I think your list is good. One feature I would add since buying a camera that has it and using it a bit for the last three months or so is precapture. Being able to go back half a second before I pushed the shutter release is like magic in some action scenarios.
I understand it's a very powerful feature but I can only think of a few times I would have needed it, such as waiting for a bird to leave a nest hollow, but you would still need to be focusing for 30 minutes upto 1hr straight and that would drain the battery. For me to utilise precapture I would need to purposely attempt shots that use it, like waiting for a bird to take off. I guess my shooting style just doesn't require precapture because I never attempt to take shots of birds taking off anyway.
I would include the precapture function into the framerate and buffer categories. Because if pre-capture is something you want, all three of those categories would be for being able to capture that perfect action moment so they all play together. And like most of these, the arrangement of a photographer's preferences would be completely individualized based on what and how the photographer shoots.
Yes that one was missed on the list, possibly should be with good AF as a priority. Subject detection is also high on the list for me but that is probably part of AF
100% agree. I am a 'devoted' Canon shooter and the R7 (crop) I love with the RF100-500 lens but the buffer is terrible in silent mode. I can live with rolling shutter, but buffer, or lack of, really annoys me. Apparently Canon is developing a v2 of the R7. If they up the buffer, allow for a battery grip, add a stacked sensor and change one of the sd card slots to a cf express, they will have a really really great crop sensor camera. Now my older Cano R full frame I really prefer for large wildlife. The lack of bells and whistles allows me to construct an image easier. Great video Scott as usual. I like the thinking your videos provide.
Great video as always, Scott. I was surprised that you did not have sensor size in that list. While full or smaller sensors will both give you great shots, I think it is an important distinction that anyone looking for a wildlife camera body should know about.
Great video, I think absolutely the same. Glass > Photographer > Processing > Body. These are the key factor to the final image. And of course RAW photo only, because during the years, the softwares were improved so much. I've reprocessed some of my 15 years old photos (Canon 40D + mid range lens 17-85 / 75-300 USM) with the latest Lightroom + DxO PureRAW 4 and I was amazed. Dispite the 10 mpixel, the final result is fantastic. Also I'm occasionally using a some very good glasses (EF-S 60/2.8 macro or the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM) on the same old body (40D), but it provides really good output in good light conditions.
For many of us, particularly those who shoot for enjoyment rather than for money, budget is #1 on the list and is a huge limiting factor when considering camera bodies. As a result, we have to balance considerations of the factors and their relative importance, rather than consider them in isolation from each other, so "value" ends up becoming an important consideration.
My list would depend on where each spec fell on the spectrum of diminishing returns. 24 MP is a bigger improvement from 12MP than 48MP is from 24MP 20 fps is a bigger improvement from 10fps than 30-40fps is from 20fps (unless you are an action junkie) Low light sensor performance is more important if you shoot with a F/6.3 or F/8 telephoto lens vs. a F/4.0 or F/2.8 telephoto lens Buffer probably isn't an issue unless you also have a very fast frame rate and/or very high resolution Regarding AF, when I upgraded from a Nikon D850 to the Sony A9i, there was a huge improvement of AF, and it helped a lot for birds. If I were to upgrade to an A1, it may only help is "difficult situations" like early morning backlight or crazy action. But most of the time, I wouldn't notice the difference.
I actually agree with all your reasoning. Image quality results are not necessarily image opportunities. The parts on your list are correct, but it’s not complete. For me I would add flexibility. I use a Z9. If a camera has great features and I am listing key criteria then I would add “set up flexibility” to the list just ahead of image quality. I value the way a camera body allows me to set up controls to suit my needs. If it has the flexibility to allow me to respond quickly to an emerging scene and flip modes quickly, I am happy. I like a camera which can quickly get out of the way and be exactly what I need. The Z9 eventually got there with firmware 4. It was very good with the earlier firmware but not excellent. I could see the potential but after 4.0 it became a much much better camera.
Thank you for an excellent video. I totally agree with your list. For me a pre-shoot function will also be important, but I don’t know which place on the list to put it since most of the newer cameras will have that now.
Yes, for some the order of importance may shift a bit depending on what someone likes to shoot most often but I agree with your assessment of modern sensors. As you say I don’t think anyone could tell what image sensor size or resolution an image was captured with when scaled to equal size. The lens quality by far is the more important factor and then the post processing that is done.
I agree on an older dslr you can get quality photos with a good lens. But with a higher frame rate a buffer you just but in a better chance of getting that quality photo
Interesting list but completely different from mine (hence interesting). My #1: are lenses available to create the system I want? My #2: how customizable is the interface? Can I shoot the way I want (3 wheels for exposure triangle, at least 3 AF modes accessible with single button press, easy switch to video with dedicated video settings)? My #3: Bright, blackout free viewfinder. If I hit those 3, i'm pretty sure that AF will be great, frame rate will be fine, resolution will be sufficient etc...
I think one think I take for granted is the black out free shooting. I basically waited for Nikon to deliver a great mirrorless body and shot the z9 so much I take this for granted. Lenses are an intersted choice more based on manufacturer than model and I think the big 3 have done well in their lineups to cover almost all wildlife needs.
I think that's a pretty good list. I understand your justification for having image quality and low light performance low down, but I don't agree with you on those two. I think you're correct to say that, all other things being equal, you could get similar looking images from pretty much any camera from the past 10 years or so. But some camera files are going to be easier to work with to get to that point - things like dynamic range, ISO performance and shadow/highlight recovery are much easier to work with on some cameras than on others. An example from the DSLR days - as a Canon user, I found files from a 1 series camera (and to a lesser extent the 5 series) were an absolute dream to work with - but those from a 7D needed a bit more thought and effort both in the field and in post processing in order to get the same or similar quality result. So in that sense, image quality does matter even if you can get there or thereabouts in the end with any of those cameras. For me, image quality would have to be top of my list even though it's getting to the stage where it's almost impossible to find a camera with bad image quality. I'd also have low light performance higher - certainly above frame rate and possibly above buffer size, but that's probably because of the way I work and the conditions I often work in (based in the UK!)
I think those differences in sensors were more evident 5-15 years ago. Today, I am not sure there's a noticeable difference an any prosumer+ sensor. They are different but the images produced would likely all be exceptional
@@WildlifeInspired I wouldn't argue with that - modern sensors are amazing and under normal circumstances you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference on good glass. I still maintain that things get a bit different when you're pushing a sensor close to its limits with ISO or dynamic range or recovery. In the Canon world, the R5 is superb in all three areas and I would expect the R1 to be even better. The R6 was a bit less forgiving though - while the R7 would sometimes fail completely. With those last two cameras, I'd take account of the limitations in the field and I might have to work harder in post processing - but I could get there or near. I guess my point is that sensor quality matters enough to me - and the way I work in some very poor light - that I'd consider it more important that frame rate or buffer performance (and believe me - from a Canon shooter who's constantly frustrated by buffer, that's saying a lot!) Cheers.
Hola Scott,estoy totalmente de acuerdo en cuanto a las preferencias a la hora de elegir una o otra camara.En cuanto a la resolucion cuanto mas tenga mejor.El tema del objetivo es otra cosa y si es verdad que la calidad va mas ligada al cristal que lleves montado.Creo que ahora mismo disponer del mejor enfoque automatico junto con la capacidad de seguimiento son el caballo de Troya de las grandes marcas.
I always think of weight as more of a consideration with lenses. I know for some people it's a big deal and maybe I'm odd, but I have never liked or dislike the camera body because of weight alone. I actually enjoyed the big bulky feel of the old Nikon pro bodies
User interfaces, both menus and button layouts, can really make a difference in enjoyment for me. Performance not so much, but some cameras are just more user-friendly than others.
Scott, I agree with you on the items mentioned. I would add three other items: battery life, type of memory cards (same type) in a two slot camera and body construction. I love the life span of the Z9 battery and wish the other models had this type of battery or stronger regular battery types to handle the new features of the cameras. I have read the Z8 takes 3-4 batteries for a days shoot. I believe it would be about the same for the other Z cameras. If you had one the other Z cameras as a second body, it would add more items to carry with you. I know the features of the flagship camera are there for a reason to meet higher demands and Nikon has to balance the features for a given price point. Having the same type of card is great with the two slot cameras! I know it’s about space in the body, and having slightly wider body would be good in my view to handle this option. Having a strong body is key, as a Pro or serious photographer dealing with the elements and the body has to be durable. I like the full metal body and I know the trend now is lighter. I am not sure the “plastic type” of body (and higher prices lenses) will hold up. The Z8 uses a carbon fiber shell on 2/3rds of the body and yes carbon fiber is strong. It might be the answer for the group that wants weight as a main point. They didn’t use it on the mount side of the body for the lens and I sure there is a good reason. Great information and I am sure there will be many different views on this topic.
battery is a big deal. One thing I really disliked about the newest z50 line is the very small battery. I do love the big Nikon batteries. In the old DSLRs you could put one in and shoot non stop for a day or more.
Which system (camera + lens choice) would You recommend for birding and night photography? Keeping in mind those cenarios, it has to have low noise at high ISO, good AF, decent amount of megapixels and fast framerate. I suppose that would be the best combo: Sony A1 II + Sigma 14mm F1.4 DG DN (7500€ + 1500€ = 9000€) Cheaper choice: Nikon Z8 + Viltrox 16mm F1.8 (3500€ + 600€ = 4100€) As for zoom lens for birding, both Sony (200-600mm) and Nikon (180-600mm) are around 2000€. Now the question is - Sony costs 2 times more. Is it 2 times better? Any other recommendations?
I stumbled upon your channel while I was researching gear. Well done! I put away all my digital cameras 12 years ago to focus exclusively on film, mainly large format but medium format as well. I wasn’t shooting wildlife with it, but I recently got the urge again. I’m in a position where I can afford any of the cameras or lenses out there, but at 64 years old, with my second shoulder surgery coming up in January, I can’t keep lifting the large lenses any longer. It’s just not enjoyable. After careful consideration, I explored some smaller options and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the OM gear. It was better to make some compromises in ISO and dynamic range than not to shoot at all. What does this mean for my images? It means I must adjust how I shoot to overcome some of the system's constraints vs. not going out at all. I’m excited to be able to photograph wildlife once again.
I think if you have the first 4 at a standard you want, the image quality would be there by default, so I wouldn't even include image quality in the list. Some things that definitely factor in for me would be ergonomics, the feel and comfort and ease of use of the controls and menu system, and the customizability of the functionality of the camera. The ability to quickly and efficiently change how you're shooting depending on the situation has to be up there.
I’d like to buy a camera for birding identification and shore birds ( distance + flying in flocks). I’m a beginner with camera. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Good list. Im a relative new to photography. I have the d7500 but looking to upgrade in 2025. This will be my forever camera. Mainly wildlife, macro, a little astro and general stuff. There is a £1000 difference in the body of the z6iii and the z8. Both are a hell of a lot of money to me. If i go for the z6iii i save £££ if it does what i need following your list. Is the z8 worth that extra £1000. I dont do video. And i dont use lightroom etc just adjust the basics in snapbridge. Any advice would be welcome. Many thanks Merry Christmas
I would add ergonomics somewhere, probably at the top of the group of things that are going to come anyway once you get those top three. I dont care about the menus because i only use those once to set up custom modes. Sensor size is unimportant these days. Glass is critical but not exactly part of this video. You do have to consider these factors when choosing a camera line.
It's a valid point that could be mentioned on that list. I've gotten used to most of the Nikon cameras that I don't consider any of them bad but it should be noted that some are better than others.
What about weight and portability? I am lugging a Nikon D7200 with a G1 Tamrom 150-600 around and I am not getting any younger. I am definitively looking to lighten the load though the glass may be the area to cut down on.
For me, I don't really worry about the weight of camera bodies. A half pound difference to me is virtually irrelevant compared to the 6 to 10 pounds of glass that I might be using. I know for some people wait is a factor but for me, I didn't include it in this review because these were what I personally look for in a wildlife body.
I would disagree about image quality so low in your list: I shot in the past with several Canon bodies and last year I switched to Nikon (Z8) and recently I got also the GFX 100S II (which I don't use much for wildlife, but I got some shots too)... Canon and Nikon have different color and recently I could not stand anymore Canon ones and LR was not so great to change them. Having birds with different colors, I expect the camera to deliver me a great image with great color too. You can take 100 photos in 1 second, but if all of them are bad quality, it is better for me to get 10 with great quality... just personal preference
When my 5Dmk3 died about 4 years ago I bought the 1DXmk3 instead of a mirrorless. Why? Because I needed a camera with weather sealing and long battery life, that's all. The shorebirds that I photograph are very skittish and you can't fiddle around getting another battery out of your backpack, and the environment is wet/muddy and sandy which usually gets all over my equipment. So, my list then and now is: 1. weather sealing 2. battery life.
You better have a pretty hot computer to go through all these photos. Two hundred photos at 45 mp that is a lot of duplicates and that is just one shot.
An interesting discussion Completely agree with image quality not right at the top, you have to be able to get the image first. Plus as history has shown it is not always ultimate quality that makes a great photo.
Build quality is huge to me - perhaps #1 overall. For those of us who shoot professionally, our cameras take an extreme amount of abuse. Shoving it down into the sand to get the lowest possible angle with shorebirds or desert reptiles. Using it in heavily falling snow that melts as soon as it touches the camera. Shooting wildfires that put an extreme amount of ash in the air. Using in marine environments where it gets dangerously close to salt water and often gets salt water splashed on it. Using on rocks, such as high elevation rockslides when shooting Pika, Mountain Goats, and other alpine species ..... it's just going to get knocked and banged around a lot regardless of how careful one tries to be. Because of budget concerns, when I buy a camera I expect and need to get at least 5 years of full time use out of it. For a body to hole up to getting knocked and banged around and being pushed into sand and rained on for 5 years it must be built like a tank, so I put that attribute above everything else. Doesn't matter how great the autofocus is if the body is busted and I can't afford to have it fixed.
Agree Tom, I started the list thinking more about features and attributes. Certainly a couple things I missed as well (battery life, crop vs full sensor!)
For me its AF, Weather sealing, battery life and low light performance, FPS ,resolution wise im happy with 24-30mp. I shoot Shorebirds so I need a hard wearing body that wont let me down. I've just soldy R7 and I'm making the jump back to Nikon, possibly the Z8 or as you advised the Z80 of it's as good as the rumours say
I wish I had included battery life in this as it would probably fall toward the end of the list, but would certainly be a consideration. I think there are cases where I would exclude a camera if it had a wimpy battery, but more than likely, those cameras are also pretty skimpy on build quality as well, but not always
@@WildlifeInspired Sometimes you have to expose for the highlights so some of the elements in the shadows need to be brought back in post.
16 วันที่ผ่านมา +1
Just yesterday I managed to sneak really close to a deer, then made it run away after one picture, because of the loud mechanical shutter in my Nikon Z50. If i ever manage to upgrade, i will certainly go for a Z8 (or anything similar in the future). I want to disturb nature as little as possible (which is silly, since other people do more damage in a day, than what i could ever do in a thousand years. Also because I'm still out there, which is more disturbance than if i stayed at home)
I own the Sony A1, it can do 30fps but I just permanently keep it at 20fps. Compared to my old 10fps camera I basically come home with twice as many photos, so at 30fps I would be taking triple!
OK. I like birding so weight is lower on my list than GPS automatic information and battery life. I can go back to a spot and it makes documentation of the picture much much easier. For me the extra cost and small weight penalty of the Z9 more than pays for itself. If I am in the studio doing portraits, then the Z8 is much better.
@@MGriff-q1i Everyone has their priorities, and I appreciate yours. For me I have had back issues for many years and am getting older, so weight was important. Also factored in on the choice of lens, opted for the 600PF rather than the longer 800PF.
@bassangler73 you are in the minority there because the vast majority of crop sensor camera users buy cheap third party glass when possible. They usually aren't rocking 600 f4's
@ricki-bobby sorry but I shoot Sony and Nikon, Sony definitely edges Nikon out, pre raw capture, faster frame rate, better tracking. Nikon is good but fall 3rd to Canon r5II and sony a1II. Nikon win over their zoom lenses only.
I think your list is good. One feature I would add since buying a camera that has it and using it a bit for the last three months or so is precapture. Being able to go back half a second before I pushed the shutter release is like magic in some action scenarios.
I understand it's a very powerful feature but I can only think of a few times I would have needed it, such as waiting for a bird to leave a nest hollow, but you would still need to be focusing for 30 minutes upto 1hr straight and that would drain the battery.
For me to utilise precapture I would need to purposely attempt shots that use it, like waiting for a bird to take off. I guess my shooting style just doesn't require precapture because I never attempt to take shots of birds taking off anyway.
I would include the precapture function into the framerate and buffer categories. Because if pre-capture is something you want, all three of those categories would be for being able to capture that perfect action moment so they all play together. And like most of these, the arrangement of a photographer's preferences would be completely individualized based on what and how the photographer shoots.
Yes that one was missed on the list, possibly should be with good AF as a priority. Subject detection is also high on the list for me but that is probably part of AF
My feelings exactly!
@@KurtisPapeI have gotten a lot of nice takeoff shots without precapture, so while nice to have I’m not convinced it is necessary.
100% agree. I am a 'devoted' Canon shooter and the R7 (crop) I love with the RF100-500 lens but the buffer is terrible in silent mode. I can live with rolling shutter, but buffer, or lack of, really annoys me. Apparently Canon is developing a v2 of the R7. If they up the buffer, allow for a battery grip, add a stacked sensor and change one of the sd card slots to a cf express, they will have a really really great crop sensor camera. Now my older Cano R full frame I really prefer for large wildlife. The lack of bells and whistles allows me to construct an image easier.
Great video Scott as usual. I like the thinking your videos provide.
Great video as always, Scott. I was surprised that you did not have sensor size in that list. While full or smaller sensors will both give you great shots, I think it is an important distinction that anyone looking for a wildlife camera body should know about.
Good point, I its a topic unto itself maybe? I could have put it on my list
Great video, I think absolutely the same.
Glass > Photographer > Processing > Body. These are the key factor to the final image.
And of course RAW photo only, because during the years, the softwares were improved so much. I've reprocessed some of my 15 years old photos (Canon 40D + mid range lens 17-85 / 75-300 USM) with the latest Lightroom + DxO PureRAW 4 and I was amazed. Dispite the 10 mpixel, the final result is fantastic.
Also I'm occasionally using a some very good glasses (EF-S 60/2.8 macro or the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM) on the same old body (40D), but it provides really good output in good light conditions.
For many of us, particularly those who shoot for enjoyment rather than for money, budget is #1 on the list and is a huge limiting factor when considering camera bodies. As a result, we have to balance considerations of the factors and their relative importance, rather than consider them in isolation from each other, so "value" ends up becoming an important consideration.
Life is short, I took z9, 100-400z, z800pf and bunch other stuff on a credit as a modern millenial 😅😅
@MichaelQPowell professional photographers have to meet budget too. Notice at 5:34 - he didn't start with a "professional" camera.
What I love is that you didn’t equate image quality to the amount of MP. Can’t stand when TH-camrs do that
Agree, they are different things and can be related for sure but not definitive. The Z6ii has a wonderful sensor but not many megapixels.
My list would depend on where each spec fell on the spectrum of diminishing returns.
24 MP is a bigger improvement from 12MP than 48MP is from 24MP
20 fps is a bigger improvement from 10fps than 30-40fps is from 20fps (unless you are an action junkie)
Low light sensor performance is more important if you shoot with a F/6.3 or F/8 telephoto lens vs. a F/4.0 or F/2.8 telephoto lens
Buffer probably isn't an issue unless you also have a very fast frame rate and/or very high resolution
Regarding AF, when I upgraded from a Nikon D850 to the Sony A9i, there was a huge improvement of AF, and it helped a lot for birds. If I were to upgrade to an A1, it may only help is "difficult situations" like early morning backlight or crazy action. But most of the time, I wouldn't notice the difference.
I actually agree with all your reasoning. Image quality results are not necessarily image opportunities. The parts on your list are correct, but it’s not complete. For me I would add flexibility. I use a Z9. If a camera has great features and I am listing key criteria then I would add “set up flexibility” to the list just ahead of image quality. I value the way a camera body allows me to set up controls to suit my needs. If it has the flexibility to allow me to respond quickly to an emerging scene and flip modes quickly, I am happy. I like a camera which can quickly get out of the way and be exactly what I need. The Z9 eventually got there with firmware 4. It was very good with the earlier firmware but not excellent. I could see the potential but after 4.0 it became a much much better camera.
That’s a great point and I think for many of us, that flexibility is key!
Thank you for an excellent video. I totally agree with your list. For me a pre-shoot function will also be important, but I don’t know which place on the list to put it since most of the newer cameras will have that now.
Yes, for some the order of importance may shift a bit depending on what someone likes to shoot most often but I agree with your assessment of modern sensors. As you say I don’t think anyone could tell what image sensor size or resolution an image was captured with when scaled to equal size. The lens quality by far is the more important factor and then the post processing that is done.
I agree on an older dslr you can get quality photos with a good lens. But with a higher frame rate a buffer you just but in a better chance of getting that quality photo
Interesting list but completely different from mine (hence interesting). My #1: are lenses available to create the system I want? My #2: how customizable is the interface? Can I shoot the way I want (3 wheels for exposure triangle, at least 3 AF modes accessible with single button press, easy switch to video with dedicated video settings)? My #3: Bright, blackout free viewfinder. If I hit those 3, i'm pretty sure that AF will be great, frame rate will be fine, resolution will be sufficient etc...
I think one think I take for granted is the black out free shooting. I basically waited for Nikon to deliver a great mirrorless body and shot the z9 so much I take this for granted. Lenses are an intersted choice more based on manufacturer than model and I think the big 3 have done well in their lineups to cover almost all wildlife needs.
I think that's a pretty good list. I understand your justification for having image quality and low light performance low down, but I don't agree with you on those two. I think you're correct to say that, all other things being equal, you could get similar looking images from pretty much any camera from the past 10 years or so. But some camera files are going to be easier to work with to get to that point - things like dynamic range, ISO performance and shadow/highlight recovery are much easier to work with on some cameras than on others. An example from the DSLR days - as a Canon user, I found files from a 1 series camera (and to a lesser extent the 5 series) were an absolute dream to work with - but those from a 7D needed a bit more thought and effort both in the field and in post processing in order to get the same or similar quality result. So in that sense, image quality does matter even if you can get there or thereabouts in the end with any of those cameras. For me, image quality would have to be top of my list even though it's getting to the stage where it's almost impossible to find a camera with bad image quality. I'd also have low light performance higher - certainly above frame rate and possibly above buffer size, but that's probably because of the way I work and the conditions I often work in (based in the UK!)
I think those differences in sensors were more evident 5-15 years ago. Today, I am not sure there's a noticeable difference an any prosumer+ sensor. They are different but the images produced would likely all be exceptional
@@WildlifeInspired I wouldn't argue with that - modern sensors are amazing and under normal circumstances you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference on good glass. I still maintain that things get a bit different when you're pushing a sensor close to its limits with ISO or dynamic range or recovery. In the Canon world, the R5 is superb in all three areas and I would expect the R1 to be even better. The R6 was a bit less forgiving though - while the R7 would sometimes fail completely. With those last two cameras, I'd take account of the limitations in the field and I might have to work harder in post processing - but I could get there or near. I guess my point is that sensor quality matters enough to me - and the way I work in some very poor light - that I'd consider it more important that frame rate or buffer performance (and believe me - from a Canon shooter who's constantly frustrated by buffer, that's saying a lot!) Cheers.
Hola Scott,estoy totalmente de acuerdo en cuanto a las preferencias a la hora de elegir una o otra camara.En cuanto a la resolucion cuanto mas tenga mejor.El tema del objetivo es otra cosa y si es verdad que la calidad va mas ligada al cristal que lleves montado.Creo que ahora mismo disponer del mejor enfoque automatico junto con la capacidad de seguimiento son el caballo de Troya de las grandes marcas.
Great video! As someone who does a lot of hiking and backpacking with my camera, weight is a big consideration that you didn’t get into.
I always think of weight as more of a consideration with lenses. I know for some people it's a big deal and maybe I'm odd, but I have never liked or dislike the camera body because of weight alone. I actually enjoyed the big bulky feel of the old Nikon pro bodies
User interfaces, both menus and button layouts, can really make a difference in enjoyment for me. Performance not so much, but some cameras are just more user-friendly than others.
Great video Scott , I noticed the diffuser in the background is it the AK Diffuser ? Is that style of diffuser better than standard ones ?
Yes and personal preference. There's a link at the bottom of each video that offers a small discount. Owner is fantastic.
Scott, I agree with you on the items mentioned. I would add three other items: battery life, type of memory cards (same type) in a two slot camera and body construction.
I love the life span of the Z9 battery and wish the other models had this type of battery or stronger regular battery types to handle the new features of the cameras. I have read the Z8 takes 3-4 batteries for a days shoot. I believe it would be about the same for the other Z cameras. If you had one the other Z cameras as a second body, it would add more items to carry with you. I know the features of the flagship camera are there for a reason to meet higher demands and Nikon has to balance the features for a given price point.
Having the same type of card is great with the two slot cameras! I know it’s about space in the body, and having slightly wider body would be good in my view to handle this option.
Having a strong body is key, as a Pro or serious photographer dealing with the elements and the body has to be durable. I like the full metal body and I know the trend now is lighter. I am not sure the “plastic type” of body (and higher prices lenses) will hold up. The Z8 uses a carbon fiber shell on 2/3rds of the body and yes carbon fiber is strong. It might be the answer for the group that wants weight as a main point. They didn’t use it on the mount side of the body for the lens and I sure there is a good reason.
Great information and I am sure there will be many different views on this topic.
battery is a big deal. One thing I really disliked about the newest z50 line is the very small battery. I do love the big Nikon batteries. In the old DSLRs you could put one in and shoot non stop for a day or more.
Thank you for the excellent video. In your opinion how would you say the Nikon Z50 II stacks up against your key features?
Battery life on that I worry about. 1 card slot I don't love. I should have mentioned battery life in there.
It’s amazing how important battery life is when you have a camera that battery life sucks.
I think it is a fine list.
Which system (camera + lens choice) would You recommend for birding and night photography?
Keeping in mind those cenarios, it has to have low noise at high ISO, good AF, decent amount of megapixels and fast framerate.
I suppose that would be the best combo:
Sony A1 II + Sigma 14mm F1.4 DG DN (7500€ + 1500€ = 9000€)
Cheaper choice:
Nikon Z8 + Viltrox 16mm F1.8 (3500€ + 600€ = 4100€)
As for zoom lens for birding, both Sony (200-600mm) and Nikon (180-600mm) are around 2000€.
Now the question is - Sony costs 2 times more. Is it 2 times better? Any other recommendations?
I stumbled upon your channel while I was researching gear. Well done!
I put away all my digital cameras 12 years ago to focus exclusively on film, mainly large format but medium format as well. I wasn’t shooting wildlife with it, but I recently got the urge again. I’m in a position where I can afford any of the cameras or lenses out there, but at 64 years old, with my second shoulder surgery coming up in January, I can’t keep lifting the large lenses any longer. It’s just not enjoyable. After careful consideration, I explored some smaller options and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the OM gear. It was better to make some compromises in ISO and dynamic range than not to shoot at all. What does this mean for my images? It means I must adjust how I shoot to overcome some of the system's constraints vs. not going out at all. I’m excited to be able to photograph wildlife once again.
I really loved reading this. Good luck to you.
Very informative!! Thank you Scott!!.👍🏼
I think if you have the first 4 at a standard you want, the image quality would be there by default, so I wouldn't even include image quality in the list. Some things that definitely factor in for me would be ergonomics, the feel and comfort and ease of use of the controls and menu system, and the customizability of the functionality of the camera. The ability to quickly and efficiently change how you're shooting depending on the situation has to be up there.
I’d like to buy a camera for birding identification and shore birds ( distance + flying in flocks). I’m a beginner with camera. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Hi Scott i just finished watching another video of yours and was wondering if you still use -1 ev on your z9 most of the time?
I do. Often. Anytime a bird has white on it. I play it safe and protect highlights.
Hey Scott, just wondering if you thought about per-capture ?
Good list. Im a relative new to photography. I have the d7500 but looking to upgrade in 2025. This will be my forever camera. Mainly wildlife, macro, a little astro and general stuff.
There is a £1000 difference in the body of the z6iii and the z8.
Both are a hell of a lot of money to me.
If i go for the z6iii i save £££ if it does what i need following your list.
Is the z8 worth that extra £1000. I dont do video. And i dont use lightroom etc just adjust the basics in snapbridge.
Any advice would be welcome.
Many thanks
Merry Christmas
One camera. Z8 would be my choice I think.
I would add ergonomics somewhere, probably at the top of the group of things that are going to come anyway once you get those top three. I dont care about the menus because i only use those once to set up custom modes. Sensor size is unimportant these days. Glass is critical but not exactly part of this video. You do have to consider these factors when choosing a camera line.
It's a valid point that could be mentioned on that list. I've gotten used to most of the Nikon cameras that I don't consider any of them bad but it should be noted that some are better than others.
What about weight and portability? I am lugging a Nikon D7200 with a G1 Tamrom 150-600 around and I am not getting any younger. I am definitively looking to lighten the load though the glass may be the area to cut down on.
For me, I don't really worry about the weight of camera bodies. A half pound difference to me is virtually irrelevant compared to the 6 to 10 pounds of glass that I might be using. I know for some people wait is a factor but for me, I didn't include it in this review because these were what I personally look for in a wildlife body.
OM Systems/Olympus shooter here and agree with you, love my camera combined with my 150-400mm, it's a beaut camera out in the field,
Glad you're getting great results!
Great video! Can you make up for resolution for megapixels using image processing software? For an example, a Canon R1 vs a R5 II.
you can upsize images but its not the same as capturing an image natively on a higher MP sensor
I would disagree about image quality so low in your list: I shot in the past with several Canon bodies and last year I switched to Nikon (Z8) and recently I got also the GFX 100S II (which I don't use much for wildlife, but I got some shots too)... Canon and Nikon have different color and recently I could not stand anymore Canon ones and LR was not so great to change them. Having birds with different colors, I expect the camera to deliver me a great image with great color too. You can take 100 photos in 1 second, but if all of them are bad quality, it is better for me to get 10 with great quality... just personal preference
When my 5Dmk3 died about 4 years ago I bought the 1DXmk3 instead of a mirrorless. Why? Because I needed a camera with weather sealing and long battery life, that's all. The shorebirds that I photograph are very skittish and you can't fiddle around getting another battery out of your backpack, and the environment is wet/muddy and sandy which usually gets all over my equipment. So, my list then and now is: 1. weather sealing 2. battery life.
good points, if I redo this next year, battery will certainly be a consideration. I may use this in a "deal breaker" gear video
100% on your thoughts on IQ. Sensor technology today is just so close from all manufacturers.
You better have a pretty hot computer to go through all these photos. Two hundred photos at 45 mp that is a lot of duplicates and that is just one shot.
What about pre capture? I’m thinking of upgrading to the Canon R5II JUST FOR THAT.
For me it's not a thing. Lol. I'll make a video
An interesting discussion
Completely agree with image quality not right at the top, you have to be able to get the image first. Plus as history has shown it is not always ultimate quality that makes a great photo.
Do feel that the Z9 you use is the best fit for your criterion?
I would say so. Especially with longer battery life and solid build Several nice features like the sensor cover and black out free Evf
Build quality is huge to me - perhaps #1 overall. For those of us who shoot professionally, our cameras take an extreme amount of abuse. Shoving it down into the sand to get the lowest possible angle with shorebirds or desert reptiles. Using it in heavily falling snow that melts as soon as it touches the camera. Shooting wildfires that put an extreme amount of ash in the air. Using in marine environments where it gets dangerously close to salt water and often gets salt water splashed on it. Using on rocks, such as high elevation rockslides when shooting Pika, Mountain Goats, and other alpine species ..... it's just going to get knocked and banged around a lot regardless of how careful one tries to be. Because of budget concerns, when I buy a camera I expect and need to get at least 5 years of full time use out of it. For a body to hole up to getting knocked and banged around and being pushed into sand and rained on for 5 years it must be built like a tank, so I put that attribute above everything else. Doesn't matter how great the autofocus is if the body is busted and I can't afford to have it fixed.
Agree Tom, I started the list thinking more about features and attributes. Certainly a couple things I missed as well (battery life, crop vs full sensor!)
I add frame rate on the "i" menu. It's not a one button change, but it's easier to get to it.
Any of the three Sony a9 a9ii or 9!!! and be done
For me its AF, Weather sealing, battery life and low light performance, FPS ,resolution wise im happy with 24-30mp.
I shoot Shorebirds so I need a hard wearing body that wont let me down.
I've just soldy R7 and I'm making the jump back to Nikon, possibly the Z8 or as you advised the Z80 of it's as good as the rumours say
I wish I had included battery life in this as it would probably fall toward the end of the list, but would certainly be a consideration. I think there are cases where I would exclude a camera if it had a wimpy battery, but more than likely, those cameras are also pretty skimpy on build quality as well, but not always
I agree with the order. How about High Dynamic Range?
Not something I look for if you are talking about HDR photography.
@@WildlifeInspired Sometimes you have to expose for the highlights so some of the elements in the shadows need to be brought back in post.
Just yesterday I managed to sneak really close to a deer, then made it run away after one picture, because of the loud mechanical shutter in my Nikon Z50. If i ever manage to upgrade, i will certainly go for a Z8 (or anything similar in the future). I want to disturb nature as little as possible (which is silly, since other people do more damage in a day, than what i could ever do in a thousand years. Also because I'm still out there, which is more disturbance than if i stayed at home)
The Z50 SHOULD have an electronic shutter (silent) option?
For me it's: 10 autofocus, 2) frame rate, 3) mega pixels high, 4) ISO performance
I own the Sony A1, it can do 30fps but I just permanently keep it at 20fps. Compared to my old 10fps camera I basically come home with twice as many photos, so at 30fps I would be taking triple!
Culling is a real issue lol
For me weight was a factor, why I have a Z8 rather than a Z9.
OK. I like birding so weight is lower on my list than GPS automatic information and battery life. I can go back to a spot and it makes documentation of the picture much much easier. For me the extra cost and small weight penalty of the Z9 more than pays for itself. If I am in the studio doing portraits, then the Z8 is much better.
@@MGriff-q1i Everyone has their priorities, and I appreciate yours. For me I have had back issues for many years and am getting older, so weight was important. Also factored in on the choice of lens, opted for the 600PF rather than the longer 800PF.
Apsc sensor cameras are really just a cheap but ineffective way for someone to try to get around buying mediocre glass.
No, they are for us that use top glass but need the pixel density..A D500 has more pixel density than a Z8.
@bassangler73 you are in the minority there because the vast majority of crop sensor camera users buy cheap third party glass when possible. They usually aren't rocking 600 f4's
@@christophercarlimages9003 true! I shoot raptors in flight so I like that extra reach
In summary... just buy a Nikon
Agreed!
i can't argue that
Whatever you do, don't buy the Sony. Good PlayStation but not good cameras
Agreed!. I tried Canon but the R7 just can't do it.
@ricki-bobby sorry but I shoot Sony and Nikon, Sony definitely edges Nikon out, pre raw capture, faster frame rate, better tracking. Nikon is good but fall 3rd to Canon r5II and sony a1II. Nikon win over their zoom lenses only.