Get R now, wait, pass, or switch?

MayaTlab0 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

If the next one has IBIS........

I'd bet heavily against it. The reason the Z has IBIS is because Nikon is buying the Sony sensor assembly which comes with IBIS.

Does it ? I feel that it isn't the same. Nikon's sensor, for example, is locked when powered off, unlike Sony's.

The Nikon looks good. They are well behind Canon in lenses for the new mount, though...

They're f/1.8 primes look mighty good!

There is more to lens quality than F stops and focal lengths, so you may be right. The RF lenses just look more interesting. All of the Nikon lenses could have been made for the old mont, unless I'm missing something. The Canon lenses take advantage of the new mount.

Not quite. In fact pretty much the exact opposite : all of Nikon's Z lenses make extensive use of the new mount, even the 24-70mm f4 !

Let's compare, for example, the 50mm f1.2 RF with the 50mm f1.8 Z. The latter's rear element is just as close if not closer to the sensor, and just as large as the former :

That 50mm f1.8 Z's rear element is so large that, in fact, it wouldn't even have fitted within the F mount diameter, let alone support structure and electronic contacts :D.

I made the point earlier in this thread that Nikon has the potential to make better lenses because of the wider mount and the shorter flange distance.

In terms of performances, MTF figures suggest very ambitious goals for both of these lenses. The Nikon may actually turn out to be one of the best 50mm ever made in terms of price / performance ratio. Unless Nikon screws up OOF rendering, it may actually turn out to be a modern classic.

In terms of the distance between the rear element and the sensor plane, the RF lens that is the most aggressive is... the lowly 35mm f1.8 RF, not the 50mm f1.2 or the 28-70mm f2 :

Whether these lens designs make a good use of these new mounts or not, I'll leave that to the optical engineers. But all of Nikon's Z lenses make use of it, and it isn't because there isn't an eye-watering number on your lens' spec sheet that it doesn't exploit these shorter mounts.

As I said above, there are more factors to what makes a good lens.   Those typically mentioned by ML enthusiasts are brightness and size, which are also a trade off with each other.   I hope Nikon has found additional advantages and exploited them to their fullest.

Personally, I find the Z lens lineup and roadmap so attractive and so well aligned with what I'd like to get that there is a strong chance that I may switch to the Z system in one or two years. I really don't care about 1kg €2500 50mm f1.2 primes (but it surely is looking like an impressive lens in many regards as well).

Next year they plan to have a full set of lenses for it.   I could definitely be happy  with the Z and native lenses, if they stick with the road map, next year.

Nikon has gone for more practical lenses on release.   Canon has released lenses that are intended to demonstrate the next level of lens design.   Neither will have the native lenses I need until next year.

Nikon's more practical approach and IBIS seem to give them the edge at this point.   Canon, as usual, will stay competitive with insane lens designs.  That's why I'm using Canon in the first place.

All of my lenses except for two are mostly for fun.   Ultra wide is for business.   Canon has me enamored with the EF mount because of the 17TSE that I have and the 11-24 that I want.   I still use the 10-22 on crop for getting snap shots of properties when I'm looking at them with people.  (The tripod and big lens would distract from conversation too much.)  That 14-30 F4 with IBIS would serve for both purposes, depending on design, but I really like my 17.   I don't know how well the 11-24 would do hand held.    I still might need something smaller without that bulbous front element.

For personal use, I like having the option to take as many kinds of pictures as possible with little enough gear that I can carry it all.  I like pictures of people at social events without flash, so I'm torn between the -6 EV focus and the IBIS.   At other times, I shoot whatever presents itself and looks interesting; relatives kids' sports, macro, wildlife, lots of landscapes/cityscapes, rarely portraits or other flash pictures.   Even for fun, I concentrate on landscapes and architecture.  Wider is better.

...as they are in DSLR ultra wide lenses. Wider is better.

Wide is better still with lots of pixels. Thus, the Z7.

I like more pixels. I don't need more than I have that often, but better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. I like big prints and I like to crop heavily in some cases, particularly when I don't want to a wider lens in the middle of a shoot.

A 5Dsr equivalent is probably in the near future for the R lineup.

I'm not convinced about that, unless you mean that the "RsR" body would be to the 5DSR what the R is to the 5DIV. In other words : an extremely slow camera (think 1-2fps with AF in focus priority mode, maybe 3 in release priority mode), without 4K.

Canon right now is hampered by their inability to manufacture sensors with a faster readout speed at a low enough cost. Scaling up the APSC DPAF sensors would instantly mean very slow performances.

Interesting.   I never thought of the sensor as the limiting factor in speed.  If that is true, how does Canon make DSLRs with high FPS?   It seems like the same sensor without the mirror would allow at least as fast operation.

That they couldn't do better than the 6DII's sensor in a €2200 DSLR camera (at launch) and the 5DIV sensor in a €2500 mirrorless (ie, cheaper to make) camera is worrying.

You have convinced me.   I'm just going to get a 6D2 for the flip screen and be happy.