Nikon 180-600mm lens ship date

[arbitrage]

DX mode often improves BEAF, increases buffer depth, increases shots per card space, increases shots per home storage space. On MILCs it creates a magnified image in the EVF/LCD which can be beneficial to see your subject better. So there are certainly good reasons to use DX mode in the field (I do all the time) when you know you will never end up using the pixels beyond the DX frame once back on the computer with your crop tool in hand.

What it never does is increase "reach" or focal length.

On the other hand, a DX sensor may increase reach (as defined as pixels per area). Just have to do the math to check. You could also pull out examples where a given DX camera actually has less reach than a given FX camera if say the FX camera has 61MP and the DX has less than 26MP.

 

[BLev65]

DX mode often improves BEAF, increases buffer depth, increases shots per card space, increases shots per home storage space. On MILCs it creates a magnified image in the EVF/LCD which can be beneficial to see your subject better. So there are certainly good reasons to use DX mode in the field (I do all the time) when you know you will never end up using the pixels beyond the DX frame once back on the computer with your crop tool in hand.

What it never does is increase "reach" or focal length.

On the other hand, a DX sensor may increase reach (as defined as pixels per area). Just have to do the math to check. You could also pull out examples where a given DX camera actually has less reach than a given FX camera if say the FX camera has 61MP and the DX has less than 26MP.

Thank you for adding this Geoff...
I hate getting into arguments about silly things like this. To the question that was asked... Do you think the 180-600 will give good performance with a 1.4x converter? Personally, I do not. I think that the 180-600 will, by necessity, be a compromised optic. The latter does not mean it will be bad, it just represents the realities of economics. The lens is a sub $2000 lens that is being asked to do a lot. Furthermore, with a maximum aperture of f6.3 at 600mm, one would be shooting at 840mm @ f8.82. If 600mm is the weakest focal length,... something that some pre-production users suggest, then you would likely need to stop down to f/11. All of this is fine if you are shooting close to your subject in good light.
Now, my prior comments were based on my use case. First, I have an 800 f6.3, so if I want to shoot long, then that is what I will use. On the other hand, if I am traveling and the 180-600 is my one telephoto lens for the trip, I will accept the shortcomings of a DX crop in order to maximize the available light, retain the lowest possible ISO, and optimize the AF speed. As ISO increases, you lose details in the final image. This loss of detail is negligible up to ISO 1600 or so. Once you cross into ISO 3200 and above, the noise reduces the capacity to produce a large clean image.
In the end, both the addition of a converter or the choice to use DX crop is a compromise.
Case in point... the attached photo was taken on Monday. It was rainy and overcast. I had the 800 f6.3 with me on a Z9, I had the 400 f4.5 with me on the Z8, and I had a 1.4x teleconverter in my pocket. I could have either quickly picked the Z9 and 800mm lens, shot with the Z8 and 400 f4.5, or fumbled around in the rain to add a 1.4x converter to my Z8.
This image was shot in DX crop on the Z8 with the 400 @ f4.5, 1/125 second, and ISO 6400. The Z9 would have required a higher ISO, slower shutter speed, or severe underexposure and the addition of the 1.4x would have required the same. The choice to use DX crop was a deliberate decision that allowed me to get the shot.
Again,... these things are all about the compromises each photographer is willing to accept.

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

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

 

[Patrick M]

My stealer called, I should have this (z180-600) next week! Woo hoo

 

[Cameron T]

My stealer called, I should have this (z180-600) next week! Woo hoo

I'm assuming you're nps?

At least the 31st seems to be accurate, which is good news. Im first on my list for my store

 

[SCoombs]

My stealer called, I should have this (z180-600) next week! Woo hoo

Who is he going to steal it from and will he steal one for me, too?

 

[Steve Miller]

The following are my suggestions...
1. If you are using a 47MP camera and you need more focal length, shoot your 180-600 in DX crop mode. Doing this will get you to a 900mm field of view while maintaining a faster maximum aperture and autofocus.
2. If you want the best quality you can get for less, get a 500PF and use the TC1.4III with FTZ. This will get you 700mm f/8 and if you need more, shoot that at DX crop to get to slightly over 1000mm field of view at f8.

bruce

Hi Bruce,

Aside from seeing accurate framing at the time of getting the shot, what is the benefit of shooting in DX mode vs cropping from FX mode in post production?

This can be a general question but in my specific case, I'm looking to buy the Z8 and 180-600 and am debating about (when needed) shooting in FX mode vs "extending the reach" in camera by shooting in DX mode. I ask because I'm coming from a crop sensor (Fuji X-H2s) and regularly shoot at an effective field of view of 900mm from the long end of my 150-600 lens. Note: the Fuji is a slower f/8 lens at 600mm with an effective FF equivalent aperture of f/12 (in terms of DOF...from a light gathering perspective, it is of course an f/8 lens).

Regardless of whether I shoot in DX in camera, or I crop in post from an FX file to DX dimensions, I believe I'll end up with a 20 MP image with an effective FOV of 900mm and effective aperture of f/9.45 (in depth of field terms). If this is the case, what is the benefit of shooting in DX mode vs cropping from FX in post production?

It's too bad Nikon doesn't offer what Leica does with their Q cameras. When you use their digital zoom, all it does is apply a crop to the 28mm 60MP file to either a 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm FOV file. If you shoot in RAW (DNG for Leica), you still have the full 28mm FOV 60MP image when you open it in Lightroom, but a crop has been applied (which is reversible by simply pulling up the crop tool). It's the best of both worlds, you still have access to the full file, but you get the benefit of composing the shot at the tighter cropped focal length in camera.

Thanks!

Steve

 

[BLev65]

Hi Bruce,

Aside from seeing accurate framing at the time of getting the shot, what is the benefit of shooting in DX mode vs cropping from FX mode in post production?

This can be a general question but in my specific case, I'm looking to buy the Z8 and 180-600 and am debating about (when needed) shooting in FX mode vs "extending the reach" in camera by shooting in DX mode. I ask because I'm coming from a crop sensor (Fuji X-H2s) and regularly shoot at an effective field of view of 900mm from the long end of my 150-600 lens. Note: the Fuji is a slower f/8 lens at 600mm with an effective FF equivalent aperture of f/12 (in terms of DOF...from a light gathering perspective, it is of course an f/8 lens).

Regardless of whether I shoot in DX in camera, or I crop in post from an FX file to DX dimensions, I believe I'll end up with a 20 MP image with an effective FOV of 900mm and effective aperture of f/9.45 (in depth of field terms). If this is the case, what is the benefit of shooting in DX mode vs cropping from FX in post production?

It's too bad Nikon doesn't offer what Leica does with their Q cameras. When you use their digital zoom, all it does is apply a crop to the 28mm 60MP file to either a 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm FOV file. If you shoot in RAW (DNG for Leica), you still have the full 28mm FOV 60MP image when you open it in Lightroom, but a crop has been applied (which is reversible by simply pulling up the crop tool). It's the best of both worlds, you still have access to the full file, but you get the benefit of composing the shot at the tighter cropped focal length in camera.

Thanks!

Steve

HI Steve...
From a pure image standpoint, there is no advantage to shooting in DX. In fact, I try to avoid using DX and will normally opt for the more appropriate lens. For a person with multiple lenses, this could be the 180-600 or 800PF (the latter I had with me). To be clear, when in the field, I would never be able to carry the 400 f4.5, 180-600, and 800PF, these decisions would need t be made ahead of time.
Anyway, to your question... the primary disadvantage is the loss of pixels and need to make compositional decisions that will be relatively permanent. Had I stayed in FX and center composed, I could crop it later at home. Furthermore, I might have decided to keep more of the environment and thus minimized the additional noise that is inherent with a large crop.
However, to your point, there are a few advantages to a DX crop... First, I like to get my composition "right" in the field... in fact, I take a lot of personal pride in doing this. If FX is too much negative space, DX allows me to compose as I like. Second, a DX file is a lot less data. As a result, my memory cards will hold more pictures. While this might seem insignificant, if you are out for a long day of good shooting or you are reaching the end of a card when the action is picking up, a DX crop will get you 2+ pictures for the price of one. Third, DX crops res-up faster and move through LR quicker because they are smaller files.
Please note... in a perfect world, I'd shoot FX all the time with my gear. However, at 7:15AM on a dreary rainy morning, being able to quickly shoot a 400mm f4.5 lens @4.5 and 1/125 sec seemed like the right decision to me.

bruce

 

[mosoaringwings]

"If you are using a 47MP camera and you need more focal length" strongly implies that whatever follows is going to be something which will provide increased focal length. In fact, I'd argue that the statement is nonsensical if what follows does not attempt to somehow provide a greater focal length.

It's true that you mention the field of view, but I don't understand why this would matter. You can easily obtain the same thing using even the most basic image editor on a cell phone. For this reason, along with the fact that you had preceded this with "if... you need more focal length," I interpreted the statement to have to do with focal length rather than merely with field of view alone.

All questions of misunderstanding or miscommunication aside, I think the bottom line is that people looking for more focal length than 600mm are not going to gain anything from shooting in DX mode but may from a TC if the lens works well with one. I think you're right: there's a good chance it won't! On the other hand, in reading copious amounts of user reports and looking at sample images, a few things definitely seem true:

1) TCs appear to work drastically better on mirrorless cameras than they did on DSLRs. Most reports of disappointing results from TCs come from DSLR days, while there are a fair number of reports from people who were disappointed with TCs on their DSLRs and found that after trying the combo on mirrorless it worked much better. There are also many reports of people who found that by fine tuning their lens on a DSLR body with the TC attached they got much more satisfying results, which seems to support the thought that mirrorless cameras yield better TC results. None of this guarantees any success, but it certainly gives reason for people to think it's worth a try.

2) Z TCs seem to work far better than F-mount TCs as a general rule.

Between these two facts, it's reasonable that a person may want to see how it goes before dismissing the idea of a 180-600 + TC.

Thank you for your 2nd point. This is exactly what I hope for that Z TC system better than F mount. I had mentioned that I did not have good experience of using my D500 with 1.4x for Sigma 150-600. It was F mount plus third party lens. So I really hope the Z 1.4x with 180-600 in mirrorless system provide some satisfying results. I understand TC works much better for big prime lens like F4 or F2.8. I don't plan to use 1.4x all the time only when I need the extra reach, so even if it only works sometime at limited conditions I might still get it.

Also thank all the people providing your feedback, really appreciate all!

 

[Patrick M]

I'm assuming you're nps?

At least the 31st seems to be accurate, which is good news. Im first on my list for my store

no I'm not NPS. But I've been on their "interested" list since the dawn of time, so I was one of their first orders I guess.

 

[Cameron T]

no I'm not NPS. But I've been on their "interested" list since the dawn of time, so I was one of their first orders I guess.

Good to know, I'm in the same boat. As far as I know, nobody on nps is on the waiting list here either yet.

 

[John Navitsky]

My stealer called, I should have this (z180-600) next week! Woo hoo

interesting. i have an nps order in, but usually my dealer doesn’t call till they have order in hand

 

[Steve Miller]

HI Steve...
From a pure image standpoint, there is no advantage to shooting in DX. In fact, I try to avoid using DX and will normally opt for the more appropriate lens. For a person with multiple lenses, this could be the 180-600 or 800PF (the latter I had with me). To be clear, when it the field, I would never be able to carry the 400 f4.5, 180-600, and 800PF, these decisions would need t be made ahead of time.
Anyway, to your question... the primary disadvantage is the loss of pixels and need to make compositional decisions that will be relatively permanent. Had I stayed in FX and center composed, I could crop it later at home. Furthermore, I might have decided to keep more of the environment and thus minimized the additional noise that is inherent with a large crop.
However, to your point, there are a few advantages to a DX crop... First, I like to get my composition "right" in the field... in fact, I take a lot of personal pride in doing this. If FX is too much negative space, DX allows me to compose as I like. Second, a DX file is a lot less data. As a result, my memory cards will hold more pictures. While this might seem insignificant, if you are out for a long day of good shooting or you are reaching the end of a card when the action is picking up, a DX crop will get you 2+ pictures for the price of one. Third, DX crops res-up faster and move through LR quicker because they are smaller files.
Please note... in a perfect world, I'd shoot FX all the time with my gear. However, at 7:15AM on a dreary rainy morning, being able to quickly shoot a 400mm f4.5 lens @4.5 and 1/125 sec seemed like the right decision to me.

bruce

Thanks, Bruce.

Your answer is pretty much in line with what I assumed. The wild card was whether the DX crop functioned like the Leica Q series, in which case you'd get the benefit of composing in camera to the tighter shot, but have the advantage of being able to revert back to FX dimensions if you found that you wanted something outside the DX frame.

I'm not so concerned with the second and third reasons you noted above but definitely see the advantage of composing in camera and seeing the tighter crop before taking the shot (i.e. getting the framing right in camera). But it's good to know there is no difference from an image quality standpoint between cropping an FX file in post vs starting with a DX file in camera.

One other thought...with Leica Q files, when you apply the in camera crop (similar to switching from FX to DX with Nikon), the metering is done off the tighter frame lines (35, 50, 75 or 90) vs the full frame lines of the 28mm. This can be beneficial if you know you're going to stay with the cropped image. I would assume the same holds true with Nikon in that when shooting in DX mode, the metering system meters only from the DX frame size, as opposed to the entire FX frame area. Is this assumption correct?

Thanks again,

Steve

 

[Anjin San]

I've never been a fan of the suggestion that you can get more focal length by shooting in DX mode. You can change your field of view by doing that, but you are absolutely not getting anything equivalent to a longer focal length.

A narrower field of view is one factor in getting a longer focal length, though it's not nearly as meaningful a factor as it once was in the days of film or the earlier days of lower megapixel digitals.

Another factor, and the one I'd argue most people are actually looking for from longer focal lengths in 2013, 2018, 2023, etc., is increased magnification/the ability to resolve more detail at greater focal distances. People are looking to be able to photograph, say, an egret at a certain distance and have it fill their frame rather than be 50% of the frame, or get it to 50% rather than only 25%, so that the egret will look sharper and have more texture and more detail. Now shooting on a true DX camera can sometimes give you this if its sensor is adequate. For instance, some APS-C cameras out there have something like 30 MP sensors, which really does give a bit more detail to subjects at a certain distance than DX mode on a 45 MP sensor.

However, given that you are just cropping off the FF edges of a FF sensor and taking the APS-C portion of it, you're gaining no detail or magnification whatsoever.

A teleconverter, on the other hand, can at least theoretically provide more real detail as it is an optical magnifier. It's true that oftentimes the resolution of a lens being magnified by the TC is insufficient to meaningfully yield more detail and so in practice using the TC is not any better than just cropping an original - either in camera by changing to DX more or in post. However, a TC at least has the theoretical possibility of providing more detail on a more distant subject in a way that switching to DX mode never can. This is why people like to at least give them a try and hope they'll work well with a given lens. If that doesn't work, it doesn't work, but I've never understood how switching to DX mode is supposed to yield any improvement in this regard.

Agreed…I don’t shoot DX unless I know I’m cropping anyway…and use the TC and then DX but really I only switch to DX if AF is having trouble because despite my not really understanding why DX has been shown to improve AF lock on sometimes.

 

[Anjin San]

Anjin, I don't think our opinions about the 1.4x are all that different. I think if you look at my list, you'll see that I am pretty clear about when the 1.4x will not impact your images. However, if someone is buying a $1700 180-600 f6.3 to put a 1.4x converter on it and expecting "excellence," then I think they will be disappointed. In my humble opinion, there are better ways to get to the ultra telephoto range without having to convert and f6.3 lens to an f/8.8 lens.
The following are my suggestions...
1. If you are using a 47MP camera and you need more focal length, shoot your 180-600 in DX crop mode. Doing this will get you to a 900mm field of view while maintaining a faster maximum aperture and autofocus.
2. If you want the best quality you can get for less, get a 500PF and use the TC1.4III with FTZ. This will get you 700mm f/8 and if you need more, shoot that at DX crop to get to slightly over 1000mm field of view at f8.

As good as modern zooms are, they are a compromise optic. I carry a mix of zooms and primes, I just recognize the limitations for my shooting needs.
Finally, for the record... I have ordered the 180-600 and I am hoping that it is a strong lens. I loved my former 200-400 f4VR with all of its warts. A lens like this allows you to be a flexible shooter and to travel with less gear. Once I eventually get my lens, I will do a controlled comparison between it and my other lenses...
cheers,
bruce

I can’t argue with any of that…but as I said it all depends on one’s definition of excellence…and while a prime or no TC is almost going to be better at 1:1 than a zoom or no TC…the differences, especially with the 1.4…are pretty small at 1:1 and if the output is getting down sampled for blog/screen/Instagram…then if you can’t see the difference (and you really can’t, at least I can’t looking at my really nice Mac Studio monitor) then there is effectively no difference. And one must balance many factors besides ‘good enough’…cost, weight, flexibility, physical abilities, output, etc. Clearly a 14K lens is better at 1:1 than a 1700 zoom…nobody is going to debate that…but what is worthy of discussion are two things…does it matter and all those other factors.

DX does not improve IQ…it’s just cropping in the field…Steve has a video on that and IIRC it also increases noise…and sometimes it helps AF lock on a little better. Putting on a TC instead of DX puts more actual pixels on subject…and that’s a far greater contributor to final image IQ than the slight loss of individual pixel IQ IMO, especially with the Z TCs. I’ve ordered the new zoom as well…and expect it to become my primary wildlife lens unless weight, not needing the flexibility, and only needing 400 or 560 makes the 400/4.5 a better choice for that outing. Another good reason for not using Dx…at least for me…is it’s a whole lot easier to keep the BIF in the frame and not clip a wing that way…I can crop in post and use the left side of the frame if that’s where the bird is for the best wing position or whatever…and shooting that same thing in DX would have cut off the head/wing/tail.

 

[SCoombs]

Agreed…I don’t shoot DX unless I know I’m cropping anyway…and use the TC and then DX but really I only switch to DX if AF is having trouble because despite my not really understanding why DX has been shown to improve AF lock on sometimes.

It seems like the AF system in the Z8/9 operates off of what is displayed on the viewfinder/EVF. I believe Thom Hogan has come to this conclusion also in some of his writing. By decreasing the size the displayed frame, it's giving the AF system less data to process. You'll also notice that the AF system works better if the image displayed on the viewfinder/EVF is more brightly/properly exposed - even if this is achieved only by increasing the ISO and so there's not actually more light for the AF to work with. The AF really does seem to process the visual feed from the EVF.

 

[Anjin San]

It seems like the AF system in the Z8/9 operates off of what is displayed on the viewfinder/EVF. I believe Thom Hogan has come to this conclusion also in some of his writing. By decreasing the size the displayed frame, it's giving the AF system less data to process. You'll also notice that the AF system works better if the image displayed on the viewfinder/EVF is more brightly/properly exposed - even if this is achieved only by increasing the ISO and so there's not actually more light for the AF to work with. The AF really does seem to process the visual feed from the EVF.

Yep…I think it works that way too…but from an engineering standpoint the AF pixels are the same but DX is only looking at fewer pixels…but with looking at fewer but identical pixels…the software shouldn’t do any better of a job…but enough people have noticed that BEAF for instance works better for distant birds in DX that I just accept it as a fact even though as an engineer it makes no sense to me. The software is still using the same algorithms to determine if it recognizes an eye…and if there are 60 pixels on the eye in FX there re 60 in DX…and ignoringnhalf of the frame means the camera is doing half the work since it doesn’t AFAIK change to a new algorithm in DX. I’ve had a long discussion previously here and also in other places…and none of us could come up with an explanation of why it’s better that made sense…so I just accept it as a fact and moved on. True…AF has fewer pixels to process…but it’s processing them with the same algorithm and at the same rate…and if it can handle processing the FF data then its loafing the other half of the time in DX. I’m sure Nikon knows why…they just haven’t told the rest of us.

 

[John Navitsky]

Yep…I think it works that way too…but from an engineering standpoint the AF pixels are the same but DX is only looking at fewer pixels…but with looking at fewer but identical pixels…the software shouldn’t do any better of a job…

the thing is, the EVF stream is a lower resolution than the frame. so it's downres'd. so it wouldn't be identical pixels

 

[SCoombs]

Yep…I think it works that way too…but from an engineering standpoint the AF pixels are the same but DX is only looking at fewer pixels…but with looking at fewer but identical pixels…the software shouldn’t do any better of a job…but enough people have noticed that BEAF for instance works better for distant birds in DX that I just accept it as a fact even though as an engineer it makes no sense to me. The software is still using the same algorithms to determine if it recognizes an eye…and if there are 60 pixels on the eye in FX there re 60 in DX…and ignoringnhalf of the frame means the camera is doing half the work since it doesn’t AFAIK change to a new algorithm in DX. I’ve had a long discussion previously here and also in other places…and none of us could come up with an explanation of why it’s better that made sense…so I just accept it as a fact and moved on. True…AF has fewer pixels to process…but it’s processing them with the same algorithm and at the same rate…and if it can handle processing the FF data then its loafing the other half of the time in DX. I’m sure Nikon knows why…they just haven’t told the rest of us.

You have to remember that the computer isn't like you and I in that we can look at a scene and immediately hone in on the part of it that we care about and ignore everything else, but a computer is actually processing all pixels equally - and, since it doesn't know how something may move in the frame it can't even locate the eye and then process only nearby pixels for the next cycle. It's got to analyze every single pixel every single cycle, so giving it fewer pixels to analyze lets it get through each cycle faster.

 

[SCoombs]

the thing is, the EVF stream is a lower resolution than the frame. so it's downres'd. so it wouldn't be identical pixels

The EVF data may be downresed at some point in the chain after the AF is able to crunch it.

 

[John Navitsky]

The EVF data may be downresed at some point in the chain after the AF is able to crunch it.

it could be, but i doubt it. from a design perspective it would make more sense to downres it as you are putting it into the evf stream, then everything from that point uses the downres'd version.

remember that the more information the slower it will be to process so it's a balancing act

also:

after the AF is able to crunch it

after the ***subject detection*** system is able to crunch it

 

[xxx]

no I'm not NPS. But I've been on their "interested" list since the dawn of time, so I was one of their first orders I guess.

Jun 21 5:56 am EST, ordered through Nikon USA - NPS. Order status listed as processing.

 

[mosoaringwings]

BHphoto now shows shipping date Aug 31

 

[EricKlees]

DX mode often improves BEAF, increases buffer depth, increases shots per card space, increases shots per home storage space. On MILCs it creates a magnified image in the EVF/LCD which can be beneficial to see your subject better. So there are certainly good reasons to use DX mode in the field (I do all the time) when you know you will never end up using the pixels beyond the DX frame once back on the computer with your crop tool in hand.

What it never does is increase "reach" or focal length.

On the other hand, a DX sensor may increase reach (as defined as pixels per area). Just have to do the math to check. You could also pull out examples where a given DX camera actually has less reach than a given FX camera if say the FX camera has 61MP and the DX has less than 26MP.

I agree. I have been using DX mode on my Z9 since maybe march of 2022, or since I noticed it helps the AF recognize and track the subject since it is bigger in the EVF. Plus all the other reasons you've listed here. I really only use the DX mode if the AF doesn't seem to be that confident and the box is jumping a little, I then use DX mode. But if my AF is sticky, I will alwayus use FX for all my pixels and crop to what I need to. A lot of people dismiss the use of DX mode and even after explaining, they still dismiss it. One of those can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink it I guess.

 

[RichF]

I agree. I have been using DX mode on my Z9 since maybe march of 2022, or since I noticed it helps the AF recognize and track the subject since it is bigger in the EVF. Plus all the other reasons you've listed here. I really only use the DX mode if the AF doesn't seem to be that confident and the box is jumping a little, I then use DX mode. But if my AF is sticky, I will alwayus use FX for all my pixels and crop to what I need to. A lot of people dismiss the use of DX mode and even after explaining, they still dismiss it. One of those can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink it I guess.

I'll try that next time AF is not solid. I am not a fan of DX, I would rather have the extra pixels and crop after the fact

 

[Cameron T]

I'll try that next time AF is not solid. I am not a fan of DX, I would rather have the extra pixels and crop after the fact

I generally agree that I'd rather have the extra pixels, but only because dx crop doesn't always have the best framing for some shots. It's still handy when you need it though.