Z6: Kudos to Nikon

For a first iteration

According to Dpreview video , Nikon came in first in ergo (no surprise there), and in video (what an upset) and IBIS (a surprise here as well)

But for me it's the AFC weakness which prevents me for getting one

I'm a birder so AFC and long lenses are the price of entry

(I envy the Nikon tele primes and zooms lineup, especially the PF ones)

As for now, I'll have to wait for the next iteration

But for other genres the Z6 would do just fine, albeit with a meager line of native lenses

Kudos to Nikon for dethroning Sony in the video arena, a real surprise from a manufacturer who's foreign to video not too long ago (not unlike Fuji)

Let's bring on the Z II line sooner than later

Cheers,

dv312 said:

For a first iteration

According to Dpreview video , Nikon came in first in ergo (no surprise there), and in video (what an upset) and IBIS (a surprise here as well)

But for me it's the AFC weakness which prevents me for getting one

I'm a birder so AFC and long lenses are the price of entry

(I envy the Nikon tele primes and zooms lineup, especially the PF ones)

As for now, I'll have to wait for the next iteration

But for other genres the Z6 would do just fine, albeit with a meager line of native lenses

Kudos to Nikon for dethroning Sony in the video arena, a real surprise from a manufacturer who's foreign to video not too long ago (not unlike Fuji)

Let's bring on the Z II line sooner than later

Cheers,

Click to expand...

I agree its quite a feat Nikon have pulled off here. A very sound competitor to the 3rd generation A7iii which was hailed as the best camera around.

No mean feat.

Greg.

dv312 said:

For a first iteration

According to Dpreview video , Nikon came in first in ergo (no surprise there), and in video (what an upset) and IBIS (a surprise here as well)

But for me it's the AFC weakness which prevents me for getting one

I'm a birder so AFC and long lenses are the price of entry

(I envy the Nikon tele primes and zooms lineup, especially the PF ones)

As for now, I'll have to wait for the next iteration

But for other genres the Z6 would do just fine, albeit with a meager line of native lenses

Kudos to Nikon for dethroning Sony in the video arena, a real surprise from a manufacturer who's foreign to video not too long ago (not unlike Fuji)

Let's bring on the Z II line sooner than later

Cheers,

Click to expand...

So you’ve shot BIF with the Z6 and are not happy with the results?

Mark Smith seems to get pretty decent results with a Z7 when shooting birds:



If you've not actually shot with the cameras, I would highly suggest you do so and not base your conclusive thoughts on these online reviews.

ijm5012 said:

dv312 said:

For a first iteration

According to Dpreview video , Nikon came in first in ergo (no surprise there), and in video (what an upset) and IBIS (a surprise here as well)

But for me it's the AFC weakness which prevents me for getting one

I'm a birder so AFC and long lenses are the price of entry

(I envy the Nikon tele primes and zooms lineup, especially the PF ones)

As for now, I'll have to wait for the next iteration

But for other genres the Z6 would do just fine, albeit with a meager line of native lenses

Kudos to Nikon for dethroning Sony in the video arena, a real surprise from a manufacturer who's foreign to video not too long ago (not unlike Fuji)

Let's bring on the Z II line sooner than later

Cheers,

Click to expand...

So you’ve shot BIF with the Z6 and are not happy with the results?

Mark Smith seems to get pretty decent results with a Z7 when shooting birds:

If you've not actually shot with the cameras, I would highly suggest you do so and not base your conclusive thoughts on these online reviews.

Click to expand...

It is a common thing. People read a review and don't actually research how well a camera can do something.

We've probably all been guilty of drinking the koolaid.

In this case he needs to find the threads where people are proving AF tracking is quite good.

And I am convinced Nikon will improve it with FW updates. As more people use the cameras they are learning more about how to improve the SW.

Remember in the video they're using the Z7's autofocus test page to talk about the Z6.

It's a bit lazy on their part though and kinda shows they're just regurgitating old talking points.

ijm5012 said:

So you’ve shot BIF with the Z6 and are not happy with the results?

Mark Smith seems to get pretty decent results with a Z7 when shooting birds:

If you've not actually shot with the cameras, I would highly suggest you do so and not base your conclusive thoughts on these online reviews.

Click to expand...

For everyone who tries to link to Mark Smith's results. Mark in his videos never says how many shots he had to take that were out of focus to get to the shots/shots that he got here. If you have to take 1000 shots and 950 are out of focus and 50 are in focus, it is different than if most of your shots are in focus.

A more representative video is that of Tony Northrup where he compares several cameras including Z7 to shoot sports.

Another person I trust is Nasim Mansurov, Photographylife.com, a Nikon guru, who lives and breathes Nikon. He and members of his team bought 5 (!) Z7 bodies and took them all over the world for a month, including deserts of Jordan etc, to truly test these cameras. You can read his very long and detailed review. He believes tracking on Z7 is basically unusable and feels that Autofocus system even on basic Nikon DSLR like D5600 is more capable as the the one on Z7. He also had problems with 2 out of 5 of their Z7 bodies starting to have rubber come off a month after the purchase, which has never ever happened to any of his DSLRs.

I've tested Z7 for a week, shooting alongside D500, including BIF, running kids, etc. I found Z7 autofocus tracking poor. I found Z7 face detection generally inaccurate because of lack of eye af.

I hope Nikon can fix some of the AF issues via firmware. This would be great if they can do it.

Droster said:

Remember in the video they're using the Z7's autofocus test page to talk about the Z6.

It's a bit lazy on their part though and kinda shows they're just regurgitating old talking points.

Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that too and was surprised by it. They should have mentioned they're basing their conclusion on the Z7 AF test, as they haven't done a thorough Z6 AF test yet. A bit unfair I think.

It was already found Tony did everything wrong possible.

Numerous posts showing how good the Z does sports and birds.

I believe my eyes.

dv312 said:

But for me it's the AFC weakness which prevents me for getting one

I'm a birder so AFC and long lenses are the price of entry

Click to expand...

I'm getting to know a Z6 and am highly impressed by it. The long lenses are there, including the 300 and 500 PF that tempt me. I don't have one yet so haven't tested tracking seriously, and one reads mixed results so... if you're on the fence, I think it's worth renting one and seeing for yourself, instead of trying to guess who to believe. I plan to do that myself.

Absolutic said:

Another person I trust is Nasim Mansurov, Photographylife.com, a Nikon guru, who lives and breathes Nikon. He and members of his team bought 5 (!) Z7 bodies and took them all over the world for a month, including deserts of Jordan etc, to truly test these cameras. You can read his very long and detailed review. He believes tracking on Z7 is basically unusable and feels that Autofocus system even on basic Nikon DSLR like D5600 is more capable as the the one on Z7. He also had problems with 2 out of 5 of their Z7 bodies starting to have rubber come off a month after the purchase, which has never ever happened to any of his DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Yeah, here is the deal man:

I have been a full time pro for 30 years, read I earn 100% of my income from photography. 21 of those years have been in the fine state of Colorado doing not weddings but high end advertising, editorial and fine art work. I know a ton of art directors and editors and not a single one of them has worked with this guy or the people he farms out review work to. No galleries that I am aware of show his work so I think it is safe to say that at best he makes about 10% of his income from the sale of either his photography or the services rendered as such. The majority of his income is derived from having a photo enthusiast fan base who hangs on his every word....about tests and reviews.

It’s one thing to test camera in so called real world scenarios and it is another to actually put the camera to work as an expert in your genre and learn it’s strengths and to put it bluntly, how to use the darn thing. After a week with my Z6, I have it dialed in, it is earning me money and I find what the reviews say is just not the case. I found the AF to track just fine on skiers hauling butt passing as close as 2 feet away and I find the high ISO to be almost a stop better than the “reviews” and “tests” seem to have gleaned.

I put zero stock in reviews and tests and 100% into what I find out on my own.

I just don’t undersand this new facet of earning a living in testing cameras and never actually using them on a real paid job in which talent and mastery really bring what these tools can actually do to the forefront.

Absolutic said:

ijm5012 said:

So you’ve shot BIF with the Z6 and are not happy with the results?

Mark Smith seems to get pretty decent results with a Z7 when shooting birds:

If you've not actually shot with the cameras, I would highly suggest you do so and not base your conclusive thoughts on these online reviews.

Click to expand...

For everyone who tries to link to Mark Smith's results. Mark in his videos never says how many shots he had to take that were out of focus to get to the shots/shots that he got here. If you have to take 1000 shots and 950 are out of focus and 50 are in focus, it is different than if most of your shots are in focus.

A more representative video is that of Tony Northrup where he compares several cameras including Z7 to shoot sports.

Another person I trust is Nasim Mansurov, Photographylife.com, a Nikon guru, who lives and breathes Nikon. He and members of his team bought 5 (!) Z7 bodies and took them all over the world for a month, including deserts of Jordan etc, to truly test these cameras. You can read his very long and detailed review. He believes tracking on Z7 is basically unusable and feels that Autofocus system even on basic Nikon DSLR like D5600 is more capable as the the one on Z7. He also had problems with 2 out of 5 of their Z7 bodies starting to have rubber come off a month after the purchase, which has never ever happened to any of his DSLRs.

I've tested Z7 for a week, shooting alongside D500, including BIF, running kids, etc. I found Z7 autofocus tracking poor. I found Z7 face detection generally inaccurate because of lack of eye af.

I hope Nikon can fix some of the AF issues via firmware. This would be great if they can do it.

Click to expand...

Thanks for comfirming

If it's no D500 , nor A9 then it's not ready for prime time birding IMHO

I've done a lot of birding and I know when a camera AFC is ready for the task

Today the D500/850 are quite capable, so are the Sony A9, Fuji XT3

I'll re-consider when the Z approaches those cameras and won't go back to DSLR

(If more than 1 reputed reviewer mentioned its AFC is weak then it's weak ...period)

Cheers,

Darkroom_Fine_Art_Pro said:

I just don’t undersand this new facet of earning a living in testing cameras and never actually using them on a real paid job in which talent and mastery really bring what these tools can actually do to the forefront.

Click to expand...

Remember the old saying. Those who can do do. Those who can't do teach.

I think in this day and age those who can't do get on youtube and become gurus. There is a long list of great pretenders on youtube and it's sad to see people holding them up as some sort of respected opinion when at best they are uninformed and at worst are complete morons. The worst of the bunch to my mind are the pair of clowns that some call the pretty couple, far from what i would call attractive and far from what i would call informed. A couple that can be bought with some freebies and people follow them like lemmings, very sad.

dv312 said:

(If more than 1 reputed reviewer mentioned its AFC is weak then it's weak ...period)

Click to expand...

I don’t review cameras for a living, I use them to make images and I have found the AFC to not be weak. I have been chatting with a good friend of mine tonight and he now has two each of both a Z6 and Z7, not at all weak he said, just a matter of learning a new platform.

Why give reviewers the time of day when they do not use these cameras for actual work like some of us do??!

Birds on the branch or birds in flight? Do you have any samples? I have seen shots from some pretty good photographer that show both, maybe the kind you shoot are too fast, although Stretchlips had some shots of some pretty fast birds.

Remember the old saying. Those who can do do. Those who can't do teach.

As one who left the business world after 35 years and chose to give back something to future generations (apparently one might infer that is out of your workspace), I find your analogy particularly offensive and ignorant of the dedication required to teach in the classrooms of today. I have taught high school for ten years now - been there- done that. I have enjoyed photography for over fifty years - so I "ain't " a newbie either.

I get your point- the self pontificating may choose to post their poorly informed opinions on social media. You can't fix stupid, but do not include professional educators in your mindless diatribe.

Et tu, youtube?

Respectfully submitted.

vawinds4

Absolutic said:

For everyone who tries to link to Mark Smith's results. Mark in his videos never says how many shots he had to take that were out of focus to get to the shots/shots that he got here. If you have to take 1000 shots and 950 are out of focus and 50 are in focus, it is different than if most of your shots are in focus.

A more representative video is that of Tony Northrup where he compares several cameras including Z7 to shoot sports.

Another person I trust is Nasim Mansurov, Photographylife.com, a Nikon guru, who lives and breathes Nikon. He and members of his team bought 5 (!) Z7 bodies and took them all over the world for a month, including deserts of Jordan etc, to truly test these cameras. You can read his very long and detailed review. He believes tracking on Z7 is basically unusable and feels that Autofocus system even on basic Nikon DSLR like D5600 is more capable as the the one on Z7. He also had problems with 2 out of 5 of their Z7 bodies starting to have rubber come off a month after the purchase, which has never ever happened to any of his DSLRs.

I've tested Z7 for a week, shooting alongside D500, including BIF, running kids, etc. I found Z7 autofocus tracking poor. I found Z7 face detection generally inaccurate because of lack of eye af.

I hope Nikon can fix some of the AF issues via firmware. This would be great if they can do it.

Click to expand...

This is what Mark Smith had to say about the Z7:

"The Z7 did much better than I had anticipated when compared to the D850 and the D500. The Z7 didn't seem all that bad to me. Not nearly as bad as it has been labeled that's for sure."

This is what Nasim had to say about the Z7:

"Overall, Nikon has done a remarkable job with the first iteration of its mirrorless system. Personally, I am happy to have bought the Z7 along with the newly-released lenses"

Sure doesn't sound like the camera is unusable, does it? But by all means, keep drinking the Kool-Aid that Tony is serving. He and his wife appreciate your clicks/views/subscriptions!

ijm5012 said:

This is what Nasim had to say about the Z7:

"Overall, Nikon has done a remarkable job with the first iteration of its mirrorless system. Personally, I am happy to have bought the Z7 along with the newly-released lenses"

\

Click to expand...

You are picking and choosing what you want to hear, and ignoring, what you don't want to hear. My comments were about continuous autofocus and tracking. I did like a lot of things about Z7, but with an always running child and having to often shoot things that move, I felt that Z7 tracking was poor in comparison with the competition. I also felt that face detect was behind the competition.

So going back to what Nasim wrote:

"Lastly, when it comes to autofocus performance and camera buffer, the Nikon D850 is a much more capable camera than the Z7. Although Nikon did a great job with its first iteration of mirrorless cameras, autofocus performance of the Z7 for tracking moving subjects is inferior in comparison. While the Nikon D850 is not made for photographing fast action, if you shoot fast-moving subjects with the camera, you will find it to be a superior tool, thanks to excellent autofocus options (such as 3D-Tracking and Group AF) and continuous tracking capabilities. Nikon will need to work extensively on its Z7 firmware to bring similar autofocus and tracking options, so for now, the mirrorless system is not suitable for photographing fast-moving subjects."

Later in its dedicated autofocus discussion, Nasim wrote:

"On balance, the Z7 really is not good at continuous autofocus or tracking your subject. It can work in a pinch or if your subject is moving slowly, but it won’t track your subject at the level we’ve come to expect from Nikon’s top-of-the-line DSLRs. In fact, as harsh as it sounds, I would argue that the overall AF-C performance even on entry-level Nikon cameras like the D5600 is better than this."

Absolutic said:

ijm5012 said:

This is what Nasim had to say about the Z7:

"Overall, Nikon has done a remarkable job with the first iteration of its mirrorless system. Personally, I am happy to have bought the Z7 along with the newly-released lenses"

\

Click to expand...

You are picking and choosing what you want to hear, and ignoring, what you don't want to hear. My comments were about continuous autofocus and tracking. I did like a lot of things about Z7, but with an always running child and having to often shoot things that move, I felt that Z7 tracking was poor in comparison with the competition. I also felt that face detect was behind the competition.

So going back to what Nasim wrote:

"Lastly, when it comes to autofocus performance and camera buffer, the Nikon D850 is a much more capable camera than the Z7. Although Nikon did a great job with its first iteration of mirrorless cameras, autofocus performance of the Z7 for tracking moving subjects is inferior in comparison. While the Nikon D850 is not made for photographing fast action, if you shoot fast-moving subjects with the camera, you will find it to be a superior tool, thanks to excellent autofocus options (such as 3D-Tracking and Group AF) and continuous tracking capabilities. Nikon will need to work extensively on its Z7 firmware to bring similar autofocus and tracking options, so for now, the mirrorless system is not suitable for photographing fast-moving subjects."

Later in its dedicated autofocus discussion, Nasim wrote:

"On balance, the Z7 really is not good at continuous autofocus or tracking your subject. It can work in a pinch or if your subject is moving slowly, but it won’t track your subject at the level we’ve come to expect from Nikon’s top-of-the-line DSLRs. In fact, as harsh as it sounds, I would argue that the overall AF-C performance even on entry-level Nikon cameras like the D5600 is better than this."

Click to expand...

Off topic.

Arent we talking about the Z6?

Droster said:

Droster said:

A

Click to expand...

Off topic.

Arent we talking about the Z6?

Click to expand...

Do you believe AF tracking and Face Detection on Z6 is superior to that of Z7?