p.12 #1 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
1bwana1 wrote:
I have only questions about this so far.
How does a lens know whether it is in focus without a sensor? It can only know its aperture, and a calculated focus distance based on the moving focusing element(s).
A lens doesn't know if it's in focus or not, the camera does that calculation.
It is possible for a camera to do object recognition without electric connection to the lens by pattern matching algorithms.
This was covered here a bunch of times. All manual focus lenses regardless of whether they have an electronic connection or not will work with subject recognition on the Zf – it moves the focus point for you. But you have to get the image into rough focus first. The camera can't recognize a human/animal, etc. if the image is too far out of focus. AF does that in a spit second, but it takes a moment or two manually depending on how far out of focus the subject was to begin with.
It is possible for a camera to calculate phase and contrast peaks without electronic communication with the lens. There are some very good tunable focus peaking cameras out there.
Since neither Canon nor Nikon offers focus confirmation when manually focusing without an electronically-connected lens, it may be inferred that the camera needs to know the aperture in order to give focus confirmation. It possibly may need to know the approximate focus distance, but I'm not sure if manual focus lenses with electronic connections are passing the focus distance along to the camera or not.
Focus peaking can be used with any lens.
So, why couldn't a camera calculate when the box outlining the object (eye?) is also within the focus peaking max phase/contrast algorithm? It would then ignore all areas outside the object box, and only draw the peaking color inside the box, or some other indicator that these two things are in alignment. The function could also do the zoom into the box area in memory to get more accuracy. I have read that AF object recognition and tracking implement an invisible zoom to increase distance capability and accuracy.
No reason they couldn't overlap focus peaking with other forms of focus confirmation at least when zoomed out. But there are obviously processing power limitations to work around. It would be my guess that it's taking the full processing power available just to do subject recognition and take and process the image. Further, peaking just isn't accurate enough to be meaningful when we're talking about small distances that are critical to focus. Phase and contrast detection are sniper tools, peaking is a shotgun.
I haven't used focus peaking in years. With the current crop of high-quality EVFs from 3.X million dot and higher combined with fast sensor readouts and fast processors make focusing by sight when zoomed in easier and more accurate than peaking. The only time I find peaking useful is for landscapes to see how the DOF moves forward and back in a landscape image. In any case, the simple green focus confirmation box is every last single bit as accurate as using autofocus, it's just slower because it's being manually focused by a human. So there is very little need for other focus aids, IMO.
I took a few shots of the cat yesterday with the manual focus CV 50 APO for Z-mount without zooming in to focus. I only used the subject detection plus the green focus confirmation box. About 80% were in perfect focus on the cat's iris. 10% were out of focus due to subject movement (green focus confirmation box flickers). 10% were missed focus due to the detection not correctly using the iris but rather the edge of the eye. Also – this was in "Auto" subject detection mode. Accuracy would have been higher if I'd selected "Animal".
CV-Z 50 APO – Subject recognition plus focus confirmation
NIKON Z f50mm f/2 lens50mmf/2.01/400s100 ISO-0.3 EV
p.12 #2 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
Since neither Canon nor Nikon offers focus confirmation when manually focusing without an electronically-connected lens, it may be inferred that the camera needs to know the aperture in order to give focus confirmation. It possibly may need to know the approximate focus distance, but I'm not sure if manual focus lenses with electronic connections are passing the focus distance along to the camera or not.
I assumed the lens still passed focus distance to the camera, but exiftool showed focus distance as 0.01m regardless of the actual focus distance.
highdesertmesa wrote:
In any case, the simple green focus confirmation box is every last single bit as accurate as using autofocus, it's just slower because it's being manually focused by a human. So there is very little need for other focus aids, IMO.
I took a few shots of the cat yesterday with the manual focus CV 50 APO for Z-mount without zooming in to focus. I only used the subject detection plus the green focus confirmation box. About 80% were in perfect focus on the cat's iris. 10% were out of focus due to subject movement (green focus confirmation box flickers). 10% were missed focus due to the detection not correctly using the iris but rather the edge of the eye. Also – this was in "Auto" subject detection mode. Accuracy would have been higher if I'd selected "Animal"....Show more →
Agreed on the green box being the ticket to getting the most from the chipped MF lenses. I had a family get-together the first weekend that I had the Zf, and all I shot was the 40 f/1.2 using just the focus confirmation. No punching in or focus peaking, I only relied on the confirmation and it did a phenomenal job. I'm not seeing any difference whatsoever in the accuracy of AF vs. chipped MF lenses.
p.12 #3 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RoamingScott wrote
Wrong. It requires the lens to have electronic contacts to understand where the focus is at any given time.
Thanks for the explanation.
The need for electronic contacts was what I thought the AF needed, but I also got confused by the Subject Detection feature, as @highdesertmesa rightly pointed out.
That said, I guess there's still the option of using the Techart adapter to get AF on lenses without the electronic contact? Not sure how fast/reliable that is though.
p.12 #4 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Hi! I’m considering buying a Nikon ZF to have alongside my Z8, and was thinking to get the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.0 to pair with it.
Just by chance anybody got that combination? If so, how is it?
The alternative would be to get the Nikon 50mm f1.2 which would look nice on the Z8 but maybe not so much on the ZF?
p.12 #6 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
lukiano wrote:
Hi! I’m considering buying a Nikon ZF to have alongside my Z8, and was thinking to get the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.0 to pair with it.
Just by chance anybody got that combination? If so, how is it?
The alternative would be to get the Nikon 50mm f1.2 which would look nice on the Z8 but maybe not so much on the ZF?
Kind regards
I have it , it’s a hefty lens for manual focus , balances better on the Z8 honestly .
p.12 #7 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
jjcpa wrote:
Which Sony e mount to z mount adapter has both these features in order to use Laowa e mount on zf? Thx
If there are no electronic contacts on your Laowa E-mount lens, you will only get subject detection on the Zf and not focus confirmation regardless of the adapter used.
If you have a manual focus E-mount lens like the Zeiss Loxia lenses that do have electronic contacts, and you use an E to Z adapter with electronic contacts like the FotodioX Pro Fusion or the Venus Optics Megadap ETZ21 Pro, then you can get both focus confirmation and subject detection on the Zf.
p.12 #8 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
lukiano wrote:
Hi! I’m considering buying a Nikon ZF to have alongside my Z8, and was thinking to get the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.0 to pair with it.
Just by chance anybody got that combination? If so, how is it?
The alternative would be to get the Nikon 50mm f1.2 which would look nice on the Z8 but maybe not so much on the ZF?
Kind regards
I had the M-mount version of the Voigtlander 50 f/1. Great lens. The Nikon 50 f/1.2 is huge.
p.12 #10 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Wow, it took me a while to read through this entire thread.
The idea of a Zf with adapted lenses is growing on me, even if I was initially lukewarm on the idea due to the 24mp sensor (I would prefer 33-42 mp)
Has anyone else than Scott tried the Voigtlander Z-mount 40/1.2? It renders so well on the Sony cameras, so I'm a bit surprised by Scott's assessment on the performance on Nikon. It does look so good on the Zf :-)
p.12 #11 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
patotts wrote:
Wow, it took me a while to read through this entire thread.
The idea of a Zf with adapted lenses is growing on me, even if I was initially lukewarm on the idea due to the 24mp sensor (I would prefer 33-42 mp)
Has anyone else than Scott tried the Voigtlander Z-mount 40/1.2? It renders so well on the Sony cameras, so I'm a bit surprised by Scott's assessment on the performance on Nikon. It does look so good on the Zf :-)
p.12 #12 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
patotts wrote:
Wow, it took me a while to read through this entire thread.
The idea of a Zf with adapted lenses is growing on me, even if I was initially lukewarm on the idea due to the 24mp sensor (I would prefer 33-42 mp)
Has anyone else than Scott tried the Voigtlander Z-mount 40/1.2? It renders so well on the Sony cameras, so I'm a bit surprised by Scott's assessment on the performance on Nikon. It does look so good on the Zf :-)
To me the samples I've seen from the 40 Z at f/1.2 and close distance look a lot like the Minolta 58 1.2 at 1.2 – very dreamy, not overly sharp at the point of focus, and flattering for portraits.
Nikon 50 1.8 S vs CVZ 50 1.0 vs CVZ 40 1.2. I wish for the portrait comparisons that he had stepped closer with the 40 in order to maintain the same framing because it would have made the 40's bokeh look a bit more dramatic than it does.
&t=735
CVZ 40 1.2 – Note the very close MFD and how they do an aperture series at MFD, which looks best to me stopped way down, not just because of increased sharpness but because it gives a very nice context of the background while retaining a nice impressionistic rendering.
p.12 #13 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
patotts wrote:
Wow, it took me a while to read through this entire thread.
The idea of a Zf with adapted lenses is growing on me, even if I was initially lukewarm on the idea due to the 24mp sensor (I would prefer 33-42 mp)
Has anyone else than Scott tried the Voigtlander Z-mount 40/1.2? It renders so well on the Sony cameras, so I'm a bit surprised by Scott's assessment on the performance on Nikon. It does look so good on the Zf :-)
p.12 #15 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Please keep in mind that my comments were focused on performance wide open or close to it, specifically compared against the Ultron. I had no interest shooting at >f2.8 with a lens such as that, so it didn’t really matter to me if things cleaned up by then.
patotts wrote:
Wow, it took me a while to read through this entire thread.
The idea of a Zf with adapted lenses is growing on me, even if I was initially lukewarm on the idea due to the 24mp sensor (I would prefer 33-42 mp)
Has anyone else than Scott tried the Voigtlander Z-mount 40/1.2? It renders so well on the Sony cameras, so I'm a bit surprised by Scott's assessment on the performance on Nikon. It does look so good on the Zf :-)
p.12 #16 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
I doubt it's ripe for a derail but...
Z 40/1.2
- Significant CA wide open in just about any high contrast area in my testing/shooting, doesn't clean up till 1.8
- Center of barrel MF ring is not comfortable to use that close to the body IMO
- Terrible MFD performance, tons of ghosting/doubling (I'm sure there's a tech term for this I don't know)
- Can't mount on any other camera brand/mount (unlike buying the other mount options of the 40/1.2 like the FE or M)
F 40/2 Ultron II
- MF ring in much better spot once on FTZ/adapter
- Extremely sharp and very little CA wide open
- Much better MFD performance, even wide open
- Much closer MFD (2"/20% closer)
- Can pop onto any of my Nikon film cams
- Half the price if you catch on a sale
All that said, the Ultron does NOT produce the 40/1.2 "poor man's medium format" look in any significant regard. First example is THAT 40/1.2 look, you aren't getting it on any other lens. 2nd shot is a typical use case for my Ultron in that I leave it wide open 24/7 because the Z9 shutter speeds make it possible without a second thought. I think the Ultron rendering is just so classic looking without the drawbacks of the 40/1.2. I'm not constantly thinking my way around the 40/1.2 shortcomings. Your milage may vary, I'm not a huge MF guy and my experience is somewhat limited to these two Voigtlanders funnily enough.
Just wanted to say thanks for this assessment. The Voigtlander 40mm f/2 paired with the FM3a is one of my all time favorite combos, and I still use them regularly as someone who primarily shoots on film.
That said, I’m really hoping Voigtlander decides to do a native Z-mount version of that lens that keeps the same form factor - it would be a day one purchase for me, along with the Zf.
p.12 #17 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
I received my CV 50mm f1 in Z mount yesterday and did a little bit of night shooting with the Zf around the downtown area just to get a sense of it. It's a gorgeous lens with amazing build quality. Feels really good. It's a bit of a chonker for sure, very girthy, wide, and heavy but not too long. It certainly makes sense though being an f1 and all. I'd share some of the shots but feel they are not really worth looking at.
p.12 #18 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
C.Rankin wrote:
I received my CV 50mm f1 in Z mount yesterday and did a little bit of night shooting with the Zf around the downtown area just to get a sense of it. It's a gorgeous lens with amazing build quality. Feels really good. It's a bit of a chonker for sure, very girthy, wide, and heavy but not too long. It certainly makes sense though being an f1 and all. I'd share some of the shots but feel they are not really worth looking at.
p.12 #19 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
foto16 wrote:
This is very intriguing. How does the camera know that focus is achieved? Does it use the same mechanism that turns on focus peaking indicators? If so, how does it differ from focus peaking and is it more accurate?
It uses the phase detect AF pixels on the image sensor. To my recollection all Z bodies offer this for MF. Interpreting the PD pixels requires knowledge of the focal length/exit pupil, which is why it's only available on lenses with electronic contacts.
p.12 #20 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
C.Rankin wrote:
I received my CV 50mm f1 in Z mount yesterday and did a little bit of night shooting with the Zf around the downtown area just to get a sense of it. It's a gorgeous lens with amazing build quality. Feels really good. It's a bit of a chonker for sure, very girthy, wide, and heavy but not too long. It certainly makes sense though being an f1 and all. I'd share some of the shots but feel they are not really worth looking at.
Qurious on your impressions once you’ve used it for a bit. I was dead certain I would save up for this lens, but now I’m really not sure, thinking that the 50/2 APO Lanthar may be the better choice for me. Would love to try them both out, but that’s unlikely to happen.
