Nikon Z series Crop and Full frame Mirrorless - Z 5/6/7/50 and beyond (1 Viewer)

[Sam Posten]

I think I am contractually obligated to get this (And I have preordered at B&H). It's comparatively inexpensive and super powerful for the price...





https://nikonrumors.com/2019/10/10/nikon-z50-mirrorless-aps-c-camera-officially-announced.aspx/

https://nikonrumors.com/2019/10/10/...attery-pack-now-available-for-pre-order.aspx/

https://nikonrumors.com/2019/10/10/nikon-z50-camera-additional-coverage.aspx/



https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1511273-REG/nikon_1633_z_50_mirrorless_digital.html

https://www.amateurphotographer.co....have-to-sacrifice-size-and-form-factor-131940

 

[Sam Posten]

 

[Sam Posten]

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews...cember-2019-newsv/nikon-z50-announcement.html

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews...2019-newsv/my-view-on-the-nikon-announ-2.html

http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/c...ess-cameras/reader-questions-about-the-2.html

http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/camera-database/nikon-z-mirrorless-cameras/nikon-z50.html

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Go for it, Sam! An APS-C sensor size mirrorless body is very handy to have. I really like my Canon M50 mirrorless, and have been taking it on more and more trips in lieu of my larger full-sized DSLR bodies. I can fit an entire kit with body, 11-22mm, 15-45mm, 55-200mm and 22mm f/2 pancake lenses (plus accessories) in a small 8.5" x 9" x 6" shoulder bag.

It's funny that one of the selling points of these bodies is the ability to attach full frame lenses to the body. I have the adapter to do this for my M50 (it was under $50), but rarely use the adapter. It defeats one of the main attractions to the body -- its small, light weight size. Instead, all the lenses I listed above are EF-M lenses designed specifically for the body. If I brought my equivalent full-sized EF lenses, I would be weighted down with a much larger and heavier backpack.

Another great use for these smaller bodies is for carrying two bodies to reduce the number of lens changes. When we were in Iceland this summer, I would carry my M50 with either the 11-22mm or 15-45mm lens mounted, depending on whether I was also carrying my full frame 5D3 + EF 24-105mm or crop 7D2 + 70-200mm. I could also slip another EF-M lens in a pocket if I needed both the 11-22mm and 15-45mm to go with the 7D2 + 70-200mm combo.

I highly recommend one of these Spider Black Widow Holsters for carrying the body + mounted lens. It slips on your belt, the body attaches securely via a pin inserted in the tripod mount, and you cannot even feel the camera while hiking.

 

[JohnRice]

You need to fix the thread title to say Z 50, instead of 5

 

[Sam Posten]

No idea how that happened. thanks.

The naysayer:

 

[Sam Posten]

but rarely use the adapter.

I need it for Macro more than anything. Putting on the 70-300 will be a bonus. I have yet to order the FTR adapter, will probably do that too tho.

I highly recommend one of these Spider Black Widow Holsters for carrying the body + mounted lens. It slips on your belt, the body attaches securely via a pin inserted in the tripod mount, and you cannot even feel the camera while hiking.

I'm obese and my fat is centered in my belly region so belts don't work for me, but thanks! This guy will permanently be attached to a Black Rapid R strap.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

No idea how that happened. thanks.

The naysayer:

I do agree with him about the large body and mount size of this model. My Canon M50 and associated lenses are quite a bit smaller, which is the main reason I really like using the camera. If it wasn't much smaller than my DSLR, then it wouldn't really be that useful to me.

 

[Sam Posten]

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z50-initial-review-what-s-new-how-it-compares

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3...nikon-z50-and-its-16-50mm-and-50-250mm-lenses

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4178727265/what-the-z50-tells-us-about-nikon-s-aps-c-strategy

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/18...d-camera-but-this-may-not-be-enough-for-nikon

 

[Sam Posten]

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-z50-z-50-dx-hands-on-review---sample-photos-34089

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I need it for Macro more than anything. Putting on the 70-300 will be a bonus. I have yet to order the FTR adapter, will probably do that too tho.

I'm obese and my fat is centered in my belly region so belts don't work for me, but thanks! This guy will permanently be attached to a Black Rapid R strap.

I only use my adapter with my Sigma macro lens, too, so I understand where you are coming from. I did take the M50 + adapter +EF 70-200mm f/4 lens to the zoo once, but it didn't really offload enough weight versus my 7D2 + 70-200mm to make it worthwhile. Attaching my EF 100-400mm lens to the M50 just looks silly, IMO.

If the body was small enough, a cheap wrist strap would work, too. I have something like this just so I don't drop the camera when holding it. A Black Rapid shoulder strap is overkill in size for how I use such a small body.

 

[Sam Posten]

If the body was small enough, a cheap wrist strap would work, too. I have something like this just so I don't drop the camera when holding it. A Black Rapid shoulder strap is overkill in size for how I use such a small body.

Yes, that may work perfectly for me too. This body will permanently stay in my car as a replacement for my broken Alpha 6000, and I use a leather strap on that. I don't keep my DSLRs and lenses in the car and I hate being stuck out of home without something more flexible than an iPhone, so a sub $1k camera is a must for me. It gets a lot of rough and tumble use and I'm ok with that!

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Just for comparison sake, here are a couple of side by side shots of my M50 + EF-M 11-22mm and 5D3 + EF 16-35mm f/4 bodies, so they have pretty equivalent lenses for field of view. I'm not sure you will get this big of a size difference with that Nikon.

 

[JohnRice]

Wow. 5xxx series price. I didn’t expect that. This is NOT the same as the M50. We’re talking D500 performance here, from what I can tell. I know they’re comparing to the D7500, but aside from the single card, it does seem to be more in line with the D500.

The mount decision indicates this is not meant to be a super compact camera, which leads me to believe they might still introduce a lower line with its own mount eventually.

 

[JohnRice]

It's funny that one of the selling points of these bodies is the ability to attach full frame lenses to the body. I have the adapter to do this for my M50 (it was under $50), but rarely use the adapter. It defeats one of the main attractions to the body -- its small, light weight size. Instead, all the lenses I listed above are EF-M lenses designed specifically for the body. If I brought my equivalent full-sized EF lenses, I would be weighted down with a much larger and heavier backpack.

That's two different things Scott. Using the larger mount doesn't make the lenses larger, though it does give it a larger diameter. In reality, it might allow them to be much shorter. Look at the kit zoom, for example. For "real world" compactness, it's shortness is significantly more "packable" than the M50 with similar lens you included in your comparison photo, even though the M50 body is smaller. The Nikon lens, when retracted, is no deeper than the grip on the body.

Plus, I find deep grips are preferable, for me at least. The D5500 I got a while back is significantly more comfortable than the D7100 I had a few years ago, even though the D7100 is bigger. To me, small cameras can be uncomfortable to use. The D500, for me again, is the most comfortable SLR I've probably ever used.

 

[JohnRice]

No idea how that happened. thanks.

The naysayer

Unfortunately, Tony is becoming as dense as Rockwell. #3 on his list is true, but what do you expect? A complete lens line all at one time?

Anyone who buys a D850 and is such a moron as to not know what lenses to use with it is their own worst enemy. I have zero sympathy for them. Learn some stinking fundamentals.

 

[Sam Posten]

Thanks for that comparison @Scott Merryfield - Again my interest is juiced not just by the size but the combination of size and IQ over cost. I'll likely get a 40Macro to try and that may be my walkaround combo, depending on how unwieldy the converter is.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

That's two different things Scott. Using the larger mount doesn't make the lenses larger, though it does give it a larger diameter. In reality, it might allow them to be much shorter. Look at the kit zoom, for example. For "real world" compactness, it's shortness is significantly more "packable" than the M50 with similar lens you included in your comparison photo, even though the M50 body is smaller. The Nikon lens, when retracted, is no deeper than the grip on the body.

Plus, I find deep grips are preferable, for me at least. The D5500 I got a while back is significantly more comfortable than the D7100 I had a few years ago, even though the D7100 is bigger. To me, small cameras can be uncomfortable to use. The D500, for me again, is the most comfortable SLR I've probably ever used.

John, I was referring more to the adapters that allow a person to mount older, full-size lenses to these smaller bodies. That's what doesn't make a lot of sense to me with a compact, crop sensor mirrorless body. I am not familiar with Nikon's lenses for their new mirrorless mount, to be honest. With Canon, so far the new lenses for their full frame mirrorless EOS R have not really been smaller than their old EF mount equivalents. That doesn't mean that something like you describe with Nikon isn't coming from Canon down the line.

I agree with you that this isn't really meant to be a very compact camera solution, based on the mount used. How does it's size compare with Nikon's full frame mirrorless?

 

[JohnRice]

With Canon, so far the new lenses for their full frame mirrorless EOS R have not really been smaller than their old EF mount equivalents.

What I was trying to say is you were mixing issues. You mentioned that it didn't make sense that Nikon would use the same mount on the crop mirrorless as the full frame, but then you backed it up referring to the mount adapter for SLR lenses. What I was saying is, those are two different things. There's no inherent reason a lens will be smaller for a mirrorless camera than an SLR. So, there is a major rub for the whole "smaller" argument with mirrorless. The camera body can be smaller, but a 200-600 f/4 lens (for example) is going to be fairly large, no matter what, simply because it has to be. Or, a 50mm f/1.4. It's going to be a certain size. So, now you have this tiny little body, but big lenses, if you want fast/long lenses. That's not a good balance to me.

Lenses also need to have mechanics in them, especially zooms. So, by making the lens diameter larger on the mirrorless DX camera, those mechanics can go out rather than forward, allowing the lens to be shorter, and especially retract back to something really short, which you see in the 16-50mm. Unfortunately, Tony Northrop has exposed a severe ignorance of lens design that surprises me. I had no idea Nikon had a DX mirrorless coming, and I was a little surprised to see them use that huge mount, but there's a lot of positives to it. For once, Nikon is actually being more forward thinking than Canon in this area.

Personally, I am glad Nikon doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator regarding their lens flexibility. The arguments against their approach are completely limited to catering to ignorance. In the coming years I suspect and hope the benefits of their choosing the same mount for both FX and DX will be revealed. Stupid, ignorant people with a lot of dollars and zero interest in understanding the most simple concepts are simply not to be factored.

 

[JohnRice]

BTW, Canon's decision to prevent APC lenses from being mounted on FF bodies had a real-world reason, and benefit. That reason doesn't exist with mirrorless, because there's no mirror to work around.