The number one question on the charts this week has to do with how good the Z50II or Z6III is relative to the Z8. A subset also mention the Zf or Z9 when framing their version of the question.
I’m surprised at how effectively Nikon has made an effective continuum here. The goodness of the EXPEED7 processor is truly present on all the cameras using it. Currently that’s Z50II, Zf, Z6III, Z8, and Z9 in order of price. As you work your way up that price chain, you’ll find that limitations and liabilities get removed, at least up to the Z8 level (the Z8 and Z9 are effectively the same camera in different bodies).
So what are those limitations and liabilities?
Let’s work backwards:
- Z8 (and Z9)
- 45mp. Full frame (FX).
- An electronic shutter that’s as good as any mechanical shutter we had in the DSLR era. (1/270 effective)
- A very natural looking viewfinder that doesn’t black out and displays continuous live frames unless you’re pushing down into really low light and long shutter speeds.
- A buffer that is infinite until the card fills (at least for JPEG and High efficiency raw files.
- Z6III
- 24mp, with a slight loss of dynamic range at base ISO up to the gain reset. Full frame (FX).
- An electronic shutter that is rolling enough to become visible at high motion speeds. (1/70 effective)
- An even better nature looking viewfinder, but is no longer displaying live frames above 8 fps mechanical, 15 fps electronic.
- A buffer that is 200 images (unless you’re using electronic shutter, where it can be infinite until the card fills).
- Zf
- 24mp. Full frame (FX).
- An electronic shutter that has a high degree of rolling. (1/20 effective)
- A very natural looking viewfinder, but which is no longer displaying live frames above about 8 fps.
- A maximum 200 image buffer.
- Z50II
- 20mp. APS-C frame (DX).
- An electronic shutter with visible rolling shutter. (1/41 effective)
- A slightly rougher viewfinder, and one that is no longer live starting about 6 fps.
- A buffer that is 200 images (both minimum and maximum)
The Zf introduces the oddity of a completely different set of controls (dials, and no user settings available), but other than that you have a pretty natural progression from top to bottom of the EXPEED7 camera line.
Many buy solely on point #1 (they want pixels and sensor size). Well, they'll pay the Pixel Tax to do so.
Personally, from a functional standpoint, I find that point #3 is the one that dictates which camera I use when. In other words, I prefer to use a Z8 (or Z9). The reason I’d use a Z6III or Z50II—I don’t like the dials-oriented Zf design—tends to have to do with packing/carrying size. I’ll give up #2 and #3 to make for a smaller, lighter kit at times. In fact, that’s the only reasons why I’d pick up my Z6III or Z50II over a Z8: I need to go smaller and/or lighter.
Some folk ask their version of the question I’m answering a different way, usually something like “is the Z50II autofocus system really as good as the Z9’s?” Yes, within the context of #1, #2, and #3.
Wait, what?
The Z50II autofocus suffers a bit by being DX: the photosites being looked at get less light because they’re a smaller area. While the Z50II photosites are effectively the same size as the Z8’s and Z9’s, the same size focus box in the viewfinder incorporates more such sites on a Z8 and Z9, thus has better discrimination. That information is delivered to the EXPEED7 chip more consistently in the Z8/Z9, too (#3).
The Zf, Z6III, and Z50II all suffer a bit in autofocus performance as you push frame rates way up, partly because of rolling shutter, partly because you’re no longer see a live view of the scene, but rather a slightly lagged slide show. Which means you can’t keep the camera as steady on a moving subject. The Z50II and Zf suffer the most, the Z6III is relatively good right up to the point where you try to extract every last frame out of its Release mode settings.
Ironically, the Z8/Z9 are the best camera for the amateur that wants “everything auto” but wants to push the boundaries of performance in frame rate. The Z50II is the camera that the highly disciplined pro will get more out of than most users. To give an analogy, the Z8/Z9 is like giving the amateur a big block V8 with automatic transmission, while the Z50II is more like a straight 4 with manual transmission. A professional driver in the straight 4 will likely still beat the amateur with the V8 on a tough road course. To put that one more way: if you know nothing about the Nikon system and I hand you a Z8 set to Auto-area AF with subject detection, I’ll get more keepers than you with a Z50II that I’m near frantically controlling.
Nikon’s progression here from Z50II up through Z9 is very impressive. And much more compelling than the more hodge-podge model progressions I see in the other mounts. While you might be able to find a feature here and there that is different between the Nikon models—where’s HEIF in the Z9, for instance, or sensor VR in the Z50II?—it’s pretty amazing how consistently deep and wide the feature set of all EXPEED7 generation cameras is. It appears that Nikon heard my (and your) complaints about limitations that were paternally imposed on the original Z6 and Z7.
So, how good is a Z50II compared to a Z6III? Or a Z6III compared to a Z8? Really good. However, in the key areas I outlined above, you will find clear differences, and those differences may be of importance to you. The Goldilocks solution is sort of the Z6III. But I’m impressed with what the US$910 Z50II does; I don’t know any other similarly priced camera that can match it when set and handled correctly.
Nikon gave you choices. Nikon’s not very good at marketing the differences between those choices, but I find them to be pretty clear choices that align very correctly to price, as the differences come primarily in key performance categories centered around frame rate and viewfinder.
Moreover, you can now scale that body performance with lens performance. For wildlife photography, for instance:
- Z50II with 28-400mm f/4-8 VR.
- Z6III with 180-600mm f/4.5-6.3 VR.
- Z8 with any of the exotics (e.g. from 400mm f/4.5 VR S to 800mm f/6.3 VR S).
Nicely done, Nikon. (Yes, I do praise them sometimes ;~)
