G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light

Started 3 months ago | Questions thread
unhappymeal Senior Member • Posts: 1,545
Re: If ...

jwilliams wrote:

Sundre wrote:

I spent some time googling this + reading forum threads. It all got a bit too technical for me. Would anyone be able to give a simple, non-technical answer to this question:

If I shoot the same low-light event (concert etc.) with these two combos, how many stops do I gain with the Z6? Image stabilisation does not matter much since the subjects are moving.

Combo #1: Panasonic G9 + PL 35-100/2.8

Combo #2: Nikon Z6 + Nikon 70-200/2.8

I would love a really simple answer, something like "1/50s with #1 will look more or less like 1/125s with #2". I don't need a technically perfect answer, just a rough ballpark figure.

Unless I have misunderstood something, the two components involved in making the Z6 the better combo for low light is the sensor and the lens. I don't really understand the technical aspects of that, and I would prefer not to have to understand them either.

The reason I'm asking is, I've been offered a used Z6 for 1,000 €, but I'm not sure I want to spend that much. I realise it's a good price for a Z6 mark I in good condition, but I'm not rich. Getting some decent glass for it would be so expensive...

If I can get "good enough" results with something like the PL 35-100/2.8 or the Olympus 75/1.8 with my G9, I'm not sure I want to spend that much at this time.

Thank you

If you regularly shoot concerts in low/challenging light then just go for the FF camera system. It is simply the best tool for that task. I could tell you a lot about sensors and how lenses compare across formats but in your case I don't think it really matters. GreatBustard has probably done a good enough job there. The bottom lime is the type of photography you are doing is challenging and needs the best high ISO perfromance you can get. That is a FF camera not a m43 camera. These type of questions come up here frequently and in some cases you can argue one way or the other but for the work you want to do the FF camera is the correct tool for the job.

The cost differential between m43 and FF really isn't very big anymore. The Z 70-200 2.8 is probably very expensive so you might want to look at other possible lenses if cost is a big deal. Also f4 zooms on FF do very well (still better than f2.8 on m43). Nikon doesn't have a f4 tele zoom but Canon, Sony and Panasonic have them.

Also if looking at the Z system, the Z5 should be a good camera if you're not particularly interested in video. Also look at Canon, Sony and maybe Panasonic (be sure AF is up to the task as Pannys CDAF lags others). Canon and Sony have the best AF and Nikons seems to have been improved, but still behind Canon and Sony. The earleier Z6/7 cameras seemed to lag in that area so if you're thinking about getting the original Z6 you might want to rethink that.

The G9 is probably not a good camera for shooting anyting that moves. I have one and CAF is not very good. Overall nice camera but I'd not choose it for anything that requires continuous AF.

This is the correct answer. The most cost effective solution (assuming the venue lets in longer lenses) is a Sony A7R II or A7III plus Tamron 70-180 f/2.8. Alternatively, there is the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 on the horizon and that is a ~900g lens. 
If Sony prices are really that bonkers in Europe, then grab the Z6 plus FTZ and see if you can find a used Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow