1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Consumer level Z5 on it's way

Discussion in 'Nikon Chat' started by AndyTake2, Mar 1, 2019.

  1. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Completely agree - you're actually arguing my original point. That's why I personally use all the EF-M lenses, and a couple of third party manual focus ones - a 50mm f1.1, and an 8mm f2.8 fisheye. I could use my Canon equivalents, but they're huge and heavy - although their performance is very far from compromised, as they're L lenses (50mm f1.2 and 8-15mm f4). The point was simply that if people want to use long lenses, they can, very simply, and they can port those lenses to any Canon system. Personally, I find 200mm (320mm FF equivalent) long enough for this system for what I use it for, but it works well enough as a backup. I think it's broadly where Nikon wanted the 1 series in terms of lens adaptability in reality, but with a better (for me, and much of the market, apparently) performance to size ratio. I do wish Nikon had done the same as Canon, because that would have stirred up the crop market a fair bit more. As it is, Canon have a particular niche more or less to themselves; they and Nikon are tackling the rest of the crop market through the RP and the Z5 IMHO, and I think that's wise.
  2. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    That was my intention, as I thought your claim of EF-S and EF lenses as “native” to the M system was both unreasonable and contradicting your previous point!
    I think it’s widely recognised that both Canon and Nikon were caught out by the rapid take-up of Sony’s full frame mirrorless range. I assume Nikon hoped that the 1 Series would succeed with minimal impact on its DSLR sales, but its abandonment demonstrates that it was a failure.

    I’m surprised that you think Canon have a niche to themselves. I haven’t studied APS-C mirrorless much; the questions I foresee for the future of my photographic gear are, in the short term, whether to extend into Nikon FF mirrorless or stay with their DSLRs (I wouldn’t countenance the cost of a complete switch to another FF brand), and in the long term, whether I might need to downsize as I age, when MFT would be the obvious choice if I wanted to retain interchangeable lenses. But with my limited knowledge, I see Canon, Sony and Fuji all offering APS-C mirrorless systems, with Fuji’s looking the most accomplished, and Sony offering newcomers a staged path to FF within the system. But while Canon retain the largest market share, they’re well placed to fill any gaps in their systems more rapidly than their competitors.

  3. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Probably because you misread it. I said they operate as native, which they do.

    There's not really anyone going head-to-head with Canon on compactness or price in APS-C; sure, Fuji and Sony have the odd body there, but the lenses are in general much larger, and typically a lot more expensive. Canon have 4 bodies, and the entire range of EF-M lenses; the dearest, the 32mm f1.4, is perhaps a little out of the norm, but most are pretty cheap yet surprisingly good - which isn't a market niche anyone else is competing in in APS-C mirrorless.
  4. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    This is also the slot Nikon should have been aiming for with the 1 system, instead the chose to go for something smaller than M4/3 and that didn't really take off.
  5. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Yes, I quite agree. I also have a Pentax Q system - it's absurdly small, but quality really isn't great compared to a smartphone, so it doesn't get used a lot. Nikon 1 was a nicely-made system in many ways, let down in the end by quality that probably didn't quite meet enough people's threshold. I think that the same level of design and build quality with an APS-C sensor could have been very convincing.
  6. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Indeed, I think it would have sold well, especially with keen pricing.
    The build quality of my 1J5 is good, as you say, but it is a beast to use with the 30-110 lens, probably why that lens is rarely used. I find the image quality, in good light, to be pretty good but when the shutter speed goes down it becomes difficult to hand hold, no surprise there. I am told the video output is good too but that isn't why I bought it. However, I agree that image quality isn't good enough, as an add-on to a full frame system it is fine, it is pocketable and unobtrusive (unlike a D4 with 24-70!).
  7. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    I suppose that Nikon will need a low cost, possibly DX way in but they will need suitable lenses.
    ChrisNewman likes this.
  8. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Despite what has been said in this thread I have seen no evidence that the “consumer” level Z series camera will be DX format.
  9. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    I assume Nikon will want to flesh out their FF mirrorless range quite a lot before they complicate it with DX equipment, even if it shares the same mount. And Andy’s original link referred to “a low-price model similar to the Canon EOS RP”, which, of course, is FF.


Share This Page