Nikon Z* mirrorless

If only the ZR had a viewfinder built in then it would be a great replacement for my Fuji X100V.
I really like the Sony a6x00 cameras but I do not want to support another set of lenses.
 
jknights said:
If only the ZR had a viewfinder built in then it would be a great replacement for my Fuji X100V.
I really like the Sony a6x00 cameras but I do not want to support another set of lenses.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the lack of a viewfinder is a large part of what makes it so small. You can’t have everything, a huge very bright screen plus a viewfinder would make it bigger than a Z8. The Nikon designers got it right imo. I’ve been shooting in very bright sunlight for a week without issues. I’ve also been shooting in very dimly lit venues in almost darkness with limited space where I wouldn’t be able to practically use a viewfinder to get the angles I need.
 
one from yesterday out of my comfort zone
sunk by jeff cohen, on Flickr
 
imattersuk said:
Yeah but the lack of a viewfinder is a large part of what makes it so small. You can’t have everything, a huge very bright screen plus a viewfinder would make it bigger than a Z8. The Nikon designers got it right imo. I’ve been shooting in very bright sunlight for a week without issues. I’ve also been shooting in very dimly lit venues in almost darkness with limited space where I wouldn’t be able to practically use a viewfinder to get the angles I need.
Click to expand...
I think it's more a design choice because it's a video focused camera than a technical limitation. The A7C among others is a good bit smaller and has a viewfinder, I'd take a slightly smaller screen and viewfinder over a single large screen for photo use which is why I'm hoping they produce a stills focused version.
 
I can’t believe Nikon aren’t looking at how to cram some of their full frame technology into a smaller body. It’s the way forward for a lot of people nowadays.
 
I started a thread over in the Micro Four Thirds forum stating that it was stagnating quite a bit over recent years (although it's still a great system), and many responded by stating it's charm was size and weight. The trouble with that argument is that on the body front, some of the Sony FF bodies are not only smaller but lighter as well (i.e. the A7C II or A7CR), and even their pro line bodies like the A7RV are barely any bigger than say an OM-1 and only about 100 grams or so heavier. Also on the lens front it seems that MFT lenses are getting bigger and FF lenses are getting smaller and lighter.

When I look at my Nikon Z kit (which is my favourite from the 3 systems I run) I can't help but notice that as superb as the bodies are, that the Z6 III has grown bigger and heavier since the original MK I, and the Z8 (the beast that it is), is bigger and heavier by a considerable margin than any Sony FF body. Also I cant help but want the smaller and lighter Nikon equivalents of my Sony 16-35 F4 PZ and the 20-70 F4 glass, as it's nearest Z equivalents (the 14-30 F4 and the 24-120 F4), are quite a bit bigger and heavier (as good optically as they are).

I know that when Nikon developed the Z mount, they touted that it has the largest mount diameter of any FF based sensor system, and that was done for technical possibilities for future lenses etc. However maybe that's why many (not all) of the Nikon Z glass is bigger and heavier than the Sony equivalents - due to mount size ?

My dream would be a Z7 III in a Z7 II style body (so same size and barely any heavier), with the latest Expeed Chip and AF system. More than happy to keep the same 45mp resolution and with better video and IBIS performance and then have some smaller F4 lenses (that aren't collapsible like the 14-30) so that it would be a true portable alternative to my Sony system - but I know I'm dreaming.
 
Comparison of ZR vZ7.
Not such a big difference, yes the Z7 viewfinder makes it 20mm taller but I would be happy to use the Z7 (as I do, except for its slower AF), but I could not use the ZR as I would need to keep taking my glasses on and off.

IMG_1802.jpeg
 
Sootchucker said:
My dream would be a Z7 III in a Z7 II style body (so same size and barely any heavier), with the latest Expeed Chip and AF system. More than happy to keep the same 45mp resolution and with better video and IBIS performance and then have some smaller F4 lenses (that aren't collapsible like the 14-30) so that it would be a true portable alternative to my Sony system - but I know I'm dreaming.
Click to expand...
Absolute agreement from me.
 
Sootchucker said:
My dream would be a Z7 III in a Z7 II style body (so same size and barely any heavier), with the latest Expeed Chip and AF system. More than happy to keep the same 45mp resolution and with better video and IBIS performance and then have some smaller F4 lenses (that aren't collapsible like the 14-30) so that it would be a true portable alternative to my Sony system - but I know I'm dreaming.
Click to expand...
And me.
 
Sootchucker said:
I started a thread over in the Micro Four Thirds forum stating that it was stagnating quite a bit over recent years (although it's still a great system), and many responded by stating it's charm was size and weight. The trouble with that argument is that on the body front, some of the Sony FF bodies are not only smaller but lighter as well (i.e. the A7C II or A7CR), and even their pro line bodies like the A7RV are barely any bigger than say an OM-1 and only about 100 grams or so heavier. Also on the lens front it seems that MFT lenses are getting bigger and FF lenses are getting smaller and lighter.

When I look at my Nikon Z kit (which is my favourite from the 3 systems I run) I can't help but notice that as superb as the bodies are, that the Z6 III has grown bigger and heavier since the original MK I, and the Z8 (the beast that it is), is bigger and heavier by a considerable margin than any Sony FF body. Also I cant help but want the smaller and lighter Nikon equivalents of my Sony 16-35 F4 PZ and the 20-70 F4 glass, as it's nearest Z equivalents (the 14-30 F4 and the 24-120 F4), are quite a bit bigger and heavier (as good optically as they are).

I know that when Nikon developed the Z mount, they touted that it has the largest mount diameter of any FF based sensor system, and that was done for technical possibilities for future lenses etc. However maybe that's why many (not all) of the Nikon Z glass is bigger and heavier than the Sony equivalents - due to mount size ?
Click to expand...
It's funny reading this here because I was on the DPR forums the other day and there's a long thread with people all agreeing how much they like the Z8's size and weight. I definitely agree with you on the Sony sizes and when sorting through some cameras I was surprised it was the A9 I had in hand because it's so small and light compared to the Z8. Clearly the bigger size and weight of the Z8 are a design choice since it has no OVF or mirror box to take up space which some people like although not myself.

Looking at the ZR against the A7C, the mount diameter does stand out as limiting how small a camera Nikon can make. My walkabout setup at the moment is the Z8 with the 28-400mm and the 14-30mm lenses but I would really like a smaller body to pop the 14-30mm on so I can easily swap between them, the screenshot showing the Z7II against the ZR makes me think the Z7II would be a better choice since it's a stills focused camera that's only slightly larger. I do keep thinking about an A7CR but I don't have an ultrawide for E-mount and I'm not keen on splitting across two systems again.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
It's funny reading this here because I was on the DPR forums the other day and there's a long thread with people all agreeing how much they like the Z8's size and weight. I definitely agree with you on the Sony sizes and when sorting through some cameras I was surprised it was the A9 I had in hand because it's so small and light compared to the Z8. Clearly the bigger size and weight of the Z8 are a design choice since it has no OVF or mirror box to take up space which some people like although not myself.

Looking at the ZR against the A7C, the mount diameter does stand out as limiting how small a camera Nikon can make. My walkabout setup at the moment is the Z8 with the 28-400mm and the 14-30mm lenses but I would really like a smaller body to pop the 14-30mm on so I can easily swap between them, the screenshot showing the Z7II against the ZR makes me think the Z7II would be a better choice since it's a stills focused camera that's only slightly larger. I do keep thinking about an A7CR but I don't have an ultrawide for E-mount and I'm not keen on splitting across two systems again.
Click to expand...
I like the Z8 size and happy enough with the weight.

Carrying it around with the 26/40/24-200, I don't really notice the weight and size-wise I much prefer it to smaller bodies. Much as I tried, I couldn't get on with Olympus (EM1.3), and I'm not liking my Z50II very much. The weight/size is more important here as it has the 28-400 on it and gets carried along with the Z8/Zf or GFX as an opportunistic wildlife camera. I would like to switch it for a Z5II to get a bigger body but the cropped sensor of the Z50II is useful, and as it is often carried, but never used, the weight is a concern in this instance.

When I had the Olympus (for 2 years) I always had a sense of relief when picking up my Nikon D500 with grip or my D750. I was trying to move to Olympus for my "old age" I will be 70 in. a few weeks, but after trying force myself to like it, I couldn't.

I would like a few mm cut off the Z8 viewfinder housing as the camera is rather tall which it makes it tricky to slip into a bag, and wouldn't object to it being lighter, but I don't want Nikon to go down the road of "only" making small/light bodies; he Z8 is close to perfect in terms of size for me.
 
Sootchucker said:
I started a thread over in the Micro Four Thirds forum stating that it was stagnating quite a bit over recent years (although it's still a great system), and many responded by stating it's charm was size and weight. The trouble with that argument is that on the body front, some of the Sony FF bodies are not only smaller but lighter as well (i.e. the A7C II or A7CR), and even their pro line bodies like the A7RV are barely any bigger than say an OM-1 and only about 100 grams or so heavier. Also on the lens front it seems that MFT lenses are getting bigger and FF lenses are getting smaller and lighter.

When I look at my Nikon Z kit (which is my favourite from the 3 systems I run) I can't help but notice that as superb as the bodies are, that the Z6 III has grown bigger and heavier since the original MK I, and the Z8 (the beast that it is), is bigger and heavier by a considerable margin than any Sony FF body. Also I cant help but want the smaller and lighter Nikon equivalents of my Sony 16-35 F4 PZ and the 20-70 F4 glass, as it's nearest Z equivalents (the 14-30 F4 and the 24-120 F4), are quite a bit bigger and heavier (as good optically as they are).

I know that when Nikon developed the Z mount, they touted that it has the largest mount diameter of any FF based sensor system, and that was done for technical possibilities for future lenses etc. However maybe that's why many (not all) of the Nikon Z glass is bigger and heavier than the Sony equivalents - due to mount size ?

My dream would be a Z7 III in a Z7 II style body (so same size and barely any heavier), with the latest Expeed Chip and AF system. More than happy to keep the same 45mp resolution and with better video and IBIS performance and then have some smaller F4 lenses (that aren't collapsible like the 14-30) so that it would be a true portable alternative to my Sony system - but I know I'm dreaming.
Click to expand...

I moved to Sony from Nikon as there didn’t seem like there was a Nikon mirrorless system coming and I wanted to reduce weight/size of kit. I first thought Sony was the solution due to camera size being much smaller, but FF lenses were generally the same size and weight (Sony slightly lighter than Nikon now).

I found I didn’t really like the smaller sized cameras as it felt more difficult to hold and use than my previous Nikon DSLRs. Lens size of FF lenses is also generally similar unless they’ve managed to work some magic some how. With Sony it felt like the camera body was smaller but on a normal sized lens. That meant the weight balance felt off to me.

The Nikon Z8 is an exception as it’s much bigger than the Z7II. Surprisingly the Z7 is closer to Sony cameras in size and weight. The Nikon Z lens do seem to be bigger but like you say that likely due to the larger mount.

IMG_0699.jpeg

IMG_0701.png

I moved back to Nikon partly due to the Z8 but also for the 400mm f4.5. To me the Z8 feels good in hand. I’d probably like it a bit smaller like the D750 size compared to the D800 size.

For lenses I’ve gone with smaller and lighter options like the 24-200 and 400 f4.5. It does make a difference.

I’m generally happy with the Z8. It is on the large size but it’s not silly large/heavy. It’s more akin to my previous DSLR’s, except I don’t have stupid sized lenses like the 200-400 f4 now.

There’s always the option of the Z7 but I guess there is a slightly lower performance there unless they manage to squeeze in the Z8 components into a smaller body like you’d want.

It will be interesting to see where Nikon go from here. Slight body size reduce on the Z8 would be nice but lens size/weight reduction would be nice to see.

What’s surprising now is Sony have managed to shrink the 300mm f2.8 to a size and weight close to Nikon 400mm f4.5. I do wonder if this is a reason why we haven’t seen a Z 300mm f2.8 as Nikon are probably redesigning their potential Z model now to closer match the Sony as the 300mm f2.8 lens market has changed due to the Sony.

IMG_0700.jpeg
 
JohnMcL7 said:
It's funny reading this here because I was on the DPR forums the other day and there's a long thread with people all agreeing how much they like the Z8's size and weight. I definitely agree with you on the Sony sizes and when sorting through some cameras I was surprised it was the A9 I had in hand because it's so small and light compared to the Z8. Clearly the bigger size and weight of the Z8 are a design choice since it has no OVF or mirror box to take up space which some people like although not myself.

Looking at the ZR against the A7C, the mount diameter does stand out as limiting how small a camera Nikon can make. My walkabout setup at the moment is the Z8 with the 28-400mm and the 14-30mm lenses but I would really like a smaller body to pop the 14-30mm on so I can easily swap between them, the screenshot showing the Z7II against the ZR makes me think the Z7II would be a better choice since it's a stills focused camera that's only slightly larger. I do keep thinking about an A7CR but I don't have an ultrawide for E-mount and I'm not keen on splitting across two systems again.
Click to expand...

I use the ZFC for my every day carry camera. Even with the crop sensor, the 14-30mm is normally plenty wide enough but when it's not I have the Nikon 10-20mm DX VR, which is optically brilliant and tiny.

 
Last edited:
Hmmm I have been a huge fan of Olympus for several years and still have my om1 and 100-400mkii , and while very good especially with the 2x crop and light weight , I started to notice over the last few years that I.q from canon/ Nikon/ Sony FF mirrorless bodies was overtaking what I could at best achieve
Last year for nostalgia I dabbled in Nikon DSLR again and built up a good collection of F mount lenses , then earlier this year I had a bite yer arm off offer from my lad and now own a Z8 and 180-600 lens plus a mix of other Z mount and F mount lenses enough to cover every eventuality plus adaptors and t.c’s
The first thing I did was change the tripod foot on the big lens to a houege one that accepts a QD release and has a arca plate built in . And TBH I don’t find the size and weight a problem at all and that’s at 80+ years old with a dicky heart ,I think my images speak for themselves quality of the gear and although I own a gitzo cf tripod and gimbal a siriu cf monopod and a cotton carrier I can honestly say I’ve not yet used any of them all shots are hand held
 
I do wonder how far away the Z7iii is from release.

All I would want is the exact same features as my Z7 but with the latest EXPEED chipset, improved AF and a change to a proper battery grip not one that uses the current battery slot for an insertion.
My Z7 and Z8 are fine cameras but the Z8 is really a Z9 with a few less features.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top