User4286416121
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,295
- Reaction score
- 573
Awesome.
But when using only a high mp ff, no reason to use crop mode.
But when using only a high mp ff, no reason to use crop mode.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
briantilley
Veteran Member
I wouldn't say no reason.
Crop mode obviously brings smaller file sizes which can be important for some. In addition... on a DSLR, the AF array will cover a greater proportion of the cropped field of view, whilst on a Z camera the crop view fills the EVF.
Snapquacky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 45
I can never get enough informationThen we agree
It's true, but the flipside is (as I explained in another thread), suppose the individual I was talking to decided to get his dream lens, the 500 PF. The following truths occur:
As we both know, the 500 PF is f/5.6 natively. That means, with the D500, a person can only deploy a 1.4x TC (getting a 1050mm f/8 optic, if you also count the 1.5x DX crop factor).
If a person instead uses a Z6 or Z7 you can put the 2.0x on the 500 PF, there going to be getting a a 1000mm f/11. Trust me, their ISOs are going to be through the roof. The Z7 is it done at higher ISOs, and even though the Z6 is good @ hi ISOs, you're still losing all that light shooting @ f/11. With a shorter focal length, like 500, it really doesn't make any sense to get a full frame, because even the D500 with a 1.4x TC still gives you better reach, and you're shooting @ f/8 rather than f/11.
With my 800mm, that dynamic changes dramatically, because of the 300 mm extra I have.
The D500 gives me 1200 f/8, but with a 2x TC and the Z6, I'm now up to 1600mm f/11, which is 400 mm extra reach, rather than a deficit of 50 mm in reach. Still, if I have decent light, I can put the special 1.25x TC (custom built for my 800) on, and get ~1500mm f/7 with the D500, when also adding the DX crop factor:
D500 + 800 FL ED @ ~1200mm
D500 + 800 FL ED + 1.25x TC @ ~1500mm
Remember, you can do all this with a 300mm ... just not from nearly as far away :-D
Regarding my decision to use the D500 or Z6, if I can keep by ISO under 4000, I will opt for the D500 + 800 + 1.25x TC. Which means basically shooting in broad daylight, or at least with enough overcast light. In the early morning, or after the sun sets, I need the Z6 + 2x TC, because the Z6 can handle crazy ISOs, while the D500 can't.
For the same reason, when I use my smaller 400 FL ED, I never use my Z6. If I want the extra reach, I just put my D500 on it. I'm shooting at 600 f/4 (bare). Putting a 1.4x on the Z6 would similarly give me a little less reach, and blur my photo a bit with the TC. Not worth it.
Because my 400 FL ED benefits from f/2.8, I can happily put a 2x on it and (with the 1.5x crop of the D500), I now have a 1200 mm f/5.6. I get the best of both worlds. Putting a Z6 here wouldn't make sense either, because I'm losing the crop factor, and my ISOs don't go up that much with only f/5.6.
Again, all of this depends on your lens' initial f-stop value. The lower the better. This is another reason why I prefer the 300 PF, because will allows the D500 user to use both the 1.4x and 2x TCs, with the D500.
The Z6 only gives me an advantage when I bring out the 800, because now I'm working with enough focal length — that the D500 can't equal — or the D5 (because neither can handle the 2x), and I'm working at an ISO high enough that the D850 or Z7 does nothing for me.
Trust me, I have tried all possible combinations :-D
and the images are just a bonus. My poor old 300mm is looking like a 30mm in the context of this thread but I get exactly where you are coming from.Sometimes I browse through used 400's and 600's, I have seen the images from 400 + 2xTC before now and they are quite impressive, also the 2.8 aperture in the UK would be useful, that is for another thread and certainly another day
Hopefully the D500 would give slightly more focus accuracy with the 1.4x TC on my current 300 f4 and the 300 pf, at least then I can stretch out to 420. The old D7000 works but it isn't as snappy or as sharp, to be expected for the latter.
R
RazorSharpWO
Guest
Lol, I feel for you.I can never get enough information
10 years ago, all I had was 180mm ... which felt like 18mm shooting birds
Since you're using the D7000 + 300 D, you're likely getting really good images fairly frequently. For sure, this is making you hungrier.
Another key point you notice.Sometimes I browse through used 400's and 600's, I have seen the images from 400 + 2xTC before now and they are quite impressive, also the 2.8 aperture in the UK would be useful, that is for another thread and certainly another day
Not only does an f/2.8 base aperture benefit you, with respect to light, but it also benefits you from the variety of TCs you can deploy, without losing AF speed or accuracy.
I've had both the Nikkor 300/2.8G VR II and the 300/4E PF, and neither lost any focus speed or accuracy, with 2x TCs. Only under the darkest conditions was the latter and finding itself "hunting" for AF, but not too much.
When you put a 2x TC at the end of a native f/5.6, using a DSLR, and are thus@ f/11, you cannot AF at all.
As I described above, and elsewhere, therefore even the 500 PF is of questionable benefit, therefore, when shooting with the D500 compared to the 300 PF. You're losing a lot of close-up ability, with the 300, to gain "not much" on the long end, because the 500 PF can't deploy a 2x TC on the D500.
We all work in increments. The first step, getting the D500, will dramatically increase many things with your current 300/4D. The next step, getting the 300 PF, will dramatically increase absolutely everything that you're doing. (The pro-level VR, the pro-level AF speed, etc.)
Even if you ultimately aspire to get the 500 PF, if distant subjects are your passion, the D500 still beats every other option, under 4000 ISO.
Cheers,
Snapquacky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 45
No such thing as a stupid question, but here goes...if you were in my position and low light was a problem, ie above ISO 4000, what path would you take regarding body and lens, within say the D500/D850/Z7/Z6 + 300-500pf range budget wise.Lol, I feel for you.I can never get enough information
10 years ago, all I had was 180mm ... which felt like 18mm shooting birds
Since you're using the D7000 + 300 D, you're likely getting really good images fairly frequently. For sure, this is making you hungrier.
Another key point you notice.Sometimes I browse through used 400's and 600's, I have seen the images from 400 + 2xTC before now and they are quite impressive, also the 2.8 aperture in the UK would be useful, that is for another thread and certainly another day
Not only does an f/2.8 base aperture benefit you, with respect to light, but it also benefits you from the variety of TCs you can deploy, without losing AF speed or accuracy.
I've had both the Nikkor 300/2.8G VR II and the 300/4E PF, and neither lost any focus speed or accuracy, with 2x TCs. Only under the darkest conditions was the latter and finding itself "hunting" for AF, but not too much.
When you put a 2x TC at the end of a native f/5.6, using a DSLR, and are thus@ f/11, you cannot AF at all.
As I described above, and elsewhere, therefore even the 500 PF is of questionable benefit, therefore, when shooting with the D500 compared to the 300 PF. You're losing a lot of close-up ability, with the 300, to gain "not much" on the long end, because the 500 PF can't deploy a 2x TC on the D500.
We all work in increments. The first step, getting the D500, will dramatically increase many things with your current 300/4D. The next step, getting the 300 PF, will dramatically increase absolutely everything that you're doing. (The pro-level VR, the pro-level AF speed, etc.)
Even if you ultimately aspire to get the 500 PF, if distant subjects are your passion, the D500 still beats every other option, under 4000 ISO.
Cheers,
With my D7000, low light is almost always an issue unless I am lucky and very patient, often the subjects appear in shaded areas and sunlight is already lacking.
As always your response above is greatly appreciated and highly valued
rhlpetrus
Forum Pro
The Z6 is the low light champ in this group, but, since you want reach, the Z7 is the best option, unless you prefer OVF, then the D850 is the best option, more flexible than D500, but more expensive. The differences at 6400 for the FFs are minimal.No such thing as a stupid question, but here goes...if you were in my position and low light was a problem, ie above ISO 4000, what path would you take regarding body and lens, within say the D500/D850/Z7/Z6 + 300-500pf range budget wise.Lol, I feel for you.I can never get enough information
10 years ago, all I had was 180mm ... which felt like 18mm shooting birds
Since you're using the D7000 + 300 D, you're likely getting really good images fairly frequently. For sure, this is making you hungrier.
Another key point you notice.Sometimes I browse through used 400's and 600's, I have seen the images from 400 + 2xTC before now and they are quite impressive, also the 2.8 aperture in the UK would be useful, that is for another thread and certainly another day
Not only does an f/2.8 base aperture benefit you, with respect to light, but it also benefits you from the variety of TCs you can deploy, without losing AF speed or accuracy.
I've had both the Nikkor 300/2.8G VR II and the 300/4E PF, and neither lost any focus speed or accuracy, with 2x TCs. Only under the darkest conditions was the latter and finding itself "hunting" for AF, but not too much.
When you put a 2x TC at the end of a native f/5.6, using a DSLR, and are thus@ f/11, you cannot AF at all.
As I described above, and elsewhere, therefore even the 500 PF is of questionable benefit, therefore, when shooting with the D500 compared to the 300 PF. You're losing a lot of close-up ability, with the 300, to gain "not much" on the long end, because the 500 PF can't deploy a 2x TC on the D500.
We all work in increments. The first step, getting the D500, will dramatically increase many things with your current 300/4D. The next step, getting the 300 PF, will dramatically increase absolutely everything that you're doing. (The pro-level VR, the pro-level AF speed, etc.)
Even if you ultimately aspire to get the 500 PF, if distant subjects are your passion, the D500 still beats every other option, under 4000 ISO.
Cheers,
With my D7000, low light is almost always an issue unless I am lucky and very patient, often the subjects appear in shaded areas and sunlight is already lacking.
As always your response above is greatly appreciated and highly valued
Snapquacky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 45
Thank you, I am quite torn at the moment, I know the D500 is the easy and almost certainly the better choice for reach. The Z7 technology and resolution is a big draw, also I expect my future will be Z lenses.The Z6 is the low light champ in this group, but, since you want reach, the Z7 is the best option, unless you prefer OVF, then the D850 is the best option, more flexible than D500, but more expensive. The differences at 6400 for the FFs are minimal.No such thing as a stupid question, but here goes...if you were in my position and low light was a problem, ie above ISO 4000, what path would you take regarding body and lens, within say the D500/D850/Z7/Z6 + 300-500pf range budget wise.Lol, I feel for you.I can never get enough information
10 years ago, all I had was 180mm ... which felt like 18mm shooting birds
Since you're using the D7000 + 300 D, you're likely getting really good images fairly frequently. For sure, this is making you hungrier.
Another key point you notice.Sometimes I browse through used 400's and 600's, I have seen the images from 400 + 2xTC before now and they are quite impressive, also the 2.8 aperture in the UK would be useful, that is for another thread and certainly another day
Not only does an f/2.8 base aperture benefit you, with respect to light, but it also benefits you from the variety of TCs you can deploy, without losing AF speed or accuracy.
I've had both the Nikkor 300/2.8G VR II and the 300/4E PF, and neither lost any focus speed or accuracy, with 2x TCs. Only under the darkest conditions was the latter and finding itself "hunting" for AF, but not too much.
When you put a 2x TC at the end of a native f/5.6, using a DSLR, and are thus@ f/11, you cannot AF at all.
As I described above, and elsewhere, therefore even the 500 PF is of questionable benefit, therefore, when shooting with the D500 compared to the 300 PF. You're losing a lot of close-up ability, with the 300, to gain "not much" on the long end, because the 500 PF can't deploy a 2x TC on the D500.
We all work in increments. The first step, getting the D500, will dramatically increase many things with your current 300/4D. The next step, getting the 300 PF, will dramatically increase absolutely everything that you're doing. (The pro-level VR, the pro-level AF speed, etc.)
Even if you ultimately aspire to get the 500 PF, if distant subjects are your passion, the D500 still beats every other option, under 4000 ISO.
Cheers,
With my D7000, low light is almost always an issue unless I am lucky and very patient, often the subjects appear in shaded areas and sunlight is already lacking.
As always your response above is greatly appreciated and highly valued
More thought will be given and if anything gets ordered I will add information here
R
RazorSharpWO
Guest
If you're going to be consistently over ISO 4000, then the Z6 + TC will give you the best results, IMO. As I said in another thread, the good thing about the D500 is it gives you that 1.5x crop, without a TC, where you can keep the native aperture as low as possible in your lens. When you add a TC, you're automatically bumping your aperture up, and therefore your ISO up. The Z6 can handle it though.No such thing as a stupid question, but here goes...if you were in my position and low light was a problem, ie above ISO 4000, what path would you take regarding body and lens, within say the D500/D850/Z7/Z6 + 300-500pf range budget wise.
With my D7000, low light is almost always an issue unless I am lucky and very patient, often the subjects appear in shaded areas and sunlight is already lacking.
As always your response above is greatly appreciated and highly valued
R
RazorSharpWO
Guest
If you're going to be consistently over ISO 4000, then the Z6 + TC will give you the best results, IMO. As I said in another thread, the good thing about the D500 is it gives you that 1.5x crop, without a TC, where you can keep the native aperture as low as possible in your lens. When you add a TC, you're automatically bumping your aperture up, and therefore your ISO up. The Z6 can handle it though.No such thing as a stupid question, but here goes...if you were in my position and low light was a problem, ie above ISO 4000, what path would you take regarding body and lens, within say the D500/D850/Z7/Z6 + 300-500pf range budget wise.
With my D7000, low light is almost always an issue unless I am lucky and very patient, often the subjects appear in shaded areas and sunlight is already lacking.
As always your response above is greatly appreciated and highly valued
Z6 @ 25,600 ISO w/ 2x TC + 25% Crop
--
♦ Facebook Page
♦ Flickr Samples
Snapquacky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 45
Wow, that is quite something, is this the 300 f4... :-D lol, joking aside, great glass and equally great image. That really is impressive, I am greedy and also cheap, I would like these results with the Z7 and 300 f4 + 2x tc, and then I woke up.If you're going to be consistently over ISO 4000, then the Z6 + TC will give you the best results, IMO. As I said in another thread, the good thing about the D500 is it gives you that 1.5x crop, without a TC, where you can keep the native aperture as low as possible in your lens. When you add a TC, you're automatically bumping your aperture up, and therefore your ISO up. The Z6 can handle it though.No such thing as a stupid question, but here goes...if you were in my position and low light was a problem, ie above ISO 4000, what path would you take regarding body and lens, within say the D500/D850/Z7/Z6 + 300-500pf range budget wise.
With my D7000, low light is almost always an issue unless I am lucky and very patient, often the subjects appear in shaded areas and sunlight is already lacking.
As always your response above is greatly appreciated and highly valued
Z6 @ 25,600 ISO w/ 2x TC + 25% Crop
Snapquacky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 45
ThanksIf you're going to be consistently over ISO 4000, then the Z6 + TC will give you the best results, IMO. As I said in another thread, the good thing about the D500 is it gives you that 1.5x crop, without a TC, where you can keep the native aperture as low as possible in your lens. When you add a TC, you're automatically bumping your aperture up, and therefore your ISO up. The Z6 can handle it though.No such thing as a stupid question, but here goes...if you were in my position and low light was a problem, ie above ISO 4000, what path would you take regarding body and lens, within say the D500/D850/Z7/Z6 + 300-500pf range budget wise.
With my D7000, low light is almost always an issue unless I am lucky and very patient, often the subjects appear in shaded areas and sunlight is already lacking.
As always your response above is greatly appreciated and highly valued
- it wouldn't be that difficult for me to get to ISO 4000 and go above on a day like today, in my head I want to believe the Z7 could tackle this and do the job of a D500 minus the focusing abilities but I know that not to necessarily be the case.The Z6 is the camera for my conditions but the reach with my lens and I sense even the 500 is going to be limiting. My brain is fried a bit with this now, I think some late night camera shopping might fix the problem, wake up and wonder 'did I actually order that'
!
R
RazorSharpWO
Guest
No, it's the 800.
I've got many really good images with the 300 + 2x TC, but I've never had to go this high on my ISOs using the smaller lens.
The takeaway is the incredible high-ISO performance of the Z6. You can literally get in the 20,000s with your ISO, and still have a halfway -decent image.
This truth would hold while using any lens, including the 300 PF.
Snapquacky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 45
I realised it was the 800
what a great lens. I need to regroup a bit at the moment, currently the list is D500, Z7 then Z6, in that order, mainly based on 'reach', Z6 would be just perfect for the light levels here, but I would be seriously up against it for wildlife with 300mm. I've not written it off since having access to ISO3200-20000 would be a dream frankly.Shall be looking to replace my 300 with the pf version for various reasons moving forward now.
P
ProDude
Guest
And the Nikon official I saw the interview of also bore this out. That it exceeded all aspects of performance of the D5 and D6 as well regarding dynamic range and higher ISO performance.
T O Shooter
Forum Pro
I'm not connecting your dots here.
How does, and assuming he's talking high iso performance, not low iso performance -
Ricci
"ISO performance is one of those things that can change as the camera get's developed but currently it's better than Z7II"
Nikon official
equate to "the Nikon official I saw the interview of also bore this out. That it exceeded all aspects of performance of the D5 and D6 as well regarding dynamic range and higher ISO performance."?
Better than a Z7ii is not the same as better than the D5 and D6. Or did I miss something in the video I didn't watch?
AcquiredTaste
Veteran Member
Yeah, I don't see it either.
I watched another video with a number of people and Mark Cruz from Nikon, and I also wasn't at all convinced. When asked directly about how it compared to the D5, he shifted focus to it being a BSI sensor and shifted back to comparing it to the Z7ii. He then said it would equal that performance. He did say that he didn't worry 'at all' about the issue, but he really seemed like he wanted to avoid answering. I walked away pretty convinced that we will see almost identical performance to the Z7ii, which means a solid step back from D5 performance above 3200 ISO.
We'll have to wait and see before throwing rocks, but I think it's probably safe to start picking up a few in preparation.
P
ProDude
Guest
AcquiredTaste
Veteran Member
Yes, and as has been isolated several times, that article is the opposite of reassuring. This quote is really scary:
"Compared to the high sensitivity of the Z 7II, the noise in the flat area is particularly low. Compared to the D6 used by many sports photographers, the Z 9 is better suited to the [needs] of a sports photographer who shoots with a need for cropping, since the number of pixels is large. Additionally, when the high-sensitivity noise reduction is set to Strong, the roughness of the image can be reduced."
Rather than answer, 'Yes, there are no trade offs at high ISO,' or 'The Z9 equals the high ISO performance of the D5,' he dances around a direct answer and talks about cropping needs.
Oof.
T O Shooter
Forum Pro
I've read this before.
Does offering a base ISO of 64 come with any trade-off in high ISO image quality performance?
By adopting dual conversion gain technology, it is possible to suppress noise to the utmost limit at each ISO sensitivity from low ISO sensitivity to high ISO sensitivity, and expand the dynamic range. The Z 9 not only inherits the minimum ISO of 64, but also achieves an expanded shutter speed of 1/32,000sec, further increasing the creative potential of fast lenses such as the Noct or the Z 50mm F1.2 S.
For example, when shooting outdoors on sunny days at F1.2, optimal exposure, as well as under-exposure for low-key images, are possible. Low sensitivities are required when F1.2 and other fast lenses are used at maximum aperture. With the Z mount system especially, a group of lenses including the F0.95, F1.2 and lenses offer rendering performance that enables worry-free use and maximum sharpness from maximum aperture. Nikon designs with an emphasis on resolution, which is something that can be felt in comparison with all other manufacturers, and is a place where Nikon has a distinct advantage.
Nothing in there about equaling D5 / D6 high iso. Kind of avoiding the question really.
But what I wasn't getting the dots connection on, was how you figured Ricci was saying the Z9 had D5/D6 high iso, and that was "also bore out", your words, by the Nikon official.
Doesn't matter to me as I'll find out when the Z9 gets in the right hands, but it seems to me you're taking something that wasn't said by the Nikon rep to back up something that wasn't said by Ricci.
I just prefer clear information.
P
ProDude
Guest
yeah well as they say the proof is in the pudding. Until I get my hands on one and wring it out I won't comment ultimately. I am confident they've designed the sensor to have some special characteristics that will lend itself nicely towards a lower noise image but without damaging it's IQ which they tend to consider very highly in the mix.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum