Z6iii or Z8 for wildlife photography?

[Kevin Stephens]

What to Nikon wildlife photographers find the benefits to be in terms of more pixels, or fewer larger pixels to be? Do the benefits of use in low light, greater dynamic range and reduced noise at high iso outweigh the extra pixels and ability to crop, say with the 600mm f 6.3 lens?

 

[Vermillion]

I don't know about these two particular cameras, but the thought that lower MP = Better low light performance isn't necessarily true. Viewing both images at 100% might give that impression, but a 45 MP image viewed at 100% is much more "zoomed in" than a 24 MP image at 100%. The higher resolution image will pretty much always capture more detail.

Anyway, I use the Z8, and I think it's the better camera for wildlife, simply my having a higher resolution sensor with a faster readout speed.

 

[abc123brian]

I have the Z8 and Z9 that I use for wildlife. The iso performance is great. I don’t think the Z6iii performs any better in that regard and probably not with dynamic range either. The more pixels has a couple advantages. More detail captured and the ability to crop farther holding that detail. If you’re filling the frame you won’t notice as much but if shooting small birds and needing to crop the extra resolution helps. I sometimes shoot the 400r 600 on my Zf. It has more dynamic range and better lowlight performance than the Z6iii but images look very similar to Z8/Z9 so I don’t think you’re going to see any advantage with the Z6iii. The Z6iii has a better EVF but you’re not going to get the same smooth EVF experience as the fully stacked sensor provides in the Z8. I don’t think the extra resolution is required or as critical as a lot of others suggest but it might be they are cropping more.

 

[shuncheung]

What to Nikon wildlife photographers find the benefits to be in terms of more pixels, or fewer larger pixels to be? Do the benefits of use in low light, greater dynamic range and reduced noise at high iso outweigh the extra pixels and ability to crop, say with the 600mm f 6.3 lens?

If you can afford a Z8, I would get a Z8, which is 90 to 95% the same as the flagship Z9 and has no mechanical shutter. I actually have all three of those bodies and prefer the Z8 over the Z6iii for wildlife, but both are fine cameras.

 

[C Sean]

I think it also depends on the lens or lenses.

For example there's nothing wrong with pairing the z6iii with the 180-600mm. It does the job and deliver results. However, if you own the 400mm 4.5 or the 100-400mm, you might find the Z8 to better suited for cropping in.

I own the 400mm 4.5 for the Z6iii and there are times I wish I'd more megapixels. That said the other week I was photographing King Fishers the other side of the river with the Z6iii and the 180-600 and again I wished I had more megapixels.

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

What to Nikon wildlife photographers find the benefits to be in terms of more pixels, or fewer larger pixels to be? Do the benefits of use in low light, greater dynamic range and reduced noise at high iso outweigh the extra pixels and ability to crop, say with the 600mm f 6.3 lens?

Get the Z8 if you can. Having 45 megapixels for wildlife is great! It's basically two cameras in one, because it allows you to crop deep and still retain very nice IQ. If you can fill the frame, all the better! You can see lots of wildlife examples with the Z8 and the 180-600mm at this link. I know it's not the prime, but you'll see what 600mm can get you. You can see more examples with an 800mm f/6.3 here.

I always try to fill the frame as best I can, but there are times when I have the wrong lens on, or I screw up the framing, because I'm feeling rushed. It is so nice to be able to crop in and change the composition when needed, without losing too much in terms of image quality. Example:


45 megapixels.


Cropped down to 24 megapixels.


45 megapixels.


24 megapixel crop. Sometimes even 800mm falls short!

If you have only 24 megapixels, you'll want to be able to fill the frame every time, and even 600mm is not always going to be enough, especially with smaller birds. The extra magnification in crop mode is nice, though I just shoot in FX mode all the time and crop later as needed, if needed.

Then again if you only post to social media, you should be able to crop the Z6III files down and still get a nice photo to share.

As for dynamic range,...



--
http://www.dreamsourcestudio.com
@TheSoaringSprite

 

[AWG_Pics]

In the DSLR days I shot a D850, D5 and D500. All great cameras with varying strong aspects. Now I shoot wildlife and BIF mainly with the Z6iii and adapted long F-mount glass. It serves me very well and in 3 months have accumulated many photos, which are for my purposes keepers. This includes several shots that I never seemed to get with my DSLRs.

I am sure the Z8 would be just as rewarding.

The most important elements are getting into the right place to see the animals and then getting the camera settings right to capture the photo. A few pixels will not make or break happy wildlife photographers.

 

[Richard B99]

What to Nikon wildlife photographers find the benefits to be in terms of more pixels, or fewer larger pixels to be? Do the benefits of use in low light, greater dynamic range and reduced noise at high iso outweigh the extra pixels and ability to crop, say with the 600mm f 6.3 lens?

Get the Z8 if you can. Having 45 megapixels for wildlife is great! It's basically two cameras in one, because it allows you to crop deep and still retain very nice IQ. If you can fill the frame, all the better! You can see lots of wildlife examples with the Z8 and the 180-600mm at this link. I know it's not the prime, but you'll see what 600mm can get you. You can see more examples with an 800mm f/6.3 here.

I always try to fill the frame as best I can, but there are times when I have the wrong lens on, or I screw up the framing, because I'm feeling rushed. It is so nice to be able to crop in and change the composition when needed, without losing too much in terms of image quality. Example:


45 megapixels.


Cropped down to 24 megapixels.


45 megapixels.


24 megapixel crop. Sometimes even 800mm falls short!

If you have only 24 megapixels, you'll want to be able to fill the frame every time, and even 600mm is not always going to be enough, especially with smaller birds. The extra magnification in crop mode is nice, though I just shoot in FX mode all the time and crop later as needed, if needed.

Then again if you only post to social media, you should be able to crop the Z6III files down and still get a nice photo to share.

As for dynamic range,...

^This. Those 45Mp really do count for wildlife and there is no real low light penalty.

 

[Born2Code]

I agree. Some people make too much of small differences in DR. In a worst case scenario, a camera with slightly more DR might be able to recover a bit more shadow detail, but how often do you have a shot ruined by losing a bit in the deep shadows?

 

[Superscroll]

I struggled with this decision recently as well although my usage is pretty varied.

The first time i cropped a bird in flight with good lighting i was like 'yep, money well spent'. Immediately erased any misgivings i had about dropping an extra $1500 or whatever it is for the z8. The tele i bought is a 400 and for me having 45mp means it's also a very functional 600. So there's a savings right there! Heck you can't afford NOT to buy the Z8!

If i was only shooting family stuff and maybe street i'd be more than happy with a z5ii. For landscape i am very happy to have the extra detail.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

What to Nikon wildlife photographers find the benefits to be in terms of more pixels, or fewer larger pixels to be? Do the benefits of use in low light, greater dynamic range and reduced noise at high iso outweigh the extra pixels and ability to crop, say with the 600mm f 6.3 lens?

I think the z8 had the edge, but it's really going to come down to slightly better low-light performance of the Z6 III more more megapixels and a faster sensor on the Z8 (and about $1500 more money).

That being said, the Z8 (in my opinion) seems to do quite well up to ISO 6400. Yes the images can be noisy depending on the scene, but cleaning them up using AI noise reduction seems to do a good job so I don't worry about it too much. I don't shoot wildlife much so my of my experience is with other genres (travel and landscape) but in doing those, I do sometimes run into low-light high ISO scenarios and sometimes tracking (if I'm photographing an event). But really it's going to come down to how much you want to spend and if you prioritize high ISO noise in exchange for fewer pixels. Some people like the extra pixels for cropping/reach.

I went with the Z8 mostly because the Z6 III wasn't out at the time (in 2023) and I wanted a camera that could do it all, instead of buying multiple/different cameras for specific tasks. I kind of wanted a camera that had both the resolution for my landscape and travel shooting (so I have flexibility in image sizes) but also something that could track and do action/wildlife as well if I decided to shoot those genres too.

--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

I agree. Some people make too much of small differences in DR. In a worst case scenario, a camera with slightly more DR might be able to recover a bit more shadow detail, but how often do you have a shot ruined by losing a bit in the deep shadows?

Yeah, it's a negligible difference.

I'm rarely able to shoot wildlife at low ISOs. Shooting wide open at f/6.3 with any of the Z telephoto primes, unless the light is ideal (and many times it isn't), we end up shooting at higher ISOs either way.

Having more pixels on the subject and filling the frame, it's easier to clean up during post-processing. DxO's PhotoLab noise reduction makes high ISO shooting not a problem anymore. The more details I can capture at a proper exposure, the easier it is to get rid of noise and still get a nice shot.

The Z6III has about the same DR at those ISOs as the Z8, and the Z8 is capable of even higher DR at those low ISOs, so I don't think I'm missing out on anything with a Z8.

With good noise reduction software, ISO 4000 is looking like ISO 200 - 400 these days.





--

Dream Source Studio | Photography by J.P.

Welcome to Dream Source Studio, home to sports, wildlife, event, travel & landscape photography. Need help improving your own skills as an aspiring photographer? Check out the new photography tips section or feel free to e-mail me with your questions!

www.dreamsourcestudio.com

@TheSoaringSprite

 

[Ken Seals]

What to Nikon wildlife photographers find the benefits to be in terms of more pixels, or fewer larger pixels to be? Do the benefits of use in low light, greater dynamic range and reduced noise at high iso outweigh the extra pixels and ability to crop, say with the 600mm f 6.3 lens?

I think the z8 had the edge, but it's really going to come down to slightly better low-light performance of the Z6 III more more megapixels and a faster sensor on the Z8 (and about $1500 more money).

the difference in low light performance has actually NO practical difference. The key to getting low noise at any ISO is proper exposure. If one has to brighten an image in post, the noise will come up a lot, too.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

What to Nikon wildlife photographers find the benefits to be in terms of more pixels, or fewer larger pixels to be? Do the benefits of use in low light, greater dynamic range and reduced noise at high iso outweigh the extra pixels and ability to crop, say with the 600mm f 6.3 lens?

I think the z8 had the edge, but it's really going to come down to slightly better low-light performance of the Z6 III more more megapixels and a faster sensor on the Z8 (and about $1500 more money).

the difference in low light performance has actually NO practical difference. The key to getting low noise at any ISO is proper exposure. If one has to brighten an image in post, the noise will come up a lot, too.

True, but I think in lower-light situations (images with more shadows/daker tones) the noise will be more visible than in brighter tones, even if you expose properly. My assumption is when people say low-light they usually mean "darker scenes" (whereas some see "low-light" as simply implying high ISOs regardless of the scene).

--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *

 

[Dyeman]

I own both the Z8 and the Z6iii, and shoot birds and other wildlife with an adapted 500mm f5.6 PF. I got a refurbished Z6iii at a great price to replace my Z6ii as my back up to the Z8. For me, if I could only get one body for wildlife, I would go with the Z8. IMHO, the ability to crop the 45 megapixel images outweighs other features. Cheers.

 

[ericbowles]

I have both the Z8 and Z6iii. I think the number of pixels are secondary to other factors. With side by side images and a reasonable crop on each, you can't tell the difference between the two cameras.

There is a tendency to photograph subjects that are too small in the frame. Cropping to 100% is fine for social media, but never works as a print or large published image. Backgrounds are very important, and you tend to get busy backgrounds when you have to make a deep crop. I'd much rather use a longer focal length and have a good background than crop.

The Z8 does have some features that are better. The EVF has a faster readout and real time viewfinder. There is no mirror at all.

The Z6iii is a very good all around camera - ideal for portraits and events, great for social media, smaller file size, etc. There is technically a small benefit in noise and dynamic range, but not something you can see visually.

Cropping is not a free lunch. The 46 megapixel Z8 needs to be downsized for doinse to be equivalent to the 24 megapixel Z6/Z6iii. If you crop a Z8 image to 24 megapixels it's like doubling the ISO. Where you see the difference depends a bit on the depth of your crop. At 1000 pixels on the long edge for social media, the added noise makes a difference but not at 6000 pixels on the long edge.

My go to camera is usually the Z6iii. It's good enough. If I need maximum detail and I'm not cropping, the Z8 is my choice. Due to the frame rates and high volume, I rarely shoot the Z8 at 20 fps - it's just too many large files. I'd prefer HEIF or JPEG on the Z8 or just use my Z6iii if I need a high frame rate. I use my Z6iii as a remote camera when I have high volume but don't expect a lot of keepers. I use my Z6iii if my output is primarily for digital use or social media rather than large prints.

 

[Paddler213]

I have both the Z9 and Z6 III. The difference in resolution means you'll see pixelation with the former before the latter when zooming in. Of course, you can crop any photo enough to run into the problem, but you'll see it with the Z6 III before the Z8. If price isn't an issue, go the the Z8.

Here's an example:

 

[BBMT]

I have the Z8 and Zf and shoot wildlife. The files look very similar in low light when the Z8 files are downsized to 24mp.

the Zf is a fully capable wildlife camera, but the Z8 is much better. The ability to crop is essential for wildlife.

.

 

[ai_foto]

The biggest benefit of the Z8 is that it’s essentially a lifetime camera - it doesn’t have a mechanical shutter, so it will keep working unless you drop it.

 

[Superscroll]

The cropping ability is just so nice. And you can get pretty nuts if you're printing small or just using for screen-

View attachment 5291f897195c4150aa13980c6dc3807f.jpg





View attachment c507c7b61b9b4a8db0e6a5018dfa33a0.jpg





Neither is getting printed to a3+ and hung on the wall but to me this is just impressive. Pretty sure I used that 'super resolution' thing on these as well looking at the pixel count.

Not that anyone is going to do this on the regular but it does illustrate how easily you can extend your FL for such a minor cost in IQ.

--
C&C always welcome!