Just curious - is there demand for DX primes?

I am a DX shooter and unlikely to move to FX based on size and weight. My current main lenses are Tokina 12-24, Nikon 16-85VR, Nikon 70-300VR, and Nikon 35/1.8. I would be happy to replace the zooms in my regular kit with a 16mm, 35mm, 70mm, and 135mm. That would replicate the focal lengths I carried with my film kit (24, 50, 105, 200).

"I would not be surprised at all if other D500 owners took the same path as I did towards buying DX lenses for casual use".

Yes I did..with one small difference : not for D500 but for Fuji X-t2. And why should I didn't do it ? For the price of D850 body ($ 4455 in my country)

I bought myself an entire wonderful Fuji system : Xt2 body+50-140/2,8+16/1,4+50/2+23/1,4 and regain the joy of taking pictures.

And make no mistake : the Fujinon lenses are at least equal to Nikon lenses and the DX sensor present in X-T2 never cease to amaze me.

Below are two identical pictures taken with D4s and Xt2 at ISO 6400 : (notice the AutoWB)

Edited December 15, 2017 by paul_b.|1

I bought a D500 specifically for use with my 200-500mm, after which I started to acquire DX lenses for casual use (10-20mm, 18-140mm and 35/1.8).

Me too on the first part, I just decided to skip the second - no more DX lenses for me at this point. Just had my first chance on getting a reasonably priced used 16-80/2.8-4 DX lens (in all likelihood a split from a kit given the lens appearance) - and I passed it up! A D500 is now in my bag for "reach" and for speed - but FX lenses only.

 

If I was still using DX lenses, I would do what Mike Halliwell did - get the 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8 Sigma and either (or both) the Tokina 11-20/2.8 and/or Tokina 14-20/2. All large and heavy - but so would a bag of primes covering the same focal length range and at similar apertures be - in particular if they wanted to match those zooms' performances.

 

I don't think we will see much (if anything) new on the DX DSLR lens front (prime or zoom) - what will come, will be mirrorless (a few lenses at introduction and hopefully a roadmap as to the near future). The D3xxx and D5xxx lines will vanish, and eventually the D7xxx too - replaced by a set of DX mirrorless (like Sony A6000, A6300, A6500). It can only be hoped that Nikon will not repeat past mistakes and will attempt a "complete" DX lens line-up including primes. I think one of the troubles is that people may want every FX-equivalent focal length: 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 24 (and probably some in between); that's a lot of lenses to produce!

 

By the same token - but likely offset in time a bit - the D6xx FX line will vanish (if it hasn't already) and mirrorless will take a hold there too, moving upwards in the hierarchy of models. I very much doubt that Nikon has the stamina to maintain a full DSLR line-up while creating two lines of mirrorless. Not even Sony manages to do that (their APS-C progress seems to have stagnated and their A-mount "DSLR" is likely to keel over at any given moment.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

I think it depends on who the target market is. Someone who just carries a camera around and uses it for family photos and still has three Christmas days on the same card. My Dad shot well over a thousand slides with a single Agfa Sillette camera and it did all he wanted. Today my nieces have Dx cameras with something like an 18-55 consumer zoom and they do all they need. One of them uses her phone for most things and is quite good. The Dxxxx cameras and phone cameras are the Instamatics of today. Most users want one lens to do everything so I doubt there is much market for Dx prime lenses. I've only ever had one Dx anything lens in all this time, my bag carries lenses that work fine on Dx, Fx, film, whatever I am shooting. Carrying lenses that only work on some of the camera bodies seems a waste to me.

 

Rick H.

I don’t think having a dense range of primes or them having specific focal lengths is at all relevant, but there should be 1-2 wide angle primes (which specific focal length they are is not important as people can fine tune composition by cropping). 1.5-1.6x DSLRs are by far the most widely used interchangeable lens cameras and they should have the lens lines to support them, but they don’t. I don’t think their popularity is just by chance; the thing is that for the vast majority of people the quality is sufficient and anything more is an extravagance similar to talking about differences in materials in audio cables: they don’t see the difference and don’t care. But I maintain available light indoor photography is important to many and it’s a shame the manufacturers don’t properly cover it for DX (apart from Fuji and Pentax). The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is a good lens but large and heavy compared to primes (even FX 20/1.8).

 

Reading gear forums doesn’t give an accurate picture of what the market is like. Most people don’t talk about gear online: they spend their time living their lives and get those shots they need to get, without thinking about the gear.

 

IMO full frame mirrorless is far too expensive and lacking in telephoto lenses to inherit the users of DX DSLRs (for the family snaps too expensive, for the wildlife user the lenses are largely missing). FX DSLRs didn’t inherit most DX users either.

I think Ilkka is on the right track. A consumer primes line would be desirable, even for Nikon DX. - Looking around I guess bread & butter glass like the FX f1.8 trinity would be desirable. Unfortunately the pain point might be about 200 Euro/US$ per lens? - A Canon 24/2.8 pancake is 150 €/$ and the popular Sigmas for Sony sell in a similar range.

I'm not sure how modern folks mix & match systems. - I understand some pick Canon because Fuji is more expensive? But where to go from a DX 2 zooms or super zoom kit? - Bulky Sigma "primes with wiggle room"? Or integrating Fuji? - At least to me multiple good enough bodies seem more tempting than a heavy bag full of glass with a single D500 and I see little need to own a 3rd or 2nd D500 to hold a 14 mm.

A consumer primes line would be desirable, even for Nikon DX.

I think Nikon should have licensed with one, two, or even all three major third-party lens manufacturers and have them provide the missing DX primes. Simply economy of scale - producing for a couple of different camera mounts means higher production number and overall lower costs than producing for niche lenses for one mount only. I believe that at least one of the reasons we didn't get DX primes was that Nikon didn't have (and still doesn't have) the capacity to design and produce them.

But where to go from a DX 2 zooms or super zoom kit?

Fairly certain that camera makers want you to upgrade within their system - to a better DX body, and better lenses (if they only were available) and on to FX. Reality I have seen is that people come in the store, wanting to upgrade from an older consumer-grade body (+ kit lenses) to something "better". At least some have no brand loyalty at all - they pick whatever is on sale that day, or what the sales person pushes onto them, or what their favorite internet guru or relative or friend told them to. So a still perfectly capable Nikon D3200 with two lens kit gets discarded/traded for a new shiny Rebel T6i with two kit lenses. Or some equivalent mirrorless. It really is too bad that numbers can't be had to find out how many users never truly get out of the "consumer-grade" realm either within the same brand or different brands. I doubt any of these will ever consider a prime lens; I just have no idea how big their number actually is.

At least to me multiple good enough bodies seem more tempting than a heavy bag full of glass with a single D500

Hmmh, good glass stays, bodies come and go. I see a lot of value of having a D810 and a D500 in the bag - for the simple reason that there are no "good enough" alternatives. And for probably the first time I am seriously about mixing brands in my bag. Got to it by accident but it is a bit liberating to be able to pick and choose and not be tied to one brand only.

 

I also think that for a majority of "serious" "enthusiasts" primes are not really needed or maybe all that's needed - it just depends on what they are "enthusiastic" about. I could do the majority of my general/travel/landscape photography with three or four zooms and never miss primes or shots. If I shifted my focus to some other area - then those three, four zooms would be utterly useless and primes would rule. Or another, faster set of zooms. I can't say if I would purchase a DX prime lens if Nikon were to produce one of a desirable focal length; price and performance would certainly play a role in the decision.

I shoot DX, a D7200.

I do lust after a FX camera, currentlyl drooling over a D750.

BUT, at my age, weight is a significant consideration, which it wasn't when I was in college. So a HEAVY FX camera and lens becomes a physical problem for me.

 

I compared the DX D7200 + 18-140 to the FX D750 + 24-120. The D750 kit was 33% heavier. That might be OK for a short shoot, but shoot something that goes over an hour (like a soccer game), and that 33% weight difference makes a difference. And I really do not like the idea of shooting a camera on a monopod. Maybe for a heavy long lens, but not for the standard lens.

 

And while I would really love the 70-200 f/2.8, that lens is too heavy for me. The 70-200 f/4 is about HALF the weight of the f/2.8 lens. So I will likely get the f/4 lens. Though I wish there was an even smaller and lighter DX version.

 

So the DX D7200 and its successors will be as far up as I would likely go.

In fact, I am looking at the even lighter and smaller D3400 + 18-55 to use as the camera, for parties and casual events.

I learned before, the camera that get used, gets the pix. The EXPENSIVE HIGH END camera that sits in the case, is worth very little if it does not get use.

 

But back to DX primes.

If I could get a 135mm f/2.8 prime, it would be a lot more usable to me for sports, than my 18-140 which is f/5.6 at the same 135mm focal length. That is a TWO stop difference in speed. And it makes a difference when shooting at night or indoors. I would not have to crank up the ISO to 12800 or 25600, with its associated loss of image quality at those high ISO levels.

As it was 40 years ago, primes still have a value, one of which is speed.

If I could get a 135mm f/2.8 prime,

You could try to find a used Sigma 150/2.8 APO EX HSM macro DG; the non-OS version that pre-dates the current OS version. It weighs a bit more than the 70-200/4 - but the tripod collar is completely removable and without it, the weight should be about the same (the current OS version is substantially heavier). I owned the non-OS, traded it for the OS version; both are very fine lenses. Another option would be the older version (non-OS) of the Sigma 50-150/2.8 EX DC HSM - weight is about the same as the 70-200/4. Again, the newer (but AFAIK also discontinued) 50-150 OS used the same barrel as the FX 70-200 and gained a lot of weight and size over the previous non-OS version.

If I could get a 135mm f/2.8 prime

 

Gary, the Nikon 135mm f/2.0 DC lens weighs less than the 70-200mm f/4 zoom. The 70-200 f/4 is sharper and focuses faster (the screw drive 135mm, with a lot of glass, isn't one of the faster focusing lenses) but you might want to consider the 135mm for action in low light. I bought mine used for about $800, if memory serves.

 

BTW, the D750 is only about 75 grams, or about 2 ounces, more than the D7200.

Hector,

You are correct about the weight of the D750. I just checked the NikonUSA site. 750g is a lot lighter than the 850g that I have in my chart.

So where did I get my incorrect higher number???

 

hmmm. so maybe the D750 is a doable camera now, at 11% heavier than the D7200. :)

But with the D750 + 24-120/4 lens vs the DX D7200 + 18-140 lens, the FX kit is 295g/10.4oz or 25% heavier. That is less than the 33% heavier that I had with the incorrect weight for the D750, but 25% is still a significant weight difference. :(

Now I need to add a 295g weight to my D7200 kit and carry it around, to see if I can handle the extra weight for a 1hr+ shooting session.

 

Dieter,

Thanks for the tip on the Sigma DX 50-150/2.8. That is equivalent to a 75-225 on a FX body. I like it :D

A Nikon equivalent DX 50-150 f/2.8 VR is just what the doctor ordered. Now if Nikon would only make it. Not likely :(

At my age, I made the decision that I should buy VR lenses. I'm not as steady as I used to be, and that will only get worse as I get older. :( So I have to look at the heavier OS version of the 50-150.

 

decisions decisions :(

I'd say the 135 f/2 is still a big, chunky lens. Which is fine (or would be if I didn't hate the optics of mine shot faster than f/4), but the f/2.8 AI is relatively tiny. My "wander around" bag for my D700 was the 28-200G in a toploader, a 50mm AF-D in a little pouch that belonged to a Sigma teleconverter tied to the strap, and the 135mm in the external pocket in case of emergency portraits. These days, with higher demand for optical quality, I'm less flexible (and try to make do with a larger 24-70 Tamron or the 24-120).

 

A modern, light, 135 f/2.8 would have some appeal - although it's long enough that I don't think it needs to be DX.

 

Do we actually have attachment rates for the low-end DX bodies? Obviously the lens aren't there, but I'm not sure people are buying the FX equivalents - I assume they just don't buy many lenses. The D7x00 and D500 might be different, but I don't know how many are out there and how many users plan an FX upgrade.

 

I've maintained for a while that Nikon should just differentiate by making a completely cut down D6x0 successor (no screwdriver AF, no aperture ring, pentamirror) that could be had for D7x00 money, to get people on the upgrade path. They might need a cheaper kit lens than the 24-120 to do it, though. I suspect mirrorless will happen first, but if not, I told you so!

 

Sony has a relatively complete crop lens set (I believe) with a full frame upgrade path. What happens there? Do people stay with A6500s or buy an A7?

Gary: Good luck, but in my experience "heavy camera" varies with practice. My 70-200 feels heavy sometimes, but then I use my 200/2 for a bit, and even the 200-500 feels like a kit lens after. I'd probably still have back ache, but I wouldn't complain about it. :) (It helps that I'm transporting a lot of unnecessary weight even when I'm not carrying anything.)

A high quality viewfinder and good compatibility with older lenses are some of the key advantages of FX DSLRs. The lens compatibility is particularly vital for users of the D610 because they are on a budget and typically knowledgeable but budget-limited FX people buy older lenses second hand. Many of the lenses are manual focus so the viewfinder has to be as crisp as possible. The pentamirror viewfinder in my opinion is the closest equivalent to a crime against humanity. At least my eyes are strained trying to see detail and are trying to focus on an image which isn't quite clear (e.g. D3100). I have to say that the D850 and D5 viewfinders are heaven compared to that. And actually the D750 and D610 viewfinders are very good as well, though not quite as evenly lit or well coated. In fact what I'd like is to see the excellent Df or D850 viewfinder put into the D610's successor; removal of the pop-up flash would be possible by including compatibility with Nikon's radio AWL flash system. No pop-up flash => no vignetting in the viewfinder, better viewfinder optics, and better compatibility with PC 24. And if Nikon add interchangeable focusing screens, manual lens users can be even happier.

 

Since D600's can be had on the used market (with free shutter replacements) for around 700€ it's difficult to see how a stripped down successor could find a market. The only way to proceed is to improve it significantly and keep the launch price fair.

 

Sony's APS-C market share is quite small AFAIK (compared to Nikon or Canon). Their full frame mirrorless is the hit product.

Gary: Good luck, but in my experience "heavy camera" varies with practice. My 70-200 feels heavy sometimes, but then I use my 200/2 for a bit, and even the 200-500 feels like a kit lens after. I'd probably still have back ache, but I wouldn't complain about it. :) (It helps that I'm transporting a lot of unnecessary weight even when I'm not carrying anything.)

 

Andrew

I have a bit of weight to "offload" as well. And the holidays will make it go the wrong way. ;)

 

As a 'senior citizen' with a bad back, there are weight limits to what I can haul about and hold.

And I prefer to stay off the strong pain killers.

I would have to shoot the 200-500 off a rest or gimbal+tripod.

 

I may have to use a monopod one day, but when I tried it, it really cramped my style of shooting. I prefer to move/swing the camera like shooting a shotgun, rather than pivoting my body around the monopod. Being right next to the sidelines, the action moves laterally quite a bit more, than being in the stands.

So I have to look at the heavier OS version of the 50-150.

3 lbs, just a little bit lighter than the 70-200/2.8 of the same era.

Sony has a relatively complete crop lens set (I believe) with a full frame upgrade path. What happens there? Do people stay with A6500s or buy an A7?

You may want to have a look then - their APS-C lens system is in shambles. And their "flagship" A6500 is nowhere near in performance where the current A7/A9 are. Even Sony can't support that many systems at once - when the A7 Series took hold and off, that's what they focused on. E-mount APS-C got neglected, as did the entire A-mount line (which Sony should (and probably will) drop any day now.

They might need a cheaper kit lens than the 24-120 to do it, though.

There already is one in form of the 24-85 VR. Just slightly crappier performance than the (crappy) 24-120.

I've maintained for a while that Nikon should just differentiate by making a completely cut down D6x0 successor

Even crappier than the D600/D610 - might as well make it a mirrorless then. A low-price, low-end FX camera that would go with which lenses exactly? A $1,000 28-300? Or a $500 24-85? Or should Nikon come out with a whole new set of slow, variable aperture 28-xxx zooms that duplicate the plentiful 18-xxx DX zooms? If people aren't buying a $750 FX 20/1.8 to fit their sub-$1200 DX body what makes you think they would buy one for a sub-$1200 FX body that's heavily compromised to begin with to reach that price point? In addition - all what Ilkka said above.

 

Nikon is definitely struggling at this point - they need to come out with mirrorless in both DX and FX form, in addition to all the lenses they need to produce for those. That alone will tax their production capacities to the limit for years to come. They just covered the high-end in both DX and FX with the D500, D850, and D5 and also released a neither-here-nor-there D7500. As I already mentioned before, I believe D3xxx and D5xxx are already dead; there might be a D750 successor next year or they may not be. I fully expect that any effort Nikon will make from now on to move people to FX will be in the mirrorless realm, and the same is going to happen in the low-end DX market; they most certainly will not introduce a low-end FX camera body that would force them to come up with a set of cheap lenses for it. And since they have not so far, they will not introduce any DX primes; those will hopefully eventually surface for their mirrorless.

 

I could be wrong but I doubt that Nikon will continue to bank on DSLRs only. Even this thread shows that many want small and light - and that's where a DSLR system will always be at a disadvantage. Throw in the still less than stellar (or even sufficient) AF performance during live view and video, and there's hardly an argument to be made to choose a Nikon DSLR over a mirrorless.

 

I don't know much about the Nikon 1 cameras - but it appears that Nikon had some good AF performance in them (even on-sensor) PDAF. The decision to "protect" their low-end DX market by choosing the CX format ultimately proved fatal for the Nikon 1 Series (and doomed it from the get go). Just imagine had Nikon poured all that development energy and money into an APS-C-based mirrorless system and had not been afraid to cannibalize their DSLR sales a bit? Only one of the many mistakes Nikon made over the last, let's say five or six years.

Gary, I shoot a 400 mm 2.8 weighing in at 10 lbs on a heavy tripod and wimberly gimbal head. That is one beast of a kit. After that, the 70 - 200 2.8 feels like a toy. I have posted elsewhere, I picked up a d500 while shooting a FF d700 for 8 years. Interesting new usage of my lenses. The 85 1.4 now functions at close to an equivalent of my 135 2.0 and I have become enamoured with the look of images shot with the 135 2.0 taken at 200 mm distances. In studio I shoot off a rolling camera stand so it double as storage if shooting hand held or for tack sharp images if shot on the stand. But I have posted this before on the 135, to get adequate dof for both eyes on a head shot, I need at least 3.2 and my version of that lens is razor sharp there and the ca is once click controllable in light room. At f/4 it is wonderful and I have a margin of error and I just match it with the bokeh ring for gorgeous bokeh. Like one of the posters, with the FX body, I carry that instead of the 70-200 beast.

Give me some pancake lenses (I shouldn't have to live with the 45mm AI-P or the E-series lenses) that make the camera pocketable, and give me something small and fast, and I'd be tempted.

 

While retaining my favorite Nikon lenses, I currently use Olympus M43 pro lenses more. At the risk of getting clobbered for talking about non-Nikon alternatives, I think the Olympus 14-42mm lens (2.4" x 0.9"), though non-prime (who cares), would suitably fill your bill. So I use this thin lens on the backup Olympus instead of a passive lens cap; and the camera doesn't get a lot thicker with it; the camera becomes an unobtrusive point-and-shoot; simply awesome. Re small primes, there are quite a few of course. My favorite is the 75mm f/1.8 (2.52" x 2.72") - fast focus, tack sharp and lovely bokeh. Can't ask for more.

 

Nonetheless, Nikon naturally has other virtues, of course. - Or it won't be discussed so much. ;)

Dieter

Man that Sigma 50-150 was so attractive, until I found out the size and weight of the OS version.

With the Sigma OS 50-150 f/2.8 at about the weight of a 70-200 f/2.8, it does not buy me any weight savings, like the non-OS version does :(

I don't want to give up VR/OS on the longer lenses.

It appears to me that Sigma is using the same frame/lens body for both lenses. Which is unfortunate, as that is giving up the size/weight reduction that is possible with the DX sensor.

So I'm back to the Nikon 70-200 f/4.

I was stunned by the quality of my Tokina f/2.8 DX 11-20mm zoom when I bought it, so no desire here for primes in that FL range. But a decent update to the plastic 35mm f/1.8 might get consideration.

 

Anything longer is already covered by "FX" primes.

 

If (more like when) I go mirrorless it might be a different story, since I'll be looking for something more compact and less retrofocus in design. And that MILC almost certainly won't be made by Nikon, unless they amaze us all by pulling a rabbit out of an invisible hat pretty soon.

"Dieter Schaefer : If I was still using DX lenses, I would get the 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8 Sigma"

This could be/should be another thread but reading the above statement I remenber my Sigma 35/1,4 and the problems I having with this lens.

It all begin in april (...if I remember well...) after the D4s firmware upgrade . Since then almost half of the pictures taken with this combo are out of focus (mainly in low light).

I'll keep forgeting this, and today while performing a paid Christmas shooting it happened again.

I wonder if someone encountered a similar problem (this lens beeing the only Sigma I own) ?

Edited December 17, 2017 by paul_b.|1

With Sigma's recent lenses you can adjust the focus with their dock. I think focus adjustment is a fact of life for DSLR users (also for Nikon lenses) but if things work well you can do it once for a pair of lens and camera and then forget about it. At least in theory, though there can be situations fine tune may need to be adjusted given a location and lighting conditions, maybe also distance, though most of this stuff I had problems with when using the D800; with the D810 and other newer cameras I've had no real-world significant distance or color temperature of light related issues with AF. I do notice some focal length dependency of optimal fine tune in zooms. Sigma's dock allows fine tuning separately for different focal lengths and distances. Still, fast wide angles are among the most challenging in terms of focus accuracy.

Sorry for the delay - I've been incapacitated by sniffles all weekend.

 

A high quality viewfinder and good compatibility with older lenses are some of the key advantages of FX DSLRs.

 

Well, they're key advantages of more expensive Nikon bodies. For compatibility, I'm not suggesting changing the F mount (unless they go mirrorless), just viewfinder metering. Or, at the risk of a radical suggestion, just take a delayed exposure stopped down, metering from the sensor like live view does.

 

The lens compatibility is particularly vital for users of the D610 because they are on a budget and typically knowledgeable but budget-limited FX people buy older lenses second hand.

 

While I admit it's only an opinion, I disagree. However, I've not seen attachment figures for the D6x0 and 6D series, so I could be wrong.

 

I'm suggesting that Nikon position a D6x0 successor as an upgrade path from the D5x00 series and possibly D7500, neither of which have aperture rings. There are plenty of semi-affordable AF-S lenses out there, and could easily be more; besides, part of the reason for proposing an FX upgrade path is to get people to buy Nikkors (I'm trying to make an economic argument for Nikon). Manual focus is a pain, especially for a novice. Many old lenses aren't all that optically good anyway. I concede that it's a discount path, but I think that's the job of the Df (with an expensive viewfinder, expensive compatibility options, and a deliberately low-res sensor so you can't see the lens artifacts), not a competitor to the A7.

 

The pentamirror viewfinder in my opinion is the closest equivalent to a crime against humanity. At least my eyes are strained trying to see detail and are trying to focus on an image which isn't quite clear (e.g. D3100).

 

Bear in mind the D3100 has a double whammy: it's not only a pentamirror, it's also DX. For a fair comparison you need to compare a D3100 against a D7x00. There's a difference (or we wouldn't have heavy, expensive pentaprisms), but it's not the extra stop difference that you get comparing with an FX pentaprism. I have a film SLR with a pentamirror, and it's honestly fine.

 

In fact what I'd like is to see the excellent Df or D850 viewfinder put into the D610's successor; removal of the pop-up flash would be possible by including compatibility with Nikon's radio AWL flash system. No pop-up flash => no vignetting in the viewfinder, better viewfinder optics, and better compatibility with PC 24. And if Nikon add interchangeable focusing screens, manual lens users can be even happier.

 

It sounds like you're designing a Df2. Which is fine, I have plenty of input to that discussion, and I agree with what you're suggesting for it. I just think that's a different camera from what the D6x0 successor should be. Lots of people express concerns at the weight of FX DSLRs. For anything that's not a wide-angle (and needs to be heavily retrofocal to avoid the mirror), there's no difference in lens size compared with mirrorless, but the body weight is still an issue. A big chunk of that weight is the big lump of glass that makes up the pentaprism. I actually couldn't tell you how much, but the DP-30 from my F5 is fairly chunky (my google-fu is failing to tell me exactly how much, but I can weigh it later if anyone's interested). If you want people to stop being scared about the weight of an FX DSLR system, make one (not the entire range) with a pentamirror.

 

Since D600's can be had on the used market (with free shutter replacements) for around 700€ it's difficult to see how a stripped down successor could find a market. The only way to proceed is to improve it significantly and keep the launch price fair.

 

Yes. I'm not suggesting making it worse for the sake of making it worse; I'm suggesting cutting production costs so that a low price can be achieved - I'd love Nikon to produce a D850-equivalent at $1000, but since Nikon would go bust very rapidly as a consequence, I don't expect it. Stick the Multi-CAM 3500 in a 600g body (I think achievable without the aperture ring, AF motor and pentaprism - the Eos 500 was 370g and the electronics and battery shouldn't outweigh a large cell phone) and you have an instant and valuable upgrade compared with the D610; then you're competing against the D750, but that's a more achievable ($1500) target under which to aim. It's also in the ballpark of the A7II's 565g, and you can pull the SLR battery life card to make the sale. You'll never compete against used prices (you can get a used D810 for the new price of a D750), but so long as there's at least some merit in the product, many will buy new for the sake of warranty and peace of mind. The A7 was recently available under $800, so the farther Nikon can get under the $1500 point the better - and that means chopping expensive bits off.

 

Sony's APS-C market share is quite small AFAIK (compared to Nikon or Canon). Their full frame mirrorless is the hit product.

 

I believe you. They're also competing with Fuji and micro 4/3 (and historically Samsung, and Leica), and the increasing capabilities of 1" cameras and phones with computational photography features for things like multi-exposure noise reduction and DoF. Still, the DSLR market is shrinking faster than the mirrorless market, and my assumption (possibly flawed) is that Nikon would make money by easing the upgrade path to where there lens set is more complete.

 

They'd save more production costs by going mirrorless, of course, so that may be what happens instead. But they'd better have good PDoS autofocus, they'd better have a very good EVF, the battery life had better not suck, and there had better be a good lens selection available at or soon after launch, with an affordable and good compatibility path to FX lenses. They'll need it eventually, but my proposal is a little less risky. :)

"Dieter Schaefer : If I was still using DX lenses, I would get the 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8 Sigma"

This could be/should be another thread but reading the above statement I remenber my Sigma 35/1,4 and the problems I having with this lens.

It all begin in april (...if I remember well...) after the D4s firmware upgrade . Since then almost half of the pictures taken with this combo are out of focus (mainly in low light).

I'll keep forgeting this, and today while performing a paid Christmas shooting it happened again.

I wonder if someone encountered a similar problem (this lens beeing the only Sigma I own) ?

The Sigma 35mm/f1.4 Art is also the only non-Nikon F-mount lens I own. It continues to work great on the latest Nikon DSLRs, such as the D750, D5, and D850.

 

As far as DX prime lenses go, I have zero interest in them. My main DX body is the D500 and I use it mostly with super teles to take advantage of the crop factor. In these days I rarely use anything shorter than 300mm on DX.

(Still catching up with the thread...)

 

You may want to have a look then - their APS-C lens system is in shambles. And their "flagship" A6500 is nowhere near in performance where the current A7/A9 are. Even Sony can't support that many systems at once - when the A7 Series took hold and off, that's what they focused on. E-mount APS-C got neglected, as did the entire A-mount line (which Sony should (and probably will) drop any day now.

 

Sorry; I've seen conflicting summaries. While the A7RIII got a very recent upgrade (necessarily, given the D850), I didn't know the A6x00s were so far behind the other full-frame bodies. I'm sure they're due a more cutting-edge replacement. I absolutely expect Sony to iterate full-frame where they've no competition (sorry, Leica) rather than the crowded APS-C space, but I wouldn't say they're dead. I'm astonished at the A99II - I expect those to die soon, it surely can't be profitable.

 

There already is one in form of the 24-85 VR. Just slightly crappier performance than the (crappy) 24-120.

 

I always forget that...

 

Even crappier than the D600/D610 - might as well make it a mirrorless then.

 

Possibly, although that's dependent on Nikon making a mirrorless body that's:

• Competitive with the A7 line on price and features
  
• Has a viewfinder competitive with at least a budget FX finder
  
• Has competitive autofocus
  
• Has competitive battery life
  
• Isn't as heavy as an SLR
  
• Is cheaper than buying an SLR if it's not better
  
• Has enough native lenses to make it a useful system
  

Still acts to get people to buy Nikkor lenses (via an affordable adaptor)

 

I'm not betting on that, but since Nikon must get there eventually, maybe they should. If they do it badly enough, it'll not go well for them, though.

 

Besides, define "crappier". Better autofocus, possibly faster, smaller and lighter don't necessarily mean "crappier" even if reduced lens compatibility and a (somewhat) darker viewfinder do. I don't want a D850 to lose the ability to use the few manual lenses that I own, and I want there to be a model in the Nikon line that can support these for a long time, but most of my lenses are AF-S - as a back-up body or for people who bought full-frame lenses and used them on their DX bodies, there's not much downside. And the finder will still be a world better than a D5x00's (and may well keep a D7x00 honest). If it was small and light, I'd preferentially choose this over a D6x0.

 

A low-price, low-end FX camera that would go with which lenses exactly? A $1,000 28-300? Or a $500 24-85?

 

Nikon bundle the $1100 24-120 with the D750 for $500. One would hope they could knock a few bucks off the 24-85 in a bundle. An FX system with lens for $1500 feels sellable to me, given that supplementing it with some primes wouldn't be tricky.

 

Or should Nikon come out with a whole new set of slow, variable aperture 28-xxx zooms that duplicate the plentiful 18-xxx DX zooms?

 

A discount on the 24-85 feels sufficient to me (unless Nikon want to bring back the cheaper non-VR version if the VR one really costs a lot to make). Make another bundle with the 24-120 for a $500 premium. There are affordable 70-300 options, and the 70-200 f/4. Plus the f/1.8 FX prime set. Given that the idea is to get people to buy into the FX lens system, I think Nikon have much less to do than they would with mirrorless. But I'm not running companies, so it's only an opinion, it's at best a stop-gap, and it needs way more research.

 

If people aren't buying a $750 FX 20/1.8 to fit their sub-$1200 DX body what makes you think they would buy one for a sub-$1200 FX body that's heavily compromised to begin with to reach that price point? In addition - all what Ilkka said above.

 

Define "heavily compromised"? Dimmer viewfinder? Yes, but compared with what? An FX pentamirror is still, I suspect, brighter than the best DX finder. Can't focus with old lenses? Sure, but many old lenses don't hold up on (say) a 24MP sensor, and people coming from the D5x00 range won't have non-AF-S lenses anyway. Can't meter with non-digital lenses? Likewise, but also for D7500 owners. It can't do everything a D850 can do, but how many potential customers would rather have "just in case" compatibility than $200 and some weight back?

 

A 20mm f/1.8 on an FX body is very different than on DX - it's not a 35mm equivalent, it's much more exotic, and you're paying for that. Would they buy a 35mm prime? You bet. Even I've got one, and I'm not a fan of the focal length. Quite a few would probably buy a 50mm and 85mm, too, then start looking at the 70-200s.

 

Nikon is definitely struggling at this point - they need to come out with mirrorless in both DX and FX form, in addition to all the lenses they need to produce for those.

 

I agree that they need to do at least one of those; probably both. Will they do it quickly and without huge cost to the company? No. Will they do it perfectly first time? Doubtful. Would a low-effort replacement of the D6x0 line, competing with Sony and the 6DII, help in the meantime? Maybe? Way above my pay grade. I'm not saying it's what they should do, I'm just defending it as, I believe, not an entirely stupid idea.

 

That alone will tax their production capacities to the limit for years to come. They just covered the high-end in both DX and FX with the D500, D850, and D5 and also released a neither-here-nor-there D7500. As I already mentioned before, I believe D3xxx and D5xxx are already dead

 

If Nikon execute perfectly on mirrorless DX, maybe. Otherwise, I thought this was where Nikon made their money - it's risky not to iterate, although they're hardly pushing boundaries with recent updates. Battery life and good AF subject tracking still appeal to a lot of people.

 

there might be a D750 successor next year or they may not be.

 

I suspect a fair few are hoping for one. There's space in the "not the D850" realm, and the 6DII is somewhat more of a competitor (although I think of the D750 more as a budget 5DIII).

 

I fully expect that any effort Nikon will make from now on to move people to FX will be in the mirrorless realm, and the same is going to happen in the low-end DX market;

 

They should absolutely do this. I'm just not sure it's all they should do. If it is all they should do, they better get it right!

 

they most certainly will not introduce a low-end FX camera body that would force them to come up with a set of cheap lenses for it. And since they have not so far, they will not introduce any DX primes; those will hopefully eventually surface for their mirrorless.

 

They don't need many cheap lenses - just bundle the 24-85 cheaply. It had a premium with the D610, but since they've been making it since 2012, it better be streamlined by now; probably anyone buying in this market is worth a loss-leader. They could bring back the cheap non-VR version. There are other cheapish FX AF-S lenses (70-300, primes). Otherwise, by all means upgrade to a different FX body - this is about offering an option for those wanting FX but with a medium attachment rate, not those after a high-end system or those intending to buy a lot of used lenses that won't make Nikon any money.

 

I could be wrong but I doubt that Nikon will continue to bank on DSLRs only. Even this thread shows that many want small and light - and that's where a DSLR system will always be at a disadvantage. Throw in the still less than stellar (or even sufficient) AF performance during live view and video, and there's hardly an argument to be made to choose a Nikon DSLR over a mirrorless.

 

There's stellar viewfinder autofocus performance and long battery life, plus various arguable benefits to optical viewfinders and lens range. Nikon should absolutely sort out mirrorless. They should fix live view/video AF with a PDoS system. Should they bet the company (at least, a market segment) on getting it right when their last update was in 2013? I'm not so sure.

 

I don't know much about the Nikon 1 cameras - but it appears that Nikon had some good AF performance in them (even on-sensor) PDAF. The decision to "protect" their low-end DX market by choosing the CX format ultimately proved fatal for the Nikon 1 Series (and doomed it from the get go).

 

I've a V1, bought at a heavy discount. I only use the kit lens, and only then for high speed video. They have good PDoS AF, but then the effective depth of field was much larger anyway due to the crop factor. They cost more than a DSLR (despite allegedly low production costs), were way bigger than needed (especially the V series), and their handling was awful (especially the V1). The sensors were also worse than what Sony and later Canon et al. managed to put in a compact with a faster zoom that fit in a small pocket. My RX100 gets way more use.

 

Just imagine had Nikon poured all that development energy and money into an APS-C-based mirrorless system and had not been afraid to cannibalize their DSLR sales a bit? Only one of the many mistakes Nikon made over the last, let's say five or six years.

 

Nikon are desperately late to the market - hence Sony outselling them. They need to fix it, but they need to get a really compelling product out there. That includes the ecosystem (which currently means large lenses, and either means a lot of new lenses or an adaptor). Should they focus on it? Yes. Should they stop all other development? I don't think they can afford to. They have too poor a record of delivering and too great a tendency to underestimate the competition (because obviously everyone around them would rather buy Nikon anyway irrespective of whether it's better) to risk not maintaining their current lines. And the D610 is ancient.