Yikes!Maybe I should just jump ship and get a Fuji GFX 50R or 50S whilst my gear still has some value,
I buy, own and use my cameras and lenses to create pictures that I value. Value of the equipment be damned!
Yikes!Maybe I should just jump ship and get a Fuji GFX 50R or 50S whilst my gear still has some value,
Probably right on the pop up, but I think an EVF would be better than a flash.I can imagine this will be Nikon’s first “entry level” Z body. The rumor holds that there will be a provision for a hot shoe mounted evf, so that would solve one set of problems. The mystery area on the top plate would likely be a pop-up flash.
I personally have no interest in a DX body, but (as long as there is no holdup releasing fx lenses) I have no issue with a DX version being available.
I suspect if Nikon really wants to cover both formats with the Z series, we have a few exciting reveals coming between now and the Olympics.
HaHa, yes like most people I buy to use not as an investment, but I have invested my money into Nikon so would like think that there is retained value going forward.Yikes!
I buy, own and use my cameras and lenses to create pictures that I value. Value of the equipment be damned!
The body costs less than $900. Not higher-end in my mind.I don't get why not an integrated EVF for a higher end camera.
I did not find the pricing, or skipped past it to the specs.The body costs less than $900. Not higher-end in my mind.
I have been commenting for some time about the lack of communication from Nikon on their Z range of lenses it really is very poor.My concern for Nikon at this point is the very slow pace of projection for the Z series and a tangible lack of transparency in their plans. If Nikon is to remain anything other than a niche player, they are going to have to treat the market like a 21st century reality instead of a 20th century memory. Consumers (professional and amateur alike) need to know where things are headed. Nikon desperately needs to issue a statement along the lines of “Hey! We have some serious artillery planned for the Olympics. Watch for the fireworks!” I believe that without at least one f4 400-600mm Z mount lens (or at least a 300/2.8) and a Z body sitting parallel with the D5/6 that there will be a strong movement in the pro sports shooter pool away from Nikon. They need to start showing the world that Nikon is capable of not only competing with Canon and Sony in the milc arena, but blowing them out of the water.
First they need to release the lenses the pros desperatly are waiting for like the traditional 70-200/2.8So why can't Nikon open its mind to new lenses, lenses which break a mould not just replicate tradition
Martin, do you care to share a link to this 15-135mm f/2.8 lens you're talking about?This week I saw that Canon have released new RF lenses including a 15-135/f2.8 for around £2400, pricey yes but what a great walkabout lens, and it has IS which some of the RF lenses have been missing.
There is definitely too much overlap between the released and announced offerings.If Nikon release a 24mm prime lens this year there will be 4 Z mount lenses covering 24mm, why doe we need 4 lenses covering the 24mm focal length Nikon?
A couple friends who are interested in getting into photography after a long hiatus have asked my gear buying advice lately. Most formerly shot Canon, and know that I'm loyal to Nikon. All are surprised when I recommend neither. My rationale is that if you don't have any existing ties to a system, the best currently-available choice for building a FF kit from the ground up is Sony. Between Sony's lineup of consumer grade, GM, and Zeiss optics, plus the high functionality of their various Alpha bodies, I can't justify recommending Nikon to someone who doesn't already have plenty of F-mount glass.If you want a robust, developed mirrorless system then look at Sony. For years they took beatings from the CaNikon crowd about "look how thin their lens line-up is", but it seems as if the shoe is on the other foot now: Sony has an extensive lens portfolio, whereas Canon and Nikon are stuck playing catch-up.
I agree with you. I would have gone Sony mirrorless if I didn't already have Nikon glass to use on the FTZ. But, I am very happy with my Z6.There is definitely too much overlap between the released and announced offerings.
A couple friends who are interested in getting into photography after a long hiatus have asked my gear buying advice lately. Most formerly shot Canon, and know that I'm loyal to Nikon. All are surprised when I recommend neither. My rationale is that if you don't have any existing ties to a system, the best currently-available choice for building a FF kit from the ground up is Sony. Between Sony's lineup of consumer grade, GM, and Zeiss optics, plus the high functionality of their various Alpha bodies, I can't justify recommending Nikon to someone who doesn't already have plenty of F-mount glass.
Screen shot of the e-mail I received from Park Cameras in the UK, I didn't click on the link just took the info at face value, when you follow the link I find that the e-mail has a small typo, it should read 15-35mmMartin, do you care to share a link to this 15-135mm f/2.8 lens you're talking about?
I think you're talking about the 15-35 f/2.8, which comes in at 840g and $2,300. Meanwhile, Nikon's 14-30 f/4 comes in at 485g and $1,300.
That extra stop isn't important to me, so I'd rather save the 355g in my bag and $1,000 in my wallet. Canon's system is of zero interest to me because nearly all of their lenses are uber-expensive which I can't afford, are large and heavy which makes packing and carrying them a pain, and get put on a camera that is very mediocre IMO.
If you want a robust, developed mirrorless system then look at Sony. For years they took beatings from the CaNikon crowd about "look how thin their lens line-up is", but it seems as if the shoe is on the other foot now: Sony has an extensive lens portfolio, whereas Canon and Nikon are stuck playing catch-up.