Nice that Nikon enters the mirrorless market...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Good that Nikon enters the mirrorless market...

• They have seen the future and want to be part of it.
• Competition is good.

The Z-system really means that Nikon has serious competitors in both DSLR and mirrorless. I don't think Nikon cares if you buy a Z7 or a D850, as long as you buy Nikon...

Best regards
Erik

[rdonson]

If you're a 35mm sensor size bigot then you're right.

If you open up your mind a bit then Nikon joined the mirrorless world in 2012 with a CX size sensor. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am aware of that, but CX size is not any more.

I am not really a 24x36 mm bigot. But, I think that choice of sensor size should match your needs.

My experience is a bit limited to 1", APS-C, 24x36 and 37x49 mm sensors. I print usually at 16"x23" but sometimes larger say 30"x40".

What i found is a bit that:

• many of my best images were shot on 12MP APS-C
• But, I feel that APS-C may suffer at 400 mm on my Sony 70-400/4-5.6G. Images get soft and noisy.
• 20 MP on 1" can deliver nice results at 16"x23"
• No significant visual difference between 39 MP at 37x49mm compared to 24 MP on 24x36mm at 16"x23" print size, but quite visible going up one size.
• No material difference between 42 MP on 24x36 mm vs 39 MP on 49x37 mm.

So, my take is that APS-C is OK up to 16"x23". Going beyond that, I would prefer a larger sensor with more MP.

I am not sure about smaller sensors, as I have never used any.

Best regards
Erik

If you're a 35mm sensor size bigot then you're right.

If you open up your mind a bit then Nikon joined the mirrorless world in 2012 with a CX size sensor.

[BJL]

If you're a 35mm sensor size bigot then you're right.

If you open up your mind a bit then Nikon joined the mirrorless world in 2012 with a CX size sensor.

Let’s say “re-entered” after stumbling on its first attempt. What is still missing from Nikon is an EVF camera system affordable by more than a small minority of customers for interchangeable lens cameras: despite the borderline delusional thinking of some forum pundits, ILC sales and revenues are dominated by APS-C plus MFT, not cameras in “Film Format”.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi BJL,

Thanks for making the point. I am shooting Sony A7rI and Sony A7II and that would make me a 24x36 mm pundit. But, I have used APS-C for quite a few years, with some good results. I have also been shooting 37x49 mm for 3.5 years.

I think all of those systems produced good images.

i wouldn't rule out that a well designed APS-C system could be a pretty good match for a 24x36 system having the same resolution.

Best regards
Erik

Let’s say “re-entered” after stumbling on its first attempt. What is still missing from Nikon is an EVF camera system affordable by more than a small minority of customers for interchangeable lens cameras: despite the borderline delusional thinking of some forum pundits, ILC sales and revenues are dominated by APS-C plus MFT, not cameras in “Film Format”.

[Telecaster]

I agree with Erik that the more players in a market, the better. I am kinda disappointed in the continuing "full frame" fixation, though. But I suspect this is a generational thing: once all of us 35mm format folks get out of the way, photo tech/gear innovation will accelerate.

-Dave-

[BJL]

I am kinda disappointed in the continuing "full frame" fixation, though. But I suspect this is a generational thing: once all of us 35mm format folks get out of the way, photo tech/gear innovation will accelerate.

-Dave-

I was wrong (along with Thom Hogan!) in expecting Nikon to start its mirrorless system offerings in the mainstream 24x16mm "APS-C" format first, the way that Sony and Canon have, fairly successfully. My new guess/hope is that the "One" stumble gave a lot of people the impression that Nikon is dismissive of mirrorless for more serious photographers, and so it needed to make a statement of a serious commitment to quality by starting near the top, and with a substantial lens roadmap. The 58/0.95 is just the most extreme part of that "statement".

So with that out of the way, I am somewhat optimistic that "DX-Z" is coming fairly soon. IIRC, Thom Hogan suggested that he had inside tips on Nikon starting with mirrorless "DX" format earlier this year and then mirrorless "FX" about when it was in fat announced.  If so, I imagine that such products are well under development, and the main change of plans was in the release timing.

[BernardLanguillier]

My guess is that the APS-C nikon mirrorless will be F mount based for now.

The Z mount is too large for an APS-C body and I think that Nikon will want to keep it associated only with high end/best image quality without “polluting” it with a lowe end APS-C image.

I could be wrong of course.

Sensor tech, etc... would be re-used from the Z6/Z7.

Thom is saying the same and I reckon he got it right this time.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

My guess is that the APS-C nikon mirrorless will be F mount based for now.

The Z mount is too large for an APS-C body.

Z mount is only 1mm wider than Canon's "EF-S" DSLR mount, and does not force bodies to be higher than they need to be anyway to have a decent handgrip and good-sized rear screen: look at the back of the Z6/Z7, where there is no spare room vertically around the screen assembly. I'd take that 1mm over a mount that is about 29mm deeper than Z mount. Especially with there being less interest in using old F-mount lenses on a more entry-level, compactness-oriented class of camera.

[stever]

as sensor costs continue to come down i think Nikon may let the apsc wither away - they've never supported with high quality apsc glass and consequently there is little size or weight benefit without a dedicated apsc mirrorless line to compete with the Canon M which is probably beyond their resources,

[BernardLanguillier]

as sensor costs continue to come down i think Nikon may let the apsc wither away - they've never supported with high quality apsc glass and consequently there is little size or weight benefit without a dedicated apsc mirrorless line to compete with the Canon M which is probably beyond their resources,

Yes, I agree. That’s why I think they will go with the cheaper approach of just putting an EVF in their current APS-C body.

This is not what I would like them to do, it’s what I think they will be doing.

Cheers,
Bernard

[fdisilvestro]

IMHO a mirrorless body with either an APS-C or Super-35 size sensor would be a great option for the video market

[Paulo Bizarro]

Nikon and Canon have finally decided that there is money to be made in the FF MILC segment. Sony has been making money on this high end market and carved a nice advantage so far.

So far, Nikon are copying Sony (even the 7 in the name...), I think that the rest of the lenses in the road map will come up only if they make money with this new system, and if they price it right.

Canon will be able to take a hit if their new FF MILC system is not very popular, has they can sell a lot of cheap DLSRs to compensate.

[davidgp]

I was wrong (along with Thom Hogan!) in expecting Nikon to start its mirrorless system offerings in the mainstream 24x16mm "APS-C" format first, the way that Sony and Canon have, fairly successfully. My new guess/hope is that the "One" stumble gave a lot of people the impression that Nikon is dismissive of mirrorless for more serious photographers, and so it needed to make a statement of a serious commitment to quality by starting near the top, and with a substantial lens roadmap. The 58/0.95 is just the most extreme part of that "statement".

Canon and Sony entered in the mirrorless market before the sales decline in 2013. There the big money was made by selling lots of cheap cameras... but if you look at the actual market, the money is made in the pro enthusiast environment. All companies are moving to it since some years. Clear examples are Sigma with their ART lines... Sony moving to full frame in mirrorless, Fuji with their GFX lenses, Olympus and Panasonic moving to pro like lenses and cameras... etc...

They know they are going to sell less than 5 or 19 years ago... they need to make more money per unit... and that you get it with more expensive models... t



http://dgpfotografia.com

[davidgp]

My guess is that the APS-C nikon mirrorless will be F mount based for now.

That will make zero sense to me... that will force them to have really big cameras against Fuji, Canon or Sony... and also, I... as possible Z user... if I want to have an APS-C camera... I will not be able to use any of my Z lenses on that APS-C system of Nikon



http://dgpfotografia.com

[BJL]

... but if you look at the actual market, the money is made in the pro enthusiast environment.

The market reports I have seen are that (a) Nikon's top selling DSLR by both units and revenue is its cheapest, the D3400.
(b) Sony and Nikon both have about an 8:1 ratio of 24x16mm to 36x24mm format ILC camera bodies, and with the price ratio far lower than 8:1, the smaller format is clearly where the great majority of revenue comes from in their ILC sales.

All companies are moving to it since some years.

Most companies are addressing the more expensive sector, but that is very different from the idea of abandoning the mainstream formats where the majority of revenues come from. Looking at model release history in recent years, there are consistently more "sub-35mm" format bodies than 35mm format ones, even if considering only the brands that have both. Including Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm, the preponderance of the "sub-35mm" format model releases is even more clear.

This whole "only full frame" prediction is like claiming that Lexus models are more profitable than Toyota-branded cars and so Toyota will move to making only Lexuses. As I mentioned elsewhere, even the ultimate luxury brand Leica has both 24x16 (CL and TL) and 36x24 (SL) EVF camera models in its L-mount series.

[Two23]

I was hoping for something small, for travel.  In addition to a small camera I was hoping for smaller lenses, of course.  I have zero interest in either camera they came out with--I just don't see what I'd use them for?  When I shoot a DSLR I do it for specific needs:  for rodeos/wildlife/ice racing I use a Nikon D500 because I want the nearly instant AF and tracking capability.  For my night shots I want the 1/250s and flexibility in connecting flash, so I use D800E.  I use a D800E for most things I shoot digitally.  The Z7 could likely do most tasks just fine, but at a cost that's over three times as much?  I just don't see what I gain with a $3,300 camera over continuing to use a $1,200 one.     I admit I'm highly unlikely to spend that much on a camera in the first place, unless it was a very desirable historic camera such as a 1928 Leica or better yet an 1860s field camera.  Those would be just as fun to use and won't lose their value in a very short time.  The one intriguing aspect of the new Nikons is the mount change.  It will open up a lot of options for future development.  As for 35mm/FX, I just don't care.  In the past month I've shot the following formats:  5x7, 4x5, 6x9cm, 6x6cm, 35mm/FX, DX, and half frame 35mm (a 1929 Ansco Memo!)  I have no allegiance or emotional investment in any particular format.  If I had to settle on just one it would probably be a square format.


Kent in SD

[davidgp]

The market reports I have seen are that (a) Nikon's top selling DSLR by both units and revenue is its cheapest, the D3400.
(b) Sony and Nikon both have about an 8:1 ratio of 24x16mm to 36x24mm format ILC camera bodies, and with the price ratio far lower than 8:1, the smaller format is clearly where the great majority of revenue comes from in their ILC sales.
Most companies are addressing the more expensive sector, but that is very different from the idea of abandoning the mainstream formats where the majority of revenues come from. Looking at model release history in recent years, there are consistently more "sub-35mm" format bodies than 35mm format ones, even if considering only the brands that have both. Including Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm, the preponderance of the "sub-35mm" format model releases is even more clear.

This whole "only full frame" prediction is like claiming that Lexus models are more profitable than Toyota-branded cars and so Toyota will move to making only Lexuses. As I mentioned elsewhere, even the ultimate luxury brand Leica has both 24x16 (CL and TL) and 36x24 (SL) EVF camera models in its L-mount series.

I'm not saying they are not going to release ASP-C cameras, I'm saying what gives them more money... or what I assumed it is. I haven't seen that many reports, like the one you comment 8:1 of Sony. But in all the latests imaging division market reports that Sony gives to its investors, a phrase similar to this one is very common: "Camera market shifting to high-end value models", like this one: https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/presen/er/pdf/18q1_sonypre.pdf

[LesPalenik]

This whole "only full frame" prediction is like claiming that Lexus models are more profitable than Toyota-branded cars and so Toyota will move to making only Lexuses. As I mentioned elsewhere, even the ultimate luxury brand Leica has both 24x16 (CL and TL) and 36x24 (SL) EVF camera models in its L-mount series.

Actually, Chrysler Dodge did exactly that. In 2008, they switched to making only the more expensive and more profitable Grand Caravans and discontinued standard size (and more eco-friendly) Caravans.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I think Nikon started with full frame for credibility. They essentially released mirrorless versions of their top DSLRs. That really shows they are fully committed.

APS-C will be coming, sooner or later.

Best regards
Erik