>>4310419Z6 II doesn't have such a mode.
>>4310422f/4 is what yields max sharpness, at the center of the frame, which isn't crisp even there.
Here's a 100% from f/4 in a flat perspective. Not a single point in the frame anywhere in it is close to being tack sharp.
>>4310416Maybe. This is the only lens I have though and it is supposed to be great according to all review sites.
>>4310421>focus in front of subject>focus shift shoot a few hundred frames at smallest step increment with e-shutter mode on, VR off>cherry pick "sharpest" image from the bunch based on the center>still not actually sharpI would like to blame me but I can't imagine a way to try and squeeze more out of the gear. I'm not missing focus on moving subjects I'm trying to tripod shoot non-moving stuff in ideal conditions.
>>4310417The more I look into this shit it seems like everyone saying bayer offers anywhere near its advertised resolution is on some serious copium. On the other hand it seems like even people pointing out it isn't perfect also can't get their facts right..
For example the site here says removing a bayer filter and shooting monochrome turns a 20MP EOS 6D into 80MP, but that should be impossible, in theory that could only make it a "real" 20MP.
http://www.centralds.net/cam/?p=8561Regardless of that fuck up the example images on display there seem to show what it is that's missing from my photos so I guess the color filter combined with the AA filter is the root issue.
Fuck me I should have gotten the ZF (has pixel shift, Z6 II does not) but that also has an AA filter so maybe its pixel shift isn't as good as others. Considering I only need a bit more sharpness and detail maybe the Z7 II would satisfy me but at this point I don't know if I should even stick with Nikon. Their flagships don't even have a fucking mechanical shutter so they can't even shoot fast things without rolling shutter artifacts.
I might just wait a few years to see if cameras get better.
