I am in love with my new Nikon Z50!

[Abitconfused]

The Nikon Z50 is quite impressive. I didn't expect so much from (approximately) 20.7 megapixels. The images are sharp, full of color, and full of detail. I have a workflow in DXO PhotoLab 4 and Photoshop that squeezes clarity, micro-contrast, noise reduction, color and contrast from the Z50's images and requires no great brain to follow. Now the real kicker! Using Topaz Gigapixel AI, I made a 20 x 30 inch enlargement and sent it up to Snapfish. I waited with wondering expectation for the mail to arrive. There it was, packaged in a sturdy tube, my enlargement. I opened up the print and put it on the kitchen table.... wife by my side. It was beautiful, marvelous, and that old standby GREAT! The camera works remarkably well with the FTZ adapter and my Nikon 28-300mm. Equally well with the Sigma 14-24mm. Low light at 2000 or 4000 ISO depending, of course, on how low the low light is. Slap me silly! Cheers!!

[pnodrog]

How does the balance feel with the adapter and the Nikon 28-300 lens on it? I assume you are happy with it. Why did you not go full frame e.g. Z5?

[Abitconfused]

Good questions. The balance feels good to me but I have coached myself to support both camera and lens and keep my elbows in. I have a D810 for my FX work but wanted the reach the Z50 would give my lenses without going to a DX rendering from the D810. Plus, I wanted to explore mirrorless and the BSI sensor. In low light the Z50 blows away the D810.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

It's always good to hear owner's of new to them cameras say they are pleased with them.
It beats the heck out of hearing they're disappointed in them.

[pnodrog]

Thanks for your answer. Interesting that you are so pleased with the low light performance. I need to replace or supplement my D800 in the near future and like the idea that a mirrorless view finder may help my aging eyes. I still like 35 Megapixels but the manufactures have moved away from what I think is an ideal image size.

[Stagecoach]

Thanks for your answer. Interesting that you are so pleased with the low light performance. I need to replace or supplement my D800 in the near future and like the idea that a mirrorless view finder may help my aging eyes. I still like 35 Megapixels but the manufactures have moved away from what I think is an ideal image size.

Paul, I recently added a Z6 to my collection to supplement the D800. One of the things I have repeatedly read is that the low light performance is far superior to the D800 but to date I have not had a chance to evaluate this.

I intend to undertake some controlled tests this week just to see if there is any significant difference and will post the results.

[DanK]

I still like 35 Megapixels but the manufactures have moved away from what I think is an ideal image size.

Me too. I was disappointed when Canon decided on 20 and 45 mpx, or thereabouts, for the new and apparently fabulous R6 and R5 mirrorless cameras.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pnodrog]

Paul, I recently added a Z6 to my collection to supplement the D800. One of the things I have repeatedly read is that the low light performance is far superior to the D800 but to date I have not had a chance to evaluate this.

I intend to undertake some controlled tests this week just to see if there is any significant difference and will post the results.

I will be very interested in your thoughts on how the Z6 compares to the D800 in any manner. I am trying to decide between going to either a Z6 or Z7. I like the look of the 24-200mm lens as an upgrade to my much used 28-300mm lens.

[Abitconfused]

Z50 and Nikon 28-300mm

[Abitconfused]

Taken 12 29 2020. Z50 & Nikon 28-300 @ 450mm (in 35mm), 1/640s, f/7.1, ISO 100. Manual exposure, manual focus using LCD, three second exposure delay.

[DanK]

Unfortunately, images of this size don't tell us too much because even in the lightbox, they are only 1800x 1200, a bit under 2 megapixels. At that small size, all sorts of sins will go undetected.

Both of these images, particularly the moon shot, look oversharpened to me. You can tell from the crunchy appearance, especially in the lightbox. The bottle brush--a nice image--was shot at ISO 250, which is too low to account for the crunchiness. The white halo around the moon is another sign, I think.

[Manfred M]

+1 to Dan's comments. I had similar thoughts and wondered if having a new computer screen was the real reason that the images of from your new camera looked better.

In my experience, the only real sign of a better camera is when looking at a large print (A3+ and larger) that has been produced by a very competent print maker who knows how to unlock the data captured by the camera. That is where the increased colour depth and resolution can be made out. A small, down-sampled image shown on a computer screen is not going to tell us anything useful.

[Abitconfused]

I will find a larger image to upload. I do tend to oversharpen. My goal for the Z50 certainly includes resolution but to a point. I was quite pleased with the 20 x 30 print I obtained but, realistically, how many such prints do people desire? And if desired, certainly one of the newer high megapixel mirrorless cameras would be prefeted. The Z50 seems to provide quite serviceable low light performance and wonderful contrast and color. For about $850 for camera and F2Z converter, it's like getting a horse for free. Keep your fingers out of his mouth.

[DanK]

I wasn’t suggesting that the camera isn’t excellent. I was only saying that small images aren’t very informative, even if not oversharpened. When good reviews show sample images, they generally blow up small crops so that one can see the detail.

Sharpening is a balancing act. Oversharpening can make an image look LESS sharp because of the artifacts it crates. I think that’s the case with your moon shot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xpatUSA]

Ed,

It is not necessary to print in order to assess a camera's image detail quality. View a non-resized output on your monitor at 100 per cent, scrolling around as necessary to see relevant areas. And, to avoid in-camera or proprietary converter trickery, I prefer to view the raw image in RawDigger to see the camera/lens detail quality rather than what the manufacturer wants you to see.

With my eyesight, even at 100% zoom, my monitor can blur camera detail a bit - so I often check at 200, 400, or 800 per cent (Nearest Neighbor zoom, i.e. not smoothed) - so that I do see the actual OOC pixels more clearly ...

[Abitconfused]

Here is a much larger image with front lighting. Z50, Nikon 28-300mm @ 105 in 35mm, 1/800s, f/5.6, ISO 100.

[Abitconfused]

And another... Z50, 28-300mm @ 21mm in 35mm, 1/500s, f/3.2, ISO 100.

[xpatUSA]

And another... Z50, 28-300mm @ 21mm in 35mm, 1/500s, f/3.2, ISO 100.

A bit over-sharpened, IMHO.

[Manfred M]

A bit over-sharpened, IMHO.

General rule of thumb I was taught is that output sharpening should be done at 50% of full image size with a viewing distance of at least 2x the diagonal of the screen one is working on. This assumes that the image has been reduced or enlarged to final output size. Input and in-process sharpening should be done at 100% image size.

If you enlarge enough, you will be able to see sharpening artifacts as the process enhances the boundaries between light and dark areas. I suspect that you are looking at around 400% enlargement here Ted.

That being said, I suspect over-sharpening here as the image looks "crunchy". While I can't see the halos at 50% size at the appropriate viewing distance, at 100% they are quite obvious.

[Manfred M]

Here is a much larger image with front lighting. Z50, Nikon 28-300mm @ 105 in 35mm, 1/800s, f/5.6, ISO 100.

The 28-300mm Nikkor is definitely not the sharpest lens out there, nor was it designed to take advantage of the short flange to sensor distance of your Z50.


I did a test using a very sturdy tripod where I compared the Nikkor 28 - 300mm (came out in 2010) and the Nikkor 105 DC (came out in 1993). These are JPEGs made from raw data with no processing other than raw conversion and the default import sharpening using the Nikon D810. ISO 64, exposure 1/160th second, f/11 at 105mm. Both images are full size at 100%. I tethered to my laptop to ensure focus (done on manual) was right on.

I bought the 28 - 300mm lens for a month long trip to South America in 2019. I had the D810 and this lens and no other camera body or lens along for the trip; all my possessions other than my camera bag had to fit in 50 litre backpack and clothing had to go from sub-tropical to alpine climate zones.

The older lens is clearly sharper


28 - 300mm:







105 mm