p.37 #1 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
hiepphotog wrote:
IMO, that would downplay Nikon engineers' efforts for this Plena. They did not just make a ginormous lens like the Sigma 105/1.4 to achieve minimal optical vignetting, but managed to do so with a lens not much bigger and heavier than the equivalent Canon and Sony. I am mainly curious to see what kind of compromises they made to achieve this. Sony, to an extent, also has been doing this. Their optics are smaller than others but they kept the optical vignetting in check (if not better than Canon).
I don't see that as downplaying what Nikon has done. You don't have to make the lens much bigger to accomplish this. That is why I posted the Leica made image with the small diameter lens projecting on a FF sensor to demonstrate the concept. You must admit that those are nice round smooth bokeh balls. Sigma was open about doing this exact thing with some of their designs. It also doesn't diminish the advantage that the large Z mount has when taking this approach. It may be easier or possible to do it better with the Z mount. I think the Plena represents a well chosen and engineered set of design compromises and optimizations. It also represents some very good manufacturing processes to polish the ASPH elements in a way to reduce the onion rings in the bokeh. They were able to do this while holding weight and size to a manageable level. Nothing diminishing in that.
Do you think that Nikon discovered some unique math or unique glass properties in lens design to achieve the IQ and rendering that the Plena produces. What would that be? I think that it is not a coincidence that the behaviors that the Plena exhibits are all things that are optimized by expanding the image circle, and using a piece more from the center of that circle. It has been demonstrated many times.
Having 60 mpx in my Leica M11 means I can crop down to the APSC or smaller size and still have plenty of resolution. That means I can purposely shoot wide and crop to the center of the image where aberrations are not present. It is a technique I have used on occasion.
Do you also think that shutterless/electronic shutter in very fast stacked sensor cameras is a development of Nikon's? It has been standard with other brands for over 7 years already. Just packaged and marketed differently by Nikon. It does have costs in capabilities as well. I encountered one just this week. I am able to sync strobes at double the shutter speed without having to resort to HSS with mechanical shutter than I am with electronic shutter. Fortunately with my A1 I have the choice to use mechanical or electronic shutter. This week I took advantage of the mechanical option. The Nikon Z8/9 cameras lost this ability when they deleted the mechanical shutter.
p.37 #2 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
1bwana1 wrote:
I don't see that as downplaying what Nikon has done. You don't have to make the lens much bigger to accomplish this. That is why I posted the Leica made image with the small diameter lens projecting on a FF sensor to demonstrate the concept. You must admit that those are nice round smooth bokeh balls. Sigma was open about doing this exact thing with some of their designs. It also doesn't diminish the advantage that the large Z mount has when taking this approach. It may be easier or possible to do it better with the Z mount. I think the Plena represents a well chosen and engineered set of design compromises and optimizations. It also represents some very good manufacturing processes to polish the ASPH elements in a way to reduce the onion rings in the bokeh. They were able to do this while holding weight and size to a manageable level. Nothing diminishing in that.
Do you think that Nikon discovered some unique math or unique glass properties in lens design to achieve the IQ and rendering that the Plena produces. What would that be? I think that it is not a coincidence that the behaviors that the Plena exhibits are all things that are optimized by expanding the image circle, and using a piece more from the center of that circle. It has been demonstrated many times.
Do you also think that shutterless/electronic shutter in very fast stacked sensor cameras is a development of Nikon's? It has been standard with other brands for over 7 years already. Just packaged and marketed differently by Nikon. It does have costs in capabilities as well. I encountered one just this week. I am able to sync strobes at double the shutter speed without having to resort to HSS with mechanical shutter than I am with electronic shutter. Fortunately with my A1 I have the choice to use mechanical or electronic shutter. This week I took advantage of the mechanical option. The Nikon Z8/9 cameras lost this ability when they deleted the mechanical shutter. ...Show more →
I have A9 and a7r5. Sony developed the stacked sensor but they did not release an updated a9… so basically you are forced to get the a1 which is too expensive. Nikon is great is giving that stacked sensor to z8 which is a7r5 price range,
I don’t feel that the a7r5 is a big upgrade over my a9. the viewfinder blackout is a huge minus while the evf size and ibis are the two big pluses. Tempted to trade a7r5 for z8. The only thing that is stopping me is the z8 ibis and weight. The zf has much improved ibis so I hope Nikon will put the stacked sensor into a z7 sized body with the new ibis. That will be ideal.
p.37 #3 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
wind30 wrote:
I have A9 and a7r5. Sony developed the stacked sensor but they did not release an updated a9… so basically you are forced to get the a1 which is too expensive. Nikon is great is giving that stacked sensor to z8 which is a7r5 price range,
I don’t feel that the a7r5 is a big upgrade over my a9. the viewfinder blackout is a huge minus while the evf size and ibis are the two big pluses. Tempted to trade a7r5 for z8. The only thing that is stopping me is the z8 ibis and weight. The zf has much improved ibis so I hope Nikon will put the stacked sensor into a z7 sized body with the new ibis. That will be ideal.
I agree that the Z8 is the currently the lowest cost path to that level of performance on the market. Kudus to Nikon for doing that. But that really isn't the issue is it. Because the total cost of a full system switch is still very expensive, and the difference in the Z8 cost doesn't make up for that. You could by a used A1 for the price of a Z8.
It sounds to me that you may be a candidate for the soon to be announced A9III. That will likely be the least expensive path in a new camera at that level of performance for you. Rumor has it that it will have higher resolution and be the fasted ICL camera ever produced. Plus it will likely be the light weight camera you want.
p.37 #4 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
1bwana1 wrote:
I agree that the Z8 is the currently the lowest cost path to that level of performance on the market. Kudus to Nikon for doing that. But that really isn't the issue is it. Because the total cost of a full system switch is still very expensive, and the difference in the Z8 cost doesn't make up for that. You could by a used A1 for the price of a Z8.
It sounds to me that you may be a candidate for the soon to be announced A9III. That will likely be the least expensive path in a new camera at that level of performance for you. Rumor has it that it will have higher resolution and be the fasted ICL camera ever produced. Plus it will likely be the light weight camera you want.
…. Honestly I don’t need faster speed…. I just hope Sony priced the a9iii lower but I doubt it. Sony can’t sell any A1 if they released the a9iii with higher res plus all the upgraded af and ibis with a much lower price.
Maybe that is why a9iii is delayed for so long. They have to release the a1ii right after a9iii else Sony will have zero flagship sales. This is probably why Sony has neglected the a9 series for so many years. The a9 doesn’t even have bionz Xr yet…
p.37 #5 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
saaketham wrote:
Why are you tempted by the 600 TC?
I've never even seen one, and I hope it stays that way for my bank balance's sake.
Some day.
For some of the fun stuff I shoot, being able to change from 600mm to 840 and vise versa in an instant is worth the $2500 premium the Nikon 600 TC costs over a new Sony 600 GM, to me anyway, or make it a $5500 premium since the current price for used 600 GM is around $10,000. It may take two years for me to get a 600TC in my hand though. By then Sony may have its version of the 600TC. The Sony A1 with an RRS L-bracket fits my hand perfectly, the customization of the A1 allows me quick access to some of the things I change often, instead of doing too many "press this first, then press that" stuff. I love my A1s. I just read that the Z9 just got another AF related FW update that will come to the Z8 too...
p.37 #6 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
1bwana1 wrote:
I don't see that as downplaying what Nikon has done. You don't have to make the lens much bigger to accomplish this. That is why I posted the Leica made image with the small diameter lens projecting on a FF sensor to demonstrate the concept. You must admit that those are nice round smooth bokeh balls. Sigma was open about doing this exact thing with some of their designs. It also doesn't diminish the advantage that the large Z mount has when taking this approach. It may be easier or possible to do it better with the Z mount. I think the Plena represents a well chosen and engineered set of design compromises and optimizations. It also represents some very good manufacturing processes to polish the ASPH elements in a way to reduce the onion rings in the bokeh. They were able to do this while holding weight and size to a manageable level. Nothing diminishing in that.
Do you think that Nikon discovered some unique math or unique glass properties in lens design to achieve the IQ and rendering that the Plena produces. What would that be? I think that it is not a coincidence that the behaviors that the Plena exhibits are all things that are optimized by expanding the image circle, and using a piece more from the center of that circle. It has been demonstrated many times.
Having 60 mpx in my Leica M11 means I can crop down to the APSC or smaller size and still have plenty of resolution. That means I can purposely shoot wide and crop to the center of the image where aberrations are not present. It is a technique I have used on occasion.
Do you also think that shutterless/electronic shutter in very fast stacked sensor cameras is a development of Nikon's? It has been standard with other brands for over 7 years already. Just packaged and marketed differently by Nikon. It does have costs in capabilities as well. I encountered one just this week. I am able to sync strobes at double the shutter speed without having to resort to HSS with mechanical shutter than I am with electronic shutter. Fortunately with my A1 I have the choice to use mechanical or electronic shutter. This week I took advantage of the mechanical option. The Nikon Z8/9 cameras lost this ability when they deleted the mechanical shutter. ...Show more →
I don't believe Nikon simply designed this Plena to cover a bigger image circle to achieve this low optical vignetting. One of the Plena prototypes has 100+mm front element. This would be consistent with your theory. The same focal length and aperture covering a bigger image circle must be bigger. Keep in mind that FF has about 63% bigger area than APS-C so to achieve what you said would require a really big lens (roughly 26% bigger diameter). The final version has the same 82mm front filter size as Sony and Canon.
I do believe Nikon used special types of glasses and an unconventional design. SR element is something Sony does not have (at least Sony has not advertised to have anything equivalent). And given the 82mm front, the glass elements must collectively bend the peripheral light rays more than the equivalent Sony/Canon so those rays wouldn't be blocked, resulting in smaller than optical vignetting. The Plena does have way more exotic elements (6) than Canon (3) and Sony (3).
Honestly, I never expected Nikon to come out with this design since Nikon has been sacrificing size and weight to achieve minimal focus breathing in their lenses. If this was designed like the Sigma 105/1.4, it would be within my expectations. So I have been thinking a lot about it .
But a lens is not a system so I have not added a Nikon yet.
p.37 #7 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Douglas L wrote:
For some of the fun stuff I shoot, being able to change from 600mm to 840 and vise versa in an instant is worth the $2500 premium the Nikon 600 TC costs over a new Sony 600 GM, to me anyway, or make it a $5500 premium since the current price for used 600 GM is around $10,000..
Exactly. $5500-$6000 more for a built-in TC !!!
I'd use that to hire a cute assistant, just to change the TC for you while you take a coffee break. 🦅
p.37 #8 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
hiepphotog wrote:
I don't believe Nikon simply designed this Plena to cover a bigger image circle to achieve this low optical vignetting. One of the Plena prototypes has 100+mm front element. This would be consistent with your theory. The same focal length and aperture covering a bigger image circle must be bigger. Keep in mind that FF has about 63% bigger area than APS-C so to achieve what you said would require a really big lens (roughly 26% bigger diameter). The final version has the same 82mm front filter size as Sony and Canon.
I do believe Nikon used special types of glasses and an unconventional design. SR element is something Sony does not have (at least Sony has not advertised to have anything equivalent). And given the 82mm front, the glass elements must collectively bend the peripheral light rays more than the equivalent Sony/Canon so those rays wouldn't be blocked, resulting in smaller than optical vignetting. The Plena does have way more exotic elements (6) than Canon (3) and Sony (3).
Honestly, I never expected Nikon to come out with this design since Nikon has been sacrificing size and weight to achieve minimal focus breathing in their lenses. If this was designed like the Sigma 105/1.4, it would be within my expectations. So I have been thinking a lot about it .
But a lens is not a system so I have not added a Nikon yet....Show more →
The use of SR lens design is consistant with what I am saying. It allows light that is being bent more
Than usual to be better corrected for the chromatc aberrations that this induces.
This helps keep diameter, thus size and weight down. Also consistant with the larger front element prototype that was rejected.
It is all based on Snells Law. The more you bend light the more aberrations you create. The more aberrations the more corrective elements you need to address them. That is also consistant with what we know about the Plena so far. I am sure we will learn more in the future.
None of this diminishes the great work Nikon did in making this lens.
Once again I will post a demo image. This time from the Sony 135gm so more relevant to the Plena. AS you can see the bokeh balls are very good overall. But there is definitely cats eye going on out toward the edges. If you cropped even outside the APSC boundaries the ball are pretty much distortion free.
I have posted the image through a link because it is from Camera Labs test and I don't want to download and post the image directly
p.37 #9 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
So ended up not trying the Z8 even though I bought a Z9 and used it along side my A1 for a year.
Did buy a A7RV and a second used A1. The two compliment each other IMHO. Have also sold of my A7IV and A7C. Do have a plan to try the A7CR but did wonder if the A7C II was a better choice. We will see. No plans to try Nikon again since owning two systems is already enough for me.
I have the 135 GM and Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS where I think the IS is a very nice addition and really not a weight penalty. The new Nikon Plena just seems too big and expensive to me but have really no tried it or done any real image comparisons so I would like to see those.
p.37 #10 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
swldstn wrote:
So ended up not trying the Z8 even though I bought a Z9 and used it along side my A1 for a year.
Did buy a A7RV and a second used A1. The two compliment each other IMHO. Have also sold of my A7IV and A7C. Do have a plan to try the A7CR but did wonder if the A7C II was a better choice. We will see. No plans to try Nikon again since owning two systems is already enough for me.
I have the 135 GM and Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS where I think the IS is a very nice addition and really not a weight penalty. The new Nikon Plena just seems too big and expensive to me but have really no tried it or done any real image comparisons so I would like to see those. ...Show more →
Any feedback on the Sony 135 vs Canon 135? I have the Sony and won't likely buy the Canon but I'm still very curious...
TDP/Bryan mentioned the Canon lens has a slight advantage in the IQ: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-135mm-F1-8-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx, and by looking at his test chart I can confirm it. The only problem Bryan is only testing one-two copies of each lens so those results are more like a lottery.
p.37 #11 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
saaketham wrote:
Exactly. $5500-$6000 more for a built-in TC !!!
I'd use that to hire a cute assistant, just to change the TC for you while you take a coffee break. 🦅
Only if that cute assistant can put the TC on/off as fast as a flip of finger... No doubt the TC convenience is very expensive at $5000-6000 extra cost, and the extra extra cost is I would have to give up what I like about the A1 if I shoot Nikon. But I have plenty of time to ponder. It will take a long time before the wait list for the 600 TC is cleared. I have seen exactly one so far. In the Nikon forum the 600TC image thread is pretty short, with only 3 or 4 owners posting, maybe other owners are too busy shooting.
p.37 #14 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Douglas L wrote:
Only if that cute assistant can put the TC on/off as fast as a flip of finger... No doubt the TC convenience is very expensive at $5000-6000 extra cost, and the extra extra cost is I would have to give up what I like about the A1 if I shoot Nikon. But I have plenty of time to ponder. It will take a long time before the wait list for the 600 TC is cleared. I have seen exactly one so far. In the Nikon forum the 600TC image thread is pretty short, with only 3 or 4 owners posting, maybe other owners are too busy shooting....Show more →
I was shocked when a few of the 400TC showed up during their refurb sale w/ a hefty discount. Maybe we’ll see the 600TC show up in the not too distant future.
p.37 #15 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
1bwana1 wrote:
The use of SR lens design is consistant with what I am saying. It allows light that is being bent more
Than usual to be better corrected for the chromatc aberrations that this induces.
This helps keep diameter, thus size and weight down. Also consistant with the larger front element prototype that was rejected.
It is all based on Snells Law. The more you bend light the more aberrations you create. The more aberrations the more corrective elements you need to address them. That is also consistant with what we know about the Plena so far. I am sure we will learn more in the future.
None of this diminishes the great work Nikon did in making this lens.
Once again I will post a demo image. This time from the Sony 135gm so more relevant to the Plena. AS you can see the bokeh balls are very good overall. But there is definitely cats eye going on out toward the edges. If you cropped even outside the APSC boundaries the ball are pretty much distortion free.
I have posted the image through a link because it is from Camera Labs test and I don't want to download and post the image directly
p.37 #16 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Ok here is Nikon Ambassador Seth Miranda explicitly saying that the Plena gets its result from projecting an image circle much larger than the Full Fram sensor. This confirms what I have been speculating about.
p.37 #17 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Buckeye2604 wrote:
Wow, that picture actually puts into perspective how impressive the bokeh is for the Plena. The bokeh balls near the center of the GM 135, which still doesn’t look perfectly round to me, look like the edges on the Plena. However, I’d wager that for a majority the presence of cat eye bokeh isn’t that important.
Yep that is what I have been saying, and why I posted that particular image. The edges of the Plena are similar to the center of the Sony and other lenses. This is because the Plena throws away the edges of its image.
p.37 #18 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Buckeye2604 wrote:
Wow, that picture actually puts into perspective how impressive the bokeh is for the Plena. The bokeh balls near the center of the GM 135, which still doesn’t look perfectly round to me, look like the edges on the Plena. However, I’d wager that for a majority the presence of cat eye bokeh isn’t that important.
The lack of cat's eye is not the only upside. It also comes with minimal vignetting as well as minimal DOF variation towards the edges and corners (i.e. more background blur). For a fast lens, that is significant, IMO.
p.37 #19 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
1bwana1 wrote:
Ok here is Nikon Ambassador Seth Miranda explicitly saying that the Plena gets its result from projecting an image circle much larger than the Full Fram sensor. This confirms what I have been speculating about.
?si=8lQLWDegOoM8y5IX
A Nikon Ambassador is not really the best technical source to quote. But either way, it is not too important how Nikon did it, but that the Plena is the first of its kind.
p.37 #20 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
hiepphotog wrote:
The lack of cat's eye is not the only upside. It also comes with minimal vignetting as well as minimal DOF variation towards the edges and corners (i.e. more background blur). For a fast lens, that is significant, IMO.
Yep all things that are better near the center of the image circle.
