It's official - Nikon announces their mirrorless is on the way

[NickCyprus]

 

[NickCyprus]

 

[fractal]

Taking off my Sony hat, I'm disappointed that Nikon came out with a camera that is arguably still behind the 1 year old A7r3 (especially after promising a "leap forward").
They had a great opportunity to put some fire to Sony's feet which would have been an all-around win for all consumers of mirrorless cameras. I'm afraid that after this release, Sony put a theoretical Z7 killer camera back on the shelf.

 

[Jefenator]

The 35/1.8 is just under $850 and the 50/1.8 is just under $600. Kind of like those price points (assuming the performance is there...)

 

[Tipton]

I can't wait to see someone dunk one in a bucket of water to test the seals.

 

[Jefenator]

No tele macro on the road map yet.
That kind of rules me out - even for that hypothetical scenario where I lose all my gear and get to start over from scratch, no strings attached.
I wasn't expecting a tele macro in the lineup from day one but I am sorry to see it's not even in the intermediate forecast. (Maybe some time in 2020? It did take Sony a year and a half...)
That's kind of my bread & butter lens right now, so: no tele macro, no deal...

 

[NickCyprus]

No tele macro on the road map yet.

Yeah, and no f/1.4 primes too on that 2020 road map. Wasn't the point of the new larger Z mount to have AF 1.4 lenses like Canon/Sony does?

 

[fractal]

Yeah, and no f/1.4 primes too on that 2020 road map. Wasn't the point of the new larger Z mount to have AF 1.4 lenses like Canon/Sony does?

Yeah, but you do get a $6,000+ manual focus 50mm f/0.95 lens.

 

[WestOkid]

No tele macro on the road map yet.
That kind of rules me out - even for that hypothetical scenario where I lose all my gear and get to start over from scratch, no strings attached.
I wasn't expecting a tele macro in the lineup from day one but I am sorry to see it's not even in the intermediate forecast. (Maybe some time in 2020? It did take Sony a year and a half...)
That's kind of my bread & butter lens right now, so: no tele macro, no deal...

Jeff, Nick- For macro work and 1.4 lenses quality and precision means far than size and AF speed. Why wouldn’t the existing Nikon F-mount lenses suffice?

This is very different from the A-mount experiment with Sony because those were built for the A7 and A7R. The hole thing was clunky. By the time the system was able to take advantage of PDAF people had already given up. A-mount glass also had a problem with a small existing user base or a new group like myself that felt it wasn’t smart to invest in a dying mount. Nikon F doesn’t have these issues.

Obviously this is all predicated on how robust the F-mount adapter is.

 

[Kiwi Paul]

I think the Nikon initial lens collection is very poor, Sony was ridiculed for it's poor lens line up when the A series was announced yet the Nikon selection seems even worse but is overlooked by the Nikon fan club because it's a "Nikon"

 

[JonathanF2]

I already put my pre-order in for a Z6 and FTZ adapter. Everything I need is already in the F mount. The area I'm most excited about is in the telephoto range and this is one area Nikon will take advantage over Sony. Nikon telephoto lenses are generally cheaper and there's a bunch of them that can be had for cheap.

 

[bdbits]

What I read said that approximately 98 lenses would work with the adapter. Not sure where that came from or if it is accurate. I read it on the interwebs so it must be right.

Overall the new cameras are decent for their first full-frame mirrorless. I am with those who think Nikon has made a camera to keep people in the Nikon camp, not so much to attract new people (yet). Some speculate they decided they had to get something out there before everybody left, and released it before it was as finished as they had envisioned it. Who knows.

For all practical purposes, Nikon is going to need to focus development on mirrorless. While F-mount may last for some time, it is not going to see much new going forward, in my opinion. That makes it rather unappealing to buy a bunch of existing F-mount lenses (to use with the adapter) waiting until they come out with native glass. A lot of people don't like adapted glass period, or so they have said in the past. Worse, Nikon is not sharing mount specs. So third party manufacturers of both lenses and adapters are going to have continue to rely on reverse engineering, particularly for any kind of electronic communication (which would include EXIF data much less autofocus). This is really going to limit 3rd-party native mount or even the use of legacy glass, even though the mount seems it could be very good at that. I think that is a big mistake on their part.

Time will tell. I haven't seen anything about how often they plan to update the bodies, but given Sony's pace and the clear market fight they've picked, they are probably going to do it sooner than they'd like. Which is more resources they don't have to work on lenses. This is far from game over, and no time to rest, which I am sure they are more aware of than I am.

 

[Jefenator]

Jeff, Nick- For macro work and 1.4 lenses quality and precision means far than size and AF speed. Why wouldn’t the existing Nikon F-mount lenses suffice?

This is very different from the A-mount experiment with Sony because those were built for the A7 and A7R. The hole thing was clunky. By the time the system was able to take advantage of PDAF people had already given up. A-mount glass also had a problem with a small existing user base or a new group like myself that felt it wasn’t smart to invest in a dying mount. Nikon F doesn’t have these issues.

Obviously this is all predicated on how robust the F-mount adapter is.

I started out with adapted macros on my A7. They were okay but the FE90 impacted my shoot flow pretty dramatically.
I feel pampered by the push-pull AF/MF switching, the unique MF action (better IMHO than the classic Leitz & Micro-Nikkor manual primes I had been using) and the way it can kick in focus magnification automatically as you turn the ring.
Adapting Nikon's current 105mm probably wouldn't provide any of those amenities. I suppose with the available AF & stabilization it could hold a new Z system user over until their true native stabilized tele macro comes out. I had to re-invest tomorrow, I would not be inclined to wait. But YMMV.

 

[WestOkid]

I started out with adapted macros on my A7. They were okay but the FE90 impacted my shoot flow pretty dramatically.
I feel pampered by the push-pull AF/MF switching, the unique MF action (better IMHO than the classic Leitz & Micro-Nikkor manual primes I had been using) and the way it can kick in focus magnification automatically as you turn the ring.
Adapting Nikon's current 105mm probably wouldn't provide any of those amenities. I suppose with the available AF & stabilization it could hold a new Z system user over until their true native stabilized tele macro comes out. I had to re-invest tomorrow, I would not be inclined to wait. But YMMV.

My understanding is that all the features of native lenses will be available. So there’s no difference between F mount and Native. We’ll see if that’s true but that’s what they’re saying. This was never the case with the A7. DPR said the adapted F-mount 35mm performed better than the native 35mm. It can even change aperture on manual lenses.

Their only gripe was noisy motors in video.

What's the Nikon Z like with adapted lenses?

 

[WNG]

A nice initial effort by Nikon. They fell short in a few areas, but I wasn't expecting them to leap frog with their first camera(s). Obvious these are meant to stem the faithful from leaving, and the features are to satisfy current Nikon DSLR owners with an investment of Nikkors. No Nikkor D support (yet?). With that in mind, they succeeded in their goals.
Welcome to the world of mirrorless, Nikon....welcome to the future.

 

[quezra]

The more I look at them, the more they look like incremental upgrades to the A7II and rII except we now know that Sony took a much bigger leap forward with the A7III and rIII. It's almost like Nikon, when they started R&D on these products years ago, thought "let's see what we think we'd do if we made the next version of the A7 mkIIs and that will be our initial launch..." but Sony already pulled the rug from under them with the MkIIIs. Canikon incrementalism is increasingly reminding me of Nokia and Blackberry and that's a shame. I'm actually disappointed because aside from a few lens offerings (in fact, just the 35/1.8, maybe the 14-30 if it is great), this competitor doesn't push Sony enough.

(And yes, I'm ignoring the fanboyish assumptions about how it will instantly have better ergonomics and weather sealing just because it's Nikon. That remains to be seen but if it does I will be happy that they push Sony on those fronts.)

 

[JonathanF2]

The more I look at them, the more they look like incremental upgrades to the A7II and rII except we now know that Sony took a much bigger leap forward with the A7III and rIII. It's almost like Nikon, when they started R&D on these products years ago, thought "let's see what we think we'd do if we made the next version of the A7 mkIIs and that will be our initial launch..." but Sony already pulled the rug from under them with the MkIIIs. Canikon incrementalism is increasingly reminding me of Nokia and Blackberry and that's a shame. I'm actually disappointed because aside from a few lens offerings (in fact, just the 35/1.8, maybe the 14-30 if it is great), this competitor doesn't push Sony enough.

(And yes, I'm ignoring the fanboyish assumptions about how it will instantly have better ergonomics and weather sealing just because it's Nikon. That remains to be seen but if it does I will be happy that they push Sony on those fronts.)

I don't see how Sony has pulled the rug out. Nikon is coming out aggressively with these bodies. Also Nikon's strength lays with it's lenses, this is where I think Nikon will make the biggest gains in conjunction with the FTZ adapter. Nikon also has better 5 year warranty lens coverage and professionals can get their equipment serviced at either the LA or Melville repair offices directly, as opposed to shipping everything to Precision Camera Repair like Sony.

Also it's still unknown how Nikon's 5-axis IBIS will function. Sony's implementation is average at best compared to Olympus. Nikon can very well have a more advanced version better suited to it's wide diameter mount with more leeway for movement. I think Sony should be very concerned right now, because Nikon is not Canon and is more apt to take risk to stay in the game.

 

[quezra]

Well basically the most sought-after features that A7III finally addressed - and convinced me this was a no-brainer for upgrade - were:

1) Dual SD card slots
2) Bigger battery
3) Joystick
4) Touchscreen (badly done sadly)

Somehow, Nikon managed to omit the first 3. The first three are really important for the wedding photog segment who do use these cameras professionally, and I suspect are the bulk of this market (they are also sticklers for Eye-AF, again which Nikon don't yet offer). The A7II/rII are still very good cameras, and the Zs improve on them, but incrementally, so the natural feature-for-feature competition is Sony's last generation. Lots of things like how Nikon manage heat, AF reliability, and so on are also yet to be seen. Adapting lenses is something Sony have never had a problem with since day 1, and both Canon and Nikon lenses are adaptable, so Nikon's offering isn't an advantage per se, but rather an anti-hemorrhaging factor. Both Nikon and Sony's IBIS are rated at 5 stops (real world usage usually not as good), so for all the hype that the larger throat of the mount, Nikon didn't manage to better Sony.

I agree they have an advantage in servicing, but I haven't used Sony service since I was on NEXes (and my one experience was very good where I got a full replacement with no questions asked).

 

[JonathanF2]

Well basically the most sought-after features that A7III finally addressed - and convinced me this was a no-brainer for upgrade - were:

1) Dual SD card slots
2) Bigger battery
3) Joystick
4) Touchscreen (badly done sadly)

Somehow, Nikon managed to omit the first 3. The first three are really important for the wedding photog segment who do use these cameras professionally, and I suspect are the bulk of this market (they are also sticklers for Eye-AF, again which Nikon don't yet offer). The A7II/rII are still very good cameras, and the Zs improve on them, but incrementally, so the natural feature-for-feature competition is Sony's last generation. Lots of things like how Nikon manage heat, AF reliability, and so on are also yet to be seen. Adapting lenses is something Sony have never had a problem with since day 1, and both Canon and Nikon lenses are adaptable, so Nikon's offering isn't an advantage per se, but rather an anti-hemorrhaging factor.

I agree they have an advantage in servicing, but I haven't used Sony service since I was on NEXes (and my one experience was very good where I got a full replacement with no questions asked).

I think adapting will be a big advantage on Nikon's part. Nikon's latest 70-300 AF-P ED VR is $600 USD and probably just as sharp as Sony's version at a far cheaper price. Also you have lenses like the 200-500 f5.6 VR, the tiny 300 f4 PF VR, the whole Nikon f1.8 G (20/24/28/35/50/85) prime lens line-up which are affordable and solid performers, exotics like the 105mm 1.4, 28mm 1.4, 8-15mm Fisheye and the upcoming 500mm f5.6 PF VR. Nikon also has a bunch of older AF-S non stabilized telephoto primes that will instantly gain 5 axis stabilization. At the end of the day, Nikon just has a larger selection of AF glass.

 

[Jefenator]

The more I look at them, the more they look like incremental upgrades to the A7II and rII except we now know that Sony took a much bigger leap forward with the A7III and rIII. It's almost like Nikon, when they started R&D on these products years ago, thought "let's see what we think we'd do if we made the next version of the A7 mkIIs and that will be our initial launch..." but Sony already pulled the rug from under them with the MkIIIs. Canikon incrementalism is increasingly reminding me of Nokia and Blackberry and that's a shame. I'm actually disappointed because aside from a few lens offerings (in fact, just the 35/1.8, maybe the 14-30 if it is great), this competitor doesn't push Sony enough.

The battery capacity does have me wondering: did Nikon do most of their designing before the Sony A9/A7riii/A7iii came out, or did they hobble that aspect of the Z system deliberately? (If it's the latter and they're still trying to herd pro user toward the DSLRs, who is this new Z system supposed to be for?)
Battery life was never a deal breaker with me but I know Sony got a lot of flak for it before they "fixed" it. It just seems baffling to me that someone would be diving in to this market now with such an unnecessary handicap.