Castorp

Looking at a couple of the series from Japan I notice a lot of young beautiful women and a lot of weathered old people. There’s a history of objectification with most of his motifs. Coupled with the black and white hard contrast look that many great Japanese artists have wielded for me the portfolio becomes mostly style and little substance. It’s nowhere near for example Parr or Gilden. They are beautiful photographs but as far as art goes it’s nothing special.

Aye that Moments video looks really good.

Out of the APSC cameras in this price range the Z50 certainly looks like the best to me. The Z50 seems well built and the sealing is supposed to be good. I like how the grip, buttons and control wheels are executed. That kit lens is tiny and the perfect travel lens. The main problem is the lack of lenses. (But what new camera system has a lot of lenses?) Nikon should have made a DX 23 or 35mm f1.8 lens for the launch. I am excited about the announced 28mm and 40mm “compact primes”. Seeing that they are not S line lenses they should be affordable. Probably pancakes, they will be perfect for the Z50 as well as the full frame Z cameras. I can see myself adding a Z50 in a couple years with one of those pancakes as a throw around travel camera. I hope the cheaper and smaller Z30 is still magnesium and with two control wheels but leaves out the viewfinder and flip screen to cut cost and size.That and the 28mm pancake would be a dream.

I don’t know if I would say Canon are stupid. Or Nikon or Sony or Panasonic or any other.These are very big companies consisting of large amounts of people that make a lot of effort when planning these products. Its more funny to me actually that there is a culture of online behaviour (mostly the big youtubers) of single persons that believe they better understand the market than for example Canon, that no doubt make extensive market research and have a large number of pros come with input. I mean, why don’t you apply for a job at Canon? Since they’re so incompetent I mean.

What’s up with all the Canon hate? Getting a bit old no? Personally I feel the obsession with 24p echoes of the colour/black and white discussion of the 20th century. “Real photos are black and white” and so on. Resistance towards colour photography was alive and well into the 1980’s. Thing is, my eyes see in colour. I see the world in colour. Likewise, I don’t see the world in 24 frames per second. My vision updates many times faster than that. More like 240fps. Not that lens based media necessarily is about mimicking the real world. But IT IS a recording medium, and just as I often want a microphone to be as transparent as possible, I like when the image recording is similarly transparent. The 24p thing is a tradition. It’s a habit. It’s an aesthetic. Aesthetic norms always evolve. And so they should. Of course it’s preferable if 24p is available forever, just like film or any quality or other medium. But the notion of “what!?!? No 24p hahahaha” as it it was water we are talking about is a bit short sighted and ironic among creatives.

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).

It’s not necessarily more or less expensive. Competitive quality inkjet prints are not cheap. A Nikon F90X, one of the best SLR’s, can be had for 50€ in great condition. Pair it with a used 50 1.8D and you have an amazing camera for around a hundred quid. That leaves you with hundreds of of euros left to spend on film and prints. All in all perfectly possible to make work for an entire exhibition for under 1000€.

I’m sorry but Max videos are clickbaity and toxic. As are most Youtubers like Tony and Chelsea, Fro, and all the other ones I can’t even remember because I stay away from that cynical BS. The exaggerated thumbnail is shameful. There is no editorial integrity whatsoever with most Youtubers ( with rare exceptions like Mattias Burling). Max makes money from making basically flame videos that pose as “tests”. All spiced up with manipulative and inflammatory titles, thumbnails and content.

Would love a Leica M9 but frankly there is no such thing as a digital camera that is like film, or like shooting film. 12 frames. A week or a month until you get to see what’s on there. The joy of pulling the wet film out of the tank and seeing rich beautiful negatives. Lowering a carefully printed silver gelatine into selenium and seeing dmax intensify and then tones split off into plum and rust. The physicality of it all. The picture is really a picture straight away right there on the film. There’s a magic to that realness.

Decide what format you want. MF is on another level from 35mm. Even a 645 camera is vastly superior to 35mm. The difference is much bigger than between digital “full frame” and M43. That said, I’m fine with 10x15 prints from 35mm. The larger the format, the slower the process. By comparing a Leica MA, 500CM and xpan we’re really comparing apples to oranges. Very different flow which leads to different kind of pictures. I’ve made most of my exhibition work with a 500CM for the last 14 years. It’s my desert island camera. The Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad are wonderful. I love the 6x6 format. A Hasselblad is a lovely experience and flexible with great lenses and interchangeable backs. Unlike many 6x7 cameras it’s fine to carry around. Can’t recommend it enough. There’s a reason it’s a classic. Don’t forget the Rolleiflex. The Leica MA is a dream camera of mine. If I shot Canon I would get the EOS 1V or EOS3. The Nikon F5 is the best of them all. You’ll appreciate having M lenses to adapt to your digital system. I have my 35mm developed and scanned. Costs about 7€. Then I print the good ones. Excellent results. No hassle and not very expensive. Can’t get the film look from digital. It’s a totally different thing. Medium format I only develop and print myself because it’s expensive to get done by a lab. I really hate scanning. It’s a pain. If I would do it today I would buy the Nikon adapter for their macro lenses and simply take a picture of the neg with my Z6.

I don’t see why some seem surprised. New top end professional Macs have always been expensive. Pretty much always over 5000 in today’s money if not a lot more. Hopefully prices will come down in time and there will be more options. As there has been in the past. This is a computer aimed at professionals. It is good to see Apple going for the serious pros rather than prosumer or gear nerd. It’s a beautiful machine. I would love to have one but it’s not for me that’s for sure. An iMac Pro is basically a throwaway. The initial cost for a Mac Pro will be high initially, but cost will come down as the computer is upgraded over time. That makes a difference in large institutions. Of course there are PC’s that are good value for money. But they are not Mac Pro. Apple has little competition which is why they can charge what they do. People have always attacked Macs for having component Y or X that cost Z and “it’s a rip off” bla bla blah. I’ve heard that literally for decades. And yet, I have yet to work with a better performing computer. I will never understand how some are offended when a camera company, or whatever, releases a product that isn’t for them. The Mac Pro is right for someone, and if it isn’t, the product won’t sell. Simple. Unless it’s some sort of conspiracy! Which is what some resort to with an almost incel-like tone at times. To ridicule those who need for example an EOS R or a Mac Pro, or whatever controversial thing it is, can be a sign of personal insecurity I believe.