Gary Naka

Zooms will be difficult, because of the zoom mechanism.

I brought a Nikon 80-200/4 pre-AI lens to be CLAed, and the tech said the CLA would not be worth the cost, because of all the work that was involved in reassembling and colimating the lens.

A prime would probably be much easier and cheaper to do.

I don't own a macro lens for my Canon EF mount bodies and I'm not concerned about using it with a mirrorless body since I don't own one. I'm looking for an affordable macro lens to give macro a try and see if it's something new to add to my hobby. I'm looking at a sub $300.00 lens. What do you use and what would you recommend?

To "give macro a try," I would go with the close up lens/filters that Mark mentioned.

Cheap enough to give away, if you find that close-up is not your thing.

Or, do what I did.

I use an old manual focus Nikkor 55/3.5 macro lens on my Nikon. I got it for less than $50. IOW it was CHEAP. I went with a manual focus lens because, I do so little macro work that spending $500+ on a macro lens did not make sense, to me. The cheap manual macro lens was "good enough."

I do not know if Canon has a similar manual focus EF macro lens.

Another related recommendation is to get a 4-way macro rail, like this one:

This is just an example. There are many different rails to choose from, at different price points.

The rail makes fine adjustments MUCH easier. You don't have to pick up and move the tripod an inch to the side, you just adjust the position of the camera on the rail. EASY.

BTW, Canon did something that Nikon did not do.

Many years ago, Canon switched from the breach lock FD mount to the bayonet EF mount.

This was a BIG disruption in the Canon landscape.

But unlike Nikon Canon went all electronic, whereas Nikon went with a mechanical AF, the aperture ring used a follower and the aperture was controlled by a lever.

Even the later AF-S G lenses without an aperture ring had an aperture ring lever.

So Canon had no need for a motor in the EF/R adapter, everything was already electronic.

While the mechanical AF and aperture was OK, going forward it was an albatros around Nikon's neck.

How to go from mechanical to electronic, without significant compromises?

The mechanical AF was already dropped in the Nikon D3xxx and D5xxx cameras.

So this is nothing new. The writing was on the wall.

The Fringer EF/NZ adapter is comparatively easy and compact, compared to the FTZ, because it is all electronic. And it is $50 more than the FTZ.

Let's see Fringer make a FTZ adapter with mechanical AF, and how much will that cost?

Ironic, Ken Rockwell launches another rant today about the Nikon F mount and FTZ today. Sure, I would like to have the 180/2.8 and 105/2DC AF function on a Z body, but not that big of a deal. I sold my D810, but still have a D3s and recently got a super cheap deal on a D800 should I want to use those lenses. The D800 is a good one, it does not seem to need any AF fine tune thus far, and I like the color rendition it delivers. When they get cheap, I will probably get a D850.

 

Typical of modern online media, the KR piece is written to inflame, not so much report on facts. Guess it keeps traffic coming to his site.

re:

Nikon FTZ & FTZ II Lens Adapter Compatibility & Review

There are facts in the post. Just with personal comments as well. But that has always been his style of writing.

That is no different than some of the Youtube "experts." Some of which I cannot stand listening to, so I don't.

It is easier to ignore what someone writes, just skip over it, than to ignore what someone is verbally saying.

The screw drive AF is in a way like the F mount.

Nikon had to make a decision on what to bring forward with the Z cameras.

Nikon dropped the F mount in favor of the Z mount, much to the displeasure of many.

With the FTZ they limited it to electronic AF-S lenses.

• If there was to be a screw drive FTZ, it would have been the first model, where it would have the most appeal.
   
  
• Not having the screw drive AF was a bad hit, as it immediately removed a lot of lenses from migrating to the Z camera, and caused a LOT of complaining.
  

In part it could be engineering.

• In thinking about the issue, if the AF motor is in the FTZ, the camera lens interface would have to have the circuits to tell the AF motor which way and how much to turn, and also power that motor. Is that significantly different than what it takes to control and power the AF-S lenses, I don't know.
  
• Could they fit a screw drive AF motor and mechanism into the space of the FTZ? The protrusion at the bottom of the FTZ is for the aperture lever motor. It would need another protrusion for the AF motor. And it has to be in a specific place to power the AF screw. So the FTZ gets BIGGER.
   
  
• Could the camera power TWO motors in the FTZ?
   
  
• Mirrorless cameras already are power sucking devices. Based on usage, the AF motor would drain the battery even faster.
  

It could be marketing.

• Nikon wants to sell new Z lenses, for revenue. Using older AF lenses does not give Nikon any new lens revenue.
   
  
• But Nikon NEEDED the AF-S lenses, because there wasn't much Z lenses.
   
  
  • But if you can use an AF-S lens on the Z camera, would you buy a Z lens? This affects revenue.
    

  [*]Bringing the AF lenses onto the Z cameras, mean they sell even less Z lenses.

re: The manual aperture ring follower.

Like a 2nd motor, an aperture follower would take up space in the FTZ. So the FTZ gets bigger.

And the camera/lens interface has to have a link (another circuit) to communicate the manual aperture to the camera.

My guess, is the FTZ was a compromise design.

If and when I migrate to a Z camera, I will be in exactly that position, where all my screw drive AF lenses will not autofocus on the Z camera.

KRs comment about the lack of an AS mount is puzzling.

One reason for the FTZ2 is to make it smaller. Putting an AS mount on the adapter will make it big again.

And add the mechanical AF motor and aperture ring follower and it get BIGGER.

As much as I would like smart focusing, for most of the sports that I shoot, it ain't goina happen for a long time.

AI AF has to get much smarter, to pick out and track MY subject, in the mass of other players, half of whom are wearing the SAME uniform.

Yes it takes a lot of practice to be able to track a moving subject, going behind and between other players.

And in the case of football, tracking the right player.

Only the ones that I have and have not replaced with an AF-S or Z lens.

Assuming I get the Z 24-120 + my F 70-200 AF-S, that only leaves my F 75-300 AF. And I have been planning to replace that lens for a few years anyway.

So nothing.

The other problem is, how FAST is the screw drive FTZ?

My F4 runs the screw drive MUCH faster than my D70 and D7200.

To use for sports, it would have to be as fast as the F4, not the D70.

Try it. It won't be. Not unless you live in a gloss-white painted packing case.

 

If the "non-reflective environment" instruction stated in the standard was followed, then all other scenarios would require less exposure, not more.

 

Why so eager to defend the universal hyperbole of manufacturers?

Quote:

End quote

So what is the reference "non-reflective room?"

Absent any specifications and definition, as you say it could be anything from not mirrored to MATT BLACK with light absorbing panels, or a hanger.

Unless you have enough details of the measurement requirements, you cannot duplicate the test conditions. So you cannot evaluate how the test conditions compare to a real life environment.

What I am saying is that the exposure from the flash depends on the environment.

So if the GN is based on some representative "indoor" situation, you will not get the same exposure inside your house and outside in the backyard.

So if you primarily shoot outside, you WILL need more exposure, because there are no walls and ceiling to reflect the light back onto the subject.

And yes, IF the GN is based on near zero reflectance, then that is more representative of shooting outdoors.

So if you then go indoors, you will overexpose because of the light reflected back from the walls and ceiling.

Now to take this discussion from theoretical to real.

My real world experience when I shot film with manual flashes, for many years, was:

• Indoors, in an average size room in a house (say 15x10ft with 8ft white ceiling), the GN on the flashes that I used, was close enough for a good exposure.
  
• Outdoors or in a large banquet hall, the GN was 1 stop low, and I needed another stop more exposure.
   
  
• This was consistent for ALL my manual flashes.
   
  
• This was based on film exposure, not a flash meter test.
  

When I switched to digital, I used first an Automatic flash, then a TTL flash. So, with digital, I do not use the GN calculator.

So, for today's flashes, I have no idea how close or far the mfg GN is from reality.

Pay attention to the battery.

If it swells, stop using it. The danger is, if it swells too much, it could get STUCK in the camera. And if you can't get it out, it means an expensive trip to Nikon service to remove it.

In school, one class was using a battery that they had to "pry" out of the camera. I told the teacher to replace the battery, or one day it will be STUCK in the camera.

So they cheat. That's what I am complaining about not because the GN is of no use but because in fact I would pretty much know what GN it actually is.

It's not like you buy 1 lbs of something and you may get more or less than 1 lbs. It's like you know if you buy 1 lbs you almost sure to get 1/2 lbs.

You are missing the point.

GN is based on testing in a standardized environment, whatever that may be, and however unrealistic you may think it is.

Exposure in the camera depends on the environment that the flash is in.

Inside my house, the GN exposure might be right on.

But outside the house in the back yard, the GN exposure will be one stop low. This is because there is no walls and ceiling to reflect the light back onto the subject.

Take the flash back into the house, and the GN exposure will be right on.

Even inside, the GN exposure might be different.

If I go to my friend home with a large room, high ceiling and dark walls and floors, there is less light reflected back to the subject, and the GN exposure would be less than my home with smaller rooms, an 8 ft ceiling and white walls and light floor.

With the SAME light output, the environment is changing the exposure.

If you shoot in a different environment, than the testing environment, the exposure WILL be different.

And if you shoot in different environments (home, office, church, banquet hall, etc.), the exposure will be different in each environment.

GN is an open loop concept. It is based on just the output of the flash, no consideration is given to the environment.

Automatic and TTL flashes use feedback to attempt to compensate for some of the environmental factors.

In your case, it seems that you are shooting in a larger/darker environment than the GN was determined in.

This does not mean the mfg is "cheating" it just means that your shooting and the testing environments are different, so that you cannot use the mfg GN. You have to adapt it to YOUR conditions.

Gary, I like what you said! I shoot with one single center focus point (for all my setup be it Canon or Olympus or Sony) since I found that no matter what they tell you. I get soft images if I use multiple points or it's not sharp enough for me. Glad to hear your thought and sharing on this.

Actually the reason I use single point is that I shoot sports, and I often have to thread a shot between other players.

Example, shooting the football QB, I am shooting between the other players on the field. So I have to be able to place the AF point on MY subject. So as much as I would love the camera to find and lock onto MY subject, the technology isn't here yet.

The only sports that I can use a group/zone AF are tennis, baseball and softball, where MY subject is clear of other players.

There was a discussion on one of the forums about shooting BiF.

WHERE is the camera' AF focusing on; the tip of the wing, the head, the body, the tail?

The GN discussion is no different than the power wars for HiFi back in the 1970s/80s where the goal was to have the highest possible number to advertise.

So the testing, flash design and reporting are manipulated to give the highest GN.

• Example1 - In the old days, a flash was designed just to cover a 50mm normal lens, to maximize the GN. vs. another flash that could cover a 35mm lens, but with a lower GN.
  
• Example2 - GN is/was given at ASA/ISO 100, but I've seen a few done at a higher ISO, to give a higher GN. You had to READ the specs to see that.
   
  
• Example3 - A few years ago, when I was looking at flash specs, the GN was given for the flash in max tele zoom position, where the light is concentrated the most, to get the highest GN. While they tell you that, it is up to you to figure out what the GN would be in the normal lens position, so that you can compare different flashes and determine if the "normal" GN will match your needs.
  

But to be fair, your shooting environment has to be similar to the testing environment. If the testing is done in a small room, but you never shoot in a small room, but instead shoot in LARGE rooms or outside (as wedding/event photographers do), then there is little/no light reflected back to the subject. So of course the advertised GN will not match what you use.

In the end, you have to test YOUR flash in YOUR shooting environment to determine YOUR GN.

My experience echos RJ.

In a LARGE room or outside, open 1 stop from what the flash calculator says.

Or divide the film ASA by 2. So rather than 100, I would set the calculator dial to 50.

Our joke was similar to RJ.

The mfg GN was determined in a small WHITE room.

There was a BIG improvement going from the mk1 to the mk2. And I made the upgrade.

But from what I've read on the m4/3 forum, there wasn't that big of an improvement, for ME, going from the mk2 to the mk3. So like Robin, I did not upgrade.

The EM1X is too big/heavy for me, I might as well be using a FF camera.

The AF of the 1X is superior to the mk2, smarter, but I would not say faster.

The mk3 inherited some of the AF tech from the 1X, so it is smarter than the mk2.

As for AF speed, I think you are more limited by the speed of the lens to focus, than the camera's AF.

Mechanical devices being MUCH slower than electronics.

Example1, when I shoot volleyball, and QUICKLY switch from player A to player B, then immediately press the shutter.

The camera (Nikon D7200) will fire, and that 1st shot will be often out of focus. The lens (35/1.8) is still moving the focus from A to B.

The lens is in focus by the 2nd shot, 1/6 sec later.

Example2. Same camera, different lens (Tamron 17-50/2.8). The first 2 or 3 shots are OOF, because the 2nd lens focuses SLOWER than the 1st lens.

My EM1-mk2 + 12-40/2.8 behaves similar to example 1. On a FAST subject change and fire, the 1st shot is often OOF.

The Nikon battery is rated at 7.4V 1500 mAh, so the charger is designed for it. My question is would the charger able to charge up the 3rd party battery rated at 2200mAh? It just takes longer? Let's assume it's up to spec, I am curious to know how things are supposed to work. Thanks!

It should be. However, I am NOT a battery engineer.

Example, The Nikon charger might charge at C/2 = 750mA. The 2200mAH battery at the same C/2 = 1100mA. (C/2 is a random charge rate for this example)

Presuming the charger is current limiting, so would not charge at more than the mA above.

The 2200mAH battery will just take longer to charge in the Nikon charger. Ignoring charging losses, that would be 2.9hrs vs. 2 hours.

to me the ultimate Hawaiian experience takes place at the Big Island , stay in Hilo

Several places, I like Volcano.

Get a crater view room at the Volcano Hotel.

In the clouds at Haleakala, Maui elevation 10,000 feet at sunset. [ATTACH=full]1387550[/ATTACH]

IF you break out above the clouds.

I went up for the sunrise, and did not break out. The summit was IN the cloud.

Tricky to know?

 

As the D700 is reporting as a %, I guess a full EnEl3 with 1500mA is 100%.

 

If, big if, the clone battery is genuinely 2200mA, is it going to report nearly 150%?

 

Don't know myself, but I doubt it!

If capacity is measured by voltage, a higher capacity battery would have the same starting voltage as a lower capacity battery.

It would just go down slower.

Battery capacity is often over-rated.

I tested more than 20 Tenergy NiMH batteries (AA and sub-C), and NONE came near 80% of rated capacity.

I even tested at the lowest drain that my tester went down to, and still the batteries were way short.

Capacity is measured on a load.

The tricky bit is that you can get a higher capacity by testing on a load with a lower current drain.

And I have NEVER seen a load spec associated with the battery capacity. ie. 3000mA at 500mAH load. So you don't know how much the mfg is playing numbers games to get a higher capacity.

In the case of the Tenergy NiMH cells, it seems to me that someone in marketing just pulled a number out of air, so that they could sell it as a "high capacity" battery.

IOW, they either made up a number or lied.

If the capacity of a 3rd party battery was significantly more than the OEM battery, I would "smell a rat."

What kind of magic battery chemistry do they have that the OEM does not?

Drat, only the Z6, not the Z6ii. Same with the Z7 and Z7ii. So looks like they are clearing old inventory.

And no 24-120/4.

Guess I will wait to see what the December update might be.

I was hoping for a sale price on a Z6ii + 24-120/4.

I’m leaning more towards 24-105 bc of that extra reach,- although I believe 24-70, is bit sharper,-)

Yes that is often the quandry.

Practical reach vs. optical quality.

Rank your priorities, and pick the winner.

For ME, for a GP lens, if the IQ is decent/acceptable (for me), then reach wins.

With both 24-105 and 24-70 being f/4 lenses, I would go with the 24-105.

I don't know but I don't think the 24-105 is SIGNIFICANTLY larger/heavier than the 24-70. So why not the longer zoom range.

Like Mick, I prefer the longer zoom range for a GP lens. It delays when you need to switch to a longer lens.

If the 24-70 was the f/2.8 lens, then I would say BOTH. For different reasons.

The 24-70/2.8 for the extra speed, in lower light. Sometimes that extra stop does make a difference.

As for the 70-200/4, for me, more so than cost, was the weight difference between the f/4 and f/2.8 lenses. The f/4 was HALF the weight of the f/2.8 lens, and for an old man, that makes a difference.

So, why the 24-105mm 'typo'?

 

Trying to spot a leaker?

 

Fast lenses are now so much more about using shallow DoF and OOF effects than letting in enough light to get a fast enough shutter speed etc. Film completely ran out of gas at ISO3200,

 

I don’t start worrying about noise until well past ISO4000 on the Z6ii.

 

Anyone know how good those long and very slow Canon lenses are?

That depends on what YOU shoot.

For ME, shooting high school sports in a dim gym or field at night, it is all about light. I need enough light to get a decently sharp image. DoF or OOF effects is way down my ladder of importance. In fact, I would rather have MORE DoF than less. As it is, with an f/4 lens, I am up at ISO 8000 to 16000.

As for the f/11 Canon lenses . . .

Again it depends, and it is not only the lens.

If you shoot thing that don't move very fast, during the DAY, it is OK.

Using the sunny 16 rule, to be at 1/1000 sec, I would have to set the SS to ISO 1000, on a sunny day.

Even faster if you are shooting a fast moving subject. I shoot tennis at 1/2000 sec, so my base ISO was 2400.

But if it overcasts, you can quickly be up to ISO 6400 and higher. Been there, done that.

So what is the IQ of your camera at ISO 6400+ ?

IF the camera has GOOD high ISO IQ, you can do it.

That has been a problem ever since I can remember, and probably a long time before.

Don't leave gear out and easy to grab and run. Don't put gear down and turn your back on it. A trunk is better than a hatchback.

Make sure your camera gear is covered by your homeowners/renters/camera rider insurance.

I've heard of drive by (cut and run) theft in Europe.

They go by you on a scooter, cut the camera/bag strap and speed off with the camera/bag.

yay, a 24-120/4, rather than the shortened 24-105. :)

70-200/4 is still missing. :(

At the time, I wasn't very conversant on the different types of rechargeable battery cells. However, just from my experience, the Honeywell Strobonar form factor may have inhibited the use of "full-size" C cells. The battery tray was a tight fit, but overall, the Nicad cell was a quantum improvement over D-cell and 510v battery packs. I can remember seeing photographers using huge dry-cell packs, including the 510v types, who seemed to have permanent stoop shoulders from the weight.

 

My dad was a journeyman electrician, and he always advised me to completely drain the Nicad cells to help with recharging. And I can remember the first Skil rechargeable drill I owned, and taping down the trigger to ensure the complete discharge of the Nicads whenever I finished using it.

The benefit of the 510v HV pack was the FAST recycle time.

I got the Strobonar 800 specifically for that reason. It essentially was instant, as fast as I could crank the film advance lever.

Yes the battery pack is a hassle to deal with, but the FAST recycle times was worth the hassle. The Honeywell single 510v battery packs were not near as heavy as some of the others which were HEAVY. I think those had the capacitors and electronics in the pack.

Even today, I use a HV pack on my flashes. FAST recycle time is like drugs, once you get used to it, you can't live without it.

The other benefit of the HV pack was it removed the batteries and step up circuits from the flash. This made the 800 a rather light and comparatively easy to use flash (vs. something like a Sunpak which is HEAVY).