>>4376660
It is surprisingly big and heavy, there are basically only two native lenses that look and fit good (the two SE ones), the grip is too shit for the rest of the nikkor Z lenses (they are just too huge and they all look like big plastic cylinders), and the lack of a joystick for AF point selection is gonna make you mad.
I still love mine though, there is nothing that is comparable in the full frame digital market now.

>>4376660
Prepare for kino

The lack of buttons mean you're not going to be setting up shots exactly as you want them.

If you commit to using it as a snapshot camera in P or A mode, it's fantastic

>>4376715
wait there is no aparature ring/dial?

>>4376715
theres two dials for that, one is by default set-up for aperture

>>4376719
Front sub-dial does it. In exchange, you get people autofocus, rather than tree autofocus.

>>4376720
>>4376722
so what buttons are missing in order get "shots exactly as you want them"?

>shutter speed and ISO dials when it will spend most of its time in Av with auto ISO
Having two dials that are never touched would bug the fuck out of me. I'd rather they were just customisable although not sure what I'd set them to.

>>4376726
A z8 or z6iii has enough function buttons. You want one for the metering mode, one for white balance, one or two for AF settings, maybe one for starlight mode, and one for choosing settings bank.

>>4376733
>one for white balance
??

>>4376726
i never said anything about missing buttons. i guess anon meant that you have the aperture/iso on the big dials that are arguably slower to adjust than the modern dials...

>>4376733
schizoid

>>4376715
Well, it's vintage ergonomics, not pro ergonomics.
Compared to "modern ergo" cameras it's just slower to operate like a 60's-80's film camera. The electronics and capabilities are fully modern though.

The ergos with a bigger lens like 24 -120 kinda suck. I don't like the small rig grip. I have small hands btw. But overall I kinda like it as a new photographer.

>>4376660
If you like dials and mechanical doodads and whatsits, the Zf is great. Natural pairing with adapted or native manual lenses. If you want modern ergos, higher FPS stills and better video features, the Z6III is objectively better. The Z9 is still top of the heap, and the Z8 is a smaller Z9.

>>4376660
pros
>better lowlight af and better dr than z8/z9/z6iii
>subject detection and greenbox focus confirmation with mf adapted lenses (no zoom or peaking needed anymore)
>decent build quality
cons
>auto iso control, pasm + dials, limited function buttons, handling without grip
>weight / size (mostly width)
it's a quirky camera, but I like it a lot, one of my all-time favorites for sure
you can ignore the top dials completely if you want and operate it like a normal camera, it's kind of nice shooting in A, and being able to flip a switch to go to M at a specified shutter speed
a leather half case helps with the grip without being as bulky and heavy as the normal grips
nikonusa has refurbished for $1200 now

>>4376660
Pasm+dials is a bad design and the supposed world changing autofocus is slightly worse than a canon r6ii

I recommend avoiding nikon mirrorless. Their DSLRs had soul. Their mirrorless is a hard line between noisy high speed a9iiiii+huge gm lens stuff and entirely plastic budget junk, and then zf. Canon even has a professional apsc body, nikon is done with those days apparently. Canon fully supports every lens they made after fd, nikon dropped half of F mount when they decided the ftz didnt need to support af-d.

>>4376738
video shooters love that

>>4376780
>almost a 50% depreciation in less than a year
Imagine how people who spent over 2 grand on the zf feel about nikon USA selling it for $1200. Thats what nikon said a used zf is worth. $1200. Ouch. It was $2000 1 year ago. The a7iv, r6ii etc barely depreciated at all compared to that.

Even micro four thirds gear doesnt drop that hard.

>>4376830
out of stock now and some orders at least canceled, so probably an error
does seem odd see a camera possibly being a great deal, and turning that into a negative

>>4376660
big, heavy, terrible to hold, only upside is the dials feel extra nice.
>it's old-fashioned duh
sure but there were fine film cameras back in the days that had better grip and size to weight ratio than this shit like a-1 or even f3 had better grip.

>>4376856
>no you need to buy hypersharp gay master s line f1.0 prime with 31 elements in 11 groups (5 exotic hyper aspherical, 10 ultra low apochromatic dispersion, 3 polymerized with adrenochrome, 2 made in murano just to drive the price up)
>you can NOT just use a normal lens like what was good enough for 99% of photographic history and if you dont pay at least $500 for a tiny tube full of curved plastic you are poor
>and if you do it MUST have a weak plastic mount that leaves black dust in your shutter curtains to remind you that you’re doing cameras wrong and need to pursue sharpness wide open and maximum coma correction at f1.2
>-sent from my leased used iphone while driving a used 5 year old bmw 3 series with a fake ///M badge
peak SNOY, but its actually nikon. thank god im a canon chad so i can put any EF lens on my r5 and shoot like normal.

virgins: expensive lens, nice camera, totally souvlless
chads: nice camera for convenience, cheap lens for sovl

>>4376859
>canon better because i like my lenses to be specifically from early 1990's to mid 2000's
>who cares about anything older, and who cares about anything made in the last 15 years
sounds like the canon mindset

>>4376830
Who cares?
The only people that should be upset are those that didn't think it was worth $2,000 and, if it wasn't worth that to them, they shouldn't have bought it.

>>4376873
>mirrorless is only for CONSOOMING
Is this how nicucks cope with not having af-d support? Even sony supports screw drive lenses.

>>4376876
I sold my r6ii for $2100 a year after I bought it and got a used r5 for almost free

Can you say the same nikkor

>>4376660
>I've never owned a mirrorless camera before.
it's miserable, staring at the world through another screen. evf is the antithesis to creating photos.

>>4376896
snappiness tier opinion. -100 working hair follicles to you.

File: 1722684163316070.jpg (93 KB, 997x1074)

93 KB JPG

>>4376879
Canon price stability is insane. I sold my 70D for like 70% of the new price and that was 6 years in. Lenses can be a bit hit or miss depending on how popular they are, but I've bought all of my EF lenses used and I'm pretty sure I can sell it for just as much as I paid for it.

Niggon seems like the exclusivley big pro cameras stay stable and all the consoomerist crap falls to the side for cheap. Not saying Canon doesn't also have this problem, but not to the same degree.

>>4376920
i don't know what a snappiness is but enjoy your eye cancer

>>4376896
>>4377011
Are EVF really that bad?

>>4377054
They've gotten really good in the last couple years but it's damn hard to beat a good OVF, the feeling is just natural.
But i prefer a great EVF over a mediocre OVF because the former gives tons of final control, info and without blackout time.

>>4377054
EVF's can be great, lots more functionality and in some situations, better visibility too. Still prefer the experience of an rf OVF

will nikon ever have an entry level mirrorless with animal butthole AF like sony and canon? I'm happy with my z5 because I came from an old 35mm with no AF at all but it would be nice to have reliable eye AF and stuff

>>4377122
People generally seem quite happy with the subject detection AF in the latest generation of Nikons (z 6iii, f, 8, 9).

>>4376773
I find it more natural to first and foremost hold on to the lens with my left hand, instead of primarily holding up the camera with my right. Though I do that even with an Z9 with a 24-70 attached, so perhaps I'm a bit on my own there.

>>4377054
Nah. There are some kinda specific bad ones of course, but there's plenty of good ones too (part of why I went with a Zf instead of an A7C2 was how much better the EVF was). And let's face it, if you're not shooting film you're making a digital image anyway, may as well have a "proper" preview of that while you take it.

>>4377171
the ZF is such a poorly designed camera you can get them for $1200 on a lucky day ($1400-1600 normally)

Or if you wanted an uncomfortable 24mp cripple hammer victim you can get an a7c silver ver for $800. Throw a samyang 35mm f2.8 on and forget the lens comes off lest ye buy $1k in cheap korean and chinese primes.

>>4377166
The a7c/ii evf is a joke knowing how much better the a6700 is.

>>4376668
so I've went to a shop and tried it and HOLY FUCK what an awful camera lmao
why does it feel so cheap? why are the buttons and dials so flimsy? the dial locks feel like they'll break any moment and the menus are just an excel spreadsheet kek
>>4376896
holy fuck you were right
I've also tried the X-2HS, the R5 II and some high end snoy and ALL OF THEM sucked donkey ass

I'm gonna buy new DSLR and that's that.

>>4378153
>I'm gonna buy new DSLR and that's that.
Do you really think the menus are not similar? what a dumb fag you are if you expect them to be different, but you are totally spot on about the build quality, i couldn't believe how flimsy the D850 felt compared to the D700

>>4378154
I'm not buying Nikon DSLR.
I was willing to give them a chance with the new mirrorless cameras now that they are mainstream.
I've never owned a Nikon and it looks like I never will.

>>4376660
It's honestly one of the best cameras i've ever used!

It feels A LOT like a film camera, the metal, the leather, the buttons and dials feeling very solid and "noisy" like film camera dials (I have a Canon A-1), the AF is great, EVF is great, colours look pretty life like, if, a bit saturated, the B&W profile is excellent, very contrasty.

Recently used a Leica Q2, I can confidently say the Zf is one step below that one in build and useability, leica being IMO a 10/10.

As an added bonus, I think this is what people WISH Fuji cameras felt like, Fuji's are cool, but nowhere near this quality of construction.

>>4376660
The color science is pretty bad, but the auto white balance algorithm is very good, which most people confused for color science especially if they are a jpeg fag or vloggoid. Nikon's auto white balance is world fucking class and finds the perfect neutral for any scene with all sorts of wild lighting differences where sony and canon cameras would have problems overcorrecting in one direction or the other.

The actual colors under the AWB setting are wild and overly vibrant and garish in every primary, and fixing that is a huge waste of time unlike canon and sony, which actually have very good neutral colors under the AWB kind of sucking, and only need minor edits sometimes (shifting canon reds less orange and sony reds less magenta). hence all nikon photos look like kenrockwell.com. Nikon has, by far, the worst color science and its due to the loud voices of jpeg shooters and videofags that you have been convinced otherwise. Nikons always need you to fix caucasian skin in post.

>>4378574
I do have to say that yeah, the normal colours reminded me of Fuji Velvia film sim, I didn't shoot people, just landscape while trying out the ZF, and edited some wedding photos, I think you're a bit over exaggerating it, literally -10 sat and -5 vibrancy got rid of this color "issue".

Skin tones aside from that are perfect.

>>4378566
The shutter dial is wobly as fuck
The button for the lens release same as
The dials are nice, but the button is only for realese and can't keep the dial in any position I want it to - stupid
The lever for A/S/M... is low quality

Sure the body is built like a tank, but other than that I wouldn't say it top Tier at all.

>>4378585
hes right you know
desaturated nikon looks worse than pentax or olympus color

sony unironically has good colors, and bad firmware, at least on the a7c, a7, a7r, and a7iv if you avoid sigma and tamron lenses and stick to za, g, and gm glass. no one ever mentions how ass third party lenses are for color rendition. or that sony cripples ibis with third party lenses. for not worrying simply shoot canon ef+rf for beautiful color and flawless camera function every time.

>>4378596
>The dials are nice, but the button is only for realese and can't keep the dial in any position I want it to - stupid
What do you mean by this? Does the button not lock the dial at whatever position you leave it, and if so from which position does the button release the dial from?

>>4378596
The threaded shutter button doesnt work with a cable release so nikon can sell more proprietary accessories. Peak poser camera design.

>>4378600
I sold mine, so afair - the ISO dial only locks in C - if you want to lock it on any ISO value, well you can not do that.

Shutter speed locks in 1/3 Step, X, T, and B and wont lock on any value.

Fuji did that better. Any value can be locked there with press/release of the button. The button auto-locks as I described it and wont lock any other setting.
Which is just retarded.

>>4376660
>Redpill me on the Nikon Zf.
its not good

>>4378612
That's pretty dumb. I can kind of understand the reasoning if you're constantly adjusting a setting, not having to hold down the button every time, but in that case they should just make it a toggle lock. Also you're less likely to be constantly adjusting shutter speed and ISO compared to the aperture so you're more likely to want to lock them in.

To be honest having dedicated shutter speed and ISO dials is just a dumb choice to begin with, if you value shit like ease of use, efficiency, etc. It's purely for the film era aesthetic.

>>4378655
>It's purely for the film era aesthetic.

That sums it up nicely. I am not so good with the english, as you may have figured, but yeah - toggle lock would be the way to go. Anything else doesnt add to the workflow.
Fuji does the toggle lock with its dials, which is good.

Toggle Dial on the Zf is none existant, and I proly didnt make it clear- on any other setting you just browse through. No need to push the button, because the button doesnt do shit on any other setting that Ive mentioned

>>4378612
>>4378667
So, like film cameras?

>>4378596
Hard disagree on all of those

>>4378195
You talk like a fag and your shit is all retarded

>>4376660
Quick question for Nikonfags, was there anyway to use the back buttons to release the shutter or no?
>>4377192
I bought my blue ZF for 1200 brand new from a lady who didn't intend to use it lol. Extremely lucky for that.

>>4378845
>oh no I don't like a big brand with flimsy quality and retarded user experience
>u such a faggot consume the newest thing!
pottery

>>4378655
>>4378667
Well, if that's a major complaint then I guess it must be a pretty damn good camera by and large.

>>4378601
it's the year of our lord 2024, just use your fucking phone to trigger the shutter

Since there's apparently a few users in this thread, help me with something that I can't seem to figure out from the reference manual. Can I use the iso dial to set a maximum allowable iso, with the camera setting the iso automatically to the appropriate value UP TO the number selected on the dial?

>>4379550
You can, but it only works in M.
Set the maximum ISO on Auto ISO Setting to 200 - from now on the camera will pick any value between 200 and your Dial-set ISO Value automatically.

You can work similiar, but not as easily, on A setting - but the adjusted value via the Dial will now be the used ISO value. So if the ISO is set to a too high value, the camera will just pump up the shutter speed.

>>4379630
On A, it becomes a target ISO. So if you set it to like 400, it can drop lower, but will only do so to maintain exposure if you're already maxed out on shutter speed.

>>4379550
Auto ISO control on the Zf is just bad. Just use the dial for static ISO values, or C for static and auto.

>>4379659
>maxed out on shutter speed

And that's just another retarded "feature".

Technicaly it's a great camera, usability vice not so much. msg2n