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

The "ceapest" Z-series by Nikon now seams to be the Zfc, which is for most hobbyist's stiull a pricy camera, especially if also a FTZ-adapter is required.

 

In the recent past Nikon produced the D3xxx and D5xxx for the lower priced consumer market, but not anymore, these series were ( in price level) never replaced by any Zxxx series , so i wonder, is nikon abandoning thie market segment entirely ?

 

For me it looks like it.....

Isn't that what the Z50 is for?

 

Nikon Z 50 – DX Mirrorless camera

 

Still not exactly cheap, but....;)

The Z50 is around $850 in the US, before discounts. The FX Z5 is usually sold around $1300, but it has been discounted to $1000 a couple of times. However, in the last year, perhaps due to the IC chip shortage, discounts are shallower.

 

The very bottom of the interchangeable lens camera market, such as the D3500, is gone. Phone cameras took over that several years ago.

bottom of the interchangeable lens camera market

There was talk of a further stripped model, the Z30, but that seems to have gone quiet.

 

Nikon hasn't promised many new DX-Z lenses either.

Nikon should have focused on getting a (possibly sub-) $1k FX Z-body to market instead of adding a DX line-up they obviously don't intend to support any better than they did DX DSLR. A Z5 with a 24-200 makes more sense than a Z50 with a 18-140 - and they are about $500 apart in price (obviously that difference shrinks substantially if one replaces the Z50 with a Zfc - if one likes the retro look). On mirrorless APS-C Nikon can't compete with Fuji or Canon (Sony seems to have no interest in that category anymore; or the micro-4/3 OM Systems and Panasonic.

 

For many, a Sony RX100 or RX10 might be a better choice than a interchangeble APS-C or micro-4/3 camera anyway. Equally, many seem to be satisfied with using their phones.

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.

adding a DX line-up they obviously don't intend to support any better than they did DX DSLR.

Repeating that cock-up was sadly very predictable.....:(

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.

 

Gives the Z-DX guys a chance to move up to Z-FX, or use Z-FX lenses.

Otherwise like the Canon M-50, a Z-DX would be DX ONLY.

 

Half the lenses I use on my DX dSLR are FX lenses.

Repeating that cock-up was sadly very predictable.....:(

 

After Canon came out with their APS-C mirrorless, the M-50, Nikon was forced to reply in kind, or give Canon that market. And Nikon cannot afford to give up market share.

The unknown is the Japanese market. Maybe that market WANTS a DX camera.

 

I would have preferred that both Nikon and Canon have come out with a low end consumer grade FX mirrorless, and consolidate back to just the FX line, like back in the film days. That would have simplified the system landscape.

 

Unfortunately, Nikon was stretched too thin bringing out the Z-FX line, and even thinner bring out a Z-DX line at the same time.

In that situation, it was predictable, that the Z-DX line would play second fiddle, Z-FX has priority.

 

As for the "cock-up," that is both Nikon and Canon.

Canon treated their dSLR APS-C line just as second-rate as Nikon did.

But at least Canon got the mirrorless APS-C M50 lenses, going faster than Nikon did the Z-DX lenses. Last I looked, Canon had a decent basic line, vs. Nikon with only three DX lenses.

The Problem that Canon has is, they MUST make mirrorless APS-C lenses, or they dead-end the M-50 series camera.

Nikon Z-DX users can use Z-FX lenses.

Half the lenses I use on my DX dSLR are FX lenses.

Doesn't that negate the smaller & lighter reasoning behind DX?

Doesn't that negate the smaller & lighter reasoning behind DX?

 

My DX D7200 is not too much smaller and lighter than a FX D750.

And it is bigger and heavier than a DX D5600.

The extra capability of the D7200 comes with larger size and greater weight over the D5600.

But could you put a FX dSLR on a diet and bring the size/weight down? Take out the mechanical AF mechanism, lighten the frame (reduce the durability), etc.

 

The F-FX 50/1.8 is not much bigger than the F-DX 35/1.8.

The consumer dSLR FX lenses are not as big/heavy as the pro lenses.

I would initially pair up similar consumer Z-FX lenses with the consumer Z-FX camera.

 

Using plastic and lightweight metals on the consumer lenses rather than all metal as on the pro lenses, helps to keep the weight down.

As will smaller max apertures, less metal and glass.

 

Where you are correct is lens focal length to size/weight for longer lenses.

Rather than a FX 70-200/2.8, on DX I would need a 45-135/2.8. Same magnification and max aperture, but a smaller/lighter lens.

So rather than a DX 70-300, I would need a FX 105-450. A larger/heavier lens.

 

One of the problem with smaller/lighter mirrorless, is power.

A small camera, like the D3xxx/D5xxx, calls for a smaller battery, just to fit in the small camera.

But mirrorless sucks battery power. So you need a LARGER capacity battery.

Olympus found out that with the high end EM1 cameras. The EM1 line has steadily increased the battery capacity from the mk1 to the mk2/mk3 to the OM1. And the camera has had to be bigger each time, to house the bigger battery. And the run time is still SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than my D7200.

The more processing power that is put into the mirrorless camera, the more power it burns.

 

The problem is the phone cameras have become sooo much better over the years, that it has eroded the lower end consumer market.

As phone cameras get better, does the basic APS-C camera that is sold in CostCo/BestBuy have a place in that market? I would hope so, but I don't know.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Gary Naka

Gives the Z-DX guys a chance to move up to Z-FX, or use Z-FX lenses.

Otherwise like the Canon M-50, a Z-DX would be DX ONLY.

 

Half the lenses I use on my DX dSLR are FX lenses.

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.

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.

 

And if Canon stops making M lenses, your only option for lenses, is to put an EF lens on with an EF to M adapter.

And if Canon stops making M lenses, your only option for lenses, is to put an EF lens on with an EF to M adapter.

Use the lenses that you already bought. There is no need to keep buying lenses.

And if Canon stops making M lenses, your only option for lenses, is to put an EF lens on with an EF to M adapter.

If they stop making lenses use the lenses you already bought. There is no need to keep buying lenses. Besides when they stop making lenses they stop making body too,

Might as well just use the cameras you have already bought. :rolleyes:

Since camera sales have declined dramatically over the last decade, we are at a point where it may not be economically viable to make those lower-priced ILC cameras. Sony recently ceased the manufacture of their lower-end cameras.

 

Prices could increase further in the current situation with the pandemic and war leading to shortages of resources and inflation.

There are some FX lenses, and I'm not naming them (;)), that seem to have been developed for DX but happen to cover the full-frame image circle. Software is used internally to correct severe vignetting etc. Edge resolution is far, far lower than centre and DX coverage.

 

It makes sense to use the considerably better centre area of the lens for best IQ and dump the edges.... but you're carrying maybe an extra 1Lb of ballast for the privilege.

 

This is a lens designed and built for FX.

 

... and this one, not so much. (The vertical MTF scales are not comparable but the resolution differences can be)

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by mike_halliwell

Since camera sales have declined dramatically over the last decade, we are at a point where it may not be economically viable to make those lower-priced ILC cameras. Sony recently ceased the manufacture of their lower-end cameras.

 

Prices could increase further in the current situation with the pandemic and war leading to shortages of resources and inflation.

I do not fully agree, young ppl starting out with interchangable lens systems in the past often started out with lower priced camera's ( i did) because they cannot spend that much money on their first "system camera" but want to upgrade latger on.

This has been the success for Nikon as wel as Canon. "Start on a budget and upgrade later on". This path has been closed now , and will result, or is already resulting in-, sales for the "better" camera i think. So by not marketing the lower end consumer system camera, manufactures may be shooting in their own foot and possibly being frustrating their own future markets....

I guess the 'starter' kit is now 2nd hand DSLRs, update to mirrorless when they want too/can afford it.

 

MILCs are not that different really.... apertures, shutter speed and ISO are all the same!

"And if Canon stops making M lenses, your only option for lenses, is to put an EF lens on with an EF to M adapter"

Minor correction, you can also mount EF-S lenses on your M camera with the adaptor.

 

It is unclear to me that the market for smaller than FF camera systems is big enough and profitable enough to entice the big 3 FF players to continue to seek out that market. For those that want smaller systems, Fuji and M43 both have extensive lens and camera options that I doubt the big 3 will try to match-up with future APS-C offerings. As far as entry level, most casual photographers and video takers are perfectly happy with the results from late model smartphones for images of friends, families, events, babies, and travel. If an upgrade is needed for youth sports or travel, I would likely recommend one of the long zoom P&S cameras using the 1" Sony sensor instead of recommending an MILC. There is still plenty of used ILC equipment out there for serious photographers with a small budget, so I would not worry about them yet.

If an upgrade is needed for youth sports or travel, I would likely recommend one of the long zoom P&S cameras using the 1" Sony sensor instead of recommending an MILC.

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

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

 

For people interested in photography, then absolutely (as I described at the end of my posting). For those who simply want photos of their kids playing youth soccer or baseball, or desire longer reach for vacation photos, the complexity of a DSLR and lenses is likely to be overkill, and much harder to use than their Iphone 13. Besides, a Sony RX100 (or similar from Panasonic or Canon) is a whole lot smaller than a DSLR, and with the later models, seems to have AF tracking that sticks to subjects quite well. Would work out well capturing an 18 month old running around the house.

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

 

But can't I buy a better camera and get the kind of pictures the pro does?

 

That happens more often than one would logically think. People with money will just throw money at the problem.

I talked to a parent who was shooting a FF Canon kit, probably worth well more than $6k (camera, 70-200/2.8, + another lens). He was shooting in "Auto" because he did not know how to use the other modes. :eek:

That happens more often than one would logically think. People with money will just throw money at the problem.

 

That's why the pro bodies don't have a pop-up flash or the Green Auto mode......:D

 

More expensive camera = better pics?, maybe, just maybe.

 

More expensive lens = better pics? quite possibly!

Edited May 5, 2022 by mike_halliwell