The Z9 is amazing, but how does the sensor really compare to the D850. It is early, but have there been any measurements of real life comparisons?
As a landscape photographer, I don't see much that compels me to upgrade. My landscape rig uses mostly manual focus lenses; along with external battery/monitor/rails when I really want to lock-down. All my cinema and sports needs are covered with alternate gear. So what am I missing?
Nothing missing. The Z9 offers no advantages for manual focus landscape shooting except the dual axis tilting screen for low portrait oriented shots. The Z7II sensor is the best choice for that as far as we know.
1bwana1 wrote:
...except the dual axis tilting screen for low portrait oriented shots.
And a properly mounted Shinobi 7" with all the metering modes is even nicer - add the rails and mounts and it is way cheaper than an Z9 upgrade. Of course not as compact but then the Z9 hardly is.
this is me wrote:
I think the better choice for landscape is the Fuji fuller frame format GFX100(s). Or even better, the proper medium format like phase one.
Given my insurance list, I should been Phase One a few years back. But I usually buy this stuff used from dependable sources.
Thing is - a Phase One appears to more suited for studio work - not the most durable box out on the rocks.
GFX is a direction... have to see if I can adapt my Zeiss glass. I expanded my set to a 28/1.4 and 85/1.4 (both used) and OMG on a D850.
KarlBuiter wrote:
Given my insurance list, I should been Phase One a few years back. But I usually buy this stuff used from dependable sources.
Thing is - a Phase One appears to more suited for studio work - not the most durable box out on the rocks.
GFX is a direction... have to see if I can adapt my Zeiss glass. I expanded my set to a 28/1.4 and 85/1.4 (both used) and OMG on a D850.
I have a P1 IQ4150 Achromatic I'm using for landscapes and it's great, no issues so far. Medium format is great but nothing wrong with Nikon either. IMHO we're in a "use whatever fits your personal preference (and budget)" era of photography.
Back to your original question, not sure you're missing anything. If the D850 suits you stick with it.
The draw of the Z9 for me is a camera with great AF (better than my Z6) for my fast moving kids and lenses like the 50 1.2S that can also do high-res landscapes. Traveling with the kids makes traveling with multiple cameras difficult so this could be a sweet spot swiss-army-camera for me when traveling with the family.
Yeah, hard to move away from D850 if JUST shooting landscapes. Is the cost worth getting WYSIWYG VF of a Z7 II? A lighter body and slightly lighter lenses? More flippy screen? Overall I think the lenses are better but not much of a difference once stopped down for landscapes.
www.photonstophotos.net will have data on the sensor at some time. I don't expect any surprises, i.e. the Z9 sensor will be similar to the Z7 sensor, but I may be wrong. The Z7 sensor is perfect for landscape, and you can spend 4K more on lenses.
Advantages of the Z9 include better balance with heavy lenses (think Otus), 2-way articulating screen, and sensor cover mechanism which keeps dust away from the sensor when you're out in the field.
As far as image quality is concerned DPReview states, “ Despite the all-electronic, fast readout shutter, our initial tests indicate that base ISO dynamic range trails the Z7 II by only a little less than a stop.”.
That puts it in original a9 dynamic range territory. Time will tell…
KarlBuiter wrote:
And a properly mounted Shinobi 7" with all the metering modes is even nicer - add the rails and mounts and it is way cheaper than an Z9 upgrade. Of course not as compact but then the Z9 hardly is.
Interesting, I've never met someone who uses an external video monitor for landscape stills. No judgment here, just curiosity. How is it, real world speaking?
kimballistic wrote:
Interesting, I've never met someone who uses an external video monitor for landscape stills. No judgment here, just curiosity. How is it, real world speaking?
The 7" Shinobi monitor is really nice for working with very precise manual focus lenses such as the Otus series. The Shinobi has quite a few modes for viewing including peaking, zebra, histograms, etc. and of course its very color accurate. The external mount offers positional freedom depending on the mounting you might use. I am setup on a BrightTangerine Left Field mount + Gold Mount Battery setup powering everything which is a whole 'nother level - but I share it all with a Cinema Rig. A really nice EVF like Zacuto would also work.
Now how usable? if I am just setting up a shot for a few minutes, best to just work the usual way with an RRS + your fave tripod. If I plan to wait awhile for light, clouds, etc.... then it can be worth the extra few minutes to rig up.
AcuteShadows wrote:
Advantages of the Z9 include better balance with heavy lenses (think Otus), 2-way articulating screen, and sensor cover mechanism which keeps dust away from the sensor when you're out in the field.
Absolutely true - I used a external grip on my Canon 5Ds to balance off a 300/2.8-II and can go all day at the track. No fighting front-loaded gravity!
That said, I also have Otus, they are heavy, but I would not be hand-holding shots.
I will say the sensor cover is cool. Hope that becomes a standard.
greensony wrote:
As far as image quality is concerned DPReview states, “ Despite the all-electronic, fast readout shutter, our initial tests indicate that base ISO dynamic range trails the Z7 II by only a little less than a stop.”.
That puts it in original a9 dynamic range territory. Time will tell…
KarlBuiter wrote:
Given my insurance list, I should been Phase One a few years back. But I usually buy this stuff used from dependable sources.
Thing is - a Phase One appears to more suited for studio work - not the most durable box out on the rocks.
GFX is a direction... have to see if I can adapt my Zeiss glass. I expanded my set to a 28/1.4 and 85/1.4 (both used) and OMG on a D850.
I had GFX 50s and now have GFX 100.
GFX should definitely be a better landscape camera except that the widest GFX lens is roughly equavalent to 18mm on FF.
You can use Sigma 14-24/2.8 or Nikon 14-24/2.8 which is usable through part of its zoom range and will give you roughly around 16mm equavalent at widest end with Nikon lens, a bit wider with Sigma lens.
If you talked about Otus 28/1.4 and 85/1.4, forget the 28/1.4, there are too much hard vignette that will require you to crop at least 30% of the frame if I remember correctly. 85/1.4 Otus has very tiny hard vignette right in the corner and you will need to crop just a tiny bit.
If you do nightscape for the Milkyway, Nikon and Sigma 14-24/2.8 are going to be the best. Forget the fast prime like Nikon 20/1.8, Sigma 20/1.4, 14/1.8 as they all have lots of hard vignette.
For fullframe lens, the only one that I tried that require no cropping at all (but still need to correct some vignette) is Leica R 80/1.4 . All prime F mount lens that I tried all have hard vignette, some just a tiny bit but most prime lens wider than 50mm, I would not really bother with.
MRomine wrote:
Yeah, hard to move away from D850 if JUST shooting landscapes. Is the cost worth getting WYSIWYG VF of a Z7 II? A lighter body and slightly lighter lenses? More flippy screen? Overall I think the lenses are better but not much of a difference once stopped down for landscapes.
Not hard to move if you really care about IQ.
While the Z bodies are no better than the D850 in terms of IQ, the Z lenses are an upgrade if you’re pushing IQ limits. Both the 24-70S and the 14-24 S take the optical performance to another level, and the 14-24S is notably lighter and has much better filter compatibility as well. Plus if you care about weight, you can go with the f4 options on Z and get IQ on par or better than the f2.8 options in F mount.
mawz wrote:
Not hard to move if you really care about IQ.
While the Z bodies are no better than the D850 in terms of IQ, the Z lenses are an upgrade if you’re pushing IQ limits. Both the 24-70S and the 14-24 S take the optical performance to another level, and the 14-24S is notably lighter and has much better filter compatibility as well. Plus if you care about weight, you can go with the f4 options on Z and get IQ on par or better than the f2.8 options in F mount.
Most people who are shooting landscapes genrally tend to shoot stopped down in the f8-13 range, when the Z lenses are stopped and F lenses are stopped down there is very little difference. Now if you like to shoot landscapes near to or wide open then that is a another story. In reality, modern lenses don't make much difference from one to the next wether they be f1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2 or f4, when it comes to creating great images. What really sets images apart is not the lenses but rather lighting composition and timing for certain genres of photography.
