Entry level? The Z5ii out performs the Z6, Z6ii, and other than MP's the Z7, and Z7ii. which only a few years ago were Nikon's mid and top level offerings. So, calling it "entry level" is just showing us how much improved the entire line is with Expeed 7 as the Z6iii and Z8-Z9 are even faster and with more special features. And, if we are honest about our true camera needs, the Z5ii is more than most of us will ever need.
LostLensCap wrote:
Entry level? The Z5ii out performs the Z6, Z6ii, and other than MP's the Z7, and Z7ii. which only a few years ago were Nikon's mid and top level offerings. So, calling it "entry level" is just showing us how much improved the entire line is with Expeed 7 as the Z6iii and Z8-Z9 are faster and with more special features. And, if we are honest about our true camera needs, the Z5ii is more that most of us will ever need.
Indeed.
I could be argued that in some ways a Z5II performs better than a D5 that was used happily by the world's top photographers as the best sport body on the planet.
The value Nikon is delivering with the Z5II is plain insane.
Compared to other "entry level" full-frame bodies currently on the market, I think the only area where the Z5II falls behind is the lack of full-width 4K60, which many photographers simply don't care about. It's nice to have, but by no means essential for most users.
I could be argued that in some ways a Z5II performs better than a D5 that was used happily by the world's top photographers as the best sport body on the planet.
The value Nikon is delivering with the Z5II is plain insane.
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.
One more step and you'll understand what I mean: ergonomics are very important. And a camera with poor ergonomics will definitely affect the photographer. On the other hand, if you like using a camera with poor ergonomics just to show it off and flaunt its retro style to your model, well, that has little to do with photography. It's a different thing. Legitimate, but different. And I don't think a retro camera can improve the mediation between the photographer and the subject. It's just an unfounded hypothesis. In fact, most portrait photographers, if not all, don't need a Zf to take excellent photos. They could use a Zf, but this wouldn't improve their images.
I used the Nikon FM in the film era. I used it along F-801 or F100. I still have those three cameras. Guess which camera I preferred to use 20-30 years ago, independently of AF? This does not detract from the merits of FM, which was an excellent product in the late 1970s and 1980s.
bernardl wrote:
Indeed.
I could be argued that in some ways a Z5II performs better than a D5 that was used happily by the world's top photographers as the best sport body on the planet.
The value Nikon is delivering with the Z5II is plain insane.
It’s of no great concern to me which style of camera individuals prefer, it’s their choice.
A big difference between retro and chunky grip styles is in how people tend to hold their cameras. With modern grips some even shoot one-handed, I’m not convinced this is ideal but each to his own. With retro bodies it’s best to use the traditional grip of left hand cradling the lens, elbows tucked into the body. With modern large grips people sometimes say they use the traditional way to hold the camera but frankly I very rarely see people doing this.
My point here is that providing I use correct handling of the Zf I don’t find its ergonomics problematic, indeed I find having a dedicated ISO dial is a significant plus with the ability to enable/disable Auto ISO too.
One thing I wish the Zf would have is one extra function button. I may buy a 3rd body in the winter sale, it could be a 2nd Zf but probably it’s more likely to be a Z5ii. I frequent switch between retro and modern styles already as I have a Z7ii as well as my Zf.
Ripolini wrote:
One more step and you'll understand what I mean: ergonomics are very important. And a camera with poor ergonomics will definitely affect the photographer. On the other hand, if you like using a camera with poor ergonomics just to show it off and flaunt its retro style to your model, well, that has little to do with photography. It's a different thing. Legitimate, but different. And I don't think a retro camera can improve the mediation between the photographer and the subject. It's just an unfounded hypothesis. In fact, most portrait photographers, if not all, don't need a Zf to take excellent photos. They could use a Zf, but this wouldn't improve their images.
I used the Nikon FM in the film era. I used it along F-801 or F100. I still have those three cameras. Guess which camera I preferred to use 20-30 years ago, independently of AF? This does not detract from the merits of FM, which was an excellent product in the late 1970s and 1980s.
Ergonomics are very important and I totally agree, and never disagreed as far as I recall, that the Z5II is a remarkable camera.
I also never said that a Zf was mandatory to take great portrait picture.
But we disagree on the influence that the look of a camera can, and I firmly believe, does have on the photographer/subject relationship. And that is grounded on the, to me obvious, fact that the quality of portrait photographs is directly and deeply influence by the connection between photographer and subject. I am of course no saying that the look of the camera is the most important aspect of this connection.
This being said it is possible to take great candid or street images without any connection at all, and in such cases the look of the camera is completely irrelevant.
And yes, I started photography 40+ years ago with a Praktika as my father would not lend me his FE2 yet. My first Nikon was a F601m, modern ergonomics with just the front dial missing. I now own a F3 T/HP and FE2. Lovely bodies.
Cameras today are becoming like a wrench that will fit any size nut. Nikon with there new expeed 7 line has managed to produce some tools that not only fit most nuts (us photographers) but look and feel good while doing it. I choose good ergonomics over most other attributes a camera may have. No matter how great the IQ may be, if it doesn't feel good in the hand and operate intuitively, I won't use it.
LostLensCap wrote:
Cameras today are becoming like a wrench that will fit any size nut. Nikon with there new expeed 7 line has managed to produce some tools that not only fit most nuts (us photographers) but look and feel good while doing it. I choose good ergonomics over most other attributes a camera may have. No matter how great the IQ may be, if it doesn't feel good in the hand and operate intuitively, I won't use it.
Ergonomics are also important to me as an enabler but I rank it a bit lower than whatever other criteria may have a larger impact on results. In some cases ergonomics is key, when speed is of essence for example. This is why the Z8/Z9 combo is so great btw.
I look at ergonomics like I look at weight. Lighter is nice to me but only has an indirect impact on images. If I can carry heavier equipment that yields better results I am often willing to accept the burden.
This is why I shoot festivals with a 400mm f2.8 S TC and not with my excellent 400mm f4.5 S. This is why I often trek with my GFX-100II and not my Z8.
To me photography is all about results, not my own comfort unless that has a measurable impact on results, which it definitely sometimes can have.
I’m very impressed with the value proposition of the Z5II. For the last couple years I have been looking to add another body to my Sony system as a fun alternative to the backpack of two A7RV’s that I use for landscape work, but nothing current in the Sony line intrigued me (I did try the A7CII but hated the ergonomics). I think the Z5II will be a great replacement for the Z6 I was using a few years ago as my fun walkaround cam and I have a LNIB one from the b&s board on the way.
Just picked one up as a replacement for the A7IV I've been shooting for the last 6 months. Going to pair nicely with my OG Z7 for around-town and landscape work.
I do have to say I'm very happy Nikon fixed pretty much every complaint I had with non-CPU lens data on the Z7 (namely EXIF for dumb adapters, accurate lens info for FL's and apertures Nikon didn't pre-load and putting lens names in the EXIF like my OM-1 did).
Still wish they'd fix Bracketing Burst though, the F mount DSLR's are still better for that.
Yeah anybody that cares about this is getting a Z6III. At the price the Z5II is at it can't have everything or it risks cannibalizing Z6III sales. ISO1600 wrote:
Compared to other "entry level" full-frame bodies currently on the market, I think the only area where the Z5II falls behind is the lack of full-width 4K60, which many photographers simply don't care about. It's nice to have, but by no means essential for most users.
I just remembered that Product Review Mode is a thing and figured it was still locked to the Z50ii for weird reasons, but turns out the Z5ii has it. I know it's sort of antithetical to the style of the Zf, but man, I wish the Zf had it!
It's interesting, I had been on a ZF having started in the world of 1980's film cameras, the silver one in particular appeals visually, I want to use it with manual lenses and have eye focus confirmation, etc. However once I've added a grip, I can't quite see the point when there's a Z5II which I understand has all the same manual focus aids, is cheaper and more ergonomic. Not as cool but at a certain point you have to live with the thing in your hand.
One thing I'm not yet sure about, I really like a dedicated exposure compensation dial like on the ZF, Sony's and Fuji's. This is because I shoot manual with auto ISO. How does one do EC in manual on the Z5II? Is the only way to press the button then rotate dial? Or can I assign the top dial as I'm using the aperture on the lens?
bemei wrote:
It's interesting, How does one do EC in manual on the Z5II? Is the only way to press the button then rotate dial? Or can I assign the top dial as I'm using the aperture on the lens?
I am in the same camp as you and the only solutions I have found is to use lens ring for EC and move aperture to regular dial.
How are you liking it a few months later? I’m selling off my X-H1 and lenses and feel pretty settled on a Z5 II. Seems like the price and weight of a good Nikon setup is around the same as upgrading to an X-T5 and better lenses, but you get legit autofocus and the full-frame sensor.
mjeffv2 wrote:
As someone who was looking to move from Fujifilm to anything else, I feel like I did quite a bit of research. I didn't have any specific requirements other it just being somewhat recent to use features like IBIS, focus bracketing, and pixel shift. I thought about staying with APS-C for cheaper lenses, but the R7 felt too old and the a6700 was only $200 less than the Z5 II.
Compared to the a7c II and R6 mk II, it was definite cheaper at $600 and $300 less respectively. It had all the features I needed, pretty dang good AF (Fuji makes everyone else's AF seems like pure magic) and the ability to adapt basically any other DSLR *or* mirrorless lens to the body sold me. When directly comparing the bodies, it feels like most are basically the same with either very minor difference is IBIS, dynamic range, menus, etc or options that are nice but not critical as a "prosumer" like dual SD card slots.
I've had my Z5 II for about a week now and I'm still getting used to it, but I absolutely love it so far. The grip feels good, there's plenty of Nikon content to watch on YT, and it seems like the top tier lenses are really being slept on compared to Sony and Canon. ...Show more →
RoamingScott wrote:
Saw the spec rumors for the A7v...only proves what a huge value the Z5ii is and will still be in 2026!
Damn! Just checked prices and the Z5 II is literally half the price of the A7 V right now in Germany (1.5k vs 3k EUR).
The Z6 III is in a weird spot though.. it's still significantly cheaper than the Sony at around 2k EUR but it also has less resolution, less DR (btw odd that they didn't use the same approach as Panasonic with the S1II with the same sensor..) and overall it just doesn't feel like a big enough step up from the Z5 II..
Well, whadayaknow? A Z5-II thread! (I just noticed it.)
I've had my Z5-II for maybe three months. So much of the discussion here is about "value" and cost. I'll throw in my motivation. It's still about value but in a different direction from what I've seen discussed here. It's not about Z5 vs. Z6 vs. Z7 vs. Z8 vs. Z9, with or without any Roman numeral behind it.
I used a Nikkormat with film since the early-mid 70's. I had three great lenses, all F-mount. In order of purchase: "kit" lens 50mm f/1.4 SC-Auto (late production), 200mm Q-Auto f/4 (second version, just prior to the introduction of multi-coating on the 200), 35mm f/2.8 S-Auto. Later I used a Sony point'n'click (forgot the name), then a Coolpix. Even later a Canon Vixia videocam for still shots, and then my phone. None of them had the versatility of the Nikkormat.
When I finally thought about a "real" digital camera I wondered if those lenses could be used. So I asked at the local camera shop (Hunt's) and was shown a Z5-II with adapter. Perfect! I get a less expensive body and the ability to use a lens collection that would have cost me upwards of $5000 to duplicate. Since then I've picked up another Nikkor lens (300mm AI-S f/4.5, 1981 version) and a Tamron 90 macro for scanning my 1000+ slide collection.
They are all F-mount, manual focus, aperture-priority only (or full manual). But the camera still offers its VR, White-balance, color style selection, EVF and folding touchscreen, 2 SD cards, WiFi connection to my computer, etc. All good good stuff but requiring my involvement. If I ever buy an auto-focus lens I'll get the target tracking. But for now I'm having fun doing it the old way at a tiny fraction of what your "modern" features would cost. I'm still learning about digital photography. Your Zn's (where n is greater than 5) would be overkill for me. So yeah, it is about value vs. cost, but so much more too.
A question, if you please, which I guess could apply to any Nikon Z model, or any other mirrorless camera for that matter. Being new to digital photography I'm still learning. Lately I've been reading about the benefits and shortfalls of different shutter types, mechanical, electronic, or EFCS. What I've read makes sense though I've never had reason to observe the differences, let alone test them.
My Z5-II uses EFCS by default, mostly. However it can be made to use just mechanical, or by selecting Silent Mode use just electronic. So I could force a selection but I'd have to think of it when I'm setting up a shot, have a reason to do so, and go through the trouble of running through the menus.
So I'm curious whether any of you bother, or just use the default in most situations. It would seem to depend on what kind of shots you are trying to get. I'm not aiming for action shots myself, and since I'm using all manual-focus lenses I have to take time to set up most still shots. So my usage might be different from yours. Thanks.
