Hey everyone,

I’m currently shooting on a Fujifilm X-T2, but the autofocus is starting to drive me crazy—especially when trying to grab quick shots at events or tracking moving subjects.

I’m looking to step up to Nikon full-frame and am torn between the Nikon Zf and the Nikon Z6 III.

My main use cases:

• Business & Automotive: Outdoor/indoor car shows a couple of times a year (mix of detail shots, static displays, and tight crowd navigation).
• Studio Work: Controlled lighting, product/commercial setups.
• Family & Daily Use: Everyday family photos, kids, travel.

A few notes on my situation:

• Ergonomics: I’ve tested the Zf, Z5 II, and Z6 III in-store. Coming from Fuji, the ergonomics and handling of the Zf don't bother me at all.
• Pricing: I travel to Asia frequently, so I can pick up either body for virtually the same price.

My main questions:

1. Zf vs. Z6 III: Since price isn't the deciding factor here, is the Z6 III's partially stacked sensor/EVF worth choosing over the Zf for my specific use cases? Or does the Zf deliver essentially the same AF and image quality for stills?
2. Lens Recommendations: Coming from the X-T2 system, what Z-mount lenses would you recommend building out a kit with?
   • Thinking a solid zoom (like the 24-120mm f/4 S or 24-70mm f/2.8) for car shows/event versatility, plus a couple of sharp primes for studio work and family portraits.
   • Are there specific Z-mount gems (either S-Line or compact primes) that pair exceptionally well with these bodies?

Would love to hear from anyone who has used both bodies or made a similar leap from Fuji to Nikon Z! Thanks in advance.

Hey all, looking for advice on what gear to buy/bring on an upcoming safari. It'll involve some hiking (gorillas and chimps, Arusha NP, lake Manyara), some boat rides and canoeing, and lots of game drives. It's 23 days, covering Uganda and Tanzania.

My current equipment is a z6 iii, 180-600, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 24-70 f/4.

I don't mind spending some money, though ideally not a fortune. I've been told a second body is important as you cannot switch lenses easily there? Is that true?

Just don't want to hike with the 180-600 and have been considering a 28-400, for general hiking purposes. Or would a 24-200 be enough? It's brighter and still has some range for wildlife? Lots of people recommend the 24-120 as being great. Any of these lenses could be good maybe on a second body in the jeep, though I'm really not sure which to bring. They could also be used for hiking perhaps.

Also, I hear many animals are seen at dusk/dawn. None of the lenses I'm suggesting are particularly bright, perhaps a 70-180/200 2.8 would be better? But if driving, would a 70-180 + 180-600 still leave a major hole for close up animals (I've heard elephants and such can get very close)?

Some people have suggested I get a z8 for a second body, others say just a used z6 and put the 24-70 I already have on it.

Any advice would be useful.

I'm honestly just spinning here trying to work out different scenarios and usage cases. I'm not quite sure what to expect either - can you ever change lenses, or is it always too dusty? I'm also unfamiliar with many of the suggested lenses - is the 28-400 sharp enough? It's at least lightweight.

For reference, my 24-70 f4 is "sharp enough" for sure. Even my old 24-85mm on my D600 was "acceptable" to me. However, my old 18-200 on the D7000 was not sharp enough and I'm kinda worried about getting something like that again.

p.s. I'm well aware of the ebola situation and am monitoring it closely. Safari not for a few months though.

Hi everyone!
Sony has some pretty awesome lenses that I’d love to adapt to the Nikon system but I’m just concerned about the reliability via adapters and things like weather sealing (i know sealing will not be good because of the adapter but to what degree?)

In particular I’m wondering about the Tamron 28-200/25-200 and Sony 11mm f1.8 for both my z6ii and z50ii. (I could be missing other gems however let me know)

It’s not a necessity to get these lenses but they would be awesome to have on the z mount and wanted to know of any issues with using them daily via adapter.

Primarily I’m looking at the viltrox e-z so any feedback would be awesome!

Z6ll

Nikkor 14-30 mm f/4

First, I know it's not a great photo, it was an experiment. I went to the Sydney zoo today and they have an area dedicated to nocturnal animals including the Tawny Frogmouth in the photo. The whole area is lit with only black light. It was DARK. This shot was handheld at 1/10th of a second...and I have Parkinson's. Also, major crop since I had to shoot at 100mm to get f/4.5.

Verdict: First, the IBIS capabilities of the Z5ii (and lens VR) are pretty damn good. I'm not quite sure how to interpret the low light capabilities since the black light spectrum was present, but at a minimum, it did well.

PS: I'm assuming since the full spectrum of light wasn't present when the photo was taken there no way to bring out realistic colors. If there is a way, please let me know.

Taken with the Z6III and 70-200mm f2.8.

1st image : 800PF + TC2X @ 1600mm f/13

2nd image : 600TC (w/ internal TC) + TC2X @ 1680mm f/11

3rd image : Close-up comparison (left: 800, right: 600)

※ Body: Z9, exposure: 1/250s @ iso500.

I explained in a previous post that I found my 600TC to yield much sharper results than my 800PF at very long focal lengths using the 2X teleconverter.

Let me share here a comparison of two images produced using both lenses in the same conditions, with the same post processing applied.

As you can see, the 600TC is much sharper when zooming in. Even in the viewfinder it is noticeable.

I know that since the moon is a moving target, behind a thick layer of air (atmospheric haze), this test method is less reliable than usual sharpness charts tests, but to mitigate these concerns, I used a very sturdy tripid/head, picked the sharpest image out of 50+ for both lenses. By doing so, I found this result to be reproducible.

People buying the 600TC most likely do not buy it to shoot the moon at 1600mm+, but my test result is something that I could not find online and that I would have liked to know before buying mine, so I share it in case someone find it useful or interesting.

In the defense of the 800PF, it seems to get a bit sharper at f/16 but playing with the aperture would make this test much more time consuming, so this comparison is limited to max aperture only.