FYI Samys Camera in Los Angeles has the ZF in stock as of this morning. What is unusual is it is for walk ins only. Online/mail order they are out of stock.
jaygould wrote:
Thoughts on getting a used Z7 for $1200 instead of a ZF?
I know it's apples to oranges but that 45mp sensor (better image quality) is tempting. I really like the flip-out screen on the ZF though.
I would use the camera mainly as a webcam and for 4k video, but also for landscape, architecture and portrait photography.
Having used the 45MP sensor on the Z7 the reality is that I'd never go back to 24MP. The ability to crop is a significant benefit and is akin to having a built in, lossless 1.4x teleconverter that works on every lens when compared to the 24MP sensor (the 45MP cropped by 1.4x results in a 22.5 MP image).
That said, if your primary use is webcam and video then I'd look carefully at the video comparisons between the Z7 and the Zf. I'm not a video user, but my impression is there are significant differences in capabilities that might trump 24MP vs 45MP.
jaygould wrote:
Thoughts on getting a used Z7 for $1200 instead of a ZF?
I know it's apples to oranges but that 45mp sensor (better image quality) is tempting. I really like the flip-out screen on the ZF though.
I would use the camera mainly as a webcam and for 4k video, but also for landscape, architecture and portrait photography.
The Z7 has worse image quality in video than the Zf. The Zf has a 24 MP sensor and it doesn't need line-skipping to do 4K24/25/30; the 4K footage at those frame rates is oversampled from 6K, so there is low risk of aliasing artifacts and you get very good image quality in video. The Z7's full-frame-width 4K does not use all the pixels so can get aliasing, but there is a cropped 4K mode which should be OK, if you're fine with having a DX image size. The Zf also has a crop at higher frame rates (50/60fps), unfortunately. But if 24, 25 or 30 fps is sufficient for your needs, then the Zf produces full-frame-width, resampled video of high quality.
For landscape, architecture and portrait photography, the Z7 can be better (assuming you have adequate light for the portraits and are using a tripod for the first two) as it has higher resolution and ISO 64. The Zf has, however, advantages at mid to high ISO, better autofocus (the custom wide-area AF with subject-detection is excellent and it allows the operator to select which area of the frame the camera can search for the subject and focus on, and by limiting this area one can reduce the frequency of the camera finding other subjects than the intended person's eyes which can happen if you shoot in auto area).
Bought the tiny $69 TTA 50 f/2. Extremely impressed with the build quality and IQ for the price. The Zeiss T* UV filter costs almost as much as the lens did. Voigtlander needs to add some smaller Z-mount lens options like this, and Nikon needs to make a small set of lenses with aperture rings that matches the look of the Zf.
highdesertmesa wrote:
The Zeiss T* UV filter costs almost as much as the lens did.
Then why bother putting it on?
But seriously, I've been considering that lens. When I'm on a canyon hike with the 14-30/4S it would be nice to have something a bit longer and with some option for shallower DOF along that is very compact. The 40/2 fits the bill nicely, but kind of like the idea of something a bit longer.
But seriously, I've been considering that lens. When I'm on a canyon hike with the 14-30/4S it would be nice to have something a bit longer and with some option for shallower DOF along that is very compact. The 40/2 fits the bill nicely, but kind of like the idea of something a bit longer.
I already had the filter, and it will serve as a lens cap so I don't have to use the screw-on lens cap that came with the lens.
I would go with the 40 f/2 just because the TTA 50 f/2's main weakness is shooting toward the light. When backlit at all, stopping down smaller than f/2 creates a blue-ish purple tint to the center of the image. The further you stop down, the more prominent the effect. If you shoot strictly with the sun overhead, to the side, or to your back, then it should be fine.
JadedWriter wrote:
I'm almost half tempted to buy one of these and shoot a college graduation with it just to prove that you can take a picture with this camera
Let me save you the trouble , you absolutely can , and very easily . Let the trolls , troll , they do for every camera announcement regardless of manufacturer.
JadedWriter wrote:
I'm almost half tempted to buy one of these and shoot a college graduation with it just to prove that you can take a picture with this camera
At this point an internet search for the world troll should just default to your profile Scott , funny part is you claim not to understand why. What’s this 4 different forums here where people call you a troll ?
JustShootMe wrote:
At this point an internet search for the world troll should just default to your profile Scott , funny part is you claim not to understand why. What’s this 4 different forums here where people call you a troll ?
Fool, I know Marcus from way before Fred Miranda. You have no idea what you're talking about half the time, and here we are again. Please do us both a favor, hide me, and never @ me again! Thanks!
Scott can't even bother me to be honest. There are way more annoying to me than him JustShootMe wrote:
At this point an internet search for the world troll should just default to your profile Scott , funny part is you claim not to understand why. What’s this 4 different forums here where people call you a troll ?
Finally got hands on mine today, it arrived around the same time I landed in Italy 10 days ago. I was very split on the ergonomics so I figured instead of heming and hawing in B&H I took the plunge and I'll get some hands on use before I make any snap judgements, and If I don't like it, I'll be one of a few on B&S. So far it feels good in hand, but time and use will tell. I took a Z5 and 3 primes to Italy and found myself using the grip and the dedicated ISO button more than I thought I would for casual shooting...
