Nikon Z50

PB_PM

Nonsense, smaller Olympus, and similarly sized Sony cameras have built in image stabilization. Nikon is able, they just didn’t include it to hit a price point/profit margin.

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

Nonsense, smaller Olympus, and similarly sized Sony cameras have built in image stabilization. Nikon is able, they just didn’t include it to hit a price point/profit margin.

Then something else will have to move. Read this:

https://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/camera-reviews/nikon-z-mirrorless-camera/nikon-z50-camera-review.html

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

Nonsense, smaller Olympus, and similarly sized Sony cameras have built in image stabilization. Nikon is able, they just didn’t include it to hit a price point/profit margin.

The Z50 is about 4 or 5mm shallower from the flange to the back of the camera (so ignoring the grip) than the Sony A6500 and A6600.

Amazing that half this distance is the flange focal length distance. There is a lot of “stuff” crammed in there. It seems reasonable that if Nikon added IBIS, it would be deeper.

WestEndFoto

Also posted in the Z lens thread, I think that this comment by Thom is the reason to buy the Z50 and forget about the "sensor is only 20pm" idiots.

When you take the 16-50mm kit lens into account, things ratchet up another level. While the aperture specs don't look so hot for this lens, it performs well above its weight class. Indeed, I'd have to say that it's the best consumer mid-range kit zoom that goes to 24mm equivalent I've seen from any camera maker, and it makes some of the competitors look like pure optical garbage in direct comparison.

rmp

I read Thom's comments about IS. I assume he is correct for the Nikon construction. So, I guess I will wait for the Z70, because my Z7 is the first camera I can hand-hold and still get reasonably sharp images. Any other camera, in my hands, needs a tripod.

DaveyJ

The small FF Nikon West End Photo mentions would be a really good selling camera. It would be pretty much a Z50 with the two kit lens , but in FF. I sure would be interested in that! Wonder what that would sell for??

WestEndFoto

DaveyJ said:

The small FF Nikon West End Photo mentions would be a really good selling camera. It would be pretty much a Z50 with the two kit lens , but in FF. I sure would be interested in that! Wonder what that would sell for??

$1,600US would be my guess.

snakebunk

WestEndFoto said:

... forget about the "sensor is only 20pm" idiots.

No, a person is not an idiot because he or she wants/needs more than 20 mp.

WestEndFoto

snakebunk said:

WestEndFoto said:

... forget about the "sensor is only 20pm" idiots.

No, a person is not an idiot because he or she wants/needs more than 20 mp.

Well, you are right and that was not fair of me. But I think that many (but not all) people lose perspective. They chase a minor linear gain to get from 20-24mp or 24-32mp and don't think about the lens that they are bolting on.

I will take as many mp as I can afford, up to the point that it exceeds the best lens that I am likely to buy. Not sure what that is in full frame.

DaveyJ

I can see the need for up to 46 MP clearly. But when I buy a field camera, 20 MP is fine if the other attributes are there. Hopefully Nikon will make a DX Mount 10-20 like their DX 10-20 f Mount lens as I do NOT intend to use the Z50 with an FTZ adapter at all. The lack of sensor cleaning rules that out totally! There is a significant chance of getting a blob on the sensor with such a big Z Mount. Sensor may not be that big (to me just the right size) but the opening when changing lens....is HUGE. So in changing lens......be very, very careful!!!

rmp

The Z7-24-70 f4 combination is GREAT for what I do and in my hands. Still I long for a 70-200 package and the new Z version is just too big for me. So, I am waiting for a Z70(?) that includes image stabilization and a light weight 70-200.

mhedges

DaveyJ said:

I can see the need for up to 46 MP clearly. But when I buy a field camera, 20 MP is fine if the other attributes are there. Hopefully Nikon will make a DX Mount 10-20 like their DX 10-20 f Mount lens as I do NOT intend to use the Z50 with an FTZ adapter at all. The lack of sensor cleaning rules that out totally! There is a significant chance of getting a blob on the sensor with such a big Z Mount. Sensor may not be that big (to me just the right size) but the opening when changing lens....is HUGE. So in changing lens......be very, very careful!!!

I agree sensor dust is a concern, but I'm not sold on that sensor vibration "cleaning" as actually being of much use. Have you found it to do anything? I've found swabs are really the only thing that works.

Nice thing is Z50 sensor should be easier to clean than SLR because it's so close to the mount. And no IBIS to worry about.

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

snakebunk said:

WestEndFoto said:

... forget about the "sensor is only 20pm" idiots.

No, a person is not an idiot because he or she wants/needs more than 20 mp.

Well, you are right and that was not fair of me. But I think that many (but not all) people lose perspective. They chase a minor linear gain to get from 20-24mp or 24-32mp and don't think about the lens that they are bolting on.

But reasonable people don't base their decision on the performance of a single 3x zoom either when choosing a camera.

mhedges

tc88 said:

But reasonable people don't base their decision on the performance of a single 3x zoom either when choosing a camera.

IDK once the price comes down I almost could. Not just because of the performance of the lens itself but also in the hopes that any further DX Z lenses will be excellent.

Now that hope could be unwarranted and they could be dogs - absolutely. Still, for me I would get this strictly as a travel camera and probably the only additional lens I would want is a wide zoom.

WestEndFoto

mhedges said:

tc88 said:

But reasonable people don't base their decision on the performance of a single 3x zoom either when choosing a camera.

IDK once the price comes down I almost could. Not just because of the performance of the lens itself but also in the hopes that any further DX Z lenses will be excellent.

Now that hope could be unwarranted and they could be dogs - absolutely. Still, for me I would get this strictly as a travel camera and probably the only additional lens I would want is a wide zoom.

Thom's initial impression is that the 16-50 DX is a best in class lens. Also, based on all the Z-mount lenses released so far, it is reasonable to assume that further lenses will be excellent.. So a reasonable person "should" be thinking about this lens and likely future lenses when they buy the camera.

My advise to most would also be to think about ergonomics second.

A reasonable person could certainly reverse the priority of the first and second.

And third, assume that the lenses and ergonomics are good, I would recommend ignoring differences between 20-24mp or 24-30mp. Only when the difference is say between 20 and 30mp or 24 and 36mp, would I recommend adding more weight to sensor resolution.

spraynpray

WestEndFoto said:

And third, assume that the lenses and ergonomics are good, I would recommend ignoring differences between 20-24mp or 24-30mp. Only when the difference is say between 20 and 30mp or 24 and 36mp, would I recommend adding more weight to sensor resolution.

Hmmm, not so sure about that, the 20 mp sensor cannot touch the D7100 & 7200's 24mp in my trials IMHO. I also have not seen macro shots by anybody using that sensor that touch mine from the 24mp. The cameras that use it are superior in many ways, but not ultimate sharpness.

WestEndFoto

It seems pretty small. Going from 20mp to 24mp only increases linear sharpness by 10%. I am extremely sceptical that if you print them both and put them on the wall, many will be able to tell the difference. I can barely tell the difference between my D800 and D850, unless I look closely. For “most” people looking to buy a Z50, I would tell them to not consider any difference less than a third (20-26) in their evaluation. Now if Spraynpray is that person, all bets are off.....

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

So a reasonable person "should" be thinking about this lens and likely future lenses when they buy the camera.

What other DX lens do you know that Nikon is going to release? Are those on the roadmap and when are they going to come? Does Nikon have a track record of releasing those? Does Nikon have resource to develop those? If they get released 3 years down the road, can't I get a Z50 for less at that time without all the uncertainty, or get a better camera for the same amount of money? Where will the competition be price/performance wise?

Honestly, what you are saying is wishful thinking. For someone who's currently not invested in Z, Z50 should not be the way to go.

mhedges

Only DX lens on the roadmap is the 18-140, I believe.

Pistnbroke

Spraynpray said... " the 20 mp sensor cannot touch the D7100 & 7200's 24mp in my trials "

My life is now complete.

Ton14

rmp said:

The Z7-24-70 f4 combination is GREAT for what I do and in my hands.

For me about the same, Nikon Z6 with the 24-70mm f/4S, the outstanding 50mm f/1.8S and the 85mm f/1.8S. The 70-200mm f/2.8S is announced, my basic set is complete in one year time. The costs were minimal due to the good trade-in prices that I received for my Nikon D810 and the temporary Sony A7II I had for half a year.

I can do everything in top IQ, making 120 x 90cm prints if I want (sorry metric) .

Waiting for the 40mm f/..S pancake, I will try the 16-50mm S-DX on the Nikon Z6 as small package.

For now the 60mm f/2.8G works fine as macro lens and the 70-200mm f/4G is also a great lens on the Nikon Z6 and my spare Nikon D600.

DaveyJ

The D7100 and D7200 24 MP superiority over the D7500 or D500 or Z50 is a complete mystery to me. I own them all. I fail to see this 24MP advantage, in fact I see it the exact opposite when it comes to getting shots. But if spraynpray is getting better macro shots with the D7200 then all the more power to him! Just like in fishing, you are best to go with what you have confidence in! For stills from a macro lens the D7200 is very good. But with a 200-500 f5.6 I’d way rather have a D7500 or a D500, 20.9 MP means way less compared to just plain missing shots with the way slower adjustment on the D7200 compared to D7500 or D500.

Last night I took both stills and video while my Grandson Alex hooked and landed a 100 pound Lemon Shark and released it. The D7200 would have struggled with the stills and yes I would have some results. But I never have seen an awesome edge for 24 MP, and at best they are pretty much the same. Yet the newer cameras can get better results in difficult scenarios. I had only the Z50 and the two kit lens. I just shot it with the 16-50.

The Z50 and especially the 16-50 kit lens is nothing short of quite awesome. The fact that is is so compact and capable of allowing freedom of movement in fairly challenging conditions to me makes it not only a capable travel camera but an excellent ADVENTURE camera that sets a new quality bar that makes that camera an almost MUST have. I did not have a D7500 and the 16-80 lens with me as that comparison would have been important. But I had a lot to juggle and preferred not to fall in the shark infested water.

The 16-50 and video out to the edge of the DX format rather than cropped, and on board flash truly does make a compact very useful camera! The stills at the lowest light (it was very, very dark by the time Alex released the Shark) were nice, the last videos were not as good as when the fight began. The stills and video to the halfway mark when the Dark was really setting in though are AWESOME. All in all I was glad I did not have a D7200 and any lens Nikon makes. The D7500 and 16-80 though I believe would have had excellent results. But at several points the D7500 and much bigger lens would have been at risk getting banged on concrete or other hazards during the event.

Ton14

Strange, I had the D7200, combined with the 70-200mm f/4G was the fastest AF combo I ever had, it was hard to miss an action shot. Also with the 24-70mm f/2.8G, even the 85mm f/1.8G and the 50mm f/1.8G with ISO 3200, no problem in dark situations. This was 2017 and 2018. Maybe the DX lenses are not fast enough? Just a thought.

The IQ compared with FF was great, I regret I sold it.

spraynpray

I admit to having ridiculously high standards in macro, but if any of you guys want to go toe to toe with me I will happily play along. Send me a PM and we can exchange FULL RES files of a macro subject and we can both agree the outcome. My old D7100 and 60mm G verses your D7500/D500 and whatever lens you like. It will be educational.

I think Flickr has done something shady so I am not able to view full res anymore - they prolly want me to pay for the priviledge now so we will have to 'Wetransfer' images to each other.

Pistnbroke

Ton14 .....
Quote " Sorry Metric"
don't be sorry nobody under 30 knows what an inch is in the UK...dead and gone.