For landscape & architecture photography the new Z8 firmware 3.00 update with pixel shift , focus shift , etc. could be a real advancements ! If you are a landscape & architecture photographer - how do you plan to use the new Z8 firmware update with pixel shift and other new features to improve your images ?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New Z8 Firmware Update 3.00 : Pixel Shift
- Thread starter chrisD46
- Start date
sirhawkeye64
Veteran Member
Honestly, other than architecture where things will be still an there will be no movement, I don't use PS myself, not even for landscape because something can (and usually) does move. It's a nice feature, but I feel that the practical use of it particularly in "nature" is a bit limited, and one reason why a lot of people are flocking to cameras like the Fuji GFX 100MP system (plus the DR advantages of MF).
For architecture, I might play around with it, but for my landscape/nature shots, probably not something I would use regularly unless it was of a subject that doesn't move (ie. a rock formation, but a grand vista with trees or grass, probably not going to bother myself).
This is where I almost feel that upscaling software like Gigapixel may have an edge, as you can upscale a single frame versus trying to combat any movement at the time of capture and you might get similar or better results from GP or upscaling software in general in those instances. I'll try a few shots when it is released but for me it will probably mostly be on objects that do not move (architecture or other objects that are not affected by wind basically). I do however like to shoot interiors and the PS may be helpful for those, not that I need a 180MP image of a church interior as I hardly ever print those images anyway.
--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *
Last edited:
Richard B99
Veteran Member
Hmm. Pixel Shift, I have not used / tried on my Z8 since having bought it. But then I don’t do much landscape or architecture stuff anyway and I’m really enjoying 45MP sensors for the first time. However, focus shift, I am going to try now since I have just recently set up a decent macro stage. And Focus Limiting, I will be trying too for sure.
Nebido
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,507
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 3,399
I see it very similarly to what sirhawkeye has already pointed out.
The practical use, at least for my photography, is very limited.
It's restricted to fully controllable environmental variables, and these aren't really present in landscape photography, nor are they often present in architectural photography, unless you focus on architectural details.
Architecture here is actually almost always associated with vegetation, bushes, trees, flowerbeds, and so on, unless you're shooting detail shots, and that's never still.
It's certainly more interesting for product photography, studio photography, reproduction photography, indoor real estate and detail shots, but in the great outdoors, absolute calm and no moving elements in the image are almost non-existent.
When it comes to landscape photography, it certainly depends heavily on the climate/vegetation zone, but here in northwest Central Europe, landscape photography always includes vegetation, trees, shrubs, bushes, flowerbeds, grasses, meadows, fields, pastures.... and of course wind, wind, wind.
This may look different in barren, desert-like landscapes.
The practical use, at least for my photography, is very limited.
It's restricted to fully controllable environmental variables, and these aren't really present in landscape photography, nor are they often present in architectural photography, unless you focus on architectural details.
Architecture here is actually almost always associated with vegetation, bushes, trees, flowerbeds, and so on, unless you're shooting detail shots, and that's never still.
It's certainly more interesting for product photography, studio photography, reproduction photography, indoor real estate and detail shots, but in the great outdoors, absolute calm and no moving elements in the image are almost non-existent.
When it comes to landscape photography, it certainly depends heavily on the climate/vegetation zone, but here in northwest Central Europe, landscape photography always includes vegetation, trees, shrubs, bushes, flowerbeds, grasses, meadows, fields, pastures.... and of course wind, wind, wind.
This may look different in barren, desert-like landscapes.
Last edited:
PLShutterbug
Veteran Member
So … pixels shift was added in FW v2.00. It’s nothing new.
What is new in 3.0 is the ability to combine PS with either focus shift or AE bracketing.
I doubt this will be useful for landscape, since a 32-image PS stack takes a while and sling that with either FS or AEB will almost certainly result in subject-movement artifacts.
For architecture it would be great, especially for perspective corrections with PS + FS. You end up with a series of images where everything is sharp from near to far, and you have a really high-resolution image for large prints.
michaeladawson
Veteran Member
I don't. Unless you print really big I don't see a point. I certainly don't need pixel shift. My largest prints are 17"x22". Maybe one day an image will come along that I decide really deserves to be printed extra large. But I have no idea where I would ever hang such a large print in my house. And for landscape and architecture work I'm usually using a wide angle lens. Plenty of DOF at f/8 or f/11 such that I don't need focus stacking.
So all of the extra post-processing that would be needed to take advantage of these two features is something I don't even care to sample.
Now, having said that... If you are a professional landscape and architecture photographer that sells prints in a gallery for big bucks, then maybe this is a feature you can use.
Otherwise, what I envision is a lot of people oohing and aahing at their photos on a computer screen at 200%.
So all of the extra post-processing that would be needed to take advantage of these two features is something I don't even care to sample.
Now, having said that... If you are a professional landscape and architecture photographer that sells prints in a gallery for big bucks, then maybe this is a feature you can use.
Otherwise, what I envision is a lot of people oohing and aahing at their photos on a computer screen at 200%.
PLShutterbug
Veteran Member
Eliminating moire is another reason for pixel shift, and this can happen at smaller sizes too.
It's a specialist need, yes - but it still comes in handy at times.
Ninpou_Bunshinnojutsu
Leading Member
From the tech guide, benefits outside of gaining extra pixels:
Improving Color Reproduction of Details
Reducing Noise
Reducing Moiré and Color Fringing
I see people posting "no landscapes!" Call me crazy, but I don't think rocks or mountains move that much?
So, as with everything, it just depends on your subject!
PLShutterbug
Veteran Member
It’s not the rocks and mountains but leaves, grasses and the like waving around and the stitching algorithm not doing a good job (maybe impossible?) with it.
Ninpou_Bunshinnojutsu
Leading Member
My point was that shooting mountains and rocks can't count/doesn't as landscapes?
My favorite national park in CA is Death Valley!
--
IG: @ninpou_bunshinnojutsu
https://www.instagram.com/ninpou_bunshinnojutsu
Last edited:
Vince P
Veteran Member
It's also possible to use that oohing and aahing resolution, to have a lot more flexibility to create pans and zooms, for video, from a hi res still, after the event. Obviously needs the right subject but for, product, automotive, real estate architectural etc it's a decent use case.
PLShutterbug
Veteran Member
If you don’t consider a picture of a mountain, or of a riverbed, landscape photos, how do you define “landscape photography?”
Don’t reply, “it’s not …”, reply “it is …”
Ryan Mack
Forum Enthusiast
My best landscape shots are when light is changing fastest... either clouds or golden hour. Pixel shift with changing light causes pattern noise. I wrote my own software to correct for exposure differences between pixel shift images but it only works if the change to illumination is global which isn't always the case.
Outside of studio still life and art reproduction I find AI-based solutions better, and this is coming from a guy who wrote his own pixel-shift software. My software can avoid blending the portions of images with subject motion (foliage) but generally speaking it's just not a great use case.
Last edited:
Clayton1985
Veteran Member
The rocks move in Death Valley.
But seriously I think you're missing the point. Yes, you can find select situations in landscape photography where you might be able to use PS, but that requires you to evaluate each scene specifically for PS compatibility and then be competent enough using a rarely used feature to get it right. In my experience, the very few opportunities to use PS do not justify the headaches. If you're using a lower resolution camera or if your preferred subject matter doesn't move, maybe it's worth it. I'm glad Nikon added the feature and I'm sure some people will be able to benefit from it, but I don't think I will use it.
Crispy_Bee
Forum Enthusiast
While I think it's a great idea to combine multiple shooting modes - such as focus shift and pixel shift - the real issue Nikon has to overcome is the ease of use.
Their focus shift implementation is plagued by many problems:
1. having to use the menu to start focus shift (means touching the camera AND not being able to see the subject when you trigger the shift sequence)
2. the screen backout during the shift sequence
3. the sensor resolution.
I know, 45MP is enough for many purposes but it's right where you're thinking that pixel shift would give more details - but not 180MP more details. So it's not really worth it 99% of the time.
If Nikon had changed the focus shift to be a shooting mode (like on Sony) it would've been a far better firmware update in my opinion. It's great that they add functionality but they should fix the problems at hand first, maybe talk to actual macro photographers etc.
And speaking as a macro photographer: Nikon should "allow" Sigma to make their 105mm 2.8 Art Macro in Z mount. That lens is noticeably better than even the Z 105mm S or the Tamron 90mm III.
Their focus shift implementation is plagued by many problems:
1. having to use the menu to start focus shift (means touching the camera AND not being able to see the subject when you trigger the shift sequence)
2. the screen backout during the shift sequence
3. the sensor resolution.
I know, 45MP is enough for many purposes but it's right where you're thinking that pixel shift would give more details - but not 180MP more details. So it's not really worth it 99% of the time.
If Nikon had changed the focus shift to be a shooting mode (like on Sony) it would've been a far better firmware update in my opinion. It's great that they add functionality but they should fix the problems at hand first, maybe talk to actual macro photographers etc.
And speaking as a macro photographer: Nikon should "allow" Sigma to make their 105mm 2.8 Art Macro in Z mount. That lens is noticeably better than even the Z 105mm S or the Tamron 90mm III.
Ninpou_Bunshinnojutsu
Leading Member
monte12345
Veteran Member
I would also like to see Nikon have an option for in camera merging of the images but that would come at the cost of time involved in merging the images, so it should be a user adjustable option.
One other significant feature that has been added is something that I would like to see added to every Z camera thru a Firmware update. That is the Maximum Aperture Live View. This is how SLR and DSLR cameras have operated since the late 1950's. What happens here is that the lens is held at it Maximum Aperture until the moment of exposure. With Optical viewfinders one benefit was a brighter image in the viewfinder and that was a really big deal. So much I do not think you could find a SLR made after 1962 that didn't feature Auto Aperture Indexing. The secondary benefit is that the maximum aperture always produced the narrowest Depth of Field which means it allowed critical focus to be both faster and more accurate. Now with this Maximum Aperture Live View feature we can also have improved accuracy for focus and it will also provide more light for the AF system to work with. Currently AF is working at f5.6 for Nikon Z cameras so if you turn this feature on and mount a f1.4 lens you have gained an additional 4 stops of light sensitivity for the AF system. Basically with a fast enough lens you will be able to focus by starlight alone. I will also note that metering sensitivity will also improve by the same amount.
One other significant feature that has been added is something that I would like to see added to every Z camera thru a Firmware update. That is the Maximum Aperture Live View. This is how SLR and DSLR cameras have operated since the late 1950's. What happens here is that the lens is held at it Maximum Aperture until the moment of exposure. With Optical viewfinders one benefit was a brighter image in the viewfinder and that was a really big deal. So much I do not think you could find a SLR made after 1962 that didn't feature Auto Aperture Indexing. The secondary benefit is that the maximum aperture always produced the narrowest Depth of Field which means it allowed critical focus to be both faster and more accurate. Now with this Maximum Aperture Live View feature we can also have improved accuracy for focus and it will also provide more light for the AF system to work with. Currently AF is working at f5.6 for Nikon Z cameras so if you turn this feature on and mount a f1.4 lens you have gained an additional 4 stops of light sensitivity for the AF system. Basically with a fast enough lens you will be able to focus by starlight alone. I will also note that metering sensitivity will also improve by the same amount.
Ninpou_Bunshinnojutsu
Leading Member
So with my Zf, it captures 32 images in ~6 seconds. Not sure about the Z8. If one doesn't feel the need to do the entire set, a subset could suffice in a shorter timespan, perhaps still with some benefits?
Pushing AI generated pixels vs photography, that's probably better left as a personal choice...
Clayton1985
Veteran Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum