For the past six months I have been saving, selling stuff, and planning to upgrade the Nikon Z6.
I finally decided on the Z8 over the Z6III (although I briefly considered the Zf).
With my newly acquired knowledge of how autofocus works on the Z6, it would still be perfect for me if it were not for my recent interest in bird photography. The requirements for bird photography in the NZ bush are well beyond what the Z6 is intended for, and even though it performs very well in those conditions, I feel there are a lot of shots I miss that I wouldn’t with the latest generation of AF.
The buts: in NZ the Z8 is about $2,500 to $3,000 more expensive, which is a ridiculous amount. I sure could use the extra $3,000. So after paying, I began to have serious doubts. I was starting to convince myself that I had made a mistake, and that I should have bought the Z6III.
When it arrived yesterday I was excited, but reserved. I set up the customisations, and took a few test shots in the living room. But I was not convinced I had made the right call.
But this morning when I started using it in the field I immediately realised that this thing is a seriously good piece of equipment.
I believe a product has triumphed in its purpose when it leaves its user elated for having used it. For periods I was close to tears. Not only was it acquiring focus so quickly, the image resolution was hard to comprehend. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing through my viewfinder when reviewing the images.
The ecstatic moments I was having with the Z8 will pass as it becomes familiar. I understand why people rave about this camera. It makes sense that everyone I’ve asked who has one has said that you will not regret buying it.
I have been obsessing a little over sharpness recently. While my most used lens is not the sharpest (at the moment that’s the Nikon Z 180mm-600mm f5.6-6.3), I have some obtained some very sharp results with it in good light.
I go on about the challenges of shooting fast moving subjects in poor light blah blah blah, but there are various reasons that make getting pin-sharp results harder.
Having said that, I still want to get the best results I can when the need arises, although many of my favourite shots are far from sharp; but for some wildlife images that is what I am attempting to get to prove to myself that I know how to do it. The example below is well off what I want.
Tīeke, 1/250, f8, 600mm, ISO 500
The shot of the Tīeke was in harsh bright light, the subject was roughly 4 or 5 metres away from me. I was sure I was nailing some keepers, but on getting home most shots:
missed the eye repeatedly. To be fair, it was feeding in a tree with a lot of leaves and twigs to interfere, so I was trying to avoid reacquiring focus too often.
were exposed poorly. I forgot to change to spot metering.
may have been less well defined due to the shutter speed being too slow. Given the light I could have gone up considerably.
But most importantly, I realised that at the maximum aperture of f6.3 at 600mm I had 2mm DoF. I knew I was working on limited DoF with the longer focal lengths, but seeing how shallow it was, was a surprise. Even at f11 at 600mm I would only get 3mm.
Ansel is fantastic photo editing software which is a recent discovery for me. It is a fork of Darktable, and is similar in many ways, but, the UI has been considerably simplified. The maintainer has removed many of the duplicate modules and the result is a far simpler and easier to use version of Darktable.
Darktable has perhaps been a little too permissive with allowing new features. I do like it, but I find it completely overwhelming. I would often fluke an OK result, and when editing something a few weeks later be at a loss to remember which modules I had used.
While Darktable is a very powerful tool for advanced users, and not designed to be as simple to use as Lightroom, it is extremely intimidating for newbies or infrequent users. Coupled with a general dislike of post-production work on my photos, I started to realise that Darktable’s complexity making me reluctant to edit my photos.
While searching for an alternative to Darktable I came across Ansel.
Ansel has been a revelation for me, and I don’t just enjoy using it, I love using it.
Even though Ansel’s UI is much cleaner than Darktable, if I had not watched a few explainer YouTubes by Aurélien Pierre first I would have struggled.
Like Darktable, Ansel is incredibly powerful and has features that I am unlikely to ever use — I prefer shots as close to how they come out of the camera. My recent need to edit is due to shooting small fast moving targets in poor light, requiring high shutter speeds and high ISO, resulting in images that are either well under exposed or noisy, or both.
Ansel is alpha software and comes with the usual warnings, but so far with my simple needs it’s been stable and requires very few workarounds.
Tūī shake, f6.3, 1/80, ISO 6400.Tūī shake II, f6.3, 1/80, ISO 6400, unprocessed.f6.3, 1/100s, ISO 280, unprocessed. This is not the finished product I’m aiming for, but something I’d like to explore.
While I need to be mindful of metering, after a number of BIF sessions with Wide Area Large and a lot of shots in focus, I was blown away. The AF was picking up the bird well, I was amazed.
This was also the longest I have spent in one spot, close to 90 minutes, which gave me a good sense for which animals were doing what and some of the patterns.
Wide area large (WAL) on the Nikon Z6
This was the first time I tried using WAL for an extended period, and I was impressed. My expectations were set that Wide Area Small (WAS) was the better bet for bird in flight photography. I examined the results from seven bursts with WAL and two with WAS.
The light conditions were bright, backlit, with misty rain that was enough to really mislead the AF a few times, but overall the light was magic, and even with the haze and droplets between the lens and the subject it was refreshing to be shooting in relatively bright light for a change.
From five of the WAL bursts I got an in-focus rate of 59%, and the two bursts of WAS I got 69% rate. This is by no means scientific as the two WAS bursts were towards the end when my technique and discipline had improved.
I eliminated two of the WAL bursts that had 25% in focus rate due to user error in one, and a very busy background on the other.
I can see why WAS is generally the way to go, but that WAL is worth using if the background is not too busy.
Mindset: Track – Acquire Focus – Shoot
I started to shift my mindset to Track / Acquire / Shoot: tracking to allow the camera time to acquire focus and then shoot, a process that takes a second or so. It’s part of the technique that I need to work on.
Focus between shots
Reviewing the shots there were a number where focus slipped for a frame but was sharp either side.
Conclusions, things to change
Focus limiter – work on a technique to change it if needed
Metering – I was in spot metering the entire time, which is almost hopeless for BIF shots
Shutter speed – on a couple of occasions outside of the bursts above I was in a slow shutter speed. If used intentionally it could be quite effective.
Shortcuts to consider on the camera:
change metering – on the i menu
change AF speed – on the i menu
need a dedicated BIF setting on the camera, U2 or U3 could be repurposed for this
Sample images – screencaptured and unedited jpg files
This morning I missed a lot of opportunities and missed shots, all because I did not alter my settings more frequently or dramatically enough.
I consider the photography I do at the moment as training or practice, and like training for something (like a long ride or a run), so I can be ready for when something remarkable happens. I need to be using these opportunities to get way more comfortable changing and checking my settings.
I could have been at 1/500 or more and had a wider aperture. Same as a above – a couple of tweaks would have made this a much sharper shot and might have been something to work with.At this point, about 25 seconds later, I have increased the shutter speed, but not nearly enough. I think I was afraid I’d miss the shots completely, but, that is basically what I did here. To be fair it was gloomy as the sun was just started to peek over the hills and there was a fair bit of cloud.Pretty sure I was on single point AF, so OK considering. BUT, look the the aperture and shutter speed. While tracking I could have altered both, and I should have started with the shutter speed as the ISO was still so low.
Yesterday I got the opportunity to photograph Kererū that were sitting beyond the canopy in decent light. It was quite the revelation, and it gave me a boost in terms of my confidence.
Shooting in the light with slower targets made for a pleasant change, with much higher keeper rates than I’ve had recently, and even a few satisfying results.
Recently it has been rare for me to get the auto ISO below 9000, as the high shutter speeds I need have pushed that right up resulting in a fair bit of noise and lost detail and very underexposed images.
These conditions were a lot easier for the combo of the Z6 and the 180-600mm to shine. In the better light conditions focus was snappy.
The weather while I was out walking at Ōtari was pretty damp and cold so there wasn’t much activity until I was leaving when the light improved and the wildlife appeared and I got these shots.
My interest in the AF on the Z6 has been massively piqued by the release of the new Z6III. I have been thinking a lot about AF since its release, and I realised the Z6 auto focus probably is not as bad as I assumed it was for the sort of work I was doing. Not that it’s great, just not as bad as I believed.
Most of the photography I have done with the big Nikkor 180-600mm lens and requiring great auto focus is in bad light, with very small fast moving targets.
In order to test the AF on wildlife with different focus modes I headed to the south coast where there is usually a group of several hundred seagulls. This was an excellent opportunity to see how different AF modes worked, in good light, and with a range of backgrounds from sky, sea, and land.
Seagulls are good subjects as they are large, fly slowly when around the colony, and there are plenty of targets.
These are JPGs straight out of the camera with no additional editing. These weren’t selected because they’re good photos, in fact I have chosen many because they’re bad photos.
Nikon Z6, 410mm, f/6.0, 1/1000, ISO 160, -0.3EV. I needed a little more depth of field. Despite the shutter speed it is nearly OK.Crop of the above – the Z6 pretty much nailed it, it was let down by my choice of slow shutter speed and poor tracking technique.Nikon Z6, 410mm, f/6.0, 1/2500, ISO 800Nikon Z6, 390mm, f/6.0, 1/2500, ISO 7200, -0.3EV
Methodology
I’ll be honest, there wasn’t much. I attempted to capture birds flying in a range of backgrounds using each auto focus mode. In short Dynamic-area and Wide-area small worked well for bird in flight, wide-ares large and Auto-AF with tracking were predictably not as good. A reminder that the Z6 does not have bird detection.
The winner this time: Wide-area AF (Small)
Wide-area AF small was the mode I spent the most amount of time in. It seemed to be the most accurate and it was pretty good at acquiring and holding focus on flying birds when against the sea or the sky. This was dependent on my tracking abilities, which are those of a complete beginner.
The runner-up: Dynamic-area AF
I spent the second highest amount of time in this mode. It was quite effective for bird in flight and stationary targets. It did appear to lock on to the background or hunt a little at times. But overall it generally quick to find birds in flight. For more or less stationary objects it was extremely quick and accurate.
Wide-area AF (Large)
I would like to try this again as my tracking ability improves, I didn’t use it for long as I struggled to acquire targets, but that was probably as much my fault as the focus modes.
Auto-area AF with subject tracking
This was a wildcard that I did not expect to work, but it did acquire focus more than I expected. Shooting sea birds on rocks, with birds and rocks looking the same, it could not match a pattern to lock onto and would move around pretty rapidly and apparently randomly.
The other issue was that even the relatively slow moving gulls were too quick to get a lock with tracking.
But it is worth trying again.
Focus Tracking with Lock-On
I tried setting this to Quick, but switched it back pretty quickly, it jumped off target too soon. Something I didn’t try but I should have, was to set it to Delayed.
Hit rate
I took 1529 images, and needed to delete 294 for being unusably out of focus. That means only 20% were unacceptably blurry. Now, there were many others of half a bird, or empty ocean, or the wrong bird in focus, and so on. The keeper rate was about 14%, and of those there are only 3 or 4 that I might publish somewhere.
Having said that the aim of the session was to push the auto focus system rather than get great shots. Many of the shots I kept are blurry to illustrate the points in this post.
Conclusions and lessons
While I defend the Z6’s AF as nowhere near as bad as YouTuber’s say it is, it certainly was not awesome, perhaps a 7 out of 10. It is usable with technique and experience. If I was solely a wildlife photographer, especially a bird photographer, the Z6 would not be my tool of choice –although the Z6III likely would be.
As I like to shoot a variety of stuff the Z6 will continue to be well suited for my needs, but I am now seriously thinking about the Z6III or Z8.
I want to do this again but in a more structured way to compare the two most useful focus modes, and perhaps to the same for wide-area large and Auto-area AF without subject tracking. [Update: I have customised Geeqie’s overlay to show the focus mode making this much easier.]
For bird in flight I will first try dynamic or wide-area small.
I need to not rely on being at 600mm all the time.
1/1000 is too slow for bird in flight, I was getting better results with 1/2500, and given the light I should have gone faster.
I should probably have stopped down a little from f6.3, as I needed a little more depth of field.
A final note: this does not compare to my usual use case of dark or high contrast environment under the forest canopy.
In the rumour-hype-cycle of the just announced Nikon Z6III, I had written off the 7III as impossible and unnecessary. The idea was that the Z8 made the Z7III redundant. Well, that was until I thought about the pricing and realised there is space in the lineup for a new 7 series, at least in terms of pricing.
There is almost certainly enough demand globally for a high megapixel version of the Z6, something like a 60mp+ sensor, with the same AF system, slower frame rate, and intended for the studio, landscapes, etc, but also fitting the needs and wants of many enthusiasts.
A 7III would fit in the lineup based on the pattern that is apparent from current NZ pricing at least, if there is a roughly $1,400 price difference between models:
Zf $3,800
Z6III $5,200
Z7III $6,600
Z8 $8,000
Based on the standard pricing on the Nikon NZ website (body only):
Zf $4,000
Z6III $5,400
Z7III $6,800 <– this kinda fits
Z8 $8,200
So what? Even if the pricing indicates there is a gap in the lineup, I am missing Nikon’s data on demand, which really is the crucial factor. However there are pretty clear signals that there is potential demand for a high resolution body:
Given the complaints online about the Z6III’s 24mp sensor and it being referred to as “low resolution”. There were some analysts (both in the industry and keen amateurs) who were certain there would be a megapixel increase and expected 33mp or higher.
The seemingly popular and beautiful Fuji medium format cameras which happily occupy a niche of “affordable” medium format that no other manufacturer is playing in.
Since Nikon’s D800, Sony, Canon, and Nikon have all included a megapixel beast in their lineup in some form.
While really high megapixels are probably not needed by the vast majority of photographers, and especially hobbyists, that doesn’t matter. That is part of deciding on and buying a camera, and for some folks they want megapixels, rationality be damned.
High megapixel full frame cameras, rightly or wrongly, do have their image quality compared to medium format image quality.
The 7 series are beloved for their image quality by their target consumer.
The US, Chinese, European, and Japanese markets are incomprehensibly huge to me as someone living in a country of barely 5 million people. Even in a global downturn, those economies are awash with folks with the disposable income for luxury items, such as a new camera every few years.
Additionally, the 6 and 7 series aren’t just products built on the same product platform, they are the same body with a different sensor and adapted software for managing the sensor. The economies of scale must be favourable for the Z7III even if it sells in considerably lower quantities, given that the margin on a 7 series is potentially higher than on the 6III.
The pricing for the camera body is A LOT more than I was expecting.
In NZ the launch price is $5,200, which is way above my expectation that it would be closer to $4,000.
The current NZ prices are:
Zf $3,500 (it’s on sale)
Z6III $5,200
Z8 $7,700 (also on sale)
This makes me think much harder about what I need. If I wasn’t into working on my wildlife technique so much I would simply stick with what I’ve got.
Four years with the Z6
Even in 2024 the Z6 is still an amazing camera. With my newly acquired knowledge of how autofocus works on the Z6, it would still be perfect for me if it were not for my recent interest in bird photography. The requirements for bird photography in the NZ bush are well beyond what the Z6 is intended for, and even though it performs very well in those conditions, I feel there are a lot of shots I miss that I wouldn’t with the latest generation of AF.
But what is it I really need?
24mp is enough for me. Sure I would sometimes love the additional freedom to crop that a larger file would provide, but 24mp really is fine for me right now. [Update: more and more the idea of 45mp of the Z8 is very appealing.]
Better autofocus. I believe there is still more to squeeze out of the Z6’s AF system by improving my technique and learning to mode switch. This is a valuable skill to learn and will be needed for a new body. A big part of this is autofocus down to EV -10 vs EV -3.5. I don’t think in practice I’ll get 10 stops more, but even if it is -6 vs -3.5 it should make a huge difference. In fact I wonder if I get AF at -3.5 currently.
A larger buffer. I am finding I need to be careful not to fill the buffer, and a couple of times recently I have been aware of missing shots as the buffer was full and firing became less responsive. In practice the buffer of the Z6III is unlimited, but that could result in a lot more useless frames to weed out after the photo shoot.
IBS – most of my low light wildlife shots are handheld, so improvements here are high up the needs list.
Good high ISO performance.
Faster frame rate. The Z6 is pretty good for my needs. Sure a bump wouldn’t hurt, but I find 12fps ample.
U1 to U3 mode switch. This is frequently used, even on wildlife shoots if I want to attempt monochrome shots. [Update: Exploring the banks on the D810 has been a relief and a fright. On one hand they’re not as bad as I thought, and have a number of advantages over user settings, but there is a speed and simplicity to the user settings that is far easier to understand.]
Video. I barely use video, and while it’s something I may get into it’s not currently part of my thinking.
Stick with the Z6?
If I wasn’t currently hooked on wildlife photography the Z6 would be absolutely fine, there is very little I do that requires as much AF and buffer grunt as the Z6III provides.
The Z6II is not a big enough upgrade
On paper the Z6II is not a big enough upgrade from the Z6, it was surely intended for folks switching to the Z system for the first time rather than folks upgrading from the first generation Z models. It’s still a chunk of money too.
The Zf comes close in all but one major area
Given the price of the Z6III, the Zf really is an interesting option. Its autofocus won’t be as as good as the 6III, but it is a huge upgrade on the Z6 and Z6II. The buffer also doesn’t match the 6III, but, it should be a material improvement on the Z6 that tends to fill and slow after only bursts of only a few seconds, whereas in theory the Zf buffer should last about 14 seconds.
In every key factor where I need a bump in performance the Zf will provide it, and it has so many of the features of the the Z6III for a much lower price.
There is a substantial drawback for action photography, the ergonomics of a ‘retro’ camera. It will need a third party grip for starters, but for $1,700 less it’s at least worth consideration, as it may not be as bad as I expect. It is a difficult thing to test though, as there are no rental options in my city that I’m aware of.
What about the Z8?
At $2,500 more than the Z6III I cannot justify it. Perhaps used units in a few years will be more affordable, but like the D8xx series I expect they’ll hold their value well for some time to come. [Update: the Z8 is very very much on the cards for me. I think the Z6III megapixel issue will become an issue for me in the coming years. A Z8 at a reduced price (or used) is likely to be a body I will keep for 5+ years, the Z6III might not be.]
The advantages of the Z6III
The autofocus looks to be extremely good.
24mp – perfect for me currently as I really don’t fancy handling large quantities of massive files. [Update: I am wavering on this one.]
The EVF is the best of the Nikon’s atm.
The buffer is huge, like a Z8.
The much lower price than the Z8.
Pixel shift is interesting as I’d like a higher resolution option sometimes for landscape and so one, but, it’s probably not ideal for this purpose when things are moving and it needs to take 30 shots (although in the right conditions it could do that in a little over 2 seconds).
My other underlying assumption is that the Z6III is going to get some pretty major firmware upgrades over the next couple of years which could make it even more of an incredible performer.
I think more will be revealed about the 6III as more people use production copies. [Update: apart from quibbles about dynamic range the longer term reviews are still basically rave reviews.]
The only downside is the price, and it is the only thing that has given me pause. If it was around $4,000 I’d be lining this up. At $5,200 I have to reconsider.
So what’s it going to be?
Given I don’t have funds, this is a thought exercise.
If the old Z6 fetches a reasonable price, say around $1,200, I’ll still need to come up with about $4,000 for a 6III, vs $2,000 for the Zf.
$4,000 is a hell of a lot for sick as AF and buffer.
That said, it would hopefully be enough camera for me and I would have no need to upgrade for a good 5 or 6 years. The thought that nags me is will 24mp, while perfect for me now, start to feel like a limitation within a few years? Having a camera body for 6 years would work out at an additional outlay of under $700/year, but assuming the keeper rate is a lot higher that is good value given how much I use it.
When taking a longer term view, it even makes the Z8 a contender, at under $1,100 a year over 6 years. Food for thought. [Update: I am working towards savings for Cyber Monday, in case there is a reduction on the Z8.]
For me, the Zf comes within range of the 6III in terms of benefits, but has an ergonomic trade-off that might be unmanageable, even given the much lower cost.
Right now I have no choice so I am going to stick with the Z6, but I will be saving up.
[Postscript: I would be happy with a Zf, Z6III, or a Z8. The Z8 is certainly my preferred option of the three, but, it may be financially out of reach for several years.]
