p.7 #1 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
For me, wildlife photography is about witnessing wild behavior first. Getting the images is secondary to the experience of being in the wild just watching it happen..
I got about 100 mosquito bites waiting on a green heron to do its thing on Tuesday. Nothing fake about that. I've spent thousands of hours in a kayak photographing loons over the years. Loons will float on the surface and dip their head just under the surface for prey. Sometimes they dip their head for a second or two, sometimes for 10-15 seconds sometimes more. When they lift their head out of the water, they always do a side to side head shake to get the water off their head. It's a great image. Having pre-capture allows me to lock onto the part of their head that is not submerged and hit the shutter as soon as the lift out. I typically have my pre-capture set for 0.5 sec with loons, so as soon as the head emerges, I fire away and get 45 images in the first second. It has changed my photography. Now I get the shots I always missed or simply lucked out if I got them. Before precapture, I'd start firing 30fps when I thought they'd raise their head out of the water. 8-10 seconds later I'd hit the buffer wall and that was when they usually made the move. Maddening.
For those that don't shoot unpredictable subjects, pre capture is not necessary and is not worth paying for. It's just that simple. For those that use recapture, a full res raw is better than a small jpg. My Nikon z9 friends rarely use the precapture because of the jpg size and the need to crop subjects,
For those that think pre-capture is ruining the hobby, I would suggest that the next time they or a family member needs surgery - tell the doctor they want it done the old fashioned way with scalpels and clamps rather than with robots and scopes, Rip the chest open rather than going up the groin. I had double cardiac arrest 2 years ago. I have Two stents, no scars.
I find the AI in-camera subject recognition to be problematic at times when shooting some subjects wide open. Sometimes it gets off the eye and grabs the entire animal in a big box. I have a quick button assigned to turn it on and off. sometimes it's great at grabbing the eye. Other times it creates a big box and when shooting a close subject wide open the box jumps off the eye and grabs the entirety of the animal, often leaving the eye soft. This happens more when the head is the furthest body part away from the camera (not parallel). It also happens with subjects that are darker in color. For silhouettes, it's crazy accurate when it sees that body shape.
The AI software which creates fake images in post is troubling. Now when I get a crazy good shot, people assume it's faked. Sad.
But, even with precapture, I still have to sit in the kayak for hours, donate a bunch of blood and be ready when the action finally happens. Many times, even with the high tech gear, the animals don't show up. That's what keeps us/me coming back.
I have also learned to swap out batteries as soon as they go under 40% because with Sony precapture, they are declared exhausted very quickly after they go below 40. Learned that the hard way.
p.7 #2 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
j4nu wrote:
But in real life, there's an actual benefit to higher res sensors: cropping.
Even using pixelshift with good lenses results in more detail when viewing at 100% / cropping...
not from my experience ,80 meg pixel shift mode on my em1mk2 was no where near my a7r2 42 meg for detail and noise performance. also the 60 meg sensor only alows 25 % larger crop over the 33 meg sensor, and thats if you keep under iso 320.
p.7 #3 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
I have to agree with shooting the 20-70, or even the 16-25 on the megadap. the distortion sucks. It's really too bad Sony or Sigma is missing the 24-120 market. although, at 120, I am usually wanting closer. I shot the Z8 and A1 side by side for an event last week. On day 2, the A1 won. Size, and sheer operational speed, and the EVF. i LOVE my nikon stuff, but with recurring hand issues, I am kinda ready to dump it, and my A7s3, and get an A1II, and be done. One system.
p.7 #4 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Outstanding wrote:
I think you are missing out on Z 24-120, it's best 24-70/120 F4 lens ever made, pseudo macro to boot.
Like you I transitioned from E to Z, but I only use E lenses which are optically correct (Samyang/Rokinon AF 135 F1.8, Sigma 50mm F1.2) and do not rely on software trickery. 20-70 G is a wonderful lens but the distortions on it are super crazy and Megadap won't correct them.
The 20-70mm has two big advantages (for me): it goes to 20mm and it is a lot smaller. I imagine I'll end up with the 24-120mm, but I'm apprehensive for those reasons.
p.7 #6 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
RoamingScott wrote:
Can you apply the correct lens profile in LR for distortion correction on a Z-adapted 20-70? If so, you can make a LR preset to make it fast and easy.
p.7 #8 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
I've only tried it on A1 and posted samples a long time ago. The increase in detail is clearly visible in a 200 mpx file, which shows that there is an actual real world benefit from higher res sensors...
A74me wrote:
not from my experience ,80 meg pixel shift mode on my em1mk2 was no where near my a7r2 42 meg for detail and noise performance. also the 60 meg sensor only alows 25 % larger crop over the 33 meg sensor, and thats if you keep under iso 320.
p.7 #9 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
j4nu wrote:
I've only tried it on A1 and posted samples a long time ago. The increase in detail is clearly visible in a 200 mpx file, which shows that there is an actual real world benefit from higher res sensors...
p.7 #10 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
For the record, when I'm using Sony, I generally carry around the 20-70, and the 70-200, and probably spend 80% of the time with the 20-70 on. Not having the bring around an ultrawide is great. When I'm using Nikon, I almost always have the 24-120 glued on the camera. I do think having that 70-120 range really helps. I carry a 14-30 with me but I rarely use it. Just not an ultrawide person, I suppose.
Interestingly, I also have a 28-75, and I find 28 just a bit at the edge of 'not wide enough.'
p.7 #11 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
A74me wrote:
not from my experience ,80 meg pixel shift mode on my em1mk2 was no where near my a7r2 42 meg for detail and noise performance. also the 60 meg sensor only alows 25 % larger crop over the 33 meg sensor, and thats if you keep under iso 320.
This is exactly what I would expect.
Its drastically easier for a lens to produce more detail over a larger image circle.
p.7 #12 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
RoamingScott wrote:
100% agree. I was pretty disgusted when I tested the 20-70G and saw how optically goofy it is. I had been already been shooting the Z 24-120 for years, though, so my bar was literally the highest it could be.
The Z 24-120 not the "highest bar" by a long shot. Its not nearly as good as the Z 24-70 mm f/2.8 S and 24-70GMii
Don't dismiss the 20-70 just because of digital correction either. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. What matters is whether the final corrected image is sharp or not.
Yes digital correction causes some sharpness loss, but optical correction ALSO causes sharpness loss!
More elements = more surfaces = more opportunities for contrast/resolution loss
p.7 #14 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
old-gregg wrote:
@MikeEvangelist@@ I own a Z8 and sometimes shoot in situations where one would want to use pre-capture, but I never felt the need to even try it. I simply begin shooting at 20fps about a second ahead of the anticipated action. The fast electronic shutter eliminates any concerns of shutter wear. The fast and huge flash card eliminates storage or buffer size concerns. From my perspective, pre-capture is just a minor convenience feature that simply avoids storing falsely-anticipated images, but at a significant expense of losing RAW. I can just delete them manually later.
Basically, my point is that any camera with a decent buffer and a fast enough card can be used in a "pre-capture mode", and with full RAW support, so I am a bit puzzled by your enthusiasm. Are you sure that losing RAW is worth the convenience of auto-deletion of false-start bursts?
p.7 #15 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
aCuria wrote:
The Z 24-120 not the "highest bar" by a long shot. Its not nearly as good as the Z 24-70 mm f/2.8 S and 24-70GMii
Don't dismiss the 20-70 just because of digital correction either. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. What matters is whether the final corrected image is sharp or not.
Yes digital correction causes some sharpness loss, but optical correction ALSO causes sharpness loss!
More elements = more surfaces = more opportunities for contrast/resolution loss
p.7 #16 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
aCuria wrote:
Don't dismiss the 20-70 just because of digital correction either. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. What matters is whether the final corrected image is sharp or not.
Yes digital correction causes some sharpness loss, but optical correction ALSO causes sharpness loss!
The question is not specifically to Sony alone these days, when more and more companies are relying on digital correction to allow the manufacture of smaller (and sometimes less expensive) lenses with features not easily available from the old-school lenses that don’t rely on digital correction.
I’ll admit that it can make me a bit uncomfortable, coming from the era when the inate performance of the lens itself was the yardstick, not its performance in conjunction with effective post-processing “corrections.”
But I think it is worth doing a little logical test based on a theoretical scenario.
Imagine two lenses that cover the same range of focal lengths and apertures, where one has corrected “distortions” optically and the other corrects them in post. Imagine that you could make, say, 30” x 40” prints from both of them and in the end, after the corrections were applied, we could not come to an agreement that the final image from one is better than the final image from the other. Further imagine that the lens relying on digital post corrections is smaller and lighter.
What would be the photographic reasons for choosing one lens over the other?
- - -
Also, regarding the following:
Why would I compare my lens to a lens that has less than 50% of the focal range? Goofy!
p.7 #17 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
gdanmitchell wrote:
The question is not specifically to Sony alone these days, when more and more companies are relying on digital correction to allow the manufacture of smaller (and sometimes less expensive) lenses with features not easily available from the old-school lenses that don’t rely on digital correction.
I’ll admit that it can make me a bit uncomfortable, coming from the era when the inate performance of the lens itself was the yardstick, not its performance in conjunction with effective post-processing “corrections.”
But I think it is worth doing a little logical test based on a theoretical scenario.
Imagine two lenses that cover the same range of focal lengths and apertures, where one has corrected “distortions” optically and the other corrects them in post. Imagine that you could make, say, 30” x 40” prints from both of them and in the end, after the corrections were applied, we could not come to an agreement that the final image from one is better than the final image from the other. Further imagine that the lens relying on digital post corrections is smaller and lighter.
What would be the photographic reasons for choosing one lens over the other?
My experience agrees with what you are saying, Dan. Software distortion correction is here to stay, but not a limiting factor for making art. For example, two lenses I happily put thousands of images through in the past, the Nikon Z 24-120 has a whopping uncorrected barrel distortion of 5% at 24mm (PhotographyLife test) and the Nikon Z 24-70/2.8 a more modest 3.47% at 24mm. But what matters is the final corrected result, especially for me in print form since that is my standard, and I really don’t think I nor anyone who has visited my home gallery has been able to see any negative effect in the prints from those two lenses, nor from any prints made from my current Sony system. But it makes good fodder for arguing on forums
p.7 #18 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
j4nu wrote:
I've only tried it on A1 and posted samples a long time ago. The increase in detail is clearly visible in a 200 mpx file, which shows that there is an actual real world benefit from higher res sensors...
Re: "The increase in detail..."
I am not sure what is wrong with me but lately I feel increasingly disinterested in the detail of the photos I take. Often they seem too sharp, and I want them naturally soft, glowing in a soft diffused light (something like that - I have not yet figured this out what exactly I am missing in the perfect sharp photos that display a ton of detail).
Maybe I should try diffusion filters...
By the way, I don't shoot birds or similar. Maybe if I did, then things would have been more simple.
p.7 #19 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
gdanmitchell wrote:
The question is not specifically to Sony alone these days, when more and more companies are relying on digital correction to allow the manufacture of smaller (and sometimes less expensive) lenses with features not easily available from the old-school lenses that don’t rely on digital correction.
I’ll admit that it can make me a bit uncomfortable, coming from the era when the inate performance of the lens itself was the yardstick, not its performance in conjunction with effective post-processing “corrections.”
But I think it is worth doing a little logical test based on a theoretical scenario.
Imagine two lenses that cover the same range of focal lengths and apertures, where one has corrected “distortions” optically and the other corrects them in post. Imagine that you could make, say, 30” x 40” prints from both of them and in the end, after the corrections were applied, we could not come to an agreement that the final image from one is better than the final image from the other. Further imagine that the lens relying on digital post corrections is smaller and lighter.
What would be the photographic reasons for choosing one lens over the other?
Someday you'll realize that generalisms are a waste of everyone's time, especially when directed at people that have first hand experience with everything being discussed.
p.7 #20 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
ruthenium wrote:
Re: "The increase in detail..."
I am not sure what is wrong with me but lately I feel increasingly disinterested in the detail of the photos I take. Often they seem too sharp, and I want them naturally soft, glowing in a soft diffused light (something like that - I have not yet figured this out what exactly I am missing in the perfect sharp photos that display a ton of detail).
Maybe I should try diffusion filters...
By the way, I don't shoot birds or similar. Maybe if I did, then things would have been more simple.
You can always add a glamour glow to your image to soften it. I quite often do this when taking images of old buildings.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-120mm-f-4-s/3