D850 vs Z7

Mirrorless uses EVF (electronic viewfinder). You see the photo and can change the exposure component on the fly to see exactly how the exposure would be before shooting.

While that is true, you can also get that effect with live view on DSLRs, but I agree DSLR live view is something I mainly use on a tripod.

 

And while the Z6/Z7's EVF is great now, a few years ago I played around with a Fuji mirrorless camera inside a camera store. They had very bright lights in the ceiling. The image in the Fuji's EVF was totally blown out and looked terrible. Back then I had played around with a few early Sony and Fuji mirrorless cameras, and I didn't like the EVF from that era.

 

Sadly, that local camera store closed down in 2016. Therefore, those experiences were from around 2014 to 2015 or so. The quality of EVF has come a long way in the last few years.

The quality of EVF has come a long way in the last few years.

True. So was the digital lag that drove everyone crazy in the early days. Now we mostly forget about digital lag. Maybe there's still some negligible lag that does not matter. (?)

EVF quality and lag was the thing that put me off the technology forever. I'd have to say it's arrived and it would be hard for me to go back. That said, I'm not a sports photographer and I suspect for that kind of work, the OVF will be forever king. 'Course you could put a wire frame finder on any camera! :D:D

Conrad, keep an open mind. As I said 4, 5 years ago, I did not care for the EVF back then. When Nikon did their Z series roadshow in September 2018, the first thing I checked was the EVF on the Z7, and that was much better and quite acceptable.

 

Now I have had a Z6 for a year. Indoors and at night, the Z6's EVF is supreme, something an OVF can never match. However, during day time with plenty of sunlight, I still prefer the OVF, which IMO shows a more realistic image, compared to the Z6's EVF. But I am sure the EVF technology will continue to improve.

While that is true, you can also get that effect with live view on DSLRs, but I agree DSLR live view is something I mainly use on a tripod.

 

And while the Z6/Z7's EVF is great now, a few years ago I played around with a Fuji mirrorless camera inside a camera store. They had very bright lights in the ceiling. The image in the Fuji's EVF was totally blown out and looked terrible. Back then I had played around with a few early Sony and Fuji mirrorless cameras, and I didn't like the EVF from that era.

 

Sadly, that local camera store closed down in 2016. Therefore, those experiences were from around 2014 to 2015 or so. The quality of EVF has come a long way in the last few years.

Shun, I bet that even 4-5 years ago that camera has the ability to compensate for exposure in the EVF but it wasn’t turned on.

Shun, I bet that even 4-5 years ago that camera has the ability to compensate for exposure in the EVF but it wasn’t turned on.

Maybe, it was a demo unit inside a store and I didn't have it for very long, but in general, I was never very impressed with EVF, mainly due to the quality of the image and the lag, until I picked up that demo Z7 last year. I was also inside a room at night, and that EVF just worked. I would imagine the 3rd generation of the Sony A7 and later as well as the current Canon mirrorless cameras also have very good EVFs.

 

The Z7 demo gave me confidence and I bought the Z6 as soon as it was available last year. It has been just over a year now.

Oh, the first generation A7 was dreadful. Nice sensor in it but everything else was unusable. Fuji took until the second generation to get things working right too. It took them until around the introduction of the XT series to make the things work well enough that you’d want to use them on a regular basis.

I agree DSLR live view is something I mainly use on a tripod.

we are old and shaky, anyone else uses a 180mm lense to shoot macros handheld and setting focus using the 100% magnification in the EVF.^^

Didn´t want to get into this discussion, but now I´m in the mood.

Like verywhere else: cui bono?

Who benefits from mirrorless?

First and mostly the producers, they replace the mirror&AF- construct, which is complicated and has to be mounted to the highest tolerances, with some cm cable and a tiny LCD paneel. They save a lot of costs without selling the cams cheaper.

For me I don´t see benefits, this 100% view on my display I only use for macros on tripod and I´m able to set exposure by myself, spot to smallest and looking around the scene as I did allways..

Well, in the end all the new features are still just letting you put a certain amount of light on a sensor for a certain amount of time. If you're a minimalist, it doesn't take much technology to do that. ;)

Well, in the end all the new features are still just letting you put a certain amount of light on a sensor for a certain amount of time. If you're a minimalist, it doesn't take much technology to do that. ;)

Honestly, if 7 years ago they had just stuck a new 24mp sensor and a cpu update in a D700 and called it a D710 I’d still be shooting it.

I’m preparing to compare the two... waiting on delivery of my Z7 at this very moment. The 850 so far has been incredible in terms of image quality and with the lenses I currently have. I’m still new to the video capabilities of DSLR and mirrorless cameras but I’m getting schooled everyday among the Photogs I regularly meet with and now this forum among you greats.

Who benefits from mirrorless?

There are undeniably benefits for using a mirrorless instead of a DSLR. They may not apply for every user and certainly not for every user equally. Lighter weight is probably something few would object to; the smaller size most manufacturers use not so much (especially of it results in more size and weight imbalance between camera and lens). Simpler construction ought to decrease prices - something that doesn't seem to have happened yet. Shorter flange-to-sensor distance allows for more optimized lens construction and has been demonstrated to indeed result in lenses with better optical performance. Having AF sensors embedded in the actual sensor eliminates the need for AF fine tuning and is certainly beneficial for video. Not that this could also easily be implemented in a DSLR. The EVF is probably the most controversial item - benefits in some aspects, clear drawbacks in others. As technology evolves, the benefits will stay and the drawbacks will likely be reduced though.

 

I have to admit to be impressed with the Z-mount lenses Nikon has released so far (and I am not the only one). The mirrorless bodies are still lagging behind what Nikon's state-of-the-art DSLR currently offer - given time that discrepancy will vanish. So to me the biggest driver to go mirrorless is the lenses, not the camera. Whenever I want to travel light, I currently have an A7RIII with three lenses, 12-24/4, 24-105/4, and 100-400/4.5-5.6; there's no Nikon DSLR option that is as compact and light-weight. I could get close with a Z7 and the 14-30/4, 24-70/4, and an adapted 80-400 - but that combo to me has certain drawbacks compared to the Sony system I own. I am actually now considering reducing my Nikon FX DSLR system down to using only primes - but it is only a matter of time until I either give that up completely or move it over to mirrorless (whether Sony or Nikon remains to be seen).

For the Nikon Z6 and Z7, refer to "Custom Settings D8" for "Apply settings to live view." The EVF and rear screen will then reflect changes to picture style, exposure and other settings. (I RTF'd the manual).

 

Sony has had a similar option, at least since the A7ii, under the Display Options menu - "Live View Display - Setting effects ON/OFF." I use that option primarily as a safeguard against accidentally changing the exposure compensation dial.

 

Who benefits from mirrorless?

The conspiracy angle is complete BS, unless that includes meeting the demands of consumers. At the point when my Nikon lenses were hopelessly out of date, I moved to mirrorless for the following reasons...

• Small size (the A7 has the same footprint as a Leica M)
  
• Electronic shutter (including silent operation)
  
• Ability to use legacy lenses (now passe, since Sony/Zeiss makes all the lenses I need)
  
• In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) !!!
  
• Wide angle lenses actually sharp in the corners
  
• Live view, including manual focusing aids.
  

More recently I make extensive use of the cinematic-quality video of A7 cameras, including S-Log gamma, retiring my 1/3" gear.

I think the lens' are going to make my decision for me. I keep looking for a strong reason to purchase a Z but I really don't see one.

 

From about 50mm and shorter the Z lenses are much better than any F mount glass I have used. I have two Z6 bodies, one Z7 and one D850 if that tells you anything.

Honestly, if 7 years ago they had just stuck a new 24mp sensor and a cpu update in a D700 and called it a D710 I’d still be shooting it.

 

You, me, and thousands of others. This was probably the most easily-avoided, no-brainer marketing failure Nikon made in the digital era, rivaled only by their steadfast refusal to update the D300 until half the market for pro DX had already evaporated. Instead we got the dogs breakfast D600 and the inexcusably bungled Df launch ($900 more expensive than its target demographic would ever pay, while lacking their intensely-desired split image manual focus screen).

 

I keep hoping they'll eventually redeem themselves with a small collection of tiny, good-performing (if not quite S-level) prime lenses for the Z6. Something like 20 f/3.5, 28, f/2.8 35 f/2.0, 50 f/2.0, 85 f/2.2. The Z bodies are crying out for some of the smaller lens designs Zeiss finally coughed up for the Sony A7 (which otherwise suffers the same issue of small body stuck with silly-large lenses).

rivaled only by their steadfast refusal to update the D300

year after year I prayed to God^^

Honestly, if 7 years ago they had just stuck a new 24mp sensor and a cpu update in a D700 and called it a D710 I’d still be shooting it.

I purchased my D700 only 6 years ago - had there been a D710 with 24MP for around $2K I certainly would have gone for that; the D600/D610 didn't appeal to me at all.

you, me, and thousands of others. This was probably the most easily-avoided, no-brainer marketing failure Nikon made in the digital era, rivaled only by their steadfast refusal to update the D300 until half the market for pro DX had already evaporated.

I think Nikon probably sold a lot of the D7x00 DX bodies and the D6x0 and D750 FX bodies - but I do agree that the change in UI from the D300/D700 appeared to be an unnecessary and unforced mistake.

ear after year I prayed

Hoping beyond hope for a D400 in my case too. Finally caved in and got a D7100 (mistake), followed by a D7200 (better but still not a worthy D300 replacement; liked the sensor though).

Finally caved in and got a D7100 (mistake), followed by a D7200 (better but still not a worthy D300 replacement; liked the sensor though).

I also got a D7xxxx something, can't even remember the model, as I did not like it at all. Considered new when I sold it to a photography friend. She has not complained, so I hope it's OK. ;)

Bummer! Sorry that didn't work out for you. That's a truly bizarre offer from Sigma though.

 

I don't have access to a Z6 or Z7 and hence can't check the Sigma 150/2.8 OS out for you. This thread Results of trying some older Sigma lenses with the Z 7: Nikon Z Mirrorless Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review seems to indicate that the lens might work after a firmware update - though problems are reported when using the focus shift feature of the Z7. FWIW, here is a compatibility list provided by Sigma: Sigma releases lens compatibility lists for the Nikon Z7 and Canon EOS R - DIY Photography

Found out something after talking with the Sigma rep whom I think is responsible for the Sigma firmware upgrade. He said only the "OS version" can work with Nikon mirrorless, and the newer OS versions should already be updated. If it does not work , it means it's an older lens and Sigma would update the firmware for free. I asked how could I tell it's "OS", as I didn't seem to see "OS" on the title line on any of the 150mm lenses I looked at. He said "OS" is "image Stabilizer" that should be indicated on the lens. I was not 100% sure where to look but later found it on one of the lenses on eBay. It's hard to believe that of all the Sigma 150mm macro lenses I saw online, only one was OS. And it was priced similar to the ones that did not have "OS". So I ordered before it disappeared. I hope it's what he said. Will keep you posted.

Here's Sigma's page on the OS version of the 150mm: https://www.sigmaphoto.com/150mm-f2-8-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro

and here the one on the non-OS: https://www.sigmaphoto.com/150mm-f28-ex-dg-hsm (with very little actual information) - the specs are here: https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lens-resources/lens-chart-for-recently-discontinued-lenses

 

To the best of my knowledge, there are only two Sigma 150mm macro lenses - the non-OS and the OS versions.

 

The non-OS version has a soft, matte, slightly grayish finish whereas the OS version has a smooth black finish similar to that of the ART lenses.

Here's a direct size comparison of the two - the OS version is longer and heavier - and at the time was quite a bit more expensive: https://www.robertotoole.com/blog/2012/06/16/sigma-150mm-f2-8-osmacro-os. From a picture, the difference in finish is often hard to discern and since OS doesn't appear in the acronym salad on the barrel, the only sure distinction is the "Optical Stabilizer" on the barrel close to the mount (unless an image is provided that shows all the switches). For the Nikon-mount versions, the tripod collar of the non-OS version is quite close to the mount.

 

Both lenses are internal-focusing designs and hence focal length decreases as one focuses closer. Not exactly ideal when used on a tripod - unless focusing is done via macro rail or one doesn't care too much about maintaining one's framing and composition.

 

keh has either lens available right now - with a price difference of almost a factor of two. About what I am used to seeing. I traded my non-OS version for the OS version in 2015 when the opportunity arose with a clean used copy at the local camera store; price then was a about the same as keh's asking price now.

Dieter, thanks for the information and the links.

From a picture, the difference in finish is often hard to discern and since OS doesn't appear in the acronym salad on the barrel, the only sure distinction is the "Optical Stabilizer" on the barrel close to the mount (unless an image is provided that shows all the switches).

Exactly the problem when I was looking.

keh has either lens available right now - with a price difference of almost a factor of two.

Just checked, they are still there at KEH. So if the copy I ordered works fine, I have probably lucked out - now I think the seller is confused as nowhere was "OS" or "Optical Stabilizer" appearing in the item description. I saw it only when I closely examined the pictures to find differences.

I traded my non-OS version for the OS version in 2015 when the opportunity arose with a clean used copy at the local camera store; price then was a about the same as keh's asking price now.

So yours should autofocus with Z6/Z7.

 

Thanks Dieter.

So yours should autofocus with Z6/Z7

I have neither and for the time being no intention of getting either.

I have probably lucked out

I'd say - if you indeed get the OS version at half price.

I have neither and for the time being no intention of getting either.

Meant your Sigma 150mm. And I think you will eventually get a Nikon mirrorless - if not soon, it would be Z8? ;)

Here's Sigma's page on the OS version of the 150mm

Received the Sigma 150mm OS macro lens today. It autofocuses with my Z6/Z7 - when my Nikon 200mm F4 does not. Love it! I am grateful for the discussion leading to this lens. :)