Anyone try this camera Nikon Z7 II?

I have not.

But, from past experience with cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony.

The higher the resolution the better for wildlife.

And all of the above cameras gave me excellent results.

And of course the quality of the lenses.

Currently my favorite is the Sony a7R with the 60MP sensor.

I use the Sony 200-600 lens. Sometimes with the 2X converter.

Thank you I appreciate your opinion.

While I use Canon cameras, I don't see any reasons why a Z7 II won't work for wildlife photography. Watch the "comparison" videos at "youtube" to get an idea what eye focus and tracking does with new cameras.

Also, you would have to decide what type of wildlife you want to photograph, from birds in flight to very large animals. For large animals up close you won't need long telephotos. For example moose in my backyard out 20-25 yards away can be photographed using lenses of 40-50mm. Farther than that, I could use one of my zoom lenses from 100-200mm or longer.

If you are photographing very small birds that are relatively close, a zoom lens of perhaps 100-500mm is a good choice as long as it still can focus within a few feet from the camera. For example, one of the Canon lenses I have (Rf 100-500mm) I can focus it as close as 3 feet from me to take photos like this one at 500mm, which is not bad for a non-macro lens:


Or this one of a crab apple:


I am still using all my older Canon lenses with a new mirrorless camera that has a different lens mount. This is possible by using a Canon R adapter, and I believe you can do the same with the new Nikon mirrorless cameras, since Nikon produces an adapter for using older Nikon lenses.

I used an older lens with my new camera for this photo. However, I still use two more Canon cameras that are quite old now. Regardless of gear used, it is the person behind the camera that matters the most. A famous macro photography person who goes by the name "Lord V" uses relatively inexpensive cameras. He even builds some of his flash hoods and things like that.


These are some of the macro photos Lord V takes. While not wildlife photography, his photos are nothing by amazing:
https://lordv.smugmug.com

Thank you! I appreciate your comments which are educational.

IMHO the lenses you can afford will make a big difference in wildlife photography. Getting close to animals in a wild setting, while lugging around huge and heavy lenses and cameras, is for me a challenge. I think I would prefer the lightest lens with the longest reach for most situations. I have a Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 and a Nikkor 200-500 mm f/5.6 which I use with a D850 body and a monopod. I lugged these around Yellowstone National Park on a couple of all-day hikes and felt the pain.

Canon and Sony have excellent telephoto lenses, but so does Nikon. When weight and bulk are primary consideration Nikon does have a couple of PF category lenses which no other lens maker has yet put on the market. While maybe not as good as the "exotics" in some conditions, which are also exotic in price, they do have excellent optics.

Here is one of the many reviews of the 500mm. I have tried out the 300mm version, which a fellow AR member had on a road trip we took together, and found it excellent.

https://www.outdoorphotographe...00mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-v/

On a Z camera body you will need the FTZ adaptor, but that's not a big deal considering the advantages of weight and bulk. There will certainly be some who will wait for a Z lens mount PF class of lens to be produced, someday. But that's "someday".



As you may know, getting up close and personal with a pronghorn is not an easy thing.



My D850 wouldn't have any advantage over a Z7II for these pictures. But a Nikon Z9 would beat them both, at a price of course.

Love the actual examples showing the quality!