[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


Repair Edition

This was a 24-70/2.8 AF-S with a loose hood mount and I stripped it down and tightened it and also pre-emptively threadlocked the front barrel as that is a common issue with that coming loose.
>>
>>
The offending part

Most versions of this lens have three of these screws but this one has six and it still came loose. Some 24200 fixed it and it's back together now and fully functional.
>>
The focus mechanism is similar to the tape reader on a VCR and it's magnetic, if you get a magnetic screwdriver too close to it you can damage the AF system apparently.
>>
his ahh is NOT a certified nikon technician
>>
>>4299285

True as it may be, you are Nikon certified to suck my balls.
>>
>the eternal reminder that any lens with electronic aperture, in-lens AF motors, or VR will be junk with a slim chance of being repairable 10-20 years after manufacture while the camera will most likely still work fine (even most pentax k10ds still work and they weren't built to the highest standard)
Hope you got at least one coded manual lens for your Zs bros
>>
>>4299324
After 10 years I won't be using the same gear lmao
>>
>>4299356
Assuming you want to stay in high MP territory.
The Z8 is the true mirrorless equivalent to the D850.
If you don't need the speed or video features the Z7II is the next step down.
The Z9 is the equivalent of a D6 but with 45MP.

Also, if you can live with somewhat shittier autofocus (though still better than the D800 imo) and only one card slot a used Z7 can be had for <$1000.
>>
>>4299377
Lol pdaf banding
>>
>>4299377
The z7ii is the actual d850 - same dynamic range.
>>
>>4299385
I’ve only encountered this a handful of times on my Z6, but you’re right, when it happens it’s a fucking bitch.
>>
>>4299356
Nikon's firmware support has been excellent. If the oldest models are an indication they will significantly upgrade the AF a short while after the third generation Z cameras are released (they even handed a huge update to the z5). The first and second gens have really similar AF performance for one having two more processors so there should be a lot of room to upgrade the second gen, and since they support focus shift shooting pixel shift shouldn't be off the table either (even the ancient om-d e-m1 ii had crazy pixel shift). If you buy a second gen camera and they don't update everything eventually, you'd be right to have a meltdown and switch brands.
>>
>>4299280
I regret buying the 50mm f1.8 s. It's a boring lens. it's an extra boring focal length.
>>
I need a camera and have the following requirements.

>MUST BE or MUST HAVE
Full frame
Mirrorless
Decent sensor (in regard to colors for well lit things)
Exposure bracketing.
Focus bracketing (dump dozens of RAW images at different focus distances) NOT "focus stacking" in-cam
Uncompressed (or bit-for-bit LOSSLESS compressed) RAW
Ability to control manual settings while viewing a live view remotely via smartphone app
Ability to use a fully electronic shutter mode for shock/vibration free exposure bracketing
Ability to shoot silently without any forced fake shutter noises
No Anti-Alias/low pass filter, moire is welcome, blur can GTFO
20MP or higher

>wanted
ability to record video longer than 30mins
not that I plan to record videos, but not being able to seems dumb

>shit I do not care too much about
Autofocus speed
burst rates of buffer depth beyond a dozen shots

>budget
Ideally, $1000-$1500 for the body alone but can go higher if it's worth it
Will be spending around $1000 on glass, so if it comes with a useful kit lens for a few hundred that's fine too, but would come out of the glass budget.


I'm currently looking at Nikon Z5 or Z6 II with the 24-200mm
Is there anything bad I should know about these bodies?
Canon is obsessed with OLPF/anti-alias filters so I kind of want to avoid them, and their mirrorless lens choices are limited at the moment
Sony seems like a meme but apparently they get praise from Louis Rossman for being repair friendly, but idk if that translates to freedom in usage (like 3rd party apps/whatever)

Is there any 3rd party camera app/software for controlling cameras over a Wi-Fi connection I should look into and make sure a camera supports it before I buy or is it normal to rely on manufacturer (canon/nikon/sony/etc) apps for remote controlling cameras? Idk if they're DRM'd or what to expect.
>>
>>4299494
>Canon is obsessed with OLPF/anti-alias filters so I kind of want to avoid them
The Z5 and Z6II both have AA filters.
>>
>>4299494
>I have the following requirements
Good for you.
>>
>>4299520
>The Z5 and Z6II both have AA filters.
God dammit.
>>
>>4299494
Nikon Z7II? No AA filter, and if i can get one for 1600.- here in switzerland, you'll surely get one cheaper in the states.
>>
>>4299531
In the US
The Z6 II is $1600
The Z7 II is $2300

I was considering spending that amount of money and getting the 24-200mm zoom lens included with Z6 II if it checked all my boxes, now I don't know what to do. The $2300 with a Z7 II would be all body no lens. Fuck. 45MP seems nice but a quality 20MP is all I really need or want. I'm already gonna be dropping more for a macro lens additionally so this shit adds up fast.

Maybe I should just give up and compromise with a cheap body. Other brands have up to 60MP sensors now, and it's not like any of these have really surpassed the old D850's sensor performance at all (for stills) so I get the feeling these mirrorless bodies have been playing catch up and upgrades (vs 2017 dslrs) outside of processing power/buffers haven't really arrived yet and this shit might still be in an early adopter era.

Looking at Z5 manual it appears that I can't use electronic shutter outside of some "silent" mode?
anyone know if this has any other limits? I'll need it for bracketing to prevent blur mostly so all electric shutter is a primary feature I need. I don't care if it's rolling or global, but it can't be EFCS which introduces vibration inbetween shots.
https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z5/en/09_menu_guide_05_d05.html
>Auto, Mechanical, or EFCS

https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z5/en/05_basic_settings_03.html
>electronic shutter enabled in silent photography mode
>can't do flash, LENR, flicker reduction, or high ISO

>>4299494
>Focus bracketing (dump dozens of RAW images at different focus distances) NOT "focus stacking" in-cam
It seems Nikon calls focus bracketing focus shift
from Z5 manual...
https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z5/en/09_menu_guide_03_33.html
I can't see anywhere in here that states it only outputs JPEG in this mode so I assume it can dump up to 300 RAWs during a focus shift mode, which should be fine for me, can anyone confirm whether that's true?
>>
File: IMG_6617.jpg (1.98 MB, 4032x3024)
1.98 MB
1.98 MB JPG
>>4299423
The problem might be you. That said I agree that a close to perfect MTF can look sterile. Consider rubbing some funk on it with film emulation. 40 is a bit more characterful, and the size is great. Or you could adapt an older 50. I love the Light Lens Lab 50 Elcan Summicron.
>>
>>4299494
Why do you need the focus bracketing? What’s your subject? Perhaps you need a strobe that will get you to f/16. Unless you’re doing insects or something that requires focus stacking, I’d try to get to get it done in a single shot. Maybe share some of your work?
>>
>>4299547
>Why do you need the focus bracketing? What’s your subject? Perhaps you need a strobe that will get you to f/16.
I'm simply interested in doing focus brackets wide open and sequencing the frames into motion. I do it with my phone every now and then, along with a MFT cam, it's entirely a very simple software based feature so the way I see it, if it's not offered that means the body is stripped down and missing features every modern camera should have. Basically if a camera doesn't have focus bracketing these days it's just another way the manufacturers are gatekeeping easy to add features to only offer them on higher end devices, if a camera isn't worthy of that feature I assume there are gonna be countless other compromises.

>Unless you’re doing insects or something that requires focus stacking, I’d try to get to get it done in a single shot.
Yeah usually I stop down to widen DOF when needed, for my plans however I just want bracketing so I can do other stuff with the frames instead of always throwing them into an "everything's in focus" composited image. Also it can be very useful capturing a burst of different focused images so that you can cherry pick the best one once you're home at a PC with a full size display.

>Maybe share some of your work?
None of it's really share worthy atm but for one example I put my phone over a drain and did a focus bracket which allowed me to view everything along the edges deep down in sharp focus, vs having to choose what was in/out of focus by just shooting the sequence and swiping through images.
I think doing something similar but with a cave or tunnel with a f1.4 lens wide open could be neat. Seeing the blur/focus crawl through scenes in video form is kinda cool.
>>
>>4299280
>spam to death mft general with communist trash because you don't like it
>make Nikon general
???
>>
>>4299555
dont you have a gear thread to post photonstophotos clowncharts in right now?
>>
>>4299423
It's optical superiority is too much for mortal minds.
Smear it with some diffusers or fry the shit out of the RAW in post with some grain.
>>
Nikon's website says Nikon Z 5 has limits with NX Tether
How do I figure out what features are and are not supported? They don't specify.
>>
Maybe one of you knows this, but for all the searching I did, I couldn't find any technical manuals for the lens.
AF-S 50mm 1:1.4 G. Is there any way to adjust the autofocus when using the viewfinder or is that shit stored in EEPROM and only adjustable by Nikon themselves? My D3400 does not have autofocus tuning and is consistently backfocusing with this lens in viewfinder mode.
>>
>>4299565
These are the only 2 manual pages that mention the Z5.
https://nikonimglib.com/nx_tether/onlinehelp/en/02_connect_the_camera_and_computer_4.html
https://nikonimglib.com/nx_tether/onlinehelp/en/02_checking_with_live_view_9.html
So no wireless connection and no liveview.
>>
>>4299560
Its optical superiority is its own look but not the best one

Shit renders scenes like stacks of paper cutouts. I remember some old zeiss lens that still costs four figures having the same look as the Z 50 with all the auto-corrections off.
>>
>>4299568
Shit, so you can remotely view live view in the phone app but not tethered over USB at the computer?
Is this something likely to be a hardware limitation or would third party software or maybe future updates change anything here?
I'd like tethering (in NX or darktable or something) but don't wanna fork cash over for their camera control pro 2 program (unless that's free with nikon cams?) so with that being a limit I might consider upgrading over Z5.
>>
>>4299567
No, if you had sigma global vision or modern tamron lenses you could use the dock to do the adjustment. With Nikons you're forced to get a better body.
>>
>>4299573
Capture one supports wired tethering/live view on basically all nikons
https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002718118-Camera-models-and-RAW-files-supported-by-Capture-One#h_190badd1-0bbf-443f-b366-b86227c6e5ce
>>
>>4299574
dicks
i'll just keep using it in live view then until I eventually upgrade past babby's first (used) DSLR
>>
>>4299578
with that said, i'm not sure why you care about this. i doubt you have a license or target for focal. if you cant afford a D7XXX series or better you shouldnt really be worry about this that much anyways. you can find D7200s on ebay for under $400
>>
>>4299634
>I'm not sure why you care about your lens's autofocus being only usable through live view
gee I wonder
>>
>>4299635
then stop being poor and buy something other than a D3XXX/D5XXX
>>
>>4299551
Have you considered just shooting video and racking focus?
>>
>>4299560
It’s actually not the top performing 50 for the mount. That honor belongs to the Voigtlander 50 APO. Now THAT motherfucker is sharp.
>>
>>4299651
>That honor belongs to the Voigtlander 50 APO. Now THAT motherfucker is sharp.
its an objectively mediocre lens that is slow and cheap and doesnt have auto focus
>>
File: mtf.jpg (143 KB, 1000x789)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>4299651
>>4299670
Nikon's 50 f/1.2 has a similar MTF curve, but at f/1.2 rather than f/2. if you stopped it down to f/2 it would destroy the voightlander
>>
File: IMG_20240330_234633.jpg (366 KB, 949x656)
366 KB
366 KB JPG
I dropped my Nikon Speedlight SB-22 on the subway floor
Apparently I managed to get all the parts and nothing seems broken, it's like it just "disassembled"
The electronics are fine, everything works, it's just this back plate with the infos that got fucked
Is it repairable?
If so, is it an easy fix?
I'll bring it to the repair shop this monday, but would like to know beforehand
>"oh just buy another one, anon"
It was my father's, and I like this flash a lot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width949
Image Height656
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>4299699
they're $25 on ebay. the repair shop is going to charge you $100, and just buy one off ebay and give it to you for a 300% markup
>>
>>4299701
I literally stated that I know that it'd probably be cheaper to buy a new one and that I'm not interested in that
My question is: is it repairable?
I don't care about price
>>
>>4299724
Entirely depends on how retarded you are.
You said you got all the parts, right? and it works? have you tried putting the parts back together with context clues of how things might need to fit together in order to work?
>>
my gf has a D3400 and I'm thinking of getting a z6ii. can I expect a significant jump in IQ compared to a D3400?
>>
>>4299740
Yes.
>>
>>4299283
whew you mean motors have magnets? fascinating
>>
>>4299324
>this won't lase N years over warranty period noooooo
imagine having a boomer mindset in a throw-away consoomer cattle society
>>
>>4299385
>lol made up chartfag nophoto /p/ nonsense
>>
>>4299423
>"boring"
you know it's the motif and light that make the photo. lens shit is just cope by idiots who photograph boring stuff
>>
>>4299544
28 all the way to 58 are middling focal lengths best suited to fraudulent pseudophotography such as street
>>
>>4299671
What about the 28 1.4? I've heard it's wicked sharp
>>
>>4299735
>have you tried putting the parts back together with context clues of how things might need to fit together in order to work?
Yes, but there's a very tiny spring that fell off too (it's not in the photo but I managed to get it) and that I believe must be from the "bounce" feature
When the diffusor is in place it displaces the metering scale to match
This part I probably won't be able to do by myself because
1. I don't have the tools
2. I don't have the knowledge
3. I don't have the time
>>
>>4299826

Where is this subway floor? As you can see I do repair, and I'm not going to charge you 100 bucks to fix that.
>>
>>4299752
Bro what the FUCK are you talking about?
>>
>>4299840
Thanks, man, I truly appreciate that
But unfortunately I'm VERY far from you
I'm from Brazil! But it's okay, I have a trusted repair shop that'll probably charge the equivalent to $15 or $20 at best
I don't think it's anything that complicated
>>
>>4299724
>I literally stated that I know that it'd probably be cheaper to buy a new one and that I'm not interested in that
and i literally said the shop isnt going to repair it, they're just going to buy one off ebay, give it to you marked up 300% and say they repaired it. people who work at camera shops like most retail workers are retards who make little more than minimum wage. they sure as shit arent repairing your low end 40+ year old flash

>>4299826
>This part I probably won't be able to do by myself because
>1. I don't have the tools
>2. I don't have the knowledge
the clerk at the camera store wont either

>3. I don't have the time
they dont have this either as it prevents them from fucking around on their phone

>>4299855
>I'm from Brazil
the hue monkeys down there will be even worse
>>
>>4299826
>1. I don't have the tools
>2. I don't have the knowledge
>3. I don't have the time
1. It looks like the only tools you need are maybe some tweezers, a scraper of sorts to remove old adhesive, and (while not a tool) some new adhesive.
2. There are a total of seven parts that you need to put back together if the only thing not pictured is the small spring. You should be able to figure this out.
3. bullshit.

But yeah if you don't want to do that just take it to the shop and prepare to get fucked.
>>
>>4299869
As I said I have a trusty repairshop of three old men who have been repairing cameras for over 50 years and who are honest people
They *will* repair it if it's repairable
And my only question was whether it would be repairable or not
I was not asking for your opinion on how to spend my money, much less your racist thoughts towards my people and my country (which I'm absolutely proud of)
I'm sorry you can't find qualified and honest people in the hellhole you live
Must be full of people just like you, unfortunately
>>4299872
>3. bullshit
unfortunately not that much ):
but I'll try assembling it later today if I have the time and will to do it
> if you don't want to do that just take it to the shop and prepare to get fucked.
As I've said, the repairmen are old honest fellas, if it's an easy task they don't even bother charging anything
I'll buy them a bag of chocolates if they insist on not charging me
Last time they fixed my lens for free on the spot and refused to accept any payment because "it was too simple"
>>
>>
>>4299935
Tell me, poster of phone photos that are impossible to tell from an AI assisted edit, did they say if the new body style was bigger or the same?
>>
>>4299752
Accurate

Real men only need one lens. The F mount predecessor isn't too bad either.
>>
>>4299937
It came from here: https://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php/topic,339626.msg8918660.html#msg8918660
I consider it a fake until proven otherwise.
>>
>>4299937
My guess is slightly larger than the Z6II, smaller than a Z8.

Damn I’m excited. I’ve been wanting to retire my Z6 and get a second body that feels closer to a Z9 without just being a second Z9.
>>
between a z6ii and a d810 for a new hobbyist, which would you pick? my experience with cameras is phoneshit and an old minolta manual body SLR. just want to walk around town trying to find cool pictures
>>
>>4299935
thats a bad shoop. nikon fills the sensor line engraving with white paint. also that body would be as thick as a Z8/Z9 if they put a marking there.
>>
>>4299955
Depends on your poverty and size/weight tolerance
>>
>>4299958
mildly impoverished, weight/size doesn't matter to me
>>
>>4299960
Do you do dramatic edits?
Do you expect cameras to work after being rained on?
>>
>>4299963
I haven't messed with any editing yet but I'd like to learn how to do it tastefully. and I would enjoy some weather sealing though it's not exactly a requirement since we don't get rain frequently
>>
>>4299964
Save your money and get an a7iii. Tamron and sigma lenses are cheap, plentiful, and good enough.

The z6ii is more luxurious and sturdy, and so are the lenses, but do you need that?
>>
>>4299955
D800
>>
>>4299968
>just the turbo-poor version of a d800

>>4299966
As long as the used A7III hasnt been dropped, sometimes the sensors decenter from IBIS mount cracks, but apparently that europoors Z6II fared even worse from being thrown across a room

Beats having to fine tune the autofocus on every lens because being an SLR is a design flaw
>>
>NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S
>NIKKOR Z MC 50mm F/2.8 Macro

At normal distances (not macro), would the f/2.8 Macro lens deliver higher quality than the f/1.8 S lens or would it be the other way around and the macro being better all around? (maybe slower AF or something being a downside?)
Assume operation at equivalent apertures, stopped down maybe both at f/4 or f/5.6, I know the 1.8 would be a bit faster but I think f/2.8 is plenty fast enough as is.
>>
>>4299966
I'd definitely appreciate sturdiness since I like to take my SLR on hikes. I won't lie I haven't looked into sony much with all the kvetching I see about snoy colors around here
>>
>>4299987
People like to say Canon has good colors.
Maybe you're on the other side of the fence, let's say you think Nikon has better colors.

Well guess what?
None of that shit matters. It's all camera specific and based on the sensor color response.

Modern trends have manufacturers sacrificing color fidelity in exchange for "muh high ISO", and the fastest way to improve signal to noise and photon gathering amounts is to remove the color filters entirely and shoot in B&W. Because normies like color, they can't do that, so instead they make the color filtering less strict so reds and blues overlap more. Copium is injected directly to the heart in the form of "color science" when they try to (and fail) to create color profiles and "science" (a meme made up term) to "correct" the downsides to what they have done, and currently NO BRAND is doing it well.

If you care about good color and want to use a color checker and calibrate your color per scene, you'll probably be better off with an older camera with a totally different sensor made when the meta was totally different.

Old cameras were often good at color.
New cameras are usually bad at it, and they rely on heavy amounts of copium color science to try and salvage what is objectively very poorly captured color data. They sabotaged it in the name of sportsfaggotry and they're trying to have their cake and eat it too by trying to fake their sabotaged colors into looking acceptable. It's never perfect.

My advice is to stop caring, go rent some cameras and test them at home and judge for yourself. None of them will be fully correctable and you're not actually going to create custom profiles, the most you'll probably do is shoot a color checker and use that to apply some basic corrctions to some planned photo sets, but you should buy based on what comes out looking okay to your eyes based solely on the uncorrected just "white balanced" images from your RAWs and laugh at people who are brandfagging.
>>
>>4299987
“Snoy colors” is a lens issue. Sony lenses run very, very cold and neutral. Tamron, sigma lenses run warm and punchy. Old minolta lenses run kind of magenta/yellow and render colors with kind of a pastel look.
>>
>>4299994
This is nonsense. Even dxomark wont rate SMI as important because the differences are statistically insignificant. FYI the a7riii and a7iii rate as well as some beloved “strong CFA” DSLRs.

For metrology stick with your employer’s phaseone.
>>
>>4299996
>statistically insignificant
Just like how computer monitors sell regardless of color accuracy, but are advertised based on gamut and backlight bleed/glow are ignored. Yeah.

It still matters and is measurable, the trend is a decline in raw color detail. Profiles serve as a band-aid but their ability to correct is diminishing and that is the issue. The SNOY color meme has simply become the norm. The others chased sportsfag 25K ISO performance and reached Sony levels so the point is, they're all equally bad now. Buy based on other features or pick the bad that you are okay with.

Stats only matter when you have a choice, when all modern bodies suck at one thing, that particular statistic or individual quality becomes irrelevant.
Like, literally, what the FUCK are (You) going to do? Huh? Be a rebel, and build your own damn camera sensor? Not likely. You're gonna either settle for whatever is on the market when you're ready to buy or you'll buy used, in either case, you're either buying a new camera or not. Even if you don't buy a camera, buying a used one gets you in on a lens mount and you probably buy a lens for it so the manufacturers don't care.

Trying to replicate color behind simple RGB filters and bayer interpolation was never built to last or work perfectly in the first place. Don't simp for "b-b-but it's good! trust me!" because it was always bad, and is simply getting a bit worse. We're able to shoot at 25K or even 50K ISO (incredibly underexposed) and get usable photos so it's not without some reward, but acting like nothing was traded off in exchange for that is simply denial.
>>
>>4299994
A “raw” (all brands cook raws, check out dem rawdigger histogram gaps) is only as good as the program thar converts it. All are one off, proprietary formats. Support varies. Just ask any fujifag or ask a serious canon fag about the magic of dual pixel raws.

Also, red and blue cones overlap in human vision and the magic strong cfa fud is just that, fud.
>>
>>4300000
Human vision is an RGBW mosaic with red and blue sharing a range of frequency response. Bayer has actually gotten closer to the way people, not instrumentation, see things (nikon always had the overlap btw) and changing the second G to a W would pretty much finalize it especially if GS sensors were able to do 2 shot pixel shift for every exposure under 1/60.
>>
>>4300001
>Also, red and blue cones overlap in human vision and the magic strong cfa fud is just that, fud.
Absolute kek
Look into red green color blindness, that's where most of the issues happen to be around with sensors too. It's not a coincidence.

>>4300002
RGBW would be based, all they'd need to do is a little ND to bring it in line with the exposure of the other channels otherwise it would be quite more exposed than all the rest, not that greens aren't already, but still.
Huawei tried RGB+Yellow a while back in their phones, and also tried RGB+I
It's a shame camera brands are so less experimental and the "best" we got in sensor trials was Fuji's misguided and shitty x-trans experiment.
Imagine if X-Trans was 2red 2blue 2green and 3W or some IR?
I'd sell all my shit and go Fuji immediately if they were.
>>
>>4300003
>absolute kek
Yeah its actually a lot of overlap not just r/b or r/g. Humans guess color as bad as cameras, but we composite exposures in our brain.
>>
File: IMG_9365.jpg (51 KB, 602x382)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>4300006
All 3 cones overlap a ton
>muh strong cfa majik
Deboonked
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/optimal-cfa-spectral-response/
For optimal SMI performance, the red and green center wavelengths should be fairly close.
For optimal SMI performance, the red and green overlap should be larger than we see in most cameras.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width602
Image Height382
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4299994
>Old cameras were often good at color.
How old are you talking about here? Were the "good colors" 5 years ago, 10, 15? Or have they just gotten steadily worse since the invention of digital?
>>
>>4299291
I am going to rape you
>>
>>4300028
10-15, it has varied on the models of course but as an overall trend they've kind of been getting worse at a gradual pace.
The latest leap forward into this was the transition from DSLR to mirrorless, some of the last gen DSLRs were already compromising color a bit to chase high ISO performance but once they did away with separate sensors for autofocus behind the DSLR design and incorporated everything onto the primary sensor (as part of the mirrorless design) high ISO performance was paramount to being able to deliver an actually usable electronic viewfinder experience and autofocus in lower light situations.
>>
>>4300096
So when in your opinion and in what models did Nikon strike the optimum balance between iso and color?
>>
z5 has a 1/8000 to 30s shutter
z6ii has 1/8000 to 900s shutter (15 minutes)
I think it could be cool to do such long exposures with an ND filter

Is there any way to simulate longer exposures with the Z5? or possibly accomplish the same true exposure time in a bulb mode or is it actually limited to a max of 30s?
If I can just buy a remote shutter with an external timer for $50 I'd rather get the cheaper cam
Not a sport guy so high continuous shooting isn't important and dual SD would be easy to use for me since I have no CF equipment yet (no readers, etc but plenty of high speed SDs)

I can see dxomark's review for Z6 II and most other cameras but despite Z5 being from same era, they haven't tested the Z5 yet? What's up with that?
Where else can I view comparisons to get some general idea of the noise performance outside of youtube vids and shit?
I read on some sites that Z5 is apparently cleaner at base ISO and z6ii is better at higher ISO but saw no real examples of such, if that is the case however that works for me I plan to shoot well lit stuff mostly and don't care at all about video
>>
Which are the best cheap lenses that are workable on a D3S, an F5, and ideally also on an F3? (This means preferrably with an aperture ring.)
>>
File: Full-Metal-Jacket.jpg (171 KB, 1280x716)
171 KB
171 KB JPG
>>4300030

Well there pilgrim, only after you eat the peanuts out of my SHEEEEEIIIIIIIIITTTT
>>
>>4300130
Yes, the Bulb (press and hold) or Time (press to start, press to stop) settings, just have to time the exposure manually.
The subtle IQ differences realistically aren't going to matter for a beginner, spend the extra money on a better lens.
>>
>>4300135
I assume you want one lens that is autofocus on the D3/F5 and manual on the F3, right?
Just buy every AF-D prime lens, Ken Rockwell recommends em all
>>
Asked this in another thread, but figured I’d post it in here too. Just got a Nikon df a few days ago, and while the camera is in good shape, it looks like the aperture control lever is stuck. It moves when I physically press down on it without a lens, but when I attach one it just stops working. It also only slightly moves when I press the dof preview button. Is there an easy fix for this, or should I just say fuck it and return it?
>>
>>4300161

No he don't, he comprehensive shit on the early 28/2.8 AF and later AF-D and rightfully so they were trash, especially the early 5-element 28

>>4300135

My poorfag AF-D lineup back in the day was 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 and they are pretty good lenses for what they were. If I had to do it all over again, Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 Angenieux, 50/1.4 AF-D and Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/2.8, if you can find one. They are fairly rare but optically superb. If you can't find one it's roughly the same as the Sigma APO offering of the time and those are more common. Made by the same people too just optically slightly different.

A second good telephoto offering is the Nikon 80-200/2.8 ED, much more common and have come down in price quite a bit
>>
>>4300183
>35/2, 50/1.4
fwiw I have these and the 50 f1.8, and find I almost never use the 50's anymore since getting the 35. I think I finally figured out I'm a "35 guy". I suspect anyone who owns both a 50 and 35 will eventually come to prefer one or the other.
>>
>>4300183
>Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8
>Angenieux
Likely just a myth. Doesn't mean it's bad, but the optical formula is different.

>>4300135
The 28-70 and 28-105 3.5-4.5 are decent if you want a small zoom.
Tokina 100 2.8 macro is nice and can be used in place of 85.
I also have manual focus 24 2.8 tokina which isn't bad. No flare or coma resistance of course, but it's cheap.
>>
>>4300106
I'd say the last decade has been chasing ISO/vids/fps and before that stills/IQ/color seemed prioritized. Not sure when they hit their peak, but the D7200 was one of the last good high megapixel bodies before the downward trend caught on and started doing harm.
>>
>>4300106
The ISO/weak CFA thing is a massive myth made up by gearfags masturbating in their heads and the observed effect probably has more to do with fashions in raw developer presets, NR levels, and dorktable/seektherapy having really bad support for color profiling newer cameras+DIYers typically making awful profiles

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/optimal-cfa-spectral-response/

Basically, weaker, non-selective CFA is actually ideal for color reproduction and the only thing holding CFAs back is the chemical composition of the dyes. The CFA myth gearfags actually prefer less accurate color, because it looks punchy and like slide film, and this is what a strong CFA gets you, film like inaccurate colors, not accurate ones. Accurate colors as shat out by a camera are difficult to make look good on a screen so your typical raw developer preset sharts on the color accuracy to make it look like a photo instead of a scan of reality. The gearfag, being clueless, sees these crazy vibrant, separated colors and unconsciously alters their memory and possibly their live perception (yes, the human brain can hallucinate against your will even if you are technically sane) to match their new bias.
>>
>>4300264
that old huh?
i don't know much about this stuff, but I will say the jpegs from my d750 look "good enough" that i sometimes wonder why i bother shooting raw, unless i've fucked something up in the exposure and need to fix it.
i don't own any new cameras, certainly they still look at least that good?
>>
>>4300315
The jpeg has nothing to do with this made up sensor autism, its just their choices in making the jpeg engine and how well the raw converter devs made their own profile. Very arbitrary and random. Essentially - you like your camera, or you can figure out a way to like your camera. SMI sperging is for medium format shooting document repro fags who work for museums and i guarantee you they use modern “weak” CFAs.
>>
>>4300315
RAWs give you control and serve as a safety net for ensuring your photo doesn't get cucked by a bad white balance.
The issue with JPEGs usually is camera bodies traditionally have not respected the user, and did whatever they wanted. They might have modes to change the look but not all actually offered a good natural WYSIWYG looking mode but that has gotten better over time.
For Canon I know the "true" color/contrast mode is "Faithful", "Standard" is actually memed on KenRockwellian slop , yet this unfortunately is what most people leave their camera on when they don't know any better. SOOC JPEGs on Canon bodies in Faithful mode without WB mistakes usually look fine.

>>4300317
The manufacturer profiles their sensors and use that info to process the colors, but even they have to put up with inaccuracies resulting from inaccurate capture. They try to wrangle colors in to a suitable average yet some colors are visibly off target, and this is where the problem lies. There's no simple way to correct all the colors from an RGB capture if the sensor response deviates far enough from what mimics what humans see under the same lighting and at that point sacrifices get made. Some colors will be prioritized while others are thrown under the bus, and at that point once enough pop up into the NOTICEABLY OFF category (none are perfect, but high delta values = HO REE PHUK SUM TING WONG) and people notice. Corrections applied from using color checkers/targets can only do so much, lighting is often part of the problem but a lot of modern sensors struggle even in daylight.

Actual museum fags are known to photograph stuff under various types of lighting.
The extra data from capturing a subject under different controlled light sources is used to further correct things beyond what can be done with a single capture under a single light source, even if that single light source is "perfect (almost)".
In short, they're using cheat codes so sensor response doesn't bother them.
>>
>>4300334
Most mirrorless cameras have colors as accurate as any DSLR ever did and SMI differences are so close a human observer can't distinguish them so desu this is pointless tldr autism and anyone having color issues should look into profling their camera unless the SMI under daylight is in the 70s or worse

I thought about buying a ColorChecker Digital SG when I had a sony, but now I have nikon, and camera is fine. The SMI is even a few points worse, dont care.
>>
z6iii fucking when
>>
>>4300374
If they have testing units in the wild, soon. They must be closing in on a launch date, the reveal should be a month or two ahead of that.
>>
>>4300376
Any estimates on launch price?
Not sure if I should wait for it.
>>
>>4300384
They'll probably improve the AF of the Z6II via firmware updates like they did with the Z6I btw
>>
File: IMG_20240401_212857.jpg (1.39 MB, 2136x3316)
1.39 MB
1.39 MB JPG
>>4299890
>update
The old fellas don't fix flashes but the repair guy from the lab repaired it in like 10min for free
It was basically just assembly indeed

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelRedmi Note 8 Pro
Equipment MakeXiaomi
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2136
Image Height3316
Image Created2024:04:01 21:18:32
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
F-Numberf/1.9
Exposure Time9999/200000 sec
Focal Length5.43 mm
FlashNo Flash
ISO Speed Rating1360
Image Height2136
Image Width4624
Lens Aperturef/1.9
>>
>>4300165
Anyone?
>>
>>4300397
>buy camera
>camera doesnt work
yes return it
>>
>>4300183
>No he don't, he comprehensive shit on the early 28/2.8 AF
yes it's the rare lens he really hates!
he recommends instead the 24 f/2.8d which isn't all that great either
>>
>>4300402
how do people feel about the 24mm 2.8 AI/AIS lens? I bought it for landscapes and street snapshits, but it seems like online opinions on it range from great to eh
>>
>>4300405
IF it's optically the same as my AF/AF-D, which I assume it is, don't expect it to hold up to much pixel peeping, especially wide open but pretty much no aperture on this lens is as sharp as you wish it was. it's main virtue is being really compact for a fullframe lens this wide. It's fine for "web resolution" and probably looked great on small prints in the film era.
I almost wonder if this is one of those lenses where you have to luck out and "get a good one", and I drew the short straw.
>>
>>4300384
More than a Zf, less than a Z8? I’m betting $2500.
>>
>>4300405
Good, compact, solid all around performer. Not as sharp as a 14-24, but also way smaller and less fussy. Stop down to f/8-f/11 and use that hyperfocal scale. Enjoy!
>>
>>4300387
Nice
>>
>>4300385
idk if the current Z 6II processors can support that fully though
>>
>>4300549
Are you kidding? It has an extra processor over the first one, if the AF is as close as it is already it should have a lot of room to improve and should support pixel shift (anything that has VR and the processing power for focus shift should be able to support pixel shift)
>>
Is it a good time to get into the Nikon mirrorless system?
I am considering a used z5 or z6ii, they go for about 600 and 1000 respectively on ebay
or should I wait for the release of z6iii so I can get even better deal from people selling their current body?
>>
I went to a convention recently and shooting cosplayers was really hit or miss. Some of them were excited and flattered that someone wanted to take a picture and others were aloof and disinterested. The homebrew costumes were the most friendly and personable and the gooks in higher end gacha cosplay were almost hostile. I also only saw one other Nikon shooter, the vast majority were on Canon with Snoy as a close second. It seemed like the older photographers were mostly rocking Canon and the younger guys were on Sony.

Anyways, I've decided I really don't like photographing people. Back to landscapes and critters for me. Thanks for reading my blog.
>>
>>4300573
Depends on whether you have a camera or not currently and whether you're okay waiting.
Me, I'm buying a camera within the month and can't wait so for me it's as good a time as any but currently there are no sales on new shit so I'll probably pay full price.. sucks for me, but I can't wait so it is what it is.

Probably wait for Z6III if you don't NEED a new cam, whatever happens it'll probably be worth seeing. You might even want the Z6III for all you know.
>>
>>4300629
I currently have an old and unreliable Canon 40D I can work with, so I am not in a hurry, but I will go back to Europe in July and I figure I can get better deals on use equipment in the US
I don't expect Z6III to be out or even announced by then
>>
>>4300573
Are you coming from DSLR? If so, the AF will be a step back on all but the ZF, Z8, and Z9.
>>
>>4300637
MPB and eBay have the fairest prices in the US, but I give MPB the edge due to their support and return policies. A regular Z6 is super cheap and a pretty good holdover option if you want to get into mirrorless now. There’s no telling when or if a Z6iii is actually coming.
>>
>>4300825
Lol nope
>>
My Nikon F3 arrived
Can't wait to use this
I love the little red stripe
>>
if nikon can make 0.95
why are their "S" primes all 1.8 and not 1.4 at least?

1.8 is even an inbetween value, idk, f/2 might have been better imo why go after 1.8? its barely any wider than 2
are they tricking everyone or something?
will they release S+ lenses or something down the road that are "topper of the linerer profesionalerer" lenses and these current ones are all entry level shit or something?

it all seems weird
>>
>>4301289
Sony did 1.4 GMs and all of their lenses vignette a ton, suffer from brown shadows when flaring, focus breathe like they're being asspounded, and have lots of LoCA. Nobody really benefited. it just drove prices up. Plus you have to use a fucking snoy and use assraped cooked raws because of their shitty babby mount and appetite for stars.

1.8s are easy to keep reasonably compact while correcting as many aberrations and issues as possible. Nikon is trying to regain customers and right now, neither sony nor nikon have "middle of the road" premium lenses. Sony almost gets there, they are all f2.5/f2.8 with very, VERY strong LoCA (more than most vintage lenses). Canon refuses to weather seal anything that's not an L lens. So Nikon just took the empty market segment to get sales. Boom, sharp weather sealed f1.8 primes because no one thinks those should exist any moe.
>topper of the linerer professionalererer
Those are the 1.2 lenses, designed to clearly indicate that if you're not on a paid shoot you shouldn't use them. They outclass cannot's in terms of vignetting and bokeh.
>>
Sometimes i use a nikon to snapshit some images

>>4300828
Who even buys the Z6/Z7 when the Z6II/Z7II are just a few hundred more?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height1500
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/750 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias-1/2 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length120.00 mm
Image Width4500
Image Height2250
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: Z72_2169.jpg (2.02 MB, 3000x2000)
2.02 MB
2.02 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)39 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height2000
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/45 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length39.00 mm
Image Width4500
Image Height3000
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4301460
>just a few hundred more
z7 used is a steal besides poor battery life
>>
File: Z72_2344.jpg (3.09 MB, 3000x2400)
3.09 MB
3.09 MB JPG
>>4301462
Depends on your tolerance for bullshit and autofocus that's slightly worse than an a7ii, while the z7ii's AF is at least as good as an a7iii (if you avoid auto-area animal af whenever you can)
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/visibility-of-nikon-z7-pdaf-banding/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height2400
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/45 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating64
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length120.00 mm
Image Width4500
Image Height3600
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: Z72_2345.jpg (2.34 MB, 3000x2400)
2.34 MB
2.34 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)89 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height2400
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating64
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length89.00 mm
Image Width4500
Image Height3600
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: Z72_2487.jpg (1.92 MB, 3000x1500)
1.92 MB
1.92 MB JPG
the nikon images continue

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)115 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height1500
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/2000 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1800
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length115.00 mm
Image Width4500
Image Height2250
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: Z72_2517.jpg (3.5 MB, 3000x2000)
3.5 MB
3.5 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height2000
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/2000 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1250
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length29.00 mm
Image Width4500
Image Height3000
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4301293
>1.8s are easy to keep reasonably compact while correcting as many aberrations and issues as possible.
"reasonably compact" - they really only needed the 50/1.8 to be as good as the AF-S version and not bigger than the combined size of the lens the FTZ and more more expensive than the combined cost of the AF-S lens and the FTZ... and they just refused, they had to make the new 1.8 better at all costs
>>
>>4301485
>Fucking nikon making a good lens it's a whole 2cm longer fucking faggots
If you're not a habitual night shooter or studio/wedding fag you don't even need it, buy the 40 f2

The real question is why are the 24 and 35 NOT that good despite being as big and bigger?
>>
>>4301485
>>4301489
It's just pixel peeping, really. Nikon's high MP might be working against them since they have to release these yuge lenses to outresolve their sensors. Smaller f/1.8s are definitely doable for the Zf.
>>
>>4301511
Its more about correcting bokeh fringing and focus breathing than le sharpness. Go on, use the simple lens designs, the ftz exists and the 40mm f2 is the size of the ftz
>butttt le weather seal
What kind of loser gets wet
>>
>>4301514
I like getting wet
>>
>>4301516
Buy a waterproof camera.
>>
>>4301464
didn't know about the banding issue, gonna have to change to hard pass on the z7
>>
>>4301518
You're not gonna believe this...
>>
>only one person posted nikon images in /nig/
This isn’t /nig/, it’s just another /nog/.
>>
File: Crop-1.jpg (2.57 MB, 2268x1540)
2.57 MB
2.57 MB JPG
Behold the reach
>>
File: Crop-2.jpg (2.69 MB, 3734x2800)
2.69 MB
2.69 MB JPG
>>4301552

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3734
Image Height2800
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/90 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length120.00 mm
Image Width3734
Image Height2800
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4301460
A Z6II is like $1200 used, a Z6 is around $500. There’s a case to be made if you’re on a budget and want a full frame with IBIS and great video, the Z6/Z7 are still extremely viable. Especially if you’re testing the Z waters and intend to move up to a nicer body in the future.

And I’d be hesitant to buy a z6/7II right at this moment when they’re about to release new models.
>>
>>4301460
On the European used market the difference is more like €800 to €900.
>>
>>4301559
If the new products to consoom are major normie bait intended to be pre-olympics show stoppers, not just cameras for supreme gentlemen like us, it won't actually drive prices down. Brand hype will make prices go up for a little while.

The best course of action is to just buy a camera you'd be happy with for 5 years if it's available and aim to purchase one locally so you can get a discount and avoid paying an extra $300 in shipping and tax
>>
File: Z72_2658.jpg (2.17 MB, 2000x3000)
2.17 MB
2.17 MB JPG
Now i have the shittiest nikon lens

behold the 3d poop

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2000
Image Height3000
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length40.00 mm
Image Width3000
Image Height4500
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: Z72_2646.jpg (2.19 MB, 2000x3000)
2.19 MB
2.19 MB JPG
so shahp

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2000
Image Height3000
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/180 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length40.00 mm
Image Width3000
Image Height4500
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4301728
>digitally sharpened slop
post without "sharpening" applied?
>>
File: Z72_2646.jpg (849 KB, 868x1302)
849 KB
849 KB JPG
>>4301730
Oh shit now i have to buy one of them foveons and a LIGMA FART 40mm ff1.4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/180 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length40.00 mm
Image Width868
Image Height1302
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4301728
>>4301733
>Having to put in extra effort to pretend your lens is bad
Welcome to imaging technology circa 2024
>>
>>4301733
It has that leica glow
>>
>>4299955

Both have their strong points. I went with the D800 because I have an Ikelite housing for one and the high MP is nice too. Feels good in the hands and already works with my baller Nikkor glass I have. Which mount do you have lenses for?

>>4300220

There's nothing wrong with 35, I alternate between them. I have a 35 and a 50 for every system I shoot. If you become a 35 guy, save some pennies and spring for the Sigma ART 35/1.4 for Nikon F they are cheap now, like 300 bucks cheap, which is what I sold my 35/1.4 AIs for.

>>4300259

Absolutely not a myth, I've serviced both, they are almost identical mechanically. The Tokina has different outer shell and rings but inside they are the same. Same optical formula. It's not myth, read up on it sometime. I kept mine after stepping up to the 24-70/2.8 AF-S for my AI system. Optics are outstanding on the Teaukina it's not just heresay. They have a cult following in cinema for a reason.

That 28-105 you mentioned is also a good walkaround, had one for a while. Good optics, good color rendition, lightweight, just all around a decent lens.

>>4300387

I love a happy ending, nice. I would have just charged postage on that, glad you got it handled.

>>4300405

In it's AI-s flavor it was the lens Galen Rowell used for many of his iconic images. Great lens and very sharp.

>>4300410
>>4300406

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24mm-f28-afd.htm
>>
>>4301733
are you the dogfucker of /p/?
>>
>>4299955
I recommend the d810 for specs minmaxing poorfags but the z6ii is a better camera in most ways and has a wider range of adaptability than F mount (it even adapts canon EF and sony mirrorless lenses).
>>
>recommending DSLRs in 2024
>>
>>4301785
>Which mount do you have lenses for?
only a handful of rokkor lenses for my old minolta so I'm not really invested in anything yet
>>
>>4301877
They can be adapted to Z fortunately. There’s even an adapter with a built in VND.
>>
Zf with 40mm kit restocked on Nikon direct. Picked it up.

What am I in for?
>>
>>4301974
This >>4301727 but 24mp and fujilarp
>>
>>4301847
DSLR is a based design, but it has unfortunately become a KEK device for modern photofaggraphers.

In the good old days you would have the following.
A) A camera, with an OVF, no battery power required.
B) An OVF+Lenses (optics) that work without any battery power. (a passive monocular through your lens)

With modern cameras you need battery power to even adjust focus on your nu-faggot fucking cuck lenses.
Everything relating to the DSLR design has been murdered and has had a painful death by 1000 cuts and DSLRs are now garbage.

Shit technology.
Fail at their original purpose.
Can't do cool shit old ones used to do.
Abandoned platform with no future optics or bodies.
Crippled optics from flange distance WITH NO BENEFIT (benefit was taken away with nu-fag design)

If DSLRs weren't SABOTAGED by the camera companies, DSLRs would still be based.
They're not though.
Mirrorless isn't some new tech every point and shoot used it so it's just a sad compromise people must make because the camera brands fucked up DSLRs so badly.
>>
>>4302025
>batteries required: AGH! AND THEYRE RECHARGEABLE! SATAN! I DONT NEED THIS SHIT TO TAKE PHOTOS OF FLOWERS!
>film required: what could go wrong?
>>
>>4302025
DSLRs are based, and DSLRs are garbage.

The enemy is both strong and weak.

This post just sounds schizophrenic. There’s nothing inherently wrong with DSLRs, sure, and there are advantages to mirrorless. Now you have the best of both worlds: top end DSLR kit is available at a massive discount. You can own a D850 or a D5 for peanuts and get an amazing selection of F mount Nikkors for pennies on the dollar. And if you want the top end mirrorless Z9, it’s way cheaper than any of the F pro bodies were in their day, both in absolute terms, and accounting for inflation it’s even better.

>>4301974
That’s a great setup. There’s a TTartisan 6bit coded adapter out there now that will give you focus confirmation with adapted M lenses, consider that. The Zf is made for adapting vintage lenses IMO, it’s the only way all those adjustment dials make any sense.
>>
>>4302030
>This post just sounds schizophrenic.
It's just honest.

>There’s nothing inherently wrong with DSLRs
Exactly but that doesn't mean the DSLRs that have been on the market weren't infested with artificial flaws.
Focus by wire and inability to physically control aperture on lenses without the camera doing it by electrical contacts and other shit is what essentially part of what made the platform a meme. A lot of viewfinders were also made shitty because of autofocus, and a bunch of DSLRs had issues with focus on the sensor being ever so slightly out of focus when the viewfinder was in focus, and not all could be serviced by the user to correct it. That's bad design.
Again, nothing inherent to the DSLR concept, but rather the products that became the norm.

The focus by wire/aperture thing might not seem like a problem but when you consider most bodies/lenses revert focus/aperture when shutting the body off rather than leaving them as-is at time of power off it's honestly quite fucking retarded. If we ever got a DSLR without artificial limitations and loads of anti-consumer design baked in, then people would care about DSLRs dying. Instead, people are left wondering why we stuck with them for so long when the actual products were so flawed for at least the past decade.

There simply isn't any good argument to be made for why a proper DSLR shouldn't be able to be manually focused/aperture controlled in the powered off state where a user looks through their lens with the OVF yet this simple thing has been impossible on most modern cameras for many years. So, at this point, why not go mirrorless?
>>
>>4302035
Focus by wire is only common in mirrorless, electronic aperture is an EF/SA only thing. Just get a Pentax and find happiness.
>>
>>4302035
>cameras should be worse at functioning as cameras so i can use them as shitty monoculars without turning them on
Consider: the fresnel, prism, and loupe that make up the OVF, AFTER the resolution and light loss of the mirror, lose even more resolution and light, so you are just being a retard about this

Its worse at not being a camera to improve action shooting beyond the state where it is more or a video game than art (just aim and move this and time this perfectly COWADOOTY)
Besides it never even took pictures without power

Its like people who want battery free film boxes. Batteries are $10. When you stop being able to acquire batteries, no one will make film or chemicals to develop it anymore. Its going into doomsday prepper autism where you inevitably loop back to a solar rechargeable, AA compatible digishit and a cheap color laser printer
>>
>>4302035
I think Nikon execs have been doing a good job throughout their history. They reverse engineered German designs, perfected them, navigated the shift from mechanical to electronic amazingly (look at the F3 to F4 transition, it’s a quantum leap), pioneered digital cameras, miniaturized digital cameras, took DSLRs as far as anyone could, and while not being the first to the full frame mirrorless game, have nonetheless steered the company out of bankruptcy and produce multiple top selling mirrorless cameras. The Z8 and Zf are crushing it. Not sure what you wanted them to do. Anyway Nikon stock helped me buy my house and Nikon gear enables my career that pays the mortgage on it so maybe I’m biased.
>>
>>4302041
People like that sperg are also worthless from a corporate standpoint because he should still be using the same ancient gear from last century. Sharper lens? Says zeiss on front, lacks autofocus, work forever, ja!

The world only needs so many “military grade” products with long service lives and shit performance. Just ask an exec about the economics of making a new film slr profitable when there are 1000000000 working ones still on ebay.
>>
Should I sell my Z5 for the inevitable Z6 III or is it worth having 2 bodies?
>>
>>4302055
Are you a wedding photographer tired of switching lenses? Do you work for a news agency? If not, you only need one good camera and should be using the same one for a while. A LOT of professionals are STILL using 5dIII and 5dIV setups because they never stopped working any worse than they were used to.
>>
>>4302060
Good to know.
I don't really have a use for video, so if the Z7 II and Z6 III are similar prices should I just get the Z7 II or will having a newer processor and firmware add enough quality of life to disregard the sensor on the Z7 II?
>>
>>4302085
It depends. The Z6III doesn't even exist yet but the Z6II and Z7II are just fine - for different people. One is a low noise ISO 100/ISO 800 camera the other is a high resolution ISO 50/ISO 400 camera (ISO 64 is slower than labeled). You'll have to make your own decisions.
>>
File: DSC_8988-2.jpg (3.76 MB, 6016x4016)
3.76 MB
3.76 MB JPG
here's a shot with my 24mm f/2.8 AF-D, I'm not claiming it's a great picture but it I don't think you can blame anything wrong with it on the lens

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D750
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern844
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2024:04:07 14:06:33
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/16.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1400
Lens Aperturef/16.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4302090
I guess I would have more day to day benefit from low noise, but I recently moved out west so I could take really nice landscapes with a high res sponsor, but I'd probably never print large enough for 45MP to matter, so now I'm back to thinking low noise is better.
>>
Little stated sad fact about the plastic mount primes:
Nikon has not released firmware updates for the focus ring rotation rate feature. Probably never will.
>>
Voigtlander 50mm f1 Norton or 50mm f2 APO?

Wildly different, I know. One’s sharp and the other’s dreamy. But is that f1 unusable in most normal situations? Is the APO’s f2 too slow for good low light (I’m mostly awake at night so take most pics at night and know every stop matters). That f1 I’ve heard is also super heavy.

Just wanting to do mostly manual shooting lately.
>>
>>4302280
Consider the Sony 50 1.2 GM. Smaller than the Nikon, optically excellent, has AF. The Megadap adapter is excellent.
>>
File: 2301183.jpg (176 KB, 900x600)
176 KB
176 KB JPG
>>4302280
Love the 50 apo, use it a ton. My only complaints would be lots of cat-eye / swirly bokeh at f2, and sometimes it feels too contrasty.
Consider the Voigt 50mm f1.2 too,
>although not a f/1 lens, the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2 Nokton compared favorably against the Voigtlander 50mm f/1, sharing many of the same qualities while being smaller/lighter and producing a more pleasant and even rendering. This is due to less pronounced field curvature and lower optical vignetting. However, it is ~1/2 stop slower and not equipped with a floating mechanism which means lower performance at minimal focus distance. I consider it a great alternative for those who prioritize rendering and don’t mind spherical aberration when shooting wide open at close distance.
I use the 50 Nokton f1.5 II alongside the APO, very different look and absolutely tiny.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>4302284
Split the difference and buy the 1.4 GM. Both are actually better used at f1.4. Also, the sony 1.4 is the size of the nikon 1.8 lol
>>
>>4302322
Z mount and don’t want to adapt. Thanks for the rec tho. Might try to find a small adapter if the 1.2 really is a better form factor.
>>
File: mimic monkey.png (104 KB, 297x386)
104 KB
104 KB PNG
I LOVE NIKON
>>
>>4302607
Weirdly third world post
>>
>>4302607
Look, I love Camera Conspiracies but he's actually retarded headcanon when it comes to Nikon.
>>
I want to scan old 110 film (roughly size of MFT sensor)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film
With Nikon Z not having any official macros greater than 1:1 magnification, what 3rd party lenses should I get for this? Ideally I want electronic/tethered focus capability, not just manual, which is what I think the laowa 90mm 2:1 is.
Any recommendations?
Would adapting F lenses or something from another brand (Canon or something) be a better option?

Does Nikon have any plans for new Z mount macros other than what's already available? 105mm, 50mm
>>
>>4302757
I dont think electronic macros over 1:1 even exist except for canon’s 1.4x, but then you have to use a canon. Yikes.

One of the old F mount macros is compatible with F mount teleconverters (af-s vr 105mm) but AF ceases to work. Anyone going over 1:1 typically uses a manual lens and a focusing rail and the natively 2x lenses are sharper than 1:1 with magnification anyways. Hence destitute hobbyists resort to using crop sensors in this largely neglected niche
>>
what are some good lenses for the zf? landscape, nature in general.
>>
>>4302764
The nikkor z 35mm f2.8 s

Oh wait lol
14-30 f4 and a grip
>>
>>4302764
This one

>>4302776
Why won't Nikon release more premium weather sealed pancakes already? Even sony did. Sure, canon hasn't, but they're canon.
>>
>>4302757
last af-s 105mm macro takes teleconverters. 2x tc should give 2:1.
extension ring on z 105mm but would only be ~1.2x magnification.
>>
>>4302607
I think I have this figured out without watching his youtube channel (i dont like dying of cringe, ok?)
>Sony had a feature first
>nikon had it last
>MONKEY SEE MONKEY DO!
Or
>he's stupid
>he thinks fuji invented japanese retro larp, when really it was nikon with their excessively long film SLR production runs going way past the death of film and shit like the df. They even made a manual focus SLR in the 2000s. Bro.
>he thinks the zf is a fuji copy, and not a continuation of nikon's tendency to make retro larps for way too long
>>
File: _DSC5105.jpg (670 KB, 1565x1956)
670 KB
670 KB JPG
Eclipse w/ Z 6II and 100-400 S

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 6_2
Camera SoftwareNIKON Z 6_2 Ver.01.50
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern866
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)400 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2024:04:08 16:20:54
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length400.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: IMG_0769.jpg (1.72 MB, 3031x3789)
1.72 MB
1.72 MB JPG
>>4303157

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 6_2
Camera SoftwareNIKON Z 6_2 Ver.01.50
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2024:04:08 16:16:49
Exposure Time1/3200 sec
F-Numberf/5.3
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/5.3
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length350.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>4300573
definitely wait a bit for the Z6III release.
>>
>>4303160
the theoretical rumored camera that ranges from a 36mp z8 body to a foveon camera that only exists in a shitty russian photoshop?
>>
>>4300828
I went with the z6, thanks for the suggestion
looking at cost-efficient lenses now

what are some must-have lenses for hardcore hobbyists?
>>
>>4303386
28mm f2.8/40mm f2
24-120 f4
fringer ef adapter and buy neat canon lenses like the 50mm f1.2
>>
>>4303386
How cost effective are we speaking?
The 24-70 f4 is great deal at like $400 used.
>>
>>4303400
yeah I am mainly looking to get used glass
I figured 24-70 f4 was a nobrainer but I guess 24-120 f4 is an option too
are chinese f/0.95 lenses a meme?
>>
>>4303405
Yes, they're character lenses. Great to have in your arsenal but nonessential.

The 24-70 is a killer budget option, the 24-120 is twice as expensive, then again, gives you almost twice the range. If you can swing it, you could shoot on only the 24-120 forever.

I'd also look for a 40 Z if you want a small light lens to make the overall package tiny. Or the 26 if you care about weather sealing and like a wider angle.
>>
>>4303405
>I figured 24-70 f4 was a nobrainer but I guess 24-120 f4 is an option too
The 24-120 is much sharper in the center everywhere. The 24-70 is just sharper in the corners at 24mm wide open and its f4 so it's not an astrophotography lens anyways (nobody cares about corner sharpness). It's also much more useful and the same size as the 24-70 f4 out of its locked/storage position. Skip the 24-70 f4 and save for a 24-120 or 24-70 f2.8 unless you absolutely need that kind of lens.
>are chinese f/0.95 lenses a meme?
They perform exactly like their $10,000 leica counterparts.

>>4303414
the 40 is supposed to be weather sealed and work by plastics hydrophobic properties, but if it bothers you, you could put a rubber band around the lens mount.

The 26 is an modern rendering alternative to the 28, not the 40, totally different FOV.
>>
>>4303419
i think the 24-200 is the better poorfag low resolution snapshitter lens desu

aperture? who needs aperture? snapshits have everything in focus

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5000
Image Height6181
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2021:10:29 22:48:37
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1700
Image Height1086
>>
>>4303419

is there a way I can compute the focal length equivalent between two cameras?
If so I could figure out what primes I would be interested in by handling my current camera
e.g. what's the equivalent of 40mm lens nikon ff mirrorless on a canon APS-C DLSR
I have zoom lenses 18-35 F/2.8 and 70-300 for this body
>>
>>4303476
Multiply aperture and focal length by 1.6 to convert canon APS-C to normal sensor terms
>>
>>4303479
there's not other notable difference between manufacturers and/or DSLR vs mirrorless?
>>
>>4303480
it just depends on sensor size, canon aps-c is 1.6x, m43 is 2x, other aps-c is 1.5x, brand or mirrorless/dslr doesn't really matter
to match the 40mm on ff, you'd use a 25mm on canon aps-c
to match the 18-35mm and 70-300mm used on canon aps-c, you'd want a ~28-55mm and ~110-480mm on ff
dof also kinda changes when you consider equivalence
>>
>>4303480
Uhhhh canon lenses say canon on them and DSLR lenses cant have glass elements where the mirror goes

Also older nikon, pentax and sony/minolta lenses use a little motor in the body to drive AF and no canon EF lenses do
>>
>>4303485
I was asking whether the brand or camera design had any further impact on focal length calculations as >>4303483 described

>>4303483
am I right in thinking that DOF also changes with a factor of 1.6 and 1.5 wit canon and nikon respectively?
>>
>>4303486
basically yes, can also ballpark going 1 stop (f2.8 on ff to roughly f2 on aps-c)
>>
>>4303486
A crop sensor is literally just a crop.

The FOV is tighter from the crop, so the lens is shorter. Shorter lenses have more DOF at the same f/stop (ratio between focal length and apparent aperture size) but let in the same amount of light.

But because the sensor is relatively cropped, it gathers less light total, and there is more noise as if you raised the ISO on a larger sensor. Even if you crop a photo that already has a set noise level, the noise becomes more visible. The signal to noise ratio changes. This is actually quantum physics, don't worry about it. Some noise does NOT change - electronic-origin noise like issues from heat altering photosite behavior, interference, or worse sensor/ADC design being amplified - it only changes photon shot noise (inherent to the quantum nature of light and the low quantum efficiency of human imaging technology).

Therefore, to take the same photo on a larger sensor you close the aperture (to increase DOF and gather less light) and raise the ISO, on a camera with an equally advanced signal chain. That is why a 40mm f1.8 on canon aps-c is about the same as a 65mm f2.8 on full frame. Closed aperture gathering less light and having more DOF, tighter FOV like the crop applied to the shorter lens.
>>
I have this ancient Sigma 70-200 EX HSM. I got it years ago in a box of random camera gear I bought because there was an F100 and a D1X in there.
The lens is the oldest model, the 1999 one. It will focus on a modern DSLR but refuses to work with live view.
Needless to say it has been collection dust in a closet for some time now.
Today I tried using it with the FTZ for shits and giggles thinking it would just refuse to focus and to my surprise it actually works.
>>
>>4303486
Physics doesn’t care about branding. A lens focuses light onto an imaging plane, either film or a sensor.

The differences in camera brands comes down to menu UI/UX, location of physical controls, and esoteric engineering differences wrt mount diameter and flange distance… they’re all fundamentally acceptable. Which one you choose is personal preference. We like Nikon ITT obviously.
>>
Hey so I finally got my Zf and it's a magnificent camera. Love everything about it other than native lens fstop being on a scrolly-wheel that gets knocked so I sometimes stop down without realizing it.

That said, the 40mm f2 kit lens is nice but is not what my eye sees (maybe because I'm a tall ubermensch). Want to get something wider in auto focus before I commit to manual.

I'm trying to decide between the 26mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.8. Might end up trying them both but want to get some real anon opinions on both first. The 26mm seems to cost more exclusively because... its metal mount???
>>
>>4299744
no you retard he means it has a tape reel encoding data magnetically that it reads to determine focusing information as the lens spins.
>>
>>4303833
And it smol. Glad you’re enjoying the Zf. Post pics. If you want manual aperture control — like with a real clicky ring — why not get a Voigtlander? AF is nice tho. I get it.
>>
>>4303833
>Want to get something wider in auto focus before I commit to manual.
Why? Wide angle is an ideal candidate for MF. Naturally larger dof plus focus peaking and all that shit.
>>
>>4303854
>>4303859
I initially wanted a voigtlander 50mm as my first lens after the kit but decided to wait and take pics on it first before going deeper. And honestly I found that most of the shots I take are on the go and my wife is a spazz who moves around a lot.

I still want a manual but idk. Just kinda want a wider AF lens because every time I’d point at something architectural or a landscape, the picture would be too tight vis-a-vis my eye at the moment.

Kinda wanted a voigtlander 35mm, too, but they’re aps-c. There’s that artalabs retro looking 35mm thing but do I really want a China lens with no electronic contact?
>>
>>4303866
Architecture and landscape is piss easy on MF, and with all the MF assist features Nikon MILCs have, moving subjects really aren't that hard either, especially with wide angle.
>>
>>4303868
Yeah, but I’m not over here wanting to switch out my lens to take a passing picture of some neon lights. So AF it is for now.
>>
>>4303871
>I’m not over here wanting to switch out my lens
Why would you need to do that??
>>
>>4303833
Kinda in the same boat, Zf since launch, but only ever used MF glass on it. As great as the Zf is for MF, it's nice to have the convenience and speed of AF sometimes. 26 is better built, better at f2.8, and more compact, so that's what I'll be picking up. Want to get the 50 f1.8 S too, but seems so redundant considering everything else I have, and not a fan of the size.
Down the road you can get adapters that AF with MF glass, and you can trap focus (hold shutter button, camera fires when focus acheived) with the TTArtisan 6-bit M-Z adapter and it gets you green box confirmation for eye focus without needing peaking or zoom. Voigt does have several wider m-mount options, I use the 35 f1.2 III a ton on my Zf.
>>
which is a better deal for the same money?

z6 + 24-120 f4
z6ii + 24-70 f4
>>
>>4303915
the answer is always delay your purchase a few weeks and make more money

z6ii+24-120 f4
>>
some dude has a d850 listed for $500 with charger, battery, grip, 3k on the shutter. I asked if it's a legit listing and he said his side chick got him a z7. this has to be a scam right?
>>
>>4303956
No, it's the actual fair price for a D850 with only the body. You're getting the grip for free. Buy it! Ebay prices are not reality.

For economic reference I just got a D200, 20-35 f2.8 D, and 80-200 f2.8 D for $190.
>>
File: file.png (472 KB, 1840x1064)
472 KB
472 KB PNG
*sells a beat up 2017 DSLR for the price of a used z7ii*
what the fuck is wrong with people

want a bigger joke? look at used sony a99ii prices. now remember, it is the same camera as the a7rii, but actually worse at literally fucking everything (doesnt even have an OVF)
>>
any way I can upgradez6 firmware without a card reader?
>>
>>4303993
Try plugging the camera in via its usb-c port and dragging the .bin file to the root directory, dismount it and see it the camera sees a fw update

If that doesn't do anything ask yourself why you thought of saving money with a z6i when you couldn't afford a $20 cf card reader
>>
>>4303995
because I onlg need the card reader for firmware updates,which is like once a year

on linux I could not mount the card when plugging in with USBC
>>
>>4303999
You don’t deserve firmware updates.
>>
>>4303963
The a99ii I feel was more Sony dick waving than anything, since canon and Nikon (1 system not counting) hadn’t gone into mirrors yet, they turned around and said hey we will make a slr/t camera as good as yours with our neat mirror less guts, whatcha think? Sorta the last gasp of A mount for all 12 hardcore holdouts lol. You’ll still see fuckin boomers going on about the “beer can” in recent years
>>
>>4303999
>he doesn’t remove the card from the camera for file transfer
The fuck, is this a thing now? People actually do this? I use old dslrs so removing the card is just how things are done lol
>>
>>4304071
I have both an XQD and a CfE reader, fuck connecting a camera. That’s horrible.
>>
>>4304070
>I TELL YOU WHAT JIM THESE MODERN MIRROR-LESS CAMERAS DONT GET IT I EVEN GOT AN EXTRA MIRROR FOR MY CAMERA LATELY - CHECK IT OUT, MINOLTA AF 500MM F8 REFLEX, THE ONLY AUTOFOCUSING TELESCOPE IN THE WORLD
>GOSH DARN BOB NOW THAT IS WHAT I CALL A BEER CAN
>>
Can someone catch me up on how the Nikon world works now? Was gonna upgrade from my D3100 but now I see Nikon's basically getting out of the DSLR market? I don't have an enormous investment in lenses but I have a bunch plus an FM2a I've used in the past.
>>
>>4304095
The mirrorless cameras are newer and better but dont support autofocus with old af-d shit. the dslrs still work fine if that bothers you. there’s even a dslr z6 -d780.
>>
>>4304098
>mirrorless
Jesus they're expensive now. Entry level bodies were dirt cheap back when I got my D3100. I just want to upgrade from 15yo image quality and ISO issues.
>>
>>4304107
Welcome to inflation. Just get a used DSLR lol.
>>
>>4304108
The high end bodies are still the same prices. They've just gotten rid of the cheap ones.
>>
>>4304071
why would I want to remove the card from the camera?
I can do everything without ever removing it
except doing a firmware update
>>
>>4304121
faster transfer speeds but you do you
>>
>>4304121
Plugging the camera into the computer gives me the same kind of ick that taking the card out gives you. Don’t expect a rational explanation.
>>
>>4304121
Reliability, speed, efficiency, clutter. Why risk damaging the USB port on the camera? Why content yourself with slow transfer speeds? Why take your camera out of its safekeeping in a bag or case and clutter up your desk, risk the cat knocking it to the floor? It's so much easier to just use a card reader.
>>
>>4304260
For me its because card readers are convenient and fixed in place and card doors are solid and clicky, but the camera needs me to fiddle with rubber flaps and use a USB cable that bends at stupid angles to use the port.
>>
question for you /nig/ers
Ken Rockwell says Nikon Z cameras forcibly correct distortion with lens profiling. I know all of his photos are trash and he is a meme but he has lots of reviews on lots of gear so when considering gear I see his critiques as valid regardless.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-50mm.htm#dist

I assume this just means Z cameras apply lens corrections to JPEG?
They don't mess with RAWs right?
>>
>>4304354
Yes it's just jpegs. All corrections "to raws" are just metadata. But adobe also forces it based on that metadata. Capture one can override it.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61869525
>>
>>4304107
Normal camera prices have actually been pretty stable the last 15 years, and are cheaper than ever if you consider inflation.
>Entry level bodies were dirt cheap back when I got my D3100.
Those launched for $700 back in 2010, or about $980 today, not too far off from a Z50 kit. Back then $400-1k was entry level (basic cameras, kit lenses), $1k-2k was advanced enthusiast / semi-pro tier, and +$2k for "pro" bodies all the way up. Performance per $ now is just crazy in comparison. I remember when the cheapest FF available for Nikon was +$2.5k, and now you can get them new for half that.
There was definitely a golden era of cheap film bodies that has passed though.
>>
File: 80-200 test.jpg (1.47 MB, 3000x2008)
1.47 MB
1.47 MB JPG
>>4303958
D200 update

It's alive! And it has animal butthole AF, just like the Z7II!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D200
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height2008
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/3000 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Subject Distance16788.00 m
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length200.00 mm
Image Width3585
Image Height2400
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: 80-200 test 2.jpg (903 KB, 3000x2008)
903 KB
903 KB JPG
>>4304382
Once I sell these two lenses and buy a DX 35mm it's basically a free camera

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D200
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height2008
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/1600 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Subject Distance4732.00 m
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length200.00 mm
Image Width3585
Image Height2400
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4304391
Did he btfo you lately? Gear thread? /an/? Refuse to clean a negative despite the lady’s protests? He seems to enjoy mocking nophotos just saying
>>
>>4304383
NGL the 20mm and 28mm f1.8 Gs are also attractive for dual use on the z7
>>
>>4304382
Such a great camera. Just as long as you keep it under 640 ISO. By 800 it’s a fucking mess.
>>
with z6iis and z7s being the same price used, which would you go for?
>>
>>4304586
The z6ii because z7-1s have random shadow banding and fuji tier af, the high resolution and high noise isnt worth it unless you just pixel peep. Even the z7ii has worse low light AF than the z6ii.
>>
File: angry.jpg (65 KB, 900x900)
65 KB
65 KB JPG
WHEN'S THE FUCKING Z6 III ANNOUNCEMENT
>>
>>4304591
It's not THAT bad because low light means iso 12800 snapshit land

>>4304586
z6ii tho, wouldn't put up with the old AF on a camera that takes $500 lenses. and once the z6iii/z7iii come out nikon will probably do a repeat of what they did with the z6/z7 and finally bring the AF up to the peak of what the hardware can do via firmware update 2.0.
>>
>>4304614
Just buy a Zf, kid.
>>
>>4304614
>WHEN'S THE FUCKING Z6 III ANNOUNCEMENT
The week after you buy the mark II.
>>
>>4304724
Based, time to buy Z6 II, wait a week, see announcement and return it.
It's not like the real announcement will come day 31 from my purchase when it's JUST not able to be returned, so surely there's zero risk.
>>
File: DSC_0029.jpg (2.12 MB, 3000x2008)
2.12 MB
2.12 MB JPG
just taking test shots and finding this camera very enjoyable

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D200
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height2008
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/3.3
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/3.3
Exposure Bias-1/2 EV
Subject Distance12589.00 m
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length80.00 mm
Image Width3585
Image Height2400
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4304741
>downsampling a 3872x2592 sensor to 3000x2008
why
>>
File: DSC_0029.jpg (3.59 MB, 3872x2592)
3.59 MB
3.59 MB JPG
>>4304743
habit

>implying there's anything to pixel peep

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D200
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3872
Image Height2592
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/3.3
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/3.3
Exposure Bias-1/2 EV
Subject Distance12589.00 m
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length80.00 mm
Image Width3872
Image Height2592
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: Buying_Lenses_on_Amazon.png (99 KB, 1257x561)
99 KB
99 KB PNG
>>4304738
>surely there's zero risk
That's what they all say.
>>
>>4304746
the guy in the screenshot is too poor to be buying lenses
guy needs a fucking job
>>
>>4304355
Adobe is kinda weird about it too.
You can't turn off any built-in corrections for Z6 and Z7 raws.
You can turn them off for Z6II,Z7II,Z8 and Z9 raws but not for all lenses.
>>
>>4299280
I learned how to use a PRC 2000 but this is probably beyond my skill set.
>>
File: DSC_0036.jpg (1.83 MB, 3872x2592)
1.83 MB
1.83 MB JPG
300mm with no stabilization and a limited ISO range is suffering

Might be time to recalibrate the monitor i can't tell how green this is

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D200
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3872
Image Height2592
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/750 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Subject Distance14125.00 m
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length200.00 mm
Image Width3872
Image Height2592
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: Z72_2090.jpg (1.95 MB, 2407x2256)
1.95 MB
1.95 MB JPG
>>4304832
Is it better than just cropping the shit out of the z7?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7_2
Camera SoftwareCapture One Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2407
Image Height2256
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating64
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length120.00 mm
Image Width4500
Image Height3000
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4304835
>Is it better than just cropping the shit out of the z7?
on, the z7 looks better
>>
>>4304835
>>4304832
When the d200 was released, computer screens were <1mp, not 8mp-36mp. View this on a 1024x768 display or you’re pixel peeping to the max.
>>
>>4304857
Of course it does, and the z7 isn't even a 100% crop, it's a crop of a downscaled crop. A 19 year old 10mp APS-C DSLR+ken rockwell's favorite telephoto under its sharpest apertures (f8-f16) just doesn't have the pixel level sharpness. BUT the colors and focus falloff are nicer with the 80-200 than cropping a 120mm to 240-300mm.
>>
>>4302091
Jesus anon, move out of the flyover states
>>
>>4304861
>ken rockwell's favorite telephoto
The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II?
>>
so pdaf striping or banding is caused inherently from the scene and sensor and big dynamic range or bright highlights make it worse
does this also mean exposure bracketing isn't a proper fix for it? internal reflections from lens elements would still make the pdaf stripes consistent throughout different exposures?

minimizing noise in static scenes by multi sampling or long exposures won't help much?

pdaf used to be dedicated with dslrs off the primary sensor done with the mirror but now it's baked into the sensors and is causing issues..
is there a list of mirrorless cameras without on sensor pdaf and just contrast defect af? pure CDAF?
even fucking medium formats like the fuji cameras suffer from pdaf banding
I want to avoid this
>>
File: 20240418-CMZ_8509-web.jpg (467 KB, 2000x1331)
467 KB
467 KB JPG
>>4305427
idk man. It shows up mainly in the deep shadows for me. I just shot a gig today, here's an example of the Z6 banding pretty bad.

Ugh. Granted, I had to open up the shadows +53 to see it this bad, but I frequently expose for the highlights and open up the shadows, soooo it happens.

It's annoying. I keep staring at used Z9 listings, reaaaaally don't want to drop $3.5k-4k on another body... but god damn is that Z6 not measuring up to my main body.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 6
Camera SoftwareCapture One 15 Macintosh
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/1.2
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating2500
Lens Aperturef/1.2
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length50.00 mm
Image Width2000
Image Height1331
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4305099
You better not be hating on sweet train pictures anon, I know you aren’t, right? /pee/ loves trains. Watch yourself.
>>
>>4305618
damn that seems like a meme
meme where people would laugh at you asking "you paid HOW much for that camera when you could have just used a phone?"
that's gotta hurt

dor what its worth I think the Z6II/Z7II don't have this but instead are vulnerable to striping instead which looks more like what you'd see in the examples here
https://www.dpreview.com/news/6974141509/sony-striping-heres-the-fix

apparently nikon set firmware to try and counter striping (brighter line artifacts) by darkening lines just in case they were brighter (they aren't always) and that's what causes the dark striping/banding according to my understanding
this post suggests a firmware update for Z6 might fix it
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65691423
since you have a Z6 maybe look into that if you haven't, maybe there's hope

in the meantime it'd be nice to know whether scenes you get banding in can have the banding disappear by doing some bracketed exposures, if it's a fixed pattern it probably won't
people say it "goes away" in high ISO but that's just being masked by noise

all this shit makes me want to consider a cheap DSLR with a kit lens until these kinks get ironed out instead of buying into full frame when these issues exist
it's maddening

analog/film fags don't have these problems at all
I am kind of jealous
>>
>>4305624
I have never, ever had striping on the Z6II or Z7II. I have never, ever heard of the Z6II, Z7II, Z8, or Z9 suffering from PDAF striping.

The dark banding issue was caused by nikon putting in post processing that anticipated an issue that wasn't there. remember, nikon has thin sensor stacks. sony has thick ones, which probably reflect more light between their layers. nikon has a properly sized mount, sony has a baby mount which necessitates that the rays of light enter the thick sensor stack from a steeper angle, increasing the possibility of sensor flaring because the sensor was intended to absorb light from the front, and steeper angles can cause brightness loss, color shifts, and odd reflections. i see sony users also suffer from "CFA flare" significantly more often - it was rarer on DSLRs just because the mirror box was deeper, but also, the lenses were worse (especially the zooms) to pay for an issue that can be solved by just angling your camera differently while shooting into the sun at f/22. 99% of the time I see a photo with CFA flare it's ken rockwell trying to force it for a review.
>>
>>4305618
reset your settings to defaults and try that again, i've never seen that in my life and i have probably 50k clicks on my z7
>>
>>4305629
huh... I was on 3.40 so I'm updating to 3.60. It wasn't mentioned in any of the delta patch notes between those versions but we'll see.

Reset to default? Bawww... 91k shots on my Z6.
>>
File: z6 vs z6ii.png (788 KB, 1581x850)
788 KB
788 KB PNG
>>4305629
>>4305638
Z7 was definitely affected by this.
https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/Sensor_Heatmaps.htm

Z6 affected as well
Z5 had it mildly

refresh models like Z6II Z7II don't show any obvious signs of it


>>4305629
you maybe got a Z7 with updated firmware
what year did you buy it?
what version are you using? do you know? did you ever update it?
>>
>>4305651
again, in no real photos have i ever seen that. post a fucking raw file. let me guess, you did some retarded edit pushing exposure 5 stops or something. i've stacked astro images and have never ran in to this either
>>
>>4305651
>https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/Sensor_Heatmaps.htm
also this is completely retarded and has nothing to do with PDAF points, the number of lines is the same in each, even though the z6 has 273 AF points versus 493 on the Z7
>>
>>4305655
>this is completely retarded
and only impacts a single color channel
>>
>>4305655
>has nothing to do with PDAF points
Don't be a fool
>number of lines is the same in each, even though z6 has 273 AF points
It's 1 line out of the 12 at a 1:1 scale crop in the left preview, the per-colors is a crop at 50% scale with the line every 6 pixels

this is literally the PDAF row spacing
fuji MFs are 1 out of every 18
compare z6 to gfx100 and you see the gfx is ~1.5x scale in the stripes
"AF points" are based off area selectons containing a number of PDAF rows, the sensor doesn't have these PDAF rows on the top/bottom edge of the sensor only in the middle ~80-90% of the sensor area and the lack of PDAF issues is missing in those areas but you also don't get pinpoint AF in the exact top/bottom 2% of the sensor in landscape orientation but that's never a problem
pdaf banding is missing in those areas missing PDAF rows though

go compare those to other cameras and this striping is pretty unique to the z6/z7 but missing on z6 2 and z7 2

you're also looking at dark frames (lens cap on), if you check illuminated frames you can see subtle line artifacts in other channels but they're subtle and most prominent in the blue or combination of them all
Looks like Nikon just darkens the blues and that seems to be the source of the overblown banding as the root of the whole issue
they made a mountain out of a mole hill

you can underexpose on a d850 and push it 3-4 stops with natural looking noise at low ISOs but z6 or z7 doing the same (prior to firmware update? maybe not YOUR camera) have issues and can show banding
>>
>>4305618
On my Z7 I've only seen it in areas that were underexposed by like 5EV.
The bands look way smaller than the ones in your photo though.
Rawtherapee has on option to fix it, specifically for the Z6 en Z7 issue.
https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Preprocessing#Nikon_PDAF_Banding
If this doesn't fix it than the problem might be something else.
>>
>>4305618
So is this PDAF banding then? Maybe not, might be related to shit ass LED lights? Seriously the bane of my existence. It’s like, either I can shoot at 1/60s and have most of my photos subject motion blurred, or shoot out of phase with the LEDs but at least the people are sharp? Guh.
>>
>>4305658
>compare z6 to gfx100
nigger compare the z6 to the z7 as i said. the lines are the fucking same for a different number of PDAF rows

also the number of rows in those pictures are a fuck load different from in your picture

> to the z6/z7 but missing on z6 2 and z7 2
the originals and the IIs use the same sensor, for the Z7 it is a sony IMX309BQJ and the z6 is a IMX410BQJ
>>
>>4305666
It is probably PDAF banding. Purely Nikon's mistake. Light source banding affects everything illuminated by the light source. PDAF striping (a kind of sensor flare) is so rare it might be nearly impossible on Z mount... unless you adapt a sony lens, which apparently produce more sensor flare because of the angles at which light hits the PDAF rows, and requires a bright light and a smaller aperture to bring reflections between the rear element and sensor into the image plane..

However bad you feel, sony STILL has an unfixed vignette correction banding problem in similar situations (3ev pushes or more), which paradoxically gets worse as the ISO gets lower, the more the lens vignettes, because of the way they attempt to write shading correction directly to the raw file. And they are the #1/#2 brand with this shit affecting cameras far more expensive than the Z7...II.
And however bad you feel, Canon still has low ISO shadow noise reduction cooked into their raws (probably to hide their usual shadow banding issues), which makes everything you bring out of a shadow push ever so slightly softer, on every R body, so, there are no perfect cameras

Except for the Z6II, Z7II, Z8, Z9, ZF, and GFX100II. Those are perfect cameras. Too bad the Z6III and Z7III are going to be non-comparable higher resolution bodies and everyone will probably complain about their noise character.
>>
>>4305688
>nigger compare the z6 to the z7 as i said. the lines are the fucking same for a different number of PDAF rows
Nigger did you understand anything?
They're a 100% crop.
Z7 pdaf spacing is still 1/12 so they should look the same here. Learn to read what you're looking at, don't call others who do retarded when it's an issue on your end.

>also the number of rows in those pictures are a fuck load different from in your picture
Yes, like I said, if you had them both on display (combined+individual) you'd see mine on the left and your 8 boxes on the right.
The individual color(+combined) here are shown at 50% scale, as a crop, so if you open your squares in an editor you'l find the stripes are at 1/6, exactly half of the 1/12 shown in mine.

>the originals and the IIs use the same sensor
So they must have simply changed firmware to not unnecessarily darken what may be the blue channel's readout values (idk which channel is which but assume red, green, blue, combined)

so in your image
assume
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
with
1357 being z7 rgbC
2468 being Z6 rgbC

it's not uncommon for some lenses to have around ~2.5 stops of vignetting in the corners at low apertures and a stop or two of actual underexposure in scenes with very high contrast/bright lights/dynamic range needing an additional ev or two applied to shadows isn't as "wild" of an edit as it may seem so these issues pop up in photos
but apparently not with latest firmware or on the updates II z6/z7 version since it seems all fixed
>>
>>4305699
Is there any way to disable Sony raw vignette corrections?
Like put aside the typical Adobe retard logic of "Adobe doesn't let me not use embedded metadata so there must not be any way" and assume I want to actually use software that gives the user some control. Like dcraw, rawtherapee, darktable, etc.
Is the vignette post-processing actually irreversibly hard baked into the data and unable to be turned off by any means? This sounds mind blowing.

I've done enough raw bracketing with phones to know how damaging vignette corrections being baked in can be. Vignette corrections are only a "lossless" (not really, but almost) fix when noise isn't really a factor so applying such things to individual frames can be a huge mistake. I've done raw exposure bracketing with phones and getting RAWs without the vignette baked into the raws was a night/day difference in final image quality. Shit with it baked in would literally make the center of the image have a visibly different color temp than the corners, but with proper vignetted RAWs that didn't have the fix baked in, merging them and then applying the fix from metadata delivers a nearly perfect image.
The further your light source is from daylight, the bigger the center/corner color shift will be, but when properly handled it's almost non existent.

I can't imagine owning a camera that forces some shitty vignette/lens correction into raws. Sounds like a total nightmare.
>>
>>4305708
>pdaf spacing is still 1/12
that is not what your image shows, those lines are far thicker than 1 pixel and spaced further apart then 12. and again post a raw file
>>
>>4305712
The vignette is hard baked into the raw, in-camera, and the only way to turn it off is to turn off shading compensation in the camera menu and essentially give up on shooting jpeg, because many mirrorless lenses vignette more than would ever be tolerated on film. You can always turn it off even with lenses that lose over 3 stops in the extreme corner at least. If shading correction is turned on, the camera is essentially no longer ISOless. Most raw converters also sufficient lack shading compensation in sony lens profiles because it's expected to be in the raw.
>implying anyone with a sony would shoot jpeg
I know it's probably on all their cameras, but I haven't personally checked the a7rv, a7cr, and a7cii yet. Just everything up to the a7iv, and I didn't play with the menus and shoot enough tests to check if video and stills lens correction settings were separate. If the a7iv has a problem the a7rv and a7cii/r probably do too. I probably won't be able to test many sony cameras in the future because my sony using videofag friend's a7iv broke and he bought an r6ii.

This mostly affects ow light one shot HDR because the aperture needs to be wide and the ISO needs to be low. A lot of people will never see it. Just like the PDAF banding that was such a crisis. Kek
>>
File: they're 12 pixels bro.png (57 KB, 280x256)
57 KB
57 KB PNG
>>4305713
>that is not what your image shows, those lines are far thicker than 1 pixel and spaced further apart then 12.
Are you actually retarded or is this a joke?
Look at this image.
The 1px black lines are the PDAF rows
the white spaces are 11 non-pdaf rows between the PDAF ones

What's in your image here is the AF zones.. each zone included an area with multiple pdaf stripes within it.. that's how AF zones work 273 pdaf points doesn't mean 273 pdaf photosites
pdaf requires many photosites per AF point to operate, and they're built into rows of the sensor (but not every single photosite in the row is a PDAF one)
>>
>>4305718
That's so cool. The whole way mirrorless works is fascinating. Every camera pulls off some amazing tricks to fashion a simulacra of reality fashioned from light. Boggles my mind how well it all works, considering.
>>
>>4305716
>because many mirrorless lenses vignette more than would ever be tolerated on film.
many Snoy e-mount mirrorless lenses** (ftfy! yw nntt)
>>
>>4305721
You might like this video, the Northrups often put out shitty meme content but this vid is legit good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhuKuCEjAvM
>>
>>4305716
At least there is a way to disable it, even if it means vignetting your JPEGs.
Seems incredibly short sighted of them to not let you correct the JPEGs and not correct the RAWs. Not having wide support for lens correction in 3rd party programs seems like a result of their weird handling of the issue too, seems like it would have been better to just release the necessary data for the vignette corrections so people can fix them but I guess they have a reason to lock them behind in-camera shit.

Seems like something fixable with different camera software but the fact this was ever an issue means I won't be surprised if it stays that way. What a meme.
>>
>>4305718
anyways anon, the lines in your image >>4305618
arent every 12 pixels, and they arent 1 pixel thick. you were claiming that banding was due to on sensor PDAF and brought up this other website as some sort of evidence of it.
>>
>>4305740
Yeah I'm not really claiming, that's just my supposition. Is that not what I'm seeing? This is just LED phase fuckery?
>>
>>4305725
That was surprisingly informative thanks
>>
>>4305743
Regarding your previous posts, this site has a far better description with photos of the PDAF points on a Z6, and what the banding looks like
https://landingfield.wordpress.com/2021/05/10/decoding-the-slvs-ec-protocol-from-imx410bqt/

>that's just my supposition
i mean if it was, then wouldnt you see these lines only in the blue channel and on every 12 lines 1 pixel thick. not what is wrong with your image where the light and dark bands are 12 pixels thick
>>
>>4305762
>what the banding looks like
>>
>>4305762
>photos of the PDAF points on a Z6
>>
>>4305743
>This is just LED phase fuckery?
Possibly. Are you using EFCS by any chance?
>>
>>4305762
The sorrow of mirrorless...
>>
>>4305789
LED flicker banding can also happen to DSLRs if you shoot in live view+EFCS to avoid mirror shock or use the other AF system

The PDAF thing is a total non issue on all but like, 2 nikons, so its the sorrow of salarymen mistakenly thinking they would have the same problems as sony, and refusing to actually fix it (maybe it was hardware processing and they couldn't, camera firmware is ultralight and it's not unusual to have a chip just for NR or sharpening)
Canon doesn't have on-sensor AF banding issues either, just the same so-so noise performance canon has always had, now with bandaids on top
>>
>>4305762
>wouldnt you see these lines only in the blue channel and on every 12 lines 1 pixel thick
Do you have an example of non-demosaiced raw? You can bypass in RT.
>>
>>4305796
>Canon doesn't have on-sensor AF banding issues either
Canon doesn't sacrifice pixels to the animal butthole AF god
>>
File: informant.jpg (483 KB, 2048x1365)
483 KB
483 KB JPG
>>4305783
Do you mean HFCS?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
PhotographerClaudette Barius
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5120
Image Height3413
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution0 dpi
Vertical Resolution0 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2009:08:28 17:03:50
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length120.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5120
Image Height3413
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4305783
That’s the “Silent Photography” mode right? No, I never use that unless absolutely necessary because of weird interactions with lighting.
>>
>>4305807
No, silent is when both curtains are electric. EFCS means pixels start out bare and reset themselves with the speed of a real shutter curtain, but nothing moves, at the end of exposure shutter closes and sensor reads. Then, shutter opens again and you continue live view.
>>
>>4305810
As opposed to full mechanical (with live view) shutter closes first, pixels reset, then shutter opens for exposure, after it's done, shutter closes and pixels read. Then shutter opens again and you continue live view.
>>
>>4305802
That must be why they dont have to apply forced NR to raws, DPAF dont do shit!
Oh wait
>>
>>4305799
>Do you have an example of non-demosaiced raw? You can bypass in RT.
see the article in >>4305762 its some guy who took a Z6 sensor and made his own astro camera with a FPGA

>>4305796
>the sorrow of salarymen mistakenly thinking they would have the same problems as sony
the Z6 sensor has twice as many PDAF sensors as a sony camera, see the article I mention above too
>>
>>4305803
>cinefag is a woman
>>
>>4305810
What setting is it in the menu? I did a quick search and it didn't pull anything up.
>>
>>4305853
nvm I found it. d5 Shutter Type. Nope, I have it set to Mechanical Shutter.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.