Jumping to a full frame Z, what to keep, what to sell?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
OP CrankAddict New Member • Posts: 20
Re: I was completely wrong about DX crop mode and a question about 70-200 for macro...

olyflyer wrote:

Actually, it depends on the camera you are buying... The Z7/Z7ii will give you 8256 x 5504 (45.4 MP, 3:2) in FX mode and 6192 x 4128 (25.6 MP, 3:2) in DX mode.

I see that now. I had not considered the Z7 to be honest.  It feels quite hard to justify that expense as a hobbyist.

After some further reading I see that smaller pixels are not actually a desirable thing in terms of their light sensitivity and noise properties. Sure, you get more resolution, which can add detail, but everything else seems to be a downside. Big eye opener for me!

That is incorrect and the wrong assumption. When a high megapixel image is viewed at the same size as a lower megapixel image, i.e. NOT both at 100% magnification, then the high megapixel camera will ALWAYS give you better image with higher details. This is also true regarding DR.

Thank you for the correction.  From what I'm reading it still seems correct to say that per-pixel, a smaller pixel is more noisy, but apparently when software combines many pixels into one to reduce the image size this is more than made up for.  I have no way to disprove this, and given the fact that the flagship Z7 is using smaller pixels than a Z5/6, clearly this must be the preferred option.  Somehow, it seems counter-intuitive that averaging multiple noisier pixels would produce a better result.  If we consider one tiny piece of a real world image and let's say the actual color value is "100" (simplifying from RGB just for the sake of discussion).  If we have 2 noisy pixels representing this area with values 104 and 102, or, we have 1 larger pixel with a value of 101, isn't that single 101 going to be "better" than the 103 which the post software would calculate?   When I think of noise, I think of the very obvious and way-off pixels that I see everywhere in my current images at all but the lowest of ISOs.  These are always resized so somehow even after Lightroom's processing it wasn't able to fully get rid of these chromatic issues (unless I crank up the filtering but then I lose noticeable detail).  So to me, "noise" has always seemed like the most obvious gremlin to avoid.  Or to put it another way, I'm much more often wishing I had less noise than I am wishing I had more pixels.

That is my opinion, definitely. But please note that the Nikon Z, and especially the S lenses, are considerably better than the lenses you have, so it would be a win-win to get rid of your lenses. Lenses contribute also the higher detail and better IQ.

Yes, I'm coming to realize that.  I guess I wrongly thought that "good glass" from 10-15 years ago would still be "good glass" now.  I.e. a physical lens should have infinite resolution, so as long as it was now being backed up by a much better sensor, the image quality would improve dramatically.  But that does not seem to match what everyone says.  It sounds like the new lenses are at least as important as the new sensor in achieving a notable jump in IQ.

Question on the new plan... in terms of pure macro photography (let's take the example of using focus stacking to shoot a watch) how would the Z 70-200/2.8 compare to the Z 105/2.8 micro? The 105 can focus to 1' and the 70-200 can focus to 1.6'. If the 70-200 were at 200mm and 1.6' away, wouldn't that give at least as much macro capability as a 105mm at 1' distance? I'm sure there are other aspects to consider as well, but just wondering if getting a 24-70 and a 70-200 up front would cover all the bases, or if I'd truly want that dedicated 105.

The magnification is 1x for the 105 mm and only 0.2x for the 70-200. For macro images the magnification factor is important.

BUT please note that the minimum focus distance is not constant for the 70-200, at 70 mm it is 50 cm (1.6 ft) and at 200 mm it is 100 cm (3.3 ft).

I don't have those lenses, but I had the 105/2.8GVR and still have the 60/2.8G macro lenses and all I can say that a macro lens is always better for macro images than a zoom. In my opinion, if you are seriously interested in macro then you get a macro lens. The 70-200 is more for portraits than for macro, it is not a macro lens at all.

Thanks, I need to better understand magnification.  I just assumed if I could "get close and zoom in a bunch" that would produce a very detailed close-up "macro" image.  But there's obviously more to it that I'm not grasping.  The 3.3' at 200mm is the first clue that my plan is doomed haha.  I've read nothing but good things about the Z 105 micro, so I can't imagine I'd be disappointed in it.  Just more $$$$ on top of everything else...

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow