ilkka_nissila

I will try pixel shift when there is a suitable subject. Tomorrow it's going to rain unfortunately. Perhaps a studio product shot?

I got the Zf today, along with the Smallrig grip and ML-L7 remote. I thought the threaded shutter button would work with a mechanical cable release but this is not the case. It's cosmetic. Reportedly there is an add-on soft shutter release that does fit into the threaded hole, but the existence of the thread misled me to assume a cable release would work. It does screw onto the shutter button but there is no shutter release via pressing the remote. So bluetooth it is. I tried Snapbridge on my iPhone SE 2020, and got it to connect with 10 min of efforts, and tried "remote photography". It displayed the live view and focus area on screen, but when I tried to release the shutter, it would disconnect from wifi, and nothing would happen. I tried reconnecting and then it would fire shots by pressing the button on the touchscreen. The ML-L7 does work as expected, although not quite as short a delay as when using an electrical cable release with cameras that do support it. For synchronized triggering of remote cameras, the Zf does support some kind of network protocol which I haven't tried yet. One could then request the remote to fire when the main camera fires. The camera does feel very nice in the hand, is quite heavy, and the mechanical controls are much nicer than previous Nikon retro implementations that I've tried. This part is really nicely done. The Smallrig grip is also nice and fits perfectly, and allows access to the battery and memory card compartments. The add-on grip is more substantial than the F3-style small grip in the camera itself. However, I find the Smallrig grip makes it harder to access the sub-command dial to set aperture. It requires some finger acrobatics. I am not sure if I will be using the grip because of this issue. The camera has fewer of the normal Nikon modern camera control buttons than (say) a Z6 II or Z8, but the configurability is very good. I have been able to set everything to my liking. The record button is AF area and AF mode selector, and the front function button activates My Menu. I set the first item of My Menu to turn on and off Auto ISO, as this cannot be done from the dials, or at least I haven't figured out how it might be done. The AF works nicely, so far I haven't found anything to complain about it in that area, and in some ways it is more advanced than the Z8. There are more wide area width / height options available in the Zf than the Z8 or D6. There is no bird AF mode, contrary to what some claimed. There is animal, people, animal/people, vehicle and airplane among the list of subject modes. The VR in camera feels really nice, it's like it's a more refined version of what existed in previous Z cameras. I will next try to use the Zf for taking pictures. 🙂 So that you won't be bored with my nit-picking complaints about what are probably minor issues to most people. I have to repeat the following. The dials feel REALLY nice. One may say that what's the point of an ISO dial when all we use auto ISO. What's the point of shutter speed dial in full stops? These are legitimate questions, but that's not the point. The dials feel and sound great! I know a lot of people will roll their eyes and think how silly that is. But to me photography has to feel good to be fun. And the Zf in my opinion ticks a lot of boxes in that department. If you have any questions about the Zf let me know and I'll try to answer by trying it out.

Okay, in that case I would say it is probably normal. If you can spring for a Z 24-120/4 S, it should be much better. I never quite liked these extended-range standard zooms and have settled on being a 24-70 and 70-200 user for when I need zooms. However, the Z 24-120/4 S seems to have lot of fans.

I owned the 70-200/4 for a time and while I liked its rendering, its AF motor even with the best DSLRs couldn't keep up with a walking person approaching the camera. This was completely unacceptable. I also felt its landscape image quality was lacking compared to the f/2.8 versions. I mostly ended up using the f/4 in the studio where it was excellent. I can understand the argument for lighter weight - both the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 are quite big lenses. But I do believe Nikon's thinking is that the 70-180/2.8 serves the purpose as a lighter weight option for now. Of course, 5 or 10 years from now, they may make more options in this segment. For me, 300mm is a key focal length and a 400 cannot do its job. Cropping from 70-200/2.8 is not the same as the depth of field is quite different, and the 300mm images can also need to be cropped (but not necessarily as deep as 400mm FOV). Although I may get the 400/4.5 as it has excellent handling and great image quality, and probably half the price of a future Z 300/2.8, it doesn't change the need for the latter. Anyway the 300/2.8 F-mount works fine for me on both F and Z mount cameras, although it is heavy. The main advantage of a Z version would be that the use of an FL element could significantly lighten its weight. A second reason is that the VR on newer lenses tend to be more advanced and quieter. Finally, newer focus motors are also quieter and more precise. To me, images from 300 mm are at an aesthetic sweet spot.

I just realised I had given the wrong data on the singles photos. They were made with the 300/2.8, not 200/2. The synchronized skating photo was with the 200/2.

I don't have the 35-135 but have memories of the AF 28-105 D and mine was quite soft at 105mm. You could notice the softness in small prints without enlargement+cropping. I am not terribly surprised to see the result you have. Which camera are you using, and how did you focus? Focusing accuracy can be a significant contributing factor. If you can try live view to focus on the moon, it would probably give the best results.

Ladies free program. D6, VR 200/2G II, f/2.8, 1/1250s, ISO 2500. Later on, Ilkka posted: "I just realized I had given the wrong data on the singles photos. They were made with the 300/2.8, not 200/2." -- Shun Cheung

Synchronized skating, short program, Finlandia Trophy. Z8, MB-N12, FTZ II, VR 200/2G II at f/2, 1/1250s, ISO 1250.

The Z lenses use fewer letters. No Z lens has FL, PF, ED, E etc. in the name. Also the decorations are minimal on most Z lenses. I think they realized that the lens names had gotten too long and complicated. TC and VR seem to be still parts of lens names along with the MC for macro and S for premium lenses.

I'm sure they will. Nikon's initial fast tele prime lens releases seem to have been targeted to match and exceed their competitors in some ways (the internal TC); Canon and Sony both introduced 400/2.8 and 600/4 but initially no 300mm or 500mm. So Nikon's entries were also at these focal lengths. Nikon justified the 400/4.5 by saying that their customers reported having used 1.4X's on 300mm primes a lot of the time which is why they went straight to offering 400mm. But at least for me I don't use 1.4X's often on my 300mm lenses and never have; 300mm is just right for many of my applications. Sony has issued a development announcement on a 300/2.8 and so I would expect Nikon and Canon to produce their own versions to compete with Sony. I think the reason for Nikon's focus on longer teles rather than 300mm is because of the popularity of wildlife and bird photography which increased during the pandemic as people needed activities where they wouldn't meet too many other people (that they could get infected from) and so a lot of people picked up or became more active wildlife photography. (I am sure there will be counterarguments to this.) By contrast, sports photography during the pandemic was almost nonexistent at least during the most stringent lockdowns, and so these photographers and applications were de-prioritised at least temporarily. I noticed when I went to see Finlandia Trophy (a figure skating competition) that there was some audience but still not as many as during the pre-pandemic years. People haven't quite returned to live events in such a degree that we couldn't still see the impact of the pandemic. Also ticket prices have increased as the organizers have to cover their costs also for the pandemic years where there was not so much action but the athletes still needed to practice (and during most of the pandemic time there were still events they just had restrictions on audience size etc.). Finally, mirrorless cameras still havent caught up with DSLRs where it comes to reliable AF in sports photography, at least that is my experience comparing the Z8 and D6 during last weekend's event. There were situations where the Z8 would focus on spectators and not stick to the athletes, and they occurred somewhat unexpectedly, and with the D6 this basically never happens when I set it up correctly. I know people will cry foul over me saying this but that's simply my experience. There was no difference in AF performance between native Z 70-200/2.8 vs. 200/2II F-mount; both exhibited extremely high consistency of focus when the subjects were gliding and faces identifiable, and both focused on occasion on background subjects when the athletes were spinning. And there were DSLRs being used in the front row shooters' kits, not exclusively but still they were there, suggesting that others may have noticed the same or simply don't want to spend the money for a new kit. I do believe subject detection will improve and the Z cameras will be able to handle these tricky subjects in the future, and even now the performance is acceptable if not quite as good as with the D6. But I think these factors have influenced the speed of photographers' transition to mirrorless in different branches of photography and the sports photographers could be among the last ones to go over. I enjoyed shooting the D6 more than the Z8 for this subject and my keeper rate was higher, and so if there was a 300/2.8 Z-mount lens I might not buy it for some years before they fix the remaining issues in the autofocus in the Z cameras. Anyway, I have no doubt that the gaps in the prime lineup will be filled in time; after all the Z system is only a few years old (5?) and probably they'll keep making new lenses for it for the next 50 years.

What's kind of interesting is that Canon also let the MTF drop in their RF 800/5.6 vs. their previous EF 800/5.6, to gain portability and a higher maximum magnification in the new design.

It's a bit surprising as the lens probably works fine with the Z8 and Z9, at least Nikon had people test those combinations in the field. I haven't found any issues with the 200/2 or 300/2.8 regarding Z compatibility, I would argue that in some ways they work better than on DSLR, and in other ways the Z hasn't quite caught up (tendency to focus on background objects when temporarily the primary subject is turned away, also the upside down head problem I mentioned), but there shouldn't be any reason why a user of the 800/5.6 wouldn't be able to successfully use it with Z or DSLR cameras for that matter, into the foreseeable future. The reason of course for the interest in selling that lens is because the 800 PF with its comparatively low price gives price pressure also on the 800 FL's second hand sales. But I think those trying to sell the FL may be trying to rush to get rid of it without gaining other things than portability, probably losing some image quality. In photographylife's comparison the 800 FL really aces it https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-800mm-f-6-3-vr-s/3 f/6.3 PF's 2646 vs. f/5.6 FL's 3151 MTF50 wide open in the center, 2200 vs. 2693 in the corners wide open. "Clearly, the F-mount 800mm f/5.6E is the sharper lens. At f/5.6 in particular, it is meaningfully sharper than the mirrorless lens at f/6.3. Whether that matters is a different question. At 800mm, lens sharpness is not usually the biggest threat to getting sharp photos. Instead, atmospheric distortion, motion blur, imperfect focus, and image noise are going to cause bigger problems most of the time." In my opinion this is rather misleading as the effect of lens MTF on final image quality is multiplied by other factors and the other factors don't make the lens MTF difference go away. The better lens will help also in bad conditions to make the images less bad, and the 800 FL is a rarity among long lenses in that it can handle long distances well (according to tests; I don't have this lens!)

Well, it's not as painful as the 22699€ of the F-mount AF-S VR 800mm f/5.6 E FL. 😉 I feel no pain for the pricing of 600mm or 800mm lenses, as the 400/4.5 is reasonably affordable and probably more suitable to my needs.

The 800/6.3 PF is currently 7499€ in Finland. So there is a good bit of price difference there.

It's just that when a lens has a really short minimum focus distance, it can be slower to focus (if it goes way out of focus) and probably they couldn't get it to focus closer without changing the weight and portability is probably a key priority here, to make it nice to use hand-held. The 600 PF's price in Finland is 5999€ so that's 50% higher than the 500 PF... quite a jump, but not entirely unexpected. It is interesting to see how the sales of this lens goes against the 180-600. A 100-400 could be paired with the 600 PF where both lenses are hand-holdable for a long time. The 180-600 is cheaper but at least for me a long lens weighing 2 kg gets tiring to hand-hold pointed at the target for a longer time. So I would put it on a tripod.

I have read that the Z 100-400 focuses quite close and can be used for close-ups, but it's hard to tell from online posts how the resolution is as they are usually resized so that this doesn't show clearly. The 105 MC is actually a fair bit longer (at 1:1) than the AF-S 105 mm Micro as it loses less focal length than its predecessors upon close focus. So the difference between the 105 MC and the 200 AF D Micro isn't quite as much as one might think looking at the focal lengths alone, but there is still a difference.

If I'm not mistaken the Canon R3 can be told to follow a specific subject, and then it does its best to do so. 😉 It can also follow the subject which the photographer is looking at in the viewfinder, but I'm not completely convinced that that's how I'd like things to work. I came to think that rather than using the orientation sensor, an alternative explanation to the behavior I noticed is that the camera expects the human subject to have certain features in order, ie. torso, neck, mouth, eyes etc. and if the skater is bent backwards then the order might no seem correct to the camera (although it is the same as normally, but the body is bent in an arc shape and in a two-dimensional image on a sensor it might seem that the order of the mouth and eyes is reversed. Anyway, I don't know how the subject-detection works in Nikon cameras but clearly there are some challenges and more work ahead for Nikon. 🙂 I imagine that in the next Olympics there might be a new camera with new subject-detection features. 🙂 Of course, there is the Z9 FW 4.1 but there might be a new camera also. I am not very happy because I shot 400 GB of images today, and it'll take some time to go through them. And I was mostly shooting at 10 fps, not faster! So bad. Tomorrow I need to restrain myself if I want to avoid filling up my discs. But I have to say that the camera did a very good job focusing with the 200/2; I thought it might struggle because stuff is happening pretty fast on the ice and it does have shallow depth of field. Occasionally when the skater was spinning and turned away from the camera it would focus on the audience and then return to the skater in the next frame, which is understandable since I'm telling it to focus on faces within a part of the frame specified by the custom wide-area box, but I'd like it to stay on the subject a little longer so that it doesn't change focus between rotations unnecessarily. I guess there may be settings I can try to adjust. Technically it's not a blocked shot situation as there is nothing between the subject and the camera, but I could try to see if that setting changes the behavior. There is also the erratic/steady but it was already set to steady in my camera. Anyway with the caveats mentioned it looks like the Z8 can shoot indoor sports quite well even with an adapted F-mount lens. I can't see any significant disadvantage to shooting with the 200/2 + FTZII + Z8, apart from the rather significant weight, of course, but one can get used to such things. 😉 There is no wobble or play in the adapter, it is a firm fit and probably there is more play when using this lens on an F-mount camera. Very good job Nikon on making a solid adapter (though with the earlier cameras such as Z6 II the focusing was a bit nervous (i.e. making constant sounds and adjustments) with many F-mount lenses, but this seems to have been fixed in the Z8; the lens still makes some sounds when focusing but not more than with a DSLR, and probably less). Tomorrow I may try the 300/2.8 to see how it fares in ladies' singles and if the Z8 can operate it as well as the 200. I think it's a bit of a shame that Nikon has discontinue so many F-mount lenses that don't have Z-mount equivalents, including the 200/2, the PF 300 & 500, the 105/1.4 etc. I am sure that this has to do with market demand, but perhaps if more people got to use these lenses with the Z8 or Z9, they'd not sell those lenses so quickly (or stop buying new ones). I suspect the initial disappointment with adapted lens performance (with the first Z cameras) was misplaced (blaming the adapter or the lens, when it was something that newer cameras could and would fix without having to change the lens or adapter). Of course, it's possible that Nikon will soon introduce equivalent Z lenses, or they might not. I think there is a rather big gap between 135mm and 400mm in primes. At least there is the 135mm coming soon. 🙂

No, I suspect it uses the orientation sensor so I would need to cause a change in gravity to make it accept my upside down spinning subject's face. What is positive is that the Z8 seems to love to work with my 200/2. I am getting really nice results from men's singles with it.

I got my first opportunity to try the Z8 on photographing figure skating today. A few good things and some not so good things showed up. First, as long as the skaters are with face towards the camera and upright, and gliding, all is well, the Z8 detects the face and focuses on it without issue. However, when the skaters spin around, sometimes with face upside down, the Z8 subject detection seems to get very confused and will do just about anything but focus on the upside down face. Spectators in the background fine, male skater upright (holding the woman upside down) works great for the Z8, but no way is it going to focus on the lifted skater without placing strong restrictions on the focus area. No such problems with the D6 in custom group-area mode which tends to alternate between closest face and closest subject and never focuses on the background (unless that is the only thing under the focus rectangle). Also I found that the Z8 seems prioritises some skaters over others, in subject recognition mode; in pairs skating and ice dance this was my conclusion. So I have to do more work to get the camera to focus on my intended subject in situations where there is fast spinning and other than upright facial orientation. I can try dynamic area next, it doesn't feature subject detection. When it does recognize the subject sometimes it still focuses on the other skater even though the subject indication box indicates having recognized the one that it didn't focus on. I am not sure what is going on here - perhaps the camera simply didn't have time to adjust focus even though it identified a different subject. So, no 99%+ in-focus rate this time.... I think it's quite likely Nikon's teaching material increases in volume and covers more cases in the future. I would think gymnastics would present similar problems as pairs figure skating and ice dancing do, with regards to upside down faces and bent bodies. I will do more analysis when I have time to go through all the pictures. I am a little disappointed after having excellent luck photographing other types of events with the Z8. I'll post some pics next week. Alas, I shot a lot of pics today and it'll take some time to go through them. I had previously had problems with the Z 70-200/2.8 having too sensitive manual focus ring as when I unintentionally touched the ring it would go into manual focus override. I haven't had that problem with the F-mount version (FL E). I noticed that it's possible to swap the functions of the manual focus ring and control rings and then I could turn off the control ring (now manual focus ring) and use the physical control ring to do manual focus if needed. For this lens it seems to be necessary as I can't hold it without touching the MF ring by accident from time to time. I think it's a great lens but flawed in the position of the manual focus ring and its very high sensitivity to even the slightest touch. Anyway swapping the rings solved the problem but I am afraid the modified configuration may not work for other lenses that I have.

Guard duty.

A second picture from the same evening.

Frog pic from April. Z6 II, AF 200/4D Micro-Nikkor at f/8, 1/200s, ISO 1800. I was lying on a self-inflating mattress and trying to keep the camera steady. I used manual focus with focus peaking. I didn't even get one eye fully sharp, so f/11 would have been a better choice I guess.

Lens design involves compromises, and implementing in-lens VR probably would disrupt those bokeh balls. I am sure what improvements there are in the Zf in-camera VR mechanism will find themselves in future FX Z bodies, such as the Z9 II. At least some of Nikon's promotional videos of the 135mm were shot on a gimbal. In my opinion for telephoto video, a tripod is usually the best approach at least if the video is to be easy on the viewer's eyes.

Well, the previous 135mm from Nikon was released in early 1990s, if I recall correctly. The time period between releases of fast 105's was 23 years. These things don't get frequent updates (a little more frequent would be nice, but I don't know what is missing from the 135/1.8 to warrant a future update). There are lenses which do get frequent updates, in recent times it has been the long lenses. Nonetheless I still often use some of my 1990s era lenses.

Nikon being stuck with large quantities of lenses or cameras in a warehouse which no one will buy is also an error and could cost them more than a temporary slow delivery situation that typically lasts months for a lens that will probably be manufactured for 10 years or so. I think the temporary short supply situation and the online complaints following it is rather a case of customers feeling entitled and impatient without any meaningful reason to be in such a rush. I doubt very much that Nikon is worse off in a short supply situation, in fact it might make the products seem more desirable. People are in it for the rush and hype of having the hot new product. They're annoyed because they didn't get it as quickly as they wanted. If the product has a usable life of 30 years, one would think that people would not care if they have to wait a few months to get it.