you can still hear the shutter though...when the mirrorless cameras came out...and i have one...it was because of the mirror clack on my oly E420 which i didnt want
i have had quieter slr's....nikon nikkormats EL2 and some early pentax bodies...so i cant say what the more modern dslr's sound like except that from what you say must still be noisy
I'm not talking about an intrusively noisy slap - I had one for a very short time that was like a rifle shot (an OM10 maybe) that was like a cry for attention.
Just as I said, the quietly reassuring noise of the mirror slap. In fact having now tested it, the shutter opening & closing is virtually undetectable without removing the lens.
If your shutter curtain is making that intrusive a noise, I'd question the design of it.
Hmmm, are you sure? Because pretty much every DSLR and MILC Ive used (many) have a noisy shutter (So far the quieter shutters have been XH1 and RP, A9 being completely silent). Mirrorless by design have no mirror and the shutter makes the noise.
I was actually surprised how loud the shutter is on the A7RIV compared to the Z7 when I first got it, I'd forgotten what a loud shutter was likeHmmm, are you sure? Because pretty much every DSLR and MILC Ive used (many) have a noisy shutter (So far the quieter shutters have been XH1 and RP, A9 being completely silent). Mirrorless by design have no mirror and the shutter makes the noise.
Leaf shutters are quiet too
Yep. Certain. Withdrawing from this thread.Hmmm, are you sure? Because pretty much every DSLR and MILC Ive used (many) have a noisy shutter (So far the quieter shutters have been XH1 and RP, A9 being completely silent). Mirrorless by design have no mirror and the shutter makes the noise.
Fair enough. None of those points directly affect me hence my lack of consideration. I do use a leaf shutter camera (Sony RX100) and a D850 but it doesn’t bother me noise wise switching (I’m so grateful for the heft of the dslr after the tiny rx) but I take your point.If you spend some time shooting with camera that has a leaf shutter which will be nearly silent, and then go back to a mirror/focal plane shutter combo, the noise is deafening. And it does matter. If you are in a hide, the birds some distance away can hear the mirror slap. If the photographer has the machine gum approach, birds will move. Frequently, you can hear the sighs from dedicated birders when a photographer enters the hide.
Are people really so upset over the sound of a mirror? I accept mirrorless is now a serious alternative even better in many aspects than DSLRs but surely the mirror sound isn’t a consideration?
I’m not sure why it’s a “game changer” tbh, but the Z lenses have certainly been impressive so far. The 50mm is stellar, but then you’d expect it to be as it was about four times more expensive than the 50mm f1.8g at launch.
I find myself a little confused by all this lens testing. In more than 50 years I've run the gamut of lenses from the 3 element East German Meritar to Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. I've used many dozens of lenses for everything from press shots to technical shots of small engineering parts. I've printed shots 6 foot wide or more and cropped out 1/20th of a frame to make 10x8 prints.The new Z mount 50mm is sharper wide open, across the whole frame, than any other 50mm I've ever used.
The new Z mount 50mm is sharper wide open, across the whole frame, than any other 50mm I've ever used. And on Nikon alone, that includes the F1.4 and 1.8 G versions, the F1.8D, and about 3 or 4 AI/AIS versions. Significantly sharper. Of all of those, the F1.4 G version was the most disappointing. Got rid of that straight away, as soon as I saw what the Z lens could do. As for pricing; I agree that the new lens does seem poor VFM on price alone, but the IQ more than justifies that. Seeing as how it's being compared to much more expensive lenses too. I too baulked at the price, when I first saw it, but I have absolutely no regrets buying one. AndI'm more than looking forward to seeing what else Nikon can produce.
I get all that, but it was the game changer comment that confused me, I don't see how it's a game changer?The new Z mount 50mm is sharper wide open, across the whole frame, than any other 50mm I've ever used. And on Nikon alone, that includes the F1.4 and 1.8 G versions, the F1.8D, and about 3 or 4 AI/AIS versions. Significantly sharper. Of all of those, the F1.4 G version was the most disappointing. Got rid of that straight away, as soon as I saw what the Z lens could do. As for pricing; I agree that the new lens does seem poor VFM on price alone, but the IQ more than justifies that. Seeing as how it's being compared to much more expensive lenses too. I too baulked at the price, when I first saw it, but I have absolutely no regrets buying one. AndI'm more than looking forward to seeing what else Nikon can produce.
I get all that, but it was the game changer comment that confused me, I don't see how it's a game changer?
I think part of the problem with the pricing of some of the new mirrorless lenses is that we haven't really seen high performance f1.8's like them too often before, if at all, and perhaps we've got used to paying less for f1.8 options which have perhaps traditionally been more the cheaper less good option and nowhere near technically as good as these new modern very good f1.8 lenses which are good/excellent from wide open.
At the end of the day I don't think I've seen any difference that makes me think "I wish I'd used another lens". Still, as my American cousins never seem to tire of saying: "your mileage may vary".
I would substitute "men" for "people" there. I've yet to meet a woman who holds (or at any rate expresses) that sort of view.Seems to me a Lot of people are caught Up in and uneccesary specrace with No real substantial effect in images
Sorry. Trying not to be sexistI would substitute "men" for "people" there. I've yet to meet a woman who holds (or at any rate expresses) that sort of view.
Yeah for some reason sharpness seems to be the holy grail these days, yet I still often prefer the look of older lenses. I just look at overall rendering and don’t worry too much about sharpness these days (unless it’s shocking), but if it’s sharp as well that’s a bonus. I do like my landscape lenses to be able to resolve good detail though, although there are of course other important factors such as contrast and flare resistance.Funny to see these remarks about "game changing" sharpness etc while also seeing Lots of people praising the first Fuji X series cameras and original lenses for their "personality" and pleasing looks. Seems to me a Lot of people are caught Up in and uneccesary specrace with No real substantial effect in images
That's marketing; '14 is better than 1.8!'. When actual, the reverse is often true. Many 'slower' lenses are actually optically better than the faster ones, cos of less compromise in design to get that large aperture. But many people like to own the faster lenses, as they think they help them look more 'pro', plus the greater expense makes them better at enhancing 'status'. People can be very silly. My 'cheap' 50mm f1.5D is a much better lens than the F1.4G I owned. But about a quarter of the price...
I’m not sure it’s marketing, and I’m not sure that anyone says f1.4 lenses are better than the f1.8 versions. Some are, some aren’t. People buy f1.4’s for various reasons, and I’ve bought several over the years. Did I buy these because it made me feel more pro, or because I wanted to get into a willy waving contest?.
That's marketing; '14 is better than 1.8!'. When actual, the reverse is often true. Many 'slower' lenses are actually optically better than the faster ones, cos of less compromise in design to get that large aperture. But many people like to own the faster lenses, as they think they help them look more 'pro', plus the greater expense makes them better at enhancing 'status'. People can be very silly. My 'cheap' 50mm f1.5D is a much better lens than the F1.4G I owned. But about a quarter of the price...
I’m not sure it’s marketing, and I’m not sure that anyone says f1.4 lenses are better than the f1.8 versions. Some are, some aren’t. People buy f1.4’s for various reasons, and I’ve bought several over the years. Did I buy these because it made me feel more pro, or because I wanted to get into a willy waving contest?
I’m not sure it’s marketing, and I’m not sure that anyone says f1.4 lenses are better than the f1.8 versions. Some are, some aren’t. People buy f1.4’s for various reasons, and I’ve bought several over the years. Did I buy these because it made me feel more pro, or because I wanted to get into a willy waving contest?
Who knows? Did you buy it because you believed it gave you better IQ? Or because you needed that half stop extra? I've no idea. I bought the 1.4G because I thought it would AF faster than the F1.8D (it did), and because I thought it would be better in terms of IQ (it was worse). I tried the F1.8G version, didn't see enough of a difference to bother with it. Possibly slightly better than the D. Not enough to make me want to part with any money for it though.
Not sure what the relevance of those pics above is, quite frankly.
But that only matters if you spend your life photographing charts. When photographing landscapes, my 1936 f/2.0 Carl Zeiss Tessar takes a lot of beating.The relevance? The f1.4G looks better than the f1.8D right across the frame. Better contrast, better CA control and better sharpness at the same aperture. Not everyone carries a 1.4 lens for status.
But that only matters if you spend your life photographing charts. When photographing landscapes, my 1936 f/2.0 Carl Zeiss Tessar takes a lot of beating.
The relevance? The f1.4G looks better than the f1.8D right across the frame. Better contrast, better CA control and better sharpness at the same aperture.
Not everyone carries a 1.4 lens for status.
But that was my point, you made a sweeping generalisation that people buy f1.4's because they believe the marketing hype, or want to be seen as a pro etc yet you don't know why I bought mine, and I dare say anyone else here on TP etcWho knows? Did you buy it because you believed it gave you better IQ? Or because you needed that half stop extra? I've no idea. The F1.4 versions are more 'desirable', because they are seen as the 'superior' product by some folk. I bought the 1.4G because I thought it would AF faster than the F1.8D (it did), and because I thought it would be better in terms of IQ (it was worse). I tried the F1.8G version, didn't see enough of a difference to bother with it. Possibly slightly better than the D. Not enough to make me want to part with any money for it though.
Not sure what the relevance of those pics above is, quite frankly.
you made a sweeping generalisation that people buy f1.4's because they believe the marketing hype
But many people like to own the faster lenses, as they think they help them look more 'pro'
Ok, then I mis-read and apologise. You did say at the start that it's marketing that f1.4 is better than f1.8, and then went on to say that people buy them to look more pro and to enhance their status, and I took it as all in oneI didn't. I said:
I don't mind you arguing a point, but please don't mis-quote me.
I couldn't say.Which is which?
Ah. See; MY comparison uses a camera with a much better sensor, and yields vastly different results.
View attachment 274191
Which is which?
Nikon don’t really make a good F mount ‘50’ . Sigma and Tamron (45) do and they may be a better comparison to the z50.Who knows? Did you buy it because you believed it gave you better IQ? Or because you needed that half stop extra? I've no idea. The F1.4 versions are more 'desirable', because they are seen as the 'superior' product by some folk. I bought the 1.4G because I thought it would AF faster than the F1.8D (it did), and because I thought it would be better in terms of IQ (it was worse). I tried the F1.8G version, didn't see enough of a difference to bother with it. Possibly slightly better than the D. Not enough to make me want to part with any money for it though.
Not sure what the relevance of those pics above is, quite frankly.
I couldn't say.
Are they both at the same aperture? Because either one of them is at a wider aperture or its front focusing.
Nikon don’t really make a good F mount ‘50’ . Sigma and Tamron (45) do and they may be a better comparison to the z50.
Nikon have been making good F mount 50s for 60 years.Nikon don’t really make a good F mount ‘50’.