Nikon Z5

WestEndFoto

CaMeRaQuEsT said:

Canon's f/1.8 RF primes are very interesting. The 35mm is a stabilized macro that sells for about half the Nikon 35/1.8 Z's price. The Canon is slightly softer than the Nikon and is not weather-sealed, but is smaller and lighter. Canon's upcoming 85/2 will also be a stabilized macro, while their upcoming 50/1.8 will be stabilized but not macro. Both should also undercut the Nikon equivalents' prices by a good amount. Nikon did paint themselves into a corner with their expensive 1.8 lenses, making them ill-positioned to fight in the entry-level FF ILC arena.

I don't agree that Nikon has painted themselves into a corner. The 1.8s are what every quality conscious photographer, including professionals, will buy that cannot justify spending $3,000 on a fast lens. The Canon's do not serve that market.

And the market that Canon is serving will served at a slightly lower cost, but good enough, by the compact primes.

This may turn out to be a brilliant strategy.

photobunny

Canon naming is really easy to understand. 1 series

CaMeRaQuEsT said:

Canon's f/1.8 RF primes are very interesting. The 35mm is a stabilized macro that sells for about half the Nikon 35/1.8 Z's price. The Canon is slightly softer than the Nikon and is not weather-sealed, but is smaller and lighter. Canon's upcoming 85/2 will also be a stabilized macro, while their upcoming 50/1.8 will be stabilized but not macro. Both should also undercut the Nikon equivalents' prices by a good amount. Nikon did paint themselves into a corner with their expensive 1.8 lenses, making them ill-positioned to fight in the entry-level FF ILC arena.

The Nikon f/1.8's so far have been really top of the line lenses and they are competing with Canon's L glass lenses and not with the upcoming non-L lenses. Nikon have plenty of room to make cheep f/1.8 lenses that don't carry the S badge.

Very often these S f/1.8's are seen as low end due to not being f/1.2 like the RF L primes, but Nikon have just made some of the best lenses out there especially the 50mm and I would also argue the 85mm.

These aren't the $100 and $400 disposable primes that are good when you stop them down to f/2.8 or f/4. These S series lenses perform at f/1.8 all the way to the extreme edges of the frame.

spraynpray

@donaldejose the point - my point is that Nikon would be able to keep a stable product part numbering system. I would far rather buy a D1 mk5 than a D6 - it is clearer and gives the impression of a highly developed product IMHO. You could still keep s or x suffixes.

Dealing with obscure complex numbering systems does not help new buyers or give any marketing benefit.

spraynpray

donaldejose said:

Nikon should go with Z6.1 and follow that standard update convention with all the Z bodies. So Z6 followed by Z6.1 followed by Z6.2 etc.

What happens whenafter Z6.9? Much better go with Z6 mk10.

spraynpray

Guys - lets not get our knickers in a knot over this stuff. No name calling should ever be necessary.

WestEndFoto

Z6.10, Z6.11 etc.

Pistnbroke

The only numeral designation thats important is $$$$$

donaldejose

Guess we have to wait a few more years to see what numbering convention Nikon adopts for iterations of the Z series bodies. Whatever they use will be fine with me. Since they started with single digit designations of all bodies (as opposed to three or four digits) and since they have always uses numbers instead of Mark I, Mark II etc. in the past I have assumed they will be adopting the same convention used for software updates. But we will see what Nikon does in about two more years when the first iterations of the Z6 and the Z7 bodies comes out.

CaMeRaQuEsT

I am not doubting the Z mount 1.8 primes are optically the best 1.8 primes in the market at any price. Having said that, and after seeing samples of the competing 35/1.8 mirrorless lenses, it's really hard for an enthusiast, the type of customer entry-level cameras are mostly aimed for, to make the case for forking out almost twice as much for the Nikon lens over Canon's. Furthermore, Nikon's current Z lenses roadmap only shows a 28mm, a 40mm (both purportedly pancakes), and a 60mm macro as their future budget non S primes, all of which are very likely to be f/2.8 and will probably be priced around the same as Canon’s f/1.8-2.0 primes. Nikon is just going to end up with perceptually unappealing budget lenses in the eyes of people cross-shopping to decide on a system to put their hard-earned money into.

WestEndFoto

CaMeRaWuEsT, you are making a lot of assumptions. My guess, and I admit that I am making my own huge assumptions, is that the compact primes will 2.8 with VR and very smartly priced. Think the 50mm 1.8 G but with far superior optics. This will leave the door open for Nikon to make “high end enthusiast” f/2.0 primes and these will not compete with Canon in “Specs”, but optics.

And if this is the case, I wonder if the 60mm macro will fall into this category? It is a lot bigger than the 28 and 40.

CaMeRaQuEsT

Well yes WestEndFoto, Nikon can always change course and try to react better against Canon's salvos, but having a roadmap means R&D resources have already been invested in these future products that, if they decide to not bring to market, will never be recovered. I believe that equipping VR will compromise the 28 and 40mm's compactness, even if they end up being f/2.8 (I don't know of a single stabilized pancake prime in the market), but yeah, they should have VR as the Z50 doesn't have IBIS and these lenses are sure to be heavily pushed at DX body owners, if they are not just DX lenses outright.

WestEndFoto

I think that if they can fit VR into the 16-50 Z mount, they can fit it into those primes. Photography Life in their latest review said it works well.

I admit, I was surprised to see VR In that tiny little package.

CaMeRaQuEsT

The VR unit in a DX lens with such a dark aperture is very tiny; besides it's a collapsible lens. A VR unit for a 28 or 40mm f/2.8 FX lens will be 3x times larger.

WestEndFoto

tc88 said:

@mhedges, so with the first piece of data you are showing Nikon/Canon ratio on all FF cameras (including DSLR) is 2/3. Your second piece of data says Nikon/Canon ratio on FF mirrorless is 1/2. I think the implication is clear.

And also looking at the first piece of data you provided, it lists two years. from 2018 to 2019, Nikon/Canon ratio has come down from 29/38 to 2/3. Is that winning or losing market share?

Now if a company releases a new model and it holds the existing market share, it's called "fairly received". If the market share increases, it's called "well received". If the market share decreases, it's call "ill received". I think Z6/7 falls into the last category.

I understand you bought Z6 and felt good. No one doubts that. But when you project your own impression as that of the general population, that's when you are no longer objective and behaving only as a fanboy.

A discussion like this should be informed by the following, in my view:

https://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/whats-the-market-bottom.html

WestEndFoto

CaMeRaQuEsT said:

Well yes WestEndFoto, Nikon can always change course and try to react better against Canon's salvos, but having a roadmap means R&D resources have already been invested in these future products that, if they decide to not bring to market, will never be recovered. I believe that equipping VR will compromise the 28 and 40mm's compactness, even if they end up being f/2.8 (I don't know of a single stabilized pancake prime in the market), but yeah, they should have VR as the Z50 doesn't have IBIS and these lenses are sure to be heavily pushed at DX body owners, if they are not just DX lenses outright.

Don't rely to much on the roadmap. Neither the two latest APS-C zooms nor the rumoured 16-50 are on it. I think that Nikon is planning for more than just the roadmap. I suspect that the roadmap is a compromise. They are showing the obvious lenses, but not the non-obvious lenses so that they don't telegraph to much of their strategy to competitors. And they are doing this in other ways. Consider that the also rumoured 14-24 2.8S will likely accept filters, something they seem to have purposefully concealed.

WestEndFoto

CaMeRaQuEsT said:

The VR unit in a DX lens with such a dark aperture is very tiny; besides it's a collapsible lens. A VR unit for a 28 or 40mm f/2.8 FX lens will be 3x times larger.

We will know soon enough.

CaMeRaQuEsT

WestEndFoto said:

Don't rely to much on the roadmap. Neither the two latest APS-C zooms nor the rumoured 16-50 are on it. I think that Nikon is planning for more than just the roadmap. I suspect that the roadmap is a compromise. They are showing the obvious lenses, but not the non-obvious lenses so that they don't telegraph to much of their strategy to competitors. And they are doing this in other ways. Consider that the also rumoured 14-24 2.8S will likely accept filters, something they seem to have purposefully concealed.

Actually, Nikon did mention that the 14-24/2.8 will accept filters the very first time they presented a mock-up of it more than a year ago. They have not failed to deliver a single lens they have mentioned in their roadmaps, but of course, the roadmap is not law set in stone either. They didn't mention the DX kit zooms in the roadmaps previous to the Z50's launch simply because they did not want customers to stop purchasing their DX DSLRs by instilling FOMO, which is the very purpose of a roadmap; also, neither of these DX kit zooms is really unique to Nikon.

WestEndFoto

Really? When did they do that? I would have not forgotten that if I had seen it.

tc88

I see the blog says 14-24 will take filter. That will be an engineering feat. The picture seems to show notches at the front though which typically indicate otherwise. I guess we will find out soon.

WestEndFoto

The theory is that the notches are a deception by Nikon. We will see.

tc88

I think it's possibly some kind of custom filter system that clicks on, or something, instead of a generic filter thread. That wouldn't surprise me, but we can all hope otherwise.

CaMeRaQuEsT

WestEndFoto, I don't remember where I read it, but it was a quote from a Nikon representative who was asked why the lens wasn't wider, to which he responded that it was due to the front filter capability being part of the lens' design objectives. I also remember that the comment was made when the mockup was first publicly presented. It probably was from DPreview, but I can't find the particular article now.

Pistnbroke

Z5....animal eye detect but only 4.5 FPS seems a bit incompatible. Dual SD which suits me but what use is a 24-50mm f4=6.3 ???

photobunny

Pistnbroke said:

Z5....animal eye detect but only 4.5 FPS seems a bit incompatible. Dual SD which suits me but what use is a 24-50mm f4=6.3 ???

The 24-50mm is a kit lens. Its function is likely to be sold with the Z5 or another camera in a kit for under $1200. And the person buying that would have been buying a crop with a equally 'slow' kit lens.

Interesting to me, is that the tele converters are due to come out with the Z5, so I hope this means the 100-400mm S is going to come out soon. I am dying to get a long lens on my z6.

WestEndFoto

photobunny said:

Pistnbroke said:

Z5....animal eye detect but only 4.5 FPS seems a bit incompatible. Dual SD which suits me but what use is a 24-50mm f4=6.3 ???

The 24-50mm is a kit lens. Its function is likely to be sold with the Z5 or another camera in a kit for under $1200. And the person buying that would have been buying a crop with a equally 'slow' kit lens.

Interesting to me, is that the tele converters are due to come out with the Z5, so I hope this means the 100-400mm S is going to come out soon. I am dying to get a long lens on my z6.

Don't die over it. A f-mount with an FTZ will keep you alive in the meantime.