Nikon D750 vs Z mount cameras.

I'm still happy with my D750 but really wonder what advantage the Z mount cameras bring to the table. Honestly I don't understand the mirror less camera fascination. Camera bodies might be smaller but the lenses are still big making small body big / lens making a ergonomically package.

The detestable EVF. On the plus side, most modern mirrorless cameras have IBIS.

The same focal range of the lens, mirrorless than the SLR system is indeed smaller. But when it comes to portability, I prefer a DC camera, even an old Fujifilm X20, which is good enough for daily recording. I think the mirrorless may be more for professional and commercial shooting.

At risk of stating the obvious but you can use your F mount lenses on Z mount cameras using what is conveniently called an FZ adapter. And you get IBIS with even your most ancient F mount lenses, and any other lenses that you can buy an adapter for, such as Leica M mount. The new Z lenses are exceptional, even the 'kit' 24-70mm, and although some are big they aren't terribly heavy (unless a faster lens with more glass) so they balance well with the smaller body. And some of the Z mount cameras can also do pixel shift which increases the resolution massively.

beemermark said:

Honestly I don't understand the mirror less camera fascination.

Click to expand...

I think it's a question (well, implied at least) that has several answers, all of which are true to an extent.

From a manufacturer's viewpoint, an EVIL type camera is less complex and therefore in principle cheaper to manufacture. The camera can also be made more compact and lightweight given the same sensor size, which will appeal to many, and it has some sustainability advantages as well (again, in principle; less mass & less material = 'Reduce'). The electronic viewfinder has a few advantages in terms of its 'liveliness' (all manner of post-processing can be done in real time, allowing focus peaking, live histograms, better visibility in low-light conditions, showing the final image before it's event taken etc.) and potential for articulation. From an optical viewpoint, the fact that the distance between the lens mount and the sensor can be reduced puts you back into the territory of classic rangefinder cameras, limiting the need for optical 'tricks' like retrofocus designs for wide angle lenses, which can make (some) lenses better and cheaper. And for the same reason, EVIL's lend themselves particularly well to adapting all manner of 'vintage' lenses from other systems, since there's some additional room for an adapter between the camera's mount and the lens.

If you put all that together, I think it's kind of obvious why the SLR system is on its way out. Personally, I really don't like the concept of an EVF and vastly prefer a proper SLR viewfinder that allows me to see what the lens projects onto the film/sensor. But I suppose it's a matter of time before even people like me will be won over by even better/higher-quality EVF's, and/or will have to succumb to the reality of 'creative destruction' as a dominant dynamic in many innovation trajectories.

I have a D800E and a Z7. The image quality from the Z7 is much better. Especially the color rendering. Of course, I think, the D850 will preform the same as the Z7.

Obviously this belongs in the digital section, not 35mm. But anyway, another reason people are buying and using mirrorless cameras is video, presumably. "35mm" and APS-C format cameras have become very popular for video shooting, and video on an SLR is a workaround of essentially locking the mirror up and turning it into a mirrorless camera, so just using a mirrorless camera makes sense.

I think the "mirrorless" name is a little humorous, naming something after what it lacks/is replacing. It's like clipless pedals for bicycles - named for the toe clip that they rendered into a niche item.

reddesert said:

Obviously this belongs in the digital section, not 35mm.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that; I missed it. I've moved it now.

My opinion…autofocus started the decline of the single lens reflex. Before the Minolta Maxxum hit the scene, one of the key things that separated the great cameras (Nikon F3HP, Olympus OM-*) was a clear and bright viewfinder with focus aids (Diagonal split prism with a micro prism ring around it were my favorite, and please also insert grid lines!) because that was…just…how you focused the camera. Fast forward to my last DSLR, the excellent Canon 5DS…by comparison to my ancient OM1, the viewfinder just sucks. Without autofocus or, at least focus detect lights in the viewfinder, it’s not nearly as functional or usable, particularly in anything less than full daylight. . As autofocus got better and better, and it can be pretty good these days, the need for that crisp mirror slappin‘ prism finder image was reduced, and that expensive-to-make-great component fell victim to cost cutting redesigns.

However, I will stand by the statement that autofocus has cost me as many images as it has improved, either sensor grabbing wrong focus point (which is hard to detect due to aforementioned crappy viewfinder) or just racking in and out rather than capturing the “Decisive moment”. The latter is more a problem with the craptacular autofocus capabilities of the Phase One XF, which has improved over the generations of Mamiya based AF medium format cameras from being terrible to just very bad. Ain’t progress grand?

i resisted Mirrorless, dismissing it as the typical photo equipment industry hype of “This new thing will solve all your problems, so you must now buy into a whole new platform and new lenses to get the new hotness. How else will we make our numbers this quarter?” but kind of got tricked into a mirrorless approach with the Hasselblad CFV50ii, which is as mirrorless as can be, no EV at all, just the touchscreen on the back. Compared to a Medium Format DSLR (Phase One XF) it was a true epiphany! It’s small, smaller than a 35mm full frame. It’s small and light enough to encourage use as a travel camera. Focus peaking and focus zooming with AF turned OFF to me is the best thing since Fuji made those single use Polaroid holder compatible packs for Velvia 4x5.

i encourage anyone thinking of making a leap to a different platform to reduce the risk of disappointment and photo industry overhype by arranging for some way to demo the new kit. I use lensrentals.com for that but you might also purchase from a reseller with a liberal return policy to protect yourself in case it ain’t for you. I tried the Canon mirrorless, but,despite the crap viewfinder I prefer the older, long paid for 5DS and its glass to the mirrorless version I tried. The Hasselblad however, honestly, I liked sooo much that when the 100MP version came on line, I was one of those (virtually) standing in front of the store yelling “Please take my money!!!”…the only “Brand new” kit I have purchased since my OM-4 in 1985!

All that is to say, opinions on the internet, particularly those from the massively over marketed photo industry, have almost no value compared to just getting one in your hands and spending a couple days with it.

The greatest advantage and disadvantage of the mirrorless vs SLR is the EVF. Depending on who you are the EVF is both the pro and con of the mirrorless. Otherwise most of the advantages are for the mirrorless.

All this talk about the evils of the EVF on a mirrorless camera reminds me of obvious downsides of seeing the world in colour but having B&W film in the camera, or seeing an image upside down and back to front with a large format camera, I mean how have photographers coped with such intellectually challenging tasks in the past, and yet are bamboozled by an EVF? As long as I can see the edges of the frame then the prism on a DSLR or the EVF with mirrorless simply provides a means to compose and focus the image, it does not make the image.

I agree, and so would the camera manufacturers. A great optical reflex viewfinder is HARD to design and manufacture.…now add in the design team that wants the “Hump” to be of a certain proportion, fighting the electronics guys who want wrap The actual prism with circuit boards…so the prism gets smaller and therefore transmits less light. Then you get into matching the optical length with the sensor plane, clearing the mirror swing….optical design is hard!

EVIF, instead can just take the actual image as seen by the sensor, and pump it to an LCD screen of some quality! Much easier to manufacture…but we can keep the price about at the same level because the marketing department sez the consumers think a pro-sumer camera should retail for this much money, which will increase our margins and help with the ol’ quarterly numbers…

beemermark said:

I'm still happy with my D750 but really wonder what advantage the Z mount cameras bring to the table. Honestly I don't understand the mirror less camera fascination. Camera bodies might be smaller but the lenses are still big making small body big / lens making a ergonomically package.

Click to expand...

I bought a Nikon 7ZII instead of a Nikon D series. If I had bought the D series I would not need a lens adapter to use the rest of the lenses. Yes it is lighter and the lenses make it tip forward when it is around my neck, but the contrast range of the viewfinder is poor compared to a mirror viewfinder. After traveling with it for a month, I wish I had bought a Nikon D series camera. New is not always better.

Chan Tran said:

The greatest advantage and disadvantage of the mirrorless vs SLR is the EVF. Depending on who you are the EVF is both the pro and con of the mirrorless. Otherwise most of the advantages are for the mirrorless.

Click to expand...

Chan, last year I broke down and bought a used D810 to use with my MF Micro-Nikkors for closeup work, including fish in aquaria. I'd never handled a D810, had played with a D800. The two have about the same viewfinder, the D800 convinced me that a D810 would do. Besides, at the time used Nikon Z cameras all cost more and I couldn't find one locally to play with.

This was a bit of a mistake. My fish room is relatively dark. The D810 can be focused manually on fish in a well-lit aquarium by teetering in and out but focusing is much too hard with fish in my little portable photo tank, which isn't lit at all. I'd have been happier with a camera with an EVF. Or so I thought.

Since I didn't want to eat the D810's depreciation and shell out for a used Z, I bought a used 105 AF MicroNikkor.

Big problem solved, another smaller problem found. I used Vivitar 283s with VP1s for lighting. All calibrated, just pick the aperture needed given magnification. A handy table is taped to the 283s. Want to change aperture, futz with the VP1s, not fun. Fine, but the AF lens focuses by changing magnification, not by changing working distance. Solution? A couple of Nikon SB-600s with the necessary cables. Works a treat, and inexpensive.

I still wish I'd had the money to buy a Z but what I have will do.

Dan Fromm said:

Chan, last year I broke down and bought a used D810 to use with my MF Micro-Nikkors for closeup work, including fish in aquaria. I'd never handled a D810, had played with a D800. The two have about the same viewfinder, the D800 convinced me that a D810 would do. Besides, at the time used Nikon Z cameras all cost more and I couldn't find one locally to play with.

This was a bit of a mistake. My fish room is relatively dark. The D810 can be focused manually on fish in a well-lit aquarium by teetering in and out but focusing is much too hard with fish in my little portable photo tank, which isn't lit at all. I'd have been happier with a camera with an EVF. Or so I thought.

Since I didn't want to eat the D810's depreciation and shell out for a used Z, I bought a used 105 AF MicroNikkor.

Big problem solved, another smaller problem found. I used Vivitar 283s with VP1s for lighting. All calibrated, just pick the aperture needed given magnification. A handy table is taped to the 283s. Want to change aperture, futz with the VP1s, not fun. Fine, but the AF lens focuses by changing magnification, not by changing working distance. Solution? A couple of Nikon SB-600s with the necessary cables. Works a treat, and inexpensive.

I still wish I'd had the money to buy a Z but what I have will do.

Click to expand...

As I said it depends on who you are. I personally prefer the SLR viewfinder.

I have a Nikon Zfc.
It's the coolest thing in the world.

I have both Nikon F (D810 and many film bodies) and Z systems (Z6).

I use Z6 mostly for:
1) Adapted manual focus lens: EVF plus zoom plus focus peaking making it super easy to achieve critical focus
2) Occasional video production for business and leisure

My D810 was a full spectrum converted for infrared, and even with live view it is not the most convenient. So I will most likely migrate to Z system for infrared. Mirrorless just makes infrared so much easier since you can actually "see" the final image.

BradS said:

I have a Nikon Zfc.
It's the coolest thing in the world.

Click to expand...

Me too. The mirrorless viewfinder leaves a lot to be desired, especially when compared to the real thing.

Sirius Glass said:

... The mirrorless viewfinder leaves a lot to be desired, especially when compared to the real thing.

Click to expand...

I dunno man, it looks pretty good to me.

As I grow older my eyesight leaves a lot to be desired.

Love all the (really good) replies. I mistakenly put it in the 35mm film forum because I tend to think of my D750 as such. Nikon Ftn, F2, F5, oops D750. And I'm quite invested in the Fujifilm X department. So after a number of X bodies I ended up with the X-E3 along with a 10-18mm and 18-50mm zooms. Small, light, great pics. I've thought about X-T5 (IBIS) and some fast lenses. But size wise that becomes a much greater package.

I don't have true mirrorless body, I have a Sony A77II which uses a translucent mirror and EVFer. What do like about the EVF is the ability to brighten a scene when shooting in dim lighting. What I don't like is that still a very small TV screen. I use the back screen at times, in full desert sun it is hard to see and it drains the battery much quicker. I kept my old A700 and 900 which I tend to grab over the A77II. I am deciding a full frame A99II the last Sony A mount vs an A9.

Paul Howell said:

I don't have true mirrorless body, I have a Sony A77II which uses a translucent mirror and EVFer. What do like about the EVF is the ability to brighten a scene when shooting in dim lighting. What I don't like is that still a very small TV screen. I use the back screen at times, in full desert sun it is hard to see and it drains the battery much quicker. I kept my old A700 and 900 which I tend to grab over the A77II. I am deciding a full frame A99II the last Sony A mount vs an A9.

Click to expand...

I only use the view finder even when changing setting. In fact one thing I like about working with settings is using the view finder instead of the screen on the back of the 7ZII.

I use the back screen when shooting macro, the tilt feature of the back screen is useful when on my hands and knees. I guess another thing I like about the A77II is that I look at images with the viewfinder, with A DSLR I can only use the back screen.