Nikon’s new mirrorless system, coming in ... late September 2018

[jeremyrh]

Well, so far so good for the camera. Just one outing but very happy.

What I forgot was what a royal pain in the bum Capture NX is. I hope CaptureOne come out with an update soon that handles the new NEF files!!

[D Fuller]

What I find slightly concerning is his comment in regards to the color not being as “good” as that is be one of the things going for the D850, at least for me.

I don’t think he said that. He said “Note that color response is typically Nikon, i.e. not that accurate; and way behind Hasselblad-neutral. Early testing suggests this is not quite the same as the D850, either. It has a partially exponential tonal response curve – the default rendering is towards darker midtones, which must be lifted in post.”

He also said the jpeg engine is better than the 850’s, but behind Oly, who he considers the industry leader.

[BernardLanguillier]

So far my findings match his.

In short, the Z7 is pretty much a smaller/lighter D850 with the advantages of the EVF + IBIS without the downsides in terms of experience.

I am really at a loss as to why any objective reviewer wouldn't come away mostly impressed by the camera and lenses.

There are some small annoyances as mentioned by Ming (AF modes is the main one I guess) but they haven't come in the way of capturing the images I wanted so far.

Anyway, I am happy so far.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Mike Dale]

I used to have the Sony A7RIII as my lightweight camera as a backup to my D850. As Bernard says the Z7 is a smaller lighter D850. I suspect the AF will not be as good as the D850 but as it’s  predominantly going to be my landscape and hiking camera that’s not an issue for me. Having come up through the A7R,A7RII and A7RIII I’m pretty familiar with the pros and cons of EVF v OVF. I cannot believe how good the EVF on the Z7 is, it really is amazing.

I bought the 35 f/1.8 and it’s sharp edge to edge. Not too big, not too heavy, construction seems to be absolutely fine.

I’ve tried the Z7 with my Sigma 135 f/1.8 and I think the AF is better than the D850, I tried it with my Sigma 150-600 Sport and it’s perfectly adequate but not as good as the D850.

I’ve used the FTZ adapter and my Zeiss Distagon 15mm works as expected with the focus peaking being very helpful. The 300mm f/4 PF is a nice size combined with the Z7, AF seems about the same as the D850 using a single point. I haven’t tried the other AF modes as yet.

The main advantages this camera brings for me is that I don’t have to carry 2 sets of lenses and the controls are sufficiently similar that I’m not reaching for the wrong button. The menu structure is very, very familiar too which helps enormously.

I’m happy. Need Capture One Raw capability now.

[cgarnerhome]

I had the opportunity to do some preliminary testing and I'm very pleased.  I'm also a landscape photographer so the focusing is not an issue.  The only slight nits so far are the grip is not that comfortable (particularly compared to the 850) and the lens hood is cheap.   I love the size of the Z7 with the 24-70.  Great compact package.

[armand]

You guys don't make this easy! I placed a preorder on the Z7 with the 24-70 and the adapter, I'll probably have at least a couple of weeks to cancel it if I change my mind. Rationally it's difficult to justify, even if I say it's instead a D850 which I planned to get in the past. The problem is that I have 3 well stocked systems, I'm trying to narrow it down unsuccessfully for several years but I'm going in the opposite direction.

[armand]

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20X-T2,FujiFilm%20X-T3,Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850,Nikon%20Z%207

I find it interesting that besides ISO 64 my D750 has better DR than D850 or Z7 and that the Fuji X-T has practically the same DR once you go above ISO 800.

[Dan Wells]

Nikon's big DR advantage is at low ISOs - by the time you reach even 200 or so indicated, the DR is quite close to a Fuji also set at 200 (remembering that, because of how Nikon and Fuji report ISO, there is about a 2/3 of a stop difference - Fuji at 200 demands about the same amount of light as Nikon at 125, or conversely, a Nikon set to 200 would require a Fuji at 320 to get the same exposure).

Nikon at 64 - no match from Fuji - 1.6 stops extra compared to Fuji at 200 (but requires more light than any setting on a Fuji except the L setting that actually reduces DR)

Nikon at 125 - Fuji at 200 (very similar actual exposures) - close to 1 stop extra DR from Nikon

Nikon at 200 - Fuji at 320 (again, similar actual exposures) - close to 1 stop extra DR from Nikon

BUT Nikon at 200 - Fuji at 200 (not quite comparable exposures) - only 0.16 stop extra DR from Nikon

[BernardLanguillier]

https://www.dpreview.com/news/8631972840/nikon-z7-added-to-studio-comparison-scene

Pretty impressed by the Z7 at 64 ISO. Great compromise between sharpness and lack of aberrations.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

(remembering that, because of how Nikon and Fuji report ISO, there is about a 2/3 of a stop difference - Fuji at 200 demands about the same amount of light as Nikon at 125, or conversely, a Nikon set to 200 would require a Fuji at 320 to get the same exposure).

This is somewhat confused by DXO's confusing mis-use of the name "ISO" to measure raw-file highlight headroom. I am fairly sure that at the same ISO speed and using standard center-weighted metering, Nikon and Fujifilm cameras will choose (in AE mode) or recommend (in manual mode) close to the same shutter speed/aperture combinations, because the in-camera light meters have to meet industry and ISO standards. The differences come next, in how much analog gain is then applied to the sensor output in producing raw output: Fujifilm applies less than Nikon at a given ISO setting (giving more raw headroom) and then balances this by amplifying more in the digital domain in default raw-to-JPEG conversions. DXO looks at raw output and describes this as a lower ISO speed, but it is just choosing a different mic of analog and digital gain at given ISO setting, not a change in the light-metering or exposure levels chosen. That choice is something that the ISO standard leaves to the choice of camera makers except recommending a minimum amount of highlight headroom in raw files (and thus effectively a maximum recommended amount of analog gain at a given ISO setting), which DXO misreads as a mandatory fixed amount of highlight headroom and analog gain.

As an extreme case, a perfectly "ISO-less" sensor with no read noise at all would best use with the same analog gain at all settings, sending full wells to maximum raw level or just below, which would minimize risk of highlight clipping due to over-amplification—then DXO would absurdly report that camera as having the same ISO speed regardless of ISO setting!

[Kevin Raber]

For the first time in a long time, I own a Nikon again.  I purchased for review and testing the Z7 as I mentioned in previous articles and picked it up on Friday.  It's taking some getting used to as far as handling as does any new camera.  Over the next few weeks, I will be trying this camera out and see how it performs.  Michael Durr will also try out the video features and I'll have a report on the site about my experiences.  I also purchased the adapter and will borrow some of the regular mount glass to see how the camera performs. 

I also received the XT-3 which I'll also be working with.  That seems to be a very nice camera.

I am still recovering from hip replacement surgery less than two weeks ago but I am getting my energy back and in two weeks I should be able to drive myself around again instead of relying on others.  So bear with me as I come to full steam.

Fun times as far as gear goes. 

[armand]

https://www.dpreview.com/news/8631972840/nikon-z7-added-to-studio-comparison-scene

Pretty impressed by the Z7 at 64 ISO. Great compromise between sharpness and lack of aberrations.

Cheers,
Bernard

I don't know, I just took a quick peak and the D850 shots are clearly sharper/ have better contrast. I don't know if it's a focus problem (that would be bad is the mirrorless has less accurate autofocus than the DSLR), a different less sharp lens or the adobe raw. I only looked at the iso64 setting. On the positive note it looks similar or slightly better than A7R iii at iso100.

[gkroeger]

I don't know, I just took a quick peak and the D850 shots are clearly sharper/ have better contrast. I don't know if it's a focus problem (that would be bad is the mirrorless has less accurate autofocus than the DSLR), a different less sharp lens or the adobe raw. I only looked at the iso64 setting. On the positive note it looks similar or slightly better than A7R iii at iso100.

I noticed this too, but barring an antialiasing filter, slight focus error or sharpening settings in ACR, I couldn't imagine how the sensor could generate softness?  And I can't believe they use autofocus on this type of test.

I was a bit concerned that their "comparison tool" in the browser might be displaying the results with some browser interference. So I downloaded the Z7 and D850 ISO 64 jpeg images and compared them in Photoshop at 1:1 and I can't see any systematic differences between the images. They are virtually identical, although I can pick spots where one might seem ever-so-slightly better there is no advantage to one or the other. Even the moire patterns in some of the etchings is identical.

[armand]

I noticed this too, but barring an antialiasing filter, slight focus error or sharpening settings in ACR, I couldn't imagine how the sensor could generate softness?  And I can't believe they use autofocus on this type of test.

I was a bit concerned that their "comparison tool" in the browser might be displaying the results with some browser interference. So I downloaded the Z7 and D850 ISO 64 jpeg images and compared them in Photoshop at 1:1 and I can't see any systematic differences between the images. They are virtually identical, although I can pick spots where one might seem ever-so-slightly better there is no advantage to one or the other. Even the moire patterns in some of the etchings is identical.

Thank you! I'm not sure how a browser could interfere but it's good news. With the D850 experience in mind I was expecting the camera in months from now but it looks I'll get it before next week, without the adapter though. I'll see how I can handle the 24-70 range, the reason I didn't update my original Sony RX100.

[Kirk_C]

I'm sure DPR's latest headline will displease some.

Banding means Nikon Z7 cant match D850 dynamic range.

[32BT]

I'm sure DPR's latest headline will displease some.

Banding means Nikon Z7 cant match D850 dynamic range.

Because we've seen this problem before, the question really is this: can it be compensated for in RAW conversion and is it therefor actually a RAW converter problem?

[John Camp]

To tell the truth, it seems that you only get banding when you force it to get banding. And the banding is so slight that you have to search for it, and even then, it's not all that obvious. Just my opinion.

[gkroeger]

Not sure I think this is a "problem" any more than with the Sony A7III. I think of it as a limitation. All technologies have limitations; film had many. What I see in the images on DPR is that if you dig deep enough in the shadows in certain conditions, aimed at finding this limitation, you can find it... barely visible when pixel peeping. I will accept the limitation and enjoy the PDAF.

[armand]

https://photographylife.com/nikon-z7-first-impressions-and-sample-photos

Did any of you notice the high vignetting and "huge" drop off sharpness in the corners that it's mentioned in the above first take?

[BernardLanguillier]

I have used the 35mm f1.8 more so far, will need to double check the images shot with the 24-70 f4, but I haven’t noticed anything obvious in terms of drop of sharpness in the far corners.

This review is overall super positive.

Cheers,
Bernard