I just compared results of HI 0.5 to ISO 51K. Absolutely NOT worth it for the half stop of speed. Stray color increased very visibly and was not limited to the darker neutral tones.

Now I can turn my silent mode back on and forever ignore the "HI" range. And again this is with a Z6II. Maybe the Zf is a bit better ... or not. But FWIW, B&Hs spec sheets show both cameras topping out the same, at ISO 204K in the "extended" range, both with the same pixel count and also same burst speed. To me it seems like the same camera inside.

The specs for the Nikon ZF indicate the IOS range is to 64000. This sounds impressive. Do people that have used the Nikon ZF find that low light photos at high ISOs such as 32000 or 64000 really work, re not too much noise.

I have a Fujifilm X-T3 which tops out at 12800 and even at that level there is quite a bit of noise. This fall I will have grandchildren playing night soccer under high school lights.

Is the ZF that much better? Even other Nikon models do not list that high of an ISO.

Thanks for any information.

My current plan is to upgrade to the Fujifilm X-T5 and pair it with the Fujifilm XF 50-140 f2.8 lens. As an APSC model I know that the 50-140 is equivalent in focal length to 75-200 full frame. I also know that typically they say full frame is one stop of light better, so 12800 would equate to what I could expect for 25,200 full frame, But 64000 is another 1.x stops better. Before investing I am trying to better understand what Nikon is offering with the ZF.

I am thinking of replacing my Tamron 150-600 Di VC lens. I have a Nikon D7000 and a new Z7ii. I have been very happy with the Tamron it works well on the D7000, BUT it does not auto focus on the Z7ii. As best as I can find it is the firmware/software on the lens and cannot be updated. I love the Z7ii and the focusing capabilities. I am thinking of the Nikon's F mount 200-500 f/5.6 E ED (used it can be had for 900 range at MBP) or the Z mount 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 VR (new 1,700 no used listed that I have found). I have the F to Z adapter. I have been happy with my past used purchases from the usual suspects (KEH, B&H). I have a few F mount lens those that autofocus work with the F2Z adapter and work on the Z7ii. I have two Z mount lenses 24-120 and the 105, both are S lenses and have to me outstanding image quality. I would be using this lens for birds and other nature photos. If you have either or both which do you think has the best image quality and would be my best option?

Millbrook is in the Delaware Water Gap national park and full of great shots. In the summer months, several of the buildings are open with volunteers in costumes on several occasions. A great place to get "lost in time" for an hour or two taking pictures. As an aside, one of the entry roads to Millbrook (Old Mine Road) will be closing down for much of the spring and summer soon for repairs. OMR is supposedly the oldest commercial road in the U.S. and was used by the colonial Dutch to cart ore from some of the mines up to Poughkeepsie.

Millbrook is in the Delaware Water Gap national park and full of great shots. In the summer months, several of the buildings are open with volunteers in costumes on several occasions. A great place to get "lost in time" for an hour or two taking pictures. As an aside, one of the entry roads to Millbrook (Old Mine Road) will be closing down for much of the spring and summer soon for repairs. OMR is supposedly the oldest commercial road in the U.S. and was used by the colonial Dutch to cart ore from some of the mines up to Poughkeepsie.

Folks - I raised this subject a few years back and thought I’d give it an encore. UHH has 2 sections for members to post pics - Photo Gallery and Photo Analysis and posting constructive criticism in the first is frowned upon. I think this rule does a disservice to photographers looking to up their game.

I often look at posts in the Gallery and too often see, sorry for the blunt language, just awful photos. I’m not talking about subjective matters. I’m talking about pics that are out of focus, poorly exposed, with wildly tilted horizons (not done intentionally for artistic purposes), badly post processed or overprocessed, poorly composed with telephone poles growing out of heads, etc. or any number of other technical (NOT subjective) flaws.

And most times, well meaning members post, “Great set”, or “Nicely done” or other “ attaboys” in an attempt to not hurt another member’s feelings. I see this as counterproductive and reinforcing bad technique by poster. I ask how is a member to develop better photography skills if, I again apologize upfront, technically terrible pics are displayed and followed by lots of gushing platitudes?

Last time I mentioned this, I was slapped down by numerous members who argue that unless a poster requests constructive criticism, nothing negative should be said. Ok - I’ll buy the “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing” idea, but gushing over bad stuff does harm to the poster too. If the pics are bad, say nothing. Stop reinforcing bad work.

Just a suggestion to those posting to the Gallery in the future - think about soliciting criticisms so you can improve your work. Sure you will get many nasty, snarky and often incorrect replies from a certain subsection of members, but you will also get many great suggestions for improvement offered in a polite, constructive manner. I’ve been a photographer for 55 yrs and I welcome all well meaning and civil critiques. We are never too old to learn a new trick.

Anxious to see the replies to this rant.