News Size comparison between Nikon Z, Canon R and Sony A.

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
Switzerland
Matt
I went hands-on today with the Z7 - and all I can say is that whatever teething troubles may still be around, I didn't notice any; the camera felt very well thought out and was responsive, accurate and fundamentally functional. I'm after the Z6 myself, but handling is very important for me - and the biggest differentiator from Sony, so it's a good thing that the Z6 is basically identical to the Z7 in this regard (minus a couple of specifics like more AF points and higher resolution, of course). In short, the Z7 felt like a real camera, a slightly smaller Nikon FF DSLR (or a sligthly bigger APS-C DSLR - think D7500, with a more comfortable grip), but with a fantastic EVF, easily the best I've ever tried, but I haven't sampled them all - for comparison's sake, let's say it's about on par with the Leica Q's. The Sony A7 II's somewhat toyish ergos that sometimes do put me off a bit simply can't compete, nor can the EVF in the A7 III (the Z6's EVF is the same as the Z7's!). Nikon managed to make things just a little bigger and beefier without blowing them up unduely. The 24-70mm f/4 S is quite an intriguing lens, too - it's remarkably small, balances very well, and sharpness on the Z7's 45MP sensor is strong even on the edge of the frame (I had no way of checking the corners).

And now the decisive thing for me: The FTZ adapter worked flawlessly - even with Sigma's Art lenses that can be more than a bit capricious on the D750! The 35mm f/1.4 Art is one of the lenses that feels like a racehorse on the D750 - sometimes, it's adorable, verging on divine, sometimes, it's a moody beast with downright mediocre performance; the reason's usually the somewhat spotty AF accuracy for which the lens and the D750 both are responsible, I guess. I do use AF Fine Tune, but it's a pain, Nikon's as well as Sigma's much more sophisticated one. The Z7 handled this lens very satisfyingly wide open, no troubles, no misses - but please note that this was only in my kind of test, i.e. S-AF, single point, aim, frame, shoot (with and without moving the AF point); I shot just like I would on the D750 to compare performance. The other Sigma lens I tried was the 24-105mm f/4 Art - a lens that works beautifully on the D750, but not at all on my secret AF sharpness champion, the Sony A7 II with Commlite Pro adapter. If the Sony/Commlite combo finds focus, it's incredibly accurate (e.g. with the Sigma 35mm Art ...), in a way the D750 only matches in LV, but that mode is basically unusable for my personal needs because it's much too slow. However, the "if" in the former sentence is quite a big "if" - the Sigma 24-105mm doesn't work at all on the Sony/Commlite combo, the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 only does so in very good light. On the Nikon Z7 with FTZ adapter, the Sigma 24-105mm displayed snappy AF just like a native lens (no noticeable difference to the D750's usual performance - if anything, the point-to-point performance on the Z7/FTZ was faster!), and it produced tack sharp images to an extend I haven't seen before (its corners are not quite up to what the primes can do, at least stopped down).

To sum up, at least for me, the Z line really appears to work. Still, I'm in no hurry to jump on the Z6 - I have plenty of nice gear to use. But if real world tests with production cameras should turn out equally solid as most initial impressions suggest, the Z6 will be my next Nikon body, and - just like the D750 when it arrived - make shooting my much-loved Nikon lenses a lot more satisfying. I actually feel the Z6 could be all I need from a Nikon FF camera for quite some time, maybe even replace the D750 altogether. We'll see how things turn out - I'm not preordering. But I came really close to doing so simply because I couldn't find a single major issue as far as my personal needs and wishes were concerned - and that was with a preproduction camera in less than ideal testing conditions. I'm quite impressed.

M.
 

BillM

New Member
Mar 17, 2017
Virginia Beach, Virginia USA
Bill Mellen
I went hands-on today with the Z7 - and all I can say is that whatever teething troubles may still be around, I didn't notice any; the camera felt very well thought out and was responsive, accurate and fundamentally functional. I'm after the Z6 myself, but handling is very important for me - and the biggest differentiator from Sony, so it's a good thing that the Z6 is basically identical to the Z7 in this regard (minus a couple of specifics like more AF points and higher resolution, of course). In short, the Z7 felt like a real camera, a slightly smaller Nikon FF DSLR (or a sligthly bigger APS-C DSLR - think D7500, with a more comfortable grip), but with a fantastic EVF, easily the best I've ever tried, but I haven't sampled them all - for comparison's sake, let's say it's about on par with the Leica Q's. The Sony A7 II's somewhat toyish ergos that sometimes do put me off a bit simply can't compete, nor can the EVF in the A7 III (the Z6's EVF is the same as the Z7's!). Nikon managed to make things just a little bigger and beefier without blowing them up unduely. The 24-70mm f/4 S is quite an intriguing lens, too - it's remarkably small, balances very well, and sharpness on the Z7's 45MP sensor is strong even on the edge of the frame (I had no way of checking the corners).

And now the decisive thing for me: The FTZ adapter worked flawlessly - even with Sigma's Art lenses that can be more than a bit capricious on the D750! The 35mm f/1.4 Art is one of the lenses that feels like a racehorse on the D750 - sometimes, it's adorable, verging on divine, sometimes, it's a moody beast with downright mediocre performance; the reason's usually the somewhat spotty AF accuracy for which the lens and the D750 both are responsible, I guess. I do use AF Fine Tune, but it's a pain, Nikon's as well as Sigma's much more sophisticated one. The Z7 handled this lens very satisfyingly wide open, no troubles, no misses - but please note that this was only in my kind of test, i.e. S-AF, single point, aim, frame, shoot (with and without moving the AF point); I shot just like I would on the D750 to compare performance. The other Sigma lens I tried was the 24-105mm f/4 Art - a lens that works beautifully on the D750, but not at all on my secret AF sharpness champion, the Sony A7 II with Commlite Pro adapter. If the Sony/Commlite combo finds focus, it's incredibly accurate (e.g. with the Sigma 35mm Art ...), in a way the D750 only matches in LV, but that mode is basically unusable for my personal needs because it's much too slow. However, the "if" in the former sentence is quite a big "if" - the Sigma 24-105mm doesn't work at all on the Sony/Commlite combo, the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 only does so in very good light. On the Nikon Z7 with FTZ adapter, the Sigma 24-105mm displayed snappy AF just like a native lens (no noticeable difference to the D750's usual performance - if anything, the point-to-point performance on the Z7/FTZ was faster!), and it produced tack sharp images to an extend I haven't seen before (its corners are not quite up to what the primes can do, at least stopped down).

To sum up, at least for me, the Z line really appears to work. Still, I'm in no hurry to jump on the Z6 - I have plenty of nice gear to use. But if real world tests with production cameras should turn out equally solid as most initial impressions suggest, the Z6 will be my next Nikon body, and - just like the D750 when it arrived - make shooting my much-loved Nikon lenses a lot more satisfying. I actually feel the Z6 could be all I need from a Nikon FF camera for quite some time, maybe even replace the D750 altogether. We'll see how things turn out - I'm not preordering. But I came really close to doing so simply because I couldn't find a single major issue as far as my personal needs and wishes were concerned - and that was with a preproduction camera in less than ideal testing conditions. I'm quite impressed.

M.
Thank you for the write up Matt. I have a Z6 with FTZ + 24-70 on preorder now. I keep thinking that the sensible thing to do is to get a refurb D750 for $1200 or so instead. For now, I am sticking with th Z6 plan. It looks like it will be a very high quality and easy to use light weight camera for travel and walk around use. The D4 gets heavier and heavier as time goes by :)
 

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
Switzerland
Matt
Thank you for the write up Matt. I have a Z6 with FTZ + 24-70 on preorder now. I keep thinking that the sensible thing to do is to get a refurb D750 for $1200 or so instead. For now, I am sticking with th Z6 plan. It looks like it will be a very high quality and easy to use light weight camera for travel and walk around use. The D4 gets heavier and heavier as time goes by :)
I own and frankly love the D750 for what it is - but it's not a small camera, and it can be frustrating at times due to AF issues. If it works, it works beautifully, though. I want the Z6 for all things Nikon and will probably keep the D750 as a time-tested backup body. But with the Z6, I also get a travel-ready, well sealed camera that's decently compact to carry around. I'm biding my time because I want more insight in the final product before buying, but as far as decisions go, I know exactly what I want - the combo you chose :)

M.
 
Apr 18, 2014
Boston Burbs
David
@MoonMind thanks for the write up. Although I haven't had a chance to handle either Z, you've confirmed pretty much everything I've been able to determine from the pictures and reviews related to handling. It really seems the EOS R is aimed as step up for an M user, the controls seem much more like the current M bodies than any of their DSLRs. While the Z seems more of a familiar feeling option for current Nikon DSLR shooters. The Zs seem like just another "oh new body so they moved the buttons". But they're all pretty much still there, still have pretty much the same icons. If the Zs had been released before I sold off all my Nikons it might have been a tougher call, but this is still a smaller package:
 

Attachments

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
Switzerland
Matt
@davidzvi Completely agree about the size thing; :mu43: remains the best compact system in my eyes anyway. If I didn't have all the Nikon gear around, I wouldn't even begin to consider the Z series, in spite of its merits. In fact, it *is* the E-M1 II I always come back to as a viable alternative. But the Z6 appears to be a way to mate two aspects that are very important to me: continue to use the gear I have, in fact, make better use of it in many ways (through better AF accuracy and I.B.I.S.), *and* get a considerably more compact kit (Z6 + 24-70mm f/4 S) for when I want or need it (travel, but also on-the-go shooting and reportage) - including seriously good weather-sealing, but I'll admit that the E-M1 II would be an even better choice if it was only for that reason.

So, if the S zoom turns out not to be as good as I now believe it is, I might still walk away from this Z6 project. An E-M1 II with 12-100mm f/4 (a lens I keep being intrigued by) could be had for less money anyway. But as of yesterday, I don't think I will take that route. But I'll keep :mu43: around for the foreseeable future - however, Nikon APS-C is likely to go completely as soon as the Z6 arrives.

Concerning this point, I think I should mention here that the camera that prevented me from buying the E-M1 II up to now was - the Nikon D5500, with its (for its class) glorious image quality when paired with Sigma's best ... As a matter of fact, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is the only zoom I own that beats the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, except of course for size. Now, guess what ... the Nikon 24-70mm f/4 feels barely bigger than the 12-40mm in the hand ...

M.
 

jssaraiva

Top Veteran
Dec 31, 2014
Porto, Portugal
José
I went hands-on today with the Z7 - and all I can say is that whatever teething troubles may still be around, I didn't notice any; the camera felt very well thought out and was responsive, accurate and fundamentally functional. I'm after the Z6 myself, but handling is very important for me - and the biggest differentiator from Sony, so it's a good thing that the Z6 is basically identical to the Z7 in this regard (minus a couple of specifics like more AF points and higher resolution, of course). In short, the Z7 felt like a real camera, a slightly smaller Nikon FF DSLR (or a sligthly bigger APS-C DSLR - think D7500, with a more comfortable grip), but with a fantastic EVF, easily the best I've ever tried, but I haven't sampled them all - for comparison's sake, let's say it's about on par with the Leica Q's. The Sony A7 II's somewhat toyish ergos that sometimes do put me off a bit simply can't compete, nor can the EVF in the A7 III (the Z6's EVF is the same as the Z7's!). Nikon managed to make things just a little bigger and beefier without blowing them up unduely. The 24-70mm f/4 S is quite an intriguing lens, too - it's remarkably small, balances very well, and sharpness on the Z7's 45MP sensor is strong even on the edge of the frame (I had no way of checking the corners).

And now the decisive thing for me: The FTZ adapter worked flawlessly - even with Sigma's Art lenses that can be more than a bit capricious on the D750! The 35mm f/1.4 Art is one of the lenses that feels like a racehorse on the D750 - sometimes, it's adorable, verging on divine, sometimes, it's a moody beast with downright mediocre performance; the reason's usually the somewhat spotty AF accuracy for which the lens and the D750 both are responsible, I guess. I do use AF Fine Tune, but it's a pain, Nikon's as well as Sigma's much more sophisticated one. The Z7 handled this lens very satisfyingly wide open, no troubles, no misses - but please note that this was only in my kind of test, i.e. S-AF, single point, aim, frame, shoot (with and without moving the AF point); I shot just like I would on the D750 to compare performance. The other Sigma lens I tried was the 24-105mm f/4 Art - a lens that works beautifully on the D750, but not at all on my secret AF sharpness champion, the Sony A7 II with Commlite Pro adapter. If the Sony/Commlite combo finds focus, it's incredibly accurate (e.g. with the Sigma 35mm Art ...), in a way the D750 only matches in LV, but that mode is basically unusable for my personal needs because it's much too slow. However, the "if" in the former sentence is quite a big "if" - the Sigma 24-105mm doesn't work at all on the Sony/Commlite combo, the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 only does so in very good light. On the Nikon Z7 with FTZ adapter, the Sigma 24-105mm displayed snappy AF just like a native lens (no noticeable difference to the D750's usual performance - if anything, the point-to-point performance on the Z7/FTZ was faster!), and it produced tack sharp images to an extend I haven't seen before (its corners are not quite up to what the primes can do, at least stopped down).

To sum up, at least for me, the Z line really appears to work. Still, I'm in no hurry to jump on the Z6 - I have plenty of nice gear to use. But if real world tests with production cameras should turn out equally solid as most initial impressions suggest, the Z6 will be my next Nikon body, and - just like the D750 when it arrived - make shooting my much-loved Nikon lenses a lot more satisfying. I actually feel the Z6 could be all I need from a Nikon FF camera for quite some time, maybe even replace the D750 altogether. We'll see how things turn out - I'm not preordering. But I came really close to doing so simply because I couldn't find a single major issue as far as my personal needs and wishes were concerned - and that was with a preproduction camera in less than ideal testing conditions. I'm quite impressed.

M.
Hi Matt, thanks for the report!

Concerning manual focus, did you get a felling of it? Thinking about about my non AÍ lenses...
 

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
Switzerland
Matt
@jssaraiva I didn't have any older lenses with me, so I was unable to try that directly. But peaking and focus confirmation work (the latter may be lmited to electronically coupled lenses, though - even though there's no longer an inherent reason why this should be the case). Most importantly, the EVF is fantastic, so working with magnification should be just great and gratifying; to put this into perspective, I even used the EVF for image review a couple of times because it's visibly sharper than the back screen and has very good colour rendering.

Now, I own the Sony A7 II. The A7 III's EVF has different optics, but the same panel - more magnification, same resolution. Working with manual focus is okay on the A7 II, but not great if the lenses aren't electronically coupled. Many people swear by it for using adapted lenses. By extension, the Nikon will work even better because its EVF is a truely remarkable step forward, at least in direct comparison with the "basic" Sony models. I had the A7 II with me yesterday, and it's not in the same league as the Nikon in my personal opinion, though I didn't see any major size difference. I'm talking about clarity and immediacy - I sometimes forgot that I was working with an EVF altogether, even when switching between the Z7 and the D750 I had brought as well.

I didn't manage to fool the I.B.I.S., either - not a single blurry shot out of the Z7, even though light was marginal. But I don't have any real idea how effective it is in absolute terms - I'd be surprised if it was any worse than the one in the Sony A7 II (which is good for a FF system - but definitely not as good as what we've seen on :mu43: bodies).

In short, I think shooting with manual/adapted lenses should be fine - but I'd have to check out how well magnification is implemented to be sure.

M.
 

Bruce McL

Regular
Dec 18, 2016
I agree with the clickbait designation. The images in the article are all from the Camerasize.com website. Anybody can visit that site to compare camera and lens sizes.

Compact Camera Meter

Note that hovering over a camera will give you the weight in grams.

For some odd reason, the "compact" directory gets you the ability to add lenses to ILC cameras. The "compare" directory does not have this ability.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

In my browser I keep a bookmark of the "compact" site with my current cameras loaded up. With that I can quickly get an idea of the relative size of any camera I am interested in. New cameras usually appear on the site very soon after they are introduced.
 

bilzmale

Hall of Famer
Jul 17, 2010
Perth, Western Australia
Bill Shinnick
I agree with the clickbait designation. The images in the article are all from the Camerasize.com website. Anybody can visit that site to compare camera and lens sizes.
In my defence I would never post any clickbait on this or any site. I thought the size comparison was of general interest to our membership and I'm unclear why it could be clickbait. Yes there was a typo in my original heading - thanks to Mods for correcting my error. I took the first clickbait comment in the humorous vein it was intended.
 
Last edited:

Bruce McL

Regular
Dec 18, 2016
I take it back. The web page you linked to has useful information on it. To make the page the rumor site captured several screens screens worth of information from camerasize.com and added larger labels.

To me that seems like an appropriate amount of work for a post at Cameraderie, but a little skimpy for a web site. They did credit camerasize.com though.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom