Nikon Z* mirrorless

I should, weather permitting, be going on a powered glider experience next week. Glider club have confirmed ok to take a camera.
I have z8, z24-120 F4, z100-400, z50mm and a macro. Thinking the 24-120 would be best, manual, SS 500 ish, F4 with auto ISO, continous focus maybe a polariser. or just use the phone-probably easier to avoid reflections?
Anyone done similar?
TIA
 
I've flown a number of times in a small light aircraft which is quite cramped and the plane can be subject to quick movements so I find I can't use a big camera like the Z8. On my friend's plane the cockpit plastic isn't particularly clear so I never get great shots through it anyway so I tend to just use my phone.

However I've not been in a glider so it could be quite different.
 
nog said:
I should, weather permitting, be going on a powered glider experience next week. Glider club have confirmed ok to take a camera.
I have z8, z24-120 F4, z100-400, z50mm and a macro. Thinking the 24-120 would be best, manual, SS 500 ish, F4 with auto ISO, continous focus maybe a polariser. or just use the phone-probably easier to avoid reflections?
Anyone done similar?
TIA
Click to expand...
I would think most Glider clubs think cameras are just a fraction bigger than iPhones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nog
Rocket said:
Okay all. Equipment is getting a little bulky and heavy, plus i am not using the equipment so much now a days, so I am on the verge of selling my Nikon D750 and lenses. Moving over to a mirrorless system, maybe Z6 or Z7 plus lens. Any thoughts on my decision please.
Click to expand...
depending on the lenses will there be much of a weight saving? The D750 is 830g whilst the Z6 is 675g so 155g difference, which may not be that noticeable.

Depending on the lenses they can weight just as much as their DDLR equivalents. Maybe swapping from a heavy lens pairing down to a single lens like the 24-200 would help.

I did swap from large long lenses like the 200-400 f4 (3.5kg) down to the 400 f4.5 (1200g) so a huge noticeable difference and one I’m much more happier walking around with.
 
I can find no reference to it in the manual or on t'internetty, so ... has the Zfc automatic sensor cleaning or not?
 
Stephen L said:
I can find no reference to it in the manual or on t'internetty, so ... has the Zfc automatic sensor cleaning or not?
Click to expand...
From digitalcameraworld.com
"Naturally, you can invest in one of the best image sensor cleaning kits on the market and manually clean the sensor, but should you need to? On a spending spree a couple of years ago, I bought a Nikon Z6 II and a Nikon fc at the same time. Like with my previous cameras, I’d assumed they’d both feature an automatic image sensor cleaning routine, that I could select via the menu system and run either at startup or shutdown of the camera, or any other time I felt the need. I soon found out that while the option is present and correct on the Z6 II, it’s sadly lacking on the Z fc."
 
wilt said:
From digitalcameraworld.com
"Naturally, you can invest in one of the best image sensor cleaning kits on the market and manually clean the sensor, but should you need to? On a spending spree a couple of years ago, I bought a Nikon Z6 II and a Nikon fc at the same time. Like with my previous cameras, I’d assumed they’d both feature an automatic image sensor cleaning routine, that I could select via the menu system and run either at startup or shutdown of the camera, or any other time I felt the need. I soon found out that while the option is present and correct on the Z6 II, it’s sadly lacking on the Z fc."
Click to expand...
Sadly that was my conclusion, but I posted in the forlorn hope that I was wrong.
 
Well after a long spell without taking a single photo I've been bitten by the bug again and snagged a Z7ii on eBay this evening; a little out of touch with Nikon Mirrorless (never owned one!) - if I'm looking for a 35mm is the new f1.4 the best bet?

Also any decent 3rd party battery reccomendations?
 
I have been eagerly awaiting an official announcement regarding the rumoured Z9 firmware update. Been several weeks since it was rumoured the announcement was 'imminent' but nothing so far...
I know I shouldn't pay any attention to rumours!
(Now I've typed this I'm not not sure why!)
 
chrism_scotland said:
Well after a long spell without taking a single photo I've been bitten by the bug again and snagged a Z7ii on eBay this evening; a little out of touch with Nikon Mirrorless (never owned one!) - if I'm looking for a 35mm is the new f1.4 the best bet?

Also any decent 3rd party battery reccomendations?
Click to expand...
No the 35mm f1.8 S is a far better lens, you can buy them used mint for less than the new soft f1.4 with CA issues.
 
trevorbray said:
That’s dedication. Was it worth it ?
Click to expand...
Absolutely,very amusing educational and interesting how I knew all the answers to stuff like I wonder if they’ll bring this out or that out and seeing enthusiasm excitement then some selling ,then coming back :giggle: ,yes if only I could have posted an answer and given someone the lotto numbers but by then it would be too late :rolleyes::D:D
 
Can anyone confirm that putting shutter type to Auto uses electronic up to 1/250 sec then shifts to Mechanical,
This being on Z5 but I’m assuming be similar throughout range?
 
A pair of test shots taken yesterday with my two latest lenses. The first is the Viltrox 56mm on the Zfc, and the second the Viltrox 16mm on the Zf. I'm impressed with Viltroxs' products so far, both from a quality aspect, and price.

Zfc/Viltrox 56mm by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

ZF/Viltrox 16mm by Stephen Lee, on Flickr
 
Stephen L said:
A pair of test shots taken yesterday with my two latest lenses. The first is the Viltrox 56mm on the Zfc, and the second the Viltrox 16mm on the Zf. I'm impressed with Viltroxs' products so far, both from a quality aspect, and price.

Zfc/Viltrox 56mm by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

ZF/Viltrox 16mm by Stephen Lee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Nice. Must admit to looking at the Viltrox 75 f1.2. Yep it’ll be on the Zf in DX mode. And I don’t shoot many portraits…
 
trevorbray said:
Nice. Must admit to looking at the Viltrox 75 f1.2. Yep it’ll be on the Zf in DX mode. And I don’t shoot many portraits…
Click to expand...
I don’t shoot any people (though there are some who deserve it ;)), but I don’t like putting lenses into specific boxes. I just treat specific focal lengths for what they are. So for me, the 56mm on the Zfc is simply a short tele. The 75mm on the “c” would be a nice length for picking out details on scenic or even city-scape shots. But I am acutely aware, having just counted, that I have too many prime lenses. :oops: :$
 
I've joined the Nikon Z fold, buying a Z8 with the 180/600mm for my bird/wildlife photography. (Really looking forward to seeing how the combo performs in comparison to my OM Systems setup).
Looking at the Viltrox images/reviews/comments, I've ordered a 35mm f1.8 - it looks a no brainier at under £300 new. We shall see.........
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
A pair of test shots taken yesterday with my two latest lenses. The first is the Viltrox 56mm on the Zfc, and the second the Viltrox 16mm on the Zf. I'm impressed with Viltroxs' products so far, both from a quality aspect, and price.

Zfc/Viltrox 56mm by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

ZF/Viltrox 16mm by Stephen Lee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
have read some very good reports of this lens. I expect it's better than my 15mm Irix (though that's by no means bad) and is AF as well. Viltrox does increasingly seem to be a name to look out for. How does that fit in with your 14-30 -- or has that gone on to pastures new?
 
lunar22 said:
have read some very good reports of this lens. I expect it's better than my 15mm Irix (though that's by no means bad) and is AF as well. Viltrox does increasingly seem to be a name to look out for. How does that fit in with your 14-30 -- or has that gone on to pastures new?
Click to expand...
In a way I regret selling that lens in May, but a check of the focal lengths actually used made it seem superfluous. Basically what I got for it payed for the Zfc, which I am finding more useful - or I would if the weather were better! I've a funny feeling that Viltrox will start increasing their prices, especially the cheaper plastic-bodied lenses. For instance, I paid just £145 new from Viltrox UK for that 56mm APSC lens. If you're into primes, they seem the way to go if you can't run to Voigtlander - and they're AF.
 
I might just possibly have been in the market for your 14-30 if I'd known about it (mind you -- you'd have probably had to send it to my brother or something for me to collect when in the country) but I remain unsure about exactly where I want to go with UWA long-term. Small and light would actually be nice so I might take it with me! Primes tend to be better quality than zooms but if I went for something outrageously wide (like one or two of the Venus optics), then I might miss a less extreme option though certainly from 18-24 is totally unnecessary.
 
lunar22 said:
I might just possibly have been in the market for your 14-30 if I'd known about it (mind you -- you'd have probably had to send it to my brother or something for me to collect when in the country) but I remain unsure about exactly where I want to go with UWA long-term. Small and light would actually be nice so I might take it with me! Primes tend to be better quality than zooms but if I went for something outrageously wide (like one or two of the Venus optics), then I might miss a less extreme option though certainly from 18-24 is totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Just a word of caution re the 16mm Viltrox. Lightweight it isn't!
 
Yes, I checked the specs and that would be a bit of a minus, though it's not too bad (Irix with adaptor is at least as bad). The only other question is whether 16mm is wide enough. But I take it your initial impressions are positive?
 
lunar22 said:
Yes, I checked the specs and that would be a bit of a minus, though it's not too bad (Irix with adaptor is at least as bad). The only other question is whether 16mm is wide enough. But I take it your initial impressions are positive?
Click to expand...
Yes, apart from the surprising weight (aka solidly-built) the field of view is great. I also have the 20mm, but I find that a little close to 24mm, so 16mm is excellent .
 
Last edited:
Let's talk about STM motors that Nikon is now exclusively using while everyone else is embracing linear motors. This is probably one of the main concerns other than the cost of entry to the whole new system.

I have experience of 2 STM lenses from Canon and Sigma, namely 50mm f/1.8 and 70mm ART and I have to say while they eventually get "there", there are much slower, noisier and even less precise than Sigma's and Canon's ultrasonic motors.

Recently Sigma released II version of their E-mount 24-70mm. While the optical formula received only minor changes, they notably switched from STM to HLA linear motor. The reviews all claim the new lens is focusing faster. This is the most like for like comparison I can think of. I have personally not tested either version.

My big question is whether Nikon uses some different STM that is much better than the above, and how do staple Nikon lenses compare with HLA equipped Sigma ART, Sony GM II or even Tamron lenses? I know many of you dabble in E-mount eco-system so should hopefully have some experience.
Where possible I would like to avoid Sony body prices (A1!) and ergonomics!
 
lunar22 said:
I might just possibly have been in the market for your 14-30 if I'd known about it (mind you -- you'd have probably had to send it to my brother or something for me to collect when in the country) but I remain unsure about exactly where I want to go with UWA long-term. Small and light would actually be nice so I might take it with me!
Click to expand...
The 14-30 f4 Z is a very nice general use wide angle and is every bit as good as my 14-24mm f2.8 AFS F mount. It however does not have the issues with filters that the 14-24 has.

lunar22 said:
Primes tend to be better quality than zooms but if I went for something outrageously wide (like one or two of the Venus optics), then I might miss a less extreme option though certainly from 18-24 is totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Zooms these days are pretty close to the quality of a prime. Yes there will be better primes than zooms but do you really want to carry a bag of primes for a minimal contrast or sharpness increase that you can mimic in Photoshop or Lightroom. Obviously this is your choice.

When you go into the FF ultra-wide set at less than 12mm focal length then there are many compromises that need to be made many of which are about artistic creativity and consistency.
I have a Laowa 9mm and Fuji 8-16mm that I use on my Fuji XT1 (Full Spectrum converted) and XT3 and XT5. My widest FF lens is a Sigma 12-24mm (F mount) that I use on my Nikon 810 but it is soft(er) at 12mm but good at 16mm where I seem to use it most.

I wish it was possible to emulate a polariser in Photoshop as this would be a real game changer.
I have spent probably 4-5 years experimenting on and off, trying to emulate the old film IR Ektachrome with limited success. Yes, it is possible but it is very light quality dependent and UK grey cloudy conditions dont make it easier!
 
well my comment about primes being better than zooms was specifically about UWA where I have a feeling that there is still something of a difference, though even that may be going. With the Z system, I mostly use zooms and when I dig out the 35mm or 85mm f1.8's, it tends to be for portraits or events where the light is low or I want better bokeh control.

Interesting your mentioning the Sigma 12-24. The heavy "Art" variant or one of the two older 4.5-5.6 ones? I used to own the first edition. It wasn't technically very good but I actually liked the lens and if mark ii is a bit better, I might consider it at the low price they go for these days second-hand.
 
lunar22 said:
well my comment about primes being better than zooms was specifically about UWA where I have a feeling that there is still something of a difference, though even that may be going. With the Z system, I mostly use zooms and when I dig out the 35mm or 85mm f1.8's, it tends to be for portraits or events where the light is low or I want better bokeh control.

Interesting your mentioning the Sigma 12-24. The heavy "Art" variant or one of the two older 4.5-5.6 ones? I used to own the first edition. It wasn't technically very good but I actually liked the lens and if mark ii is a bit better, I might consider it at the low price they go for these days second-hand.
Click to expand...
Yes the earlier/older version that covered FF. I agree with your assessment but it only seemed notably soft at the edges at 12mm.
 
jknights said:
Yes the earlier/older version that covered FF. I agree with your assessment but it only seemed notably soft at the edges at 12mm.
Click to expand...
I had another look at my photos with the Sigma 12-24 and, as expected, the vast majority were taken at 12mm where the lens has the most character. Edge softness never bothered me because I regarded as as part of the artistic effect I usually wanted with the lens such as the attached example. For a straight just "getting everything in" lens, it would have been less useful and it sounds like for overall performance, something like Stephen's 16mm Viltrox would probably better fit the bill.

_DSC0907.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top