The differences are very slight. Nothing that anyone interested in actual photography rather than cam specs would worry about.
These have proven to be very important features for me, and I've never been someone all that interested in bells and whistles. Eye detect AF is amazing; I shoot a lot of events in poor lighting, and this has been a Godsend. Even in good light, I get a higher hit rate of spot on AF with subjects' eyes in portraits. VR is also very helpful indeed, for low-light hand held photography; I never carry a tripod these days. Don't need to. The WYSIWYG viewfinder is also a massive boon.
There have been significant improvements across the board with the new Z-mount lenses. All my new Z- lenses are sharper and deliver better IQ than their (already superb) F-mount equivalents. 'Leica' quality has arrived in a Nikon mount. I'm not sure aobut weight and size savings though; Nikon have mostly gone with optimum lens design over size and weight considerations, so things like the WA and standard primes are actually larger. My new 105mm macro is significantly larger than myF-mount version.
I beg to differ. The subtle differences in each area add up to an overall improvement, not only for image quality, but also in overall benefits to the photographic process. My Z6 is pretty much the D600/D750 type replacement, but outperforms the D600 in every area bar ergonomics. Were I buying into a new camera system right now, I wouldn't hesitate with going mirrorless. It's the way forward. And I was a long-time ML sceptic; until the Sony FF cams came out, I didn't take ML seriously at all. In fact I amused myself when reading an old forum post (elsewhere) in a discussion about DSLRs v ML cams. I was adamant that ML wasn't about to suddenly overtake DSLRs, as the technology was still pretty new, ML cams were mostly pretty flawed and lacking, and at that point, only Sony had any full frame ML cams out. And they weren't great compared to many good DLSRs. But that was several years ago. And things have changed. For me, it was when Nikon brought out their new ML range, that I finally decided to consider them. I bought a Z6 a few months after it launched, and I haven't looked back.
.
) and being able to control exposure with highlight-weighted metering gives me more control in how I can capture a scene.
) as last year I worked with a single light and couldn't come up with a good way short of using a second power pack that I could run a second light head on the other side of the room, and that was less than ideal as I didn't have great outlet access over there. I have more recently discovered the Quantum Q-Flash, and used that to great effect as my second light.Ooh, the Metz hammerheads have to be amongst my own personal most hated bit of photographic kit. But then, my experience was very much soured by using the horrible old things we had in college. Chosen mainly because they were virtually indestructible. And that they had rechargeable battery packs, as using the 6-8 or whatever it was AAs was astronomically expensive. We only had the older manual versions, no TTL, and they were woefully inconsistent in output regardless of what you settings you had. Truly nasty hateful things. I'm so glad I discovered Nikon's Speedlight range. I do hope your experience is somewhat better than mine...
Nice ergonomics. But so heavy! Solid though. Typcial Nikon build quality. I wouldn't want one to carry around/travel with though. That's why I like the Z6.
Canon's own marketing bumph says it's for 'vlogging, filmmaking and travel', so it's aimed mainly at that kind of usage, where ultimate image quality isn't quite so important. It's a relatively 'cheap' lens, wide enough to get a lot in the frame for vlogging etc. Nikon don't do anything quite like that, but they do have a 'cheap' 28mm f2.8 for the Z-mount. It's considered ok by testers rather than brilliant, but ime Nikon haven't made a 'bad' lens. I was a bit narked the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 for the Z-mount was so expensive on release; a lot more than the f1.4 F-mount version even, but I was blown away by the image quality after I'd actually bought one (at an excellent and unrepeated discount!). Nikon seem to have gone with a philosophy more towards image quality with most of their Z-mount lenses, rather than compactness. I think we'll see more 'compact' lenses released now the line-up has matured somewhat.A low price point super-wide is going to always start with multiple design-decision disadvantages. Correcting for all of the various kinds of distortion you get with that style of lens within the optical design itself is very expensive to do, so they're going to have to rely on correcting those within the raw converter itself via included profiles (usually within the raw file itself). Also, getting sharpness edge-edge on a super-wide at that price point is also an expensive prospect optically. Often they'll go for some degree of center sharpness and call it a day, worrying less about the corners. This is particularly true wide-open. You'll usually get better sharpness the more you stop down until diffraction starts to kick in around f7.1/f8 (this varies of course).
You'll have better luck at the higher price-point of that 10-20 2.8L, I feel. This is one of those "you get what you pay for" things
Yep, whenever I decide to take my Nikon kit mirrorless, I'll really be looking forward to the Z-lens lineup. Great stuff.
Tbh, as a Nikon user for 30 years now, I've always found that aspect of the cameras to be pretty much spot-on, all the time. My old FM2 had simple centre-weighted metering that I found to be more accurate than an F3. My later SLRs had ever more sophisticated metering patterns, and also excellent. Metering isn't something I ever worry about when using Nikon cameras. As for rangefinders; I've tried them, didn't get on with them. Too much focussing inaccuracy for my liking. Anachronistic and redundant for the kind of pictures I want to take. Far too slow as well. And in the case of Leica; way, way too expensive. So it's very pleasing that the new Nikkor Z-mount offerings are delivering that level of performance, but at a relative fraction of the cost. But that said; in the 'real world' of just taking photos, DSLRs still rock; you can use something like a 135mm f2 DC, and that's a gorgeous and unique lens. Then there's the PC-Nikkors; brilliant at what they do. So a DSLR is still more than viable.To me one of the best features of a mirrorless system is the ability to meter off of the sensor rather than some separate mechanical path. Most of what I do is manual focus, so while all of the AF is awesome and useful, it's really this capability that's been the most valuable asset to me. I shoot a lot with a rangefinder system ("mirrorless for 100 years"
You won't look back. Nikon's first ML offerings were a great success, so the future'svery bright indeed. I did look at Sony andCanon; Sony of course had the more mature system, but I don't get on with the ergonomics of their cameras. Canon's first ML cams had no IBIS, lens only, so that was a major negative for me. IBIS allows IS with ancient manual focus lenses, so better low light shooting can be achieved. Down to 1/15" or perhaps even lower, with acceptable results. Especially useful with longer lenses. I can shoot at events with say a 70-200, and not worry about keeping the shutter speed up. That, to me, is a massive massive development of modern cams. I only owned a couple of VR lenses prior to buying the Z6, so to now have VR on all my lenses is a real boon.
(and the inverter in the one I have sounds like a sick cat, where the Quantums are dead silent).
Yes, the rangefinders do take some effort and practice and they are certainly anachronistic but I personally find them a lot of fun. I will certainly never spend any amount of time trying to convince people to use them and I stay away from those sorts of discussions anyway, as what we shoot with is 100% personal. Hopefully we all use what we enjoy. Very few people will ever be able to look at an image and say what camera or lens it was shot with.
Ah yes, it was the 45CT series we used. Horrible things. Loads of power, overkill really. Paps loved them because you could flood an entire foyer in light if shooting celebs at red carpet events. But the new breed of Speedlights from Nikon quickly became more popular; they actually worked for one. And offered AF assistance too. But Nikon managed to suss TTL flash like Canon had with AF. Perefect exposure every single time, rather than the lottery of a Metz. I'm sure later models improved, but I'd moved on by then. The Vivitar 283/285s were probably the best non-TTL flashguns of that era, and were very reliable. But the SB-24 was literally brilliant. As has been every TTL flash Nikon has produced since.
I can't imagine why it won't work. iTTL is the same on every cam that supports it. I have found some more recent 3rd party flashes to be problematic, but I think that's down to poor QC more than anything else. For this reason, I stick to Nikon flashguns.
Lumedyne! Norman!!!BTW, I use nothing but the rechargeable packs. I have a handful of NiMH packs and a bunch of NiCd packs. I've rebuilt several NiCd packs(a bit fiddly just because of how they go together, and that's coming from someone has made something of a hobby of rebuilding camera battery packs) but it's also surprising how many 20+ year olds I find that are still within spec. The AA basket(takes 6 AA alkaline batteries) is super slow to recharge-something like 15 seconds. Metz specced the NiCd/NiMH packs at 7 seconds, but I find good ones will do more like 6 seconds. Of course if you're so inclined, the Metz P76 pack will do one in 3 seconds and most models of Quantum Turbo will recycle one in 1.5 seconds. If that's still not fast enough, the Lumedyne Megacycler wlll cut it down to 1 second, but I don't like feeling like I'm carrying an 80s cell phone on my belt
True, but the tell-tale slight focussing errors used to give the rangefinders away, especially when most people moved to SLRs. Photography today is generally technically better as a result of improved technology. Rangefinders are a thing of the past.
I just find them slower and less intuitive. The extra work and time involved detracts from gettng a good shot, for me. I don't want it to be about the cam; the less influence that has between me and the image I want, the better. Anything like AF or good metering, fine. A slower and less efficient and accurate focussing system? No thanks.
For 'street' (I hate that expression, it's lazy) and travel type stuff, surely speed is a bonus. Architecture and landscape, fair enough. But I want to be able to use a range of different lenses; I have from 14 to 200mm currently, have had a lot longer. RF is practically useless outside of the 28-70mm sort of range, especially for longer teles. But maybe it suits some better. I think you'd have a lot of fun with a Z cam. One thing I found I didn't know I needed until I had it, was the flip-out screen. Acts like a TLR would, but also allows more flexible shooting in terms of the angle and position you choose. Great for candids. Plus; silent shutter is an utter Godsend for such work (I'm not a fan of 'voyeuristic' shots though, as these can be very intrusive and violate someone's personal space), and in very quiet places such as some classical music concerts. The clack clack of a mechanical mirror is very distracting to performers, and I've had to stop shooting more than once. The Z6 is quite simply the best cam I've ever had. And I've had a few...
Yeah, I totally get your perspective. I'm glad you enjoy your z6 - they're awesome cameras, for sure.
When I read about things like the Z8 and Z9, and the potential for the future, it's reassuring to think that the next cam I buy will be even more awesome!
Yep, I’ve had the opportunity to shoot the Z9 a couple of times, it’s fantastic and you’ll love it if you get it (or its successor).
Agreed. My point was that the sensors haven't gotten much better, so that shouldn't motivate the change if you're "interested in actual photography".
I'm not disputing that.
I haven't used either side by side to compare myself, but many of the videos I've seen don't show evidence of this. if anything, the Z8 looks to be a very very tiny bit better. But it's inconclusive. The consensus (amongst people who've actually tested them side by side) is that there is negligible difference. If you want to continue arguing this then that's up to you; I'm really not interested.
It's not just the sharpness. I've seen improvements in colour accuracy, smoothness of OOF areas and highlights, and just an overall improvement in IQ. And yes; I've tested equivalent lenses side by side. Such things might not matter to you, but they do to me and others.
I wouldn't really call it a 'late start'; Nikon and Canon bossed the DSLR market, and Sony had no real foothold in that game, definitely not at the 'professional' end of the market. But both Canon and Nikon realised that the future was in mirrorless tech, as it offered certain advantages. So they spent some time working on their cameras, to get them right. Had they not done so, and brought out flawed cams, then they would potentially have suffered catastrophically in that market, and damaged their reputations for years to come. The first Nikon offerings the Z7 and Z6, were a great succes and complimented their F-mount range, rather than completely cannibalising it. Both companies went with adapters to use old lenses; they pretty much had to really. But now the ranges are maturing, the competition is a lot healthier. As for the 'others'; Pentax have no MILCs, only DSLRs, Fuji only do APS-C and 'medium format', and the rest is mostly M4/3rds stuff. Panasonic made a bold step by bringing out FF MILCs, with a Leica-compatible mount, but Olympus seem to have missed the boat really. There's still something for everyone though, pretty much.
A good proof to the theorem that it isn't the gear, it's the person behind the gear.
I'm not sure if you were angling for any creative criticism of the actual image, but to me, it looks as though the equipment is fine. Technically spot-on.
Is that you being sarcastic?
The only things that should actually matter, are shutter speed and aperture, and getting the lens to focus properly. I never bother with the myriad extra features on offer from my cams; I even just set WB to 'Auto', and it never lets me down. Remember that the RAW file isn't an actual 'image', it's just data. So you can bash away and fix pretty much anything in post. I come from a film background, so there were more considerations; colour transparency film could present issues according to brand, type and speed. Fuji Velvia needed a warm-up filter for many subjects, particularly in shade. Some Kodak films weren't so great for landscapes etc with lots of green. And so on. There were little idiosyncrasies with various B+W films, and even more considerations when it came to processing. Digital, by comparison, is an absolute breeze. 'Too easy', almost.
