Which Z6 lens combo for travelling? How about the Z 14-30 with the AF-S 18-300 VRii?

Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
12,653
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
Considering the µ4/3 cameras from Olympus, the only one that approaches the dynamic range of the Z6 is the OM-D E-M1 Mark II, and it is the same size and about the same price as the Z6. And at base iso it still offers about one stop less DR.
After completing the trip when weight isn't nearly so much a concern, if the OP likes using a vertical grip, the Olympus camera offers that option whereas the Z6 doesn't.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,556
Location
Stafford, UK
Usually when people query lens/camera combination to take on the trip it is good to know what is to be photographed, simple travel journal with pictures of people, cityscapes and landscapes can be achieved with one normal or moderate wide prime, that is 50or 35mm.

You are going on a bicycle not pickup truck, not much weight budget to play with. Sensible recommendation is one camera and one native lens, ideally lighter camera than Z6/7 but if OP wants Z6 either kit zoom 24-70 or one of the two primes i mentioned in opening paragraph. Have you considered compact, maybe Nikon 1 Series.
 
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,556
Location
Stafford, UK
I am sure Nikon 1 can be found in S/h market.
For compact and high quality maybe Ricoh GR, it is APS-C sensor with fixed 28mm equivalent lens or Nikon equivalent, A1 I think it was called, discontinued, 28mm is good travelling lens, think Leica Q on the cheap.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
1,159
Location
St. Charles, IL
Real Name
Andy
I know this a Nikon forum (and I own and enjoy a lot of Nikon gear). But if I were trying to travel long distances on pedal power and save weight, I would at least consider carrying a micro 4/3 kit.

I spent a summer shooting primarily the Olympus 12-100mm f/4 on an E-M1. That's equivalent to a 24-70 and a 70-200 all in one lens. With a small tripod and a 72mm CPL, that combination excelled for most of my outdoor shooting. It is extremely weatherproof and handily fulfills the photojournalistic philosophy of "f/8 and be there."
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
16
I've done a weight comparison between the Z6 and the M1 Mark ii. Pls tell me if it's reasonable.

Z6 body, battery and card 675g
Z 24-70mm f/4 500
Ftz adapter 135
AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR 680
Total 1990

M1 body, battery and card 574
12-40 f/2.8 382
40-150 f/2.8 760
Total 1716

Or M1 with just the 12‑100 f/4 561
Total 1135
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,208
Location
SW Virginia
Your numbers look about right. The Olympus system is lighter, but remember with the Nikon you're getting a full-frame sensor vs. the small sensor on the Olympus.

How does the cost compare?
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
16
Your numbers look about right. The Olympus system is lighter, but remember with the Nikon you're getting a full-frame sensor vs. the small sensor on the Olympus.

How does the cost compare?
Hang the expense! We're talking about the camera of a lifetime!
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
22,706
Location
Moscow, Idaho
Hang the expense! We're talking about the camera of a lifetime!
That's more or less what I got from your initial post, reading between the lines. A smartphone couldn't cut the mustard and you wanted a system you could grow into and grow with, and develop a style and shift your focus (pun intended) as you interest and skill chnaged.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,208
Location
SW Virginia
I can see no justification for the M1 MK II since with equivalent lenses as the Z6 system it weighs about the same but has about 1/4 the sensor area. In other words, about 1/4 the light collecting capability.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
16
I think I'm trying to be objective but all the reviews of the Olympus I've read make me go 'meh'. The photos, even on my PC monitor, just don't seem to have the life of a Nikon's. Is it just me, or are Nikon's colours dramatically better?

ETA: and yes, it makes me scratch my head that the teeny Olympus sensor gets you such a minimal weight saving.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
18,329
Location
Idaho
I think I'm trying to be objective but all the reviews of the Olympus I've read make me go 'meh'. The photos, even on my PC monitor, just don't seem to have the life of a Nikon's. Is it just me, or are Nikon's colours dramatically better?

ETA: and yes, it makes me scratch my head that the teeny Olympus sensor gets you such a minimal weight saving.
I had m4/3 gear for several years along with my Nikon DSLRs. I sold all the m4/3 gear once I got the Z6. I haven’t looked back. I think looking past the bike trip the Nikon gear would serve you much better in the future.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
1,159
Location
St. Charles, IL
Real Name
Andy
Z6 body, battery and card 675g
Z 24-70mm f/4 500
Ftz adapter 135
AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR 680
Total 1990

M1 body, battery and card 574
12-40 f/2.8 382
40-150 f/2.8 760
Total 1716
For this portion of the comparison, the focal length range matches, but I think it would be a more relevant analysis to use the weights of the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z lenses to compare to the stated Olympus kit. The one-stop difference (or two, at the long end of the range) erroneously makes the weight appear to be similar when the light gathering capability is significantly different.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,208
Location
SW Virginia
For this portion of the comparison, the focal length range matches, but I think it would be a more relevant analysis to use the weights of the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z lenses to compare to the stated Olympus kit. The one-stop difference (or two, at the long end of the range) erroneously makes the weight appear to be similar when the light gathering capability is significantly different.
I clicked on "Agree" with this, but I'm now thinking that you have to compare the light-gathering capability of the lenses with the superior light-gathering capability of the full-frame sensor. It's not a simple comparison.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
1,159
Location
St. Charles, IL
Real Name
Andy
I clicked on "Agree" with this, but I'm now thinking that you have to compare the light-gathering capability of the lenses with the superior light-gathering capability of the full-frame sensor. It's not a simple comparison.
Yes, the larger sensor can certainly be pushed to a higher ISO. There is also the consideration of different subject isolation capabilities between the two formats. But from an optical standpoint, the maximum aperture of an optic speaks to the amount of light it can gather, and for a comparison of optical options to be fair, at least that criteria should be held constant. I believe the shooting conditions anticipated by the OP will not benefit as much from high ISO capability as it will from versatility and light weight.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
388
Location
MN, USA
I think I'm trying to be objective but all the reviews of the Olympus I've read make me go 'meh'. The photos, even on my PC monitor, just don't seem to have the life of a Nikon's. Is it just me, or are Nikon's colours dramatically better?

ETA: and yes, it makes me scratch my head that the teeny Olympus sensor gets you such a minimal weight saving.
I'm just guessing from your context, but are you just going to be shooting jpeg?
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
12,653
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
There is also the consideration of different subject isolation capabilities between the two formats.
That's one of the two reasons I would have to think very hard about switching to a micro four thirds system, though the OP might understandably have no concerns. I won't even bother mentioning the other reason because I'm confident it wouldn't be an issue for him.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom