Nikon unveils Z 7 and Z 6 pro-grade mirrorless cameras

Nikon has been teasing its first pro-grade mirrorless system for weeks, and it's finally shed a light on what to expect from its next generation of cameras. The Nikon Z family comprises two bodies: the Z 7, with a 45.7-MP sensor, and the Z 6, with a 24.5-MP photon collector.

Both Z bodies use backside-illuminated, full-frame 35-mm sensors with integrated phase-detection AF systems and in-body, five-axis image stabilization. Nikon claims it's distributed phase-detection autofocus sensors over “approximately 90%” of both cameras' image areas, but the Z 7 will have 493 focus points within that area while the Z 6 will make do with 273. Both cameras will also augment their phase-detection pixels with contrast-detection autofocus when it's needed.

The two cameras also differ in the sensitivity ranges they offer. The Z 7 supports a range of ISO 64 to ISO 25600. That range can be expanded to ISO 32 at the low end or ISO 102400 at the top end at the cost of potential changes in image quality. The Z 6, with its lower pixel density, natively supports ISO 100 to ISO 51200, and its range can also be expanded to ISO 50 at the low end and ISO 204800 at the top end.

The heart of any mirrorless camera is its electronic viewfinder, and Nikon has equipped both cameras with a 3.69-million-dot EVF (or 1280×960 resolution, according to DPReview). Nikon also allows shooters to compose and choose their focus points on the Z bodies' rear touch screen, which folds out and flips to give the viewer the proper angle at all times.

Today's camera buyers expect video competence to go with stills shooting, and the Z bodies both have some features that will help them do double duty during motion-picture shoots. The biggest improvement to the video-shooting experience with the Z system is that the on-sensor phase-detection autofocus lets video shooters make do without a focus puller in a pinch.

Nikon also allows shooters to use an N-Log color profile for greater flexibility when color grading, and that profile can be used with 10-bit output to external HDMI recorders for even more breathing room in challenging scene conditions. Video pros can also add time code to their recordings for synchronization with other cameras and equipment.

Both Z cameras can shoot 4K video at 30 FPS using their full sensor areas, although DPReview says the Z 7 relies on a form of line skipping during full-frame 4K recording that can result in artifacting. Switching over to DX (or APS-C) mode cures this problem for discerning videographers, according to the site, and the Z 6 apparently doesn't need to perform line-skipping even in its full-frame video mode. Slow-mo shooters will find support for 1920×1080 video at 120 FPS, too.

Nikon's Z cameras abandon its long-running F mount in favor of a more flexible creative canvas for its lens designers. The Z mount has a 55-mm flange diameter and a 16-mm back-focus distance to allow lens designers to bring lenses' rear elements closer to the sensor for better performance. Nikon is supporting those bodies with three Nikkor Z lenses: a 35-mm f/1.8 S prime, a 50-mm f/1.8 S prime, and a 24-70 f/4 S zoom.

The Z-mount lens lineup is a little thin to start with, however, so Nikon is making an F-mount-to-Z-mount adapter that will let shooters use their existing bags full of Nikkor lenses. Nikon claims this adapter will let about 360 of its past lenses work with some degree of autoexposure or autofocus, and the Z bodies' built-in stabilization will either stabilize non-VR lenses or augment VR lenses' capabilities for sharp shots.

To really show off what the Z-mount can do, Nikon is developing a massive 58-mm f/0.95 lens bearing its “Noct” branding (after another famous wide-aperture 58-mm lens from 1977). This beast of an optical system will apparently be manual-focus-only, and it'll feature an on-lens readout capable of showing aperture and focus distance. 

The Z 7 will be available September 27 for a $3400 body-only suggested price or $4000 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 f/4 S lens. The Z 6 will hit store shelves in late November for $2000 body-only or $2600 with the 24-70 f/4 S lens. The Nikkor Z 24-70 f/4 S will also be available separately for $1000 from launch.

The 35-mm f/1.8 S will list for $850 when it arrives on September 27, while the 50-mm f/1.8 S will go for $600 in late October. The FTZ adapter will carry a $250 price tag when it arrives alongside the Z bodies on September 27. Nikon has a roadmap of future lens development plans so that shooters can plan around the arrival of native glass for the system, too.

Comments closed
    • Voldenuit
    • 1 year ago

    One thing reviewers seem to gloss over is that Nikon is making the Z mount proprietary and not opening it up (or, at this point, licensing it to third party manufacturers):

    [url=https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9336220495/the-nikon-z-is-a-big-step-for-nikon-but-they-need-to-keep-being-brave<]From dpreview:[/url<] [quote<]But, while I commend Nikon for making a break with its past, I worry a little that it's decided not to share the details of this mount with third party makers.[/quote<] More than anything, this makes the Z a dead system to me. I don't buy a system camera to be locked into a single lens manufacturer.

      • Airmantharp
      • 1 year ago

      The F-mount isn’t ‘open’ either, and yet F-mount third-party lenses work with the Nikon FTZ adapter on the Z cameras.

      Not ‘much ado about nothing’, but I don’t see it being an issue. Even Sony doesn’t provide everything for E-mount, so that leaves MFT :).

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 1 year ago

        Agreed. Tamron may have a leg up due to their partnership, but other lens manufacturers have reverse-engineered the communication protocols and physical and electrical connections.

    • TheEmrys
    • 1 year ago

    Looks like among the professional reviewers, Nikon’s effort isn’t good enough at the price point they have set. Still lagging behind everyone in mirrorless. The one comment that seems to come up over and over is that these should have been D750 and D850 in mirrorless bodies, and they just aren’t there.

      • Airmantharp
      • 1 year ago

      They’ve solidly trounced Sony in ergonomics, the only other consumer full-frame mirrorless vendor, and Nikon’s adapter provides far more support than Sony did on release.

      What I see is a bit of a refinement process; Sony is on their third generation of full-frame mirrorless and really sixth or seventh generation of mirrorless technology- more if you count DSLT evolution- and Sony is still trying to tack away from their consumer electronics ways to make fluid photographic tools, despite all of the technology they throw at the problem.

      Make no mistake that while Nikon hasn’t scored 100% out of the gate, Sony will soon find themselves playing catch-up again. If you’re in doubt, just compare what Sony still lacks to what Nikon lacks, and what it might take to close the gaps in each lineup.

        • blitzy
        • 1 year ago

        The trouble is the Sony A7r3 is pretty much equivalent or better, while Nikon may eventually surpass Sony in overall package (e.g. usability, better lenses etc.). Who wants to wait 5 years for that to eventuate when you can already buy a Sony camera for cheaper, and with better specs.

        Pretty tough choice for anyone buying at this moment, I’d prefer to use a Nikon due to ergonomics but I don’t think this release is all that compelling. You’d mainly be betting on investing into a system that will grow to be better, but realistically it’s better to buy what you can use right now, and sell to swap if needed. I think Nikon will probably be forced to price these a bit more reasonably, in order to keep user base happy. Anyone sitting on a lens Nikon collection is probably just going to stick with what they’re already running would be my feeling.

        It may still take an iteration or two for Nikon to surpass Sony which could take a number of years, and keep in mind Sony is not sitting still either. It will be interesting to see how it pans out, as Canon are still yet to show their hand.

          • Airmantharp
          • 1 year ago

          Not that I disagree when considering only the Nikon Z system by itself, but unlike Sony, Nikon has a massive stable of F-mount lenses that will natively adapt- many of which surpass Sony’s latest E-mount options.

          For Nikon shooters, the Z system can be added immediately, use all modern glass, and supplement/complement their current Nikon system.

          • TheEmrys
          • 1 year ago

          Yep. The price is just too high for what they are. Certainly not living up to the hype. Were they both $500 less, I would call them good, but not great value.

    • Neutronbeam
    • 1 year ago

    Get me on the communicator when the Z 6 has photon TORPEDOES.

    EDIT: corrected formatting

    • chuckula
    • 1 year ago

    [quote<]The Z 7 will be available September 27 for a $3400 body-only suggested price or $4000 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 f/4 S lens. The Z 6 will hit store shelves in late November for $2000 body-only or $2600 with the 24-70 f/4 S lens. The Nikkor Z 24-70 f/4 S will also be available separately for $1000 from launch.[/quote<] #PutsTheRTX2080TiInPerspective

      • ptsant
      • 1 year ago

      You can actually make a living with this camera+lens. Hard to say the same for a 2080Ti. Note also that a good lens can/should last for years. And these cameras are usually built like tanks.

      This is the Quadro equivalent of the 2080Ti.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 1 year ago

        Not sure I’d say that about chuckula. Someone can make a living with it, but probably not him. Or me. 😆

          • chuckula
          • 1 year ago

          I’m not good at gaming, but something tells me I’d be a better professional gamer than professional photographer.

          So I could at least write the RTX 2080 off as a business expense.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 1 year ago

            Same. Everything I know about cameras I learned from Jeff when I took [url=https://techreport.com/review/29208/zotac-zbox-magnus-en970-reviewed<]these photos[/url<]. Dude gave up a Saturday morning just to help a n00b out.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 1 year ago

      A good lens is still good a decade later. That overpriced graphics card will be electronic junk long before then.

        • chuckula
        • 1 year ago

        This is why we need to end Moore’s Law so that you don’t have to worry about your GPU becoming obsolete!

      • Krogoth
      • 1 year ago

      #PoorVolta

    • chuckula
    • 1 year ago

    OK camera peoples.

    So does normal “single lens reflex” imply that there *is* a mirror that’s splitting the light between the sensor and the optical view finder?

    Is the advantage to these cameras that there’s just lens –> sensor with no mirror and the view finder is just an LCD that’s generating a hopefully accurate depiction of what the sensor is actually seeing?

    #CameraNoob

      • ptsant
      • 1 year ago

      The main advantage is that the absence of the prism and mirror makes for a much smaller camera, making it convenient to carry around a full frame sensor. You also remove the moving parts (mirror, curtains) that can fail and the vibration that they produce.

      The main disadvantage is that the focusing must be done by the main sensor instead of a dedicated sub-sensor (which works typically by detecting phase change). This used to be slow, much slower than what even an amateur would consider acceptable. This was the main technical obstacle until now. Another disadvantage is that you need an electronic viewfinder.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 1 year ago

        How does the optical viewfinder at the top of the body work? Is that just another feed for the same electronic display?

        Maybe if TR is going to write about cameras, it would be good for the resident camera expert (Jeff) to write about it. I’m sure he’s stretched for time, but it would make us all feel smarter to have read something informed and collected in one place.

          • Jeff Kampman
          • 1 year ago

          That’s exactly what the EVF is. You get direct sensor readout.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 1 year ago

            Ah, got it. I thought the EVF was the name for the screen.

            • DPete27
            • 1 year ago

            On my Sony a6000 using the EVF in manual focus mode zooms in a LOT in the focus box when you rotate the “focus ring” on the lens” to make it easier to tell if you’re focused properly or not.

            Maybe that feature doesn’t appeal to everyone, but I certainly find it helpful. Not sure if I can turn it off, because I don’t want to.

            Also, you see exactly what the picture will look like from behind the sensor. That’s obviously a plus.

            • Voldenuit
            • 1 year ago

            I also use the focus assist feature and edge detect a lot on my mirrorless camera (GX-7). With the touchscreen, I can use my thumb to move around the zoomed in area even with my eye to the EVF.

        • videobits
        • 1 year ago

        [quote<] also remove the moving parts (mirror, curtains) [/quote<] Small detail: The mirrorless cameras typically still have a mechanical shutter. These new Nikon's do as well. Because the mirror is not involved now the whole mechanism becomes lighter, quieter, and more simple. I recently got a Panasonic micro four-thirds camera (mirrorless). The shutter is super quiet in comparison to my Canon T6i.

          • Voldenuit
          • 1 year ago

          True, but most mirrorless cameras (and presumably some DSLRs in various mirror lock-up modes) also allow for full electronic shutter, or various combinations of first or second-curtain mechanical+electronic shutter.

          The tradeoff is you get less physical shake (shutter shake can be a noticeable problem on some combinations of mirrorless bodies and lens/focal lengths) and less noise (useful in quiet surroundings) at the expense of more image noise, reduced dynamic range and rolling shutter (jelly roll).

      • jts888
      • 1 year ago

      It’s a set of trade-offs.

      SLR has:[list<][*<]+ viewfinder with zero lag, zero power draw, and sharper than any screen made [/*<][*<]+ typically faster/more accurate auto-focus [b<]when the sensor is not exposed[/b<] [/*<][*<]+ massive collections of top-notch lenses [/*<][*<]- deeper/bulkier and thus heavier camera body than what a mirrorless design allows [/*<][*<]- slight mirror slap noise and shake (affecting super-telephoto zoom blur) [/*<][*<]- awful contrast-hunting auto-focus when shooting video (mirror locked up) [/*<][*<]- in practice, no in-body (actuated sensor) image stabilization[/*<][/list<] Mirrorless is essentially the opposite points as above, plus the notable point that allowing rear lens elements closer to the sensor means more flexibility in lens design, particularly in wider (a.k.a., "faster" and supporting more depth of field blur) f/#.# apertures. In practice, it also looks like mirrorless cameras are also putting more innovation into the sensors as they address issues like no discrete auto-focus sensors (via beam splitting) and diverge from DSLR norms with things like actuated sensor based image stabilization. I have an older but still pretty nice Canon 5Ds Mark II (21 MP full-frame DSLR) with a multiple ~$2k lenses, but I expect to look into a mirror less within the next few years as the segment matures (including new lens availability) and competition grows a bit.

        • ptsant
        • 1 year ago

        I have decided that I can’t carry a bigger camera than my Canon EOS 80D so the next will have to be mirrorless and full frame. But not quite yet. Waiting for the Z5 or Z6 mkII probably…

        • Kretschmer
        • 1 year ago

        I would also add that an electronic viewfinder (where you stick your eye) vs an optical viewfinder allows you to see the camera’s expected picture from the sensor instead of having to apply some of the options in your head. Additionally, an EVF allows you to add various in-viewfinder tools (like a picture level or histogram) for use without taking your eye away to view the back screen. You can also change settings, review pictures, zoom to confirm your focus, and do other cool things. I prefer an EVF, but I also started with EVF cameras.

          • Usacomp2k3
          • 1 year ago

          The Rebel’s I’ve used had an LCD display around the viewfinder that showed the supplemental information around the main screen versus an overlay. The only overlay was the focus points.

        • Goty
        • 1 year ago

        [quote<]- awful contrast-hunting auto-focus when shooting video (mirror locked up)[/quote<] I've actually had excellent results with Canon's DPAF and STM lenses. Very fast, no-hunt autofocus in some pretty challenging conditions.

          • jts888
          • 1 year ago

          you’re right IMO that dual-pixel auto-focus is a pretty good tech, but I still consider it a rarity in DSLRs. my knowledge may very well be stale though.

            • Goty
            • 1 year ago

            It has made its way all the way down into the Rebel line, so it’s fairly widespread as far as their more recent models go.

        • Spunjji
        • 1 year ago

        One small point – a few of the less popular brands of DSLRs did/do have various forms of in-body stabilisation. Olympus were fiddling about with it on their old 4/3 range and Pentax used a more refined version of the tech for the APSC K-5.

          • Airmantharp
          • 1 year ago

          Pentax would be superbly appealing if they ever got their stuff together.

          Action-oriented AF and WR primes would go a long way toward widening their mindshare!

      • [+Duracell-]
      • 1 year ago

      [quote<]So does normal "single lens reflex" imply that there *is* a mirror that's splitting the light between the sensor and the optical view finder?[/quote<] Yes. [quote<]Is the advantage to these cameras that there's just lens --> sensor with no mirror and the view finder is just an LCD that's generating a hopefully accurate depiction of what the sensor is actually seeing?[/quote<] Not only that, the bodies are typically lighter and smaller since there are no mirrors inside, just a sensor. The disadvantage is that there are fewer lens choices, but that shouldn't be a problem with the adapter, in this case.

        • lastinline
        • 1 year ago

        One nice thing about using an SLR lens + adapter with a mirrorless camera: you can get tilting adapters that turn any lens into a tilt lens, which in the olden days were few and expensive.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 1 year ago

      That’s exactly it. The vast majority of interchangeable-lens cameras made since 1959 have included a mirror in the optical path between lens and film/sensor to redirect light through a focusing screen and erecting prism so that you could, well, focus and compose.

      That was the major advance of the Nikon F and other SLRs over the Leica M and other rangefinders: you got a direct view through the lens that was always reflective (heh) of what you would see in the final shot, with practically any lens.

      Rangefinders have endured, however, because of the optical quality that’s possible when you don’t have to design lenses that account for a large distance between the rear of the lens and the film or sensor plane. Leica lenses have a deserved reputation for being among the sharpest in the world in part because of the inherent advantages the rangefinder design offers optical engineers.

      Rangefinders have all sorts of issues, though. One is parallax at close distances. You’re peering through a separate viewfinder, not the lens, so the mismatch between your eye’s perspective and the lens’ perspective grows as you focus on closer subjects. Rangefinders also show more of the image than you’ll actually get in their viewfinders, so it can be difficult to achieve precise compositions at the edges of your frame.

      Your rangefinder also can’t show the full view from wide-angle lenses, so you have to compose through another, separate finder that’s different for every wide-angle lens you have in your bag before focusing using the rangefinder. That separate finder is also in a different position than the lens itself, so precise composition remains really hard.

      Finally, with long lenses (above 85 mm or so), you have to cope with calibration issues between the focusing system and the lens itself. Rangefinders and lenses that are poorly matched make it hard to get sharp shots, and fixing it requires a different lens or sending camera and lens back to Leica to get them in closer agreement. That’s why you don’t generally see lenses longer than 90 mm in common use with today’s Leicas.

      SLRs aren’t perfect either, though. Since you’re relying on the agreement of mechanical alignment between a (partially silvered) mirror, the optical focusing system above, and the autofocus system underneath, you can end up with subtle focus problems that weren’t visible on film but are becoming more and more painfully evident with wide-aperture lenses and high-resolution, full-frame sensors.

      That’s because wide-aperture lenses offer so little depth-of-field, or the front-to-back “slice” of the image that’s in focus, at their maximum aperture, and high-resolution sensors make any error in your focus obvious. You can get around this by calibrating your SLR’s autofocus system to compensate with some lenses, but it’s not a perfect solution by any stretch of the imagination. It’s probably fair to say that we are reaching a limit of what’s possible with DSLR design today, just because of the practical limits of mechanical tolerances.

      Mirrorless digital cameras blend several of the virtues of rangefinders and SLRs with their own distinct set of advantages. Since they acquire focus directly from the sensor plane, you are (in theory) assured of precise focusing even with long, wide-aperture lenses on large, high-resolution sensors. The agreement between lens and focus system is theoretically no longer an issue, since the camera’s focus system is a closed loop and can compensate for any imprecision in the lens itself.

      Since mirrorless cameras’ phase-detection (read: fast) autofocus sensors are ideally just another functional element on a silicon substrate, you can spread out those AF “pixels” over the whole sensor, rather than being limited by the size of the separate autofocus unit you can embed under the mirror (which tends to result in a cluster of AF sensors in the middle of the frame). That means subject tracking and autofocus over the entire frame is a real possibility now.

      Mirrorless digital cameras also let lens designers put the rear element of the lens closer to the sensor, so (to grossly simplify) it’s easier to make wide, fast, and sharp lenses that aren’t huge. You still get the direct view through the lens that made SLRs so popular with the electronic viewfinder, too.

      In short, mirrorless cameras give engineers more flexibility to cope with the challenges of high-resolution sensors and optics now that film isn’t the primary medium on which we’re recording images, and it’s no shock that the industry is embracing them as the future of digital camera design.

        • chuckula
        • 1 year ago

        I think you just wrote a great new article there!

          • Jeff Kampman
          • 1 year ago

          You asked: [url<]https://techreport.com/review/34027/why-mirrorless-cameras-are-taking-over-the-world[/url<]

            • chuckula
            • 1 year ago

            FTW!

            • derFunkenstein
            • 1 year ago

            That was really super informative. I like it when y’all write about something that’s a passion. Those are the most interesting articles to me, much more than the latest incremental performance bump in CPUs.

            • Captain Ned
            • 1 year ago

            Hmm, just how DOES one overclock a camera CPU?

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 1 year ago

            [quote=”Captain Ned”<] How DOES one overclock a camera CPU? [/quote<] [url=https://techreport.com/forums/search.php?keywords=chdk<]CHDK[/url<] ?

    • willyolioleo
    • 1 year ago

    Should note that these use XQD cards and not SD.

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    Well, I’m sure this is quite a bit better than a $60 phone’s camera.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      or even a $1000 Note 9 or iPhone X

    • Captain Ned
    • 1 year ago

    Noct??

    Nein, nacht!!

    [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7[/url<] [url<]http://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-famous-f0-7-lenses/[/url<]

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 1 year ago

      The Nikkor Z 58mm f/0.95 S Noct coming next year shows off the advantage of the new, larger, Z mount making it easier&cheaper to produce lenses with large apertures.

      I admit that I am surprised by Nikon’s restraint in limiting themselves to only nine Z-mount lenses in the first two years of the new camera line.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 1 year ago

        They’re like baseball cards or Pokémon. Gotta collect the whole set!

          • JustAnEngineer
          • 1 year ago

          The set is initially somewhat incomplete.

          By the end of 2018, we will see only a general-purpose zoom lens and two normal prime lenses for the Z mount. We have no telephotos, no wide angles and nothing with an exceptionally wide aperture. If we’re shooting portraits or wide-angle (landscapes, architecture, etc.), we’re going to have to wait until next year. Telephoto lenses designed for wildlife and sports don’t show on the 3-year roadmap.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 1 year ago

            I figure this is going to be a long transition. As Jeff mentioned elsewhere, this mount has been round since 1959. Gonna take an awful lot of effort to wind that down.

            That’s good news for me. I’m planning to use my D3300 forever.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 1 year ago

            AF-P appeared in 2015. AF-S has been around since 1996. AF-I was introduced in 1992. Older F-mount lenses aren’t fully functional with modern DSLRs.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 1 year ago

            The physical compatibility (and loss of whatever functionality) is what I meant. You can physically connect some old lenses. they may not do everything they should, but they’ll fit.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 1 year ago

            If an existing F-mount lens isn’t AF-P (2015) or AF-S (1996), I wouldn’t bother trying to attach it to the FTZ adapter to mount it on a new Z-mount camera.

            When Canon moved from their mechanical FD mount to the all-electronic EF mount in 1987, they made a full commitment with a complete range of 20 wide, normal and telephoto lenses in the first two years. This level of commitment was due in part because the short flange to sensor distance of the FD mount made re-using older FD lenses on EOS cameras more difficult (usually requiring an optical element rather than just a tubular adapter). Of course, if you’re really into manual photography, just about any old lenses can easily be adapted to the short flange to sensor distance of mirrorless cameras.

            Considering how fleeting Nikon’s support of the Nikon 1 mirrorless interchangeable cameras and lenses was, I hope to see a more serious commitment from them to the new Z mount.

            • Airmantharp
            • 1 year ago

            The only things that they’re missing is an adapter with the aperture tab for the oldest lenses (where it’s external), and a motor for their first few AF lens generations.

            Both could probably be addressed in the future by Nikon themselves or by third parties.

    • davidbowser
    • 1 year ago

    Oh let the real fight begin! Canon and Nikon have to catch Sony now, but I am looking forward to seeing what they can come up with.

      • Voldenuit
      • 1 year ago

      Canon has had the garbage EOS M line for a few years now. They’re questionably good as doorstops.

      Sony has good bodies and good sensors but lens selection still suffers and the UI on their cameras is terrible.

      Panasonic still has the best mirrorless video+photo hybrid (specialty video m43s like BlackMagic still have a place), and Fuji makes the best stills-centric mirrorless system.

        • Kretschmer
        • 1 year ago

        At least at the APS-C entry level, the Canon EOS M50 looks quite competitive: [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=760&v=oWIhYzr4qkg[/url<] I'm pretty happy with my A6000 (and its Sony-subsidized Capture One Pro), but would have gone with something else if I had a larger budget.

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 1 year ago

        [quote=”Voldenuit”<] Canon has had the EOS M line since 2012. They're questionably good as doorstops. [/quote<] Even the heaviest EOS M5 weighs less than one pound, making it quite bad as a doorstop. Of course, if you mounted a Speedlite 600EX II-RT flash and an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM lens on it, you would be over five pounds and likely to be successful in stopping your door. Canon's strength for decades has been their extremely wide selection of lenses, both new and used. Canon made the transition to an all-electronic mount almost a decade ahead of their competition, introducing the EOS system and EF lenses in 1987. The [url=https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/explore/product-showcases/cameras-and-lenses/130-million-ef-lenses<]over 130 million EF lenses[/url<] produced in the past 31 years are fully-functional (auto-focus, auto-aperture & auto-metering) with the EOS DSLRs and EOS-M MILCs that you can buy today. One of the interesting things about Nikon's new Z mount is that it has a larger opening and a shorter lens to sensor distance. This gives room for lens adapters (including the announced FTZ adapter). I wonder if some clever company will bring an auto-capable EF lens to Z mount adapter to market.

          • Voldenuit
          • 1 year ago

          Not a fan of the of canon lenses on modern bodies (and I say this as someone who owned multiple L lenses in my film days). The higher resolution of digital sensors in the past 10 years brought out the optical shortcomings in many of their lenses, even the high end ones. Frankly, some of the best EF and EF-S lenses these days are Sigma’s Art series. The Canon lenses just don’t have the microcontrast and punchiness of other lensmakers, and if you think they’d make up for this with great bokeh, whoo boy, prepare to be disappointed again. I am a fan of the Canon FD lenses, though, because they have great character.

          It doesn’t help that Canon’s CMOS sensors have not kept up with Sony and Fuji’s offerings, and Canon had a very promising video start with the EOS 5D Mk II and then completely failed to do anything with it, allowing other camera makers to catch up to and surpass them.

            • Airmantharp
            • 1 year ago

            Every lens that Canon has updated has been a first-class knock-out-of-the-park.

            While your statement actually resembles how I’ve felt in the less recent past, currently Canon is on a roll.

        • Airmantharp
        • 1 year ago

        Garbage doesn’t take great photos and videos, which the M cameras most certainly do.

        [I do own one, so bias follows]

        Essentially, Canon went for compactness and ease-of-use with their EF-M line, and they did it while keeping prices down.

        These are all things that Sony and Fuji failed to do with their APS-C mirrorless systems, while Canon’s DPAF video focus is the industry standard. You do not want to be relying on Sony, Fuji, or MFT focus for video. Even Nikon’s new system needs to prove that it is more capable than Sony’s system, which the Z6/Z7 most emulate.

        Safe to say that whenever Canon feels the time is right to push into full-frame mirrorless- remember that Nikon was dying and cancelling products left and right recently!- they’ll come in strong.

        Concerns about the Z6/Z7:
        -Nikon only used one card slot
        -Apparently they kept their rather underdeveloped live view AF interface instead of emulating their world-class DSLR AF interface
        -They didn’t enable the use of the back screen as an AF selector trackpad

          • Voldenuit
          • 1 year ago

          [quote<]Garbage doesn't take great photos and videos, which the M cameras most certainly do.[/quote<] Perhaps I was a bit harsh there, do you have the M5? Anything under that doesn't have what I value most in a camera, which is dual control dials. Now a lot of Panasonic and Olympus consumer m43 bodies don't have that either, but their higher end models do, and have had for a long time. Fuji of course excels at physical controls on their bodies, and even their midrange XT-100 has three (3!) control dials. And you can definitely take great pictures with bad cameras, lots of smartphone and pinhole cameras can attest to that. I'd definitely concede the M line is better than it used to be (it's also not the only game in town with on-sensor PDAF - Fuji, Olympus and Sony have had that for a while). If anyone asks me which mirrorless camera (system) to buy right now, my go-to answer would be a Fuji XT-100, barring special considerations (video, budget, sports, low light etc).

            • Airmantharp
            • 1 year ago

            Dual-controls are nice, perhaps necessary for some work- but I can pick up a Rebel with the same sensor and get the same shots I get on the (yes I have an) EOS-M5.

            I just advised a friend to grab a 77D (Rebel with two control dials) for that exact reason too.

            And yeah, if someone just wanted to stick with a single system and felt well-served by APS-C, I’d point to Fuji too.

            Main point behind the EOS-M line for me is that Canon has found a marketable niche, for one, and that they’ve managed to deploy a significant number of technologies in that line that form the basis for their own full-frame mirrorless entry.

        • thx1138r
        • 1 year ago

        [quote<] the garbage EOS M line[/quote<] I can why you might have issues with the m100, but what's wrong with the M6 and M50? [quote<]Sony has good bodies and good sensors but lens selection still suffers and the UI on their cameras is terrible.[/quote<] "Terrible" is just an overstatement, I've used Sony and other cameras, "occasionally sub-optimal" is how I'd describe the UI. And what's wrong with their lenses, they easily have the largest selection of full-frame mirrorless lenses and they will continue to have this for a number of years.

      • Airmantharp
      • 1 year ago

      Sony won’t be hard to catch.

      Remember that this has been Sony attempting to catch Canon/Nikon, not the other way around- Sony has mostly succeeded in terms of capability and certainly in terms of mindshare, but they remain behind in terms of ergonomics and UI.

      Remember also that Canon and Nikon know how to make photographic tools- something that Sony continues to struggle with no matter how much new technology they throw at the problem.

      My aging 6D with all of its limitations is still faster to operate than an A7(R) III or A9, as is the 5D IV, D500, D850, D5…

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This