Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
trimix125

Nikon Z50 ideas

Recommended Posts

Hi,
as a long time Nikon user, 35 years,
and more than 25 years under water,
this could be a good camera for the next trips.
And maybe longer, if the line gets further....
What i would like is a high quality housing like Nauticam,
but small and light weighted like the Sony A6xxx series.
Between 1 and max 1,5kg
100mm port diameter....

Had a Sony Nex5 and 7,
and Oly Omd 5e in Nauticam housings...

By now, using a Nikon D500 in a Hugyfot,
simply because my first real underwater setup was a D300 in Hugyfot,
and still have all the ports and goodies...

But travelling with big photo setup gets harder each year..
A camera like the Z50 with a sensor equal to the D500 in a small housing would be a great opportunity
for the scene.

So please Nauticam realise that and make us happy!

Regards,
Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the size of the Z50 really make that much difference? Maybe if you can use the maybe more compact Z series lenses. Otherwise you still have DX-sized lenses and domeports etc.

I'm not sure that will add up, in total, to an easier travelling package than the current, say, D500 system. It'd only be the camera body that would be slightly smaller and its housing. Sadly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dome ports will be the same size regardless except of course for fisheye lenses.  For rectilinear lenses the port size scales with sensor size and is related the depth of field needed to bring the corners into focus.

If you look at DXO measurements, the Olympus EM-1 MkII is very close match for the D500 in noise, it loses a bit of dynamic range, but is surprisingly very close.  This only applies to the EM-1 MkII, the other cameras in the Olympus range a bit further behind the the EM-1 II. 

That makes for a very compact setup, for the 7-14mm lens it uses a 180mm dome port and the lenses are all very compact.  here's my EM-1 MkII in a Think Tank streetwalker hard drive backpack:

 

In here is the housing with camera inside, 2x Z-240, OLy 12-40 and Pany 7-14, 60mm macro, 8mm Pany fisheye, the Zen 170mm dome for the 12-40 & 7-14, the Zen 100mm fisheye port and th60mm macro port, plus spare batteries, fibre optics etc.  It will fit in all but the smallest overhead compartments or under the seat in front on any plane.

IMG_2948.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tim,
have a look to the sony A6xxx series housings....
Same sensor, smaller mount, but small housings and only 1kg housing weight....
With adapter the Tokina 10 - 17mm could be used, and many more....

Hi Chris,
i had the Oly Omd 5 mk I,
nice cam but the low light possibilities were low....
The housing weight for the EM1 mk II is 1.8kg!
If i take Subal, i could house a Sony A7.... with 250gramm less....

For sure will the ports and lenses still have their own weight additional.
And Sony as well as Nikon will be heavier than Olympus.

But if i start with a leight weighted camera and housing, i can stripp the complett rig weight down...

And use only one system.
Shooting Nikon since 30 years means a lot of glas ;-))

Was using two systems for weight, but didnt made me happy...

Oly be better with dof for macro,
the others better with bigger sensors....

If there is an additional Nikon adapter, i could use the 15mm or maybe a solution for the Nikonos RS lenses.....

Just thoughts....

Regards,
Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much do people really shoot in ambient light underwater? Even then, how low will the light really be. In my book even on the original EM5 ISO 800 image quality is perfectly acceptable. The newer 20mp is better, albeit only marginally. There are lighter mu43 cameras out there that give you access to the fantastic lens stable. However, technically I think the Sony cameras will be better, as long as they offer the lenses you want. Check that first and go from there. Nikons Z system is still very very new and their APS-C lens line up can only be called non-existant. I would not want to adapt every single lens...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,
the question is not the stabilisation, that cant help in any situation,
its more how fast your target is moving....
Have tried the tresher sharks in Malapascua,
30m deep at 6am.....
With Oly omd 5, 12mm f2 lens open,  Iso 800 too slow....

And there will be a lot more places in future, where we will not be allowed to use artificial light....
For marine live protection, this is fine, and i will respect it.

We adapt Sigma and Tokina lenses as well to Sony cameras,
that makes no difference ;-))
There is no other choice. And as long as the adapters work well, why not?

Have a Sony A6300 with adapter, and a Sigma 105mm/ canon macro lens.
Its faster then the original Sony lens...
Friends use a Tokina 10 / 17mm on the same camera....
Works well.

Yes Nikon will take some time to get a new lens park for Z-series,
but Sony had the same problem a few years ago....

There is plenty of m43 housings on the market, same to Dx and FX housings,
but the Sony Axxx Nauticam housings are far the light weighted ones.
And if that is continued for the Z50, it makes a big chance for the Nikon users,
and others who travel a lot,
to switch to mirrorless.

Only my thoughts ;-))

Regards,
Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 8:52 PM, hyp said:

How much do people really shoot in ambient light underwater? Even then, how low will the light really be. In my book even on the original EM5 ISO 800 image quality is perfectly acceptable. 

Well there are many situations where you have to shoot in ambient light underwater:

  • with large fauna like Manta Rays, if you are diving respectfully of these species protection, you will not use strobes. It is getting forbidden in many places conscious of these marine species protection
  • strobes have a relatively short range, and natural light will often be the best option when your subject is a bit too far
  • shooting in ambiant light will give a result that cannot be achieved with strobes, with good white balance calibration

Here is an example where I find that ambient light is superior to strobe, during an encounter with a whale shark.

I happened to take pictures in ambient light, while another diver was taking shots with strobes on the other side of the shark at the same moment. We were at 15 m, so pretty dark and poor light, both at about the same distance from the shark.

With a Nikon D7500, I took a shot at ISO 100, f4.5 1/125 at 17mm with Sigma 17-70mm, here is the unprocessed JPG:

_DSC3765-rawjpg.thumb.jpg.5f928e9422ff7288aa8c8bbfefc0dc2b.jpg

The picture is overall underexposed, and with depth, totally lack any color.

The other diver that you see in the picture took a shot with a Canon EOS 5D mark IV at ISO 400, f8 1/180 and 15 mm fisheye (not his best shot, he took much better shots, but this is one which he took about the same time as me)

7A6A8299-rawjpg.thumb.jpg.da9869fbe5206b492a4896695a43b243.jpg

The strobes were not strong enough to light the shark.

The key difference between the two shots shows in post-processing of the RAW files, in the ability to get more natural colors.

Here is the picture taken in natural light, with some basic white balance processing and reframing:1277864738__DSC3765_basicwhitebalance.thumb.jpg.bbba3dbed794a49b8fa90f21b6a31372.jpg

The background is a bit washed out, but Camera Raw and Photoshop manage to recover a natural white balance.

However when trying to recover white balance from the picture with strobes, you get hot spots on the parts of the shark lit by the strobes. As you push to recover white balance on the overall picture, these spots turn bright red. This would require complex editing to adjust the white balance by zone.

7A6A8299_quickWB.thumb.jpg.90e204e2ab607ce0a12effbceab9f925.jpg

 

On 10/20/2019 at 8:52 PM, hyp said:

 Nikons Z system is still very very new and their APS-C lens line up can only be called non-existant. I would not want to adapt every single lens...

Well the backward compatibility with Nikon F lenses means that Nikon owners can upgrade to the Z50, keep  their existing lenses, and buy Z lenses as they are produced. As Nikon has kept the ergonomics of the Z line very close to the DSLR's, this makes a very smooth transition to mirrorless.

So for the OP Trimix125 who is a long time Nikon user, this is probably the best option.

For non-Nikon users, the matter is more to find the camera brand which best match their tastes. So Nikon will be great for some, while others will prefer Sony or Canon.

One thing is sure now: mirrorless camera is the future. The question is how quickly to adopt them? Again a matter of taste, between early adopters and others who prefer the platform to mature and improve before adopting it.

 

Edited by Algwyn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess if you already have Nikon lenses this changes things. Thank you for the interesting points on natural light shots. Although in the given example the mu43 sensor would certainly be good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here my 2 cents on the excessive noise problem with small sensors:

Trimix-Wolfgang's observations on excessive noise with MFT are supported by the testshots of DPReview, so this are not just subjective impressions and his observations are substantial. This is, however, only the case when comparing the cameras at the original manufacturers ISO settings. To have a look on your own, open this link: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dc-gh5s-review/6.

Select as cameras OMD-10III (similar sensor as EM5), EM1II (for best MFT sensor), D500 (for Z50 comparison, likely similar sensor) and D850 (for FF reference). When selecting ISO100 and pushing up exposure +6EV with the Nikons, and ISO200 (=base ISO with olys) and +5EV with olys, one can see excess noise with olys and D500 performs much better as expected by the small difference in physical sensor size (384% for FX, 165% for DX and 100% for MFT):

Bild6.png.25fcc8d2e95d99f0dfa235689ef067b4.png

Manufactureres ISO settings can, however, not always directly be compared: DxO measure the actual ISO sensitivity by themselves to make the ISO information provided by the manufacturers comparable. Then, at comparable ISO sensitivity, the SNR of D500 is almost identical to EM1II. According to DxO an ISO200 at the EM1II is in fact ISO83 (="DxO ISO ?"), ISO100 in D500 and D850 correspond to ISO70:

Bild8.thumb.jpg.2d14d2c4683fa3a7a9b4ec547e03eb07.jpg

 

 

Wolfgang

 

 

  

Edited by Architeuthis
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...