You are right. The problem with me is that I can see fine for everything apart from "reading" distances. Without a viewfinder that I can adjust to my sight I would be spending whatever on a "point and hope" rather than a "point and shoot". Nikon isn't exactly alone in excluding everyone like me.I'm in agreement. A viewfinder is essential for me. But it seems most people today, whose experience of photography is likely exclusively with cellphones, aren't used to viewfinders and maybe won't miss one. Whenever I hand my camera to someone else -- in a restaurant, for example -- they invariably hold it out in front of them and use the LCD screen to shoot.
Can't see 'em in bright light and I have to dig out my reading glasses.I find a LCD frustrating to use. Hard to hold it steady with your arms stretched out, hard to see it any closer, hard to get things square and parallel. On a tripod it's different, and useful, but I must prefer a viewfinder. The Z6 has a great one.
I agree. The DX (cropped sensor) seems counter intuitive given that the Z lens opening is larger than the F-mount lens opening. Does this imply they will have Z DX lenses?Why would Nikon make a DX Z camera? There is no logic in Nikon going down that route IMHO.
Put that way, it makes eminent sense to me. Yes, I won't every buy or recommend one, but you are probably right; there is a market our there for such a small beast. Thanks for the gentle nudge toward realityThe problem is that you guys are thinking in terms of the camera. Think in terms of markets. Like it or not, I'd guess that 95% of people taking photos these days use their phone. Scrunching your eye up to peer through a lens is as quaint to them as using a rotary dial. Holding a device up and looking at a screen is how you are 'suppose to' do it.
DX is a different market. It is perceived to be the little brother to the full frame even through the production costs - at least the start-up costs - may be similar. And because it is perceived to be 'lesser', it will be priced lower and that is going to bring in (hopefully) some of the price-sensitive buyers. I'm pretty sure that Nikon would gladly accept expanding their market in exchange for a lower margin - particularly if it funnels customers into the Nikon ecosystem- that is there may be downstream revenue that they might not otherwise capture.
DX has other benefits. I think of it as a 1.5 teleconverter that doesn't take away a stop- or a smaller, cheaper back-up that uses the same lenses and battery (hopefully).
Just look at the last 6 years of CIPA sales records. Anything, literally anything, that you can do to keep you in the game is what these companies are going to do.
I get that it seems counter-intuitive to expand your lens mount and shrink your sensor
I think the concept of "just revamping the existing" is easier said than done. Not mention pulling out the SLR parts, including the OVF, is still an engineering and retools process. If you have to do that anyway than what do you gain that using the adapter doesn't already do for you? Sure you might be able to reuse some of the D parts, but buy using some of the Z parts you spread those costs out.I just don't get why Nikon would make a Z (DX) range, if they want to get the vloggers then revamp the existing DX range of cameras and create a specific vloggers camera from one of those models. The existing DX range is good, there are some great sensors out there so use them with some useful ultra wide to short telephoto lenses, 8k video, no viewfinder, external mic sockets etc.