[davidmanze]

Roadmaps are about what is to come, Dave. Not about what is there. Hence the posts. Range, vs. roadmap.

   Thanks for your correction of the English language BC .... I'm sure I needed to be explained that !!

BTW. There was no need to write your post in four sentences BC ... where one would have sufficed!

[JJ_SO]

Roadmaps are about what is to come, Dave. Not about what is there. Hence the posts. Range, vs. roadmap.

   Thanks for your correction of the English language BC .... I'm sure I needed to be explained that !!

 BTW. There was no need to write your post in four sentences BC ... where one would have sufficed!  

Some learnt to use the dots as end of a sentence. Others.... to produce... cliffhangers... and the more of it... the silly they look. 

Back to the roadmap. No, the 58/0.95 doesn't count, it's far out of the range of "affordable" and the only lens which has no AF, so no, in my book this bloody "show-off"-crap* doesn't count much more than a waste of R&D resources. With this lens Nikon admits they are not capable to AF such a glass and leave all the lack of success with proper focus to the idiots willing to pay 8 grand. It's the same wow-thing like all these Viltrox, Voigtländers, Artisans, Laowas which are good optics but can't even manage an electronic aperture, not to mention the lack of EXIF in most cases.

*Canon's 28-70/2.0 is also a show-off lens, but it delivers. And can be used with AF, with EXIF.

The f/1.8 primes are the new f/1.4, easily in the price range of excellent f/1.4 Sigma primes, just not delivering the same smooth bokeh. Therefore Nikon roadmap still sucks, too many 50s, no 105/1.4, the Micro Nikkors ages away.

I want to see the lenses Nikon claimed to make the new mount for. So far, I am disappointed - just not enough to move on to Sony, but who knows, one day the decision just might be "do I want to continue supporting a super conservative manufacturer who ignores customers all the time, promises a lot and delivers poorly?" - see the shortcoming of the 58/0.95, the "production problems" with the only 70-200 they managed to develop in all these years (again, this is a bread&butter lens and needed by much more photogs than the 58).

Was it necessary to have two 24-70 and no 24-105 and still (!!!) no 70-200?

[davidmanze]

Roadmaps are about what is to come, Dave. Not about what is there. Hence the posts. Range, vs. roadmap.

   Thanks for your correction of the English language BC .... I'm sure I needed to be explained that !!

 BTW. There was no need to write your post in four sentences BC ... where one would have sufficed!  

Some learnt to use the dots as end of a sentence. Others.... to produce... cliffhangers... and the more of it... the silly they look. 

Back to the roadmap. No, the 58/0.95 doesn't count, it's far out of the range of "affordable" and the only lens which has no AF, so no, in my book this bloody "show-off"-crap* doesn't count much more than a waste of R&D resources. With this lens Nikon admits they are not capable to AF such a glass and leave all the lack of success with proper focus to the idiots willing to pay 8 grand. It's the same wow-thing like all these Viltrox, Voigtländers, Artisans, Laowas which are good optics but can't even manage an electronic aperture, not to mention the lack of EXIF in most cases.

*Canon's 28-70/2.0 is also a show-off lens, but it delivers. And can be used with AF, with EXIF.

The f/1.8 primes are the new f/1.4, easily in the price range of excellent f/1.4 Sigma primes, just not delivering the same smooth bokeh. Therefore Nikon roadmap still sucks, too many 50s, no 105/1.4, the Micro Nikkors ages away.

I want to see the lenses Nikon claimed to make the new mount for. So far, I am disappointed - just not enough to move on to Sony, but who knows, one day the decision just might be "do I want to continue supporting a super conservative manufacturer who ignores customers all the time, promises a lot and delivers poorly?" - see the shortcoming of the 58/0.95, the "production problems" with the only 70-200 they managed to develop in all these years (again, this is a bread&butter lens and needed by much more photogs than the 58).

Was it necessary to have two 24-70 and no 24-105 and still (!!!) no 70-200?

   
 At first I thought the lens was a false step, but having seen images from it, I've completely gone the other way ....... it has truly spectacular rendering ...... this lens lives a world of it's own!
  We both have spent money on glass over the years JoJu ...... I know I've wasted plenty of money on silly lenses ...... minimal upgrades, no doubt you have done the same ...... probably more than I. 
The question is: Have we wasted eight grand, the price of this Noct?  I bet the answer is YES!
  The inevitable incremental optical improvements we have so called invested in, have turned into lost money when going through the next upgrade, maybe not just for optical quality but for brand changes.
  
  So rather like the the Noct, I spent a silly amount of money on the lens that I actually "wanted" ..... after a series of money wasting faux pas that ended up costing me lots more than going the direct route!
 The question is, is Canon's route nearer to what you want to end up owning? ......
Nikon's offerings are "tide you over" optics that are sufficient for most folk as long as they are not aspiring to the upper echelons ..... but for those wanting more, it is another round of lost money spent while they're waiting .....
 With your tastes in top flight bright glass I would imagine Canon would be your baby ...... but one timely move from Sigma and the whole thing could turn around at a stroke!

 Let's hope Sigma step up to the plate!

[JJ_SO]

It's not the lens which is wrong. It's the moment to bring it out. And it's the signal "all you stupid Z buyers will have  to cross-subsidize this monster lens which only few will buy to put it in their vaults".

AFTER a standard lens line-up hit the shelves, is available and free of minor flaws, that lens could have been brought out as "one more thing".

You don't believe, dave, that Nikon is making a benefit out of it? Their margins are shrinking and by doing more of this nonsense, they deserve to disappear. It's not like Leica where also the rest of the system is up to very high standards in terms of craftsmanship. The Z bodies are made to maximize benefits and if someone calls them "cheap" I will not deny.

In terms of lenses I would be better of with Canon, sure, but in terms of lousy and outdated sensors with poor low light performance as well - and that's why I enjoy my Sigmas in front of a Nikon. The Z concept is not that bad. It's Nikon which apparently decides with a solid death wish what to come next. They already failed big time with their 1 system, could have been a competition to µ4/3, but no, unpredictable changes of features in each new model made it impossible (to me) to decide for one.

The same can be said about the Z50 - "cheap it had to be, tilt-swivel displays we had, but we leave them to Canon, Olympus and lately Fujifilm".

Again, the roadmap has more gaps than a monkey fleas.

[faint]

I find the Z lineup very appealing. Now, with five companies producing FF cameras and glass, you need to find a niche. Sony has the variety, Canon has the legendary 1.2L lenses, Panasonic got the video market, Leica got the prestige/luxury segment. Nikon did not have a better move but to produce lighter, sharper, cheaper glass then the rest. It is currently eating away the Fujifilm market share for that particular reason - you have capable, moderately sized lineup with better IQ than the APS-C premium market leader.

I pay the same price for Nikon Full frame stuff compared to Fujifilm APS-C, but S line feels like it offers way better value. Having two 24-70 lenses also is a reasonable move.

Bottom line - to each his own.

[JJ_SO]

A couple of 35/1.4 lenses are cheaper than the 35/1.8 S - and optically not worse. 85/1.8: Also a couple of lower priced, equally performing lenses with less nervous bokeh. And all of these DSLR lenses are mechanically more challenging (clutches, distance scales) than the S-line is. Mechanically their design is rather simple, plus focus by wire is implemented rather poorly. They don't even feature an additional multi-function ring like Canon does.

The 24/1.8 S is more expensive than the really outstanding Sigma 28/1.4. And so on and so forth...

Sure, genuine lenses can call for higher prices. But with regards to the last 24/1.8, they already are going straight through the roof, but not delivering the value which correlates to the price.

---

  We both have spent money on glass over the years JoJu ...... I know I've wasted plenty of money on silly lenses ...... minimal upgrades, no doubt you have done the same ...... probably more than I. 
The question is: Have we wasted eight grand, the price of this Noct?  I bet the answer is YES!

....
 With your tastes in top flight bright glass I would imagine Canon would be your baby ...... but one timely move from Sigma and the whole thing could turn around at a stroke!

 Let's hope Sigma step up to the plate!

If I wanted to go Sigma, I now had to steer towards Panasonic or the more expensive Panasonic or the really expensive Panasonic aka Leica. L-mount is still an interesting concept, too bad their AF is currently not even up to Canon or Nikon, let alone Sony.

I don't think Sigma will offer Z-glass in the next future - why should they? They can make the transition from DSLR lenses a bit slower than CaNikon. If I have to choose I rather go for an Art at 770.- 35/1.4 than for a Nikkor F at 1900.- (!!) which is softer. So, I guess Sigma will still make money with DSLR glass after the moment the genuine sales go dwon towards zero, would you agree? And meanwhile they gonna colelct new experience with ML glassfor their own mount, L-mount, E-mount. Get an instant payback as their reputation only gets better (see the last interview with Kazuto Yamaki's apologies for not being able to deliver the FF foveon in 2020 - something I really want to read from a Nikon CEO)

If I had the money I spent for gear during the last decade, I could go Leica. Or Phase One and get a small Leica to travel with. But I see it more as kind of ski holidays - the pass you pay for to slide down the mountains is also something to have pleasure with, but nothing which stays with me. And - I would not have taken a single picture with a sort of nice camera during this decade as I had to save the money for the big buy.

[faint]

Well, I picked up the 24S against the G-master. For me, the real question was - 24S, Milvus 25, Loxia 25. 24S won for couple of reasons, price is one of them. Auto-focus is another. Performance - let's not forget that one.

I would argue that 24S competes with Sigma 28. Especially for wide angle lenses, every mm counts. I will not put 24S against Voigtlaender 21 or Sigma 28. I will probably have all of these - very different lenses.

Regarding 35 - I will never pay that money for 35S. Not my lens! I will be more than happy to buy Zeiss, Tamron, Voigtlaender, etc. lens, but 35S just does not convince - you are right. The moment Tamron makes SP 35/1.4 work on Z, no sane person should reach for the 35S if performance is a must. Sigma Art 40/1.4 works just fine with the FTZ.

Another lens that I hoped will be better, is 14-30, but many people like it very much.

[davidmanze]

It's not the lens which is wrong. It's the moment to bring it out. And it's the signal "all you stupid Z buyers will have  to cross-subsidize this monster lens which only few will buy to put it in their vaults".

AFTER a standard lens line-up hit the shelves, is available and free of minor flaws, that lens could have been brought out as "one more thing".

You don't believe, dave, that Nikon is making a benefit out of it? Their margins are shrinking and by doing more of this nonsense, they deserve to disappear. It's not like Leica where also the rest of the system is up to very high standards in terms of craftsmanship. The Z bodies are made to maximize benefits and if someone calls them "cheap" I will not deny.

In terms of lenses I would be better of with Canon, sure, but in terms of lousy and outdated sensors with poor low light performance as well - and that's why I enjoy my Sigmas in front of a Nikon. The Z concept is not that bad. It's Nikon which apparently decides with a solid death wish what to come next. They already failed big time with their 1 system, could have been a competition to µ4/3, but no, unpredictable changes of features in each new model made it impossible (to me) to decide for one.

The same can be said about the Z50 - "cheap it had to be, tilt-swivel displays we had, but we leave them to Canon, Olympus and lately Fujifilm".

Again, the road-map has more gaps than a monkey fleas.

  Entering into a brand new entire system will always require patience, we knew that things would not turn up overnight..... offerings at launch were meagre ..... and while slowly getting better, there's still a long way to go .... with all the additional frustration that that incurs.
 

    Nikon's ML cameras have now split the brand ....... on the one hand the slower than expected sales of ML .... (it's all a huge failure) ........ against the primitive DSLR.

 .. and when it seemed like the ultimate DSLR camera the D850, had finally arrived, in no time at all, it gave the impression it died falling out of it's own pram, still tooth-less! .... a dead immature dinosaur .... my life already ..

 Life's a bitch and then you die!!   

[JJ_SO]

I would understand the slowness of building a new system, if it was Samsung or Yamaha or Volkswagen or Renault trying to get a foot into a new business where the buyers are a bit different from their usual clientele.

But it's not Nikon's first launch of a camera class and I gad reasons t believe they should know a thing or two about such a project? And they also knew the competition for quite a while. So, if you would go into a new business, wouldn't you try to do some things different than others so your potential customers can see a reason to prefer your products?

Do you see many different things - except the ones which are not there? battery grip, professional body, better remote app, macro lens with integrated light?

Lighter lenses? Yes, but not compacter ones. And each of them with a new size of filter thread... Standard filter holder? no, why? Articulated EVF (like Fuji GFX?) no, why? When Nikon not even gets a clean EVF with no distracting elements? Or puts them aside, to the low or high border like in a DLSR? Why do we need to waste high resolution EVF space to display an aperture number? So many chances to make a great product - and most of them ignored.

[thxbb12]

I find the Z lineup very appealing. Now, with five companies producing FF cameras and glass, you need to find a niche. Sony has the variety, Canon has the legendary 1.2L lenses, Panasonic got the video market, Leica got the prestige/luxury segment. Nikon did not have a better move but to produce lighter, sharper, cheaper glass then the rest. It is currently eating away the Fujifilm market share for that particular reason - you have capable, moderately sized lineup with better IQ than the APS-C premium market leader.

I agree the Z line can produce very good IQ (better than APS-C).
However, I don't agree about it being that compact, especially for what you get.
Their f1.8 lenses are not that compact and interesting either.
For instance the Sony GM 24 f1.4 is 92.4mm long and 445g while the Nikon 24 f1.8 weights 450g and is 96.5mm long! The Nikon is larger, heavier and slower. Marvelous.
Another example, the Sony FE 35mm f1.8 weights 281g and is 73mm long. The Nikon Z 35mm f1.8 weights 370g and is 86mm long! Again, the Nikon is larger, heavier and more expensive.

If you compare with Fuji APS-C. A Fuji X-T30 with a 35mm f1.4 (f2.1 FF equiv). will be much smaller and lighter than a Z6 + 50mm f1.8. The same goes with the Fuji 23mm f1.4 vs the Nikon Z 35mm f1.8. Regarding the Nikon Z 85 f1.8, the Fuji 56mm f1.2 is an exact equivalent and much smaller/lighter (405g vs 470g, 69.7mm long vs 99mm).

I just don't see the Z system as being compelling compared to the competition, sorry.

I think Nikon should have followed a different strategy: two sets of primes: 24, 35, 50 in f2 (slow but super compact variants) and f1.4 (fast but larger variants).
A 85 f1.4 for portrait shooters and a 24-105 f4 zoom instead of the short 24-70.

This would be much more interesting IMO.