Castorp

Tony Northrup is the worst. It's all about generating this or that in order to get views. It's cynical and horrible. Has nothing to do with cameras.

This is a great review. I very much like how he deals with all the problems and then at the end says how the camera was fun to use and is a really good and effective camera. Looks like a great camera.

I haven’t noticed anything strange with the video IBIS either. I’ve only done a few short videos so far though. Looks good to me.

I'm a huge fan of the Df. Nothing wrong with making dedicated tools. Not everything needs to be a jack-of-all-trades. The problem with the Df in some ways was that it didn't take it far enough. They could've left the AF out of there and got rid of a lot more buttons. On the other hand the Df was perhaps the most versatile digital camera Nikon has ever made in terms of how you could use it. I'm a fan of Fujifilms layout too but the thing with the Df was that you could switch into 'A" with the mode dial while the shutter speed dial was still set to for example 250 and then when the light became stable again you flicked back to 'M'. Sort of a built in memory function. This kind of thing got panned in the reviews because people only had a few weeks with the camera. But if you worked with it for a few months or years it opened up so many ways of working. Amazing ergonomics and the most fun DSLR Nikon has ever made. And that sensor is incredible.

I don’t think it’s about releasing an “unfinished” product. It’s because our minds are stuck in pre-computerised concepts. Nobody would accuse Apple or Microsoft of unreleasing unfinished products just because they update the OS now and then. And it’s not only about fixing bugs. If you have a software system which you can improve, why wouldn’t you? I’d go so far to say there should be some regulation so that any product can be pushed as far as possible in firmware before releasing subsequent products. It’s horribly wasteful to do otherwise. Its only quite recently that the nature of software is starting to make an imprint in a wider sense. We are hardware minded in general. I know, for example, more recently in airplane software there are structures making sure flight critical software is completely separated from other software. This way systems can be upgraded continuously without the entire system needing to be re-tested and certified. So the concept of upgrade is built in to the core architecture from the start. We’re still quite a few years away before the nature of software is fully absorbed. To treat software based technology, like digital cameras, as if they’re fixed hardware objects from days old will look equally ridiculous as early cars that looked like horse carriages look to us now. In a sense the current transition is even weirder. I would say all cameras should be continuously updated. The camera makers may charge for that. I would not expect it to be free of charge. The failure to properly valorise software is of course another remnant of old thinking. People don’t want to pay for these things which is, of course, totally absurd.

Nikon hasn't done firmware updates like this in the past. I wonder if this is new for the Z system? This is potentially very big. What a lovely surprise. I really didn't expect this from Nikon.

Alright, I need to rant. Slightly tongue in cheek so apologies in advance to toes I might be stepping on. Ok, who with any kind of self respect uses a camera that has “FULL FRAME” written on the outside? Yes let’s use a somewhat problematic term and paint it on the outside of the camera together with BIONZ INSIDE or whatever else crap is on there. I think there’s a f****g “4K” sticker on there too. These labels, besides being reminiscent of labels on cheap hifi from the 90’s, is designed to re-assure the insecure gadget consumer that they indeed bought the FULL FRAME camera. That’s how I view these Sony-trolls that pester forums online. And no, users of Canon or Nikon or Pentax et c are not as aggressive. Many Canon/Nikon users I know would never even write on these places. They don’t care about tech. Sony is exciting. Sony is FRESH NEW TECH. Prepare to get excited! Sony of course know the buyers of their products and they know which buyers they target. Hence the labels, hence the heavy focus on specifications that look great on paper while ignoring ergonomics, colour, durability and so on. The targeted consumer is a male tech geek. These nerds are typically, in my experience, incredibly entitled to the TRUTH. Which makes them entitled and arrogant. They know they have God, sorry I mean paper-specs, on their side. It’s the same dudes that were insufferable know it alls in college. Yet these dudes don’t understand why most successful photographers are using other brands. So there’s the insecurity again. Better read over my FULL FRAME sticker ten times, calm myself with the 4K label, and then go online and write about all other cameras being shit. I can’t imagine anything less attractive than a man-boy who feels good about themselves by affirming themselves with the latest teddybear, sorry I mean spec. I can’t imagine anything less hot than a man-boy who instead of gifting a beautiful photograph or video to the world, goes online to preach about the importance of AF speed. I struggle to understand what a gigantic turn off it is to relate to camera brands as if they were football clubs. I fail to comprehend the sexiness of going online to shout “mine is faster than yours” as if six year old boys. I would never ever, even if somebody paid me two grand, be seen with an A7. Someone might spot the “FULL FRAME” and with that, the writing is quite literally on the wall what kind of man I am. PS. Before you hang me please understand that this was written with intention of humour and not without cheerful self-deprecation. Have a nice day.

After a couple years on other software I decided to give PS and LR a go the other day and signed up for a subscription. I moved from the UK to the Netherlands and it took Adobe support about two hours to change my account. It was very much like the thread above. A trip to hell. Made me immediately regret getting back on Adobe.

I think people are getting pretty fed up by some Sony fans. There are so many levels on which I dislike those cameras. Ergonomics, design, output et cetera. Doesn’t mean I would ever go onto an A7 thread and tell people how bad their camera is. Never have, never will. I fully understand and respect that some people love those cameras and it’s not for me to tell them they are wrong. People like to work in different ways with different tools and it’s good people, not good specs, that make good pictures. The Nikon Df is an excellent camera by the way. The most underrated and misunderstood camera on the internet.

AF problems are overblown. The video AF looks way better than competitors to me. For photos? I can count the number of times I have used AFC on one hand.

No, there's no way to clear the screen of all the info. It will only show a screen with less info, but often I want nothing but the image on my screen. Especially as I have that top display for vital info. Also during image review I find no way of displaying histogram and/or blown highlight warnings. All this is possible on Nikon's DSLR so I don't understand why it's not on the Z yet. Firmware must be in the works.

Haven’t use the video mode in anything but M and I don’t quite understand the utility. If I want automatic exposure in video mode I stay in M but switch ISO from manual to auto. I find there are more important things for Nikon to do. For example a way to declutter the display. There is no way to turn off all the info, rendering the display unusable at times.

Sure, if I can’t open the aperture any further. Of course I will apply more gain when it is required. But my point was that same gain can look different depending on exposure.

Yes the gain is equivalent but the exposure is not which means that digital noise could appear more clearly vs an exposure with sufficient light. Shot noise and digital noise usually play off each other differently with different exposure. In good light a picture with super high gain might still look descent. Put that same high gain camera in a place with no light and it looks terrible. I’m no expert, I find the different types of noise confusing but from experience, if exposure is insufficient things tend to start looking terrible quickly. Which is why I never give much credit to noise tests in a well lit studio scene. Why would I up the gain if there’s a lot of light?

I don’t understand. Are you saying you get more noise at 1/50, f4 iso4000 than at 1/50, f1.8 iso 4000? You’re giving the sensor over two stops less light. Why wouldn’t it be noisier? Have you tried taking photographs exposing at 1/50, f1.8 iso 4000 and 1/15, f4, iso 4000? Different lenses and apertures but somewhat equivalent light. what does it look like if you set the 35 prime to f4? Does it look different from the zoom f4?

You respect the readers with these essays of yours? Seems like it’s not me needing therapy. Why don’t you let it all out? Please clarify, because you still haven’t, what does my original post about autofocus have to do with 4K/60p? You can post about whatever you want, but why did you quote me? You’re crying about being unfairly accused of trolling, well fucking try and explain that quote then please, as well as your passive aggressive smileys (btw 2005 called they want them back).

U mad bro? Hahahaha oh my god too funny You quoted my honest post to the thread which was about autofocus and wrote something completely unrelated together with your usual shitty smileys. In what way was your message meant to be constructive? Address? Seriously? Hahahaha Get a life.

Well, I didn’t expect it, but at least you got the sarcasm. Go troll somewhere else. Like, wth does your 60p got to do with autofocus? Loser.

Ah great so you bought one? or what precisely does the Z6 autofocus have to do with 4K 60p?

I feel the Nikon Z6/Z7 video AF behaviour is the most tasteful from the tests I've seen. I like how the Nikon slowly focuses to the background but very quickly prioritises a face when it appears in frame.

Would love priority on colour rather than resolution. At the same time I would like more resolution for stills. Would love a 60mp sensor for making huge prints.

I disagree with this. I would most of the time prefer an f4 zoom to an f2.8. Weight and size are important things. Even if I had unlimited money. I often prefer f1.8 primes to f1.4. I don’t know what other people do, but I hike a lot. There is no way I am carrying that huge heavy glass for a bit more light. I’d rather put those grams into a tripod than carry a super fast super heavy prime that gives me marginally more capability (nothing compared to said tripod). Fast primes are for the ability to get an extra stop or so when hand holding or needing a fast shutter. Or sometimes if the background is terrible and you want to blur it out (although in my experience this should be avoided as much as possible since the background often tells the story). Thats why I find Canons R release of first lenses very strange. I’m sure the optics are beautiful but it’s incredibly rare that the tiny bit of extra light is worth the huge weight. Talk about diminishing returns. The little 35 they released is not top quality L glass, unlike the Nikkor 35 & 50 “S” (for super) f1.8. Some are confused and seem to think these lenses is like your 150$ plastic f1.8. Not the case. I applaud that I get the option of slower, but still top of the line quality glass. I hope that continues and I hope we get top quality 800-1200$ f4 or even f5.6 primes. Along with the fast stuff for those who need it. IBIS does not replace fast glass, but sure does replace the need for it some of the time.

With the coming CFe cards buffer shouldn’t really be an issue. Especially on the Z6.

Why is he using auto white balance? Why are we discussing auto white balance?

I make high quality prints with professional printers and often collaborate on the final file with expert staff. The screens and whole image chain are of course expertly calibrated and the equipment is top of the line. Even then the result is not revealed until I look at actual test strips/prints. A large top quality print reveal the image quality to a different degree than a screen. Doesn’t matter how good the screen is. For stills, I don’t think the test is showing much at all. If we’re discussing image quality of photographs I think it’s important to look at prints.