Castorp

Aye that Moments video looks really good.

Out of the APSC cameras in this price range the Z50 certainly looks like the best to me. The Z50 seems well built and the sealing is supposed to be good. I like how the grip, buttons and control wheels are executed. That kit lens is tiny and the perfect travel lens. The main problem is the lack of lenses. (But what new camera system has a lot of lenses?) Nikon should have made a DX 23 or 35mm f1.8 lens for the launch. I am excited about the announced 28mm and 40mm “compact primes”. Seeing that they are not S line lenses they should be affordable. Probably pancakes, they will be perfect for the Z50 as well as the full frame Z cameras. I can see myself adding a Z50 in a couple years with one of those pancakes as a throw around travel camera. I hope the cheaper and smaller Z30 is still magnesium and with two control wheels but leaves out the viewfinder and flip screen to cut cost and size.That and the 28mm pancake would be a dream.

I don’t know if I would say Canon are stupid. Or Nikon or Sony or Panasonic or any other.These are very big companies consisting of large amounts of people that make a lot of effort when planning these products. Its more funny to me actually that there is a culture of online behaviour (mostly the big youtubers) of single persons that believe they better understand the market than for example Canon, that no doubt make extensive market research and have a large number of pros come with input. I mean, why don’t you apply for a job at Canon? Since they’re so incompetent I mean.

What’s up with all the Canon hate? Getting a bit old no? Personally I feel the obsession with 24p echoes of the colour/black and white discussion of the 20th century. “Real photos are black and white” and so on. Resistance towards colour photography was alive and well into the 1980’s. Thing is, my eyes see in colour. I see the world in colour. Likewise, I don’t see the world in 24 frames per second. My vision updates many times faster than that. More like 240fps. Not that lens based media necessarily is about mimicking the real world. But IT IS a recording medium, and just as I often want a microphone to be as transparent as possible, I like when the image recording is similarly transparent. The 24p thing is a tradition. It’s a habit. It’s an aesthetic. Aesthetic norms always evolve. And so they should. Of course it’s preferable if 24p is available forever, just like film or any quality or other medium. But the notion of “what!?!? No 24p hahahaha” as it it was water we are talking about is a bit short sighted and ironic among creatives.

Looks great Geoff. Wolfcrow’s settings?

I think the colour pics are really great. As all the other photographs there. Good to see someone review these things who is actually a good photographer. How is it that whenever anyone posts anything positive in a Nikon or Canon thread you have immediately shoot it down webrunner5?

https://alikgriffin.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8-s-lens-review-sample-photos/ Finally a review which mirrors my own experience with the Z system so far and especially the 50/1.8S.

Lee Varis shows at 06:18 why good colour, in this case good jpegs, can be important. The raw doesn’t necessarily give you any clues to what is possible. How can you edit for what you don’t know is there? Same goes for good colour camera vs a bad one. Sure you can edit for anything, but without reference it’s difficult. It’s not only about the time it takes to move a slider but also which slider and what to do with it. I keep coming back to this video.

Canon sometimes isn’t the best for landscapes. There’s a focus on skin tones that sometimes take the oomph out of greens and blues. I find Fujifilm and Nikon to have a great balance overall, all subject matters considered. The Panasonic S1 looks fantastic. Every time I look at jpegs from Olympus OMD camera’s I come away impressed. Olympus colour is underrated.

The “you can make any colour from raw” argument doesn’t make sense. For example it is easier to edit a raw file from a Nikon Df than a raw file from a Nikon Z6 because the former has better colour raw files (jpegs different story). Colour starting point matters.

I wouldn’t call it the best camera for stills. I’d still rather use the Nikon Z7 or Panasonic S1R. Or even the EOS R. It’s not all about resolution. I’d rather have the colours of a Nikon or Canon. Ergonomics and reliability are important. I’d love to have that much resolution for prints but there are other things equally important.

Cheers, then we leave it there and I don't have to waste my time either explaining to gethin or others why I bothered with the sidetrack of editorial integrity. Back to lenses. I am primarily a stills photographer that sometimes work with video. I make very large prints for walls and/or publications. My knowledge and experience in photography is substantial. My knowledge and experience in video is limited. When considering the development of where lenses for still cameras (that can shoot video) are going the trend seems pretty clear. The large and heavy Otus lenses, the large and heavy but less expensive Sigma Art lenses, the Tokina Opera lenses as well as the lenses released for the Leica SL and for the Panasonic S1. Highly corrected optics that render incredible amounts of detail only necessary for prints or heavy cropping. In my experience, a sharp lens is as important as the sensor for large prints. I'm not a fan of the huge and heavy 1.4 lenses from Sony, Panasonic, Leica or the Canon RF 1.2 or the upcoming Nikkor 1.2. Not for general use. Sure I would have use for them in some situations, just as I would with a tilt shift lens or a telephoto, but for general use? No. A single focal length prime weighing around 800 grams or more is a specialised lens. As a much longed for contrast to the enormous and expensive 50mm 1.4 lenses we have the excellent Zeiss Batis line, the f2 series for Leica SL, and the Nikkor S 1.8 primes and compact zooms. Smaller, lighter and less expensive but without compromising optical quality. They're typically around 400 grams or lighter, while also being far less expensive and smaller. The Nikkor 50/1.8S is nothing short of a game changer. It's Zeiss Otus level optics for 600$! I've made prints from the 50mm 1.8G, the 50mm 1.8D and a bunch of manual fokus Nikkors, especially the excellent 55mm 2.8 micro ais. Stop the G lens down to 5.6 and its still not even close, the corners never catch up. The 55 micro has good sharpness across the image plane but not as good as the 50S. I can comfortably work at f2 with the S lens and still outperform older Nikons. There is no comparison. This would be remarkable enough, but then I also get top level weather-sealing, silent and fast autofocus, practical build with high grade plastics and build quality that puts Fujifilm to shame. Certainly better than the D lenses and personally I prefer them to G. The 50S is 400$ cheaper than the comparable Sony 55 f1.8 but the Nikkor is the better lens. The only other lenses I can think of in the same size class is the Batis 40mm f2 and the Leica SL 50mm f2, both quite a bit more expensive. The cheaper Sony 50mm is not on the same playing field at all. Neither the older Nikon 50's. It's laughable when I keep reading you can buy the 50 1.8G for 200$. Yeah? It's a crap lens in comparison. Doesn't mean its useless, just means it's not comparable and in my opinion the 50S offers far better value for money too. More or less the same is true for the 24-70/2.8S and the 35/1.8S. The 24-70/2.8S is apparently amazing while the 14-30/4 stomps all over the old 16-35/4G while being practical and small. For this reason, the optical performance together with the small size, low cost and practical features in comparison with other modern lenses, the S lenses are the best reason to buy a Z camera. There is not one bad lens (contrast with early Sony years). Over half a year in and I'm still ecstatic with what I get from these lenses. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy or want lenses with "magic sauce" or character. But there's endless lenses I can adapt to get that. I don't wan't my main workhorse lenses to have quirks. They should be as sharp as possible, with as little distortion as possible, to produce an image that is as transparent as possible, and that allows me to do anything from an instagram post to 1.5 meter wide prints. So the statement that S lenses aren't good I don't understand. I agree that non-linear electronic focus is a huge pain, but otherwise I'm not sure. I love using my 500CM which puts the haptic experience of any contemporary camera except Leica to sorry shame. The S lenses don't have head-line making specs like the RF glass. But for me, and I think for many, the S lenses are a lot more practical, offering similar or better optics at a much lower cost, weight and size. All of these modern lenses and sensors are extreme overkill for screen and social media use. All the manufacturers should release small and light lenses for 200-500$ that would be good enough for a lot of things.

I think what I wrote is crystal clear. But if not I am more than happy to clarify via PM. Have a good day.

I think it is fair to have opinion on any sizeable publication yes. You don’t agree? You believe that publications are not accountable to their readers? I would argue a good but critical relationship between a publication and it’s audience builds trust and creates a positive loop for both parties in the end. I make a difference between Andrew the EOSHD publisher and Andrew the forum member. I am curious to the opinion of both but I just like to know who is talking at which time and what the perspective is, so I can better understand what’s written. That’s all. Anthropomorphising a publication is a mistake.

Gethin, make an A2 inch print from that zhongyi and one from any of the Z lenses and see what happens. I don’t have the 14-30/4 but I hear it’s more than comparable to the 14-24/2.8G? I will get back to Andrew later. I understand his perspective, but it’s a niche perspective which he doesn’t specify. He cares about very specific things, which is fine, but a reviewers viewpoint should be clear and not be made to sound like a general matter of fact. On the other hand, generalising and simplistic statements that stir emotions through dishonesty for the sake of clicks is the name of the game these days.