Nikon Z* mirrorless

Nikon are going too cheap something not right
 
rookies said:
Nikon are going too cheap something not right
Click to expand...
Don't think there's anything wrong, just a winter deal on, no different to Sony double cashback or any other deal. Surprisingly it's over a year old now, how time flies :eek:
 
snerkler said:
Don't think there's anything wrong, just a winter deal on, no different to Sony double cashback or any other deal. Surprisingly it's over a year old now, how time flies :eek:
Click to expand...

That quick
 
rookies said:
Nikon are going too cheap something not right
Click to expand...

Wouldn't read too much into price drops to be honest.

The demand for them has been much lower than expected so a price drop was only to be expected.

When something is in high demand like say for example the Sony A7III which took 2 years to see any price drops or cash back offers the manufacturers won't fund any discounts. When they need to shift some units or the demand starts to fall they will drop the prices. As time goes on a drop in prices can also be because as they ship more units and refine the production process the cost of manufacturing drops as well.

Same for any product really.
 
f/2.8 said:
The demand for them has been much lower than expected...

.
Click to expand...
TBH this doesn't surprise me, and I'm not sure why they thought it would sell better than it did. They missed the boat getting the first adopters to FF mirrorless, they're not going to appeal to many pros due to the single card slot, lens lineup, and performance in a number of areas isn't as good as their DSLRs.

Now none of this is saying they're bad cameras, they're not they're really rather good, but I could never see a massive shift to them unless they nailed every aspect. Obviously this is all just my opinion ;)
 
snerkler said:
TBH this doesn't surprise me, and I'm not sure why they thought it would sell better than it did. They missed the boat getting the first adopters to FF mirrorless, they're not going to appeal to many pros due to the single card slot, lens lineup, and performance in a number of areas isn't as good as their DSLRs.

Now none of this is saying they're bad cameras, they're not they're really rather good, but I could never see a massive shift to them unless they nailed every aspect. Obviously this is all just my opinion ;)
Click to expand...

My own opinion is that they didn't expect so many users to jump ship to other brands, and they probably expected a bigger switch from those that didn't jump ship. A lot of Nikon users are holding onto their dslr's for grim death.
 
My understanding is
  1. The z6 has IS but the z50 does not, relying on VR in the 2 new DX lenses.
  2. The S lenses will fit the z50 mount, but do not have VR, relying on the IS in the z6/z7
Does that mean that there is not a combination of any S lens with z50 that will have any form of IS? eg. if one wanted a z50 with a 35 1.8 S lens acting as a 50mm equivalent.
 
superpippo said:
My understanding is
  1. The z6 has IS but the z50 does not, relying on VR in the 2 new DX lenses.
  2. The S lenses will fit the z50 mount, but do not have VR, relying on the IS in the z6/z7
Does that mean that there is not a combination of any S lens with z50 that will have any form of IS? eg. if one wanted a z50 with a 35 1.8 S lens acting as a 50mm equivalent.
Click to expand...
In your scenario there would be no stabilisation. Currently no native Z fx lenses have stabilisation.
 
I suspect a part of the reason for lower than expected takeup is as suggested, the cameras and supporting lenses weren't as well developed as their main competitor in mirrorless, and if people are forced to change lenses for full functionality anyway then a key cause of brand loyalty is eliminated. Cost of moving to mirrorless is quite high, and in my case used sony kit was simply more affordable and offered better functionality than new Nikon when I changed systems (D610 to A7III). Also I wouldn't normally care about looks, but personally I find the Nikon ML cameras deeply un-attractive.

I'm sure that once they get a system out there, sort the firmware and there are some decent used cameras available then it will much easier for those still using Nikon DSLRs to move across.
 
superpippo said:
Mmm, so that is a bit of a step back from the D7xxx series plus any VR lens, thus getting the extra reach but with potentially better quality e.g. 70-200 f/2.8 which can be used directly on the D7xxx.
Click to expand...
Of course, any F lens can be mounted on the Z6/7 via the FTZ and use any in-lens stabilisation it happens to have in tandem with the IBIS. And if such a lens were mounted on the Z50 via the same FTZ then its inherent stabilisation will naturally be invoked.
 
Jelster said:
Fuji have done much the same, albeit with the X-T2, not the 3, but you you can get them from the refurb store with 12 months warranty for under £539. Anyone hoping to sell one to fund a T3 will be disappointed....
Click to expand...

XT-2 is 3 and a half years old though so hardly surprising it’s dropped so much in value.
 
Jelster said:
Fuji have done much the same, albeit with the X-T2, not the 3, but you you can get them from the refurb store with 12 months warranty for under £539. Anyone hoping to sell one to fund a T3 will be disappointed....
Click to expand...

Actually the price difference is actually the same!! X-T3 list at launch £1349, trade in £600, £750 difference
Now X-T3 Trade In £300, X-T3 £1049 (after cashback), £750 difference

So the cost to change at a dealer is the same!!!
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Actually the price difference is actually the same!! X-T3 list at launch £1349, trade in £600, £750 difference
Now X-T3 Trade In £300, X-T3 £1049 (after cashback), £750 difference

So the cost to change at a dealer is the same!!!
Click to expand...

That's confusing.. Do you mean X-T2 trade in value against a new X-T3 is £300?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Also I wouldn't normally care about looks, but personally I find the Nikon ML cameras deeply un-attractive.
Click to expand...
And the Sony isn't? :eek: ;) TBH none of the FF mirrorless are good looking cameras, but then I didn't find DSLRs particular great either. If you want a nice looking camera you've got to go Olympus or Fuji imo, or Leica of course ;)

I'm sure that once they get a system out there, sort the firmware and there are some decent used cameras available then it will much easier for those still using Nikon DSLRs to move across.
Click to expand...
I don't think it will be any cheaper to migrate though. TBH there's not much to lure folk across from DSLR to mirrorless when you break it down, whether it be Sony, Nikon or Canon. I remember one of the big 'selling points' was that mirrorless was going to be much smaller, but as we all know this isn't the case so much when you consider the system. So what's the draw for DSLR users? EVF's split opinions, autofocus is no better and in some cases worse, build is no better, focus aids only matter for a small number, so there isn't really a reason to swap over unless of course you just happen to prefer EVF or want great live view AF. One of the biggest draws now imo is the blackout free shooting of the A9, I can see that being nice/helpful to use, but is it a big enough draw? My point is, unless your a tech head or like new shiny things all the time what really is there to make you part with all that money to migrate across?
Riz_Guru said:
It sure is, its because Nikon are desperate to shift units, so are now doing instant cash back deals instead of having to claim and wait. :)
Click to expand...
Or maybe they've got a surprise camera announcement? ;) :p
 
Jelster said:
But the T3 isn't that old, so there are still T2's out there less that 12 months old...
Click to expand...

Doesn’t make any odds I bought an A9 about a month ago at less then half the launch price they are still available for sale brand new and will be for some time.
 
snerkler said:
And the Sony isn't? :eek: ;) TBH none of the FF mirrorless are good looking cameras, but then I didn't find DSLRs particular great either. If you want a nice looking camera you've got to go Olympus or Fuji imo, or Leica of course ;)

I don't think it will be any cheaper to migrate though. TBH there's not much to lure folk across from DSLR to mirrorless when you break it down, whether it be Sony, Nikon or Canon. I remember one of the big 'selling points' was that mirrorless was going to be much smaller, but as we all know this isn't the case so much when you consider the system. So what's the draw for DSLR users? EVF's split opinions, autofocus is no better and in some cases worse, build is no better, focus aids only matter for a small number, so there isn't really a reason to swap over unless of course you just happen to prefer EVF or want great live view AF. One of the biggest draws now imo is the blackout free shooting of the A9, I can see that being nice/helpful to use, but is it a big enough draw? My point is, unless your a tech head or like new shiny things all the time what really is there to make you part with all that money to migrate across?
Or maybe they've got a surprise camera announcement? ;) :p
Click to expand...
Oooooo Nikon Z9, to beat the Sony A9 II? :)
 
snerkler said:
And the Sony isn't? :eek: ;) TBH none of the FF mirrorless are good looking cameras, but then I didn't find DSLRs particular great either. If you want a nice looking camera you've got to go Olympus or Fuji imo, or Leica of course ;)

I don't think it will be any cheaper to migrate though. TBH there's not much to lure folk across from DSLR to mirrorless when you break it down, whether it be Sony, Nikon or Canon. I remember one of the big 'selling points' was that mirrorless was going to be much smaller, but as we all know this isn't the case so much when you consider the system. So what's the draw for DSLR users? EVF's split opinions, autofocus is no better and in some cases worse, build is no better, focus aids only matter for a small number, so there isn't really a reason to swap over unless of course you just happen to prefer EVF or want great live view AF. One of the biggest draws now imo is the blackout free shooting of the A9, I can see that being nice/helpful to use, but is it a big enough draw? My point is, unless your a tech head or like new shiny things all the time what really is there to make you part with all that money to migrate across?
Or maybe they've got a surprise camera announcement? ;) :p
Click to expand...

Maybe you have mentioned those points because of the limitations of your current set up in terms of lens choice and a.f capability.

Because Sony is a bit further on there is a huge lens choice so if you want small lenses there is plenty of choice just as an example Tamrons 17-28, 28-75, 70-180, the Samyang primes like the 18, 24, 35 are ridiculously small. The bodies are smaller than dslrs. The Sony 35 f/1.8 and 55 f/1.8 are much smaller than their dslr equivalents.

The a.f capability is also a massive difference between dslrs.

Not the same with Nikon though.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Maybe you have mentioned those points because of the limitations of your current set up in terms of lens choice and a.f capability.

Because Sony is a bit further on there is a huge lens choice so if you want small lenses there is plenty of choice just as an example Tamrons 17-28, 28-75, 70-180, the Samyang primes like the 18, 24, 35 are ridiculously small. The bodies are smaller than dslrs. The Sony 35 f/1.8 and 55 f/1.8 are much smaller than their dslr equivalents.

The a.f capability is also a massive difference between dslrs.

Not the same with Nikon though.
Click to expand...
I knew someone would point out where mirrorless could be smaller ;) :p What I meant though is on the whole it's not as small/light as they made it out to be, FF glass is FF glass at the end of the day. Unless you're a prime shooter then weight saving isn't a serious consideration imo.

But no my reasoning and opinions were not based on my set up, just as a generalisation and 'getting in the heads' of DSLR users. We're biased, we're mirrorless converts but thinking objectively what is there to lure a DSLR user?

You mention a massive difference in AF capability between DSLR, I assume you mean between mirrorless and DSLR? In which case I'd disagree unless you're talking eye-AF. (actually I forgot about that, eye-AF is another draw to mirrorless, and I guess could be quite a big one ;)). But other than that DSLR AF can go toe to toe with mirrorless and vice versa. The A9-II may have a slight edge over everything else, but it's marginal over cameras like the 1Dx-II and D5 still. I've not seen a comparison against the 1DX-III yet, and of course Nikon are bringing out the D6 so it will be interesting to see what that's like.

Now that being said, the A9/A9-II is the competition to the D5/D6 and 1DX-II/III and the A9 is a pretty significant weight saving over those monsters ;) Ok so the more I think about there are some draws for DSLR users, but we're talking the real top end here, for those with 'enthusiast' gear these draws aren't applicable ;)

My god I'm waffling :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
I knew someone would point out where mirrorless could be smaller ;) :p What I meant though is on the whole it's not as small/light as they made it out to be, FF glass is FF glass at the end of the day. Unless you're a prime shooter then weight saving isn't a serious consideration imo.

But no my reasoning and opinions were not based on my set up, just as a generalisation and 'getting in the heads' of DSLR users. We're biased, we're mirrorless converts but thinking objectively what is there to lure a DSLR user?

You mention a massive difference in AF capability between DSLR, I assume you mean between mirrorless and DSLR? In which case I'd disagree unless you're talking eye-AF. (actually I forgot about that, eye-AF is another draw to mirrorless, and I guess could be quite a big one ;)). But other than that DSLR AF can go toe to toe with mirrorless and vice versa. The A9-II may have a slight edge over everything else, but it's marginal over cameras like the 1Dx-II and D5 still. I've not seen a comparison against the 1DX-III yet, and of course Nikon are bringing out the D6 so it will be interesting to see what that's like.

Now that being said, the A9/A9-II is the competition to the D5/D6 and 1DX-II/III and the A9 is a pretty significant weight saving over those monsters ;) Ok so the more I think about there are some draws for DSLR users, but we're talking the real top end here, for those with 'enthusiast' gear these draws aren't applicable ;)

My god I'm waffling :LOL:
Click to expand...

A9 can go head to toe with the D5/6 1DXwhatever for half the price.
 
Interesting podcast by Steve Perry/Backcountry Gallery, the last 7 or 8 mins are his experiences, as a pro wildlife shooter, using Nikon DSLR's vs Z series (haven't a clue how to link to it, sorry;)).

Don't think I can take the risk of a Z6/7 for work stuff just now but really considering trying a Z50 as a knockabout alternative to my D7200 in Q1 2020.

I'm BD into the Nikon system so a swap to Sony, Fuji etc is a non-starter (I don't think they cover the lens requirements anyway TBH).

GC
 
gcgraphs said:
Interesting podcast by Steve Perry/Backcountry Gallery, the last 7 or 8 mins are his experiences, as a pro wildlife shooter, using Nikon DSLR's vs Z series (haven't a clue how to link to it, sorry;)).

Don't think I can take the risk of a Z6/7 for work stuff just now but really considering trying a Z50 as a knockabout alternative to my D7200 in Q1 2020.

I'm BD into the Nikon system so a swap to Sony, Fuji etc is a non-starter (I don't think they cover the lens requirements anyway TBH).

GC
Click to expand...
I’m assuming his verdict was that the Z’s don’t cut it for moving wildlife?
 
snerkler said:
TBH this doesn't surprise me, and I'm not sure why they thought it would sell better than it did. They missed the boat getting the first adopters to FF mirrorless, they're not going to appeal to many pros due to the single card slot, lens lineup, and performance in a number of areas isn't as good as their DSLRs.

Now none of this is saying they're bad cameras, they're not they're really rather good, but I could never see a massive shift to them unless they nailed every aspect. Obviously this is all just my opinion ;)
Click to expand...
Well I agree with your opinion it’s sensible! Nikon’s problem is two fold firstly their dslr’s are very good, the d850 better than any mirrorless offering and the new D6 looks to be a perfect marriage of dslr and mirrorless tech. I can only imagine how good the D860 is going to be.

Secondly well it starts with S and is likely to be on the mark 5 before a Nikon mk 2 is even announced.

I saw the new sigma arts being launched today for the L mount alliance and again thought what a waste that Nikon aren’t opening up their lens mount to 3rd parties.
 
Brazo said:
I saw the new sigma arts being launched today for the L mount alliance and again thought what a waste that Nikon aren’t opening up their lens mount to 3rd parties.
Click to expand...
Now that would give them credence. Though I have to say that my path in mirrorless, from m4/3, through Fuji, to Z6, has been a journey of continuous improvement. Previously my only exposure to Nikon was an FM in the 80s, so I don’t have a brand allegiance.
 
Brazo said:
Well I agree with your opinion it’s sensible! Nikon’s problem is two fold firstly their dslr’s are very good, the d850 better than any mirrorless offering and the new D6 looks to be a perfect marriage of dslr and mirrorless tech. I can only imagine how good the D860 is going to be.

Secondly well it starts with S and is likely to be on the mark 5 before a Nikon mk 2 is even announced.

I saw the new sigma arts being launched today for the L mount alliance and again thought what a waste that Nikon aren’t opening up their lens mount to 3rd parties.
Click to expand...
Yeah can’t help but think that was a mistake. I know lenses are where the profit is but you don’t want to alienate yourself in the market.
 
snerkler said:
And the Sony isn't? :eek: ;) TBH none of the FF mirrorless are good looking cameras, but then I didn't find DSLRs particular great either. If you want a nice looking camera you've got to go Olympus or Fuji imo, or Leica of course ;)
Click to expand...

The sony is OK, rather than being smacked hard with the ugly stick. TBH I don't even notice the looks, because it's got nothing outstanding about it.

I don't think it will be any cheaper to migrate though. TBH there's not much to lure folk across from DSLR to mirrorless when you break it down, whether it be Sony, Nikon or Canon. I remember one of the big 'selling points' was that mirrorless was going to be much smaller, but as we all know this isn't the case so much when you consider the system. So what's the draw for DSLR users? EVF's split opinions, autofocus is no better and in some cases worse, build is no better, focus aids only matter for a small number, so there isn't really a reason to swap over unless of course you just happen to prefer EVF or want great live view AF. One of the biggest draws now imo is the blackout free shooting of the A9, I can see that being nice/helpful to use, but is it a big enough draw? My point is, unless your a tech head or like new shiny things all the time what really is there to make you part with all that money to migrate across?
Or maybe they've got a surprise camera announcement? ;) :p
Click to expand...

The lower cost comes in the amount of used kit available, so my slightly used A7III was £1350 instead of £2K+ etc. Plenty of used lenses about now with prices gradually getting more sensible.

Why would people move? For better AF, for lenses that don't need adjustment for accurate focussing, for functionally useful live view, for small size (apparently not true for Nikon?) for a system that is having development applied instead of one that is legacy only, for sensors with greater resolution and better dynamic range. Granted some of those are only true for the Sony system at this stage because the other makes are lagging, but they'll surpass their DSLRs with their ML cameras eventually. One of the compelling factors behind buying the A7 was that the AF was reputedly better than the D750, and I'd become fed up with the poor AF of my D610 that was actually less good than in my entry level sony A58, so didn't really trust the AF of the D750 either.

For pros, the choice must be about whether changing systems will enable they to get work that they'd otherwise not have, and better AF, better lenses and dynamic range might well be enough to justify investing. The wedding business seems to be a key place where this has already happened.

I'm no sony devotee or fanboi - just want a decent system that works well. My impression without handling a Z series camera is Nikon fumbled the ball when they should have scored. Canon were always going to do less well because their sensor tech is trailing and doesn't seem able to catch up, but with their experience in pro and enthusiast cameras Nikon should have looked ahead of the status quo and designed accordingly. I suspect they are actually getting better images from sony sensors than sony themselves, but that's not enough to be competitive.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
The sony is OK, rather than being smacked hard with the ugly stick. TBH I don't even notice the looks, because it's got nothing outstanding about it.



The lower cost comes in the amount of used kit available, so my slightly used A7III was £1350 instead of £2K+ etc. Plenty of used lenses about now with prices gradually getting more sensible.

Why would people move? For better AF, for lenses that don't need adjustment for accurate focussing, for functionally useful live view, for small size (apparently not true for Nikon?) for a system that is having development applied instead of one that is legacy only, for sensors with greater resolution and better dynamic range. Granted some of those are only true for the Sony system at this stage because the other makes are lagging, but they'll surpass their DSLRs with their ML cameras eventually. One of the compelling factors behind buying the A7 was that the AF was reputedly better than the D750, and I'd become fed up with the poor AF of my D610 that was actually less good than in my entry level sony A58, so didn't really trust the AF of the D750 either.

For pros, the choice must be about whether changing systems will enable they to get work that they'd otherwise not have, and better AF, better lenses and dynamic range might well be enough to justify investing. The wedding business seems to be a key place where this has already happened.

I'm no sony devotee or fanboi - just want a decent system that works well. My impression without handling a Z series camera is Nikon fumbled the ball when they should have scored. Canon were always going to do less well because their sensor tech is trailing and doesn't seem able to catch up, but with their experience in pro and enthusiast cameras Nikon should have looked ahead of the status quo and designed accordingly. I suspect they are actually getting better images from sony sensors than sony themselves, but that's not enough to be competitive.
Click to expand...

Only because they are pulling a fuji and baking the raws, Sony made it clear with the rii that they would keep the best sensors for their own cameras. What happens after the sensor is down to processing adjusts and baking into pp.
 
twist said:
Only because they are pulling a fuji and baking the raws, Sony made it clear with the rii that they would keep the best sensors for their own cameras. What happens after the sensor is down to processing adjusts and baking into pp.
Click to expand...

That’s not entirely true. The Sony sensor devision is a completely separate business to the Digital Imaging business, so they can actually sell their off the shelf sensors to anybody who wants to buy them.
I think what actually happens in reality is that the prices of some the top Sony sensors like the 24mp BSI RS CMOS are too high for competitors to buy & install in their bodies to actually compete with Sony’s own offerings.
The end result is that nobody will pay the per unit price for the sensors, Sony DI obviously get them cheaper.
Song make some of the best sensors in the market, I wonder how many smart phones out their use them. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top