Nikon from the canonist's point of view /Z5

I still cannot believe it.
After nearly a decade, resenting Canon's trademarked ©®Milking-It and ©®Canon_Cripple_Hammer, I made a Nikon purchase.

While EOS M6 was a nice camera, I struggled with image performance in high dynamic range scenes, indoors, people shots, animal shots. I wanted something with IBIS, and while at it, better in general, a significant upgrade. And while I resent Canon RF lenses and their third party manufacturers denial, the choice was Sony or Nikon.

I bought Z5 with 40mm f/2.0.

The good: Many buttons, fairly placed dials, intuitive. With struggle - acceptable grip, lovely viewfinder, lovely image output quality (Although I lust for more resolution sensors). I tried about all FF RF bodies and shockingly so, I found that the ergonomics for my hands is absolutely awful, unlike older DSLR bodies.
Focusing is different, but mostly better to far superior. It prioritizes close objects little too much though.

The bad:
Wtf Nikon? You did not improve in a decade one bit. In dark, LCD and EVF get too noisy. In magnified view, for some reason, you drop framerate to something like 10FPS. Why on earth? Do you know how much worse gets the manual focusing? What did you do with the menus? I am unable to set about anything.
I thought that mirrorless is supposed to be cheaper. $1100 50mm f/1.8" prime? C'mon. This is ridiculous.

The reality is, that I am an angry man,and there will always be something to resent on the camera. So I will try to live with it. Comparisons will follow.
The Z5 does not have secure place in my gear stash, I still lust after A7R III, but it depends on the performance of the Nikon. I hope it doesn't fail.

You make me part incredulous!

UK prices including 20% tax in pounds are close to USA prices in $ allowing for the exchange rate difference.

The 50mm f1.8 S is in the range of £499 to £539 in the UK.

Are you saying in USA Nikon customers are being asked double?

Turning to the LCD and screen getting more noisy than Canon IN LOW LIGHT - this seems to some extent right - because the two systems work different.

I understand Canon always views wide open.
Nikon has real time depth of field down to f5.6 - more than 3 stops darker if you use an f1.8 lens at f5.6 on Nikon.
I understand some Sony bodies normally view wide open - yet can also be set to view wide open with an increased risk of electronic noise on the displays.

You could consider going Z8 or Z9 as the screens are distinctly brighter and do not show as much electronic low light noise

I don't know. I used current exchange rates to express the price in my country (Czechia).

The issue persist on f/2 lens on Nikon while f/5.6 on EOS M.

In time, I sure can. If I like the lens portfolio, there is nothing much at all, holding me back.

I did first comparisons.
It feels little uncomparable.
To my shock, M6 II outresolves the Z5 up to ISO 3200, and it is visible down to 4k output. I tried everything. For a 100% view, it's in the expectation ballpark, but in the 4k, not so much. The difference is very little, but noticable.

While M6 II needs quite some sharpening, Z5 needs around 10/100 on LR slider.

Noise performance bump is visible. Basically for general photography, ISO 6400 gets first serious IQ hit, but it is very doable and usable in real world. With possibly two-three stops better exposure thanks to IBIS, that is a great upgrade, letting me shoot indoors, people and darker scenes, which was not possible on M (either noise or smearing). I think ISO 3200 was tad worse on M6 II.

I have a Z7II rather than a Z5, so cannot say whether the Z5 EVF is worse. But maybe in low light you could try turning off the "apply settings to live view" shooting display setting. This means that what you see in the EVF won't reflect the actual exposure, but the EVF image will be brighter and may be less noisy.

Dropping the framerate when magnifying is annoying. I find it usable nonetheless (at 50% or 100%, I don't use 200%), but I mainly use it with a Voigtlander lens which has a nicer coupling of the focus ring than the focus by wire of the Z lenses.

The menus? That's probably just that you are used to Canon's way of doing things. I find them simple enough, but then I've been using Nikon for the last 2 decades (and my film SLRs before that didn't have menus 😉).

But who told you that mirrorless is supposed to be cheaper? Or more precisely, why would a change in the construction of the body make the lenses cheaper? The simpler construction of a mirrorless body can reduce camera prices, and in fact the Z5 is the cheapest full frame camera that Nikon have released (much cheaper than the D600 or D610 were on release, even before you take inflation into account). But the 50mm f/1.8 lens is not comparable to the old DSLR 50 f/1.8: considerably more complex design, and considerably better performance. If you want a lens that's more comparable to the old 50 it's the one you've bought, the 40 f/2, which costs less than half as much (normal price in the UK, without the current discounts is £259 including taxes). But I think you've also made a mistake with your currency conversion: the Nikon CZ website lists the price of the 50 f/1.8 as 16,990 normally, 14,490 with the current discounts. If I convert that to UK £ I get £623 normally and £531 with the discount (a little higher than the UK prices, which are £589 and £499 respectively, but not double). If you prefer $ those are $769 and $656 respectively, but remember that US prices are always listed without sales taxes so you need to subtract those before comparing to an American price.

In certain circumstances it is, in certain circumstances (When settings, exposure or predicted brightness match) It is not.
It is not a dealbreaker at the moment, I can make do 99% of the time.

There will be some learning curve to that, and sacrifices are to be made. If it was matter of the old sensor, but even Z7 II? That's rough.

There are few dimensions to that.
Organisation, graphical design, amount of functions and naming.

It is not just the brand memory. I don't ever remember opening Canon manual for anything than focus capabilities and flash work.
With other brands, i can't set up many basic features. It's a mess. I had Nikon before, and somehow i do not remember the menus to be so confusing. I am yet to figure out comfortable image transfer. Marking every single image in the playback menu sounds horrible.

About everybody including manufacturers with their claims. I am not very willing to search for that.
I do understand that the newer gear is not just a remake, but new features and higher qualities need to be paid for. It's something else. It's that there is "no price class" to choose from.
I am fine with Samyang/Sigma thpugh, so that might be what I will be getting.

I was talking about 35mm. That's why I got 40mm. For f/0.2 (possibly T 0), that is steep price difference. I know it is way better built and possibly sharper, yet I wasn't asking that much of it. It's the age in which recent space tech is unnecessarily into every lawnmower, and it might be counterproductive sometimes. "I just wanted a picture", not a piece of a deathstar in my camera, "you idiots!". 😅

True! Didn't take that into account. On the other hand, Usual European sales tax being 20-23%, the difference generally still holds.

Yes, the Z 35mm is more expensive (but in my defense you did write "50"). And yes, Nikon have not made many "lower price class" lenses - though the forthcoming 35 f/1.2 will make the f/1.8 look like one! But I don't know that they ever have: they've made slower and faster versions, with a substantial price premium for the faster, but apart from the F mount 50mm lenses they've not made a lot of conspicuously cheap FF primes either (their F mount 35 f/1.8 is currently £450, which is much closer to the Z 50 f/1.8 than the F 50 f/1.8). As you say, there are some 3rd party options, and it's possible to adapt lenses made for the Sony E mount (though I've not done this myself).

To be honest I was able to pick up my first Nikon and use it without a manual, and having used them continuously I don't find the Z's menus terribly different to the D7100 I had before it (in detail, yes, because it has features the D7100 didn't have, but in the overall way it works not really different). But I can't suggest anything for image transfer because I just stick the card in a card reader and handle that from the computer (and always have, no matter what camera I was using, and so have never looked into that at all).

As for the frame rate when zoomed, I can't say whether the Z7II is better or worse than the Z5 because I've not used the Z5. But the Z7II is also not a new sensor, it's believed to be substantially the same sensor the D850 used (from 2017). My impression was that the frame rate was worse with higher magnification, but it might be that higher magnification just exaggerates the effect. Either way I don't find 200% usable myself. On the other hand unless I'm doing something like focusing on an eye at a very wide aperture, where I want to be certain it's not focused on an eyelash instead, I find that the focus confirmation box turning green works very well for manual focus confirmation, and the autofocus is accurate enough that I rarely feel the need to refine it in general shooting.

My mistake. I meant 35mm. I will not get 50mm. Not in the near future. I find this FL as unexciting for my photos. 24-35, 75-100. that is most of my phoography. But while looking at 35mm f/1.8 S review, it doesn´t exactly look like a space tech. It´s just expensive. And so 40mm f/2 will do it for me. Obviously, next steps for me are ~24ish fast lens and 85mm lens. Looking at Samyang MF 85mm f/1.4. That one looks really tempting.

I had few misses with AF. First time when doing ISO tests and Z5 detail looked like very weak compared to EOS M6 II. That angered me until I found it is the lens/aperture/focus issue. After stopping down and more precise zoomed focus, the image quality was in the ballpark of expectation.

Yes, maybe I might also do image transfers via reader. Great idea. Wifi slow....

I am slowly learning and growing into it, no biggie. I see there is a lot to set compared to Canon, which is good.
I have only one showstopper at the moment. UniWB profile, for which I made another topic.

The Z5 is Nikon's budget FF camera. It can often be found on sale from Nikon in the states for under $1000. The 40mm lens is also very affordable.

I am not sure in 2023 what reasonable expectations are for a base level FF kit, but I find it pretty laughable that someone can say "WTF Nikon" for dropping the frame rate to a lowly 10FPS (!) while in magnified view. Base FF cameras from barely 10 years ago dreamed of those rates.

I would also like to know where the concept that ML would be cheaper, because I sure don't remember the manufacturers ever stating that as a goal or reality.

You bought a base level FF kit. I think you may need to adjust your expectations.

Canon had much better performance in magnified view right from EOS M and SL1. I had both of these, before I got Nikon D610, which had too poor liveview performance to work with it. While Z5 is a lot better, it still retained some of its obvious weaknesses. Canon absolutely trashes it with anything they have in their portfolio, even around low-end. You should try that. Canon LiveView feels "seamless" in comparison.

But oh well, there is always sacrifice to make, regarding brand choice. Except for that, I am learning Nikon language every day, and it grows on me big time. Compared to D610, this Z5 really makes sense to me. The package is good, that',s why I chose it, and I am not regretting.

The AF is faster and has more settings, there is EyeAF, the button layout gets so much under my skin, it is lovely!

At times, 24Mpx seems little low, as M6 II even downsampled looks more detailed and sharper, but it isn't really limiting to me, and also it seems that AI upres tools do justice.

I wrote what I think about the system and model. Regardless of the price. Reading other people's remarks, it seems this is not just the low end issue, this is Nikon-wide issue. They just don't know how to do good LiveView, and I will not self censor myself to hide this flaw from anyone.

The point is, that in spite of that, I still appreciate the change, and so it is better than Canon package anyways.

Has it?
You are entitled to your opinion.
Working alongside photographers using advanced Canon bodies and advanced Nikon bodies we cannot detect the difference you mention.

That's not an opinion, and while still having the M6 II, I can easily prove it. Canon has less noise in the display output in very dark situation, and it doesn't drop refresh rate upon zoom view nearly as much as Z5. It was like that from first EOS M, and SL1, and I suspect it behaved that way much sooner in the product line.
I will share my comparison today evening. You can try too.

Here is a short vid of M6 II and Z5 liveview choppiness at 10x zoom. Unfortunately I could not replicate worst case for both, but at least the difference is visible. In hands, the M6 feels smooth and workable, where the Nikon feels choppy and sometimes borderline...

youtu.be/fLyxMDothas
youtu.be/J2OHols_h34

It is not as great tragedy as a)D610, b)as expressed. But significant downgrade and inconvenience nonetheless. Especially for moving subjects.

Regarding LiveView noise, this is also halfway in the compromise - Yes the Z5 display output in low light is worse, but a)not that much, b)the image it shows is little brighter. Canon will not amplify dark stuff to the extreme, where Nikon shows the ugly.

I do apologize for being too harsh and not so fair, but also my observations are true, noticeable, and do give me harder times while using the camera.

If this has been your experience with Canon, you did not have much of it.

There is nothing to grab onto this claim. I had M, M10, M6 and M6 II, older models for many years. Therefore I do have quite some experience with these. If you didn't like the performance, good. I can imagine why. For my purpose, these were nice cameras. I can see how someone calls these small POS. No problem with it. The problem comes in judging my opinion as uneducated or unreasonable. I mean, by all means if it is your way of working, whatever. We just can disagree without any resolution, but that is gross offtopic, and I do not appreciate it in my thread. You can word your issues with these, I wont deny these...

Reread the second sentence of your OP, and you might understand the reason for my post. You never owned a Canon DSLR, or an R series camera, not to mention an EF or an R lens but you are ready to declare Canon an evil company.

Nah, Still don't understand. Handled 350D, owned 400D, 600D, 700D, SL1, handled 70D, 5D MK3, 6D, owned M, M10, M6, M6 mk2, handled recently R, RP, R8, R6. And probably more. Canon was "all my life" regarding photography. Had D610 for a month, and A7R for a month.

For whatever reason you decided to write untrue statements, stop it. It doesn't help anything. It just causes trouble and spams this thread. I did not deny the reason of your initial input, I do deny the approach.

Your claim also infers that I came into Nikon forum to troll or spam others with things that never happened. Do you have any facts about that, or just creating hostile environment? What the heck is happening.

What part of "if" in my statement didn't you understand? It was a correct statement. Then in your reply you did not list the other Canons you supposedly owned.

No, this is an incorrect statement. The reason I got involved was this:

Just admit that it was stupid, and we will be done with all that.

There is no "if" in

.

Also there is no very justified reason to think I have not owned or used Canon gear when I wrote I am resenting it for a decade. It implies I did own and used Canon gear.

I had Canon cameras for well over a decade. Not sure if I started being unhappy with Canon for last six or eight years, but indeed, I was somehow unhappy.

There is no requirement to use formal language here. It was just harsh conclusion after my long lasting resentment. I'd say justified expression for my frustrations.

But now I rather understand that the issue is not with the stupidity of my claim (I am entitled to, because I might be imprecise in my speech or even stupid). I somehow might trigger you, not expecting Canon people getting hurt in Nikon place. If that is the case, I would indeed apologize. My intention was not to trash Canon users. It is the gear, and my personal feelings about it, not users. Please don't feel attacked for my opinions and feelings about the gear or companies. 🙏

//Now I realise my input might upset some Nikon people, and it was a negative entry in a way. I am sorry for that too. Didn't want to make anyone upset. Just shared my observation in free speech environment. I will suffer the consequences of that, sure. Better to be checked out, and to suffer what was coming for me. Maybe the tread name was better suited for open talk forums.

The findings though, these persist. There are flaws and compromises in anything.