Do you need a substantial reason to purchase anything?
Why not just buy something because its fun, and it enhances the experience called "Life".
Also, the camera will take better JPGS then any OLY or Fuji , its a small camera, the kit lens supplied is excellent, and stabilized. YAHOOO... The front Grip is Masterful and it does not have an annoyingly stupid "selfie Flip out" type of screen that makes the camera 23 inches wide when you flip it out. YAHOO #2...... Also, , as compared to a Fuji, or the Canon M-EOS series, its going to be a better bet right out of the box, and its affordable. I vote = Buy it. and Enjoy your life.

Non sono d'accordo, nonostante sia ancora più piccola della z6, a mio parere si può comunque chiamare "fotocamera", diversamente da tutti i giocattoli di altri brand - della medesima categoria di prezzo - che vedo nei supermercati di fotocamere.

To me, what the lens deliver in terms of optics is the most important. The MTF of the two ZDX lenses are quite impressive and far better than any kit lens available from Sony, Fuji and Canon. The Sony 16-50mm while 1/3 faster on the long end is particularly bad.

Maybe it's got nice IQ (what lens doesn't between f3.5 and f6.3?), but I'd rather have a 16-50mm f1.8-2.8 or even f2.8-4.

And the huge throat diameter is irrelevant for APS-C. Even for the wide 16mm (24mm equiv.) end.

https://www.canonnews.com/canons-eos-m-mount-is-the-best-designed-mount-according-to-fujifilm

Match the value for the Nikon Z-mount with the APS-C sensor and understand what that means.

@ LGO. That might be useful if you are expecting an 8mm f/1 APS-C Z mount lens to emerge from Nikon, but I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting. For normal lenses that you are ever going to see in Z mount APS-C, that Fuji article has no useful information.

@ Dragonrider. Then you totally misread and missed the point of that article.

Best then to wait and see how even the simplest and least expensive Nikkor ZDX 16-50mm performs relative to whatever you currently using in APS-C to understand this.

@LGO:
What's become apparent with Nikon's Z lenses is that Nikon's improved their manufacturing tolerances. Lenses which don't benefit at all from the wide throat or short flange-focal like the 50mm f1.8S and 85mm f1.8s are stunningly sharp.

However the ZDX lenses perform, unless they are in the f0.75ish or faster and/or 16mm (24mm equiv) or shorter won't really benefit from the Z-mount's dimensions. But they will hopefully and likely benefit from Nikon's new attention to manufacturing and coatings, and that will be a good thing across the board.

I just wish Nikon would spend less attention on maximum sharpness, and instead put more effort into bokeh on the Z lenses...

Oh! I take part of it back!

The Z-mount's short flange-focal will actually benefit the ZDX lenses from about 24mm (36mm equiv) and shorter. So there certainly is benefit there given that 35mm equiv and shorter are very popular and important lengths. The throat is way excessive though.

@ Aegon Targaryen.

"I just wish Nikon would spend less attention on maximum sharpness, and instead put more effort into bokeh on the Z lenses..."

I have been using the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8S for a month now. It's superlative in both sharpness and bokeh plus and purple/green fringing is absolutely at a minimum.

"The throat is way excessive though."

Not really. In addition to other benefits, while a camera manufacturer can make a camera smaller, one cannot make one's hand smaller. The Z-mount essentially keep the camera body right-sized for a proper grip. Even when I wanted small and light m43 cameras, I choose the bigger E-M1 and GHx series for a better grip.

@LGO:

I disagree. The 85mm f1.8S looks just like the 50mm f1.8S. Really sharp with typical "sharp lens bokeh". Meaning that the bokeh is not creamy/dreamy, there's no "melt" and shapes remain discernible.

Your observation of minimal fringing makes perfect sense, as aberration absence is part of the sharpness equation. Conversely, the dirty little secret of creamy/dreamy bokeh is the PRESENCE of spherochromatism. The arguable king of bokeh, the 135mm f2DC Nikkor, has an ungodly amount of spherochromatism. Sony fans, ML fans in general, would lose their minds viewing at 100%! Yet it creates utterly gorgeous wedding, portrait, atmospheric photos. The Pentax 50mm f1.4 Star is a great example also. Gorgeous bokeh! But it's not sharp until after f2 and there's a lot of fringing. I think the DPR review called it really sharp, etc., but that's ridiculous. It's obviously not sharp at all wide open and the fringing on the cat photos in the Sample Gallery is really obvious.

Continued...

Expect the 85mm f1.2S to have completely different bokeh from the f1.8S. Even at f1.8. THAT will be the portrait Z lens. Lensmakers always do this. The f1.8 versions are the sharp general purpose lenses, and the f1.4 (now f1.2...) versions are the wedding/portrait lenses.

I like bigger cameras. The Z line is too small. Way better than Sony in the hand, but still not like a good DSLR.

@ Aegon Targaryen. I think you need to look at more samples taken with the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 S. The bokeh does not look like that taken with the the Nikonr 50mm f/1.8 S. I have both lenses and they are not close when it comes to bokeh, with the later can be abrupt and rough. Not the 85mm f/1.8 S.

I have been using the 85mm f/1.8 S for a month now and used at equivalent aperture/subject-background distance scale, its bokeh is easily comparable to my Zeiss 135mm f2 and Nikon 105mm f/1.4 and 200mm f/2.0 that I use on my D850.

Agreed that the XQD would be nice but not a dealbreaker. I nearly bought one of these on impulse over lunch today, but what got in my way is the fact that it uses a different battery. That error (in my view) has a ripple effect that means a different set of backup batteries and yet another charger to make room for at home and on the road. By making this body just a couple millimeters larger to accommodate the "15" batteries, I think Nikon would've stumbled into a whole new target market they didn't anticipate: their existing customer base wanting a fun, inexpensive addition.

@Mcdane:
Yep. I was considering a Z50 as a toy. But like you mention, it's really a whole other system that ya gotta make room for. No IBIS is silly too. This whole market positioning crap is really getting in the way of simply making good cameras. Not really a luxury Nikon can afford right now. If i was the head of Nikon, it would be balls to the wall; just release the best no-excuses stuff out of the gate, and keep pushing the envelope. Not all this weak sauce early adopter taxation, and planned-out incremental updates/upgrades. It's time for Nikon to get aggressive, before they go bankrupt and have to restructure...

If Nikon was to do any ground breaking lens design in convenience zoom, I would rather it be 14-140mm. It's not as difficult because of the Z-mount.

Nikon will probably offer their 16-80mm within a few years. The announced 18-140 will become available when the Z70 is introduced. It's a harder to predict a 'super'-zoom; 14-140, 16-200 or 18-270 ?

@T3. You are looking at this from an enthusiast perspective and ignoring the actual market for the M series which is all about portability. BTW the portability market is bigger than the enthusiast market and that is the reason why the M series outsells even Sony in many geographical areas. With the huge Z mount, Nikon cannot play in this space effectively. Nikon gave it a go with 1 series and didn't pull it off, possibly because a 1" sensor just doesn't quite cut it for an ILC, but that is all history. I suspect the M6 II will be one of the best selling cameras worldwide in spite of the somewhat compromised 4k video (at least compared to the 90D) and that won't inspire Canon to drop the M line. In spite of DPR's conviction that there will be no M5 II, I think we will see one (or maybe and M3 or M1) and it will still be very portable (although possibly with a bigger battery)

I have a 1Ds Mark III and an original M. The M is nice for being compact but the lens lineup isn't that great. I have the adapter but putting my 70-200 2.8 on the M messes with the AF sensor and we won't even talk about putting my 200 1.8 on the M. There is no upgrade path with the M from crop to FF. Then there's the R which muddies the waters even more for Canon. I think Nikon made a smart move with the Z50. You can get into the system at a fairly low cost for $1400 with 2 lenses and easily upgrade to the Z6 or Z7 when it's time to go FF without having to rebuy lenses. Plus Nikon's like of dedicated Z series lenses is much bigger than Canon's. I'm actually thinking about dumping my Canon for the Nikon Z.

@Michael. If you buy the Z50 with the kit lenses, there is really not an upgrade path to the Z6. The lenses will fit, but they won't illuminate the sensor past APS-C, so what did you gain. If you buy the Z50 with a couple of nice FF lenses, then it is not compact any more and you spent enough that you might as well have bought the z6 in the first place. Canon has always made their EF-s lenses incompatible with FF bodies and it has never gotten in the way of their market share. My 70-200 focuses just fine on my M bodies with both the adapter and the Viltrox speed booster, so maybe you have a lens (or a body) with a problem. The only way there is an upgrade path to FF with a crop body is if you start with FF lenses. Note that EF lenses work just fine on both M and R bodies with an adapter. On the flip side, tiny little mirrorless bodies are a PITA when you are using a big lens, unless the lens is so big that it needs a tripod.

@Dragonrider -
"The lenses will fit, but they won't illuminate the sensor past APS-C, so what did you gain."

You gain the ability to use lenses you currently own. That's why all of Canon's, Sony's, and Nikon's FF mirrorless bodies have APS-C crop mode. When you mount an APS-C lens, the camera automatically crops down to APS-C. I do this all the time with my Sony APS-C mirrorless lenses when I use them on my Sony FF mirrorless body. Sure, it doesn't allow me to use the full sensor, but it still allows me to use the APS-C lenses that I already own. The choice is mine. And frankly, the results look great.

"Canon has always made their EF-s lenses incompatible with FF bodies and it has never gotten in the way of their market share."

But it's stupid not to allow Canon users to use the lenses they have. Canon corrected this bad decision by allowing EF-S lenses to be used on their RF full frame bodies. Canon gave RF bodies APS-C crop mode and made their RF adapter compatible with EF-S.

@T3. I fail to see what you gained. Now you can put an APS-C lens on a FF body and presto you have an APS-C camera with less resolution than the one you had before. OTOH, I can put a speed booster on my M5 with an EF 50mm f/1.4 a nd presto I have a 35mm f/1 lens. Now that is something new and different. The whole upward compatibility myth is exactly that, a myth. Of course, someone could make a focal expander (Most teleconverters will work if the lenses fit) so you could put an EF-S lens on a FF body and have a really slow tele lens for your FF.

@Dragonrider - "I fail to see what you gained."

What I gained is obvious. I get to use my APS-C lenses that I already own. So you may be asking why I still have APS-C when I also have FF? That's because I use both. Sometimes I use FF, sometimes I use APS-C. I like the flexibility of both. For example, my A6000 with Sony 50/1.8 OSS is more compact than your EF 50/1.4 with an EF adapter. My Sony 35/1.8 OSS is even smaller.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#535.580,684.305.2,535.410,ha,t

The upgrade path is real, for the simple fact that many people start with APS-C and also happen to buy APS-C lenses. So if they someday upgrade to FF, it is an obvious advantage if they are still able to use their APS-C lenses. Even Canon, Nikon, and Sony understand this advantage, which is why all their FF mirrorless bodies have built-in APS-C crop mode!

Stop being so idealistic. The reality is that many people do start with APS-C and don't want their APS-C lenses to become useless if they move to FF.

@Dragonrider. To your point though about the kit lenses. You skip the kit lens and just pickup the body for $860, pickup the 24-70 F4 for $1000 and for $60 more than the Z6 body you are into the new Z-series system. Add the 85 1.8 Z at $800 and for the cost of the Z6 Kit with the 24-70 you have a nice foundation into the Z-series. You have full frame lenses so you can easily move to the Z6 or Z7.

I guess that I am really disillusioned with Canon at the moment. It started when they dumped the 1.4 crop factor 1D series and then continued when they released yet another mount with the R mirrorless. The 1.4 crop factor sensors were so much better than the 1.6 plus 1.4 allowed you to use them indoors where you need a little wider frame. The R, for me at least, just muddied the waters. Now Canon has EF, EF-S, EF-M and EF-R mounts. No matter how deep Canon's pockets are I just don't see them continuing to develop lenses for that many mounts. What goes? My guess it the EF-M. With the exception of the 22 F2 and the 32 F1.4 M mount lenses are mediocre at best. I'm betting you will see Canon release a crop factor R, similar to the Z50 and dump the entire M lineup leaving a ton of people high and dry. I have pretty much decided that I am going to sell my 1Ds Mark III, EOS M and all lenses and flashes and put that money into the Nikon Z lineup. I just haven't decided on the Z50 or the Z6.

@T3:
Nothing Sony shoots ever looks good so your entire argument is moot.

Heheheh, jk. Just messin' with you cuz i know you've missed me lately. 😜 Have a great weekend, bro. Cheers! 🙂

But they're letting you assign a function on the lenses themselves. One of the rings are assignable. So much fail in your post. I had to troll the troll! 🤗

All Z lenses have programmable rings doofus.

@auricom: Yes I am a doofus because I thought people also used F-mount glass with their Z bodies... I guess not.... Not everyone who may buy this camera will have a Z lens. And what you can customize the control, you are very limited... I just checked and it's something like aperture, M/A focus or exposure compensation, all of which you can do without the ring anyway in the current configuration (and most people coming from an entry/mid-range DSLR will be more familiar with the dual dials versus a ring to adjust things other than maybe focus.

The most common assignment might be aperture for those who are used to shooting with an older AF-D lens with the aperture ring (or other brands that had them, like Fuji). (Although without a click wheel-type control, it feels a little awkward, to me at least--Fuji for example has a control ring that clicks, even though it's still electronically controlled aperture). But whether it clicks or not is a matter of personal preference.

@sir What controls? Well anything at all would be useful. Like two more custom buttons or something. Digital cameras have what, 12,000 different settings? 2-3 custom buttons probably isn't enough for efficient/quick access. :)

No they are, I'm not doubting that, but I was referring to the comment focusing on the Z lenses on the Z50. Not everyone will be using them, especially initially, and will be adapting their F-mount glass which does not have this spare ring, which is what I'm getting at. I think they could have put another custom button or two on the other side, so yes there is always room for extra controls I suppose, but some people act like the camera is unusable without the top plate being full of buttons and dials. Yes they can speed up your workflow, but I also feel in some cases, with some of these things, it makes some more lazy as a photographer in some cases.

Good point on the lack of a power zoom - Nikon did that with the 1 series V3 kit lens and nobody wanted that. Looks like they learned their lesson there.

I don't understand. Power zoom is needed for video because sometimes you need to keep recording and need to zoom. So you're stuck with a bad manual zoom shot in your video. People may not want PZ but that's because they don't know what they're doing. Someone's going to say you're not 'supposed' to zoom during a shot. Re-read what I typed.

PZ is great for video but horrible for photos. People buying an entry level camera don't want their only kit-lens option to be a PZ like it was with the V3. It makes a lot more sense to offer a PZ lens separately for the video enthusiasts.

I use PZ for photos all the time, have no issues and find it absolutely no different in usage from normal zooms. It has, in fact, the advantage of seeing the FL in the VF.

@skanter Being able to see the focal length in the viewfinder has nothing to do with power zoom, per se. For example, if you shoot a Canon EF body with a non-power zoom attached, the EXIF information reports the zoomed focal length. In other words, the body always knows what the focal length is; Canon merely believes it isn’t something worth displaying in the viewfinder.

Agreed. The manual zoom ring is a nice feature.

@Beckler8: People may not want PZ but that's because they don't know what they're doing. "

PZ's are just difficult when you want a specific FL, even experienced photographers sometimes have a difficult time nailing down an exact FL with them. It's not that people don't know what they're doing, but rather you just don't have the fine-tuned focal length control as you do with a manual zooming lens. I bet if I asked you to shoot something at 35mm exactly with a PZ, you might have a difficult time nailing down 35mm or it may take you a 1-3 shots to get to 35mm exactly. With a manual zoom, I can go straight to 35mm. Although it does make me wonder why they can't put little dots on the PZ lense barrels to indicate FLs?

@sirhawk But that's exactly what power zoom would excel at! Going to exact focal lengths, in fact you could assign a button for example to jump to your presets. That's a case of manufacturers not knowing anything since they can't even think of something so obvious. (Maybe some camera has it, i doubt it)

If you have a way to see what FL you are at then yes a PZ would be better a manual zoom lens but you're missing the point that PZs are finicky. It's very hard for people who want to get a specific FL to do it with a PZ without a zoom scale to judge. I mean there is a trial-and-error method (or I suppose if you wanted to put dots on the lens barrel yourself so you know, then that would work too) but most on here have claimed (and I can attest to this) it's hard.

your thing about going to specific FLs at a push of a button would be nice, but I don't know of many (or any) cameras that have this feature. I'm sure it's something that could be implemented via firmware but again, I don't foresee it happening.

It's not about the convenience in getting to an exact focal length in terms of mm, it's about getting to an exact focal length that suits the perspective and the framing that you want for your image. It's just easier to do with a manual zoom where you can very easily nudge it just a mm or two.

Unless you are somewhat OCD about your photography, I can understand no reason whatsoever that I would be concerned about having my lens at exactly 35mm instead of 33mm or 36mm, especially if those other focal lengths more accurately reflect the image I wanted to make.

This is true. I'm don't get overly worked up whether I'm at 35mm or 33mm or 36mm. Usually I go by what looks good composition-wise unless I'm demonstrating something and need to be at a specific FL. I will (mainly when doing portraits) have an idea of a starting FL I'll use, but whether I'm +/- 3 or 5mm it's not that big of a deal.

The mount made it larger than the others. Just look how much space it occupies on that 'compact' body.

Yes, the mount seems to be a constraint, but the Z50 is also quite wide and very deep with it's grip. And look at those dials and buttons. It really seams to me that the body size and design is aimed at higher price point, more like a competitor to the Fuji X-T3. At sub $1000 level, where compact and compromised body designs prevail, it seems unusually advanced.

Near enough to identical in size to the Olympus E-M1 II flagship, interestingly enough. The grip practically looks like Nikon took their calipers to the Olympus...

No it's more like Nikon ripped a grip of their D3500 and glued it to the Z50. I said the same thing about the Z6/Z7 when they came out, which is maybe not a bad thing because many people liked the grips on Nikon DSLRs over what Sony and others were offering.

Ehh, maybe. It just looks like they've learned some lessons from the mirrorless competition to me. There's no shame in that at all.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#796,693,834,689,692,wa,f

@fprime LOL

.

It does flip down 180 degrees, so you can vlogg hand-held

@DRDL ----> Tripod mount can't use gorilla pid unless I create a contraption to attach it to the hot-shoe, then flip the camera upside down

Tilty screen is great for still shooters... ;-)

Agree about the no IBIS. When they release a version with IBIS, AND make it available with some moderately good little lenses, then it would be a great vacation package.

And one that has a screw drive pass through to AF the AF-D lenses.

I was going to make a "rant" post in the forums about this very topic. I was on a shoot once (and it was the end of the day and I was tired) and I couldn't get the FTZ to lock. Thinking I had broke the mount on the camera or adapter I gave up and went back to using my 24-70 f/4, only to realize later that it was caused by the tripod plate on the bottom of the FTZ which was hitting the bottom of the camera and wouldn't let it rotate into the locking position.

I was sort of hoping for a circular one, with a removal collar, sort of like how Tamron does it with their 70-200 G2.

As I recall, Canon introduced 3 adaptors -- a basic one, a control ring one, and a drop-in filter one. But as the above replies show, Nikon needs to add a "footless" one. This could be either basic, or including a control ring (adjustable for exposure comp, aperture, or whatever). For Nikon to simply say - "Here's the one and only FTZ adaptor" - and to present us with one with a non-removable foot - well, it shows an amazing lack in imagining what its customers want!

I'd try to point out how you're objectively wrong but your posting history makes that unnecessary.

Enlighten me.. you asked if they are plastic.. I said yes and added just like every other basic starter kit lens..

visualenvy,
"Yes just like every other kit lens produced."
Wrong... I own Samsung NX and Pentax kit lenses with a metal mount...

Who would mount 24-70 2.8 on a Z50 anyway?

@io_bg - People should be allowed to make whatever choices they want when it comes to lens and body combos. Besides, there are plenty of people who use high-end lenses on lower-level APS-C bodies. Back in the early days when I was using Canon DSLRs, I was using a Canon 70-200/2.8L with an entry-level Canon Rebel DSLR body.

No one's stopping you from doing so.
Though the 24 to 70 range on DX cameras makes little sense to me - neither wide enough for a standard zoom, neither long enough for a long zoom.

@io_bg - The 24-70 is obviously just one focal. Not many people use 24-70 lenses on APS-C DSLRs either. But there are plenty of other FF lenses there are used on APS-C bodies.

But just, future wise. I mean, if you have a S line lens, and you think, lets put that one on my smaller Z50, and then it is not stabilized. That sucks, it feels like going back in time. The Z50 should have the IBIS too.
Just wanted to make the point that Canon is not crazy putting IS in the lenses, it is just future proof.

@T3
I've spotted plenty of DX users out there and almost all of them used DX lenses. The only FX lenses I've seen have been the 50 1.8 (which is a popular lens on DX cameras, indeed), 85 1.8 and 70-300.

I shot a 24-70 non-stabilized lens (the older 24-70 ED lens) for 4 years. While it may have been challenging at times, I managed to do without OIS or VR and was able to walk away with sharp shots 95% of the time. And those few times I didn't it was usually due to my mistake (ex. not paying attention to shutter speed in low light). It is possible to shoot in tough situations without IBIS and OIS. Yes they are helpful but it can still be done with good results if you try and use good technique when possible (ie. use tripod when possible/feasible, or if you must, higher ISOs or bracing your arms for stability, etc).

The fact of the matter is that none of the other APS-C bodies (at least from Sony and Fuji) in this price range have IBIS. So while this may look like a fail for Nikon, it's just they are just doing what the others are. Now they could have one-upped Sony and Fuji and included IBIS on a similarly-priced body and tout the Z50 as better.