 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jk
|
After using the Z9 for a while I have to say that many of the features are very nice and I really got back into using my Nikons again. I then decided that I had to have a camera that was smaller. So I looked for something closer to my Fuji XT5 which I really like. So to be kind to me Nikon have released and I purchased a nice new Zf. The Nikon Zf has all the AF speed that I have been accustomed to on my Nikons from before and in fact is pretty close to the Z9 in this respect. It also has a real advantage in that it is considerably lighter than my Z9 but not as light unfortunately as my XT5. There is a very nice B&W mode as well that allows me to have a B&W image directly from the camera. This feature still allows me to shoot in RAW mode but it provides to Nikon Studio NX a RAW file that has a bit set that makes the image B&W, but if you edit in Photoshop ACR v.16.1 than you can unset this bit and you can use the image as an original colour or B&W image. So I am very pleased with everything about the Zf. I have also decided that since I have the FTZ adapter for use on my Z7 I now have full use of the older F series of AFS lenses that I have as well as the older AF-D and MF lenses. Phew no more expensive Nikon glass to buy. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Lol - I thought we had lost you to Fuji - welcome back  |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
JK good to see you back! |
|||||||||
jk
|
I still have my Fuji kit and in many ways the Zf is more like a Fuji (XT5) than other Nikons. What I do have is a situation where I can shoot MF (Fuji), FF (Nikon) and APS-C (Fuji) and no Nikon APS-C except my D500 which I have kept as it pairs so well with the Nikon 200-500 for birding. I will use the Fuji XT5 with 10-24, 16-80 and 70-300 as my travel kit, the Nikon Zf and Z9 as my landscape cameras and the Fuji GFX100S kit for critical or large landscape work. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
It sounds like you have everything covered now Jonathan. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Jonathan I am intrigued with your choice of a the 40mp Fuji XT5 DX sensor versus a 24mp Nikon Zf FX sensor. Intuitively one would question the propensity for high pixel density on smaller sensors to generate more noise. Is the Fuji better at reducing noise than Nikon? We’ve always considered 24mp on FX to be the sweet spot. So what’s with the Fuji? I’ve heard good reports from another friend with this camera and just wondered how it appears to buck the pixel to noise trend. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Congrats with that swish Zf ,it makes for a lovely early Christmas present ...now, where was J K `s report about that Z9 again... |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Eric wrote:JonathanI found when messing about with Fuji that the way the cameras process the image seems to keep detail in but takes noise out. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:I found when messing about with Fuji that the way the cameras process the image seems to keep detail in but takes noise out.That’s what a friend says he is finding and believes its to do with some sort of linear processing…but didn’t elaborate. I don’t recall shooting at high iso with the fujis I had but as I am going through the archive sorting raws I will have a closer look at the fujis files. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Eric wrote:That’s what a friend says he is finding and believes its to do with some sort of linear processing…but didn’t elaborate.It will be interesting to see what you think Eric. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric, I tend to look for supreme ergonomics these days. This is one of the reasons why I would not move to Sony. Before the release of the Zf, the XT5 and before that the XT3, suited me really well as these Fuji cameras ergonomics were really intuitive. Yes there are difference and some sluggishness in the XT3 about focus lock and speed of acquisition of his lock. The XT5 has largely cured that but it does still have issues if you want it to focus out to infinity e.g. point at sky and focus. I just wont do it you need to find a horizon point and focus on that. The Zf does not seem to suffer with this issue but it is heavier than the XT5 and the Nikon lenses are also bulkier and heavier for the same focal length range. Nikon 14-30, 24-120 f4 and 100-400mm versus Fuji 10-24, 16-80, 70-300mm. As far as a travel kit goes I am no longer young and fit so I have decided that for my trip to Peru and hike up to Machu Picchu that I need a functional light camera kit. The XT5 fulfills this need. My preference for the Zf kit is overridden by the fact that its equivalence comes with x2 weight compared to the XT5 kit. I feel that I compose fairly well but occasionally I do like to crop and image from within an image. The extra MP provides this. Also the XT5 has a panorama shooting feature which the Zf doesnt have. Yes I know I can shoot multiple images from a tripod and post process combine but whilst this is preferable from a quality perspective. However I think that the time taken for each panorama set will soon piss off the guides and fellow hikers as I drop further and further back during each day, whilst with the Fuji I can take a full pano in less than 20 seconds. Also I dont fancy carrying a tripod up the severe inclines! There seems to be little noise difference between the 40MP APS-C XT5 and the 26MP FF Zf especially in good light but I am sure that in low light the Nikon would be superior. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Eric,Thx Jonathan I’ve still got some Fuji bits and agree that they seem to have embraced the notion of lightweight mirrorless cameras AND lenses while other manufacturers flatter to deceive. I don’t find the Sony unergonomic but the body and lenses are heavy. I am also a bit concerned about the A1 sensors performance in low light. It seems more noisey that previous cameras (Nikon and Fuji) making me work harder in the computer. It’s almost as though the 40MP even on FX work against you in low light. I looked back at my Sony A7 images with 24mp and somehow they seem less troubled with noise than the A1. (Granted the menu system was a nightmare) All this has caused me to switch away from the iPad and Affinity photo for processing to seek better results. Watch this space. At the moment I am unconvinced that 40MP on this camera is a benefit rather than a potential hindrance. Don’t get me wrong, it’s capable of producing excellent sharp images, but not so cut and dry when there’s a need to crop high iso files. In perfect lighting, any camera will do …..but in less favourable conditions I feel I am having to post process more with the Sony AI files than I did with the Sony A7 or Nikon 850. I just miss the times when images out of the camera were good enough, except for a slight tweak of unsharp mask.  |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I'm suprised Eric that you find the problems with the A1 in low light as I have found it to be excellent in low light and high iso. I can get cleaner shots with the A1 than I did with the Nikons. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote:Thx Jonathan Interested to know if you are going to get a laptop or desktop. A laptop is very seductive but a desktop makes you focus in on the task and a larger screen is a winner. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:I'm suprised Eric that you find the problems with the A1 in low light as I have found it to be excellent in low light and high iso. I can get cleaner shots with the A1 than I did with the Nikons.Iain What sort of ISO do you feel comfortable going up to with the A1? I find it’s ok up to say 4000. It may be the way Affinity handles the raws. I have made the shift back to Photoshop, but not yet reworked some of the recent noisey images (10000+) …...will look at that this week. I would say it operates very well up to 3000 and of course if I only shoot in sunny weather (<1000) it’s perfect. The issue is made worse when cropping, because the noise is also enlarged with the subject and somehow to my eye it becomes more obvious. Noise reduction tends to soften important detail. Again this may be a failing with Affinity. Though it’s fair to say that the Sony A7 worked well with it. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Eric, I find that it goes through a phase between 4000-5000 where there is a bit more noise but over that it seems to be clearer, it may be that the in camera noise reduction cuts in then. I shoot jpegs. I’ve used things that I have shot at 12800. I have topaz Denise as well but don’t have to use it very often. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:Eric, I find that it goes through a phase between 4000-5000 where there is a bit more noise but over that it seems to be clearer, it may be that the in camera noise reduction cuts in then. I shoot jpegs.Thx Iain Will look into that. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think that the Noise v ISO issue is more down to the RAW processing software than the ISO value itself. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I think that the Noise v ISO issue is more down to the RAW processing software than the ISO value itself.I am sure you are right Jonathan. I’ve moved to the dark side completely now and going back over the recent high iso images with the right raw converter. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Have you found any different Eric. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:Have you found any different Eric.I haven't actually done any comparison of noise in any depth yet Iain, Ive been too busy thinning out files. Dumped another 2000 today  I did try the AI Denoise filter in Camera Raw and that did an excellent job of my latest woodpecker image. I am guessing you and JK were right and it's the raw converter in Affinity that was muddying the water. And anyway ...it's good to get back to my old friend Photoshop. I suppose after using it daily (often for several hours) over 20 years a lot sticks....all the keyboard shortcuts come back as second nature.... so I am enjoying it...and the Mac. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Eric wrote:I haven't actually done any comparison of noise in any depth yet Iain, Ive been too busy thinning out files. Dumped another 2000 todayIve looked at other software but like you ive been using PS since 1995 and am just so comfortable with it. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:Ive looked at other software but like you ive been using PS since 1995 and am just so comfortable with it.Slipperware  |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I've been using it since the late 1980s and am still more than happy with the results it produces and like both of you it is an old friend. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I think if you two are like me I can't /don't want to get my brain to learn a new system when I can do most of the things I need to do in PS with out having to think about it. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |