Do any of you use a Zfc or Z50 for landscape photography?

mobydick said:

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.

Click to expand...

The cropping point is valid, but landscapes allow a slow careful approach that can usually negate the need to crop.

Been involved in photography for around 65 years and could count the number of 16x20 prints I have done on my fingers. And the only one I still have personally hangs on a wall at our home and was taken with a 2.7mp Nikon D1h.

Bob A L said:

Been involved in photography for around 65 years and could count the number of 16x20 prints I have done on my fingers.

Click to expand...

Yes, I also print rarely. Somehow sad because a permanent place at the wall is the perfect place for a really good image...

Of course:

Here is one, taken by Z 50 with Nikkor Z DX 24 mm f 4.0







--
If you want to be equal, you have to be better...

I actually have considerable amount of prints made (around 100 a month) but 4x6 and 8x10’s. We share them with family and friends instead of online. I know what they are seeing that way vs their terrible monitors.

Landscape using DX equals mushy details to me ... In some cases, a FX 24 MP can get close for minimum landscape detail . However , FX with 45MP is my landscape minimum to achieve the detail I believe is necessary for foliage and rock (your opinion may differ) .

My main camera is the Zf because I love the retro looks and it's a perfect combinition with the Voigtländer 40/1.2 Z mount lens or sometimes the 28/2.8 and 40/2 Z primes when I need autofocus. I also have the Z 20/1.8 for rare astrophotography or UWA occasions and the Z 24-120/4 as a universal zoom when I only want to take one camera and one lens with me.

However I want more reach than the 24-120 gives me. For example for landscape or cityscape shots with the telephoto compression effect or for occasional planespotting at the airport.

So I was contemplating the Z 100-400 lens but that is expensive (at least 2300€ when discounted), huge and heavy and I simply couldn't justify that because the vast majority of my shots is in the 24-120mm range or even just with the lovely 40/1.2 prime.

Then I saw a discount for the Zfc with the two lens combo (16-50 & 50-250) which was a little less than 1000€ and this solved all my problems.

Now when I need the telephoto range I just take the Zfc with the 50-250mm with me and on the Zf is mostly the Z 28/2.8 or Voigtländer 40/1.2 mounted so I don't even need to switch lenses which is very convenient. Also the camera/lens combination is lighter than the Z 100-400mm alone.

Sure the 50-250mm is a slow lens but for landscape and planespotting between sunrise and sunset it's fine in most circumstances. And the image quality is amazing considering its price, weight and size.

Sometimes I also take the 16-50mm with me so that I have a convenient standard zoom available and the prime can stay mounted on the Zf.

Zf and Zfc are also a perfect combination because the button layout is almost identical. It's the only Nikon APS-C + FF pair I know of where this is the case.

I really hope that there will be a Zfc successor in the future with all the bells and whistles of the Expeed 7 processor and maybe a larger viewfinder and better build quality that is closer to the Zf.

cutterpup said:

Hal Wilson said:

I was until very recently, using a Zfc. I took it with me on trips etc. A very nice little 'daily' camera. A couple of observations:

The 16-50 kit lens is ok, very compact, but I found the 12-28 zoom much more to my liking to shoot landscapes/cityscapes etc. Equivalent to 18mm over 24mm, so significantly wider. I didn't feel I lost out on the longer end, as I also used my 24-70 f4, so had 18-105mm covered. The 24mm f1/7 is a good lens but a weird design and the included lens hood is crap. Once opened, the 16-50mm is about as long as the 12-28mm anyway and there is no significant weight difference to worry about. I'd not bother with the 16-50 personally.

So I would recommend it, it's a great little camera that takes great pictures. I might come back to DX (I'm keeping the 12-28 just in case) if there's a new better Z50 or similar.

Click to expand...

My Z50, two lens kit, is a great grab and go camera for me. I hadn't thought about using it for landscapes but this thread has me thinking. My current DX wide lens is a Tamron 10-24mm bought in 2018 to go with my D7200. This lens is twice the weight of the 12-28, not including the FTZ. It may be worth my while to look into picking up a 12-28 to keep in the Z50 bag. Much to ponder.

Click to expand...

The 12-28 Nikkor is more highly rated than the older F-mount DX UWA zooms, so I'd expect it to be better than the Tamron too. The 12-28mm isn't expensive either. I used mine yesterday at a picnic, on my Z6, so cropped down to 10Mp. I just wanted some snapshots, so it was perfectly adequate. Obviously such lenses aren't in the same class as the S-Line full frame Nikkors, but they are considerably cheaper. I found the greater wide angle on the 12-28 to be a lot more useful than the greater reach of the 16-50mm kit lens, personally. It's not as good as the 14030mm lens, but that again is an S-Line lens.

I think if you were really particular about landscape shooting, then you'd be looking at full frame minimum, and perhaps even 'medium format'. And at some of the Z-mount primes like the 20mm and 24mm. I expect Nikon to release some wider angle primes too in the future. I

I can't see them releasing many DX primes for the Z-mount though. The 24mm f1.7 is pretty good, but not exceptional when compared to the equivalent FX 35mm lenses. DX is a compromise, and whilst more than capable in many situations, it's always going to be a trade off between ultimate image quality and portability. I can't fault the Zfc and the DX lenses, personally, but I had managed expectations of them. As long as you're mindful of this, then you can't go wrong really.

Bob A L said:

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.

Click to expand...

ISO 6400 on FX really is significantly better than on DX. Noise is handled much better on FX sensors. It's just basic physics really. That's not to say that very high ISOs aren't possible on the DX cameras, but if you want to shoot in very low light, then FX is the much better choice.

Hal Wilson said:

lens.

I think if you were really particular about landscape shooting, then you'd be looking at full frame minimum, and perhaps even 'medium format'. And at some of the Z-mount primes like the 20mm and 24mm. I expect Nikon to release some wider angle primes too in the future. I

Click to expand...

I am not particular about landscape shooting as a major photographic focus. I am not sure how I gave that impression. However, to that end I do own a D810 and a tamron 15-30mm to go with it.

Not to repeat a longish story but I no longer have plans of getting a full frame Z body.

I like the idea of the Z12-28mm to keep in my Z50 bag.

cutterpup said:

Hal Wilson said:

lens.

I think if you were really particular about landscape shooting, then you'd be looking at full frame minimum, and perhaps even 'medium format'. And at some of the Z-mount primes like the 20mm and 24mm. I expect Nikon to release some wider angle primes too in the future. I

Click to expand...

I am not particular about landscape shooting as a major photographic focus. I am not sure how I gave that impression. However, to that end I do own a D810 and a tamron 15-30mm to go with it.

Not to repeat a longish story but I no longer have plans of getting a full frame Z body.

I like the idea of the Z12-28mm to keep in my Z50 bag.

Click to expand...

It was a comment aimed more generally, rather than to you as an individual.

The 12-28mm is great for many things.

The big thing that changed when I switched from my D5200 is that I take far, far fewer portrait orientation photos with the Z50, the lack of an articulating screen makes it very cumbersome to do so.

Aside from that limitation, I'd say the Z50 is considerably better than my previous cameras for landscape photos. I'm not a professional by any means, so the Z50 is what I can afford (and maybe a bit more). My understanding is that the Z50 will be very similar to the D7500 in IQ, with any differences coming from lenses. The Z50 kit lenses are killer and the cheap lenses available for Z mount are outstanding compared to the cheap lenses on the F-mount. I soften the crap out of my photos so I'm probably not using their sharpness the best lol.

In my experience, if you have to lift shadows so much that you are bumping into dynamic range issues, then you are either pixel-peeping something that no one is going to notice, or you are about to produce a photo that looks jarringly unrealistic.

When it comes to bulk, the Z50+16-50 is a great small package, but 24-70 FOV is pretty limiting so if I'm bringing the Z50 I'm probably bringing 2-3 lenses, which adds up when you're heading up a mountain or spending all the daylight hiking. This is actually the reason I find myself taking the Olympus E-M1.1 with a Panasonic 12-60mm. Good FOV range and I can stuff the kit into my running vest. I dream of a light & compact 16-80mm Z Dx lol.

Hal Wilson said:

Bob A L said:

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.

Click to expand...

ISO 6400 on FX really is significantly better than on DX. Noise is handled much better on FX sensors. It's just basic physics really. That's not to say that very high ISOs aren't possible on the DX cameras, but if you want to shoot in very low light, then FX is the much better choice.

Click to expand...

These are two pics on the same site, same subject: stained glass windows
the first is a Z30 ISO 2200
the second is a Zf DX 10Mp ISO 10.000

( I seldom use the Zf in Fx )





Shooting this one, my hat fell on the floor.
It took me some time to see it and locate where it was on the floor

--
___.............................!............................ ___
-------- Mid of French/Italian Alps --------- I Love my Carnivores. >https://eu.zonerama.com/AlainCH2/1191151
.
Photography ... It is about how that thing looks when photographed..
( Avoid boring shots )

Hal Wilson said:

Bob A L said:

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.

Click to expand...

ISO 6400 on FX really is significantly better than on DX. Noise is handled much better on FX sensors. It's just basic physics really. That's not to say that very high ISOs aren't possible on the DX cameras, but if you want to shoot in very low light, then FX is the much better choice.

Click to expand...

Maybe, I don't have one to compare with. But please note I did not say that the DX was better, just that I was amazed at the high iso performance compared to earlier DX Nikon cameras. I used to consider 800 max, and with the Zfc am not concerned if I need 6400 and occasionally higher. I have never owned a FF Nikon mirrorless, so have no personal reference to their capabilities or comparisons to my DX Nikon mirrorless, and don't personally have any need to compare as I am a DX happy camper with no desire to use FF. Feel free to enjoy your FF camera, as I will do with my DX cameras.

Bob A L said:

Hal Wilson said:

ISO 6400 on FX really is significantly better than on DX. Noise is handled much better on FX sensors. It's just basic physics really. That's not to say that very high ISOs aren't possible on the DX cameras, but if you want to shoot in very low light, then FX is the much better choice.

Click to expand...

Maybe, I don't have one to compare with. But please note I did not say that the DX was better, just that I was amazed at the high iso performance compared to earlier DX Nikon cameras. I used to consider 800 max, and with the Zfc am not concerned if I need 6400 and occasionally higher. I have never owned a FF Nikon mirrorless, so have no personal reference to their capabilities or comparisons to my DX Nikon mirrorless, and don't personally have any need to compare as I am a DX happy camper with no desire to use FF. Feel free to enjoy your FF camera, as I will do with my DX cameras.

Click to expand...

A picture paints a thousand words.


Z50 APS-C 20MP at ISO6400


Z8 Full Frame 20MP at ISO6400

Neat - Thanks for the comparison.

Really interesting -

Bob A L said:

Really interesting -

Click to expand...

There is no question that DX is worse than FX when it comes to noise at high ISOs. But that statement, of itself, is worthless without a feel for by how much and whether the ISOs in question play any part in one’s photography.

Having only switched to ML this year, I had no idea on my current cameras so I thought I’d find out as the sun went down.

I think the difference between the two formats is probably a lot smaller than most fear.

Furthermore, unless your shutter speed is constrained, such as with moving subjects, I see no need to push the ISO hard anyway. And as the thread is about landscape photography, that’s unlikely to be the case.

George 68 said:

Bob A L said:

Really interesting -

Click to expand...

There is no question that DX is worse than FX when it comes to noise at high ISOs. But that statement, of itself, is worthless without a feel for by how much and whether the ISOs in question play any part in one’s photography.

Having only switched to ML this year, I had no idea on my current cameras so I thought I’d find out as the sun went down.

I think the difference between the two formats is probably a lot smaller than most fear.

Furthermore, unless your shutter speed is constrained, such as with moving subjects, I see no need to push the ISO hard anyway. And as the thread is about landscape photography, that’s unlikely to be the case.

Click to expand...

Fascinating example between Z50 and Z8.... to my eye, the Z50 looks clearer, sharper. I would hope that's not the norm, given the massive price difference between a Z50 and a Z8?

Even in low light, if say you are in a forest and due to the good IBIS in a camera such as the Z6ii or the ZF, you are hand holding shots of the trail at F15 or F20 at 400ISO for a pretty clean shot- is this even possible with the Z50 or ZFC? I know they don't have IBIS, but the kit lens has 4.5 stops of vibration reduction- would the shot I mentioned in my example above be possible without having to crank the ISO up quite a bit further?

Just curious as I am understanding this type of situation to be the primary difference between full frame and DX (along with of course lower noise at actual high ISO settings).

I did end up buying a ZF and have a 2 week return policy if I'm unhappy with it with no restocking fee. Part of me thinks it's a great camera and I like it, but I can't get over how much more it costs than the ZFC- and I am wondering if for my needs, the ZFC at a much lower cost would still get the job done.

I mostly shoot landscapes in good light, F8 at 100 or 200 ISO- but occasionally like to take shots as I mentioned above, in a dark forest for those moody types of trail shots... I was able to get some pretty sharp shots with the ZF (and included 24-70 kit lens)- but if I could get similar shots with the ZFC without loss of detail or noise, I think I'd return the ZF and buy the ZFC to be honest.

My other camera is a D7500 which I really do love, it has served me well in most situations.

jm31828 said:

George 68 said:

Bob A L said:

Really interesting -

Click to expand...

There is no question that DX is worse than FX when it comes to noise at high ISOs. But that statement, of itself, is worthless without a feel for by how much and whether the ISOs in question play any part in one’s photography.

Having only switched to ML this year, I had no idea on my current cameras so I thought I’d find out as the sun went down.

I think the difference between the two formats is probably a lot smaller than most fear.

Furthermore, unless your shutter speed is constrained, such as with moving subjects, I see no need to push the ISO hard anyway. And as the thread is about landscape photography, that’s unlikely to be the case.

Click to expand...

Fascinating example between Z50 and Z8.... to my eye, the Z50 looks clearer, sharper. I would hope that's not the norm, given the massive price difference between a Z50 and a Z8?
Even in low light, if say you are in a forest and due to the good IBIS in a camera such as the Z6ii or the ZF, you are hand holding shots of the trail at F15 or F20 at 400ISO for a pretty clean shot- is this even possible with the Z50 or ZFC? I know they don't have IBIS, but the kit lens has 4.5 stops of vibration reduction- would the shot I mentioned in my example above be possible without having to crank the ISO up quite a bit further?
Just curious as I am understanding this type of situation to be the primary difference between full frame and DX (along with of course lower noise at actual high ISO settings).
I did end up buying a ZF and have a 2 week return policy if I'm unhappy with it with no restocking fee. Part of me thinks it's a great camera and I like it, but I can't get over how much more it costs than the ZFC- and I am wondering if for my needs, the ZFC at a much lower cost would still get the job done.
I mostly shoot landscapes in good light, F8 at 100 or 200 ISO- but occasionally like to take shots as I mentioned above, in a dark forest for those moody types of trail shots... I was able to get some pretty sharp shots with the ZF (and included 24-70 kit lens)- but if I could get similar shots with the ZFC without loss of detail or noise, I think I'd return the ZF and buy the ZFC to be honest.
My other camera is a D7500 which I really do love, it has served me well in most situations.

Click to expand...

I remember a similar test done between a u4/3 product and a DX or FX product. The u4/3 product appeared sharper. What it came down to was the rendering. If you're making judgements based on the rendered images here, don't. If RAWs are available, download them to your editor and render them there using the same settings. Then make your decisions.