Nikon Z8 and z 400mm f/4.5 - first impressions from a Canon R5 user
2024 ж. 19 Қаң.
5 693 Рет қаралды
Hi all: today I offer some first impressions of the Nikon z8 and z 400mm f/4.5 lens with and without the 1.4x teleconverter. This is a compromise lens, but I think it's worth it. I offer some impressions about how the Nikon z8 performs compared to the Canon R5 as well. Thanks for watching.
Good to see you out and about. The kit looks stellar!
The seagull w/ fish shot was insanely good. I think you’re really going to enjoy the Bird af mode that the Z9 currently has. Hopefully it comes to Z8 in the next few weeks.
Thank you and thanks for watching. I can’t wait. Hoping it comes soon!
Hi, Z8 with version 2.0 the bird detection is amazingly sticky!!!
Z8 version 2.0 bird detect is fabulous!
7:18 what a great shot, congrats.
Thank you so much. I was pretty pleased with that one!
You’re my favourite youtuber under 100k subs currently. And one of my favourite photography youtubers. Was so excited when i saw the thumbnail. I can’t afford any of this Nikon or Canon gear but i love thinking about and researching the options. The z8 + 400mm combo is so intriguing. Love hearing your thoughts.
Right on! Thanks so much for the support and kind words. I know, it’s all absurdly expensive, isn’t it? There are more affordable options now that get you a lot of the amazing performance possible. Which I pretty cool!
@@MatthewRaifman yeah I use M43 gear for bird photography! Thank goodness for AI denoising. So you’ve mentioned that with the 1.4x tc, theres a noticeable drop in contrast. This is something I’ve heard from others as well. Do you find it noticeable when viewing the images on their own, or is it something that’s more apparent only when comparing photos without the TC side by side? And do you think if you acquired this 400mm f4.5, you’d pair it with something like a 800mm f6.3 or maybe 180-600mm for your less casual days? For example, a day you’re photographing a specific owl and you’re willing to wait with a tripod and larger gear in a single location. I suppose what I’m also asking is if you’d be satisfied if the 400mm 4.5 were your only wildlife lens.
@@jeffbronson3696all the same questions I’m asking myself! I think ultimately, it’s the 400 and 800. I still have my 500 f/4 canon but it’s quite heavy in comparison. So I have that to fall back on in a pinch. It’s a totally different animal. I can fit the 400 and z8 in a sling and walk around like it’s nothing. Bringing the 500 f/4 or the 800 pf (if I had it) would be an event. I think pairing the with the 800 pf probably makes the most sense. If I had all the money in the world, the 400 f/2.8 TC is probably the ultimate single wildlife lens but then again…you are not fitting it in a daily carry along either. So this 400 gives you that capability in a way no other lens really does.
@@MatthewRaifman thanks for your reply. oh yeah the 400mm TC seems extraordinary. of the wildlife photographers i know, u seem more willing to give up reach for light. (Preferring 400mm f4.5 over the 600 f6.3 and the 400mm f2.8 TC over the 600mm f4 TC) Like here you feel the f4.5 makes it worth the loss of 200mm. Whats your ethos for this? I’m hoping one day maybe the Z8ii will have a 64 or even 80mp sensor. I believe the the 400mm f4.5 has the resolving power to make use of all those megapixels and then at an equivalent 800mm, it would have 20mp which seems sufficient to me. Although, such a sensor would probably wreck my Computer and suffer some dynamic range losses. Exciting what the future holds!!!
@@jeffbronson3696interesting. So two thoughts: 1) I love photographing owls often after sunset in very low light situations. A 400 f/2.8 is a dream for that. 2) I do not like to feel weighed down by gear. I frequently hike 5-10 miles with my gear and rarely bird from the car. I don’t love tripods for this reason either and prefer handheld. I actually have a 500 f/4 that is outstanding. It weighs 7 lbs. I’ve been taking this 400 f/4.5 combo out 9 out of 10 times because it’s portable. Another thing: I’ve high detail images, but I don’t need a 45 mp crop of a hawk head. I’m not printing billboards. My sales tend to be 12 x 18 inch prints professionally 16 x 24 range. I typically have enough resolution left after a crop to print. I do crop more than I’d like to and would take a 600 f/4 in a heartbeat if it was the same size as the 400 and weighed 3 or 4 lbs though 😊l
Great info! Also, can’t help but see you as Matt Murdock from Marvel’s Daredevil 😆 Name, voice, hat, sunglasses - uncanny 😎
Haha, I didn’t know what you were talking about but then I googled it…
Thanks for sharing your insight on this topic! For years I have used zoom lenses compromising on aperture but it was the only choice I had given the financial situation and what not. The first time I went to Africa is when I realised the importance of f4 and f2.8. With hot summers you would only get to shoot 2-3 hours max in the morning and evening including and the light would be very insufficient to get any kind of decent pictures with zoom lenses with aperture upwards of f5.6 or f6.3. I was also transitioning into mirrorless which meant selling old gear and buying new. I made the best decision ever to invest in Sony 400mm f2.8. What a change it made into my photography. Now I can’t live without f2.8. I know it’s expensive but i have in fact invested in it for the next 10 years!
Ahhh don’t tempt me. I am so enamored with the Nikon z 400 f/2.8 TC but I cannot swallow that $14k price tag even if I think about how it will keep its value. I have a 500 f/4 (canon) and could sell it for more than I paid for it used. Amazing kit
@@MatthewRaifman I feel you! F2.8 lenses are very tempting but again they are really good in places like Africa or South America where birds come to feeders. But in US, 500 or 600 is bare minimum for the birds especially warblers. So I end up using TC all the time and crop in post processing. So 400 focal length gets used lot less in US.
Interesting, that sounds about right with my experience. Good case for trading my 500 f/4 for a 800 f/6.3 ;-)
I went this route as well although along with the 800PF. Very sharp and lightweight.
I’d be lying if I wasn’t eyeing the 800 pf right now. The two together seem really compelling. Along with the z 24-120 and you have a fantastic system.
Thanks great video 😊
Thank you!
thanks for the review, I am a long time Canon shooter, Im currently using 2 R5's, on the RF 600mm F4. Im not quite sure how you miss oncoming shots, I don't really have any trouble with acquiring focus and holding focus. Hit rate is very high. Im am happy that Nikon seems to feel well and work great, its healthy to have all 3 manufactures doing great so keep the market competitive. On a side note, the R5 is now pushing 4 years, its widely rumoured an R5II is coming and Im sure it will be a stacked sensor (thanks to the Z8) with far updated AF, which if I was to guess will be better then the current Z8. For that alone is why I'll stay with Canon. appreciate the video.
I have no issues with the R5. It’s outstanding kit. I’m sure the R5II will bring better AF, particularly for video. Not 100% convinced it’ll be a stacked chip but canon may get the read time down so it doesn’t matter as much. I didn’t have trouble focusing with the R5 but the Z8 does track better. I think it also makes sense with the faster sensor. With the new update, the subject recognition is almost as good as the R5. For me, it’s the lightweight glass that pulled me to Nikon. I still haven’t sold my ef 500 f/4 ii though I can’t bring myself to do that! It adapts well.
@@MatthewRaifman I used to have the EF 500II, great combo with the R5 for sure, I since sold it and bought the RF600, big difference is its not front heavy like the 500, much better balanced. Yes Nikon are definitely banging out some nice light weight lens! Their choices are great!
Good to know. My main issue with the 400 is that it’s too short. Requires the 1.4x all the time. I suspect I’ll move to the 600 f/6.3 PF. 3lbs. But definitely not the same as an f/4
@@MatthewRaifman yeah grappled with 400 2.8 or going 600 4, in the end choose the 600 as I found with the 500 I mostly cropped anyways. And I need at least F4 for the wildlife I mostly photograph animals that are nocturnal and wake up at sunset, so 6.3 would be difficult. But to each their own, and 6.3 may be ok for others, depending on what you photograph.
The 400 f4.5 & 70-200 f2.8 is a great combo for mammals and with the 1.4tc it's mostly good enough for birding from say like the 200-500mm.
Yeah, that’s a fantastic kit. Love how lightweight and sharp the 400 is
Wow, it sounds like after some use, your opinion has changed regarding the subject detection differences between the Canon R5 and Nikon Z8? Cheers for another great video!
It’s a journey. Over the past six months, Nikon won me over for a second look because of their outstanding wildlife lenses that were the exact compromise of weight, IQ, and specifications. I’m still comparing and thinking about performance. I would say that I still think Canon are ahead in the detection of subjects (though that opinion may change with the Nikon birds option that’s soon to come I he z8) but the ability of the z8/z9 to tract the subject once acquired is much better. I will definitely share more organized thoughts in a later video. Thanks for watching!
Cool video . Can’t wait for the bird detection firmware update for Z8, I’ll be installing it immediately. Currently works fine for birds with clean background but struggles with busy backgrounds
@@martinsarrethanks! I’ll be installing immediately too though I have been pleasantly surprised with the z8 even with busy backgrounds. Maybe my bar was low given everything I had read. For example, in the series I shared those are mostly dialed in on focus and it’s a busy background. Can only get better with the update though!
Hallo Matthew hab seit ein paar Tagen auch das 400 an der z 8 dein Video macht Laune auf mehr Grüße Georg
Halo! How are you finding it? More to come! Thanks for the comment.
What is the application at 6:05? And is that what you use for raw processing the Nikon raw images?
Ah, yes. That’s FastRAWViewer. It’s an app I use to cull images (PhotoMechanic is another option). With 20 fps, it’s annoying to use most editing apps. This lets me punch in quickly and evaluate sharpness and completion. Then I check the files I want to edit and move them over to processing. I’m still experimenting, but I use Lightroom for editing. Sometimes I process in DXO pure raw first to remove noise in the raw files. I could do a video on the editing process at some point…
@@MatthewRaifman - makes sense. Have you tried Adobe Bridge? It allows you to run Adobe Camera Raw without starting Lightroom Classic or Photoshop. ACR will save your edits in its own sidecar file. Reason I asked was that the fast rendition in the video has boatloads of Bayer noise, following from inadequate deBayerisation. But the app does not want to do that very well so as to stay fast. No problem.
'Boosting ISO' is not a compromise. The compromise was using the exposure that you chose to use in the first place. Raising the ISO does nothing bad over using that exposure.
Eh, I hear you but disagree personally. The choice is sequential. First decision is how you want to expose the shot, second decision is what constraints one had to execute that vision (for example, minimum shutter speed to freeze action), and then compromises come into play like boosting iso to maintain that shutter speed. I think most would agree with that framing but I hear you with the more traditional exposure triangle interpretation.
@@MatthewRaifman If you stick to those constraints that you talk about and you can't control the light, you have no choice about the exposure at all - so the choice about 'how you want to expose the shot' (if that actually means anything) is irrelevant. The only choice you have is how to set the ISO to have that exposure rendered as you want - and to be honest, you're better off working in raw and getting that rendering as you want with the help of some visual feedback on a screen. As for the exposure triangle, it's not 'traditional' and it's nonsense. I'm certainly not interpreting anything that way.
@@bobbybobob123thank for following up. I have a feeling we actually agree more than we disagree. Bit hard to go back and forth in comments like this. However, I definitely agree about need to shoot RAW (always do) and adjust image in post.
@@MatthewRaifman The point in the end is that image quality is determined by exposure in a given camera (if you want to compare cameras you need to take sensor size into account) and not very much at all by ISO. That was the gist of my comment. So the rule is always maximise exposure and let ISO follow along - auto ISO is good for this. I think there's a lot of confusion about exposure, with many thinking that it means how light or dark the final image looks - I know you know it doesn't, but quite a lot of bad sites teach that, and so viewers tend to be confused by it. In raw, there's no reason to use exposure to control how light or dark the image looks, just maximise it to maximise quality (of course, avoid clipping highlights), use ISO to control how light or dark it looks, that's what it's for.
I find the combo is quite a valuable compromise, it is mainly why I went for this lens with a 1.4TC - I have it paired with a Z9, which was even more important to me to have a lighter lens, since the Z9 is about 30% heavier than the Z8. The quality of the images are, most of the time, more than my eye can process, if I am doing the right things in the field while shooting (exposure, light direction, perspective, etc.). Your lens protection looks to cover very well the lens, are you happy with the lens cover/coat? If you are, can you share the brand? Thank you!
Hey! Thanks for the comment. Sounds like we have a similar approach. The lens cover is by Roland Pro and I definitely would recommend. I used their covers on four lenses now and they’ve been excellent.
Since you use this with the tc, would you consider the 600mm pf instead?
@@jeffbronson3696 you have to consider it because it’s a similar focal length and f/6.3. It’s not worth the extra 50+% cost to me, though the 600 pf is undoubtedly sharper than the 400 with 1.4x. I think having the f/4.5 option at 400mm is important because I shoot in lower light a lot. Rather than just have the 600 pf, I think the 400 + 800 pf might be a better choice and probably where I’m heading.
Great video!!! I have been torn between the Z 600 PF 6.3 & the Z 400 4.5!!! My dilemma is the low light scenario shooting high school football!!! I think the Z 400 4.5 may be the answer considering with Z8 I can switch to DX mode & get 600mm with out teleconverter & still have f4.5!! Tell me your thoughts on my situation???
I’m really torn too. I love the 400 f/4.5. It’s excellent wide open and it weighs so little that it’s a joy to use. On the other hand, I do use it almost exclusively with the 1.4x and you do give up a little quality. As I say, it is a compromise but I’m not sure. I might get the 600 pf myself because I’m more needing 600-800mm than 400-600mm. However if you need 400mm (and football is a great use case) then I would absolutely recommend the 400mm f/4.5 as an alternative to a 400 f/2.8 that is much cheaper and lighter. It’s a special optics that you really cannot get on other brands.
@@MatthewRaifman thx for your input! I recently rented the 800mm PF!! Wow an incredible lens!!! Resolution & details are fantastic! Amazingly light for its size! When going to DX mode 1200mm it gives up nothing!!!