@RichardButler
Hej, I am considering the Sony AIII and the Z6. I would use both mainly for shooting mountain bikers (sports/action). I find the reviews are not up to date.

1. It says in the review "A faster burst rate of up to 12 fps is available, though exposure is locked." On Nikons website it says with the firmware update "AE Tracking in Continuous H+ (extended) Shooting: Auto Exposure (AE) continues to track in every shot throughout the entire burst sequence"

2. Also regarding the information in the review about the EVF. It says."there's a noticeable blackout between shots when shooting bursts that can make it difficult to follow the action."
In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2dJYg7-x94 I do not see any long black outs or I am just not getting the point?!
How have been the settings in D11 "VIew all in continous mode" set on "On"?

I really love your detailed reviews. Sometimes though it would be helpful to know which settings you have used.

Keep up the great work.

I use it for three month and never have such a problem

no

I'm not sure what you're looking for however I find the images are superb on my PC. Really sharp. Good colour.
Do you really need 'eye catching' samples to determine how good the camera and lens is?
I'll be looking at one of these in the second iteration which will hopefully address the shortcomings identified in this excellent review.

I don't need any "eye-catching" samples. They are OK. Though I can see that the jpegs are smeared and that noise reduction is far from state of the art.

A used, 5-year old camera costs less than a new, unused one? Awesome news indeed …

Nothing against the D750, it’s a great camera too. By the way, its price was even slightly higher at release in 2014 than that of the Z6.

Well I’m sold - I’ll get a D750 instead of a Z6, it does 4K right?

*If you find any sarcasm in this post, finders keepers.

Well I would agree that the D750 is finished.

Maybe because only the a9 and xt3(crop mode on top of apsc crop) don’t blackout.

Who called it a sports camera? Its an alrounder

I'm amused about the gnashing of teeth about EVF blackouts - my OVF blacks out too! Every time I take a shot.

It was just a question, and thank you all for the replies. I was just surprised to read that EVF blackout is present at this price level.
OVF blackout is surely a different animal, otherwise people would not use DSLRs for action photography?
No gnashing of teeth, nor intention to upset anyone.

Rensol clearly i said D750 beats 600 and for mr 6 beats 750 for what I shoot. 600 no where near 6 on focussing and not enough focus points. Theres more but thats the main stuff.

Yeah, sure
Take a look at this one:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_z6&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=nikon_d750&attr13_3=nikon_d610&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&normalization=full&widget=641&x=-0.6604725670804966&y=-0.8243381915526472
Even D610 has better details in low light.
BUT, everyone to their own.

Have you been looking at the jpegs?
I dont. The Raws dont show what you stated to me

Rensol, what you claim is detail in the 610 is clearly grain, i.e., noise.

No. The mount size is too big. So the lenses have to start at least with that diameter.

The lenses are comparatively small.

Having a shorter flange-focal distance allows for the design of lenses that are some combination of smaller, faster, and sharper, especially ones where the focal length is smaller or similar to than the flange-focal distance.

Compare the lenses for Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds, particularly the wide-angle ones. The Olympus 7-14/4 for 4/3 is huge; the Panasonic 7-14/4 for m4/3 is much smaller. Same with the Panasonic 25/1.4's for both systems, or the Olympus 45/1.8, Panasonic 20/1.7, and Olympus 12/2 with anything.

Everyone's making great cameras these days, each with their own little advantages. Anyone who says that one camera is significantly superior is either a liar or has a very narrow window requirement. Any of the new mirrorless do things better than the very best pro stuff of just 10 years ago, so it's silly to claim that one is appropriate for a job while another is not. And every camera has fantastic lenses available with more released every few months. So what's left? The current system you're invested in and ergonomics. I've got about 15K in Nikon glass, which is a moderate amount for some. Since my glass still holds plenty of value along with my D850 I could easily switch systems. What stops me is that Sony has no significant advantages (nor does Nikon) and Sony ergonomics are poor.

Also:Most of the people who cry over which camera can track a green Miata against a green background aren't actually shooting anything and don't even have a posted gallery. They are gear heads and not photographers. I love my D850, but if I grab the old D90 with a cheap zoom on it I can still take wonderful pictures. That's all that matters. Choose what feels right in your hand and shoot!

It's very use-case dependent. CIPA figures are extremely conservative, but they do serve as a useful means of comparing battery life from different products. I.e., if one camera is rated at 500 shots (CIPA) and another at 1000 per charge, you can probably expect a great many more shots than that from each camera, per charge, but the camera with the higher CIPA rating will probably give you about twice as many, whatever the conditions (assuming you're using both cameras in the same way).

Long story short - don't be too scared by low-looking CIPA numbers. All cameras give much better than their rated endurance in what we'd call 'normal' use for primarily stills photography. We got 1200 shots per charge from the Z6 in a recent controlled test, and we've stretched the Z7 to ~1700 shots on a single battery.

I walked around the city with my Z6 night before last getting photos of the snow covered historic city center at -20c. I was out for about 2.5 hours and took 262 shots and checked the next morning and found the battery indicator went down 1 bar. That is certainly better than the cold weather battery life from my D850 or D800. My D7000 is the battery king however and a charge seems to last forever. Last week I noticed my Z6 battery draining pretty quickly. I started checking through the menu, since it is relatively new to me, and found that I had WiFi on and connected even though I was not using the camera. In an event, with a continuous backup of the files to my laptop, I was getting about 700 shots but that included a lot of rear screen time because everyone wanted to see every image I took of them. Leaving it in EVF mode only I have gotten over 1200 with WiFi running. The wide range of battery life reports surely are based on which of the many optional features are running.

there is no reason for such a scheme to work poorly , but wirelessly with infinitesimal lag,

get with it already! ........cameras....

My big lenses (Tamron 70-200 G2 and 150-600 G2) feel really odd but they work. My shorter but heavy Sigma 24-35 is actually not bad, but has some incompatibilities that Sigma hasn't fixed yet.

The 70-300 AFP looks enormously long on the Z6 but it's so light it works great. easy to hold and balance and quick. I think it's the reason Nikon does't have any telephoto lenses besides the 70-200 f/2.8 on Z roadmap.

I have the 50 and 35 f/1.8 G primes and they're just perfect for the system. The S-mount versions are better but they're vastly more expensive. No thanks.

Thank you for your fast and interesting answer. Much appreciated!

You're welcome CaPi. It's nice to find not-trolls in the comments. Let me know if you have any other questions.

I use my 70-200 2.8 VRII on the Z6 and it feels fine because with a tele, it feels natural to use the left hand at the balance point, we do that automatically with any of the DSLRs. I have a D850, 800 and 7000 that all use that lens and balance is just something we all do automatically. If one shoots on-handed, it might be an issue because at least the gripped D8x0 series I have shot with the camera/lens supported by my right hand and flash in my left hand. I can't do a lot of those or need to but sometimes in events it is needed. The Z6 might only be 680 grams but if feels heavier because it feels so solid, like machined out of a solid billet. It FEELs for dense and rugged than my D850 which as we all know is a very well built camera.
My everyday walking around lens is the 24-70 f/4 Zmount, it is sharper than either my 24-70 2.8 G or E. My MF lenses, like 50 1.2 are getting a lot more use because of the ease of focusing with the Peaking function.

I can do ±4 shots and yes, you can set a shutter delay too. There's a bulb and a timer (touch to open shutter, touch to close shutter), but no, I don't see a programmable time mode.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Even then, those three different people probably having varying tracking skills. And even if the same person did all the tests the cameras handle differently with blackouts and such and some are easier to track action with than others, regardless of the AF system. What we need is an easily repeatable method that removes as many variables as possible. I would think that a dedicated enough tester should be able to create a automated system using an artificial target - kind of like a test chart for AF.

It seems to me that there's two main things you need to test:
1. AF-C accuracy when the target is moving towards or away from the camera.
2. Subject tracking, where the camera is stationary and the subject moves around in the frame.

To test the first one, put a target on a motorized unit riding on a rail or something and have it run straight at the camera. Camera is fixed and the user just has to keep AFing and shooting as the target approaches. Then, reverse direction and (continued)..

...shoot the target as it moves away.

For the second test, put the target on a motorized arm or something that can move it around in the frame. Camera is fixed, user engages subject tracking on the target, starts the target moving, and starts shooting.

Once the basic tests are working the user could devise a series of tests, such as making the targets move faster or more erratically, changing the lighting, using different targets (e.g. for face tracking), etc.

Do the same series of tests on each camera and you should be able to better compare them.

"Even then, those three different people probably having varying tracking skills."

Just have all three people repeat all the tests with all the cameras.

In reply to MSullivan:
Run the test three times, with each tester getting to use each of the three different cameras. In a lot of cases, that could be done in the same day. For example: A daytime baseball game (shoot three innings each with each camera); or a hockey game (shoot one period each with each camera).
Come to think of it, there are additional test conditions I would like to see:
1a) Test the three cameras on a daytime sport outside.
1b) Test the three cameras on a nighttime sport outside.
1c) Test the three cameras on an arena sport inside.

Even if the one camera proofs to have a slightly better tracking ability, it is still hugely depending on a personal preference and lenses. I think it's best to just rent the considerations. If you are invested in a system, buying the if so slightly better other brand is just not worth it.

Tldr: if you are invested in a brand, de differences are too small to justify the costs of switching imho

I'll give you some insight.. Went to the local motocross track on the weekend as my first real outing with my new Z 6. I had one of my D500s with me so I could do a quick comparison.
Both bodies were mounted on a Sigma 150-600mm C.
D500 = 99% AF consistency using D-25 (I took about 100 images mostly between 150-300mm due to crop)
Z 6 = 80% AF consistency using D-25 (I took about 900 images at varying zoom ranges from 150-600mm)
Now.. here's the confusing part.
The ACCURACY of AF when acquired was better with the Z 6 over the D500. I can hit 10 fps consistently with the D500 but the Z 6 looks sharper and that's with the same lens and only 3 more MP.
And more confusing...
The AF consistency on the Z 6, in my opinion, wasn't due to the AF-C itself but the EVF blackout meant I couldn't keep the AF area exactly where I wanted when shooting in bursts. If I keep the box where I want with slower/less bursts then consistency raises.
It does however outright struggle with strong back lighting.

Street photo too. And this is very much different than Canon APSC offerings; but could be applied there also; with sensor and practical mirror-less related upgrades.

...And beating what FUJI is doing.

Every frekin body would want this. Why would they not? The only question is would greed foul it up? Because this has the potential of the most mass sales ever. And that is more profit, not less profit for the company who gets it, is fair, and willing work for it.

MAKE A BETTER CAMERA system!

FF is the new DX

No because of size limits and lack of room to LOWER costs per total system benefits value.

Nothing wrong with FF otherwise; It's just more toward specialty.

And FF could and should be much smaller; but the FF SYSTEM can, only so much.

This is not the same as APSC to M43 considerations. You might guess this can happen with future modern developments; but with more COC and diffraction issues then it isn't as likely.

APSC is the new FF.
Cell phones are the new pocket cam.
Future cell phones are quickly redefining the rules.
Current camera systems are not doing anything fast, relatively.

"APSC is the new FF."

Sony made a refresh of one body.. and you imply taht this is their new strategy not all those interesting FF that got upgrades?
I dont think so at all. Look where the money is going.

Down the drain?

APSC is the new FF? LOL...good one. Looks like the biggest camera manufacturers missed your memo.

Full frame mirrorless seems to be where the profit is now and in the near future. Nikon has a few years roadmap for the Z system and no mention of APSC.

Anyway, why would they jump into a crowded pool AND split their resources away from the brand new Z system? Both Fuji and Olympus make 90% of what you describe already: https://i.imgur.com/QM4tnK3.jpg

Bythom.com reminds rightfully in his review that this is their 7th or so mirrorless after the nikon 1 releases.

So nothing new here, neither for nikon nor the industry.

While I like the silent shutter and viewfinder, AF is less good than in the past.

All Nikon did with their cameras is benchmark the Sony cameras and then take currently available mirrorless tech (EVF, Sensors, processors, etc) and package them into cameras and slap Nikon badges on them.

I don't really think they deserve a gold star for that effort.

You surely would not say that if you actually used the Z cameras. The integrated package is very well done, with far more sophisticated processor, speed of buses data transfer etc. Sony will need to fully redesign their cameras to come close to the speed of the processor and data transfer. TheZ cameras were designed for RF connectivity/backup from the start and for use of the much faster CFExpress that transfers data, with error correction at 1gigabit per second per pipe and it has 8 parallel pipes. That means video shooters will have ProRes HD RAW output to 14 bit out HDMI, no other camera has that speed advantage built in. It is the most "future proof " set of cameras on the market now. Just adding firmware updates for new features, because the hardware is ready for it. You lnow Sony is already at its architecture design limit since it is saddled with the slow unreliable SD cards

Yeah, Nikon should be credited for such a good first effort.
Waaay better than Canon's half 8$$ed first effort at mirrorless.
Den

Clearly understandable. I am wondering if I should upgrade. From Nikon Aps-C to the Z6 is not that clear of an upgrade path.. especially if most of my lenses are DX

Of course by "different" I mean a system you decide you rather own and If so. With a hard case for staying where you are at; unless warranted indeed.