No "consumer level entry" Z-series Camera by Nikon anymore?

What's wrong with very inexpensive 2nd hand DSLRs? Learn the fundamentals first!

I would not start with a DSLR for which the lense are not usable on future new "Z" acmera's , and if one brand ( Nikon?) cannot sell me a new entry level, i would look for another brand, i guess (canon, Sony, or even Fuji), after that there is a good chance that i would stay with that brand, once having invested a bit more in lenses..

ANd maybe the "consumer - Hobbyist" market in teh U.S.A. is not that bifg in anymore, thet does not necesarily the truth for the remainder of the world..( other brands seem to do pretty well in the "affordable" market segment..)

I would not start with a DSLR for which the lense are not usable on future new "Z" acmera's , and if one brand ( Nikon?) cannot sell me a new entry level, i would look for another brand, i guess (canon, Sony, or even Fuji), after that there is a good chance that i would stay with that brand, once having invested a bit more in lenses..

 

ANd maybe the "consumer - Hobbyist" market in teh U.S.A. is not that bifg in anymore, thet does not necesarily the truth for the remainder of the world..( other brands seem to do pretty well in the "affordable" market segment..)

Which brand have inexpensive entry level DX camera? I just was in Best Buy:(

I would not start with a DSLR for which the lense are not usable on future new "Z" acmera's

About 80% of the lenses I use on my Z6ii are F mount... most notably, the 70-200mm 2.8 fl, the 300mm and 500mm PF.

Admittedly, I am, like many here I guess, a dual F and Z mount user.

Using the FTZ adapter, whilst a bit clunky, is entirely painless.

Going Z from the start is optically very expensive, irrespective of the body to start with.

I would not start with a DSLR for which the lense are not usable on future new "Z" acmera's , and if one brand ( Nikon?) cannot sell me a new entry level, i would look for another brand, i guess (canon, Sony, or even Fuji), after that there is a good chance that i would stay with that brand, once having invested a bit more in lenses..

 

ANd maybe the "consumer - Hobbyist" market in teh U.S.A. is not that bifg in anymore, thet does not necesarily the truth for the remainder of the world..( other brands seem to do pretty well in the "affordable" market segment..)

Options are rather thin within those boundaries. Sony suspended their APS-C offerings. Canon's APS-C mirrorless mount (EOS-M) is different and incompatible with their main mirrorless mount (RF), has a very limited lens set (yes, EF lenses can be used but then you have to use an adapter and arguably are in the same situation as with F-mount lenses) and the RF lenses cannot be used on M, and M lenses cannot be used on RF cameras. So there is no upgrade path from M, and likely very limited future products. Purchasing into EF system (although that too is being wound down) or F-mount would be a better choice than M as the gear (including specialist gear not available for any mirrorless system natively) is extensively available on the used market and there is a huge variety of options many at rather low prices relative to their capability. M is probably going to end up like Nikon 1 (my guess). With DSLR products on the used market you can build an advanced system at maybe 1/3 of the cost of a new mirrorless system with comparable level of capabilities. So if cost is a priority then ignoring DSLR products doesn't seem very smart, unless you have specific need to mirrorless-specific capabilities such as silent photography (which you cannot rely on moving subjects unless paying for the advanced and rather expensive top models with stacked sensors). Budget and mirrorless just doesn't go together very well in the same sentence. So, Sony and Canon are not really options if you want a low-cost new mirrorless camera with comprehensive future upgrade options, in fact Nikon offers a bit more in that they have two DX Z cameras that can use full-frame and DX Z lenses, and there is even a DX pancake in the works. (Sony might return to APS-C in the future if the market and production cost changes, but there is no guarantee that this will happen. And Canon may start making RF APS-C cameras and lenses eventually, though there is no official word about it as far as I know.)

OM Digital and Fuji may have something at low prices but they have no full-frame options (should one want to upgrade to a larger and more capable system). Fuji has a medium format system but then that's a whole another discussion not very relevant to a beginner and there isn't any advantage to starting out on Fuji APS-C and then going to Fuji GFX in terms of component cross-compatibility.

The $400 entry-level interchangeable lens camera (and $600 kit) is a thing of the past,. As the enthusiast and pro markets have to support the camera companies now and fewer people buy cameras, the costs per unit will go up, not down. Moving to carbon-free energy and production and increasing environmental awareness can also mean higher costs independently of war and viruses.

It's possible to get a Z50 + 16-50mm and 50-250mm twin kit lens for £950..

Technically, how much is an iPhone 13?

It's possible to get a Z50 + 16-50mm and 50-250mm twin kit lens for £950..

 

Technically, how much is an iPhone 13?

It depends on the particular model but it is comparable. However, people need the phone to get through their normal life's tasks, communication, finding information, navigation, it's not "optional" any more than paying one's electric bill. (Of course there are a lot cheaper phones available but people seem prepared to spend on their smartphones).

A dedicated camera is now mainly of interest to those who either use photography in their work or as a passion.

(Of course there are a lot cheaper phones available but people seem prepared to spend on their smartphones).

Indeed they do!

Priorities, like nostalgia, isn't what it used to be....:p

I still think the camera phone is the modern Instamatic. Generally provides decent results and most people don’t want to carry a camera everywhere, they never have. I use the camera feature if I want to get someone an image immediately but otherwise stick to Nikon. I doubt I’ll ever bother with mirrorless because I still don’t see the point, don’t need it and don’t want to replace all that glass.

Rick H.

I doubt I’ll ever bother with mirrorless because I still don’t see the point, don’t need it and don’t want to replace all that glass.

Having a 'tru-view' viewfinder, ie one that shows firstly what you will get, and post-shot, what you got, without moving away from the eyepiece can be handy to avoid bad cock-ups and quickly correct things.

You don't need to replace all that glass, just the AF-D ones that won't AF via the FTZ. Everything else pretty much works as normal.

One of the things I've noticed is a higher keep-rate with the Z6ii for semi-static, ie,

not high speed action, which I think is due to better AF when using long zooms. Fine tune isn't so hot for variable focal length stuff. Even my 200-500mm isn't as soft at the long-end as it was with my D850.

while am not suprise that Nikon made the Zfc but I was surprised that they made the Z50. I don't think it makes sense to introduce APC-C camera that share the same lens line as the FX. I understand the Zfc because with an FX body it won't be as small as film camera.

In the early years, FX sensors cost a lot more. Defect rate is approximately proportional to area. That is the way it works for all integrated circuits, not just image sensors.

If the price difference in sensors is small enough, there is not so much reason to build DX cameras.

As for existing DX lenses, the D700 knows which lens is in use, and adjusts to use a DX sized area,

though that can be switched off when desired. (Some zoom lenses will cover FX at some focal lengths.)

There are plenty of non-interchangeable lens cameras for entry level.

In the early years, FX sensors cost a lot more. Defect rate is approximately proportional to area. That is the way it works for all integrated circuits, not just image sensors.

 

If the price difference in sensors is small enough, there is not so much reason to build DX cameras.

As for existing DX lenses, the D700 knows which lens is in use, and adjusts to use a DX sized area,

though that can be switched off when desired. (Some zoom lenses will cover FX at some focal lengths.)

 

There are plenty of non-interchangeable lens cameras for entry level.

I understand the early years but it doesn't make sense to do it now.

(Regarding DX vs. FX sensor size.)

I understand the early years but it doesn't make sense to do it now.

It does seem that Nikon calls the Z50 entry level. Priced at $860, as far as I can tell without lens, does seem high.

I got my (used) D700 about 6 years ago for less than that.

(I don't know that there is a fair comparison between Z50 and D700, though.)

I suspect that I agree, that the dividing line has moved up, so it is now the larger medium format

sensors that many of us can't afford.

The DX Z50 is 450gm body only.

The FX Z5 is 590gm body only..

Somehow, I don't think that's 'just' the smaller sensor mass!

so it is now the larger medium format

sensors that many of us can't afford.

The Fuji GFX 50 is way cheaper than a Z9.... and you can get a good clean used GFX 100S for Z9 money.

(Regarding DX vs. FX sensor size.)

It does seem that Nikon calls the Z50 entry level. Priced at $860, as far as I can tell without lens, does seem high.

 

I got my (used) D700 about 6 years ago for less than that.

(I don't know that there is a fair comparison between Z50 and D700, though.)

Comparing used and new items doesn't seem quite fair although many do that when making purchase decisions. Somehow one has to factor in the condition, wear, and risks of a used product. Inflation has increased quite a bit and so when comparing prices from several years ago with current prices, that should be taken into account. Today's $865 (US) is equivalent to $714 in 2016. Finally, one has to take into account the smaller volumes that Nikon cameras sell today, they no longer have the advantage of being able to divide the cost of development of a new processor across a lineup of cameras that sell in millions of copies per year like they used to. I think the Z50 is as cheap as they will get, of course in a few years the used Z50's will be cheaper. But it may be that in the future the least expensive model may get more expensive than the Z50 is today. The world is moving to clean energy and there is a trend towards producing goods more locally and these may rise prices.

I suspect that I agree, that the dividing line has moved up, so it is now the larger medium format

sensors that many of us can't afford.

Medium format digital doesn't quite give the huge image quality advantage it used to give (in film) as the relative size of the typical MF digital sensor and 35mm sensor is smaller than it was with film. It's not that MF digital image quality isn't great (it is) but that now also 35mm digital (FX) image quality is already really good, and so there is no pressing practical need to go larger. To me the problem with MF is that while the images are beautiful, the EVFs of MF mirrorless cameras are very slow (there is a lag and updates to the image shown on the screen are sparse) and this makes them a poor fit to the way I work. In fact I have this problem with the Z6 II as well, if I'm photographing a subject with movement the total lag constituting of the EVF lag and shutter delay is greater than what I'm used to with DSLRs and this makes timing of movement very difficult without resorting to capturing multiple shots. I believe the Z9 largely alleviates that problem, though, at least I'm hoping it does, as it has parallel data streams. However, the Z9 has a 45 MP sensor which is less well fit to the kind of event photography that I want to do, and although I recently increased my computer's storage considerably, I still wouldn't want to shoot everything with 45 MP and prefer 20-24MP for practical reasons (as well as high ISO image quality, which on the Z6 II is wonderful). I'd sort of want the Z6 II sensor but with the Z9's faster AF and EVF capabilities.

In fact I have this problem with the Z6 II as well, if I'm photographing a subject with movement the total lag constituting of the EVF lag and shutter delay is greater than what I'm used to with DSLRs and this makes timing of movement very difficult without resorting to capturing multiple shots.

Yup, me too!

Yup, me too!

Would something like an "Olympus EE-1 Dot Sight" in the hotshoe help ?

I prefer the Fuji approach which is APC-C only or the Canon approach with a seperate line of APC-C cameras. Even Sony is not doing much with their APC-C A body any more. Using 2 sensor sizes for 1 lens mount is what I dislike. It was the reason I never bought a Nikon DX camera.

Agree. I got a preowned Fuji XT1. I think Nikon Z is for people who at least have an initial interest of going FX in the future and or if they already have Nikon equipment lying around like a older DSLR or a Film SLR. Even if you limit yourself to DX forever, there are only a few DX lenses, even less if you exclude the DX kit lenses. Yes you can use FX but why pay that difference and carry a larger lens. A Fuji X or a M4/3 camera also have more suitable FLs ie equiv 20m, equiv 24mm, equiv 28mm. Not just the easier equiv 35mm and 50mm.

It depends on the particular model but it is comparable. However, people need the phone to get through their normal life's tasks, communication, finding information, navigation, it's not "optional" any more than paying one's electric bill. (Of course there are a lot cheaper phones available but people seem prepared to spend on their smartphones).

 

A dedicated camera is now mainly of interest to those who either use photography in their work or as a passion.

Yep. Less photography types would find the phones so much easier to use but even if we relate to photographers there may not be many photographers who don't use a smartphone already. However for sure you can make international telephone calls and pay the telco for every minute, you still cannot do video chats, you cannot run Zoom sessions, you cannot share PDF files and web URL links, you cannot email, you cannot eBay, you cannot share your snaps with friends and family. GPS maps can be quite useful for people, language translation, booking accom on the go etc etc.

One also cannot keep using the same smartphone for 5yrs or more. I have a mid-range phone bought for $280US equiv first week of January 2017 and it runs Android 6.0 and most of my internet banking no longer works, McDonald's app no longer works, Microsoft Outlook doesn't work either but fortunately I can get my Outlook email via the Gmail app. I have a even older phone that runs Android 4.0 and Google services won't even work including Google Play Store and Gmail and YouTube.

Even if you limit yourself to DX forever, there are only a few DX lenses, even less if you exclude the DX kit lenses.

Whilst this is undoubtedly true for Nikon 'label' lenses, there is a whole panoply of high-end DX 'only' lenses made by, for example, Sigma.

Their f1.8 zooms of 18-35mm and 50-100mm are prime (sorry!) examples of lenses maybe Nikon should have made to support Pro DX.

But the major advantage of DX, or any other small format, is in situations where you want more magnification - macro and telephoto work. Both of which require large® lenses and/or use of a tripod. Therefore the camera body size is pretty irrelevant. And of course you can crop to DX from a high-res FF sensor.

I don't see DX as an 'entry level' option, just another tool for the box.

But the major advantage of DX, or any other small format, is in situations where you want more magnification - macro and telephoto work. Both of which require large® lenses and/or use of a tripod. Therefore the camera body size is pretty irrelevant. And of course you can crop to DX from a high-res FF sensor.

 

I don't see DX as an 'entry level' option, just another tool for the box.

Could not agree more..

Whilst this is undoubtedly true for Nikon 'label' lenses, there is a whole panoply of high-end DX 'only' lenses made by, for example, Sigma.

 

Their f1.8 zooms of 18-35mm and 50-100mm are prime (sorry!) examples of lenses maybe Nikon should have made to support Pro DX.

Still not that much as the specific smaller sensor cameras. I had a look at the Sigma website they don't offer Z mount yet. With F mount they offer some DX specific lenses but the primes are just the 16mm, 30mm and 56mm.

There is also a use of a more travel friendly compact system for travel and street and just weekends with friends and and family etc.

There is also a use of a more travel friendly compact system for travel and street and just weekends with friends and and family etc.

Ha! Let's revisit the Nikon CX cameras......;)

Most people who knock them, never tried one.

They almost got it perfectly right with the 1" BSI-CMOS 21MPix sensored J5.... but then they dropped it....:(

It has a nice set of primes and zooms. Nikon Lenses

.... and if you need some serious 'reach' you can still pop the 500mm PF on it via the FT1 adapter. It has Nikon's highest pixel-density by some margin for a MILC.....:cool: