Lenses for rangefinder cameras (e.g., Leica M), especially wide-angle lenses, can be more compact than those for SLRs—provided one accepts that peripheral rays strike the image sensor at an angle. With film, there were no problems. With sensor microlenses, things are more complicated—so much so that Leica sensors, to ensure good image quality from M-series lenses even with digital cameras, have thinner sensor filter stacks and microlenses much steeper, thus directing light rays more vertically toward a much closer photodiode, and/or different microlenses at the center and edges of the sensor.
As for autofocus (AF), the designer must adapt the optical design with a lens group that can move to ensure fast response times. This constraint is entirely absent in manual focus (MF) lenses, which can therefore be more compact (less elements/groups) than a similar AF lens. In fact, to ensure similar performance when an AF group is included in the design, the designer could be forced to add further elements/groups, and the optical scheme becomes even more complex (making the lens larger and heavier).
I also get the impression that using higher-quality (and way more expensive) glass could allow for simpler optical designs and even better overall performance. Leica lenses probably use this approach as well.
Sure, planning on crop mode can work fine. Thinking of whether it's going to work with the resulting "smaller" image in sensor size/resolution - pixel count? Depends on the individual and end uses? I don't use crop mode often, in the prefer to crop later side, for flex in choosing aspect ratios or maybe a better position of the crop, not just "centered."
I can look back to the march up through "resolutions" in both FX/DX - ff/aps-c cameras, for example, my DX D200 was a 10.2 mp body, followed with a 24.2 D7200. (Although a Sony mirrorless user now.)
For on-line viewing, social media sharing, etc., I'll export, these days, usually at 3840x2160. That handles the current 16:9 "TV" and many monitors' aspect ratio. If you go way back, my earliest PBase, etc., sharing, we shared lower res images for file size and bandwidth concerns as well as the comparatively limited monitor viewing options.
For print, that may be of some interest, I seldom print larger prints so off the top of my head couldn't suggest what x000 x y000 might be desired for a given print size. (In the stone ages we had serious discussions of just what digicams had enough resolution to cover 8" x 10," 8"x12," and for common paper sizes, 8.5x11 or the European/metric similar common use sizes.)
On the Sony side. especially with the A7C series, the smaller ff "rangefinder style" bodies, planning/using "crop mode" gets a lot of attention to really trim down the kit size for use with a smaller lens or two. And a bit of body sizing up to get a full hand/fuller featured "aps-c" using the larger vs smaller bodies, too.
I use the longer 120mm end of the Nikon 24-120/4 occasionally on a Z7 in crop mode. It gives a 180mm eqivalent. But I prefer to use the 24-120 on a Z5II for better AF, stabilization and smaller compressed raw files. Wish there would be a Z5II with the 'old' but proven 45mp Z7 sensor. Would be good and small enough for me.
I don't bother with DX mode shooting stills on my D850. If I can't get close enough to my subject to fill the frame with whatever lens, I just crop in post.
I do however use DX mode on my Z6 III for video. 4k footage is the same 4k resolution in FX & DX. I shoot race cars mostly with my 24-120/4 and 70-200/2.8. Sometimes I need to both zoom in more than 120mm and go wider than 70mm in the same take, so I use the 24-120 in DX mode. While the DX quality may not quite match FX, the extra reach without loss of resolution produces a better end result than cropping FX footage in post.
But the process of turning DX crop on / off is more clunky on Z-Mount cameras than it is on eg Sony.
Not sure I’m understanding you here. On my Z8 and Z9 I have the video button programmed for crop and I can jump in and out of crop mode with one touch of my index finger. Not sure how it can get much easier than that.
Yeah no clue what that comment was about. That’s how I have my Z9 set up, a single tap to bounce in and out.
Spectro wrote:
Not sure I’m understanding you here. On my Z8 and Z9 I have the video button programmed for crop and I can jump in and out of crop mode with one touch of my index finger. Not sure how it can get much easier than that.
mawz wrote:
The EXPEED6 bodies are Press+Wheel only for changing crop modes. No 1 button to specific mode like EXPEED7.
Ok that’s good to know. However the comment I responded to was broadbrushing the entire Nikon Z ecosystem as having that issue. Likely just wordsmithing but it caught my eye as strange compared to my experience.
phinix wrote:
wanted to ask Z7/Z8/Z9 users - do you often use that crop mode, is it helpful?
Could I use 45MP camera and really use crop mode like I would have different lens, is it essentially good practice?
Yes, and yes, and yes.
1) I've allocated the little red video button on the Z9 to toggle between FX and DX. So
2) With a 24mm f/1.4 I'm suddenly composing with a 36mm f/2 (effective bokeh, the exposure triangle does not change).
3) I don't see why not. It's better that big crops in your post processing - saves time, especially at events.
Because it's completely destructive to your RAW file. If you get it wrong in camera and don't catch it, there's no "un-cropping" it like you can on every other brand.
RoamingScott wrote:
Because it's completely destructive to your RAW file. If you get it wrong in camera and don't catch it, there's no "un-cropping" it like you can on every other brand.
When photographing for pleasure, like landscapes, I will often take both normal and crop and choose the one that works best for me. It’s a limitation I can live with.
If it’s commissioned work I will put a bit more thought into it to it but often still photograph both aspects. The extra photos are no different than the multiple photos I will edit for best selects.
Spectro wrote:
When photographing for pleasure, like landscapes, I will often take both normal and crop and choose the one that works best for me. It’s a limitation I can live with.
If it’s commissioned work I will put a bit more thought into it to it but often still photograph both aspects. The extra photos are no different than the multiple photos I will edit for best selects.
I'm not suggesting NOT using DX mode, but the destructive nature of Nikon's methodology is THE reason one should deeply consider whether they should or not for any given shoot.
I couldn't care less what shots other people miss, I miss enough for both of us
RoamingScott wrote:
Because it's completely destructive to your RAW file.
Makes it smaller, that's all. If composed well, no different from FX composed well (aside from noise).
Thank you all for your input.
As far as I undersaynd, sounds like many do not use that option, but if used, its pretty good - I mean to take a photo in full 45MP, then crop in post - switching to crop mode on camera before taking a photo means, like Scotty said, it will automatically save RAW file smaller and won't let cropping in post, so best way is to take a full res photo, then crop in post.
I like Z7II body, but I may wait till some day Nikon releases Z7 III, or Zf II with high res sensor. We can dream about it
I use it sometimes with my Z8. It's an easy way to check how would look a pick with another focal length. It's better to crop in post but happened to me that I forgot I wanted to crop that pic when I was at home, so for me it's easier just put dx mode if the composition is the one I want on that moment. This allows to have less lenses or more variety.
Just choose whatever suits you best depending on the moment.
I just got back from 2 weeks in Japan with a Z7II and 24-70 f2.8 S V1 and 95% of what I shot was not in crop DX mode, but rather 1:1 image ratio, which I guess is a similar choice. I shot Hasselblad film cameras for years and years and LOVE composing in square. The Z7II gave me plenty of resolution to still be able to print at much larger sizes and worked really, really well. The older dual-Expeed 6 based AF system missed some more fast moving subjects on occasion, but not enough that it really affected my overall experience.
