NIKON ZFC WITH FULL FRAME: I have the Zfc with a 18-200 4.5 zoom. I like taking sunsets and landscapes. Some tell me I have wasted money by not just having a regular lens. Advantage of...

jimpitt

I have the Zfc with a 18-200 4.5 zoom. I like taking sunsets and landscapes.
Some tell me I have wasted money by not just having a regular lens. Advantage of full frame not being utilized.
Updating to Zf not good for me .... do not wish to carry two bodies. The Zfc is quite light.
I also have the kit lens 14-50 4.0 for dinner parties .... very lightweight.
The store says I am good.
Thanks, everyone.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Is this a question? comment? mistaken observation?

On the road to success, there's no traffic jams on the extra mile, but plenty of full-frame bodies.

And a full-frame is something the Nikon Z fc is lacking, along with a mirror.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

jimpitt wrote:

I have the Zfc with a 18-200 4.5 zoom. I like taking sunsets and landscapes.
Some tell me I have wasted money by not just having a regular lens. Advantage of full frame not being utilized.
Updating to Zf not good for me .... do not wish to carry two bodies. The Zfc is quite light.
I also have the kit lens 14-50 4.0 for dinner parties .... very lightweight.
The store says I am good.
Thanks, everyone.

If you can’t, or don’t want to move to full frame, the Zfc is a good choice. As is its sibling the Z50. The 18-200mm lens, in my opinion, is marginal for sunsets. I think the 14-50mm is a better choice. Both lenses are good for landscapes depending on what you want to accomplish,

User ID

If you dont get flaring and ghosts shooting into the setting sun, then youre good to go.

If you do get flaring, try removing the filter. Also, flaring in zoom lenses can change with FL. If you get flaring, it may help to change the FL, even if doing so means cropping or perhaps recomposing.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

jimpitt wrote:

I have the Zfc with a 18-200 4.5 zoom. I like taking sunsets and landscapes.
Some tell me I have wasted money by not just having a regular lens. Advantage of full frame not being utilized.
Updating to Zf not good for me .... do not wish to carry two bodies. The Zfc is quite light.
I also have the kit lens 14-50 4.0 for dinner parties .... very lightweight.
The store says I am good.
Thanks, everyone.

P.s.
Don’t believe the fallacy that landscapes have to be taken with wide angle (or worse, ultra wide angle) lenses. Any focal length is fine. It all depends on what you want you want to achieve.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I figure what other people think doesn’t matter. All that matters is what you think.

Bill_de Loc: US

bikinkawboy wrote:

I figure what other people think doesn’t matter. All that matters is what you think.

Then this thread has no purpose, so why did you comment?

---

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Mac wrote:

P.s.
Don’t believe the fallacy that landscapes have to be taken with wide angle (or worse, ultra wide angle) lenses. Any focal length is fine. It all depends on what you want you want to achieve.

My grandson shoots with a Z7 and is a landscape photographer. He uses a 70-200 Nikon lens and picks his landscape scenes out of some of his telephoto images. He has a knack for finding scenes within scenes. He’s never used a wide angle lens for landscape photography.

CO

Having a cropped sensor camera for landscape photography can be good. You'll be using a wider angle lens to obtain the same field of view as a full frame camera. By using a wider angle lens you're getting more depth of field. For example a 35mm lens on a cropped sensor camera is producing roughly the same field of view and perspective as a 50mm lens on a full frame camera. The 35mm has greater depth of field than the 50mm.

BebuLamar

Bill_de wrote:

Then this thread has no purpose, so why did you comment?

---

Why did you comment?

Bill_de Loc: US

BebuLamar wrote:

Why did you comment?

Because I disagree with the statement I replied to.

"All that matters is what you think."

---

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

jimpitt wrote:

I have the Zfc with a 18-200 4.5 zoom. I like taking sunsets and landscapes.
Some tell me I have wasted money by not just having a regular lens. Advantage of full frame not being utilized.
Updating to Zf not good for me .... do not wish to carry two bodies. The Zfc is quite light.
I also have the kit lens 14-50 4.0 for dinner parties .... very lightweight.
The store says I am good.
Thanks, everyone.

You are good.

BebuLamar

I don't understand the OP's post.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Wingpilot wrote:

My grandson shoots with a Z7 and is a landscape photographer. He uses a 70-200 Nikon lens and picks his landscape scenes out of some of his telephoto images. He has a knack for finding scenes within scenes. He’s never used a wide angle lens for landscape photography.

Your grandson has the right idea. And obviously a good eye for seeing a subject.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

BebuLamar wrote:

I don't understand the OP's post.

I took it to mean he was asking if the lenses he had were good for the type of photography he wanted to pursue. I could be wrong.
I don’t know what he meant by “a regular lens.” Maybe a prime?