Nikkon Mirrorless incoming

[Columbo]

Single card slot is an instant write off to me. Lens lineup seems mediocre, 24-70mm f2.8 is the bare minimum I'd expect, and no telephoto lens seriously?

Nikon seem to be repeating the same mistakes, the single card slot of the D7500 was a major turn off.

Suppose thats the point of the adaptor but at £279 its a ridiculous price for something that you are essentially having to buy to get any sort of range or width.
At the very minimum it should be included as a bundle at a discounted rate.

 

[ingouk]

some shops have the Z6/Z7 with the adapter as a bundle for about £100 more than just the camera body. so less than half price for the adapter

 

[Raymond Lin]

some shops have the Z6/Z7 with the adapter as a bundle for about £100 more than just the camera body. so less than half price for the adapter

They did that with the Sony and Sigma adaptor too.

 

[Energize]

Suppose thats the point of the adaptor

I think that if you are releasing a new system, it needs to be launched with a range of lenses to at least cover the bare minimum of photography to be considered credible though.

I mean otherwise what was the point of even changing the mount?

Who on earth would buy into this system unless they already have a stack of Nikon lenses? There is absolutely no reason for anyone getting into photography to look into this system as it's released.

Nikon are launching this as a system that is supposed to supersede the F mount SLR's but it doesn't appeal to any demographic, new photographer or experienced Nikon shooter.

 

[Phate]

How do these lenses like the 24-70mm f2.8 that Nikon plan to release (and Sony already have) on FF compare to say a 16-55mm 2.8 on apsc both in terms of depth of field and required ISO? So say you're shooting a person early evening outdoors at the same equivalent focal length on both and both lenses at f2.8 and say 1/125 shutter speed. Much difference in the out of focus background and how much difference in ISO? Reasonable to assume if the apsc lens was needing say ISO 400 the FF camera would be say ISO 200-320 or?

ISO performance is down to the sensor itself, not the lenses. Also shutter speed & aperture on m43, FF or APS-C. f/2.8 @ 1/125 is f/2.8 @ 1/125 no matter what sensor is behind it.

The differences between the 3 sensor types are focal length, dynamic range & depth of field.

You could, of course, argue that an FF sensor has a better dynamic range, therefore you do not need to push the ISO as much as an m43 or APS-C camera in low light conditions as you can recover more when processing. But again that comes down to the performance of the sensor itself and it's ability to handle noise.

In terms of how much is out of focus, so the depth of field. That's quite difficult to put your finger onto definitively I think. As it varies so much between the lens being used, the camera it's on, and the circumstances it's being used under. However many will tell you through experience, shooting very wide open (so a low aperture number) on a FF camera can require your focusing to be bang on. You need to hit the eyeball as the bridge of the nose won't cut it, for example.

Sorry if that doesn't fully answer your question. Caffeine hasn't hit yet

 

[Drollic]

ISO performance is down to the sensor itself, not the lenses. Also shutter speed & aperture on m43, FF or APS-C. f/2.8 @ 1/125 is f/2.8 @ 1/125 no matter what sensor is behind it.

The differences between the 3 sensor types are focal length, dynamic range & depth of field.

You could, of course, argue that an FF sensor has a better dynamic range, therefore you do not need to push the ISO as much as an m43 or APS-C camera in low light conditions as you can recover more when processing. But again that comes down to the performance of the sensor itself and it's ability to handle noise.

In terms of how much is out of focus, so the depth of field. That's quite difficult to put your finger onto definitively I think. As it varies so much between the lens being used, the camera it's on, and the circumstances it's being used under. However many will tell you through experience, shooting very wide open (so a low aperture number) on a FF camera can require your focusing to be bang on. You need to hit the eyeball as the bridge of the nose won't cut it, for example.

Sorry if that doesn't fully answer your question. Caffeine hasn't hit yet

Yes, aware of all of this. I've read that f4 with these lenses on ff roughly translates to f2.8 on apsc cameras in terms of background. Just now curious to see the difference in required ISO when comparing ff to apsc. I say this as if both camera/lens was taking the exact same shot.

 

[Columbo]

I think that if you are releasing a new system, it needs to be launched with a range of lenses to at least cover the bare minimum of photography to be considered credible though.

I mean otherwise what was the point of even changing the mount?

Who on earth would buy into this system unless they already have a stack of Nikon lenses? There is absolutely no reason for anyone getting into photography to look into this system as it's released.

Nikon are launching this as a system that is supposed to supersede the F mount SLR's but it doesn't appeal to any demographic, new photographer or experienced Nikon shooter.

While you are correct, its a new system and systems mature over time and that why Nikon released the lens roadmap at the same time but the choice of release day lenses looks poor for sure.
Noting that, there is a serious lack of telephoto lenses on that roadmap with the 70-200 f2.8 being the longest being confirmed now which seems odd.

In addition it seems that other than the 58mm f0.95, all the other lenses are pretty much standard offerings in terms of focal length and apertures ranges and is a missed opportunity in my mind.
Whats the point in just replacing the existing range lenses on F-Mount? Why not offer something new and different?

I just don't know who this setup is for this early, I don't see it bringing in the Canon or Sony crowd, m4/3 people won't want the bulk, Nikon Pro's wont be able to stand the 300 shot battery life and the cost is limiting to anyone new in or upgrading.
So in my mind it will be the true, die hard Nikon crew that will buy in early which is probably good because Nikon are seemingly incapable of managing their supply chain properly of late.

 

[ethan]

It certainly looks like a shot in the foot given what you have said. I've heard a number of pros saying they wouldn't take the risk of shooting with one slot whilst some of the diehard Nikon shooters claiming they could use it as a second camera? Seems pointless if your aim is to reduce size and weight. For me personally there is nothing in the new Nikon Mirrorless system to entice me away from either the current system I'm using or moving to Sony.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

I think people are forgetting that the X-Mount was launched with just the 3 primes, and FE-Mount with CZ 35mm, 55mm and normal 28-70mm (and adapters). Compared to those the Z-Mount lenses are far better.

 

[ethan]

I'm no Nikon expert and I love the D500 and 850. The only person I have seen criticising the Z mount lenses is Ken Wheeler saying they are cheap and tacky. For the most part all criticisms have been directed at the cameras.

 

[Energize]

While you are correct, its a new system and systems mature over time and that why Nikon released the lens roadmap at the same time but the choice of release day lenses looks poor for sure.
Noting that, there is a serious lack of telephoto lenses on that roadmap with the 70-200 f2.8 being the longest being confirmed now which seems odd.

In addition it seems that other than the 58mm f0.95, all the other lenses are pretty much standard offerings in terms of focal length and apertures ranges and is a missed opportunity in my mind.
Whats the point in just replacing the existing range lenses on F-Mount? Why not offer something new and different?

I just don't know who this setup is for this early, I don't see it bringing in the Canon or Sony crowd, m4/3 people won't want the bulk, Nikon Pro's wont be able to stand the 300 shot battery life and the cost is limiting to anyone new in or upgrading.
So in my mind it will be the true, die hard Nikon crew that will buy in early which is probably good because Nikon are seemingly incapable of managing their supply chain properly of late.

Yeah, Sigma have taken a lot of customers from Nikon with their innovative lenses like the 120-300 f/2.8 which totally replaces the 70-200mm f/2.8 design for sports use, and the 24-35mm f/2 which is the fastest ff zoom lens on the market to my knowledge and fantastic for indoor photography.

Yes, aware of all of this. I've read that f4 with these lenses on ff roughly translates to f2.8 on apsc cameras in terms of background. Just now curious to see the difference in required ISO when comparing ff to apsc. I say this as if both camera/lens was taking the exact same shot.

You multiply the aperture by the crop factor, so f/2.8 on m4/3 is the same as f/5.6 on ff.

The ISO setting is the same but the result you get again is basically a multiple of the crop factor, ISO 800 on m4/3 gives the same image quality as ISO 3200 on full frame.

 

[Greebo]

1) Both the Nikon Z7 and Z6 have blackout screen when you take a shot.
2) The Z7 shoots 9fps with battery grip only(!!!) and with locked exposure. Without tbattery grip and no locked exposure and with live feedback on it shoots 5.5fps (similar for Z6).
3) Z7 has max 2.5 seconds buffer at 12 bit compressed RAW. That means around 22 shots (similar for Z6).
4) Buffer clears very slow like the 5 year old Sony A7 cameras
5) 330 shots according to CIPA (Son7 A7III is rated 650 shots at CIPA)
6) Nikon confirmed that they will NOT share the lens mount information to third parties as Sony does. This means Sigma, Tamron and Tokina will have to do reverse engineering and autofocus should be therefore slower.
7) One card slot. It’s not a deal breaker for me personally but it might be for PRO’s working on the field that don’t wanna risk their money. Not only because of possible (although very rare) electronic failure. If you have a backup card you can separate the card after the shooting by putting one card in one bag and the other one in another bag.
8) XQD. They are as good or better than the best SD cards. But good luck finding them for cheap if you don’t need all that speed.
9) no exposure compensation dial (which I do use a lot)
10) No Eye AF and missing focus control buttons

So it isnt a Sony beater but its a good first attempt. Generation no 2 will make the big difference but I wouldnt want to be getting the first gen Nikon.

 

[ethan]

It's been listed as having poor focus on the Pre-production model and comparable to the XT1 by Tony Northop. Wheeler referred to it as a "turd muffin". I've not read Polin's review.

 

[Raymond Lin]

It's been listed as having poor focus on the Pre-production model and comparable to the XT1 by Tony Northop. Wheeler referred to it as a "turd muffin". I've not read Polin's review.

Fro had better luck with the AF with his hands on, he moaned about the lack of dual cards and also adapted lenses was making focus noises.

 

[i know nothing]

Z6 looks sexy. I wonder how well the face detect will work? Still intrigued to hear more about the adapter. I guess I'll have to wait for the 'real' reviews.

One feature that really interests me is the EVF (tried one once in a shop for 5 mins so I have no real experience using one). I wear glasses for reading, this means I have to take my reading glasses with me in order to view the LCD screen on the back of my D7100 if I wish to review images. The diopter on the viewfinder has been adjusted to my eye, so no need to wear glasses for that. I have found the LCD to be unreliable for exposure (which I pretty much rely on when shooting OCF outdoors). I have used a loupe, played with the LCD brightness settings and although I've noticed a slight improvement, I can't say I'm happy with it, I normally end up having to adjust for the exposure in post. Other than that, I only use my LCD screen for checking focus. Anyway.. I caught part of a discussion on Adorama's YT channel where the Nikon photographer was talking about the new EVF and how good the IQ was, and how he never had to remove his eye from the eyepiece as he reviewed his images through the EVF. For me, that would be a really worthwhile feature to have.

 

[D.P.]

I guess this is what you are used to. I think Nikon’s mount is the wrong way myself, it is not just wrong way to Canon or Sony or Fuji or Olympus, it is the wrong way to every other thing in the world that screws down to lock, like the twist lock on a tripod, the plate on the tripod, a bottle cap, screw thread, drills, wheel nut, etc etc. Clockwise direction to go down, anti-clockwise to unscrew and lift.


Nikon’s mount is the opposite of that so IMO that is the wrong way.


As for ergonomics, it is also what you are used to, like the exposure compensation, I know older Nikon cameras when you turn the dial clockwise the needle goes to the left…that’s backwards, I know you can flip that around now but it really shouldn’t be an option on this as many things in the world you start from the left and go to the right, like opening a book, reading a sentence, you start from the left and go to the right. Who decides that it was logical to move the left (to minus) when you turn it clockwise? Move to the left, less light, move to the right, more light. More = clockwise, like you are reading more in a sentence, left to right.


It’s what you are used to, I am used to Canon, I am sure I can get used to a Nikon too, even that silly backwards mount.

The issue is you are not really thinking about the way a camera is actually used, but focused to much on engineering.


When you are changing a camera lens, you normally have the camera hanging form your neck strap with the lens mount pointed away form you, or better yet with digital upside down with the mount pointing to the ground. Like this, to mount a lens you simply rotate clockwise, to remove anti-clockwise. Completely natural, and doean't involve tryign to invert the typcical motions. Ever tired to tighten a screw or a bolt in an awkward place such that you had to do it with the screwdriver pointed towards you? It is very awkward to rotate a screwdriver backwards to tighten just because the orientation is inverted.


Similar with the EC. IF you are in fully manual mode, rotating the aperture dial to the left reduced the F-number. But since the f0number is the inverse of the aperture, then turning the aperture to the left increases to the exposure. Guess what happens when you are in a semi-automatic mode and you rotate the EC well to the left well you also increase exposure. With Nikon's default ode you have the same consequences for the photographer using the same action.

This is because until the digital revolution, Nikon was not an engineering company, it was a photographic company. Managers were photographers, designers were photographers, technical staff were photographers, testers were photographers, everyone had a passion for photography and the cameras were designed around that.

 

[D.P.]

Single card slot is an instant write off to me. Lens lineup seems mediocre, 24-70mm f2.8 is the bare minimum I'd expect, and no telephoto lens seriously?

Nikon seem to be repeating the same mistakes, the single card slot of the D7500 was a major turn off.

The D7500 had a single card clot to properly differentiate the D500. Before that the D300 was regarded as too old so Nikon gave the D7000 camera aspects that a semi-pro might want.

The commission of dual card slots on these Z cameras is not surprising because they are obviously not aimed at pros. Why on earth would any pro stop using a D5/D850? There is nothing any mirror-less can do to match the performance of the Nikon pro camera.

The rumours of poor AF performance just highlights that technology is just there to support a sensor-based PDAF system that comes close to a dedicated PDAF system like the D5 has. The Sony A9 AF might be better than the Nikon Z, but the D5 AF is in a different league altogether.

 

[D.P.]

I think that if you are releasing a new system, it needs to be launched with a range of lenses to at least cover the bare minimum of photography to be considered credible though.

I mean otherwise what was the point of even changing the mount?

Who on earth would buy into this system unless they already have a stack of Nikon lenses? There is absolutely no reason for anyone getting into photography to look into this system as it's released.

Nikon are launching this as a system that is supposed to supersede the F mount SLR's but it doesn't appeal to any demographic, new photographer or experienced Nikon shooter.

The problem is it takes time to produce lenses. The crystals take a few month to grow, and then assembly lines are set up to make a specific lens and that 1 lens type is made for 3-4 months before the line is re-tooled for a different lens. Releasing the Nikon Z cameras with a large lens line up would involve waiting an extra year or 2, or sacrificing production of other lenses. It is clear the F-mount is not going away any time soon either.

Itys a bit premature to say the Z-mount system wont appeal to anyone. Lets check in 20,30-50 years time to see what kind of success the Z-mount has compared to the f-mount. It is very early days.

 

[D.P.]

Z6 looks sexy. I wonder how well the face detect will work? Still intrigued to hear more about the adapter. I guess I'll have to wait for the 'real' reviews.

One feature that really interests me is the EVF (tried one once in a shop for 5 mins so I have no real experience using one). I wear glasses for reading, this means I have to take my reading glasses with me in order to view the LCD screen on the back of my D7100 if I wish to review images. The diopter on the viewfinder has been adjusted to my eye, so no need to wear glasses for that. I have found the LCD to be unreliable for exposure (which I pretty much rely on when shooting OCF outdoors). I have used a loupe, played with the LCD brightness settings and although I've noticed a slight improvement, I can't say I'm happy with it, I normally end up having to adjust for the exposure in post. Other than that, I only use my LCD screen for checking focus. Anyway.. I caught part of a discussion on Adorama's YT channel where the Nikon photographer was talking about the new EVF and how good the IQ was, and how he never had to remove his eye from the eyepiece as he reviewed his images through the EVF. For me, that would be a really worthwhile feature to have.

I'm dubious the EVF is that good TBH. Howeve,r what you really want to be doing is using histograms to check exposure, and this probably works OK through the EVF and is certainly fine on the LCD.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The issue is you are not really thinking about the way a camera is actually used, but focused to much on engineering.


When you are changing a camera lens, you normally have the camera hanging form your neck strap with the lens mount pointed away form you, or better yet with digital upside down with the mount pointing to the ground. Like this, to mount a lens you simply rotate clockwise, to remove anti-clockwise. Completely natural, and doean't involve tryign to invert the typcical motions. Ever tired to tighten a screw or a bolt in an awkward place such that you had to do it with the screwdriver pointed towards you? It is very awkward to rotate a screwdriver backwards to tighten just because the orientation is inverted.


Similar with the EC. IF you are in fully manual mode, rotating the aperture dial to the left reduced the F-number. But since the f0number is the inverse of the aperture, then turning the aperture to the left increases to the exposure. Guess what happens when you are in a semi-automatic mode and you rotate the EC well to the left well you also increase exposure. With Nikon's default ode you have the same consequences for the photographer using the same action.

This is because until the digital revolution, Nikon was not an engineering company, it was a photographic company. Managers were photographers, designers were photographers, technical staff were photographers, testers were photographers, everyone had a passion for photography and the cameras were designed around that.

Why would I want to think that deep?

It’s a screw mount, are you seriously suggesting Sony, Canon, Fuji, etc got it wrong and Nikon is the only one got it right?

Come on, that’s pure bias.