Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless Z6 and Z7 Cameras, 500mm f/5.6

SantaFeJoe wrote:Sigma claims all current lenses work fine with FTZ adapter on Z7:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/721965653 ... tz-adapter

Joe

How good is the FTZ adapter with legacy Nikon or other F-mount lenses on the new Z7? 

For a long time I was using the Metabones adapter on my A7rx   and then A9 so I could use the Canon long glass, and while it worked, the AF was pretty disappointing. I was about to buy the older A mount Sony lenses until I saw a report that even those did not do so well on the MILC bodies despite pairing with Sony's own L3A-EA4 adapter. Thankfully the 100-400GM came along and my (for now) problem was solved. 

My feeling is that no matter how good an adapter, once you introduce another piece of electronics and essentially a spacer (since there is no glass in it) between the camera and the lens, there is bound to be a drop in AF speed and tracking, plus other issues related to extra electronics and possibly signal loss/distortion. 

From my Hi-Fi days, I remember that any extra cables/connectors in the circuit can worsen the S/N ratio. Don't know if this applies to all lens/camera adapters. My own experience with Sony suggests it is a problem. 

Would welcome views of the experts here. Personally, even though I would not be in the market for Nikon gear, it is a great development, some features are better than the Sony (EVF for example) and it will definitely spur more innovation/development in all brands.

Pradeep

Primus wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:Sigma claims all current lenses work fine with FTZ adapter on Z7:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/721965653 ... tz-adapter

Joe

How good is the FTZ adapter with legacy Nikon or other F-mount lenses on the new Z7? 

For a long time I was using the Metabones adapter on my A7rx   and then A9 so I could use the Canon long glass, and while it worked, the AF was pretty disappointing. I was about to buy the older A mount Sony lenses until I saw a report that even those did not do so well on the MILC bodies despite pairing with Sony's own L3A-EA4 adapter. Thankfully the 100-400GM came along and my (for now) problem was solved. 

My feeling is that no matter how good an adapter, once you introduce another piece of electronics and essentially a spacer (since there is no glass in it) between the camera and the lens, there is bound to be a drop in AF speed and tracking, plus other issues related to extra electronics and possibly signal loss/distortion. 

From my Hi-Fi days, I remember that any extra cables/connectors in the circuit can worsen the S/N ratio. Don't know if this applies to all lens/camera adapters. My own experience with Sony suggests it is a problem. 

Would welcome views of the experts here. Personally, even though I would not be in the market for Nikon gear, it is a great development, some features are better than the Sony (EVF for example) and it will definitely spur more innovation/development in all brands.

Pradeep

It's not so much the additional piece of electronics as it is the type of focusing motor in lenses made for DSLRs vs lenses made for mirrorless (although it may have some very minor impact similar to your audio example) .  This is primarily why DSLR lenses, especially long lenses do not focus as quickly on mirrorless cameras as they do on the DSLRs they were designed for.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Primus wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:Sigma claims all current lenses work fine with FTZ adapter on Z7:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/721965653 ... tz-adapter

Joe

How good is the FTZ adapter with legacy Nikon or other F-mount lenses on the new Z7? 

For a long time I was using the Metabones adapter on my A7rx   and then A9 so I could use the Canon long glass, and while it worked, the AF was pretty disappointing. I was about to buy the older A mount Sony lenses until I saw a report that even those did not do so well on the MILC bodies despite pairing with Sony's own L3A-EA4 adapter. Thankfully the 100-400GM came along and my (for now) problem was solved. 

My feeling is that no matter how good an adapter, once you introduce another piece of electronics and essentially a spacer (since there is no glass in it) between the camera and the lens, there is bound to be a drop in AF speed and tracking, plus other issues related to extra electronics and possibly signal loss/distortion. 

From my Hi-Fi days, I remember that any extra cables/connectors in the circuit can worsen the S/N ratio. Don't know if this applies to all lens/camera adapters. My own experience with Sony suggests it is a problem. 

Would welcome views of the experts here. Personally, even though I would not be in the market for Nikon gear, it is a great development, some features are better than the Sony (EVF for example) and it will definitely spur more innovation/development in all brands.

Pradeep

It's not so much the additional piece of electronics as it is the type of focusing motor in lenses made for DSLRs vs lenses made for mirrorless (although it may have some very minor impact similar to your audio example) .  This is primarily why DSLR lenses, especially long lenses do not focus as quickly on mirrorless cameras as they do on the DSLRs they were designed for.

I am curious if the Fstop is changed when using an adapter?

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Primus wrote:
How good is the FTZ adapter with legacy Nikon or other F-mount lenses on the new Z7? 

...............

Pradeep

It's not so much the additional piece of electronics as it is the type of focusing motor in lenses made for DSLRs vs lenses made for mirrorless (although it may have some very minor impact similar to your audio example) .  This is primarily why DSLR lenses, especially long lenses do not focus as quickly on mirrorless cameras as they do on the DSLRs they were designed for.

Thanks EJ. Makes sense. So in reality the adapter makes no difference - good or bad.

Pradeep

E.J. Peiker wrote: It's not so much the additional piece of electronics as it is the type of focusing motor in lenses made for DSLRs vs lenses made for mirrorless (although it may have some very minor impact similar to your audio example) .  This is primarily why DSLR lenses, especially long lenses do not focus as quickly on mirrorless cameras as they do on the DSLRs they were designed for.

I would be interested to know why E.J? Is the power output? As both systems are PDAF. I have been looking through the Canon RF lens info trying to find out if the new lenses have a different focus motor to the EF range but can only find USM in the high end and STM in the lower end. Presumably the USM motor is a "tweaked for dual-pixel" version?



On page 57 of the Nikon Z7 manual (Focus Tracking) Nikon have a really specific disclaimer at the bottom :

Mike in O wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Primus wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:Sigma claims all current lenses work fine with FTZ adapter on Z7:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/721965653 ... tz-adapter

Joe

How good is the FTZ adapter with legacy Nikon or other F-mount lenses on the new Z7? 

For a long time I was using the Metabones adapter on my A7rx   and then A9 so I could use the Canon long glass, and while it worked, the AF was pretty disappointing. I was about to buy the older A mount Sony lenses until I saw a report that even those did not do so well on the MILC bodies despite pairing with Sony's own L3A-EA4 adapter. Thankfully the 100-400GM came along and my (for now) problem was solved. 

My feeling is that no matter how good an adapter, once you introduce another piece of electronics and essentially a spacer (since there is no glass in it) between the camera and the lens, there is bound to be a drop in AF speed and tracking, plus other issues related to extra electronics and possibly signal loss/distortion. 

From my Hi-Fi days, I remember that any extra cables/connectors in the circuit can worsen the S/N ratio. Don't know if this applies to all lens/camera adapters. My own experience with Sony suggests it is a problem. 

Would welcome views of the experts here. Personally, even though I would not be in the market for Nikon gear, it is a great development, some features are better than the Sony (EVF for example) and it will definitely spur more innovation/development in all brands.

Pradeep

It's not so much the additional piece of electronics as it is the type of focusing motor in lenses made for DSLRs vs lenses made for mirrorless (although it may have some very minor impact similar to your audio example) .  This is primarily why DSLR lenses, especially long lenses do not focus as quickly on mirrorless cameras as they do on the DSLRs they were designed for.

I am curious if the Fstop is changed when using an adapter?

No it does not, all an adapter does is insert the space that makes up the difference in the flange distance.  For example the DSLR mount may have a 45mm flange distance to leave room for the mirror while the mirrorless camera has a 25mm flange distance.  The adapter would then be 30mm thick to allow the lens to sit in the right place relative to the sensor.  There is no glass in an adapter.

Neilyb wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote: It's not so much the additional piece of electronics as it is the type of focusing motor in lenses made for DSLRs vs lenses made for mirrorless (although it may have some very minor impact similar to your audio example) .  This is primarily why DSLR lenses, especially long lenses do not focus as quickly on mirrorless cameras as they do on the DSLRs they were designed for.

I would be interested to know why E.J? Is the power output? As both systems are PDAF. I have been looking through the Canon RF lens info trying to find out if the new lenses have a different focus motor to the EF range but can only find USM in the high end and STM in the lower end. Presumably the USM motor is a "tweaked for dual-pixel" version?



On page 57 of the Nikon Z7 manual (Focus Tracking) Nikon have a really specific disclaimer at the bottom :

"The camera may be unable to track subjects if they move quickly, leave the frame or are obscured by other objects, change visibly in size, color, or brightness, or are too small, too large, too bright, too dark, or similar in color or brightness to the background."

http://download.nikonimglib.com/archive ... (En)01.pdf

A couple of articles that may help:
https://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/techn ... tors-70946
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/0 ... -focusing/

Yes E.J. I understand the differences in each motor but not why one is better than another for on-sesnor AF?

Most on sensor AF systems do a final contrast detect fine tuning step (Canon's dual pixel does not) and contrast detect is fastest with a stepper motor due to the game of high low that it plays to zero in on the final AF lock.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Most on sensor AF systems do a final contrast detect fine tuning step (Canon's  dual pixel does not) and contrast detect is fastest with a stepper motor due to the game of high low that it plays to zero in on the final AF lock.

Gotcha! Which explains why Canon have stuck with USM and STM.

So basically, what it boils down to is that even with a well engineered adapter that allows DSLR lenses to be used with MILC bodies, the AF is certainly affected and you cannot get the same performance as the native mount would provide with the same lens. Hence the need to develop independent lenses that are specific to the new mount.

Theoretically then, a lens that works well on one DSLR should work equally well on another DSLR if an adapter can transmit the electronic data to the body - unless the spacer effect of the adapter causes problems of its own.

Pradeep

Primus wrote:So basically, what it boils down to is that even with a well engineered adapter that allows DSLR lenses to be used with MILC bodies, the AF is certainly affected and you cannot get the same performance as the native mount would provide with the same lens.  Hence the need to develop independent lenses that are specific to the new mount.

Theoretically then, a lens that works well on one DSLR should work equally well on another DSLR if an adapter can transmit the electronic data to the body - unless the spacer effect of the adapter causes problems of its own.

Pradeep

Yes on paragraph 1
Theoretically yes on Paragraph 2 but in practice, usually no because all of the DSLR flange back distances are so close to one another that making an adapter to take up the difference may not be possible since it might have to be 2mm thick.  There is a way to adapt Nikon lenses to Canon bodies as there is enough of a difference.  this was popular back when the Nikon 14-28 f/2.8 was the only game in town for a quality ultra-wide zoom.

The reason DSLR lenses are so adaptable because they invariably have a much longer flange back distance so an adapter basically can be nothing more than an extension tube that makes up the difference.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Primus wrote:So basically, what it boils down to is that even with a well engineered adapter that allows DSLR lenses to be used with MILC bodies, the AF is certainly affected and you cannot get the same performance as the native mount would provide with the same lens.  Hence the need to develop independent lenses that are specific to the new mount.

Theoretically then, a lens that works well on one DSLR should work equally well on another DSLR if an adapter can transmit the electronic data to the body - unless the spacer effect of the adapter causes problems of its own.

Pradeep

Yes on paragraph 1
Theoretically yes on Paragraph 2 but in practice, usually no because all of the DSLR flange back distances are so close to one another that making an adapter to take up the difference may not be possible since it might have to be 2mm thick.  There is a way to adapt Nikon lenses to Canon bodies as there is enough of a difference.  this was popular back when the Nikon 14-28 f/2.8 was the only game in town for a quality ultra-wide zoom.

The reason DSLR lenses are so adaptable because they invariably have a much longer flange back distance so an adapter basically can be nothing more than an extension tube that makes up the difference.

Thanks EJ. I did happen to buy an adapter for Nikon to Canon just for that reason, the 14-24 f/2.8. It was very difficult to use as it did not transmit any exposure data to the camera and did not allow aperture setting on the lens except for moving a lever manually and guessing what it was set at. However, it did allow me to use the beautiful lens with my Canon bodies. Just for kicks I even used it to mount the Nikon on my Sony A7r, with a Metabones Canon to Sony adapter in addition. Crazy set up, but it did work. 

Pradeep

Thom Hogan's Z6/Z7 Blog:
https://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/came ... z6z7-blog/

A comparison between z7, D850, Canon EOS R, and Sony a7rlll:

https://fstoppers.com/gear/nikon-z7-goe ... iii-294105

Another “Tony” video.
—————————————

Tamron lenses seem to have issues on z:

https://petapixel.com/2018/10/05/sigma-lenses-fully-compatible-with-nikon-z-but-tamron-lenses-arent/

Joe

The Northrop's and the vast majority of YouTubers have zero credibility IMHO.

Here’s a positive review of the Z7 and lenses.

https://www.eoshd.com/2018/10/nikon-z7- ... than-sony/

MND wrote:The Northrop's and the vast majority of YouTubers have zero credibility IMHO.

You mad ?






 

Check out this teardown of the z7:

https://petapixel.com/2018/10/06/nikon- ... ss-camera/

Edit: Here is the same article without the annoying pop up stuff:

https://kolarivision.com/nikon-z7-dissasembly-teardown/

Joe

DChan wrote:

MND wrote:The Northrop's and the vast majority of YouTubers have zero credibility IMHO.

You mad ?






 

Not at all. 

MND wrote:The Northrop's and the vast majority of YouTubers have zero credibility IMHO.

You’re not alone in your thinking, thus the quotation marks around it in my post(“Tony”)! The remarks after the article indicate the same. Here’s a prior discussion on the same subject:

https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=257477

Every reader can take him as they will. I offer no opinions on him, myself.

Joe