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

[shadowblade]

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/1904416326/nikon-z-7-sample-videos

Looks like Nikon is starting to be competitive on the video front.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'd reserve judgement on that until Canon makes a full-frame announcement (?September ?October) and Sony announces the A7s3 (probably within the next two months). Canon's dual pixel AF is second to none for video AF (held back more by lenses not optimised for mirrorless/video AF than anything else), while the A7s series has pretty much been optimised for video and low light performance.

These two cameras - not the current A9/A7III/A7r3 and the two-year-old A7s2 - will be the peer competitors to the Z6/Z7 for video. (Panasonic's video-oriented crop cameras certainly rate a mention, but aren't really in the same category, due to their lack of a full-frame sensor). Nikon's new video log format certainly looks good - it should offer a lot of latitude in post-processing - but how that stacks up against the new, video-focused peer competitors remains to be seen. Certainly, if the A7s3 is bumped up to 24MP and offers 4k/60fps full-sensor output, or even 6k at 24/25/30fps, it would be a major rival, and would be seen as a significant milestone towards the goal of 8k video for the Tokyo Olympics in two years' time.

[shadowblade]

But, as you know with Canon, they may score well with many of their lenses but they have a habit of disappointed too when it comes to some aspects of their bodies. Innovation with bodies has not been their history for some time now. They are solid and reliable but always seem a step behind.

They haven't been putting much effort into SLR in the last 8-10 years.

Where they have made a lot of advances is video-related technologies - dual pixel AF and other through-the-sensor AF technologies, data processing, EVFs, etc. These haven't really helped their SLRs, since they're mostly not applicable to SLRs. But they're very applicable to mirrorless cameras - and that's where they'll show up.

Essentially, Canon hasn't done much with their SLR bodies because they've spent the past decade developing mirrorless. Everyone called it 'video' at the time, but what is a mirrorless still camera other than a video camera with higher resolution and slower frame rate?

Of course, having these capabilities isn't the same as actually deploying them into a good camera. But Canon should know, as well as anyone else, that they have to knock it out of the park with their full-frame release.

Changing systems must be carefully evaluated as it is obviously a significant expenditure over time, despite those here that feel a DDS degree is a license to be extravagant. They forget, I still have a wife to answer too. And with my luck, just as I complete a transition, Canon will come out with the most amazing body that crushes every one else.

You're going to have to change systems no matter what. Whether it's Canon EF to Canon mirrorless or Canon EF to Sony/Nikon, you'll still end up changing all your lenses, unless you want to put up with substandard AF. SLRs are peaking and will start to disappear as mirrorless technologies take over and exceed the limitations of the the SLR design. It's like the transition from TLRs to SLRs, or from manual focus to autofocus - everyone's going to need to buy new lenses. Essentially, this opens up the whole playing field - Canon's and Nikon's incumbent positions in the camera marketplace don't mean much when everyone needs to replace their lens collection anyway, so people don't have a huge pre-existing collection of viable lenses holding them back and restricting their choice of system. This is not likely to occur again for decades, until the next major design shift.

But what you have a choice in is when you make that change. At present, mirrorless doesn't have a huge performance advantage over SLRs - they are on par, with mirrorless better for somethings and the top-end SLRs a bit better for others (partly owing to lens availability). For the moment, SLRs are a perfectly viable system. The question then becomes whether you move to a mirrorless platform now, selling all your SLR gear while they still have value and replacing them with mirrorless equivalents (at some net cost), or whether you keep on using your SLR lenses for as long as possible, getting another 5-10 years of use out of them until they become obsolescent (and possibly unsellable) and moving to mirrorless then.

[BernardLanguillier]

Ah... and adding a mirrorless body with a few native lenses to an existing DSLR line up would not be a smart move?

Cheers,
Bernard

[jeremyrh]

Ah... and adding a mirrorless body with a few native lenses to an existing DSLR line up would not be a smart move?

Particularly for the non-dentists for whom replacing a system en masse is not financially viable.

[BernardLanguillier]

Particularly for the non-dentists for whom replacing a system en masse is not financially viable.

Very true, now even if I were able to replace 10 systems cash without much of a second thought I would still add a mirrorless and lenses to address some usage patterns where they are superior.

That’s one of the patterns made possible by the FTZ adapter.

I mean that was before Shadowblade taught me it isn’t a good idea. Now I am really hesitant...

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Ah... and adding a mirrorless body with a few native lenses to an existing DSLR line up would not be a smart move?

Cheers,
Bernard

Unless you specifically want it for shooting video (which Nikon SLRs don't do well), what does it get you that a second, backup SLR body doesn't.

You don't save money - the new cameras are as expensive as the SLRs they replace.

A second SLR retains the full autofocus capability of your lenses, whereas a Z6/Z7 doesn't. With two SLRs, you can mount one lens on each - say, 24-70 on one and 70-200 on the other - and are able to use them interchangeably, with each one working just as well as the other. You can't do that with mirrorless.

And, if you're dead-set on going mirrorless and gradually building up your mirrorless lens collection, while using the SLR as your primary body, you're free to use any mirrorless system - Sony, Canon or Nikon - since your new lenses won't fit on your SLR lenses anyway, and you'll be able to adapt your old F-mount lenses onto any mirrorless system, at a cost in AF performance. And the E-mount system is a much more proven quantity, with much greater first- and third-party lens and accessory support, than the Z-mount.

Early adopters can do well - eventually. We have seen that with the evolution of E-mount over the past five years. But it takes time, and early adoption is often not the best solution when more mature systems (in this case, Nikon SLR and Sony E-mount) are available already. In five years' time, Z-mount may well be a capable and well-supported system. But that's not a particularly good reason to go out and buy a new system you won't get much benefit out of in the meantime - by the time Z-mount is more mature and supported, the Z6/Z7 will be obsolete anyway, so you would likely have to buy new bodies.

Particularly for the non-dentists for whom replacing a system en masse is not financially viable.

You're going to have to do it, whether you like it or not, if you want to keep taking photos. Your only choice is when you're going to replace them.

In 10 years' time, updates to SLR bodies and lenses will be few and far between, and Canon and Nikon will stop servicing legacy bodies and lenses. They'll still work, up until the point where they physically/electronically break down, but, if anything happens to them, you're on your own.

Sell them now and you can probably get a good price for your gear - switching is cheaper than buying a new system from scratch. Sell them in 5-10 years and you'll get several extra years' use out of your gear, skipping a few generations (which may well save you money), but you won't get much back for your SLR gear at that stage. Either option is viable, and one may be preferable to the other, depending on how you shoot and what gear you have, but not switching isn't a choice.

[shadowblade]

Very true, now even if I were able to replace 10 systems cash without much of a second thought I would still add a mirrorless and lenses to address some usage patterns where they are superior.

That’s one of the patterns made possible by the FTZ adapter.

I mean that was before Shadowblade taught me it isn’t a good idea. Now I am really hesitant...

Cheers,
Bernard

Under what circumstances are F-mount lenses on a Z-mount camera superior to either F-mount lenses on an F-mount camera, or using E-mount lenses on an E-mount camera?

F-mount lenses work just fine on Nikon SLRs, and, unlike the case with Canon five years ago, Nikon bodies don't have a deficiency that would force someone to take their F-mount lenses and put them on something else.

For applications where you specifically want a mirrorless camera, E-mount lenses on an E-mount camera work much better than adapted lenses.

You won't get many Z-mount lenses on a Z-mount camera, at least not for a few years - they just don't exist yet.

[BernardLanguillier]

Are you aware that HCB built the most remarkable portfolio of the history of photography with a 35mm lens?

As far as your questions go, I have already answered them several times. I am not confident about my ability to convey the message better this time around.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

Ah... and adding a mirrorless body with a few native lenses to an existing DSLR line up would not be a smart move?

Cheers,
Bernard

Well that would allow you to slowly migrate across without losing functionality. I was fortunate when I moved to Sony that all the lenses I needed for my type of commercial work and personal work were already available so once I figured the system was comfortable for me I dumped all the Canon gear. Actually a much less traumatic scenario would have been the one you propose here but Canon didn’t have anything mirrorless on offer and I wasn’t keen on any of there DSLR offerings at the time.

If I was in Nikon I would without doubt buy one of these two new camera with the 24 to 70 and see how it goes. Obviously I would buy the adapter. It’s a perfect solution. Can’t see any good reason to not do this.

[shadowblade]

Are you aware that HCB built the most remarkable portfolio of the history of photography with a 35mm lens?

That's about as relevant as knowing Tiger Woods used X brand of golf clubs.

You're probably shooting different things, in a different style, to what he shot. You need gear to suit your photography, not someone else's.

[shadowblade]

As far as your questions go, I have already answered them several times. I am not confident about my ability to convey the message better this time around.

Cheers,
Bernard

As in, 'failed to answer them at all'.

You have never addressed why getting the Z6/Z7 this year, in 2018 would serve you better than simply getting another Nikon SLR, or moving to E-mount instead. There aren't too many situations where one of those other two options wouldn't give you more capabilities than the Z6/Z7 option.

[BernardLanguillier]

That's about as relevant as knowing Tiger Woods used X brand of golf clubs.

You're probably shooting different things, in a different style, to what he shot. You need gear to suit your photography, not someone else's.

It really isn’t easy to type on an iPhone when laughing uncontrollably. That’s at least one thing I have learned from this sureal conversation.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alex Waugh]

Guys give it a rest, we're all tired of you two arguing the same points over and over. I don't mind banter but this is just noise.

I'm fairly neutral on the Z cameras at the moment. A big part of my opinion will be formed when I hold one as for me haptics are a huge priority. Ergonomics look decent although I have huge hands so I'm always sceptical of small cameras.

 I love the colour coming out of the 45MP Nikon sensor but sharpness beyond "good enough" is lost on me - rendering is more important. I wish the primes were half the length and simply "very good". I absolutely know i'm in the minority here.

I'm also unsure whether I could get used to 10 hour shooting days using an EVF as I seem to get a slight headache eventually or at the very least eye fatigue. Does this effect anyone else or have any scientific reasoning? Perhaps its just my mind being resistant to  change.

The Northrup pre-production review states it doesn't feel as good as the SLRs, but splits the difference between a D5 and the Sonys. They also didn't think the EVF was much better than the other flagships out there and I find even the A9 EVF mediocre compared to the D850 viewfinder. Not my favourite reviewing duo but probably the most honest hands on out there at the moment.

I love the idea of knowing exactly what I'm getting with an EVF - I find it immensely useful when creating still life compositions and making decisions on colours and geometry. I also have to admit most of my images are viewed on a screen and I get a better idea of how it'll be viewed looking through a backlit EVF.

I don't really mind the single slot although I do think it's a mistake and for wedding shooters DOA.

I shoot slowly and don't need sports AF, it's probably good enough for me. I do love the 3D tracking on my D850 - perhaps the press just struggled to find the right settings since everything is renamed.

Lens wise - I wish Nikon weren't wasting so much R&D on the Noct, although I'm sure the technologies will be seen across the lineup eventually and will pay for themselves. I feel like 3 more crucial lenses this year would have been a better use of time and funds. I'm in no way a professional marketer though - perhaps the fanfare is worth the investment.

I want the 14-30/4 badly and if it was available in F mount I'd own it. Compact, takes normal filters and I use wide zooms in portrait + high res bodies to approximate shift lenses with heavy cropping.

[shadowblade]

Well that would allow you to slowly migrate across without losing functionality. I was fortunate when I moved to Sony that all the lenses I needed for my type of commercial work and personal work were already available so once I figured the system was comfortable for me I dumped all the Canon gear. Actually a much less traumatic scenario would have been the one you propose here but Canon didn’t have anything mirrorless on offer and I wasn’t keen on any of there DSLR offerings at the time.

It still involves replacing all your gear - just that you're doing it gradually, rather than all at the same time. At the end of it, you'll still have a pile of mirrorless lenses and almost no F-mount lenses.

If I was in Nikon I would without doubt buy one of these two new camera with the 24 to 70 and see how it goes. Obviously I would buy the adapter. It’s a perfect solution. Can’t see any good reason to not do this.

If it were a 24-70/2.8 and the body had dual card slots, I'd say the same. But it only has one card slot and is an f/4 lens.

What Nikon should have done with Z6/Z7 is aimed it squarely at the event/wedding photography crowd. The Z6 would be the star of the show - 24MP, good low-light performance, face detection (since Nikon lacks eye focus), dual card slots, a setting for full electronic shutter without sacrificing bit depth or other image quality and the best AF system they can stuff into a mirrorless body at this stage. Release it with a 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 85/1.4 (or even 105/1.4), with announcements of a 14-24/2.8 or 16-35/2.8, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 on the way imminently (instead of the super-niche, manual-focus 58/0.95). And release a flash system at the same time. State that there will be no SLR successor to the D610 and D750 and announce to the world, 'Event and wedding photographers - this is your camera'. The Z7 would also exist, but in a secondary role, aimed more at studio and well-heeled landscape/travel photographers who would previously have used the D850 with a few fast zooms. An entry-level camera (?Z5) would probably come next. There may not be a Z-mount D5 or A9 equivalent just yet, but that matters little at this stage, since the lens collection wouldn't be there to support such a camera for a few years anyway.

Instead, what we have is a decent body, on the whole quite similar to the A7r3, but with a glaring weakness (Single. Card. Slot.) and a few lenses which don't do justice to the system and don't seem to be aimed at any subset of photographers in particular.

[BernardLanguillier]

Alex,

I know... an old dislike for incorrect information and wicked logic... I am working on it...

Cheers,
Bernard

[jeremyrh]

You have never addressed why getting the Z6/Z7 this year, in 2018 would serve you better than simply getting another Nikon SLR, or moving to E-mount instead. There aren't too many situations where one of those other two options wouldn't give you more capabilities than the Z6/Z7 option.

Speaking for myself it would be to get the much-touted benefits of an EVF, and keep the ergonomics of the Nikon.

[Alex Waugh]

Speaking for myself it would be to get the much-touted benefits of an EVF, and keep the ergonomics of the Nikon.

Pretty much. I've come to terms with the Sonys being too small for me. Not the end of the world but it does mean I'm very interested in the new options. It will be interesting to see Canons take on whats important.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I don’t care about dual card slots. Not everyone does. Not everyone shoots weddings. Perhaps naive but I have never had a card fail since I moved off CF and even those CFs that failed were DOA.

As for 2.8 lenses I have a several primes that will give me wide apertures but guess what, I don’t use wide apertures. Personally I dislike the shallow depth of field thing. People are so binary these days with depth of field. It must all in focus or have extreme shallow depth of field.

Lot of people have a lots of theories about what pros need. I think Nikon have a better idea than the folks on this forum. As do Canon. Canon still sell a lot of cameras to a lot of pros despite the forums being pretty sure that Canon is hopeless and makes nothing of any use. Either Canon and Nikon and the pros are all idiots or some of the assumptions made on forums are just plain wrong.

[Alex Waugh]

I dont care about dual slots either. I actually don't mind the lens selection, I just wish the 35mm was a 28mm and they were a bit smaller. I really like most of the weight to be in the body - the balance of a D850 and 35/1.8G is pretty much perfect for me.

[mcbroomf]

A heavy read ...
https://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-RRZZFeeMiveET0gVQ--AxJI7g-xcLVNVcp7mdwZQz5w==/Misc/Z7_Z6_Brochure.pdf