« Camera Face | Main | Stan Makes the Big Time »

Friday, 27 May 2022


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Re Dave's extreme crops with the Z7II, the f/22 sample seems to have been take at a noticeably higher ISO than the f/5.6.

i.e., the drop in apparent resolution may not be purely due to diffraction. Heck, diffraction may even be the minor contributor here.

I'm sure a bunch of your readers will note this.

I used to carry and SX-70 with me to share photos, and now have a small Fuji Instax printer - if you have a polaroid , you have a friend:) There is something magic in being able to share a photo that makes people open up.

And I've noticed a lot of folks moving between Nikon and Fuji, and not to contribute to your GAS, moving from X-H1 to Z6 has been really nice. I still love the Fuji interface(I kept my IR converted X-T1), but having a clean sheet to work with let Nikon make something really great. I know you don't always love 50's, but wow.

And last - I appreciate the last note, that Dave made it home safely. It's something I've noticed younger generations (from my stately perch of 47 years) assume as given. Weird how reliable cars have gotten that long road trips just aren't seen as a challenge or concern in the way that I was indoctrinated into.

The image from Dave Levingston's blog purporting to show small-aperture diffraction doesn't seem to me to show diffraction. Instead, it seems to show high-ISO compression and detail loss due to amplification noise. If you look at the upper left corner of the f22 detail image you see the wall has a distinctly noisy look. This noise is absent from the image shot at f5.6. Unfortunately, he doesn't provide ISO data in his blog post, so I can't be certain of the source of the degradation. It would be interesting to know for sure.

Mike, you don't look creepy, you look downright ... stern. Ever read any Lee Child? If Alan Ritchson ever tires of playing Reacher, you should audition for the part ;)


I really like the E.C. implemented on the Fuji X-H1. I find it fast and inuitive, especially when shooting brackets for real estate work.

Horses for courses...

[That's interesting. I very strongly dislike it, to the point that I will sometimes avoid using it even when I should. It seems very poorly implemented to me. But yes, everyone has different tastes in such things. --Mike]

Resting Bitch Face? Welcome to the club.

I have a Z7II (and a Z6) and I have been on B&H's waiting list for a 24-120 since, I t think, February. Every couple of weeks I get a notice from B&H that says tough sh*t, pal, or something to that effect, they still don't have any.

Tell you something else...the Z's make videos pretty easy.

The problem with the third ring is you cannot engage click stops. I really wanted to be able to use it as my aperture control, but without click stops it moved all over the place so I had to give up that idea.
My zooms for my Z6 were superb but after having to return four primes that were badly decentered I gave up on the Z system, just plain crap quality control.

“inevitably, some people will balk and refuse to cooperate. So it goes.”
Well I guess if it comes to that, they can’t refuse can they?”


Nice Greek Fisherman's / mariner / fiddler / Lenin (&, or Lennon) / Mao / Skipper’s / Breton cap.

I’m a bit of a fan.

Peace and stuff,

EC on the XH-1 is a breeze. I had mine set so that the dial,, the front dial that fell under the shutter release controlled it. Set a custom function. Easy. The small button to the left of the shutter turned this feature on and off.
I do the same with my XPRO3 and XT4. EC is front dial.

I've used the Z6 and Z7's. Great cameras. Very nice hand feel. If it weren't for the size of the lenses they'd be downright compact as far as I'm concerned.

I enjoy your “guess who rolled through town this week?” stories, Mike! Amidst revelations about your readers they usually afford the opportunity to associate a face with the names.

Those Nikon Z bodies look fine. But having never owned, or even touched, a Nikon camera since early college days I don’t think now’s the time to break a streak five decades later.

That image of the solitary gent standing on the pier is a real blood pressure reducer, isn’t it?! It would also be an excellent entry into a challenge to see how many triangles you can form into a coherent photo composition!

Have a good weekend remembering.

One key to the Z lenses, IMHO, is to skip the f2.8 zoom trio. If you really need portrait bokeh, go with the f1.8 85mm; if you need length, go with the really pretty darn good f4.5-5.6 70-300 for F-mount, with the very good adapter for the Zs. And if you don't need that much length, get the 24-120, which gets really good ratings, and is unavailable everywhere. If you gotta have zooms, couple the Z's compact f4 24-70 which is really good, with that F-mount 70-300. I understand that old people like me get nervous with the ISO gets above 60, but really, go ahead and shoot a few shots at 200 and 1600, and see if you can tell the difference without a microscope. And if you're happy with 800-1200-1600, you really don't need that f2.8 anyway, right?

Resting pissed off face. That's me too.

Mike, love the out of focus diagonal of the distant shore in the background of your portrait of Dave! Jim

You looked more friendly with your beard…


45.7 MP FF? I remember reading a convincing-seeming argument that for FF about 20MP is the best because then the pixels are the optimum size, physics-wise. More MP means too-small pixels and therefore doesn't help. Did that argument prove to be wrong?

One of my use of the Z7 is to put an autofocus Leica "compatible" lens adapter (do have a few Leica lens and in fact like my 193x? 50/3.5 collapsible lens with it; ...). In fact, originally I have photoed this combination for the camera submission. And struggle whether I should do my Hasseblad with Nikon Lens ... Guess btw I fix my mind which camera to send in, the event is passed in the last decade :-)

For the +/- I am just lazy, just take 3 auto +/-1 and post-production it.

I have a lowly Z5 I picked up as a BF special and though not quite as nice as it’s other full frame siblings it is a lot of camera for the $999 I paid for it. As far as diffraction does anyone need to stop down more than F11 on a 35mm size sensor? Especially wide angle.

As I may have posted before, any of those bodies with the plastic fantastic 40 mm f/2 is very nice to carry and produces great images. As much as I like my x-t2, the z just feels better in hand and makes really nice photos. You wouldn’t be making a mistake…

Wait, there isn't a de-facto standard for exposure compensation on serious cameras? I'm used to the front dial (because the de-facto standard is 2 dials on serious cameras) controlling EC in program, aperture, or shutter speed mode (but not in manual mode, where both dials are used for actual settings. I've found this true across 3 or 4 brands I think, and have apparently been thinking of it as settled.

Not that I ever have really gotten happy with using exposure compensation; I often just switch to manual for those situations. Shooting in contrasty light mostly, so small changes in camera position or aim will have big effects on what auto-exposure picks, so just setting an offset from the auto-exposure doesn't produce reliably correct results.

Hey Mike, that Nikon Z camera looks awfully good with you.

Welcome to "the stern looking face at rest club." It could be worse- and it will be, as one gets progressively older. I once almost scared myself walking past a store window and catching my reflection- and that was some 30 odd years ago!

Tom Burke wrote:

...the announcement of Canon's Z7 and Z10 APS-C mirrorless cameras a week or so ago...

Those are Canon's EOS R7 and EOS R10. Competing with Nikon didn't include copying the "Z" nomenclature. :-)

[That's the editor's fault as much as the commenter's. Fixed now, and thanks. --Mike the Ed.]

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007