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!

Z6 or Z7 -- or both ???

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
$2500 for the refurb Z7 with 24-70 seems like a really good deal -- and I am considering it, at least mildly...

But I suspect the recent "fire sale" pricing is in advance of the Z8 announcement -- historically all the refurbs get unloaded first, then the "new" bodies go on sale. But if the Z8 fixes a few of the Z6/7 UI warts, it may well be worth the extra $1500 or so to have that body. If it has a 3:4 capture aspect option and fixes the VF lag, those alone would be worth the extra $$$$ to me LOL.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
$2500 for the refurb Z7 with 24-70 seems like a really good deal -- and I am considering it, at least mildly...

But I suspect the recent "fire sale" pricing is in advance of the Z8 announcement -- historically all the refurbs get unloaded first, then the "new" bodies go on sale. But if the Z8 fixes a few of the Z6/7 UI warts, it may well be worth the extra $1500 or so to have that body. If it has a 3:4 capture aspect option and fixes the VF lag, those alone would be worth the extra $$$$ to me LOL.
Could not agree more! And I think the Z8 will arrive sooner than later :thumbs:
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Thats a great price for the Z7 and 24-70. Is that the F2.8 24-70 or F4? Just curious.

The next pro models seems to be the Z9, as there have been "distant" rumors about the Z9 coming, with the 60MP chip that Sony has now in their Latest AR7 camera.
The last I read about it was about 1 month ago, as folks were thinking Nikon would mention it at Vegas CES, but apparently did not.

Only rumor is development starts in 2nd 2020, which would odds are mean shipping in 2021?

The EVF on the Z7 for me is still pretty impressive, in regards to lag, I rarely notice it even in panning shots for (mainly trains). I will see it in bird work, with smaller birds, but I have yet to see any EVF that can handle the movements of birds. The GFX lag, for me is much more noticeable. Especially on the GFX100, that I have used a couple of times.

Paul C
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
I've owned/used the D850,D800,D810,Z6 and Z7. I simply love the Z7 best. It has many more useful features imo, and is a rugged camera in general...so far. The EVF magnification is an amazing tool that lets you shoot without having to look at images on an LCD in bright ambient conditions. The dynamic range is impressive! The ability to crop is incredibly useful too. For adapting other lenses nothing beats the Z7, again, my opinion. Try shooting a Nikon 50mm 1.2 on a DSLR at 1.2. I've used the Z7 for many professional shoots and find it's the most intuitive Nikon I've used to date. I do, keeping hitting the exposure comp. button when going for the ISO, but that's user error. As for lenses, the S 50mm 1.8S is the best general purpose lens I've ever used...period. For some reason, I don't bond with the S 85mm 1.8S. It's good, but lacks character, and for me that's more important than resolution. Using the FTZ with a 105mm f2.5 AI-s, 105mm 1.4, and a Z6 with a Nikkor 50mm 1.2, have been flawless. If you have a lot of other brand lenses, especially M, LTM or F mount, nothing comes close to the Z series for usability. Yes, I would like two cards, but the XQD is a robust, stable media that's lighting fast on read/write speeds at full RAW. I do shoot using both RAW and JPG and only use one card for one camera and always format "in camera". I would have gone for the Z50 as a b/u camera, but the different batteries made me consider the Z6 instead. I'm primarily a stills shooter, but wouldn't hesitate to use the Z series for professional video.
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
I've owned/used the D850,D800,D810,Z6 and Z7. I simply love the Z7 best. It has many more useful features imo, and is a rugged camera in general...so far. The EVF magnification is an amazing tool that lets you shoot without having to look at images on an LCD in bright ambient conditions. The dynamic range is impressive! The ability to crop is incredibly useful too. For adapting other lenses nothing beats the Z7, again, my opinion. Try shooting a Nikon 50mm 1.2 on a DSLR at 1.2. I've used the Z7 for many professional shoots and find it's the most intuitive Nikon I've used to date. I do, keeping hitting the exposure comp. button when going for the ISO, but that's user error. As for lenses, the S 50mm 1.8S is the best general purpose lens I've ever used...period. For some reason, I don't bond with the S 85mm 1.8S. It's good, but lacks character, and for me that's more important than resolution. Using the FTZ with a 105mm f2.5 AI-s, 105mm 1.4, and a Z6 with a Nikkor 50mm 1.2, have been flawless. If you have a lot of other brand lenses, especially M, LTM or F mount, nothing comes close to the Z series for usability. Yes, I would like two cards, but the XQD is a robust, stable media that's lighting fast on read/write speeds at full RAW. I do shoot using both RAW and JPG and only use one card for one camera and always format "in camera". I would have gone for the Z50 as a b/u camera, but the different batteries made me consider the Z6 instead. I'm primarily a stills shooter, but wouldn't hesitate to use the Z series for professional video.
I second your view, JD :thumbup:
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Currently agonizing over if 24MP cropped is enough for what I do
If you are talking about a print output, then the crop does not matter. If you are printing to the full width of your paper with the short dimension of your 3:2 file, then cropping the file to 4:3 or 1:1 does not change anything in terms of image size/quality. Those will not be perceived as different in quality as the final DPI stays the same--if that makes sense.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
If you are talking about a print output, then the crop does not matter. If you are printing to the full width of your paper with the short dimension of your 3:2 file, then cropping the file to 4:3 or 1:1 does not change anything in terms of image size/quality. Those will not be perceived as different in quality as the final DPI stays the same--if that makes sense.
Totally understand. It is more for me that a few of the lenses I'll be using for a lot of this work likely won't resolve past 24MP anyway --actually may not resolve 24 to begin with-- so the extra pixels become mostly irrelevant for them. However they seem to be highly relevant for the line of Z lenses, and I will own a few of those. Ultimately I will want 2 bodies, so the real question is do I want 2 of the same, or 2 different? Then in fact, a Z8 (assuming it fixes current Z7/6 warts) and Z7 would be more inline with my ultimate goal. Hope that clarifies.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
I only order film and small accessories from B&H after they delivered a few camera/lenses with minimal packaging. Unique Photo has a used Z6 for less than $1500. They have a great reputation too.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Totally understand. It is more for me that a few of the lenses I'll be using for a lot of this work likely won't resolve past 24MP anyway --actually may not resolve 24 to begin with-- so the extra pixels become mostly irrelevant for them. However they seem to be highly relevant for the line of Z lenses, and I will own a few of those. Ultimately I will want 2 bodies, so the real question is do I want 2 of the same, or 2 different? Then in fact, a Z8 (assuming it fixes current Z7/6 warts) and Z7 would be more inline with my ultimate goal. Hope that clarifies.
Since it is not my money...:angel:

I am sure I am not going to say anything you have not considered, but I would go with two of that same as I usually work with portfolios/series of images. That way I can be sure of consistency among shots and I don't have to worry about having the "right" lens on the "right" body. Personally speaking, the lower resolution camera might go unused unless it had some clear advantage in certain situations. But having said that, I found my RX-1 a perfect companion to my Pentax 645D, so you should never believe anything I say...
 

DougDolde

Well-known member
$2500 for the refurb Z7 and zoom really is tempting. I could probably get that for my D850 and three primes. mpb.com offered $1680 for the D850 body alone. I'd have a bit less coverage than with my 20mm, 28mm, and 85mm primes so maybe not such a good idea. I do love primes over zooms. Just talked myself out of it
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Plus your primes are about 2-½ stops faster than the basic zoom and 1-½ faster than the primo zoom. But those primes will also work just fine on the Z7 with FTZ adaptor :thumbs:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I mostly find it more satisying shooting with primes. The flexibility I lose not being able to zoom in or out I re-gain by having more apertures to choose from and not least knowing that I have the sharpest knife in the drawer with the most beautiful bokeh. If I'm going to kill someone, I'll choose the dagger not the Swiss Army Knife.
 

Swissblad

Well-known member
Plus your primes are about 2-½ stops faster than the basic zoom and 1-½ faster than the primo zoom. But those primes will also work just fine on the Z7 with FTZ adaptor :thumbs:
t would seem that best results on the Z7 would be obtained using dedicated Z glass and not older F series lenses as many cannot resolve past 36mp....refer to https://photographylife.com/nikon-dslr-resolution

Curious what the experience of other is.
 

JohnBrew

Active member
I was of the opinion that my long f-glass needed focus adjustment, but now not so sure...
I did try the focus adjustment in-camera ala D810, but it was all over the map. Perhaps some of us are experiencing adapter sample variation? I mean, hell I don’t know, but I don’t understand it either.:banghead:
 

pegelli

Well-known member
t would seem that best results on the Z7 would be obtained using dedicated Z glass and not older F series lenses as many cannot resolve past 36mp....refer to https://photographylife.com/nikon-dslr-resolution

Curious what the experience of other is.
I'm not a specialist but I'm reading conflicting information on a "hard limit" of the resolving power of lenses vs. sensor resolution.

The article linked above is talking about a real hard limit for a lens, like hitting a brick wall above which the resolution doesn't increase with increased MP count.

While there is also information around that claims (unless your lens is made from a coke bottle bottom) that higher MP sensors will always show more detail as lower MP sensors (both of the same size) although the gain in resolution might be less than the ratio of the theoretical linear resolution of the two sensors.

Is there anybody who can shed some light on these two conflicting theories (or statements)?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
@John Brew: As I understand it, since the Z cams focus off the sensor, your AF-S/G/P/E should all focus pretty darn well out of the gate. Screw drive AF-D not so much.

Re lens limit. Once the sensor resolves better than the lens you technically gain nothing re pure resolution. However, at that same time you do gain over-sampling from the extra pixels, and that can effectively add back resolution through interpolation. While not exactly real detail, given the nature of how it's achieved, that interpolation is going to be very, very close to what was actually there in reality. At worst, it can give the impression of more detail...

I would add that very few lenses are going to resolve 50MP on a FF sensor, including the best Zeiss or Leica or even Nikon glass. But the added freedom of lens design from the shorter flange focal of the Z mount, should at least theoretically allow Nikon to design better lenses than we had in the past, especially at the 50mm and wider end; and I think that's already been shown to us with the 50 and 35 Z primes...
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I'm not a specialist but I'm reading conflicting information on a "hard limit" of the resolving power of lenses vs. sensor resolution.

The article linked above is talking about a real hard limit for a lens, like hitting a brick wall above which the resolution doesn't increase with increased MP count.

While there is also information around that claims (unless your lens is made from a coke bottle bottom) that higher MP sensors will always show more detail as lower MP sensors (both of the same size) although the gain in resolution might be less than the ratio of the theoretical linear resolution of the two sensors.

Is there anybody who can shed some light on these two conflicting theories (or statements)?
My understanding, and I'll remove the math:

The lens blurs "reality" some amount.

Sensor sampling blurs the lens image some amount.

The final image is the combination of those two blurrings. Making either one smaller improves the resolution of the final image. But if the lens blurs 1000 times as much as sensor A, then the possible improvement by going to higher resolution sensors is limited to 0.1%. It will ALWAYS get better, but it may be imperceptible.

So for each lens, there is an ideal resolution which can be approached, but never matched or exceeded by going to higher MP counts. Nevertheless, increasing the MP count always gets you closer to that limit.

Disclaimer: I'm a mathematician, not an optical systems designer or tester. My answer is theoretical, but I believe it is sound.

Matt

(The Nyquist theorem doesn't apply because finite pixel size still convolves the point measurements with the pixel shape. If someone wants to hit me with the fact that a pixel width of the Planck length will cause new particles to spring out of the vacuum, I'll qualify my statements above to sensors of less than a quadrillion pixels. A one micron pitch FF sensor would have just under a billion pixels, so we're good up to there. :toocool:)
 

pegelli

Well-known member
I did a little test with my "worst" lens, a very old Meyer Görlitz Trioplan 50/2.8 and used it wide open. Given the age and quality of this lens I suspect it falls in the category that doesn't even resolve 24 MP so I wanted to see the difference at the same output size from two sensors.

Then I shot a test card from about 2 meter with the A7ii (24 MP) and the A7Rii (42 MP), Sorry I don't have the Z6 and Z7 but I think the results will look very similar.

Imported both shots in Lightroom, started pixel peeping, enlarged the 24 MP shot 4 times and the 42 MP shot 3 times so the output size is almost equal.
Sharpening and both noise reduction sliders at 0

Here's the result:



My conclusion is that the higher MP sensor seems to be able to draw more detail from this "near coke bottle bottom" lens which is in line with the theoretical story by MGrayson above. I'd be open to differing opinions or doing the test differently :)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I did a little test with my "worst" lens, a very old Meyer Görlitz Trioplan 50/2.8 and used it wide open. Given the age and quality of this lens I suspect it falls in the category that doesn't even resolve 24 MP so I wanted to see the difference at the same output size from two sensors.

Then I shot a test card from about 2 meter with the A7ii (24 MP) and the A7Rii (42 MP), Sorry I don't have the Z6 and Z7 but I think the results will look very similar.

Imported both shots in Lightroom, started pixel peeping, enlarged the 24 MP shot 4 times and the 42 MP shot 3 times so the output size is almost equal.
Sharpening and both noise reduction sliders at 0

Here's the result:



My conclusion is that the higher MP sensor seems to be able to draw more detail from this "near coke bottle bottom" lens which is in line with the theoretical story by MGrayson above. I'd be open to differing opinions or doing the test differently :)
And that's due to the oversampling effect I was discussing above. Matt, I do not believe this is in direct conflict with your comments, but oversampling in digital has a tangible benefit if sampled at Nyquist (2x base resolution) or above. Without going into the math, we basically impart an interpolated artifact at the midpoint (½ Nyquist); and voila, more perceived resolution... In Pegelli's example, it was enough to clarify the data accurately on the 6 to 7 line pairs -- though note we have a hint of a false artifact about ¾ way up that line pair progression in a thicker or darker line. I would further guess that the 7-8 line pairs and above are below Nyquist for that sensor. Would a 200MP sensor generate realistic detail between the 7-8 pairs? I have no idea, but suspect they might, though probably not as accurately as they did for 6-7...
 
Top