Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues

[armand]

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.

[Martin Kristiansen]

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. 

[KLaban]

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.

;-)

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

[Alan Goldhammer]

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?

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

[KLaban]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

Often.

Me too.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Goldhammer]

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

[armand]

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.

[KLaban]

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.

[BJL]

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.

[chez]

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.

[HSakols]

This is an interesting blog post by Michael Frye on shooting at f16.

https://www.michaelfrye.com/?s=f+16

[Martin Kristiansen]

This thread has turned into th founding philosophy for a f16 club.

[Chairman Bill]

There is always focus stacking

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

[Peter McLennan]

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.

[D Fuller]

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:

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.

[Martin Kristiansen]

To my eye that video looks great. No issues.