Nikon Z6 and Z7 mirrorless

Messages
15,137
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
I totally agree! Thought the lack of a Mirror would enable them to design lenses far smaller than some they're producing
Being able and chosing to do so aren't the same - see the Samyang FE 35 f2.8 as an example of what can be done (and it performs too). But small lenses with modest apertures aren't going to create headline reviews or set pulses racing unless you NEED a tiny lens that's cheap to buy and has a relatively low profit attached.
 
Messages
16,757
Edit My Images
No
Being able and chosing to do so aren't the same - see the Samyang FE 35 f2.8 as an example of what can be done (and it performs too). But small lenses with modest apertures aren't going to create headline reviews or set pulses racing unless you NEED a tiny lens that's cheap to buy and has a relatively low profit attached.
No they don’t tend to, but f1.8 and f1.2 lenses can be made a lot smaller than they are being.

TBH the 50mm f1.2 isn’t a lens I’m interested in anyway but a 50mm f1.8 the size of the 50mm f1.8G would have made a great small setup on the Z’s.
 
Messages
16,757
Edit My Images
No
I actually like the size of the 50mm S, I find it really comfortable to with with.
I really like to too, but I would prefer it smaller in an ideal world. It’s not really an issue tbh, I just find it odd that lenses/primes are getting bigger.
 
Messages
16,757
Edit My Images
No
I am completely unfamiliar with available lenses - don't they have a nifty-fifty size std lens? Even Sony do that (although the AF doesn't work).
Yes the 50mm f1.8s but it’s noticeably bigger and heavier (although not heavy) than the G lens.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
8,717
Edit My Images
Yes
I really like to too, but I would prefer it smaller in an ideal world. It’s not really an issue tbh, I just find it odd that lenses/primes are getting bigger.
Because it's better corrected optically for CA. Sony don't seem care much to correct that in optics which gives smaller lenses.
 
Messages
3,303
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Yes the 50mm f1.8s but it’s noticeably bigger and heavier (although not heavy) than the G lens.
And noticeably better wide open too (I think it was you that did some testing?)

It seems that to create better lenses the size must increases exponentially. Take the Sigma art series all would make fantastic paperweights in addition to very sharp lenses.

But it does get silly, take the Sigma 105 1.4, much bigger and heavier than the Nikon equivalent and whilst it’s a tad sharper than the Nikon 105 1.4, the Nikon lens is already far too sharp wide open so one must wonder what benefits the Sigma version brings aside from saving on gym membership.

One could also say the 50 1.8G is sharp enough but this completely unnecessary megapixel race demands better lenses and as with any lens it’s a balance between quality/size/cost.
 
Messages
15,137
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
But it does get silly, take the Sigma 105 1.4, much bigger and heavier than the Nikon equivalent and whilst it’s a tad sharper than the Nikon 105 1.4, the Nikon lens is already far too sharp wide open so one must wonder what benefits the Sigma version brings aside from saving on gym membership.
It's probably cheaper to make - a larger element likely requires lower precision manufacture than a small one, or can be made more reliably to the required tolerances.

One could also say the 50 1.8G is sharp enough but this completely unnecessary megapixel race demands better lenses and as with any lens it’s a balance between quality/size/cost.
I owned a 50 1.8G and it was unimpressive in terms of optical performance - perhaps a tiny bit better than the 1.8D, but not worth it for the extra bulk and cost. A better 50 1.8 would have been needed to compete with Sony.
 
Messages
3,303
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I owned no less than 3 50 1.8G’s and have tested a fourth. I found the first 3 dire in both af accuracy and focus shift. I found the fourth to have no such af issues. All 4 were however sharp enough when focus hit or manually focussed and certainly more than good enough for a 24 meg sensor.

I have an A3 print at 1.8 taken with one of the 50’s on my wall it’s as good as any Print I’ve taken with any lens and I have some nice ones!
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,137
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
I owned no less than 3 50 1.8G’s and have tested a fourth. I found the first 3 dire in both af accuracy and focus shift. I found the fourth to have no such af issues. All 4 were however sharp enough when focus hit or manually focussed and certainly more than good enough for a 24 meg sensor.

I have an A3 print at 1.8 taken with one of the 50’s on my wall it’s as good as any Print I’ve taken with any lens and I have some nice ones!
Maybe I just had a duff one, although like I said, it was just a *little* better than the 1.8D which makes me think it was actually as intended.
 
Messages
16,757
Edit My Images
No
I owned no less than 3 50 1.8G’s and have tested a fourth. I found the first 3 dire in both af accuracy and focus shift. I found the fourth to have no such af issues. All 4 were however sharp enough when focus hit or manually focussed and certainly more than good enough for a 24 meg sensor.

I have an A3 print at 1.8 taken with one of the 50’s on my wall it’s as good as any Print I’ve taken with any lens and I have some nice ones!
I had two, the second was much better than the first and was actually perfectly acceptable wide open (y)
 
Messages
1,979
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
I owned no less than 3 50 1.8G’s and have tested a fourth. I found the first 3 dire in both af accuracy and focus shift. I found the fourth to have no such af issues. All 4 were however sharp enough when focus hit or manually focussed and certainly more than good enough for a 24 meg sensor.

I have an A3 print at 1.8 taken with one of the 50’s on my wall it’s as good as any Print I’ve taken with any lens and I have some nice ones!
Mines pretty good wide open, but not a patch on the Z mount 50mm f1.8 :)
 
Messages
17,939
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
But it does get silly, take the Sigma 105 1.4, much bigger and heavier than the Nikon equivalent and whilst it’s a tad sharper than the Nikon 105 1.4, the Nikon lens is already far too sharp wide open so one must wonder what benefits the Sigma version brings aside from saving on gym membership.
There is no such thing as a lens that is too sharp :D - just like there is nothing as too perfect or too technically proficient.

At 100% you want that level of tack sharpness - makes for great printing and close up viewing. As sensors increase in pixel pitch the optical quality of lenses gets ever more important. I don't mind the heavy glass - it helps get the best out of these expensive bodies
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,303
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
There is no such thing as a lens that is too sharp :D - just like there is nothing as too perfect or too technically proficient.

At 100% you want that level of tack sharpness - makes for great printing and close up viewing. As sensors increase in pixel pitch the optical quality of lenses gets ever more important. I don't mind the heavy glass - it helps get the best out of these expensive bodies
I disagree...the Sigma typically needs to be shot at a faster shutter speed (to stabilise) which pound for pound results in an ever so slightly higher iso.

Also I doubt there is an affordable printer (or indeed any printer) out there that would show the difference between the two lenses and given its designed as a portrait lens ott sharpness (such both Nikon and sigma variants have) may need dialling down a touch for certain complexions.
 
Messages
17,939
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I disagree...the Sigma typically needs to be shot at a faster shutter speed (to stabilise) which pound for pound results in an ever so slightly higher iso.

Also I doubt there is an affordable printer (or indeed any printer) out there that would show the difference between the two lenses and given its designed as a portrait lens ott sharpness (such both Nikon and sigma variants have) may need dialling down a touch for certain complexions.
Ah - I was thinking more about landscapes and architecture in the distance where wide open might be ideal for handholding. I cannot use my ART's wide open as the corners soften too much and front to back sharpness is as important as center to edge - but the middle looks great for distant views but I end up stopped down a bit.
 
Messages
16,757
Edit My Images
No
At 100% you want that level of tack sharpness - makes for great printing and close up viewing. As sensors increase in pixel pitch the optical quality of lenses gets ever more important. I don't mind the heavy glass - it helps get the best out of these expensive bodies
I'm moving away from heavy lenses, I'd rather them be lighter tbh. Most modern lenses are 'sharp enough' and I'd rather them concentrate on rendering and weight saving. In terms of rendering I still prefer some of the older film lenses, they had much more character and had a subject separation that I don't see with modern lenses (modern lenses have separation, it just doesn't look the same to my eyes).
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
8,717
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm moving away from heavy lenses, I'd rather them be lighter tbh. Most modern lenses are 'sharp enough' and I'd rather them concentrate on rendering and weight saving. In terms of rendering I still prefer some of the older film lenses, they had much more character and had a subject separation that I don't see with modern lenses (modern lenses have separation, it just doesn't look the same to my eyes).
You know what's lighter and smaller than your huge 70-200mm f2.8

:D

Sorry it's just too easy, if it's getting tiring I'll stop. :)
 
Messages
16,757
Edit My Images
No
You know what's lighter and smaller than your huge 70-200mm f2.8

:D

Sorry it's just too easy, if it's getting tiring I'll stop. :)
Yes the new z 70-200mm f2.8 S ;)
 
Messages
302
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
I like my shallow dof, I just think Nikon needs to consider the lenses and cameras they are developing a bit more if they want to stay afloat in a tricky camera market. They are making some odd choices lately.
I like my shallow DoF as well -- perhaps a bit too much. But I'm perfectly happy with the performance of this classic

DSC_0770.jpg

50mm f1.2 AIS to need to spend at least 4 times as much on what is coming up. And you just won't get this crazy swirly bokeh on modern lenses.
 
Messages
16,757
Edit My Images
No
I like my shallow DoF as well -- perhaps a bit too much. But I'm perfectly happy with the performance of this classic

View attachment 265573

50mm f1.2 AIS to need to spend at least 4 times as much on what is coming up. And you just won't get this crazy swirly bokeh on modern lenses.
Does the bokeh always look like that?
 
Messages
16,757
Edit My Images
No

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
4,525
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
The appearance of lenses designed for film use is a bit of a lottery - all makes, and even models within makes, behave differently and generally provide a surprise, pleasant or otherwise.
 
Messages
4,363
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
854
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone moved over to a Z series from a D800? I'm wondering what I might be missing out on, so would be interested to hear whether you're happy or not. I don't do sports or landscape etc., just general family snaps when out. hols etc.
 
Messages
16,757
Edit My Images
No
The appearance of lenses designed for film use is a bit of a lottery - all makes, and even models within makes, behave differently and generally provide a surprise, pleasant or otherwise.
I generally prefer the old film lenses (y)
Has anyone moved over to a Z series from a D800? I'm wondering what I might be missing out on, so would be interested to hear whether you're happy or not. I don't do sports or landscape etc., just general family snaps when out. hols etc.
Didn't move from the D800 but did swap from the D850 to Z7. I prefer everything about the Z7 other than the AF for fast moving stuff, however some that are used to the big D8xx series don't like the ergonomics of the Z's as much. I personally prefer the Z ergonomics.

IMO the Z6/7 with 24-70mm f4 would make a great travel/holiday camera, much more compact and lightweight than a D8xx and say 24-120mm f4 or 24-70mm f2.8.
 
Messages
854
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks! Yes, the D800 is a bit if a beast (although I have big hands and sausage fingers (apparently)), so it fit's me ok. Have the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4D. I suspect a Z6 with a 50 prime would suit me ok, although I'm slightly concerned about the electronic viewfinder - I've used them in the past, and find them a bit odd. How is it on the new Nikons having come from class leading optical? (my experience is limited to cameras that had electronic VFs from at least 5 years ago!)
 
Messages
16,757
Edit My Images
No
Thanks! Yes, the D800 is a bit if a beast (although I have big hands and sausage fingers (apparently)), so it fit's me ok. Have the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4D. I suspect a Z6 with a 50 prime would suit me ok, although I'm slightly concerned about the electronic viewfinder - I've used them in the past, and find them a bit odd. How is it on the new Nikons having come from class leading optical? (my experience is limited to cameras that had electronic VFs from at least 5 years ago!)
EVF's have come a long way. I'm still on the fence whether I prefer to look through an OVF or modern EVFs, but then the benefits you get from the EVF outweigh any small (imo) difference.

Just be aware, the Z lens lineup isn't great at the moment so if you want f1.4 primes you'll have to use the FTZ adapter, which I don't think will work with your 85mm f1.4D.
 
Messages
302
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
the D lenses "work" and register the aperture but are MF only if and until Nikon bring out a new adaptor with inbuilt focus motor. I don't personally find that a problem with my 105mm f2.8 micro but for others AF may be crucial.
 
Top