Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: New Rantatorial Just Published - My Thoughts On The NEW Nikon Z6 and Z7 Cameras  (Read 3235 times)

Kevin Raber

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1342
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber

I just published a Rantatorial on My Thoughts On The New Nikon z6 and z7 Cameras.  Wonder why we didn't post anything on this site? I explain. 
Logged
Kevin Raber
Publisher - luminous-landscape.com
[email protected]

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3314

I just published a Rantatorial on My Thoughts On The New Nikon z6 and z7 Cameras.  Wonder why we didn't post anything on this site? I explain.

Kevin,

I read your rantatorial on the new Nikon mirrorless cameras with interest. You state: "• Low-quality kit type of lenses at the introduction"

Did you actually test these lenses and on what basis do you form your opinion? I have yet to see any authoritative tests on these lenses but Diglloyd has posted MTF curves for these lenses and predicts that they should have vey good performance.

Regards,

Bill
Logged

Kevin Raber

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1342
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber

I shot a few images with the lens but couldn't keep them. I refer to the feel of the lens compared to the Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens.  In my opinion and I believe I stated this that the 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 at launch would have really made a serious difference.  Maybe the 24-70 Z mount lens will be able to produce good images.  As I read across the web though I do hear otherwise.  When we get these cameras and lenses we will shoot with them. 
Logged
Kevin Raber
Publisher - luminous-landscape.com
[email protected]

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 917

Understand that you don't want to post a pseudo-review of a pre-production camera that you have only held for a few minutes. Strange, then to combine that (understandable) stance with a listing of all the negative points collated from others who have only had limited handling of a pre-production camera?
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11993
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

Kevin,

I read your rantatorial on the new Nikon mirrorless cameras with interest. You state: "• Low-quality kit type of lenses at the introduction"

Did you actually test these lenses and on what basis do you form your opinion? I have yet to see any authoritative tests on these lenses but Diglloyd has posted MTF curves for these lenses and predicts that they should have vey good performance.

Regards,

Bill

Kevin also said: "After looking at and holding the Z6 and Z7 cameras, as well as doing some test shots in a very limited environment, I will hold my judgment." (Italics mine)

As well your quote about "low quality kit lens" is taken out of context. Kevin listed what other people were saying about the lens: Take a look at the chapeau to that item in the list, which states: "I’ll list below what I have read, and if you have been keeping up with the news, these criticisms should not be very surprising:" (Italics mine)

So at least as far as LuLa is concerned, from what I understand here,  "the jury is out" on the kit lens, and on the camera's performance in general. I very much share Kevin's perspective that first-hand reviews are the only ones worth paying any attention to. I also believe that a cooperative approach between the developers and the reviewers is good for all provided there is nothing to impair reviewers' objectivity, something which this website takes seriously. The reviewer sits between the developer and the consumers and all three angles need a climate of trust and tolerance to work optimally.

Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Kevin Gallagher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724

   Hmm, I have to say that I agree with Kevin on the lens thing. It just seems to me that a company would want to put it best foot forward when coming out with something that's such a departure from their previous offerings.

 I do have a question for Kevin though. Where can one purchase a LULA shirt?   ;D
Logged
Kevin In CT
All Animals Are Equal But Some Are More Equal
 George Orwell

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3314

Kevin also said: "After looking at and holding the Z6 and Z7 cameras, as well as doing some test shots in a very limited environment, I will hold my judgment." (Italics mine)

As well your quote about "low quality kit lens" is taken out of context. Kevin listed what other people were saying about the lens: Take a look at the chapeau to that item in the list, which states: "I’ll list below what I have read, and if you have been keeping up with the news, these criticisms should not be very surprising:" (Italics mine)

Mark,

Thanks for the clarification and accept my apology. I did not read the original post with sufficient care and did not realize that he was merely quoting what others had said. However, Kevin's quoting these sources implied tacit approval of their content.

Regards,

Bill
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11993
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

Mark,

Thanks for the clarification and accept my apology. I did not read the original post with sufficient care and did not realize that he was merely quoting what others had said. However, Kevin's quoting these sources implied tacit approval of their content.

Regards,

Bill

You are welcome Bill.

I don't believe quoting a source necessarily implies tacit approval, especially in this context. We may each have a different interpretation of that!

Cheers.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Kevin Raber

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1342
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber

To make it clear . . .  I was only quoting what I heard and acknowledging that this is the chatter out there.  Rather than jumping on the bandwagon I will look carefully at these mentioned items.  As I said, Let's Give Nikon A Chance.
Logged
Kevin Raber
Publisher - luminous-landscape.com
[email protected]

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 917

To make it clear . . .  I was only quoting what I heard and acknowledging that this is the chatter out there.  Rather than jumping on the bandwagon I will look carefully at these mentioned items.  As I said, Let's Give Nikon A Chance.

I think it would have been more reasonable to quote both positive and negative elements of the "chatter" - by focusing on the negative items you give the impression that you have a bias where Nikon is concerned.
Logged

Ray Harrison

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15

As far as I can tell, the only folks who had the cameras for longer than an hour may have been DPR and the handful of “ambassadors” Nikon paraded out during the somewhat strange unveiling. Everything else has been fluff pieces (though maybe I’ve missed some others). In the right hands, most cameras in the right hands these days produce stellar images, and since many of them sport Sony sensors (from $500 to $50k machines), much of the experience comes down more to ergonomics, lenses and certainly things like autofocus, video handling, etc. Personal preferences as well. We make a lot of noise about wars, and it can be fun, but really, my guess is that the reviews will be:

Creates nice images, has some quirks, wish it did something it doesn’t.

Like most reviews. 😊
« Last Edit: September 02, 2018, 03:51:01 PM by rharris11usa »
Logged

davidgp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
    • davidgp fotografia

As far as I can tell, the only folks who had the cameras for longer than an hour may have been DPR and the handful of “ambassadors” Nikon paraded out during the somewhat strange unveiling. Everything else has been fluff pieces (though maybe I’ve missed some others). In the right hands, most cameras in the right hands these days produce stellar images, and since many of them sport Sony sensors (from $500 to $50k machines), much of the experience comes down more to ergonomics, lenses and certainly things like autofocus, video handling, etc. Personal preferences as well. We make a lot of noise about wars, and it can be fun, but really, my guess is that the reviews will be:

Creates nice images, has some quirks, wish it did something it doesn’t.

Like most reviews.


Nikon took a look at Sony marketing strategy and let the people used the cameras for several hours... or at least that it is what I get from some videos I saw... like the ones of Jared Polin... and looks like DPReview had the opportunity to have the camera for several days...

But yes... I usually wait until the camera is in the market and people buys it and use it before taking a decision about buying it... preorder things does not look like a good idea to me...


http://dgpfotografia.com

D Fuller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
    • airstream.pictures

I shot a few images with the lens but couldn't keep them. I refer to the feel of the lens compared to the Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens.  In my opinion and I believe I stated this that the 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 at launch would have really made a serious difference.  Maybe the 24-70 Z mount lens will be able to produce good images.  As I read across the web though I do hear otherwise.  When we get these cameras and lenses we will shoot with them.

I disagree that nikon should have opened with the f/2.8 zooms. I actually think their lens roadmap is really very smart. Why would you want the Zs to open with the same lenses everyone already has for their DSLRs? It doesn't make sense.

People have been complaining about the size of the Sony GMaster lenses, and how they give away all the size and weight advantages of a mirrorless system. The one complaint about the Leica SL is the size of its zooms (well, then ther's the price) and yet... When Nikon steps in with a a modest sized f4 zoom and two 1.8 primes, people are complaining about that. I don't get it.

I don't want a mirrorless that is just the same as my DSLR but with an EVF. I want a system that gives me something different--something that adds to my toolbox, not something that treads the same water.

Here's what I want: a set of lenses that have better optical quality than my DSLR, and are smaller and lighter, so I can use them in ways that are challenging with a DSLR, on a body that has unquestionable IQ, and very good autofocus for both video and stills.

So what has Nikkon delivered? they've opened with an f/4 zoom and two 1.8 primes that reviewers who have had them in their hands for a day or longer are saying are optically excellent. And within the first year, a full set of 1.8 primes that don't breathe, a 14-30 f/4 zoom and, of course, the 'trinity' in 2.8. But those smaller lenses interest me the most.

Do I have a wish list? Sure. I wish there was a native macro on the roadmap, but I don't know that a macro would benefit from the new mount as much as the aforementioned primes and the wide zoom. And I wish there were tilt/shift lenses on the roadmap; they would certainly benefit from the larger mount.

But overall, with the caveat that the optical quality needs to live up to the early billing, I think I'm going to be very happy.
Logged
website: www.airstream.pictures
portfolio: airstream.format.com

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6267

I disagree that nikon should have opened with the f/2.8 zooms. I actually think their lens roadmap is really very smart. Why would you want the Zs to open with the same lenses everyone already has for their DSLRs? It doesn't make sense.

People have been complaining about the size of the Sony GMaster lenses, and how they give away all the size and weight advantages of a mirrorless system. The one complaint about the Leica SL is the size of its zooms (well, then ther's the price) and yet... When Nikon steps in with a a modest sized f4 zoom and two 1.8 primes, people are complaining about that. I don't get it.

I don't want a mirrorless that is just the same as my DSLR but with an EVF. I want a system that gives me something different--something that adds to my toolbox, not something that treads the same water.

Here's what I want: a set of lenses that have better optical quality than my DSLR, and are smaller and lighter, so I can use them in ways that are challenging with a DSLR, on a body that has unquestionable IQ, and very good autofocus for both video and stills.
...
My thoughts too. It makes sense that an initial launch with a limited selection of lenses does not try to be everything to everyone from day 1, but instead target a sector of 36x24mm format users most inclined to switch to an EVF. And people seeking a balance between performance and size seems is a good first target.

Anyway, I am a long-time fan of good quality mid-speed lenses, now that far higher ISO speeds are usable than in the past. I would have made it 24-105/4 though: point to Canon there!
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 917

Here's what I want: a set of lenses that have better optical quality than my DSLR, and are smaller and lighter,

+1 - as you say, the size advantage of mirrorless is lost if you add on a massive lens. The new lenses are reported to be of outstanding quality, so they are the perfect accompaniment to the new small body. The f/4 24-120 is often recommended as the best "walking around" lens for FF Nikon; the new 24-70 would seem to knock it out of the park in all departments.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20056

Maybe they had no choice but to issue the new baby along with slower lenses if that's what they can actually ship. Perhaps it's better to satisfy the wider, general buyer first and then the pro or more serious amateur.

Fast lenses would seem to require physical bulk by definition; why expect reality to bend for a new camera?

I think LuLa has steered the wiser course. Better to be slower but more accurate?

Rob

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1897
    • Pieter Kers

comparison:

body d850 (1000gr)  and 50mm1.8 g (200gr)  together 1200gram
body z7/z6 ( 675gr)    + 50mm 1.8s   ( 400gr)    together 1075gram

( nikon had to make a better 1.8 50mm lens for the z series and that weighs 2x more and costs 3x more)


however
body d850 (1000gr)  and  NIKKOR 24–70mm f/2.8E ED VR  ( 1070gr)   together 2070 gram
body z7/z6 ( 675gr)    +A NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S ( 500gr)                   together 1175 gram
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 08:09:25 AM by kers »
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3314

To make it clear . . .  I was only quoting what I heard and acknowledging that this is the chatter out there.  Rather than jumping on the bandwagon I will look carefully at these mentioned items.  As I said, Let's Give Nikon A Chance.

I think this is sound advice. Apparently some of these chatter experts associate f/1.8 and f/4 lenses with consumer grade quality and f/1.4 and f/2.8 lenses with pro lenses. Analysis of Nikon published MTFs for these new lenses as compared with the Nikon published MTFs of Nikon gold ring dSLR indicate that these new S lenses that the new lenses will be outstanding. One such analysis by Nasim Mansurov is here.

Of course these MTF results are computer generated from lens design considerations, but there is no reason to think that Nikon is using different methodology in the generation of these MTF curves. It is advisable to await actual testing by reputable authors. Perhaps Roger at lensrentals will test these lenses on his optical bench. One reason to go mirrorless is to get a smaller and more portable system and it makes sense to have high quality f/1.8 and f/4 lenses rather than the f/1.4 and f/2.8 apertures often associated with high grade lenses.

Regards,

Bill
Logged

HSakols

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1011
    • Hugh Sakols Photography

I'm personally quite intrigued by a 24-70 f4 lens.  I'm the type of shooter who usually uses f11 or f 16.  However, it is a bit disappointing to hear how cheaply made it is.  I hope it proves itself. 
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20056

I think this is sound advice. Apparently some of these chatter experts associate f/1.8 and f/4 lenses with consumer grade quality and f/1.4 and f/2.8 lenses with pro lenses. Analysis of Nikon published MTFs for these new lenses as compared with the Nikon published MTFs of Nikon gold ring dSLR indicate that these new S lenses that the new lenses will be outstanding. One such analysis by Nasim Mansurov is here.

Of course these MTF results are computer generated from lens design considerations, but there is no reason to think that Nikon is using different methodology in the generation of these MTF curves. It is advisable to await actual testing by reputable authors. Perhaps Roger at lensrentals will test these lenses on his optical bench. One reason to go mirrorless is to get a smaller and more portable system and it makes sense to have high quality f/1.8 and f/4 lenses rather than the f/1.4 and f/2.8 apertures often associated with high grade lenses.

Regards,

Bill

That comes across to me as a bit exclusionary: why should there be some stigma to ownership or desire for fast optics? One of the pleasures of the reflex system is using fast, long lenses and actually enjoying the kick in the focussing of them, the almost tangible pleasure in looking at focus changing as you move the mechanism. Of course, af robs you of that foreplay-like, sensory visual pleasure.

I contend that it does not make sense for a new system to concentrate too rigidly on weight. Doing that at the expense of pratical results, such as the employment of optical effects like very shallow DOF, seems to be a throwing out of Baby along with its dirty bath water. It may not be everybody's wish - I suppose landscape people don't use it much - but they are only a little group of people, just like every other little group or clique.

Great performance from fast glass wide open is good to have, even if not used all the time. I hear no complaints from people with fast telephoto Nikkors. For Canon, it seems to be a boasting point! If you are right, and going mirrorless is largely driven by having nothing more valuable than a smaller sytem, then I think priorities are somewhat adrift somewhere, and mirrorless no holy grail to which it seems worth changing up/down.

But then I'm not a photographic sophisticate: I don't give a flying stuff for MTF curves or any other such statistical value: I care a lot about what allows interesting images to be made. All my life in professional photography, starting back in '60, I never had the slightest idea how my Nikon or Hasseblad lenses rated in graphs. Nobody I knew gave a monkey's. Truth to tell, Normal Parkinson wrote that he refused a new Hassy lens to replace his old silver 150mm one (like mine) because he didn't want to be cruel when he photographed ladies. I don't think anyone, of equal stature today, would criticise his work. As ever, it's the mind and not the technical specs. that make something great. If you are a scientific photographer or a professional architectural one, I imagine your toolbox would be quite different.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up