Whichever one will keep the iKamper sunroof window from yellowing I'll take! Biggest frustration was my mini 3 yellowing after less than 12 months and iKamper saying "yeah that's normal".
Seabassius wrote:
Whichever one will keep the iKamper sunroof window from yellowing I'll take! Biggest frustration was my mini 3 yellowing after less than 12 months and iKamper saying "yeah that's normal".
I haven't opened it in about that long...I should air it out...
There are other options besides the Z 40mm that would make it even closer without having to spend Hasselblad money. The 55V appears to be designed to give a bit higher performance than Nikon's 40mm, but the fact that they are so close really drives home the concept of diminishing returns...
That's not the Z 40 (but I'll do one against it next), but the F Voigtlander 40/2 Ultron, a lens I find better than the Z 40 in every regard.
I consider the CV 40 Ultron the closest thing you can get to the 55V in terms of overall sharpness wide open with extremely similar FL and aperture normalized across formats.
Does the top image have better IQ? Sure. Better enough to spend 10x the money? Absolutely not. I did find it funny that I was able to MF the CV faster than the X2D would focus on the Toyota logo
This is a good reminder. It’s easy to get caught up in gear specs and forget what our gear is actually capable of.
I do think it also has to do with what you plan to do with your photos. Even looking at the images on my 16 inch laptop they look very similar. On my phone it may well be impossible to tell the difference. But if I zoom in at 100% the top image starts to pull ahead, especially looking at Toyota logo. If you want to print / display either image at 40+ inches, at close viewing distances, my gut the difference will start to be more noticeable.
Granted you may very well be able to also split the difference, with say a 3k kit (Z7II + Voigtlander 35mm f2 APO) or (Z7II + Sigma 40mm f1.4).
DWOfPaul wrote:
This is a good reminder. It’s easy to get caught up in gear specs and forget what our gear is actually capable of.
I do think it also has to do with what you plan to do with your photos. Even looking at the images on my 16 inch laptop they look very similar. On my phone it may well be impossible to tell the difference. But if I zoom in at 100% the top image starts to pull ahead, especially looking at Toyota logo. If you want to print / display either image at 40+ inches, at close viewing distances, my gut the difference will start to be more noticeable.
Granted you may very well be able to also split the difference, with say a 3k kit (Z7II + Voigtlander 35mm f2 APO) or (Z7II + Sigma 40mm f1.4). ...Show more →
Yeah, using a Z7ii instead would yield even better DR and sharpness for sure, but my point wouldn't be quite as dramatic
The overall meta point is that no one would look at either picture in a vacuum void of the other and care about the very small differences in bokeh/LoCA/overall rendering outside of color.
Unfortunately it's a bit hard to do A/B testing SooC because both systems meter and expose quite differently, and Hasselblad in their infinite boneheadedness doesn't even apply their own lens corrections to JPEGs so you're forced to edit RAWs if you want that included in testing.
I was going to take some more shots like this today but it looks like the winter front rain is upon us early.
I only whipped out the GFX100 when I needed that absolute best IQ and DR I can get with those 100mp and 16-bit files. Otherwise, the Zf is just stellar
One more example (of near and far focus), this time against the Z 24-120 at around 43mm with apertures equalized. Funny how well a dinky $900 tele hangs with a $3000 prime For my uses, I consider this rendering nearly identical and equally useful, out of the box color aside.
@RoamingScott, the Nikon optics alone do look to close the gap nicely. If you decided to keep making comparsions I did like your Toyota comparison better, as the details like the chrome logo on a dark textured background will show how a lens and camera render in tougher conditions than foliage pictures usually will.
The foliage is an easy way to check edge sharpness which is what surprised me here (not really surprised, been singing this lens’ praises for 4 years now) but I know what you mean.
DWOfPaul wrote:
@RoamingScott@, the Nikon optics alone do look to close the gap nicely. If you decided to keep making comparsions I did like your Toyota comparison better, as the details like the chrome logo on a dark textured background will show how a lens and camera render in tougher conditions than foliage pictures usually will.
RoamingScott wrote:
The foliage is an easy way to check edge sharpness which is what surprised me here (not really surprised, been singing this lens’ praises for 4 years now) but I know what you mean.
Yep. That 24-120mm S has impressed me so much that 2.5 years later, I have yet to pick up a 24-70 f2.8 S. At this point, I am hoping Nikon just makes a 24-70 f2, because I am not sure I can give up the 70-120mm range for a single f stop alone, it's become one of my all time favorit lenses
