Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
AwesomeIan Senior Member • Posts: 1,823
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

SteveOttwa wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

rapick wrote:

Shooting MLC is a different experience, a new one for those acquainted to DSLR.

There is a risk factor for everybody considering to switch: you may like it more, or less, and regret your move. It is not just the performance envelop of the new camera compared to the old one. It is also your mindset, your established habits.

The cost for living this experience with NIKON is now more than 2,500 USD/GBP/EUR (considering the Z6 with at least a kit lens).

With Sony you can start with A-6000 (APS-C) and then upgrade to A-7 (FF)

Fuji offers entry-level alternatives before you want to climb to X-H1 or even GFX.

With Nikon DSLRs you can find affordable DX D3xxx, D5xxx before deciding whether to move to FX.

In the Z line you don't find anything 'affordable'. Was it a wise move by Nikon? Or just the only practicable route? Will they cover the 'hole' anytime?

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.

Are you asking simply because you are curious or because you would prefer an APS-C mirrorless from Nikon?

Would you buy an APS-C Z camera if it was no smaller than the Z6 or Z7? Given the size of the Z mount it looks to me like a DX version of a Z camera would practically be the same size. You can't even really remove the viewfinder. Unless you're OK with no viewfinder at all and just use the rear LCD screen.

Fuji is not a good example (discounting their small fixed lens types) because their price range is all APS-C. So yes, you can start with the X-T100, X-T20, or X-A lines. But those are just cheaper version of APS-C.

So Nikon can certainly roll out cheaper versions of the Z full frame line and I expect they will in the future. How much cheaper? I don't know. Can the reach the $1000 price? Don't know.

Crop sensor cameras have one big advantage (apart from initial cost)...smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses for a given equivalent focal length. I for one would like to have the advantages of a APS-C Nikon mirrorless, on which I could use my DX lenses, but also my ff compatible telephoto zoom (my bird lens) would have the same reach as on my dx dslr’s.

My sigma 18-35 is as big as a regular 24-70 2.8 and my sigma 50-100 is as heavy as 70-200 2.8. They are optically very nice lenses but they are definitely not light.

The only benefit of crop format is cheaper sensors and therefore cheaper cameras.

Thats BS.

You are funny)

First off, yes some APS-C lenses weigh the same as the full frame counterparts. That is sometimes true but the majority of the time it isn't.

They are bigger in fact. If you know what is equivalence. Google FAQ of the DPreview.

Most of the time a lens designed for a APS-C sensor is going to be smaller and lighter.

Cause they are slower.

Thats not all. Go check how many 18-400mm lens (28-600mm with crop factor) options are available in full frame. I can answer that question. It is zero. The closest is the nikon 24-300mm which is said to be optically poor and has a much smaller range.

I never used that lenses and never will cause they all are optically awful.

Let me ask a question. Why do so many wildlife photographers prefer a APS-C camera? I'm sure you know the answer. You get extra reached due to the smaller sensor.

Look at the D500. It has a endless buffer. Seriously it will never fill up. It has a hard stop at 200 shots but thats just so you don't accidentally kill the camera. How many full frame cameras can do that? The D5 can but it costs $6000.

And that brings us back to the only benefit of DX cameras - their price.

So it is pretty silly to say the only benefit is the price.

And I heard that some wild life photographers prefer to use D850 instead of D500 cause you can crop the image to the D500 size IF you need it, or you can have the full image if it's possible.

So if price is irrelevant than FX is a winner.

I don't own a 18-400 but reviews are positive. Of course its not as fast or sharp as a prime lens but then again what is? Any zoom lens is going to have some trade off. My point was that a lens with that range simply doesn't exist in the full frame world. So you definitely get some benefit from having a huge zoom range on a APS-C body. That cannot really be argued.

BTW- You are being ignorant and seem to like to argue with anybody that has a different opinion. I am very close to setting you to ignore.

-- hide signature --
 AwesomeIan's gear list:AwesomeIan's gear list
Nikon D500 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD HD Pentax D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR +7 more
Serjojeee Contributing Member • Posts: 890
Re: no

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

sensor is not such a huge cost driver so why not sell a stripped down ff instead

Looking at the prices of grey market D750 and D7200 it looks like the bigger sensor costs a bit more than 500 usd. Cause they are practically identical and the D750 costs 700 usd more.

When you are in the 1000 usd region of prices for the body, 500 usd is a lot. And in the modern world it's very hard to tell the difference in IQ quality when the same amount of light hit the sensor. There are other benefits of FX - bigger viewfinder, better AF accuracy. But in mirrorless world they disappear - the viewfinder is the same, the AF accuracy is the same.

What is more interesting that Nikon actually patented some mirrorless DX zooms of 16-70 region.

It depends on how you want to define "bigger sensor." Yes, the D750 is a bigger sensor with the same number of megapixels and similar otherwise. But another way to measure would be a bigger sensor with the same pixel pitch / density. For this, a good example is the D500 vs. D850.

I meant bigger sensor in square inches.

I don't think that it makes any sense to compare 21 mp camera to 46 mp camera. You need better lenses for high mp cameras, preferably fixed focal length, way more light to keep your shutter speeds up etc. It's more problematic to get benefits of that resolution.

But if you go that way you finish with 150 mp Phase One on a tripod.

I do think it makes sense--especially because your justification is incorrect.

Your lenses need the same quality to resolve 21 APS-C megapixels or 46 full-frame megapixels, because each pixel is the same size.

The best lenses for crop are sigmas 1.8 zoomes, they don't work on FX. But even if you find the same lens that works on FX and DX you end up with different equivalent focal length and apertures. Like you need 35 1.4 on DX to achieve 50 1.8 on FX. That's an overkill.

Oh great, now you're going to attempt to break things down because you don't see the clear relationship in all of the parts.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the image circles of FX & DX are different. We're not talking about field of view in this conversation. We're talking about sensor size.

You are using sensors alone?

And you're wrong on your equivalence. If you had a 35mm F/1.4 on DX, you'd need a 50mm F/2 on FX, not F/1.8.

F 2.156 if you are talking about D7200 for example.

One difference though, is if you had 24MP on each camera, the 35mm F/1.4 DX lens would have to be higher quality than the 50mm F/2 lens. The DX lens would have to resolve higher. It would have to have a higher MTF to match the resolution of the FX image. Because each of the 24MP on DX is smaller than each of the 24MP on FX.

That's why I have Sigma 1.8 zooms.

Also, you don't need more light.

You do, to achieve the same amount of noise. Read about equivalence and noise on DPreview FAQ.

Actually, you should read up on noise. The same total light will result in the same noise. But the same shutter speed and same f-number on DX vs. FX is not the same amount of total light.

The same shutter speed & f-number will actually result in

different DOF and the amount of noise will be twice higher for the DX.

mid-sentence? See my point above about your ignorance to how these are all connected.

the full-frame having better quality, not the APS-C.

That's true.

But if you shoot with equivalence in mind you end up with more or less the same results. But the base iso on FX will be twice cleaner. That is not a dealbraker until you start to mess with colors in raw converters and photoshop. Or you start to make B&W images from RAW with "digital yellow, green etc. filters" effects.

Your point makes no sense. Now that you're clearly wrong, you're introducing different thresholds?

You've said that with the same shutter speed and F-number FX will have better quality. But I'm saying that with equivalence in mind the FX will only have the benefits of low noise at base ISO.

You want to switch to discussing equivalent photos? Easy:

  • Multiply your DX focal length by 1.5x
  • Multiply your DX F-number by 1.5x
  • Multiply your ISO by 2.25
  • Use a DX lens with an MTF that's twice-as-high as your FX lens on a sensor of the same sensor resolution

Of course, this has nothing to do with the costing conversation that this was all about. Higher density sensors cost more to produce than lower density sensors. And you're introducing additional variables like lens differences--and cost differences.

It's a interchangeable lens camera for a reason. Of course lenses matters. I found some photos of Z7 with 24-70 F4, downsampled them to 24 mp and found out that I have better results with my sigma 18-35 on D7200. And that combo costs 3 times more. If you have a bad lens then it doesn't matter how good the camera is.

When you said:

  • "When you are in the 1000 usd region of prices for the body, 500 usd is a lot. And in the modern world it's very hard to tell the difference in IQ quality when the same amount of light hit the sensor."

This is false. Because to get the same amount of light to the D7200, you're going to need a more expensive lens, which counteracts the cost.

Case in point: compare Nikon's DX 17-55mm F/2.8

You can have the same results with tamron 17-50 that costs almost nothing. And that tamron is a bad lens. Which brings us to the conversation about the unnecessary big flange distance on DX cameras and the problems that it brings.

to its FX 24-120mm F4.

Either way, you buy a combo of camera and lens. 24 mp is a middle ground where crop cameras can be better than FX cause you can spend extra 500 usd on a better lens. As I know the bigger the sensor the bigger the price. There are 20+mp sensors for smartphones that cost several USD with a lens. Cause they are tiny.

All completely arbitrary. You're just changing context & scope of this discussion. Stick to the point.

To make myself clear - I think that lenses that can achieve the same DOF (and therefore light transmission) cost more or less the same on all formats. The body of the same quality costs the same. But the FX sensor itself of the same resolution is something like 500usd pricier.

When you cost out system price, you cost out only the sensor without the lens, but referred to the "same amount of light"--which doesn't happen unless you get a comparable lens on DX. So again, this "comparable lens" on DX means it's 1 stop faster and twice as sharp as the FX.

Of course it's twice as fast but that means nothing, it's just a number. They resolve more or less the same with the same DOF. Google equivalence.

That's the point. You need to account for that as well if you're discussing this price differential--not just the $500 guesstimate-of-sensor price differential.

Serjojeee Contributing Member • Posts: 890
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

SteveOttwa wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

rapick wrote:

Shooting MLC is a different experience, a new one for those acquainted to DSLR.

There is a risk factor for everybody considering to switch: you may like it more, or less, and regret your move. It is not just the performance envelop of the new camera compared to the old one. It is also your mindset, your established habits.

The cost for living this experience with NIKON is now more than 2,500 USD/GBP/EUR (considering the Z6 with at least a kit lens).

With Sony you can start with A-6000 (APS-C) and then upgrade to A-7 (FF)

Fuji offers entry-level alternatives before you want to climb to X-H1 or even GFX.

With Nikon DSLRs you can find affordable DX D3xxx, D5xxx before deciding whether to move to FX.

In the Z line you don't find anything 'affordable'. Was it a wise move by Nikon? Or just the only practicable route? Will they cover the 'hole' anytime?

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.

Are you asking simply because you are curious or because you would prefer an APS-C mirrorless from Nikon?

Would you buy an APS-C Z camera if it was no smaller than the Z6 or Z7? Given the size of the Z mount it looks to me like a DX version of a Z camera would practically be the same size. You can't even really remove the viewfinder. Unless you're OK with no viewfinder at all and just use the rear LCD screen.

Fuji is not a good example (discounting their small fixed lens types) because their price range is all APS-C. So yes, you can start with the X-T100, X-T20, or X-A lines. But those are just cheaper version of APS-C.

So Nikon can certainly roll out cheaper versions of the Z full frame line and I expect they will in the future. How much cheaper? I don't know. Can the reach the $1000 price? Don't know.

Crop sensor cameras have one big advantage (apart from initial cost)...smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses for a given equivalent focal length. I for one would like to have the advantages of a APS-C Nikon mirrorless, on which I could use my DX lenses, but also my ff compatible telephoto zoom (my bird lens) would have the same reach as on my dx dslr’s.

My sigma 18-35 is as big as a regular 24-70 2.8 and my sigma 50-100 is as heavy as 70-200 2.8. They are optically very nice lenses but they are definitely not light.

The only benefit of crop format is cheaper sensors and therefore cheaper cameras.

Thats BS.

You are funny)

First off, yes some APS-C lenses weigh the same as the full frame counterparts. That is sometimes true but the majority of the time it isn't.

They are bigger in fact. If you know what is equivalence. Google FAQ of the DPreview.

Most of the time a lens designed for a APS-C sensor is going to be smaller and lighter.

Cause they are slower.

Thats not all. Go check how many 18-400mm lens (28-600mm with crop factor) options are available in full frame. I can answer that question. It is zero. The closest is the nikon 24-300mm which is said to be optically poor and has a much smaller range.

I never used that lenses and never will cause they all are optically awful.

Let me ask a question. Why do so many wildlife photographers prefer a APS-C camera? I'm sure you know the answer. You get extra reached due to the smaller sensor.

Look at the D500. It has a endless buffer. Seriously it will never fill up. It has a hard stop at 200 shots but thats just so you don't accidentally kill the camera. How many full frame cameras can do that? The D5 can but it costs $6000.

And that brings us back to the only benefit of DX cameras - their price.

So it is pretty silly to say the only benefit is the price.

And I heard that some wild life photographers prefer to use D850 instead of D500 cause you can crop the image to the D500 size IF you need it, or you can have the full image if it's possible.

So if price is irrelevant than FX is a winner.

I don't own a 18-400 but reviews are positive. Of course its not as fast or sharp as a prime lens but then again what is? Any zoom lens is going to have some trade off. My point was that a lens with that range simply doesn't exist in the full frame world. So you definitely get some benefit from having a huge zoom range on a APS-C body. That cannot really be argued.

I don't argue that. But that 18-400 image quality (sharpness and subject separation) is not enough for me. But that is 100% subjective.

BTW- You are being ignorant and seem to like to argue with anybody that has a different opinion. I am very close to setting you to ignore.

A person who starts conversation from "That's BS" tells me that I like to argue. Reasoned argument discussion is interesting to me. I don't look for friends here. But either way I don't want to be a troll. I just want to find some truth in this world of marketing and false market segmentation. I'm looking for information and different opinions when I make my decisions about technological part of photography. For example there are 3 different lineups of Nikon now - DX, FX and Z. And if you have some money, how you'd better spend them? I made my calculations some time ago and went DX and 1.8 zooms route. Do I regret it? No. But I also think that D750 with 35 and 85 1.8 lenses will serve me almost as good as my camera today. Will I change to that combo? No. Why? Cause F mount is the past and Z mount is the future.

BJL Veteran Member • Posts: 9,055
compare new model prices: A7 $1998 vs A6300 $798

SafariBob wrote:

BJL wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

sensor is not such a huge cost driver so why not sell a stripped down ff instead

Firstly, why do you say that: the cheapest FF DSLRs cost about four times as much (US$1400 more) than the cheapest APS-C models, suggesting that sensor cost still dominates the cost of a FF DSLR body and keeps the far more expensive than APS-C models.

...

Sony sell new ffs for 800 (a7), that’s competitive with entry level apsc

Clearance prices on a five year old model that has been superseded twice are not a relevant comparison for predicting prices of future new models. The lowest price for a current (not superseded by a newer model) Sony FF ILC is about US$1998 for the A7, vs US$798 for the A6300 (which is not noticeably lower on specs other than sensor size: the same pixel count, a slightly higher fame rate, etc.)

-- hide signature --

Smaller lenses, better in low light, more telephoto reach:
you can have any _two_ at one time.

 BJL's gear list:BJL's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +8 more
beatboxa Senior Member • Posts: 4,389
Re: no

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

sensor is not such a huge cost driver so why not sell a stripped down ff instead

Looking at the prices of grey market D750 and D7200 it looks like the bigger sensor costs a bit more than 500 usd. Cause they are practically identical and the D750 costs 700 usd more.

When you are in the 1000 usd region of prices for the body, 500 usd is a lot. And in the modern world it's very hard to tell the difference in IQ quality when the same amount of light hit the sensor. There are other benefits of FX - bigger viewfinder, better AF accuracy. But in mirrorless world they disappear - the viewfinder is the same, the AF accuracy is the same.

What is more interesting that Nikon actually patented some mirrorless DX zooms of 16-70 region.

It depends on how you want to define "bigger sensor." Yes, the D750 is a bigger sensor with the same number of megapixels and similar otherwise. But another way to measure would be a bigger sensor with the same pixel pitch / density. For this, a good example is the D500 vs. D850.

I meant bigger sensor in square inches.

I don't think that it makes any sense to compare 21 mp camera to 46 mp camera. You need better lenses for high mp cameras, preferably fixed focal length, way more light to keep your shutter speeds up etc. It's more problematic to get benefits of that resolution.

But if you go that way you finish with 150 mp Phase One on a tripod.

I do think it makes sense--especially because your justification is incorrect.

Your lenses need the same quality to resolve 21 APS-C megapixels or 46 full-frame megapixels, because each pixel is the same size.

The best lenses for crop are sigmas 1.8 zoomes, they don't work on FX. But even if you find the same lens that works on FX and DX you end up with different equivalent focal length and apertures. Like you need 35 1.4 on DX to achieve 50 1.8 on FX. That's an overkill.

Oh great, now you're going to attempt to break things down because you don't see the clear relationship in all of the parts.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the image circles of FX & DX are different. We're not talking about field of view in this conversation. We're talking about sensor size.

You are using sensors alone?

And you're wrong on your equivalence. If you had a 35mm F/1.4 on DX, you'd need a 50mm F/2 on FX, not F/1.8.

F 2.156 if you are talking about D7200 for example.

One difference though, is if you had 24MP on each camera, the 35mm F/1.4 DX lens would have to be higher quality than the 50mm F/2 lens. The DX lens would have to resolve higher. It would have to have a higher MTF to match the resolution of the FX image. Because each of the 24MP on DX is smaller than each of the 24MP on FX.

That's why I have Sigma 1.8 zooms.

Also, you don't need more light.

You do, to achieve the same amount of noise. Read about equivalence and noise on DPreview FAQ.

Actually, you should read up on noise. The same total light will result in the same noise. But the same shutter speed and same f-number on DX vs. FX is not the same amount of total light.

The same shutter speed & f-number will actually result in

different DOF and the amount of noise will be twice higher for the DX.

mid-sentence? See my point above about your ignorance to how these are all connected.

the full-frame having better quality, not the APS-C.

That's true.

But if you shoot with equivalence in mind you end up with more or less the same results. But the base iso on FX will be twice cleaner. That is not a dealbraker until you start to mess with colors in raw converters and photoshop. Or you start to make B&W images from RAW with "digital yellow, green etc. filters" effects.

Your point makes no sense. Now that you're clearly wrong, you're introducing different thresholds?

You've said that with the same shutter speed and F-number FX will have better quality. But I'm saying that with equivalence in mind the FX will only have the benefits of low noise at base ISO.

You want to switch to discussing equivalent photos? Easy:

  • Multiply your DX focal length by 1.5x
  • Multiply your DX F-number by 1.5x
  • Multiply your ISO by 2.25
  • Use a DX lens with an MTF that's twice-as-high as your FX lens on a sensor of the same sensor resolution

Of course, this has nothing to do with the costing conversation that this was all about. Higher density sensors cost more to produce than lower density sensors. And you're introducing additional variables like lens differences--and cost differences.

It's a interchangeable lens camera for a reason. Of course lenses matters. I found some photos of Z7 with 24-70 F4, downsampled them to 24 mp and found out that I have better results with my sigma 18-35 on D7200. And that combo costs 3 times more. If you have a bad lens then it doesn't matter how good the camera is.

When you said:

  • "When you are in the 1000 usd region of prices for the body, 500 usd is a lot. And in the modern world it's very hard to tell the difference in IQ quality when the same amount of light hit the sensor."

This is false. Because to get the same amount of light to the D7200, you're going to need a more expensive lens, which counteracts the cost.

Case in point: compare Nikon's DX 17-55mm F/2.8

You can have the same results with tamron 17-50 that costs almost nothing. And that tamron is a bad lens. Which brings us to the conversation about the unnecessary big flange distance on DX cameras and the problems that it brings.

to its FX 24-120mm F4.

Either way, you buy a combo of camera and lens. 24 mp is a middle ground where crop cameras can be better than FX cause you can spend extra 500 usd on a better lens. As I know the bigger the sensor the bigger the price. There are 20+mp sensors for smartphones that cost several USD with a lens. Cause they are tiny.

All completely arbitrary. You're just changing context & scope of this discussion. Stick to the point.

To make myself clear - I think that lenses that can achieve the same DOF (and therefore light transmission) cost more or less the same on all formats. The body of the same quality costs the same. But the FX sensor itself of the same resolution is something like 500usd pricier.

When you cost out system price, you cost out only the sensor without the lens, but referred to the "same amount of light"--which doesn't happen unless you get a comparable lens on DX. So again, this "comparable lens" on DX means it's 1 stop faster and twice as sharp as the FX.

Of course it's twice as fast but that means nothing, it's just a number. They resolve more or less the same with the same DOF. Google equivalence.

That's the point. You need to account for that as well if you're discussing this price differential--not just the $500 guesstimate-of-sensor price differential.

You're the one who needs to google equivalence.  "Faster" is related to DoF as well.  So you can't seem to make up your mind.  Just scroll up.

You started your last post with

  • "You are using sensors alone?"

But then you cost out only sensor differences rather than system (including lens) differences.  Make up your mind.  F/2.8 on DX will not give you the same DoF as F/2.8 on FX at the equivalent focal length.  Also, noise performance.  And resolution.  So you need a faster & sharper lens on DX.  And these faster & sharper DX lenses are often pricier to get the same performance as on FX.  So the system ends up pricing roughly the same to produce the same results.

Google equivalence.

AwesomeIan Senior Member • Posts: 1,823
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

SteveOttwa wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

rapick wrote:

Shooting MLC is a different experience, a new one for those acquainted to DSLR.

There is a risk factor for everybody considering to switch: you may like it more, or less, and regret your move. It is not just the performance envelop of the new camera compared to the old one. It is also your mindset, your established habits.

The cost for living this experience with NIKON is now more than 2,500 USD/GBP/EUR (considering the Z6 with at least a kit lens).

With Sony you can start with A-6000 (APS-C) and then upgrade to A-7 (FF)

Fuji offers entry-level alternatives before you want to climb to X-H1 or even GFX.

With Nikon DSLRs you can find affordable DX D3xxx, D5xxx before deciding whether to move to FX.

In the Z line you don't find anything 'affordable'. Was it a wise move by Nikon? Or just the only practicable route? Will they cover the 'hole' anytime?

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.

Are you asking simply because you are curious or because you would prefer an APS-C mirrorless from Nikon?

Would you buy an APS-C Z camera if it was no smaller than the Z6 or Z7? Given the size of the Z mount it looks to me like a DX version of a Z camera would practically be the same size. You can't even really remove the viewfinder. Unless you're OK with no viewfinder at all and just use the rear LCD screen.

Fuji is not a good example (discounting their small fixed lens types) because their price range is all APS-C. So yes, you can start with the X-T100, X-T20, or X-A lines. But those are just cheaper version of APS-C.

So Nikon can certainly roll out cheaper versions of the Z full frame line and I expect they will in the future. How much cheaper? I don't know. Can the reach the $1000 price? Don't know.

Crop sensor cameras have one big advantage (apart from initial cost)...smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses for a given equivalent focal length. I for one would like to have the advantages of a APS-C Nikon mirrorless, on which I could use my DX lenses, but also my ff compatible telephoto zoom (my bird lens) would have the same reach as on my dx dslr’s.

My sigma 18-35 is as big as a regular 24-70 2.8 and my sigma 50-100 is as heavy as 70-200 2.8. They are optically very nice lenses but they are definitely not light.

The only benefit of crop format is cheaper sensors and therefore cheaper cameras.

Thats BS.

You are funny)

First off, yes some APS-C lenses weigh the same as the full frame counterparts. That is sometimes true but the majority of the time it isn't.

They are bigger in fact. If you know what is equivalence. Google FAQ of the DPreview.

Most of the time a lens designed for a APS-C sensor is going to be smaller and lighter.

Cause they are slower.

Thats not all. Go check how many 18-400mm lens (28-600mm with crop factor) options are available in full frame. I can answer that question. It is zero. The closest is the nikon 24-300mm which is said to be optically poor and has a much smaller range.

I never used that lenses and never will cause they all are optically awful.

Let me ask a question. Why do so many wildlife photographers prefer a APS-C camera? I'm sure you know the answer. You get extra reached due to the smaller sensor.

Look at the D500. It has a endless buffer. Seriously it will never fill up. It has a hard stop at 200 shots but thats just so you don't accidentally kill the camera. How many full frame cameras can do that? The D5 can but it costs $6000.

And that brings us back to the only benefit of DX cameras - their price.

So it is pretty silly to say the only benefit is the price.

And I heard that some wild life photographers prefer to use D850 instead of D500 cause you can crop the image to the D500 size IF you need it, or you can have the full image if it's possible.

So if price is irrelevant than FX is a winner.

I don't own a 18-400 but reviews are positive. Of course its not as fast or sharp as a prime lens but then again what is? Any zoom lens is going to have some trade off. My point was that a lens with that range simply doesn't exist in the full frame world. So you definitely get some benefit from having a huge zoom range on a APS-C body. That cannot really be argued.

I don't argue that. But that 18-400 image quality (sharpness and subject separation) is not enough for me. But that is 100% subjective.

Great so you can finally admit its not about price alone.

-- hide signature --
 AwesomeIan's gear list:AwesomeIan's gear list
Nikon D500 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD HD Pentax D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR +7 more
Serjojeee Contributing Member • Posts: 890
Re: no

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

sensor is not such a huge cost driver so why not sell a stripped down ff instead

Looking at the prices of grey market D750 and D7200 it looks like the bigger sensor costs a bit more than 500 usd. Cause they are practically identical and the D750 costs 700 usd more.

When you are in the 1000 usd region of prices for the body, 500 usd is a lot. And in the modern world it's very hard to tell the difference in IQ quality when the same amount of light hit the sensor. There are other benefits of FX - bigger viewfinder, better AF accuracy. But in mirrorless world they disappear - the viewfinder is the same, the AF accuracy is the same.

What is more interesting that Nikon actually patented some mirrorless DX zooms of 16-70 region.

It depends on how you want to define "bigger sensor." Yes, the D750 is a bigger sensor with the same number of megapixels and similar otherwise. But another way to measure would be a bigger sensor with the same pixel pitch / density. For this, a good example is the D500 vs. D850.

I meant bigger sensor in square inches.

I don't think that it makes any sense to compare 21 mp camera to 46 mp camera. You need better lenses for high mp cameras, preferably fixed focal length, way more light to keep your shutter speeds up etc. It's more problematic to get benefits of that resolution.

But if you go that way you finish with 150 mp Phase One on a tripod.

I do think it makes sense--especially because your justification is incorrect.

Your lenses need the same quality to resolve 21 APS-C megapixels or 46 full-frame megapixels, because each pixel is the same size.

The best lenses for crop are sigmas 1.8 zoomes, they don't work on FX. But even if you find the same lens that works on FX and DX you end up with different equivalent focal length and apertures. Like you need 35 1.4 on DX to achieve 50 1.8 on FX. That's an overkill.

Oh great, now you're going to attempt to break things down because you don't see the clear relationship in all of the parts.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the image circles of FX & DX are different. We're not talking about field of view in this conversation. We're talking about sensor size.

You are using sensors alone?

And you're wrong on your equivalence. If you had a 35mm F/1.4 on DX, you'd need a 50mm F/2 on FX, not F/1.8.

F 2.156 if you are talking about D7200 for example.

One difference though, is if you had 24MP on each camera, the 35mm F/1.4 DX lens would have to be higher quality than the 50mm F/2 lens. The DX lens would have to resolve higher. It would have to have a higher MTF to match the resolution of the FX image. Because each of the 24MP on DX is smaller than each of the 24MP on FX.

That's why I have Sigma 1.8 zooms.

Also, you don't need more light.

You do, to achieve the same amount of noise. Read about equivalence and noise on DPreview FAQ.

Actually, you should read up on noise. The same total light will result in the same noise. But the same shutter speed and same f-number on DX vs. FX is not the same amount of total light.

The same shutter speed & f-number will actually result in

different DOF and the amount of noise will be twice higher for the DX.

mid-sentence? See my point above about your ignorance to how these are all connected.

the full-frame having better quality, not the APS-C.

That's true.

But if you shoot with equivalence in mind you end up with more or less the same results. But the base iso on FX will be twice cleaner. That is not a dealbraker until you start to mess with colors in raw converters and photoshop. Or you start to make B&W images from RAW with "digital yellow, green etc. filters" effects.

Your point makes no sense. Now that you're clearly wrong, you're introducing different thresholds?

You've said that with the same shutter speed and F-number FX will have better quality. But I'm saying that with equivalence in mind the FX will only have the benefits of low noise at base ISO.

You want to switch to discussing equivalent photos? Easy:

  • Multiply your DX focal length by 1.5x
  • Multiply your DX F-number by 1.5x
  • Multiply your ISO by 2.25
  • Use a DX lens with an MTF that's twice-as-high as your FX lens on a sensor of the same sensor resolution

Of course, this has nothing to do with the costing conversation that this was all about. Higher density sensors cost more to produce than lower density sensors. And you're introducing additional variables like lens differences--and cost differences.

It's a interchangeable lens camera for a reason. Of course lenses matters. I found some photos of Z7 with 24-70 F4, downsampled them to 24 mp and found out that I have better results with my sigma 18-35 on D7200. And that combo costs 3 times more. If you have a bad lens then it doesn't matter how good the camera is.

When you said:

  • "When you are in the 1000 usd region of prices for the body, 500 usd is a lot. And in the modern world it's very hard to tell the difference in IQ quality when the same amount of light hit the sensor."

This is false. Because to get the same amount of light to the D7200, you're going to need a more expensive lens, which counteracts the cost.

Case in point: compare Nikon's DX 17-55mm F/2.8

You can have the same results with tamron 17-50 that costs almost nothing. And that tamron is a bad lens. Which brings us to the conversation about the unnecessary big flange distance on DX cameras and the problems that it brings.

to its FX 24-120mm F4.

Either way, you buy a combo of camera and lens. 24 mp is a middle ground where crop cameras can be better than FX cause you can spend extra 500 usd on a better lens. As I know the bigger the sensor the bigger the price. There are 20+mp sensors for smartphones that cost several USD with a lens. Cause they are tiny.

All completely arbitrary. You're just changing context & scope of this discussion. Stick to the point.

To make myself clear - I think that lenses that can achieve the same DOF (and therefore light transmission) cost more or less the same on all formats. The body of the same quality costs the same. But the FX sensor itself of the same resolution is something like 500usd pricier.

When you cost out system price, you cost out only the sensor without the lens, but referred to the "same amount of light"--which doesn't happen unless you get a comparable lens on DX. So again, this "comparable lens" on DX means it's 1 stop faster and twice as sharp as the FX.

Of course it's twice as fast but that means nothing, it's just a number. They resolve more or less the same with the same DOF. Google equivalence.

That's the point. You need to account for that as well if you're discussing this price differential--not just the $500 guesstimate-of-sensor price differential.

You're the one who needs to google equivalence. "Faster" is related to DoF as well. So you can't seem to make up your mind. Just scroll up.

All this slang just makes conversations about technical staff harder.

F up - faster.

F down - slower.

F 1.8 DX is F 2.2 FX in terms of DOF and total light transmission.

You started your last post with

  • "You are using sensors alone?"

But then you cost out only sensor differences rather than system (including lens) differences.

Yes.

Make up your mind. F/2.8 on DX will not give you the same DoF as F/2.8 on FX at the equivalent focal length.

Yes.

Also, noise performance.

As I see from the tests in terms of noise from the same sensor generation and pixel count. ISO 200 DX is more or less the same as ISO 100FX in terms of noise.

And resolution.

Can be the same.

So you need a faster & sharper lens on DX.

Yes.

And these faster & sharper DX lenses are often pricier to get the same performance as on FX.

Yes.

So the system ends up pricing roughly the same to produce the same results.

Yes, and that is a problem. There are gaps like those 1.8 zoomes and some fixed focal length lenses here and there but more or less you are absolutely correct.

Google equivalence.

But the topic of this discussion is - does it makes sense to Nikon to introduce the Z DX camera? Will people buy it? I think that we can see something like Sony A6000 cameras - with limited (and slow with equivalence in mind) DX Z lenses lineup, mostly nifty fifty (35) and some megazooms. To serve one thing actually - to be the person's first Z mount camera. Or if he is OK with DX IQ, than they can at least sell him a camera. Smartphones can't do what 18-200 zoom can.

I absolutely don't think that any person needs FX and when my friends ask me, what camera should they buy, I don't say - D850 of course. I actually offered NIkon 1 once and people where happy with it cause it wast operating very fast and it was very small.

sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,877
Re: The Stars Align Against It

MiraShootsNikon wrote:

I disagree. DX-line releases have been decelerating for some time. The last noteworthy splash was the D500, two-and-a-half years ago.

But even if you're a died-in-the-wool D500 fan, how far are we from a full-frame Z-mount mirrorless that delivers D500 autofocus performance and enough resolution for 20MP in a 1.5x crop of its 135 sensor? Two years? Less? We're nearly already there with the Z7. The next generation ought to nail it, no?

Such a camera would have what, 50MP? No way would it cost anywhere near the $1900 Nikon is asking for the D500.

So my astrological view sees a whole lot of stars aligning against cropped-sensor ILCs: the rise of computational photography and shirt-pocket 1" compacts pushing hard from the bottom, compounding with compact, high-performance/high-resolution mirrorless FX architectures, declines in large-format sensor production/supply costs, and improved mirrorless manufacturing margins--it assembles to short horizon for DX.

People love to talk about "computational photography", but anyone with an eye critical enough to want an APS-C ILC will see how far off the mark it is. Plus there's the whole lens thing...

If Nikon can discount a Z6 into $1200 - $1500 territory eighteen months or two years from now, what's the point of selling a $1200 - $1500 DX camera?

The same reason Nikon can sell a $1900 D500 and $1500 D610. Different customers have different needs.

If Nikon can roll a D750 into the $800 - $900 range, what's the point of selling a DX camera on that shelf space?

The camera body is just one piece of the puzzle. DX shooters are generally price sensitive; again if what you say were true there would be no need for the D500 and D7xxx. The D6xx has been in that price range for some time now.

Well, you could argue that most of Canon's and Nikon's business is on that sub-thousand-dollar shelf space, so it'd make sense to have a whole range of products available there. And that's a good argument. But it only regards the present. What about the future? Do any of these companies really want to be selling imaging kit for less than a grand? Do they really want to be selling where their current volume is, forever, or are they "skating to where the puck will be?" Staying in the sub-thousand-dollar market will soon mean fighting smartphones head-on, if it doesn't already. That's a suicide mission; Nikon's (and Canon's and Sony's) imaging leadership has got to know it. It's clear to me (and Thom Hogan) that these companies really want to be selling $2,000-and-up kits. The near future of standalone camera companies is the present of high-end audio: low-volume, high margin for discerning customers who know they want something other than a smartphone.

Well I think it's clear that many people bought their first and last DSLRs, and most of them were in the <$1000 range. But if there is still demand for such cameras, it makes sense to continue to make them. Canikon just cannot rely on them anymore, hence the push upmarket.

So the pressing question: how do these companies all get there from here? How do they move their revenue business from a massive volume of low-margin $350 APS-C Costco Rebel kits to a sliver of $2000 + high-margin, FX sensor kit for imaging cork-sniffers? How do these companies all become a slightly-less-rarified Leica? Here's how: roll the current high-end down, innovate at the top, and let the current APS-C low-end fall off the roster as buyers abandon it, naturally.

Would the stand-alone-camera market support a $2,000 DX camera in 2019? That's the question I'd bet Nikon and Canon management have asked, and my hunch is that their marketing analysts' answers have been, "no."

Look, Sony nailed the future of imaging not just in advancing mirrorless architecture, but in pursuing a business model that defines "basic" camera kit as a body costing $2,000--and being advertised / perceived as a "value" product for that price.

Sony itself is rumored to be coming out with an E mount D500 fighter, and they have been continually updating their crop lineup. Their crop lineup is way more developed than Canikon's outside of something to take on the D500/7D2, which is supposedly coming.

Will such a camera be $2000? Probably not, but that is just because market expectations have changed; not because nobody wants such a camera.

-- hide signature --

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

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony Alpha a7R II Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +3 more
Serjojeee Contributing Member • Posts: 890
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

SteveOttwa wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

rapick wrote:

Shooting MLC is a different experience, a new one for those acquainted to DSLR.

There is a risk factor for everybody considering to switch: you may like it more, or less, and regret your move. It is not just the performance envelop of the new camera compared to the old one. It is also your mindset, your established habits.

The cost for living this experience with NIKON is now more than 2,500 USD/GBP/EUR (considering the Z6 with at least a kit lens).

With Sony you can start with A-6000 (APS-C) and then upgrade to A-7 (FF)

Fuji offers entry-level alternatives before you want to climb to X-H1 or even GFX.

With Nikon DSLRs you can find affordable DX D3xxx, D5xxx before deciding whether to move to FX.

In the Z line you don't find anything 'affordable'. Was it a wise move by Nikon? Or just the only practicable route? Will they cover the 'hole' anytime?

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.

Are you asking simply because you are curious or because you would prefer an APS-C mirrorless from Nikon?

Would you buy an APS-C Z camera if it was no smaller than the Z6 or Z7? Given the size of the Z mount it looks to me like a DX version of a Z camera would practically be the same size. You can't even really remove the viewfinder. Unless you're OK with no viewfinder at all and just use the rear LCD screen.

Fuji is not a good example (discounting their small fixed lens types) because their price range is all APS-C. So yes, you can start with the X-T100, X-T20, or X-A lines. But those are just cheaper version of APS-C.

So Nikon can certainly roll out cheaper versions of the Z full frame line and I expect they will in the future. How much cheaper? I don't know. Can the reach the $1000 price? Don't know.

Crop sensor cameras have one big advantage (apart from initial cost)...smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses for a given equivalent focal length. I for one would like to have the advantages of a APS-C Nikon mirrorless, on which I could use my DX lenses, but also my ff compatible telephoto zoom (my bird lens) would have the same reach as on my dx dslr’s.

My sigma 18-35 is as big as a regular 24-70 2.8 and my sigma 50-100 is as heavy as 70-200 2.8. They are optically very nice lenses but they are definitely not light.

The only benefit of crop format is cheaper sensors and therefore cheaper cameras.

Thats BS.

You are funny)

First off, yes some APS-C lenses weigh the same as the full frame counterparts. That is sometimes true but the majority of the time it isn't.

They are bigger in fact. If you know what is equivalence. Google FAQ of the DPreview.

Most of the time a lens designed for a APS-C sensor is going to be smaller and lighter.

Cause they are slower.

Thats not all. Go check how many 18-400mm lens (28-600mm with crop factor) options are available in full frame. I can answer that question. It is zero. The closest is the nikon 24-300mm which is said to be optically poor and has a much smaller range.

I never used that lenses and never will cause they all are optically awful.

Let me ask a question. Why do so many wildlife photographers prefer a APS-C camera? I'm sure you know the answer. You get extra reached due to the smaller sensor.

Look at the D500. It has a endless buffer. Seriously it will never fill up. It has a hard stop at 200 shots but thats just so you don't accidentally kill the camera. How many full frame cameras can do that? The D5 can but it costs $6000.

And that brings us back to the only benefit of DX cameras - their price.

So it is pretty silly to say the only benefit is the price.

And I heard that some wild life photographers prefer to use D850 instead of D500 cause you can crop the image to the D500 size IF you need it, or you can have the full image if it's possible.

So if price is irrelevant than FX is a winner.

I don't own a 18-400 but reviews are positive. Of course its not as fast or sharp as a prime lens but then again what is? Any zoom lens is going to have some trade off. My point was that a lens with that range simply doesn't exist in the full frame world. So you definitely get some benefit from having a huge zoom range on a APS-C body. That cannot really be argued.

I don't argue that. But that 18-400 image quality (sharpness and subject separation) is not enough for me. But that is 100% subjective.

Great so you can finally admit its not about price alone.

With equivalence in mind I don't see any other benefits. But that can be 1000 usd for a new body. Cause D7200 at the start of the sale was 1000 cheaper than D750. Plus you can lower the resolution of the EVF, lower the quality of the body etc.

Mackiesback
Mackiesback Senior Member • Posts: 4,458
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

ImageAmateur wrote:

Stepanfo wrote:

ImageAmateur wrote:

So, yes, mirrorless APSC is likely on the way shortly, to replace APS-C mirrorbox.

Probably with its own line of 'a little more expensive' lenses.

There is FX lenses line. DX lenses. Now new Z lenses. Do you really think Nikon can run one more line? Who will develop all this? I bet their lens development department is more than overloaded by Z lenses development.

There is no reason to create something new. Their DX lenses can work just fine. Just drop the mirror out of the equation and have a little bit free room between sensor and F mount - who cares.

Just put a DX sensor in a z-type camera and put an F mount on it and all the current DX users will be happy. I do not care that it will be less elegant that Z cameras having that extencion tube on it below the F mount. It would be nice if it still maintained full F-mount lenses compatibility - having a AF motor in it to run non AF-S lenses.

Nikon DX lenses are practically non existent. Or rather, quality wise, not to todays market.

The $$$ are in reasonably priced high quality lenses, aka Fuji etc. Or overpriced.

But that is the point, the market is moving up, as Mira says so well, above.

However, I think that Nikon will come for the APS-C market too.

Maybe not a Z, but something.

But Nikon DSLR low range is likely over.

Meanwhile, this happened yesterday:

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d3500.html?icid=img_en_us:hp:slot:1:dslr:D3500:083018:wwa_D3500

 Mackiesback's gear list:Mackiesback's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Nikon D50 Nikon D100 Nikon Df Nikon D810 +16 more
SafariBob
SafariBob Regular Member • Posts: 434
Re: compare new model prices: A7 $1998 vs A6300 $798

BJL wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

BJL wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

sensor is not such a huge cost driver so why not sell a stripped down ff instead

Firstly, why do you say that: the cheapest FF DSLRs cost about four times as much (US$1400 more) than the cheapest APS-C models, suggesting that sensor cost still dominates the cost of a FF DSLR body and keeps the far more expensive than APS-C models.

...

Sony sell new ffs for 800 (a7), that’s competitive with entry level apsc

Clearance prices on a five year old model that has been superseded twice are not a relevant comparison for predicting prices of future new models. The lowest price for a current (not superseded by a newer model) Sony FF ILC is about US$1998 for the A7, vs US$798 for the A6300 (which is not noticeably lower on specs other than sensor size: the same pixel count, a slightly higher fame rate, etc.)

They are not clearance prices. the a7 has been manufactured new until at least recently

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R II Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS
AwesomeIan Senior Member • Posts: 1,823
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

SteveOttwa wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

rapick wrote:

Shooting MLC is a different experience, a new one for those acquainted to DSLR.

There is a risk factor for everybody considering to switch: you may like it more, or less, and regret your move. It is not just the performance envelop of the new camera compared to the old one. It is also your mindset, your established habits.

The cost for living this experience with NIKON is now more than 2,500 USD/GBP/EUR (considering the Z6 with at least a kit lens).

With Sony you can start with A-6000 (APS-C) and then upgrade to A-7 (FF)

Fuji offers entry-level alternatives before you want to climb to X-H1 or even GFX.

With Nikon DSLRs you can find affordable DX D3xxx, D5xxx before deciding whether to move to FX.

In the Z line you don't find anything 'affordable'. Was it a wise move by Nikon? Or just the only practicable route? Will they cover the 'hole' anytime?

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.

Are you asking simply because you are curious or because you would prefer an APS-C mirrorless from Nikon?

Would you buy an APS-C Z camera if it was no smaller than the Z6 or Z7? Given the size of the Z mount it looks to me like a DX version of a Z camera would practically be the same size. You can't even really remove the viewfinder. Unless you're OK with no viewfinder at all and just use the rear LCD screen.

Fuji is not a good example (discounting their small fixed lens types) because their price range is all APS-C. So yes, you can start with the X-T100, X-T20, or X-A lines. But those are just cheaper version of APS-C.

So Nikon can certainly roll out cheaper versions of the Z full frame line and I expect they will in the future. How much cheaper? I don't know. Can the reach the $1000 price? Don't know.

Crop sensor cameras have one big advantage (apart from initial cost)...smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses for a given equivalent focal length. I for one would like to have the advantages of a APS-C Nikon mirrorless, on which I could use my DX lenses, but also my ff compatible telephoto zoom (my bird lens) would have the same reach as on my dx dslr’s.

My sigma 18-35 is as big as a regular 24-70 2.8 and my sigma 50-100 is as heavy as 70-200 2.8. They are optically very nice lenses but they are definitely not light.

The only benefit of crop format is cheaper sensors and therefore cheaper cameras.

Thats BS.

You are funny)

First off, yes some APS-C lenses weigh the same as the full frame counterparts. That is sometimes true but the majority of the time it isn't.

They are bigger in fact. If you know what is equivalence. Google FAQ of the DPreview.

Most of the time a lens designed for a APS-C sensor is going to be smaller and lighter.

Cause they are slower.

Thats not all. Go check how many 18-400mm lens (28-600mm with crop factor) options are available in full frame. I can answer that question. It is zero. The closest is the nikon 24-300mm which is said to be optically poor and has a much smaller range.

I never used that lenses and never will cause they all are optically awful.

Let me ask a question. Why do so many wildlife photographers prefer a APS-C camera? I'm sure you know the answer. You get extra reached due to the smaller sensor.

Look at the D500. It has a endless buffer. Seriously it will never fill up. It has a hard stop at 200 shots but thats just so you don't accidentally kill the camera. How many full frame cameras can do that? The D5 can but it costs $6000.

And that brings us back to the only benefit of DX cameras - their price.

So it is pretty silly to say the only benefit is the price.

And I heard that some wild life photographers prefer to use D850 instead of D500 cause you can crop the image to the D500 size IF you need it, or you can have the full image if it's possible.

So if price is irrelevant than FX is a winner.

I don't own a 18-400 but reviews are positive. Of course its not as fast or sharp as a prime lens but then again what is? Any zoom lens is going to have some trade off. My point was that a lens with that range simply doesn't exist in the full frame world. So you definitely get some benefit from having a huge zoom range on a APS-C body. That cannot really be argued.

I don't argue that. But that 18-400 image quality (sharpness and subject separation) is not enough for me. But that is 100% subjective.

Great so you can finally admit its not about price alone.

With equivalence in mind I don't see any other benefits. But that can be 1000 usd for a new body. Cause D7200 at the start of the sale was 1000 cheaper than D750. Plus you can lower the resolution of the EVF, lower the quality of the body etc.

Size definitely favors the smaller APS-C sensor. Compare a Tokina 11-16 against the Nikon 14-24. It is so much smaller because it doesn't have to project a image to a much bigger sensor.

You came up with a couple examples that weigh the same or more than a full frame lens. Like I said before, that is the exception not the rule. Of courese a 1.8 zoom is going to weigh a ton. They don't even have something like that in full frame. As a whole when a lens is made for APS-C sensor it will be smaller than a full frame counterpart.

So here is a list of APS-C advantages:

1. Price

2. Size/weight

3. Range

-- hide signature --
 AwesomeIan's gear list:AwesomeIan's gear list
Nikon D500 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD HD Pentax D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR +7 more
beatboxa Senior Member • Posts: 4,389
Re: no

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

You're the one who needs to google equivalence. "Faster" is related to DoF as well. So you can't seem to make up your mind. Just scroll up.

All this slang just makes conversations about technical staff harder.

F up - faster.

F down - slower.

F 1.8 DX is F 2.2 FX in terms of DOF and total light transmission.

Correct.  This is consistent with what I said in all of my posts, and this is also inconsistent with what you replied in your earlier post.

You started your last post with

  • "You are using sensors alone?"

But then you cost out only sensor differences rather than system (including lens) differences.

Yes.

Make up your mind. F/2.8 on DX will not give you the same DoF as F/2.8 on FX at the equivalent focal length.

Yes.

Also, noise performance.

As I see from the tests in terms of noise from the same sensor generation and pixel count. ISO 200 DX is more or less the same as ISO 100FX in terms of noise.

And resolution.

Can be the same.

So you need a faster & sharper lens on DX.

Yes.

And these faster & sharper DX lenses are often pricier to get the same performance as on FX.

Yes.

So the system ends up pricing roughly the same to produce the same results.

Yes, and that is a problem. There are gaps like those 1.8 zoomes and some fixed focal length lenses here and there but more or less you are absolutely correct.

Google equivalence.

But the topic of this discussion is - does it makes sense to Nikon to introduce the Z DX camera? Will people buy it? I think that we can see something like Sony A6000 cameras - with limited (and slow with equivalence in mind) DX Z lenses lineup, mostly nifty fifty (35) and some megazooms. To serve one thing actually - to be the person's first Z mount camera. Or if he is OK with DX IQ, than they can at least sell him a camera. Smartphones can't do what 18-200 zoom can.

I absolutely don't think that any person needs FX and when my friends ask me, what camera should they buy, I don't say - D850 of course. I actually offered NIkon 1 once and people where happy with it cause it wast operating very fast and it was very small.

This is the issue:  you are assuming "DX IQ" is a thing.   It isn't.  DX is simply a format.  And this format has inherent benefits that are complemented with lens offerings.

Smaller formats are generally "better" for reach.  You'll get higher pixel density, and often reduced rolling shutter, for lower price.  Want that shot of every crater on the moon?  Use a 1" or smaller format.  Smaller formats are the digital workflow's answer to TC's.  Because they're significantly cheaper when it comes to sensors.

Larger formats are generally "better" for flexibility in image quality.  Low light, shallow DoF, etc.  Because they're generally easier to design lenses that collect a lot of light for.  Like the $900 Nikon 1 32mm F/1.2--which is an equivalent of an 85mm F/3.2 that would cost less than half of that.

Each format has pros & cons.  And to add a pun, the pros are the ones who recognize this and how to use each format effectively.  Meanwhile, the 'cons' try to use a single format for every application--which brings about the classic equivalence debate.

chambeshi Contributing Member • Posts: 804
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?
1

My 6pence worth following up on responses to this explanation of the Z Mount by Atsushi Suzuki, Nikon Optical Engineer and Technical Liaison, who illustrates the structure and design of the new Nikon Z mount system

https://youtu.be/hMs2DSfBbJc

 chambeshi's gear list:chambeshi's gear list
Nikon Df Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D +12 more
Serjojeee Contributing Member • Posts: 890
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

SteveOttwa wrote:

michaeladawson wrote:

rapick wrote:

Shooting MLC is a different experience, a new one for those acquainted to DSLR.

There is a risk factor for everybody considering to switch: you may like it more, or less, and regret your move. It is not just the performance envelop of the new camera compared to the old one. It is also your mindset, your established habits.

The cost for living this experience with NIKON is now more than 2,500 USD/GBP/EUR (considering the Z6 with at least a kit lens).

With Sony you can start with A-6000 (APS-C) and then upgrade to A-7 (FF)

Fuji offers entry-level alternatives before you want to climb to X-H1 or even GFX.

With Nikon DSLRs you can find affordable DX D3xxx, D5xxx before deciding whether to move to FX.

In the Z line you don't find anything 'affordable'. Was it a wise move by Nikon? Or just the only practicable route? Will they cover the 'hole' anytime?

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.

Are you asking simply because you are curious or because you would prefer an APS-C mirrorless from Nikon?

Would you buy an APS-C Z camera if it was no smaller than the Z6 or Z7? Given the size of the Z mount it looks to me like a DX version of a Z camera would practically be the same size. You can't even really remove the viewfinder. Unless you're OK with no viewfinder at all and just use the rear LCD screen.

Fuji is not a good example (discounting their small fixed lens types) because their price range is all APS-C. So yes, you can start with the X-T100, X-T20, or X-A lines. But those are just cheaper version of APS-C.

So Nikon can certainly roll out cheaper versions of the Z full frame line and I expect they will in the future. How much cheaper? I don't know. Can the reach the $1000 price? Don't know.

Crop sensor cameras have one big advantage (apart from initial cost)...smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses for a given equivalent focal length. I for one would like to have the advantages of a APS-C Nikon mirrorless, on which I could use my DX lenses, but also my ff compatible telephoto zoom (my bird lens) would have the same reach as on my dx dslr’s.

My sigma 18-35 is as big as a regular 24-70 2.8 and my sigma 50-100 is as heavy as 70-200 2.8. They are optically very nice lenses but they are definitely not light.

The only benefit of crop format is cheaper sensors and therefore cheaper cameras.

Thats BS.

You are funny)

First off, yes some APS-C lenses weigh the same as the full frame counterparts. That is sometimes true but the majority of the time it isn't.

They are bigger in fact. If you know what is equivalence. Google FAQ of the DPreview.

Most of the time a lens designed for a APS-C sensor is going to be smaller and lighter.

Cause they are slower.

Thats not all. Go check how many 18-400mm lens (28-600mm with crop factor) options are available in full frame. I can answer that question. It is zero. The closest is the nikon 24-300mm which is said to be optically poor and has a much smaller range.

I never used that lenses and never will cause they all are optically awful.

Let me ask a question. Why do so many wildlife photographers prefer a APS-C camera? I'm sure you know the answer. You get extra reached due to the smaller sensor.

Look at the D500. It has a endless buffer. Seriously it will never fill up. It has a hard stop at 200 shots but thats just so you don't accidentally kill the camera. How many full frame cameras can do that? The D5 can but it costs $6000.

And that brings us back to the only benefit of DX cameras - their price.

So it is pretty silly to say the only benefit is the price.

And I heard that some wild life photographers prefer to use D850 instead of D500 cause you can crop the image to the D500 size IF you need it, or you can have the full image if it's possible.

So if price is irrelevant than FX is a winner.

I don't own a 18-400 but reviews are positive. Of course its not as fast or sharp as a prime lens but then again what is? Any zoom lens is going to have some trade off. My point was that a lens with that range simply doesn't exist in the full frame world. So you definitely get some benefit from having a huge zoom range on a APS-C body. That cannot really be argued.

I don't argue that. But that 18-400 image quality (sharpness and subject separation) is not enough for me. But that is 100% subjective.

Great so you can finally admit its not about price alone.

With equivalence in mind I don't see any other benefits. But that can be 1000 usd for a new body. Cause D7200 at the start of the sale was 1000 cheaper than D750. Plus you can lower the resolution of the EVF, lower the quality of the body etc.

Size definitely favors the smaller APS-C sensor. Compare a Tokina 11-16 against the Nikon 14-24. It is so much smaller because it doesn't have to project a image to a much bigger sensor.

As I've said, please google equivalence FAQ. In terms of DOF and total light transmission you are comparing F 4.3 to F 2.8 lens in FX numbers.

You came up with a couple examples that weigh the same or more than a full frame lens. Like I said before, that is the exception not the rule. Of courese a 1.8 zoom is going to weigh a ton. They don't even have something like that in full frame. As a whole when a lens is made for APS-C sensor it will be smaller than a full frame counterpart.

They are 28-50 and 75-150  F 2.8 FX lenses with equivalence in mind. And even if they cover not the whole range of 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 lenses they are as big. I think that's cause of an additional and not needed for DX flange distance of F mount. That is a problem for lens engineering.

So here is a list of APS-C advantages:

1. Price

I agree.

2. Size/weight

3. Range

I don't agree cause for those benefits you'll need slower glass. With equivalence in mind.

But I think that that is the way to go - bring some slower low-grade lenses for those who don't need high quality lenses. Like 16-70 f4 (F6.2FX). Or some superzooms.

rapick
OP rapick Veteran Member • Posts: 5,020
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

rapick wrote:

[...]

In the Z line you don't find anything 'affordable'. Was it a wise move by Nikon? Or just the only practicable route? Will they cover the 'hole' anytime?

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.

So, up to now my question got about 90 replies. Good, it tased some interest...

It can be re-phrased:

After the launch of the high-end Z6/7 mirrorless cameras, what are Nikon palling with their DX lineup?

Several possibilities as from the arguments here by different contributors:

  1. leave the DX line die, more or less slowly. No 'crop' size sensor in the future of Nikon brand. They can instead offer some lower end / lower price ML cameras in the Z line.
  2. Offer mirrorless DX still using 'F' mount (just remove the swinging mirror). Supporters of this solution don't see that much penalization with body size and weight. Current DX lenses can be used with no adapter!
  3. Develop a new DX-only mirrorless system (similar to the Fuji X line or Canon M) based on a new different mount. This means smaller bodies, smaller lenses, something completely different from the Z line (and time to a different target in the marketplace!)
  4. Anything I may have overlooked?

IMHO No. 3 is the only way for Nikon to keep their present not-so-bad position in the still very large market of the APS-C size cameras. It requires a huge effort (design - manufacturing - marketing) maybe beyond the resources available to Nikon. They made a brave move with the Z6/7. We'll see what they are able to deliver here...

-- hide signature --

Rapick
Visit my galleries at: http://rapick.jalbum.net/

 rapick's gear list:rapick's gear list
Samsung NX3000 Sony RX100 III Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR +6 more
Serjojeee Contributing Member • Posts: 890
Re: no

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

You're the one who needs to google equivalence. "Faster" is related to DoF as well. So you can't seem to make up your mind. Just scroll up.

All this slang just makes conversations about technical staff harder.

F up - faster.

F down - slower.

F 1.8 DX is F 2.2 FX in terms of DOF and total light transmission.

Correct. This is consistent with what I said in all of my posts, and this is also inconsistent with what you replied in your earlier post.

Either way I never meant anything different cause I know those calculation from the start of all this DX story.

You started your last post with

  • "You are using sensors alone?"

But then you cost out only sensor differences rather than system (including lens) differences.

Yes.

Make up your mind. F/2.8 on DX will not give you the same DoF as F/2.8 on FX at the equivalent focal length.

Yes.

Also, noise performance.

As I see from the tests in terms of noise from the same sensor generation and pixel count. ISO 200 DX is more or less the same as ISO 100FX in terms of noise.

And resolution.

Can be the same.

So you need a faster & sharper lens on DX.

Yes.

And these faster & sharper DX lenses are often pricier to get the same performance as on FX.

Yes.

So the system ends up pricing roughly the same to produce the same results.

Yes, and that is a problem. There are gaps like those 1.8 zoomes and some fixed focal length lenses here and there but more or less you are absolutely correct.

Google equivalence.

But the topic of this discussion is - does it makes sense to Nikon to introduce the Z DX camera? Will people buy it? I think that we can see something like Sony A6000 cameras - with limited (and slow with equivalence in mind) DX Z lenses lineup, mostly nifty fifty (35) and some megazooms. To serve one thing actually - to be the person's first Z mount camera. Or if he is OK with DX IQ, than they can at least sell him a camera. Smartphones can't do what 18-200 zoom can.

I absolutely don't think that any person needs FX and when my friends ask me, what camera should they buy, I don't say - D850 of course. I actually offered NIkon 1 once and people where happy with it cause it wast operating very fast and it was very small.

This is the issue: you are assuming "DX IQ" is a thing. It isn't. DX is simply a format. And this format has inherent benefits that are complemented with lens offerings.

When I'm talking about DX IQ, I'm talking about the noise floor of ISO 100. I'm not the person who sees it as superb. It's acceptable. When you start to work with shadow lifting, retouching, masks based on colors etc. every bit of noise is a problem.

Smaller formats are generally "better" for reach. You'll get higher pixel density, and often reduced rolling shutter, for lower price. Want that shot of every crater on the moon? Use a 1" or smaller format. Smaller formats are the digital workflow's answer to TC's. Because they're significantly cheaper when it comes to sensors.

That's true.

Larger formats are generally "better" for flexibility in image quality. Low light, shallow DoF, etc. Because they're generally easier to design lenses that collect a lot of light for. Like the $900 Nikon 1 32mm F/1.2--which is an equivalent of an 85mm F/3.2 that would cost less than half of that.

That's actually what really kills small formats - 1000 usd F3.2 lens. M43 lenses prices are strange when you look at them from this point of view.

Each format has pros & cons. And to add a pun, the pros are the ones who recognize this and how to use each format effectively. Meanwhile, the 'cons' try to use a single format for every application--which brings about the classic equivalence debate.

I see lots of people looking for jack of all trades camera (like D850). Me included. It makes sense cause it's a price effective approach and you know camera's quirks and buttons etc. It's better ergonomically so to speak. For journalist approach you can use 2.8 zooms and for better IQ 1.8 or 1.4 lenses.

But for a lower quality images D850 is a bit overkill. And FX in the region of 24 MP can be a bit of an overkill. We live in the time of 50mp FX and 150mp MF cameras but mostly 1080p screens.

AwesomeIan Senior Member • Posts: 1,823
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

Serjojeee wrote:

I don't argue that. But that 18-400 image quality (sharpness and subject separation) is not enough for me. But that is 100% subjective.

Great so you can finally admit its not about price alone.

With equivalence in mind I don't see any other benefits. But that can be 1000 usd for a new body. Cause D7200 at the start of the sale was 1000 cheaper than D750. Plus you can lower the resolution of the EVF, lower the quality of the body etc.

Size definitely favors the smaller APS-C sensor. Compare a Tokina 11-16 against the Nikon 14-24. It is so much smaller because it doesn't have to project a image to a much bigger sensor.

As I've said, please google equivalence FAQ. In terms of DOF and total light transmission you are comparing F 4.3 to F 2.8 lens in FX numbers.

You came up with a couple examples that weigh the same or more than a full frame lens. Like I said before, that is the exception not the rule. Of courese a 1.8 zoom is going to weigh a ton. They don't even have something like that in full frame. As a whole when a lens is made for APS-C sensor it will be smaller than a full frame counterpart.

They are 28-50 and 75-150 F 2.8 FX lenses with equivalence in mind. And even if they cover not the whole range of 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 lenses they are as big. I think that's cause of an additional and not needed for DX flange distance of F mount. That is a problem for lens engineering.

So here is a list of APS-C advantages:

1. Price

I agree.

2. Size/weight

3. Range

I don't agree cause for those benefits you'll need slower glass. With equivalence in mind.

But I think that that is the way to go - bring some slower low-grade lenses for those who don't need high quality lenses. Like 16-70 f4 (F6.2FX). Or some superzooms.

I don't know why you think a F2.8 lens is F4.3 on APS-C. The aperture doesn't change based on the sensor. I do completely understand the difference in DOF. A 50mm lens on full frame will have a more shallow DOF compared to a APS-C because you would have to back away to get the same shot which in turn changes the DOF. So you lose about 1 stop of DOF. I get that. My point is that far and wide a lens made for APS-C is smaller and lighter.

Speaking of slow lenses, one of my favorite is the Tamron 150-600. It is 6.3 and is a full frame lens. So its not like they don't make slow lenses for full frame. Speaking of which mine meters the same on my D500 as it does on my D610. Its not like I lose a stop of light.

-- hide signature --
 AwesomeIan's gear list:AwesomeIan's gear list
Nikon D500 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD HD Pentax D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR +7 more
Serjojeee Contributing Member • Posts: 890
Re: Will we ever see a DX sensor Z?

AwesomeIan wrote:

Serjojeee wrote:

I don't argue that. But that 18-400 image quality (sharpness and subject separation) is not enough for me. But that is 100% subjective.

Great so you can finally admit its not about price alone.

With equivalence in mind I don't see any other benefits. But that can be 1000 usd for a new body. Cause D7200 at the start of the sale was 1000 cheaper than D750. Plus you can lower the resolution of the EVF, lower the quality of the body etc.

Size definitely favors the smaller APS-C sensor. Compare a Tokina 11-16 against the Nikon 14-24. It is so much smaller because it doesn't have to project a image to a much bigger sensor.

As I've said, please google equivalence FAQ. In terms of DOF and total light transmission you are comparing F 4.3 to F 2.8 lens in FX numbers.

You came up with a couple examples that weigh the same or more than a full frame lens. Like I said before, that is the exception not the rule. Of courese a 1.8 zoom is going to weigh a ton. They don't even have something like that in full frame. As a whole when a lens is made for APS-C sensor it will be smaller than a full frame counterpart.

They are 28-50 and 75-150 F 2.8 FX lenses with equivalence in mind. And even if they cover not the whole range of 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 lenses they are as big. I think that's cause of an additional and not needed for DX flange distance of F mount. That is a problem for lens engineering.

So here is a list of APS-C advantages:

1. Price

I agree.

2. Size/weight

3. Range

I don't agree cause for those benefits you'll need slower glass. With equivalence in mind.

But I think that that is the way to go - bring some slower low-grade lenses for those who don't need high quality lenses. Like 16-70 f4 (F6.2FX). Or some superzooms.

I don't know why you think a F2.8 lens is F4.3 on APS-C. The aperture doesn't change based on the sensor. I do completely understand the difference in DOF.

It's not only DOF, it's also a total light transmission. That's why I was talking about DPreview FAQ that's made to explane equivalence, noise, iso (summary of those 3 ideas is what I'm talking about).

A 50mm lens on full frame will have a more shallow DOF compared to a APS-C because you would have to back away to get the same shot which in turn changes the DOF. So you lose about 1 stop of DOF. I get that. My point is that far and wide a lens made for APS-C is smaller and lighter.

Or you can do F4.3 lens for FX that will be even smaller and lighter.

Speaking of slow lenses, one of my favorite is the Tamron 150-600. It is 6.3 and is a full frame lens. So its not like they don't make slow lenses for full frame.

Of course not, or they will need a car to transport them.  And they are different tools for different jobs. I don't say that slow = bad. It the lens is slow but sharp and contrasty than it's a nice lens IMO. That's why I think that Z 1.8 lenses are quite nice.

Speaking of which mine meters the same on my D500 as it does on my D610. Its not like I lose a stop of light.

I meant the total amount of light that hits the sensor. All those ideas are clarified in those articles.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads