Nikon Mirrorless and DSLR system

[briantilley]

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

.......

It's a decisive difference if we talk about primes.,

Why at all buying a f/1.8 prime, or a f/2.8 Zoom, if you neither don't care about fast apertures nor the performance wide open.

I think you know better than anyone else what is optimum aperture, where the optimum aperture lies starting from the widest aperture of a lens and why and how the optimum aperture of a lens is used.

Earlier in the thread, you were trying to justify choosing the Z 14-24 f/2.8 and Z 24-70mm f/2.8 for your comparison, rather than the lighter but slower Z 14-30mm f/4 and Z 24-70mm f/4. Now, you say that it's performance at smaller apertures that matters and there's no difference when stopped down beyond f/5.6.

This flip-flopping does your argument no favours.

 

[nikpharm]

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

.......

It's a decisive difference if we talk about primes.,

Why at all buying a f/1.8 prime, or a f/2.8 Zoom, if you neither don't care about fast apertures nor the performance wide open.

I think you know better than anyone else what is optimum aperture, where the optimum aperture lies starting from the widest aperture of a lens and why and how the optimum aperture of a lens is used.

Earlier in the thread, you were trying to justify choosing the Z 14-24 f/2.8 and Z 24-70mm f/2.8 for your comparison, rather than the lighter but slower Z 14-30mm f/4 and Z 24-70mm f/4. Now, you say that it's performance at smaller apertures that matters and there's no difference when stopped down beyond f/5.6.

This flip-flopping does your argument no favours.

lol. I never said smaller apertures, I said optimum aperture and optimum aperture is only one.

 

[anotherMike]

.. the other problem is that nikpharms assertion that is there is no difference past F/5.6 is completely wrong. Particularly with wide angles and wide angle including zooms. Maybe if one is stupid enough to shoot at F/13 all the time, yea, but at F/6.3, F/7.1, even F/8 and perhaps F/9 a lot of the time, I can see differences, and those are some pretty important landscape apertures.

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Even if Z9 is 110g lighter, using it with any of the Z primes will negate any weight advantage as all the Z primes are heavier than f mount primes and using Z9 with 2.8 trinity will result only 625g weight saving overall.

This week I had occasion to use my D850 instead of Z9 when I couldn't get flash working on the Z9. It was the first time I had really put the cameras side-by-side to compare them. (My D850 - like all my DSLRs - is gripped with large battery).

Both cameras with 24-70F2.8 zooms mounted (f- and z-mount). The Z9 was clearly smaller and lighter - that surprised me a bit. I'd been getting used to the Z9 and thinking it was a bit heavy for its size, but the D850 was bigger and heavier.

Originally I had the 24-70F2.8vr lens mounted on the D850, and the 100-400z on the Z9 when they were side-by-side. I was almost shocked that the Z combo was lighter than the D850 combo. The 100-400 is lighter than it looks.

At any rate, I think I agree with the OP's thoughts on this - the Z9 at least. Not a lot lighter than the DSLR equivalent, but every few grams off helps my aging wrists.

 

[briantilley]

lol. I never said smaller apertures, I said optimum aperture and optimum aperture is only one.

Here's what you said:

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

 

[briantilley]

.. the other problem is that nikpharms assertion that is there is no difference past F/5.6 is completely wrong.

Just like his other assertions in this thread ;-)

Particularly with wide angles and wide angle including zooms. Maybe if one is stupid enough to shoot at F/13 all the time, yea, but at F/6.3, F/7.1, even F/8 and perhaps F/9 a lot of the time, I can see differences, and those are some pretty important landscape apertures.

 

[photography-lover]

.. the other problem is that nikpharms assertion that is there is no difference past F/5.6 is completely wrong.

Just like his other assertions in this thread ;-)

Particularly with wide angles and wide angle including zooms. Maybe if one is stupid enough to shoot at F/13 all the time, yea, but at F/6.3, F/7.1, even F/8 and perhaps F/9 a lot of the time, I can see differences, and those are some pretty important landscape apertures.

He is absolutely not in search of any truth.

He is trying to distorts facts to match his beliefs that Z mount offers no advantage compared to F mount.

 

[photography-lover]

As the many choices confirm, reported here, weight is only one variable. There are others, notably image quality at different lens speeds. Yet another can be choosing the Z-Teleconverters, with much improved image quality particularly with the Z Zoom-Telephotos.

Quibbles aside, within a mere 4 years the Z System has expanded the choices in optics of the highest quality, and also weight, and of course prices when we include the Used options. Yet another pragmatic reason to carry on regardless of purists with a mixed DSLR/MILC system :-D

Silent Shutters is the other incomparable advantage of the Z cameras, of course, for wildlife but also many events

Good poins yes.

To me by far the most significant advantage of the Z mount over F mount, and over any other DSLR or mirrorless mounts, is the ability to adapt any lens (except Canon RF but they are of limited appeal anyways) with excellent AF performance.

This is of tremendous value.

 

[nikpharm]

lol. I never said smaller apertures, I said optimum aperture and optimum aperture is only one.

Here's what you said:

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

Absolutely I said that. How does the two statements relate to each other ?

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

optimum aperture is only one.

Perhaps you should define "optimum".

I suspect you mean the aperture that produces the highest resolution - which often is not the same aperture as the one that produces optimum depth of field for a specific photographic effect.

 

[chambeshi]

For telephotos, overall the combined F and Z options win hands down against any other brand for reach, Tele-zooms, Affordability (especially buying Used) and not least ergonomics. Overall, the new Z telephotos have broken new ground in combination of weight, quality and haptics (balance,internal TC's etc). The pair of Z Teleconverters are also superior optics compared to F mount equivalents.

With the exception of the 500 PF and 300 PF, these new Zed telephotos are the optics of choice for today's lightest 'Commando Kit ' : combining unbeatable image quality and top end AF with the Z9.

For shorter focal lengths. Zooms win without exception for the Z mount over the F mount options: optical quality, filter systems, and also weigh less.

Here again the Z system supports a more compact travel kit primes and/or zooms, and contingent on pairing with a lighter Z camera in place of a respective DSLR of comparable specifications. The fast Z primes may be heavier but balance out, and unmatchable quality extends to the 'slower' (and lightweight) f1.8 primes and even cheaper Muffin primes.

Thom Hogan's summary and reviews refer:

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/categorizing-the-z-nikkors.html

So does PL's:

https://photographylife.com/nikon-z-series

https://photographylife.com/one-year-with-nikon-z#where-does-the-z-system-stand

As the many choices confirm, reported here, weight is only one variable. There are others, notably image quality at different lens speeds. Yet another can be choosing the Z-Teleconverters, with much improved image quality particularly with the Z Zoom-Telephotos.

Quibbles aside, within a mere 4 years the Z System has expanded the choices in optics of the highest quality, and also weight, and of course prices when we include the Used options. Yet another pragmatic reason to carry on regardless of purists with a mixed DSLR/MILC system :-D

Silent Shutters is the other incomparable advantage of the Z cameras, of course, for wildlife but also many events

Good poins yes.

To me by far the most significant advantage of the Z mount over F mount, and over any other DSLR or mirrorless mounts, is the ability to adapt any lens (except Canon RF but they are of limited appeal anyways) with excellent AF performance.

This is of tremendous value.

--
““We can use words to denote not only objects and events in the outside world but also more abstract concepts. This ability leads to another strikingly human characteristic, one that is seldom mentioned: our almost limitless ability for self deception.......Whatever the answer, the only sensible way to arrive at it [Nature's secrets] is through detailed scientific research. All other approaches are little more than whistling to keep our courage up. Man is endowed with a relentless curiosity about the world. We cannot be satisfied forever by the guesses of yesterday, however much the charms of tradition and ritual may, for a time, lull our doubts about their validity. We must hammer away until we have forged a clear and valid picture not only of this vast universe in which we live but also of our very selves.” Francis Crick (1989: 263) The Astonishing Hypothesis

 

[chambeshi]

Your argument fails because your comparisons fail to consider what the respected reviewers have written, notably :

"...What makes the Z lenses so impressive is that Nikon managed to fit class-leading image quality into remarkably small and lightweight packages..... "

More links in my previous post

 

[briantilley]

lol. I never said smaller apertures, I said optimum aperture and optimum aperture is only one.

Here's what you said:

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

Absolutely I said that. How does the two statements relate to each other ?

I'm really struggling to follow your "logic" in this thread!

 

[nikpharm]

lol. I never said smaller apertures, I said optimum aperture and optimum aperture is only one.

Here's what you said:

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

Absolutely I said that. How does the two statements relate to each other ?

I'm really struggling to follow your "logic" in this thread!

You are struggling because you are trying to extract same meaning from two different statements.

Read prior posts to understand why I wrote one statement and why I wrote second statement in response to which post.

 

[briantilley]

lol. I never said smaller apertures, I said optimum aperture and optimum aperture is only one.

Here's what you said:

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

Absolutely I said that. How does the two statements relate to each other ?

I'm really struggling to follow your "logic" in this thread!

You are struggling because you are trying to extract same meaning from two different statements.

Read prior posts to understand why I wrote one statement and why I wrote second statement in response to which post.

Re-reading your prior posts won't make them any less contradictory, prejudiced or misleading.

 

[nikpharm]

lol. I never said smaller apertures, I said optimum aperture and optimum aperture is only one.

Here's what you said:

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

Absolutely I said that. How does the two statements relate to each other ?

I'm really struggling to follow your "logic" in this thread!

You are struggling because you are trying to extract same meaning from two different statements.

Read prior posts to understand why I wrote one statement and why I wrote second statement in response to which post.

Re-reading your prior posts won't make them any less contradictory, prejudiced or misleading.

lol. and what will I gain if it is assumed that what you are saying is correct.

I am a nikon user, not canon or sony or olympus. I am already using Nikon DSLR and mirrorless cameras and plan to add two more mirrorless lenses to my bag,

 

[briantilley]

I'm really struggling to follow your "logic" in this thread!

You are struggling because you are trying to extract same meaning from two different statements.

Read prior posts to understand why I wrote one statement and why I wrote second statement in response to which post.

Re-reading your prior posts won't make them any less contradictory, prejudiced or misleading.

lol. and what will I gain if it is assumed that what you are saying is correct.

I've no idea. The whole thread seems pretty pointless to me.

I am a nikon user, not canon or sony or olympus. I am already using Nikon DSLR and mirrorless cameras and plan to add two more mirrorless lenses to my bag,

 

[nikpharm]

It is just a simple comparison between f mount and Z mount

I consider a direct comparison is not possible.

Some F mount lenses such as the 120–300 and 80-400 are right up there with the best Z lenses, and lenses like it here at 500 PF and 60 mm macro are very close.

I consider the corner performance of some old D type lenses was so poor compared to the competition that I consider there was a good case for withdrawing them before the end of the last century!

A few entry level Z lenses are extremely good for the money but not as optically good as the best F mount lenses.

My comparison is based on the lenses listed in the post.

I have already stated that I have not tested any exotic primes.

And I have not compared any D type lenses nor mentioned anything about those lenses.

 

[photography-lover]

For telephotos, overall the combined F and Z options win hands down against any other brand for reach, Tele-zooms, Affordability (especially buying Used) and not least ergonomics. Overall, the new Z telephotos have broken new ground in combination of weight, quality and haptics (balance,internal TC's etc). The pair of Z Teleconverters are also superior optics compared to F mount equivalents.

With the exception of the 500 PF and 300 PF, these new Zed telephotos are the optics of choice for today's lightest 'Commando Kit ' : combining unbeatable image quality and top end AF with the Z9.

For shorter focal lengths. Zooms win without exception for the Z mount over the F mount options: optical quality, filter systems, and also weigh less.

Here again the Z system supports a more compact travel kit primes and/or zooms, and contingent on pairing with a lighter Z camera in place of a respective DSLR of comparable specifications. The fast Z primes may be heavier but balance out, and unmatchable quality extends to the 'slower' (and lightweight) f1.8 primes and even cheaper Muffin primes.

Thom Hogan's summary and reviews refer:

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/categorizing-the-z-nikkors.html

So does PL's:

https://photographylife.com/nikon-z-series

https://photographylife.com/one-year-with-nikon-z#where-does-the-z-system-stand

As the many choices confirm, reported here, weight is only one variable. There are others, notably image quality at different lens speeds. Yet another can be choosing the Z-Teleconverters, with much improved image quality particularly with the Z Zoom-Telephotos.

Quibbles aside, within a mere 4 years the Z System has expanded the choices in optics of the highest quality, and also weight, and of course prices when we include the Used options. Yet another pragmatic reason to carry on regardless of purists with a mixed DSLR/MILC system :-D

Silent Shutters is the other incomparable advantage of the Z cameras, of course, for wildlife but also many events

Good poins yes.

To me by far the most significant advantage of the Z mount over F mount, and over any other DSLR or mirrorless mounts, is the ability to adapt any lens (except Canon RF but they are of limited appeal anyways) with excellent AF performance.

This is of tremendous value.

Sure, I am the lucky owner of the following Z mount lenses:

- 14-30mm f4 S

- 14-24mm f2.8 S

- 20mm f1.8 S

- 24-70mm f2.8 S

- 24-120mm f4 S

- 24-200mm

- 28mm f2.8

- 35mm f1.8 S

- 40mm f2.0

- 50mm f3.5 macro

- 50mm f1.2 S

- 58mm f0.95 Noct

- 70-200mm f2.8 S

- 85mm f1.8 S

- 105mm f2.8 S macro

- 400mm f4.5 S

This gives me a decent overview of the value of the line up.
The only F mount lenses I have kep are

- 19mm T/S

- 28mm f1.4 E

- 105mm f1.4 E

- 120-300mm f2.8

- 200mm f2.0

I have been using them on Z7II and Z9.

 

[chambeshi]

In the words of Satoshi Yamazaki , Department Manager of Nikon's Optical Engineering division, which has all Z Nikkors:

".....I particularly like the f/1.8 series: the level of performance is better and beyond the f/1.4 series in F mount as well as the 1.2 series of our competitors (Canon, Sony, Fuji, etc.) . If you want to carry an f/1.2 lens, that's pretty big. However, you can enjoy the same quality with f/1.8. The lens is relatively compact compared to its optical performance."

Nikon au CP+ 2019 : « La beauté de la monture Z est de pouvoir guider la lumière de manière très naturelle »

Au CP+ 2019, nous avons rencontré deux ingénieurs de chez Nikon : Kazuharu Imafuji et Satoshi Yamazaki. Nous avons pu revenir avec eux sur la monture Z annoncée en 2018, les avantages qu’elle procure et parler également de vidéo, un domaine où Nikon souhaite faire sa place.

phototrend.fr