Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nikon Neglect?
#31
For Sony and L-mount are more native f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses available than for Z-mount. Again: What good is a big flange if it is not used in lens designs? Or just for a 8 k$ manual lens with close to no practical use as that one is manual focus only?
#32
In the roadmap, there are lenses that will make use of the diameter, most probably. That is the "good" of the big diameter.
You can also compare the construction of the Sigma 35mm f1.2 and the Canon RF 50mm f1.2 and see that the big mount diameter gave interesting design advantages, giving a much more compact lens.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#799.787,814.834,ha,t
#33
Let's not debate too deep over bridges Nikon has to cross first. There are so many "roadmaps" around with subtle or big changes, like this "leaked" one: https://nikonrumors.com/2019/09/05/new-2...aked.aspx/

And you see, no single f/1.4, three f/1.2 until 2021... so that can change a dozen times before anything becomes a pricey reality.

Don't take Sigma as example, they are usually going big and heavy as anything else means "high price". And how compact Nikkor S f/1.2 will become has yet to be seen - given the size and weight of their f/0.95 without any AF unit... . There are still some uncovered filter threads  Rolleyes , like 95 and 105. I have 4 lenses, each with another thread. I still have to find out the advantage of this design...
#34
(11-17-2019, 09:31 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: Dave, Sigma is also developing and manufacturing for L-mount. So there are 3 manufacturers offering lenses for the same mount, while Nikon remains exclusively. There are also 3 different camera manufacturers for the same mount. I agree, I don't think I will ever see a Sigma lens in front of a Leica SL or SL2 (in the wild) as these are very interesting for M-mount lenses as well. But regarding what happened to Nikon 1, to Samsung and to Pentax mirrorless systems, I see more potential in L- than in Z-mount. Especially since Nikon bragged about all the advantages of their bigger mount and so far we haven't seen the lenses following.

In my opinion L-mount has a broader base of manufacturers and users - and what better users a manufacturer can ask for than the ones than those willing to pay super-premium prices. Yes, some big pocket Nikonians will also buy the 58 mm Noct to put it in a glass shelf - but not enough to cover Nikon's financial loss. Occasionally I came to a different opinion about Z-mount and am far less positive about it's future than only one year ago. 

Sure, the grass is always greener in the other valley and before I choose a different systems I first try it out. Not far from where I live a dealer offers a CHF 100,-/48 hrs Leica rental, they also offer the Panasonics for rent. I like the handling of the Z 6 / 7 but I also see their downsides, there was only one major FW update, the pace on lenses remains slow, the f/1.8 are comparatively expensive (to what we were used), there's no professional body, the battery pack is a very bad joke and currently Sony offers better specs and lenses for each group of photogs.

At least I became confident the Z is a good camera to use it in the rain  Shy

[Image: 2019-10-19-_DSC0051-X2.jpg]



  

  Firstly regarding the Nikon 1, personally, I don't regard it as failed camera, rather outmoded, but Nikon has bigger and more important fish to fry than compact style cameras in these times, sensibly they put their resources to better use.

  Sounds so good a lens mount alliance doesn't it? .... but it depends on who's in the alliance.....really there are Sigma and Panasonic/ Leica... and all three are producing lenses  ..... if Sigma dominates say Panasonics lens sales??

Leica have created the camera using Panasonic's licensed technology and relies almost completely on it, which means Leica is counting on Panasonic's success selling it's own version.
   What will happen if the SR1 just flops, (it's sales are derisory) will Panasonic continue further extremely expensive development just for the sake of Leica?..... ....losing the L mount wouldn't  harm Sigma noticeably!
   
   No all in all JoJu, I'm not seeing this magical L mount having much success on these niche bodies..... and Sigma's contribution only serves to possibly ravage the sales of their own allies. (as they own camera sales will be minimal)

   Nikon relies on Nikon  (this also applies to Canon)  it makes it's own designed cameras and makes it's own designed lenses ......... 
   Nikon's trump card is their new glass effectively renders obsolete the F mount glass it replaces ..... there's that much of a step up in IQ.
  Do you stay with the DSLR and satisfy yourself with the cheaper existing F mount knowing you have chosen second best?. ........Or do you go Z mount ?... Nikon can count on new sales at least!      IMHO there will be little updated F mount glass, but there's still plenty on the shelves for those who are not looking for change.
 (I know the 58mm F0.95 is an exotic optic but Nikon has already refused further pre-orders)..... so it's not a loser.
    
At this point in time I see very few clients for this L mount ..... mainly because there are very few clients for the bodies ..... but what clients there are, are now divided by three !!

P.S. As Klaus posted Panasonic took the wrong road with their AF mixed system of "CDAF AI and blur" technology ....
Dave's clichés
#35
L glass, that is a Canon thing Dave! ;-)
#36
(11-18-2019, 09:18 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: L glass, that is a Canon thing Dave! ;-)

Slip of the neurons !! Smile Wink
Dave's clichés
#37
(11-18-2019, 09:01 AM)davidmanze Wrote:   Firstly regarding the Nikon 1, personally, I don't regard it as failed camera, rather outmoded, but Nikon has bigger and more important fish to fry than compact style cameras in these times, sensibly they put their resources to better use.

  Sounds so good a lens mount alliance doesn't it? .... but it depends on who's in the alliance.....really there are Sigma and Panasonic/ Leica... and all three are producing lenses  ..... if Sigma dominates say Panasonics lens sales??

 Leica have created the camera using Panasonic's licensed technology and relies almost completely on it, which means Leica is counting on Panasonic's success selling it's own version.
   What will happen if the SR1 just flops, (it's sales are derisory) will Panasonic continue further extremely expensive development just for the sake of Leica?..... ....losing the L mount wouldn't  harm Sigma noticeably!
   
   No all in all JoJu, I'm not seeing this magical L mount having much success on these niche bodies..... and Sigma's contribution only serves to possibly ravage the sales of their own allies. (as they own camera sales will be minimal)

   Nikon relies on Nikon  (this also applies to Canon)  it makes it's own designed cameras and makes it's own designed lenses ......... 
   Nikon's trump card is their new glass effectively renders obsolete the F mount glass it replaces ..... there's that much of a step up in IQ.
  Do you stay with the DSLR and satisfy yourself with the cheaper existing F mount knowing you have chosen second best?. ........Or do you go Z mount ?... Nikon can count on new sales at least!      IMHO there will be little updated F mount glass, but there's still plenty on the shelves for those who are not looking for change.
 (I know the 58mm F0.95 is an exotic optic but Nikon has already refused further pre-orders)..... so it's not a loser.
    
At this point in time I see very few clients for this L mount  ..... mainly because there are very few clients for the bodies ..... but what clients there are, are now divided by three !!

P.S. As Klaus posted Panasonic took the wrong road with their AF mixed system of "CDAF AI and blur" technology ....

If there was few clients for L-mount then why you think Leica came out with an updated SL 2?

I never said the 58/0.95 is a looser, but it ties up development and manufacturing capacity for an exotic lens for very rich photographers. And this at a time when Nikon's homework for a halfway complete lens portfolio is far from done. That's why I think it's a stupid product.

"Nikon does rely on Nikon"? So, now they are doing their own sensors?  Rolleyes 

They are already far behind Sony. In sensors, in lenses, in features, in AF-functions, and they are too slow to catch up. Plus, if I'd go the Sony path or the L-mount path, all my Sigma glass can be converted to E- or L-mount - but not to Z-mount.

I took the Series 1 as example because I recall it as an excellent study for Nikon's chaotic and mindless marketing strategy: Whenever a new V body came out, it had two or three interesting new functions and two or three of the former model's interesting functions were crippled or gone, plus the whole system was incredibly expensive for it's sensor size. Today the two lenses I have for them feel rough, the zoom ring is so far away from smooth... therefore "expensive and of doubtful quality". The whole system felt as cheap as it was to produce. No wonder it never took off. And when you look at Nikon's Z webiste on Nikon.com, the same young guys sit around the table who already struggled with Series 1. Hope they learnt their lessons before Nikon has to give up their image business.

The lenses of the Z-mount are no reason to go Nikon (or change to it) if one wants to jump into FF mirrorless. Not because they are bad - because they are incomplete and others offer the same quality. It took them two years to release a 70-200 because they were busy with the 58 mm behemoth.

As far as I know you don't own a Z camera, dave, so you're mostly talking in theory and what you think about what you read or watched on YT. That's alright as most people do so, but please don't feel offended when I put my real world experiences with Z against your theory. Don't get me wrong, I take these bodies more often than the D850 and I don't see a real reason that will change back in the future - but there's so much little details to miss.

We'll see about the L-mount. The audience for it is wider thank you think, I believe.
#38
(11-18-2019, 10:35 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
(11-18-2019, 09:01 AM)davidmanze Wrote:   Firstly regarding the Nikon 1, personally, I don't regard it as failed camera, rather outmoded, but Nikon has bigger and more important fish to fry than compact style cameras in these times, sensibly they put their resources to better use.

  Sounds so good a lens mount alliance doesn't it? .... but it depends on who's in the alliance.....really there are Sigma and Panasonic/ Leica... and all three are producing lenses  ..... if Sigma dominates say Panasonics lens sales??

 Leica have created the camera using Panasonic's licensed technology and relies almost completely on it, which means Leica is counting on Panasonic's success selling it's own version.
   What will happen if the SR1 just flops, (it's sales are derisory) will Panasonic continue further extremely expensive development just for the sake of Leica?..... ....losing the L mount wouldn't  harm Sigma noticeably!
   
   No all in all JoJu, I'm not seeing this magical L mount having much success on these niche bodies..... and Sigma's contribution only serves to possibly ravage the sales of their own allies. (as they own camera sales will be minimal)

   Nikon relies on Nikon  (this also applies to Canon)  it makes it's own designed cameras and makes it's own designed lenses ......... 
   Nikon's trump card is their new glass effectively renders obsolete the F mount glass it replaces ..... there's that much of a step up in IQ.
  Do you stay with the DSLR and satisfy yourself with the cheaper existing F mount knowing you have chosen second best?. ........Or do you go Z mount ?... Nikon can count on new sales at least!      IMHO there will be little updated F mount glass, but there's still plenty on the shelves for those who are not looking for change.
 (I know the 58mm F0.95 is an exotic optic but Nikon has already refused further pre-orders)..... so it's not a loser.
    
At this point in time I see very few clients for this L mount  ..... mainly because there are very few clients for the bodies ..... but what clients there are, are now divided by three !!

P.S. As Klaus posted Panasonic took the wrong road with their AF mixed system of "CDAF AI and blur" technology ....

If there were few clients for L-mount then why you think Leica came out with an updated SL 2?

I never said the 58/0.95 is a loser
, but it ties up development and manufacturing capacity for an exotic lens for very rich photographers. And this at a time when Nikon's homework for a halfway complete lens portfolio is far from done. That's why I think it's a stupid product.

"Nikon does rely on Nikon"? So, now they are doing their own sensors?  Rolleyes 

They are already far behind Sony. In sensors, in lenses, in features, in AF-functions, and they are too slow to catch up. Plus, if I'd go the Sony path or the L-mount path, all my Sigma glass can be converted to E- or L-mount - but not to Z-mount.

I took the Series 1 as example because I recall it as an excellent study for Nikon's chaotic and mindless marketing strategy: Whenever a new V body came out, it had two or three interesting new functions and two or three of the former model's interesting functions were crippled or gone, plus the whole system was incredibly expensive for it's sensor size. Today the two lenses I have for them feel rough, the zoom ring is so far away from smooth... therefore "expensive and of doubtful quality". The whole system felt as cheap as it was to produce. No wonder it never took off. And when you look at Nikon's Z webiste on Nikon.com, the same young guys sit around the table who already struggled with Series 1. Hope they learnt their lessons before Nikon has to give up their image business.

The lenses of the Z-mount are no reason to go Nikon (or change to it) if one wants to jump into FF mirrorless. Not because they are bad - because they are incomplete and others offer the same quality. It took them two years to release a 70-200 because they were busy with the 58 mm behemoth.

As far as I know you don't own a Z camera, dave, so you're mostly talking in theory and what you think about what you read or watched on YT. That's alright as most people do so, but please don't feel offended when I put my real world experiences with Z against your theory.
Don't get me wrong, I take these bodies more often than the D850 and I don't see a real reason that will change back in the future - but there's so much little details to miss.

We'll see about the L-mount. The audience for it is wider than you think, I believe.


   I never even knew the Nikon 1 system, but it was the beginning and they had a way to go ........ just like Sony made poor/crappy cameras at the start ......
   Surely you can give Nikon a bit of a break JoJu ..... the Zs have only been out 16 months ...... they've an adapter for F mount so as not to brick your old glass ..... and the lenses are arriving at a reasonable pace, faster and better than I expected.
   Also I'm not so sure that everything has to be F1.4 these days, the new Z glass is excellent at F1.8 ..... for 90% of folk that will do nicely.

 I would like to know what Z glass you are using and how good you find it?

  The D500 and D850 are probably the best two APSc/ FF DSLRs ever made and were the dream of many a photog ....... yet after such a short time many are relegated to the wardrobe ..... and like yourself folk are using the Z ..... so it can't all be bad !!

   To be honest I'm more impressed by the Z glass than the Z cameras !!
Dave's clichés
#39
For 90% of the folk, cellphones do nicely, Dave.

FF is all about the possibility of shallow DOF. So, having the option to have f1.4 for wide/normal primes is kinda a must for FF platforms, as are f2.8 wide to portrait tele zooms. Does not mean every lens has to be (that) fast, but having the option to add one or a few, is kinda a must.

JoJu has pointed out the Z glass issues he has, I believe. He talked about hotspots, which I am curious about what he means by them in images, and leaving distortion correction up to software (would like to see that too).
#40
(11-18-2019, 11:23 AM)davidmanze Wrote:    I never even knew the Nikon 1 system, but it was the beginning and they had a way to go ........ just like Sony made poor/crappy cameras at the start ......
   Surely you can give Nikon a bit of a break JoJu ..... the Zs have only been out 16 months ...... they've an adapter for F mount so as not to brick your old glass ..... and the lenses are arriving at a reasonable pace, faster and better than I expected.
   Also I'm not so sure that everything has to be F1.4 these days, the new Z glass is excellent at F1.8 ..... for 90% of folk that will do nicely.

 I would like to know what Z glass you are using and how good you find it?

  The D500 and D850 are probably the best two APSc/ FF DSLRs ever made and were the dream of many a photog ....... yet after such a short time many are relegated to the wardrobe ..... and like yourself folk are using the Z ..... so it can't all be bad !!

   To be honest I'm more impressed by the Z glass than the Z cameras !!

And you also don't know the Z system by actually using it, right?

It's 14 months (very much to my own surprise). Did you compare the lens selection of Nikon with the one of Canon? Nikon has more lenses - by numbers. Canon has more interesting lenses - by far! A 35/1.8 macro (although "only" 1:2), 50 and 85 f/1.2, 28-70/2.0 (right from the beginning), a much more versatile 24-105/4 (whereas Nikon just doubles their 24-70s), and a 24-200 FF.

On Nikon's side, the number of available (so no 58/0.95) FF lenses is just one (!) more, which is one of the 24-70s, else than that only primes. Oh - forgot the 14-30/4. Yes, probably all of them are sharper as their F-pendants. None of them, except the 24-70/2.8, features a distance scale or at least an EXIF distance entry.

My opinion about my Z-lenses.
35: Nice, but not better than the Sigma 35/1.4 at f/1.8
85: Nervous bokeh wide open at certain distances, but compared to the (sharper and more bokehlicious) Art 85/1.4 a lightweight. Hunts in low light.
14-30: Sharp - but not as good as the Art 14-24/2.8. Horrible distorsions, awkward extension: @ 14 mm the tubes are in it's longest position, @ 24 mm in their shortest. To retract the tubes (for transport) I first need to extract it to the max, then it starts to retract. Weird.
24-70/4: Better than the lousy F 24-85/3.5-4.5, good for close-up (but not as good as the Canon 35).

Both zooms can show colour blobs because reflections between rear element and sensor are not perfectly eliminated. These are harder to treat than "normal" lens flare. And I haven't seen it when F-glass was adapted.

The good thing about all primes is their lightweight and weather resistance, silent focus drives.

The less good things are: too much different filter threads, no reliable distance scale (neither in-camera nor on the lens), zooms are depending on massive software correction and Canon's idea of an additional function ring (for aperture or VV-correction) did only find it's way in the expensive 24-70/2.8.

Then there are two more lenses because marketing found it cool to start an APS-C line. Actually if their Z 50 would have featured a tilt-swivel display, I would have jumped on it. Would have been awesome. 

The adapter. One of the weirdest devices. Again, look at Canon's design (extra control ring or drop in filter or nothing of all) and then see what went wrong with the stupid idea to integrate a tripod socket on another level than the camera's bottom plate. In practical use it's a nightmare to switch between F and Z glass when the camera is on tripod in a quick-release. They just copied the FT1 adapter (at the time a pricey device) and blew it up to scale. Nothing learnt. I can understand the tiny wheeny 1-mount needed all kind of (tripod) support to not rip it out when mounting an average FF lens, but the Z mount is bigger and includes more screws.

There were apparently not enough brain cells involved to donate an Arca compatible socket, but that stubborness is to be seen in all Nikon tripod collars - one big reason for me to buy Tamron or Sigma instead.

In short: If someone with a good set of Nikon DSLRs and nice lenses would ask me if it's good moment to buy into the Z-system, I would hesitate a "yes".

To get the curve towards the thread subject: Yes, there's a lack of reviews of Nikkor Z lenses. But there are much fewer alternatives than in other systems, so its really not that much of an issue.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)