p.25 #1 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
You can see the triangles align like in a rf camera with Canon focus guide, not just a green focus box, eg triangles show much mf is from the focus confirmation or how close mf is to the focus confirmation:
?t=330
JustShootMe wrote:
True but you can zoom on the Nikon once the subject is detected , if you don't trust the green square. I thought it was odd that this is disabled on the canon side.
p.25 #2 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
Canon's Focus Guide is just as accurate as Canon's eye-AF, which is nearly infallible. If you couldn't trust it (as you can't with many other brands, which focus on eyelashes or eyebrows), I wouldn't use it, at least not wide open.
I expect all manual focus guides and help to have some "wiggle" area. I.e., you can move the focus ring a bit, and it is still marked as being in focus, which it can't be. If that is the case, then AF is more accurate than the manual focus help.
How is the user experience? Were you able to improve focus by magnifying as the last step, or have you never seen any need for additional correction steps of manual focus help?
p.25 #3 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
serhan_ wrote:
You can see the triangles align like in a rf camera with Canon focus guide, not just a green focus box, eg triangles show much mf is from the focus confirmation or how close mf is to the focus confirmation:
?t=330
Isn't this the same as the two triangles ang green circle on Nikon? I'll admit it is a lot easier to see
p.25 #4 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
SrMi wrote:
I expect all manual focus guides and help to have some "wiggle" area. I.e., you can move the focus ring a bit, and it is still marked as being in focus, which it can't be. If that is the case, then AF is more accurate than the manual focus help.
How is the user experience? Were you able to improve focus by magnifying as the last step, or have you never seen any need for additional correction steps of manual focus help?
In my experience with Canon's assist - it does not have wiggle room, and it is incredibly accurate. It's the best MF focus assist I've ever used. Nikon's light up green box is good, and generally quite accurate, but not as precise as Canon's.
BTW - I haven't seen the arrows and circle in my Zf display, and can't seem to find a setting to turn them on - is this something I'm missing? (I've seen this aid on other Nikon cameras of mine, but it's not showing on the Zf) Edit: I see it show up when I have an AF lens mounted, but it doesn't show up with my voigtlander Z lenses, despite there being electronic connection - guessing they don't have brushes to show focus distance. That's annoying.
p.25 #5 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Jman13 wrote:
In my experience with Canon's assist - it does not have wiggle room, and it is incredibly accurate. It's the best MF focus assist I've ever used. Nikon's light up green box is good, and generally quite accurate, but not as precise as Canon's.
The MF-indicating rangefinder in Nikon Z cameras is precise down to just 2 AFMA points on large-aperture lenses at certain distances, which is within the margin of error for AF systems and well below any perceptible threshold. I posted a video demonstration of this a few weeks ago:
Jman13 wrote:
BTW - I haven't seen the arrows and circle in my Zf display, and can't seem to find a setting to turn them on - is this something I'm missing? (I've seen this aid on other Nikon cameras of mine, but it's not showing on the Zf) Edit: I see it show up when I have an AF lens mounted, but it doesn't show up with my voigtlander Z lenses, despite there being electronic connection - guessing they don't have brushes to show focus distance. That's annoying.
The rangefinder uses the on-sensor PDAF sensors, which only work with lenses that can report their exit pupil distances, since the phase evaluation must know the approximation of this distance in order to properly evaluate phase differentials. This means only lenses with electrical contacts and within those, the ones which properly report their FL info.
p.25 #6 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
snapsy wrote:
The rangefinder uses the on-sensor PDAF sensors, which only work with lenses that can report their exit pupil distances, since the phase evaluation must know the approximation of this distance in order to properly evaluate phase differentials. This means only lenses with electrical contacts and within those, the ones which properly report their FL info.
The Z Voigtlanders do report the focal length and aperture, but I don't think they report focus distance, which I would imagine would also be needed.
p.25 #7 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
might help:
'This lens is equipped with electronic contacts and realizes communications between the lens and the body. In addition to Exif information and in-body image stabilization (3 axes), by combining a body compatible with communications and the latest firmware *1, three types of focusing support functions ( [1] focusing by color changing of the focus point frame [2] peaking function focusing and (text buggerup ensued here!) - see page:
p.25 #8 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
SrMi wrote:
I expect all manual focus guides and help to have some "wiggle" area. I.e., you can move the focus ring a bit, and it is still marked as being in focus, which it can't be. If that is the case, then AF is more accurate than the manual focus help.
How is the user experience? Were you able to improve focus by magnifying as the last step, or have you never seen any need for additional correction steps of manual focus help?
This was answered well by two others already, but keep in mind that the subject can fall slightly out of focus during the reaction time it takes you to fire the shutter after seeing focus confirmation. With an AF lens in continuous focus mode, no such delay exists since the camera continues to track and adjust focus right up to the moment at which the shutter fires. For that reason, AF will always give you better results at the widest apertures unless your camera is on a tripod and your subject is static.
p.25 #12 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
We've been through that with Martin (Renarou) a couple of months ago, Voigtlanders Z do not report the distance therefore distance gauge and >0< indicator do not appear in the VF.
Note that with my TTartisan AF 32mm F2.8 Z, I have both distance gauge and >0< indicator.
p.25 #14 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
I didn't find a clear information in this topic, but probably it's me, anyone tested Leica M lenses under 35mm on the Zf?
Is smearing bad as Sony FF?
Any picture samples?
Thank you
Jan 05, 2024 at 08:16 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #15 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Massinissa wrote:
I didn't find a clear information in this topic, but probably it's me, anyone tested Leica M lenses under 35mm on the Zf?
Is smearing bad as Sony FF?
Any picture samples?
Thank you
See the Leica and alt forum and search for some of these tests. I see no reason the Zf would be any different from the other Nikon Z cameras with Leica M mount lenses. Some lenses work quite well (e.g., Voigtlander 15 f/4.5 III), other work quite poorly (e.g., Leica 21 SEM; Voigtlander 28 f/2 II) with pretty bad smearing. The Nikon Z mount cameras might be slightly better than Sony E mount cameras but the difference between Nikon and Sony in my experience is small.
p.25 #16 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
I have a good set of current model Leica and Voigtlander M primes. I was hoping to use them adapted on my Sony A1 as well as my M10-P, and M11. However, I have never been full happy with the results when adapted compared to the stellar results I get on My leica bodies. I also don't think they held up to my GM primes and zooms on the A1. Consequently, I shoot M lenses on M bodies, and E lenses on E-Mount bodies.
p.25 #17 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
I have to say, the Zf does lend itself well to this purpose, IMO. It does a nice job with my Nikon Z lenses, of course, but I currently have a bag packed with my Pergear 14mm, Voigtlander VM 21/3.5, Voigtlander Z 35/2 APO, and Voigtlander Z 65/2 APO. Really enjoying that set.
Oh, and having read Thom Hogan's review of the 65/2 Z, I don't know what he's smoking - this thing is VERY sharp into the corners from f/2, and outstanding from f/2.8-f/4, even close up - he was talking about requiring like f/11-f/16 close up for sharp corners, which is ludicrous. This lens is phenomenal.
p.25 #19 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
This was answered well by two others already, but keep in mind that the subject can fall slightly out of focus during the reaction time it takes you to fire the shutter after seeing focus confirmation. With an AF lens in continuous focus mode, no such delay exists since the camera continues to track and adjust focus right up to the moment at which the shutter fires. For that reason, AF will always give you better results at the widest apertures unless your camera is on a tripod and your subject is static.
IIRC, back in the early SLR AF days, one of Nikon's claims was that their AF algorithm actually made allowances in AFC mode for the exposure delay (however short) between shutter button actuation and actual shutter opening. Wonder if that's still true today, have not heard any mention of this for quite awhile.
p.25 #20 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Massinissa wrote:
I didn't find a clear information in this topic, but probably it's me, anyone tested Leica M lenses under 35mm on the Zf?
Is smearing bad as Sony FF?
Any picture samples?
Thank you
I'm using the CV 28 f/2.8
Here are some samples, hope these help.
