Lots of comments by non-owners. I have the Z5II and it's my second favorite current Z (to the Z8). I like it much better than the Z6III since the body is much closer in size to the original Z7. If the sensor was higher res, I'd get rid the Z8 since I really don't like the larger body size and weight.
The ergonomics are the best part of the camera to me and sensor quality is great except for the 24MP resolution. If they put the 45MP sensor from the Z7/Z7 II in this body I would not need another camera for a very long time.
Ripolini wrote:
Yes, and in fact we are speaking about Z5 II, a camera that can take same pictures as Zf, also with subject detection + focus confirmation in MF, a feature that can make life easier for photographers, but without which you can still take photos.
There’s some confusion as you had been talking about your Z6. No matter….😀
Clivem2 wrote:
There’s some confusion as you had been talking about your Z6. No matter….😀
I started mentioning my "old" Z6 because somebody wrote that "for those partial to Voigts and other manual focus lenses, the Zf is certainly a "image" maker in more ways than one."
So I replied that my Z6 with MF lenses is an image maker for sure. No need to use Zf to get the picture. And the ergonomics of Z5II/Z6 is even preferable when you use large/heavy MF lenses (I mentioned the Zeiss 135/2 Apo).
I am truly baffled to read so many "emotional comments" in so few pages. Do you like the Zf? Fine. Buy it and use it. But don't say in this technical section of the forum that its retro design helps you take better photos (i.e., Zf is a better "image" maker) than the Z5 II (which is the subject of this discussion). Even Z6 can take pictures with MF lenses ... that's why I mentioned my Z6.
The sole image maker is the photographer.
If we had been discussing the AF of the Zf or the Z5II, or the IBIS, well, I certainly wouldn't have said that the Z6 has the same performance... I wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
Ripolini wrote:
I started mentioning my "old" Z6 because somebody wrote that "for those partial to Voigts and other manual focus lenses, the Zf is certainly a "image" maker in more ways than one."
So I replied that my Z6 with MF lenses is an image maker for sure. No need to use Zf to get the picture. And the ergonomics of Z5II/Z6 is even preferable when you use large/heavy MF lenses (I mentioned the Zeiss 135/2 Apo).
I am truly baffled to read so many "emotional comments" in so few pages. Do you like the Zf? Fine. Buy it and use it. But don't say in this technical section of the forum that its retro design helps you take better photos (i.e., Zf is a better "image" maker) than the Z5 II (which is the subject of this discussion). Even Z6 can take pictures with MF lenses ... that's why I mentioned my Z6.
The sole image maker is the photographer.
If we had been discussing the AF of the Zf or the Z5II, or the IBIS, well, I certainly wouldn't have said that the Z6 has the same performance... I wouldn't have mentioned it at all. ...Show more →
I’m not disagreeing. A decent photographer should be able to get good photos from any modern camera once they are familiar with it.
I think enthusiasts can be more strongly motivated to go out to take photos or certain types of photos depending on the equipment they are using. They are just being human.
When I take photos for articles I’ve written they are part of a package I sell commercially - do I care whether I use my Z7ii, Zf or phone? Of course not, I just need a suitable tool. When I’m shooting for fun on a day out I could think the same way but I don’t. Technically though it doesn’t matter what I use but it does influence my motivation. I’m not arguing….I’m just stating my personal position.
Ripolini wrote:
I started mentioning my "old" Z6 because somebody wrote that "for those partial to Voigts and other manual focus lenses, the Zf is certainly a "image" maker in more ways than one."
So I replied that my Z6 with MF lenses is an image maker for sure. No need to use Zf to get the picture. And the ergonomics of Z5II/Z6 is even preferable when you use large/heavy MF lenses (I mentioned the Zeiss 135/2 Apo).
I am truly baffled to read so many "emotional comments" in so few pages. Do you like the Zf? Fine. Buy it and use it. But don't say in this technical section of the forum that its retro design helps you take better photos (i.e., Zf is a better "image" maker) than the Z5 II (which is the subject of this discussion). Even Z6 can take pictures with MF lenses ... that's why I mentioned my Z6.
The sole image maker is the photographer.
If we had been discussing the AF of the Zf or the Z5II, or the IBIS, well, I certainly wouldn't have said that the Z6 has the same performance... I wouldn't have mentioned it at all. ...Show more →
The irony of both criticizing in the same sentence the view that non technical aspects of cameras are key (in other words only technical aspects would be worth discussing in this technical forum)… and to then claim that all cameras, despite their obvious technical differences, are essentially the same.
mjeffv2 wrote:
As someone who was looking to move from Fujifilm to anything else
I also upgraded from XF! Very satisfied with my Z5. Fuji colors are overrated next to the dynamic range of these full frame sensors, paired with quality glass.
bernardl wrote:
The irony of both criticizing in the same sentence the view that non technical aspects of cameras are key (in other words only technical aspects would be worth discussing in this technical forum)… and to then claim that all cameras, despite their obvious technical differences, are essentially the same.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, actually the Z5 II is better than Zf (e.g., ergonomics, cards), even if it doesn't spark anything magical in photographers' neurons.
Ripolini wrote:
Well, actually the Z5 II is better than Zf (e.g., ergonomics, cards), even if it doesn't spark anything magical in photographers' neurons.
I guess that’s at least an acknowledgment that the Z6 isn’t.
One more step and you may accept the possibility that a camera is more than a set of parts. That it’s ergonomics and looks impact both the photographer (and therefore his photography) and the subject and as a results impacts the mediation between them.
First walk around with the Z5ii with 24-120 Z today. It is really comfortable just carrying it in right hand. You can pretty much do everything with right hand. Mode selector is right there as opposed to Z6iii & ZF.
And liked the picture control button. Dual SD cards. A lot to like.
I think any Nikon that upgrades from eXpeed 6 to 7 is more than just a reskin. Its the reason the Z5ii is selling to many over the much cheaper Z5. I just ordered one on the refurb site to replace my Z6 for most everything. Was tempted by the Z6iii refurb as well, but $300 savings buys new cards and whatnot.
There never has been much activity about either version. I have the original and it meets my needs. Most people agree that the Z5 ii is a great camera for the money and may be the best entry level FF out there but, it is still entry level and that doesn't generate much excitement on this board.
Max Power wrote:
I think any Nikon that upgrades from eXpeed 6 to 7 is more than just a reskin. Its the reason the Z5ii is selling to many over the much cheaper Z5. I just ordered one on the refurb site to replace my Z6 for most everything. Was tempted by the Z6iii refurb as well, but $300 savings buys new cards and whatnot.
Agreed, EXPEED 7 is a signifiant advance in features and function. It turned the Z50 (II) into a great camera as well.
Max Power wrote:
I think any Nikon that upgrades from eXpeed 6 to 7 is more than just a reskin. Its the reason the Z5ii is selling to many over the much cheaper Z5. I just ordered one on the refurb site to replace my Z6 for most everything. Was tempted by the Z6iii refurb as well, but $300 savings buys new cards and whatnot.
Definitely. It’s fascinating to think that the Expeed 8 must be around the corner with even significantly faster performance.
I wonder where Nikon will have put the cursor btwn improved performance and reduced power consumption.
bernardl wrote:
One more step and you may accept the possibility that a camera is more than a set of parts. That it’s ergonomics and looks impact both the photographer (and therefore his photography) and the subject and as a results impacts the mediation between them.
100%
I was just visiting my sister and her newborn over the weekend. The Z7 stayed at home, brought the Zf and Leica M-P. Ended up using the Leica 90% of the time. It’s objectively the worst camera of the three, yet it was also the best „image maker“ for me this weekend.. maybe sometimes the best camera is the one you want to bring with you 🤷♂️
bernardl wrote:
Definitely. It’s fascinating to think that the Expeed 8 must be around the corner with even significantly faster performance.
I wonder where Nikon will have put the cursor btwn improved performance and reduced power consumption.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm guessing EXPEED 8's headline feature will be raw pre-capture, in addition to the expected improvements in AF, faster image processing performance, etc...
I have been loving my z5ii, especially the video as the AF is a big step up for me from my last experience with mirrorless with a z6.
I wanted to try FF mirrorless again and this was the best entry point for me to wet my toes. I’ll probably use it mainly for family/kid pictures and videos as shooting my kids with my F100 is not always a challenge I’m up for.
LostLensCap wrote:
I wonder what improvements Expeed 8 will offer us still photographers?
Pre-buffered raw images where already mentioned. And I also think we’ll be seeing more and more HDR image pipelines in still cameras - the Sigma BF incorporates gain maps in its jpgs, the upcoming Hasselblad X2Dii will apparently do the same (and / or HEIF).
LostLensCap wrote:
Do to the fact that my cell phone meets my video needs, I wonder what improvements Expeed 8 will offer us still photographers?
That's pretty easy to predict to a certain degree judging by what Sony and Canon did or are doing.
Expect better AF with AI, more frames per second, bigger buffer, better pre capture and so on. Probably nothing revolutionary but as usual - "nice to have".
Immortal wrote:
That's pretty easy to predict to a certain degree judging by what Sony and Canon did or are doing.
Expect better AF with AI, more frames per second, bigger buffer, better pre capture and so on. Probably nothing revolutionary but as usual - "nice to have".
Indeed.
More speed, a wider range of conditions where the camera performs close to its highest potential (lower light levels,…)
All that will be welcome and help in some situations.
However I just shot 25,000 images in 5 intense hours this weekend during the largest dance festival in Tokyo. That was at 20 fps without pre-capture. There is an awful silence from photographers using bodies with a top frame rate faster than 20 fps about them actually using those faster shutter speeds and what it means in terms of post processing times.
