Death of the F mount

I'm part way there with the need for VR to deal with my wobbles.

 

Since Nikon used Z, maybe Nikon will go backwards Y > X > W

My hands are surprisingly steady at this time - seems immobile to my eye when holding the camera with arms to my sides. But will sure to get worse when getting closer to the bucket.

Nikon's random assignment of the alphabet makes no sense.

[...]

 

Nikon's random assignment of the alphabet makes no sense.

Of all the things we could worry and moan about...

I can wait. Just need to find a point when it's the lowest. I am in no hurry. And if the price is going to go up I would sell some of the lenses I already have.

I imagine the people who get F mount lenses on the secondary market is gonna be limited. Many people with these 20yrs of dSLR days already have their lenses. I have my 3 zooms and my 2 AF-D primes and 1 Ai prime. While I haven't upgraded them to the AF-S. It does the job the desire for more equipment is now no more GAS. I also don't have GAS for Z cameras either, no one I know are gonna tell the difference anyway when presented to them. Maybe the camera geek inside me might feel the urge rather than using a dated dSLR for the next 15yrs how long could people hold onto it for .....

And yeah FX Z lenses are more expensive than F mount. Still wouldn't over time people would slowly purchase Z lenses cos that the latest tech.

Have you compared the prices of FX and DX lenses?

The FX lenses are generally significantly more $$$ than the DX lens. Following are all list price off the Nikon web site, not sale prices.

• 24/1.8: F-FX is $750, and the Z-FX is $1,000 !!!!
  
• 35/1.8: F-DX is $200, vs F-FX at $530 and Z-FX at $850
   
  
• 50/1.8: F-FX at $220 is the bargain of the FX bunch, and the Z FX at $600.
  

Depends what Nikon does with Z DX if anything significant more than now. In the F mount DX world. Apart from a F4'ish or a F3.5-4.5 UWA zoom lens and a 40mm DX macro and that 35mm F1.8 DX Nikon didn't have anything else.

I guess regarding DX, it depends if Nikon are thinking of a Z version of the very well received D500.

Something a bit rad like an 8K or 50MP sensor with 20fps to get some reach and speed advantage back to DX for wildlife etc.

Or maybe a global shutter?

I guess regarding DX, it depends if Nikon are thinking of a Z version of the very well received D500.

 

Something a bit rad like an 8K or 50MP sensor with 20fps to get some reach and speed advantage back to DX for wildlife etc.

 

Or maybe a global shutter?

I don't think Nikon should even make a DX version of the Z.

I don't think Nikon should even make a DX version of the Z.

I agree completely, but they have!

They neglected DX users mightily with fast glass... or lack there-of.

They made the great D500 as a sports/wildlife high-end, Pro body... and no high-end lenses.

Sigma did with the awesome 18-35mm 1.8 and 50-100mm 1.8 and the 50-150mm 2.8 to name just a few,

I guess regarding DX, it depends if Nikon are thinking of a Z version of the very well received D500.

 

Something a bit rad like an 8K or 50MP sensor with 20fps to get some reach and speed advantage back to DX for wildlife etc.

 

Or maybe a global shutter?

I wonder if the D500 was an pushed upgrade from the D300. But Nikon would rather have wanted the D300 users to upgrade to FX instead.

For a Z-DX version of the D500, I think many will be satisfied with the same 20MP, but IMPROVED AF, and a faster frame rate using the e-shutter.

The more pixels you have the harder to get the frame rate up, because you would have more data to push for each frame. But that is something that technology can improve.

I don't think Nikon should even make a DX version of the Z.

If Nikon is going to drop the dSLRs, they HAVE to make Z DX cameras to replace the consumer D3xxx, D5xxx, and D7xxx.

If not they would be giving that market to Canon and Sony.

If Nikon is going to drop the dSLRs, they HAVE to make Z DX cameras to replace the consumer D3xxx, D5xxx, and D7xxx.

If not they would be giving that market to Canon and Sony.

Did Canon has an EOS-R in APS-C size yet? Sony A6xxx don't seem to have new replacements. At least no as fast as the A7/A9/A1. I think manufacturers should take the mirrorless movement as a mean to get away with the DX altogether. It's a bad idea and only acceptable that back around year 2000 an FX camera would be too expensive. It's the source for confusion for the beginners with the crop factor. Besides it's the FX is where money to be made. Not so much on the DX side.

Did Canon has an EOS-R in APS-C size yet? Sony A6xxx don't seem to have new replacements. At least no as fast as the A7/A9/A1. I think manufacturers should take the mirrorless movement as a mean to get away with the DX altogether. It's a bad idea and only acceptable that back around year 2000 an FX camera would be too expensive. It's the source for confusion for the beginners with the crop factor. Besides it's the FX is where money to be made. Not so much on the DX side.

Canon has the APS-C M-50.

And the M50 has more native lenses than the Nikon Z50 does.

Nikon could have made a LOW cost Z-FX camera for the consumer market, and matching low cost consumer grade Z-FX lenses.

But they had to compete with Canon's APS-C M50. And once they came out with the Z50, rather than a LOW cost Z-FX, they were stuck in the Z-DX market.

As much as I don't care for the DX/FX split lines, it does make marketing sense. As long as the market can support the two lines. And as long as the manufactures can support making two lines, which Nikon is doing poorly at right now, with only TWO Z-DX lenses.

IMHO DX is not "the source for confusion for the beginners with the crop factor."

It is when the FF people throw around crop factor stuff that THEY confuse the beginners. When FF people throw around the "full frame equivalent" stuff, how is a person who has never shot FF supposed to understand that. Saying "135mm FF equivalent" to a DX user means nothing, cuz they have no idea what a 135mm lens on a FF camera sees. It would be like a DX user telling you "45mm DX equivalent," and you have to figure out what he is talking about.

IMHO, "full frame equivalent" is a concept for the FF people to understand the crop cameras, not for a crop camera user.

Do you have facts to back up your statement of "it's the FX is where money to be made. Not so much on the DX side." Or is that an opinion?

Canon, Nikon and Sony won't be selling a lot of expensive FF cameras at Costco and other discount stores. Unless they come out with a LOW priced mirrorless kit, similar in selling price to the APS-C dSLRs. That is the price sensitive consumer market.

None of them is going to give up the consumer DX/APS-C market and $$$$$$$$ revenue, and give it to the others.

After reading 186 posts on this thread, I am reminded of Mark Twain's comment,

"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

After reading 186 posts on this thread, I am reminded of Mark Twain's comment,

 

"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

Yup

There are too many F mount cameras and lenses out there, and no equivalent Z mount camera and lens for some/many of them.

No camera company can kill one line without having the successor line fleshed out enough to take the conversion. That would just push the users to move to another brand.

If I need camera Y function or lens X but it is not yet available in the Z mount, and no longer available in the F mount, then I'm stuck. I have to use a Canon or Sony system to use camera Y function or lens X, and once I do that, I've bought into that other system, and it will be harder for Nikon to get me back.

Canon has the APS-C M-50.

And the M50 has more native lenses than the Nikon Z50 does.

 

Nikon could have made a LOW cost Z-FX camera for the consumer market, and matching low cost consumer grade Z-FX lenses.

But they had to compete with Canon's APS-C M50. And once they came out with the Z50, rather than a LOW cost Z-FX, they were stuck in the Z-DX market.

As much as I don't care for the DX/FX split lines, it does make marketing sense. As long as the market can support the two lines. And as long as the manufactures can support making two lines, which Nikon is doing poorly at right now, with only TWO Z-DX lenses.

 

IMHO DX is not "the source for confusion for the beginners with the crop factor."

It is when the FF people throw around crop factor stuff that THEY confuse the beginners. When FF people throw around the "full frame equivalent" stuff, how is a person who has never shot FF supposed to understand that. Saying "135mm FF equivalent" to a DX user means nothing, cuz they have no idea what a 135mm lens on a FF camera sees. It would be like a DX user telling you "45mm DX equivalent," and you have to figure out what he is talking about.

IMHO, "full frame equivalent" is a concept for the FF people to understand the crop cameras, not for a crop camera user.

 

 

Do you have facts to back up your statement of "it's the FX is where money to be made. Not so much on the DX side." Or is that an opinion?

 

Canon, Nikon and Sony won't be selling a lot of expensive FF cameras at Costco and other discount stores. Unless they come out with a LOW priced mirrorless kit, similar in selling price to the APS-C dSLRs. That is the price sensitive consumer market.

None of them is going to give up the consumer DX/APS-C market and $$$$$$$$ revenue, and give it to the others.

M50 has different mount than the RF mount. Crop factor should never be used but they did and so many beginners were confused. Any way the Z mount is big which is good but a waste for DX. But any way I never bought a DX camera. I have no problem with Fuji X series but using a mount designed for larger format is something undesirable.

Forget the Z, I'm liking this alot with my manual focus F lenses.

The problem is you can wait and wait and wait, until you die.

And during that time, you don't have use of the lens you are waiting for.

 

So, if you want the lens, and the price is low enough, GET IT, and USE it.

Or rent it...