I can see the use of DX if you’re going to crop anyway for larger viewfinder presentation…but for action it’s easier for me at least to keep the subject in the viewfinder in FX, although I need to do more me testing. My current thought on the Z7II is that perhaps putting the 500PF on it with perhaps a 1.4 TC and keeping it setup for really long shots might be attractive. Dunno…still thinking on that…and while I think in most cases having 2 bodies so no lens swap is needed the ‘it just works different’ is an issue. I’m unlikely to buy a second Z9 because I want a smaller body for less wildlife or photo centric trips…but one tha5 worked mostly like the Z9 would get me to trade the Z7II for it…if only for the consistency and if it was only 75% of a Z9 with lower FPS or whatever that’s a much closer match for me in how it works.
Nikkor Z 100-400 vs the Z 400mm F/4.5 VR for wildlife photography
- Thread starter ClaireH105
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Yup, when I've tested it I've found switching to DX can help grab onto the eye with subject detection if it's borderline in FX.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Certainly the Z9 had some tendency to increase the likelihood of activating Bird Eye AF when switched into DX if the subject was fairly small in the frame in FX mode.
I'm not sure why this is because it is only using the same amount of sensors over the subject. Maybe because it isn't reading the outer AF sensors it can concentrate more on the subject in the DX frame??
For the observation of the AF points being larger in DX, I would guess that the AF point would still cover the same area of the subject but is just larger because the DX FOV has been expanded to fill the EVF. Someone may want to check that.
This may be of interest to some but I noted the Canon R5 and R3 really showed a strong tendency (more so than the Z9) to activate Bird Eye AF in DX mode compared to FX mode. Many times if I switched into DX it would immediately show eye-AF icon where it wasn't showing it in FX.
Also of note is that the Sony A1 sometimes shows the opposite behavior. I've noted many times where Eye-AF doesn't show in DX but then swapping back to FX it shows up. Not sure why that is...seems backwards to me.
What I can't determine with any of these cameras is whether there is any increase in AF hit rate when using DX vs FX. Certainly for small, fast subjects in flight you are better off staying in FX just to give you a better chance of keeping the subject in the VF.
I'm not sure why this is because it is only using the same amount of sensors over the subject. Maybe because it isn't reading the outer AF sensors it can concentrate more on the subject in the DX frame??
For the observation of the AF points being larger in DX, I would guess that the AF point would still cover the same area of the subject but is just larger because the DX FOV has been expanded to fill the EVF. Someone may want to check that.
This may be of interest to some but I noted the Canon R5 and R3 really showed a strong tendency (more so than the Z9) to activate Bird Eye AF in DX mode compared to FX mode. Many times if I switched into DX it would immediately show eye-AF icon where it wasn't showing it in FX.
Also of note is that the Sony A1 sometimes shows the opposite behavior. I've noted many times where Eye-AF doesn't show in DX but then swapping back to FX it shows up. Not sure why that is...seems backwards to me.
What I can't determine with any of these cameras is whether there is any increase in AF hit rate when using DX vs FX. Certainly for small, fast subjects in flight you are better off staying in FX just to give you a better chance of keeping the subject in the VF.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Cropping only a DX frame of the projected image is 44% of FX.
The parsimonious hypothesis is the AF has less work to do focusing with only these pics cells, especially if there are less misleading signals, objects. The image of this crop we see enlarged to fill the MILC EVF, which the on sensor AF doesn't/cannot use, obviously.
The parsimonious hypothesis is the AF has less work to do focusing with only these pics cells, especially if there are less misleading signals, objects. The image of this crop we see enlarged to fill the MILC EVF, which the on sensor AF doesn't/cannot use, obviously.
I was testing it with something similar. I was "trying" to photograph kites in flight. Wide Small was too small, Wide Large was good but a little hard to keep on the subject, and Area was too large. DX Crop made Wide Large a better choice because I found it easier to keep the subject in the AF box. But this was an unusual situation - a very fast, acrobatic bird with 560mm or 800mm focal lengths.
That’s a good explanation that makes sense to me…still the same AF algorithms but with a smaller FoV and the same size AF area in the viewfinder cutting out some of the distraction stuff makes sense. Even with the same AF area in both DX and FX…the area is covering less of the frame in the former so more subject/less distraction in the selected area. Thanks for the good explanation of why…maybe, it t least makes sense…it might be better in DX.
For arbitrage…yeah, same AF points and sensor pixels but for a given AF area there is a greater subject to not subject ratio in the AF area so that making it easier for AF to lock on makes sense…but OTOH keeping the tea on the subject might be easier…or not, depends on the user but it is for me…in FX. Those two things operate in opposing manner in AF working…and the crossover point will depend on user, subject, background and situation. Going to try it and see what works better for me and see if I can identify where the crossover point is.
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
Overview of the various Telephoto options
Telephoto Options Round Two | Thom Hogan
More about telephoto options for the Z System
www.zsystemuser.com
One thing that Thom does not address directly is that for many of us, the question is not which telephoto lens for my Z bodies do I want/need, but rather which telephoto lenses do I want/need. Given the diversity of what many of us photograph and the related circumstances (handheld versus tripod, travel, etc.), one telephoto is often not enough. For the moment, I think my principal telephoto kit will be the Z 100-400, the 500 mm PF, and the 800 mm PF (when I can get one), plus Z and F mount TCs. (Of course, I may not take all of this on any one trip or outing.) I also have the Z 70—200, the 300 mm PF and the 70-300 AF-P FX lenses to use as needed.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Is that actually true though if you are using an AF area that isn't the entire sensor?
Say you choose Wide Area L and aim it at a subject in FX....the WideArea L will cover a certain amount of that subject. Then if you switch over to DX won't the Wide Area L still cover the same amount of the subject (and therefore the same amount of non-subject)? The subject is magnified in the EVF but the Wide Area L is magnified also.
I guess that is what I was wondering if someone could test.
I remember back in the D500 v D850 days people would claim an advantage to the D500 was close to full sensor AF but really the D850 focus points covered the exact same amount of a given subject with a given lens. That wasn't really an advantage to the D500.
fcotterill
Well-known member
This question "Which telephoto(s) do I need?" involves an interesting set of factors. So your valid point prompts an attempt to sketch out some of these factors, challenges and considerations in a separate thread 
I think I understand and have tested what you describe. The D5 and the D500 had exactly the same AF - just for a smaller sensor on the D500. The modes were exactly the same and the size was essentially the same as crop mode on the D5.
The Wide Large area covers a specific portion of the frame in a full frame view. When you invoke DX mode, it simply eliminates the outer portions of the frame. So you see the same Wide Large box, but it covers a larger percentage of the EVF view because the entire image viewed is magnified with the out area cropped.
This applies to all AF modes except Area. The AF box is covering the same number of pixels, but it looks larger in terms of the frame you are viewing.
I find this allowed me to use Wide Large instead of Area, resulting in slightly faster and more accurate AF for small subjects. It's not that focus is any different - it's just easier to keep the AF box on the target and it operates faster than Area because it does not need to consider the entire frame.
Keep in mind that these AF Area modes apparently incorporate some level of scene detection and look for subjects accordingly ( I think that's if Matrix metering is used). So if you are photographing a small subject in a landscape, the camera may think it's a landscape and focus operates accordingly. If the subject is larger in the frame, the scene mode identifies the subject and scene more accurately and it improves AF performance.
If not using subject detection/tracking then the above is correct. However with detection/tracking enabled the camera starts with what's in the box but then analyzes the entire frame. So as someone pointed out above once the camera makes that switch to "looking" outside the box there is 225% more data to analyze in FF vs APS-C mode.
You can't really compare the AF system in MILC to DSLR. The D5/D850/D500 had the same AF module. So as you pointed out the same amount of data for AF was available with a given lens at a given range. Any difference in speed/accuracy was a function of processing power. Which was very evident to anyone who shot all three bodies.
Well…you're right. I thought that the area mode gave you whatever percentage of the viewfinder and that by switching to DX you would get the same percentage and hence more subject in the area…because…well, I thought that was the way it works. However…on further review I went and checked after your post and in both Wide and Dynamic area modes the box in the viewfinder is larger in DX than FX…so it still has the same ration of subject and background. I was…incorrectly…interpolating Steve's noted instance that it would sometimes lock in in DX when it was struggling in FX…and figured that was the reason. Since it's obviously not the reason…I have no idea why it's sometimes better in DX…but in reality it doesn't matter that much. If it's better in DX, it's better and if cropping will happen anyway then DX is probably a better choice. The issue of FX makes it easier to keep the BIF in the viewfinder and hence in the AF area sort of counterbalances the DX locks on better…so it's a matter of balancing the easier tracking in the viewfinder against the better DX AF lock on.
So…forget my rambling about that being the reason…I was trying to 'old intelligence community guy' analyze the why from the what happens. I'm still scratching my head and trying to figure out why it works that way…
Last edited:
There's a lot to be said for that tidbit from Thom…he does have a way of synthesizing a bunch of info in a manner that we may not have thought about before. So much so that I think that next week on my birding outing in addition to doing the 100-400 vs 100-400 with the 1.4 vs the 100-400 with the 2.0 (although I know that will be higher aperture and less IQ due to the 2.0, but how much less is the question for me and whether it matters for where my output goes) vs the 500PF I'm going to add in DX vs FX and think I will start with the 500PF on the Z7II in DX mode for reach and the 100-400 bare on the Z9 for a better overall FL coverage…I can always switch the Z7II to FX or add the 1.4 TC on the Z9 or put the Z9 in DX. Hopefully I'll get enough cooperative subjects to test all combinations on the same subject rather than having to compare different subjects because I didn't get one combo on that bird before he inconveniently flew away. OTOH, it's still summer down her in SW FL and my bride thinks there won't be many birds there at all…so we'll see.This question "Which telephoto(s) do I need?" involves an interesting set of factors. So your valid point prompts an attempt to sketch out some of these factors, challenges and considerations in a separate thread
My wife has not let me try her Z400 4.5 on my Z9 since she got it ... it lives on her Z50 when she is out birding and she has been going out with me a lot more since she got the Z400 4.5. She will not use the Z100-400 says it is to heavy. If she wants variable focal length she uses ftz adapted Tamron 18-400 (spooky good macro like capabilities) and Tamron 100-400 and she just took first place at our fair (3 judge panel) one image the 100-400 and the other the 18-400.
Before my Z800pf arrived I had switched to the Z100-400 over the 500 pf and since my wife thought it was to heavy after she tried it so I sold the 500pf as soon as I saw Steves release video on the Z800pf.
Except for an indoor shoot the ordination of a pastor recently I have not used anything on my Z9 but the Z800 PF but my focus is on bird ID photography (lots of small ones) and frequently fairly long distances so a bit of a specialist in the last few months as I learn more about the Z9.
Before my Z800pf arrived I had switched to the Z100-400 over the 500 pf and since my wife thought it was to heavy after she tried it so I sold the 500pf as soon as I saw Steves release video on the Z800pf.
Except for an indoor shoot the ordination of a pastor recently I have not used anything on my Z9 but the Z800 PF but my focus is on bird ID photography (lots of small ones) and frequently fairly long distances so a bit of a specialist in the last few months as I learn more about the Z9.
See the post above...
Apija
Active member
I'm primarily a handheld BIF / wildlife shooter and I just replaced my 500 PF with the new Z 400 f4.5. As I'm still waiting for delivery of my Z9 I do a lot of shootings of more or less stationary motifs with my good old Z6. The picture below was taken with the Z 400 f4.5 & the TC 1.4 on the Z6. I'm more than satisfied with the quality I get with my current combo but I'm unpatient to gain experience with the Z9.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Roy
Well-known member
I've used both lenses but i'm waiting on the mythical 200-600mm Nikkor Z.
The 400mm f4.5 is slightly sharper, focuses quicker and is less corrupted by a teleconverter.
But the 100-400mm being a Zoom is more versatile.
I never liked the old 80-400mm G lens so I might be biased.
It comes down to how and what you shoot...
crjPO
New member
I have both the 100-400 and now the 400 F4.5 and will keep both. I don't really see these lenses as either / or as they are functionally very different. The 100-400 is very versatile and a great lens but the 400 has several advantages in my use so far for a handholdable longer lens. It is amazingly light in the hand and extremely balanced, it's more than the total weight comparison. The 6 stops of vibration compensation on the Z9 (5.5 otherwise) is truly amazing at low shutter speeds (best in class). The bokeh is very nice. They both play well with the 1.4 TC while the 400 has reasonable performance with the 2.0. If you are looking for handholding telephoto I'd recommend the 400 over the 100-400. But of course you are giving up the flexibility of the zoom.
zule11
Active member
Nikon’s 400 4.5 S Test & Comparison - Hudson Henry
ricardo00
Well-known member
Nice comprehensive review with thoughts on what would make a good combination of lenses.
fcotterill
Well-known member
He sums up the options succinctly in the final sections with thoughtful advice on decisions for an individualized lens kit, particularly 'Which Telephoto(s)?' especially if one needs a lighter "Commando Kit".
My variant strategy 70-200 f2.8E FL on FTZ and 400 f4.5S
My variant strategy 70-200 f2.8E FL on FTZ and 400 f4.5S
Best thing about the video was his shirt. I'm not a follower of his so I have to ask, is the "Nikon affectionado" a term he uses all the time? Or had he been beer hunting prior to shooting the video?
Hudson's conclusions mirror my own in terms of the basic kit I've put together so far. 14-30, 24-100, 100-400 and TC 1.4 along with the 28 and 40 primes. I sold my 200-500, 24-120, 24-70 F mount lenses, but, so far, have kept the 70-200E FL, 300 2.8 VRII, 500pf, 85 1.8, 105 2.8 Micro, 20 1.8, Irix 11 f4 . No hurry to sell or replace any of these as they're all mostly special use cases and work brilliantly on the Z9. It's going to be interesting to see what Nikon pulls out of the hat for the 600 and 200-600...something tells me, given what they've already done in terms of novel approaches with some of the other Z lenses, we may have some pleasant surprises in store.
He's used the term before…but not every video. He try to tailor his advice to match what other brands do…but AFAIK he shoots pretty exclusively Nikon except for the Leica his wife bought him…but he does swap gear with his workshop co-leaders and talks about other brands as well…but primarily Nikon centric.