Post by: Kevin Raber on September 02, 2018, 07:41:11 am
Post by: bjanes on September 02, 2018, 08:45:32 am
I just published a Rantatorial on My Thoughts On The New Nikon z6 and z7 Cameras (https://luminous-landscape.com/rantatorial/my-thoughts-on-the-new-nikon-z6-and-z7-cameras/). Wonder why we didn't post anything on this site? I explain.
Kevin,
I read your rantatorial on the new Nikon mirrorless cameras with interest. You state: "• Low-quality kit type of lenses at the introduction"
Did you actually test these lenses and on what basis do you form your opinion? I have yet to see any authoritative tests on these lenses but Diglloyd has posted MTF curves for these lenses and predicts that they should have vey good performance.
Regards,
Bill
Post by: Kevin Raber on September 02, 2018, 08:57:21 am
Post by: jeremyrh on September 02, 2018, 09:17:06 am
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 02, 2018, 10:58:46 am
Kevin,
I read your rantatorial on the new Nikon mirrorless cameras with interest. You state: "• Low-quality kit type of lenses at the introduction"
Did you actually test these lenses and on what basis do you form your opinion? I have yet to see any authoritative tests on these lenses but Diglloyd has posted MTF curves for these lenses and predicts that they should have vey good performance.
Regards,
Bill
Kevin also said: "After looking at and holding the Z6 and Z7 cameras, as well as doing some test shots in a very limited environment, I will hold my judgment." (Italics mine)
As well your quote about "low quality kit lens" is taken out of context. Kevin listed what other people were saying about the lens: Take a look at the chapeau to that item in the list, which states: "I’ll list below what I have read, and if you have been keeping up with the news, these criticisms should not be very surprising:" (Italics mine)
So at least as far as LuLa is concerned, from what I understand here, "the jury is out" on the kit lens, and on the camera's performance in general. I very much share Kevin's perspective that first-hand reviews are the only ones worth paying any attention to. I also believe that a cooperative approach between the developers and the reviewers is good for all provided there is nothing to impair reviewers' objectivity, something which this website takes seriously. The reviewer sits between the developer and the consumers and all three angles need a climate of trust and tolerance to work optimally.
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on September 02, 2018, 11:43:09 am
I do have a question for Kevin though. Where can one purchase a LULA shirt? ;D
Post by: bjanes on September 02, 2018, 11:53:50 am
Kevin also said: "After looking at and holding the Z6 and Z7 cameras, as well as doing some test shots in a very limited environment, I will hold my judgment." (Italics mine)
As well your quote about "low quality kit lens" is taken out of context. Kevin listed what other people were saying about the lens: Take a look at the chapeau to that item in the list, which states: "I’ll list below what I have read, and if you have been keeping up with the news, these criticisms should not be very surprising:" (Italics mine)
Mark,
Thanks for the clarification and accept my apology. I did not read the original post with sufficient care and did not realize that he was merely quoting what others had said. However, Kevin's quoting these sources implied tacit approval of their content.
Regards,
Bill
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 02, 2018, 11:58:42 am
Mark,
Thanks for the clarification and accept my apology. I did not read the original post with sufficient care and did not realize that he was merely quoting what others had said. However, Kevin's quoting these sources implied tacit approval of their content.
Regards,
Bill
You are welcome Bill.
I don't believe quoting a source necessarily implies tacit approval, especially in this context. We may each have a different interpretation of that!
Cheers.
Post by: Kevin Raber on September 02, 2018, 12:16:15 pm
Post by: jeremyrh on September 02, 2018, 02:00:10 pm
To make it clear . . . I was only quoting what I heard and acknowledging that this is the chatter out there. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon I will look carefully at these mentioned items. As I said, Let's Give Nikon A Chance.
I think it would have been more reasonable to quote both positive and negative elements of the "chatter" - by focusing on the negative items you give the impression that you have a bias where Nikon is concerned.
Post by: Ray Harrison on September 02, 2018, 02:37:38 pm
Creates nice images, has some quirks, wish it did something it doesn’t.
Like most reviews. 😊
Post by: davidgp on September 02, 2018, 05:06:05 pm
As far as I can tell, the only folks who had the cameras for longer than an hour may have been DPR and the handful of “ambassadors” Nikon paraded out during the somewhat strange unveiling. Everything else has been fluff pieces (though maybe I’ve missed some others). In the right hands, most cameras in the right hands these days produce stellar images, and since many of them sport Sony sensors (from $500 to $50k machines), much of the experience comes down more to ergonomics, lenses and certainly things like autofocus, video handling, etc. Personal preferences as well. We make a lot of noise about wars, and it can be fun, but really, my guess is that the reviews will be:
Creates nice images, has some quirks, wish it did something it doesn’t.
Like most reviews.
Nikon took a look at Sony marketing strategy and let the people used the cameras for several hours... or at least that it is what I get from some videos I saw... like the ones of Jared Polin... and looks like DPReview had the opportunity to have the camera for several days...
But yes... I usually wait until the camera is in the market and people buys it and use it before taking a decision about buying it... preorder things does not look like a good idea to me...
http://dgpfotografia.com
Post by: D Fuller on September 03, 2018, 07:17:28 pm
I shot a few images with the lens but couldn't keep them. I refer to the feel of the lens compared to the Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens. In my opinion and I believe I stated this that the 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 at launch would have really made a serious difference. Maybe the 24-70 Z mount lens will be able to produce good images. As I read across the web though I do hear otherwise. When we get these cameras and lenses we will shoot with them.
I disagree that nikon should have opened with the f/2.8 zooms. I actually think their lens roadmap is really very smart. Why would you want the Zs to open with the same lenses everyone already has for their DSLRs? It doesn't make sense.
People have been complaining about the size of the Sony GMaster lenses, and how they give away all the size and weight advantages of a mirrorless system. The one complaint about the Leica SL is the size of its zooms (well, then ther's the price) and yet... When Nikon steps in with a a modest sized f4 zoom and two 1.8 primes, people are complaining about that. I don't get it.
I don't want a mirrorless that is just the same as my DSLR but with an EVF. I want a system that gives me something different--something that adds to my toolbox, not something that treads the same water.
Here's what I want: a set of lenses that have better optical quality than my DSLR, and are smaller and lighter, so I can use them in ways that are challenging with a DSLR, on a body that has unquestionable IQ, and very good autofocus for both video and stills.
So what has Nikkon delivered? they've opened with an f/4 zoom and two 1.8 primes that reviewers who have had them in their hands for a day or longer are saying are optically excellent. And within the first year, a full set of 1.8 primes that don't breathe, a 14-30 f/4 zoom and, of course, the 'trinity' in 2.8. But those smaller lenses interest me the most.
Do I have a wish list? Sure. I wish there was a native macro on the roadmap, but I don't know that a macro would benefit from the new mount as much as the aforementioned primes and the wide zoom. And I wish there were tilt/shift lenses on the roadmap; they would certainly benefit from the larger mount.
But overall, with the caveat that the optical quality needs to live up to the early billing, I think I'm going to be very happy.
Post by: BJL on September 03, 2018, 10:15:03 pm
I disagree that nikon should have opened with the f/2.8 zooms. I actually think their lens roadmap is really very smart. Why would you want the Zs to open with the same lenses everyone already has for their DSLRs? It doesn't make sense.My thoughts too. It makes sense that an initial launch with a limited selection of lenses does not try to be everything to everyone from day 1, but instead target a sector of 36x24mm format users most inclined to switch to an EVF. And people seeking a balance between performance and size seems is a good first target.
People have been complaining about the size of the Sony GMaster lenses, and how they give away all the size and weight advantages of a mirrorless system. The one complaint about the Leica SL is the size of its zooms (well, then ther's the price) and yet... When Nikon steps in with a a modest sized f4 zoom and two 1.8 primes, people are complaining about that. I don't get it.
I don't want a mirrorless that is just the same as my DSLR but with an EVF. I want a system that gives me something different--something that adds to my toolbox, not something that treads the same water.
Here's what I want: a set of lenses that have better optical quality than my DSLR, and are smaller and lighter, so I can use them in ways that are challenging with a DSLR, on a body that has unquestionable IQ, and very good autofocus for both video and stills.
...
Anyway, I am a long-time fan of good quality mid-speed lenses, now that far higher ISO speeds are usable than in the past. I would have made it 24-105/4 though: point to Canon there!
Post by: jeremyrh on September 04, 2018, 01:25:29 am
+1 - as you say, the size advantage of mirrorless is lost if you add on a massive lens. The new lenses are reported to be of outstanding quality, so they are the perfect accompaniment to the new small body. The f/4 24-120 is often recommended as the best "walking around" lens for FF Nikon; the new 24-70 would seem to knock it out of the park in all departments.
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2018, 07:22:47 am
Fast lenses would seem to require physical bulk by definition; why expect reality to bend for a new camera?
I think LuLa has steered the wiser course. Better to be slower but more accurate?
Rob
Post by: kers on September 04, 2018, 07:55:44 am
body d850 (1000gr) and 50mm1.8 g (200gr) together 1200gram
body z7/z6 ( 675gr) + 50mm 1.8s ( 400gr) together 1075gram
( nikon had to make a better 1.8 50mm lens for the z series and that weighs 2x more and costs 3x more)
however
body d850 (1000gr) and NIKKOR 24–70mm f/2.8E ED VR ( 1070gr) together 2070 gram
body z7/z6 ( 675gr) +A NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S ( 500gr) together 1175 gram
Post by: bjanes on September 04, 2018, 08:26:04 am
To make it clear . . . I was only quoting what I heard and acknowledging that this is the chatter out there. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon I will look carefully at these mentioned items. As I said, Let's Give Nikon A Chance.
I think this is sound advice. Apparently some of these chatter experts associate f/1.8 and f/4 lenses with consumer grade quality and f/1.4 and f/2.8 lenses with pro lenses. Analysis of Nikon published MTFs for these new lenses as compared with the Nikon published MTFs of Nikon gold ring dSLR indicate that these new S lenses that the new lenses will be outstanding. One such analysis by Nasim Mansurov is here. (https://photographylife.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-nikon-z-lenses?utm_source=Photography+Life+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7f32df246d-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_74d1711c3d-7f32df246d-184072257#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=everything-you-need-to-know-about-nikon-z-lenses)
Of course these MTF results are computer generated from lens design considerations, but there is no reason to think that Nikon is using different methodology in the generation of these MTF curves. It is advisable to await actual testing by reputable authors. Perhaps Roger at lensrentals will test these lenses on his optical bench. One reason to go mirrorless is to get a smaller and more portable system and it makes sense to have high quality f/1.8 and f/4 lenses rather than the f/1.4 and f/2.8 apertures often associated with high grade lenses.
Regards,
Bill
Post by: HSakols on September 04, 2018, 08:32:22 am
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2018, 09:12:24 am
I think this is sound advice. Apparently some of these chatter experts associate f/1.8 and f/4 lenses with consumer grade quality and f/1.4 and f/2.8 lenses with pro lenses. Analysis of Nikon published MTFs for these new lenses as compared with the Nikon published MTFs of Nikon gold ring dSLR indicate that these new S lenses that the new lenses will be outstanding. One such analysis by Nasim Mansurov is here. (https://photographylife.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-nikon-z-lenses?utm_source=Photography+Life+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7f32df246d-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_74d1711c3d-7f32df246d-184072257#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=everything-you-need-to-know-about-nikon-z-lenses)
Of course these MTF results are computer generated from lens design considerations, but there is no reason to think that Nikon is using different methodology in the generation of these MTF curves. It is advisable to await actual testing by reputable authors. Perhaps Roger at lensrentals will test these lenses on his optical bench. One reason to go mirrorless is to get a smaller and more portable system and it makes sense to have high quality f/1.8 and f/4 lenses rather than the f/1.4 and f/2.8 apertures often associated with high grade lenses.
Regards,
Bill
That comes across to me as a bit exclusionary: why should there be some stigma to ownership or desire for fast optics? One of the pleasures of the reflex system is using fast, long lenses and actually enjoying the kick in the focussing of them, the almost tangible pleasure in looking at focus changing as you move the mechanism. Of course, af robs you of that foreplay-like, sensory visual pleasure.
I contend that it does not make sense for a new system to concentrate too rigidly on weight. Doing that at the expense of pratical results, such as the employment of optical effects like very shallow DOF, seems to be a throwing out of Baby along with its dirty bath water. It may not be everybody's wish - I suppose landscape people don't use it much - but they are only a little group of people, just like every other little group or clique.
Great performance from fast glass wide open is good to have, even if not used all the time. I hear no complaints from people with fast telephoto Nikkors. For Canon, it seems to be a boasting point! If you are right, and going mirrorless is largely driven by having nothing more valuable than a smaller sytem, then I think priorities are somewhat adrift somewhere, and mirrorless no holy grail to which it seems worth changing up/down.
But then I'm not a photographic sophisticate: I don't give a flying stuff for MTF curves or any other such statistical value: I care a lot about what allows interesting images to be made. All my life in professional photography, starting back in '60, I never had the slightest idea how my Nikon or Hasseblad lenses rated in graphs. Nobody I knew gave a monkey's. Truth to tell, Normal Parkinson wrote that he refused a new Hassy lens to replace his old silver 150mm one (like mine) because he didn't want to be cruel when he photographed ladies. I don't think anyone, of equal stature today, would criticise his work. As ever, it's the mind and not the technical specs. that make something great. If you are a scientific photographer or a professional architectural one, I imagine your toolbox would be quite different.
Post by: kers on September 04, 2018, 09:49:39 am
I'm personally quite intrigued by a 24-70 f4 lens. I'm the type of shooter who usually uses f11 or f 16. However, it is a bit disappointing to hear how cheaply made it is. I hope it proves itself.i hope this does not mean:
plastic is light & cheap.
metal is heavy & strong.
i don't think so- it is an old fashion idea.
On the other side: we like to have lightweight carbon tripods while in that case weight has a stabilizing function.
There are many different suitable qualities found in plastics, that make them often more suitable than metal.
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on September 04, 2018, 11:14:19 am
EDIT ADDED: If one has a stable of Nikon lenses, the adapter to the Z series makes them all usable (though size and weight may affect the camera's balance.
Post by: D Fuller on September 04, 2018, 12:04:39 pm
My thoughts too. It makes sense that an initial launch with a limited selection of lenses does not try to be everything to everyone from day 1, but instead target a sector of 36x24mm format users most inclined to switch to an EVF. And people seeking a balance between performance and size seems is a good first target.
Anyway, I am a long-time fan of good quality mid-speed lenses, now that far higher ISO speeds are usable than in the past. I would have made it 24-105/4 though: point to Canon there!
Yes. And I could wish for the Leica 24-90 range, but its combination of IQ, focus speed and zoom range make it pretty massive. It balances well on the SL, but the Nikons are significantly smaller cameras.
Post by: D Fuller on September 04, 2018, 12:17:59 pm
That comes across to me as a bit exclusionary: why should there be some stigma to ownership or desire for fast optics? One of the pleasures of the reflex system is using fast, long lenses and actually enjoying the kick in the focussing of them, the almost tangible pleasure in looking at focus changing as you move the mechanism. Of course, af robs you of that foreplay-like, sensory visual pleasure.
Rob, I see no one stigmatizing the desire for fast optics, quite the opposite. Rather, I am reading people calling lenses "crap" or "cheaply made" because they're f/1.8 or f/4.0. That's nonsense! A Leica Noctilux is a wonderful lens, but so is a Sumicron.
Post by: Rob C on September 04, 2018, 02:10:09 pm
Rob, I see no one stigmatizing the desire for fast optics, quite the opposite. Rather, I am reading people calling lenses "crap" or "cheaply made" because they're f/1.8 or f/4.0. That's nonsense! A Leica Noctilux is a wonderful lens, but so is a Sumicron.
" One reason to go mirrorless is to get a smaller and more portable system and it makes sense to have high quality f/1.8 and f/4 lenses rather than the f/1.4 and f/2.8 apertures often associated with high grade lenses.
Regards,
Bill"
Well, we see different things in the same statement, then.
Rob
Post by: D Fuller on September 04, 2018, 09:15:51 pm
" One reason to go mirrorless is to get a smaller and more portable system and it makes sense to have high quality f/1.8 and f/4 lenses rather than the f/1.4 and f/2.8 apertures often associated with high grade lenses.
Regards,
Bill"
Well, we see different things in the same statement, then.
Rob
Well, I guess for my part I'd modify that just a bit to say, "it makes sense to have high quality f/1.8 and f/4 lenses in addition to the f/1.4 and f/2.8 apertures often associated with high grade lenses, and to have them first in a system that targets people who likely own many of the larger, faster lenses already."
Post by: Rob C on September 05, 2018, 03:52:27 am
Well, I guess for my part I'd modify that just a bit to say, "it makes sense to have high quality f/1.8 and f/4 lenses in addition to the f/1.4 and f/2.8 apertures often associated with high grade lenses, and to have them first in a system that targets people who likely own many of the larger, faster lenses already."
That makes perfect political sense!
It highlights the immense advantage to Nikon of keeping onboard the many with an existing armoury of Nikkors, and makes the new body and coming system available to new Nikon buyers at an initially lower cost because of the less-expensive new lenses.
That owners of old Nikkors are tempted does not mean they will not, themselves, upgrade their lenses if they come to believe that the new range is ultimately offering something better.
I wish Nikon well, have been a Nikon user since the F, but have no intentions of buying new cameras because what I do doesn't warrant it. I am already oversupplied with seldom-used goodies. Buying equipment as a collector strikes me as a form of low-level insanity.
Post by: D Fuller on September 05, 2018, 07:55:28 am
That makes perfect political sense!
It highlights the immense advantage to Nikon of keeping onboard the many with an existing armoury of Nikkors, and makes the new body and coming system available to new Nikon buyers at an initially lower cost because of the less-expensive new lenses.
That owners of old Nikkors are tempted does not mean they will not, themselves, upgrade their lenses if they come to believe that the new range is ultimately offering something better.
I wish Nikon well, have been a Nikon user since the F, but have no intentions of buying new cameras because what I do doesn't warrant it. I am already oversupplied with seldom-used goodies. Buying equipment as a collector strikes me as a form of low-level insanity.
Yes, insanity seems to have many faces.
I’m really a perfect customer for these cameras. I own a good set of fast manual Nikkors, and the prior generation of f/2.8 zooms (plus a few other exotic things), and I shoot video. I love the old manual lenses, because of their faults, but the zooms are neither charming nor good enough, so I’m looking to update the modern lenses in any case. I looked hard at the Leica SL and like those lenses a lot, but to get a decent set of lenses for that is just too much money. Enter the Nikon Z.
If the new lenses are as good as people seem to be saying, it works for me on a lot of levels: a leica-sized package for ‘everyday’, the ability to use my old manual F lenses, excellent modern lenses for both still and video, and it should work nicely with my Profoto strobe stuff. If I really like the Z7 camera body, I’ll surely buy the faster lenses in time (not the .95, that’s it’s own take on insanity) I’d like the 50mm 1.2, and we’ll see what else gets released.
Post by: bdbender4 on September 07, 2018, 07:58:25 pm
Thom Hogan, whom I respect regarding all things Nikon (and for his expertise about the overall camera market) has been tearing his hair out about how Nikon's marketing has been basically just not there in many ways in the past few years, as one effect of top-level management cost-cutting.
* * *
Personally, I went from large heavy Canon EF to smaller lighter Fuji X for a number of years, but I got frustrated with the endless Fuji software and firmware updates. (My repeated experience was that, frankly, despite the PR that you hear, they are not very good at it.) So I have also been using a Canon M5 and waiting - for going on two years now - for Canon to release some lenses for that system beyond the consumer convenience level. But it seems clear that the Canon EF-M mount is pretty darn incompatible with the new RF mount, so I think my hopes for EF-M becoming anything more than an "entry level feeder system" will not bear fruit.
My point: looking just at announced specs, for my uses, the Nikon Z6 and lens roadmap interests me more than the Canon RF initial offering. I don't think either company would put out a lousy product. It may not be exactly what one hoped for, but it will do what they say it will do, and will have good ergonomics from their respective decades of experience. I am in a position to order one or the other. Personally I have pre-ordered the Nikon Z6 and f/4 24-70 and am ignoring the youtube shrillness. The 50mm prime looks interesting, as well. I am sure I would be happy with the Canon R and 24-105 plus primes, too, but among other things it is $800 more expensive for something that is pretty equivalent.
Post by: Zathras on September 17, 2018, 01:49:49 pm
Poor kit lens? Not from the MTF charts, or from what real reviewers have seen so far. The other two lenses are being compared to Zeiss Otus lenses in terms of image quality.
Has anyone saying these negative comments, shot the Z cameras at high ISOs and seen how close they compare to the A7Mark III? Essentially, from my view, the differences are negligible.
Poor battery performance. So, real reports I've heard are 1,200 to 1,700 shots per charge. Is that poor performance? My trips to Colombia, Africa, India, and spending time out in the bush, I've been happy with batteries in my Canons lasting for about the same. My 1DX last a long time. But to expect it to go much longer than that? Nope.
It's wise to wait to test and not repeat the hate-generated link baiters on Youtube, etc. Sorry Nikon has ignored you. That's their loss.
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 17, 2018, 10:36:47 pm
I shot a few images with the lens but couldn't keep them. I refer to the feel of the lens compared to the Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens. In my opinion and I believe I stated this that the 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 at launch would have really made a serious difference. Maybe the 24-70 Z mount lens will be able to produce good images. As I read across the web though I do hear otherwise. When we get these cameras and lenses we will shoot with them.
The first result published shows the 24-70 f4 Z to be excellent... it appears to be maching at f4 the best 24-70 f2.8, including the most recent one, the Sony GM. ;D I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the sample images shot at 70mm f4 on the edges... it is simply perfect and 70mm appears to be the weakest focal length.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-nikkor-z-24-70mm-f4-s-review
Talk about cheap kit lenses... the 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 have Otus like MTF charts as well. I have just come across this post that calls the 35mm f1.8 "possibly the best 35mm lens ever on FX"... https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61670158
One major value of mirrorless is compactness. Launching the Z6/Z7 with high quality compact lenses makes perfect sense. Weight is an important part of the equation and that means leveraging the right materials.
Nikon has been very clear about their design objective of the Z system, optical image quality came as the top criteria to the extend that they went through the trouble of speccing a new lensmount and defining a new line of lenses with the S mark... then they simply built the most compact/lightweight possible f1.8 prime/f4 zoom lenses without hurting image quality.
I remember vividly Kevin’s initial reactions to mirrorless cameras in terms of how liberating a lighter kit was.
I have to say that I am surprised by Kevin's current reaction to the Z because knowing his love for Leica, I was expecting him to find the Z to be exactly what he needed.
This is probably also the first time I read an article as LL that starts by a list of all the negative comments made by others about a camera... some of them having been proven since then to be factually wrong btw (the EVF blackout, the actual battery life,...). Why not focus on the many very positive comments made by others, starting by Thom Hogan?
Cheers,
Bernard
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on September 20, 2018, 09:08:22 am
This is probably also the first time I read an article as LL that starts by a list of all the negative comments made by others about a camera... some of them having been proven since then to be factually wrong btw (the EVF blackout, the actual battery life,...). Why not focus on the many very positive comments made by others, starting by Thom Hogan?Unconscious bias because of being snubbed by Nikon? I guess we need to wait and see what Kevin's full scale review is like when he has the camera in hand to see if he is in line with what others have reported.
Cheers,
Bernard
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 20, 2018, 09:24:23 am
Unconscious bias because of being snubbed by Nikon? I guess we need to wait and see what Kevin's full scale review is like when he has the camera in hand to see if he is in line with what others have reported.
To be clear, I have zero issues with Kevin not being super interested in a camera he will probably not add to his line up since he is invested in the excellent Sony a7 system, that's coherent with his clearly stated policy.
But I don't get the negativity about the Z.
And I get even less the 3 articles about the Canon R that Kevin will most certainly not use either and that is even less appealing than the Nikon by a pretty wide margin... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Post by: davidgp on September 20, 2018, 09:37:31 am
And I get even less the 3 articles about the Canon R that Kevin will most certainly not use either and that is even less appealing than the Nikon by a pretty wide margin... ;)
Well, he has the camera in his hands and he is reporting about it... he already said he ordered a copy of Z7... when he gets his hands on it, I'm assuming he will also publish some articles... or maybe just one, since first one was about the event he was invited (like the ones that he does when Sony or other brands invites LuLa), and the third one he had a Canon representative at hand to explain things...
Post by: Manoli on September 20, 2018, 11:53:49 am
... the 3 articles about the Canon R that Kevin will most certainly not use either and that is even less appealing than the Nikon by a pretty wide margin... ;)
Bernard, you crack me up ... :) :) - does it really matter to you THAT much ?
Post by: Rado on September 20, 2018, 01:39:46 pm
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 20, 2018, 05:09:40 pm
It's true, as a Canon user I was planning to buy the R but I don't want to cause Bernard having sleepless nights or nightmares about people using subpar sensors or not having otus-level corner sharpness... so I'll just sell everything I own and get the Z7 instead ;-)
Much appreciated! ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Post by: bjanes on September 20, 2018, 05:15:54 pm
Well, he has the camera in his hands and he is reporting about it... he already said he ordered a copy of Z7... when he gets his hands on it, I'm assuming he will also publish some articles... or maybe just one, since first one was about the event he was invited (like the ones that he does when Sony or other brands invites LuLa), and the third one he had a Canon representative at hand to explain things...
If read the Z7 rantatorial you will see that the Nikon event was not to an exotic location (Las Vegas, Hawaii--Canon and Sony) with all expenses paid plus helicopter tours of the Hoover dam but merely an event at his hometown camera store in Indianapolis. If Nikon flew him to Kyoto with a helicopter ride over Mount Fuji, perhaps his review would be more favorable. I do think Kevin is an honest guy, but goodwill bias could easily creep in.
The situation is similar to that in my own profession, medicine. Freebies from drug companies to doctors have been markedly curtailed in recent years, but studies have shown that gratuities as little as $20 can affect prescribing patterns. See here. (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/free-lunches-pay-drug-companies-study-shows-n595906) I think physicians are no less honest than photographers. We are all human.
Cheers,
Bill
Post by: Christopher on September 21, 2018, 09:04:46 pm
I do understand that there is a huge variation of subjects being photographed and a lot of people love fast glass, however, for me such a camera would be a hiking and traveling camera and I would love to have perfect f4 lenses. It’s a point that made me pissed at Sony all the time, as I didn’t see the point in going mirrorless and than having to put up with their huge 2.8 lenses as their f4 ones are pretty much crap.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Kevin Raber on September 21, 2018, 10:38:44 pm
Post by: Architekt on November 19, 2018, 07:59:59 pm
After reading your article on the New Nikon Z6 and Z7 - thanks for clarifying why we don't see Nikon information posted on Luminous Landscape - and thanks for clarifying you guys are not Sony Fanboys as well - there was a point there were I considered dropping out from the membership. I am a Nikon camera / lens guy who used to be a Canon camera / lens guy. I have high hopes for Nikon future models - never was keen on Sony at all.
Keep up the good work.
Post by: jeremyrh on November 21, 2018, 03:48:12 am
Hi Kevin -
After reading your article on the New Nikon Z6 and Z7 - thanks for clarifying why we don't see Nikon information posted on Luminous Landscape
Your comment reminded me that 2 months after the release of the Z7 we have seen no review on Lula ....
Post by: kers on November 21, 2018, 08:00:12 am
Your comment reminded me that 2 months after the release of the Z7 we have seen no review on Lula ....luckily we have the forum to inform us...
Post by: jeremyrh on November 21, 2018, 09:41:47 am
luckily we have the forum to inform us...
Who said anything about "inform" ?? 8)
Post by: faberryman on November 21, 2018, 10:05:27 am
Your comment reminded me that 2 months after the release of the Z7 we have seen no review on Lula ....Which is fine. There are a hundred reviews and a thousand videos elsewhere.
Post by: kers on November 21, 2018, 11:28:41 am
Which is fine. There are a hundred reviews and a thousand video elsewhere.... as there are of the Canon but then all shot with the same subjects in Hawaii.
My interest is now the upcoming fuji 100MP-
that would be great camera for a LL review.
Post by: faberryman on November 21, 2018, 11:57:02 am
... as there are of the Canon but then all shot with the same subjects in Hawaii.It doesn't matter. You can't tell anything from photos on the web anyway.
Post by: jeremyrh on November 22, 2018, 03:31:25 am
Which is fine. There are a hundred reviews and a thousand videos elsewhere.True enough. But I was looking for more than a review. In the old days I would read with care what Michael had to say about a new camera, and even (occasionally) parted with money largely on the basis of those comments.
But, hey ho, times change.
Post by: Kevin Raber on November 22, 2018, 11:11:33 am