Nikon Z6/7 mirrorless system

[Birna Rørslett]

No, it is not "faster", as using focal length instead of angle of view creates all sorts of confusion and erroneous assumptions. We have witnessed enough of that over the last decades and we should lay the blame at the right door, i.e. the makers' misinformation.

It's moot but for example 300AFS + 1.7TC says 700mm. Garbage in, garbage out.

Enough, now back to the Z system please. Or start a dedicated thread somewhere else on NG. If the latter the relevant post(s) will be moved there.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I'm not sure, maybe I should start a thread in the lens subforum, but I figured I can hide my question here.

I want to make more use of my travel tripod when shooting landscape and similar subjects and while it is able to hold D850 and 24-70/2.8 E quite well, I feel a little uncomfortable with such a top-heavy and off-centered setup. If I bump one of the tripod legs the camera could find itself landing on the rocks, and I wish to avoid that prospect.

I'm wondering how people find the mechanical quality and robustness of the 14-30/4 and 24-70/4; these are collapsing designs and I'm concerned about the durability of the mechanism. I am not a regular filter user but may occasionally use a graduated or not graduated ND. Especially when sliding the graduated filter in the holder, some force is applied to the front of the lens. Will it hold over long term?

I am impressed with the contrast and backlight performance exhibited in other people's work made with the 14-30/4 but as it's quite expensive I want to consult about the ruggedness aspect. I could of course wait for the 14-24/2.8 Z but I suspect it might not be as good in handling bright light in the scene (the DSLR version ghosts prolifically)  as the f/4 is, and it would also not solve the balance issue with my travel tripod. And it might not take normal filters.

Thanks for any insights.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I'm not sure, maybe I should start a thread in the lens subforum, but I figured I can hide my question here.

I want to make more use of my travel tripod when shooting landscape and similar subjects and while it is able to hold D850 and 24-70/2.8 E quite well, I feel a little uncomfortable with such a top-heavy and off-centered setup. If I bump one of the tripod legs the camera could find itself landing on the rocks, and I wish to avoid that prospect.

I'm wondering how people find the mechanical quality and robustness of the 14-30/4 and 24-70/4; these are collapsing designs and I'm concerned about the durability of the mechanism. I am not a regular filter user but may occasionally use a graduated or not graduated ND. Especially when sliding the graduated filter in the holder, some force is applied to the front of the lens. Will it hold over long term?

I am impressed with the contrast and backlight performance exhibited in other people's work made with the 14-30/4 but as it's quite expensive I want to consult about the ruggedness aspect. I could of course wait for the 14-24/2.8 Z but I suspect it might not be as good in handling bright light in the scene (the DSLR version ghosts prolifically)  as the f/4 is, and it would also not solve the balance issue with my travel tripod. And it might not take normal filters.

Thanks for any insights.

My 24-70 f/4 hit the ground hard when I slipped on some gravel, but other than external abrasion it has no ill effects. The outside coverings are stiff but flexible so I think they took the impact well. The focusing and extending mechanisms certainly feel solid. I think that where plastics are used they are more elastic than aluminum or brass and thus won't be permanently deformed. As for durability during regular use of extending etc. I've not experienced any change in function over the past year with the 24-70 while I have a number of older lenses that have loose or tight aluminum helicoids (tightness is usually due to old lubrication rather than anything else). I bought the 14-30 figuring that for my uses I'd not be needing f/2.8 and would appreciate the smaller and likely less expensive version. I really like it. I've only had it for several months, but again, I don't feel that it is poorly built or flimsy. It bumps around on an active construction site with no problems.

[Mike G]

Of course “plastic” is not quite the correct term, it is a type of resin! Tough as old boots. But it is tarred with the plastic label. I am in that camp. But it is a very mouldable material and also feels very good Also comparatively light?
I end to find that not chucking ones lenses onto the ground is quite good practice!
Maybe the weight comes from the D850 and lens combo!
You need to keep the tripod as low as possible!

[mxbianco]

...

I'm wondering how people find the mechanical quality and robustness of the 14-30/4 and 24-70/4

... And it might not take normal filters.

Thanks for any insights.

The 14-30mm/4 uses 82mm filters, not really the "normal" 77mm. Luckily, the front element does not stick out as much as the F-mount 14-24mm, so you are able to use a filter...

I find the build quality of the 14-30mm very good, with no play at all when turning to extend the lens in the operating position. Good enough for me!

Same consideration on build quality applies to the 24-70mm/4, which btw has 72 mm filters.

And I wouln't drop my equipment on gravel or concrete, either!

Ciao from Massimo

[Birna Rørslett]

I concur with the above posts. As soon as you get over the initial anxiety when "popping" the lens to its shooting position, all is well.

Or you can store them in your camera bag in the extended position, thus always ready for a photo opportunity. This in fact is my current practice as I don't think "parking" the lens saves much of storage space.

[MEPER]

I made my usual test shot with Z50 and original Prominent 50/1.5 from 195x set to F5.6 just to get a feeling for the quality.
The lens is shown on the Z50 in previous page.

The lens is very sharp in the center where focus point was. But in the upper corner it is quite soft. If lens was flat field I think it should be sharper. I think lens has a lot of field curvature as image in the bottom which is at a much closer distance is sharp. What do you think?     
Probably fun to use at 1.5 and see how bokeh looks. The curvature may be used to "fake" more DOF than normally possible in some situations.

Attached is a full frame image and 3 crops which shows center sharpness and two corner crops (soft and sharp).
Lens if very different from the Z 50/1.8s  …..and that is good I think…..that lenses has some personality.... 

Hope I soon will get out and shoot some more interesting images.

[Erik Lund]

Difficult test shot scene to judge from, so many different distances,,, But yes it looks like quite a lot of smearing top right, the rest, whole left side looks decent, in the central part of the frame all is good.
Depth of field with these high resolution cameras are very revealing, we have seen that on Z6, a lot!

[MEPER]

I will try to focus again on same area and then look in the viewfinder and check the right side if I by turning the focus ring can make that sharp…...I would think so......
The top left side is not 100% in focus. The file size is too large if I try to attach image in full resolution or it needs a lot of compression.

[Erik Lund]

It easy to do on a tripod, just zoom in on the details in "live view" at the aperture you want to check.

I know its not the same but on D850 the rear display has so high resolution you see what is in focus instantly - must be similar on a Z,,,

If you looking to test definitely makes more easy with a uniform image scene

[MEPER]

Yes, the zoom in is very useful when using a MF lens with no contacts.
Using D5200 an electronic rangefinder was in viewfinder using a MF lens without contacts.
On the Z50 this is not active and focus point does not turn green when in focus. This would have been a nice feature.
What I discovered using an AFD lens like the 85/1.4 AFD was that with manuel focus I get both an electronic rangefinder and the focus point turns green when target is in focus.
I believe that it must have something to do with the chip in the lens and maybe also that it will stop down during exposure so a more accurate focus is possible.

[Birna Rørslett]

There is a lot of inconsistency regarding the "green" dot (or really, "green square") with the Z cameras. The native Z lenses seem not to trigger this indicator, whilst AF/AFD Nikkors in general do through the FTZ adapter. On Z50, apparently any lens with a CPU *except* the native lenses display the green indicator. All my manual lenses whether Nikkor or not that are modified CPU with my chips achieve this and most do on the Z6/Z7 as well. However once in a while there is an exception.

Noteworthy is the few lenses I have with Dandelion chips implanted refuse to give the green indicator even on the Z50.

[MEPER]

I was positive surprised with the green squares using the AF 85/1.4D. It seems very sensitive so I guess this = accurate. It makes the electronic rangefinder a bit obsolete (bottom left of viewfinder) but it does show which way to turn the focus ring....

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The 14-30mm/4 uses 82mm filters, not really the "normal" 77mm.

I use a system where 82mm is the largest compatible thread, so it is ok for me. I can use 52/58/62/67/72/77/82.

I find the build quality of the 14-30mm very good, with no play at all when turning to extend the lens in the operating position. Good enough for me!

Thanks for the reassurance. It sounds like I am worrying needlessly.

And I wouln't drop my equipment on gravel or concrete, either!

Right, it is rarely something that one plans to do, but at times stuff can happen regardless of how much we want it not to.

[MEPER]

I was out yesterday and shoot with Z50 + 16-50 kit zoom lens. It is a very handy combination. Lens seems very sharp. If I zoom in to 100% images are "pixel sharp".
What I discovered is that camera exposes so "white histogram" is inside limits. I guess this is luminance. But I can see that the RGB histogram in post processing on PC then usually a color is over exposed. I can "pull" is back by applying -0.5 - -1.2 EV or so. In the pictures below with blue sky the blue color was over exposed and picture of red car the red color was over exposed. I use standard matrix metering. I can't see the overexposure in histogram in viewfinder. Are the Z-cameras "color blind"?    ….ok.....I shoot RAW so no problem in getting the color back and if this kind of over exposure reduces noise then it is probably as it should be.

I am satisfied with picture quality…