ilkka_nissila

Sorry, I meant 5-10 years ago.

Well, rather than make a high-end DX camera, Nikon has achieved a similar level of portability by offering longer focal lengths in portable housings for FX (600/6.3, 800/6.3, and also once it becomes widely available the 180-600/5.6-6.3). These can be used instead of the slightly shorter and slightly faster lenses on DX to achieve similar results (except for the total pixel count). A 26 MP DX could put more pixels on each lens but in many conditions then the ISO would go very high for that format size and at least where I live there wouldn't be more detail as it would be smeared off by noise. I imagine there are not that many people who would for example pick a 26 MP DX camera to use with the 800 PF. Of course, a Z8 or Z9 with 180-600 or 600 PF form more expensive kits than the D500 with 200-500/5.6 or 500/5.6 PF. But then with the newer systems there is silent photography which allows photographers to stay close to the subjects and shoot for a longer time before the animal is spooked by the sounds from the camera. I think this means in practice that we can more often get more shots from a closer distance and super-long focal lengths and high pixel densities may not be so crucial after all. Being able to photograph from a closer distance is in my opinion going to result in much higher-quality results than shooting from further away. I only photograph wildlife and birds occasionally but my impression has been that indeed sometimes birds do come closer than I've experienced when photographing with a DSLR and I think this will in the end make a significant improvement in the results that people can get from certain situations. Long-distance photography with long focal lengths tends to suffer from atmospheric effects and when browsing large numbers of photos online or in books it seems clear that photos taken with 600-1200 mm focal lengths are typically a bit more hazy than photos taken at 300-400 mm, for example, but of course this doesn't mean that a shorter focal length is better for a more distant subject, it isn't. 😉 In addition to lens focal lengths becoming longer, the weight of some lenses has gone down as well; the 400/4.5, 600/6.3 and 800/6.3 are very light weight for the focal lengths and apertures and this allows easier operation from low vantage points, for example, getting eye level with the animal near the groud or water level. I found it very easy to shoot in this way with the 100-400 at a low level. However, at the present time in November in Finland, the light level and very soft / subdued quality of light can make things difficult and I wouldn't want to shoot with a DX camera at ISO 12800. In brighter locations or for noon daylight or summer photography, I can see that people are not restricted so much by the light. But overall I still think as the mirrorless technology allows AF to work reasonably well with smaller maximum apertures, we now see this wave of smaller-aperture lenses that can provide an alternative to the compactness that DX can give with shorter (and faster) lenses. But you guys are much more into wildlife and bird photography and are living in more brightly lit locations (while we have long summer nights the light is generally more subdued, and winter daylight can be only a few hours). Do you really need more reach than 600 mm or 800 mm lenses give on FX? For sure Nikon could in the future make something along the lines of Fuji's X-H2S (26 MP stacked sensor) or X-T5 (40 MP non-stacked sensor) to put more pixels on the subject but how often is the pixel density limiting when shooting with a Z8 or Z9, and would it not be preferable to just somehow get closer to the subject when photographing, and avoid the problems arising from long distances? I can see that posted images here and on other forums of bird subjects are better than they were (say) 510 years ago, and there are more shots of birds in flight, so the progress of technology and likely increased experience of the photographers has been a benefit for such subjects. I guess improved software has also played a role in making very high ISO viable.

Well, there were frequent rumours about the D400 and it was always going to be released very soon. Changing the name to "D500" doesn't change the essence of what those rumours (or wishes) were about.

Well, it was Nikon's choice to repair it irrespective of warranty status, but they could easily have required warranty on that. My D850's power delivery circuit got fried (after about 5 months of use) and was repaired under warranty.

Well the Z9 is bigger and heavier; a lot of people consider it too heavy. Light weight & compact is appealing to many. The A1 sets the upper limit to the Z8's price. Second hand is not comparable with new especially in countries where warranty is not transferable from the original owner.

Well, after that firmware update, Nikon can increase the price of the camera substantially.

I don't have any Ai or Ai-S lenses to test but my understanding is that the Zf's focus confirmation (change of color of the box) also requires a CPU lens. It's also very very precise when subject-detection is enabled, it can be hard to turn the ring by small enough amount to get that level of detail that it satisfies that camera when it has detected the subject's eye. But's nice to have these options. Focus peaking is another tool that the Z9 definitely has and you can use, though I find the change of color distracting when photographing people.

Try lossless compressed NEF; quite many programs can't process HE* or HE NEFs correctly yet.

I think also the fact that Nikon has been giving the Z9 a lot more firmware features that didn't exist when the Z8 was launched and the Z8 hasn't received them yet, although Nikon USA has promised that the bird subject detection mode and other improvements will be coming in 2024, many people still probably think that it's safer to go with the Z9. This could affect how the market feels about the Z8. That price is amazingly low especially considering the price in Europe is quite high, currently 4499€ (it too is reduced compared to the original price). Edit: I removed the 24% VAT and run through google to convert the currencies, the Finnish price would be equivalent to $3960 without tax. So the US price is about 8% lower without tax, which is not unreasonable given the different consumer protection laws and necessity to translate the manual to the rather exotic Finnish. 😉

It seems like the worst of both lenses; the shift lock on the 24mm is poorly implemented and can be tough to get to lock properly while the corresponding knob on the 45 mm is excellent.

No they are not at all similar.

Right, the Zf only has 4K up to 60 fps with DX crop. 4K 25 is without cropping. Higher frame rates are available in FullHD. Z6 II has a lower crop factor in 4K 50 - 60 fps, I believe (1.2x ? I don't remember exactly). I recall the 4K50 recording was erratic on my older XQD cards but with the newer cards it did run. I guess with the Zf's limitation to SD UHS-II cards means they can't do higher-end video codecs. I read that they didn't include CFexpress cards due to the small body and heat production, it would get too hot. The Zf is quite thin, it's amazing it's a digital camera. 😉 Zf does have more options for autofocus during video recording, and it can display the waveform monitor which I love. There is also internal 10-bit log recording which the Z6 II can't do (only via external recording is it available). I'm not really keen on log video as the base ISO is so high! It means basically that in log mode the camera is underexposing the image by several stops in order to create more exposure latitude in the highlights. I would think it better to let the user decide how much overexposure latitude they need rather than insist on such a large degree of underexposure as the highest-quality setting. I recall that in the latest firmware, the Z9 does let the user make these choices.

Interesting that the length is limited like that. I guess they want to help the viewers avoid accidentally being moved into a trance by watching excessive slow-motion footage over 3 min in duration (12-15 min when played back). 😉 My thinking is that a lot of the time it's easiest to shoot normally and make the decision to make some clips slow motion afterwards. This works out, e.g., when shooting everything at a rate of 50 fps and then one can slow it down by 2x in software, at which point it just presents each frame twice, and then it can be exported at 50 fps. If you shoot at a higher frame rate than 60 fps (such as 100 fps) then it cannot be played back normally at the speed it has been captured at (in software you can, but not on most internet video presentation platforms). So you lose the option to view it in real time unless skipping frames, at which point it would get a staccato feel to it. Of course, in the future it may be possible to present videos at 100 fps or 120 fps online if it is considered useful. To me the option to choose the rate of slowing down afterwards is important and makes things easier at the shooting stage when not having to think about it, just shoot everything at 50 fps and 180 degree shutter. 😉 Or everything which may have to be shown in slow motion.

Do you decide beforehand which clip to play in slow motion?

There is a new firmware update to version 1.1: https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/507.html It includes explicit slow-motion options that you can select so that a higher fps rate is used for recording and playback is at a slower rate. Previously the videos captured at high frame rates were displayed at the captured rates. There is also a bug fix related to the viewfinder going dark, I believe. I am not sure if I've encountered it; usually the screen going dark indicates I've blocked the EVF sensor somehow.

Another shot. ISO 11400.

A little bit late today (Thursday), 100-400 Z with Z8, f/5.6, 1/500s, ISO 14400. Cropped a little from the left.

While Nikon partner with Sony on making sensors, Nikon and Sony don't usually use the same sensors in their respective cameras, especially not in the high-end cameras. Nikon: 20 MP and 45 MP, Sony: 24 MP, 50 MP and 61 MP. No doubt Nikon too is working on GS implementations of some kind. It will be interesting to see if there is a Z9 Mk II before the Olympics.

In the 30 fps mode apparently the max burst is 4 seconds so about 120 frames. I have not tried it though.

Because the Zf has a 24 MP sensor and the high efficiency and high efficiency * raw formats, the files are so small that you can shoot a huge number of images in one burst even while writing to two cards at the same time, despite the limitations of the cards themselves. I've pushed the Zf really hard in HE* mode and my conclusion was that the buffer simply isn't an issue, at least not with the normal high-speed (CH) frame rates. With the extended speeds (where one gets a slide show instead of a real-time view in the EVF) it's possible the card limitations would affect burst performance but I don't like the slide show so I don't go there. 😉 The 30 fps mode would produce a high risk of rolling shutter as well as this camera doesn't have a stacked sensor. I just checked the CH mode on this camera gives 8.2 fps in EFCS mode (slightly slower at 7.0 fps in MS). This is fast enough for me. However, if using the faster (extended or high-speed capture) modes I imagine the experience might be less satisfying.

I didn't watch all of it but it focused on the Zf and current Nikon cameras and lenses; there was not so much speculation about future products except the possibility of a Z6 III. Hogan seemed to regard the 180-600 very highly. I don't have that lens but have been watching images posted on other forums and it does seem like it would (should?) be the long lens of choice for many people. Hogan said the Zf is a high-performance camera. I don't disagree really; I do think it performs well above my expectations. And I really like shooting with it. It's interesting the Zf has FTP support; I guess because it's a small camera it would be a good fit to use as a remote triggered roof etc. camera at sports events. The camera doesn't have cable release support but it can be connected to other cameras and triggered by the camera acting as master. Hogan set it up so that the top dials are not used (C, C and 1/3 step) so he's not really using the traditional parts of the UI. I do use the dials and it has made me rethink some aspects of how I use a camera.

Interesting and generally positive talk. There are some minor errors in the slides though; both the Z8 and Zf do have Airplanes as one of the subject type as a directly selectable option.

Well, the power zoom feature is really for video and not stills. If you zoom manually with a lens designed primarily for still photography, the zoom is typically very precise but it is hard to zoom so that it looks even and smooth during a video clip. Power zooms allow zooming during takes very smoothly. Some say that zooming during clips is categorically a bad idea but if done skillfully and very slowly, it can make the footage look more lively. In televised concerts, for example, it is fairly typical that the composition moves very slowly and zooming can be used as one of the dimensions of movement, so to speak. In TV concert recordings the zooming is typically very slow, so that it is just perceptible but not distracting. I would think that Canon has implemented different speeds for power zooming in the adapter for the 24-105/2.8. Their video cameras (with large zoom ranges) tend to default to very fast power zooming with the rocker. These look terrible. But in the menu there are options to make it very slow, and this can be quite a nice effect in video. For still photography, the zoom ring of the 24-105/2.8 can be turned manually similar to lenses that are designed for still photography.

That's true, at 800mm f/9 is no worse than other lightweight options either with cropping or TC to achieve 800mm FOV, and quite possibly the new lens will be better than using a TC or crop on a shorter lens at least image-quality wise. But still, you need quite a lot of light to photograph a moving subject or one that is capable of moving. I was photographing a blackbird on the forest floor with the 100-400. What's great is the silence of the camera (Z8) so it seems the animals are less afraid to come closer. It was also easy to hold the lens close to the ground. However, at f/5.6 I was at 1/400s and ISO around 2000. When the bird caught a worm, I was trying to shoot but the action always happened so fast that I didn't get any sharp pics of the worm in the bird's beak. They all had motion blur. Now, in order to freeze the motion in this case probably at least 1/2000s would be needed. In that case I would be at ISO 10000 at f/5.6 and with an f/9 lens, ISO 25600. Image quality isn't going to be great at that setting. So, in practice one needs to shoot a lot of frames and hopefully a fairly sharp action shot is captured. Working with a shorter lens one would then likely need a hide to get close enough but then the faster aperture could be used to get the shot at a lower ISO. I'll try that at some point.

Carnival of Light, Linnanmäki amusement park, Helsinki. Zf, 85/1.8, f/1.8, 1/500s, ISO 6400.