NIKON...MIRROR LESS NOW WITH FIRMWARE UPDATE

mhedges

Yeah it sounds like it will be a decent lens. I still wish it went to 105 or so but what are you gonna do.

BVS

mhedges said:

Yeah it sounds like it will be a decent lens. I still wish it went to 105 or so but what are you gonna do.

Yeah, 105 would've been nice. I assume Nikon will make one eventually. We'll just have to adapt one of the F mount lenses for now.

Or, maybe somebody will make an EF->Z, E->Z, or RF->Z adapter and we can borrow the Canon and Sony versions. On a similar note, imagine being able to adapt all the the Canon EF tilt shift lenses and such. Could be fun.

mhedges

I’d be interested in an EF adapter assuming it worked well. Not real interested in a Sony adapter. That may be hard to do anyway since there’s not much flange distance to work with.

moreorless

WestEndFoto said:

I experienced a card failure. My wedding was shot with a Canon 5D Mark II. It only had one slot and he dropped the card on the ground. He had to reshoot the wedding.

Otherwise I have not had any card failures and given that I shoot double slot including one XQD, I am not that worried about a card failure.

However, losing a card is another matter.

So I expect that I will buy cameras with double card slots as long as they are available.

That's really users rather than card failure, personally I very rarely take cards out of cameras.

Honestly my trust in the whole Youtube reviewer culture and indeed several big websites is pretty low these days. Theres IMHO too much dependency on advertising money and playing to fanboys for opinion to be that trustworthy, as dull as it is I would trust somewhere like amateur photographer more, not free of advertising of course but not totally dependant on it either.

WestEndFoto

True Moreorless. However, card failure is merely one way to lose data. One should have a data protection strategy that is mostly thoughtless. 2 cars slots is an excellent partial solution to mitigate the risk.

rmp

Just attended a Z7 demo at local camera store. The new Z6 will definitely be my travel camera.

DenverShooter

manhattanboy said:

I've had a transcend SD fail and have an old SanDisk Extreme Pro 32 that has become unreliable and occasionally will throw errors. I've never had a CF or XQD fail yet.

In the past I have inadvertently run Sony XQD and SanDisk SD cards through my Bosch clothes washer and dryer with no ill effects. Usually happened when I didn't check my pockets very well prior to washing.

YMMV

Denver Shooter

HankB

I am going to re-post (and re-word) my question since no one commented last time:

Can anyone comment on the linkage, if any, between erasing shots in the camera, and card corruption.

BVS

HankB said:

I am going to re-post (and re-word) my question since no one commented last time:

Can anyone comment on the linkage, if any, between erasing shots in the camera, and card corruption.

Thom comments on it here:

https://dslrbodies.com/accessories/camera-accessories/faq-about-camera-accessorie/what-causes-card-errors.html

PB_PM

HankB said:

I am going to re-post (and re-word) my question since no one commented last time:

Can anyone comment on the linkage, if any, between erasing shots in the camera, and card corruption.

I delete photos in camera often, and do so more in the least few years than I ever did in the past. Doesn't seem to be an issue. My workhorse cards these days are Samsung Pro and Lexar Pro SD cards with Sandisk Pro CF as a backup (CF only in D810).

I know we like to put the blame on cards, but sometimes I think the issue with corruption can also be linked to the camera itself. I haven't any any corruption issues on the newer (post 2012) Nikon cameras at all.

snakebunk

I sometimes erase shots in the camera and as I've said have never had a card failure, so no linkage here. If possible I don't remove the card and I always format it after copying images to the computer.

moreorless

WestEndFoto said:

True Moreorless. However, card failure is merely one way to lose data. One should have a data protection strategy that is mostly thoughtless. 2 cars slots is an excellent partial solution to mitigate the risk.

There is of course the potential to backup images into another device that's ever increasing in the current environment.

Really I tend to think that the classic wedding/event photographer is talked up as being a far more important market than it actually is, one Nikon is probably happy to leave to its DSLR lineup at present. Personally my career is selling landscapes and 1 slot really wouldn't be an issue for me, the reality is the number of times a year I'm getting really irreplaceable images is fairly low and combined with the very low risk of card failure I don't consider it a significant risk. Actually with my D800 I'v been shooting with only the CF card slot for the last several months.

A lot of this talk I think is really scare mongering, the same way some people feel the need to have a filter over their lenses at all times. People who've bought into it feel the need to constantly self justify.

WestEndFoto

moreorless said:

WestEndFoto said:

True Moreorless. However, card failure is merely one way to lose data. One should have a data protection strategy that is mostly thoughtless. 2 cars slots is an excellent partial solution to mitigate the risk.

There is of course the potential to backup images into another device that's ever increasing in the current environment.

Really I tend to think that the classic wedding/event photographer is talked up as being a far more important market than it actually is, one Nikon is probably happy to leave to its DSLR lineup at present. Personally my career is selling landscapes and 1 slot really wouldn't be an issue for me, the reality is the number of times a year I'm getting really irreplaceable images is fairly low and combined with the very low risk of card failure I don't consider it a significant risk. Actually with my D800 I'v been shooting with only the CF card slot for the last several months.

A lot of this talk I think is really scare mongering, the same way some people feel the need to have a filter over their lenses at all times. People who've bought into it feel the need to constantly self justify.

Funny. Every one of my lenses except my 400 2.8 have filters. It occurs to me that I have about $6,000 in filters. All those filters or a brand new 200mm f/2.0? Hmm...…..

I don't think the extra card is scare mongering. Leaving on my 25 day trip to Europe tomorrow, I feel much better about having a second card. Losing my images is equivalent to trip failure in my books. The trip is costing more than the gear that I am taking and costing WAY more than a premium on a second card "upgrade" would likely cost.

Insurance is not scare mongering. It is "prudent" assuming it is done in a thoughtful way.

snakebunk

WestEndFoto said:

Funny. Every one of my lenses except my 400 2.8 have filters. It occurs to me that I have about $6,000 in filters. All those filters or a brand new 200mm f/2.0? Hmm...

If you are talking about uv-filters used mostly for protection, I suggest you try without them. There is a chance you are up for a win-win: better image quality and money to buy the 200/2.

moreorless

WestEndFoto said:

Funny. Every one of my lenses except my 400 2.8 have filters. It occurs to me that I have about $6,000 in filters. All those filters or a brand new 200mm f/2.0? Hmm...…..

I don't think the extra card is scare mongering. Leaving on my 25 day trip to Europe tomorrow, I feel much better about having a second card. Losing my images is equivalent to trip failure in my books. The trip is costing more than the gear that I am taking and costing WAY more than a premium on a second card "upgrade" would likely cost.

Insurance is not scare mongering. It is "prudent" assuming it is done in a thoughtful way.

The problem is I think a lot of it isn't thoughtful, protecting very expensive tele's with large front elements is one thing but for a lot of people it seems to be obsessional vastly overplaying the risk.

mhedges

Yeah I am moving away from using UV filters, and just counting on the lens hood for protection. I have been using Hoya HMC filters and I find that you get more flare/contrast loss in backlit situations with them. Maybe I should have bought more expensive ones.

DenverShooter

I never use UV filters on anything. The only filter I use is the Nikon circular polarizer to take out glass and darken up sky's. Haven't damaged a single front element ever (50 years).

Denver Shooter

HankB

“obsessional” in some cases...no doubt. But some of us compute the cost/benefit this way:

COST is a laid back expenditure of a few $s here and there on extra cards and filters. You really won't miss those $s.

BENEFIT is fewer extremely aggravating, self recriminating, always time-wasting inconveniences, and in some cases, very expensive incidents in our lifetimes.

mhedges

I can see that argument if you don't lose anything beyond the initial cost of the filters or cards. But for me I think using filters hurts your image quality, to the point where the additional protection isn't worth it.

donaldejose

LIke I said once before: How hard would it be for Nikon to produce a limited edition "b" version of the Z7 and Z6 with two SD card slots in place of one XQD card slot? That should not take up additional space in the body since SD cards are thinner and smaller than XQD cards. Look, Nikon has produced limited edition versions before such as the 800E and the 850A. Of course, the penalty would be slower clearing of the buffer but they could also put a larger buffer in those bodies. The bodies could be called the Z7SD and the Z6SD. Then Nikon would have a solution to those who want two card slots. Eventually (next year?), I think we will see Nikon produce a Z8 with the "pro" control layout and two card slots.

donaldejose

In well over 200,000 exposures I have never had a CF, SD or XQD card failure. Still, I prefer two card slots. I set the XQD card as my primary card and write RAW to it. I set the SD card as my secondary card and write JPEG to it. Sometimes I use different JPEG sizes and qualities depending upon the end use of the images I am taking. If I tune the picture profiles correctly and get the exposure correct there is little, if any, post processing work needed on the JPEG file which saves me a lot of work. I start image review by using the JPEG SD card to select images from. If I need more adjustments than the small amount JPEG easily provides I retrieve and post process the corresponding RAW image. This works for me.

donaldejose

I use Nikon NC filters on most of my more expensive lenses figuring the quality of the glass is the same as the quality of the glass in the lens. I have had a dropped lens which landed on the front and broke the filter without breaking the lens elements. I have not had any sort of contaminant get on the NC filter causing me to throw away a filter because I have not been shooting in such an environment (but you never know when that may happen). I always keep a front and rear lens cap on a lens when it is not mounted on a body.

WestEndFoto

I use Sing Ray filters on my better lenses. I have tried to see a difference and cannot detect one.

retread

I use the better Hoya or B&W filters on most of my lenses. Never broke a filter but have had one get scratched somehow. I am sure the filter cost less than the front element of a 70-200 f2.8.

rmp

I have been using Nikon DSLRs since the D200. I now use the 850. I have never had a SC, CF, or XQD failure. My time must be coming.