I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask - my wife has a Z5. It's been a good camera, IQ wise, but man does it struggle locking focus on low contrast areas. On landscapes, she often finds it either racking focus or hesitating and shifting focus for as long as she's pressing the AF-ON button, especially on overcast days or other times when there isn't a perfectly clear, high contrast area to focus on.
I don't use the camera a ton, but I've replicated this from time to time.
I have a Z7ii which does not have this issue. The Z7ii's AF isn't amazing but I get reliable focus on static objects.
How likely is the Z5ii to resolve this issue? It's her only problem with the camera but it's an extremely frustrating one.
The sensor is basically the same, and Expeed 7 unlocked its real potential. The Zf and Z5 II are well regarded for their low light autofocus abilities. They run circles around the older generation cameras.
Spring Azure, one of the earliest butterflies to wake up in spring in the northeast. About 1 inch wingspan. The tops of the wings are a pretty light purple (which often shows as blue in a picture), visible on when they are in flight.
I am in the market for a camera. I like to do Sports photography for fun along with mixture of people, landscape and nature. I have been going back and forth about the Z6III and the Z5II. What would be your recommendation? To start I am considering the Z5II with a 24-120mm f/4 S-line lens as I think budget wise it makes the most sense, especially since this is for hobby purposes. Should I be saving up to bump it to Z6III instead? Thought?
Ultimate22 wrote:
I am in the market for a camera. I like to do Sports photography for fun along with mixture of people, landscape and nature. I have been going back and forth about the Z6III and the Z5II. What would be your recommendation? To start I am considering the Z5II with a 24-120mm f/4 S-line lens as I think budget wise it makes the most sense, especially since this is for hobby purposes. Should I be saving up to bump it to Z6III instead? Thought?
Welcome to the club!
Asking a question like that in a Z5ii thread is like asking if you should buy a Mustang or a Camaro in a Ford Mustang thread! We are all (or would seem to be) Z5ii-happy. So take my answer with a grain of salt.
I bought a Z5ii and FTZ adapter last autumn so I could use my F-mount lenses from the old days. I've been immensely happy with it. Were I to buy a modern auto-focus lens it would probably the the 24-200 VR just for maximum versatility. (I have a 200mm prime from the old days and consider that minimum for some applications.) All that being said...
Some might disagree with this but spec-wise the biggest difference is that the z5ii is "only" 24 megapixels. That's a full-frame resolution of 6048 x 4032 pixels. Is that sufficient? If you wanted to print at 300spi you could print a landscape format picture that is 20 inches across, assuming you didn't start by cropping your original image. If you are primarily interested in Internet distribution or sharing with friends and for display on a computer or phone screen, then you'll end up resizing images to 1200 or 1400 or even 1600 pixels across, waaaay less than the original image. "Large" images for export from Flickr are 1024. If you take long distance shots then crop the desired subject out of the whole image, you could throw away 3/4ths of the image width and still get original resolution. If you are a professional then you might want the highest resolution you can get. Otherwise the Z5ii is more than you will ever need. It has also been claimed that fewer pixels means that each gets slightly more light, and so is better in a low light situation. I can't speak to the low-light difference but I can say that resolution has never been a limitation for me.
Check out my pic of the moon. moon1
by James Muller, on Flickr
That's a close crop of the original in which the moon is very much smaller. I took it handheld standing on my front steps with a manual-focus F-mount 300mm lens. I did have to run the target exposure down 5 steps and use spot-metering so that the dark sky wouldn't brighten up the whole picture and blow out all the moon details. Otherwise it's what the camera gave me. Unbelievable what it could do.
Other issues might be auto-focus performance and target tracking and in-body-image-stability, for which the Z5ii with NIkon's newest processor gets excellent reviews. Also dynamic range, since it has most or all of Nikon's latest processing. Other differences might be how it handles SD card and battery life. I can't speak to some of these concerns because I shoot all manual-focus. I have never used more than a quarter of the battery in a day, usually much less, and have rarely taken more than 100 pics which barely scratches the surface of SD storage. I've never done video with it (though I have with videocams). But then, I'm an amateur taking pics for fun and haven't done much sports lately (I did some auto racing decades ago with film).
Bottom line - The Z5ii is superb, would easily handle what you want to do. For the price difference you could spring for another lens, or two. It feels good in the hand.
But like I said, this thread in inhabited by people who already have a Z5ii! We are probably all quite happy with it. When I first joined FM I asked the rhetorical question "What am I missing?" I got at least one smarmy answer saying something like "76% of the pixels". Okay, but in practical terms for everything I've done since then, I am missing nothing.
That makes sense. I will have to ask the similar question on Z6III thread to see what they're saying. I think I'm just lost because Z6III is only 300-400 more unless you get used, that's why I'm just stuck. I know Z6III is a solid hybrid with greater video features and higher fps for continuation in raw capture, but if I just use Z5II with slightly lower fps, I can get one extra lens with it. Thanks for the detailed response!
Ultimate22 wrote:
That makes sense. I will have to ask the similar question on Z6III thread to see what they're saying. I think I'm just lost because Z6III is only 300-400 more unless you get used, that's why I'm just stuck. I know Z6III is a solid hybrid with greater video features and higher fps for continuation in raw capture, but if I just use Z5II with slightly lower fps, I can get one extra lens with it. Thanks for the detailed response!
It really depends on your need. Z5 II has the edge on dynamic range. Z6 II has edge on speed and video, although the Z5 II is also amazing for video. Size goes for Z5 II. Personally if you don’t need the readout out speed of the Z6 III or the 6K RAW, I think the Z5 II checks all the boxes for a better priced hybrid.
