Nikkor Z 100-400 vs the Z 400mm F/4.5 VR for wildlife photography

[ClaireH105]

Hello.
I'm thinking about buying Z lenses for a Nikon Z9 which I have on order. Does anyone have a view on the Nikkor Z 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 VR S vs the Z 400mm F/4.5 for wildlife photography? I mostly shoot handheld rather than with a tripod/monopod

thank you!

 

[fcotterill]

Hello and welcome,
If not yet watch this recent talk by Brad Hill on Z telephotos, and see also his Blog where he tested the 100-400. There's a long thread presenting photos with the 400 f4.5S, and valuable posts in an earlier thread discussing this question, with more links. There are several threads here about the 100-400 S including images etc.
Tricky choice!

I've ordered the 400 prime as I'm very happy with the 70-200 f2.8E FL as it takes TC14 III well. And also rely on the 180-400 f4E TC14 if not having to carry it far. These are with the Z9, D6 and D850.
I see the 400 f4.5S being ideal on hikes and quick responses etc - what I describe as peripatetic photography.

Z 100-400 or 400 4.5

Now that the 400 4.5 lenses are being delivered I wonder if people who already have the 100-400 will wind up keeping both or choose to keep one? And if they decide to only keep one, which will they choose?

bcgforums.com

Nikon Long lenses - Talk by Brad Hill Wed. Jul. 27

fyi Nikon's Long Lenses - A Rapidly Evolving Landscape - Wed. Jul. 27 Nikon's telephoto and super-telephoto lenses have undergone rapid evolution over the past few years. Along the way many long-held generalizations and assumptions about how Nikon's long lenses perform have been challenged or...

bcgforums.com

 

[ClaireH105]

Hello and welcome,
If not yet watch this recent talk by Brad Hill on Z telephotos, and see also his Blog where he tested the 100-400. There's a long thread presenting photos with the 400 f4.5S, and valuable posts in an earlier thread discussing this question, with more links. There are several threads here about the 100-400 S including images etc.
Tricky choice!

I've ordered the 400 prime as I'm very happy with the 70-200 f2.8E FL as it takes TC14 III well. And also rely on the 180-400 f4E TC14 if not having to carry it far. These are with the Z9, D6 and D850.
I see the 400 f4.5S being ideal on hikes and quick responses etc - what I describe as peripatetic photography.

Z 100-400 or 400 4.5

Now that the 400 4.5 lenses are being delivered I wonder if people who already have the 100-400 will wind up keeping both or choose to keep one? And if they decide to only keep one, which will they choose?

bcgforums.com

Nikon Long lenses - Talk by Brad Hill Wed. Jul. 27

fyi Nikon's Long Lenses - A Rapidly Evolving Landscape - Wed. Jul. 27 Nikon's telephoto and super-telephoto lenses have undergone rapid evolution over the past few years. Along the way many long-held generalizations and assumptions about how Nikon's long lenses perform have been challenged or...

bcgforums.com

Thank you very much - super helpful. I hadn't thought about the 70-200 F2.8 with a TC as well.

 

[BillW]

If you would get only one of these lenses, the question of which one is a better choice turns on what you photograph and where. Which is more valuable to you: the flexibility of the Z 100-400 zoom or the extra 2/3s of a stop of light and better optics at 400 mm you get with the Z 400 f4.5.

I have the Z 100-400 and the 500 mm PF. My two most used lenses for wildlife. There are a number of places where the flexibility of the Z 100-400 (with or without a Z 1.4x TC) has been very useful to me, as subjects have been close and far, with little time to change lenses (or conditions not good for changing lenses). I used the lens extensively in Yellowstone, the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary, and Iceland this year.

The Z 70-200 f2.8 is very good and pairs nicely with the Z 1.4x TC and the Z 2x TC. It is 140-400 f5.6 with the Z 2x TC and quite good — I used that combination in Katmai last year before I got the Z 100-400 — although I do not think it is quite as good optically as the Z 100-400.

Of course, in some cases you can also have two bodies with you, each with a lens mounted. The Z 70-200 with a Z 1.4x TC on one body and the Z 400 f4.5 on another body could be a nice kit for some situations.

I have thought about getting the Z 400 f4.5. But not to replace the Z 100-400. It might be a replacement for the 500 mm PF, as it would give me both 400 mm f4.5 and 560 mm f6.3 with Z 1.4x TC, in addition to being native Z.

 

[pomkiwi]

I also have the Z 100-400 and 500 PF. Before my Z9 arrived my go to lens for a general wildlife walkabout was the 500 with a D500. At the moment my set up of choice is the Z9 with the 100-400 and 1.4 TC. This works well in the generally good light we have this summer and gives the flexibility to capture some of the larger birds in flight, deer and hares etc (with some cropping) as well as acting as a good lens for close up work with summer insects and dragonflies. When light becomes more of an issue I'm likely to go back to the 500 PF on the Z9 or maybe the D500 - i'll have fun working out which! For me I don't think the 400 f/4.5 adds enough to justify a purchase.

 

[fcotterill]

Some more links from my database. Photography Life and Thom Hogan's ZSystemUser are reliable resources

https://photographylife.com/news/nikon-400mm-f-4-5-announcement

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...ount-lens-reviews/nikon-100-400mm-f45-56.html

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6-review/3/

A Review of the Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Lens

400mm is a tremendously popular focal length for things like wildlife and landscape photography, and you can spend anywhere from under $1,000 to well over $10,000 for such a lens, depending on the image quality and your needs. In the middle of that range is the Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S...

fstoppers.com

MTF data - Nikon Japan:

NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S | Z mount Lenses | Nikon Consumer

Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S

 

[jcgamble]

I agree with pomkiwi totally as that is my situation as well. The 100-400 is still not wide enough sometimes on the Alaska Ferry. A third of a Humpback Whale.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[FB101]

I don't have a dog in this hunt anymore but having shot the Z9 + Z100-400 I was very impressed with AF speed, performance of VR and image sharpness. I wasn't a fan of the EF mount version but this lens is in an altogether different league.

The 400 f:4.5 gives you 2/3rd stop more light (useful but not dramatic considering you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between Iso 4000 and Iso 6400 on the Z9) and saves you 1/2lb but at the cost of flexibility. If 0.5lb is that critical (mobility), then I'd venture a guess that zoom flexibility will matter and that the MFD of the 100-400 (75cm) vs 400 f:4.5 (2.5m) will matter even more (close to macro capability).

And then the 400 f:4.5 is also $550 more expensive.

I get that the 400 f:4.5 is the new 500pf for Z mount considering how good the 1.4xTC is and the resulting 560mm f:6.3 - but I don't know if it makes sense in a world where the 100-400 is so good and cheaper (and also takes the 1.4x TC quite well). In EF mount, the 100-400 did not match the 500pf and the existence of both made sense, but in Z mount... I am not so sure.
I have not shot the 400 f:4.5 so maybe there is something amazing about AF performance (tracking would be an area where possibly there could be a noticeable improvement) or how it balances on the Z9 or visibly better image quality; but considering how good the zoom is already, will it make a practical difference?

The one thing that doesn't make any sense for sure would be to buy a 500pf now to put on a Z body. The 500pf is now more expensive, heavier (and even more with FTZ adapter), longer than the 400 f:4.5 and is not Z native so it doesn't get all the benefits of the Z9's AF and IBIS. It's funny how the lens that got me into Nikon big time is mostly irrelevant today (in a Z mount context, not for EF where it's still very relevant)...

 

[MotoPixel]

Claire,

Good timing with your question as this past Friday I received my Z TC-14X to pair with the 100-400mm lens I've had a for a number of months. My lens options for my Z9 are basically complete now, though I'll see what I think of the 200-600 or 600 when they arrive. I had an 800mm PF on order but canceled it due to minimal need...that decision has been confirmed as a good one with the preliminary testing I've done with the 100-400mm + TC + DX crop mode. I also own a 500pf + TC14EIII that will get some use, but even if I didn't have that, I'd go with the same kit.

Incredible that with 1 body, 3 lenses and a TC I can cover from 14mm to 840mm (out to 1050 and more if I include the 500pf + TC) and have IQ superior to anything we could have imagined a decade ago. Granted the 3 lenses are all F4 or slower, but with modern bodies that's not the penalty it used to be, other than DOF/Bokeh...and I have an assortment of F mount primes that will get me that, if I need it. The 400 f4.5 doesn't check any boxes for me and I'm not sure either the upcoming 200-600 or 600 will have use cases that cause me to pull the trigger. The big question looming is what I get for a second body...I miss having both a D850 and D500. While the Z9, for me, replaces and handily improves upon both, it's only one body...arrrrgggghhhhh!

For the wide variety of subjects and genre's I shoot, I will not give up the flexibility of the zoom for that last small % of IQ. I haven't had time to get out and do any detailed testing in a wide variety of scenarios, but I did some quick shots at my home as one of my feeders was being overrun by some juvenile cardinals yesterday. Very pleased with what I was able to accomplish with this "worst case" scenario

This shot was taken handheld with an effective focal length of 820mm...lens at 390mm, 1.4 TC and 1.5 DX crop and then cropped about 10% in post. I was shooting from inside my kitchen, through an open window so having the zoom allowed the best position to compose as I needed and cover a lot of the branch areas of the tree near one of my feeders. As I'm sure you're aware, same situations often apply in the field if in a blind or have limited locations to shoot from. I did edit the image minimally in PL5, though the OOC standard jpg is not all that far off.

https://flic.kr/p/2nE36vx

Cheers!

 

[DRM]

I have the 100-400 and use it on my Z 6II. If I was only shooting portraits of deer, bears, smaller animals and birds of all sizes and had to choose between one or the other, I would confidently choose the 400 f/4.5.

But the 100-400 is so much more than a 400 mm wildlife lens. I‘ve been completely satisfied using it as a family lens, event lens, music festival lens, parade lens, zoo lens, and more. Even if I got a 400 mm prime, I would still keep the 100-400.

 

[ClaireH105]

I have the 100-400 and use it on my Z 6II. If I was only shooting portraits of deer, bears, smaller animals and birds of all sizes and had to choose between one or the other, I would confidently choose the 400 f/4.5.

But the 100-400 is so much more than a 400 mm wildlife lens. I‘ve been completely satisfied using it as a family lens, event lens, music festival lens, parade lens, zoo lens, and more. Even if I got a 400 mm prime, I would still keep the 100-400.

If you would get only one of these lenses, the question of which one is a better choice turns on what you photograph and where. Which is more valuable to you: the flexibility of the Z 100-400 zoom or the extra 2/3s of a stop of light and better optics at 400 mm you get with the Z 400 f4.5.

I have the Z 100-400 and the 500 mm PF. My two most used lenses for wildlife. There are a number of places where the flexibility of the Z 100-400 (with or without a Z 1.4x TC) has been very useful to me, as subjects have been close and far, with little time to change lenses (or conditions not good for changing lenses). I used the lens extensively in Yellowstone, the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary, and Iceland this year.

The Z 70-200 f2.8 is very good and pairs nicely with the Z 1.4x TC and the Z 2x TC. It is 140-400 f5.6 with the Z 2x TC and quite good — I used that combination in Katmai last year before I got the Z 100-400 — although I do not think it is quite as good optically as the Z 100-400.

Of course, in some cases you can also have two bodies with you, each with a lens mounted. The Z 70-200 with a Z 1.4x TC on one body and the Z 400 f4.5 on another body could be a nice kit for some situations.

I have thought about getting the Z 400 f4.5. But not to replace the Z 100-400. It might be a replacement for the 500 mm PF, as it would give me both 400 mm f4.5 and 560 mm f6.3 with Z 1.4x TC, in addition to being native Z.

Thank you very much - lots of food for thought and very helpful insights

 

[ClaireH105]

Claire,

Good timing with your question as this past Friday I received my Z TC-14X to pair with the 100-400mm lens I've had a for a number of months. My lens options for my Z9 are basically complete now, though I'll see what I think of the 200-600 or 600 when they arrive. I had an 800mm PF on order but canceled it due to minimal need...that decision has been confirmed as a good one with the preliminary testing I've done with the 100-400mm + TC + DX crop mode. I also own a 500pf + TC14EIII that will get some use, but even if I didn't have that, I'd go with the same kit.

Incredible that with 1 body, 3 lenses and a TC I can cover from 14mm to 840mm (out to 1050 and more if I include the 500pf + TC) and have IQ superior to anything we could have imagined a decade ago. Granted the 3 lenses are all F4 or slower, but with modern bodies that's not the penalty it used to be, other than DOF/Bokeh...and I have an assortment of F mount primes that will get me that, if I need it. The 400 f4.5 doesn't check any boxes for me and I'm not sure either the upcoming 200-600 or 600 will have use cases that cause me to pull the trigger. The big question looming is what I get for a second body...I miss having both a D850 and D500. While the Z9, for me, replaces and handily improves upon both, it's only one body...arrrrgggghhhhh!

For the wide variety of subjects and genre's I shoot, I will not give up the flexibility of the zoom for that last small % of IQ. I haven't had time to get out and do any detailed testing in a wide variety of scenarios, but I did some quick shots at my home as one of my feeders was being overrun by some juvenile cardinals yesterday. Very pleased with what I was able to accomplish with this "worst case" scenario

This shot was taken handheld with an effective focal length of 820mm...lens at 390mm, 1.4 TC and 1.5 DX crop and then cropped about 10% in post. I was shooting from inside my kitchen, through an open window so having the zoom allowed the best position to compose as I needed and cover a lot of the branch areas of the tree near one of my feeders. As I'm sure you're aware, same situations often apply in the field if in a blind or have limited locations to shoot from. I did edit the image minimally in PL5, though the OOC standard jpg is not all that far off.

https://flic.kr/p/2nE36vx

Cheers!

Great insights - thank you. Like you, I had a D850 and a D500 which made it easy for two bodies with different lenses. Tricky choice now.

 

[ClaireH105]

I don't have a dog in this hunt anymore but having shot the Z9 + Z100-400 I was very impressed with AF speed, performance of VR and image sharpness. I wasn't a fan of the EF mount version but this lens is in an altogether different league.

The 400 f:4.5 gives you 2/3rd stop more light (useful but not dramatic considering you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between Iso 4000 and Iso 6400 on the Z9) and saves you 1/2lb but at the cost of flexibility. If 0.5lb is that critical (mobility), then I'd venture a guess that zoom flexibility will matter and that the MFD of the 100-400 (75cm) vs 400 f:4.5 (2.5m) will matter even more (close to macro capability).

And then the 400 f:4.5 is also $550 more expensive.

I get that the 400 f:4.5 is the new 500pf for Z mount considering how good the 1.4xTC is and the resulting 560mm f:6.3 - but I don't know if it makes sense in a world where the 100-400 is so good and cheaper (and also takes the 1.4x TC quite well). In EF mount, the 100-400 did not match the 500pf and the existence of both made sense, but in Z mount... I am not so sure.
I have not shot the 400 f:4.5 so maybe there is something amazing about AF performance (tracking would be an area where possibly there could be a noticeable improvement) or how it balances on the Z9 or visibly better image quality; but considering how good the zoom is already, will it make a practical difference?

The one thing that doesn't make any sense for sure would be to buy a 500pf now to put on a Z body. The 500pf is now more expensive, heavier (and even more with FTZ adapter), longer than the 400 f:4.5 and is not Z native so it doesn't get all the benefits of the Z9's AF and IBIS. It's funny how the lens that got me into Nikon big time is mostly irrelevant today (in a Z mount context, not for EF where it's still very relevant)...

thank you very much - more really great points for consideration. I was rather concerned about the 2.5m MFD

 

[BillW]

thank you very much - more really great points for consideration. I was rather concerned about the 2.5m MFD

The close focus ability of the Z 100-400 is very nice. I find it works well for butterflies and dragonflies and other smaller critters. And for situations where your subject ends up closer than you might expect.

I was kayaking yesterday and stopped to watch a mink in the rocks along the shore of a narrow channel between two lakes. After a bit, the mink got in the water and started to swim, turning toward my kayak. I had the Z 100-400 + Z 2x TC on my Z9 (testing that combination — not ideal in all cases, given it is f11, but also very useful at times). It kept swimming toward my kayak, closer than I have ever been to a mink, making me wonder if it would try to jump in the kayak (thankfully it did not).

I was able to follow the mink as it got very close to me, given the roughly 2.5 to 3.2 foot minimum focus distance (depending on focal length) of the Z 100-400 (which does not change when you add a TC). At its closest, I could have touched it with a canoe paddle and it was on the edge of the minimum focus distance.

I would not have gotten the photos I got as the mink got closer with my 500 mm PF (which has a much longer MFD) or the Z 400 f4.5. In addition to the zoom, it is part of the versatility of the Z 100-400.

 

[EricBowles]

Hello.
I'm thinking about buying Z lenses for a Nikon Z9 which I have on order. Does anyone have a view on the Nikkor Z 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 VR S vs the Z 400mm F/4.5 for wildlife photography? I mostly shoot handheld rather than with a tripod/monopod

thank you!

Hi Claire

I've got the 400 f/4.5 and love it.

Here was my thought process:

• I have the Z 70-200 f/2.8 and use it at f/2.8 or f/3.2 regularly. It's a staple.
• I have the Z 1.4 TC allowing the 70-200 to be 280mm at f/4.
• I have always skipped the 80-400 lenses in favor of the 70-200 and other long lens options.
• I replaced the 500mm PF when I got the 400mm f/4.5
• For really distant subjects, I have the F-mount 600mm f/4 VR or the Z 800mm PF
• The 500mm PF lens has a problem with specular highlights. It's not something you run into all the time, but it is an issue for shorebirds and backlit subjects. The 100-400 for me would only be a benefit in the 280-400mm range - and some of that could be achieved with a crop with minimal impact. I was not going to be going to jobs with a slow 100-400 over a 70-200 f/2.8.
• The 400mm is my primary lens between 200/280mm and 800mm. I have other items, but that one lens is the main choice.
• 2/3 stop is worth something both in terms of ISO/noise and in terms of backgrounds. Backgrounds are important.
• Before getting the 800mm PF, my bird walk combination was the 300mm f/4 and 1.4 TC on a Z camera. The 400mm f/4.5 is faster and lighter and even better with the TC.

There are a couple of advantages for the 100-400. The big one is for close ups of insects dues to the short minimum focus distance. The 100-400 is also a relatively small, light lens making it a good choice for travel and excellent paired with the 24-120.

If you need as much reach as possible, the 100-400 is borderline. You don't really want to buy a 100-400 intending to use it most of the time with the 1.4 TC at an effective f/8 aperture. The 200-500 or upcoming 200-600 may be better and cheaper options if more reach is needed.

 

[Anjin San]

Hello.
I'm thinking about buying Z lenses for a Nikon Z9 which I have on order. Does anyone have a view on the Nikkor Z 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 VR S vs the Z 400mm F/4.5 for wildlife photography? I mostly shoot handheld rather than with a tripod/monopod

thank you!

I've got both the 100-400 and a 500PF that I adapt…and although the IQ for the latter is very slightly higher for large prints almost all of my output goes to the blog so it's screen output and that makes shots from the two essentially identical quality wise…one can still see minor differences but it's more different than better or worse. Like you…I'm primarily a handheld shooter since I'm hiking along the marsh, trail or whatever…and I find that I value the flexibility of the zoom more than the slightly better IQ at high print sizes.

As another reply noted…the 100-400 along with in my case the 24-70 makes a very nice travel duo when I am looking for a smaller kit to haul along. I would have bought the 24-120 if it was available back with I got my Z7II rather than the 24-70. I also have the Z9, both TCs, as well as the 14-30 and 24-200 and what I take depends on the purpose of the trip…landscape, wildlife, general travel via car, or lightweight travel…for the latter I would likely take the Z7II over the Z9 for weight and since high FPS and the better AF for wildlife aren't as big of a deal and for tourist type travel trips I would take the 14-30 and the 24-200 probably to cover as much of a FL range with the smallest/lightest kit. I've actually considered selling the 500PF as it doesn't get used as much these days but am yet to decide whether taking it as well as the 100-400 on my two bodies is worth it for wildlife hikes.

BillW's thoughts on replacing the 500PF with the 400/4.5 are also well worth considering…as well as the 70-200 and TCs. I an see situations where the 70-200 on on one body and the 400 on the other body would be nice, particularly if one wasn't in a great lens changing environment.

 

[Anjin San]

I also have the Z 100-400 and 500 PF. Before my Z9 arrived my go to lens for a general wildlife walkabout was the 500 with a D500. At the moment my set up of choice is the Z9 with the 100-400 and 1.4 TC. This works well in the generally good light we have this summer and gives the flexibility to capture some of the larger birds in flight, deer and hares etc (with some cropping) as well as acting as a good lens for close up work with summer insects and dragonflies. When light becomes more of an issue I'm likely to go back to the 500 PF on the Z9 or maybe the D500 - i'll have fun working out which! For me I don't think the 400 f/4.5 adds enough to justify a purchase.

The Z9/100-400/1.4TC is also my default wildlife walkabout these days with the 24-70 and the other TC and perhaps the 14-40 along as well if much landscaping might be involved. Another consideration is where said walkabouts might be…down here in SW FL that's a great combination but out west say with longer ranges to elk or sheep or goats more might be better…although in my case that would just be the 500PF and that's actually shorter than the zoom with the TC on it. The 800 might be…well, would be…nice to have but it wouldn't get used that much for me and that, so far, has made the bang for the buck equation come down on not buying one…especially as my darned bride is insistent that she's not a Sherpa…she wouldn't even carry my 500PF to use on her Z50 for long range shots even through I offered, but her response was "if it's that far away I'll just tell you to take the pictures".

preliminary testing I've done with the 100-400mm + TC + DX crop mode.

Hadn't really thought about using DX mode since one can always crop the z9 in post…but is there really any difference between using DX mode in the field and just cropping a bit more in post? There was some discussion on this recently and I have it on my list to test out…but since DX mode just uses the central pixels but the actual pixels used for AF and imaging are the same it intuitively seems that neither of these would have an advantage…but the previous discussion indicated that at least some of us had noticed a difference which was the reason it's on my list of things to test on my next outing.

I've also thought about whether getting the F mount TC for the 500PF makes sense, it might if I decide to keep it rather than go all Z mount…but again that would give me reach out to 700 in FX or 1050 in DX mode, but then the 100-400 and 2xTC gives me 800/1200 albeit at a higher aperture so not much DoF and bokeh there, but then at distances where 800 or 1200 mm is needed DoF is going to be pretty deep anyway since any of the tripod required lenses aren't ever going to be an option for me.

And as MotoPixel says…a second body would be nice to have as well. I've got the Z7II but it doesn't have the AF the Z9 does, it's good but not that good. For me at least the drawback to using it as my second body as I'm doing now is more the user mode vs shooting banks thing although that is relatively minor…having to have the controls set differently makes switching to the other body a lot less instinctual and more having to think about which body I'm on now. Heading out to Corkscrew next week and I'm going to put the 500PF on the Z7II and the 100-400/1.4 on the Z9 and see how they actually work in the field…and will probably swap the lenses on the bodies halfway through the walk…and I'm planning to shoot all subjects with both lenses to do my own comparisons along with trying the DX mode option. as well.

 

[Anjin San]

Tricky choice now.

So many toys…so little time to play, not to mention so few dollars.

 

[EricBowles]

Hadn't really thought about using DX mode since one can always crop the z9 in post…but is there really any difference between using DX mode in the field and just cropping a bit more in post? There was some discussion on this recently and I have it on my list to test out…but since DX mode just uses the central pixels but the actual pixels used for AF and imaging are the same it intuitively seems that neither of these would have an advantage…but the previous discussion indicated that at least some of us had noticed a difference which was the reason it's on my list of things to test on my next outing.

And as MotoPixel says…a second body would be nice to have as well. I've got the Z7II but it doesn't have the AF the Z9 does, it's good but not that good. For me at least the drawback to using it as my second body as I'm doing now is more the user mode vs shooting banks thing although that is relatively minor…having to have the controls set differently makes switching to the other body a lot less instinctual and more having to think about which body I'm on now. Heading out to Corkscrew next week and I'm going to put the 500PF on the Z7II and the 100-400/1.4 on the Z9 and see how they actually work in the field…and will probably swap the lenses on the bodies halfway through the walk…and I'm planning to shoot all subjects with both lenses to do my own comparisons along with trying the DX mode option. as well.

There are two advantages of DX mode that cause me to seriously consider it some of the time. With mirrorless, you have a viewfinder that matches the actual image, so DX mode makes the central part of the image larger. That makes it a little easier to see subjects - particularly difficult subjects such as when they are obstructed or distant or distant in flight. The other advantage also relates to the EVF - the AF boxes are all bigger. With the Z9 you can choose Dynamic S,M or L, but you also can use DX which makes those boxes larger and might be helpful for some subjects. The same is true for the Wide S and L boxes - they are bigger in relation to the frame.

It can be hard using the Z7ii next to the Z9. The control layout and AF modes are quite different. I think it's an option if you need the Z7ii for something specific - like landscapes or environmental wildlife shots.

 

[MotoPixel]

Eric,

You touch on exactly why I prefer to shoot in DX mode for distant or small subjects where I know from the outset that I'll need to crop the image. I like being able to compose on the screen when I take the shot, not crop in post. Also, with the magnified viewfinder display, I get a clearer view of any distractions in the image that I might not otherwise notice. Good points on the AF boxes being larger...not sure if that helps, but I can't see as it hurts. To me, the Z9 is like having a D850, D6 and D500 all in one body, all on steroids...except it's one body! lol

My biggest complaint about the Z9 button layout is the location of the menu and playback buttons...I wish they were swapped. It's much more natural for my thumb to just slide down from the multi-selector to the menu button than the playback and I still haven't developed the muscle memory for that...with time, I will, though.

 

[Butlerkid]

Since in DX mode, the subject is filling more of the frame, I believe it is a lot easier for the focus system to achieve focus.

 

[MotoPixel]

Karen,

The area of the DX image on the sensor is the same as it would be in FX mode, it's just that the smaller DX area is scaled to fill the viewfinder and the surrounding FX area pixels are ignored...so I don't believe the AF is affected...but I could be wrong in that. It all depends on whether the AF sensors and processing is restricted to the DX area before any AF processing takes place.

 

[Amasaback]

Karen,

The area of the DX image on the sensor is the same as it would be in FX mode, it's just that the smaller DX area is scaled to fill the viewfinder and the surrounding FX area pixels are ignored...so I don't believe the AF is affected...but I could be wrong in that. It all depends on whether the AF sensors and processing is restricted to the DX area before any AF processing takes place.

I have wondered the same. It sure seems like it locks better and if you are going to crop later anyway, being able to see the subject and what the camera is trying to lock on to seems to be an advantage. Also being able to confirm with focus peaking. I set one of my front function buttons to be able to quickly switch on the fly.

 

[Butlerkid]

I have wondered the same. It sure seems like it locks better and if you are going to crop later anyway, being able to see the subject and what the camera is trying to lock on to seems to be an advantage. Also being able to confirm with focus peaking. I set one of my front function buttons to be able to quickly switch on the fly.

Yes, I believe Steve mentioned that focusing sometimes improved when going to DX mode because the subject was more dominant in the frame.

 

[Anjin San]

Since in DX mode, the subject is filling more of the frame, I believe it is a lot easier for the focus system to achieve focus.

I wonder about that…all you’re doing in DX is looking only at central pixels and they’re the same size and everything as in FX mode…so intuitively I don’t see any difference in AF accuracy unless the subject being a larger percentage of whatever AF area you’ve selected makes a difference. Don’t know if that’s true or not…but if not I would like to understand why. For BIF or other fast action…using FX makes it easier IMO to keep the subject in the veiwfinder…but I’m curious if DX is better and why