If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Yes, a Z90 is hypothetical, at least outside of Nikon for all we know.
The excellence and ergonomics of longer focal length Z lenses for wildlife and sport are well proven - including 100-400 S, 400 f4.5S, 600 PF, 70-200 f2.8S, 70-180 f2.8.
The 2 Fuji flagships cost less than $2500 but ~9 9 years later the D500 AF is still superior
I don’t understand the argument that in order for Nikon to compete with Fuji, they have to offer the same lenses. I think Nikon Z FX bodies and lenses are superior to anything Fuji offers. As you mention, many of the longer zoom lenses are about the same size, so at some point, the benefit of APS-C size diminishes as you fill out your lens collection.
Nikon’s strength is certainly in their FX format which has advantages over APS-C (Dynamic range, AF speed, low light performance, etc), so it makes sense for them to prioritize FX. I’ve had a few Fuji bodies over the years for travel (X-T1, X-Pro2, X-E3), and while I found their primes to be excellent, I prefer wide to short tele zooms for travel. I found the Fuji zooms at the time (18-55, 16-50, 10-24) a bit too bulky and never liked them. I also never liked their user interface (a whole other story) and found their AF lacking. When Nikon introduced the Zfc with the 16-50 and 50-250, I sold all my Fuji gear moved over to Nikon Z DX for travel and had zero regrets. This also made sense for me as I already used Nikon Z FX. My current travel kit consists of the Z50ii, 16-50, 12-28, and 24/1.7. Very light and compact and extremely capable. If I have room, I can add FX lenses like the 24-200. When I’m shooting wildlife with my Z8, the Z50ii is a capable backup or second body.
Really, what is the point of a Z90? You can go into crop mode on a Z8/9 and have the same thing, so why bother?
this is the problem with these kinds of discussions. ask the question, and a bunch of people are going to have very different takes.
WRT lenses, we should remember there's DX and then there's DX
That is to say, there is DX format which is around things like the Z30, Z50II (perhaps) where size, weight and cost are real issues. This segment is different than the D500 IMO, and there is a need for lenses here, HOWEVER, the amount of lenses and the quality of lenses need not match the FX line.
It's also probably not a bad idea to let the 3rd party lens makers play in this space.
Then there is a pro sports body DX (ala D500), and here I think there is much less reason to have dedicated DX lenses. In fact, I think the new 1.4 line complements such a hypothetical body very well. Generally speaking, pro DX shooters will level up to FX lenses. That's what we did with the D500. The only DX lens I think I had was the 17-55 (which, indeed was a really nice lens and a good choice on Nikon's part).
Nikon definitely sees DX as an affordable gateway into its FX Z system. And hopefully they maintain a core set of 3-4 options in DX Z cameras....There’s good motivation for hobbyists, owning let’s say older f-mount glass, wanting to venture into mirrorless, to grab the cheap , but very good, z50ii dx body, for example. Will be an easy step, and allow them to see what’s on offer.
On the other side of the spectrum though, a fast, pro dx body, with let‘s say a new 24-30MP stacked sensor, will offer heaps over a cropped-to-dx-mode z8/z9. Pixel-density will be substantially higher, with added benefits in max fps attainable at full resolution, video capabilities, but also significantly improved AF/SD, even faster sensor-scan speeds, approaching GS without the associated baseline ISO impact, etc. Plenty of tech reasons for Nikon to go there, it will be an absolute monster for action, sport, journalism, war-zones et al.
I own z8/z9 and z50ii, would absolutely love a pro dx body. I still often grab my wife’s d500, and take it for an outing, it’s just on another level wrt build-quality, when compared to the z50ii. Just imho of course
Absolutely! When I received my Z50II, the first thing I wanted to do was find a prime normal lens as an alternative to the kit lens. I purchased the Yongnou 33mm f/1.4. It is feature rich, including an all metal build, 2 Fn buttons, a control ring, weather sealing, fluorine coatings, and a wireless remote which controls the focus and aperture should I decide to do video work. The images are sharp and the focus fast. It was under $250. The Viltrox 75mm f/1.2 has been described as having "Plena" like qualities and is under $500 this week. Apparently, the same is being said of their 135mm f/1.8 LAB offering which is just over a third of the price of the Plena lens. I even acquired the Voigtlander Nokton 23mm f/1.2, and it has been a blast relearning long forgotten skills. I also bought the Z24-120mm f/4 S lens, so the purchase of a DX body did result in the the sale of an FX lens. Between Viltrox, TTArtisan, 7Artisan, Sigma, Tamron, Yongnuo, and others, there is no lack of lenses for the Nikon DX bodies. Most are probably not S quality products, but the Nikon DX buyer still has a lot of options to explore. For the budget conscious shopper, Nikon DX bodies still make a lot of sense. FWIW, it should be noted that supposedly Canon has been limiting what third party brands may do with their products. It will be interesting to see which approach works best.
