Castorp

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.

A quick check on cameranu.nl In the Netherlands the Z6 kit with 24-70 and adapter is 2900€. The difference from when I bought it is 150€. Right now there is a 400€ cashback deal on the Z6 with lens and adapter. Marketing would be my guess. The Z6 body alone is 1999€.

A sale doesn’t necessarily mean a camera isn’t selling. It can also be aggressive marketing. Just like Canon practically were giving away cameras in the 90’s, not because they weren’t selling, but to gain market share. Nikon got a lot of flak for not marketing. Now they’re getting flak for marketing. Sony is in a good place since they have an established system already. Canon is the market leader. Both have less incentive than Nikon to market hard. Or perhaps Nikon aren’t selling? Who knows. Fujifilm have been doing regular sales for the past years despite doing well for example. Giving away free software updates is another example of marketing. A software engineer isn’t any less costly than a hardware engineer per hour. Sony were eating huge costs during the first years of the A7. New models were released constantly and the price of the “old” models were reduced. Meanwhile Nikon were selling the D750 and Canon the 6D for years with better profit and returns on investment. I don’t see Nikon’s marketing now being necessarily different from Sony’s marketing a couple years ago. The only conclusion is that I don’t know. Unless a person has extensive education and experience in the relevant field of economics, and good connections with manufacturers I don’t think they have a clue either.

“Of the Z lenses I have the 35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8 and 24-70mm F4 – all of which cost me far too much money, only for them to be discounted almost to half price just a few months later.” Where can I find the 35/1.8S for half price? I will buy it immediately. Thank You Also Andrew, you keep saying how much you dislike the Z glass without making an argument for why they don’t work for you. It makes it difficult to take you seriously. I’m curious to hear why. Had I held off I could have bought the superior Z7 for almost the same money as my Z6 but I fail to see how this is Nikon’s fault? Early adopters often pay that price whichever the type of product. I fail to see how aggressive discounts (from all the manufacturers btw) in the face of a quickly shrinking market would not make sense? I disagree with you regarding the Z lenses. Great value for money. Better built than G or D lenses. Better put together than any Fuji X mount I had. The XF lenses may be metal on the outside but with far lesser tolerances, wobbling barrel on the 16-55/2.8 and slightly loose bayonet fitting on all lenses except the 50mm f2. I don’t think high quality plastics is a bad thing. It’s more practical in cold weather and often deals with impact better. Not to mention lower weight. The control ring has perfect resistance on all the Z lenses I have and the optics are better than anything I’ve ever seen. The choice to first release superlative quality F1.8 primes is more practical to most than what Canon has done. Super speed exotic heavy specialist glass with far fewer use cases, even if they do make for more exciting news it’s true. Theres nothing as good at the price or compactness as the 24-70/4S out there, the 14-30/4S is unique and optically on even footing with the twice heavy 14-24G. The new 2.8 zoom is supposed to be incredible. The primes so far are both spectacular. They’re quiet, fast and has what looks to be the best weather sealing out there (just look at the design of the seal at the base of the lens, I’ve never seen that construction before and it’s a much better design than just the rubber gasket you find on everything else). No focus breathing or other weird focusing behaviour. Almost no aberrations and no coma Extremely sharp with good rendering and neutral colour. Lens control ring awesome for exposure compensation or step-less aperture control. For sure it’s not like an old charming Sonnar, but I don’t need my standard glass to be full of “character”, I want it to be as neutral, sharp and true to the world as possible. The only problem I see is the lack of a setting for linear focus behaviour of the focus ring. And that the lens line is still small. But what we have so far is arguably the correct order of release for most. As of today the single best reason to buy a Z camera I believe is the lenses.

Tbh the Fujifilm cameras feel like toys compared to the X1D. Very clear when you handle both next to each other. The build quality of the Fuji isn't even close. Of course, if all we ever want to discuss is paper specs then it doesn't look so good. As I see it the Hasselblad is something you buy because you appreciate the experience of it all, as well as the picture quality (nobody beats Hasselblad colours).