Certainly worth considering. I know I'm glad that I use mostly AF-S lenses on my Z. My AF-S lenses fit all of my ILC Nikons. My Z lenses only fit on 1 of my Nikon ILC's. And there are way more Nikon DSLR's available used at great prices compared to Z's, at least until they decide to no longer make DX Z bodies. But then there may be some fantastic prices on used Zfc's, Z50's and Z30's.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
2024 is make or break for Nikon DX (Thom article) ROUND 2
- Thread starter Vandyu
- Start date
TheNextThing
Member
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 58
What would Nikon need to flesh out and rationalize their Z DX line up?
I mean the current lineup is:
Bodies:
Z30 - $700 w/16-50 (technically on sale)
Z50 - $1000 w/16-50
Zfc - $1100 w/16-50
Lenses:
12-28mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ VR - $360
16-50 f/3.5-f/6.3 VR - $310 ($90 in a kit)
24 f/1.7 (no VR) - $280
18-140 f/3.5-6.3 VR - $640
50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR - $380 ($250 in a kit)
On the body front - the current lineup is annoying as it spreads features out across 3 similar bodies, but each with their tradeoffs. The Z30 lacks an EVF, the Z50 lacks USB-C charging, and the Zfc lacks a grip and has a different interface. They're also all running EXPEED 6 and could use better autofocus performance.
The Z30 and Z50 should really just be one camera (a Z40, if you will). Make the EVF detachable and make it a separate $200 add-on. Maybe offer a small EVF option as well for those that don't want the big protruding hump of the current Z50. An update adding EXPEED 7 and USB-C while keeping the 20MP sensor would make it competitive enough as an entry-level camera if it's priced around $600-$800 with the 16-50 kit lens.
An updated Zfc could exist alongside it, but it should just be an easy derivative of the above.
On the lens front, the current lineup makes a lot of sense if the point of DX is to be small and cheap. The lenses are all very light and compact for their focal lengths, and are all inexpensive, with all of them except the 18-140 being sub-$400. They generally perform very well optically. You can cover 12-250mm with 3 cheap zooms, and you have the cheap 24mm prime for low light. This mostly replicated the budget F-mount DX lens set, albeit with less range - in F-mount DX you could competently cover 10-300mm with 3 cheap zooms (with a small gap from 55-70mm) using the AF-P 10-20, 18-55, and 70-300, and run the cheap 35mm f/1.8G DX for low light.
It'd be nice if the 24 prime had VR, as none of the DX bodies have IBIS, and the lack of stabilization makes it not great for video (the main selling point of the Z30). The wide-angle going wider (ideally to 10mm) would also be great. A superzoom option (an 18-300 or the like) would be nice. But the current lens lineup makes a lot of sense if the point of DX is to be cheap and compact.
If Nikon's goal is to keep DX as the cheap and compact option with minimal effort, all they really need to do is combine the Z30 and Z50 into a single camera with an optional detachable viewfinder, and keep the 20MP sensor but update the autofocus system to one with EXPEED 7. I don't see much need to go beyond that. IBIS would be nice, but might raise the price point too much.
Higher end DX?
If Nikon wanted to offer higher-end DX options, then they have a much larger lift, and it starts becoming questionable if the engineering investment becomes worth it relative to the sales.
On the body side, they at minimum would need something with IBIS, and ideally a stacked sensor with more pixel density than 20MP to really justify DX existing on the high-end. A stacked sensor mini-Z8 with a higher-resolution APS-C sensor, priced around $2-2.5K would make sense as D500-replacement. The audience would probably be people who need reach and want the maximum number of pixels on subject, as well as people who need the framerate and autofocus performance of a Z8 but don't have $4000 and can live with a smaller sensor. The question here is whether all the engineering required for that would justify the relatively small audience (probably mostly birders) - the answer is very likely no.
On the lens side, Nikon would need at minimum need a fast mid-range zoom (similar to the old 16-80 f/2.8-4 or 17-55 f/2.8) and a fast, higher-end wide angle zoom, as the FX options are all too long to be that useful on DX. To justify its existence over FX, it would either need to be significantly more compact or significantly cheaper than the FX equivalents. More compact primes would also be nice (and something that was missing from F-mount DX), though probably not as necessary. Dedicated high-end DX telephotos aren't really necessary, as there's plenty of excellent FX options anyways, and we never saw high-end DX telephotos on F-mount (though there were plenty of budget options).
So you're looking at at least 1 higher-end body (maybe a Z70/Z90/Z500), and at least two higher-end lenses if Nikon wants high-end DX. Whether it's worth spending the engineering resources to develop those relative to the size of the audience likely to buy them is kind of questionable.
I mean the current lineup is:
Bodies:
Z30 - $700 w/16-50 (technically on sale)
Z50 - $1000 w/16-50
Zfc - $1100 w/16-50
Lenses:
12-28mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ VR - $360
16-50 f/3.5-f/6.3 VR - $310 ($90 in a kit)
24 f/1.7 (no VR) - $280
18-140 f/3.5-6.3 VR - $640
50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR - $380 ($250 in a kit)
On the body front - the current lineup is annoying as it spreads features out across 3 similar bodies, but each with their tradeoffs. The Z30 lacks an EVF, the Z50 lacks USB-C charging, and the Zfc lacks a grip and has a different interface. They're also all running EXPEED 6 and could use better autofocus performance.
The Z30 and Z50 should really just be one camera (a Z40, if you will). Make the EVF detachable and make it a separate $200 add-on. Maybe offer a small EVF option as well for those that don't want the big protruding hump of the current Z50. An update adding EXPEED 7 and USB-C while keeping the 20MP sensor would make it competitive enough as an entry-level camera if it's priced around $600-$800 with the 16-50 kit lens.
An updated Zfc could exist alongside it, but it should just be an easy derivative of the above.
On the lens front, the current lineup makes a lot of sense if the point of DX is to be small and cheap. The lenses are all very light and compact for their focal lengths, and are all inexpensive, with all of them except the 18-140 being sub-$400. They generally perform very well optically. You can cover 12-250mm with 3 cheap zooms, and you have the cheap 24mm prime for low light. This mostly replicated the budget F-mount DX lens set, albeit with less range - in F-mount DX you could competently cover 10-300mm with 3 cheap zooms (with a small gap from 55-70mm) using the AF-P 10-20, 18-55, and 70-300, and run the cheap 35mm f/1.8G DX for low light.
It'd be nice if the 24 prime had VR, as none of the DX bodies have IBIS, and the lack of stabilization makes it not great for video (the main selling point of the Z30). The wide-angle going wider (ideally to 10mm) would also be great. A superzoom option (an 18-300 or the like) would be nice. But the current lens lineup makes a lot of sense if the point of DX is to be cheap and compact.
If Nikon's goal is to keep DX as the cheap and compact option with minimal effort, all they really need to do is combine the Z30 and Z50 into a single camera with an optional detachable viewfinder, and keep the 20MP sensor but update the autofocus system to one with EXPEED 7. I don't see much need to go beyond that. IBIS would be nice, but might raise the price point too much.
Higher end DX?
If Nikon wanted to offer higher-end DX options, then they have a much larger lift, and it starts becoming questionable if the engineering investment becomes worth it relative to the sales.
On the body side, they at minimum would need something with IBIS, and ideally a stacked sensor with more pixel density than 20MP to really justify DX existing on the high-end. A stacked sensor mini-Z8 with a higher-resolution APS-C sensor, priced around $2-2.5K would make sense as D500-replacement. The audience would probably be people who need reach and want the maximum number of pixels on subject, as well as people who need the framerate and autofocus performance of a Z8 but don't have $4000 and can live with a smaller sensor. The question here is whether all the engineering required for that would justify the relatively small audience (probably mostly birders) - the answer is very likely no.
On the lens side, Nikon would need at minimum need a fast mid-range zoom (similar to the old 16-80 f/2.8-4 or 17-55 f/2.8) and a fast, higher-end wide angle zoom, as the FX options are all too long to be that useful on DX. To justify its existence over FX, it would either need to be significantly more compact or significantly cheaper than the FX equivalents. More compact primes would also be nice (and something that was missing from F-mount DX), though probably not as necessary. Dedicated high-end DX telephotos aren't really necessary, as there's plenty of excellent FX options anyways, and we never saw high-end DX telephotos on F-mount (though there were plenty of budget options).
So you're looking at at least 1 higher-end body (maybe a Z70/Z90/Z500), and at least two higher-end lenses if Nikon wants high-end DX. Whether it's worth spending the engineering resources to develop those relative to the size of the audience likely to buy them is kind of questionable.
Last edited:
vinturius
Well-known member
I think whoever carries a camera does not mind carrying a cellphone as well. Would things not be fixed for the casual camera user ( say DX user) in a satisfactory way when the camera was linked to the phone in a stable way. ( say, a Snapbridge that does not have 'disconnecting' as its first priority, grrr. ) And that casual camera suffers the most under competition with the cellphone.
Professional camera users might need to send over a bulk of files. Use cellphones for that as well?
Already exists for JPEG transfers.
But what we'd like to get people who carry a phone to do is carry a camera, and those who use a camera to get their images off their camera easily. The two-device approach is a juggler's delight.
There's bandwidth limitations that make getting full-resolution RAWs off cameras hard. JPEGs are a different story, but that's still not fast enough for bulk transfers such as a pro would do. 5G could do it but what the cell companies call 5G is in the main not the super fast variety. Today's 5G is not much better than 4G.
That's why the cabled FTP link; barring that, a powerful hot spot. What would make that far easier is to simply bundle the wireless connection inside the camera.
Last edited:
starbase218
Senior Member
Yeah. I thought that Nikon wanted to move DSLR users over to mirrorless. Perhaps I was wrong.
I probably wouldn't go back to a DSLR if I had a Z body. Not sure what I would so in that case. Probably stick with fullframe. Or move brands.
That is not what i meant. Lens change from F to Z is acceptable, it came with adapter. It's nikons lack of good DX Z cameras that means all the lenses I already have are not used anymore. So no longevity there....
One could be forgiven for thinking that the camera manufacturers aren't even aware of 5G smart phones. About 20 years ago I bought the Wi-Fi adaptor for my D2 thinking it would allow me to send images to my laptop computer. I only ever managed to get it to work in infrastructure mode!
I have Wi-Fi on my 1J5 that allows it to connect to my iPad or iPhone, great? Well not so great because it still requires some set-up each time, it's not good enough.
The major camera manufacturers need their Wi-Fi to connect automatically to known networks, just as my phone, tablet and computers do. At the same time they need to be able to use the Wi-Fi hotspot that is my phone to send images to anywhere I choose, with my cloud account, or any other that I select, as default. Ideally I would be able to connect a keyboard for those times when I need to quickly enter passwords etc.
I would like all the settings to be accessible from a device and the ability to store said settings files on the device or in memory on the camera. Obviously I'd want to be able to send settings to my camera and apply them, the application needs to be free, unlike Nikon's Camera Control Pro which doesn't live up to its name, it doesn't control much and it isn't very professional. It is also, now, rather expensive.
None of these shortcomings in communication are unique to Nikon, though Nikon is trying, very trying, when it comes to apps it is failing mightily. I agree with pretty much everything Thom has been saying. A camera doesn't need to be able to make phone calls, a 5G iPad doesn't make phone calls but it is connectible, why can't a camera have similar connectivity? Mainly, I suggest, because licensing the 5G capability is an additional expense as is global compliance but would photographers pay the small amount required to include it, you bet.
Naturally adding 5G and proper Wi-Fi would require a bigger battery or accepting a shorter charge life. The charge life for many Mirrorless cameras requires that users carry a spare battery, not something I want to do but that's another matter*, carrying a spare battery to support connectivity isn't really an issue for the professional.
*If the camera allowed me to switch off the Wi-Fi and 5G functions there wouldn't be any need for a spare battery most of the time and I would not buy a camera where I couldn't switch off such things, indeed it may be a requirement, not all the world's aviation authorities allow in flight micro-cells.
Sorry, I wasn't clear, the DX cameras I had were the D1X, d2X and the D2Xs. There was no FX at the time but I fully expected that one would appear soon enough..
as I said, i never had what is now called an entry level DX body, unless you count the D1 where there was either the D1 or the D1 as both entry level and flagship. When the D3 appeared I could have stayed with DX and the D300 but by then I had been using cameras with vertical grips for 20 years.
The problem, as I see it, is that switching from DX to FX, unless one has bought FX lenses, is that one needs to buy new lenses or accept that only the DX crop is available. Why buy a 45MP camera to use only 20MP?
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
So a camera shouldn't facilitate sharing an image? If not, why are we taking images?
Not sure what the risk is, unless you mean the risk of doing it wrong ;~).
Don't get me started on all the Android crapware out there. I don't mind if you use an existing OS base, but at least get the product right for the user.
Again, I first wrote that and lobbied for that in 2007. After meeting with Nikon execs, we eventually got SnapBridge ;~<
Agreed.
No problems. Convos are convos for a reason.
I don't think we're there yet, and even the Apple Vision Pro hasn't figured that out, and I believe it has to in order to succeed long term. But we haven't even got the predecessor yet (capture+share). Let's get that first.
I like that. A marketing department might be able to tweak it better, but that's the idea behind a true dedicated early 21st century camera.
I'm not sure I'd 100% put it that way. These new devices are about experiences. Experiences seem to be moving from remote to virtual. Part of an experience is interacting, sure, but part is absorbing.
Again. It would be seriously surprising if the camera companies just skipped a step:
- Capture optimized.
- Capture optimized, sharing supportive.
- Capture optimized, sharing optimized.
- Capture optimized, sharing optimized, conversing supportive.
- Capture optimized, sharing optimized, conversing optimized.
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
True and untrue.
True in the sense is that we're willing to do this if that's what we have to do. Untrue in the sense that if you have to touch and control things on two devices, that is beyond suboptimal. Juggling devices is not the solution.
I answered that in a presentation in Tokyo in 2011: no.
This gets back to the "juggling two devices" thing. I do that today because I have to, but I'd strongly prefer to be doing everything from the device that is prioritized in my hand on the sideline (or wherever I am).
But between a better device and a lesser device, we will choose the better device to do what we need it do. Hence I have a camera to take my photos, and I have my phone to edit those photos, type in the captions, find stupid animations or songs to attach to those photos, before I post them or send them to whoever I need to send them to. The phone is just a better device to do all that.
We will always have our phones with us. Like it or not, the phone is our nerve center. It is how we interact with the world. We will end up choosing the phone to do those non-camera things.
Last edited:
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
Those of us who've been in computers since forever will tell you that what you're referring to is a procedural process. Step 2 has to be done separately from and after Step 1. That's so 1980's ;~).
Note that Nikon has all the bits and pieces to do what I (and you) want. Remember, they even had selectable music on the Nikon 1 ;~). Current cameras have voice memos. The EXPEED7 processor has a neural engine. So...(just one variation):
- Set your camera to your sharing destination (probably doesn't change).
- Take a photo.
- Speak the caption.
- Tap the music you want to ad.
- Camera sends it to an app on the phone that knows how to move it along to #1 automatically. (Again, I described this first in 2007, presented it in Tokyo in 2011.)
The world you describe is very slow. Take a photo, put down camera, pick up phone, do stuff, put phone away, pick up camera, repeat.
Let's start with photojournalism: we can't really take the time to do that, as during much of the action in front of us we're pecking away on a phone.
Now let me surprise you: I can do all of this with some video devices, including both multi-camera and live streaming. The fact that we can only do less—and more slowly—with still devices tells you who has their head in the wrong part of their anatomy. (Okay, that wasn't 100% fair: the broadcast/cable video folk have long been paying big sums to solve these problems. But still, did it trickle?)
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
You're not the only one who's voiced that, and for Nikon, in particular, that's problematic, as their best source of customer is their previous customer.
Absolutely, agree. And yes, I'm 80 also and have been involved in photography for over 65 years and haven't outgrown my DX cameras. I did abandon the old fashioned 24x36mm film and sensor size years ago though when they became obsolete for my uses just as I abandoned 4x5 and medium format in previous years before.
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
This is where Nikon keeps getting stuck, IMHO. Moreover, they may be reading the wrong tea leaves. By that, I mean that you can clearly see declines in every DX DSLR body line over time, but to say that was the "only" factor you should consider would be to ignore what was happening originally with Sony and the NEX cameras, and more recently with Fujifilm and the X cameras. I suppose, too, Canon now with the RF-S cameras. There most certainly is a market that Z DX could play in. The fact that I'm now using a Fujifilm X-S20 as my "small" camera ought to tell them something. I'm absolutely not the only "Nikon User" doing something like that.
The real question is what "high" looks like, and how "high" does DX go?
I've been pretty adamant in saying Z70. At least for now. That covers all of the DSLR DX users except for the D300/D500 ones, it doesn't overlap too much with whatever Nikon wants to do with entry FX, it satisfies a large number of users with a minimum of new lens needs, and so on. So:
- Z30 II with optional EVF as entry (US$750)
- Zfc II for those that prefer nostalgia in their electronics (US$1000)
- Z70 for those that want a well rounded camera (US$1500)
All excellent thoughts. Especially the part about electronic devices prices through the years. I clearly remember a Sony Trinitron 32" tv that weighed almost 400 pounds sold for around $1500 years ago. Now I can buy a 50" 1080p for less than $200.
ray_burnimage
Senior Member
Well yes and no:
On the yes side: The Nikon Z mount S line lens are remarkable, pure gems in optical performance. Also, for some of the longer lenses for birders and the exotics too then yes.
On the no side: I loved all the Z lenses I owned but, as a people/events photographer I love the Sony lenses even more with their more recent GMII zooms and GM primes:
Workhorse 2.8 Zooms:
For 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 the newer GMII Sony lenses are optically at least as good, some reviews have them as slightly ahead of the Nikons. They are much smaller and lighter yet more feature packed. Especially the 70-200mm:
- 1040g vs 1400g
- Aperture ring (lockable and de-clickable)
- 7 switches including OSS on/off (now dropped from the Nikon Z version)
- Zoom ring in centre of lens at balance point under your fingers, not where Nikon moved it out to at the end near the lens hood.
- Lens hood with sliding latch to adjust a variable ND or C-PL filter with hood in place (thoughtful touch)
- Quad focus motors.
Teleconverters:
The Nikon ones are better, A Nikon win. Although the Sony 1.4x is close enough in optical performance.
1.8 Primes:
Nikon Z DEFINITELY wins on the f1.8 range, with the exception of 20mm, where the Sony 20mm 1.8G is just sublime optically, is far smaller than the Nikkor, and has an aperture ring too. The rest of the Sony 1.8 primes are incoherent from a design philosophy, and are optically competent rather than superlative.
1.4 Primes
Sony wins by default, purely because Nikon doesn't have any. The GM 1.4 range doesn't have a dud at 24mm, 35mm, 50mm. Optically sublime with aperture rings to boot. The Sony 85mm 1.4 is an older design with slower AF motors and no aperture ring (Mark 2 expected soon to rectify this). Sony also has a 135mm f1.8GM
1.2 and exotic primes
Nikon wins here, but comes with a size and weigh penalty. For example, The Nikon 50mm 1.2S is sublime, but the Sony 1.2 GM is 98% as good for a much smaller size and weight.
2.5/2.8 Muffin Primes
Sony have a fabulous set at 24/40/50mm with great IQ, robust weather sealing, lightning fast AF, fn buttons and aperture rings. Albeit at a higher price point (and build quality) than the 28/50mm Nikon Z muffins.
Bottom line?
For my kind of work I have built a Sony lens line-up that is smaller, lighter, optically equivalent or better, faster focussing and better featured than my previous Nikkor Z set.
One could argue that some Nikon Z users haven't perhaps realised that other brands have, on some lenses, caught up or overtaken Nikon. See above. Sony latest releases have closed the gap or arguably overtaken
Last edited:
It seems to me that even if everything you say is true (I don't have the personal experience to reject it, but based on all I've read I at least have to be unsure of it) that still leaves some very large gaps if we're talking about an entire ecosystem.Well yes and no:
On the yes side: The Nikon Z mount S line lens are remarkable, pure gems in optical performance. Also, for some of the longer lenses for birders and the exotics too then yes.
On the no side: I loved all the Z lenses I owned but, as a people/events photographer I love the Sony lenses even more with their more recent GMII zooms and GM primes:
Workhorse 2.8 Zooms:
For 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 the newer GMII Sony lenses are optically at least as good, some reviews have them as slightly ahead of the Nikons. They are much smaller and lighter yet more feature packed. Especially the 70-200mm:
On the wide end of the trinity Nikon do have a superlative 14-24mm 2.8 and a budget 14-30mm f4. But they don't have the photojournalist workhorse 16-35mm. Sony do offer this FL range in GM, GMII 2.8 and a couple of f4 variants.
- 1040g vs 1400g
- Aperture ring (lockable and de-clickable)
- 7 switches including OSS on/off (now dropped from the Nikon Z version)
- Zoom ring in centre of lens at balance point under your fingers, not where Nikon moved it out to at the end near the lens hood.
- Lens hood with sliding latch to adjust a variable ND or C-PL filter with hood in place (thoughtful touch)
- Quad focus motors.
Teleconverters:
The Nikon ones are better, A Nikon win. Although the Sony 1.4x is close enough in optical performance.
1.8 Primes:
Nikon Z DEFINITELY wins on the f1.8 range, with the exception of 20mm, where the Sony 20mm 1.8G is just sublime optically, is far smaller than the Nikkor, and has an aperture ring too. The rest of the Sony 1.8 primes are incoherent from a design philosophy, and are optically competent rather than superlative.
1.4 Primes
Sony wins by default, purely because Nikon doesn't have any. The GM 1.4 range doesn't have a dud at 24mm, 35mm, 50mm. Optically sublime with aperture rings to boot. The Sony 85mm 1.4 is an older design with slower AF motors and no aperture ring (Mark 2 expected soon to rectify this). Sony also has a 135mm f1.8GM
1.2 and exotic primes
Nikon wins here, but comes with a size and weigh penalty. For example, The Nikon 50mm 1.2S is sublime, but the Sony 1.2 GM is 98% as good for a much smaller size and weight.
Bottom line?
For my kind of work I have built a Sony lens line-up that is smaller, lighter, optically equivalent or better, faster focussing and better featured than my previous Nikkor Z set.
One could argue that some Nikon Z users haven't perhaps realised that other brands have, on some lenses, caught up or overtaken Nikon. See above. Sony latest releases have closed the gap or arguably overtaken
You're arguing that one lens lineup has some areas where it can match Nikon's, but even in this there are a lotnof caveats like, "Nikon's are better but they're heavier." Then on top of that there is the entire telephoto range about which I regularly see Sony users lament and say they're considering switching over.
So it seems to me thar it may be that for a very select set of focal lengths and apertures it might be totally reasonable to say, "this other brand has a very adequate offering," but that's extremely different from saying that Nikon doesn't still have the best overall range if we're looking at an entire ecosystem.
ray_burnimage
Senior Member
I don't think anybody could objectively argue that Nikon has the best ecosystem in first party, and isn't even at the races when licensed third party offerings are factored into the equation.It seems to me that even if everything you say is true (I don't have the personal experience to reject it, but based on all I've read I at least have to be unsure of it) that still leaves some very large gaps if we're talking about an entire ecosystem.Well yes and no:
On the yes side: The Nikon Z mount S line lens are remarkable, pure gems in optical performance. Also, for some of the longer lenses for birders and the exotics too then yes.
On the no side: I loved all the Z lenses I owned but, as a people/events photographer I love the Sony lenses even more with their more recent GMII zooms and GM primes:
Workhorse 2.8 Zooms:
For 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 the newer GMII Sony lenses are optically at least as good, some reviews have them as slightly ahead of the Nikons. They are much smaller and lighter yet more feature packed. Especially the 70-200mm:
On the wide end of the trinity Nikon do have a superlative 14-24mm 2.8 and a budget 14-30mm f4. But they don't have the photojournalist workhorse 16-35mm. Sony do offer this FL range in GM, GMII 2.8 and a couple of f4 variants.
- 1040g vs 1400g
- Aperture ring (lockable and de-clickable)
- 7 switches including OSS on/off (now dropped from the Nikon Z version)
- Zoom ring in centre of lens at balance point under your fingers, not where Nikon moved it out to at the end near the lens hood.
- Lens hood with sliding latch to adjust a variable ND or C-PL filter with hood in place (thoughtful touch)
- Quad focus motors.
Teleconverters:
The Nikon ones are better, A Nikon win. Although the Sony 1.4x is close enough in optical performance.
1.8 Primes:
Nikon Z DEFINITELY wins on the f1.8 range, with the exception of 20mm, where the Sony 20mm 1.8G is just sublime optically, is far smaller than the Nikkor, and has an aperture ring too. The rest of the Sony 1.8 primes are incoherent from a design philosophy, and are optically competent rather than superlative.
1.4 Primes
Sony wins by default, purely because Nikon doesn't have any. The GM 1.4 range doesn't have a dud at 24mm, 35mm, 50mm. Optically sublime with aperture rings to boot. The Sony 85mm 1.4 is an older design with slower AF motors and no aperture ring (Mark 2 expected soon to rectify this). Sony also has a 135mm f1.8GM
1.2 and exotic primes
Nikon wins here, but comes with a size and weigh penalty. For example, The Nikon 50mm 1.2S is sublime, but the Sony 1.2 GM is 98% as good for a much smaller size and weight.
Bottom line?
For my kind of work I have built a Sony lens line-up that is smaller, lighter, optically equivalent or better, faster focussing and better featured than my previous Nikkor Z set.
One could argue that some Nikon Z users haven't perhaps realised that other brands have, on some lenses, caught up or overtaken Nikon. See above. Sony latest releases have closed the gap or arguably overtaken
UNLESS.... there is ONE lens you simply must have for birding etc, which is a niche thing.
I'm trying to be balanced and objective
Gaps in lineup depend 100% on your genres. As a people/documentary/movie set/travel photographer I've learnt (to my surprise) that Sony have come from behind on their lenses to, as a minimum, match Nikon for IQ with their latest GMII and GM releases.
But they also manage to do it in a range of lenses that are smaller and lighter yet with a fuller feature set (aperture rings for example).
Bottom line? I struggle to comprehend how anybody could objectively argue that Nikon has a better lens ecosystem.
However, they might be swayed by a particular lens for a particular niche use in any system,
SoCalAngler
Senior Member
That's sort of an implied point I was tying to make, but obviously not very well.
Today you often get much more capability and functionality for a similar inflation adjusted price.
Using Nikon's DX Z bodies as an example, what you suggest removing to get to a lower price point? Much of the capability is in software/firmware and removing that doesn't really affect to cost of making the unit since it has already been developed. So you are left with removing physical things like built in flash, EVF ( thus Z30), and articulating screen and then touch screen (ala Canon R100)
Agreed. Yet they often pay more for their phones, though often, subsidized by a carrier, then get a new phone every 1-3 years.
Obviously there is a convenience factor with phones that works well for a very large number of people (tens or hundreds of millions). They are like the Kodak Instamatic for our times but much, much better.
The two most common reasons that non-hobbyists/enthusiasts that I know purchase an ILC, or specialized camera like Olympus Tough or GoPro is that it provides a capability that a phone does like a telephoto range, or they want a capable camera for situations where loss of the phone would be significant problem to recover from. I am around the water quite a bit and have encountered quite a few folks who have dropped a phone into the water where it ends up on the bottom of a lake or the ocean or swept down a river. Or they have fumbled it over a cliff, etc. Ok, yes, I recognize that this is a very small segment of the population.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum