What is going on with Nikon and entry-level DSLRs?

But, Glen, the reasoning goes that these sensors in cameras without an optical finder are 'hot', i.e. on, for much longer than the faction of a second that takes to record the image that you want stored on a memory card.

The sensor in a mirrorless camera is active all the time it is powered up, whereas only at the time of exposure in a DSLR. The sensor itself generates very little heat, but may be heated by imaging processing circuitry in close proximity.

 

The rear LCD generates a surprising amount of heat. If you're completely obsessive on this matter, unfold the LCD a bit so that air can circulate behind it. High intensity LCD displays, e.g., in an Atomos Ninja V, would get too hot for comfort were it not for fan cooling.

The sensor in a mirrorless camera is active all the time it is powered up, whereas only at the time of exposure in a DSLR. The sensor itself generates very little heat, but may be heated by imaging processing circuitry in close proximity.

 

The rear LCD generates a surprising amount of heat. If you're completely obsessive on this matter, unfold the LCD a bit so that air can circulate behind it. High intensity LCD displays, e.g., in an Atomos Ninja V, would get too hot for comfort were it not for fan cooling.

See, Glen?

I don't shoot sports, so a real-time optical finder isn't a priority. That said, my Sony cameras now update 120 times/sec, so the lag is not noticeable.

 

On the other hand I shoot a lot of landscapes, and an EVF is the only thing which gives me an accurate idea of DOF and focus. An OVF is only useable if the lens is wide open, and only marginally useful for manual focus. Having an artificial horizon is not a bad thing either, especially when nothing around you is level.

As with a lot of choices presented to us, the ideal choice is not either but both.

But it is a safe bet we will have our choice made for us, and mirrorless it will be.

ban him^^

Why?

I think Nikon is discontinuing all DSLR's i think, i do not expect any new DSLR's from nikon anymore ..

I think you might be right. Though I believe Nikon is currently weighing whether or not to release a D850 successor soon (if not before fall, then I think the time has come and passed). Not that I am waiting for one or expecting it to be significantly different from the D850. Probably an "upgrade" similar to the D750 -> D780 (which is basically a Z6 with a mirrorbox) - so the main improvements would be on the live view/video side of things. Though the D6 AF module could find use in it as well. Similarly, but IMHO much less likely is a D500 successor. For both, there should be a market - but the question is whether or not Nikon has the production capacity to do those and the much more important (to them, not necessarily for me) mirrorless bodies and lenses and whether or not Nikon thinks there is sufficient profit to be made. Aside from the slim and slimmer chance for a D880 and D580, I don't expect any further DSLR from Nikon.

 

I do expect Nikon to bring out a consumer-oriented DX mirrorless below the current Z50 - call it a Z30. Most likely before they come out with one above it (call it Z70). Frankly, I was surprised that Nikon brought out a DX mirrorless at all. An FX one below the Z5 (call it Z3) makes much more sense to me - I doubt that Nikon will build a full DX Z-mount lens system - it's more likely a repeat of the rudimentary DX F-mount lens "system" they (did not) create. I'd be interested in a high-end DX mirrorless body (equivalent or better than the D500) - but I doubt it will happen (at a reasonable price and within a reasonable time frame); I more likely will have to wait for a Z8 or bite the bullet and go all out for the Z9. Or just stick with what I currently have, replace like-for-like in case of breakage/failure as long as it is possible.

Agree, I was hoping that Nikon would do a low end FX mirrorless, as the Nikkormat was to the Nikon F. And a cheaper non-pro lens line.

That would tremendously simplify migration from one to the other. Unlike the pain of going from DX to FX.

 

I think they were market pressured into the DX mirrorless. They could not "give" the DX/APS-C market to Canon.

Yet, there is some logic to keeping the DX line. With the DX line, it is a more price sensitive market, vs. Canon, in the big box stores.

With the FX line, they can raise the margins and make more $ per unit.

 

If you can keep the two lines separate, it works. It becomes an issue at the top of the DX range if you want to migrate to FX.

• Canon solved that by giving the APS-C M50 a different mount than the FF R. To go from M50 to R, IS a system migration.
  
• DX to FX: For me with a D7200 and was considering a D750, the issue was lenses. I wanted to go FX. But the cost of a DX 16-80/2.8-4 would financially lock me into DX. So I just could not make a decision, and was stuck in indecision.
   
  
  • I finally broke the stalemate by going the other way, to micro 4/3. This was driven purely by size and weight, as the weight of my DX/FX kit was getting too heavy for the old man to easily carry.
    

With only TWO DX Z lenses, Nikon is seriously lagging behind the Canon M50 in native lenses. But as you said, DX has always lagged behind FX, and has always had holes in the DX F lens line-up. I had to go to FX and 3rd party lenses to fill the gaps in the DX F lens line.

 

I am surprised that Nikon would discontinue the D3500 and D5600, without having a mirrorless replacement on the market. To me, this creates a marketing hole that Canon can exploit.

The main reason i think there will be no new development for DSLR's is that i feel there is nothing they can really improve padt the D850 / D6 / D500 unless they would look at verry high investment with insufficient return to make it wellworthy, whereas the mirrorless lines still have headroom to develop further in interresting ways..

The main reason i think there will be no new development for DSLR's is that i feel there is nothing they can really improve

I totally agree. I doubt the D780 sells all that well - I consider it a trial balloon by Nikon to see whether the changes made from the D750 draw a sufficient number of customers. If yes, we may see a D880 ; if no, we won't. A possible D500 successor is even less likely - I believe the D500 sells in smaller numbers than the D850 and those live view/video-centric upgrades aren't of high importance to what I see as the main D500 customer.

I think they were market pressured into the DX mirrorless. They could not "give" the DX/APS-C market to Canon.

Yet, there is some logic to keeping the DX line. With the DX line, it is a more price sensitive market, vs. Canon, in the big box stores.

With the FX line, they can raise the margins and make more $ per unit.

Certainly. But it's also a market of small profits per unit. And one that is rapidly shrinking, yielding to smartphones. And a more crowded one. With one very active participant - Fuji. And one lethargic one - Sony. And then the m4/3 manufacturers.

 

If you can keep the two lines separate, it works. It becomes an issue at the top of the DX range if you want to migrate to FX.

Nikon demonstrated that the D500 works at a price point similar to mid-range FX. But the D500 is a niche camera for sure.

For me with a D7200 and was considering a D750, the issue was lenses. I wanted to go FX. But the cost of a DX 16-80/2.8-4 would financially lock me into DX.

I take a D7200 with the 16-80 over a D750 with the 24-120 anytime.

DX has always lagged behind FX, and has always had holes in the DX F lens line-up

Holes? What was supposed to be a blanket more closely resembled a net:eek: - more holes than material.

 

I am surprised that Nikon would discontinue the D3500 and D5600, without having a mirrorless replacement on the market. To me, this creates a marketing hole that Canon can exploit.

I think with the Z50 Nikon is attempting to find out if there is sufficient demand. And I think a Z30 is coming. I don't think going DX mirrorless was a good move by Nikon at all.

 

Sony just released three "small" lenses - 50/2.5, 40/2.5, and 24/2.8 - each one sells for $600!!! That price might be OK for the 24 (though the tests I have seen show rather weak performance); but for a moderate-aperture 50 or 40mm lens, $600 is outrageous (same price as for Nikon's Z-mount 50/1.8S). A nifty-fifty for a DSLR (50/1.8) used to cost $200 at most - the Zeiss 55/1.8 for Sony E-mount is $1k!

Edited March 31, 2021 by Dieter Schaefer

A nifty-fifty for a DSLR (50/1.8) used to cost $200 at most - the Zeiss 55/1.8 for Sony E-mount is $1k!

A "nifty-fifty" worked well enough at 12 MP, or with film, with no real competition, but is disappointing when used on a 45 MP mirrorless when compared to a native mirrorless lens. The long back focus distance of an SLR lens avoids many problems attributed to the angle of incidence at the sensor, but instead of being bad at the corners, it is uniformly bad throughout, and nearly unusable at maximum aperture. Of course the Z 50/1.8 has 12 elements in 9 groups, compared to 7 elements in an AF-S 50/1.4 or f/1.8.

 

Since nearly any lens can be fitted to a Nikon Z, you can make direct comparisons, rather than rely on often wistful memories.

Edited April 1, 2021 by Ed_Ingold

Sony just released three "small" lenses - 50/2.5, 40/2.5, and 24/2.8 - each one sells for $600!!!

I was surprised that they were so SLOW. Not necessarily regarding how much light they can get in, but that subject isolation and blurry backgrounds are going to be poor. Agreed, that is more tricky with wider lenses, but these things are from the Dark Ages!

 

But they are quite small and un-obtrusive....;)

I totally agree. I doubt the D780 sells all that well - I consider it a trial balloon by Nikon to see whether the changes made from the D750 draw a sufficient number of customers. If yes, we may see a D880 ; if no, we won't.

 

I don't think that's a very good trial balloon; the D750 had vertical grip option and Nikon's latest autofocus system (at the time of it's introduction it had the best low light AF Nikon had made in any camera) at an affordable price; the D780 has no option for vertical grip and the same AF sensor as the 2014 D750 whereas Nikon's higher end stuff is two generations ahead (Multi-CAM 20K & 37K), so people are disappointed they didn't use a newer AF module to make the D780 more competitive. They didn't really make it as good as they could have. People also think the same of the D6, as it didn't get on-sensor PDAF - almost all the improvements are on the viewfinder size, a polar opposite of what the D780 got. Why hold back? If they want to sell cameras they should put it all in rather than split features into different cameras. I did get the D6 and it's wonderful for sports photography, but apart from a brief period in the fall, there are no sports events with audiences going on, and at least to me it's less exciting, for sports photos I like to combine the the color and feeling from the diverse audience into photos of the action. Would it have helped sales in the pandemic period if Nikon had included OSPDAF in the D6 and Multi-CAM 20K or 37K and vertical grip in the D780? I think it would have. However, despite the likely not good sales of the D6 and D780, I think a D850 successor could sell well.

 

I think people are now doing more video and streaming than before (and people have to arrange this to happen at audience-less events) and Nikon have a few models which have good video capabilities (e.g. Z6, Z6 II and D780) but there are no Nikon cameras with extensive audio connections or monitoring tools so I'm not sure how many people would rely on Nikon for these applications. Probably they have Sony, Canon and Panasonic gear for the most part. People are also doing more nature photography than before. It would have been impossible to plan ahead for the disruption caused by widespread lockdowns. Anyway camera companies are doing as well as they can. However, I don't think making product plans based on 2020 sales is that good a strategy as likely more or less normal life will return soon and then sales will be different again.

 

A possible D500 successor is even less likely - I believe the D500 sells in smaller numbers than the D850 and those live view/video-centric upgrades aren't of high importance to what I see as the main D500 customer.

 

I read comments that the D500 has had a boost in sales in 2020 as people moved to do more bird photography than before (because of restrictions, some photographers' focus has shifted to what is still possible to do). Also I know some wildlife photographers who now do a lot of video using Z6 and similar cameras, but I don't know if that's a temporary shift or if it is a longer-term trend.

 

Live view can be useful for certain wildlife photography situations. I have discovered through wasted frames that in many cases it's important to get the camera as low as possible (depending on obstructions) to increase the distance between the animal and the background. This way even a complex background (stormy water, grass) can be managed and focus can be reliably set on the animal. Using LV it is easier to shoot from a low angle and improved LVAF can help with this in practice. Thus it might actually be very popular if they put D780-like LVAF features into the D500's successor.

 

But I don't know what Nikon's strategy now is. Recently published 2020 sales data suggest Z sales were 28% of Nikon's total ILC sales (DSLRs 72%). I think there is plenty of space for a generation of new DSLRs. However, I do get it that Nikon's priority must be to be more competitive in mirrorless.

 

Certainly. But it's also a market of small profits per unit. And one that is rapidly shrinking, yielding to smartphones. And a more crowded one. With one very active participant - Fuji. And one lethargic one - Sony. And then the m4/3 manufacturers.

 

Fuji's recent focus seems to be medium format, which is where a lot of their new releases have been for some time now. Also Panasonic has become more active in 35 mm full frame (not much new released for MFT) and Olympus sold their camera division though it's not clear what their fate is the plan is that they continue. They released a 150-400/4.5 lens with built-in TC which some bird photographers have taken up and seem very satisfied. Smaller than 35mm full frame sensor based systems are still being actively developed even though the largest manufacturers have seemingly reduced focus on these.

 

I think with the Z50 Nikon is attempting to find out if there is sufficient demand. And I think a Z30 is coming. I don't think going DX mirrorless was a good move by Nikon at all.

 

I think there is a large market of people who cannot afford and do not want to pay for 35mm full frame (especially in less affluent countries) and it's a good plan to have some presence in this market. I quite like the Z50 and its kit zoom by the way, very compact and still ergonomic. For me DX with f/6.3 lens isn't ideal, however, but the camera does seem solid and some reviews have suggested the kit lens has very high image quality for a lens of its kind. If I lived in a country with more light outdoors, I would probably buy it for walk-around use. Yes, smartphones compete in that area as well, but despite having a 2020 phone which should have a pretty good camera, I haven't made the jump of accepting its output except for purely utilitarian purposes such as digitizing notes on paper, bills etc. For now I don't really have a camera which is fun to walk around with.

 

Sony just released three "small" lenses - 50/2.5, 40/2.5, and 24/2.8 - each one sells for $600!!! That price might be OK for the 24 (though the tests I have seen show rather weak performance); but for a moderate-aperture 50 or 40mm lens, $600 is outrageous (same price as for Nikon's Z-mount 50/1.8S). A nifty-fifty for a DSLR (50/1.8) used to cost $200 at most - the Zeiss 55/1.8 for Sony E-mount is $1k!

 

I thought those apertures were quite normal in the old days. Of course the prices are high, that's what we can expect in a smaller market. Further, I believe all the money pumped into the economy by central banks (to help the economy at the time of a pandemic) can't avoid causing significant inflation, so we can expect prices across the board to be higher.

Edited April 1, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

rather than rely on often wistful memories

I most certainly do not have fond or wistful memories of nifty-fifties :mad:

The Zeiss Sonnar FE 55/1.8 has 7 elements in 5 groups - apparently not enough compared to the 12 elements in 9 groups of the Nikon Z 50/1.8S:

Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 55 mm f/1.8 ZA review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

Nikon Nikkor Z 50 mm f/1.8 S review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

Who would want to spend $1k on a lens with longitudinal chromatic aberration like this:

Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 55 mm f/1.8 ZA review - Chromatic and spherical aberration - LensTip.com

Compare the Nikon:

Nikon Nikkor Z 50 mm f/1.8 S review - Chromatic and spherical aberration - LensTip.com

The Zeiss does even worse in that department than the lowly $220 F-mount AF-S 50/1.8G

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f/1.8G review - Chromatic aberration - LensTip.com

(which I considered to be quite bad in that regard - even though it performs better than a lot of other Nikon F-mount lenses in that aspect).

Though its performance is quite similar to Sony's FE 50/1.8 (which at $250 also costs about the same)

Sony FE 50 mm f/1.8 review - Chromatic and spherical aberration - LensTip.com

And here is that new $600 Sony FE 50/2.5 lens:

Sony FE 50 mm f/2.5 G review - Chromatic and spherical aberration - LensTip.com

which does, however, do quite well in terms of image resolution

Sony FE 50 mm f/2.5 G review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

A "nifty-fifty" worked well enough at 12 MP, ... but is disappointing when used on a 45 MP mirrorless when compared to a native mirrorless lens...you can make direct comparisons

One can, and one has to - because unfortunately test sites like lenstip don't go back to the older lenses and put them on a mirrorless for a direct comparison:(

Edited April 1, 2021 by Dieter Schaefer

If they want to sell cameras they should put it all in rather than split features into different cameras.

On that we can wholeheartedly agree!

Would it have helped sales in the pandemic period if Nikon had included OSPDAF in the D6 and Multi-CAM 20K or 37K and vertical grip in the D780? I think it would have.

I think so too.

I think a D850 successor could sell well.

Me too.

But I don't know what Nikon's strategy now is. Recently published 2020 sales data suggest Z sales were 28% of Nikon's total ILC sales (DSLRs 72%). I think there is plenty of space for a generation of new DSLRs. However, I do get it that Nikon's priority must be to be more competitive in mirrorless.

Pretty much sums up my own thinking on the matter.

Lateral CA was a particular problem with SLR lenses 50 mm or shorter. Even the best lenses would hover around 1.5%, and it could get much worse. The strongly negative objective, needed to produce the needed back focus distance, required more correction than practical. Mirrorless lenses 35 mm and shorter use a negative objective too, but for telecentricity rather than clearance. CA in mirrorless lenses is typically 0.5% or less. The space once reserved for mirror clearance is now used for corrective elements. In an odd twist, the size of a highly corrected 24 mm lens is close to that of an 85 mm in the same family.

 

Leica lenses suffered to in the digital reformation, but for other reasons. Keeping lenses small left little room for design improvements. The short (22 mm) back focus distance leads to vignetting, coloration and sharpness problems in the edges and corners of the frame. Zeiss 28 and 35 mm lenses were twice the size of their Leica equivalents, were sharper and had less CA when used on a Leica M9 or Sony A7.... Perhaps Leica "gets it" now, but I'm not willing to spend $5600 on an APO lens to find out.

Edited April 1, 2021 by Ed_Ingold

Lateral CA was a particular problem with SLR lenses 50 mm or shorter.

At least lateral CA is to some extent correctable either directly in camera or in post (though there's no free lunch there either); I am much more concerned about longitudinal CA (not correctable in camera or post; APOchromatic lens correction is needed). It appears that very few lenses (often despite the APO moniker prominently affixed) achieve the goal of focusing all (visible) wavelength onto the same focal point.

 

Perhaps Leica "gets it" now, but I'm not willing to spend $5600 on an APO lens to find out.

I have one Leica (R-mount) lens that carries the APO designation - and it is a design from the 60s. Works quite well adapted to the Sony A7RIII. Both F-mount Sigma 150m macro lenses are also well corrected for loCA (both have APO in the lens names too). Cosina has released a few (and probably will do some more) APO-Lanthars that do quite well (without carrying a Leica-sized price tag).

Leica R lenses are designed for an SLR, which work better on a mirrorless camera. M lenses remain problematic at 50 mm and below. The 90 Summicron performs superbly on my Sony. My Elmar 135 is sharp enough, but with low contrast and color. Focusing the 90 and 135 was hit-or-miss on my Leica M3/M9. Edited April 1, 2021 by Ed_Ingold

Why?

 

The arguments are intense when the stakes are so low.

Second, I don't like the reports of issues with EVFs like lag, nausea, etc.

Sounds like the sort of scaremongering that surrounded the first steam locomotives. It was claimed that it was 'scientifically proven' that the human body could not stand speeds in excess of 25 mph, and that nausea, or worse, would surely follow from such risky ventures.

 

The only thing about my Sony a7riv that made me slightly nauseous was the price, but that quickly passed when I saw the results.

As for the EVF - best viewfinder I've ever used. It shows depth-of-field perfectly and the built-in dioptre adjustment let's me shoot without my spectacles or an eyepiece adapter.

Sounds like the sort of scaremongering that surrounded the first steam locomotives. It was claimed that it was 'scientifically proven' that the human body could not stand speeds in excess of 25 mph, and that nausea, or worse, would surely follow from such risky ventures.

.

I think it's more a reflection of the very first video camera EVFs which were certainly laggy & low resolution...

I've not used the latest generation EVFs, but have seen considerable improvement over the models I have used. Even the G1 proved adequate for most styles of shooting, though an OVF was clearly better at that point, if fast action was wanted.

. . . .

Second, I don't like the reports of issues with EVFs like lag, nausea, etc.

So, what am I going to do? What are you,going to do, what have you done?

 

EVF issues depends on the camera, the user, and the subject.

• Shooting on vacation, I had ZERO issues with the EVF on my Olympus.
  
• For fast action sports (like basketball and soccer), it retained image of the the last frame for a half second too long, That drove me nuts, but the next model of the camera solved that problem. But again, that was only for fast action sports, not for anything else.
   
  
• With most any EVF, there is "some" lag, however small, as it has to process and display the image. Some are slower than others. With an optical viewfinder, by definition, there is no lag, because there is no electronics.
  
• I have no idea about the nausea, cuz I never experienced it with a stabilized camera/lens.
  

However, you have to look at what you gain.

Forget the reports of what other say about the EVF, go rent a mirrorless camera and see for yourself.

Nothing beats first hand experience.