Nikon Z50?

To get more users into the Z system, Nikon need to offer more affordable cameras and lenses to get people started. A DX Z camera and a few lenses would go a long way towards that goal.

That is exactly what Nikon needs to do. Currently you can get a D3500 with a 18-55mm kit lens for less than $400: Nikon D3500 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens

Without the mirror mechanism and the penta-prism/mirror, Nikon should eventually be able to offer some mirrorless equivalent to the D3500 for even less than $400. Above that, Nikon may have 1 or 2 higher-end Z-mount DX body equivalent to the current D7500 or D500. Once customers are into the Z system, it will be much easier to keep them when they need to upgrade to FX.

The major different between Nikon vs. Sony and Canon is that both Sony and Canon introduced APS-C mirrorless cameras first, and they use mounts that are optimized for APS-C, Sony E and Canon EOS-M, respectively. When they added FX, Sony and Canon used different approaches. Sony kept the same E mount for FX; it works but the mount is on the small side for FX. Last year Canon added an incompatible RF mount for FX mirrorless and therefore ends up with two different mirrorless mounts for DX (APS-C) and FX, although there are adapters available. IMO, that was a huge mistake in Canon's part, dating back to the time they introduced EOS-M in 2012. Canon should have foreseen that they would eventually go mirrorless FX, which finally happened 6 years later.

Other than the Nikon 1 system that they have abandoned, Nikon started with mirrorless FX with the Z mount. It seems to be very natural to add DX bodies to the Z mount so that lenses are completely interchangeable without any adapters. (Of course if you mount a DX lens on an FX body, it'll crop automatically.) Two decades ago when Canon added APS-C digital cameras, they used the same wide EF mount as the old EOS film SLRs such that all old lenses were totally usable on the APS-C DSLRs. To me, this approach is a no brainer.

Without the mirror mechanism and the penta-prism/mirror, Nikon should eventually be able to offer some mirrorless equivalent to the D3500 for even less than $400.

Sony can't match that D3500 price point with any of their current APS-C offerings - the 5-year old A5100 sells for $500 with the 16-50 kit lens; the 4-year old A6000 with the same lens is $50 more. Canon, Fuji and Olympus can't offer a mirrorless with kit lens at the D3500 price-point either. Rather doubtful that Nikon will offer a DX Z camera with kit lens for below $400.

Most people considering a low-end DSLR or mirrorless are better off with a Sony RX100 or similar anyway - if they don't choose to use their smartphones.

Sony can't match that D3500 price point with any of their current APS-C offerings - the 5-year old A5100 sells for $500 with the 16-50 kit lens; the 4-year old A6000 with the same lens is $50 more. Canon, Fuji and Olympus can't offer a mirrorless with kit lens at the D3500 price-point either. Rather doubtful that Nikon will offer a DX Z camera with kit lens for below $400.

 

Most people considering a low-end DSLR or mirrorless are better off with a Sony RX100 or similar anyway - if they don't choose to use their smartphones.

Dieter, it is not Nikon's fault that Canon and Sony cannot match Nikon's efficiency. :cool:

When Nikon introduced the D3500 a year ago (end of September, 2018), the price with the 18-55 kit lens was $499. Currently it is $100 off. I see no reason Nikon cannot offer a mirrorless camera at that same price point. IMO a larger sensor and interchangeable lenses still have advantages over a phone camera, but phone cameras are indeed very good today, and I am sure plenty of people are happy with them and need nothing better.

It may be time for us photographers (and the industry press) to finally admit we were flat out wrong re the notion that mirrorless cameras would eventually be less expensive than DSLRs (because supposed mfr savings from not using the complex mirror box and separate AF modules could be passed along to buyers). Mirrorless cams have been on the market long enough now for us to see that simply is not the case, and probably never will be.

For one thing, the "savings" from simpler construction of mirrorless assumed sales volume at the level of 2007, and that just isn't ever going to happen again. Second, while other companies may be in a position to bend a little on price, Nikon almost certainly has zero-nada-no interest whatsoever in trading margins for volume: this alone almost guarantees no Nikon DX mirrorless will sell for anywhere near the bargain price of the D3500. As far as Nikon is concerned, mirrorless is this new amazing thing they just invented that everyone should be grateful to them for even offering, and be willing to pay a premium for.

The final nail in the "mirrorless will be more affordable than DSLR" coffin is economies of scale and familiarity with DSLR: while DSLR with its mirrorbox and separate AF module is technically more complex to build, the basic design is something Nikon has been doing for 30 years and can continue to do in their sleep at minimum cost. This system has been around so long that its essentially perfected and amortized: aside from tweaking performance every couple years, there isn't much difficulty in its manufacture and the machinery is all in place to do it indefinitely. Mirrorless is technically less complex, but it absolutely KILLS mfrs with "devil in the details" expenses.

For a long long time, even the ancient Nikon D40 budget DSLR could run AF rings around the most expensive mirrorless offerings from Olympus, Sony and Fuji. Getting the same AF performance as dedicated AF modules with the actual image sensor requires much more complex software engineering, not to mention the challenge of integrating AF pixels without adding undesirable artifacts. Then we need more powerful CPUs to run superfast-refresh hi-res EVF. Suddenly, mirrorless isn't all that much cheaper to mfr than DSLR, if at all. If camera sales can survive at anywhere near the current numbers, perhaps in a few years costs will level off and both mfrs and photographers might see a monetary advantage. But I wouldn't hold my breath for a DX Nikon Z50 with 18-55 selling for $399 USD by holiday season 2020 (Sony can't even do this yet with leftover obsolete surplus A6000 kits).

According to the rumors, the Z50 will be a $857 camera; $997 with the kit lens; $1347 with the two kit lenses. That's D7500 price territory, not D3500. Leaked pictures show a camera that's ugly as all get out. "Insanely small" - all I agree with is the "insane" part. All we are going to get here is a wash, rinse, repeat of Nikon's DSLR DX history - one kit lens after the other after the other after the other. A DX lens system that will never be. Why not a $850 FX mirrorless? Why enter the DX market once again? There no longer appears to be any reason to do so.

it is not Nikon's fault that Canon and Sony cannot match Nikon's efficiency

Thanks for a good laugh. I associate Nikon with a lot of things - efficiency isn't anywhere on that list.

Let's face it - the $500 interchangeable lens camera market is dead; no more. We are living in the era of the $1000 pocketable 1" sensor compact. What's left of DSLR and what will soon be left of mirrorless is mid-to-high level with prices starting for a body with lens starting at $1,000. All else will be covered by the smartphone.

Economy of scale no longer exists - the camera market is shrinking and will continue to do so and there are less and less reasons to buy a low-end DSLR or mirrorless. The future holds $1500-$4500 bodies and lenses that cost north of $1,000. And a $8,000 Noct 58/0.95 - it appears Nikon squarely aimed at the Leica 50/2 APO APSH price here.

Mirrorless was advertised as the cheaper, lighter alternative to the DSLR. Turns out it is neither. Just another trick to separate the customer from their money.

According to the rumors, the Z50 will be a $857 camera; $997 with the kit lens; $1347 with the two kit lenses. That's D7500 price territory, not D3500. Leaked pictures show a camera that's ugly as all get out. "Insanely small" - all I agree with is the "insane" part. All we are going to get here is a wash, rinse, repeat of Nikon's DSLR DX history - one kit lens after the other after the other after the other. A DX lens system that will never be. Why not a $850 FX mirrorless? Why enter the DX market once again? There no longer appears to be any reason to do so.

 

 

Thanks for a good laugh. I associate Nikon with a lot of things - efficiency isn't anywhere on that list.

 

Let's face it - the $500 interchangeable lens camera market is dead; no more. We are living in the era of the $1000 pocketable 1" sensor compact. What's left of DSLR and what will soon be left of mirrorless is mid-to-high level with prices starting for a body with lens starting at $1,000. All else will be covered by the smartphone.

 

Economy of scale no longer exists - the camera market is shrinking and will continue to do so and there are less and less reasons to buy a low-end DSLR or mirrorless. The future holds $1500-$4500 bodies and lenses that cost north of $1,000. And a $8,000 Noct 58/0.95 - it appears Nikon squarely aimed at the Leica 50/2 APO APSH price here.

 

Mirrorless was advertised as the cheaper, lighter alternative to the DSLR. Turns out it is neither. Just another trick to separate the customer from their money.

As my post said may be it sells but it's certainly silly to me to make it. I think I have the same feeling about this camera like many people feel about the Df.

Let's face it - the $500 interchangeable lens camera market is dead; no more. We are living in the era of the $1000 pocketable 1" sensor compact. What's left of DSLR and what will soon be left of mirrorless is mid-to-high level with prices starting for a body with lens starting at $1,000. All else will be covered by the smartphone.

By no means I am an expert on camera marketing, but I don't share that opinion.

I go to Costco regularly; they tend to carry popular products. For example, 15 years ago I used to buy DV tapes and blank DVDs from Costco, as back then my wife used camcorders that recorded on DV tapes, but those products have disappeared from Costco maybe a decade ago as consumer camcorders record on SD cards nowadays, and people post videos on YouTube rather than burn them on DVDs. Back in 2012 or so, for a short while Costco carried Nikon J1 mirrorless cameras. I took that as a good sign for Nikon 1, but that didn't last long.

What I still see at Costco on a regular basis are Nikon D7500 kits and sometimes D3500 kits ($450 with two kit lenses):

https://www.costco.com/CatalogSearch?dept=All&keyword=nikon#

But I haven't seen any D5000 series there for a while.

Costco also carries a couple of Canon DSLR kits between $550 to $650 and even some compact Canon Powershots:

https://www.costco.com/CatalogSearch?dept=All&keyword=canon+cameras

Back in August, Canon introduced the 90D "prosumer" DSLR with a body-only price at $1200 and an M6 Mark II mirrorless body for $850, followed in September by an M200 mirrorless body that is $549 with a kit lens. All three have APS-C (DX) sensors. And yes, Canon is now simultaneously supporting (and growing) two different mirrorless mounts for DX and FX. That is a mess I sure hope Nikon won't get into.

I don't think the market for DX cameras with interchangeable lenses is dead at all, either in the $500 price range or $1000. However, the development of digital camera has reached a plateau such that improvements are much fewer and farther in between . Hence unlike the way it used to be 10, 15 years ago, there is no need to upgrade every year or even two years. The recent Sony announcement of the A9 version 2 is quite underwhelming, two years after the original A9 introduction. After introducing the D5 in early 2016, Nikon skipped the tradition 2-year S upgrade (i.e. there is never a D5S). I still wonder what Nikon can do to make the D6 a "significant improvement" from the D5, after 4 years. That we'll find out within a few months.

Incidentally, after the Nikon J1 in 2012, I don't recall seeing any mirrorless cameras (with interchangeable lenses) at any Costco warehouses, never any Micro 4/3 or Sony. I also don't recall seeing any FX body from any brand there.

Further checking B&H's web site, among the least expensive mirrorless cameras:

• The Sony A5100 is selling for $348, body only. It is a dated model from August 2014, but so is the Nikon D750 that is current, and the D610 is even older: Sony Alpha a5100 Mirrorless Digital Camera Body with Accessory Kit (Black)
  
• I mentioned above that Canon introduced the EOS M200 just last month in September, 2019. It is $549 including a kit lens: Canon EOS M200 Mirrorless Digital Camera with 15-45mm Lens (Black)
  
• The M200's predecessor the M100 is on discount at $449 with a kit lens: Canon EOS M100 Mirrorless Digital Camera with 15-45mm Lens and Accessories Kit (Black)
  

There are clearly a number of mirrorless choices in the same price range as the $400 Nikon D3500, and I haven't mentioned Fuji and Micro 4/3. I would imagine that Nikon will introduce a mirrorless body in that same price range within a year. Again, hopefully it has the Z mount to maintain consistency up and down Nikon's mirrorless system.

Well it's only a rumor and if Shun decides to remove my post it's OK. However, reading the rumor and if it's true I found it's quite silly to introduce the Z50 except that it may sell well. (people like to buy silly products). APS-C sensor with Z mount is one and no IBIS is another and then introduce APS-C lenses in Z mount before many full frame Z mount lenses.

I do not see why this would be silly ...

There are clearly a number of mirrorless choices in the same price range as the $400 Nikon D3500

No, there clearly aren't (as I already mentioned in my initial post here). Nikon currently gives away the two-lens D3500 kit for $447 after a $400 discount. None of the examples you provide come even close. And Sony is just creating their usual mess by keeping several generations of camera bodies on the shelves (something Nikon has been doing a lot of too - and with camera bodies that had even less changes between generations).

I never bought the explanation that there has to be a low-level "entry" camera into whatever system there is as I have several times witness the following scenario that shows that there's no brand loyalty or even brand identification: owner of an older "entry" level camera enters camera store buying the latest "entry" level camera that just happens to be on sale in order to "upgrade" - not the "real" upgrade within the system they already own.

Nikon is too small to maintain four different camera systems spread over two mounts. They never came even close to providing a proper DX F-mount system (not even when DX was the only game in town) - so why are they setting themselves up for the same problem again? At least I no longer see a reason for a DX system and if anything, Nikon should consider reviving their DL system. Though there's stiff competition from Sony's RX100 Series.