Which new Nikon camera do you think the most cost-effective?

[ckeek]

I am interested in Nikon ZR but see a lot of new Nikon cameras will come at

, such as Z6 IV, Z7 III, Z9II, Z8II, Z30 II, Z9H, Zf II, Z90, Z80 etc. Do you think the Z90 (replacing D500) will be the most cost-effective one?

 

[GeoffRG]

So a Z9ii may well appear next summer, for the football World Cup. Manufacturers have tended to release flagship cameras for major events such as this, Olympics etc. A Z8ii is likely a while away from that, as Nikon won't want sales of that camera cannibalising potential Z9/ii sales. Given recent release cycles, a Z6iv is unlikely for at least another 2/3 years I'd say. A Z9H (i'm assuming you mean lower MP, extremely high ISO capable model) is an interesting idea; Canon have both the R1 and R3 cameras to cater for this niche. A bit surprising Nikon don't have one. Who knows; such a beast may appear alongside a 'standard' Z9ii. A Z7iii is surely imminent, if Nikon are going to produce such a camera, but perhaps it will be higher MP like 60 or so, a very high res machine but with lowered speed and ISO capabilities, for landscapers etc. Z30ii Is a reasonably safe bet; the same Expeed 7 processor as the rest of the current range, bar the viewfinder and one or two other features of the Z50ii. Perhaps not for another year or so as Nikon will want people to buy the Z50ii. Zf/Zfc; again one would assume refreshes of both, but the Zf not for a while yet, it's pretty current, and the only major improvements would be to make it smaller and less clunky, perhaps strip the video function and make it a 'pure stills' camera.

Given that a mirrorless camera, with an EVF, is essentially a video camera that has the ability to capture stills, I don't see that happening.

There have been more threads than I can count pointing out that there is no cost savings to be had by stripping video out of a modern mirrorless camera.

Leica M-series digital cameras lack video function, or at least some of them do. There are other current cameras with either no or limited video. So obviously there are people who want such things. I'm one of them; if my cameras had no video functions, I'd not be bothered. I've never shot video on any of them anyway, not properly. And if I did want to; My Z8 shoots 8k RAW video, but for that, you need the highest spec (read: very expensive) CFe card, and it may have an issue with overheating. So I'd be better off with a dedicated video camera if I wanted to shoot video really. I accept that for 'hybrid' shooters, it's probably great. As for cost saving; Leica don't enable video functions, and their stuff costs silly money. But I'm not talking about cost savings; this is all about marketing. The Nikon Df had no video functions, yet was still fairly popular. Those of us who aren't interested in video, would quite like a stills-only camera, with no extra distraction and complexity of having video controls on the body. The Zf has similar video capability compared to the cheaper Z5ii for eg, and limited compared to the Z6iii. Both are definitely more 'cost effective' in that sense.

In case you hadn't noticed, I actually said "a mirrorless camera, with an EVF, is essentially a video camera". None of the Leica M series cameras not the Nikon Df has an EVF. I don't shoot video either and it is extremely simple to reconfigure the video "record" button for some other function. With Live View also disabled it is near impossible to shoot video on any of my D5 bodies. I'm sure similar reconfiguration is possible on a mirrorless camera.

As has been explained multiple times, removing the video recording capability from a mirrorless camera with an EVF would harm sales. The younger generation values video above stills. Nikon isn't going to do anything that harms sales. The fact is that whether or not a mirrorless camera with an EVF can record the video stream, it remains a video camera. Without video there would be no viewfinder image.

Let's look at an example, the Nikon Z6 III is a mirrorless camera with, we are assured, an excellent EVF. What are you wanting to remove from that camera that would be a distraction to stills shooting?

Looking at a picture of the camera, there are three things:

1. The selector for stills/video around the DSP button
2. The video record button, which can be reconfigured for something useful
3. The fully articulated screen

The stills/video selector effectively does nothing if the video record button id deactivated or reconfigured.

The fully articulated screen is definitely a feature I can do without but as I never use live view it wouldn't be a significant problem. Yes, I would like a return to the DSLR button configuration but would that be a distraction?

 

[Bob A L]

Straight out most cost effective Nikon? When you consider the end result is a photo that the typical viewing audience (not the photographer) will never be able to tell the difference as to which camera made it, has to be the Z30.

 

[Born2Code]

Straight out most cost effective Nikon? When you consider the end result is a photo that the typical viewing audience (not the photographer) will never be able to tell the difference as to which camera made it, has to be the Z30.

Hi Bob

I know you're a DX fan and so am I. I shot DX for many years and now I shoot both DX and FX.

But I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be. If we're talking about static subjects in decent light (not too dim, not too contrasty) you're right. Most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between Z30 and Z9 images. But there are other use cases as well. For example, there are reasons that professional wildlife and sports photographers gravitate to Z8's and Z9's rather than Z30's.

As I said in my last post, the most cost effective camera is the least expensive one that lets you get the images you want. That was why I asked the OP what kind of images they wanted. Without knowing that, there's no good answer to the original question.

 

[Born2Code]

One could also point out that without video, there would be no prerelease capture. As per Thom Hogan, the Z cameras extract that from the video stream.

And I agree with you. I don't do video at all but stripping out the video wouldn't make cameras any cheaper or any more stills-friendly. It would only limit the potential market for the camera.

 

[maestro55]

In many contexts, including this one, I believe ‘most cost effective’ is largely a subjective label.

A camera with inadequate frame rates or pixel count or electronic shutter speed etc. for the needs of a particular type of user is not cost effective even if it costs only $1.

In terms of ‘bang for the buck’ one could argue for the ZR for video, the Z5 for stills and the Z9 for endurance, but again, depends on the minimum performance threshold or feature set required for each individual. Lens options also come into play.

Nikon now has competitive models to address much of ILC market, but there are countless threads on this site wishing for additional configurations: Z90, Z7iii, a compact fixed lens equivalent, etc, not to mention lenses such as Z16-80 F4 VR Dx, longer macros, tilt shift, and more.

Only Nikon knows what will hit the market within the next ~24 months; beyond that even they can’t entirely predict what combination of new tech, market conditions, and supply chain issues will shape new products. If the Expeed 7 generation is any clue, Expeed 8 should continue to impress us.

On a side note, I’m kinda curious that none of the traditional image companies have figured out how to co-brand with phone manufacturers. Imagine an I-phone ‘Equipped with Nikon Optical Excellence …’ or some other marketing word salad backed by only minor substantive collaboration. Wouldn’t it be great if our phones and cameras had similar menus, touch controls, computational features, and reliable connectivity?

 

[Schrodingers cat]

Do you think the Z90 (replacing D500) will be the most cost-effective one?

If I understand your inquiry correctly, you are most interested in the Z camera which is most similar to the D500. Similar features and sensor, no extra bells and whistles you won't use, etc. Is that correct?

If that's the intent I suspect you will get a more definitive response if you were to restate the question. And in that regard I can't help as I've never had a D500. And as the ZR is largely video oriented I've never even held one.

If your question is more generalized I think you want pretty much the opposite of the above, a model which would give you the highest level of bells and whistles per dollar, which I suspect might be the Z8 or Z9. Both of which are available as low mileage excellent condition used items at a deep discount.

On the other hand, as you have identified a model that appeals to you, I think buying anything else would ultimately be a disappointment which would certainly be counter productive if you're looking at cost efficiency.

My personal experience over a fairly large pile of dollars spent over the past 55 or so years is that the one you like the looks of, that feels good in your hands, and for whatever reason just attracts your attention is the one to pay for.

I suggest that waiting for the potential new arrivals is futile. Even if they eventually get here, that still doesn't answer your original question.

Want my biased and completely uninformed opinion based on pretty much no facts? You've already determined one you like. Just buy the damn thing and press on

--
Personal travel snapshots at https://www.castle-explorers.com
1. Making good decisions is generally the result of experience.
2. Experience is generally the result of making bad decisions.
3. Never underestimate your capability for doing incredibly stupid s**t.

 

[Bob A L]

But I do shoot in FF also, just not with a Nikon. So in my case it's comparing my 21mp Nikon photos with my 61mp FF photos. I use the extra pixels for cropping or filling the photo with pixels on extreme wide angle photos. And none of my audience knows or cares anything about which I used. They either like or dislike any photo.

 

[Blisqua]

I am interested in Nikon ZR but see a lot of new Nikon cameras will come at

, such as Z6 IV, Z7 III, Z9II, Z8II, Z30 II, Z9H, Zf II, Z90, Z80 etc. Do you think the Z90 (replacing D500) will be the most cost-effective one?

The ZR is intended primarily as a video camera. Cost-effectiveness, however, is in the eye of the consumer.

 

[Born2Code]

But I do shoot in FF also, just not with a Nikon. So in my case it's comparing my 21mp Nikon photos with my 61mp FF photos. I use the extra pixels for cropping or filling the photo with pixels on extreme wide angle photos. And none of my audience knows or cares anything about which I used. They either like or dislike any photo.

I don't disagree. You pick the right tool for the job at hand. So do I.

My only point was that unless the OP tells us what the "job" is. we can't help them pick a tool.

 

[Ryan Schwartz]

AI clickbait videos aside, compared to other brands like Canon and Sony, I think Nikon offers good value for the money across the board and Nikon's glass is top notch. And I own cameras from all three brands.

 

[Hal Wilson]

... Zf/Zfc; again one would assume refreshes of both, but the Zf not for a while yet, it's pretty current, and the only major improvements would be to make it smaller and less clunky, perhaps strip the video function and make it a 'pure stills' camera.

Given that a mirrorless camera, with an EVF, is essentially a video camera that has the ability to capture stills, I don't see that happening.

There have been more threads than I can count pointing out that there is no cost savings to be had by stripping video out of a modern mirrorless camera.

Leica M-series digital cameras lack video function, or at least some of them do. There are other current cameras with either no or limited video. So obviously there are people who want such things. I'm one of them; if my cameras had no video functions, I'd not be bothered. I've never shot video on any of them anyway, not properly. And if I did want to; My Z8 shoots 8k RAW video, but for that, you need the highest spec (read: very expensive) CFe card, and it may have an issue with overheating. So I'd be better off with a dedicated video camera if I wanted to shoot video really. I accept that for 'hybrid' shooters, it's probably great. As for cost saving; Leica don't enable video functions, and their stuff costs silly money. But I'm not talking about cost savings; this is all about marketing. The Nikon Df had no video functions, yet was still fairly popular. Those of us who aren't interested in video, would quite like a stills-only camera, with no extra distraction and complexity of having video controls on the body. The Zf has similar video capability compared to the cheaper Z5ii for eg, and limited compared to the Z6iii. Both are definitely more 'cost effective' in that sense.

In case you hadn't noticed, I actually said "a mirrorless camera, with an EVF, is essentially a video camera". None of the Leica M series cameras not the Nikon Df has an EVF. I don't shoot video either and it is extremely simple to reconfigure the video "record" button for some other function. With Live View also disabled it is near impossible to shoot video on any of my D5 bodies. I'm sure similar reconfiguration is possible on a mirrorless camera.

In case you hadn't noticed, ALL digital cameras are 'video' cameras. And, to continue the needless pedantry; all video cameras merely shoot a succession of still images which when played back in sequence at a high frequency, give the illusion of movement. ;-) As for viewfinders; that's irrelevant, as a DSLR is as 'video' a camera as any with an EVF. Switch to Live View, and you have a camera that's just as 'video' as anything with an EVF; you're simply using the rear screen as your viewing device. Leicas with optical rangefinder viewfinders are still 'video' cameras in the same sense. They just shoot one frame of video at a time, rather than successive ones. The Nikon Z30 lacks a viewfinder, yet still does video. Etc. The almost £8000 Leica M11 D lacks any form of electronic viewing/playback, and the only way to review images is to connect the camera to a computer with a screen.

As has been explained multiple times, removing the video recording capability from a mirrorless camera with an EVF would harm sales.

Well, this has been claimed by some, rather than 'explained', as yet nobody has any proof this will actually happen. And the fact that Leica actually do make cameras without 'movie' function (let's call it what it is, rather than stumble over misunderstanding how digital cameras actually work), proves the opposite may actually be the case.

The younger generation values video above stills.

Do they? Any actual evidence of this, or is it yet another imagined claim? For sure, many young people do like video, but the vast majority aren't using anything more than their 'phones to shoot short video clips, in the same way they just shoot still 'snaps'. Those that appear more interested in photography don't tend to want to shoot much video, ime. Two quite distinct disciplines, and whilst you do have a growing number of 'hybrid' shooters they're still very much in the minority.

What are you wanting to remove from that camera that would be a distraction to stills shooting?

Looking at a picture of the camera, there are three things:

1. The selector for stills/video around the DSP button
2. The video record button, which can be reconfigured for something useful
3. The fully articulated screen

The stills/video selector effectively does nothing if the video record button id deactivated or reconfigured.

The fully articulated screen is definitely a feature I can do without but as I never use live view it wouldn't be a significant problem. Yes, I would like a return to the DSLR button configuration but would that be a distraction?

I'm not saying you have to remove ALL video functions at all. Maybe just not offer particularly sophisticated video functions. The Zf already has reduced video capability compared to say the Z6iii, as it's not aimed at quite the same market. It is a bit cheaper too; £200 at rrp. So already we can see that videographers will be steered more towards the Z6iii, leaving the Zf for more 'pure' stills photographers perhaps. So if we drop the video functions, we could lose the video/stills selector switch (having the B+W option is a pretty pointless gimmick too), have the record button as a proper ISO button (so, something actually useful to stills shooters), Perhaps just have a fixed rear screen rather than an articulated one, which would help reduce size and cost less to manufacture. And do we really need so many control dials? Could lose one at least, as why have the extra shutter speed selector? The ISO selector dial is also pretty pointless on a digital camera; again, just have a button/dial selection system like all the other Z cameras. That way you don't have to take your eye from the finder to change ISO. So, those are just my thoughts, I'm sure others have got different ideas. Pretty sure that a simplification of the ZF could improve it as a dedicated stills camera for those who want such things. The whole retro schtick is a bit daft when you don't actually make it that retro; the FM cameras upon which the Zf and Zfc are based, didn't have video functions. Biggest problem for me is the size of the Zf; the Zfc is close to the FM/E/2, but only DX. Get the Zf down to that size and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

 

[GeoffRG]

... Zf/Zfc; again one would assume refreshes of both, but the Zf not for a while yet, it's pretty current, and the only major improvements would be to make it smaller and less clunky, perhaps strip the video function and make it a 'pure stills' camera.

Given that a mirrorless camera, with an EVF, is essentially a video camera that has the ability to capture stills, I don't see that happening.

There have been more threads than I can count pointing out that there is no cost savings to be had by stripping video out of a modern mirrorless camera.

Leica M-series digital cameras lack video function, or at least some of them do. There are other current cameras with either no or limited video. So obviously there are people who want such things. I'm one of them; if my cameras had no video functions, I'd not be bothered. I've never shot video on any of them anyway, not properly. And if I did want to; My Z8 shoots 8k RAW video, but for that, you need the highest spec (read: very expensive) CFe card, and it may have an issue with overheating. So I'd be better off with a dedicated video camera if I wanted to shoot video really. I accept that for 'hybrid' shooters, it's probably great. As for cost saving; Leica don't enable video functions, and their stuff costs silly money. But I'm not talking about cost savings; this is all about marketing. The Nikon Df had no video functions, yet was still fairly popular. Those of us who aren't interested in video, would quite like a stills-only camera, with no extra distraction and complexity of having video controls on the body. The Zf has similar video capability compared to the cheaper Z5ii for eg, and limited compared to the Z6iii. Both are definitely more 'cost effective' in that sense.

In case you hadn't noticed, I actually said "a mirrorless camera, with an EVF, is essentially a video camera". None of the Leica M series cameras not the Nikon Df has an EVF. I don't shoot video either and it is extremely simple to reconfigure the video "record" button for some other function. With Live View also disabled it is near impossible to shoot video on any of my D5 bodies. I'm sure similar reconfiguration is possible on a mirrorless camera.

In case you hadn't noticed, ALL digital cameras are 'video' cameras. And, to continue the needless pedantry; all video cameras merely shoot a succession of still images which when played back in sequence at a high frequency, give the illusion of movement. ;-) As for viewfinders; that's irrelevant, as a DSLR is as 'video' a camera as any with an EVF. Switch to Live View, and you have a camera that's just as 'video' as anything with an EVF; you're simply using the rear screen as your viewing device. Leicas with optical rangefinder viewfinders are still 'video' cameras in the same sense. They just shoot one frame of video at a time, rather than successive ones. The Nikon Z30 lacks a viewfinder, yet still does video. Etc. The almost £8000 Leica M11 D lacks any form of electronic viewing/playback, and the only way to review images is to connect the camera to a computer with a screen.

Well, the D4 and D5 are video capable but capturing a still image does not involve a video stream, they expose the sensor in the same way that an F5 exposes film, if one doesn't use live view (I don't). Unless a camera produces a video stream, the sensor being continuously exposed to light, it is not a video camera. If a camera offers a live view capability it is video capable but, that doesn't necessarily make it a video camera, the D3 for example has live view but can only capture stills.

As has been explained multiple times, removing the video recording capability from a mirrorless camera with an EVF would harm sales.

Well, this has been claimed by some, rather than 'explained', as yet nobody has any proof this will actually happen. And the fact that Leica actually do make cameras without 'movie' function (let's call it what it is, rather than stumble over misunderstanding how digital cameras actually work), proves the opposite may actually be the case.

Leica sells very few cameras compared to Nikon, Canon or Sony.

The younger generation values video above stills.

Do they? Any actual evidence of this, or is it yet another imagined claim? For sure, many young people do like video, but the vast majority aren't using anything more than their 'phones to shoot short video clips, in the same way they just shoot still 'snaps'. Those that appear more interested in photography don't tend to want to shoot much video, ime. Two quite distinct disciplines, and whilst you do have a growing number of 'hybrid' shooters they're still very much in the minority.

That the vast majority of cameras sold each year are 'phones and they produce video just as easily as stills and the number of video clips on social media suggests that video is more important now than it ever was.

What are you wanting to remove from that camera that would be a distraction to stills shooting?

Looking at a picture of the camera, there are three things:

1. The selector for stills/video around the DSP button
2. The video record button, which can be reconfigured for something useful
3. The fully articulated screen

The stills/video selector effectively does nothing if the video record button id deactivated or reconfigured.

The fully articulated screen is definitely a feature I can do without but as I never use live view it wouldn't be a significant problem. Yes, I would like a return to the DSLR button configuration but would that be a distraction?

I'm not saying you have to remove ALL video functions at all. Maybe just not offer particularly sophisticated video functions. The Zf already has reduced video capability compared to say the Z6iii, as it's not aimed at quite the same market. It is a bit cheaper too; £200 at rrp. So already we can see that videographers will be steered more towards the Z6iii, leaving the Zf for more 'pure' stills photographers perhaps. So if we drop the video functions, we could lose the video/stills selector switch (having the B+W option is a pretty pointless gimmick too), have the record button as a proper ISO button (so, something actually useful to stills shooters), Perhaps just have a fixed rear screen rather than an articulated one, which would help reduce size and cost less to manufacture. And do we really need so many control dials? Could lose one at least, as why have the extra shutter speed selector? The ISO selector dial is also pretty pointless on a digital camera; again, just have a button/dial selection system like all the other Z cameras. That way you don't have to take your eye from the finder to change ISO. So, those are just my thoughts, I'm sure others have got different ideas. Pretty sure that a simplification of the ZF could improve it as a dedicated stills camera for those who want such things. The whole retro schtick is a bit daft when you don't actually make it that retro; the FM cameras upon which the Zf and Zfc are based, didn't have video functions. Biggest problem for me is the size of the Zf; the Zfc is close to the FM/E/2, but only DX. Get the Zf down to that size and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

I deliberately avoided using the Zf or Zfc as my example because they are so, in my opinion, clumsy and poorly configured. Thus, I'll ignore most of the above paragraph because it applies primarily to those cameras.

The video record button on my D5s is configured as Mode to make the controls similar to those of the F5, there's already an ISO button. The live view button does nothing, I actuated live view accidentally several times on my first D4 until I produced a cover for the button.

You are however talking about a potential new camera, it isn't going to be a DSLR so it will produce a video stream, unless it is a true rangefinder. Yes, your proposed camera could have a restricted set of video functions but a stills only camera is extremely unlikely simply because recording the existing, and essential, video stream costs nothing, the capability already exists.

It is always going to be cheaper to manufacture a product with a wide customer base than one with a narrow base. The hybrid video/stills camera will inevitably have a wider customer base than a dedicated stills camera. A manufacturer must produce its products to achieve a profit margin, generally that will mean the one with the widest customer base.

 

[Nikonparrothead]

The most cost effective one is the one that fits both your budget and needs.



The ZR is a video centric camera without an EVF. For you it may be cost effective. For me — since I primarily use an EVF — is a luxury.

 

[jtr27]

... Zf/Zfc; again one would assume refreshes of both, but the Zf not for a while yet, it's pretty current, and the only major improvements would be to make it smaller and less clunky, perhaps strip the video function and make it a 'pure stills' camera.

Given that a mirrorless camera, with an EVF, is essentially a video camera that has the ability to capture stills, I don't see that happening.

There have been more threads than I can count pointing out that there is no cost savings to be had by stripping video out of a modern mirrorless camera.

Leica M-series digital cameras lack video function, or at least some of them do. There are other current cameras with either no or limited video. So obviously there are people who want such things. I'm one of them; if my cameras had no video functions, I'd not be bothered. I've never shot video on any of them anyway, not properly. And if I did want to; My Z8 shoots 8k RAW video, but for that, you need the highest spec (read: very expensive) CFe card, and it may have an issue with overheating. So I'd be better off with a dedicated video camera if I wanted to shoot video really. I accept that for 'hybrid' shooters, it's probably great. As for cost saving; Leica don't enable video functions, and their stuff costs silly money. But I'm not talking about cost savings; this is all about marketing. The Nikon Df had no video functions, yet was still fairly popular. Those of us who aren't interested in video, would quite like a stills-only camera, with no extra distraction and complexity of having video controls on the body. The Zf has similar video capability compared to the cheaper Z5ii for eg, and limited compared to the Z6iii. Both are definitely more 'cost effective' in that sense.

In case you hadn't noticed, I actually said "a mirrorless camera, with an EVF, is essentially a video camera". None of the Leica M series cameras not the Nikon Df has an EVF. I don't shoot video either and it is extremely simple to reconfigure the video "record" button for some other function. With Live View also disabled it is near impossible to shoot video on any of my D5 bodies. I'm sure similar reconfiguration is possible on a mirrorless camera.

In case you hadn't noticed, ALL digital cameras are 'video' cameras. And, to continue the needless pedantry; all video cameras merely shoot a succession of still images which when played back in sequence at a high frequency, give the illusion of movement. ;-) As for viewfinders; that's irrelevant, as a DSLR is as 'video' a camera as any with an EVF. Switch to Live View, and you have a camera that's just as 'video' as anything with an EVF; you're simply using the rear screen as your viewing device. Leicas with optical rangefinder viewfinders are still 'video' cameras in the same sense. They just shoot one frame of video at a time, rather than successive ones. The Nikon Z30 lacks a viewfinder, yet still does video. Etc. The almost £8000 Leica M11 D lacks any form of electronic viewing/playback, and the only way to review images is to connect the camera to a computer with a screen.

Well, the D4 and D5 are video capable but capturing a still image does not involve a video stream, they expose the sensor in the same way that an F5 exposes film, if one doesn't use live view (I don't). Unless a camera produces a video stream, the sensor being continuously exposed to light, it is not a video camera. If a camera offers a live view capability it is video capable but, that doesn't necessarily make it a video camera, the D3 for example has live view but can only capture stills.

As has been explained multiple times, removing the video recording capability from a mirrorless camera with an EVF would harm sales.

Well, this has been claimed by some, rather than 'explained', as yet nobody has any proof this will actually happen. And the fact that Leica actually do make cameras without 'movie' function (let's call it what it is, rather than stumble over misunderstanding how digital cameras actually work), proves the opposite may actually be the case.

Leica sells very few cameras compared to Nikon, Canon or Sony.

The younger generation values video above stills.

Do they? Any actual evidence of this, or is it yet another imagined claim? For sure, many young people do like video, but the vast majority aren't using anything more than their 'phones to shoot short video clips, in the same way they just shoot still 'snaps'. Those that appear more interested in photography don't tend to want to shoot much video, ime. Two quite distinct disciplines, and whilst you do have a growing number of 'hybrid' shooters they're still very much in the minority.

That the vast majority of cameras sold each year are 'phones and they produce video just as easily as stills and the number of video clips on social media suggests that video is more important now than it ever was.

What are you wanting to remove from that camera that would be a distraction to stills shooting?

Looking at a picture of the camera, there are three things:

1. The selector for stills/video around the DSP button
2. The video record button, which can be reconfigured for something useful
3. The fully articulated screen

The stills/video selector effectively does nothing if the video record button id deactivated or reconfigured.

The fully articulated screen is definitely a feature I can do without but as I never use live view it wouldn't be a significant problem. Yes, I would like a return to the DSLR button configuration but would that be a distraction?

I'm not saying you have to remove ALL video functions at all. Maybe just not offer particularly sophisticated video functions. The Zf already has reduced video capability compared to say the Z6iii, as it's not aimed at quite the same market. It is a bit cheaper too; £200 at rrp. So already we can see that videographers will be steered more towards the Z6iii, leaving the Zf for more 'pure' stills photographers perhaps. So if we drop the video functions, we could lose the video/stills selector switch (having the B+W option is a pretty pointless gimmick too), have the record button as a proper ISO button (so, something actually useful to stills shooters), Perhaps just have a fixed rear screen rather than an articulated one, which would help reduce size and cost less to manufacture. And do we really need so many control dials? Could lose one at least, as why have the extra shutter speed selector? The ISO selector dial is also pretty pointless on a digital camera; again, just have a button/dial selection system like all the other Z cameras. That way you don't have to take your eye from the finder to change ISO. So, those are just my thoughts, I'm sure others have got different ideas. Pretty sure that a simplification of the ZF could improve it as a dedicated stills camera for those who want such things. The whole retro schtick is a bit daft when you don't actually make it that retro; the FM cameras upon which the Zf and Zfc are based, didn't have video functions. Biggest problem for me is the size of the Zf; the Zfc is close to the FM/E/2, but only DX. Get the Zf down to that size and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

I deliberately avoided using the Zf or Zfc as my example because they are so, in my opinion, clumsy and poorly configured. Thus, I'll ignore most of the above paragraph because it applies primarily to those cameras.

The video record button on my D5s is configured as Mode to make the controls similar to those of the F5, there's already an ISO button. The live view button does nothing, I actuated live view accidentally several times on my first D4 until I produced a cover for the button.

You are however talking about a potential new camera, it isn't going to be a DSLR so it will produce a video stream, unless it is a true rangefinder. Yes, your proposed camera could have a restricted set of video functions but a stills only camera is extremely unlikely simply because recording the existing, and essential, video stream costs nothing, the capability already exists.

It is always going to be cheaper to manufacture a product with a wide customer base than one with a narrow base. The hybrid video/stills camera will inevitably have a wider customer base than a dedicated stills camera. A manufacturer must produce its products to achieve a profit margin, generally that will mean the one with the widest customer base.

Given that there is a vast, untapped market (consisting of at least one person) for a stills-only Zf, I am proud to offer my "Zf to Zf-S (Zf for Stills)" Conversion Service, for the low, low price of only $499.

I will carefully remove the video record button using a Dremel tool, and neatly cover over its former home with black electrical tape. And voila! The "stills only" Zf is born!

 

[sirhawkeye64]

I am interested in Nikon ZR but see a lot of new Nikon cameras will come at

, such as Z6 IV, Z7 III, Z9II, Z8II, Z30 II, Z9H, Zf II, Z90, Z80 etc. Do you think the Z90 (replacing D500) will be the most cost-effective one?

Well, you might be waiting for a while for some of those like a Zf II and a Z6 IV, Z8 II, etc.

The ZR you can get today.

I honestly am not that happy with Nikon is with APSC and I really don't think a high end DX camera is in the cards any time soon (meaning the next year or two). It took them 5 years to udpate the Z50 II, and while it's a great update, it falls behind the competition (ie. the XT50, A6700 and R7 on a few levels). So that tells (reminds) me that Nikon is not as devoted to APSC as some think, and compared to the competition.

That all being said, I think the most cost-effective bodies would be a Z5 II or a Z6 III depending on what you're looking for in terms of features. The Z8 is great but expensive. The Zf is great, but not as fast as the Z6 III (Although pretty much the same as the Z5 II, just a little more expensive).

If i had to pick one, the Z5 II would probably be the most cost-effective in my opinion. The only areas it seems to fall short on would be 1-stop in terms of shutter speed and a slower sensor, but if you're not shooting action then it shouldn't matter. Of course the ES is not really usable on the Zf/Z5 II but it is on the Z6 III and higher end cameras.

 

[Hal Wilson]

In case you hadn't noticed, ALL digital cameras are 'video' cameras. And, to continue the needless pedantry; all video cameras merely shoot a succession of still images which when played back in sequence at a high frequency, give the illusion of movement. ;-) As for viewfinders; that's irrelevant, as a DSLR is as 'video' a camera as any with an EVF. Switch to Live View, and you have a camera that's just as 'video' as anything with an EVF; you're simply using the rear screen as your viewing device. Leicas with optical rangefinder viewfinders are still 'video' cameras in the same sense. They just shoot one frame of video at a time, rather than successive ones. The Nikon Z30 lacks a viewfinder, yet still does video. Etc. The almost £8000 Leica M11 D lacks any form of electronic viewing/playback, and the only way to review images is to connect the camera to a computer with a screen.

Well, the D4 and D5 are video capable but capturing a still image does not involve a video stream, they expose the sensor in the same way that an F5 exposes film, if one doesn't use live view

Electronic image sensors are nothing like film. The D4 and D5 still have the same kind of electronic sensors that movie video cameras do. It's exactly the same process, whether it's for single or continuous sequences of images. Using Live View or not does not change that fact.

(I don't). Unless a camera produces a video stream, the sensor being continuously exposed to light, it is not a video camera.

See above. Yours incorrect on this one. How long the sensor is exposed for is completely irrelevant.

If a camera offers a live view capability it is video capable but, that doesn't necessarily make it a video camera, the D3 for example has live view but can only capture stills.

See above.

As has been explained multiple times, removing the video recording capability from a mirrorless camera with an EVF would harm sales.

Well, this has been claimed by some, rather than 'explained', as yet nobody has any proof this will actually happen. And the fact that Leica actually do make cameras without 'movie' function (let's call it what it is, rather than stumble over misunderstanding how digital cameras actually work), proves the opposite may actually be the case.

Leica sells very few cameras compared to Nikon, Canon or Sony.

So what? Rolls Royce seem very few cars compared to Toyota. Rolex sell very few watches compared to Casio. Etc. Your assertion that 'removing the video recording capability from a mirrorless camera with an EVF would harm sales' is unproven. At least one company proves this isn't the case, regards of sales numbers.

The younger generation values video above stills.

Do they? Any actual evidence of this, or is it yet another imagined claim? For sure, many young people do like video, but the vast majority aren't using anything more than their 'phones to shoot short video clips, in the same way they just shoot still 'snaps'. Those that appear more interested in photography don't tend to want to shoot much video, ime. Two quite distinct disciplines, and whilst you do have a growing number of 'hybrid' shooters they're still very much in the minority.

That the vast majority of cameras sold each year are 'phones and they produce video just as easily as stills and the number of video clips on social media suggests that video is more important now than it ever was.

How many stills are taken with 'phones, compared to movie videos? Where's the evidence for your assertion?

I'm not saying you have to remove ALL video functions at all. Maybe just not offer particularly sophisticated video functions. The Zf already has reduced video capability compared to say the Z6iii, as it's not aimed at quite the same market. It is a bit cheaper too; £200 at rrp. So already we can see that videographers will be steered more towards the Z6iii, leaving the Zf for more 'pure' stills photographers perhaps. So if we drop the video functions, we could lose the video/stills selector switch (having the B+W option is a pretty pointless gimmick too), have the record button as a proper ISO button (so, something actually useful to stills shooters), Perhaps just have a fixed rear screen rather than an articulated one, which would help reduce size and cost less to manufacture. And do we really need so many control dials? Could lose one at least, as why have the extra shutter speed selector? The ISO selector dial is also pretty pointless on a digital camera; again, just have a button/dial selection system like all the other Z cameras. That way you don't have to take your eye from the finder to change ISO. So, those are just my thoughts, I'm sure others have got different ideas. Pretty sure that a simplification of the ZF could improve it as a dedicated stills camera for those who want such things. The whole retro schtick is a bit daft when you don't actually make it that retro; the FM cameras upon which the Zf and Zfc are based, didn't have video functions. Biggest problem for me is the size of the Zf; the Zfc is close to the FM/E/2, but only DX. Get the Zf down to that size and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

I deliberately avoided using the Zf or Zfc as my example because they are so, in my opinion, clumsy and poorly configured. Thus, I'll ignore most of the above paragraph because it applies primarily to those cameras.

You're opinion on the implementation of features is irrelevant. For what it's worth, I agree with you, but that doesn't matter one bit. Those cameras were successfully marketed at people who like that 'retro' style; I'm suggesting what, in my opinion, would improve such cameras. If they were more 'still centric' perhaps that could appeal to people looking for a 'purer' photo experience. Or something. That schtick works for Leica...

You are however talking about a potential new camera, it isn't going to be a DSLR so it will produce a video stream, unless it is a true rangefinder. Yes, your proposed camera could have a restricted set of video functions but a stills only camera is extremely unlikely simply because recording the existing, and essential, video stream costs nothing, the capability already exists.

It's an idea, is all. I'd quite like to see such a product, and I'm sure others would too. Leica makes such products, and people buy them, proving there is a market for them. Nikon could make a much lower priced 'Leica Killer', if they so chose. Perhaps that don't consider it a viable project. That's up to them. Doesn't mean such a product couldn't actually be successful though.

It is always going to be cheaper to manufacture a product with a wide customer base than one with a narrow base. The hybrid video/stills camera will inevitably have a wider customer base than a dedicated stills camera. A manufacturer must produce its products to achieve a profit margin, generally that will mean the one with the widest customer base.

I'm not arguing with this, though. This thread is about 'cost effectiveness' of cameras. Which doesn't really make a lot of sense given the context offered by the OP.

 

[Hal Wilson]

I honestly am not that happy with Nikon is with APSC and I really don't think a high end DX camera is in the cards any time soon (meaning the next year or two). It took them 5 years to udpate the Z50 II, and while it's a great update, it falls behind the competition (ie. the XT50, A6700 and R7 on a few levels). So that tells (reminds) me that Nikon is not as devoted to APSC as some think, and compared to the competition.

Those other cameras you mention all cost significantly more than the Z50ii. They are not fair comparisons. Those would be things like the Canon R50, the Fuji XM-5, and perhaps the Sony A6400. All are a bit cheaper than the Nikon, but still in the same kind of price bracket/market sector. And the Nikon is overall better anyway. And how far behind actually is the Z50ii to the much more expensive cameras you mentioned? It's not that much really. Making the Z50ii perhaps a lot more 'cost effective'.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

I honestly am not that happy with Nikon is with APSC and I really don't think a high end DX camera is in the cards any time soon (meaning the next year or two). It took them 5 years to udpate the Z50 II, and while it's a great update, it falls behind the competition (ie. the XT50, A6700 and R7 on a few levels). So that tells (reminds) me that Nikon is not as devoted to APSC as some think, and compared to the competition.

Those other cameras you mention all cost significantly more than the Z50ii. They are not fair comparisons. Those would be things like the Canon R50, the Fuji XM-5, and perhaps the Sony A6400. All are a bit cheaper than the Nikon, but still in the same kind of price bracket/market sector. And the Nikon is overall better anyway. And how far behind actually is the Z50ii to the much more expensive cameras you mentioned? It's not that much really. Making the Z50ii perhaps a lot more 'cost effective'.

OK I guess if we're just focusing on APSC, then a Z60/Z80/Z90 might, but it really depends on what it entails from a spec standpoint. If it ends up costing as much as a Z5 II, then it might depend on the photographer's needs, if, for example,if Image quality is more important than say size or AF Speed.

So far, there has been no word on an new APSC bodies, or at least anything credible.

But still,. that doesn't quite change my view at least of Nikon's APSC options. They are still laocking quite a bit in terms of APSC lenses and third party APSC lens support (particularly as it relates to zooms, compared to competitors).

--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *

 

[Hal Wilson]

But still,. that doesn't quite change my view at least of Nikon's APSC options. They are still laocking quite a bit in terms of APSC lenses and third party APSC lens support (particularly as it relates to zooms, compared to competitors).

According to Camera Decision, there are 141 lenses available that fit the Nikon Z mount, vs 90 for Canon's RF mount. So that's not really correct, is it? Ranging from a Laowa 4mm to the Nikon Z 800mm f6.3. Even if you just include 'APS-C' lenses, and ignore the fact that any FX lens will work fine on APS-C bodies, you still have about 41 compared to just 21 for the RF mount. So almost twice as many. Bear in mind you can also use F-mount lenses via an adapter, so you can probably find a lens that will do just about any job.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

But still,. that doesn't quite change my view at least of Nikon's APSC options. They are still laocking quite a bit in terms of APSC lenses and third party APSC lens support (particularly as it relates to zooms, compared to competitors).

According to Camera Decision, there are 141 lenses available that fit the Nikon Z mount, vs 90 for Canon's RF mount. So that's not really correct, is it? Ranging from a Laowa 4mm to the Nikon Z 800mm f6.3. Even if you just include 'APS-C' lenses, and ignore the fact that any FX lens will work fine on APS-C bodies, you still have about 41 compared to just 21 for the RF mount. So almost twice as many. Bear in mind you can also use F-mount lenses via an adapter, so you can probably find a lens that will do just about any job.

But my point is that Canon's overall APSC options for both bodies and lenses is going to probably outpace Nikon at this piont, since they've now secured both Sigma and Tamron as developers for lenses. And it seems to me atl east, Nikon doesn't seem to "care" very much.

As to the current state of the APSC Z cameras, and specifically the Z50 II, Nikon sort of missed an opportunity here. They could have developed a slightly more expensive body (say $1300) and probably won over more people, but I think while the Z50 II is a good improvement over the gen 1 body, it was sort of a letdown to many as well, and I would venture that at least some would have gladly paid abit more to get more competitive features like a second card slot and IBIS, like the R7, which seems to be the poster child for what a higher-end APSC camera should be. I think Nikon should have aimed a bit higher with the Z50 II or simply made a different APSC camera (a "Z60 or Z80"). I'm a little concerned that Nikon in some respects is getting a little complacent with things -- just throw in an Expeed 7 and call it a new camera basically. Canon is likely to release an R7 Mark II within the next year (and the R6 III for sure but that's FF), and Sony has already released their a6700 a year ago, which probably still runs cirlces around the Z50 II,b ut costs quite a bit more, but they have other options which are on par, and around the same price as the Z50 II). It's just not a good showing for Nikon IMO.

--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *