Olympus user running a Z6/Z7?

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
@ijm5012 Hi!

If I remember correctly, you added the D500 for Motorsport, mostly for the panning slow shutter shots?

Have you have time to test the Z for fast action and slow panning?

How does it perform compared to D500 and Em-1.2 fw 2?
No, I haven’t had the chance to shoot the Z6 for panning shots. First chance I’ll get will be in March.
 

Xx123456xX

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Messages
154
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Real Name
Jake
AF-S and AF-P lenses are both in lens motor versions. Both are 100% functional on the Z cameras with the FTZ adapter.

Other f-mount lenses like D types will fully meter, but are manual focus.

I've tracked dogs at this point work some success, but have not had a chance to use it with my sports of choice yet.

From some preliminary testing, I feel I can make it performs at or near a D7500/D750 level AF using the correct mode.

I base this on some events I shot recently where the Z6 and adapted f-mount lenses performed just as well the DSLR.
Which lenses have fully mechanical manual focus (i.e. the focus ring is physically linked to to moving lens elements, and therefore does not require electrical power to focus)? @ijm5012 informed me that, with the exceptions of Z mount lenses and AF-P F mount lenses, all first party Nikon lenses are such. However, I can’t find info on which third party lenses are mechanical.
 
D

Deleted member 20897

Guest
Which lenses have fully mechanical manual focus (i.e. the focus ring is physically linked to to moving lens elements, and therefore does not require electrical power to focus)? @ijm5012 informed me that, with the exceptions of Z mount lenses and AF-P F mount lenses, all first party Nikon lenses are such. However, I can’t find info on which third party lenses are mechanical.
If it is not an AF-S or AF-P lens, then it is a mechanical focus. Pretty much everything D and pre-D Nikon are all either manual focus or require a screw drive motor in the camera body for AF function.
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
All I'll say is that it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Nikon learned their lesson with the F-mount, which was too small in diameter to allow any autofocus lens faster than f/1.4. They weren't going to make that same mistake again when designing their next camera mount to carry them in to the future.
Well, sure. But the F-mount was designed in 1959, and has by far the smallest mouth diameter of any contemporary FF mount. The same size as 4/3 DSLRs!

It feels a bit like overcompensating. But that's fine. There's not really any disadvantage to a big mouth, just that you limit the smallest lenses you can make, and I don't imagine there will be any pancake lenses in the Z-mount's future.
 

RyanM

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
458
I don't imagine there will be any pancake lenses in the Z-mount's future.
What makes you say that? I would imagine a reasonably-priced ~40mm f/2.8 pancake (or similar) could be very successful. The f/4 zooms they've announced seem to be very size-conscious. Why not a pancake prime or two?
 
D

Deleted member 20897

Guest
I'm by no means knowledgeable in lens design, but when I see the strides that Nikon made in the 300/4 PF versus the older designs I'm excited. I'm pretty sure they have some things up their sleeves for future release as Canon probably does as well.

I think a big milestone will be when we get information and specifications on the Z-Mount 70-200/2.8 that is on the roadmap for this year, I believe. Another lens that interests me is the 85/1.8S.
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
What makes you say that? I would imagine a reasonably-priced ~40mm f/2.8 pancake (or similar) could be very successful. The f/4 zooms they've announced seem to be very size-conscious. Why not a pancake prime or two?
It just doesn't seem like their priority, doesn't fit with the roadmap they've announced for the next 3 years, nor the way they are positioning their system in the market, and Nikon has made exactly 2 pancake lenses in their entire history - 1 is the manual focus 45mm/2.8 released 40 years ago; the other is the CX 10mm/f2.8 designed for a sensor half the size of 4/3" yet still managed to be 2mm thicker than the Panasonic 14mm/f2.5, a lens with a faster aperture and bigger image circle. Even their S-series of rangefinder lenses didn't exactly have what you'd call pancakes, since it had a very long flange distance for a rangefinder (34.9mm) and any of the lenses that were short externally had about an inch of optics that protruded inside the camera mount.

I may be completely wrong, I'm just drawing conclusions from what I have learned.

Certainly, I agree that a 40mm/f2.8 pancake would be an incredibly welcome option on either Z-mount or E-mount. Slower lenses, particularly small f2.8 primes are by far the biggest blindspot and weakness of all of the FF mirrorless systems, and until that is addressed, M4/3 or APS-C will still have a home on the shelves of many photographers.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
398
Real Name
Dave Cherry
I purchased the Z7, adaptor, 24-70, and 35S when they first came out. Great camera for landscapes.

But for recent trips to Italy and Haiti, I opted to bring my EM1.2, and 12-100 f4. Unbeatable for all-in-one travel kit, and I don't regret the decision at all. It will be a long time before the Zs have a lens that versatile.

That said, If I went back to Italy, I'd want the Z7 and the 19mm T/S for church interiors and other architectural shots. Which of course would require a tripod, and would therefore be impractical, if even allowed.

Only other problem, my autofocus died on me in Haiti. Manual was difficult with my eyes in some situations.

I look forward to more lenses from Nikon for the Z, though. I'll probably get the 14-30, and maybe that 19 T/S.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
It just doesn't seem like their priority, doesn't fit with the roadmap they've announced for the next 3 years
To be fair, Nikon is attempting to build out a lens portfolio for a brand new mount and therefore need to ensure that their lens releases appeal to the widest audience possible. A "slow" f/2.8 pancake is not a lens that will appeal to a wide range of people. f/1.8 strikes a compromise between size and speed.

How many Sony FE shooters are out there wishing they have a 35mm option that was faster than the f/2.8 pancake, but not has large as the f/1.4 monster? I find it odd that Samyang decided to duplicate exactly what Sony already had done, rather than releasing a lens to fill an obvious void in the Sony lens portfolio.

I think having a ~40mm pancake prime would be great for the Nikon Z mount, however Nikon have more important lenses to release that appeal to a wider market to help accelerate adoption of the new camera system.

Slower lenses, particularly small f2.8 primes are by far the biggest blindspot and weakness of all of the FF mirrorless systems, and until that is addressed, M4/3 or APS-C will still have a home on the shelves of many photographers.
That's solely your opinion. If you value compact lenses, then a smaller format system is the right choice for you.

However, if there were really that many people out there wishing for f/2.8 pancake primes for FF, don't you think camera companies would build those lenses? If they were big commercial successes with users with high sale volumes, why wouldn't they make more in different focal lengths? My guess is that sales for the pancake primes are pretty low, which is why we only see a few of them on the market today.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I think everyone answered the questions well but I’ll add that the Z does have highlight priority metering which can work well if your looking to maximize preserving highlights.
Highlight weighted metering really is great for those applications where maintaining highlight detail is crucial.
 

dlentini

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
154
A 40mm 1.7 pancake prime would be nice, in the mean time there is another system near you that have it. :biggrin:
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
However, if there were really that many people out there wishing for f/2.8 pancake primes for FF, don't you think camera companies would build those lenses? If they were big commercial successes with users with high sale volumes, why wouldn't they make more in different focal lengths? My guess is that sales for the pancake primes are pretty low, which is why we only see a few of them on the market today.
There are a lot of factors that go into the choices of lenses to make.

For a manufacturer, profit margin is the single most important factor. But most buyers expect to pay (significantly) more for faster lenses, so there's a fairly hard limit that puts on the pricing for slower lenses. Witness the extreme skepticism over Sony's $800 35mm/f2.8.

But Canon's EF-S 24/2.8 and EF 40/f2.8 are both very, very popular lenses. Looking at a few sources (B&H, Amazon, online polls) both are among the Top 10 most popular lenses Canon sells. The 24mm may in fact be the 2nd most popular (non-kit) lens Canon makes, behind their $125 50mm/f1.8. But the 24mm sells for $130-150, and the 40mm sells for $180-200. Major sources of profit they are not.

As it stands, in a mature and declining market, camera companies are much happier to shift to the Apple model for their new products - sell 1 expensive camera or lens and make more profit than you get selling 5 cheap, high volume products. And the expensive, high-end products get all the buzz and free marketing, anyway.

It's also easy to argue that more affordable lenses are much more important for systems that have broader market appeal. If you buy a cheap Canon Rebel or Olympus E-PL and end up with a few cheap primes and slow zooms because they're fun and affordable to experiment with, you've already got some buy-in, and you're more likely to stay in the system if you decide you want to go higher end. It's the classic APS-C -> FF DSLR "feeder system" that traps people, regardless of how irrational it actually is.

By contrast, Nikon's Z system starts at $2300, with lenses that start at $600. They're skimming the cream off the top 5% of the entire camera market. Most people would absolutely cackle with laughter at the prospect of spending $2700 to buy a camera and 1 lens. Nikon's new system is not - in any way - trying to attract beginners or curious amateurs, and their marketing and product mix reflects that.

tl;dr - just because a lens might be popular does not mean a manufacturer has incentive to actually make it.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
By contrast, Nikon's Z system starts at $2300, with lenses that start at $600. They're skimming the cream off the top 5% of the entire camera market. Most people would absolutely cackle with laughter at the prospect of spending $2700 to buy a camera and 1 lens. Nikon's new system is not - in any way - trying to attract beginners or curious amateurs
I'll just correct you that the Z6 is $2k. Maybe you're getting your cameras confused between Nikon and Canon, since the EOS R starts at $2.3k? Not sure, but I just wanted to correct that.

And as far as Nikon's target market, while they may be targeting a small percentage of the overall camera market, it's the percentage that has the most money to spend (you know, like the general 20:80 rule, i.e. where 20% of the people have 80% of money). Furthermore, as the camera market continues to shrink, it's precisely the market that Nikon is focusing on that will remain resilient. It's the lower-end, "bargain shopper" area of the camera market that continues to shrink with the penetration of the smartphone camera. You know, the person who used to buy a DSLR to get "nice photos" of their kids, but they now get by with the iPhone's portrait mode because it's "good enough". Those are the people who are contributing to the shrinking camera market, not the person that goes and spends $3,000 on a camera body and $3,000 on a lens. Those buyers will remain, and that's who Nikon is focusing on.

It's funny that you criticize Nikon for doing this, because it's the exact strategy that Olympus has stated in its corporate communications: focus on high-dollar, high-margin items. And even excluding the $3k E-M1X, a Pen-F II is surely to cost more than the $1,200 the original one cost. Olympus knows that the low-end of the photo market is shrinking, and they're shifting their product strategy to account for that.
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
I'll just correct you that the Z6 is $2k. Maybe you're getting your cameras confused between Nikon and Canon, since the EOS R starts at $2.3k? Not sure, but I just wanted to correct that.

And as far as Nikon's target market, while they may be targeting a small percentage of the overall camera market, it's the percentage that has the most money to spend (you know, like the general 20:80 rule, i.e. where 20% of the people have 80% of money). Furthermore, as the camera market continues to shrink, it's precisely the market that Nikon is focusing on that will remain resilient. It's the lower-end, "bargain shopper" area of the camera market that continues to shrink with the penetration of the smartphone camera. You know, the person who used to buy a DSLR to get "nice photos" of their kids, but they now get by with the iPhone's portrait mode because it's "good enough". Those are the people who are contributing to the shrinking camera market, not the person that goes and spends $3,000 on a camera body and $3,000 on a lens. Those buyers will remain, and that's who Nikon is focusing on.

It's funny that you criticize Nikon for doing this, because it's the exact strategy that Olympus has stated in its corporate communications: focus on high-dollar, high-margin items. And even excluding the $3k E-M1X, a Pen-F II is surely to cost more than the $1,200 the original one cost. Olympus knows that the low-end of the photo market is shrinking, and they're shifting their product strategy to account for that.
I don't disagree with any of that.

And I'm certainly not defending Olympus, nor Panasonic for that matter.

If this is the way the camera market was looking when I first bought a $300 GX1 5 years ago, I'm not sure I'd even bother buying a dedicated ILC in the first place. The fixed lens solutions are certainly dramatically better than they used to be.
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
3,891
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
Since I personally have zero interest in adapting lenses, so I'm in a wait and see mode with the Z. I want a more useful general purpose range (24-120 or at least 24-105 would have been better IMHO) and something to 300-400mm. But since those aren't even on the roadmap........

But as I noted over on the Cafe, I really do like what I'm seeing in the Z. I really like that when ever I get a chance to play with one, it just makes sense to me. If I were going to start shooting events again I wouldn't get one as a main body (dual cards are too important to me), but I might as my 3rd.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Since I personally have zero interest in adapting lenses, so I'm in a wait and see mode with the Z. I want a more useful general purpose range (24-120 or at least 24-105 would have been better IMHO) and something to 300-400mm. But since those aren't even on the roadmap........
I agree, it would be nice to something a little longer for the normal zoom. I like to have some overlap in focal length so that you're not always switching back and forth anytime you're around that transitional focal length. The dream lens would be a FF equivalent of the 12-100 PRO, but I don't think we'll see something like that for quite a while, and even if it did show up, I doubt it would have the optical quality that the Olympus lens displays.

I also agree about the lack of a consumer telephoto. However, since I already had a few F-mount bodies I went and picked up a new 70-300 AF-P, which has been really impressive. Pretty compact, pretty light weight, fast focusing, and very good optically. I'm very pleased with it, but I can understand not wanting to get in to adapting lenses (especially if you don't have an existing F-mount body or any other F-mount glass).
 

bassman

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
1,149
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
The Bassman
A few thoughts.

First, none of us have the info that Nikon and Canon presumably have that guides their business planning around the lens roadmap.

Second, if I were in charge (and the data supported it) I would try and balance a set of smallish lenses to support the modest size of the Z bodies, along with some blow-out high quality lenses that can command a premium price. That would allow Z users to choose between a small and large kit, much as I do with my m43 gear. I can go GX7+17/1.8+45/1.8, or E-M1.2+12-35/2.9+40-150/2.8. Both are great, but the first weighs well under 2 lbs while the second is over 4 lbs.

Third, the size and weight penalty for adapting an F mount long lens to the Z is pretty insignificant. So it seems to make sense to start with lenses that offer something unique, like the 24-70/4.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
It seems to have impacted a relatively low number of cameras. From the threads on DPR as well as Nikon Cafe, the majority of users are reporting that their camera is not affected as part of the service advisory.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom