Why does someone want a DX mirrorless camera?

[Dbltfarmer]

I have had my Z6II for a week now and discovered many of the attributes of mirrorless cameras in this short time. One of those discoveries is the ability to "zoom in" with the EVF. Before I get further I have two D500's for shooting sports and wildlife. Both have close to 200k actuations on the shutter. One is at Nikon as we speak checking the shutter and getting cleaned. The other is back and back in use. I also have a D850 and love it too.

Most of my work has been sports and wildlife but moving more into landscapes and artwork for businesses. This is the main reason why I bought the D850. I have determined that the 850 can also be a very good wildlife camera. However the D500 is still my go to camera for wildlife and sports. First because of fps and secondly for the ability to get focus points on wildlife. I'm leaving sports out now because I haven't shot any sports in over a year because of the Covid. While I can set the D850 to crop mode, I still see the same image in the OVF as I am in FF. That still makes it more difficult to get focus points on the subject than the D500. While the 850's cropped image is near the same resolution as the D500 it is still not the same.

Now enter the Z6II. Since the Z6II gives you the cropped view and the ability to zoom in the EVF, getting a focus point on the subject becomes much easier. I have taken some nice images at a higher keeper rate using this than my D500. For that reason, I nearly sent the z6II back and got the Z7II which has the same file size as the D850 and and the same size as the D500 in crop mode. Now I realize the Z7II is more expensive than the D500 but for me buying one camera instead of two makes more sense.

I have yet to have the opportunity to do any tracking of wildlife or sports but looking forward to how the AF tracking compares to the D500.

So why the interest in a Crop Sensor mirrorless camera?

 

[Tizzio]

I have had my Z6II for a week now and discovered many of the attributes of mirrorless cameras in this short time. One of those discoveries is the ability to "zoom in" with the EVF. Before I get further I have two D500's for shooting sports and wildlife. Both have close to 200k actuations on the shutter. One is at Nikon as we speak checking the shutter and getting cleaned. The other is back and back in use. I also have a D850 and love it too.

Most of my work has been sports and wildlife but moving more into landscapes and artwork for businesses. This is the main reason why I bought the D850. I have determined that the 850 can also be a very good wildlife camera. However the D500 is still my go to camera for wildlife and sports. First because of fps and secondly for the ability to get focus points on wildlife. I'm leaving sports out now because I haven't shot any sports in over a year because of the Covid. While I can set the D850 to crop mode, I still see the same image in the OVF as I am in FF. That still makes it more difficult to get focus points on the subject than the D500. While the 850's cropped image is near the same resolution as the D500 it is still not the same.

Now enter the Z6II. Since the Z6II gives you the cropped view and the ability to zoom in the EVF, getting a focus point on the subject becomes much easier. I have taken some nice images at a higher keeper rate using this than my D500. For that reason, I nearly sent the z6II back and got the Z7II which has the same file size as the D850 and and the same size as the D500 in crop mode. Now I realize the Z7II is more expensive than the D500 but for me buying one camera instead of two makes more sense.

I have yet to have the opportunity to do any tracking of wildlife or sports but looking forward to how the AF tracking compares to the D500.

So why the interest in a Crop Sensor mirrorless camera?

Same as why not FX but DX for DSLR... simple as that

 

[jfriend00]

These days, I'd say it's really just largely about $$$. If you're not price sensitive (which I assume you are not based on the collection of Nikon bodies you have) and you're not hooked on the Fuji brand (which doesn't make FX), you probably buy FX mirrorless instead of DX mirrorless.

But, compare a Z50 to a Z5 and you save some significant coin with DX. And, we'll probably have even cheaper DX offerings in a bit. Add in some general purpose lenses and you save even more. So, it's really just about $$$ to get started.

Done right, Nikon should have a DX offering that takes some really great pics for a more reasonable entry level price into the brand and then some portion of those users graduate to FX over time. I probably wouldn't have gotten started with Nikon if all they had was FX as that was just too much coin for a starter system when I didn't yet know how far with photography I was going to go.

--
John

 

[Bisonbison]

Depends on primary use. If for example, someone mainly uses their camera for photographing small birds, then the cropped sensor gives a higher number of pixels on the subject compared to cropping into a full frame image. Looking at actual examples available today only the Sony A7Riv's APSC crop mode gives more MPs than a Z50 for example. The rest of the full frame cameras have APSC crop modes that are lower than 20MP. While some newer full frame bodies particularly the 8k video capable ones have APSC crop modes comparable to a DX camera, they come at a huge price premium. Unless the user values the wider view provided by a full frame sensor, why pay that premium? That would be the primary consideration in my mind.

But there are other benefits also: IBIS - would theoretically have an advantage with a smaller sensor vs a larger one. In fact mft cameras have better IBIS compared to full frame ones, at least so far. Greater depth of field - particularly with longer lenses. You would need to stop down with a full frame camera to get the whole subject while the less shallow dof on a smaller sensor may be a benefit.

Horses for courses.

 

[I Love Furry Animals]

So why the interest in a Crop Sensor mirrorless camera?

Because I want a cheaper version of Z9.

 

[Peter3579]

In my case size, weight and greater depth of field for macro shots.

The problem is Nikon often de-spec their Dx bodies.

I find the Z50 with 16-50 kit lens a great small, lightweight walk around cam.

 

[itsallBb2me]

Birds.

 

[Nusratty]

Cost, size, weight, more reach and more dof for the same aperture

 

[Ernie Misner]

Birds.

Moon.

 

[MCLV]

Well, I think that your assumption that needs of others are the same as yours is not a correct one

For example, I use camera mainly for travel and hiking. So lightness and compactness is higher priority for me. Image quality of Z50 passes my personal threshold of good enough and Z50 + 16-50 mm lens is much more compact than Z6 + 24-70 mm.

Would I like to have FX image quality? Yes! Am I willing to drag significantly larger camera with me to get this improvement? Not for my personal use because I would use such camera less often.

There are actually some reasons to believe that smaller formats might become more attractive in the (very) long term. Equivalence of different formats is currently limited by full well capacity of sensors. However, approaches like computational photography or future advances in sensor technology might solve such limitations. Progress in this direction is already visible in cell phones but this has not arrived to DX/FX format cameras yet.

I don't want to start another equivalency discussion but would rather evolve this idea to this question: Would you prefer to have a camera of size and weight of current MFT/DX and performance of currently existing FX cameras or to have FX sized camera with 2-stops improved performance?

I think that everybody has his/her own quality threshold where disadvantages in form of size, weight and expense of technically better camera outweigh improvement in image quality. It seems that FX is a popular compromise among enthusiasts and pros today but it is important to notice that majority of people already chose a different one which they carry in their pockets. There is a whole spectrum, some people are in between phones and FX and for other FX is still not enough.

 

[Qbalion]

To me initially, it was basically $$. I did not want to invest a lot in my photo equipment.

After some time when I learned more craft and started to do some work in the studio and wanted to learn nice portraits I decided to go for FX.

But I kept my Z50 for those days when I want to go hiking trekking or even traveling for some sports activities. In those cases I'd prefer lighter, more compact equipment with better weight/focal length ratio ;-)

With my Z50 and two kit lenses I have 24-375mm range covered (FF equivalence) with just two very light lenses able to produce really decent quality. Z50 with 50-250 weight about 800gr. I'd need a lot (2x?) heavier (and expensive) stuff to cover a similar focal range with FX: 24-105 + 100-400mm for example.

So I imagine that DX will continue to serve me in all use cases where I prefer compactness over low light performance and shallow DoF.

FX in turn I plan to use for all portraits, events, indoor sessions where IBIS, additional few stops of low light performance and the possibility to use a fast (but heavy) lens makes a real difference.

 

[armin304]

So why the interest in a Crop Sensor mirrorless camera?

Size and weight, that's why I still keep the NX30 and NX2000. The Samsung cameras may be discontinued and the system dead, but I don't see a replacement from Nikon coming. Hey, there is still no native DX 12-24 for Z available, not to speak of the 10, 16, 20 and 30mm pancakes. When I'm on the road with the bicycle, I prefer the smaller and lighter NX kit from 12 to 200mm, than the Z6 with the f/4 14-30, 24-70 and 70-200 with FTZ.

 

[Droster]

I am going to invoke the iPhone 12 mini here. The old form factor was a cult favourite. Very popular and in demand. But Apple reportedly overestimated iPhone 12 mini demand by a lot and are cutting down their production in the first half of the year.

Now Apple can afford to make this kind of a mistake. Can Nikon afford to make a niche camera like a high end DX camera? Personally, they shouldn't do it now. But will they still do it? It's what they know, it's what they will do.

Back onto the topic. Why would I want a DX mirrorless camera when I already have a few full frame bodies? To shoot video. A cheap DX body for a third or fourth angle with an ultra-wide and a super zoom would be mighty nice.

 

[NCB]

LIke others, size and weight. I'd been waiting for something like the Z50 for years; a quality camera, great to use, which replaces my ageing premium compact, the Nikon 8400.

 

[olyflyer]

So why the interest in a Crop Sensor mirrorless camera?

Price and size. Maybe marginal, but there are people who think FF is too expensive and large.

 

[olyflyer]

Cost, size, weight, more reach and more dof for the same aperture

You can set the FX cameras to crop mode and you get all those "benefits". Cost, size and weight is real.

 

[spec68]

I am going to invoke the iPhone 12 mini here. The old form factor was a cult favourite. Very popular and in demand. But Apple reportedly overestimated iPhone 12 mini demand by a lot and are cutting down their production in the first half of the year.

Now Apple can afford to make this kind of a mistake. Can Nikon afford to make a niche camera like a high end DX camera? Personally, they shouldn't do it now. But will they still do it? It's what they know, it's what they will do.

Back onto the topic. Why would I want a DX mirrorless camera when I already have a few full frame bodies? To shoot video. A cheap DX body for a third or fourth angle with an ultra-wide and a super zoom would be mighty nice.

As a former iPhone mini owner and current D500 and Z7 II owner I think this is a forced analogy. From the day the iPhone mini was announced I wanted it. Finally a higher spec small screen iPhone. But it was barely less expensive than the full size iPhone and Pro. It was a bit bulky, not slim like the SE, mediocre phone camera compared to the Pro, and less that desirable battery life. So I returned it. It not that the mini is a niche product, it’s that Apple didn’t position it well vis a vis the rest of the line.

The major problem with the mini is that it’s overpriced (even by Apple standards). If it was $150 less or had a better camera and battery life I think it would have sold a lot better. But it’s stuck in “no-man’s land,” too expensive for budget minded folks, too few features for the tech hungry ones.” If the mini was a Pro model or SE replacement it would sell better I think. That said, rumor is Apple isn’t discontinuing the mini. It will get an update this fall with the rest of the line. Hardly a mistake.

Imagine if the D500’s original price was $2900 or only had 14MPs or didn’t have the great AF and build quality? It would have been a sales clunker too. Just look at the original Z6 and Z7. Fine cameras but the one card slot and 1/2 baked grip hobbled sales. It’s all about price and features.

The main reason I hold on to my D500 even though I have a Z7 II (upgraded from a Z6) is it still beats my Z7 II’s AF speed and accuracy capturing far away fast action. If Nikon makes a Z90 based off the Z9’s AF, prices it similar to the D500’s original price, yes I’m a buyer. I don’t think the D500 (orDX) is niche. The D500 is still a good seller even though it’s years old.

 

[Dennis]

Now I realize the Z7II is more expensive than the D500 but for me buying one camera instead of two makes more sense.

I have yet to have the opportunity to do any tracking of wildlife or sports but looking forward to how the AF tracking compares to the D500.

So why the interest in a Crop Sensor mirrorless camera?

I assume your question is aimed specifically at people who want a D500 type body for reach in addition to a FF body ?

I would guess that most of the interest in crop sensor mirrorless is from people who aren't looking for a $1500 DX body in addition to a $2000 FX body.

For me, it would be either/or. And I have to believe a DX body with the capabilities of a Z6II/Z7II (minus the FF sensor) should be fairly affordable ($1200-1500). So my comparison would be between that single body and a Z7II (assuming I would not buy longer teles to go with FF). I don't see a $3K FF body in my near future, but I have to admit that the idea of a single camera that can act as a 20MP DX when needed, while providing Z7II image quality on everything I don't need to crop, is pretty compelling. But also overkill.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[MIKE1111]

Because I want a cheaper version of Z9.

 

[TheWillRogers]

These threads are irresistible bait to me. I think i'm just going to start copy and pasting my answers.

• I prefer the 1.5 crop that DX offers over FX, I'd rather 21MP on APS-C than 24MP on full frame. A 75-375mm (full frame equivalent) lens with VR gives a lot of flexibility when I'm walking around the forests and lakes. The thought of a 400mm lens on full frame scares my bank account.
• Yes, it's harder to go super wide on dx, but there's plenty of used market 10-20mm AF-P that are cheap.
• Cost Wise, My entire Z50, 16-50mm, 50-250mm, FTZ, 10-20mm AF-P kit cost me about ~$1500USD. Once I had that paid off I spent another $300 for the AF-s 35mm and 50mm prime lenses that I also get to use on my N75. This is still less than the Z5 w/ only the 24-70.
• The only FF Z camera that interests me is the Z7 due to the sheer megapixels. (19MP in DX mode)
• My camera is not an "investment", it's a tool for me to play around with. If I were making money through stills I would grab either the D850 or Z7 and some pro level glass. At that point it's all tax write offs as business expenses. This is a hobby for me so I have to keep my expenses low.
• Modern EVFs are just more useful than OVF. I can see my exposure on the histogram before I click the shutter without having to look at the live view. It's for this reason that I didn't consider another DSLR when upgrading from the D5200. Focus peaking is dope too.