unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,168
- Reaction score
- 4,675
You say that, but Fuji is in fact losing market share (they were 13% at their peak) whilst m43 is increasing.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Thoughts on Nikon DX...
- Thread starter LTheWafflePWN
- Start date
LennyLevino
Leading Member
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 522
LennyLevino
Leading Member
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 522
With APS-C it's not that much about the size and weight of the bodies, but the lenses. Sony has a 10-20mm f4 (15-30mm f5.6) that weighs 190 grams. A Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 that weighs 290 grams, etc. If you're travelling with a small kit, the weight savings are huge.Yeah, the Z cameras came out and I never followed the Sony upgrade path
As you have said more than once, there is a point when existing cameras are "good enough", and for a stick in the backpack camera, the early Sony's are good enough.
In fact on vacation I'm shooting a lot of film, so I'll just throw an F mount adaptor on the Sony in case I need digital (like at night). So I'm not even taking any lenses specifically for them.
And of course, the phone is always along for the ride.
The only thing I would want out of a new DX camera from Nikon is a stable, profitable Nikon
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Yep. D500 cost more than D610 at launch to IIRC. Video folks would be happy to pay for a high specced DX body.
None of us, or at most very few, know what was going on inside Nikon then. I lean more towards Clayton's narrative. Nikon is a conservative company most of the time. Minolta schooled it on autofocus, and Canon schooled it on electronic-interface lens mounts. The obsession with maintaining deep backward compatibility with earlier lenses was a hindrance and was not even followed that well - between Canon's EF mount intro and Nikon's Z mount there were several incompatible changes to the f-mount standard, handled pretty clumsily.
It's rather sobering to consider that at the Z launch in 2018 the general architecture of the Z6 and Z7 had been frozen for perhaps 3-4 years. The AF system was derived from Series 1 which was introed not long before that, in 2011, and the latest version of that system released in 2015. To LTheWaffle's point, that system was quite good in the 1" sensor format but with significant limitations in sensitivity amongst other qualities that made it subcompetitive for their main product line. Nevertheless, a product had to be released.
The smoking gun for the Z release for me was the UI, which appears to have been derived from of all places Coolpix cameras. This to me was the telltale of a project without a clear vision but a bag of possibly useful parts to pull from. Comparison with Sony's products was pretty clear - Sony was centering object tracking in its very DSLR-similar UI, making it available in the various traditional DSLR AF modes as well as full auto; Nikon's buried object tracking under Auto-Area-AF and large area dynamic modes that looked nothing like their DSLR modes but had no good reason to be so different - unless they weren't all that good.
So I don't much believe that Nikon was overconfident in its Z AF. I think quite the opposite. Probably, they didn't have much at all and not enough time to develop it properly before release.
Now Nikon is in a situation where it has do moonshots to win back mindshare as the best on the market to win and keep its most faithful customers. They've done that with the Z9/8 but have they done it with tech that downscales to their midrange? Canon and Sony have systems that can do well with less and are formidable competition. Perhaps Nikon's only move is to retreat to the highest end. All because they didn't embrace the future a little sooner than it was ready for commoditization.
Last edited:
SrMi
Veteran Member
I agree that the size and weight of lenses matter a lot.With APS-C it's not that much about the size and weight of the bodies, but the lenses. Sony has a 10-20mm f4 (15-30mm f5.6) that weighs 190 grams. A Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 that weighs 290 grams, etc. If you're travelling with a small kit, the weight savings are huge.Yeah, the Z cameras came out and I never followed the Sony upgrade path
As you have said more than once, there is a point when existing cameras are "good enough", and for a stick in the backpack camera, the early Sony's are good enough.
In fact on vacation I'm shooting a lot of film, so I'll just throw an F mount adaptor on the Sony in case I need digital (like at night). So I'm not even taking any lenses specifically for them.
And of course, the phone is always along for the ride.
The only thing I would want out of a new DX camera from Nikon is a stable, profitable Nikon
Nikon DX system has excellent 12-28 (205g) and 16-50 (135g). Sony APS-C is missing a lightweight quality "standard"-zoom, but its 18-135 (326g) can be used instead.
Clayton1985
Veteran Member
The Nikon 14-30 f4 is not too much bigger than the 10-20 f4 and weighs about 485g. I wonder how much smaller and lighter it would be as a 14-30 f5.6 FX?
SrMi
Veteran Member
I have both lenses, and 14-30/4 is much larger and heavier than Sony 10-20/4. However, Nikon has a small and lightweight 12-28/3.5-5.6.
Clayton1985
Veteran Member
Understood but the weight of both was already listed in the thread. The difference in length is maybe about 3/4 inch? Regardless, the point was not to compare the 14-30 f4 to the 10-20 f4 but to consider a comparison between a hypothetical 14-30 f5.6 FX and the 10-20 f4 aps-c since the claim is a huge size and weight advantage for aps-c lenses. You're usually going to have a weight and size advantage if you compromise on performance which is what you're doing with a lens like the 10-20 f4 directly compared to the 14-30 f4.
I'd be more interested in a comparison when the performance is similar and at least hypothetically it would be more similar if you had a 14-30 f5.6. Obviously at some point we have to step back into the real world since you can buy a 10-20 f4 and you can't buy a 14-30 f5.6, but if Nikon made that lens the size and weight differences might be minimal.
jgreg
Well-known member
KR
I am one of those with a D7500 and a D5500 for whom Thom's comments resonate. DX will always be my main camera, as it allows me to go light or lighter depending on the length or ruggedness of my trek.
I am quite reluctant to switch from the D7500 to the Z DX triplet. I must confess that the fact that there finally is a good string of dx primes for zx at many focal lengths makes it tempting. However, there is always that pesky AF-C performance to consider, so for now I will stay pat.
I am one of those with a D7500 and a D5500 for whom Thom's comments resonate. DX will always be my main camera, as it allows me to go light or lighter depending on the length or ruggedness of my trek.
I am quite reluctant to switch from the D7500 to the Z DX triplet. I must confess that the fact that there finally is a good string of dx primes for zx at many focal lengths makes it tempting. However, there is always that pesky AF-C performance to consider, so for now I will stay pat.
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Nobody makes F/5.6 constant aperture UWA zooms so it's kind of a pointless exercise. Realistically the RF 15-30 STM is probably the best comp, and it is about 380-390g depending on what you put on it. So no an F/5.6 14-30 would not weigh the same as the 10-20/4.
Plus even if it did FF bodies are heavier than APS-C bodies so you can't come out ahead. If someone is hyper fixated on weight/size then FF is not the way forward for them, especially for a multi-lens system. 3-4 lenses and you could be talking about lbs of weight saved.
LennyLevino
Leading Member
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 522
Since we are on the topic of Nikon DX... Has anyone tried the Voigtlander Ultron lenses? The D23 and D35. I've heard bad things about the 35 (which is a shame, because what Nikon DX is missing is a good 50mm equivalent prime lens).
archerscreek
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,228
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1,994
I’m responding because Thom Hogan once suggested in comments he made about his sources that Nikon is aware of the discussions that occur online regarding their products. Haha
So Nikon …
The market and desire for a capable lightweight body among existing Z mount FX users is bigger than simply those who want a travel kit. Some like me a) want a lightweight second body to carry with our Z9, lens attached, as an at the ready second focal length option for the main things we shoot, and/or b) want a significantly lighter camera/lens combo as an option because we regularly hold and carry the burden of an uncomfortable amount of weight for a significant amount of time in situations that present no opportunity to rest the combo on a tripod, have it stowed away in a backpack, or lay it on the ground or any other safe place so we can rest our arms, shoulders, or necks.
The one thing that seems odd to me is that Nikon recognizes the benefit of releasing high quality, lightweight super tele prime lenses like the 800 PF and 400 f/4.5, but doesn’t yet recognize the benefit for releasing similarly situated bodies. I think Nikon realizes the benefit of releasing those lenses is much broader than simply selling those particular lenses to a targeted market.
I’ve read numerous comments from people who were persuaded to buy into the Z system because of lenses that they’ll likely never buy. But the consumers at least know the option is there should they choose to do so in the future. That’s the reason Nikon put out their lens roadmap, because they knew that having the option alone of buying some other product in the future would help them sell products in the present. Similarly, I think a seriously capable DX camera would not only sell to those wanting that body in the present, but it would also sell people looking to join a system on the idea that the Z system offers plenty of viable options for future expansion of their kit.
Clayton1985
Veteran Member
I didn't say that full frame cameras and lenses can equal aps-c cameras and lenses in terms of weight and size. I'm just saying that in my opinion a comparison between the Sony 10-20 and the Nikon 14-30 isn't the best way to discuss the potential weight and size benefits for aps-c. Whether they make a 14-30 f5.6 or not, if you believe you can get less than half the weight of full frame by going with aps-c you are misguided unless you acknowledge the sacrifice in results/performance that go along with it. As far as the Canon 15-30, the Nikon 14-30 is already roughly the same size and about 90-100g heavier so I'm not convinced that a 14-30 f5.6 couldn't be lighter than 380-390g but maybe you're right.
For me, I cant afford the mega willdife lenses (I use a 500 Pf) and therefore it seems pointless to buy a FX camera and either run it in DX mode all the time or end up heavily cropping every photo. A Z500 at 30-36mp would be perfect, not that it's going to happen, but one can dream.
There's no difference in light gathering or lens performance in landscape use. They're all a bit dim for astro, and no-one's shooting shallow depth of field portraits with them.
The aperture on the canon lens is only 3.3mm at the wide end; there's only so much you can reduce lens weight when the area of glass is driven by the field of view. Laowa has an f/5.6 FF UWA zoom (12-24), and it weights 500g.
thisisbenji
Leading Member
- Messages
- 842
- Reaction score
- 1,495
I feel like we're at a point where the argument for DX has nothing to do with price.
I mean, there's not a whole lot in it between a Z5 and Z50 body from a cost standpoint.
Personally, I really love my Zfc + 16-50, 50-250, and 24, I don't think I have any use for any additional DX kit.
APSC bodies and glass are where manufactures can still deliver on the "mirrorless = smaller" mindset.
I mean, there's not a whole lot in it between a Z5 and Z50 body from a cost standpoint.
Personally, I really love my Zfc + 16-50, 50-250, and 24, I don't think I have any use for any additional DX kit.
APSC bodies and glass are where manufactures can still deliver on the "mirrorless = smaller" mindset.
That depends on what you're looking for. If it's a high end body for $1799 with the performance of a Z8 ... or if you're buying DX for use with long lenses as an alternative to buying either a more expensive high res FF or longer, more expensive lenses, then cost comes into play.
I agree that for more modest use cases, and especially when you look at more "equivalent" kits, there's not a whole lot between them. I opted for a Z5 over DX for IBIS, for the EVF, and for the 24-200. Price, size, capability, image quality, are all somewhat different, but not drastically different from what DX offers.
Especially if they avoid the temptation to deliver equivalence. Fuji is kind of stuck, in a way, in having to offer fast glass. Same with micro 4/3. They offers some quality small lenses, but plenty of stuff that's as big as FF equivalents. I think that in 2023, with FF as popular as it is, Nikon could get away with a DX lens lineup that's geared towards smaller/portable, augmented with the FX lenses that are available. Sure, some photographers would love to see a 16-50/2 (or at least f/2.8) but we're in "beggars can't be choosers" mode here, still hoping for a body with IBIS
IMO, that's what FF is for and it's too much to ask a company to offer the same things in both DX and FX.How could making another FF body take the place of a DX body? Would not work for me, but so what? I am a since day one a DX Nikon guy, and that's where I will stay, but I'm quite old and likely have enough bodies to keep me in Nikon DX land regardless. If I would live forever and could never get another Nikon DX camera, I would be obliged to change brands and go to Fuji or Pentax or go to M43 land. Seems like some folks just do not understand that everybody in the world does not dream of owning a FF digital camera.
FF is shades of the past when film was the medium. This is the digital age. Miniaturization is the game of the modern age.
FF is shades of the past when film was the medium. This is the digital age. Miniaturization is the game of the modern age.
To me the thing is that I don't think DX has anything to do with getting a "a high end body for $1799 with the performance of a Z8." Whether they can/will produce such a body or not, I don't think the sensor size has very much to do with it. Certainly the DX sensor isn't $1,000 worth of difference, anyways. Whatever cuts need to be made to get from the $4,000 Z8 to the $1800 whatever, I can't imagine that DX vs. FX is really it.
Similarly, the "extra reach" of DX is not something that a smaller sensor gives us that the regular FX sensors don't.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum