Nikon Announce Retro DX Z Body, Z fc, with Retro Lenses

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ShunCheung, Jun 29, 2021.

  1. I wouldn't want that. I want a rangefinder with a direct optical viewfinder and a rangefinder. That's retro.
     
    c.p.m._van_het_kaar likes this.
  2. What if you couldn't tell by looking? We're a ways from that, but not so far as you might think. Now, I'll get flak for this, and strictly IMO, DX optical viewfinders are a far cry from FX and they just annoy me.
     
  3. Nikon didn't make any film half frame camera so a retro Nikon should be full frame if not 24x32mm like the Nikon O.
     
  4. Get Leica, they have so many flavors :)
     
  5. If I buy another the new camera it's very likely a Leica. Nikon don't make their cameras in Japan no more so I won't buy another new Nikon. Canon still makes a lot of cameras in Japan but I've been a Canon hater for a long time (perhaps I should change).
     
  6.  
  7. I think the future of mirrorless 'progress', is going to be far less sensor related, as DSLR's improvements were.

    It's going to be EVF related. VFs were optically limited by the mirror and focusing screen, via pentaprism or pentamirror.

    Some of the early DX VFs were horribly tunnel-visioned.

    AKAIK there is no such limit to EVFs. Better resolution, better contrast, shorter 'lag' and blackout etc.

    I'm looking forward to a much more immersive view with full control of what and where you can see the info you want.

    Oh, and AF is going to have to improve too...!
     
  8. Why people still care where it's made? Processes highly automated now, tolerances set by computers.
     
    bgelfand likes this.
  9. For clarity the above was not written by me although it appears that way in Nick's post. It was in Nick's reply to me.

    Nick, I never found the focus point selection using the joystick (Nikon call it the sub-selector) to be any easier or faster than using the multi-selector (ring with eight arrows and center button). Now, in some non-Nikon cameras, the arrow key pad doesn't immediately allow focus points to be moved but a focus point selection mode has to be initiated and after selecting the focus point, the selection has to be activated; this was the case with the Fuji X100S I used to have. This was slow and inconvenient. Fuji later added an additional control (what people call a joystick) to help with this process. However, with Nikon I never found it problematic to select focus points using the multi-selector. Nikon also added an additional control to some of their cameras (that people call the joystick, Nikon call it sub-selector) but because it doesn't share the ability of the multi-selector to navigate menus, I never adopted it into use. It can be programmed to do other things such as changing AF-area mode along with moving the focus point around and some people do use it. However, I find the multi-selector more convenient. I checked the Canon 1D III manual and it appears the joystick is called multi-selector in Canon parlance whereas Nikon's multi-selector is simply the ring button with eight arrows and center button. In those Nikons that have a separate joystick, it's called either multi-selector (vertical, for the vertical grip) or sub-selector (used mainly in horizontal shooting). However, I find the sub-selector to be largely redundant. The focus point can be just as easily be moved by any of the three, but only the two multi-selectors can navigate menus. If Nikon allowed the top joystick to also navigate menus, I might use it.

    I guess the preference for a particular shape of control used to move the focus point around is subjective. For me the multi-controller is what I normally use in horizontal orientation even although most of my cameras have a separate sub-selector. I don't even notice if I go and use my older camera which only has one selector for focus points. Its use is second nature. I do realize these things are subjective and different users have different habits and preferences.

    I doubt I'd have any difficulty with focus point selection on the Z fc, either. For me, an FX version would be preferable to keep the number of separate chargers down, and I don't like the fact that there is no provision for a physical cable release. However, I understand both design decisions (and no doubt the fact that there is no separate sub-selector) have to do with keeping the camera small.

    With regards to lens choice, Nikon have indicated they will have 30 native Z lenses available in 2022 (maybe as soon as March) and all of them should work on the Z fc. I don't see there so much a problem on that front.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2021
  10. I want to add that I have nothing against having more controls and the way Nikon implemented the vertical multi-selector and sub-selector is mechanically excellent. I would like to see more programming options for the sub-selector so that it matches the other two in function, if programmed to do so. My fingers can operate each of the three without concious attention to it. The sub-selector and vertical multi-selector have better tactile feedback than the multi-selector on non-vertical-gripped Nikon bodies such as my D850, but on the integral vertical grip bodies the (main) multi-selector has excellent tactile feedback as well. I don't have any problem operating those cameras which only implement one of these controls, and I don't really notice conciously which body or control I am using.

    I think smaller bodies are OK with just one controller. If you want faster focus point selection, you should be able to reduce the number of user-selectable points. I haven't personally found the need to do so, but my body with the largest number of focus points has 105. The Z fc has 209, so it is a bit more.

    I think our views are shaped by our previous experiences and everyone has a different history. This makes the camera designer's task that much harder as everyone has a different opinion on how the user interface should be set up. Some even want a massive reduction of features and controls such as no back LCD screen, no autofocus, only manual exposure mode, black and white only etc.
     
    robert_davies|2 likes this.
  11. I'm prompted to wonder what the "novelty lifetime" of such a camera is? Compared to buying a genuinely retro - and probably better made - film camera like an almost visually identical FM or FE.

    A minimum "investment" of $1100 would buy a fair amount of film+processing, enough to see out the novelty lifetime of most hipsters' interest in this camera I would have thought.

    Plus the addition of a naff metal-plated finish on an obviously plastic and extending zoom lens is a real turn off.

    Do it right Nikon, or not at all!
     
  12. This isn't about the light capture medium (film or digital), it's about the user interface and to some extent also the appearance of a camera. I don't want to shoot film as it would need to be scanned which is time-consuming, arduous work. Also I prefer the colours and lack of noise that I can get from digital. But I like the traditional controls and would like to have a modern camera with those controls.

    If someone gave me a $1100 gift card that had to be used for film and processing, I would not use it, I'd give it away as a gift.

    Plastic can have significant advantages; one can hurt one's fingers touching cold metal in the winter or at least the camera will feel really cold. Plastic or rubber surface on a lens is much better for winter photography, in my experience. Additionally, plastic is less likely to be distorted by impact (it'll typically flex and bounce back, whereas metal is distorted and likely remains in that bent shape forever unless it is thick enough not to flex at all, which would make it heavier).

    The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what "doing it right" means.

    I read a discussion on another forum where someone said that Nikon gets these cameras wrong, as in his or her words the FM series is the one that was popular whereas Nikon mimics the FE series in its retro camera user interface (FM3A mainly, I guess, to a lesser extent Df). But as far as I can tell the FM3A and Df have all the controls of the FM2 and if one wants to use them as one would use an FM or FM2 then one can do just that, so I fail to see the validity of the complaint. And Nikon did write a lengthy article explaining that users said they wanted a fully mechanical camera with the option of automatic exposure and TTL flash, so they did just that in the FM3A.

    Nikon | Imaging Products | Nikon FM3A

    I think this type of camera can force one to focus on the essentials in photography, which can be useful for learning, but also leads to a different thought and shooting process. It's not what one would necessarily use for fast action but it's a process I loved when I was using the F3 HP (a camera I used for many years). What led me away from it eventually was its lack of a spot meter, which by the way, is available on the Df and I am sure it's also available on the Z fc though I have not gone through those detailed specifications. Nikon tried but were not able to implement the spot meter in the FM3A.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2021
    q.g._de_bakker likes this.
  13. One example of what I don't like about the "modern" controls is that one needs to turn on the metering to be able to adjust exposure settings, including shutter speed and aperture. With a traditional manual camera you can make adjustments to those (and exposure compensation) without turning the camera or metering on. In the case of the Df, if you use a lens with aperture ring, you can do the same. With a Z fc probably you'll need to turn the camera on to change aperture but not shutter speed or EC.

    I find that after working in hot and humid outdoor environments, my hands sweat a lot, and the camera becomes sweaty. This can affect the functioning of some controls over time (they can become "sticky" and less reliable in responsiveness), but the dial knobs like the shutter speed dial are not really affected, at least I can't recall that ever being an issue when I was using the F3 HP.

    An advantage of the modern controls is that the exposure parameters can be set in 1/3 stop increments (or 1/2 stop, if you program the dials that way).
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2021
  14. Sorry Ilkka, comp did it, I didn't check it right away and it was too late to fix.
     
  15. I do care a lot mostly people in the US don't care. People in Japan do care and in other countries and yes in China they do care. To a certain degree in Germany.
     
    za33photo likes this.
  16. Question to those people who want the product made in a specific country (such as Japan): Don't you believe that people living in other countries (such as Thailand or China) deserve a chance to improve their level of income and quality of lives by manufacturing and exporting products?
     
  17. But if you ask the people in Thailand and China they would prefer cameras made in Japan.
     
  18. What's this thing BeBu? Does your Japanese preference relate to product quality? I think all the Z stuff are now made in Thailand (?). - Haven't checked mine. However, I don't think the presence or absence of a Nikon factory would not wreck a country's economy.
     
  19. It's about using cheap labor. That's I don't like. If they manufacture in another country not for reason of cheap labor I would like that. Like the case of Japanese and German cars made in the USA. I certainly having no problem buying Jasmine rice from Thailand. No problem even buying DJI drone from China. But I wouldn't want to buy a Leica made in Japan.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2021
  20. Sweat shop? Don't think so, they are Nikon- trained and likely to be compensated adequately. If made in the USA with unions and all, think people in this forum would be complaining loudly and threatening to switch to Leica - their SL2 ain't bad.

    PS On second thought, I do prefer that they keep the shop in Japan to retain authenticity - good for their marketing reasons if not for anything else.
     
    James Bryant and Sanford like this.

Share This Page