Nikon Z6 vs Z7

[John Camp]

It comes down to one question (or maybe two, if you consider cost): if you try to make the highest resolution prints using the full frame on paper no larger than A2 (16.5x23.4 in the US) will you see any real resolution difference between the two cameras?

[BernardLanguillier]

I would say very little difference, perhaps a slight gap with optimal sharpening on scenes containing branches/leaves on baryta papers?

The Z7 print will probably feel a bit more “refined” when looked at side to side, but seen in isolation I’d be surprised if a viewer felt shortcomings with the Z6 print, or with a Fuji APS-C 24mp image btw.

Cheers,
Bernard

[armand]

Doubt it, unless you crop.

As for the Fuji APS-C vs Nikon full frame, I have both and it’s the same thing. The difference between them is when the light is challenging, the Nikon has definitely more room to play with.

[32BT]

the Nikon has definitely more room to play with.

As the saying goes: pictures or it didn't happen.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As the saying goes: pictures or it didn't happen.

Careful, Oscar, you risk having your ass kicked for suggesting empirical evidence, at least according to my high school philosophy professor, who told us the following story:

In medieval times, a group of noble men were gathered around a horse, trying to prove, using a scholastic method, to theoretically determine how many teeth there should be in a horse’s mouth. Passing by, a peasant suggested to just open the mouth and count it. They beat the crap out of the poor guy, for suggesting such a vulgar and uneducated approach, and disrespected their noble academic one 

[Alan Goldhammer]

I would say very little difference, perhaps a slight gap with optimal sharpening on scenes containing branches/leaves on baryta papers?

The Z7 print will probably feel a bit more “refined” when looked at side to side, but seen in isolation I’d be surprised if a viewer felt shortcomings with the Z6 print, or with a Fuji APS-C 24mp image btw.

Cheers,
Bernard

Thanks for this response and for John asking the question.  This is the same decision that I'm considering right now.

[32BT]

Over at dpreview you can simply select the Sony A7-3 review then compare the image to the Sony A7R-3 using comparative resizing. The differences seem very likely to be visible in print, especially at A2 size.

Additionally, what results from downsampling a high res image is also an image that is "easier" on the eyes than a straight bayer conversion. Less fatigue, which may be an entirely subconscious experience, but possibly more relevant than can be expressed in some objectively quantifiable property. Most of us would like a print exactly because it is a far more relaxed method of viewing than a monitor viewing experience can provide.

The other question that might be relevant though is: are you prepared to purchase the appropriate lenses when opting for the hr camera? Sampling a mediocre lens at higher resolution merely makes the lens deficiencies more noticeable, but obviously doesn't provide a better viewing experience.

[armand]

As the saying goes: pictures or it didn't happen.

I don't feel like digging past shots to prove something that tends to be commonly accepted, maybe later.

An Slobodan, what you said has no application to what I said. I processed many thousands shots from both the X-T2 and D750, sometimes side by side. The X-T2 files tend to crash faster, muddier blacks, etc. This happens when the light is challenging, there the proven superior DR of the D750 helps. Most shots though they are close enough and I prefer the Fuji colors. Also I tend to get sharper shots handheld with the Fuji when the exposure is borderline. For tripod D750 has an advantage, makes ok lenses loook good.