Advice on second camera body

wiz105 · Mar 19, 2025

I'm mainly a landscape/astro shooter (mainly hobby, but have sold prints) and have a Z7 pretty much as my only body. I'm starting to get into action shots more, especially for my kid's sports and other activities. I've been shooting them on my Z7, but the subject tracking isn't the best. Especially indoors, with lower light, and with multiple subjects in the frame, the Z7 gets confused, so I have alot of misses. Couple that with a small buffer, and I'm missing alot of shots in general. In addition, on the photos I am able to get, I've been approached by parents to hire me to do some shots for their kids as paid work. So, I'm looking for a second camera, either to compliment my Z7 or replace it directly and use the Z7 as backup. I'm considering the usual suspects of Z6iii and Z8. Budget isn't my concern, but I don't want to spend more if I don't need to.

So, questions for anyone possibly in a similar scenario that has already upgraded/added a second body:

1. A little subjective, but as I have a higher resolution camera now, you miss the resolution going to the Z6iii for action shots? Cropability has been a perk for sure with the Z7.

2. For low light focusing, on paper, the Z6iii should be better, but is it noticeable?

3. Is the Z8 autofocus system in general really orders of magnitude above the Z6iii or not really noticeable?

4. The Z8 has the pro button layout. Do you find it hard to switch back and forth between the two layouts if you have a non-pro body as well?

5. For Astro, does the Z6iii have the same starlight mode as the Z8? And in general do people find the lower noise from the lower resolution sensor a worthwhile trade off for the lower resolution (assuming no stacking)?

I generally keep my equipment until it breaks, so I don't upgrade frequently. I'm leaning more toward the Z8 because it's the more complete camera, and I'd the Z7 as backup for what I usually shoot, but I don't mind saving a few bucks if I can. Thanks for any input in advance.

Snapshotx7 · Mar 19, 2025

wiz105 said:
I'm mainly a landscape/astro shooter (mainly hobby, but have sold prints) and have a Z7 pretty much as my only body. I'm starting to get into action shots more, especially for my kid's sports and other activities. I've been shooting them on my Z7, but the subject tracking isn't the best. Especially indoors, with lower light, and with multiple subjects in the frame, the Z7 gets confused, so I have alot of misses. Couple that with a small buffer, and I'm missing alot of shots in general. In addition, on the photos I am able to get, I've been approached by parents to hire me to do some shots for their kids as paid work. So, I'm looking for a second camera, either to compliment my Z7 or replace it directly and use the Z7 as backup. I'm considering the usual suspects of Z6iii and Z8. Budget isn't my concern, but I don't want to spend more if I don't need to.

So, questions for anyone possibly in a similar scenario that has already upgraded/added a second body:

1. A little subjective, but as I have a higher resolution camera now, you miss the resolution going to the Z6iii for action shots? Cropability has been a perk for sure with the Z7.

2. For low light focusing, on paper, the Z6iii should be better, but is it noticeable?

3. Is the Z8 autofocus system in general really orders of magnitude above the Z6iii or not really noticeable?

4. The Z8 has the pro button layout. Do you find it hard to switch back and forth between the two layouts if you have a non-pro body as well?

5. For Astro, does the Z6iii have the same starlight mode as the Z8? And in general do people find the lower noise from the lower resolution sensor a worthwhile trade off for the lower resolution (assuming no stacking)?

I generally keep my equipment until it breaks, so I don't upgrade frequently. I'm leaning more toward the Z8 because it's the more complete camera, and I'd the Z7 as backup for what I usually shoot, but I don't mind saving a few bucks if I can. Thanks for any input in advance.

I use the Z8 with a Z6 for backup. The Z8 blackout free shooting experience is something to consider.

1. I definitely crop when shooting wildlife and notice the difference between 45mp and 24mp.

4. Button layout and feature differences make it less than ideal switching back and forth. The Z6 III doesn't have recall shooting functions from what I've seen which I use all the time.

sirhawkeye64 · Mar 19, 2025

wiz105 said:
I'm mainly a landscape/astro shooter (mainly hobby, but have sold prints) and have a Z7 pretty much as my only body. I'm starting to get into action shots more, especially for my kid's sports and other activities. I've been shooting them on my Z7, but the subject tracking isn't the best. Especially indoors, with lower light, and with multiple subjects in the frame, the Z7 gets confused, so I have alot of misses. Couple that with a small buffer, and I'm missing alot of shots in general. In addition, on the photos I am able to get, I've been approached by parents to hire me to do some shots for their kids as paid work. So, I'm looking for a second camera, either to compliment my Z7 or replace it directly and use the Z7 as backup. I'm considering the usual suspects of Z6iii and Z8. Budget isn't my concern, but I don't want to spend more if I don't need to.

So, questions for anyone possibly in a similar scenario that has already upgraded/added a second body:

1. A little subjective, but as I have a higher resolution camera now, you miss the resolution going to the Z6iii for action shots? Cropability has been a perk for sure with the Z7.

2. For low light focusing, on paper, the Z6iii should be better, but is it noticeable?

3. Is the Z8 autofocus system in general really orders of magnitude above the Z6iii or not really noticeable?

4. The Z8 has the pro button layout. Do you find it hard to switch back and forth between the two layouts if you have a non-pro body as well?

5. For Astro, does the Z6iii have the same starlight mode as the Z8? And in general do people find the lower noise from the lower resolution sensor a worthwhile trade off for the lower resolution (assuming no stacking)?

I generally keep my equipment until it breaks, so I don't upgrade frequently. I'm leaning more toward the Z8 because it's the more complete camera, and I'd the Z7 as backup for what I usually shoot, but I don't mind saving a few bucks if I can. Thanks for any input in advance.

I'd say either the Z6 III or z8 would be my choice (Z8 would be first choice, but it's also the most expensive suggestion). On the other hand, the Z6 III might have better DR and high ISO performance though over the z8 (not by much, but probably noticeable in some cases) so consider that especially if you don't necessarily need 45MP. This si why I like shooting with both the Zf and Z8. Best of both worlds in a way.

ajr images · Mar 19, 2025

I shoot airshows, surfing, and motorsports, so excellent AF and tracking is important to me.

I use Z9's which give me that capability, and a Z6III as a travel/backup body. I use Z9's rather than Z8's as I like the built in grip, dual CFe cards, and the extended battery life.

The Z6III has a very similar AF system to the Z9, and Z8, so my recommendation is if you think you need 45MP get the Z8, or if 24MP will work for you, and you want to save a little money, then get the Z6III.

LTheWafflePWN · Mar 19, 2025

wiz105 said:
I'm mainly a landscape/astro shooter (mainly hobby, but have sold prints) and have a Z7 pretty much as my only body. I'm starting to get into action shots more, especially for my kid's sports and other activities. I've been shooting them on my Z7, but the subject tracking isn't the best. Especially indoors, with lower light, and with multiple subjects in the frame, the Z7 gets confused, so I have alot of misses. Couple that with a small buffer, and I'm missing alot of shots in general. In addition, on the photos I am able to get, I've been approached by parents to hire me to do some shots for their kids as paid work. So, I'm looking for a second camera, either to compliment my Z7 or replace it directly and use the Z7 as backup. I'm considering the usual suspects of Z6iii and Z8. Budget isn't my concern, but I don't want to spend more if I don't need to.

So, questions for anyone possibly in a similar scenario that has already upgraded/added a second body:

1. A little subjective, but as I have a higher resolution camera now, you miss the resolution going to the Z6iii for action shots? Cropability has been a perk for sure with the Z7.

It's certainly a factor if you don't have lenses long enough to shoot and not crop. The delta right now between a Z6iii ($2200) and a Z8 ($3400) is $1200.

For that difference in price you could fund yourself:

Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 ($1200)
Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-180mm f/2.8 ($1050)
Nikon NIKKOR Z 28-400mm f/4-8 ($1000)
Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 ($800)

If any of those lenses appealed to you in some capacity, you might be better going that route. On the other hand, you'd also need to be willing to pack the lens and lug it around, etc.

wiz105 said:
2. For low light focusing, on paper, the Z6iii should be better, but is it noticeable?

I don't own a Z6iii, but I've never had an issue with low light performance on my Z8's. f/2.8 lenses do the job without issue, and I found a wide open f/1.2 lens + Z8 practically has night vision.

A caveat for anyone's comments on this (including my own) is that Nikon's camera's focus at your chosen aperture until f/5.6 (or the widest aperture of a lens that can't get to f/5.6). Your aperture, in my experience, can greatly affect focusing ability in low light.

wiz105 said:
3. Is the Z8 autofocus system in general really orders of magnitude above the Z6iii or not really noticeable?

Can't answer, don't own a Z6iii

wiz105 said:
4. The Z8 has the pro button layout. Do you find it hard to switch back and forth between the two layouts if you have a non-pro body as well?

I find the placement of the "Playback" button from the upper left on a Z7/Z7ii to the bottom right of a Z8 infuriating.

Thankfully, I was able to remap the top left button on the Z8 to function as an extra "Playback" button. It's the Key button, "Lock" I think it's called? Other than that one thing, nothing else bothers me.

wiz105 said:
5. For Astro, does the Z6iii have the same starlight mode as the Z8? And in general do people find the lower noise from the lower resolution sensor a worthwhile trade off for the lower resolution (assuming no stacking)?

Can't really answer, don't own a Z6iii. However, as far as noise goes when I had a Z6 and Z7, the Z6 wasn't really that much better at the same ISO's in my opinion, and a Z7 45MP RAW file that was downsampled to 24MP looked noticeably better than a Z6 24MP RAW file that wasn't downsampled (so also 24MP). Your mileage may vary.

wiz105 said:
I generally keep my equipment until it breaks, so I don't upgrade frequently. I'm leaning more toward the Z8 because it's the more complete camera, and I'd the Z7 as backup for what I usually shoot, but I don't mind saving a few bucks if I can. Thanks for any input in advance.

I know I personally prefer the higher resolution, so I would like to steer you towards a Z8 as well. Blackout-free shooting is a huge, perk - even for someone like me who only shoots events/portraits and not sports. Also, not sure if you shoot enough to worry about a shutter breaking on you, but a Z8 does not even have a mechanical shutter. Of course other things could break, but its definitely one less thing to worry about.

Good luck!

dacrema · Mar 19, 2025

Well maybe not Hasselblad, but you did mention taking pictures of other people's kids...

I think a Z8. For sports if money gets in the way of good glass maybe a Z50ii.

I got my Z9 to replace a D500 which replaced a much loved D300. I purchased that camera to replace a D70 that took fine pictures as long as people were standing still in good light (Remember not going above ISO 400?). You did not mention what kind of sports you kids are into but the Z8 or the Z9 would be the answer for any action. Realistically the Z8 is all that is really needed but the bigger battery of the Z9 would be nice to have. Once you learn that you can do bursts that allow you to get an action shot and allows you to have that action shot compare to the others just before and after or all of them it is just life changing for the parent. It is a lot of time culling the take but the difference between so many good shots as opposed to so many almost good shots is quite something. You learn quickly how to limit the number either with shorter bursts or burst that take fewer frames per second. This is something the Z6iii and the Z50ii really can't do.

I mentioned the Z50ii because it should be good for field sports which make up a lot of kid sports. The crop effectively gives a frame of view like a longer lens so that helps a lot over the Z6iii. I think the burst rate may be better but did not look that up so do not hold me to that.

My gripe with the Z6iii is the sensor, as wonderful as it is, can't crop and for action you will want to do that. But if you start placing more importance on portraits and low light the Z6iii starts coming into its own. But the Z8 is no real slouch in lower light. It is wonderful for night time skies because of the "Warm Display Colors" where everything is red so it doesn't hurt your night vision. The Z6iii might have this I am not sure. The Z8 also have Illumination and backlit buttons which are very handy. I am not sure that other than Z9 the other Z cameras have this feature.

TheSoaringSprite · Mar 19, 2025

wiz105 said:
I'm mainly a landscape/astro shooter (mainly hobby, but have sold prints) and have a Z7 pretty much as my only body. I'm starting to get into action shots more, especially for my kid's sports and other activities. I've been shooting them on my Z7, but the subject tracking isn't the best. Especially indoors, with lower light, and with multiple subjects in the frame, the Z7 gets confused, so I have alot of misses. Couple that with a small buffer, and I'm missing alot of shots in general. In addition, on the photos I am able to get, I've been approached by parents to hire me to do some shots for their kids as paid work. So, I'm looking for a second camera, either to compliment my Z7 or replace it directly and use the Z7 as backup. I'm considering the usual suspects of Z6iii and Z8. Budget isn't my concern, but I don't want to spend more if I don't need to.

So, questions for anyone possibly in a similar scenario that has already upgraded/added a second body:

1. A little subjective, but as I have a higher resolution camera now, you miss the resolution going to the Z6iii for action shots? Cropability has been a perk for sure with the Z7.

Having spent years shooting with a 24 megapixel FF sensor and now being spoiled by the 46 megapixel Z8 sensor, I can't see myself going back down. The amount of detail is just really nice to have, no matter what you're shooting. You can crop, recompose,... you know the drill.

wiz105 said:
2. For low light focusing, on paper, the Z6iii should be better, but is it noticeable?

The Z8 will focus in near darkness, so I don't know how much better we need, unless shooting stopped down in the dark.

wiz105 said:
3. Is the Z8 autofocus system in general really orders of magnitude above the Z6iii or not really noticeable?

No experience with the Z6III, so no idea.

wiz105 said:
4. The Z8 has the pro button layout. Do you find it hard to switch back and forth between the two layouts if you have a non-pro body as well?

You get used to it. It's muscle memory. Now, if you put away the Z7 for a couple of months, maybe it will take you a few minutes to get re-adjusted.

wiz105 said:
5. For Astro, does the Z6iii have the same starlight mode as the Z8? And in general do people find the lower noise from the lower resolution sensor a worthwhile trade off for the lower resolution (assuming no stacking)?

I generally keep my equipment until it breaks, so I don't upgrade frequently. I'm leaning more toward the Z8 because it's the more complete camera, and I'd the Z7 as backup for what I usually shoot, but I don't mind saving a few bucks if I can. Thanks for any input in advance.

The Z8 is the better, more feature-rich camera. The Z6III seems like it's no slouch either, but the lower resolution would bother me at this point.

dacrema · Mar 19, 2025

I use a Z7 next to a Z9 and it really doesn't bother me but of course we are all different. As someone else mentioned it is a bit bothering when reviewing a picture afterwards but not that bad.

Now if I was a pro and the client was paying good money and there with me it might be different. But for advanced amateur work where timing is not critical it is less important. I don't really envision getting rid of my Z7 at this point. It is not worth much used.

Re 24 vs 46 MP

Reading through the replies. I also don't know if I would be ready to go back to a 24mp camera. I love being able to crop. I often take a picture in the field knowing I am going to crop to 1:1, 4:5, or 16:9. Also once home, I often see the picture on the computer differently (crop wise) than when I photographed it. And like closer better; this most often with landscapes, but sometimes parties or at the dog park.

Ken Seals · Mar 19, 2025

As you yourself noted, there is no substitute for pixels. I would never use anything less than 45MP now that I have the Z 9 and Z 8. I upgraded from a D850 and D500. Never going back

I got the Z 9 first and I immediately realized that the Z 9 was both of those cameras in one and far more.

As far as the tiny difference in noise, you will never notice that in practice.

Just go for the Z 8 and you will never look back.

wiz105 · Mar 19, 2025

Consensus I’m picking up is that though the Z6iii is capable, the resolution of the Z8 seems to be a big factor for everyone. This is where my gut was telling me heading in to my question. I came from a D610, and stepping up to a Z7 was a huge boost. It’s kind of hard to give that up, but I wanted to get a consensus from people with experience, so thanks for all of the responses.

I do have longer lenses, Nikon 70-300 AF-P and Tamron 150-500, which I mainly use for outdoor sports. But even with those, in a lot of cases I find myself cropping. A lot of what I’ve been doing recently is indoor dance. I don’t own any 2.8 zooms, and usually I can get away with the 24-120 F4 if there’s decent lighting, but if I need faster glass, I’m using primes, which forces me to crop. The 24-70 F2.8 will be my next lens,, but I think the body upgrade will serve me better at this point as the autofocus is really a bigger issue for me at this point.

All that said, looks like I’ll be going Z8.

Suntan · Mar 19, 2025

I've been shooting highschool sports, including paid work, for a couple of years now. I've never used a z6iii, I'm sure it is a great little camera, and a guy would likely get good results with it, but I would suggest going for the z8.

Between the higher resolution and the dual stream viewfinder feed, it is really nice for fast action sports. Allowing a guy to shoot wide (to ensure no limbs are lost off the edge of the frame in the heat of the moment) while still being able to crop in close and deliver that close-in dynamic image even if printing large.

However, all of the above is predicated on already having pro level lenses. If you are just making do with something like a 24-200, or some such, then I would buy the cheaper z6iii and put the difference to a better lens. The 24-120 f4 is probably the lowest I would go, which could still produce some good work depending on the sport and venue. But something like the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 or up would be better. Maybe the 70-180 2.8 would work (but I have no experience with it) with the Nikkor 70-200S being the bread-and-butter option if I could only have one sports lens.

wiz105 · Mar 20, 2025

Suntan said:
I've been shooting highschool sports, including paid work, for a couple of years now. I've never used a z6iii, I'm sure it is a great little camera, and a guy would likely get good results with it, but I would suggest going for the z8.

Between the higher resolution and the dual stream viewfinder feed, it is really nice for fast action sports. Allowing a guy to shoot wide (to ensure no limbs are lost off the edge of the frame in the heat of the moment) while still being able to crop in close and deliver that close-in dynamic image even if printing large.

However, all of the above is predicated on already having pro level lenses. If you are just making do with something like a 24-200, or some such, then I would buy the cheaper z6iii and put the difference to a better lens. The 24-120 f4 is probably the lowest I would go, which could still produce some good work depending on the sport and venue. But something like the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 or up would be better. Maybe the 70-180 2.8 would work (but I have no experience with it) with the Nikkor 70-200S being the bread-and-butter option if I could only have one sports lens.

I was looking to add the 24-70 F2.8 as my next lens, as most of my indoor shooting is actually able to be done within this range. I have fast primes, but the subjects move varying distances from me quickly, and I can't change my primes that fast, lol.

If I need a faster long lens, I'd likely go with the Tamron 70-180 2.8. My only question there is, not having VR, is this an issue for this lens? I know there's stabilization in the body, but will I miss it in the lens too? I suspect not, but I've not used a long range lens without it yet.

Suntan · Mar 20, 2025

wiz105 said:
Suntan said:

I've been shooting highschool sports, including paid work, for a couple of years now. I've never used a z6iii, I'm sure it is a great little camera, and a guy would likely get good results with it, but I would suggest going for the z8.

Between the higher resolution and the dual stream viewfinder feed, it is really nice for fast action sports. Allowing a guy to shoot wide (to ensure no limbs are lost off the edge of the frame in the heat of the moment) while still being able to crop in close and deliver that close-in dynamic image even if printing large.

However, all of the above is predicated on already having pro level lenses. If you are just making do with something like a 24-200, or some such, then I would buy the cheaper z6iii and put the difference to a better lens. The 24-120 f4 is probably the lowest I would go, which could still produce some good work depending on the sport and venue. But something like the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 or up would be better. Maybe the 70-180 2.8 would work (but I have no experience with it) with the Nikkor 70-200S being the bread-and-butter option if I could only have one sports lens.

Click to expand...

I was looking to add the 24-70 F2.8 as my next lens, as most of my indoor shooting is actually able to be done within this range. I have fast primes, but the subjects move varying distances from me quickly, and I can't change my primes that fast, lol.

If I need a faster long lens, I'd likely go with the Tamron 70-180 2.8. My only question there is, not having VR, is this an issue for this lens? I know there's stabilization in the body, but will I miss it in the lens too? I suspect not, but I've not used a long range lens without it yet.

The 24-70 2.8 is a great lens, and does sports well. No experience with the 70-180, but imo VR is not that important for sports as you will be shooting at high shutter speeds to avoid subject motion blur. It can be helpful for keeping the camera steady while framing, but not a must have for sports.

I would seriously evaluate your need for the 24-70 though. If you want it for more than sports, that's one thing. But if you are just looking at sports, really evaluate if you need that 24-35mm range. When shooting sports it is sometimes nice to get a larger than life wide shot at 24mm, when the conditions allow for getting really close to the athletes, or for taking a wide shot of the venue. But more times than not my 24-70 is used much closer to the 70mm end. The reason I say this is because a guy looking to do sports with just one serious sports body (the z7 just isn't serious for sports) would likely be much better off with the 35-150 2-2.8 in a 1 camera setup.

Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 and 70-200 setup is great with two bodies shooting side-by-side. But if I only had one body to cover all of an event, I would seriously look at the 35-150.

sirhawkeye64 · Mar 20, 2025

wiz105 said:
Suntan said:

I've been shooting highschool sports, including paid work, for a couple of years now. I've never used a z6iii, I'm sure it is a great little camera, and a guy would likely get good results with it, but I would suggest going for the z8.

Between the higher resolution and the dual stream viewfinder feed, it is really nice for fast action sports. Allowing a guy to shoot wide (to ensure no limbs are lost off the edge of the frame in the heat of the moment) while still being able to crop in close and deliver that close-in dynamic image even if printing large.

However, all of the above is predicated on already having pro level lenses. If you are just making do with something like a 24-200, or some such, then I would buy the cheaper z6iii and put the difference to a better lens. The 24-120 f4 is probably the lowest I would go, which could still produce some good work depending on the sport and venue. But something like the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 or up would be better. Maybe the 70-180 2.8 would work (but I have no experience with it) with the Nikkor 70-200S being the bread-and-butter option if I could only have one sports lens.

Click to expand...

I was looking to add the 24-70 F2.8 as my next lens, as most of my indoor shooting is actually able to be done within this range. I have fast primes, but the subjects move varying distances from me quickly, and I can't change my primes that fast, lol.

If I need a faster long lens, I'd likely go with the Tamron 70-180 2.8. My only question there is, not having VR, is this an issue for this lens? I know there's stabilization in the body, but will I miss it in the lens too? I suspect not, but I've not used a long range lens without it yet.

When it comes to VR, a 70-180 may be short enough you can rely on the camera's IBIS and get say 2-3 stops of stabilization still. I just shot with the Tamron 70-300 this past weekend (which doesn't have VR). To be honest, i was surprised at how well IBIS helped and I'd say that for most of the shots, they were sharp, although I was maybe only able to get about 2 or 3-stops of effective stabilization, so maybe not the full 4 or 5 stops you might get with a VR-enabled lens but you should be fine with the 70-180. I mean the Tamron 35-150 that many swear by is not stabilized either, and is only marginally shorter than the 70-180 (while it is a 2-2.8 lens, at 150mm it's 2.8).

--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.

wiz105 · Mar 20, 2025

Suntan said:
wiz105 said:

Suntan said:

I've been shooting highschool sports, including paid work, for a couple of years now. I've never used a z6iii, I'm sure it is a great little camera, and a guy would likely get good results with it, but I would suggest going for the z8.

Between the higher resolution and the dual stream viewfinder feed, it is really nice for fast action sports. Allowing a guy to shoot wide (to ensure no limbs are lost off the edge of the frame in the heat of the moment) while still being able to crop in close and deliver that close-in dynamic image even if printing large.

However, all of the above is predicated on already having pro level lenses. If you are just making do with something like a 24-200, or some such, then I would buy the cheaper z6iii and put the difference to a better lens. The 24-120 f4 is probably the lowest I would go, which could still produce some good work depending on the sport and venue. But something like the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 or up would be better. Maybe the 70-180 2.8 would work (but I have no experience with it) with the Nikkor 70-200S being the bread-and-butter option if I could only have one sports lens.

Click to expand...

I was looking to add the 24-70 F2.8 as my next lens, as most of my indoor shooting is actually able to be done within this range. I have fast primes, but the subjects move varying distances from me quickly, and I can't change my primes that fast, lol.

If I need a faster long lens, I'd likely go with the Tamron 70-180 2.8. My only question there is, not having VR, is this an issue for this lens? I know there's stabilization in the body, but will I miss it in the lens too? I suspect not, but I've not used a long range lens without it yet.

Click to expand...

The 24-70 2.8 is a great lens, and does sports well. No experience with the 70-180, but imo VR is not that important for sports as you will be shooting at high shutter speeds to avoid subject motion blur. It can be helpful for keeping the camera steady while framing, but not a must have for sports.

I would seriously evaluate your need for the 24-70 though. If you want it for more than sports, that's one thing. But if you are just looking at sports, really evaluate if you need that 24-35mm range. When shooting sports it is sometimes nice to get a larger than life wide shot at 24mm, when the conditions allow for getting really close to the athletes, or for taking a wide shot of the venue. But more times than not my 24-70 is used much closer to the 70mm end. The reason I say this is because a guy looking to do sports with just one serious sports body (the z7 just isn't serious for sports) would likely be much better off with the 35-150 2-2.8 in a 1 camera setup.

Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 and 70-200 setup is great with two bodies shooting side-by-side. But if I only had one body to cover all of an event, I would seriously look at the 35-150.

For sports I shoot (High School baseball/football), so I'm outside, generally in good light as the schools I shoot at don't really do night games. The Tamron 150-500 is my lens there generally. For what I shoot indoors, which is mostly dance, and almost never on a stage, going back through all the photos I've shot in the last few months, probably 90% of them are between 24-80mm, and even then, probably 25% are around the 24mm range, which is why I'm after the wider end. For now, the 24-120 is ok, though the focusing on the Z7 can be frustrating, hence the start of the thread. But if the paid work pans out, then I'll probably make the jump into 2.8 lenses to help improve shutter speed, keeper rates, post processing, etc as at that point, my time is money.

monte12345 · Mar 21, 2025

This indicates to me that you have a hot inch burning to spend 3500 dollars on a new camera. If that is the case I would suggest that you trade in your Z7, you might be able to get 1000 dollars for it. Which will drop your out of pocket to around 2500 bucks.

The downside to the Z8 is that it's 200 grams heavier than your Z7, chock full of capabilities you may never use, and it's a bit expensive. BTW, if they made a Z8 200 grams lighter I would be all over that provided it fit in my camera bag. Note, it took me 3 bags to find one that fit my current rig so I am sort of "bagged out". Truth is the Z8 is a fantastic camera for the money.

However too many people turn their noses up at the Zf and Z6 III thatI have to say they are borderline idiots. If you insist on Right Handing all of your cameras Small Rig offers at excellent grip for it that is sometimes bundled with the Zf on the Nikon Web Store.

Note, in over 50 years of doing Photography I have watched a lot of Right Handers drop their very expensive cameras and lenses because they weren't paying attention and the camera slipped out of their grasp. I happen to consider Right Handing a camera as foolish. Use the left hand for the lens and the right hand on the camera controls and you do not need a grip. Add a neck or wrist strap to that technique and you won't hear the sound of a camera and lens hitting concrete.

Pluses for the Zf or Z6 III.

First is that 24mp can yield images that print just as well as a 46mp image. Truth is that in order to actually SEE a difference between a 24mp and 46mp image requires prints coming off a 36 inch or larger printer. As for electronic display's, a 4K monitor only yields 8.3mp of image resolution. Think about that next time your posting about how 100mp is a must have. BTW the Zf will do 96mp with the Pixel Shift option and I believe that is true for the Z6 III as well.

Second is the options available on how you actually use the camera if you chose the Zf. Turn off the Auto ISO and setting the ISO is a turn of that dial. No buttons to push, no display to see the setting, you simply set the dial to the ISO. That is efficient and also a bit faster. Actually it can be a lot faster if you preset your ISO for the shooting conditions you are approaching. Another odd thing that happens when the Auto ISO is off is that the Aperture mode actually words as it should, with the Aperture selected resulting in a specific shutter speed. Basically drop the Auto ISO and you have a camera that works like a film camera and you gain full control of the lens aperture, shutter speed, and the ISO. If that approach doesn't appeal to you then all you have to do is turn the ISO dial to C where it will lock and the shutter dial to 1/3 step where that dial will lock and you have a fully electronically controlled camera with all the bells and whistles. Note if you want to go fully electronic I would suggest you look into the Z6 III, as a stills camera it's equal to the Zf and it does have less Rolling Shutter than the Zf.

Third. Lets talk about Release Modes. The hidden aspect of this is Rolling Shutter which will give you a nip in the backside on each shot for subjects moving rapidly or with rapid pans. For either the Z6 III or the Zf the best way to avoid Rolling Shutter is to NOT use the electronic shutter for fast moving subjects. On the Zf this will limit you to 14 fps, which I really don't consider a burden. Usain Bolts 100 meter sprint record worked out to about 23 mph for average speed. You are planning to taking pictures of School Age participants so do you really have a need for more than 10 or 15 fps? Not really.

Four. Low Light shooting. Currently the Zf is the finest Low Light camera that Nikon makes. BTW the second best is the Z6 III and that is only because of that 1/2 stop of dynamic range advantage the Zf features. If you are shooting above ISO 800 they are complete equals. Both camera will focus down to -10 EV, which is less than the light of 1/4 moon.

Summation. I would suggest that you save a considerable amount of money and choose either the Zf or the Z6 III. The major difference between the two is the 500 dollar price differential and the Z6 III's video capabilities. A sort of minor difference is the Z6 III has less Rolling shutter than the Zf. If you stick to the mechanical shutter Rolling Shutter is out of consideration. Yeah, the Zf has a tiny advantage in Dynamic Range but it's so slight I don't think it's worth considering.

Basically it comes down to price and what you prefer in a Still's camera. Me, I chose the Zf because I find it so convenient to have all of the major controls on a labeled dial. You may chose the Z6 III because you don't like that approach for controls and because you can foresee the need for short video clips. If so the Z6 III is a much better choice.

As for the Z8 as a I stated in the opening the Z8 is a fantastic camera and a good way to burn up funds that might be better spent on lenses.

PS; I also have the Z7 II and have first hand experience with 46mp and 24mp resolution files. The difference between the two resolutions is a LOT LESS critical than the numbers suggest. The plain truth is that you'll have to print with very large format printers to actually observe the difference. The only real world advantage of the higher resolution images is that they do provide for more "crop headroom" than the 24mp images. If you want to crop to 1/4 frame the 46mp will hold up better to the increase in magnification. However a good photographer will only have to resort to that deep of a crop if they failed to bring the correct lens for the subject.

AWG_Pics · Mar 21, 2025

Wow. You did a great job of convincing me to get a Zf. Oh, wait. I already have a Zf and agree with everything you said. It is a hell of a camera.

Terrible Photographer · Mar 21, 2025

wiz105 said:
I'm mainly a landscape/astro shooter (mainly hobby, but have sold prints) and have a Z7 pretty much as my only body. I'm starting to get into action shots more, especially for my kid's sports and other activities. I've been shooting them on my Z7, but the subject tracking isn't the best. Especially indoors, with lower light, and with multiple subjects in the frame, the Z7 gets confused, so I have alot of misses. Couple that with a small buffer, and I'm missing alot of shots in general. In addition, on the photos I am able to get, I've been approached by parents to hire me to do some shots for their kids as paid work. So, I'm looking for a second camera, either to compliment my Z7 or replace it directly and use the Z7 as backup. I'm considering the usual suspects of Z6iii and Z8. Budget isn't my concern, but I don't want to spend more if I don't need to.

So, questions for anyone possibly in a similar scenario that has already upgraded/added a second body:

1. A little subjective, but as I have a higher resolution camera now, you miss the resolution going to the Z6iii for action shots? Cropability has been a perk for sure with the Z7.

2. For low light focusing, on paper, the Z6iii should be better, but is it noticeable?

3. Is the Z8 autofocus system in general really orders of magnitude above the Z6iii or not really noticeable?

4. The Z8 has the pro button layout. Do you find it hard to switch back and forth between the two layouts if you have a non-pro body as well?

5. For Astro, does the Z6iii have the same starlight mode as the Z8? And in general do people find the lower noise from the lower resolution sensor a worthwhile trade off for the lower resolution (assuming no stacking)?

I generally keep my equipment until it breaks, so I don't upgrade frequently. I'm leaning more toward the Z8 because it's the more complete camera, and I'd the Z7 as backup for what I usually shoot, but I don't mind saving a few bucks if I can. Thanks for any input in advance.

In my mind, the obvious choice would be to save the dough, get a Z6III.

Your Z7 will be better for your landscapes than a Z8/9 anyway, and the AF performance in my experience of the Z6III I'd say is identical to what I see out of my Z9.

On the Z6III when in HE NEF, you have unlimited buffer (even to SD card), and shoots at 20fps, just like a Z8. The slower readout speed.. only time I've ever seen rolling shutter is on a golf swing, and it still does 14fps in mechanical, which would be just fine for just about any sport.

greenmanphoto · Mar 21, 2025

wiz105 said:
Consensus I’m picking up is that though the Z6iii is capable, the resolution of the Z8 seems to be a big factor for everyone. This is where my gut was telling me heading in to my question. I came from a D610, and stepping up to a Z7 was a huge boost. It’s kind of hard to give that up, but I wanted to get a consensus from people with experience, so thanks for all of the responses.

I do have longer lenses, Nikon 70-300 AF-P and Tamron 150-500, which I mainly use for outdoor sports. But even with those, in a lot of cases I find myself cropping. A lot of what I’ve been doing recently is indoor dance. I don’t own any 2.8 zooms, and usually I can get away with the 24-120 F4 if there’s decent lighting, but if I need faster glass, I’m using primes, which forces me to crop. The 24-70 F2.8 will be my next lens,, but I think the body upgrade will serve me better at this point as the autofocus is really a bigger issue for me at this point.

All that said, looks like I’ll be going Z8.

Wiz,

If you're wanting to get a 24-70 at some point, anyway, buying the kit--camera and lens together--will save you some money, if you can manage it at the time. I'd definitely consider that, if I were you.

As for recommendations from me, I'd say a Z9, if at all possible AND you think you'll really benefit from the extras it offers over a Z8 (which are a few, including the larger battery and two CFEx card slots instead of CFEx/SD). Otherwise, a Z8, then a Z6III. Another thing to think about with the Z9/Z8 decision is if you prefer a battery grip or not. The Z8 has one available, but it actually makes the camera larger and heavier than a Z9 is, and isn't as nicely done as a Z9, as far as the lines of the camera and grip go. However, you can remove it from the Z8, if you prefer; something that's not an option with the Z9, of course. And the price of the Z8 and the grip and larger battery/charger puts you ALMOST at the same price as a Z9 (and maybe AT the same price, if not a bit more, consider the Z9 currently has a rebate. Not sure if the Z8 has one or not, though it might.)

Sam

wiz105 · Mar 21, 2025

monte12345 said:
This indicates to me that you have a hot inch burning to spend 3500 dollars on a new camera. If that is the case I would suggest that you trade in your Z7, you might be able to get 1000 dollars for it. Which will drop your out of pocket to around 2500 bucks.

The downside to the Z8 is that it's 200 grams heavier than your Z7, chock full of capabilities you may never use, and it's a bit expensive. BTW, if they made a Z8 200 grams lighter I would be all over that provided it fit in my camera bag. Note, it took me 3 bags to find one that fit my current rig so I am sort of "bagged out". Truth is the Z8 is a fantastic camera for the money.

However too many people turn their noses up at the Zf and Z6 III thatI have to say they are borderline idiots. If you insist on Right Handing all of your cameras Small Rig offers at excellent grip for it that is sometimes bundled with the Zf on the Nikon Web Store.

Note, in over 50 years of doing Photography I have watched a lot of Right Handers drop their very expensive cameras and lenses because they weren't paying attention and the camera slipped out of their grasp. I happen to consider Right Handing a camera as foolish. Use the left hand for the lens and the right hand on the camera controls and you do not need a grip. Add a neck or wrist strap to that technique and you won't hear the sound of a camera and lens hitting concrete.

Pluses for the Zf or Z6 III.

First is that 24mp can yield images that print just as well as a 46mp image. Truth is that in order to actually SEE a difference between a 24mp and 46mp image requires prints coming off a 36 inch or larger printer. As for electronic display's, a 4K monitor only yields 8.3mp of image resolution. Think about that next time your posting about how 100mp is a must have. BTW the Zf will do 96mp with the Pixel Shift option and I believe that is true for the Z6 III as well.

Second is the options available on how you actually use the camera if you chose the Zf. Turn off the Auto ISO and setting the ISO is a turn of that dial. No buttons to push, no display to see the setting, you simply set the dial to the ISO. That is efficient and also a bit faster. Actually it can be a lot faster if you preset your ISO for the shooting conditions you are approaching. Another odd thing that happens when the Auto ISO is off is that the Aperture mode actually words as it should, with the Aperture selected resulting in a specific shutter speed. Basically drop the Auto ISO and you have a camera that works like a film camera and you gain full control of the lens aperture, shutter speed, and the ISO. If that approach doesn't appeal to you then all you have to do is turn the ISO dial to C where it will lock and the shutter dial to 1/3 step where that dial will lock and you have a fully electronically controlled camera with all the bells and whistles. Note if you want to go fully electronic I would suggest you look into the Z6 III, as a stills camera it's equal to the Zf and it does have less Rolling Shutter than the Zf.

Third. Lets talk about Release Modes. The hidden aspect of this is Rolling Shutter which will give you a nip in the backside on each shot for subjects moving rapidly or with rapid pans. For either the Z6 III or the Zf the best way to avoid Rolling Shutter is to NOT use the electronic shutter for fast moving subjects. On the Zf this will limit you to 14 fps, which I really don't consider a burden. Usain Bolts 100 meter sprint record worked out to about 23 mph for average speed. You are planning to taking pictures of School Age participants so do you really have a need for more than 10 or 15 fps? Not really.

Four. Low Light shooting. Currently the Zf is the finest Low Light camera that Nikon makes. BTW the second best is the Z6 III and that is only because of that 1/2 stop of dynamic range advantage the Zf features. If you are shooting above ISO 800 they are complete equals. Both camera will focus down to -10 EV, which is less than the light of 1/4 moon.

Summation. I would suggest that you save a considerable amount of money and choose either the Zf or the Z6 III. The major difference between the two is the 500 dollar price differential and the Z6 III's video capabilities. A sort of minor difference is the Z6 III has less Rolling shutter than the Zf. If you stick to the mechanical shutter Rolling Shutter is out of consideration. Yeah, the Zf has a tiny advantage in Dynamic Range but it's so slight I don't think it's worth considering.

Basically it comes down to price and what you prefer in a Still's camera. Me, I chose the Zf because I find it so convenient to have all of the major controls on a labeled dial. You may chose the Z6 III because you don't like that approach for controls and because you can foresee the need for short video clips. If so the Z6 III is a much better choice.

As for the Z8 as a I stated in the opening the Z8 is a fantastic camera and a good way to burn up funds that might be better spent on lenses.

PS; I also have the Z7 II and have first hand experience with 46mp and 24mp resolution files. The difference between the two resolutions is a LOT LESS critical than the numbers suggest. The plain truth is that you'll have to print with very large format printers to actually observe the difference. The only real world advantage of the higher resolution images is that they do provide for more "crop headroom" than the 24mp images. If you want to crop to 1/4 frame the 46mp will hold up better to the increase in magnification. However a good photographer will only have to resort to that deep of a crop if they failed to bring the correct lens for the subject.

Monte,

Great feedback, with lots to think about. I haven't pulled the trigger yet. Was hoping for a next round of refurbished deals to see what that would look like. I bought my Z7 refurbed and it's been great. The practical side of me says get the Z6iii and try it, but I know myself and I'll probably always wonder, "what if", lol.

1. As far as resolution, I came from a D610, so I'm familiar with 24Mp, but I've gotten spoiled with the Z7 a bit. But I could learn to not rely on it so much, so yeah, Z6iii still isn't out of the running. I, like many, was hoping to see a Z7iii by now to see what that would offer, but I don't think we'll see it until after we get a new Z8/Z9.

2. ZF....I know it's a great camera, but I'm just not a fan. I don't know what it is, just not a fan of the classic look, and I don't want all the dials. I've gotten used to customizing my camera in a way I can make changes fairly quickly on the fly, without taking it away from my face, so I kind of like that. For me, it would have to be the Z6iii or Z8.

3. The budget isn't really the issue, and I'd prefer to have a second camera as backup, so I most likely wouldn't sell my Z7.

4. I'd be happy with the FPS on the Z7, but the buffer fills so fast that you really have to be careful on how long you hold the shutter. I know the Z6iii and Z8 are pretty much bottomless pits of buffer space.

Advice on second camera body

Active member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts