Z6 or Z7 -- or both ???

[MGrayson]

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...

Jack,

Oh, I'm not addressing oversampling at all. I'm assuming that the sensor has a proper AA filter, which they never do, these days, which surprises the heck out of me. But:

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

Matt

 

[pegelli]

Jack, thanks for the explanation, which to be fair I don't totally understand but so be it. However in practical terms the lines between 6 and 7 seems very much like real detail that is really there and can be seen well with the 42 MP sensor and becomes a moiré'd mess with the 24 MP sensor under identical shooting conditions, lens and aperture. So the conclusion of the Photographylive article that started this discussion doesn't seem to be correct, more MP's give more detail, even with "bad" lenses like I used in my simplistic test.

 

[Jack]

Pegelli, firstly we are assuming the lens used cannot out-resolve the A7ii sensor -- that may not be an accurate assumption; and bear in mind, acutance is different than resolution as contrast is in play...

You could repeat the test with your sensor oriented 45 degrees to the lines, and this would be more telling about the interpolation quality too...

 

[pegelli]

Pegelli, firstly we are assuming the lens used cannot out-resolve the A7ii sensor -- that may not be an accurate assumption; and bear in mind, acutance is different than resolution as contrast is in play...

True, I can't imagine but don't have any real data. It's just the "unsharpest" lens I have, maybe I'll make a series and see how much it improves when stopping down. Or move the test image closer to the corner, they are so mushy that I cant imagine 24 MP gets resolved there

You could repeat the test with your sensor oriented 45 degrees to the lines, and this would be more telling about the interpolation quality too...

Splendid idea, a job for next week. Stay tuned and I'll report back. I'd like to understand more about the practical aspects of the brick wall vs. slippery slope of lens vs. sensor resolution. :salute:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jack,

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

Matt

Exactly! I have used old Sigma and Nikon (ED) 70-300mm lenses, the ones you can get more or less for free these days, on D800 and D810 bodies and seen resolution and sharpness that to the human eye was approaching that of my 85mm f/1.8 and well beyond what they would render with a lower resolution sensor (I also used them on the D700 with much inferior results). Of course the prime looked sharper when pixel peeping, but the perceived resolution when looking at the whole picture was similar, particularly for people shots.

The problem with lens resolution tests is that they are mostly based on straight lines and hard contrast. In reality, there are very few straight lines in a real photo. Even architecture shots of modern buildings have gradients in the straight lines, and more so with higher resolution. Yes, there is a difference between lenses, but good lenses that according to tests shouldn't resolve more than 24 or even 12MP will still show more detail at 36MP than they do with the lower resolution sensors. Bad lenses on the other hand will always be bad, no matter what. My ancient Tamron 24-135 couldn't even keep up with the 6MP Fuji sensors of the S3 and S5 when shot beyond 50mm.

It's a bit like the old discussion about perceived detail and Tri-X. One sees detail that shouldn't be there, at least not in theory.

Did this make sense?

 

[DougDolde]

I think if I only wanted 24, actually 26 megapixels I'd buy a Fujifilm X-T3

 

[Jack]

I find the ergos on Sony cams annoying at best.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I think if I only wanted 24, actually 26 megapixels I'd buy a Fujifilm X-T3

The disadvantage buying into the Fuji system is that one gets locked into APS-C. With Nikon, both sensor sizes are available, in addition to the option of going very high resolution with the Z7 if needed later. Nikon also offers IBIS, which may or may not be important. When it comes to size, the X-T3 is almost as large as the Nikon and almost as heavy. Changing brands also means changing user interface and menu systems.

 

[pegelli]

I find the ergos on Sony cams annoying at best.

Good for you, but that's very personal.

I have the same with any Nikon body shape. Performance wise I've always wanted to have a Nikon but as soon as I handle the body (DSLR or Z makes no difference) that desire is sunk very quickly. It's good there are choices so everybody can choose what's right for him or her.

 

[rayyan]

Thread is about getting a Z6, Z7 or both.

Not about brands, ergos of other brands, different sized sensors
weight, or needs & wants, or whether one can or cannot afford any particular camera
brand eco system.

Jack has already committed to a system of his
chosing. i wish him good light with his choice.

Others, have made their choice, accepting a system’s
compromises ( or not ? ). Good luck to them.

i would prefer to see images made with any system.

Endless talk regurgitating the merits or otherwise
of camera systems does not improve my photography nor
expand my image making vision or thought.

As a mediocre photog n a verrry sloweww learner please show
me your work...not what tool u used to create it.

 

[Jack]

Ray,

I'll share my wrk with the new gear once I actually get it

While I agree generally with your comment, I disagree that gear discussion has no merit. We all understand certain gears fulfilling individual needs better than others, and the discussion of those merits can have a beneficial effect on a would-be purchaser. For example, after reading what Pegelli said about Nikon ergos and what I said about Sony ergos, a shooter who didn't feel fully comfortable with Nikon ergos, might now decide to look at Sony before making their final choice -- a hopefully a better decision *for them* will result from it.

Pax,

 

[Jack]

Update... So I got over my initial distaste at receiving a DOA kit and have re-ordered. But this time a Z7 -- so maybe it was all for the best, we will see! (Oh and yes, I did order a spare battery!)

 

[Swissblad]

Update... So I got over my initial distaste at receiving a DOA kit and have re-ordered. But this time a Z7 -- so maybe it was all for the best, we will see! (Oh and yes, I did order a spare battery!)

Congrats Jack!
Have fun - keen to see 1st pix.
:thumbs:

 

[Jack]

Cam arrived. One battery partially charged, the pother dead flat, one in charger the other trying to charge through cam on AC, both taking FOREVER lol. Can't update FW until battery is full. (Edit -- first battery now fully charged, FW updating -- yeah!)

Got most of the menu settings set, at least close enough to start, will prolly tweak as time goes on. 24-70 appears quite usably sharp just shooting HH in my office. 14-30 looks good too. Surprise was the 70-300 AF-P -- WOW, that thing is impressive for a "cheap" lens!I seriously expected mediocre, and not only does it AF quite fast on the FTZ adapter, it does it all truly silently. Hope to get some good test pics tomorrow, will post a few if worthy, stay tuned.

Only nit so far is I cannot lock the focus point joy-stick -- I hate having it move around my from just handling the cam. (Yes, I have the press set to recenter, but I find this UI frustrating.)

 

[Dustbak]

Just wait until you can really see what is coming out of the thing with the 24-70 and/or 14-30. I am constantly pleasantly surprised. The Z does need some getting used to though..

 

[Jack]

Played around with it a little last night in my backyard -- the sun had set by the time I got the batteries charged and menus figured out. Was really impressed with the 24-70, IBIS and the overall low-light capabilities. I limited ISO to 6400, and shot around my backyard at f6.3, and the results were frankly impressive.

I remain a little conflicted on the EVF: I like the weight and compact size it offers, LOVE using it in low light situations, but definitely prefer the clarity one gets from an OVF. Overall, I believe I will adjust. Still need to work with the 14-30 a bit -- but it sure seems like a winner too.

Going to play around with the entire kit today as soon as I get caught up at the office. Hopefully I'll have something worthwhile to share by tomorrow.

 

[Jack]

Okay, first images out of cam as promised. The light was HARSH, cloudy bright, and this old Victorian is actually backlit, hence the limited detail in the sky -- nothing stellar here at all, just a few quick test grabs on my lunch break. They are basically SOOC jpegs, just downsized for display here. I am EXTREMELY impressed with how well the Z7 handled the light. The histo for these shots was basically two pretty good hump spikes at each end, but nothing was clipped(!) Oh, I do have auto-lens corrections turned "on" in the menu:

First is the 24-70 at 35mm f6.3:

Next is same house with Lensbaby 35mm at f4, vignette slider at position 2 (There is full open, then 3 click levels for adding lighting vignette, but you can of course use it in-between click-stops.) I note this lens renders a bit cooler than Nikon, but most of the time I'm going to be shooting with it in mono anyway.:

Last was a HH grab of a young egret fishing, 70-300 AF-P+FTZ at 300mm f6.3 (this one I did add a touch of brightness before I sized as the Egret was standing in a shaded culvert):

 

[Jack]

I just have to add that the performance of the "kit" 24-70 is darned impressive. It's easily as good as most primes in those ranges I've ever owned, and actually better in the corners than most of them were!

The 14-30 is equally impressive -- in fact more so as it renders essentially the same as the 24-70, which is simply remarkable for an ultra-wide zoom.

The 70-300 does show a bit of softness at 300mm, but you can really only see it at larger magnification. I'd guess it's resolving maybe half the sensor resolutionat 300(?). But 70 through 200 appears every bit as sharp as my 70-200 AF-VR-G's were at similar aperture. I also carried the 1.4X with those two zooms, and would have to give them with the 1.4x a slight nod over this lens at 300, at least judging by what I remember them doing. But the difference here is not huge, and this lens still generates a very nice and usable image at 300mm -- so for the cost and weight savings, I am a very happy camper with it

I need to spend more time with the Lensbaby before declaring victory, though I am initially optimistic. It renders a little less "obvious" than I expected it would, but the effect is clearly notable. Just a little more subtle than anticipated. I simply need to use it more thoroughly and see if it earns a permanent spot in my bag. My main issue with it is it renders almost too sharp centrally. :wtf: Edit: I edited the Lensbaby image from above, going mono, adding slight sepia and blurring the entire image slightly -- this is closer to the overall effect I am looking for. We shall see if it's worth it longer term:

That's all for now, more as I get it.

 

[Darin Marcus]

Congrats Jack, this one looks like a keeper

 

[Photon42]

Update... So I got over my initial distaste at receiving a DOA kit and have re-ordered. But this time a Z7 -- so maybe it was all for the best, we will see! (Oh and yes, I did order a spare battery!)

Better choice in my eyes for a photographer. M lenses work well, too, mostly. Not sure you have any.