sungphoto wrote:
Exactly, if people think $600 for a 50 f1.8 is a bitter pill to swallow, it's good to remember the sticker shock when the 55 f1.8 was unveiled with the A7. Also, though I always take MTF charts with a grain of salt as in my opinion there's more to a lens than just sharpness, the Nikon 50 f1.8 S MTF charts seem to indicate it will be sharper than the Zeiss 55 f1.8 wide open.
I suppose what I'm trying to ascertain is what justifies the cost? Is Nikon saying the 50mm f/1.8 S is "that much" better than the F version of the 50 1.8 or 50 1.4 both of which are less? When they launched the 58mm f/1.4 it came under much scrutiny due to the price and how close the focal length is to the 50mm f/1.4, but many love the 58mm because of its unique IQ and background bokeh and think it's worth it for that uniqueness, but Nikon hasn't said anything about the "uniqueness" of the 50mm 1.8 S, or if they have they've done a very poor job marketing it. I will be very curious to see how the S lens compares to the F lenses once we finally get some real world units in photogs hands.
turbodude wrote:
i have also figured out that "AF AUTO" is the Z series version of 3d tracking AF - youll hit "ok" then move the cursor over whatever you want in focus, they hit the focus button, and hold it, that will use the RGB tracking to lock focus on that specific subject as it moves within the frame, or you move the camera around. it works pretty great, i can see myself using this mode in studio situations of moving subjects (dancers and etc) or concert situations where people arent crossing over my subject like in sports.
--
I'll guess I'll have to see it in practice, hard to break old habits you know, but I'm also not averse to new techniques. If the Z6 can get me similar or better results as my D750 then I'd be pretty happy.
wjmeyer wrote:
I suppose what I'm trying to ascertain is what justifies the cost? Is Nikon saying the 50mm f/1.8 S is "that much" better than the F version of the 50 1.8 or 50 1.4 both of which are less? When they launched the 58mm f/1.4 it came under much scrutiny due to the price and how close the focal length is to the 50mm f/1.4, but many love the 58mm because of its unique IQ and background bokeh and think it's worth it for that uniqueness, but Nikon hasn't said anything about the "uniqueness" of the 50mm 1.8 S, or if they have they've done a very poor job marketing it. I will be very curious to see how the S lens compares to the F lenses once we finally get some real world units in photogs hands. ...Show more →
It is an interesting time. Nikon has big, beautiful, fast lenses that perform well on F mount. Making those big, beautiful, fast lenses in native Z mount isn't going to make them much or any smaller--so I've come around to not being disappointed by the f/1.8 initial offerings in the S line. If you look at the G lenses, the 50mm lenses (and the 35 to a lesser degree) have been around the longest and are really pretty lack-luster. I've got a Sigma 50 Art that I use and love--but I only embraced it's size and heft because I tried all of the native F-mount AF options and wasn't taken by any of them. If the S-line 50 is well behaved, I'm happy. It will be the compact standard rig for my Z6. I didn't bat an eye when I pre-ordered the 50S.
My current lens lineup that I am able to use with my Z6 is as follows:
24mm f/1.4G
50mm f/1.4Art
135mm f/1.8Art
It is actually a pretty nice spread and I am looking forward to spending some time with it. I have been a 35/85 guy for a long time, but those lenses are screw drive (85mm f/1.4D, 35mm f/2). I don't think I can bring myself to switching away from those two D lenses. IMO, they are standouts in the Nikon offerings and I have a pretty emotional connection to them.
charles.K wrote: Seriously I have always erred to fat pixels particularly with the latest sensor technology. The A7s with its mere 12 MP FF sensor produced amazing B&W shots. The graduation and fall off in rendering were unique and produced some of my favorite portraits. Similarly with the Leica M9 18MP CCD sensor and the D700/D750. I suspect the Z6 will prove to follow in line with FF 24MP latest sensor.
I have in the past always kept a high MP body and then the lower MP as I just love the tonality and fall off which lends wonderfully for portraits.
I was going to say that the sensor in the Z6 looked very analog when I first saw jpegs from it. Looking at the above images from the 28/1.4, that lens does have a signature. But the Z6 and the 28/1.4 look like a great combo.
wjmeyer wrote:
I suppose what I'm trying to ascertain is what justifies the cost? Is Nikon saying the 50mm f/1.8 S is "that much" better than the F version of the 50 1.8 or 50 1.4 both of which are less? When they launched the 58mm f/1.4 it came under much scrutiny due to the price and how close the focal length is to the 50mm f/1.4, but many love the 58mm because of its unique IQ and background bokeh and think it's worth it for that uniqueness, but Nikon hasn't said anything about the "uniqueness" of the 50mm 1.8 S, or if they have they've done a very poor job marketing it. I will be very curious to see how the S lens compares to the F lenses once we finally get some real world units in photogs hands. ...Show more →
From what I what I understand it's because mirrorless vs DSLR lenses need to be optimized for the respective AF systems, requiring different lens designs and AF motors. Mirrorless AF systems require an AF motor that can make extremely fine adjustments quickly - which is part of the reason why most lenses optimized for mirrorless systems use drive by wire (ie not turning the focus ring via the AF motor but instead directly driving the focusing lens elements). That adds complexity and cost, in addition to of course R&D costs of an entirely new mount and lenses. Lastly, the additional elements to correct a lens for flare, sharpness, CA, etc.
This is why lens adapters like the FTZ will be ultimately limited by the design of the F-mount lens in front of it, and why more modern lenses like the E lenses (28 f1.4E, 105 f1.4E, 70-200 f2.8 ED FL) appear to perform a bit better than prior generation lenses. This is also reflected in the relatively poorer performance of newer FE-mount Sigma Art lenses on Sony bodies compared to lenses initially designed for FE, as even though those new Sigma Arts don't require an adapter, they are optimized for DSLR af systems.
To be clear, this is not to say that one AF system is necessarily better than the other. The phase detect cross-type AF points on the D850 are extremely accurate and fast - particularly considering the small size of the dual cross type AF points. A small mirrorless AF square on Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc is noticeably less accurate and/or quick to autofocus compared to a DSLR dual cross-type AF point of a similar size. One need only look at comparisons of the D5 and D850 AF hit rate compared to the latest gen mirrorless cameras to see that they are as good if not superior for more challenging situations like subjects moving quickly towards/away from the camera.
Also if you look at a cheapo Sony option like the FE 50 f1.8 that uses an old school DC motor - you'll see what the major tradeoffs are in terms of price vs performance. That lens is a stinker in terms of both optical performance as well as AF accuracy and speed due to the lens design and old school DC AF motor (sounds like an RC car when it autofocuses).
To be clear not intending to make this about brands - as the AF system differences between mirrorless and DSLRs are irrespective of brand.
So far mine is great and I really like it. I've already sold my D750. Af-s is spectactular in most light. This was shot at 35mm 1.8S, iso6400, 1.8, 1/40s. I also think the auto WB is great.
Well, thanks to this thread and all of the positive input from owners I have decided to jump into the Z mount pool. I hope the water is warm. Ordered a Z6 + 24-70 + FTZ adapter. Now I have to make tough decisions on what F Mount gear I am going to keep or sell. Gonna be sad seeing some of it go.
A little nervous about AF-C autofocus especially as I have a D500 but I've seen some great photos here and on the Z7 thread so I am guessing the early reports may have been blown out of proportion.
Could someone pls measure the depth of the Z6 (or Z7) body's underside (in cm/mm, if possible)?
I.e. the maximal length of an Arca-Swiss plate that will fit under the body without obstructing the FTZ adapter or sticking out in the back of the camera.
mine is the really old one i guess.