Z 6 II and Z 7 II

[FredAzinger]

Nikon got such a late start in the mirrorless segment compared to its competitors

Nikon's been making mirrorless for a long time - they were first, not last.
Don't forget the J and V series....they count.....

For me - if it can't focus well on BIF's, it won't have a place in my bag.....sure hope the twin Expeed is there for focus control.

 

[Mike Buckley]

The problem as I see it is that Nikon got such a late start in the mirrorless segment compared to its competitors, especially Sony, that they need much more than incremental improvements to catch up.

Nikon's been making mirrorless for a long time - they were first, not last.

I should have been more careful to mention their late start in the full frame mirrorless segment, which was a full five years behind Sony.

However, Nikon was not the first to make a mirrorless camera. That award goes to a joint venture between Epson and Cosina for their mirrorless camera developed in 2004. Then came Leica in 2006, Panasonic in 2008, and Olympus in 2009. Nikon's first mirrorless camera was released in 2011. All that according to https://expertphotography.com/mirrorless-camera-history/

 

[ijm5012]

The Z62 has three times the buffer capacity of the Z6 and 14fps compared to the Z6 and it's 12fps, this is due to the Z62 using dual expeed 6 processors. And let's not forget a functional vertical grip.

Has anyone ever run out of buffer capacity on the Z6 though? I'm only using XQD cards and I never have. If you're shooting CFexpress cards, the odds are even lower because of the increase write speed.

Also, with regards to Continuous H+ shooting, you don't actually get to see a live view once you start shooting. All you see is the preview of the previous image in the EVF. This makes it practically impossible to follow a subject while you're shooting (which I would assume is the predominant scenario where someone would want to be shooting multiple frames per second). So while 12fps or 14fps is nice, in actual use, it's not very functional.

And the vertical grip, sure, if you NEED a vertical grip, then you can sell your Z6 (what do they go for now-a-days on the used market, $1,000?), spend $2,000 for a new Z6 II and $400 for a battery grip. After you factor in shipping fees from the sale of your Z6, and sales tax on the new items, you're looking at $1,500+ just to upgrade to the Z6 II and battery grip. Is it worth the extra expense? Not in my opinion it isn't.

 

[cybertec69]

Has anyone ever run out of buffer capacity on the Z6 though? I'm only using XQD cards and I never have. If you're shooting CFexpress cards, the odds are even lower because of the increase write speed.

Also, with regards to Continuous H+ shooting, you don't actually get to see a live view once you start shooting. All you see is the preview of the previous image in the EVF. This makes it practically impossible to follow a subject while you're shooting (which I would assume is the predominant scenario where someone would want to be shooting multiple frames per second). So while 12fps or 14fps is nice, in actual use, it's not very functional.

And the vertical grip, sure, if you NEED a vertical grip, then you can sell your Z6 (what do they go for now-a-days on the used market, $1,000?), spend $2,000 for a new Z6 II and $400 for a battery grip. After you factor in shipping fees from the sale of your Z6, and sales tax on the new items, you're looking at $1,500+ just to upgrade to the Z6 II and battery grip. Is it worth the extra expense? Not in my opinion it isn't.

I don't own a Z camera, still shoot with my trusty D500 and D850.
I will wait after they are released, and in the hands of people who shoot wildlife/birds, and what they have to say about the Z2's. Not any of those youtube "looking for clicks $$$$ armchair reviewers", but people who actually use the tool on a daily basis in the field.

 

[peabrain]

I am in the same boat as that will be my main factor to see if the higher $$ from the old ones is worth it.

 

[acnomad]

I'm going to guess that the dual image processors will both improve the AF capability and reduce the blackout during bursts. Hopefully that sets the stage for a flagship body that is a path for D5 and D6 users to go mirrorless. For all the faults of the first generation Z 6 and Z 7, they are very capable cameras that I have enjoyed so far.

 

[makoto honda]

One amazing thing about the mirrorless paradigm is that the camera size does not have to change (increase) as the performance increases, be that the shooting speed or AF speed. Since the Z6/Z7 body was so carefully designed, that forms the basis for all subsequent models: the Z5, Z6II, Z7II. I would not be surprised if the Z8 uses the same body. This is the advantage of the mirrorless. In the DSLR paradigm, the D3400/D5600 is a nice, small camera. But its big brother D500 is a huge camera. Nikon could not make a D500 in the D3400 body. Why? It is because of the mirror. The D500 shoots 10 fps. To achieve the speed you have to use a stronger mirror spring--and thicker metal (from 1mm to 1.5 mm) to support the impact of the mirror flip. So the camera becomes larger and heavier. The mirrorless D500 could have been the same size as the mirrorless D3400! That is, the Z500 would be the same size (give or take) as the Z50!

 

[kilofoxtrott]

One amazing thing about the mirrorless paradigm is that the camera size does not have to change (increase) as the performance increases, be that the shooting speed or AF speed. Since the Z6/Z7 body was so carefully designed, that forms the basis for all subsequent models: the Z5, Z6II, Z7II. I would not be surprised if the Z8 uses the same body. This is the advantage of the mirrorless. In the DSLR paradigm, the D3400/D5600 is a nice, small camera. But its big brother D500 is a huge camera. Nikon could not make a D500 in the D3400 body. Why? It is because of the mirror. The D500 shoots 10 fps. To achieve the speed you have to use a stronger mirror spring--and thicker metal (from 1mm to 1.5 mm) to support the impact of the mirror flip. So the camera becomes larger and heavier. The mirrorless D500 could have been the same size as the mirrorless D3400! That is, the Z500 would be the same size (give or take) as the Z50!

The problem is: People have different sizes of hands...
The Z series is definately to small for me.

Kind regards
Klaus

 

[acnomad]

Another thought:

The Mark II versions represent relatively modest improvements over the initial versions - not providing a strong draw for current Z 6 and Z 7 owners to upgrade. But perhaps they reach the tipping point for those still using a DSLR or a non-Nikon mirrorless body.

Also, with Nikon’s M.O. of aggressive price reductions soon after past new product releases, I think it would be wise to wait a few months to purchase a Z 6 II or Z 7 II.

Now it’s time for me to stop daydreaming about new gear and think about how to create my 21st Octoberfest image.

 

[Pa]

One amazing thing about the mirrorless paradigm is that the camera size does not have to change (increase) as the performance increases, be that the shooting speed or AF speed. Since the Z6/Z7 body was so carefully designed, that forms the basis for all subsequent models: the Z5, Z6II, Z7II. I would not be surprised if the Z8 uses the same body. This is the advantage of the mirrorless. In the DSLR paradigm, the D3400/D5600 is a nice, small camera. But its big brother D500 is a huge camera. Nikon could not make a D500 in the D3400 body. Why? It is because of the mirror. The D500 shoots 10 fps. To achieve the speed you have to use a stronger mirror spring--and thicker metal (from 1mm to 1.5 mm) to support the impact of the mirror flip. So the camera becomes larger and heavier. The mirrorless D500 could have been the same size as the mirrorless D3400! That is, the Z500 would be the same size (give or take) as the Z50!

Several months ago I suggested (somewhere in these pages) that Nikon should make a D7200 (D7500)-equivalent DX Z camera, which I suggested calling a Z70. Now Thom Hogan has made the same suggestion, but saying it should be a D500 equivalent. Could it be as small as the Z50? Even if it splits the difference between the Z50 and Z6/7 in size and weight I would likely be very interested.

Also, with Nikon’s M.O. of aggressive price reductions soon after past new product releases,

There is already a $100 reduction on the Z5.

 

[Palouse]

[QUOTE="acnomad, post: 4120998, member: 13692"
Also, with Nikon’s M.O. of aggressive price reductions soon after past new product releases, I think it would be wise to wait a few months to purchase a Z 6 II or Z 7 II.
[/QUOTE]
No need to wait, prices have dropped — a wee bit, and the camera has yet to ship: https://nikonrumors.com/2020/10/19/...offers-200-off-100-price-drop-on-the-z5.aspx/

 

[Leif]

If the Z6 or Z7 doesn't meet your needs with regard to a particular genre of photography, it doesn't seem realistic to me to expect that the Z6 II or Z7 II would. If and when Nikon comes up with mirrorless cameras that have such a dramatic change in capabilities, they won't be called a Z6 or Z7 unless the company also has a dramatic change in the meaning of their naming nomenclature; the names would be Z8 or Z9 or something similarly completely different.

Quite how you know exactly how the Z6/7 II will perform in the field is beyond me. Let’s see what respected reviewers say, and ignore YouTube click bait merchants pushing their own agendas.

 

[Mike Buckley]

Quite how you know exactly how the Z6/7 II will perform in the field is beyond me.

Perhaps you misunderstood my post, Leif. I didn't even hint at how the Z6 II or Z7 II would perform in the field. Instead, I referred to expectations about the Z6 II and Z7 II relative to the Z6 and Z7 based entirely on Nikon's history of naming their cameras. If you review my post, you'll surely notice that I even allowed for the possibility, though unlikely, that Nikon has changed the meaning of their naming system, in which case all bets would be off.

 

[Leif]

Perhaps you misunderstood my post, Leif. I didn't even hint at how the Z6 II or Z7 II would perform in the field. Instead, I referred to expectations about the Z6 II and Z7 II relative to the Z6 and Z7 based entirely on Nikon's history of naming their cameras. If you review my post, you'll surely notice that I even allowed for the possibility, though unlikely, that Nikon has changed the meaning of their naming system, in which case all bets would be off.

You’re making assumptions that because the name is similar, the performance will be similar. In fact they have changed the naming system. The Z7 should really be Z850, and the Z6 should be Z750, as they are prosumer bodies. In DSLR terminology single digits were reserved for pro grade bodies ie D3, D4, D5 etc. So they’ve changed the system, and gone all Canon, where upgrades are now denoted as Mark 2, or Mark 3 etc, except Nikon use II then III, then IV etc to differentiate themselves from Canon. In other words, Z7 denotes a high pixel count prosumer body, and future models will be Z7 III, Z7 IV etc and Z6 denotes a low pixel count prosumer body.

God this post is tedious! ? In short, let’s wait for the reviews and see if the AF is noticeably improved, or not. ?

 

[Leif]

Several months ago I suggested (somewhere in these pages) that Nikon should make a D7200 (D7500)-equivalent DX Z camera, which I suggested calling a Z70. Now Thom Hogan has made the same suggestion, but saying it should be a D500 equivalent. Could it be as small as the Z50? Even if it splits the difference between the Z50 and Z6/7 in size and weight I would likely be very interested.


There is already a $100 reduction on the Z5.

I agree. I use a D500. For my use cases, which are close ups of fungi and photomicrography (taking photos through a microscope), FX offers no advantages, in fact it isn’t as good, and it costs twice as much. So I have no incentive to downgrade to a Z6 and the Z7 is far too expensive. The Z50 is too consumer oriented and the absence of sensor cleaning is bizarre. A D7200 or D500 offering with a Z mount, and a fully articulated rear screen would be nirvana for me. The fully articulated rear screen really would make a huge difference for me. I don’t need D500 quality so a D7200 equivalent would be nice, but I think if they did make a D500 equivalent it would sell well to birders and other nature photographers. A D7200 equivalent would sell well if the AF was top notch,

 

[Mike Buckley]

You’re making assumptions that because the name is similar, the performance will be similar.

Yes, you are correct about that.

God this post is tedious! ?

As is my post. I've got too much time on my hands. Apologies if you don't.

 

[dgwhitham]

I called B&H Sunday, to ask them to add an FTZ converter to my Z7II preorder, and they were able to add it for the discounted price. According to the rep I spoke to, 12/1 is the release date.

 

[peabrain]

Gonna sit back and rummage trough the upcoming reviews.
also hope that some one eventualy chims in if the Sigma 60-600 will be a good match for the Z7II.

 

[acnomad]

a fully articulated rear screen would be nirvana for me.

I suppose it will be at least one more generation before Nikon produces this. For the work you describe, I assume you're shooting predominantly in a controlled and stationary environment. Have you considered tethered captures with a laptop or tablet? There are several viable solutions.

 

[gryphon1911]

Just got an email from Nikon stating that the Z6 II pre-orders should be shipping tomorrow.