DigitalFFUser
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,556
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 3,046
Does it make sense to use 50-250 lens on Z6 in DX mode for the reach?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
50-250 Z lens on Z6
- Thread starter DigitalFFUser
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon z6
Sure, though I personally would just crop after the fact. Also remember that you won't get as much reach as you would with a Z7 or Z50.
On your Z6, you would get as much reach at 250mm as you would using 178mm on a Z7 or Z50.
There are probably lenses that you can use on the Z6, though: the 70-300mm pops into mind--though the reach would be relatively similar, since 300mm is only a fraction longer than 250mm.
Reach is useful in many different scenarios, though the ideal lens will vary in each. What are you hoping to shoot?
Last edited:
shuncheung
Veteran Member
As long as you don't mind a roughly 10MP cropped image and a slow f6.3 lens.
Wrong, it is on all 3 250 mm in DX mode , you can not change that on the Z6 or Z7 to FX mode. The difference is Z6 is +/- 10Mb and on the Z7 +/- 20 Mb in DX mode.
No, you are wrong. I did not say you can change this to FX mode.
What I said was that you get the same amount of reach at 250mm as you would using 178mm on a Z7 or Z50.
See my posts here to educate yourself on the subject:
And further down in that thread, I also posted this:
To illustrate a basic concept: Do those have the same reach? (no).
Reach is not only a function of field of view as many so naively initially react with. Instead, reach is a function of many variables, including (but not limited to) pixel density, focal length, noise, etc.
If you want maximum reach, you use the longest focal length possible with the highest pixel density possible with the largest aperture possible (that doesn't blow highlights or affect lens sharpness).
I took that left image of Saturn with a 500mm zoom lens on a 14MP camera, btw. Because this same lens didn't get anywhere near as much reach as when I used it on a 24MP camera.
Last edited:
I am using "how far can you clearly see with the system?"
This isn't analog photography. It's digital photography.
And in this sense, it is correct to say that the Z7 & Z50 (or D850 & D500) have the same reach with a given lens, while the Z7 & Z6 (or D850 & D780) have different reach with a given lens.
Friedrich von Hrsten
Forum Enthusiast
Hi Beatboxa,
i am not trying to argue or be clever, but I can understand why Joop is confused with your use of the term “reach”
usually reach implies distance— so I have more “reach” with my D500 than my D600 with the 300mmf4 lens —it seems to reach further/ closer...
however, if you use 2 FX cameras, you have the same “reach” and your subjects should be same size...
the only DIFFERENCE between D780 and D 850 is pixels— this would imply that your “reach” relates to MP45 vs 24, so the D850 could be cropped to 24 Mp and thus give you a closer view of the subject at 24 Mp ????
please just explain this better
Thanks,
Friedrich von Hörsten
i am not trying to argue or be clever, but I can understand why Joop is confused with your use of the term “reach”
usually reach implies distance— so I have more “reach” with my D500 than my D600 with the 300mmf4 lens —it seems to reach further/ closer...
however, if you use 2 FX cameras, you have the same “reach” and your subjects should be same size...
the only DIFFERENCE between D780 and D 850 is pixels— this would imply that your “reach” relates to MP45 vs 24, so the D850 could be cropped to 24 Mp and thus give you a closer view of the subject at 24 Mp ????
please just explain this better
Thanks,
Friedrich von Hörsten
This is incorrect. If reach implies distance, then you would have the same reach with your D500 or your D600, because (as your scenario outlines), you are shooting from the same distance. (Or if you wanted the same framing, you'd be shooting from further away on your D500).Hi Beatboxa,
i am not trying to argue or be clever, but I can understand why Joop is confused with your use of the term “reach”
usually reach implies distance— so I have more “reach” with my D500 than my D600 with the 300mmf4 lens —it seems to reach further/ closer...
FYI, the D600 viewfinder is also larger than the viewfinder of the D500, so you see objects at approximately the same size, but a wider field of view on the D600.
This is incorrect. This would only be true if you were shooting film or if you were never zooming in or cropping.however, if you use 2 FX cameras, you have the same “reach” and your subjects should be same size...
You have more reach on your D500 than your D600 because of pixel density, not because of sensor size.
Not necessarily just at 24MP--at 24MP or less.the only DIFFERENCE between D780 and D 850 is pixels— this would imply that your “reach” relates to MP45 vs 24, so the D850 could be cropped to 24 Mp and thus give you a closer view of the subject at 24 Mp ????
please just explain this better
Thanks,
Friedrich von Hörsten
For reference, 4K computer monitor is only about 8MP. So you're never seeing more than this if you are viewing an image in fullscreen. If you are viewing a Z7 or Z6 image fullscreen on a 4K monitor, you are not viewing a 45MP image or a 24MP image: you are viewing an 8MP image.
If you print, you will use either a consistent size (same as the monitor situation above), or you will use a larger print on the higher MP image with the same DPI.
And if you zoomed in to 1:1 on each, a D850/Z7 would provide more detail than a D780/Z6--and a D850/Z7 would also provide the same detail as a D500/Z50.
So in all scenarios, if you are comparing reach, the higher density for a given lens wins. The only time it doesn't is if you downscale--and at that point, you are no longer comparing reach.
Friedrich von Hrsten
Forum Enthusiast
Thanks for the explanation... still confusing... but obviously pixels do play a role then...
i have read a few arguments about this — all very technical...
For a layman, DX still gets you “closer “ than FX when using the same lens, irrespective of pixel density etc. That’s why I sold my bulky 200-400f4 on D600 and now use 300mmf4 PF with D500 and get slightly “closer “ than before... most people would call that reach, but obviously your definition means something else
Thank you so much!
God bless you in 2020,
Friedrich von Hörsten
i have read a few arguments about this — all very technical...
For a layman, DX still gets you “closer “ than FX when using the same lens, irrespective of pixel density etc. That’s why I sold my bulky 200-400f4 on D600 and now use 300mmf4 PF with D500 and get slightly “closer “ than before... most people would call that reach, but obviously your definition means something else
Thank you so much!
God bless you in 2020,
Friedrich von Hörsten
No, it doesn't. Pixel density does it.
The D500 & D600 have different pixel densities, and that's why you get more reach.That’s why I sold my bulky 200-400f4 on D600 and now use 300mmf4 PF with D500 and get slightly “closer “ than before... most people would call that reach, but obviously your definition means something else
My definition does not mean something else.
It is your definition of reach, for me it is the definition of detail.No, it doesn't. Pixel density does it.
The D500 & D600 have different pixel densities, and that's why you get more reach.That’s why I sold my bulky 200-400f4 on D600 and now use 300mmf4 PF with D500 and get slightly “closer “ than before... most people would call that reach, but obviously your definition means something else
My definition does not mean something else.
For my work I use a D5 and at home a Z6. With a 600 mm on 500 m distance on the D5 I make a photo and it sells. With your definition I can use a D850 with a 400 mm for the same reach after cropping. I know I have less change to make that photo, but it go well and after cropping it have the same details after more work to do. I don't call that reach.
24Peter
Veteran Member
Not in my mind since you're left with a pretty low rez image. DX on a Z6 is something like 3936x2624. Better off adapting a 200/300mm lens on your Z.
No, don't misquote me. I didn't say you can use a 400mm for the same reach after cropping because without including aperture or sharpness, you then ignoring other aspects I explicitly included.It is your definition of reach, for me it is the definition of detail.No, it doesn't. Pixel density does it.
The D500 & D600 have different pixel densities, and that's why you get more reach.That’s why I sold my bulky 200-400f4 on D600 and now use 300mmf4 PF with D500 and get slightly “closer “ than before... most people would call that reach, but obviously your definition means something else
My definition does not mean something else.
For my work I use a D5 and at home a Z6. With a 600 mm on 500 m distance on the D5 I make a photo and it sells. With your definition I can use a D850 with a 400 mm for the same reach after cropping. I know I have less change to make that photo, but it go well and after cropping it have the same details after more work to do. I don't call that reach.
I have different definitions of reach & detail. Detail is one of several components of reach, but in comparing reach, one should use comparable detail--otherwise you're not comparing reach, you're comparing angle of view. Angle of view, reach, and detail are all distinct concepts.
I can play the same game you are playing. According to your definition, reach is how little post-processing work you have to put into the photo (even if it's just cropping). I don't think how much post processing work I have to do after I come home affects how much reach a lens & camera gives me in the field, but this is how you've defined reach. In that case, you can't answer the OP's question because he/she hasn't shot and completed editing the photos with the lens he/she doesn't have yet. So your answer to "how much reach does a 600mm lens have on a D5" is "depends on the photo. It has no reach when I look through the viewfinder. It has no reach when I take the photo. It has no reach when I look at it on my computer. It only has reach when I have completed editing the image."
Last edited:
BGD300V1
Senior Member
does anybody have some images from the Z6 50-250mm combo to post?
john isaacs
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,441
- Solutions
- 22
- Reaction score
- 9,913
No, but it does make sense to use that lens on a Z7.
If it not good on the Z6 it is also not good on the Z7. Or is it for the 10Mp? Then it is in your mind that 10Mp is not good . Pro camera's like the D2 (6 Mp) and the D3s (12 Mp) make excellent photo's. The D3s is still in use by many Pro's. On the DX site I see the D200 (10 Mp) in use by many persons.
For me I will not use the 50-250 on the Z6 and think a 70-300 with the FTZ is a better option. The 16-50 DX is a good choice on the Z6 for a EDC
BGD300V1
Senior Member
I picked up a 50-250mm and mounted it on my Z6 for my usual critical 'walk out the door and take some pictures' testing.
Here is the result of my closest focus test which consists of stepping closer until the camera won't AF and then leaning back a bit until it does.
250mm SOOC jpeg, vivid setting no PP.
100% detail
Based on this (and a few other pictures) It's a keeper and I will order the lens hood and maybe a Z7.
OBTW, the bokeh ain't too shabby.
--
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
Last edited:
Looks great.
And should confirm to a lot of people that a 10MP crop is still a lot of resolution--more than most of our monitors can display.
Even your "100% detail" is significantly scaled down in the post to fit the preview into the text box.
Last edited:
BGD300V1
Senior Member
My understanding of 100% is presenting one pixel on the sensor as one pixel on the screen.Looks great.
And should confirm to a lot of people that a 10MP crop is still a lot of resolution--more than most of our monitors can display.
Even your "100% detail" is significantly scaled down in the post to fit the preview into the text box.
To do this I use the free FastStone program.
I open the image and then the Crop screen. I set the crop proportions to a ratio of 1600x1200. which creates a cropping frame box in that ratio.
I then set the size to 1600x1200 and the box is now contains a pixel to pixel image and I then save the created crop. That is what you will see if you look at the original image.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum