In the Nikon wildlife photography community, it has become a dead-horse topic of pub discussions whether we’ll ever see a successor to the legendary Nikon D500. Some have succumbed to skepticism and whispered despairingly, “There’ll never be anything like it again.”
But would we recognize a Z-mount successor of the D500 if it appeared? I had a day in the field to see if Nikon’s latest APS-C camera, the Z50 II, could replace the D500. Here are my first impressions.
Table of Contents
The D500
Before I dive in, let me say why the D500 was so special. It came from an entire evolutionary branch starting with the D100, which was a more affordable and compact alternative to professional cameras like the Nikon D1. Similarly, Nikon released the D200 and D300 to match the D2x line and D3 respectively. There was a brief hiccup in this process with the D4, with no corresponding D400.
But with the release of the D500 in the same year as the D5, Nikon’s professional APS-C line regained enormous strength. The D500 has a professional build, large battery, great ergonomics, uncompromising autofocus, and exceptional image quality for its APS-C format. Many consider the D500 to be the greatest APS-C DSLR ever made.
Then came the blow. With the advent of Nikon’s new Z-mount, APS-C was relegated to the realm of entry-level. Full-frame cameras became the only choice if one wanted all of Nikon’s advanced features. The APS-C line became limited with a small battery and weak autofocus performance.
But at the end of 2024, Nikon gave us the Nikon Z50 II. Although those expecting a clear successor to the D500 may be a bit disappointed, I will show you that the Z50 II is actually closer to the D500 than a lot of people think.
Z50 II: Design and Handling
Design-wise, the Z50 II is much different than the Z50. The rounded shape of the Z50 has been replaced by a more mature design, similar to the Z6 III. The speaker is now located on the left side of the viewfinder, and the position of the stereo microphones has also shifted slightly. For vloggers, there is a REC lamp at the top of the camera.
The back of the camera has also changed. Now, the rear controls are similar to those of the Z6 III and Z8, and thus more usable. Indeed, the only differences are the positions of the monitor mode button and the photo/video switch and, of course, the absence of the joystick (sub-selector). You can also customize the behavior of individual buttons. For example, you can have three autofocus modes instantly available under three different buttons (in my case, AE-L/AF-L, DISP and Fn1) like I have on my Z9.
Near the shutter button, in place of the former microphone, a picture control button has been added. Essentially, this is similar to the BW switch on the Zf, except that you can choose from a whole range of preset profiles.
The mode dial has also been upgraded. The EFCT (effects) mode is gone, being replaced by a third custom setting (U3). Having three positions for custom settings is something I find much more useful. Only the Nikon Z8, Z9, and D500 have three or four. However, the SCN position for switching scene modes remains.
The rear display has not changed in size (3.2 inches) nor in its resolution (1.04 million dots), although it’s now fully-articulated. Personally, I preferred the previous tilting design for ground- or water-level shooting, because a side-flipping display is hard to see and gets in the way. However, the articulating display will help with vertical shooting angles and vlogging.
Unlike the D500, the Z50 II does not have a joystick. However, like the Zf and Z6 III, you can select a focus point or zone by sliding your finger across the screen, and it works well even with your eye to the viewfinder. As a bonus, you probably won’t have to replace the joystick after five years like I did with my D500.
Overall, I like the ergonomics and design of the Z50 II. It may be small, but it’s a mature camera that any photographer can tailor to their own preferences and needs. However, I would have appreciated backlit and slightly larger buttons (especially the AE-L/AF-L), as well as a different design for the tilting display.
Z50 II: Autofocus in the Field
Of course, I was most curious about the Z50 II’s autofocus performance! So, I eagerly dashed through the gates of the Prague Zoo, ready to subject the autofocus to my usual torturous tests. For most of the day, the sun remained hidden behind a thick blanket of low inversion clouds, leaving little light to work with. So how did the camera handle the difficult mix of animals and low light?
The Z50 II performed surprisingly well, and definitely beyond my expectations. Not even the most bizarre bird could confuse the Z50 II’s algorithms. It locked on to the eyes of herons, ducks, and even a Palm Cockatoo with the confidence of a systematic biologist from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. In this regard, this camera is no less capable than my Z9! Even during continuous shooting, the focus point stayed glued to the eye.
The camera even performed admirably with subjects for which its algorithms weren’t explicitly trained: reptiles. It surprised me to the extent that I found myself wondering if my Z9 would have recognized that particular lizard or snake. I’ll have to check next time.
What about birds in flight? Success in capturing birds in flight depends not only on reliable autofocus, but also on the viewfinder. The Z50 II lacks a stacked sensor (no surprise at this price point), so capturing fast wing movements requires using the mechanical shutter.
This results in the viewfinder going dark during continuous shooting, but at least there’s no display lag, a common problem with earlier Z models. The shortest shutter speed of 1/4000s may seem limiting, but this is more of an issue when using fast prime lenses on a sunny day than when photographing birds in flight.
When it comes to shooting action, buffer depth also plays a crucial role. While the original Z50 had a buffer capacity of 35 images, the Z50 II can store up to 200 RAW files. At 11 fps, this is more than enough. I can’t recall a situation where I held the shutter down for more than 18 seconds in real-life scenarios. In addition, the supported SD UHS-II card standard guarantees that the buffer will empty as fast as your stomach during an Amazonian ayahuasca ritual.
Z50 II: Other Usability Remarks
Regarding the viewfinder, I was pleased to see the d12 option, which is familiar from the Nikon Z9. This feature is especially useful for night photography, as it uses red tones to turn down the blinding brightness of the display and viewfinder. This small but welcome addition makes it less likely that you’ll walk nose-first into a tree after checking your camera’s settings in the dark. For long exposures, you’ll also appreciate the ability to set shutter speed up to 900 seconds.
Unfortunately, like its predecessor, the Z50 II doesn’t have in-body image stabilization (IBIS). However, with a stabilized lens like the Nikon 180-600mm, I didn’t miss IBIS too much. At 600mm, with a steady hand, I found 1/60s to be relatively safe. With IBIS, I might have achieved 1/30s, maybe even 1/15s. Fortunately, most Nikon DX lenses and longer full-frame lenses are stabilized.
While I can live without IBIS, there is one thing about the Z50 II that really bothers me—the battery. I understand that the compact design of the Z50 II necessitated a small battery, but I still wish it used the EN-EL15. Its capacity is 45% higher than the EN-EL25a of the Z50 II, and it’s been the standard battery for the majority Nikon DSLRs and full-frame mirrorless cameras since 2010.
Indeed, although I managed over 800 shots per charge with my typical shooting style, just setting up the camera to my liking drained an entire battery. The larger EN-EL15 would make the Z50 II far more practical as a second body to a full-frame camera.
The Z50 II’s image quality is excellent but not revolutionary. The sensor remains the same as the previous generation and is, in fact, shared with the entire current DX (APS-C) Nikon Z lineup. That doesn’t mean the image quality hasn’t improved a little.
Indeed, the Z50 II is the first DX camera to get the powerful EXPEED 7 image processor, which may affect its dynamic range and noise handling somewhat. Although I won’t offer a direct comparison of noise performance with the original Z50 or the D500, a head-to-head comparison may appear in a future article. Nevertheless, the sample images should give you a good idea of what the Z50 II is capable of.
While shooting, I deliberately pushed the ISO higher than usual in the dimly lit zoo enclosures, and to avoid masking the camera’s true performance with advanced software, I’ve left the noise in the photos untouched (except for two images, as noted). In my opinion, even images taken at ISO 20,000 are quite usable.
Conclusion
Many of us still look up to the amazing D500 and expect its successor to make a grand, triumphant entrance. But perhaps it’s worth considering whether that successor is already here, sneaking in without fanfare.
Yes, there are some aspects of the Z50 II that make it less than what we might expect from a D500 successor. Compared to the D500’s rugged magnesium and carbon-reinforced construction, the plastic Z50 II feels delicate. The Z50 II also has a smaller battery, and it doesn’t have some of the advanced features of the flagship full-frame cameras like the Z8 and Z9.
Still, the handling of the Z50 II is not far away from the flagships. The button layout and the near-total freedom of customization mark a massive leap forward. In this respect, the Z50 II not only holds its own against the D500, but even surpasses it in some areas.
But most importantly, the autofocus performance of the Z50 II is so good that I was honestly surprised. The mere fact that I’m comparing a $907 enthusiast camera to the $5,497 professional Z9 means something. No doubt about it, the Z50 II is an appealing second body for any of Nikon’s current full-frame cameras, and for the first time, we have a Nikon APS-C mirrorless camera that can keep up with the D500.
> with a stabilized lens like the Nikon 180-600mm, I didn’t miss IBIS too much. At 600mm, with a steady hand, I found 1/60s to be relatively safe. With IBIS, I might have achieved 1/30s, maybe even 1/15s
180-600 doesn’t support Synchro VR, so it makes no difference if the body has IBIS with this lens. IIRC, only S-line lenses have Synchro VR support
I’ve been using the Z50Ii as mo go to wildlife camera lately paired with the 400 4.5 with, or without the 1.4 TC. Fantastic small, and light combo, most times I choose over lugging the Z8 around. I do miss the blackout free viewfinder, but other than that, I think it’s a fantastic little camera. I bought 2 batteries but have yet to use the second one.
Why all this fuss about a D500 replacement, just get one. No, you can’t have mine, I will never part with it. Thank you PL for steering me towards the best camera ever, it puts a smile on my face everytime I pick it up. All the negativity in the world vanishes and the beauty of it appears in the viewfinder.
Well, the idea is that eventually they will start to fail and it would be nice to have a mirrorless version that would work with the newer Z lenses, like the 600mm f/6.3…that being said, the Z50 II is pretty good. And I’m saying that as a D500 shooter!
It makes no sense that Nikon discontinued the D500 when everybody loves it so much. Ditto for the 105mm f/2.8 macro. Two beloved Nikon pieces of equipment and stupid Nikon dropped them. Nice going, Nikon. In fact, I have to say that Nikon’s decision to sideline millions of loyal Nikon users by dropping the DSLR line was incredibly short sighted and stupid. Not all the king’s horses and all the king’s men are going to make every Nikon user spend a fortune to replace a line of equipment that they already spent a fortune on which does beautiful work.
I understand the sentiment. I still shoot with the D500 and I’m sad to have to replace mine eventually, though it still works well with only about 40K on the shutter as I rarely use bursts.
I will say that at least, one does not have to replace lenses. The F-mount lenses work really well on mirrorless. So, you don’t really have to replace your entire line of equipment. You just have to upgrade to mirrorless bodies and slowly replace lenses if they malfunction and can no longer be repaired (which would take a while as lenses last a long time). The only downside is the screwdrive lenses for some, which don’t have AF on mirrorless.
Also, I’ll admit that I enjoy shooting mirrorless a bit more. It’s a bit of a personal thing as I like the silent shutter, and I consider the silent shutter the “killer feature” of mirrorless.
That being said, I have a soft spot for the DSLR line and there’s something untouchable about the D500–it still has no replacement in my eyes except in the Z8, but which is a MUCH more expensive camera, unfortunately.
Still, mirrorless or not, I’ll never sell my D500. It’s a beautiful machine, and its mechanical soul cannot be matched by any mirrorless camera, I’ll say that.
Well take heart that the rumours persist of a Z80 aka Z500 update of the excellent D500 – including Gray’s of Westminster in London, Digital Photography World etc
Some of us are quietly confident Nikon recognizes the gap. The D500 skipped a D400 update of the venerable D300, and its announcement in January 2016 was a big and welcome surprise.
It’s relevant how, a year ago, Nikon discontinued their extremely popular and unique Coolpix P1000… Its Used value has increased with continuing demand.
Then today, they announced the Coolpix P1100
I’m sort of with you, except that for £1,800 – much less (in real terms) than the price of a D500 when it was released (£1,700 in 2016) – you can get both a Z50II and a Z5. Together they do more than a D500. The 100-400 Is likewise much cheaper than the far-inferior 80-400 when it came out and the 24-200 covers what no F-mount ever did.
At the ‘entry’ level, Z-mount is really, really, good. Perhaps it’s the reason why used F-mount is the best value for money we’ll probably ever see.
“Together they do more than a D500”. Really? You won’t get the fast action capabilities of a D500 in either of those two Z bodies, where is the “more”?
Entry-level Z may be really good, but for fast action there are very few Z options, basically just Z8 and Z9, although for some Z6III might be acceptable.
Yes – really. Expeed 7 and subject-detect AF are an advance on the D500 and the Z5 has the better sensor for non-action.
I agree. I think Nikon should’ve brought out something akin to the R7. The Z8 is superb but expensive. The Z6III doesn’t get best use out of mid- / upper-range lenses like the 300 and 500 PF. The R7 has good features, hits the right price point, and works well with a versatile lens like 100-500.
OK, Z50II AF may be better than D500 AF in most conditions but it doesn’t perform better than D500 for fast action, which is one of its main applications (high shutter speed, minimal rolling shutter, reliable tracking for fast moving subjects etc.). Probably more realistic to see the Z50II as a replacement for D7200/7500.
I’m a Canon user but won’t buy R7 even though Canon tries to present it as the mirrorless upgrade to the 7D2. R7 struggles with fast moving subjects unless they fill much of the frame, I have more than a few times seen people using it with RF100-500, unable to lock on relatively slow BIF even with clear background. Definitely not D500 level AF/performance.
Hopefully Nikon is working on next generation DX sensor to replace the nice but aging Z50II sensor. Unless they plan to ditch their Z DX line they will need higher resolution DX within a few years, Canon and Fuji already have that. Drop it in a Z6III style body and with a few extras like stacked sensor and fully electronic shutter you could have a true mirrorless upgrade for D500. Would be more expensive than Canon R7 but with good reason.
Sorry, but the Z50ii does indeed perform better than the D500 for fast action. 11fps vs 10fps is a small improvement, but where the Z50ii really beats the D500 is with AF subject detection and tracking. The rolling shutter only occurs when using the electronic shutter at 15 or 30 fps (speeds not attainable by the D500). I assume Nikon will eventually come out with a “pro” DX body, but for now the Z8 in DX mode fills that segment. Nikon’s strategy to prioritize the full frame market is a good one since that is their strength. Even so, it is encouraging that they chose to pack so much of the tech from the Z8/9 into the Z50ii. I have no issue with using the same sensor as it still performs well and is appropriate for the price. The Expeed7 processor is also being used to improve the low light performance (again improving upon the D500). I picked up a Z50ii recently as a travel body and second wildlife body to use with my Z8. Very impressed the capabilities and customizability!
Buying the Z5 and Z50II as a pair compounds the gap. It’s more practical to pay $2000-2500 for a DX clone of the Z8, in as much as the electronic shutter handles the demands of fast action scenes, and has the Pro controls and menus.
This gap for such a camera in the Nikon Z ecosystem circles back to the venerable 20mp sensor. This is past its expiration, in that it cannot support a Prosumer DX MILC. At minimum, Nikon’s new DX sensor has to be the clone of Z6 III Partially-Stacked Sensor, and ideally with faster scan rate.
Lovely photos. Thanks for this timely report of your day-long assessment. It’s surprising how much technology the designers migrated across from the Z9. For wildlife, the key features include the ability to use a custom AF HandOff,which is often essential on tricky subjects.
The AFmode+AFOn custom setting is the quintessential feature here, for which the engineers should be commended (However, Nikon dithered for far too long, because the lack of this custom option crippled optimizing the Z6 and Z7 Autofocus, until the Z6 III arrived, almost 6 years later…)
I would not buy a Z50II to backup my trusty Z9 and D6 for wildlife photography for the following reasons:
1. No CFExpress B card support, which is a showstopper
2. Battery power, especially no accessory battery grip. The smaller battery is also a bad mistake.The ENEL15c should have been the battery Nikon built this camera chassis around, especially as a grip can use a pair of these (as in the Z6 III);
3. Sensor scan rate is too slow with electronic shutter in some action situations (see below);
4. No shooting banks, the U* menu design is infuriating to try and rely upon;
5. The Joystick is a critical, widely used control that the engineers could have been kept on the rear panel.
6. IBIS would be useful, especially Synchro VR for wildlife with the tighter stricture on lowlight performance of the DX sensor;
These are unfortunate omissions because the Z50 II ticks so many boxes for a capable camera, which is surprisingly affordable. However, these missing features point to the obvious gap for Nikon to fill the glaringly vacant niche in the Z Ecosystem, and revisit the D500 clade with the full house of their best imaging technology….
Improved DX sensor performance is possibly a tricky obstacle for Nikon to update. It appears the only solution to boost the AF performance and especially speed up the sensor scan rate is a new DX Partially-Stacked Sensor. Nikon is overdue for this device, which will serve their future generations of DX MILCs.
A Z80 with a new faster DX sensor, dual CFExpress cards, Z6 III EVF etc, and Pro chassis and controls will obviously be more expensive, but the demand is real for Nikonians seeking lower entry cost, at a lighter camera (older traveling ‘Boomers’ inclusive). A bird photographer’s dream meets terra firma:-)
The Z80 will lower the entry cost to full Z8/Z9 performance in lighter Pro camera, albeit a MILC with a tighter cap on lowlight IQ. Crucially for Nikon, it will boost Z telephoto sales in future financial year(s), similarly to the D500 and its ancestors.
You wrote everything perfectly, but you didn’t take into account one thing. Your Z80 will hit sales of the Z9, Z8, Z6iii and Z50ii.
And now he will take the place of the head of Nikon. You have three sub-frame cameras that sell well. The release of the Z80 will have a negative impact on their sales.
The second point. The Z50ii is still an amateur camera. What does a professional DX camera need? That’s right, professional-grade DX lenses. But they’re not in the lineup right now.
But Sigma and Tamron need these professional cameras to be on the market in sufficient quantity to release their 2.8 aperture DX lenses with a bayonet Z, or Nikon will have to pay a premium to these companies for the release of these lenses.
Let’s summarize. For the full-fledged release of the Z80, Nikon will have to sacrifice its profits and/or pay extra to other companies for the release of lenses.
I think this is a very controversial strategy at the moment.
But if the Z50ii continues to sell well, and Sigma and Tamron decide to adapt their 2.8 lenses for the Z mount, Nikon may release the Z80 after some time.
But it’s not profitable for Nikon at the moment.
And yes. In 2017, Nikon’s management stated that they associate the company’s future with full-frame photography. I have not read the internal interview or any messages from Nikon that they are changing their strategy.
You summed it up well. Your reasons for not choosing the Z50 II as a backup for your Z9/D6 make perfect sense. In the following paragraphs, I’m going to play devil’s advocate – not because I disagree with your points, but just to offer a different perspective.
With the resolution the Z50 II offers and its support for UHS-II, even SD cards aren’t much of a “showstopper.” On the other hand, in both your case and mine, it would mean carrying yet another type of card just for the Z50 II. A dual SD/CFexpress slot would be a nice but expensive compromise.
As for the battery, I couldn’t agree more. In fact, the small battery bothers me more than anything else. However, the Z9/D6 uses different batteries anyway, so even if the Z50 II had an EN-EL15c, I’d still have to carry a second charger (I don’t like in-camera charging).
As for the sensor, a stacked – or at least partially stacked – sensor would undoubtedly take a hypothetical professional DX camera to another level. The same goes for IBIS and a fully electronic shutter. Unfortunately, the price of such a camera would also jump to another level.
I absolutely agree that a joystick is a great feature, and if it were up to me, I’d take it over a touchscreen any day. Simply because I’m used to it and have it on my other cameras. For new users, however, it’s not a dealbreaker, and selecting a focus point via the touchscreen actually works surprisingly well.
The same goes for the shooting banks. I like them and I’m used to them. But the U1-U3 options on the top dial are a pretty workable solution.
Even if a future DX camera (let’s call it the Z80) has all this, the biggest problem remains – the lack of suitable DX lenses. This is exactly what Dmitry pointed out in his response. From my narrow perspective as a wildlife photographer, it’s not a big deal – the crop factor actually works in my favor. But what about other genres? Nikon’s current lineup of DX lenses is modest at best. Releasing a camera without the right lenses is a risky move, and vice versa. Nikon would really have to set the stage for something big.
The question is, who would actually buy such a camera (and lenses)? Is the potential customer base really that big, or just that loud? I suspect it’s the latter. The moment we saw the price of such a camera, we’d probably go full-frame instead – and mutter, “That much for a DX camera? Nikon must be crazy!”
Good counter points in both responses, which recur in these Z80 aka Z500 discussions :-) ;-) ….to respond to in brief….
The lack of DX lenses is a recurring concern, but it’s practicably not a barrier. An Ultrawide FX equivalent is a real gap, a 15mm FoV equivalent is 10mm at the wide end. So is a Z DX fisheye, ideally. Otherwise, FX lenses are sufficient, including the 28 and 40 muffins. Definitely the light 400 f4.5S is an excellent pairing on DX, so is the 600 PF. Adapting the 300 PF and 500 PF, with their TC’s, will be an especially attractive options. The 180-600 will probably be the big seller for a Z80, as the 200-500 f5.6E was for the D500.
Nikon’s time worn 20mp sensor is at the end of the road. Since the D500 launched in 2016, it’s likely earned good profits for the company. However they probably don’t need a DX Sensor with fully electronic only shutter. Instead, a scaled down Z6 III Partially-Stacked DX sensor should suffice with faster refresh and all the better if it gets an extra ~1 stop of improved low light performance. However the lowlight IQ of modern FX sensors leave all DX sensors trailing in their wake.
Cannibalism is a non issue. Otherwise Nikon would not have released the Z8 and Z6 III packed with Z9 technology. A high performance DX Z MILC will fill a well established niche as the lighter and more affordable Pro model. The Z80 will be the “Entry Professional camera” similarly to the D500.
Nikon has to keep releasing new cameras to maintain sales, especially telephotos, and also to attract remaining DSLR owners. Fundamentally, each camera sold = another potential buyer of Z glass. As importantly, the company unfailing flags its goal to increase the Lens:Body sales ratio – in recent corporate reports.
Each Prosumer and Pro MILC increases returns on their Z9 R&D investment (particularly the AF system and EXPEED7).
High price fears for a Z80 Pro DX Nikon? Imaginary. The Fuji X-H2S is a high performance APC camera with a stacked sensor for <$2500, and Nikon must know all too well how it conspicuously outperforms the Z50 II, although Thom Hogan concluded in his review
Nikon’s discontinued D500 is still the better camera!
Ironically, Fuji appears to have copied much of what works so well in the D500, albeit with mixed results.
"….can’t think of a better mirrorless camera that lives in the D500 space. My only problem is this: the D500 is still a better balanced and better designed camera with near bulletproof capabilities that doesn’t take a deep dive to master. I’m sure I’ll get a lot of flack for that statement, so I’m going to need to use more words to explain what I mean, many more words….."
To quote from a recent debate,
www.dpreview.com/forum…t/68086676
"…The predominance of boomers among hobbyist outdoor photographers will queue up for a Z80, and the sales pulse of yet more Z9 technology will sell yet more lighter Z lenses for Nikon.
bcgforums.com/threa…ers.41347/
Photography Industry Survey: zenfolio.com/sopi/2024-april/
Fully agree with your take on a “Z80 Pro”. I see plenty of room in between Z50II and Z8/Z9 in both specs and price, especially for hobbyist nature/wildlife photographers. $2000-2500 sounds OK to me for an APS-C version of the Z6III, And if they can add more Z8 features like fully electronic shutter and better EVF I would be willing to pay $3000-3500. I’m not a boomer but I’m sure there are plenty of potential nature/wildlife boomer customers for a semi-pro Nikon Z body, but they shouldn’t wait too long.
Nikon Z8/9 is too big and heavy for my taste and the FF sensor would be mostly a waste for me. While Z50II would be fine for slower subjects it will struggle with fast action, in my case flying dragonflies. For me Z50II would be a stopgap or second body at best and I would only buy it (plus those Z lenses) if I knew something more suitable for me is in the pipeline. Decisions …
For APS-C a Z 300PF and 500PF would be very welcome indeed, plus I would want a brighter standard zoom with more reach (2.8-4/16-85mm or so). But I can accept the Z16-50 if I have to, just sell me that semi-pro APS-C Z body ;)
I don’t think the Z8 is big and heavy – the D500 felt bigger than my D7500 but the Z8 doesn’t feel much different from my Z5.
I agree that a 35mm sensor isn’t a ‘must have for wildlife. I’d be happy with a Canon R7 level camera – but I don’t see the Z50II as being that.
The 400/f4.5 and 600/f6.3 are effectively the Z mount replacements for the PF duo. Except, of course, in price: £6,400 for the pair – nearly £10,000 if you add a Z8. And you have only catered for wildlife. It really is silly.
Weight/size preference is personal. For people used to top level FF cameras the Z8 may be light and small, but for those used to DX DSLRs (like many nature/wildlife hobbyists) Z8 is pretty big and heavy. The 400 and 600mm Z lenses are far from optimal replacement for the 300PF when one needs a light tele prime for tracking very fast subjects; it all adds up …
If Z70/80/90 doesn’t materialize soon, a Z8 with Z 300PF could be an option for me but I guess that lens isn’t on the radar either ;(
“Jump to another level”.
Are you thinking of, say, 50% more? There sits the Canon R7. It puzzles me what Nikon has against that price. It’s more than the Z5, but that isn’t a rival for an aps-c AF-biased camera. And it’s much less than the Z6III, which doesn’t have the crop-factor benefit for mid-long telephotos (£3,700 for the 600/f6.3 or £1,700 for the 100-400?).
I see 2 price levels:
1. All-singing and dancing – D850; Z8. 5DMkV; R5.
2A. Small sensor; very good AF – D500: Z??. 7DII; R7.
2B. Large sensor; modest AF – D610; Z5. 6D; R6.
See the missing piece?
I upgraded my D500 to a Z8. I didn’t like doing it because I do feel that I’ve given into Nikon’s inadequate product range (age and a £2,500 windfall were the reasons). I suspect I’ll use it mostly in crop-mode thus overpaying by about £1,800). I neither want nor need 45mp at 35mm – 24mp is fine.
Starting from scratch I’d have gone to Canon – R6 and R7, 100-500 and 24-240, adding a couple of primes for specialist uses (perhaps 85mm, macro, ultra-wide).
I suspect that the Z50II is like the Z5: great – for its price.
I really liked the review Libor and, based on my experience with the Z50ii I feel the it’s fair and accurate, especially in relation to the D500.One surprising aspect of the Z50ii is the fact that ,with the usual battery saving precautions, it will shoot all day and take thousands of images on just one battery.I shot for 6 hours and took 2,747 and it only showed 1 bar of power used, while someone claimed to have taken 4,008 shots .This really surprised me as I’d already purchased 2 additional batteries plus a large external power bank because I believed the earlier reports of poor battery life.
Wow, 2,747 images with only one bar of power used surprises me, Simon. How did you achieve that? I’ve only achieved just over 800 shots on a whole battery with my usual use, unfortunately.
Hi Libor. I was shooting a short board surfing event and using burst mode at times.The fact that the battery actually lasted for more than 6 hours was what really surprised me. Recently I have noticed that the battery goes from showing 1 bar of power used to showing in red, which is something I’ve never seen before. This can happen within 20 minutes, but some users have suggested that if you swap batteries and then go back the problem seems to go away.Two batteries should be enough to get anyone through a full day of shooting if you use all the relevant power saving modes.I’ve found the quality of the Z50ii’s JPEGS to be really impressive btw, especially when paired with the Nikon Z180-600 lens.
I had the Z50 and the sensor seemed horrible, just muddy or dull images. Then I got Z6ii and Z8, both are fantastic. If the Z50ii has the same old sensor, I’m not interested.
I think this can’t make sense. Yes, the Z50/Z50 II loses a stop and this CAN be noticed in the darkest of scenarios, but the difference is certainly not “horrible” to “fantastic”.
Considering that there are great pictures of challenging subjects and lighting conditions right up there in the article and not throwing any blame around. I suspect anything from a lemon with a giant oily fingerprint on the image sensor – yes it happens with unsealed boxes – to unstabilized handheld too-long exposures, to suboptimal Picture Control settings that mess up out-of-camera JPEGs.
Cameras are tools; If I wanted perfectly good images without effort I would go feed lines into image generators, but where is the fun in that?
I think what you missing is that it isn’t the sensor like in the older cameras it’s the CPU and it has a version of the same CPU as the Z8. The Z50II is much more capable than the older Z6II. I had the Z6II and the dual cpu was a dog!
Personally, I haven’t noticed anything about the Z50 II’s sensor that would give me pause. I won’t get into the full-frame vs. APS-C debate, but in my experience, image rendering across (newer) Nikon cameras is quite consistent.
I wonder if your perception of image quality may have been influenced by post-processing. RAW editors typically apply some baseline algorithms, and these can vary from camera to camera. While I can’t imagine this making a night and day difference, I’d look there before blaming the camera itself.
I’d recommend giving Nikon NX Studio a try. It’s not my favorite software, but it excels at rendering Nikon RAW files correctly.
I purchased the SmallRig base plate to get a little taller grip. Feels great.
I agree. Just one extra centimeter, and the pinky finally gets a solid footing. The sense of grip security improves… well, by about 20%.
That’s another series of beautiful photos with great colors Libor. I would love to have the 180-600mm for my Zf, but it might be a bit too big, like with this Nikon Z50ii?! I was finally able to program my autofocus settings properly with 3 assigned buttons. The menus on the new Nikon cameras are becoming more complicated and extensive. These were better structured on the DSRL, don’t you think…?!
Thank you very much. I’m glad you were able to program the buttons the way you needed. You’re right that the menu structure on today’s Nikons is as forked as the branches of a century-old oak tree. On the other hand, it reflects the complexity of today’s cameras. DSLRs didn’t have nearly as many features as mirrorless cameras. That’s why I highly recommend creating a well-organized structure of the most used functions in My Menu. And of course, keep the most important things at your fingertips on the buttons. As for the combination of Zf and 180-600mm, I wouldn’t worry about it at all. I would just equip the camera with a grip for a better hold. I even tested it with a 600mm f/4 over a year ago and it worked fine. Although, I won’t deny it, it looked weird.
Thanks for the overview. I have been looking closely at the same Z50II + 180-600 combo, to supplement a Z6 II I’ve been unwilling to part with. This looked rather interesting at about the same cost as a Z8 body.
Reacting in time to and obtaining inside the viewfinder a fast crossing BIF with a long telephoto, then keeping a dynamic cursor or a small wide area box painted on the bird’s head between viewfinder blackout while bursting off a series, is an exact craft that I could probably never quite master. Camera advancements that remove at least part of the complexity would be very nice to have.
Compared to the Z6 II, the Z50 II is a step (leap) forward in many ways. Unfortunately, the viewfinder blackout in continuous shooting is common to both cameras (the Z8/9 is a real godsend in this regard). However, the tricky task of keeping the focus point on the bird’s head is gone.
Excellent review Libor. I have used the Z50II as a back up to my Z7II/Z9. Your 180-600 mm images are very impressive. Question for you – if you had your choice for a super wide angle (at least 20mm or wider) DX or FX for this camera – what might you choose? I need a back up for an Iceland trip in a couple of weeks for both landscape and potentially northern lights. Thanks much.
Hi Ralph, I use the new Viltrox 16/1.8 on z50 for astro and it is great. Not very expensive and great value so ideal for a backup. One of the only negatives of the lens is some vignetting in the corners, but the DX crops the edges of the image circle anyway :) Good luck with the northern lights!
Thanks much – will look into a used Vitrox 16. Also considering the Laowa 10mm 2.8 but may be wider than I need.
Ralph, consider the Viltrox 13mm 1.4 as well. A little wider than the 16mm with a little more light as well. It’s a very solid lens for landscape. Mixed reviews for star photography, but would be great for the northern lights.
James – funny you mentioned the V13 – I just ordered a used copy for $230. That said – I do own the Laowa 10 mm Zero-D which I bought in Stockholm and I am more than amazed of its performance – that said I don’t quite want that wide reach. It will be fun to compare the two!! I am consigned to shoot a number of geothermal plants in Iceland – in essentially landscape perpective. 50/50 chances of seeing the northern lights. Thanks much for your recommendation!
Thank you, Ralph. The wide-angle lens question is a bit tricky. Does the lens need to be compatible with your full-frame camera as well? If so, the Nikon 14-30mm or 14-24mm are great choices. The Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 that Jan recommends is also an excellent option. However, just like both zooms, it won’t be particularly wide on an APS-C body.
That’s not the case with the Laowa 10mm f/2.8. You’re right that on full-frame, it would be more of a specialty lens (as you mentioned, a bit too wide). But on the Z50 II, it becomes a very usable 15mm full-frame equivalent. With a minimum focusing distance of 12 cm, it also makes for a solid close-up wide-angle lens.
And then there’s the Nikon Z DX 12-28mm f/3.5-5.6. Coincidentally, Spencer tested this lens in Iceland, and he quite liked it.
Either way, I wish you a great trip to Iceland and beautiful light!
Exactly right Libor – the 10, 13, or 16 will capture less wide on the 50 vs my full frame cameras. The 50II with the V13 will likely back up my Z9 with the Laowa. Hmmm, the Z DX 12-28 is a thought and I probably should have thought of that before – too late now! Appreciate your suggestions!