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

@mkochano, I would double check that... in most places, the Z6 is more expensive than the Z5. By how much (difference) may vary, but it's unlikely that a new Z5 is more than a new Z6. It may be more expensive than a used Z6... that I could understand, but not a new one.

Here in the US, the Z5 is $1400 USD (body only) and a Z6 is about $1700-$1800 USD.

in Austria and Germany the Z6 body is 200 € cheaper than the Z5 body.
Z6 kit (24-70) costs 100 € more than Z5 kit (24-50).
But during Nikon summer discounts the Z6 kit was cheaper than the Z5 kit is now.
Speaking to the dealer in my country doesn't help. They always charge list price.

> D750...[has] IQ that rivals even an A7 II or III

It may rival the A7 II. It does not stand-up to the A7 III, at high ISO the Sony easily beats the D750. I owned a D750 for short time - the video quality was at best mediocre, 1080p pixel-binned fuzziness, which is why I ended up returning it.

Well, according to most reviews and tests I've seen, it was at least close in many IQ-related respects. Video might be another thing but then again Nikon isn't a video camera company. Sony sort of is.

> was at least close

When it comes to low light performance, it is not close. The Sony A7 III has the clear advantage. Don't forget I used to own a Nikon D750, I know exactly how it performs based upon direct experience.

> Sony sort of is.

That is a trollish statement at best. Sony has been a leader in the video production business for at least half a century.

BSI is nice but it has most benefit on very small smartphone sensors.

Most couldn't tell the difference between a photo taken with a D750 and an A7III. At this point sensor improvements are very incremental, not breakthrough.

> Most couldn't tell the difference between a photo taken with a D750
> and an A7III

Dead wrong as usual. Your constant lying and personal jihad against Sony makes you a very ugly personality indeed. As many many others on this site have already pointed out to you.

Come on. You are really saying folks could easily tell the difference between D750 and A7III? I call BS on that.

> I call BS on that.

And we call BS expressing an opinion with no facts or actual knowledge to back it up. I used to own a D750, and I currently have several Sony A7 models. The D750 does not do any where near as well as the A7 models in low light.

The D750's video capabilities also do not compare, it does fuzzy pixel-binned 1080p only.

Look first we are talking stills here. Nobody is saying D750 is competitive with current cameras when it comes to video.

And yeah I still call BS. When I say "most people" I mean a normal person viewing an image at a normal size, not pixel peeping at 100% or greater. Looking at the DPreview comparison tool at ISO 6400 I don't see a lot of difference - yes A7III is sharper, but it's not something I would call a stunning difference. Look for yourself.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d750&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=apple_iphonex&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=32&attr16_3=32&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.8326792885829031&y=-0.7938702537033885

You skewed the comparison by picking an ISO of only 6400 !

Try the comparison at 51000 ISO (see link below). The A7III utterly destroys the D750 at ISO 51000 - also does the same even at ISO 25000 !

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d750&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=apple_iphonex&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=32&attr16_3=32&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.5387100886963534&y=0.2961927065054472

mikegt
And you're skewing the comparison by picking ISO values people will never use.

ISO 51000; come on. Who actually uses that? This is ridiculous. Cherry picking a very specific condition that almost never actually occurs is not a way to make an argument.

The A7III is a great camera. It has lots of benefits over the D750, it's just that ultimate image quality isn't one of them. The same can be said for basically any camera made in the last 8 years - other than MP and the benefit you get from FF vs. crop sensor the differences in image quality are all pretty minor.

> Urbex Mark & Alex tK: ISO 51000; come on. Who actually uses that?

How sad. Evidently you two have never owned cameras that perform well in low light at high ISOs. Just because you have gear that can't do the job doesn't mean the rest of us are stuck at your level. For those of us who own modern gear, like one of recent A7 cameras, ISO 25600 and even 51200 are very usable. After all the A7III goes up to 204800 ISO, so 51200 is only 1/4 of it's maximum!

Time for you guys to get modern cameras...

mikegt
When confronted with facts, just turn the topic in other direction, right?
X: "Up to ISO 6400 there's a marginal difference in picture quality."
mikegt: "You're skewing the comparison by picking ISO 6400, why don't you look at ISO 51200 or 204800?"
X: Because people never use ISO 51200 or 204800.
mikegt: "You guys are stuck with old cameras, you should by new one"
Come on, mikegt, show us some of your photos taken at ISO 51200 or204800. Your camera can do it, right? Let's see how often you use those ISO values on your modern gear. Don't be shy, do it.

Alex tK: You have already lost this argument by a mile. Go find somewhere else to be a troll.

LOL wut? Anyhow I'm done with this but this is the first time I've ever seen someone go to the mat in favor of shooting at ISO 50k+

mikegt
That's all you have? "Go somewhere else ..."? No photos of your very usable ISO 51200 or 204800 that you use so often? That makes it clear who lost what and who is the troll. Thanks for participating, dude.

Alex tK = Sore Loser

mikegt
Still no photos, ey? Well, then keep trying to convince yourself that i'm the one who's the loser. Let me ask you, does it work? LOL

> can't see any meaningful difference between D750 and Sony a7 III at any ISO

I think you are seeing only what you want to see. While you are correct that the D750 does better in raw mode, the Studio Scene reveals that even in raw the Nikon starts to look noisier at ISO 12800 compared to the Sony A7 III. Also remember that the D750 tops out at 51200 ISO, while newer cameras from both Canon and Sony are able to go much higher.

The D750 high ISO JPEGS look just dreadful. I think Nikon made a mistake here by not putting more effort into making good looking JPEGS; Sony really excels at this. After all, most amateurs don't want to spend a lot of time making JPEGS from raws for every picture they take. Sony cameras are not perfect, but they do a great job making JPEGS. They are very usable "as is" which is a big benefit for folks who just want good looking pictures without having to spend a lot of time post-processing them.

> Still no photos, ey?

Use the Studio scene tool you idiot.

Alex tK: Since you are just another stupid nasty troll, do the world a favor and firmly shove your comments back up where they came from. Don't bother to reply, as I will not read it.

wjan: Every camera reviewer on the planet has stated that the newer Sony BSI sensors are superior in low light to the six year old sensor in the D750, which is based on an older non-BSI Sony sensor - the sensors Nikon uses are all made by Sony. If you don't believe all these reviews then it is just a waste of time sending you the comparisons, since you won't believe them either.

It must drive Nikon fanpersons nuts to know that Nikon has to rely on Sony to make their sensors. This also means that no Nikon camera can ever have a better sensor than what Sony puts into their own cameras.

True that :)

Welcome to the Internet. When someone invents a cure for cancer I am sure there will be plenty of people finding reasons to complain about it ;)

I agree, this camera should please many photographers. It’s the D750 at a much better price, and modern. Should have been the Z6.

Basically here's how I see it... Z5 roughly the same as a D750 (both use a 24.3MP non-BSI sensor). Z6 is like the D780 (both use a 24.5MP BSI sensor). Supposedly the BSI sensor will do a bit better in low light (helps in shadows, according to my research/reading). Not sure if that is all that noticeable in practice though (I thought my D750 did very well in low light)...

It’s also worth noting that the D750 performs amazingly well. Look at the dynamic range compared to the Z6 and the RP. It has a 2.5 stops dynamic range advantage at base ISO over the RP and stays over 1 stop up till 800 ISO.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Nikon-Z6-versus-Canon-EOS-RP___975_1269_1302
(Go to Measurements tab and select Dynamic Range and toggle to Screen rather than print)

If the Z5 inherited a variation of that sensor I expect great results. Now, if you compare against the current gen cameras it still holds up well. Nikon gets a lot of heat, but I’m surprised that photographers don’t discuss noise, dynamic range, and other things like this more.

> It’s also worth noting that the D750 performs amazingly well

It performed well in 2014; I know because I bought one at the time. It does not equal the latest cameras which have better high ISO performance - the old D750 only goes to 51,000 ISO and at that setting the images are so soft they are mostly unusable.

The Canon RP was a disappointing camera; it's not exactly a surprise that other cameras out-perform it.

OMG the D750 only goes to ISO 51,000...how could one survive with that? :)

Put the D750 images up against any modern camera and the vast majority cannot tell the difference.

As for the RP, it's a solid model for its price point. Again, compare real world images in the way people look at them, not some sort of pixel peeping test or test chart.

I’m with you all the way. How many people use of the expensive features they pay for in a camera? One thing’s for sure: next year there will a camera with even more features that most people will never use. Most modern cameras, DX, m43, FF, mirrorless or not will take a spectacular image, even with a kit lens.

> Put the D750 images up against any modern camera and
> the vast majority cannot tell the difference.

No, not true. It's just you, you can't see anything at all due to your head being perpetually stuck up in a very dark place...

mikegt@

This summer I shot a wedding, and as a backup/extra camera I got to loan a Nikon D750. Boy was is good!! OF COURSE I did not use the real high ISOs, it was summer after all. So, maybe it is not as good as some newer cameras in the hi ISO respect. But having had photography as a hobby since around 1970, I must say I (almost) never get into situations where ISOs of over, say 6400, would be needed, and if so, of course "the best" hi ISO camera might be another one than Nikon D750.

That said, your last remark to "Thoughts R Us" is WAY beyond of what should be allowed to be left unmoderated here at DP!!! So rude, I simply must ask: WHY?

Totally agree. I owned the D750 (I adored that camera ! Shot it when I was doing Equine photography professionally, was my main body, back-up being the excellent D7200). I also owned the RP, which is good in its own way, but I chunked it due to the poor DR (and I hate screens that don't flip up).

The thing is a lot more people are interesting in great 50 1.8 lenses than great 50 1.2 lenses. 1.2 lenses are a nice to have option but they are very niche due to size and expense.

I moved from a D750 to a A7R3 to be smaller lighter and have IBIS and an EVF for low light. In truth, I had far more keepers, a better UX and better colour and tonality from the D750. It was just too bulky to bother bringing with the family all the time.

A mount sticks around for 50 years. Nikon does have the largest FF mount out there, and very soon the f1.2 lenses will start coming. That it took them a couple of years to get to the ultra fast lenses matters little in the big picture.
"They’re all
Holding off until the mirrorless finally have some great glass to replace their F glass."
Pretty much every Z lens is significantly better than it's F counterpart. The 70-200mm f2.8 S is finally starting to get into peoples hands, and has turned out to be possibly the best 70-200mm lens ever made.

By all means, the Canon 28-70mm f2, 85mm f1.2 etc seems very cool, but for most photographers a smaller, cheaper lens is actually more useful.

I would like to see SMALL, affordable lenses. Neither Nikon nor Canon cares for that on mirrorless systems. About half the size of the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and I am in. Look at the Canon EF 40mm 2.8. Or the 50mm 1.8 STM. Great quality, incredible low price, tiny as heck.

There is one misconception that the size ist just abou6the amount of light. It also gets you slightly bigger Elements which means less Resolution and acutance are lost optically. The current lenses are very Sharp, especially the 50, but also the Kit Zoom and the holy Trinity Zooms so far. So it isn't just about more light in general, but also losing less light and detail.

In the consumer market (non-professional), many people still use APS-C DSLRs, and, IMHO, the reason is not the OVF, but the price. Even an FF DSLR is pricey for many. Where can you get an entry-level FF MILC with the kit lens for about $400 /$500 ? And you can get a used APS-C DSLR at half this price...
However, there is no doubt for me, recent EVF have more advantages than drawbacks compared to OVF, considering my camera usage.
I am just waiting for an entry-level FF MILC at the price of my EOS SL2, but I may wait for long... ;-)

I was a DSLR hold-out too for a long time. Only last year did I decide to go completely mirrorless. Now that I've shot with ML and have an EVF (among other features, like IBIS) don't think I could go back. Then again, if someone GAVE me a DSLR, I wouildn't turn it down either. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm sticking with ML.

Price is a huge factor, especially for beginners, and even a $100-$200 price difference is a lot of money to some people. And that may mean getting, say a D3500 versus the older Sony A6000 (now about $500-$600 with lens). Now I think if someone comes out with a $300-$400 modern entry-level APS-C ML body, that may very well do in the budget DSLRs from canon and Nikon (the D3000-series and Rebels).

Sirhaekeye
Nikon sells a lot of D3500’s, their most cost sensitive and cost reduced camera. The Z50 is double the cost, slightly more than double, and I’m curious what they will do. They can make it completely out of thermoplastic, they can delete the EVF altogether - maybe offer an optional EVF that pops on top, something no one will buy. Delete the tilt screen, although I think that’s essential. Maybe they can hit $400 retail price with a lens. I can see one big circuit board inside with the sensor welded to it. And ZERO card slots!!!

If anything has to be trimmed to make the product cheaper then I'd far, far prefer a lower video spec than reducing something that's far more important to photography, such as the maximum shutter speed, weather sealing or build quality.

MZX..when you go shopping are your feelings hurt when you buy ground/minced beef and when you get home and open it and find its not rump steak??

A cropped 4K video mode is better than nothing...
I can see this mode useful to extract stills from a video when shooting macros.
You can record a short video, with the camera hand-held, while slowly dollying or rack focusing, so you are sure you can grab a frame with your subject in focus.

"Amazingly done Nikon, filthy sons of b****".

sirhawkeye64,
I am afraid 12 fps, or 4k without crop, depend on the same characteristic : a fast read-out speed. This is because this sensor is "slow" that the fps is limited to 4.5 AND the 4k video is cropped.
In other words, providing 12fps and/or a non-cropped 4k video would have increased the camera cost...

Yeah I think they would have been better not doing the cheap 24-50 and just did a 24-105, and bundled either the 24-70 f/4 or 24-105 f/4 with it. I think that would have earned them more points from potential buyers. Granted the 24-50 is considerably smaller than the 24-70, it sort of makes people ask "Why did Nikon do this?"

Well to be frank, the A7iii will still get better images, video and more shots in focus.

And how old is the A7iii?

"The a7III feels a bit overpriced "???? Whaaaaaaaaat?????

Baron,
I don't do video. The a7III is $2000, almost 50% more than the Z5 at $1400. D750 low-light IQ is very good, certainly sufficient for my low-light corporate event work. If AF on the Z5 can handle my slow-moving subjects in low light and reliably detect faces, that's all I need.

Well, there's a price difference here to consider (and a decent one) $2000 for the Sony vs. $1400 for the NIkon. The question is how important is the AF and full sensor (no crop) 4k to you? Is it worth the extra $600?

Even DPR has labelled this as a good stills camera, not so good for video and it's at a price point that even some budget buyers would consider.

@urbex....he is a world famous pricing expert

"There are a total of zero rangefinder-styled FF cameras on the market by the major brands."

Why did you disrespect Leica like that?

D-Gunman because we are talking about camera and not fashion accessories.......

Keithpictures,
"Some of us continue to wait for a flat-top body with an EVF in the corner, especially for right-eye shooting."
Those "some of us" are right-eye totalitarians, I guess... ;-)
Because camera manufacturers will never make cameras with the EVF in the right top corner, and the EVF in the middle is the best compromise for everyone.

Well, Karroly, I guess your logic is well represented on the boards of Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panasonic, since that's what's happening. And the same for flip-out (FAS) screens. It seems to appease the majority, and the majority wins. In the shrinking marketplace, the minority is edged out.

I won't be buying an SLR-style camera with a VF hump in the middle and flip-out screen, so they lose my money. I'll sooner go for a Fuji X-Pro, Fuji X100V (which I have), Panasonic GX (which I have), maybe a Sony a6600, maybe a Leica Q or M one day. At least the Sigma fp is flat, but lacks an EVF entirely, so maybe I'll wait for them to add one (to the *left* side).

Don't call me a totalitarian. You're the one telling me I have to accept the compromise that's best for everyone, instead of advocating for a diversity in tastes and styles.

Many are bashing Nikon for releasing wrong products, like I do for the 24-50/4-6.3 kit lens. The Z5 demonstrates once more that Nikon knows how to make attractive gear.

Well, a 24-105 would be have been better over the 24-50.... just my two cents though. I think more people would find a 24-105 useful (plus it's been on the roadmap for the past year+).

NR mentioned a 24-105/2.8-4. Would love to see such a lens!

They are when you switch from D750 to Z5... you already own them.

I’d be interested to see the effect on the buffer when using (fast) UHS-I cards. Just shooting stills I wouldn’t bother with UHS-II cards.
Options.

Um...WHAT? One XQD card provides backup insurance against card failure or user error? How THAT work?

FBoneOne: Not quite...D750 is a UHS-I only camera. As a D750 owner myself, I have no UHS-II cards at all because there is no performance gain with D750. I suspect it's the same for most owners as well.

It all depends on what and how you shoot. I own both D750 and D500 - the D500 wins at iso 3200 and above but for landscape and documentary where I stay at lower iso, I much prefer the output of the D750.

Rather odd comment...the D500 is a top of the line DX sports and wildlife camera with superb AF and handling; the Z5 is an entry level mirrorless FX camera design to attract D90 and D7000 folks into FX, finally, as well as appeal to cost conscious new photogs. In that role it's brilliant.

So let's try this again: are you saying that, for images where the AF performance is not a factor, that the D500, even being a DX camera, produces images that are superior to the Z5, a FX camera with similar resolution?

Are equivalent lenses being used here? I suspect not; the Z5 images are probably with the kit lens; the D500...well, I don't know what you use. Put the equivalent lens on the Z5 with an FTZ and the D500 right next to it and I'd be interested in the comparative results.

Most of the time these sample or manufacturer provided images just don't demonstrate properly what the camera is capable of IQ-wise.

@jackspra: $1496 after 4 years, $2000 at launch time. Wait for the price of the Z5 after 4 years. The D500 is a rather specialized high-end DX camera. I'm loving mine and I wouldn't replace it with a Z5 either. The Z5 marks an attractive entry point into full frame -- comparable to the D600/D610/D750 a couple of years ago, but ways less expensive at launch time.

Take it easy guys! There is no comparison between cameras with an Expeed 6 processor compared to all previous versions. It doesn't matter which sensor it is. I tried same photo with Z50, D7500, D500. And here I take my hat for Nikon that has put the Expeed 6 in all its Zs, that's why the combination of Z lenses with the Z6 body is difficult to match according to equipment costs, To obtain results similar to the Z in other brands you must shell out almost double the money. Each time a I get a new Z lens, can´t believe how much detail I see. Everythings seems twice as sharp as a Sigma Art lens

The Nikon rep at the release said its video specs were completely in protection of the Z6, and the frame rate on the photographic side doesn't even beat the $600 Rebel or Canon's $1000 RP. Admittedly, I don't know all the camera specific limitations that go with those cameras speeds, I just feel like Sony is going to making them regret this protectionism.

And I agree, the Z6 is near the EOL (at least in terms of the Z6s), but it obviously was heavily in mind when this camera was developed. The bad news... this all suggests to me that the specs for the Z6s aren't terribly far from those on the Z6, or they wouldn't have let the Z5 be dictated by the features in the Z6.

Don't get me wrong, I think its a reasonably spec'ed camera just feel like they shot themselves in the foot trying to protect a camera that is likely going out of production soon.

Don't think they're protecting the Z6. What they've done with the Z5 is given us a compelling stills camera at a very reasonable price. The Z6 gives you more, at a higher price. Seems fair enough.

Me, I have a Z6. If I was buying now I'd probably still buy a Z6. It's within my budget. But if I had a smaller budget I'd be quite happy with a Z5.

Ok thinking about it more the limited FPS and video compromises may be due to using the older non BSI D750-ish sensor. And I guess it could be said that was done to protect Z6? But honestly how could one expect anything else?

As far as Z6s - all indications are that it will use the same sensor as Z6 and likely will have similar FPS which I'm fine with, as I almost never even use the 9 FPS option on Z6 - it results in too many images to go through in post.

Kids who grew up NOT watching vintage Looney Toons and thus never hearing Bugs Bunny asking Elmer Fudd, "What's the hubbub, bub?"

I see your hubbub,
and raise you a...
Kerfuffle.

Sorry, English is not my native tongue and in my childhood memories, Bugs Bunny always asked, "What's up duc?"
Or maybe I'm just getting to old to remember...

Scrolling to find the Sony trolls getting discombobulated at people liking other brands..

A kerfuffle is a smidgeon better than discombobulated.

What's all the hubbub...bub?

Too much arguing about brand trolls is going to start a row.

Don't forget brouhaha....

LOL (Lashing-out loud)

I musta taken a wrong toyn in Albuquerque...

@NexLupus Nothing else needs to be said. The moment Sony starts losing money with the Imaging business they will abandon it. PlayStation is the main meat in their business. I don't see this happening anytime soon, but people should feel more comfortable with Canon, Nikon or Fuji from my POV.

Go away @fPrime

It's impressive I'll admit. A bit late in the game to my mind.

Wonder why it only gives screw drive on A7R4 and 6600? Maybe there will be firmware updates for some of the other models.

There never were many A mount lenses sold, nor bodies. Investing a lot in additions to that mount at this time would be both strange and pointless. F mount cameras and lenses abound, and the F line is still Nikon's bread and butter. If Nikon had a more extensive line of Z mount lenses and cameras than F mount, how much effort do you think they'd put into the F mount at this time?

Why did Sony take so lonnnnnng to release a screw drive adapter? Anyone who’s owned an A7_ for any length of time probably doesn’t even have any A-mount lenses anymore.
Perhaps Nikon will release a screw drive adapter, or an adapter with an aperture feeler. I’m sure they would do it now if the demand existed - they do check to see if sufficient demand exists before developing new products you know.
If I had any screw drive Nikon lenses - and I do - I’d mount them on a camera with a built in screw drive AF motor - and I do!

Fprime FTL!

Thanks, I looked at those images and it's a splendid lens.

Is there any Nikon 50 for mirrorless a bit humbler and more compact?

What NexLupus said. It's a fine piece of glass. Very sharp and well corrected. It balances really well on the z bodies, too.

It's really not that big. When you put it on Z6 it makes for a reasonably compact and very comfortable to use kit.

Well, my real point was that most of this review was spent delineating feature-creep "enhancements" that have little real photographic significance.

But I couldn't resist tweaking the noses of IT-twit-turned-photographer types who reflexively refer to 36x24mm sensors as "full frame" (full of what?) and 13x19-ish sensors as "APS-C" (does anybody even remember APS anymore?) Those terms are completely arbitrary, so I've decided to make up my own completely arbitrary terms instead.

I really should call 36x24mm the "Simplex format," since the first camera to use it was the Simplex Special of 1914, but more people have heard of the Kine Exakta of 1936, which used the same frame size.

Super 35, unlike APS, is a designation used on current cameras as the Arri Alexa, Canon C200 and various BlackMagic models... they all have a 13mm-ish frame height and 20something-ish frame width, which is in the same ballpark as the size used by the various Fuji cameras, Nikon D500, etc.

Ah, ok. But it’s not clear to me what sort of camera you actually have. And I can’t tell whether you’re actually interested in the (potentially) very real useful features...

I actually did have an APS (film) camera: a little Canon Ixus. I quite liked it. I generally dislike marketing speak, but don’t really have a problem with full frame. 36x24 was pretty much *the* film standard at the time DSLRs were introduced. Then DSLRs came with sensors 2/3 or 1/2 (or much less) the size. So when 36x24 mm DSLRs came along, I think it was fair to call them full frame.

What?! Have people stopped wearing onions? I should get out more... :-(

Seems like your very first post here. I guess talking about how one camera "thrashes" another is a good way to start on DPR.

I suppose you’ll just have to suffer through my wisdom.

Agreed. I’m primarily a Sony shooter but used to shoot with a D800 and Nikon’s 50mm is the only interesting lens in the Z system to me. A kit with that lens would be attractive for sure.

A great camera coupled with what is reputedly one of the best fast fifties ever produced... I find it hard to think of a less boring combination. Slow kit zooms don't excite the market, or anyone.

Retzius:

This Nikon has a vastly better EVF than the Sony A7II and the Sony A7III, that means a lot to some people.

"Same results, same usability, more lenses available, and a much larger ecosystem to grow into..."

Same results? No, the the Z5 is a about 1 full stop better as a higher ISO body than the A7II. That's significant.

The Sony A7 II doesn't have anywhere near the build quality / weather sealing as the Z5. Nor does it have as good an EVF, LCD screen, AF, IBIS, and menu system. Nikon has colour science an order of magnitude better than Sony which is obvious in any comparison tests.

The continually used trope that a Sony offering (no matter how old) is the obvious choice in any circumstance is completely and utterly bonkers.

"..get a Sony A7 II with a 28-70 lens $400 less than the price of the Z5 body only"

Not a *new* A7II. Body only is $1398 on Amazon. Coincidence, no?

Edit: Just saw their bundle of an A7IIK w/28-70 for $998. What's the "K" mean and whu is the non-K version still $1400?

The A7II does not hold a candle to the Z5...viewfinder, ergonomics, weather sealing, auto focus, menu system, and construction are all better on the Z5 and it has 2 card slots to boot!
About the only thing the A7II does better is the price, other than that, no go for the Z5!

New A7II is $898 body only and $998 with 28-70 lens... a certain big place in NY has them for that price

1398 is the body only A7RII. 898 is the A7II.

K just denotes its a kit.

According to Amazon, the "K" means kit (with kit lens)

K usually means KIT in Sony speak

Blah blah blah .. look you bought a Sony good on you , doesn’t make Sony better or you a good photographer, it just makes you an obviously proud Sony owner .All you are doing is saying this to justify your purchase .. how about you stop and stay on topic and discussing the validity of this camera like an adult

Go away.

The A7II has about 1 stop worse noise than the Z5. There are APS-C cameras that perform better than the A7II, regarding noise. Check it out on the DPR studio shot comparison (using the D750, since the Z5 isn't up there yet). It sort of makes moving to FF a bit pointless. The Z5 is better in every respect.

Slideshow Bob,

And the Z5 is a better higher ISO body than the D750, which as you say is better than the A7II.

Yes, I have my own Z5 raws, and they're usable through about ISO 25,600.

Sure is disappointing to see a new camera at a relatively low price.

And they didn’t even remove the excellent 3.7 Mpix EVF. :-(

What is the world coming to...

GinoSVK:

Why is the D780 "absurd", especially if you want to use F mount lenses natively?

The D780 also is compatible with older screw drive lenses

But you're supposed to buy new lenses. Even if you didn't really need a new camera, you've got one and now it's time to replace your lenses. The adapter is a workaround and besides, you want the best image quality you can get from that camera you didn't really need.

Then 2/3 of their readers will be mad at them for saying another brand is better, and 100% will disagree with their review, even if it picks a winner, for omitting or criticizing something.

If the new Z 70-200 2.8S is as good as everyone is saying, it will be more like 3/4ths of the readers.
But why not compare in a review, they compare cameras to each other all the time, and ultimately when you’re buying into a system the bodies get upgraded but you keep the lenses.