I got the Z6 with 24-70 and FTZ. Today I took 24-70 and 2 primes (28/105) with me.
24-70 is really solid and I'm pleasantly surprised with the IQ. No issues focusing in the dimly lit forest. Same with the primes - focus fast and accurate (no hunting) on both 28 and 105. I used mostly AF-S, back button focusing.
IBIS is really great.
NEFs converted with DNG converter and very slight modifications in LR. Full size exports are on my flickr.
All photos handheld, not much cropping or adjustments.
Great shots! Agree the 24-70 f4 S is a great lens - no brainer to include it discounted with the kit for the optical performance. You guys are almost making me think I should have gotten the Z6 instead of the Z7 Almost..
sungphoto wrote:
Great shots! Agree the 24-70 f4 S is a great lens - no brainer to include it discounted with the kit for the optical performance. You guys are almost making me think I should have gotten the Z6 instead of the Z7 Almost..
If I was a pro - I'd definitely get the Z7. Hard to justify the difference in price (especially with crappy Canadian $$$).
For a 1st gen - Nikon got a LOT right. D850 is not going anywhere though. Not yet.
im a pro, and i went z6 over z7, for these reasons:
1. Better 4k video
2. better 1080 120p video (no crop)
3. Faster fps
4. Arguably better autofocus
5. Better low light performance
6. Already have a d850, and prefer optical viewfinders for studio work.
turbodude wrote:
im a pro, and i went z6 over z7, for these reasons:
1. Better 4k video
2. better 1080 120p video (no crop)
3. Faster fps
4. Arguably better autofocus
5. Better low light performance
6. Already have a d850, and prefer optical viewfinders for studio work.
Yeah I think especially for hybrid shooters, the Z6 seems like the better bet for those that do video, and the 12 fps is pretty nice as well.
I wonder how the much higher number of phase detect points in the Z7 affects AF performance though (493 vs 273)?
But then the Z6 has an optical low pass filter whereas the Z7 does not - which in theory should yield sharper stills at base iso, in addition to of course the sharpness that the extra pixels yield. But then again I think over 20-24 mp is overkill unless one prints larger than 24x36" regularly or if one crops heavily. Also, apparent sharpness is relative based on print/viewing size - considering most things are being displayed on a smartphone screen nowadays, the utility of over 24mp sensors is questionable.
All that said, I think the best value is the Z6 plus 24-70 f4 S and FTZ for $2750. That's a freaking steal for the feature set and performance. I'm keeping the Z7 because I do crop heavily at times for my commercial jobs, but damn the Z6 is impressive too
Great photos! Agree the 24-70/4S is a gem and only a "kit" lens by moniker and not performance (the beauty of that Z mount). As an aside, your photos really make me miss the Pacific Northwest
Thank you for sharing your first experience. Also good to know the 24-70 is performing well and sharp to boot. How does it compare to your 28 prime at f/4?
wjmeyer wrote:
Thank you for sharing your first experience. Also good to know the 24-70 is performing well and sharp to boot. How does it compare to your 28 prime at f/4?
The 28 f1.4E is marginally sharper at f4 than the 24-70 f4 S on my Z7 at 100% magnification. That's no ding on the 24-70 though, as the 28 f1.4E is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned (up there with the Sony Zeiss Planar 50 f1.4, Canon 35 f1.4 L II, Nikon 105 f1.4E). The 28 f1.4E is up there with macro lenses in terms of sharpness when stopped down to f4 - it's kind of insane.
sungphoto wrote:
The 28 f1.4E is marginally sharper at f4 than the 24-70 f4 S on my Z7 at 100% magnification. That's no ding on the 24-70 though, as the 28 f1.4E is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned (up there with the Sony Zeiss Planar 50 f1.4, Canon 35 f1.4 L II, Nikon 105 f1.4E). The 28 f1.4E is up there with macro lenses in terms of sharpness when stopped down to f4 - it's kind of insane.
Exactly, so if the 24-70 S can even get close to the 28 consider me impressed!
I may be something of the devil's advocate here but I find the colors a bit aggressive. I like the calmer feel of the portraits of your wife (I am guessing) and dog. The tree reflection image strikes me as overexposed with fringing around the top branches. I like the last nature detail shot. The color of the background is strong but has pleasant, rich quality to it. The brightness of the leaves is complemented nicely by the dark bg.
Brev00 wrote:
I may be something of the devil's advocate here but I find the colors a bit aggressive. I like the calmer feel of the portraits of your wife (I am guessing) and dog. The tree reflection image strikes me as overexposed with fringing around the top branches. I like the last nature detail shot. The color of the background is strong but has pleasant, rich quality to it. The brightness of the leaves is complemented nicely by the dark bg.
The light in the forest was a bit of a mixed bag yesterday - sunny day without any cloud cover. Which is not very common for Vancouver in mid-November.
I continued to put the camera through the paces yesterday - shot one of local Burning Man events in the evening.
Z6 paired with Godox trigger and off camera flash + small softbox. No problem with triggering, no problem with focusing on face / eyes (face detect on) in the dark venue.
Today I was trying to figure out focusing modes and if Z6 is capable of focusing on moving targets in the dimly lit forest.
Paired with 70-200, 1/500s, f2.8, AF-C, D9. Personal opinion - not as reliable as D850 but no slouch either.
I'll wait with posting more photos till when we have an 'official' thread but hope you find the examples posted so far informative. Once again - I'm not a pro, I'm not a 'youtube' reviewer. I'm just showing my personal experiences with the Z.
Almost..
Hard to justify the difference in price (especially with crappy Canadian $$$). 
