Transition from F to Z (TFFTZ)

mhedges

tc88 said:

Very few companies survive by being constantly one generation behind. Because they can’t charge premium on the leading edge products, unless they have some secret sauce on low cost manufacturing, when the leader make big money, you make small money. When they make small money, you make no money. When they make no money, you lose money. In an up market, it’s probably ok by not being the leader. In a shrinking market, bad things will happen.

The system has been out one year, and you sound resigned to the "fact" that it will always be behind. I know you have given your reasoning, but it seems like a very big assumption.

And again you are fixated on AF like it's the only aspect of camera performance that matters. Or that it is the major differentiator for most purchase decisions. For some buyers it is - sure. But for most buyers once AF gets to a certain point they are pretty satisfied and don't really see the need for anything better. I would say the Z's are basically at that point now. Certainly the next versions will be.

Look at the D7200 vs. D7500 for example. The D7500's AF is much better than the D7200's. But which camera was better received? The D7500 was widely considered a downgrade, despite superior AF. How could that be if AF is the only thing that matters? (I'm not saying that it was a downgrade, but that is the perception out there)

There are areas where the Z's are ahead of the Sonys - ergonomics, menus, rear screen, EVF (in the case of Z6) - I never hear you mention that at all. Is AF the only thing you value?

DenverShooter

Are the existing Nikon long primes inferior? – I wouldn't say inferior but right now I think Nikon is falling behind. Sony and Canon have come out with new super light 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses while Nikon still has not completed the E series.

Well let's see what I have in the super telephoto class.

Current Nikon 400mm F/2.8? Check. Amazing.

Current Nikon 600mm F/4? Check. Spectacular.

Current Nikon 800mm F/5.6 (or 1,000mm with its bespoke teleconverter)? Check. Incredible.

Its my opinion that Nikon has forgotten more about building super telephotos than most of their competition will ever know..

Denver Shooter

tc88

@mhedges, who said D7500 has better AF? I just checked and it still only had 51 points. You should at least have your facts straight. Yes, it didn’t sell well because the hard specs are worse compared to previous version. From resolution to single slot. That’s another stupid unforced fumble Nikon made.

Yes, I only care about hard specs (AF, resolution, DR, fps, price) mostly. I don’t debate subjective matters because they are subjective. All I do is look at what Nikon has done over the last 5 years and draw a trend line and look at what Sony has done and draw a trend line, and predict for myself where I think they will be down the road. You may draw a different trend line and that’s your own business. But don’t be so defensive just because you bought a Z6 and others think it’s a bad buy performance/cost wise, (A7ii is only $900 now).

WestEndFoto

tc88 said:

Well, if I start from zero at this moment, I will definitely choose Sony because i consider it's the company that's most likely to lead in the future.

But as I said earlier, I'm still at 50/50 currently. So something is helping Nikon holding onto me as a potential continuing customer. That is I can still use some of the F-mount equipment initially on Z mount, and I'm used to Nikon ergonomics. However, long term wise, those alone is not enough. First I'm not switching system, F mount is going to be end of life. I'm picking a new system out of either Z or E mount for the future. And I will make that call once the new system offer significant improvement or other benefit over what I currently have. I will invest in the new system to have a decent amount of native equipment either way whether it's Z or E. So the legacy Nikon thing can only pull me so far. Second it would probably cost me more if I choose unwisely.

Finally being a good photographer and pursuing the equipment do not conflict.

So my perspective? At this juncture of mount change, it's important to assess what's going on in the industry and choose a company that's likely to succeed (or survive) in the long term, especially if I feel the current one I have may not do well in the future.

TC88, I would be interested in your comments regarding this article that Thom just wrote:

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2019-mirrorless-camera/july-september-2019-mirrorl/a-nikon-mirrorless-safari.html

WestEndFoto

FreezeAction said:

I'm hoping against hope that Nikon will bring Pixel Shift Multi Shooting technology to the front lines of photographic battles in the next generation of the Z series bodies. If not then at may age and schedule of things to do I will opt for the Sony a7R IV as it stands now. All in all from files I've worked with even a Sony a7RIII should fill my needs. With Sigma bringing Art glass out for both L mount and E mount it would be my hope they will soon have it for the S mount. From what my eyes have seen to be fact the new Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 in E mount is lens to be revered for IQ.

Just remember that a sensor is only as good as the lens. For example, there is no point in having a sensor larger than 50mp, regardless of whether it is achieved with pixel shift or the old fashioned way, if the lens will only resolve 50mp.

PB_PM

WestEndFoto said:

I agree with that. But your genre is small, even though the practitioners are noisy. So I am not saying this is never a factor, just rarely.

Putting down one group of photographers is not going to aid your point. Honestly, you must not get out of the city much, it's not as small as one might think. The literally hundreds of people I see out shooting on the weekend at bird/widlife sanctuaries I visit says otherwise. It might not be big in the field of making income, but there are a lot of amateurs shooting wildlife (some with very deep pockets, because there are a lot with 600F4s and 800mm F5.6G VRs out there along with similar Canon glass). Nikon would be mindful not to ignore a market that will be wanting to buy lenses with likely very high profit margins.

FreezeAction

More about Pixel Shift.. https://petapixel.com/2017/11/18/testing-sonys-new-pixel-shift-feature-a7r-iii/

I will do some of my own testing on fall color landscapes when there is classic mirror surface on the lake. This is only using the a7R III but it is still interesting. Time will tell if this is going to come to the Z line of bodies.

WestEndFoto

tc88 said:

@mhedges, who said D7500 has better AF? I just checked and it still only had 51 points. You should at least have your facts straight. Yes, it didn’t sell well because the hard specs are worse compared to previous version. From resolution to single slot. That’s another stupid unforced fumble Nikon made.

Yes, I only care about hard specs (AF, resolution, DR, fps, price) mostly. I don’t debate subjective matters because they are subjective. All I do is look at what Nikon has done over the last 5 years and draw a trend line and look at what Sony has done and draw a trend line, and predict for myself where I think they will be down the road. You may draw a different trend line and that’s your own business. But don’t be so defensive just because you bought a Z6 and others think it’s a bad buy performance/cost wise, (A7ii is only $900 now).

Well, that trend line involves a lot of catching up. Just because they have mostly caught up and perhaps passed Nikon in one or two areas doesn't mean the trend will continue. Anyone can catch up if they have enough money to throw at a problem. Being a leader is a different proposition.

And regarding subjective factors, I would argue that the subjective factors override the "hard" factors in many circumstances. Thom's latest article provides some very clear thinking on this matter:

http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/september-2019-nikon-canon/do-we-need-a-d6.html

Using my own example, the reason that I have not bought a Z6 or Z7 is that they are too small like Sony cameras. I shoot with a D850 with the MB-D12. There are lots of buttons which means that I have to only occasionally go into the menus, and never in the middle of a sequence of shots. It is big enough that I can use both hands with my hands and palms wrapped around the camera instead of using my fingers. I do not have to worry about accidently hitting the wrong button.

So until Nikon releases a Z camera that feels like my D850 with MB-D12 or like a D5, I will not be buying a Z camera. Note that Sony has never come out with a camera with what for me is table stakes.

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

TC88, I would be interested in your comments regarding this article that Thom just wrote:

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2019-mirrorless-camera/july-september-2019-mirrorl/a-nikon-mirrorless-safari.html

(1) Great it worked out for him.

(2) It adds a couple of points in Nikon's column in my mind.

(3) It hasn't fundamentally changed my assessment because obviously that's not the only user experience I have read or seen in action.

WestEndFoto

What do you shoot (subject wise)?

tc88

Landscape and BIF.

snakebunk

DenverShooter said:

Are the existing Nikon long primes inferior? – I wouldn't say inferior but right now I think Nikon is falling behind. Sony and Canon have come out with new super light 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses while Nikon still has not completed the E series.

Well let's see what I have in the super telephoto class.

Current Nikon 400mm F/2.8? Check. Amazing.

Current Nikon 600mm F/4? Check. Spectacular.

Current Nikon 800mm F/5.6 (or 1,000mm with its bespoke teleconverter)? Check. Incredible.

Its my opinion that Nikon has forgotten more about building super telephotos than most of their competition will ever know..

Denver Shooter

My point was that the new generation of 600/4 and 400/2.8 lenses from Canon and Sony are very light. About 1 kg lighter. I think they do it by making the manual focus fully electronic and then they can move some of the heavy glass in the front closer to the camera. Nikon has nothing like this yet.

When it comes to optical performance I think they are all great, regardless if you buy your super tele lenses from Canon, Nikon or Sony (or Sigma if it is the 500/4).

snakebunk

WestEndFoto said:

Using my own example, the reason that I have not bought a Z6 or Z7 is that they are too small like Sony cameras. I shoot with a D850 with the MB-D12. There are lots of buttons which means that I have to only occasionally go into the menus, and never in the middle of a sequence of shots. It is big enough that I can use both hands with my hands and palms wrapped around the camera instead of using my fingers. I do not have to worry about accidently hitting the wrong button.

So until Nikon releases a Z camera that feels like my D850 with MB-D12 or like a D5, I will not be buying a Z camera. Note that Sony has never come out with a camera with what for me is table stakes.

What do you think about the Panasonic mirrorless ff cameras? (the S1 series) I think they have good ergonomics and are one of very few current options if you want a well built rugged mirrorless ff camera with good ergonomics. The only downside I've found with these cameras is auto focus.

I agree that neither the Z or E cameras are big and/or rugged enough. I read that the latest Sony A7RIV is somewhat better, but it is still small.

manhattanboy

Thom has been inconsistent lately. On one post he’s beat all the other photographers to get his images out and harps on the need for transfer speed. In the next post he says he’s holding back his “best” images because he has not been able to process them LOL.

We still need a little more honesty. How many shots did he have to throw away to find the ones that were in focus in a sequence? How do his shots compare with his sidekicks shooting the same thing but perhaps with a DSLR like the D850? He’s arguing a point subjectively in that article, but unfortunately it’s not as objective as he should be to best help his readers.

donaldejose

Yes, Thom's comments are sometimes subjective but almost all of our own experiences and preferences and desires are subjective. WEF's "table stakes" requirement for a size similar to a D850 with vertical grip is subjective. FreezeActions desire for pixel shift is subjective because the subject has to be dead still and the enlargement has to be huge for it to work and make a difference. Denver Shooter's need for super telephoto glass is subjective in that almost no one else here will have and use the lenses he lists. Subjective opinions and preferences are fine. There are many bodies and many lenses precisely to allow individuals to obtain what they need or desire to use. Same with different camera brands: use whatever has the features you prefer. In most cases I would suggest it won't make a significant difference; selection of camera brand will itself be mostly a subjective preference.

mhedges

I don't know that its reasonable to expect precise statistics on hit rate etc. When have bloggers ever given that? And how valuable would it be? It's what he was able to achieve given his specific conditions. For a different person doing different things - who knows what you would get.

WestEndFoto

manhattanboy said:

Thom has been inconsistent lately. On one post he’s beat all the other photographers to get his images out and harps on the need for transfer speed. In the next post he says he’s holding back his “best” images because he has not been able to process them LOL.



We still need a little more honesty. How many shots did he have to throw away to find the ones that were in focus in a sequence? How do his shots compare with his sidekicks shooting the same thing but perhaps with a DSLR like the D850? He’s arguing a point subjectively in that article, but unfortunately it’s not as objective as he should be to best help his readers.

Perhaps. I have read everything that Thom has ever written that is on his website. I find that he is generally consistent and honest. I would not attribute the above to dishonesty, but communication and organization. I think that if you look for truth where it doesn't exist you will find it and if you look for dishonesty where it doesn't exist, you will find it. Politics is full of that.

WestEndFoto

snakebunk said:

WestEndFoto said:

Using my own example, the reason that I have not bought a Z6 or Z7 is that they are too small like Sony cameras. I shoot with a D850 with the MB-D12. There are lots of buttons which means that I have to only occasionally go into the menus, and never in the middle of a sequence of shots. It is big enough that I can use both hands with my hands and palms wrapped around the camera instead of using my fingers. I do not have to worry about accidently hitting the wrong button.

So until Nikon releases a Z camera that feels like my D850 with MB-D12 or like a D5, I will not be buying a Z camera. Note that Sony has never come out with a camera with what for me is table stakes.

What do you think about the Panasonic mirrorless ff cameras? (the S1 series) I think they have good ergonomics and are one of very few current options if you want a well built rugged mirrorless ff camera with good ergonomics. The only downside I've found with these cameras is auto focus.

I agree that neither the Z or E cameras are big and/or rugged enough. I read that the latest Sony A7RIV is somewhat better, but it is still small.

I don't know. I have not been following that system very closely at all. But I will start paying attention. That looks intriguing.

BVS

mhedges said:

I don't know that its reasonable to expect precise statistics on hit rate etc. When have bloggers ever given that? And how valuable would it be? It's what he was able to achieve given his specific conditions. For a different person doing different things - who knows what you would get.

Exactly. It's not the absolute hit rate that's important so much as was he able to capture the images he wanted, or did he miss important shots due to the camera. Further, how did it compare to shooting with other cameras.

Skill level also plays into hit rate. Someone unskilled at shooting BIF like myself would have an absolutely abysmal hit rate, even with the best gear. If Thom said that his hit rate was 50% you might be like "Pfft, I usually get 75%", but that doesn't neccesarilly mean the camera is worse, you could just be more skilled.

DenverShooter

snakebunk said:

My point was that the new generation of 600/4 and 400/2.8 lenses from Canon and Sony are very light. About 1 kg lighter. I think they do it by making the manual focus fully electronic and then they can move some of the heavy glass in the front closer to the camera. Nikon has nothing like this yet.

When it comes to optical performance I think they are all great, regardless if you buy your super tele lenses from Canon, Nikon or Sony (or Sigma if it is the 500/4).

Lets take a look at the specs:

The Sony 400mm F/2.8 Not Available
The Canon 400mm F/2.8 is 2.84 kg
The Nikon 400mm F/2.8 is 3.8 kg

Less than a 1 kg difference.

The Sony 600mm F/4 is 3.04 kg
The Canon 600mm F/4 is 3.05 kg
The Nikon 600mm F/4 is 3.80 kg

Just about a 750 gram difference.

The Sony 800mm F/5.6 Not available
The Canon 800mm F/5.6 is 4.50 kg
The Nikon 800mm F/5.6 is 4.59 kg

A 90 gram difference.

The Canon lens specs say the manual focus is "mechanical". I can't figure out the Sony specs.


Regarding the "subjective need" for big glass: Its not subjective if the shots you want need the reach of the lens..

BIF, car racing, dangerous wild animals, certain compressed perspectives are typically what I use them on.. Just shot a pair of Porsche Club events with the 800mm.

And I am pretty sure I am not the only guy on this forum who uses "big glass"..

Denver Shooter

WestEndFoto

I use the 400 2.8E and have all the teleconverters. I mostly bought it for portraiture, but also use it for wildlife. It is handholdable, but I typically use a monopod.

mhedges

BVS said:

Exactly. It's not the absolute hit rate that's important so much as was he able to capture the images he wanted, or did he miss important shots due to the camera. Further, how did it compare to shooting with other cameras.

Skill level also plays into hit rate. Someone unskilled at shooting BIF like myself would have an absolutely abysmal hit rate, even with the best gear. If Thom said that his hit rate was 50% you might be like "Pfft, I usually get 75%", but that doesn't neccesarilly mean the camera is worse, you could just be more skilled.

Yep. Or in my case, less skilled

The bottom line is that he felt he got as good or better results with the Z's as he would have with DSLR. You either believe that or you don't. I don't see how throwing a bunch of numbers up on a page would change anything.

donaldejose

Denver Shooter. Yes, MsMoto shoots race cars with big glass also and had many of them on PAD a while ago. The need for the big glass lens in certain situations is not subjective. The desire to shoot those situations is a subjective choice. I have a friend who shoots birds in flight (mostly eagles catching fish and hummingbirds at flowers) and insects (such as butterflies on flowers) with the Nikon 600mm f4 and a D850. He uses the 105 macro lens also. He achieves spectacular results. It is "his thing;" just not mine. More power to him.

snakebunk

@DenverShooter:

The Sony 400/2.8 is 2.895 kg. I wanted to point out specifically the new generation super light 600/4 and 400/2.8 lenses from Canon and Sony. The 800/5.6 lenses are all of and older design.

I agree that long lenses are nice btw . I use my 500/4 for about 95% of my photos. But I am slowly learning to photograph a little bit of landscape and other stuff as well.

DenverShooter

The Nikon 800 is Fluorite and the latest design..