What the status on FX cameras?

[wcfn100]

So I've been looking at upgrading my photo gear to mirrorless and I was wonder if anyone who has done this could speak to their experiences.

I'm looking at a Nikon Z or Z6 because of price and because I can use my old lenses (cropped back to DX).  I really want to be able to use my Macro lens.

Has anyone here made the move?

edit:  Had to change D's to Z's, not made of money...

Jason

[MK]

All the advertisements from the manufacturers are pushing ML (mirror less) really hard with programs to trade in your DX and FX bodies for the new darlings in the industry.  That's the big buzz right now in the industry as, in my opinion, DLSR technology is plateauing.  The industry needs to generate buzz, like any industry, to keep the momentum going.

But what the uneducated consumer doesn't know is that the ML segment is still in a state of flux and there is no match out there for the D5/6 or even a D500 at this time.  I'm sure there will be one day but not now.  The immediate advantage I see is size but that's about it.

They (Nikon) have adapters that will allow your F-mount lens to be used on a ML Z-mount body but like anything with an adapter and not native, you lose some of the "direct translation".

I'm going to stick with my D500 for a while. 

[tom mann]

The manufacturers are pushing everyone into Full Frame to counteract the rapid decreasing small camera market caused by the adoption of smart phone cameras. But, Full Frame results in more expensive bodies and lenses. The APS-C offerings are stagnant, and micro 4/3s might be dying out.

For macro, you really can't beat micro 4/3s, since you get double the depth of field.

If I had no camera equipment right now, I would pick up the Nikon Z5 or wait for an update Z6 (with dual card slots). If money was no object, the Z7.  I think those are the best cameras on the market for pure photography; the others try to be too much video hybrids.

[keeper]

I did this a while ago and bought a Fujifilm X E1 and I don't regret it.
The current model is the X E3.

https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/cameras/x-e3/

If you have some spare money you could go the Leica M route....

[High Hood]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ] I upgraded from a D3100 to a Z6, and it’s a whole new world for me! Unfortunately I’ve not had too much time to use it. My two lenses I’m using are the 24-70 F4S and my 55-300 DX lens with FTZ adapter. I’m looking forward to getting some more Z lenses, especially the new 70-200.

[robert3985]

I'm not sure if just because a camera is "mirrorless" that it's an "upgrade" over a DSLR.

If you're happy with what your DSLR does for you now, and what it's done for you in the past, then logic says that there's no reason to "upgrade" from a purely functional aspect.

However, if you're an equipment geek and have money to burn, then why not "upgrade" to the latest and greatest?

For model railroad photography, I've been using my DSLR less and less just because of the size of it, and not being able to get down to N-scale eye level with it, no matter what lens I'm using.

As for extreme DOF, Helicon Focus makes that a moot point.

So, for model railroad photography, I'm using my old ("old" being a relative term) Google Pixel 2 XL smartphone with the Open Camera Android only app, and its "focus bracketing" feature, which allows me to easily handhold my phone at N-scale eye-level and take up to a dozen shots between near and far focus limits that I've selected in a fraction of a second, which I combine on my desktop with Helicon Focus.

For my other non-model-railroad-photography, I use my DSLR and my selection of native lenses.

Although I shoot a very limited amount of video with both my smartphone and DSLR, I am not a videographer and my decision as to what DSLR body to purchase was not based very much on video features and performance.

Also, I don't see a huge difference in photo quality between FX sensors and smaller crop-sensors of various types when the pixel count is near the same.  Truthfully, some of the very best photos I've taken, I took with my original DSLR...my old Nikon D40 with only 6.1 MP and its DX crop-sensor.  Larger sensors generally equal better dynamic range, but like I've said, I'm not printing digital files to fill an extra large frame.  However, if I were looking for extra-fine resolution, I would probably more likely go with a Nikon D850 at 45.7MP and keep my present stable of native Nikkor lenses since I prefer the color rendition of the Nikon sensor and Expeed processing over Canon or Sony.  More than 50MP is prestigious, but from a practical standpoint, the gains in resolution over 50MP are quite difficult to see unless you want to pixel peep on your monitor.

Although I enjoy reading about mirrorless bodies and their advantages (and disadvantages) as opposed to DSLR's, I've come to the conclusion that mirrorless bodies at this time (2020 09Sep13) are still in their developmental stages and do not incorporate mature enough technology to warrant ditching my DSLR's and my lenses, nor do they offer distinct advantages to me and my style of photography yet.

If I were a professional sports photographer, or shot weddings or videos, or wanted super large prints I might be tempted, but I don't do those things, and my DSLR camera system works perfectly for my nude model sessions, family photos, nature, rail-fanning, railroad reference photos and digitizing my art.  My Android smartphone works perfectly for me for my close-up model railroad photography, and no present mirrorless system from any of the big three (Sony, Canon, Nikon) offer a significant enough advantage over my DSLR system to make me want to change from a logical, functional standpoint.

However, I expect that in a year or two, at least one of the big three will get it right and I'll have to re-evaluate my present position.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Lenny53]

For macro, you really can't beat micro 4/3s, since you get double the depth of field.

Can you explain how DOF is doubled as this article says the f-stop is doubled meaning DOF is halved.
 
"Thus, a Micro-Four-Thirds camera gives us less (shallow) Depth of Field at similar focal lengths when compared with a full-frame camera. For example, an image shot at f/1.8 on a Micro-Four-Thirds camera would give an output similar to an image shot at f/3.6 on a full-frame camera, and f/2.7 on a crop sensor camera."
 
https://digital-photography-school.com/camera-sensors-explained/

[wazzou]

I'm going to stick with my D500 for a while. 

Me too.  I love the camera. 
Question though @MK Do you fine tune your lenses for the body?
I haven't but might need a nudge to try it on a lense.
I'm a little intimidated by the process.

[MK]

Me too.  I love the camera. 
Question though @MK Do you fine tune your lenses for the body?
I haven't but might need a nudge to try it on a lense.
I'm a little intimidated by the process.

Yes.  Two of my lenses are fine tuned.  The D500 also has an "auto" fine tune if you are a bit intimidated by it.  But I do it my manually.  The trickiest is when you try to fine tun a zoom lens that cover long focal lengths, e.g., 18-300.  You'll go crazy as what works on one end usually doesn't work for the other.  Sometimes you have to split the difference or favor the end you use more often.

If I had the time I would fine tune all of them but the others are "close enough".

Don't be intimidated.  It's quite easy.  If you need a nudge, PM me or post what lens you want to try it on first.  I can steer you in the right direction.

[tom mann]

Can you explain how DOF is doubled as this article says the f-stop is doubled meaning DOF is halved.
 
"Thus, a Micro-Four-Thirds camera gives us less (shallow) Depth of Field at similar focal lengths when compared with a full-frame camera. For example, an image shot at f/1.8 on a Micro-Four-Thirds camera would give an output similar to an image shot at f/3.6 on a full-frame camera, and f/2.7 on a crop sensor camera."
 
https://digital-photography-school.com/camera-sensors-explained/

Yes, we're saying the same thing.  The micro 4/3 lens I have is sharpest at F4.5, which looks like F9 full frame. In macro, you generally want deeper DoF (so more is in focus). Pushing it further, f8 in micro 4/3 still looks sharp. However, f16 in fullframe starts to show a little diffraction.

Again, if you want to focus stack everything, it doesn't matter.

[robert3985]

As for the sensor size having anything to do with DOF when comparing Micro 4/3 vs FX it's all about what lenses you'll be using to get an equivalent angle of view....not the size of the sensor.

For example, take a 50mm standard lens on a full-frame (FX) sensored camera at f2.8 and take some long shots of track going off into the distance.  Count the number of ties that are in relatively "in focus" in front of and behind your focus point. 

Okay...since the crop factor of a Micro 4/3 sensor is 2...meaning that you have to halve the focal length of a lens on an FX camera to get the equivalent angle of view on your Micro 4/3 camera body....meaning to get the angle of view of a 50mm lens on an FX body, you'd use a 25mm lens on your Micro 4/3 body....which is a wide angle lens...and has a much greater depth of focus than a lens twice its focal length.

Going back up to your FX camera body, remove your 50mm standard lens and slap on a 28mm f2.8 lens and focus at the exact same spot you did with the 50mm lens and take a photo.  Count the number of ties that are relatively "in focus" in front of and behind your focus point.

Now, do the same test with the same focal length lenses at f2.8 on your Micro 4/3 camera body.

You're going to find that number of ties that are relatively "in focus" are identical for each focal length lens.  However, the angle of view is going to be VERY different.

The conclusion is that it's not the smaller sensor that's giving you more depth of focus, it's the lenses you're using to get an equivalent angle of view that causes your depth of focus to appear to be greater using the smaller sensored camera body...a 50mm lens on the smaller sensor has the same angle of view as a 100mm lens in FX, and a 25mm wide angle lens has the same angle of view as a 50mm lens in FX...but wide angle lenses inherently have a greater depth of focus than standard and telephoto lenses, no matter what size the sensor is in your camera, or what portion of the total angle of view your sensor is using that the lens is providing.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Lenny53]

Yes, we're saying the same thing.  The micro 4/3 lens I have is sharpest at F4.5, which looks like F9 full frame. In macro, you generally want deeper DoF (so more is in focus). Pushing it further, f8 in micro 4/3 still looks sharp. However, f16 in fullframe starts to show a little diffraction.

Again, if you want to focus stack everything, it doesn't matter.

 Get where you are coming from but I view DOF as a range and what you are describing is a shift away from the shallow end towards the deeper end which is good for close up shooting but would apply to everything that you photograph with the camera.  I didn't stay with a crop sensor because I did not like the anlge of view being less wide on all my 35mm lenses.

[tom mann]

Get where you are coming from but I view DOF as a range and what you are describing is a shift away from the shallow end towards the deeper end which is good for close up shooting but would apply to everything that you photograph with the camera.  I didn't stay with a crop sensor because I did not like the anlge of view being less wide on all my 35mm lenses.

Right, in m43s a 25mm lens effectively looks like a 50mm lens due to the crop factor. There are pros/cons with the system to be sure.