I am amazed at the low noise characteristics of the Zfc. I used to worry about going over 400 ISO with my DX sensor DSLR's, but not hesitant to use 6400 on the Zfc, and I have the default noise reduction turned down on mine a couple of notches. A lot of what you read on internet forums is written by folks that insist that you must have Full Frame sensor cameras for anything serious, which is simply not the case. You must have a full frame camera if you want to be among those that believe this.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Do any of you use a Zfc or Z50 for landscape photography?
- Thread starter jm31828
- Start date
Thank you very much for the examples, I was going to dig out my windows computer where my photos are for some examples, but you have helped out. Changing to a Mac and not yet got all my ducks in a row for my photographs to post yet, so most are still windows bound. I'll just leave it at that for now.
Thanks
Thanks
curiousmike1300
Senior Member
It depends on what you consider "good enough" - if you're a pro or are a serious enthusiast, you're probably not going to be happy unless you know you're shooting FullFrame with IBIS-in-body and VR on the lens.
I will echo what has been said above - as a light kit for hiking / exploring, I have found the lack of in-body-IBIS anywhere from "not missing it at all" to "would have been nice - but I'm not selling to NatGeo".
1/13th - but it was darker than the image suggests and I was *cold*
[ATTACH alt="ISO 8000 - BUT -- Lightroom "denoise = 25" was applied "]3575397[/ATTACH]
ISO 8000 - BUT -- Lightroom "denoise = 25" was applied
Attachments
curiousmike1300
Senior Member
When I viewed my image here on DRP at "100%", it looked terrible. I compared to LR and -- ignoring JPG compression - the 100% view size is demonstrably larger on DPR.
I would have to 100% disagree with this statement. Used to be a pro and now a fairly serious enthusiast.
But agree with the below.
I will echo what has been said above - as a light kit for hiking / exploring, I have found the lack of in-body-IBIS anywhere from "not missing it at all" to "would have been nice - but I'm not selling to NatGeo".
1/13th - but it was darker than the image suggests and I was *cold*
[ATTACH alt="ISO 8000 - BUT -- Lightroom "denoise = 25" was applied"]3575397[/ATTACH]
ISO 8000 - BUT -- Lightroom "denoise = 25" was applied
That's something that mixes folks up a lot. Many laptops especially have default screen image set to 150 or even 200%. So if you view dpr photos at full size using original and click + you get either 150 or 200%. Wish I knew. a. way around it, but I don't. I used to set my windows laptop to 100% if looking at dpr images, but then the forms were too small to read, but the photos were right.
Nice shots! Are those handheld?It depends on what you consider "good enough" - if you're a pro or are a serious enthusiast, you're probably not going to be happy unless you know you're shooting FullFrame with IBIS-in-body and VR on the lens.
I will echo what has been said above - as a light kit for hiking / exploring, I have found the lack of in-body-IBIS anywhere from "not missing it at all" to "would have been nice - but I'm not selling to NatGeo".
1/13th - but it was darker than the image suggests and I was *cold*
[ATTACH alt="ISO 8000 - BUT -- Lightroom "denoise = 25" was applied"]3575397[/ATTACH]
ISO 8000 - BUT -- Lightroom "denoise = 25" was applied
curiousmike1300
Senior Member
The Yosemite valley shot is handheld - the astro shot was on a tripod ( I think 6 second exposure.)Nice shots! Are those handheld?
1/13th - but it was darker than the image suggests and I was *cold*
[ATTACH alt="ISO 8000 - BUT -- Lightroom "denoise = 25" was applied"]3575397[/ATTACH]
ISO 8000 - BUT -- Lightroom "denoise = 25" was applied
I know you’re not asking me, but the Black Forest waterfall shots were all taken hand held with shutter speeds slow enough to blur the motion relying on the lens VR to do its job.
That’s amazing! I thought this was only possible with full frame cameras with ibis that has more stops of compensation.I know you’re not asking me, but the Black Forest waterfall shots were all taken hand held with shutter speeds slow enough to blur the motion relying on the lens VR to do its job.
Montanawildlives
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,301
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,188
i used to own a Z 50 and the image quality was fine, there were things about that user interface that I didn’t like such as the inability to turn off the zoom button on the touchscreen which I was constantly hitting with my nose. I have a big nose. but a couple of years ago after 10 years with only crop cameras, and about 10 of them, I went all in with full frame. Z5 for infrared, Z7 for landscapes, and Z8 for wildlife. I don’t think I could ever go back. printing is one thing, but if you’re the kind of person who likes to sit at their computer, looking at their photos and thinking oh my God, that’s unbelievable… I would recommend full frame. You can get a z5 super cheap right now.
I know everybody else is saying the Nikon crops are fine and they are… Fine. But with a Z5 and the 24 to 70 F4 you’ll be carrying around a bulkier camera for sure but for not much more money and there’s no doubt that you can tell the difference in image quality.
go for full frame… You’re worth it
I know everybody else is saying the Nikon crops are fine and they are… Fine. But with a Z5 and the 24 to 70 F4 you’ll be carrying around a bulkier camera for sure but for not much more money and there’s no doubt that you can tell the difference in image quality.
go for full frame… You’re worth it
THIS.
I have only very rarely wanted for more than what my DX equipment has delivered in 25 years of worldwide travel. I picked up the Z50 as my entree into mirrorless because I knew it would deliver the same image quality I was familiar with but in a size that I wish were available to me in my DSLR days.
Yes, I know that u4/3 was challenging APS-C and full frame for this sort of thing, or at least claimed to - but back then the warring camps sorted themselves out into those who found u4/3 more than "good enough", and those who saw all sorts of evils in the u4/3 shadows and lies in the ISO dial's markings. Sounds a lot like today.
The truth was that u4/3 was "good enough" as well - you just couldn't do photographic feats of magic as well with it.
Last edited:
NikonMan09
Senior Member
Here are some Zfc landscapes from my region of the world cropped to 16:9 in post:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66987882
I will be very curious as to what the now rumored Z50II will look like.
No aspirations to go full frame.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66987882
I will be very curious as to what the now rumored Z50II will look like.
No aspirations to go full frame.
Thanks for sharing!i used to own a Z 50 and the image quality was fine, there were things about that user interface that I didn’t like such as the inability to turn off the zoom button on the touchscreen which I was constantly hitting with my nose. I have a big nose. but a couple of years ago after 10 years with only crop cameras, and about 10 of them, I went all in with full frame. Z5 for infrared, Z7 for landscapes, and Z8 for wildlife. I don’t think I could ever go back. printing is one thing, but if you’re the kind of person who likes to sit at their computer, looking at their photos and thinking oh my God, that’s unbelievable… I would recommend full frame. You can get a z5 super cheap right now.
I know everybody else is saying the Nikon crops are fine and they are… Fine. But with a Z5 and the 24 to 70 F4 you’ll be carrying around a bulkier camera for sure but for not much more money and there’s no doubt that you can tell the difference in image quality.
go for full frame… You’re worth it
I had been doing a lot of research, and this was more of a curious question I had as per things I had read over and over on forums as people dismiss these cameras…
But I am like you- I’ve had crop sensors for the 20 years or so that I’ve been into photography, with my current being a D7500. I plan to keep that one, but I decided to splurge and buy my first full frame- I just ordered a ZF kit with the 24-70 lens… it’ll arrive tomorrow.
. I am excited, to say the least! I live in the Pacific Northwest, and often we are out in the rainforest areas hiking- I think the amazing IBIS and great low light capabilities will be perfect for forest shots on those dark, dreary days where with my D7500 I ended up having to take a tripod to get those shots- which was a bit of an annoyance.
Last edited:
AlainCh2
Senior Member
I got a Zf as a second DX body.i used to own a Z 50 and the image quality was fine, there were things about that user interface that I didn’t like such as the inability to turn off the zoom button on the touchscreen which I was constantly hitting with my nose. I have a big nose. but a couple of years ago after 10 years with only crop cameras, and about 10 of them, I went all in with full frame. Z5 for infrared, Z7 for landscapes, and Z8 for wildlife. I don’t think I could ever go back. printing is one thing, but if you’re the kind of person who likes to sit at their computer, looking at their photos and thinking oh my God, that’s unbelievable… I would recommend full frame. You can get a z5 super cheap right now.
I know everybody else is saying the Nikon crops are fine and they are… Fine. But with a Z5 and the 24 to 70 F4 you’ll be carrying around a bulkier camera for sure but for not much more money and there’s no doubt that you can tell the difference in image quality.
go for full frame… You’re worth it
I keep using it as a 10Mp DX for 95% of the shots.
I bought it as a DX body, there are no reasons to use it as FX in my mind.
PC editing takes time for any photo,
it doesn't matter where it comes from and how many pixels it's sporting.
( so far nothing beat my Z30 for the non-bird shot )
I'm looking at getting a z50. I've always wanted one but went in other directions. But they are quite reasonably priced now.
Is there really a huge difference. It seems the z50 isn't bad in low light and not having to stop down as far to get everything in focus it's going to be almost the same right?
And tbh I can't really remember the last time I used a really high iso for a landscape shot. Even at sunset.
20mp must be plenty for printing?
The z50 shots look great. As good as you would want really and I would have thought landscapes are one subject where full frame isn't going to have as much of a benefit?
Is there really a huge difference. It seems the z50 isn't bad in low light and not having to stop down as far to get everything in focus it's going to be almost the same right?
And tbh I can't really remember the last time I used a really high iso for a landscape shot. Even at sunset.
20mp must be plenty for printing?
The z50 shots look great. As good as you would want really and I would have thought landscapes are one subject where full frame isn't going to have as much of a benefit?
Not completely on topic, but I have a D7500 (with basically the same sensor as the Z50/Zfc), and of course I use it also for landscape photography. It works completely fine for this purpose, the only downside is the resolution of just 20.6 MP, thus less leeway for cropping and really big printouts.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum