Nikon Z* mirrorless

Nikon f1.8 said:
Interesting comments about the 180-600. I have the sign 150-600 C with FTZ attached and it is overwhelming when zoomed out, so I was thinking of the new Nikon as it is internal zoom.

All the guys on YouTube are saying it is great for wildlife with quick focussing and sharp images. Seems not to be the case then.
Click to expand...
I just posted initial critical test results for my 180-600... so far I'm happy with it.
 
Nikon f1.8 said:
Interesting comments about the 180-600. I have the sign 150-600 C with FTZ attached and it is overwhelming when zoomed out, so I was thinking of the new Nikon as it is internal zoom.

All the guys on YouTube are saying it is great for wildlife with quick focussing and sharp images. Seems not to be the case then.
Click to expand...
I read and watched all them. I'm very surprised that it's not up to the standard I had expected. So much so, that I was blaming myself. Surely it can't be coincidence that two copies are experiencing the same poor image quality.
I found shooting at 500mm and cropping to the equivalent of 600mm produced better images than at 600mm.
 
Very interesting reading these comments....

I placed an order for the 180-600 with Nikon as soon as it was announced, but cancelled a couple of weeks later as I decided that I had other more pressing lens priorities to sort out and that I would persevere with my Sigma 150-600c in the interim.

I've since acquired the 24-120 and the 105mm I was after and was just starting to consider the longer lens options again. The 100-400mm was tempting me for various reasons, including the great reviews, the S lens quality and the close focusing (for macro type shots). But I was worried about losing the 200mm over the Sigma and that was pushing back towards the 180-600mm, until now anyway.

Now I'm thinking 100-400mm with a 1.4tc is looking like my best option.
 
Well I was mulling over putting an order in for the 180-600 but I was always worried about the f/6.3 aperture and if using it for wildlife I’d always be stuck out at the long end (500 to 600) and I dislike upping the ISO. I believe there’s possibly a longish wait now for them so just by chance a fabulous condition 500mm f4E FL popped up for a tiny bit more money than a new 180-600 so I pulled the trigger. Admittedly it’s bigger and heavier but it’s pro-spec glass, very fast to focus and razor sharp I thought the upsides easily beat the downsides. Best get out and give it some use now on the Z9 and Z8.
 
psybear said:
Now I'm thinking 100-400mm with a 1.4tc is looking like my best option.
Click to expand...
IDTS... all controlled tests I have seen put it behind the 180-600. And it does take a pretty big hit in resolution when you add the TC, which puts it a bit farther behind... plus you are at f/8.

BUT, if you want it for sports (sideline/etc) then 180 might be a bit too long.
 
From a practical perspective, the 100-400 + TC I think makes more sense. And the 1.4TC is so good you won't know it's there image quality wise.
 
Skypilot said:
Anyone else feel the sharpness is good on the 100-400mm when comparing the two at comparable focal lengths (180-400mm) and then using the 1.4x on the 100-400mm ?
Click to expand...
The 100-400 isn't all that sharp at the long end to start with...

There are so many variables that are seldom well controlled in most comparisons... even slight differences in aperture/ISO/exposure (noise) can affect the results at a very fine level; and there is always some variability to image noise just due to the fact that noise is mostly random. That's not to mention any differences in default edits that may apply (even the same settings can cause different changes). And I haven't seen any comparisons that give enough details to know just how accurate it actually is.

This is Steve Perry's comparisons... I can tell it is not extremely well controlled and that it doesn't seem like it's a comparison between the best of multiple images. There are slight differences in exposures and exposure settings. On one hand, the differences in exposure settings due to max aperture available is valid in a sense; on the other hand, comparing a slightly darker image will make it appear less sharp due to less contrast. Caveats aside, at least he is using a test chart with controlled lighting and the images seem to be reasonably comparable... I.e. I think the variability/error is probably less than you will encounter in field use.

View: https://youtu.be/7loeXXUP4Ic?si=gYCx1LjLuyxpfRBA&t=752
 
PeteStewardson said:
And the 1.4TC is so good you won't know it's there image quality wise.
Click to expand...
The 1.4 TC drops the 100-400's resolution by about a third... it's quite significant.

photographylife.com

Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Review - Page 2 of 6

I've been shooting with the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S for just over a year, and I've finally completed all of the extensive lab testing necessary to publish a full review (including testing both TCs). This lens is large, heavy, and optically excellent - built to Nikon's highest standards...
photographylife.com photographylife.com
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
The 1.4 TC drops the 100-400's resolution by about a third... it's quite significant.

photographylife.com

Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Review - Page 2 of 6

I've been shooting with the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S for just over a year, and I've finally completed all of the extensive lab testing necessary to publish a full review (including testing both TCs). This lens is large, heavy, and optically excellent - built to Nikon's highest standards...
photographylife.com photographylife.com
Click to expand...

That doesn't say resolution drops unless I'm blind. And I bet if you took an image at 400 without the TC and then one with, and printed them both, nobody would be able to tell the difference other than a different FoV. I use the 1.4tc a lot on all my lenses that take it and other than maybe nudging the sharpening up slightly more in some cases, I've yet to see an issue using it. I use the 2x as well without any real worries. All this pixel peeping of charts and numbers really is starting to bore me. If that is all someone cares about they have bigger issues.
 
PeteStewardson said:
That doesn't say resolution drops unless I'm blind. And I bet if you took an image at 400 without the TC and then one with, and printed them both, nobody would be able to tell the difference other than a different FoV. I use the 1.4tc a lot on all my lenses that take it and other than maybe nudging the sharpening up slightly more in some cases, I've yet to see an issue using it. I use the 2x as well without any real worries. All this pixel peeping of charts and numbers really is starting to bore me. If that is all someone cares about they have bigger issues.
Click to expand...
Here, I combined the charts and scaled them for you... It goes from 2800 lines (details/dots) per picture height (f/5.6-8) to 1900 (f/8) with the 1.4x and down to 1600 (f/11) with the 2x. With the 100-400 (and most zooms) there is little point to using TC's; cropping in post gets you to about the same point.

Whether you see the loss in the way the images are used or not is another issue... most people really have no use for 46mp, so losing a lot of resolution isn't really an issue. I bought the 180-600 knowing it wasn't going to be the sharpest lens; and that my 400/2.8 w/ TC's would probably be sharper... and that's fine for me. And I have no issue with the idea of buying the 100-400 instead if 180mm is too long for some uses (or weight, or whatever).

Untitled-.jpg
 
Last edited:
Couldnt resist the temptation of the Zf.

My Zf arrived yesterday so I quickly customised the menus and went out for a shoot.
The AF seems as positive as my Z9 definitely better than the Z7.
Whilst I appreciate the small size of my Fuji XT5 and the 40MP the Zf seems to me like a better camera for my general shooting.

I do wish the Zf had 45MP but the 24MP wont be worrying me too much.
I need to check it out on a few more shoots.
 
Z8 coming this week. First new Nikon I’ve bought since the d800 in 2012 (still have it!)

Starting out with that FTZ with existing lenses.

Any sigma FTZ users out there? I’ve the 35/85 art and the 150-600 also.

Over time I’m sure I’ll get some native z lenses but if people have got any tips/examples that’d be great!
 
Sir SR said:
Z8 coming this week. First new Nikon I’ve bought since the d800 in 2012 (still have it!)

Starting out with that FTZ with existing lenses.

Any sigma FTZ users out there? I’ve the 35/85 art and the 150-600 also.

Over time I’m sure I’ll get some native z lenses but if people have got any tips/examples that’d be great!
Click to expand...
I have the 150-600 with the FTZ adapter and it is a bit front heavy if you know what I mean, especially with the lens zoomed out.

When I say front heavy what I mean is it feels awkward and unstable although it would be probably OK on a tripod, though I tend to use mine hand held.

The adapter does add length as would expect but it feels to be a lot more than the actually physical size.
 
jknights said:
Couldnt resist the temptation of the Zf.

My Zf arrived yesterday so I quickly customised the menus and went out for a shoot.
The AF seems as positive as my Z9 definitely better than the Z7.
Whilst I appreciate the small size of my Fuji XT5 and the 40MP the Zf seems to me like a better camera for my general shooting.

I do wish the Zf had 45MP but the 24MP wont be worrying me too much.
I need to check it out on a few more shoots.
Click to expand...
It’s a shame it didn’t work for me on the ergonomics side of things. It’s a lovely camera other than that. Had the UpS label through last night so mine will be on its way back on Monday.
 
Hi All,

Just about the press the button (I hope) on a mirrorless kit (Z50 or Z5) that at this point in my life will probably see me out. One online pundit in his review pretty much stated that the Z50 + 24-50 & 50-250mm DX bundle would be all you ever need (at least as a causal but enthusiastic person).

However, on the basis on addressing my actual needs, I'm keen to have a go at macro but the Z mount macro lenses is eye wateringly expensive (from a non-pro perspective) so the Z5 would give me the opportunity to grab one of the older F mount macro lenses.

One thing I've learned is that I had become a collector of mid price lenses rather than a picture taker so I'm keen to collapse my kit into the minimum possible. At this point, I'm leaning heavily towards the Z5 with 24-200mm bundle and maybe save up for a nice prime and the macro.

Acknowledging that his decision can't be made before handling the actual kit so any thought's or opinions welcome no matter how critical.

All the best, Pete
 
PeteSpringfield said:
Hi All,

Just about the press the button (I hope) on a mirrorless kit (Z50 or Z5) that at this point in my life will probably see me out. One online pundit in his review pretty much stated that the Z50 + 24-50 & 50-250mm DX bundle would be all you ever need (at least as a causal but enthusiastic person).

However, on the basis on addressing my actual needs, I'm keen to have a go at macro but the Z mount macro lenses is eye wateringly expensive (from a non-pro perspective) so the Z5 would give me the opportunity to grab one of the older F mount macro lenses.

One thing I've learned is that I had become a collector of mid price lenses rather than a picture taker so I'm keen to collapse my kit into the minimum possible. At this point, I'm leaning heavily towards the Z5 with 24-200mm bundle and maybe save up for a nice prime and the macro.

Acknowledging that his decision can't be made before handling the actual kit so any thought's or opinions welcome no matter how critical.

All the best, Pete
Click to expand...
Both the Z50 and Z5 are good cameras, though possibly due an update as they've been out a while.
The Z50 will take the older f-mount macro too, via an FTZ adapter just like the Z5. It'll be used in DX mode so you'd be multiplying the focal length by 1.5.
Nikon does a 50mm Z-mount macro that's a bit more affordable than the 105mm Z-mount. On the Z50 it'll be 75mm.
I had the Z50 and enjoyed using it, although it lacks IBIS.
The two lens kit with the Z50 is all the casual photographer needs, the benefit of two lenses is you can travel very small and light with the 18-50, it's quite good for it's size too.
 
PeteStewardson said:
It lost me when it claimed from the off there are 7 lenses that go to 400mm then listed all four of them and then included the 600/4
Click to expand...
perhaps bit of miscommunication but regardless they have posted examples/pictures with each lens and TC combination wide open which I found helpful.
you can look at the pictures and make up your own mind.
 
PeteSpringfield said:
Hi All,

Just about the press the button (I hope) on a mirrorless kit (Z50 or Z5) that at this point in my life will probably see me out. One online pundit in his review pretty much stated that the Z50 + 24-50 & 50-250mm DX bundle would be all you ever need (at least as a causal but enthusiastic person).

However, on the basis on addressing my actual needs, I'm keen to have a go at macro but the Z mount macro lenses is eye wateringly expensive (from a non-pro perspective) so the Z5 would give me the opportunity to grab one of the older F mount macro lenses.

One thing I've learned is that I had become a collector of mid price lenses rather than a picture taker so I'm keen to collapse my kit into the minimum possible. At this point, I'm leaning heavily towards the Z5 with 24-200mm bundle and maybe save up for a nice prime and the macro.

Acknowledging that his decision can't be made before handling the actual kit so any thought's or opinions welcome no matter how critical.

All the best, Pete
Click to expand...
do you have weight and budget limit in mind for your setup?
any reason you are looking at only Nikon?
 
sk66 said:
Not the best controlled tests and pretty subjective... exposure (brightness) shifts notably between quite a few shots, and focus shifts around a little. Outdoors, so wind is moving things like leaves/fluff/etc.
Click to expand...

I did also think about the subject movement especially considering the shutter speeds being so low in all the shots.

sk66 said:
But it does show how little difference there can be...
Click to expand...

At the end of the day it's another data point and it's helpful for me from that point of view. I rarely/never decide based on a single test/review.
I normally go through a bunch of tests, especially ones that provide samples and 100% crops. It's nice that this one includes so many different lenses in one test/review.
 
nandbytes said:
I did also think about the subject movement especially considering the shutter speeds being so low in all the shots.
Click to expand...

Different exposures (brightness) will result in different levels of noise and different levels of contrast, both of which affect sharpness.

I also don't like that he used NX studio "with no sharpening or noise reduction"... NX studio automatically applies the camera picture style's settings; so he would have to have turned them off in the picture style used, or manually turn them off for each image (which is a little convoluted... you have to turn those settings on, and then set them to "off"/0). But, assuming he used the same picture style for all of them, it's not significantly biased and it's still an example of "default results."
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Different exposures (brightness) will result in different levels of noise and different levels of contrast, both of which affect sharpness.
Click to expand...
good point. for some reason I didn't think about the noise and contrast levels at different exposures. will certainly affect the perceived sharpness of the final images.
 
nandbytes said:
good point. for some reason I didn't think about the noise and contrast levels at different exposures. will certainly affect the perceived sharpness of the final images.
Click to expand...
What did surprise me is that the 180-600 w/ 1.4x tc was sharper than the 400/4.5 with the 2x... but I still think using TC's with slower lenses is mostly a waste.
 
sk66 said:
What did surprise me is that the 180-600 w/ 1.4x tc was sharper than the 400/4.5 with the 2x... but I still think using TC's with slower lenses is mostly a waste.
Click to expand...
was a surprise to me as well. I was thinking of picking up Z8 with 400mm f4.5 with both 1.4x and 2x TCs.
May be if nikon made the 1.7x, it might be a better option.

The 600mm f6.3 + 1.4x is probably better but the 600mm is a fair but more expensive than the 400mm :(
 
nandbytes said:
was a surprise to me as well. I was thinking of picking up Z8 with 400mm f4.5 with both 1.4x and 2x TCs.
May be if nikon made the 1.7x, it might be a better option.

The 600mm f6.3 + 1.4x is probably better but the 600mm is a fair but more expensive than the 400mm :(
Click to expand...
I never liked the 1.7 in F mount... it made just as big a hit on IQ as the 2x, and was slower than the 1.4; just not much point to it.

With the high resolution cameras (D850/Z9/etc) I find that if you take the picture with settings that allow for harder cropping (higher SS/lower ISO) you end up in about the same place as using a TC... that's all a TC does anyways, it turns your sensor into a "crop sensor" (doesn't record the full image circle).

There's another point about that comparison... he used the same distance for all focal lengths; and that's not how resolution/MTF is measured. If he had used the longer FL's from greater distances (as one typically would) they all would have performed worse than they did. Plus at the really long focal lengths (distances), a lot of times environmental factors negate any differences. But none of this favors any lens in particular; and it is something of a realistic comparison if every focal length is "too short"...
 
Appreciate the comments Gents.

With respect to weight and budget. I'm OK with typical DSLR size and weight and am looking at mirrorless basically for the technology advances. Budget is around £1k plus trade in allowance which I estimate at about £400. I'm a bit twitchy about used bodies, I don't have the skills to tell if it's a duffer.

Wilt above kindly pointed out that Z50 bundle should do everything I need and that is what I've seen a couple of other times on-line.

Nikon is dear to me I suppose because I always wanted that brand and I still maintain my pictures with D80 and kit lens were best ever. Something has gone wrong in the meantime and I thinks its me with ambition exceeding my abilities but I still want a decent rig to be available to me.

In terms of usages, even though I've got a backpack with my modest collection of lenses in, I don't carry it. I go out armed with the one lens that suits my day's activities. It seems line the Z50 bundle would facilitate the 50-250mm sitting in a jacket pocket. By the way, thanks for the heads up on the 50mm macro.

I ought to get my behind in gear and post a picture or two to justify whether it's worth people investing time in this discussion.

Thanks Again,
 
Can anyone with a Z8 (that's owned either the Z7 or Z6 original or MK II versions), comment if the IBIS performance in Video is improved at all (i.e. when walking slowly etc.) or is it still about the same levels as the earlier models ? I'm referring to the shorter focal lengths of say 24-70 or 24-120 type lenses.
 
I'm interesting to hear of people's experiences using the Z8/Z9 in low light with a flash and possibly other Z cameras as I was reading a long thread on the DPR forums about problems with the Z8/Z9 focusing in low light with a flash as they can't use the AF illuminator on the flash. A number of people replying were saying they'd gone back to a DSLR for shooting in those conditions which is concerning but I'm wondering if people are exaggerating the problem?
 
Not sure if this answer your question, but coincidentally, just last night I dug out my old Nikon SB-800 Speedlight, and I fitted it with an old original Gary Fong light sphere diffuser and attached to my Z9, and shot some images of our dogs.

Now the image below looks bright (due to the flash exposure), but at the time it was late in the evening, and as you can see one of our dogs, Charlie is totally black with no markings. He was also lit by a single table lamp some 7 foot away to his right side. On my Z9 I had AF set to AF-C, with Dogs and Cats animal tracking on. Through the viewfinder he just looked like a black outline (with no features at all), but the camera still tracked on his eye even though I couldn't see his eye, and out of 12 shots, 11 were tack sharp and one just slightly OOF (on his nose). Not a scientific test by any means, as he wasn't moving much at all between exposures, but it did really surprise me how well the Z9 did considering (as you say), there is no AF assist light available. This was with the Nikon Z 85mm F1.8 @ F4 ISO 200

 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
Not sure if this answer your question, but coincidentally, just last night I dug out my old Nikon SB-800 Speedlight, and I fitted it with an old original Gary Fong light sphere diffuser and attached to my Z9, and shot some images of our dogs.
Click to expand...
That's very helpful thanks as I was planning to use an SB-900 flash with Lightsphere on a very dark blue cocker spaniel, the sort of circumstances you mention as pretty much what I'd be using the Z8 and flash for.
 
I have to say my Light sphere is about 12-15 years old now and is going a bit yellow so should really be replaced, but this was just "messing" about shooting so wasn't too bothered.
 
Sootchucker said:
I have to say my Light sphere is about 12-15 years old now and is going a bit yellow so should really be replaced, but this was just "messing" about shooting so wasn't too bothered.
Click to expand...
I was just reading another topic on here that the Lightspheres are useless and a con but I've always liked the output from mine so feel a bit reassured you use one as well.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I'm interesting to hear of people's experiences using the Z8/Z9 in low light with a flash and possibly other Z cameras as I was reading a long thread on the DPR forums about problems with the Z8/Z9 focusing in low light with a flash as they can't use the AF illuminator on the flash. A number of people replying were saying they'd gone back to a DSLR for shooting in those conditions which is concerning but I'm wondering if people are exaggerating the problem?
Click to expand...
If you turn off "see effect of settings," and enable starlight view or adjust for ease of view instead, it will improve low light focus dramatically... up to the point where the viewfinder amplification gain noise becomes excessive and starts to interfere. The jpeg picture control selected, and it's settings, can also affect autofocus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top