fulltimewanderer
Active member
Like several above standing pat with my D4, D500, and D850 they still do what I need and enjoy. What the future brings who knows.
Z9 Second Thoughts
- Thread starter Whiskeyman
- Start date
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).
John Navitsky
Well-known member
It doesn't of course. But Whiskeyman asked it in the context of evaluating choices. If you're weighing options, understanding the problem you are trying to solve and how the gear solves or doesn't solve that problem helps with making the "best" choice.
But totally, it's perfectly fine to do something just because you want to.
I agree. I went from D810 to Z7ii for Silent Shutter (for BTS video shoots) and IBIS, both of which excluded the D850 for me.
Now going to the Z9 for better subject detect and tracking, and for high frame rate to shoot dance and aerobatics.
And, because I want to.
I was reminded how great the D810 was on the weekend. I used it to shoot a damaged and precious photo for restoration with Photochop. Don't have the Z macros yet
so used my D-drive macro on the D810. In terms of sheer image quality, the 810 does just fine and was in no way a factor for me in moving on.Hooch
New member
Okay, I'm wrong. Wrapped a shoot today with the D850, took my D3 out into the woods to photograph critters...WOW, wish I had the D850. The D3 was sharp, decisive, fast...everything you'd want for wildlife. However, obviously, the D850 simply handles the highlights much better. Don't get me wrong, the D3 held the detail it's just that it had that "peachy" digital feel. My point? New technology will almost certainly do something, if not many things, significantly better. Embrace the Z9!
I enjoy shooting wildlife, especially birds, and especially raptors, and all of them in flight. As it is, I expect the Z9 to help improve my keeper rate, which suffers from my inability to keep the camera on a small area of the subject, especially when shooting from a boat. I'm hoping the Z9 Eye-AF is good enough to solve my issues with capturing sharp wingtips and slightly OOF eyes on the larger birds, like eagles. For this shooting, any improvement in AF performance can lead to a marked improvement in success.
I'd use the 200mm f2 in portrait photography, which I enjoy less but can bring in a bit of cash to help pay for, and somewhat justify, my gear. I have no illusions about making a living as a professional photographer in today's market. I'd just like to have the tools to get a little bit of return.
When it comes down to it, I can get most of what I want from the lens in photoshop, but can't get what I'd get from the Z9 in the same, or Topaz software, either.
I've decided to press on with the Z9 order after all of the responses to my initial post. If there are as many rational responses to do so as there are here, I should put any doubts about purchasing the Z9, as soon as I can, aside and learn to use and enjoy the camera when it arrives.
Thanks to all for your prior, and any further, inputs to my OP.
Last edited:
I don't have a dog in this hunt either since the Z9 ain't for me…not interested in a body with a built in grip. But even through it hasn't shipped yet…enough smart people have used pre prod models that any show stoppers would have shown up. There's a lot to be said for getting glass over body if only one is possible…but in today's rapid shift to the Z mount I would hesitate to buy any F mount glass except the 500PF that I already have…I also have the Z 70-200/2.8 and it's pretty darned out standing and while it isn't f2 it's 2.8 which is getting pretty close bokeh wise. Since I got my Z7II…the only F mount lens I've used is the 500PF…everything else is sitting in the 'hardly ever used' bag in the closet.
Roy
Well-known member
I have the same concern - after waiting for the Z8 for so long, I just got desperate.
You make a very good point about purchasing F-Mount lenses, Neil. At least Nikon was good enough to design and build the FTZ converters for those of us who have full F-Mount lens stables.
Eddietheone
Member
No problem keep on the list and when you have it and used it if you don't like it then sell it. I reckon you will sell it for at least what you paid if not a little more as their are many people who want one and it will be several months before all orders are fulfilled.
This is a very interesting thread ... I'm thrilled with the demonstrated capabilities of the Z9 but as an amateur I question whether to make the expenditure. It's bigger and heavier than I like. But I'm hoping it will give me incentive to go out to shoot birds and other wildlife more often - as I did pre-Covid. So I'm on the wait list at 3 different stores including my small local shop. And I keep telling my wife I may not buy it if and when the opportunity arises. As time passes, and as an amateur I assume it will be quite a while before my name pops up on any list, perhaps my ardor will cool or common sense will overrule ardor. In the meantime I will try to learn how best to use my Z7II for wildlife, BIF, macro and landscape. It's a lengthy learning process for someone who doesn't get out on a daily basis.
AnnetteJane
Active member
I called my local store and they couldnt tell me how many they were getting or when they were getting them either. Waiting exitedly . I'm number 11 of 19 though..hoping others here have second thoughts and move me up the list !
Rustic land
Well-known member
Always and I mean always better glass first.
O
Well-known member
This forum is better than the Bold and the Beautiful LOL
RugglesZ9
Member
If I worked in a studio all day, I'd have kept my D3, or maybe the D800. But I don't, like most on this forum.
And I don't see Nikon coming up with a better, cheaper replacement for the z9 in the next year. One isn't even rumored, although I have to assume they jumped the z8 for a reason [although it is as likely that when pronounced in some language "z7" means "hyena poop]." And maybe Nikon would remove a feature or two I'd want to have. The z9 will last me the rest of my shooting life, with a z7 as a backup body or to shoot landscapes.
And I don't see Nikon coming up with a better, cheaper replacement for the z9 in the next year. One isn't even rumored, although I have to assume they jumped the z8 for a reason [although it is as likely that when pronounced in some language "z7" means "hyena poop]." And maybe Nikon would remove a feature or two I'd want to have. The z9 will last me the rest of my shooting life, with a z7 as a backup body or to shoot landscapes.
Last edited:
RugglesZ9
Member
I'm sure Thom's 1000 page book on the z9 will have at least a dozen suggestions and pet peeves. But he does the same for everyone.
O
Well-known member
Agree and Nikon will work around them.......
My wall of thoughts are yes get the Z9 see what it dose for me.........love it or hate it.........
the bigger issue is am i prepared to invest in a collection of new Z glass going forward the price tag of that is massive.
Those who have bought or ordered a Z9 obviously will spend a fortune or make a commitment to buying Z glass, and now here is the Kicker
Like a printer to buy is nothing the cost of toner is what hurts you,
The Z9 is a good buy but the glass is what will hurt you, well for most.
The trap has been set..........ouch see below you will need $30-35K for glass less you old stuff.
NIKON 120-300 zoom B and H ........................ USD $9,496.95 What The Hell !!!!!!!!!! and its not a perfect lens............
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Nikon F $3,599
Add to this a 24-70, 70-200, 600 f4, = USD $21,000 add the 120-300 and the Z9 hello USD $30,000
Once the Z9 starts delivery fully, used cameras and FX glass will fall in value as lots of people will want to sell quickly to buy the new glass to do justice to the Z9 performance, all this to get slightly better images if at all of action to view on your phone I Pad lap top or desk top...........or look at on your web site.............sounds great and like a lot of fun.........cant wait cheque is in the mail Nikon...........
I've been on hold with going mirrorless due to the lens issue and the poor action related AF of Z bodies in general but particularly with adapted F mount glass. I toyed with the idea of getting a Sony A1 and 200-600mm to see how that went. Even when Z9 was announced I was up in the air assuming a swap of lens inventory would be necessary. But now there's been enough info that has come out to show that the adapted F mount glass isn't/hasn't been the problem with AF performance on Z bodies. It's the bodies themselves. Looks like the Z9 does just fine on F mount glass. Realistically even when the new 400mm and 600mm come out I know I'll never allow myself to buy one. But with a used 600E as a viable option the Z9 is looking a lot more enticing.
Already unloaded my D6 and D500 now using D850 waiting for Z9. Right now plan on using 850 for second body but will see how it goes with the Z9 ... 850 could get replaced.
O
Well-known member
Right behind you on this one............. except i will keep the D850 for holidays or traveling or landscape, it can photo stack, the 105 2.8 macro is stunning for doing that.........
I will be keeping the FX gear 16mm fish eye, 14-24, 24-70. 70-200 fl, 200-500, 2 ziess lenses 2x D850...........
Unless i can get really qualified lap times on the Z9 its on e bay mate...........if i can push the Z9 to 11/10ths or red line it all day i will then consider 1 or 2 selective Z lenses, but on principal never the 120-300 that's just a gouge like the small noct............
Last edited:
John Navitsky
Well-known member
fcotterill
Well-known member
yes besides +ve reviews by Brad Hill and others, Roger Cicala and Co compared mtf performance - at 300 the f2.8 zoom outperforms the 300 f2.8G VRII
A Peek Inside the AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8 FL ED SR VR
We've wanted to look inside the Nikkor AF-S 120-300mm f/2.8 FL ED SR VR lens. When we took apart a Z lens recently, we found Nikon had moved on from their 'classic' internal optomechanical and electrical design for a neat, modern design. We were interested to see if newer F lenses would pick...
www.lensrentals.com
"... First, like every law, Roger’s Law that Zooms Are Never as Good as Primes has at least one very expensive exception. At one of its focal lengths. This zoom is ‘prime good’ at 300mm.
Second, we learned that the Nikkor AF-S 120-300mm f/2.8 lens is spectacularly good optically, particularly at the long end, which is probably the most important place to be spectacularly good optically....."
Backdoor Arts
Well-known member
Spoke with someone who had a chance to briefly hold one a week or so ago. Their single comment was that they were surprised at how heavy it was compared to other mirrorless bodies. For anyone coming off of a DSLR that might not be a big deal, but it's 12oz. heavier than the R3, which I know has half the MPs, but it's the only other ergonomically similar mirrorless body which is why I bring it up, and the A1 with a grip is about the same as the R3.
O
Well-known member
From my perspective The 120-300 2.8 MTF tests by
Roger Cicala show as follows.............
MTF by Focal Length
"Again, I want to remind you this is just one lens. Whether other copies will behave this way, I have no clue yet. This one is great at 300mm, not so great at 200mm, and really good at 120mm, although not quite as good as at 300mm".
For $10K its offensive, for that kind of money it should be pristine from 120 to 300.
Its easy to get dust in the lens as it pumps/sucks air as it was the case in this sample.
Its much heavier, seriously more complicated internally with so many more moving parts that can be variable in performance at different focal lengths.
If you tune it using the chart on a tri pod you have to zoom in and out so many times to set the average adjustment right, next time you use the lens the adjustments often need tweaking again, this is common with zooms you have to choose an average setting.
So for $10k USD you get far from perfect performance at 200 mm and some compromise at 120mm the most reliable is 300mm, its felt the 120-300 is a little sharper in the center but not in the outer areas for $10k what good is that.
This lens is an insult because of the price for what it dose.
The 300 2.8 VR II at nearly half the price $5500 USD versus $10,000 USD doesn't pump or suck air or dust, it has a sacrificial front element, its dead simple in construction, far lighter, and is very sharp in the center as well the outer edges which is much more usable..........
I am not defending the 300 2.8 vr II just pointing out that while the 120-300 is excellent optically IN PARTS but mostly at 300mm, for twice the price its offensive, and the shift from 120 to 300 is not such a big deal.
Only an opinion, i feel the 120-300 is a $4500 lens just a little more than the Sigma at best not $10k.
Last edited:
I agree with most of what you say regarding complexity, cost, etc. But the above statement is a common misconception. For zoom lenses that change length(and therefore internal volume) when zoomed it is true that air must be displaced/replaced as they zoom. For for internal zoom lenses there is no air exchange. That's one of the advantages of the internal zoom is better weather sealing. In order for them to "pump" air there would have to be some method of seal between the moving element and lens barrel to act like piston rings. If you look at the images in the referenced article you can clearly see the (twisted)grooves in the barrel that provide an open path for air to move from one side to the other of the moving lens group. So there is internal air movement rather than air displacement/replacement that is necessary if the length/volume of the barrel changes when zooming.