Is Nikon discontinuing DX DSLRs?

Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
29,337
Location
Moscow, Idaho
A good point, Mike; at my age, back in the autumn of 2019 I realized that I didn't really have time wait around for Nikon to cough up the native mirrorless lenses I wanted. I'd been waffling around long enough as it was. Why wait any longer when I was able to switch to Sony and get exactly what I wanted when I was ready to make my decision and my purchases? I've been enjoying that A7R IV and those long lenses and macro lenses now for a year and a half.....
I got my Z6, 50, f/1.8, and 24-70, f/4 and my FTZ back in mid June 2019. I got my Z7 in Mid 2020, and have been enjoying myself beyond belief ever since—without needing to put down any brand! :rolleyes:
 
Just to make it clear, if Nikon had already had available what I wanted at the time I was ready to make an important purchase I would have stayed with Nikon. I'll always have a warm spot in my heart for Nikon, as I had been using their cameras and lenses for many years.

However, Nikon did not offer the native mirrorless lenses I wanted and I was not willing to compromise with the FTZ adapter, which wouldn't have worked with a lot of my lenses. That was a significant factor in my decision-making. So I assessed the situation and made the choice which was right for me, my shooting style and preferences.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
990
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Both Nikon and Canon waited too long to bring out their FX/FF mirrorless cameras.
They let Sony get too far ahead.
And when they had to make the switch, it was the entire landscape, cameras and lenses.
I remember the early Sony days when people were complaining about the lack of Sony lenses.​
The situation has flipped. It is now Nikon and Canon with a lack of native mirrorless lenses.​
Nikon HAD TO make the FTZ to bridge the lens gap while they came out with more Z lenses. Canon did same with their EF to R adapter.

Yeah, a big issue with Nikon is the mechanical AF lenses. The FTZ does not support them, so if you have many of them, you are stuck. You either keep going with the dSLRs so you can use the lenses, or go mirrorless and replace the lenses.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
985
Location
MN, USA
Just to make it clear, if Nikon had already had available what I wanted at the time I was ready to make an important purchase I would have stayed with Nikon. I'll always have a warm spot in my heart for Nikon, as I had been using their cameras and lenses for many years.

However, Nikon did not offer the native mirrorless lenses I wanted and I was not willing to compromise with the FTZ adapter, which wouldn't have worked with a lot of my lenses. That was a significant factor in my decision-making. So I assessed the situation and made the choice which was right for me, my shooting style and preferences.
Makes sense to me.
My cousin always tells me 'There's a reason shrouds don't have pockets.'
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
985
Location
MN, USA
Both Nikon and Canon waited too long to bring out their FX/FF mirrorless cameras.
They let Sony get too far ahead.
And when they had to make the switch, it was the entire landscape, cameras and lenses.
I remember the early Sony days when people were complaining about the lack of Sony lenses.​
The situation has flipped. It is now Nikon and Canon with a lack of native mirrorless lenses.​
Nikon HAD TO make the FTZ to bridge the lens gap while they came out with more Z lenses. Canon did same with their EF to R adapter.

Yeah, a big issue with Nikon is the mechanical AF lenses. The FTZ does not support them, so if you have many of them, you are stuck. You either keep going with the dSLRs so you can use the lenses, or go mirrorless and replace the lenses.
So you don't have autofocus . . . The fact is that Nikon has always been a kind of patchwork of fully and partially compatible bodies and lenses here.

People might just as well complain about the flip side - that they can't use these remarkable S lenses on their existing D bodies and the plain answer is that the mechanical and electrical interfaces are different. Technological innovation begets obsolescence. And in other news, I can't read my 8" floppy discs on my Mac . . .
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
And in other news, I can't read my 8" floppy discs on my Mac . . .
Methinks you are not trying hard enough.
:)
Let’s start from the beginning, is it a DEC or an IBM?
Seriously, using CF cards with my MBP 2019 is a pain.
So much so that I rely on my iPhone more now.
Cameras without connectivity are a hassle!
 
Both Nikon and Canon waited too long to bring out their FX/FF mirrorless cameras.
They let Sony get too far ahead.
And when they had to make the switch, it was the entire landscape, cameras and lenses.
I remember the early Sony days when people were complaining about the lack of Sony lenses.​
The situation has flipped. It is now Nikon and Canon with a lack of native mirrorless lenses.​
Nikon HAD TO make the FTZ to bridge the lens gap while they came out with more Z lenses. Canon did same with their EF to R adapter.

Yeah, a big issue with Nikon is the mechanical AF lenses. The FTZ does not support them, so if you have many of them, you are stuck. You either keep going with the dSLRs so you can use the lenses, or go mirrorless and replace the lenses.

Sony did a pretty smart thing -- they worked out deals with other lens manufacturers to help them fill in the gaps in the beginning -- Zeiss, Voigtlander and others stepped up to the plate and offered options so that people who wanted to get into the Sony mirrorless system had some lenses to use which would take them beyond just what Sony itself was making. So even at that point when Sony was not yet ready to release, say a macro lens, they still could offer a macro lens or two with E-mount anyway, thanks to the other manufacturers. By the time Sony was ready to hit its stride with bringing out additional mirrorless camera body options in both APS-C and Full-Frame formats, they also had a good selection of lenses, both their own and those from other manufacturers, to offer as well.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
990
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
So you don't have autofocus . . . The fact is that Nikon has always been a kind of patchwork of fully and partially compatible bodies and lenses here.

People might just as well complain about the flip side - that they can't use these remarkable S lenses on their existing D bodies and the plain answer is that the mechanical and electrical interfaces are different. Technological innovation begets obsolescence. And in other news, I can't read my 8" floppy discs on my Mac . . .

THAT is one of the reasons.
When I buy a lens for my D7200, I have to check the compatibility table. That I have to do that is nuts.
The F mount is standard, but all the different ways the lens communicates with the camera, is the problem.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
29,337
Location
Moscow, Idaho
THAT is one of the reasons.
When I buy a lens for my D7200, I have to check the compatibility table. That I have to do that is nuts.
The F mount is standard, but all the different ways the lens communicates with the camera, is the problem.
Me thinks the users are the problem . . . :p, or should I say, the NON-users! :)
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
20,436
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
all the different ways the lens communicates with the camera, is the problem.
When I buy gasoline for my car, all of it runs the engine. I have to look up the information in my car's manual about which one will run my car most effectively. When I buy a nut to go on a bolt, I have to look up which nuts will fit. Worse than that, only some of the nuts that fit will meet my needs. When I buy flour, all of the products will work just fine when baking cakes and cookies but I have to look up the information that determines which flour will be compatible with the needs of my friend who has celiac disease. The list goes on and on.

If it bothers you to look up which lenses support the capabilities you're looking for, maybe don't bother ever buying any flash equipment because you'll encounter the same issue among all manufacturers.

I feel the variety of ways the lenses communicate with the camera provides me all sorts of choices with regard to type of use, cost, and results. That benefits me, not hinders me.
 
Last edited:
Actually, BOTH matter. A good photographer can get amazing images out of just about any kind of gear, even a pinhole camera. It's about the skill set, the technique, the innate creativity, etc., etc. Just using a top-of-the-line "flagship" camera and top-of-the-line "flagship" lenses is no guarantee that someone will bring home stellar images.

At the same time, the gear is important when one wants to achieve specific results -- I cannot stand on my deck and use my iPhone to shoot a couple of geese way up at the other end of the lake near the fountain and expect to see the geese as anything but tiny little dots floating on the water. I also wouldn't get much in the way of a view of the gees with my 35mm f/1.8 lens (the widest interchangeable lens I have). I also cannot put the 200-600mm lens on the tripod on the deck and shoot a nice all-encompassing wide-angle view of the end of the lake, the buildings there, etc. I can, however, yes, use that long lens to zoom in on those two geese and come back with reasonably nice closeup views of them. By the same token, someone who wants to shoot in low-light situations or indoors without supplementary flash needs and wants a fast lens with f/1.2, f/1.4 or f/1.8 apertures, as a "kit" lens with 3.5mm or 4.5mm just isn't going to cut the mustard. Sure, we are all able to benefit somewhat from the fact that we can go higher with ISO these days than we could in the past, but there are still limits to that.

The photographer matters.
The gear also matters.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
Actually, BOTH matter. A good photographer can get amazing images out of just about any kind of gear, even a pinhole camera. It's about the skill set, the technique, the innate creativity, etc., etc. Just using a top-of-the-line "flagship" camera and top-of-the-line "flagship" lenses is no guarantee that someone will bring home stellar images.

At the same time, the gear is important when one wants to achieve specific results -- I cannot stand on my deck and use my iPhone to shoot a couple of geese way up at the other end of the lake near the fountain and expect to see the geese as anything but tiny little dots floating on the water. I also wouldn't get much in the way of a view of the gees with my 35mm f/1.8 lens (the widest interchangeable lens I have). I also cannot put the 200-600mm lens on the tripod on the deck and shoot a nice all-encompassing wide-angle view of the end of the lake, the buildings there, etc. I can, however, yes, use that long lens to zoom in on those two geese and come back with reasonably nice closeup views of them. By the same token, someone who wants to shoot in low-light situations or indoors without supplementary flash needs and wants a fast lens with f/1.2, f/1.4 or f/1.8 apertures, as a "kit" lens with 3.5mm or 4.5mm just isn't going to cut the mustard. Sure, we are all able to benefit somewhat from the fact that we can go higher with ISO these days than we could in the past, but there are still limits to that.

The photographer matters.
The gear also matters.
And I would add the software, processing power and AI becomes more and more important.
 
Good point, Morty! Yes, I think improvements over the past several years in image editing software and processing power of computers also have made a difference so that at times we are able to rescue an image that a few years ago would've immediately been binned because it was lacking in some way and not salvageable. With today's editing tools and computers we do have more opportunity to work with our images and get results which can make an otherwise ordinary image look pretty good. That said, though, again editing and retouching is a whole new skill set in and of itself, too.....
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
Good point, Morty! Yes, I think improvements over the past several years in image editing software and processing power of computers also has made a difference so that at times we are able to rescue an image that a few years ago would've immediately been binned because it was lacking in some way and not salvageable. With today's editing tools and computers we do have more opportunity to work with our images and get results which can make an otherwise ordinary image look pretty good. That said, though, again editing and retouching is a whole new skill set in and of itself, too.....
I was thinking of the dedicated imaging capabilities of smartphones :)
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom