Feedback on Nikon Zf camera (Page 4): I bought a black half case for my Df. It didn’t stand out, but it gave protection.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

BebuLamar wrote:

I sure glad I didn't get the case for my Df. It looks quite bad. It looks like someone wearing pants that coming down too low.

I bought a black half case for my Df. It didn’t stand out, but it gave protection.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

User ID wrote:

IIRC, he did push me toward the my Z6&7.

OTOH his mighty attempt to push me away from Voigtlander lenses didnt prevent my buying seven of them (so far).

Some Hawgsters knock Ken, but then youll see the same Hawgs asking the Klown Kar about purchasing advice. Duuuhhhh ??!!??

Rockwell moved me to the Z6 II.
I have eight Voigtlander lenses: 2 Leica-M, 2 Nikon-Z, 4 Nikon-F.

User ID

Mac wrote:

Rockwell moved me to the Z6 II.
I have eight Voigtlander lenses: 2 Leica-M, 2 Nikon-Z, 4 Nikon-F.

You jogged my memory bank. When I said I have seven Voigtlanders, thaz just the Leica mounts. Ken didnt knock those. I have three OTHER Voigtlanders, the SLII line, in EF SLR mount and THOSE are what Ken strenuously disrecommends in his review.

In Kens view, the SLII line features modest specs at high prices. Thaz true. If pure raw bang-for-bucks is your priority, fly with Ken.

Possibly OK with Ken. (M-mount)

(Download)

Disrecommended by Ken. (EF and F mounts)

(Download)

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

User ID wrote:

You jogged my memory bank. When I said I have seven Voigtlanders, thaz just the Leica mounts. Ken didnt knock those. I have three OTHER Voigtlanders, the SLII line, in EF SLR mount and THOSE are what Ken strenuously disrecommends in his review.

In Kens view, the SLII line features modest specs at high prices. Thaz true. If pure raw bang-for-bucks is your priority, fly with Ken.

User ID

Mac wrote:

If bang for the buck is someones main priority they should shun cameras and lenses above the midrange models. Above that plateau, ROI rapidly withers away.

brrywill

joehel2 wrote:

You can’t beat the D850. I’m guessing the Z8 is the mirrorless equivalent to the D850, the Zf obviously is not. If I’m traveling for photography, the D850 is going. I like the size and weight of the Zf and the EVF. I intend to use the Zf as a pocket camera, i.e, a more sophisticated cellphone camera ready to go when we stop on the road for a quick photo. The resale price of the D850 and D810 make them a super bargain, especially when you have a bag of lenses.

Thanks Joe, that's kind of what I was thinking too. Especially since I do have a ton of older lenses. Will have to keep my eyes open for a clean 850.

baron_silverton Loc: Los Angeles, CA

sanhuberto wrote:

Wanting to get back to my life time hobby, I have been repeatedly perusing the Nikon USA webpage and the Zf caught my eye. It takes me back to the days of the Nikkormat, the FE, the FM, when cameras were simpler. The Zf seems a little bit more more analog than digital, does anyone out there has any comments or feedback on this camera that wants to share?
Much appreciated.
Claude

Honestly, don't listen to all these haters here. None of them even have this camera. It is a joke to see them commenting on something they know nothing about. I have this camera and I have also been shooting Nikon since 1986 and used an FE extensively in that era.

Simply put. The Zf is amazing!

It operates just like the Nikon's of old but with all the benefits of a fully modern state of the art digital camera.

One of the respondents correctly points out that modern Nikon lenses do not have aperture rings on the lenses and as such you have to still control aperture with the front command dial on the camera and in this ONE way it is not like the FE or FM of old and that is true - but only for modern Nikon lenses.

You can adapt all of your old manual Nikon lenses via the FTZ adaptor and use them just as you would have in the old days. You will not get any EXIF data because these old lenses do not communicate with the body electronically but there was no EXIF data on the FE or FM either so this hardly takes away from the 'vintage' experience.

If you do want a fully manual experience and also want the EXIF data - Voightlander makes a full range of manual focusing lenses for the Z mount that have electronic contacts and YES have a manual aperture ring as well, so with these lenses you can use the Zf EXACTLY as you would have used the FE or FM. They make some really nice lenses for this camera - the 50mm f/1 stands out as a real gem - expensive but worth the price (and it has an aperture ring) - there are other lenses from Voightlander for this mount which also have aperture rings and are less expensive than the 50mm f/1.

Guaranteed - if you liked shooting old Nikons then you will LOVE this camera.

Hope this helps to set the record straight.
-PD

BebuLamar

baron_silverton wrote:

One of the respondents correctly points out that modern Nikon lenses do not have aperture rings on the lenses and as such you have to still control aperture with the front command dial on the camera and in this ONE way it is not like the FE or FM of old and that is true - but only for modern Nikon lenses.

You can adapt all of your old manual Nikon lenses via the FTZ adaptor and use them just as you would have in the old days.
-PD

When you use an F mount lens on the Zf it doesn't look nice any more. Look is an important aspect of the Zf. I wish that Nikon put the aperture ring on the Z lenses when they introduced the Z7 and Z6. But they didn't so I am very disappointed. Fuji put the aperture ring on their lenses. On Z lenses with the control ring you can set it so it controls the aperture but with no markings on the ring and thus you can't set the aperture with power off.

kelso007 Loc: Circle Pines Minnesota

I agree with what you are saying. The ZF, which I have and use, is amazing and opens up the old dimension of photography. As a side note the correct spelling is Voigtlander.

User ID

baron_silverton wrote:

Honestly, don't listen to all these haters here. ... (show quote)

NOPE. Older F-mount lenses do not function normally on the FTZ as you claim. I am a user. Apparently you just parrot false info.

You accuse others of critiquing a camera theyve never used, yet you critique it yourself with the FTZ while clearly youve never used it with older Nikkors.

You got less than zero cred.

User ID

BebuLamar wrote:

When you use an F mount lens on the Zf it doesn't look nice any more. Look is an important aspect of the Zf. I wish that Nikon put the aperture ring on the Z lenses when they introduced the Z7 and Z6. But they didn't so I am very disappointed. Fuji put the aperture ring on their lenses. On Z lenses with the control ring you can set it so it controls the aperture but with no markings on the ring and thus you can't set the aperture with power off.

I use Sigmas on my Zs (also Sonys), which are fully functional modern AF lenses *with* normal (marked) aperture control rings.

(Download)

BebuLamar

User ID wrote:

I use the Sigmas on my Zs, which are fully functional modern AF lenses *with* normal (marked) aperture control rings.

I wonder why Nikon didn't make the 40mm lens with such an aperture ring.

User ID

BebuLamar wrote:

I wonder why Nikon didn't make the 40mm lens with such an aperture ring.

Especially since they charge a bit extra for a retro styled version of the same lens.

There is a 35/2.0 in the Sigma line but youd be paying hundreds more than that 40 just to get an aperture ring. I have four of those Sigmas from 17 to 90, but at the midpoint I go with the Nikon 40. Money talks.

Since I cant fit the Nikon 40 to my Sonys, I have the 45/2.8 Sigma cuz its way cheaper than the 35/2.0 Sigma. Even then, its still a almost 2X the $$ of the Nikon 40.

The loss leader $$ of the 40 messes up all other $$ comparisons. Its such an anomaly. Too bad Nikon didnt use the Df as a loss leader. Then all its shortcomings would be fully justified by its low $$.

BebuLamar

User ID wrote:

The loss leader $$ of the 40 messes up all other $$ comparisons. Its such an anomaly.

Perhaps as the loss leader the 40 doesn't have the aperture ring. But for your Z7 the aperture ring isn't important. Only for the Zf which the aperture ring is important.