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

Yup, me too!

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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(r) 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.

 

I picked up a Z5 for US $999 last Nov. Not top of the line but a lot of camera for not all that much money.

 

Could not agree more..

 

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.

 

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.....

 

I don't knock the CX as it had its own lens mount. It's OK to share the F mount because FX sensor was too expensive and you simply can't abadon good F mount lenses but I don't like the Z50. It doesn't make sense to me. I think the Z5 is Nikon current entry level for the Z series.

 

An "Entry level" camera priced at 160,- Euro for the cheapest usable configuratio ( camer + 50mm kit lense No memory..) ?
Ridiculous...

 

Hypothetical question, 'cos we'll never know..

But, I wonder how much they actually cost to make, physically, once the R&D costs have been factored etc.

Is a Z9 cheaper to make than a D6?

The degree of in-body mechanics in a Z9 is now very small. No mirror or shutter and no aperture stop-down mechanism. Everything else is pretty much solid state.

There's always dials and switches, but they're pretty universal.

 

There is the IBIS mechanism. The protective shutter is much less expensive than the real shutter. I would think the mirrorless is less expensive to make and future advance in technology tends to favor it rather than the DSLR. I don't think they can figure out how to make less expensive pentaprism, shutter, mirror mechanism in the future. They would be able to improve the EVF greatly in the future like faster update rate and higher resolution.

 

The general trend with everything is to eliminate as much mechanical crap as possible and replace it with electronics and software. This has been going on for decades to reduce costs.

IMO, a big advantage of small sensors is greater DOF. OTOH, a big advantage of large sensors is less DOF. Depends on what you need. Combine something like a Z7 with the very good S-series lenses and you may find what you used to consider in focus, isn't. I'm having this problem with product photos using my Z6. Shots that used to be acceptable on film now require focus stacking to keep customers happy with the front to back focus.

 

It always seemed to me that Canon, with the AE-1, got SLRs into the "economy of scale" region.

Before that, 35mm was considered too hard for ordinary users, so we had things
like the Kodak Instamatic. If they could sell them for the right price, they could
make enough AE-1s to get enough economy of scale to sell them for that price.

Someone had to believe that, and fund the production plants and initial units
to get that price.

If you make enough of them, you can put a large amount of mechanical
crap, with very fine tolerance, together for a low price. The mechanics
and tolerance for the home VCR are pretty amazing. The mechanism
to pull the tape out, wrap it around the drum, and then move the tape
so the head tracks at the right place, to micron tolerance.

Before the AE-1, SLRs were priced for, and sold to pros. The Nikon F competing
with the Canon F-1, and both with a large variety of optional features, again
priced for professional use.

Then Nikon got into the market with the FM and later FE, priced again
for less than professional users. (Though as well as I know, also
popular with pros.)

At the time I bought my FM, I still liked and understood the idea of
a manual camera with built-in meter. I actually bought it just after
the FE came out, though.

 

Looks like Canon have gone 'All-In' with DX size MILC with the R7 and R10....

What's Nikons reply this time?

One of the comments heard so far was EOS M .... RIP.

 

wrong, should have read 1160 euro ...

 

Certainly true in principle, but it gets harder every year. Not a lot of VCRs are made these days and a DVD drive is probably easier and cheaper. The overall trend is as I said. I've been in manufacturing my entire career and even with volume, mechanical parts have gotten worse and worse cost-wise. Part of it is labor- some things are hard to fully automate and wages have gone up even in the low-wage locations. Some of it is environmental. Shops that do plating and metal finishing have ever-stricter operating and disposal rules. Semiconductor fabs are no environmental picnic, but the huge volume of everything put in one place makes up for some of it. Think of it as pushing the volume savings upstream a bit. Any parts that can be stamped, molded or etched, combined with electronics, will be preferred. I don't know much about sensor VR assemblies, but they're probably the most sophisticated mechanics in a camera these days. Lots more mechanics in lenses and lenses cost a lot more these days!

 

Nikon does not and did not have a 32MP DX camera. The DX cameras stopped at about 24MP. And the D500 regressed to 20MP.
Nikon did not have a reply to the Canon 90D, so may not reply to the R7.

I have to compare the specs, but I think the Z50 is like a weak version of the R10. IOW Nikon has to play catch up.
BUT . . . that depends on the target market.

• If Nikon's target market is more consumer, then the Z50 might be on target.

• Canon's target, based on the performance specs, seem to be more high end/enthusiast/pro.
  The R7, like the 90D seems to be more tilted towards the pro level user.

I agree about the EOS-M.
Canon should have ONE APS-C line, not two. Two will just confuse and split the market, and dilute their R&D.
To me, it appears that Canon decided that Nikon's Z single mount strategy for FF+APS-C is better than Canon's two mount strategy of different mounts for FF (R) and APS-C (M). And rather than keep spending more R&D money on the M, cut it and put it into the R-S line.
Then again, maybe Canon is splitting the APS-C market.


I did a "rough" comparison with their dSLRs.
The R7 is like an upgraded 90D
With a 32MP APS-C sensor, the R7 and 90D have no comparable Nikon DX dSLR. It would be similar to what a D8000 might be.

The R10, with no rear wheel, is operationally like an upgraded T8i.
The T8i is kinda similar to the D5600, in that it has one control dial.

When you go up to the D7200, we have two control dials, and is more similar to the Canon 80D.
But the R10 has performance more like a D7200 or D500 than a D5600.
​