The new Nikon Z-Mount Cameras- who is in?

[Donde]

I would be sorely tempted by the Z7 if it were slightly smaller and slightly lighter than the Sony a7R lll rather than the reverse. I also didn't see any Z mount prime telephoto in the announced future plans.

 

[Peeb]

I don't know why so many people were expecting a professional camera.

Was it the hype?

Lots of hype before any concrete specifications were announced led many people to ASSUME it was going to be a "professional grade" camera system.

What the new "Z" system is, in fact, is a "prosumer" grade system.

We will have to wait a while before we see any actual professional body using the Z mount.

Prosumer cameras have 2 slots. Period.

Eh, I agree to a point. Photographers used single card slots for a lot of years for professional work. It wasn’t until the D7000 came out that prosumer camera’s started seeing dual card slots.

Did film cameras have a backup roll of film?

I’ve personally never had a card go bad. I don’t know anyone personally who has.

Anecdotally it seems quite rare. I would absolutely prefer to have two card slots, but that wouldn’t be enough to turn me away from these bodies if they had enough other good features.

The first time you have a card die, your opinion will shift 180 degrees.

I had a spectacular series of shots of a buffalo herd in a snowstorm that was simply amazing. I have a few low-rez images posted to the web, but the original RAW files are lost forever on a dead card.

How do you explain to the bride that you lost all of her wedding shots because you elected to go with the cool EVF instead of the safer dual-slot DSLR? Shooters with critical needs use 2 slots, or else leave their fate to chance.

Media failure is not an 'if'- it is a 'when'.

 

[mrca]

Interesting, so it is a marketing term. Sounds like targeting folks with gobs of disposable income to use on an expensive camera to take snapshots. I call them collectors or geeks, not photographers. I always thought prosumer meant for either professional or high end consumer, straddling that gap. I am a pro and the 850 fits my work perfectly. I only care that my camera does what I or my clients need. I used a d700 for 8 years and it is still in use. I guess for along time I was one of those award winning pros who carried an "obsolete" camera body but took images even most pros can't do. I have won professional competions with it and gotten perfect scores with a d200 using one of the 10 worst nikons lenses. Since a camera is a tool and and overhead for me, I do a cost benefit analysis and don't up grade camera's unless it makes a difference in what I shoot. The d850 helped with a 64 optimized iso to get slower shutter speeds outdoors, somehow focuses when I have a vari nd filter cranked to 8 stops, more dynamic range especially less clipping of highlights, ability to switch between 3:2, 4:5 and 1:1 and not only shows it in the view finder so I can compose and eliminate a cropping step in post, but also reduces the amount saved to the card that I would have thrown away anyway. I can't tell if the mirrorless has these features. Also, as a professional, my camera is not the most important piece of gear I use. It is just an expensive recorder that becomes obsolete in less than 5 years. It just records light. I don't remember the Beatles endlessly concerned about their studio recording gear. They were more interested in their music. I'm more interested in the image. Sorry, won't see me waxing eloquently about it like it's some magical box. My lenses and lights, especially my cybercommander that allows me to turn light on/off, adjust modeling lamp, adjust power all from my stool, you'll have to pry that from my cold dead fingers. It keeps me off of ladders in a dark studio and makes setups and adjustments fast. I am more interested in what my lenses do. Then, my lights enable me to achieve my vision. I don't understand all this hand wringing and"how many angels on the head of a pin" analysis over bodies. I don't know a single carpenter that does that with his saws. Must be the "prosumers."

 

[Peeb]

... I don't remember the Beatles endlessly concerned about their studio recording gear. They were more interested in their music. ...

Ha ha! Sorry but the Fab Four DID obsess over their gear and recording processes. George Harrison was thrilled when he finally got a fender stratocaster, and John was fairly legendary for how difficult and relentless he was upon studio crew in demanding that new technologies and techniques be exploited in achieving his artistic vision.

Your sentiment is fair in that you can get lost in the tech specs and lose sight of your artistic vision, but there is no reason for anyone to apologize for keeping an eye on the state of the art and seeking to use every advantage possible to express his/her artistic POV.

 

[Peeb]

I would be sorely tempted by the Z7 if it were slightly smaller and slightly lighter than the Sony a7R lll rather than the reverse. I also didn't see any Z mount prime telephoto in the announced future plans.

Smaller/lighter not that important to me (never felt weighed down with my D610), but a Z-mount telephoto woulda been cool for sure!

I bought an X-T20 to test the theory that a small and light mirrorless would be a paradigm shift, and while it was nice- it was far from a lifestyle change.

 

[greybeard]

How do you explain to the bride that you lost all of her wedding shots because you elected to go with the cool EVF instead of the safer dual-slot DSLR? Shooters with critical needs use 2 slots, or else leave their fate to chance.

Media failure is not an 'if'- it is a 'when'.

Agreed, I think that when Nikon makes a "professional mirrorless" it will have 2 slots along with a built in vertical grip. It looks like Nikon is going with a single card on all their prosumer models. My D7500 only has one slot as well. They probably would have done this with the D850 but the outrage would have been too great. Even though the D800 series is labeled as "prosumer" I would venture to guess that it is used more by professionals than amateurs.

 

[Peeb]

Those z mount lenses look cheap as heck. That is a big turn off to me.

They LOOK cheap but are quite costly. Bad combo. I’d start with the adapter and my existing glass.

EDIT-not being critical so much as acknowledging economic reality that my large existing investment in glass will have to do unless a really nice “kit” deal pushes me over.

 

[photo61]

Ok, I am trying to wrap my brain around this new Nikon mirrorless ... is it that much better than what they currently have in their DSLR line ?
As a Sony user, I have been bombarded by info (Sony people tend to be very defensive) ... but I am not sure what real advantage Nikon users would get out of this ... am I missing something ?

Smaller form factor/lighter body

In body image stabilization.

EVF.

Focus Peaking - easier to use old MF lenses

You just listed 2 of the biggest turn offs for me.. smaller /lighter body and EVF. IBIS would be great with my pre VR 300 F2.8 though. Focus peaking, meh...

I hope everyone falls in love with the Z7 though and used D850s start showing up for 2k, then I would be a huge fan of mirrorless...

Now that's some good thinking Kris,Bill C

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I would be sorely tempted by the Z7 if it were slightly smaller and slightly lighter than the Sony a7R lll rather than the reverse. I also didn't see any Z mount prime telephoto in the announced future plans.

Because longer telephoto lenses are not restricted by the mount size, it stands to reason.

The optimal design of anything over say 135mm will place the rear element further forward of the lens mount as to it being inconsequential. The only restriction comes when you shorten it, *telephoto* design. And as you can shorten it as far as you want rather than having to contend with the mount it's reasonable to assume that designers only shorten lenses to a point where the trade-offs becomes an issue. Hence most lenses of 135mm and over are already optimised and can be used via an adaptor.

What I have an issue with is a basic contradiction I see in all these reactions.

You wanted something *revolutionary*, which means you wanted change, something that challenged the status quo. Yet many are complaining because it's not the same as the cameras you're using at the present. In all these threads I'm seeing comments about comparing the automated features of the bodies, how the Z series is not the same, doesn't have the same capabilities, the same layers of automation that you're used to. In comparing the layers of automation in the camera bodies against what you have and complaining because it's not the same you fail to see where it differs. AND if you don't change your approach but demand that everything stays the same there is no revolution, no change. Just more and more precise automation crippling creativity because you aim for technical perfection rather than human intervention. If that's what you want, then fine, buy a Sony. It's bound to the restrictions of old lens design because it still tries to hold a continuity with the past.

If you want a revolutionary design then don't complain because it's not the same as what you've got.

Simples...

 

[Braineack]

What if we wanted revolutionary and they simply failed to deliver?

 

[Peeb]

What if we wanted revolutionary and they simply failed to deliver?

There there is revolutionary to Nikon and then there is revolutionary to the industry.

The former is a win.
The latter- not so much.

Keeping the user interface quite 'nikon' was not optional, so no criticism about that. That was a really good thing in my book.

 

[Derrel]

The first time you have a card die, your opinion will shift 180 degrees.

I have been waiting since 2001 for a solid state memory card to die. But then, I buy SanDisk cards. Only SanDisk. No other brands. Since 2001, I have owned 10 or 11 d-slrs. I have had the diaphragm stop-down mechanism conk out on my Nikon D1h, which I bought used back in 2004 or so. And I had the mirror literally FALL OFF the mirror frame on my Canon 5D, which used only glue, and no metal clips, to hold the reflex mirror in place.

My "spinning hard drive" from 2001, the IBM Microdrive 1-gigabyte did fail, but then...that's a micro hard drive. Since 2001 I have scooted my desk chair over a SanDisk CF card. I have washed, and dried... three memory cards, one Compact Flash card, and two SD cards. I have stepped on a couple of cards. All SanDisk cards. Still working...

And yet...in 17 years...I have yet to have a solid-state SanDisk memory card fail on me. Either during a shoot, after a shoot, or before a shoot.

The Nikon D1,D1h,and D2x were very expensive pro cameras....had only ONE CF card slot...

I grew up shooting film--which can be screwed up royally at multiple points in the shooting process, or in the developing process. Digital capture is, I would say, ten times LESS-likely to fail. I feel supremely confident in SanDisk memory cards. Film was subject to failures and eff-ups...solid state memory cards...not so much.

 

[Derrel]

Those z mount lenses look cheap as heck. That is a big turn off to me.

They look like Sigma's newer ART type lenses, to a degree. Not sure why you think they look "cheap", unless by cheap you mean, "something I am not used to seeing".

The Z-mount lenses I have seen in photos, the 24-70 f/4 and the 14-30mm f/4, look like Sigma ART models; the 58mm f/0.95 Noct-Nikkor is a manual-focusing lens (yes, MF), and looks very "expensive" from the photo I saw.

Regardless, one man's opinion on what looks cheap will not sway many younger people who have no preconceptions about how a lens ought to look. The new lenses look minimalist in design ethos. Instead of cheap, one could just as easily say, "The Z-mount lenses look modern, and twenty-first century in design ethos."

Remember East Germany's lens design from the 1970's, with the tacky silver adornments? Yeeesh...

 

[Peeb]

The first time you have a card die, your opinion will shift 180 degrees.

I have been waiting since 2001 for a solid state memory card to die. But then, I buy SanDisk cards. Only SanDisk. No other brands. Since 2001, I have owned 10 or 11 d-slrs. I have had the diaphragm stop-down mechanism conk out on my Nikon D1h, which I bought used back in 2004 or so. And I had the mirror literally FALL OFF the mirror frame on my Canon 5D, which used only glue, and no metal clips, to hold the reflex mirror in place.

My "spinning hard drive" from 2001, the IBM Microdrive 1-gigabyte did fail, but then...that's a micro hard drive. Since 2001 I have scooted my desk chair over a SanDisk CF card. I have washed, and dried... three memory cards, one Compact Flash card, and two SD cards. I have stepped on a couple of cards. All SanDisk cards. Still working...

And yet...in 17 years...I have yet to have a solid-state SanDisk memory card fail on me. Either during a shoot, after a shoot, or before a shoot.

The Nikon D1,D1h,and D2x were very expensive pro cameras....had only ONE CF card slot...

I grew up shooting film--which can be screwed up royally at multiple points in the shooting process, or in the developing process. Digital capture is, I would say, ten times LESS-likely to fail. I feel supremely confident in SanDisk memory cards. Film was subject to failures and eff-ups...solid state memory cards...not so much.

I'm very pleased that you've gotten on so well, and perhaps if I had always purchased your brand I would sing a different tune, but in my experience, hard drives, memory cards, usb drives, flash drives, floppy discs, CD discs, and all other media can and HAVE failed at one point or another on me, personally. Every single one of these formats has dumped on me at one time or another.

I certainly did without redundant media when I shot (and still shoot) film. I certainly did without redundant media when I shot early digital tech. But in 2018, why in heaven's name would one design a prosumer camera without redundant media after having trained your customer base to expect and rely upon it?

I realize that you find the scenario of failed media to be statistically insignificant, and it IS insignificant until it happens to you.

I pray that it does not. Be well, friend.

 

[Derrel]

SanDisk.