Reading mode: Light Dark

So now that the Z 7 scores an 89, will that change your mind?

Go to last post
MinAZ said:
Looks like the Z 7 scored an unprecedented 89 for a Nikon mirrorless camera. I am sure this is much higher than many expected, so will that now drive you (/them) to buy this camera?

Also, how does one get 89 and not gold? (confused)
Click to expand...
It makes no difference at all. Only one camera has 90% among a whole lot I looked at, a few has 89%, including the D850 and many have lower than 89%. So why worry about the "low" scores? Who cares really?

I agree that if the X-T# with it's 88% scores got a gold award so why didn't the Z7 got one? But in any case, does it make any difference? I will definitely not change my mind because DPR thinks the camera is not worth as much as the Sony A7R III, which has the highest scores.
 
"The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it." Sir Peter B. Medawar in: The Art of the Soluble (1967).

I often invoke this quote by this late Nobelist (founder of immunology and great popularizer of science) - especially when on first encounter an academic condemns an emerging idea/finding/arena in research. Invariably, the arrogant dismissal is grounded in grotesque ignorance, and they are either too lazy and/or ill equipped to get to terms with the subject. Witness poorly informed trashing of Nikon gear by any number of self-anointed eggspurts.

So it is with technology.

And when a reviewer assess a complex entity such as a camera used very different genres for very different users? Sounds like IQ, which is bullsh*t. It is no less idiotic to try and rank cameras by a single score.

In my experience (13 months shooting in the African tropics) I rate the D850 as almost perfect for wildlife compared to all other Nikon DSLRs, including the D500. But in this genre the D850 comes 2nd on action and lowlight to the D5 (which I cannot afford).

And I rate the D850 ahead of all DSLRs for landscape photography and macro outdoors BUT the Z7 is the more versatile camera for both genres, even though the IQ of the D850 and Z7 are very close if not identical for practicable purposes.

IME, the Z7 comes in behind the D850 for wildlife based on my 1 months shooting and falls behind the D500 for action photography BUT the Z7 is far better than the D500 for all other situations IME, let alone that the IQ of the Z7 beats the D500 - for my needs.

Sony, Canon etc? I have no idea. and not a concern because adding / changing camera systems is the very last action to consider - and only in extreme crisis.

"I wonder if we will ever get past the worst legacy of IQ theory in its unilinear and hereditarian interpretation - the idea that intelligence can be captured by a single number and that people can be arrayed in a simple sequence from idiot to Einstein" Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (1989: 100)
 
Last edited:
Theodosius said:
...This really is just in line with everything else I have seen from most reviewers. I also got the A7RIII (new) for $1K less than the Z7 is offering for.
Click to expand...
Despite paying much more for the Z7 than what the A7Riii would've cost me, I still opted for it, simply because it suits my needs, wants, and desires much better.

Everybody needs to buy what suits them best and then live with that decision.

Fortunately for me I don't need scores, test charts, or anyone else's measure of what's 'best'.

It's that simple.
 
Theodosius said:
ncsakany said:
Theodosius said:
It got a silver rating, and as the review confirms is less camera than the A7RIII which is already one year old. To put it bluntly (and I am a new entrant into FF), I just put in my order for the A7R III. The EOS R (as the review noted) was the worst of the lot.
Click to expand...
The A7R III is a great camera (I owned one) and will give yield high-quality output. And there’s nothing like Sony’s Eye-AF. I loved that on mine. Enjoy it in good health!

I hope, however, that your decision to get the A7R III was not because of a subjective 1% difference in the official review.
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with 1% and everything to do with the individual components (there is a lot of yellow in the side-by-side). This really is just in line with everything else I have seen from most reviewers. I also got the A7RIII (new) for $1K less than the Z7 is offering for.
Click to expand...
I am a dual Sony/Nikon shooter - The A7r3 is an awesome camera and you are going to love it. I would strongly recommend getting a vertical grip, or at least an L-bracket. makes the body much nicer to hold. Ergonomically I still slightly prefer Nikon, but the Sony bodies are really nice to shoot with. Pair it with a lens like the awesome 24-105 F4 and enjoy life :)
 
The Z7 is a good solid start, and I think Nikon did a reasonable job. I'm happy with my current D500/D810/A7r3 but he Z series can only get better.
 
Tim O'Connor said:
Theodosius said:
ncsakany said:
Theodosius said:
It got a silver rating, and as the review confirms is less camera than the A7RIII which is already one year old. To put it bluntly (and I am a new entrant into FF), I just put in my order for the A7R III. The EOS R (as the review noted) was the worst of the lot.
Click to expand...
The A7R III is a great camera (I owned one) and will give yield high-quality output. And there’s nothing like Sony’s Eye-AF. I loved that on mine. Enjoy it in good health!

I hope, however, that your decision to get the A7R III was not because of a subjective 1% difference in the official review.
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with 1% and everything to do with the individual components (there is a lot of yellow in the side-by-side). This really is just in line with everything else I have seen from most reviewers. I also got the A7RIII (new) for $1K less than the Z7 is offering for.
Click to expand...
I am a dual Sony/Nikon shooter - The A7r3 is an awesome camera and you are going to love it. I would strongly recommend getting a vertical grip, or at least an L-bracket. makes the body much nicer to hold. Ergonomically I still slightly prefer Nikon, but the Sony bodies are really nice to shoot with. Pair it with a lens like the awesome 24-105 F4 and enjoy life :)
Click to expand...
Thanks. It was, admittedly, a really hard decision. But the $1K in savings made it impossible to ignore.
 
chambeshi said:
"The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it." Sir Peter B. Medawar in: The Art of the Soluble (1967).

I often invoke this quote by this late Nobelist (founder of immunology and great popularizer of science) - especially when on first encounter an academic condemns an emerging idea/finding/arena in research. Invariably, the arrogant dismissal is grounded in grotesque ignorance, and they are either too lazy and/or ill equipped to get to terms with the subject. Witness poorly informed trashing of Nikon gear by any number of self-anointed eggspurts.

So it is with technology.

And when a reviewer assess a complex entity such as a camera used very different genres for very different users? Sounds like IQ, which is bullsh*t. It is no less idiotic to try and rank cameras by a single score.

In my experience (13 months shooting in the African tropics) I rate the D850 as almost perfect for wildlife compared to all other Nikon DSLRs, including the D500. But in this genre the D850 comes 2nd on action and lowlight to the D5 (which I cannot afford).

And I rate the D850 ahead of all DSLRs for landscape photography and macro outdoors BUT the Z7 is the more versatile camera for both genres, even though the IQ of the D850 and Z7 are very close if not identical for practicable purposes.

IME, the Z7 comes in behind the D850 for wildlife based on my 1 months shooting and falls behind the D500 for action photography BUT the Z7 is far better than the D500 for all other situations IME, let alone that the IQ of the Z7 beats the D500 - for my needs.

Sony, Canon etc? I have no idea. and not a concern because adding / changing camera systems is the very last action to consider - and only in extreme crisis.

"I wonder if we will ever get past the worst legacy of IQ theory in its unilinear and hereditarian interpretation - the idea that intelligence can be captured by a single number and that people can be arrayed in a simple sequence from idiot to Einstein" Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (1989: 100)
Click to expand...
Outstanding. Completely concur.

Me? I haven't even looked at the DPR review, and don't care.

I know what this camera is allowing me to do, and for my purposes, it's a deeply powerful, complex tool, that has already proven itself in ways no other camera I've used has.

It has even gone as far as to create new opportunities for me as a creative person that I did not have before.

That's not stopping me from looking forward and continuing to look for tools that allow me to create in ways the Z7 can't, but the Z7 is a tool of previously unimaginable breadth. Nothing I've used to date covers more bases, and provides an end result that is unimpeachably excellent for a smaller (i.e, "full frame") format.
 
JacquesC said:
I've learnt a long time ago to pay attention only to the features and functions that are important to me in a car, camera, or any other item of interest to me. How somebody else rate a product might be quite different (and usually is) from my own rating.

For many Nikon shooters the Z cameras will work well regardless of the score.
Click to expand...
And regardless US$4000+?
 
Raul said:
JacquesC said:
I've learnt a long time ago to pay attention only to the features and functions that are important to me in a car, camera, or any other item of interest to me. How somebody else rate a product might be quite different (and usually is) from my own rating.

For many Nikon shooters the Z cameras will work well regardless of the score.
Click to expand...
And regardless US$4000+?
Click to expand...
I'd rather pay US$4000 for something that scores low but works well for me, than for something that doesn't work for me but scores high.
 
Pieter Kaufman said:
e from looking forward and continuing to look for tools that allow me to create in ways the Z7 can't, but the Z7 is a tool of previously unimaginable breadth. Nothing I've used to date covers more bases, and provides an end result that is unimpeachably excellent for a smaller (i.e, "full frame") format.
Click to expand...
Very well put, as JacquesC says rightly, one's camera(s) is intrinsically a personal choice.

Although, the uncountable bleating lemmings would disagree, avoiding the herd, or rather the flock, avoids cliffs and other precipices.

It is also a matter as to how much one actually uses one's equipment for photography. And the Nikon Z cameras can only get better; and so will the Greater Nikon Ecosystem : given the Nikkors released recently
 
Last edited:
Raul said:
JacquesC said:
I've learnt a long time ago to pay attention only to the features and functions that are important to me in a car, camera, or any other item of interest to me. How somebody else rate a product might be quite different (and usually is) from my own rating.

For many Nikon shooters the Z cameras will work well regardless of the score.
Click to expand...
And regardless US$4000+?
Click to expand...
I think that if the camera would have received SIGNIFICANTLY less than the top scored ones then it would be something we could worry about, but considering the best scored one received ONE more %... I mean, let's be realistic. The people who test these cameras are just like you and me, they have an opinion and they express their opinions. But what else does it prove than the fact that according to them, the Z7 is slightly worse than the Sony top model? Don't forget that this is just the opinion of a handful people, causing statistical error, who only had a short time to make the evaluations - AND - may very well be biased in some direction for whatever reason they have. Even if that test time is more than what we normally get, it still means that they are probably not THAT familiar with the cameras they review, as a real owner and frequent user normally ends up like. So, while the reviews and the scores may be fairly good guidelines, they should not be read as a final and unquestionable verdict, but taken with a grain of salt. Even if it is read that way, we must be realistic... mathematically, 1% difference can be caused by a simple error somewhere in the chain, especially when the score is already at the top level as it is now.

Then the price... Yes, it is an expensive camera, but all that is personal also. If I would buy the Sony or the Canon, I would need to dump ALL my gear and buy everything new, so it would be considerably more expensive. But if I had nothing, perhaps I'd look at other brands as well.
 
MinAZ said:
Looks like the Z 7 scored an unprecedented 89 for a Nikon mirrorless camera. I am sure this is much higher than many expected, so will that now drive you (/them) to buy this camera?

Also, how does one get 89 and not gold? (confused)
Click to expand...
No. I have the Sony A73 and it is 89% and is GOLD. Also if you read the reviews the AF on the Sony beats out the Z7. I have a relatively small investment in Nikon lenses so the Z7 is not tempting for me at all and I have the D850 if I need the 45MP files.
 
Theodosius said:
It got a silver rating, and as the review confirms is less camera than the A7RIII which is already one year old. To put it bluntly (and I am a new entrant into FF), I just put in my order for the A7R III. The EOS R (as the review noted) was the worst of the lot.
Click to expand...
Interesting - have you tried handling and shooting with the cameras ?
 
Yes. Ergonomics and design better on the Nikon, but functional on the Sony. Sony is a better performing camera, and that is a more important consideration for me. It also didn't hurt I got a new A7RIII for almost US$1000 less.
 
For the Z6.
 
MinAZ,

No, my mind is still not changed. And it WON'T be changed any time soon. I have two of the BEST cameras EVER MADE! I have the D850 and the D500, and if I were to go with another camera AT THIS POINT, it would be a D5 some time next year, once the D6 comes out, probably. Also, AT THIS POINT, IF I were to go with another system, it would most likely be a Fuji X-series camera.

Until Nikon comes out with a mirrorless that rivals a D5, I don't see a Z-series body in my immediate future. The bodies still don't meet my needs, and I feel no reason to go to the Z bodies.

Sam
 
I have a D810 and was considering upgrading to D850. I have held off to see the mirrorless cameras. I have come to believe that the Z7 will exceed my needs in all but AF. I have waited this long, so will wait a little longer. I think that the benefits of the Zcamera ae worth waiting for. I do not want to have two cameras and cannot afford two of them. I have been using Nikon gear for over 50 years so do not care about Sony or Canon mirrorless. Switching brands at this point seems unlikely.
 
chambeshi said:
"The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it." Sir Peter B. Medawar in: The Art of the Soluble (1967).

I often invoke this quote by this late Nobelist (founder of immunology and great popularizer of science) - especially when on first encounter an academic condemns an emerging idea/finding/arena in research. Invariably, the arrogant dismissal is grounded in grotesque ignorance, and they are either too lazy and/or ill equipped to get to terms with the subject. Witness poorly informed trashing of Nikon gear by any number of self-anointed eggspurts.

So it is with technology.

And when a reviewer assess a complex entity such as a camera used very different genres for very different users? Sounds like IQ, which is bullsh*t. It is no less idiotic to try and rank cameras by a single score.

In my experience (13 months shooting in the African tropics) I rate the D850 as almost perfect for wildlife compared to all other Nikon DSLRs, including the D500. But in this genre the D850 comes 2nd on action and lowlight to the D5 (which I cannot afford).

And I rate the D850 ahead of all DSLRs for landscape photography and macro outdoors BUT the Z7 is the more versatile camera for both genres, even though the IQ of the D850 and Z7 are very close if not identical for practicable purposes.

IME, the Z7 comes in behind the D850 for wildlife based on my 1 months shooting and falls behind the D500 for action photography BUT the Z7 is far better than the D500 for all other situations IME, let alone that the IQ of the Z7 beats the D500 - for my needs.

Sony, Canon etc? I have no idea. and not a concern because adding / changing camera systems is the very last action to consider - and only in extreme crisis.

"I wonder if we will ever get past the worst legacy of IQ theory in its unilinear and hereditarian interpretation - the idea that intelligence can be captured by a single number and that people can be arrayed in a simple sequence from idiot to Einstein" Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (1989: 100)
Click to expand...
Perfectly put and we agree again!
 
I’m not condemning the site or the reviewers, rather I’ve just come to realize there’s an editorial agenda at work that taints outcomes that may not have been as obvious (or present) years ago. There are valuable bits and pieces to be found but overall, they aren’t present in the conclusion page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top