zhangyue
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #13 · Alt forum Nikon Z resource, discussion and image thread | |
rafa1981 wrote:
For me it's the sensor performance with old glass (stack, colors) that can make me switch.
Both Canon and Nikon are providing adapters for existing lenses, so they have good reasons to keep similar stack widths to those at their DSLRs. I don't know if this is good or bad.
If your goal is adapt old SLR lens, then you can have a peace of mind. There will be no problem for those. However, we all look forward to see how rangefinder glasses perform on it. If WA is sharp cross frame at f11, It is enough for me. For 50mm and above, as long as there is no funky bokeh for certain lens caused by sensor stack like Sony did, I'd be happy. Given the fact that all people rave the EVF experience, I hope I can finally use my fast manual glass without seeking peaking or magnification, but focus confirmation will be used as always. I will report this as first priority.
---------------------------------------------
rscheffler wrote:
Guys, thanks for the eye-AF feedback, much appreciated. Definitely sounds like the third-gen Sony bodies are better. Yes, I did use an a9 for around a month and among the things I shot were a couple NFL games and weddings. Only had the 100-400 and 70-200/2.8 available to use. For sports it was pretty much a sideways move from Canon IDXII and not an overall improvement. Therefore a wash for me. Here eye-AF isn't all that relevant. At the weddings the frustration was how it recovered after losing a face. Part of that may have been the relatively short time I had with the system and not fully getting to know its ins and outs. But it was better than the a7RII. It sounds like there likely will still be some automation-driven decisions by the camera that will conflict with my preferences in potentially fluid, fast paced situations. In my case the fallback reaction is typically manual point selection override to eliminate unwanted surprises.
Being a Canon user I'm definitely following the Canon rumors with interest. So far it seems like a fairly typical Canon introduction of 'new' technology. Put it in a prosumer camera to test the waters, buy some time, then refine in later higher-end products. In the meantime their DSLRs will continue to address the needs of advanced users, despite the slagging they get on the forums. The lenses are IMO teasers to show that Canon will eventually address more demanding users' requirements and potentially stem some of the flow to Sony. For someone like me invested in Canon, it will be enough to keep me a while longer. From my POV the 28-70/2 as a halo lens makes more sense than Nikon's 58/0.95, from a practicality perspective. It will appeal to a broader user base, such as weddings, events, etc., where AF is desirable. But it's probably my least favorite zoom range, therefore low on my want list (but please make a 70-1XX/2 to complement it). I'm not interested in a massive 28/2 lens, or 35/2, or 50/2... I'd rather cherry pick a couple fast, smaller primes within that range. I guess those will eventually come, like the 35/1.8.
Like many others here, the appeal of a FF mirrorless will be for adapting older manual focus lenses. In my case primarily Leica M. I don't expect great performance with wide angle lenses, for the same sensor stack reasons Sony is a poor solution. But, as a go-between my Canon EF lenses and longer Leica M and R lenses, Canon's mirrorless would make a lot more sense for me than adding a Sony body to the mix.
The Nikon 35/1.8 samples look pretty good... if also a bit generic looking in that 'clean, modern rendering' sense. Just seems to be the direction in which everyone is going... Nikon, Sigma, Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss, etc.....Show more →
I agree with neutral rendering of 35mm. I know 50mm might have better performance than 35m based on MTF.
I also hold the same view about all those AF technology. I noticed you word your description very carefully about It sounds like there likely will still be some automation-driven decisions by the camera that will conflict with my preferences in potentially fluid, fast paced situations.  I agree with you fully. For portrait, I haven't found any latest tech are must that can get something I can't get from any camera body from my D700 years, even Leica M and S.
Most of those praised A9 seems are bird or sports shooters and I have no doubt about its capability. If there is one area need super fast track and focus acquisition, it is sports and bird shooting. When I try to track puffin in Iceland with 70-200f4 and D850, I realize how limited my manual skill can be done there once the little bird is in fly and I was trying to fill the most frame with little bird on fly, the only way to do that is rely on D805's AF. (but 70-200f4 focus speed is still limiting) No way, my manual focus or poor AF will work in that situation. I barely can keep the bird in frame without loose it. However, once they are on ground, manual focus is work perfectly if I choose to.
Having said that, most award winning wild life images or some really good ones I truly enjoy viewing are not those requiring any fancy AF either but years of experience of understanding location, light, timing etc.....
I am surprised to see the quietness of Canon side after reveal spec. Good for Canon, the people are still with Canon seems happy with what they have (they really should IMO) and know what they want and expect. That is all that matters. Endless talk about how this tech or that trick works wonder like never before is really boring.
Are you plan to get a Canon R? I think Canon might price it aggressively. I personally think Z7 is over priced.
RexGig0 wrote:
It is good to read the part about Novoflex.
Thanks!
If Novoflex produces adapters for Leica-R and/or Leica-M lenses, on the Z mount, I may decide to acquire a Z camera earlier than I had previously anticipated.
There will be lots of adapters within a month of Z on customers hand. For manual focus adapting traditional SLR lens, I will rate Z above anything out there now. ergonomics, EVF, flange distance, best FF IQ with no drop bit or filtering raw stuff going on. Way to go.
---------------------------------------------
charles.K wrote:
Thanks Michael for starting this thread! Great information and very balanced perspectives
I agree the eye AF on the A7rII I found unreliable to the point I just used the AF-C with movable square for portraits and events. The time it came unstuck was back lighting almost worse than low lighting. I have tested the A7rIII and it is better but with the GM 85 I still found there was a time delay in the eye AF locking in the eye and some hunting in medium to low lighting. I suspect the FE 85/1.8 is better. I also tried the A9 and it very good with eye AF fast and accurate. The A7III errs towards the A9 in AF performance so it is a great choice. I almost purchased the A7III myself for video clips.
Still I suspect the Z7 in terms of AF will be very good as I have now heard from other people who had the Z7 for an extended period and found it to be excellent. With slower lenses the AF will suffer but until we have the Z7 in hand it is a lot of speculation. I know I was one of the first adopters with the Fuji XT2 and Xpro2 and I was disappointed with the dynamic AF and eye AF in spite of all the glowing reports.
I am still not so convinced of eye AF as when you need it to lock it is close or there is a delay and often quicker to use AF-C with the selected spot. I feel the A9 is very good in this regard and the A7III is good also but processing power is dealing with 24MP's. Once you have high MP's the processing power slows down with the eye recognition algorithm. With the D850 the face detection is very good and the eye is appropriately selected through the algorithm with the OVF. This is what I have heard from the techs at Nikon. I think this is why the dynamic AF is very fast on the D850 at the expense of slightly less accuracy.
My interest is the new Z 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 as both of the these lenses are lacking in the Nikon lineup in terms of the high performance. The shots above with the Z 35/1.8 look great....Show more →
Please do share your wonderful images here once the camera is in your hand, Charles. You know I am holding the same view about eye AF as you. Most of time, I feel it worked against than for me when I use it, I believer the latest Sony body may make this feature work to the level that most like them. I don't know. It could be another case of blind man with elephant and we two are standing at same position and sharing the same perspective on how things should be done and how to shoot portrait.
I want repeat: I haven't found anything prevent me get the portrait in focus from all the body I used from D700, 800e, 810, DF, 750, 850 or A7, A7R A7RII by using traditional focus way etc.... If I missed, most of time is me who screw up with bad lighting, poor used tech or wrong setting etc...
I formally complained many things on Sony before, but AF was not one of them. The only reason I brought EYE AF up is because pretty much every people make it big deal, some info has to be shared and I would use it when I know it works based on certain situation but it is hardly golden sands like many people make it looks like. IMHO of course.
Edited on Sep 03, 2018 at 11:05 PM · View previous versions
|
