rconey

I had a D700 until 2012. When I look at those files shot at base iso they are some of the lowest shadow noise files I have. It still surprises me.

Too funny. Much appreciated.

It no longer surprises me that different nikon cameras give different exposures. I have used nikon since the film days; back then I always exposure bracketed good shots for the slide film I used. I think around the D700 some exposure control was allocated to the focus spot. That means that on a tripod, if you move the exposure spot (don't even refocus) from a dark area of the frame to a bright area (using matrix metering) you will get a different exposure. The amount of priority given to the focus point seems to have increased in the newer DSLRs. Add to that the variance in exposure with manual focus lenses. It can be quite maddening until you get used to looking at the histogram and adjusting exposure as you go. I recently changed from a D850 to a Z7, and am delighted with the histogram in the viewfinder option. Maybe I could have done this with the D850 but didn't. With the Z7 I can dial exposure compensation while looking through the viewfinder. The additional level horizon tool in the view finder really lets me dial in what I want. Obviously, as you use your camera you learn how it exposes and adjust accordingly.

The 14-24 f2.8 Z mount is a very good lens. The f4 version (14-30?) is reported to be good also. Oh, I see you reference that option. Sorry.

Rule book..... spectrophotometer? I think precise and accurate measure is possible, but I'm not that good at carrying my gray card or color calibrating my camera. So far so good.

Late to the party because of a backpacking trip to Zion NP (again! Can't get enough), but something I've thought about in landscape work. I argue that when I get home after a week out, I don't really remember what the exact color balance was. How red or orange was the rock? By necessity, I adjust to what is pleasing to me. It is probably close to "real", but unless I took the print back to the spot on a similarly lighted day I can't pretend to say it is absolutely accurate.

I have the 400 f5.6 ED AI and the TC-301. It is very good, but not very hand holdable. Needs a pretty bright day or stable subjects as well. High iso on all the newer cameras makes it easier. Moonshots at 800 mm are fun.

On a Nikon Z7 I enlarge in the viewfinder, using the central focus point on the subject. Then focus, usually not needing the focus peaking color prompt. Then zoom back out to full frame view. Then recompose the image with the subject where I want it. Unless it is a wide open, fast lens this gives the subject in focus. For static objects, it should be possible to move the focus point, zoom in, focus critically, and then take the picture without zooming back out. That still won't give precise image edge placement but is not too bad.

Was it Nikon Capture NX2 that was discontinued somewhat abruptly 5-10 years ago? I really liked that program and used it a lot. It was sad to see it go. To confuse me, when I search that program now, I see download sites by Nikon and others. Who is developing this new Nikon software, and do we know it will stick around? Ahh, those are archived pages. It went out when the D3, D3x and D700 were around.

Always Room for More..........

Hand held 1/800th sec at f8, iso 2500. Crop from the first image I put up. Tripod 1/10th second, f8, iso 64, and 3 second shutter delay. You have to be careful not to have too long a shutter time or the moon's motion will blur things.

Well, that was easy. Today I pulled out the tripod for a moon shot. 800mm. I am able to turn off auto iso, and IBIS, and use live view on the tripod as opposed to using autoiso for hand held. That means iso 64 on tripod, but iso 2500 hand held. So, for me 200-300 mm lenses go on a tripod unless very bright light, even with IBIS.

Meh. Moon shot with 800 mm, f8. I had to prop it against a chair. With magnification in the viewfinder it is very difficult to get the lens on the moon. This was best of 7. I think I have sharper ones using the D850 and a tripod, with live view. This is maybe 33% crop. So I think past 200mm-ish, IBIS can't make up for the difficulty holding the lens steady, in my experience.

I mainly used the 800 mm focal length (400 plus 2x tele) to take moon shots with a D800, later D850. I would prop the lens on the rail of my deck to get good shots. The lens goes past infinity on focus, so it could be tricky. In bright light the 400 mm was ok on a DSLR, but as my eyes get worse it is more of a crap shoot. The magnification-focus peaking is helpful if slow.This is today, probably 100 yards away hand held with 400 mm, f5.6. magnified to focus, with focus peaking. Then 100% crop of license. Not too bad.

Okay, with bright sunlight it is doable with the 400mm lens and 1/250th shutter. I do have to magnify the viewfinder heavily, focus, and then drop back to no magnification to frame, but I can get sharp focus with f5.6 at 70 yards.

I have a 400 f5.6ED and a TC-301 2x teleconverter that on a tripod are fun. I tried the 400mm and the combo hand held with the z7 and was not steady enough to get good images. After realizing I could enlarge the image in the eyepiece (not good for framing.....) I tried the 400mm alone and still could not hold steady enough. It is a beautiful, cloudless day today so maybe I'll try again with faster shutter speeds. Maybe if my hands were steadier. I found my 135 f2 Zeiss is poor unless I magnify the image in the eyepiece, but the 100 f2 zeiss is fine without magnification. All focus peaking focus.

If I remember correctly, they wanted to multiply the actual photosites by 3 because of the "stack" of bgr sensors in a vertical array. Others countered "no fair" since resolution seemed to depend more on the x-y single surface number of pixels. Blurrist: do we know if the listed resolution above (7680x5120) is the single surface pixel number or that number multiplied by 3 deep?

Not to hijack the thread, but it is REALLY nice having image stabilization and focus peaking for my manual lenses with a Nikon Z camera. I do find that for my135mm f2 lens I have to magnify the electronic viewfinder image for focus to come in properly. 100mm and below lenses do ok without magnification.

Oooooh, you mean like an f1.4 lens set to f1.4 and a medium distance subject say wanting the eyes in focus? Yea, that is pretty tough without live view.

The < o > focus notification system on my D850 works pretty well with unchipped lenses. Obviously, live view and magnification is better, but that generally means a tripod.

Lighter is certainly a big part of the question. The Z 14-24 or 30 and the Z 24-70 2.8 certainly saved weight and per reviews I have seen, have less distortion in the corners. The Z7 saves weight over the D850. I note that the Z 70-200 lens is 3 pounds! Hmmm. Maybe a 70-200 f4 AF-S with the adapter will be better for longer.

Just curious. Is the wider throat of the Z mount particularly advantageous for wide angle lenses? Perhaps less bending of light rays for the corners? Telephoto would already require less bending. I make no pretense to remember much college physics. I also am ignoring loss of the mirror, and the significant weight saving.

The first shot was an f5.6. Here is an f2.8 shot close focused on the ice to pull out the lens flaws. Close focus with a wide background is where I would most use 20 mm anyway. F2.8 is borderline with this lens . The corners are mushy, and the chromatic aberration is visible on the house edges. (This is a different house, and is on a steep hill)

Yes, or a very knobby tree.......