Has Nikon fallen asleep

[John Navitsky]

The DX problem for Nikon is the same for Canon-no quality DX specific lenses.

i tell ya, the 1.4 lenses ARE the dx lenses

 

[fcotterill]

The DX problem for Nikon is the same for Canon-no quality DX specific lenses.

How many or rather What DX lenses are really needed in the Z System? Only 1 or perhaps 2 Ultrawide zooms, perhaps a fast Wide such as 14 f2.8
The FX glass meets all other needs, including the Pancake primes, f1.4 primes and especially the light telephotos, and the 28-400 is ideal for a DX Nikon Z

The big three have ceded the lightweight wildlife still camera to the OM-1 mk 2 which is obviously and intentionally optimized for birds. At today's discounted prices an OM-1 mk 2 and a 100-400 zoom can be had for $3+K and has an 800mm FF equivalent reach and weighs in at less than 4#.

Why bother competing with that? It isn't like OM Systems is setting super sales numbers.

Fujifilm seems to have a decent system, particularly retro and high end MILCs

Canon, of course, has the 32mp 1.6 crop R-7 and combined with the 100-500 zoom also reaches 800 FF equivalent reach but bird specific capabilities such as a decent readout speed, a usable pre-capture and a deep buffer are missing. (The R-7 appears to be a low-cost, general-purpose offering that is fine with low-cost lenses like the 100-400.) The R-7 is not a bad camera for wildlife with the 100-500, but it is heaver, clunkier and more expensive in addition to the bird specific capabilities that it lacks.

Where does Nikon fit in this picture?

As suggested above, it should be straightforward for Nikon to release a DX wildlife MILC, with features and performance at the level of the Z8 and Z9. This will fit into it's stated strategy to repackage Z9 technology into more affordable products.

 

[Alistair]

Sorry to be a pedant but the 70-180 takes a tc.

 

[Len Shepherd]

The new Partially-Stacked Sensor technology should allow a more economical way than using a fully stacked DX sensor in the Z90. Priced at ~$2K this DX Professional camera should push up lens sales.

Similarly to the D5 > D500, the Nikon sensor lab should be able to squeeze down the Z6 III sensor layout into a DX 24.5mp P-S sensor. They can milk the returns on this same sensor in a series of DX upgrades over the next decade.... Zfc II, Z50 II, even the updated Z30.

Assuming both can be done, getting more individual sensors from a single wafer should also help to contain costs.

 

[Len Shepherd]

The FX glass meets all other needs, including the Pancake primes and especially the light telephotos

For me, the FX Z Mount telephoto lenses fill my DX needs.

Having previously used a D 500 alongside a D 800 for me the big advantage of a pro grade DX body is being able to switch to a narrower angle of view with relatively few trade offs without the need to buy or carry longer focal length lenses.
As in as an example 300 f2.8 or 450mm f2.8 angles of view from a single lens - though Nikon might regard this as likely to compromise 400 mm f2.8 TC lens sales.

Worth noting is the main weight factor of a DX lens is the size of the front element being the same as FX, resulting in little weight or size saving making specific telephoto DX lenses in addition to FX telephoto lenses.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

OM Systems sells a Sigma based lens 100-400 f/6.3 that weighs 2.4 pounds. No Nikon zoom comes close to that.

Since I switched from a D-500 to an OM-1 I can say that the OM-1 IS BASICALLY a mirrorless D-500.

 

[RichF]

The DX problem for Nikon is the same for Canon-no quality DX specific lenses.

The big three have ceded the lightweight wildlife still camera to the OM-1 mk 2 which is obviously and intentionally optimized for birds. At today's discounted prices an OM-1 mk 2 and a 100-400 zoom can be had for $3+K and has an 800mm FF equivalent reach and weighs in at less than 4#.

Why bother competing with that? It isn't like OM Systems is setting super sales numbers.

A DX body for wildlife could be coupled with a low end FF body for landscape or every day use. It will keep consumers in the Nikon ego system and help assure future sales

 

[Mal Paso]

The huge Z mount was designed for Full Frame. I see DX as a distraction and hope it will quietly die. Nikon would have to come up with a higher resolution DX sensor to have any advantage over cropping a FF sensor. I would rather see a higher resolution FF sensor.

 

[RichF]

The huge Z mount was designed for Full Frame. I see DX as a distraction and hope it will quietly die. Nikon would have to come up with a higher resolution DX sensor to have any advantage over cropping a FF sensor. I would rather see a higher resolution FF sensor.

How higher? Is 45.7 MP too small for you? How so? I don't print that large or crop that much. Let me know what you specifc needs are

 

[Bubbahotep]

Like you RichF, Nikon's slowing product releases worry me. I realize that there are fewer cameras sold these days compared to a decade ago but I fear that Nikon and other camera manufacturers are ceding too much ground. I would like to see a prosumer crop sensor camera (Nikon Z90) and an expeed 7 Nikon Z50II (along with the ZfcII). While I might not be on the market for any of them, I would possibly consider the ZfcII for travel especially if it's capable. These crop sensor cameras may be able to help transition consumers from cellphones to full frame cameras especially if they're fun and easy to use.

Also, I would too would like to see more additions to the lens line up. Maybe a 14mm 1.8f. Maybe a 400-600mm zoom.

 

[wotan1]

I suspect the marked for prosumer crop sensor cameras are down because cell phones now rule the casual photography world. I can understand why Nikon may be reluctant to put all that much effort that direction.

I suspect the big money is in lenses and pro level camera owners buy more (and more expensive) lenses. Nikon has done a lot on the lens front.

 

[Mal Paso]

How higher? Is 45.7 MP too small for you? How so? I don't print that large or crop that much. Let me know what you specifc needs are

I think 60MP would give DX mode more punch and help with the absence of shift lenses for architecture. Kristi Odom uses DX mode for framing when she runs out of glass, I get that, but why DX as a platform on a FF mount? FF gathers more than twice the photons, if you've paid for the Real Estate why not use it. There are crop sensor cameras that do a better job reducing size and weight.

I think an entry level Full Frame sensor camera makes more sense.

 

[Dollar]

Interesting thread but is Nikon really sleeping more or less than any of the other manufacturers? I loosely follow when new gear comes out and must have missed all the new SonyCon lenses and bodies coming out.

I feel like they've done a good job of filling holes but with 85 years of lenses prior to the introduction of the Z mount it might take more than 6 years to get it all done.

This was my reaction as well. My opinions and my awareness of each brand's ecosystem are pretty biased towards wildlife but as this is a wildlife forum I assume that's somewhat typical. From my point of view, Canon managed to impress me with the 200-800 because it's a very valid competitor to Nikon and Sony's supertele zooms while having it's own distinguishing feature (the extra reach) that makes it something "different" instead of just being "the same lens but on Canon". However aside from that one example, I'm scratching my head about what lenses have come out recently for Canon or particularly Sony that make them look more "awake" than Nikon.

Canon and especially Sony have been in the MILC game for longer than Nikon and had a considerable head start on getting properly-performing bodies on the market. Despite this, please correct me if I'm wrong but both brands' long glass options basically amount to a supertele zoom at ~$2,000, or huge exotic 400mm and 600mm glass at $13,000+. Neither brand to my knowledge have compelling competitors to the 400mm f/4.5 or the 600mm and 800mm f/6.3 PF lenses. Probably the most exciting lens I've seen come out recently for Sony wildlife shooters is the Sigma 500mm f/5.6.

This isn't at all supposed to be an argument about one brand being better than the others and I hate the tribalism that's so common on other forums or social media, but I just can't relate to the idea of worrying about Nikon being behind, asleep, etc. That said, I'm extremely happy with the performance and specs of my Z8, so maybe the body side has better arguments to be made and I'm just not up to date on new releases there.

 

[Len Shepherd]

The thread is interestingly diverging from wildlife more than normal.

I think 60MP would give DX mode more punch

I doubt 60 MP could become a possibility until 24x36 has reached 100 MP - still in the future.

(snipped) why DX as a platform on a FF mount?

For brands with a full frame lens range there is no cost designing and making a second range of DX lenses - and any relative minor corner FX lens optical fall-off can get cropped out on DX.

FF gathers more than twice the photons,

I get that it is fashionable to recognise this though I subscribe to the view that a large window does not change the quality of light coming through it relative to a smaller window.

I recognise a separate potential quality differentiator that when 24x36 (or any other format) has more MP there is more detail recorded as there are more pixels to record it.
When and whether the limited resolution of the human eye can detect extra resolution and quality in a particular monitor or print will IMO always remain a topic for debate.

 

[fcotterill]

Storm in a Teacup about Nikon dropping the ball. Tokyo has its strategic plan, and we can expect they are planning to release future products as they choose to maintain profitable sales, as well as grow their Customer base. Those in doubt should be reassured reading these Corporate reports. In particular the 2 pdfs in the section "Medium-Term Management Plan (FY2022 to FY2025)" :

Nikon Report (Integrated Report) | Management Policy | Nikon About Us

Nikon Report,: an integrated report of Nikon's efforts to achieve medium- to long-term growth and improve corporate value, is posted

www.nikon.com

Message from the CEO | Management Policy | Nikon About Us

Message from the CEO is posted

www.nikon.com

Camera companies must be scrutinizing their own detailed market data, and gearing up to sell into the projected increase of market volume from 4.8m Million Mirrorless units in 2023 to around 6 Million units in 2025. Plus the Lens Tie ratio boost to profits.....

2021 — Zfc, Z9
2022 — Z30
2023 — Z8, Zf
2024 — Z6 III + 2 Registered Cameras

Z Nikkors released since August 2018 (not counting variants of some lenses, eg 28 f2.8)

• 2018 — 3 lenses
• 2019 — 7 lenses
• 2020 — 6 lenses
• 2021 — 9 lenses
• 2022 — 5 lenses
• 2023 — 8 lenses
• 2024 — 3 lenses

+ 3 lenses pending

Data Source: https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/whats-the-upgrade-path.html

 

[Len Shepherd]

Storm in a Teacup about Nikon dropping the ball.

Thanks for the links.
These indicate positive ways forward - rather than the weakness of the 2020 results that IMO included "belatedly getting rid of" of goodwill for some 20 + year old AF-D lenses.
The pdf's mention developing more lens production facilities - including lenses other than for cameras.
Whether this results in more lenses as a percentage being produced in Japan rather than overseas is for the future.

 

[Juliette]

With the acquisition of RED, I think they just shifted priorities at the moment after the Z6iii launch and a couple of lenses. RED alone is huge (can you say, Netflix?) It takes a very long time and a lot of effort to adjust roadmaps, line up resourcing schedules at home, overseas, etc. I think right now they're just continuing to strategize. I feel like the Zf and Z6iii is all I need for what I do. So personally, I think their rest period matches mine!

 

[DaveyDitzer]

The company is fine. I just don’t like the fact that my friend is probably going to buy a Canon APS-C mirrorless because Nikon’s offerings in DX are truly sub par in terms of autofocus and frame rate.

If I were your friend, I would buy a crop DSLR and a few lenses to tide me over. DSLR stuff is already at bargain prices. A D500 wouldn't break the bank.

 

[Ken Miracle]

OM Systems sells a Sigma based lens 100-400 f/6.3 that weighs 2.4 pounds. No Nikon zoom comes close to that.

Since I switched from a D-500 to an OM-1 I can say that the OM-1 IS BASICALLY a mirrorless D-500.

How about the Nikon Z28-400 covers that whole focal range but f/4-8 yet only 1.6 lbs and it is an amazingly good lens my wife loves it on her ZII.
Tamron has a new z mount 50-400 f/4.5-6.3 at 2.5 lbs
The Nikon Z100-400 f/4-5.6 is an s lens and is heavier at 3.166 lbs

 

[Mal Paso]

The thread is interestingly diverging from wildlife more than normal.

I doubt 60 MP could become a possibility until 24x36 has reached 100 MP - still in the future.

For brands with a full frame lens range there is no cost designing and making a second range of DX lenses - and any relative minor corner FX lens optical fall-off can get cropped out on DX.

I get that it is fashionable to recognise this though I subscribe to the view that a large window does not change the quality of light coming through it relative to a smaller window.

I recognise a separate potential quality differentiator that when 24x36 (or any other format) has more MP there is more detail recorded as there are more pixels to record it.
When and whether the limited resolution of the human eye can detect extra resolution and quality in a particular monitor or print will IMO always remain a topic for debate.

A 60 MP FF sensor would make DX slightly under 30 MP. 60 MP DX could not be had from 100 MP FF and was NOT what I meant.

There is NO optical advantage in a 20 MP DX sensor over cropping a 45 MP sensor. DX Die Die Die!

 

[FB101]

I don’t shoot Nikon anymore but it’s hard to not be impressed with what they’ve done since launching the z9. Especially the cadence and originality of the lenses launched should make the other 2, much larger, competitors feel sheepish.
‘now Nikon has an acquisition to digest and they need to optimize production and cost - which they couldn’t have done considering the speed of introductions over the last few years.

 

[Ken Miracle]

dont really miss DX anymore - Z9/8 gives enough cropping reserves.
the Z glass offering is very,very good as well meanwhile but I do miss:
a lightweight Z 300/2.8 (just like Sony's), 200mm/f2 Plena & a longer macro beyond 105mm e.g. 180/2.8 Macro

I do not miss dx either ... in fact that happened with the D850. As @Steve showed in one of his D850 videos it put his D500 on the shelf. When I moved to Z 9 I had already sold my D500's and the last DSLR to go was my D850.

 

[fcotterill]

A 60 MP FF sensor would make DX slightly under 30 MP. 60 MP DX could not be had from 100 MP FF and was NOT what I meant.

There is NO optical advantage in a 20 MP DX sensor over cropping a 45 MP sensor. DX Die Die Die!

The original reason for DX format was apparently the fabrication costs when Nikon designed the D1 in the late 1990s.

The austere economics of sensor yield per silicon platter/wafer have not changed going on 3 decades later. Particularly as the sensor is one of the most expensive components in a ILC.

Today, DX makes solid strategic sense, particularly as demonstrated in the case of the D500, the camera is designed alongside the expensive high performance FX flagship.
Moreover, Nikon has a tradition of maximizing the life of its DX sensors in a succession of models eg D7*00 and currently Z50, Zfc etc. These Enthusiast/Hobbyist cameras lower the entry bar for Nikon customers. Given time, ILC owners of a first ILC have a significant probability to buy new brand lenses, given time as their income improves.

In the current state of the Z System, it is simple common sense to package Z9 and Z6 III technology [Firmware and key components, EXPEED7, EVF etc] around a DX sensor. Big bang for the buck at lowered cost, with even more profitable returns on the R&D Nikon invested over several years pre 2022 designing the Z9. Again owners of Hobbyist cameras are an important market for Nikkor glass, even if it's "only" a 24-200, 28-400, pancake primes etc.

Everybody Wins with DX

 

[Len Shepherd]

DX Die Die Die!

I doubt Fuji and numerous Nikon DX camera users would agree.
I subscribe to individual photographers taking their own decisions.
I doubt few would agree FX should die because medium format can in some use cases be capable of higher levels of image performance than FX.

 

[FB101]

I do not miss dx either ... in fact that happened with the D850. As @Steve showed in one of his D850 videos it put his D500 on the shelf. When I moved to Z 9 I had already sold my D500's and the last DSLR to go was my D850.

The demise of Dx is more an issue when it comes to attracting new users to bird photography. just look at the price difference of a D500 + 500pf vs a z8 + 800pf. Neither are / were cheap but the step up is now significant. For wildlife, DX was a more convenient and affordable entry drug to later upgrade from. At the time DX also allowed for faster frame rates (unless you added the grip and pro batteries to the D850) and I expect the equivalent today would be rolling shutter (should be lower on DX than FX for the same pixel density). If one can afford a z8 and 800pf, the point is indeed moot but the hobby has become outrageous and FX only is not helping new users to jump in.