RoamingScott wrote:
1) adapted F lenses often work better (faster/more reliable AF, no microadjustments needed) on Z with FTZ II
2) there are SO many quality of life updates on new higher end Z cameras compared to something like the D500 that they aren't worth comparing
The Z50II was never the right replacement for you, the Z8/Z9 are...or this mythical Z500, should it ever arrive.
On point 1, I generally agree but with the caveat that some Z bodies get slower speeds from F-mount lenses, so it's not always a blanket upgrade. My Zf drove my 70-200 slower than my D5/D500, for example, and it struggled in the same action scenarios where those bodies were already very reliable. Steve Perry showed the same back in the Z6 days. Z8/Z9 get the same speed, and I assume a wildlife-oriented Z DX body would too, but I think it's worth a mention. And I agree, the Z50 II was never that anyway.
And on 2, I would actually disagree given the context that most people using the D500 right now are clearly very price-conscious. I still have mine and when I take it out, it's just plain good at putting the group cluster on something way over there and firing off 10fps at it. The biggest thing I miss when I use it over the Z8 is the live view experience. Through the OVF, though, it's still quite a capable little camera for action. So I do think there's a discussion to be had for the person who isn't already in a mirrorless system. But then, will those price-conscious buyers buy a new Z500? I dunno, I guess that's what Nikon would like to know.
Whatever, I just wanted to glaze the D500 for a minute. I'll see myself out
GeofFX wrote:
What would a Z500 do that a Z6lll doesn’t?
It will behave as a 1.4x teleconverter without the f-stop hit. Most wildlife/bird photographers will be elated... if the focus performance and frame rate of the Z8 are preserved. And if you give them raw pre-capture they will pee themselves with joy... because now instead of having to cull 3000 frames per session, they will be up to 10,000 or more. It will also dramatically reduce edge of frame optical degradation due to the reduced imaging circle.
The above is really just a subjective preference for the D500, and that's fine. The Z8 and Z9 are objectively much better platforms with much better performance and many more nice to have features. I haven't heard of a case of a Z8 or Z9 using an F mount lens worse than an F DSLR FWIW.
RoamingScott wrote:
The above is really just a subjective preference for the D500, and that's fine. The Z8 and Z9 are objectively much better platforms with much better performance and many more nice to have features. I haven't heard of a case of a Z8 or Z9 using an F mount lens worse than an F DSLR FWIW.
To be clear, I'm saying the lower-end mirrorless bodies might not get full performance from F-mount lenses. The Z8/Z9 are just as good as the DSLR's with all the upsides.
And no, not a preference for the D500. I prefer the Z8 in every way and use it significantly more often than the D500. But I still have the D500 and use it sometimes, and it still hangs in there. I wouldn't want to go backwards personally, but if someone never got into a more modern mirrorless, then I think they've still got a capable setup in their D500.
RoamingScott wrote:
1) adapted F lenses often work better (faster/more reliable AF, no microadjustments needed) on Z with FTZ II
2) there are SO many quality of life updates on new higher end Z cameras compared to something like the D500 that they aren't worth comparing
The Z50II was never the right replacement for you, the Z8/Z9 are...or this mythical Z500, should it ever arrive.
I have.a Z8 and several Z lenses. However the DX Z lineup is lacking, and once you put an FTZ on your lenses, the “smaller/lighter” argument is lost. The combination of lack of some desirable features on the z50/Z50II and the lack of a broad lens lineup drove me back to the D500 and f mount DX lenses for mig crop sensor needs, No necessarily lighter, but full featured and with a nice selection of lenses.
I will also admit that the Nikon mirrorless cameras are much better for IR, with more predictable results. I have a Z7II converted for that purpose.
Certainly not that many DX Z lenses, but I would assume the target audience would mostly be interested in using telephoto lenses and there the difference between lenses designed for DX and FX becomes quite small.
Nikon will likely reduce the size and weight with the 100-400mm II anyway and the weight savings with a DX lens won't be material enough to justify the R&D cost. Same with the 180-600mm, 400mm f4.5, 600mm f6.3.
Given there already is a 16-50mm f2.8 for DX, the only real lack is a better UWA lens than the 12-28mm PZ.
Also missing a 70-300 (both FX and DX) and a DX superzoom would be nice. Not to mention the lack of DX Z macros and fisheyes, as well as primes (fortunately the 3rd parties seem to be good on that). The 35mm DX Z macro is not really a macro as it is 2:1 reproduction ratio.
I would THINK that if Nikon was willing to jump into DX with a "flagship" type body, they'd be willing to at least release a few obvious Z DX zooms to complement it.
However, Nikon and I rarely see eye to eye when it comes to what the market obviously wants.
mklass wrote:
The 35mm DX Z macro is not really a macro as it is 2:1 reproduction ratio.
The NIKKOR Z DX MC 35mm f/1.7 has 1:1.5 (0.67 X) max magnification; this allows a framed area equal to 36x24 mm˛, i.e., the same framed area we get with 1:1 on FX.
If it had a 2:1 reproduction ratio, the framed area at the minimum focus distance would be a considerable 8x12 mm˛.
