Ilkka Nissila

Currently the camera market is stable and overall slowly growing. The amateur/enthusiast/professional market has been stable in size over a long time. What happened is regular consumers (to whom photography is not their spiritual or financial lifeline) stopped buying decated cameras. This caused some trouble to the traditional camera makers but they weathered this disruption. Nikon and Canon haven't stopped making DSLRs and they will produce what the people buy. I happen to prefer the optical viewfinder but because of the need to be able to photograph silently in some situations, I also needed a mirrorless camera system. But I have great regret about the absence of the OVF which I prefer when timing shots one by one (which for me results in superior keeper rate over what I can get with high frame rate continuous and much less time spent on editing). However, for shorter focal length wide-aperture lenses, mirorrless produces usually better in-focus rates so the overall result is that I am divided. For the manufacturers selling entirely new lens lineups must be profitable. For the Earth's environment, it may be a disaster.

This is why a standardized test protocol for dynamic range is needed that is not dependent on or sensitive to processing that trades off detail to reduce noise. Patch average-based DR testing would achieve that in part, but it would still need to somehow turn off temporal noise reduction to get a true idea of what the camera's hardware is capable of. The solution could be to capture 1 second of video of a patch sequence and then average the pixels spatially within each patch and over the 1 second sequence of video, and use the DR evaluated from that. This would normalize the results so that spatial and temporal noise reduction are cancelled out. The patches should be of fixed size relative to the whole frame dimensions.

Hmm. I tested N-Log with View Assist on the Zf and when metered using my Sekonic indicent meter, exposure in the viewfinder and LCD seemed correct at the metered setting.

I hadn't even noticed that there is a sticker, after using the camera for over a year. 😉 Having the battery door also access the cards means there has to be only one hatch instead of two. In a small camera, this makes some sense. Having more hatches splits the camera's surface and in this case it would probably affect how nice it is to hold with the right hand. The MicroSD card is a bit annoying; I would have preferred dual SD or SD/CFexpress type B but I solve the problem by simply having a 1 TB MicroSD card in the second slot permanently and never taking it out. I normally insert/remove the SD card and use a card reader with it, or stick it to the computer's internal SD card reader. The MicroSD card is the in-camera backup slot (for stills) and if I ever need to access those files on it, I do have a card reader for that as well, but I might use the USB-C cable to transfer those files as I don't want to handle the super-tiny MicroSD cards any more than necessary. The battery door seems similar to other Nikons with the EN-EL15c battery. I have never run into problems with it. In the Smallrig grip that came with the camera in my country (and also the Nikon GR-1 grip that is available in Japan) there is a gap in the base plate of the grip that allows batteries and cards to be accessed. The i button is an integral part of the menu system of the camera and allows accessing some important settings. I don't think Nikon should remove it from the camera as that would mean menu dives would have to be done for even some of the most common settings (since there are fewer physical controls belonging to the "modern" interface, to make space for the "traditional" dials). Another custom menu that is available is My Menu and that's a list of user-selectable menu items that is collected in a list that the user can order and access from a function button. I set the front Fn button to access My Menu. These menus are similar across Nikons of the past ten years or so, and leaving out the option to access one of them would be problematic and make camera operation slow. I don't need the joystick and the multi-controller works fine for my purposes. I use it in preference to the joystick even on cameras that have both because only the multi-controller is available on all Nikons and the joystick center button press can easily accidentally lead to slipping the jostick to the side. It's much easier to access the center button on the multi-controller reliably. I haven't noticed any quality of materials issue with the controls. I don't know what a PU grip is. There are multiple add-on grips and "skins" available for the Zf. I use the Smallrig grip when I need to use the Zf with a bit larger lens so it's a bit more comfortable to handle with a lens like 135/1.8. I don't think the camera is a good fit for really large lenses though, as it is too small and doesn't support an optional vertical grip. But in a pinch it can be used also with large lenses, just not ergonomically ideal but does the job as a backup camera. Auto ISO basically works the same as it does on all Nikon cameras that support Auto ISO. You specify the ISO you want to use and the camera overrides it when it has to do so to achieve the metered (+- EC) exposure. Since I have the front Fn button open My Menu and the Auto ISO setting is on the top of that list, I can toggle Auto ISO by pressing Fn + OK. It's no more difficult than pressing and holding ISO on other cameras and turning the sub-command dial to turn Auto ISO ON/OFF. I would argue that Fn + OK is even easier as it doesn't require any finger acrobatics. For video use, set the shutter speed dial to 1/3 STEP and use the main command dial to select shutter speed in 1/3 stop increments. Adding 1/50 and 1/120 on the shutter dial would throw off the classical settings and the idea that you can count stops by counting the clicks easily. They could of course shift the values by 1/3 stop - I believe this was available on the Df but not on the Zf or Zfc. But 1/125 s isn't 1/120 s, so specific video shutter speeds probably would make sense to offer for the main command dial when in video mode. Rumor is that Nikon will be adding shutter angle as option on the Z9 in a firmware update. I prefer the Z8's two-axis tilting screen over the one in the Zf which flips out. I find the flipping-out screen quite a nuisance as the camera strap can easily get entangled with it when opening it to the side. Another issue is that the flipped-out screen is (way) off axis whereas the two-axis tilting screen is close to being on the optical axis even when tilted. However, I think the two-axis screen would make the camera thicker and more expensive, and selfie shooters wouldn't be happy. Aperture rings are available on third-party lenses such as Viltrox, Voigtländer etc. Z6III has a faster sensor read time but more read noise than the Zf. There is in my opinion space for the higher quality Zf sensor for those who don't need the faster sensor read time and prefer the higher quality image. DISP is a different function from what is on the multi-controller up/down. DISP goes through different shooting information configurations (that one can configure if one wants to change them) during viewfinder or live view use while shooting, whereas up/down on the multi-controller moves the focus point when shooting and it shifts between different playback data displays in playback mode. Both need their own controls to scroll through. As for +/- zooming, it's been the same since at least 12 years on Nikons and I don't think they're changing it. 😉 It used to be that zooming in/out was a press-and-hold a button + turn main command dial, but I suspect most people find the separate +/- buttons easier on the fingers. What I don't like is that Nikon keeps shifting the buttons around from model to model, making it harder to instinctively use the camera without looking when using different models over time or even on the same day. I swapped the DISP and playback buttons in custom settings so that the playback button is closer to where it is on the Z8 (it's still not the same button but one above it). I don't normally press DISP all that often so it can be in more difficult-to-access location. Anyway my main complaints about the Zf (which I love to use) are that it doesn't have either of the standard Nikon connectors for firing radio flash (SB-5000) remotely and the same connectors also work for cable release which is also not available. Only via bluetooth can be the camera remote triggered and there is a slight delay associated with that, which is annoying. However, I bought the camera anyway for the reasons that (1) I love the dials-based interface and "feel", (2) it has a better high ISO image quality than the Z8 and so it's a good complement to the Z8 for low-light shooting; the mechanical shutter of the Zf also saved the day two weeks ago when I got banding on the electronic shutter of the Z8 in theatrical lights, (3) it has a slim profile so it takes very little space in the bag when I need it as a backup camera. If I changed something it would be adding a 10-pin connector so it would work with the same accessories and remote flash control as the Z8 and other recent Nikon cameras. But we have always something missing from the Nikon "fusion" models, and the Zf is the best of the line yet (Df/Zfc/Zf). Not having access to SB-5000 as radio remote is a significant problem for me as it means if I use the Zf as backup on a portrait shoot then I wouldn't be able to use those remotes if the main camera fails. So in the end I will need a third Z camera just for that purpose. It's sometimes hard to understand why Nikon takes away features that are useful. Perhaps they think SB-5000 radio remote control hasn't been that popular instead people choose cheaper options which sometimes work. The SB-5000 + WR-R10 has been very reliable for me, the best in that respect of any radio controlled flash. It just always works, and is less unwieldy on camera than Profoto. The Leica SL/SL2 are not similar cameras as they don't have mechanical dials with marked settings that one can use even with the camera off. Also the Leicas don't take Z lenses so for a Nikon lens user it's a no-go. As for the modern lenses, for me what is important is that the lineup produces a consistent look across focal lengths and the Z mount S-line does that for me. Yes, it's very modern and contrasty and that takes some getting used to be as long as there are no surprises I can work with it.

I also like the Zf build a lot. But I've used Nikon a long time and I guess one grows to the way they do things.

All the video recording modes on the Z50II are 4:2:0.

I think if you have subject with a lot of colorful texture (such as samba dancers' costumes) then the difference between h265 4:2:0 and RAW should be obvious. I don't shoot N-RAW (I don't have enough storage and don't need 8K) but I do use 4K 10-bit 422 Prores HQ. I love it, the colorful costumes look gorgeous. N-RAW doesn't come with built-in spatiotemporal noise reduction which is likely applied to h265 footage. This may be why it might appear the latter to have more dynamic range (it's not real but because of the way DR is typically measured, one may get that impression) but you can always apply similar processing to raw footage to get similar or better results. The beard details in the h265 appears more smeared than the raw. The difference should be more clear with subjects that have colorful highly detailed textures.

Unfortunately, there are countries whose leaders feel any valuable land or property that they can take by force and/or threats is their right to take, and to prevent that, other countries need to accessorize also, to defend themselves and their allies. Otherwise there will be complete anarchy and oppression of people who fall as victims. Right now, it is probably necessary to increase arms production in the West (Europe in particular). As horrible as war is, there is no way to stop it except by showing the willingness to use (equal or greater) force. Europeans don't want to live under tyranny and yet we don't have the capacity to stop it without the US because most European countries scaled down their weapons industries. Once Europe is lost, the war will spread to America soon enough and with greater capacity. For someone who has the mind for conquering land and ruling over other people, nothing is ever enough.

I hope that you mean people take to recycling centres which handle toxic electronics waste (this is at least in my country a free service). You should not throw electronics into the regular garbage.

Which company makes headphones and does not offer battery replacement? I would think this is a basic thing that can be done in service. Of course if the headphones are 10+ years old, it may be that they don't have the part and assume that those headphones are probably worn out anyway from being tumbled around. I googled and found some videos explaining how to replace the battery in my WH-1000MX4 headphones, and the part seems to cost 25€.

Even if the battery is not user-replaceable, often it can be replaced in service. I have had my iPhone's battery replaced twice. A surprisingly inexpensive and quick operation. Non-replaceability of the batteries can help improve weather sealing as there is no hatch that could leak in water and dust. However, personally I would still prefer user-replaceable batteries in equipment that needs it. I also think powering all the (wired) kit from a single battery would make life in many ways easier so that there are fewer batteries (and fewer chargers) to deal with.

As I believe all politicians are morally corrupt I think you've fallen into a victim of Trump's lies. In Main Kampf, Hitler wrote (not a verbatim quote) that when a lie that is big enough repeated enough many times, regular people will believe it because they are used to telling little lies about small things but would be ashamed of telling big lies about important matters, so they don't believe a person in power would do that. Trump repeated his big lies thousands of times and so people started to believe that the opposition is equally corrupt. The people working in the traditional media spend their lives and careers on finding out and reporting the truth and go through a great deal of trouble to achieve this, even though there are sometimes mistakes made in the process. They don't like Trump because he waters down their efforts by telling big lies and repeating them thousands of times. If you spent a lifetime on telling the public the truth then it is understandable that Trump's success in the election causes a lot of anxiety. they just want to afford food and gas Unfortunately for them, Trump has said he will deport illegal aliens (and some that are legal) which will increase the price of food that the consumer pays. Import tariffs will do the same for many products: people will end up paying more for them, or not getting them at all. He might make gas cheaper by drilling more oil which will destroy the environment and life for future generations will be more miserable. It would be great if people actually read the traditional media and listened to the 23 Nobel-winning economists who said that Trump's policies will increase the inflation and Harris's policies would be more egalitarian. Now they will learn it the hard way. It's a pity for the poor and lower middle class about whom Trump and the other billionaires he plans to put in government couldn't care less. My point is this - the media tried to programm people in to believe Trump should be disqualified from being president based on the moral superiority. Not really, he tried to cause an insurrection and illegitimate overthrow of the government (or the future government led by Biden), that according to the US constitution disqualifies him from holding public office. However, as Trump has installed his cronies into the Supreme Court, they would of course return the favor and vote against the disqualification of Trump in the ballot. It's not a question of moral superiority but simply that Trump is an authoritarian who wants to continue in office even after his second term (he has said so several times, he admires Putin and his lifetime presidency and said that the US should try something like it). He was practicing overthrow of election results in 2021 and failed, but this time around he will try to pack the government with those who are loyal to him so that he can succeed eventually with the overthrow of democratic government. This is what the press is afraid of and why he should not have been allowed to run. They had us wrap around their little finger until they lied about Biden being mentally sound then they had to do the last minute switcheroo... that was some the of the sloppiest political maneuvering I have ever seen. Where is the moral outrage that Harris did not have to go though the normal nomination process - end the end it cost them, even against a morally inferior candidate. Why would there need to be a moral outrage? The parties nominate whom they want and voters decide whom to elect president. If America had a better functioning democracy, you'd have more parties who offer more candidates to choose from, but unfortunately the two-party system is a poorly functioning, declining democracy. I agree that Biden was too old to serve another four years as president, but Trump is almost as old and gets confused in his words and speaks nonsense all the time. You could elect someone younger so that this would not be a concern. In Finland our current prime minister is 55 years old and the president is 56. Our previous prime minister was in her thirties. About 85% of Finns believe that the public broadcasting company's content is factual and trustworthy. Our press is ranked fifth in the freedom of the press rankings in the world (higher ranking = more free). The index was higher but a couple of incidents reduced it. The leading newspaper was publishing a series of articles about an intelligence center of the defense forces and this lead to lawsuits where reporters were deemed guilty of revealing state secrets, or having had the intention to do so, and so this was considered a violation of the freedom of press. (United States is 55th in the freedom of the press index, so it's not very free.)

All politicians have character flaws and will ultimately chose what is best for those who got them in office and will keep them in office. In a representative democracy, it's the voters who got the politicians into office and it's the voters who decide who stays and who does not. However, in the US, because campaign funding seems virtually unlimited (even though there are legal limitations, it seems the rules do not apply to campaigns of some criminals and their donors), to get elected, you need a lot of campaign financing. This is a problem as it means only those candidates with a lot of money get a lot of visibility and can get elected. It seems some citizens feels that anything different would be limiting their freedom of speech, if rich people could not donate as much as they like. But this essentially gives people with money more votes than just one: they're influencing others to vote for their candidate. If campaign financing were limited to a total of a relatively moderate sum of money, people would be elected based on their merits as the voters see fit rather than how many rich people they are supported by. No politician is on your side. They only serve themselves. Pick the politician who serves your interests, when they are serving their own interests. That's not actually true, a lot of politicians are altruistic and are genuinely trying to improve society and the world, and how things are managed so that people who are not doing well, would be doing better. I'm sorry that you have such a cynical view of politics. It is the people against the government not democrats vs republican. In a representative democracy, the government consists of people who are either elected themselves or were appointed by those who were elected. The elected representatives make the laws which the government then implements. The government is basically serving the people. We are all programmed to take a side. I think we are all trying to solve the problems in our everyday lives. There is a broad media landscape which, in a democracy, consists of numerous free operators that try to inform the public as to what is going on in the world. The problem in the US is that there are only two major parties which leads to polarization of opinions. In my country (Finland), there is more than a dozen parties, none of which has more than about 25% of the representatives. The parties form coalition governments that compromise on issues to create their agenda and legislation based on these compromises. Because there are so many parties and a culture of making compromises there is no strong polarization of opinions. However, this is changing a little bit due to social media as algorithms direct people to see information that they viewed before, leading to information bubbles and that can eventually lead to polarization into camps. In my opinion, this is happening because invisible algorithms control what people get to see (in social media) instead of human beings making the decisions on what to publish and what not to publish, and what to put on front page. I think letting algorithms control what we see is a huge mistake and can lead to the decay of democracy and organized society, even wars. Deprogramming ourselves from believing that there is a morally superior side is difficult. I believe each party is just one of the two wings on the same elite bird. I think there are individuals who act morally and others who do not, but not necessarily parties. Parties typically force their members to vote in a certain way to follow the party line and this deteriorates democracy. I believe in the people, who, with the power of free speech, will free each other's minds so that we can suffer through this together as friends rather than enemies. Unfortunately, speech that actually gets pubished in some format is not really "free" in the sense that there are always agents that control what we see, and the motivations of those agents can sometimes be obvious but other times they're hidden. Social media algorithms are known to highlight content which people share and often it brings up content that cause outrage because it's so ridiculous. People feed those algorithms with ridiculous claims that are not based on facts and this has polluted the media landscape. In the traditional press (in western democracies), editors had their own political views but generally content is fact checked often from multiple sources before it's published (this is true of high-quality publications but not necessarily all). The degree to which the political bias shows can be evaluated by comparing the different media. However, as the "free" content on the internet has put publishers of traditional media into financial difficulties, the concentration of ownership seems to be increasing and this risks the freedom of the press. In social media, generally content is not fact checked and so a lot of false claims are made on purpose, perhaps to cause outrage, or mislead readers. This is highly unfortunate. I am not even sure if having social media is worth it in the big picture, some degree of moderation would be needed to reduce the hate and intentional misleading of readers. Moderated forums can be useful for sharing specialist knowledge, but I'm not sure how commercially viable they are. Of course this is just my opinion, as we will never have all of the true facts, ever, though it may feel like you absolute know what is right - you do not - because what is absolutely right is absolutely unknowable. Same goes for me and my opinion - it has no more value than yours or any other. I agree that not all facts are known but there is a huge difference between the random social media post and professionally created journalism where the journalists are highly educated and spend a lot of time investigating the facts. A lot of political comments on social media seem to be generated by actors who are not what they pretend to be and are intentionally telling falsehoods. I personally think that professionally trained journalists working for high-quality publications, scientists, and historians are much more likely to get it right than typical people posting on social media. Adding information does not lead to the discovery of truth, but the scientific and journalistic processes often do. Everyone's opinion is not equal as some are factual because they did their research and found out how things really are, vs. others who are telling falsehoods out of either ignorance or because they want to intentionally mislead people. Unfortunately the latter has become mainstream in social media. Fact-checked journalism has never been so important to counter the wild west of social media. I could be completely wrong and that is fine, as long as it gets people thinking about what they believe to be true and that the facts that they live and die by are almost certainly based on some falsehoods. Discovering the truth is hard work but not impossible. Often truth is complicated and difficult to understand and populists try to give simplifications that some members of the public find appealing. However, the truth is still more valuable and seeking it should be encouraged. This is how society develops to be better.

Honestly this shouldn't be too surprising when you look at how the Biden Administration behaved over the last four years, and when you consider the palace coup which took place to put in place Kamala Harris, and how the Democrat Machine just totally ignored the will of their own voters in mattering in the process. Biden was too old and so they switched to Harris as the candidate. No laws were broken, as the party is free to put whomever they want on the ballot. There should be some kind of age limit on political candidates as many of the most powerful politicians today are really old and of questionable mental fitness. Also a limit on how much a single person or company can donate to campaigns should be limited to make the donating more egalitarian rather than the rich people controlling everything. USA has gravely depleted its weapon stocks. USA needs to immediately stop sending hundreds of billions of arms to Ukraine, as all it is accomplishing at the moment is: 1) needlessly perpetuating yet more deaths of Ukrainian men (they truly are trying to take literally the saying "until the last Ukrainian", this is going to be a demographic disaster for post war Ukraine) & 2) running dry USA's own stocks which is putting at risk USA's own security should they need it for themselves. USA has only been spending only a few percent of their defense budget on Ukraine, and a lot of it has been used to give old weapons that have expired and needed to be replenished anyway (so most of the money was spent didn't actually go to Ukraine directly but to defense contractors in the USA, boosting domestic employment). Ukrainians know what it is like to live under Russian oppression and they'd rather die than experience that again. America has never been occupied, lucky for them. I think the West needs to stop giving Ukraine restrictions on arms use and let them fight as deep into Russia as Russia has attacked in Ukraine. Otherwise a fair border can never return as the fighting always continues only on Ukrainian territory, gradually demolishing what was. How much of that was due to "outsourcing security to the USA" vs being due to: 1) having a collective living memory of the recent horrors of WW1 & WW2, with zero desire whatsoever to repeat that under any circumstance 2) having ever close economic ties with each other now within Europe than ever before (the more you're trading with a country, the less likely you wish to go to war and ruin all that prosperity) The memory of war in Europe has faded and new generations do not remember it, and this can lead to selfish and indecent behavior towards other people. Those close economic ties can be severed. Populist leaders already lead the UK to leave the EU single market with a hard Brexit lying before the election that of course they wouldn't leave the single market. Similar things can happen in other European countries, e.g., France was close to being lead by a populist far-right Le Pen. Eventually the economic co-operation can end and result in a hot war among European countries. Right now it is only Russia who is trying to return to the 17th century of nation states fighting wars over land and looting property, but this kind of thinking could spread. Russia is supporting rightwing populist movements across Europe because they know that a divided Europe is a weak Europe. Unfortunately true, because no matter who the people elect to represet them in Washington DC, its "the establishment" (the unelected bureaucrats) who hold all the cards. The bureaucrats were nominated by elected representatives, and as some of them serve longer than one electoral cycle, they can have the positive effect of stabilizing the society against too rapid changes (the US government is always by one party and so there can be a zigzagging effect of one direction and then reversing the direction repeatedly, which is not productive over the long term). In foreign policy, consistency is very important to build trust with other countries. However, now there is the world's richest man who apparently is taking the role of a shadow president. He owns the most popular media platform and effectively can control a large part of how people think with changes to algorithms behind the scenes. In the US, if you have money, you can be untouchable, as Trump has shown, he is still a free man after 4000+ law suits. The terribly botched withdrawal from Afghanistan happened under the Biden Presidency. True, Biden did handle it badly, but before he took office, Trump threw the Afghan government under the bus by making a deal with the Taliban and releasing 5000 prisoners. The Afghan government never had a chance after that. NATO primarily existed to oppose the USSR, and the moment The Cold War ended then NATO itself should also have been wound down and abolished. Russia is allied with Iran and North Korea today and to some degree also with China, and combined those countries can be very powerful economically and they're spending a lot of money on military build-up. Russia is trying to re-occupy the previous parts of the Soviet Union including Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, and they're making threats that they will have a new world order from Vladivostok to Lisbon. I think NATO is needed today more than ever especially as Europe has cut its defense spending so much in the years since the cold war ended, people in many countries in Europe assumed that there would be peace and prosperity after the Soviet Union collapsed, but here they are again. Russia is testing where they can just take foreign land and resources. Now they're using threats about nuclear weapons use to prevent a fair defense.

From a European point of view, I would say that on economic policies the US Democrats are center-right, but on social issues they tend to be more left. The US society itself continues to be very racially segregated, as the rich and poor live in distinct areas and the schools in the poorer districts are poorly funded while the wealthy areas have very good and well-funded schools. This maintains or increases the economic gap between the different communities. When I was working in the US for two years, I went to work in a building with approximately 1000 employees. All the cleaners and janitors were black and there was just one black scientist whom I knew in the whole building. There is no genetic reason the African-Americans only get jobs that are poorly paid and they don't get educated, it's mostly due to the environment they're growing in. So an effort into reducing the racial divide and the difference in wealth between different groups in the US would make the society stronger (because more talented people would get the chance at developing to their full potential) and it also would make the society safer (because income and education inequalities lead to crime). Because of global warming, there will be a whole lot more immigration in the future. I would expect there to be hundreds of millions of climate refugees trying to get to Europe and North America from hotter areas of the globe in the next 100 years or so. I think it's best to try to let them in to such a degree as possible (since we are mostly responsible for the warming, we ought to give shelter) and give them good education so that they contribute positively to society. A lot of populist leaders want to just shut down the borders but this becomes unviable when the numbers of immigrants increase by 100x from current figures. Since birth rates are declining rapidly in the Western countries, new blood is needed to keep the society active. How this is managed is a key question if we want to maintain some resemblance of an organized society. Since leaders have basically chosen not to curb carbon emissions and instead we are driving at accelerating speed towards a brick wall, the option of continuing as if nothing were happening does not really exist in the near future.