Nikon Z* mirrorless

Riz_Guru said:
Fair point, it wasn't just that..... it just felt like a step back from my Sony A7R II bodies which I had prior to it. ISO was a notable difference.
Click to expand...

And yet the XT2 has dual card slots where the A7RII does not ... maybe dual slots are not so important then :P
 
Riz_Guru said:
You should check out the Z bodies, ergonomically they are the best mirrorless bodies to date, even better than new Sony A9 II etc.
The 24-70mm f2.8 GM is good but the Nikkor is better lol.
Remember when Sony first came out, how it was ridiculed for lack of lenses..... Nikon is at the same point. However for my uses a decent 24-70mm, 50mm and 85mm setup is more than enough. I don't shoot professionally anymore. :o
Click to expand...
I have checked them out before they was even released. They are nice but not nice enough to switch systems. I value iq af, tech and lens choices ahead of ergonomics.

Happy with the a7r3 and a9 ergonomic personally..

The z bodies are slightly nicer.

Give me a proper global shutter on the z bodies then I may switch..

But I bet the Sony a 10 will will be first to have it. Sony ain't slowing down.

They are the PlayStation of cameras hehe.
 
When you look at the Nikon Z bodies, Nikon weren't far off.
They have nailed the body, build and user interface ... they just need to improve AF/Eye-AF, add a extra card slot and it suddenly becomes a very competitive body when comparing against Sony.
I am eagerly awaiting the Nikon Z9. :D Exciting times.....
 
Cagey75 said:
And yet the XT2 has dual card slots where the A7RII does not ... maybe dual slots are not so important then :p
Click to expand...
I had a silly work around.... I changed my SD cards every hour and was running 2 A7R II bodies! lol :o
 
jonneymendoza said:
I have checked them out before they was even released. They are nice but not nice enough to switch systems. I value iq af, tech and lens choices ahead of ergonomics.

Happy with the a7r3 and a9 ergonomic personally..

The z bodies are slightly nicer.

Give me a proper global shutter on the z bodies then I may switch..

But I bet the Sony a 10 will will be first to have it. Sony ain't slowing down.

They are the PlayStation of cameras hehe.
Click to expand...
Fair points...... I can't keep up with the technology on a year for year basis so will wait it out for now. My GM lenses won't suddenly devalue over night and the Sony A9 has already taken a good value hit. (which was to be expected).
 
jonneymendoza said:
They had no choice..
Click to expand...
True, but maybe we all buy into the paranoia and marketing strategies that manufacturers feed us :eek: Don't get me wrong, of course I think if everyone had the choice then you'd have a backup, but for informal shoots etc then dual slots isn't essential. Now if I ever have a card failure I'm sure I'd change my tune ;)
 
jonneymendoza said:
But I bet the Sony a 10 will will be first to have it. Sony ain't slowing down.

They are the PlayStation of cameras hehe.
Click to expand...

Seems like the internet disagrees with that, with the A9II specs they’ve come to a stand still.

A10? They haven’t even got the A7SIII out, that’s been coming for the last 12-15 months.

PlayStation.... I can see why it’s taken the 4 A7 body iterations to get the design right after seeing this monstrosity :p

536D63D2-430E-4F4E-836C-40CC393B27AC.jpeg

Joking BTW, not about the PlayStation design though if it looks anywhere near that.
 
Last edited:
For those that have the 50mm f1.8 S and previously the 50mm f1.8g how're you finding it in terms of rendering? I know the S version is insanely sharp but I do like the rendering of the G version. My worry is that some lenses are getting too clinical looking, and I've not seen image variation to build a good picture of the S version.

These are about the best examples I've found, the subject isolation and illusive 'depth' to the 'portrait' shots in the first link seems quite extreme and dare I say it Leica like :exit:

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_z_50mm_f1_8_s_review/sample_images
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/5

Edit:
Another example of the depth and isolation I'm referring to can be seen on this page, the biker crouching down in the camera store
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1573955/1
 
Last edited:
Anyone here a

24mm or 35mm s lens?
 
snerkler said:
For those that have the 50mm f1.8 S and previously the 50mm f1.8g how're you finding it in terms of rendering? I know the S version is insanely sharp but I do like the rendering of the G version. My worry is that some lenses are getting too clinical looking, and I've not seen image variation to build a good picture of the S version.

These are about the best examples I've found, the subject isolation and illusive 'depth' to the 'portrait' shots in the first link seems quite extreme and dare I say it Leica like :exit:

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_z_50mm_f1_8_s_review/sample_images
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/5

Edit:
Another example of the depth and isolation I'm referring to can be seen on this page, the biker crouching down in the camera store
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1573955/1
Click to expand...
The Z mount lens is definitely the better lens, renders really nicely from the samples I’ve seen.
 
rookies said:
Anyone here a

24mm or 35mm s lens?
Click to expand...

I’ve got the 35. It’s my favourite focal length. 24 can only be pre-order at the moment. I’m interested but it’ll have to drop in price 1st.
 
I have the 35, 50, and 85 and I'm enjoying all 3. Not sure I'll get the 24 but I'm definitely looking for the 20mm
 
PeteStewardson said:
I have the 35, 50, and 85 and I'm enjoying all 3. Not sure I'll get the 24 but I'm definitely looking for the 20mm
Click to expand...

Is the sharpness of the 35 and 85 as good as the 50
 
Stumbled across this which I found interesting as their results tie in a lot more with my own findings regarding the 24-70mm f4, and most of the users on here, that it is a surprisingly sharp lens and better than the 24-70mm f2.8 G lenses.

I must admit that I have found these guys more reliable than DXO over the past 12-18 months.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z7/4
 
snerkler said:
For those that have the 50mm f1.8 S and previously the 50mm f1.8g how're you finding it in terms of rendering? I know the S version is insanely sharp but I do like the rendering of the G version. My worry is that some lenses are getting too clinical looking, and I've not seen image variation to build a good picture of the S version.

These are about the best examples I've found, the subject isolation and illusive 'depth' to the 'portrait' shots in the first link seems quite extreme and dare I say it Leica like :exit:

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_z_50mm_f1_8_s_review/sample_images
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/5

Edit:
Another example of the depth and isolation I'm referring to can be seen on this page, the biker crouching down in the camera store
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1573955/1
Click to expand...

I have them both. If you want I can do some comparisons...just let me know what kind.
 
rookies said:
Is the sharpness of the 35 and 85 as good as the 50
Click to expand...

I don’t think quite as sharp, but all perform better than the more expensive F mount 1.4s I believe.

The 24 is supposed to be close to the 50.

snerkler said:
Stumbled across this which I found interesting as their results tie in a lot more with my own findings regarding the 24-70mm f4, and most of the users on here, that it is a surprisingly sharp lens and better than the 24-70mm f2.8 G lenses.

I must admit that I have found these guys more reliable than DXO over the past 12-18 months.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z7/4
Click to expand...

I think Nikon Ricci on YouTube does fair comparisons. Even though employed (I think) by Nikon, they are just straight up comparisons.

I like photography life also.

I only have the 24-70/4 at the moment, but I think what Nikon is doing with lenses is good. The Z f4s and 1.8s having higher performance than the F 2.8s and 1.4s for less money. Unless you need 2.8 it’s not a bad deal.
 
Last edited:
Luftwalk said:
I have them both. If you want I can do some comparisons...just let me know what kind.
Click to expand...
Thanks that’d be great, I’ll post some examples of the type of shot I’d like to compare when I’m back on the computer.
JustinB said:
I think Nikon Ricci on YouTube does fair comparisons. Even though employed (I think) by Nikon, they are just straight up comparisons.

I like photography life also.

I only have the 24-70/4 at the moment, but I think what Nikon is doing with lenses isn’t good. The Z f4s and 1.8s having higher performance than the F 2.8s and 1.4s.
Click to expand...
Why isn’t it good? Surely you want new lenses to supersede old ones? I’d personally be disappointed if they didn’t, but seeing how the first lot of s-line lenses are turning out I’m really excited to see what the future lenses are like. I’m expecting the 70-200mm to be pretty special. Only trouble is that it’ll be beyond my price range, and they’ve stuck with the idiotic arrangement of the focus/zoom ring that they changed with the e version.
 
rookies said:
Is the sharpness of the 35 and 85 as good as the 50
Click to expand...

Pixel peeping reviews suggest the 35 and 85 are slightly behind the 50 as far as sharpness is concerned. I have to say I've used the 50mm a lot more as I got it soonest, but I'm not noticing that much difference sharpness wise in normal use.
 
snerkler said:
I’m expecting the 70-200mm to be pretty special. Only trouble is that it’ll be beyond my price range, and they’ve stuck with the idiotic arrangement of the focus/zoom ring that they changed with the e version.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think the 70-200vrii I have might be the one lens I don't swap out for an S lens. It's that good and if they've swapped the zoom/focus like they did with the newer f mount then I might just pass. The vrii works fantastically on the Z6
 
snerkler said:
Why isn’t it good? Surely you want new lenses to supersede old ones? I’d personally be disappointed if they didn’t, but seeing how the first lot of s-line lenses are turning out I’m really excited to see what the future lenses are like. I’m expecting the 70-200mm to be pretty special. Only trouble is that it’ll be beyond my price range, and they’ve stuck with the idiotic arrangement of the focus/zoom ring that they changed with the e version.
Click to expand...


FFS is***

I’m on a laggy iPad and it’s doing some weird autocorrect. I missed that one. After editing 10 others.

Corrected the autocorrect now:giggle:
 
Last edited:
PeteStewardson said:
Honestly I think the 70-200vrii I have might be the one lens I don't swap out for an S lens. It's that good and if they've swapped the zoom/focus like they did with the newer f mount then I might just pass. The vrii works fantastically on the Z6
Click to expand...
I love the VRII. My only gripes with it on the Z is that the lens VR is always active so drains the battery quicker, and with the adapter it does feel a touch nose heavy.
 
snerkler said:
I’m expecting the 70-200mm to be pretty special. Only trouble is that it’ll be beyond my price range, and they’ve stuck with the idiotic arrangement of the focus/zoom ring that they changed with the e version.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m sure it will. Same as the 14-24/2.8 S. I think I read the 24-70/2.8 S is like a prime all the way through the range. I don’t understand the zoom placement, when you tend to support the lens close to the body. With AF I don’t really see why you would need the focus ring closest, cant see manual focus being used that much. I’m sure a lot weren’t happy about it when they released that version, so wonder why they’ve stuck with it. Was it something to do with lens design and the focus breathing of the VRII.

I like the design of the Canon RF 70-200, but seems like a lot are concerned about dust being an issue.

Ive got a new 70-200 f4 so at least there isn’t one on the road map, I might get chance to use it before there’s a Z mount version. Ive had it a year and not used it.
 
twist said:
The Z mount lens is definitely the better lens, renders really nicely from the samples I’ve seen.
Click to expand...

How can you say without having used it? I like the look of the images I've seen from that 50mm 1.8 S, but I've seen equally as good from the old reliable 50mm 1.8G too, really depends on the person shooting with them. As always. One is 1/3 the price, at least, of the other though. Is the S 3 times better?
 
A couple from the 'People's Vote' rally on the 19th October. Not great photos, when the speeches were happening I was pretty well penned in making any kind of creativity a bit difficult. The first is the crowd's reaction to the Letwin Amendment passing (Z6, Sigma 12-24), the second is Sandi Toksvig (85mm f/1.8 G) as I quite liked the framing.

DSC_1116e by Chris Willetts, on Flickr

DSC_1140e by Chris Willetts, on Flickr
 
Cagey75 said:
How can you say without having used it? I like the look of the images I've seen from that 50mm 1.8 S, but I've seen equally as good from the old reliable 50mm 1.8G too, really depends on the person shooting with them. As always. One is 1/3 the price, at least, of the other though. Is the S 3 times better?
Click to expand...

Trouble is the S is at a great price at the moment that why people interested.
 
snerkler said:
For those that have the 50mm f1.8 S and previously the 50mm f1.8g how're you finding it in terms of rendering? I know the S version is insanely sharp but I do like the rendering of the G version. My worry is that some lenses are getting too clinical looking, and I've not seen image variation to build a good picture of the S version.

These are about the best examples I've found, the subject isolation and illusive 'depth' to the 'portrait' shots in the first link seems quite extreme and dare I say it Leica like :exit:

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_z_50mm_f1_8_s_review/sample_images
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/5

Edit:
Another example of the depth and isolation I'm referring to can be seen on this page, the biker crouching down in the camera store
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1573955/1
Click to expand...
I do share a similar concern. Whilst undoubtedly the new Z lenses are super sharp acrosss the frame they are very sigma art like with edge to edge sharpness but a more clinical rendering.

Recently I have started to favour character over clinical rendering which is why I’m struggling with the Z lens road selection.

I don’t see the 3d effect in the images you’ve linked to at least not like say the 58 1.4G or 105 1.4 F mount lenses.
 
rookies said:
Trouble is the S is at a great price at the moment that why people interested.
Click to expand...

That's the price I'm going by still 3x the price of a good used 50 1.8G. Don't get me wrong, if I switched to a Z the 50 1.8 S is a lens I'd fancy, but knowing I can get 'almost' as good for much less? I'm talking as someone who does not mind adapting lenses whatsoever. You will get those who just want native only no matter the cost.
 
JustinB said:
Yeah I’m sure it will. Same as the 14-24/2.8 S. I think I read the 24-70/2.8 S is like a prime all the way through the range. I don’t understand the zoom placement, when you tend to support the lens close to the body. With AF I don’t really see why you would need the focus ring closest, cant see manual focus being used that much. I’m sure a lot weren’t happy about it when they released that version, so wonder why they’ve stuck with it. Was it something to do with lens design and the focus breathing of the VRII.

I like the design of the Canon RF 70-200, but seems like a lot are concerned about dust being an issue.

Ive got a new 70-200 f4 so at least there isn’t one on the road map, I might get chance to use it before there’s a Z mount version. Ive had it a year and not used it.
Click to expand...
I don't know the reason, but I'm surprised they've stuck with it considering the fallout from the last one. I don't know if there's a technical reason or stubbornness ;)
 
Cagey75 said:
How can you say without having used it? I like the look of the images I've seen from that 50mm 1.8 S, but I've seen equally as good from the old reliable 50mm 1.8G too, really depends on the person shooting with them. As always. One is 1/3 the price, at least, of the other though. Is the S 3 times better?
Click to expand...

don’t have to shoot with it, to my eye it renders much nicer (better depth) and it’s definitely sharper wide open. I’ve used many 50 1.8g and they never looked as good. Is it worth 2x or 3x as much used? To me, definitely.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
don’t have to shoot with it, to my eye it renders much nicer (better depth) and it’s definitely sharper wide open. I’ve used many 50 1.8g and they never looked as good. Is it worth 2x or 3x as much used? To me, definitely.
Click to expand...


I'd love to see side by side samples between them, must have a look out of curiosity. I think there might be a slight placebo effect at work
 
Luftwalk said:
I have them both. If you want I can do some comparisons...just let me know what kind.
Click to expand...
Thanks again for the offer. Not the most exciting pics, but I love the 3D/depth to these. I'm not sure everyone sees what I see, but it's the kind of depth where I feel like I could reach in and pick the cars up, if that makes any sense? :lol:

NZ7_1291 by TDG-77, on Flickr
NZ7_1289-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr
NZ7_1857 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
Thanks again for the offer. Not the most exciting pics, but I love the 3D/depth to these. I'm not sure everyone sees what I see, but it's the kind of depth where I feel like I could reach in and pick the cars up, if that makes any sense? :LOL:

NZ7_1291 by TDG-77, on Flickr
NZ7_1289-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr
NZ7_1857 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Nostalgia! I used to rally in a couple of Mk.1 Escorts (not at the same time!). Never in a Ferrari, thank goodness.
 
Cagey75 said:
I'd love to see side by side samples between them, must have a look out of curiosity. I think there might be a slight placebo effect at work
Click to expand...
No placebo, the S looks really good, the G is alright for the money.
 
From what I have read and seem, the Nikon Z 'S' lenses are really good lenses. The 24-70mm f2.8 S is especially tasty. :D
 
Taken on the wonderful Nikon D40.... something about the IQ mmmm

5407481779_c937f05cae_c.jpg

5409302186_905cbf2d99_c.jpg

5408693901_0d44ebfe46_c.jpg

5409304726_6f214bc2ca_c.jpg

5409305108_4638b3f303_c.jpg

5408694357_e40a577ec9_c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top