• Olympus Sport Photography - IWWF WAKEFEST - Limited 25 Paxs - 26th May 2019, Visit this thread thread for more information.

Nikon Z6 and Z7 Full-Frame Mirrorless

Which one do you want ?

  • Nikon Z6, I am looking for a King in Low Light Photography

  • Nikon Z7, I am a Pixel Peeper

  • None of the above


Results are only viewable after voting.

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
948
38
28
You can’t defy the laws of physics.
Well said, time for people to not associate mirrorless technology with smallness. Look at the historical context of mirrorless which started
with Olympus and Panasonic introduction of the M43 format ( actually the mirrorless successor of 4/3 (four thirds) from Olympus.Their selling point is that it is smaller then DSLR cameras but in fact as the products progressed the camera body became just as big or bigger than DSLR like Panasonic's GH4,5 and so on.

Of course other companies like Sony,Fujifilm,Samsung, etc. have their mirrorless using APSC sensor which is the standard used in DSLRs apart from full frame ones. To be factual all point n shoot compacts are "mirrorless". Then Sony upped the game when it put a full frame sensor into the E mount meant for APSC sensor into their Nex and then renamed Alpha series.

Needless to say Canon and Nikon pooh poohed Sony's implementation of using FF sensor in the Nex's E mount saying optically will result in degraded image, mount diameter being too small for FF. Not only that they attacked M43 IBIS ( in body stabalisation of image) as inferior (EM1) to in- lens method which both Canon and Nikon uses. Now for some facts..it is well known that IBIS works well for short focal length lenses and not long telephoto lens.So in fact Olympus added in-lens stabalisation in addition to IBIS in it's 300mm F4 Pro lens which is equivalent in 35mm FF to 600mm because of 2X crop factor.

The irony is now Nikon chooses to implement IBIS in Z6/7 by using a bigger lens mount of 55mm as one of the reasons that there is not enough room for the
mechanism to have adequate movement in their respective axis'. Nikon also echoed M43 sales pitch by saying mirrorless technology makes for smaller camera (a thinner profile).:) Another reason is that it allow Nikon lens engineers the ease and possibility to design F1.2 and F0.95 aperture lenses principally as the fact that you need more lens elements to correct all light rays hitting the sensor. RGB colours in light have different wavelengths so do not hit the sensor at the same distance or point.

An interesting fact is medium and large format cameras for film uses simple ( less lens elements) design as their large format negates the necessity of complex
lens elements in order to correct lens abberations to achieve the image quality so the lens size is rather small compared to 35mm format.

Whether IBIS or in-lens stabalisation is superior remains to be seen as engineering is all about compromises.What you want to achieve at the cost of other
considerations.There is no perfect camera or lens. It is telling that Canon does not use IBIS in the EOS R mirrorless FF camera and they are not stupid.;)
It has become almost expected when a new lens is introduced by a manufacture to ask how sharp it is, nowadays lens marketing only sell sharpness and at all costs to the detriment to the art of photography. I'm not the first to comment or lament..that the result of designing for sharpness into a lens means other lens quality takes a hit like micro contrast and colour accuracy, the feel or look of the image which result in a dead or lifeless photo. Leica a well respected and legendary lens manufacturer has it's own philosophy about the art of photography, it does not design lenses that are extremely sharp because it knows that it will loose the lifelike and emotive quality that it's lens elicit from their images. Food for thought. To come back to topic, the reality is if you want fast lenses like 70-200mm F2.8 the lens has to be big,period. Also as far as compatibility of F mount lenses is concerned it does not mean all lenses will work well on Z mount
via FTZ adapter as one reviewer reveals about the way conventional DSLRs are designed with respect to image sensor from his comments:

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/nikon-f-mount-adapter.html

Finally, one point that everyone should be looking at: the “focal plane” of a DSLR is actually
a complex optical design. The thickness of the UVIR filter (and AA, if applicable), the setoff
of the UVIR filter from the actual sensor, the depth of the microlenses and Bayer filtration,
and the photo diode position and depth all play a part in collecting the photons from a lens
at the right spot. You can have a perfect adapter but get less than perfect results if the
focal plane optics have changed and your rear lens element isn’t aligning the light properly.

So one thing I’ll be looking at closely is whether Nikon is maintaining the current
optical system at the sensor or has made changes on this new system. We’ve already
had a minor change with the flip to BSI in the D850, which has made some older wide
angle lens designs perform a little worse at the corners, some a little better.
Sorry for the long post.:p
 

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
523
12
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
Relax folks. These are S line lenses that Nikon have said have a higher performance bar to clear than their F-mount gold-ringed lenses. And Nikon also never made a gold-ringed f/1.8 line for their F-mounts so they aren't directly comparable.
As an example, the Zony 55 f/1.8 might be the most directly comparable lens to the Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8.
For lenses in general you can only have two out of the following three. High performance, small, cheap.

From the roadmap, it seems Nikon will be offering both an f/1.8 and f/1.2 S-line primes, an S Noct line, as well as both f/4 and f/2.8 S-line zooms. It doesn't exclude non-S line lenses in the future for Z, which presumably will be both cheaper and smaller.
And Z-lenses can indeed be smaller despite the mount size but the barrel may need to be smaller than the mount. See some of the m43 f/1.8 primes for examples of how this might look.
 

Oct 28, 2009
369
3
18
Technology is supposed to improve with time.
All m43 needed was a GM5 with image stabilisation built-in and a larger viewfinder. And better jpeg processing.

In the same vein, all Nikon needed was a D750 with no AA filter and image stabilization built-in.

Selling an EOS R system or a Nikon Z with a one prime setup at $5-6k?
Needs no clairvoyant to know sales will be poor...
 

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
523
12
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
Selling an EOS R system or a Nikon Z with a one prime setup at $5-6k?
Needs no clairvoyant to know sales will be poor...
You're probably underestimating pent-up demand.
https://translate.google.com.sg/tra...oducts/info/2018/0828.html&edit-text=&act=url
But anyways, market forces will take care of any overpricing soon enough if it exists.
PS, I do think Z7 is expensive, especially relative to the Z6.
 

Oct 28, 2009
369
3
18
You're probably underestimating pent-up demand.
https://translate.google.com.sg/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.nikon-image.com/products/info/2018/0828.html&edit-text=&act=url
But anyways, market forces will take care of any overpricing soon enough if it exists.
PS, I do think Z7 is expensive, especially relative to the Z6.
To put things in perspective, for $6k I could get a Nikon D750 with 35/50/85 1.8 primes. And maybe a SB700 flash and a battery grip....
 

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
523
12
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
To put things in perspective, for $6k I could get a Nikon D750 with 35/50/85 1.8 primes. And maybe a SB700 flash and a battery grip....
You can come up with a lot of examples from virtually any brand that offer better value. But a D750 with a 35/50/85 and a flash isn't going to do me any good if that's not what I want.
I don't think anyone has claimed the Z7 was supposed to offer the best bang for buck.
But for some who've been wanting a mirrorless Nikon, you get their flagship resolution sensor in their future mount and some lenses in their new flagship lens series.
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,492
52
48
Singapore
Whether IBIS or in-lens stabalisation is superior remains to be seen as engineering is all about compromises.
One Nikon interviews sounded very reasonable to me: in general, in-lens stabilization is better because you customize the stabilization for the lens. It is also needed in DSLR as you want your view in your viewfinder stabilized. However, once moved to mirrorless, since what you see in the viewfinder is what the sensor is getting, IBIS is more doable, allowing you to stabilize non-stabilized lenses plus for those lenses with in-lens stabilization, have a hybrid to let the lens stabilize certain axis while the sensor do the rest.
 

simon6z

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2010
868
8
18
Near Bishan Park Macdonald
in lens stablization is better lol. IBIS is even better with 5 axis movement. Go see why owls heads are always moving in an axis way. Oly got it going making the first IBIS with Axis stabilization.
 

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
523
12
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
in lens stablization is better lol. IBIS is even better with 5 axis movement. Go see why owls heads are always moving in an axis way. Oly got it going making the first IBIS with Axis stabilization.
And yet Oly as well as other manufacturers offering IBIS still design telephoto lenses with in-lens stabilisation.
Not unexpectedly, the answer is usually in between. It seems telephotos or at least certain axis of stabilisation in telephotos are best done in lens, while the rest appears to be better in-body.
Where the crossover point is we can only guess based on available designs across all manufacturers but it seems to be around the short tele range.
 

bllimus

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2010
1,674
4
38
1k + for 35 f1.8?? How is the performance?
 

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
523
12
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
1k + for 35 f1.8?? How is the performance?
Not enough extensive reviews yet.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-nikkor-z-35mm-f18-s-review
https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/lenses/other-ilc/nikkor-z-35mm-f-1-8-s-lens/
The common theme is that CA appears to be very low.
But in the above 2 reviews, the sharpness figures don't seem to agree. I'm not talking about the absolute numbers which will vary from site to site depending on their testing protocol but the shape of the curves appear to differ a fair bit and there is a large discrepancy between centre and edge resolution in the digitalcameraworld review whereas both centre and edge resolution are excellent on the photoreview tests.
Such big discrepancies means that one or both tests may be flawed.
What I suspect might be happening is that there might be field curvature at closer focusing distances and the test from digitalcameraworld might have been done at a closer focus distance (and always done on a flat chart) and not refocused for the edge resolution numbers.
So the jury is still out at this point.
 

akagi07

Senior Member
Apr 6, 2006
1,479
0
36
Can I use this thread on general Z6 topic?
I tested the cam with ftz to my Tamron 15-30. So far so good. I like the LCD.
But shooting my kids for the past 6days. With face tracking priority, EVF priority on, I still faced some issues compared to what my d810 is not.
Is it my setting or something else. Not sure if someone can advise.

I shot low angle. Face recognition not 100% but well. When using monitor, and AF-C with auto area focusing, the shutter constantly hunt at times. Exposure keep changing. And I hit shutter error. First timer on mirror less.

In my EVF, the focus is a rather a big box not a focus pt like what we have in std DSLR.

I still like Z6 compare to Sony a7iii due to Lightroom file recognition. But what's the above issue
 

bhairav

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2012
932
8
18
Singapore
Can I use this thread on general Z6 topic?
I tested the cam with ftz to my Tamron 15-30. So far so good. I like the LCD.
But shooting my kids for the past 6days. With face tracking priority, EVF priority on, I still faced some issues compared to what my d810 is not.
Is it my setting or something else. Not sure if someone can advise.

I shot low angle. Face recognition not 100% but well. When using monitor, and AF-C with auto area focusing, the shutter constantly hunt at times. Exposure keep changing. And I hit shutter error. First timer on mirror less.

In my EVF, the focus is a rather a big box not a focus pt like what we have in std DSLR.

I still like Z6 compare to Sony a7iii due to Lightroom file recognition. But what's the above issue
Are you using the Tamron lens for face tracking? Is your lens "G1" or first gen 15-30mm? Apparently Tamron G1 lenses dont seem to be working well with FTZ adapter. Have you tried any other lens? I do use native 24-70 and 50mm with good accuracy for tracking my kid.
 

akagi07

Senior Member
Apr 6, 2006
1,479
0
36
It tracks. But once it lost track of my kids face.. it cannot track back.. I doubt it's the lens. Just suspecting if I config wrong on the body
 

Top Bottom