Thoughts on Nikon DX...

J2daV said:

No, a z500 is a z8. What are you going to cut from the z8 to save costs on the order of $1300?

Click to expand...

J2daV said:

I’m saying that the smaller sensor is such a drop in the bucket at this point that it’s not worth making a z500. Is that smaller sensor saving $1300? I don’t think so. I think dx is dead and the Nikon approach to dx so far seems to agree with me.

Click to expand...

J2daV said:

I’m saying that the smaller sensor is such a drop in the bucket at this point that it’s not worth making a z500. Is that smaller sensor saving $1300? I don’t think so. I think dx is dead and the Nikon approach to dx so far seems to agree with me.

Click to expand...

MikeP7000 said:

J2daV said:

No, a z500 is a z8. What are you going to cut from the z8 to save costs on the order of $1300?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Icee258 said:

J2daV said:

No, a z500 is a z8. What are you going to cut from the z8 to save costs on the order of $1300?

Click to expand...

A sensor that is less than half the size can typically be made for much less than half the price due to the ability to fit more of them onto the circular silicon wafer, so that's the main place to find major savings. With a smaller sensor, the body could be smaller than the Z8, potentially reusing the Z6/7 body components or creating a new APS-C body that could be shared with the Z50ii for some economy of scale.

Canon made the R7 about as capable as the R5 and sells it for much less than half the price of the R5. Sony is selling the a6700 for $1100 less than the A7IV. Fuji sells its best APS-C camera for $2500, which is $1500 less than the Z8 sells for. If Nikon can't do similarly with a high end APS-C, Nikon is doing something wrong because it's clearly not a component cost issue.

Click to expand...

NikonBiologist said:

J2daV said:

From a design standpoint, is there much if a difference?

the z50 is basically a z5 without ibis and a smaller battery and smaller sensor. It’s about 1/4” smaller in all dimensions but weighs a lot less. I think the smaller sensor shrinks 2 dimensions and the lack of ibis probably makes up the third dimension. The weigh is lack of ibis, smaller battery and small gains in a lot of other places, I would guess.
so, when people say I want a z50 with ibis…you get really close to a product that they already make, z5. Or you want a d500 replacement…it becomes so close to a z8 that it might not be worth making a z8 with a smaller sensor. Just use the one already developed. It might not get any lighter and not significantly smaller by using a crop sensor.
I think people are just wanting a cheaper but full function camera when Nikon is already the cheapest option of the big 3 makers. And if they offer a cheaper camera like the z5, the narrative quickly becomes … just spend the extra $400 and get the better camera. This is what is said regularly about the z5 on this very forum.
So, what do you actually expect the dx camera to achieve? Why make it at all?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

mosswings said:

J2daV said:

I’m saying that the smaller sensor is such a drop in the bucket at this point that it’s not worth making a z500. Is that smaller sensor saving $1300? I don’t think so. I think dx is dead and the Nikon approach to dx so far seems to agree with me.

Click to expand...

See my comments above. To save $1300 in MSRP, take out about $400 of build cost at a 3:1 multiplier. Half of that would likely be in the stacked sensor going DX.
But Nikon thinks there is far less market for a Z500 than the enthusiasts screaming on the group threads do. They should know. The D500 sold just fairly well, without pushing by Nikon, but to a much larger market.
Still, Fuji's out there with a stacked X-H2S for $2500. By all reports it's not selling that well either.

Click to expand...

mosswings said:

When the exclusivity period in Fuji's sensor manufacturing contract for the X-H2S expires that would be when to watch for something more than a Z70 (Z version of a D7K) in DX, but I tend to agree that all we can hope for in DX is a Z70.

Click to expand...

NikonBiologist said:

mosswings said:

J2daV said:

I’m saying that the smaller sensor is such a drop in the bucket at this point that it’s not worth making a z500. Is that smaller sensor saving $1300? I don’t think so. I think dx is dead and the Nikon approach to dx so far seems to agree with me.

Click to expand...

See my comments above. To save $1300 in MSRP, take out about $400 of build cost at a 3:1 multiplier. Half of that would likely be in the stacked sensor going DX.
But Nikon thinks there is far less market for a Z500 than the enthusiasts screaming on the group threads do. They should know. The D500 sold just fairly well, without pushing by Nikon, but to a much larger market.
Still, Fuji's out there with a stacked X-H2S for $2500. By all reports it's not selling that well either.

Click to expand...

Does anyone actually know if it’s selling well? I have heard others on here say it’s selling well but no one has any actual data.

NikonBiologist said:

When the exclusivity period in Fuji's sensor manufacturing contract for the X-H2S expires that would be when to watch for something more than a Z70 (Z version of a D7K) in DX, but I tend to agree that all we can hope for in DX is a Z70.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lazer42 said:

Icee258 said:

J2daV said:

No, a z500 is a z8. What are you going to cut from the z8 to save costs on the order of $1300?

Click to expand...

A sensor that is less than half the size can typically be made for much less than half the price due to the ability to fit more of them onto the circular silicon wafer, so that's the main place to find major savings. With a smaller sensor, the body could be smaller than the Z8, potentially reusing the Z6/7 body components or creating a new APS-C body that could be shared with the Z50ii for some economy of scale.

Canon made the R7 about as capable as the R5 and sells it for much less than half the price of the R5. Sony is selling the a6700 for $1100 less than the A7IV. Fuji sells its best APS-C camera for $2500, which is $1500 less than the Z8 sells for. If Nikon can't do similarly with a high end APS-C, Nikon is doing something wrong because it's clearly not a component cost issue.

Click to expand...

The "Z500" market is very different from the Z50 market, though, in terms of what the prospective buyers want. I don't think "Z500" buyers WANT a smaller body. I want to replace my D500 with a Z and the nice chunky pro size of the Z8 is exactly what I want. The Z7ii is just too small to me - and I suspect most D500 "alumni" feel likewise. The size is a feature, not a bug.

Click to expand...