What Is Reach, Really?

Nikon Z5ii, AF-S Nikkor 300mm f4 D

What is reach? It's a rather misunderstood thing, way too often associated with the use of crop frame cameras, which is often correct, but not for the reasons that most think.

I usually talk about Pixels on Ducks to put a perspective on reach, because at the end of the day, reach is how many pixels you put on a given subject when shooting with a given focal length and subject/camera distance. What really matters in this regard in the camera is the pixel pitch, or how large the pixels are, as smaller pixels mean more pixels covered by the image projected onto the sensor by the lens, and that DOES NOT change regardless of the sensor size, only with the pixel pitch of said sensor. A 300mm lens projects the same sized image on the sensor so long as the subject is the same size and at the same distance (NB - this gets funky at very close ranges with Internal Focusing lenses, but that's because they lose that 'same focal length' property when focusing close, IF lenses and focus breathing are a post for another day, lets stick with wildlife-esque distances for the reach discussion, as those are most relevant). Note the image projection onto the sensor takes into account only subject size, lens focal length and subject/camera distance (actually distance to the nodal point of the lens optics), it does not at all care what size the sensor is.

Pixel pitch is the physical size of the sensor site/pixel (usually square, so only one dimension is given), pixel density is the number of pixels in a unit area, the two terms are functionally interchangeable, although fill factor also impacts pixel density. Fill factor is how much space there is between pixels as a ratio of pixel size and with modern microlens-topped sensors it's just about the same as effective pixel pitch thanks to the microlens  covering the unused space on the sensor and directly otherwise wasted light into the sensor site. For our uses in terms of reach, effective pixel pitch and pixel density are all we care about. 

For example, if you shoot a 300mm lens at an arbitrary duck at 15m from the camera on a 102MP 33x44mm camera (say the Fuji GFX100), a 61MP FF camera (say the A7RV) and a 26MP APS-C camera (say the Fuji X-H2s), and crop each resulting image down to the same pixel dimensions, the resulting image will be the same in terms of framing and resolution as all 3 sensors have the same pixel pitch (they are actually quite closely related sensors, which is why I used this specific set for comparison purposes).  

So why is crop associated with reach? For two reasons, one correct and one incorrect. The first is simply the focal length 'multiplier', which really isn't one, it just looks like one through the viewfinder. It's a crop of the projected image, not a multiplier of the lens focal length (that requires an optical teleconverter). 

The APS-C sensor is smaller and only sees a portion of the frame that the larger Full Frame sensor does. Going from FF as the baseline into a typical 1.5x crop APS-C you are cropping from that 300m of view into the equivalent of a 450mm lens on FF's field of view. But you are also losing overall resolution if the pixel pitch of each sensor is the same. Same size pixels, less sensor area = less overall pixels and less resolution as a result.

So what gives? Well typically crop sensors also have higher pixel density than their equivalent FF bodies. Go from my Z5ii to a D7200 and I'm still getting 24MP images, but now at the field of view that the 1.5x longer lens would have on the larger sensor camera. So in this specific case the D7200 has more reach than the Z5ii. That the crop sensor cameras have more reach than the larger sensor cameras is a general rule of thumb derived solely from them also having higher pixel density sensors, which is often, but not always true. In particular the 60-ish MP FF bodies (and 100MP Medium Format) all have pixel densities matching or exceeding 26MP APS-C sensors (most match, the new A7RVI exceeds due to the slightly higher density 67MP sensor vs the 26MP and 61MP sensors). 

The 25MP m43 sensors pretty much match the 40MP Fuji sensors for highest pixel density available today, with the 20MP m43 and 32.5MP Canon APS-C sensors next, then the 67MP FF sensor, then that set of Sony/Fuji sensors (26/61/102MP) and Canon 24MP (smaller 1.6x crop sensor and same resolution means slightly higher pixel density than 1.5x sensors), then the 24MP APS-C sensors, and then the 45-50MP FF sensors and Nikon's 20.9MP DX sensor, then everything else smaller. 

You'll note this mostly biases towards either crop (especially m43 where everything current is in the top two buckets) or high-MP FF. The ever so common 24-33MP FF bodies have pixel densities not seen in crop cameras in over a decade (10-14MP APS-C equivalents).

So if you want to put pixels on ducks (which usually also means you want a higher fps and good AF), and you don't have money for high-MP/good AF bodies like the Z8, R5 series, A1's or A7R's, then crop really is what you want for reach. Also if you want to minimize size by using shorter focal lengths, then m43 stands out.

And yes, there are also teleconverters. But TC's cost you light, they are not free. And coincidentally the very same physics applies to crop sensors, so a TC's cost in aperture (1 stop for a 1.4x, 2 stops for a 2x) is very close or identical to the total illumination loss from crop sensors (which closely matches the ISO noise performance tradeoff between formats). That's just over 1 stop for a 1.5x crop and 2 stops for a 2x crop (m43). Note simply cropping an FF image down to APS-C results in the same noise tradeoff as shooting APS-C (noise tracks total illumination of the sensor area used, so cropping is throwing away the extra light the larger sensor gets).

As a result, a TC on a lower pixel density sensor is pretty close to equivalent in results to the same lens without TC on a comparable crop sensor of the same resolution. 24MP FF + 1.4x TC is pretty close to functionally equivalent to 21-26MP APS-C. But TC's have other tradeoffs. First off on DSLR's especially the AF system takes a performance hit (and note on DSLR's the AF systems usually have similar projections between FF and crop, they just cover more of the image frame with AF points on crop, so the AF performance usually doesn't differ much between FF and crop, all other things being equal, ie same AF sensor, same lens aperture, same processing power backing it and same algorithms). On Mirrorless things are different because the image sensor IS the AF sensor, so the larger sensors feed more light to the AF system as well. TC's are also limited in lens compatibility so they are not a fix-all for reach issues on low pixel density cameras. Longer lenses or buying a higher pixel density camera are usually the better choice and when dealing with long lenses it's very often cheaper to buy the camera, especially when talking about faster telephoto primes which often cost multiple of even the most expensive FF pro camera, your typical fast 600mm prime will cost 50-100% of what a Z9, A1II or R1 costs if buying new, let alone how much more they cost than a high-end crop body. 

 

My Brain Won - But Not in the Way I Feared

Fujifilm X-T2, XC 16-50 OIS II

No, I didn't get another X-T2 or even another Fuji, despite the image chosen. Yes, the Z5ii is gone. And I bought something I was not originally even considering. 

I've been mulling what exactly is the issue with the Z5ii driving my thoughts. because it's an incredibly good camera.

In short, pixel density is the issue with how the Z5ii fit into my kit. 

It was my best action camera in terms of AF, FPS and buffer, but it was also far lower pixel density than either the Z7 or the Zfc, limiting the reach, which is important when I simply don't own glass longer than 300mm. For landscape, it's only real advantage in the way I work over the Z7 is the screen articulation, and I can live without that, otherwise the IQ from the Z7 is simply better (better DR, more resolution, lower base ISO for long exposures). That limited its utility at exactly where it beat my other bodies sans investment in expensive glass to offset the lack of pixel density. And I'm all about inexpensive and interesting glass, not expensive glass. 

For everyday carry, both the Zfc and Z7 are smaller and lighter than the Z5ii (albeit only marginally so for the Z7). I don't use the Flexible Color Picture Controls since I just don't shoot JPEG at all, and if I did, I'd be shooting on the Zfc with my cheap & fun manual Chinese lenses, not on the Z5ii. Most of the Z5ii's EXPEED7 advantages are things I don't actually use in practice, although if you shoot events or people a lot with AF lenses, yeah, it's a beast. 

As I drove through the logic, I kept coming back to wanting a higher-end APS-C body. Really, I wanted similar pixel density to what I already had, Nikon NEF files, higher speed than the no-compromises speeds of the Zfc and Z7 (both are really 5fps bodies, albeit capable of faster with the EVF in slideshow mode), solid AF-C performance, and it can't be a brick because I don't carry bricks. 

Absent the last item, that really left me with the Z8/Z9 (way too expensive, too big), the D850 (slightly too expensive to get now, viable if I'd wait a bit, too big), the D500 (attainable if I could find one, slightly too big), the D7500 and D7200 (both hit on price, size and have enough speed, D7500 is a better speed body, D7200 has proper AI lens compatibility). Note that I own very few Z mount lenses, my core kit is F mount, and I do have screwdriver AF lenses. I'm not really worried about AI compatibility since both the Zfc and Z7 are better manual lens cameras than any Nikon DSLR. 

As it happened, for the actual DX options only the D7500 was available anyways, so that's what I got, plus I added a 85/1.8G AF-S as a workable short-tele when I want a bit more speed (both aperture and AF) vs my trusty Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Macro. Worked out to a 1:1 trade for the D7500+85/1.8G into the Z5ii, which is reasonable value.

So now I have a DSLR in my kit again, for the first time since my old D300 died. Going to be interesting. Size/weight shouldn't be much of an issue, the D7500 clocks in at 20g more than the Z5ii, but 105g less than the Z5ii+FTZII. Batteries and cards are the same, so plenty of compatibility and the D7500 has far better battery life. Using an OVF will be interesting, it's been a while. But the body should play well with my other gear and let me run effective 2 body setups that actually lean better into what each body is good at (Zfc is small/light, Z7 is the pixel monster, D7500 is the long lens/speed body). The 85/1.8G is a lens I've long wanted to own, so adding that as a workable short tele for DX and portrait lens for FX should fit in well. 

Plus I now have a body with screwdriver AF compatibility, to make some of the more interesting inexpensive F lenses more usable (especially the 180/2.8D I've been eyeing for ages). 

As a walkabout kit, the Tamron 17-50+ 85/1.8G or Tamron 17-50+Tamron 90 macro will both work well. I'll no doubt get yet another 35/1.8DX and some sort of UWA and I'm already looking seriously at telephoto zoom options to give alternatives to the 300/4D.

 

Fuji Ponderings

Railroad Leftovers in Pontypool

Zfc, Tamron SP 17-50 f2.8

I continue to enjoy shooting the Zfc more than the Z5ii for everyday use and that continues to make me wonder if Nikon is really the right home for me and should I or should I not be shooting Fuji instead. 

The reality is the X-T3 or X-T5 is a better Zfc than the Zfc is, which is unsurprising as they are higher-end bodies and that's what gives them the advantage (better viewfinder, better build, etc). I do still need a light carry body though and the Zfc is better than the X-T30 series for that (better EVF, ISO dial instead of film sim dial). Yeah, the Zf is also a better Zfc, but it's comparatively huge and heavy (F3HP size & weight, slightly larger and heavier than either the Z5ii or the Z7) and I prefer having something more akin to a FM2n (and the X-T5 is very close to the FM2n in size and weight, 10mm less wide, but otherwise near identical). 

On the flip side, no Fuji can match the IQ of my FX bodies, nor the AF system of the Z5ii, but I don't actually lean on that very hard. And I definitely prefer the Nikon NEF files I get from my Nikons, at least to the older 24MP and similar Fuji files. Of course RAW converter performance with X-Trans continues to improve and what was marginal in 2020 Lightroom is actually pretty decent when I run my old X-T2 files through Pixelmator Pro now. 

Fuji on the other hand offers more selection in terms of classic UI cameras, a consistent APS-C lens line (and one far larger than even the entirety of the Z mount line, aside from a generally weaker long tele selection). And quite frankly, a lens line (1st and 3rd party) which generally is both good and small(ish) which I prefer to the larger and tending to expensive Nikon Z lenses. 

The Gripping hand? Fuji is very late in its current 5th Gen X-Trans platform and expected to launch a new generation in September, likely with an X-T6, and new Fuji bodies are rather overpriced for their somewhat ageing performance as Fuji has not discounted older bodies much at all (there's a couple of $100-off deals right now but that's it). 

It's honestly annoying to be in my head right now. I wish I could just buckle down and shoot with what I have rather than getting burned in 'what would be a better choice'. 

I did a pretty deep dive on comparative value and I could swing a basic X-T5 setup for what I have right now. But at the same time I do see some issues, the X-T5 gets roasted for middling build quality (notable since both of my FX bodies have notably excellent build) and the AF system. The reality is that aside from the lens system (which I can adapt), the UI and some extra (and unneeded by me) speed is all the X-T5 brings to the table over the Zfc/Z7 combo. 

I'll stand pat for now, and consider maybe trading in the Z5ii for more glass. 

 

Slowing the Churn

Wight Island Bridge

Zfc, Tamron SP 17-50mm f2.8 

Took the Zfc along on a Sunday fishing trip, shot a moderate amount, all with the Tamron 17-50 on the FTZII. This lens works well if you don't let it bounce off MFD, which confuses the AF system VERY badly if it hits the minimum focus stop. Fix is easy, set to MF, focus away from MFD, set back to AF. 

One thing I've been trying to do for a fairly long time is stop my gear churn, especially system switching. I have spent WAY too much time chasing the dragon, and got fairly little out of it. The two inflection points I see as true mistakes were in selling my X-T2 and in selling my OG Z5. m43 and Sony just don't work for me as systems, despite hitting on paper, while Canon can do what I need, but lacks the fun 3rd party lenses I so love to use for non-serious work.

I'm starting to see some success with that finally, the Z7 is the first body in a long time to see significantly more than 1 year of ownership as anything other than a shelf queen, although it is my least used body right now. In terms of how long I've had the bodies, the Z7 is at 18 months, the Z5ii is at 9 months and the Zfc just broke 2 months. The only one I'm ambivalent on right now is the Z5ii, and that's more about the DX/FX focus than anything else, as it's the only body I own that isn't a competent DX body (at 10.5MP in DX mode, it's just not there on resolution, while the Z7's 19.5MP in DX almost matches the Zfc's 20.1MP). 

On the lens front, I'm pretty good about not churning if there's no system switch triggering it. I do tend to start to build up a collection if I'm not system switching though. That's how I ended up with a pretty comprehensive set of manual focus lenses, covering 21-300mm, in F mount, plus small sets of M42, Contax/Yashica< Leica LTM & M Mount and FD mount lenses. 

In terms of systems today, I do love Fuji's wide selection of APS-C lenses and classic UI bodies, but I prefer Nikon's firmware and NEF files for post. And Flexible Color Picture Controls are much more powerful that Fuji's neat but pretty wildly oversold Film Simulations (especially since there's an actual post-production workflow that can use FCPC's, unlike Film Sims). I'd be happy with either choice if I could stop overthinking, which makes me lean hard on keeping the one I'm already invested in. I might just buy a Fuji X-Z AF adapter though, which would open up the Fuji lens lineup to my Zfc and Z7 (and maybe a future DX body....). If only Nikon had a DX X-T5 fighter...(either a direct DX version of the Zf, or just a 45MP Zfx, either would work for me in this role. Heck a Z5iix would as well)

 

Zfc Update - After 2 Months

Nikon Zfc, Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 AF-D

2 months with the Zfc and where am I? Not shooting much remains the answer. I've taken just shy of 250 shots with the Zfc, largely due to not getting out to shoot more than anything else. That is more than I've shot with my other bodies though (the Z5ii has seen about 50 shots in the same period, the Z7 none). 

I actually rather do like the camera, enough that it's making me rethink DX vs FX as a long-term strategy. But in regards to the Zfc in particular, it continues to be the 'Digital FM10' I was hoping it would be. I'm quite enjoying using it in combination with the two native DX manual lenses I own and plan to add a few more (specifically I want the 7Artisans 10mm f3.5 and 35mm f1.4 II, and then 1-2 more lenses, one around 17/18mm and fast, one as a faster alternative to my 25/2). I also picked up a remarkably inexpensive F mount Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 with the built-in lens AF motor. It works well enough on the FTZII unless you let it hit MFD in AF mode where it will get all sorts of confused. Optically solid though and a useful range and maximum aperture. It has me considering seriously whether I should get a Nikkor Z 16-50/2.8 VR as an everyday lens, the range is great and that lens is smaller and lighter than the Tamron+FTZ combo I currently use. 

The main downsides I see with the Zfc are the very average EVF and the lack of IBIS, and the former is acceptable for the price point where it remains one of the better EVF's for its cost. IBIS I'd really like, but again at this price point it's somewhat rare. I also wish it had Flexible Color Picture Controls, as those make JPEG shooting more interesting to me and this would be the perfect camera to do JPEG shooting as it's my 'non-serious' camera. 

So overall, after 2 months I like the camera, would really like to see an update with EXPEED7+IBIS and am rethinking FX as a long-term strategy given how much I shoot these days and my preference for inexpensive + smaller glass where DX is finally building a nice (but almost entirely 3rd party) catalog. Viltrox and 7Artisans both launched some interesting new DX lenses recently, and I'm considering buying several of them (notably the 7Artisans trio of 25/35/50 f1.8 lenses at $125USD each, and the 90mm f2.2 from Viltrox. The Viltrox 75mm is les interesting since 7Artisans does a FX version for slightly less and that would complete the trio with my 28SE and 40SE)

Pondering APS-C Yet Again

Nikon Z5II, 24-85VR

This image didn't need FX. I could have gotten the same results with my 17-50 on my Zfc. 

One issue I continue to have with gear choice is that crop sensors really do deliver enough image quality for my needs. But I always want Full Frame, largely driven by wanting my collection of manual focus lenses to work as intended, which I then mostly don't use as they don't handle particularly well on mirrorless, losing the compact size I loved about them on classic manual film bodies. 

Working with the Zfc of late has reminded me that it does largely cover my needs and where I want the Z5ii in particular over the Zfc is never about that bigger sensor, but for the bigger EVF, IBIS, better ergonomics or the faster AF. These are all things that a notional Z70 or Z90 would cover, if such a thing existed. And when paired with modern manual APS-C lenses, it retains the compact size and handling I so loved about classic manual film cameras like the FM2n (the Zf is too large & heavy, more a F2 or F3HP equivalent than FM2n). 

With the recent(ish) Z 16-50/2.8 release, there's really only one real APS-C lens gap remaining for me, the higher-end UWA zoom, and I totally could get away with a prime or two in the 10-14mm range instead. But the Z50ii just isn't quite enough body for me to be willing to swap my Z5ii for it, even if it's probably enough body for me for most uses. The biggest loss overall for that swap would be IBIS on my 300/4D, which is a big part of why that lens works so well for me. 

This does leave me in a quandary, largely because I like to optimize my body selection to a ridiculous amount. For the most part the Z7 + Zfc combo covers my low/high needs. So do I really need the Z5ii in the first place? But the Z5ii is hands down the best of my bodies to use and the only one with the new Flexible Color Picture Controls and multi-shot. But selling the Z5ii would get me budget to go all-in on some good APS-C glass (say a 13mm f1.4 and a 16-50/2.8) which I could use on both remaining bodies, and keep the 45MP FX option when I really need the extra IQ (which is in part why I keep the Z7 in the first place). Or the Z5ii could go to fund a higher-end APS-C body, but I struggle to put the Z50ii in that category even though I know it has most of the extras I like about the Z5ii (lacking the EVF, larger body & battery & IBIS). I still reach for the Z5ii as my sole body for more serious work. 

The good news is I'm really not wavering on system choice. I just don't see any options that fit my use cases there other than Fuji, and Fuji just doesn't split quite the way I'd want it to for my needs and is right now late in the lifecycle of all their high-end bodies so I would not want to pay current pricing for a body whose cost & value will drop very soon as the next gen comes out. If I'd got the X-T30 route instead of the Zfc, I might have picked differently though, selling my Z5ii for a X-H2 or X-T5 would work in that situation, but not in the one I'm actually in. And quite frankly I prefer Nikon files to Fuji files, even if I love that Fuji lens lineup. 

So that leaves me at 'keep Z5ii, get a telezoom and maybe a wider FX UWA later this year', 'sell Z5ii and buy even more glass', or 'sell Z5ii, buy EXPEED7 Z DX body' in some form (Z50ii now or notional higher-end Z DX body later). Option 3 really also includes 'buy more AF glass' long-term as well. 

Right now in terms of native Z lenses, I have 4 total. The 28/2.8 SE and 40/2 SE (both FX AF primes) and the TTartisan 25/2 and 7Artisans 55/1.4 (both DX manual primes). For other AF lenses I really only have the F mount Tamron 17-50/2.8 DX, Nikkor 24-85VR and Nikkor 300/4D. I don't see getting rid of any of these even if I do change up bodies, since the only thing on the list which becomes less useful on DX would be the 24-85VR and I'd keep that for the Z7 which I have no intent to get rid of, since it works well as both a DX and FX body and has minimal resale value (due to age and being well over 300k shutter actuations). 

I do plan to increase my fleet of Z DX manual lenses, regardless of what direction I go. They're cheap, fun and surprisingly good and the Zfc was pretty much intended to be dedicated to these and I want to keep that. I'll also be investing in a new telezoom regardless, a 70-200/2.8 or similar. I need it regardless and it fits all paths relatively well. 

 

I've Broken Up with Adobe

Misty Morning

Z5ii, 24-85VR

Like many I've become increasingly annoyed with Adobe's cash grabs via their Lightroom subscriptions. Unlike many I don't actually have an issue with the subscription model, but rather with the incredibly low value per dollar that I found it delivered, especially regarding online storage. 

I've been using a cloud-based workflow shared across my iPad & MacBook Pro's using Lightroom, which was working well enough aside from the issues I had with the iPad version of LR not supporting key editing features. That had me looking for a similar solution in capability and with Apple's recent release of their Creative subscription, I signed up for that pretty much as soon as it released. 

I've since been slowly getting used to using Photos as my DAM solution and Pixelmator Pro as my editor. I do like the ability to use standard LUT's in my workflow now (LR only supports their own preset models) but miss the catalog of highly personalized presets I'd built up over more than a decade of use of LR. I'll have to do a lot of work in Pixelmator to rebuild them. 

I have migrated my entire catalog of photos to Photos as of a couple weeks ago. Not entirely loving Photos, but as a DAM tool, it's no worse than LR. More workflow will need to be worked out, but I can import on all my devices which is a win.