Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Ray on November 22, 2019, 06:28:27 pm
-
Why is no-one discussing the merits of the new Nikon DX format Z50 mirrorless and its very useful walk-about 16-50mm and 50-250mm zoom lenses, all at a very affordable price?
The main thing that's holding me back from ordering one, is the unimpressive pixel count of the sensor. I would have much preferred a 32 mp sensor, like the Canon equivalent, but with the better DR that Nikon sensors usually have, of course.
-
It seems a bit of a lame duck to me. Especially since it's lacking IBIS.
-
Another APS-C camera on the market is not news. I don't think the Z50 brings anything new to the table. Nikon checked a box.
-
It will only appeal to the Nikon DX faithful. Kind of like when Fuji updates one of its APS-C cameras. Those of us who are Fuji fans get excited. The rest of the crowd here just yawns.
-
IBIS would be nice. I like that Nikon are entering this market with a mirrorless camera. Good for the industry and hopefully for Nikon too. I would be OK with the pixel count. In most cases pixel count has become a security blanket. We think what if we take a really nice photo that people want to print the size of a wall. It’s unlikely to happen actually. Only reason I have a high pixel count camera is a few of my big clients demand it.
And so say I.
-
The reason I like a high pixel count is because it provides more cropping options whilst still potentially retaining adequate resolution for A3 or A2 size prints, or whatever.
My use of light weight, compact and versatile 'walkabout' cameras is for shooting unexpected and interesting scenes, wherever I might be. If I come across a Pelican or Black Swan that ideally needs a 350 mm lens, and all I have with me is a 50-250 mm lens, and I can't get closer, then I have to crop significantly.
In general, a sensor with a higher pixel count effectively improves the resolution quality of all lenses used with the camera. It's not just about making huge size prints.
-
It seems a bit of a lame duck to me. Especially since it's lacking IBIS.
+1 with IBIS it would be far more interesting and concurring
-
The reason I like a high pixel count is because it provides more cropping options whilst still potentially retaining adequate resolution for A3 or A2 size prints, or whatever.
My use of light weight, compact and versatile 'walkabout' cameras is for shooting unexpected and interesting scenes, wherever I might be. If I come across a Pelican or Black Swan that ideally needs a 350 mm lens, and all I have with me is a 50-250 mm lens, and I can't get closer, then I have to crop significantly.
In general, a sensor with a higher pixel count effectively improves the resolution quality of all lenses used with the camera. It's not just about making huge size prints.
Hi Ray,
I have a Z6 and have had no problem in making crops and getting very high quality prints from them. I've done some printing on the US equivalents of both A2 and A3 of some landscapes from our Banff trip earlier this year and details are very clear. Everything was handheld and as others have noted, IBIS is essential to providing the stabilization of the image capture. Modern software does the up-resolution extremely well so clarity is preserved. I've been experimenting with Gigapixel AI to see how it compares with the internal LR implementation but have not made a decision yet. From Nikon's perspective, it's likely that the need for high density pixel DX sensors is quite small and this would also drive the cost of a DX camera up. Marketing departments drive these decisions.
-
Hi Ray,
I have a Z6 and have had no problem in making crops and getting very high quality prints from them. I've done some printing on the US equivalents of both A2 and A3 of some landscapes from our Banff trip earlier this year and details are very clear. Everything was handheld and as others have noted, IBIS is essential to providing the stabilization of the image capture. Modern software does the up-resolution extremely well so clarity is preserved. I've been experimenting with Gigapixel AI to see how it compares with the internal LR implementation but have not made a decision yet. From Nikon's perspective, it's likely that the need for high density pixel DX sensors is quite small and this would also drive the cost of a DX camera up. Marketing departments drive these decisions.
It all depends what you want to achieve... some people buy the GFX 100 for a purpose; Me, i like very good 1.4 lenses because i use wide open a lot in dark situations...so i buy the infamous 40mm sigma art...heavy but i don't care...it is stellar!
-
Hi Ray,
I have a Z6 and have had no problem in making crops and getting very high quality prints from them. I've done some printing on the US equivalents of both A2 and A3 of some landscapes from our Banff trip earlier this year and details are very clear. Everything was handheld and as others have noted, IBIS is essential to providing the stabilization of the image capture. Modern software does the up-resolution extremely well so clarity is preserved. I've been experimenting with Gigapixel AI to see how it compares with the internal LR implementation but have not made a decision yet. From Nikon's perspective, it's likely that the need for high density pixel DX sensors is quite small and this would also drive the cost of a DX camera up. Marketing departments drive these decisions.
Hi Alan,
It would be interesting to see comparisons using the same lens with the Z50 and Z6, cropping the Z6 image to the same FoV as the uncropped Z50 image. The 24mp Z6 would need to be cropped to around 10 mp. I think the 20mp Z50 image would definitely be more detailed in those circumstances.
Of course, the Z6 has its own advantages because it's full-frame. If no cropping is required because you have the right focal length of lens for the circumstances, then the Z6 image should have noticeably better SNR and lower noise.
My current walk-about camera is the Nikon DX5300 with 18-140 mm lens. Its light weight and versatility, combined with reasonable image quality, are its attractive features. The total weight of the camera and lens is around 1 kg.
The Z50 with both kit lenses, the 16-50 and 50-250, weigh slightly less than 1 Kg. With just the 50-250 lens attached, the total weight is a mere 800 gms. That's the main feature that attracts me, a significantly wider zoom capability with no increase in weight. With the 16-50 mm lens attached, the combined weight of camera, battery and lens is just 533 gms.
However, the question of improved image quality remains unanswered, so far. The difference between 20mp and the 24mp of the Nikon D5300 would be insignificant, I imagine. However, if the Z50 has an improved DR of at least half a stop, and hopefully more, then that would be an incentive for me. If the two lenses covering a range from 16 mm to 250 mm are significantly sharper than my current 18-140 zoom, which is rather soft at the edges, then that might clinch the deal for me, depending on the degree of improvements.
If the Z50 had a 32 mp sensor, as the equivalent Canon EOS M6 MkII does, I think I would already have ordered a Z50 with the two kit lenses.
I guess I'll just have to wait until reliable reviews and comparisons become available. DXOMark seems a bit slow with its analyses these days. :(
-
For example, here's a shot I took recently whilst on one of my regular walks along the Brisbane river, with my Nikon D5300 and 18-140 zoom, at 140 mm, F8, ISO 200, and 1/160th second exposure.
However, I wouldn't bother to make a print of the 100% crop of the Pelican because resolution and noise is not up to my standard. I couldn't get closer to the Pelican and was limited by the focal length of 140 mm and sensor resolution. If I'd had a Z50 with 50-250 zoom, which is an even lighter package, I suspect the crop of the Pelican might have been up to standard. ;)
-
Hi Alan,
It would be interesting to see comparisons using the same lens with the Z50 and Z6, cropping the Z6 image to the same FoV as the uncropped Z50 image. The 24mp Z6 would need to be cropped to around 10 mp. I think the 20mp Z50 image would definitely be more detailed in those circumstances.
I don't think I've ever cropped that severely but I don't do wild life stuff. Attached is an image of Moose Meadows in Banff National Park from this past June. This is cropped to 16mp as I shot it from across the road and with the with the 24-70 zoom at 24mm. I've enlarged this and printed it using only LR to uprez on 19 inch wide paper and it looks very sharp with nice detail. Printer is a Canon Pro-1000 at 300dpi. Normally I try to get into positions where I don't have to crop at all but sometimes one just can't do that. I've been fooling around with Gigapixel AI but have not printed much with it so I can't say for sure that it's better than using LR.
-
I don't think I've ever cropped that severely but I don't do wild life stuff. Attached is an image of Moose Meadows in Banff National Park from this past June. This is cropped to 16mp as I shot it from across the road and with the with the 24-70 zoom at 24mm. I've enlarged this and printed it using only LR to uprez on 19 inch wide paper and it looks very sharp with nice detail. Printer is a Canon Pro-1000 at 300dpi. Normally I try to get into positions where I don't have to crop at all but sometimes one just can't do that. I've been fooling around with Gigapixel AI but have not printed much with it so I can't say for sure that it's better than using LR.
Nice image, Alan. 16mp is quite good. That was the pixel count of my first Nikon DX model, the D7000.
I'm always cropping to some degree. Gone are the days when I would carry around a cumbersome tripod and a pack of different lenses so I could get the composition exactly right at the time of shooting.
The following shot was taken in an outdoor restaurant near the same Brisbane river, but cropped only moderately. I used the same lens and camera as the previous image, but at 100 mm, F8, ISO 200 and 1/250th exposure.
It's sharper than the previous image and less noisy because the lighting was better, the shutter speed faster, and I was closer to the bird.
Having looked again at the conversion in Bridge, I see that the previous image of the Pelican was underexposed by more than a stop. I should have used ISO 640 or even 800 for slightly better results, despite the ISO-Invariance tendencies of Nikon cameras.
I can appreciate that the lack of IBIS in the Z50 would be a concern for those who already have lenses designed for the Z7 and Z6. However, the new kit lenses for the Z50 are claimed to have exceptional, state-of-the-art, built-in VR of 4.5 stops, so the lack of IBIS is not a concern for me, especially since we have too many IBIS in Australia. ;D
The bird in the attached image is an Australian White IBIS. ;D
-
Do I have it right that the only Z lenses with VR are the two Z-DX lenses? If so, that leaves the Z50 with a big handicap for us “post tripod” photographers. I can believe that this alone makes the Z50 of interest almost exclusively to people who currently own a DX DSLR and lenses to go with it and yet want to adopt a mirrorless camera whose only format specific lenses duplicate what they already have in F mount lenses. Hopefully Nikon will fill gaps like this in the Z system before too long.
-
Do I have it right that the only Z lenses with VR are the two Z-DX lenses? If so, that leaves the Z50 with a big handicap for us “post tripod” photographers. I can believe that this alone makes the Z50 of interest almost exclusively to people who currently own a DX DSLR and lenses to go with it and yet want to adopt a mirrorless camera whose only format specific lenses duplicate what they already have in F mount lenses. Hopefully Nikon will fill gaps like this in the Z system before too long.
You're probably right, BJL.
It's the likely increased quality of those Z-DX lenses plus the low combined weight with the Z50 body that would be the main attraction for me. I would expect that the two lenses, ranging from 16mm to 250mm, would be sharper, more contrasty, and have better edge resolution at all focal lengths than my 18-140mm zoom which I use with my DX D5300, but I can't find any detailed reviews and comparisons yet.
The greater extension from 140mm to 250mm, with no increase in weight, is also an attraction, as well as the 4K video capability of the Z50, and the 4.5 stops of VR of the two kit lenses, which I think is much better than the VR of my Nikkor 18-140 lens.
However, I'm not going to rush into this. And I'm not looking forward to reading a two-hundred page manual describing all the benefits and unfamiliar procedures of the mirrorless system. ;D
-
Nice image, Alan. 16mp is quite good. That was the pixel count of my first Nikon DX model, the D7000.
I'm always cropping to some degree. Gone are the days when I would carry around a cumbersome tripod and a pack of different lenses so I could get the composition exactly right at the time of shooting.
When we are traveling I don't take a tripod. I really like the IBIS on the Z6. We had several overcast days in Banff and I had to shoot at a slower speed but every image was sharp.
I can appreciate that the lack of IBIS in the Z50 would be a concern for those who already have lenses designed for the Z7 and Z6. However, the new kit lenses for the Z50 are claimed to have exceptional, state-of-the-art, built-in VR of 4.5 stops, so the lack of IBIS is not a concern for me, especially since we have too many IBIS in Australia. ;D
Too funny, an IBIS to capture an IBIS!!
-
I was a bit disappointed to read from early reviews of the Z50 that the sensor has an optical low pass filter. My D5300 doesn't. The filter will reduce resolution to some extent. The Z6 sensor also has a low pass filter, but that's understandable because of the lower pixel density of 24mp full frame, which is equivalent to only 10mp in APS-C format.
-
Here's an interesting perspective that considers the Z50 to be superior to both the Z6 and Z7 in many ways. It must be a very biased view. :D
https://youtu.be/EjSaU-8RVkY
-
I was a bit disappointed to read from early reviews of the Z50 that the sensor has an optical low pass filter. My D5300 doesn't. The filter will reduce resolution to some extent. The Z6 sensor also has a low pass filter, but that's understandable because of the lower pixel density of 24mp full frame, which is equivalent to only 10mp in APS-C format.
Of bigger concern is the lack of built in sensor cleaning. Be prepared for a lot of dust bunnies.
-
Of bigger concern is the lack of built in sensor cleaning. Be prepared for a lot of dust bunnies.
Up until six months ago I'd never had a camera with built in sensor cleaning.
-
Not to be harsh, but at this point, I think putting out a camera without IBIS is sorta dumb.
Not to be even harsher, where is the 70-210 S? The roadmap still shows it arriving in 2019, but we're running out of 2019.
-
Not to be harsh, but at this point, I think putting out a camera without IBIS is sorta dumb.
Not to be even harsher, where is the 70-210 S? The roadmap still shows it arriving in 2019, but we're running out of 2019.
The latest roadmap doesn't give timings, which is a pity.
Latest Roadmap (https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/0169695294/NIKKOR_Z_Lens_Roadmap_-_10.10.19.jpeg)
-
Up until six months ago I'd never had a camera with built in sensor cleaning.
Were they mirrorless? With such a short distance to the sensor with mirrorless cameras, dust seems to just suck right up onto the sensor.
If you look at specifications of cameras now a days...they don't even mention sensor cleaning in the specs...it's just a given.
-
Were they mirrorless? With such a short distance to the sensor with mirrorless cameras, dust seems to just suck right up onto the sensor.
If you look at specifications of cameras now a days...they don't even mention sensor cleaning in the specs...it's just a given.
Mirrored Hasselblads, mirrorless Leicas.
-
Of bigger concern is the lack of built in sensor cleaning. Be prepared for a lot of dust bunnies.
Usually they put the sensor-glassfilter far way of the sensor to avoid dust markings...
They did that with the Nikon1 series and i never had any problem with dust.
-
Of the 228 Interchangable lens cameras introduced since 2005 only 17 had no automated self cleaning sensors.
-
Were they mirrorless? With such a short distance to the sensor with mirrorless cameras, dust seems to just suck right up onto the sensor.
If you look at specifications of cameras now a days...they don't even mention sensor cleaning in the specs...it's just a given.
I go everywhere with a blower since moving to mirrorless. I live in a dry dusty place where we get no rain for months and months over winter. Loads of static. It’s an issue if you don’t have a plan.
And the self cleaning thing is like my second marriage, a triumph of optimism over experience. It’s hardly worth the effort to press the buttons. It never works. At least with mirrorless I don’t get those sticky type spots I got with the cannons. A quick blow with the rubber bulb thing sorts it out.
In short I wouldn’t care that the Z50 doesn’t doesn’t have a self cleaning sensor. The lack of IBIS would bother me. I think it looks like a great little camera all round though. If I had bought into the Z6 or Z7 I would definitely consider using a Z50 at least as a back up body.
-
I am not sure about the role of sensor cleaning (which leverages IBIS in one of many possible different ways), sensor glass coating, lenses sealing,... all of those contribute to the amount of dust sticking to the sensor.
I have never noticed dust in my Z7/Z6 images in a year of usage shooting in various locations while some Sony users have been complaining. I’ll form my own opinion on that in the coming months.
The Z50’s lack of IBIS isn’t shocking to me consider it’s price point.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I go everywhere with a blower since moving to mirrorless. I live in a dry dusty place where we get no rain for months and months over winter. Loads of static. It’s an issue if you don’t have a plan.
And the self cleaning thing is like my second marriage, a triumph of optimism over experience. It’s hardly worth the effort to press the buttons. It never works. At least with mirrorless I don’t get those sticky type spots I got with the cannons. A quick blow with the rubber bulb thing sorts it out.
In short I wouldn’t care that the Z50 doesn’t doesn’t have a self cleaning sensor. The lack of IBIS would bother me. I think it looks like a great little camera all round though. If I had bought into the Z6 or Z7 I would definitely consider using a Z50 at least as a back up body.
Most cameras automatically go through their sensor cleaning cycle every time you turn on/off the camera...so you probably don't have a good feeling how bad the dust bunnies would be without automated sensor cleaning.
-
When you do the self cleaning on my two cameras you can clearly feel the shaking. I use my cameras daily turning them on and off several times a day. I’m pretty sure they aren’t doing the cleaning cycle. I remember though that the Canon did this.
-
When you do the self cleaning on my two cameras you can clearly feel the shaking. I use my cameras daily turning them on and off several times a day. I’m pretty sure they aren’t doing the cleaning cycle. I remember though that the Canon did this.
My Leica M series bodies didn't of course have a cleaning cycle and I had to resort to gel sticks and wet cleaning. So far with my two Z7 bodies I've only had to use the cleaning cycle twice: seems to work well enough.
-
Most cameras automatically go through their sensor cleaning cycle every time you turn on/off the camera...so you probably don't have a good feeling how bad the dust bunnies would be without automated sensor cleaning.
There is a menu in the Nikon Z6 (and I presume Z7) that allows one to set the cleaning function or turn it off if desired.
-
There is a menu in the Nikon Z6 (and I presume Z7) that allows one to set the cleaning function or turn it off if desired.
I've got auto cleaning set to off. Despite using the Z7 cameras in extremely dusty conditions I've only used the sensor cleaning cycle a couple of times.
-
The secret to noticing dust on the sensor is to shoot at F16 or smaller (equiv), ideally against the sky. According to some the Olympus shaking dust feature is magic; I can’t say I agree but I have yet to clean the sensor on my E-M5ii.
-
The secret to noticing dust on the sensor is to shoot at F16 or smaller (equiv), ideally against the sky. According to some the Olympus shaking dust feature is magic; I can’t say I agree but I have yet to clean the sensor on my E-M5ii.
Doubt it's a secret, I wouldn't do it any other way.
-
What I was saying is that if you don’t shoot at small apertures you are not going to notice it in your regular outings even if your sensor has a lot of dust.
-
What I was saying is that if you don’t shoot at small apertures you are not going to notice it in your regular outings even if your sensor has a lot of dust.
I know.
;-)
-
I was a bit disappointed to read from early reviews of the Z50 that the sensor has an optical low pass filter. My D5300 doesn't. The filter will reduce resolution to some extent. The Z6 sensor also has a low pass filter, but that's understandable because of the lower pixel density of 24mp full frame, which is equivalent to only 10mp in APS-C format.
Nikon Z 50 does not have an AA (low-pass) filter.
-
Nikon Z 50 does not have an AA (low-pass) filter.
Good! Have you got a link to a reliable site which confirms that? I've come across at least one camera review site that claims it does have a low-pass filter, and a lot of comments on the internet that claim it does.
Nikon's website doesn't appear to address the issue.
-
Of bigger concern is the lack of built in sensor cleaning. Be prepared for a lot of dust bunnies.
I had a two nikon1 cameras never a prblem with dust- no sensor cleaning.
The coverglass was some mm away from the sensor - that is why.
One of the advantages of mirrorless
-
Good! Have you got a link to a reliable site which confirms that? I've come across at least one camera review site that claims it does have a low-pass filter, and a lot of comments on the internet that claim it does.
Nikon's website doesn't appear to address the issue.
Sources saying that Z 50 has no AA filter:
- Thom Hogan's Z 50 Guide
- Jim Kasson's comments on DPR
I am happy about the lack of AA filter.
-
Sources saying that Z 50 has no AA filter:
- Thom Hogan's Z 50 Guide
- Jim Kasson's comments on DPR
I am happy about the lack of AA filter.
Thanks. I'm also happy the Z50 appears to not have an AA filter, especially considering the relatively low pixel count of 20 mp compared with the 24 mp of many DX models. The existence of an AA filter on a 20 mp sensor would probably have placed the difference between 20 mp (with AA filter) and 24 mp (without AA filter) in the 'significant' category, in terms of detail.
The two major considerations that have prevented me from buying a Z50 so far are:
(1) The backward movement in pixel count. 30 mp would have been much more attractive.
(2) The lack of a lightweight, good quality, long telephoto zoom lens designed for the camera, such as a 250-500 mm, or even an 18-400 mm. Tamron has such a lens, although not good quality in terms of resolution. The mirrorless Nikon system allows for better quality lenses to be designed. I don't like the idea of using my Nikon 80-400 mm with adapter, on a Z50. The weight and size reduction benefit is eliminated.
-
Thanks. I'm also happy the Z50 appears to not have an AA filter, especially considering the relatively low pixel count of 20 mp compared with the 24 mp of many DX models. The existence of an AA filter on a 20 mp sensor would probably have placed the difference between 20 mp (with AA filter) and 24 mp (without AA filter) in the 'significant' category, in terms of detail.
The two major considerations that have prevented me from buying a Z50 so far are:
(1) The backward movement in pixel count. 30 mp would have been much more attractive.
(2) The lack of a lightweight, good quality, long telephoto zoom lens designed for the camera, such as a 250-500 mm, or even an 18-400 mm. Tamron has such a lens, although not good quality in terms of resolution. The mirrorless Nikon system allows for better quality lenses to be designed. I don't like the idea of using my Nikon 80-400 mm with adapter, on a Z50. The weight and size reduction benefit is eliminated.
I expect my Z 50 with two DX lenses tomorrow (Nikon's Yellow program).
I was OK with D500's resolution (20Mp) and for a travel camera, it should be enough resolution for me. The file from a 30Mp sensor is only 20% wider/taller than the file from a 20Mp sensor.
My travel combo for Z 7 is 24-70 and 70-300. Z 50 with the two Z DX lenses has more 'reach'.
-
I expect my Z 50 with two DX lenses tomorrow (Nikon's Yellow program).
I was OK with D500's resolution (20Mp) and for a travel camera, it should be enough resolution for me. The file from a 30Mp sensor is only 20% wider/taller than the file from a 20Mp sensor.
My travel combo for Z 7 is 24-70 and 70-300. Z 50 with the two Z DX lenses has more 'reach'.
The higher-pixel-count sensor usually produces better resolution when the image is downsized to the image size of the lower-pixel-count sensor.
I can appreciate that the Z50 alone, with the two Z DX zoom lenses, is an ideal travel camera, with perhaps the limitation of the lack of a long telephoto capacity which is often required for birds and wildlife. However, I'm puzzled why you would think that a DX 50-250 mm on the Z50 has more reach than a 70-300 on the Z7. In DX mode, the Z7 is close to the same size and pixel count as the Z50, and the 70-300 zoom in DX mode, on the Z7, is equivalent to 105-450 mm full frame.
The DX 50-250 is equivalent to 75-375 full frame.
-
The higher-pixel-count sensor usually produces better resolution when the image is downsized to the image size of the lower-pixel-count sensor.
I can appreciate that the Z50 alone, with the two Z DX zoom lenses, is an ideal travel camera, with perhaps the limitation of the lack of a long telephoto capacity which is often required for birds and wildlife. However, I'm puzzled why you would think that a DX 50-250 mm on the Z50 has more reach than a 70-300 on the Z7. In DX mode, the Z7 is close to the same size and pixel count as the Z50, and the 70-300 zoom in DX mode, on the Z7, is equivalent to 105-450 mm full frame.
The DX 50-250 is equivalent to 75-375 full frame.
I would certainly have liked to have more resolution. It is my feeling that we see considerable benefits of a 50Mp vs. 20Mp, but not that much between 20Mp and 30Mp. Canon's 30Mp APS-C does not seem to produce better files at high ISO than Z50 (DPR scene, same size comparison). That is more an issue with the sensor difference, I guess.
Of course, you are correct about the reach, 300mm is more than 250mm, whatever the sensor size (I put 'reach' in quotes, instead of elaborating, my bad).
However, for the practical purpose, I use a 300mm as a 300mm on Z 7 and a 250m as a 375mm on Z 50. Yes, I could crop output of both cameras in the post, but that is not how I use them when shooting (since I shoot only NEF, DX mode is essentially cropping in the post as well).
-
It is my feeling that we see considerable benefits of a 50Mp vs. 20Mp, but not that much between 20Mp and 30Mp.
Of course the difference between 50 mp and 20 mp would be more noticeable than the difference between 30 mp and 20 mp, but a 50% increase in pixel count is still worthwhile.
I recall a few years ago, after I'd recently bought the 36 mp Nikon D800E, I did a few tests comparing shots with my 24 mp D7100 at 400 mm, and shots using the same lens on the D800E, shooting the same target from the same position and in the same lighting. I made sure that AF fine tuning was accurate for both cameras at 400 mm, and also took some shots using manual focus, just to be sure.
After cropping the D800E images to the same field of view as the D7100 images, and downsampling the 24 mp D7100 images to the same pixel count as the 16 mp crops of the D800E images, the extra clarity and contrast of the D7100 images was noticeable. I would describe the difference as similar to the difference between a high quality lens and a medium quality lens.
DXOMark recognizes the effect of this combination of sensor resolution and lens resolution in their lens tests. They call it P-MP (Perceptual MegaPixel).
-
Of course the difference between 50 mp and 20 mp would be more noticeable than the difference between 30 mp and 20 mp, but a 50% increase in pixel count is still worthwhile.
I recall a few years ago, after I'd recently bought the 36 mp Nikon D800E, I did a few tests comparing shots with my 24 mp D7100 at 400 mm, and shots using the same lens on the D800E, shooting the same target from the same position and in the same lighting. I made sure that AF fine tuning was accurate for both cameras at 400 mm, and also took some shots using manual focus, just to be sure.
After cropping the D800E images to the same field of view as the D7100 images, and downsampling the 24 mp D7100 images to the same pixel count as the 16 mp crops of the D800E images, the extra clarity and contrast of the D7100 images was noticeable. I would describe the difference as similar to the difference between a high quality lens and a medium quality lens.
DXOMark recognizes the effect of this combination of sensor resolution and lens resolution in their lens tests. They call it P-MP (Perceptual MegaPixel).
You are comparing an APS-C (D7100) with a FF (D800e) sensor.
-
You are comparing an APS-C (D7100) with a FF (D800e) sensor.
I'm comparing the full APS-C sensor with a cropped part of the D800E sensor which equals the same Field of View as the full APS-C sensor, using the same lens. In the case of the D7100 and D800E that means comparing a 24 mp image with a 16 mp image, which is a 50% increase in pixel count. This is the same percentage increase in pixel count as comparing a Z50 which had 30 mp, with the Z7 in DX mode, which is a 20 mp crop.
In such circumstances, I would expect the image quality of the Z50 to be noticeably better to the extent that an expensive 'good' lens is better than a cheaper 'not so good' lens.
-
I've been undecided about buying a Z50 for some time now, mainly because of the rather low pixel count, only 20mp, and the lack of a lightweight, long, good quality, DX telephoto lens designed for the mirrorless system with no IBIS.
The DX 50-250 mm is fine, but what do I do if I want a longer reach? I already have a Nikkor 80-400 G AFS, but the VR is likely not as good as the VR of the DX 50-250, and the combined weight, with the additional weight and size of the FTZ adapter, negates one of the main advantages of the Z50.
However, as a result of the Covid-19 crisis, which has prevented me from travelling overseas to a warmer climate, during the Australian autumn and winter, I see that I've been saving some money, so I've decided to splash out on the Z50 with the two kit lenses. It will basically be a replacement for my D5300 with 18-140 mm zoom lens.
For the past few days, when doing my usual walking exercise to keep fit, I've been carrying the Z50 with 16-50 and 50-250 zooms, photographing the local wildlife and taking various shots to assess general resolution, corner sharpness, shadow detail, and image stabilization.
I'm very impressed. If Nikon were to include in their Z50 road map, a DX 250-500 mm zoom, of the same quality as the current kit lenses, I'd be delighted, even if it were only F6.3 to F8.
The three factors that have impressed me greatly, so far, are;
(1)The excellent image stabilization which allows a sharp image, hand-held at 250mm (375mm FF equivalent), using a shutter speed of just 1/40th sec, provided the subject is static, of course.
Refer attached 100% crop with girl in the bottom right corner. The grass is sharp, although the girl not so much because she's moving.
(2) The over all sharpness of the zoom lenses, even in the corners, which is similar to using a full frame lens on a DX format.
Attached images of the Australasian Darter bird, and the Australian Pelican seem reasonably sharp to me. The Darter, in rather poor light, was shot at just 1/100th sec, F6.3, ISO400, and 250mm. The Pelican, in slightly better lighting, was shot at 1/200th, at ISO 100, F8, and 250mm.
(3) The over all weight and convenience. The pancake 16-50mm zoom will even fit in my shirt pocket, with flap buttoned, although it makes me look as though I have one unusually prominent breast. :D
-
I forgot about the 4-image limit. Here's the 100% crop of the 1/40th sec hand-held shot at 250mm or 375mm full frame equivalence, and another 100% crop of a Black Swan at 250mm.
-
Having taken a number of comparison shots during the past few days, there's no doubt that the DX 50-250mm for the Z50 is a remarkable lens.
I compared it at maximum focal length with my Nikkor 80-400 AFS G set at 250mm, using my 24mp D5300. For most practical purposes, the image quality is close enough to be considered the same. However, at 200% magnification, the Z50 image at 250mm appears slightly sharper, which is surprising considering that most zoom lenses are not at their sharpest at maximum focal length, and the 80-400 should have an advantage at 250mm.
The images were taken at the same F stop, shutter speed and ISO, and the same adjustments and sharpening were applied to both images in Adobe Bridge. The Z50 image is on the right of the screen.
-
Photography life has tested both Z50 zooms and found them very good considering size and cost.
https://photographylife.com/
-
I've ordered an FTZ adapter so I can use my Nikkor 80-400 AFS G with the Z50. I'll be interested to see if there's an improvement in the corner sharpness of this zoom, compared with what I'm seeing with this lens on the D5300.
I'm very surprised that a DX lens, such as the 50-250, appears to have better corner sharpness than the full-frame 80-400 on a DX camera such as the D5300. I hope it's the D5300 sensor that's at fault.
-
I continue to be impressed with the resolution of the 50-250 kit lens for the Z50. The following bird shot, taken on my afternoon walk, was ideally out of the reach of a 250mm lens. However, after cropping significantly, from the 59MB full frame image in 8 bits to just 3.4MB, the resulting 100% crop seems impressively sharp for a zoom kit lens. Good enough for an A4 size print.
Doing a bit of mathematical calculation, this 100% crop represents a 1500mm lens on a 1.13mp full frame camera. ;D
Aperture was F8, ISO 400 and shutter speed 1/200th, hand held of course.
-
I have recently bought the 24-200mm for the Z7 and I am amazed by the performance and quality of bokeh of this lens.
Z glass is just incredible.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have recently bought the 24-200mm for the Z7 and I am amazed by the performance and quality of bokeh of this lens.
Z glass is just incredible.
Cheers,
Bernard
I can believe it, Bernard. The reason I opted for the 'el cheapo' Z50 was the convenience and flexibility of a lightweight combination which I can carry on my daily walks wherever I am, in the city, the suburbs or the countryside, and without compromising too much the image quality of my existing equipment. I can even go jogging, holding the Z50 with attached 50-250 lens, in one hand, without feeling too much inconvenience. ;)
I just wish Nikon had a 250-500 zoom on the road map for the Z50. :)