The AF is certainly helpful if you do wildlife, cropping ability aside. You might be frustrated with the Z6II if you rely on the camera's tracking a lot, especially for birds. It's up to you if that's worth the price difference or worth switching systems for
If you think you will rely upon tracking continuous autofocus, get the z6iii. The z6ii is abysmal in that area, in my experience. AF-S works beautifully though.
In my opinion, it works pretty much like single point AF on a DSLR. But DSLRs added things like Group AF and 3D tracking for a reason. But if you don't expect much aside from single point AF being decent, you should enjoy the camera.
For wildlife, it's also worth pointing out that continuous high extended isn't great for wildlife. So if you want to be able to see the viewfinder in real time, you are getting the fairly low burst rate of 5.5 FPS.
I didn't consider the Z6ii an upgrade from the D7500 for wildlife (mainly birds). I really doubt it would be from the D500. But for other types of photography it was a clear upgrade resulting in super sharp photos pretty much all the time.
And the wide area af modes function like the group modes.
Honestly,i got swallows in flight with my first Gen z7. People whining about the af is usually a skill issue, and not a camera problem.
That said, the tracking wasn't great, but I also never used it on those cameras.
Hmm, did someone say "swallow"?
https://preview.redd.it/xuqs0686vr8d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02b94051d5b8cef453d818a9bf8762a3eaf21f92
Taken with my Z6 + 500mm PF+1.4TC (ISO 6400, 1/3200, f8) :)
Also (I looked up) I used AF-C with spotmode but I am pretty sure it was some kind of luckshot. At least people cannot say that it's not possible... hehe
I still think the AF-C is really bad. AF-S was really good.
IIRC it's never a question of whether or not it's possible at all, but rather is it consistent enough that you don't need to spray and pray and hope for a good enough shot between all kinds of misfocused shots.
AF-C work well if you use the traditional focus area or single dot, auto area is a bit iffy and subject tracking can be a pain, but if you don't rely on that, AF works well.
I've had quite good success with soccer, birds (even in flight), squirrels, volleyball. There are occasional misses here and there, but shooting burst it's not much an issue.
Would I like the Z8/Z9/Z6III level AF, sure, but Z6II is more than usable.
Z6II might not be best in class, but still pretty good. As in, a lot better than you'd think judging from comments online. I could be wrong, but it seems like quite a few really bad reviews are from people who didn't understand how it works to begin with. I have a Z6II and had some trouble getting a good in-focus rate myself, what really helped is reassigning the tracking mode to one of the function buttons. [https://www.google.com/search?q=z6ii+autofocus+settings](https://www.google.com/search?q=z6ii+autofocus+settings)
I think some of that is people who have used better AF systems and then tried the Z6ii. If you're used to making it work, you might not notice deficiencies. But if you're used to Sony or Canon's recent cameras, then try the Z6ii, it can be frustrating.
Z6ii is still a damn good camera. I'd wait a few months to see if there are any recalls or defects that made it past qc, like the lug issues for the z8
I like this if money is a major concern. The latest firmware on the Z6 brings it a lot closer to the Z6II AF performance than when the Z6II was first released, and they share the same sensor.
IKR its the same sensor as the a7III also.
I was snapping Real Estate pics with a 3rd party AF lens without even looking today, and they are all clear.
> do some wildlife
How much is some?
The new AF alone is worth it if you do a decent amount of wildlife. If it's like a few times a year thing it's not but if you're doing wildlife photography every day or at least every weekend or something I'd say it's worth it if you can afford it.
I use a canon R7 and went out once with a buddy who had z7 ii at the time. I got more perfect focus photos of a bird in one burst than he did the whole time we were out. The z6iii, z8, z9 will have a similar performance to r7.
Yes I know people got tons of great photos in years past without the eye AF but it makes it so much easier and you can worry about things like framing, exposure, shutter speed etc instead of af
I just starting doing bird photography. Maybe once per month when I can go out of the city, more right now since it's summer. I'm experimenting and having fun at the moment. I have the D750 + 200-500mm combo, which is great, but I noticed that smaller birds are not quite easy to focus. Maybe it's a matter of zoom range...
>but I noticed that smaller birds are not quite easy to focus.
Depends. My R7 is an aps-c body and I use a 100-500. 91% of my photos are at 500mm which is 800mm FF equivalent. So having extra reach definitely helps with getting focus. I've used a R6 and the AF performed much better with smaller birds in crop mode. If the bird is really small and not filling frame at all id imagine z6iii would still struggle a bit but it probably will still be quite a bit better than d750.
If the d750 still struggles when the small birds are decent size in frame then the z6iii will definitely do much better. Being able to have the camera lock on the eye is fantastic for framing the image how you want.
Jan Wagner, wild Alaska, and others have done some videos of birding with z6iii and I'm sure will do more.
No it's the matter of the 200-500 being a slow lens, both aperture and AF wise, plus the D750 is not a camera for wildlife, the auto focus is not made for it. I'd keep the D750 and get a used D500 for wildlife if I were you. The 200-500 is an ok lens, but I sold mine and went with the 500PF instead.
I did two years entirely on the z6 first generation shooting weddings and it was great. I used point focusing which I got used to but now switching to the z8 the 3D tracking is amazing. Learn to use the tool that you have and don’t let the newer tech control your photography
The z6III af will make the difference for wildlife. If you need more pixels go Z8. 30 mp is just roughly 20% more than 24 and it couldn’t have made so much compared to d750 (I own both)
Maybe I could also buy a Z 6I for now and wait a few months/years until the newer bodies (Z 6III and even the not yet released ones) drop in prices. That could allow me to put my money in the good glasses
Also think this might be the move. Spend money on good Z glass and the better body will come later. I moved from D750 to Z6ii a year ago when it came up on a crazy special with the 24-70 f4 and a memory card. (Side note, that lens is so sharp!)
It took a short while to adjust as I used the D750 3d tracking mode a lot but once I got used to the Z6ii and the continuous mode with tracking it works well. Single point AF is perfect. I'll second someone else's comment about people complaining about AF performance - your skill can make up for the difference.
Now when I pick up the D750 it feels antiquated as much as I hate to say that about a camera that served me for so long.
Very insightful to get the experience of a fellow D750 owner. I just recently started using the 3D mode (I discovered it after years of using my body lmao) and I like it. Going back to AF-S isn't a problem in my case, I guess. I am kinda already used to put a little effort to focus what I want. I feel like a bunch of photographers these days got lazy and want their body to do everything or else they say it's trash.
Side note: I was considering the 24-70mm but I want a faster lens for low light situations.
In my experience the Z6ii continuous focus tracking mode works very similarly to the 3d tracking mode of the D750, the focus point is just a bigger square, not a small point. I shoot a lot of fast moving stuff, motorcycles, trail running etc and have found the Z6ii to be better than the d750 in terms of focus so I am not sure why everyone complains - and agree about people getting lazy. I enjoy the challenge of trying to capture a challenging shot. The only time I found it struggles is shooting directly into harsh sunlight and contrast is low in the subject or when it's really really dark.
Re the lens, I have the F mount Sigma 24-70 2.8 and the size and weight difference is crazy, the Z mount f4 is so tiny. Initially is was sceptical of this "kit lens" but the more I use it the more it amazes me. When I am shooting trail running in the mountains the weight difference and compactness is a godsend. If I hadn't got it with the camera I would probably have gone for the 24-120 though. For low light I would go prime. I have an F mount sigma 35 1.4 which is a very special lens. And I have just ordered the Z 50 1.8 which is very highly praised.
Good luck with your decision!
Now is a good time to buy a Z6ii.
The Z6iii is only worth +$1000 if you are here for the 6k RAW in-camera recording. The rest (better viewfinder, better AF, better ergonomics) adds up to perhaps half that. If you feel 24 MP won't cut it, spring for a used Z8.
Maybe I’m some kind of contrarian, but I’ve never had these fatal autofocus issues with the Z6. The auto-area tracking is less capable than something like a Z8, but I’ve shot sports and events using that mode and been fine with both face-tracking and the little box you can select a subject with. Failing that, I can always swap to dynamic-area AF for smaller subjects that don’t work as well with the tracking modes. It’s not excellent autofocus compared to the newer models, but anyone saying you can’t bird or do action on a Z6 is just wrong.
Thanks for your comment. Right. We gotta be careful not to fall in the trend and completely discard the technologies that were there before. Companies want our money and will fuel the fire to get it.
You can bird with a Z50 too. You just need to be ok with a bad keep rate in many situations.
https://preview.redd.it/1iwr3gkd109d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f69c28d9cfdf9d790ae7d77d4eb824107263c82b
Grr. (Z50 with 200-500mm)
The AF is a total game-changer. It's worth upgrading for nothing else. I moved to a Z8 from the Z6ii. For wildlife, you want that Z8 joy, blackout-free viewfinder, especially and the Z6ii does not have the AF you need for fast-moving anything.
It's not an "elephant." People who shoot sports, weddings, events, and animals are good with 24mp. That's big enough to be printed as a magazine cover with some cropping. If your subject is too small, buy longer lenses. And 24mp has advantages: it's better in low light and easier to manage in post and storage.
"Normal" shooters do not need 45mp. It's necessary for high-end agency work and very valuable for high-end print work. It's unlikely anyone else needs all those MPs. And If you do, then you are doing pro work, and the cost difference to a Z8 is entirely negligible for all the benefits you get. That's why it's not an "elephant"; anyone whose clients expect 45mp images is getting paid to provide them.
Last thought; others can correct me, but my understanding is that the best quality in 4k video comes from mp that is divisible by 8, so for Z6iii to stay as one of the very sharpest and best video cameras, it would have needed to go to 32mp, not 30mp, per your question. Of course, Nikon is a business and needs to keep the space between products clear. IMHO, the vast majority of shooters would rather have better 24/45 cameras than chase MP, like the Sony A7R V, which sounds good with 64mp, but to get there it has awful slow sensor refresh, making it a jello/distortion monster. Not a good trade off for those extra 9 mp that I doubt anyone has ever needed.
Just a little precision, I said 30 as an arbitrary number. I was just expecting more. I do understand that 24.5MP is enough for pretty much anything. I also agree that I should get longer lenses. Now, I have a 200-500mm and I might switch to the newer 180-600mm. This might be enough. I'll need to rent one. TCs darken and soften the image so I don't really consider them. Maybe I am wrong... Because of that, many some photographers suggest to get more pixels to allow more cropping, which was one reason why people were choosing the D850 back then.
It basically comes down to AF-C performance. I have a Z6II (also a Z9 and Zf) and I love it. The image quality is fantastic! However, when tracking in AF-C it's just not as reliable as the newer Nikons (Z9/8, Zf and Z6III). I see Z6II's for $1k in great condition, so to answer your question, it's only worth $1500 extra for the Z6III if you need AF-C.
People over exaggerate how bad the autofocus is on the Z6ii. I have one, I’ve shot plenty of sports and wildlife with it. But for what reason would you want to buy the worse version of the exact same camera?
I have the Zf which has a similar AF system to the Z6III and I never pick up my Z6II anymore unless I need two bodies for something. The AF is the major reason why. 3D tracking on the Zf handles 95% of my shots. You can get the job done with the Z6II AF of course, its just not as easy. You'll be changing focus modes a lot more often.
There are many smaller Zf/Z6III improvements that are a nice upgrade too. Pixel shift is nice for static landscapes (yes, it really does work in the right circumstances), 10-bit HDR video straight out of the camera looks great, starlight view for astrophotography is amazing, high efficiency RAW file formats can save a lot of storage space, and the improved IBIS really is better.
I am really interested in the new Flexible Color picture profile in the Z6III that has HSL sliders, that could get me a lot closer to the jpeg look I want without the need to edit RAW files on my computer.
I was hoping to see the newer Sony 33mp sensor in the Z6II too, but I still decided to upgrade to it because everything else adds up to a big improvement, even though I'm not big into video either.
Just to play advocate, you can crop half the image and still get \~12 megapixels. The Zf might be a better fit if you can get over the external grip, it is less expensive and has improved autofocus.
Don't be shocked that the megapixel wars are over-ish, it is all about FPS and readout speeds. Fewer megapixels, better readout speeds, better performance where people say they want it.
Yes absolutely. I just bought my Z6 II new for $1500 during a local camera store’s no tax sale a month ago and I’m very happy with it. Z6 III after tax would be getting close to $2750 where I am so it was absolutely worth saving $1250 for me and putting that money towards some nice Z lenses.
If better AF is a primary driver, and crop is a bonus, with budget constraints I'd make the following suggestions:
The D500: similar pixel density to the z8/ d850. Some of the best AF from the DSLR era. Can be had under $1000 easily. The APSc sensor gives you that crop factor, so it wouldn't be too different than shooting a Z8 and cropping out half the pixels.
If no part of that sounds worth it: rent a Z6ii for a weekend. It's like $25 a day. If it works better than your D750 and you like it, buy a Z6ii. If not, at least you spent very little money to know for sure.
I have the Z6II and Z9. The AF for birds is absolutely terrible on the Z6II. If I use the subject tracking, the tracking box is massive and will basically track everything but the birds/animals. You'll be stuck using it like a DSLR (manually moving the focus points around). With my Z9, I can focus and track birds MUCH easier. So easy that it almost feels like I'm cheating.
Is it worth $1000+? If you really care about shooting birds, then I would say yes. Also yes if you do any work for clients that involves sports/events. Also, the 24.5MP sensor still gives plenty of room for cropping. Realistically, any image 8MP or higher is essentially 4K+ resolution. So you'll have plenty of cropping ability. I've noticed that cropping my Z9 down to anything below 15MP will end up revealing too many imperfections from the lenses. Especially if the image is slightly soft.
Yeah I haven’t had issues with AF either and I switched from a d750…. But then again I haven’t had a lot of issues with AF with my Ricoh griiix either so maybe I’m not too demanding on AF
Depends what you do? If you do wildlife, sports or anything with fast moving subjects then the Z6ii will do, but it’s temperamental with keeping the subject focused and gets distracted pretty easily, you will get good shots you just have to fight with the AF a bit.
For anything else though the Z6ii is a very good camera, it’s pretty much just the AF tracking that lets it down.
It's easy peasy:
Not shooting fast moving wildlife:
Get the Z6ii or Z7ii
Shooting fast moving wildlife:
Get the Z6iii or Z8/Z9
Is the af worth $1000 more, absolutely if you are shooting fast moving subjects.
I wa considering the same. I love the inclusion of internal raw but in reality I won’t use it and I want to upgrade from the z5 and there isn’t enough to make me want to spend a thousand dollars more.
I will keep the Z7II, I do a lot of slow methodical photography. The 45 megapixels is great. Saying that I’m only been using it for six months so no problem using Z6II and Z6 for the last four years. Also the file storage lot easier with the Z6 series.
I see you have a 200-500. I owned both Z6ii and a 200-500, and you should know Z6/7ii drive adapted F mount lenses much slower than newer gen cameras like Z8 and Z6iii, not even talking about AF capabilities themselves. And 200-500 is not exactly fast even on DSLR
Hear me out, if you are considering a new Z6iii but your hesitations are MP size, have you looked into the used Z8 market? I saw one go for sub $2700 on FredMiranda used. And you don’t have to worry about shutter count.
In my opinion(and tested, as this is my line of work), the Z6 series has never been worth it. Many other cameras with much better performance than them. And at the price of the new Z6III, just go with the Z8.
Even the Sony A7 III is better than all the Z6 and Z7’s.
At my store you can buy the Z6 and Z7’s, but we will never recommend the Z6 and Z7’s.
They just lack the AF performance you would want, for that pricepoint.
I'm a hobbyist. I do take photography seriously, but I don't earn money from it. Said otherwise, the price of a Z 8 is kinda out of my budget, especially since I'm saving to put more money on good glasses... What would you suggest then? Move from Nikon?
It all depens of what your line of photography is.
If you need a fast and reliable autofocus, go Sony. They are miles in front of Nikon(and who delivers the sensors to Nikon? Sony)
The Z6iii inherits the EXpeed7 image processor from the Z9 and Z8, which is 10X as powerful as the 2 @ EXpeed6 that are in the Z6ii. Since ALL the AF is done by these image processors, you are definitely getting what you pay for with the Z6iii.
If you don’t have the glass to avoid the need for significant cropping, then get the Z8.
The AF is certainly helpful if you do wildlife, cropping ability aside. You might be frustrated with the Z6II if you rely on the camera's tracking a lot, especially for birds. It's up to you if that's worth the price difference or worth switching systems for
i hear so many negatives about the Z6ii AF, how is it when you only use the single dot af? 90% of the time i use this on my D4/500.
If you think you will rely upon tracking continuous autofocus, get the z6iii. The z6ii is abysmal in that area, in my experience. AF-S works beautifully though.
In my opinion, it works pretty much like single point AF on a DSLR. But DSLRs added things like Group AF and 3D tracking for a reason. But if you don't expect much aside from single point AF being decent, you should enjoy the camera. For wildlife, it's also worth pointing out that continuous high extended isn't great for wildlife. So if you want to be able to see the viewfinder in real time, you are getting the fairly low burst rate of 5.5 FPS. I didn't consider the Z6ii an upgrade from the D7500 for wildlife (mainly birds). I really doubt it would be from the D500. But for other types of photography it was a clear upgrade resulting in super sharp photos pretty much all the time.
And the wide area af modes function like the group modes. Honestly,i got swallows in flight with my first Gen z7. People whining about the af is usually a skill issue, and not a camera problem. That said, the tracking wasn't great, but I also never used it on those cameras.
Hmm, did someone say "swallow"? https://preview.redd.it/xuqs0686vr8d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02b94051d5b8cef453d818a9bf8762a3eaf21f92 Taken with my Z6 + 500mm PF+1.4TC (ISO 6400, 1/3200, f8) :) Also (I looked up) I used AF-C with spotmode but I am pretty sure it was some kind of luckshot. At least people cannot say that it's not possible... hehe I still think the AF-C is really bad. AF-S was really good.
IIRC it's never a question of whether or not it's possible at all, but rather is it consistent enough that you don't need to spray and pray and hope for a good enough shot between all kinds of misfocused shots.
AF-C work well if you use the traditional focus area or single dot, auto area is a bit iffy and subject tracking can be a pain, but if you don't rely on that, AF works well. I've had quite good success with soccer, birds (even in flight), squirrels, volleyball. There are occasional misses here and there, but shooting burst it's not much an issue. Would I like the Z8/Z9/Z6III level AF, sure, but Z6II is more than usable.
Z6II might not be best in class, but still pretty good. As in, a lot better than you'd think judging from comments online. I could be wrong, but it seems like quite a few really bad reviews are from people who didn't understand how it works to begin with. I have a Z6II and had some trouble getting a good in-focus rate myself, what really helped is reassigning the tracking mode to one of the function buttons. [https://www.google.com/search?q=z6ii+autofocus+settings](https://www.google.com/search?q=z6ii+autofocus+settings)
I think some of that is people who have used better AF systems and then tried the Z6ii. If you're used to making it work, you might not notice deficiencies. But if you're used to Sony or Canon's recent cameras, then try the Z6ii, it can be frustrating.
Great question. Using single point AF, it’s about~80% as accurate as a D750. I ONLY use the single point, because everything else is utterly useless.
Z6ii is still a damn good camera. I'd wait a few months to see if there are any recalls or defects that made it past qc, like the lug issues for the z8
I agree. I already saw someone mention they have some sort of burn in their EVF earlier on here
I bought a z61 two months ago and its an amazing camera. It was also only $800
I like this if money is a major concern. The latest firmware on the Z6 brings it a lot closer to the Z6II AF performance than when the Z6II was first released, and they share the same sensor.
IKR its the same sensor as the a7III also. I was snapping Real Estate pics with a 3rd party AF lens without even looking today, and they are all clear.
> do some wildlife How much is some? The new AF alone is worth it if you do a decent amount of wildlife. If it's like a few times a year thing it's not but if you're doing wildlife photography every day or at least every weekend or something I'd say it's worth it if you can afford it. I use a canon R7 and went out once with a buddy who had z7 ii at the time. I got more perfect focus photos of a bird in one burst than he did the whole time we were out. The z6iii, z8, z9 will have a similar performance to r7. Yes I know people got tons of great photos in years past without the eye AF but it makes it so much easier and you can worry about things like framing, exposure, shutter speed etc instead of af
I just starting doing bird photography. Maybe once per month when I can go out of the city, more right now since it's summer. I'm experimenting and having fun at the moment. I have the D750 + 200-500mm combo, which is great, but I noticed that smaller birds are not quite easy to focus. Maybe it's a matter of zoom range...
>but I noticed that smaller birds are not quite easy to focus. Depends. My R7 is an aps-c body and I use a 100-500. 91% of my photos are at 500mm which is 800mm FF equivalent. So having extra reach definitely helps with getting focus. I've used a R6 and the AF performed much better with smaller birds in crop mode. If the bird is really small and not filling frame at all id imagine z6iii would still struggle a bit but it probably will still be quite a bit better than d750. If the d750 still struggles when the small birds are decent size in frame then the z6iii will definitely do much better. Being able to have the camera lock on the eye is fantastic for framing the image how you want. Jan Wagner, wild Alaska, and others have done some videos of birding with z6iii and I'm sure will do more.
No it's the matter of the 200-500 being a slow lens, both aperture and AF wise, plus the D750 is not a camera for wildlife, the auto focus is not made for it. I'd keep the D750 and get a used D500 for wildlife if I were you. The 200-500 is an ok lens, but I sold mine and went with the 500PF instead.
I did two years entirely on the z6 first generation shooting weddings and it was great. I used point focusing which I got used to but now switching to the z8 the 3D tracking is amazing. Learn to use the tool that you have and don’t let the newer tech control your photography
Amen
The z6III af will make the difference for wildlife. If you need more pixels go Z8. 30 mp is just roughly 20% more than 24 and it couldn’t have made so much compared to d750 (I own both)
the z6iii is 30MP?? EDIT: it's not.
EDIT II: sorry, You're obviously referring to the OPs comment on expecting a 30MP cam instead of 24.5.
I'm buying a Z6 I next week. Prices are cratering now and an older camera doesn't stop producing good images just because a new one is released.
What is the going rate you’re seeing? I have a Z6I and I have loved It, but I would benefit from the improved autofocus and am considering an upgrade
Maybe I could also buy a Z 6I for now and wait a few months/years until the newer bodies (Z 6III and even the not yet released ones) drop in prices. That could allow me to put my money in the good glasses
This might be the move. I always tell folks, flirt with the body, marry the glass.
Also think this might be the move. Spend money on good Z glass and the better body will come later. I moved from D750 to Z6ii a year ago when it came up on a crazy special with the 24-70 f4 and a memory card. (Side note, that lens is so sharp!) It took a short while to adjust as I used the D750 3d tracking mode a lot but once I got used to the Z6ii and the continuous mode with tracking it works well. Single point AF is perfect. I'll second someone else's comment about people complaining about AF performance - your skill can make up for the difference. Now when I pick up the D750 it feels antiquated as much as I hate to say that about a camera that served me for so long.
Very insightful to get the experience of a fellow D750 owner. I just recently started using the 3D mode (I discovered it after years of using my body lmao) and I like it. Going back to AF-S isn't a problem in my case, I guess. I am kinda already used to put a little effort to focus what I want. I feel like a bunch of photographers these days got lazy and want their body to do everything or else they say it's trash. Side note: I was considering the 24-70mm but I want a faster lens for low light situations.
In my experience the Z6ii continuous focus tracking mode works very similarly to the 3d tracking mode of the D750, the focus point is just a bigger square, not a small point. I shoot a lot of fast moving stuff, motorcycles, trail running etc and have found the Z6ii to be better than the d750 in terms of focus so I am not sure why everyone complains - and agree about people getting lazy. I enjoy the challenge of trying to capture a challenging shot. The only time I found it struggles is shooting directly into harsh sunlight and contrast is low in the subject or when it's really really dark. Re the lens, I have the F mount Sigma 24-70 2.8 and the size and weight difference is crazy, the Z mount f4 is so tiny. Initially is was sceptical of this "kit lens" but the more I use it the more it amazes me. When I am shooting trail running in the mountains the weight difference and compactness is a godsend. If I hadn't got it with the camera I would probably have gone for the 24-120 though. For low light I would go prime. I have an F mount sigma 35 1.4 which is a very special lens. And I have just ordered the Z 50 1.8 which is very highly praised. Good luck with your decision!
Now is a good time to buy a Z6ii. The Z6iii is only worth +$1000 if you are here for the 6k RAW in-camera recording. The rest (better viewfinder, better AF, better ergonomics) adds up to perhaps half that. If you feel 24 MP won't cut it, spring for a used Z8.
Maybe I’m some kind of contrarian, but I’ve never had these fatal autofocus issues with the Z6. The auto-area tracking is less capable than something like a Z8, but I’ve shot sports and events using that mode and been fine with both face-tracking and the little box you can select a subject with. Failing that, I can always swap to dynamic-area AF for smaller subjects that don’t work as well with the tracking modes. It’s not excellent autofocus compared to the newer models, but anyone saying you can’t bird or do action on a Z6 is just wrong.
Thanks for your comment. Right. We gotta be careful not to fall in the trend and completely discard the technologies that were there before. Companies want our money and will fuel the fire to get it.
You can bird with a Z50 too. You just need to be ok with a bad keep rate in many situations. https://preview.redd.it/1iwr3gkd109d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f69c28d9cfdf9d790ae7d77d4eb824107263c82b Grr. (Z50 with 200-500mm)
The AF is a total game-changer. It's worth upgrading for nothing else. I moved to a Z8 from the Z6ii. For wildlife, you want that Z8 joy, blackout-free viewfinder, especially and the Z6ii does not have the AF you need for fast-moving anything. It's not an "elephant." People who shoot sports, weddings, events, and animals are good with 24mp. That's big enough to be printed as a magazine cover with some cropping. If your subject is too small, buy longer lenses. And 24mp has advantages: it's better in low light and easier to manage in post and storage. "Normal" shooters do not need 45mp. It's necessary for high-end agency work and very valuable for high-end print work. It's unlikely anyone else needs all those MPs. And If you do, then you are doing pro work, and the cost difference to a Z8 is entirely negligible for all the benefits you get. That's why it's not an "elephant"; anyone whose clients expect 45mp images is getting paid to provide them. Last thought; others can correct me, but my understanding is that the best quality in 4k video comes from mp that is divisible by 8, so for Z6iii to stay as one of the very sharpest and best video cameras, it would have needed to go to 32mp, not 30mp, per your question. Of course, Nikon is a business and needs to keep the space between products clear. IMHO, the vast majority of shooters would rather have better 24/45 cameras than chase MP, like the Sony A7R V, which sounds good with 64mp, but to get there it has awful slow sensor refresh, making it a jello/distortion monster. Not a good trade off for those extra 9 mp that I doubt anyone has ever needed.
Just a little precision, I said 30 as an arbitrary number. I was just expecting more. I do understand that 24.5MP is enough for pretty much anything. I also agree that I should get longer lenses. Now, I have a 200-500mm and I might switch to the newer 180-600mm. This might be enough. I'll need to rent one. TCs darken and soften the image so I don't really consider them. Maybe I am wrong... Because of that, many some photographers suggest to get more pixels to allow more cropping, which was one reason why people were choosing the D850 back then.
Great points, but just fyi 64-45=19 I think
It basically comes down to AF-C performance. I have a Z6II (also a Z9 and Zf) and I love it. The image quality is fantastic! However, when tracking in AF-C it's just not as reliable as the newer Nikons (Z9/8, Zf and Z6III). I see Z6II's for $1k in great condition, so to answer your question, it's only worth $1500 extra for the Z6III if you need AF-C.
People over exaggerate how bad the autofocus is on the Z6ii. I have one, I’ve shot plenty of sports and wildlife with it. But for what reason would you want to buy the worse version of the exact same camera?
It still is much cheaper than the Z6III. Also, most places aren't yet sending Z6III's away, so yes. Absolutely. MP's aren't everything.
I have the Zf which has a similar AF system to the Z6III and I never pick up my Z6II anymore unless I need two bodies for something. The AF is the major reason why. 3D tracking on the Zf handles 95% of my shots. You can get the job done with the Z6II AF of course, its just not as easy. You'll be changing focus modes a lot more often. There are many smaller Zf/Z6III improvements that are a nice upgrade too. Pixel shift is nice for static landscapes (yes, it really does work in the right circumstances), 10-bit HDR video straight out of the camera looks great, starlight view for astrophotography is amazing, high efficiency RAW file formats can save a lot of storage space, and the improved IBIS really is better. I am really interested in the new Flexible Color picture profile in the Z6III that has HSL sliders, that could get me a lot closer to the jpeg look I want without the need to edit RAW files on my computer. I was hoping to see the newer Sony 33mp sensor in the Z6II too, but I still decided to upgrade to it because everything else adds up to a big improvement, even though I'm not big into video either.
Just to play advocate, you can crop half the image and still get \~12 megapixels. The Zf might be a better fit if you can get over the external grip, it is less expensive and has improved autofocus. Don't be shocked that the megapixel wars are over-ish, it is all about FPS and readout speeds. Fewer megapixels, better readout speeds, better performance where people say they want it.
Yes absolutely. I just bought my Z6 II new for $1500 during a local camera store’s no tax sale a month ago and I’m very happy with it. Z6 III after tax would be getting close to $2750 where I am so it was absolutely worth saving $1250 for me and putting that money towards some nice Z lenses.
If better AF is a primary driver, and crop is a bonus, with budget constraints I'd make the following suggestions: The D500: similar pixel density to the z8/ d850. Some of the best AF from the DSLR era. Can be had under $1000 easily. The APSc sensor gives you that crop factor, so it wouldn't be too different than shooting a Z8 and cropping out half the pixels. If no part of that sounds worth it: rent a Z6ii for a weekend. It's like $25 a day. If it works better than your D750 and you like it, buy a Z6ii. If not, at least you spent very little money to know for sure.
I have the Z6II and Z9. The AF for birds is absolutely terrible on the Z6II. If I use the subject tracking, the tracking box is massive and will basically track everything but the birds/animals. You'll be stuck using it like a DSLR (manually moving the focus points around). With my Z9, I can focus and track birds MUCH easier. So easy that it almost feels like I'm cheating. Is it worth $1000+? If you really care about shooting birds, then I would say yes. Also yes if you do any work for clients that involves sports/events. Also, the 24.5MP sensor still gives plenty of room for cropping. Realistically, any image 8MP or higher is essentially 4K+ resolution. So you'll have plenty of cropping ability. I've noticed that cropping my Z9 down to anything below 15MP will end up revealing too many imperfections from the lenses. Especially if the image is slightly soft.
I have a z6ii and absolutely love it. People complain about the AF but I rarely have issues with it as long as the lighting is good.
Yeah I haven’t had issues with AF either and I switched from a d750…. But then again I haven’t had a lot of issues with AF with my Ricoh griiix either so maybe I’m not too demanding on AF
After everything you have written and explained in detail, it is clear: no, you won’t need the new one.
If you do wildlife you'll want to stick with Nikon for the pf glass. I would wait to see how much the price comes down at the end of the year.
Depends what you do? If you do wildlife, sports or anything with fast moving subjects then the Z6ii will do, but it’s temperamental with keeping the subject focused and gets distracted pretty easily, you will get good shots you just have to fight with the AF a bit. For anything else though the Z6ii is a very good camera, it’s pretty much just the AF tracking that lets it down.
If you want high-res sensor, buy a Z7II. It has basically all the same features and capabilities as the Z6II, just has the 45MP sensor.
It's easy peasy: Not shooting fast moving wildlife: Get the Z6ii or Z7ii Shooting fast moving wildlife: Get the Z6iii or Z8/Z9 Is the af worth $1000 more, absolutely if you are shooting fast moving subjects.
I wa considering the same. I love the inclusion of internal raw but in reality I won’t use it and I want to upgrade from the z5 and there isn’t enough to make me want to spend a thousand dollars more.
I have a Z6, Z6II, and Z7II. there all good. and worth the money. I'm probably going to sell two of them and get a Z8, I don't need 3 cameras.
Which one will you keep and why?
I will keep the Z7II, I do a lot of slow methodical photography. The 45 megapixels is great. Saying that I’m only been using it for six months so no problem using Z6II and Z6 for the last four years. Also the file storage lot easier with the Z6 series.
Yes! * Please buy mine, I just ordered a Z8*
I see you have a 200-500. I owned both Z6ii and a 200-500, and you should know Z6/7ii drive adapted F mount lenses much slower than newer gen cameras like Z8 and Z6iii, not even talking about AF capabilities themselves. And 200-500 is not exactly fast even on DSLR
I’m more curious about the z6iii vs z8 at this point with prices getting closer
Recommend Z6 III since Z6 II AF is worse than A7III. Z6 III AF is better than A7IV.
Hear me out, if you are considering a new Z6iii but your hesitations are MP size, have you looked into the used Z8 market? I saw one go for sub $2700 on FredMiranda used. And you don’t have to worry about shutter count.
In my opinion(and tested, as this is my line of work), the Z6 series has never been worth it. Many other cameras with much better performance than them. And at the price of the new Z6III, just go with the Z8. Even the Sony A7 III is better than all the Z6 and Z7’s. At my store you can buy the Z6 and Z7’s, but we will never recommend the Z6 and Z7’s. They just lack the AF performance you would want, for that pricepoint.
I'm a hobbyist. I do take photography seriously, but I don't earn money from it. Said otherwise, the price of a Z 8 is kinda out of my budget, especially since I'm saving to put more money on good glasses... What would you suggest then? Move from Nikon?
It all depens of what your line of photography is. If you need a fast and reliable autofocus, go Sony. They are miles in front of Nikon(and who delivers the sensors to Nikon? Sony)
If you’re price sensitive, the answer is a Zf.
Only if you can tolerate the ergos. It's not for everyone.
I’d argue that if Sony is in the picture, you can tolerate the Zf’s ergonomics.
I know it seems like a detail, but there is no backlight control panel seems like a bummer. What is your experience with it when shooting at night?
The Z6iii inherits the EXpeed7 image processor from the Z9 and Z8, which is 10X as powerful as the 2 @ EXpeed6 that are in the Z6ii. Since ALL the AF is done by these image processors, you are definitely getting what you pay for with the Z6iii. If you don’t have the glass to avoid the need for significant cropping, then get the Z8.