Видео

@@nathanjimenez1562 we aren’t NEARLY as bad as the commenters

Nice to see you here, Matt. Love that you care for smaller channels in the community!

@@MattIrwinPhotography are thing. I’d love to chat about it 🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙

@@lpd13doc1 I will be testing the 24-120 soon, but I’m sure that my mind won’t change that the 24-70 f/2.8.

@@ZWadePhotoI can get a refurbished 24-70 2.8 for under $1600...so tempting

@@johnfromconnecticut yep. You called it lol

@@rumporridge1 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌

@Ton-x4r I have a feeling it might be better. But look at the damn price for that. We may end up with the classic, “is it better enough”

@@pompeii357 I’m not sure what you mean partner. But if you set both cameras to the exact same ISO shutter and aperture you should get at least similar enough results to be adjusted in Post 🤙

@ZWadePhoto thanks

@@Audimann lmfao. Eh, it’s just the mother of your children. Get the lens. Lmfao

You can. Just not as discrete as some street folk might prefer

I honestly would just go with the 1.8. I hate dealing with CA. Lol

I never made such a promise lol

@@ZWadePhoto 😂

Whatever works for you my dude 🤙🤙

@@ZWadePhoto yeah I am currently using the leica M 35mm f/2.8 from the 50's … This is no real solution but great for walk arounds. It has the sharpness I need but no coating as we are sued to in modern lenses. So I am searching. I might end up with the this new lens. let's wait and see.

@@ZWadePhoto I really do enjoy your channel … it is different and refreshing.

@@MAWAJR I’m happy to provide a break in the day for ya partner 🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙

I can’t wait to have one!!

Because the size doesn’t matter. Nikon aims for superior output in this line of primes. For the folks that prefer smaller than this there are still 2 native options and lots of third party 🤙

@ , are you certain more elements = better image quality? Has Nikon, or Canon for that matter, solved the problems of CA and other common lens distortions, while achieving maximum sharpness and maintaining color saturation and microcontrast? Seems improbable to me? Will it really as good as, or better, than the Zeiss 35 MM Distagon, or Nikkor 35MM AF-D F2? I’ll wait for your hands on review!

@ it depends on how you define it I guess. More elects allows more correction of things like aberrations so that by most people definitions is “better IQ”. Historically, more elements = less character. This remains largely true, however with some of Nikons best Z lens, albeit really damn expensive (all of the F/1.2s, the Plena, the Noct) they have a LOT of glass but have retained a special look/character. That’s what people mean when you hear them talk about Nikons “secret sauce”. Again, once upon a time a lot of glass also meant not so good black and whitability (as I say) and I was a believer of that. however Nikon has proved me wrong in multiple occasions in the Z mount, but not ALL occasions.

@ , thanks for the more detailed information. My understanding is limited to what I learned from an interview with a Canon or Nikon lens engineer some years ago in which he discussed the trade offs between correcting aberrations and maintaining overall image rendition. Because of that, I chose to keep and adapt my EF 50MM 1.2 to my R6 as opposed to purchasing the RF 50MM 1.2. For the same reason, I have favored AF-D lenses, which tend to have lower element counts than G lenses, for my D700 and D750. If Nikon has solved the trade offs in the Z line, then kudos to them.

@ I don’t think you’ll ever totally fix the trade totally. But on some lenses Nikon has definitely found this spot between maintaining a lot of beauty and optical perfection to where it’s possible to that pixel peeping eye is 100% happy rolling with it because a few tweaks in post bring back some enough if that wow factor found in those older low element count lenses. Unfortunately, such lenses happen to be the absolute WILDLY high priced ones. lol because they had the kitchen sink thrown at them

I believe he just changed the aperture on the 1.2 to 1.4 and 1.8 just to show you it’s hard to tell the difference in depth of field.

@@RejeRush oh you're right! Geez I gotta check my phone screen. The bottom portion has some colors shifting... Or placebo effect 🤷🏾‍♂️

@@RejeRush - most fluencers and viewers in YT have no clue about Depth of Field (DoF). Most people know it relates to f/number, focal length, and focusing distance. What about everybody forgets is the Circle of Confusion (CoC). DoF calculators bundle bunches of cameras that are fundamentally different and must have different CoC. Ignorance about such valid and relevant details made me block the sniff test channel from being advised to me. So what is CoC and why is it relevant here, to you, in the light of what you write? First, DoF is a perception thing and not '"hard" mathematically. Second, how we perceive DoF in our images depends on several factors and 6 of such factors combine into the CoC that is an important parameter in the DoF formula. a- film/sensor resolution and sharpness - better gives shallower (less) DoF b- lens resolution and sharpness - better gives shallower (less) DoF c- processing impact on resolution and sharpness - better gives shallower (less) DoF d- display/print resolution and sharpness - better gives shallower (less) DoF e- display/print size - larger gives shallower (less) DoF f- viewer distance to display/print - shorter gives shallower (less) DoF Each of these can cause the bottom-line CoC number to be pushed up or down. And, yes, every abstraction of these that leads to a DoF indication, is a lie. If your client's art director tells you what DoF they need, conceptually, in your photos, you better know about all these and how they work out in the images you need to surrender, or not get paid. The digital solution to the art director's problem with shots you can take from tripod of non-moving subjects is simply to go rather wide open and shoot a series of focus-stepping shots and in post stack these to get the DoF you need at the print size/resolution and viewer distance that will be applied. Your looking at a RUclips video is almost meaningless. The video has lossy compression and is the result of some unknown raw processing. After upload, typically, YT will compress your video once more. This means that a, b, and c are wasted. Then the last bit of DoF you see depends on your monitor, its size, its resolution and sharpness, and how far you are away from it when looking for DoF. I one tested a new camera and one of the tests was a handheld panorama. I would never do that, but it came up in the b rain like having to go to the bathroom. No thought, no review of settings. Three shots. Oh chips, I forgot to go manual. In post, raw processing, I never bothered to pixel peep. Lightroom Classic failed at the stitching. Bummer. So I took the shots into Photoshop. Perfect. And again I never looked at 100% level as it all looked very good at 4K. I had moved to highlight-weighted metering shortly before and that was what the camera had used with Aperture preselection auto. JFDI. The highlight weighted had made for identically exposed frame. That learnt me a lesson - all three shots had an equally bright highlight. The pano was not artistically important and I had not looked at it for a year when I researched my pano shots. Foreground match between shots rotated in the lens's nodal point versus handheld. Now I went to 100% and scrolled through the test pano. The third, last, going from left to right, was very unsharp. I had left the camera on AF in some recognition auto form and it had shot the first two shots focused at infinity, and the last at a bush i the foreground. Until I zoomed in, I never saw the right 1/3rd of the shot being unsharp. And that, sir, is what happens to your perception of DoF in your shots too. Or in the YT video representation of that sniffer's snapshots. Oh, f/number says nothing about "speed" as you need the T-value for that. And in the DoF formula you need to enter "effective focal length" and "effective f/number", that is the focal length matching the distance setting as well as the f/number corrected for that focal length. It's not simple. Yet it all is simple physics, far from quantum theory.

@@lit_wick Haha it’s all good. 👍🏾 I thought so the first time and had to rewind myself.

🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙

Can’t wait to make it!

🤙🤙🤙🤙

@@chrishilton6378 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌

@@roybixby6135 feel? 🤷‍♂️ or maybe I’ve just done this lighting so damn long it’s just works lol

@@ZWadePhoto that's what light meters are for ..🦘

@@jorsetti maybe. lol since I don’t use the F5 except on certain projects I Kind of have Been liking the the 50

Tampon! hahahaha. I'm a fan of Tamron but I haven't heard them called that in a long time. Back when all of there lenses were dumpy before the G, G2, and SP lenses. Funny.

@@ZWadePhoto I dont mind Tamron but I feel more future proof sticking to Nikkors ...🦘

If you do, I hope you consider the link in description. And when it arrives, come on back to my review video when it launches and tell us what you think!

I agree with the Ryobi remarks. Funny and kind of true. But the remarks on those cameras, that's just so untrue it's silly. Neither are cheap cameras, (D850 especially at launch price.). The mark of a professional cameras isn't the camera it's self. It's really about "do I do this for a living or not" whether thats 5 or six figures (U.S. Currency). Id accept that upgrading to the latest version of any camera every couple years is hobbyist behavior since self employed professionals have to factor in business costs so they traditionally use a camera model for much longer than hobbyists. But with your logic of price being the indicator of whether a camera is professional, The Z9 is Nikon's most expensive mirrorless and the Z8 functions exactly the same because they are exactly the same camera in a different body and different batteries. Using your logic not even the $5500 Z9, $6500 D6, the $7000 Canon R1, or $6500 Sony A1 ii aren't even professional. Professional cameras that come to mind with your logic is something like a Leica M11 which has great image quality but about the worst performance sheet in the world at 9000 bucks, or an $8100 Hassy X2D, or worse the 907X, which are incredibly slow in comparison to above mentioned 35mm flagships. I know plenty of full time photographers that make mid to high 5 figures who shoot the Z6iii as a primary, or a Z8 with a D850 backup or Z6ii backup. Probably the most successful 2 photographers I know in real life, like they are in my city, use a Sony A1 as primary, and a Nikon Zf for fun BTS and candid at weddings, and the other uses a pair of R5's. I hope this book of comment help you see how goofy that line of thinking is. Haha. Take care my friend.

@@ZWadePhoto To the prices you call "not cheap", it depends on the buyer/owner... They are cheap to some and expensive to others. I'll still call the Z8 a hobby camera, which can be used to make a buck, but that's it. Call me names or whatever because I literally don't care. I know what I know and you certainly know what you know; we don't exactly overlap. At the end of the day, if you're a real pro, you should be able to do amazing, regardless of gear...

@@JulianJohan-l5x that’s how much it should cost in my opinion. It’s regular price is often $2-300 more. US $535 is a fair price my dude

Thanks JRod!

@@myfakeguuglaccount8307 they don’t even know how expensive it is now lol

@ZWadePhoto He does. Even requested to ship off for better development. At least he volunteered his allowance money, but I couldn't take it from him. I figure he could be into far worse things at that age.

@@Emulives thank you!

I don't like Sony's RAW's. Im a bigger fan of Nikon files. Z5 is also BSI, just doesn't have IBIS sadly.

@@Danjal987654321 I’ve just always thought it was a little meh 🤷‍♂️ sharpness though, absolutely

​@@ZWadePhotoyeh, its not good for fast moving subjects, but most would use it for portraits. When do you need ultra fast focusing for that. Ah maybe if its a mid jump portrait.

Glad you're enjoy it my friend!

@@plutonianenigma8724 nice buy!!!

my pleasure!

@@StanleyPollack focal length wise, probably not. I would advise maybe trying to rent one first.

@@PsychedelicChameleon thanks buddy!

It does have that "Oh this one's means business" vibe. haha.