suteetat wrote:
Luckily, I have Z7 and A7r iv both, along with D850 and I have to say that Z7 gets more use than D850 and A7r iv combined by a lot. No need to compare Z7 to earlier Sony generations.
I agree that Sony A7r iv has better focus but it does not mean that Z7 can't AF.
If I drive in a major congested city, car A top speed is 250 km/hr and car B top speed is only 150 km/hr but is much more comfortable, I don't see any reason why I would need car A most of the time.
I still use A7r iv when I need it but 95% of the time, I prefer to use Z7.
Sony A7r iv with 100-400GM cannot be beat by Z system and I will need that but for portrait, landscape, street and every day use, Z7 is my preferred system, no question about it (when GFX 100 size and weight is an issue and GFX AF falls behind Z7 quite a bit )....Show more →
It's good to get a perspective from a multi system user which flies in the face of what Jarid Polin has said in a way, but his Youtube thoughts are meant to be polarizing to get click bait. Suteetat is unlikely to make it as a click bait Youtuber, .
What Suteetat has said is why the Zeds have been gaining traction, they seem to be to many Z6/7 owners a better camera to *use* rather than the greatest (at the time) at everything. I am not saying all people find that, or even need that, as many just see it as a tool and possibly need the AF abilities etc of the Sony A7R IV or D850 which is fine - right tool for the job.
chambeshi wrote:
Time for Moderation to ban the persisting trolls
and here lies a problem, fm has no moderation and for me is going downhill, stony trolls that run rampant on the nikon forum and nothing is done about them, the ole cheeseball being the head troll among others. i notice a lot of old time members that are posting less and less here
Actually, Jared Polin explicitly said that he will continue to be a multi system user. He will do video on his 6 Z Cameras, with their S lenses. He will do stills with his Sony Cameras with their native lenses. Just as you said was appropriate. He has sold his Nikon DSLRs and all of his F Mount lenses is all.
OK, Suteetat, now you must make some videos of you going around BK shooting street scenes with your Noct. I love BK, and street photography so I will subscribe immediately. Heck, I will even go shoot with you the next time I am in Thailand. I used to go a few times a year for business. Been a few years now though...
The first edition should be "Thai Street food at f/0.95 - Super Hot, Super Shallow DOF - No Farang Allowed!"
Rich, and well known enough to show up on most of the celebrity net worth estimate sites. These are a bit flaky but the low range is about 1 million, and the highest estimate I saw was 57 million. The average seems to be between 5 and 10 million. I wonder how many here, or in the photography World in general, have made millions from photography? I know of some, but it is a pretty small group I am thinking.
He has bought at least two buildings in Philly, and has two full time employees doing his YouTube site.
Those other "Clickbaiters" who recently changed from Nikon to Sony, the Northrups have made revenues in excess of 20 million just from direct Amazon sales which can be fairly reliably estimated.
The real money for YouTubers comes not directly from YouTube, but from affiliate links and direct product sales. When you have a following in excess of a million very targeted viewers, the conversion rate doesn't have to be very high when you are selling digital books, and "presets" that have almost zero costs per sale.
Heck even the "Respectable" Thom Hogan operates this way.
1bwana1 wrote:
The two websites you reference are two of my favorites. But if we are being honest they are both heavily Nikon favoring sites.
The principles of the Photography life website have a long history of being Nikon users, and Nikon advocacy.
Sanmirror is one of Thom Hogan's sites. His tag line is:
"Supporting the Nikon F-mount on the Internet since 1994..."
At the same time, the YouTube channel posted by the OP, that you point to as unreliable, and biased, has been a Nikon based photography channel since its inception. Its operator has been a Nikon shooter for decades. Yet, after a year long trial of the Nikon Z cameras he has dropped Nikon, for still shooting only, in favor of another bra,d. So, now in your view he is biased and unreliable.
Your definition of objective is unique for sure.
So, you are stating that the FM moderators should monitor other websites, and punish people here for what they say in other forums that offend you?
I guessing that the FM moderators, and most observers, find that to be as big stretch in logic as I do.
I cited those authorities to help interested researchers searching for reliable reviews of Nikjon products. Look elsewhere for reviews of other systems.... we are discussing Nikon Z here. You and I know the PL reviews are well written and above all are published incrementally. Testing a camera takes time. This is the site to get objective reviews of (most of) the Nikon system, but they also review cameras of different systems. They have a reputation to maintain.
Thom Hogan puts in the heavy lifting. He knows his products in depth, and solves challenges that he then shares [eg Nikon Z AF] . Otherwise his guide books would not stand up. His reviews are credible. He's a pro tech guy AND a pro photographer : sports as well as wildlife and landscapes. No lesser a mentor than the late Galen Rowell.... As importantly he also shoots Sony, Canon and Olympus to be more objective.
Any other sources out there that go as deep into the product? Steve Perry for Nikon.... Lensrentals for Optics - excellent they are. There is David Lloyd perhaps, but almost all his reviews are pay to view. And so are Reid Review's. There is Jono Slack for Leica but admittedly he's also a beta tester and Leica ambassador.
So according to these internet sources, these clickbaiters have made fortunes out of spinning.... No mysteries as to why they jump brands, trash a new camera and feign the expert or whatever. The bottom of that pit is deep and mucky....
It is weird how prospective buyers are taken in by these clickbaiting Utuber channels. And too often it is turning out that a Forum thread that kicks off citing one of these links is invariably on a suspect agenda. Dangling troll bait.... One reason, presumably, is these links end up here in the Nikon forum because the OP cannot find a written review from the mainstream websites on which to launch a product-bashing.
Then this comes back to the posters, who make it their habit to cite these sources as reputable in Forums that aim to share reliable information on cameras and lenses etc (or should)....
The problem with these threads has grown over the past year or so, and by vocal supporters who feed the spin of lies and vitriol. They are several Usernames one comes to dismiss as pitiful. The fate of the obsessive troller is to join other usernames on Ignore Lists. It's safer to ignore them, because whatever they post is so much noise. It cannot be trusted.
The issue with these click bait discussions is that it firmly resides in Nikon threads. Please take them outside to general discussions or a thread titled "Click Bait Discussion"
We as photographers choose multiple platforms and continue to love the gear we use and this thread is to facilitate and assist those using the Nikon systems.
We do NOT need to continually justify our choices to those who have not and probably never use the Nikon camera and lenses being discussed. Move on please ....
codename wrote:
I watched this yesterday and appreciated the candor provided. The Z system is on my radar, but this drove home a rule I typically follow: "Don't buy the first generation of anything". This started with cars that came with new engines and transmissions. The general feeling is that the first few years will reveal issues that will need to be corrected (Could be minor fixes or major design flaws).
I don't see it the same way. Now I shoot Canon, but would have bought a Z6 or Z7 if that's the glass I had instead.But buying the first generation of RF mirrorless has a year ahead on lens selections and integration with my DSLR bodies that wouldn't have really been possible to decide otherwise. The gain to my photography really exceeds the entire value of what the body cost me. Actually, I've hardly lost any shots. But even if I lost a bunch, some gained woudn't have existed otherwise. If the Z series can adapt glass as well as Canon, I'm tempted to buy a used Z in a couple years when price drop a good chunk.they still look like they are worth the money.
On another note, I really enjoy Polin's reviews, although Dustin Abbott seems to have the most "smooth sailing ship" when it comes to gear reviews. But I recall Polin doing a total 180 degree turn last year on one or two things that he had not learned before talking, then posted an opposite review following. But he's certainly worth listening to. Likewise, he's proved that he's worth completely doubting if need be.
charles.K wrote:
We do NOT need to continually justify our choices to those who have not and probably never use the Nikon camera and lenses being discussed. Move on please ....
I'm guessing you're referring to someone other than Jared Polin, provided I read correctly recently that he's been a heavy-duty Nikon gear guy for quite some time.
chambeshi wrote:
So according to these internet sources, these clickbaiters have made fortunes out of spinning.... No mysteries as to why they jump brands, trash a new camera and feign the expert or whatever. The bottom of that pit is deep and mucky....
It feels that way more and more sometimes, and it seems some of these influencers are disrupting the marketplace more that is appropriate or needed. It's odd how some people are jumping between brands or lens models like a yo-yo sometimes.
"It's no slight on you to admit it." So you are insinuating that people on this forum would "defend" Nikon due to a fear of shame that would come with acknowledging any shortcomings of Nikon products, don't you? - Don't feed the trolls!
Lance B wrote:
It's good to get a perspective from a multi system user which flies in the face of what Jarid Polin has said in a way, but his Youtube thoughts are meant to be polarizing to get click bait. Suteetat is unlikely to make it as a click bait Youtuber, .
What Suteetat has said is why the Zeds have been gaining traction, they seem to be to many Z6/7 owners a better camera to *use* rather than the greatest (at the time) at everything. I am not saying all people find that, or even need that, as many just see it as a tool and possibly need the AF abilities etc of the Sony A7R IV or D850 which is fine - right tool for the job. ...Show more →
Definitely, you choose the right camera with features that you need. There is really no one camera that is best at everything. If focus is the priority and absolute must, why are people shooting with A7r x instead of A9? D5/A9 are never my targeted camera as the benefit of the best available AF is not enough for me to give up D850/Z7/A7r iv.
---------------------------------------------
1bwana1 wrote:
OK, Suteetat, now you must make some videos of you going around BK shooting street scenes with your Noct. I love BK, and street photography so I will subscribe immediately. Heck, I will even go shoot with you the next time I am in Thailand. I used to go a few times a year for business. Been a few years now though...
The first edition should be "Thai Street food at f/0.95 - Super Hot, Super Shallow DOF - No Farang Allowed!"
Sawadee Kap!
Sawadee krub
So far I took a few video clips with my Z7 only when I go scuba diving. A lot of fun but my editing skill is pretty much 0. I am still trying to figure out Davinci Resolve (since it is free and I rarely shoot video so I don't feel like investing much in it yet).
Street scene with Noct Nikkor will be fun but might be hernia inducing
let me know if you ever comes this way again.
1bwana1 wrote:
Yep, from what I have seen on other threads, you, the Z7, and the 0.95 Noct, are making some images with wonderful rendering. It is a unique combination that is not available on any other platform right now. Being a MF lens Af has absolutely no impact. I really enjoy your posts with that setup, keep posting them.
Thanks, I am having a lot of fun with it despite the weight and size!
Personally I think it is the best f.95/f1.2 lenses that I have. Any curiosity about Leica 75/1.25 that I might have is now put to rest indefinitely Too bad 58/.95 cannot be mount on any other system. I think on the upcoming M10 monochrome, it would be an interesting combination, oh well....
1bwana1 wrote:
Rich, and well known enough to show up on most of the celebrity net worth estimate sites. These are a bit flaky but the low range is about 1 million, and the highest estimate I saw was 57 million. The average seems to be between 5 and 10 million. I wonder how many here, or in the photography World in general, have made millions from photography? I know of some, but it is a pretty small group I am thinking.
He has bought at least two buildings in Philly, and has two full time employees doing his YouTube site.
Those other "Clickbaiters" who recently changed from Nikon to Sony, the Northrups have made revenues in excess of 20 million just from direct Amazon sales which can be fairly reliably estimated.
The real money for YouTubers comes not directly from YouTube, but from affiliate links and direct product sales. When you have a following in excess of a million very targeted viewers, the conversion rate doesn't have to be very high when you are selling digital books, and "presets" that have almost zero costs per sale.
Heck even the "Respectable" Thom Hogan operates this way.
that's the problem the internet has enabled a world of fantasy that anyone can join and be "creative" along with creating projecting ones persona virtual or otherwise. too much unrealiable information. ok lets face it pure unmitigated BS. we are creating an "idiocracy". give me facts.
I do have some issues with the youtube "reviewers" who seem to mainly get their fame from pleasing looks and clear presentation and articulation, not from being particularly knowledgeable of facts. Also many of these videos have provocative and misleading titles. The title is the most important part of any publication because most people do not read the article or watch the video but only see the title and digest that as the essential content of the publication.
For example, Polin suggests that Nikon should make "better" lenses and by better, he means larger aperture lenses. But most of the Nikon Z lenses are exceptionally good quality. It is not at all a given that e.g. f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses would be better in terms of image quality than the Z f/1.8 S lenses. "Where is the better glass" he asks. This is absurd. E.g. the 24-70/2.8 S got the highest marks of any lens of its type from dxomark (as well as other reviewers). And the Noct is different from any other superfast normal lens in that center to corner, at f/0.95 the MTF is within 10% of peak sharpness at any aperture, center or corner; no other fast normal lens gets even close to such figures. He says its' super expensive and "pretty much useless". Now it may be useless because it's unaffordable to a particular person, but he should be able to separate cost and usefulness and evaluate usefulness on its own merits (irrespective of the cost, since cost is highly relative to the potential buyer's economic situation). Someone else might think f/1.2 primes are similarly useless because they can't afford them (while Polin may be able to, but the argument of using high cost to imply uselessness is just very poor logical thinking.) I think it has already been convincingly demonstrated that the Z Noct delivers unique results and that some consider it very useful and appealing. And he asks "where is the better glass?" Yes, I get it that he considers the Z Noct too expensive, but the f/1.8's are not too expensive and also excellent lenses.
Honestly, it is not surprising to me if someone who includes a sniff test in his product reviews should be very confused in his arguments.
It's entertainment, not a serious evaluation.
IMO Nikon's Z roadmap is a sign of very sound thinking about what is useful and needed by many users in a mirrorless camera system. Some of the key advantages of mirrorless is the smaller size and lower weight, while improving optical quality and image quality along with it. Canon made some very fast lenses (50/1.2, 85/1.2, 28-70/2) but they completely negate the size and weight advantages of mirrorless and they don't offer a lineup of portable primes. IMO the f/1.8 S's are the foundation of the Nikon Z system and they make it very appealing. I don't want high image quality to only come with high cost and weight.
brian_sp wrote:
and here lies a problem, fm has no moderation and for me is going downhill, stony trolls that run rampant on the nikon forum and nothing is done about them, the ole cheeseball being the head troll among others. i notice a lot of old time members that are posting less and less here
it is fortunate and unfortunate that we live in an environment where we are free to express our thoughts no matter what direction they are coming from and going to. it is called freedom of speech. this site to a very high extent runs with that in mind. unless it gets way out of control all sides get their day. those who truly abuse that do trip over themselves and end up causing their own demise. there is "moderation" here its just not authoritarian. for the most part we moderate ourselves.
"The usual pushback I get on the Nikkor f/1.8 S primes is this: "they're too big for their focal length and they cost too much." Okay, I'm going to push right back at you: so far there's not a Z-mount prime that doesn't blow the F-mount version out of the water.
I don't find the Z prime lens sizes to be objectionable, though yes, these f/1.8 S lenses are not particularly small. But they're also not portly as are some of the f/1.8 F-mount lenses, which seem wider in diameter than they need to be. The 85mm f/1.8 S feels very well balanced on my Z6/Z7 bodies, and even on the Z50.
Finally, I'd tend to argue that you get what you pay for. US$800 is more a Batis-level price than a Sony non-G price if you're going to go off trying to do comparisons. "But the performance of this Nikkor is also clearly at Zeiss' level, too (actually even better in several respects)the performance of this Nikkor is also clearly at Zeiss' level, too (actually even better in several respects)
As far as I'm concerned, Nikon can't release 18mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 105mm f/1.8 S primes fast enough if they're going to perform like the first three (35mm, 50mm, 85mm). And if we're getting this good a lens at f/1.8, I can hardly wait to see what the f/1.2 series will bring
).
. 
