When will mirrorless take over DSLR ... and time to sell mirror DSLR equipment??

[OldMacs4Me]

So I am thinking seriously of buying the Nikon Z50. No chance as yet to handle it. Hoping the sensor is solid enough to do slide copy work. Had good success with an old Canon APS-c format but that was with 4x5 slides & Negs. The Z5 would obviously be my first choice but for any thing else the Z50 would be better as it would allow lighter travel with just a single zoom lens. Will probably go with the 50mm ƒ2.8 macro, although the 100 would work even better if the depth of field is up to dealing with minor film curl.

One concern with the entire Nikon line is that cropping seems to be either 16:9 or square. I would much prefer 3:2 or 4:3. Is the viewing grid good enough to automatically find the cropping points? Can't figure out why the standard crop would be for movie format, especially as movies don't need the full sensor resolution.

 

[mollyc]

So I am thinking seriously of buying the Nikon Z50. No chance as yet to handle it. Hoping the sensor is solid enough to do slide copy work. Had good success with an old Canon APS-c format but that was with 4x5 slide. The Z5 would obviously be my first choice but for any thing else the Z50 would be better as it would allow lighter travel with just a single zoom lens. Will probably go with the 50mm ƒ2.8 macro, although the 100 would work even better if the depth of field is up to dealing with minor film curl.

One concern with the entire Nikon line is that cropping seems to be either 16:9 or square. I would much prefer 3:2 or 4:3. Is the viewing grid good enough to automatically find the cropping points? Can't figure out why the standard crop would be for movie format, especially as movies don't need the full sensor resolution.

I have never used a Nikon crop body, but all the Nikon bodies I have ever used (D700, D800, Z6, Z6ii) are the standard 2:3 ratio - the same size as 35mm film. The crop body should be the same ratio, just cut down a bit smaller. Not sure where you read that your only ratios are 16:9 or square.

 

[mollyc]

Choose Image Area

onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com

 

[OldMacs4Me]

I have never used a Nikon crop body, but all the Nikon bodies I have ever used (D700, D800, Z6, Z6ii) are the standard 2:3 ratio - the same size as 35mm film. The crop body should be the same ratio, just cut down a bit smaller. Not sure where you read that your only ratios are 16:9 or square.

Saw that in a review, but just checked the specs and 3;2 is also there. Maybe the reviewer was hung up on the movie end of things?

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

Take it for what you will given the broader discussion and the equipment I used. BTW, the faces are bugging me-I need to pull highlights. Creative critique-no not really as the image is what it is and it's priceless to me even though I know it could have been better. I've only used the D3X a bit(but just agreed to buy one from the same guy this one belongs to-just not this specific camera) but I've loved just how it outputs.



I STILL shoot a lot of film including both transparencies and B&W, so understand very well getting it right in the camera. I even keep my "Moose Polarizers"(cir. polarizer+81A) in my bag when I'm shooting film, or if I'm shooting both with a modern-ish camera like an F6 or F100 I can make do with them on digital. I like them on Velvia, but find that they're a practical necessity on Kodak's current E100. Back in the day, I use to shoot E100GX in preference to E100G, but E100 is essentially E100G(if not exactly the same emulsion). Ektachrome tends really blue in the shadows, and I find an 81B or even 81C in bright daylight a practical necessity.

Yes, things in digital can be fixed, up to a point. At the same time, you can never exactly re-create data that's not there. Manufacturers have been pushing ISOs like crazy, and one of the more subtle ways they can coax a bit more performance out of a sensor is to weaken the Bayer array. And yes the RAW file is quite literally just the RAW data, but at the same time every RAW file I've ever handled has "mark ups" with it that indicate the in-camera settings and the inital rendering in most RAW processors takes those into account as a starting point.

There's a guy on DPReview(somewhere I've never really participated to a great extent, but enjoy a lot of the more technical discussion) who has posted a progression of photos of a crayon box taken with a Canon 1D, some of the most current mirrorless cameras, and everything in between. It's rather staggering to see that certain crayons that are most certainly different colors are rendered nearly the same on newer cameras, where they are cleary different on older ones. His series keeps the white balance and saturation consistent-maybe it could be teased out in post, but it's still surprising to see. I've done much the same test with a D1, D2X, D3s, D5, and a couple of other Nikon DSLRs and find that I can differentiate colors in the crayon box easily even with newer cameras where he shows the Canons falling short, but still it was a bit eye-opening for me. It also helps explain why some cameras just naturally give different color rendition than others, and aside from in-camera processing it also is part of the reason why, just for example, the same basic 45mp sensor that both Sony and Nikon use differs in noise, DR, and more subtly but perhaps most importantly, color rendition between the two cameras. Someone who knows the "look" they want and has mastered the post-processing for both files can make magic happen with both, but the end result may still not be the same. I know my final result from my X-T5 and any of my Nikons is going to be different, although if I do my part I'm still happy with both.

At the end of the day too, I'm not someone who HATES editing, but I can't describe how happy it makes me when I pull a few hundred photos into Lightroom and nearly all of them need minimal attention to color, saturation, levels, curves, etc. I rarely touch these adjustments on files from my D4 or D5(or Df by extension) unless I've intentionally underexposed to hold highlights. If I'm doing that, the D4, Df, or one of the D8xx cameras are far better choices. It's rare that I don't import a D850 file that I don't need to adjust at least the levels and curves. As long as conditions are similar across a series of photos, I can often make one batch adjustment and get close, but every one still ends up needing individual attention. After using all three of the D8xx cameras(and each one in the series was my main camera for a couple of years at least) and still using both the D800 and D810 somewhat regularly, I feel like this has gotten worse with each successive one. It's been one reason why I've been reluctant to sell my D800.

To the camera controls-to me focus and light are everything. Composition of course is important, but I can crop if I shoot wide and even change perspective to some extent. Light of course is a whole other discussion(which is why I love being able to create my own with flash, particularly off-camera) but even that can be tweaked to some extent. There are AI tools now that can try to recover blur, but if it's out of focus to me it's usually a straight delete.

To that point too, my D4, D5, and D850(my most used cameras these days for non-static situations) are almost always set to back button focus, continuous AF, and 3D tracking. 3D tracking on the D3 cameras isn't as good as on newer ones, but it still works and I don't have much trouble adapting. I can work with pretty much any focus mode, but the big thing is that in a situation-like above-where the photo isn't posed, I have one chance to get it right. If I'm expecting AF to behave a certain way, and it doesn't when it counts, I can lose the shot. Fortunately I was able to make it work above.

You're overthinking it all. Seriously. The pic you've shown above is technically fine; nobody else cares about miniscule aspects of colour, DR etc. What you have there is a 'snap'; it's a simple record of an event, it doesn't really do anything more (to anyone else outside of your family/friends/whoever). Personally, I think it could be improved greatly by cropping the left half of the photo entirely, and just concentrating on the Santa and child. Darken the background to try to remove any distractions there, and bosh- you've got a reasonable shot. The baby's expression you can't do much about, I know; kids are often dreadful to work with. But fretting about your equipment is a waste of your energy imo.

Here you go; a very quick and dirty edit in Photoshop. Just as an example of what I meant. I totally accept that your intentions for the shot may have been very different, but this is just my take on it:

Edit: image removed at request of bunnspecial.

 

[dimme]

So I am thinking seriously of buying the Nikon Z50. No chance as yet to handle it. Hoping the sensor is solid enough to do slide copy work. Had good success with an old Canon APS-c format but that was with 4x5 slides & Negs. The Z5 would obviously be my first choice but for any thing else the Z50 would be better as it would allow lighter travel with just a single zoom lens. Will probably go with the 50mm ƒ2.8 macro, although the 100 would work even better if the depth of field is up to dealing with minor film curl.

One concern with the entire Nikon line is that cropping seems to be either 16:9 or square. I would much prefer 3:2 or 4:3. Is the viewing grid good enough to automatically find the cropping points? Can't figure out why the standard crop would be for movie format, especially as movies don't need the full sensor resolution.

I do most of my slide/neg copy work with a D90. It is not a 1:1 because of the DX sensor but for my use case it is perfect. I am not looking for a huge file, just something big enough to post on line but still have the required sharpness, etc. I do the final crop in Photoshop when it take out the dust and scratches. If I need something that is a larger file size or for printing, I will send it out for a high quality scan.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

So I am thinking seriously of buying the Nikon Z50. No chance as yet to handle it. Hoping the sensor is solid enough to do slide copy work. Had good success with an old Canon APS-c format but that was with 4x5 slides & Negs. The Z5 would obviously be my first choice but for any thing else the Z50 would be better as it would allow lighter travel with just a single zoom lens. Will probably go with the 50mm ƒ2.8 macro, although the 100 would work even better if the depth of field is up to dealing with minor film curl.

One concern with the entire Nikon line is that cropping seems to be either 16:9 or square. I would much prefer 3:2 or 4:3. Is the viewing grid good enough to automatically find the cropping points? Can't figure out why the standard crop would be for movie format, especially as movies don't need the full sensor resolution.

The 50mm f2.8 macro will work fine. You’ll of course need a slide copying adapter but you probably already know that. I use an older Nikon ES-1 with either a 60mm or 105mm macro on FF. Both are ‘flat field’ lenses, so are corrected for the curvature of the image plane. Stop down and you should get good sharpness. If you have very warped negs/slides, consider glass mounts, although these introduce problems of their own. They do keep the film flat though.

 

[smirking]

So I am thinking seriously of buying the Nikon Z50. No chance as yet to handle it.

I own a Zfc, which is basically the Z50 repackaged in a retro casing. You probably knew that. Fantastic camera! It's the only mirrorless body I own. I didn't expect to use it up so much.

I bought it as a novelty item that I would use purely for enjoyment. It's a "sip and savor" type of camera, but it works so well that I want to use it for actual work. Because of that, I wish I got the Z50 instead as the Zfc body is sub-optimal for when you want to work fast.

 

[mollyc]

So I am thinking seriously of buying the Nikon Z50. No chance as yet to handle it. Hoping the sensor is solid enough to do slide copy work. Had good success with an old Canon APS-c format but that was with 4x5 slides & Negs. The Z5 would obviously be my first choice but for any thing else the Z50 would be better as it would allow lighter travel with just a single zoom lens. Will probably go with the 50mm ƒ2.8 macro, although the 100 would work even better if the depth of field is up to dealing with minor film curl.

One concern with the entire Nikon line is that cropping seems to be either 16:9 or square. I would much prefer 3:2 or 4:3. Is the viewing grid good enough to automatically find the cropping points? Can't figure out why the standard crop would be for movie format, especially as movies don't need the full sensor resolution.

I forgot to mention that I think it's super exciting you are considering adding an ILC to your repertoire. 🙂 I'm always amazed with what you get from your point and shoots and having see some of your old film work, I think a Z50 would be great in your hands.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

I forgot to mention that I think it's super exciting you are considering adding an ILC to your repertoire. 🙂 I'm always amazed with what you get from your point and shoots and having see some of your old film work, I think a Z50 would be great in your hands.

Thanks for the complement. Realistically any uncropped improvements would be most noticeable either full screen on supersize monitors, very big enlargements, and-or significant cropping. That said picking up a couple of stops at the upper end of the ISO range is something I might occasionally be able to use effectively. But even there the Lumix is generally adequate for my needs.

Of course significant cropping is something I miss from my 4x5 days, quite often an image that makes a solid 16x20 print will have more than 1 8x10 or even an 11x14 lurking within it. Working with the tiny sensor Olympus or even the 1-inch Lumix limits but does not eliminate cropping.

BTW The best advice I ever ignored is learn to use what you have before buying more gear. I went through an eight year phase thinking that more lenses would improve my photography. They did not. But going 4x5 with a field camera and just one lens really forced me to slow down and work at the craft. Honestly if I were still up to lugging the weight and home processing 4x5, the money might be better spent on 100 sheets of 4x5 color print film and the chemistry to process them. At about $20/shot you can bet there would be very little waste.

 

[mollyc]

Possibly, although realistically any uncropped improvements would be most noticeable either full screen on supersize monitors, very big enlargements, and-or significant cropping. That said picking up a couple of stops at the upper end of the ISO range is something I might occasionally be able to use effectively.

Of course significant cropping is something I miss from my 4x5 days, quite often an image that makes a solid 16x20 print will have more than 1 8x10 or even 11x14 lurking within it.

Well for sure you'll get some more DOF options, although I know you don't really like to shoot wide open very often. Of course this depends on what lens you decide to get also.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

True. However even when I was shooting mainly 35mm film, I tended to stop down. Exception being close-up stuff. Still the little Oly has amazing close-up abilities, and will probably remain my go-to camera in that area. But having the view display on a swivel may be a game changer there.

I am leaning more and more to the 100mm Nikkor macro, just to give me a bit of working space when doing 1;1

 

[mollyc]

True. However even when I was shooting mainly 35mm film, I tended to stop down. Exception being close-up stuff. Still the little Oly has amazing close-up abilities, and will probably remain my go-to camera in that area. But having the view display on a swivel may be a game changer there.

I am leaning more and more to the 100mm Nikkor macro, just to give me a bit of working space when doing 1;1

i use the nikon 105 to scan my film.

on an aps-c body you won’t get true 1:1 anyway but this lens will get you more than a non macro lens.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

i use the nikon 105 to scan my film.

on an aps-c body you won’t get true 1:1 anyway but this lens will get you more than a non macro lens.

I find that confusing. The lens will go to 1;1 on the Z5. Since the Z50 essentially just crops a portion of the full frame image, why wouldn't it appear to get in a little closer than 1:1? IOW even allow a small margin of in camera cropping when copying slides?

Yes I know the result would be about identical to shooting a Z5 at 1;1 then cropping after the fact.

 

[mollyc]

I find that confusing. The lens will go to 1;1 on the Z5. Since the Z50 essentially crops a portion of the full frame image, why wouldn't it appear to get in a bit tighter? IOW even allow a small margin of in camera cropping when copying slides?

Yes I know the result would be about identical to shooting a Z5 1;1 then cropping after the fact.

full frame digital is the same size as 35mm film. the sensor of a crop body is smaller than 35mm. a crop frame will inherently crop out the edges. i would assume you want the whole slide, so your effective resolution is a bit smaller using a z50.

 

[mollyc]

In other words, to get the full 35mm slide on a crop sized sensor, you effectively have to zoom out, have the camera further away from the slide, therefore reducing some of the macro magnification.

In actuality you won’t notice any difference.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Yes there would be a slight advantage to going with the Z5 for slide copy. However the limiting factor is the film emulsion not the sensor size. If I went Z5 I probably use it exclusively for copy purposes. As I say the Z50 would allow some cropping in camera, wheras the Z5 would just go to 1:1.

However the smaller size, lighter weight and fewer lenses combination, makes the Z50 the more attractive camera for more mundane everyday use, and the macro lens would still work just fine even if I decided to go full frame later on.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

I am leaning more and more to the 100mm Nikkor macro, just to give me a bit of working space when doing 1;1

I much prefer the 105mm to the 55/60mm focal legth for macro, as it means you can be just that bit further from the subject, so less chance of disturbing insects/creatures and that. The shorter macro lenses are perhaps better suited to stuff like flowers and foilage. Also; consider that the Z50 does not have focus stacking I believe; this is a very useful feature if you want your images to have greater DoF than offered by the lens alone. This is absolute witchcraft. Currently only available on the Z5 up.

 

[kenoh]

BTW The best advice I ever ignored is learn to use what you have before buying more gear. I went through an eight year phase thinking that more lenses would improve my photography. It did not.

I think this lesson is the single most valuable yet most ignored. Unfortunately it is pretty much one of those you have to learn for yourself or it just doesnt take root in your brain.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

BTW The best advice I ever ignored is learn to use what you have before buying more gear. I went through an eight year phase thinking that more lenses would improve my photography. It did not.

There are plenty of 'all the gear no idea' types out there in the world of photography. You find them inhabiting photography forums, usually. My faves are the Leica owners who bang on about the mythical qualities of that brand, yet produce the most mundane images that could just as easily be shot on a 'phone. I had no money when I started doing photography, so any new (mostly second hand) equipment had to be very carefully considered. I tended to only buy something when I'd been struggling with the limits of what I had. And I invariably only bought something when I found it very cheap. So I never had the fancy f1.4 versions of lenses, just the f2 or f1.8 ones etc. When I did buy an AF cam,I had one AF lens, the rest were al MF because that's all I could afford. But I still only had a relatively small outfit; I think about 5 lenses, but I was still able to do some professional work with it. Now, with more money at my disposal, I still don't buy very much. I have what I will use, and that's not a huge range, but it suits my needs perfectly. I don't own any lens over 200mm focal length; I did have a Sigma 120-400mm zoom once but it was poor quality so I returned it. My Nikon Z kit has expanded in the 4.5 years since I bought a Z6 and the kit zoom, but still only consists of one camera and 4 lenses. It's all about need, rather than want.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

BTW The best advice I ever ignored is learn to use what you have before buying more gear. I went through an eight year phase thinking that more lenses would improve my photography. They did not.

I think this lesson is the single most valuable yet most ignored. Unfortunately it is pretty much one of those you have to learn for yourself or it just doesnt take root in your brain.

Absolutely!
Thing is today there are some truly Swiss Army Knife type cameras. The Lumix ZS100 or 200 are good examples but there are many others. Reasonable close-up capabilities, good zoom lenses, easy to carry anywhere, can be somewhat inexpensive... One can go a very long way with one of these and get a very good idea where their main interest lies before shelling out big bucks at the higher end. Bonus is that when all the dust settles you still have a really good travel or hiking camera. My Lumix 200 with padded holster case, spare battery and card, comes in just under 450gms (less than a pound). Charger is also light if talking extended trips.

 

[Clix Pix]

I think this lesson is the single most valuable yet most ignored. Unfortunately it is pretty much one of those you have to learn for yourself or it just doesnt take root in your brain.

I agree. I learned that lesson through the years I was using and accumulating Nikon lenses and prior to trading everything in when I was shifting to mirrorless, I made note of which lenses I had actually reached for time and time again and which seemed to be a lens that I purchased, maybe used two or three times and then spent most of its life in the camera bag or Pelican case.

I considered the need for flexibility in range selection because I tend to shoot various subjects, but primarily macros/closeups and at the other end, wildlife with long lenses. Even before making the switch to Sony I made a list prioritizing the lenses I felt I would want and need early-on, say within the first year or two. Other lenses were further down the list, either to be purchased later on or decided against altogether. That system has worked well for me.

Something else I decided earlier this year would be useful would be to do a little "Lens of the Week" project. Each week I select one lens which will be used during that time frame, but not exclusively, as situations arise where I do need to employ other lenses for specific purposes. This has been fun and a nice way of ensuring that each lens gets some love and attention and isn't just sitting in the cabinet for months on end. (And, yes, it also reduces the onset of GAS, too!)

 

[Apple fanboy]

I agree. I learned that lesson through the years I was using and accumulating Nikon lenses and prior to trading everything in when I was shifting to mirrorless, I made note of which lenses I had actually reached for time and time again and which seemed to be a lens that I purchased, maybe used two or three times and then spent most of its life in the camera bag or Pelican case.

I considered the need for flexibility in range selection because I tend to shoot various subjects, but primarily macros/closeups and at the other end, wildlife with long lenses. Even before making the switch to Sony I made a list prioritizing the lenses I felt I would want and need early-on, say within the first year or two. Other lenses were further down the list, either to be purchased later on or decided against altogether. That system has worked well for me.

Something else I decided earlier this year would be useful would be to do a little "Lens of the Week" project. Each week I select one lens which will be used during that time frame, but not exclusively, as situations arise where I do need to employ other lenses for specific purposes. This has been fun and a nice way of ensuring that each lens gets some love and attention and isn't just sitting in the cabinet for months on end. (And, yes, it also reduces the onset of GAS, too!)

@kenoh couldn’t do a lens of the week project. He has more than 52 lenses! 🤣

 

[kenoh]

@kenoh couldn’t do a lens of the week project. He has more than 52 lenses! 🤣

Mate, you know me, i probably have that number in 50mm lenses alone.....

Joking!

but yeah, missed you too mate.... I was lining up a sale for you last week for a friend who wants a pair of monitors.... I may point him in your direction soon....

It is interesting though how we focus on flexibility and collecting a "just in case" setup just to favour one lens leaving the just in case stuff "just IN the case"... but we have to learn that for ourselves.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Mate, you know me, i probably have that number in 50mm lenses alone.....

Joking!

but yeah, missed you too mate.... I was lining up a sale for you last week for a friend who wants a pair of monitors.... I may point him in your direction soon....

It is interesting though how we focus on flexibility and collecting a "just in case" setup just to favour one lens leaving the just in case stuff "just IN the case"... but we have to learn that for ourselves.

I keep thinking about thinning out my gear. But every lens has a job. I think my 10.5mm fisheye has been out with me about 2-3 times in 7 or 8 years!