Just curious - is there demand for DX primes?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Dieter Schaefer, Dec 14, 2017.

Tags:
  1. 3 lbs, just a little bit lighter than the 70-200/2.8 of the same era.
    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.
    There already is one in form of the 24-85 VR. Just slightly crappier performance than the (crappy) 24-120.
    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.
     
    paul_b.|1 likes this.
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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. ;)
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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.
     
    geoff_radkoff likes this.
  6. "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) ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2017
  7. 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.
     
  8. Sorry for the delay - I've been incapacitated by sniffles all weekend.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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. :)
     
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
     
  10. (Still catching up with the thread...)

    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.

    I always forget that...

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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).

    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 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.

    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'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.

    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.
     
  11. I have a GF2 (and an F-mount to micro-4/3 adaptor; yes, I've used it). I also have the Panasonic 14-42 f/3.5-5.6 PZ, which is similar in size to the Olympus (and a small prime that I rarely use, in as much as I use the camera). It's impressively dinky, and means the whole thing fits in a bag designed for a large compact, and subsequently in a coat pocket.

    The problem is, the RX100 lens is as fast (at least for some of its range), has a longer zoom range, and is small enough that I don't need to wear a coat to carry it. And I don't often wear a coat. It doesn't help that the GF2 is ancient (not that my original RX100 is "new"), so the RX100 has it beat on megapixels too.

    I've nothing against smaller sensor interchangeable lens systems, but they do tend to be easier for compacts and phones to compete with. Yes, there's some good glass out there, but if I'm going to throw a lot of money at it I'd rather stick to NAS. :)
     
  12. Has Nikon actually said the Nikon 1 Series/CX is dead? I may have missed the announcement!

    I really like my J5 with the 18.5mm 'standard' lens or the 10.5mm 'pancake' wide.
     
  13. You are kidding, right? What is "semi-affordable to you"?
    Nikon offers 5 FX AF-S lenses that cost less than $500 - with only one zoom among them (24-85 VR). Add six more if one raises the limit to $750; two are zooms (AF-P 70-300 and AF-S 18-35). Four more lenses below $1000 (one more zoom, 28-300). When it comes to zooms, you are no better off than with DX lenses on a D7x00 body (with the exception of the 18-35 (maybe). What exactly would FX give to people who are upgrading from D3xxx and D5xxx bodies? And what would lure those who use D7x00 or even a D500 to buy into FX with their lowest-end offering?

    And yet they are still selling it alone for $1100. So they either have way too many on them on the shelf or they are losing money selling them in kit form or making a killing when anyone is buying one at full price. The same holds true for the DX 16-80 that is also heavily discounted when sold in a kit (both with the D500 and D7500).

    Nikon still tries to sell D610/24-85 kits for $2000 to anyone dumb enough not to go for the D750/24-120 that currently sells for - wait for it - $2000 (including a free battery grip, total "discount" $1500). A D7500 with 16-80 kit sell for a mere $250 less - no wonder they are such a hard sell.

    If Nikon wanted to offer a below $1500 FX body then there is an easy solution that costs no development money, requires no design and retooling - just discount the D610 and keep offering it. Want to save money - then rip out the AF motor and the Ai tab.

    There's no point to continue arguing about that low-end FX body you advocate Nikon should be making and I think will be another bad decision by Nikon.

    I sure wish I had a way of knowing whether or not Nikon actually made enough money from Df sales to actually pay for the design and production costs.

    And I can't shake the feeling that Nikon doesn't have a handle on what the market really wants and how people are deciding which system to buy into or which camera to purchase. Yes, low-end DX was the money-maker by sheer volume - but does Nikon really know why?

    IMHO, if Nikon doesn't get DX and FX mirrorless right on the first try, then we may find out if Nikon can survive on high-end (and then certainly higher-priced than currently) DX and FX bodies and FX lenses (since there really isn't any high-end DX lens and most likely won't be). Do you think the name "Nikon" has enough pull to follow in Leica's footsteps (which needed saving from bankruptcy at least twice in recent history AFAIK)?
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2017
  14. kendunton

    kendunton Edinburgh

    ... back to the original question...
    Yes.
     
  15. Care to elaborate?
     
  16. I don't believe so, and they probably won't until they've got rid of their stock. As far as I know they're still "producing" F6s, too, but if they don't just have a load sitting on a shelf somewhere I'll be very surprised. The 1 series did sell in Japan (as far as I know, better than in most other places); while the concept had some promise, the implementation (and pricing) always made them a hard sell. I'd be pretty astonished if Nikon decided that the solution to their problems was to make a new one.

    Ah, I was forgetting the non-VR 70-300mm ($170) isn't AF-S. It's not very good either, but it exists. Fair enough, although Sigma have you covered (or Tamron if you want VR). I hadn't realised the 70-300mm AF-S G VR had completely disappeared from stores; I also remember it being rather cheaper than its few remnants now seem to be. I mean, it's about $300 used, but since I've recently argued that we shouldn't compare new and used prices, I'm on shaky ground there.

    Perhaps I should have said "cheap by Nikon standards". I have to admit the 55-200 is cheaper than I thought it was.

    A bit over a stop of effective aperture combined with a reasonable zoom range? An upgrade path? Plus I wasn't advocating removing the secondary command dial.

    Wasn't there a really long thread about this? I notice (reluctantly) that Hypnoken still has a 24-120 on his "10 worst lenses" list without having updated it to mention the difference between the f/4 and the variable aperture. Maybe this has an effect on individual sales? I'm assuming there's a mark-up on the 24-85 since the non-VR was substantially cheaper, but I might be optimistic, or coloured by the price of my 28-80.

    Roughly what I was suggesting, except putting in a Multi-CAM 3500, since that's the single biggest disadvantage of the D610 compared with the D7100 and later. It doesn't make it any lighter when it comes to competing with an A7, though. B&H currently have the D610 body-only for as much as the D750, which might mean Nikon are running out of the former or trying to dump stock of the latter.

    Well, I was enjoying the discussion. (Are we arguing? Sorry, I'll type less heatedly...) But I'll shut up about it if I'm convincing no-one but myself. I do think mirrorless is the answer for a cheap body (and maybe more as technology improves), I just think the odds of Nikon doing it well enough to provide an adequate A7 competitor that replaces the D610 are vanishingly small, so I'd be reluctant, in their position, not to have a plan B while everything else ramps up. They should launch mirrorless soon, I just don't think they'll have a competitive ecosystem with a debugged interface for a few years. Again, I'd have thought Nikon would like people to make money by buying lots of expensive FX lenses. If they don't encourage them to buy an FX camera, I'm not sure how this happens and the D610 doesn't look all that tempting next to the D7x00 range after the first one. Although downgrading all the DX bodies to 20MP might help in perception marginally. :)

    If the D7500 is supposed to be the "modern option in the D610 price bracket", Nikon do need to look at their lenses, which is where this thread started out. But the more DX lenses you encourage someone to buy, the less likely they are to upgrade to FX.
     
  17. kendunton

    kendunton Edinburgh

    I'm happy with DX format. I don't have a requirement for an FX camera for the type of photography I do.
    ... but, I've just noticed that my 85 1.8 is FX - ah well :)
    I've been updating my Nikon lenses recently - semi-retirement has its benefits - with 1.8 primes and 2.8 zooms.
     
  18. Some of us do not want to upgrade to FX, with its greater bulk and weight.
    • The D750 + 24-120 f/4 kit is 25% heavier than a D7200 + 18-140 kit.
    • At my age, I really would rather NOT have to deal with the additional weight of the FX gear.
      • I'm looking at a D5600 or even D3400 as a lighter 2nd camera, NOT a heavier camera.
    IMHO, there is a market for GOOD DX lenses. But I do not know how much, and how profitable the high end DX segment is to Nikon.
    Maybe give us DX guys just a few GOOD lenses, and we'll be happy, or at least happier than we are now.
    • A DX 85 f/1.8 (FX 127mm equivalent) would nicely complement the existing 35mm f/1.8 (~50mm FX equivalent).
      • I bought the 35 f/1.8 to get me better low light performance at the "normal" lens position, than my 18-140 zoom does. At about f/4.5, the zoom is about 2-1/2 stops slower, which is the difference between shooting at ISO 16000 and ISO 3200. With the 85mm f/1.8 the difference is about 3 stops.
      • The FX 85 f/1.8 is available as an alternate.
    • A DX f/2.8 equivalent of the FX 70-200 f/2.8, like a 50-150 or 50-200, in a smaller and lighter lens (than the current FX lenses), to take advantage of the DX format.
      • Even a GOOD f/2.8-4 zoom would be acceptable, to get a GOOD FAST lens. At the f/4 end, I would be no worse off than with the FX 70-200 f/4 lens.
      • But given that Sigma did a f/2.8 50-150 in a smaller lens than the FX 70-200 f/2.8, the smaller size precedence for a f/2.8 lens has been set.
    Yes the ISO level in the cameras can be cranked up (to 25600 on my D7200), but shooting at even ISO 12800 limits how much I can crop or blow up the image, before I get into serious image quality reduction.
     
  19. NAS is fine, but I'm not sure how/why compacts and phone would compete with M43 tele lenses. Being able to handhold long teles is the biggest advantage of M43. Secondly, even if compacts and phones can/will compete and get the job done, what is the problem? ;)

    Also, a 22mm sensor size is not small - it's equivalent to Nikon D300's sensor size with which many great images were produced not so long ago. :)
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2017
  20. Color me confused: m4/3 is about 22mm (actually 21.6) on the long side and Nikon APS-C is about 23..6mm on the short side - how does that make them equivalent? The crop-factor for m4/3 from FX is 2, for APS-C (DX) it's 1.5 - that's a substantial difference. It's 225 square miillimeters area for m4/3 and 368 square millimeters for DX (and about 860 for FX).

    Do you think most would care? Or even notice?
    Are we even sure many would want one? It appears that some are happy to upgrade within the same class and won't even go to a D7x00.
    Quite pessimistic outlook (not that I have been overly optimistic in my musings). If Nikon can't beat the original A7 right out of the gate - then they should indeed pack up and abandon mirrorless right now. The A7II didn't move the bar that much (the A7RII did compared to the A7R and the A7RIII moved it substantially again on the A7RII), so Nikon definitely needs to aim for something past A7RII (even if the resolution stays at A7II level) with their lower-end offering. And then they need to aim A9-type high with their high end. But I think much more important will be the lens issue - and that's were production capacity comes into play; even doing a halfway complete set of 8 lenses for one format will be a monumental task; doubling that for two formats isn't going to happen. And, naturally, with confidence in Nikon as eroded as it appears to be, who would want to be first in line to buy their "first" mirrorless?

    Do you have the feeling Nikon ever had a plan B?

    Nikon sure does - but there is another side to that equation - and those may not be willing to pay for expensive FX glass.

    Nikon attempted to get people to upgrade to FX with the D600/D610 and from all I can see screwed that up royally; both with the camera and with the lack of reasonably-priced lenses. The D750 should have been their first offering to get people to upgrade to FX - together with convincing arguments why someone coming from D3x00 and D5x00 should skip the D7x00 and head over to a D750. And convincing arguments for those moving up from D7x00 - which might be slightly different but could be a bit of an easier sell. Above there are two examples (Gary, Ken) why someone may not want to upgrade to FX. Heck, even I did so reluctantly - and in hindsight with the wrong camera (the D700 offered one stop higher ISO than the D300 and a bit of an improvement in the viewfinder department - that's it).

    That seems to have been Nikon's plan all along - given the sparsity of anything decent in the DX lens department. Might have helped to offer a bit more of an entry-level FX lens set too. For years, Nikon has paid the least attention to the enthusiast level amateur that was using high-end DX and might have been willing to upgrade to FX had there been something like the D750. No high-end lenses for DX, no adequate camera and only so-so lower-end (and even mid-level) FX lenses. Nikon was certainly catering to the high-end FX crowd with both cameras and lenses. And to the low-end DX crowd with yet another 18-xxx.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2017

Share This Page