Thinking of upgrading to a full-frame camera- Z9?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pschlute

The image circle produced by a lens is identical across all formats. It is the rectangular size of the smaller aps-c sensor that takes a smaller bite out of the image circle that creates the narrower FOV and gives a larger image, and the impression of "longer reach"

---

Right. That’s what I meant. Sorry about the sloppy wording. But my point remains: AOV for any given FL varies with sensor size. I don't understand Ted's comment that suggests that it doesn't.

The term equivalent in this case means “AOV equivalent to a lens of FL x on a full frame camera.” As someone who shoots with 3 sensor sizes, I find this concept valuable. I used this idea just this week to figure out lenses for an MFT camera.

As a macro photographer, I think of magnification in the ”proper” way: the ratio of the size of the projected image to the size of the subject. It’s sometime also useful to focus on the ratio of the size of the projected image to the size of the frame, but I don’t think we have a standard term for that, hence the confusion about “magnification”. That’s also one reason people talk about “reach”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

Right. That’s what I meant. Sorry about the sloppy wording. But my point remains: AOV for any given FL varies with sensor size. I don't understand Ted's comment that suggests that it doesn't.

---

I never mentioned AOV which is also not a property of a sensor, even if combined with FL.

I suppose I should have said that "reach" is a property of a lens combined with a sensor but is not a property of the sensor itself.

The AOV of an image sensor is about 180°, perhaps a little less, unaffected by any lens mounted.

I thank you all for your valuable insights. I hope this thread can become a repository of views, ideas and feedback related to Z9 and can help all others who want to upgrade in future, as it is helping me.

I do hope current Z9 users would share some samples of their work mainly those emphasizing the AF capabilities for wildlife. Thank you again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CIC

I thank you all for your valuable insights. I hope this thread can become a repository of views, ideas and feedback related to Z9 and can help all others who want to upgrade in future, as it is helping me.

I do hope current Z9 users would share some samples of their work mainly those emphasizing the AF capabilities for wildlife. Thank you again.

---

The Z9 is so oversubscribed right now, only the pros who are enrolled in the various national pro programs seem to be getting them right now, so it will be hard to get your question answered. None of the photo stores I deal with have been given any indication when they will be getting any stock. This has been typical with Nikon high end camera launches quite frequently in the past.

I've actually been thinking of going in the other direction and buying the new Olympus Systems OM-1, which is a micro-four-thirds camera. The reviews are all very positive. It's only 20 MP, but that's enough for much of what I do, and it has pixel-shift capabilities for higher resolution. The AF is quad-pixel and is apparently extremely good, at least close to the best in the pack, like the R5. It's small and light, and the lenses are lighter yet in comparison because of both the shorter FL needed and the narrower diameter. The sensor is very good, and while it won't match FF at high ISOs, it can go as high as I usually go. The computational photography functions are very sophisticated and include some I would actually use, like simulated ND filters and in-camera stacking. The burst rate is very high, helped by the small file size. The image stabilization is superb.

I don't think would give up my FF 5D mark IV because there will be times when it is better but for something to carry on my back when I'm not sure what I'll be photographing, the OM-1 is very appealling. The low weight and small size become more attractive every year. On the other hand, having $$ sunk into two different systems isn't appealling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

I've actually been thinking of going in the other direction and buying the new Olympus Systems OM-1, which is a micro-four-thirds camera. The reviews are all very positive. It's only 20 MP, but that's enough for much of what I do, and it has pixel-shift capabilities for higher resolution. The AF is quad-pixel and is apparently extremely good, at least close to the best in the pack, like the R5. It's small and light, and the lenses are lighter yet in comparison because of both the shorter FL needed and the narrower diameter. The sensor is very good, and while it won't match FF at high ISOs, it can go as high as I usually go. The computational photography functions are very sophisticated and include some I would actually use, like simulated ND filters and in-camera stacking. The burst rate is very high, helped by the small file size. The image stabilization is superb.

I don't think would give up my FF 5D mark IV because there will be times when it is better but for something to carry on my back when I'm not sure what I'll be photographing, the OM-1 is very appealing. The low weight and small size become more attractive every year. On the other hand, having $$ sunk into two different systems isn't appealing.

---

A very reasonable thought, IMHO. I have a Panasonic LUMIX DC-G9 upon which the OM-1 appears to be based - but with a extra or two thrown in ...

So far, the G9 vastly exceeds my photographic needs ... :D

I, on the other hand, I would be far more interested in the FujiFilm GFX 100s; it is only about 10% more expensive than the Nikon Z9 and is a medium format camera. With me mostly shooting portraits and still life work, it would make for a great studio camera and it weights 400g less than the Z9, so traveling with it would not be an issue either

The only thing that would stop me is the sizeable investment I have in high end Nikon lenses, that should work will on a mirrorless body.

Given my recent experience with large prints (33" x 44" / 84 cm x 118 cm ) I know I can get very sharp images that impress even the pixel peepers through good shooting and post-processing technique.

Another factor to consider could be the oft-undefined "detail". Speaking geometrically:

The OM-1 goes up to 144 lp per mm at the Nyquist frequency, the Z9 up to a mere 115 lp per mm.

The GFX-100S comes in at 132 lp per mm, which is kind of close to the OM-1 but no cigar.

Of course, several other factors could be mentioned in rebuttal - especially by those who equate MP to resolution ... ;)

... Not to mention factors like lens quality, camera settings, focus, diffraction, tolerance to aliasing, DOF, etc., ad naus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Another factor to consider could be the oft-undefined "detail". Speaking geometrically:

The OM-1 goes up to 144 lp per mm at the Nyquist frequency, the Z9 up to a mere 115 lp per mm.

The GFX-100S comes in at 132 lp per mm, which is kind of close to the OM-1 but no cigar.

Of course, several other factors could be mentioned in rebuttal - especially by those who equate MP to resolution ... ;)

... Not to mention factors like lens quality, camera settings, focus, diffraction, tolerance to aliasing, DOF, etc., ad naus.

---

But since the sensor sizes are not the same, it seems to me that lines/mm isn't terribly helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...post-right.png Another factor to consider could be the oft-undefined "detail". Speaking geometrically:

The OM-1 goes up to 144 lp per mm at the Nyquist frequency, the Z9 up to a mere 115 lp per mm.

The GFX-100S comes in at 132 lp per mm, which is kind of close to the OM-1 but no cigar.

---

But since the sensor sizes are not the same, it seems to me that lines/mm isn't terribly helpful.

---

I'm talking about line pairs/mm not lines/mm.

Probably not helpful to "most of us", in spite of the undeniable fact that lp/mm i.e. spatial frequency is the very basis for camera or lens sharpness, the other being MTF ... as seen from this side of the pale.

Certainly the other popular metric, lp/picture height, would make the GFX a clear winner and the OM-1 a clear loser - all other things being equal.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

I'm talking about line pairs/mm not lines/mm.

Probably not helpful to "most of us", in spite of the undeniable fact that lp/mm i.e. spatial frequency is the very basis for camera or lens sharpness, the other being MTF ... as seen from this side of the pale.

Certainly the other popular metric, lp/picture height, would make the GFX a clear winner and the OM-1 a clear loser - all other things being equal.

Thoughts?

---

I think that’s right. Need to keep in mind both limits on the resolving power of lenses and he degree of magnification in producing the viewed image.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk