But these cost a whole lot more than the D7100 did, no?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Worth a "Goodbye Nikon"
- Thread starter Brueghel
- Start date
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
I can't argue with that. All that each of us can expect is that there is a solution for what our particular needs may be.
Mackiesback
Forum Pro
Mostly yes, for now. A Zf is probably price adjusted about the same at 2k today vs 1k in 2013. I am sure there will be more options on the horizon.
Price adjusted, probably yes, but then the Z9 should cost $10,000+.
Camera lines have mostly maintained their numerical price level, give or take a few, rather than tracking inflation.
N/t
Kenneth Almquist
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 281
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 213
Designing a camera that is the same as the Z50 except that it has an EXPEED 7 processor rather than EXPEED 6 sounds simple, but I suspect that it is not all that simple in practice. The EXPEED 7 processor may have different power requirements, a different physical size, a different pinout, etc. It would require fully testing the new design. While I expect Nikon to eventually produce a DX camera with EXPEED 7, Nikon has to make choices about where to devote their development resources at any given time. Perhaps Nikon looked into their crystal ball and saw the Zf generating more profits than a DX camera with EXPEED7.
Nah. After the Z6 firmware v 3.4, I haven’t actually missed anything. Camera works great, and probably will ten years from now too.
Brueghel
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,685
- Reaction score
- 1,211
This forum is roughly split between :
- the pros (like the guy who owns a Z9 asking if, for his next shoot in the desert of Gobi, he should buy a Z8 or a Z9 for a backup because he's not convinced his Z6 would be good enough) . Joke aside, these guys are very knowledgeable, have a long experience with all kind of photography, etc
- the "enthusiasts" who range from entry-level enthusiasts to real good photographers who make a living outside of photography. I consider myself somewhere right above the entry level people.
There are all sorts of situations. So this division is very subjective. Still: DX people are generally / mostly ? enthusiasts
Had I been a pro, I might have answered the OP (i.e. me), "come on! be serious and get yourself a Z8. With the golden triplets and a few other marvels"
But I am not a pro and I happen to like to "really use" or at lest "understand" the equipment I own (all the functions it offers). Not getting a Z8 or even a Z6 is not really a financial decision for me. The DX line has proved more than enough to satisfy me.
But every time I go out for BIFs I get frustrated by the AF. With the Z50, 300mm PF, life is bearable. But adding the TC1.4 pushes the AF system to its limits (and overboard may be once or twice per hour, always complying with Murphy's law, i.e. at the critical time, the camera cannot get ANY focus)
End of my rant
Having used this DX (Zfc) body for a couple months now I think it's actually pretty awesome...
Would be nice if it was weather sealed, Expeed7, faster sensor readout, at least 24mp, larger batt, more customizable, one additional Fn button, was a little more metallic feeling...
Just some simple upgrades like that would really kick ass and I'm sure they'll do it...just after it fully happens to the FF line lol.
Would be nice if it was weather sealed, Expeed7, faster sensor readout, at least 24mp, larger batt, more customizable, one additional Fn button, was a little more metallic feeling...
Just some simple upgrades like that would really kick ass and I'm sure they'll do it...just after it fully happens to the FF line lol.
Kamil Z
Well-known member
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 476
You can't compare the image quality of cameras by just looking on a single chart. There are so many parameters which are significant for the image quality, that even if you look at multiple charts and put them into context, it will be hard to use them for an image quality comparison. The most accurate way to compare the image quality, is to take real life shoots and compare them. If you will see which camera is better for bird photography, just compare bird shoots of the two.
The chart liked above does not show the noise performance. The image comparison tool shows how huge the difference is: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=-0.7377130696910544&y=0.6095798937633993
And it is not just about noise. The smaller the pixel, the more resolving power is needed from the lens to take full advantage of the sensors resolution. A 40 MP DX sensor is more demanding than a 45 MP FX sensor. That means, if you buy a 40 MP DX body, you have to buy expensive lenses or you might as well buy a 20 MP DX body.
Kamil Z
Well-known member
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 476
Noise is still a problem as you still loose quality if you are using higher iso values. Ai denoise has its limitations. It doesn't magically add details which are lost by noise. And sensors can't ignore physics. Most of the noise we have to deal with is shoot noise, which is caused by the behaviour of the photons. The sensor quality doesn't matter that much. Nikon can't do anything to reduce shoot noise other than larger sensors and larger pixels to gather more light.
Compare the two images below. Those are 100% crop images with different iso values and Lightrooms Ai denoise applied. If you ask me, there is a big difference.
cyuill2007
Senior Member
I am not one who appreciates snark regarding an issue that is meaningful to a lot of Nikon fans.
But I will give you credit for not repeating the tiresome trope of “Just buy a Z 8 and crop.”.
But I will give you credit for not repeating the tiresome trope of “Just buy a Z 8 and crop.”.
PHXAZCRAIG
Forum Pro
I get about 20mp from a DX crop. I rarely crop to DX format, but I crop most of my shots from a little around the edges to 'this is only going to the web'.
I have to wonder why. Myself, I've long shot with two bodies. (Since about 1994 when I added a Nikon N90s to my N8008s). With two similar bodies, I used to alternate film types mostly, putting ISO 25 to 100 in one body and fast film (ISO 400) in the other.
As soon as I had multiple digital cameras, I hung one (D70s) over one shoulder and the other (D200) over the other. Each time I upgraded cameras I demoted one to the second shoulder and shelved the oldest camera.
Then came my D300 and D700 experience. At this time I also shot a fair amount of CX format with a V1 and a V2. I used the crop cameras for wildlife and the D700 for everything else. All the cameras were about 12mp. I sometimes carried the D300 into the field with an 80-400 mounted and the D700 with a 105macro for things I'd find on the ground. But basically I never got along with mixing a DX and an FX camera at the same time. Lens transitions just didn't make sense.
Then I got a D800e and was able to have two FX cameras. And I found another truth - pixel density also matters. Even though I had two FX cameras, the output was so different that I ended up swapping lenses off the D700 to use on the D800e. I even took a 3-week trip to Europe with a backpack of gear and never took the D700 out of the bag. All that changed when I added a D810. Two very compatible cameras. Then I added the D850 and put the D810 to second shoulder.
The only time I found a good use for carrying different format cameras was back in 2013 on that 3-week Europe trip. I carried my then-new Thinktank waist bag with a gripped D800e and three lenses. By design the bag was full (prevent me carrying too much weight). But I was able to slip in a V1 with 10-100 zoom in less space than one DSLR lens takes. If I had a long zoom (80-400) mounted on the D800e, I could instantly use the V1 at 10mm for close up subjects, and if I had the 24-70 mounted on D800e, I could instantly zoom to 100mm (270mm FX equivalent) for distant objects. Not much dynamic range, but very handy.
Now I'm back in the single camera mode again as I bought a Z9 in 2022. I'm not about to try to use a D850 on one shoulder with a Z9 over the other - just too much dissonance. If Nikon comes out with a Z9s I might end up with two bodies.
--
Phoenix Arizona Craig
www.cjcphoto.net
"I miss the days when I was nostalgic."
Last edited:
I also think the Zfc is awesome, and believe it's design may be hurting it. I bought it initially for the design and control layout, but there seems to be many that are so turned off by the design and control configuration that they refuse to even consider it or try one seriously to give it a chance. It's their loss as far as I am concerned, but that's just the way the world operates these days. If something does not match our pre-conceived notion of how it should look or operate, we won't even consider trying it.
Last edited:
starbase218
Senior Member
And because of that, I’m a whiner?
Martin Tretjak
Active member
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 35
One new camera is sure to be announced soon and it could be the z90 or z6III
starbase218
Senior Member
This is probably closest to the reason why I would consider going that way. In Costa Rica, the D750 + 100-400 was good in terms of ISO performance, but 400mm on FX doesn't give a lot of reach. I could opt for a 150-600 or 200-500 lens, but those are bigger and heavier, opening up a can of worms in terms of how to carry the gear. A 100-400 is about the same size as a 70-200/2.8. And my Tamron is a little thinner as it's an f/6.3 at the long end.
When I travel, I only take carry-on luggage with me. The camera gear is my personal item.
Having said that, I'm not sure this approach is for me, because two DSLR bodies is a bit much.
Not sure what you mean by lens transitions not making sense. Do you mean that a 50mm offers a different FOV on the different cameras? For me, that would be something I'd be ok with for the benefit of not having to carry a huge 600mm lens (though of course, 600mm on FX has lower noise than 400mm on DX at the same ISO).
Brueghel
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,685
- Reaction score
- 1,211
Indeed, I have never, ever, like neverever, written : "I want a small, relatively lightweight camera with a good feature set for 1500-2000 eurodollars"
Takes a whole lot of wisdom to understand this.
What I have been repeatedly asking is "Hey Nikon ! what are your plans for the Z DX line ? Are we going to get a blinking pinky Z20 or will it be a Z10 credit card size ? Is this Z DX line dead or not ?"
Not asking for a date, not asking for specs. Just: "what the hell is going on here ? Is the Z50 a dead end ? Just answer by Yes or No."
KDPeregrine
Active member
Brueghel wrote:
As far as what action those of us waiting to hear more on the future of DX want to take at this point in time, me personally, I'm willing to give Nikon just a little bit more time. I'm so used to the ergonomics and like the telephoto lenses enough that I wouldn't jump ship on a whim. However, if we don't see any signs of change within the next year, it might be a good time to consider other options.
[/QUOTE]
Now, does it explicitly state that Nikon won't EVER release a higher-end DX camera body? No, and a company's plans can change at any given time. However, given what Nikon has put out over the last five years, it's pretty clear that Nikon has followed this trajectory to the letter thus far.
As far as what action those of us waiting to hear more on the future of DX want to take at this point in time, me personally, I'm willing to give Nikon just a little bit more time. I'm so used to the ergonomics and like the telephoto lenses enough that I wouldn't jump ship on a whim. However, if we don't see any signs of change within the next year, it might be a good time to consider other options.
[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum