Nikon Z5 review: the best value stills-oriented full-framer

I agree with Antonius. The designer of Z cameras must be the same that designed the Aardvark.

I wanted a Z5 so badly that I tried a third copy last week with the firmware update. Improved but still lacking. I've tried ALL the Z's and the Z50 has been my favorite. Otherwise, I still prefer my D750/D500! People talk about these Z's as if the f-mount gear was pure garbage. I can assure you that is NOT the case.

It's interesting that we are getting feedback from the forums now about Z5 AF. I hope that DPR does some investigating. That's what journalism is for.

Deliverator: Our first troll of the day, with a typically stupid comment that trolls like to make. It's always something intended to prompt an argument, not actual intelligent conversation.

Still has more dynamic range than z6 check photos to photons.

I'm glad you're admitting that you're a troll. That's the first step towards your recovery.

Most of these differences will not impact real world still photography.

That’s the remarkable job done by Nikon.

They were able to reduce cost without impacting value.

This sensor is better than the one of the D3x... that was a real MF digital back killer.... with which I have made breathtaking A1 prints.

This insanity has to stop. The Z5 delivers insanely good value.

> This insanity has to stop. The Z5 delivers insanely good value.

All this bleating about "insanely good" makes you sound like a Nikon fanperson or someone in their pay. The Z5 is an insanely bad value compared to the less expensive A7RII. If you must buy Nikon, then get the Z6 or Z6II.

> better than the one of the D3x

The D3x came out in 2008. I'm sure you are correct that the seven year-old sensor in the Z5 is superior to anything from twelve years ago.

Yet the sensor of the Rp is nowhere close to that of the D3x.

The a7II will not offer the same allround capabilities as a Z5, not even close. It has a very nice sensor and will be great for landscape or static subjects. That’s pretty much it.

The Z6 is a credible alternative while stock lasts.

On price, the Z5 will of course go down in the coming months as all cameras do.

I was talking about the Sony A7RII. Not the A7II.

> will not offer the same allround capabilities as a Z5

There is nothing repeat nothing the Z5 can do that the A7RII cannot. Sadly the reverse is not true.

sorry, mistyping, I had understood a7rII which is why I mentioned its credentials as a landscape camera.

Nothing the Z5 doesn't do better except all the cases when you need autofocus... :-)

Awards and scores are relative to the category the camera is in. Z6 is in a higher category.

Yes, Z6 is better in several areas as you pointed out, but it's also (currently) $500 more expensive (body only). If the Z5 were more similar to Z6 it would be a Z6. There have to be differences.

As for the differences:

Sensor: Despite being an older sensor the performance difference is fairly small. Z6 is slightly better in low light, but only by maybe 1/2 or 1/3 stop. Look at the DPR Comparison Tool. At low ISOs the Z5 sensor actually has better DR.

FPS: The fps is a bit low. I would have preferred around 5.5, but it's still faster than the RP, and similar to A7RII (5fps).

LCD: A reasonable place to save cost. The 1M dot screens are used on lots of Nikons and more than capable. A7RII is not even touch screen.

Video: Unfortunately, the best the sensor can do.

Body: This is the definition of a minor difference. Still weather sealed the same.

Top Display: Another reasonable cost cut.

MSullivan & bernardlang: You folks seem to have forgotten that at the end of the day the most important thing is image quality. The Z5's 24 megapixels cannot stand-up to the Sony's 42 megapixels; nor can Z5 4K with a massive crop (almost 50%!) stand-up to A7RII un-cropped 4K.

Nikon loses on lens as well: Only a handful of native-mount lenses available, while for Sony we are looking at 100+. The Nikon kit lens for the Z5 is the worst I've seen for any full frame - only 24mm @ F4 to 50mm @ F6.3 !

Sony a7rII is an old piece of technology, with single card slot, worse EVF, no touch menu controls, really bad colors, poor battery life, and not so great AF. Not to mention the build quality and durability is suspect.

The a7rII is a relic from before Sony fixed their AF system, battery life, and added some weather sealing.

"Thoughts" is paid to post pro-Canon and anti-Sony propaganda. Needless to say everything he said regarding the A7RII iis a lie; after all, it did win the top gold award from DPReview. But then, what else can we expect from someone who tells lies for money ?

If you don’t need AF the a7rII is a great option, no doubt.

I would far more easily recommend the a7rII to a friend than the Canon Rp. Not even close.

Cheers,
Bernard

> If you don’t need AF the a7rII is a great option

The A7R II has a broad range of modern AF options, including Eye and Face tracking with 399 on-sensor Phase Detection points. It also has the traditional focus area modes Wide, Center, Flexible Spot, Expand Flexible Spot and Lock-on AF.

See "https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii/11" for more details.

That's not to say that they work well in the A7RII. It's not a bad camera, really. For a landscape shooter on a budget, it could be just the thing.

The AF of the a7rII is a well known thing, claiming it’s great only paints you as a person lacking objectivity.

> claiming it’s great

I never said it was "great". Perhaps you should comment on what the person actually wrote, instead of what you think they might of said ?

DPReview's review of the A7R II went into considerable detail on the subject of AF. You should read the review. They listed AF stuff under both the "Pros" and "Cons":

"Pros":

* Continuous Eye-AF gives ground-breaking hit rate for portrait, candid, event photography.
*Ground-breaking autofocus with third-party lenses.
* Low light continuous AF capability matches or exceeds DSLRs with fast primes.
* First full-frame mirrorless to truly challenge DSLR phase-detect systems
Industry leading AF frame coverage.

Cons: See next post.

A7R II Review - Focus "Cons" (see previous comment for the "Pros"). Note that at least some of the stuff below was fixed with firmware updates:

* No direct AF point control.
* Lock-on AF still remains unpredictable / unreliable.
* Camera focuses stopped down in AF-C, often crippling AF at small apertures or in low light.
* Eye-AF and Lock-on AF not available with 3rd party lenses, nor in video.
* Subject tracking in video is poor, while the complete auto 'Wide' mode is prone to jump to the background or between subjects in complex scenes.

The review notes that some of these such as Subject Tracking during continuous shooting is something even most DSLRs struggle with.

The review was done with early firmware. Point control and Eye and Lock-on with third-party lenses were all fixed with updates. Besides fixing autofocus issues, Sony also added features such as uncompressed raw in a firmware update.

I have not had any autofocus issues with my A7R II on firmware 4.01.

> with the Z6 you'd have to spend a lot extra on an XQD memory card

Interestingly Nikon added an SD slot to the Z6 II.

I agree with mkowalski. The Z6 is much better than the Z5, IMHO the Z5 does not deserve the DPR Gold award.

Given time the price of the Z5 will drop significantly (as has the Z6 price) and for an entry level mirrorless full-frame, the Z5 is impressive in that the differences between it and Z6 are pretty minor if you’re not bothered about video capability. That’s why DPR awarded it Gold.
I haven’t seen the Z5 bundled with the 24-70 kit lens though, and if the only kit option is the 24-50 and you want the 24-70, then the Z6 (even the mark 2) kit makes more sense financially than buying the Z5 body and 24-70 separately.
For me, the top plate display is important so I’ll be holding out for the Z6ii kit with FTZ adapter when the price drops to current Z6 kit levels.

> the Z5 is impressive in that the differences between it and Z6 are pretty minor

That's the thing - in my opinion they are not minor and DPR was mistaken in giving the Z5 the gold award. There are many reasons for this and I am working on a more comprehensive post on this subject, but here is the short version:

Z5: 7 year-old non-BSI sensor ISO range 50-102400
Z6: Modern BSI sensor ISO range 50-204800

Z5: Max 4.5 fps
Z6: Max 12 fps

Z5: LCD screen 1 million dots
Z6: LCD screen 2 million dots

Z5: Massive 1.7x 4K video crop
Z6: No video crop

Z5: Kit lens 24-50mm F4-F6.3 ($300 cost with body)
Z6: Kit lens 24-70mm F4 ($600 cost with body)

A7R2 = 42 BSI megapixels
Z5 = 24 Non-BSI megapixels
A7R2 = 4K with no video crop
Z5 = 4K massive video crop.

The A7R2 was and still is a game changer and at $1,298 is the camera bargain of the century. The Z5 is a cheap under-spec camera made out of plastic.

Sony a7rII is a relic from the past. Really bad Sony colors, poor weather sealing, and it's AF wasn't so hot either, regardless of the number of AF points.

Oh yeah, it's EVF and back LCD weren't so great either...and it has no touch menu controls.

@Thoughts R Us

The Z6 was from August, 2018 and it wasn’t quite state of the art when announced. The Z5 was launched recently in 2020, but it is a lower spec Z6 with dual card SD slots.

The A7R II was from September, 2015 and state of the art when launched, so wouldn’t call it a relic - compared to a Z5. If you value what high resolution brings and want to use 4K with wide angle lenses, it’s the better choice. If not, and if you’re good with Nikon Z lens lineup or have G/E lenses, would go with the Z5.

Bad Sony colours? Not sure that’s true.

You talked like Z6 never existed. It is the best video mirrorless from Nikon. And it is far, far cheaper than the D780. You can still get great quality 1080p with the Z5 by the way. As many reviewers mentioned, the Z5 1080p is one of the best around. And if you want quality 4k, you can still get it from Z5, albeit with some compromises like heavy crop - which all Canon users been doing with their excellent Eos R/5D Mark IV years ago. And yes, the R/5D Mark Iv was launched years back and some say the comparison is kinda irrelevant. But remember, a used Eos R/5D Mark 4 today still more expensive than the Z5 body only. So, what do you expect? A great mirrorless video camera from Nikon? You got the Z6. Just wanna explore the video side (beginner) at a budget price? You got the Z5. Want the latest and greatest from Nikon mirrorless? Just wait for the October announcement for the new Z6s/7s. There you go.

Of course I know the Z6 exists. I was talking about the Z5 and its relevance in a video heavy marketplace. Folks often talk about how camera companies cut features from a model to make a less expensive one. I just didn't think Nikon would cut back on the lower priced camera's video. Are people really looking for a stills-oriented mirrorless camera? Video is certainly an important element in mirrorless cameras. That's why reviewers here and elsewhere spend so much time talking about the video performance of mirrorless cameras. Not exactly a hot topic in DSLRs. Except for the D780 which people say is good because Nikon borrowed its video from the Z6.

Can't the Z5 shoot 1080p just fine, and doesn't it spit out HDMI to an external recorder if you need it?

Read how they analyze products and grade them. Its a good approach.

NexLupus, their own DPReview TV made a video on that Firmware 3.0, and stated that its AF is still mediocre at best, as pretty much all other youtubers say, as people that I know personally say. I haven't tested it myself, yes, because, well, I'm not very interested in that particular experience.

Don't talk about something you never tried. Slow focus? You think this is Nikon D70 from which was launched over a decade ago? Pretty much all youtubers? Which youtubers? There are a lot youtubers out there who are actually not even a true photographer or videographer, more like a "content creator making click bait titles.

Oleg,
"their own DPReview TV made a video on that Firmware 3.0, and stated that its AF is still mediocre at best[...]"

That's such a lame lie. I just double-checked both the Firmware 3.0 video and the comparison video (updated May 2020) between Z6, EOS R and A7III. While the Z6 got third place out of the three the word "mediocre" was never said once in the autofocus chunk of the video. The gripes were the usual, and properly legit: interface issues and eye/pupil-tracking performance.

The strongest wording Chris' use in the comparison video regarding the Z6 is "[...]I still feel the overall AF performance may be be the weakest of the three".

A far cry from "mediocre at best".

You talk like you’re comparing marketing strategies and not camera systems. I have used Sony and Canon, but the fan boy mentality is intense on camera blogs for some brands, haha.

It is not all about specs on paper...

The D600, 750 and Z6 have essentially similar sensors with comparable IQ, and now the Z5?

theres nought wrong with that sensor...about the best dynamic range to date

Agreed and forgot to mention the D780 which is just about the DSLR version of the Z6; but why 5 cameras with basically the same sensor?

The D750, Z5, D780 and Z6 do not all share the same or similar sensors.

The D750 and Z5 have similar sensors, which are conventional FSI 24MP EXMOR sensors. The Z6 and D780 share a more advanced 24MP BSI sensor.

Are the price can consider as entry-level FF? Price is important different between good entry-level camera and good camera.

"Entry-level" cameras are underrated. I took some of my best photos with entry-level cameras :)

StoneJack, why shouldn’t we be able to compare two similarly priced cameras? Most people shop to a budget and see what features they can get.

Looks like Sony did and still do the biased review over the years from various youtube channels, that is why this kind of statement is coming from you.

Toilet troll.

my gran used to say: If you've nothing worth saying, say nothing.

Today Nikon is positioned better than Canon in mirrorless and much better in DSLRs.

- the Z5 owns the low end, Canon has absolutely nothing close
- the Z50 is a much more appealing proposition than the M that is a clear dead end with no migration path to FF and a super limited lenses range that will not grow. On the othef hand the Z50 shares the mount of the Z FF
- Canon R has a couple of nice lenses but nothing that’s both good and affordable. Besides the 3 best pro f2.8 zooms are the Nikon S ones
- The R5 and R6 are the first two truly appealing Canon cameras in more than 10 years, but they are way over priced and not selling well. The Z6/Z7 II are very likely to be better and cheaper.

I wouldn’t want to be in Canon’s shoes.

Cheers,
Bernard

Nikon has only one problem: their Marketing, they are way too modest. Sony is like "we are the future, tomorrows technology today, yehaw" Canon is like "The best you can get from both worlds, DSLR and mirrorless combined, Pro video we are freaking awesome" and then there is Nikon "meh, yeah we have all of that too but partly better implemented, in a more rugged and thought trough body, with more intuitive controls but nah, not going to mention it, users will find out anyway".
Nikons bad marketing is the reason why so many people think so poor of the brand although they deliver the best products of all.
So if they ever invest in better Marketing it's looking bad for others... while Canon and Sony on the other hand, for them it's more difficult they already have the best marketing and improving products is more demanding.

@bernardlang - R5/6 not selling well?

Being a long time Nikon user doesn't automatically make you a good Nikon future predictor. Going with your logic, Canon is also doomed which it isnt. Nikon, Sony, Canon, Panasonic and Fuji are probably here to stay.

@ bernardlang the Z5 is not destined to be a guaranteed success, dual card slots or not - this is not a professional level camera and as such is fairly expensive. I would have happily traded in the dual card slots and EVF for uncropped 4K video, but I guess to Nikon that would still be encroaching on the Z6.

At this level FF is dare I say it a novelty and would look at a Z50 instead. But strong rumors point to a Canon M50ii, which may well outgun the Z50. I wouldn’t count Canon out yet.

Hang on to your hat for a stratospherically expensive Z6ii.

Bernard Lang What do you mean by the Canon R5/6 are not selling well? What makes you say that?

For what it's worth, rankings at the largest camera retailer in Japan:

https://www.yodobashi.com/category/19055/19056/ranking/

The R6 is ranked #39.

There was a time where a top Canon DSLR would always rank in the top 5.

Visit mapcamera and see how many RF top lenses are available second hand. Last week they had 23 (yes, twenty three as incredible as it may seem) 85mm f1.2 RF. It doesn't look like new R buyers are rushing to buy the best RF lenses at lower prices. On the contrary, more people seem to be in a selling mode.

Cheers,
Bernard

The f1.8 S glass are very light and reasonably compact.

NinjaFlyer, a big mount doesn't mean big heavy glass. It is absolutely no problem to make tiny, lightweight glass for that mount.
But that wasn't and isn't Nikons strategy, in a declining market where many fight the battle who dies first Nikon decided to focus on the high end market where they have less competition, bigger margins, better brand image.
When the Z6 and Z7 came out they were the best mirrorless still cameras on the market and arguably still are, and to deliver the demand for high end glass, to build a reputation of being the best, well for that Nikon designed big, expensive lenses and they do sell.

It's called long term vision. You come back in 10 years and I'll show you why.

There are no boring cameras, only boring photographers.

It is a boring camera. Cropped 4K video, and 4.5fps shooting. Welcome to the pipe and slippers FF.

Have to agree. I'm a fan of Nikon and wanting to upgrade from my D7000. Z5's 4.5 FPS is 2 FPS slower than my D7000 (10 year old camera) and too slow (for me), but I'd stump up for 8 FPS. So will see how the Z6 II pans out. Otherwise I probably would have been very satisfied with a Z5 as a mainly stills photographer.

You could get a Z50 with 11 fps and better sensor than the d7000

Thanks for making my point! Don't forget to include the prices of the 85/1.8. Thanks!

You just got a clear demonstration that the prices are within 100 US$ and don’t forget that most of these Nikon lenses are significantly better than the Sony equivalents.

Cheers,
Bernard

@ Wezre - well you list the few existing (some still lack availabillity) Nikon Z lenses, and still they are more expensive.

@ berardlang - the Z lenses are slow AF, large, mostly good IQ.

The real lens portfolio difference shows when looking at the full lens portfolio:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6196822450/lenses-for-mirrorless-how-canon-nikon-panasonic-and-sony-full-frame-options-compare

@armanius: the Nikon 24-70 is a whopping 4.5% more expensive than the Sony. You can pick and choose all you want, but the takeaway is that the lenses are close in price across the board. Sometimes Nikon’s are more expensive and other times Sony’s are more expensive. And that’s not to mention that the Nikon 50, 24-70, and 70-200 are all the best lenses of their type ever made.

The Z lenses are clearly not any more slow focusing than their Sony or Canon counterparts.

The 14-24mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 are the lighest, most compact and highest quality on the market.

The f1.8 range isn’t super compact but they are light and overall still the most compact to reach that level of quality since you typically need to use f1.4 or f1.2 lenses in Sony/Canon line up if you need the best possible quality. There are some exceptions but overall that’s the case.

So if you compare the weight/bulk/cost of the 3 systems for an uncompromised set of lenses mixing primes and zooms, the Nikon comes out as the clearly better option.

Cheers,
Bernard

I would far more trust Nikon's stabilization, build quality, menu system and ergos. They'll get there on the cheaper lenses. Just like Sony did.

Any photographer who has to build a larger lens kit on a tighter budget is much better served by Nikon. Their F mount trinity of 35mm, 50mm, 85mm f1.8 can be bought new for about $1000/€1000. F mount 70-200mm VR II is available second-hand in great condition at $1000/€1000.

I shoot both S glass and F glass on my Z6. There's no difference in AF-S focus, as much as people desperately hunt for it (maybe a minuscule difference in AF-C). Where the S glass is needed is for video, as it's silent to focus and very smooth switching focus areas. Doesn't affect stills ability.

adapting lenses is the last resort if you have no other option. Fortunately there are systems that provides multitude of native lenses.

Ask yourself, did you lust for adapted lenses and adaptors for your F-mount, or did you preferr to buy native lenses for it?

You're adapting a Nikon lens to a later model Nikon camera. Much like with Canon's RF, it's pretty first party.

Wow, this mantra of "adapted lenses are bad" is tedious. Adapting lenses from other systems (most famously EF to Sony E mount) is fairly awful. I've done that with both Sony (Sigma MC-11) and Fujfilm (Fringer). I was not happy.

Adapting lenses via a camera manufacturers own adapter – Nikon F to Z or Canon EF to RF – is an entirely different experience. Autofocus works great , indeed better as there is no microfocus adjustment required and mirrorless focus is more accurate than DSLR phase detect. EXIF is accurate, distortion and vignette correction are built-in.

Anyway to directly answer your question – I bought a stack of F mount lenses for my Z6 and have not regretted it. I have eight F mount and three S lenses: for stills there is no performance difference. The S series optics are higher quality (close to zero chromatic aberration, perfectly even edge to edge) but you pay for that difference. S series lenses are very high grade, comparable to Zeiss/Leica.

@ UncoyDP - the question was if you preferred adapted lenses and adaptors for your F-mount DSLR? or did you preferr to buy native lenses for it as there were pentiful of native F-lenses for your F-mount DSLR?

Upon relating his negative experience with third party adapters and Sony bodies, it sounds like Uncoy did answer that question. Native lenses that match the body are the best option if you can get it. Duh.

As an aside, I'm noticing that the Sony fan crowd is really hammering how you have to adapt CaNikon's previos generation glass to their new bodies in order to fill price/performance holes in their two year old new lens lineups.

Gee <goes back to the tape> four or five years ago, adapting EF glass to Sony was the Renaissance because that meant full frame Sony had full frame and more lenses than anyone.

Now you can adapt that mature E mount lens catalog to Nikon Z and it even works pretty well (give Techart some time and firmware updates, it will work better still) so there's that.

@Mr Bolton There does seem to be some kind of mob at work here who are deliberately misunderstanding very clear text. Once more in all caps - the FTZ ADAPTER IS AWESOME. I often buy Nikon F lenses for my Z6, as they are almost equally good, perform at native levels and cost about half as much at any given focal length. The lenses which you intend to use as main lenses for video should be native ones. Otherwise, for stills Nikon F lenses work perfectly on a Z6/Z7/Z5/Z50.

The sadsacks still trying to adapt Canon EF lenses to Sony bodies should not take their absolutely miserable experience with adapters to relate in any way to Nikon's FTZ adapter to F glass or Canon EF to RF adapters. There is ZERO in common with third party adapters.

Speaking of the Techart TZE-01, I have one of those too. My favourite Sony lens is the full frame 35mm f2.8 ZA as it weighs 120grams and is tiny. Vignetting is fairly severe on full frame but otherwise image quality is great. Nikon hasn't put out compact f2.8 lenses yet (f2.8 pancakes are on the road map, 40mm and 28mmm). The Techart TZE-01 works for personal photography but I would never take it on a job as a number of focus modes don't work well. Pinpoint fails consistently, the others fail inconsistently. Switching focus modes, turning the camera on and off will solve focus issues eventually but I can't imagine having a client or a difficult subject in front of me, trying to deal with these failures.

Neither of my FTZ adapters have ever failed me with any lens.

That is the difference between native adapters like the FTZ and third party system adapters. One works like native and opens up a whole world of legacy glass. The other limps along, unreliable and hobbled.