D850 to ... Z7 - what improved (that mattered)? Locked

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
T O Shooter Forum Pro • Posts: 11,171
Re: Not a lot...

shuncheung wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

And, when Jim Kasson and Lance B says that any difference between the 70-200e s are splitting hairs (paraphrasing), and the Sigma 40 is untouched by anything in S, I tend to not believe the "better lenses" part. If it were not for paragraph 2 above, Nikon could refresh all the wide angles in f mount, and there wouldn't be enough difference to matter. Probably doesn't as it is.

There are a lot more lenses than the 70-200mm/f2.8. Just take a very simple example: my 14-30mm/f4 S is a very versatile wide zoom that can accept conventional, 82mm screw-on filters.

No such lens exists in any brand for SLRs. I happen to have the Nikkor 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S in the F-mount. The bulging front element makes it difficult to use and travel with. As a result, that is a lens I rarely use. I have seen people use a complex rectangular filter set up on it, making it even bulker. That isn't something I want to deal with.

So--------- You'll spend $20,000 to switch to a system that will allow you to put filters on a 14-something zoom.

Thanks, but I'll stick to my 14-24G and save the 20 grand. And have a better, complete camera / lens system.

-- hide signature --

A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
---------------------------
All cameras are so good nowadays, that the good stuff is kinda "given" or "expected". It is the limitations that get to you when you use them in real world situations. Windsurfer LA

 T O Shooter's gear list:T O Shooter's gear list
Canon PowerShot G5 Nikon D4S Nikon D500 Nikon D850 +5 more
shuncheung Senior Member • Posts: 2,049
Re: Not a lot...

T O Shooter wrote:

shuncheung wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

And, when Jim Kasson and Lance B says that any difference between the 70-200e s are splitting hairs (paraphrasing), and the Sigma 40 is untouched by anything in S, I tend to not believe the "better lenses" part. If it were not for paragraph 2 above, Nikon could refresh all the wide angles in f mount, and there wouldn't be enough difference to matter. Probably doesn't as it is.

There are a lot more lenses than the 70-200mm/f2.8. Just take a very simple example: my 14-30mm/f4 S is a very versatile wide zoom that can accept conventional, 82mm screw-on filters.

No such lens exists in any brand for SLRs. I happen to have the Nikkor 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S in the F-mount. The bulging front element makes it difficult to use and travel with. As a result, that is a lens I rarely use. I have seen people use a complex rectangular filter set up on it, making it even bulker. That isn't something I want to deal with.

So--------- You'll spend $20,000 to switch to a system that will allow you to put filters on a 14-something zoom.

In fact, I am in the middle of gradually migrating to a system that allows me to:

  • use a compact 14-30mm/f4 zoom that accepts conventional filters
  • many other better lenses that are impossible due to the mirror in DSLRs
  • 20 fps or even faster to capture action. Such frame rate is impossible due to the mechanical limitation of the mirror. E.g. I shoot a lot of hummingbirds in the spring. Their wings vibrate many times a second, and I prefer images with wings up positions. The limitation of DSLRs is very obvious in such scenario.
  • better video capture

Thanks, but I'll stick to my 14-24G and save the 20 grand. And have a better, complete camera / lens system.

The better, complete camera system is shifting away from DSLRs. I am old enough to see the world change before. Many years ago some people prefer black and white. Later on their prefer manual focus, and then they wanted to stick with film .... Meanwhile, technology marches on.

 shuncheung's gear list:shuncheung's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z6 Nikon 500mm F5.6E PF +5 more
Droster Senior Member • Posts: 1,142
Re: Not a lot...

T O Shooter wrote:

shuncheung wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

And, when Jim Kasson and Lance B says that any difference between the 70-200e s are splitting hairs (paraphrasing), and the Sigma 40 is untouched by anything in S, I tend to not believe the "better lenses" part. If it were not for paragraph 2 above, Nikon could refresh all the wide angles in f mount, and there wouldn't be enough difference to matter. Probably doesn't as it is.

There are a lot more lenses than the 70-200mm/f2.8. Just take a very simple example: my 14-30mm/f4 S is a very versatile wide zoom that can accept conventional, 82mm screw-on filters.

No such lens exists in any brand for SLRs. I happen to have the Nikkor 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S in the F-mount. The bulging front element makes it difficult to use and travel with. As a result, that is a lens I rarely use. I have seen people use a complex rectangular filter set up on it, making it even bulker. That isn't something I want to deal with.

So--------- You'll spend $20,000 to switch to a system that will allow you to put filters on a 14-something zoom.

Thanks, but I'll stick to my 14-24G and save the 20 grand. And have a better, complete camera / lens system.

And it's not like we're spending the money in one go.

Spend $3k on the Z7ii first and then $1.1k on the 14-30. Get the new 24-70 f2.8 for $2k. That's $6.1k first. If you want the 14-24 f2.8 instead of the 14-30 f4 upfront, you can top up another $1.3k and that'll set you back $7.4k upfront for a body and 2 parts of the f2.8 trinity.

Use your old 70-200 for now. When it's time to replace it in a few years you can then spend $2.6k on the 70-200 and that'll be $10k over the course of two or three years for a body and all 3 parts of the trinity.

And speaking of using the old 70-200, regarding the completeness of a system, the Z mount has access to lenses in both F and Z mount. It's not limited to only the Z mount lenses. The F-mount body though is limited to only the F-mount. It's the main reason why I'm retiring my DSLRs; I can't use my Z lenses on them. When I used to rock my D810 and Z6, the 70-200 is stuck to my D810 because I can't swap my 14-30 and 24-70 f2.8 onto the D810. Now with both Z6 and Z6ii, I'm not handicapped in my lens choices. It doesn't which lens I bring, be it the 14-30 or the 28 f1.8G, either body can use those lenses.

 Droster's gear list:Droster's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR +6 more
jlafferty Senior Member • Posts: 1,317
Re: Not a lot...

Droster wrote:.

And speaking of using the old 70-200, regarding the completeness of a system, the Z mount has access to lenses in both F and Z mount. It's not limited to only the Z mount lenses.

To say nothing of access to lenses from other systems. I’m looking forward to that Fringer adapter and shooting some Canon EF glass on my Z.

-- hide signature --

http://jimlafferty.com
General scoundrel. Evocative beats academic.

T O Shooter Forum Pro • Posts: 11,171
Re: Not a lot...

shuncheung wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

shuncheung wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

And, when Jim Kasson and Lance B says that any difference between the 70-200e s are splitting hairs (paraphrasing), and the Sigma 40 is untouched by anything in S, I tend to not believe the "better lenses" part. If it were not for paragraph 2 above, Nikon could refresh all the wide angles in f mount, and there wouldn't be enough difference to matter. Probably doesn't as it is.

There are a lot more lenses than the 70-200mm/f2.8. Just take a very simple example: my 14-30mm/f4 S is a very versatile wide zoom that can accept conventional, 82mm screw-on filters.

No such lens exists in any brand for SLRs. I happen to have the Nikkor 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S in the F-mount. The bulging front element makes it difficult to use and travel with. As a result, that is a lens I rarely use. I have seen people use a complex rectangular filter set up on it, making it even bulker. That isn't something I want to deal with.

So--------- You'll spend $20,000 to switch to a system that will allow you to put filters on a 14-something zoom.

In fact, I am in the middle of gradually migrating to a system that allows me to:

  • use a compact 14-30mm/f4 zoom that accepts conventional filters
  • many other better lenses that are impossible due to the mirror in DSLRs
  • 20 fps or even faster to capture action. Such frame rate is impossible due to the mechanical limitation of the mirror. E.g. I shoot a lot of hummingbirds in the spring. Their wings vibrate many times a second, and I prefer images with wings up positions. The limitation of DSLRs is very obvious in such scenario.
  • better video capture

Miniscule reasons that caused you to believe that another system was better.  The 70-200 F to Z is basically unnoticeable in the difference in IQ. Nothing Zee makes touches the 40 Sigma.  Wonderful that you want hummingbird wings in the up position.  Like the world hasn't seen enough hummingbird pictures with next to zero difference between one and the next.

DSLRs are stills cameras with a video side add on.  I have no interest in video. If I did, I'd buy a proper video camera.

Thanks, but I'll stick to my 14-24G and save the 20 grand. And have a better, complete camera / lens system.

The better, complete camera system is shifting away from DSLRs.

Foolishness.  The Zees are years away from being what f mount is.  The roadmap includes a 400 2.8 and a 600 f4, and an 85 1.2, lenses most people don't need or can't afford. Look around here and see how many people have those exotics.  Sigma won't even make a lens for it.

I am old enough to see the world change before. Many years ago some people prefer black and white. Later on their prefer manual focus, and then they wanted to stick with film .... Meanwhile, technology marches on.

And the world will quickly change to a new paradigm with both DSLRs and ML being a dead end. ML technology is not as good as DSLRs in many ways - just different.

-- hide signature --

A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
---------------------------
All cameras are so good nowadays, that the good stuff is kinda "given" or "expected". It is the limitations that get to you when you use them in real world situations. Windsurfer LA

 T O Shooter's gear list:T O Shooter's gear list
Canon PowerShot G5 Nikon D4S Nikon D500 Nikon D850 +5 more
PHXAZCRAIG
OP PHXAZCRAIG Forum Pro • Posts: 17,272
Re: Not a lot...

T O Shooter wrote:

And the world will quickly change to a new paradigm with both DSLRs and ML being a dead end. ML technology is not as good as DSLRs in many ways - just different.

And let's remember that the world WAS using mirrorless before SLR's came along.  Twin-lens reflex, rangefinders - no mirrors there.   Adding the mirror created new issues, but solved important ones of the day.   I've still got a Yashicamat 124g, a Contax rangefinder and my Dad's old Stereo Realist.  (And, I might note, a few rolls of undeveloped film from an Alaska trip in 2006.  Not even sure where to get film developed anymore.)

-- hide signature --

Phoenix Arizona Craig
www.cjcphoto.net
"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not."

 PHXAZCRAIG's gear list:PHXAZCRAIG's gear list
Nikon D80 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon 1 V1 +37 more
NikonD800Es Senior Member • Posts: 1,381
Re: D850 to ... Z7 - what improved (that mattered)?

Is there any Z6II and Z7II improvement of EVF lag compared to Z6 and Z7?

I tried Z6 and significant EVF lag is not compatible with my way of shooting, mainly sport photography.

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

If you went from a D850 to a Z7, what do you see as for-sure improvements? And any drawbacks?

The EVF lags badly even on a modest speed pan compared to any OVF. The Zs are a total non starter for me.

T O Shooter Forum Pro • Posts: 11,171
And still not "there"

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

And the world will quickly change to a new paradigm with both DSLRs and ML being a dead end. ML technology is not as good as DSLRs in many ways - just different.

And let's remember that the world WAS using mirrorless before SLR's came along.

And they're still only "getting there"  Some day, just not today.

And for me, maybe too late, as I'm already to "good enough" Maybe in a gen or two as a supplement to cover a specific purpose or two.

Twin-lens reflex, rangefinders - no mirrors there. Adding the mirror created new issues, but solved important ones of the day. I've still got a Yashicamat 124g, a Contax rangefinder and my Dad's old Stereo Realist. (And, I might note, a few rolls of undeveloped film from an Alaska trip in 2006. Not even sure where to get film developed anymore.)

-- hide signature --

A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
---------------------------
All cameras are so good nowadays, that the good stuff is kinda "given" or "expected". It is the limitations that get to you when you use them in real world situations. Windsurfer LA

 T O Shooter's gear list:T O Shooter's gear list
Canon PowerShot G5 Nikon D4S Nikon D500 Nikon D850 +5 more
briantilley
briantilley Veteran Member • Posts: 5,414
Re: And still not "there"

T O Shooter wrote:

Maybe in a gen or two as a supplement to cover a specific purpose or two.

Hey - I do believe he's starting to see the light

 briantilley's gear list:briantilley's gear list
Nikon Df Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D +20 more
Droster Senior Member • Posts: 1,142
Re: And still not "there"

briantilley wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

Maybe in a gen or two as a supplement to cover a specific purpose or two.

Hey - I do believe he's starting to see the light

I think he brought up a fair point and that people are waiting for the flagship.

Lok Cheung’s parting statement in his review of the Z6ii pretty much sums up the sentiment. People’s problem with Nikon aren’t the current cameras; the current cameras are really good, but the community wants to see the fancy flagships.

Not to buy of course, it’s not the camera for most of us, but just something to ogle at.

 Droster's gear list:Droster's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR +6 more
shuncheung Senior Member • Posts: 2,049
Re: And still not "there"

Droster wrote:

briantilley wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

Maybe in a gen or two as a supplement to cover a specific purpose or two.

Hey - I do believe he's starting to see the light

I think he brought up a fair point and that people are waiting for the flagship.

Lok Cheung’s parting statement in his review of the Z6ii pretty much sums up the sentiment. People’s problem with Nikon aren’t the current cameras; the current cameras are really good, but the community wants to see the fancy flagships.

Not to buy of course, it’s not the camera for most of us, but just something to ogle at.

Both Canon and Nikon have just introduced flagship DSLRs at the beginning of this year, in preparation for the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics, which was postponed.

How frequently would people expect Nikon to introduce “flagship” cameras? It can’t be every year. Even in two years it is on the too frequent side.

 shuncheung's gear list:shuncheung's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z6 Nikon 500mm F5.6E PF +5 more
lightandaprayer Senior Member • Posts: 4,006
Re: D850 to ... Z7 - what improved (that mattered)?

Here is a Z7 issue that I was not aware of until I stumbled upon a thread yesterday in the Nikon mirrorless forum:

Nikon Z7 flash photography backlight situation problem

richiebee
richiebee Veteran Member • Posts: 4,383
Re: D850 to ... Z7 - what improved (that mattered)?

I have a D850 and Z6.  D850 beats the Z6 in focus acquisition speed, and low light focus ability, but Z6 beats D850 in focus hit rate. For what I shoot on a day to day basis, I'd take the Z6 accuracy over the D850 speed. YMMV.

 richiebee's gear list:richiebee's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED +16 more
briantilley
briantilley Veteran Member • Posts: 5,414
Re: D850 to ... Z7 - what improved (that mattered)?

lightandaprayer wrote:

Here is a Z7 issue that I was not aware of until I stumbled upon a thread yesterday in the Nikon mirrorless forum:

Nikon Z7 flash photography backlight situation problem

I'm just wondering how well a typical DSLR would focus in that type of situation?

 briantilley's gear list:briantilley's gear list
Nikon Df Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D +20 more
T O Shooter Forum Pro • Posts: 11,171
Re: D850 to ... Z7 - what improved (that mattered)?

briantilley wrote:

lightandaprayer wrote:

Here is a Z7 issue that I was not aware of until I stumbled upon a thread yesterday in the Nikon mirrorless forum:

Nikon Z7 flash photography backlight situation problem

I'm just wondering how well a typical DSLR would focus in that type of situation?

Why would you wonder that?  And why wonder "out loud"?

-- hide signature --

A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
---------------------------
All cameras are so good nowadays, that the good stuff is kinda "given" or "expected". It is the limitations that get to you when you use them in real world situations. Windsurfer LA

 T O Shooter's gear list:T O Shooter's gear list
Canon PowerShot G5 Nikon D4S Nikon D500 Nikon D850 +5 more
Paddler213 Contributing Member • Posts: 898
Re: Not a lot...

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

And the world will quickly change to a new paradigm with both DSLRs and ML being a dead end. ML technology is not as good as DSLRs in many ways - just different.

And let's remember that the world WAS using mirrorless before SLR's came along. Twin-lens reflex, rangefinders - no mirrors there. Adding the mirror created new issues, but solved important ones of the day. I've still got a Yashicamat 124g, a Contax rangefinder and my Dad's old Stereo Realist. (And, I might note, a few rolls of undeveloped film from an Alaska trip in 2006. Not even sure where to get film developed anymore.)

Interesting thread.  I have a bunch of gear, including the D850 + the 24/1.8G.  It's been my main choice for landscape and is okay, but the lens is soft on the edges.  I was thinking about going with a Z body, and maybe the 24/1.8S because of the larger flange and shorter flange to sensor distance can result in sharper wide angle lenses.  But reading reviews tells me the S isn't all that much better than the G.  Plus, it would cost about $4K to do that.  A definite non starter.  But in that class of lenses, the Zeiss 25/1.4 Milvus is far and away better than the S, G or indeed anything else by any maker.  It was also just over $2K, so less expensive than the other option.

So, for my uses, the Z makes no sense.  My D500 and D850 with either the 500/4FL or PF are great for wildlife, I have the old AF-S 300/4D as well.  Not interested in video, if I was, like another poster says, I'd get a video camera.  My Sony RX100 Mk V is good enough for now.  My other G primes are okay for my needs, too, so I think I'm done for now.

BTW, I also have the 124 G Mat, which was about $130 when I bought it so many years ago.  Also a Mamiya C330, which is built like a tank.  Fun!

 Paddler213's gear list:Paddler213's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon 85mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm F4E FL ED VR +5 more
lightandaprayer Senior Member • Posts: 4,006
Re: Not a lot...

Paddler213 wrote:

Interesting thread. I have a bunch of gear, including the D850 + the 24/1.8G. It's been my main choice for landscape and is okay, but the lens is soft on the edges.

The least expensive expensive option is to frame subjects with vital edge detail (a minuscule number for most photographers) so that the image can be cropped in post. . . The D850 has plenty of pixels so the ones lost to cropping won't ever be missed.

T O Shooter Forum Pro • Posts: 11,171
Re: Not a lot...

Paddler213 wrote:

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

And the world will quickly change to a new paradigm with both DSLRs and ML being a dead end. ML technology is not as good as DSLRs in many ways - just different.

And let's remember that the world WAS using mirrorless before SLR's came along. Twin-lens reflex, rangefinders - no mirrors there. Adding the mirror created new issues, but solved important ones of the day. I've still got a Yashicamat 124g, a Contax rangefinder and my Dad's old Stereo Realist. (And, I might note, a few rolls of undeveloped film from an Alaska trip in 2006. Not even sure where to get film developed anymore.)

Interesting thread. I have a bunch of gear, including the D850 + the 24/1.8G. It's been my main choice for landscape and is okay, but the lens is soft on the edges. I was thinking about going with a Z body, and maybe the 24/1.8S because of the larger flange and shorter flange to sensor distance can result in sharper wide angle lenses. But reading reviews tells me the S isn't all that much better than the G. Plus, it would cost about $4K to do that. A definite non starter. But in that class of lenses, the Zeiss 25/1.4 Milvus is far and away better than the S, G or indeed anything else by any maker. It was also just over $2K, so less expensive than the other option.

I think that's where part of Nikon's blunder comes in. I'm just not buying a complete new set of lenses to change to any system. Nikon particularly but also Sony or Canon.  Most definitely when there are f mount options such as Zeiss, Sigma Art that will get you close enough, equal to, or better than S.  I'm also not using the FTZ to adapt lenses either. Or any adapter really.  From my point of view, they should have stuck with f mount or at least made an f mount version.  Except for gearheads, I'm doubting that many people make their choice of system based on a wider mount.  Big gamble to assume enough Nikon DSLR owners were going to drop their existing system of lenses and buy over, and that with a limited selection.

So, for my uses, the Z makes no sense. My D500 and D850 with either the 500/4FL or PF are great for wildlife, I have the old AF-S 300/4D as well. Not interested in video, if I was, like another poster says, I'd get a video camera. My Sony RX100 Mk V is good enough for now. My other G primes are okay for my needs, too, so I think I'm done for now.

BTW, I also have the 124 G Mat, which was about $130 when I bought it so many years ago. Also a Mamiya C330, which is built like a tank. Fun!

-- hide signature --

A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
---------------------------
All cameras are so good nowadays, that the good stuff is kinda "given" or "expected". It is the limitations that get to you when you use them in real world situations. Windsurfer LA

 T O Shooter's gear list:T O Shooter's gear list
Canon PowerShot G5 Nikon D4S Nikon D500 Nikon D850 +5 more
JasonTheBirder
JasonTheBirder Senior Member • Posts: 1,423
Re: D850 to ... Z7 - what improved (that mattered)?

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

If you went from a D850 to a Z7, what do you see as for-sure improvements? And any drawbacks?

The EVF lags badly even on a modest speed pan compared to any OVF. The Zs are a total non starter for me.

This is absolutely true especially in lower light. I can't imagine using an EVF for birds. Note that I'm not claiming it's harder to get the shot in an objective sense. But it's less pleasant to use.

Paddler213 Contributing Member • Posts: 898
Re: Not a lot...

lightandaprayer wrote:

Paddler213 wrote:

Interesting thread. I have a bunch of gear, including the D850 + the 24/1.8G. It's been my main choice for landscape and is okay, but the lens is soft on the edges.

The least expensive expensive option is to frame subjects with vital edge detail (a minuscule number for most photographers) so that the image can be cropped in post. . . The D850 has plenty of pixels so the ones lost to cropping won't ever be missed.

That's an unsatisfactory strategy for me. For landscape, I want maximum sharpness across the entire frame. If you look at the 24/1.8S or G, they both fall off midframe. The G, for instance, goes from a high of 3351 at f/4 to 2507 at midframe. The S hits a high of 3629 at f/4 and drops to 2709 by midframe and 2524 at the corners. The Zeiss is much more uniform across the frame, measuring well above 3500 for both center and edge from f/4 through f/11. One review, by PC Mag, showed Imatest scores measured on a D850 at f/5.6 of 4812 center and 4790 edge. Look like the Milvus crushes the other options, and I just wouldn't be happy settling for less than the best. So, going to a Z body and S lens is the wrong answer for me.  And, I "saved" $2K. Win, win.

 Paddler213's gear list:Paddler213's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon 85mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm F4E FL ED VR +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads