Z6

All speculation. I doubt we will get a z7iii. Nikon expected the z7 and z6 to sell equally well, but the z6 line consistently performed better than the 7 through the first two generations. Given the price difference that will have been disappointing. With the z8/9, they took the more 'traditional' (

The problem is other brands early mirrorless didn't suck This is just not true. First two FF Sony Alpha gens (A7 and A7 II) were issue-ridden, with lackluster color science, abysmal battery life, and mediocre AF. The first really good Sony mirrorless body was the A7 III. Canon RP was a piece of junk

Switching systems back and forth never pays off. I did it once and went from D800’s to almost all-in on Micro 4/3rds and at one point had an E-M1X (kept the D800’s for studio jobs). It’s a competent system, and a perfectly comfortable body, and can handle just about any Commerical work, but yeah the

I've used all the lenses in question for a long time and I primarily shoot birds. Most people should get the 180-600. It is ridiculously sharp even at 600/6.3, well priced, covers a wide range, has a super short zoom ring throw, has a good MFD, excellent VR, and solves every complaint people had wit

And? The Z6 is not the only mirrorless model on the planet, and if your comparison was "apples to apples," you'd be talking about Z9s. I'll also take a wild guess that saltwater immersion is not a factor in decisions on which cameras to take into space. Radiation makes sense, and Nikon has a history

I've been a newspaper photographer for nearly 40 years, and spent a few years covering conflicts in South Africa back in the 90's. I'm kind of semi retired at the moment, but this is my experience. If you're not using a full frame camera, you might as well just shoot everything with an iPhone Pro. I

My Z6 is ironically pretty much a dedicated video camera now, in a rig. Because even though its internal video can't keep up, its 10-bit UHD output for Prores 422 recording is great. And I've set it up to be easy to grab out of its rig when I want to use it as just a normal camera again. And ironica

I never had any issues with the Z6 for more static photography, e.g. street, landscape, travel, portraiture. I left mine in AF-C on wide-area small, and it was great. I don't think I could tell the difference in output between a Z6 and the 24MP EXPEED7 cameras for these genres with the same lens The

TL;DR: If you’re coming from a Canon T7 and want pro-level autofocus without the $2,500+ price tag of a Z6 III or A7 IV, the Nikon Z5 II is the move. 1.Better "Brains" than Sony (The AF Argument) While Sony has historically led the AF game, the Z5 II inherited the EXPEED 7 processor from the flagshi

M43 has no business costing as much as higher end full frame cameras. I think it's more that the Nikon Z6 III is incredibly well priced. Nikon's strategy at the moment is very aggressive pricing with lower margins than their competitors. The OM-3 is packed full of tech, IP53 rated and is very stylis