Z mount native lenses

[Michael Erlewine]

IMO, the Nikon 70-200mm S f/2.8 lens is incredible. It is wicked sharp and has a style to it as well. It is one of those rare lenses that is just a pleasure to use.

[kers]

With the GF100s and Sony Alpha1 just introduced, the specific optical qualities of the Nikkor Z lenses will be even more important to compete.
Z-lenses can only be used on Nikon Z-camera's because of the flange distance.
The Z-lenses really have to stand out, a difficult task since the competition is strong.
Probably it would do Nikon well to open up the Z-mount for third party lenses to be more attractive as an universal platform for all lenses, although it would cut a slice from their own lenses.
I know that Nikon is trying to save money to shut some offices. In the Netherlands Nikon Netherlands will shut down and merged into Nikon Benelux ( Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg)
That is too bad for me also for it was around the corner, the new office will be in Belgium.

[BernardLanguillier]

The way I look at it lenses are the most important aspect of photography. Together with colors the qualities of the lens is what remains in the final product, the photograph.

All the mirrorless bodies are now more than good enough at everything, except electronic shutter when the a1 is very very far ahead of Canon and Nikon (that’s the only reason why I am buying one).

For the rest:
- Canon has mostly caught up in terms of DR
- Nikon has mostly caught up in terms of mirrorless AF. Canon is a bit better, Sony is significantly better. But to see these differences you need to zoom to the last 1% of performance and that won’t impact 99.9% of shooting situations that require AF. Not to mention the huge part of photography for which AF isn’t relevant at all
- Sony is catching up in terms of colors

It’s all about the lenses and Z is IMHO very clearly the best choice here.

It’s relatively easy as a photographer to buy a new body but the reality these days is that it’s going to be nearly impossible to tell what camera was used by looking at a photograph. On the other hand differences in lens “quality” will remain forever visible in an image.

Cheers,
Bernard

[kers]

For me the fast electronic shutter is also something to like about the sony Alpha1. Flicker free is a nice feature if you make photographs at places with projections and badly dimmed led lights.
Would make my life easier together with the silent shutter. I understand it is 1/200 (and  can do 1/32000s.)

[kers]

An interesting review of the 14-30mm Z lens at lentip.com
https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=599

[BernardLanguillier]

For me the fast electronic shutter is also something to like about the sony Alpha1. Flicker free is a nice feature if you make photographs at places with projections and badly dimmed led lights.
Would make my life easier together with the silent shutter. I understand it is 1/200 (and  can do 1/32000s.)

Sensor read out speed seems to be 1/240s and fastest possible flash sync speed in electronic shutter mode is set at 1/200s (1/400s with the mechanical shutter which is a new record also).

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

For those still thinking that image quality is relevant to photography this test may be interesting:

https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7-ii-initial-review/#iq

Looking at these results it looks it may have the best image quality among 35mm mirroless cameras. Add to this the lenses, in particular their best in class LoCA control, and the pro profiles of C1 Pro 21 and you end up with something pretty special.

Cheers,
Bernard

[faberryman]

For those still thinking that image quality is relevant to photography this test may be interesting...

I am pretty sure most of us think that image quality is relevant to photography. The question usually is whether the incremental increase, if any, in image quality from a new piece of equipment is relevant to your photography. And then there is the inevitable cost/benefit analysis. Well, for most of us.

[Michael Erlewine]

Well, after a few days on the merry-go-round of new cameras, trying all the scenarios I can think of on, I’m back to where I started, working with the Nikon Z7 II for now and waiting for Nikon to deliver me another step beyond where I’m at just now.

I believe that the GFX 100 S has better micro-contrast than the Z7 II can deliver, but all things considered, the Nikon’s haptics is (IMO) just a better bet for my work. The forthcoming Sony A1 is everything I believe should happen, yet for my kind of close-up work, it adds very little of what I need.

And I don’t see it in the GFX lenses, no matter what I have read, and I read Lloyd Chamber’s work religiously on these matters. For my money, I hear what Thom Hogan is putting out, that given a little time, Nikon has something in mind for us, perhaps later this year, that will be more up my alley. In my dream scenario, Nikon comes up with a top-of-the line mirrorless with all the trimmings and I purchase it… and love it.

In the meantime, I have learned that I need to get rid of some great equipment that I am not using, like my Sony FS5 camcorder with the raw upgrade, which is a beauty, but one I seldom use just now. I put it up on Ebay along with the Atomos Shogun Inferno that I use with it.

In summary, if I jumped, it would be on to the GFX 100 S and not the Sony A1 at this point. Yet, I’m not jumping, at least not today.

[BernardLanguillier]

I am pretty sure most of us think that image quality is relevant to photography. The question usually is whether the incremental increase, if any, in image quality from a new piece of equipment is relevant to your photography. And then there is the inevitable cost/benefit analysis. Well, for most of us.

That may be the case but it isn’t reflected the least bit in photography forums.

Image quality is virtually not discussed at all, certainly not compared to AF.

Cheers,
Bernard

[KLaban]

That may be the case but it isn’t reflected the least bit in photography forums.

Image quality is virtually not discussed at all, certainly not compared to AF.

Cheers,
Bernard

These days, given the incredibly high level of image quality of both cameras and lenses, I find myself more and more interested in the less than perfect image quality qualities delivered by various lens designs.

None of my Z lenses could have delivered the following image, although there are no doubt many who would be thankful they couldn't 

[faberryman]

That may be the case but it isn’t reflected the least bit in photography forums.

Image quality is virtually not discussed at all, certainly not compared to AF.

We probably hang out on different photography forums because most of the posts I see are about one aspect or another of image quality. Technical image quality.

[BernardLanguillier]

Nikon Z6II + 70-200mm f2.8 S

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

For those who own a ZII and haven’t installed firmware 1.1 yet, it’s pretty good.

Hard to say to what extent the actual performance got improved, but if you were concerned by eye boxes not being displayed as early as on the Canon or Sony for subjects that are distant, I believe that the gap has been closed.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

For those not following the rumors mill, Nikon may make a pre-announcement of the "Z9" today.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Nikon Z7II + 58mm f0.95 S Not

I spent about 30 minutes photographing one single tree, first with the Z7II and Noct, then I switched to the GFX100s and 120mm f4 OS macro.

By a pretty amazing coincidence, I happened to photograph the exact same flowers from nearly the same angle with both cameras. Without noticing until I process the images in C1 Pro.

I first did the Fuji thinking, I just love this image. Nice smooth bokeh.

The I came up the Noct image shown here and... it's just such a beautiful rendering. The way transition from sharp to unsharp is just... magical to my eyes.

But perhaps it's the price playing with my perceptions. How do you guys feel about this image? I am sorry I have no easy means to upload the Fuji one.

Cheers,
Bernard

[KLaban]

Bernard, it's very nice indeed, but the more I look at the image the more I think a little more DOF and detail in those parts of the image that are in focus wouldn't go amiss. Of course the problem then would be those transitions could possibly suffer.

I would imagine the image was shot wide open and if so perhaps stopping down just a tad might of helped. But then you have to wonder why use this lens? I'd be interested in this shot taken with the 85 S wide open as a comparison.   

[D Fuller]

I would imagine the image was shot wide open and if so perhaps stopping down just a tad might of helped. But then you have to wonder why use this lens? I'd be interested in this shot taken with the 85 S wide open as a comparison.   

or the 50mm f/1.2 S

[KLaban]

or the 50mm f/1.2 S

Yes, could be a better comparison.

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks for your feedbacks!