Well you can't isolate the lens from the camera and the differences between the camera+lens for each are there. Whether you need or benefit from those differences should be considered when you decide what to buy. If you buy the 14-30 f4 or and your main purpose is landscape photography then you're still going to benefit from the Nikon camera+lens combination vs the Sony aps-c camera+lens.
The Fuji XS10/20 paired with the F2 primes is basically my perfect APSC kit. Unfortunately, for Fujifilm I enjoy my Nikon full-frame kit quiet a bit and it doesn't make sense to have funds wrapped up in two separate lens mounts.eliver 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 IBISIMO, 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.
And yet, flagship m43 and APS-C bodies are $2000 and under. Just like the D500 was so much less than the D5. FWIW, I don't think the market for a mirrorless D500 is there the way it was 10+ years ago. I suspect some of the potential market moved on to FF and some moved onto other brands. (That started happening before the D500 was even released). For the serious action photographer, willing to spend $2K on a D500-type camera and then thousands more on lenses, a Z8 probably isn't that big a stretch. Something in the $1000-$1500 range probably has broader appeal.
Depends on what you mean by "regular" FX sensors. don't get 20-26MP out of a 1.5X crop. 45+ MP sensors in $2700+ cameras get you there (or older models on discount/used) so about twice the price of DX.
This.
I'm not arguing about the possibility of making a less expensive camera. I'm just saying that I don't see how making it DX is the change that will get the cost there. Is the cost of a 45 MP vs. a 20 MP sensor really a $1,000 difference? I doubt it's anywhere close to that, but I'd be open to someone showing me I'm wrong.
True, but as I said above I don't think the sensor is the price difference here. Think of it like this: if they took the Z8 and were able to simply swap in a 24MP sensor, would the cost to produce that drop by $1000? I have a hard time thinking so.
That is the big question! The Canon R7 has issues with 1) shutter shock, 2) IBIS not working with some lenses, 3) worse IQ at high ISO. From the comments on the Sony a6700 initial review, there is concern about that camera taking a step back in high ISO IQ. If that is the case, then that Sony sensor may not be a good one for Nikon to use. I say there is a lot of room for Nikon to offer a camera that kills these at a reasonable price, but are they willing? I believe the market is there and many Nikonians will be very pleased!
I agree - I liked it when I tried it as a compact, secondary camera (I didn't buy one) but nothing close to a replacement for my D7500 with 16-80, 70-200 and so on.
Fuji has a lot going for it. The XT5 looks like a heck of a camera. I spent over a year with an X-S10 and found things I like better about Fuji's menus, controls & features and things I liked less (than other brands). That camera was only ever intended as a compact second body (as well as a Fuji tryout to see if I'd want to move to Fuji mirrorless) - the X-T5 would have been the ideal replacement for my DSLR - but ultimately, I couldn't put together a satisfactory lens lineup. I liked the lenses I tried (only two that I bought plus a few that I tried in the shop). They feel nice to use, for whatever that's worth. It's a very solid alternative to F mount DX. In the end, an upgrade to a modest FF Z kit suited me better.
Sometimes that's what it takes to figure out what you want/need. I've had my DX F mount gear for years, dabbled in APS-C e-mount alongside it, Fuji more recently, and an RX10 III as well, and finally picked my DSLR replacement gear (now I just need to add a couple more native Z lenses before I can get rid of the DSLR gear completely).
I was responding to the claim (not yours) that "I feel like we're at a point where the argument for DX has nothing to do with price."
Remember to multiply the cost differential by 3 at least to get the price differential, and then adjust the profit margin for the midrange body down a notch.
I agree with you on the z dx, except for the lenses. Both 16-50 and 50-230 are excellent kit lenses and better than f mount equivalents. Yes they are lightweight but I care more about optical quality than being heavy.
If you read through the thread and others on the same subject you wouldn’t be asking that question. A z500 would be very different from the z5 in the same way the d500 was different from the d610 and d750. More controls, more speed, bigger VF, stacked sensor, advanced AF etc in a camera the size of the z wouldn’t phase many. No one expects a z50 size stacked sensor z500. The z8 is large enough that I wouldn’t want to take it out and about as much—yes the same issue I had with the d500 and why I switched to mirrorless. For some not an issue of course. So a z6 size dx pro camera, maybe even a little thicker (stacked sensor cameras all seem to be chunky) is fine by me and I suspect, by others. Price it at $2700 or less and you have buyers. The z8 is one hell of a camera but $4k is a lot of money even if you can afford it.
Nikon has an 18-140 DX zoom. I think that covers the range you were looking for nicely, unless you meant you wanted 18-80 so that it would be more compact.
No, it's not: A D500 was/is a DX camera, the Z8 is a FX camera. Why spend the extra on a a FX body when you want/need a DX body?
