Nikon Z6 and Z7 mirrorless

Messages
11,547
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Sometimes I can't work DXO out. They've just released scores for the 24-70mm f4 and it 'only' scores 19mpix sharpness on the Z7, yet my copy is super sharp. 19mpix is 2mpix behind the 24-70mm f2.8 mounted on the D810 and imo my copy of the 24-70mm f4 is noticeably sharper than any of the three 24-70mm f2.8's I owned. What are other's finding that have used both?
The Sony crowd will just love that! But, honestly, you find it a decent, sharp lens. That's all that matters, that won't change because the numbers weren't what you expected. The same site gave some of the cheaper M43 lenses terrible ratings and I found them to be just fine.
 
Messages
2,657
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Looks to me like he does pretty much the same thing as DXomark

I wouldn't take either too seriously, real world use is all that matters. I've seen both of these show poor performance on lenses in the past that many actual users of the same lenses thought were fantastic.
Roger tests at least 10 copies of each lens so is consistent if nothing else.

I very rarely see a disparity between lens charts and real world photos. For example my Tamron 85 1.8 according to dxo resolves every pixel of my D810 and yes I can count the eye lashes and f*** me that lens is Razer Razer sharp.

Dxo tells me my Nikon 58 1.4G is softer and real world testing matches that but of course that lens offers a rendering and 3D look that produces remarkable images (albeit without counting the eyelashes when it comes to pixel peeping time)!
 
Messages
2,177
Edit My Images
Yes
Do you find much difference in frame rate/black out when shooting with the Z6 in cont hi (5.5fps) and the D810 at 6fps?
When you’re tracking, the evf does take a little behaviour adjustment. You are always playing catch-up, but not by much.

I do like shooting at Hi extended though, it’s great for tracking a sequence.

I must stress, I am NOT a birder, so my technique won’t be up to much, my only observation for this thread is that I preferred the D810 because it gives me a touch more resolution when working at the long end of a long lens. So a Z7 may fix that for me. I can’t justify buying a Z7 at this time.

Every other aspect of the Z6, I love.
 
Messages
20,178
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
The Sony crowd will just love that! But, honestly, you find it a decent, sharp lens. That's all that matters, that won't change because the numbers weren't what you expected. The same site gave some of the cheaper M43 lenses terrible ratings and I found them to be just fine.
Oi!

At least say "Some of the Sony crowd..."
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,629
Edit My Images
Yes
Looks to me like he does pretty much the same thing as DXomark

I wouldn't take either too seriously, real world use is all that matters. I've seen both of these show poor performance on lenses in the past that many actual users of the same lenses thought were fantastic.
Nope not remotely the same. Roger is completely transparent about his testing, there is meaning to his MTF measurements and he is a reliable source of information as long you understand how he does his testing. You can even chat him up and he'll fully reply to your questions as long as they are meaningful. He is also a member of dpreview where I have had several conversations with Roger and co.

Dxomark on the other hand is a blackbox, they aren't transparent about their testing, full of contradictions especially on their mostly meaningless and/or pointless p-mp sharpness score they have invented. But dxomark has sharpness field maps that are actually somewhat reliable especially to judge how lens performs across the frame at different apertures.
 
Messages
11,547
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Nope not remotely the same. Roger is completely transparent about his testing, there is meaning to his MTF measurements and he is a reliable source of information as long you understand how he does his testing. You can even chat him up and he'll fully reply to your questions as long as they are meaningful. He is also a member of dpreview where I have had several conversations with Roger and co.

Dxomark on the other hand is a blackbox, they aren't transparent about their testing, full of contradictions especially on their mostly meaningless and/or pointless p-mp sharpness score they have invented. But dxomark has sharpness field maps that are actually somewhat reliable especially to judge how lens performs across the frame at different apertures.
Cool, it's still all semi confusing numbers to me but it's good someone does it for those who care about this stuff. Being a member of DPR is a con though lol, even the mods on there are below the trolls on here :D yes, I am a member, but it's much more a drop in and out quickly kind of place.

I do peep at dxomark now and then when researching a lens, but always then ask myself why I don't just go by actual user reviews. Even someone who's testing 10 copies rigourously does not have time to actually get their ass out and use the thing in the real world, not for very long at least.
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,939
Edit My Images
No

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,629
Edit My Images
Yes
Cool, it's still all semi confusing numbers to me but it's good someone does it for those who care about this stuff. Being a member of DPR is a con though lol, even the mods on there are below the trolls on here :D yes, I am a member, but it's much more a drop in and out quickly kind of place.

I do peep at dxomark now and then when researching a lens, but always then ask myself why I don't just go by actual user reviews. Even someone who's testing 10 copies rigourously does not have time to actually get their ass out and use the thing in the real world, not for very long at least.
Lol yes. DPR is rather bad. I just mentioned it to point out I chatted with him on there. There are also some knowledgeable good people on there like Roger. But there kinda lost in all the other noise.

Roger is pretty open about his testing. He only has the time to measure the lenses at infinity (and we know lens perform differently at different focus distances, for example macro lenses). He also makes measurements using lab equipments rather than through the actual cameras pretty much like for manufacturers do the tests and release MFT charts. His tests are good to understand how a lens might perform at infinity just in terms of sharpness if everything is perfect. Since he also tests multiple copies it rather good to find out if certain lenses have more or less sample variation to look out for.

Real world user reviews are subjective and generally have a certain amount of confirmation bias. They also have their place in the world of course :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,939
Edit My Images
No
The Sony crowd will just love that!
They will, especially as they score the poorly regarded Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 higher than the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 :rolleyes:

The worrying thing is that I've used DXO when looking for lenses in the past (not solely thankfully) but this has made me realise that it's a load of poop. Having used all 3 lenses I can say that the 24-70mm f4 is the sharpest I've used.

Whilst real world reviews are subjective I think I will take more from them than DXO in the future as they tend to go with my findings, ie the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 is a bit soft considering it's price point, yet the Nikon is super sharp.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,629
Edit My Images
Yes
It's completely confusing numbers to me, still can't get my head around MTF's :thinking: This means nothing to me :eek:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/05/just-the-mtf-charts-micro-43-lenses/
There is a how to read MFT chart guide on that page ;)
As long as you can get the gist it's probably good enough for your use case. If you spend a little time reading and comparing a few of those you'll see some are better than others. That basically all you need to work out rather than what each individual number means
 
Messages
11,547
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
They will, especially as they score the poorly regarded Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 higher than the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 :rolleyes:

The worrying thing is that I've used DXO when looking for lenses in the past (not solely thankfully) but this has made me realise that it's a load of poop. Having used all 3 lenses I can say that the 24-70mm f4 is the sharpest I've used.
I wonder, as nand mentions above, do they just test one copy and run with it? Where others test multiple copies - it would be unusual for them to happen to get a bad copy of such an up to date lens but not impossible. As Nand also points out they're never transparent about their testing, could have been a rushed job - they seem to be lagging on their testing these days, plenty of gaps in their lens and sensor listings.
 
Messages
13,939
Edit My Images
No
There is a how to read MFT chart guide on that page ;)
As long as you can get the gist it's probably good enough for your use case. If you spend a little time reading and comparing a few of those you'll see some are better than others. That basically all you need to work out rather than what each individual number means
TBH I've tried to understand them in the past but it still alludes me. Bit odd really as technical stuff is usually my forte, I guess I just have a mental block with this ;)
 
Messages
13,939
Edit My Images
No
I wonder, as nand mentions above, do they just test one copy and run with it? Where others test multiple copies - it would be unusual for them to happen to get a bad copy of such an up to date lens but not impossible. As Nand also points out they're never transparent about their testing, could have been a rushed job - they seem to be lagging on their testing these days, plenty of gaps in their lens and sensor listings.
Yeah, I did email them a while ago as they still haven't tested any lenses on the D850 yet, and just having a quick look they haven't tested Sony lenses on the A7iii or A7Riii either.
 
Messages
11,547
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
TBH I've tried to understand them in the past but it still alludes me. Bit odd really as technical stuff is usually my forte, I guess I just have a mental block with this ;)
I'm a bit like that when it comes to charts and graphs, I think that's why I've stuck with DXO, there's just the 4 main numbers that I can understand at a glance, I never actually read their reviews.
 
Messages
11,547
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Yeah, I did email them a while ago as they still haven't tested any lenses on the D850 yet, and just having a quick look they haven't tested Sony lenses on the A7iii or A7Riii either.
They haven't tested any of the Samyang offerings for Sony either, they still can't figure Fuji X trans out and looks like they won't bother to, there's also gaps in their M43 list - the Sigma 16mm 1.4 being an example there with many reviewers claiming it as one of the sharpest primes for the system - DXO didn't even bother. Nor the 56 1.4
 
Messages
13,939
Edit My Images
No
I wonder, as nand mentions above, do they just test one copy and run with it? Where others test multiple copies - it would be unusual for them to happen to get a bad copy of such an up to date lens but not impossible. .
Just seen this on Thom Hogan's site, does make you wonder?

Screen Shot 2019-05-30 at 08.35.06
by TDG-77, on Flickr

Either way, mine is sharp as a sharp thing so I'm happy :D

.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,629
Edit My Images
Yes
They will, especially as they score the poorly regarded Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 higher than the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 :rolleyes:

The worrying thing is that I've used DXO when looking for lenses in the past (not solely thankfully) but this has made me realise that it's a load of poop. Having used all 3 lenses I can say that the 24-70mm f4 is the sharpest I've used.

Whilst real world reviews are subjective I think I will take more from them than DXO in the future as they tend to go with my findings, ie the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 is a bit soft considering it's price point, yet the Nikon is super sharp.
Actually I don't think Nikon is any better or worst than Sony. The Sony lens is actually rather sharp in centre and midframe just as the Nikon is. They both don't improve much in the corners.
At the time Sony came out it got compared to canon EF 24-70 f4 which is a stunning lens but also a fair bit larger and got severely criticized for not matching it.

But I'll admit I haven't extensively used both lenses just enough to know its not for me.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,547
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Just seen this on Thom Hogan's site, does make you wonder?

Screen Shot 2019-05-30 at 08.35.06
by TDG-77, on Flickr

Either way, mine is sharp as a sharp thing so I'm happy :D

.

It's a bit worrying for potential buyers! I have to admit I have looked up the Z6 and that lens package more than a few times here, as I am an ever pondering eejit :D But I just know I will forever be searching and I do like the look of that kit plus adapter. But if I chanced it from afar, and got a bad copy, I'd be very depressed
 
Messages
3,708
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
now this one really does work ---not surprisingly as I have a weakness for tumbledown graveyards but the variety of tones is really nice here.
Thanks David. It's a nice wee lens - well, not so wee! It was windy and I'd deliberately chosen a slowish (1/20) shutter speed to allow the leaves to blur. Also it was a very bright day, hence the "white-out" in the background.
 
Messages
13,939
Edit My Images
No
Thanks David. It's a nice wee lens - well, not so wee! It was windy and I'd deliberately chosen a slowish (1/20) shutter speed to allow the leaves to blur. Also it was a very bright day, hence the "white-out" in the background.
I was going to have a play with Silver FX but my copy of Nik Collection didn't transfer across to my new computer for some reason, and now that google no longer own it it's not free anymore :(
 
Messages
5,294
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
Yes
I was going to have a play with Silver FX but my copy of Nik Collection didn't transfer across to my new computer for some reason, and now that google no longer own it it's not free anymore :(
Same here. Ended up paying for it. Not sure I’ve used it since.
 
Messages
3,708
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
194
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Just seen this on Thom Hogan's site, does make you wonder?

Screen Shot 2019-05-30 at 08.35.06
by TDG-77, on Flickr

Either way, mine is sharp as a sharp thing so I'm happy :D

.
On the whole, I find Thom tends to know what he's talking about even if I don't invariably agree. My 24-70 is perfectly OK. I'm slightly more concerned about the Camerlabs review of the 14-30. Looking closely at the samples at 14mm, there isn't a dramatic improvement at the right corner as you stop down and the background as a whole is a bit lacklustre. Other reviews often rave but they compare with something like the 14-24 instead of primes at 14.

I'm not convinced that the sample variation is THAT large among the new S lenses -- Thom said in fact he's found an overall consistency which was previously lacking. Sigma were notorious in their sample inconsistency but they've upper their game of late since the ART lenses hit the scene. Samyang were even worse but they're starting to bring out premium versions as well. I got myself a copy of the notorious cheapo 14mm f2.8 locally which gives me a month to fully test. It's not a stellar sample but yet there are clearly far worse out there.

As for DxO, I've never paid much attention to them, I'm afraid and wouldn't trust them with a bargepole.
 
Messages
194
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks David. It's a nice wee lens - well, not so wee! It was windy and I'd deliberately chosen a slowish (1/20) shutter speed to allow the leaves to blur. Also it was a very bright day, hence the "white-out" in the background.
Both bleaching out the background (something I am also starting to do more often now) and the slow shutter speed for the leaves were good decisions. Of course with IBIS, the rest will be sharp.
 
Messages
13,939
Edit My Images
No
Messages
194
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Couple from Mondays outing to the Surrey County Show
Both with the 24-70 f4

1
Up and Over.jpg
by Trevor, on Flickr

2
Heading your way.jpg
by Trevor, on Flickr
these are very nicely done, esp. the top one though I have to admit my photographic interests generally lie elsewhere -- no, not in cars either :rolleyes:
Another from the 14-30
Delivered on May 23rd 1945
Note the M1 Carbine mounted to the dashboard

DSC_1945-Edit.jpg
by Trevor, on Flickr
As said, things automotive are not usually my subjects for photography --except for the Mercedes museum right across the river from me here in Stuttgart where the car actually originated! You're obviously having some fun with this lens anyhow! What are your impressions on a technical level? Sharpness, performance against the light and all the usual stuff. Although I'm leaning towards keeping a 14/15 prime as a stopgap, in the long term this will certainly come under the radar.
 
Last edited:
Top