Ready to upgrade!

[Derrel]

Sony A7 III OR Nikon Z6 are very nice mirrorless camera models. You could save a lot of money buying a used Nikon D800

 

[SquarePeg]

1- what feature (or lack of feature) in your current kit is holding you back? Is it lack of external controls? Poor noise handling? Auto focus issues? Need more megapixels for cropping? Too big/bulky/heavy? This will impact recommendations.

2 - budget?

3 - are you skilled enough to be off of auto mode?

Don’t feel locked in to Nikon if you’re only 1 camera body and a kit lens or two invested. You can sell off and switch - lots of us have.

 

[ac12]

IMO, persue the mirrorless.
Now my logic here is my own and does not reflect others or even poss. reality in general.

Nonetheless, using a mirrorless is the same as any SLR system with one REALLY huge exception.

You can mount nearly every older lens out there!

With proper adapter, any SLR Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Yashica, etc will fit.
Not to say that is your goal, but the versitility of a mirrorless is massive. It really is your call in the end and my original advice to all also applies.

Caution, this statement has conditions.

Example, I can mount my Nikon lens on my m4/3 cameras, BUT . . . I loose ALL camera to lens communication.
This means that the lens is completely manual; no auto focus, no ability to control the aperture from the camera, no VR/IS.
This kinda stunk when I switched from Nikon to Olympus. But I accepted that I would have to build my Olympus system from scratch, including the lenses.

But there is no Olympus equivalent to the great handling Nikon 70-200/4. So for field sports, I still shoot the 70-200/4 on a D7200.

However, a Canon EF lens can be used on the m4/3 cameras, and the autofocus WILL work.

So the specific lens/camera combination is the key to usability.

 

[Adadrian]

Thanks for all the advices guys, I’m having a tough time deciding I suppose for me it’s more should I go mirrorless now. I’m definatly going to upgrade

 

[Soocom1]

IMO, persue the mirrorless.
Now my logic here is my own and does not reflect others or even poss. reality in general.

Nonetheless, using a mirrorless is the same as any SLR system with one REALLY huge exception.

You can mount nearly every older lens out there!

With proper adapter, any SLR Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Yashica, etc will fit.
Not to say that is your goal, but the versitility of a mirrorless is massive. It really is your call in the end and my original advice to all also applies.

Caution, this statement has conditions.

Example, I can mount my Nikon lens on my m4/3 cameras, BUT . . . I loose ALL camera to lens communication.
This means that the lens is completely manual; no auto focus, no ability to control the aperture from the camera, no VR/IS.
This kinda stunk when I switched from Nikon to Olympus. But I accepted that I would have to build my Olympus system from scratch, including the lenses.

But there is no Olympus equivalent to the great handling Nikon 70-200/4. So for field sports, I still shoot the 70-200/4 on a D7200.

However, a Canon EF lens can be used on the m4/3 cameras, and the autofocus WILL work.

So the specific lens/camera combination is the key to usability.

Couple of points.

1: True. The lens combo. with other manufacturers does translate in many instances to not having electrical communication.
2: Not all lenses will work in such situations.
3: Some combinations including the electrical version of the Fotodiox EOS to Fuji will but the adapter is not cheap.
4: It requires that you have to use old school techniques.

There are other aspects as well, but not all is lost, and the versatility of such combinations opens up a word of creativity unmatched.

 

[ac12]

I forgot two other issue with Nikon lenses

#1, the aperture.
If you have a G lens or electronic aperture lens, there is NO aperture ring on the lens.

Only if you have a G lens with an aperture lever, and use an adapter with an aperture ring, will you be able to control the aperture on the lens. But, the aperture ring on the adapter is NOT calibrated, it is simply marked in relative numbers. So you have no idea what the actual aperture is, which for some people is probably OK.

The electronic aperture lens become fixed aperture lens.​

#2, focus

A focus by wire P lens, cannot be focused at all. This is FATAL.
There is no mechanical connection between the focus ring and the focus mechanism.
The focus ring sends electrical signals to the camera, and the camera sends electrical signals to the focus motor to focus the lens. Without lens/camera communication, this chain is broken, and the lens cannot be focused.​

Yes, those smart adapters are EXPENSIVE.
I could buy a lens for the price of a Metabones smart adapter.

 

[Adadrian]

Would the z50 be a upgrade to my 3500d?

 

[stk]

Would the z50 be a upgrade to my 3500d?

Yes.

For me, however, the lack of native APS-C lenses is a major drawback. As of now you only have two lenses to choose from if you don't want to adapt or use the full frame Z-mount lenses.

 

[ronlane]

Honestly Mirrorless is the future. It hasn't killed the DSLR for everything (Canon 1Dx Mk III) and I think you will continue to see some new dslr models produced but not forever.

As I read this thread, it seems to me that you are just "upgrading" for the sake of upgrading. I won't get into that because it is your decision and right to do that as you choose. We all love new gear. Heck in the last 15-16 months, I have pretty much overhauled my entire kit.

The thing that I would caution you before just jumping into an upgrade is to honestly (and privately) ask yourself questions like a few that I have seen above that were not responded to. Like, what is my current kit not able to do that I need it to? What do I currently shoot and what do I want to be able to shoot in the next 4-5 years? What is my budget, without getting in the doghouse or deep in debt?

Once you have answers to that, then do some research, watch some review videos on youtube and visit a camera store to actually feel the cameras that you are considering.

Then you will be able to make a decision on what to get. Remember that opinions are like backsides, everyone has one. Some are bigger/stink worse than others but everyone thinks theirs is the best.

Having a camera is not the most important thing. Using that camera and gear to produce lasting images is the most important thing.

Good luck with your search.

 

[ronlane]

Would the z50 be a upgrade to my 3500d?

Yes.

For me, however, the lack of native APS-C lenses is a major drawback. As of now you only have two lenses to choose from if you don't want to adapt or use the full frame Z-mount lenses.

How is not having APS-C glass a drawback??? The full-frame glass is better anyway. More expensive but better. In general for mirrorless, Nikon is behind on glass. Canon is winning that race or at the very least gaining fast on Sony and is poised to blow by them. However, Canon is still playing catch up on the bodies.

That being said we all know that it is more about the glass than it is about the body.

 

[stk]

If I bought a Z50 (a small APS-C camera) I would really like to be able to buy small, good and not to expensive glass. I would also like there to be a fast wide angle and a fast standard zoom with a focal range suited for the smaller sensor. This does't exist. The use of an adapter will add more bulk and fiddling than I would like.

When it comes to the full frame Z-mount glass from Nikon, I'm really pleased. If Canon is winning, Nikon is still producing great lenses...just not for APS-C.

 

[Designer]

Adapt.

 

[ac12]

If I bought a Z50 (a small APS-C camera) I would really like to be able to buy small, good and not to expensive glass. I would also like there to be a fast wide angle and a fast standard zoom with a focal range suited for the smaller sensor. This does't exist. The use of an adapter will add more bulk and fiddling than I would like.

When it comes to the full frame Z-mount glass from Nikon, I'm really pleased. If Canon is winning, Nikon is still producing great lenses...just not for APS-C.

If history repeats itself, which I think it will, neither Nikon nor Canon will have a full line of Pro level lenses for their APS-C/DX mirrorless cameras. Neither have that now with their APS-C dSLRs. That is why I had to get a FF/FX 70-200/4, to use on my Nikon DX D7200, there was NO equivalent DX lens. They have a few good APS-C lenses, but for the most part the APS-C lenses are "consumer grade" lenses. As for APS-C primes, the options are even worse.

I was considering upgrading from DX to FX, simply because of the lack of DX lenses that I wanted.
If I have to use an FX lens, why not an FX camera also?

As for the Z50.
What I do not like was Nikon's decision to put IBIS in the FX Z cameras (Z6/7) but not in the DX Z camera (Z50).
That means if you want VR/IS, on a Z50, you have to get a lens with VR. And unless Nikon puts VR into the FX Z lenses, for dual IS, you won't get it with the FX Z lenses. If you put a FX Z lens on a Z50, you have no VR/IS So you are stuck with the DX Z lenses.
I hope Nikon fixes this by putting IBIS in the next DX Z camera. Just as Canon did with their second R camera.

Canon did even worse.
Their APS-C mirrorless (M50) uses a different lens mount than their FF mirrorless R. So you cannot even use the FF R lenses on the APS-C M50.

IMHO, for an advance amateur, Nikon and Canon APS-C lines had been and will continue to be a disappointment, with their limited line of APS-C lenses.

So look at the Z50 with your eyes open.

 

[Designer]

I was considering upgrading from DX to FX, simply because of the lack of DX lenses that I wanted.

And the issue is what, exactly?

What is your problem with using "FX" lenses on a "DX" camera? I do it quite regularly. No Problemo.

 

[ac12]

I was considering upgrading from DX to FX, simply because of the lack of DX lenses that I wanted.

And the issue is what, exactly?

What is your problem with using "FX" lenses on a "DX" camera? I do it quite regularly. No Problemo.

No problem with using a FX lens.
The PROBLEM was finding a DX lens (or ANY lens) that was the DX eqivalent of the FX 70-200 = 45-135mm/2.8 lens.
And without the weight of a FX 70-200/2.8.
Until recently, with the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 (FX lens), there wasn't one. The Sigma 50-150/2.8 had been discontinued.
So at the time, my only options were the FX Nikon 24-120/4 or 70-200/4.
I went with the FX 70-200/4. And yes, there were MANY times when I wished I had a wider short end, and wondered if I should not have gotten the 24-120/4.
If I had to do it again today, I would probably get the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4.