ptomsu
Workshop Member
Even that would be more than OK!Assuming the 80-400mm is one of the TBA lens, it looks like you are in for a three year wait.
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!
Even that would be more than OK!Assuming the 80-400mm is one of the TBA lens, it looks like you are in for a three year wait.
Why wait for 80-400 S when F mount 70-300 AF-P is already available and even with FTZ light and small?Assuming the 80-400mm is one of the TBA lens, it looks like you are in for a three year wait.
I tested the current 80-400 with FTZ converter and it was unfortunately much less responsive on a Z7 compared to the D850/D810. Especially for wildlife I find this too slow. Hence the wish for a native 80-400 S-lens that would definitely not have these issues.Why wait for 80-400 S when F mount 70-300 AF-P is already available and even with FTZ light and small?
Wish Nikon had something like Sony's 100-400 that accepts teleconverters and still produces great results.
I tested the current 80-400 with FTZ converter and it was unfortunately much less responsive on a Z7 compared to the D850/D810. Especially for wildlife I find this too slow. Hence the wish for a native 80-400 S-lens that would definitely not have these issues.
The 70-300 is what the name says - a 70-300 BUT for decent wildlife photography I at least need a 400 on the tele end.
I know the 200-500 and there are 2 facts that I finally never bought one:You should check the 200-500.
After a few days with that lens... that's when the advantages of m4/3 become very clear :ROTFL:You should check the 200-500.
A non-zoom solution would be 300mm f/4 PF with 1.4x TC. People are reporting decent results with that combo.I tested the current 80-400 with FTZ converter and it was unfortunately much less responsive on a Z7 compared to the D850/D810. Especially for wildlife I find this too slow. Hence the wish for a native 80-400 S-lens that would definitely not have these issues.
The 70-300 is what the name says - a 70-300 BUT for decent wildlife photography I at least need a 400 on the tele end.
It's still a 70-300mm, you just don't see the whole picture when you switch to DX mode. However, both of the 70-300mm AF-P lenses get very good reviews, and may be interesting companions to the Z6/7 cameras.A non-zoom solution would be 300mm f/4 PF with 1.4x TC. People are reporting decent results with that combo.
With Z 7 you can quickly switch to DX mode which 'converts' the 70-300mm into 105-450mm
What do you mean by "you just don't see the whole picture when you switch to DX "?It's still a 70-300mm, you just don't see the whole picture when you switch to DX mode. However, both of the 70-300mm AF-P lenses get very good reviews, and may be interesting companions to the Z6/7 cameras.
No, what you see in DX mode is the cropped part of the FX frame. You may as well crop in PS later, although the FX file is of course larger. DR is the same in any case. It's still the same sensor.What do you mean by "you just don't see the whole picture when you switch to DX "?
The resulting image is cropped and the EVF shows only the DX crop. Dynamic range suffers, though.
In my post, I put 'converts' in quotes because it, of course, does not convert anything. For practical purposes, with a Z 7 camera, you get the same resolution as Z 6 or m43 cameras when cropping by 1.5x.No, what you see in DX mode is the cropped part of the FX frame. You may as well crop in PS later, although the FX file is of course larger. DR is the same in any case. It's still the same sensor.
The main advantage using DX mode on a mrrorless camera is that the DX image fills the viewfinder, as opposed to on a DSLR, where the area around the DX frame is blacked out or a frame is placed around the cropped area.
I believe that the chart you linked to shows the dynamic range when the DX and FX images are printed at the same size. That's like using a "digital zoom" which will reduce the DR as well as the ISO response. Pixel by pixel, the two modes will render identical results, but the photo shot in DX mode will have to be printed corespondingly smaller.In my post, I put 'converts' in quotes because it, of course, does not convert anything. For practical purposes, with a Z 7 camera, you get the same resolution as Z 6 or m43 cameras when cropping by 1.5x.
Interestingly, the photographic dynamic range (PDR) does change between FX and DX modes:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20Z%207,Nikon%20Z%207(DX)
That effect has been discussed extensively on forums.
The question is, what does it mean in practice? It means that you can get technically better images if you shoot with a 450mm lens in FX mode than when shooting in DX mode with a 300mm lens, assuming you print them at the same size.I believe that the chart you linked to shows the dynamic range when the DX and FX images are printed at the same size. That's like using a "digital zoom" which will reduce the DR as well as the ISO response. Pixel by pixel, the two modes will render identical results, but the photo shot in DX mode will have to be printed corespondingly smaller.
Obviously, but this is nothing new, and it doesn't matter if you crop in-camera or later with a computer.The question is, what does it mean in practice? It means that you can get technically better images if you shoot with a 450mm lens in FX mode than when shooting in DX mode with a 300mm lens, assuming you print them at the same size.