Nikon’s new mirrorless system, coming in ... late September 2018

[faberryman]

The question now is - do I trade in my D850, my Oly m43 system, both, or neither?

Why change? Will the Z7 make you a better photographer?

[KLaban]

The question now is - do I trade in my D850, my Oly m43 system, both, or neither?

You've got problems. I'm unsure if I should go with the chicken souvlaki accompanied by gigantes or the moussaka with a side of Greek salad followed by baklava.

[Dan Wells]

The only cameras I was able to handle had the 24-70 (two examples, one stiffer than the other). It was a launch event, with probably 30 people passing three or four cameras around. There were probably single examples of the two primes, but I didn't get to handle them - I saw the zoom and a couple of adapted lenses (I wasn't really focused on the primes, because the zoom will be my choice for extended hikes).

Nikon gave an interesting 90-minute presentation, ranging from the durability and sealing of the body to the optical engineering behind the mount, then they did a hands-on. The presentation was very engineering-focused, interesting to the group of diehards who gave up a couple of hours in the middle of the day to be there, but I see what people mean about Nikon marketing - incredibly sincere engineers talking about the optical advantages of wide, shallow mounts are not going to pull in the social media generation.

If the Nikon engineers are right (and what they are saying makes sense), Sony has a huge disadvantage to contend with compared to both Nikon and Canon - their very narrow mount restricts lens design. The Nikon F-mount has the same problem, but film didn't need parallel light rays in the way that digital sensors do, so the F-mount made sense in 1959. At least according to Nikon, Sony made a real mistake trying to cram a FF sensor into an APS-C mount, especially when they didn't have a significant lens line (at the time) to preserve. Notably, Fuji didn't do that - an X-mount will fit a FF sensor as tightly as an E-mount will, but Fuji went with a new mount and a beyond-FF (I won't quite call 33x44 medium format) sensor for the GFX.

From MTF charts and initial sample images, the Nikkor 24-70 is a much better lens than the comparably-sized Sony "Zeiss" 24-70 f4, much closer in performance to the G-Master, which is close to twice the size and weight. Nikon is claiming (and showing MTF charts, for whatever they're worth) that the 24-70 actually (slightly) outperforms the newest version of their own 24-70 f2.8 used at f4. If so, that's a significant optical advantage for something they did - Nikon claims the mount is a big part of it, and I have no reason to dispute them. If so, Canon has a similar advantage...

[jeremyrh]

Why change? Will the Z7 make you a better photographer?

Obviously not. But it may make me a photographer who is able to carry his best camera to a location where he can get the shots he wants.

[jeremyrh]

You've got problems. I'm unsure if I should go with the chicken souvlaki accompanied by gigantes or the moussaka with a side of Greek salad followed by baklava.

I'm not fond of aubergine and I do like gigantes so that's an easy one for me.

Kali orexi!!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... able to carry his ... camera...

A gym membership would be cheaper... plus having other health benefits

[jeremyrh]

A gym membership would be cheaper... plus having other health benefits

:-)

[Alan Goldhammer]

A gym membership would be cheaper... plus having other health benefits

Especially if you are a senior citizen.  The YMCA right up the street from us is $42/month per person membership.  Three pools, a walking track, exercise and fitness rooms; cannot beat the price.

[jeremyrh]

Especially if you are a senior citizen.  The YMCA right up the street from us is $42/month per person membership.  Three pools, a walking track, exercise and fitness rooms; cannot beat the price.

My local gym is quite a bit more. And my back surgery was even more expensive :-(

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Joking aside, have you noticed the inherent paradox of the new generation of mirrorless (Nikon, Canon)? They are supposed to be more compact, and they are, and yet, they come with ginormous lenses. Not much change in total.

[chez]

The only cameras I was able to handle had the 24-70 (two examples, one stiffer than the other). It was a launch event, with probably 30 people passing three or four cameras around. There were probably single examples of the two primes, but I didn't get to handle them - I saw the zoom and a couple of adapted lenses (I wasn't really focused on the primes, because the zoom will be my choice for extended hikes).

Nikon gave an interesting 90-minute presentation, ranging from the durability and sealing of the body to the optical engineering behind the mount, then they did a hands-on. The presentation was very engineering-focused, interesting to the group of diehards who gave up a couple of hours in the middle of the day to be there, but I see what people mean about Nikon marketing - incredibly sincere engineers talking about the optical advantages of wide, shallow mounts are not going to pull in the social media generation.

If the Nikon engineers are right (and what they are saying makes sense), Sony has a huge disadvantage to contend with compared to both Nikon and Canon - their very narrow mount restricts lens design. The Nikon F-mount has the same problem, but film didn't need parallel light rays in the way that digital sensors do, so the F-mount made sense in 1959. At least according to Nikon, Sony made a real mistake trying to cram a FF sensor into an APS-C mount, especially when they didn't have a significant lens line (at the time) to preserve. Notably, Fuji didn't do that - an X-mount will fit a FF sensor as tightly as an E-mount will, but Fuji went with a new mount and a beyond-FF (I won't quite call 33x44 medium format) sensor for the GFX.

From MTF charts and initial sample images, the Nikkor 24-70 is a much better lens than the comparably-sized Sony "Zeiss" 24-70 f4, much closer in performance to the G-Master, which is close to twice the size and weight. Nikon is claiming (and showing MTF charts, for whatever they're worth) that the 24-70 actually (slightly) outperforms the newest version of their own 24-70 f2.8 used at f4. If so, that's a significant optical advantage for something they did - Nikon claims the mount is a big part of it, and I have no reason to dispute them. If so, Canon has a similar advantage...

I don't think the poor performance of the Sony 24-70 f4 has anything to do with the mount...but just a bad optical design. Both the Sony 24-105 and the 12-24 are stellar lenses by anyone's standards...and the mount is the same.

[Telecaster]

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2018/09/best-comment-ever.html

-Dave-

[John Camp]

Wish I could handle one. I'm satisfied that I would be happy with the body and sensor (I've been a Nikon guy most of my life) but the other question is about the lenses. The good thing about m4/3 is that the lens sizes fit the body sizes...all small and light. I've seen some reports that the Z lenses are as large as the F lenses, but Dan's post makes it sound like they're actually fairly compact. Does compact mean smaller than F lenses of the same maximum aperture? Or are they the same as F lenses, but smaller than the most common F lenses because they're f4 rather than 2.8?

I'm not worried about the f4 per se -- the high ISO ratings more than make up for it, for me. Nor am I worried about not having shallow depth of field available -- I've got enough F lenses to cover that on a case-by-case basis. I just don't want a system that's essentially as heavy and awkward as my D800 system, except for the small body. I would like an excellent compact f4 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200 as a travel bag, with a fast prime 85 or 105 for portraits. Is that too much to ask?

[BernardLanguillier]

Joking aside, have you noticed the inherent paradox of the new generation of mirrorless (Nikon, Canon)? They are supposed to be more compact, and they are, and yet, they come with ginormous lenses. Not much change in total.

That’s exactly what Nikon is doing different from Canon and Sony. Their f1.8 line (35, 50,...) is targeting top performance while being compact.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Guillermo Luijk]

Joking aside, have you noticed the inherent paradox of the new generation of mirrorless (Nikon, Canon)? They are supposed to be more compact, and they are, and yet, they come with ginormous lenses. Not much change in total.

Canon is explaining its mirrorless strategy quite better than Nikon, but you need to read a bit. Mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean compact, it means free of constraints in optical design. So we'll see both compact lenses and bulky lenses.



The 28-70 f/2 performs at f/2 better than the Canon 24-70 II f/2,8 at f/2,8, and that's a whole stop faster. Priority was not compactness in that lens and Canon lets us know.

Regards

[Alan Goldhammer]

Joking aside, have you noticed the inherent paradox of the new generation of mirrorless (Nikon, Canon)? They are supposed to be more compact, and they are, and yet, they come with ginormous lenses. Not much change in total.

The Nikon 24-70 f4 zoom which would be of interest to me is not much bigger than the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 zoom that use for travel these days.  Marginally longer on only about 30g heavier.  The Z camera body is of course a lot lighter than by D810.  I didn't look up the specs of the primes.  I seldom need anything below f4 for my use and of course the faster lenses are also a lot bigger and heavier.  Every thing is a question of choice.

[hubell]

Canon is explaining its mirrorless strategy quite better than Nikon, but you need to read a bit. Mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean compact, it means free of constraints in optical design. So we'll see both compact lenses and bulky lenses.



The 28-70 f/2 performs at f/2 better than the Canon 24-70 II f/2,8 at f/2,8, and that's a whole stop faster. Priority was not compactness in that lens and Canon lets us know.

Regards

Yup. Big, heavy, expensive lenses that have the best optical performance...or smaller, lighter lenses that don't perform as well but are, well, cheaper. For a landscape shooter, that's a terrible strategy. But it is the same old Canon marketing strategy. I am holding out hope for Nikon's S line of lenses.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Wish I could handle one. I'm satisfied that I would be happy with the body and sensor (I've been a Nikon guy most of my life) but the other question is about the lenses. The good thing about m4/3 is that the lens sizes fit the body sizes...all small and light. I've seen some reports that the Z lenses are as large as the F lenses, but Dan's post makes it sound like they're actually fairly compact. Does compact mean smaller than F lenses of the same maximum aperture? Or are they the same as F lenses, but smaller than the most common F lenses because they're f4 rather than 2.8?

I'm not worried about the f4 per se -- the high ISO ratings more than make up for it, for me. Nor am I worried about not having shallow depth of field available -- I've got enough F lenses to cover that on a case-by-case basis. I just don't want a system that's essentially as heavy and awkward as my D800 system, except for the small body. I would like an excellent compact f4 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200 as a travel bag, with a fast prime 85 or 105 for portraits. Is that too much to ask?

I too wish I could handle one but that would mean a trip to New York as the only camera stores here in DC don't sell top line gear.  Regarding the lens weight and size, you can get the technical specifications from the Nikon site and compare them to what the 'standard' lenses are.  Here is what they show for the 'Z' 24-70 zoom  77.5 x 88.5mm (diameter x length), 500g.  The comparison is a bit off because the comparable zoom is the f2.8:  83 x 133mm, 900g.    For the 'Z' 35:  73 x 86mm; 360g and the 'standard' f1.8G ED:  72 x 71; 305g so the 'Z' lens is a little bigger.  It remains to be seen what the rest of the 'Z' lens line comes in at.  Still the camera body weight will be much less than a comparable D8xx that a lot of us already use. 

[Dan Wells]

Nikon doesn't make a 24-70 f4 DSLR lens, but here are some comparisons (looked these up at B+H)

Comparable size and weight:
Nikkor 24-85 f3.5-4.5 (new)
Nikkor 24-85 f2.8-4 (old AF-D)
Sony "Zeiss" 24-70 f4

100-200 grams heavier
Canon 24-70mm f4
Canon 24-105mm f4 (R mount)
Sony FE 24-105mm f4
Fuji 16-55 f2.8 (APS-C)
Nikkor 24-120 mm f4 (210 gram difference)

Much heavier
Canon 24-105mm f4 (EF mount SLR lens)
Sigma ART 24-105mm f4
Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 (and all other 24-70mm f2.8 lenses) - these cluster around 1000 grams, exactly twice the weight of the Nikkor 24-70.

Nikon does make a 50mm f1.8 SLR lens, and the mirrorless lens is much heavier (twice the weight and twice the price of the diminutive DSLR lens).
The mirrorless lens is somewhat heavier than the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 for DSLRs, and a little heavier than the Zeiss Planar f2.0.
Note that both Nikkor 50mm SLR lenses and the Planar are probably classic double-Gauss designs (the slower Nikkor and the Zeiss are 7 elements in 6 groups, while the Nikkor f1.4 is 8 elements in 7 groups). These film-era classics don't necessarily perform as well as newer designs on high-res digital sensors.

It is, however, much lighter than the high-performance 50mm lenses Nikon would like to complete with.
It's about 2/3 the weight of the Zeiss Milvius 50mm, half the weight of the Sigma ART, and 2/5 the weight of the Zeiss Otus, the last two of which are a stop faster.
I can't find a weight on the forthcoming Tokina Opera, which looks like it's in the size range of the Sigma ART?.
These higher-performance lenses are significantly more complex than an old double-Gauss lens, as is the Nikkor Z. The ART is 13 elements in 8 groups, the Nikkor Z is 12 elements in 9 groups, and the Otus is 12 elements in 10 groups. I suspect Nikon's next updates to their SLR 50mm lenses will be much heavier than their predecessors as they adopt more complex, highly corrected optical formulas.


The 35mm is much heavier than some diminutive film-era 35mm lenses like the old Nikkor AF-D and the Yongnou, comparable in weight (less than 100 g difference) with newer, high-performance 35mm lenses with modest maximum apertures like the current AF-G Nikkor and the Tamron SP, and significantly lighter than fast, modern designs like the latest Nikkor 35mm f1.4, the Sigma ART and the Zeiss Milvius...

[BJL]

@hubell, are Canon’s smaller lighter R lenses of lower optical and build quality, or just of smaller maximum apertures with good performance within that constraint? The latter is a viable “third way” in lens design for some users and use cases with today’s very high sensitivity sensors, and Nikon seems to be pursuing it with most of its “S” lenses, but I have not heard so much about the quality of new Canon lenses like the new 24-105/4 R.