Nikon Z6 and Z7 mirrorless

Messages
14,281
Edit My Images
No
Am I alone in not being interested in graphs and charts? I just want my (real) pictures to look OK.
No, not at all.

I don't use them for lenses really tbh. I still don't understand MTF charts and tbh most modern lenses are plenty sharp enough. The main quality I look for in a lens is how it renders, and no chart can tell me that, I need to see real world images.

Sensor scores have been important to me with regards to DR and ISO handling, but neither have been the main influencer when buying a camera by any stretch of the imagination. I still say that the EM1-II is the best camera I have ever used in terms of actually using a camera, and is the camera I enjoy using the most, yet if I listened to folk on here or took too much notice of sensor scores it's one of the worst cameras I've had. That being said I do really like the Z7 as that now feels and handles how I like my cameras, however I would not like to start putting big teles on it again as this would take away my enjoyment of using it as the weight just gets tiresome.
 
Messages
221
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
exactly, it's the quality of the rendering which is most important in the end even though it's nice to to have too many technical deficiencies (except when these "deficiencies" actually produce the character of the lens)
 
Messages
221
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Was at a friend's wedding the past weekend and the couple asked me to take a few photos throughout the day as a guest. They had their own paid photographer, but wanted my take on the wedding as well since we've known each other for years...I took the Z6, 70-200 VR2, Z 50/1.8 and the Z 24-70/4. I did most of my shooting with the first two. I gave them the whole set, but will post 2 photos here...the first is probably my favourite shot of the whole day...something about it just speaks to me and the second is a testament to the gear...shot with the 50 at 51200 ISO, F2 and 1/200 sec.

Z6N_4241
by luftwalk, on Flickr

Z6N_4969
by luftwalk, on Flickr
I think it's just a shame about the cloth growing out of the bride's head, otherwise the first shot's just about perfect and the second shows how the camera can deal with ISO 51200 without breaking sweat, especially with the lighting on her working so well and sharpness gracefully fading into the background.
 
Messages
81
Edit My Images
Yes
I think it's just a shame about the cloth growing out of the bride's head, otherwise the first shot's just about perfect and the second shows how the camera can deal with ISO 51200 without breaking sweat, especially with the lighting on her working so well and sharpness gracefully fading into the background.
Agreed...it was sadly the only position I could stand in without interfering with the paid photographer...I actually thought about cloning that out, but since it was a casual shoot I didn't :)

As for low light...the focusing was great, not a stutter when locking in.
 
Messages
3,826
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
My real pictures looked OK for a long time and so has many others'. I don't think its wise to spend another grand for pictures that look OK. Personally I like to get better than OK for such high priced items. If this was a £300-400 lens then it'd be another matter.
In my terminology, as a Northerner used to plain speaking, something is either OK or Not OK. Acceptable or Not Acceptable.
 
Messages
14,281
Edit My Images
No
Subjective reviews are useful to me for judging the rendering, micro-contrast etc. Also great for understanding the handling, ergonomics, AF etc. But sharpness lens can be objectively measured, in which case relying on subjective (and more often than not biased) review isn't prudent IMO when making lens choices. Of course sharpness from graphs and charts aren't everything and hence the real photographer reviews are still very valuable :)
I agree that lenses should be able to be objectively tested for things like sharpness, CA's, etc however I'm starting to even question this recently. If sharpness tests are so objective you would expect that scores would marry up from test to test, but sometimes (maybe even often) they don't. I did like the Lens IQ section of the digital picture.com site where you actually see the studio test chart photos for yourself to judge the sharpness, but then I saw a lens that wasn't even close to my own findings. Now this is most likely due to a bad lens that they tested, but this them adds even more subjectiveness.

For me I will look at the rendering of a lens and if I like it (and want it) I'll buy it and then see for myself whether I think it's sharp enough. If not I may try another copy, but if that's still not great I'll look elsewhere. Fortunately we are in a place now where we can return things if they don't meet expectations. Now I don't like doing this, and fortunately I've only had to do this with one lens (off the top of my head), but this is the only reliable way I can judge a lens. Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone will agree with my findings ;)
 
Messages
14,281
Edit My Images
No
In my terminology, as a Northerner used to plain speaking, something is either OK or Not OK. Acceptable or Not Acceptable.
You're slightly more northern than me, OK still means average to me ;) :p
 
Messages
14,281
Edit My Images
No
Don't get me started on Nikon 24-120. It sucks past 70-80mm and it's lot bigger.
Current Nikon Z bodies may be not... But ergonomics are important :)
Also it has other lenses I fancy - the 14-30 and 300mm PF :)

I like how you always the best copies of lenses - z24-70, F 24-120 :D
Just because I've been back on the site again due to the above I thought I'd share this, I'm not the only one that got a good copy of the 24-120mm ;) :p To my eyes there's very little difference between the centre at 70mm and 120mm, and I think that at 120mm the mid frame actually looks better (y)

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1210&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,287
Edit My Images
Yes
I agree that lenses should be able to be objectively tested for things like sharpness, CA's, etc however I'm starting to even question this recently. If sharpness tests are so objective you would expect that scores would marry up from test to test, but sometimes (maybe even often) they don't. I did like the Lens IQ section of the digital picture.com site where you actually see the studio test chart photos for yourself to judge the sharpness, but then I saw a lens that wasn't even close to my own findings. Now this is most likely due to a bad lens that they tested, but this them adds even more subjectiveness.

For me I will look at the rendering of a lens and if I like it (and want it) I'll buy it and then see for myself whether I think it's sharp enough. If not I may try another copy, but if that's still not great I'll look elsewhere. Fortunately we are in a place now where we can return things if they don't meet expectations. Now I don't like doing this, and fortunately I've only had to do this with one lens (off the top of my head), but this is the only reliable way I can judge a lens. Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone will agree with my findings ;)
I am not sure which source you are referring to that they don't marry up. if you are referring to the DXO magic number then yes they don't marry up. But their field maps for example marry up better (still not perfectly). Roger's MFT graphs marry up exceptionally well.
Also as you have identified sharpness doesn't need to be showed via. numbers, graphs, charts or "heat" maps. One could simply post pictures and let the users decide themselves. I use these sites too for example Philip Reeve has blog for a lot of sony lenes with examples and there are many others like it.
Bad lens can't be helped. The only person I know that tests multiple copies is Roger.

Nothing is going to be perfect and the only way to convince yourself completely is to try it out yourself which is not always possible. Even with the buying and returning method its rather hard (for me at least). For example I mostly buy used to save money. I don't like to buy lenses from people and (try to) return it because the lens design itself is unsharp. Can you imagine I buy a lens from you on TP forum and then I tell you I want to return it because I am not happy with the performance.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,281
Edit My Images
No
https://www.cameracal.co.uk/calibration/nikon-z6-and-nikon-z7-calibration-now-available/

For those interested, as I for one thought mirrorless cameras didn't need micro-adjusting???
This has caused a lot of confusion, and unfortunately manufacturers don't make it clear. These new modern mirrorless use phase detect and as such as just as prone to front/back focus as DSLRs. However where it's not clear is when/if they use phase detect only, a combination of phase detect and contrast detect and contrast detection only. I'm not sure why they are not more open with this tbh. I believe Sony have stated that the only time it's phase detect only (and therefore prone to front/back focus) is when using a-mount lenses via an adapter, the rest of the time it's hybrid. With Nikon I'm not 100% sure. I've seen it mentioned that it's phase detect only using AF-S lenses via the FTZ adapter but I can't confirm that.
 
Messages
3,826
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Glad to hear it. I've just ordered one from E-Infin. :)
It arrived this morning. It'll probably be a couple of days before I get chance to go out with it, but it doesn't half sit well on the body. Far, far more ergonomic than the lump of a Tamron 17-40 which, although I had no complaints optically, just made the camera feel unbalanced on the FTZ. Made me think of excuses not to use it. Now I will actively look for opportunities to use this 14-30.
 
Messages
78
Name
Gavin
Edit My Images
Yes
This has caused a lot of confusion, and unfortunately manufacturers don't make it clear. These new modern mirrorless use phase detect and as such as just as prone to front/back focus as DSLRs. However where it's not clear is when/if they use phase detect only, a combination of phase detect and contrast detect and contrast detection only. I'm not sure why they are not more open with this tbh. I believe Sony have stated that the only time it's phase detect only (and therefore prone to front/back focus) is when using a-mount lenses via an adapter, the rest of the time it's hybrid. With Nikon I'm not 100% sure. I've seen it mentioned that it's phase detect only using AF-S lenses via the FTZ adapter but I can't confirm that.
According to the article they calibrate the z lenses along with adapted lenses. Apparently the z6/z7 use the same focusing system as the d850.
 
Messages
14,281
Edit My Images
No
According to the article they calibrate the z lenses along with adapted lenses. Apparently the z6/z7 use the same focusing system as the d850.
I’m not sure what they mean by that tbh as they are completely different systems as far as I know. The D850 uses a separate AF module with off sensor AF points where as the Z6/7 have on sensor phase and contrast detect focus points. How the makers of that software can they say they have the same Af system is beyond me unless I’m missing something. Now they may have similar/the same processor and/or algorithms in how they determine the phase detect portion of the AF, but again the Z6/7 should work differently as it should employ a hybrid system.

As I said though I’d love to see Nikon state exactly how the AF system works, ie whether it’s hybrid, phase only etc.
 
Messages
14,281
Edit My Images
No
According to the article they calibrate the z lenses along with adapted lenses. Apparently the z6/z7 use the same focusing system as the d850.
I've contacted Nikon regarding this as I would like to know whether they use phase detect only or hybrid, and when these are deployed (y)
 
Messages
78
Name
Gavin
Edit My Images
Yes
I've contacted Nikon regarding this as I would like to know whether they use phase detect only or hybrid, and when these are deployed (y)
It might be worth knowing for some users especially if they are getting softer than expected images for no apparent reason. As, like me micro-adjusting probably wouldn't cross their mind on a mirrorless camera.
 
Messages
5,424
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
Yes
It might be worth knowing for some users especially if they are getting softer than expected images for no apparent reason. As, like me micro-adjusting probably wouldn't cross their mind on a mirrorless camera.
Me either. Wouldn’t expect to have to do that. As far as I’m concerned it’ll be a backward step.
 
Messages
14,281
Edit My Images
No
Me either. Wouldn’t expect to have to do that. As far as I’m concerned it’ll be a backward step.
You do know that Olympus have AF focus adjust too don't you? Olympus are equally as secretive as to when phase and contrast detect are used. Some believe that you only need to focus adjust when using adapted 4/3 lenses, but this is speculation as far as I'm aware.
 
Messages
5,424
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
Yes
You do know that Olympus have AF focus adjust too don't you? Olympus are equally as secretive as to when phase and contrast detect are used. Some believe that you only need to focus adjust when using adapted 4/3 lenses, but this is speculation as far as I'm aware.
Didn’t know that Toby. It’s a bloody minefield.
 
Messages
14,281
Edit My Images
No
Didn’t know that Toby. It’s a bloody minefield.
Tbh I’ve never had an M4/3 lens that’s looked anything other than bang on. Obviously the wider DOF will mask small inaccuracies, but I’m not convinced they’re there anyway (y)
 
Messages
1,281
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking at moving to the z6 plus kit lens... I hope my sigma 70 - 200 hsm os works as it's going to be expensive change... I'll sell my tamron 24/70 2.8 as that's a heavy lens..

Has anyone used the full frame 70 /300
 
Messages
221
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
what do you mean by the full frame 70-300? If it's the newish AF-P version, then just about everyone recommends it. It's sharp, cheap and without any obvious defects. I'll be keeping mine at least until a native S version comes out which could be years.
 
Messages
3,826
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking at moving to the z6 plus kit lens... I hope my sigma 70 - 200 hsm os works as it's going to be expensive change... I'll sell my tamron 24/70 2.8 as that's a heavy lens..

Has anyone used the full frame 70 /300
Don't forget to get the kit with the FTZ. It's cheaper than buying it separately. And yes, as a telephoto-hater, the 70-300 AF-P works perfectly.
 
Messages
221
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
taken enough yet to notice if there's a significant rendering difference between this and the Tamron 17-35? You've already made it clear that you like the fit and relative compactness. I am currently mainly living in the cellar to escape the blast furnace outside but with luck I should be able to take a photo or two again fairly soon.
 
Messages
3,826
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
taken enough yet to notice if there's a significant rendering difference between this and the Tamron 17-35? You've already made it clear that you like the fit and relative compactness. I am currently mainly living in the cellar to escape the blast furnace outside but with luck I should be able to take a photo or two again fairly soon.
We’ve no heat here! We did on Saturday - just the one day. Today it rained.

I’ve taken very few shots yet, but I will say that at the same focal lengths I doubt that a realist would see any difference in image quality. Maybe the Nikon shows a better gamut of colours - very similar to the 24-70. After all, the glass in both Nikons should be to the same spec.

But of course, being designed for the purpose, the Nikon is light years ahead ergonomically. That’s largely to do with it (the Tamron) needing the FTZ. And the price difference will mainly be down to Nikon having to engineer the lens specifically for the smaller physical dimensions of the Z.

The only argument I have with it is the pointlessness of the lens hood. About as much use as a G string in a hail storm.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,848
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
For those of you that own the Z series 50mm F1.8 and the 35mm F1.8, which one do you prefer ? I have the 50mm F1.8 for my Z6, but have been pondering for some weeks if the 35mm F1.8 would better suit me as a walk about fast lens ? I know this is entirely subjective, and varies from person to person and shot to shot, but just as an open comment, which one do you prefer to use ?

Prices on them seem to have dropped from the rather insane £850 ish some weeks ago, to a more palatable (although still a little expensive) £625 ish.

Just wondering if it's a touch of GAS or a really useful addition to the Z series cameras ?
 
Messages
1,055
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
Had a quick 5 min play with the Z6 last night, very impressed so far........ tried my Sigma 35 1.4 Art which seems very sharp even though the lens is calibrated to my old D750 via the Sigma dock.

My questions is, should i reset it back to its default values or does it not matter?
 
Messages
3,826
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Had a quick 5 min play with the Z6 last night, very impressed so far........ tried my Sigma 35 1.4 Art which seems very sharp even though the lens is calibrated to my old D750 via the Sigma dock.

My questions is, should i reset it back to its default values or does it not matter?
Depends on if it's sharp or not to your eyes.
 
Messages
5,424
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
Yes
For those of you that own the Z series 50mm F1.8 and the 35mm F1.8, which one do you prefer ? I have the 50mm F1.8 for my Z6, but have been pondering for some weeks if the 35mm F1.8 would better suit me as a walk about fast lens ? I know this is entirely subjective, and varies from person to person and shot to shot, but just as an open comment, which one do you prefer to use ?

Prices on them seem to have dropped from the rather insane £850 ish some weeks ago, to a more palatable (although still a little expensive) £625 ish.

Just wondering if it's a touch of GAS or a really useful addition to the Z series cameras ?
I’ve got both. I use the 35 more. But that’s because I favour the 35mm fov.
Both fab lenses
 
Messages
30
Edit My Images
No
For those of you that own the Z series 50mm F1.8 and the 35mm F1.8, which one do you prefer ? I have the 50mm F1.8 for my Z6, but have been pondering for some weeks if the 35mm F1.8 would better suit me as a walk about fast lens ? I know this is entirely subjective, and varies from person to person and shot to shot, but just as an open comment, which one do you prefer to use ?

Prices on them seem to have dropped from the rather insane £850 ish some weeks ago, to a more palatable (although still a little expensive) £625 ish.

Just wondering if it's a touch of GAS or a really useful addition to the Z series cameras ?
Had a 50 but returned it - superb lens but prefer the 35 for me, but it's really a focal length preference. For a family, walk around lens I find the 35mm is more useful. Plus you can crop if need be, on a z7 that's still a 19MP file.
 
Messages
1,366
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
For those of you that own the Z series 50mm F1.8 and the 35mm F1.8, which one do you prefer ? I have the 50mm F1.8 for my Z6, but have been pondering for some weeks if the 35mm F1.8 would better suit me as a walk about fast lens ? I know this is entirely subjective, and varies from person to person and shot to shot, but just as an open comment, which one do you prefer to use ?

Prices on them seem to have dropped from the rather insane £850 ish some weeks ago, to a more palatable (although still a little expensive) £625 ish.

Just wondering if it's a touch of GAS or a really useful addition to the Z series cameras ?
I have both. 35mm is to me the best general “one size fits all” focal length. I’ve been using the 50 to take snaps of our granddaughter but long term the 35 will see more use. It does a good job in the absence of an 85. Previously I was using Fuji T2 with 50mm but now I prefer the Nikon. I need to sell some Fuji gear as it is seeing little used since I became a Z man.
 
Messages
3,826
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I have both. 35mm is to me the best general “one size fits all” focal length. I’ve been using the 50 to take snaps of our granddaughter but long term the 35 will see more use. It does a good job in the absence of an 85. Previously I was using Fuji T2 with 50mm but now I prefer the Nikon. I need to sell some Fuji gear as it is seeing little used since I became a Z man.
I’ve got a 50mm coming this week, which I snagged for (comparatively) little money. In truthness, I bough5 it more for the sake of completion, but it will be a suitable supplement for my 14-30 when I don’t take the 24-70 or need a faster aperture. Nice to see that Z lenses are now trickling onto the used market.
 
Top