Help please, can't decide which path to take. Upgrading from D750

[Boidem]

@Boidem why would you bring such a thing as logic to this discussion?? If you go with a Z camera then you *might* have to use a "silly adapter" and who wants to fuss with that?

Soz. But the 'silly adapter' opens up so many more possibilities for photography; on my Z6 I can use Nikon mount lenses that are many decades old, like 50-60 years old and more. All sorts of weird and wonderful things. And often without spending a fortune; there are some superb older lenses out there that can be had relatively cheaply, and you can do stuff like extreme close up photography for a LOT less money than with say Sony or Canon.

I agree with your post but I think you've misunderstood with my intention here.
I have no desire to invest more money into a DOA system that Nikon already killed. And as such I am at a crossroad (and actually perfect position) to consider other brands.
You may feel that its nonsense but Sony was leading with mirrorless for a while and were ahead of Nikon and Canon. Maybe the gap is closed now but it was true in the recent past.

Thing is, investing more money into a 'DOA' system as you put it, wouldn't' actually be such a bad thing. See above. There will be countless s/h Nikkors and f-mount fit lenses for many years to come.

I have no desire to deal with adapters etc. I don't believe in adapters (sorry) as those always bring a compromise (one way or another).

There are few compromises with the FTZ, the main one being that you can't use older mechanical AF lenses to AF. The other main one is of course added size and weight, but it's not much. The ability to use so much older kit vastly outweighs the disadvantages though, imo. Plus another great aspect of that large lens mount diameter, is that you can also use adapters for all sorts of other lens mounts, including Canon and Sony! You can use old Leica lenses on a Nikon. You can also get such adapters for other ML mounts too. Don't discount adapters; they can open up other worlds of photography for you.

As for Sony's advantage over Nikon; that was the case, particularly with AF, but not so much now. Bear in mind that YT etc 'tests' are often carefully set up to best suit the particular brand of cam the 'influencer' is trying to promote. There is very little objectivity amongst most online sources, and many often ignore other key features which would balance articles better. Plus, 'influencers' often spend very little time with kit, beyond a quick 'test', so it's more about looking for long term reviews and such. Many such 'influencers' often aren't actually great photographers; look at their work and it's often quite mediocre. So; take what they say with a pinch of salt. There is an awful lot of ******** said and written about photographic equipment...

I decided to move to Nikon's ML system a couple of years ago, not long after they released the Z6. For me it was a no-brainer; the ability to use my existing lenses with the new cam, was a massive factor. I don't shoot sports or much wildlife, don't use long teles, so don't need superfast AF (if I did, I probably be buying a Z9 anyway tbh). I came from using single point AF in my old F801s, so learned to exploit that system. The multi point system in the D600 (not as god as your D750) was a revelation by comparison. The Z6 is light years ahead of that even. So for me, the technology is incredible anyway. AF speed has never been an issue for me, in the real world. I have never thought 'oh I wish I went for X brand instead'. A few years ago, had I not had so much invested in Nikon kit, I'd probably have gone for Sony. Not now though.

Ultimately it matters very little what system you choose. There are photographers out there using all sorts of equipment and getting amazing photos. What really matters is vision and talent. The rest is just marketing...

 

[Freida]

I feel that will always be the case as I'm not using it so much to make it the other way around. Maybe midway compromise

Otherwise the camera controls you

I know it is

It is more than capable of getting the images you want

Great idea, shame Lozeau closed in Montreal. It was very convenient. Now will have to look for another place to rent

rent the camera gear

I know what you mean but I really don't want to use adapters and old lenses. I want to upgrade, future proof myself and stick to a system and only get new lenses I need for myself. Don't want to invest into old stuff and deal with issues even if minimal. Plug and play is my motto

Don't discount adapters; they can open up other worlds of photography for you

Yeah, thats why I also come here to ask others. I take so long deciding that one might argue that if I spend all the time with the cameras testing them instead of asking and researching then maybe I would perhaps know the answer faster

Many such 'influencers' often aren't actually great photographers

 

[Freida]

After xmas I'll probably rent each brand wiht 24-70 and will test it out in 'the field' and see how i feel about each. Thats probably good start of 2023 ;-)

 

[Boidem]

That's a very good idea. But one thing I'd say about the f4 versions over the f2.8 versions of that zoom; the latter will be a lot bigger and heavier, and unless you're really pernickity, offer no real advantage. With Nikon, the f2.8 version is supposedly slightly better in terms of optical quality, but only by a small amount. It's also a LOT more expensive; if you go for a body and zoom kit, you'll be spending perhaps close to £2000 less. The 24-120 is perhaps a good alternative; I have the F-mount version and it's excellent (despite what some who've never actually used it might claim...), and the Z-mount version is reputedly even better. I think the Canon and Sony equivalents are 24-105, so slightly shorter but negligibly so. Word of warning though; Canon do kits with the 24-105 f4-7.1 lens, which is stupid because of that small aperture at the long end; a constant f4 is far better. I have always avoided variable aperture zooms where I could, because they turn out to be a pain when shooting manually (virtually all my photography is shot on full manual, I seldom use auto of any kind). Personally, I've been very happy with my 24-70 f4 on my Z6, as it keeps everything small and light without compromising image quality.

 

[mollyc]

@Freida I'd highly recommend that go out with your existing gear over the next month and shoot everything you possibly can. If you aren't using the gear you have, you don't know the limitations. You have very good stuff right now, even if it isn't what you want long term. But put it through its paces so that you know what it can't do so you know what to look for in a new kit.

The worst thing would be to test drive a new setup, buy it (whatever brand) and then stilll not use it. Which is what I really fear is going to happen based on some of your statements. From everything I've read in this thread from you, your issues aren't really your gear, it's that you don't use it. Having new gear isn't going to magically make your images better.

What will make your images better is consistent practice, and learning what you have. Shoot daily for the next month; shoot still life, animals, window light, use your flash, take a nature walk. You probably won't take any award winning images, but you will be making photos, and it's only through that concerted practice and effort that you are going to get better. You can stay accountable by sharing in the POTD thread.

Otherwise whatever you buy next year is just going to sit unused, an expensive paperweight like the camera you already have.

 

[Freida]

I shoot manual too but when I don't have the luxury of time I tend to go for A preset and occasionally S preset. I don't really use Auto anymore as it feels I don't have the control I want.
So for portraiture its almost always M but when travelling I might be switching between A or S.

Never tried f4 lens as when I rent 24-70 I go for the 2.8 but its true that I could by with f4 most likely so I will look into that too. Thank you

That's a very good idea. But one thing I'd say about the f4 versions over the f2.8 versions of that zoom; the latter will be a lot bigger and heavier, and unless you're really pernickity, offer no real advantage. With Nikon, the f2.8 version is supposedly slightly better in terms of optical quality, but only by a small amount. It's also a LOT more expensive; if you go for a body and zoom kit, you'll be spending perhaps close to £2000 less. The 24-120 is perhaps a good alternative; I have the F-mount version and it's excellent (despite what some who've never actually used it might claim...), and the Z-mount version is reputedly even better. I think the Canon and Sony equivalents are 24-105, so slightly shorter but negligibly so. Word of warning though; Canon do kits with the 24-105 f4-7.1 lens, which is stupid because of that small aperture at the long end; a constant f4 is far better. I have always avoided variable aperture zooms where I could, because they turn out to be a pain when shooting manually (virtually all my photography is shot on full manual, I seldom use auto of any kind). Personally, I've been very happy with my 24-70 f4 on my Z6, as it keeps everything small and light without compromising image quality.

 

[Freida]

Very true to some extent. My limitation for my gear is by far the lens. I only have 85mm 1.8 and thats it. So when I travel I rent but it gets expensive so I need a new lens and thats where the whole thing started. I could get Nikon F mount lens knowing I invest in dead system as Nikon killed it or I use this opportunity to upgrade so I get a system that Nikon, Canon or Sony will support long term.

If I already had another lens than 85mm then I wouldn't be here. Its like - do I go full in now or keep renting and 'wasting' money or go full in later?

But I agree that I don't use it too often to maybe justify new system.
Its hard to make a decision to be honest. I don't do impulse purchases so this will be a challenge :-D

@Freida I'd highly recommend that go out with your existing gear over the next month and shoot everything you possibly can. If you aren't using the gear you have, you don't know the limitations. You have very good stuff right now, even if it isn't what you want long term. But put it through its paces so that you know what it can't do so you know what to look for in a new kit.

The worst thing would be to test drive a new setup, buy it (whatever brand) and then stilll not use it. Which is what I really fear is going to happen based on some of your statements. From everything I've read in this thread from you, your issues isn't really your gear, it's that you don't use it. Having new gear isn't going to magically make your images better.

What will make your images better is consistent practice, and learning what you have. Shoot daily for the next month; shoot still life, animals, window light, use your flash, take a nature walk. You probably won't take any award winning images, but you will be making photos, and it's only through that concerted practice and effort that you are going to get better. You can stay accountable by sharing in the POTD thread.

Otherwise whatever you buy next year is just going to sit unused, an expensive paperweight like the camera you already have.

 

[mollyc]

Very true to some extent. My limitation for my gear is by far the lens. I only have 85mm 1.8 and thats it. So when I travel I rent but it gets expensive so I need a new lens and thats where the whole thing started. I could get Nikon F mount lens knowing I invest in dead system as Nikon killed it or I use this opportunity to upgrade so I get a system that Nikon, Canon or Sony will support long term.

If I already had another lens than 85mm then I wouldn't be here. Its like - do I go full in now or keep renting and 'wasting' money or go full in later?

But I agree that I don't use it too often to maybe justify new system.
Its hard to make a decision to be honest. I don't do impulse purchases so this will be a challenge :-D

Your 85mm is a fantastic lens. It's not quite as versatile as a 35mm or 50mm probably, but still, use it. You don't have to replace it, but it is still a working lens that will let you test the limits of your camera - low light, high ISO, etc. I've shot sports with an 85mm, it's a very capable lens as long as you have a bit of distance from your subject.

Right now your gear is not the issue (especially for a one month project). And I'm not asking you to stick with your kit long term. I'm challenging you to use it to see what is lacking in your current body so you know what parameters you want in your next. As well as lenses.

Right now, you have the equivalent of writer's block because you see your setup as lacking. Sure, a one lens kit can't do *everything* but it can do a *lot* of things. Use it to learn where the gaps are. And make some pretty photos along the way.

 

[Clix Pix]

Molly's suggestions are excellent and certainly trying that could make a difference for you in your decision-making. Some years ago I went through a period of not shooting much at all, or just occasionally. Then, in preparation for a trip I bought the RX10 M4, a bridge camera, which had particular features that I knew I'd need and appreciate on a trip to an unfamiliar area where we'd be very busy doing different activities. For the beach part of it I realized I wouldn't feel comfortable changing lenses on the beach, with sand and water, salty air. Also I needed a longer reach than I had with any of my gear then, and that bridge camera offered it as well. So I bought the thing, thinking well, I'd use it for the trip and that would be that, maybe I'd use it once in a while after that....

Huh, a surprise for me -- that ignited the little flame of love of photography which hadn't flickered out altogether during my hiatus. I was surprised at the good results I got with that camera and after I returned home I started taking the bridge camera for walks around the lake with me, and soon I was doing this daily. The wide range that the excellent zoom lens offered was great for this activity. I was having a lot of fun with that camera and enjoying it so much! Time went on and for some reason, although I was shooting frequently I didn't get out my usual gear and use it, having now been hooked on the mirrorless EVF, etc. Inevitably, though, I started realizing there were some things which I couldn't shoot with the bridge camera in the way that I wanted.

Somewhere along the line early-on during all this I started participating again in MR's POTD thread, and that kept me motivated, too, to get out and shoot. Eventually I started thinking about updating my gear and it didn't take too long to realize that for me, mirrorless was the direction in which to go. Around the time I started thinking about new gear I realized that I needed to be darned sure I wanted to do this, make the financial investment, etc., etc. One way to determine this was to get out there with a camera every day and so made a conscious effort to shoot frequently, which turned into daily.

I knew there was no point in buying something new and eventually having it spending all its time in the camera bags the way my older gear had been doing. I committed to shooting something every day for several months and that served as justification to make the big change when I actually was ready to do so. Once I bought the new gear, I kept up with that daily shooting, and at the start of a new year signed myself up for participation in a formal 52-Week Project on another forum. I've been shooting pretty much every day since then.

That experiment paid off both prior to when I bought the new gear and afterward, as while I was shooting I was also paying attention to what kinds of scenes I was shooting most frequently and which focal lengths I was using most often and which I would use if I could. What was missing, what could be compensated for by choosing a different lens I already had, etc. When I bought the new gear I deliberately bought just three lenses to get me started (two macros, which is what I'd most missed shooting, and a mid-tele fast lens) but also had reserved funds for the times I would be shooting and think, "I really could use a xxx lens for this scene," and as over the next couple of years I slowly rebuilt my photographic resources that was helpful. There are still a couple of lenses which are on the list, but only one of them is really something that I will be definitely adding -- the other is more optional, and so far I've managed just fine without that particular range.

So that's my experience with all this......

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

That's a very good idea. But one thing I'd say about the f4 versions over the f2.8 versions of that zoom; the latter will be a lot bigger and heavier, and unless you're really pernickity, offer no real advantage. With Nikon, the f2.8 version is supposedly slightly better in terms of optical quality, but only by a small amount. It's also a LOT more expensive; if you go for a body and zoom kit, you'll be spending perhaps close to £2000 less. The 24-120 is perhaps a good alternative; I have the F-mount version and it's excellent (despite what some who've never actually used it might claim...), and the Z-mount version is reputedly even better. I think the Canon and Sony equivalents are 24-105, so slightly shorter but negligibly so. Word of warning though; Canon do kits with the 24-105 f4-7.1 lens, which is stupid because of that small aperture at the long end; a constant f4 is far better. I have always avoided variable aperture zooms where I could, because they turn out to be a pain when shooting manually (virtually all my photography is shot on full manual, I seldom use auto of any kind). Personally, I've been very happy with my 24-70 f4 on my Z6, as it keeps everything small and light without compromising image quality.

If you want fast and not as much weight and cost, primes are the way to go. Usually it’s a good compromise, too, Since you might only have a couple preferred focal lengths where fast is needed. I have a 50 ffeq and a 90 ffeq in f1.8, and they weigh barely a thing. If I got the 1.7 tele, I’d be much poorer and not any better for it.

 

[Fishrrman]

Buying a new "mirrored" DSLR now, is like buying a brand-new-in-the-box PowerPC Mac.

Yes, it's shiny and new, it boots and runs, but it's destined to be rooted in "the past". Not in "what's coming down the line".

That may be what you want.
But realize what it is, for what it is...

 

[Freida]

I understand why others are mentioning it but I won't buy DSLR as I don't see the point. Its dead technology. I'll either stick with what I have and keep renting lens I need per trip/shoot OR I'll buy mirrorless and will make the jump.
Investing in old dead tech is not something I'd do. That is one thing I already know for sure. ;-)

Buying a new "mirrored" DSLR now, is like buying a brand-new-in-the-box PowerPC Mac.

Yes, it's shiny and new, it boots and runs, but it's destined to be rooted in "the past". Not in "what's coming down the line".

That may be what you want.
But realize what it is, for what it is...

 

[mollyc]

freida, have you taken any photos today?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Buying a new "mirrored" DSLR now, is like buying a brand-new-in-the-box PowerPC Mac.

Yes, it's shiny and new, it boots and runs, but it's destined to be rooted in "the past". Not in "what's coming down the line".

That may be what you want.
But realize what it is, for what it is...

Not advocating buying a DSLR, but your analogy is off. A power PC won’t run the latest software or receive security patches.
However a DSLR will continue to take photos as good as the day when it was new up until it’s broken.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Have you studied the manual for the D750? There can be 51 focus points. See page 330 of your manual.

 

[Boidem]

Buying a new "mirrored" DSLR now, is like buying a brand-new-in-the-box PowerPC Mac.

Yes, it's shiny and new, it boots and runs, but it's destined to be rooted in "the past". Not in "what's coming down the line".

That may be what you want.
But realize what it is, for what it is...

No. Basically.

Such ‘advice’ is best ignored tbh. Many professional photographers will tell you why. Mirrorless is not the be all and end all. The only actual difference between the two systems is the physical mirror. The rest of the technology is pretty much the same. Optical viewfinder systems are preferred by many pros, such as sports and wildlife photographers, because not only does it use a lot less battery power, but there is no lag between reality and the electronic representation of the scene (Although this is so tiny it’s now practically negligible). Mirrorless does offer benefits such as smaller size and weight, and image stabilisation, but generally the ‘analogy’ with PowerPC Macs is, as already stated, of. Way off in fact. Comparing DSLRs to Intel Macs might have been a better fit. And many people using Intel Macs will tell you there’s nothing wrong with them so far…

 

[Apple fanboy]

No. Basically.

Such ‘advice’ is best ignored tbh. Many professional photographers will tell you why. Mirrorless is not the be all and end all. The only actual difference between the two systems is the physical mirror. The rest of the technology is pretty much the same. Optical viewfinder systems are preferred by many pros, such as sports and wildlife photographers, because not only does it use a lot less battery power, but there is no lag between reality and the electronic representation of the scene (Although this is so tiny it’s now practically negligible). Mirrorless does offer benefits such as smaller size and weight, and image stabilisation, but generally the ‘analogy’ with PowerPC Macs is, as already stated, of. Way off in fact. Comparing DSLRs to Intel Macs might have been a better fit. And many people using Intel Macs will tell you there’s nothing wrong with them so far…

The weight argument pretty much goes away if you are shooting with long fast glass as well. A FF Mirrorless with a 600mm lens isn't much lighter than a DSLR equivalent.

 

[Boidem]

The weight argument pretty much goes away if you are shooting with long fast glass as well. A FF Mirrorless with a 600mm lens isn't much lighter than a DSLR equivalent.

True. True.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

I have Z6 & Z6ii. I have never felt limited by either of them.

My son had a three game lacrosse tournament this weekend. I took 414 photos using the tracking method with the Z6ii and only deleted 13 for missed focus. To me that's a pretty good keeper rate, and I was using a very heavy, non-native lens (Sigma 150-600) with an adapter.

What part of Nikon do you perceive to be lagging? Nikon may not be the right brand for you but the brand is much maligned for no real reason.

I picked up a Z6 to try out because it was a butt cheap way to dip a toe in, so if I wanted out I wouldn’t take much of a hit. After getting it, I realized I’d never go back to dslr, tried a Sony, tried a Z7II, then slipped down the well of lenses and decided to hang on to three lenses and one body. After all that, I’m keeping the Z6. For my purposes, it’s the only one I can justify taking out on the mountain bike & sailboat, and that also does video as well as it does it. It’ll be a while before I add another body, and then I’ll be glad to have the smaller investment in the Z6 as a backup & video option.

 

[Freida]

No time unfortunately. I can only do weekends and only sometimes.

freida, have you taken any photos today?

 

[Freida]

I have. Also got the book The secret of autofocus.
The 51 points are not enough and they are crammed in the middle so I find myself recomposing a shot very often.

Have you studied the manual for the D750? There can be 51 focus points. See page 330 of your manual.

 

[Freida]

Not to stir anything but I think his analogy is fine because if you buy powerPC now and use the software from that time you are fine. Same goes for DSLR and Mirrorless - with DSLR you are stuck with what you have. ML with the new AI chips could technically be updated with new features later. But I see your side also. ;-)

Not advocating buying a DSLR, but your analogy is off. A power PC won’t run the latest software or receive security patches.
However a DSLR will continue to take photos as good as the day when it was new up until it’s broken.

 

[Freida]

For me, what I love about ML is the fact that you see correct representation of your image in the viewfinder. No longer need to do a test shot to see the histogram etc. You just see it before you take it. For M shooter is awesome feature.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Not to stir anything but I think his analogy is fine because if you buy powerPC now and use the software from that time you are fine. Same goes for DSLR and Mirrorless - with DSLR you are stuck with what you have. ML with the new AI chips could technically be updated with new features later. But I see your side also. ;-)

No bother. I have nothing against ML cameras. But for me I can only see a slight advantage for the cash outlay. I don't shoot people so really don't need eye tracking and all that. I can also get the exposure correct in M mode so don't really need an optical viewfinder. The only thing I would like is focus peaking for macro work, but as a hobbies I will stick with my DSLR D750 until it breaks most likely.

 

[Freida]

I remember a year or more ago trying ML camera in store. ( I think it was the Nikon version but forgot which one) and I actually didn't like it as it felt 'slow' and 'pixelated' (if that makes sense)

I believe that is all sorted now so will see next weekend how I feel about the new tech when I will go and test it

D750 is awesome camera. I remember how happy I was when I upgraded from D90. What a jump

No bother. I have nothing against ML cameras. But for me I can only see a slight advantage for the cash outlay. I don't shoot people so really don't need eye tracking and all that. I can also get the exposure correct in M mode so don't really need an optical viewfinder. The only thing I would like is focus peaking for macro work, but as a hobbies I will stick with my DSLR D750 until it breaks most likely.