Transition to Z-Format

nsacky said:

So far, I'm so thankful for the great responses. I know the weight differences aren't eye-popping but it does make a difference when hiking.

Another question that I thought of is with flashes. I use two SB-800 flashes off camera, with the D750 in Commander mode. Is there a combination that works with the Z6ii (for example) and the SB-800s off camera?

Click to expand...

Well, the Z6ii (and all the rest of the z cameras?) doesn't have a pop-up flash, so it's got nothing to use to optically trigger off-camera strobes.

Some years back I switched from the CLS system to Pocketwizards. This was with some older Nikon DSLR, and worked up through the D850, using the MiniTT1 with AC3 to wirelessly control 3 Pocketwizards controlling an SB800, SB900 and an SB910.

I was surprised to find that the MiniTT1 did nothing when put on my Z9. I had to switch back to my D850 to shoot a portrait session. (I since bought a Raven controller from Pocketwizard to control the three PW's, but even then I had to update firmware on the strobes.)

As far as weight goes, ... I dunno. I only have a Z9 mirrorless, and before that a string of Nikon DSLRs - all of them gripped with large batteries. I'm sometime surprised to feel how 'chunky' the Z9 is, because it looks like it is a bit smaller, But it weighs almost as much as my gripped D850.

It's the lenses that are lighter! My 100-400z is lighter than my 24-70f2.8g. The 50F1.8 and 35F1.8 and 14-30 lenses are all very light. I'd image the 24-70F4 is too, but as someone else in the thread noted, the 24-120 is so good it's hard to justify the 24-70 instead.

Eventually get rid of the 200-500 in favor of a 500pf (or 400F4.5), or even a 100-400 with 1.4tc. That will save a lot of weight. Like so many others, I've just not shot my 200-500 since getting the 500pf. It's the only f-mount lens I use on the Z9.

jfriend00 said:

Some people seem to fret about the gap from 70-100 that I don't have covered, but it just hasn't been an issue for me. A bit of repositioning myself or a bit of a crop from 70 will cover that gap without any meaningful sacrifice and honestly, the issue just doesn't really come up.

Click to expand...

For a motorcycle trip a few years back I decided to try to get a more flexible lens than my usual 24-70F2.8, carried in a tank bag attached to my camera.

I also carried an 80-400g in a bag, but that meant having to stop and dig through a bag for a lens, after taking off gloves and helmet - not quick. With a tank bag I just sat on the bike, pulled the camera out from in front of me and took shots. Didn't even have to get off, though I did have to remove gloves and open helmet.

Anyway, I'm motoring along in Colorado on day 2 and stop to take some shots. I was disappointed with the sharpness, and that was just chimping on the camera. My 24-120 was just noticeably a little less sharp than my 24-70. It bugged me.

After the trip I never used the 24-120 again, but I've thought about it a fair amount. It just didn't seem particularly useful having that 70-120mm range. It was too short for wildlife, and mostly just seemed useful for portraits. I just don't take a lot of portraits on a motorcycle trip through Colorado.

The ranges for me that seemed useful was something wide enough to 'shrink a bit of mountain to fit' [16-35 for me], 'shoot everyday normal stuff' [24-70], and wildlife-related [80-400, or longer if I have it.]

jfriend00 said:

For portraiture, I also have the 85 f/1.8 (to give me subject isolation), but I don't usually take that traveling with me.

Click to expand...

Even less reason to have the 24-120 over the 24-70. That said, the tests and specs on the 24-120 z-mount are awfully good, while my f-mount version was average or mediocre even.

nsacky said:

I know that there are a few threads regarding this topic but I can't find the specifics needed. I currently have a Nikon D750 with the following (most frequently used) lenses:

• 24-70mm f2.8
• 70-200mm f2.8 VR
• 200-500 mm f5.6 VR
• 28-300mm (for just walking around)

I'm getting on in years and my bag (even without the 200-500mm) is getting a bit heavy for hiking. I'm looking at moving to Nikon mirrorless and wanted to get feedback on 1) mirrorless, especially the Z6ii and the weight difference (is it worth it) and 2) suggested lens swaps, for example, the Z24-70mm f2.8 or the f4. I understand that the FTZ adaptor is available and I would probably use that for the times that I use the 200-500mm.

Wanted to get some specific feedback on these.

Click to expand...

If you want a wholesale weight reduction, then Nikon mirrorless is not the right choice.

You won't save much weight just swapping the body because you would need the FTZ adapter to use your existing lenses and most of the weight is in those lenses.

Especially if you need f2.8.

They have a 24-70 f4, and a 24-200 f4-6.3. Or you could get the 24-120 f4.

But, they have not released (and have no intention at this point to release) a 70-200 f4. We've been waiting years for the 200-600. And there is no replacement for the 28-300, either.

I think you will find a better selection of lenses if you switch to Sony. Or you can really reduce weight by switching to Micro Four Thirds.

nsacky said:

I know that there are a few threads regarding this topic but I can't find the specifics needed. I currently have a Nikon D750 with the following (most frequently used) lenses:

• 24-70mm f2.8
• 70-200mm f2.8 VR
• 200-500 mm f5.6 VR
• 28-300mm (for just walking around)

I'm getting on in years and my bag (even without the 200-500mm) is getting a bit heavy for hiking. I'm looking at moving to Nikon mirrorless and wanted to get feedback on 1) mirrorless, especially the Z6ii and the weight difference (is it worth it) and 2) suggested lens swaps, for example, the Z24-70mm f2.8 or the f4. I understand that the FTZ adaptor is available and I would probably use that for the times that I use the 200-500mm.

Wanted to get some specific feedback on these.

Click to expand...

I completed my journey from F-mount to Z-mount last year.

Like all your lenses, the 200-500 works very well on ANY Z-mount body with the FTZ adapter (but use the FTZII if you are looking at a Z9)

The Z 24-120 and Z100-400 is a really good 2 lens option - if you do not need f/2.8. Adding a TC14 or ZTC20 is also viable for extending the focal length of the 100-400.

nsacky said:

I know that there are a few threads regarding this topic but I can't find the specifics needed. I currently have a Nikon D750 with the following (most frequently used) lenses:

• 24-70mm f2.8
• 70-200mm f2.8 VR
• 200-500 mm f5.6 VR
• 28-300mm (for just walking around)

I'm getting on in years and my bag (even without the 200-500mm) is getting a bit heavy for hiking. I'm looking at moving to Nikon mirrorless and wanted to get feedback on 1) mirrorless, especially the Z6ii and the weight difference (is it worth it) and 2) suggested lens swaps, for example, the Z24-70mm f2.8 or the f4. I understand that the FTZ adaptor is available and I would probably use that for the times that I use the 200-500mm.

Wanted to get some specific feedback on these.

Click to expand...

I can't count the number of threads where folks agonize over weight reduction, Image quality, build quality, pixel count, you-name-it feature of the week.

There are ways to get to lower weight and still retain the (almost) same range of focal lengths you currently have:

Z6 + 24-70 f4 will be more compact and lighter than your 24-70 2.8 + D750 - but you lose a stop. I'd put the IQ of the 24-70 fr up against any g 24-70 at equivalent f-stops any day.

Z6 + 24-200 will be more compact and lighter than the 70-200 but you give up 2+ stops and probably (I've not used an f-mount 70-200 so I can't speak to this but general consensus . . .) some IQ.

Z7 + 24-200 will get you (almost in DX mode though you lose some resolution) to the 28-300 and I think it is more compact and probably as good or better IQ)

And so forth - you can go around and around chasing IQ weight and lens speed.

Ultimately, the Z system is not about saving weight or even being more compact - and none of the initial Nikon literature even suggested weight as an advantage of the Z system. The Z system is about gaining access to better lenses (though IBIS, more accurate focussing, silent shooting, interactive histogram etc. are body advantages as well).

That is to say if you simply adapt your current lenses, you'll gain little to nothing in weight reduction. If you want to maintain f2.8 as a shooting option, you'll gain little to nothing in weight reduction. If you want to shoot S primes, you'll gain little to nothing in weight reduction. If you are willing to accept some slower lenses, you can reduce the weight of the entire system. But the thing to remember is this - every S lens provides better IQ than it's f-mount counterpart - and that statement is probably true for the non-S lenses as well, though to a lesser extent.

nsacky said:

I know that there are a few threads regarding this topic but I can't find the specifics needed. I currently have a Nikon D750 with the following (most frequently used) lenses:

• 24-70mm f2.8
• 70-200mm f2.8 VR
• 200-500 mm f5.6 VR
• 28-300mm (for just walking around)

I'm getting on in years and my bag (even without the 200-500mm) is getting a bit heavy for hiking. I'm looking at moving to Nikon mirrorless and wanted to get feedback on 1) mirrorless, especially the Z6ii and the weight difference (is it worth it) and 2) suggested lens swaps, for example, the Z24-70mm f2.8 or the f4. I understand that the FTZ adaptor is available and I would probably use that for the times that I use the 200-500mm.

Wanted to get some specific feedback on these.

Click to expand...

I sold almost all of my F gear (including D850, 24-120, 28-300, 70-200 f4 and 200-500). I really injured myself trying to carry it around and use it.

I now have just the 24-120 f4 Z, 24-200 Z and 100-400.

BTW I never liked f2.8 zooms and the 24-70 doesn't fit my subject matter so it was an easy choice.

xlucine said:

Consider the 28-75 f/2.8 - it's not as optically perfect as the 24-70, but it's also considerably less weight (and even lighter than the 24-120). Starting at 28mm is another downside, which might or might not be an issue for you.

Click to expand...

I've never really understood the point of this 28-75 lens. When comparing to Nikon's 24 - 70 f/4 (which is basically the same price and a little lighter), how many people want f/2.8 more than they want better IQ and 24mm? The 28-75 just seems like a misfit in the product lineup to me.

--
John

Virtual Photon said:

I can't count the number of threads where folks agonize over weight reduction, Image quality, build quality, pixel count, you-name-it feature of the week.

Click to expand...

But, what the Z-mount does offer is a set of very high IQ lenses that are f/4 and thus much lighter.

The only way to get equivalent IQ on the F-mount is with f/2.8 lenses that are a LOT heavier. So, in addition to the body being a bit smaller and lighter, the real savings comes from an ability to carry high quality f/4 lenses.

I don't actually know if the Z-mount makes it easier to deliver high quality f/4 lenses, but whether it has anything to actually do with the Z-mount, it's just a practical fact that the high quality f/4 lenses only exist for the Z-mount.

So, if f/4 lenses will work for you, you can save a ton of weight in the Z-system while still getting very high IQ. When I'm out hiking and shooting landscape or wildlife, I have no need at all for f/2.8 so the f/4 lenses work great for me. Thus, I can carry the 14-30 f/4, 24-70 f/4 and (optionally) the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6.

Way, way lighter than my F-mount choices to cover that same range with similar IQ.

--
John

jfriend00 said:

Virtual Photon said:

I can't count the number of threads where folks agonize over weight reduction, Image quality, build quality, pixel count, you-name-it feature of the week.

Click to expand...

But, what the Z-mount does offer is a set of very high IQ lenses that are f/4 and thus much lighter.

The only way to get equivalent IQ on the F-mount is with f/2.8 lenses that are a LOT heavier. So, in addition to the body being a bit smaller and lighter, the real savings comes from an ability to carry high quality f/4 lenses.

I don't actually know if the Z-mount makes it easier to deliver high quality f/4 lenses, but whether it has anything to actually do with the Z-mount, it's just a practical fact that the high quality f/4 lenses only exist for the Z-mount.

So, if f/4 lenses will work for you, you can save a ton of weight in the Z-system while still getting very high IQ. When I'm out hiking and shooting landscape or wildlife, I have no need at all for f/2.8 so the f/4 lenses work great for me. Thus, I can carry the 14-30 f/4, 24-70 f/4 and (optionally) the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6.

Way, way lighter than my F-mount choices to cover that same range with similar IQ.

Click to expand...

If they had a "set" of high quality f/4 lenses, then they would have a 70-200/4 lens. But they don't, and don't have any published plans for such a lens. When I first bought Z, I thought gee, they have the 14-30/4 and 24-70/4, so the 70-200/4 shouldn't be far behind.

More fool me.

john isaacs said:

jfriend00 said:

Virtual Photon said:

I can't count the number of threads where folks agonize over weight reduction, Image quality, build quality, pixel count, you-name-it feature of the week.

Click to expand...

But, what the Z-mount does offer is a set of very high IQ lenses that are f/4 and thus much lighter.

The only way to get equivalent IQ on the F-mount is with f/2.8 lenses that are a LOT heavier. So, in addition to the body being a bit smaller and lighter, the real savings comes from an ability to carry high quality f/4 lenses.

I don't actually know if the Z-mount makes it easier to deliver high quality f/4 lenses, but whether it has anything to actually do with the Z-mount, it's just a practical fact that the high quality f/4 lenses only exist for the Z-mount.

So, if f/4 lenses will work for you, you can save a ton of weight in the Z-system while still getting very high IQ. When I'm out hiking and shooting landscape or wildlife, I have no need at all for f/2.8 so the f/4 lenses work great for me. Thus, I can carry the 14-30 f/4, 24-70 f/4 and (optionally) the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6.

Way, way lighter than my F-mount choices to cover that same range with similar IQ.

Click to expand...

If they had a "set" of high quality f/4 lenses, then they would have a 70-200/4 lens. But they don't, and don't have any published plans for such a lens. When I first bought Z, I thought gee, they have the 14-30/4 and 24-70/4, so the 70-200/4 shouldn't be far behind.

More fool me.

Click to expand...

Well, the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is the place holder for that know and works even better for me than a 70-200 f/4 and is amazing IQ (way better than the older 80-400).

I don't know why Nikon hasn't produced a 70-200 f/4, but I personally wouldn't be interested in it even if they did as the 100-400 does so much more for me, including wildlife.

Hi, Gus. I'll throw in my two cents (CAD), even though that's not worth much.

I've been using DX and Nikon 1 bodies as smaller alternatives before getting a Z7ii. The difference in size and weight is about the same as using a DX body, so with a lens like your adapted 24-70 f2.8, you won't notice much difference.

With a lens like the 24-70 f4 Z on a Z body, you will notice the difference more, and that's what I'd recommend if you do intend to buy a Z lens. I decided to stick with only F lenses because I still like to use my older cameras; and even though the newer lenses are rated better, I'm perfectly happy with keeping those lenses (like yours) that I already have. It's the camera features like IBIS and focus peaking that make the Z bodies more functional, and offset any other inconveniences such as size and weight. 1-series Nikons were much smaller but had other limitations like crop factor, limited lens choices and autofocus with F lenses.

So, if you use your 200-500 lens occasionally, you'll probably also keep using your DSLRs -- keep using them as long as you can, but don't be afraid to cross over to mirrorless -- you'll find they're much alike and have enough fun new features that you'll enjoy using them.

john isaacs said:

nsacky said:

I know that there are a few threads regarding this topic but I can't find the specifics needed. I currently have a Nikon D750 with the following (most frequently used) lenses:

• 24-70mm f2.8
• 70-200mm f2.8 VR
• 200-500 mm f5.6 VR
• 28-300mm (for just walking around)

I'm getting on in years and my bag (even without the 200-500mm) is getting a bit heavy for hiking. I'm looking at moving to Nikon mirrorless and wanted to get feedback on 1) mirrorless, especially the Z6ii and the weight difference (is it worth it) and 2) suggested lens swaps, for example, the Z24-70mm f2.8 or the f4. I understand that the FTZ adaptor is available and I would probably use that for the times that I use the 200-500mm.

Wanted to get some specific feedback on these.

Click to expand...

If you want a wholesale weight reduction, then Nikon mirrorless is not the right choice.

You won't save much weight just swapping the body because you would need the FTZ adapter to use your existing lenses and most of the weight is in those lenses.

Especially if you need f2.8.

They have a 24-70 f4, and a 24-200 f4-6.3. Or you could get the 24-120 f4.

But, they have not released (and have no intention at this point to release) a 70-200 f4. We've been waiting years for the 200-600. And there is no replacement for the 28-300, either.

I think you will find a better selection of lenses if you switch to Sony. Or you can really reduce weight by switching to Micro Four Thirds.

Click to expand...

I've shot Nikon gear for the past 40 years or so, starting with a Nikon F up to a Z6 II today. I really like my Nikon gear, but I don't use it much anymore, in part due to the weight of many of the lenses such as the 200-500.

Most of my photography these days is with the Micro Four Thirds (MFT) system. It's not for everyone and it might not be a good fit for your needs, but I would at least take a look at what it brings to the table. There are some smaller bodies (and some that aren't much smaller than a typical FF mirrorless body), but MFT lenses, particularly longer ones, are usually significantly shorter and lighter.

Some of the MFT bodies have some pretty cool features you may not find in most FF mirrorless bodies, such as in-camera focus stacking, handheld- and tripod-based high-res shooting, Live Composite and Live ND. And the IBIS is often as good as or better than many FF mirrorless bodies.

In my case, an OM-1 with a variety of lenses handles most of my photographic needs. For low-light stuff like photographing musicians in bars and restaurants I'll use my Nikon full-frame gear due to the lower noise level, but for everything else I'm very happy with the MFT gear.

First off, thanks to everyone who responded. I value all of the opinions received and it helped to craft my path forward. I went ahead and ordered the Z7ii with the 24-70 f4 lens and the FTX II adaptor. That much is done. I plan on keeping the D750, at least for awhile. As far as lenses, I'll probably sell the 28-300mm and the 24-70mm f2.8. I'll probably keep the 70-200mm f2.8 VR and the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR just as back up with the D750 (plus, I'm quite curious as to how they behave with the Z7ii and FTZ II). I'll hang on to the 200-500mm as I only use it when my vehicle is somewhat nearby. Down the road, you guys made some great suggestions so I'll keep referring back to this thread.

Cheers and happy shooting!

Parry Johnson said:

Hi, Gus. I'll throw in my two cents (CAD), even though that's not worth much.

Click to expand...

FWIW, nsacky was the OP.

Parry Johnson said:

I've been using DX and Nikon 1 bodies as smaller alternatives before getting a Z7ii. The difference in size and weight is about the same as using a DX body, so with a lens like your adapted 24-70 f2.8, you won't notice much difference.

Click to expand...

The D500 + 150-600mm and 35-70 is the last F-mount that I have left. I still really like the D500!

Parry Johnson said:

With a lens like the 24-70 f4 Z on a Z body, you will notice the difference more, and that's what I'd recommend if you do intend to buy a Z lens.

Click to expand...

I started going towards a Z-onlypath a couple years ago.

Parry Johnson said:

I decided to stick with only F lenses because I still like to use my older cameras; and even though the newer lenses are rated better, I'm perfectly happy with keeping those lenses (like yours) that I already have.

Click to expand...

Ignoring the "this vs that" of lens-centric IQ discussions, I find the less discussed lens improvements compelling additions (improved TC usability, close focus ability, programmable buttons/rings).

It is hard to say they are worth the extended price.
(The downside is the cost of Z-glass can be high.)

Parry Johnson said:

It's the camera features like IBIS and focus peaking that make the Z bodies more functional, and offset any other inconveniences such as size and weight. 1-series Nikons were much smaller but had other limitations like crop factor, limited lens choices and autofocus with F lenses.

Click to expand...

Oh my yes! The IBIS, BSI, and EVF are the game changer in my path to Z.

I have been able to resurrect some older Zuiko lenses (using adapters) because of the transition to Z... it can be fun "reliving old glass".... I can get better images out of the Zuiko glass because of focus peaking feature.

john isaacs said:

jfriend00 said:

Virtual Photon said:

I can't count the number of threads where folks agonize over weight reduction, Image quality, build quality, pixel count, you-name-it feature of the week.

Click to expand...

But, what the Z-mount does offer is a set of very high IQ lenses that are f/4 and thus much lighter.

The only way to get equivalent IQ on the F-mount is with f/2.8 lenses that are a LOT heavier. So, in addition to the body being a bit smaller and lighter, the real savings comes from an ability to carry high quality f/4 lenses.

I don't actually know if the Z-mount makes it easier to deliver high quality f/4 lenses, but whether it has anything to actually do with the Z-mount, it's just a practical fact that the high quality f/4 lenses only exist for the Z-mount.

So, if f/4 lenses will work for you, you can save a ton of weight in the Z-system while still getting very high IQ. When I'm out hiking and shooting landscape or wildlife, I have no need at all for f/2.8 so the f/4 lenses work great for me. Thus, I can carry the 14-30 f/4, 24-70 f/4 and (optionally) the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6.

Way, way lighter than my F-mount choices to cover that same range with similar IQ.

Click to expand...

If they had a "set" of high quality f/4 lenses, then they would have a 70-200/4 lens. But they don't, and don't have any published plans for such a lens. When I first bought Z, I thought gee, they have the 14-30/4 and 24-70/4, so the 70-200/4 shouldn't be far behind.

More fool me.

Click to expand...

The 70-200 f/4 is lower on the list because it never was very popular on the F-mount. The 70-200 f/2.8 was always the high volume lens, and it had great image quality. The 70-200 f/4 had very good image quality, smaller size, and it never sold very well. I don't know why, but I'm sure that is why it's not on the roadmap yet.

I agree - the 14-30 and 24-70 f/4 lenses do make a nice, small and light kit. I've replaced one copy of the 70-200 f/2.8 with the Z version, but I still have a copy of the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII that would be replaced with the Z 70-200 f/4. I would not get a 70-300 with a variable aperture to fill that role.

nsacky said:

First off, thanks to everyone who responded. I value all of the opinions received and it helped to craft my path forward. I went ahead and ordered the Z7ii with the 24-70 f4 lens and the FTX II adaptor. That much is done. I plan on keeping the D750, at least for awhile. As far as lenses, I'll probably sell the 28-300mm and the 24-70mm f2.8. I'll probably keep the 70-200mm f2.8 VR and the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR just as back up with the D750 (plus, I'm quite curious as to how they behave with the Z7ii and FTZ II). I'll hang on to the 200-500mm as I only use it when my vehicle is somewhat nearby. Down the road, you guys made some great suggestions so I'll keep referring back to this thread.

Cheers and happy shooting!

Click to expand...

You're welcome, and good light to you, too.

I wouldn't be too quick to sell off any lenses until you try them with the FTZ. Your 24-70G, for example, works even better with IBIS -- yes, it's heavier, but for portraits it's still a nice lens, and still very useful in DX crop mode as an everyday 24-105 equivalent walk-around lens -- it's still a lighter setup than with the D750.

nsacky said:

First off, thanks to everyone who responded. I value all of the opinions received and it helped to craft my path forward. I went ahead and ordered the Z7ii with the 24-70 f4 lens and the FTX II adaptor. That much is done. I plan on keeping the D750, at least for awhile. As far as lenses, I'll probably sell the 28-300mm and the 24-70mm f2.8. I'll probably keep the 70-200mm f2.8 VR and the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR just as back up with the D750 (plus, I'm quite curious as to how they behave with the Z7ii and FTZ II). I'll hang on to the 200-500mm as I only use it when my vehicle is somewhat nearby. Down the road, you guys made some great suggestions so I'll keep referring back to this thread.

Cheers and happy shooting!

Click to expand...

Nice choices. Perhaps consider getting a CFexpress Type B card or two, plus a card reader. If you are not shooing action, you don't need very high capacity and very high speed ones.

Otherwise, the SD cards, EN-EL15 family batteries and charger are common between the two cameras, which is a pretty big plus.

Good luck.

The body and lenses are light, though I keep my Z6 in a Smallrig frame for protection. What nobody talks about is size. Coming from old Nikkor manual focus primes, I find modern lenses absolutely huge! It's the bulk of my kit that drives me crazy, not the weight. Remember that the noise performance of any of the Z bodies is excellent and having f/4 lenses isn't much of a drawback. Ideally, I'd want the 24-70 f/4 and 14-30 f/4 for hiking, but by stitching I can eliminate the 14-30. Looking back over decades of photography, I've never shot anything all that great with anything longer than about 105. I'd carry the 105 MC for macro stuff if I could manage it, because there's a lot of good macro stuff on hikes. I always carry a couple spare batteries, plus the one in the camera. My knees are shot so my range is very limited these days.

If I were in your place, I would get one of the F/4 wide zooms (24-70 or the 24-120) and keep the 70-200 F-mount lens (permanently attached with FTZ).

And sell the other F-mount lenses. If weight is a concern, its difficult to make a case for the 200-500..