New camera. Go full frame?

Martin_99 wrote:

bluekat wrote:

lokatz wrote:

bluekat wrote:

lokatz wrote:

bluekat wrote:

My question is will ff give me more versatility in post processing? I shoot raw and love to push things in editing. I’m not sure how much difference the jump to ff would make if any.

Quite honestly, any current model will give you more processing room than what you currently shoot with, as sensors saw a lot of development progress in recent years. The Z5/6, with one of the best sensors in the market when it comes to dynamic range, will give you A LOT more wiggling room there.

The question is what you shoot and what kind of ISOs you need? The Z bodies are very good for landscape shooting where you usually use base ISO, but so are many other models that do not necessarily have to be full frame. Where the qualities of a good FF sensor really come to shine IMO is when higher ISOs are needed, say when street shooting in dim light, taking pics during the blue hour, or doing some astro shooting.

I've always been reluctant to use higher iso. Showing my age, I think this comes from my old film days. I've been experimenting a bit more with this. My hikes are often in forest settings in the cloudy Pacific Northwest. I struggle to get sufficient shutter speeds often. (At least I think this is the reason for some of my blurry images.) I do a lot of sunset pics and if I'm not to lazy to get up in the morning, sunrises too. I've dabbled with astrophotography. I now live in a low-light rural setting and have done one attempt at shooting the Milky Way. This is something I hope to do more of.

Right now I just dabble in a bit of everything. But I think my love is nature/landscapes and architecture.

Well, in that case, I encourage you to think beyond the body itself: your AF-P 70-300 is an ok lens, at least with shorter FLs, but no more than that.

What really sets the Z series apart, in spite of the sensors' low-light performance, is the extraordinary quality of the lenses, which even includes the "kit lenses". If you expect to upgrade lenses, you're going to love taking the Z route. If you plan on hanging on to your old lens(es), you'll still have the extra post processing wiggling room, but sharpness and overall IQ still won't be what you may be aspiring to.

Long story short: I would go with a Z50, maybe even a decent Nikon DSLR (the D750 is a strong low-light performer that won't break the bank) if you don't plan to add newer lenses. Otherwise, Z6 is the best answer you'll get.

(I own Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras and am waiting for an Olympus/OMDS one to arrive, so not much of a brand bias here...)

My thoughts with the 70-300 was I could use it for now, but replace it later, perhaps something with a little more reach. That was the main advantage I see. I am fond of Nikon, but I am open to other systems as well. DLSR is an option too, but I lean towards mirrorless. A little less weight, and the EVF is a little better for my old eyes.

My opinion to sell also 70-300 was based on necessity to buy adapter for it. If you would decide to buy a combo Z5/Z6 with 24-200, with 24Mpx sensor, you can crop to 300mm without issue anyway. Maybe better to buy 100-400mm in the future instead.

I don’t mind getting the adapter to use with the 70-300 if it gives me a telephoto to use while saving up for a longer lens. I only use this lens when I go out for birds at the local refuge, otherwise a 24-200mm would be fine for most other uses.