ilkka_nissila

There is no reason why a DSLR in live view can't act exactly like a mirrorless camera, e.g. the D780 to my understanding gives a very similar experience.

With the D850, if you're in LV with EFCS then you only hear the shutter closing and opening again once. However, the D7200 doesn't have EFCS (the D7500 does). How Nikon implemented LV shooting in many of their early DSLRs was quite ... peculiar. But I can see that if the shot is to be made with the full mechanical shutter in LV then the LV has to be stopped and mechanical shutter closed before opening again. And implementation of EFCS probably requires functionality implemented in the sensor hardware.

That 1 mm difference (which is wrong) I derived by checking working distances from two websites and subtracting them, leading to an erroneous result (because of the source data). I checked it now experimentally and at both 1:1 and 1:3, the F-mount 105 VR retains about 2 cm greater working distance over the 105 MC. Sorry for the error, sometimes it's best to just do one's own experiments rather than trust numbers people publish on various websites... 😉 You're also correct on the importance of the focus distance for the reasons you mention. There are options such as the use of a lateral arm that allows the placement of the camera closer to the subject, e.g., when the subject is in water and one doesn't wish to place a tripod foot in the water (for either because of the impact of the dirt and water on the tripod locks or simply because one doesn't want to disturb the water and spook the animals or affect the content of other images by e.g. spoiling the fresh snow). However, lateral arms tend to weigh something and they can be a hassle to bring into the woods. There are also some tripods specifically made for close-up photography. While I have a Gitzo lateral arm which fits my 3- and 4-series tripods, I rarely carry it into the field because of the extra weight. I also have a Manfrotto Super Clamp which can be attached to a tripod leg and can give some low angle positions while the tripod legs are safely on the bank side of the river. There are also visual differences between focal lengths, as the longer focal lengths lead to more magnified backgrounds relative to the main subject framed in a particular way, and so it's easier to get clean simplified backgrounds using a long macro. However, sometimes simple can be too simple, and a wider angle of view shows more of the environment.

Okay, so I performed working-distance measurements with the MC 105/2.8, AF Micro 200/4D, and Z 100-400 at 400mm setting. Each setup was positioned on a tripod in turn, and the position relative to my flat target was moved to achieve 1:3 magnification (so that they all are capable of achieving this, and also it's within the range of common magnifications that I need in practical close-up photography). Roland was quite right in that the longer lenses did have longer working distances though the 100-400 clearly is not as far ahead of the 200 micro as might have hoped from just looking at its nominal focal length. The working distances were measured from the front of the lens without hood, and I estimate my accuracy to be of the order of 1 cm (but do leave room for human error, as I did these only once). 😉 105 MC working distance at 1:3 is 31 cm. 200 (AF) Micro working distance at 1:3 is 67 cm. Z 100-400 at zoom setting of 400 mm working distance at 1:3 is 89 cm. So the zoom does give a bit more space to the subject and allow photography from a longer distance in this magnification range, and it may have some benefits (zooming, for sure, and VR in the lens). However, I think for many situations of this kind (i.e. close-up photography at sizeable working distance) the 200 Micro is superior because it's easier to handle than the 100-400 and it allows higher magnifications up to 1:1 for situations that require them. When I use it with a mirrorless camera, I typically use focus peaking although other focus aids are also available. On (mid and high end) DSLRs, it has autofocus. The 200 Micro also autofocuses better at close distances than the 100-400 which can lose the plot completely in close range (but that's probably more to do with the nature of mirrorless camera AF than the lens). Of course, the 200 Micro AF produces some sound as well, and there is no direct manual override (one needs to turn a switch). Optically the 105 MC is superior to the other two lenses in terms of bokeh but also CA (over the 200 Micro, by a mile) and sharpness (over the zoom, though all three are sharp at f/11). The 105 MC can be used safely at wider apertures whereas with the 200 I always stop down to f/8-11 to minimize CA. For frogs, f/11 seems appropriate, anyway.

I haven't yet found the time to test the working distances of the 105 MC, 200 Micro and 100-400 mm but I read the 105 MC working distance is 1 mm longer than the F-mount 105 VR's (at 1:1). However, 1:1 doesn't really interest me that much as there is such little depth of field that it can be impractical to use without focus stacking (and that's only going to work for subjects that are still). For many situations being able to shoot from around 1:1.5 to 1:3 is useful, and at f/11 there can be adequate depth of field that covers enough of the subject to be useful without stacking. I'm interested in checking how the working distances compare between these lenses at the maximum magnification of the 100-400 (1:2.63), and will be testing it soon. I did my first practical close-up shoot with the 100-400 on frogs but alas, the conditions were wet & muddy and my camera malfunctioned. I found that at the location it was difficult to get the 100-400 low enough for optimal shooting angle, and a shorter and smaller lens could have worked out better, allowing me to get closer to the water surface and also to the subjects. However, there was a lot of mud and movement of the camera had to be done using a complicated process working with my rain cover, a small pillow, and a camping mattress. 😉 Although the zoom on the 100-400 is not as stiff or slow as the 200-500's, it still requires a bit of force and so it couldn't be done rapidly under the conditions. I will revisit the location soon and look for other places where I might have easier access to the surface of the water. The image quality of the 100-400 at close range was good, I couldn't really tell any noticeable difference in sharpness to what I'm used to seeing from macro lenses in this practical application; I mean a side-by-side comparison might reveal something but it was not like the 100-400 was soft in any sense of the word. However, being a fairly big lens it is more clumsy to operate for close-ups on the ground than a 105 or 200 mm Micro. When working at long focal length close-ups, one can often miss something in the foreground that leads to a blurry distraction in the images (when the lens is stopped down). The Z cameras show the viewfinder image at f/5.6 when the shooting aperture is f/11, and so the depth of field is not shown correctly by default (not sure if there is a preview available, need to assign that to a Fn button for these situations). Focusing on the 100-400 at close range is fairly slow and can take some time to get to the right subject. Under less wet conditions I could have more easily operated the manual focus on the lens but of course since I wasn't using a tripod but a pillow, use of the rings was compromised by the fact that the lens was lying on the pillow. However, I don't have any tripod + head combination that could get me as low on the ground as this. Anyway, I'm not terribly keen how the handling of long macros is in the field, there are fewer camera angles that one can work a given subject from, and a bigger lens makes for less convenient management of the position also near the ground. However, one fits the lens to the situation and I'm sure I'll be using the 100-400 from time to time for this purpose. I suppose it might also be worth testing the 1.4 X with it for these close-ups, but I'm not a big fan of TCs and there isn't much light to work with in this location (sunlight may be available during the day but if one wants a low sun angle then it might not be).

Z8, 100-400 at f/11, 400mm, f/100s, ISO 4000.

While it's true that pre-flashes can cause eye blinks, I've found this to be mainly the case with the cheapest cameras (i.e. Nikon D3x00 series etc.) and more advanced models time the preflashes so that the eye blink is not likely to happen during the actual taking of the picture. However, there are some people who are particularly sensitive to the flash and may still blink, in which case the use of manual flash could work. Radio triggering of remotes instead of using optical triggering can also help minimize or avoid the issue. Profoto has a nice system where you can take a test shot on TTL and once the settings (flash exposure compensation and main exposure) are correct, then you can switch the flash(es) to manual and then the starting flash energy in manual mode picks up the last settings that were determined using TTL, and so further shots will have the same exposure and flash energy and no preflashes are needed. Of course, if the subject moves or the situation otherwise changes dramatically manual mode doesn't exactly help, but it's often workable. And you do get higher confidence of eyes open using it.

More deer photos from the past week. Z8, Z 100-400 S.

Right, for sure that is a big gap. Sony now has a 300/2.8 that weights 1.47kg which is about one half of the Nikon lens's weight. 😉 So yes, the optical and mechanical technologies have clearly evolved in 20 years in the sense that lower weight is possible. The mirrorless part may also play some role allowing the lens elements to be more on the rear end. On the other hand the Nikon 300/4 PF is one half of the 300/2.8 Sony's weight.

Hmm. I had assumed the 105 MC has greater focal length at close focus because it felt that way in use (i.e. narrower than I had expected for a given situation), but I wasn't working at 1:1. I'll compare it to the 200 mm side by side when I have the chance. Nikon hasn't shown much interest in updating the 200 Micro whose latest version is 30 years old. There was never an AF-S version and there hasn't been rumors about a 200mm MC let alone 300mm. I think the issue is that for many small subjects you want to be able to photograph the subject from different vantage points, and with long macros, shooting from above is typically not possible. Also the autofocus speed would likely be relatively slow compared to non-macro 300 mm lenses and even with the 105 MC there can be a lot of work to get it to find the subject in the close-up range (mirrorless doesn't do any favors here where it comes to close-up AF). With the 100-400 also I find it requires a lot of manual help to find the subject when in close range. Then there may be optical concerns, in macro lenses the best specialist lenses (macro only, not infinity to macro) usually have relatively short focal lengths.

The zooms do it by sacrificing focal length and with a slow AF rack. Most people who invest in long primes want to keep as much of the focal length as possible upon close focus and the fastest AF.

That's not very likely to happen, the range of extensions required to go from infinity to 1:1 would be enormous and it would likely not be a practical lens unless it lost most of its focal length along the way. I recall that the 200 AF Micro is about 135mm or thereabouts at 1:1, which would make it only slightly tighter than the 105 MC ... I should do a side by side to check. The 300/4 is nice at its minimum focus (m = 1:4).

That's the thing - Nikon put in a lot of effort in designing the 24-70/2.8 (I recall that when they were making the E VR version they said they tested a hundred different designs ...) and in my opinion the 24-70/2.8 Z is just outstanding, and I never could find the same kind of satisfaction from other lenses in this range (i.e. not 24-70/2.8's), in terms of how clear and consistent the images are. I might get a spare copy just in case. 😉 For me 70mm is a good splitting point as it is close to my most used focal length and so having either the 24-70 or 70-200 in my hands I can get those shots and not have to switch all the time. For many kinds of events (PhD dissertations, wedding ceremonies etc.) I find this pair the optimum for my needs. I rarely have a need for a wider than 24 mm focal length when photographing people and with modern cameras the 200mm can be cropped a bit to manage those situations where I need a little bit tighter still (though a 300mm would be better, in many cases I can get by with these two). I would not be able to work with a 16-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 pair as I don't like the extreme focal length of 16 mm and yet I often work in the 35-70 mm range. Sony has a 20-70mm and from what I recall from reviews of it, the 20 mm end has some compromises. So probably 24-70mm is as wide a range as can be made with very high quality and consistency (I know it is subjective and many like 24-105 and 24-120 mm lenses, but I just can't bring myself to liking these extended ranges). What I think is nice about the (Nikon) 28-75/2.8 is that it's very light weight for a lens of this range and the images I've seen from it are aesthetically pleasing, even if it isn't quite as sharp as the Nikon 24-70/2.8. On the telephoto end I have the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400, and to me the 70-200 is superior optically, the images are just more brilliant (lacking a more precise term). I also think Nikon succeeded with the out-of-focus rendering of the Z 70-200 really nicely as some F-mount versions tend to produce double lines in out-of-focus areas which I do not like and don't quite have the same level of refinement as the Z S-line version. However, I dislike the ring positions on both the 70-200 and 100-400 and I frequently accidentally nudge the manual focus ring. With the F-mount version of the 70-200 (FL) I didn't really do that even though it has the same (annoying) order of the rings. The Z version has very little static friction when rotating the manual focus ring and this is partly why it happens. However, when making fine adjustments to focus, the Z version's design is easier to use so I'm not exactly saying the F version is better, only that I have this issue that I'm accidentally moving to manual focus often with these two Z lenses. To solve the issue I sometimes swap the control and focus ring positions. But then I have other lenses where I don't want them swapped, so it would be nice if the body could remember the customized control settings for each lens separately. Anyway, it's great to see the Tamron 28-75 G II optics available for Nikon so that Nikon Z users have more options.

I understand, but availability was scarce in winter 2021-2022 and I could only find one store which had a copy in stock. I believe both the pandemic and Z9 availability made the 24-70/2.8 scarce. It's my most used lens on the Z system and one I use it for walkaround, landscape, architecture, portraits, street and events, i.e. just about everything. I find it so good that I don't even think I needed to have the f/1.8's in this range, which is saying something coming from a prime lens nut such as myself. 😉

I personally find the Nikon Z 24-70/2.8 S to be my favourite lens. When I bought it, it was hard to find (with waiting times of several months) but I could find it in one store. I guess Nikon wanted the 28-75 to be quickly available in large numbers (which it was, some stores had like 30 in stock) and perhaps it wasn't possible to achieve that with the G2 optics? It could be that Nikon was looking for assistance in manufacturing something to be an alternative to the 24-70 while they had scaled their own lens production down and not able to increase it in the short term for the 24-70 itself (which was in high demand probably because of the Z9 which increased interest in Nikon). Tamron may have had G1 optics in stock while they were just building up G2 production and not able to supply Nikon with a large number of G2 optics while also serving Sony customers. Anyway, I'm just guessing here.