p.5 #1 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
Would any sane person own both a Nikon and Sony at the same time? Wouldn't they lose their minds with both of those complicated menus?
Z sensor cover glass thickness (1.1mm) sits between E (1.75mm) and a Kolari modified sensor, so I would assume the Z sensors are better than E sensors for M lenses but still a far cry from a Kolari-modified sensor of either mount.
It would be cool to see a side-by-side test (corners, color shift, field curvature shape, and vignetting) using one of the most difficult M lenses for digital sensors to handle like the Voigtlander 21mm Color-Skopar F4.0.
Cover glass thickness:
– GFX 100S (BSI) – 3.1mm cover glass spaced 9mm away from the sensor (per Fujifilm illustration)
– A7R4 (BSI) 1.75mm cover glass (per Kolari)
– Z7 (BSI) 1.1mm cover glass (per Kolari)
– SL2 (FSI) or SL2-S (BSI) cover glass thickness unknown but has parabolic microlens array that is M lens-friendly
– M10-R (FSI) or M11 (BSI) parabolic microlenses shifted to further accommodate the ray angles from wide angle M lenses ...Show more →
That's not quite accurate I think (on the Nikon front) because:
"That was what many people thought, including me. However, what this teardown shows is the thickness of the removable glass. There is also a glass layer epoxied to the sensor itself, which adds to the total thickness. If the real, total, sensor glass thickness actually was 1.1mm, then even "difficult" M mount lenses would perform flawlessly on a stock Nikon Z camera. Unfortunately, that isn't the case."
That's From LarsHP who is quite active on FM as well. I have a NKIR modded A7r2 with a v3+ version, which has a thickness of 0.75mm. Their WB issue is far less severe than Kolari, otherwise I would have went Kolari UT mod. They were working on a V5 a while ago, which would would result in .58mm. I am curious about that as it might make even Contax G lenses better.
This really gets back at that, I wish someone (not me), would do some legit testing of BSI Z bodies versus a native Leica or UT Mod which is a known quantity at this point.
p.5 #2 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
nehemiahphoto wrote:
That's not quite accurate I think (on the Nikon front) because:
"That was what many people thought, including me. However, what this teardown shows is the thickness of the removable glass. There is also a glass layer epoxied to the sensor itself, which adds to the total thickness. If the real, total, sensor glass thickness actually was 1.1mm, then even "difficult" M mount lenses would perform flawlessly on a stock Nikon Z camera. Unfortunately, that isn't the case."
That's From LarsHP who is quite active on FM as well. I have a NKIR modded A7r2 with a v3+ version, which has a thickness of 0.75mm. Their WB issue is far less severe than Kolari, otherwise I would have went Kolari UT mod. They were working on a V5 a while ago, which would would result in .58mm. I am curious about that as it might make even Contax G lenses better.
This really gets back at that, I wish someone (not me), would do some legit testing of BSI Z bodies versus a native Leica or UT Mod which is a known quantity at this point....Show more →
Thanks for sharing this. I have confidence in @LarsHP's evaluation because it aligns with what others have discussed on the Nikon board. There's a possibility that the sensor stack in Nikon bodies could show very slight improved performance with M-lenses, but problems related to induced field curvature and astigmatism still persist.
p.5 #3 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
1bwana1 wrote:
I have just reached a point where I no longer use adapted lenses. The results are just too inconsistent between lenses, and I don't have the interest or patience to spend time buying testing and selling lenses. I now use only native lenses on my different systems. Manual focus on Leica M, and AF lenses on Sony A1. Easy! Lazy I guess.
p.5 #4 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for sharing this. I have confidence in LarsHP's evaluation because it aligns with what others have discussed on the Nikon board. There's a possibility that the sensor stack in Nikon bodies could show very slight improved performance with M-lenses, but problems related to induced field curvature and astigmatism still persist.
For sure Fred. I am not doing any lifting here--just passing along helpful LarsHP's info. I am also of the mind that the improvement would be marginal from my research. Still, I'd like to see how much--ideally, I would like to a) move on from my A7r2 NKIR as that camera is dying and b) not have to deal with modding a sensor again if I can help it.
If the performance was, let's say, half between native M performance and E mount performance, I'd probably just accept the IQ loss and go with a Nikon. Especially cause I think the Zf is quite attractive (great MF aids, love the no grip body and all the manual controls), and the EVF and price point are fair.
p.5 #5 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
A great alternative to a dedicated M body is the original SL typ 601. It has a beautiful 4.4MP EVF and it works great with M lenses. The best performance I’ve seen aside from a modded body. The only two drawbacks is the lack of Ibis and the higher weight compared to the competition. The new ZF and MF aid seem interesting too but it won’t work optimally with M lenses with short exit pupil.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
For sure Fred. I am not doing any lifting here--just passing along helpful LarsHP's info. I am also of the mind that the improvement would be marginal from my research. Still, I'd like to see how much--ideally, I would like to a) move on from my A7r2 NKIR as that camera is dying and b) not have to deal with modding a sensor again if I can help it.
If the performance was, let's say, half between native M performance and E mount performance, I'd probably just accept the IQ loss and go with a Nikon. Especially cause I think the Zf is quite attractive (great MF aids, love the no grip body and all the manual controls), and the EVF and price point are fair....Show more →
p.5 #6 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
A great alternative to a dedicated M body is the original SL typ 601. It has a beautiful 4.4MP EVF and it works great with M lenses. The best performance I’ve seen aside from a modded body. The only two drawbacks is the lack of Ibis and the higher weight compared to the competition. The new ZF and MF aid seem interesting too but it won’t work optimally with M lenses with short exit pupil.
I loved the original SL when it came out, but having used the SL2/SL2-S, I tried an SL again a few months ago, and I couldn’t go back to it. The EVF is indeed nice, but the magnified live view for manual focus is very far behind the SL2/S in low light. I would even say the image in low light when magnified is well behind the more recent 3.X million dot EVFs simply due to the quality of the feed off current sensors.
Edit to say: regardless of the above, the images out of the original SL are superb. That sensor which is shared with the original Q is one of my favorites of all time for low ISO use.
p.5 #7 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for sharing this. I have confidence in LarsHP's evaluation because it aligns with what others have discussed on the Nikon board. There's a possibility that the sensor stack in Nikon bodies could show very slight improved performance with M-lenses, but problems related to induced field curvature and astigmatism still persist.
Would love to see the SL2 compared directly to the Z7 and A7R4/5 (or preferably the A1 to keep the resolution more or less equal) with a few M lenses known to show issues on anything but an M camera. Results of that would mean more than cover glass thickness comparisons!
p.5 #8 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
I loved the original SL when it came out, but having used the SL2/SL2-S, I tried an SL again a few months ago, and I couldn’t go back to it. The EVF is indeed nice, but the magnified live view for manual focus is very far behind the SL2/S in low light. I would even say the image in low light when magnified is well behind the more recent 3.X million dot EVFs simply due to the quality of the feed off current sensors.
Edit to say: regardless of the above, the images out of the original SL are superb. That sensor which is shared with the original Q is one of my favorites of all time for low ISO use....Show more →
Interesting you say that--I really enjoyed the m240 at base ISO as well.
p.5 #9 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
I loved the original SL when it came out, but having used the SL2/SL2-S, I tried an SL again a few months ago, and I couldn’t go back to it. The EVF is indeed nice, but the magnified live view for manual focus is very far behind the SL2/S in low light. I would even say the image in low light when magnified is well behind the more recent 3.X million dot EVFs simply due to the quality of the feed off current sensors.
Edit to say: regardless of the above, the images out of the original SL are superb. That sensor which is shared with the original Q is one of my favorites of all time for low ISO use....Show more →
I used the Leica SL 601 for nearly a year before switching to the SL2, and I was really impressed with the pictures it took. If I remember right, its base ISO is 50 and it has a built-in GPS.
Now, when I want M-lenses with EVF, I simply attach it to my M10-R. It's cumbersome but works.
p.5 #10 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
I haven't personally tried this, but I'm really curious to find out the details. Has anyone compared how a wide-angle M lens performs on a Sony camera compared to a Nikon camera and checked for any differences in IQ?
I suppose I could give a ZF lens a shot and then compare its performance with my Sony A9 using a couple of M lenses.
I tried a Sony A7C and a Nikon Z6 back to back with a CV 35/2.5 which has a sharp angle of attack due to its rear element. That lens always did alright on my Leica M 240. On the Nikon it fared better at infinity than the Sony did at 6 feet. So it’s an improvement. But in the depths of the corners I still got some smearing. No color fringing though. With the CV 35/1.4II there was no smearing on either but field curvature was more pronounced on the Sony.
p.5 #11 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
I have the Kolari UT modded Z6 and a stock Z7, and with the current 28mm Ultron, the Z7 creates sharply outward bending field curvature near the far edges and corners, while on the Z6UT, the field is flat (or maybe even very, very slightly inward bending in the corners).
The reason I got the Ultra-Thin mod on my Z6 was that I got a good deal on the 28mm Summicron Asph v2, but it performed poorly outside the center. This indicated to me that the sensor glass in my stock Z6 was much thicker than in a digital Leica M camera (allegedly around 1mm). After getting the UT mod on my Z6, the 'cron performed much better. Eventually I bought the Ultron II, which is better* than the 'cron in every possible way except vignetting wide open.
*at least the sample I had, even after two optical services at Wetzlar.
Would it be possible/would you mind to shoot a tripod infinite aperture series on the stock Z7 an UT Z6 at apertures f2-f8 using the CV 28/2ii? I am happy to post crops for all if I can get raw files (not sure if you know how to PS those nicely).
@fredmiranda
Honestly, 24mp is fine for most of my purposes, and the base ISO is more than sufficient as well--lovely EVF too. But if I am shooting RF glass, I want a smaller body too.
Would it be possible/would you mind to shoot a tripod infinite aperture series on the stock Z7 an UT Z6 at apertures f2-f8 using the CV 28/2ii? I am happy to post crops for all if I can get raw files (not sure if you know how to PS those nicely).
@fredmiranda@
Honestly, 24mp is fine for most of my purposes, and the base ISO is more than sufficient as well--lovely EVF too. But if I am shooting RF glass, I want a smaller body too.
Yes, that's the main downside of the SL line. It's a bit heavy for a full frame camera. ~850 grams.
However, in the case of the SL 601, I found that the extra weight helps stabilizing the camera.
p.5 #14 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
{Cross-posted to Nikon and Leica/Alt forums}
TTArtisan M to Z adapter arrived today. Works well, and I like the cone shape of the adapter, which helps the wide Z mount not look so ridiculous with the smaller M mount lenses.
Face/eye detect with dumb-adapted lenses works perfectly and moves the focus point to a face or eye if detected. Otherwise it works as a single point that can be moved around the screen normally. There is no joystick, but activating the rear screen touch AF while using the EVF works well. I highly recommend changing the speed the AF point moves to "fast" as that makes moving the focus point feel fluid, unlike the default speed, which feels choppy.
For manual focusing, it's helpful to assign zooming to 200% to a function button. I prefer using the AE/AF-L button for this since it allows for having the index finger on the shutter and thumb on the AE/AF-L at the same time.
EVF resolution when zoomed is of higher clarity than older cameras with ~3.69 million dot EVFs I've used. I do not have to strain my eyes at all to focus at wide apertures.
When a manual lens profile is set up with the matching focal length, IBIS works perfectly. I don't know if the new Zf function to link IBIS performance to the focus point continues to work in MF mode with a non-electronically-connected lens, but I don't see why it wouldn't – perhaps someone else can confirm. The Zf's 7 stops of IBIS (8 stops is only "with selected lenses") is an upgrade from the SL2-S I used to own, which was 5.5 stops.
Overall I find the Zf body feels much better to use with M lenses than the SL cameras I've owned: better matching retro design, lighter, and for the subject detection with MF lenses. I wish the Zf had the SL2-S's EVF, but the one in the Zf is good enough that I'm not left wanting when I use it.
From here, I think I will fill as many focal lengths as I can with Voigtlander Z-mount lenses, then only buy M-mount lenses for the gaps.
I'm on the fence about keeping the Nikon 40 f/2 SE (I bought the Zf and 40 separately, not as a kit). Returning it would pay for half a CV-Z lens. ...Show more →
Wow that looks amazing. Thanks for sharing. I’m excited to get mine!
p.5 #15 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
LarsHP wrote:
I have the Kolari UT modded Z6 and a stock Z7, and with the current 28mm Ultron, the Z7 creates sharply outward bending field curvature near the far edges and corners, while on the Z6UT, the field is flat (or maybe even very, very slightly inward bending in the corners).
The reason I got the Ultra-Thin mod on my Z6 was that I got a good deal on the 28mm Summicron Asph v2, but it performed poorly outside the center. This indicated to me that the sensor glass in my stock Z6 was much thicker than in a digital Leica M camera (allegedly around 1mm). After getting the UT mod on my Z6, the 'cron performed much better. Eventually I bought the Ultron II, which is better* than the 'cron in every possible way except vignetting wide open.
*at least the sample I had, even after two optical services at Wetzlar. ...Show more →
I’m curious if the Kolari UT mod has any drawbacks when used with Z mount Voigtlander lenses. Is the modded sensor best dedicated to native M lenses?
p.5 #16 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
I have tried to keep up with all the comments here, BUT my main reason to get one would be to take advantage of the auto face/eye detect feature with MF lenses, SO:
1. How do 6 bit coded M lenses work in MF with face/eye detect? Can it work fast?
2. Assume VZ lenses work just fine with face/eye detect.
3. Best adapters for M lenses?
4. Old Nikon glass needs a Nikon adapter. Do about all old Nikon lenses work with this adapter and does it auto detect face/eye?
5. Do Nikon AF Z lenses make the process of face/eye detection better and faster?
6. Will IBIS work with any adapted MF lenses such as M or VF lenses?
Any and all comments most appreciated since a dealer has called me and has one if I want it.
p.5 #17 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
6. I’m pretty sure this already works on all the IBIS Z cameras - if you use even a dumb adapter, you can input the focal length and maximum aperture in the Non-CPU Lens Data and it should work fine.
Definitely interested in learning about using non-chipped lenses with an FTZ and getting focus confirmation - I believe this is new with the Zf. If true, this definitely would have me sticking with an FTZ with my MF lenses, which would be a change for me.
p.5 #18 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
I’m curious if the Kolari UT mod has any drawbacks when used with Z mount Voigtlander lenses. Is the modded sensor best dedicated to native M lenses?
Interestingly, lenses that are met for a native sensor stack can actually benefit bokeh wise. That article covers that with FE, so I am assuming lenses optimized for the Z sensor stack have a similar behavior on a UT.
p.5 #19 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
algrove wrote:
I have tried to keep up with all the comments here, BUT my main reason to get one would be to take advantage of the auto face/eye detect feature with MF lenses, SO:
1. How do 6 bit coded M lenses work in MF with face/eye detect? Can it work fast?
2. Assume VZ lenses work just fine with face/eye detect.
3. Best adapters for M lenses?
4. Old Nikon glass needs a Nikon adapter. Do about all old Nikon lenses work with this adapter and does it auto detect face/eye?
5. Do Nikon AF Z lenses make the process of face/eye detection better and faster?
6. Will IBIS work with any adapted MF lenses such as M or VF lenses?
Any and all comments most appreciated since a dealer has called me and has one if I want it....Show more →
Speed of the eye-AF (plus animal, etc.) with manual focus lenses not as fast as AF if the scene is largely out of focus at the start. You need to get the subject a little in focus before eyes would be discernible. AF does this in an instant. But generally if the subject is fairly close to being in focus, the subject detection is just as fast in MF vs AF. Of course you can never turn the manual focus ring as quickly and accurately as a fast Z AF lens can do AF.
Avoid the super cheap M adapters and stick with Novoflex, Kippon or for a cheap option the TTArtisans work well.
You don’t need electronic connections for subject detection to work with manual focus lenses, but it’s helpful as it allows the green focus confirmation box to light up when in focus.
p.5 #20 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
Of course you can never turn the manual focus ring as quickly and accurately as a fast Z AF lens can do AF.
Avoid the super cheap M adapters and stick with Novoflex, Kippon or for a cheap option the TTArtisans work well.
You don’t need electronic connections for subject detection to work with manual focus lenses, but it’s helpful as it allows the green focus confirmation box to light up when in focus.
Thanks. The 7Artisans M-Z adapter looks about like the TTA adapter you own. I guess it might be worth getting a 6 bit M-Z.
Are you planning on keeping your Z40/2 due to its faster speed? Think street environments.
