p.3 #1 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
I took the liberty of downloading and applying some sharpening to see if they clean up.
If any of you have objections, I'll delete these.
Left - before sharpening / Right - after sharpening
p.3 #2 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
I'm so used to seeing 61mp files that it's hard to tell what is softer because of the jump down to 45mp, or because the camera/lens isn't focusing dead on. Sure, you can use some software to sharpen them, but they all look pretty fake when you do that.
Looking back at my R3 files shot with the Sony 100-400, they all look roughly the same to my eye as the Z7 shots *shrug*
edit: I've been primarily focused on shooting out between the 24-105 and 24-120. I will say that the 24-120 pictures all have a clarity to them at 100% that the 100-400 definitely don't. There are 100-400 shots at 1/640 that have no right being as soft as they are out of cam. Most of these are wide open. However, my Sony 100-400 is tack sharp wide open and doesn't exhibit the same behavior.
Like I said in my other thread, the Nikon AF system doesn't seem entirely reliable. As a troubleshooting step, I will disable MF during AF, maybe it's possible my hand is striking the MF ring. Definitely deserves more testing. My testing WILL be handholding, though. I'm not a tripod shooter, so it's pointless for me to do that kind of testing.
p.3 #3 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
RoamingScott wrote:
I'm so used to seeing 61mp files that it's hard to tell what is softer because of the jump down to 45mp, or because the camera/lens isn't focusing dead on. Sure, you can use some software to sharpen them, but they all look pretty fake when you do that.
Looking back at my R3 files shot with the Sony 100-400, they all look roughly the same to my eye as the Z7 shots *shrug*
edit: I've been primarily focused on shooting out between the 24-105 and 24-120. I will say that the 24-120 pictures all have a clarity to them at 100% that the 100-400 definitely don't. There are 100-400 shots at 1/640 that have no right being as soft as they are out of cam. Most of these are wide open. However, my Sony 100-400 is tack sharp wide open and doesn't exhibit the same behavior.
Like I said in my other thread, the Nikon AF system doesn't seem entirely reliable. As a troubleshooting step, I will disable MF during AF, maybe it's possible my hand is striking the MF ring. Definitely deserves more testing. My testing WILL be handholding, though. I'm not a tripod shooter, so it's pointless for me to do that kind of testing....Show more →
Are you shooting jpg or raw? If raw, adding some sharpening is completely appropriate IMO. It is not a crutch, but a normal part of post processing raw files.
p.3 #4 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
gdsf2 wrote:
Are you shooting jpg or raw? If raw, adding some sharpening is completely appropriate IMO. It is not a crutch, but a normal part of post processing raw files.
RAW, letting LR add the default 40. I will say I can crank that up to 70 without the file looking overly processed. I'm in the habit of not touching that on Sony because the resolution does it for free.
p.3 #5 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
gdsf2 wrote:
I do not think the Z7 AF system, if used properly, is an issue. These are static objects.
I would assume not. Like I said, AF-S with the 24-120 is giving outstanding results. I see no reason why the 100-400 should be any different, yet it is.
p.3 #6 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
RoamingScott wrote:
RAW, letting LR add the default 40. I will say I can crank that up to 70 without the file looking overly processed. I'm in the habit of not touching that on Sony because the resolution does it for free.
Resolution has nothing to do with sharpening. But default of 40 seems reasonable. But shooting a zoom wide open can benefit from more sometimes.
p.3 #7 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
gdsf2 wrote:
Resolution has nothing to do with sharpening. But default of 40 seems reasonable. But shooting a zoom wide open can benefit from more sometimes.
Resolution has a lot to do with perceived sharpness when the files are displayed at the same dimensions. It's the same idea as high resolution monitors removing the need for AA filtering...the resolution is doing a lot of the work for you. I actually soften my A7R4 files quite regularly.
p.3 #8 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
gdsf2 wrote:
Resolution has nothing to do with sharpening. But default of 40 seems reasonable. But shooting a zoom wide open can benefit from more sometimes.
As you mentioned it could be human error, or could be a less than perfect copy of the lens. Agree more practice/testing is a good idea.
p.3 #9 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
gdsf2 wrote:
As you mentioned it could be human error, or could be a less than perfect copy of the lens. Agree more practice/testing is a good idea.
I went back and looked at many of my Sony 100-400 shots at 400 wide open, and none exhibit the same degree of softness, so we'll just strike out "technique". If anything it's harder to shoot 400mm handheld on higher res, and most definitely requires a faster shutter speed. If I match my R4 shutter speed default of 1/640, I should theoretically get SHARPER pictures on Nikon. Not happening so far.
It might be the interaction of IBIS as well, harder to test however. Or, like you say, a dud. I've never gotten a dud of a lens to that degree though, money is still on AF somehow.
p.3 #12 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
I've seen sharp and beautiful photos taken by Scott, so am hopeful he will humor us for a bit and try it
on a tripod, with the OSS/VR turned off, etc. I recently sold my beloved z 70-200, and put a deposit down for
a z 100-400 at our local store, so I am hoping this lens is really good. I don't think anyone complaining about
the out-of-focus seeming images means any disrespect towards any of the posters. We're thankful that you
guys are showing us samples when all we've seen so far are from paid reviewers. So, please do not think that
we're disrespecting you in any manner.
p.3 #15 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
saaketham wrote:
I usually trust user reviews more than paid professional reviews 🙂 Although in this case, I bought into the hype and put a deposit down. 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t think Brad Hill is paid by Nikon. He glowed about the lens. Others here are saying they are getting very sharp images. I would not worry.
p.3 #16 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
saaketham wrote:
I usually trust user reviews more than paid professional reviews 🙂 Although in this case, I bought into the hype and put a deposit down. 🤷🏻♂️
gdsf2 wrote:
I don’t think Brad Hill is paid by Nikon. He glowed about the lens. Others here are saying they are getting very sharp images. I would not worry.
I will move conversation about testing to the discussion thread.
p.3 #17 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Ryan74 wrote:
The 100-400mm isn't mentioned anywhere in that article. Most of those shots look like they were taken with the Nikon 500 mm f/5.6 AF-S PF
Sorry about that... I posted the wrong article. Let me see if I can find the correct one and repost it.
p.3 #18 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
cvrle59 wrote:
I downloaded your image, it's damn sharp, plenty of details.
It would be nice to see the combo at 800/f11.
Thanks for posting it!
I stopped at the pond on the way to work this morning to get you a 2.0x @800mm f11 real world example. This is a SOOC JPG, untouched 1/30 (handheld) f11 iso1280. Obviously there were some missed shots in between at 1/30-800mm HH. It's pretty slow to focus on a z7ii, would be good for perched things only in my opinion. (Download the pic to see full res)
p.3 #19 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
One last image before I start some side by side testing with the Sony. Here's 100% crop of the donkey with shadows lifted so you can actually see details. Looks sharp to me. Sharpening on 40
p.3 #20 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Kasper6188,
It's hard to tell whether it is TC softening, subject movement, or IBIS/VR unable to compensate for hand holding - or some combination of all those with a slightly elevated ISO . . .
