Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Alan Goldhammer on January 17, 2019, 09:25:55 am
-
Since the old and lengthy Nikon Z thread was locked, I've created one that can be used to discuss (I hope) things related directly to the cameras. I just got my Z 6 last week and have been slowly going through the manual just to make sure that I know what the major differences are from the D810. One thing that was curious is that there is no cable release socket. I assume that if one is doing tripod shooting that in addition to turning off the IBIS, one would simply use the shutter delay button. I wonder if the omission of this is related in any way to weather proofing that that everyone just uses shutter delay (I've used both in the past on DSLRs).
I'm pretty darn impressed with the build and feel of the camera and it's just the right weight for travel.
-
There are at least two, and perhaps as many as four ways to remote release a Z7 (presumably a Z6 as well) besides the self-timer (which works just fine, and is my usual method).
If it's paired to your phone, SnapBridge has a shutter button, which works reliably (it's WiFi, so the range is pretty good, and it works from any side of the camera). I've used this, and it works.
It does have a remote socket - it's just not the one you're looking for. It takes Nikon's MC-DC2 remote (like the consumer cameras) rather than the pro-style 10-pin remote. I've never used it, but it's the odd little socket under the HDMI port. Plenty of cheap alternatives to the Nikon cord, some with intervalometers and the like. There are also radio triggers that fit that port.
It may well also fire from the USB port and/or the mic jack - many cameras do... I haven't tried either one.
-
...If it's paired to your phone, SnapBridge has a shutter button, which works reliably (it's WiFi, so the range is pretty good, and it works from any side of the camera). I've used this, and it works.
...
but it takes some time (minute) to pair it...
after that is the contact steady? and what about battery life ?
Because if you should on location you want to pair it only once...and not think about it again
-
There are at least two, and perhaps as many as four ways to remote release a Z7 (presumably a Z6 as well) besides the self-timer (which works just fine, and is my usual method).
self-timer is my usual method also
It does have a remote socket - it's just not the one you're looking for. It takes Nikon's MC-DC2 remote (like the consumer cameras) rather than the pro-style 10-pin remote. I've never used it, but it's the odd little socket under the HDMI port. Plenty of cheap alternatives to the Nikon cord, some with intervalometers and the like. There are also radio triggers that fit that port.
Aha, the explanation is on page 184 of the user's manual and I had not read that far!!! ;D I was looking on the outside of the camera body. Unfortunately, my existing MC-30A won't be usuable on this camera. I doubt it has any resale value at all and if anyone wants one PM me and I'll send it via post for free.
-
I have the Z7, and I would like to be able to see the level and the histogram without having to press buttons.
-
self-timer is my usual method also
Aha, the explanation is on page 184 of the user's manual and I had not read that far!!! ;D I was looking on the outside of the camera body. Unfortunately, my existing MC-30A won't be usuable on this camera. I doubt it has any resale value at all and if anyone wants one PM me and I'll send it via post for free.
Note that on Z cameras the self-timer resets to the single frame release mode whenever you turn off the camera or when it enters the standby mode. If you select self-timer the standby time is automatically increased by 2 minutes.
An alternative is to use exposure delay (d4) instead of self-timer as d4 setting does not change when the camera turns off.
-
but it takes some time (minute) to pair it...
after that is the contact steady? and what about battery life ?
Because if you should on location you want to pair it only once...and not think about it again
You pair the Z camera with the phone only once, and you do not need to do it again unless you explicitly unpair the device.
The reconnect (after the camera is turned on, or awaken from standby) is quick and reliable.
Snapbridge works very well with iOS (have no experience with Android). I may need to restart Bluetooth or the app manually if I have not connected the phone with the camera for a longer time.
During a day of shooting, the reconnect time is about 6 seconds. I use Snapbridge to geotag my images. My Z 7 has Bluetooth always on and I do not see any impact on battery life (Z cameras have Smart Ready/Low Energy Bluetooth).
-
Adapters exist to connect MC-30 type remote releases to the consumer accessory terminal standard (MC-DC2). It's almost certainly NOT worth it for a regular remote trigger - a consumer type trigger is cheaper than the adapter. B+H has the Nikon version for $27 and a copy for $8. Even fairly decent (Phottix, etc.) intervalometer triggers are under $50 in MC-DC2 interface.
Where it might be worth looking into an adapter cable or a cable from the interface on your device straight to MC-DC2, is if you have something other than a straight remote trigger. It's worth keeping an expensive radio trigger, high-end intervalometer or "break-beam" trigger (wildlife camera) that uses the MC-30 standard, or some MC-30 accessory other than a trigger. Many of these devices have replaceable cables and are designed to work with multiple camera brands -anything that has a replaceable cable probably has an MC-DC2 option.
-
I wonder how is the focus between Z6 and Z7. I got the Z7 thinking it will have an advantage and to fulfill my crave for more pixels but now that I have more pixels I realize I rarely need that many so a Z6 is a better value if all else is equal.
-
I wonder how is the focus between Z6 and Z7. I got the Z7 thinking it will have an advantage and to fulfill my crave for more pixels but now that I have more pixels I realize I rarely need that many so a Z6 is a better value if all else is equal.
I haven’t tried the Z6 yet, but it has some clear advantages:
- deeper buffer
- better video specs
- possibility better AF but reports aren’t very conclusive on this.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Z7 has more focus pixels so if the Z6 has a better focus performance is it a problem of processing power (easier to deal with less pixels) or algorithm?
-
Z7 has more focus pixels so if the Z6 has a better focus performance is it a problem of processing power (easier to deal with less pixels) or algorithm?
My guess would be the power consumption resulting from processing power, but I could be totally wrong. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My guess would be the power consumption resulting from processing power, but I could be totally wrong. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Since the Z 6 has fewer pixels than the Z 7 (almost half as many) it makes sense that the focus of the Z 6 will sample a smaller number of pixels. The Z7 incorporates 493 PDAF AF points on its sensor, while the Z6 offers 273 – still a healthy amount when you consider some of the competition. Coverage on both cameras is still around 90% across the vertical and horizontal stretch of the frame. Looking at the math, there is pretty much equivalent number of pixels sampled as a % of the total.
-
Since the Z 6 has fewer pixels than the Z 7 (almost half as many) it makes sense that the focus of the Z 6 will sample a smaller number of pixels. The Z7 incorporates 493 PDAF AF points on its sensor, while the Z6 offers 273 – still a healthy amount when you consider some of the competition. Coverage on both cameras is still around 90% across the vertical and horizontal stretch of the frame. Looking at the math, there is pretty much equivalent number of pixels sampled as a % of the total.
Then my question remains, is it because it's easier to process fewer focusing pixels or something else? That is if the Z6 focus is indeed better.
-
I see that the Northrups - Ken Rockwell for the YouTube generation - have another hatchet job on the Z series on their channel. I must be doing something wrong as my photos keep being in focus.
-
I see that the Northrups - Ken Rockwell for the YouTube generation - have another hatchet job on the Z series on their channel. I must be doing something wrong as my photos keep being in focus.
No one makes any money on YouTube by saying the camera is fine, no problems and if your photography still sucks it’s ypur own fault. And that’s actually most of the story
On top of that auto focus is actually tricky and while it’s works well it requires some skill to know what settings to engage under what conditions to achieve the best results.
-
No one makes any money on YouTube by saying the camera is fine, no problems and if your photography still sucks it’s ypur own fault. And that’s actually most of the story
On top of that auto focus is actually tricky and while it’s works well it requires some skill to know what settings to engage under what conditions to achieve the best results.
Very true.
I shot the Z7 in a dream village in South of France this weekend and boy... it is just perfect for that kind of shooting.
Lenses were 19mm T/S, 50mm f1.8 S and 105mm f1.4.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Firmware day in Nikon Z land. Some minor issues for those patches. The "big FW update" will come later in the year.
Z7 FW update C:Ver.1.03 >>>> https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/314.html
Z6 FW update C:Ver.1.01 >>>> https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/315.html
Happy patching !
-
Eye AF and improved low-light AF slated for May, apparently, with CFExpress support coming later.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/2961478322/nikon-announces-development-of-new-firmware-for-z6-and-z7
-
I'll probably wait for the big update. I don't experience the current issues and I'd rather not risk breaking the cameras while traveling.
I found that it works well not to update the firmware unless I experience the issues that it's fixing or I really want the added features.
-
Normally firmware updates include bug fixes and other items that are not stated or disclosed. For example, Adobe says in the release notes that unreported items are not listed even if they have fixes in the update.
I updated firmware for my Z6 the day it was released and it has worked perfectly.
-
Got to use the Z7 more extensively over the last couple of weeks and I had lots of comments, now I seem to have forgotten most :D
Either way, I'll add some as I start recalling.
1. Exposure compensation resets after the camera is shut down; while it has some value in some situations I would rather not do it or at least give me the possibility to choose.
2. I would like to be able to combine AE bracketing with focus shift, I'm not sure but I don't think it's possible.
3. An articulating screen a la Fuji X-T2/X-T3 would be much appreciated. I did some handheld shot at wide angle where I had to get it done fast and I choose the Fuji often because in portrait mode I can easily see it. Situation like wet/muddy ground, rained/splashed upon or too many people around so I had to frame and take the shots fast (another reason to choose the Fuji was the wider lens and the margin for error if I didn't get the framing entirely right)
4. Working with Snapbridge for the first time wasn't very fulfilling; I didn't have time to work out the problems but in one of them it would only allow me to use ISO100 or 25600 ???
-
Got to use the Z7 more extensively over the last couple of weeks and I had lots of comments, now I seem to have forgotten most :D
Either way, I'll add some as I start recalling.
1. Exposure compensation resets after the camera is shut down; while it has some value in some situations I would rather not do it or at least give me the possibility to choose.
<snip>
Check custom setting b2. It is likely set to "On (Auto reset)". By changing it to either "On" or "Off" the EC will not be reset when the camera is shut down. I highly recommend Thom Hogan's ebook "Complete Guide to the Nikon Z7 and Z6".
-
I highly recommend Thom Hogan's ebook "Complete Guide to the Nikon Z7 and Z6".
+1
Even if you are totally familiar with Nikon DSLRs there are enough differences in the Z series that might catch one by surprise. Hogan's guide is extremely valuable in this regard.
-
As much as I love my Z 24-70 f4 S, it does suffer from complex distorsion that C1 Pro is unable to correct.
I was very pleasantly surprised by the results I have gotten from DxO Photolab 2.
I had not used DxO much recently and was never in love with the colors and look previous versions used to produce. Probably a profiling issue.
PL2 has improved this in a major way. wow. And we still have the best in class optical correction as well as the Nik control points that have been improved further.
DxO may become my raw converter of choice.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As much as I love my Z 24-70 f4 S, it does suffer from complex distorsion that C1 Pro is unable to correct.
I was very pleasantly surprised by the results I have gotten from DxO Photolab 2.
I had not used DxO much recently and was never in love with the colors and look previous versions used to produce. Probably a profiling issue.
PL2 has improved this in a major way. wow. And we still have the best in class optical correction as well as the Nik control points that have been improved further.
DxO may become my raw converter of choice.
Cheers,
Bernard
You could also convert the NEF file to TIFF in Capture NX-D and then use it in C1.
The main reason why I have not bought C1 is the lack of support for some of my cameras (Z 7, X1D).
-
You could also convert the NEF file to TIFF in Capture NX-D and then use it in C1.
The main reason why I have not bought C1 is the lack of support for some of my cameras (Z 7, X1D).
I suppose I could yes. How do you find the NX-D files?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I suppose I could yes. How do you find the NX-D files?
Cheers,
Bernard
As I am a relatively happy user of Adobe products, I have not spent much time with Capture NX-D. In theory, Nikon's software should have best raw converters for Nikon cameras.
-
A question rather than a comment or issue.
Does the AA filter in the Z6 make much difference to image sharpness when compared to the lack of an AA filter in the Z7?
-
A question rather than a comment or issue.
Does the AA filter in the Z6 make much difference to image sharpness when compared to the lack of an AA filter in the Z7?
I have found a discussion on this question here (https://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/65728-z7-z6-z7-z6.html)
-
I have found a discussion on this question here (https://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/65728-z7-z6-z7-z6.html)
As with much, it appears to me to be entirely subjective in response; there's only ever going to be one worthwhile method to evaluate, and you already know what it is: buy your local Nikon dealer man a drink, and try out both cameras.
But hey, you also know that it is your input that matters most every time in any art. I am sure your work will still be top drawer, as in the past, whatever camera you adopt. Can either of us afford the time to worry about cameras of all things?
I'm older than you, and what I have discovered, despite my original objections to it, is that af is pretty essential for my state of vision; stabilisation matters not to me - if anything, I find too much crispness (yes, I believe it exists) to be a bit of a mood killer. As for having the camera do sharpening, not on your life: I need to be in control of those things, hence my digital experience has always been to turn everything as manual as I can. The computer is a more relaxed forum for making such decisions which, anyway, may only be required - or be useful - in tiny areas of a frame. It's not coincidence that makes me think good film results look more pleasing than too critically crisp digital ones of similar things.
There's one good street shooter here who, in my view, shoots himself in the foot by sometimes turning his work into 4x5 lookalikes, thus killing the very essence of "street" which is something that needs the impression of what HC-B called à la sauvette. Crewdson is not street.
:-)
-
As with much, it appears to me to be entirely subjective in response; there's only ever going to be one worthwhile method to evaluate, and you already know what it is: buy your local Nikon dealer man a drink, and try out both cameras.
But hey, you also know that it is your input that matters most every time in any art. I am sure your work will still be top drawer, as in the past, whatever camera you adopt. Can either of us afford the time to worry about cameras of all things?
I'm older than you, and what I have discovered, despite my original objections to them, is that af is pretty essential for my state of vision; stabilisation matters not to me - if anything, I find too much crispness (yes, I believe it exists) to be a bit of a mood killer. As for having the camera do sharpening, not on your life: I need to be in control of those things, hence my digital experience has always been to turn everything as manual as I can. The computer is a more relaxed forum for making such decisions which, anyway, may only be required - or be useful - in tiny areas of a frame. It's not coincidence that makes me think good film results look more pleasing than too critically crisp digital ones of similar things.
There's one good street shooter here who, in my view, shoots himself in the foot by sometimes turning his work into 4x5 lookalikes, thus killing the very essence of "street" which is something that needs the impression of what HC-B called à la sauvette. Crewdson is not street.
:-)
Over the last 60 years it has been my experience that the camera in hand has had some influence on my choice of subject. Of course part of that is the suitability of a specific camera to a specific subject but the choice has also influenced how I feel about and interact with the subject which in turn whets my appetite for the genre.
You know and I know that I have never and will never buy a camera in the hopes it'll make me a better image maker. As far as image qualities are concerned I'll use a camera lens combination that is capable of delivering those qualities. If I want a particular part of an image to be sharp then sharp it will be and the converse will apply.
I have eyesight issues, cataract developing in one eye and macular degeneration in the other. As much as I love using my rangefinder cameras and will continue doing so I realise that there are situations when I need some help, hence AF. I've always valued utter simplicity in a camera and will continue to do so. I've always researched any possible new camera purchases thoroughly and have made quite sure that they meet my needs before buying. Happily, now, much of this process can be achieved before the ultimate test of having that camera in hand: it's probably why I've yet to make a mistake. Long may that continue.
-
Over the last 60 years it has been my experience that the camera in hand has had some influence on my choice of subject. Of course part of that is the suitability of a specific camera to a specific subject but the choice has also influenced how I feel about and interact with the subject which in turn whets my appetite for the genre.
You know and I know that I have never and will never buy a camera in the hopes it'll make me a better image maker. As far as image qualities are concerned I'll use a camera lens combination that is capable of delivering those qualities. If I want a particular part of an image to be sharp then sharp it will be and the converse will apply.
I have eyesight issues, cataract developing in one eye and macular degeneration in the other. As much as I love using my rangefinder cameras and will continue doing so I realise that there are situations when I need some help, hence AF. I've always valued utter simplicity in a camera and will continue to do so. I've always researched any possible new camera purchases thoroughly and have made quite sure that they meet my needs before buying. Happily, now, much of this process can be achieved before the ultimate test of having that camera in hand: it's probably why I've yet to make a mistake. Long may that continue.
Cataracts exist in both my personal optics; if only it were as naturally simple to reproduce a controlled version of what I can sometimes see, depending on lighting, via that device called camera.
When I was working, Nikon and 'blad turned me into two quite different photographers - it really was that radical. Nikon had me doing a jumping jack flash number (singer Margaret Savage called me that) and the 'blad turned me into Barry Lategan (I wish!) in the sense that I went tripod. I'm glad I never bought my own 8x10.
Regarding making mistakes: mine was to swap the best 6x6 in the world for 6x7 just as digital was starting to hit the stock world.
:-)
-
Cataracts exist in both my personal optics; if only it were as naturally simple to reproduce a controlled version of what I can sometimes see, depending on lighting, via that device called camera.
Rob -- you do know, for most people, that can be easily fixed? My mother had her cataracts removed when she was in her middle eighties and got back to (what she said was) sharp vision.
I think the reign of sharpness is coming to a close for many photographic artists. Sharpness is fascist. Gotta go with the glance and the impression.
-
Rob -- you do know, for most people, that can be easily fixed? My mother had her cataracts removed when she was in her middle eighties and got back to (what she said was) sharp vision.
I think the reign of sharpness is coming to a close for many photographic artists. Sharpness is fascist. Gotta go with the glance and the impression.
What do glace and impression have to do with sharpness or a lack thereof?
-
What do glance and impression have to do with sharpness or a lack thereof?
About everything. It's a whole different way of seeing. The Impressionist painters (at least some of them) had no problems drawing and painting in highly realistic styles, but they didn't, by choice. They left you with an impression, what you got whacked with when you came across a beautiful scene, and were never much interested in ultimate sharpness. The same with glances (which are rapid and not entirely coherent) and B&W images, which are abstractions of what our eyes see (assuming you have color vision.)
To talk about glance, assume you came across what you believed was about to become a police shooting, and you only have a cell phone, and you're worried about several things -- your own safety and the safety of somebody who might be with you, how to get to safety (maybe you're running,) getting the photo, pushing the button at the right instant, etc. Assuming you do all of that, or most of it, the final photo is going to reflect all of that -- haste, danger, etc., and it's going to feel much more real (IMHO) than if you had a DSLR set up on a tripod and got the shot, because the DSLR shot wouldn't reflect any of that.
-
I think the reign of sharpness is coming to a close for many photographic artists. Sharpness is fascist. Gotta go with the glance and the impression.
Indeed. Very well put!
I believe that the look of lenses falls into this as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Rob -- you do know, for most people, that can be easily fixed? My mother had her cataracts removed when she was in her middle eighties and got back to (what she said was) sharp vision.
I think the reign of sharpness is coming to a close for many photographic artists. Sharpness is fascist. Gotta go with the glance and the impression.
Hi John,
Yes, thanks for the thought, I've been having regular eye-checks through the local medical services; the problem is that there is a long queue. My last visit to the GP resulted in him filling in yet another request form, adding that I was in the second stage of urgency, which is not yet desperate, but a step above just kicking tyres. When his receptionist fed the form into the computer, instead of the hoped for appointment, she got the usual "they will call you" result, which means not a lot's gonna happen real soon.
I suspect that they are combining two reservations: my age; the fact that a bad, no-deal Brexit will limit the time period during which Spain is responsble for providing medical treatment to Brits. Private health we abandoned eleven years ago when my wife discovered, in an emergency, just how good the state medical service was compared with the private.
So I guess I have little option but to sit and wait to see what happens. (I should manage that!)
On the art side, yes, literalism is not what it was. As with everything photographic, there are no real rules that cover all situations. I guess I'm just naturally drawn to less obvious - if I can get away with it.
Rob
-
Rob,
We should start a thread in the coffee corner or whatever that's called now, about the effects of Brexit on UK citizens living in Europe. I find the whole Brexit thing both befuddling and fascinating...not to say completely f***in' nuts. The health care aspects had never occurred to me.
-
Interesting interview with Nikon engineers on imaging-resource...
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/03/29/mount-wars-z-mount-really-does-help-lens-design-and-af-nikon-tech-interview
-
I notice that DXOMark have at long last released their test results for the Z6 and Z7. The results are surprising. At the nominated ISOs of 200 (in practice a bit lower, such as ISO 140 or 150), the Z7 has at least 2/3rds of a stop lower dynamic range than the Nikon D850. Above ISO 200 the DR is about the same for both cameras. Below ISO 200, the DR still favours the D850.
The results for the Z6 are even more puzzling. At the nominated ISO of 800, the DR of the Z6 is about 1/2 stop better than its own DR at ISO 400. In other words, if you're concerned about noise in the shadows and are using an ISO setting of 400 that allows an ETTR shot at the appropriate shutter speed for the scene at the appropriate aperture, then increasing ISO to 800 whilst doubling the shutter speed to avoid blowing the highlights, will result in noticeably less noise in the shadows.
Also, at ISO 800 and above, the DR of the 24 mp Z6 is around 2/3rds to 1/2 a stop better than both the D810 and Z7, which are 45 mp cameras. If this was DR at the pixel level, it would make more sense, but it's 'downsized' DR at equal print size.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-Z7-versus-Nikon-Z6-versus-Nikon-D850___1270_1269_1177
-
On the Z7 I can't seem to get Electronic First Curtain setting to stick - Enabled - when adding to user settings U2. When I turn the camera off and then restart it reverts back to Electronic First Curtain - Disabled.
TIA
-
That DXOMark data right around ISO 200 almost looks like a measurement error? Photons to Photos shows no sign of the dip around ISO 200 in the Z7's DR. In the Photons to Photos data, the Z7 and D850 are right on top of each other at every ISO (as they should be - it's pretty much the same sensor).
Usually, DXO just looks like a shifted version of Photons to Photos - they have different noise thresholds, so DXO consistently comes up with something like a stop and a half more DR on every camera (the difference varies a bit by resolution, perhaps because of DXO's downsizing), but the curve shapes are the same.
In the case of the Z7/D850, they're within a couple tenths of a stop of each other (within measurement error) at every ISO in the Photons to Photos data, but the Z7 has a 2/3 stop dip right around ISO 200 in DXO's data...
-
On the Z7 I can't seem to get Electronic First Curtain setting to stick - Enabled - when adding to user settings U2. When I turn the camera off and then restart it reverts back to Electronic First Curtain - Disabled.
TIA
Perseverance pays.
Done!
-
Looks like we’ll get the eye AF + raw video firmware on 16-May.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That DXOMark data right around ISO 200 almost looks like a measurement error? Photons to Photos shows no sign of the dip around ISO 200 in the Z7's DR. In the Photons to Photos data, the Z7 and D850 are right on top of each other at every ISO (as they should be - it's pretty much the same sensor).
Usually, DXO just looks like a shifted version of Photons to Photos - they have different noise thresholds, so DXO consistently comes up with something like a stop and a half more DR on every camera (the difference varies a bit by resolution, perhaps because of DXO's downsizing), but the curve shapes are the same.
In the case of the Z7/D850, they're within a couple tenths of a stop of each other (within measurement error) at every ISO in the Photons to Photos data, but the Z7 has a 2/3 stop dip right around ISO 200 in DXO's data...
I doubt that DXO would publish something of this nature if it were an error, because it is such an obvious deviation from the usual trend in DR graphs. The DXO team are experienced scientists. They would surely notice the anomaly and recheck the data before publishing.
The more likely explanation, as you've mentioned, is the difference in the noise thresholds that are considered to be relevant for the average photographer. 'Photon to Photos' apparently exclude the DR data below a certain threshold which they consider to be photographically irrelevant (ie. not nice), so they are applying a subjective element.
DXOMark give you the full 'Engineering Dynamic Range', which I prefer because sometimes I want to see the detail in the noisy shadows.
The knowledge that the deep shadows at ISO 400 (with the Z7) will be just as detailed as the same deep shadows in an ISO 200 shot using half the shutter speed, could be useful in certain circumstances.
Of course, the ISO 200 shot will have better SNR at 18%, so that is always a consideration. However, when one makes a decision to use ISO 400 instead of ISO 200 it is presumably because one considers the shutter speed at ISO 200 to be too slow for an optimally sharp image, and one is prepared to sacrifice potentially lower noise for the sake of a potentially sharper image. The knowledge that deep shadow detail will not be affected, with the Z7, could result in one using ISO 400 more often, resulting in a greater number of sharper images.
It would be interesting if someone who owns a Z7 could do a comparison at ISO 200 and 400, shooting a scene with an exceptionally high DR, then raising the shadows in ACR and Photoshop.
-
What RAW software are folks here using with the Z NEF files?
Preferably I'd like to use Adobe Photoshop CC - using CS6 at the moment - but there are known conflicts between this and Dreamweaver CS6 on the same machine and I'm not about to pay for both. Anyone here running both successfully? Perhaps this is a question I need to ask of the RAW software section here?
I've tried Nikon Capture NX-D but it's not to my liking. I particularly dislike working with images against a black background.
Anyone here using DXO Photolab 2?
So many questions.
-
Thus far I have been using either Lightroom Classic CC or PS CC 2019. My version of PS CS6 will not open the Z7 RAW files. While I think Capture NX-D does a decent job of converting the files the user interface as well as the slow speed are terrible. I've been of the opinion for many years Nikon should get out of the software business and let other companies deal with this end of the equation.
That said many people believe Capture One is the be all end all, I'm not one of those.
-
I've been of the opinion for many years Nikon should get out of the software business and let other companies deal with this end of the equation.
Nikon needs to offer some software to demosaic its RAW files without having to buy a third party program. It is doing the minimum possible and so meeting its obligation.
-
Anyone here using DXO Photolab 2?
I think Bernard has been having good experience with this.
-
I think Bernard has been having good experience with this.
Indeed.
- best lens distorsion correction
- best noise reduction
- U-points are the best solution for local corrections.
- their film emulation solution is great for B&W conversions
Colors used to be soso but they have improved that a lot.
The UI is also quite decent.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed.
- best lens distorsion correction
- best noise reduction
- U-points are the best solution for local corrections.
- their film emulation solution is great for B&W conversions
Colors used to be soso but they have improved that a lot.
The UI is also quite decent.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, thanks, I'll probably download the free trial and give it a go.
-
Bernard, thanks, I'll probably download the free trial and give it a go.
If you do, come back with your experience. I'd be particularly interested in your time investment in learning the system.
-
If you do, come back with your experience. I'd be particularly interested in your time investment in learning the system.
John, I actually managed to get Photoshop CC and Dreamweaver working on the same computer without problem which was a relief. Given that this was my initial preference and a workflow that I've been using for many years it has effectively freed up my time investment towards learning the Nikon Z menu system and testing the camera. The process and transition has thus far been comparatively pain free, rewarding and enjoyable. The mere though of having to change to completely different hardware and software systems at the same time filled me with horror. At least I have one constant.
-
If you do, come back with your experience. I'd be particularly interested in your time investment in learning the system.
I've been trying it alongside the newest C1 iteration. I've used C1 from version 8 up to 10 and decided to try Photolab2 before upgrading to C1 v.12. I quite like it though I can't get over the fact that it's easier to work with the Nik suite from C1 than DxO. That makes no sense at all. Now, if DxO enabled the Nik software to be accessed as an 'Edit with' option or as a plug-in, I might just decide on Photolab2 rather than C1 v.12
-
If you do, come back with your experience. I'd be particularly interested in your time investment in learning the system.
+1
I used DxO long time ago, when lens corrections were not that great in the mainstream software. Then they only raised prices for new stuff without offering that much.
-
Thus far I have been using either Lightroom Classic CC or PS CC 2019. My version of PS CS6 will not open the Z7 RAW files.
Correct. the old stand alone PS & LR cannot be updated to support Z RAW files. Also as I found out, Windows 8.1 cannot be used as an OS as Adobe found a conflict with one of the installed DLLs and won't fix it so you have to be running Win 10 (Adobe says that Win 7 also works) with the LR/PS CC combinations.
-
Correct. the old stand alone PS & LR cannot be updated to support Z RAW files. Also as I found out, Windows 8.1 cannot be used as an OS as Adobe found a conflict with one of the installed DLLs and won't fix it so you have to be running Win 10 (Adobe says that Win 7 also works) with the LR/PS CC combinations.
Windows 7 certainly works with Lightroom Classic CC and Photoshop CC although one or two newer features such as 'Enhance Details Feature' do need Windows 10.
-
Windows 7 certainly works with Lightroom Classic CC and Photoshop CC although one or two newer features such as 'Enhance Details Feature' do need Windows 10.
Lightroom Classic stuck at Release 7.5 unless you update to the latest version of Windows 10.
-
Lightroom Classic stuck at Release 7.5 unless you update to the latest version of Windows 10.
Thanks.
But for me this is academic as I never use Lightroom.
-
Question re Z7 video.
At one of my kids school presentation I decided to shoot some videos with the Z7. I went for 24p, 4K, the rest of the settings were auto. I think the exposure was 1/30, f 7.1, iso was on auto and was varrying, i think it went up to 16k or 18k (crappy light). When I playback in windows media or VLC I get this random horizontal strips, up the 5% of the height, very brief. Initially I thought it's the camera but I opened the video with Premiere Elements and it doesn't show any issues. Is it the 24p that's the problem or something else?
I should mention that I have little experience with tech video.
-
I'm researching a wide angle in the range 18-21mm to use on the Z7. It would effectively take the place of my Leica Super Elmar-M f/3.4 21mm ASPH which I use on a Leica M240. This lens is simply the best super-wide I've ever used - even better than the Hasselblad H 28mm - and any replacement would need to compete. The lens needs to be well corrected but doesn't need to be fast aperture as I would typically use it in the f8-f11 range. This is the one focal length where I would prefer manual focus, reasonably compact and not too heavy. The Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art lenses are just too big and heavy.
I already own the FTZ F Mount adapter and have been looking at various F Mount lenses. The Zeiss Milvus 18mm & 21mm f/2.8 ZF.2 Nikon F Mount Lenses have my attention but I'm unfamiliar with them, not even sure they'd work with the FTZ and Z7.
Any feedback on these lenses and their potential use on the Nikon would be gratefully received as would any suggestions for alternative lenses.
-
I'm researching a wide angle in the range 18-21mm to use on the Z7. It would effectively take the place of my Leica Super Elmar-M f/3.4 21mm ASPH which I use on a Leica M240. This lens is simply the best super-wide I've ever used - even better than the Hasselblad H 28mm - and any replacement would need to compete. The lens needs to be well corrected but doesn't need to be fast aperture as I would typically use it in the f8-f11 range. This is the one focal length where I would prefer manual focus, reasonably compact and not too heavy. The Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art lenses are just too big and heavy.
I already own the FTZ F Mount adapter and have been looking at various F Mount lenses. The Zeiss Milvus 18mm & 21mm f/2.8 ZF.2 Nikon F Mount Lenses have my attention but I'm unfamiliar with them, not even sure they'd work with the FTZ and Z7.
Any feedback on these lenses and their potential use on the Nikon would be gratefully received as would any suggestions for alternative lenses.
Keith,
I never found Nikkor wides beyond 35mm particularly good, and that was going no wider then 24mm. Back in the day, my last boss used both Nikon F and Leica M3 cameras, but the 21mm work was always the Leica one on the M3.
I kinda remember comments on LuLa about the latest Nikkor T/S super wide being good, but wasn't paying real interest; I'm sure Bernard has some good advice available once he finds this thread.
If you are going to be working stopped as far down as you think, I guess that means zone focussing, so why not just use the Leicas you have; the viewfinder system must be good enough to show the picture limits, so it should be a cost-free solution using what you have, but yeah, a second system to lug around...
Rob
-
Keith,
I never found Nikkor wides beyond 35mm particularly good, and that was going no wider then 24mm. Back in the day, my last boss used both Nikon F and Leica M3 cameras, but the 21mm work was always the Leica one on the M3.
I kinda remember comments on LuLa about the latest Nikkor T/S super wide being good, but wasn't paying real interest; I'm sure Bernard has some good advice available once he finds this thread.
If you are going to be working stopped as far down as you think, I guess that means zone focussing, so why not just use the Leicas you have; the viewfinder system must be good enough to show the picture limits, so it should be a cost-free solution using what you have, but yeah, a second system to lug around...
Rob
Rob, I've looked at all the Nikon wides but nothing floats my boat. I did consider the 19mm PC-E T/S but it is too big, heavy and expensive.
One advantage of Leica lenses is they hold their value well, to the extent I'll actually be making money on the sale of one of two. That said I'll need to sell in order to buy. And you're right, two systems sucks.
-
The 19mm T/S is indeed probably the best lens in existence in that focal range, but it is pretty big and priced accordingly.
A very good alternative among existing Nikon lenses is the diminutive 20mm f1.8 AF-S.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm researching a wide angle in the range 18-21mm to use on the Z7. It would effectively take the place of my Leica Super Elmar-M f/3.4 21mm ASPH which I use on a Leica M240. This lens is simply the best super-wide I've ever used - even better than the Hasselblad H 28mm - and any replacement would need to compete. The lens needs to be well corrected but doesn't need to be fast aperture as I would typically use it in the f8-f11 range. This is the one focal length where I would prefer manual focus, reasonably compact and not too heavy. The Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art lenses are just too big and heavy.
I already own the FTZ F Mount adapter and have been looking at various F Mount lenses. The Zeiss Milvus 18mm & 21mm f/2.8 ZF.2 Nikon F Mount Lenses have my attention but I'm unfamiliar with them, not even sure they'd work with the FTZ and Z7.
Any feedback on these lenses and their potential use on the Nikon would be gratefully received as would any suggestions for alternative lenses.
If you can wait Nikon has a 20 F1.8 S in the roadmap in 1-2 years. The F version has pretty good reviews and considering that (in theory) the wider mount should offer an advantage at the wide end, the S version could end up smaller and/or sharper. And you have autofocus which matters to you, the T/S is manual and large.
-
I just ordered a Z6 with the FTZ (I have a line of f-mount lenses to go with my D800) and the 24-70 f4. Tell me I didn't make a mistake in not ordering the Z7 (I don't print large -- never more than 22".) Is the wide zoom available yet? It's "pre-order" on B&H. Looks like a nice compact lens. The lens I'm most worried about is my f-mount AF-S Nikkor 85mm F1.8 G. That should play nice with the FTZ, right? It was cheap but I got a good one, and it's nice and compact, and I don't see anything in the Z lineup yet that would replace it... The batteries with the D800 were the En-EL15. Are those compatible with the Z? I'm looking for some encouragement here... :)
-
Batteries are compatible, the 80mm f1.8 should work nicely with the FTZ, the Z6 is perfect if you don’t intend to print large and is one of the best video cameras on the market.
The 14-30 f4 is available (I got mine 10 days ago in Tokyo) and my copy appears to be an extremely good one because I find its performance to be outstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The only thing is you cannot charge the En-EL15 in camera, only the newer 15b.
-
The 19mm T/S is indeed probably the best lens in existence in that focal range, but it is pretty big and priced accordingly.
A very good alternative among existing Nikon lenses is the diminutive 20mm f1.8 AF-S.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, is this the AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED?
-
Bernard, is this the AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED?
Precisely yes!
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-20mm-F18-G-ED
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Precisely yes!
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-20mm-F18-G-ED
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks.
I'm in two four minds as to what to do.
I could buy the AF-S-NIKKOR-20mm-F1.8-G-ED and use it with the FTZ which would add to the size and weight. Or I could go for the 14-30 f4 for the flexibility. Or I could for the time being carry on using a Leica body in combination with the 21 Super-Elmar until the 20 1.8 S Z series is released. The 14-28 2.8 S Z Series is likely to be too big and heavy.
Or, as I mentioned in an earlier post I could go for either the 18 or 21 Zeiss Milivus in combination with the FTZ but that would again increase the heft and girth. The problem here is I've no idea how good these are and how they'd perform on the Z7.
Scratches head in confusion, but it's a nice problem to have.
-
Thanks.
I'm in two four minds as to what to do.
I could buy the AF-S-NIKKOR-20mm-F1.8-G-ED and use it with the FTZ which would add to the size and weight. Or I could go for the 14-30 f4 for the flexibility. Or I could for the time being carry on using a Leica body in combination with the 21 Super-Elmar until the 20 1.8 S Z series is released. The 14-28 2.8 S Z Series is likely to be too big and heavy.
Or, as I mentioned in an earlier post I could go for either the 18 or 21 Zeiss Milivus in combination with the FTZ but that would again increase the heft and girth. The problem here is I've no idea how good these are and how they'd perform on the Z7.
Scratches head in confusion, but it's a nice problem to have.
When in doubt, do nowt!
Your Leica is a gem - use it as long as it gives you the focal length and proven quality you want with usable ergonomics for your own optical situation.
There is nothing worse than regret at losing something wonderful one already had.
(Relax. I shall resist going back to my favourite geographical topic of Swedish squares.)
I wish you well - just don't rush!
Rob
-
Keith, did you receive that e-mail with my snailmail adres I sent you?
I mean, it would be a shame if that Leica is just gathering dust from now on. Somebody needs to walk the dog every now and then, no? (Since Rob apparently is too modest to volunteer).
;-)
-
When in doubt, do nowt!
Your Leica is a gem - use it as long as it gives you the focal length and proven quality you want with usable ergonomics for your own optical situation.
There is nothing worse than regret at losing something wonderful one already had.
(Relax. I shall resist going back to my favourite geographical topic of Swedish squares.)
I wish you well - just don't rush!
Rob
Rob, don't worry, the wide will be the last piece of the jigsaw. If necessary the decision could wait until next year.
As an aside, my testing of the Z7 with the native 50mm 1.8 lens has so far been a revelation, never before have I seen such detailed files. The colour via Adobe's ACR profiles is equally impressive.
As you know I have two M240 cameras, rest assured that at least one will remain in my grasp until I'm convinced of the way forward. I've never regretted a camera sale yet and want things to stay that way.
;-)
-
Keith, did you receive that e-mail with my snailmail adres I sent you?
I mean, it would be a shame if that Leica is just gathering dust from now on. Somebody needs to walk the dog every now and then, no? (Since Rob apparently is too modest to volunteer).
;-)
You mean you haven't yet received the package?
Gosh, I hope it hasn't been lost in the post!
-
You mean you haven't yet received the package?
Gosh, I hope it hasn't been lost in the post!
Somehow I have received it... such a nice camera and in pristine condition! Can I keep it? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Question re Z7 video.
At one of my kids school presentation I decided to shoot some videos with the Z7. I went for 24p, 4K, the rest of the settings were auto. I think the exposure was 1/30, f 7.1, iso was on auto and was varrying, i think it went up to 16k or 18k (crappy light). When I playback in windows media or VLC I get this random horizontal strips, up the 5% of the height, very brief. Initially I thought it's the camera but I opened the video with Premiere Elements and it doesn't show any issues. Is it the 24p that's the problem or something else?
I should mention that I have little experience with tech video.
It’s hard to say without seeing some of the video. If you can upload a clip to Dropbox or the like, I’d be glad to look at it for you. I can tell you definitively that the problem is not 24p if you are in the US. It might be if you are in Europe.
If you are in the US, 24p or 30p should be your go-to frame rates for video, in Europe, 25p. Unless you absolutely need the extra light, your shutter speed should be as close to 1/2 your frame rate as possible, so 1/50 for 24p or 25p, 1/60 for 30p.
-
I'm researching a wide angle in the range 18-21mm to use on the Z7. It would effectively take the place of my Leica Super Elmar-M f/3.4 21mm ASPH which I use on a Leica M240. This lens is simply the best super-wide I've ever used - even better than the Hasselblad H 28mm - and any replacement would need to compete. The lens needs to be well corrected but doesn't need to be fast aperture as I would typically use it in the f8-f11 range. This is the one focal length where I would prefer manual focus, reasonably compact and not too heavy. The Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art lenses are just too big and heavy.
I already own the FTZ F Mount adapter and have been looking at various F Mount lenses. The Zeiss Milvus 18mm & 21mm f/2.8 ZF.2 Nikon F Mount Lenses have my attention but I'm unfamiliar with them, not even sure they'd work with the FTZ and Z7.
Any feedback on these lenses and their potential use on the Nikon would be gratefully received as would any suggestions for alternative lenses.
The newest 20mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens. One of Nikon’s sharpest wides. It has the advantage of autofocus on the FTZ adapter.
-
Thanks.
I'm in two four minds as to what to do.
I could buy the AF-S-NIKKOR-20mm-F1.8-G-ED and use it with the FTZ which would add to the size and weight. Or I could go for the 14-30 f4 for the flexibility. Or I could for the time being carry on using a Leica body in combination with the 21 Super-Elmar until the 20 1.8 S Z series is released. The 14-28 2.8 S Z Series is likely to be too big and heavy.
Or, as I mentioned in an earlier post I could go for either the 18 or 21 Zeiss Milivus in combination with the FTZ but that would again increase the heft and girth. The problem here is I've no idea how good these are and how they'd perform on the Z7.
Scratches head in confusion, but it's a nice problem to have.
Either of the Zeiss lenses are very good, but they are significantly heavier than the Nikon 20mm and manual focus. If it were me (and it’s not) I’d try out the 14-30 native zoom I received mine this week, and initial tests are making me very happy. I expect the native 20mm that’s on the roadmap to make me even happier.
-
Just got my 14-30 - it's a tiny little thing for a zoom in that range (not really any bigger than most ~14mm primes, and completely different from, say, a 14-24 Nikkor). Can't wait to try it out...
Dan
-
Just got my 14-30 - it's a tiny little thing for a zoom in that range (not really any bigger than most ~14mm primes, and completely different from, say, a 14-24 Nikkor). Can't wait to try it out...
Dan
...please, let us know your findings.
-
Either of the Zeiss lenses are very good, but they are significantly heavier than the Nikon 20mm and manual focus. If it were me (and it’s not) I’d try out the 14-30 native zoom I received mine this week, and initial tests are making me very happy. I expect the native 20mm that’s on the roadmap to make me even happier.
I'm certainly keeping an open mind regarding the 14-30.
There have been shoots in the past when I would have killed for the flexibility in focal length that this lens offers.
Thanks, you have my attention, I'm watching with interest.
-
Somehow I have received it... such a nice camera and in pristine condition! Can I keep it? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Sure, the invoice is in the post.
;-)
-
Somehow I have received it... such a nice camera and in pristine condition! Can I keep it? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Oh, you mean you're finally going to post some actual quality images for once?
;-) ;-) ;-)
-
Oh, you mean you're finally going to post some actual quality images for once?
If owning a Leica were enough to take great pictures we’d have run out of dentists for years. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If owning a Leica were enough to take great pictures we’d have run out of dentists for years. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
That’s actually very funny.
-
Thanks.
I'm in two four minds as to what to do.
I could buy the AF-S-NIKKOR-20mm-F1.8-G-ED and use it with the FTZ which would add to the size and weight. Or I could go for the 14-30 f4 for the flexibility. Or I could for the time being carry on using a Leica body in combination with the 21 Super-Elmar until the 20 1.8 S Z series is released. The 14-28 2.8 S Z Series is likely to be too big and heavy.
Or, as I mentioned in an earlier post I could go for either the 18 or 21 Zeiss Milivus in combination with the FTZ but that would again increase the heft and girth. The problem here is I've no idea how good these are and how they'd perform on the Z7.
Scratches head in confusion, but it's a nice problem to have.
Have you considered renting those lenses and make your own tests?
-
Have you considered renting those lenses and make your own tests?
Ultimately it's what I do.
-
Got my Z6. I've used Nikons since the 70s, though lately I've been working with m4/3. The camera felt immediately familiar and was barely larger (frontal aspect) than my GX8s. (Quite a bit thicker and heavier, though); I was walking around with it dangling from my fingers in no time. (Love the grip; ergos are a big thing with me.) Even the menus and options felt pretty familiar -- there were just more variations of the same thing. There must be what, a dozen or more options for shooting combinations of raw and jpg; that's not really different than the old choice of either raw or jpg or both, there are just more of them. I got the "kit" zoom, but haven't really done much yet. They're still not offering the short zoom either at B&H or Amazon. Still, familiar as it is, there will be a learning curve. Can't wait to get at it. I ordered two more batteries; the one in the box took two hours to charge, so, I think more is necessary. Anybody know how long an unused battery will hold a charge? I like the tiltable view screen -- I think I will eventually like it better than my fully-flexible GX8 screen, which has to be swung out to flex...Interesting camera.
-
Anybody know how long an unused battery will hold a charge?
I don't have an accurate answer, but I would say many weeks if not a few months.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't have an accurate answer, but I would say many weeks if not a few months.
Cheers,
Bernard
What has surprised me about the batteries for my D200 and D700 (same ones) is that even unused for months, though I have started to try and remember to rotate them, they continue to function perfectly; my D200 was apparently the first one on the island, so that indicates just how old the the first battery is.
-
What has surprised me about the batteries for my D200 and D700 (same ones) is that even unused for months, though I have started to try and remember to rotate them, they continue to function perfectly; my D200 was apparently the first one on the island, so that indicates just how old the the first battery is.
I agree ; the nikon batteries I use have a very long life; even if the indicator says they are old and grumpy they still make some 500 photos/charge...
Since the d800 the same batteries can be used in the complete d800 en Z series ( and some nikon 1)
I have no idea how non Nikon batteries function since i did not need any new ones.
-
I've also found my D800 batteries to be long-lasting...it has occurred to me that with a couple of spares, there really wouldn't be any reason for me to take the battery charger on a week-long trip, as long as I didn't actually lose the batteries. And if I did that, I'd probably lose the battery charger with them, anyway, since I tend to keep them together..
-
I haven't had the Z7 or the new batteries long enough to tell (longest I've left one around is a couple of weeks, which works fine - but it would on any Li-Ion rechargeable except something really tiny). My general experience is that these "big" camera batteries (anything DSLR sized - ~7.2v 2000 mAh) last for quite a while (a month or more) without noticeable degradation in charge. The "little" batteries (Fuji, older Sony, smaller Micro 43 - ~7.2v 1200 mAh) discharge noticeably faster in your bag. The smaller the compact camera battery (and the smallest are 1/4 the size of the little DSLR/mirrorless batteries - ~3.6v 600 mAh), the faster it will self discharge. I have next to no experience with the "huge" batteries (D5, 1Dx II - ~11v 3000 mAh), but I'd assume those last even longer than the "big" batteries.
-
..it has occurred to me that with a couple of spares, there really wouldn't be any reason for me to take the battery charger on a week-long trip
For travel I have been using a 3rd party USB charger - much smaller and lighter than the Nikon one.
-
I bought the 3 LEGGED THING ZELDA-C DEDICATED L-BRACKET FOR NIKON Z SERIES CAMERAS. Beautiful piece of engineering, made in the UK apparently at the request of Nikon. Available in differing finishes, I chose the grey.
3leggedthing.com/store/zelda-c (https://www.3leggedthing.com/store/zelda-c)
3leggedthing-park-cameras (https://www.parkcameras.com/p/T3730113A/tripod-accessories/3-legged-thing/3-legged-thing-zelda-l-bracket-for-nikon-z67-grey)
I've no affiliation with Zelda or Park Cameras other than being a customer, but thought this could be of interest to other Z Series owners.
-
I bought the 3 LEGGED THING ZELDA-C DEDICATED L-BRACKET FOR NIKON Z SERIES CAMERAS. Beautiful piece of engineering, made in the UK apparently at the request of Nikon. Available in differing finishes, I chose the grey.
3leggedthing.com/store/zelda-c (https://www.3leggedthing.com/store/zelda-c)
3leggedthing-park-cameras (https://www.parkcameras.com/p/T3730113A/tripod-accessories/3-legged-thing/3-legged-thing-zelda-l-bracket-for-nikon-z67-grey)
I've no affiliation with Zelda or Park Cameras other than being a customer, but thought this could be of interest to other Z Series owners.
Nice! I got the kirk one instead: https://www.kirkphoto.com/camera-mounting/nikon/z7-and-z6/l-bracket-for-nikon-z7-and-z6.html
Likely heavier but you can keep the hex wrench in the bottom and it works with the FTZ adapter. One thing that's going for Zelda from what I can see is that you can attach another plate, etc in the optical axis, the Kirk has it on the side.
-
Nice! I got the kirk one instead: https://www.kirkphoto.com/camera-mounting/nikon/z7-and-z6/l-bracket-for-nikon-z7-and-z6.html
Likely heavier but you can keep the hex wrench in the bottom and it works with the FTZ adapter. One thing that's going for Zelda from what I can see is that you can attach another plate, etc in the optical axis, the Kirk has it on the side.
I've always used RRS in the past but the Zelda is a comparative bargain, particularly when importing the RRS from the USA.
-
As a panorama-photographer- i miss the sensor-center marks on the Zelda-L bracket- or am i wrong?
They are essential for me. ( of course you can make them yourself, but that takes some work)
-
As a panorama-photographer- i miss the sensor-center marks on the Zelda-L bracket- or am i wrong?
They are essential for me. ( of course you can make them yourself, but that takes some work)
I read that first as a paranormal photographer, but yes, you are quite right, there are no center marks on the Zelda.
-
I read that first as a paranormal photographer, but yes, you are quite right, there are no center marks on the Zelda.
a paranormal photographer would not need to ask ;)
-
I read that first as a paranormal photographer, but yes, you are quite right, there are no center marks on the Zelda.
It's our eyes! So did I!
Must be the Steve Huff influence. :-)
Rob
-
I bought the 3 LEGGED THING ZELDA-C DEDICATED L-BRACKET FOR NIKON Z SERIES CAMERAS. Beautiful piece of engineering, made in the UK apparently at the request of Nikon. Available in differing finishes, I chose the grey.
Same here, but I got the orange one - harder to lose :-)
One slightly annoying thing - the release cable socket on a Z7 is at the left of the camera (is it the same on all cameras?) so if you use an L-bracket in portrait mode it can be a nuisance to mount the camera with the cable attached - it tends to interfere with the ball-head.
-
Same here, but I got the orange one - harder to lose :-)
One slightly annoying thing - the release cable socket on a Z7 is at the left of the camera (is it the same on all cameras?) so if you use an L-bracket in portrait mode it can be a nuisance to mount the camera with the cable attached - it tends to interfere with the ball-head.
I agree- i use it all the time- fortunately my d850 still has a front socket...
It is a pity Nikon does not seem to be able to make a perfect wifi solution for triggering...
The latest SnapBridge is a slight improvement, but no camranger quality.
-
Same here, but I got the orange one - harder to lose :-)
One slightly annoying thing - the release cable socket on a Z7 is at the left of the camera (is it the same on all cameras?) so if you use an L-bracket in portrait mode it can be a nuisance to mount the camera with the cable attached - it tends to interfere with the ball-head.
With the L bracket in place and when working in portrait orientation I attach the camera somewhat off center. No problems with interference with my Arca-Swiss P0, but there again it is a very compact head.
-
a paranormal photographer would not need to ask ;)
;D
-
I agree- i use it all the time- fortunately my d850 still has a front socket...
It is a pity Nikon does not seem to be able to make a perfect wifi solution for triggering...
The latest SnapBridge is a slight improvement, but no camranger quality.
I have given up on SnapBridge. It worked fine first time, but then such a faff to connect to the camera. I just downloaded cascable, which I haven't tested yet, but I am hoping for improvement!!
-
One of the things I disliked about my Nikon DSLR's was the remote cable release connection. It was fiddly to use and screw in and if I left it connected it was prone to snap off in my camera bag. I tried the IR remote but didn't get on with it. One of the things I really like about the Z7 is that the release now plugs into a socket on the side.
I agree that this is a problem with a conventional L Plate when shooting vertically. However I bought a really inexpensive L Plate which allows you to space the plate away from the camera body easily. I now use the tiny Nikon Wr series remote release and when using the camera on location with a tripod I just leave it plugged in. Works a treat for me anyway. I bought it for £17.99 on Amazon UK (much cheaper than Kirk and RRS). Here is the link for the UK site.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07L1GNK11/ref=pe_3187911_189395841_TE_dp_1
I have attachhed a bad pic od the Z7 with the L Plate and WRR10 remote receiver
-
I have given up on SnapBridge. It worked fine first time, but then such a faff to connect to the camera. I just downloaded cascable, which I haven't tested yet, but I am hoping for improvement!!
When was the last time you tried SnapBridge? The latest version connects reliably via BT (Z 7). The connection via WiFi (for remote) is straightforward if already connected via BT.
-
When was the last time you tried SnapBridge? The latest version connects reliably via BT (Z 7). The connection via WiFi (for remote) is straightforward if already connected via BT.
Since 2.5.2 snapbridge has been working perfectly for me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Since 2.5.2 snapbridge has been working perfectly for me.
Cheers,
Bernard
Does it allow painless switching between two devices? I have an iPad and an iPhone, both of which I'd ike to use with the Z7 at different times, but it seems that every time I try to switch devices, I have to factory reset the camera to make it work. Does 2.5.2 make that easier? (or you know a trick for that?)
-
I talked to some Nikon reps yesterday, and got some tidbits that may be of use to my fellow Z enthusiasts:
Firmware on track for the 16th of this month - eye AF, etc.
This firmware may not contain the CF Express update.
When the CF Express update comes, the cameras will be able to recognize both XQD and CF Express cards - just stick a card in and the camera knows what it has. It won't require switching anything in a menu, and it certainly won't make XQD unusable.
And from a memory card manufacturer rep: CF Express cards will be out "a few weeks after" the firmware update that enables them, and about 20% cheaper than XQD.
-
And from a memory card manufacturer rep: CF Express cards will be out "a few weeks after" the firmware update that enables them, and about 20% cheaper than XQD.
And another Sony proprietary format will sail off into the horizon.
-
And another Sony proprietary format will sail off into the horizon.
Nikon was clearly a lot more right selecting XQD than Canon selecting CFast... talk about a waste of money for all the photographers who trusted them...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon was clearly a lot more right selecting XQD than Canon selecting CFast... talk about a waste of money for all the photographers who trusted them...
No need to be defensive. I'm not faulting Nikon for selecting XQD. If they were going to more away from SD, they needed a bridge before CF Express (the successor to XQD) was ready. And they were already using them in the D5, D500, and D850. The question is when CF Express compatibility is implemented are users going to continue to purchase XQD cards, which are slower and more expensive.
-
If XQD and CF Express are cross compatible then I guess it depends on the price/performance for specific cards.
-
If XQD and CF Express are cross compatible then I guess it depends on the price/performance for specific cards.
Will CF Express be readable in a XQD card reader?
-
No need to be defensive. I'm not faulting Nikon for selecting XQD. If they were going to more away from SD, they needed a bridge before CF Express (the successor to XQD) was ready. And they were already using them in the D5, D500, and D850. The question is when CF Express compatibility is implemented are users going to continue to purchase XQD cards, which are slower and more expensive.
Why is it problematic whether users keep buying XQD cards when compatibility and smooth transition to CF Express is ensured?
How is it demonstrating a lack of future proofness on Sony's part or on the part of the companies who selected the XQD format?
There were 2 next gen formats available 5 years ago, XQD and CFast. XQD was the right option, simple as that. The companies that selected CFast (Canon and Hasselblad) made the wrong choice and their users end up with very expensive cards that will soon be worth nothing. I am one of them and not particularly happy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Will CF Express be readable in a XQD card reader?
I guess it depends if you can upgrade the firmware. But a reader is not that expensive, I would think it's more important that the camera supports both.
-
When was the last time you tried SnapBridge? The latest version connects reliably via BT (Z 7). The connection via WiFi (for remote) is straightforward if already connected via BT.
Last week, just to check before downloading Cascable. Refused to find my camera. Not too big of a deal sitting in my lounge, but a pain if you're out in the field somewhere.
-
The question is when CF Express compatibility is implemented are users going to continue to purchase XQD cards, which are slower and more expensive.
Presumably not, which is what Sony richly deserve, having gouged XQD purchasers for the last 2 years!
-
About CF and XQD...in terms of practical operating speeds, it doesn't seem to me that there will be much difference except at the extremes. And as far as cost is concerned, compared to all the other pieces of the system, it doesn't seem to be a significant factor. I agree that XQD prices seem a little out of line with other cards (too high.)
-
Unfortunately, CFExpress will probably require new readers (for the most part - there are a couple of odd ways that some might work). The good news is that, without the Sony monopoly, readers probably won't be as expensive (and, eventually, may show up built into other things, whether computers, docking stations, portable storage or simply multi-format readers).
There are actually three different devices that one might call an "XQD reader", and I'm not sure whether all will be incompatible with CFExpress. One is a true XQD reader - it connects to the PCIe bus on the card like the camera does, and it has a bridge chip from PCIe to USB (or potentially something else - but every reader I've seen is some flavor of USB 3.x). The second is a remarkably simple device, but it relies on some other form of PCIe bus being available. There is a Sony adapter from XQD to ExpressCard/SxS that simply connects the appropriate pins directly on the PCIe bus since both XQD and ExpressCard are actually PCIe - all it's doing is adapting the form factor. It should be possible (but I've never seen one) to make a simple adapter like this for XQD or CFExpress to Thunderbolt as well... The third variety is "USB adapters". Some XQD cards, but not all (for whatever reason) use some extra pins for a USB signal. A USB adapter connects to those pins and bypasses the PCIe signal entirely - it's just passing USB.
A true reader that is converting XQD to USB (or whatever else) would have some sort of firmware in it that would need to recognize what flavor of PCIe it was dealing with. Most card readers have that in a permanent ROM - it would be impossible to reprogram for the slightly different requirements of CFExpress without changing the chip. A CFExpress card reader could be built to know about both, or there could be some weird XQD reader out there that is firmware upgradeable.
PCIe adapters should work, at least in theory - we know the PCIe pinout is the same - that's why cameras are firmware upgradeable. Something that is simply extending those wires has no reason not to work unless it messes up timings or the like.
USB adapters should work IF CFExpress cards have the built-in USB "port" on them, AND it's on the same pins as it is on the XQD cards that have it. I don't know if either of those things is true.
In the end, anything with both an XQD and a SD slot (or pretty much any other second slot) on it is a true reader, and won't work unless it is firmware upgradeable. Something cheaper and single-slot that calls itself a "USB adapter" may well just be connecting to the USB port on some XQD cards, and could work if CFExpress has a USB port in the same place. An ExpressCard slot adapter (or anything else that's direct PCIe to PCIe) should work in theory.
-
Firmware 2.0 has been released and my first tests with the 24-70 f2.8 S are very encouraging. I have configured the lens to use the lens Fct button to be able to desactivate eye AF.
More tests will be needed to confirm the details and possible limitations. But as of now it looks like we have a very good eye-AF implementation for the Z as well as 1 to 1.5 stop more sensitive low light focusing ability.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I can't seem to get the firmware update to install.
I downloaded the "W" Windows version and unzipped it. I then copied the .bin file to a XQD card that I formatted in-camera. It says it is "33,019 KB"
I put the card in the camera and in SETUP, chose Firmware. But only the version 1.00 is shown. There is no second version. I have tried this many times. Any idea what the problem might be. I have a full battery.
-
Firmware 2.0 has been released and my first tests with the 24-70 f2.8 S are very encouraging. I have configured the lens to use the lens Fct button to be able to desactivate eye AF.
Thanks Bernard - looks like a good idea. Does Eye-AF work the same with back-button focus?
-
I can't seem to get the firmware update to install.
I downloaded the "W" Windows version and unzipped it. I then copied the .bin file to a XQD card that I formatted in-camera. It says it is "33,019 KB"
I put the card in the camera and in SETUP, chose Firmware. But only the version 1.00 is shown. There is no second version. I have tried this many times. Any idea what the problem might be. I have a full battery.
From the top of my head, you had to click on "firmware update"?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks Bernard - looks like a good idea. Does Eye-AF work the same with back-button focus?
Eye-AF works in the same way as face detection till now, meaning in auto mode.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I found out WHY the firmware update will not work.
You have to use the "b" battery that comes with the Z7, not the earlier "a" battery. PLEASE NOTE. Nikon EN-EL15b
Others have used the "a" battery successfully.
The "a" battery was charged, but perhaps it was slightly off and since it is less powerful to begin with, the Z7 did not accept it.
-
I found out WHY the firmware update will not work.
You have to use the "b" battery that comes with the Z7, not the earlier "a" battery. PLEASE NOTE. Nikon EN-EL15b
Wow! Wondering how on earth you managed to diagnose that? !!!
-
I found out WHY the firmware update will not work.
You have to use the "b" battery that comes with the Z7, not the earlier "a" battery. PLEASE NOTE. Nikon EN-EL15b
That is confusing! - good you found out the problem.
-
I also made the mistake of trying to use a EN EL15a from my D800 as a backup but the Z7 doesn't like it.
-
I also made the mistake of trying to use a EN EL15a from my D800 as a backup but the Z7 doesn't like it.
Really? What didn't work? I think I have used the 15a and also the 15 ....
-
If it's sensitive to the state of charge of the battery, an "a" battery, especially an older one, could never put out enough to pass the updater's checks. Firmware updaters are often very strict about batteries, not so much because they take a huge amount of power as because the consequence of running out might be a bricked camera that has to go to the repair shop.
-
The above is one of the most useful information sequences I've encountered recently on photo forums, especially since I have a bunch of earlier batteries.
-
While Nikon has taken great measures to assure the high quality expected of Nikon products, it has come to our attention that the vibration reduction (VR) feature in some Nikon Z 6 and Z 7 cameras may not function fully.
technical service advisory Z6 & Z7 (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/service-and-support/service-advisories/technical-service-advisory-for-users-of-the-nikon-z-6-and-z-7-cameras.html)
-
Did a test last night with the 105mm f1.4 at f1.4 on the Z7 in a darkish room, worst color balance of the house (around 1500K), ISO 5,000, eyes in the shadows, AF-C auto mode, near minimal focusing distance of the lens (DoF is probably around 2-3mm), her moving a bit -> 60% of images were perfectly focused on the iris, 20% was on the eye lash, 20% was a bit out of focus.
As far as I am concerned these are the worst conditions I would ever want to use the lens in and this rate of success is way higher than what I would have gotten with normal AF or MF... on the D5.
I did other tests in the same conditions about 2m away from the subject and 100% were in perfect focus.
This upgrade is simply game changing.
Now I have continued to test and have come across one case where initial face acquisition was a challenge in a strongly backlit situation. I had to guide the camera by positioning the tracking box on top of the face. Other tests in similar conditions didn’t generate the same problem.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
While Nikon has taken great measures to assure the high quality expected of Nikon products, it has come to our attention that the vibration reduction (VR) feature in some Nikon Z 6 and Z 7 cameras may not function fully.
technical service advisory Z6 & Z7 (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/service-and-support/service-advisories/technical-service-advisory-for-users-of-the-nikon-z-6-and-z-7-cameras.html)
I was going to post this too, mine is affected.
-
Photography Life has a Frimware wishlist;
One of the things is very basic ; an uncluttered OVF-view - only the image without information.
Don't understand why Nikon has not implemented it...
https://photographylife.com/nikon-z7-firmware-update-wishlist
-
Photography Life has a Frimware wishlist;
One of the things is very basic ; an uncluttered OVF-view - only the image without information.
Don't understand why Nikon has not implemented it...
https://photographylife.com/nikon-z7-firmware-update-wishlist
People like to imagine they are piloting a military jet as they zoom in for the kill?
;-)
-
Photography Life has a Frimware wishlist;
One of the things is very basic ; an uncluttered OVF-view - only the image without information.
Don't understand why Nikon has not implemented it...
https://photographylife.com/nikon-z7-firmware-update-wishlist
That issue is real, but only when shooting using LCD. EVF can be uncluttered.
-
That issue is real, but only when shooting using LCD. EVF can be uncluttered.
Can't you look past the information in the viewfinder? I take a quick check of the readout and then focus on the image.
-
That issue is real, but only when shooting using LCD. EVF can be uncluttered.
AHA, then its less an issue- still as you say- nice to see what you have shot without text all over your photo.
-
AHA, then its less an issue- still as you say- nice to see what you have shot without text all over your photo.
Quite agree. Shooting off the lcd requires you to look past all the clutter of the real world to see the image so a little info on the display makes no impact really. Be a big deal if you couldn’t clear the EVF.
-
AHA, then its less an issue- still as you say- nice to see what you have shot without text all over your photo.
The image review can be completely uncluttered as well. Only when using LCD in live view (for me, when working on a tripod) is the clutter a problem.
-
Darn! I just discovered that my Z7 needs to be returned for faulty VR. Maybe this is a good time to play with some Velvia in a view camera? Check your serial number.
https://nikonrumors.com/2019/05/16/nikon-z6-and-z7-technical-service-advisory-for-faulty-vibration-reduction-vr-feature.aspx/
-
Great news for C1 Pro users! Since 12.1, released yesterday, support for Z lenses nef built-in profiles was added!
I tried on images shot with the amazing 24-70mm f2.8 S and a bit less amazing 14-30mm f4, and it works perfectly!
This is great because this means that upcoming lenses will be immediately supported as long as Nikon continues to embed profiles in their raw files.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4669774748/nikon-z6-and-z7-scoring-updated-to-reflect-firmware-v2-0
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Questions, if I may?
(1)When saving my camera settings to an XQD card do I need a card solely dedicated to the saved files - at £90! - to ensure the settings are saved and safe? If so is there any work-around for this?
(2)Can I transfer those settings from one Z7 body to another Z7 body?
TIA
-
Questions, if I may?
(1)When saving my camera settings to an XQD card do I need a card solely dedicated to the saved files - at £90! - to ensure the settings are saved and safe? If so is there any work-around for this?
(2)Can I transfer those settings from one Z7 body to another Z7 body?
TIA
1 NO
Just save the settings on your computer and bring it back to the card from your computer to 2 install the settings again on the same Z7 or on an other Z7 camera
Format the card in the camera and you can use it again for photos
You can use the card for everything you want to store digitally- it is just a memorycard formatted the same way as an USB stick
But be sure to format the card always in the camera ( and not in the computer) to be sure nothing goes wrong.
-
1 NO
Just save the settings on your computer and bring it back to the card from your computer to 2 install the settings again on the same Z7 or on an other Z7 camera
Format the card in the camera and you can use it again for photos
You can use the card for everything you want to store digitally- it is just a memorycard formatted the same way as an USB stick
But be sure to format the card always in the camera ( and not in the computer) to be sure nothing goes wrong.
Thanks, Pieter!
-
Thanks, Pieter!
This forum already saved you spending a lot of money! about 8 years of LULA membership...
-
This forum already saved you spending a lot of money! about 8 years of LULA membership...
Hehe.
;-)
-
I'm suddenly getting XMP files attached to my out of camera Z7 NEF files. It's only happened in the last couple of days. Anyone have any idea as to why this is happening? I've recently updated firmware to 2.0, could this have anything to do with it?
Any help would be appreciated.
TIA
-
I'm suddenly getting XMP files attached to my out of camera Z7 NEF files. It's only happened in the last couple of days. Anyone have any idea as to why this is happening? I've recently updated firmware to 2.0, could this have anything to do with it?
Any help would be appreciated.
TIA
What do you use for processing? This is, I believe, a setting in your computer software (Lightroon, e.g.) rather than the camera.
-
What do you use for processing? This is, I believe, a setting in your computer software (Lightroon, e.g.) rather than the camera.
Thanks.
Photoshop CC 2019 / Bridge 2019 / Camera Raw.
This issue coincides with the date I installed the latest Z7 firmware. I'd not seen these .xmp files previously.
I was wondering if Nikon are now saving their auto-corrections as an .xmp file?
EDIT: I've just opened one of the .xmp files in Word and it seems it contains Nikon's embedded auto-corrections. Previously all I had was the NEF file.
BTW, in Camera Raw preferences I've always had "Save Image Settings" in: "Sidecar .xmp Files", but never seen any evidence of them. This issue is new.
-
Thanks.
Photoshop CC 2019 / Bridge 2019 / Camera Raw.
This issue coincides with the date I installed the latest Z7 firmware. I'd not seen these .xmp files previously.
I was wondering if Nikon are now saving their auto-corrections as an .xmp file?
EDIT: I've just opened one of the .xmp files in Word and it seems it contains Nikon's embedded auto-corrections. Previously all I had was the NEF file.
BTW, in Camera Raw preferences I've always had "Save Image Settings" in: "Sidecar .xmp Files", but never seen any evidence of them. This issue is new.
I’ve got no more ideas on that. I’m sure I’ve never seen an .xmp come out of the camera. I use both Lightroom and C1, and I’ve always assumed they were created by the program on import. I don’t know why they would have started appearing after the fw update.
-
That sinking feeling when you wish you'd gone for the D850 instead...
Only kidding! Goes with my lunch just now.
:-)
-
I’ve got no more ideas on that. I’m sure I’ve never seen an .xmp come out of the camera. I use both Lightroom and C1, and I’ve always assumed they were created by the program on import. I don’t know why they would have started appearing after the fw update.
Thanks.
This issue has no impact on the images or workflow. I've even tried deleting the corresponding .xmp file and it makes no difference whatsoever. It's just annoying and is stirring my OCD.
On an upbeat note, I've just tried the Z7 eye/face detection and couldn't be happier. I had my wife dancing round our terrace with me following her every move, 50mm S lens wide open at f/1.8 - super thin DOF - and didn't miss a shot with the eye really sharp in every exposure.
Mind blowing stuff.
-
Thanks.
This issue has no impact on the images or workflow. I've even tried deleting the corresponding .xmp file and it makes no difference whatsoever. It's just annoying and is stirring my OCD.
On an upbeat note, I've just tried the Z7 eye/face detection and couldn't be happier. I had my wife dancing round our terrace with me following her every move, 50mm S lens wide open at f/1.8 - super thin DOF - and didn't miss a shot with the eye really sharp in every exposure.
Mind blowing stuff.
Yes, I just produced (and shot) a PSA campaign for the state’s 911 Emergency Response System. I shot on a Z6 mounted on a gimbal so camera and talent were constantly moving. One scene was lit by two incandescent bulbs as practical lights, and the camera held focus brilliantly at f2.0 on the 35 and 50mm primes. For video, one of the features of the Z cameras I appreciate most is the ability to adjust the speed of autofocus response. I used it to good effect on this campaign. I can’t post the work yet, be
Cause it hasn’t been released yet, but I will when I can.
On the xml issue, does unchoosing the “use sidecar” option stop ACR from creating them?
-
Yes, I just produced (and shot) a PSA campaign for the state’s 911 Emergency Response System. I shot on a Z6 mounted on a gimbal so camera and talent were constantly moving. One scene was lit by two incandescent bulbs as practical lights, and the camera held focus brilliantly at f2.0 on the 35 and 50mm primes. For video, one of the features of the Z cameras I appreciate most is the ability to adjust the speed of autofocus response. I used it to good effect on this campaign. I can’t post the work yet, be
Cause it hasn’t been released yet, but I will when I can.
On the xml issue, does unchoosing the “use sidecar” option stop ACR from creating them?
Thanks, I wish it did, but it doesn't.
-
Thanks, I wish it did, but it doesn't.
but if they were already created by Adobe software changing it back will not remove them.
-
but if they were already created by Adobe software changing it back will not remove them.
What I mean is that changing the setting doesn't subsequently stop the .xmp being produced on new shots.
-
What I mean is that changing the setting doesn't subsequently stop the .xmp being produced on new shots.
I don’t use Bridge & Photoshop, but I wonder if, in that workflow, there might be two places where the “create xml” option can be chosen and one of them is still checked?
-
I don’t use Bridge & Photoshop, but I wonder if, in that workflow, there might be two places where the “create xml” option can be chosen and one of them is still checked?
The options are the same in Adobe Bridge and Photoshop, alter on one and it also changes the other: they are in sync.
As I've said the xmp files are not on the memory cards (checked in Windows Explorer). They only appear once the images are downloaded to Adobe Bridge and before they are opened in Bridge or opening in Photoshop. This leads me to believe this is an Adobe Bridge issue.
-
The options are the same in Adobe Bridge and Photoshop, alter on one and it also changes the other: they are in sync.
As I've said the xmp files are not on the memory cards (checked in Windows Explorer). They only appear once the images are downloaded to Adobe Bridge and before they are opened in Bridge or opening in Photoshop. This leads me to believe this is an Adobe Bridge issue.
That makes sense. It sounds like a bug. I do have Bridge, so I’ll test later today to see if I can recreate the issue (though it might be version-dependent).
-
As I've said the xmp files are not on the memory cards (checked in Windows Explorer).
Nikon firmware is exonerated, I knew from the very beginning the whole idea was clearly a fake news plot by Canon and/or Sony fans !
-
They only appear once the images are downloaded to Adobe Bridge and before they are opened in Bridge or opening in Photoshop. This leads me to believe this is an Adobe Bridge issue.
in my case the menu item for ACR preferences in Bridge invokes the options dialog that syncs with ACR... so you change it in Bridge it changes in ACR and vice versa....
-
in my case the menu item for ACR preferences in Bridge invokes the options dialog that syncs with ACR... so you change it in Bridge it changes in ACR and vice versa....
Same with mine.
-
Did a test last night with the 105mm f1.4 at f1.4 on the Z7 in a darkish room, worst color balance of the house (around 1500K), ISO 5,000, eyes in the shadows, AF-C auto mode, near minimal focusing distance of the lens (DoF is probably around 2-3mm), her moving a bit -> 60% of images were perfectly focused on the iris, 20% was on the eye lash, 20% was a bit out of focus.
As far as I am concerned these are the worst conditions I would ever want to use the lens in and this rate of success is way higher than what I would have gotten with normal AF or MF... on the D5.
I did other tests in the same conditions about 2m away from the subject and 100% were in perfect focus.
This upgrade is simply game changing.
Now I have continued to test and have come across one case where initial face acquisition was a challenge in a strongly backlit situation. I had to guide the camera by positioning the tracking box on top of the face. Other tests in similar conditions didn’t generate the same problem.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard this wedding Pro has some interesting things to say about the Nikon Z6 eye focus feature. Does not think it works right and has problems even with the firmware upgrade. Nevertheless he loves the Z6 and has four of them. This feature does not concern me much but obviously is a concern for users like you and Keith. I am enjoying this thread and learning from what you, Keith and others, and plan to buy either the Z6 or Z7. Thanks for posting all your findings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyXEMXRev54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IaN1tIQya0
-
Bernard this wedding Pro has some interesting things to say about the Nikon Z6 eye focus feature. Does not think it works right and has problems even with the firmware upgrade. Nevertheless he loves the Z6 and has four of them. This feature does not concern me much but obviously is a concern for users like you and Keith. I am enjoying this thread and learning from what you, Keith and others, and plan to buy either the Z6 or Z7. Thanks for posting all your findings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyXEMXRev54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IaN1tIQya0
Yes, upon further usage, it does catch the eye lash in more cases that I'd love it too, but overall still at least as good as non eye-AF on moving subjects.
On static objects up close, it's possible to get more consistent results with pin point AF.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've only tested eye AF on the Z7 once. I had my wife dancing round the terrace with me following. I initiated the series by selecting the preferred eye and held focus, tracking that eye for the entire series. The result - much to my wife's annoyance - was perfect focus on a bloodshot eye throughout the series.
Beginners luck?
;-)
-
Beginners luck?
Raw talent? :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Raw talent? :)
Cheers,
Bernard
;D
I should add that my tests were shot using the 50 f/1.8 S shot wide open, which impressed me all the more given the shallow DOF.
-
The options are the same in Adobe Bridge and Photoshop, alter on one and it also changes the other: they are in sync.
As I've said the xmp files are not on the memory cards (checked in Windows Explorer). They only appear once the images are downloaded to Adobe Bridge and before they are opened in Bridge or opening in Photoshop. This leads me to believe this is an Adobe Bridge issue.
Using the current CC version of Bridge and Camera Raw, I cant replicate the behavior. But I did notice that the switch to turn the xml sidecar off is a choice between using xml or the camera raw database. Is it possible that the camera Raw database is missing or compromised on your computer?
-
Using the current CC version of Bridge and Camera Raw, I cant replicate the behavior. But I did notice that the switch to turn the xml sidecar off is a choice between using xml or the camera raw database. Is it possible that the camera Raw database is missing or compromised on your computer?
Thanks again for all the replies and suggestions, they are very much appreciated.
When uploading images through Adobe Bridge Photo Downloader I usually as a matter of course apply my metadata which includes my name. email, website address and copyright info. I’ve been doing this for years and have never had as much as a sniff of an .xmp file. Prior to last week I had also been doing this for a couple of months with the Nikon .nef files, again without triggering .xmp files.
BUT…I’ve just tried uploading new .nef files without applying my metadata and joy of joy the result is no .xmp files.
It seems for some unknown reason my metadata is now triggering .xmp files and in doing so is also showing within them Nikon’s built in corrections.
So, I believe the issue is now solved. If I want my metadata attached to the images I get .xmp files, if I don’t want .xmp files then I shouldn’t attach my metadata to the images at the download stage.
I’m truly grateful to everyone who has helped me through this and wish you all the best and good shooting.
Keith
-
I've had my Z6 for a couple of months now, and I have to say that I've been suitably impressed. However, the more I shot with it, the more I couldn't believe that Nikon didn't produce a 70-200 f/4 as one of the initial release lenses. The 24-70 is an excellent lens, and something in the lower 20s was often the widest many photographers used back in the day. The 24-70 covers that, but the Z really needs the longer lens, too. The original set, IMHO, should have been the 24-70 and an f/4 70-200, skipping the short zoom and the 50 if they had to skip something. The two f/4 zooms (24-70 and 70-200) more or less constitute a "kit" that would cover most things for most shooters. I specify f/4 because they can be relatively compact, and one of the raisons d' etre of mirrorless is compactness. Now I find that the next Z 70-200 will be an f/2.8, which almost certainly won't be very compact, and there really isn't an f/4 on the map. I think Nikon has taken a wrong turn here.
I've suggested what the first two lenses should have been, and I think the third lens should have been the 85 which apparently is still months away -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it's well into 2020 before we can get our hands on one here in the states; and the same for the f/2.8 70-200. In fact, I think those three lenses (24-70, 70-200, 85) should have come out with the initial body release. I find it odd that months after the initial release, the longest native lens for the Z is a 70...
I have an F-mount f2/8 70-200 that I use with my D800, and I have the adapter (which I've only really used with the 85G I use on my D800) but the combo of the adapter and the older f2/8 make a really awkward combo with the Z, with the lens and adapter bigger than the camera.
I do like the Z, but when I'm heading out, I now find that I'm picking up my older M4/3 bag more often than the Z. I've got a full range of lenses in m4/3, including 2 f/0.95s when I want them. It would be nice if I could say that about the Z, but according to the Z rumor sites, that won't be at least for two or three years or even longer before we have even a basic set of native lenses.
-
Hi John,
I share your views.
Nikon picked the right strategy with compact high quality lenses matching the body size and intent, but there are some obvious holes and a native 70-200mm f4 should be there together with a bokeh perfect 85mm f1.8 in the same class as the amazing 50mm f1.8 S.
Their strategy would also be a lot more clear if they added to the roadmap a 85mm f1.2 (I would release it before the 50mm f1.2) and 28 or 35mm f1.2. I would start by 28mm f1.2 since they already have a 35mm f1.8.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've had my Z6 for a couple of months now, and I have to say that I've been suitably impressed. However, the more I shot with it, the more I couldn't believe that Nikon didn't produce a 70-200 f/4 as one of the initial release lenses. The 24-70 is an excellent lens, and something in the lower 20s was often the widest many photographers used back in the day. The 24-70 covers that, but the Z really needs the longer lens, too. The original set, IMHO, should have been the 24-70 and an f/4 70-200, skipping the short zoom and the 50 if they had to skip something. The two f/4 zooms (24-70 and 70-200) more or less constitute a "kit" that would cover most things for most shooters. I specify f/4 because they can be relatively compact, and one of the raisons d' etre of mirrorless is compactness. Now I find that the next Z 70-200 will be an f/2.8, which almost certainly won't be very compact, and there really isn't an f/4 on the map. I think Nikon has taken a wrong turn here.
I've suggested what the first two lenses should have been, and I think the third lens should have been the 85 which apparently is still months away -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it's well into 2020 before we can get our hands on one here in the states; and the same for the f/2.8 70-200. In fact, I think those three lenses (24-70, 70-200, 85) should have come out with the initial body release. I find it odd that months after the initial release, the longest native lens for the Z is a 70...
I have an F-mount f2/8 70-200 that I use with my D800, and I have the adapter (which I've only really used with the 85G I use on my D800) but the combo of the adapter and the older f2/8 make a really awkward combo with the Z, with the lens and adapter bigger than the camera.
I do like the Z, but when I'm heading out, I now find that I'm picking up my older M4/3 bag more often than the Z. I've got a full range of lenses in m4/3, including 2 f/0.95s when I want them. It would be nice if I could say that about the Z, but according to the Z rumor sites, that won't be at least for two or three years or even longer before we have even a basic set of native lenses.
While waiting for a Z 70-200 f/4, consider using AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 if you do not care about the extra stop. The new 70-300 (including FTZ) is aproximately the same size and weight as the old 70-200 f/4 and delivers similar image quality.
-
My experience, admittedly limited, with the Z6 is it is a fine solid camera. A pretty good go at mirrorless on the first attempt. Much to admire but with a few things lacking.
Where I see a mis step from Nikon is the lack of a clearly defined market for the camera. My bread and butter lens is a 70 to 200 for commercial work. I do 90% of my work with that lens. I agree completely that the camera should have been launched with that lens. You have to cover 16 to 200 at a minimum to make a camera generally useful. Yes sure we all have out favourites and specialities and I do too but when I go out on a shoot I need to cover that range at a minimum. That would make it a working system.
I also think the Z6 and Z7 don’t compliment each other well. Unless I am missing something, and I could be, the Z7 is simply a higher res version of the Z6. Make the Z6 shoot at much higher frame rates, give it better silent shooting capability, much better high ISO. It would be more of a system. Such good engineering and design yet it’s hard to buy this as a system. It’s all about systems. When I first picked up the Z6 I remember thinking how good it felt to use. If I was an amateur with a particular project underway I might be tempted, but I’m not.
Of course it could be rectified. Add a high performance body and a few lenses and you are good to go.
-
I also think the Z6 and Z7 don’t compliment each other well. Unless I am missing something, and I could be, the Z7 is simply a higher res version of the Z6. Make the Z6 shoot at much higher frame rates, give it better silent shooting capability, much better high ISO. It would be more of a system. Such good engineering and design yet it’s hard to buy this as a system. It’s all about systems. When I first picked up the Z6 I remember thinking how good it felt to use. If I was an amateur with a particular project underway I might be tempted, but I’m not.
There are other differences than resolution between the Z6 and Z7:
- The #/frames per second
- The buffer depth
- Video specs are pretty different with the Z6 being a much better video camera
So there are in facts pretty clear differences between these 2 cameras that seem very similar to what Sony did between the a7III and the a7rIII. Except that Nikon has decided to use the same high end viewfinder in the z6,... so they have not lowered some of the specs as much as Sony did.
But if your point is that the Z6 isn't an a9 competitor, then I totally agree. That camera will probably be called Z8 or Z9 and is expected to be announced anytime between Sept 2019 and March 2020.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
While waiting for a Z 70-200 f/4, consider using AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 if you do not care about the extra stop. The new 70-300 (including FTZ) is aproximately the same size and weight as the old 70-200 f/4 and delivers similar image quality.
Indeed, that's the solution I have adopted also and it works pretty well.
Quality wise though, when used in conjunction with the 24-70mm f2.8 S, which is the best pro lens zoom on the market today, I do feel that the 70-300mm is a bit behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm probably at odds with most here, but the compact, high resolution Z7 together with the compact, lightweight, fast primes, was exactly what I was looking for in a system: equipment that wouldn't frighten the natives.
I'm looking forward to using the Z f/1.8 85mm S and hope it will be available in the UK before the end of this year.
-
There are other differences than resolution between the Z6 and Z7:
- The #/frames per second
- The buffer depth
- Video specs are pretty different with the Z6 being a much better video camera
So there are in facts pretty clear differences between these 2 cameras that seem very similar to what Sony did between the a7III and the a7rIII. Except that Nikon has decided to use the same high end viewfinder in the z6,... so they have not lowered some of the specs as much as Sony did.
But if your point is that the Z6 isn't an a9 competitor, then I totally agree. That camera will probably be called Z8 or Z9 and is expected to be announced anytime between Sept 2019 and March 2020.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well there you go. I was unaware of that. And yes Sony lowered the specs of the A7iii EVF while giving it better AF.
-
I'm probably at odds with most here, but the compact, high resolution Z7 together with the compact, lightweight, fast primes, was exactly what I was looking for in a system: equipment that wouldn't frighten the natives.
I'm looking forward to using the Z f/1.8 85mm S and hope it will be available in the UK before the end of this year.
I am 100% with you.
That’s one of the key reasons why I decided to invest in the Z mount.
All the other players have apparently decided that very good means very bulky.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well there you go. I was unaware of that. And yes Sony lowered the specs of the A7iii EVF while giving it better AF.
Yes, I should have mentioned that the AF of the Z6 is now 2 stops more sensitive in low light than the Z7.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm looking forward to using the Z f/1.8 85mm S and hope it will be available in the UK before the end of this year.
Me too - I keep seeing that it is supposed to be announced in May, then June and now ... ??? I think Nikon really need to keep to their roadmap if they want to reassure converts to the new system. My 85mm is my only F lens that won't autofocus on the Z, so for me it's an urgent need !!
-
Me too - I keep seeing that it is supposed to be announced in May, then June and now ... ??? I think Nikon really need to keep to their roadmap if they want to reassure converts to the new system. My 85mm is my only F lens that won't autofocus on the Z, so for me it's an urgent need !!
Hi, is there somewhere that updates this info?
-
Hi, is there somewhere that updates this info?
I keep checking on nikonrumors.com
-
I'm surprised with the size of the Nikon Z7 / Z6 that they don't reintroduce the old AFD 2.8 primes as a compact option.
-
I keep checking on nikonrumors.com
Thanks.
-
I'm coming from 40+ years of Nikon, 15+ years of Nikon digital and the past 5 years shooting M43.
I liked he M43 for its size, weight, silence, lenses. It made me stealthy and fade into the background. The files were fine at 16mp especially with good craft. Video was as easy as pushing the red button. Low light was doable but the af had issues and the files took work to make them good.
What I didn't like was that the bodies were not as robust or durable, battery life is terrible and the files sometimes a bit small except with the pixel-shifting on a tripod. Low light/high iso useable but not the best.
So, I took the plunge with a Z6, 14-30, 24-70, ftz to 70-200 which works just fine and seamlessly. It's the "tween system," midway between the M43, 7-14, 12-40, 35-100 and the FX with 14-24/17-35, 24-120, 70-200, in both size/weight.
So far, I've got about 4,000 images on it in a couple of weeks plus some video and slo-mo video. The video looks good and edits easily, the prints at 16x24 are stunning.
It's a bit larger and heavier than the M43 but not as large or heavy as the FX. Battery life is definitely better than M43. IQ a whole lot better especially higher ISO. It's as silent as the M43. Low light is a couple of stops better. Color and auto WB is as good as it gets.
So far in processing the files, it seems faster and easier to process, thus less time pixel wrangling, though it takes a little longer to download the files because they are half again as large.
I'll be using the Z6 as my primary camera coming up on a several projects in the next few of weeks and see how it does on these events I shot with the M43 successfully but I think my results should be even better and with less effort to accomplish.
So far the Z6/Z7 is the next step and Nikon has taken what it learned in five iterations with its Nikon 1, putting a bunch of that tech into the bases of the Z system. However, it's added the wide angle and prime lenses the 1 lacked. With the firmware update for AF and a few other tweaks I think it's ready for prime time.
-
...
So far the Z6/Z7 is the next step and Nikon has taken what it learned in five iterations with its Nikon 1, putting a bunch of that tech into the bases of the Z system. However, it's added the wide angle and prime lenses the 1 lacked. With the firmware update for AF and a few other tweaks I think it's ready for prime time.
Larry can I ask why you chose the Z6 over the Z7?
JR
-
I chose the Z6 over the Z7 for the simple reason I call "file bloat," huge files for little reason replacement of the function of a bicycle, a smart phone, with the equivalent of a Mac truck, Z7, which still produces too large of files for much of the world's consumption. Dumping down the resolution of even a Z6 to social media seems like such an excess as it is.
I have a pair of D800 bodies and the files are gorgeous and not that much smaller than the current models. However, most of what I am shooting these days are under "Hail-Mary" lighting and not destined for much larger than a double-page spread in a book and a lot simply ends up on social media, so there's little reason for files much larger than 24mp. In some respects, if I only did social media, I'd really only need 3-4 mp to do the job.
The D800 files up to maybe 6400 or so are perfect for me, but I need another couple of stops more beyond. I got that with my D3s at 25,000 & higher, but the weight, size, noise is a liability and the older I get...
I've produced lovely 24x36 and larger prints with 10-12 mp files for years and continue to do so today from my archives. Even with the files from my original 4-6 mp cameras, the double-page spreads were phenomenal at the time. However, though the larger files are great to work with and produce stunning image quality, it's really overkill for most of my clients and my market.
In all reality, if I were to show prints side-by-side of the same subject taken with 10-12 mp, next to 24 mp next to 36 mp and next to even higher, say 48-64 mp, 95-99% couple not really tell the difference nor care. If one uses good craft to produce a well-chosen image, IMO, the original file size isn't a critical factor in the final image for many, many photographs.
Another factor is that I also produce short films and video. The Z6 is a huge step above the 2k video my M43 produced.
-
I just got back from my first 'long' trip with the Z 6, up to Montreal and then over to Banff. What a joy this camera is to travel with. I only have the 24-70 zoom (I have other Nikon lenses that did not make the trip) and it was pretty much perfect for everything I shot. There were a couple of times in the Banff area that the 14-30 would have been nice. The weight and balance of this camera is perfect.
The one disconcerting thing is that Lightroom sets all the sharpening parameters way to high as defaults (Jim Kasson pointed this out on his blog and there are some posts over on the Lightroom section here).
-
I just got back from my first 'long' trip with the Z 6, up to Montreal and then over to Banff. What a joy this camera is to travel with. I only have the 24-70 zoom (I have other Nikon lenses that did not make the trip) and it was pretty much perfect for everything I shot. There were a couple of times in the Banff area that the 14-30 would have been nice. The weight and balance of this camera is perfect.
The one disconcerting thing is that Lightroom sets all the sharpening parameters way to high as defaults (Jim Kasson pointed this out on his blog and there are some posts over on the Lightroom section here).
Surely only a problem if one accepts the defaults?
-
Surely only a problem if one accepts the defaults?
It was just a big surprise to see the sliders where they were.
-
It was just a big surprise to see the sliders where they were.
Does LR default to different slider positions for different cameras?
-
Well, many thanks Larry and everyone else that contributed. Larry, I suspected you would be practical and was just wondering which way I should go - Z6 or Z7. Your response reinforces for me that I have to carefully consider my needs. I think if I shot Landscapes enough, I would probably buy the Z7. I am going to rent a Z6 and try it out. Thanks again.
JR
-
You are right, John.
When I was flush, I made a trip with a D3, D700, 2.8 lenses, and I was a pack mule. The next trip was with more practical bodies and a bit smaller lenses and the trip after that I dragged an M43 along and left the FX in the trunk and become invisible...
Since then, it was M43 until now. What I missed was easy-to-work files, longer battery life, great high ISO files. If I were better off, I'd have a pair of each Z6 and Z7 bodies and choose my tools for my projects. But I want to simply, do with less so I went pragmatic rather than wishful this time and went with the Z6.
On a road trip, I'll probably still use the D800 bodies since the files are large and luxurious but for travel I think 24 mp is a sweet spot and my experience with the high-iso of the bodies since the D3/D700 keep me shooting in the Hail Mary lighting I now relish.
I think for your abstracts resolution isn't too critical but color is king and you'll do fine with the Z6. Even for landscape, I am happy so far with the files.
Yesterday, I traveled up the mountain to a cow-camp where my friends have had a cabin in the family since the start of the 20th century and every Independence Day they gather. I had no agenda other than to consume craft beer and eat good potluck and face time 1995 style with long-time friends (the place is about 25 miles beyond the cell-phone bars.)
I took the Z6 and a early 1950s Summarit an old friend gave me. The lens has a large, hazy, milky fog in the middle. Bingo! I created a series of cow camp portraits inside and out with this etherial lens and it's hazy, asymmetrical age fog. Totally different than the 24-70 and other modern and well-coated lenses and I like what I see which I could control well with the aperture in real time on the EVF. Absolutely different than what I normally do and I may bring it along with me on the next project to shoot for myself when I have time.
It's nice to shoot with my collection of old LTM and M-series Leica and Canon lenses without having to use a film camera, and several of these lenses add warts, fog, softness, aberrations and other anomalies to the image. I had a little taste with several of these lenses on the M43 but that format only uses the heart of the image circle and one looses the effects of the edges that can both enhance and ruin an image depending upon the subject.
A whole, new box of chocolates is now at hand with little more than a cheap, spacing adaptor!
-
Does LR default to different slider positions for different cameras?
Yes, for my old D300 files the settings are 25, 1.0, 25; the same for my old D810 though these were imported before I updated Lightroom earlier this year to the subscription model. For the Z 6 it's 24, 2.0, 25 and I've read reports that some Sony cameras the amount setting was bumped up to 40. From what I have read the change occurred with LR version 7.3. The sharpening algorithm has not changed, just the initial import settings. One can change these defaults so the radius of 2.0 which is usually way to high can be reset accordingly.
-
I don't use Lightroom but rather Photoshop CC and ACR.
With regards to sharpening 'defaults' I'm seeing some variation between shots on Z7 files.
-
Yes, for my old D300 files the settings are 25, 1.0, 25; the same for my old D810 though these were imported before I updated Lightroom earlier this year to the subscription model. For the Z 6 it's 24, 2.0, 25 and I've read reports that some Sony cameras the amount setting was bumped up to 40. From what I have read the change occurred with LR version 7.3. The sharpening algorithm has not changed, just the initial import settings. One can change these defaults so the radius of 2.0 which is usually way to high can be reset accordingly.
I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe had taken this decision to try to compensate for the better demoisaicing engine of C1 Pro?
LR default used to look a lot softer than C1.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, for my old D300 files the settings are 25, 1.0, 25; the same for my old D810 though these were imported before I updated Lightroom earlier this year to the subscription model. For the Z 6 it's 24, 2.0, 25 and I've read reports that some Sony cameras the amount setting was bumped up to 40. From what I have read the change occurred with LR version 7.3. The sharpening algorithm has not changed, just the initial import settings. One can change these defaults so the radius of 2.0 which is usually way to high can be reset accordingly.
I I understand what's happening correctly, Lightroom takes the camera's settings, as they are recorded in the metadata (would be applied to a JPEG, were you to shoot JPEG) and sets its sliders to that. So in theory, what LR gives you to start with should be as close as it can produce to what you saw on the monitor screen of the camera.
-
I I understand what's happening correctly, Lightroom takes the camera's settings, as they are recorded in the metadata (would be applied to a JPEG, were you to shoot JPEG) and sets its sliders to that. So in theory, what LR gives you to start with should be as close as it can produce to what you saw on the monitor screen of the camera.
Why would LR make your RAWs have the same settings as you have selected for your SOOC JPGs?
-
Why would LR make your RAWs have the same settings as you have selected for your SOOC JPGs?
You'd have to ask Adobe. But it makes sense to me.
They have to start somewhere, and the two choices that seem most sensible to me are:
- everything zeroed, and
- the same settings you saw when shooting.
They seem to have chosen #2, but if you don't like their choice, you can apply any seetting you want on import, so I don't see much of a problem either way.
-
You'd have to ask Adobe. But it makes sense to me.
They have to start somewhere, and the two choices that seem most sensible to me are:
- everything zeroed, and
- the same settings you saw when shooting.
They seem to have chosen #2, but if you don't like their choice, you can apply any seetting you want on import, so I don't see much of a problem either way.
So if I change the JPG settings in my camera, even though I don't shoot JPGs, LR changes the defaults on my RAWs?
-
So if I change the JPG settings in my camera, even though I don't shoot JPGs, LR changes the defaults on my RAWs?
Yes.
You should also know that what you see in playback in-camera reflects the JPEG settings, even if you only shoot raw (as I do). I most often keep the camera set to a flat profile in its still mode because it lets me see further into the shadows in contrasty light.
-
Yes. You should also know that what you see in playback in-camera reflects the JPEG settings, even if you only shoot raw (as I do). I most often keep the camera set to a flat profile in its still mode because it lets me see further into the shadows in contrasty light.
I don't shoot JPGs so I have never changed the default settings. I didn't know LR read them and applied them to RAWs. Learn something new every day.
-
I don't shoot JPGs so I have never changed the default settings. I didn't know LR read them and applied them to RAWs. Learn something new every day.
Same for me. Don't shoot JPGs and have never fooled around with the settings.
EDIT: I just noticed that the Noise reduction sliders now have a default setting for the Z 6 as well. With D810 & D300 images the Luminescence value was set to zero and the Detail and Contrast sliders are grayed out which they should be since the sliders have no effect unless one changes the Luminescence to a positive value. Native Z 6 Raw files have a default of Lum 10, Detail 75, Contrast 0; I wonder if this is another Adobe decision about what they thing is best for the image in terms of a starting point.
Alan
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2019/07/11/nikon-nikkor-z-24-70mm-f-2-8-s-lens-tested-at-dxomark.aspx/
A confirmation of what we already knew.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Same for me. Don't shoot JPGs and have never fooled around with the settings.
EDIT: I just noticed that the Noise reduction sliders now have a default setting for the Z 6 as well. With D810 & D300 images the Luminescence value was set to zero and the Detail and Contrast sliders are grayed out which they should be since the sliders have no effect unless one changes the Luminescence to a positive value. Native Z 6 Raw files have a default of Lum 10, Detail 75, Contrast 0; I wonder if this is another Adobe decision about what they thing is best for the image in terms of a starting point.
Alan
Some of those settings are in the built-in profiles embedded in the raw files by Nikon, some are Adobe’s choices.
-
Some of those settings are in the built-in profiles embedded in the raw files by Nikon, some are Adobe’s choices.
I believe you are right. I also believe this is why I'm seeing some variation in the settings between individual shots on the Z7.
-
I read : focus by wire: turn the camera off and the focus changes. ( is that true?)
And not to have the freedom of choice putting the lenscorrections ON or OFF.
For me those two things are downsides in using the camera/lenses.
-
I read : focus by wire: turn the camera off and the focus changes. ( is that true?)
And not to have the freedom of choice putting the lenscorrections ON or OFF.
For me those two things are downsides in using the camera/lenses.
The focus seems to reset if you are using a focus by wire lens. I assume this is regardless of the camera/system used.
The mandatory application of lens correction is an issue with raw software, not with the camera.
AFAIK:
C1: lens correction optional :).
LR: lens correction mandatory if it is part of the built-in profile :(.
Capture NX-D: lens correction either mandatory or optional if built-in profile provided, depending on the lens :).
Note that at least Fuji GF and some Leicas also include a built-in profile that contains lens distortion corrections.
-
The focus seems to reset if you are using a focus by wire lens. I assume this is regardless of the camera/system used.
The mandatory application of lens correction is an issue with raw software, not with the camera.
AFAIK:
C1: lens correction optional :).
LR: lens correction mandatory if it is part of the built-in profile :(.
Capture NX-D: lens correction either mandatory or optional if built-in profile provided, depending on the lens :).
Note that at least Fuji GF and some Leicas also include a built-in profile that contains lens distortion corrections.
Thank you- i use LR and it should be addressed. ( there are more things in LR that are not working well)
i have a bad habit turning the camera on and off all the time- at the same time i make use of the fact focus stays put. ... ( d850) so i will have change my working methods.
-
Thank you- i use LR and it should be addressed. ( there are more things in LR that are not working well)
i have a bad habit turning the camera on and off all the time- at the same time i make use of the fact focus stays put. ... ( d850) so i will have change my working methods.
The reset-to-infinity seems to be a property of focus-by-wire lenses, not cameras. If you mount an AF-P 70-300 lens on D850, it will reset to infinity if turned off. If you attach a Tamron 35-150 on Z 7 via FTZ, it will not reset to infinity when turned off.
-
I need it to use the AE bracketing yesterday on the Z7 and it turned out more convoluted than I recall doing it on the Fuji X system.
In order to get the shots immediately after each other, and not getting all of them with one shutter push/remote activation as in the Fuji, according to the manual by Thom Hogan I have to set the intervalometer with the same number of shots as the set AE bracketing, in a different part of the menu of course. Otherwise I have to activate the shutter for each shot in the AE bracketing. This is not too straightforward.
Second issue: to cancel the AE bracketing I have to go back and set the number of shots to 0. This is also more complicated than it should be. On the Fuji I just enable or disable the bracketing, whatever it is (AE, focus, etc).
Any way to do this faster/simpler?
-
What happens if you switch to continuous mode? With the D850 you can hold the shutter down for all brackets in continuous mode.
Edit, yes this works. Turn on AE bracketing, set exposure range, change to continuous and with single press of shutter all brackets are taken. Works same way with remote release also. Never had to use the intervalometer. Requires holding shutter button down entire time or remote release.
You can also enable AE bracketing, continuous shutter low or high and 2 sec delay. This allows one single depressing of the shutter and it will fire all the brackets. You don’t have to keep holding the shutter down.
I agree the actual setting up is a bit tedious.
Paul C
-
Thanks, if I put it on timer it takes all the shots. Now if only it could remember that it was on timer when it shuts down.
Another issue is that I'm starting to be disappointed with the focus performance. Particularly continuous autofocus. When I try the wide size, if objects that fill around half or more of the focus box, if they are backlit it tends to focus on the background. Quite annoying.
Also is I try the widest focus area, you hit OK and set the center box on the subject to shoot. It doesn't keep it that well, many times it keeps the box but actual focus is not where it needs to be. I wonder how much better is Sony.
-
I have to be honest and say I don’t know even though I use two Sony FF bodies. I don’t have enough user experience with the z series to have any sort of opinion.
I do know that the Sony focus system is amazing, but that is by my standards and expectations. Amazing doesn’t mean perfect either, it has its issues. It misses focus, you have to pick the right set up. Still it’s extraordinarily good.
So many things with mirrorless cameras. For instance if you have live view effect on and use the EVF to evaluate exposure while using a smallish aperture you will severely degrade auto focus. The lens used can also have a big impact, obviously, and we all know that lower light levels have a negative effect.
All these things also make it harder to compare two cameras than a lot of youtubers would have you think. The various manufacturers have different approaches to what has become a complex issue and sometimes that results in a lack of equivalency with settings. For example the Sony wide area focus is very good at finding faces and tends to select the brightest closest face near the centre of the frame using an algorithm that might or might not compare to Nikon using similar settings. Sometimes I see a comparison when I know that the settings for the Sony is wrong for the situation and the camera is not working optimally. I assume the same thing happens with the Nikon which I don’t know as well.
I guess that’s a complicated way of saying you will have to compare for yourself but you will need to get someone who really knows the camera to set it up for you and it will be a bit of a experimental process. It won’t be a true comparison but a few hours of playing and deciding which you prefer.
-
How on earth did we ever manage with manual focus?
Sometimes, just sometimes, it is possible that we rely on and expect too much of camera technologies.
;-)
-
How on earth did we ever manage with manual focus?
Sometimes, just sometimes, it is possible that we rely on and expect too much of camera technologies.
;-)
Well we had different focussing screens and the lenses had a focussing ring much better suited to manual focus. Besides that we also accepted more images being out of focus and we didn’t look at stuff at 100 or 200% on a monitor. I do think standards have changed in respect to what we accept as sharp.
But your point is well taken.
-
Well we had different focussing screens and the lenses had a focussing ring much better suited to manual focus. Besides that we also accepted more images being out of focus and we didn’t look at stuff at 100 or 200% on a monitor. I do think standards have changed in respect to what we accept as sharp.
But your point is well taken.
With film as opposed to digital, we didn't have to worry about diffraction and one could stop the lens down so that there was a good DOF. As Martin notes, the focusing screens were excellent. Does anyone using digital shoot with f8 or higher?
-
With film as opposed to digital, we didn't have to worry about diffraction and one could stop the lens down so that there was a good DOF. As Martin notes, the focusing screens were excellent. Does anyone using digital shoot with f8 or higher?
Yes sure. I have no fear stopping down to f22 when I think a shot needs it. Why not? Diffraction kills micro detail mostly I think. Texture and stuff. Let’s say I am shooting a pen and it angles away from me. It’s a smooth cylinder and is going to be removed from its back ground with deep etching. I can’t hold the entire thing sharp at f8. I can at f22. F22 has loads of diffraction that will soften the micro detail. In this case what micro detail? If I can hold the edge sharp and the clip detail which is at the back of the pen I’m good to go. $15 is what I get for small product photography in South Africa. You think I have time to focus stack? I shoot hundreds of things like that.
That’s an extreme example sure but it gives an idea of my thinking on this issue.
-
With film as opposed to digital, we didn't have to worry about diffraction and one could stop the lens down so that there was a good DOF. As Martin notes, the focusing screens were excellent. Does anyone using digital shoot with f8 or higher?
Often.
-
Often.
Me too.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Me too.
Cheers,
Bernard
just curious, is this for work that you would print big where diffraction might be an issue? I've not done the experiment to see how big an issue this is other than relying on my very old optics textbook that I used in college physics a lot of years ago. I probably should do some real life testing.
Alan
-
How on earth did we ever manage with manual focus?
Sometimes, just sometimes, it is possible that we rely on and expect too much of camera technologies.
;-)
You are opening a can of worms here.
Didn't you switch to the Z7 because of issues with manual focus/rangefinder focus?
If I know I can't count on autofocus I wound try to get better with manual focus but it will be slower and often less accurate. This is an advertised feature that should work more reliably. There are likely issues on my part in using the system better but really what I was complaining about is pretty basic stuff, no fancy autofocus and tracking.
-
You are opening a can of worms here.
Didn't you switch to the Z7 because of issues with manual focus/rangefinder focus?
If I know I can't count on autofocus I wound try to get better with manual focus but it will be slower and often less accurate. This is an advertised feature that should work more reliably. There are likely issues on my part in using the system better but really what I was complaining about is pretty basic stuff, no fancy autofocus and tracking.
Please note, I said how did we.
And it was issues with eyesight.
-
Does anyone using digital shoot with f8 or higher?
Why would one not stop down to f/8 or beyond for adequate DOF when that is the priority?
- If intending to display at the same size as with film or a lower resolution camera, f/8 or higher gives images as sharp as it ever did; in fact at least a bit sharper as sensor resolution increases.
- If instead one intends to use the extra resolution to display the image larger, a trade-off is needed, because to keep as much of the scene looking in sharp focus, if anything a higher f-stop is needed: greater enlargement magnifies OOF effects as much as it magnifies diffraction blurring. So depending on the situation, making use of higher resolution could push either way: lower f-stop if diffraction blurring is the greater concern; higher f-stop if getting in-focus all that you want in-focus is more important.
-
just curious, is this for work that you would print big where diffraction might be an issue? I've not done the experiment to see how big an issue this is other than relying on my very old optics textbook that I used in college physics a lot of years ago. I probably should do some real life testing.
Alan
I shoot landscapes quite often at f11 and print large. I don't feel diffraction affects my prints much if at all. Atmospheric haze has a much more visible affect.
-
This is an interesting blog post by Michael Frye on shooting at f16.
https://www.michaelfrye.com/?s=f+16
-
This thread has turned into th founding philosophy for a f16 club.
-
There is always focus stacking
-
There is always focus stacking
There is focus stacking but there isn’t always focus stacking. Sometimes things move are moving and changing and sometimes commercially budgets don’t always support the additional time and complexity.
-
I'd love to hear from someone actively shooting video with these new cameras. I hear complaints about poor realtime autofocus in video and about noisy preamps in the audio section.
I'd be using my legacy F lenses, 24-85 and 70-200 mostly.
-
I'd love to hear from someone actively shooting video with these new cameras. I hear complaints about poor realtime autofocus in video and about noisy preamps in the audio section. On the other hand, my 70-200 VRII is great with the Z cameras—not as quiet as the S-series lenses, but quite usable, and performance from an optical and focus perspective is excellent.
I'd be using my legacy F lenses, 24-85 and 70-200 mostly.
How well-suited an F-mount Nikkor is to video autoficus depends very much on the lens. The motors were not designed with video autofocus in mind, and the constant micro-adjustments can sound alarmingly loud. For example, I have the 12-24mm DX Nikkor. I like it very much optically, and ir focusses well, but it's too noisy to use when I care about audio.
From my perspective, no DSLR or mirrorless camera I've ever tested has decent preamps. Their audio systems are all marginal at best. The Nikon is no exception.When I don't have an audio recordist on a shoot, I use a Sound Devices MixPre3 for audio, synced to the camera with a couple of Tentacle Sync timecode generators. That system works well and has truly excellent preamps and very good limiters. If $700 is too rich for your budget, any of the Zoom recorders will be a step up from the camera's audio system, as will the Tascam recorder, but they won't match the quality of the Sound Devices preamps.
As for autofocus performance in video, take a look at this:
https://vimeo.com/347771601
I shot this PSA with a Z6 on a Moza Air 2 gimal, so both the girl and the camera were constantly in motion. Light was provided by just two practical fixtures with 75-watt bulbs. (It was critical to balance the ambient light so that the light from the iPhone screen played.) The lenses used were the 35mm and 50mm f/1.8 S lenses at f/2.0 or 2.2. It was shot in N-log at ISO 1600, if I remember correctly. As you see, autofocus performance was excellent. It helped a great deal to be able to adjust the speed of the autofocus to accomodate the changes of pace.
-
To my eye that video looks great. No issues.
-
To my eye that video looks great. No issues.
Thanks, Martin. I’ve been quite happy with the Z cameras’ performance for video.
-
I'd love to hear from someone actively shooting video with these new cameras. I hear complaints about poor realtime autofocus in video and about noisy preamps in the audio section.
I'd be using my legacy F lenses, 24-85 and 70-200 mostly.
I couldn't rent the Z camera in Toronto without buying the new expensive card. Bummer. Peter, I would be very interested in your experiences with the use of the older Nikon lenses. I have a few.
Thanks, JR
-
I couldn't rent the Z camera in Toronto without buying the new expensive card. Bummer. Peter, I would be very interested in your experiences with the use of the older Nikon lenses. I have a few.
Thanks, JR
John, older Nikkor lenses work very well for still photography, as long as they have a focus motor. (The D-series lenses have no motor, so they don’t autofocus.)
I have the 24-70 f/2.8G, 70-200 f2.8 vr2, 10mm DX fisheye, 12-24mm f/4.0 DX, 17-55mm f/2.8 DX, and the new 300mm f/4.0 PF. All work just as well on my Z7 and Z6 with the FTZ adapter as on my D810. The Sigma 105mm macro also works well.
I have a set of ais Nikkor primes covering 20mm through 300mm, All work very well with manual focus and peaking, but sadly, the FTZ doesn’t index them, so even though you set the max aperture, the cameras don’t report the aperture in metadata. They do meter correctly in aperture priority.
Video autofocus with the AF f-mount lenses I own is fine, but most of them are too noisy to use on a sound shoot. The exceptions are the 70-200, the 10mm fisheye, and the 300mm PF.
-
John, older Nikkor lenses work very well for still photography, as long as they have a focus motor. (The D-series lenses have no motor, so they don’t autofocus.)
I have the 24-70 f/2.8G, 70-200 f2.8 vr2, 10mm DX fisheye, 12-24mm f/4.0 DX, 17-55mm f/2.8 DX, and the new 300mm f/4.0 PF. All work just as well on my Z7 and Z6 with the FTZ adapter as on my D810. The Sigma 105mm macro also works well.
I have a set of ais Nikkor primes covering 20mm through 300mm, All work very well with manual focus and peaking, but sadly, the FTZ doesn’t index them, so even though you set the max aperture, the cameras don’t report the aperture in metadata. They do meter correctly in aperture priority.
Video autofocus with the AF f-mount lenses I own is fine, but most of them are too noisy to use on a sound shoot. The exceptions are the 70-200, the 10mm fisheye, and the 300mm PF.
Thank you for that info, David. I want to take the plunge, but I at least want to try the camera because I want to ensure it is suitable and light enough for what I do. I did encounter a person on my walks with the Z6 and was pleasantly surprised on how small the camera is. It bothers me to no end that I can't get simple extension tubes for my Pentax! I was going to buy the full frame K1. But if noone is going to support it, this is my chance jump into Mirrorless.
Thanks again.
JR
-
Firmware updates 2.01 for Z6 & Z7 now available.
Z6 (https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/332.html)
Z7 (https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/331.html)
-
I'm amused by the fact that if you Google something like "Nikon z f1.8 85mm lens" you will find all kinds of "reviews" by people who don't have one yet. The reviews are good.
-
I'm amused by the fact that if you Google something like "Nikon z f1.8 85mm lens" you will find all kinds of "reviews" by people who don't have one yet. The reviews are good.
They learn from politicians.
Everything is cool until it explodes in your face, as it were.
:-)
-
Video autofocus with the AF f-mount lenses I own is fine, but most of them are too noisy to use on a sound shoot. The exceptions are the 70-200...
I just tested a 70-200 F4 on a Z7 body. AF is unusable for sound shoots due to focus motor noise. A pal reported similar symptoms with his 70-200 F2.8.
It looks like video shooters will have to wait for the 70-200 S, due "real soon now". :)
-
I just tested a 70-200 F4 on a Z7 body. AF is unusable for sound shoots due to focus motor noise. A pal reported similar symptoms with his 70-200 F2.8.
It looks like video shooters will have to wait for the 70-200 S, due "real soon now". :)
You are right about that. I had forgotten that when I’ve used the 70-200 f/2.8 for video shoots it’s been with manual focus. I much prefer manual focus for video shooting, but that’s not really possible with a small gimbal, so autofocus has become a valuable function in that realm.
-
I have recently added a Z6 to my line up for lower light shooting, now with firmware 2.01.
Last night I shot around 2,000 images on it with one battery and still had 2/5 of battery left...
Lenses were 200mm f2.0, 500mm f5.6 and 105mm f1.4. VR off.
I was also impressed with the AF. On the 105mm f1.4, which is the only lens I had the time to focust adjust, I am getting a ratio of AF-Ced tack sharp images probably higher than what I was getting with my D5 with this lens... very impressed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have recently added a Z6 to my line up for lower light shooting, now with firmware 2.01.
Last night I shot around 2,000 images on it with one battery and still had 2/5 of battery left...
Lenses were 200mm f2.0, 500mm f5.6 and 105mm f1.4. VR off.
I was also impressed with the AF. On the 105mm f1.4, which is the only lens I had the time to focust adjust, I am getting a ratio of AF-Ced tack sharp images probably higher than what I was getting with my D5 with this lens... very impressed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Nice one Bernard.
-
I contemplated adding the Z6, particularly as I don't need the megapixels from Z7 but the more time passes I find it hard to justify instead of waiting for the next generation (or switching to another mount). Z7 has an ok focus, although at times it's quite frustrating. For example, in AF-S the wide-s or wide-l area are too unreliable. You can use either the smaller ones, accurate but slower to get where you want it, or the widest but it's not that smart so in the end not that fast either.
-
Nice one Bernard.
Not sure what that means.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I contemplated adding the Z6, particularly as I don't need the megapixels from Z7 but the more time passes I find it hard to justify instead of waiting for the next generation (or switching to another mount). Z7 has an ok focus, although at times it's quite frustrating. For example, in AF-S the wide-s or wide-l area are too unreliable. You can use either the smaller ones, accurate but slower to get where you want it, or the widest but it's not that smart so in the end not that fast either.
I have not done a side to side comparison, but the Z6 with firmware 2.01 felt significantly better AF wise than what I remembered of the Z7 with 2.0.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not sure what that means.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think adding the Z6 to the system is a good idea and I am pleased you were able to do that.
-
I think adding the Z6 to the system is a good idea and I am pleased you were able to do that.
Thanks for the clarification.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63018799
The official BCN Data do not include Yodobashi and Map camera, the two most relevant camera stores in Japan.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The new 85 for the Z cameras will be out in a week or so. What are the chances that there'll be enough of them to meet the initial demand? I noticed that they're about an inch longer than my 85G, which is not what I expected in a camera system that's supposed to emphasize compactness. On the other hand, they're slightly slimmer. I haven't pre-ordered, because I hate that deal when you do, then the merchant doesn't get any in for six month...but as soon as I see that one is in stock, I will.
-
That sounds like a similar error to reporting US camera sales volume without B&H and Adorama... Not only would you miss a substantial chunk of volume, you'd disproportionately miss higher-end camera sales.
If you look at Amazon's top 100 selling digital cameras, many are point and shoots (including a lot of no-brand specials), the first full-frame camera appears at #37 (A7 III), and there are only 5 full-frame cameras (A7III, EOS 6D II and 5D IV, D850 and A7rIV - plus a couple of upper-end Fujis rounding out the more expensive cameras) on the whole list.
Here's Amazon's #1 selling camera of all (as of Aug. 26, 2019):
AbergBest 21 Mega Pixels 2.7" LCD Rechargeable HD Digital Camera,Video camera Digital Students cameras,Indoor Outdoor for Adult/Seniors/Kids (Black).
Five of the top 10 are cheap point and shoots (two no-names, an Elph, a $118 Sony and a Canon long zoom), plus the latest RX100, a trail camera and three Rebels.
On the same list from B&H, you get 33 full-frame cameras (all of the major models, in different variations), six of which are in the top ten best sellers. The A7rIV is the #1 seller, and the D850 is in the top ten. Neither of those two pricey high-res bodies cracked the top 50 on Amazon.
Another interesting piece of perspective is that no medium-format camera cracked the top 100 on B&H, when there were three versions each of the A7rIII and Z7, plus two versions of the D850 and one of the D810. The A7rIV only showed up once, but at #1 overall. Even the Q2 appeared... Oddly, the best-selling medium format camera was not a GFX (I would have expected the 50R, or maybe the 100) - it was the X1D II at #122.
-
The new 85 for the Z cameras will be out in a week or so. What are the chances that there'll be enough of them to meet the initial demand? I noticed that they're about an inch longer than my 85G, which is not what I expected in a camera system that's supposed to emphasize compactness. On the other hand, they're slightly slimmer. I haven't pre-ordered, because I hate that deal when you do, then the merchant doesn't get any in for six month...but as soon as I see that one is in stock, I will.
Indeed, but it still is pretty light.
When I see that the new Canon 24-70mm f2.8 R at 900gr is 100 gr heavier than its DSLR predecessor I wonder what the point is...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed, but it still is pretty light.
When I see that the new Canon 24-70mm f2.8 R at 900gr is 100 gr heavier than its DSLR predecessor I wonder what the point is...
Cheers,
Bernard
Let's see how light the new Nikon 14-28 F2.8 S will be compared to the old version.
-
Let's see how light the new Nikon 14-28 F2.8 S will be compared to the old version.
Sure, at least the 24-70mm f2.8 S is both lighter, more compact and significantly better than its predecessor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48632561123_e631502321_h.jpg)
Nikon Z6 + 200mm f2.0 on FTS @ f2.0, VR off
I am officially impressed by the AF-C tracking performance of the Z6 with firmware 2.01.
Having done a slight fine tuning of the AF on the 200mm f2.0 (+3 only), I am now getting a very high ratio of tack sharp images on moving subjects in pretty dark environments. Very similar to what I have been getting with my D5, possibly better than the D850.
I don't get why anyone would have an issue with this level of AF performance. It's top notch.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hmm, well, I have been very happy with my Z7 but I just noticed that the rubber (or whatever) coating is starting to bubble off the panel below the card door. Apparently this is a common problem ("known issue"). That's disappointing. Also disappointing that it happened just as the warranty expired, and also that the duct tape I stuck over it has also come unstuck :-( :-( Maybe it's just cosmetic, but these things do affect the resale value at upgrade time.
-
Hmm, well, I have been very happy with my Z7 but I just noticed that the rubber (or whatever) coating is starting to bubble off the panel below the card door. Apparently this is a common problem ("known issue"). That's disappointing. Also disappointing that it happened just as the warranty expired, and also that the duct tape I stuck over it has also come unstuck :-( :-( Maybe it's just cosmetic, but these things do affect the resale value at upgrade time.
Same problem here. I haven't had the time to request a fix.
The camera still works though. The only impact is a few points in resell value when the Z8 hits I guess.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48823516287_b6cbf698db_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A non-scientific test I did with eye-AF makes me question my understanding of how it works. Or question my own eyes ....
I was standing across the street from someone, and took a look at how reliably the face/eye detection worked. I use back-button focus. What I think I saw was that with wide aperture the face/eye was detected reliably, but at narrow aperture I usually did not achieve that, and was given the set of red boxes covering the general outline. Does that make sense? I'd have thought that the aperture is only relevant at the actual moment of pressing the shutter?
-
A non-scientific test I did with eye-AF makes me question my understanding of how it works. Or question my own eyes ....
I was standing across the street from someone, and took a look at how reliably the face/eye detection worked. I use back-button focus. What I think I saw was that with wide aperture the face/eye was detected reliably, but at narrow aperture I usually did not achieve that, and was given the set of red boxes covering the general outline. Does that make sense? I'd have thought that the aperture is only relevant at the actual moment of pressing the shutter?
Depends on wether you have selected picture effect on or whatever Nikon calls it. If you have then the camera is operating at the selected aperture and is not using max aperture and shutting down at moment of exposure like a traditional SLR. Actually it’s a tiny bit more complicated than that but that gives you the idea. It makes focus more difficult for all sorts of obvious reasons.
-
I would have to double check but I think the Z focuses at the actual aperture unless it's smaller than 5.6 in which case it focuses at 5.6 and then stops for the shot.
-
I was standing across the street from someone, and took a look at how reliably the face/eye detection worked. I use back-button focus. What I think I saw was that with wide aperture the face/eye was detected reliably, but at narrow aperture I usually did not achieve that, and was given the set of red boxes covering the general outline. Does that make sense? I'd have thought that the aperture is only relevant at the actual moment of pressing the shutter?
At narrow apertures dof increases so at those distances it is probably immaterial whether one focuses on the iris, the lashes or the head, as the Z seems to understand.
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3228623333/nikon-announces-z6-z7-raw-video-output-upgrade-new-firmware-adds-cfexpress-support
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3228623333/nikon-announces-z6-z7-raw-video-output-upgrade-new-firmware-adds-cfexpress-support
Cheers,
Bernard
And Pro-Res Raw support will now be available for a $200 upgrade (send it in), which is IMO very important.
-
And Pro-Res Raw support will now be available for a $200 upgrade (send it in), which is IMO very important.
Indeed! I'll probably to the update on my Z6.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3228623333/nikon-announces-z6-z7-raw-video-output-upgrade-new-firmware-adds-cfexpress-support
Cheers,
Bernard
OMG - you posted a link without a precis of the contents. Report yourself to the Moderator !!!
-
At narrow apertures dof increases so at those distances it is probably immaterial whether one focuses on the iris, the lashes or the head, as the Z seems to understand.
Yep, and unless you are habitually and naturally into special effects, the way many people shoot.
Thanks for underlining my scepticism regarding all this hyper focus nonsense that parts people from their cash!
:-)
(Sorry, tech fiends, just couldn't help myself! Needed a happy note before going out to face the world this morning.)
-
I'm still running 2.01 and doubt I'll bother updating to either 2.10 or 2.20.
EDIT: Unless someone here can persuade me otherwise.
;-)
-
I'm still running 2.01 and doubt I'll bother updating to either 2.10 or 2.20.
EDIT: Unless someone here can persuade me otherwise.
;-)
As mentioned, I feel a lot happier since applying 2.10. My life is more fulfilling and I see more saturated colors around.
Did I mention I swallowed the memory card with the 2.10 loaded?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As mentioned, I feel a lot happier since applying 2.10. My life is more fulfilling and I see more saturated colors around.
Did I mention I swallowed the memory card with the 2.10 loaded?
Cheers,
Bernard
;D
-
At narrow apertures dof increases so at those distances it is probably immaterial whether one focuses on the iris, the lashes or the head, as the Z seems to understand.
Yes, but the question was not whether I want to achieve accurate eye focus at small apertures, but how is the aperture part of the camera's eye detection capability? Does the camera software really think "well, this guy has set eye detection to ON but the clown is shooting at f/8, so I'll just focus on any old thing"?
-
Yes, but the question was not whether I want to achieve accurate eye focus at small apertures, but how is the aperture part of the camera's eye detection capability? Does the camera software really think "well, this guy has set eye detection to ON but the clown is shooting at f/8, so I'll just focus on any old thing"?
Yes, the firmware has an explicit mention of "clown".
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Phase detect on the Sony A7r3 works at I think F8 at the smallest aperture and the A9 at I think F11. I may have the actual numbers incorrect but you get the idea. I’m fairly certain the eye focus system works on phase detect so it stands to reason when that system stops operating so does the eye detect.
I imagine Nikon runs on similar tech and has similar constraints so that would explain the issue perhaps.
-
Phase detect on the Sony A7r3 works at I think F8 at the smallest aperture and the A9 at I think F11. I may have the actual numbers incorrect but you get the idea. I’m fairly certain the eye focus system works on phase detect so it stands to reason when that system stops operating so does the eye detect.
I imagine Nikon runs on similar tech and has similar constraints so that would explain the issue perhaps.
That explains my observation and makes sense - thanks.
-
One thing that bothers me about Z7 is the viewfinder eye detection. It is quite sensitive which is nice when all is good, but when it rains or snows, even a tiny droplet can activate it. And because it is quite protected it is difficult to wipe out clean; once even some condensation did it.
-
These two promised additions to the Z6 ad Z7 are available now:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/12/16/nikon-releases-long-awaited-raw-video-feature-upgrade-for-z7-z6-cameras
My guess is that at least part of the reason for the cost of adding ProRes Raw support is that Red recently won a legal dispute and is allowed to charge patent licensing fees for aspects of Apple's ProRes Raw.
-
One thing that bothers me about Z7 is the viewfinder eye detection. It is quite sensitive which is nice when all is good, but when it rains or snows, even a tiny droplet can activate it. And because it is quite protected it is difficult to wipe out clean; once even some condensation did it.
Not just the Nikon has that issue. A real PITA when it occurs. Popping the lcd slightly over rides the eye detect and then the lcd stays on. Useful in an emergency. Perhaps the Nikon does the same?
-
Not just the Nikon has that issue. A real PITA when it occurs. Popping the lcd slightly over rides the eye detect and then the lcd stays on. Useful in an emergency. Perhaps the Nikon does the same?
I'll try it next time. With gloves it's a little tricky to pull it easily. This problem doesn't occur so often with my X-T2 though.
-
I'll try it next time. With gloves it's a little tricky to pull it easily. This problem doesn't occur so often with my X-T2 though.
I was going to ask why on earth you would take photos with gloves on but then I remembered that that is a thing. My hands are slippery with sweat this side of the equator.
-
A press on the finder button switches to rear screen only and fixes this.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I was going to ask why on earth you would take photos with gloves on but then I remembered that that is a thing.
LuLa old-timers know that concern for ergonomics with gloves on is a core principle of this site—it is, after all, Canadian.
-
LuLa old-timers know that concern for ergonomics with gloves on is a core principle of this site—it is, after all, Canadian.
Indeed. Since joining Lula I always shoot with gloves.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed. Since joining Lula I always shoot with gloves.
Cheers,
Bernard
And a woolly hat!
;-)
-
When you are outside and the temperatures are under 30F even before the vicious windchill you don’t have an option to shoot without gloves, unless you want it to be a singular event.
-
One thing that bothers me about Z7 is the viewfinder eye detection. It is quite sensitive which is nice when all is good, but when it rains or snows, even a tiny droplet can activate it. And because it is quite protected it is difficult to wipe out clean; once even some condensation did it.
That has annoyed me too. Just a tiny bit of crud, and it stops working.
-
That has annoyed me too. Just a tiny bit of crud, and it stops working.
Hey Jim, just visited your site. You have really fine work. First rate.
JR
-
One thing that bothers me about Z7 is the viewfinder eye detection. It is quite sensitive which is nice when all is good, but when it rains or snows, even a tiny droplet can activate it. And because it is quite protected it is difficult to wipe out clean; once even some condensation did it.
I don’t like the auto switch function on any mirrorless camera. I’m too often annoyed by the system’s switching to eyepiece when I’m using the touch screen for something. I solve this on the Z cameras by restricting the viewfinder select button to “prioritize viewfinder” and “monitor only” so I can use the monitor select button to switch between the two when I want. The switch is instant, and it works even with gloves.
-
Phase detect on the Sony A7r3 works at I think F8 at the smallest aperture and the A9 at I think F11. I may have the actual numbers incorrect but you get the idea. I’m fairly certain the eye focus system works on phase detect so it stands to reason when that system stops operating so does the eye detect.
I imagine Nikon runs on similar tech and has similar constraints so that would explain the issue perhaps.
It is never clear with Sony if they focus with working or fully open aperture (depends on firmware and lenses). When focusing at the working aperture, Sony switches to CDAF at a certain aperture. It is different with Nikon: it is always PDAF as it focuses at working aperture or f/5.6, whichever is wider.
-
As I heroically resisted the temptation of buying the Z6 (sale + extras at BH), I was thinking of when should we expect the next generation and of what improvements would I want to see most.
I already have a Z7 and the main reasons for me to get the Z6 would be less megapixels and maybe better low light focus. I don't do enough video to appreciate what Z6 offers compared to Z7.
But then I realized that Nikon might actually upgrade the pixel count for a second generation Z6, how likely do you think this could be?
While I would appreciate a better focus and IBIS I don't want to deal with more pixels when I already have the Z7, so I might get that Z6 after all.
-
But then I realized that Nikon might actually upgrade the pixel count for a second generation Z6, how likely do you think this could be?
as likely as the thoughts were about Sony Imaging upgrading the pixel count for A9 mk II ;D
-
I would imaging we would see the z6 and Z7 grow apart with the 7 being the pixel monster and the 6 the high performance sport type body.
But then Nikon often surprises me, sometimes in a good way and sometimes not.
-
I would imaging we would see the z6 and Z7 grow apart with the 7 being the pixel monster and the 6 the high performance sport type body.
But then Nikon often surprises me, sometimes in a good way and sometimes not.
I don’t think so. I believe that Nikon will end up with 3 or 4 FF bodies and the Z6 II is likely to be the lowest end body. I see a Z9 competing with the a9.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don’t think so. I believe that Nikon will end up with 3 or 4 FF bodies and the Z6 II is likely to be the lowest end body. I see a Z9 competing with the a9.
Cheers,
Bernard
You don't think the Z9 will be a 60+mp top-end pro shooter?
-
You don't think the Z9 will be a 60+mp top-end pro shooter?
No, I think that’s either a Z8 or a Z7 II. But frankly I use that sensor in the a7rIV and don’t finf it that impressive.
Besides 45 and 60 aren’t that different really.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You don't think the Z9 will be a 60+mp top-end pro shooter?
Top end pro cameras, as in Canon 1DX, Sony A9 and Nikon D5, are all around 24MP.
I think, but I’m not certain, that Bernard is expecting the Z6 to be sort of aligned with Sony A7 series while Z7 is more like the Sony A7r and that Nikon will introduce a mirrorless version of the D5, kind of Nikons version of an A9, a Z9 perhaps. That would make sense.
-
Maybe Nikon may take heed of these reasonably sane-sounding suggestions?
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/november-2019-nikon-canon/my-proposal-for-nikons.html
Cars seem to be facing much the same situation, with too many models around causing confusion. Ford seems to be doing the right thing - perhaps - concentrating on fewer bands of vehicles.
Unlike cameras, though, they face governmental laws that will eventually dictate what's allowed a place on the road. Maybe the fight there is going to be even more painful in a few years time.
Rob
-
Yes, that would make sense.
Nikon has already taken the right strategic decision, like Sony, in terms of having a single mirrorless mount for both APS-C and FF, furthermore backward compatible with the single F mount.
This means that a Z50 user can use pretty much any Nikon lens ever designed, be it Z or F mount, be it APS-C or full frame.
This is to be compared to a Canon M with very limited compatibility and zero upward path towards the R mount. What was Canon thinking?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Top end pro cameras, as in Canon 1DX, Sony A9 and Nikon D5, are all around 24MP.
In the digital era, there are two categories of top end pro cameras in 35mm format, depending on which sector of professional photography the camera is for: high speed (in the senses of both frame rate and usable exposure index) vs high resolution, as with D5 vs D850. The former tend to be the more expensive, perhaps because their reportage uses require extreme physical robustness, but I am sure that for many (particularly in this forum) the more desirable model is the higher resolution one.
-
In the digital era, there are two categories of top end pro cameras in 35mm format, depending on which sector of professional photography the camera is for: high speed (in the senses of both frame rate and usable exposure index) vs high resolution, as with D5 vs D850. The former tend to be the more expensive, perhaps because their reportage uses require extreme physical robustness, but I am sure that for many (particularly in this forum) the more desirable model is the higher resolution one.
All irrelevant for the sake of this particular discussion around the possible future of Nikon’s mirrorless rollout. One top end body and next tier down in price and all features other than pixel count the territory currently occupied by the Z7 and what I would call a prosumer body, the most attractive to members of this forum.
-
All irrelevant for the sake of this particular discussion around the possible future of Nikon’s mirrorless rollout. One top end body and next tier down in price and all features other than pixel count the territory currently occupied by the Z7 and what I would call a prosumer body, the most attractive to members of this forum.
I'm not sure what you are saying here about the Z7, whether you are referring to the Z6, or to an alternative to the Z6 as being "next tier down in price", or whether you meant that the Z6 is irrelevant and that a different form of cheaper Z7 should be introduced, in which case it would be what?
I think there are too many different models on the market, meant mostly, I'd guess, to catch buyers in all wallet segments. Again, I see a parallel with the American car industry of old, where Ford, Chrysler and GM each offered wide ranges of similar car sub-brands - many on the same common company chassis, that reflected buyer ability to spend, but at the price of keeping alive too many product lines that cost a lot of money. Eventually, many of those sub-brands were discontinued because they split the market and kept alive heavy manufacturing costs that cutting the number of sub-brands eased and simplified on all levels. I think cameras are no different if you are the company making them: you have to rationalize.
To be blunt about it, photographers buying on price have to come to a decision: either they want quality or they do not. And on their part, the camera builders have to understand that their market has changed because of the invention of the smart 'phone. Speaking as somebody who earned his living with cameras, were I not still burning up with love for the medium (depite struggling with an equally powerful frustration with it), I think that suddenly stripped of the knowledge of what different focal lengths can offer my work, a smart 'phone would probably be all I'd have today. It makes photography easy, casual, and devoid of the need to think about it before leaving home, and deciding whether carting along a heavy, vulnerable and crime-attracting piece of cumbersome gear that may not even be used in anger on that specific day makes sense. Of course, that leaves showing off as a non-starter.
One essential thing I would do: remove the video function from stills cameras: let them be what they always were: stills cameras. If I had an interest in motion photography, I'd get a video camera. I neither want to buy such a feature in my stills bodies nor do I want to pay for it to live there unused. It's an unwanted complication, a further point of possible failure and a silly distraction; dump it.
The advances in sensor ability have brought digital and film cameras very close in one respect: both are sitting on a plateau, where if the status quo fails to please, the only different ways to go are off the edge or, perhaps, to develop another artificially constructed hill up which to force the troops to climb. Perhaps falling sales reveal that the troops have mutinied: they have had enough, thanks very much, the plateau is very comfortable, just as it is.
To conclude, I think each camera company needs to do several things: limit the number of competing models it manufactures and accept that the lowest rung has vanished; spend more on final inspection (have a final inspection department?) to ensure that no customer ever has to go through the frustration, anger and disappointment of having to return a faulty product. I never, once, bought a film Nikon or Hasselblad that had to be returned because it was not working properly on delivery, and I bought several of each. (I exclude the F4s which never self-loaded properly first time, but that was the beginning of silly, pointless features.) Reading today of people who are on their third or fourth new, faulty body seems incredible. Make fewer models, but make them well.
-
I believe that various manufacturers make various superb cameras and offer them for sale to us, their customers.
Long may it be so.
KLaban
Armchair CEO and photographer.
;-)
-
One essential thing I would do: remove the video function from stills cameras: let them be what they always were: stills cameras. If I had an interest in motion photography, I'd get a video camera. I neither want to buy such a feature in my stills bodies nor do I want to pay for it to live there unused. It's an unwanted complication, a further point of possible failure and a silly distraction; dump it.
I've had three cameras with video capability and never used it. I'm not sure how much of a complication it is from a hardware perspective; isn't it more of a software issue?
-
I think there are too many different models on the market, meant mostly, I'd guess, to catch buyers in all wallet segments.
...
the camera builders have to understand that their market has changed because of the invention of the smart 'phone.
...
To conclude, I think each camera company needs to do several things: limit the number of competing models it manufactures ... Make fewer models, but make them well.
All good points, and why I have to explain (yet again) why the following idea is doomed:
One essential thing I would do: remove the video function from stills cameras ...
If the failure of either Nikon or any other camera maker to repeat the "Df experiment" of six years ago does not make it clear, here is why I expect that digital cameras from now on will almost always have both stills and motion capability.
In short: the marginal cost of video capability is minuscule, greatly outweighed by the market value that it adds to the product, so that any such cameras for stills-only photographic puritans would have to be _additional_ models (like the never imitated Nikon Df), increasing the complexity and overhead costs of the product range.
At more length: the hardware cost would be negligibly higher because the sensors already do video and indeed live view is a kind of video requiring some other hardware and software video support too. The video software is also essentially free, since it will be written anyway for the models that clearly benefit from video (like any aimed at photojournalism or sports coverage these days). So the unit cost savings might be just from one less button and a few cents-worth less flash memory thanks to the space-saving of omitting video software. And whatever we stills-only curmudgeons want, many people clearly like to take the occasional video, and prefer not to buy and carry a second tool just for that. Look at the 'phones that you mention, and how modern "imaging" with them so includes motion along with stills. Nikon going still-only would just accelerate its decline relative to video-savvy Sony and Canon. Even the old-old-guard of Leica and Hasselblad offer video!
Let us accept that in most of the camera market-place, "photography" has been been replaced by "imaging", which is a blend of stills capture, motion capture, and in-camera or post-processing manipulation.
I say this as someone who has reprogrammed the video record button on my camera to activate AF while in manual focus mode.
-
+1
The mirrorless camera needs some of the same qualities that are needed in video: a fast readout of the whole sensor..
The electronic shutter speed for a full readout is now about 1/15 to 1/40 sec.
At the moment there are problems photographing objects and lights that have low frequencies such as projector images and cheap (dimmed) led lights.
It also causes moving objects to be distorted.
-
All good points, and why I have to explain (yet again) why the following idea is doomed:
If the failure of either Nikon or any other camera maker to repeat the "Df experiment" of six years ago does not make it clear, here is why I expect that digital cameras from now on will almost always have both stills and motion capability.
In short: the marginal cost of video capability is minuscule, greatly outweighed by the market value that it adds to the product, so that any such cameras for stills-only photographic puritans would have to be _additional_ models (like the never imitated Nikon Df), increasing the complexity and overhead costs of the product range.
At more length: the hardware cost would be negligibly higher because the sensors already do video and indeed live view is a kind of video requiring some other hardware and software video support too. The video software is also essentially free, since it will be written anyway for the models that clearly benefit from video (like any aimed at photojournalism or sports coverage these days). So the unit cost savings might be just from one less button and a few cents-worth less flash memory thanks to the space-saving of omitting video software. And whatever we stills-only curmudgeons want, many people clearly like to take the occasional video, and prefer not to buy and carry a second tool just for that. Look at the 'phones that you mention, and how modern "imaging" with them so includes motion along with stills. Nikon going still-only would just accelerate its decline relative to video-savvy Sony and Canon. Even the old-old-guard of Leica and Hasselblad offer video!
Let us accept that in most of the camera market-place, "photography" has been been replaced by "imaging", which is a blend of stills capture, motion capture, and in-camera or post-processing manipulation.
I say this as someone who has reprogrammed the video record button on my camera to activate AF while in manual focus mode.
I think the problem with the Df is that they didn't do it right. Worse, it looks cheap, much like the FM series did, but at least that had the benefit of a higher flash synch. than the F and F2.
They should have just made an F2 with a sensor. And interchangeable prism screens, or at the very least, a split-image one. A split-image was normal for the generation that might have felt attracted to a Df. We knew how to use it.
Thinking about it, cost isn't perhaps the point: Leica made or makes a version of the M without a rear screen... that's getting the point for some people, even if I think it was even more expensive than other Ms when it was introduced.
-
I thought the spilt screen and some other types were interfering with the AF.
The half translucent mirror also made the OVF less bright. So they only could have made that into a non AF DSLR.
-
Any camera manufacturer that designs a camera to suit the dozen or two people on this forum that still actually spend time taking actual photographs won’t stay in business very long.
I think current cameras are amazing. I would be happy to shoot With just about any of them.
-
Martin is right, building what are essentially small run cameras to meet my own needs and preferences or those of anyone else is a recipe for disaster. I've recently switched - with much trepidation - from one of the most simplistic digital cameras to one of the most complex feature laden cameras on the market. There are features that I never realised existed, features that I'll never use, features that I never thought I'd have a use for until I had them as well as features I would have killed for.
These feature laden cameras could be seen as bespoke cameras for all, being relatively easy to set up to suit the individual. They are also relatively inexpensive when compared to the simplistic small run cameras I was using and the lenses are a mere fraction of the cost.
Feature laden cameras sell and sell well, they are particularly suited to the volume producers.
As far as viewfinders are concerned, well, I've shot with what are arguably the best optical viewfinders on the market - Hasselblad H - but now I'm using electronic viewfinders and I'd never go back. Mirrorless is very much the present and certainly the future.
-
I had the chance to shoot some indoor karting this weekend with the Z7 on firmware 2.20 with the 24-70mm f2.8 S.
Near perfect results using AF-C. Definitely more consistent than what I would have gotten with my D850.
I had positioned my self at the point of highest speed on the track with a front to side movement as they were entering a top speed curve.
I am impressed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Martin is right, building what are essentially small run cameras to meet my own needs and preferences or those of anyone else is a recipe for disaster. I've recently switched - with much trepidation - from one of the most simplistic digital cameras to one of the most complex feature laden cameras on the market. There are features that I never realised existed, features that I'll never use, features that I never thought I'd have a use for until I had them as well as features I would have killed for.
These feature laden cameras could be seen as bespoke cameras for all, being relatively easy to set up to suit the individual. They are also relatively inexpensive when compared to the simplistic small run cameras I was using and the lenses are a mere fraction of the cost.
Feature laden cameras sell and sell well, they are particularly suited to the volume producers.
1. As far as viewfinders are concerned, well, I've shot with what are arguably the best optical viewfinders on the market - Hasselblad H - but now I'm using electronic viewfinders and I'd never go back. 2. Mirrorless is very much the present and certainly the future.
1. I don't know what all your current photographic interests include, but going by your website, I don't think those are of a type that's particularly à la sauvette, in which case I am happy to agree with your choices, which could well be mine too, in similar circumstances. We were both adoring fans of the Hasselblad 500 Series, and for very good reasons, and in my case, a system perfectly suited to some aspects of my genre, which of itself perhaps explains why, in a wider sense, genre is not as limited as some think it to be. For other aspects of the same field, Nikons were the most perfect solution of which I knew.
2. Again, I agree with you, but perhaps for a different reason: the market has to take what the manufacturers hope to be the more profitable decisions. This isn't as simple as it may seem on the surface: popular opinion is also much affected by the image that the manufacturers present to the world, so in a sense, they are contaminating their own research. In a weird sort of way, I see a parallel in cars: the manufacturers have abandoned functional design for visual glory: gone are the days when you could just turn in your seat and see your two rear corners. Today, you reverse your Mars bar blind: by the "aid" of mirrors that present an unreal perspective of distance, and/or by aid of bleepers which, by their very invention, shout loudly and clearly that design no longer follows function. I once searched the Internet for rear after-market cameras for cars as a possible solution... I tormented my Ford agent, and he couldn't offer anything beyond some third-party Internet links. He gave me a price for fitting a set, and I found one that worked without having to have a wired connection between the reversing lights and the screen, thus avoiding messing with the car's interior furnishings. I was there, finger poised to buy, when I noticed that the warranty was only for a year: they explained that the cameras themselves are rotted by sunlight and deteriorate rapidly. At least they were honest enough to say so. I didn't buy, preferring to find large parking spaces or walk, both better options than the creation of new, eventually pointless holes in the bodywork.
-
1. I don't know what all your current photographic interests include, but going by your website, I don't think those are of a type that's particularly à la sauvette, in which case I am happy to agree with your choices, which could well be mine too, in similar circumstances. We were both adoring fans of the Hasselblad 500 Series, and for very good reasons, and in my case, a system perfectly suited to some aspects of my genre, which of itself perhaps explains why, in a wider sense, genre is not as limited as some think it to be. For other aspects of the same field, Nikons were the most perfect solution of which I knew.
2. Again, I agree with you, but perhaps for a different reason: the market has to take what the manufacturers hope to be the more profitable decisions. This isn't as simple as it may seem on the surface: popular opinion is also much affected by the image that the manufacturers present to the world, so in a sense, they are contaminating their own research. In a weird sort of way, I see a parallel in cars: the manufacturers have abandoned functional design for visual glory: gone are the days when you could just turn in your seat and see your two rear corners. Today, you reverse your Mars bar blind: by the "aid" of mirrors that present an unreal perspective of distance, and/or by aid of bleepers which, by their very invention, shout loudly and clearly that design no longer follows function. I once searched the Internet for rear after-market cameras for cars as a possible solution... I tormented my Ford agent, and he couldn't offer anything beyond some third-party Internet links. He gave me a price for fitting a set, and I found one that worked without having to have a wired connection between the reversing lights and the screen, thus avoiding messing with the car's interior furnishings. I was there, finger poised to buy, when I noticed that the warranty was only for a year: they explained that the cameras themselves are rotted by sunlight and deteriorate rapidly. At least they were honest enough to say so. I didn't buy, preferring to find large parking spaces or walk, both better options than the creation of new, eventually pointless holes in the bodywork.
You should try sitting in an E-Type!
-
1. I don't know what all your current photographic interests include, but going by your website, I don't think those are of a type that's particularly à la sauvette, in which case I am happy to agree with your choices, which could well be mine too, in similar circumstances. We were both adoring fans of the Hasselblad 500 Series, and for very good reasons, and in my case, a system perfectly suited to some aspects of my genre, which of itself perhaps explains why, in a wider sense, genre is not as limited as some think it to be. For other aspects of the same field, Nikons were the most perfect solution of which I knew.
2. Again, I agree with you, but perhaps for a different reason: the market has to take what the manufacturers hope to be the more profitable decisions. This isn't as simple as it may seem on the surface: popular opinion is also much affected by the image that the manufacturers present to the world, so in a sense, they are contaminating their own research. In a weird sort of way, I see a parallel in cars: the manufacturers have abandoned functional design for visual glory: gone are the days when you could just turn in your seat and see your two rear corners. Today, you reverse your Mars bar blind: by the "aid" of mirrors that present an unreal perspective of distance, and/or by aid of bleepers which, by their very invention, shout loudly and clearly that design no longer follows function. I once searched the Internet for rear after-market cameras for cars as a possible solution... I tormented my Ford agent, and he couldn't offer anything beyond some third-party Internet links. He gave me a price for fitting a set, and I found one that worked without having to have a wired connection between the reversing lights and the screen, thus avoiding messing with the car's interior furnishings. I was there, finger poised to buy, when I noticed that the warranty was only for a year: they explained that the cameras themselves are rotted by sunlight and deteriorate rapidly. At least they were honest enough to say so. I didn't buy, preferring to find large parking spaces or walk, both better options than the creation of new, eventually pointless holes in the bodywork.
Strange you should say that, Rob, my current camera is the only one I've ever felt truly comfortable using on-the-fly.
-
1. I don't know what all your current photographic interests include, but going by your website, I don't think those are of a type that's particularly à la sauvette, in which case I am happy to agree with your choices, which could well be mine too, in similar circumstances. We were both adoring fans of the Hasselblad 500 Series, and for very good reasons, and in my case, a system perfectly suited to some aspects of my genre, which of itself perhaps explains why, in a wider sense, genre is not as limited as some think it to be. For other aspects of the same field, Nikons were the most perfect solution of which I knew.
2. Again, I agree with you, but perhaps for a different reason: the market has to take what the manufacturers hope to be the more profitable decisions. This isn't as simple as it may seem on the surface: popular opinion is also much affected by the image that the manufacturers present to the world, so in a sense, they are contaminating their own research. In a weird sort of way, I see a parallel in cars: the manufacturers have abandoned functional design for visual glory: gone are the days when you could just turn in your seat and see your two rear corners. Today, you reverse your Mars bar blind: by the "aid" of mirrors that present an unreal perspective of distance, and/or by aid of bleepers which, by their very invention, shout loudly and clearly that design no longer follows function. I once searched the Internet for rear after-market cameras for cars as a possible solution... I tormented my Ford agent, and he couldn't offer anything beyond some third-party Internet links. He gave me a price for fitting a set, and I found one that worked without having to have a wired connection between the reversing lights and the screen, thus avoiding messing with the car's interior furnishings. I was there, finger poised to buy, when I noticed that the warranty was only for a year: they explained that the cameras themselves are rotted by sunlight and deteriorate rapidly. At least they were honest enough to say so. I didn't buy, preferring to find large parking spaces or walk, both better options than the creation of new, eventually pointless holes in the bodywork.
I have a reverse camera on my vehicle. Been working without trouble for 8 years. I actually transferred it from a previous vehicle. It’s 10 years old. Works perfectly.
-
I have a reverse camera on my vehicle. Been working without trouble for 8 years. I actually transferred it from a previous vehicle. It’s 10 years old. Works perfectly.
That could be interesting, Martin. Can you identify a brand or model? Is it wirelessly connected from lights to screen?
Rob
-
It’s a tiny thing mounted into the rear bumper and runs with a cable to a small screen where the rear view mirror would normally mount. It’s always on. I drive what we call a bakkie, a pickup in American. It has a solid canopy on the back so mirrors don’t work. No idea of brand.
-
Strange you should say that, Rob, my current camera is the only one I've ever felt truly comfortable using on-the-fly.
That's good news - you might find yourself exploring more deeply into different fields of photography from which you could find a satisfying experience beyond the norm.
Best of luck with it!
-
You should try sitting in an E-Type!
The original XK-E was around £ 2,250 when my budget was circa £ 600. Rob's bum and Jag seat never made contact. As remote as a Caveman today.
:-(
-
... I've recently switched - with much trepidation - from one of the most simplistic digital cameras to one of the most complex feature laden cameras on the market. There are features that I never realised existed, features that I'll never use, features that I never thought I'd have a use for until I had them as well as features I would have killed for.
These feature laden cameras could be seen as bespoke cameras for all, being relatively easy to set up to suit the individual.
Agreed! What I ask for is a modest collection of well designed dials and buttons for the most common controls, and then any number of programmable buttons and knobs for the rest, so that I can configure acmes to the one or two exotic features that I am likely to use. For example I have buttons to activate zooming while manual focusing and also activating auto focus one I manual mode and none for video recording; I am sure that the great majority of users would make completely different choices.
One Olympus DSLR (E-1 Mk II?) had a system with just a couple of dials, which acted on numerous less common controls by holding down an appropriate button while rotating it; that sounded good, though I ever got to try it.
Agreed with these economies-of-scale realities too:
These feature laden cameras ... are also relatively inexpensive when compared to the simplistic small run cameras I was using and the lenses are a mere fraction of the cost.
Feature laden cameras sell and sell well, they are particularly suited to the volume producers.
-
We have a 70-200mm f2.8.
All signs indicate it should be a new benchmark in zoom lens optical quality.
Fortunately they have kept the zoom ring near the front of the lens and well away from the body. This really helps tremendously with lens stability in operation.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We have a 70-200mm f2.8.
All signs indicate it should be a new benchmark in zoom lens optical quality.
Fortunately they have kept the zoom ring near the front of the lens and well away from the body. This really helps tremendously with lens stability in operation.
Cheers,
Bernard
It is listed as being 1360 g, which is only about 100g more than the 70-200 f/4 + FTZ, so roughly comparable weight for (I imagine) significantly better performance!
Pre-ordered :-) I think I will finally sell my F-mount system.
-
We have a 70-200mm f2.8.
All signs indicate it should be a new benchmark in zoom lens optical quality.
Fortunately they have kept the zoom ring near the front of the lens and well away from the body. This really helps tremendously with lens stability in operation.
Cheers,
Bernard
I’m sure it’s will be fantastic.
You have brought up this thing about zoom ring position before Bernard. Do you prefer the zoom ring to be in front of the focus ring? So camera, focus ring then zoom ring. I much prefer it the other other way round. I really dislike the zoom ring closest to the front of the lens. The 200 to 600 is like that and it’s the one thing on the lens I’m not fond of. All my other lenses are the other way around. Personal preferences can be odd.
-
I’m sure it’s will be fantastic.
You have brought up this thing about zoom ring position before Bernard. Do you prefer the zoom ring to be in front of the focus ring? So camera, focus ring then zoom ring. I much prefer it the other other way round. I really dislike the zoom ring closest to the front of the lens. The 200 to 600 is like that and it’s the one thing on the lens I’m not fond of. All my other lenses are the other way around. Personal preferences can be odd.
I never ever use the focus ring on my 70-200mm f2.8 frankly speaking.
The only ring I use is the zoom ring, and it's basic physics, confirmed by experience, that you have a more stable lens handling with the support point (your hand on the ring) is further away from the camera. This is simply the result of the absolute shaking movement of your hand having a lower angular impact, which reduces the work needed by the VR system and therefore expands the shooting enveloppe.
This is therefore not really a question of preference (although I do understand that there may be a preference) but an objective thing that the Nikon solution is better for the 70-200mm f2.8.
Now, there may be longer lenses where the zoom ring in front may be too far from the body for comfortable shooting (the 200-600 may be that way) but that's a different topic really. Sony took the right decision in terms of stability but may have messed up the ergonomics in the process.
The rule should be, locate the ring you used most often (I think 99% of photographers would agree it's the zoom ring) as far as possible away from the body as long as it's not too far to be comfortable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would have thought physics would say as close the point of balance as possible. My 70 to 200 the zoom ring is on the inside of the focus ring and it’s very close to the point of balance. All the shorter lenses I Cup the camera under my left hand which means I can access the zoom ring with the fingers of that hand as the zoom ring is on the inside and close to the camera body. It is also the point of balance on the camera.
The only lens with the zoom ring on the outside is the 200 to 600. I think your point about stability is well made actually, I never really though about it, I was just annoyed at the inconsistency between it and all the other lenses.
Thanks for your reply.
-
Interesting physics discussion here! It seems that Bernard is in the two handed support and balance school—right on grip, left on a lens control ring—while Martin is in the “support with left hand, leaving right free to move around the controls” camp. I’m in the latter, but none of my lenses are this heavy, so I won’t take sides
-
Interesting physics discussion here! It seems that Bernard is in the two handed support and balance school—right on grip, left on a lens control ring—while Martin is in the “support with left hand, leaving right free to move around the controls” camp. I’m in the latter, but none of my lenses are this heavy, so I won’t take sides
I think you are correct in this. It’s the way I hold the camera. In the old days my method was a distinct advantage leaving a hand relatively free to advance the film. Perhaps I should look at changing. I will give it a try, although I’m happy with my steadiness. It could be why I find the Sony so intuitive. Just about nothing going on the left side of the camera. I like that.
Anyway back on topic. I have been looking at reviews of the new Nikon 70 to 200. Looks really lovely. Compact as well. Does it extend with either focussing or zooming? Its quite compact it seems.
-
Interesting physics discussion here! It seems that Bernard is in the two handed support and balance school—right on grip, left on a lens control ring—while Martin is in the “support with left hand, leaving right free to move around the controls” camp. I’m in the latter, but none of my lenses are this heavy, so I won’t take sides
Indeed. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
After more use with clumsier gloves and tighter bags I think the next Z has to have a lock for the card door. It's just to easy to accidentally open it. I think the main reason it's so easy is because the thumb rest is on it, it's easier to catch on things.
-
New firmware is up
https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/352.html
https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/353.html
-
New firmware is up
https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/352.html
https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/353.html
The AF seems significantly improved across the board.
My initial tests with the 85mm f1.8 seem to indicate that the Z6 is now probably superior to the a7rIV, but still a bit behind the a9II.
I’ll continue to play with it with different lenses.
Tracking of eye is really excellent when the subject is at least 3/4 facing the camera. A lot less accurate when shot more from the side with only one eye visible, or the second one hardly visible. The a9II is clearly better in such cases.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Animal eye AF added. Seems like a significant upgrade. Impressive when companies continue to roll out firmware upgrades for existing cameras.
-
I've yet to test animal eye detect but firmware 3.0 delivers much improved human eye/face detect even in low light: impressive. Good to have the option now to use Fn1 or 2 to switch between modes.
-
I have seen a few reviews where people are quite scathing about the usefulness of animal eye AF. For me it is a very useful feature. Turns out I photograph more animals than I realised. Owls, cats, dogs, sheep and all sorts of stuff.
-
A great video highlighting how important firmware 3.0 is for the Z6 and Z7 in terms of AF performance and UI:
https://youtu.be/SxXvNBZLLYU
This UI is really great and probably superior to the Sony solution since there is no need to jump to a dedicated tracking mode to access it.
Comparing the Z6/Z7 today to where it initially was AF wise is very impressive. I think that the gap is significantly larger than what we used to see between generations of high end DSLRs. The AF of the Zs was never as poor as some reported, but it’s still a huge improvement.
I am not able to compare my Zs to the D850 since I don’t have one anymore, but I feel that it’s close to a draw overall, if not a win for the mirrorless bodies.
I am looking forward to the Z9, with faster dedicated hardware Nikon should be able to come up something very very special AF wise.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A great video highlighting how important firmware 3.0 is for the Z6 and Z7 in terms of AF performance and UI:
https://youtu.be/SxXvNBZLLYU
This UI is really great and probably superior to the Sony solution since there is no need to jump to a dedicated tracking mode to access it.
Comparing the Z6/Z7 today to where it initially was AF wise is very impressive. I think that the gap is significantly larger than what we used to see between generations of high end DSLRs. The AF of the Zs was never as poor as some reported, but it’s still a huge improvement.
I am not able to compare my Zs to the D850 since I don’t have one anymore, but I feel that it’s close to a draw overall, if not a win for the mirrorless bodies.
I am looking forward to the Z9, with faster dedicated hardware Nikon should be able to come up something very very special AF wise.
Cheers,
Bernard
From what I’ve been reading the focus still doesn’t compare well with the D500/D850 for fast moving things, such as BIF, particularly against a similar background.
Now, most of my photographic life I used AF-S. These days I do try more AF-C but often I revert to AF-S. With eye-focus/face focus life is easier though, when it works.
-
From what I’ve been reading the focus still doesn’t compare well with the D500/D850 for fast moving things, such as BIF, particularly against a similar background.
Now, most of my photographic life I used AF-S. These days I do try more AF-C but often I revert to AF-S. With eye-focus/face focus life is easier though, when it works.
I haven’t tried BIF. The D500/D850/D5 have been the reference for BIF since their release. They pushed the bar very significantly relative to competition. It’s certainly a very tough benchmark to meet. But it’s also a bit of a niche.
I believe that Nikon was right to focus on the generic tracking and eye AF improvement that deliver value for the general market.
I am getting more keepers from my preferred Nikon lens, the 105mm f1.4, with the Z7 than I used to with the D850.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The AF seems significantly improved across the board.
My initial tests with the 85mm f1.8 seem to indicate that the Z6 is now probably superior to the a7rIV, but still a bit behind the a9II.
I played with the A9II in a store recently and I have to say it left me sick with jealousy, but now the 3.0 FW is out I feel a bit better!
-
Breaking news: with firmware 3.0 the Z6 is now able to detect the eyes of people wearing face masks! ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I played with the A9II in a store recently and I have to say it left me sick with jealousy, but now the 3.0 FW is out I feel a bit better!
LOL! Whatever was moving fast enough in the store to make that much of a difference?
-
LOL! Whatever was moving fast enough in the store to make that much of a difference?
Must have been the amount of eyes ;) detected
-
Breaking news: with firmware 3.0 the Z6 is now able to detect the eyes of people wearing face masks! ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
And why not? A face mask isn't a blindfold. Would a beard and moustache also defeat it?
;-)
-
And why not? A face mask isn't a blindfold. Would a beard and moustache also defeat it?
;-)
I believe it starts by detecting a face and that must be harder without a mouth and a nose.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At a photo shoot last weekend one Sony user had a problem with his A9 focusing on the eyes of a person in a poster behind the model :-)
-
At a photo shoot last weekend one Sony user had a problem with his A9 focusing on the eyes of a person in a poster behind the model :-)
Yes that happens. There are ways around it but it happens.
-
Yes that happens. There are ways around it but it happens.
The best one, of course, is manual focus with a beautiful, split-image screen...
Sony has probably never heard of one of those.
;-)
Rob
-
The best one, of course, is manual focus with a beautiful, split-image screen...
Sony has probably never heard of one of those.
;-)
Rob
Yes that will work at f1.8 with a person walking towards you. Kidding Rob. And Sony came out of Minolta. I still have a SRT303 with a wonderful split image focusing screen screen. Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be.
-
Yes that will work at f1.8 with a person walking towards you. Kidding Rob. And Sony came out of Minolta. I still have a SRT303 with a wonderful split image focusing screen screen. Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be.
Never liked the split screen or any other focus instrument but the matglass. I found it irritating to have something in the way of what you want to see.
Prefer a clean sight. For the same reason my AF marking does not glow red.
-
Yes that will work at f1.8 with a person walking towards you. Kidding Rob. And Sony came out of Minolta. I still have a SRT303 with a wonderful split image focusing screen screen. Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be.
Hell, in my day I could do that blindfold.
;-)
-
Hell, in my day I could do that blindfold.
;-)
The older I get the better I was.
-
The older I get the better I was.
:-)
-
The older I get the better I was.
The older that I get, the more I realise how much I took for granted and how little practical problems impacted what I did.
If something went wrong it seldom had a lot to do with my cameras. Today, cameras are blamed more than ever, making the old "goodness, your camera makes wonderful photos!" not the surprised remark of the uninitiated, but almost the credo of the photographer. Responsibility seems to be shifted further and further away from us and put upon the gadgets instead. Convenient face-saver, though.
-
I wish Nikon would change its steps for specific shooting scenarios. The ones that really annoys me it's the bracketing, AE and focus.
My Fuji X-T2 it's much easier to use, I just change the shooting mode to bracketing and it uses the settings that I have set before. For Nikon I have to go in the bracketing mode, change to how many shots I want and then change the shooting mode to take all the shots with one shutter button press. You want to stop bracketing? Go back and change the shooting to 0.
For the focus it's again annoying that you don't see the image; it makes it difficult to shoot them handheld while keeping the initial framing.
-
I wish Nikon would change its steps for specific shooting scenarios. The ones that really annoys me it's the bracketing, AE and focus.
My Fuji X-T2 it's much easier to use, I just change the shooting mode to bracketing and it uses the settings that I have set before. For Nikon I have to go in the bracketing mode, change to how many shots I want and then change the shooting mode to take all the shots with one shutter button press. You want to stop bracketing? Go back and change the shooting to 0.
For the focus it's again annoying that you don't see the image; it makes it difficult to shoot them handheld while keeping the initial framing.
I never had any problems with Bracketing on a Nikon and use it all the time...
put it on or off - it remembers the last bracketing method (nr of shots and exposure jumps) and uses the current shooting mode ( A, M etc)
In the menu you have to say how the bracketing is done - usually you take one method ( different shutter speeds is my most used one)
some thing else about the version II
I read that you are now able to have the lcd screen uncluttered and it can remeber the last focus distance when you put the camera off.
-
I never had any problems with Bracketing on a Nikon and use it all the time...
put it on or off - it remembers the last bracketing method (nr of shots and exposure jumps) and uses the current shooting mode ( A, M etc)
In the menu you have to say how the bracketing is done - usually you take one method ( different shutter speeds is my most used one)
...
I must do something wrong then. I did change it to the record button so it's easier to access, but I have to change how many shots I want to actually have it on, and I have to set the nr of shots to 0 to be off.
PS. I also have to change the shooting mode to High so it can take all the shots with one shutter button press
-
I must do something wrong then. I did change it to the record button so it's easier to access, but I have to change how many shots I want to actually have it on, and I have to set the nr of shots to 0 to be off.
PS. I also have to change the shooting mode to High so it can take all the shots with one shutter button press
i also have it under one button; I press and turn the back dial to turn it one
- you are right you have to choose multiple shots. It stops after the bracketing serie.
-
So I'm thinking about adding a Z7 II to my Z6. I don't really *need* it, I just want it. However, I've seen on a rumors site that a Z9 may be here in late 2021. The rumored sensor is apparently very similar to the Z7, and not 60+, as was rumored this summer. The rumored images of the Z9 make it look like a DSLR -- large and heavy. I don't want large and heavy. What I'm curious about is, for you guys who read a lot about Nikon's plans...do you expect a larger "professional grade" Z9? Would it have any particular advantage over a Z7 -- if the images are correct, it appears to have a large battery compartment in its base. I also have a large battery compartment, called "pockets." I don't really need to shoot a thousand images without taking twelve seconds to replace a battery. What do you think? Would I lose much by going to the X7 II right now?
-
So I'm thinking about adding a Z7 II to my Z6. I don't really *need* it, I just want it. However, I've seen on a rumors site that a Z9 may be here in late 2021. The rumored sensor is apparently very similar to the Z7, and not 60+, as was rumored this summer. The rumored images of the Z9 make it look like a DSLR -- large and heavy. I don't want large and heavy. What I'm curious about is, for you guys who read a lot about Nikon's plans...do you expect a larger "professional grade" Z9? Would it have any particular advantage over a Z7 -- if the images are correct, it appears to have a large battery compartment in its base. I also have a large battery compartment, called "pockets." I don't really need to shoot a thousand images without taking twelve seconds to replace a battery. What do you think? Would I lose much by going to the X7 II right now?
I expect Nikon to release 2 pro grade bodies in 2021:
- a Z9 that would be a mirrorless D6 with best in class AF, probably 20+ mp
- a Z8 or Z9x that would rely on the same physical body but with a high res sensor, I foresee more than 60mp, but I could be wrong
They are likely to be physically larger than the Z6/Z7 but I would still expect small that DSLRs.
The Z7II is an amazing camera, great image quality, super fast AF, great UI,... there is no going wrong with it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Having played with the Z7 a little more, in combo with the 24-200 and 14-24 2.8S, I have several new comments and questions.
If I expose for highlights, I can easily get banding in the deep shadows. I hear the the ii versions are doing better, I wonder if it’s valid for Z5 also.
Focus is disappointing at times. It’s probably the lack of cross-type focus points, as it is sensitive only to vertical details. Often when the light went down I had to tilt the camera or entirely switch to portrait in order to achieve focus. And this is with landscape shots. In a quick test at home the Oly E-M1iii was snappy where the Z7 couldn’t focus.
I still struggle with the stabilization, depends on how tired I was I could only get up to 2 stops of stabilization, sometimes not even that. I had to take 2-3 shot bursts to be certain, and this was with the 24-200 which has OIS.
Outside of banding the sensor remains quite good. Dynamic range is mostly very good, and keeps the colors well into higher ISOs.
Still on the fence about the 24-200. Multiple instances of subpar sharpness alternating with good enough, not sure if it’s a stabilization problem, a focus problem or just lack of sharpness at certain focal length/focus distance/aperture combo.
I’ll have to compare in an organized matter with the Oly 12-100.
-
Having played with the Z7 a little more, in combo with the 24-200 and 14-24 2.8S, I have several new comments and questions.
..
can you provide an example? - would like to see this...
PK
-
can you provide an example? - would like to see this...
PK
Of banding?
For whatever reason my eyes are too tired and can't find as many examples right now, but I'll start with this.
First the original and then the mildly to moderate processed (exposure +1.14, contrast +5, highlights -76, shadows + 100, whites +11, blacks -13, no clarity or dehaze), with a 100% crop.
Then to make it more obvious on the crop, I made the exposure + 2.28, contrast +26, clarity +7, dehaze -7)
-
It's not a great example but it shows banding showing up in the dark areas with shadows + 80-100 and exposure + 1.5-2
-
Thanks, an extreme dark/light example, but it is clear. Not something to often worry about.
In these situations i always make more than one exposure with two stops difference.
-
Makes me wonder how we ever managed with Velvia and 5 stops of exposure latitude!
-
Makes me wonder how we ever managed with Velvia and 5 stops of exposure latitude!
We didn't... we just didn't know better.
-
Camera image quality notwithstanding, the viewfinder is the most important part of the camera. Any camera.
My Z6 II has one of the worst viewfinders I've ever used. EVF image quality aside, it suffers poor extraneous light exclusion and insufficient eye relief, especially for eyeglass wearers. For video use, it is very difficult to see the entire frame constantly. This is an absolute necessity for video shooting.
The video camera function offers near-zero indication of whether you're rolling or not. This inexcusable indiscretion results in rolling when you think you've cut and not rolling when you think you are. Operators get only a tiny red symbol at the top center of the frame - the absolute worst place to put it. Trust me. I operated film movie cameras for decades. That's always where things creep into the frame.
Both of these problems are intolerable from an operator's perspective.
Even my phone beeps for focus confirmation and for when I'm rolling and when I've cut. With the phone, I never experience inadvertent footage of my feet that results from not cutting the camera properly.
The Nikon's still camera function already offers focus confirmation by beeping - even offering choice of beep sounds and its loudness. But neither audible roll/cut confirmation or focus confirmation are available on the video camera. Why not?
Both of these deficiencies could be easily remedied by a firmware update. Nikon could offer a user-selectable reduced-sized viewfinder image for the eye relief issue. The sound hardware for roll/cut and focus confirmation already exists in the camera's stills mode.
In short, the Z6II is an acceptable stills camera and a horrible movie camera.
A long-time Nikon user, I frequently question whether any of Nikon's engineering team have ever actually used one of their cameras to make photographs, let alone shoot video.
-
Having played with the Z7 a little more, in combo with the 24-200 and 14-24 2.8S, I have several new comments and questions.
If I expose for highlights, I can easily get banding in the deep shadows. I hear the the ii versions are doing better, I wonder if it’s valid for Z5 also.
Outside of banding the sensor remains quite good. Dynamic range is mostly very good, and keeps the colors well into higher ISOs.
Have you updated your Z7 firmware to current? One of the firmware updates made this banding issue all but undetectable. I regularly shoot for a client that manufactures plasma cutters, a subject that requires exposing for hilights, then lifting exposure by 3-4 stops to see into the rest of the image, pulling hilights, and raising shadows. Banding has never been a problem for this work.
What raw processor are you using? I’m processing in Capture One.
-
Amazing improvements in eye-detect with the latest firmware (3.40) for the original Nikon Z7. Also available for the original Z6. Three years down the line and still updating.
Well done Nikon!