I really enjoy your videos. I went with the Z6ii. The ability to run the camera off a USB power supply, better low light performance and the ability to do extended shutter speeds up to 15 minutes were the deciding factors for me. I do mostly night photography including a lot of time lapse and star trail photos.
Totally agree with you. Z6mk1 is totally underrated (pricewise). I only miss area-eye-af feature on it. But for price difference it is better to have good peace of glass.
I bought the first Z body that came into my adopted country which was the Z7 although I wanted the Z6. I have a D850 I used for commercial work but on many of my travels, a D850 with heavy lenses exceeds the weight and size limits for regional airline overhead storage. The trip that sparked my interest in the Z bodes was a trip that had required my leaving the Fx body home and taking a D7000 Dx with a single 18-105 kit lens. It did ok except in darker areas. When I returned 6 weeks later I went to the largest camera story my adopted city and found a Z7 had just arrived. No Z6 were imported until 3 months later. I worked out a deal with the manager to buy the Z7 on the condition that I could trade it back in on a Z6 if I wanted later. I adapted to the camera very quickly, it felt great in my hand. AF was a bit crude on FW 1.0 When a Z6 came in I traded it the 7 for the 6 and for the difference in value they threw in the 24-70 f/4 and 50 1.8 S. For my use, studio, and location portraiture, theater, actor portfolio sessions, and jazz and rock clubs Z6 has been perfect, plus the added bonus of having a new need for video intros by actors and drama rehearsals. I never even considered an upgrade with the Z6II because of the only advantage of operating while charging. Right after getting the 50 1.8 I added the 85, the 70-200, and 20 1.8 and they became my main camera and lenses so the D850 and D800 sit on the shelf until I need backup cameras. I have top lenses for F mount but the S glass is amazing. My friends keep switching brands and models and are never satisfied, resulting in very high cost per frame. I never considered Sony, build quality and components, and their horrible track record in repair parts access being limited as soon as a model went out of production, forcing people to keep buying newer models. All the complaints of AF even with 3.40 firmware seem strange, if I do a session or a dress rehearsal for a play of ballet, I can expect 2-4 out-of-focus images per 400 frames, which is a lot better than and DSLR. If people stopped expecting a camera to guess what someone wants as the subject, they would have a good keeper rate also. I have since added more S lenses such as the 50 1.2 and want the 85 1.2 when it becomes available. I do not need longer than 200mm but the new light long lenses are very tempting
So... I sold myD850.... Im watching loads of videos on what is the best mirrorless z .... so Im into wildlife, landscapes, seascape , and street photography... Im still on the fence................ what you reckon?????
I really like your videos. Tight editing , good sound, but the dynamic between you guys is the draw. Your unique viewpoints really help cover all sides of a subject.
I've changed from Canon to Nikon as the bodies and lenses are far cheaper and have more choice. I've gone for the Z7ii as I shoot commercial products and advertising and the smaller megapixels wont cut it a few years from now. However I need a back up body and I also shoot PR and conferences, so the Z6 would do for that, and reduce the Z7 files size to match. Although the colour balance difference is a worry.
I shoot a Z 7ii with all the Z "S" 1.8 primes and the Z "S" 105/2.8 macro. Before the Mk ii I had the Mk i from Fw 2.0 to 3.0. I might not have upgraded to Mk ii when it ready was at Fw level 3.4. Before that decades of Nikon F mount F and D cameras, starting with an F2 in '75. My biggest pet peeves were chromatic aberration and tint differences between lenses - much worse than the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses I shot professionally. I have held the position that "we" do not need more than 24MP for a long time and can make beautiful A2 prints from 24MP BUT that depends on the raw processing software and printer drivers, etc. Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) may do better with the 24 MP because it has a fuzzy filter - a concept devised to make raw processing easier when powerful processing was expensive, big and power hungry. I moved to the 46MP because it is less sensitive to total reflection between the sensor and the back of the fuzzy filter grid (giving a tint over the entire frame). That kind of backlight may never happen in the UK where it is always cloudy ;) . With the Z 7 and Z 7ii, my conclusion is that ACR stinks. If I want to print larger, like A2, and need to reveal the sharpness of the camera and lenses I use, then I need e.g. Topaz Gigapixel AI (TGP). Hikers in the far distance on the other side of a lake in a panorama shot rendered by ACR as fluffy balls turn out to have legs, arms and heads and clearly are human beings. As to the Z 6(ii) - it has the fuzzy filter (*) that limits contour sharpness, reduces color space, reduces dynamic range, and low light sensitivity, and is too yellow. OK, it is 1 EV better at high ISO. Note that the Z 6 and 7 are "fixed ISO" cameras and offer only two amplification levels to the photosites (the photodiodes with a C-MOS circuit attached). A Z7 switches from normal to high amplification at, say, 390 ISO and at 400 the noise is equal to ISO 100, so you need to go to 1,600 ISO to get the noise of 390 ISO. I simply don't use 210..390. As I postulate that ACR stinks - Lightroom (LrC), like Photoshop (Ps), uses ACR as raw processing plugin say Adobe, however LrC does that invisibly while Ps does not bother to hide it - there is a noise issue too, in the lowest "exposure zones". Like the loss of detail, this is, simply put, failed raw processing and disappears with e.g. Topaz DeNoise AI (TDN). The recent success of TDN and TGP as well as DxO PureRAW ,may not prove my postulate but support it. I can do neither without LrC for its asset management and simple nondestructive Ps functions, nor without Ps, but ACR really, really stinks - and is not suitable in any way, shape, or form to use as tool in camera comparison, if you want to draw conclusions from it. (*) Generally called anti-aliasing or AA filter, potentially the low pass filter has (some of) this effect too.
Guys, thanks much for doing this comparison. I've actually got to make this decision today, given Nikon's fall sale I want to take advantage of. I'm leaning towards the Z6ii, its lower noise at higher ISOs and given your reports that the extra detail to be found in the Z7ii files is minor. And like you say, I'll put the money saved into better lenses.
Hi lads I use a Nikon D500 gif my wildlife and love it, over that last day 5/6 months I’ve been doing landscapes and really enjoy it, ive just recently bought a d700 aswell as a back up, unfortunately tho lady wk I slipped over while out with my d500 smashing it plus a 17-50 f2.8 guttered is a understatement ive been on the fence for a while in buying a Z either the 6ii or 7ii mainly for landscape portrait and the odd wedding I do etc, I do sell my printers upto 36”x24” can a 6ii print the same size as my d500 Thanks very much
@@lozzom 😂, no..... the new Z6II and the refurbished Z7I together were the same price as a new Z7II. I paid €1299 for the Z7I & €2.5k for the Z6II / 24-200 kit.
Z6II is amazing! Thought to switch to Sony A7M4, traded off my Z6II, but when I took Sony in hands... OMG! It's fully about marketing! AF yes but other moments... it looks like cheap Chinese toy while Nikon is like Apple, which feels like premium product. Seems that I will get another one Z6II and will be waiting for Z6III launch with updated AF 😀
Good discussion. I've been so tempted to grab another Z6II, at $1699 (US$). Great deal, but I may just sit tight for the mark III's next year. I did finally get the 70-200 2.8! 🤗 Re: mark I vs mark II's, the I's are super but I still maintain the upgrades in the II's are well worth the few extra $'s (for me). The addition of a functional grip and 2nd card slot alone make it an easy choice, certainly for paid work. Thanks guys!
@@RussandLoz Why put an SD slot as backup if it was important to have a backup? XQD and CFE are the only pro grade card systems and it is pretty much admitted that they added the SD simply to appease the internet influencers who bashed the camera 3 months before release over the single XQD slot and only mentioning slots, and not the extreme difference in those slots between say the Sony they were pushing for paid endorsements. Even Sony admitted the XQD was 2 orders of magnitude longer in MTBF rating, 100 times more reliable than 2 mirrored SD because of the nature of te bus systems, and the former using the error correcting/detecting PCIe+ bus used in modern network server applications needing high reliability.SD was an adaptation of the old 5.25-inch floppy disk of 35 years ago and is used still only due to it very low cost to make. XQD has the ability to map out addresses that are weak on the fly so they are never used again. Sony uses 1 XQD on the $30,000 ENG cameras. Nikon added the throwaway SD just to quiet the paid influencers
I am in a similar boat… I was very tempted at $1,700 to get a 2nd Z6ii but I also waited. Like you I upgraded to the Z-mount 70-200 and am very happy with it! I am probably going to wait for the Z6iii but fear they will sell it for $2,400 instead of $2,000. I truly wish Nikon would show the firmware some love and improve the AF’s subject detection stickiness.
I am about to upgrade from my D750, just deciding if i want the Z6 II vs the Z7 II, the only reason I can think of wanting the Z7 II over the Z6 II would be for my MACRO photography so I can get more detail out of my 105mm MICRO NIKKOR lens. Still have not decided yet… I really wanted the extra detail in the Z7 II
If you’re in no rush it might be worth waiting to see what the next Nikon body will be like as it supposed to be this year soon hopefully. Though the z7 will be cheaper
Simple choice -- both work the same and have the same guts, but there is one difference - the sensor resolution and the corresponding base ISO, which comes with it. The Sensor was unchanged between I and II. As a result the choice is simple -- do shooters want better low light, higher fps and entirely adequate (better than this) video OR do folk want more resolution and larger files, which knocks on to slower fps. Both the Mk I and Mk II work perfectly when used within their capabilities -- for the avoidance of doubt -- the AF is entirely useable on both, but maybe not upto the much newer latest generation competing brands for Birds in Flight. You can simply FIX your colour profile issues by shooting a Spydercheckr testcard and building your own matching ICC profile for each camera. Perhaps you could explain to your followers how to do this. Since it is simple.
Interesting as always, but having having owned the Z6ii for a year, I switched to a z7ii and wouldn't go back. I also shoot with a D850 and I just was never happy with the image resolution/quality of the Z6ii versus my D850. Now, with 7 months and perhaps 80,000 frames on the Z7ii, I'm finding that I prefer the Z7ii to my D850. Certainly a lot of that preference goes down to the wonderful Nikon Z lenses and my year and 1/2 learning curve with the Z 6ii and Z 7ii autofocus system. I shoot next to no video and don't shoot a lot in VERY low light conditions, so those aspects of the Z 6ii are fairly lost on me. I agree that most non-photographers probably wouldn't notice the image quality difference between the Z 6ii and Z 7ii.
@@RussandLoz Currently, I'm in Lightroom processing my keepers from doing over 16,000 frames at the largest West Coast (U.S.) dog show, shot over 4 days using both my Z7ii and D850. So, lots of dogs, lots of movement, often in lousy indoor lighting. Then I also do a lot of landscapes.
Do you guys prefer Nikon Z series cameras to the likes of Sony and Canon? I’m about to purchase my first camera and I’m leaning towards Nikon Z6II but I read so much about how great Sony and canon cameras are compared to Nikon. But I’m drawn to Nikon and prefer the images I see coming from the Nikon cameras.
We both come from Nikon DSLR and we love the colours and good quality straight out of camera. Other brands have better advanced autofocus but for general shooting Nikon are great.
@@RussandLoz Thanks. Autofocus is all you seem to hear about these days when people compare cameras and gives me some hesitation when considering Nikon. After watching your videos I’m leaning towards getting a Z6II and a decent lens to start my journey. As much as I would like to have the higher resolution of the Z7II, the Z6II seems better is most other aspects and it’s cheaper.
@@RussandLoz I honestly didn’t even consider it, falling victim to marketing I guess. I will have to compare the specs and make a decision. I supposed I could still consider Sony as well but I do have a draw towards Nikon for some reason. I think it’s the colors and the crispness I see in example photos.
I still have the Z6, and I am not tempted to get a body of the second generation, because the advantages, although noticeable, do not justify the price difference for me. And yes, concerning the autofocus performance, the Z6II is behind the concurrence, as for example the Canon R 6 Mk II. But this one also costs a lot more: 2'600 Swiss Francs, versus 1'700 Swiss Francs for the Nikon. So I am looking forward to a Z6 Mark III - which I hope will inherit at least partly the more capable autofocus-technology of the Z9. One should not change the system every time the concurrence brings a new enhanced body on the market - Nikon will also come along with new bodies in 2023 with better autofocus for sure. And I love the ergonomics and functionality of the Nikon bodies, paired with all those wonderful Nikkor lenses.
New subscriber. Really like your videos… would love to see a new video like this comparing the Z8/9 sensor to the Z7/6 sensors. I have a z6 mk1, and love it. But tempted by the Z8 for an upgrade. Was going to trade the z6 in, but given it’s not worth much now, may just keep it as a spare camera for Astro pics and low light work.
Thanks Jake, I believe the image results won’t be much different from a z7, but I’m fine with that. I believe stacked sensors have a better user ability and experience. But I guess I’ll find out. I also have a z6i and ii. I’ll be jerking those as they are can get great results and probably not worth what we’d get for them
Another great video. For events, I totally agree two Z6's would be the way to go. I'd pick the Z6II over the Z6 for its Wide Area AF with face and eye detect (very helpful) and dual card slots. Right now I am shooting the Z6II and Z7II and it is nice to have the flexibility the two sensors offer (I also do wildlife). As you point out, you can always shoot medium NEFs to reduce file sizes on the Z7II. I like that Nikon has given us two identical bodies and the choice of sensors. Canon has followed suit with their R5/R6 line, which has an even greater price differential.
Even though I don't rely on continuous AF for what I shoot, I find the Nikon mirrorless AF very primitive, inconsistent, and straight out dumb and unreliable. My original Nikon 1 from back in the day has comparable AF IMHO! I have a Z50, Z fc, and a Z7II, and the AF does not work well on any of them. Before you tell me that I need to learn the different AF modes to pick which one to use in which condition, my answer is that a proper AF system doesn't work this way, I have an A7III and an R10 to benchmark against. I always have my thumb ready on the joystick (Z7II) or the arrows (Z50 and Z fc) to pick my AF point manually. I think fixing this and adding features to make the next iteration of these bodies really competitive will be critical for Nikon to keep its mainstream prosumers with the brand. Otherwise, anyone but diehard Nikon fans or those like me who really don't care about AF will find it more sensible to move to Sony or Canon if they don't mind the lack of 3rd party glass for the latter.
I agree, I only use single point focussing as I can't trust the other focus modes. Although eye detect seems to work better in video.But yes, they desperately need to up the game for the z6 price range. I thought that was the z6ii unfortunately.
@@RussandLoz yep, we're all keeping our fingers crossed. I think they heard enough criticism over this that the walls in their R&D department are speaking now! If they don't, honestly they'll deserve whatever comes their way!
I find it good in adequate light. But in lower light we find it really struggles. I believe a lot of people put effort in trying to get better results with focussing
@@RussandLoz shure in low light it can have some trouble, but in general the af is decent, I hear loads of youtubers talk negative about it without putting some time in it to actually learn the system, not saying you didnt learn it to be clear
@@obedbrinkman I taken an indoor event yesterday as it’s winter here. I tried the optimal low light settings but it really struggled and missed shots. Using af-c with a 35 1.8 with single point with low light option on. It should be better really.
DSLR’s are snappier if I remember. But mirrorless has new features such as eye detect. Though this isn’t fully workable apart from z9. But in good light mirrorless are good enough.
You should downsize the Z 7 photos to the Z 6 size and redo your detail photos from the second set. People are likely going to downsize images than blow up.
I often downsize the z7 files and they look great. The low light downsizing example shows they are pretty much the same as shooting worth the z6 but without the low light ability.
Yes and the z6 has better low light capability. Though the autofocus can be tricky at times with both compared to newer cameras. Hope you get a good low price!
Z7 is for 64 iso. It makes a difference in exposure latitude and brings performance of files similar to medium format sensors. The moment you start shooting 100 or above iso, that advantage is gone. In stills, under reasonable ISOs, Z7II will usually have higher detail/noise performance but at higher ISOs in terms of file performance, Z6II files will be a bit more malleable. I have gone the Z7II rout for my stills focused journey my older camera was a 16 megapixel FX and wanted the big jump in resolution. I am happy with the crazy sharpness that comes with higher resolution and lack of AA filter but feel a lot more noise is in the files. Unless one really needs the higher resolution at lower ISOs, Z6II may be more reasonable since it's cheaper. But that 64 ISO 45 megapixel files... wow
@@RussandLoz the difference really only visible when you start messing with the files, pulling shadows, getting a crazy exposure latitude and still not seeing visible noise. The bare files pretty much look all the same 64 to 200 but they respond differently to pushing to their limits. The exact opposite happens with my 16 megapixel Df files, at 3200 iso I can still pull shadows with confidence etc and Z7II will really start displaying that problematic noise. Z6II is probably the best middle ground unless one will exploit the resolution, base iso or crop a lot
The lower ISO produces no discernable difference in DR according to the lab tests at ISO 64 and all the way up from 64 the Z6 is better by 1/3 to 1/2 stop to 102k ISO where the Z7 stops and the Z6 continue to 204k ISO. Below 64 ISO, the Z7 is at best 1/3-1/4th stop better where both very food and exceed the DR of any display media. At very high ISO 1/3rd stop is clearly seen for the Z6. Canon R6 and R5 has resorted to non-defeatable in-camera noise reduction from 50 to 1600 ISO and about 11,000 ISO which causes detail loss that can't be recovered. The Sony 7m5 uses Scaling above 12,800. So the "old"Z6 and 7 have cleaner wider dr usable detail and dynamic range. Sure both competitors sell more cameras but Nikon is used by more pros who earn their living from it. TH-camr gurus promote cameras to newcomers and are paid very well for driving customers to a few dominant channels, where the on-camera personalities are web personalities, not photographers. Has anyone actually missed focus in the studio with a Z body? My main business has been incoming tourism that ended with the start of Covid and besides our general history and culture tours, I offered small group tours for photographers early in the morning of this spectacularly beautiful city and saw a lot of people with a lot of late model cameras and lenses get poor results. They had all the latest versions and top lenses, and all the accessories yet could see they were way over invested and under educated and practiced. I always had a studio doing commercial work while my main income for 25 years owning a large recording studio complex when everything was film and made more personal income from licensing photos used on album covers than actually creating the record. I have 197 gold and platinum album awards produced in the 3 studios in my complex. But my income from licenses was greater. After moving to another country from California in 2000 as retirement, my retirement lasted 3 months before starting new businesses and one being a large incoming tour operator supplying tours for cruise passengers who have 2-3 days in port. That became successful also but it actually allowed me to put photography to use by offering popular photo excursions. A year into it I was frustrated by how few great images my clients produced that I started shifting to teaching on the tours. Most cruise passengers are older, many retired and obviously have money since they all had expensive gear. Working with each on composition and optimum use of what they had I got the clean impression that most people with good cameras are camera collectors and not photographers and that applied doubly to TH-cam audiences. Why do people switch cameras so often, losing all the value in their investment? I think it is because they did not grow up with great art. I know in California there are VERY few real museums or galleries. Where I live every person over 10 has been to dozens of world-class museums, galleries, opera, ballet, symphonies, great literature, and poetry and many are creative even with their phones. The focus is "stuff" and items of function in western societies. Cameras sell well but print services and photo bookbinding are not in demand. The scale of art to the viewers perspective has focused on phone and computer screens and judging merit by zooming in to see technical detail instead of the full-scale message. The creator of the work has specific distances they expect the audience to view from. That is the distance from which the entire work is taken in as a whole without scanning eyes across the image. Large paintings only make sense intended by viewing at a distance, small works reveal their intent only close up. That is lost with the computer display being too close or from zooming in. That disconnection between the viewed experience and that of the creator has diminished the value of art, including photos. being more concerned with cameras than images is seen in the art world also, where hobbyist debate brushes and paints and no one sees their work. Stop changing cameras all the time, visit galleries more, print more, and distribute physical images instead of files. Exhaust all the capabilities of their current camera. After switching from film to digital my most well-rewarded camera was the D90 since it produced a few images that were licensed for high fees that were renewed for years. The camera did not matter.
@@stanspb763 Z6 is a more capable low light/available light camera. However lab tests aside, try looking at 5 or 6 stop underexposed and then later adjusted raw files betwern Z7ii and Z6ii. Dpreview calls it exposure latitude studio tests. I clearly see an advantage for Z7II with cleaner and more color correct shadows (when boosted) compared to 100 iso Z6ii. I think the choice depends on whether you crop, really need 45 megapixels and can control your iso + also using good lenses with good technique within diffraction limits or not. Besides trom my astro work, i check all the boxes. For astro I will use best noise reduction tools available, put more work and hope to match Z6ii performance but it may fall a bit short I'm guessing.
@@RussandLoz Z7II is harder to implement: Huge (relatively) resolution is useful only for highly specialized tasks (Billboards, advertising, nature ..). Z7II is more demanding on your set, more expensive, "doubtfully" shows itself in low light conditions. Other than that, the cameras are almost identical.
@@jeffrey3498 Thanks, I also love to use Nikon, but annoyed when I see other brands equivalent price range body having advantageous focus modes that work
Do not buy no Z6 or Z7 in 2022. Both cameras dont have an SD card slot. Wait a few months and get the mark 2. Said cameras will pay for themselves then upgrade in 2024.
@@RussandLoz thats you. not the average person. you also proved my my most people dont want to faff around with peripherals just to access memory card data.
I really enjoy your videos. I went with the Z6ii. The ability to run the camera off a USB power supply, better low light performance and the ability to do extended shutter speeds up to 15 minutes were the deciding factors for me. I do mostly night photography including a lot of time lapse and star trail photos.
Yeah I can see the Z6ii is a great choice for you.
@@bbasleigh6149 when is Nikon going to release the Z6iii & z8. This spring or later this year?
I hope Nikon will do the extended shutter for Z6I/Z7I. Stuck with a max of 30s without external timer.
Totally agree with you. Z6mk1 is totally underrated (pricewise). I only miss area-eye-af feature on it. But for price difference it is better to have good peace of glass.
For my use the Z6II is by far the best camera on the market, the speed, the images are just wonderful. If you can find one get it!
I bought the first Z body that came into my adopted country which was the Z7 although I wanted the Z6. I have a D850 I used for commercial work but on many of my travels, a D850 with heavy lenses exceeds the weight and size limits for regional airline overhead storage. The trip that sparked my interest in the Z bodes was a trip that had required my leaving the Fx body home and taking a D7000 Dx with a single 18-105 kit lens. It did ok except in darker areas. When I returned 6 weeks later I went to the largest camera story my adopted city and found a Z7 had just arrived. No Z6 were imported until 3 months later. I worked out a deal with the manager to buy the Z7 on the condition that I could trade it back in on a Z6 if I wanted later. I adapted to the camera very quickly, it felt great in my hand. AF was a bit crude on FW 1.0 When a Z6 came in I traded it the 7 for the 6 and for the difference in value they threw in the 24-70 f/4 and 50 1.8 S.
For my use, studio, and location portraiture, theater, actor portfolio sessions, and jazz and rock clubs Z6 has been perfect, plus the added bonus of having a new need for video intros by actors and drama rehearsals. I never even considered an upgrade with the Z6II because of the only advantage of operating while charging. Right after getting the 50 1.8 I added the 85, the 70-200, and 20 1.8 and they became my main camera and lenses so the D850 and D800 sit on the shelf until I need backup cameras. I have top lenses for F mount but the S glass is amazing. My friends keep switching brands and models and are never satisfied, resulting in very high cost per frame. I never considered Sony, build quality and components, and their horrible track record in repair parts access being limited as soon as a model went out of production, forcing people to keep buying newer models. All the complaints of AF even with 3.40 firmware seem strange, if I do a session or a dress rehearsal for a play of ballet, I can expect 2-4 out-of-focus images per 400 frames, which is a lot better than and DSLR. If people stopped expecting a camera to guess what someone wants as the subject, they would have a good keeper rate also. I have since added more S lenses such as the 50 1.2 and want the 85 1.2 when it becomes available. I do not need longer than 200mm but the new light long lenses are very tempting
You both do a great job breaking down the differences. I always like your take on what the strengths and weaknesses of specific gear are.
Thanks. Do you have either of them?
you guys are the first ones to mention the colour difference between the z6 and z7 sensor, and now I can't un-see it :)
great video!
Sorry lol. It’s a pain when editing. Z8 is different too but so are the lenses
So... I sold myD850.... Im watching loads of videos on what is the best mirrorless z .... so Im into wildlife, landscapes, seascape , and street photography... Im still on the fence................ what you reckon?????
Z8. We have a video
@@RussandLoz Thank you kindly.. I will look at your video
I really like your videos. Tight editing , good sound, but the dynamic between you guys is the draw. Your unique viewpoints really help cover all sides of a subject.
Thanks John. Really appreciate your words.
Thanks !
I've changed from Canon to Nikon as the bodies and lenses are far cheaper and have more choice. I've gone for the Z7ii as I shoot commercial products and advertising and the smaller megapixels wont cut it a few years from now. However I need a back up body and I also shoot PR and conferences, so the Z6 would do for that, and reduce the Z7 files size to match. Although the colour balance difference is a worry.
Yes each lens has their own colour tones too. Especially older f mount which have nicer colours in my opinion
I shoot a Z 7ii with all the Z "S" 1.8 primes and the Z "S" 105/2.8 macro. Before the Mk ii I had the Mk i from Fw 2.0 to 3.0. I might not have upgraded to Mk ii when it ready was at Fw level 3.4. Before that decades of Nikon F mount F and D cameras, starting with an F2 in '75. My biggest pet peeves were chromatic aberration and tint differences between lenses - much worse than the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses I shot professionally. I have held the position that "we" do not need more than 24MP for a long time and can make beautiful A2 prints from 24MP BUT that depends on the raw processing software and printer drivers, etc. Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) may do better with the 24 MP because it has a fuzzy filter - a concept devised to make raw processing easier when powerful processing was expensive, big and power hungry. I moved to the 46MP because it is less sensitive to total reflection between the sensor and the back of the fuzzy filter grid (giving a tint over the entire frame). That kind of backlight may never happen in the UK where it is always cloudy ;) .
With the Z 7 and Z 7ii, my conclusion is that ACR stinks. If I want to print larger, like A2, and need to reveal the sharpness of the camera and lenses I use, then I need e.g. Topaz Gigapixel AI (TGP). Hikers in the far distance on the other side of a lake in a panorama shot rendered by ACR as fluffy balls turn out to have legs, arms and heads and clearly are human beings.
As to the Z 6(ii) - it has the fuzzy filter (*) that limits contour sharpness, reduces color space, reduces dynamic range, and low light sensitivity, and is too yellow. OK, it is 1 EV better at high ISO. Note that the Z 6 and 7 are "fixed ISO" cameras and offer only two amplification levels to the photosites (the photodiodes with a C-MOS circuit attached). A Z7 switches from normal to high amplification at, say, 390 ISO and at 400 the noise is equal to ISO 100, so you need to go to 1,600 ISO to get the noise of 390 ISO. I simply don't use 210..390.
As I postulate that ACR stinks - Lightroom (LrC), like Photoshop (Ps), uses ACR as raw processing plugin say Adobe, however LrC does that invisibly while Ps does not bother to hide it - there is a noise issue too, in the lowest "exposure zones". Like the loss of detail, this is, simply put, failed raw processing and disappears with e.g. Topaz DeNoise AI (TDN). The recent success of TDN and TGP as well as DxO PureRAW ,may not prove my postulate but support it.
I can do neither without LrC for its asset management and simple nondestructive Ps functions, nor without Ps, but ACR really, really stinks - and is not suitable in any way, shape, or form to use as tool in camera comparison, if you want to draw conclusions from it.
(*) Generally called anti-aliasing or AA filter, potentially the low pass filter has (some of) this effect too.
Guys, thanks much for doing this comparison. I've actually got to make this decision today, given Nikon's fall sale I want to take advantage of. I'm leaning towards the Z6ii, its lower noise at higher ISOs and given your reports that the extra detail to be found in the Z7ii files is minor. And like you say, I'll put the money saved into better lenses.
Thanks Craig. Of course they are both outdated now when it comes to autofocus. But they still get good results depending on scenario
Hi lads I use a Nikon D500 gif my wildlife and love it, over that last day 5/6 months I’ve been doing landscapes and really enjoy it, ive just recently bought a d700 aswell as a back up, unfortunately tho lady wk I slipped over while out with my d500 smashing it plus a 17-50 f2.8 guttered is a understatement ive been on the fence for a while in buying a Z either the 6ii or 7ii mainly for landscape portrait and the odd wedding I do etc, I do sell my printers upto 36”x24” can a 6ii print the same size as my d500
Thanks very much
Hi. I would say so but depends on the iso of the image. In daylight I’m sure it’d be fine.
@@RussandLoz thanks I’d say iso would be around 800 or lower
It's a tricky one for sure...
I ended up with a Z6II and a refurbished Z7I for the same price as a new Z7II but mostly use the Z6II.
A refurb Z7i was same price as a new Z7ii ?
@@lozzom 😂, no..... the new Z6II and the refurbished Z7I together were the same price as a new Z7II. I paid €1299 for the Z7I & €2.5k for the Z6II / 24-200 kit.
@@ericcantona3503 sounds like a great deal !
Z6II is amazing! Thought to switch to Sony A7M4, traded off my Z6II, but when I took Sony in hands... OMG! It's fully about marketing! AF yes but other moments... it looks like cheap Chinese toy while Nikon is like Apple, which feels like premium product. Seems that I will get another one Z6II and will be waiting for Z6III launch with updated AF 😀
That’s interesting. I’d like to have a go on a different brand. I’ll have to loan one to really see
Good discussion. I've been so tempted to grab another Z6II, at $1699 (US$). Great deal, but I may just sit tight for the mark III's next year. I did finally get the 70-200 2.8! 🤗
Re: mark I vs mark II's, the I's are super but I still maintain the upgrades in the II's are well worth the few extra $'s (for me). The addition of a functional grip and 2nd card slot alone make it an easy choice, certainly for paid work. Thanks guys!
Thanks. Yes I wish they put the two card slots on the mark 1’s. But I can see your choice is good for you
@@RussandLoz Why put an SD slot as backup if it was important to have a backup? XQD and CFE are the only pro grade card systems and it is pretty much admitted that they added the SD simply to appease the internet influencers who bashed the camera 3 months before release over the single XQD slot and only mentioning slots, and not the extreme difference in those slots between say the Sony they were pushing for paid endorsements. Even Sony admitted the XQD was 2 orders of magnitude longer in MTBF rating, 100 times more reliable than 2 mirrored SD because of the nature of te bus systems, and the former using the error correcting/detecting PCIe+ bus used in modern network server applications needing high reliability.SD was an adaptation of the old 5.25-inch floppy disk of 35 years ago and is used still only due to it very low cost to make. XQD has the ability to map out addresses that are weak on the fly so they are never used again. Sony uses 1 XQD on the $30,000 ENG cameras. Nikon added the throwaway SD just to quiet the paid influencers
I am in a similar boat… I was very tempted at $1,700 to get a 2nd Z6ii but I also waited. Like you I upgraded to the Z-mount 70-200 and am very happy with it! I am probably going to wait for the Z6iii but fear they will sell it for $2,400 instead of $2,000. I truly wish Nikon would show the firmware some love and improve the AF’s subject detection stickiness.
its out now, hopefully you are not disappointed. I think it is overpriced for what it delivered.
Nice video thanks. I think for me I think I would go used d850. Because all my f mount lenses. To compliment my d500 and d7500
I am about to upgrade from my D750, just deciding if i want the Z6 II vs the Z7 II, the only reason I can think of wanting the Z7 II over the Z6 II would be for my MACRO photography so I can get more detail out of my 105mm MICRO NIKKOR lens. Still have not decided yet… I really wanted the extra detail in the Z7 II
If you’re in no rush it might be worth waiting to see what the next Nikon body will be like as it supposed to be this year soon hopefully. Though the z7 will be cheaper
Have you ever tried the Clarity Slider to get sharper images? Since I own the Z8 & Z9 I am thinking of selling my Z7II. Cheers!
Simple choice -- both work the same and have the same guts, but there is one difference - the sensor resolution and the corresponding base ISO, which comes with it. The Sensor was unchanged between I and II. As a result the choice is simple -- do shooters want better low light, higher fps and entirely adequate (better than this) video OR do folk want more resolution and larger files, which knocks on to slower fps.
Both the Mk I and Mk II work perfectly when used within their capabilities -- for the avoidance of doubt -- the AF is entirely useable on both, but maybe not upto the much newer latest generation competing brands for Birds in Flight.
You can simply FIX your colour profile issues by shooting a Spydercheckr testcard and building your own matching ICC profile for each camera. Perhaps you could explain to your followers how to do this. Since it is simple.
I’ve never used that test card before? Could you explain how it works on an event shoot with different scenes throughout the day? 😊
Interesting as always, but having having owned the Z6ii for a year, I switched to a z7ii and wouldn't go back. I also shoot with a D850 and I just was never happy with the image resolution/quality of the Z6ii versus my D850. Now, with 7 months and perhaps 80,000 frames on the Z7ii, I'm finding that I prefer the Z7ii to my D850. Certainly a lot of that preference goes down to the wonderful Nikon Z lenses and my year and 1/2 learning curve with the Z 6ii and Z 7ii autofocus system. I shoot next to no video and don't shoot a lot in VERY low light conditions, so those aspects of the Z 6ii are fairly lost on me. I agree that most non-photographers probably wouldn't notice the image quality difference between the Z 6ii and Z 7ii.
Fair enough. What genre do you shoot?
@@RussandLoz Currently, I'm in Lightroom processing my keepers from doing over 16,000 frames at the largest West Coast (U.S.) dog show, shot over 4 days using both my Z7ii and D850. So, lots of dogs, lots of movement, often in lousy indoor lighting. Then I also do a lot of landscapes.
Do you guys prefer Nikon Z series cameras to the likes of Sony and Canon? I’m about to purchase my first camera and I’m leaning towards Nikon Z6II but I read so much about how great Sony and canon cameras are compared to Nikon. But I’m drawn to Nikon and prefer the images I see coming from the Nikon cameras.
We both come from Nikon DSLR and we love the colours and good quality straight out of camera. Other brands have better advanced autofocus but for general shooting Nikon are great.
@@RussandLoz Thanks. Autofocus is all you seem to hear about these days when people compare cameras and gives me some hesitation when considering Nikon. After watching your videos I’m leaning towards getting a Z6II and a decent lens to start my journey. As much as I would like to have the higher resolution of the Z7II, the Z6II seems better is most other aspects and it’s cheaper.
@@colinmsmall what about a z6i? Is there a particular need of the mark 2?
@@RussandLoz I honestly didn’t even consider it, falling victim to marketing I guess. I will have to compare the specs and make a decision. I supposed I could still consider Sony as well but I do have a draw towards Nikon for some reason. I think it’s the colors and the crispness I see in example photos.
@@colinmsmall I'm curious to try and Sony, Canon or Fuji to see the difference
Good video. Do you feel your assessment holds for product and fashion photography use cases?
I've just replaced my old D7200 with a used Z6ii (£1590) and I'm thrilled with my choice
Electronic viewfinders are great aren’t they
Brilliant explanation. Very clear to understand.
Thanks. Which one is for you?
@@RussandLoz for my use case z6ii. I am upgrading from a nikon d7200
I still have the Z6, and I am not tempted to get a body of the second generation, because the advantages, although noticeable, do not justify the price difference for me. And yes, concerning the autofocus performance, the Z6II is behind the concurrence, as for example the Canon R 6 Mk II. But this one also costs a lot more: 2'600 Swiss Francs, versus 1'700 Swiss Francs for the Nikon.
So I am looking forward to a Z6 Mark III - which I hope will inherit at least partly the more capable autofocus-technology of the Z9. One should not change the system every time the concurrence brings a new enhanced body on the market - Nikon will also come along with new bodies in 2023 with better autofocus for sure. And I love the ergonomics and functionality of the Nikon bodies, paired with all those wonderful Nikkor lenses.
Yes I wonder what the next Nikon body will look like. Hopefully a small build
Still have the Z6?
Which one should I buy for interior shoot. ? Nikon ZF or this one ?
Zf. It’s all about focus and reaction time. If you can deal with the lack of grip. Or wait for z6iii
New subscriber. Really like your videos… would love to see a new video like this comparing the Z8/9 sensor to the Z7/6 sensors. I have a z6 mk1, and love it. But tempted by the Z8 for an upgrade. Was going to trade the z6 in, but given it’s not worth much now, may just keep it as a spare camera for Astro pics and low light work.
Thanks Jake, I believe the image results won’t be much different from a z7, but I’m fine with that. I believe stacked sensors have a better user ability and experience. But I guess I’ll find out. I also have a z6i and ii. I’ll be jerking those as they are can get great results and probably not worth what we’d get for them
Another great video. For events, I totally agree two Z6's would be the way to go. I'd pick the Z6II over the Z6 for its Wide Area AF with face and eye detect (very helpful) and dual card slots. Right now I am shooting the Z6II and Z7II and it is nice to have the flexibility the two sensors offer (I also do wildlife). As you point out, you can always shoot medium NEFs to reduce file sizes on the Z7II. I like that Nikon has given us two identical bodies and the choice of sensors. Canon has followed suit with their R5/R6 line, which has an even greater price differential.
Even though I don't rely on continuous AF for what I shoot, I find the Nikon mirrorless AF very primitive, inconsistent, and straight out dumb and unreliable. My original Nikon 1 from back in the day has comparable AF IMHO! I have a Z50, Z fc, and a Z7II, and the AF does not work well on any of them. Before you tell me that I need to learn the different AF modes to pick which one to use in which condition, my answer is that a proper AF system doesn't work this way, I have an A7III and an R10 to benchmark against. I always have my thumb ready on the joystick (Z7II) or the arrows (Z50 and Z fc) to pick my AF point manually. I think fixing this and adding features to make the next iteration of these bodies really competitive will be critical for Nikon to keep its mainstream prosumers with the brand. Otherwise, anyone but diehard Nikon fans or those like me who really don't care about AF will find it more sensible to move to Sony or Canon if they don't mind the lack of 3rd party glass for the latter.
I agree, I only use single point focussing as I can't trust the other focus modes. Although eye detect seems to work better in video.But yes, they desperately need to up the game for the z6 price range. I thought that was the z6ii unfortunately.
@@RussandLoz yep, we're all keeping our fingers crossed. I think they heard enough criticism over this that the walls in their R&D department are speaking now! If they don't, honestly they'll deserve whatever comes their way!
the AF is pretty decent I think if you put some effort in it to learn the system
I find it good in adequate light. But in lower light we find it really struggles. I believe a lot of people put effort in trying to get better results with focussing
@@RussandLoz shure in low light it can have some trouble, but in general the af is decent, I hear loads of youtubers talk negative about it without putting some time in it to actually learn the system, not saying you didnt learn it to be clear
@@obedbrinkman I taken an indoor event yesterday as it’s winter here. I tried the optimal low light settings but it really struggled and missed shots. Using af-c with a 35 1.8 with single point with low light option on. It should be better really.
Everyone seems to have issues with the autofocus but if you are coming from a DSLR (D800) how does it compare really?
DSLR’s are snappier if I remember. But mirrorless has new features such as eye detect. Though this isn’t fully workable apart from z9. But in good light mirrorless are good enough.
So is the autofocus really that bad? I'm coming from a D810.. will there be an improvement espy in lowlight AF?
It’s not bad. But can be frustrating in certain situations. Just like any really
thanks !
You should downsize the Z 7 photos to the Z 6 size and redo your detail photos from the second set. People are likely going to downsize images than blow up.
I often downsize the z7 files and they look great. The low light downsizing example shows they are pretty much the same as shooting worth the z6 but without the low light ability.
Does digital upscaling remove the need for a z7?
I’ve had a go with that, not sure it always works. But you could use it with the z7 too
I was about to buy Z7 now I changed my mind for Z6..I don’t think there is no much difference others than the megapixels (with a higher price tag)
Yes and the z6 has better low light capability. Though the autofocus can be tricky at times with both compared to newer cameras. Hope you get a good low price!
Z7 is for 64 iso. It makes a difference in exposure latitude and brings performance of files similar to medium format sensors. The moment you start shooting 100 or above iso, that advantage is gone. In stills, under reasonable ISOs, Z7II will usually have higher detail/noise performance but at higher ISOs in terms of file performance, Z6II files will be a bit more malleable.
I have gone the Z7II rout for my stills focused journey my older camera was a 16 megapixel FX and wanted the big jump in resolution.
I am happy with the crazy sharpness that comes with higher resolution and lack of AA filter but feel a lot more noise is in the files. Unless one really needs the higher resolution at lower ISOs, Z6II may be more reasonable since it's cheaper.
But that 64 ISO 45 megapixel files... wow
That’s good you can see the difference shooting below 100iso. But like our video shows. We couldn’t tell any difference cropping in 100%
@@RussandLoz the difference really only visible when you start messing with the files, pulling shadows, getting a crazy exposure latitude and still not seeing visible noise. The bare files pretty much look all the same 64 to 200 but they respond differently to pushing to their limits. The exact opposite happens with my 16 megapixel Df files, at 3200 iso I can still pull shadows with confidence etc and Z7II will really start displaying that problematic noise. Z6II is probably the best middle ground unless one will exploit the resolution, base iso or crop a lot
The lower ISO produces no discernable difference in DR according to the lab tests at ISO 64 and all the way up from 64 the Z6 is better by 1/3 to 1/2 stop to 102k ISO where the Z7 stops and the Z6 continue to 204k ISO.
Below 64 ISO, the Z7 is at best 1/3-1/4th stop better where both very food and exceed the DR of any display media. At very high ISO 1/3rd stop is clearly seen for the Z6. Canon R6 and R5 has resorted to non-defeatable in-camera noise reduction from 50 to 1600 ISO and about 11,000 ISO which causes detail loss that can't be recovered.
The Sony 7m5 uses Scaling above 12,800. So the "old"Z6 and 7 have cleaner wider dr usable detail and dynamic range. Sure both competitors sell more cameras but Nikon is used by more pros who earn their living from it. TH-camr gurus promote cameras to newcomers and are paid very well for driving customers to a few dominant channels, where the on-camera personalities are web personalities, not photographers.
Has anyone actually missed focus in the studio with a Z body? My main business has been incoming tourism that ended with the start of Covid and besides our general history and culture tours, I offered small group tours for photographers early in the morning of this spectacularly beautiful city and saw a lot of people with a lot of late model cameras and lenses get poor results. They had all the latest versions and top lenses, and all the accessories yet could see they were way over invested and under educated and practiced. I always had a studio doing commercial work while my main income for 25 years owning a large recording studio complex when everything was film and made more personal income from licensing photos used on album covers than actually creating the record. I have 197 gold and platinum album awards produced in the 3 studios in my complex. But my income from licenses was greater. After moving to another country from California in 2000 as retirement, my retirement lasted 3 months before starting new businesses and one being a large incoming tour operator supplying tours for cruise passengers who have 2-3 days in port. That became successful also but it actually allowed me to put photography to use by offering popular photo excursions. A year into it I was frustrated by how few great images my clients produced that I started shifting to teaching on the tours. Most cruise passengers are older, many retired and obviously have money since they all had expensive gear. Working with each on composition and optimum use of what they had I got the clean impression that most people with good cameras are camera collectors and not photographers and that applied doubly to TH-cam audiences. Why do people switch cameras so often, losing all the value in their investment? I think it is because they did not grow up with great art. I know in California there are VERY few real museums or galleries. Where I live every person over 10 has been to dozens of world-class museums, galleries, opera, ballet, symphonies, great literature, and poetry and many are creative even with their phones. The focus is "stuff" and items of function in western societies. Cameras sell well but print services and photo bookbinding are not in demand. The scale of art to the viewers perspective has focused on phone and computer screens and judging merit by zooming in to see technical detail instead of the full-scale message. The creator of the work has specific distances they expect the audience to view from. That is the distance from which the entire work is taken in as a whole without scanning eyes across the image. Large paintings only make sense intended by viewing at a distance, small works reveal their intent only close up. That is lost with the computer display being too close or from zooming in. That disconnection between the viewed experience and that of the creator has diminished the value of art, including photos. being more concerned with cameras than images is seen in the art world also, where hobbyist debate brushes and paints and no one sees their work. Stop changing cameras all the time, visit galleries more, print more, and distribute physical images instead of files. Exhaust all the capabilities of their current camera. After switching from film to digital my most well-rewarded camera was the D90 since it produced a few images that were licensed for high fees that were renewed for years. The camera did not matter.
@@stanspb763 ‘Nikon is used by more pros….’ Than Sony/Canon? Do you have stats on that ?
@@stanspb763 Z6 is a more capable low light/available light camera. However lab tests aside, try looking at 5 or 6 stop underexposed and then later adjusted raw files betwern Z7ii and Z6ii. Dpreview calls it exposure latitude studio tests. I clearly see an advantage for Z7II with cleaner and more color correct shadows (when boosted) compared to 100 iso Z6ii. I think the choice depends on whether you crop, really need 45 megapixels and can control your iso + also using good lenses with good technique within diffraction limits or not. Besides trom my astro work, i check all the boxes. For astro I will use best noise reduction tools available, put more work and hope to match Z6ii performance but it may fall a bit short I'm guessing.
I would choose Z6iii
Fair enough. Why’s that?
Yes
Thank you very much for such a relevant, understandable and "pleasant" 😎 video. Helped me to make up my mind.
Pleasure. What you going for?
@@RussandLoz Z6II. Mainly for videos, but also for reportages/events (medium difficulty 😇)
@@Ivan_Idninata_Navrotsky What swayed it for you?
@@RussandLoz Z7II is harder to implement: Huge (relatively) resolution is useful only for highly specialized tasks (Billboards, advertising, nature ..). Z7II is more demanding on your set, more expensive, "doubtfully" shows itself in low light conditions.
Other than that, the cameras are almost identical.
I got a Z6i and a Z7i new. If I was buying now, I’d get a Z6i or a Z7i used.
Yes, though would you recommend them in comparison with the competition?
@@RussandLoz For me, there is no competition. Nikon til I die!
📷😎👍
Nice video, BTW, as always. You guys do a great job!
@@jeffrey3498 Thanks, I also love to use Nikon, but annoyed when I see other brands equivalent price range body having advantageous focus modes that work
@@RussandLoz Yeah, but we got the Z lenses.
@@jeffrey3498 the 2.8 trinity is spectacular. But I find the 50 1.2 too big compared to other brands. I’d love a 1.4 range
I am trying to convince myself to not buy z7II since it has 700euro discount (with kit lens) in here... Still bloody expsnsive
What would you like the extra MP for?
@@RussandLoz More details for landscapes. My d7200 feels lacking in that department
Z7ii all the way
❤️👏
Thanks. Was this helpful to you?
Do not buy no Z6 or Z7 in 2022. Both cameras dont have an SD card slot. Wait a few months and get the mark 2. Said cameras will pay for themselves then upgrade in 2024.
Xqd cards are much faster. I don’t use sd anymore apart from backup
@@RussandLoz most people still do. Second, laptops generally do not come with a built in CF Express or XQD card reader.
@@castieldiallo2945 We use a usb c card reader which uploads 10x faster. Using Sd is a downgrade?
@@RussandLoz thats you. not the average person. you also proved my my most people dont want to faff around with peripherals just to access memory card data.
@@castieldiallo2945 most people arent spending 2 to 3k on a camera either
If you're photographing events the Z6 only has one card slot while the Z6II has a back up SD card and that is important for photographing events.