Has anyone been casting glances towards the Nikon Z5 ii?

I'm sure most of us are familiar with the meme where the guy (with partner in hand) turns round to check out another girl walking by? ;-)
I feel, in this instance, the role of the antagonist is being played beautifully by the incoming Nikon.

I don't believe for a second that I would actually switch over from Fuji and I've never owned or used a Nikon so have absolutely no affinity towards them whatsoever.

However, I just wonder, for someone who was starting from scratch, or moving from one of the other manufacturers it seems the Z5 ii represents tremendous bang for the buck. Unlike, say Canon, Nikon have managed to introduce an "entry level" FF body that isn't completely hamstrung by a swathe of omitted features.

Nikon look to have improved considerably over the first Z5 while maintaining a very competitive price. Purely from a personal point of view, features such as the increased FPS in burst mode are a very welcome addition and something I use on my X-T5 regularly - along with pre-shot.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, the Z5 ii has been positioned right in X-T5/X-H2 (probably future X-T6) territory so for someone looking at it subjectively, you might be more inclined to go for the FF option for similar, if not less, money. As I eluded to further up, oftentimes these entry level FF offerings are quite basic and I have always preferred a more feature rich APS-c camera, but the Z5 ii has closed this gap.

I'll admit to making a few envious glances over but I'm still fully in the Fuji camp and am very happy with it. That said, I'd be lying if I said there wasn't part of me that thinks (at some point down the line) I could swap both my X-mount and GFX systems for one FF system.

But that this stage all I'll say is, the X-T6 would need to be a very good camera at a very good price to beat the Z5 ii.

I started with, and still own a Nikon (D5300). I’d probably buy a Z6iii if anything. I do love the Z Mount though, it’s easily my favourite system outside Fuji and what I would use if I wasn’t using Fuji.

I'm a long time Nikon and also a recent Fuji shooter.

I bought the Nikon ZF for street but find the handling awkward - it is heavy and slightly unbalanced IMO. The Z5ii should solve these problems (it's basically a Zf in a modern body)

For street the benefits of the X-t5 over the Zf are that it is lighter, has a usable grip, has a 2 way articulating screen and an extensive collection of small, lightweight, quality lenses.

The benefits of the Zf are that the AF is quicker, it is better in low light and the images just look a little "cleaner" to my eye.

When I do street I mainly choose the X-t5. I expect this to continue when I receive my Z5ii.

The grass is all ways greener on the other side.

Yes and no. It's of course nice to see that the Z mount has a really good enty level full frame, as I'm in the Z mount myself, currently using a Z6 as my main shooter.

That being said, after looking at the Z5II's specs, I'm a bit wondering where it would be a substantial upgrade over my Z6, besides video and autofocus (and I'm more than fine with the 8bit video out of my Z6, and already get 90%+ hit rate with it, so those upgrade wouldn't be that big of a deal to me).

So yeah, it looks like a real nice camera. Maybe I'll consider one if my Z6 fails prematurely, but as it is I'm much more likely to go for a used Z6III in a few years when the prices would have come down. The 20fps RAW stills, 4K60 no crop / 4K120 with APS-C crop are a substantial enough upgrade over my current Z6 that I can see myself use that, the Z5II not so much.

That or a used Z6II if my Z6 dies tomorrow (or more realistically, seeing the prices... another used Z6)

I'll keep my X-Pro2 as my fun street shooter for the weekends no matter what happens to my Nikons

mw02veg said:

The grass is all ways greener on the other side.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that is so much the case here. I just think that Nikon have made such a compelling camera (at that price point) that for someone who IS looking to switch, or is starting out, that it objectively makes the most sense.

The recent Peta Pixel podcast actually put the Z5 ii up against similarly priced cameras from other manufacturers and fair quite favourably.

Of course, there's always a subjective element to these things which complicates matters.

I moved from the Z system to an X-T5 system. It had nothing to do with the camera, the issue was the size and weight of the lenses. I love using the X-T5 with the 70-300mm where as the Nikon 70-200 was a monster in comparison. Both lenses are very sharp so I don't feel I lost anything but the Fuji system brought fun back into my photography.

I see the Z5 ii as a continuation of Nikon's continued recovery form near elimination from selling professional cameras. When Sony came out with there wonderful Mirrorless bodies and a full line of lenses, Nikon and Canon were not competitive. Nikon followed their usual strategy of introducing new technology at the low end avoiding affecting the professionals making a living with their tools. This strategy was fine in the slow moving film days yet with digital the pace was very fast and this left professionals wanting a piece of the wonderful things that mirrorless cameras add to photography. On top of this, Nikon's first mirrorless cameras were unacceptable as there focus was slow and inaccurate. While Nikon tried to fix this, professionals and advanced armatures abandoned them, mostly for Sony. Nikon bet there company on the Z9, a top of the line professional camera by moving engineers from multiple lines to the Z9 project and that strategy seems to have worked. Having put all this energy into the Z9 left gaps and Nikon must make the low end attractive as you want advanced amatures to move into your system and then up to your professional line. I don't think you will see a lot of people changing brands as there is almost no value to this. What Nikon is doing is producing a mirrorless camera that will attract people that have been taking photos with there phones that want more capabilities. The Z5 II may also stop or slow the number of people that can no longer carry there heavier cameras and lenses.

Morris

TeepG said:

I moved from the Z system to an X-T5 system. It had nothing to do with the camera, the issue was the size and weight of the lenses. I love using the X-T5 with the 70-300mm where as the Nikon 70-200 was a monster in comparison. Both lenses are very sharp so I don't feel I lost anything but the Fuji system brought fun back into my photography.

Click to expand...

To be completely honest Fuji's equivalent of the Nikkor Z 70-200 f/2.8 S would be the XF 50-140mm f/2.8, not really the 70-300.

And the 50-140 is quite a chonker lens too (even if it's smaller and lighter than the Nikon)

MJ_Photo38 said:

TeepG said:

I moved from the Z system to an X-T5 system. It had nothing to do with the camera, the issue was the size and weight of the lenses. I love using the X-T5 with the 70-300mm where as the Nikon 70-200 was a monster in comparison. Both lenses are very sharp so I don't feel I lost anything but the Fuji system brought fun back into my photography.

Click to expand...

To be completely honest Fuji's equivalent of the Nikkor Z 70-200 f/2.8 S would be the XF 50-140mm f/2.8, not really the 70-300.

And the 50-140 is quite a chonker lens too (even if it's smaller and lighter than the Nikon)

Click to expand...

The XF 50-140mm is a feather at 2.19 lb / 995 g.

Morris

TeepG said:

I moved from the Z system to an X-T5 system. It had nothing to do with the camera, the issue was the size and weight of the lenses. I love using the X-T5 with the 70-300mm where as the Nikon 70-200 was a monster in comparison. Both lenses are very sharp so I don't feel I lost anything but the Fuji system brought fun back into my photography.

Click to expand...

It was the lenses that always made me want to change to Fuji back in 2019 when I did so from Canon. I always admired how Fuji focused on making quality APS-c glass whereas with Canon (certainly in the DSLR days) you basically had to buy 'L' lenses to get great IQ.

The newer Nikon Z mount lenses (from an observer's POV) appear to offer fantastic IQ at not much of a weight penalty over Fuji's APS-c lenses - save for the small primes which are the lenses I enjoy using on my X-T5 the most.

Morris0 said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

TeepG said:

I moved from the Z system to an X-T5 system. It had nothing to do with the camera, the issue was the size and weight of the lenses. I love using the X-T5 with the 70-300mm where as the Nikon 70-200 was a monster in comparison. Both lenses are very sharp so I don't feel I lost anything but the Fuji system brought fun back into my photography.

Click to expand...

To be completely honest Fuji's equivalent of the Nikkor Z 70-200 f/2.8 S would be the XF 50-140mm f/2.8, not really the 70-300.

And the 50-140 is quite a chonker lens too (even if it's smaller and lighter than the Nikon)

Click to expand...

The XF 50-140mm is a feather at 2.19 lb / 995 g.

Morris

Click to expand...

not sure I would call a 1kg lens a "feather".

For reminder, a Z mount Nikon / Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 weighs 100g less. The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L weighs only 75g more than the Fuji 50-140.

It's not particularly big or heavy for its intended usecase, but it's not really lighter or smaller than full frame options. Sure, there are larger and heavier lenses, but that's not the majority of them (really only the Lumix 70-200 f/2.8 and Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 that are especially heavy)

This is pretty much what it is all about.

As a X-S20 user, it's not X-H2 if I fancy an upgrade.

Taigu said:

This is pretty much what it is all about.

As a X-S20 user, it's not X-H2 if I fancy an upgrade.

Click to expand...

It's not a fair comparison. The 24-70 lens is f/4 throughout the range, when taking equivalence into consideration the 16-50 matches the Z lens only at 16mm. At 50mm it's f/4.8 which is equivalent to f/6.7 on the FF kit, so one and a half stops of light.

If you don't care about equivalence and are fine with the lower light gathering, then you'll be fine.

--
Best,
Yoan

Peter3579 said:

I'm a long time Nikon and also a recent Fuji shooter.

I bought the Nikon ZF for street but find the handling awkward - it is heavy and slightly unbalanced IMO. The Z5ii should solve these problems (it's basically a Zf in a modern body)

For street the benefits of the X-t5 over the Zf are that it is lighter, has a usable grip, has a 2 way articulating screen and an extensive collection of small, lightweight, quality lenses.

The benefits of the Zf are that the AF is quicker, it is better in low light and the images just look a little "cleaner" to my eye.

When I do street I mainly choose the X-t5. I expect this to continue when I receive my Z5ii.

Click to expand...

You basically took the words out of my mouth. The difference is I’m a long-term Fuji shooter. I used to have the Nikon D 5000 been with Fuji since the XT2 came out. I picked up a Nikon ZF because I got a killer price for it and like new condition so it was a no-brainer but your pain points are the same ones that I have. I truly wish the ZF was slightly lighter and more comfortable to hold. I have been considering the Z5ii because it’s basically a ZF like you mentioned I only have three lenses for it. I have the 40 mm F2 and the MEIKE 55 and 80 mm F1.8 pro lenses which are super sharp, very lightweight and have received great reviews. Nowadays with my kids, it makes it very difficult for me to pick up thousand dollar lenses so I’m more on the budget side and I gotta tell you some of these third parties are making amazing lenses. I honestly thought about flipping the ZF to get the Z5 but I probably won’t do it cause I like the style of the camera too much. Also I think the weight difference is about 10grams between both so had it been a significant difference even more reason to consider the Z5 but for now I’m happy with the gear I have.

I would glance for sure if it wasn't for the lens line-up, since in terms of specs and what Z5II packs is very interesting. However, I find Nikon lenses unexciting while they also miss my favourite feature from Fujifilm system, aperture ring.


I am also not a fan of their ergonomics when it comes to bodies both the ZF and the Z5/6/7. For some reason they don't fit well when I hold them which I find it weird since a wide variety of users - even non Nikon users - state that they are the best in terms of handling.


In general I wouldn't leave Fujifilm at all since to my eyes they offer a great user experience along with capable bodies and a truly lovely lens selection. I ended up switching from Fuji but for reasons that don't fit the title of this thread.


I rarely shoot on manual mode. Aperture priority is enough for almost every scenario for my style of shooting. Hence why aperture rings are important to me. Unfortunately, if one does prefer AF lenses the only other system which offers that is Sony (excluding Leica since it is out of budget for most people) and only recently Canon which also is lackluster in terms of lenses for casual users like me.

--
https://www.instagram.com/filippos.drylerakis/
flickr.com/photos/194737069@N06

Morris0 said:

I see the Z5 ii as a continuation of Nikon's continued recovery form near elimination from selling professional cameras. When Sony came out with there wonderful Mirrorless bodies and a full line of lenses, Nikon and Canon were not competitive. Nikon followed their usual strategy of introducing new technology at the low end avoiding affecting the professionals making a living with their tools. This strategy was fine in the slow moving film days yet with digital the pace was very fast and this left professionals wanting a piece of the wonderful things that mirrorless cameras add to photography. On top of this, Nikon's first mirrorless cameras were unacceptable as there focus was slow and inaccurate. While Nikon tried to fix this, professionals and advanced armatures abandoned them, mostly for Sony. Nikon bet there company on the Z9, a top of the line professional camera by moving engineers from multiple lines to the Z9 project and that strategy seems to have worked. Having put all this energy into the Z9 left gaps and Nikon must make the low end attractive as you want advanced amatures to move into your system and then up to your professional line. I don't think you will see a lot of people changing brands as there is almost no value to this. What Nikon is doing is producing a mirrorless camera that will attract people that have been taking photos with there phones that want more capabilities. The Z5 II may also stop or slow the number of people that can no longer carry there heavier cameras and lenses.

Morris

Click to expand...

It is always easier to start with a clean sheet of paper than migrate old technology to new technology while supporting a customer base using the old technology. The is particularly true in the electronics industry where technology moves fast. Sony always had an advanced moving into digital photography since their investment in film cameras was small. They jumped ahead. It took Nikon and Canon awhile to catch up. It seems Nikon has caught up with the Z8/Z9 and theZ7 (particularly Z7 II). Canon has caught up with the R1/R5II.

However, there has to be a pipeline to these top end products. Nikon is filling in that gap with the Z5, Z6, Z6III, Zf, etc. Nikon designed to Z mount so they would no longer have issues with lens design with a too small F mount. The S series Z mount lenses are stellar and the large Z mounts makes that possible. The large mount and short flange distance enhances the ability of better optical designs.

However, the large Z mount also means Z mount lenses are going to be larger (diameter ) and heavier than a smaller lens mount. Tamron has managed to produce lighter high image quality Z mount lenses by using significant amounts of polycarbonates. They are a bit lighter than the S series counterparts but the bulk is about the same.

While there are cheaper and more compact options for Z S series of lenses, they compromise by not taking the full advantage of the size of the Z mount. That seems to rub with a camera such as the Z5 II - by the time you take advantage of the image quality attainable, the lens sizes are going to negate the compact size of the camera.

On the other hand the Z5 II would make a great entry level camera with the Z 24-70 f4 S or Z 24-120 f4 S as is the Zf and maybe Z6III.

However, for a light weight solution with high performance lenses I think it is hard to beat Fuji latest generation, XT5, XH2 and XH2S. An ASPC sensor does not require the same size mount as a full frame sensor for the same image quality from the lenses. For example the Nikkor Z 24-70 f2.8 S weights in at 800 g and the Z 24-70 f4 S trips the scale at 500 g. The Fujifilm 16-55 f2.8 II tips the sales at 400 g and a little more reach on the long end.

The Z5II is a nice camera, and the original Z5 that had been on sale for quite some time was a really good deal as well. I'm an old dawg who used Nikon for most my life before switching to Fuji about 4 years ago. I loved Nikon gear, but not the size and weight. The attraction to Fuji was the small lenses, especially the f/2 primes. The beautiful Fuji camera bodies basically frosting on the cake for me, although I chose the X-T series for the large, bright viewfinder, which was something I was used to with my Nikon cameras. I won't go back to full frame, the gear is too big and heavy, and also expensive. Not that Fuji is inexpensive, but still.

The full frame camera that is intriguing to me is the Sigma BF with a 45mm f/2.8 lens attached. That might be the ticket, but it's too expensive for me. But maybe we'll have more compact full frame cameras in the future.

Naw, for stills with a single prime, my original Z5 with the small Z40mm f2 is already giving me better IQ than any generation of the X100#, at under $1300 total brand new and zero waiting, with two card slots and IBIS. So no need to "upgrade" given that I don't use video and don't need high-performance continuous AF.

But the 45mp Z7ii is currently on sale at $2K, and I might go for that, also for use with the smaller primes and the wonderfully light, premium quality 24-70 F4 "S" zoom.

I'm sure it's a very nice camera, but with the additional (significant) expense of premium FF glass and, unless you regularly shoot in stupid low light, no real image quality advantage over a nearly decade old X-T2, I don't really see the attraction.

If I'm going to go FF, it's going to be with a significantly higher resolution sensor that will actually bring something more worthwhile to the table.