Author Topic: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC  (Read 883 times)

chambeshi

  • Woody
  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 587
  • Woody
    • Chambeshi Photography FCotterill Photographic Explorations
DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« on: December 16, 2019, 12:00:43 »
I hesitate to bury this reply to Cyril in the trending Thread 'Nikon Negativity'...so here follows :-)

Thanks for yours
But if anything, buying a D500 meant you had access to more lenses, not fewer! FX and DX. So the initial statement of the gentleman in the article is simply false.
Agreed, the newer 10-20 DX would be the only F-Nikkor I'd consider but personal choice. The other is the new dinky 16-50 Z-DX Nikkor, which one reads performs well on the Z FX cameras. Unfortunately, I want to try shooting this sharp, compact zoom at 1:1 format on a Z7 (not only DX) but apparently the firmware doesn't allow this (!)

You see the switch from DX to FX or Z as an upgrade but is it really? I don't own either of those, so only you can tell us if -- taking into account the 1,500 euro difference --  the Z7 is definitely superior in every way, or is it a different camera and a different tool in the sense that both cameras are good in their separate roles.
Regards
Yes going from D500 to Z7 incurs a few losses and costs - industry leading AFC of the D500 being the main one, besides higher cost of the Z7. OTH, I not only wanted 45mp in FX but the flexibility to shoot DX or more often 1:1. There are also the benefits of lower noise and higher DR with FX.

For wildlife the Z silent shutter has proved its benefits again and again (example below, where I was privileged to shoot nearly 90 frames of this shy caracal). Typically, IME many small mammals bolt at the first clank of the DSLR, or their attention shifts to the sound. The wysiwyg benefits of Z EVF are a real pleasure, plus image view without taking one's eye off the subject. Access into the customized i-menu is yet another positive.

The Z7 is arguably the best landscape camera made, well at least for the Galen Rowell style of hiking with lightest gear: chasing fleeting scenes. The 14-30 f4S Nikkor clinches this advantage: adding a Gitzo Traveller tripod and 100 grad filter kit.

But D850 stands tall for action and equally with the very fast, precise AF acquisition. And Nikon have yet to allow us to customize a front Fn control of a Z camera to AF-On+Focus mode. It is a boon to setup a DSLR to AF-ON+Single-point...allowing instant switching of AF modes.



D850, Z7, 20 f4 AI 28 f2.8AIS 45 f2.8AIP 55mm 2.8AIS+60 f2.8G Micro 58 f1.4G, 85 f1.4D, 105 f2.5AIS, 400 f2.8E VRII 300 f4E PF 500 f5.6E P, 18-35 G, 24-70 f4S, 70-180 Micro f4-5.6D 70-200 f2.8E FL, Zeiss Distagons -15 f2.8, 21 f2.8

Cyril

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2019, 13:20:53 »
Thank you for your insight, very helpful. Criticism of a camera should be based around the needs of the photographer and the intent behind the camera design.It wouldn't make any sense basing our final judgement of a medium format camera on how it performed in sports action scenario... Kudos to you

Tristin

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1007
  • Nothing less, always more.
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2019, 06:47:49 »
I really love the processing of that image, which itself is very well done.  Was this a very high ISO, or did you give it that look?  It reminds me of quality illustrations from the 70s and 80s in animal books.  Very lovely, painting like!
-Tristin

chambeshi

  • Woody
  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 587
  • Woody
    • Chambeshi Photography FCotterill Photographic Explorations
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2019, 17:11:13 »
I really love the processing of that image, which itself is very well done.  Was this a very high ISO, or did you give it that look?  It reminds me of quality illustrations from the 70s and 80s in animal books.  Very lovely, painting like!
Thank you. ISO1800 with judicious Noise Reduction in LR. Because of the subject distance of almost 70m with 500 PF +TC14 III, this is a 1818 x1813 crop of the raw file. A conservation agency have used this image enlarged on canvas to A1. Personally, would have preferred more pixels but this is one of Africa's most elusive wildlife subjects, and of an elusive species. Many naturalists with years spent in Africa have never seen a caracal in decades outdoors. It's easier in the SW Cape where they have become more habituated in agricultural landscapes, where I am privileged with about 10 encounters/year. Yet it is still very hard to close the distance, they are just too alert. These two wild kittens seemed to see right through my camo netting [ISO 3200, 400 f2.8E+TC2 with Z7].
D850, Z7, 20 f4 AI 28 f2.8AIS 45 f2.8AIP 55mm 2.8AIS+60 f2.8G Micro 58 f1.4G, 85 f1.4D, 105 f2.5AIS, 400 f2.8E VRII 300 f4E PF 500 f5.6E P, 18-35 G, 24-70 f4S, 70-180 Micro f4-5.6D 70-200 f2.8E FL, Zeiss Distagons -15 f2.8, 21 f2.8

Cyril

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2019, 18:03:05 »
Thanks for sharing that with us. Look at that face, absolutely gorgeous. They're almost too cute to be real  :o Well done getting that close ;D

Bill Mellen

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 303
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2019, 22:02:58 »
Wonderful images Woody!

I don't think I will ever have a chance to see one in the wild.  Thank you for sharing!
Everything gets better as we grow younger and thinner

ColinM

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 764
  • Bristol, UK
    • My Pictures
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2019, 22:41:24 »
I like the 2nd & 3rd images as much as the first.

However good the (admittedly silent) Z7 is, the 400mm f2.8 and the photographer must take much of the credit :)

Nasos Kosmas

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 233
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2019, 09:41:56 »
Very very nice!

Akira

  • Homo jezoensis
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 9141
  • Tokyo, Japan
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2019, 11:08:56 »
The caracal in #1 looks ferocious, but the ones in #2 and 3 look quite cute!  Thank you for sharing!
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

"Limitation is inspiration." - Akira

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 5205
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2020, 15:16:03 »
Guess I was lucky,,, D3 300mm f/2.8 AFS
18828658000_e097a0d0a4_o by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr
Erik Lund

Akira

  • Homo jezoensis
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 9141
  • Tokyo, Japan
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2020, 15:22:20 »
Guess I was lucky,,, D3 300mm f/2.8 AFS

Erik, is the line yours, or of the caracal with all these scratches around its nose?   ;D
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

"Limitation is inspiration." - Akira

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 5205
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2020, 17:26:58 »
Erik, is the line yours, or of the caracal with all these scratches around its nose?   ;D
Both  8)
Erik Lund

Akira

  • Homo jezoensis
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 9141
  • Tokyo, Japan
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2020, 17:40:41 »
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

"Limitation is inspiration." - Akira

Nikfuson

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 206
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2020, 20:25:14 »
I hesitate to bury this reply to Cyril in the trending Thread 'Nikon Negativity'...so here follows :-)

Thanks for yoursAgreed, the newer 10-20 DX would be the only F-Nikkor I'd consider but personal choice. The other is the new dinky 16-50 Z-DX Nikkor, which one reads performs well on the Z FX cameras. Unfortunately, I want to try shooting this sharp, compact zoom at 1:1 format on a Z7 (not only DX) but apparently the firmware doesn't allow this (!)
Yes going from D500 to Z7 incurs a few losses and costs - industry leading AFC of the D500 being the main one, besides higher cost of the Z7. OTH, I not only wanted 45mp in FX but the flexibility to shoot DX or more often 1:1. There are also the benefits of lower noise and higher DR with FX.

For wildlife the Z silent shutter has proved its benefits again and again (example below, where I was privileged to shoot nearly 90 frames of this shy caracal). Typically, IME many small mammals bolt at the first clank of the DSLR, or their attention shifts to the sound. The wysiwyg benefits of Z EVF are a real pleasure, plus image view without taking one's eye off the subject. Access into the customized i-menu is yet another positive.

The Z7 is arguably the best landscape camera made, well at least for the Galen Rowell style of hiking with lightest gear: chasing fleeting scenes. The 14-30 f4S Nikkor clinches this advantage: adding a Gitzo Traveller tripod and 100 grad filter kit.

But D850 stands tall for action and equally with the very fast, precise AF acquisition. And Nikon have yet to allow us to customize a front Fn control of a Z camera to AF-On+Focus mode. It is a boon to setup a DSLR to AF-ON+Single-point...allowing instant switching of AF modes.

Great photo; has a very painterly look to it  :)
And thanks for sharing your view on the topic.

chambeshi

  • Woody
  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 587
  • Woody
    • Chambeshi Photography FCotterill Photographic Explorations
Re: DX compared to FX...DSLR vs MILC
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2020, 08:54:49 »
Guess I was lucky,,, D3 300mm f/2.8 AFS

A Beautiful Portrait :-)
D850, Z7, 20 f4 AI 28 f2.8AIS 45 f2.8AIP 55mm 2.8AIS+60 f2.8G Micro 58 f1.4G, 85 f1.4D, 105 f2.5AIS, 400 f2.8E VRII 300 f4E PF 500 f5.6E P, 18-35 G, 24-70 f4S, 70-180 Micro f4-5.6D 70-200 f2.8E FL, Zeiss Distagons -15 f2.8, 21 f2.8