robert_bouknight1

Over the years, I have slowly replaced most of the AF screw drive lenses I had with more recent "S" internal focus lenses. Generally, the more recent lenses are better than the earlier equivalents. And, I definitely prefer the quieter, smoother focus action. Thinking through this, I am down to one lens I would like to use on a Z, my 180/2.8 AF-D. I am sure that the 70-200/2.8 zooms are better, but I like the results that the 180 delivers. Actually, I don't think I have tried it at 45MP, might change my mind, but it looks good to me at 36MP I thought I would continue to use my 105/2DC. But, the 105/1.4g I now have seems a good bit better. I have not had good success manually focusing the 105/2 DC at open apertures and close distances with the Z bodies, the manual focus action is too "quick" for precision. I have better luck with a MF 105/1.8 AIS that seems very good on a Z7. I can't think of any screw drive AF lenses shorter than 105mm that I would choose over more recent lenses to carry. Maybe the 85/1.4 AFD? I don't own that lens or the 28/1.4 AFD that is supposed to be good. The 20/2.8 is good and 24/2.8AF I have is OK stopped down a little, but I would rather just use the 14-30S. For the micro lenses, I generally prefer older manual focus. Just curious to see what others think here.

Looks like an update & improvement to the Z6 & Z7, a pleasant surprise.

I will probably get one of these. I prefer the generic smooth simple, and cheap adaptor I have vs the FTZ unless I am using and AF lens. The new FTZII is probably more robust than the cheapie I have. I think this adaptor is a smart marketing move by Nikon. Not only does it expand the system, it "reminds" people that there are a great many good F mount AF lenses out there available for use with a Z.

Probably a heavy battery to power the processing. I am impressed with the value if it is as good as the specs imply.

With all of the hype, I hope it is as impactful as the D3 was for Nikon, and does not disappoint. I don't need one, not shooting sports any more. Last time I shot BBall, I ran the D3s at 5 FPS or so and shot sparingly, I really did not have enough time to sort through those images. If the eye focus works at 20FPS, one could expect to catch slightly more decisive moments that might be slightly more in focus, so I understand the appeal. Glad I wont' have to deal with 4x the images, or more.

Agree with Dieter, any time I am seriously shooting I carry 2 bodies, one with a wide zoom and the other with something fast and longer than 50. I have progressed from a 24 prime (many years) to a 17-35 (2.8AFS, still have and my copy is darn good), and now the 14-30. Thought I would not really need anything wider than 17, but the 14-17 range is addictive. If shooting people though, the wider lenses begin to distort too much, so the 27mm equivalent of the new zoom would be OK for many applications assuming barrel distortion is largely corrected (by the camera mostly these days)

It is shorter and lighter than the full frame 24-200Z as one would expect for a DX lens. I am sure that the lens on a Z-DX body would make a good travel setup. I would miss the few mm on the wide end vs the 24-200. Although the weight and volume savings would be nice with the DX setup, I will continue pack a FF Z with 14-30 mounted, with a short tele in a belt case. The 24-200 is tempting, though. I am interested to see how it will compare with the future 24-105S.

I don't think the GOF motor drive sound is Nikon. Remember thinking that it was Olympus OM, for some reason, maybe it was the newly released F3 that we did not have. Always liked the song! I had an FM with MD-11 back then, and had access to F2's with MD-2. That MD-11 cost me a lot of meter batteries, I always forgot to turn it off. Finally put a piece of tape across the meter activation contacts!

Although I mostly use a Z these days, I recently decided that I should have a higher resolution DSLR than my D3s available if needed. Did not want to spend much $, so I found a very cheap deal on a high mileage D800. The D800 I had a while back when they were current needed some fine tune for about every lens I tried. Same lenses on the D810 that replaced the D800 did not need much if any tuning. The new to me but well worn D800 surprisingly seems accurate without tuning with the lenses I have tried, including a 105@1.4, up close. So there does seem to be body to body AF accuracy differences within the same model. The D800 I had previously was bought new and was later than the early series with the AF issue. I certainly don't miss doing the AF fine tune routine.

Well, it is not as old as my 300/2.8 AFS version 1 not VR! My example produces really nice images with a sharp/soft look that I like. I don't use it that often, it is not very portable. So, maybe get the 300PF as a second lens for it's size & weight advantage, and send the 2.8 off with your fingers crossed for reasonable cost repair. Then keep both.

The 1v2 seemed pretty tough, but I would NOT pick up a 300/2.8V1 with a 1v2, LOL. Something like a D3s makes a good lens handle.

I seem to remember that my 300/2.8 AFS version 1 worked on my 1v2, I think. The 1v2 is buried in storage, not sure when I could dig it out to test.

I am enjoying eye focus with a 105/1.4G and Z system for this application. But, there a a number of great choices in the Nikon system. The 85/1.8G may be the best AF bang for buck lens for this application. I have had better AF accuracy results with the 105/2DC vs the 135DC (sold), but my 105DC is looking a little softer at 45MP, not that you need that much MP for portraits. The 105/2.5 gauss and 105/1.8 AIS do well stopped down just a tad. I have not tried my older 85/1.8 manual focus in a while, but I liked it a lot on film. 135/2.8 and 180/2.8 lenses are good choices, also. I would not choose my 105/2.8AFS micro for portraits, given the choice.

I can't even guess at a purpose for the focus ring notch, unless it is to give a visual reference to approximate focus point. Those early AF lenses often were used on manual focus bodies. I thought I had a few with the small ring, but seems that my older lenses, though pre-D, all have the small rubber focus ring.

The fact that that the D850 seems to be selling well leads me to believe that the series could receive one more update. Maybe incorporate some of the items from the 780, better live view AF. OTOH, iterating and improving the Z series to increase user base has another benefit to Nikon sales, increasing Z lens sales. Lots of good used F mount lenses out there that cut into new F mount lens sales.

It will be interesting to see (or hear about) the results. My guess would be that you will gain MP, but lose actual resolution due to tiny lens movements while shifting, using the less than optimal portion of the lens image circle, and other factors that rob potential resolution.

One of the main drawbacks of DSLR DX sensor size has, for me, been the small viewfinder image. With mirrorless, the electronic viewfinder image can be the same as FX, which makes DX more appealing to me if the body is made smaller and lighter, such as the Z fc. But, my Z is small and light enough for me. As pointed out in previous posts, a line of small/light DX primes to go with a Zfc would increase appeal. I am looking at my Z camera now with an adapted 35/2 AIS on it. That lens would look "normal" on an FM2, but it looks long on the Z. The 35/2 performs well enough stopped down some, but newer lenses are better. Oddly, the 35/2 on aftermarket Ftz is smaller than my 50/1.8S z mount. I will probably buy one of the 28/2.8Z lenses, maybe, but am not happy about the $/plastic ratio. The sub $200 50/1.8g and 35/1.8GDX lenses have metal mounts. I would have a 28/2.8Z on order now if it were a little faster f/stop and had a metal mount. The 28/2 Sony lens is the one thing I miss most from my Sony A7x experiment. I think Nikon is missing sales opportunities by not having more smaller primes available. Sure, the available primes are good, but are somewhat expensive and not small. Fortunately, 14-30/4S has worked out well for me, reason enough to have a Z body. Maybe I should just get a 24-70/4S and quit worrying about it. But then I remember that I have had a number of mid range zooms thinking that they would be useful, but never wind up using them.

LOL! So what fun will it be if the camera automatically always gets difficult subjects perfectly every time? On the other hand, if one makes a living shooting sports or wildlife, better cameras might help get the great shot. Having shot some sports, it is not much fun sorting through hundreds or (not me) thousands of images. I ran my D3s at 5FPS just to reduce clutter. But I have not depended on sports photos for a job in a long time, back to the manual focus and film days. For me, I am always chasing the elusive combo of smile, face, eyes, and whatever makes a special photo of a person. Automated camera functions can help, but my chase will continue. And I can't tell much difference in 24 and 45MP.

Thanks to all for having a little fun with this. The 2nd images are with the 105/1.4E. As RJ pointed out, the wind was moving the stalk around, I had enough shutter speed but nailing focus on the moving target with the T10.5/f4 was difficult due to shallow DOF. This was the best of 3 shots, I think it is in focus. Looking at the original closely, The 105E is definitely better. I think maybe better not so much due to sharpness, but I think the contrasty edges generate a little local flair that robs detail in the high contrast areas when using the T10.5. Of course, I tried out a bunch of other 105's later Saturday. For this photo setup, the 105/1.4E definitely looks the best of them all. The subject isolation and background bokeh is notably better with the 105E, even with the same aperture set for the other lenses. Second place Saturday was a bit of a surprise, a 105/1.8AIS looked good and bested the rest with all contestants set to f/2.8. The 105/2.5PC(gauss type) looked a lot like the 1.8AIS, but bokeh was a little bit less good. To my surprise, the 105/2DC finished next, I thought it would beat the 1.8 and gauss 2.5. The 105/2.8 AFS-G micro and 105/2.5 rangefinder(sonnar type) looked less good. All were good enough, though, for use on a Z7. Focus accuracy has been very good with the combo of Z and 105E. The combo can nail focus at f/1.4, if the composition works with the super shallow DOF. When packing a super light kit, the Canon 100/3.5LTM is still my choice over the T10.5/f4. Results look similar when the two are compared (both good enough), but the Canon + adaptor is a bit smaller. My small/light kit still consists of a 14-30S, 40/1.4 Voigtlander M mount, and the Canon that can use the M-Z adaptor. Maybe the 24-200Z is a better choice over the two adapted manual lenses, might have to check one out.

The T 105/4 does focus closer than the other non-micro 105's, closest marked distance is 2.75ft and it goes a little closer. The others generally go a little closer than 3.5' or 1 meter.

Well, the lighting was flat and I had the camera PC set to portrait. Here is another whack at it, same order of lenses as a clue

PS: Both shot at 1/500 & f/4.5, auto iso selected identical values.

Just came across a T Nikkor 10.5 f/4. It is quite a bit smaller than a 105/1.4E as one would expect. Oddly, it is a bit longer than a 105/2.5, but a good bit lighter. Will let you decide which is which from the cropped (and resized to the 1000 limit) Z7 images:

Had the Z5 been available when I bought the Z6, I might have gone for the Z5 instead. But the Z6 has served well. I do not miss the Sony A7RII it replaced. Photographylife.com indicates very little difference at higher ISO's between the Z5 and Z6 sensor. I do not hesitate to spool up the ISO a good bit on the Z6 if needed to get the photo I want. Other than significant video differences noted in previous posts, there does not seem to be a compelling reason to spend more than Z5 $s on a 24MP mirrorless camera for general purpose photography. I might try one of the 24-200 lenses, but I am addicted to the 14-30 and short tele combo.

There is a bit of less than positive info on the internet about Snapbridge, but it works well enough with my Z6 for me. The app gives me a backup to the single card (yes, at less than full resolution but card failure is rare) and gives a quick way to share images.