Z5-4 = Z1 ... FX or DX Rumored ..who knows

1356

Comments

  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,033Member
    edited March 2019
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    Not bad at all.
    Always learning.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,191Member
    This is fake news.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    The authors spelling and grammar is rubbish which makes me suspicious, but these days, precise and concise written or spoken communication seems to be at best optional, perhaps heading for extinction altogether.

    Ok, if it is true, it is not bad.
    Always learning.
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 576Member
    @spraynpray It is an Asian site, automatic translated, I have this site in my favorites for a couple of years, because most of the time they are the first with information of all brands.
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,428Member

    What if they put in the D4/Df sensor?! 16MP?!

    That's an older tech sensor, and cost wise it probably makes more sense to use the same sensor as the Z6 (or one very similar), for economy of scale etc. Nikon has never really differentiated based on sensors. On DX the super cheap 3XXX series had very similar image quality to the 7XXX series. Plus if it's intended to compete with the 26 MP EOS RP then 16 MP just won't cut it.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,033Member
    If it is called Z1 that gives room for Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 as well as Z8 and up
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    Yes, I do hope it is the Z1 for about 1000 and there will be a Z2,3,4 and 5 between $1000 and $2000 but realistically that seems like too many models for that price spread. I would expect Z1 and Z2 to be crop sensor bodies costing between $500 and $1,000. That leaves Z3,4 and 5 to occupy the spread between $1000 and $2000, which seems more likely.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,033Member
    Well it does say Z1 and FX in the photos
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    It does and if it is legit then all Nikon Z bodies will be full frame. That is possible. But then, what is Nikon going to do about the $500 to $1,000 camera market? Leave it to DSLRs like the D3xxx series and the D5xxx series? Abandon it to cell phones and market only to "serious" photographers willing to spend as much money as their cell phone costs for a "real" camera? Or will full frame sensors fall to such a low cost that they can be used in $500 to $1000 bodies (including a kit lens)? I would expect the most logical answer would be to produce a plastic crop sensor Z body supported by a few kit zooms like the 18-55 or if they are going to abandon that market to cell phones to just let the current DX bodies run on and on for about five more years with minor updates (which is what we have been seeing now, isn't it?). Let me suggest that Nikon has to predict how far cell phone cameras and their computational photography can evolve to cover what the D3xxx series now is capable of doing to see if there really will be a need or market for a $500 crop sensor body five years from now. That is an enigma wrapped in a conundrum. Only time will tell. Personally, I think we will see a Z body crop sensor body with a pancake lens like the old Coolpix A. At least I do hope so. I still use mine when I don't want to appear to be carrying a camera.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,191Member
    If Nikon abandons the $500 to $1,000 market, that is nothing new. They have been there before.

    I doubt that computational photography in cell phones will produce much of a challenge for APS-C. I think that Fuji is in a good position.
  • ADKDaveyJADKDaveyJ Posts: 55Member
    I think donalddejose’s hope that maybe Nikon would introduce a crop sensor body in a Z Mount with a pancake type lens like the old Coolpix to which I would also request that it could be used to work with great compact telescope like the D3300 thru D3500 use lens like the great! 70-300 AF-P DX VR lens. I keep looking at the current D3500 and the 18-55 kit lens as my trusty D3200 cannot use these fly by wire lens as they have no stepper motors or be able to drive the lens. Perhaps I should go buy a D3500 and the 18-55kit lens. Why haven’t I? One answer, the D7500 which check out Thom Hogan’s analysis of that camera. I am convinced it is a miracle for price and quality. Coupled with the 18-80, 70-300 (I own about every version of that Nikkor lens) AF-P DX VR lens, and the 200-200 Nikkor 5.6, it is amazing. The Z series of cameras are to me....
    Absolute perfection in mirrorless. And yes, I have test drove the Sony’s and cannot get comfortable with their fit, finish, and even media bias. As has been pointed out......Time will tell!
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,122Member
    There’s very little money to be made at the bottom end of the market now. In the past large sales numbers made up for the razor thin profit margins, but now it’s the space that is seeing the largest drop in unit sales numbers. Meanwhile the used market is full of ads for entry level stuff - Canon Rebels, Nikon D3xxx and D5xxx kits - noting that the user just uses a cell phone now and doesn’t need the DSLR anymore. That means lots of cheap, hardly used, cameras are on the market further eroding new unit sales.

    I doubt a new mirrorless low cost entry in the entry level space will change anything, other than throwing R&D money out the window. I can see Nikon ignoring anything serious below $800-1000 easily, given this situation. Nikon needs to steal sales in the $1000-2000 price bracket from Sony and Fuji, and an APS-C camera won’t do it, the competition is too well intrenched in that space already with good cameras and glass. FX is the way to go.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    "I doubt a new mirrorless low cost entry in the entry level space will change anything, other than throwing R&D money out the window. I can see Nikon ignoring anything serious below $800-1000 easily, given this situation. Nikon needs to steal sales in the $1000-2000 price bracket from Sony and Fuji, and an APS-C camera won’t do it, the competition is too well intrenched in that space already with good cameras and glass. FX is the way to go." I tend to agree with this analysis: makes a lot of sense to me. Nikon could have come to this conclusion. The future "real camera" market may just start at a full frame body with kit lens included for $1,000. Sure, cell phones cannot compete with crop sensors but cell phones cameras are "good enough" to have destroyed the Coolpix line and now are eating into the DX line because so many people do not, and will not, use the full potential of that DX sensor for the photos they want to take and publish. Printing is another matter, but people generally don't print larger than 8x10 anymore. I find that people who want a photo to sit around want 5x7 more than 8x10 size. Once a cell phone photo can be printed 5x7 or 8x10 and look as good as the same photo taken with a Nikon D3500 many people will no longer see the reason to lug around an additional "real" camera. Are we at that point yet? Many cell phone sensors are 12 and 16 mp which should be enough mp if the light and lens is good.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,191Member
    I concur with much of this thinking too.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,123Member
    I think a 1 inch sensor with computational photography and a 24-70mm 2.8 lens would be quite competitive at $1000. Nikon may just abandon the low end market.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 413Member
    Even that Nikon probably doesn't want to introduce anything below $1000, calling this Z1 is very strange. The name implies barebone in that case, which won't resonate well with customers. It also leaves no room beneath it for future, and leaves too many models to differentiate between that and Z6/Z7.

    The comments on the main blog seem to indicate it's a fake. The Z1 writing is totally different from the Z6/Z7 style. The "FX mirrorless Z mount" is totally redundant and never seen before and has a different curvature as the the mount circle. The camera seems to be identical to one of the mockups before Z6/7 is released.

    So I'm also of the opinion that this Z1 is fake.
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 576Member
    I just read that Nikon is developing a Hybrid sensor.
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    What do you mean by "hybrid sensor?"
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,428Member
    Well I still think they need a kit at the $1000-$1200 price point. But I also think they should work really hard to get there with FF. That way they don't have to develop yet another whole family of lenses, and folks could use their kit lenses on higher end bodies without cropping.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,191Member
    I agree with you MHedges. Donaldjose, a hybrid sensor will be half Sony, half Tower Jazz with the important IP supplied by Nikon. ;-)
  • ggbutcherggbutcher Posts: 287Member
    mhedges said:

    Well I still think they need a kit at the $1000-$1200 price point. But I also think they should work really hard to get there with FF. That way they don't have to develop yet another whole family of lenses, and folks could use their kit lenses on higher end bodies without cropping.

    I agree with the notion of focusing (ooh, a pun...) on FF, let APS-C go gently into the night. But to cover their current market, they'd need to service a ~$500US price point, no?
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    But do they really need to supply a 500 dollar price point mirrorless kit? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. What is happening now month by month to the DSLR market under $1000 and what does Nikon project will happen to it in the next 5 years? If Nikon concludes rising cellphone use will kill that market like it killed the Coolpix sensor size market then perhaps Nikon can just let the current D3xxx and D5xxx ride it out with minor updates for the next few years until that entire price point disappears for DSLRs and mirrorless. If the Northrups are correct that the cost of an FX sensor is just $100 more than a DX sensor then there is not a significant amount of money to be saved by using a DX sensor. Those of us who have some knowledge of the advantages of FX would gladly pay $100 more for a body to get a full frame sensor rather than a crop sensor. But first time purchasers won't know that and it will be very hard for them to see any difference because the EVF will show the same size image and the in camera jpeg engine will produce excellent images with great control over noise up into the range of ISO 3,200 to 6,400 (imagine the D500 jpegs taken one generation farther). They may just look at the cost and not realize the hundred dollar more expensive FX sensor body is the bargain.
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 576Member
    edited March 2019
    Post edited by Ton14 on
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • retreadretread Posts: 554Member
    I have worked my way up through DX to where my next camera body will be FX. My regular kit has two DX lenses (3rd party) and the rest are FX. I think Nikon needs to have a way of working up to FX with Z mount. I don't think I would have started with FX not knowing if I would like it. Investing the in FX would be just too much start up cost, spreading the cost out over time has been better although in may be more in the long run. Planning ahead I already have my FF F mount lens set. I am happily shooting with my DX waiting to see what Nikon does to decide if my next camera will be a FF F mount or Z mount with the FTZ adapter.
Sign In or Register to comment.