Lily and Camera comparison

[Terri French]

I'm in the thought mode as to whether or not I want to keep my D5600. I love the Z6 so much and am wondering if I would like a Z50 as a smaller/lighter carry around to supplement it. The fact that it doesn't have in body image stabilization is a real concern to me. I was playing around today just doing some comparing as I am thinking. (I tend to overthink everything!) Here are a couple of comparison shots using the D5600 and the Z6, both with the 105 f2.8 macro lens. They were not set up to do an apples to apples comparison. But I did try to frame them similarly, except that I had to step back a little with the D5600 to get a wider aperture to try to create a similar amount of DOF. I tried to do similar post processing. Does one stand out to you as significantly better than the other?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[nuclearjock]

They both look great Terri. I'd sit tight and wait to see what nikon has up its sleeve. Maybe add some Z glass in the short term?

 

[Palouse]

I'm with Rick, I like 'em both, and I do think Nikon is playing coy with us . . .
But your logic is on the right track.

 

[Terri French]

They both look great Terri. I'd sit tight and wait to see what nikon has up its sleeve. Maybe add some Z glass in the short term?

Good idea. Maybe they will come up with a cropped sensor Z with image stabilization before too long. But then, it would probably be bigger and heavier like my Z6. I'm happy with the Z6 for most things. Once in a while I still want something lighter.

 

[Terri French]

I'm with Rick, I like 'em both, and I do think Nikon is playing coy with us . . .
But your logic is on the right track.

Thanks, Nick. Glad you think my thought process is good.

 

[Butlerkid]

The settings are very different, so not a good comparison. Do it again - preferably on a tripod - with the same settings.

Of the two images above, I immediately like the second one the best. The second image has a shorter shutter speed, more wide open, lower ISO....yet it is sharper??????????????

 

[fishbio]

To my eye the second one is a bit sharper and more contrasty. I see that it's your D5600. Whether it's significantly better is up to you.

Larry

 

[Mike Buckley]

When the differences are so negligible that it's necessary to compare the images side by side to appreciate them, the other factors (cost, weight, footprint, etc.) are far more important in my mind.

More important, you seem to be wondering if the Z50 would be good at taking the place of your D5600, so I think you should be comparing your use of the Z50 and the D5600. Rent the Z50 to determine that.

 

[Replytoken]

Two thoughts. Why not consider the new 24-50 compact FF lens for your Z6 if size/weight is important? Second, it is difficult to talk about body size/weight when an adapter and a 105 macro are involved. That is not a small piece of glass, and I would imagine that too small/light of a body could give you an imbalanced rig to work with. If macro is important and you need smaller/lighter, then perhaps have a look at the FF 60mm or the DX 40mm? These are smaller than the 105 and could be used if you are willing to accept a shorter working distance for close-up/macro work.

Alternately, you could buy a m4/3rd's body and an Olympus 60mm macro for a small dedicated rig for a decent price. This is an amazing lens and there are a number of bodies that can be had new or used for reasonable prices.

Good luck,

--Ken

 

[Terri French]

The settings are very different, so not a good comparison. Do it again - preferably on a tripod - with the same settings.

Of the two images above, I immediately like the second one the best. The second image has a shorter shutter speed, more wide open, lower ISO....yet it is sharper??????????????

You are right. I didn't give the settings enough of a thought. I will try a more serious comparison when I have a bit more time. Thanks for your input!

 

[Terri French]

To my eye the second one is a bit sharper and more contrasty. I see that it's your D5600. Whether it's significantly better is up to you.

Larry

Thank you so much for your thoughts. I think these shots just made me think that my D5600 is probably good enough for the times when I want a lighter weight camera. Next time I think I'll make a comparison of the kit lenses on both.

 

[Terri French]

Two thoughts. Why not consider the new 24-50 compact FF lens for your Z6 if size/weight is important? Second, it is difficult to talk about body size/weight when an adapter and a 105 macro are involved. That is not a small piece of glass, and I would imagine that too small/light of a body could give you an imbalanced rig to work with. If macro is important and you need smaller/lighter, then perhaps have a look at the FF 60mm or the DX 40mm? These are smaller than the 105 and could be used if you are willing to accept a shorter working distance for close-up/macro work.

Alternately, you could buy a m4/3rd's body and an Olympus 60mm macro for a small dedicated rig for a decent price. This is an amazing lens and there are a number of bodies that can be had new or used for reasonable prices.

Good luck,

--Ken

Thank you, Ken. Actually macro isn't the most important thing to me. The photos of my grandkids are. I'll have to try to experiment around with some comparisons when I am around them. That will be harder than a flower that doesn't protest to have it's photo taken!!

 

[Louis Champan]

The second one appears to me to be sharper.

 

[Terri French]

The second one appears to me to be sharper.

Probably user error on the first one. Thanks Louis. I better do my comparison shots on a tripod next time.

 

[JLH]

To my old eyes the second photo seems a bit better. I have kept my old D5200 as its worth more to me than what the used price value is. It does a wonderful job still and its just a good light weight camera to carry when I don't need to lug my D500 around. I am sure the D5600 has advantages over my older model.

I would (and am) waiting to see what Nikon does next. The new Z5 seems interesting and prices on all models will always drop over time. Don't over analyze, just go enjoy your hobby.

 

[Terri French]

To my old eyes the second photo seems a bit better. I have kept my old D5200 as its worth more to me than what the used price value is. It does a wonderful job still and its just a good light weight camera to carry when I don't need to lug my D500 around. I am sure the D5600 has advantages over my older model.

I would (and am) waiting to see what Nikon does next. The new Z5 seems interesting and prices on all models will always drop over time. Don't over analyze, just go enjoy your hobby.

Great advice.

 

[Terri French]

When the differences are so negligible that it's necessary to compare the images side by side to appreciate them, the other factors (cost, weight, footprint, etc.) are far more important in my mind.

More important, you seem to be wondering if the Z50 would be good at taking the place of your D5600, so I think you should be comparing your use of the Z50 and the D5600. Rent the Z50 to determine that.

Whoops! Somehow I missed your post. I might just need to rent one sometime to see how it compares. Or, I could just be happy with what I've already got and move on. It's just something I have been thinking about the past couple of days, but I'm sure the whim will subside soon!!

 

[Mike Buckley]

It's just something I have been thinking about the past couple of days, but I'm sure the whim will subside soon!!

No, no, no! Nikon needs your money!

 

[Terri French]

No, no, no! Nikon needs your money!

I'm sure they do!! They have received plenty of it over the years.

 

[nodim2]

Both are excellent. Second one appears to be bit sharper with more “pop”.