Z5 II - Z30 - What are the real differences?

Discussions about the sensor sizes in the net are easy to find. I added some remarks to this topic in this blog too. It is too easy to say that it does not matter because it is the photographer that matters in the end. As true as this is, smaller sensors have some practical consequences. Since my recent purchase of a Z30 and a lot of pictures later, I need to summarize my experience. Was it worth it?

The primary reason I bought this camera is the size and the weight. Below is a comparison of two equivalent setups. The weights are quite different too, 1200g against 750g. For me, that matters. The contrast is striking if you use the smaller one for a while. This second body is for the bag. Even on a neck strap, the difference if enormous if you carry the combo all day.

1200g versus 750g

And the 16-50 f/2.8 is not even the smallest standard lens for Nikon DX with VR. The 12-28 f/3.5-5.6 is 100g lighter and a bit smaller. It might make an even better walk-around lens for me, because I love wide angles. But it is slow which hinders me too often when the light is going away. The two stops at the 42 mm equivalent long end matter. I have not yet decided if it might be a daylight travel lens. The 16-50 f/2.5-6.3 is too slow too, but very compact, almost a pancake size. They all have VR.

When shooting with both cameras, the first thing you notice is that the Z5 II is much snappier and simply easier to shoot with. The quicker response of the camera to each user input is mainly due to the new processor, which also helps with a better autofocus. A quick and reliable handling improves a camera more than anything else.

And while the Z5 II is not a big full frame, it still feels like a tool. The Z30 is more tending towards a gadget in comparison. This may sound exaggerated, but for many photographer the grasp of a something solid is important. Some actually prefer a bit of weight in their hands. 

An important point is the missing IBIS in the Z30. It hinders the use of the excellent Nikon Z primes or one of the fast third-party primes. You will have to rely on good light, a tripod or an open aperture. I tried the 50mm f/1.8 S and it works well as a portrait lens on the Z30. You need a fast shutter speed anyway, and the full frame equivalent f/2.8 is very welcome. 

The missing viewfinder is rarely a problem for me. I mostly shoot in angles where the viewfinder would be more a hindrance than a help. If you are one of those standing photographers with the camera always at eye-level, feel encouraged to try something else. Admittedly, it would be nice occasionally to check the image in the viewfinder when the sun is burning down.

The elephant in the room is the sensor size. The fact is, however, that there are equivalent settings to handle Four Thirds cameras, APS-C cameras, Medium Format and Full Size. E.g., the FX 24-70 f/4 is fully equivalent to the DX 16-50 f/2.8. The latter even has 5mm more reach. You will get the almost the same image at f/2.8 on APS-C as at f/4 on full frame. On full frame, you have one stop less exposure for the same DOF, and thus might have to increase the ISO one stop. But full frame can handle this.

I tried to demonstrate the effect below. Both were taken at ISO100 here. This gives the full frame camera an advantage in dynamic range and noise handling. But you will find it hard to see a situation where one stop really matters. The really complicated scenes exceed the dynamic range by far more than one stop. 

These were 100% crops. The full images are below. The 16-50 f/2.8 has a nicer background blur here. But that is simply due to me getting a bit closer to the flower. The distance matters just as much as the f-stop. And that also means that the closest focus distance matters, by the way. 

The limits of this equivalency are reached for those of photographers who enjoy the shallow depth of f/1.2. APS-C does not have such lenses. But for me, f/1.2 on a 35mm lens is a very special look. For object isolation, a longer lens and more distance is the better solution anyway, even if it is not so fast. It yields the same or even better background, but more DOF.

So, what are the real differences? The most obvious one which everybody will notice is the handling supported by the new processor. Nikon would be wise to update the Z30 as soon as possible to the level of the Z50 II. IBIS is next, but requires a sensor that Nikon might not have. As I said, the missing viewfinder is rarely an issue for me. 

The size and weight is the important factor that every photographer will notice. And even with all the compromises, it makes the Z30 a camera worth having.