Aston Senna
Forum Enthusiast
Took my Z6 II to the local airshow, first time choosing to take that over my D5 to an event like that, wanting to try it out in prep for possibly switching all-in to the new Z6 III, and wow was I unimpressed. I have lots of shooting experience with my Z6 II, but mostly for static stuff or event shooting with shorter Z primes, so this was first try with a long lens and these kind of moving subjects.
As it went on, I got more used to it, but the first time putting it up to the eye, and with the lens and IBIS set to the sport mode to allow for intentional movement, it was a jittery, herky jerky mess as I tracked planes in the viewfinder, especially and most notably when slowly tracking at a distance, where my own movement with the lens is very slow given the subjects distance and trajectory. I adjusted to it over time, but it was a far from ideal experience, and quick pans during flybys were even tougher with the low FPS viewfinder in the Z6 II and long blackout times even with the mechanical shutter slowed to 5 fps to have less interruption.
My hope would obviously be that the Z6 III, with its many documented improvements, would be a SUBSTANTIAL improvement in a scenario and situation like this, not just a slight improvement. The poor VR implementation with the FTZ was also very discouraging, which I know the VR on an adapted lens will never be as good as a native Z lens, but yeah, when it comes to intentional movements, turning VR completely off might have been the better choice.
Switching to a 70-200 FL for slow speed pans on closer fly bys proved less problematic and something that was easier to adjust to, just adapting to the evf and compensating with pan speed and the lag to it.
And that's not to mention the AF that at times was great and did what was needed using dynamic or small wide box, to then just at times racking focus in and out on its own for no reason despite keeping the subject clearly within confines of my chosen af area. I was waiting for a plane to cross in front of the moon as it got darker, and when my moment finally came, the bright moon near the plane (of which it was already locked onto and tracking) caused the camera and lens combo to rack focus again. and the moon wasn't even behind the plane, but just close by, and my wide small af point wasn't touching the moon in any way. Should've just released AF on since the focus would've likely have still been good enough at that distance :/
I was originally intending on keeping my 500 PF and then adapting it to my planned Z6 III or even future Z9, but if the VR performance is similar to how it was here (and if the Z 400 4.5 or 180-600 are supposed to be way more fluid in natural in how the VR operates), that might have me rethinking my planned use of long F mount lens and the FTZ.
As it went on, I got more used to it, but the first time putting it up to the eye, and with the lens and IBIS set to the sport mode to allow for intentional movement, it was a jittery, herky jerky mess as I tracked planes in the viewfinder, especially and most notably when slowly tracking at a distance, where my own movement with the lens is very slow given the subjects distance and trajectory. I adjusted to it over time, but it was a far from ideal experience, and quick pans during flybys were even tougher with the low FPS viewfinder in the Z6 II and long blackout times even with the mechanical shutter slowed to 5 fps to have less interruption.
My hope would obviously be that the Z6 III, with its many documented improvements, would be a SUBSTANTIAL improvement in a scenario and situation like this, not just a slight improvement. The poor VR implementation with the FTZ was also very discouraging, which I know the VR on an adapted lens will never be as good as a native Z lens, but yeah, when it comes to intentional movements, turning VR completely off might have been the better choice.
Switching to a 70-200 FL for slow speed pans on closer fly bys proved less problematic and something that was easier to adjust to, just adapting to the evf and compensating with pan speed and the lag to it.
And that's not to mention the AF that at times was great and did what was needed using dynamic or small wide box, to then just at times racking focus in and out on its own for no reason despite keeping the subject clearly within confines of my chosen af area. I was waiting for a plane to cross in front of the moon as it got darker, and when my moment finally came, the bright moon near the plane (of which it was already locked onto and tracking) caused the camera and lens combo to rack focus again. and the moon wasn't even behind the plane, but just close by, and my wide small af point wasn't touching the moon in any way. Should've just released AF on since the focus would've likely have still been good enough at that distance :/
I was originally intending on keeping my 500 PF and then adapting it to my planned Z6 III or even future Z9, but if the VR performance is similar to how it was here (and if the Z 400 4.5 or 180-600 are supposed to be way more fluid in natural in how the VR operates), that might have me rethinking my planned use of long F mount lens and the FTZ.
