Never Too Many Thoughts on Nikon DX

Icee258 said:

Droster said:

Yea except most of this "swathe" of enthusiasts of today isn't like how it was back in the day. Because of how phones are our secondary small compact camera, most "enthusiasts" today who still want to carry a camera skipped crop entirely and just go straight up to full frame because of how small FX cameras and lenses are today. It's reflected in the CIPA numbers with how things have been trending towards full frame cameras and lenses for a good while.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Many enthusiasts still want DX. Some own DSLR DX lenses already and would like to adapt them. Others are hikers or travel frequently and want to keep their kit (especially the lenses) smaller and lighter.

I think the reason things look like they're trending to full frame isn't driven by enthusiasts switching. I think it's driven by pros finally converting from DSLR to mirrorless. It's only in the past two years that Canon and Nikon made the end of DSLR official, and only in the past 2 years that Nikon introduced the Z9 and Z8, giving Nikon-using pros something to move to. That caused a dislocation in the market that gave a temporary bump to full frame relative to DX, but that will shake out soon enough.

4 of the 5 "most popular cameras" right now, here on a forum full of enthusiasts (and pros) are APS-C. The market is there. Nikon, sadly, is not.

Click to expand...

I like to base views on the market around data, and available data (CIPA) doesn't really jive with this.

As far as pros go, they are shrinking in number, so it's not likely that they are driving anything in the camera world. On top of that pros aren't buying the latest and greatest all the time. They buy gear and depreciate it (i.e. use it until it dies).

The market is being driven by enthusiasts. And there's a lot of data suggesting tastes have shifted to FF. 1, CIPA data flat out shows FF spend/volume going up and crop going down. 2, manufacturers have made FF a big priority- Canon, Sony, Nikon and Panasonic wouldn't have launched new FF systems if they didn't think customers didn't want them. 3 Canon has flat out said in multiple financial statements that crop volume collapsed and is the reason their units are down. 4 Nikon serial data indicates Z DX just not selling a lot compared to FX. It's not 2009 anymore.

That's not to say there's no market for DX. But I think the lazy iterations of the DSLR era are done. Companies have to be more deliberate and deliver more value. So I think there's an opportunity for Nikon with a Z70 or Z90 (not both- how about a Z80? :-D). And they have actually done well with DX glass which is a shock. But whatever they bring out has to be competitive with the likes of the A6700/R7/X-S20. Otherwise it will be a big failure. Especially since I expect crop/DX update cycles to be glacial. So they have to get it right out of the box.

Crop volume collapsed because tourism and parties collapsed in the pandemic. Regular folks most often bought new cameras to use on a big trip or before a big family gathering. Fewer trips/gatherings meant fewer camera sales to regular folks, so fewer consumer-grade camera sales. That's not indicative of long-term demand drop, but a pandemic-driven market disruption. Canon noted this in their financial reports AND responded by releasing a bunch of new crop cameras.

Canon just came out with 4 APS-C cameras in the past 12 months. They know a market is still there, at all skill and enthusiam levels, especially as people have trips and graduations to photograph again. No, it's not 2009 again, but it's also not 2020 anymore.

Icee258 said:

Crop volume collapsed because tourism and parties collapsed in the pandemic. Regular folks most often bought new cameras to use on a big trip or before a big family gathering. Fewer trips/gatherings meant fewer camera sales to regular folks, so fewer consumer-grade camera sales. That's not indicative of long-term demand drop, but a pandemic-driven market disruption. Canon noted this in their financial reports AND responded by releasing a bunch of new crop cameras.

Canon just came out with 4 APS-C cameras in the past 12 months. They know a market is still there, at all skill and enthusiam levels, especially as people have trips and graduations to photograph again. No, it's not 2009 again, but it's also not 2020 anymore.

Click to expand...

Crop volume had collapsed well before COVID. I did a whole study on this a few years ago:

Why FF actually makes sense for most manufacturers (to focus on): Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Total camera volume was down by 2/3 or so by 2019 from the 2012 peak, and if lenses are a proxy all of those losses came from crop.

Yes Canon came out with 4 APS-C bodies in the last 12 months, but how many lenses have they come out with? If crop is so important, why did they wait 4-5 years to launch crop bodies in RF-S? Etc. Crop matters but it's clearly in support of FF and not the main story like it was 10-15 years ago.

That thread shows that even in 2020, when consumer camera purchases went totally to heck, crop units outsold FF. Yes, FF is far more profitable per unit, and each buyer of FF is likely to buy more lenses, but crop serves many more people. Ignoring APS-C means abandoning everyone who is interested in photography who isn't rich enough or committed enough for FF.

Some of those crop buyers eventually convert to FF after starting with entry level. Others happily buy one new camera every 5 years (maybe next-step up, like a D7k after D5k after D3k), plus a few accessories like a spare battery. Some are already FF users who want a more compact kit for certain use cases.

Any way you slice it, failing to serve crop buyers means failing to serve MOST ILC photographers.

Icee258 said:

That thread shows that even in 2020, when consumer camera purchases went totally to heck, crop units outsold FF. Yes, FF is far more profitable per unit, and each buyer of FF is likely to buy more lenses, but crop serves many more people. Ignoring APS-C means abandoning everyone who is interested in photography who isn't rich enough or committed enough for FF.

Some of those crop buyers eventually convert to FF after starting with entry level. Others happily buy one new camera every 5 years (maybe next-step up, like a D7k after D5k after D3k), plus a few accessories like a spare battery. Some are already FF users who want a more compact kit for certain use cases.

Any way you slice it, failing to serve crop buyers means failing to serve MOST ILC photographers.

Click to expand...

The prediction my analysis showed came to be in 2022.... FF lens units finally surpassed crop:

s-2022_e.pdf (cipa.jp)

Bear in mind that includes MFT, so odds are FF "outvolumed" APS-C long ago.

I agree that it would be a mistake to abandon APS-C entirely. But it would also be a mistake to give the same level of investment and focus to a low margin format that is shrinking in volume and sales every year (APS-C) as a growing high margin format (FF).

So I think Nikon needs a higher end Z DX body. But after that? I wouldn't blame Nikon for not releasing another DX body for 5-7 years. You don't throw good money after the bad.

sportyaccordy said:

Icee258 said:

That thread shows that even in 2020, when consumer camera purchases went totally to heck, crop units outsold FF. Yes, FF is far more profitable per unit, and each buyer of FF is likely to buy more lenses, but crop serves many more people. Ignoring APS-C means abandoning everyone who is interested in photography who isn't rich enough or committed enough for FF.

Some of those crop buyers eventually convert to FF after starting with entry level. Others happily buy one new camera every 5 years (maybe next-step up, like a D7k after D5k after D3k), plus a few accessories like a spare battery. Some are already FF users who want a more compact kit for certain use cases.

Any way you slice it, failing to serve crop buyers means failing to serve MOST ILC photographers.

Click to expand...

The prediction my analysis showed came to be in 2022.... FF lens units finally surpassed crop:

s-2022_e.pdf (cipa.jp)

Bear in mind that includes MFT, so odds are FF "outvolumed" APS-C long ago.

I agree that it would be a mistake to abandon APS-C entirely. But it would also be a mistake to give the same level of investment and focus to a low margin format that is shrinking in volume and sales every year (APS-C) as a growing high margin format (FF).

Click to expand...

You are lumping all FF camera's into the High margin group, Sony has the largest variance of prices for their FF bodies, the A1 is £5879 , but the A7II is £899, is the A7II High margin profit? their new A6700 APSC is £1449, is that a low profit margin.

sportyaccordy said:

So I think Nikon needs a higher end Z DX body. But after that? I wouldn't blame Nikon for not releasing another DX body for 5-7 years. You don't throw good money after the bad.

Click to expand...

cosmicnode said:

You are lumping all FF camera's into the High margin group, Sony has the largest variance of prices for their FF bodies, the A1 is £5879 , but the A7II is £899, is the A7II High margin profit? their new A6700 APSC is £1449, is that a low profit margin.

Click to expand...

We may know how much profit Nikon is making on the photographic division when they publish their annual results toward the end of August.

I understand Sony do not traditionally separate camera division results from the overall results.

Nikon has relatively recently launched 3 DX bodies including one for vlogging.

None of these is specifically designed for "high end" photographic use with a high resolution sensor.

Nikon has launched only two FX bodies, both high performing, in the last 4.75 years.

I expect Nikon are fully aware that if they brought more products to market sooner their turnover should increase.

The current rate of Nikon new lens launches indicates Nikon are becoming better at getting products to the market sooner.

Making a product and making a profit from the product is not always a synonymous situation :-(

Nikon have stuck to the line of those wanting a D500 for FX are overestimating demand and the D500 fell off a cliff once the D850 appeared. I expect they will watch Sony/Canon carefully.

I think the marketing is very poor. I had largely ignored Nikon DX until recently when I had some tine to kill and got a chance to play with a ZFc with their DX lens line up. I was surprised how fun and light it was and how well it performs. I still had a lot of M43 kit, that I used to keep size down and previously for video. That evening I sold all of that and ordered the ZFc and the DX lenses. They are inexpensive light and fun and the lenses complement that. It works with FX but, realistically, the only lenses in the mix, for me, are the 50mm Macro and 40F2. Their DX lineup is ideal for this market and being able to adapt my older lenses adds something. I also had plenty left over to finally scratch my DF itch.

I can't see a requirement for a high end DX, in the same way the D500 met one complementing the D810 and D5. The Z8 combines all that was good about the D500 and D850. The Z7ii once I got the hang of it was equal to the D500 for similar tasks, and a much better all rounder.

The FX Z bodies can do everything the D500 did but bring the advantages of FX.

A high end DX could fill a gap but only really in terms of price, for those who don't want to get a Z8. Of course it could throw in a massive bump in pixel count to actually have a performance USP. But that which would be close to diffraction limited on the current DX lenses, whilst probably costing more than people want to pwy. Then, of course, the call would immediately follow for Nikon, where are the High end DX lenses to pair with my high end DX body.

Vince P said:

The FX Z bodies can do everything the D500 did but bring the advantages of FX.

A high end DX could fill a gap but only really in terms of price, for those who don't want to get a Z8. Of course it could throw in a massive bump in pixel count to actually have a performance USP. But that which would be close to diffraction limited on the current DX lenses, whilst probably costing more than people want to pwy. Then, of course, the call would immediately follow for Nikon, where are the High end DX lenses to pair with my high end DX body.

Click to expand...

Folks that bring up there will always be somebody complaining about something are totally missing the point.

Nikon's current DX lineup is fine for a good bit of users. But it is sorely missing that Higher End Model which would compliment, all those new users with either a Z8/Z9. Which by the way are significantly bigger cameras by comparison to the top cameras from Sony/Canon. But pricing is solving that issue for many.

Plus Sony and Canon have left the Door, wide open for Nikon to do so.

So when I state that higher End Lens is already there, that happened the day Nikon released, their 18 600mm lens. All the other focal points, one can get by with, in one way or the other, but having a $1700 long birding lens at an affordable cost has long been underestimated by Nikon and some of their users. Meaning taking so long to release it.

So again, the Z8/Z9 is NOT a proper replacement for a properly done, mirrorless D500 replacement. They will never be. Size alone ensures that.

BackToNature1 said:

Vince P said:

The FX Z bodies can do everything the D500 did but bring the advantages of FX.

A high end DX could fill a gap but only really in terms of price, for those who don't want to get a Z8. Of course it could throw in a massive bump in pixel count to actually have a performance USP. But that which would be close to diffraction limited on the current DX lenses, whilst probably costing more than people want to pwy. Then, of course, the call would immediately follow for Nikon, where are the High end DX lenses to pair with my high end DX body.

Click to expand...

Folks that bring up there will always be somebody complaining about something are totally missing the point.

Nikon's current DX lineup is fine for a good bit of users. But it is sorely missing that Higher End Model which would compliment, all those new users with either a Z8/Z9. Which by the way are significantly bigger cameras by comparison to the top cameras from Sony/Canon. But pricing is solving that issue for many.

Plus Sony and Canon have left the Door, wide open for Nikon to do so.

So when I state that higher End Lens is already there, that happened the day Nikon released, their 18 600mm lens. All the other focal points, one can get by with, in one way or the other, but having a $1700 long birding lens at an affordable cost has long been underestimated by Nikon and some of their users. Meaning taking so long to release it.

So again, the Z8/Z9 is NOT a proper replacement for a properly done, mirrorless D500 replacement. They will never be. Size alone ensures that.

Click to expand...

Z7ii, used properly, does pretty much anything a D500 did in a smaller body and one assumes a Z7iii will do even more. D500 is about the same size as a Z8. Some calling for a D500 Z have been asking for a bigger body, so now they will need 2 high end DXs one for them and one for you.

I think that they will possibly get around to it but Nikon keep playing it down. They have indicated time and again that affordable isn't their priority.

cosmicnode said:

sportyaccordy said:

Icee258 said:

That thread shows that even in 2020, when consumer camera purchases went totally to heck, crop units outsold FF. Yes, FF is far more profitable per unit, and each buyer of FF is likely to buy more lenses, but crop serves many more people. Ignoring APS-C means abandoning everyone who is interested in photography who isn't rich enough or committed enough for FF.

Some of those crop buyers eventually convert to FF after starting with entry level. Others happily buy one new camera every 5 years (maybe next-step up, like a D7k after D5k after D3k), plus a few accessories like a spare battery. Some are already FF users who want a more compact kit for certain use cases.

Any way you slice it, failing to serve crop buyers means failing to serve MOST ILC photographers.

Click to expand...

The prediction my analysis showed came to be in 2022.... FF lens units finally surpassed crop:

s-2022_e.pdf (cipa.jp)

Bear in mind that includes MFT, so odds are FF "outvolumed" APS-C long ago.

I agree that it would be a mistake to abandon APS-C entirely. But it would also be a mistake to give the same level of investment and focus to a low margin format that is shrinking in volume and sales every year (APS-C) as a growing high margin format (FF).

Click to expand...

You are lumping all FF camera's into the High margin group, Sony has the largest variance of prices for their FF bodies, the A1 is £5879 , but the A7II is £899, is the A7II High margin profit? their new A6700 APSC is £1449, is that a low profit margin.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you are comparing the cheapest FF body to the most expensive APS-C body. On average FF bodies are probably 2-3x the price of APS-C bodies. Even if the margin percentage is the same across all models (which isn't realistic- the higher the price the more profit is usually baked in), the more expensive bodies generate more total profit.

cosmicnode said:

cosmicnode said:

So I think Nikon needs a higher end Z DX body. But after that? I wouldn't blame Nikon for not releasing another DX body for 5-7 years. You don't throw good money after the bad.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Vince P said:

The FX Z bodies can do everything the D500 did but bring the advantages of FX.

Click to expand...

An FX body with the performance and pixel density of a modern D500 would cost 3-4x what a "Z500" would.

Plus a Z500 is not the only option; I agree that is probably overkill. A properly specced "Z90" would do the majority of what that Z500 would at a much more competitive and rational price point. Exactly the same as the X-S20/R7/A6700. Basically a Nikon X-S20. The gap between the Z50 and Z5 is too big. This body would fill it.

Add in some rebadged Tamron DX 2.8 zooms (17-70/11-20) and you have a complete DX support/feeder system.

sportyaccordy said:

cosmicnode said:

sportyaccordy said:

Icee258 said:

That thread shows that even in 2020, when consumer camera purchases went totally to heck, crop units outsold FF. Yes, FF is far more profitable per unit, and each buyer of FF is likely to buy more lenses, but crop serves many more people. Ignoring APS-C means abandoning everyone who is interested in photography who isn't rich enough or committed enough for FF.

Some of those crop buyers eventually convert to FF after starting with entry level. Others happily buy one new camera every 5 years (maybe next-step up, like a D7k after D5k after D3k), plus a few accessories like a spare battery. Some are already FF users who want a more compact kit for certain use cases.

Any way you slice it, failing to serve crop buyers means failing to serve MOST ILC photographers.

Click to expand...

The prediction my analysis showed came to be in 2022.... FF lens units finally surpassed crop:

s-2022_e.pdf (cipa.jp)

Bear in mind that includes MFT, so odds are FF "outvolumed" APS-C long ago.

I agree that it would be a mistake to abandon APS-C entirely. But it would also be a mistake to give the same level of investment and focus to a low margin format that is shrinking in volume and sales every year (APS-C) as a growing high margin format (FF).

Click to expand...

You are lumping all FF camera's into the High margin group, Sony has the largest variance of prices for their FF bodies, the A1 is £5879 , but the A7II is £899, is the A7II High margin profit? their new A6700 APSC is £1449, is that a low profit margin.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you are comparing the cheapest FF body to the most expensive APS-C body. On average FF bodies are probably 2-3x the price of APS-C bodies.

Click to expand...

I think you need to reassess your averages, Nikon has 2 bodies of a similar quality the Z50 at £949 and a Z5 at £1079, hardly double or treble. Due to the smaller sensor in the Z50 at least 50% cheaper than a FF sensor, perhaps a higher profit to the DX body.

sportyaccordy said:

Even if the margin percentage is the same across all models (which isn't realistic- the higher the price the more profit is usually baked in), the more expensive bodies generate more total profit.

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

So I think Nikon needs a higher end Z DX body. But after that? I wouldn't blame Nikon for not releasing another DX body for 5-7 years. You don't throw good money after the bad.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Vince P said:

I think that they will possibly get around to it but Nikon keep playing it down. They have indicated time and again that affordable isn't their priority.

Click to expand...

So maybe you missed , their Entire under a Grand Lineup, which includes at times their Z5. Or the most affordable stacked FF sensors of the Big Three. How about undercutting the Sony 200 600mm lens by $300. So Nikon has indicated by their own actions, they are very much acknowledging those with lower budgets.

BGD300V1 said:

It's supposed to be automatic.

Click to expand...

There's a theory going round that people are becoming lazier. There's a big difference between using a tool (automatic or not) and being lazy with it versus being efficient with it.

BGD300V1 said:

Why should anyone have to keep learning new stuff??

Click to expand...

To be efficient with the tool, you need to learn how it works, what it does best, what it might miss, etc. But more importantly, I would argue that the day you stop learning new stuff, you effectively put a fork in yourself and should be taken off the barbecue.

Thom Hogan said:

BGD300V1 said:

It's supposed to be automatic.

Click to expand...

There's a theory going round that people are becoming lazier. There's a big difference between using a tool (automatic or not) and being lazy with it versus being efficient with it.

Thom Hogan said:

Why should anyone have to keep learning new stuff??

Click to expand...

To be efficient with the tool, you need to learn how it works, what it does best, what it might miss, etc. But more importantly, I would argue that the day you stop learning new stuff, you effectively put a fork in yourself and should be taken off the barbecue.

Click to expand...

To also be efficient, one shouldn't have to waste time using things that mostly aren't important to their bottom-line, which leaves time for learning the things that are. Thus being more efficient at those things. So it's not just about learning new stuff, but what's more important, since Time is Money. Hence Sony and Canon getting that and sometimes, Nikon apparently not.

BackToNature1 said:

Thom Hogan said:

BGD300V1 said:

It's supposed to be automatic.

Click to expand...

There's a theory going round that people are becoming lazier. There's a big difference between using a tool (automatic or not) and being lazy with it versus being efficient with it.

BackToNature1 said:

Why should anyone have to keep learning new stuff??

Click to expand...

To be efficient with the tool, you need to learn how it works, what it does best, what it might miss, etc. But more importantly, I would argue that the day you stop learning new stuff, you effectively put a fork in yourself and should be taken off the barbecue.

Click to expand...

To also be efficient, one shouldn't have to waste time using things that mostly aren't important to their bottom-line, which leaves time for learning the things that are. Thus being more efficient at those things. So it's not just about learning new stuff, but what's more important, since Time is Money. Hence Sony and Canon getting that and sometimes, Nikon apparently not.

Click to expand...

You're moving out of the discussion point on autofocus to a more general one, and I don't at all agree with your generalization.

cosmicnode said:

I think you need to reassess your averages, Nikon has 2 bodies of a similar quality the Z50 at £949 and a Z5 at £1079, hardly double or treble. Due to the smaller sensor in the Z50 at least 50% cheaper than a FF sensor, perhaps a higher profit to the DX body.

Click to expand...

Maybe there is a language barrier or something but I'm not sure you understand what average means. Z50 is not the only DX body and Z5 is not the only FX body. Average goes across each lineup. Plus prices here are different... Z5 is $400 more than Z50 in the US.

Per B&H in the US the average price of Z DX bodies (Z30, Z50, Zfc) is $830. By comparison average price of FX bodies (Z5, Z6II, Z7II, Z8, Z9) is over $3100. Even with cheaper DX sensors I sincerely doubt Nikon is getting the same profit from a $660 Z30 and a $5500 Z9.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

BackToNature1 said:

Vince P said:

I think that they will possibly get around to it but Nikon keep playing it down. They have indicated time and again that affordable isn't their priority.

Click to expand...

So maybe you missed , their Entire under a Grand Lineup, which includes at times their Z5. Or the most affordable stacked FF sensors of the Big Three. How about undercutting the Sony 200 600mm lens by $300. So Nikon has indicated by their own actions, they are very much acknowledging those with lower budgets.

Click to expand...

I didn't miss it I just bought one.

Not a priority doesn't mean they are leaving the segment altogether.

I said they will probably get around to it. Having products already, that can do the same job, is likely going to push it down the order. As is their priorities.

They have said they are focusing on high margin, high cost low volume, thats not the affordable end of the market. It's important not to confuse competitive with affordable. Embraer jets, are considered very competitively priced, but I think it would be a stretch to call them affordable.

BackToNature1 said:

Thom Hogan said:

BGD300V1 said:

It's supposed to be automatic.

Click to expand...

There's a theory going round that people are becoming lazier. There's a big difference between using a tool (automatic or not) and being lazy with it versus being efficient with it.

BackToNature1 said:

Why should anyone have to keep learning new stuff??

Click to expand...

To be efficient with the tool, you need to learn how it works, what it does best, what it might miss, etc. But more importantly, I would argue that the day you stop learning new stuff, you effectively put a fork in yourself and should be taken off the barbecue.

Click to expand...

To also be efficient, one shouldn't have to waste time using things that mostly aren't important to their bottom-line, which leaves time for learning the things that are. Thus being more efficient at those things. So it's not just about learning new stuff, but what's more important, since Time is Money. Hence Sony and Canon getting that and sometimes, Nikon apparently not.

Click to expand...

Time is not money for the vast majority of photographers who do it as a hobby.

If someone buys a new camera and is unwilling to spend a little time to learn how to use it efficiently they can't complain about usability issues. Nikon might not be on Sony/Canon's level in autofocus, but it seems a lot of the complaints stem around people not RTFM.