Nikon mirrorless definitely on the way

Ste_S said:
Who are Nikon aiming these cameras at ?!
Nikon fanboy hobbyists with a large chunk of disposable income I guess ?
Click to expand...

Been a Nikon user for a long time now, and I certainly will not be getting on of these!
 
snerkler said:
I don't get the whole chasing numbers about frame rate tbh, 9 on my D850 is more than enough, for pros shooting sports with their 12 and 14 fps it's more than enough, do we actually need more? Global shutter will be a biggie though, now that would be a game changer ;)
Click to expand...
well its 5.5fps on these cameras though, anything that gimps the AE or AF is not a true burst rate to me and the d850 you have does proer 9fps with no AE lock nonsence
 
Ste_S said:
Who are Nikon aiming these cameras at ?!
Nikon fanboy hobbyists with a large chunk of disposable income I guess ?
Click to expand...

Mirrorless camera can have advantages over DSLR's so I suppose Nikon are aiming these cameras at people who want a mirrorless camera and specifically those who'd like a Nikon mirrorless camera :D
 
woof woof said:
Mirrorless camera can have advantages over DSLR's so I suppose Nikon are aiming these cameras at people who want a mirrorless camera and specifically those who'd like a Nikon mirrorless camera :D
Click to expand...
I think for landscape and portait work who are not doing it for pro work is ok this camera.
 
310-shot battery life on the Z6. You'll get more but it's still less than half the A7III. Even if real-world shooting yields twice that amount, we'd need to carry around 9-10 spares for our 4 wedding cameras.

Poor battery life and one card slots were the main reasons I didn't go mirrorless until the A7III came along and they're the main things Nikon seems to have neglected.
 
jonneymendoza said:
well its 5.5fps on these cameras though, anything that gimps the AE or AF is not a true burst rate to me and the d850 you have does proer 9fps with no AE lock nonsence
Click to expand...

When I shoot sport, somewhere between 8-10 fps is ideal in my opinion. 5/6 is a little slow. I don't see the need of 10+.

Anyway - it's partly frustration too, mirrorless is meant to be 'superior' to DSLR as there's no mirror, ergo, surely the frame rate should be quicker as there is no mirror to move out the way...
 
From photo.net:

Prices in the US, in US$:
  • Z7, 45MP, body only $3399.95
  • Z7 with 24-70mm/f4 S kit lens $3999.95
  • Z6, 24MP, body only $1999.95 (or 1995.95??)
  • Z6 with 24-70mm/f4 S kit lens $2599.95
In other words, you pay $600 extra to get the kit lens with a body
  • 24-70mm/f4 S lens $999.95 by itself
  • 35mm/f1.8 S lens $849.95
  • 50mm/f1.8 S lens $599.95
  • FTZ adapter $249.95, and another $100 off when purchased with either a Z6 or Z7 body before December 31, 2018
The F mount 500mm/f5.6 E PF AF-S VR is $3599.95.
 
Pre order prices in UK:

Z6 body - £2099
Z6 with adaptor - £2199
Z6 with 24-70 - £2699
Z6 with 24-70 & adaptor - £2799

Z7 body - £3399
Z7 with adaptor - £3499
Z7 with 24-70 - £3999
Z7 with 24-70 & adaptor - £4099

35mm - £849
50mm - £599
24-70 - £999
 
The Z7 seems to be carefully designed to require the introduction of a Z8 that will remedy some at least of its evident deficiencies. A shame. A full frame CSC with the capacity for truly high speed lenses with some (how much?) backward compatibility to Nikon F ought to be more enticing than this looks.

I'm sort of consoled that at over £3000 I can't actually afford it.
 
Last edited:
toohuge said:
When I shoot sport, somewhere between 8-10 fps is ideal in my opinion. 5/6 is a little slow. I don't see the need of 10+.

Anyway - it's partly frustration too, mirrorless is meant to be 'superior' to DSLR as there's no mirror, ergo, surely the frame rate should be quicker as there is no mirror to move out the way...
Click to expand...
It is quicker. Look at what the A9 can do... And I recon it could easily go higher. What's stopping it shooting higher is the buffer technology.
 
JJ! said:
Pre order prices in UK:

Z6 body - £2099
Z6 with adaptor - £2199
Z6 with 24-70 - £2699
Z6 with 24-70 & adaptor - £2799

Z7 body - £3399
Z7 with adaptor - £3499
Z7 with 24-70 - £3999
Z7 with 24-70 & adaptor - £4099

35mm - £849
50mm - £599
24-70 - £999
Click to expand...

Unless I'm looking at the wrong prices on Wex...
Z6 looks like about £200 more than an A7III, with the kit lens about £500 more than an A7 with kit lens.
Z7 looks like about £500 more than an A7RIII, with the kit lens about £700 more.

Do Nikon users think the Nikon kit is well priced?
 
SO glad I bought an established mirrorless system in the Olympus.

It does appear Nikon have rushed these 2 out as they realized they were being left behind.


I'm sure they'll work perfectly well though.
 
woof woof said:
Unless I'm looking at the wrong prices on Wex...
Z6 looks like about £200 more than an A7III, with the kit lens about £500 more than an A7 with kit lens.
Z7 looks like about £500 more than an A7RIII, with the kit lens about £700 more.

Do Nikon users think the Nikon kit is well priced?
Click to expand...

No, the Nikon looks expensive.
 
Did i read the IBIS will only work with the new lenses.
 
toohuge said:
No, the Nikon looks expensive.
Click to expand...

I suppose over the cost of a complete enthusiast set up things may even out or if the user want to use legacy lenses it could make a lot of sense but in isolation and in a direct comparison to what Sony offer today I think it does look a bit expensive.
 
how does it stack up against the sony cost wise when they were first released? It won't be that long before these drop a little in price and i would see them going more towards where the sony models sit now. The dual card issue is just utterly stupid on nikon's part, whoever signed off on that should be shot although personally i would be less bothered about the fps since i rarely shoot sports. I can see why others are annoyed about it though.
 
woof woof said:
Unless I'm looking at the wrong prices on Wex...
Z6 looks like about £200 more than an A7III, with the kit lens about £500 more than an A7 with kit lens.
Z7 looks like about £500 more than an A7RIII, with the kit lens about £700 more.

Do Nikon users think the Nikon kit is well priced?
Click to expand...
The A7r mk3 was £3200 on release though, so eventually the Nikon will drop down to a similar price once the 'must havers on release' have bought them.
 
Stu Meech said:
The A7r mk3 was £3200 on release though, so eventually the Nikon will drop down to a similar price once the 'must havers on release' have bought them.
Click to expand...

It's still a couple of hundred pounds higher than Sony but things could well even out over time.

I do think that looking at the systems today, Nikon v Sony, the Nikon makes the most sense if you want to adapt your existing lenses. Other than that and the lack of a Sony 35mm f1.8 (the Sony choice is f2.8 or a big f1.4) unless I've missed something the Sony offerings look the better things to buy into, today. In a couple of years time, who knows :D
 
decigallen said:
Poor battery life and one card slots were the main reasons I didn't go mirrorless until the A7III came along and they're the main things Nikon seems to have neglected.
Click to expand...

Presumably they've measured this by cycling the camera off and on between shots which mirrorless is always poor at but even so managing under half of what the A73 does is really quite disappointing. That's something like 2-3 hours of actual usage for photos.
 
f/2.8 said:
I honestly don’t know what to do now A7 series has crap weather sealing and A9 has crap dynamic range :(
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call it crap, it’s got two full stops over the canon 5d mkiii and many people (insist;)) on using that as a landscape camera.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Frame rate up to 9 fps
Low-speed continuous 1-5 fps
High-speed continuous 5.5 fps

Advance rate 9fps is crippled as it only AE's on the first shot.
Click to expand...

err my little olympus m10 mk2 that cost £234 BNIB can shoot at 11.5fps WTF nikon :woot::woot:
 
f/2.8 said:
I honestly don’t know what to do now A7 series has crap weather sealing and A9 has crap dynamic range :(
Click to expand...

More than welcome to try my set of A7IIIs lad.

Richard Watson put his through the wars on a recent holiday and it worked perfect. Extreme cold and it got totally soaked/dirty. Works grand still

The A9 files I found to be spectacular, just didnt have the picture profiles I needed for video
 
woof woof said:
Unless I'm looking at the wrong prices on Wex...
Z6 looks like about £200 more than an A7III, with the kit lens about £500 more than an A7 with kit lens.
Z7 looks like about £500 more than an A7RIII, with the kit lens about £700 more.
Click to expand...

I think they priced the Z6 against the Sony A73 at $2k and the Z7 against the D850 at $200 more for $3.4k.

Tin foil hat time, there might be some valid reasons they didn't make perfect products out of the gate, maybe they can't make enough of them and want to maintain their existing DSLR lines while remaining competitive with their competitors offerings? Certainly their lens line up relies on everyone still using their older lenses so why not the same for the bodies?
 
twist said:
Shoot 8fps or buy an A9.
Click to expand...
Yep, 8fps is adequate for most things (y)

toohuge said:
When I shoot sport, somewhere between 8-10 fps is ideal in my opinion. 5/6 is a little slow. I don't see the need of 10+.

Anyway - it's partly frustration too, mirrorless is meant to be 'superior' to DSLR as there's no mirror, ergo, surely the frame rate should be quicker as there is no mirror to move out the way...
Click to expand...
I mentioned it before, but my opinion is that any new tech should be at least on par with the current market. These cameras aren't unfortunately.

jonneymendoza said:
It is quicker. Look at what the A9 can do... And I recon it could easily go higher. What's stopping it shooting higher is the buffer technology.
Click to expand...
Well, the A9 can only go quicker with electronic shutter, which at present has its own issues. The A9 has an equally abysmal 5.5fps with mechanical shutter which is poor when you consider its cheaper siblings have 8-10fps.

mikew said:
Did i read the IBIS will only work with the new lenses.
Click to expand...
IBIS isn't lens dependant.

f/2.8 said:
I honestly don’t know what to do now A7 series has crap weather sealing and A9 has crap dynamic range :(
Click to expand...
But still now word of weather sealing on the Z6/7 or lenses yet either.
 
snerkler said:
Yep, 8fps is adequate for most things (y)

I mentioned it before, but my opinion is that any new tech should be at least on par with the current market. These cameras aren't unfortunately.

Well, the A9 can only go quicker with electronic shutter, which at present has its own issues. The A9 has an equally abysmal 5.5fps with mechanical shutter which is poor when you consider its cheaper siblings have 8-10fps.

IBIS isn't lens dependant.

But still now word of weather sealing on the Z6/7 or lenses yet either.
Click to expand...
But that's the future and what mirrorless tech will move too ie no need for a shutter at all.

The A9 is beta test for no shutter mechanical needed.

If they iron out the flaws it will be a game changer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top