Nikon Z* mirrorless

the black fox said:
The devil has called his debt in , on Saturday I had a mega session with the owls with over 500 keepers , however during the course of the afternoon I got stung on the forehead just above the eyebrow, possibly a horsefly ,yesterday had @ lump the size of a egg then today it’s gone to my eyelid can hardly see out of my right eye . Now on antibiotics and antihistamines,Sod’s Law I guess
Click to expand...
Hope your feeling a bit better now. I hate horse flys but they seem to like me.
 
Trying something new tomorrow,an indoor studio session with birds of prey , taking the Z8 and D500 and a batch of lenses .. hope it’s worth it
 
Just been reading the alleged specs of the upcoming Z70 could be interesting to say the least … having a 2x digital crop will dramatically fincrease focal length with out upping apeture or loss of I.q I used it on the om1 to good effect .. .. hmmm 180-600 +1.4 tc = 840mm then X 2 a incredible 1640mm my mouth’s watering already
 
Not posted anything for a while as I've barely touched the camera. I had planned to explore the coastline around St. Mary's lighthouse during a family break, but unfortunately scuppered my plans before they'd really begun with an ankle injury :(

This is about the best I managed hobbling around the easily assessible areas rather than scrambling over rocks. A rather obvious composition, but I think it works all the same

Z8 and Z 14-24S with Kase CPL and 3 stop

St. Mary's Lighthouse by Si Lundbeck, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
Just been reading the alleged specs of the upcoming Z70 could be interesting to say the least … having a 2x digital crop will dramatically fincrease focal length with out upping apeture or loss of I.q I used it on the om1 to good effect .. .. hmmm 180-600 +1.4 tc = 840mm then X 2 a incredible 1640mm my mouth’s watering already
Click to expand...
The digital crop is just a crop, it'll definitely reduce quality. Having the rumoured 41mp will allow cropping, whether it's in camera or post, but you'll be losing megapixels.
 
wilt said:
The digital crop is just a crop, it'll definitely reduce quality. Having the rumoured 41mp will allow cropping, whether it's in camera or post, but you'll be losing megapixels.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but if the rumoured 41mp is true then even cropped it'd be similar in resolution to the D500. Rather hoping it'll be a D500-esque form factor too - a mini Z8 but lighter would be nice!
 
If a Z8 in DX crop gives 20mp or thereabouts, a 41mp with 2x crop will be approx 10mp.
The 41mp with a 1.5 crop would be approx 18mp.
So in theory you will be getting the FX to DX effect at 41mp and twice that at 18mp, but if it's a 2x digital of the 41mp then it'll be approx 10mp.
The 400mm becomes a 600mm on the D70 at 41mp, 900mm 1.5 crop at 18mp and 1200mm 2x crop at 10mp.
The 400mm becomes a 600mm on the Z8 DX crop at 20mp, 900mm at 9mp and 1200mm at 4mp (*edit* 5mp instead of 4mp)
All this is if my math is correct.
 
Last edited:
wilt said:
If a Z8 in DX crop gives 20mp or thereabouts, a 41mp with 2x crop will be approx 10mp.
The 41mp with a 1.5 crop would be approx 18mp.
So in theory you will be getting the FX to DX effect at 41mp and twice that at 18mp, but if it's a 2x digital of the 41mp then it'll be approx 10mp.
The 400mm becomes a 600mm on the D70 at 41mp, 900mm 1.5 crop at 18mp and 1200mm 2x crop at 10mp.
The 400mm becomes a 600mm on the Z8 DX crop at 20mp, 900mm at 9mp and 1200mm at 4mp
All this is if my math is correct.
Click to expand...
Looks like my maths was WELL out! :LOL:
 
Putting the 41mp on it straight away will be fantastic, compared to the 20mp of the Z8 in DX. It's how it'll handle ISO and dynamic range with so many pixels on a crop sensor that will be telling. Obviously there's also lots of other potential pitfalls like ibis etc that will decide it's popularity.
 
wilt said:
If a Z8 in DX crop gives 20mp or thereabouts, a 41mp with 2x crop will be approx 10mp.
The 41mp with a 1.5 crop would be approx 18mp.
So in theory you will be getting the FX to DX effect at 41mp and twice that at 18mp, but if it's a 2x digital of the 41mp then it'll be approx 10mp.
The 400mm becomes a 600mm on the D70 at 41mp, 900mm 1.5 crop at 18mp and 1200mm 2x crop at 10mp.
The 400mm becomes a 600mm on the Z8 DX crop at 20mp, 900mm at 9mp and 1200mm at 4mp (*edit* 5mp instead of 4mp)
All this is if my math is correct.
Click to expand...
Nope your math is totally wrong as I stated I’ve already used digital crop on Olympus .. unlike a 2x tc with digital crop you lose nothing a 41mp shot at f5.6 will still be a 41mp shot at f5.6 but at twice the focal length ,it’s only conventional tc ‘ s that alter things . That’s the beauty of mirrorless…… the only negative side effect with a long lens is heat haze on distant subjects you wouldn’t normally take
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
Nope your math is totally wrong as I stated I’ve already used digital crop on Olympus .. unlike a 2x tc with digital crop you lose nothing a 41mp shot at f5.6 will still be a 41mp shot at f5.6 but at twice the focal length ,it’s only conventional tc ‘ s that alter things . That’s the beauty of mirrorless…… the only negative side effect with a long lens is heat haze on distant subjects you wouldn’t normally take
Click to expand...
Olympus 2x digital crop takes the centre 25% of the sensor (normally 5mp) and upscales via software.
Olympus isn't breaking the rules of physics, it's using software, much like lots of upscaling software and reading between the actual pixels and "making them up"
So while the resolution might be the same it's not the same as real megapixels on the image.
There is a loss of image quality and sharpness upscaling 5mp to 20mp.
This could be the approach that Nikon takes.
But my math is still correct or at least very close too.
 
Last edited:
Hi everyone, I'm new here!

I'm (or rather, I was) a Fujifilm user. I still have my X-T5 with the Sigma Art 17-40mm f/1.8 and the pancake 23mm f/2.8, which I mainly use for travel, street photography, everyday shooting and low-light situations.

I recently sold my X-H2S, which I used for sports photography, mainly rugby and surfing, along with my 150-600mm and 50-140mm lenses.

I've now switched to Nikon and bought a Z8 with the 70-200mm f/2.8 S II, the 180-600mm and the 35mm f/1.8 S.

I haven't had a chance to test the new gear yet, and I'm really looking forward to it!

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Do you think I made the right move? I'd particularly appreciate hearing from anyone with experience using the 180-600mm, especially for sports photography.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback!
 
Welcome
I have all those lenses and a Z8.
You've selected very good equipment.
The 180-600mm for its money, is a great performer image wise and it's versatile.
For rugby and football, I would normally use the 100-400mm, but have used the 180-600mm on occasion. For the surfing I'd expect you'd need the long end of the 180-600mm and it performs well, softening ever so slightly at the long end.
Both the 70-200mm and 35mm f/1.8 are excellent in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Anyone on here have experience of the 28-400 in terms of image quality and general use?
It seems to get reasonably good reviews and my draw to it is being able to take it abroad and hill walks for the occasional bird/wildlife usage.
I have the 180-600…….but good grief it’s heavy compared with the above.
It would be attached to the z8.

Thanks in advance.
 
I have one and like it. It’s good for country photo walks. It’s 28mm at the wide end so not ideal for landscapes but often good enough.
It’s not an S class lens so the images need a little extra work.
I use it with my z8 or Z5ii, occasionally with the z50ii.
It has a zoom lock so you’ll need to get used to flicking this on and off.
 
Romz72 said:
Hi everyone, I'm new here!

I'm (or rather, I was) a Fujifilm user. I still have my X-T5 with the Sigma Art 17-40mm f/1.8 and the pancake 23mm f/2.8, which I mainly use for travel, street photography, everyday shooting and low-light situations.

I recently sold my X-H2S, which I used for sports photography, mainly rugby and surfing, along with my 150-600mm and 50-140mm lenses.

I've now switched to Nikon and bought a Z8 with the 70-200mm f/2.8 S II, the 180-600mm and the 35mm f/1.8 S.

I haven't had a chance to test the new gear yet, and I'm really looking forward to it!

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Do you think I made the right move? I'd particularly appreciate hearing from anyone with experience using the 180-600mm, especially for sports photography.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback!
Click to expand...
I went from Nikon to Fuji then back to Nikon...I've kept my X100VI.
I would put the Fuji's away and get used to the button layout and menus of the Nikon and see if there's anything you miss about the Fuji's
 
mulch said:
Anyone on here have experience of the 28-400 in terms of image quality and general use?
It seems to get reasonably good reviews and my draw to it is being able to take it abroad and hill walks for the occasional bird/wildlife usage.
I have the 180-600…….but good grief it’s heavy compared with the above.
It would be attached to the z8.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I love mine! It obviously has limitations - it’s never going to be as sharp as a 400mm f/2.8, or be as good in low light. But for a walkaround, the convenience is hard to beat.

I know I’m unlikely to take my best ever photos on it, but on the flip side I’ll get some photos with it that I’d never have been able to take otherwise.

I’ve also got a 180-600 for more specialist occasions - nature reserves, track days etc. But for a countryside walk with the family, it’s usually the 28-400 attached!
 
I've got the 28-400mm and use it for walks etc, it means I can do landscapes or wildlife without having to change len. The copy I have is sharp.
 
mulch said:
Anyone on here have experience of the 28-400 in terms of image quality and general use?
It seems to get reasonably good reviews and my draw to it is being able to take it abroad and hill walks for the occasional bird/wildlife usage.
I have the 180-600…….but good grief it’s heavy compared with the above.
It would be attached to the z8.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I was a fan of the older F-mount Nikon 28-300mm lens which didn't have great IQ particularly at longer focal lengths but it was still good enough for the convenience it offered. I bought the 28-400mm when it was released and I've used it extensively since then because it's a really convenient single lens solution to carry around with me.

The image quality is better than the 28-300mm and I find it's good for a superzoom, it's not going to match better quality lenses but it's a really practical size and weight. For me the loss in image quality of better lenses is worth the trade off for times I'm just not taking a bigger lens with me, I can comfortably carry the 28-400mm with me for hours or whatever I'm doing. I have a 150-600mm lens but I don't really carry it around with me at all because it's just too bulky and heavy for me.

My main issue with the lens is that it has a fairly slow aperture quite early in the range dropping to just F8 at 200mm. It's not ideal but with the controlled noise on an FF sensor and the tools available to clean up images I think it's a reasonable tradeoff whereas if the lens was too bulky or the IQ was poor then you can't really fix that afterwards.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I was a fan of the older F-mount Nikon 28-300mm lens which didn't have great IQ particularly at longer focal lengths but it was still good enough for the convenience it offered. I bought the 28-400mm when it was released and I've used it extensively since then because it's a really convenient single lens solution to carry around with me.

The image quality is better than the 28-300mm and I find it's good for a superzoom, it's not going to match better quality lenses but it's a really practical size and weight. For me the loss in image quality of better lenses is worth the trade off for times I'm just not taking a bigger lens with me, I can comfortably carry the 28-400mm with me for hours or whatever I'm doing. I have a 150-600mm lens but I don't really carry it around with me at all because it's just too bulky and heavy for me.

My main issue with the lens is that it has a fairly slow aperture quite early in the range dropping to just F8 at 200mm. It's not ideal but with the controlled noise on an FF sensor and the tools available to clean up images I think it's a reasonable tradeoff whereas if the lens was too bulky or the IQ was poor then you can't really fix that afterwards.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for a comprehensive response. It’s certainly looking like I’ll be asking ‘Santa’ if I can have one.
 
I need your advice on a camera gear decision.

I currently own a Fujifilm X-T5 with the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 Art and the Fujinon 23mm f/2.8 pancake. I mainly use this setup for casual photography, travel, street photography, low-light situations and everyday shooting.

I recently switched my entire Fujifilm sports photography setup, which I primarily used for rugby and occasionally surfing, to Nikon. I now have a Nikon Z8 with the NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II and the 180-600mm.

However, I'm finding it a little frustrating to have such a capable camera as the Z8 paired exclusively with telephoto lenses. I'd like to explore a different side of the camera and use it more for general photography, portraits, street photography and everyday shooting.

I'm reluctant to invest in a 24-70mm f/2.8, though, as it would overlap considerably with the 17-40mm f/1.8 I already use on my X-T5. Similarly, the Nikon 35mm would partially overlap with the 23mm pancake on the Fujifilm.

I'm currently considering the following options:

  • NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S
  • NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S
  • NIKKOR Z 40mm f/2
  • NIKKOR Z 26mm f/2.8
What would you recommend? Which of these would complement my existing setup best and give me a genuinely different photographic experience with the Z8, rather than simply duplicating what I already have with the Fujifilm?
 
Romz72 said:
I need your advice on a camera gear decision.

I currently own a Fujifilm X-T5 with the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 Art and the Fujinon 23mm f/2.8 pancake. I mainly use this setup for casual photography, travel, street photography, low-light situations and everyday shooting.

I recently switched my entire Fujifilm sports photography setup, which I primarily used for rugby and occasionally surfing, to Nikon. I now have a Nikon Z8 with the NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II and the 180-600mm.

However, I'm finding it a little frustrating to have such a capable camera as the Z8 paired exclusively with telephoto lenses. I'd like to explore a different side of the camera and use it more for general photography, portraits, street photography and everyday shooting.

I'm reluctant to invest in a 24-70mm f/2.8, though, as it would overlap considerably with the 17-40mm f/1.8 I already use on my X-T5. Similarly, the Nikon 35mm would partially overlap with the 23mm pancake on the Fujifilm.

I'm currently considering the following options:

  • NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S
  • NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S
  • NIKKOR Z 40mm f/2
  • NIKKOR Z 26mm f/2.8
What would you recommend? Which of these would complement my existing setup best and give me a genuinely different photographic experience with the Z8, rather than simply duplicating what I already have with the Fujifilm?
Click to expand...
I have the 35mm, 40mm and the 50mm. I don’t have the 26 2.8, I’ve got the 28 2.8.

In your situation for general everyday shooting and portraits the 26 and the 50 1.8 would make a great twin pair. And with a Z8 if you need to crop in a bit there’s plenty of room to do so…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top