Z9 photo thread

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

ElenaH

Well-known member
Supporting Member
@simo , @PhilM , @thelordofthelight , @Lance B
I looked at your shots and it looks for me that 600FL or 600F4E, 500F4 (posts #57 second shot, #60, #78) brings more dimensionality? Or am I paranoid?
The pictures of @Lance B with 100-400+teleconverters are extremely sharp and have a lot of details but FL or F-mount lenses bring more plasticity. It can be caused of course, by aperture but the colours, dark and light tones are introduced differently, more deeper. The look is more analog. The tone-separation is different.
Perhaps, I am just paranoid and see ghosts.
What is your opinion?
 

PhilM

Well-known member
Supporting Member
WOW what HORRIBLE quality LOL :p😆🤪 just kidding of course. Isn't it amazing how much better the mirrorless bodies are with a tele vs a DSLR. Yet another advantage of mirrorless that most don't even consider.
Lol!!! You're right.

I've been enjoying this phenomenon for the last couple years with various Z bodies. Heck, I very rarely got a "good" shot with a 2x on any of my DSLR's. Even adapted, all of the Z bodies I've used (from Z50 to Z9) deliver superior images with TC's (including the 2x) as compared to my DSLR's with the same lenses.
 
Last edited:

PhilM

Well-known member
Supporting Member
@simo , @PhilM , @thelordofthelight , @Lance B
I looked at your shots and it looks for me that 600FL or 600F4E, 500F4 (posts #57 second shot, #60, #78) brings more dimensionality? Or am I paranoid?
The pictures of @Lance B with 100-400+teleconverters are extremely sharp and have a lot of details but FL or F-mount lenses bring more plasticity. It can be caused of course, by aperture but the colours, dark and light tones are introduced differently, more deeper. The look is more analog. The tone-separation is different.
Perhaps, I am just paranoid and see ghosts.
What is your opinion?
Hi Elena.

I've never heard "plasticity" used in regard to evaluating an image. I just looked it up to see if there was a definition other than I am familiar with that would make sense to me. Are you saying that some of the images you are comparing appear deformed?

My photo (#57, 2nd shot) was with the Z100-400S, with a 2XTC. #57, 3rd shot was with a 600F4E + 2xTC.

Clearly different lenses offer different "looks & feels", but so do environmental aspects of the image, like BG distance from subject vs. camera, color & contrast, light, and the overall scene in general.

I own and enjoy both.
 

ElenaH

Well-known member
Supporting Member
@PhilM , I obviously used the wrong term in not native language. We sometimes say in German "plasticity" in photography meaning how the lens "drawing" the picture and how the objects appear. So, the appear more dimensional, rounded, standing out. You want to starch the hand into the picture and touch the object.
Nothing is deformed, Phil. Except my English 😂
The lenses render differently. And to be honest I like the F-mount lenses on z9 more... If it is only because of aperture - I don't know.
 

Lance B

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Did you add background blur in post? The background separation is excellent considering f9 aperture.
No, these are as they are. In the first image, it was without the TC and I was quite close to the bird, maybe 5-6mts at a guess. 2, 3, & 4 they were a good distance away and I had to crop, but the background was a fair way behind them also. Image 6, the pelican was closer but I was looking downward a bit. Image 7 the trees behind were a good 30mts away. Image 8, the bird was sitting in the same spot as image #1 so, quite close giving limited DOF even at f9. Image 10 & 11 the birds were a fair distance off, maybe 20mts and the backgrounds a good distance behind them also.
 

Lance B

Well-known member
Supporting Member
@simo , @PhilM , @thelordofthelight , @Lance B
I looked at your shots and it looks for me that 600FL or 600F4E, 500F4 (posts #57 second shot, #60, #78) brings more dimensionality? Or am I paranoid?
The pictures of @Lance B with 100-400+teleconverters are extremely sharp and have a lot of details but FL or F-mount lenses bring more plasticity. It can be caused of course, by aperture but the colours, dark and light tones are introduced differently, more deeper. The look is more analog. The tone-separation is different.
Perhaps, I am just paranoid and see ghosts.
What is your opinion?
Interesting thoughts, Elena.

In my examples with the 100-400 + 1.4x TC, they were shot on an overcast grey day and with birds with little colouring. As Phil says, I think there are other aspects that may need to be taken into consideration - light, BG, post processing etc. I would say that the primes like the 600E, 500 PF, 400f2.8 etc are likely to offer better contrast and colour, but it is difficult to make judgement without back to back comparison.
 

sid_19911991

Well-known member
No, these are as they are. In the first image, it was without the TC and I was quite close to the bird, maybe 5-6mts at a guess. 2, 3, & 4 they were a good distance away and I had to crop, but the background was a fair way behind them also. Image 6, the pelican was closer but I was looking downward a bit. Image 7 the trees behind were a good 30mts away. Image 8, the bird was sitting in the same spot as image #1 so, quite close giving limited DOF even at f9. Image 10 & 11 the birds were a fair distance off, maybe 20mts and the backgrounds a good distance behind them also.
Nice. They all look pleasing to the eye...
 

simo

Active member
@simo , @PhilM , @thelordofthelight , @Lance B
I looked at your shots and it looks for me that 600FL or 600F4E, 500F4 (posts #57 second shot, #60, #78) brings more dimensionality? Or am I paranoid?
The pictures of @Lance B with 100-400+teleconverters are extremely sharp and have a lot of details but FL or F-mount lenses bring more plasticity. It can be caused of course, by aperture but the colours, dark and light tones are introduced differently, more deeper. The look is more analog. The tone-separation is different.
Perhaps, I am just paranoid and see ghosts.
What is your opinion?
Helenah , if I tell you that I bought deliberately , probably, the last ever 600 F mount Nikon produced, will you believe me? I'm sure you will.
One of the reason is that I want to buy again in the close future the d850, so i want be able to use it on that camera, because as you said, the look of the two combined will have the analog look you mentioned (if I could use low Iso and no need to crop I'd prefer a d700).
Another reason is that these new systems camera/lenses are crazy sharp, fast, no vignetting atc etc, but I find them so "cold". And I was worried to wait for the Z 600mm and have the same feeling.
So, you are not paranoid at all. Actually if you are, I'm happy to be too. And cheers to the ghosts :)

Simone
 

sid_19911991

Well-known member
FX , I crop in editing, never used in DX a full frame. Especially now that the AF point are usable all the frame, but even in the past I prefer edit after

Hmmm...but does the crop mode help with more background seperation & pop?
 

simo

Active member
Hmmm...but does the crop mode help with more background seperation & pop?
no , it doesn't . What you see in the full frame is what you get. You are probably talking of magnification of an area. That would probably icrease you're perception because you are more focused to see close, but there in no physic improvement on the sensor capture.
 

sid_19911991

Well-known member
no , it doesn't . What you see in the full frame is what you get. You are probably talking of magnification of an area. That would probably icrease you're perception because you are more focused to see close, but there in no physic improvement on the sensor capture.
Hmmm...good to know...
 

dtibbals

Well-known member
Supporting Member
India. You may have heard of Bangalore!? The city with the worst traffic jams. Now there are some data points supporting the claim. :D
I’d love to visit! Idk I think Dallas TX might give you a run for your money on traffic lol but I live 37 miles out in the country :) no traffic for me!
 

sid_19911991

Well-known member
I’d love to visit! Idk I think Dallas TX might give you a run for your money on traffic lol but I live 37 miles out in the country :) no traffic for me!
It is awesome that you live in the countryside near Texas. Semi arid landscapes are my favourite.

Yes, you should visit India sometime. Quite a few wildlife hotspots to check out.

Here is a bucket list of species you could photograph which are not present in 'most' parts of the world!

1) Snow leopard
2) Clouded leopard
3) Black panther
4) Tiger
5) Narcondam hornbill.

Haha, no way. Just to give you a perpective, those Tesla autonomous cars won't work in India as the traffic here is quite intense & variable. Population density here is 5 times more than in China.
 

dtibbals

Well-known member
Supporting Member
It is awesome that you live in the countryside near Texas. Semi arid landscapes are my favourite.

Yes, you should visit India sometime. Quite a few wildlife hotspots to check out.

Here is a bucket list of species you could photograph which are not present in 'most' parts of the world!

1) Snow leopard
2) Clouded leopard
3) Black panther
4) Tiger
5) Narcondam hornbill.

Haha, no way. Just to give you a perpective, those Tesla autonomous cars won't work in India as the traffic here is quite intense & variable. Population density here is 5 times more than in China.
Wow I could use a tour guide!!!
 

John Woodworth

Active member
Supporting Member
It is awesome that you live in the countryside near Texas. Semi arid landscapes are my favourite.

Yes, you should visit India sometime. Quite a few wildlife hotspots to check out.

Here is a bucket list of species you could photograph which are not present in 'most' parts of the world!

1) Snow leopard
2) Clouded leopard
3) Black panther
4) Tiger
5) Narcondam hornbill.

Haha, no way. Just to give you a perpective, those Tesla autonomous cars won't work in India as the traffic here is quite intense & variable. Population density here is 5 times more than in China.
Sid, Have you seen a Snow Leopard? To photograph one would be awesome!
 

thelordofthelight

Well-known member
@John Woodworth , I have seen and photographed one and it's by far the most memorable and challenging expeditions I've been part of. What makes it amazing is the whole experience end to end. First off, these are extremely rare animals to even spot and in summer season, you generally don't find them on areas that humans can approach as they stay at really crazy altitudes but during the winter, they do come down to slightly lower altitudes, which itself is physically and mentally exhausting for us. There are no high end resorts with top facilities as the government wants to keep that place real wild so there are just these eco friendly home stays. So you get to stay at local villages (about 10-15 local homes) and hosting tourists is their source of income too. Few folks in our group had altitude sickness and had to go back to the base. For me it took about 2 days to get acclimatized but in the end it was all worth the effort (it went upto -50 degrees celcius) . I spent about 11 days at Himalayas and had 2 opportunities. First one was just a glimpse with no photo opportunities but the second one gave us a 10 minute window where the snow leopard just kept walking along the ridge of a mountain. It was quite far even with a 900mm equivalent field of view but I got some decent record images showing the habitat ( I was using a D500 with a 300mm f2.8 and a 2X TC). I will probably post a couple of images on the image threads.

Sid, Have you seen a Snow Leopard? To photograph one would be awesome!
 
Top