Has anyone used a Z5 ?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
norjens Regular Member • Posts: 419
It's a set of compromises, so question is which you prioritize between:

It is easier to produce a 35mm f/1.4 autofocus lens for a FF sensor than to produce an equivalent 23mm f/1 lens for APS-C. If large aperture diameter lenses with the accompanying light gathering and defocus blur is your preference, then FF is the way to go.

FF systems continue to not deliver quality compact lenses like the Fujinon f/2 prime series, or portable combos like X-T20 + 27mm f/2.8 that can fit in a purse or large pocket. Sony's very recent attempt (40mm and 50mm f/2.5) looks like a swing and a miss, and Nikon probably won't make their shot at it until they've filled in one to two dozen more Z lenses in 2025+.

Smaller sensors have their inherent advantage in read-out speed and shutter mechanics. Good for video, action and features that exploit bracketing. Phones have started using a lot of bracketing-reliant techniques to beat larger cameras at dynamic range among other things. Smaller physical dimensions and less data per frame -> less time per frame -> less issues with stuff moving between frames. Second advantage is smaller mount size and lower cost.

Larger sensors don't need to be magnified as much to reach the same print/display size. The higher magnification ratio is why images from smaller sensors show more noise: Noise is magnified along with the image, it is not some mysterious property of the sensor size. Anyway, for the purpose of end result; lower magnification ratio gives larger sensor advantage in displayed noise and resolution.

Larger sensor systems tend to go all in more often with cameras that deliver more resolution and at the same time match the smaller sensor cameras for speed and video, but you do have to pay for it. The Z5 and other lower end FF cameras that match APS-C on price show the sensor tradeoff I wrote about above. But outside of that overlap, FF offers more high end options, APS-C more low cost options.

Nikon competing for mirrorless FF share with Sony and Canon makes them push harder on price for equivalent gear. They do deliver more bang for your buck when comparing with equivalent Fujifilm products. Tradeoff is that it's not sustainable, so you get a higher risk of them being forced to jack up prices or even abandoning development of the system in the future. "Risk" is a probability that you can assign an estimated average cost to, but it requires a lot more data analysis than I'll do for a camera purchase. Intuition works pretty well and fast, though:
What do you feel like it is worth in dollars right now?

There is no such thing as a free lunch, that's why it's a genuinely difficult choice to make. System and sensor size is a set of compromises with no right answer, you have to choose your priorities.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow