Nikon Z 6 ii walkaround

[David Eckels]

Thinking of a Z6ii/24-200 as a travel or walk around combo. Any experience/advice appreciated.

[Peter McLennan]

I love my 24-200. Lightweight, flexible, small and easy to handle, I've had mine for nearly two years.  It can take on macro (auto focus stacking!), landscape, wildlife, sports with ease, this little package is very capable. If it delivers unsharp images, it's my fault, not the Nikon's. 

Subjective DOF  characteristics aside,  the relatively slow aperture is not as important as you might think, given the high ISO performance of the Z6ii.

All the usual VR and AF systems work well with this lens in still pix work.  Not so much in video. 

The Z6ii is a good companion with the 24-200 for stills work. They make a compact, lightweight, high quality travel and walk-around package for stills. 

The 24-200 is an excellent video lens, but the Z6ii is a terrible video camera for usability reasons. Under the right conditions, it can produce good video imagery. It's just very uncooperative to use.

24-200 lens and Z6ii highly recommended for stills.  Not for video.

[David Eckels]

Thank you, Peter. Interesting about your video conclusions. At a large wedding last weekend, one of the pro photogs was using it for video and said he really liked it. For me, the video capability is not a major concern. Glad to hear you like the 24-200; I had the same conclusion about slow aperture and high ISO.
Regards.

[Peter McLennan]

At a large wedding last weekend, one of the pro photogs was using it for video and said he really liked it.

Video quality is okay.  Operational issues make it an un-fun experience.

Best thing for me, coming from a D800 and a 24-70, 70-200 combo is the no-compromise convenience.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I had, briefly, a Canon equivalent, RF 24-240. Sounds practical... in theory. Returned it in disgust. Most optical problems are resolved digitally. For instance, strong vignetting is "resolved" by lightening up corners in certain raw converters automatically. However, that makes corners very noisy. Well, at least with Canon sensors.

[David Eckels]

I had, briefly, a Canon equivalent, RF 24-240. Sounds practical...

I haven't read anything like this on the 24-200 though I haven't looked very hard. I would be replacing my D800E/28-300 which, as you so graciously pointed out to me once has its own set of limitations.

[armand]

I've had the 24-200 with a Z7 for a while. Overall the combo is decent though not great. I find the micro contrast and often the sharpness lacking, particularly for subjects at distance. That being said, the sharpness is most of the times good enough and it might be a part of the focus that's failing as not all the images have the same consistent sharpness. I'm comparing it to the 24-70 F4 but also with the my Olympus kit with the E-M1iii with the 12-100 F4 which tends to have definitely sharper/more contrasty images with faster focus, but with some sensor limitations compared to the Nikon.

I just had the combo out few days ago and it actually performed quite good, better bokeh than I expected and the sharpness was ok. I'll add few samples later when/if I get time. I'm still eyeing the 24-120 but it's larger and heavier, and out of stock mostly.

Overall I would say that it's a good travel combo, particularly with the 24MP cameras, as long as you understand that while very good for a superzoom, it's still a superzoom.

[armand]

Here are some samples from few days ago, a mix of indoor and outdoor in Meijer Gardens, Grand Rapids, Michigan. It should give you an idea about the drawing of the lens.

https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/p356549503

[armand]

And here is a more extensive collection of samples of photos that I shot with this lens since I bought it.

https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/p219546493

[langier]

Close to two years shooting the 24-200 on a Z 6 and it's still a killer combo for much of my work.

This week I used it for for a portrait session in an old castle then shot a softball team and individuals a hour later. Totally adequate.

For landscapes, it seems fine. Maybe not as crisp as shooting the 70-200 but still good enough.

Last year I got to take this lens to Serbia to shoot in dark monasteries and churches. It worked just fine in spite that the lens is quite slow on the long end. With the Covid-19 restrictions, I had to go light so convenience over absolute image quality was the key to my travel and it shined right through. I wish it had another stop of speed and another 100mm in length, but it worked just fine for what I put it through.

An near equivalent may be a 24-120 on a Z 7 and using DX mode on the long end though one looses 4 MB and 20mm equivalent in focal length.

Bottom line, a Z 6 ii and 24-200 is a good combo for what you seek.

[BernardLanguillier]

My personal favorite as walk around is the Z7II and 24-120mm S.

I also use the 24-200 but prefer the 24-120 optically and find to rarely use longer than 120mm anyway.

[David Eckels]

Been out of town for a couple weeks, but thanks for the replies. Armand, love the galleries. Larry, good enough for you, good enough for me. Bernard, Z7II/24-120 is a little more pricey than what I have in mind; have a D850 with the 24-120 f/4 and like it very much.

[David Eckels]

Finally received my Z6ii/24-200. Getting used to the unexpectedly (vs D850) steep learning curve and menu arrangement, but I am pretty impressed so far. One of the first color images I processed in LR/PS started with the linear profile from Tony Kuyper and "Auto" settings with no extra sharpening or output sharpening and no noise reduction.
23-1: Full frame. Compare noise levels with cropped frames.
23-2: 800x1200 crop of @ 100% That airplane is at least 20-25 miles distant!
23-3: 800x1200 crop of @ 100% Those trees on the Mogollon Rim are 15+ miles distant!
Exposure settings: Z 24-200 @115 mm, 1/100 sec, f/6.3, ISO 500

[David Eckels]

Next I wanted to try out the FTZ II. These four images are all with my Nikkor AF-S 1:1.4 50 mm prime at ISO 100 @ f/1.4 (wide open). Again no sharpening or noise reduction, linear profile, auto settings in LR, only white/black points set in LR and no output sharpening in PS. AF worked flawlessly, manual exposure settings; in camera feedback data went without a hitch. Unlike the Z lens, LR profile and CR adjustments were necessary for the F mount lenses.
92: 1/200 sec, note shallow DOF as expected
100: 1/125 sec (+1 EV, seems I can get a +2 EV ETTR with some scenes, which was fairly similar to the D850)
107: 1/10 sec with Kenko 36 mm extension tube, all auto functions worked flawlessly
113: 1/25 sec using LCD and AF through the Kenko macro setup, but I was tottering so badly squatting that low I muffed the focus. Still I like the aesthetics...

[David Eckels]

Finally I attached my big gun 80-400 to see how the super zoom would do on the Z6ii and to see how low on the shutter speed I could go hand held. Still at ISO 100, the shot was taken @ 400 mm, 1/30 sec, f/16. Processed as above, including lens corrections in LR. Looks good to me!
119-1: Full frame at 400 mm
119-2: 800x1200 crop @ 100% I see a little a little camera shake, but then I was not very careful. Normally, I take a short burst with back button AF-C and pick the sharpest.

[Peter McLennan]

Looks like you're very happy with your choice.  Congrats!

[David Eckels]

Thanks, Peter, so far so good. I didn't expect the legacy lenses to perform as well as they seem to. Now, my question is do I really need an 80-400 or can I get by with 2x up-res and cropping. I'll have to do another set of experiments I guess.

[Peter McLennan]

I find the 200 adequate, but I don't do wildlife or BIFs.  I dearly wish it was parfocal. A big loss for video.  I can't zoom during the shot without AF.

I found the 80-400 too heavy, for my ageing body.

My friend has the 500PF.  Now THAT is tempting. F-mount, though.  That lens in Z-mount would be fun to use.

[David Eckels]

So, one last go around, for now.
Do I need a heavy super zoom that is also super heavy? 
I started with image 23-1 above, direct from dng to jpeg with no additional processing (other than that described above), NR, or sharpening during reduction from full size, 6048x4024 pixels, to the 1200x800 jpegs you see here, presented for your convenience. Each GigaPixel transform started with the unmolested dng.
Unmolested from DNG, no changes from 23-1
TGP-1to1, run through GigaPixel AI at 6048x4024 pixels and downsized to 1200x800 with no enhancements (all sliders at zero)
TGP-2x, run through Topaz GP after up sizing two fold and downsized in PS to 1200x800
It is here the dark vertical greenish band in the sky appears; I must be picking up some kind of TGP artifact in my workflow. Any body seen anything like this before?
TGP-4x, run through TGP up sizing four fold and downsized in PS to 1200x800
They all look the same to me, but perhaps someone with bionic eyes may see something I don't. I intended this as a sort of control experiment.

UPDATE: The vertical greenish bands appear to be an artifact during rendering by Topaz Gigapixel AI. Turning on "Reduce Color Bleed" seems to make it worse.

[David Eckels]

Next I set each full sized image (TIFs) to 100% in PS and cropped to 1200x800 pixels with the cliff in the Mogollon Rim as a target for reference. As expected the two crops from the unmolested dng and the 1to1 GP treated image looked the same to me.
Unmolested from DNG @100% cropped to 1200x800
TGP 1to1 cropped at 100%, both of these look the same to me
TGP 2x cropped, obviously more pixels but overall they look good and noise isn't completely out of hand although clearly more visible at the higher "magnifications"
Note the dark vertical greenish band in the sky.
TGP 4x cropped, same story as with the 2x up size; maybe a tad more noise; hard for me to see color shifts
The 4x tif image was almost 400 million pixels! SOC sized dng would give a 300 ppi image/print greater than 13x20; @2x, about 27x40; at 4x, about 53x80 inches! Cropping such, do I really need a super zoom if, so far it seems, the IQ is similar and differences may be technical.

UPDATE: The vertical greenish bands appear to be an artifact during rendering by Topaz Gigapixel AI. Turning on "Reduce Color Bleed" seems to make it worse.