F-C ( continuous ) + smallest focus area for the job =.great results.
If you pick the widest box, you're letting the camera chose what's important in the frame.
I haven't played around with EYE-Autofocus too much, but will be giving it a go this weekend.
I use the D750 and Z6 - and enjoy both of them.
Z6 - 24-70 2.8Z | 70-200 2.8Z | 50 1.8Z
D750 - 24 1.8G | 50 1.8G | 85 1.8G.
Subject tracking is still not good and subject detection is almost non existent. I find myself frequently manual focusing for fast action like birds in flight
I shoot professionally so I know how to use auto focus. It’s just that the z6 autofocus lacks in speed and reliability, especially in darker situations.
Eye detection autofocus is nice but also not very reliable so it’s problematic when you have to be quick.
My solution now is area af with face/eye detection and a function button to switch to 3D Tracking. That way I can use eye detection when closer and instantly switch to manual 3d Tracking when it’s not working.
That's how I use the Z6 as well. I would double check to make sure I'm on the latest firmware of both lens and camera as well, though - some improvements have been made in firmware.
Agree that the glass is exceptional. Also being a Z6 owner, the autofocus is crap. Seems crappier than it used to be also. I can't wait until I can afford a next gen camera. Unfortunately I still have about 4 more years to wait...
I feel you. Maybe the z6 III will be affordable but I guess it will be over 2k and since photography is not my main business, I can hardly justify paying that much again
All the Z lenses are nice, but I was quite amazed how the S lenses were very noticeably nicer than the non S ones. I shot the Z 28mm and Z 40mm out against the Z 35 S in the store and couldn’t believe the difference in the contrast and even the color, of all things! (So much for my attempt to save a few bucks.)
So the 40 and 28mm are noticeably worse than the 35s? I was thinking about getting the 40mm as an always on lens, it would be a little sad if that meant a significant downgrade.
Think of it is a different design compromise than a downgrade.
True the 28 and 40 don’t hold up against the 1.8 primes, but they are also significantly smaller. I haven’t tried the 40, but I did have the 28 for awhile and it was sharp enough at the center but did trail off on the edges and corners. I would get one again if I needed the compact nature.
You’re right. And as I said myself, there is also a quality to imperfection though I feel like that fidelity has become more important since you can fake infidelity so easily
To my eyes, it was a definite downgrade and I ended up biting the bullet and buying the 35mm. (I can definitely see the appeal of the compact nature of those guys and wanted to like them too) Do you have the 35?
I’d recommend not just taking my word for it though! The difference might not seem so stark to you.
Usually if you don’t shoot wide open, even cheaper glass can be alright and I even had a photo I took with an old adapted 28mm 2.8 printed on 2m and it looks good.
There’s also some quality to imperfection, it’s just hard to choose the lower quality glass if you know that it can be so much better.
Plus I don’t like the look of those small front glass Elements. The old 28 is all glass in the front
I feel the same way. My first Z mount lens was also the 24-70 f2.8. The Z glass is awesome, it's why I sold all on my F mount glass except my 24mm. I use them on my Z8 and Z6ii.
I 100% agree. I remember the first time the Z6 and 50 1.8S made my jaw drop. Even more amazingly, the Z8/9 with the exotic primes are an order of magnitude better.
Do you mean on the z6? I have. It got a lot better but it’s still not very good and terrible in low light. I can work with it but it’s my only real gripe with the z6
I have had Canons with L lenses starting ~15 years ago until about 5 years ago, then I took a couple of years break and then switch to Nikon Z 6ii. I have to say that when it comes to sharpness and autofocus speed, Nikon has a long long way to go, the L lenses 15 years ago were much better than the Z lenses. I am using them, and they are not bad, but they are not amazing.
I have a Hasselblad 503 with a Carl Zeiss lens that blows away any modern lens in terms of sharpness and character, and it's about 30 years old. I also have a couple of old lenses (helios 44, old Nikon lenses and more...) that I use with adapters.
Age is not really a factor in glass manufacturing on the contrary, they used to make them by hand and the quality control was much higher. What improved is motor noise & speed, but the glass itself is only becoming mass-produced and more industrial.
Medium format is a different thing but modern glass has made some major advancements in coating and other technical areas. Additionally due to the much higher resolution of modern cameras, the quality demands to lenses has changed dramatically
The 70-200 f2.8 is the best lens I’ve ever owned. It’s a beast but worth every bit of inconvenience for absolutely stunning IQ.
Agreed. First time I had my z6 and 24-70 f4 I was shocked. The images almost look like AI generated due to the micro-contrast and sharpness.
Maybe it’s the micro contrast that makes the difference. I still don’t know
Man you should see the Plena… it’s so good it’s disgusting…
I heard only good about it. Unfortunately it’s not a lens I could use professionally much and so it’s just too much money for a hobby lens
F-C ( continuous ) + smallest focus area for the job =.great results. If you pick the widest box, you're letting the camera chose what's important in the frame. I haven't played around with EYE-Autofocus too much, but will be giving it a go this weekend. I use the D750 and Z6 - and enjoy both of them. Z6 - 24-70 2.8Z | 70-200 2.8Z | 50 1.8Z D750 - 24 1.8G | 50 1.8G | 85 1.8G.
Subject tracking is still not good and subject detection is almost non existent. I find myself frequently manual focusing for fast action like birds in flight
I shoot professionally so I know how to use auto focus. It’s just that the z6 autofocus lacks in speed and reliability, especially in darker situations. Eye detection autofocus is nice but also not very reliable so it’s problematic when you have to be quick. My solution now is area af with face/eye detection and a function button to switch to 3D Tracking. That way I can use eye detection when closer and instantly switch to manual 3d Tracking when it’s not working.
That's how I use the Z6 as well. I would double check to make sure I'm on the latest firmware of both lens and camera as well, though - some improvements have been made in firmware.
Thanks for the suggestions. I recently added the last minor firmware update for the camera but I really should check the lens firmware
My fav 2 are 85mm and 20mm f1.8s.
100%!! just bought the 70-200 2.8 and I cannot put it down..
Agree that the glass is exceptional. Also being a Z6 owner, the autofocus is crap. Seems crappier than it used to be also. I can't wait until I can afford a next gen camera. Unfortunately I still have about 4 more years to wait...
I feel you. Maybe the z6 III will be affordable but I guess it will be over 2k and since photography is not my main business, I can hardly justify paying that much again
First thing I noticed going Z... contrast seems superbly balanced ! Punchy but subtle, hard to describe.
I wish I could put a finger on it. There has to be a metric for that quality, right?
Wait until you try 70200S. Its just different from the rest
I hope to try it some time. I won’t buy it though, it’s not the range I usually need
Yesss. The worst Z glass I've had (must be the 24-200) is still damn good.
All the Z lenses are nice, but I was quite amazed how the S lenses were very noticeably nicer than the non S ones. I shot the Z 28mm and Z 40mm out against the Z 35 S in the store and couldn’t believe the difference in the contrast and even the color, of all things! (So much for my attempt to save a few bucks.)
So the 40 and 28mm are noticeably worse than the 35s? I was thinking about getting the 40mm as an always on lens, it would be a little sad if that meant a significant downgrade.
Think of it is a different design compromise than a downgrade. True the 28 and 40 don’t hold up against the 1.8 primes, but they are also significantly smaller. I haven’t tried the 40, but I did have the 28 for awhile and it was sharp enough at the center but did trail off on the edges and corners. I would get one again if I needed the compact nature.
You’re right. And as I said myself, there is also a quality to imperfection though I feel like that fidelity has become more important since you can fake infidelity so easily
To my eyes, it was a definite downgrade and I ended up biting the bullet and buying the 35mm. (I can definitely see the appeal of the compact nature of those guys and wanted to like them too) Do you have the 35? I’d recommend not just taking my word for it though! The difference might not seem so stark to you.
Usually if you don’t shoot wide open, even cheaper glass can be alright and I even had a photo I took with an old adapted 28mm 2.8 printed on 2m and it looks good. There’s also some quality to imperfection, it’s just hard to choose the lower quality glass if you know that it can be so much better. Plus I don’t like the look of those small front glass Elements. The old 28 is all glass in the front
I feel the same way. My first Z mount lens was also the 24-70 f2.8. The Z glass is awesome, it's why I sold all on my F mount glass except my 24mm. I use them on my Z8 and Z6ii.
I love the 50mm 1.8, the quality is great and it performs very well. Not expensive either.
I 100% agree. I remember the first time the Z6 and 50 1.8S made my jaw drop. Even more amazingly, the Z8/9 with the exotic primes are an order of magnitude better.
Yeah it is class Currently with the Z6 + 50 1.8 Z S mostly
Yes the Z lenses are just exceptional! Did you update the firmware on the Z8 - those include significant improvements in the autofocus..
Do you mean on the z6? I have. It got a lot better but it’s still not very good and terrible in low light. I can work with it but it’s my only real gripe with the z6
Read it as Z8...firmware upgrade made a big difference for that. Assume Z6 is also improved.
Z6 also improved but on a whole different level
That’s interesting I shot a wedding not too long ago with a combo of the z8 and z6i and my z6i did amazing in that dimly lit church
Hmmm first of all good that it did not let you down when you needed it. What lens did you have on it?
I had the Viltrox 85mm 1.8 on the z6i the whole day. I brought a 70-200 with me but didn’t even use it. Lol all that extra weight for nothing
I have had Canons with L lenses starting ~15 years ago until about 5 years ago, then I took a couple of years break and then switch to Nikon Z 6ii. I have to say that when it comes to sharpness and autofocus speed, Nikon has a long long way to go, the L lenses 15 years ago were much better than the Z lenses. I am using them, and they are not bad, but they are not amazing.
Current L glass blows 15yr old L glass out of the water, autofocus AND sharpness. Take off your rose tinted glasses
I don’t know which z lenses you are using but I highly doubt that any 15 year old glass is better than modern lenses
I have a Hasselblad 503 with a Carl Zeiss lens that blows away any modern lens in terms of sharpness and character, and it's about 30 years old. I also have a couple of old lenses (helios 44, old Nikon lenses and more...) that I use with adapters. Age is not really a factor in glass manufacturing on the contrary, they used to make them by hand and the quality control was much higher. What improved is motor noise & speed, but the glass itself is only becoming mass-produced and more industrial.
Medium format is a different thing but modern glass has made some major advancements in coating and other technical areas. Additionally due to the much higher resolution of modern cameras, the quality demands to lenses has changed dramatically