Bullfrog Bill Loc: CT

I'm getting tired of lugging my D 850 kit and want to lighten the load. Even with a 24-120 f4 it becomes a bear and is large. For the Z6 II my basic kit would be a 24-70 f4, (replacing my existing 24-70 f 2.8/24-120 f4) and the 24-200 f4-6.3 replacing my 70-200 f 2.8 (no Nikon 70-200 f4 in the works) and I would continue to share an 80-400 f4-5.6 with my wife.

Then I read an article by Ken Rockwell that recommended switching to Canon Either the EOS R or R6 with a better lens system including the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4. The EOS R would be essentially an even trade while the EOS R6 would cost an additional $1,200. Weight of the two new systems is a non-issue.

I'm primarily a landscape/ travel photographer with some wildlife. Will I miss the D 850 45 pixels? The newer R6 only has 20 MP while the older R has 30 while the Z6 II has 24 MP.

I would love to hear from some that have made this leap.

Larryshuman

I don't understand how a little D850 and 24~120 would be considered a bear. A D5 with a 200~500 just begins to be heavy. Maybe a strengthening program would be in order.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

If I were in your shoes, getting new lenses and body, I'd consider Sony and Canon. But if I had a D850 I wouldn't trade it for anything other than it's upgrade, whenever it becomes available. If your skills are strong, going lower in mp will be a disadvantage.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I wouldn't pick a mirrorless body that isn't IBIS-enabled, one of the weaknesses of the EOS R / RP options. The problem of keeping full-frame bodies and full-frame lenses is you really don't get the 'lighter' load. Some will argue a 30% difference is a big deal. But really, after a long day, is 2lb really a big difference over 3lbs lugging around?

You certainly should rent / try-out your candidate ideas rather than relying only on online coaching, even from Ken Rockwell.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Adapted lenses do not perform as well as native lenses. I made the switch from the D850 to Sony about 2 years ago and would do it again in a heart beat although the current Canon ML bodies and lenses would make the choice more difficult.

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

Personally, I do not think you are going to shave any weight worth mentioning. Once you add the better lenses, you're within a close proximity of the weight of an already light body of an exceptional camera. I would keep your D850 and add a second body to your collection. I have D6, D850 and Z7II. I use each for what they are best at.
Just my opinion.
RL

Bill_de Loc: US

The D850 is a heavy body compared to your wife's D7500. Swap with her for a while and see if the weight difference is really the issue. Just be forewarned that your wife may choose to keep the D850.

---

BebuLamar

If you want mirrorless then trade for the Nikon Z7(ii) or R5. If not just keep the D850. The D850 body price has risen recently. B&H has a used one for $2457, a price you could buy a new D850 a month and a half ago I think.

CO

I rented the Nikon Z6 II and Z-mount 24-70mm f/4 lens not long ago. You would definitely save a significant amount of weight compared to your current gear. I'm thinking about buying a Z6 II. I'm just waiting to take a look at the 24-105mm S lens that will be coming out for it. Look at the weight differences here.

Nikon D850 - 990 grams with battery and card
Nikon Z6 II - 705 grams with battery and card
Nikon 24-120mm f/4 lens - 710 grams
Nikon Z-mount 24-70mm f/4 S lens - 500 grams

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I took a look at the collection of very nice images on your website. I did not find any that seemed to be really stretching the capabilities of your D850. So I doubt that you will miss it. But I do think that you may miss having the faster lenses, and the slower lenses you mention are where you will be gaining the bulk of your anticipated weight advantage.

Others have suggested that you rent or otherwise try before you commit to the change. I endorse that counsel, because I'm thinking that the impacts to your capabilities are not going to be the ones that you anticipate.

BebuLamar

I heard somewhere that Nikon will introduce with the Z9 an adapter that can AF lenses without motor.

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

I’m selling my Canon R tomorrow, just overall it’s not for me. I’m struggling to decide between the R5 or R6. I like more action type photography and the R isn’t that. Now if someone would just tell me which one because in a weeks time watching videos I still can’t decide.

User ID

My 24MP Z is very gradually replacing my 24MP SLR, but for the occasional use I’m retaining a high MP SLR. I would miss it, so I’ll keep it a while.

If I had offloaded the high MP body, then that would have payed for a high MP Z instead of the 24. But I’d rather have the 24 for my usual needs and the separate high MP body for special use.

I have plenty of legacy Nikon and Canon lenses, so I could have chosen either R or Z plus the proper converter. I really chose the Z cuz its thin filter pack is friendlier to my tiny M-mount rf lenses, especially the wide and ultra wide.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Captain Obvious will note that new lenses are not in the offing. Private Pixelpeepa will note that I’ll be failing to “maximize the potential” of the Z. Doctor Sandmann will note that I am not losing any sleep at all over that fact. (Isn’t that *why* they named it “Z” ?!?)

Bill_de Loc: US

[quote=User ID]MDoctor Sandmann will note that I am not losing any sleep at all over that fact.

(Isn’t that *why* they named it “Z” ?!?)[/quote]

That's about the only 'new' information I have seen about the Z camera in a long time!




---

User ID

Humorless for a moment, the major reason I have a Z is the thin filter pack, same 1mm as Leica. Otherwise, it does nothing my other cameras can’t do. I realize Leicas also use a unique approach to the micro lens array, but I’m not into spending an extra $5500 just to cross over into the realm of diminishing returns on $$ spent. The Z already represents $1500 in that direction. IOW my LM lenses could’ve gone onto my Sonys for only $80 if I would just accept Sony’s 2X thicker filter pack. I spent $1500 on a Z, instead of only $80 on a Sony adapter, to buy a rather small visible improvement.

The next step would be an actual $7000 Leica ... which has no IBIS so it’s actually no improvement (actually a serious loss) in the IQ situation. I didn’t assemble a kit of tiny LM lenses just to end up lugging a tripod around !!!!

The secondary reason for the Z is the FTZ adapter. Verrrry secondary. I already have a perfectly serviceable nearly identical adapter that puts the same late model Nikkors onto Sony with the same level of compatibility. I doubt Nikon makes their FTZ in-house. For all we know all the AF adapters to both Z and Sony are from the same subcontractor.