p.3 #1 · The Z5II is DPreview's recommended camera under 2,000 US$
jimmuller wrote:
Hmm, I thought the thrust of this thread was about that review, and then missing features like the top viewer. Pixels are like horsepower, more is always available but at a cost. So I could get 8000 pixels across instead of 6000. For still shots, unless I am printing them (or they are going into a magazine, for example) they are going to be viewed on a computer screen that is likely 2000 or smaller, downsized by me or by whatever good, bad or indifferent software Google or Microsoft or Apple or Corel provides. I'm not especially interested in video, certainly not to the level that I need pro quality. I get the point but it isn't pertinent to me right now.
Gee, I sure wish I had a top viewer. What am I going to do without one? ...Show more →
If the camera is providing great images for your types of photography, you aren’t missing anything! One unfortunate point is calling the Z5II a cheap camera. It’s a camera capable of some very nice photography! While it doesn’t have some of the other features of more expensive cameras, but it’s not deserving of being called cheap. Think about the outstanding photography of earlier photographers with far less capable equipment.
p.3 #2 · The Z5II is DPreview's recommended camera under 2,000 US$
story_teller wrote:
One unfortunate point is calling the Z5II a cheap camera. It’s a camera capable of some very nice photography! While it doesn’t have some of the other features of more expensive cameras, but it’s not deserving of being called cheap. Think about the outstanding photography of earlier photographers with far less capable equipment.
p.3 #3 · The Z5II is DPreview's recommended camera under 2,000 US$
story_teller wrote:
If the camera is providing great images for your types of photography, you aren’t missing anything! One unfortunate point is calling the Z5II a cheap camera.
Well, that's what I would have thought. Whether it deserves to be called cheap depends on how one perceives "cheap". To most people it has negative connotations, whereas "inexpensive" has positive ones.
FWIW, I didn't set out to buy the most feature-laden camera available. If I wanted that I wouldn't have considered using my non-CPU glass, now would I?
I'll go away now. I've said my piece, made my peace.
p.3 #5 · The Z5II is DPreview's recommended camera under 2,000 US$
EB-1 wrote:
But it is cheap compared to the Z9, R1 or a1 II.
EBH
The point is that the word “cheap” is derogatory. Let people enjoy their equipment. Maybe it costs less, but it’s what they can afford and they’re proud of it. I’ve caught myself using it, so I can’t throw stones, but I am trying to get better.
p.3 #6 · The Z5II is DPreview's recommended camera under 2,000 US$
The Nikon Z6 III sells for $2,200 and it would be foolish to buy a Z5 instead. The Z6 III is the most popular Nikon camera for videographers at this time and with good reason. The ZR is getting all the press but the Z6 III is a much better built and more reliable camera at the same price point.
p.3 #7 · The Z5II is DPreview's recommended camera under 2,000 US$
I debated with myself about whether to respond to this thread again. And I probably would have won the debate too but it was interrupted when I noticed that TechRadar's Timothy Coleman picked the Z5 II as Camera Of the Year. I paid considerably less than that price of the Z6 III quoted above and much much much less than the going price for, say, a Z9. So the debate was a draw and I'm not actually posting this.
p.3 #8 · The Z5II is DPreview's recommended camera under 2,000 US$
But really this says more about the atrocious state of internet rhetoric than it does the true qualities of these cameras. Chopped liver? TBH even the “worst” of Nikon’s mirrorless SLR style cameras have been pretty damn good, above a certain threshold. The Z6 was actually quite a nice and competent camera if you could pull yourself out of the inertia of internet hype and blather and just, y’know, take photos. And it remains a competent camera, I’d put it somewhere between the D700 and D810 as a pure image making machine, but well above both for ROI and feature sets.
And now the Z6III is just an absurdly great camera, probably the best I’ve ever used for my pursuits, and nearly without fault. Reading comments here and broadly, I feel like I’m in an incredibly small minority of people absolutely content with their gear. And from everything I’ve read the Z5II offers a similar feeling for the right person.
To put it another way: if you’re sitting on the sidelines waiting for things to “settle” you are missing a massive opportunity to enjoy a much better shooting experience, and implement some unbelievably good workflow improvements.
LostLensCap wrote:
This is exactly how I feel about the state of Nikon's mirrorless cameras. Todays darling will be tomorrows chopped liver. I'm just gonna schlep around my D850/D500 for a few more years until things settle down a bit. I had a Z5 for a year or so and it was a good camera for me and the improvements they have made to the Z5ii will make it a great camera until the next generation comes along.
p.3 #9 · The Z5II is DPreview's recommended camera under 2,000 US$
You can get a Z5ii for nearly 50% less than a Z6iii during refurb sales. Not everybody wants to spend two grand on a body, nor is it foolish to spend less on a very capable camera.
elkhornsun wrote:
The Nikon Z6 III sells for $2,200 and it would be foolish to buy a Z5 instead. The Z6 III is the most popular Nikon camera for videographers at this time and with good reason. The ZR is getting all the press but the Z6 III is a much better built and more reliable camera at the same price point.
