No, I didn't stick with it, but I gave it a serious try-out for several months. I built a kit of the Z7 + Nikon Z 14-30, 24-70, and (after a wait), 24-200. I also got the TTArtisan 11mm f2.8 fisheye. This is my overall summary of the experience:
- The Nikon Z7's IQ is obviously and demonstrably better when you go peering at the files 1:1 in LR. That I can't deny at all. But, speaking as a pretty standard amateur photographer, I can tell you that apart from such pixel peeking, the Z7 did nothing to improve the practical quality of my images (I do mostly landscapes). By that I mean that on Flickr, Instagram, my on-line portfolio, plus the occasional A2/A3 print, the difference is zero or as near to zero as matters. This is a point that the various bloggers and reviewers really never fully address. Of course, there needs to be some baseline of IQ (since otherwise they'd all be telling us to go and buy MF), but I think for most people FF is overkill.
- The one area where the Nikon's improved IQ should have helped me (esp as a landscape photographer) was DR. But the trouble is that nature often throws DR at us that is beyond even the best FF camera; 12-13 stops of DR compared to 10-11 is nice, but if the scene in front of you is exceeding 16 stops, you're in pretty much the same boat whether you have a Nikon Z7 or an Olympus EM1. So you have to do a multi-shot bracket - and the Oly multi-shot burst is faster and better implemented.
- Once I got past this IQ point, the appeal of the Nikon faded away for me. Compared to Olympus m43, there are a bunch of downsides - slightly bigger, slightly heavier, more expensive, narrower choice of lenses, poorer image stabilisation, bigger files (slower computer), fewer camera features, slower e-shutter readout time, much smaller buffer, more troublesome sensor dust, poor WiFi mobile app, and many more.
- The biggest downside on that list above is the image stabilisation, and the way that it constrains the shooting envelope available (at least for landscapes). The problem is this - you need to stop down FF lenses by 2-stops more to get to optimum optical performance and have the same DOF as m43. Then you can take away another two stops to be using both cameras at their base ISOs (what else for best IQ?). You are now at a 4 stop shutter speed disadvantage compared to FF. But you have an IS system that's probably 2-3 stops behind an Olympus EM1.3 + 12-100. That meant I found myself 6-7 stops nearer to needing a tripod and that made a HUGE difference shooting landscapes in the blue/golden hour. Tripods are not only more weight and bulk, but they compromise the flexibility of shooting.
- I could perhaps have coped with all the above, but the final straw was being pretty disappointed with the 24-200. Now it’s not a bad lens, but it just felt cheap and its IQ, esp at the long end, didn’t match the 24-70 at all. In particular, purple fringing was quite an issue and I had a number of shots where I couldn’t get LR to remove it. On top of that, at 200mm I found the image stabilisation significantly worse than the sync IS on the EM1.2/3 + 12-100 - despite the Nikon lens offering combined lens+body IS too. At this point I decided to return the 24-200 but looking at other options at 200mm, the only real alternative was the 70-200 which is huge, heavy and ££££/$$$$/€€€€.
My conclusion at this point was that the downsides were outweighing the upsides and I couldn’t see a way to get to 200mm that was sufficiently portable. So, I decided to cut my losses and admit my mistake...
Now don't get me wrong, the Nikon Z is a very nice system. If you need the IQ it delivers, need to shoot in low light at high ISO, or demand shallower DOF then it's a great choice. But you need to ask yourself whether you really
need any of those because they come with their own set of compromises and limitations.
