For a while I've been toying with the idea of adding a FX camera to my camera bag. For years and years I've been a DX shooter because my favorite subjects are wildlife and especially birds, so the increased pixel density is appealing, but I spend so much of my time hiking at elevation now that wildlife is a little more sparse and a lot of my shots tend to be landscapes. I also have a cute little niece who I'm chasing around and would enjoy the additional ISO latitude.
I've continued to be reluctant to part DX due to my enjoyment of birds. I've got a Z50, and while it's okay in the pure image quality department, I'm a little unhappy with some of the ergonomics. In addition, there are no DX ultra-wides, and my Sigma 10-20 really needs replacing. It seems silly to keep investing in F-mount gear.
Originally I was thinking of getting a Z5, and just keeping the Z50, maybe semi-permanently attached to a telephoto for when I'm hiking and want quick access. But in addition to the extra weight, my girlfriend has taken a liking to the size of the Z50 (though has the same issues with the ergonomics).
So that has made me consider that the Z7 could fulfill both roles, as a ~19mp DX camera and also a FX camera. Budget is a consideration but is not enough of an issue to make me shoot down this idea.
Anyone use the Z7 in crop mode a meaningful amount? Any ideas how a DX-mode Z7 or Z7II image stacks up against a Z50 image?
I've actually used a D800 like this in the past. It works surprisingly well and gives a lot of flexibility. I've considered doing it with a Z7 as well (I eventually decided that the difference between DX and FX wasn't enough and my croppers are now m43)
The biggest issue with doing this with a Z7 for me would be the inability to defeat the auto DX crop with DX lenses, one thing I used to do with the D800 a lot was use 1.2x crop with DX lenses. I found many DX lenses did really well on 1.2x crop (the 35DX in 1.2x crop on a D800 was an absolute favourite combo).
Note that the 10-20VR is still pretty tiny on the FTZ, and it's strongly rumoured that the upcoming new DX body will be accompanied by a new DX UWA.
I wouldn't recommend this as a full solution right now, but carrying a Z7 with a mostly-FX kit and then subbing in the 50-250 as an ultralight long lens makes a ton of sense overall. The 16-50 is also a fair bit smaller than the 24-50 when you are doing an ultra compact setup.
I've honestly considered the 50-250 with my Z5 as I'm unconvinced I need the extra pixels for the sort of stuff I normally shoot with a telephoto when hiking.
mawz wrote:
I've actually used a D800 like this in the past. It works surprisingly well and gives a lot of flexibility. I've considered doing it with a Z7 as well (I eventually decided that the difference between DX and FX wasn't enough and my croppers are now m43)
The biggest issue with doing this with a Z7 for me would be the inability to defeat the auto DX crop with DX lenses, one thing I used to do with the D800 a lot was use 1.2x crop with DX lenses. I found many DX lenses did really well on 1.2x crop (the 35DX in 1.2x crop on a D800 was an absolute favourite combo)....Show more →
I enjoyed using my D800 this way too, especially with the 10.5 DX fisheye - I even contemplated surgery on the hood to eliminate the vignetting caused by the top and bottom petals. The Tokina 11-16 also covered FX pretty well at 16 and a little wider in 1.2 crop.
The image files from a DX telephoto on the D800 were just fine but the diminutive viewfinder image not so great.
On the Z7 a DX lens fills the viewfinder which is great for telephoto but I agree it is disappointing not be able to override the forced DX crop. That, combined with the fact that the 10.5 is MF only on a Z body, prompted me to sell it at a bargain price which I now regret as I still have my D850.
The small and cheap DX 70-300 AF-P is a great lens for hiking if you can tolerate the FTZ but the native Z mount 50-250 would be nicer. The FX 70-300 AF-P on sale for $400 is an absolute steal at the moment but a bit bigger and heavier (better build though)
mawz wrote:
I've actually used a D800 like this in the past. It works surprisingly well and gives a lot of flexibility. I've considered doing it with a Z7 as well (I eventually decided that the difference between DX and FX wasn't enough and my croppers are now m43)
The biggest issue with doing this with a Z7 for me would be the inability to defeat the auto DX crop with DX lenses, one thing I used to do with the D800 a lot was use 1.2x crop with DX lenses. I found many DX lenses did really well on 1.2x crop (the 35DX in 1.2x crop on a D800 was an absolute favourite combo).
Note that the 10-20VR is still pretty tiny on the FTZ, and it's strongly rumoured that the upcoming new DX body will be accompanied by a new DX UWA.
I wouldn't recommend this as a full solution right now, but carrying a Z7 with a mostly-FX kit and then subbing in the 50-250 as an ultralight long lens makes a ton of sense overall. The 16-50 is also a fair bit smaller than the 24-50 when you are doing an ultra compact setup.
I've honestly considered the 50-250 with my Z5 as I'm unconvinced I need the extra pixels for the sort of stuff I normally shoot with a telephoto when hiking....Show more →
Thanks for the thoughts. Most of my kit is FX, including a 300mm PF and 70-300 AF-P.
I know I could replace my UWA with another F-mount one, but I've been a little annoyed with the FTZ adapter. I feel like the adapter works really well if either all of your lenses are F-mount, or only one is. Because then you can either leave the adapter attached to the camera, or leave it attached to one lens.
I often end up with a combination of the Z50, one Z-mount lens, and 2 F-mount lenses, so swapping the adapter around is a pain, especially while hiking.
Frankly, I find the whole Z-mount ecosystem to be frustrating at the moment and have been shopping around. The lack of any macro lenses, telephotos, or DX ultra-wides means a total reliance on the adapter, and why should I be buying new lenses that need to be adapted? But the 300mm PF is just unmatched in any other system. Even with the FTZ + 1.4x TC attached, it's still 300g lighter than something like the Sony 100-400.
pwschladen wrote:
I enjoyed using my D800 this way too, especially with the 10.5 DX fisheye - I even contemplated surgery on the hood to eliminate the vignetting caused by the top and bottom petals. The Tokina 11-16 also covered FX pretty well at 16 and a little wider in 1.2 crop.
The image files from a DX telephoto on the D800 were just fine but the diminutive viewfinder image not so great.
On the Z7 a DX lens fills the viewfinder which is great for telephoto but I agree it is disappointing not be able to override the forced DX crop. That, combined with the fact that the 10.5 is MF only on a Z body, prompted me to sell it at a bargain price which I now regret as I still have my D850.
The small and cheap DX 70-300 AF-P is a great lens for hiking if you can tolerate the FTZ but the native Z mount 50-250 would be nicer. The FX 70-300 AF-P on sale for $400 is an absolute steal at the moment but a bit bigger and heavier (better build though)
Appreciate your comments. I have the 50-250mm, which came with the Z50 kit, as well as the FX 70-300 AF-P. I actually rarely use the 70-300, because it's virtually identical in size to my 300mm PF, which has better IQ and accepts a teleconverter.
I guess I was mostly sanity checking myself to see if anyone was going to say, "bad idea because of [problem]." Like maybe the Z7's sensor cropped to 19mp is simply not as good as the Z50, even though it makes logical sense that they'd be at least similar.
binary visions wrote:
Thanks for the thoughts. Most of my kit is FX, including a 300mm PF and 70-300 AF-P.
I know I could replace my UWA with another F-mount one, but I've been a little annoyed with the FTZ adapter. I feel like the adapter works really well if either all of your lenses are F-mount, or only one is. Because then you can either leave the adapter attached to the camera, or leave it attached to one lens.
I often end up with a combination of the Z50, one Z-mount lens, and 2 F-mount lenses, so swapping the adapter around is a pain, especially while hiking.
Frankly, I find the whole Z-mount ecosystem to be frustrating at the moment and have been shopping around. The lack of any macro lenses, telephotos, or DX ultra-wides means a total reliance on the adapter, and why should I be buying new lenses that need to be adapted? But the 300mm PF is just unmatched in any other system. Even with the FTZ + 1.4x TC attached, it's still 300g lighter than something like the Sony 100-400.
I do feel your pain on this, while I'm VERY fond of the Z5 body, the lens situation has been a continual irritant for me, including the FTZ experience (I don't like the FTZ's handling, the lens release button is poorly designed and the integrated tripod foot does not fit the hand well and also blocks body-mounted capture clip plates).
A lot of this just comes down to the lens lineup for the Z's not being well suited to my preferences. That may change, but at some point I'll need to decide if I want to put my investment into a system that better suits my preferences (which really means m43 at this point, FE mount would be the only other workable system for my needs and I prefer Z bodies to A bodies by a noticeably amount)
I’ve been doing this in DSLR with a D850 for several years. The IQ is still very good. Your really just cropping in camera. A 28mm in 1.2 crop becomes a good ~ 35mm equivalent and a good ~42mm equivalent in 1.5 crop. I use it instead of a D500 (used to own one) with little difference (to me) other than a smaller viewfinder in crop mode. I don’t see a mirrorless solution (Z7) with the same type of sensor to be any different. I have a Z50 for travel and I like it’s IQ but it’s not an everyday user for me.
mawz wrote:
I do feel your pain on this, while I'm VERY fond of the Z5 body, the lens situation has been a continual irritant for me, including the FTZ experience (I don't like the FTZ's handling, the lens release button is poorly designed and the integrated tripod foot does not fit the hand well and also blocks body-mounted capture clip plates).
A lot of this just comes down to the lens lineup for the Z's not being well suited to my preferences. That may change, but at some point I'll need to decide if I want to put my investment into a system that better suits my preferences (which really means m43 at this point, FE mount would be the only other workable system for my needs and I prefer Z bodies to A bodies by a noticeably amount)...Show more →
I honestly think Nikon is really doing some long-term damage here. Switching to a new lens mount gives people the opportunity and incentive to completely rethink their lens kit, and now all the brands have their new mirrorless mounts so there's a lot of that rethinking going on. Nikon's native offerings have such glaring holes that I can't be the only one who is looking at a serious overhaul and thinking about another brand for the first time in a whole lot of years.
I agree that the FTZ's problems are more than just swapping it around. It's ergonomically awkward. I'd like it much better if it just didn't have a tripod foot.
I really like m43 in theory (I do a ton of hiking, so anything that keeps the kit weight down is good in my book), but I already skirt the edge of acceptable ISO performance on APS-C cameras when I'm shooting in the woods. I'm not sure I want to give up more of that. Sony looks really good, especially from an AF performance standpoint, but when you start getting into portable telephoto options, there's just not much there. I've got a spreadsheet with size/weights of some of my various options and I keep running the Sony numbers because I want to like it. But I don't.
---------------------------------------------
Spectro wrote:
I’ve been doing this in DSLR with a D850 for several years. The IQ is still very good. Your really just cropping in camera. A 28mm in 1.2 crop becomes a good ~ 35mm equivalent and a good ~42mm equivalent in 1.5 crop. I use it instead of a D500 (used to own one) with little difference (to me) other than a smaller viewfinder in crop mode. I don’t see a mirrorless solution (Z7) with the same type of sensor to be any different. I have a Z50 for travel and I like it’s IQ but it’s not an everyday user for me. ...Show more →
binary visions wrote:
I honestly think Nikon is really doing some long-term damage here. Switching to a new lens mount gives people the opportunity and incentive to completely rethink their lens kit, and now all the brands have their new mirrorless mounts so there's a lot of that rethinking going on. Nikon's native offerings have such glaring holes that I can't be the only one who is looking at a serious overhaul and thinking about another brand for the first time in a whole lot of years.
While I have my issues with the lens lineup, Nikon's actually doing VERY well in terms of filling out their kit. They have a lot less holes in the lineup than Canon for example (which is basically MIA in terms of wides, with no primes wider than 35mm and one single UWA zoom. Nikon has 2 UWA zooms and 2 primes in the same space). Canon put a ton of effort into telephoto lenses, which remain the lenses that gain the least from mirrorless redesigns.
I agree that the FTZ's problems are more than just swapping it around. It's ergonomically awkward. I'd like it much better if it just didn't have a tripod foot.
I really like m43 in theory (I do a ton of hiking, so anything that keeps the kit weight down is good in my book), but I already skirt the edge of acceptable ISO performance on APS-C cameras when I'm shooting in the woods. I'm not sure I want to give up more of that. Sony looks really good, especially from an AF performance standpoint, but when you start getting into portable telephoto options, there's just not much there. I've got a spreadsheet with size/weights of some of my various options and I keep running the Sony numbers because I want to like it. But I don't. ...Show more →
For me there's two basic use cases where m43 works out well.
1. Absolute smallest system with interchangeable lenses.
E-M5II/III, 9-18, 14-42 EZ, 40-150R is unmatchable in terms of size/weight for capability. But you need either good light or be willing to accept noise performance worse than APS-C, because you are using slow glass with small sensors. But it's REALLY small glass, in the range of making the two Z DX zooms look largish (and they're already tiny for what they deliver). Plus the 14-42 is the kit lens and the 40-150R is a $99 lens most of the time, so this can be a REALLY cheap kit to put together.
2. Better than APS-C on an equivalent size budget.
f2.8 or f2.8-4 zooms and an E-M1 series or G9. In this scenario you're pairing fast glass with the bodies to get an actual advantage over APS-C because m43 f2.8 lenses tend to be the same size or smaller than f4 APS-C lenses and there's less than a stop of performance difference at the sensor if comparing the 20MP m43 sensor to most current APS-C sensors.
Plus the Oly Pro zooms and PanaLeica f2.8-4's are so bloody good that the combination of optical performance and extra DoF means you can get away with wide open a lot more than most think. There's very few APS-C zooms that match the performance of these m43 lenses and none that do it on the same size/weight budget.
A good example of this is Olympus's 40-150 f2.8 Pro. This is a superb 80-300 equivalent zoom that takes 1.4x and 2x TC's very well. It's 79.4 x 160 mm and 760g
The 70-300E in comparison is 80.5 x 146 mm and 680g, but the FTZ adds 30mm to the length and 138g to the weight, making the package 80.5x176mm and 819g.
That means that once you calculate equivalence, these are basically delivering the exact same capability (in terms of noise, DoF and range) between m43 and FX (since the m.Zuiko is equivalent to an 80-300/5.6 in terms of those three aspects).
The closest direct equivalent in Nikon for APS-C users would be the 70-200/4G, but that's 78 x 178.5 mm and 850g before you add an FTZ to the mix and is arguably worse optically than either the m.Zuiko Pro or the 70-300E.
Now of course you can go f2.8 on APS-C and gain better performance than m43 can deliver, but you can't do that and have a kit that anywhere approaches m43 in size, even with the frankly massive for the format G9 (which is basically the same size and weight as a Z5/6/7)
Note the lens selection in m43 beats the pants off any APS-C system, even Fuji. It won't match FX for quality, but it comes closer than the APS-C options do today if you pick your lens setups to match that need. And the available lenses mean that you aren't giving up ISO performance in the woods, but arguably gaining some because of the faster lenses for the same size budget (the Oly 40-150 f2.8 or PanaLeica 50-200 f2.8-4 are the go-to lenses for this in m43)
And I'm not even getting into the multishot capabilities, which let you significantly improve the noise & DR of your results in some situations (the resolution gains are overblown, at best you go from 20MP to around a 35-40MP real-world equivalent with the '80MP' files and the handheld modes don't add any resolution)
Dammit, @mawz - now you've given me a bunch more research to do
These are good thoughts, thanks. I hadn't really considered a split system of m43 + Nikon Z; I had always evaluated it like I'd wholesale switch, which didn't seem to be a good option. I'll mull this over and add some m43 gear to the ever-growing spreadsheet.
binary visions wrote:
Dammit, @mawz@ - now you've given me a bunch more research to do
These are good thoughts, thanks. I hadn't really considered a split system of m43 + Nikon Z; I had always evaluated it like I'd wholesale switch, which didn't seem to be a good option. I'll mull this over and add some m43 gear to the ever-growing spreadsheet.
I try and avoid split systems myself, but I seem to keep coming back to some variant of FX+m43.
I think the 2 stop gap makes a lot of sense in a dual-format system, either FF+m43 or APS-C+MiniMF (like Fuji X+GFX), as it allows a lot of differentiation between the two systems that you just don't get with MiniMF+FX, FX+DX or DX+m43.
I'm a notorious system switcher, but I'm slowly but surely settling on a steady combination of kit.
Z7 works great as a crop-camera when needed. Better than using a D850 because when you switch into DX mode it fills the entire EVF with your DX FOV. Pretty much all the cameras I buy these days are functioning for me in this way (R5, A7RIV, A1).
As far as IQ, the Z50 vs Z7 is pretty much equivalent to the much analyzed D500 vs D850. Basically a DX frame from a Z7 or D850 has slightly less MPs (as you pointed out) slightly less DR and slightly more noise. It is very slight, maybe 1/3 stop. But you aren't going to get better IQ out of a Z7's DX frame compared to your Z50. It will be about the same with a slight edge maybe going to the Z50 when pixel peeping. But when you are able to use more than the DX frame of the Z7 then you are getting benefits. So basically equal when shooting it as a DX and better when shooting it as an FX.
I've been using a dual system for a good few years now, and have amassed a very healthy Olympus system (EM1 MK III and EM1X) with most of the F2.8 pro lenses, as well as my Nikon Z system (Z7 and Z6 II).
Whilst I love the Nikon Z's and the images they produce, at the moment (for me at least) it's crying out for a native birding / wildlife lens (the 100-400 or 150-600). My Olympus 300mm F4 Pro (600mm Equiv) is simply stunning and bitingly sharp wide open and works superbly with both the 1.4x and 2x converters (for a massive 1200mm equiv F/L F8), as is the 40-150 F2.8 pro and the 100-400 F5.3-6.3. in fact all the Olympus lenses are superb (pretty much a the new Z lenses are).
The only area where I wish the Olympus system was a bit better is noise at high ISOs and I'm really talking about 3200 upwards, as anything below that cleans up just perfectly with Topaz Denoise, but I know the Z's can do better, but currently just don't have the native glass.
It probably also shouldn't' be underestimated how beautifully ergonomic both the EM1 MK II and EM1X are in the hand (the Z's do run them close but not quite), but there's one area the Z's can't match the M4'3 Olympus's, and that features (and some quite unique ones). Sometimes the decision on which body and system to take with me might just come down to features. For example, High res shooting in both Tripod AND handheld modes, Live neutral density filters, Live time and Live Composite, Live Keystone correction, Pro capture (up to 60fps), amazing world beating IBIS that allows hand holding over many seconds with a tack sharp shot and massive buffers (to name but a few).
I know there's a current vogue for FF mirrorless cameras and they are now dominating the market, but you really shouldn't underestimate what M4/3 can and does still offer in a small portable package. Not saying of course that it can compete at the higher ISO levels with FF or indeed give the super wafer thin DOF that some people crave, (and I love my Z's for that) but for the middle ground (and not at the extremes) it doesn't just great.
