What if I don’t want to??
I don’t like repeating inaccuracies.

Just so you know:
I do know how to use quote reply,
as you can clearly see.
but I don’t want readers to have to read long, incorrect posts, over and over again.

(I don’t quote your reply, because I don’t want to repeat your inaccurate comment)


Please, feel free to check out the photos I posted.

You may know canon, but, nope you don’t know ftz’s!!

And FTR:
I never said the adapter had a focus motor
I said:
Many users of legacy auto focus glass, before they had inbuilt silent wave motors, wish, lust for, and hope that someone will come out with an adapter that adds another motor to control screw drive lenses.
Without the 2nd motor, all screw drive lenses, when used with the ftz or ftz2 adapters become manual focus glass

Is that not clear enough, I can elaborate.
But I believe a reader would understand that I said a focus motor is desired, but not available from Nikon.

Someone mentioned an adapter that has two motors, and indeed it will focus screw drive lenses, but I have no knowledge of that, and won’t comment on something I am not sure about.
Unlike some other posters on the board.

Need I say more, or does a photo indeed speak a thousand words??

And for the record, the original ftz, had the diaphragm actuater motor in the bottom square part.

Nikon reduced the size of that motor, to create the ftz2.

No adapter exists yet,
to have the camera control the screw drive focus, on lenses, so equipped.
It is almost a holy grail for some.

I'll hedge a bit, Larry, and say your friend Randy seems to be assuming functions that don't exist. The FTZ and FTZ2 are exactly the same equipment, just with different physical sizes. Neither has any sort of focus motor, especially not the Screw Drive type, as well as no Silent Waves, Internals, Steppers, etc.


I never said that it has a focus motor. That is something that many people are jonesing for.
I said that it has a motor to actuate the diaphragm lever on non “E” glass.

I have attached a photo of the side of the ftz2 that attaches to a f mount lens.
You will clearly see the lever, that opens and closes the diaphragm.
I will send the photo of the other side, separately.
If the side that attaches to the body, has no lever, which it doesn’t, how do you think the electronic signal from the camera, is translated to physical motion on the other side… it has a motor!!!
That’s how!!

(Download)


(Download)

I just removed the ftz2 from one of my lenses. If you look at the side that attaches to legacy glass, you will see a diaphragm actuator. Since no Z camera has a diaphragm actuator, inbuilt, this is not something that is passed through from the camera. It is controlled by a motor inside the adapter.
In fact, the reason the first adapter, the original ftz, is so bulbous, is because the motor occupies the area under the lens opening. The ftz2 had to use a different, smaller motor, to eliminate the square portion, to make it more useable with the Z9, due to the inbuilt grip.
You really are wrong about this.
There is nothing in the optical path
And there is no motor to drive screw mount lenses, but there surely is a motor and a diaphragm actuation lever.
Otherwise non E lenses would not open up for focusing and stop down to the proper aperture for the exposure.
FTR: only recent F mount lenses, labeled as E, have an electronically controlled diaphragm.

You are wrong.

Come on Randy .... there are no motors in lens mount adapters. Adapters with no glass just set the legacy lens to the proper distance from sensor to maintain / obtain infinity focus as the legacy lens would have on the legacy D/SLR body. Adapters with glass change the effective aperture and magnification.

Actually, you are completely and totally incorrect.
I don’t know where you get your information.
I guess you don’t use one.

The ftz and ftz2 both have an inbuilt motor that activates the manual diaphragm lever on lenses that are not “E” models, which have an electronic, not physical activation.
All Z mount lenses have electronic actuation.
But the majority of F mount lenses don’t.
Without that motor, there would be no way to stop the lens down, during an exposure.
Since the Z9 is completely silent, I can actually hear the motor in the ftz2 working.

There is no glass, or anything else in the optical path, so there is absolutely no degradation of the lenses acuity.

Many users of legacy auto focus glass, before they had inbuilt silent wave motors, wish, lust for, and hope that someone will come out with an adapter that adds another motor to control screw drive lenses.
Without the 2nd motor, all screw drive lenses, when used with the ftz or ftz2 adapters become manual focus glass.

Actually, if this phenomenon does exist, I would think the reason that the fps may slow down, is because of the motor in the adapter, which activates the diaphragm.
It is imaginable that the adapter doesn’t activate the diaphragm as fast as the lens, natively mounted on a dslr. That could cause a slight (microseconds?) slowdown.
I have never experienced this. But, I have never tested for the difference, either.
FTR: I highly doubt that the speed of the electrons/signals from the camera to the lens, through the adapter, slows down anything.
Ymmv
IMHO
📸 Regards, Randy 📸

I have found that most of my AF-s lenses, with the ftz2 installed, are the same length as most same focal length Z mount lenses.
As an example, If you put the 70-200 FL-e f2.8 with the adapter mounted, next to the z mount 70-200 S f2.8, You will find that there is very little difference in overall length between the two lenses.
I use the FL-e on my Z9, very often and I can say that it is at least as good as it was on my D850. Maybe even better, but definitely not worse.
The adapters are incapable of affecting the optical system/quality of the glass, because there is nothing inside the adapter in the optical path.
I did replace just one lens with a native one.
The 24-120 f4 dslr af-s lens was my most used lens at events, red carpets, wedding receptions, rallies, and step and repeat shoots. Although it did work fine on the Z9, with the adapter, I bought the native version because it happens to be a little bit sharper, and honestly, I like the aesthetics of the Z mount lenses.
But, it was not necessary.

Do not fear the adapter!!!
Ymmv
IMHO
📸 Regards, Randy 📸

Isn’t it ok to have pride in the kit we use??
I believe it is.
The end result, the image,
is paramount, without question.
It’s not the only part of the shooting scenario, though.
The equipment we use, does define us, in a certain way.
And indeed, absolutely influences our final image.
In my humble opinion, there is nothing wrong with enjoying the shooting experience with your personal choice of gear, while you are capturing your favorite subject/scene.
Remember:
“To each their own”

A low end car, will get you to the same place as a high end car. Which is its sole purpose. There is a big difference in the experience of getting there.

Why would you care if someone admires a photographer’s’ gear choice?
Or the fact that they took pleasure in the recognition of said kit??

Those questions and/or comments, from strangers, and onlookers, may be because the askers are interested in getting into photography.
If the choice of equipment is important to the questioner, and can push that person forward, into getting a good camera, and taking up the hobby or business, what is wrong with that?
IMHO
Ymmv
📸 Regards, Randy 📸

Nope, no chemicals, in most of the drug store chains.
Most have a Kodak or Fuji kiosk. You insert your memory card, edit the print for exposure, cropping, color, then you click print, and the inkjet printer inside the kiosk spits out the prints.


Even if they do use a chemical process, that is fine.
My advice was to print out one of his images, or one he likes on line, make a print in a store so he can go home, compare the results with what he is getting, and maybe that will help diagnose the issue.
Maybe he’s not adding enough or too much contrast, same with exposure adjustments, when editing.
Maybe it’s the paper choice, etc.
The point is to have a known good print in order to have something to strive for and compare to.

If the op is not going to do enough volume with a new printer, they can clog.
It would be good idea to make his prints at a kiosk to test the market, before investing in a photo printer, ink and paper. If he buys a quality (ie: costly) printer, and finds that his prints don’t sell, he’s out a lot of money.
If he does sell a decent amount, of the kiosk prints, then he can go, spend his money and make beautiful prints at home.
One step at a time.
And I wish him much luck with his chosen journey.

There would be no difference in the results from a DSLR and a mirrorless camera from the same manufacturer released at the same time with same MP taken with the same lens of the same subject taken at the same ISO, aperture and shutter speed and focused correctly.


Oh boy, do I disagree!!!
There are many reasons why my Z9 takes better photos than my D850 can.

Just a few:
No mirror, so no mirror slap, at the very moment you want the camera to be as still as possible.
No shutter, reread the above!!!
The camera has inbuilt ibis. So any lens, in the world, that I can mount, automatically has in body image stabilization.
Not only does the D850 not have ibis, but when I mount any Af-s or newer F mount lens on the Z9, I get the advantage of both VR and Ibis!! I believe that in most cases, the sharper photo is considered… better.
The Z9 viewfinder has a starlight mode, which lets you focus in unbelievably dark club interiors, that my D850 couldn’t touch that.
The Z9 has at least a one stop advantage in low light noise, compared to the D850.
The D850 only was 7fps or max at 9fps, with the grip and en-el18 battery. The Z9 can shoot full size raw and jpeg, at 20fps.
That makes a huge difference in sports, wildlife, BIF, weddings, pretty much anything! It’s a big difference between getting your shot, and hoping that you got the shot. And, oh yeah, I can capture 120 fps JPEGs at 11mp. Try that Dslr.
I can immediately see my shot in the viewfinder, without taking my eye away, so I don’t have a delay before I can shoot the next shot.
My mirrorless camera can automatically capture an image, when a subject comes into a predetermined location. D850… nope!
The Z9 has a wider dynamic range than the D850.
The Z9 camera has pre-exposure capture of up to 300 seconds, that means if you fire the camera AFTER you see the lightning, you have it already on your faster memory cards.
D850 doesn’t know what precapture is.
Again, the difference between getting a shot and not getting it.
There is virtually no buffer on the Z9
I can go on, there are many more features that allow the mirrorless camera, in my case the Z9, to create photos than the D850 could never dream of.

Did I mention that the camera is absolutely silent?? I don’t have to worry about scaring an animal away.
And I can shoot through the vf, as a behind the scene ‘tog, during actual takes, because it is silent. The D850 does shoot silently, but only on the rear screen in live view.
And…
And….

There is absolutely no question that I get better results from the top of the line mirrorless camera, than I ever did with what most consider the best dslr extant.

They are so far apart, in ability and I say quality, that I wish I switched sooner.

Even, if both cameras were taking photos of the same color chart with the same focal length made by Nikon lens, the Z9 will produce a sharper image, because the Z mount S lenses are better, faster and sharper!!
And they can’t be mounted on the older F mount bodies.

There is no comparison
Just getting a photo, that wasn’t possible with the D850, is a huge improvement, but that photo will look better than the previous camera for all the reasons above, and many more it is a game changer.

Sorry to have to disagree, but I believe that any other high end mirrorless camera will produce better results than the best dslr.

And a camera that can take photos that the other one can’t, results in better photos than not getting anything photos!

Getting the photo is what it is all about.
Imho
Ymmv
📸 Regards, Randy 📸

Or, you can go to a store with an in store photo printer, such as, cvs, Walgreen’s, camera stores, etc, to make some prints, before you invest in an expensive printer.
See if that is what you are striving for, and then try to emulate the result with your gear.

In order to make a great print,
you want to start with a great image.

Maybe, download a photo that you really like, that matches your style and subject matter, make a print. That will give you a good idea of whether it is your image that is influencing your results, or it is the printer.