That's why I don't mess with third party stuff.

I won't buy another 3rd party lens (unless it is a cinema lens)...

There was a pretty big difference when V3 came out. At least for face/eye AF. It went from being something of a gimmick to fairly usable.

Yes, I agree but I feel like this one really made the camera so much more responsive! All good for us :)

Yep. Makes one wonder what might have been if Z6 shipped with this kind of performance, or at least got it much earlier in it's life. I think the narrative about these camera's AF performance would be a lot different.

@Kmoore
Check viltrox's website. Firmware update to fix the EFZ adapter had been released.

Pretty much as good as with goats

Similar experience around here. AF is definitely more responsive now.

It seems Nikon took a page out of Fuji’s book. It’s definitely good to see.

Agree! (Fuji's "Kaizen")... Nikon would be wise to do so, especially at this point in time. If they could show higher levels of support it would further separate them as a preferred choice. Nikon still has some ground to win back.

Yeah, I noticed. I hope that they push that feature to the Z5 (along with the Z6/Z7). It makes a lot more sense for these cameras because they don't have the dual processors or whatever is in the Z9.

Agree - i don't understand why they can't have it. You would think it would be easier to only have to consider a portion of the image.

Not to state the obvious but you can't expect every feature in the budget offering or who would buy the more feature packed models?

I shoot high school sports with a pair of Z6s. Once I learned the focus system, the Z6s replaced a pair of D500s. Sports is no issue, if you understand the focus system differences.

Well it's a slightly different situation - the X-T4 basically is an X-T3 with IBIS, plus some other stuff that likely doesn't impact AF performance. Sensor and processor is the same.

The Zii's of course have significant processor advantages over the i's (double) so they should be able to do better.

Yes I just mean that Nikon doesnt need to just because its possible. It would be great if they did of course.

I feel a lot of people expecting it instead of hoping.

I have a Z5 in transit on its way to me right now, I'm really surprised that one of the DISP modes doesn't show a clear LV, such a weird omission.

The other ones seems like no-brainers too, nothing there that should cause them much difficulty.

Yes the clear LV would be a great addition I totally agree on that point, and cannot see how that can be hard to implement, just an additional click on the display button.

“Adjust the LV refresh rate in low light down to 1-2FPS”

Hmm, suddenly I think staying with a DSLR might not be a bad thing to do.

@starbase218 I'd rather have a 2fps viewfinder image that I can see my subject in than a TTL one that is almost completely black and very difficult to see the image through. I assume those are the conditions primeshooter was talking about.

starbase, not following what you mean here. This is normal practice for astro shooting. It can be switched on/off (in all other camera's that offer it ala sony - it's called bright monitoring) so it doesn't interfere with fast action like a wedding in low light. This is purely to maximise what is seen on the EVF and LV...don't mistake it for being a problem because it is not.

I mean that, if it’s going to be either very noisy or a slideshow, that’s not very impressive.

starbase again you are not getting this. How would it be a slide show looking at a LV screen of starlight at 2FPS? As I said already, it can be switched of if you are doing a low light wedding reception (screen will get noiser again but the refresh will be higher).

@primeshooter It might be helpful if you can confirm - I can't as I'm still waiting for my first mirrorless camera, a Z5, to arrive in the post - that if you choose the noisy option (or have it forced on you by Nikon!) that it at least offers the benefit over a DSLR's TTL viewfinder of being brighter, and therefore easier to compose? Am I right in saying that the noise is the tradeoff for more light?

Ok, maybe the light levels we are talking about are so low that an optical viewfinder would be useless anyway.

I don't have that camera. Like DSLRs they have an exposure sim usually by pressing OK but it is still very noisy because the refresh rate is still usually 60hz or there about's. This function is present in the Z9, where it slows down the FPS to get cleaner feed. With the current Z bodies you'll get exposure sim but it will still be quite noisy I would think.

starbase, light so bad you cannot see your outstretched hand in front of your face so yes. This has huge applications for framing / focusing in astro situations. It will be a massive help and it looks like the Z9 has it. But unfortunately, not the right body for most astro guys; otherwise a step in the right direction.

Seems to me they could perhaps offer an option to link the refresh rate to shutter speed; if you've set your camera, either directly or indirectly via other settings, to a low shutter speed, you clearly aren't following a fast-changing subject and can presumably also accept a slower EVF refresh.

I can confirm the noisy EVF image from Z6 in very low light is far superior to OVF in the same situation. With EVF you can still at least frame the shot properly. With OVF I would have to paint the edges of the scene with a flashlight to even see it. Which isn't always possible depending on the situation.

@Primeshooter PhotographyLife love Nikon Z btw .. this wish list is not a show stopper for them .. its just a nice to have,

Urbex Mark No one is saying it isn't better than an optical finder but it is still very noisy due to the high refresh rate in low light.

@primeshooter starbase was suggesting it is *worse* than an OVF

we heard you the 1st time ......nobody cared then

You know, I hadn't even noticed that Nikon do that. Frankly who cares?

It's not a matter of caring, it's simply a matter of being accurate as a writer, as a journalist. Of not being sloppy.

Consider these two versions of the article headline:

"Nikon’s new firmware updates for its Z 50, Z 5, Z 6 and Z 7 cameras improve AF performance"

"Nikon’s new firmware updates for its Z50, Z5, Z6 and Z7 cameras improve AF performance"

Personally I find the latter clearer, tidier and more readable. The spacing is purely formatting/presentation, there's nothing inherently inaccurate about it, and based on the above example I think it's probably an in-house stylistic decision that DPR (and other sites) have made to write it the way they do; the important thing is consistency.

It doesnt matter how you find it personally, it's still incorrect, it's still wrong. No matter how you try to explain it, it's simply WRONG.

OK, ara mando?

It is much more readable in eliminating the space. Nikon use of a logo with Z in a much larger font than the following numeral or with a large font Z sitting atop the small font numeral makes it open to interpretation or at least a bit confusing. DPR and Nikon seem to use different methods of converting a logo into text; Nikon using a space dimension with carryover from the much larger font, DPR keeping font and space dimensions consistent.

@hikerdoc To be scrupulously fair to Photo_AK, Nikon also writes it as "Z 5" in plain text - their product page has 26 instances of this, and none of "Z5". I still maintain that it doesn't matter, though, and if journalistic outlets want to remove the space for readability reasons and adopt their own in-house style, they are free to do so.

@Photo_AK No, not OK. It's not wrong, just different. Whether it's a difference they should adopt or not is subjective, but there's no functional difference according to whether a space is used between the range and model, but there is a readability difference.

Sorry but writing Z 9 looks like a typo.

The most petty complaint award of the day goes to...

While I’ll concede that it’s technically correct, I find “Z 9” harder to read than Z9. Care also must be taken to insert a non-breaking space so that different text flows don’t render the name even less readable. I accept the current less/incorrect choice.

Here are three reasons why eliminating the space is better in regards to websites:

1. 'Z6' will wrap the whole model number onto the next line while 'Z 6' will only wrap the 6.
2. People are less likely t search for 'Z 6' which means that 'Z6' will return better results.
3. "2 Z 6es" makes less sense that "2 Z6es". From an accessibility pop, Eli,inating the space helps those with cognitive issues.

Photo AK DO NOT GOOGLE Z 6 i just did and it brings 29.000.000 results for Z6 and non for Z 6 i don't think your OCD will cope with that
also, tell me what the correct thing to do is if you type Z 6 and it puts the Z at the end on one line and the 6 at the beginning of the next????

At least it focuses much better on eyes with glasses now. Since the update I don’t have any issues with that anymore, when using my Z7 as a webcam.

Yeah, i love my RP, but I'm really envious of frequent improvement by nikon

Anyway, all my lenses are DSLR, i can always hop and own multiple body without issue

One can purchase a refub Z5 from Nikon right now for $890. And it will adapt (w/ af) all those canon dslr lenses.

I would have chosen a Z over an RP on shutter sound alone. I tried an RP and the shutter sound was ghastly and loud. As always Canon make lovely cameras to hold and use though.

Nah, to get Z5 after RP doesn't make sense, that money better for lens

but ill give great consideration for my next camera if nikon
came up with sport apsc.

@gameshoes3003 Not sure where you (or Alam12) are but in the UK the new prices for body only peg the Z5 just 15% more than the RP.

When Z5 is launched, canon reduced rp from 1400 to 999
That's when i bought my RP, idk about price difference now.

I bought a Z5 for £950 and the new Nikon 40mm F2 prime for £250 so it's a really affordable package. I think the cheapest RP I could find was £850.. but lacks dual card slots, weather sealing, IBIS, useable silent shooting, etc.

I'm definitely glad I went for the Nikon.

I had the RP for 3 weeks. Still miss the articulating screen and "m-mode" button, but enjoying the image quality from my Z6ii far more.

Yeah, nikon image really stand out for wildlife where I'm into now

The only issue for me is nikon keep pumping mirrorless version of Dslr lens, improvement is there but I don't mind using dslr lenses and I'm already happy with them, buying same thing twice doesn't make sense with my budget

Meanwhile canon is doing something interesting for wildlife shootee with limited budget, the f11 duo look nice and new cheap 100-400 f8 looks like great performer and nowhere else to be found

My plan is keep RP for canon exotica, and nikon for my dslr lenses

Nikon USA stated that it was a mistake concerning wide area large, it was not added to the Z6 and Z7

Nikon Japan's official website has corrected this mistake. No AF-L eye detect as always.

Also worth noting, for fun one day I went through a few years of DPReview’s sample galleries. The galleries that really stand out with the most lovely colors and tones are easily Nikon.

Z5 is fine but not class leading. It came out too late for a start, -3EV low light AF capability is likely bottom of the FF mirrorless. Tracking movement was same as first gen Z7. For stills the IQ is great. For 4k video it has limitation by sensor or processor or artificially applied by Nikon. For low end FF market, build and feel on hand is not top priority. Sharp pricing and useful kit lens are always more important.

What I paid for the Z5 and 24-70mm f/4 (when it was on sale) is just a bit more than half of what I paid for D750 and its kit lens 24-85mm six years ago. Incredible value, and the important thing is that I like it better than the D750.

Calling Z5 on par with other manufacturers high end models is bit too far. After all it makes some clear sacrifices compared to them (slower sensor, thus worse noisier view and worse AF in dark, weaker video) to reach its lower price point.

But overall feature set is great, with IBIS, good body, LCD, EVF, dual cards, proper battery. Usually it's more expensive than competing entry-level MILC FF bodies, and it also stands a head above them in performance and features.

And it has better DR than Z6 or Z6 II. Very good matrix with very flexible files that can be pusched heavily without any banding

Z5 is insanely good value. Weather sealed robust camera with a fantastic viewfinder.

@Photofrankenstein
> Z5 is fine but not class leading

Can't agree with you. In the class of $1000-ish full-frame cameras, the Nikon Z5 is actually the best. The only two competitors are Canon RP and Sony A7II. Neither of them is on par with Z5.

Bought my Z5 for £950 with the new 40mm F2 for £250. Fantastic combo. Couldn't have found 'professional' features for less.

Tried Fuji XT3 and Sony A6400 previously and although they were both great cameras, Z5 just feels right. Sure the burst rate and viewfinder blackout is a bit meh but it manages to capture my erratic 3 year old well enough.

Z5 is absolutely class leading, even more -- it is better than some more expensive full frame cameras, e.g. Canon EOS R.

The z5 is indeed amazing. Virtually the same build quality as its higher end models (some plastic instead of metal, but tbh sometimes plastic is an advantage in not denting, not heating up, being lighter) and duo cards (for those that don't need cfe speed, the double sd slots are even better)...just a slightly older sensor with still amazing IQ. nikon really nailed an affordable package...i'm sure they nabbed some new users into the z system with that one.

People tend to forget Nikon didn't want to sell Z5 at $1000 but priced it at $1400 body only and $1700 with a joking 24-50 pancake zoom kit lens. That 24-50 lens was priced $400 by itself. Nikon couldnt be more wrong at pricing its entry level FF. Today at one of the largest camera site Z6+24-70f4 combo sells exact the same price as Z5+24-70f4. Don't know about you but 24-70f4 is too expensive as an entry kit and 24-50 is too limiting most people rather having longer reach than absolute smallest size. Nikon needs a 24-105/4-6.3 as cheaply built as possible to lower the entry kit price but offer decent sharpness, that's how Canon sold millions of RP +24-105stm cheap and still made profit.

You can find new 24-70/4 for 500$ everywhere
It’s not too expensive.
It’s much cheaper for what it offers that Canon or Sony offerings!

Viltrox and others already make AF lenses for Nikon Z

@AbrasiveReducer They reduce the incentive of *existing owners* to buy a new Nikon camera, yes. But Nikon makes most money on lenses, so that matters less than making their cameras more attractive to people who aren't already in the system, or even people who are but would otherwise consider switching systems.

It's the sensor hot mirror filter used to avoid non-visible light, it's has a pink reflection if you see it from some angles.

The color you see reflected back at you when you actually look at a physical sensor is determined by the colors of the filter arrays as well as whatever combination of other filters the sensor uses such as a low pass or UV.

I think resolution also has an impact on the sensor color

Yes, Z9 proves that they've gotten the algorithms right. Hopefully Z6/7iii and future Z8 will have the readout speed and processor power to use those algorithms.

@ A Owens: The Z9 has 10X the processing power of dual Expeed 6 found in the Z6II/Z7II according to Nikon reps, and a sensor that can readout roughly 13 times faster, so there is a lot more to it than the algorithms. I am not trying to compare the two directly, I am only saying that the AF performance in the Z6II/Z7II clearly has a hardware limit preventing any major leap in performance.

Once the next firmware is released we can expect the Z6II/Z7II to get very close to the level of a Canon R5.

I'm guessing that we are seeing here is just smarter algorithms. I think it's not surprising, given that Sony only got it on par or better than DSLRs with the third generation A7, and Canon had dual pixel AF in their DSLRs a long time before they jumped into mirrorless. Nikons were always terrible to focus in liveview by comparison. But not many people cared because their OVF autofocus was so good. But mirrorless basically took that advantage away and they had to start over.

@MikeRan I'm commenting on Sony and Canon here. I think there is no problem.

@DualSystemGuy " I am only saying that the AF performance in the Z6II/Z7II clearly has a hardware limit preventing any major leap in performance."

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but indeed the latest firmware appears to have conferred a major leap forward on the mk1's. Of course nobody would expect the mk2's to reach Z9 level, but it is entirely logical to expect a leap beyond what the mk1's have achieved.

@ Burnimage - not according to Nikon's rep Chris Ogonek who has been hosting "Nikon TV" on YouTube regarding the Z9. He made the specific distinction. It's possible he's wrong but that was my source.

@ Starbase - Thom Hogan's preliminary investigation into this regarding the Z9 suggests there is a marked improvement in that regard. "it appears the Z9 is far better at locking on "red" information than the current Z's, which suggests that it isn't only the blue/green rows that are sensitive to detail,"

https://youtu.be/EG9FYeOay-Q?t=65

"The impression of inferiority has been created by Youtubers "

Would that include Matt Granger, who demonstrated shortcomings of the Z7 II autofocus in his initial impressions of the Z9, "Worth the Wait - The Z9 is Epic"? Starting at round 5:00, the Z9 nails AF on the model walking towards him, but the Z7 II instead latches onto a curtain in the back of the room.

That's also my experience using Wide Area (WA) modes to shoot small(ish) birds on the ground or in trees with my Z7 II. Single Point mode of the Z7 II works just fine for landscapes and Bird Detect in Wide Area mode works well for shooting BIF. But AF for other subjects in most of the other WA modes is unreliable and thus useless for my kind of shooting.

I wish the Z7 II WA modes could discriminate better between the subject I'm shooting and its surroundings, still I have no regrets over my purchase of the Z7 II. I've always liked "The Nikon Look" and images from my new camera deliver that extremely well.

Oh shut it with this tired narrative of complaining about YouTubers who criticized the AF. Just don't watch them for god's sake instead of making it your life mission to complain about them! All the Nikon shooters seem to love Matt Irwin and don't seem to think he's biased against Nikon. In his firmware comparison video, you can clearly see how slow the Z cameras were in picking up a rather large face and you can clearly see the tendency to latch onto backgrounds, even though he's wearing a very contrasty neon orange coat. It's a great update, and it will get better when the Z9 tech trickles down. The Z cameras have plenty of strengths...there's no reason to pretend like the AF was just good as everyone's else's, it's a disservice to the camera by distracting from its strong points.

Btw, I've seen that article before, probably linked from you elsewhere. The writer clearly says it wasn't a fair test because the Z cameras were tested on a shorter focal length (due to unavailability of native longer glass) while some of the other models were tested on much longer focal lengths in worse weather. The fact that given those advantages, it still barely passed the other cameras and was still passed by models from Sony and Canon just prove that the AF isn't as good, if it proves anything at all.

Steve Perry, Mark Smith, two incredible wildlife photographers who have used Nikon gear extensively, both agree the Nikon AF isn't as good as Sony's. But people just cry Nikon bias whenever a YouTuber doesn't agree with them like it's some kind of personal attack on their life.

Ok. See this link, which is admittedly Z6ii. I see this in my own usage of the Sony A7iii which was the Z6’s main competition. I should also say that I have zero dissatisfaction with the A7iii and am confident of the company’s technological excellence.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AdXsS0V3Uwg

@ Baba Ganoush

If you have a problem in your application, I am no-one to refute that.

They tested it with videos as proof, if you're not happy with their findings you're welcomed to do it on your own. Heck you could be another Youtuber too.

One has to remember how Youtubers make their money. They are not Consumer Reports. They make their money from advertising. If they can make more money by being controversial and biased, they that's what they are going to do. I've seen plenty of Youtubers who started out with good intensions, but sold their souls to Google. There are a few good ones left, but not many. Money corrupts.

Nikon's AF is far better than Canon's and better than Sony's now. Of course, it takes some crooked and corrupted youtubers to show otherwise, but it is ok, thats how they earn their bread.

About AF, anyone having actually used Sony cameras in the real world will know that they are far from being as good as is often claimed.

The only Sony cameras that have a really great AF at the a9II and a1. All the other ones are good but not better than corresponding Nikon bodies.

Having worked extensively with the a7rIV and Z7II, I find the Nikon AF to overall perform better. Does it mean the Z7II is perfect? Of course not.

But the Z7II is more than good enough for all the real world applications I have thrown at it, except some pretty extreme cases of testing of randomly moving subjects in dark environments. But the a7rIV was even worse.

So yes, the Z9 is much better, being probably the best focusing camera ever released, but so was the D5/D6 vs the D850 and so are the a9II/a1 vs all other Sony cameras.

@photography-lover, said "So yes, the Z9 is much better, being probably the best focusing camera ever released"

wow, have you ever held a Z9? have you ever seen it side by side with other cameras? what do you base this on?

The Z9 AF very may well be great, but there haven't been any side by side comparisons yet. Spouting superlatives like this just diminishes your credibility.