p.69 #1 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
Depends on what body you are using. Many Expeed 7 can fake the EXIF just like the adapters with the added bonus of letting you record aperture, in which case you don't need anything but the FTZ II for all adapting needs.
Do you get the green box focus confirmation on the FTZ II adapter with non CPU lenses? I think that's the main draw of this adapter.
p.69 #2 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
bigtractor wrote:
Do you get the green box focus confirmation on the FTZ II adapter with non CPU lenses? I think that's the main draw of this adapter.
That part is true (no green box on dumb lenses with FTZ II) but my comments were about "no exif" which is false on the newest updates to the firmwares.
p.69 #3 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Has anyone else noticed that the Nikon Zf focus confirmation seems to be much more reliable with lenses that are well corrected for spherical aberration (SA)?
When I adapt lenses with more residual SA, the green focus confirmation still works, but it doesn't seem to be as accurate or consistent. Because of that, I still find myself preferring the Leica rangefinder patch for these types of lenses, while reserving the Zf's focus confirmation for lenses with better SA correction.
It makes sense in theory since the on-sensor AF system (used for the MF confirmation) relies on image contrast and resolution, both of which are reduced by SA. Has anyone else experienced the same thing, or is there another explanation?
p.69 #4 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that the Nikon Zf focus confirmation seems to be much more reliable with lenses that are well corrected for spherical aberration (SA)?
When I adapt lenses with more residual SA, the green focus confirmation still works, but it doesn't seem to be as accurate or consistent. Because of that, I still find myself preferring the Leica rangefinder patch for these types of lenses, while reserving the Zf's focus confirmation for lenses with better SA correction.
It makes sense in theory since the on-sensor AF system (used for the MF confirmation) relies on image contrast and resolution, both of which are reduced by SA. Has anyone else experienced the same thing, or is there another explanation?...Show more →
I did notice it a while ago when testing the SP II and some other lenses(a few members of the forum helped me realize it), most of the lenses I own have some serious SA. So I went back using some other adapters (giving me more choice) and focusing with magnification and minimum focus peaking, I prefer do it that way after all, I bought the Zf for its unique manual aids and ended up not liking them that much at the end of the day, oddly enough.
Maybe if they were to evolve the thing for a new camera and embracing the manual experience more, I surely could change my mind, but it’s still timid, their approach is with the Zf anyway.
p.69 #5 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Sonnar-7 wrote:
I did notice it a while ago when testing the SP II and some other lenses(a few members of the forum helped me realize it), most of the lenses I own have some serious SA. So I went back using some other adapters (giving me more choice) and focusing with magnification and minimum focus peaking, I prefer do it that way after all, I bought the Zf for its unique manual aids and ended up not liking them that much at the end of the day, oddly enough.
Maybe if they were to evolve the thing for a new camera and embracing the manual experience more, I surely could change my mind, but it’s still timid, their approach is with the Zf anyway....Show more →
SA is definitely the enemy of on-sensor PDAF, which is one reason modern AF lens designs minimize it as much as possible. A good example is the Sigma 45mm f/2.8 C, a lens famous for its residual spherical aberration. It's a great look but the residual SA contributes to less consistent AF behavior in continuous focusing (phase detect), and this has been reported by many as a weakness of the lens. The same ill-effect can also be seen on cameras like the Zf when on-sensor PDAF is used to assist focus confirmation with MF lenses, where higher levels of SA can make focus confirmation less precise and in many cases completely inaccurate.
It's a different case with a rangefinder patch: if the lens is properly calibrated to the rangefinder, it will always focus optimally because the RF system does not "see" SA.
p.69 #6 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that the Nikon Zf focus confirmation seems to be much more reliable with lenses that are well corrected for spherical aberration (SA)?
When I adapt lenses with more residual SA, the green focus confirmation still works, but it doesn't seem to be as accurate or consistent. Because of that, I still find myself preferring the Leica rangefinder patch for these types of lenses, while reserving the Zf's focus confirmation for lenses with better SA correction.
It makes sense in theory since the on-sensor AF system (used for the MF confirmation) relies on image contrast and resolution, both of which are reduced by SA. Has anyone else experienced the same thing, or is there another explanation?...Show more →
I think I'm seeing the same thing, my main experience being the 28 Nokton.
I go back and forth between thinking MF confirmation is great one day to another coming back home with misfocused shots due to MF confirmation not being completely accurate. I found that my bad days where when I was shooting outdoors where the 28 has a bit of glow wide open. Took the 28 nokton to disneyland with the ZF and did not use MF confirmation at all after the first day because I found it wasn't super accurate so went back to using focus peaking for the rest of the trip. Shooting indoors, I find that the MF confirmation is great.
I'm about a month into the rangefinder focus and my keeper rate is pretty good but not great, but at least if I miss via the focus patch its a skill thing and there is no one to blame by myself lol.
Nikon MF assist seems to rely on the phase detect system right? Hence the green box confirmation and the MF system being able to tell you if you're front or back focused?
p.69 #7 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Mystik wrote:
I think I'm seeing the same thing, my main experience being the 28 Nokton.
I go back and forth between thinking MF confirmation is great one day to another coming back home with misfocused shots due to MF confirmation not being completely accurate. I found that my bad days where when I was shooting outdoors where the 28 has a bit of glow wide open. Took the 28 nokton to disneyland with the ZF and did not use MF confirmation at all after the first day because I found it wasn't super accurate so went back to using focus peaking for the rest of the trip. Shooting indoors, I find that the MF confirmation is great.
I'm about a month into the rangefinder focus and my keeper rate is pretty good but not great, but at least if I miss via the focus patch its a skill thing and there is no one to blame by myself lol.
Nikon MF assist seems to rely on the phase detect system right? Hence the green box confirmation and the MF system being able to tell you if you're front or back focused?
It's very accurate, but you can't expect AF-level keepers. The camera and the subject move too much relative to your shutter reaction time. Also remember that anything about lens design that affects AF (SA/lower sharpness wide open, etc.) will also affect manual focus confirmation accuracy.
p.69 #8 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
For lenses with some SA wide open, would it help to stop down by 1/2 to 1 stop when focusing, then open up to shoot? It's a bit clunky, though, and maybe punching in to focus would still end up being quicker
p.69 #9 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
specLegacy wrote:
For lenses with some SA wide open, would it help to stop down by 1/2 to 1 stop when focusing, then open up to shoot? It's a bit clunky, though, and maybe punching in to focus would still end up being quicker
That is a good idea for lenses without much focus shift.
p.69 #10 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Mystik wrote:
Nikon MF assist seems to rely on the phase detect system right? Hence the green box confirmation and the MF system being able to tell you if you're front or back focused?
That's the issue. The focus confirmation can be influenced by the "veil" of spherical aberration and may not accurately indicate the true plane of best focus, because peak phase correlation and peak image contrast are not always aligned.
p.69 #11 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
It's very accurate, but you can't expect AF-level keepers. The camera and the subject move too much relative to your shutter reaction time. Also remember that anything about lens design that affects AF (SA/lower sharpness wide open, etc.) will also affect manual focus confirmation accuracy.
Yeah never expecting AF level keepers for sure. It is an interesting question on if MF confirmation is more accurate than focus peaking or range finder focus though. There's a skill element to it particularly with regards to rangefinder focus, but misses due to the MF confirmation system being incorrect is a different kind of disappointing. MF confirmation is definitely a lot faster workflow than focus peaking/magnify though.
p.69 #12 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's the issue. The focus confirmation can be influenced by the "veil" of spherical aberration and may not accurately indicate the true plane of best focus, because peak phase correlation and peak image contrast are not always aligned.
Makes sense and brings back memories of my love/hate relationship with the Canon 50L
p.69 #13 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Mystik wrote:
Yeah never expecting AF level keepers for sure. It is an interesting question on if MF confirmation is more accurate than focus peaking or range finder focus though. There's a skill element to it particularly with regards to rangefinder focus, but misses due to the MF confirmation system being incorrect is a different kind of disappointing. MF confirmation is definitely a lot faster workflow than focus peaking/magnify though.
Might also be some accuracy differences between native chipped lenses that communicate distance versus using an adapter that makes the camera think a chipped lens is being used. Would be interesting for someone to test who has both.
p.69 #14 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
thanks for the explanation!
bigtractor wrote:
I have only used non CPU lenses, specifically AI-S prime lenses.
The adapter includes a cable to attach to a computer which will give you access to a text file that will keep track of the focal length and maximum apertures of 10 lenses. There are 10 presets already there but they can be user defined as well. This info is all you get in your exif data. Each of these 10 lenses will have an f stop setting associated with them, and setting the corresponding f stop on the camera body then pressing the shutter button will prompt the adapter to pull up the preset lens data. For example, setting the f stop to f36 (with the default text file) and pressing the shutter button will pull up the info for a 200mm f4 lens. f13 is a 24mm 2.8. In my experience sometimes doing this process on the camera does not properly update, and cycling the power on the camera and trying it again works. The only instructions for this are in Japanese and relying on machine translation I may be missing something, but as I said it rarely takes more than one try of turning the camera on and off to get it to work.
If I were using only CPU lenses, I think the Nikon FTZ adapters are a better choice. The shoten adapter has a chip on the body side only, so it can't transmit info from a CPU lens, only emulate it using the method I explained above. ...Show more →
p.69 #15 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Mystik wrote:
Makes sense and brings back memories of my love/hate relationship with the Canon 50L
I have the 50mm f/1.2L and agree the focus shift is quite noticeable. I adapt it to the A7CR and Zf using adapters that stop down to focus, and when doing so, focus is very accurate across all apertures.
p.69 #16 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
Might also be some accuracy differences between native chipped lenses that communicate distance versus using an adapter that makes the camera think a chipped lens is being used. Would be interesting for someone to test who has both.
I can't say for certain, but in my experience focus confirmation is very accurate...arguably superior to a rangefinder, since it doesn't require ultra tight mechanical tolerances or optimal eyesight. From my tests so far, SA is really the only thing that can compromise its accuracy.
p.69 #17 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
I can't say for certain, but in my experience focus confirmation is very accurate...arguably superior to a rangefinder, since it doesn't require ultra tight mechanical tolerances or optimal eyesight. From my tests so far, SA is really the only thing that can compromise its accuracy.
That's great to hear. That means Nikon and Canon could drop the artificial requirement for lenses to be chipped in order to activate focus confirmation.
p.69 #19 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Bruce Marriner wrote:
...I was reading up on the Zeiss lenses a bit and one thing I read was the ZF/ZF.2 version are not the same rendering as the older lenses. From what I read - the older ones have more character and the newer are much more like typical modern lenses. Do you have any experience using the older vs new Zeiss lenses?
I would put the classic lenses also in the category "older" as oposed to Batis, Loxia, Otus and Milvus (F mount) and the latest Otus ML. Some of the Milvus are similar to the classic lenses, but I can't comment on that really, since I don't own any of those.
The C/Y lenses where always highly praized, but so where the ZF/ZE/ZM lenses and many of the newer ones.
You can check out more of my images at my member page cyra.zeissimages.com
and plenty more of other users there. This site is Zeiss only, and when you click "search" you can filter for any particular lens you want to see.
Thankfully Jorge Torralba also fixed my image-links at the ZF/ZE/ZM thread. Unfortunately many other user's images don't show up any more at the earlier posts.
