I also am really excited in general to see the DX line strengthening as I am not currently hiking/exploring in a way where every ounce counts, but there will come a time when I am older. I would like to still be shooting Nikons then even if it is a compact or a DX body and this makes me more optimistic there will be something for me as time passes (although admittedly I have at least another 20+ years until k think I could start calling myself a bit older).
Jman13 wrote:
Seems like you're talking about the Canon R7 - which I see listed at 1,500 € in most places in Europe - not sure why Italy it's cheaper (and it's 1350€). It sells for $1,650 here in the US, so around a 65% premium (though it's on sale at the moment) over the Z50 II.
Jman13 wrote:
And it's a 3 year old camera - if it came out today (even with the same specs) it would likely cost $1,800.
R7 has too many Mpix for my taste.
A 24-26 Mpix DX body would be preferable. And cheaper.
Jman13 wrote:
I'd expect a hypothetical higher end Z APS-C body to compete very well with an R7 / future R7 II and probably cost $1,700. If they went with a stacked sensor it would likely be $2,000.
D500 price at launch was 1,999.95 US$. A higher end $2,000 Z APS-C body, with stacked sensor and higher resolution, would be a bargain compared to what we paid in 2016. Would it cannibalize the Z6III ??
A constant mid-range zoom & 50mm equiv macro smells beginner or backup wedding photography.
The old FX and DX F-bodies had no IS; but, all later FX and DX lenses had OIS. You could put an FX lens on a DX body and have IS - "pro" FX lenses could go on amateur or prosumer bodies and have IS.
You lose IS if you do that now.
FX Z bodies have IS, but the lenses have no OIS. DX Z bodies have no IS, but the lenses have OIS.
A constant aperture 2.8 mid range zoom is an "advanced user" lens. With only the Z50 II out now, it would make sense to expect a more advanced amateur body to follow. Nikon hasn't offered a true "pro" constant aperture DX mid range zoom since 2003, when all DSLRs were APS-C. This isn't a pro lens (but it is interesting).
taildraggin wrote: FX Z bodies have IS, but the lenses have no OIS. DX Z bodies have no IS, but the lenses have OIS.
What do you mean? Every Z lens for FX that I have ever used has VR (OIS). The ones that don't are mostly the short, fast primes or ultrawides same as was the case for late F mount lenses. Of course there are some cheaper lenses and 3rd party lenses that don't have VR due to cost and/or IP issues.
There is a significant synergy to having both, especially as the focal length increases. It's not difficult for Nikon to add IBID to the DX sensors if not in a cheapie body like what they have been making so far.
All but one Z mount prime wider than 400mm, (105 macro), and every single Z mount zoom that doesn’t go to at least 200mm, lacks VR in the full frame lineup.
Meanwhile all DX Z mount zooms, no matter the length, have VR.
So I'm kinda lost on the Nikon DX strategy. They are releasing better lenses than Canon but they don't have a D500 replacement yet and not even a rumor about one. Despite the fact that there is a Sony sensor on the market that Fuji is using. With the Zf and the Z5ii I just don't get why they aren't releasing a high end crop body. I mean I would buy it. I mean if it's priced less than $2k I would imagine they'd sell a ton of them. Not to mention that Canon and Sony don't have a crop stacked sensor camera.
Some of want the extra reach of the smaller pixels. It's not all about the weight and bulk of the camea, but more saving size/weight/cost on the tele lenses.
huddy wrote:
I also am really excited in general to see the DX line strengthening as I am not currently hiking/exploring in a way where every ounce counts, but there will come a time when I am older. I would like to still be shooting Nikons then even if it is a compact or a DX body and this makes me more optimistic there will be something for me as time passes (although admittedly I have at least another 20+ years until k think I could start calling myself a bit older).
I'm in my 40s and that time is now already. I went from a D500 that was about as much camera as I was willing to travel with. Took it across the world, along with a 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and Tokina 11-16 2.8. There were times I wish I had a smaller kit because the bag needed to carry that kit was larger than I wished.
I upgraded to a Z8 this year and I tried to put together a travel kit for that camera and... it's just too big for what I'm looking to do when traveling. Love the camera, but not for traveling.
But now I have a perfect travel kit: Z50ii or Zfc, the two DX kits lenses, the 12-28 DX wide angle, a 40 f2 for portrait style shooting on the go, and a 24 1.7 for good measure. It all fits into a bag half the size as my previous camera travel bag AND I still have room for other items inside. And the quality is absolutely adequate to great.
This new 16-50 2.8 will lead me to swap out the 16-50 kit lens, and I'll probably leave the 24 1.7 at home as well. Once I roll with the 16-50 2.8 a bit, the 40 f2 might get removed also, and then I can roll with just 3 lenses and have everything covered. All in a small but productive package.
Vorpahl wrote:
I'm in my 40s and that time is now already. I went from a D500 that was about as much camera as I was willing to travel with. Took it across the world, along with a 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and Tokina 11-16 2.8. There were times I wish I had a smaller kit because the bag needed to carry that kit was larger than I wished.
I upgraded to a Z8 this year and I tried to put together a travel kit for that camera and... it's just too big for what I'm looking to do when traveling. Love the camera, but not for traveling.
But now I have a perfect travel kit: Z50ii or Zfc, the two DX kits lenses, the 12-28 DX wide angle, a 40 f2 for portrait style shooting on the go, and a 24 1.7 for good measure. It all fits into a bag half the size as my previous camera travel bag AND I still have room for other items inside. And the quality is absolutely adequate to great.
This new 16-50 2.8 will lead me to swap out the 16-50 kit lens, and I'll probably leave the 24 1.7 at home as well. Once I roll with the 16-50 2.8 a bit, the 40 f2 might get removed also, and then I can roll with just 3 lenses and have everything covered. All in a small but productive package....Show more →
A smaller body and 2-3 small lenses makes travel a breeze and so pleasant.
I still have my ThinkTank Retrospective 5 bag because it was always so easy to toss a body and 3 small MF primes in and take pretty much whatever came. We're pretty much there again with this DX kit.
I still prefer the feel of a Z8 in hand, but love having smaller primes on it when I'm not birding or using the 24-120 for general purpose shooting.
Ripolini wrote:
Right. My 300/4 PF (+FTZ II) on DX would be smaller/lighter (and with slightly more reach) than the 400/4.5 S.
And if you pack the Z50ii and 400/4.5 (unmounted) until you get to a shooting destination, you have even more reach with a package that is still ridiculously small.
huddy wrote:
A smaller body and 2-3 small lenses makes travel a breeze and so pleasant.
I still have my ThinkTank Retrospective 5 bag because it was always so easy to toss a body and 3 small MF primes in and take pretty much whatever came. We're pretty much there again with this DX kit.
I still prefer the feel of a Z8 in hand, but love having smaller primes on it when I'm not birding or using the 24-120 for general purpose shooting.
And if you pack the Z50ii and 400/4.5 (unmounted) until you get to a shooting destination, you have even more reach with a package that is still ridiculously small....Show more →
I don't own the 400/4.5. If I had to spend money and buy a lens longer than my 300, I'd rather buy the 600/6.3.
