The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Z7 and X1D - I shot them, don't shoot me...

tashley

Subscriber Member
Just sharing, for anyone interested. Don't shoot me for my methodology, there was none.

I chose a high frequency patch of woodland across a well-known valley to do a real world (and my real world may differ from yours) 'dirty' comparison between the X1D and the Z7.

'Dirty' means that they were shot as I would generally shoot them if being opportunistic rather than planned. Were I being planned, I'd likely have the Phase setup on a proper tripod.

As I would generally shoot them = no tripod, base ISO as minimum but set to Auto ISO, autofocus, and no attempt at being rigorous, though of course that doesn't;t mean I wasn't paying attention.

These are RAW files, as follows:

Z7 with 24-70 kit zoom at 24mm F8
Z7 with 24-70 kit zoom at 70mm F8

X1D with 30mm XCD lens at F8
X1D with 90mm XCD lens at F8

In other words, very similar fields of view on both cameras and at both focal lengths.

Don't forget: the files sizes on the long side differ between the two cameras by just 16 pixels: most of the extra MP of the X1D go into the extra height of the file. So if you like to shoot 2:3 then they are essentially the same MP but if you like to shoot 4:3 then you'll have to crop the Z7 file and that would make it 879 pixels less wide, giving you a print around 4.9" less wide if you print at 180 DPI.

Process and sharpen to taste. I've been looking on them on a 148 PPI monitor. It has been very instructive....

https://tashley1.zenfolio.com/img/g5382749-o374332360.dat?dl=2&tk=c8lRIyjOQtGVNgWKMuUNOQRnSSZf7u8keslwW26lFJ0=

https://tashley1.zenfolio.com/img/g268529974-o374332360.dat?dl=2&tk=ADOrCTAxXQ2wOY1aYqsVGAfFB4aPPqdcApSTygFaHQw=

https://tashley1.zenfolio.com/img/g198361576-o374332360.dat?dl=2&tk=9tByR-HABA5PrH-0Flz-EN_GS13I0ia-cQ7TOJZefVk=

https://tashley1.zenfolio.com/img/g247124033-o374332360.dat?dl=2&tk=I5zKxcKmFy9MRZljodsMy-AcMHWiakQSne7VvptQqYg=
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Am I missing something here . Doesn t the pixel size and depth have an impact here . The X1D has 5.3 microns with 16bit color and the Nikon has 4.35 microns with 14 bit color .
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Thanks, Tim! As you said, very instructive.

Roger, I don't see any judgements here, just four sample pics.

--Matt
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
The Nikon obviously has less resolution and smaller pixels, but marginal differences in quality. This speaks nicely for the Z. The X1D now sells almost 30% off from original retail, so given the small differences in quality, I'd take the Z and buy a lens or two.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Thanks, Tim! As you said, very instructive.

Roger, I don't see any judgements here, just four sample pics.

--Matt
did not mean to imply any ...Tim however states that when cropped to 2 x3 the number of Mp are not all that different . I don think you can use MP too compare sensor performance across different physical sizes ..so for example a 24 mp app-c is not compatible to a 24MP ff .

I think you will see this at every stage ..the 100MP used on the HB is much different than the 100MP used on the newest Fuji .

the number of pixels is of course important to the ability to render fine detail ....however the size and quality of the pixels contribute to dynamic range ,tone separation and color fidelity .

DxO Labs used to do a great job of showing these differences but they have since seem to reduced the amount of information being shared .

Tim thank you for starting this discussion. :clap:
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
did not mean to imply any ...Tim however states that when cropped to 2 x3 the number of Mp are not all that different . I don think you can use MP too compare sensor performance across different physical sizes ..so for example a 24 mp app-c is not compatible to a 24MP ff .

I think you will see this at every stage ..the 100MP used on the HB is much different than the 100MP used on the newest Fuji .

the number of pixels is of course important to the ability to render fine detail ....however the size and quality of the pixels contribute to dynamic range ,tone separation and color fidelity .

DxO Labs used to do a great job of showing these differences but they have since seem to reduced the amount of information being shared .

Tim thank you for starting this discussion. :clap:
Technically and theoretically you're right of course - but over the years I've had to learn to trust my eyes more than anything and for me, given that my final intent for a good image is to print it, I've got fairly good at knowing what actually does give good results versus what theoretically should. SO comparing these two files side by side on a monitor I know really really well (and crucially, one that at 148 ppi has far lower resolution than the current retina/5k craze) I can quickly get a pretty accurate view of how things will look in print. So if my question was, will a file from the Nikon with the kit lens look, at, say a 36" wide print size, as good as a file from the Hassy with the relevant lens to everyone apart from the most extremely experienced, I now have an answer....
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Technically and theoretically you're right of course - but over the years I've had to learn to trust my eyes more than anything and for me, given that my final intent for a good image is to print it, I've got fairly good at knowing what actually does give good results versus what theoretically should. SO comparing these two files side by side on a monitor I know really really well (and crucially, one that at 148 ppi has far lower resolution than the current retina/5k craze) I can quickly get a pretty accurate view of how things will look in print. So if my question was, will a file from the Nikon with the kit lens look, at, say a 36" wide print size, as good as a file from the Hassy with the relevant lens to everyone apart from the most extremely experienced, I now have an answer....
Do you mind to share your answer?
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
The Nikon zoom has 14 elements in 11 groups, the XCD 30mm and 90mm prime lenses have 11/10 and 10/8 respectively. Would the number of elements in the Nikon "kit" lens degrade the resolution to an extent? Shooting at 2:3, I'd take the Z hands down. Plus, 2/3rd's of a stop at base ISO doesn't mean much in resolution and the Z is a current camera that's considerably faster too.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Seems like optimal resolution and lack of distortion have little to do with number of elements or groups ... the Zeiss Otus 28 ... has 16 elements in 13 groups ... and
would rival most lenses on the market.

One of my favorite designs is the Tessar ... usually 4 elements in three groups ... marginal sharpness at the edges and a fair amount of distortion .... which is one of its
endearing characteristics.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
I think a better comparison would have been with the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8s as opposed to a zoom. The 50mm 1.8S is one of the best lenses i've ever used. In terms of absolute resolution, it's been compared to the Otus 1.4.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I agree however sounded like Tim was happy with the results from the zoom. I use it 70%
of the time that I am shooting video ... in spite of having classic Nikon, Leica R and M lenses
which adapt.

But overall zooms are a bit of a compromise ... some times worth making.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Not jumping on ... but the XCD 30 is stellar ... and you may have had a better comparison with the S 35.

I guess one needs to decide if the Z 7 sensor is close enough to the X1D. Resolution and colors ... yes. For me
the DR is not close ... but that I can work with in post processing ...

I was going to rant on the lack of communication from HB ... loss of Ming Thein ... no upgrade path delineated.

But that would probably be off the OP topic.

Loved the 4116 ...

However the Z 7 with adapted lenses ... and primes is good enough. And looks like Nikon is striving to improve
it with FW updates ... and they have a plan which they have shared.

Nikon has in the past been somewhat insular ... opening up with this generation of cameras and that is a major
factor in favor of this camera.

Honestly I think this Z 7 does not challenge MF cameras ... but it does not need to ... if you need 50/100MP then call
you Phase One dealer. But if you want a fast ... silent ... light ... camera with decent becoming awesome video rig ...
the Z 7 has it nailed. Yes yes the Z 6 is better for video ... perhaps ... AA filter ... poor AF in log ... which is not a problem
with the Z 7 ... at least mine does not suffer from this ...

I have avoided all the discussion about the camera because most of it centered around FF versus mirrorless ... a non-issue for
me.

My X1D is gone ... my Z 7 very much alive ... but I am not printing large and am a bit more video-centric at this point.

Good discussion ... thank Tim and all who have contributed ... but my thought is focus on the sensor and the haptics and future
path ... lenses can be adapted to both.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
I keep checking the Nikon forums for feedback on the Z7 as it is in my crosshairs. I will/would never purchase the cheap zoom that they offer. There is no way it could ever approach my standards and I'm still leary of all zooms but they seem to be getting much better.

The big issue I have is I already have the 50s so the Z7 would have to be a significantly smaller/more convenient alternative. I have no doubts as to its ability to create a great file with enough pixels for me to work with for the size prints I'm used to printing. I keep checking weights and overall size and so far just haven't come up with enough of an advantage for the Z over a 50s..... but I'm still very tempted.

And...... I'm always looking around the corner for the next sensor. 60MP would be the real trigger for me so I have the luxury of waiting and using what I have which is really nice stuff.

Lots of good feedback in this forum.......

Victor
 
I keep checking the Nikon forums for feedback on the Z7 as it is in my crosshairs. I will/would never purchase the cheap zoom that they offer. There is no way it could ever approach my standards and I'm still leary of all zooms but they seem to be getting much better.
You mean the $1000 Nikon 24-70mmf/4 S?
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Yes I do...... I probably shouldn't have used 'cheap' in my post but that lens got a lot of poor reviews and, to me, a quality zoom lens in that price range would be an aberration. No matter what the camera is a throw away, the lenses should be purchased to keep for a long time. There are some extremely high quality lenses that can be used with the Z7. My Otus would work well......

Victor
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
The kit lens, 24-70 is a bit of a sleeper. Tack sharp, and overall a great companion to the Z7. I was very pleasantly surprised by the details.

I did not look at the images comparing the Z7 and X1D, however based on the results I have seen from the Z7 and kit 24-70, I would easily put it up against the results from the 50S Fuji and 32-64. If there is anything lacking in details, Topaz AI sharpen can pull it back.

Size/weight of the Z7 is what made me move that direction as it's now replaced my Fuji X-H1 in the back when I carry a P1 system, (as a backup and just overall easy to use camera.

Paul C
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Paul,

While I wanted to agree with you regarding the kit lens, after testing the Nikon 24-70mm f/4 S against the Fuji GF 32-64mm the Nikon showed weakness in the corners. No amount of sharpening is going to fix that. See the comparison here. I agree with you wrt the Z7 camera body however.

Joe
Joe,

Never underestimate sample variance. What keeps me in MF is in large part the QC of the lenses. I hate playing the "buy three to get one good one" game. You never know if there might not be an even better copy somewhere else...

Until LensRentals does a batch review of a dozen copies of a lens, you can't really judge it.

Matt
 
Top