DPReview TV: Nikon Z6 II review

a7c is apples vs. oranges, it's a different market segment than anything that nikon has.

even so, the little barking a7c has better af than this z6ii, including sony real-time tracking, which nikon doesn't have on any camera.

and then there is the dismal nikon battery life :-0

a7c: 740/640
a7iii: 710/610
z6ii: 410/ 340

do we need to have a conversation about which camera has the best lens selection?

I am sure it will be technologically superior but in practice will be less user friendly and comfortable than the competition unless they have redesigned their bodies yet again.

@Knock Knock

"Sony also barked loud with the intruction of its A7C.
Then it turned out to be nothing more than a little Chihuahua"

I guess people must like Chihuahua's then because the A7c is the best selling FF Camera in Japan by quite a margin.

https://www.bcnretail.com/research/ranking/monthly/list/contents_type=101

The second best selling FF camera is still the A7III. Don't get too upset :)

Rubberdials - Let me tell you a secret....
The forthcoming time Sony will still outsell Nikon.
That will make you feel good doesn’t it?

The bad news is though that Sony not even two years ago had a marketshare in this segmet of 100%. In that same segment Sony also lost a near 58% marketshare over the last two years and keeps on falling... this is a fact not fiction too.

Can I stop both of you here, before it gets out-of-hand?

Discussing market share without discussing market size is meaningless. When Sony was the only maker of FF mirrorless, it had 100% market share by definition. As soon as anyone else sold any cameras, they lost market share, even if they sold exactly the same number of cameras as before.

But quite apart from there being many reasons that market share doesn't tell you a meaningful story, it should also be clear that unless every user tries every camera before making a purchase, popularity is not a measure of camera quality.

The review is nearly finished (several factors, including weeks of grey skies and rain) held up some of the AF testing, but it's done now. It should be this week.

The Swiss market introductory prices are ridiculously high, to the extent that I (as a current Nikon user) am definitely considering Canon/Sony/others.

Whilst prices will almost certainly drop in month to come, I wish Nikon (Schweiz) would realise the enmity that this causes..

Hello Barry...I certainly get your point, a strong label name adds to the image.
As far as the Chevrolet ZED-28 being all American ??? how about all Canadian.

https://www.hagerty.com/media/market-trends/american-muscle-cars-built-in-canada/

btw, I sometimes wish the North Americans...Canada and USA would be able
to build a great DSLR camera,...they certainly have the technology smarts for it.

Greetings
Matthias

If you buy a Z6II and trade in your Z6 you will probably pay less than what a complex retrofit would cost.

But this is pure dreaming. These cameras are so complex that there are many dependencies, and it's not so simple as swapping out one component. Also, these camera components are so tightly integrated that swapping out is not realistic either.

People have wanted some modularity for years in small electronic products but there's a reason why that doesn't exist: it's not really feasible. Look at the PC's that have modularity: they're all pretty large.

I agree that it may not be worth Nikon's "engineering time" vs. new cameras. My point was that the Z6 and Z6ii bodies are nearly identical physically and if Nikon so chose they probably could have designed one circuit board that would fit in either the Z6 or Z6ii. Could have been a paid upgrade for current Z6 owners.

Nearly? Sure.
But they are not exactly identical. The Z6ii, for example has 2 card slots, and Nikon has traditionally attached slots to the mainboard--so now, this means changing body panels and camera height, and firmware (that is expecting the second slot). Or making a new mainboard & firmware with the dual CPU and no second card slot. So now, it's shipping the right number of parts to each service center and additional support and training--as well as updating any information about your body, and determining warranties and support and all that. And any extras are an additional cost without revenue, that needs to be costed and coordinated.

So in theory, yes this is possible. But in practice, it's actually a signifiant amount of work, with significant costs and significant coordination that may not make business sense.

Instead: if you want a Z6ii, get one. Or, if you're like me, let Nikon work on a Z6iii starting now, and get one in 2022 (or whenever).

@wcan

"Actually, it would have been nice if Nikon designed the new internal Z6ii board with dual processors so it could be retrofitted to the Z6 for a fee."

Pentax did it w/ K-1(II).

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2162791126/ricoh-will-let-pentax-k-1-owners-update-their-cameras-to-a-mark-ii-for-550

See my posts in the Z forum on Picture Controls also controlling histograms for accurate raw metering.

Here's one (of several):
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64609573

Just pres the view mode button on the back of the camera a few times and it will show up. EVF and LCD can be set differently for each, but it works the same. Watch throught the evf and press view button.

Less bending of light results in better image quality, higher resolving power and more sharpness from corner to corner.

Straighter light path sounds promising.
I’m skeptical about the “let’s more light in” because there’s no evidence ithat any additional light hits the sensor at a given f/stop. Sounds like yet another fabrication from the equivalence charlatans.

You are correct that a larger front element does not "let more light in" - as long as the front element is large enough to accommodate the lens's f-stop, the sensor receives the same amount of light.

However, the rest - bending of light, for example - is true. One reason that basically all of the Z lenses are best in their class in terms of sharpness, aberrations (or lack of), and consistency across the frame.

(technically the amount of light is determined by the T-stop, not F-stop... but this is more a matter of coatings and elements to provide maximum transmission... not the size of the front element). Some M-mount rangefinder lenses have excellent T-stop values very close to their F-stop but yet they have tiny front elements (my Zeiss ZM 50/2 uses a 43mm filter/cap).

@MattyMustng

"One reason that basically all of the Z lenses are best in their class..."

But the Z lenses are not all 'best in class' though, are they - the best lenses at a given focal length are shared across all the manufacturers.

The wider Nikon mount allows for a slightly larger imaging circle from on-axis light rays. Theoretically this could give you better corner coverage on a sensor with a uniform lens structure. In practice sensors have modified corner lenses to negate this issue.

Most of Nikon's optical gains have come from using special glasses and multi element construction, like the 50/1.8S which has 12 elements and LD glass to correct LoCA, which is the spec you usually see for a an 1.4 lens. The Sony FE 55/1.8 for example has only 7 elements and no LD glass.

There is one other 'slow' 50mm with a construction like the Nikon - the Leica L-mount Summicron 50 f/2 and this is a better lens than the Nikon, on a smaller mount.

@MattyMustng

Regarding light transmission you can compare the 24-70S with the E-mount 24-70GM:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-24-70mm-F28-GM-WEB-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Nikon-NIKKOR-Z-24-70mm-F28-S-on-Nikon-Z7__1712_1035_2025_1270

As you can see, despite having a smaller mount, the Sony lens is sharper, has a better vignetting characteristic (-1.6EV, versus -2.1EV) and has a true F2.8 aperture (T2.8), whilst the Nikon has a T-stop of T3.0.

@RubberDials

"Most of Nikon's optical gains have come from using special glasses and multi element construction"

This is false - at least in the use of the word "most." Of course their glass and coatings make for excellent optics. But that's not the end of the story - many manufacturers use amazing specialized glass and multi-element construction.

The Nikkor 50/1.8 S can go toe-to-toe with the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, at a fraction of the size and cost, plus AF. I have not used the APO-Summicron SL 50/2, but that's a $5,000 lens that weighs 78% more than the Nikkor. Leica's APO-Summicron M 50/2 is a stellar optic that competes with the Zeiss Otus - so much so that the differences are irrelevant.

"Best in class" assumes you are comparing lenses like-for-like: e.g. not comparing a $500 lens to a $5,000 lens. The former being a standard lens that many people will buy, the latter not.

The large throat of the Z mount is decidedly an advantage in allowing for superb and compact optics.

@RubberDials

DXO Mark is a joke. Their measurements fail to take into account a huge number of variables and usage scenarios. They also test uncorrected images - Nikon's Z lenses are well-known to use software correction for the minor optical maladies like vignetting. In this day and age, that is appropriate and fair, and lenses should be tested on the results that they provide in the real world - not the results when stripped of digital corrections.

The very fact that some of their measurements put the T-stop as identical to the F-stop should tell you this. That is NOT possible. There is no zoom lens out there that is even within 0.1 stops variance between T and F stops.

The best PRIME lenses manage to measure within 0.1 stop variance. Zooms do not.

@Matty

"This is false - at least in the use of the word "most." Of course their glass and coatings make for excellent optics. But that's not the end of the story - many manufacturers use amazing specialized glass and multi-element construction"

No, it's not false. I gave you an example of a standard 50/1.8 lens - the Sony55/1.8. It has 7 elements and no LD glass. The Nikon lens has 12 elements and LD glass - that is why it's so good. There is only ONE other 50mm lens on the market with that many elements that isn't an f1.4 - the Leica L 50/2.

"The large throat of the Z mount is decidedly an advantage in allowing for superb and compact optics."

I explained it. It's this:
The wider Nikon mount allows for a slightly larger imaging circle from on-axis light rays. Theoretically this could give you better corner coverage on a sensor with a uniform lens structure. In practice sensors have modified corner lenses to negate this issue.

There are no other advantages.

@Matty

"DXO Mark is a joke."

Of course it is. It's Imatest and Sony gets the same treatment. If you want real world testing DPR tested the Nikon and Sony 35s and they found the Sony sharper. Again the Sony doesn't have LD glass so had worse LoCA. When they tested a Sony with LD - the 20/1.8G it had less fringing than the Nikon.

"The very fact that some of their measurements put the T-stop as identical to the F-stop should tell you this. That is NOT possible."

Of course it's possible - it just means the lens has higher transmission than it stated F-stop.

@RubberDials

Well darn, I guess from now on I should just count the number of elements in my lenses and see how much low dispersion glass they have.

I'm NOT arguing that excellent glass - from the elements and groups (the design) - to LD or aspherical elements or whatever it may be - has no effect on the IQ. Of course it CAN. But there are plenty of lenses with many elements/groups and low dispersion glass that are not up to the same standards as these lenses. There are TONS.

I am literally studied in optics and lens design. What you're saying is patently false.

Bigger throat allows for a larger exit pupil and better telecentricity. It's not just corners that benefit. The entire image does AND it allows for more compact lenses - see lenses like: Nikkor 14-30/4 S (of which there is NO comparable lens on the market), 16-50/3.5-6.3, 24-50/4-6.3, 24-70/4 S, etc.

Yes, manufacturers can and have overcome the limitations of small diameter mounts like Sony's. Key word: overcome.

@RubberDials

"it just means the lens has higher transmission than it stated F-stop."

Ok we're done here. You are out of your element in terms of knowledge of this subject. Have a good one.

@MattyMustng

"Well darn, I guess from now on I should just count the number of elements in my lenses and see how much low dispersion glass they have."

If they're S lenses - it's a lot.

"I'm NOT arguing that excellent glass - from the elements and groups (the design) - to LD or aspherical elements or whatever it may be - has no effect on the IQ. Of course it CAN."

What effects are there on the lens's IQ other than those imposed by its design?

"But there are plenty of lenses with many elements/groups and low dispersion glass that are not up to the same standards as these lenses. There are TONS."

Well there's only ONE other 50/1.8 lens with the same number of elements (TWELVE) and similar special glass to the Nikon - the Leitz Summicron 50/2 SL, and it's better, on a smaller mount. ALL of the other FF 50/1.8 lenses on the market have 7 elements or fewer. Not one of them has any LD glass:

Sony FE 55/1.8 - 7 elements, 3 AS, no LD
Sony FE 50/1.8 - 6 elements, 1 AS, no LD

Contd.

Canon RF 50/1.8 - 6 elements, 1 AS, no LD
Canon EF 50/1.8 - 6 elements, no special glass
Zeiss Loxia 50/2 - 6 elements, no special glass
Nikon F 50/1.8G - 6 elements, 1 AS, no LD
Nikon F 50/1.8D - 6 elements, no special glass

NOW, if the Nikon 50/1.8S achieved its high and consistent performance with a six element construction and no LD glass you might have an argument that the S mount was enabling this performance - but sadly...

"Bigger throat allows for a larger exit pupil and better telecentricity. It's not just corners that benefit. The entire image does AND it allows for more compact lenses - see lenses like: Nikkor 14-30/4 S (of which there is NO comparable lens on the market), 16-50/3.5-6.3, 24-50/4-6.3, 24-70/4 S, etc."

I assume you mean a larger rear element than 'bigger throat' because the size of the lens throat has nothing to do with the size of the exit pupil. A successful near-telecentric ray projection only requires a rear lens that is approximately

Contd.

the same size as the sensor diagonal and all mirrorless mounts can offer that. As for the 'more compact lenses' bit, you're joking? https://j.mp/3nr7Odw
A few of the Nikon Zed lenses are smaller than Sony equivalents but the majority are larger.

The 14-30 is another lens that isn't 'best in class' either - it's handily beaten by the FE 12-24/4. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1593343/1
My point is not to praise Sony or Leica over Nikon, but to point out the folly of claiming all Nikon lenses are 'best in class' because of the size of their mount. As ever, to get the best lenses at each FL, you have to buy from every manufacturer.

"Yes, manufacturers can and have overcome the limitations of small diameter mounts like Sony's. Key word: overcome."

Ah, the brave Sony optical engineers wrestling with the doomed e-mount, against all odds... This is a variation of the 'small mount will come back to bite Sony' prophecy that crops up from time to time.

Contd.

We are told that at some future date - not yet – Sony will suddenly find it's mount is hindering the production of good lenses, despite them already having a range from 12mm to 600mm that is excellent.

"Ok we're done here. You are out of your element in terms of knowledge of this subject. Have a good one."

Says a man who talks about 'BETTER telecentricity' (my emphasis) and claims 'I am literally studied in optics and lens design'. I was entirely civil to you, please return the courtesy. I'm sure that both of us could talk about a subject that is beyond the understanding of the other, but this isn't it.

DXOMark gives you the designated aperture (ie what it says on the box and the lens barrel) and the actual transmission value. It's perfectly possible for the transmission value to match the designated value - that would just mean the designated aperture is not accurate.

Have a good one yourself.

@RubberDial

Last I will reply to you or this.

"I assume you mean a larger rear element than 'bigger throat' because the size of the lens throat has nothing to do with the size of the exit pupil."

No, I mean throat. aka mount diameter. Not exit pupil.

The 14-30 is another lens that isn't 'best in class' either - it's handily beaten by the FE 12-24/4"

In what metric? The 12-24 is 38% longer than the Nikkor and *cannot accept a screw-in filter.* Not only does the Nikkor 14-30 easily accept a common 82mm filter, it is the ONLY full-frame lens below 15mm than can accept a screw-in filter (aside from Nikon's new 14-24/2.8, which uses a non-traditional screw-in design). Nikon was able to accomplish this, in part due to the benefits of their mount (which particularly advantages wide angles). Not only all that - the lens is specifically designed to minimize optical deficiencies when using a filter (note its completely flat front element) - unlike most wide angle lenses with large elements.

@RubberDial

"the folly of claiming all Nikon lenses are 'best in class' because of the size of their mount"

Literally never said that whatsoever. I said they are best in class (which is my opinion) and pointed to their mount as ONE REASON FOR THAT. ONE.

"Ah, the brave Sony optical engineers wrestling with the doomed e-mount, against all odds"

If you think a small diameter mount relative to the size of the sensor doesn't pose difficulties, I have many surprises for you. Well, I don't, but you can find them if you care to learn. E-mount was never originally intended to fit a FF sensor.

"Says a man who talks about 'BETTER telecentricity' (my emphasis) and claims 'I am literally studied in optics and lens design'.... I'm sure that both of us could talk about a subject that is beyond the understanding of the other, but this isn't it."

No, we both couldn't. You think a lens's T-stop can be greater than its F-Stop. And you mock telecentricity for some reason.

@RubberDial

"It's perfectly possible for the transmission value to match the designated value - that would just mean the designated aperture is not accurate."

Yeah, sure, I suppose that is possible in the sense that aliens are possible. DXO Mark measures far too many lens's T-stops as equal to their F-stop - that error would have to be some kind of industry-wide malpractice/conspiracy.

Only the BEST primes will, for example, have a T-stop of T/1.5 when they are F/1.4 lenses. Zooms will never be within a tenth of a stop - two tenths if they're well-designed, usually less or much less.

You literally said "it just means the lens has higher transmission than it stated F-stop."

That is Not. Something. That. Happens.

@MattyMustng - @RubberDial: ""It's perfectly possible for the transmission value to match the designated value - that would just mean the designated aperture is not accurate."

Yeah, sure, I suppose that is possible in the sense that aliens are possible.""

no, aperture errors are normal for lenses, it happens all the time, RD is 100% correct:

"Here are some examples of aperture errors among my own lenses:
AF 85mm f/1.8D: Overexposes 1/6 stop at f/2, then 0.4 to 0.5 stop through the rest of the aperture range.
AF 135mm f/2D: Overexposes 1/2 stop through f/5.6, tapering off to 1/3 stop at f/16.
24-70mm f/2.8G: Underexposes 0.3 stops through entire range, except 1/8 stop at f/8.
AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D: Overexposes about 1/2 stop through entire range.
As you can see, the most common errors are overexposure, and can definitely be enough to affect your images. The moral: Check your lenses ."
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2703691

that's per Marianne Oelund, an impeccable source.

@MILC man

#1: every single lens she tests has a lower T-stop than the stated F-stop. That is how it works, and is exactly what I said.

#2: Of course every lens is not EXACTLY f/1.4 or f/2.8, but this is irrelevant - the T-stop is still lower than whatever the precise F-stop measurement actually is.

#3: The issue of overexposure is NOT because the T-stop is exceeding the F-stop... it's that the camera is metering wide-open and then calculating an expectation of exposure when stopped down. Since DXO Mark is T-stop tested wide open, this is entirely irrelevant to that issue. If she is an impeccable source, which I have no reason to believe she isn't, then DXO Mark is not - because not a single one of her tests shows a lens with a T-stop equal to the F-stop (and CERTAINLY not higher).

Suggest you taking a walk to the optician.

@NAG3LT. Yes, but maybe not. I thing in next few months we will see some new cameras below $2000. And R6 in some points not enough for me, and in another is to much. I don't need 12fps and super downsamped 4k, but 20mp, uhhh... let's just say i'm old canon shooter, and for many years I see these ≈5500 points along the long side and ≈3400 along the short side. I want more. Moreover, some customers on stocks need pictures for something more, than for tiny elements in web pages design, so I have to compete with these armies of photographers with d800/d810.

Sorry but your reply is nothing to do with the subject. 60 fps is not comfortable in EVF when you try to take photos with moving subject.

There are most likely hardware limits of the screen that forces the refresh rate to 60 fps max.

I can't imagine Nikon installed a EVF that could do better than 60 fps, yet only uses 60fps. It costs more for an EVF screen to do higher fps. It affects the types of pixels used in the screen, you can wish for things, but I really doubt this will ever change.

Thanks for the advice. I am a beginner, but, various practitioners on YouTube and blogs have not mandated to use ND filters. Let me try one with ND filter.

Thanks & Regards

You are a beginner but you bought a Nikon Z6 II? What a way to get started with photography!

there are no magic settings, just try to understand the concept. I am always adjusting every time I shoot. But I learned from youtube also so no big deal. Most people don't show their mistakes but we still all do it regardless or experiences. Your situation is you might be in a more sunny location than other people, so your settings will be different. Just keep on shooting and you will be better if you are enthusiastic.

But do you could meter in aperture mode and get the idea of the shutter speed.

Use an ND filter...

Either use a ND filter with 4-6 stops or shoot a series of shorter exposures (say a burst at the camera's burst speed) and align/blend them in a photo editor (e.g. Photoshop).

Thanks all for the advice. Will implement and share the result.

@jambavan, I know basics and have learnt a lot as a hobbyist for the past couple of years. Tried using my iPhone 11pro for stills with emphasis on composition. Then thought of getting into more professional space, hence, z6ii. Why z6ii directly? Bcz when a FF is available at a price of APSC with not so exotic AF features at similar price, why to spend money on APSCs

i started my photography journey with Z6 too

This is my work and I still have the Z6. You should have used the money to take some lessons and buy a lesser model

Recommendation: Learn about exposure and saturation. Then, use ND filters or stack.

It's all subjective. Just buy a modern manual Sony FE zeiss or voigltander or why not leica glass even, stick a dark brown leather half-case, get a nice strap. There you go - fun. And all the other wonderful lenses to be produced in the future. In the meantime you are on the FF bandwagon, Nikon will continue to improve EVF, IBIS, shutter sound and refine ergo details (as a hint - the evf off thingy when you extentd the lcd), sensors are great anyway everywhere, re-sell old body, grab a new one.

I shoot the Nikon Df for fun. In the past it was the A7 and cellphone, just to get a different perspective. I shoot the z6 and d750 (was) when I need to get things done right and efficiently.

Agreed. Why I shoot with fuji now. Olympus is super nice also. If I was shooting an event would I trust the nikon to deliver photos to clients better? Yeah, probably so.

Do I need that type of camera to get excellent shots as an amateur? Definitely not.

Funny how perception can vary. Among the many cameras I own the Z (now Z6II and Z7II) are those I always pick when I have no constraints and just want to enjoy photography.

I found it helpful

Those guys are in general not as funny as they obviously think. I get that it's a joke, so I wouldn't say it's patronizing, but it's not particularly funny, and it IS quite annoying -- it distracts my attention from the review each and every time it flashes on-screen.

Crybabies

it did not distract me every time it flashed on the screan ...but i did not have to look at it as i understand english......i am tempted with a Zed 6

Flaws that should have been "addressed" on launch...Talk about piecemealing...

Let’s get real for a moment and look at Sony’s, Fuji’s and even canon’s first Gen mirrorless cameras. By that measure Nikon did very good. Maybe not good enough to move a D850 or D780 owner, but certainly better than any other first Gen offer.

This is a level playing field. Just because this is Nikon's first (it isn't) mirrorless...what because they are late to the party we judge them as if it were 2018 and compare them to other manufacturers first mirrorless from yesteryear? Because it is their first gen? Today you compete here and now. No excuses; no exceptions. It is why nikon are selling so few of these cameras. I think it is time you got real.

@primeshooter You are the one doing the piecemealing here. Nikon has taken a good camera and made it better. What's the problem with that? Yeah... they could have added x-ray and a dishwasher, but as for useful features, this camera does very well. I would have preferred a fully articulated screen, but that's a personal choice, and many don't agree.

What it boils down is if it's a good camera for stills and video, and it is. In my view it's a great camera for stills and video.

Nikon's only real "problem" is that the D780 and D850 are still such great camera, so one has a choice.

@primeshooter
Stop now with the childish frase: "They should have don't this and they should have done that 2 years ago".
Canon should have made the R5 two years ago. Sony should have made the a7S III two years ago. Fuji should have made the X-T4 two years ago.

Oh, why didn't Apple not make the iPhone 12 two years ago, - and why... [inset any company and its product here].

Just stop repeating stupid things other people say and try to think about, what you are saying really means.

@HJVM first time i've been called childish for being objective but hey it is dpreview. Your arguement is stupid and nonsensical. No one is asking apple to make the current iphone a decade ago. Tell me why you think it is that Nikon is a very definite 3rd in the mirrorless game? What could it be if not that their products arent very compelling to buyers and the market.

Zaak9 how am i piecemealing here? I don't think you understand the term until you google it. I ask you the same question. Why is nikon failing to make a serious dent in the market with it's mirrorless offerings? Try to give me an answer without ladening it with excuses...

Nikon is third in the market for two reasons:
- They were late to launch full frame mirrorless cameras.
- A larger part of Nikon users still buy and use DSLR cameras

Not all photographers are looking for "revolutionary" solutions. Rock solid image quality and excellent ergonomics are important to some, as is dependability. Nikon is a prime exponent for all those qualities. Some of us are very happy for Nikon's conservative approach. Over time, they will find their place in the mirrorless market.

What we see btwn the Z6 and Z6II is comparable to what Canon used to improve btwn generations of the 5D.

Besides the result is both excellent in absolute terms for actual photographic applications and competitive with the equivalent offerings by Canon and Sony.

Add to this the best mirrorless lenses and you have an amazing package at a great price point.

@primeshooter Nikon’s (and Canon’s) core brand is about fail safe, dependable, high quality cameras. The Z6 wasn’t that. The Z6ii is. Who cares what they launched with? They needed to update to meet their product standards. And they have and it’s cheap. Sony (and Panasonic) are the ‘cutting edge’ brand. And yes they also make great cameras. But their market isn’t a conservative one like Nikon’s. They need to innovate to a very high level. My opinion - I own a z6 and quite frankly I can’t kill it. On that robust measure I think it is cutting edge having owned Sonys.

Gee, what a surprise, you trashing Nikon, right on cue. Way too predictable. The sum is greater than the parts.

What needs to be exciting? Nikon has a history of making cameras that just work and get out of your way. No hand cramping, no asinine menus, no slow buffer clearance, no overheating, no orange cast, no magenta cast, no choppy EVF. Just a great camera.

@primeshooter
What I mean is that is a hollow statement, that could be said about, practical every produkt, being launched.

BMW make a new 3serie and it fixes all the problem with the old model, so they should have just made this new model 2 years ago.
You can always say that if you think the old model had any flaws.

Because you can say that to all new produkt, it is a hollow (read empty) statement and I think it is childish to use it.

HJVN your analogy for BMW might have worked if they left out the passenger seatbelts in the 2019 plate 3 series, then reinstated them on the 2020 version.

Canon just destroyed the the R5 with the overheating issues (lesser extent also the R6). If you cannot do something well don't do it... it backfired badly. It does not mean they are not great cameras...they are just....well you know...

Why do we need to make everything extreme and incendiary? “Destroyed”? They have created a camera that is neck and neck with the Sony a9ii for action, very close to the Z7ii for landscape and a video star for any amateur shooting shorter clips. Yes, they promised something (8k) and messed that up, but otherwise it is a stellar camera. Definitely not “destroyed”. Their marketing department messed up for sure by promising the one thing that wasn’t quite optimized, and they really didn’t need to because the engineering department finally delivered a winner. (I just discovered one cannot write f***** up on DPR so I changed to messed up).

@FBOne: thanks for some great perspective. Yes, to often online people go to the negative extremes in their comments.

As for the R5, it's been a great selling unit for Canon that is still hard to find.

Agreed overall but tracking is far from perfect on the D850 and far from unusable on the Z6II/Z7II.

In my extended experience they are in fact pretty comparable.

It will take a detailed comparison over a variety of scenarios to tell them apart and I am pretty sure that the ZII will come out on top in some of them.

I fully agree on subject tracking, the Zii are better than a D850. That’s why I don’t use subject tracking for wildlife, it hasn’t worked yet to my liking but it seems that Canon and Sony are “there” or very close and I’ll bet Nikon will too. After all, 3D tracking in Nikon DSLRs was the best implementation of any SLR, even with some flaws, so I’d be shocked if the flagship action Z, whenever it comes, doesn’t excel in that area. Maybe because I started with film and manual focus, I don’t get hung up on features that aren’t quite perfected yet :-) they still beat anything I learned with.

@FBoneOne: “Nikon's issue is that they created the D850 and D750 - cameras that were so good across the board and so far ahead when they came out that they created the expectation that Nikon could hit the same greatness on try 1 or 2 in mirrorless.”

And it was a perfectly reasonable expectation. Why on Earth not? Sony even gave them the blueprint.

Nikon were kings of AF and have decades of camera manufacturing experiments yet didn’t hit it out of the park first go. Canon similarly came up with even worse first attempts despite a similar level of experience. I don’t think either of them had any excuse for not getting it right first time.

Technically the Z mount should allow the best IBIS and lens design. It's just Nikon is not there yet. Or maybe it's just marketing.

Nico as a Fujifilm owner I have to disagree. I am a Fujifilm user for over seven years now and have recently started to investigate this ‘new’ Z system.

Not only are many of the equivalent Z lenses cheaper than the XF lenses. They also offer larger aperture and better resolving power. The total weight of the Z system also seem to be much equivalent. As for what I see now. The total difference camera + 4 lenses would be no more than 165 grams...

It might actually be ‘best’ current available system.
My X-T4 has costed me as much as you can buy a Z6. The new Z6ii of course cost a little more. But to me it looks Fujifilm is slowly but steadily starting to loose out.

This new Z6ii or Z7ii may well become my new system to go to somewhere next year if Fujifilm doesn’t come up with descent X-H2.

I too am waiting for what better be a stellar X-H2. Think higher res sensor, (I like X-Trans but to each their own on that) new processors, Sony level AF, and 5m dot EVF for a start. The bigger battery will be a given, but put the headphone jack on the body instead of the grip. Full frame is getting cheaper and better-it's Fujifilm show up time.

Signed, a happy X-H1 shooter.

As for me, I'm waiting to see what the X-E4 looks like. Can the full frame manufacturers offer small and light at this level? My guess is that Fuji will still lead here.

@Knock Knock Who is There.
I have the opposite experience. The full frame gears don't bring much to me as I get 90% from the X system without the bulk and price.

I am more flexible for less.

Sure, you can get a FF or MF :)

That’s also fine of course to each his own.
Each has to make up its own list of advantages and disadvantages of a system and weight them based upon personal preference and needs.

I just feel that after 7 years of heavy use the X-Series are not giving me enough back in return any longer. I start to see its shortcomings for my use. Don’t get me wrong the X-T4 is a very capable camera. But at this pricepoint it starts to wring... The X-series just don’t give me the feeling Any longer that I had before.

This is why I have started researching other offerings and this new Nikon Z system looks very promising as does the EOS R6 (though a little less attractive).
I keep an open mind for what’s to come from Fujifilm. But it better something promising or I will loose interest. I am sure I am not alone in this and I think this is going to be Fujifilms biggest challenge on the long run. Keeping its customer base interested in the offerings.

Bit as said each has to make his own desicions.

The point I am trying to make here is that 40 years ago 35mm cameras and lenses were about the same size and weight as Fuji stuff is now. Modern full frame and lenses (especially most of the lenses) are all quite a bit heavier and bulkier, except of course for the Leica M system.
For the rest of us, at least including me, Fuji seems to have small and light covered quite well, at only a small image quality penalty compared to FF.

As someone with both Fuji X and Nikon Z cameras & lenses, I can definitively say that the X mount is certainly not "a cheaper option for 90% of the performance."

Here is just one of several comparisons I've done:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64241423

The camera + lens combinations I used there cost roughly the same (~$2000 camera bodies + $750 lenses), but the Nikon outperforms the Fuji in just about every area I can think of, including sharpness, bokeh, noise, ergonomics, etc.

That's fair, although the 23mm f1.4 came out in 2013 so Fuji could stand to do some refreshing. But a new X-T3 is $999, not $2000. My used X-H1 with IBIS was $800, for that matter; my other X-H1 was $999 brand new on sale.

One other thing I'm seeing in the Fuji forums is the difference that post processing of RAWs can make. Oftentimes, there's more in the RAW than we see in the JPEGs. Even though they are visually pleasing. While the same could be said of Nikon I'm sure, it seems to matter particularly with Fuji.

For the cost of just the body, I could get a couple of real nice red badge XF Fujinon lenses so switching systems doesn't make much sense to me at this time. Although Nikon kinda tops my list if I were to do so.

Those in my comparison were both raws that were processed the same way.
I've also done similar tests in the past with similar or the same lenses (sometimes manual focus lenses adapted), that pretty much always show the Nikons on top when it comes to IQ.

Also, regarding the price, I am referring to the original prices, not used Fuji prices vs launch Nikon prices, or prices of completely different cameras (ie. comparing lower end Fujis with higher-end Nikon's). Because that's not how comparisons work.

Again: my comment was in response to "Well, the X mount offers you a cheaper option for 90% of the performances." And that is certainly not the case.

@NicoPPC, yes it does depend.

Your target benchmark is lower, so you are comparing the lower end. ie. if you want the lower-end, Fuji may be better. But that doesn't mean you get the same performance--it means you get worse performance before your lower-end budget dries up. And sorry, but I find the handling, EVF, and lenses MUCH better on my Nikon than my Fuji. Again, sounds like you are going for lower rather than higher.

Somehow, your subjective, made-up numbers are changing from 90% to 120% now. Do you have links to your objective & quantifiable comparisons, like I posted?

How long have you shot with your Nikon Z cameras and how long have you shot with your Fuji X cameras? I've been shooting each for several years at this point.

I did in the past some "technical", comparisons to my EF system. It was clear the X mount won.

Recently we compared (less technically) with the R mount. There was not much difference on the in terms of IQ (but mpx and high ISO noise).

Z mount has only been in my hands in shop.

However, I really don't have the feeling to have low targets. Customers don't pay for low stuff.
On the X mount, one get great resolution/IQ/sharpness at base ISO.. and one can even to multiple exposures for more DR/DOF.

At high ISO, it's noiser as FF but colours remains natural which is to my eyes more important as reportage/events photography is usually only viewed on screens.

The missing bit is top resolution/mpx. I might come through high resolution/multiple exposures shot using the IBIS.

Post them. Post your comparisons.

And to be clear: you've never actually used a Z camera in the field, or for any time beyond in the store? LOL.

So in essence: Your opinion is skewed and not based in fact. Got it. I'll go with mine then, since it's based in reality & experience, actually has referenceable material, and has open methodology that can be peer reviewed, rather than your useless opinion that is primarily based on heresay.

Switched from X-Pro 2 with the 3 “Fujicrons” and the 16-55 f2.8 zoom to a Z6 with the S-primes. I was going to buy an X-H1 but was lured back to my Nikon roots by the excellent Z mount lenses. I think Nikon really nailed it with these lenses. They’re not huge and expensive like brighter FF lenses, but represent a perfect balance of first class optical performance and build quality. They’re head and shoulders over the Fuji lenses I owned. The 24-70/4S is better optically than the Fuji pro zoom.

When taking money, quality and results in account I’ve found nothing better than the Z system. Have looked extensively at all the options. I like the Canon cameras too but the RF lens system is useless to me with either huge lenses I don’t need, or budget quality lenses that don’t meet my standards.

@NicoPPC:
Just stop. This is an article on Nikon Z, and you are inexperienced and unknowledgable on the platform; and your opinions are opposite of those from more experienced & knowledgeable people (who actually have extensively used both platforms). Stop posting your pointless, subjective, biased, and baseless Fuji fan opinions on an unrelated article about Nikon Z. Yes, you are correct that the Fuji is better aligned for less experienced people like you who produce lower quality output. They are not all the best, and in many cases, they aren't even in the same league. Time to move on.

The quality of the Z6II/Z7Ii is absolutely outstanding.

Nikon started to manufacture in their Thai facility many years ago. They have many Japanese staff there controlling the facility, equipment is top notch.

Besides the Thai workforce is highly educated and has been doing this for long.

Nikon manufacturing there is great. It means better controlled margins and more bandwidth in they Sendai factory for their next gen super highend flagship to be announced in 2021.

I don't really want Nico to shut mouth. Even though I agree he has made no point. What he says is the typical Fuji talk.

As I already said - I think Fujifilm makes great cameras, that I do like to use but they have now imho come to a point that the advantage Fujifilm once had has become non-existent today. There is just no progress. Basically the X-T4 is nothing more or less than the X-T3 wit IBIS. But IBIS is in every camera today and so in this they also have no competitive advantage any longer.

Maybe I have now just been too long with Fujifilm to now be over the idea that Fujifilm cameras hold the 'holy grail'. And as time has moved the other camera manufacturers have catched up, matched and surpassed Fujifilm - even though Nikon and Canon were late to the show

Or maybe I am just ready to go 'back home' again.
I have spoken more people in the same situation as I am and then wonder if Fujifilm is actually aware of the fact that so many people are on the verge of jumping back again

Knock Knock, the XT4 is fuji's heaviest and biggest APS-C camera outside of the XH1...

If your idea of a fuji camera is an XT4 with 16-55 2.8 lens mounted, then yes, Nikon won't be much bigger. And if I wanted a set up that big, I'd probably get the Nikon Z+24-70 over it also.

But, Fuji has many more smaller options and lenses that Nikon simply doesn't.

What does Nikon have that matches stuff like a 16/23/50 cron set? or an 18/35/60 original set..or a 27 pancake, pair it with an 18-55 2.8-f4 zoom if you like as well, or even smaller 15-45.

Nikon is no match for Fuji's size/performance when it comes down to it in FF, especially not in APS-C, they gave up on APS-C years ago in an effort to move people to FF.

Don't get me wrong, I like Nikon also and shot it for 10 years...they are just for different types of shooters.

" The Z6II is no longer made in Japan, but it's made in Thailand."
For your information my D850 is Made In Thailand

JJZ2 - Maybe it is what I need to get the job properly done. But you clearly have not thought that some people actually do use most of the features on a camera...

Even though the IQ is the same on every Fujifilm camera that offers the same sensor and processor. They clearly do not have the same feature set, nor do they handle the same.

I have never ever had any interest in a X-Txx, X-E, X-A series camera.
Those cameras from Fuji don't cut it for me. So indeed I only have eyes for their more capable and professional cameras.

I am fine if Fujifilm would just start to focus upon lower end models, but I would opt out and so would a lot more users as the X-T series might well be 60% of Fujifilm sales.

You are wrong over weight and size too.
I have already made this comparisson and the difference in weight is no more than 165 grams on Camera including 4 lenses. But it has set in the minds of so many Fujifilm users that their system is lighter - Which clearly is not any longer.

Knock Knock. Not sure what you're on about, I essentially agreed with you.

"If your idea of a fuji camera is an XT4 with 16-55 2.8 lens mounted, then yes, Nikon won't be much bigger. And if I wanted a set up that big, I'd probably get the Nikon Z+24-70 over it also."

And no, Nikon does not have a lens set that would match up to carrying the 16/23/50 crons, or a 18/35/60 set. What nikon has is comparable lenses in size performance to the 23 1.4/56 1.2, etc. If you are going with those lenses in Fujiland along with an X-T4, the Nikon Z (or Sony options) can be comparable weight and not much more price either. Again, I am agreeing with you here.

It is the same Fuji fan sound I heard so often, and it is getting tiring.

FYI - I am a professional photograper - One that can still earn his bread an butter with photography and I have been a Fujifilm user now for over 7 years. But I can also tell you. You get over the love for brands.... One day it will also happen to you.

All the cameras I have used up to today I know from the inside out.
There is no hidden setting for me on any of my cameras. I also do my pre-purchase investigations pretty deeply.

I know what I will be buying and I also look at the future as I am not the person that changes cameras based on features, but I base descision on system and future development. It is an investment in my business for me.

Brands on itself don't matter.
Systems and future developments do. I look at the potential of a system. Not the now! Otherwise I would not have gone Fujifilm 7 years ago either.

However Fujifilm has come to a stand-still recently whereas others are just starting off

I don't even have a problem with Nikon! Geez, I already mentioned more than once that if I were switching, that's probably where I'd go. Read that a couple times.

My problem is with your Fuji bashing. You posted examples where one shady tree trunk had more detail in an SOOC Nikon JPEG than the Fuji did, and therefore Fuji's value proposition sucks. Oh, and yes-brand new Nikon lenses have more resolution than 9 year old Fujis. So.. when the new Sigmas come out in X mount next year, with new lens resolution, how will you then bash Fuji's value proposition?

Don’t you mean the buyer? The seller loses money.

I don't think he was referring to low-lifes who buy, then return, they buy, then return. He was talking about someone who buys, uses a bit, then sells it used, then buys something different and so-on.

@TomCody, What leads you to believe I take issue with banding being hard to reproduce?

Either banding is an issue and is easy to reproduce or it’s not an issue and it’s hard to reproduce, right?

I have never seen any in 2 years shooting the Z so my view remains it was never an issue to start with.

Now DPreview had a procedure to reproduce it, the same procedure does’t show any banding on the ZII. It seems reasonable to think it’s fixed like it already was on the Z5.

@bernardlang, The Z's banding is both an issue and difficult to reproduce. The fact that it's difficult to reproduce means it'll only be an issue in very select situations. The problem though is those situations aren't always predictable.

(continued...)

And while may like to tout the R5 for being able to do more with one processor, and while that's true, that's not necessarily a good thing from a longevity standpoint. Heat is what kills electronics. And more importantly, heating up and then cooling down (that repeated cycle) is what causes electronics to wear out. And if this can help the processors run cooler by dividing the work, then theoretically you could see a longer (although probably not by any significant amount ) over a single processor doing all the work, but running 2x as hot. (although it shoulid be noted that processor utilization is not necessarily linear to heat generation, but it's safe to say that the more work a processor is doing, the hotter it will get). A good example if you don't believe me is to monitor your computer's CPU temperature under various workloads.

True enough.
Thus it is important to chose the best focus point within the composition.

With landscapes why would you assume a computer would know what to focus on? Maybe the wrong AF setting.

Ez
Zay?

Yes, yes - Zed Zed Top forever!

@Aesthetic Voyager Hmm..... consistency for consistency's sake is dangerous argument..... You'd have also argue for Fee, Hee, Jee, Kee, Lee, Mee, etc. In the end it just comes down to what you grew up with. As an international phenomenon, the internet just brings these little differences to the surface, and occasionally, the US is in the minority despite its large population.

French say ZED, Spaniards say ZED, Dutch say ZED, Germans say ZED, The english world outside of the US says ZED. And personnaly, I don't care if Americans call it ZED or ZEE, but guys, please, accept that the rest of the world can do things different.

@ onemoreguy
True, but then that’s also because they are constantly being told they are the greatest country in the world.

But my post was intended as light-hearted and not so serious anyway.

Most Americans don’t think there is anything outside the US.

@Ken Aisin
Based on your comments, I can tell that you have never shot any of the Z lenses.
This is not a knock against you or your comment...the point I am trying to make is that the new Z lenses far outperform any and all of the F mount lenses.
The added advantage to the Z lenses is that you can shoot them wide open without any image quality loss, which really was not an option on the F mount lenses.
The Z lineup currently has 16 lenses and 2 teleconverters, and will have 24 by 2021, and you can utilize pretty much all of the current lenses with like native performance.
You are really doing yourself a disservice by not at least renting one prior to making your final decision.

I don't expect Nikon to replace every F-mount lens with Z-mount equivalent overnight. But I don't want to wait for 5+ years either. Maybe it's a good idea to open up the mount for third party makers to fill the gaps, and let the customers have more choices. Sigma makes some great primes for Sony, and it would be nice to see them in Z-mount.

Having owned all lenses you mentioned , none of them is good enough to be used on a z body. Apart from having 1.4 they are optically inferior to the s1.8.
But who cares, I guess you just want to have 1.4 thinking 1.4 = better or pro lens.

You have to really be in need of this f/1.4 aperture for ignoring the excellent Z f/1.8 primes. I was shooting AF-S 50/1.4 in the past and there is no way I will come back to it after shooting with Z 50/1.8. Especially for people shots, where eye detect on mirrorless makes the job so much easier.

@ fpessolano To be fair though, you probably wouldn’t use f/1.4 or f/1.8 if you want sharp corners. The DOF is going to be too thin for that generally. And the F-mount f/1.4s at wide apertures are sharper in the center, right?

Besides, he’s talking about a Z6 II, which for all intents and purposes is a 24MP camera with an AA filter.

@starbase
No, the 1.4 lenses are not as sharp.
This is another misconception that folks that haven’t shot the Z lenses or cameras make.
Take a look at the night scene comparison between Z 50mm vs. the Sigma 50 1.4 Art you hat DPREVIEW did.
Even stopping down the Sigma to 2.8, it doesn’t hold a candle to the Z even in the center.
BTW, move the focus to different parts of the scene to be blown away!
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?widget=653&state=4360

@20thCentury, I have tried the Z6ii and the Sony a7iii side by side extensively, both with their respective native 24-70/2.8. Z6ii has much much better ergonomics and menu system. It just feels right at home. Yes, the Nikon 24-70/2.8 S is an amazing lens. I absolutely agree that it can be used wide-open from my own tests. Can't really say the same about the Sony 24-70/2.8 GM. I don't doubt other S lenses can also be used wide open. My final decision likely wouldn't be a Sony because of the ergonomics and menu system. There are rumors about Sigma making lenses for the Z-mount in 2021. Will wait and see how that goes.

@Ken Aisin
Ahh, cool... yes competition is always a good thing.
Please take a moment to look at the comparison I posted above.
I don’t think Nikon will be making any 1.4 lenses and suspect that they will be doing 1.2s as they just released a 50MM 1.2 this week and they now have an 85mm on the roadmap that many expect will be 1.2.

@20thCentury, thanks for the link. Yes, the S lens performed brilliantly!! I suspect the 85mm S should be a 1.2 too. But I'll be ecstatic to see a 35/1.2 S on the roadmap, this will be my go-to lens.

I’ve owned many of the F mount lenses you mention and the S primes absolutely crushes them in all ways possible. It’s a different generation of optics introduced with Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art. Building f1.4 lenses to the same standard means enourmous 1kg primes (example the Panasonic 50 f1.4 or Leica SL 50 f1.4).
Nikon struck the perfect balance with the S-line f1.8 primes. Unlike many other recent f1.8 lenses these Nikkors are fully pro grade lenses.

One important thing to consider is that the amount of light reaching the sensor with a f1.8 lens on the Z mount is similar to an f1.6 lens on a DSLR and T stop is closer to f stop also.

Besides the roll off of sharpness from plane of focus is nicer on the S glass.

So for all practical matters the Z f1.8 should considered very close to F mount f1.4 lenses from a DoF and shutter speed standpoint.

Not to mention the overall nicer bokeh, much much lower CA and better sharpness from corner to corner.

F-stop is a physical measurement. Simply the ratio of the max opening of the iris to the focal length. In reality, less light is transmitted. The amount of light actually transmitted is referred to as the T-stop. In still shooting, f stops are good enough, but for professional video, T-stops are required to match exposure. At any rate, Bernard was referring to the fact that the S 1.8 primes transmit more light than comparable F-mount 1.8 prime lenses, and would be more comparable to an F-mount f/1.6.

Exactly, and this would have been OK that time now it is just late...
And no Sigma, Tamron, Tokina lenses that is the biggest problem...

@Richmondthefish
Couldn’t this be said about every camera produced? Every product produced?
Certainly the R5/R6 should have been the camera introduced over the R or RP.
How about the Sony A7, A7II, A7III? Should Sony not have started with the A7III?

@20thCentury. No. The Nikon Z6 i should have had dual card slots without question for example. Dumb things like that which are deal breakers. The problem is they refined the camera pretty decently but we are less than a month from 2021 and the camera is a bit dated for what it is. Still not a bad camera at all but you have to call it what it is. Z6 II would have made a bigger splash in the market if this was the original camera.

No the R5/R6 should not have been the camera introduced over the R or RP back in 2018. Not sure why you think a $3800 8k hybrid shooter which got a 91% review in 2020 should have been realistically released in 2018.

Sony A7III is what A7II should have been and A7II is what A7 should have been. And Canon 5D IV is what 5D III should have been, and Panasonic GH5 is what GH4 should have been.

@Richmondthefish - No. The Sony A7II should have had dual card slots without question for example. Dumb things like that which are deal breakers.

@Fuhteng
You’re more than welcome to disagree.
I would say, and most would agree, that the R and RP were far worse 1st gen models vs. hi he Nikon Z’s, this is reflected in the reviews of these cameras on DPREVIEW.
So yes, the New Z cameras needed far less tweaking than the R’s did, so are less impressive at first glance.
The 8k on the R5/R6 have been shown to be more gimmick than actually a usable feature and not ready for prime time.
I’m fine either way, I purchased into the Z system not to necessarily have all of the cutting edge features that look great on a spec sheet.
I bought into the system for the Z lenses and the reliability and construction of the Nikon cameras.
Sometimes the sum of the parts outweighs the latest and flashiest feature set on paper, I think the Z cameras are exactly this.

I mean... every V2 camera is what the V1 should have been.

20th - good point that the Z6 and Z7 were far ahead of the original R pair. The RP was fine and cheap and whatever, but the original R? It's like Canon got drunk and forgot what got them to #1.

My question about the Z7 II is if I should get it or an original, lightly used, Z7, to replace my Z6!

“Should have been” this is such silly criticism. You could say that about anything ever released ever. The A7 and A7ii are were incredibly immature compared to the A7iii you could say, or you could say that the R6 is what the cropped 4K weird ergos EOS R should have been.. on and on. That’s not how it works, these cameras are the best they can be when they are released. Saying the D810 is what the D800 should have been and so on makes no sense. The Z6 is still one of the best, most well rounded cameras of its generation.

@Hubblefunk Where in my post did I say the A7II should not have had dual card slots? Here's the difference genius....one camera came out in 2015.

The Z6II and R6 are very close. One a bit better here, the other a bit better there.

The R6 feels like a revolution for Canon shooters because of how poor the R was and because of how far behind the Canon DSLRs had fallen in image quality and AF.

But for actual photographic applications I doubt anyone could tell apart significantly the Z6II vs R6.

Then it’s all about lenses and here the Nikon does IMHO fare much better both in attainable quality and price/quality ratio.

Not to mention the possibility to adapt Sony FE mount lenses which expands considerably the available options for the Nikon with Voigtlander and Zeiss for example.

Isn’t that the reason why models get replaced with newer models. The A7II was what the A7 should have been and so the A7III is what people had expected the A7II to be.

It is easy to say ‘this is what the product initially should have been’ once you look in the backmirror...