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

WestEndFoto

Nikon does need a feeder system for more expensive cameras. Whether that is sub-500 APS-C or 1,000 plus full frame, I don’t know.

However, if Nikon does not have a feeder system, it won’t be the first time. Their long-term strategy may have been for decades and may continue for decades be, “make money off of premium products, make money off of consumer products when the opportunities present themselves, manage the costs of the market transitions.”

spraynpray

Nikon need to do what the others are doing because people are more likely to upgrade within the system they started with than jump ship IMHO. One of the reasons could be a kind of re-affirmation of the original decision maybe.

Pistnbroke

If the Z1 is fake is the DX mirrorless fact _?
http://thenewcamera.com/nikon-dx-mirorless-before-june-2019-rumor/

WestEndFoto

That sight is click bait.

donaldejose

Ok I see Ton14 is referring to a hybrid AF sensor in a DSLR for improve live view focusing. That would be good.

PB_PM

retread said:

I don't think I would have started with FX not knowing if I would like it.

There would be no debate if there was no option though. I guess people in the film age must have been totally lost, since all Nikon cameras and lenses were FX. APS was a short lived film in the 90s that never caught on. It was only used in DSLRs due to early development costs. APS-C mirrorless isn’t cheap either, look at Fuji’s or Sony’s mirrorless lenses, they cost about as much or more than some F-mount FX glass in the same class.

There is no reason to keep APS-C going with a fresh system, just a waste of resources and development time. When you can make $999 FX body, it’s not needed. If there had been one at that price point when I first got into digital shooting I never would have bought a DX camera or lens, because you always lose out when selling or trading gear.

BVS

Ton14 said:

Here is the link I read about the hybrid sensor @donaldejose

http://thenewcamera.com/more-confirmations-nikon-dslr-coming-with-hybrid-sensor/

This is what they need in the D760.

ggbutcher

PB_PM said:

I guess people in the film age must have been totally lost, since all Nikon cameras and lenses were FX.

Yes, I longed for a 110-film backup to my F2, but alas, it was not to be. Think of the reach you'd have for wildlife with FF lenses.....

WestEndFoto

You get the same reach with a D850 sensor in DX mode.

ggbutcher

WestEndFoto said:

You get the same reach with a D850 sensor in DX mode.

What I get for smarting off based on my intuition. I had to go look, turns out the 110 frame isn't too much smaller than APS-C...

That was just a feeble attempt at humor. My serious interest is dynamic range, and right now I'm thinking of moving off my APS-C D7000 to the Z6. And that is also about the potential of the new lens system, otherwise the D750 would be compelling.

In the ILC domain, I'd think there would need to be a significant cost/capability discriminator to continue carrying two sensor formats against a dwindling lower-end market. If a sub $1000US FF mirrorless camera is viable, then why pit it against similarly priced APS-C cameras?

Pistnbroke

Stop all this DX has more reach..its rubbish ..a 500mm lens is 500mm not 750.
The image of say a bird is the same size on the sensor if its FX or DX..you have just cropped in camera.Changing a D850 from FX to DX crop does not make the bird image bigger.....using a real 750mm would ..now just give it up .

Ton14

@Pistnbroke, exactly. with the Nikon Z6- 24,5mp camera you have FX - 36x24, DX - 24x16, 1:1 - 24x24 and 16:9 - 36x20 demensions, that's all.

The four Nikon Z6 camera settings gives you FF - 6048x4024, DX - 3936x2624, 1:1 - 4016x4016 and 16:9 - 6048x3400 pixels all more then enough for A3+ to 1x1 meter (and bigger) prints.

The same when you crop from FF to these sizes on your computer.

That is why I went from DX (Nikon D70, D200 and D300) to the FF Nikon D600 and D810 FF, which I could set to DX if I wanted and @PB_PM describes it exactly.

At the moment Nikon put everything I wanted in the Nikon Z6 (and Nikon Z7) with the best IQ there is. The main things, IBIS, much much lighter and all the stuff I have works.

mhedges

I thought a lot of the push for the smaller film formats was to reduce the cost of the consumable and/or increase Kodak's profit margins? Sure the cameras were smaller and cheaper too.

ggbutcher said:

My serious interest is dynamic range, and right now I'm thinking of moving off my APS-C D7000 to the Z6. And that is also about the potential of the new lens system, otherwise the D750 would be compelling.

Well I went from D7200 to Z6 and was surprised at how much better it was. I would think you should be pretty happy with it.

Capt_Spaulding

@Pistnbroke What gives the "added reach of DX" idea its authority is pixel density. I have a D7200 and a D750, both 24(ish) MP cameras. Both take very good 4000x6000 pixel images. Mounting a 500mm lens on the D7200 results in an image VERY similar to one that a 750mm lens would take on my D750.

I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new, but to have enough sensor real estate to crop to the effect of the 500mm/D7200 combination on a full frame camera I'd need a 50MP sensor. Or I'd need a 750mm f5.6 lens Probably not happening for a while. The crop sensor doesn't make the FL any longer it just makes the picture look like it. It's a bit like love. I've been told for years that money won't buy it; perhaps not. But money will buy sex. And sometimes that's enough.

Pistnbroke

Now pixel density is a different ball game but so is image processing.

snakebunk

Simplified: High pixel density is good. Large sensor is good. Cheap camera is good. And you have to choose two out of three. This is one reason why crop cameras are still relevant.

ADKDaveyJ

Looks like a DX version of the Z6 and Z7 would just not happen? Right now I have to decide if I get yet another D7500 which I have had very great results with compared to my D7200, D7100, D7000, all the way down to D100. We own a D500 and that all now is on an Ikelite UW housing. Which works quite well. Except some places being in the water in the offshore Pelagic Zone is difficult, maybe even dangerous. So that mission get assigned to GoPpro on a pole and remote screen. Unfortunately the new Go Pro 7 is having Mini SD card issues and often will fail to record. Trips out to the Blue Water are also very expensive. Last time out fuel alone was about $200! That is 28 miles off shore, and back to the dock. My current D7500 is pretty beat up and I feel I need another for prime usuage. Currently I use the D7200 for almost everything. I need two prime cameras. The Z6 seems to be less recommended, and certainly is quite a bit more expensive......

Pistnbroke

Where does the D7500 score over the D500 and I don't think DX mirrorless is dead.

ADKDaveyJ

The D500 has no Flash onboard, heavier, and especially more expensive. I will buy either a Z6 rig, or a D7500 and another 16-80: this time as a kit. I was one of the first to buy the 16-80 when it first came out I think it is by far the best somewhat wide zoom I have owned. If I get. Z6 the 24-70 S f4 will be the substitute. But then that leaves me without a 50 to 70 DX equivalent gap, and for some reason I cannot see the Z6 with FTZ and 200-500 ......wonder who has tried that combo?

Couldn’t agree more with DX mirrorless!I would be willing to pay pretty close to Z6 prices to get a DX mirrorless that had retained as many attributes of the Z6, that is keep 24 MP, all features of the Z6 for stills speed, video, controls, screens, etc., and equip with focus points out to the DX Frame Edge. Therefore I think the pixel density, inherent depth of field, and sizing, and lens requirements would be quite ideal for a field camera? Lending itself to great environmental portraiture, modest size, etc., also keep hopefully Nikon DX sales Pretty bright for some time to come!

mhedges

ADKDaveyJ said:

The Z6 seems to be less recommended, and certainly is quite a bit more expensive......

Well I wouldn't say that. I love mine. I mean, lets face it, the D7500 was not well received. From what I have read it is an excellent camera, and better than the D7200. But a lot of folks can't move past what was removed.

Anyway yes it is more expensive, certainly. But I just saw the FTZ is now free, which is nice. And if you have an old film SLR (or early DSLR) gathering dust you can trade that in too and get another $200 off.

tc88

ADKDaveyJ said:

I would be willing to pay pretty close to Z6 prices to get a DX mirrorless

How many people are going to buy a DX mirrorless for $2k? Nikon can't move much DX cameras for $1k, let alone for $2k. Also you will have to use FTZ with your DX lens in that case anyway, which removes pretty much all sizing advantage over DX DSLR.

So if you want to stick to DX, another D7200/D7500 is the best bet.

tc88

Pretty much anyone who wants a Z7/Z6 has probably bought one. Unfortunately for Nikon, they may still have quite some stock left. That's why they are throwing in the FTZ. I'm not sure how much it's going to help though. Honestly, that should have been included from the start.

They have to come up with another Z camera to target a different population. But I think they will stay FF.

retread

I love my D500 and shoot a D7200 with it. Both do great at what I do with them. Really not interested in a D7500 although it is said to be good,

ADKDaveyJ

I would not trade in my F5 Nikon for $1,000. Let alone $200! The build quality and ability of the F5 is great. So I can still shoot Velvia film with that and my Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 lens. With the grip it is an impressive rig! I still use it on occasion.

Msmoto

DX, isn't this what the phone cameras are essentially moving toward... ? My guess is that DX for Nikon is not something they are interested in, especially when one looks at the financials regarding the less expensive camera market.

I am waiting on a new iPhone with an equivalent 400/2.8.... LOL.