Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon Z50  (Read 2339 times)

SrMi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 252
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #40 on: March 17, 2020, 10:36:17 pm »

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.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #41 on: March 17, 2020, 11:40:20 pm »

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.
Logged

SrMi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 252
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #42 on: March 18, 2020, 12:42:30 am »

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'.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #43 on: March 18, 2020, 08:02:37 pm »

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.
Logged

SrMi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 252
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2020, 01:42:37 am »

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).


Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2020, 06:44:57 am »

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).
Logged

SrMi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 252
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2020, 10:56:47 am »

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.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2020, 06:51:44 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up