The Urban Image Thread

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

What's happening in that bus' window? that looks hectic! is it a reflection - and if so, of what?
I just noticed that last night. I thought it might be some processing artifacts, but no. It's on the unprocessed raw file. I'm not sure what it is. Scene is across the street from the state capital, so my guess is that it's the reflection of some kind of decorative wall behind me. There are 2 kinds of windows on the bus, and they reflect the same thing differently. The next time I'm at that intersection, I'll take a look.

I did a little sleuthing. I think it's a reflection of this wall, but with me standing at the corner of the wall, almost flush with the surface.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I grabbed a screenshot from Google Maps. If you're looking down the wall instead of straight at it, it looks something like this. I think that's what we're seeing in the tinted bus windows.

Last edited:
Hi @MoonMind : is the 24-200 a recent acquisition? Your thoughts?
No, I've actually had it for some time ...

This'll be hard to keep suitably short; so, if I fail to manage that, I'll move the whole thing to a different (gear-centered) place ...

First, I actually own two superzoom lenses for Nikon Z, the Z 18-140mm DX and the Z 24-200mm, and FWIW, I clearly prefer the DX lens. However, the Z 24-200mm is much better built and well sealed, so it's the better travel lens, and of course, it works much better on the 24MP bodies (the Z 7 II will take the Z 18-140mm DX gladly, but the benefit of that combination is actually pretty slim - you get virtually the same resolution as on the Z 50 or Z fc). So, if you don't really need the build quality and since you own a Z fc (at least that's what I seem to remember), I'd really consider the DX lens first. It doesn't have any real optical deficiancies I can make out - yes, of course, it's neither the sharpest nor the fastest lens, but optically, it's very satisfying indeed, and it's small and light (and stabilised - a boon on the Z 50 I use it with).

That said, for a superzoom, the Z 24-200mm is actually pretty good; its weakest point is the wide end (with quite a lot of LaCA and LoCA visible on contrasting edges), but it's a really good, if somewhat dim lens from 35mm to 135mm or thereabouts (it hits f/6.3 already around 70mm or so), and a very usable one up to 200mm. The issues on the wide end somewhat restrict its use as a landscape lens (though you can correct for most things in post) - but for its size, it's still pretty astonishing, all the more so if you consider that it has its own stabilisation built in, too (which differentiates it from Tamrons famous 28-200mm lens). It really works great on the Z 6 and all cameras of that type, and it pairs well enough with my Z f. So well in fact that I didn't go for the Z 24-70mm f/4 S I had in my hands (and on the Z f) today; while the size advantages are there if the latter is collapsed, as soon as both lenses are deployed, I'll take the reach of the superzoom over the better optics (especially at the wide end) and slighly lighter weight of the compact S lens; apart from the 24-28mm range, the superzoom isn't a lesser lens in any discernible way except lens speed. And of course, it keeps on giving for "longer" ...

Okay, I hope I haven't done too badly in terms of length ... And I hope it helps.