D850 vs Z7

Still if I was going on a trip, 100 rolls of gray market Velvia/Provia and Fuji processing in Arizona purchased from B&H was $800

 

I must be doing something wrong, I have been shooting since mid nineties and have not yet scanned more than 110 rolls of film ;)

have not yet scanned more than 110 rolls of film

Maybe you bracketed lots so only 'need' to scan 12 slides per roll...? ;)

hapien, I'm with you. I still have my Hall and Logan light boxes and my crazy expensive Schneider and Rodenstock loupes that are no longer made. I did most of my slide editing with these and then when I bought my Super Coolscan 4000, I would scan my top one or two images on each roll. Often I didn't scan any. All-in-all I scanned close to 1000 slides over three years prior to acquiring a DSLR. I think the new gear like the Z7 demand great computing speed but still the price for a high end PC is less than film from back in the day. I have to say that getting film back from Fuji processing was like Christmas. That joyful anticipation is something I miss. Still I own a gripped D850 and I am told I will have total consciousness when I die, which is nice.

D850 vs Z7

Maybe the simplest way to decide would be to lock 'em both in a cage and see which one comes out alive?

 

WRT 72 gig of RAM - why?

My 8 core processor 'only' has 16 gig to go at, yet I've still to notice any slowing down, even with a screenful of hi-res images open at once in PhotoShop.

At any level a good future proof computer is not cheap

Nor even obtainable!

Edited November 11, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Beware the conventional wisdoms of "every lens made before 2017 is utter useless crap, and you're a fool to even consider using such awful glass on a modern digital camera" and "abandon hope, all ye seeking to upgrade your previous camera, unless you're thrilled and able to drop thousands more on Grand Master Sony/Zeiss, top-line Z, or the stupid-fast new Canon RF lenses".

 

Things aren't that cut-and-dried for everyone: not all of us view our images on a 70" 8K OLED screen from a viewing distance measured in centimeters. Some of us actually can resist the siren call of over-the-top, overkill 46 MP (and heaven help us, 60MP next year) sensors. And some of us find the "dealbreaker flaws" in older lenses appealing. So a distinction needs clarifying from OPs launching this type of thread: in essence, how anal are you about perfection? Do you want flawless maximized optical performance from your new camera? Then expect to junk everything you now own, not just upgrade camera bodies. Otherwise, things get frustratingly murky.

 

A really extreme upgrade, such as this potential leap from 12MP D700 to 46MP D850/Z7 is going to be problematic even if you aren't a perfectionist. The unique D700 combination of "low resolution" FX sensor with heavy-duty AA filter makes it very friendly to lenses that would knock many photographers onto a fainting couch if they were to use them on the mild or no AA filtered Sony/Nikon 36-46MP bodies. That isn't to say you can't use older-spec lenses on the newest premium cameras: just be aware performance will be very subjective depending on each photographers use case (portraits may be great, landscapes for mural display may be very disappointing).

 

The D850 and Z7 are marvels, but their 46MP sensor is brutal on lenses. Heck, the previous 36MP D810 and Sony A7R were brutal. Depending on your personal standards, even 24MP is too demanding (our own Ed_Ingold would rather throw his Sony A7 kit in the river and take up charcoal sketching than use anything but the latest cutting-edge lenses, while I happily use everything from Coke bottles to Zeiss primes on mine). You can probably get away with the Nikkor AFS "Holy Trinity" 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 pro zooms on 46MP, but all bets are off with anything else. You might be satisfied, or very disappointed. Opting for a more midrange 24MP body like D750 or Z6 is the more practical, less glamorous approach if you have no near-term plans to upgrade your lenses.

 

In defense of old MF and earlier AF lenses, there is often nothing intrinsically wrong with them. I personally recoil every time I hear the vague slam "those lenses were designed for film (eeewwww), so they can't cut it on digital". While somewhat true, the claim is misleading: more accurately, its digital that can't cut it with older film-era lenses.The lenses are often perfectly fine, but digital sensor mfrs typically slap on a thick cover glass that interferes with lens performance just before it hits the sensor surface. Technology evolves, and many of the very expensive new lenses are indisputably better. But a big factor in them being "better" is their new optical designs taking into account the random piece of flat glass behind them at all times.

 

Sensor cover glass interference didn't exist when film-era lenses were produced, so its a little unfair for them to be summarily dismissed as terrible when it was digital itself that created the new problem. Otherwise there's no reason a 24MP sensor shouldn't be well within the performance curve of older designs. Rule of thumb, the shorter the focal length, and the higher the sensor resolution, the more of a problem the sensor glass will be for older lenses. The added flaws may or may not overcome your fondness for that existing lens for a particular purpose: there's a thriving subculture of people adapting all manner of "bad" lenses to mirrorless cameras.

Shhhh! Just keep saying old lenses are crap so the used prices go down!

I hope Nikon will produce some serious f/1.4 and f/1.8 FX wide angle lenses for the Z system before the 3rd parties beat it. I would like to get serious with night photography and even f/2.8 does not cut it well. Currently the best (or only?) ones @1.4 or 1.8 are from Sigma - no Z yet but these will do for now until the Z's come out.

I hope Nikon will produce some serious f/1.4 and f/1.8 FX wide angle lenses for the Z system before the 3rd parties beat it. I would like to get serious with night photography and even f/2.8 does not cut it well. Currently the best (or only?) ones @1.4 or 1.8 are from Sigma - no Z yet but these will do for now until the Z's come out.

Just realized Nikon has a 20mm f/1.8 lens. It is much lighter than the Sigma f/1.4 lens. Think I may opt for this one intead for 20mm for the lighter weight, since the 14mm f/1.8 Sigma is already heavy enough in the bag.

The Nikon Z-mount 20mm/f1.8 S is scheduled to be released in 2020. Last year it was slated for 2019 while the 24mm/f1.8 S for 2020, but Nikon swapped those two. The 24mm is already out.

D850 vs Z7

Maybe the simplest way to decide would be to lock 'em both in a cage and see which one comes out alive?

 

WRT 72 gig of RAM - why?

My 8 core processor 'only' has 16 gig to go at, yet I've still to notice any slowing down, even with a screenful of hi-res images open at once in PhotoShop.

 

Nor even obtainable!

yes but these go to eleven.

The Nikon Z-mount 20mm/f1.8 S is scheduled to be released in 2020. Last year it was slated for 2019 while the 24mm/f1.8 S for 2020, but Nikon swapped those two. The 24mm is already out.

Oh well, I already ordered the 20mm f/1.8 (non-Z) - it may be arriving tomorrow. Also ordered (and received today) the Sigma 14mm f/1.8. It is heavy but an incredible lens. I can't wait to try it out on nightsky.

20mm f/1.8 (non-Z)

It works very well with my Z cameras. Also ordered the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 for comparison. Will see which one works better.

For wide angles, I would use native Z-mount lenses as much as possible. The Z mount has the shortest registration distance and so far all Nikon native Z lenses are excellent, but they are not cheap. I recently added the 14-30mm/f4 Z and am quite happy with it so far. It is a slower lens, fine for landscape but maybe not so good for astro photography.

For wide angles, I would use native Z-mount lenses as much as possible. The Z mount has the shortest registration distance and so far all Nikon native Z lenses are excellent, but they are not cheap. I recently added the 14-30mm/f4 Z and am quite happy with it so far. It is a slower lens, fine for landscape but maybe not so good for astro photography.

If I would want a mirrorless I would certainly get the Z7 and all the Z lenses. I think all the Z lenses are better than the F mount counter part. They don't have long lenses at least not yet but I am not one who uses long lenses.

For wide angles, I would use native Z-mount lenses as much as possible.

If I would want a mirrorless I would certainly get the Z7 and all the Z lenses. I think all the Z lenses are better than the F mount counter part. They don't have long lenses at least not yet but I am not one who uses long lenses.

Sure thing, time will tell. For now there is no @f/1.8 or brighter Z lenses at 20mm or shorter except the 24mm f/1.8 which is not wide enough and not f/1.4 as Sigma has. So these two non-Z Sigma 20mm f/1.4 and 14mm f/1.8 are the best option for the time being. They are heavy though but then I won't need to lug a wide-angle zoom with compromised f/stops for my planned nightsky workflow.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Mary Doo

Relative aperture doesn't play a big role in starry landscapes. Few telescopes have an aperture larger than f/8, but an 8" telescope show much dimmer objects than a 4" version. The physical diameter of the objective determines the number of photos captures from really dim objects. More important is the amount of astigmatism present, and curvature of field. My best lens for starry skies is a Batis 18/2.8, which yields pixel-sharp star images across the entire FOV. For exposure times exceeding 300/FL (seconds), a motorized equatorial mount should be used.

 

Limiting Magnitude Table

 

Magnitude is inversely proportional to the 5th root of 100. That is, a magnitude 1 star is 100 times brighter than a magnitude 6 star (the limit of unassisted visibility)

 

A wider relative aperture will make the skylight (including light pollution) proportionately brighter, which is why size makes more effective viewing of deep space objects than aperture.

Relative aperture doesn't play a big role in starry landscapes. Few telescopes have an aperture larger than f/8, but an 8" telescope show much dimmer objects than a 4" version. The physical diameter of the objective determines the number of photos captures from really dim objects. More important is the amount of astigmatism present, and curvature of field. My best lens for starry skies is a Batis 18/2.8, which yields pixel-sharp star images across the entire FOV. For exposure times exceeding 300/FL (seconds), a motorized equatorial mount should be used.

 

Limiting Magnitude Table

 

Magnitude is inversely proportional to the 5th root of 100. That is, a magnitude 1 star is 100 times brighter than a magnitude 6 star (the limit of unassisted visibility)

 

A wider relative aperture will make the skylight (including light pollution) proportionately brighter, which is why size makes more effective viewing of deep space objects than aperture.

Guess I needed to specify that I was referring to astro-landscape photography such as Milky Way being a part of a landscape image, in which aperture and ISO capability are critical toward limiting shutter speed. Aperture does play a big role in shortening shutter speed to limit observable star trails.

When using a wide lens (e.g., 20 mm or less), you can use an exposure of 10 seconds or more without a tracker. That will give you a good view of the milky way at reasonable aperture and ISO settings (e.g., f/2.8, ISO 800). If you use a tracker, you avoid getting star trails, but the skyline will rotate. Sans tracking, the program, "StarryLandscapeStacker" will mask stationary objects (including trees) and align the sky portions of stacked images based on bright stars (which you can edit). You then take a series of shorter (e.g., 10 second) exposures, which are stacked to get the needed detail. The skyline will be rendered as a silhouette unless you do a bit of light painting.

Sans tracking, the program, "StarryLandscapeStacker" will mask stationary objects (including trees) and align the sky portions of stacked images based on bright stars (which you can edit). You then take a series of shorter (e.g., 10 second) exposures, which are stacked to get the needed detail. The skyline will be rendered as a silhouette unless you do a bit of light painting.

The software out there is incredible these days.

I wonder how long we'll need an actual camera? Just point to the desired picture location using GPS co-ordinates and CGI rendering will perfectly create the view you would have seen had you been there physically.

The software out there is incredible these days.

I wonder how long we'll need an actual camera? Just point to the desired picture location using GPS co-ordinates and CGI rendering will perfectly create the view you would have seen had you been there physically.

But that is another hobby altogether.

I used a Sony A7Riii with a Loxia 25/2.4 lens for this shot, 10 seconds @ f/2.4, ISO 800. It was not necessary to use stacking.

 

Nice. Good job! A wider lens would provide an alternate view with more of this beautiful mid-summer arc and foreground. Also perhaps a few seconds more (not more than 16 secs with your 25mm lens) or a slightly higher ISO may reduce the noise a bit? Or perhaps did you turn off noise reduction?

I used a Sony A7Riii with a Loxia 25/2.4 lens for this shot.....

Nice.

How far away from a major conurbation were you Ed? I notice some orange glow from below the horizon. Street/highway lighting?

But that is another hobby altogether.

Not really. It's just part of the process, like darkroom work is (or should be) part of a film workflow.

Nice.

How far away from a major conurbation were you Ed? I notice some orange glow from below the horizon. Street/highway lighting?

 

Not really. It's just part of the process, like darkroom work is (or should be) part of a film workflow.

Not so. If you don't capture an image photographically it's not photography. If you create your images without capturing it's not photography..

... I think all the Z lenses are better than the F mount counter part. They don't have long lenses at least not yet but I am not one who uses long lenses.

From LF we learn that a lense is focussed to infinity when the focal lenght is equal to the distance from film plane to lense, that´s why LF cameras have bellows and rails to move the front including lense to proper distances for diffence lenses.

Cameras without bellows have a fixed distance from film plane to lense, the flange distance. With this fixed flange we cannot adjust the camera to the lense, we have to adjust the lense to the camera and this brings much more complicated lense designs, the retrofocus fakes a shorter flange and the tele a longer by adding additional elements which are not needed when flange distance is equal to focal lenght.

So with a 16mm flange a 16mm lense will bring perfect pictures without the effort to fake a flange, Z mount will be superior to F in short or very short lenses, but this advantage isn´t given with longer lenses, look e.g. at Leica, as rangefinders they have small flange and are famous for wide angel lenses, but they didn´t even try to make teles, longest is 90 mm and maybe an experimentical 135mm or similar.

From LF we learn that a lense is focussed to infinity when the focal lenght is equal to the distance from film plane to lense, that´s why LF cameras have bellows and rails to move the front including lense to proper distances for diffence lenses.

Cameras without bellows have a fixed distance from film plane to lense, the flange distance. With this fixed flange we cannot adjust the camera to the lense, we have to adjust the lense to the camera and this brings much more complicated lense designs, the retrofocus fakes a shorter flange and the tele a longer by adding additional elements which are not needed when flange distance is equal to focal lenght.

So with a 16mm flange a 16mm lense will bring perfect pictures without the effort to fake a flange, Z mount will be superior to F in short or very short lenses, but this advantage isn´t given with longer lenses, look e.g. at Leica, as rangefinders they have small flange and are famous for wide angel lenses, but they didn´t even try to make teles, longest is 90 mm and maybe an experimentical 135mm or similar.

 

What you said is true that the short flange distance offers no benefit for long lens. In fact compared to the F mount the Z mount shouldn't have advantage with lens longer than 50mm.

However the reason for Leica M doesn't have long lens it has to do with the rangefinder. The rangefinder doesn't as accurately with long lens as compared to short lens.