Nikon Z* mirrorless

the black fox said:
Update in the end I went for the 300mm f4 having had one before , it’s light ,sharp takes t,c’s well and has good close focus plus the price is now rock bottom.
Just been through my old photos on Flickr from when I previously had one of these lenses all 350 plus of them and there’s a lot that made explore back then , some of my all time fave shots in there , just hoping it’s as good on mirrorless as the reports say it is
Click to expand...
I think that changing bodies Z to F or vice versa is just a false decision making point. My D850 produces just as good images as my Z8/Z9 with similar AF speed so ultimately ....... WTF did I buy a Z camera?
Well I bought the Z7 as I thought (maybe foolishly) that it would be the same as my D850. It was different but not better and the AF was less sure than the D850. The Z8 and Z9 levelled the D850 and Z camera AF speed concerns I had. So the move to Z was not that bad a move but it cost me compared to what I had with the D3S, D500, D810 and D850.

Then we/I look at the size of the Z lenses.
On a one by one basis for the lenses I have still and the ones I sold that were AFD the new Z range produce me equivalence but at a big cost. From a ROI business perspective I would say that unless you are earning £30k+ from a photo business and can offset the extra cost then the Z range is a cost sink and just a way to spend money feeding the Nikon machine.

This may seem a cynical post if you are a person who really wants the best and latest gear but I do feel that Nikon have sold us/me a pup as I see no advantage in the wonderful Z range other than having some really nice featureful mirrorless cameras. The same could have been achieved with the F mount lenses.
The FTZ adapter that is required to use AFS lenses on a Z camera is essentially an extension tube. This FTZ allows AF but only with AFS lenses, if you have AF or AFD lenses you are limited to manual focus unless have a MonsterAdapter LA-FZ1 adapter which is essentially an FTZ with an AF motor incorporated.

So for me a long term Nikon user since 1973 the move to Z is not the greatest thing since sliced bread but a way for Nikon to extract more money from me, for some, but not huge performance advantage.

What I will say is that the AF features added in the Z range are a real advance for wildlife and sports photographers.
The video features are a boon I am sure for those doing photojournalism but video holds little interest for me.
 
Last edited:
jknights said:
I think that changing bodies Z to F or vice versa is just a false decision making point. My D850 produces just as good images as my Z8/Z9 with similar AF speed so ultimately ....... WTF did I buy a Z camera?
Well I bought the Z7 as I thought (maybe foolishly) that it would be the same as my D850. It was different but not better and the AF was less sure than the D850. The Z8 and Z9 levelled the D850 and Z camera AF speed concerns I had. So the move to Z was not that bad a move but it cost me compared to what I had with the D3S, D500, D810 and D850.

Then we/I look at the size of the Z lenses.
On a one by one basis for the lenses I have still and the ones I sold that were AFD the new Z range produce me equivalence but at a big cost. From a ROI business perspective I would say that unless you are earning £30k+ from a photo business and can offset the extra cost then the Z range is a cost sink and just a way to spend money feeding the Nikon machine.

This may seem a cynical post if you are a person who really wants the best and latest gear but I do feel that Nikon have sold us/me a pup as I see no advantage in the wonderful Z range other than having some really nice featureful mirrorless cameras. The same could have been achieved with the F mount lenses.
The FTZ adapter that is required to use AFS lenses on a Z camera is essentially an extension tube. This FTZ allows AF but only with AFS lenses, if you have AF or AFD lenses you are limited to manual focus unless have a MonsterAdapter LA-FZ1 adapter which is essentially an FTZ with an AF motor incorporated.

So for me a long term Nikon user since 1973 the move to Z is not the greatest thing since sliced bread but a way for Nikon to extract more money from me, for some, but not huge performance advantage.

What I will say is that the AF features added in the Z range are a real advance for wildlife and sports photographers.
The video features are a boon I am sure for those doing photojournalism but video holds little interest for me.
Click to expand...
Have to also remember that Nikons reluctance to embrace mirrorless (full frame ) had the company on its knees. For some, the technology is a game changer. For others, not so much. Nikon did need to move forward to survive and I’m glad they are now thriving again.
 
Hmmmm as you well know Julian over the years I have had multiple cameras in various brands and iterations. Plus more lenses than I care to think about plus being able to try out ones my son buys , so I consider myself pretty well versed in most genres and models . From dslr to mirrorless . Shooting mainly wildlife also brings its own wants and needs , speed ,quick AF , the ability to focus both far and close quickly as birds animals insects don’t stay still for long .
I have retained my long term Olympus om1 as it’s served me well and on paper is a good match for the Z8 but in use the Nikon leaves it standing they both have high frame rate and bird I.d and electronic shutters I have both cameras set to 20fps burst shooting for general use but the Nikon feels faster in use ,it also gives a more consistent hit rate with a far higher percentage of keepers ,the other day for instance I took 80+ shots and every single one was a keeper that’s unusual in itself .
The Nikon bird I.d is also very accurate but not infallible I have noticed for instance if the bird is close then it will grab eye focus but if more distant it tends to be the head or sometimes a wing but still give acceptable results. .
All I can add is having the choice available I will pick up the camera / lens combo that best suits where I intend to go that day and it’s mostly the Z8 and lenses even though the Olympus often gives more alleged reach with less weight penalty
 
I agree that having a good toolset (set of cameras and lenses) is important if you want consistently good results.
I am very pleased that Nikon is doing well again as it means they have the finances to plough in new and different R&D for new products.
I have the two DC lenses 105mm f2 DC and 135mm f2 DC as well as the 105mm f1.4 AFS.
To say that these three lenses are sharp is a woeful understatement.
Would I buy these lenses again in Z mount, probably not as I dont shoot commercially any more. Also I have the Nikon FTZ2 and MonsterAdapter LA-FZ1 adapters which provides me the lenses in full AF modes.

I am more concerned about the current Nikon lens design strategy which seems to be .... Let us make a big lens as it will be perceived as giving better value. Compare the 85mm lens series in Z and F mount and one has to say that either they are using the same optical design but rebadging in a Z lens tube! The new Z lenses are obscenely large! However they do produce fine results but is this down to the new coatings and fine manufacturing process or better optical design. I think it is the former. When you look at the small Olympus lenses and their rendering it does make me wonder what Nikon is attempting.
 
well the new /old lens just arrived at the same time as the rain ,typical managed a few test shots of flowers before it got to bad . ( told the mrs not to buy a new lawn mower LOL) anyway a couple of notes on the lens it works fine as a bare 300 f4 also takes the 2x mkiii t.c with no problems only down side is it has no VR so will have to use higher shutter speeds and adjust my shooting criteria the AF is fast and snappy no noticeable difference to the 180-600 .
so far tried it bare lens , with 2x tc and in both fx and dx modes and also tested with the godox iT-32 flash . one thing to remember with these older lenses with a aperture ring is to set it to f32 or it throws up a EE error message , but there is a small lock switch to keep it locked at f32
is it a good buy well you tell me my initial version of this cost me well over £1000 some years ago this ones in mint condition from FFORDES with 6 months warranty and cost me £199 so yes I think a worthwhile purchase , once the insects become more prevalent then its going to earn its keep
pics will hopefully follow
 
I am starting to get GAS. I currently use the 24-200 F4-6.3 and it works well for me. But I am starting to wonder if the 24-120 F4 might be a better choice. Has anyone gone in this direction? Any observations?? Obvs I need a sharper lens!!
 
DumfriesDik said:
I am starting to get GAS. I currently use the 24-200 F4-6.3 and it works well for me. But I am starting to wonder if the 24-120 F4 might be a better choice. Has anyone gone in this direction? Any observations?? Obvs I need a sharper lens!!
Click to expand...
Early on in my Z purchases I bought the 24-200mm as an all in one walk around lens. I quickly realised that it wasn't good enough for me, it was just alright in my opinion. The 24-120mm f/4 is now my walk around lens and I'm very happy with it. I think the 24-120mm is probably a lens that should be close to the top of any bodies list of first purchases for the Z-mount. It's very good and versatile, paired with a 100-400mm as a two lens setup.
 
DumfriesDik said:
I am starting to get GAS. I currently use the 24-200 F4-6.3 and it works well for me. But I am starting to wonder if the 24-120 F4 might be a better choice. Has anyone gone in this direction? Any observations?? Obvs I need a sharper lens!!
Click to expand...

I previously had the 24-200. I tried the Fuji system, (sold all my Nikon gear), for a couple of years before returning to Nikon. This time around I bought the 24-120. Tbh, I really can’t decide if I made the right choice with the 24-120. It’s undoubtedly a nicer lens to use, the extra button and dial are very useful, and it’s sharper but as a landscape photographer the 24-200 is a one lens solution, especially for mountain hikes. I’m sure if I had both, the 24-120 would never leave the house. I guess it depends if the ‘downsides’ of the 24-200 are worth the extra reach.
 
Last edited:
wilt said:
Early on in my Z purchases I bought the 24-200mm as an all in one walk around lens. I quickly realised that it wasn't good enough for me, it was just alright in my opinion. The 24-120mm f/4 is now my walk around lens and I'm very happy with it. I think the 24-120mm is probably a lens that should be close to the top of any bodies list of first purchases for the Z-mount. It's very good and versatile, paired with a 100-400mm as a two lens setup.
Click to expand...

+1
 
I had the 24-120mm f4 in F mount and it was one of my favourite lenses so when I got the Z7 it was an easy decision to get the Z mount version. It is used on my Z8 and the 100-400 Z is on my Z9.
 
while waiting for the train yesterday this kestrel decided to land atop a pylon ,it was a hell of a distance so I switched to DX mode and quiet pleased with the result
recharge the battery time by jeff cohen, on Flickr
 
Super set indeed
 
  • Like
Reactions: mav
Anyone any experience with the Z8, FTZ adaptor, mk3 1.4 tele and 500pf?

I've read it can perform well in good light, ok when overcast.

Appreciate thoughts from anyone with experience of the combo, cheers
 
Phil-D said:
Anyone any experience with the Z8, FTZ adaptor, mk3 1.4 tele and 500pf?

I've read it can perform well in good light, ok when overcast.

Appreciate thoughts from anyone with experience of the combo, cheers
Click to expand...
I had a Z9 with that lens and TC combo you mention quite a few years back, it worked very well !
 
Looking to maybe change to Nikon from OM system, I shoot mainly wildlife and have the OM1 mk1 with the 300 F4 lens for wildlife and the 12-100 for holiday/landscape. I am missing a zoom lens and the OM 100-400 f4.5 with built in teleconverter is a bit too pricey at £6,400. TheOM 100-400mkii doesn’t seem to be any better quality than the mk1 version.Nikon wise for a wildlife lens I was thinking about the Z 180-600 F5.6-6.3 and the 24-120 F4 for everything else. The Nikon Z8 looks a fantastic camera but the 45 MP files seem a bit mighty loading and storing being the main concern. The other camera body I am considering is the Nikon Z 6iii at 24 MP. Any opinions/suggestions/thoughts would be very much appreciated.
 
Christoph said:
Looking to maybe change to Nikon from OM system, I shoot mainly wildlife and have the OM1 mk1 with the 300 F4 lens for wildlife and the 12-100 for holiday/landscape. I am missing a zoom lens and the OM 100-400 f4.5 with built in teleconverter is a bit too pricey at £6,400. TheOM 100-400mkii doesn’t seem to be any better quality than the mk1 version.Nikon wise for a wildlife lens I was thinking about the Z 180-600 F5.6-6.3 and the 24-120 F4 for everything else. The Nikon Z8 looks a fantastic camera but the 45 MP files seem a bit mighty loading and storing being the main concern. The other camera body I am considering is the Nikon Z 6iii at 24 MP. Any opinions/suggestions/thoughts would be very much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Just done that exact move and couldn’t be happier , Z8 ,180-600 1.4 tc , 24-70 f4 … plus a FTZii and a host of F mount lenses all work fine the main lens although heavier is perfectly balanced and I have no problems with walkabout even at 80 ..
PROS .. Your computer may or may not need updating but it’s really a case of suck it and see , I have a 1TB external SSD which obviously can be expanded when full that I use solely for storing photos .
Do I miss the om1 not in the least I have retained it but it’s not being used . The files from the Z8 produce amazing detail , the bird I.d on the Z8 is in my estimate far superior to the Olympus one and with care given close to a 100% hit rate
Just one tip if your buying Cotswold cameras offer the best deals .
CONS
Expect to have to buy a decent CFexpress card and reader but that’s it
 
Christoph said:
Looking to maybe change to Nikon from OM system, I shoot mainly wildlife and have the OM1 mk1 with the 300 F4 lens for wildlife and the 12-100 for holiday/landscape. I am missing a zoom lens and the OM 100-400 f4.5 with built in teleconverter is a bit too pricey at £6,400. TheOM 100-400mkii doesn’t seem to be any better quality than the mk1 version.Nikon wise for a wildlife lens I was thinking about the Z 180-600 F5.6-6.3 and the 24-120 F4 for everything else. The Nikon Z8 looks a fantastic camera but the 45 MP files seem a bit mighty loading and storing being the main concern. The other camera body I am considering is the Nikon Z 6iii at 24 MP. Any opinions/suggestions/thoughts would be very much appreciated.
Click to expand...
The joy of those 45mp Z8 files is detail and cropping power. The 600mm end of the 180-600mm can become a 900mm in DX (crop mode) while still giving 19mp files. My last PC was 7 years old and still able to manage the Z8 files easy enough. As for storage, yes they do take up more room but you also become more selective. The 20fps at full resolution can become a storage nightmare, but you soon learn that is for exceptional circumstances and even then you're only looking for that one moment shot out of them. For me, once I went high resolution, there was no going back.
 
Last edited:
That kestrel shot above was taken in DX mode , it’s come out far better than the FX ones I also took . I presume it’s due to the camera only metering a smaller area , definetly could not have got that clarity with a OM1
 
AdamSi said:
I had a Z9 with that lens and TC combo you mention quite a few years back, it worked very well !
Click to expand...

Thanks Adam, a quick google tells me the Z9 and Z8 have the same autofocus system so the Z8 should perform just as well (y)
 
Phil-D said:
Thanks Adam, a quick google tells me the Z9 and Z8 have the same autofocus system so the Z8 should perform just as well (y)
Click to expand...
100% if it helps, I picked up a Z9 today again, I can tell zero difference between them with regards to autofocus, you will do well with that combo.
 
Just done that exact move and couldn’t be happier , Z8 ,180-600 1.4 tc , 24-70 f4 … plus a FTZii and a host of F mount lenses all work fine the main lens although heavier is perfectly balanced and I have no problems with walkabout even at 80 ..
PROS .. Your computer may or may not need updating but it’s really a case of suck it and see , I have a 1TB external SSD which obviously can be expanded when full that I use solely for storing photos .
Do I miss the om1 not in the least I have retained it but it’s not being used . The files from the Z8 produce amazing detail , the bird I.d on the Z8 is in my estimate far superior to the Olympus one and with care given close to a 100% hit rate
Just one tip if your buying Cotswold cameras offer the best deals .
CONS
Expect to have to buy a decent CFexpress card and reader but that’s it

Thanks for the reply Jeff, when I tried the 180-600 on the Z6 iii it didn’t feel as balanced as on the Z8. Thanks for the tip about Cotswold cameras they are a bit cheaper than Panamoz.
 
wilt said:
The joy of those 45mp Z8 files is detail and cropping power. The 600mm end of the 180-600mm can become a 900mm in DX (crop mode) while still giving 19mp files. My last PC was 7 years old and still able to manage the Z8 files easy enough. As for storage, yes they do take up more room but you also become more selective. The 20fps at full resolution can become a storage nightmare, but you soon learn that is for exceptional circumstances and even then you're only looking for that one moment shot out of them. For me, once I went high resolution, there was no going back.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply Steven, the cropping power of the Z8 over the Z6iii is a big+. I like the idea of becoming more selective with my photos (I certainly could do with being more ruthless on importing shots.) My desk top Mac is about 5 years old so should be ok.
 
DumfriesDik said:
I am starting to get GAS. I currently use the 24-200 F4-6.3 and it works well for me. But I am starting to wonder if the 24-120 F4 might be a better choice. Has anyone gone in this direction? Any observations?? Obvs I need a sharper lens!!
Click to expand...
I have both. The 24-120 lens lives on my Z7ii for the most part and is definitely a sharper lens if you like viewing pictures at 100% on screen - not sure it’s noticeable on an A3 or even A2 print. However I’ve found the 24-200 to be really useful for things like holidays when you just want the one (lighter) lens and the nth degree of sharpness isn’t important.
 
I'd like to know this as well, as I love my Sony 20-70 on my A7RV and A7CR, and would like to know how it fairs on the Nikon Z bodies as well ?
 
Nikon should release some zoom that starts from 20mm...
20-70mm f4 would be nice. Or 20-50mm f2.8.
 
phinix said:
Nikon should release some zoom that starts from 20mm...
20-70mm f4 would be nice. Or 20-50mm f2.8.
Click to expand...
but they already have a 24-70 f4 Z which is a cracking lens
 
Geoff, when you have had that Sony 20-70 F4 you really appreciate the extra wideness at the short end over 24mm, and the fact that it's the same size as the Nikon Z 24-70 F4, lighter and without the clumsy twist to open that the Nikon lens has. A lot of the time, it can be a one lens solution when travelling. Now if it was a Nikon 20-120 F4 in about the same size and weight as the current Nikon Z 24-120 F4, I'll sell my 24-120 and pick one of these up in a heartbeat, as that would truly be a one lens travel solution.

Yes, I'm sure without built in lens corrections there's probably extensive distortion, but to be honest you can say that of a lot of lenses from a lot of different manufactures when you start to get in the ultra wide focal lengths.
 
the black fox said:
but they already have a 24-70 f4 Z which is a cracking lens
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? I said that it would be nice to have zoom that starts from 20mm. Not 24mm. Plenty of zoom lens with 24mm, but compact one with 20mm on wide end would be nice. Sony has 20-70mm which is ideal, Tamron has 20-40mm for E mount. It would be great if Nikon made one in their compact line (by compact I mean not bigger than 17-28mm in lenght for example).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top