm pancake and the Z 18-140mm; the latter has grown on me considerably). So, yes, the Z 7 may indeed be overkill or even unsatisfactory when compared to the Z 50 *on those terms*.

What I love to do: I mount the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E AF-P on the Z 50 via the FTZ adapter and get a nice additional gain in reach - withour fiddling with my settings. That combo is a lot of fun to use and works a treat. When I mount the Z 24-200mm on the Z 6, I can cover everything from 24mm to 450mm(-e) with two handy combos that remain portable (I have that setup ready for tomorrow - it all fits in a small backpack, alongside everything else I need for a day out).

So, from that perspective, a Z 5/Z 50 combo makes a lot of sense to me, a lot more than a single Z 7 to replace both of them. And that has a lot to do with the fact of there being two of them ... at least in my book.

But as you say, @AndyH55, to each their own.

M.

 

[davidzvi]

While you can have the Z bodies switch crop factors automatically (with all electronic lenses at least), I agree with the sentiment in the second sentence.....

Nikon's had that option since the D3/D700. But with the optical viewfinder it would just put a box line around the crop. Couldn't tell you how many times I was too close to an edge or even cropped off a body part. Especially in lower light. Since they have a view screen and COULD do anything they want, it would be nicer if the "almost" completely blacked out the crop.

 

[AndyH44]

While you can have the Z bodies switch crop factors automatically (with all electronic lenses at least), I agree with the sentiment in the second sentence.

Interesting exchange to watch ... I for one love every bit of the benefits the Z 7 II offers over the Z 6. However, that doesn't take anything away from the merits of the Z 6 and Z 50 - both great bodies in their own right. In my experience, though, the Z 7 II takes everything the Z (FX) system stands for a tangible step further compared to the earlier bodies. It's not only about the resolution - even though for me, that was the decisive thing initially (or I could just have swapped the Z 6 for a Z 6 II). Yet the Z 7 II is just that crucial bit more fluid in all respects - while offering much higher resolution, it doesn't miss a beat.

I'm glad I kept the Z 6 around, though - it's my most used camera because I often simply don't need the extra horsepower of the Z 7 II. But if I do, it's great to have. And thanks to the technical improvements, it's no more of a hassle to use and shoot as a Z 6 would be - you can in fact treat it exactly the same, no need to worry about anything. For such a high resolution body, that's quite something ... I'm actually pretty sure that the Z 7 doesn't inspire quite the same amount of confidence, to be honest.

At the time being, I simply can't think of a camera to choose *over* the Z 7 II - it has so far prevented me successfully from looking into quite a few new arrivals or options (the M10-R, the M11, the Q2, even the A7R IV and SL2); at the same time, the Z 6 keeps on giving (even when compared to a S5 or A7 III; the A7 IV obviously beats it, but not in a way I find important enough). The Z 6 is now my "official" travel camera, too, because I've managed to put together a nice "minimal" setup as well, thanks to the arrival of the Z 40mm f/2 (and the addition of the Laowa 9mm f/5.6, but that's just my kind of spin ...).

As for the Z 50, well, it really depends what you compare it to; in my experience, it doesn't beat the Z 7 II by a long shot, in any shape or form, but I guess if you just mount a DX lens on the Z 7 (probably a tele, possibly a zoom), you're actually not going see any real benefits: The resolutions advantage is gone, and the Z 50 holds its own when it comes to AF. Nevertheless, the Z 7 has good I.B.I.S., a way bigger battery, better weather sealing ... It's bigger and heavier, though, and often, all you need is the Z 50 with a handy zoom (I'm referring to both the Z 16-50mm pancake and the Z 18-140mm; the latter has grown on me considerably). So, yes, the Z 7 may indeed be overkill or even unsatisfactory when compared to the Z 50 *on those terms*.

What I love to do: I mount the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E AF-P on the Z 50 via the FTZ adapter and get a nice additional gain in reach - withour fiddling with my settings. That combo is a lot of fun to use and works a treat. When I mount the Z 24-200mm on the Z 6, I can cover everything from 24mm to 450mm(-e) with two handy combos that remain portable (I have that setup ready for tomorrow - it all fits in a small backpack, alongside everything else I need for a day out).

So, from that perspective, a Z 5/Z 50 combo makes a lot of sense to me, a lot more than a single Z 7 to replace both of them. And that has a lot to do with the fact of there being two of them ... at least in my book.

But as you say, @AndyH55, to each their own.

M.

I was surprised to find the AF-P 70-300 (FX) to have less I.Q. compared to my Z50-250 @ 250mm; not to mention the extra size and weight difference. I really liked that AF-P until I compared them on my Z50 side to side on same subject. And to think I only paid $150 USD for my Z50-250!
Guess that's why I'll be selling the AF-P 70-300.

 

[MoonMind]

I was surprised to find the AF-P 70-300 (FX) to have less I.Q. compared to my Z50-250 @ 250mm; not to mention the extra size and weight difference. I really liked that AF-P until I compared them on my Z50 side to side on same subject. And to think I only paid $150 USD for my Z50-250!
Guess that's why I'll be selling the AF-P 70-300.

Good to know. No option for me, though: I can (and do) use the 70-300mm AF-P (*not* the DX, the FX lens) on five bodies without restrictions, the 50-250mm would fit four and make sense on two (or three). I'll stick with what I have - also because I really like what I get out of it.

M.