The Z7 specs give the following weight info ... which is helpful up to a point ...
Approx. 1.3 kg (2 lb 13 oz) Camera body only
Approx. 2.4 kg (5 lb 4 oz) Including the Carl Zeiss Lens (VCL-412BWH)
Approx. 2.8 kg (6 lb 3 oz) Including the battery (NP-F570)
Carl Zeiss lens (VCL-412BWH) lens hood with lens cover and microphone (ECM-XM1)

I'm trying to carry a lighter load than my Canon XL2 + adapter+ Canon100-400 lens which adds up to just over 4 kilos, without losing quality. I'm hoping the Z7 can accept such a lens or better.

Questions:
1. What would Z7 weigh if it had a lens attached similar to Canon 100-400 lens ?
2. Any comparisons or comments available on picture quality?

The Z7 specs give the following weight info ... which is helpful up to a point ...
Approx. 1.3 kg (2 lb 13 oz) Camera body only
Approx. 2.4 kg (5 lb 4 oz) Including the Carl Zeiss Lens (VCL-412BWH)
Approx. 2.8 kg (6 lb 3 oz) Including the battery (NP-F570)
Carl Zeiss lens (VCL-412BWH) lens hood with lens cover and microphone (ECM-XM1)

I'm trying to carry a lighter load than my Canon XL2 + adapter+ Canon100-400 lens which adds up to just over 4 kilos, without losing quality. I'm hoping the Z7 can accept such a lens or better.

Questions:
1. What would Z7 weigh if it had a lens attached similar to Canon 100-400 lens ?
2. Any comparisons or comments available on picture quality?

With the biggest battery, a Mike Tapa adapter and a Nikon 80-200 lens, the Z7 is about 3,4 kg. I don't know about the picture quality in comparison with the XL2, but I did have a XH-A1 before and I prefer the colour of the Z7. The sharpness of the XH-A1 is slightly better (more pixels), but as far as overall image quality is concerned, the Z7 wins hands down.

The biggest difference though, in my opinion, are the sturdiness, the finish and the ergonomy: the Z7 is much user friendly than the Canon and the materials are way better. In fact you can see and feel that Sony has a load of experience in making professional video cameras, whereas Canon has a fantastic reputation for lenses and DSLR's, but fails to make a real professional videocamera, with all the controls in the right place. Just my 2 cents, of course...

Thank you Luc.

Is the Mike Tapa essential for Z7? Will my Canon EF Adapter XL not fit?
Any idea of how the reach of Z7 + 80-200 lens would compare with XL2 + 100-400? Would Z7 + Nikon allow me film big birdflight (black stork) at 100metres?

Thank you Luc.

Is the Mike Tapa essential for Z7? Will my Canon EF Adapter XL not fit?
Any idea of how the reach of Z7 + 80-200 lens would compare with XL2 + 100-400? Would Z7 + Nikon allow me film big birdflight (black stork) at 100metres?

Yes, you definitely need the Mike Tapa adapter. The reach of the 80-200 in it's full tele position is the 35mm-equivalent of a 1400 mm lens. So yes, this will allow you to film anything, with a maginifcation that comes close to that of a 30x spotting scope.

Is the Mike Tapa essential for Z7? Will my Canon EF Adapter XL not fit?


I'll second the MTF adapter, cheaper than Sony & lots of people have been happy with it (including myself).

Canon XL series cameras use a Canon mount. Sony Z7 & S270, Panasonic HPX300, and any JVC interchangeable HD camera ALL use the same 1/3" bayonet mount, so you can move lenses back and forth (well, the Zeiss only work on Sony).

.......... The sharpness of the XH-A1 is slightly better (more pixels), but as far as overall image quality is concerned, the Z7 wins hands down.

........... Sony has a load of experience in making professional video cameras, whereas Canon has a fantastic reputation for lenses and DSLR's, but fails to make a real professional videocamera, with all the controls in the right place.

Thanks to both of you for driving on my question and offering thoughtful answers ... may I ask anyone with Z7 and XL2 experience to comment on Luc's two statements above. If others believe he is correct in preferring Z7 I'll be seriously considering buying Z7.

Of course, comparing the Canon XL2 to the Sony HVR-Z7 is not really an honest comparison: the XL2 is Standard Definition while the Z7 is full HD (well, simulated full). Plus: the Z7 is a hybrid camera that records as well to CF-cards as to tape. Big advantage for the XL2 though, is that it is shouldermounted. For someone who has been working with shouldermounted cams, like me, a handheld camera is a pain in the neck. And in the arm. But with some extra accessories, you can make the Z7 shouldermounted, and then it is a superb toy for boys.

So maybe my question should ask for comparisons between the Z7 and XLH1 ... just for image quality, please? (XLH1 is obviously heavier)

So maybe my question should ask for comparisons between the Z7 and XLH1 ... just for image quality, please? (XLH1 is obviously heavier)

I think the XH-A1 is shape-wise the best comparison, and it is also HD.

I think the XH-A1 is shape-wise the best comparison, and it is also HD.

A fair suggestion Luc, thanks.

Interchangeable lens capability gives an advantage to the Z7, but a fully equipped Z7 at 3.4kgs is one kilo heavier than a fully equipped XHA1s. Dragging that extra kilo across a kilometre or 2 of rough ground gets trickier over 70, though I dragged the XL2 and a couple of extra kilos that far last June & back.

That's enough about my love life, let's concentrate on comparing picture quality ...

Has anybody been there and done that already?

Thank you Luc.

Is the Mike Tapa essential for Z7? Will my Canon EF Adapter XL not fit?
Any idea of how the reach of Z7 + 80-200 lens would compare with XL2 + 100-400? Would Z7 + Nikon allow me film big birdflight (black stork) at 100metres?
I am using my Z7 with Sony Alpha 70-300 telephoto lens and I can tell you that fully zoomed-in you can make really nice pictures. I was filming flying black storks appr. from 150 meters and the result was stunning, although focusing is not that easy with this kind of lens. Using Sony adaptor ring the focusing distance shortens to appr. 1,20 m so I can use the lens also for some nice macro close-ups like for example the insects on the flowers without scaring them away. I think with 400mm lens (and Nikon of course) you will get even better results.

Thank you Walter.

I find black stork colours too stark to reveal any plumage detail in flight using my XM2. Even a photo like this with Canon 40D at c. 120 metres is full of black, white and red but it might as well be a cardboard cut-out when compared with the plumage detail on the griffon vulture, which is a bit nearer, say 90 metres

Thank you Walter.

I find black stork colours too stark to reveal any plumage detail in flight using my XM2. Even a photo like this with Canon 40D at c. 120 metres is full of black, white and red but it might as well be a cardboard cut-out when compared with the plumage detail on the griffon vulture, which is a bit nearer, say 90 metres
Hi Brendan,
your pictures are great! Of course it's not easy to see the details of any black feathered bird from such a distance, although I think it depends on what light you get. In my case the bird in the frame was probably twice as big as is yours. But to be honest I didn't see more details in black parts than you did. Anyway I am becoming big fan of shooting with this long lens. The lens is considerably lighter than the original Sony lens so as to the weight I didn't experience any problems.

Any chance of a clip (or a photo) of your black storks, Walter?

I'm sure viewers using Vimeo or the IBC would welcome your Z7 output?

Have you heard anything about Canon 5DMarkII for wildlife video?

Any chance of a clip (or a photo) of your black storks, Walter?

I'm sure viewers using Vimeo or the IBC would welcome your Z7 output?

Have you heard anything about Canon 5DMarkII for wildlife video?

Here are some pictures, screenshots from FCP. I find manual focusing of moving birds (objects) with this lens pretty difficult. I will upload some other shots on Vimeo soon. As to the 5D Mark II I nave no information about wildlife shooting so far.