highdesertmesa wrote:
That’s too bad. The Canon RF lens control rings click by default and can be changed to clickless by Canon. In any case, I’m I’ll only be using Z AF lenses when I need them, otherwise it’s CV-Z, M, CZ, or MD lenses for me.
Turning off the rings is the first thing I do on a new body. Totally pointless for me personally. If you could choose between click or clickless it would be very useful indeed.
According to the published specs (Nikon USA and B&H), the USB port does not support power input. However, since no external battery charger is supplied, I tend to think charging of the battery in camera would need to be possible via this input/output port. Perhaps powering the camera by an external source is not possible but charging is, am I interpreting this correctly?
I don't think I'm all that off base on my analysis of the Zf on paper, knowing what I know about the FTZ, Nikon grips, weight of older MF lenses, etc. I hope whoever buys it likes it. That said, you'd probably have a better shooting experience if all those guts were in a Z6iii body.
And people fauning over the "SE" primes...sure, they look sort of...old...but they don't have a true clicky aperture ring. Does anyone enjoy using a clickless control ring for aperture? Do they enjoy constantly accidently changing it?
I think the "Z" styled FTZ in between a "retro" cam and old MF lens looks kinda dumb too, and since the main appeal of the Zf is aesthetics, yet another head scratcher. Will Nikon release an SE version of the FTZ next?!
All that said, the new CV Z glass would shine for this use case...fairly compact, REAL aperture controls, hard focus stops...the TRUE retro shooting experience....Show more →
Yeah, the CV Z lenses look like the deal here for the full experience. Z mount, chipped, metal build w real aperture rings. It's kinda glaring that Cosina does this right for Nikon, whereas Nikon doesn't even bother.
Desmolicious wrote:
Yeah, the CV Z lenses look like the deal here for the full experience. Z mount, chipped, metal build w real aperture rings. It's kinda glaring that Cosina does this right for Nikon, whereas Nikon doesn't even bother.
My quibble with many of the so-far-released CV lenses for Z is that the focus rings range from "uncomfortably close to the body" to "stupidly close to the body" vs the much more comfortable at-the-edge-of-the-barrel ring on something like the Ultron II when adapted.
"Wait", you might be asking, "an adapted F mount lens is more comfortable to use than a native?" Well, yes, because Voigtlander put the focus ring SO close to the lens mount on most of these Z lenses that you have to contort your hand to use them, and on the Z9, the battery grip actually blocks functional use. I actually kept my Ultron II over the Z 40/1.2 because of this.
If your hand size/shape doesn't present this as an issue, I'd go for it, but try one before you order a whole kit. Take a look at the various options and see how there is no consistent engineering.
Desmolicious wrote:
Yeah, the CV Z lenses look like the deal here for the full experience. Z mount, chipped, metal build w real aperture rings. It's kinda glaring that Cosina does this right for Nikon, whereas Nikon doesn't even bother.
I said in the other thread that the Voigt 40/1.2Z on a moss green Zf just screams "buy me" in my ear.
But really, why not just put my 40/1.2 on my Z7 like I already do? Moving it to the Zf would drop me to 24MP and have to deal with the articulated LCD. I'm not diametrically opposed to articulated, used them happily on other cameras, but really for doing waist-level or above the head shots I prefer the Z7's tilting display. Of course portrait orientation is where the versatility of the articulated display might be preferable compared to the Z7. Or as had been stated ad nauseam a dual tilt display would be ideal for a dedicated photo camera.
Anywho, it's not for me, but I agree 100% that the CV lenses would really pair wonderfully with it assuming it is your kettle of fish.
RoamingScott wrote:
My quibble with many of the so-far-released CV lenses for Z is that the focus rings range from "uncomfortably close to the body" to "stupidly close to the body" vs the much more comfortable at-the-edge-of-the-barrel ring on something like the Ultron II when adapted.
"Wait", you might be asking, "an adapted F mount lens is more comfortable to use than a native?" Well, yes, because Voigtlander put the focus ring SO close to the lens mount on most of these Z lenses that you have to contort your hand to use them, and on the Z9, the battery grip actually blocks functional use. I actually kept my Ultron II over the Z 40/1.2 because of this.
If your hand size/shape doesn't present this as an issue, I'd go for it, but try one before you order a whole kit. Take a look at the various options and see how there is no consistent engineering.
The Voigtlander line will go fantastic with the ZF, The ZF focus assistant for manual focusing is the icing on the cake.
Desmolicious wrote:
Using the FTZ and an F mount lens on my Z7 is not what I would describe as pleasurable. Even the small lenses like my Nikkor 45 f2.8 AI-P are at least doubled in size, so all the compactness of that disappears. And that is the best case scenario!
RoamingScott wrote:
My quibble with many of the so-far-released CV lenses for Z is that the focus rings range from "uncomfortably close to the body" to "stupidly close to the body" vs the much more comfortable at-the-edge-of-the-barrel ring on something like the Ultron II when adapted.
"Wait", you might be asking, "an adapted F mount lens is more comfortable to use than a native?" Well, yes, because Voigtlander put the focus ring SO close to the lens mount on most of these Z lenses that you have to contort your hand to use them, and on the Z9, the battery grip actually blocks functional use. I actually kept my Ultron II over the Z 40/1.2 because of this.
If your hand size/shape doesn't present this as an issue, I'd go for it, but try one before you order a whole kit. Take a look at the various options and see how there is no consistent engineering.
RoamingScott wrote:
My quibble with many of the so-far-released CV lenses for Z is that the focus rings range from "uncomfortably close to the body" to "stupidly close to the body" vs the much more comfortable at-the-edge-of-the-barrel ring on something like the Ultron II when adapted.
"Wait", you might be asking, "an adapted F mount lens is more comfortable to use than a native?" Well, yes, because Voigtlander put the focus ring SO close to the lens mount on most of these Z lenses that you have to contort your hand to use them, and on the Z9, the battery grip actually blocks functional use. I actually kept my Ultron II over the Z 40/1.2 because of this.
If your hand size/shape doesn't present this as an issue, I'd go for it, but try one before you order a whole kit. Take a look at the various options and see how there is no consistent engineering.
I don't have any of the CV lenses on Nikon, but I had several for E-mount, which are all the same general construction and same focus ring positioning as on the Nikon (actually slightly closer due to the shorter registration) and I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I've never had to contort my hands to use any lens like this...even the quite slim 20mm f/3.5 color skopar.
Jman13 wrote:
I don't have any of the CV lenses on Nikon, but I had several for E-mount, which are all the same general construction and same focus ring positioning as on the Nikon (actually slightly closer due to the shorter registration) and I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I've never had to contort my hands to use any lens like this...even the quite slim 20mm f/3.5 color skopar.
Could be a by product of the cameras I've tested them on, but Sonys are very small cameras and it's not a surprise that a lens with a close ring would be easier to use on a smaller camera.
I definitely wouldn't get the Z 40/1.2 thinking I could mount it and use it comfortably on any Z camera body. I'd be more confident in say the 35/1.2.
So here is my Z7 w FTZ and what I think was Nikon's smallest lens - the lovely 45mm 2.8 AI-P. This is to get an idea as to what it would look like on the Zf.
As you can see the FTZ is bigger than the lens!
The 45 AI-P is a chipped lens, so it should work perfectly with the FTZ, as it has electronic contacts, right?
Wrong. Because, yet again, as Nikon refused to put an aperture follower on the FTZ, you cannot use the aperture ring on the lens. You have to set it to min aperture and use a control dial on the camera body to set the aperture.
So even with the very cool Zf, with it's knobs n' stuff, you still cannot fully utilize all what chipped F mount lenses are capable of. And that's what gets me about the FTZ - if Nikon added an aperture follower all it does would be to expand the functionality of older lenses. Newer G and E-lenses would still work perfectly so its not like it would limit anything.
Insert sad trombone sound effect here ----->
sebjmatthews wrote:
There is simply nothing that a tilt screen can do which an articulated screen can't, but there are things an articulated screen can do which a tilt screen can't, including both being able to face more angles and being hidden away, either for stylistic desire or for protection. (Which is my personal reason for demanding articulated screens; mine stay protected, folded away, 99% of the time.)
Tilt screen can not stay closer to the center of camera body/ lens. Especially for simple tilt up or down, For me, that is a fatal design flow. The fact is it needs to be so far off from the center of the camera, one needs to calibrate composition on screen Vs viewfinder vs what I see with my eyes. Very annoying for some, or at least for me. If anyone solves this for both landscape and portrait positions with flip out screen, then it is fine with me.
I will just say, as someone who has zero interest in a retro styled digital camera, who is allergic to nostalgia... and who was holding out upgrading their D810 until the Z8 arrived... I am excited by the Zf. Waiting until I get to see some real world use, and/or get to play with it on display at B&H, but it really seems to hit such a high mark I didn't know I wanted until it existed. Apart from the dials, which IMO aren't appealing, the shooting style, the workflow, the imaging pipeline, the AF, it all seems like such a clever and feature-rich platform punching well above its weight. I have a Z6 now, and I've been shooting more and more of my work with it, for scenarios and clients who don't need 36-45.7mp. It is an overall *great* camera, with only two gripes, really: lackluster AF and eye tracking; lackluster internal video. The Zf looks to resolve these handily, and in an unassuming little package. I might just skip the Z8 altogether if it lives up to the spec sheet.
I have been looking very closely at the Z f since I really enjoy the Fuji X series cameras for their controls and image quality. The high ISO noise and overheating issues on my XT5 are the only problems, which is why I am considering something more robust. By the way, I am talking about overheating and camera shutdown when taking stills, not video.
At the moment, the Z f is giving me some pause.
In two separate reviews now, I have noticed that the Z f is displaying an overheating warning (again, taking photos, not video). Now, if it doesn't overheat to the point of shutting down in the middle of a shoot, then that's no problem. Looking for more answers soon.
These screenshots are from the below two reviews. I have added the timestamp in the URL from the two reviews so you can see it for yourself when they talk about the overheating.
Desmolicious wrote:
The 45 AI-P is a chipped lens, so it should work perfectly with the FTZ, as it has electronic contacts, right?
Wrong. Because, yet again, as Nikon refused to put an aperture follower on the FTZ, you cannot use the aperture ring on the lens. You have to set it to min aperture and use a control dial on the camera body to set the aperture.
Voigtlander lenses work that way: you have to use the aperture ring on the lens, which is chipped and therefore transfer the information (focal length, maximum aperture & set aperture) to the Z camera. The aperture can be "mechanically" set in 1/3 stop intervals.
I own Zeiss ZF.2 lenses too that I use with the FTZ. Zeiss lenses aperture can be set in half-stop increments. I much prefer to set the lens to min aperture and use the control dial on the camera body to set the aperture. This way I can set the aperture in 1/3 stop intervals and store its value in EXIF data.
I am just happy there is a "last flashy thing from Nikon" so all people just looking for whatever is trending move to this camera, and leave more Z8s for the rest of us.
I really enjoyed the hands-on video linked below - he takes some very nice pictures imo, sometimes using old Nikkor lenses and shows many of the features more clearly than the shorter review videos. Audio is in Chinese, but it has decent English sub-titles.
fjablo wrote:
I really enjoyed the hands-on video linked below - he takes some very nice pictures imo, sometimes using old Nikkor lenses and shows many of the features more clearly than the shorter review videos. Audio is in Chinese, but it has decent English sub-titles.
?si=Olmw6YS9Nzlt8DP7
magnification in manual focus with old lens from 4:45 min
