ilkka_nissila

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.

From one month ago, Finlandia Trophy. Z8, Z 70-200/2.8 S.

It sounds like you already have an excellent kit. 😉 The 400/2.8 FL is quite a bit lighter than the VR 400/2.8G. The 600 PF isn't going to help with the darkness since in the same field of view it collects less light than the 800 PF (if you're going to have to crop, the 800 will produce a better result in terms of lower noise). If you can shoot without cropping by 3/4 or more, then the 600 would do well. If you need more light you need to either get the subject closer and use the 400/2.8 or use a 600/4. 😉 I think the main reason to get a 600 PF in this case is simply to enjoy the small size and light weight. I'm following with curiosity how people react to Canon's new 200-800/6.3-9. At 800mm, f/9 makes it a stop slower than the 800/6.3. I can't imagine working with such a small maximum aperture, but cropping 500/5.6 PF images to 800mm equivalent FOV, one is also getting depth of field and noise comparable to an f/9 lens, so it's not that it can't be used. I think it'll be OK for situations where the subject is not far away, small birds on a tree branch etc. At long distances I get the feeling that the results probably wouldn't be all that good.

Why would you not be able to get batteries? This has nothing to do with battery availability but the cable connector interface between charger and chargeable radio device, which has to be USB-C in the future (until it is changed to something else, I predict). By the way, I also do not think it's reasonable to have to connect a cable to the camera to charge the battery inside. This directive was clearly designed to counter mobile phones not being able to use the same chargers, as there are a lot of excess chargers piling up in people's homes. For a large and expensive camera, it's unreasonable to have to connect it to the charger instead of taking out the battery and placing it in a dedicated battery charger device. This is because the USB-C connector can be broken if the cable in yanked one beautiful day, and it's also easy think of a scenario where the camera and lens fall on the floor if charging on a table. It's simply much better to use a separate charger for the batteries. But because large cameras are such a marginal product the legislators in the EU didn't think of them properly. They assume that all these devices are much like smartphones. And people drop smartphones all the time anyway.

Sorry for entering the discussion on a Canon sub-forum, but when there is obvious false information posted it is better to correct it rather than let gullible people believe it unquestioned. While Canon did achieve success with the EF mount, your claims about F-mount lenses being obsolete and somehow "marginal on the Z mount" are not reflecting the facts in any way. While there are some F-mount lenses that don't autofocus, for example, on Z mount cameras (due to the lack of focus motor in the lens), most reasonably modern F-mount lenses work very well on the higher-end Z cameras such as Z8 and Z9. The first-generation Z bodies gave an autofocus experience which was lacking mainly because of inadequate processing power in the camera body, so the camera couldn't keeep up with fast-moving subjects, but the Expeed 7 processor (used in Z8, Z9 and Zf so far) makes them work pretty much the same as native Z lenses. I shot indoor sports with F-mount lenses and mostly these lenses AF excellently. What AF issues there are, are due to the camera's subject detection sometimes finding spectator faces and focusing on them at those times where the athlete's backs are towards the camera; this is largely a programming issue, I believe, and I'm sure they'll figure it out as some other manufacturers have; the camera has to simply keep recognizing the subject when the face is turned away. However, this issue has nothing to do with the lens mount and is a subject-recognition issue. And because Nikon uses a shorter flange distance and wider mount than other mirrorless camera systems, one can adopt the other lenses to Nikon Z cameras if you're fine with that experience. Nikon was very successful in the early digital era and mostly their current reduced market share has to do with slow adoptation of video technology into their cameras, and some mistakes in product launches (with the initially unreliable Snapbridge mobile app, etc.). Canon and Sony have a long history of making video cameras and so they had an advantage over Nikon especially in the early phase of DSLR and mirrorless video, but again Nikon seems to be catching up and most Z lenses have minimal focus breathing, maintain their focal length very well during zooming, and also the focus is maintained electronically and one can adjust the speed of manual focus rings so the experience of using these products for video is quite good. If you try a first-generation consumer Z camera then you may indeed find the autofocus experience lacking for some tasks, but again the issue is not so much to do with F-mount but simply that Nikon continued to develop DSLR autofocus for a long time while mirrorless camera (and live view in DSLR) autofocus development seemed to take a back seat. One can readily criticize Nikon for that decision, but it has nothing to do with not abandoning F-mount in the 1980s. As a Z8 user I find all my F-mount lenses to work fine on the Z and in some ways they work better than on DSLRs (more accurate autofocus at very close and very long distances, greater consistency of focusing, silent photography without significant rolling shutter, and and much better image stabilization afforded by the combination of in-camera and in-lens VR technologies where Nikon seems to be the leader currently, even according to some Canon-using wildlife photographers). What's more, some F-mount lenses can be purchased at low prices on the second-hand market because a lot of people made the mistaken assumption that the lens was somehow at fault for the less satisfactory early AF experience with the first Z cameras. Canon deserves credit for being the technology leader in the early 1990s and bringing fast autofocus technology to cameras for the first time. However, one would think the no doubt happy users of this technology would not need to came up with inaccurate claims about other brands' products and post them to publicly readable forums. Many of us Nikon users are mixing new Z-mount and older F-mount lenses and shoot demanding subjects (such as wildlife and indoor sports) successfully and the adapter experience is transparent on the higher-end cameras, even though there are advantages to the newer lenses (such as silent AF motors and optical advantages over older designs).

Right, but the same is true of the 180-600mm and Sony 200-600mm. If Nikon produce a lens and market it with the correct specs without any small rounding errors and stick to the (fairly) practical 95mm filter thread, it will be perceived as inferior to the competitor's product (because the focal length is shorter and aperture smaller). If they increase the filter diameter, people will scream murder. So they decide to play along. It could be 590mm f/6.4 and still pretty close to the marketed specs.

On the Z8, custom function f4 appears to allow locking of the focus point. On the Zf, f5 does that. On the Z6 II, there does not appear to be such an option.

The MTF at 800mm is between the MTFs of the 800/11 and 800/5.6, and seems pretty good for a lens of this price class. However, unlike Nikon's 180-600mm, the 200-800mm Canon lens extends while zooming. This would also likely mean it won't stay balanced on a gimbal or fluid head without rebalancing after zooming. For use in Finnish wintertime, I think an f/9 maximum aperture would be pretty limiting. For small birds, maybe it is OK as one can need such a small aperture to get most of the bird (in a close-up) within the depth of field. Also at f/9 diffraction isn't going to kill the image sharpness, it may just a little dampen the peak sharpness compared to faster lenses shot at wider apertures. But the required ISO settings will mean there will be some noise. I guess one can use fancy noise-reduction to reduce the damage to the image details. Nikon seems to be owning the intermediate-aperture supertelephoto prime field for now. f/4.5, f/6.3 instead of f/7.1, f/9 and f/11.

I am not sure that that motor would have been able to move that particular lens's zoom mechanism. 😉 I do think controlled (very slow, if needed) power zooming is useful for video applications sometimes and can add a more lively feeling to the image. However, most video cameras are set up to zoom very quickly (and at variable speed) which renders shots completely unusable if zoomed within takes. I tested this just a while ago with a Canon XA75. However, by going into the menus it's possible to set up the camera so that the zooming is so slow that it doesn't disturb the viewing experience and can enhance it. It's surprising to me that there are so few ILC power zooms for mirrorless cameras. Nikon had a 10-100mm power zoom for the 1 series and there is a DX 12-28mm PZ for Z mount. Z8 and Z9 users can also turn on digital zooming during 4K recording, taking advantage of the higher-resolution sensor. Canon has a Cinema 18-80mm t/4.4 for Super 35mm in EF mount but that's a 1.2 kg lens with a smaller aperture than the new full-frame 24-105/2.8 RF. Note that the Canon power zoom adapter is specific to one lens (the new RF 24-105/2.8). The 24-105/2.8 is almost 20 cm long! 🙂 Not small by any means.