Just purchased Z5 II with 24-200mm Lens for Alaska Cruise

[nikon_bill]

Hello Everyone!

This is my first post so I am a newbie.

I just purchased a Nikon Z5 II with 24-200m lens for my Alaska cruise.

For the moment I have 2 questions.

1. I am going to use the crop mode feature and assign one of my function buttons to go from FX -> DX.
I have SD card 1 set to RAW and SD card 2 set to JPEG Fine. Will the Z5 II save the cropped image to RAW and JPEG or just JPEG?

2. I figured I would save the money and get the 24-200mm lens and use the FX -> DX function to increase my reach to 300mm.

What can I expect in terms of picture quality not using the full frame?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Clovishound]

You will not gain anything by switching to DX mode with a full frame lens. When you put the camera in DX mode it only uses around half the sensor and limits your images to about 12 MP. You can achieve the same thing by cropping a full frame image in post editing. You may find in post that you want a little less severe crop and preserve more of your original image.

The only way it makes sense to me is if you really want a preview in the camera of what a crop frame would look like, but you won't gain any advantage in the final image. If you need longer reach either a longer lens or perhaps a tele converter would be the best option, IMO. Perhaps look into a rental for the cruise. If you are going to be taking a lot of wildlife photos in the future, a long tele is a must. My 200-500 pretty much lives on my Z8. If I were buying today, I would spend the extra and get the Z 180-600, but the 200-500 works very well with an FTZ adapter.

You should be able to program your Z5ii to save one RAW file on the primary card, and a JPEG copy on the secondary card. That's what I do with my Z7ii and Z8. The JPEG card gives me a convenient backup, and will hold quite a few images, the 24MP Z5ii should hold nearly twice as many.

 

[nikon_bill]

Thanks @Clovishound !

That's what I figured.

 

[nikonpup]

RENT A 600MM LENS FOR SHOOTING FROM THE SHIP. HOPE THE 24-200MM IS NOT TOO HEAVY FOR YOU WHILE IN PORT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER LENSES?

 

[BF Hammer]

The Raw images do get cropped when set to DX mode. Expect to lose fine details doing this. By only utilizing the center pixels of the sensor, you drop back to 2008-level sensor resolution. There is no "have your cake and eat it too" scenario.

On technical merits, this all works. You will have photos. It's possible if you take a Z180-600mm you may not get any improvement. Long telephoto lenses have a learning curve and a cruise is a poor time to do the learning.

I think a Z50-II might have been more beneficial for this. You get 20MP with the crop sensor instead of 10-12MP with the Z5 cropped. Still can use the 24-200 lens.

Ps: Raw to card 1 and jpg to card 2 is exactly how I save files. 95% of the time I never use the jpgs but I still at least keep the option.

 

[nikon_bill]

RENT A 600MM LENS FOR SHOOTING FROM THE SHIP. HOPE THE 24-200MM IS NOT TOO HEAVY FOR YOU WHILE IN PORT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER LENSES?

No, the 24-200 is my only lens. Do you have some recommendations?

 

[Paliswe]

There's one small advantage with using DX mode on a FX camera. The viewfinder will show the DX area instead of the FX area. Never the less there are hardly no benefit with the DX mode on a FX camera. It seems that it's more for to be able to use DX lenses on FX camera.

 

[Clovishound]

No, the 24-200 is my only lens. Do you have some recommendations?

It really depends on what you are going to shoot. If you are interested in macro work, then obviously, something like a 105 macro would be in order. If you are interested in wildlife, then a long tele would be the ticket. You could probably get by with the 24-200 for landscape shooting, although if that becomes your focus (no pun intended), then a nice wide angle lens would be the consideration.

I'm into macro and wildlife, so the two lenses I use 95% of the time are my 105 macro and my long tele. I don't even own a 70-200 zoom, which a lot of photographers consider a must. I just don't have the need for that range often enough in my shooting style to justify spending the money, and taking up space in my bag.

At this point you may well not know the direction you want to go in. You may need to shoot for a while to get a sense of where your interests lay. Renting a long tele for this cruise might be a good investment, if you think you may be interested wildlife. The 600 Nikonpup recommended is a great lens, but you might consider the 180-600 as it will likely be cheaper to rent, and give the flexibility of shorter focal lengths that may possibly be needed. I don't know what your budget is, but the 180-600 is more likely to fit in than a long prime, if you decide to buy a long tele down the road. A long prime is going to be a little sharper, more durable, and probably faster auto focus than a long zoom, but modern long zooms offer excellent optical performance. The long primes are rather expensive. The Nikon Z180-600 F/5.6-F/6.3 runs about $2050 new, whereas the Nikon Z600 F/6.3 runs around $5200. The 600 is about a lb lighter than the 180-600.

The 24-200 you have will cover the focal lengths needed for a wide variety of shooting genres. It seems a good starting place to me. I would advise to carefully choose your lenses from here on out. It is easy to get the itch for a new lens and then end up with a purchase that you wish you had chosen differently once you have some experience with it. Sometimes that is unavoidable, and sometimes taking your time and doing your homework can lead you to a better long term solution. Don't cheap out on your lenses. The more expensive lens is not always the better lens, but lenses are the heart of your photography, and a good lens should serve you well for many many years. A poor quality, or poorly chosen lens will just take up space in your bag and lighten your wallet.

 

[nikon_bill]

It really depends on what you are going to shoot. If you are interested in macro work, then obviously, something like a 105 macro would be in order. If you are interested in wildlife, then a long tele would be the ticket. You could probably get by with the 24-200 for landscape shooting, although if that becomes your focus (no pun intended), then a nice wide angle lens would be the consideration.

I'm into macro and wildlife, so the two lenses I use 95% of the time are my 105 macro and my long tele. I don't even own a 70-200 zoom, which a lot of photographers consider a must. I just don't have the need for that range often enough in my shooting style to justify spending the money, and taking up space in my bag.

At this point you may well not know the direction you want to go in. You may need to shoot for a while to get a sense of where your interests lay. Renting a long tele for this cruise might be a good investment, if you think you may be interested wildlife. The 600 Nikonpup recommended is a great lens, but you might consider the 180-600 as it will likely be cheaper to rent, and give the flexibility of shorter focal lengths that may possibly be needed. I don't know what your budget is, but the 180-600 is more likely to fit in than a long prime, if you decide to buy a long tele down the road. A long prime is going to be a little sharper, more durable, and probably faster auto focus than a long zoom, but modern long zooms offer excellent optical performance. The long primes are rather expensive. The Nikon Z180-600 F/5.6-F/6.3 runs about $2050 new, whereas the Nikon Z600 F/6.3 runs around $5200. The 600 is about a lb lighter than the 180-600.

The 24-200 you have will cover the focal lengths needed for a wide variety of shooting genres. It seems a good starting place to me. I would advise to carefully choose your lenses from here on out. It is easy to get the itch for a new lens and then end up with a purchase that you wish you had chosen differently once you have some experience with it. Sometimes that is unavoidable, and sometimes taking your time and doing your homework can lead you to a better long term solution. Don't cheap out on your lenses. The more expensive lens is not always the better lens, but lenses are the heart of your photography, and a good lens should serve you well for many many years. A poor quality, or poorly chosen lens will just take up space in your bag and lighten your wallet.

Thanks for the great reply! Which wide angle lens would you recommend?

 

[nikonpup]

IF YOU ARE USING SEATTLE TO GO ON THE CRUISE, YOU MAY RENT A LENS FROM GLAZIER CAMERA IN SEATTLE.
PRICE LIST

THE 24-200MM LENS YOU HAVE WILL OK, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WEIGHT. I HAVE A 70-200, IT WEIGHS A TON. IT IS NOT CARRY AROUND COMFORTABLE. CHECK FOR LENS RENTALS ONLINE. LOTS OF INFORMATION YOU NEED TO KNOW B 4 YOU RENT.
IF YOU DO RENT THE 180-600MM I WOULD SUGGEST GETTING A MONO POD. I LIKE TO SPEND OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
CAMERA BAGS, MEMORY CARDS, BATTERIES, LAPTOP, EXTERNAL STORAGE $$$$ ALSO YOU WILL NEED A GOOD PHOTO EDITING SOFTWARE
LIKE LIGHTROOM CLASSIC OR ON1.

 

[nikon_bill]

Thanks for all the advice! I picked up a new Nikon 200-500mm lens for $800. I thought it was a good deal so I went for it.

You guys are great! Can't believe all the great help and suggestions!

THanks!

 

[nikon_bill]

Do I need a CPL or UV or clear filter for my new lens?

 

[BF Hammer]

I never use UV filters on digital anymore. CPL only for taking some glare off of water mainly.

 

[Clovishound]

Thanks for all the advice! I picked up a new Nikon 200-500mm lens for $800. I thought it was a good deal so I went for it.

You guys are great! Can't believe all the great help and suggestions!

THanks!

Did you get an adapter? The 200-500 is an F mount lens, and needs the FTZ adapter to be able to mount it to your Z camera. I mentioned that in my first post, but didn't emphasize it. The FTZ adapters aren't cheap, but they aren't terribly expensive either. They run about $270 new. Unfortunately, you really don't typically save much on used with this item. Don't try to mount the 200-500 without the adapter, it can scratch up your new camera. The F mount bayonet is smaller than the Z mount opening.

$800 for a new 200-500 is a good deal, even having to purchase an adapter. This will run nearly half the price of a 180-600. Most of the reviews I have seen say that if you have a Z camera and a 200-500, you should probably stick with it, as opposed to selling it and buying a Z 180-600. Like I said before, it is considered a very sharp long tele for the money.

 

[Clovishound]

I never use UV filters on digital anymore. CPL only for taking some glare off of water mainly.

And those 95mm filters are expensive. Don't try and get the cheap ones off Amazon. A friend gave me a set for my 200-500. There was a set of three. They SEVERELY degraded the image quality. I got to looking close at them, and the lens material was plastic. FTR, you can get decent filters on Amazon, but you need to get name brands. If a set of 3 is $40, it's too good to be true.