As the title says, I'm conflicted. I am a hobby shooter who previously owned a Fuji X-T4. I like shooting sports, specifically Ultimate Frisbee. I did primarily video on my X-T4 for Frisbee but did photography here and there and was dissapointed to say the least due to the Autofocus. I do not have a huge budget, but to start I can definitely afford a Z5II (would prefer a used realistically) and a new 24-120mm S-line lens. But should I be saving up extra to get the Z6III instead or is that overkill, especially since I won't be making money from it anytime soon. Please let me know your experiences if you own either of these two cameras, especially if you also shoot sports.
the z6iii is a much better faster camera specially if don't want to spend a lot of money!! it can do a lot of things very well. it has started to show up on the Nikon refurb for 1750 without being on sale, also new one from b&h are 2k with their credit card. i have also done plenty of dealing with cardinal camera and ther u can bargain a bit. the 24-120 lens is a great lens, nikon finally got this lens right
I've owned both, and both are outstanding cameras, and both will do a very nice job on a wide variety of subjects. If you're going to be shooting predominantly sports, then the Z6 III is where you should go. I don't think there's really a huge difference in AF ability between the two, but what minor difference there is favors the Z6 III. The bigger benefit is the faster readout, which can allow for electronic shutter usage in a lot of situations. In very fast moving sports, I'd still stick to mechanical, but the readout is fast enough to do a pretty good job in a wide variety of scenarios.
If you're going to be shooting mostly stuff where pure low ISO quality is more important, then the Z5 II has a slight edge, as it does have a bit better dynamic range, and to my eye, a little better color response as well. For me, I shoot predominantly landscape, architecture, macro and some people, with wildlife and sports being about 10%. For me, the Z5 II (and my Z50 II) are the sweet spot. But for your needs, the Z6 III is a bit better.
Both cameras can do any type of shooting well, though, so if your budget is limited, you won't be disappointed with the Z5 II.
Jman13 wrote:
If you're going to be shooting predominantly sports, then the Z6 III is where you should go. I don't think there's really a huge difference in AF ability between the two, but what minor difference there is favors the Z6 III.
For a while I owned the Z8 and Zf at the same time. The Zf is the same camera as Z5ii, just different aesthetic, and the Z8 is the Nikon's flagship AF/action camera, and the Z6 III sensor speed is much closer to the Zf/Z5ii. Anyway, the AF performance difference between Z8 and Zf/Z5ii was small. I mean really small, like maybe ~90% hit rate vs ~95% for action photography. That gap was so narrow that I serioiusly doubt that the difference in autofocus performance between the Z6 III and Z5ii would even be noticeable, maybe 90% vs 92%?
But the EVF quality, on the other hand, should be quite impactful. 5.7MP finder is quite a bit nicer than a 3.7MP one.
P.S. Also, the sensor in the Zf/Z5ii is magical. It's hard to describe, but there's something about the images that is truly special. Not all the time. Not every image. But these occasional flashes of magic are addictive. Someone in another thread says that the Z6III sensor doesn't have that. If true, that would be a definitive signal for me to go with the Z5ii.
I also have owned the Z8 and Zf and largely agree with your assessment. The Z6 III does have the best EVF on a Nikon, but the Z5II’s is probably the second best. It’s brighter than the one in the Zf and as you well know, Nikon’s optics and panel quality are top notch so when I switched from the Z6 III to the Z5 II it took about 5 minutes before the difference wasn’t even noticeable any more
OffTrail wrote:
Go with the Z6III, and I would probably get an F-mount 70-200 f/2.8 before the 24-120 for ultimate frisbee.
I'm curious as a Z5ii FTZ user, but not looking to buy another lens right now.
Would not auto-focus be desirable for ultimate frisbee? And if so, how would you do AF with an F-mount lens on a Z6iii or Z5ii?
For general shooting I use an FTZ with older MF, non-CPU lenses. I have a 90mm Tamron AF macro for digitizing slides and color negative film. The lens has all the indications of being AF-capable. However I have not been able to find the right combination of settings on the Z5ii to make it work. I've tried focus mode and seemingly all the other related settings.
Is there some feature of Nikon's AF lenses like that 70-200 which the Tamron must not have?
Does AF work at all with the FTZ? I'm suspecting it doesn't.
Ah, never mind. I think I found the answer. Apparently the Tamron does AF but not with an internal motor.
I have the Z6III and the Z 24-120mm f/4. It’s a great combo for a variety of subjects. Fast, sharp, light weight! The Z5II has the same Exceed 7 processor as the Z6III and the Z8, so they will be close in AF and other areas.
Jman13 wrote:
Yo follow up, any Nikon F mount lens with an internal Motor will AF beautifully on the FTZ adapter, and usually better than they do on a DSLR.
Thanks. Good to know if I decide to look for a used AF lens. I've been restricting my searches to Z-mount only.
Not that it matters for what I use the Tamron for, but I can't see any physical mechanism on the Tamron's mount which would drive AF from the camera body. Curiouser and curiouser.
I shoot my kids middle school Ultimate team, so far from anything professional. This gallery will take you to some. The first roughly 18 are the z8 with the 24-120 which you can use a proxy for the z6iii. I didn't feel that lens gave me the best reach so there was some heavy cropping on a few. The last 20 or so were shot with the z5ii, my current camera and I felt like it was more than capable. These were shot with a Tamron 50-300 adapted from Sony. I had a few misses, but that was mainly on my and how I had the af set up. Usually just stuck it on AF-C, tracking and human subject. This was on an adapted tamron with megadap so there's probably a little autofocus performance left on the table based on that.
Seabassius wrote:
I shoot my kids middle school Ultimate team, so far from anything professional. This gallery will take you to some. The first roughly 18 are the z8 with the 24-120 which you can use a proxy for the z6iii. I didn't feel that lens gave me the best reach so there was some heavy cropping on a few. The last 20 or so were shot with the z5ii, my current camera and I felt like it was more than capable. These were shot with a Tamron 50-300 adapted from Sony. I had a few misses, but that was mainly on my and how I had the af set up. Usually just stuck it on AF-C, tracking and human subject. This was on an adapted tamron with megadap so there's probably a little autofocus performance left on the table based on that.
Pretty cool collection. (They look like they are competitive but having fun. When I was in middle school, which they still called junior high, we didn't have neat games like that.)
jimmuller wrote:
I'm curious as a Z5ii FTZ user, but not looking to buy another lens right now.
Would not auto-focus be desirable for ultimate frisbee? And if so, how would you do AF with an F-mount lens on a Z6iii or Z5ii?
For general shooting I use an FTZ with older MF, non-CPU lenses. I have a 90mm Tamron AF macro for digitizing slides and color negative film. The lens has all the indications of being AF-capable. However I have not been able to find the right combination of settings on the Z5ii to make it work. I've tried focus mode and seemingly all the other related settings.
Is there some feature of Nikon's AF lenses like that 70-200 which the Tamron must not have?
Does AF work at all with the FTZ? I'm suspecting it doesn't.
Ah, never mind. I think I found the answer. Apparently the Tamron does AF but not with an internal motor....Show more →
All of the Nikon F-mount 70-200's will autofocus on an FTZ, so a used VR or VRII for around $500-$700 can be a good budget option. If it's an AF-S lens, it will autofocus on an FTZ.
There is a difference in focusing speed between Z bodies and FTZ-adapted lenses, though. The Z8/Z9 get the same lens speed that the pro DSLR's got, but the consumer Z's seem to have a speed reduction. Steve Perry showed it with the Z6, and I've seen the same thing with a Zf (which makes me think the Z5II would be the same). Hardly even noticeable for most things, but it can play a role in re-acquisition and if you're frequently shooting subjects coming towards the camera. No idea how the Z6III compares, but it looks like it's well suited for sports either way.
jimmuller wrote:
Thanks. Good to know if I decide to look for a used AF lens. I've been restricting my searches to Z-mount only.
Not that it matters for what I use the Tamron for, but I can't see any physical mechanism on the Tamron's mount which would drive AF from the camera body. Curiouser and curiouser.
Depending on the age, it may have a small screw drive for AF.
Otherwise, it may have an AF motor in the lens but be too old for compatibility with the FTZ - I have a Tamron 150-600 g1 which won't autofocus on the FTZ as its too old for compatibility (and too old to have firmware updates to make it compatible), but apparently the g2 version works fine.
Similar with Sigma F mount lenses, FTZ compatibility depends on the lens - my Sigma EX 100-300 f4 won't work at all on FTZ and makes some nasty noises if you try, my Sigma EX 150mm f2.8 macro mostly works (AF is hit and miss, sometime you have to manually bump it close to focus and it will AF from there), apparently newer Sigmas work fine but might need a firmware update.
I've found the Sigmas that won't work at all on FTZ also won't work on a Nikon DSLR in live view mode.
It's an electronic communication issue not a mechanical issue, they obviously use quite different control algorithms etc.
As others have said, any AF-S Nikon lens should autofocus fine on the FTZ.
AF-D and older used a screw drive from the camera body which the FTZ doesn't have, so they won't have AF.
I think one issue I've noticed in the past with Ultimate is, sometimes the camera doesn't focus on the player(s) where the disc is and instead chooses to stay focused on the players that are closer to the lens and/or it will just focus on the background over the player with the disc.
Ultimate22 wrote:
That's very nice, great gallery.
I think one issue I've noticed in the past with Ultimate is, sometimes the camera doesn't focus on the player(s) where the disc is and instead chooses to stay focused on the players that are closer to the lens and/or it will just focus on the background over the player with the disc.
Yeah, that's why I think human subject helps solve that to a large extent, your risk it picks the wrong human. I try to keep my box smaller and put that on the area of the play I want it focused on.
Just got back from a double header of watching the Colorado Apex fall to Utah and the Colorado Alpenglow kick some butt against their Utah opponent. Such a great sport to photograph. This guy had three bodies draped across his him at one point during the game.
GravelBen wrote:
...
Otherwise, it may have an AF motor in the lens but be too old for compatibility with the FTZ
Makes sense, I guess. In the VF my Tamron's selected-area box changes color with focus, something none of my older lenses do. So something in the lens is telling the camera body that focus is correct. For my purposes the lack of AF is okay, since I use it for only static slide or film digitization anyway.
This is getting off-topic. I would expect that the Z5ii and Z6iii perform more or less the same with FTZ.
I have a Z8 and Z6 III which make a great pair. I considered the Z5 II as it is an outstanding camera at its price point, but opted for the Z6 III for the CF express B card slot, partially stacked sensor and brighter viewfinder. You can’t go wrong with any of these choices.
I've used a Z6III for video and photos of my kids playing college and high-school ultimate for the past 3 years. I'm very happy.
I use a Z 24-120 for video and love the combination. I'm usually shooting from the endzone, and occasionally I would like a little more range to capture play better in the other endzone. So the 24-200 might be worth considering too. But I really like the 24-120 as an all around photography lens too.
However, the best video setup for ultimate would definitely be a dedicated GoPro or similar on a huge tripod to get a better vantage point. Getting higher makes all the difference. There are also specific ultimate/sports setups now with tracking algorithms to autonomously follow the flow of play across the field. I've heard mixed results.
For photos, I use the 80-400 AFS with FTZ. Love the range, AF is quick and my hit rate is great. Sometimes I wish I had a bigger aperture than 5.6 to blur backgrounds, but I don't see how to do that affordably without giving up the versatility of the 80-400. Some of the "pros" park themselves in the endzone with a 300/4 or similar and wait for specific shots. But with the 80-400 I can capture more of the field of play.
