Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon Z50  (Read 3233 times)

SrMi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
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: 10235
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: 267
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: 10235
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: 267
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: 10235
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: 267
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: 10235
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

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10235
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2020, 01:17:02 am »

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
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10235
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #49 on: July 02, 2020, 01:22:33 am »

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.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2020, 01:33:23 am by Ray »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10235
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2020, 02:52:18 am »

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.

Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2020, 05:03:06 am »

Photography life has tested both Z50 zooms and found them very good considering size and cost.

https://photographylife.com/
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10235
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2020, 08:35:03 am »

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.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10235
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2020, 08:49:38 am »

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.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2020, 09:20:08 am »

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

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10235
Re: Nikon Z50
« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2020, 08:50:41 pm »

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.  :)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up