ilkka_nissila

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.

There is a hill north of Helsinki-Vantaa Airport which gives a good view of one of the runways. Z8, Z 100-400, f/5.6, 1/160s, ISO 800, 400mm.

PF flare is a specific phenomena where there are colorful rings around a bright spot in the image. https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000044675&configured=1&lang=fi

I haven't had rubber failures in my Nikons while living in Finland but when I was in Boston, the rubbers did stretch out a bit on a couple of cameras. I suspect it might be the humid and warm (relatively speaking ;-)) climate there.

I suspect the 180-600's demand is so high that it'll take a long time for Nikon to supply all the lenses, and so the 600 PF may have been launched without roadmaps or development announcements to alleviate this demand for the zoom. If the 800 PF demand has been largely satisfied by supply, they probably had extra PF manufacturing capacity which does not take away from the making of the 180-600's but can perhaps reduce the demand on the zoom, even if only slightly. The price of the zoom is largely set by competitive pressure while the 600 PF doesn't have direct competition from other manufacturers so Nikon could price it higher. I am not convinced that professionals buy the majority of 400/2.8's and 600/4's. It seems a lot of these lenses are purchased by financially well-off amateur photographers who don't have to think twice about the price. Professional photographers working for newspapers could in the past as staff photographers use their employers' lenses and so the costs could be managed because they had so much use for those lenses (used by several staff photographers), but then they let go of most staff photographers and contract them as freelancers who have to own their own lenses, and this probably severely cuts the demand of these expensive lenses as far as the sports photography and photojournalism are concerned. Many of these freelancer sports specialists have moved to other sources of income because the fees from sports images are now so low. What surprises me is how much the built-in TC appears to increase the cost of these lenses, and I have to wonder if including these TCs helps Nikon's bottom line or hurts it. I can see that if the cost is no issue, it can be very convenient, but are there many people to whom the cost is no issue? Canon and Sony did not put TCs on theirs, although Canon has a long history of built-in TCs in their TV lenses and also the 200-400/4. Anyway I was getting familiar with my 100-400 Z and noticed on several occasions that while the AF is very solid, silent and quick in bright daylight, in more challenging conditions such as twilight (airplanes taking off from lit runways while there is still some natural light), in overcast conditions it can hunt a bit in situations where I would not see hunting with the 70-200/2.8 or (adapted) 300/2.8. I'm wondering if this happens with the 600 PF as while it has a slightly smaller aperture, it has reported to have faster focusing than the Z long zooms such as the 100-400 and 180-600, and PF lenses are known for excellent correction of LoCA (which can be a source of hunting as the different colors focus in different planes). I recall the 500 PF being a very consistent autofocuser in all conditions where I used it in, though ripples in water could throw off any lens I suppose, if not getting to a low enough angle. I suspect the 600 PF might shine in its autofocus performance because of this. But the smaller maximum aperture does make me wonder if that could be a problem. It'll be interesting to see how first users comment on the autofocus though I suppose relatively few people will own both a 180-600 and 600 PF at the same time. Some have said that they'd buy the 600 PF if it had been f/5.6 and not f/6.3, but I suspect Nikon chose the more practical option with the slightly smaller maximum aperture to keep the width of the lens reasonable. A short and wide fronted 600/5.6 would probably be quite front heavy for a modern lens. But perception that the same specs can be had for 1/3 of the money in the 180-600 may affect sales.

Well, it must be very difficult for an AI to identify all different bird shapes and angles, lighting conditions etc. I suspect an effective strategy might be to analyse the scene for motion within the scene, this could quickly be used to identify a likely main subject. I'm not sure if Nikon use this strategy though.

This time it is the 180-600 which is reported to be in short supply; when the 200-500 came out it was quite quickly available in large quantities but stores seem to only be able to supply the first preorders now. I think the 180-600 is getting a lot of orders because it was on the roadmap (initially as 200-600) for a long time and people were ready to buy it, while the 600 PF came as a suprise, and it may take some time for people to get used to the idea. Even though when the 500 PF came to the market there were people who said they wanted a 600 PF but now that there is one, it doesn't seem the demand is as high. I always thought the 500 PF hit a sweet spot of handling. I got the 100-400 instead of the 180-600 because I prefer the removable tripod foot design (rather than removable collar) and some reviews have been complaining about the smoothness of the 180-600's collar and saying that it is too narrow which matches my visual perception of it based on images. I am happy with the 100-400's mechanical quality, it seems very well made. I plan on doing quite a bit of landscape photography with it and in wintertime especially, stability at slow shutter speeds is essential. Image quality appears to be good as well. The center of gravity shift when zooming is minimal and no rebalancing seems to be needed between focal lengths when using a fluid head. Autofocus of the 100-400 is a bit less snappy than with faster lenses that I have used, but it's not slow, it just seems to hesitate a bit more in low light. Images have been in focus so that hesitation so far didn't translate into any worse results. I set the focus limiter to "3 m to infinity" because it would be unusual that I'd use that lens at shorter distances than 3 m, and it may speed up the focus acquisition a bit. I like the fact that the 100-400 is about the same size as the 70-200 and so it fits in the same bag slot without having to reconfigure the padding to take a larger lens. I think the focal range of 100-400 is a good fit for landscape details but also some outdoor events such as concerts where I may need a whole-band view in addition to close-ups and the 100-400 can do both, while a 180-600 or a 400/4.5 would necessitate lens switching to go from the close-up to the whole-stage view. These considerations led to the lens choice. I guess if I need a longer focal length in the future the 600 PF can nicely complement this lens, but for now my applications do not require it. The 600 PF and 800 PF are clearly bird photographers' lenses and when I was doing that for a few years I found it was so time-consuming it meant I wasn't doing my other subjects justice, and I didn't want that. I guess that's one of the advantages of the 180-600: you can get close-ups of birds etc. but don't have to commit to only getting portraits; it would be easy to zoom out and show the animal in its environment, or a group of animals with that lens. Still, I have no doubt the 600 PF will find its users over time.

The 600 PF is smaller and lighter and so it should be less fatiguing to use than the 800. I consider this to be the main attraction of the 600 PF. The 600 PF focuses reportedly about twice as fast from MFD to infinity than the 180-600. Another attractive characteristic. Finding and keeping a bird in flight in the frame during a sequence should also be easier with the slightly shorter and much smaller lens. If you want to carry and cover a range of focal lengths, the size and weight of the largest lens can make a big difference to overall portability of the set. If you carry camping gear as well, even more so.

Here is a hands-on evaluation:

A new light rail started in Espoo and Helsinki on Saturday and it passes by the university where I work. It has been interesting to see bus traffic being partially replaced by the metro and now the light rail. We used to have a really extensive bus network but I guess because the rail traffic doesn't produce local emissions it is preferred. However, it changes the value of apartments quite a bit and so people who live close to the new rail lines get to enjoy the benefits while others are ... enjoying the relative peace and quiet I guess. 😉 Z8, MB-N12, Z 100-400mm at 400mm, f/100s, f/9, ISO 160, tripod.

I'm sure they can, but at least the one that Fuji uses in their 40 MP camera (e.g., X-T5) is not stacked and so it might not be a better choice for action photography than a Z8 or Z9 even if it means shorter (and smaller) lenses could be used to achieve what you want to do. The stacked sensor model from Fuji (X-H2S) has 26 MP. These features like no blackout and short viewfinder lag, silent photography without significant rolling shutter, all depend on the stacked sensor. The question then is if it is cost-effective to develop a 40MP DX stacked sensor camera, and whether it would mean that Nikon as a whole would make more profit than they do without having such a camera, and placing their R&D money on something else, such as long focal length lenses of intermediate aperture (so that an FX kit can be portable enough) like they have been doing recently. Since the Fuji X-H2S costs about 3000€ now (in Finland), a 40 MP stacked sensor model might cost 4000€ or so, and that would mean one could almost get a Z8 for the same price. I suspect many people expect a DX pro mirrorless camera to cost the same as a D500 did, but that's probably not realistic given the cost of the technology. Reasons for having such a camera would be to support cinema lenses that have super 35 coverage, such as those used for wildlife documentaries etc. Canon has a 50-1000mm t/5.0-f/9, for example. Try to get the equivalent of that in full frame ... But I think Nikon's main focus is on FX and they're unlikely to start making super 35 cinema lenses, even if they're more practical for video than the ultra-shallow-depth-of-field FX.

Hmm, was that published somewhere? It seems, looking at the prices of the 800/6.3 PF vs. the 800/5.6 FL (or Canon's RF 800/5.6), PF elements offer a much more economical way of making highly corrected supertelephoto lenses than fluorite. However, Nikon's 800/5.6 FL is still better in terms of MTF than the current f/6.3 PF. But perhaps the difference is less important to many users than the improvement in handling and transportability.

I ran into a little problem trying to use my small Gitzo fluid head with a panoramic rail and Zf to do video of a lights festival on Sunday. I use the RRS panoramic rail to balance the Zf with 24-70/2.8 so that I can let go of the handle and the head won't drift up or down. I noticed that the 24-70's hood interfered with the front part of the panoramic rail. The reason is that the Zf bottom is only a few millimeters below the mount and the fitted Smallrig grip that came with the camera has a low profile and so the front of the lens with hood mounted does not fit properly with the rail. The Gitzo fluid head is meant for lenses like the 70-200/2.8 and mounting on the lens, so I can't blame them for the design. What's nice about the head is that it has the Arca-Swiss compatible QR system so the RRS panoramic rail will fit and normally allow direct mounting with larger cameras. Anyway if I removed the hood, it was okay, and I could also make the hood fit if I mounted the camera from its corner, which I wasn't terribly keen on, but it worked. However, that very same low profile of the Zf makes it balance nicely on the DJI RS 3 Mini gimbal stabilizer, so it's a case of conflicting requirements, I guess. I think I have a taller Arca-Swiss L-bracket that might give enough clearance for this setup to be used without mounting the camera off-center to the side, but it is quite substantial in weight, so some of the advantages of the camera go away. For video purposes, I could take just the base part which makes it OK, as the vertical component is removable. I find it somewhat tricky to do video with these cameras as there are so many considerations with compatibility of parts that I haven't run into when using them for still photography. In particular using Arca-Swiss plates and L-brackets works with many still photography heads but most video (fluid) heads use their own systems which are not compatible. This includes the DJI gimbal which comes with its own QR system. Also for the second time the microphone cable connector came loose when I moved the camera and tripod to get past spectators who parked themselves in front of my camera (unfortunately I only noticed it later). It always happens when photographing or videographing samba dancers. I only got a good signal on the L channel; the R was weak. I copied the L to the R tracks and it was usable, but whenever I try to get away with one microphone, it seems that something happens that ruins the audio (not completely, but to a point where it is not as high quality as it could have been). I'd like to have Nikon adopt either a digital audio interface (working with the microphone manufacturers and/or other camera manufacturers on a standard) or a cable that locks. There is a TASCAM CA-XLR2d Analog Interface Kit but it depends on the analog cable to record the signal by the camera, so it would not solve the problem that I'm having. I could try a different brand of cable to see if there is a problem with the one that came with the RODE microphone I've been using. Now, I hope Nikon doesn't modify the hot shoe to accept microphone signals in the way Canon did, causing for older flashes to require an adapter... but some kind of locking audio cable would be great. The video image quality on the Zf was very nice though; I used the 4K 25 fps setting. It seems to give about 130 Mbit/s in 8-bit mode (quick calculation). The autofocus handled the chaotic samba situations quite well, not perfectly, as there were situations where the dancers formed a gap in front of my camera or were turned away, so the autofocus didn't have faces to focus on, but overall it works nicely. I would say the Zf AF is slightly less reliable than the Z8's but much better than what I had experienced with the Z6 II. I think if it hadn't been a twilight situation, stopping down to f/5.6 and using manual or preset focusing would have been appropriate, but unfortunately the light was low and I decided to shoot at f/2.8, so that required AF in practice. I need to do some editing but I'm getting closer to something usable. 😉

I can't speak for others, but I don't think it is a question of brand loyalty but a result of a process, a path that lead individual photographers to where they are. People choose the gear that solves their photographic problems, find their way to a solution in the beginning, and once they have a working system, it becomes very costly and often/sometimes counterproductive to switch to another manufacturer. Other manufacturers may have advantages in specific areas but invariably I have found them to also come with disadvantages. While photography is technical but it's also an art form and a passion, and in order to continue, one has to be able to produce results that one likes, and also enjoy the process of producing them. What each of us like is inherently subjective and everyone tends to gravitate to their preferred gear, subject to financial and other limitations such as time (many don't have time to explore a lot of equipment). Some of us try out other gear from time to time, have used other equipment over the years and use Nikon because of personal preference (either to the results, the process, in many cases both) and not because of loyalty towards a company.

The D800E had the similar two layers of OLPFs as the D800, but in the D800E the second layer was oriented so that it cancelled the effect of the first. The net effect was no OLPF. It meant both camera had the same optical stack thicknesses. Canon used the same approach in the 5Ds and 5Ds R. The D810 used a different approach where there was no OLPF. I got occasional moire problems with it. On the 45 MP sensors (D850, Z7/Z8/Z9) these problems are easier to avoid as the sensor resolution is adequate for most lenses and apertures to avoid most aliasing problems. Not completely though. With the 500 PF when using a tripod, fluid head and EFCS, I could see moire on bird close-ups. So a higher resolution sensor is needed for clean color texture rendering.

Jim Kasson thinks the 24 MP FX sensor that Nikon used in the Z6 has optical low-pass filter on one direction only (normally there are two orthogonal layers). However, I haven't looked into this in detail. I suspect the Zf sensor is similar to the one in the Z6. https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/mp-dont-matter-for-printing-or-do-they/

I don't think this feature exists in the Zf.

Spinning wheels and people in carriages. Zf, 85/1.8, f/2.8, 1/15s, ISO 360.

At Linnanmäki amusement park, there is an annual festival of lights. The local samba school Império do Papagaio was one of the performers. Zf, 85/1.8, f/1.8, 1/500s, ISO 2000.

For a change, I've been photographing subjects in my daily surroundings that I haven't photographed before. This building is relatively new. In the building that stood in its place previously, there was e.g. a movie rental place that no longer is in that business as streaming has taken over. Zf, Z 85/1.8 S, f/4, 1/60s, ISO 560.

The Zf allows subject detection and eye focus confirmation even with manual focus lenses, and manual focus mode with autofocus lenses. One can select the area mode from auto area, wide area small and wide area large, and within that area, it'll search for the current subject type. These can be selected from the photo shooting menu. It's very demanding to use on the eye especially in close-ups I tried it with a manual focus 50/1.4 lens and I could only get the indicator to change color when I was shooting a 1/2 body portrait and when taking a close-up of the face the depth of field was so shallow it was not easy. But this mirrors the challenges in using manual focus lenses wide open. I quite like the help provided as the focus peaking may be good for larger subjects but it is not precise enough (IMO) for the eye. Not to the level that we're used to with modern AF systems anyway. So a new life for manual focus lenses! And the camera allows one to sort of choose which aspects of the old style one wants to use, and take others from the modern methods if desired, selecting feature by feature. It's at first a bit confusing (because one can't for example set auto ISO from the ISO dial, it is a separate setting) but I'm really beginning to like the camera's flexibility.

The 105 AF Micro is a bit better in the macro/close-up range where the 105 VR displays excessive CA in the outer areas and doensn't feel quite as clean and crisp as one might hope for. But the 105 AF Micro is really hard to focus at portrait distances where the 105 VR is very good (both manual and AF). I found it impossible to get consistent focus from the older lens in applications involving human subjects (head shot to full body). The bokeh is nicer on the VR version. It just lacks the critical sharpness in the macro range that one would hope for. Opinions were mixed on the VR Micro at the time. The Z 105 MC I find to be excellent in every way. Bokeh, sharpness, CA, focus accuracy. But picking up initial focus can be challenging with mirrorless cameras if the initial focus is way off, so manual focus is often needed to get the system started. Then refine focus with AF. The Z MC has more precise focus shift stepping and maintains exposure more consistently across the series than the 105 VR in my experience. If you have the 105/2.8D AF Micro and use it in situations where it excels, there is no reason to not continue using it. 😉