-
Important: the Server Hamster is in need of a bit of TLC so the site will be off line for a while on Friday morning, the 17th
Nikon Z* mirrorless
- Thread starter Scots_quine
- Start date
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,709
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nikon's own (theoretical) MTF results for the Z 70-200 + 2x are worse than the 100-400 w/o TC.
At 10mm from the center the 70-200 + 2x is about 23% lower for 30 lines per mm. In reality the 2x TC reduces resolution even more than that.
That's not to say you would necessarily notice the loss of resolution... the Z9 sensor has more potential than you are likely to ever need or see. I see people using the 2x TC's on all sorts of lenses where it's clearly reducing IQ (e.g. the 100-400), but they are happy enough with the results... FWIW, the chart would need to show 115 lines per mm to show the contrast capability at pixel level on the Z9.
In most cases the results will be nearly identical if you crop in post, as long as you take the image with settings that takes into account the final output FOV (effective focal length)... everything we do is really just some form of cropping/magnification.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,118
- Name
- Mark Molloy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Dont discount the 400f4.5. Superb lens for the money.
utopian
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 36
- Edit My Images
- No
To be honest we dont even need MTFs to know that the 70-200 on a 2x TC will be worse than the excellent and universally praised Nikkor Z 100-400 at 400mm.
The amazing thing is, that the Z 70-200 with 2xTC (a combo that I own and use) is actually really good at 400 wide open. Sharper, for example than my old Tamron 100-400 which I replaced for this combo. In years gone by this would resolutely NOT have been the case with any 2xTC
- Messages
- 839
- Name
- Danny
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 385
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bit of a long shot and might end up asking as a separate post, but anyone out there shooting infrared or full spectrum on a converted Z7 / Z7II?? Want to compare PDAF banding with my full spectrum Z5....
Also want to get a view on the Z 24-120 as an infrared lens. 24-200 is truly terrible for hotspots and seems a waste to end up using the lens I bought to go with my infrared Z5 on my colour Z7! Not that it's not a decent lens, but....
Also want to get a view on the Z 24-120 as an infrared lens. 24-200 is truly terrible for hotspots and seems a waste to end up using the lens I bought to go with my infrared Z5 on my colour Z7! Not that it's not a decent lens, but....
- Messages
- 2,504
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks guys, it was a difficult call between the 70-200 and converters, or the 400mm F4.5 / 100-400 with the 1.4x TC.
In the end I've decided to go with the 100-400 with the Z 1.4 TC. My main rational is that I already have the 300mm F4 PF and the 500mm F5.6 PF lens and the F mount TC 1.4 III, which sort of straddles the 400mm f4.5 (even if the 400mm F.45 is slightly sharper, smaller and lighter - although not than the 300mm F4 PF). What I don't have currently is any flexibility in the 100-500 focal length as from 120mm everything is primes, (the 24-120 is too short for wildlife), so I thought the 100-400 would give me that flexibility even if it is 2/3 stop slower than the 400 f.4.5 ?
Let's hope I've made the right decision. I also think it's time to offload my hardy used Z6 II. I never really used it much since I got the Z7 II and now I have the Z9 as well, I've not picked it up in about 6 months. Probably got less than 1k shots off it, so whilst it's doing nothing, thought I might as well offload it to pay for the 100-400 ?
In the end I've decided to go with the 100-400 with the Z 1.4 TC. My main rational is that I already have the 300mm F4 PF and the 500mm F5.6 PF lens and the F mount TC 1.4 III, which sort of straddles the 400mm f4.5 (even if the 400mm F.45 is slightly sharper, smaller and lighter - although not than the 300mm F4 PF). What I don't have currently is any flexibility in the 100-500 focal length as from 120mm everything is primes, (the 24-120 is too short for wildlife), so I thought the 100-400 would give me that flexibility even if it is 2/3 stop slower than the 400 f.4.5 ?
Let's hope I've made the right decision. I also think it's time to offload my hardy used Z6 II. I never really used it much since I got the Z7 II and now I have the Z9 as well, I've not picked it up in about 6 months. Probably got less than 1k shots off it, so whilst it's doing nothing, thought I might as well offload it to pay for the 100-400 ?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 839
- Name
- Danny
- Edit My Images
- No
That all seems to make sense and in your position I’d have done the same,
The choice was a bit different for me as I have the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 & 105mm Macro so this year I’ve added both converters and the 400mm f4.5, which should see me covered for a high quality setup for quite a long time. The only thing left is an upgrade for the Z7, but I can wait to see what’s coming next, honestly!
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,709
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mostly makes sense to me, other than maybe the 1.4x on the slow zoom; at least it's not the 2x...
- Messages
- 1,031
- Name
- Gerard
- Edit My Images
- No
Not sure where you are but I have both lenses (not the teleconverters) and you are welcome to come and play.
- Messages
- 989
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just a one off I'm afraid, I was lucky enough to, A stumble upon it and B, have the cheek to negotiate it down a bit
MPB have an excellent one for £289 or a few like new for £308 if you are after one.
anyone got any feedback on the new Z9 3.10 firmware yet? I've not used it in anger yet but I'm not impressed with the tracking of light objects against a textured background. Shooting an Egret that's flying with a woodland background and the camera missed every shot, instead focusing on the background instead. This was with a 400mm F2.8G ED VR lens which has blisteringly fast AF and isn't something I noticed with the previous firmware. Could be a one off at this stage as I've not heavily tested yet but hopefully I'll get out tomorrow if the weather is better for further testing.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,709
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I haven't used it in anger yet either, and I've heard mixed results; but I think 3D mode's jumpiness has calmed down quite a bit. I always keep a copy of the last good FW version just incase I need to step back...
What focus mode were you using for the egret? The wide-area modes have a nearest priority bias which might have helped.
Wild L is my normal mode for birding with 3D tracking set to my FN3 button. Tried both. The AF nailed 100% of shots of the egret against a very bland sky in bad light but just wouldn't lock on at all 1 out of 3 times it was moving away from me down a small canal.
- Messages
- 2,470
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Z9 seems to struggle against any textured background on all the FW versions. Even with 3.10 today I had a fair few issues tbh.
- Messages
- 4,347
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a D810 SLR, it's older now and the latest one at this level is the D850. If I was going to move to Nikon mirrorless, which model would give me the same 'standard' of performance. What I'm trying to say is where does each Nikon mirrorless camera sit in the hierarchy of novice through consumer, to prosumer, to professional and where would the equivalent to the D810/850 sit in this mirrorless hierarchy? I hope I've made clear what I want to know as I know almost nothing about mirrorless cameras. All I know is that the Z9 is way too big, too heavy and by far, too expensive for me.
On an additional point, is there any visible (image-wise) difference when using DSLR lenses on a mirrorless with adapter as I would not like to have to buy Z lenses on top of the cost of a new body?
On an additional point, is there any visible (image-wise) difference when using DSLR lenses on a mirrorless with adapter as I would not like to have to buy Z lenses on top of the cost of a new body?
I too have a d810..... I'd love a z9 but can't afford it haha
Resolution wise, the z7/z7ii are the high resolution mirrorless equivalent to the d810. I'd also say the af performance disparity between the z9 & z7ii is similar to that of the d5 and d810 (I've got both). The d850 broke the mold in many aspects as it paired a high resolution sensor with a hugely capable af system.
There's due to be a nikon announcement on March 25th iirc that is rumoured to be the d850 mirrorless equivalent.... but that's not confirmed (obviously).
Lens wise - I've been thinking about an addition of a mirrorless nikon body for portraits (to include eye af) and I'm not interested in the z glass as although it's really good, really expensive for gains that I, personally don't see as justified. Ymmv.
If you're planning on shooting wildlife / action then aside from a z9 there's not a nikon mirrorless that's capable imo.
- Messages
- 4,347
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for the reply. The above is a bit disconcerting though.
I don't expect to be changing cameras anytime soon as my D810 is enough for my needs (and it works fine for action and wildlife too) but, as with a new phone (which I also don't need at the moment) it's worth trying to keep up with trends so if the event happens, the learning curve is not so great. I await March 25th with interest.
- Messages
- 4,347
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Don't think I've ever needed to fine tune my autofocus. The most critical time for focussing is on macro shots and I tend to use manual focus in close-up shots like that anyway.
- Messages
- 2,470
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd agree also about the Z9 being the only Nikon mirrorless that is capable of wildlife photography generally. And the Z9 also doesn't always get things right but stands a decent chance. The Z6/7 models were just an endless source of frustration for me. I think we have to wait for all the new models with expeed 7 processors.
- Messages
- 2,504
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
She's arrived - now to get out and try it !
- Messages
- 286
- Name
- Jonathan (JK)
- Edit My Images
- No
Pete, Have you tried a Sony A1 two of my friends swear by them but quite frankly since I dont do much wildlife these days the Sony doesnt tempt me.
If Nikon brings out the Z8 then maybe I would be interested, up to and until then the Fuji XT5, XH2 works well for me.
- Messages
- 2,470
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll be honest I haven't tried a Sony. Elsewhere in the world it seems Sony are very keen to loan kit out for people to try out but Sony UK don't do that and it's expensive to rent kit to see if it would work for me. Sony have a long history of being dominant in a market only to move on and leave it to fester so it'd have to be a huge eye opener for me to switch to Sony.
I'm waiting to see what Nikon announce this month, but since I'm actually seriously looking to get back into wedding photography, where carrying a pair of Z9's along with the big heavy 1.2 primes is probably not going to work, I'm going to have to look at options. I really need 2 non gripped bodies with AF at least as good as the Z9 to be able to consider Nikon viable for me now I think.
Biggest problem is no system is perfect all round. Canon don't have anything like the 400/4.5 for widlife, as that's not a money maker for me, but Nikon don't have AF I can have confidence with right now other than the Z9.
- Messages
- 1,452
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm still scrimping and saving for one.She's arrived - now to get out and try it !
After a play with it what's you initial impressions? What do you shoot with it?
I'm wanting it to do both outdoor sports and wildlife.
- Messages
- 2,504
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Very initial impressions in no particular order.
- A little heavier than I thought but not too heavy - but has some real heft to it. Seems built like a tank.
- Controls (zoom and focus ring etc) are buttery smooth.
- Very quick to lock focus in good light (tested on both my Z9 and Z7 II), less so as the light levels drop (as you would expect from a "slow" F5.6 lens)
- A bit disappointed that the VR in normal mode still gives the visible "jump" after taking the photo (on the Z9 also), whereas it doesn't in Sports mode. Must be a "feature" of the Z series ?
- Image quality wise, I'll hold back on comments until further testing as the sky's were leaden and overcast today so ISO's were in the 6400-9000 range, so not really the best to judge overall quality, but does look promising.
- Messages
- 2,470
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This seems to happen on all Z lenses with VR. Which is a real pain if you are using single point or similar rather than subject tracking.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,709
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, it is intentional... it is recentering the VR elements in order to maximize IQ. In sports mode VR will only recenter if it reaches its' limits (and between bursts).
- Messages
- 402
- Name
- Alison
- Edit My Images
- No
Sooo, I did a thing.. I finally gave in and ordered the Z9 form Panamoz with the adapter so I can use my F lenses.
I still need to order CF cards, a 2nd battery and I also want a new telephoto lens.
I have the 70-200mm f2.8E FL ED VR lens so I won't bother with the Z version just yet. But my other telephoto is the old 300mm f4 so not even the PF version. I wanna replace it asap.
I'm mainly stuck between:
500mm pf - most likely with the 1.4x tc
400mm f4.5 z lens with a 2x tc
The 500mm PF has the benefit it'll work on my old bodies as well, but I doubt I'll use them except for landscape photos and for underwater photography. So it'd be rarely on them anyway. I do already have a TC that'd work on the 500mm but it's a 1.4x, I'm not sure if I'd even be happy with going to 1.7x though?
Weight is important as I travel a lot, so I'm leaning towards the 400mm. It's slightly lighter than the 500 pf and I can use the 2x TC. But the tc adds £600ish onto the cost.
I've also considered the Sony 200-600mm with the adapter, or the 100-400mm with a TC..
The Sony is cheap (£1kish + £250ish for the adapter), but has the downside it doens't focus whilst zooming and at 600mm its probably not going to be sharp enough for my liking. Although, I won't really be zooming much as in 90% of the situations I shoot wildlife in, I need the longest reach possible. My main concern is that if I hate it, I got a sony lens I can't use and would have to resell. I hate the faff of reselling.
The 100-400mm seems okay if i needed the zoom range (maybe on a safari?) but overall I will be using it at 400mm and need a TC as well.
I still need to order CF cards, a 2nd battery and I also want a new telephoto lens.
I have the 70-200mm f2.8E FL ED VR lens so I won't bother with the Z version just yet. But my other telephoto is the old 300mm f4 so not even the PF version. I wanna replace it asap.
I'm mainly stuck between:
500mm pf - most likely with the 1.4x tc
400mm f4.5 z lens with a 2x tc
The 500mm PF has the benefit it'll work on my old bodies as well, but I doubt I'll use them except for landscape photos and for underwater photography. So it'd be rarely on them anyway. I do already have a TC that'd work on the 500mm but it's a 1.4x, I'm not sure if I'd even be happy with going to 1.7x though?
Weight is important as I travel a lot, so I'm leaning towards the 400mm. It's slightly lighter than the 500 pf and I can use the 2x TC. But the tc adds £600ish onto the cost.
I've also considered the Sony 200-600mm with the adapter, or the 100-400mm with a TC..
The Sony is cheap (£1kish + £250ish for the adapter), but has the downside it doens't focus whilst zooming and at 600mm its probably not going to be sharp enough for my liking. Although, I won't really be zooming much as in 90% of the situations I shoot wildlife in, I need the longest reach possible. My main concern is that if I hate it, I got a sony lens I can't use and would have to resell. I hate the faff of reselling.
The 100-400mm seems okay if i needed the zoom range (maybe on a safari?) but overall I will be using it at 400mm and need a TC as well.
- Messages
- 1,452
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- No
If buying now, I'd try and transition to Z lenses. The 400mm f4.5 is an excellent and light lens, but I haven't tried it with a 2x teleconverter. The 1.4tc on it is very good. I don't own a 400mm f4.5, just used one for sports and wildlife recently.