Hello Hyun, this is a very good review of the Z5. I only disagree about one thing: RAW Uncompressed. RAW Compressed Lossless is exactly the same as RAW Uncompressed as no bits were thrown away. Finally we have a camera manufacturer that realizes they can lose RAW Uncompressed without compromise because RAW Compressed Lossless gives you exactly the same image quality. As Mister Spock says, "A difference which makes no difference, is no difference." As a computer guy (Mac guy really) I understand this. Why do folks think they are losing something with lossless compression? You are not, and that's what lossless means. One other thing I'm not sure we agree upon is the cause of the lower frame rate this camera has. Does the non-BSI sensor take longer to do a full readout and therefore can't match the frame rate of the Z6, or has Nikon actually pulled a Canon move and deliberately hindered the camera's frame rate in firmware? It is difficult to know for certain. But if the camera can shoot faster, then perhaps we can convince Nikon it is worth un-hindering it in future, or perhaps a third party like those folks who do Magic Lantern might fix this issue. One other thing about the cost of this camera: Buyers need to factor in the high cost of XQD cards and the fact you will need an XQD reader to use the Z6, which in Canada will add another $300 to the Z6 cost. (Technically you can do without a card reader if you use Wi-Fi or USB-C but most will want a card reader.) So the delta between Z6 and Z5 is more like $700, and I already had UHS-II cards lying around that I could use without spending a dime. Love the lighting, very insightful analysis. Cheers from the Great White North. (Canada) -- Jim Ferr
Give me z5 ii, with top screen 12-15fps, xqd and sd slots and CMOS, yes I prefer cmos over bsi sensor. And price 1799. That would be my perfect camera.
Lets not forget, that this camera is the cheapest FF digital camera, Nikon have ever put on the market. It is a full $600 cheaper than even the D600/D610 or the Z6 cameras were, when they were introduced. I'll say it's a very well-priced entry level FF camera with specs to match its price range. No matter if you are a beginner or a pro.
Nothing's too cheap nor too over-priced. One needs to know how to make use with what exist and be happy. But tbh, this is the best Z for transitioners wanted to shoot with Z glass now. Serious shooters won't stay with this. But when they upgrade to future Zs from this, less bucks are wasted.
Nikon problem is that they are building their cameras so well. I still don't see any reason to jump to mirrorless when I am still enjoying my D 750 and D700.Especialy D 750 is awesome camera, it is lightweight, plenty of lenses to choose and amazing image quality. It has been with me around the world from the desert to the jungles for 5 years and never let me down.
By every measure, the Z lenses are excellent. Whether the f1.8 primes, f4 zooms, 2.8 zooms, or new 1.2 primes, they deliver performance at or near the top of their respective categories. Taken together with their build quality and utility, they may represent the best value proposition for many consumers and working professionals.
I like that you are not showing any bias. You discuss and compare features of several brands. It really helps people to decide what’s important to them in a camera.
I got mine two weeks ago. Its an upgrade from high-end micro four-thirds. I am not a video shooter. Yours is the review I have liked the most. Thank you.
I have my Z5 for over a week and I miss a lot from my - still primary Olympus EM-1 Mii - bracketing, HDR, Precapture, live time, live composite, images per second, .... The primary goal for the Z5 is to use it w7ith my vintage lenses which I also use with my Olympus cameras but to use them with crop factor 1!
for 1200, it's a great deal with the ftz adapter. It's exactly what it should be. I moved from a D7100, I am not a pro so it was a good move to FX. If you trade in all your DX gear, its worth it. I think with a firmware update, this could become a very popular camera. But I am happy with it for a casual shooter.
Lossless Compressed - as the name implies, lossless compression means that a RAW file is compressed like an archive file without any loss of data. Once a losslessly compressed image is processed by post-processing software, the data is first decompressed, similar to what happens to archived data contained in a ZIP file. Lossless compression is the ideal choice, because all the data is fully preserved and yet the image takes up much less space.
The z5 will be a popular choice for wedding photographer or people looking to jump into the MIRRORLESS FF etc. Eventually the price will drop no big deal. There is no such as the perfect camera for everyone (we have different needs) , BUT THERE IS ALWAYS A CAMERA FOR EVERY TYPE OF PHOTOGRAPHER. Will buy couple of Z5 as it is good enough for the work I do.
Finally a video that objectively compares cameras and goes over the limitations as opposed to saying 'its not backlit so thats bad' with zero comparison to say HOW bad it is. Burst frames may not be a big deal for many buyers, but objectively better photos is something almost anyone can get behind. Still going with Z5 for dual card slots lol
Just trying to tell myself: Literally everything is an upgrade. A nikon z5 is infinitely better than my rebel t5 from way back when using a similar lens. So... lol. I gotta ditch the anxiety. What pro-users call an entry level camera obviously haven't used what I called an entry level camera.
Exactly,you can do it, believe in your self.anyrhing you will go for will be better than that 💩,welp i dont even have a camera and i am also in the same dilemma as you lmao
Problem is that for most non pro use cases that's not really true. My 12 year old Nikon D90 will do 4,5 FPS, 3D tracking autofocus, ISO3200 is completely useable, and it can take any F mount lens, e.g. paying below 200$ for f1,8 primes. The picture at 12,6 megapixels is big enough for almost anything a semi-pro user will need (hell, the D3 that was the Nikon FF Flagship then had 12,1 megapixels and was used by pro photographers for everything back then), and everything functions more or less how DSLRs do now. I think people have to sit down and think what they need and use their cameras for - if you're doing casual photography you wont ever really need the 15 FPS burst shooting, super advanced eye tracking AF, 20-40 megapixel pictures, ISO 51,400, 4k 120 FPS video etc. that modern cameras have. So in the end the difference between a decent 10 year old camera and a brand new mirrorless camera will be mainly that your photos will take up more space.
@@ChaplainDMK after 2 months with a z6 and a 50mm 1.8 lens, I can say with some confidence that my assertion was correct. I had outgrown my camera. If anything, the technology advances available in the new body only improved the things about my Rebel that held me back, and I was already coming up with clever ways to overcome them. Best choice I ever made. And now nothing but my wallet is stopping me from moving on to even more types of photography.
@@ChaplainDMK I agree to a point - the incredible capabilities of high end modern cameras can make you feel you're missing out if you buy something more mid-range, when in fact it's often more than capable for your needs of you're an amateur. That said, I upgraded from a D90 to a D750 and the improvement in image quality was amazing. Do I really need it? No, but I certainly do appreciate the far better low light performance, the insane dynamic range that lets me practically do HDR photography from a single exposure because you can push the shadows so much, and the high megapixel count is useful for cropping. The Z5 has very similar IQ to the D750, of course. So while many of the features you mentioned are unlikely to be essential for most people, upgrading to a modern FF sensor from a 10+ year old APS-C one will make a BIG difference.
I think it looks like a great camera. Technology has changed with features that makes taking photos easier but it's up to the photographer to create works of art. One card slot or two next they'll want three. Or perhaps people will want a camera with AI that will focus, compose, and tell them where to place external flashes and take the photos for them. Lol I mean have we lost the art of photography for the art of the best high tech gear. I wonder how ever did sport shooter live with shooting 4 FPS since whenever. Great video ❤🙌🏿
Great review. Picked one up this weekend for $990 new for the body with the adapter and a Manfrotto Element MII tripod thrown in. So far, being my first FF and Mirrorless I am enjoying this camera's quality over my old crop sensor.
I agree. I help students with their science and environmental projects. They make a film of the issue there are looking at. When submitting the film to a film festival the festival demands 1080p because 4K takes way to much storage space for all the submittals. I bought the camera and think it is great as an entry into full frame. Small camera, great image quality, etc.
I'm torn. It's a big plus for me that it has 2 SD slots, so I can use the cards that I have instead of having to buy expensive new cards. I don't care about video and 4.5fps I can live with, but the Z6 simply has better dynamic range and better low-light performance and higher fps, for not even €200 more (if you ignore the expensive new cards). Really, the only reason not to spring for the z6, I think, is the cards.
I have the exact same problem, the card slot is really the problem. Or, that they chose to go with the XQD card, instead of the normal card, that means that the Z6 just gets too expensive, having to at least an additional 150-200 USD to the price (based on where I live), just to have one memory card. I prefer to have a couple, so we're definitely talking 500-600 USD extra for me. The Z5 might be of interest had I already been with Nikon. But since I would have to switch brand, which I wouldn't mind doing, it's just a tool, it will get too expensive and cumbersome. I think Nikon made the wrong choices here, a) with the choice of type of card for Z6 and Z7, and b) not using backlit sensor for the Z5.
Z5 does better at lower ISO,this modified D750 sensor still shines over Z6/D780 BSI at lower ISOs, & shows color noise improvements over D750 at higher ISO. The BSI magic begins at 3200 & rises more with ISO from that point.
@Paul Jones Rp is 5fps,R is 5.5 fps,they can't even keep those burst rates while tracking. S5 at 2k$ released in 2020 is kept at 5fps with tracking & useless 7fps only in AF-S. May be Z5 could & should have 5.5 fps that is continuous high mode in Z6/7, beyond which AE isn't available. It's not cripple hammer always, there can be limitations(may be slow reading FSI sensor doing both AF & imaging process at the same time). D610 & D750 were more expensive cameras than Z5 at the time of their release. & while technology may be getting cheaper with time,but manufacturing & material cost is increasing,& still Z5 is released at a cheaper price point. So 4.5 fps isn't appreciable,but also not unacceptable for a camera like Z5 at its price point.
I got mine specifically to use vintage manual lenses on and it's absolutely perfect in that role. Every adapter I've purchased fits well and my old Leica and Zeiss lenses are wonderful to use. I never use flash or speed shooting and I've always had Nikon cropped DSLRs so this really was a dream body for me.
@S Tra It was not until full frame digital mirrorless bodies came along (made popular only 7 years ago with Sony's A7) that this was even possible. The flange focal distance is way too large with DSLR to use vintage glass. The other thing is that it needs to be full frame or else you're not making use of the lens "properly". I'm more of a wide-angle guy so crop sensor was not something I was interested in. So what other option is there? Use the original 35 mm bodies, sure... but that's a whole different animal. As for trowing away 99% of the tech... I use almost all of the tech in this camera. Automatic focus is a lens technology. I use the in-body stabiliation and digital focus peaking, both are awesome with vintage glass. Light metering, etc etc. I'm throwing away 1% of the tech, you have it backwards heh.
@S Tra And you completely lose autofocus with vintage lenses. But can you understand the value with my explanation? If someone is ok with manual focus (which I am) then this body is a fantastic platform to make use of really great vintage glass. Can you see how auto focus is all you lose and there's a pile of technology in there that I'm making use of?
@@digiternst I'm in a similar situation, have a bunch of vintage glass which I love to shoot on my D850 and D750. Have you used your vintage lens on the Z5 for video? Wondering about that. I also shoot some vid for commercial jobs. Thx
@@johnsobeski627 I have yet to really get into video with this camera but my instinct is that you want autofocus for video... unless you're doing artsy stuff, lots of rack focusing, etc.
BTW - There are auto focus adapters being released now for the Nikon Z that can be used with vintage lenses. Look up the Megadap MTZ11 and Techart TZM-01 adapters. Part of the allure of mirrorless is being able to utilize all these different lenses throughout the history of photography. Honestly, if someone only sticks to Z lenses with Nikon, you're the one actually throwing away 99% of the mirrorless technological advantages.
FYI lossless compressed files decompress to the exact same file that uncompressed files would produce. If you have a lossy compression, it's a bit different, but for lossless, you end up with smaller physical files that write faster to the slower SD cards. This is actually desirable.
I have shot weddings the past 6 years with two D750s. Im very interested in the Z5, because it looks like a mirrorless D750 at a great price. Comparing the camera to other brands is fun, but it's not practical if all of your professional gear is in one brand. Going mirrorless from Nikon DSLRs makes way more sense with a Z5 than having to buy 2 new A7iii with their lenses.
Exactly, I'm not a pro but I have 5 full frame Nikon lenses. I enjoy looking at the Sony A7 series but in the end if I upgrade my camera one day it will be to something like the Z5 or 6, simply because I have invested in the Nikon system 8 years ago and switching would be a hassle and expensive for little real world advantage.
Just got a z6 on FB marketplace for $1100 with FTZ. I bought the D780 ealrier this year bc I have a lot of D series glass. These will be my pro workhorses going forward and I'm excited for the sensor stabilization for video
With regard to compression, your video showed one of the options being Lossless Compression. By definition, an image that is compressed using a “lossless” algorithm will, upon be uncompressed, be identical to the image that was never compressed. There will be no loss of quality of the image. The downside to this is that (1) it will take some time to compress the image prior to storing it on the memory card, and (2) it will take time to uncompressed the image before it can be edited in your computer.. With modern computers, that time may be insignificant. However, the time to compress the image may be a factor on the maximum number of still images per second. I have not seen nor used the camera, but am basing my comments on compression based on over 40 years working in Information Technology.
Honestly it’s a good camera for the price especially now since they are basically giving you the FTZ adapter for $50 it’s a D750 with 2 less FPS but much better video and mirrorless benefits of evf and better live view and D750 came in at $2300 when it released.. Solid camera for portraits weddings travel and everyday carry 🤷♂️
@Carlos Suarez Ditto on that. Fast forward to today, I ended up ordering the Z50 ........... Z5 maybe later on. If I can shoot with the Z50, I don't see anyone should have a problem with the Z5.
That Nikon 1.8 prices are justified . For example Neither the Canon EF 50 1.8 not the Sony 50 1.8 are remotely close on performance. The 50 1.8 S has Otus like performance . Keep things in perspective please .
I got a deal on the Z 5. The difference I found was $400.00. I don't need fast shutter or to shoot video. I do landscapes and portraits. When the Z 6 drops down a lot. Maybe. But I am satisfied with the Z5.
Well, the Sony is really a video camera designed to look and feel like a still camera. These days, sales of pure video cameras are way down, so it’s not surprising that Sony did this. But if you’re buying a camera primarily for stills shooting, with a secondary use of video, the Sony is not the cameras for you. It’s 12MP stills are just too far behind everyone else. Unless you just shoot stills for Facebook, Instagram, etc. Then it doesn’t really matter.
For me the z5 is a great backup/2nd body to owners of z6/7. The z lenses are amazing. They are more expensive, but they are extremely sharp, for example 50 1.8s is way way sharper than 50 1.4g, incomparably sharper. 50 1.8s is as good than sony zeiss 55 1.8 which is more expensive. I will wait for a bit a year or something for the price of z5 to fall and get it as a second body for my z6. :)
I've been considering either Sony A7c or A7iii with 35 or 55 1.8 and Nikon Z5 with 1.8 prime... I shoot street noir photography and railways... Which will be more better value preposition... Seems you have used both... Please help
It's worth noting that if you shoot a lot of low ISO work, the Z5's IQ at ISO 100-640 is superior to the Z6, the lack of dual gain actually has some benefits as well as the downsides encountered at high ISO's. I looked quite long and hard at both bodies, and chose the Z5 for several reasons. Note I'm primarily a landscape shooter, I don't shoot sports or do much video. I don't print large, so the Z7 isn't of any real benefit to me. The Z5 card setup is significantly superior to the Z6 for all cases except action. 4.5fps is actually quite fast compared to older sports bodies (it's 0.5fps slower than an F100 or an ungripped D700), and the Z6 isn't actually significantly faster than the Z5 while maintaining the LV feed (5.5 fps vs 4.5fps with full live view). The benefits from XQD/CFE-B are non-existent unless you're dumping the buffer regularly or shooting 4K60p, a V90 rated UHS-II card is more than adequate for 4K30p and most mid & low speed uses and the Z5 can be paired with inexpensive & very robust UHS-1 V30 cards for most users. My general take is the Z6 is too compromised to make a good action body to really be a better body, the burst feature does AE/AF at 12fps, but it doesn't display a usable viewfinder feed. Unless you shoot a lot of high ISO work or need the much better video of the Z6, the Z5 just makes a lot more sense. I totally agree on lens cost. The S lenses are superb, but they're out of reach for the Z5 target market. The Z5 to me makes the most sense for the D750 or D6x0 upgrader who already owns a few modern AF-S lenses that they will want to continue to use, likely pairing with either the 24-50 as a tiny walk around lens or the 24-200 as a top-notch all in one lens. Right now none of the current FF mirrorless systems make much sense for a new buyer, or even somebody upgrading to FF from a crop DSLR. Across 4 systems there is one inexpensive telezoom and it's 3rd party (Tamron 70-300 in FE mount), no mid-range UWA zooms (the cheapest is the Tamron 17-28, which is almost double their SLR equivalent 17-35) and outside of Sony the inexpensive primes mostly come down to the Viltrox 85mm and the Canon 50mm f1.8. The only way to do a cheap system new is to go Sony and buy a mix of 3rd party & Sony FE lenses, but they has a high up-front cost to get an A7III or A7c over a Z5 or RP.
Not sure if this is a good D750 replacement. Z5 has poor AF during dim light conditions. W/out the AF assist, it hardly focuses well. D750 would focuses w/the same conditions (w/out AF assist).
Hyun, always appreciate your insights. I used to shoot nikon apsc dslrs. the smaller Nikon DSLRs also didn’t have full uncompressed raw options. So yeah, i suspect that is nikon doing a crippling thing to better segment/differentiate products. The pisser for me with this offering is that nikon refuses to offer this camera with the 24-70 f4 lens as a kit lens and charge $600 for it like they do with the z5 and z6. I’ve done my own little advocacy campaign pitching through several means to nikon that they add the 24-70 f4 as a kit option, but have heard only crickets. Thom Hogan says he thinks their non-response on the lens matter is due to higher management dictating sales strategy and a long historical pattern of not listening to their buyer audiences. Craig
I looked at several cameras in a lower price range...my original budget was around $1000. As i began collecting information and opinions it became clear that I would have to increase my budget because most cameras in the lower bracket lacked any kind of weather proofing. I began looking at Nikon 5600 refurb with 2 kit lens ( 70-3000 and 18-55) for around $800. I think this is a good deal but other factors became apparent. My first camera was an OM-10 (pre 1990) and I like the retro look. I found my viewpoint somewhat contrarian. It was similar to my choice of electronic piano....Korg SV2 instead of a Roland or Yamaha. With regard to cameras i found myself looking at Olympus and Fuji instead of Canon and Nikon. So, to the question of the Nikon Z5 which was I i ally out of my budget range but now is right in the sweet spot. One cannot discount the brand loyalty quotient but since I had not bought a camera since my 8 MP Lumix TZ4 in early 2000 Iopened myself up to Sony, Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Panasonic....with Fuji on the periphery. I saw the Fuji as a film maker since I used Fuji film in my last film camera. I think for a getting more serious photographer I would not chose the Z5 or the Z6 for that matter. They are too expensive for what you get and the lens question really looks like a budget breaker. I looked at the Fuji XT30 (very light and small but too small for me) the Olympus D E-M10 Mk III which is also small but otherwise good and the eventual winner the Fujifilm XT3 which, at $1400 with an 18-55mm Fujinon lens, is a much better camera at that price point. It also has a much better lens assortment at reasonable cost, excellent video, dual slot. The battery life is a bit weak but I can manage that since I don’t plan on shooting a professional volume. What really sold me on this camera beyond the feel and retro look was the endorsement of two professional uncompensated reviews where they replaced their heavy gear (10K$+) and used the XT2 as a replacement. Also they extolled the excellent quality of the Fuji lens.
I do not think that is a good deal especially as the 5600 is refurbished. I would buy a new 5600 with a kit lenses and either a used Nikon 70-300 lenses or the Sigma 30-300 dg f4:5 5:6 which is fast silent and delivers some good images. And by the way, as the 5600 is a crop sensor the Sigma is 45,mm to 450mm focal length and normal if used on a full frame camera
Really like your style of reviewing gear and appreciate your approach. About Z5, I like 90% of what Nikon did. A photographer should be happy with 2 uhs II slots, weather sealing, ibis, usb charging and new battery, good af and evf and very good ergonomics, controls and feel. Price is ... ok right now but expect reductions in the neat future. Hope Nikon will keep on improving via firmware. What I don’t understand is the crop in 4k. There are many other ways to differentiate from other bodies. Not this one. It’s really annoying. In the end I wish more brands would sell such new bodies. The recent S5 and imminent A7c are strong in video specs I do not need. With Z5 I don’t have to pay for those, with very little compromise in the photo area. Of course there is used market... with pros and cons.
It isn't a Pro camera But a very well priced enthusist camera. When the original 5D came out it was the first affordable full frame camera and it was 3300 dollars body only. The Canon came out with the 6D and Nikon D610 we are going to forget the D600 and Both were 2000 dollars now we are saying 1400 for full frame and the ability to shoot any kind of video is amazing. I guess being old gives a different perspective
Nikon has merged their 1.8G & 1.4G lens line to create 1.8S line which outperforms 1.4G at a cheaper price. But it has pros & cons, yes they don't have any netive budget prime offerings as of now & the 1.8S have become larger, heavier & pricier than competition's 1.8 system (sony in particular because canon has taken a different route). May be the huge size of Z mount is responsible for this. Majority of Nikon community is very happy with these lenses but outside world isn't,as of now.
For both Canon and Nikon, why not just use the adapter for the cheap lenses? I for one am glad Nikon and Canon are focusing on high quality glass for their systems rather than cheap lenses. There’s already a huge supply of cheap 50mm SLR primes on eBay that will mount up to these cameras. Personally, for me my choice is still a used D610 for $500 or a used D750 for $750, eventually I’ll add the D780 to that list as well. The great thing about the D610/D750 is that they are super cheap used and they also work with every F-mount lens Nikon has ever made (which can also be had for very cheap on eBay.) I mean you could literally pick up a clean D610 + 50mm F/1.8G combo for about $600. If you can’t get great photos out of that combo....
I love this video, but we have to remember ( if we are searching for a backup camera, or looking to get into full-frame cameras) it is almost always the photographer that makes the difference. Yes, indeed, you can't stick with a beginner camera and just keep taking amazing photos easily. If you are looking into making money off of photography, then considering a better camera might be necessary. That being said, even though I have heard a lot of people say that the Nikon Z5 is an entry-level full frame, it really depends on the settings you need, your wants in a camera, and most of all, your skill level and ability to use that camera to its highest potential. Other than that, I am looking into getting this camera soon because of its affordability now. Great video though!
@@TaipeiGeek you always have a loss in everything, in this case. compressed raw these days are so good especially canon to the point you have no image loss in terms of quality, BUT, the performance when editing the photos are affected. i shoot uncompressed due to having to edit around 200 photos sent by client daily. considering hard drives are cheap nowadays, my time does worth more than the cost of storage
Since you asked: I do think the Z mount lenses are priced right. Every single lens they released seems to perform better than their F mount versions. When you find the right deal, which come around quite often, the 50mm and 85mm are steals, if you ask me. I think judging a lens by its F value alone is rather narrow-minded. There is a lot more going on, and I'm pretty sure you are well-versed in this, probably more than myself, to understand it.
Nice video. Just bought a Z5 for $1K USD. At that price, it's a great deal. Normally a Canon shooter and looking to get into mirrorless, I thought the Z5 was far superior to the Canon RP at the same price point.
@@jonc8561 I love it! Needed a travel camera but got tired of sacrificing image quality for the small size. Tried many Sonys but were always disappointed by their colors. I'm just a jpg shooter so and like the Nikon renderings. All the best!
The lack of a fully articulating screen prevents me from considering Nikon mirrorless. Even if I did, the total cost of a Z system (say Z50 camera + lenses) looks aggravating when comparing to the total cost of a D5600 (I have the kit, 70-300, 10-20, 35/1.8 and FF50/1.8) - there’s no cheap 35mm or portrait or UWA Z DX lens. Things get even scarier if I price a FF Z system. Guess I am stuck with the D5600 for the time being.
S Tra I have never had problems with autofocus on D5600, that would not be a reason to side-grade to Z50. Z50 might have looked interesting hadn’t I had the D5600. Again, the lack of a fully articulating screen is a deal breaker, in that regard the Z50 would be a downgrade to D5600
S Tra First and foremost, I have never considered moving from D5600 to Z50 an upgrade, I actually stated quite the opposite. However, you have a point in saying that an existing Nikon DSLR user may use their D lenses on a Z camera with an adapter if they want so, to compensate the holes in Nikon Z line-up.
This review is awesome. I like the honesty you put into describing this camera. I am thinking about getting this camera just for using my vintage lens and to get into the mirrorless. Welcome your new subscriber.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if the Z5/RP are pretty low specs, that may not always be the same case. The 6D/5D for example got a massive increase in specs for the R6/R5 and as the bodies at those price points get better features, eventually the lower end ones like the RP/Z5 will too. Hopefully one day we can see a decent Full Frame body for the same price as a mid level Crop body!
As a hobbyist, I could live with the Z5's pricing but the Z lenses are another matter ($$$'s) entirely ... no thanks! I also don't like the larger size and weight of those lenses, it's negates the advantages of the smaller mirrorless body. Finally, the FTZ adapter is a non-starter for me ... I prefer to keep my money and keep using my trusty "old" DSLR.
I am a still shooter and a light painter. Most of my photography is long exposure, so frame rate is no problem. When I shoot I shoot both Raw and jpg. I like to use one card for each format, so I was excited when I seen that this camera had two card slots. I was considering this camera until this video. The deal breaker for me was not having uncompressed RAW. Obviously, I use a tripod for my long exposures, so having the smaller, lighter camera is really not an issue this type of work. I am currently using both the D750 (w/ power grip) and the D850 (w/o power grip), so I am used to using heavy cameras. In the days of film my favorite camera was the Pentax 645. This camera would be worth the price for me if it were not for not having uncompressed RAW. The Z6 & Z7 I never considered at all because of having one card slot.
You can consider the z6 2 which has two card slots, and if you haven't used the z6, trust me that is one piece of equipment you surely want to purchase.
You're misunderstanding that uncompressed raw is better. It's not - lossless compressed really is lossless, by using uncompressed you're only getting bigger file size at the same quality. I shoot landscapes with a D610 which also has lossless compressed and no uncompressed raw, and raising shadow all day is no issue.
this is the first video, where I see the noise difference between z5 and z6! but the z5 is more interesting to me because I could use cheaper sd cards.
I was an APS-C user, shooting mainly with Nikon D500 and sometimes Fujifilm mirrorless, when the Z5 announced. At that time, I believed this camera was nothing but a failure of Nikon. I mean, if I had to make a transition to a fullframe mirrorless Z-mount camera, why don't I spend more to get the better, the fancier Z6 or Z7 instead of a slower Z5 with 4.5fps. Leaving a 10fps camera with excellent AF tracking performance (by DSLR standard) to get a 4.5fps camera with poor AF tracking performance doesn't seem like a reasonable upgrade, it's just a downgrade to me. I was wrong (partially). Now in 2024, after switching to fullframe Nikon Zf, the Z5 becomes so attractive to me. The body only's price is now similar to a used Zfc here (or even cheaper if you are looking for used Z5). Looking at Z5 now as a budget secondary camera, it's nothing but a great tool for taking photo. It sure aged and outdated comparing to today standard, but it's cheap, it's reliable, it's a fullframe and it can get (almost) the job done!! I like how it retains some key features (size and weight, ergonomics, build quality, IBIS, AF) from its higher price sibling. Most entry/budget cameras may cost cheaper, but they also cost you the ergonomics too. There usually are smaller size with smaller grip, there are less buttons to press, they are less customization, they are intentionally designed to make you feel irritated to use them. I also like that dual SD card slot since it means cheaper memory storage too.
I think you're confused about lossless compressed vs uncompressed RAW. Lossless compressed does not reduce image quality one bit compared to uncompressed (hence the name). It only reduces the file size. Lossless compressed simply gets rid of redundancy in the sensor data in a way that all of the information can be restored again when the file is read. You can think of it like the difference between writing 100 sixes versus just writing 100*6. Also, yes the EOS RP can do 5 frames per second, but not with continuous AF. It drops to something 2 frames per second in that case IIRC. So it's not really fair to say it is better in this regard, since in most situations where you are shooting bursts, you also want continuous AF.
I'm a D750 shooter and I'm considering the Z5 as my next camera and entry into mirrorless. It seems like a D750, but mirrorless. I'm not a sports shooter. I'm doing portraits, and boudoir, so I don't need a high burst speed. I don't shoot video. I have had the chance to try the Z5, but looking at the reviews, I'm kind of torn on it. I may wind up getting it anyway. I do think it will work with what I'm trying to do.
Very good review! I’ve had the z5 for a while now and use it to back up a Z7ii, it replaced a D750. This is my go to for faster, street style or nontripod shooting. I’m still impressed with image quality and color I get from this camera. I generally use the z 50mm f1.8. The low light quality isn’t the best but that’s usually when I’ll shoot darker more contrasty photos anyway. I seldom use the autofocus for anything more than regular photography, no sports and almost no wildlife. All and all I’m very happy with it.
I am torn between this and the canon EOS RP. I am leaning towards the Z5 as it has the stabilization and the lenses seem to be a bit more affordable. However, it seems almost everyone points to the EOS RP, but I mainly am getting this camera for stills. What do you think?
I don't use the video anyways so I don't consider that a minus. The lens prices though... Yeah that's still kinda harsh, also the FTZ converter is way too overpriced.
Always enjoy your reviews and commentaries. I traded in an outdated Nikon and got $150 trade-in value for the Z5 and got a brand new 24-70 mm f/4 z mount from overseas for USD$380 - This I can live with. But if Nikon came out with an improved Z62 (30 mp, flip screen) at say $1750USD (body only), I'd still get it.
Re: Nikon Z mount lens price structuring. The 1.8 S line lenses outperform Nikon's own 1.4 F mount primes. You're still losing the lower light performance of the wider aperture, you're still losing the additional depth of field control of the wider aperture, but by all other objective metrics, the 1.8 S line primes are superior in overall sharpness, corner sharpness, chromatic aberration, coma, etc. in addition to having less focus breathing and quieter focusing motors, which is essential for video and on camera audio recording. There's still a disconnect between paying $600 MSRP for a 50mm 1.8 lens because of everything that has come before the 1.8 S line (1.8 = cheap), but you are still paying proportionally to the performance you're receiving. The same applies to the rest of the 1.8 S prime line up. It does not look like Nikon will be doing an entry (1.8), mid (1.4), pro (1.2) line up structuring, meaning your Z mount options from Nikon will be the sub $1k 1.8, or the $2-3k 1.2.
I bought the Z5 used with a lower shutter count and the 24-200 lens used as well very clean together for $1700 dollars. I shot images with it and the results are good? I gave other Nikons D859 and D810 as well I use them all. I bought the Z5 for when I want to travel light and just use one lens.
Nikon's not including ability to shoot in the uncompressed RAW format sounds like a deal breaker.. Thanks for noting this fact and you're correct that other commentators/experts aren't mentioning this important info.
The 5Z is what the 6Z should've been when it first came out. The autofocus is pretty good, the double SD card takes it from hobbyist to semi-pro. I think it depends on where exactly you're coming from. With me, I'm trying to figure out whether I should sale all my Nikon lenses and my DSLR and flip that for a Sony 7III or 7VI depending on how much I get for the old hardware or get what I can for the DSLR and get the Z5 or Z7 II because their adapter works great with old Nikon lenses.
I think given what the Z5 offers, the Canon RP is probably the crippled beginner FF camera for pros that's more of a rip-off (the sensor is out dated, no IBIS, no dual card slots). And especially since the Z5 has dr oppoed to $1000 for it's summer/spring sales, it's a great time to buy one. I just did and I'm glad I did. Of course when not on sale, this is $1300 and an RP is now about $1000, but honestly even at $1300, the Z5 isn't a bad camera, and one can save about $700 off a Z6 II if they don't need a battery grip or in-camera USB power. I think the Z5 was really created as a bridge for DSLR hold-outs to move to ML, as it's very similar to the D750 (just as the D780 is sort of like an SLR version of the Z6). Plus I think Nikon wanted to show that they too could ovver an entry-level FF camera that wasn't $2000+. This is the perfect addition to someone who may have a Z7/Z7 II or that wants to get in to FF ML in NIkon without spending $2000+. If you have the Z6 or Z6 II then this may not necessarily be worthwhile buying unless you just want a backup camera, but if are starting out or only have a Z7 and want a good camera for low-light shooting, this is a great option.
If i had seen your video before i wouldnt buy it to be honest. I got Z5 for 1200€ with a 24-70mm kit a month ago. As i do appreciate your opinion, what you think about this price? Thank you.
Image quality in Z5 and Z6II is exact the same... If you put the ISO high its a little difference, but for 90 percent of time its just the same. And plus the Sony a7 iii by all means doesnt produce better images than Nikon... They have better AF thats for sure, but image quality coming out of the camera and colours and sharpness are not to compare.
When I saw the prices of the Z mount lenses, I chose not to buy the Z5 or any Z series camera for that matter and rather thought of buying a cheaper fullframe DSLR body and invest in cheaper lenses that are as good.
I like Hyun's low key style. Some presenters try to double as comedians. I should spend more time with photography tutorials and less with gear reviews, but I'm a gear guy and enjoy this guys mix of pros and cons in his reviews. As a side note; in April, 2021, I bought a Nikon refurbished Z5 with the 24-50 kit lens for $1099. Camera bodies always fall to their real value.
what pro's has the Z5 when you want to upgrade from D7500? Bird photography with a sigma zoom 150-600 and a Z-mount converter; do I loose focussing speed and stabilsation? If yes, better keep on shooting with the d7500...
I bought a Z50 back in July and then a used Z5 body last week because I missed having the full frame sensor and wanted the IBIS that the Z50 lacked. The one gripe I have about the Z5 is that the video from the Z50 ( a cheaper cropped sensor camera) has better video with the 1080p @ 120fps and 4K video without further cropping. I don’t understand why the Z5 couldn’t have similar video specs as the Z50, but I like the camera none the less.
Agree about shutter button too much on the right. Also I find the front dial too low and it's quite difficult to access it because it is too close to the middle finger. (all this on my Z7)
The only thing that makes this camera viable at that price is the expensive prices of the Z6 memory card: other then this the Z6 is so much better and so little more pricey that this camera makes no sense (except may be the dual card slot); also the lack of a screwdriver on the FTZ adapter makes it far less interesting for legacy nikon users. IMO the RP still reign Supreme as the budget camera of choice
Click-bait article, knowing very well that this is not a beginner camera. A beginner camera is a different line of gear. This is a full-frame professional camera. I refuse to watch these click-bait videos, but I do love to comment on them :)
With z6 is just problem because cf express and xqd cards are too expensive...I know this is fast cards but for me is a stupid feeling to pay 200-300eur for memory card...Especially because everybody have so many SD cards at home...
Plateau plateau plateau... Still photography has been on the image quality plateau for over 5yr now. Modern full frames in the last 5yr have been more or less settled at the same 24mp resolution, same useable dynamic range, same high iso. Video spec aside, the competition has shifted to af, high fps, ibis. Even the worst 6DII or RP vs ancient D750 and current best A7III share surprisingly similar image quality at base iso under normal lighting condition. Only nerds or pixel peepers think they are night and day difference, not the paying customer, not professional users, not general public for sure. Talking about diminishing returns for buying the newest camera, still photography certainly is. Take a 5DSR and an R5, shooting in studio at base iso with controlled lighting, same story, marginal gain in image quality being 5yr newer, 3X pricier.
Same can't be said to mirrorless video capabilities. It leaped forward. I'd be happy with any decent full frame, RP Z5 or D750 they all are good enough for stills.
Your commemts is like a mountain guide or a ranger showing me the right direction to go as though I have lost my way in jungle. I am a Nikon DSLR user. I have been thinking whether or not to get a Z5. After reading your comments, I have decided to abandon the idea of getting a Z5 and get a D750 instead based on two points mentioned by you. 1. Image quality at plateau in the last 5 years. 2. Diminishing returns for acquiring new camera for still photography. Photography is a hobby to me.
They should start manufactured cameras only for stills and only for videos and bridge cameras. Im shooting stills and I dont give a f... about all the video specs and frames per sec I just need good image quality camera.
Crazy how what would have once been considered as a 'PRO' camera is now somehow a beginner camera. I always thought its the person and not the tools they use that determine their skill level.
Back in the day - I was similarly appalled when the 7000 series got stripped some previous great features with the new D7500. To me it seemed like a downgrade from the D7200.
The d7500 is a beast. If you don’t care about a second card slot I’d say it’s one of the best dslrs you can buy for 1000. I still use mine over my Nikon Z6 II for landscape, action and animal photography.
Mirrorless is a way to empty our wallets. An old DSLR can take damn good pictures even today. Z6II and Z7II are meant for videographers.... If you are not into video, consider DSLRs seriously before jumping into mirrorless. Mirrorless cameras charge big money for lenses, so use a FTZ adapter with top notch F mount lenses if you are not a pro.
It’s an awesome camera, people bitch if it’s too expensive, people bitch if it’s too cheap, you want the perfect camera? Make your own company and build your own shit.
The Nikon z 50mm 1.8 is amazingly sharp for its price, right up thier with canon L and Sony GM which are very heavy and over priced. I switched to Nikon just for thier sharp well balanced primes and the 24-200mm for what it is, is awesome.
Esta Z5 ya es un clásico!!!!! Y ahora recibió actualización de firmware que le suma un autofoco veloz al ojo en video. Realmente es una opción muy recomendable y disfrutable. Además, se puede complementar con cámaras réflex como la D500 para deportes muy intensos. La Z5 es ideal para fotógrafos de eventos sociales, una con el z35mm o el 50mm 1.8 y otra con el 85mm 1.8. Fantástica!!!!! Pero con ella se puede cubrir muchas más categorías, desde street foto hasta paisajes, o macro. No se precisa más !!!!! La calidad de imagen y colores es fabulosa !!!!!
I’m very unhappy with Nikon not letting sigma and tamron have access to the z mount. I think they did this to try an sell their expensive s lenses. Good news is the 24-70 f/4 is decent value on the second hand market but all the other “s lenses” are above $1000… therefore Sony is more appealing to the enthusiast
Im conflicted but this helped. Thank You. I am a moderate cinematographer but recently endulged into a project that will be ongoing with music videos etc... Would you recommend this Z5 for me, as Im just now beginning to work with 4k? With the exception of my iphone 10S.
Regarding lenses, I have to say that Canon RF35 1.8 is a cheap plastic lens with noisy and slow AF and NO weather sealing. And that is the reason I got Nikon. It has hi quality 1.8 lenses and doesn't force me to by super expensive F1.2 lenses to get top quality (like Canon does)
Its overpriced at the moment. UK grey market seller - £150 more for a Z6 including FTZ - it'll definitely drop at least £200 in the next few months. Id buy at £1000
I just bought mine to use the G lens collection I have from my 4 x D810's. Also got the Fringer for my Sigma 135mm EF lens for it. This is added to my Fujifilm XT3's x 4 APSC and GFX50s x 2 MF collection. I always shoot at base iso.
Hi I'm glad to see a complex review, I would like to buy a z5 and replace nikon d810, I would like to know if it's worth it !? At the moment I own a 3-year-old d810, I'm most interested in the iso part because I can't find any conclusive documentation anywhere regarding the high iso noise, which is better. Thanks for your time and I hope you can help me make a decision.
You asked so I’m telling you, I’m not buying this camera because I have the Fujifilm X-T4 (and an X-T2) with three primes and three zooms lenses. LOL I really enjoy watching your videos, I always learn something. Stay safe.
I am going to buy one... they are down to $1298... and I bet another $100 off of that by Black Friday in a week... the image quality that was pointed out seemed negligible to me, and likely unnoticeable under routine circumstances... I saw another video comparison in which the reviewer could not produce any difference in the still quality in low light... for me, video is just a bonus and I don't shoot sports, so the 4.5 FPS is not an issue... I was looking for full frame in a smaller package than the traditional DSLR for about $1200. Having sold all my camera equipment years ago (a D610 and my lenses)... I have no legacy lenses any longer and figured I would just start (jump back in) on the all mirrorless platform.
3 years later, but yes, I think the Z mount lenses are exceptionally good (especially the S line). pricey? yes, but also capable of delivering image quality (even the workhorse zooms!) we have not seen from the F mount.
