Thinking of upgrading to a full-frame camera- Z9?

[CIC]

Hello friends and fellow photographers

I have a D7200 and I am primarily a nature, travel, landscape and wildlife photographer. I do some street, still life and food photography too, but ceremonies and fashion are not my forte. I use an assortment of Fx lenses like 200-500mm, 90mm, 300mm and AF-D 50mm. There are two Dx lenses I have, 18-55mm and 10-20mm.

So, what should be a logical upgrade for me? I am thinking about Z9, though I have no idea how good it is for wildlife shooting. I have also thought about Sony, but in that case, I need to invest in an adapter to use my lenses, and I have no idea whether that offers the same IQ and other EXIF based functionalities. I need to go for a loan to purchase my new camera as cameras are very expensive in our country.

I am quite a bit confused, so my question/s may appear a bit less clear and I am sorry for that.

I hope experienced members here will share their insights and help me to decide.

Thank you.

[billtils]

In theory the Z9 will do what you want and very well indeed - but it's too early for enough real world experiences to be available. If you think the Z9 may be what you want then I'd wait a bit.

If moving to FF is your goal then existing bodies such as the D850 and the old but very good D810 are worth a look and would save you quite a bit. Another factor to consider is exactly what nature and wildlife photogaphy interests you. If it's birds in flight or other moving objects the Z9 wil have an edge, otherwise you'll probably get better value for money with one of these.

[CIC]

In theory the Z9 will do what you want and very well indeed - but it's too early for enough real world experiences to be available. If you think the Z9 may be what you want then I'd wait a bit.

If moving to FF is your goal then existing bodies such as the D850 and the old but very good D810 are worth a look and would save you quite a bit. Another factor to consider is exactly what nature and wildlife photogaphy interests you. If it's birds in flight or other moving objects the Z9 wil have an edge, otherwise you'll probably get better value for money with one of these.

Thank you for your reply.

Primarily, I photograph birds when it comes to wildlife. So focus tracking and lightning-fast focussing with higher FPS seem to be the features that may benefit me.

Regarding the waiting period, how long do you think the "cooling period" should be? I am not in a hurry to buy if I at all buy that is.

[tclune]

So, what should be a logical upgrade for me? I am thinking about Z9, though I have no idea how good it is for wildlife shooting.

I go birding with a friend who recently got the Z9. His main camera prior to that was the D850, which I always thought of as the ultimate camera. The Z9 is even better at birding (focuses faster and more reliably, has very useful eye focusing functionality for birds, has truly useful 3D tracking, which was always too slow to work with even the D850, tracks across the entire frame.) The Z9 is too expensive for my blood, but it is a real break-through camera, FWIW

[DanK]

Just to complicate things more:

Before mirrorless cameras took over, many people used high-end APS-C cameras for wildlife and birding, like the Canon 7D II. The reason that the higher pixel density and narrower angle of view gives more reach for any given focal length. The drawback was that the photosites were smaller, and therefore the APS-C cameras were less good in low light.

With the advent of mirrorless, that went by the wayside for both Nikon and Canon. They both have mirrorless APS-C cameras, but they are relatively low end bodies.

However, rumor has it that both Nikon and Canon will be introducing higher-end APS-C cameras soon, so it might be worth waiting to see.

I do relativelyh little wildlife and bird photography, so someone who does more can chime in if I have this wrong.

[billtils]

I go birding with a friend who recently got the Z9. His main camera prior to that was the D850, which I always thought of as the ultimate camera. The Z9 is even better at birding (focuses faster and more reliably, has very useful eye focusing functionality for birds, has truly useful 3D tracking, which was always too slow to work with even the D850, tracks across the entire frame.) The Z9 is too expensive for my blood, but it is a real break-through camera, FWIW

Thanks for posting this real world information. Some folks say everythng is relative and in that regard the Z9 looks to be a bargain. On the other hand the least expensive camera in a bunch of costly options can still be too costly!

[xpatUSA]

... Some folks say everything is relative and, in that regard, the Z9 looks to be a bargain. On the other hand the least expensive camera in a bunch of costly options can still be too costly!

Hi Bill, as regards camera price, I'm a bottom-feeder.

I'm not a birder but, last year, I bought a mint Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 for almost a grand when I already had a 50-dollar (used) DMC-G1. With that purchase, I gained:

Dual image stabilization (body and lens) over just the lens.

Live focus peaking.

The ability to better use legacy lenses with help of the in-body stabilization.

Plus, minor stuff, e.g. greatly improved EVF, double the MP, etc.

For me, with my bad eye-sight and shaky hands, the upgrade was worth every penny!

I endorse the popular view that one should have good reasons for upgrading. For example, if one decides to print much larger after only printing A4, then that would be a good enough reason to upgrade to more MP, I reckon.

[billtils]

Hi Bill, as regards camera price, I'm a bottom-feeder.

I'm not a birder but, last year, I bought a mint Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 for almost a grand when I already had a 50-dollar (used) DMC-G1. With that purchase, I gained:

Dual image stabilization (body and lens) over just the lens.

Live focus peaking.

The ability to better use legacy lenses with help of the in-body stabilization.

Plus, minor stuff, e.g. greatly improved EVF, double the MP, etc.

For me, with my bad eye-sight and shaky hands, the upgrade was worth every penny!

I endorse the popular view that one should have good reasons for upgrading. For example, if one decides to print much larger after only printing A4, then that would be a good enough reason to upgrade to more MP, I reckon.

Ted, THAT's what I call well worth shelling out for

Cheers

[Stagecoach]

Hello friends and fellow photographers

I have a D7200 and I am primarily a nature, travel, landscape and wildlife photographer. I do some street, still life and food photography too, but ceremonies and fashion are not my forte. I use an assortment of Fx lenses like 200-500mm, 90mm, 300mm and AF-D 50mm. There are two Dx lenses I have, 18-55mm and 10-20mm.

So, what should be a logical upgrade for me? I am thinking about Z9, though I have no idea how good it is for wildlife shooting. I have also thought about Sony, but in that case, I need to invest in an adapter to use my lenses, and I have no idea whether that offers the same IQ and other EXIF based functionalities. I need to go for a loan to purchase my new camera as cameras are very expensive in our country.

I am quite a bit confused, so my question/s may appear a bit less clear and I am sorry for that.

I hope experienced members here will share their insights and help me to decide.

Thank you.

Having read the other posts I'll add my thoughts.

There's little doubt that any general camera technology progress/improvement is primarily going to be seen with mirrorless now but that does not mean that DSLRs are suddenly going to be unable to take fine pictures.

The hype at present with the top manufacturers mirrorless is all about the cameras ability to lock onto a subject/face/eye and track it, at speed, with the user doing little and the result being that every shot taken hopefully will be spot on sharp in the right place. Nothing wrong with this and the web is full of great examples of the ability of cameras doing this. Frame size, resolutions, dynamic range and ISO performance are all factors that have not changed from what they were with DSLRs.

Something that is not discussed so much is the progress with lenses for the mirrorless range. Put simply their movement response time when re-focusing is becoming faster, new technology is being used to enable this. This has a significant bearing on the final performance of the system, e.g. the camera plus lens which is an important factor when shooting any fast subject such as moving wildlife and sports.

This emerging improved lens technology will not be useable on existing DSLRs. So do you go out and buy an expensive D850 now knowing that it can never use the advantage of lenses that are now being made to cope with "lightning-fast focusing" as you want?

At present I'm waiting to see what emerges from Nikon although at the same time tempted to go for a Z9. I've been using a Z6 which has been slated in the media for poor AF performance with moving subjects, but so far have found nothing I do that it can't handle.

[DanK]

I have to second some of Grahame's comments. I shoot primarily with a Canon 5D Mark IV, which is a superb camera. I don't feel any need to replace it, even though the Canon mirrorless cameras do offer a few features I'd like--in particular, the AF Grahame mentions. An in fact, I bought my 5D IV at about the time the mirrorless R5 was released. At this time, however, if a truck ran over my gear and I had to replace it, and if money were not object, I would buy mirrorless. That's where the market is going, and Canon, at least, is steadily reducing the number of DSLR lenses it's producing. Mirrorless guards against this.

On the other hand, the best mirrorless cameras are expensive, and between their newness and supply constraints, the used market for them is pricey. For example, at KEH, you can get a used 5D Mark IV for 36%off the B&H new price, but an R5 will cost you 94% of the new price, and twice as much as the 5D IV.

[Manfred M]

Srijan - let me put a few thoughts out as well. I don't know personally know any Nikon DSLR shooters that have gone over to Sony mirrorless cameras, but I do know a couple of Canon shooters that have. They both tell me that using the Canon lenses on Sony bodies is not working well for them as the autofocus is extremely slow. They have had to go out and buy Sony lenses to take advantage of the features of their new camera bodies. I suspect that you would see similar limitations in trying Nikon F lenses on Sony.

On the other hand, the Nikon shooters that have converted to the Z bodies are quite happy with the focus speed of their F lenses. That being said, they seem to have added Z lenses to their gear to take advantage of the new designs but have held onto their old F specialty le G series. There is no focus motor built into the Z bodies, so the D series (and older) lenses do not have autofocus on the Z bodies,

They are using the Nikon adapters, so I can't comment on third party gear.

[CIC]

Thank you all for your kind replies. I am going to post a detailed thought of a mine once I finish re-reading the comments and gather my thoughts in a systematic manner.

[rpcrowe]

I can't comment regarding Nikon but, I totally agree with Manfred regarding adapting Canon lenses to Sony bodies! I tried a selection of my Canon glass (including several L lenses) on Sony bodies using two different adapters (MC-11 and Metabones 4) and, was not happy with the autofocus performance of these adapted lenses in comparison with their AF on my Canon DSLR bodies or the AF of Native E-mount lenses on my Sony cameras.

[CIC]

Thanks again.

As I mentioned, I did re-read all the comments and inputs, and I think the following points summarizes my understanding:

1. Z9 is very new and very costly. Hence there is not enough real-world data available to decide.

2. There are not much conclusive data on how the Z9 compares to D850.

3. Using an adaptor for F lenses to be used with a Sony camera is not a great idea- and this was my original hunch too.

4. There are not many comparative data on how the Z9 fares when it comes to low light focusing, High ISO noise and enlargement using methods like "Super Resolution". Though these, in my humble opinion, are extremely important.

5. I am also not sure whether I should stick with my D7200 as that would give the benefit of reach of a crop sensor when using it with lenses like 200-500. I am sure that I would be cropping a lot of 45MP data to get the perspective intended for wildlife. So any input on this particular point would be very enlightening for me.

Thank you again to all for your time and effort.

[DanK]

Two thoughts:

First, based on my so far very limited experience, he effectiveness of super resolution depends on the image.

Second, IMHO, the issue with crop sensors boils down to pixel density. if you have a FF and a crop with the same pixel density, there is no advantage to the crop sensor: you can get the same number of pixels on the subject by cropping the FF image, and you'll have the other advantages of FF. Where crop sensors begin to edge out FF for wildlife and macro, IMHO, is when there is a big difference in pixel density and you are unable to fill the frame on a FF camera.

[CIC]

Two thoughts:

First, based on my so far very limited experience, he effectiveness of super resolution depends on the image.

Second, IMHO, the issue with crop sensors boils down to pixel density. if you have a FF and a crop with the same pixel density, there is no advantage to the crop sensor: you can get the same number of pixels on the subject by cropping the FF image, and you'll have the other advantages of FF. Where crop sensors begin to edge out FF for wildlife and macro, IMHO, is when there is a big difference in pixel density and you are unable to fill the frame on a FF camera.

Thanks, Dan. As I do a lot of wildlife (mainly birds) and nature, I am not sure whether a FF sensor would be advantageous.

There is one more piece of information I would like to share with all of the members here showing interest in this topic, the street price of Z9 is nearly 2.5 times D850. Though, as I mentioned earlier, I always prefer to future proof my purchase as camera equipment are extremely expensive in our country. So, will the Z9 be a more future proof purchase compared to D850?

[xpatUSA]

..., IMHO, the issue with crop sensors boils down to pixel density. if you have a FF and a crop with the same pixel density, there is no advantage to the crop sensor: you can get the same number of pixels on the subject by cropping the FF image, and you'll have the other advantages of FF. Where crop sensors begin to edge out FF for wildlife and macro, IMHO, is when there is a big difference in pixel density and you are unable to fill the frame on a FF camera.

Not forgetting that the OP's D7200 has a significantly greater pixel density than the Z9 anyway!

[tclune]

Not forgetting that the OP's D7200 has a significantly greater pixel density than the Z9 anyway!

You may want to check your facts.

[DanK]

There is one more piece of information I would like to share with all of the members here showing interest in this topic, the street price of Z9 is nearly 2.5 times D850. Though, as I mentioned earlier, I always prefer to future proof my purchase as camera equipment are extremely expensive in our country. So, will the Z9 be a more future proof purchase compared to D850?

Yes, but.

I make it a policy not to tell people what I think they should buy, unless they specifically ask and are doing types of photography that I do a great deal--and I don't do a great deal of wildlife and birds. But if it were ME, I would not spend $5,500 (probably more where you are) for a Z9, a Canon R3, or the like.

What I do tell people is that before they decide on a purchase, they should list the specific things their current gear doesn't do well for them--or doesn't do at all--and then what features they want in a new camera to lessen those problems. Starting out with 'I think I'd like to upgrade to a FF', or any such, is risking throwing away money.

I don't know Nikons well, but it seems to me that the Z9 offers two things that might be helpful, better autofocus and a faster burst rate, and one disadvantage, lesser reach. (That is, because of the lower pixel density, you'll get fewer pixels on the subjet when you can't fill the frame.) There are probably other things to add to the list. Then ask yourself whether the net benefit is worth all that money. Different people will have different answers to that question.

While I don't do much wildlife, I do quite a bit of field macro (chasing bugs), and that has the same problem of needing more pixels on the subject when you are limited in how big you can make the image projected on the sensor. I have two bodies: an old Canon 7D APS-C camera with a really out-of-date sensor, and a Canon 5D Mark IV, the second best FF DSLR (and on one metric, the best) that Canon sells. When I chase bugs, I always use the old 7D. I'm thinking I may upgrade the 7D in the future for a few reasons. However, I'll almost certainly wait until I am satisfied with a mirrorless APS-C camera, or perhaps even go with a micro four thirds like the new Olympus OM-1. That would avoid the bulk of the FF camera, give me the pixel density I want, and give me the specific features of current mirrorless cameras that I want for my purposes.

I'm not suggesting that your decision should be similar. I just wrote this to illustrate the process I think is more likely to lead to satisfaction with a new camera.

[xpatUSA]

You may want to check your facts.

OK, just for you:

D7200 has 3.92um pixels.

Z9 has 4.35um pixels.

Ergo D7200 has 23% more pixel density ...