robert_bouknight1

Thanks, all!!! I found another 18b (not sure what I was thinking -15), so now 4 batteries. So I should be OK with the Z6. I have an empty 64K XQD which will not be enough at 4k (around 2hr or a little less total), so thinking the 1080p will have to do. Also have a 32K XQD but the size limit Shun mentions would be annoying. Calling one of the few brick/mortar stores left to see about an external mic. I might look at a larger CFE/XQD and another 18b while there. Rushing out now! I have a motorcycle clamp for the I phone and a huge Gitzo tripod for the rig. Edit- actually my batteries are 15 & 15b?

I have to shoot a video of a play tonight. Was just asked this AM so I have not had time to research. I can use either a Z6 (not II) or a D850. I don't know much at all about shooting vids, i am a stills guy. The play will be about 2 hrs total, with about 8 segments and an intermission, so the 30 min limitation should not be a problem. I have read that the Z6 is a good platform, but battery life is a big question. I have only one 15b I can find, and two 15's. At 15+/- min per battery, not enough for my Z6. I don't think the original Z6 can run off of the USB power. I have read that the 850 might do as much as 70 min on a battery? AF speed should not be an issue - I might just use a manual focus lens I will also take an iPhone 11 and run as a back up. I would want decent quality to play back on a largish monitor, this will not be broadcast. Thinking 1080p/30 will be adequate? Please let me know any critical I am missing? I won't have much time to set up and practice.

I am down to three AF-D lenses that I would buy a (reasonably priced) Z AF adaptor for, a 180/2.8, 105/2/DC, and 300/3.8. For the first two, the manual focus gearing is "too fast", I can't get the focus accuracy I want on moving people photos. My AI 105/1.8 & 180/2.8 are easier to achieve accurate manual focus with so I just use those, or the 105/1.4 AFS which is really nice.. I don't know why I still have the 300/2.8, but it will still work when/if my later AFS version dies. So, my screw drive adaptor winds up being just keeping a D850. I probably would not pay much more than FTZ money for a screw AF adaptor, So Nikon's marketing analysis is correct. But Nikon should have made such an adaptor just to support the expected Nikon legacy support.

I would be curious to know the costs, let me know if you find out. I have an 850 with even higher mileage that on very rare occasions fails to fire.

Sure are a lot of lens elements and complexity when compared so something like the classic Novoflex 400mm I still have from the manual focus film days. Relatively speaking, seems like you get a lot more performance for the money now.

I have an early 35/1.8 VC that could not be updated via tap in. Tamron USA updated it free and very quickly, the experience was well above my expectations. The lens was not in warranty.

I think you will be fine, going to check a G on an F5 now. The AF manipulation on the F5 is "different" from the current setups but worked well for me last summer. There is no AF fine tune, which may be an issue with some lenses. So test before a critical shoot. Have fun! PS, I just checked DOF stop down with a G lens, stop down looked appropriate for the indicated aperture on the display, in M mode. Aperture control with wheel control confirmed.

I wonder if the warning is simply being over cautious. Probably would be OK if VR is turned off, but I don't know for sure. What guidance to pacemaker manufacturers provide? I don't have one, but my grandfather did.

I have a first version AF-S that is superbly sharp, focuses accurately, renders beautifully, and is built like a tank. It lives on a monopod, so I am not sure how much VR would help. Newer 300/2.8s are lighter which would be nice, but I think I would replace my 2.8 with a 300PF.

One of the photos from the shoot with Mandi that I posted the 50mm question about. Nikon 50mm 1.4g on Z7. In the darkroom days, I would have burned the chairs. Guess I need to learn software.

I still have a few around, nothing noteworthy. Mirrorless solves one of my complaints about DX: the small viewfinder image. So, on occasion I think about getting a Z50 and a small lens or two as a travel setup. But that combo probably is not smaller/lighter enough compared to my Z FF & selected small lenses to warrant the purchase.

All, thanks for the input. The only wide native Z lenses I have are the 14-30 that I like quite a lot, and a new 28/2.8. But, I thought those a bit wide for this project. That turned out to be a good call. I decided to take a 50, a Sigma 24-35/f2 and 85/1.8G. Since latter are F mount, I chose the 50/1.4G so that the FTZ would just be stationary on the Z7. Most of the photos were taken with the 50, followed closely by using the 24-35 at around 35mm. Most of the images were around f/4, but I did open the lenses up a bit for a few shots. The 85 never came out of the bag. So, a 24-70/2.8 would have been perfect, and a 24-70/4 would have been OK. We did need a few indoor shots at one of the buildings, so I was glad to have 24mm available for the unexpected need. Bebu, I agree with you, I would have taken a Z 50/1.2S if I had one. Doubt I will ever pay for one, though. I don't use a 50 very often except for recently, it seems. Niels, a 40 prime probably would have "worked." It would have felt a little wide for many of the shots and a bit tight for some of the others. I have a 40/1.4 Voigtlander that I do use as a one lens solution on occasion. Although I used all F mount lenses and thought about just taking a DSLR, the (essentially) anywhere on the image eye focus feature of the Z7 was quite nice to have for this project. Will add a photo from the project to this string once we sort them all.

I have a little session lined up for this afternoon, Mandi needs a portrait for an article. Usually, I would use my 105/1.4G, but this time I need a bit of background (buildings) to be present. So, thinking 50 vs longer options. Will be using FF Z bodies. I have the Z50/1.8S. It is fine, maybe my expectations are too high for it. Contrary to some reviews, I like my 50/1.4G better than my 1.8G. I have a MF 1.2 Nikkor, but probably won't take it in that I expect to be around f/4+/- anyway. Anyone else compared the 1.8S to 1.4G for this type of situation? LOL, a mid range zoom would be perfect for this, but I dumped the ones I had, never wound up using them. I will take something wider and an 85 in case a 50 does not work out.

The SE is supposed to be optically the same as the "regular", but with cosmetics changed to go along with the Z fc. I like the look, so bought one to use with my FF Z cameraas. The Lenstip results seem similar to other info I have seen about the lens. I am not sure if the example I have is as good in the center as LensTip reported, but it is certainly good enough. I posted a little report in this forum on the 28/2.8SE a week or so ago.

I should add that there seemed to be less image pincushion vs the 14-30, but this was an impression vs clinical test. I admit that I did not analyze raw files in extreme detail, just wanted to form an opinion about keeping and using the lens. I plan to keep it on the body as first option, with other lenses in a bag ready to go for photo excursions. I will probably add a faster Z mount wide prime to my kit someday, not sure which it will be, probably the 20mm.

I was (am still) looking for a small and light lens for my Z bodies that reduces the camera footprint to a minimum so that I am more likely to take one vs just using my phone. I have been using a Voigtlander 40/1.4 for this purpose, but wanted something wider but still smaller than the 14-30/4S I have and like. The newly available 28 seems like a good but still compromised choice for this purpose. Using a Z7 and a sharp semi-wide, I can crop to longer lens length without too much compromise. Pros: It is light, and among the shortest flange to front viable lens for the Z. I am sure that there are some M & LTM mount wides that are a little smaller when combined with an adaptor, but most of the older wides don't perform all that well on digital in my experience. Testing on a Z7 vs my 14-30 and 28/2AI, the Z28/2.8 is OK. Sharpness seems similar at f/4 to the 14-30. One test series had me thinking that the 28/2AI was a little better at 2.8 and 4, but another series reversed that opinion. The Z28/2.8 seems to have a good bit of vignetting at 2.8, and tends to render images that are slightly cool and underexposed compared to the other lenses in aperture priority auto.. I guess I should have locked auto WB, I did lock exposure to manual for another series which evened up the exposure variations. The 28/2AI did seem to put a bit more light on the sensor at the same settings, and I came away thinking that I have a slight preference for the images from the old 28. Warmer in AWB mode, and less clinical, somehow. Cons: Value. When compared to a 50/1.8g or DX35/1.8g (that can be used on FX), I lose over a stop of speed, the metal mount, and spend more money. Welcome to 2022, I guess. I would have paid a bit more $ to have something faster like f/2.5, but in reality f/2.5 would not make much difference. Probably Nikon did not want to hurt sales of more expensive options when configuring the Z28/2.8. Another con would be that the Z28/2.8 does not seem to deliver a full 2.8's worth of light, especially away from image center. Sharpness is OK at 2.8 for me, though. In summary, the Z 28 f/2.8 SE meets but definitely does not exceed my expectations. I think the opportunity for Nikon or a 3rd party to create a better option is still out there. Sony offers the 28/2 FE that I enjoyed using when I had an A7 camera. I was tempted to get another one of those with an AF adaptor, but I realized that there would not be any in cameras corrections that "improve" the 28/2FE on a Nikon body. PS, just for fun, I included an early 60's 28/3.5 F mount lens in some of the tests. No surprise, the newer lenses are better. But the old timer still generates a viable image on a 45MP sensor. z

I enjoyed using an 85/1.8HC for a good while, captured one of my best images of my son with it, on film. Lucked into perfect outdoor lighting arrangement during the golden hour for that one. The lens coating was good enough to minimize flare. The zoomed in focus feature of mirrorless did allow me to enjoy using my good manual focus lenses again. I had always struggled to focus them accurately with the DSLRs I used. Then I picked up a used Sony A7 and had a great time re-discovering some excellent manual focus lenses I had in various mounts, mostly short tele's like the 85/1.8 and 105/2.5. But now, the continuous "eye" focus with my Z bodies has me using AF lenses again for the most part. Pets and people are not very good at holding still, though the Lab we had would "stay" for a little while.

That is pretty cool, the "decisive moment" for sure. Glad I did not have to sort through all of the images, though. When I shot BBall with D3s, I slowed it down to 5 or 6 FPS to reduce the workload. I guess there is software that can analyze a group of photos and suggest the best image? Seem like my phone did that from time to time. And, for bullet protection, I think I would rather have a Z9 than the Sony A7(1) and 7RII cameras I had. Those broke without a bullet impact, LOL.

I would be interested in how the lens performs as a portrait lens, bokeh, blah blah, vs another "portrait" short tele. I have the 105/2.8 VR AFS and use it on occasion for close work, but definitely prefer other lenses for people photos.

I have more modern cameras, but would not hesitate to shoot daylight soccer or sailing with a D300. An 18-XX, 35/1.8, and gen II 80-200/2.8 kit can be put with a D300 for not much $. Although the later x-200/2.8 zooms are better, I bought a version II 80-200/2.8 AFD for my nephew for $135 recently, it has plenty fast enough focusing, produces nice looking images, and has no AFS motor to fail. Another DSLR bargain seems to be D800 pricing.

Which lens do you have that, coupled with a D810, is slow to focus? I have a D850 now and had a D810, but did not have both at the same time. I don't shoot birds, but had no AF speed issues when shooting sports with the D810. I typically used AF-C with D9 settings, not AF-A or the other more automatic modes. The automatic AF modes seemed slower. For birding, I expect that the increased number of focus points coupled with faster processing in the D850 would result in a notable but probably not dramatic improvement in AF performance, assuming that the lens you are using is up to the task.

With relatively grainy high speed film and then earlier lower resolution DX format DSLRs, use of a TC that was well matched to a lens probably helped. But I have generally been in the "just crop" camp for a while. Not even sure where my TC-17e is. I do think it was beneficial behind a 300/4AFS on a D300 when shooting sailing racing a while back. I would be interested to see the Z-TC + 70-200/2.8S and/or 100-400 compares to a cropped Z7 image under careful testing and then in actual use. The potential for improved AF accuracy that Ilkka refers to should help.

Realistically, a D850 will likely be my long term DSLR keeper, when they get cheap enough. The D810 I had served well and was a nice general purpose upgrade to the D800 I had previously, but I never quite liked the SOOC results from the D810, so I don't miss it. Though it feels slow now, my current D800 delivers good looking results. And I still have a D3s & D3x(was a cheap deal used, great camera below ISO 800) pair. I have been using the D3x a good bit when in daylight. The D810 raw files were fine. I did piddle with picture controls, but just could not find a combo that I liked. I shoot raw+JPG, but I just don't enjoy post processing. I am generally happy with SOOC Z6, D3x(daylight) and now D800 images.

Maybe someday someone will make a Nikon screw AF to Z, but probably not. I am not sure I would buy one if it were bigger and more expensive than the older FTZ. The D800 I just bought cost less than an FTZ, LOL. It would be nice if Nikon made one just to prove a point, but I am pretty sure Nikon would not recoup R&D costs. The aftermarket mounts that move the entire lens for AF are an interesting option for smaller/lighter lenses such as LTM or M mount. I doubt one would be rigid enough to support my 180/2.8. My Nikkor 300/2.8 screw AF lens would probably break one in half, it might even rip the Z mount off of a body. I do have some good LTM and M lenses. I don't really need AF with those but it is a little tempting. The Canon EF and Sony E to Z are interesting twists on things. Lots of Canon lenses out there that I don't need. But the EF-Z coupled with Z9 might tempt some Canon users. I have had a lot of fun with various lenses on various mirrorless bodies. It is nice to have an "unrestricted" lens mount camera body.

Ironic, Ken Rockwell launches another rant today about the Nikon F mount and FTZ today. Sure, I would like to have the 180/2.8 and 105/2DC AF function on a Z body, but not that big of a deal. I sold my D810, but still have a D3s and recently got a super cheap deal on a D800 should I want to use those lenses. The D800 is a good one, it does not seem to need any AF fine tune thus far, and I like the color rendition it delivers. When they get cheap, I will probably get a D850. Typical of modern online media, the KR piece is written to inflame, not so much report on facts. Guess it keeps traffic coming to his site.