Z5 II

I just jumped from Fuji XF (X-T5) to Nikon FX (Z5 ii). I loved Fuji, shot it for nearly 5 years, and owned almost all of their lenses at one point or another. So why did I move to Nikon? Because I found that 95% of my shooting with my Fuji (as opposed to my Ricoh pocket cams) was either in service o

Every format is a combination of trade offs. For example, you won’t find a bright standard zoom the size of Panasonic 12-35mm in any system. On the other hand, if you’re OK with f/2.8 on Micro 4/3, then an f/4 zoom on a full frame camera should be more than perfectly acceptable. A Nikon Z5 (or Z5 II

I have both and have traveled internationally with both. They’re pretty much equivalent. I would make the decision based on the camera or other lenses you would bring. The 12-100 is very special, but so is the Nikon 24-120. If you’re going to be taking more photos in low light, a Z5 II is much more

I have both, although the OM1 is mk I. Not for wildlife but anything else. Bought the Z5 II for indoor shoots with bad light. Use the OM1 almost exclusively. It is faster, feels better, ergonomics are better, more buttons. Don’t mention smaller lenses. And I am saying this as an old Nikon user (FM,

Nikon Z50 II is lightweight & compact and so are the kit lenses. Unfortunately, there are very few professional and semi-professional grade lenses. What's more, the body relies on the built-in touch display for a number of interactions, which can quickly become an issue. Especially if it's below 0 C

I have both of these cameras. Here are my observations (assuming you shoot RAW): For birds, planes, and generally small far-away things, even with the 180-600, I love having the extra resolution the Z8 gives. The Z6 III does not (yet) have a dedicated bird detect mode, but that is coming this year:

The short answer is one stop of light. So you could use 1600 rather than 3200 ISO. But 1.2 lenses need many more elements to stay sharp, so they lose a lot of transmission, and end up being more like 0.5-0.7 stops more light. F/1.2 is more useful for shallow depth of field on M/43 IMO. At the prices

Seeing is believing. Take a look at it at various ISOs against other cameras. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_z6ii&attr13_1=nikon_z8&attr13_2=nikon_z7ii&attr13_3=sony_a7iv&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25

To my taste the X-Trans 5 sensor output skews more blue/green It doesn't. What you're describing is effect of image processing, not effect of sensor. If you process raw's to be blue/green, it's entirely your own fault, not the tools. has poor high ISO (>1000) performance It really doesn't. It has ve

I agree with the other commenter that the 24-120 f4 is the best all-around lens. Of these, I'd avoid the Nikon 24-70 and def not the 24-200 it's not a great lens. The G2 Tamron lenses are beasts, you'd be far better served with the 28-75 2.8 IMO. It would handle street and portraits like a pro. The