Nikon Z50

1234689

Comments

  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 588Member
    Yeah :)
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • rmprmp Posts: 568Member
    Ton14 - I agree. I have never been as please with a camera/lens pair. Even my wife tells me I can buy new stuff, but I cannot sell my Z7/24-70 f4. Still I need reach and small size, and I want the IS and the eye focus.
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,536Member
    tc88 said:

    So a reasonable person "should" be thinking about this lens and likely future lenses when they buy the camera.

    What other DX lens do you know that Nikon is going to release? Are those on the roadmap and when are they going to come? Does Nikon have a track record of releasing those? Does Nikon have resource to develop those? If they get released 3 years down the road, can't I get a Z50 for less at that time without all the uncertainty, or get a better camera for the same amount of money? Where will the competition be price/performance wise?

    Honestly, what you are saying is wishful thinking. For someone who's currently not invested in Z, Z50 should not be the way to go.
    How is suggesting someone think about this wishful thinking? I am not saying, "this is a great lens, buy the camera because Nikon may make more." I am not even suggesting that they should buy the camera. I am simply saying, "think about the lenses that you need first and the camera that works on those lenses second."
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,536Member
    edited January 2020


    And third, assume that the lenses and ergonomics are good, I would recommend ignoring differences between 20-24mp or 24-30mp. Only when the difference is say between 20 and 30mp or 24 and 36mp, would I recommend adding more weight to sensor resolution.

    Hmmm, not so sure about that, the 20 mp sensor cannot touch the D7100 & 7200's 24mp in my trials IMHO. I also have not seen macro shots by anybody using that sensor that touch mine from the 24mp. The cameras that use it are superior in many ways, but not ultimate sharpness.
    Hmmm......perhaps you should consider this article just published by Photography Life Spraynpray:

    https://photographylife.com/nikon-dslr-resolution

    It basically says that the 105 macro cannot even resolve 36mp on a full frame sensor, which is equivalent to "cannot resolve 16mp on a DX/Crop sensor". What lens are you using that you think going from 20mp to 24mp helps you? Is it on Photography Life's list?

    36/(1.5*1.5)=16

    This is why I believe people concerned that the Nikon APS-C sensors are only 20mp are focussing on a non-issue. This is equivalent to a 45mp sensor full frame (20*(1.5*1.5). Only the finest lenses will be able to take advantage of this and unless you are shooting birds with expensive telephotoes you are unlikely to be using the finest lenses on DX. And those people are not buying a Z50, but a Z70 if that camera is like a D500. A 24mp DX sensor is equivalent to a 54mp DX sensor. What lens are you using on a D7xxx that will be able to take advantage of that, and should Nikon be making mainstream cameras for that tiny percentage of the market.

    Now things are different with Z as the article pointed out. But does that apply to the kit lenses, as good as Thom says the 16-50 is? Is a "30-something mp" sensor on a crop sensor anything more than a marketing scam? I could see a 24mp sensor if the user intends to use the S line lenses on a Z50.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 978Member
    I have used the S lens briefly on my Z50. Two of them. I also used them on a Z6. I thought the Z6 was awesome. But I’d rather have a updated D500 than the Z6. But the Z50 has the two kit lens that I use and enjoy. The 16-50 I think is one of the best lens I have ever used. I’d like to have the Z6 and the S 24-70 f4. But I’d also want a very modest S lens 70-400 f5.6 or there abouts. I do NOT lust for or appreciate wide aperture lens. I also doubt the advantage of a high MP sensor on a DX sensor. I’d rather have good video and low light capability. The DX sensors in the D500 and D7500 are good enough for me. I do think the Z50 sensor at 20.9 has some attributes that make it really quite good. I think they eliminated the shake off sensor cleaner as it was of limited value. Fortunately I don’t have sensor dust or UFO globs on my sensor yet. I plan on blowing it off with a dust off tool when that problem comes to roost. The out to the edge Video is very good on the Z50. I’d rate the 16-50 as awesome and the 50-250 as good enough...l
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 588Member
    DaveyJ said:

    II’d rather have good video and low light capability.

    I wonder @DaveyJ, have you ever looked for a good small handy video camera, there are so many at the moment and they become better and better..

    There is the "Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K" with a High Resolution Cinematic Digital Film Sensor! The BMPCC 4K is an amazing camera for the price (here € 1350.-). It has a very good user interface and touchscreen. 13 stops dynamic range, ISO till 25.600 for micro four thirds lenses. Samyang micro four third lenses are great, cheap and super for filming. Everything cheaper, much better for filming then Nikon and available.

    Not to forget that with this camera you also get a fully licensed copy of Da Vinci Resolve Studio, a professional coloring and editing suite.

    "DaVinci Resolve" is also free for home use and I have seen that this version has more options than I will ever use, when it comes to video I'm still in kindergarten.

    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,430Moderator


    And third, assume that the lenses and ergonomics are good, I would recommend ignoring differences between 20-24mp or 24-30mp. Only when the difference is say between 20 and 30mp or 24 and 36mp, would I recommend adding more weight to sensor resolution.

    Hmmm, not so sure about that, the 20 mp sensor cannot touch the D7100 & 7200's 24mp in my trials IMHO. I also have not seen macro shots by anybody using that sensor that touch mine from the 24mp. The cameras that use it are superior in many ways, but not ultimate sharpness.
    Hmmm......perhaps you should consider this article just published by Photography Life Spraynpray:

    https://photographylife.com/nikon-dslr-resolution

    It basically says that the 105 macro cannot even resolve 36mp on a full frame sensor, which is equivalent to "cannot resolve 16mp on a DX/Crop sensor". What lens are you using that you think going from 20mp to 24mp helps you? Is it on Photography Life's list?

    36/(1.5*1.5)=16

    This is why I believe people concerned that the Nikon APS-C sensors are only 20mp are focussing on a non-issue. This is equivalent to a 45mp sensor full frame (20*(1.5*1.5). Only the finest lenses will be able to take advantage of this and unless you are shooting birds with expensive telephotoes you are unlikely to be using the finest lenses on DX. And those people are not buying a Z50, but a Z70 if that camera is like a D500. A 24mp DX sensor is equivalent to a 54mp DX sensor. What lens are you using on a D7xxx that will be able to take advantage of that, and should Nikon be making mainstream cameras for that tiny percentage of the market.

    Now things are different with Z as the article pointed out. But does that apply to the kit lenses, as good as Thom says the 16-50 is? Is a "30-something mp" sensor on a crop sensor anything more than a marketing scam? I could see a 24mp sensor if the user intends to use the S line lenses on a Z50.
    Thanks for the link wef, but I am not convinced by those tests. All I know is I can see a clear difference in favour of the 24mp. BTW: I note the 60mm G (which is better than the 105 G) isn't lab tested. Measurebators are beaten by real world results any day.

    Am I not getting any takers for my macro comparison? I'll tell you that nothing short of an image that is at least as good as mine will convince me. If I see an image from a D500/7500 that is as good, I will be very tempted to buy one.

    I'll use this image:
    ROOSTING MARBLED WHITE

    Sorry it isn't full res here. Blame Flickr.
    Always learning.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    edited January 2020

    tc88 said:

    So a reasonable person "should" be thinking about this lens and likely future lenses when they buy the camera.

    Honestly, what you are saying is wishful thinking. For someone who's currently not invested in Z, Z50 should not be the way to go.
    How is suggesting someone think about this wishful thinking? I am not saying, "this is a great lens, buy the camera because Nikon may make more." I am not even suggesting that they should buy the camera. I am simply saying, "think about the lenses that you need first and the camera that works on those lenses second."
    @WestEndFoto, your latest position is quite reasonable and I have no issue with that. But what you wrote before was quite different. I have highlighted those (expand the quotes if you don't see those) that I think are wishful thinking.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 973Member
    I am surprised that we don't ser higher resolution on crop cameras. The evolution stopped at 24 mp and seems to be going downwards from there.

    If you want maximum resolution more pixels are always better, although the increase in resolution is less for every added pixel.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    The Photography Life article WEF cites was quite disappointing to me. It seems like "end of the line" for F mount lenses and bodies with no need for higher megapixels than a D800/D810/D850. A 60 mp sensor will only be advantageous in a Z mount body. Actually, the article confirms a decision I had already reached after seeing the better resolution of the S line. For me now, Nikon F mount bodies and lenses are of "historical interest" or will be in a few years. With that in mind I "rounded out" my collection of historically significant Nikon DSLRs with an ebay purchase of an old D700 and D3s just for the fun of using and seeing how well this old stuff still works.

    Our photography hobby can be fun and practical; it doesn't always have to be sharpest lenses and most megapixel bodies. At times it can be "practical sharpness and megapixels" for the use at hand. For example, my wife recently asked me to do some product photography of some of her designer shoes she wanted to sell on line. I was going to use my Nikon Z50 since I had recently been experimenting with that for portraiture. I knew the Z50's "only" 20 mp would be more than enough. But then I thought "What the hell, I will have some fun with this chore I don't want to do and explore practical sharpness and megapixels for a common use in posting an image to the internet." So I got out my "historical value only" ancient outdated 12mp D700 and my equally outdated Nikon 60mm f2.8 D screw drive macro lens. I set the D700 to small image size and basic jpeg. Then I took a series of images and cropped those a bit. Here are two of them. Click on the image to get to flickr and then open the largest size. Look at the detail in the stitching and leather texture. Each image is less than 0.8 mp! So why are we, me included, so obsessed about high megapixels unless we are actually printing much larger than poster size? There is a lot to be said for "practical sharpness and megapixels" for normal uses. Of course, when that 60mp+ Z body comes out I will get one. LOL Just cannot resist the temptation to go "wow" as I pixel peek. Our hobby should be fun.

    700_7854

    700_7897
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 978Member
    @donaldejose What have you concluded from the Z50 for portraiture?? My reaction to the Z50 and especially the 16-50 kit lens is WOW! I have used it for portraiture more than the 50-250 kit lens. I have the a circular polarizer on the 50-250 and use it only when I can’t get enough reach with the 16-50.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    edited January 2020
    DaveyJ: Z50 for portraiture. My conclusion depends upon the light available and your "need" for bokeh in a portrait.

    If you have lots of light or strobes and are not a bokeh hunter who is trying to emulate the current fashion of small DOF popular with FF and f1.4 lenses (or the "MF look") than you can use the 16-50 kit lens at 50mm (75mm equivalent) and crop a bit if you want an 85 or 105 crop. The kit lens is sharp enough and 50mm (75mm) is close enough for traditional portraiture. I don't have the 50-250 kit lens to try but I would expect using that lens from 50 to 75 mm would work equally well, if not even a bit better because you can have an equivalent 85 to 105mm lens. From all reports sharpness is fine. I typically shoot portraits FF at 85 to 105mm at f4 to make sure I have both eyes in focus while keeping sufficient distance between the subject and the background to blur out the background for "portrait pop." This can be done with the Z50 and both kit lenses.

    The problem is trying to replicate the look of 85 to 105 f1.4 or f2. That cannot be done with the Z50 and its two kit lenses. There are two alternatives. 1. Use the FTZ adapter and a 50 mm f1.4 prime. I have done that on a test mannequin head but not yet on a real subject. You could also use a 50mm f1.8 prime or a 60mm f2.8 macro prime. I have not tried those. 2. Use the S 50mm f1.8 prime and when it becomes available use the S 50mm f1.2 prime. My guess is that using the S 50mm f1.2 prime will be the closest one can get to the 85mm f1.4 portrait look. I have used the S 24-70 f2.8 and an example is posted below. I did not include a comment about using the S 58mm f0.95 prime. Surely that would be even better to emulate the FF f1.4 look but there are two serious drawbacks: cost and manual focus. I don't see that lens being used on a DX sensor body.

    The following mannequin head shots are all at ISO 100, f1.4, 160th, with the Z50 and the Nikon 50mm f1.4 prime. All use eye AF which is how I would shoot all portraits for convenience. You can judge the sharpness of the eyelashes and the depth of field and bokeh achieved with this equipment on a Z50. Click on the photos to go to flickr and view the images larger for closer examination.

    Z50_0800

    Z50_0801

    The following real person portrait was shot with the Z50 and the S 24-70 lens at 70mm and f2.8. 1,000 ISO and 200th second. You can see how that combination works for sharpness of eyelashes, DOF and background bokeh and higher ISO use. I think it is fine.

    GinaTest0713pp

    My final conclusion: The next time I get a live portrait subject I will start with Z50+FTZ+50mm Nikon f1.4 lens and shoot at f1.4 through f2.8 using eye AF. While the Nikon 50mm f1.4 prime is not so sharp wide open as long as it can resolve the eyelashes it is sharp enough for portraits. While it would be nice to have a f 2.0 or f2.8 DX S zoom lens reaching from a 50 to 100 mm FX equivalent such a DX lens will never be produced by Nikon. No matter. "Real" portraits will be shot on a FF body anyway.

    I have not yet tried using the 24-70 kit lens at 70mm wide open for portraits because I thought it would not be fast enough. I was put off by the f6.3 at 50mm since I usually shoot portraits at f4. But I will try it when I get some time. There is an 18 to 140 DX zoom coming. I think we can expect it to run from about f2.8 at 18mm and about f6.3 at 140mm. This may be the lens than can give me about f4 in the 50 to 75mm range for portraits while on travel with a small body and just one lens.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • rmprmp Posts: 568Member
    Thanks donaldejose. Your portrait run-down was a good read.
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 978Member
    edited January 2020
    I do a fair amount of Environmental Portraiture And years ago won awards with 35mm via 4x5 internegative using far greater depth of field. If only the person is the subject and the background is inconsequential then the narrow depth of field is greatly in fashion. So the Z50 and both kit lens have some ability to me as a portraiture camera. My 50-250 now I have set up with a polarizing filter and the HB 90A lens hood. The 16-50 I use simply with the compact lens and a UV filter. No Nikon hood for the 16-50 is even available at this time. DonalddeJose’s Post is extremely informative and I do hope to see some more of his posts to see what would be the best way to do these traditional portraits! I don’t own the 24-70 f4 S lens yet but have every intention of getting it when I acquire a Z6 or some updated version. The two Nikon Z cameras I have been most enamored with are the Z6 and the Z50.
    Post edited by DaveyJ on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    edited January 2020
    DaveyJ: environmental portraiture is a different matter. I was not testing that type of portraiture. For a subject portrayed in its environment, rather than isolated to pop out of the background, I would use f8 and the 16x50mm zoom would be perfect.

    rmp: If a person is using DX because they want small and light the two kit lenses would be able to cover about anything encountered during a trip with the exception of the type of large aperture portraiture I was attempting to do with the Z50 because neither kit lens can give you even an f2.8 aperture. The small and light criteria for the entire kit dictates a portrait specialty fast lens in addition to the two kit lenses which also must be as small and light as possible because it is the third lens you will be carrying. Smallness rules out the FTZ adaptor and F mount f1.4 primes. I would look to the yet to be released 40mm compact lens or the yet to be released 60mm macro lens in Z mount as two likely candidates. I expect them to give us at least f2.8 and maybe f1.8. The compact 40mm prime should be light. The 60mm macro hopefully will be smaller and lighter than the S 50mm f1.8. As of now, that S 50 f1.8 is probably the best third portrait specialty lens to carry along with the two existing DX Z mount zooms. Of course, in the studio or from the car small and light are not important. You can carry and shoot with anything.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,280Member
    edited January 2020
    Well in the UK have the chance now to try a Z50 for free as Nikon will lend you one....problem for me is I cannot have a body and a FTZ as I want to try my Tamron and Samyang lenses. So no thanks, Nikon. While I would buy a DX body it would have to be suitable for the birds and I dont think anyone would say the Z50 is .

    PS I just re-read it and I assumed it came to me via NPS UK membership but the phone numbers are US. I just noticed the prices are in $$$. It does say in the small print that you can buy and return an FTZ adaptor but thats not one of the main options. Its stuck down in the FAQ ...Oh, Nikon get it right for god's sake.
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 978Member
    donalddejose has the advantage of some great looking portraiture subjects. I am certain he is right about NOT using an FTZ on the Z50. I am looking at the Z6 and the film makers kit. and yes to Ton14 I have bought devoted video cameras. I always end up giving them away. They’ve not captured my interest of enough great videos to use them. So money lost. My son and grandson have about every video out there, some are wonderful. The .Nikons are the easiest for me To use.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,092Member
    Well if you do choose to use FTZ on Z50 they are now offering it in kit for $50.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    The FTZ for $50 in a Z50 kit is a very good value: both for the FTZ and for the Z50. My only point had been that using the FTZ with F mount lenses on a Z50 provides no advantage over using a Z mount lens on the Z50. You don't really save in weight or size and you lose the increased sharpness of the new Z mount lenses. However, you do gain access to your existing F mount glass. Z mount glass is limited and it will be a long time before some of the more exotic glass will be offered in Z mount so having that access now can be very helpful, just not in the "normal ranges" customarily used.
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 978Member
    I certainly hope Nikon continues to make more portable zoom lens for these cameras as well as exotic wide aperture glass. Nikon does seriously need lightweight primes, especially in DX. The amazing Z Mount DX 16-50 shows just what amazing lens Nikon is capable of. I have been as impressed with that lens as any I have ever owned for both quality and field adventure excellence. Especially needed right now are wide angle Z both prime and zooms. I myself would love to see a Z Mount 10-20 which could eliminate the need for the FTZ AND achieve a higher optical capability.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,092Member
    Yep they definitely need a WA zoom. Right now the only option is the 10-20 AF-P lens on FTZ, and in my experience that lens is only "OK".
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 978Member
    edited January 2020
    Why Nikon would not RUSH to make a MODEST 10-20 Z Zoom is absolutely beyond me. It would be one of their best sellers. Of course I’d want it as a DX Z lens. Without some hugely expensive wide aperture. Pretty much a Z version of the DX 10-20. Look at the amazing quality of the 16-50 Z pancake kit lens. That lens is hard to believe!
    Post edited by DaveyJ on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    edited January 2020
    I was able to get my model for about 7 minutes tonight so I continued the test I had promised above. LED lighting stayed the same for all three lenses. Just 4 to 7 shots per lens for a quick comparison. Always using eye AF. Sometimes the eye AF seemed to focus on the eye which was slightly farther away but it didn't make much difference since the eyes were so close to each other in distance from the camera. All shots were done as jpegs. I shot raw plus jpeg but processed only the jpegs to save time.


    First up, the Nikon 50mm f1.4 shot wide open with the FTZ, ISO 100, 1/60sec shutter speed. I didn't expect much sharpness but it was better than expected. I didn't expect both eyes to be in reasonable focus but that also was better than expected. F1.4 allowed me to shoot at base ISO: 100. My conclusion: if you have an FTZ which came in a kit and have an existing f mount 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 that combination will make a fine portrait lens for the Z50. Here is an example. Click on it to go to flickr and look at it larger to see the detail in the eyes and hair. Somewhat surprising to me.

    Z50_0824


    Second up, the small, light and "cheap" 16-50mm kit lens shot wide open at f6.3. Wow, I didn't expect it to be that good! DavyJ is correct. This is great glass and a really great bang for the buck. The only drawback is I had to use ISO 1,000 in the same light that I could use ISO 100 with a f1.4 or f1.8 lens. My test set-up is not a good test for bokeh between the different lenses because I was using a backdrop. My conclusion is that the kit lens makes a great portrait lens as long as you are not concerned with shooting at higher ISOs in lower light and not concerned with the best bokeh when you are not using a backdrop. Here is an example. Click on it to go to flickr and look at it larger to see the detail in the eyes and hair as wall as the added depth of field since you are now shooting at f6. As an additional matter the Z50 does quite well at ISO 1,000. Compare the Image Quality of the three photos in this post (two are ISO 100 and one is ISO 1,000). I would suggest that if all three images were printed at 8x10 inches normal people won't be able to tell any difference. Thus, the Z50 with the kit lens at 50mm (75mm FF equivalent) makes a fine portrait combination because people in your family (or even business?) are going to mostly want prints of 5x7 or 8x10. Any larger size takes up too much room setting around.

    Z50_0838


    Finally, the 50mm S f1.8 wide open with the Z50 body. In many ways this is the best. You can get down to ISO 100 in lower light and it is the sharpest lens. You don't need it if you have the kit lens but you may already have this 50mm if you have or are going to buy a FF Z body so it makes an excellent 75mm equivalent portrait lens on the Z50. Here is an example:

    Z50_0826
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 588Member
    @donaldejose Thank you, fine compare, all the same circumstances, top.
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
Sign In or Register to comment.