Just curious - is there demand for DX primes?

[Andrew Garrard]

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. ;)

 

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. :-)

[mike_halliwell]

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.

[Dieter Schaefer]

There are plenty of semi-affordable AF-S lenses out there

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?

 

Nikon bundle the $1100 24-120 with the D750 for $500.

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)?

Edited December 18, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

[kendunton]

... back to the original question...

Yes.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Yes.

Care to elaborate?

[Andrew Garrard]

Has Nikon actually said the Nikon 1 Series/CX is dead? I may have missed the announcement!

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

What exactly would FX give to people who are upgrading from D3xxx and D5xxx bodies?

 

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.

 

And yet they are still selling it alone for $1100.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[kendunton]

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.

[Gary Naka]

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.

[Mary Doo]

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. :)

 

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. :)

Edited December 18, 2017 by Mary Doo

[Dieter Schaefer]

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

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).

 

A bit over a stop of effective aperture

Do you think most would care? Or even notice?

An upgrade path?

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.

I just think the odds of Nikon doing it well enough to provide an adequate A7 competitor that replaces the D610 are vanishingly small

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?

 

plan B

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

 

Again, I'd have thought Nikon would like people to make money by buying lots of expensive FX lenses.

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

 

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.

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).

 

But the more DX lenses you encourage someone to buy, the less likely they are to upgrade to FX.

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.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

[Mary Doo]

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).

 

You are right. Sensor size is not equivalent. Hwvr, I just checked the megapixels - and found that the Nikon D300 (which gave me countless excellent images - thank you Nikon) only has 12.3 megapixels. (While the Olympus EM1 II has 20MP !)

 

My point is that good enough is good enough. A 100mp or mich larger sensor size would not transform anyone to a mega photographer. Let's not use it as a crutch. Thankfully, most of you folks are very good photographers. :)

[rodeo_joe1]

"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 - "

 

- Colour me even more confused.

Aren't you confusing short sides with long sides and diagonals with long sides there Dieter?

 

Let's forget diagonals. Nikon's DX format is 16 by 24 mm - close enough, and the M43 format is 13 by 17.3 mm. This means we're trying to compare different aspect ratios, which never ends well. But effectively the M43 format is (roughly) three-quarters the size of DX.

 

The real issue with smaller formats is their effect on depth-of-field and range of 'useable' or useful aperture.

On one hand a small sensor gives more magnification and more DoF - great for tele and macro work. OTOH the DoF isn't as shallow at a given aperture - not so great for portraits and subject isolation.

 

Then diffraction kicks in at wider apertures as sensor size decreases, until it squeezes useful apertures into the f/8 and wider region. That's definitely too small for my liking.

 

Anyhow. This all comes down to the 'right' sensor size being dependent on the job in hand. So I think there'll always be a place for a range of sensor sizes, and lenses to go with them.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Aren't you confusing short sides with long sides and diagonals with long sides there Dieter?

Nope - the point was that the long side of m4/3 sensor is about the same size as the short side of DX - so the sensor sizes definitely aren't "equivalent". I also gave the crop factors and sensor areas to illustrate the same point. And yes, I am aware of the different aspect ratios - but didn't want to muddy the waters even more by dragging that into the discussion. For the purpose of showing "non-equivalence" I felt it wasn't necessary.

 

On one hand a small sensor gives more magnification and more DoF - great for tele and macro work. OTOH the DoF isn't as shallow at a given aperture - not so great for portraits and subject isolation.

Way too much fuzz made about that - unlike in the Nikon DX world, in the m4/3 world lenses with f/1.2 or even f/0.95 apertures exist that allow shooting with the same DOF as f/1.4 primes.

Then diffraction kicks in at wider apertures as sensor size decreases, until it squeezes useful apertures into the f/8 and wider region.

Doesn't it do that for high-MP FX sensors too? Aren't we warned to use apertures smaller than f/8 on a D810 (or similar)? Personally, I think f/11 is still perfectly usable in most situations that require one to stop down that far, and if required, I don't shy away from f/16 as well.

[Andrew Garrard]

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.

• • 
    

Well I was trying to argue for a lighter FX body. :-) The 24-120 f/4 is a surprisingly large lens, something I didn't discover until I eventually picked one up for myself. I was expecting something around the size of the 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G, but it's nearly as big as my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. The variable aperture version is smaller (not quite as small as the 18-140), but unfortunately optically awful. The 24mm end of both is likely adding to the weight quite a bit - and the DX version would have to be more heavily retrofocal to do the same thing. The 28-200G (more the same focal range) is actually 130g lighter than the DX 18-140, and effectively faster because of the sensor size - but it's not really optically good enough for the latest sensors (though it's a "maybe" for the Df) and has no VR, so that's not really a fair comparison either. If Nikon made a new one with VR and better optics and kept it in the same weight range, I may well be tempted.

 

I suspect your argument is tempting people to mirrorless (full frame or cropped).

 

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.

• • 
    

Would that work? Coverage is much easier to engineer with longer lenses. I don't know how much smaller or cheaper this would be than the FX version.

 

• 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.
    

 

And then Sigma discontinued it. I agree that it's a lens that a lot of people recommended for DX, I just don't know how to read Sigma's choice to stop making it. It seemed complementary rather than replaced by the 50-100 f/1.8, to me.

 

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.

 

Absolutely. Modern cameras are very good at high ISO, but this doesn't mean aperture (or a tripod) is no longer relevant - it just moves the bar.

[Andrew Garrard]

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? ;)

 

That's an argument for pixel density and strong tracking autofocus. The latter is (currently) more of a DSLR strength; the former is something the DSLR vendors could look at if they wanted to. Or they could make longer, slower lenses (see ebay), or teleconvert. I do use my GF2 on a Dobsonian, and (despite only having an elderly 12MP body) it still has more pixel density than a D850. But I could also point a compact down a viewfinder, or use a webcam.

 

Lots of cameras have their place, I just choose to put my money on the category I can fit in a pocket, or the category with better low-light, dynamic range and subject separation. But it's all a continuum, and other choices are just as valid. I'd just claim that the nearer points are on the continuum, the more they compete.

[ilkka_nissila]

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.

 

Nikon have put out quite many enthusiast-level FX lenses: 20/1.8, 24/1.8, 28/1.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 18-35, 24-85, 70-200/4, 60/2.8, 200-500/5.6, and perhaps including 105/2.8 and 300/4. In the early digital years one could argue that there was a risk in developing a lot of lenses quickly as the future, higher resolution, sensors might require redesigns that would last a longer time on the market, and Nikon seems to have waited for 24MP until really letting out a lot of FX lenses, which I think made a lot of practical sense. But there are also a lot of older lenses available at very affordable prices and people do use them as well.

 

The D600/D610 is a low cost FX camera which works well for some applications - for example a landscape photographer might need nothing that the D610 doesn't offer. I actually prefer the D610 ergonomics (grip) and sound to those of the D750, though the latter has better AF. I think both cameras are very price-competitive for certain applications and users.

 

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

 

They've changed course many times. For example for decades they didn't feel a 70-200/4 was necessary and instead offered a lower cost, older 80-200/2.8. They eventually made a new 70-200/4, and an excellent one at that. They have moved from in-body AF motors to SWM. They did eventually make a D500 after customers were persistently requesting one. Now they seem to be in the process of switching from small-sensor (CX) mirrorless to a larger-sensor (full frame?) mirrorless. I do think they follow the market, though they might not always read it correctly.

 

If Nikon can't beat the original A7 right out of the gate

 

I suspect Andrew had the A7 family in mind, i.e. whatever model is latest. I think the A7RII was the model that broke the bank and now the current version is A7RIII. That's what Nikon is likely to aim to compete with, if they make a full frame mirrorless.

in the m4/3 world lenses with f/1.2 or even f/0.95 apertures exist that allow shooting with the same DOF as f/1.4 primes.

 

f/0.95 on micro four thirds is the depth of field equivalent of f/1.9 on FX, and the f/0.95 primes that I'm aware of are manual focus. Micro four thirds is great if you want a compact system but for shallow depth of field, it doesn't really compete with FX.

 

 

I don't think there is any "one market" that Nikon should "get", or a coherent set of requests and expectations; different people have different needs and any one manufacturer can only hope to cater to some of these customer needs. I think Nikon is offering a lot more for the enthusiast and professional than they offered in the past. That doesn't mean their offering is perfect for everyone.

Edited December 19, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

[Andrew Garrard]

Dieter (trying to be concise for once):

 

• Some people are tempted to upgrade by the additional ISO performance and subject separation from a larger sensor; it's a reason many upgrade from compacts or phones. In my experience there's a fair bit of full-frame envy out there, it's just the price and weight penalty discourage people. Not everyone (I wouldn't kill the D3x00 or D5x00 lines), but many.
  
• Many are happy to upgrade in place, especially with no interface change. Others might be put off, again by size and price. I'm advocating on behalf of a putative business model (which is dangerous, I know nothing about business or money) rather than customer requirements - Nikon need to offer products that make us give them money.
  
• Nikon absolutely need to hit mirrorless with at least one competitive product line. I worry that neglecting a DSLR segment to do so adds a lot of risk to an already risky situation (I have much more confidence that Nikon can plug a gap with an SLR while they iterate on a mirrorless solution that hopefully customers will buy into). Under-resourcing mirrorless has its own risks, of course, so it's not clear cut.
  
• My take was the D600 was launched to compete with the 6D - which by most measures it does very well. Lenses were a problem, although less when the cheaper (non-VR) 24-85, (slower) 24-120 and (non-AF-P) 70-300 were around. I admit I was surprised that Nikon seems to have got rid of their cheaper FX lens range.
  
• Now the D7500 has lost its aperture ring, I still claim a budget upgrade path from that doesn't need one. AF motor... well, it's going to go eventually; it looks like the cheap non-VR 70-300 is the main counter-argument.
  

Let's agree a mid-point: either Nikon needs to fill out its DX lens set for people in the D7x00/D500 bracket, or they need to provide enough budget glass with a budget FX camera. The D750 is currently a bargain (probably because the 5DIII became much more affordable after the 5DIV turned up), but it's also old; it's probably priced itself into being a D610 replacement, but it still doesn't meet the needs of some.

[Andrew Garrard]

Way too much fuzz made about that - unlike in the Nikon DX world, in the m4/3 world lenses with f/1.2 or even f/0.95 apertures exist that allow shooting with the same DOF as f/1.4 primes.

 

Nikon should fix the mount throat size for their mirrorless platform (although a reduced flange distance should solve it too) for faster apertures. Of course there are f/1.2 lenses you can use on DX, just not very well. Still, most very fast lenses are optically awful at those apertures - the benefit of medium format is that you can get the look of shooting at a much faster apertures on 135 without the aperture-related optical aberrations. FX is mostly the sweet spot unless you want to try the 150mm f/2.8 5x4 lens.

 

(Aperture-related diffraction.)

 

Doesn't it do that for high-MP FX sensors too? Aren't we warned to use apertures smaller than f/8 on a D810 (or similar)? Personally, I think f/11 is still perfectly usable in most situations that require one to stop down that far, and if required, I don't shy away from f/16 as well.

 

I tend to avoid smaller apertures mostly because of dust. It helps that you can post-process to control the diffraction disk, although any sharpening introduces noise (same as for digitally correcting optical artifacts). Theoretically I believe you need to keep the effective aperture constant to balance this out, which means faster apertures and more optical aberrations on smaller formats. Luminous landscape had an interesting older article on it (something with "diffraction", "sensor size", and "aperture" in the search) but it's disappeared behind their paywall and I'm not paid up.

[paul_b.1]

Thank you ilkka and Shun for your help . There is probably something wrong with this lens ...I have the dock but doesn't seem to help now , in real world (at least in my case). ..Or maybe it have something to do with the firmware update...

[Andrew Garrard]

Paul - I can't see your exact problem, but I do have some issues with accurate focus with the 35mm and 50mm Art lenses. I suspect I've made significant adjustments to try to get focus correct, and the resulting adjustment curve is so extreme that at intermediate points it's doing something that makes things much worse. I should try again. I'm very much looking forward to Nikon's automated system when I eventually get a D850, although I'd like it more if, like Sigma, it had storage for different focus distances and focal lengths (and even more if it varied by focus point). The biggest issue I have with the Sigma is it's such a pain to keep taking the lens off the test rack - if they'd just put a USB port on the lens so you could adjust it in place, that would have been much nicer. Oh well.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think if there are too many parameters to adjust, users may make detailed adjustments based on insufficient data and make things worse. I find that 5 repetitions of the auto fine tune procedure is a good starting point for finding the mean value. It takes much less time than using conventional fine tuning methods, and usually the standard deviation is small. I do notice that there is variation depending on zoom focal length, but by selecting a mean value I've been satisfied (currently my procedure for zooms is that I basically do five repetitions at each marked focal length and then average those repetitions and focal lengths). I think the key to success is not to take any one single shot or auto fine tuning operation as gospel but do enough repetitions.

 

If it is necessary to make focal length or distance dependent corrections, Nikon authorized service should be able to do it (and use finer than 1 point adjustments) but of course there is the task of taking the kit to them and explaining what you want. At least my local authorized service have a long testing range so even long focal length lenses can be tested and adjusted.

[Andrew Garrard]

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.

 

Incidentally, I wandered into a local generic electronic goods store today and, as you do, took a peek at their camera selection. A few low-end Canons and Sonys, an on the Nikon front, a D5600, a D5300 (for almost the same price), a D3400, and a J5 with a 10-30mm on "clearance" for £184 (about $245, but that includes 20% VAT). I had a little play, and I've got to say the handling is vastly better than the V1 (second command dial whoo!), though I can't really hold it in shooting position while trying to turn that dial. I had a brief moment of excitement when I saw it "shot 4K" until I checked the frame rate.

 

Of course, I wouldn't actually touch that particular one with a bargepole, because it was sitting there without a lens on (presumably to avoid theft), and there was a clear fingerprint on the sensor protector. See my previous rants about stores that do this. But interesting nonetheless.

 

There have been almost no compact Nikons produced this year, and obviously nothing in the CX line for a while. I hope they're all busy on future mirrorless bodies (and lenses), although given the number of reorganisations at Nikon it's hard to tell. Good luck to them.

[Andrew Garrard]

I think if there are too many parameters to adjust, users may make detailed adjustments based on insufficient data and make things worse. I find that 5 repetitions of the auto fine tune procedure is a good starting point for finding the mean value.

 

I believe you. I'm sure I made matters worse by not being exactly on the stated distance for my measurements - one reason I hope automating should help.

 

I do get the impression that the Sigma Art lenses vary significantly according to focal distance - especially the 35mm, which I carefully fine-tuned once before I had the dock, and found still to be massively unpredictable. It was worse on my D800, which might not behave as well as a D810 anyway. I might get the chance to reset and re-test everything over the holidays. The 80-200 AF-D was famous for this too, of course.

[Gary Naka]

AG

At the time that I got my D7200, I had looked at a few mirrorless, but the reports of significant shutter lag reminded me of my P&S, where I HATE the shutter lag. When I press the shutter, I want it to fire IMMEDIATELY, like it did with my F2. A 1 to 2 second delay is not acceptable for action shots (sports and kids).

Maybe there is a mirrorless now that does not have that shutter lag, or at least has it down to less than 1/2 second.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Nikon need to offer products that make us give them money.

And herein lies the problem (for me): there has been times when they didn't offer something I would have wanted to purchase. D300 successor? AF 80-400 successor? A 70-200/4? I sampled the D7x00 line - which turned out not to be to my liking and certainly kept me from going FX with D6x0 or D750 (at least $800 more than comparable DX models just to get a bigger sensor (while losing other things in the process)?). ANY decent midrange zoom (sorry, the various 24-85 and the 24-120 are not what I consider "decent"). Replacement of any of the old AF wide-angle primes took ages to materialize. A 300/4 replacement with VR - same story. Some of those actually made me have a look-see at Canon offerings (but not more). And some other make me now have more than just a look-see with Sony FX mirrorless. Which incidentally makes my interest in Nikon DX and FX mirrorless mostly academic at this point - I am just eager to see what they come up with. Sony now is already at the third iteration of the A7R, having ironed out some of the quirks of the first model and managed to improved on the already fairly good A7RII.

 

Probably worst from Nikon's perspective: there is not a single lens in their system (besides the ones I already own) I would want to purchase at this point. Not fully Nikon's fault though; for the time being I just have the feeling that I have what I need and the acquisition costs of good lenses by now certainly exceeds what I am willing to pay. And quite a few are Sigma or Tokina because they either offered something Nikon doesn't or because they offer equal/better performance at a lower price point.

 

neglecting a DSLR segment to do so adds a lot of risk to an already risky situation (I have much more confidence that Nikon can plug a gap with an SLR while they iterate on a mirrorless solution that hopefully customers will buy into). Under-resourcing mirrorless has its own risks, of course, so it's not clear cut.

My worries exactly. I am beginning to warm up to the idea of a low-end, low frills DSLR if Nikon can pull if off on the cheap (re-using the D750 chassis with the current AF module and sensor, omitting the Ai tab and internal AF motor, possibly replacing the pentaprism with a pentamirror. Unfortunately, whatever they do in that realm will look more like a stop gap measure than anything else. It might be needed but it might also be a dud (though proper pricing might get it some takers).

 

 

for example a landscape photographer might need nothing that the D610 doesn't offer

True - but they could get there even cheaper with a Sony A7 or A& Mk II bodies (especially when purchased used) or a used D800 (which I would personally find a lot more desirable for landscape than a D600/D610). And from a landscape photographer's point of view, I think Sony has lenses better suited for the task than Nikon does. In addition to fit any brand of lens via adapter, in some case not even losing AF.

f/0.95 on micro four thirds is the depth of field equivalent of f/1.9 on FX

You sure? I thought it was one f-stop for FX-to-DX and two for FX-to-m4/3; so f/1 on m4/3 would be equivalent in DOF to f/1.4 on FX (and f/1.2 m4/3 o f/2 FX)?

the f/0.95 primes that I'm aware of are manual focus

Indeed - though I thought there was a Leica/Panasonic that wasn't (turned out to be f/1.2 when I checked).

 

The 24mm end of both is likely adding to the weight quite a bit - and the DX version would have to be more heavily retrofocal to do the same thing.

You may want to look at the Nikon 16-80/2.8-4 or even the older 16-85/3.5-5.6 - both managed 24mm-equivalent without getting overly large and heavy. And, at least for the 16-80 be optically better than the 24-120. The 16-85 loses by a narrow margin to the 18-140 and might be about par with the 24-120 optically (but there is that rather slow aperture).

I just don't know how to read Sigma's choice to stop making it.

Not too many takers, I guess. Certainly not after the size and weight advantage over a 70-200/2.8 has been lost with the updated OS version of the 50-150. Tokina made a 50-135/2.8, also discontinued (Pentax still has the equivalent lens though). My guess is that the availability of used Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR (first version), as well as those of other makers narrower the market segment for the 50-150 further.

 

Let's agree a mid-point: either Nikon needs to fill out its DX lens set for people in the D7x00/D500 bracket, or they need to provide enough budget glass with a budget FX camera.

Sorry, I don't feel very agreeable today, at least not on the first part:) Since Nikon has not found it necessary to fill in the obvious gaps in the DX lens line when DX was in its prime, why should they do it now that at least I think the days of DX DSLR are quite numbered? On the FX budget lens side, I would agree - but with the 18-35 and AF-P 70-300 there are already two good offerings and, as seems to be endemic with almost every lens maker, the mid-range segment is where the trouble is. It appears that anything that spans wide-angle to small tele requires an inordinate amount of careful compromises to get excellent optical quality. So maybe a re-thinking of the focal length range for those budget zooms might be in order - like a 18/20-50 and a 50-200, omitting the need for a mid-range zoom altogether? Of course, a lot of convenience goes out the door with that choice of focal length range.