DPReview on TWiT: Nikon Z Mirrorless

...suicide for the second slot ? really ? LOL

Current SDXC UHS-II V90 cards are rated for up to 8K video and the Nikon Z6 and Z7 don't even have 4K 60p or internal 10 bit 422 4K like the GH5 with dual UHS-II slots that could be hot swapped for continuous video recording without overheating. BTW a Nikon rep claimed that they couldn't put 10 bit internal recording in because of heat issues.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1845/43488263534_42da637e7b_o.png
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1486/24813811103_7b5a19a0be_b.jpg

First tethered shoots typically send files over a laptop with one hard drive, no redundancy. When did mirrorless become "must have" for wedding, event, and journalists photogs? People all of sudden expect quiet at a wedding while you have a drone flying overhead for video. The audience for these camera's is not the Pro's who use D4/D5's and 8xx bodies yet all these wanna be photographers reviewing who couldn't afford to buy it anyways are crying because it's missing a few features they'll never use. Nobody has yet to review the real RAW image quality, high iso, and sensor performance, all just guessing.

Poor quality flash cards and camera firmware typically make up the bulk of corrupted images. One card slot isn't the end of the world. Maybe a method of sending images over via wifi as your shooting to your phone.

Don't worry, the next Sony EVF would have ~5MP, around 5.6 MP...it seems... perhaps already into the A7S Mark III.....soon....the shiny, all new ECX339A does have 5.6 MP, and also 240 Hz Refresh Rate...fast enough for anything, and better than the Z6/Z7/Leica SL/GFX 50s/X-H1 EVF....

Good Light !
Marc

Let's hope it is so, and it won't show a lower resolution during shooting.

I have switched between the a7rIII and a7III, which have similar differences in specs, can can barely if at all tell any difference. There is a huge diminishing rate of return as you keep moving up resolution.

more like re-inventing the wheel in square shape

I think it would have to be two lenses with different backfocus lengths; if you add in an adapter, that cancels out the effect :)

Rishi, but at the same time the back of the mirrorless camera is putting less counterweigth against the lens because the back is closer to the center of the mass as well. In addition the DSLR in itself puts much more counterweight agains any lens and with increased size offers usually the better grip anyway. In addition a less substantial grip puts your hand farther back compared to the mass center, All of this is together almost always leads to a more stable and comfortable grip on the DSLR.

But eventually this is getting a moot point since full frame mirrorless cameras are getting bigger and more heavy with every iteration anyway. They are so close to DSLRs already that I have lost most interest in full frame mirrorless.

Rishi's probably had his hands on more camera and lens combos than any of us. He probably knows what he's talking about.

How many cameras do I have to handle to know what I am talking about? Let´s assume we handled 567:1234 cameras. Does that make one person twice as correct?

I would advice to mount the Sigma 35mm 1.4 to a Sony A7 (first gen) and a D850. If you still feel the 450g camera has a better pull against a lens that heavy compared to a body twice as heavy, then you definitely live on a planet with much lower gravity. ;-)

Actually, it seems that you only have to handle two cameras and two times the same lens in different mounts to have the original claim feel wonky.

Btw. you will feel the same issue when mounting the 400g 56mm 1.2 to an X-E3 and compare it to a 85mm 1.8 mounted to a 5D. My fingers hurt after a short time with the Fuji combo and the leighter combo is more prone to shake due to the less comfortable mass distribution, especially when used one handed. A second hand voids this topic anyway.

Buy a scale. They're useful for other stuff as well, like selling last year's digital camera on eBay while it still has value.

TORN has it basically right: for the same lens design the flange to sensor distance doesn't influence the balance of the camera any since the front element to sensor distance is unchanged.

The most effective way to move the balance of a camera backwards is to move the position of the sensor relative to the grip.

That said, mirrorless systems tend to balance more nicely than dSLRs since wide angle native lenses don't have to be retrofocus designs.

The Nikon Z cameras in addition don't have AF motors or mechanical aperture coupling levers in the body, meaning less weight up front around the lens mount.

Hold your horses, readers, please.

Obviously I'm not talking about taking a DSLR-designed lens and putting it on a mirrorless. If you're going to take a lens and then add on the same amount of distance to match the flange of a DSLR then no, of course the mirrorless isn't going to feel lighter. It might even feel heavier, like TORN is saying, b/c of the smaller grip (though the Z 7 grip is substantial).

That's not my point at all.

I'm talking about DSLR-designed lenses (for long flange distances) on DSLRs vs. mirrorless-designed lenses (for short flange distances) on mirrorless.

The latter, except for long telephoto lengths where the differences start evening out, will almost always have a shorter moment arm. So even for the same total weight, will always feel lighter.

For even lower total weight, it'll feel even lighter than the the 30% weight savings the Z 7 specs would lead you to believe.

@Peak freak got it. Not sure how I could be any more clear.

Rishi: (un)Fortunately no camera bodies are ‘equivalent’ (the ‘ceteris paribus’ argument). Of course you are right, but only when all other factors (grip f.i.) are equal, which they never are.

I know they have always been conservative (and very slow), but the industry has changed dramatically.
The market is no longer a Canon-Nikon market, and they have had many years of watching what Sony has been doing, and at a very fast pace.
They should've had a FF mirrorless at least 5, if not 10, years ago.

If they continue their tradition of 5 to 6 years to update a model, I think that will be problematic for them.
You can run on inertia, but only for a while, and then customers would get tired of waiting.

Who is increasing market share in 2018? Last time we looked it was Canon. They do very well with aps-c mirrorless, they work on a full frame mirrorless and they lead the markets with their dslrs still. I would not expect them to hurry more than they have to. They never did.

I've pondered this 'slow to the party' thing.
Canon will realise that when they offer an EF/EFS compatible mirrorless camera, that will eat into their DSLR sales big time. It is a matter of timing for them. Still selling lots of DSLR's? No rush.

They have already lost lots of customers to Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, and Olympus.
Not everyone is a journalist sports photographer.
Selling thousands of Rebel models to beginners is not what sustains Canon, but it is good for statistics and for market share figures!

Although I still have a Canon FF and a good set of L lenses, I don't use it nearly as often as I used to since I bought a Sony mirrorless less than a couple of years ago, which is what I now carry most of the time, if not always.

Z6 and Z7 aren't professional cameras , why Nikon is asking for professional prices ?

Nikon : "And we're going to bundle an XQD card in the camera for the first few months of sales as well. Just to help people switch."

@LessMirrored19

"Z6 and Z7 aren't professional cameras , why Nikon is asking for professional prices "

Why do you care what we pay? I'll be happy to pay extra for Nikon/Canon cameras. Does that bother you?

Yes, it bothers me. LOL just kidding

No, but it seems like they are reaming their own customers who want to stay with their existing lenses. New customers would be foolish to spend A9 prices for something slower than A7III/A7RIII with worse AF and a 23 frame buffer and a non-SD card. They are just assuming Nikon lens owners will pay through the teeth any price they want just to avoid jumping ship.

"We were working with a pre-production unit so things might change" -- this was in reference to processing / write speeds. It's a disclaimer we are required to state before making comments on performance, because we were working with such early version units.

I certainly wasn't suggesting a single card slot would become dual by production :-)

I am looking forward to a $2000 camera which I can comfortably use, which does not show little pauses during many basic operations and which does not have a mediocre viewfinder - most important for me on any camera. The Z6 was well worth the wait. In Sonyland I have to get the expensive model to get a somewhat decent EVF. I could not care less about a second card slot or sport AF.

Couple of points:

1. I didn't say 'Z-mount', I said the 'Z-mount lenses' (as in the ones we tested).

2. You would complain about the edge-to-edge sharpness of this (kit) lens shot wide open in our sample here?

Also, if I may: it's interesting how someone can make such a bold statement about my education whilst knowing nothing of it :)

@LessMirrored19

It seems it just it kills you that Nikon has a better and future proof mount than Sony's!

@Rishi Sanyal

Don't listen to @LessMirrored19 he always barks at anything not Sony.

Rishi I heard your education was sharp but with some soft edges because of focus in the last few years but i guess you can't confirm that ?

... "it's interesting how someone can make such a bold statement about my education whilst knowing nothing of it :)".

Nothing new on this forum, Rishi.
Been told a "newby" when I disagreed with idiots, although I have been in photography for almost 50 years. :)
Lots of 4th-grader idiots with huge egos everywhere.

Ok, I actually LOL'd at that, Daniel. :)

Daym!!! I may not live that long :)

Which features did we attack about the a7 and a9 that we are now praising about the Z 7? Please be specific and I'll investigate / correct any errors, as we take insinuations of bias very seriously. Thanks in advance.

Don’t worry Rishi, many people commenting on here are attacking the “short comings” of the Z bodies while pre mk3 Sony bodies those same short comings where excused and accepted.

For example the single memory card, and whether bodies that don’t have dual cards are not for pros, or the battery life. Many Sony embassidors did this. “Carrying batteries is no big deal, they are so small”... or “I have never had a card fail, I shoot weddings with a pair of A7RII bodies”...

Many just don’t realize how long it takes to design and produce these cameras. I am pretty sure that Nikon started on this way before the mark 3 Sony bodies were released, and certain design decisions were taken without knowing what Sony would do. If Nikon comes out with a larger better balanced with long glass body with dual processors or something like that they would essentially pull ahead of Sony in the “pro”market, in my opinion.

Anyways, Nikon and canon enterkng the marke brings healthy competition.

Without being a sony fanboy. Like it or not the z6 and z7 if not aimed at nikon owners has to be compared to the gen3 sony models and probably gen4 since that will probably hit 50% into the life-cycle of the z6 and z7. I *.nl the z7 is already near the price of a a9 and thats already a hard sell in what you get in return. Nikon by not clearly beating the 3 sony bodies in play today already leaves them open for sony to react who openly expressed they will... Lets see what canon does next... Its so cool when all 3 FF brands are into mirrorless now and as RIshi outlined in this interview with the mirror gone and shutter on its way out the data-gathering becomes way more interesting and open for totally new ideas he hinted at.

So funny... So funny!

Wrong decision? I remember when everyone blasted apple for removing the floppy disc, then the optical disc, now the headphone jack....and the world continued to function and even adopt their changes and move forward.

Its a step in a different direction. Time will tell if it was the wrong decision.

@Sarlacc,

And you know what? It's freaking annoying, even though I still use Apple products.

However, this is bigger than just a "different direction". It's a serious omission that puts certain working pros in a no-deal situation. Nikon could have easily put both an XQD and SD slot. If you want the most out of your buffer, just shoot JPGs to the SD. Heck they could have given the Z7 a much bigger buffer, too.

Nikon made a bad decision, based on /years/ of zero competition regarding this certain feature from the 6D series and the older A7 series.

Of course, I'm sure they also did plenty of market research, and determined that MOST people would rather have a single high-speed card slot than dual, slow SD slots. We're in the minority. But it still means I won't be buying a Z-series body, unless I can retire from weddings completely in the near future, and do 100% landscape/nightscape work. ;-)

I wonder how working pros survived doing weddings in the past with only one slot(digital or one roll of film), I do not think they retired(sarcasm). I use a single slot for everything since I started using digital and never had a SD card fail. The new cards are supposed to be even more stable.
Everything has its risk, but when chances of failure are less than being struck by lighting or killed in a care accident, I would not be concerned about it. Even two card slots a prone to failure.
Read what Ken Rowell has to say about this omission.

There is another explanation many will not accept 😉 - Nikon thinks the Z is not ready for prime time and keep the shooters demanding 2 slots away.

A good implemented 2x SD slot (no, not mixed SDii and SD;-)) with a big buffer does great.

HAHAHA... man the tech world moves quickly and people forget just as fast.

The mk3 Sony bodies were released back in NOVEMBER 2017 (A7RIII). Up till then there was this raging debate about dual cards, yet many people accepted the fact that the Sony bodies had one, that battery life was short. It has literally been less than a year that a larger battery capacity and dual cards were introduced.

So you people can complain all you want, but if Nikon had decided to address that, they would have pretty much needed to start almost from scratch again. This is the best they could come out with, and it is a good start. Heck, I had the A7II till a few months ago and had learned to live with it. These nikons are better than it, though not up to par to the A7iii body that I currently have.

But, better ergonomics, better botton size, and awesome weather sealing. So I see more potential here. Polish AF, introduce eye AF and better battery, and it would be better than Sony (IMO)

Are we litteraly saying that because people shot film 20 years ago that it is OK?

Nikon released a d7000 8 years ago with 2 memory card slots.

Nikon users are embarrassing themselves with this logic.

Wake up.

Well I never had a card fail on me till it did.

But 80% of the images were recoverable, and the failure did happen on a shoot. But I am no pro.

I had looked into wedding photography and such, and there are some other reasons why one could live with a single card.

1. Shooting several smaller. Size cards will ensure you won’t have all the photos on one card.
2. If you are a real pro, you realize it isn’t just a card that can fail, but a body, lighting systems, etc so having a bare bones backup is a good idea. So many have 2 bodies, so they have a body as back up AND that allow allows you to not have to change lenses.

So if you apply the above you can easily have enough room for the off chance a card fails.

For example I would switch out the card after very major things for a wedding. The kiss, the toss, the first dance. I would have a portable drive that the cards can back up to. For the rest shooting with 2 bodies gives you enough images for the off chance a card fails.

@Lawny13, November of last year is /yesterday/ in terms of camera development, and big decisions such as the image data pipeline. I stand by what I said about the reasons behind why Nikon decided to go with a single ultra-fast XQD card slot instead of dual SD slots, or even XQD+SD.

Regarding card failure, ...that's nice for you! As a wedding photographer who specializes in multi-day, 14-16 hr Hindu weddings, I shoot roughly 1/2 a million raw photos every year, and yes, I have had cards "go south" on multiple occasions. A memory card is only rated for 100,000 read/write cycles, usually.

But, it's more than just card failure or data corruption. Instant redundancy protects against many things, from theft and loss to all kinds of disasters or other breakdowns in the overall workflow of image safety.

Simply put, if I were still shooting with a single card slot, I would in fact NOT shoot million-dollar weddings, not unless I had a field backup device with an XQD card slot. Period.

@Julian, to be quite honest, if I were ANY other type of pro, even a high-end portrait photographer of the caliber such as Joe McNally, or even Annie Leibovitz, I might happily shoot on a Z7, for portraits, editorial, fashion, architecture, sports, wildlife, ...almost anything, OTHER than weddings.

Weddings are unique in that you're spending all day, often 10-12+ hours, walking and even driving all over town, doing journalistic work, shooting posed portraits, ...and at the end of the day, you have 2-3 photographers with a few thousand photos that have to be backed up.

Having dual card slots with raw images written to both cards VASTLY simplifies the workflow: Each photographer gives their primary card to the lead shooter, and their backup card to the 2nd shooter. That way, before you even leave the reception venue, you have a backup of your data. And not just that, but an effortless off-site backup...

...could even the most high-end pro "make do" with taking a single copy of images on single memory card(s) home to back up right away? Sure. But here's the thing: It all comes down to which is more convenient, and which is the worse trade-off. In other words, I could keep shooting with a D850 or a D750, and enjoy the benefit of this amazingly easy workflow, yet continue "making do" without the advantages of things like IBIS and the WYSIWYG EVF. Or, I could put up with the hassle of a new backup workflow, in order to gain those advantages.

And right now, I'd rather stick with a D750 / D850, especially considering the unknown factors of battery life and low-light AF reliability.

Again, as I said before, if the Z6 gets numerous real-world reviews that say the battery life isn't too bad, and the low-light AF is just as reliable as a D850/D750, then I might consider trying it out, and just putting up with a more elaborate on-site backup procedure. But until then, NOPE.

Exactly - that's what backup means.
It doesn't matter if one card is 10x more reliable, if it CAN fail you need backup for some jobs.

I absolutely don't need it 😉 but still think it was a strange decision.

Thanks Matthew. I appear on the show from time to time (this was my 3rd time). Probably my favorite episode was the one on smartphones. You can watch that video at the bottom of this article 'Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds'.

Cheers.

@Sarlacc,

When shooting any wedding, let alone a 16+ hour one, I use a single 64/128GB card in the primary slot, and the 2nd slot gets 16/32GB cards that are swapped out after every important step of the day. Prep & portraits, ceremony, family formals, reception... So if anyone ever grabs my camera, they're only stealing the most recent few mins/hrs worth of photos. And I /NEVER/ put my camera down for even a second unless I have just swapped cards.

Using Snapbridge to backup 64-128GB worth of NEF files would be theoretically possible, but again still far less easy than just sticking with a D750 or D850. Like I said, it's not a matter of what is possible, it's a matter of what is convenient.

Again, as I said, many different kinds of pros don't /need/ dual card slots. I get that. But it's not about being scared or not trusting a single card. It's about an extremely useful workflow that just makes life easier. I shot hundreds of weddings on the D700, D300, D200, and D70, ...and film.

Ergonomics, for those who have the chance to try multiple bodies and systems before they buy. Otherwise, I think Nikon is initially focusing on customer retention. In a few years the Z system should be much more attractive to those starting new.

While the Sony FE system is certainly more refined and more complete than anything Nikon or Canon can cook up at this late date.... I think there is powerful incentive for existing Nikon and Canon users to stay with their brands.

Apart from "ergonomics" you can add brand loyalty, compatible lenses already owned, and similar menus and color science.

Lets be honest. MILC has been around for ten years now. Everyone who desperately wanted one already owns one. So while these Johnny-come-lately systems may not attract many new user, they will do an excellent job holding onto existing users. And they represent around 85% of the potential FF MILC customers.

But those other 15% are in play. The Pentax and Sony DSLR users, compact camera and smartphone users who want to move up, and perhaps a handful of PM4/3, and Fuji X and Sony E crop sensored MILC users who want full frame. But I think most of them would still prefer Sony FE.

@MILC man

Speaking like a true fanboy!

I think MILC's comments are fair. Canon have the ability to produce a great and competitive camera but I doubt they have the attitude. Their current closest spec'd camera to the $2000 A7III is the $3300 5DIV and even then the A7III quite a few notable advantages. If Canon base their mirrorless camera on that pricing it'll be a disaster.

I still believe Canon have the technical ability so I remain optimistic.

canon has dpaf experience with multiple models of cameras, and for video, so they have a much better background with milc than Nikon has.

it would have to be balanced against their history of crippling gear to protect their own lineup, more than Nikon does.

Weather sealing, and potentially more competitive prices. The bigger mount will give them more flexibility and relax the design quite a bit. Remember what sigma said about designing for e-mount.

If they bump up battery life to match Sony, and performance is 90% of song but with a better feeling of immediency, the ergonomics and weather sealing would be enough to win people over.

Lastly for longer glass since you don’t gain much size advantage in mirrorless. You can get some Nikon lenses for 1 to 1.5k. cheaper even second hand with no performance loss (unlike adapting to Sony). Want a 150-600? Pick up the tamron with adapter for $1650 with full functionality. How about longer primes?

400 f2.8 Nikon goes for 8k vs sony’s For 12k etc etc

Nikon 400/2.8 is $11.2k, basically no difference in price from sony: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1052083-REG/nikon_2217_af_s_nikkor_400mm_f_2_8e.html

a9 af with adapted lenses like the 150-600 can be just as accurate as native bodies, or even better, because there aren't any af fine-tune issues... and especially if you want eyeaf with adapted glass, which no dslr can really do with native lenses: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61446930

I just want a full frame mirrorless camera that handles great and efficient, has an awesome EVF and can be bought for less than $2000. Before the Z6 there was none on the market. Thank you Sony for forcing C&N to do it right and at the same time stay below two grand.

@The Fat Fish. I have similar reservations about Canon body spec/pricing.
The Nikon has surprised me a bit and has got my interest - it is all in the lens design potential with the large mount and flange distance. If the Nikon 24-70/4 proves to be significantly better performer than the Sony Z FE 24-70/4 (for example) then yep, I could be interested.
[ Unlikely Canon will introduce a completely new mount to take full advantage of mirrorless but prepared to wait and see. Smaller, lighter for the same 'L' glass performance would suit me very much.]

@MILC man

That is wishful thinking. You can go to Brian Smiths’s wed site to check out some of his testing of adapted lenses. What you should notice is that the performance of the Sony system with adapted glass varies depending on the lens.

In many cases you have the FPS drop down to 3 fps, or AF tracking has some issues. Lens performance with adapter thirf party leners is simply not consistent. Looking it up i can find discussions on dpreview that confirms this. Performance is lens dependent, adapter dependent and FW dependent. It is at times difficult to detemine whether the lens you would like to adapt will work as you expect it to.

Apparently things got “better after FW 1.10”. But still, I don’t have the confidence to go out and get a third party lens only to get an unknown performance. There is a bigger risk than adapting Nikon to Nikon.

Z bodies compete with 7 bodies by the way.

Also found the 400 f2.8 af-s ed Nikkor VR (non-FL version) for 8k

And you still have other options like the 150-600 that I mentioned.

All in all if Nikon gets AF and battery life up to compete with Sony they become compelling. But we will have to see on the pricing of their lenses. For example if the 70-200 f2.8 is cheaper by a few hundred than the GM. I am always under the impression that you can always say that you can by 3 to 4 lenses and get one free compared to buying Sony glass.

Anyway. Apparently Sony is your thing. Not trying to crap on them. But since they are not the only FF mirrorless on the market they better watch out. Canon had generally always had an edge over Nikon when it comes to affordability when it comes to lenses. People will be less willing to pay that 20-30 percent more for Sony. Especially considering after purchase customer support and repairs etc.

You getting what I am saying are you?

First of all not everyone has an A9. Second of all information about adapted lenses are fragmented and there is always an unknown factor to it. I am glad to hear that the 150-600 works well on the A9. Buy there is no up to dates comprehensive overview with regards to lens comparability and behavior and Sony is not responsible for this nor should they be, after all it is not their lenses and adapters.

I had looked around for a few years when I was considering adapted lenses and gave up. Nikon adapting Nikon lenses can at least guarantee that I don’t have to look this up or worry about it much. I only used sigma as an example, but generally metabones and canon would have been my preferred choice, as sigma lenses comparable with the mc-11 is a limited list.

Sure thing buddy. I am completely wrong.

1. Sony has the best bang for your buck deals on lenses compared to the competition when considering filling one’s FL line up.
2. You can freely adapt third party lenses to Sony bodies without having to worry about adapter, lens, camera combinations.
3. And with “their” 155 lenses available one can easily expect to find AF lenses for any of the popular focal lengths or focal length ranges at various price points to meet the budget of all, similar to Nikon and Sony.

Did I forget anything else? Oh ya...

4. Survice is top notch, repairs as well, and Sony is the type of company that won’t ditch you. Models and all mounts are continuously suppoted, with FW upgrades to implement improved menu systems, AF issues. So invest freely with full confidence that your investment will enjoy long term development around your mount.

Ok??

@MILC Man

Sarcasm aside, I thought to myself. Damn, if he says things have changed and it very well could have I should have another look at this adapting to A7III thing. Cause there are certain lenses I would definitely like to adapt if possible. FYI I do have experience adapting to the A7 mk2 and it was crap.

So I took a look and came across this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeddingPhotography/comments/80y5uj/using_adapted_canon_ef_lens_with_sony/

So... no dude. Based on user descriptions and experiences it is not as you say. I am glad for you that it does what you want, but it looks like it is not consistent fully functional as nikon's adaptation will likely be.

With it apparent that canon will announce next week, it changes things. I might simply maintain two systems.

Canon for the likely more afforable options, and sony to have access to some of those choice zeiss optics

So you can guarantee that if I go out and buy a metabones adapter and adapt any canon glass on my A7III that it would work seemlessly, with all AF modes, eye AF, complete OSPDAF coverage, and no weird focusing issues at lower light?

When my buddy is back from Australia, I will borrow his metabones adapter and try out the canon 70-200 and the 17-40. I hope you are right.

Then what adapter do you recommend for this stellar performance? The Mc-11? Does that work well with all sigma and canon lenses?

@MILC man,

You told me off for using reddit as a source when looking into adapted lenses, and that I should look up discussions on DPreview instead. So I went ahead and did that and I found one that even covers the latest FW.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61015774

According to the poster in the link above he things that going from 1.11 to 1.12 was a bad idea since the performance of the adapted lenses he shows in the vid take a hit.

This actually brings up another issue with sony. FW updates aren't exactly transparent, and you can't roll back.

I at least simply have more confidence that nikon adapted lenses using a nikon adapter on a nikon body will more likely then sony work consistently and as intended. This is simply because nikon owns the protocols to all three, and it in their best interest to make sure things work consistently. Of course adapting 3rd party lenses will likely be an issue though.

@cbphoto123

Cheers mate, and thanks. I really really really wish that I thought and saw things like that concerning sony especially since I have the system. But try putting an excel sheet together regarding lenses and price. Or adapting lenses, or blah blah blah. Well everything, and one think you will always run into is consistency. There are just fundamental things that give me pause.

One example would be FW. Turning off live view effects at one point caused wide open focusing of lenses. A FW update came along with a description that said that it improved AF performance. I thought... "hey why not?" And bam!!! Stopped down focus in AF-C (wide open initial focus). That made AF worse. And why?? Cause their GM lenses exhibits big time focus shifts. FW 1.11 to FW 1.12 saw a performance dip in adapted lenses.

I love how they push the tech boundaries. But I just don't feel I can trust sony. Its good for him that MILC man loves his system though. To each his own.

Well you kind kf prove my point with that post.

Adapting lenses is like opening a box of chocolates. You never know what you are gonna get. Reports of what works and doesn’t work or limitations of behavioral differences are all over the place.

Had it improved no doubt about that. But one post says there was a performance hit and then the guh corrects himself 10 posts deep?? Different Sony lenses behave differently. Some always stop down, some partially opens up and then stops down.

There is a simple lack of consistency. I have been shooting Sony since the release of the A7II, and I have tested adaptation several times or looked at it several times and always concluded not to. You might be comfortable with it, but I can draw my own conclusions with regards to my investment in gear.

@MILC man
Yes you proved that for that particular lens that the guy corrected himself and said it performed great.

However I was pointed out that it shows that it is always a big expenditure of time to look and and find what works or not. THINK for example like a regular consumer. You don't plan your entire lens purchases before you buy a body. You might do some research into a hand full of lenses, but that is it.

There is simply no unified up to date location where you can find out how a lens you want to adapt works. You need to dig into that each time and for every lens.

Whereas if nikon or canon state and claim. All nikon lenses adapted to the nikon Z bodies with the nikon adapter will work without compromising the lens or body performance. That is ONE statement, and you are done. The only think you need to research or read reviews about is the body on its own and the lens on its own. Even that can be daunting to the regular consumer.

I ask myself the same question. Perhaps I am as stubborn as he is. But yep, kind of a waste of time.

What's your point dr?
There's f0.95 lens for e-mount.

There's a difference between having 0.95 lens with smaller throat and this one. EDGE to EDGE SHARPNESS.

edge to edge sharpness is a function of lens design, not the lens mount.

Bigger opening = easier to get a good lens and/or lower price abd/or lower weight and/or shorter.

Yes you can do 0.95 with various mounts but much more painful.

People seem to forget that you can make the mount smaller when it's closer to the sensor. There was a nice graph about this at the Nikon presentation - the angle of light widens when you come closer.
You see that with EF and EF-M mount.

There are the sharpest and smallest wide angle lenses available for E-mount (Loxia 21mm, 1635GM) - it seem to work good 😉
I'm sure the new Nikons will be great lenses - but SMALLER is not what comes to my mind when we look at them ...

Who is going to buy a f0.95 for edge to edge sharpness!

regardless that lens is not small. You can have small sharp lenses on a smaller mount as proved already.

Anyway we are going off-topic here, all this is still does not justify or relate what Rishi said in the video which was - "That's actually one of the awesome things of about having that wide throat you can have a 0.95 lens"
That statement seems inaccurate and misinformed at best so far unless some reasonable justification is provided because you can have and there already are f0.95 lenses on smaller mounts.

@nandbytes

I would trust Rishi over you any day!

@Fly18 - let's see if they are better as Sonnar 55mm, Loxia, Tamron f1.8.

@Fly18. Take a look at the photos from the 24-70 f/4 Z-mount in the gallery. There is a photo shot at f/8 that is very unsharp in the corners, and seems to be decentered too. Not convincing especially not at f/8.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/4819511289/nikon-z7-samples-gallery/0412480250

@Fly18:

What does this have anything to do about trust!?

Rishi said - "That's actually one of the awesome things of about having that wide throat you can have a 0.95 lens".
Unless explained otherwise by Rishi, that statement is **factually** misleading because there are f0.95 lenses for other mounts that smaller. So its nothing special that's particularly a feature of the z-mount.
Rishi, you, I or anyone else are not above facts!!

My main point as stated in the video is that the larger throat places less constraints on lens design.

The specific comment about F0.95 could have been clarified - the longer flange distance of F-mount meant that a larger throat particularly might have eased design of fast aperture glass.

The more general point here is that the larger throat and the smaller flange distance place less constraints on lens designers .

Hard to get all these nuances across in live video form, but I hope that clarifies things.

There are multiple factors involved, and the large throat is just one element that removes some constraints from lens designs. It increases the entrance pupil of the mount, requiring less of a need to constrain the cone of light exiting the lens.

That doesn't mean you absolutely cannot make fast lenses with smaller throats (particularly with smaller flange distances), it's that a smaller throat places extra constraints on design you might not have with a larger throat.

For example, for the same flange distance, a larger throat allows for a closer exit pupil and larger exit pupil diameter, lessening the need for elements to constrict the cone of light. So, again, it's about removing lens design constraints.

I'm sure Roger or Brandon could provide more informed commentary. Where's our tagging feature on DPReview!

MILC man: "edge to edge sharpness is a function of lens design, not the lens mount."

So, you think that the throat diameter has no influence on lens design? You haven't a clue what you're talking about. You can make a 0.95 lens for EF mount, sure, and it will be far harder to get the edge-to-edge sharpness required due to the sharp incidence angles of the light rays reaching the outer portions of the sensor. And that's without even mentioning coma.

No, the Z-mount is far better. Have you SEEN the MTF curves of the initial three lenses? Compare them to any comparable Sony. Or Nikon F-mount lens, for that matter.

Thank you Rishi for pitching in :-)
Certainly hope Roger or someone else with more optics knowledge would pitch in also. May be he is already writing an article on it so who knows ;-)

I wonder if you would agree that going by pure anecdotal evidence so far it hasn't done nikon any favours. The 58mm noct is rather huge when compared to say leica noct. The nikon z 50mm/1.8 is also fair amount bigger than Sony FE 55mm/1.8. (I don't know of any premium quality 35mm f1.8 to compare against). Of course they aren't the same focal lengths and we don't know how much better or worst these lenses are to full extent but for now the wide throat hasn't fully shown its true potential may be?

Let's compare the MTFs (theortical calculations from different manufacturers ... not sure if there is a lot of value in this)

The Nikon IS a little sharper in the edges. The rest is about the same as the Sony 55mm. Nikon simply follows the trend to oversize lenses to get better edge sharpness. Sony uses 7 elements, Nikon 12.

That's a result of lens design, not purely lens mount.
At least the 50mm seems to make use of the big mount, the 35mm has a smaller rear element.

https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_50mmf18s/spec.htm
https://www.sony.at/electronics/kamera-objektive/sel55f18z

I'm sure the nikons will be great primes and the price seem OK when they deliver top performance.

But the Zoom has even better curves as the primes:
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_24-70mmf4s/spec.htm
Let's hope that's not true ... cause sample photos with this lens are not shining with pinsharpnes.

The big throat of the Z mount simplifies the use and design of fast lenses. That's why the upcoming manual focus 58mm f0.95 only will cost $6000. :D

I wasn't a fan of the initial lens choice as many Nikon DSLR owners will already have all three focal lengths and paying a lot to get a somewhat better one (that wouldn't work on their DSLR so they need to keep the existing one) is a bit of a ask. As is just using converted lenses. I'd have included one new lens that existing people wouldn't have. E.g. 43mm f1.2 or 20-80mm f2.8-4 (note not a typo for 24, possibly 20-60 if 4x from 20 proves too hard - I put the f4 to help).

@Deliverator:
The question is, is it sharper in the edges because it's a larger lens with more glass elements to make it sharper in edges or because of the wider throat?
Other way to look at it is if Sony made a lens with an optical formula with more elements and corrections would it be as sharp also?

@Deliverator.. the only reason @MILC man is arguing that throat size does not matter, is because Sony has a small one.. and he believes Sony can do/design nothing wrong.

Throat diameter will help for sure at constructing lenses - but the Sonys are still great and Nikons still big and very complicated. So they don't show the benefit with these lenses - probably it's not THAT big.

yes, comparing dslr so-called eyeaf to sony eyeaf really wouldn't be fair, and that's the point; milc has af capabilities beyond what dslrs can provide.

"What is 4D FOCUS?
Conventional autofocus (AF) deals with space alone. 4D FOCUS goes one step further with an innovative image sensor that picks up both space and time to capture moving subjects" https://www.sony.com/electronics/4d-focus-camera-settings

Nikon "3d tracking" is just a gimmick name, like what sony has there... i'm not seeing why milc has to choose between two modes, like you outlined with Nikon... what is the advantage there?

thx for the clarification, it sounds like they are thinking that Nikon milc is going to be used via the rear lcd :-0

hopefully they get it together in a future firmware update.

Apologies, the video doesn't necessarily match the discussion - it was cut in from our sample videos by the TWiT editors, and I had no control over this.

The point of 3D Tracking is that it's useful when you want to pick out a specific face, or even eye of a specific face. The camera will stick to it like glue. For adventure photography, it can even stick to this kayaker moving wildly around.

And though the Z-series has subject tracking, you have to either tap the LCD screen to choose a subject, or always hit 'OK' to reset the AF point to place it over your new subject. With a Nikon DSLR, you just let off the shutter, recompose to place the AF point over your subject, and depress the shutter again. The extra step of having to hit 'OK' or move your eye back from the finder and tap on a new subject can mean all the difference between nailing and missing your shot in fast-paced shooting.

Btw, Sony Eye AF can work kind of like 3D Tracking (though with even more precision) if your 'underlying' (selected) AF mode is something like Flexible Spot, Center, or Lock-on: Flexible Spot. You place the AF point over the face you desire, hold down Eye AF (in AF-C), then recompose and the camera will track that person's eye, no one else's.

Problem is if the person looks completely away, and the camera finds another face, it'll jump to that face/eye, even though you never let go of the AF-ON button. This is not helpful for candid portraiture / wedding / event photography where you have an intended subject in mind... as long as you keep the AF-ON button held, the camera should never lose sight of the subject you've selected... even if he/she looks away.

If I wanted the camera to jump to someone else, I'd just let go of the AF-ON button and re-engage...

thx rishi for the details on that, it did feel like the examples in the twit presentation were wrong.

I can see the functionality of that fast focus lock being an advantage for sports shooting into a crowd of players, depending on how big the focus area is... the a9 in "wide" mode seems to give precedence to players in the center, but it will sometimes just grab the nearest body, not ideal... need to experiment with some of the other a9 focus options.

once the a9 finds a target tho, it can hold on to the subject like a pit bull, especially after the latest firmware update: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4305024

like that drone idea :-)

@class a - you being stuck on pentax, which has the most primitive dslr af system on the planet, would of course color your opinion about what is best :-/

milc is here, it's the future, you should bring yourself up to speed on why it's better.

My processed images look nothing like the JPG previews the camera shows me or an EVF would present me with.

I recently tried modern Fuji EVFs and it was horrible, from the sick looking image in artificial light, that had the wrong brightness level, and was stuttering both unprovoked (occasionally) and when engaging focus (repeatedly). Just horrible.

Regarding AF speed: Even the glacially slow K100D already allowed me to take make great images of birds in flight (close up). Yes, there are better cameras for action than the K-1, but I don't need them and I'm very glad that Pentax has created this beauty of a camera that I can take up to my eye all day long having a natural view of the scene (which is all I ask for for framing) without wasting a millivolt.

Who dials in the white balance they are after while shooting? Again, a different WB is just the start of the extensive treatment pretty much all my images receive. An EVF means nothing to me in terms of seeing the final image.

raw processing is irrelevant to this conversation, I don't know why you posted that.

I can't speak for Fuji, other than to say that i'd never buy into the platform, it's a dead end, with no path to ff.

your ovf absolutely never looks like your final image, it's simply not possible.

modern milc has much better power consumption than any dslr, the a9 for example can easily take 3k images or more on one battery, using the electronic shutter... you don't have to power the dslr pdaf module, you don't have to power the mechanical shutter motor, etc,

They look like black plastic beer cans.

Please. Space age polycarbonate beer cans.

They look great to me, but you've been living with them a lot longer so perhaps you're ready for a change.

Just did a quick Goole search - Surface camera WB issues seem to be common

(comment redacted; thanks, mods! :) )

rishi is highly educated, and he's the most technically competent member of the dpr staff, they are fortunate to have him onboard.

the troll that made those racist comments should be banned.

'Geopolocal' is not a word.

'Definately' is not a word.

'Amazon needs the needs to penetrate Indian market' is not a grammatically correct phrase.

It seems that despite my 'geopolocality', this US-born, English-language first person with a skin-color different from yours has a stronger command of English than, well, some others on this comment thread.

Care to elaborate on my lack of aptitude?

In English please.