• False alarums: I was gratified to learn yesterday that Nikon has put a lot of pride in the new 35mm ƒ/1.8Z, and that it's not a rehash of the SLR lens. Additionally, Ross Harvey has written a review of the Z7 with the 35mm ƒ/1.8Z and concludes that "I've never seen images of this quality anywhere near this price. It's like having the benefits of (mini) medium format in a small mirrorless body (but with top drawer AF, handling and ISO). The price vs performance is off the charts." See his 35mm ƒ/1.8Z samples there.
• Same strategy: Eamon Hickey, who attended the great reveal for Imaging-Resource (see his samples and comments there), notes that ultimate optical quality is Nikon's "aim point" for this system and lenses. Again with the cold water (I'm really a grumpy Gus and you Nikon fans eager to bask in the warm glow are justified to complain), but that seems a.) like exactly what Sony's doing, with the ginormous over-the-top lenses for A7[x], and b.) not entirely in line with Nikon's real tradition, which was to provide solid, no-nonsense tools for working pros. But I'll bet it's perfectly in line with the lucrative target market (everyone's going after consumers, whether pro or amateur, with deep pockets) and the volume expectations (which, as Thom points out, are relatively low).
• Won't some wait? How many people are invested in Nikon already, or are Nikon fans from way back, and would only consider a Nikon FF mirrorless—and how many will naturally wait to see Canon's expected FF mirrorless offering before making any decisions?
• Poaching off its own preserves: A question I asked yesterday—and which of course others are asking—is, how many new customers will the Z system gain for Nikon, vs. the number of sales the Z6 and Z7 will poach from Nikon's own DSLRs? (Neither this nor the question above can be answered now—only time will tell, and even then it won't be trivial to untangle the truth.)
• Sony is smiling: One party that must be happy is Sony. It's seeing the two Bigs validate the strategy of its most successful product line, and it has a great big jump on both. As Nikon and Canon were readying their first FF mirrorless cameras, Sony has no doubt been hard at work on the fourth iterations of its own lineup; Nikon has three lenses, whereas I count 25 FE and G-Master lenses for Sony A7[x] (is that right?). That marketing book I was talking about the other day says the number one Law of Marketing is to be first in a category: "it's better to be first than it is to be better."* Sony not only gets lavish validation for the category it was first in, it now instantly has a big lead. This could be the best thing that ever happened to Sony's camera division.
• Uh-oh: Of course—Thom's point again, restated—Sony also soon will have two bears (a small black bear and a giant 800-lbs. grizzly) chasing it, in a market it formerly had mostly to itself. (The Leica SL was mostly leaving Sony alone due to its stratospheric pricing.) The bears are still way back there in the distance. But a cautionary tale from the sports world: never celebrate too early. (You need to see at least the first few seconds of that compilation—ROFL. And BTW, Robert Cheruiyot, the Kenyan runner who takes a nasty spill at 1:54 in the video, suffered a serious brain contusion, but he was ruled to have crossed the finish line as he fell, and he made a complete recovery.)
Image courtesy Camerasize.com
• Wouldn't you really rather have a GFX? N/t.
• 'Deal-breaker!' Is two card slots really that big a deal? It's never been for me, although I can understand people who feel differently. I actually think I might prefer a single card slot.
• A big maybe: And a final question: is FF mirrorless poised to take over from the venerable DSLR as the central mainstream high-quality camera type? Sure looks like it could.
Mike
(Thanks to Richard Scobie)
* They specify that what's important is the perception—the mind of the buyer. Ford wasn't the first to use a production line, but everybody thinks so. Apple might not have been the first personal computer, but everybody thinks so. That's Law #4, the "Law of Perception." The authors make the case that there's no reality in marketing; it's all perception. The question as the authors might put it, I would guess, is a.) whether people consider FF mirrorless to be a distinct category, and b.) if they do, whether they will remember and identify Sony as having been first in it. Only if those conditions end up pertaining—only if Sony is identified in conventional thinking with authentic leadership in a high-status, distinct category—will it be a significant advantage for Sony.
Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Jim: "I like your visual comparing the size of the Nikon to the Fuji. Could you add text to each photo comparing price/pound? :-) "
Mike replies: Fuji with 63mm: $2,421/lb. Nikon with 50mm: $1,815/lb.
Just for fun, just-announced Panasonic LX100 II: $768/lb.
Wow. A pound of camera and lens is expensive these days.
Trevor Johnson adds: "It is a bargain. Here are the numbers. Nikon Z7 with 24–70mm lens and mount adapter, plus the 35mm and 50mm Z lenses = £5,547; 'New' Leica M10-P (body only) = £6,500."
Eamon Hickey: "Before I comment further, I feel like saying again that I'm not advocating for the Z system here (I personally tend towards the small, cheap, and used), or claiming that it does everything Nikon says it does (remains to be seen). I'm just trying to shed what little light I can. Now then.
"As regards Nikon's S-line seeming 'like exactly what Sony's doing, with the ginormous over-the-top lenses for A7[x]: The new geometry of the Z-mount (diameter + flange distance) evidently opens up a significantly larger landscape of optical design exploration for Nikon. One path they could follow is to create smaller lenses that perform as well as their bigger brethren for SLR mounts. A distinctly different path this new landscape seems to afford is the ability to achieve unprecedented levels of optical performance, perhaps without pushing size and cost into the stratospheres that a more restricted lens mount (like Sony's) would require. Or so Nikon is claiming. With the S-Line, they have chosen the second path.
"When the Z 50mm ƒ/1.8 starts shipping and goes on Roger Cicala's magical testing machine, that may be the moment when the method to Nikon's madness really crystallizes for all of us, if it's real and not a fantasy.
"On the market today, from established brands, there are scads of FF format 50mm lenses with maximum apertures within 2/3rds of a stop of ƒ/1.8. They range in weight from 5.5 oz. (160g) to 2 lb. 6 oz. (1065g) and in price from $125 to $5,300. Nikon's Z 50mm 1.8 weighs 14.7 oz. (415g) and will cost $600. If that Z 50mm ƒ/1.8 lens outperforms even the 2 lb. $5,000 lenses (which are, granted, 2/3rds of a stop faster), would that change our feelings about its weight and cost? And our perception of what Nikon decided to do with the design freedom that their new mount provided?
"As I said, it isn't the recipe I'm looking for. But a $600 50mm lens that noticeably outperforms $5,000 Leica and Zeiss lenses, or even $1,000 Sigma Art lenses, doesn't seem like a crazy idea to me, if it turns out to be real. I won't buy it, but I bet lots of other people would."
Mike replies: Re "The new geometry of the Z-mount (diameter + flange distance) evidently opens up a significantly larger landscape of optical design exploration for Nikon." Yes, it really does, as it was explained to me years ago by Zeiss. Lensmount diameter (actually exit pupil diameter) is one of the main restrictions in lens design, and this has long been an advantage for Canon, which gave itself a generous throat diameter of 54mm when it introduced the EOS system. Both Nikon F (44mm) and Sony FE (46.1mm) are a bit cramped in size and, as I understand it, put some restrictions on more adventurous designs. Nikon Z is 55mm, slightly greater than Canon EF, plus the flange distance (Z: 16mm) is much shorter than on an SLR (F: 46.5mm).
But I'm no expert, I just know what I'm told. :-)
Peter Wright: "The spec and price of the new Nikkor Z 35mm ƒ/1.8 S reminded me of my W-Nikkor 3.5cm ƒ/1.8 that I use on my Nikon S3. The W-Nikkor ƒ/1.8 was, I believe, Nikon's first foray (1956) into making a world-class fast 35mm for professional use, and, in fact, the first of its kind. Nikon needed to make something at the top of its class to support the new 'S' mount cameras of the 1950s. What goes around comes around! (Admittedly, it may not have the MTF of the newer design, but it is much more compact, and appears to have proven durability!) Interestingly, the price of the new Nikkor ($846.95) puts it right in the ballpark of what my now 60-year-old Nikkor commands on eBay! (About $700 to $1,200 depending on condition)."
Carlos Quijano: "Nikon Zzzzz...."
Andy Umbo: "Does anyone know if the camera will shoot 1:1, 16:9, and 4:3? One of the only reasons I bought into Micro 4/3 is that it shot multiple formats. I believe the Sony's do not shoot 1:1 or 4:3, which made me cross it off my list immediately. (By the way, I think both new Nikons shoot native TIFF as well, finally, so they must be targeted to pros).
"As a longtime pro, who mostly shot sheet film and Hasselblad for cash, I cannot tell you the hate I have for the 35mm aspect ratio. I also can't read one more comment about how 35mm is the 'golden mean' or the 'perfect aspect,' or any other nonsense gobbledegook. I recently walked around with my old Pana G3, shooting native square 1:1 pics of people in their gardens...pure joy, shooting like I was using a Rollei or Mamiya 6."
Mike replies: You should have a soft spot for Nikon though. Because way back in the M39 screwmount days, they tried to standardize the 35mm format at 24x32 millimeters—4:3. It didn't take, but they tried!
Waiting for these was one of the options I considered last fall when I was dropping at least one of my two systems (Nikon and Micro Four Thirds). I mean, waiting for Nikon to get off the dime and do something serious in mirrorless; it was obvious to me that mirrorless was going to take over, and I wanted to switch there myself. (It still hasn't taken over; unless these made a huge leap, it's still not competitive with DSLRs for any kind of action photography; but it's going to be. And will be cheaper and need less maintenance and have more viewfinder options, etc.)
At the moment, these aren't what I would have jumped to, though. I don't care about two slots (and one of my cameras now has two), but I care about two dials. One of the ways in which modern cameras have better human interface than say 70s cameras is that you can adjust both aperture and shutter speed with the hand holding the camera, so you can do it on the fly, with the camera up to your eye, etc. You don't have to pause to adjust settings. (That's not the only reason, but it's a big reason I can glean from quick reading of your reports.)
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 10:55 AM
I don't agree with "it's better to be first than it is to be better."
There were MP3 players before the iPod and there were all-in-one phones from Nokia before the iPhone. And remember that Nokia was a massive company. They are all history now.
Having said that, I don't think that Nikon's mirrorless is the iPhone of the camera market.
Posted by: Malcolm Myers | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 11:05 AM
The best photojournalist I know shoots Canon because his employer issues Canon gear but he also keeps Fuji for times when discretion is required.
Back in his film days he carried Nikon kit with an M series Leica for those times when silence is necessary.
I could see the 24mp variant of the Nikon mirrorless fitting into a lot of working photojournalists bags. Especially if Nikon hits them with a nice pancake 35mm 2.8.
Posted by: Mike Plews | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 11:48 AM
Wouldn't you really rather have a GFX [50S]?
No. But I would rather have a GFX 100S. :-)
Posted by: Sal Santamaura | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 11:53 AM
"it's better to be first than it is to be better."
I’m not so sure. Apple was first and best with a graphical user interface, but Windows beat it totally. And Nikon was first and biggest with pro camera SLRs, but Canon beat it still.
Posted by: Eolake | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 12:05 PM
'Deal-breaker!' Is two card slots really that big a deal?
No professional photographer has ever, in all of history, been able to work with a camera that only holds one card or one roll of film at a time. It's just not possible.
Posted by: Ken Bennett | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 12:32 PM
From Harvard Business Review …
First Mover or Fast Follower?
There certainly is circumstantial evidence supporting both camps. After all, Apple wasn’t the first mover in the digital music, smartphone, or tablet computing categories, but it’s done alright. A recent column in The Economist cited a research report that found that “that innovators captured only 7% of the market for their product over time.” Yet there are plenty of examples of successful early birds. For example, Amazon’s efforts as an early mover in electronic books and cloud computing have turned out fine for them.
Here’s the important thing to remember: ultimately, no one remembers who leads a race at the half-way point. They care about who crosses the finish line. So don’t ask “Should I go first?” Instead, ask “How do I accelerate the path to a breakthrough idea?”
https://hbr.org/2012/06/first-mover-or-fast-follower
My first thought about the Nikon Zs was that they had a long slog ahead of them -- selling a new body (and paying for its development) while customers wait for native lenses -- a body or lens has to be pretty special for someone to put up with an adapter. Now we've heard that the new lenses (or at least one of them) are terrific. Great new lenses will move existing Nikon customers while attracting new ones to the new bodies.
Posted by: Speed | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 01:04 PM
Drone on fan boys. I’m still high on the intro of t’ DJI Hassy widget.
Y.B. Hudson III
Posted by: Y.B. Hudson III | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 01:20 PM
I took the plunge into mirrorless several years ago with Fuji X-Trans cameras and I haven’t looked back since. My Nikon D800E now spends almost all its time sitting on a shelf. I suppose I qualify as part of Nikon’s “lucrative target market,” but I don’t feel any pressing need to invest in a new full-frame camera.
However—and I admit I’m hardly a marketing expert—I don’t understand why Nikon didn’t bundle the F-mount adapter with the Z-series bodies, and absorb the manufacturing and distribution cost. Or at the very least, offer a one-per-purchaser coupon that could be redeemed for an adapter from a retail outlet at Nikon’s expense. Yes, Nikon is offering an initial discount on the adapter with purchases of a Z body, but that’s more of a concession to current Nikon owners who are going to buy one of the mirrorless cameras anyway than an attempt to provide an incentive to those who are on-the-fence.
Posted by: Chris Kern | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 01:48 PM
At best that's incomplete, at worst it's flat-out wrong. Apple hasn't been first to any category it competes in. Betamax was first (it was also "better," by some definitions, but not in the areas that mattered to consumers). Ford wasn't the first automobile. And so on, ad infinitum.
History is littered with the bones of companies that were first.
[Ah, but they also specify that what's important is the perception--the mind of the buyer. Ford wasn't the first to use a production line, but everybody thinks so. Apple might not have been the first personal computer, but everybody thinks so. That's Law #4, the "Law of Perception." They make the case that there's no reality, it's all perception. The question as the authors might put it, I would guess, is a) whether people consider FF mirrorless to be a distinct category, and b) if they do, whether they will remember and identify Sony as having been first in it. Only if those conditions end up pertaining will it be a significant advantage for Sony. --Mike]
Posted by: Vince | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 02:01 PM
2 card slots cannot be a bad thing surely - you can still use only one if you wish.
Posted by: Michael Kay | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 02:20 PM
Some (some randoms) points for todays discussion:
1. Regarding Nikon going after the high-priced, high-margin market that Sony has been going after in FF mirrorless: Well, of course, Nikon has to. They had to have a FF camera their first "statement" mirrorless offering be taken seriously by all the social media "pundits", and here's not enough overall FF mirror sales volume (based on info from Thom) to return on investment without going for high-margin products.
2. It's possible that one of the reasons that Nikon did not put two cards slots in the Z-series is that for pros that have to have that feature, they will have to buy the D850 or D5. This will help mitigate cannibalization of the high-end DSLR line.
3. Regarding the Ries and Trout book you were referring to the other day. I bought it and read it. I can tell you for a fact that, at least in biotech/genomics/sequencing, "first to market" is absolutely NOT the case. Unlike the lay public, scientists actually DO make data-driven decisions on what product is actually BEST, and will, if the new offerings are better, completely swap out inferior offering for new ones. Case in point: the first-to-market next-gen sequencing system was 454's pyro-sequencing. Another early market entry was Applied BIosystem's SOLiD sequencing. Fact: No ONE is using these anymore. Illumina, who were roughly second or third to market (depending on who you talk to), now pretty much own the next-gen sequencing market. Same thing applies for DNA Forensics human identity products.
4. If you want to see an impressive MTF chart, check out the Fujifilm GF45mm f/2.8 for the GFX system. Wanna know why MF looks better? Yowza.
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 02:50 PM
I also tend to think being first doesn't matter long haul. Still need to run your business in an effective fashion, and all that.
My take is that it is the Z-Mount that will differentiate Nikon from Sony and Canon. And market differentiation matters.
And well, it seems these days that perhaps the majority of enthusiasts/semi-pro photographers that this gear is aimed at put a pixel peeping priority on sharpness, and if the early reports are true regarding the new Nikon S-Mount lenses that could be a big deal in regards to market differentiation.
I'm not sure how I feel about seeking after perfection, and how "perfection" has become a kind of societal priority. I guess I'm an old dog. For instance, I would gladly be rid of instant replay in all sports. This idea the calls need to be "perfect" remove the human element and imperfections that make sports what they are (or what I think sports should be anyway). The idea of perfection is an entirely different topic, but it does apply to modern photography as all the camera gear web sites would indicate, and all the "discussion" on the various discussion boards (i.e. "GAS-houses) can attest. Sharpness is the holy grail, no other attribute seems to matter (i.e. as reflected in controversial reviews of the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G where Nikon dared produce a lens where sharpness was not the primary objective). Not having perfect gear of course is the driver to acquiring yet more gear that's not perfect, and so on. It's a winning formula for the camera companies, but they gotta keep the gear coming, so in that sense Nikon has likely succeeded, for now.
Rant over. Heh.
Posted by: SteveW | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 03:02 PM
About that first mover idea...
Was Canon first mover in AF SLRs?
Was Canon first mover on DSLRs?
No but they did go on to dominate both eras. Doing it again would be a big ask for them but Sony’s ergonomics and lens pricing still leave the door open for both Nikon and Canon.
Posted by: Barry Reid | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 03:23 PM
@ David Dyer-Bennet
Not sure if I'm reading your comment right, but if you're concerned about whether the Z7 and Z6 have two dials, they do. Thumb and forefinger — very much like all other mid and upper end Nikon bodies. They were easy and comfortable to operate for me.
The Z cameras also have an extremely good and well-placed AF-ON button for so-called back-button autofocus, which is critical for me. So many manufacturers, including companies that get tons of praise in these parts (cough, Fuji), can't get this right. It baffles me.
Posted by: Eamon Hickey | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 04:13 PM
To be fair to Nikon,
If you ask me, what the Fuji lens needs is more elements.
I mean, Nikon has as many elements in its current 50mm f/1.8 lenses* as Olympus has in this 25mm f/1.2, and if you take the Fuji's paltry ten elements away from the Olympus's nineteen you're left with nine, or one more than Leica uses in any of its clearly inferior line of 50mm rangefinder lenses.
By irrefutable Internet logic, I therefore declare
Nikon = Olympus > Fuji > Leica.
* Twelve in the new 50mm f/1.8 S plus seven from the existing f/1.8G equals nineteen, QED.
Posted by: Jason T. Miller | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 05:49 PM
My view is that FF (Film Format) is an arbitrary size when applied to digital sensors. Such large sensors are no longer necessary, and sensor technology is developing so quickly that FF will become less and less beneficial. Then FF users will be stuck with huge, heavy lenses while we m4/3 users will have very sensible lenses. This one image says it all, comparable lenses:
https://screenshots.firefox.com/9fW6YoUMpchfjFPX/camerasize.com
Posted by: Michael Wall | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 06:30 PM
Wow, Mike, you usually don’t sound like you have an axe to grind with any company, but you sure have had the knives out for Nikon these last few days. You say Nikon is copying Sony, when all they’re doing is entering this market segment in a logical and smart way. You almost sounds as if Sony was leading the way with everything, when in reality, they just lead with sensor technology and fall short in making a decent body. They’re leaving wide gaps. Surely, it’s easier to make a better body than it is to design better sensors. So, why don’t they do it, especially considering many see Sony as having a clear focus while Nikon and Canon are stumbling open the dark. Finally, first to market can be good or bad. And I say this while I have no intention of buying a Nikon and having given up on Sony.
Posted by: John | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 08:41 PM
A high price per pound is a *good thing*, right? After all, for a given price and performance, don't you want the lightest camera?
Posted by: Arg | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 08:55 PM
Re: "First Mover or Fast Follower?"
I would have happily purchased a Nikon Z 7 if it had been available when I ordered my Sony late last year--but it wasn't.
It's not just that I'd be reluctant to go back to Nikon now (yeah, I have sunk costs in Sony, Loxia, and adapted Leica-M lenses--but I also had considerable sunk costs in the Nikon system that I abandoned) but that I'm quite happy with the Sony that I never would have tried if the Z 7 had been available.
OTOH, I likely would have been quite happy with an X-T2ish camera if Fuji had had IBIS before I purchased the A7R III. . . .
Too late, too late.
Posted by: brian | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 09:30 PM
re: “poaching off it’s own preserves.” In the tech world, this is called cannibalizing yourself. Steve Jobs summed the situation up when he said, “If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will.”
Yes, Nikon users will move from their DSLRs to the new system over the next few years, but the only other option is having them move to Sony or Canon. The new customers for Nikon can come from Olympus and Panasonic users, who ate up the Nikon 1 series and are now nibbling on Nikon’s APS-C DSLR line.
Posted by: Bruce McL | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 09:55 PM
Eamon: Oh, good! Glad they got the dials right (met other people this evening who were confused about that too).
I must have misread or misunderstood something. A quick glance through what I'd read didn't turn it up again but also didn't turn up anything contradictory.
(I, also, am a devotee of back-button AF; learned it from a Canon user actually, we swapped systems for a week when I visited him and in discussing configuring the bodies when we came to that I said to leave it on, I'd try it. Never looked back -- and he configured my D200 (then) to do it also, and I used it that way from then on.)
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 10:58 PM
....It still hasn't taken over; unless these made a huge leap, it's still not competitive with DSLRs for any kind of action photography...-David Dyer-Bennet
Hmm, I must be doing something wrong...
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 11:34 PM
Hi Mike,
Thanks for compiling the commentary. Although, I don’t agree with the cannibalisation/poaching point - noting I’m not trying to pick an argument with you.
To take a simplistic hypothetical, if company A sells 2 products - 1 and 2 - and I decide that I want to buy product 2, because it meets my needs/wants better than product 1, have I really ‘poached’ from product 1? I’ve got what I want, and company A has made a sale and has my money.
I’m happy to be edumacated if there’s more to it than this.
Posted by: Not THAT Ross Cameron | Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 11:52 PM
Mike- I am pretty sure this new Nikon system is very nice and all but just taking for granted validation from a Nikon Ambassador paid by the company- what else but glowing praise to expect? As good as he is as a photographer. The psychology behind a conflict of interest is well researched even when people mean well.
So not saying to ignore all info coming out but to not take all claims for granted.
Posted by: Ricardo | Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 02:38 AM
"That marketing book I was talking about the other day says the number one Law of Marketing is to be first in a category: "it's better to be first than it is to be better."
Apple might beg to differ given the success of the iPod/iPhone!
Posted by: Phil Aynsley | Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 03:41 AM
What Nikon has done is to legitimize mirrorless cameras as serious gear. Ther was always this feeling (just read the camera fanboy pages) that somehow you weren't a "real" photographer with mirrorless. There has to be a considerable proportion of those Canikon dslr sales that come from this market segment. While Nikon and Canon will bite into Sony sales, Sony sales will still probably continue to rise as the combined mirrorless market rips into the dslr sales.
Posted by: Mike Fewster | Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 04:40 AM
I think the most potentially interesting camera this year would be the Fuji GFX 50R. I understand it's supposed to be a rangefinder style version of the GFX 50S at a lower price. It's still a price I would not be able to afford but it might be $1000 to $1500 less than the top priced Sony/Nikon. My guess is that most of the people who can afford a $3500 camera can afford a $4500/$5000 camera (which I might add already has a good selection of lenses). That would give Fuji two cameras priced between the top end Nikon/Canon/Sony models and Leica. For low volume, high price sales, that might be a better place to be.
Posted by: Stanleyk | Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 07:18 AM
I meant to write:
"That would give Fuji two cameras priced between the top end Nikon/Canon/Sony models and Leica."
Posted by: Stanleyk | Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 07:20 AM
Does anyone know if the camera will shoot 1:1, 16:9, and 4:3? One of the only reasons I bought into M4/3 is that it shot multiple formats, I believe the Sony's do NOT shoot 1:1 or 4:3, which made me cross it off my list immediately. (BTW, I think both new Nikons shoot native .tiff as well, finally, so they must be targeted to pros).
As a long time pro, who mostly shot sheet film and Hasselblad for cash, I cannot tell you the hate I have for the 35mm aspect ratio. I also can't read one more comment about how 35mm is the "golden mean" or the "perfect aspect", or any other nonsense gobbledegook.
I recently walked around with my old Pana G3, shooting native square 1:1 pics of people in their gardens...pure joy at shooting like I was using a Rollei or Mamiya 6
Posted by: Andy Umbo | Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 07:29 AM
I’m a long time Nikon shooter with the requisite closet full of Nikkors - I think I’ve only disposed of two or three lenses since the late 70s. I’ve also dabbled in a fair number of mirrorless systems in the last few years, but with the exception of my XP2 (which I use as a M supplement, not a DSLR replacement) none of them have really stuck.
I see the Z line as replacing all my unused minor mirrorless systems by offering familiarity and great compatibility with my existing lenses. I only have two AF lenses that aren’t AF-S, and those will remain the domain of my DSLRs for action work - not what I would be using the Z for, anyways. I see the Z6 as being a potential great generalist body supplementing my DSLRs. I’m hoping they develop a S Line 70-200/4, I really don’t want to weigh myself down with speed glass - again, that’s for my DSLRs.
There is another I’ve waited to see what Nikon was going to do before I went full frame mirrorless (not counting my M here) - my distrust of Sony. I have been repeatedly screwed by Sony dropping support for different product ranges I’ve invested into over the years when they change corporate direction. A few that come to mind are Betamax, Minidisc, Vaio computers, their little dye-sub printers, and most recently NEX (this one still pisses me off.) Yes, I bought an RX10 last year as an all-in-one for my honeymoon, but that was an exception. Yes, Nikon drops support on products, too - but Sony is a serial offender.
Posted by: Ken Ford | Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 12:14 PM
I hate to bring this up (well, not really) but is it called the Zee system or the Zed system?
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 01:37 PM
Kodak are the classic example of where being first is only an advantage if you capitalise on it. They practically invented the digital camera.
IBM made the first real PC, but were never a major player in the PC market and are no longer even a major tech innovator. More of a glorified services company that never predicted the demise of the mainframe.
Since the departure of Bill Gates, Microsoft has sat on its monopoly in the business OS market and done almost nothing of note, apart from outsourcing the manufacture of some badly designed hardware.
A more salient point is that most companies seldom survive the demise of the person(s) who founded them by more than a decade. Once the single-mindedness of the founder is no longer there to take risks and innovate, the bureaucracy that replaces them rides along on momentum, only to be crash at the first bend in the road.
Once your innovation becomes a cash cow, it's very tempting to sit back and milk it.
Posted by: Steve Jacob | Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 10:18 PM
...the number one Law of Marketing is to be first in a category: "it's better to be first than it is to be better."
I guess that's why everyone is still using Word Perfect and Lotus 1-2-3 instead of Microsoft Office.
Posted by: Bruce Rubenstein | Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 10:36 PM
For me, all things being equal, it's (1) weight (lack of), (2) size (ditto), and (3) lens mount / lenses. I was thinking of moving from my now almost decade old D3/D4 DSLRs to Sony A7RIII because I no longer shoot sports, and I wanted the mpxs and weight reduction all in one (I looked at MF - GFX and XD1 - but the gains on MF image EQ is too incremental for the trade-offs). Nikon's tease-vertising must have worked on me because I waited for the release (harking back to Mike's earlier posts). Since (a) the Zs seem to be comparable in size and weigh to the A7RIII (within 50g or so), (b) I have a bag full of Nikon lenses, and (c) hence, I can hang onto a DSLR as a second body for them (saving the immediate cost of a second Z), I've put myself down for a Z7 and all 3 Z lenses. I do wish Nikon's lens map had some smaller and lighter primes -even if slower and MF - Zeiss or Voigtlander Z mount anyone?
Posted by: Bear. | Monday, 27 August 2018 at 02:30 AM
Above all things the tool should conform to the users needs. If the need changes or it does not meet the need then the tool should be changed. So if that is the imperative why is a mirror-less camera body better than one with a mirror? That is the question that each photographer should ask themselves.
Posted by: Mahn England | Monday, 27 August 2018 at 05:41 AM
(You added it to the post, so I’m commenting on it, not another commenter. :)
Which directly contradicts #1. If what matters is perception (and I would agree, it is), then it doesn’t matter if I am first, it matters if they think I’m first. And what causes them to think I’m first?
That I’m better (in ways that matter to them.)
Ergo, ipso facto, QED, etc. being better is more important than being first, if you’re better in ways that matter to the target market, and if you’re enough better to make them forget who was first.
Posted by: Vince | Monday, 27 August 2018 at 09:56 AM
I’m keen to replace my D800 mainly because I find the bulk of the camera and lenses limits my enjoyment of their use.
I’m no lens expert but surely the reduced flange distance should allow Nikon to create some small f2.8 (or even f4) prime lenses without compromising image quality. The stabilisation of the sensor and low light sensitivity will more than compensate for the loss of f stops and if the photo software manufacturers can keep up with the smartphone coders then apparent depth of field and Bokeh will be able to be adjusted to taste in post-processing (if required).
Posted by: Guy Toner | Monday, 27 August 2018 at 10:35 AM
It will be interesting to see how this ultimate IQ strategy plays out for Nikon. There is already a well-established FF system with comparable resolution and a good range of extremely fine lenses.
Nikon is in a tough position here, not wanting to alienate their base, but needing to compete with existing products that are arguably equal or perhaps even superior.
We are way past the point of sufficiency here, and while there is always room to improve, at some point one has to ask "Why?"
Posted by: Tom Hassler | Monday, 27 August 2018 at 01:03 PM
Now if that isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is, considering that Voigtländer makes a slew of 35mm lenses with far, far better bokeh. I'm not going to mention the "L-word," because it is crazy-making. The Fuji X variants (for my money the X100 is amazing) have better bokeh.
And boy howdy, that is one big lens! And it's only an f1.8? I'm afraid that Nikon is at second and thirty with their foray into mirrorless cameras.
Posted by: Maggie Osterberg | Monday, 27 August 2018 at 01:16 PM
Re: Won't Some Wait? Mike, from here on the working side of photography let me offer this admittedly myopic view of new camera technology. The only thing that makes economic sense for me, in my business, is to by the newest camera immediately when it comes out. This is driven by two factors. One is that that the lifespan of the latest technology in cameras is two (maybe three) years I have a limited time to use the camera before something better is out there. Second is that the expense of the camera pales compared to the expense of getting to the places where I'm going to be taking pictures. I really can't afford to be investing lots of money going someplace and then take the pictures with anything less than the latest technology. And given that getting just one really great picture can easily pay (over time) for the entire cost of the camera system I can't afford to risk missing that image. (And believe me, I've missed some in my time.) I know I'm in a real minority and this logic totally falls apart for most sane photographers, but there it is. My logic: buy it immediately and use it to death.
Posted by: Jim Richardson | Monday, 27 August 2018 at 02:25 PM
@Andy "Does anyone know if the camera will shoot 1:1, 16:9, and 4:3?"
The Z6 will shoot at 3:2 (FX and DX), 1:1, and 16:9.
The Z7 will additionally shoot at 5:4.
The source is Nikon's own page for the cameras:
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-cameras/z-7.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-cameras/z-6.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs
Posted by: Kostas | Monday, 27 August 2018 at 07:22 PM
Mike,
A question I have about the Nikon release regards Nikon's ability to deliver the product. B&H has had the D-850 listed as "back ordered" since it was released and is still doing so today. The Zeee7 is supposed to be available end of September and the Zeeee6 at the end of November. If you were not the first one to arrive at the party, wouldn't you be ready to deliver when you did arrive? Why make this HUGE media release and not have the cake ready to serve?
Cheers
Ray
Posted by: Ray Hunter | Monday, 27 August 2018 at 10:57 PM
Two card slots a deal-breaker? As designer I worked with many, many different professional photographers. Can’t prove it but I got the impression that their artistic level was usually inversely proportional with the number of exposures they needed to solve the problem. My favorite portrait photographer for example always made only two exposures on sheet film. Then she gave one to me. The second, similar one, was just for back-up.
Posted by: s.wolters | Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 06:10 AM
The size comparison between the FUJI GFX Medium format and the NIKON mirroless has convinced me or at least peaked my interest to investigate Medium Format Digital. I have 3 Hasselblad lenses from my film days so all I need is the adapter for the GFX and I have a great system that beats the NIKON in both image quality and cost. I guess you can make the argument to wait for the Hasselblad adapter for the NIKON but I still think for landscape photography the FUJI will still be better than the NIKON.
Posted by: Peter Komar | Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 09:10 AM
I am a Canon-user. Have not seen any estimates about timing of Canon's entry into FF mirrorless. When are they expected to announce and reveal?
Posted by: Kurt Kramer | Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 11:39 AM
People expecting short flat rangefinder style wide angles are going to be disappointed, since regardless of flange distance, telecentricty is critical to any digital sensor. And you wont get that with pancake style non-retrofocus wide angle or even slightly wide angle (eg. 40mm) lenses. So, expect lenses to be at least as big/long as typical so-called full frame lenses are now for mirrored slrs.
Posted by: Jim | Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 09:16 PM