https://www.riwodot.de/vorsitzender.html
Some years ago, and even before the beginning of the Adobe Lightroom era, I used the Windows QImage software for my prints on a LargeFormat inkjet printer, more precisely the HP Z3100 model. Even then, I regretted that this software was not...
Read more
A Little Background When I entered digital photography in 2003, the question quickly arose as to how to best digitally archive my large collection of photos. Initially, we only had a folder structure as physical hard disk storage, and this has remained...
Read moreHi Dan,
As I’ve already reported here, I worked with Capture One for a long time. When Lightroom came onto the market, I switched to it because of the very good DAM functions. However, I continued to use C1 in parallel, as I had the impression at the time that the RAW converter was better than Adobe’s for some files, especially the Fuji X-files later on.
When Adobe switched to the subscription model, I only continued with Capture One and also transferred my database there. Unfortunately, the DAM functions have never been brought up to the level of Lightroom. I also had two major problems with the database and other issues with C1. I reported the problems here.
The new pricing and licensing policy was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. I then went back to Lightroom and set up my old database again and imported the photos that had been added in the meantime.
I have not regretted switching back, on the contrary. Lightroom runs absolutely stable with two databases containing almost 200,000 photos. Only Fuji X-Files show the famous worm artifacts, but this can be avoided by converting these RAW files to DNG beforehand with the Iridient Transformer.
Lightroom has developed enormously in recent years. Masks, AI denoising and much more leave hardly anything to be desired. There are significantly more plug-ins than for C1. In a comparison of RAW converters, C1 and LRC are hardly any different. You get very good and similar results with both programs.
In my view, C1 has made a big mistake with its less than customer-friendly policy and has not done itself any favors.
Although I still have C1 on my computer, I haven’t used it for a long time because there is no need for it. Instead, I use LRC to redevelop older images, as the new possibilities are very beneficial here and also breathe new life into older photos.
Oliver
https://www.riwodot.de
https://vero.co/riwodot
https://www.instagram.com/riwodot/
Hello Jeff,
I also think that the Z8 doesn’t end up saving so much weight and size that it would be worth trading it in. But that’s why for everyday or city photography I mostly use the Z7II with the 4/24-120mm or the Sony a7iv with the 4/20-70mm from our NPO pool instead since the set is then lighter and more compact in each case.
Btw. good pictures :).
Oliver
https://www.riwodot.de
https://vero.co/riwodot
https://www.instagram.com/riwodot/
Hi Jeff,
I have the Z9, alongside the Z7II (and at times a Z5) in use and the following lenses:
From time to time I still had the following lenses in use, but I gave them away again:
NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S; The lens is optically excellent, but quite large and heavy, i.e. almost identical to the Nikon NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S. I then almost always took the latter with me, since I rarely need the higher speed and would have much preferred a 4/70-200mm, which Nikon unfortunately does not have. The Nikon (Tamron) 2.8/70-180mm I find a bit short on top and it unfortunately has no function buttons which I use intensively. We have in our NPO pool a Sony a7IV with the two f4 G lenses 20-70mm and 70-200mm which I often take as an alternative if it suits what I am shooting. Furthermore I had the Nikon (Tamron)NIKKOR Z 28-75mm f/2.8. It is quite good but was replaced by the 4/24-120mm. The NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR was also very decent on the Z5 at 24MP. Above 24MP, however, the drop-off at the edges becomes quite noticeable, so that too was ultimately replaced by the 24-120mm.
I had further ordered the NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR, which is hardly available here in Germany. With the announcement of the NIKKOR Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S, however, I canceled the 180-600mm the other day, since the 600mm (plus Z-TELEKONVERTER TC-1.4x) fits my needs better. I plan to purchase it in 2025.
In 2024, the Z-TELEKONVERTER TC-1.4x and the NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S will be added.
I still had a 135mm in focus and was very curious about the NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena. However, I find the price of just under 3000€ clearly too high compared to the Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM. Therefore, I use the latter from our NPO pool when necessary.
The costs are of course considerable, especially if you are starting from scratch. I had previously used the Canon RF system for almost two years, which is also very good but had a few points that I didn’t like quite as much. After the last price increases, it was more expensive than Nikon or Sony for most lenses.
Maybe instead of the Nikon 100-400mm the Tamron 150-500mm F/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD is an alternative for you, which is now also available for the Nikon Z mount? Unfortunately, it also has no function buttons. We have it in the NPO pool on the Sony a7IV and it’s very good, although the Nikon 100-400mm is a bit better at the edges.
The inexpensive Nikon/Tamron lenses, such as the 17-28mm, the 28-75mm, and the 70-180mm are all not bad, but never quite approach the level of the S-Line lenses and are functional and/or reduced in focal length. On the other hand, they are less expensive.
AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm F5.6E ED VR is good, I used to have it on the Nikon D850 but I wouldn’t take it today as the F lenses are slowly being phased out.
The Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports is supposed to be quite good, but I don’t know it from personal experience. You might have to compare it with the Tamron 150-500mm mentioned above.
Oliver
https://www.riwodot.de
https://vero.co/riwodot
https://www.instagram.com/riwodot/
