Nikon Nikon Z fc Talk

Hyperthetically speaking - would there be a significant difference in image quality using an adapted F-mount lens on the Z-fc body to
using the same lens directly on the D500? I'm assuming the sensors are (essentially?) identical
No- unless you have a very cheap adapter that does not get the lens parallel to the mount. If so, toss it and buy another.
So far, I have many cheap adapters and have not had a problem. The Nikon adapter is high quality, and will not be a problem. "Dumb" Adapters are nothing more than extension tubes with different mounts on either end. The Nikon S-Mount lenses from the rangefinder era work nicely on my Nikon Z5. "Smart" adapters are extension tubes with different mounts on each end and electrical connectors. Some adapters go so far as to provide autofocus functions, built in motors that move the mount. Those- size and weight restrictions. The mount must remain parallel with the image plane. Nikon made Teleconvertors that provided the same function 40 years ago.
 
Last edited:
No- unless you have a very cheap adapter that does not get the lens parallel to the mount. If so, toss it and buy another.
So far, I have many cheap adapters and have not had a problem. The Nikon adapter is high quality, and will not be a problem. "Dumb" Adapters are nothing more than extension tubes with mounts on either end. The Nikon S-Mount lenses from the rangefinder era work nicely on my Nikon Z5. "Smart" adapters are extension tubes with different mounts on each end and electrical connectors. Some adapters go so far as to provide autofocus functions, built in motors that move the mount. Those- size and weight restrictions. The mount must remain parallel with the image plane. Nikon made Teleconvertors that provided the same function 40 years ago.
Yes - I've got the Nikon branded FTZ and so far am finding it excellent (y)

I've also got a "dumb" adaptor for Nikon F to FujiX as well as a Fringer for the same purposes. The Fringer is amazing.
 
There are some early-on reports (2019) of users putting the AF-D 28~70 zoom (one of the first AF-D lenses made) causing the FTZ to fail. Might be possible that the electrical contact specification was "loose" or the lens had a bent contact that caused the adapter to have problems, as in a short. This is why products get revised in the production run, some small revisions some big ones. Even the Nikon S3-2000 reissue had to be revised, Nikon got the spec wrong for external mount lenses on the first units produced. Nikon fixed those free of charge.
 
Let me know how you meter light? I generally leave it on matrix metering but find that it tends to make me over-expose.
I'm aware of it and adjust accordingly, but I'd rather have it give me accurate readings
 
Let me know how you meter light? I generally leave it on matrix metering but find that it tends to make me over-expose.
I'm aware of it and adjust accordingly, but I'd rather have it give me accurate readings
I use matrix metering as well - and I know that it tends to overvalue whatever dominates the image, lights or shadows. I don't mind a bit of underexposure (especially given the great shadow recovery from the Z fc's sensor), but will frequently dial in a bit of EV compensation; interestingly, I find that I can make things work for me just by using either -0.7 or -1.3; rare cases demand -2.0. That's why I haven't bothered testing other metering modes extensively.

Highlight-aware spot metering might be interesting for you, though. It'll protect highlights at all times. However, I find it to be very, very conservative and it often gives me extremely dark results - given that highlight recovery on the Z fc's sensor isn't bad at all either, I think it overdoes things considerably. But it'll essentially prevent over-exposure.

M.
 
Let me know how you meter light? I generally leave it on matrix metering but find that it tends to make me over-expose.
I'm aware of it and adjust accordingly, but I'd rather have it give me accurate readings
For me it's highlighted weighted metering which I tend to use with all AF cameras, it's a subjective choice based on the environment where you take pictures of course but for me when I apply that, my images on a Z camera tend to stand out more so than they would if I were not using that option. I also find this easy to achieve with a Z camera by applying Auto Area AF, Continuous AF-C and back button focusing using the AF-On button, ie I don't rely on the matrix for AF either. I only mention this as it generally helps me with the metering process/ output. Oh, and I never put EV compensation at zero on a FF/ASPC camera either, always somewhere between -1 and zero. Obviously you'll adjust the raw file to taste, but doing this gives me a nice (IMO) file to work with.
 
Last edited:
For me it's highlighted weighted metering which I tend to use with all AF cameras, it's a subjective choice based on the environment where you take pictures of course but for me when I apply that, my images on a Z camera tend to stand out more so than they would if I were not using that option. I also find this easy to achieve with a Z camera by applying Auto Area AF, Continuous AF-C and back button focusing using the AF-On button, ie I don't rely on the matrix for AF either. I only mention this as it generally helps me with the metering process/ output. Oh, and I never put EV compensation at zero on a FF/ASPC camera either, always somewhere between -1 and zero. Obviously you'll adjust the raw file to taste, but doing this gives me a nice (IMO) file to work with.
DPR used to publish DR response curves for cameras. Those curves were very enlightening, the way different makers shifted their curves around middle grey ... And also how they rolled off the response in both highlights and shadows.

Worth looking back at reviews around 2010-2012 (and earlier). Still valid today, in principle, and germane to the discussion in this thread.
 
DPR used to publish DR response curves for cameras. Those curves were very enlightening, the way different makers shifted their curves around middle grey ... And also how they rolled off the response in both highlights and shadows.

Worth looking back at reviews around 2010-2012 (and earlier). Still valid today, in principle, and germane to the discussion in this thread.
Sadly those curves baffle me totally and I don't understand them at all. More's the pity but there I some things I simply don't comprehend... like electricity o_O
 
I encountered a completely uncommon situation yesterday photographing Art in the Park.
It was midday, bright African sunlight. Somebody had used reflective silver spray-paint for this graffiti and it literally blew out my sunglasses!
So this is not a 'normal' situation one would encounter daily, but I struggled. This is the SOOC jpg recorded along with the RAW file, which I could tweak a little

I tried to recapture the silver of it over here (the very right hand side of this image is the start of the one in the other thread, where you can see the colours better)


ZFC_6379.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
I encountered a completely uncommon situation yesterday photographing Art in the Park.
It was midday, bright African sunlight. Somebody had used reflective silver spray-paint for this graffiti and it literally blew out my sunglasses!
So this is not a 'normal' situation one would encounter daily, but I struggled. This is the SOOC jpg recorded along with the RAW file, which I could tweak a little

I tried to recapture the silver of it over here (the very right hand side of this image is the start of the one in the other thread, where you can see the colours better)


View attachment 390452
I reckon that you have done a pretty good job on that, mate.

It's really worth keeping in mind the "family of angles" discussed throughout "Light Science and Magic" by Biver, Fuqua et. al.

Tells all about how to avoid or capture reflective surfaces.

An easy read, and not expensive. It taught me more about lighting in a few weeks than 50+ years of experience.
 
Back
Top