🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/3LqnCuJ 🎁

General opinion would be appreciated.


TPF Noob!
Aug 4, 2021
Reaction score
Hi, I've just joined with the view to learning what I can that I may not already know or be familiar with.

I've been using the following equipment for about 2 years now:
Nikon D750
Nikon 50mm f1.8G
Nikon 200-500 f5.6
Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP macro
Tamron 15-30 F2.8 G2
Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2

A few months ago I also got the Nikon Z5 with 16-50 and 50-250 kit.

At 59 years of age, hip and back ache, gear weight is a factor now so buying the Z50 was a journey into mirrorless and checking to see differences in kit weights and convenience etc.

I am aware that the DSLR kit I have is of decent quality but weight wise it is a chore every time I venture out and feel it when I return home.

There are things I like about both DSLR and Mirrorless but as you are all familiar with, it's hard to find that perfect camera to do everything you want it to do.

I enjoy macro, wildlife, landscape and with my 1st grandchild on the way, portraits must be added to that list.

With the DSLR kit I have, I believe I am well covered for those genres of photography, but I'd like to lighten the load and gain some new tech like a built in long exposure facility up to 15 minutes as in the Nikon Z7 etc and I'd like to attain the ability to do focus stacking as in the Z7 facilities.

So this is my thoughts and the questions.

Would you trade all the above, bar the 200-500mm, the Tamron 90mm macro and the 50mm f 1.8 against a Nikon Z7 or 6ii with 14-30 F4 and 24-200 f4? I'd be lightening the load considerably but still maintaining enough equipment to cover all aspects of the photography I like.

Although the Tamron 90mm macro would become a manual focus, I would have IBIS and focus peaking.

I could cover the same focal lengths as the Tamron 15-30, Tamron 24-70 and Tamron 70-200, but dropping down to F4 compared to F2.8.

With the FTZ adaptor, the 50mm 1.8 could be the go to portrait lens and the 200-500 the wildlife lens.

At a future time, should I find myself going on holiday, I would have the 24-200 lens to cover most things and I could possibly trade the Tamron 90mm and 50mm 1.8 in for the Nikon Z 105 MC to cover the macro and portrait end of things.

What would your views be if you found yourself in my position?

Grin and bear the weight as long as physically possible, or cast that weight off with the loss of better glass?

Thanks in advance.

actually my photography buddy has Z50 with 16-50+50-250 and it's superlightweight and pretty enough if you're shooting outside and you don't need to use f/2.8 fast lenses .. I love that camera myself, it's the most lightweight set which gives excellent IQ (Image Quality) ..

if you need occasionally fast (f2.8) lenses I'd stick with FTZ and what you have .. I don't see a point to just do a step back (and torture your budget anyway) and buy f4 lenses for Z7 when you already have great lenses in f2.8

that's my opinion ..

cheers and good light !!!

ps. ultimate answer is, if you can afford that, if it's easy for you just go and burn the pile of the money and buy z7 with f4 if you feel that you will like that ...

pps. I am recovering two years already from severe crash on ski so I can feel your pain, me myself also tend to consider if I should buy some other camera and other lenses and other gear that I already have and that Z50 with 16-50++50-250++FTZ is one of primary choices for me (also Z5) but yet I usually find myself to overcome the issue by just thinking before going out and taking the gear that I need for planned photos instead of everything and it works for me
Thanks for your reply!

I've weighed so many things up, the pros and cons, on paper and in my head and your opinion was in the mix there too, for all the same reasons.

Planning ahead would and could simplify a trip out with the camera on many levels.

With the Z50 I could use the F mount f2.8 glass more frequently and gain that extra focal length, so there are possibilities there.

In my head I'm thinking the Z7 EVF would be on a par or similar to the OVF in the D750 in comparison to the EVF in the Z50.

That is one thing I am not overly in favour of on the camera and the Z7 would give me more possibilities as regards cropping.

I guess more experience will teach me more about composition as I have a tendency of framing an image and even though I think it looks good, 50% + of the time I crop it, and cropping a Z7 45mp image would allow me to still get good size quality prints, in all landscape, wildlife and macro shots.

I definitely need to have more thought on composition when I'm shooting and if I got that right, maybe the Z50 would fulfil most of my needs if I can get used to the EVF, that would leave open the possibility of just selling on the heavier glass and D750??
Decisions, decisions.....
You don't have to carry portrait or wide angle shooting wild life. One body with a lens attached and maybe one or two primes more should suffice for any shoot it sounds like you do. I just lightened my load, mirrorless, no I went sensorless with a nikon fm2n film body and a 50 mm pancake lens. For walk abouts I can add a 35 mm 2.0 zeiss and on occasion an 85 or 135. I just did a 4 hr street shoot and had the one body and the 35. Never felt like I missed any shots. My high res scans from the lab are huge so can crop alot or if I use a d850, I can crop 3/4 of the shot and still have the 12 mp of my d700 that I still shoot. I was out of high school before you were born but am training for one more bodybuilding competiton, but strength isn't what is need to haul gear long hours, stamina is. I sometimes leave the film 35 bodies home and put on a back pack with a 10 lb medium format film camera with one extra lens, one extra film back and a meter. The back pack makes it like it isn't there. Primes are not only lighter than zooms, but with single digit elements, have way better image quality. As an old guy, a 35, 85 and 135 were traditional with a 50 mm gap between them. That's about a step or 2 backward or forwards. I could shoot 90 percent of my photos with those 3. Might have been nice to pack a 24-70, 50, 58, 100 or 180, but unless I have a serpa bearer, I'm not humping all that glass myself.
I think it would stand to reason that I don't carry anything when shooting wildlife other than the D750 or Z50, the 200-500 and the monopod, to bring anything else would be beyond reasonable thinking.

One thing I definitely do not want to do is use film. I have two 35mm but they are obsolete in my use.

Good for you that you can do body building but strength and stamina, good as they are and rightfully so, having physical problems with two hips and 2 lower back vertebrae negates any possibility of me having either in my lifetime again and zoom lenses are more practical for landscape and I don't do street photography that attracts the use of prime lenses.

Most reactions