Opticallimits

Full Version: Nikon Z fc and Z 28mm f/2.8 SE announced
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Looks like a cross between an Olympus E-M5 III and a Fuji X-Txx camera.
The usability seems a bit strange: on one hand you have manual dials like Fuji and on the other you have PSAM settings. It's a bit schizophrenic, especially the ISO dial which doesn't have an A position. Same with the shutter speed dial. Not sure how it's gonna be in term of usability.
Finally about the size: it's still rather big when you consider that a Fuji X-T30 is a much smaller camera. The Fuji X-S10 is also smaller and features IBIS. Tough sell for Nikon IMO given the lack of dedicated lenses.
If one is truly interested in APS-C, then Fuji is the way to go. I doubt Nikon will release many dedicated lenses for APS-C if the past is any indication.
Besides usability, this pictures says it all: https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/article...X-S10.jpeg
Looks to be the same silliness Nikon displayed with the Nikon Df. A contrived controls mix concept, under the guise of "retro" and "style". And then that "pancake" prime, a 28mm f2.8 for FF (28mm is not the most popular focal length) and a 42mm f4.2 FF equivalent on "DX". Canon and Fuji showed Nikon how to do it right (22mm f2 and 23mm f2 respectively), and Nikon decided otherwise?

At least Nikon did not strip video ability from it, like they did with the Df... and they gave it a nice swivel screen.
I had a look at that preview by DPR, and the camera doesn't look quite as convoluted as the DF. Maybe they learned a thing or two from that fiasco (relatively speaking), too. Still not what I would be after - more so since the TZE adapter can't be used with the DX Z bodies - but a step in the right direction methinks...

BC, that 28/2.8 lens is a stopgap in this case because they probably didn't have the time/resources to develop a dedicated prime for it. Of course it's actually chiefly intended for the Z* users, maybe Z5 owners dabbling in "street" shooting and whatnot. Sticking a piece of silver plastic on a lens you've already designed and pretending it's a dedicated "special edition" model is surely easier than creating a brand new lens covering untrodden ground (APS-C mirrorless pancake prime...) Smile
(06-29-2021, 11:00 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]Looks to be the same silliness Nikon displayed with the Nikon Df. A contrived controls mix concept, under the guise of "retro" and "style". And then that "pancake" prime, a 28mm f2.8 for FF (28mm is not the most popular focal length) and a 42mm f4.2 FF equivalent on "DX". Canon and Fuji showed Nikon how to do it right (22mm f2 and 23mm f2 respectively), and Nikon decided otherwise?

At least Nikon did not strip video ability from it, like they did with the Df... and they gave it a nice swivel screen.

 Why silliness ?...... I think the D4 is one of the few classy looking DSLRs ever made .......  with plenty of chromed brass and quality construction  ........ 
...  it also had the renowned sensor from the D4, a good FF sensor to this day ...... both from the POV of noise, DR and colour rendition ........... it is a well sort after camera that still has a strong following by many who refuse to sell them even today ....

  The Zfc is however, a bit of a weird one in that it has a DX sensor and not many lenses and seems to be modeled on the chrome version of the FM3A ........ to me it looks great ........ but it will take time to have a range of lenses ......

  ........ of course if one is an aficionado of the Canon style jelly-mold blandness, where case styling or any sort of style at all is based on purely covering up the internals, with little regard to aesthetics  ......
 .......  then Canon may well be your Mona Lisa !!..........

  ...... it's not mine ............
The Df had the sensor of the D4, which had low dynamic range compared to the Sony sensors (worse than the D600/610/D750 for instance), the thing Canon sensors got bashed for at the time.... With similar high ISO noise as a D610 or 6D. Not sure what was renowned of that sensor, maybe its low resolution (4mp lower than my 6D)? For the price of a D800 (almost), but with the processor and AF system of a D610.

The camera looked like a classic MF SLR like my Nikkormat FTn, the look of pre-Ai lenses. But it was less compatible with pre-Ai and even Ai lenses than using those lenses on my 6D.
If that is not enough silliness for you, then look at the weird interface. On top a "classic" SLR, but with really badly designed control elements, and on the back a D600 with a disregard of the control ideas that the top appears to have. You have a dial to set exposure time top right. But it only does full stop time settings. The D610 part of the UI does 1/2 and 1/3rd of a sec steps. And how to use that dial? You have to press a button to unlock it every time you want to change the exposure time. How do you do that while looking through the lens to see the metering and subject, while holding the camera with your right hand and your left hand controlling/holding the lens? Same with the ISO dial (not that big a deal) and the exposure compensation (as big a deal as with the exposure time).

In short, it was not designed with a photographer in mind.
(06-30-2021, 06:09 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]In short, it was not designed with a photographer in mind.

   It was a camera that asked for by Nikon users .......  to look and handle like film SLRs ....... they had been asking for such a camera for years ....... so Nikon produced it ........
 ....... it didn't sell millions but it sold quite well to it's target audience ......... who were happy with it and still are ...

  I understand your satisfaction with the Canon 6D Mk (whatever) and the results you got with it (albeit so so) ...... but, unfortunately it's sensor was just plain sub par ...... as has been discussed many times here ........ to add to it's list of mehs of which there were many

 .......... it was just "plug ugly" ........ a blob of a camera !!

 
(06-30-2021, 07:08 PM)davidmanze Wrote: [ -> ]   It was a camera that asked for by Nikon users .......  to look and handle like film SLRs ....... they had been asking for such a camera for years ....... so Nikon produced it ........
 ....... it didn't sell millions but it sold quite well to it's target audience  ......... who were happy with it and still are ...

The only modern cameras that handle and operate like SLRs are the Fujis.
This is the type of controls and operations that Nikon should have implemented back then, but somehow they completely missed the mark. No wonder why the Df was such a failure.

And with this Z fc, Nikon screwed up again IMO. Their first mistake was to make it an APS-C camera. Nikon users would probably want to use these old Nikkor lenses on a camera designed to use them as they were intended to.
(06-30-2021, 07:08 PM)davidmanze Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2021, 06:09 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]In short, it was not designed with a photographer in mind.

   It was a camera that asked for by Nikon users .......  to look and handle like film SLRs ....... they had been asking for such a camera for years ....... so Nikon produced it ........
 ....... it didn't sell millions but it sold quite well to it's target audience  ......... who were happy with it and still are ...

  I understand your satisfaction with the Canon 6D Mk (whatever) and the results you got with it (albeit so so) ...... but, unfortunately it's sensor was just plain sub par ...... as has been discussed many times here ........ to add to it's list of mehs of which there were many

 .......... it was just "plug ugly" ........ a blob of a camera !!

 

It did not handle at all like any film SLR from Nikon, ever. So, Nikon did not produce what was asked for. They produced a stupid camera with stupid controls nobody actually really thought about. You must have missed all the opinions of those who actually used to own/use Nikon film SLRs, and the negative user experience of those who bought it and were not happy about the controls/concept? The only thing it did was mimic the look of one, kinda....
The ones who bought it for the "style" part, sure, they might stil love their expensive D600-nephew.

If you call the 6D's sensor "just plain sub par", so then are the Df/D4/D4s/D5 sensors, right?
Sheesh... don't get all upset at each other, folks. Smile
Still, I'm not sure how relevant a camera's appearance is, so long as the operation is not impacted by the poor design decisions like hard to reach controls or awkward to hold grips. Smile
Pages: 1 2 3