I know, I am off today and loud thoughts, using a D850 in the past few days, the usual fun while sailing, nothing that I have to take food home and had quite some fun.
Question being, I run both the D850 and a Z8, I don't have lenses I can compare but I'd ask those of you who use both, besides the AF and EVF advantage, is the IQ that big to drop reflex and only aim at mirrorless?
I know of at least 2 lenses that were noticeably different. The Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I and the 24-120mm f/4 S. With the 70-200mm I had more noticeable stability and sharper images hand held. The 24-120mm f/4 at f/4.5 was at least as sharp or maybe even sharper than my 24-70mm f/2.8G.
There's nothing all that different about the mirrorless sensors, it's the lenses that get you better IQ, and some of them are significantly better than their F counterparts (20/1.8, 24-120, and others immediately come to mind). Then there are F lenses that have no equal in rendering, like the 35/1.4 G, or the 60/2.8 G Micro.
When I bought the Z8 it was a companion to my D850. I was too heavily invested in Nikon f-mount lenses to replace them with z-mount versions. I have a couple of z-mount lenses that do not duplicate my f-mount lenses. They are spectacular and I have no doubt that any of the z-mount versions of my existing lenses are better performers. That said, my current f-mount lenses are very good and the Z8 gets more out of them than the D850. By that I mean that the Z8 sensor-based autofocus system is more accurate more of the time than the seperate-from-the-sensor autofocus system in the D850. So the D850 is gone, but my existing f-mount lenses remain. I was happy with them on the D850 and more happy with them on the Z8.
The Z 24-70 2.8's are way better than the F mount versions for example. The 50 1.2S is way better than any AF D series 50 (I don't care about the 58 so nobody please bring that up. The 85 1.8S is better than the D series stuff in that aperture and focal length. It really depends on what it is that you are comparing.
The Z MC 105mm f2.8 S is far superior to any F mount 105 micro by a significant margin. For some F-mount versions there is no comparable Z-mount, such as the 105mm f1.4E, 200mm f2 and 300mm f2.8. There are some character Z-mount, 35mm and 50mm f1.4 come to mind but typically all the Z-mount lenses are better than the F-mount versions for colour, sharpness and rendering, thus Nikon’s move to the larger mount.
I refer to the quality of files regardless of the lenses, I would compare the D and Z with an adapted D/G lens just for the sake of it but main point being, is the Z, once you don't take in account EVF and it's advantages and assisted focus, that much better than a D to justify the upgrade?
I think it depends on specific lenses, as mentioned in previous posts.
Several Z-mount lenses are better and take advantage of the fact that the Z-mount is very close to the sensor; some F-mount lenses are quite good and not available in Z-mount (28/1.4G; 58/1.4G, 105/1.4, 70-200/4G, 200/2, 300/2.8, 100-300/2.8, etc.).
Some Z-mount lenses are not available in F-mount (for example, my 24–70/4 and the 14–30/4: small & compact zooms offering good performance).
Z-mount makes many things much easier, esp. subject-detection autofocus. And the quality of glass including from third parties is amazing. Imo maximum sharpness wide-open is a bit overrated though. So I don't buy the quality argument really.
But in the end it's just about having fun. Having to work harder can be fun sometimes. Working with smaller lenses is fun sometimes (esp. Ai-S and AF-D lenses are usually much smaller than Z-mount lenses). Lenses with imperfect rendering are fun sometimes.
For me personally the best solution is running both systems and choosing on a day-by-day basis.
GiovanniAprea wrote:
I refer to the quality of files regardless of the lenses, I would compare the D and Z with an adapted D/G lens just for the sake of it but main point being, is the Z, once you don't take in account EVF and it's advantages and assisted focus, that much better than a D to justify the upgrade?
Of course shooting on Z is an overall better experience, but that's not what you asked originally.
You will not get a materially better image by shooting on a D850 or adapting to a Z8, for instance. In fact, the stacked Z8 sensor gives up a bit of DR. The Z8's autofocus just might get an image in focus that the D850 fails to, and in that respect, the Z8 image is infinitely better
I owned both of them at one point. That 58 is not for fast paced event photographers and that's all I'm going to say about it. 50 1.2 is plug and play, 58 ain't. Ripolini wrote:
I mentioned the 58 because Giovanni (the OP) owns it.
Re Z8 vs. D850, I like shooting with both. The Z8 is probably on balance better but there’s still something special about the large zero lag OVF and satisfying, tactile feedback of the mechanical D850 shutter.
In terms of isolated measurements, the D850 will score a little bit better than the Z8/Z9 under ISO 400/500, but even here we are in splitting hairs territory (see Photos to Photons charts). Dynamic range, read noise, and other sensor characteristics do not make images, so there's a lot more to consider. Perhaps sensor measurements can indicate something about image quality potential?
In use, you can't really separate the sensor performance from the entirety of any camera system. Autofocus technology, image stabilization, lens performance and availability, and even highly personal things like ergonomics will add to or detract from the final image quality achieved.
From a raw image quality stand point, the best Nikon DSLRs can still hang with any Z camera. The difference is that mirrorless has made it easier to reliably achieve intended focus, accurate exposure metering, correct white balance, and much more, before we even discuss the advances in lens technology available on Z mount.
At the end of the day, who cares if one sensor has slightly better performance than another? Use whatever camera works for you and helps you capture the images you want to create.
