Nikon’s new mirrorless system, coming in ... late September 2018

[JohnHeerema]

Someone asked if the relatively lower corner sharpness on the 24-70 f/4 S was due to focus plane curvature.

So I tried focusing near the upper right hand corner of the SQRPlus chart, and seeing what the MTF-50 looked like.
The sharpness distribution is surprisingly close to the results obtained with the focus set right at the centre of the chart, except that the maximum resolution declines significantly.

My interpretation is that there is indeed a small amount of curvature to the plane of focus, but that other factors are the principal reasons for decreased resolution in the corners.

I largely bought the Z7 so I could use this compact 24-70 mm lens, and the resolution in the central part of the frame does not disappoint. There is some geometric distortion, but I'm not too concerned by it.

[Dan Wells]

I'm not sure how to do it, since Imatest works on the RAW, but I'd be very interested to see these results run through Nikon Capture... I don't think anything else is applying the lens corrections correctly (yet). I suspect that lens has a fair bit of correction applied in the JPEG engine (or Nikon Capture) - most modern lenses do. Some very high-end lenses (like the Hassy X1D lenses, I believe) use quite a bit.

[SrMi]

I'm not sure how to do it, since Imatest works on the RAW, but I'd be very interested to see these results run through Nikon Capture... I don't think anything else is applying the lens corrections correctly (yet). I suspect that lens has a fair bit of correction applied in the JPEG engine (or Nikon Capture) - most modern lenses do. Some very high-end lenses (like the Hassy X1D lenses, I believe) use quite a bit.

Bummer that you cannot read TIFF files.
X1D (XCD) lenses do not have built-in lens profiles. Turning on lens correction in LR does indeed correct distortions slightly, but the image is very usable without the correction.
Correction on 24-70/f4 S reminds me of the correction of Leica Q lens, where the uncorrected image is wider than the corrected one and the data at the edges gets thrown away automatically.
I am talking about corrections in Raw images.

[JohnHeerema]

I'd be very interested to see these results run through Nikon Capture.

Using a TIFF generated by Lightroom, using the lens corrections baked into the NEF file, the results are not dramatically different:

[johnvanatta]

I spent today testing my 24-70 and Z7 out. I found a dramatic decrease in edge sharpness in close. At 24mm, f4, MFD, it looks like a stereotypical super zoom, with a very sharp center area and rapidly degrading edges. The effect was most pronounced at the wide end. Not field curvature, at least not in the usual sense, as far as I can tell. I didn't try focusing at the edges--perhaps the MFD is greater at the edges, so they simply can't be good? IE even the locus of maximum focus isn't really in focus, except at the center.

The good news is that at every distance except minimum it's a completely different story. Excellent edge to edge at f4 throughout most of the range. Colors and rendition look great too; a little hard for me to judge without capture one support.

My copy seems to have slight alignment issues at 70mm (infinity focus) on the left quarter-frame that don't clear up until about f7.1...I'll probably chalk that up to zoom variance.

[BernardLanguillier]

Z7 + 24-70mm f4

Now, in other images of the same series with the sun directly hitting the lens, I saw some pretty bad flare/reflection near circular patterns that may be reflections off the sensor. To be investigated more.

Other than that the Z7 performed superbly in those challenging conditions. I was glad to have a compact, stabilized high quality camera since the boat was small and crowded. My D850 and 24-70mm f2.8 would have been problematic.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dan Wells]

Nice shots, Bernard - and impressive flare control - the sun in the frame is a source of problems to most lenses, and a compact zoom with a boatload (sorry) of elements should be worse than most...

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks Dan!

I don’t know if this is just a lens thing or a lens sensor interaction.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jeremyrh]

Spent the day wandering round Paris, 20 km according to my phone, carrying Z7+24-70.  Not sure I'd have managed that if I'd been carrying my D850+equivalent F-mount lens.

[armand]

Spent the day wandering round Paris, 20 km according to my phone, carrying Z7+24-70.  Not sure I'd have managed that if I'd been carrying my D850+equivalent F-mount lens.

Not too be the devil's advocate but this could be much closer in weight.

Z7 with 24-70 - about 1100g

Nikon doesn't have a 24-70 F4 for F-mount but a Canon 24-70 F4 is 600g, so a D850 combo would be around 1500g. Going back to what I said in the past, there is no reason why a D750 cannot have a high resolution sensor and it's 750g.

So in an ideal world the difference could be 1100g vs 1350g.

[armand]

On a second note how do you guys feel about a D750 body without the mirror and with the F-mount?

I'll probably try and keep the Z7, the problem that I have right now is that I didn't pay enough attention and instead of ordering a XQD card I got a SD UHSii so currently even if I want to try it I can't. Closest store that has a XQD in stock is 50 miles away. Oh well, it's raining anyway.

[jeremyrh]

Not too be the devil's advocate but this could be much closer in weight.

Z7 with 24-70 - about 1100g

Nikon doesn't have a 24-70 F4 for F-mount but a Canon 24-70 F4 is 600g, so a D850 combo would be around 1500g. Going back to what I said in the past, there is no reason why a D750 cannot have a high resolution sensor and it's 750g.

So in an ideal world the difference could be 1100g vs 1350g.

My alternative is D850 with 24-120 which is 1780g

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

60 pages and 1200 posts of fanboys salivating at yesterday's news and me-too improvements, while the only magic and breakthroughs in photography are happening with iPhones.

[John Camp]

I have almost no interest in lens or sensor tests for the Z7, because it was obvious right from the start that they're very good and any imperfections are nothing that we haven't dealt with in the past. (I'm a veteran of the Leica M8 "magenta wars.")

But I'm very interested in the handling and "apparent size" issues. I shoot a lot of street and I'm currently working with a couple of Panasonic GX8s which are pretty good, and, more importantly, are light and from a street subject's point of view, are not very obvious. What I'd really like to hear from Jeremyrh and Bernard is more on how they handle and what they look like. I currently shoot a D800 as well as the GX8s and have had almost every pro model of Nikon going back to the F3, so I doubt I'll have any trouble with software or menus or any of that stuff. But Jeremy said that his 850 and zoom would have been a problem if he'd carried them a long distance around Paris. Really? Is the difference that significant? My D800 and f2.8 24-70 are about 1800 grams total (without batteries, I think.) That's about a pound and a half more than the Z7 and the f4 zoom. I honestly have a hard time evaluating what exactly that means in terms of use. And what does Bernard mean when he says that the D850 on the sailboat would have been problematic? Also, when comparing them to an 850+lens, in terms of size, do they look *really* smaller? Or just *kind of* smaller? Is the frontal appearance notably less obvious?

I'm interested in the Z7 and maybe the Z6 because they'd have better low light performance than my GX8s and of course better resolution. But I don't want to be carrying a bazooka around with me -- I've already got that.

[jeremyrh]

60 pages and 1200 posts of fanboys salivating at yesterday's news and me-too improvements, while the only magic and breakthroughs in photography are happening with iPhones.

Thanks for your valuable contribution, Slobodan!!

[armand]

I'm currently playing with it, with the 24-70 attached. It is not that small, however compared to a larger m43 camera it is comparable. The combo is quite dense though, heavier than what I would expect just by looking at it. The lens is larger, halfway between an Oly 12-40 F2.8 and 12-100 F4.

I'm still not very taken with the ergonomics, the hand have doesn't feel in a natural position. I definitely prefer an X-T2 with an L-plate attached, they are similar size. It might get better with time.

[armand]

60 pages and 1200 posts of fanboys salivating at yesterday's news and me-too improvements, while the only magic and breakthroughs in photography are happening with iPhones.

For the iPhone fanboys out there, the iPhone tends to be me too in this regard (or others).

[jeremyrh]

I have almost no interest in lens or sensor tests for the Z7, because it was obvious right from the start that they're very good and any imperfections are nothing that we haven't dealt with in the past. (I'm a veteran of the Leica M8 "magenta wars.")

But I'm very interested in the handling and "apparent size" issues. I shoot a lot of street and I'm currently working with a couple of Panasonic GX8s which are pretty good, and, more importantly, are light and from a street subject's point of view, are not very obvious. What I'd really like to hear from Jeremyrh and Bernard is more on how they handle and what they look like. I currently shoot a D800 as well as the GX8s and have had almost every pro model of Nikon going back to the F3, so I doubt I'll have any trouble with software or menus or any of that stuff. But Jeremy said that his 850 and zoom would have been a problem if he'd carried them a long distance around Paris. Really? Is the difference that significant? My D800 and f2.8 24-70 are about 1800 grams total (without batteries, I think.) That's about a pound and a half more than the Z7 and the f4 zoom. I honestly have a hard time evaluating what exactly that means in terms of use. And what does Bernard mean when he says that the D850 on the sailboat would have been problematic? Also, when comparing them to an 850+lens, in terms of size, do they look *really* smaller? Or just *kind of* smaller? Is the frontal appearance notably less obvious?

I'm interested in the Z7 and maybe the Z6 because they'd have better low light performance than my GX8s and of course better resolution. But I don't want to be carrying a bazooka around with me -- I've already got that.

Hi John - maybe difficult to answer your questions objectively. My take is that I would simply not go out of the house to walk around with the D850 unless I were planning on shooting a lot of photos. The Z7 is light enough that I can take it out and if I come across something interesting, great, but if I come home without having used it, it's not the end of the world. In that sense it is a good replacement for my Oly EM1.

In terms of being obvious, I suppose it's like any small DSLR - perhaps less obvious because it's all black. I don't see it as a very unobtrusive "street" camera but it's far from a bazooka.

Not sure I was very helpful ...

[jeremyrh]

Hi John - maybe difficult to answer your questions objectively. My take is that I would simply not go out of the house to walk around with the D850 unless I were planning on shooting a lot of photos. The Z7 is light enough that I can take it out and if I come across something interesting, great, but if I come home without having used it, it's not the end of the world. In that sense it is a good replacement for my Oly EM1.

In terms of being obvious, I suppose it's like any small DSLR - perhaps less obvious because it's all black. I don't see it as a very unobtrusive "street" camera but it's far from a bazooka.

As for ergonomics, it is as everyone has said - a small D850. The dials and buttons are a little more awkward due to the size, but the grip is very good and the touch screen menu is really nice - a world away from the Oly version.

Not sure I was very helpful ...

[BernardLanguillier]

60 pages and 1200 posts of fanboys salivating at yesterday's news and me-too improvements, while the only magic and breakthroughs in photography are happening with iPhones.

I hope you’ll repost that 2 or 3 times in the Canon R threat...

Cheers,
Bernard