Video

Yes, the autofocus is still completely functional. The autofocus is using a different mirror that reflects light down into the AF sensot, changing the focus screen at the top of the mirror box has no impact on it. Similarly, the posts you move to calibrate the focusing are different depending on the mirror you want to adjust, so you can adjust your main mirror (that will calibrate your manual focus accuracy) or the secondary mirror (that will calibrate the autofocus accuracy) without having any impact on the other.

Good intel thank you​@@uncertainrelease

I felt the "Nikon and Canon lenses are more affordable" part. I could say I was heavily invested in Fujifilm and that's ultimately what made me leave the system... selling most of the lenses I had and replaced all of it with a Nikon Z6 and F mount lenses... managed to fill the gaps that I had and saved money while upgrading cameras ! Fujifilm bodies like the X-T2 and X-H1 are extremely good value cameras but there is something to be said about tha absolute lack of affordable and good lens options on Fujifilm at the moment.

haha, would love to, but the prices are out of this world, and I'm working. (also they probably wouldn't let me in the stadium with my 100-400 lens lol)

That's insane. The camera is awesome, but it's not $600 awesome.

@@uncertainrelease I think it is a very unique sensor

@@Andy-rk9mu not only present in this camera though. It's also present in the X-T10, X-E2, X100S, X100T, X70. The X-T10 is quite a bit cheaper than the X-T1. All of them are overpriced at the moment though.

@@uncertainrelease they are all pricey. XT-10 fetches $400, X-E2 even more not to mention X100T. At least, this is what eBay shows me.

@@Andy-rk9mu yeah, that circles back to what I'm saying in this video : those cameras are enthusiast cameras chosen for that sensor specifically, but they aren't safe recommendations for beginners anymore, which could get much better (or easiert ot use) cameras for the same amount of money (or maybe even less money)

good ear !

All pretty great cameras, but neither the 40D or 50D have a CCD sensor, those are all CMOS. If you want a well built Nikon with a CCD, take a look at the D200.

@@uncertainrelease yes i know they're not CCD. If i could pick one i would probably get a Finepix s5 pro but they're kinda pricey and the d200 is pretty rare. I think the d200 is close to the d300 price wise and the d300 is a superior but a cmos as well... These are Ken Rockwell's words: "The D300 has better color, better highlights, better shadows, better AF, a far better finder, a better LCD, much sharper images due to automatic color fringe correction and triple the battery life than the D200. Game over in one sentence!" I guess that i just grab a 30 dollar d50 if i'm going for a CCD camera!

@@elinhiller5010 The D200 isn't that rare... you can pick one up for 80 bucks on MPB. Sure, it's not as good as the D300, but it's the best CCD sensor that found its way into a Nikon camera, and it's the best CCD Nikon ever made... Seems like a no brainer to me if what I wanted was a well built Nikon CCD cam... none of the other CCD Nikons are really well built, they're all plastic, even the D100 or D70. If you were looking for a D300, you would get a D300.

@@uncertainrelease problem is that i'm not blown away by the CCD sensor and what it performs. I'm on a FB group and people posting and people are almost in awe sometimes but i can't really understand and when trying to zoom in i get more confused since they're "braging" about their 6mp cameras and there's no reason to zoom because the lack of mp. The d200 is probably awesome and gives you nice photos but i would just thinking that for a little more i could get something with far "better" performance like a d700 with so much better low light performance. The 5d and 6d mark 1 at least gives us 2-3 times the mp and to me more film like photos. I don't know what to pick and maybe the CCD "hype" isn't for me! Thanks for responding! Where in Europe are you based btw? Greetings from Sweden!

@@elinhiller5010 "for a little more oyu could get a D700"... uh a decent condition D700 will be around 300 bucks when a decent condition D200 will be under 100... that's not "just a little more". You don't get a CCD camera for the performance, you get it for the color science baked in thjose older cameras. At least that's my understanding of it. The 5D mark 1 is "only" 12MP which is not fer from the 10MP of the D200. Images have nostalgic tones to them, but unless you're really into those nostalgic warm tones, the 5Dc is inferior to the D700 to me, which though it has character in teh way it renders colors, is also able to be edited the way you want, without forcing your hand in a nostalgic vibe. If you're not after the D200's sensor or the whole CCD thing, there is no point in geting one. I'm in France btw

I made a follow-up video after a couple of years buying from them. Overall not too bad, but not too great either. Each time it was a surprise on which issue would show up first.

Yes, I'm very satisfied with my D700. I don't know about the "best camera Nikon ever made", this is highly subjective ! For color reproduction maybe, everything else was bested by more modern releases.

@@uncertainrelease i get you! I tend to listen to the “back to basics” guys and the end results doesn’t get better with the progress in technology, the way to the finish results is easier but the end results some claims was better on those older cameras because of their way to process colors. The 5d classic, 5d mark II, d6, d700 are some of those oldies that performs just as good as the top end mirrorless and even better according to some “pro/full time” photographers I watch. Im a happy amateur struggle with GAS but and I would love this to be true because there’s so much gold for us to pick for a cheap price 😁👍🏻

@@brunodrakenas9575 The D6 ain't that old, it was released in 2020 haha But yeah, I do agree that those older cameras have something "special". Some people have already theorized on why that is, and my understanding is that in the mid/late 2000s, camera companies were really trying to push digital as a replacement to film, and so the colors of digital cameras like the 5D classic, the D700 ect had to match those of film when it comes to tones ect. The following generation of cameras (5Dmk III, D800,...) really didn't have much competition from film anymore, so brands could do pretty much what they wanted, going towards flatter images that allowed more adjustments in post, but at the cost of character of the imnages themselves. TO me the last "great" senson when it comes to colors was the one that was put in the D4/Df. It's really wonderful, I hope to be able to pick one up someday, but both camera models are still pretty expensive even today. I have en XQD card laying around that I don't use anymore (since I've swsitched to CFXB cards on my Z6), so maybe I'll grab a D4 in a couple of years just to test things out with that sensor ;)

Aren't you confusing with the D3? 😅

@@uncertainrelease my favourite nikon 🙂

I have a D700, so I see very little point for a D3 at the moment. BEsides, I just started using a D2X ! I'll make a review about it of course, but when the D2H was a nice camera with image quality too poor for me to really use in anything else than snapshots and some instagram post, the D2X is really a camera I could use day to day without limitations (or at least not obvious ones). I'd love to have a D3, but it makes less and less sense for me as the D2X and D700 are really filling that niche !

Yes, the focus motor is very much my expecience as well. When I was using this D1X initially, I had two Tokina AF-D lenses, and when driving my old 80-200 f/2.8, the torque of the focus motor was so high that it made the camera roll a little bit in my hands. Absolute insanity how fast that motor is. Much faster than my D700 or D2 cameras for sure.

if only it didn't use Ni-MH batteries... I'm sure you can find some Li-ion units for thses, but having gone through that process for my D1X, it's always a little frustrating and/or annoying.

Yeah, the iamges coming out of the SDQH are really amazing, which is why I'm keeping it. Build quality feels also super good, ergonomics are excellent. Everything else though... 😅

the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G does, yeah. The older AF 50mm f/1.8D doesn't.

Yes, the great strengh of mirrorless is the ability to have that focus peaking as well as super short flange distances allowing to adapt pretty much everything from rangefinder to SLR lenses. Lens mount like the Nikon Z mount can even adapt other mirrorless mounts like Sony E or Fuji X (!)

When you say it was mis-aligned, what is the issue specifically? Is the mirror simply not straight on the tray, or is the manual focusing out of whack compared to the actual sensor placement? My case was the latter. I needed a 1.3mm allen key to be able to turn the posts inside the mirror box on which the mirror rests on (that's how you calibrate the camera). Just turning those wasn't quite enough, so I added some spacers on the focus screen itself to bring it closer to the mirrorbox, then re-did the calibration with the allen key to get it as close to possible. It's not perfect but it's close enough. I don't know if that's your issue though? I know the 5D can have some mirror issues, I have no idea if that's what you're talking about.

@@uncertainrelease No, my issue was a misalignment with the mirror and the sensor. So what you saw through the viewfinder was not what was recorded on the sensor. The whole image was shifted up slightly when in landscape orientation. So a little was cropped from the bottom of the image and added to the top of the image, compared to what you saw through the viewfinder.

@@duncanthorn6338 Oh okay, this wasn't my issue, my guess would be that the mirror is too high compared to what it should be, but I have no further information or knowledge on how to fix that, besides disassbling the mirror tray and finding a thinner mirror... :(

just a matter of tweaking... image quality is the same, shooting speed is the same, autofocus is the same. Might have slightly better high ISO, but not enough to make much of a difference. Most of the difference are the menu system.

Thanks :)

The price difference between the Z6 and Z6ii was too large, and I prefered to pay about 100€ for a CFXB card instead of about 500€ price premium for a Z6ii.

actually everybody mentionned this lol, on every video that had focusing issues. This has obviously been fixed

Trading an electronic device that can't take pictures with one that can take pictures. Absolute W.

no lungs problem yet, and no dust on sensor either. Perk of living in pretty dry mountains lol

@@uncertainrelease glad for you. be safe! btw your video was very informative for me! many thanks!

according to fringer's website it will but they don't put any guarantees about teh performance of the adapter itself. Not like the X-Pro1 is a speed demon anyway.

Did I say otehrwise? I'm pretty sure I didn't. AF-P lenses have a limited compatibility with cameras released around 2007/2008 : my 2007' D300 and 2008' D700 both have "limited compatibility" (it works, but the focus is reset everytime you turn on and off the camera). I think "full" AF-P compatibility started with the D600

@@uncertainrelease My bad, I mixed it up 🤭

not really the same price range lol. A brand new Z8 is 5 times the price of a used Z6. Besides, they're not really comparable cameras at all, pretty much everything is differnet besides the lens mount. And on top of that the Z6 is also rock solid with enough practice. Had no issues shooting football with it.

I also prefer sticky auto focus for my kids movements. That is the only con I have with z6 (in comparison) , but I am managing now. Will shoot for 4 or 5 more years. 😊

The creator of this channel has great video about the D300 which I like a lot. I have been shooting a D300s since 2012.

I'm happy using only my 28mm and 40mm when I'm hiking (with my 100-400 in the bag, but Fuji's 100-400 is just as big and heavy as mine). Imho a Nikkor 24-70mm f/4S would be a pretty nice hiking lens, and it's pretty compact, I don't think I'd see much of a difference with a Fuji kit when it comes to weight.

Slap a recorder on it and it is cheaper than a Lumix S5II, with equivalent performance. I wouldn't say that teh Z6 is just the same thing as a newer Zf or A7IV, there is still a measurable difference between those. The question is mostly if that performance difference matters to you, and to me it clearly doesn't.

It depends. I used an X-T2 for 2+ years (and I still have it, no plans on selling it) and the camera itself is very good, very nice image quality etc but it's definitely aging a bit. The Z5 has a better viewfinder, much better grip (I can tell after using a Z6), betetr autofocus and better low light performance. It's a very good camera if you don't plan on doing 4K video or shoot fast (it's liomited to 4.5fps) My reasoning for switching to Nikon was really for the lenses. Fuji lenses are too expensive for me and I can't have two lens lineups at the same time. In your shoes, I would probably start looking at maybe adding a little hand extension grip on the X-T2 (I've used one pretty much ever since I got the camera) and see if that doesn't fix the issue. If not, maybe consider the Nikon camera. The Z5 is a good body.

​​@@uncertainrelease getting a grip deliverd tonight, will see how it goes. Saw a barely used d300s andit's tempting to buy it, seems like great ergolomics but afraid i'm gonna be dissapponted in the IQ. Guess you contaminated me with your GAS😂 Looks like a great second body for messing around besides my xt2.

@@tomvtroye The D300(S) is a really nice camera, I have one and honestly I've been quite pleased with it. I didn't expect image quality to be as good as it is, considering the price I paid for it (60€). The D300 is still a decent buy today, but I would spend more than 100€ for a D300 (140 for a D300S). Over that, those cameras start being not really worth it. If you don't have any DSLR cameras, it's a good place to start as it's one of the best DSLRs ever made in my opinion (when it comes to shooting experience, build quality and value for money)

Both are Multicam 3500, the DX/FX designation is simply to say that one goes in an APS-C body (called DX in Nikon world), and the other goes in an full frame body (FX). They are otherwise the exact same chip, and both camera use the same first gen Expeed processor. In my experience using both camera shooting sports, the D300 was just as good as the D700, only difference was of course the coverage, which takes more of the frame in the D300 (but also leaves more space between each focus points in the viewfinder, wasn't an issue for me). I generally had about the same hit rate with both cameras, although 3D tracking AF was a little more enjoyable on the D300 simply because I could have the subject move more within the frame thanks to the better AF point coverage.

Strange enough I have the opposite experience. The D300 is always spot on and has bigger dof. You need to fine tune your lenses and /or settings.

It depends the film stock really. Some film will have a dynamic range close to 10 stops which in the same ball park as those CCD sensors, some even coming closer to 15 stops, which is modern sensor territory. (as a point a reference, the D300 has a dynamic range of about 10.0 stops at base ISO 200, the D60, is around the same, maybe slightly under 10 stops at ISO 100). Some film stocks (generally those that are more contrasty) will have much lower dynamic range. Typically, a Fujifilm Velvia film stock will generally be in the ballpark of 5 to 6 stops.

@@uncertainrelease Thanks for that. I used to use Velvia all the time landscape shots as the colours were more vivid. From what I've read, the CCD sensors are closer to Velvia out of the camera, so I'm looking for a good second hand D200 to go with my Olympus E1.

When you look in detail, the sensor in the D200 is basically identical to the sensor in the D60, besides the scaled back power consumption which limits the burst rate to 3fps (instead of 5). The banding issues, I also get them in my D60 when I push the files. The cleaning issue can be fixed with a rocket blower or some sensor swabs for a total cost of about 15 bucks. And if that is not enough, the Nikon D80 exists, which is also around the same price. What the D200 offers is a much better AF system, magnesium allow body, weather sealing and a nicely designed grip with a lot of control points. I can deal with the banding and the sensor dust easily. I can't make an uncomfortable camera feel better. At the end of the day, it's a matter of preferences.

@@uncertainrelease Of course there are other cameras that have banding issues to some extent. However, banding issues in Nikon D200 are more pronounced than in Nikon D60. Furthermore, even though you can "fix" the lack of a self-cleaning sensor by doing the cleaning yourself, it is not as convenient and requires extra money/time/effort. I am not sure why you are bringing up Nikon D80 since the conversation was about Nikon D60 vs. Nikon D200. Nikon D80 will produce very similar images to Nikon D200/D60; however, it lacks the self-cleaning sensor of the D60 as well as weather-proofing and build quality of the D200. So I would say that both of those cameras (D60 and D200) are better choices than D80. Also, it is important to keep in mind that Nikon D60 is newer than both D200 and D80, which might give it an edge in image quality. I do agree that: "At the end of the day, it's a matter of preferences." I would personally choose the newer, smaller, and more convenient D60.

Not my problem if your attention span is too short. Also, there is chapters if you want to skip to the parts that interests you.

shooting full manual with a manual lens and no metter was quite a pain at first but I ended up doing it anyway because I prefered the lenses. Gotta say it wasn't all bad :D

it's a 2004 Super CCD 6MP camera... It's a good camera for 2004, but it is in no way able to compete with the D300. Maybe color science, but that's super subjective. Even in 2004 it wasn't particularly loved. I really don't know where that Fuji S3 pro comment comes from, besides dynamic range, but for portraits you have controlled lighting anyway (and the D300 still outperforms it). Besides, we're talkinga about 2000s cameras here. There is heaps of cheap cameras from the 2010s that will run circle about both the D300 and S3 Pro for portrait shooting (like the Nikon D3200 for example)

The S3 pro is just a rebadged Nikon. Still nice camera...

@@NathanChisholm041 Not really just a rebadged Nikon... It's a film Nikon body with a full Fujifilm digital back strapped to it. The S5 Pro is what comes the closest to a rebadged Nikon (as it's the exact same body as a D200) but even there, it's not the same sensor, not the same menus, not the same buttons, etc. Not really a rebadge either.