bcaslis wrote:
I'm not sure you know what you want. For travel or landscape get the Z7 II and be happy. It will be fine for group shots but honestly you can get those group shots without Eye AF. It seems you are really over thinking this.
It's not bleeding edge AF but unless you are a sport or wildlife photographer, it will be fine for 95% of any photos.
Doesn't hurt to ask, right? At least I'll know what I'm getting into before I pay. I never said I need bleeding edge AF. Just wanted to know if it's accurate for my use case. I rather overthink and get it right than have regrets.
Jman13 wrote:
With the Z7 II, you don't need to worry about the shutter type with regards to dynamic range. That's what I'm saying...there is literally zero image quality penalty for using it on the Z7 II (or any Z camera to my knowledge). This can be an issue with Canon bodies and some Sony bodies too, but it isn't an issue with Nikon. Use full mechanical, use EFCS, use electronic...DR will be identical no matter what you choose. If you're worried about shutter shock, use silent mode. It will use the electronic shutter and you lose nothing and have no vibration issues.
Also, if using the mechanical shutter, just leave it set to Auto, which will use EFCS automatically when shooting at slower shutter speeds, and will switch to full mechanical when using fast shutter speeds, so you don't have funky cut-off bokeh with fast lenses.
The only reason to worry about using the mechanical shutter on the Z7 II is when shooting action, since the readout on the sensor is quite slow, so electronic shutter is not appropriate for shooting quickly moving subjects (high rolling shutter). ...Show more →
Oh, I see! I had no idea Nikon does things differently. With all that I have been reading, I thought Nikon does the same thing as Canon and Sony and drops the bit rate to 12-bit depending on your shooting mode. I'm assuming this has been tested and verified that DR and bit-rate are the same regardless of using EFCS or e-shutter? It seems that only recent cameras can reliably use the e-shutter since read speeds are faster now than with earlier generations of cameras.
Has there ever been any reports of shutter shock on the Z7 II?
The Z7ii is a great camera for travel and landscape. That's mainly why I bought it, though I also use it for the occasional sports and wildlife. For sports, the AF just doesn't cut it for super fast action, but for slower moving sports you can make it worth. Same goes for wildlife. You won't be able to track cheetahs but for slow moving mammals or stationary birds it's fine.
I'll admit there are days I wish I had the Z8 but I wouldn't appreciate the weight. Patiently waiting for a Z7iii that has better AF tracking and subject detection. Don't need crazy fast frame rates, just to be able to hold onto a subject that's moving. But for now, the Z7ii suits me well and I suspect it would do the same for you.
lsquare wrote:
I would like to move forward too, but the Z8 isn't quite perfect. If it was lighter and smaller, the decision would be easier. I also don't get why Nikon is still using the 10-pin connector and the ML-L7 isn't compatible with the Z8. Horrible decisions on Nikon's part.
For this setup's intended use, I don't necessarily need the Z8's AF. For portrait, casual group photos, and travel photos, the Z7 II's slower AF isn't an issue as long as it's accurate.
Given what you're saying, I guess I can be confident that for landscapes and cityscapes, AF won't be an issue, and I'll mostly be using a tripod in those situations.
For group photos, where I want as much to be in focus as possible, you're telling me eye/face AF isn't an issue for f/8 and f/11? Everything will be focused and sharp?...Show more →
The Z8 has more than proven itself in multiple situations. Stop the 2nd guessing and go to Z8 image threads or Flickr Z8 image groups, etc. and look at the photos. Look at portraiture and landscape. Remember, there is no perfect camera, but the Z8 gets the job done very well!
glassartist wrote:
I''m sure others will chime in . . . but.
While the 14-30 (which I have) and 28-400 (which I don't) are both well-regarded lenses for what they are (a relatively compact f4 wide angle zoom, and a relatively slow f4-f8 super, super zoom), neither are top tier glass.
I find the 14-30 to be one of the best lenses in any format I have used across my 36+ year career. Maybe the much larger 14-24 2.8S is better but the weight and size penalty make it a near no go for high elevation mountain pros.
Ai_Print wrote:
I find the 14-30 to be one of the best lenses in any format I have used across my 36+ year career. Maybe the much larger 14-24 2.8S is better but the weight and size penalty make it a near no go for high elevation mountain pros.
The 14 24 2.8 is only 165g heavier than the 14 30 or just 20g heavier than the 24 120. Sure it doesn’t pack smallish like the 14 30 but when the 14 30 is extended it’s not so small either. Filter size issues would be more of a problem with the 14 24. Astro though if up a mountain at night would be “stellar” with the 2.8.
novalaker wrote:
The Z7ii is a great camera for travel and landscape. That's mainly why I bought it, though I also use it for the occasional sports and wildlife. For sports, the AF just doesn't cut it for super fast action, but for slower moving sports you can make it worth. Same goes for wildlife. You won't be able to track cheetahs but for slow moving mammals or stationary birds it's fine.
I'll admit there are days I wish I had the Z8 but I wouldn't appreciate the weight. Patiently waiting for a Z7iii that has better AF tracking and subject detection. Don't need crazy fast frame rates, just to be able to hold onto a subject that's moving. But for now, the Z7ii suits me well and I suspect it would do the same for you. ...Show more →
That would be awesome if Nikon released a Z7 III with upgraded AF, preferably the Z8's AF. To keep costs down, Nikon can reuse or enhance the Z7 II's sensor. The stacked sensor can be reserved for the Z8 and the Z9.
1) I wouldn't do that because your RAW file will be 1:1
2) No, no really fast way because Image Area when set to a "press + command" setting only displays FX and DX and not 1:1 or 16:9 (dumb!)
Your best bet is to set Image Area as the top item on MY MENU, then customize a button to "Access top item in MY MENU"...this is how to get around a lot of these weird items, but you can only pick one to do this with.
lsquare wrote:
For the Nikon experts here, is there a shortcut or a quick way to change the aspect ratio from 3:2 to 1:1 without going through the menu?
I have it under the “i” menu, button between the two thumbwheels in the back.
As an aside, I sure with Nikon would update the firmware on the Z8 and Z9 to allow 4:5 crop like on the Z7II, it makes shooting magazine covers a lot easier.
RoamingScott wrote:
1) I wouldn't do that because your RAW file will be 1:1
2) No, no really fast way because Image Area when set to a "press + command" setting only displays FX and DX and not 1:1 or 16:9 (dumb!)
Your best bet is to set Image Area as the top item on MY MENU, then customize a button to "Access top item in MY MENU"...this is how to get around a lot of these weird items, but you can only pick one to do this with.
I know, but I like to shoot square photos. My plan is to frame it with 1:1 and then capture it as 3:2. Then I'll crop it in the post. That's why I'm looking for the fastest way to change aspect ratios.
Ai_Print wrote:
I have it under the “i” menu, button between the two thumbwheels in the back.
As an aside, I sure with Nikon would update the firmware on the Z8 and Z9 to allow 4:5 crop like on the Z7II, it makes shooting magazine covers a lot easier.
It would be better if Nikon copied Canon and Sony and didn't crop out the excess pixels when shooting with other aspect ratios.
lsquare wrote:
It would be better if Nikon copied Canon and Sony and didn't crop out the excess pixels when shooting with other aspect ratios.
I prefer the file fully cropped, I'm pretty much 100% certain of what I am wanting when I do a cropped image in camera and don't need to fill my hard drives with pixels I don't want or need. I wish my X2D actually cropped the files, especially at 212MB per photo.
