Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #13 · NR: Nikon Z50 Mirrorless APS-C Camera To Be Announced Soon | |
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Steve, it's about cost and portability, not equivalence. You can get a camera body, superwide angle zoom, and a standard zoom for $1000 for DX DSLRs. With FX mirrorless the cost for Z6, 14-30 and 24-70 is around $4000.
Now, instead of $600 50/1.8 there could be a 35/1.8 DX that costs $200. It's not the same (in terms of DOF, etc.) of course, but it's a prime of the same angle of view and gives in more light than a zoom.
Not everyone cares about very high technical image quality so that they are willing to pay thousands of dollars for something they don't really need for the application they have in mind, just because it is "better". It might not matter. Today most images are viewed on tiny relatively low-resolution displays. Before someone suggests to use a cell phone, a cell phone won't give image quality equivalent of 35/1.8 DX, it can't use proper flash, there are limited exposure controls, the ergonomics are poor and there are no real telephoto lenses or optical zooms, for that matter. Not needing FX image quality doesn't automatically mean that cell phone is ok. Most people are happy with DX image quality, how do I know? Because of the popularity in terms of sales, and also by talking to people.
...Show more →
I don't think we are in disagreement if this is all you are arguing. I am all for having small zooms and primes that one would not make as similarly capable lens for FX for DX cameras. That is why I suggested 4 f/2 very small primes as what Nikon should focus on, and 4 zooms three of which would be very small. But I also think a 16-55 f/2.8 DX, a 35 f/1.2 or f/1.4 DX, and a 55 f/1.2 or f/1.4 DX don't make any sense at all.
Yes, the Z6 kit you highlighted is that price now, but what about in 2 to 3 years? We know right now at B & H we can get a Sony A7r II with a 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 lens for $1,000 brand new. Add to that the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 for $900 and you have a nice kit for less than $2,000, and that price gap is going to get smaller over the next 2 or 3 years. Right now Nikon does not have a low cost FF mirrorless option, but one has to believe that they aren't going to cede this segment to Sony and Canon that do. As Nikon develops such a camera the gap will be smaller and smaller. In fact, in the Sony example if one didn't need an ultra wide zoom and could live with an 18mm prime, you could get the Sony FF kit, plus a Samyang 18mm f/2.8 prime for $1,400 and now we are knocking on the door of the DX price in a slightly bigger, but still pretty small package. I don't think there is any doubt that APS-C is not only going to face pressure from cell phones that some think are capable of replacing their cameras, but also from FF cameras that are dropping in price.
I agree that inexpensive small APS-C cameras and lenses can make sense, but I do not see larger more capable APS-C cameras, with the exception of a possible wildlife camera that is larger and valued for its reach, and lenses as making sense as we look even to the relatively close future (i.e., 2 to 3 years out).
|
