ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
PF is indeed used to reduce length and weight while achieving a good correction of chromatic aberrations. However, there are other means of achieving weight and size reduction; PF is not the only one. The 500 PF has higher theoretical MTF than the 400/4.5 at least wide open (see 30 lpmm meridional line). It's not clear what the 400/4.5 MTF is stopped down to f/5.6, it could be closer to what the 500 is wide open but on the other hand, if the purpose is to achieve a narrow angle of view it doesn't seem that the 400 would do a better job at it than the 500, TC or not. Where I see the advantage of the 400/4.5 is for those who mainly need a 400mm rather than a longer focal length and who prefer a wider aperture than f/5.6 but still portable and hand-holdable.
I personally loved to use the PF lenses but ultimately sold both of them as I didn't like the way the images looked compared to traditional optics (too harsh, and with the 300 PF, milky skin). I am happy that Nikon are presenting users with alternatives to PF while still achieving light weight and compact size in a long focal length lens. It seems likely that my Z teles will be 70-200/2.8 and 400/4.5 unless Nikon put out a Z 300/2.8 before I have the opportunity to buy the 400 (300 is my preference but a 400, if suitably compact, I can work with). I don't need a longer lens than 400 and want something more practical in terms of size, weight, and cost than the 400/2.8; the 400/4.5 seems perfect. For those who want both portability and longer focal lengths, it seems the combination of 400mm f/4.5 and 800/6.3 would be good choices with competitive prices, although not exactly inexpensive, but still, considering the cost of Canon's 800mm f/5.6, very competitive.
Nikon have said they'll incorporate the Z9's technology into other models of the camera lineup; I would expect the Z6 and Z7 series to be the next to receive the Expeed 7 processor. These will be compact and won't come with integrated vertical grip. Personally I like a large body especially when working with telephoto lenses as it brings the overall weight closer to the chest, where it is easier to support. Lenses have progressed from more front-weighted to less front weighted in modern designs but I still like the camera body to have vertical grip (as a people photographer I find it very important that vertical images are shot with the same ergonomics and posture as horizontal images). It's also nice not to have to ever worry about running out of battery. When I use a small body like the Z6 II it feels a bit awkward not having enough physical controls having to go into the menu more often than I am used to, and going back to the larger D6 or similar body feels very comfortable and "like coming home", where everything is its place. When working with on-camera flash and shooting vertical images, the Z6 II feels especially out of balance. The Z9 is thinner than the DSLRs and should not feel "fat". I really love that the back LCD tilts both ways without flipping over (again because I shoot a lot of verticals). This should be good also for photographing plants, as one often can't get low enough to the ground while using the viewfinder and currently I have to shoot them as horizontals to get to use the tilting LCD on lesser models, and end up cropping to make a vertical image. A folding-out LCD that opens to the left of the camera body isn't a good solution IMO as I could easily damage the mechanism when working close to the ground (and when working on a pillow placed on the ground, I let the camera body and lens rest on the pillow and if it is vertical, there would not be any space for an LCD that opens below the camera in this orientation.)
|
