Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
fad
fad Forum Pro • Posts: 18,697
Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200
13

I reread Hogan's unenthusiastic review of the 24-200, in which he calls it a good match for the relative mediocrity of the Z5.

I have a closet full of professional lenses, bodies, tripods, even some exotics. That are rarely or never used at this point, though not so in the past. They are large, heavy, and somewhat inconvenient, for almost all of my uses.

The bulk of my shooting is done with the Z7 and the 24-200. Why?

AF has made great strides.
Low light shooting has made great strides.
IQ had made great strides.
IBIS has made great strides.
Pixel density facilitates cropping, and allows the 24-200 equivalent to 24-300, when cropping to DX mode.
Hand-held panoramas allow for wider angles of view when desired.

For none of these parameters does this gear reach the ultimate, granted. But honestly how often do I need the ultimate, when what I really need is to communicate what I see in the world outside and the world within?   Mostly, the gear does not get in my way and let's me capture what I want to capture.

As a test, I brought the superb 24-70/2.8 out to the country with me to compare landscape shots against the 24-200. When my wife took me on a tour of her extensive planting, I took that and my iPhone, but having no pocket I at first put down the iPhone to concentrate on the pro lens. It took me less than three shots to realize that the iPhone was the better, more spontaneous tool, and put down the Nikon. My wife and social media friends are delighted with the results, and even if I were to do a photo book someday of the garden, I think the iPhone photos will be OK. I would say that one out of 30 photos would have been much better with the Nikon gear as a first approximation, in terms of communicating what I saw and need to learn how to see better.

In the past I would have bought the f2.8 trinity without blinking an eye, the Z9, and probably the Noct. So for me this is an evolution that I am happy with, for the moment.

Now I just have to suppress the urge to get medium format to see what it is like.

-- hide signature --

Frank
http://sidewalkshadows.com/blog/
Photos look better in Original Size
Shot in downtown Manhattan, mostly

 fad's gear list:fad's gear list
Nikon D3S Nikon D4S Nikon D750 Nikon D850 Nikon Z50 +24 more
Nikon Z7 Nikon Z9
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Digital Shutterbug Veteran Member • Posts: 5,487
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200
12

With a sizable investment in photo gear, it’s often difficult to admit that a much lesser set of equipment will fill our needs in many cases. We all want to think our work is deserving of the top level gear. As I age and become less capable of hauling around 25% of my weight in gear, I have reached the point you describe. If I haven’t taken National Geographic worthy photos yet, I probably won’t. Having big dollar lenses may give me a warm fuzzy feeling, but so does shooting a very nice photo with a smaller, cheaper piece of gear.

-- hide signature --

Steve

MrHollywood
MrHollywood Senior Member • Posts: 3,905
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200
2

Digital Shutterbug wrote:

With a sizable investment in photo gear, it’s often difficult to admit that a much lesser set of equipment will fill our needs in many cases. We all want to think our work is deserving of the top level gear. As I age and become less capable of hauling around 25% of my weight in gear, I have reached the point you describe. If I haven’t taken National Geographic worthy photos yet, I probably won’t. Having big dollar lenses may give me a warm fuzzy feeling, but so does shooting a very nice photo with a smaller, cheaper piece of gear.

Yup...my 24-200 gets more use than my 24-70 2.8 S and 70-200 2.8 S.

All three lenses are fantastic, yet I'm somehow more impressed with what Nikon has accomplished with a superzoom.

Robert

-- hide signature --

"You're gonna need a bigger boat."

 MrHollywood's gear list:MrHollywood's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR Nikon 200-500mm F5.6E ED VR Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sony RX100 VI +22 more
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 20,486
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

Digital Shutterbug wrote:

If I haven’t taken National Geographic worthy photos yet, I probably won’t.

In my case, it's about prints and what I plan to do with my photos. I haven't been to Photoplus Expo in a few years, but I recall prints as big as I've ever made from m43 and prints from FF bigger than I could fit in my house!

Having big dollar lenses may give me a warm fuzzy feeling, but so does shooting a very nice photo with a smaller, cheaper piece of gear.

I like smaller; I like lighter; I like less expensive, but sometimes I wish I could get smaller with high quality. I don't mind spending a little extra on something that isn't made almost entirely of thin, scratchy plastic. But I'm nitpicking ...

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Shadowsurfer
Shadowsurfer Contributing Member • Posts: 788
Good thinking
15

When I bought the 24-200, I did not expect too much. It was bought to be used as a hiking lens, where quality takes a second seat to portability.

My first trip out was to some prehistoric rock carvings in Lombardy. I intended to use the 24-70. But ended up just using the 24-200 as it was just so flexible that I could forget about lens changing.

But I found the 24-200 so good that it is my "detail" lens when I shoot architecture with my shift lenses on a D810.

Some reviewers are a bit too "sniffy" at times.

Florence

Modena

Bologna

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,458
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200
3

fad wrote:

I reread Hogan's unenthusiastic review of the 24-200, in which he calls it a good match for the relative mediocrity of the Z5.

I have a closet full of professional lenses, bodies, tripods, even some exotics. That are rarely or never used at this point, though not so in the past. They are large, heavy, and somewhat inconvenient, for almost all of my uses.

The bulk of my shooting is done with the Z7 and the 24-200. Why?

AF has made great strides.
Low light shooting has made great strides.
IQ had made great strides.
IBIS has made great strides.
Pixel density facilitates cropping, and allows the 24-200 equivalent to 24-300, when cropping to DX mode.
Hand-held panoramas allow for wider angles of view when desired.

For none of these parameters does this gear reach the ultimate, granted. But honestly how often do I need the ultimate, when what I really need is to communicate what I see in the world outside and the world within? Mostly, the gear does not get in my way and let's me capture what I want to capture.

As a test, I brought the superb 24-70/2.8 out to the country with me to compare landscape shots against the 24-200. When my wife took me on a tour of her extensive planting, I took that and my iPhone, but having no pocket I at first put down the iPhone to concentrate on the pro lens. It took me less than three shots to realize that the iPhone was the better, more spontaneous tool, and put down the Nikon. My wife and social media friends are delighted with the results, and even if I were to do a photo book someday of the garden, I think the iPhone photos will be OK. I would say that one out of 30 photos would have been much better with the Nikon gear as a first approximation, in terms of communicating what I saw and need to learn how to see better.

In the past I would have bought the f2.8 trinity without blinking an eye, the Z9, and probably the Noct. So for me this is an evolution that I am happy with, for the moment.

Now I just have to suppress the urge to get medium format to see what it is like.

I dont have any problems with the sharpness of the ”cheaper” Nikon lenses, I got full confidence that they will perform well. But what I often miss is the subject isolation, that nice smooth object separation we get with faster lenses.

Digital Shutterbug Veteran Member • Posts: 5,487
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

Dennis wrote:

Digital Shutterbug wrote:

If I haven’t taken National Geographic worthy photos yet, I probably won’t.

In my case, it's about prints and what I plan to do with my photos. I haven't been to Photoplus Expo in a few years, but I recall prints as big as I've ever made from m43 and prints from FF bigger than I could fit in my house!

Having big dollar lenses may give me a warm fuzzy feeling, but so does shooting a very nice photo with a smaller, cheaper piece of gear.

I like smaller; I like lighter; I like less expensive, but sometimes I wish I could get smaller with high quality. I don't mind spending a little extra on something that isn't made almost entirely of thin, scratchy plastic. But I'm nitpicking ...

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

I understand your point. But, let me play the Devil's advocate in the case of the 24-200. It's a better than 8:1 zoom lens. I think most people buying such a lens are doing so to have a lens that can do it all in a package that is light and small enough to carry on lengthy walks, whether that be on a hike or a vacation excursion. It's not intended to be the best quality lens in their repertoire.

A lens made to higher standards of quality construction is nice up to the point that it increases the cost, size and weight beyond the intended purpose it's being bought for. Replacing plastic with metal adds durability and the feel of quality, but probably does very little to improve image quality. That requires a compromise in zoom range, and most likely, bigger, more expensive glass. There goes the purpose it was bought for.

On the surface, I agree with you that a few extra dollars for a smoother, better feeling version of the lens sounds good. I just think it would blow the lens out of the water for most of us that see it as a lens that can replace at least a couple of lenses and be ideal for for vacation travel or walking around town or the neighborhood. For the best quality images, we open the bag and drag out the big guns. Cost, size and weight are suddenly less important.

Really, I do understand your point. It's just about the compromises we make every time we pick up a camera and lens(es).

-- hide signature --

Steve

Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 20,486
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

Digital Shutterbug wrote:

I understand your point. But, let me play the Devil's advocate in the case of the 24-200. It's a better than 8:1 zoom lens.

Sorry - I guess I had something else in mind while replying to the specific comment about light & cheap. I'm thinking more specifically about the 16-50, 24-50 and the 28/2.8 prime as I'm shopping around for a small carry-everywhere camera.

A lens made to higher standards of quality construction is nice up to the point that it increases the cost, size and weight beyond the intended purpose it's being bought for.

Agreed. In the case of the 16-50 and 24-50, the intended purpose is to make for a cheap kit. My purpose for buying one would be more for compactness than "cheapness"

I just think it would blow the lens out of the water for most of us that see it as a lens that can replace at least a couple of lenses and be ideal for for vacation travel or walking around town or the neighborhood.

From all I've read, the 24-200 is a very nice lens - if it's not premium like an f/2.8 zoom, that's fine, but my impression is that the compact lenses are a step below. Personally, I haven't gotten out to see any camera gear since pre-pandemic, but should have a chance to spend some time in a camera store next week.

Really, I do understand your point. It's just about the compromises we make every time we pick up a camera and lens(es).

I love the idea of something like X100V as my carry-everywhere camera for the satisfaction of picking it up and using it. But a z50 seems like a more practical choice for many reasons.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

MrHollywood
MrHollywood Senior Member • Posts: 3,905
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

In the past I would have bought the f2.8 trinity without blinking an eye, the Z9, and probably the Noct. So for me this is an evolution that I am happy with, for the moment.

Now I just have to suppress the urge to get medium format to see what it is like.

I dont have any problems with the sharpness of the ”cheaper” Nikon lenses, I got full confidence that they will perform well. But what I often miss is the subject isolation, that nice smooth object separation we get with faster lenses.

Absolutely...

My 70-200 wide open is a beautiful lens.

But so is my 24-200...so much so that it's pretty shocking. It wasn't that long ago that we were all impressed with the 18-70mm and 18-200 VR DX lenses. But there was a fairly obvious difference in IQ on all fronts.

That's just not the case anymore. The biggest optical advantage of the 70-200 or 24-70 lenses is the speed. That's quite an accomplishment.

Robert

-- hide signature --

"You're gonna need a bigger boat."

 MrHollywood's gear list:MrHollywood's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR Nikon 200-500mm F5.6E ED VR Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sony RX100 VI +22 more
Digital Shutterbug Veteran Member • Posts: 5,487
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

Dennis wrote:

Digital Shutterbug wrote:

I understand your point. But, let me play the Devil's advocate in the case of the 24-200. It's a better than 8:1 zoom lens.

Sorry - I guess I had something else in mind while replying to the specific comment about light & cheap. I'm thinking more specifically about the 16-50, 24-50 and the 28/2.8 prime as I'm shopping around for a small carry-everywhere camera.

Ahhh. Yes, that is a different can of worms. Not having, or even shot with, any of those lenses, I'm at a disadvantage to speak about them.

A lens made to higher standards of quality construction is nice up to the point that it increases the cost, size and weight beyond the intended purpose it's being bought for.

Agreed. In the case of the 16-50 and 24-50, the intended purpose is to make for a cheap kit. My purpose for buying one would be more for compactness than "cheapness"

Yeah, we're back to the compromises we are willing to make to satisfy our end goal. It's a never ending game we have to play. Imagine being in the manufacturer's shoes when making the decisions about design and costs of every lens in their catalog. What makes one buyer happy upsets another.

I just think it would blow the lens out of the water for most of us that see it as a lens that can replace at least a couple of lenses and be ideal for for vacation travel or walking around town or the neighborhood.

From all I've read, the 24-200 is a very nice lens - if it's not premium like an f/2.8 zoom, that's fine, but my impression is that the compact lenses are a step below. Personally, I haven't gotten out to see any camera gear since pre-pandemic, but should have a chance to spend some time in a camera store next week.

Really, I do understand your point. It's just about the compromises we make every time we pick up a camera and lens(es).

I love the idea of something like X100V as my carry-everywhere camera for the satisfaction of picking it up and using it. But a z50 seems like a more practical choice for many reasons.

I love the Z7 II. Combined with the 24-200, it often works great. If I can sacrifice even more, and still get the quality images I want, I'll grab my Sony RX 10 IV. With just a 1 inch sensor, it's certainly not a replacement for the Z7 II, but it's an amazing camera and lens that will surprise many with its image quality within certain constraints. It continues to be about compromises and choices. It's unavoidable.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

-- hide signature --

Steve

Digital Shutterbug Veteran Member • Posts: 5,487
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

MrHollywood wrote:

In the past I would have bought the f2.8 trinity without blinking an eye, the Z9, and probably the Noct. So for me this is an evolution that I am happy with, for the moment.

Now I just have to suppress the urge to get medium format to see what it is like.

I dont have any problems with the sharpness of the ”cheaper” Nikon lenses, I got full confidence that they will perform well. But what I often miss is the subject isolation, that nice smooth object separation we get with faster lenses.

Absolutely...

My 70-200 wide open is a beautiful lens.

But so is my 24-200...so much so that it's pretty shocking. It wasn't that long ago that we were all impressed with the 18-70mm and 18-200 VR DX lenses. But there was a fairly obvious difference in IQ on all fronts.

That's just not the case anymore. The biggest optical advantage of the 70-200 or 24-70 lenses is the speed. That's quite an accomplishment.

Robert

I think Nikon has set the new bar height for super zooms. Considering the image quality it produces, the cost is unbelievably reasonable. It's amazing how much time it spends on my camera if I don't need something beyond 200mm in FL. The 50 and 85mm Z primes fill the gaps when speed and/or quality become necessary.

-- hide signature --

Steve

Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 20,486
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

Digital Shutterbug wrote:

What makes one buyer happy upsets another.

Yes! I think that's what 90% of the complaints are about. Not that the Canon/Nikon/Sony BR549 really "sucks", but that it isn't what I wanted them to make for *ME*

I love the Z7 II. Combined with the 24-200, it often works great. If I can sacrifice even more, and still get the quality images I want, I'll grab my Sony RX 10 IV. With just a 1 inch sensor, it's certainly not a replacement for the Z7 II, but it's an amazing camera and lens that will surprise many with its image quality within certain constraints. It continues to be about compromises and choices. It's unavoidable.

I have the III. Picked it up as an open box special at Best Buy a couple years ago for a song. (I also have an original RX100 model I so am familiar with the 1" sensor IQ). The biggest knock against the III is that the AF at the long end is really quirky. It's slow and hunts a lot. The IV I tried was one of the fastest focusing cameras I've ever used! I could be pretty happy with mostly ergonomic upgrades:

- bigger, higher res EVF
- easier to "grip" control dials - everything feels "slippery" on the camera to me - dials are too flush with the surface - I go to change a setting and have to hunt for the button/dial.

Basically, put it in a Nikon-designed body and it would be brilliant.

Anyway, short term, I figure I'll pick up something like a z50 (still considering dark horse candidates like X100V or even E-M5 III with 12-45/4) to just grab & go. Long term, I figure I'll probably upgrade my D7500 kit to a Z FF (I already have an 85/1.8, 70-200/2.8 VR II and Sigma 100-400 to get me started with an FTZ). I expect that the 24-200 and upcoming compact 40 would be my two workhorse lenses. But I'm not in a hurry to do anything on that front. Every time I take the D7500 out, I enjoy it; I just need something smaller for times I don't want to take the D7500 out.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

sirhawkeye64 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,837
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

fad wrote:

I reread Hogan's unenthusiastic review of the 24-200, in which he calls it a good match for the relative mediocrity of the Z5.

I have a closet full of professional lenses, bodies, tripods, even some exotics. That are rarely or never used at this point, though not so in the past. They are large, heavy, and somewhat inconvenient, for almost all of my uses.

The bulk of my shooting is done with the Z7 and the 24-200. Why?

AF has made great strides.
Low light shooting has made great strides.
IQ had made great strides.
IBIS has made great strides.
Pixel density facilitates cropping, and allows the 24-200 equivalent to 24-300, when cropping to DX mode.
Hand-held panoramas allow for wider angles of view when desired.

For none of these parameters does this gear reach the ultimate, granted. But honestly how often do I need the ultimate, when what I really need is to communicate what I see in the world outside and the world within? Mostly, the gear does not get in my way and let's me capture what I want to capture.

As a test, I brought the superb 24-70/2.8 out to the country with me to compare landscape shots against the 24-200. When my wife took me on a tour of her extensive planting, I took that and my iPhone, but having no pocket I at first put down the iPhone to concentrate on the pro lens. It took me less than three shots to realize that the iPhone was the better, more spontaneous tool, and put down the Nikon. My wife and social media friends are delighted with the results, and even if I were to do a photo book someday of the garden, I think the iPhone photos will be OK. I would say that one out of 30 photos would have been much better with the Nikon gear as a first approximation, in terms of communicating what I saw and need to learn how to see better.

In the past I would have bought the f2.8 trinity without blinking an eye, the Z9, and probably the Noct. So for me this is an evolution that I am happy with, for the moment.

Now I just have to suppress the urge to get medium format to see what it is like.

I have to agree that the Z7-series and the 24-200 is a great combo, especially if you want to utilize the DX crop mode to get the 36-300mm equivalent.  Of course, the 24-200 also works well on the Z5 and Z6 if you don't use DX crop mode (or are OK with a 9MP image).

But I think Nikon has done a really nice job on the Z's so far and the 24-200 especially.  It's slightly cheaper than the F-mount 28-300 but sharper IMO and that's a win-win for people looking for a travel zoom like that.

Unless I'm doing something really specific, like shooting in a studio shoot, the 24-200 is always in my bag or on the camera, and definitely comes along with me on landscape photography trips and when I travel as it's so versatile and has great quality given what it is.  (And people have to keep in mind that the 24-200 is really in the same class of lenses as the fast zooms like the 24-70 and the 70-200 (as many people like to compare the 24-200 to those and it's more like comparing apples to oranges).

 sirhawkeye64's gear list:sirhawkeye64's gear list
Nikon Z7 Nikon Z7 II Nikon Z6 II GoPro Hero8 Black Nikon Z 85mm F1.8 +11 more
Digital Shutterbug Veteran Member • Posts: 5,487
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

Dennis wrote:

Digital Shutterbug wrote:

What makes one buyer happy upsets another.

Yes! I think that's what 90% of the complaints are about. Not that the Canon/Nikon/Sony BR549 really "sucks", but that it isn't what I wanted them to make for *ME*

I love the Z7 II. Combined with the 24-200, it often works great. If I can sacrifice even more, and still get the quality images I want, I'll grab my Sony RX 10 IV. With just a 1 inch sensor, it's certainly not a replacement for the Z7 II, but it's an amazing camera and lens that will surprise many with its image quality within certain constraints. It continues to be about compromises and choices. It's unavoidable.

I have the III. Picked it up as an open box special at Best Buy a couple years ago for a song. (I also have an original RX100 model I so am familiar with the 1" sensor IQ). The biggest knock against the III is that the AF at the long end is really quirky. It's slow and hunts a lot. The IV I tried was one of the fastest focusing cameras I've ever used! I could be pretty happy with mostly ergonomic upgrades:

- bigger, higher res EVF
- easier to "grip" control dials - everything feels "slippery" on the camera to me - dials are too flush with the surface - I go to change a setting and have to hunt for the button/dial.

Basically, put it in a Nikon-designed body and it would be brilliant.

Anyway, short term, I figure I'll pick up something like a z50 (still considering dark horse candidates like X100V or even E-M5 III with 12-45/4) to just grab & go. Long term, I figure I'll probably upgrade my D7500 kit to a Z FF (I already have an 85/1.8, 70-200/2.8 VR II and Sigma 100-400 to get me started with an FTZ). I expect that the 24-200 and upcoming compact 40 would be my two workhorse lenses. But I'm not in a hurry to do anything on that front. Every time I take the D7500 out, I enjoy it; I just need something smaller for times I don't want to take the D7500 out.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

I had the RX10 III before the IV. A lot of people complained of the focus on the long end. That wasn't my chief complaint. The focus on a moving subject was abysmal. I ordered the IV the moment orders were accepted. True to their promise, Sony nailed it. Its focus is outstanding.

I agree about the controls. I write that off to my neuropathy and not being able to feel the buttons very well on any camera. I just have to live with it. I'm glad for improvements in buttons for what other photographers benefit.

I keep resisting the urge to buy another D500. I loved that camera. Its AF is superior to the Z cameras in some cases. I've gotten used to the crop capability of the Z7 series, so the crop of the D500 (DX cameras in general) doesn't gain me so much. I'm going to give Nikon some time to see what they can do for the AF on the Z7 II. If firmware achieves what I'm hoping for, I might be able to finish out life with that camera and my RX10 IV. I can't think of  anything but another lens, or two, that would excite me spend more money from here on out.

-- hide signature --

Steve

Digital Shutterbug Veteran Member • Posts: 5,487
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

I have to agree that the Z7-series and the 24-200 is a great combo, especially if you want to utilize the DX crop mode to get the 36-300mm equivalent. Of course, the 24-200 also works well on the Z5 and Z6 if you don't use DX crop mode (or are OK with a 9MP image).

But I think Nikon has done a really nice job on the Z's so far and the 24-200 especially. It's slightly cheaper than the F-mount 28-300 but sharper IMO and that's a win-win for people looking for a travel zoom like that.

Unless I'm doing something really specific, like shooting in a studio shoot, the 24-200 is always in my bag or on the camera, and definitely comes along with me on landscape photography trips and when I travel as it's so versatile and has great quality given what it is. (And people have to keep in mind that the 24-200 is really in the same class of lenses as the fast zooms like the 24-70 and the 70-200 (as many people like to compare the 24-200 to those and it's more like comparing apples to oranges).

You're right about trying to compare those lenses. It's not fair. The only super zoom I've ever owned that I thought was better than the 24-200 was the Canon 35-350, many years ago. It was an outstanding lens. But, it was a monster. You couldn't have compared it to the 24-200 either. Their size and weight differences put them in different leagues. I guess it's just human nature to draw comparisons between apples and oranges.

-- hide signature --

Steve

KnightPhoto2
KnightPhoto2 Senior Member • Posts: 2,095
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

Off-topic I realize but which iPhone model and are the newer models necessary? I have an iPhone 8+ and considering whether to upgrade to the 12 PRO Plus but am not sure if that is a meaningful upgrade for what I'll be using it for. I have an upcoming month-long birding trip wherein my D500+500PF+TC14+grip will be my main rig for birds (will not be bringing my DX lenses for weight reasons) and my iPhone for opportunistic quick people and landscape photos and short 5=10 second video clips for social media feed.  So I'll be carrying the D500 rig, Swarovski binoculars, an iPhone in my pocket, a light non-camera backpack for rain gear, water, and food etc.

-- hide signature --

Best Regards,
SteveK
'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange

 KnightPhoto2's gear list:KnightPhoto2's gear list
Nikon 1 V3 Nikon D500 Nikon Z6 Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G +23 more
Digital Shutterbug Veteran Member • Posts: 5,487
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200
1

Funny you should ask. A week ago today, I traded my 11 Pro for a 12 Pro. I was able to get a $500 trade-in allowance, so it wasn't the big price it could have been. Now, a week later, I kind of regret the upgrade. I don't think I gained much, especially in the camera.

OTOH, you would see a bigger improvement in your trade. I think the 12 Pro Max does get some extra photographic capabilities over the 12 Pro, but I didn't want the extra size to carry when not in use.

The Apple website does a fair job of comparisons. If you have an Apple store within driving distance, that's even better. I have found them to be very knowledgeable and helpful, while not being the slightest bit pushy.

-- hide signature --

Steve

sirhawkeye64 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,837
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

fad wrote:

I reread Hogan's unenthusiastic review of the 24-200, in which he calls it a good match for the relative mediocrity of the Z5.

I have a closet full of professional lenses, bodies, tripods, even some exotics. That are rarely or never used at this point, though not so in the past. They are large, heavy, and somewhat inconvenient, for almost all of my uses.

The bulk of my shooting is done with the Z7 and the 24-200. Why?

AF has made great strides.
Low light shooting has made great strides.
IQ had made great strides.
IBIS has made great strides.
Pixel density facilitates cropping, and allows the 24-200 equivalent to 24-300, when cropping to DX mode.
Hand-held panoramas allow for wider angles of view when desired.

For none of these parameters does this gear reach the ultimate, granted. But honestly how often do I need the ultimate, when what I really need is to communicate what I see in the world outside and the world within? Mostly, the gear does not get in my way and let's me capture what I want to capture.

As a test, I brought the superb 24-70/2.8 out to the country with me to compare landscape shots against the 24-200. When my wife took me on a tour of her extensive planting, I took that and my iPhone, but having no pocket I at first put down the iPhone to concentrate on the pro lens. It took me less than three shots to realize that the iPhone was the better, more spontaneous tool, and put down the Nikon. My wife and social media friends are delighted with the results, and even if I were to do a photo book someday of the garden, I think the iPhone photos will be OK. I would say that one out of 30 photos would have been much better with the Nikon gear as a first approximation, in terms of communicating what I saw and need to learn how to see better.

In the past I would have bought the f2.8 trinity without blinking an eye, the Z9, and probably the Noct. So for me this is an evolution that I am happy with, for the moment.

Now I just have to suppress the urge to get medium format to see what it is like.

...

Unless I'm doing something really specific, like shooting in a studio shoot, the 24-200 is always in my bag or on the camera, and definitely comes along with me on landscape photography trips and when I travel as it's so versatile and has great quality given what it is. (And people have to keep in mind that the 24-200 is really in the same class of lenses as the fast zooms like the 24-70 and the 70-200 (as many people like to compare the 24-200 to those and it's more like comparing apples to oranges).

CORRECTION: should have written "(And people have to keep in mind that the 24-200 is NOT really in the same class of lenses as the fast zooms like the 24-70 and the 70-200 (as many people like to compare the 24-200 to those and it's more like comparing apples to oranges).

 sirhawkeye64's gear list:sirhawkeye64's gear list
Nikon Z7 Nikon Z7 II Nikon Z6 II GoPro Hero8 Black Nikon Z 85mm F1.8 +11 more
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 20,486
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

Digital Shutterbug wrote:

I had the RX10 III before the IV. A lot of people complained of the focus on the long end. That wasn't my chief complaint. The focus on a moving subject was abysmal.

True - I don't bother trying to use continuous AF on it. Around the house (backyard wildlife & birds) I try to use the D7500 and Sigma 100-400. AF is certainly better and the IQ is just a bit better. But if I can't get to it in time (I keep the RX10 handy on the kitchen table) or if I'm traveling light, the RX10 still gets me nice photos. I've toyed with the idea of throwing in the towel, getting rid of all longer lenses and just using the RX10 alongside a bigger sensor camera with just a couple short lenses. Before my daughter went off to college, I shot many indoor concerts, plays, robotics competitions and the like, most often with the 70-200/2.8. I did several with the RX10 and it did just fine. Noisier, but not too noisy (none of those would be photos I'd print wall size anyway). And at times, the extra reach was handy. But aside from the nagging feeling of "settling" for a smaller sensor, I just know I would not be happy with the camera body itself. I like to enjoy shooting with a camera.

I agree about the controls. I write that off to my neuropathy and not being able to feel the buttons very well on any camera. I just have to live with it.

Sorry to hear that. My gripes must seem trivial!

I keep resisting the urge to buy another D500. I loved that camera.

I tried one once. If I planned to spend lots of time outdoors shooting wildlife/nature I'd have been tempted to get it. I did that many years ago (before our daughter was born) then got out of it. It reminded me a little of my last couple film cameras - the Maxxum 7 & 9. Just a joy to pick up, comfortable in your hand, confidence-inspiring.

If firmware achieves what I'm hoping for, I might be able to finish out life with that camera and my RX10 IV. I can't think of anything but another lens, or two, that would excite me spend more money from here on out.

That's a good place to be in. I'm content with my DSLR gear, knowing that I'll make a switch to mirrorless within a few years and that I'll likely be able to put together a kit like you describe - just enough and no more.

Nice chatting!

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Digital Shutterbug Veteran Member • Posts: 5,487
Re: Counting my blessings with the Z7II and the 24-200

Dennis wrote:

Digital Shutterbug wrote:

I had the RX10 III before the IV. A lot of people complained of the focus on the long end. That wasn't my chief complaint. The focus on a moving subject was abysmal.

True - I don't bother trying to use continuous AF on it. Around the house (backyard wildlife & birds) I try to use the D7500 and Sigma 100-400. AF is certainly better and the IQ is just a bit better. But if I can't get to it in time (I keep the RX10 handy on the kitchen table) or if I'm traveling light, the RX10 still gets me nice photos. I've toyed with the idea of throwing in the towel, getting rid of all longer lenses and just using the RX10 alongside a bigger sensor camera with just a couple short lenses. Before my daughter went off to college, I shot many indoor concerts, plays, robotics competitions and the like, most often with the 70-200/2.8. I did several with the RX10 and it did just fine. Noisier, but not too noisy (none of those would be photos I'd print wall size anyway). And at times, the extra reach was handy. But aside from the nagging feeling of "settling" for a smaller sensor, I just know I would not be happy with the camera body itself. I like to enjoy shooting with a camera.

I agree about the controls. I write that off to my neuropathy and not being able to feel the buttons very well on any camera. I just have to live with it.

Sorry to hear that. My gripes must seem trivial!

No worries. It was caused from chemotherapy treatments during most of 2016. The doctors told me what would happen before we started. They also said 93% of people recover within 18 months after final treatment. I was in that unlucky 7%. It's annoying, but the alternative to treatment was worse. I can't shoot with the smoothness and speed I used to, but I'm still taking pictures. Every day is a blessing.

I keep resisting the urge to buy another D500. I loved that camera.

I tried one once. If I planned to spend lots of time outdoors shooting wildlife/nature I'd have been tempted to get it. I did that many years ago (before our daughter was born) then got out of it. It reminded me a little of my last couple film cameras - the Maxxum 7 & 9. Just a joy to pick up, comfortable in your hand, confidence-inspiring.

If firmware achieves what I'm hoping for, I might be able to finish out life with that camera and my RX10 IV. I can't think of anything but another lens, or two, that would excite me spend more money from here on out.

That's a good place to be in. I'm content with my DSLR gear, knowing that I'll make a switch to mirrorless within a few years and that I'll likely be able to put together a kit like you describe - just enough and no more.

Nice chatting!

It's been my pleasure. BTW, I had a quick look at your smugmug postings. Very nice. I'm a fan of anything shot at Yellowstone. It's my favorite place I've been in the U.S. The far northeastern states are on my bucket list, but I can't imagine anything topping Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

-- hide signature --

Steve

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads