Nikon Z* mirrorless

Skypilot said:
Keep it.
There's not a better all rounder for the price.
Click to expand...

viewfromthenorth said:
I’ve found my 24-200 to be a useful lens. It’s not the lens that spends most time on my Z bodies but as a one lens solution for travel it’s ideal.
Click to expand...
I think I need to get more used to it before I finally decide. I want to like it as the range is ideal for me, but it seems to be lacking clarity at the long end. Maybe it’s the processing - it’s been a while since my last Z and quite a few makes have gone under the bridge in the meantime.
 
I also wanted to like this lens but the second hand copy I tried had serious smudging towards the edges at wideangle and the AF was somewhat erratic (unlike the 24-70 which was perfectly reliable) so I had to return it. As I now have the 24-120 which is a far better lens, I'm no longer particularly tempted by the superzoom but haven't completely ruled out trying it again at some point in the future.
 
I did quite a bit of research between the 24-120 & 24-200 and ended up buying the 24-120, which I think is a fantastic lens.

Some illustrious landscapers use the 24-200 and are happy with it - people such as Marc Robbins & Mike Prince who are very good at what they do.

Personally if I need a bit of extra reach I just shoot in DX mode and can still end up with a 20MP file - big enough for my needs.
 
I think I may have solved my doubts about the 24-200. If you recall, I felt it was a little soft. Well, it turns out that I may have been nudging the manual focus ring, which was set in its default function of auto + manual focus. As I cannot imagine a situation where I would want to tweak the focus mid-shot, (if I want manual focus I will choose manual focus) I have now disabled this function and initial tests suggest that this may have solved the problem. Watch this space!
 
interesting! On my Z6, you can only engage MF in AF mode when half-depressing the shutter to engage AF. If you do accidentally engage MF override (and the ring is relatively stiff), then a distance scale appears and probably also peaking, if set, so it's hard to not be aware you're nudging the ring. Possibly it works differently with the Z5 or you have different settings? Anyway, I'm glad you might have found a solution to your problem.
 
lunar22 said:
interesting! On my Z6, you can only engage MF in AF mode when half-depressing the shutter to engage AF. If you do accidentally engage MF override (and the ring is relatively stiff), then a distance scale appears and probably also peaking, if set, so it's hard to not be aware you're nudging the ring. Possibly it works differently with the Z5 or you have different settings? Anyway, I'm glad you might have found a solution to your problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does occur only after holding focus on a half-press. I suspect that was when it happened. I have a friend with a Z9 who has also experienced this.
 
This is probably old news for most of you, but I've just found out by messing with my new Z8, that both it and the Z9, when shooting in 4K 100FPS or 120FPS and in DX mode, the field of view automatically changes to a 2.3x crop from FF. That means with my Nikon Z 100-400 when shooting video I have the reach of a 920mm lens. Apparently from what I've read, in this mode you get the full 3840x1920 UHD of pixels, so no crop within 4K and apparently you also have no pixel binning or line skipping.

I thought I'd give this mode a try out today. It was bitterly cold and only had a hour (during my lunchtime), so pickings were slim, but managed to get a short video of a Goldcrest and (i believe from it's red head) a lesser Redpoll which I've just combined into 1 clip. Now this is by no means a master piece (i.e. no External Mic, not shot in Raw, standard picture profile and hand held), but I think it proves for small birds this mode is genuinely useful (at least for me who's currently focal length limited). What do you guys think ?

By the way, immensely impressed with the 100-400's and Z8's stabilization, considering this is a 2.3x crop from the full sensor at an effective 920mm, and these were handheld with my freezing my t1ts off :D

Note the video below has been reduced to full HD (1080P) resolution for size considerations for sharing.

https://flic.kr/p/2prosLf
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
A few from yesterday's excursion to Fountains Abbey. The last is with the 14-30mm, the others with the 24-200.

Root by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Cellarium by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

Fountains Abbey by Stephen Lee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Nice images, are they straight out of the camera or has PP been added, certainly nothing wrong with the 24-200, if anything they look sharper than the 14-30mm image, I purchased the 24-200mm late last year, so not really used it yet, but other results I have seen with it, helped make up my mind. To be honest even the cheaper Z lenses I have found are quite sharp, like the 24-50mm.
 
TG. said:
Nice images, are they straight out of the camera or has PP been added, certainly nothing wrong with the 24-200, if anything they look sharper than the 14-30mm image, I purchased the 24-200mm late last year, so not really used it yet, but other results I have seen with it, helped make up my mind. To be honest even the cheaper Z lenses I have found are quite sharp, like the 24-50mm.
Click to expand...
The colour image and the tree root were both “enhanced “ in Topaz Sharpen AI. The Cellarium is just manually tweaked in. LR. I’m slowly coming round to the 24-200. The only cropping on any of them was to trim them to A4 format as I normally do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TG.
Following on from my Video shooting yesterday (see above post #9451), I did some checking and not that it's important, but I wonder if someone could check my maths.

According to the Nikon Z8 and Z9 manual, when shooting in the 4K 100/120 fps mode, as stated it automatically crops into a 2.3x focal length, and the manual states the resulting image area on the sensor is 16.7mm x 9.4mm.

As some of you know, I also shoot with Olympus Micro four thirds (and I'm not getting into a format discussion par-se in this post), but I'm right in thinking that the sensor size for Micro Four thirds is 17.3 x 13mm but at a 4:3 ratio ? So when shooting 4K on the OM-1 for instance, assuming it's using the full width of the sensor (which I don't know if it does), and cropping vertically, then with the 16:9 resultant ratio, my maths says the resultant image area would be 17.3mm x 9.73mm (the 13mm vertically divided by 1.777 = the ratio of 16:9) i.e. almost exactly the same size (give half a mm), as the 2.3 crop mode on the Z8 / Z9.

Is that correct then when shooting in this mode, the sensor area the camera if filming from is almost exactly the same size as a micro four thirds sensor ? Like I say, it's just for my own amusement has doesn't actually affect my use of both systems.
 
Sootchucker said:
Following on from my Video shooting yesterday (see above post #9451), I did some checking and not that it's important, but I wonder if someone could check my maths.

According to the Nikon Z8 and Z9 manual, when shooting in the 4K 100/120 fps mode, as stated it automatically crops into a 2.3x focal length, and the manual states the resulting image area on the sensor is 16.7mm x 9.4mm.

As some of you know, I also shoot with Olympus Micro four thirds (and I'm not getting into a format discussion par-se in this post), but I'm right in thinking that the sensor size for Micro Four thirds is 17.3 x 13mm but at a 4:3 ratio ? So when shooting 4K on the OM-1 for instance, assuming it's using the full width of the sensor (which I don't know if it does), and cropping vertically, then with the 16:9 resultant ratio, my maths says the resultant image area would be 17.3mm x 9.73mm (the 13mm vertically divided by 1.777 = the ratio of 16:9) i.e. almost exactly the same size (give half a mm), as the 2.3 crop mode on the Z8 / Z9.

Is that correct then when shooting in this mode, the sensor area the camera if filming from is almost exactly the same size as a micro four thirds sensor ? Like I say, it's just for my own amusement has doesn't actually affect my use of both systems.
Click to expand...
You lost me after "Following on" :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TG.
Occasionally, when I think a photo has some potential but looks boring in colour, I play around with Silver Efex Pro (the free google version as so far I haven't seen a compelling reason to update). I like their more far out simulations which are not so easy to emulate in other ways I'm aware of and I thought this one of a local "swaying" pedestrian bridge had some potential. Another with the 100-400. No idea if it's to anyone else's taste but here goes anyway.....


DSC_4339-Edit.jpg
 
Sootchucker said:
Following on from my Video shooting yesterday (see above post #9451), I did some checking and not that it's important, but I wonder if someone could check my maths.

According to the Nikon Z8 and Z9 manual, when shooting in the 4K 100/120 fps mode, as stated it automatically crops into a 2.3x focal length, and the manual states the resulting image area on the sensor is 16.7mm x 9.4mm.

As some of you know, I also shoot with Olympus Micro four thirds (and I'm not getting into a format discussion par-se in this post), but I'm right in thinking that the sensor size for Micro Four thirds is 17.3 x 13mm but at a 4:3 ratio ? So when shooting 4K on the OM-1 for instance, assuming it's using the full width of the sensor (which I don't know if it does), and cropping vertically, then with the 16:9 resultant ratio, my maths says the resultant image area would be 17.3mm x 9.73mm (the 13mm vertically divided by 1.777 = the ratio of 16:9) i.e. almost exactly the same size (give half a mm), as the 2.3 crop mode on the Z8 / Z9.

Is that correct then when shooting in this mode, the sensor area the camera if filming from is almost exactly the same size as a micro four thirds sensor ? Like I say, it's just for my own amusement has doesn't actually affect my use of both systems.
Click to expand...
You’ve got too much time on your hands.
 
lunar22 said:
Occasionally, when I think a photo has some potential but looks boring in colour, I play around with Silver Efex Pro (the free google version as so far I haven't seen a compelling reason to update). I like their more far out simulations which are not so easy to emulate in other ways I'm aware of and I thought this one of a local "swaying" pedestrian bridge had some potential. Another with the 100-400. No idea if it's to anyone else's taste but here goes anyway.....


View attachment 411732
Click to expand...
I like this, It shows the effectiveness of a long lens compressing the distance, and the treatment suits the subject.
 
I just received Z 26mm f2.8 S - just to confirm, whoever has it - is the focus motor loud?
Mine is buzzing like hell when hunting...
 
Do you guys think that 26mm makes a difference compared to 28mm lens?
Apart from price being first, both are f2.8, size one pancake other 2cm longer, 26mm has metal mount ring which in my opinion is nothing spectacular. After reading so many reviews, it is said that 26mm is a wee bit sharper. So looking at that 2mm... I went for 26mm cause needed wider lens for family trips. Wider to my usual focal length I use - 40mm.
Lately I used Voigtlander 21mm Color Skopar (on Sony a7c) on my trip and loved it, however I wish it was auto focusing lens. Now when moved to Nikon, I'm looking for a wide lens and 26mm was only option I saw, narrowing down all options size wise.
24mm would be ideal, as I'm not sure if 20-21mm would be always good for trips. During my last holidays, 21mm was 60-70% on my camera, then 40/2.5 lens when needed more light, or 21mm was too wide.
I really wish Nikon would come up with another smallish lens, like 20-24mm 2.8 for Zf....

Or should I just go with Z 24-70mm f4 for trips? Never used zooms...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVOfIygryaE
 
Last edited:
phinix said:
Do you guys think that 26mm makes a difference compared to 28mm lens?
Apart from price being first, both are f2.8, size one pancake other 2cm longer, 26mm has metal mount ring which in my opinion is nothing spectacular. After reading so many reviews, it is said that 26mm is a wee bit sharper. So looking at that 2mm... I went for 26mm cause needed wider lens for family trips. Wider to my usual focal length I use - 40mm.
Lately I used Voigtlander 21mm Color Skopar (on Sony a7c) on my trip and loved it, however I wish it was auto focusing lens. Now when moved to Nikon, I'm looking for a wide lens and 26mm was only option I saw, narrowing down all options size wise.
24mm would be ideal, as I'm not sure if 20-21mm would be always good for trips. During my last holidays, 21mm was 60-70% on my camera, then 40/2.5 lens when needed more light, or 21mm was too wide.
I really wish Nikon would come up with another smallish lens, like 20-24mm 2.8 for Zf....

Or should I just go with Z 24-70mm f4 for trips? Never used zooms...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVOfIygryaE
Click to expand...
Have you thought about the Viltrox 24mm? I have just bought one to go alongside my Nikon 40mm when I want a small 2-lens carry. Not been out with it yet but inside test shots are promising, and it’s cheap if you buy it right. Oh, and it’s autofocus.
 
Everything I’ve read regarding 26mm v 28mm has told me the 26 is marginally sharper wide open but equals out above f4.

I have the 28mm and it’s a nice lens, my only real issue is the purple fringing is really bad - my copy I’m assuming as I haven’t read much about this issue generally.

I’m not much of a zoom lens fan when I’m travelling as I prefer the smaller footprint of a prime, but for sure they do have their advantages & the 24-70 f4 is a very good lens.
 
Stephen L said:
Have you thought about the Viltrox 24mm? I have just bought one to go alongside my Nikon 40mm when I want a small 2-lens carry. Not been out with it yet but inside test shots are promising, and it’s cheap if you buy it right. Oh, and it’s autofocus.
Click to expand...
I did checked Viltrox, but its weaknesses - coma, flare, soft mid-frame, distortion, vignetting, bokeh etc puts me off.
I wish we had more options for Nikon.
 
phinix said:
I did checked Viltrox, but its weaknesses - coma, flare, soft mid-frame, distortion, vignetting, bokeh etc puts me off.
I wish we had more options for Nikon.
Click to expand...
See the above. I'm pretty pleased with the lens.
 
I recently purchased a Z8 and so far I like the camera a lot. I shoot professionally normally with Sony equipment, so along with the Z8 I picked up a megadap21 pro adapter, which seems to work very well with the Sony glass. It also works very well with my sigma, 85 mm fe mount. The only Nikon lens I own currently is the 50 mil 1.8 S.

The AF system of the z8 certainly has to be worked a little harder than the Sony. I can’t just put it in 3-D tracking and use that for all types of photography and light levels in the same way I can with my Sony A9 / A7iv and the active tracking. A couple of other little niggles, no way of assigning a custom button to auto ISO minimum shutter. I have a workaround in that I have a button assigned to the last accessed my menu item. I also prefer Sony C1 C2 and C3 compared to Nikon bank system. My most used lenses are a 35 and 85 mil F1 .4 and it’s a shame there are no such lenses available in the Nikon mount. Fingers crossed Sigma release some.

Image quality is fantastic from the Z8, as good as my A9 at high ISO, which is an achievement considering that I have gone from 24 to 45 mp. Having shot Canon for 20 years I have never warmed to the sony camera bodies in the last 4-5 years of use. They are technically incredible, but nowhere near as nice to use as the Nikon.

I have promised myself not to make a decision on changing until at least the beginning of May, by which time I will have had a proper amount of time to evaluate the Z8. Having changed camera brands once before, I only ever want to do it one more time. Sonys insistence on smaller is always better when it comes to camera bodies is what’s making me think about changing. Their stacked sensor bodies are also not cheap.
 
Where did you get your Megadap adapter from? Are you finding any physical issues with it being too tight against the mount or the lens? I don't have a huge amount of FE-mount lenses but given the price of the adapter if you're not having any issues with it then it would still be worth it.

I've not been able to get much time with my Z8 so I'm curious what you've found works best for C-AF as I was pretty lazy with the A9 and generally just stuck it in C-AF and was happy with the results. I'd also like to know if there's a quicker way to switch auto iso as I'm finding it's quite clumsy having to dig into the auto iso menu each time to set the shutter speed.

On a different note, I've been using the Sigma 12-24mm F-mount lens (the original I think) and enjoying the ultrawide more than expected. It wasn't a fantastic lens in its day but it was way cheaper than the Nikon 14-24mm lens so I was happy with the purchase at the time but I'm fancying something a bit better and noticed I can get a good condition 14-24mm for under £500. It does lose the super wide end which is a shame however I'm sure it's still a great lens, I'm wondering are there any UWA lenses in this range to consider? For the amount I'm using the lens I probably wouldn't pay much more than £500 for one.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
On a different note, I've been using the Sigma 12-24mm F-mount lens (the original I think) and enjoying the ultrawide more than expected. It wasn't a fantastic lens in its day but it was way cheaper than the Nikon 14-24mm lens so I was happy with the purchase at the time but I'm fancying something a bit better and noticed I can get a good condition 14-24mm for under £500. It does lose the super wide end which is a shame however I'm sure it's still a great lens, I'm wondering are there any UWA lenses in this range to consider? For the amount I'm using the lens I probably wouldn't pay much more than £500 for one.
Click to expand...
I got a used 14-30 f4 for not a lot more than that.
 
phinix said:
Do you guys think that 26mm makes a difference compared to 28mm lens?
Apart from price being first, both are f2.8, size one pancake other 2cm longer, 26mm has metal mount ring which in my opinion is nothing spectacular. After reading so many reviews, it is said that 26mm is a wee bit sharper. So looking at that 2mm... I went for 26mm cause needed wider lens for family trips. Wider to my usual focal length I use - 40mm.
Lately I used Voigtlander 21mm Color Skopar (on Sony a7c) on my trip and loved it, however I wish it was auto focusing lens. Now when moved to Nikon, I'm looking for a wide lens and 26mm was only option I saw, narrowing down all options size wise.
24mm would be ideal, as I'm not sure if 20-21mm would be always good for trips. During my last holidays, 21mm was 60-70% on my camera, then 40/2.5 lens when needed more light, or 21mm was too wide.
I really wish Nikon would come up with another smallish lens, like 20-24mm 2.8 for Zf....

Or should I just go with Z 24-70mm f4 for trips? Never used zooms...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVOfIygryaE
Click to expand...
I thought about the various Z pancakes - and tried the 40/2 which I sent back
In the end just for casual shooting I got the trio of samyang 24/1.8, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 “Tiny” series. Work well for me on the EtZ21. Got two used - needed to send back one cos of decentre - common issue with SY
 
Stephen L said:
I got a used 14-30 f4 for not a lot more than that.
Click to expand...
no idea how. I haven't seen one of those from a reputable dealer for under around £725.

JohnMcL7 said:
On a different note, I've been using the Sigma 12-24mm F-mount lens (the original I think) and enjoying the ultrawide more than expected. It wasn't a fantastic lens in its day but it was way cheaper than the Nikon 14-24mm lens so I was happy with the purchase at the time but I'm fancying something a bit better and noticed I can get a good condition 14-24mm for under £500
Click to expand...
I also had a Sigma 12-24 back in the day which i rather liked although it had its technical limitations -- not much use if you wanted sharp corners! The Nikon 14-24 is very heavy and bulky, though was class-leading in its day.

An other alternative is a third party fixed length UWA if you don't need a zoom and in most cases are happy with MF. There are quite a lot of those from companies like Samsung, Irix or Laowa. I have the Irix 15mm f2.4 which is fine for current purposes and didn't cost that much. Still, if I found a 14-30 for £500, I'd certainly be interested!
 
lunar22 said:
no idea how. I haven't seen one of those from a reputable dealer for under around £725.


I also had a Sigma 12-24 back in the day which i rather liked although it had its technical limitations -- not much use if you wanted sharp corners! The Nikon 14-24 is very heavy and bulky, though was class-leading in its day.

An other alternative is a third party fixed length UWA if you don't need a zoom and in most cases are happy with MF. There are quite a lot of those from companies like Samsung, Irix or Laowa. I have the Irix 15mm f2.4 which is fine for current purposes and didn't cost that much. Still, if I found a 14-30 for £500, I'd certainly be interested!
Click to expand...
It was a complicated deal with LCE, who also supplied my Z5 and 24-120, and took my m4/3 stuff off me.
 
Hi all. I have the trinity of 2.8s (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200) but I'll freely admit the one I carry everywhere is the 24-120 f/4 S. It may as well be welded to my Z8. In 3 decades of photography I don't think I can remember a more capable do-anything go-anywhere loadout than that camera and that lens. To the point that I genuinely don't know what to use the 2.8s for at times. I don't need the wide end - I have a Fuji GFX100S which with the Fuji 20-35 f/4 (about 14 to 24 in 35mm speak anyway) takes care of that, with 102Mp behind it too.

What I find interesting is I can't remember a lens that's has more debate and discussion than the 24-200 f/4-6.3!!! So I bought one just recently. It's brilliant! Is it as good as the 24-120? No, not quite. But you have to start pixel peeping to tell, the extra reach is useful and it's way better than any glass that size and weight ever was when I started taking photos. Honestly I'd be happy with either lens on the Z8 when out hiking the highlands. We live in a golden age when we are spoiled for choice. Honestly anyone ever looking at the 24-200 as an "inferior" lens - trust me, it isn't. It's a wee gem.
 
Last edited:
I'm quite new to the 24-120 having only got it a month ago and have yet to take that many shots with it. But initial impressions are very positive. It seems more detailed and with a more attractive rendering than the 24-70 which I traded in. Unfortunately my experience with the 24-200 was less positive and I'm putting that down to sample variation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top