This Friday, I set my alarm for the early hours to catch the peak of bird activity. I’ll admit, I was also very curious to see how the newest member of the Nikon cameras family – the Z5 II – would perform in the field. I still need to test a number of things more thoroughly before I can offer a fully objective opinion, but that will take a bit more time. In this article, I’d like to share my fresh first impressions of the Nikon Z5 II.
Thanks to Nikon’s Czech office, I had the opportunity to try out the Nikon Z5 II the very first day it arrived to Czechia. Although I originally went to the office for the Z5 II, I ended up leaving with the Z6 II in my backpack as well. Just for comparison. That’s because the Z5 II might be closer to the retro-styled Zf in terms of specs, but feels much more like the Z6 III in terms of ergonomics. But will the Z5 II’s performance be sufficient for speed-oriented genres, like the Z6 III surely is? Let’s take a closer look.
Focus Performance
The first critical feature I wanted to test: autofocus. The original Z5 from 2020 was starting to feel a bit dated in that department, and I wouldn’t have recommended it for wildlife photographers. Photographing birds in particular with that first-gen AF system was more an exercise in frustration than photography. (For the price, the Z50 II would have gotten my wildlife recommendation instead.)
I’m happy to report that autofocus is one area where the second generation has seen a dramatic transformation. The Nikon Z5 II can detect all the usual suspects: people, vehicles, airplanes. But what I found especially pleasing is that within the camera’s Subject Detection options, there is the option to choose between feathered creatures and others – birds and animals.
For comparison, the Z6 III tosses all creatures into one big basket. It doesn’t distinguish in the camera’s menu whether you’re aiming for a deer or a wren. Fortunately, it still manages to tell them apart very well in practice. But the additional level of control allows me to select “birds” and know that the camera and I are on the same page, even when the bird made an unusual pose.
And indeed, I had bird detection enabled the whole morning for the Z5 II, and the camera performed very well. The Z9 still feels slightly ahead in this area, but let’s not compare apples to oranges. If we stick to just the subject detection abilities of the Z5 II and Z6 III, I’d say both cameras perform very similarly. And even though the Z5 II is only on its first firmware version, the AF points had enough “glue” right from the beginning. Even in a fast series, it did not fall off the eye of the bird I was photographing. (You may remember that I didn’t feel the same way in my first impressions of the Nikon Z6 III, although Nikon thankfully fixed this with their early firmware updates.)
Overall, AF on the Nikon Z5 II felt snappy and responsive, and in a side-by-side comparison with the Z6 III, I couldn’t detect a speed difference. That said, I’ll still need to test it more on birds in flight, so stay tuned for our full review.
Buffer Test
Another key metric for speed-oriented cameras is buffer depth. So, I ran the classic buffer test: I dropped a rock and counted the seconds until I heard the splash. Okay, not really. I used a high-quality Sony UHS-II SD card in the Nikon Z5 II. I mounted the camera on a tripod, set the shutter speed to 1/1000s at f/4, turned off stabilization, and set AF to AF-S. I shot in lossless compressed RAW. I tested both the Continuous High-Speed and Continuous High-Speed (Extended) modes.
The maximum number of shots per burst can be set to 200 on the Nikon Z5 II, while the Z6 III has no such cap. In practice, this limit is unlikely to bother anyone – unless you’re specifically testing buffer depth or card write speeds. I kept the Z6 III settings the same for my comparison.
So, how did the cameras do?
The results were actually quite interesting:
- Nikon Z5 II, Continuous High-Speed: 200 shots in 28.5 seconds (representing 7 FPS). No slowdowns noticed.
- Nikon Z6 III, Continuous High-Speed: 200 shots in 24.5 seconds (representing 8.2 FPS). No slowdowns noticed.
- Nikon Z5 II, Continuous High-Speed (Extended): 145 shots in 13 seconds (representing 11.2 FPS) before slowdown begins.
- Nikon Z6 III, Continuous High-Speed (Extended) with SD card: 110 shots in 7 seconds (representing 15.7 FPS) before slowdown begins.
- Nikon Z6 III, Continuous High-Speed (Extended) with CFE card: 15.7 FPS sustained indefinitely.
In short, the Nikon Z5 II and Nikon Z6 III are both capable of long bursts at high speeds. With either camera in Continuous High-Speed mode, you could shoot a 200-meter sprint from start to finish, even with expressions of joy when crossing the finish line. The buffer on the Nikon Z5 II does fill a little earlier than the Nikon Z6 III, though, mainly due to the CFExpress card on the Nikon Z6 III. If only a UHS-II SD card is used in both cameras, they perform more similarly.
Other Features
Birds live life at a very different pace from us. Their movements are often so quick that waiting for the classic “decisive moment” before pressing the shutter will likely leave you disappointed. That’s why wildlife photographers pay so much attention to continuous shooting rates. The first-generation Z5 wasn’t exactly a sprinter in that regard. Its 4.5 FPS might be fine for shooting a snoozing nightjar, but you’d probably miss a starling feeding its chicks.
Nikon clearly recognized this weakness, and the Z5 II’s burst speed has been dramatically boosted. With a mechanical shutter, it now shoots at 11 FPS – which is essentially on par with the Nikon D500, a camera I’ve always considered very fast. The Z5 II also gets a bump with its electronic shutter (15 FPS), but I’d be cautious using that for fast-moving subjects. The readout speed on the Z5 II seems typical for a non-stacked sensor (putting it around 1/20 second, pending further tests). The result can be unwanted warping from rolling shutter effects if your subject is moving very fast.
Meanwhile, the Z6 III squeezes out a bit more with its mechanical shutter (14 FPS) and electronic shutter (20 FPS). Thanks to its partially stacked sensor, the Z6 III also has a faster readout speed of 1/70 second, which is enough to minimize rolling shutter most of the time. Although, it’s still not as fast as the stacked sensors on the Nikon Z8 and Nikon Z9 that are capable of a 1/270 second readout speed.
One thing that made me especially happy with the Nikon Z5 II was the ability to customize buttons just like on my Nikon Z9. Gone are the days when entry-level cameras lacked meaningful button customization. Aside from a few minor differences, I was able to program the Z5 II’s buttons to match the muscle memory I’ve developed on my top-tier Nikon.
Just like the recently announced Z50 II, the Nikon Z5 II also has a dedicated Picture Control button. If you shoot RAW, you’ll probably reassign it to something else, maybe Save Focus Position or My Menu. There are plenty of options: fifty-four, to be exact. Just pick your favorite.
Beyond ergonomics, another crucial aspect for me is how good the viewfinder looks. Nikon’s electronic viewfinders have never set records on paper, and the 3.69-million-dot resolution certainly won’t make jaws drop. But numbers are one thing, what matters is what you actually see. And in the case of the Z5 II, the EVF looks very good. It’s bright, big, and clear. In a direct comparison with the Z6 III, which currently has Nikon’s best viewfinder, I couldn’t even see a noticeable difference. Remember the claustrophobically tiny viewfinders on entry-level DSLRs? Those days are gone.
I’m also happy that Nikon wasn’t stingy with adding their newest features to the Nikon Z5 II. Take image stabilization, for example. The Z5 II delivers a very impressive 7.5 stops of IBIS and offers focus point priority, which even beats the current flagship Z9. I’ll leave a practical stabilization test for a future, more detailed review. Same goes for image quality. Unfortunately, the software I normally use for RAW editing doesn’t yet recognize the Z5 II. But once I’m able to process RAW files the usual way, I don’t expect to be disappointed – it seems just as good as the Nikon Zf’s image quality, which would make it best-in-class among today’s 24 megapixel sensors.
Overall, from what I’ve seen so far, the Nikon Z5 II strikes me as a very capable camera with an excellent price-to-performance ratio. In fact, the more I think about it, Nikon doesn’t really have an entry-level full-frame camera right now, because the Z5 II definitely doesn’t feel like one.
Thank you for a great review, Libor.
I’m thinking about upgrading my Z6.
When I take pictures of my dog running toward me at high speed, the autofocus hit rate is super low, no matter which AF mode I use.
How many missed shots did you get with the Z5II?
And how does that compare to the Z8 (I assume that Z5ii performs the same as the Z6 III)?
Do you think that Z5ii will be able to focus on fast moving objects(especially to the camera direction) ?
Testing my Zf I seem to have unlimited buffer with a fast UHS-II card in HE* or HE RAW as the file sizes at 11 FPS are coming in under the cameras write speed to the card. Lossless compressed with buffer out. I would expect the same from the Z5ii. There is no reason not to shoot HE*/HE as there seems to be no difference in file quality in Lightroom torturing them. HE* is supposed to be near lossless and HE visually lossless and that’s what I’ve experienced trying to see a difference. The RAW file capability basically makes these expeed 7 based Z cameras have unlimited buffer’s, even with SD cards.
I got to try a Z5 II on Friday and was impressed how good it was. The responsiveness is excellent and the focusing much more accurate than on the original Z5.
Thank you for your first impressions. As a people photographer, I would be interested to know, if and to what degree eye AF on humans has progressed compared to Z5 and Z6ii. I use both, and since the last firmware update on Z5, they are on par regarding eye AF, on a level that unfortunately leaves much to be desired in terms of reliability. I often need to activate 3D tracking via the programmed Fn1-button.
Good question, Thomas. I’ll need to take a closer look at that. So far, I’ve only tested the AF on animals. But if there’s been a similar improvement when photographing people, I think you’ll be pleased.
More confusion (for me) over camera choice…. I’m a birder and still shoot a D500. I’d like to go mirrorless but rolling shutter initially put me off the lower priced cameras and although I’d love a Z8, I can’t justify that leap in price at this stage. The Z5ii sounds interesting. Thanks for the review.
The D500 gives the feeling of a truly heavy-duty camera in the hand. I really like this camera. I even invested in it recently, and had the service replace the rubber on the grips. But if I had to choose between taking the D500 or the Z5 II on a trip, I probably wouldn’t hesitate to take the Z5 II.
That’s very interesting to hear, Libor, and not what I might have expected. Thanks for the excellent first impressions, I look forward to your full review and your thoughts on the Z5ii for BIF.
I just want to take one good picture of a bird that looks as good as one of the many hundreds of photos that Libor includes in his articles. I am not optimistic!
Same here :(
You’ll definitely get there! It’s a matter of practice, which can be done anywhere that there are birds. Including a local park or even a zoo.
For a bit of a shortcut, though, you should read at least these four articles of Libor’s if you haven’t already:
photographylife.com/how-t…y-subjects
photographylife.com/wildl…background
photographylife.com/5-com…y-mistakes
photographylife.com/more-…hotography
And this one from Jason if you want a refresher on the technical side: photographylife.com/how-t…raph-birds
Thank you so much John for your kind comment. And definitely be optimistic. Thanks to Spencer for the links he provided in response to your comment and I’ll add one little tip. Focus first on where the bird would look nice (meaning the background, the light, the branch itself) and then on the bird. Knowledge of bird calls will help a lot to get an idea of what lives in that particular spot.
I do like the look of this. It strikes me as being attractively-priced, unlike the Z6III, which I think is over-priced.
I’m not quite regretting buying a Z8 a few months ago. If I did buy a Z5II I’d want a Z50II to go with it – the crop-factor is a ‘must-have’ for my 500/f5.6 and 1.4 TC and 100-400 (I’m afraid I found the 180-600, while a great hide camera, a bit too big for hand-holding).
The list price here in Switzerland for the Z5ii is only $110 less than what Amazon here want for a Z6ii. I think i’d take the Z6iii right now..
There’s definitely no need for regrets, Robert. The Z8 is a completely different kind of camera. Its higher resolution, fully electronic shutter—which makes photographing birds in flight much easier—and advanced features like auto capture all elevate the Z8 to another league. Of course, that also applies to the price tag.
Well, it seems that R8 or R6 mk II are still the cameras to get beaten at their respective price points. Canon achieving readout speed without stacked sensor dropping to 12bit same as Z6 III, but does also 40fps with raws. Sensors are comparable with R6/R8 having slightly better DR while high ISO performance is same.
and with almost no affordable but decent lenses unlike Nikon’s Z range, plus the R6 ii is the same price as the Z6iii right here right now, so no price advantage really in this market.
Disagree with your take on lenses. Canon’s RF 100-400, 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11 are all excellent in their price range – Nikon doesn’t compete with these lenses at all. I think Canon represents clearly better value in the “cheap” full frame segment. I prefer Nikon’s mid range bodies for the price, but Canon’s 200-800mm is pretty appealing for a lot of bird photographers at the same price as Nikon’s 180-600.
Well, those first lenses are cheap but slow with ok(ish) quality, and that’s the point. Nikon offers pretty excellent quality for mid-level prices. (again, it’s an opinion and price point question).
I agree the 200-800mm is a great lens for Canon shooters, a bit slow but 800mm is fantastic for the quality it has. Perfectly matched for the R6ii which is an excellent camera by all accounts (my girlfriends brother has it and raves about it). I just prefer the Nikon glass choice and think they made better choices (quality/price) for me.
I’ve had a Canon pro shooter envy my 500/f5.6 PF. I wouldn’t want to be shooting at f11 or carrying a beast of an f4.
Canon has such wonderful matrices that they have to suppress the RAW noise in the camera to get a comparable dynamic range. But when the camera switches to 12-bit mode on the electronic shutter, it will be impossible to look at the corners of the image without tears after removing the darkening in the corners.
These are the “wonderful” matrices.
Wonderful images, Libor. I especially like the Wren.
Thank you, David. Wren didn’t let me down. There were several males singing around the creek. But photographing this bird is almost on the edge of macro photography.
Seems to be a good budget camera to upgrade D500, but on basic question still remains ….
What about its performance in birds in flight …?
I tested the camera on birds in flight on Monday, and as long as you stick to the mechanical shutter, i.e. 11 FPS, I was quite happy. I’ll reveal more in an upcoming review :)