While I am happy with my D800 cameras, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a mirrorless ILC camera. I have a few questions that I can't find answers to on camera sites. Not in the mood to do in person camera store shopping until I get vaccinated. The Z6 II and Z7 II are our and the Z6 and Z7 are dropping in the used camera market. The Z5 entry level full frame ILC is also driving down used prices. Definitely has my interest for a camera for when I don't want to hear the smack of the mirror flip.

1. Anyone using with an FTZ adapter for F mount lenses can work? How useable are they?

2. Does not having a vertical grip shutter button bother you? Sorry as I have only known SLR cameras with vertical grip attachments or unibody such as the D3.

3. How is the real world autofocus wit the lenses you use?

4. Will or has the Z series become your main platform over SLR cameras?

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2021 10:21AM by pRICE cUBE.

So once you are vaccinated, you will be giving MRF a cold shoulder?!

Quote
sekker
So once you are vaccinated, you will be giving MRF a cold shoulder?!

I like talking cameras with the people here. I believe a few people own Nikon Z series cameras here. I loathe camera specific forums. Too many fanboys and no sense of community. If there wasn't a pandemic going, I would go to the local camera shop and get a camera in my hands for a test drive.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]

I watch a few camera-centric YouTube channels sometimes. There seems to be a consensus that for Nikon, the series II are what the first versions should have been. This appears to unfortunately be the trend, and Canon has also released some duds recently that were either transformed after a firmware update, or a higher priced model "fixed" flaws in cheeper ones.

I'm not saying the first Z5/6 are bad cameras, it's just curious that merely one year has produced a real improvement. I generally detest such types of products, as I do not appreciate being a beta tester for a large company who rushed the latest-and-greatest feature to market half-baked. But with mirrorless still being fleshed out, the entire industry is still finding its sea-legs.

4. Will or has the Z series become your main platform over SLR cameras?

Eventually the matter will be settled for all, no matter if you might prefer SLR. The improvements in auto focus wrought by mirrorless cameras and the strange "need" to turn every picture-taker into a professional-grade video rig mean that the SLR is a goner.

Quote
deckeda
I watch a few camera-centric YouTube channels sometimes. There seems to be a consensus that for Nikon, the series II are what the first versions should have been. This appears to unfortunately be the trend, and Canon has also released some duds recently that were either transformed after a firmware update, or a higher priced model "fixed" flaws in cheeper ones.

The Z6, 7 and Canon R and RP were VERY underwhelming to me. This is part of the reason Sony M-ILC has gained so much steam. The Canon R5 and R6 have caught my eye since Canon has a better autofocus system on them than the Nikon Z5/7 II cameras. I am not quote ready to go to M-ILC as my main cameras yet.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]

Quote
pRICE cUBE

Quote
deckeda
I watch a few camera-centric YouTube channels sometimes. There seems to be a consensus that for Nikon, the series II are what the first versions should have been. This appears to unfortunately be the trend, and Canon has also released some duds recently that were either transformed after a firmware update, or a higher priced model "fixed" flaws in cheeper ones.

The Z6, 7 and Canon R and RP were VERY underwhelming to me. This is part of the reason Sony M-ILC has gained so much steam. The Canon R5 and R6 have caught my eye since Canon has a better autofocus system on them than the Nikon Z5/7 II cameras. I am not quote ready to go to M-ILC as my main cameras yet.

I think this is what a revolution looks like, and so buyers today have to take a certain amount of churn in stride for a while. There's no reason why the lower-cost full frame models "had" to be so compromised, because even lower cost models can be delightful if you accept the right design compromises.

But if Canon didn't put the R and RP out they would have had every pundit saying Canon-in-its-entirey would be dead. Sony got a head start and the rest had to catch up. What was strange to me was reading things about Nikon on the verge of collapse just a few months ago but now that the series II is here it's all roses and peaches. Enough.

None of it matters, because every professional shooter that's any sort of generalist is still playing in the kiddie pool of "full frame" resolution, just as they always have compared to the medium format makers, who interestingly choose not to get into the full frame bloodbath.

Quote
deckeda
But if Canon didn't put the R and RP out they would have had every pundit saying Canon-in-its-entirey would be dead. Sony got a head start and the rest had to catch up. What was strange to me was reading things about Nikon on the verge of collapse just a few months ago but now that the series II is here it's all roses and peaches. Enough.

Sony burst ahead because they had minuscule market share in the DSLR market. They were free to push the M-ILC market while Nikon and Canon tried to protect the DSLR lines with paltry m-ILC offering. Now Nikon and Canon are trying to play catch up. Canon's R5 and R6 take on Sony pretty well but they lost valuable time and sales.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]

Quote
pRICE cUBE

Quote
sekker
So once you are vaccinated, you will be giving MRF a cold shoulder?!

I like talking cameras with the people here. I believe a few people own Nikon Z series cameras here. I loathe camera specific forums. Too many fanboys and no sense of community. If there wasn't a pandemic going, I would go to the local camera shop and get a camera in my hands for a test drive.

And we would love to hear your thoughts, too!

Let me be clear - we greatly value having you - and your love of photography - here on MRF!

I've had my Z6 for 2 years now. I find it to be a gamechanger. There is definitely a difference between the mirrorless world vs the dslr one. I can basically see how a photo will look even before I snap the shot.

The best part about the Z is the image stabilization. You can handhold that puppy and get great shots with relatively low iso levels.

Handheld, sharp as hell (though you can see me leaning on the railing, but still) iso 2500 f/4. Right click if you want to see the whole thing.

If you get one, you MUST get the kit lens. A lot of people don't and regret it because it's f/4. When you get the kit, you get the lens so much cheaper. Adorama also threw in the F2Z adapter.

Until I read this thread, I was not even aware that there was such a thing as a full frame mirrorless camear.

Quote
freeradical
Until I read this thread, I was not even aware that there was such a thing as a full frame mirrorless camear.

That's hella funny.

Are most folks here nixing Sony mirrorless because of pre existing Canon or Nikon lens collections or a dislike for the Sony menus? I’m still shooting with a Sony a6000, which I like, but I think I’ve finally learned enough to justify the expense of going to a full frame at some point in the future since I like to shoot without flash indoors with my grand kids.

---

JoeM

Quote
JoeM
Are most folks here nixing Sony mirrorless because of pre existing Canon or Nikon lens collections or a dislike for the Sony menus? I’m still shooting with a Sony a6000, which I like, but I think I’ve finally learned enough to justify the expense of going to a full frame at some point in the future since I like to shoot without flash indoors with my grand kids.

The Sony A7 and A7III are superb cameras. Their lenses are astronomically priced though.

Quote
vision63

Quote
JoeM
Are most folks here nixing Sony mirrorless because of pre existing Canon or Nikon lens collections or a dislike for the Sony menus? I’m still shooting with a Sony a6000, which I like, but I think I’ve finally learned enough to justify the expense of going to a full frame at some point in the future since I like to shoot without flash indoors with my grand kids.

The Sony A7 and A7III are superb cameras. Their lenses are astronomically priced though.

I’ve had Nikon, Canon and now Sony, which I really like. I agree, the main downside is the price of Sony lenses although Tamron are good cheaper options. I was thinking of the A7C or the next version to keep using the a6000 lenses I have now.

---

JoeM

Quote
JoeM

Quote
vision63

Quote
JoeM
Are most folks here nixing Sony mirrorless because of pre existing Canon or Nikon lens collections or a dislike for the Sony menus? I’m still shooting with a Sony a6000, which I like, but I think I’ve finally learned enough to justify the expense of going to a full frame at some point in the future since I like to shoot without flash indoors with my grand kids.

The Sony A7 and A7III are superb cameras. Their lenses are astronomically priced though.

I’ve had Nikon, Canon and now Sony, which I really like. I agree, the main downside is the price of Sony lenses although Tamron are good cheaper options. I was thinking of the A7C or the next version to keep using the a6000 lenses I have now.

If you do make the leap to Sony full frame, people adapt Canon lenses to the platform fairly easily. To me, 1.8 lenses are just fine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2021 02:36PM by vision63.

Quote
JoeM
Are most folks here nixing Sony mirrorless because of pre existing Canon or Nikon lens collections or a dislike for the Sony menus? I’m still shooting with a Sony a6000, which I like, but I think I’ve finally learned enough to justify the expense of going to a full frame at some point in the future since I like to shoot without flash indoors with my grand kids.

Sony is the leader in m ILC cameras right now. IMHO, Sony is the most feature-rich in every M-ILC segment .

Where I hesitate to hop on board is two areas. The menu system with Sony is not terrible but not great. It's like me using Windows when I prefer Mac OS. Can I do it? Yeah, but there are some annoying things about it. Second, as mentioned before. Sony lenses are $$$ and the used market isn't as vast as Nikon and Canon. Those platforms have had their lenses out for over 30 years. These same brand lenses can be fully compatible via adapter without any compromises.

I am actually looking at some Sony M ILC right now but my entrenchment in Nikon makes it a tough switch. I own a Nikon 400mm 2.8 I bought Nikon refurb for $6000 years ago. Buying that same lens for Sony is $12,000. There are no used Sony 400mm 2.8 because the lens hasn't been on the market very long.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2021 02:05AM by pRICE cUBE.

Quote
pRICE cUBE

Quote
JoeM
Are most folks here nixing Sony mirrorless because of pre existing Canon or Nikon lens collections or a dislike for the Sony menus? I’m still shooting with a Sony a6000, which I like, but I think I’ve finally learned enough to justify the expense of going to a full frame at some point in the future since I like to shoot without flash indoors with my grand kids.

Sony is the leader in m ILC cameras right now. IMHO, Sony is the leader in every M-ILC segment right now.

Where I hesitate to hop on board is two areas. The menu system with Sony is not terrible but not great. It's like me using Windows when I prefer Mac OS. Can I do it? Yeah, but there are some annoying things about it. Second, as mentioned before. Sony lenses are $$$ and the used market isn't as vast as Nikon and Canon. Those platforms have had their lenses out for over 30 years. These same brand lenses can be fully compatible via adapter without any compromises.

I am actually looking at some Sony M ILC right now but my entrenchment in Nikon makes it a tough switch. I own a Nikon 400mm 2.8 I bought Nikon refurb for $6000 years ago. Buying that same lens for Sony is $12,000. There are no used Sony 400mm 2.8 ecrus the lens hasn't been on the market very long.

I figured that was why you were hesitant. Wasn't Sigma going to come out with a 400mm 2.8? I thought they patented a design.

---

JoeM

Eye AF tracking, when done well, is basically the holy grail promise of auto focus finally delivered after only what? 30-some years? And it's why many switched to Sony, although a year in software development can be a long time.

You no longer need to worry about picking a focus point, or whether 9 or 20 or 45 or 400 focus points is "enough." Hell, why even compose? Just ya know, point and shoot.

Quote
deckeda
Eye AF tracking, when done well, is basically the holy grail promise of auto focus finally delivered after only what? 30-some years? And it's why many switched to Sony, although a year in software development can be a long time.

You no longer need to worry about picking a focus point, or whether 9 or 20 or 45 or 400 focus points is "enough." Hell, why even compose? Just ya know, point and shoot.

What I like about the latest firmware update is you can confine the eye autofocus to a smaller rectangle within the viewfinder to limit the eye targets. It's only useful for portraits of course.

Edited: removed duplicate post.

Quote
pRICE cUBE

1. Anyone using with an FTZ adapter for F mount lenses can work? How useable are they?
........

4. Will or has the Z series become your main platform over SLR cameras?

I have a few thoughts. I have the Z5. I sold my D750. The two are similar in features.

The image stabilization works with all lenses, even my Canon FD 20mm f/2.8 with a good adapter. The autofocus is different but I adapted quickly. I do miss the built in flash and top screen. I had a grip with my D750 but rarely used it. The Zii series cameras reintroduce the grip with shutter button.

This is a great thread — much better than something we’d see in a camera forum. Everybody is an expert there.

The FTZ adapter has been flawless for all of my newer Nikon lenses. I use a variety of primes. My two DX zooms automatically crop, which is different than how the D series bodies handle DX lenses.

The Z5 complements my D7200 with a 16-80 lens. I plan to continue using both cameras.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2021 09:58AM by zachdog.

Quote
zachdog
...Everybody is an expert there...

No, "they" are not. I am far removed from that qualification, just being yet another Internet dweeb who reads a lot.

I regularly forget half of what I know whenever I step out; As a sometimes-hobbyist I just don't shoot often enough and own too many (defined as: more than one) camera across both film and digital to make the best use of any of them, which is one of several reasons I don't chase current models. It becomes an empty pursuit, like lusting over any other sort of gear in any other endeavor you're really never gonna own.

What I look for is places to pause, and even in digital photography it can be done by appreciating and adjusting expectations. Last year around this time I picked up a mint 50D with kit lens and Canon's old but nice 28-135 IS USM, for about what the zoom alone is worth. I don't mind saying it's the best digital camera I've owned. I've never pursued better because I've not been able to acquire a range of glass for any of them. And yeah it takes great pictures without looking like they were taken in "2008" (when the 50D was new.)

I'm eyeballing the 6D at around $500 as another sane place to pause. Older cameras have the great advantage of being a "known quantity;" they've already fought their marketing and fan boy battles. They just are what they are and no one needs to "defend them" any more.

The 6D has reputedly a very good sensor that doesn't produce enormous files. Obviously I don't care about video features nor multi-frame sports photography very much, nor do I need to track a model's pupil in real time. But if I cared about any of that I'd either pay a heck of a lot more or give up some aspects of what the 6D offers.

Disclaimer: I really like my Elan II and Elan 7, and of course a multi-use lens like the EF line makes both film and digital "cheaper" so we'll see what 2021 brings for that.

The Nikon Z6 and Z7 were immediately off my list for serious use due to lack of vertical grip shutter button and controls. I am tempted to tinker with a Z6 a quiet alternative to my SLR now that I see it sub $1k on the used market.

I was not interested in the Canon RP for the same reason.

I originally posted this thread to comtemplate adding a M ILC camera, Now it is opening up a bigger can of worms for my next step in upgrades, possibly what system to use.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]

I think it's related to what I was saying, about 1st gen models within a genre. With what the dual processors bring, available vertical grip and FFS improvements, the Z6 Series II is really more like a different model from the Z6. The fact that it's so much more costly is just par for the course.

These things are either a practical consideration at this time or they are not. It's exciting that the upper-end latest Nikons/Canons have now entered the space occupied by Sony; it was only a matter of time. But it takes a while for certain features and capabilities to filter down into certain price points: the places to pause.

Quote
deckeda

Quote
zachdog
...Everybody is an expert there...

No, "they" are not. I am far removed from that qualification, just being yet another Internet dweeb who reads a lot.

I mean no disrespect. The quibbles from forum posters at photo websites sometimes gets comical. One wonders if some of them actually take great photos or just argue about equipment.

For me, my only concern with the Z6 is the the occasional spotty AF in video mode.

In the Z6Ii, I think the AF is measurably better in stills mode.

I am still looking for confirmation if that AF bump is also in video mode.

I do need both stills and video in my work.

Having one camera perform both tasks would be wonderful.

But that has been the Holy Grail for more than a decade!

(on the Sony side, I’m looking at the A7C. The Fuji XS-10 looks interesting but loses probably about a stop of light/ISO due to the difference between full frame (Nikon & Sony) versus the cropped sensor APS-C sensor in the Fuji)

Stay well.

Rob

Quote
robfilms
For me, my only concern with the Z6 is the the occasional spotty AF in video mode.

In the Z6Ii, I think the AF is measurably better in stills mode.

I am still looking for confirmation if that AF bump is also in video mode.

I do need both stills and video in my work.

Having one camera perform both tasks would be wonderful.

But that has been the Holy Grail for more than a decade!

(on the Sony side, I’m looking at the A7C. The Fuji XS-10 looks interesting but loses probably about a stop of light/ISO due to the difference between full frame (Nikon & Sony) versus the cropped sensor APS-C sensor in the Fuji)

Stay well.

Rob

Been shooting and filming with mine and I've not had those problems. But then I don't depend on the camera doing the heavy lifting.

I can tell that for Nikon, the Z series top priority was it's size. They wanted it shrunk way down overall. It's why I bought it. The kit lens is small and the first wave of S lenses were small too. Lots of people chose to forgo the kit lens and that was a huge mistake. Only native Z lenses focus quietly and the 24-70 f4 lens was perfect. Of course they're building out their lens offerings as per their roadmap.

They could have easily launched it with a functional grip. They didn't because they didn't want their customers to spoil the form factor. The kinda grip they made was just to give complainers something to hush 'em up. Now they have a real grip. I could care less and I take hundreds of portraits.

They've updated the firmware a bunch of times and everything aspect has been improved. DSLR's are gonna die.

If Nikon makes a giant mirrorless camera, that'll be a shame.

Quote
pRICE cUBE

Quote
deckeda
But if Canon didn't put the R and RP out they would have had every pundit saying Canon-in-its-entirey would be dead. Sony got a head start and the rest had to catch up. What was strange to me was reading things about Nikon on the verge of collapse just a few months ago but now that the series II is here it's all roses and peaches. Enough.

Sony burst ahead because they had minuscule market share in the DSLR market. They were free to push the M-ILC market while Nikon and Canon tried to protect the DSLR lines with paltry m-ILC offering. Now Nikon and Canon are trying to play catch up. Canon's R5 and R6 take on Sony pretty well but they lost valuable time and sales.

They did indeed. AP switched all their photographers to Sony.

If Canon had come out with the R5 and R6 a little earlier they might have stayed with Canon.

Rumors also have an R1--or whatever they will call their 1-series R camera--on the way. I'm sure the price will be ridiculous though. I'm not going to spend $6500 for a 1D X Mark III, nor $7000 or whatever they will ask for the R1.

On the other hand, EF to R-adapted Canon lenses work well with the mirrorless cameras, which means you can buy used EF lenses and not be stuck paying $12K for a 400/2.8.

Adapted glass usually works well in nearly all mirrorless systems.

Some even support AF.

In stills mode.

Adapted glass, aside from manual focus, works less well with video since the older lenses have noisy AF which can be heard on nearby mics.

Stay well.

Rob

Quote
AllGold

Quote
pRICE cUBE

Quote
deckeda
But if Canon didn't put the R and RP out they would have had every pundit saying Canon-in-its-entirey would be dead. Sony got a head start and the rest had to catch up. What was strange to me was reading things about Nikon on the verge of collapse just a few months ago but now that the series II is here it's all roses and peaches. Enough.

Sony burst ahead because they had minuscule market share in the DSLR market. They were free to push the M-ILC market while Nikon and Canon tried to protect the DSLR lines with paltry m-ILC offering. Now Nikon and Canon are trying to play catch up. Canon's R5 and R6 take on Sony pretty well but they lost valuable time and sales.

They did indeed. AP switched all their photographers to Sony.

If Canon had come out with the R5 and R6 a little earlier they might have stayed with Canon.

Rumors also have an R1--or whatever they will call their 1-series R camera--on the way. I'm sure the price will be ridiculous though. I'm not going to spend $6500 for a 1D X Mark III, nor $7000 or whatever they will ask for the R1.

On the other hand, EF to R-adapted Canon lenses work well with the mirrorless cameras, which means you can buy used EF lenses and not be stuck paying $12K for a 400/2.8.

Yeah, Canon really dropped the ball. The R5 R6 feature sets were completely doable 2 years ago.

Thus rumored R1 is on hold because Canon didn't want to hurt 1DX III sales. Nikon is rumored to have a M ILC F6 equivalent as well. Nikon doesn't want ti hurt D6 sales. Sony is on version 2 of the A9. Now that they have a 400mm 2.8 ad 600 F/4, they are much more serious contenders.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2021 11:22AM by pRICE cUBE.