Will the 105mm macro and the new pancake primes be enough to save Nikon? What's in their future? Will Z9 btfo the a1?
>>3899160they just need some cheap third party f/2.8s to move units. the bodies are already superb, and nikons own native z mount lenses are virtually flawless. they're just expensive as fuck, same as rf glass.
I really dont care. But if I'll be able to get z6 for 500usd in future I'll buy some.
>>3899160>fucken huege and heavy 100mmThank you for confirming that there is no point in mirrorless ff.
>>3899166whats the point if you cant afford to stick glass in front of it
>>3899160But their lenses zoom the wrong way. And they focus the wrong way too!!!(I know you can reverse focus by wire in the menus).As much as the Z6II seems to be this low light beast, the thing that feels kinda sucky are aspects to the camera which are present in everyday usability. The EVF is stuck to 60hz refresh rate - my Micro Four Thirds camera from 2014 does 120hz refresh rate. The screen is tilting only, and only up and down in the landscape position - Nikon put fully articulating screens in so many of their DSLRs, so what gives???There's only 1 SD card slot, and that's not too bad if that were to be an entry level model, or some kind of cheaper mid-range product, but for a camera of its price? That just seems dumb to me. I understand CF Express cards exist and it has a slot for it, but CF Express is pricey as hell per GB (compared to SD card, and especially UHS-II SD cards), but what's the point of CF Express if you're not shooting lots of sports photography or uncompressed raw video?It seems like FF mirrorless cameras all have a particular "flaw" to them right now. Sony has whacky ergo. Canon is obscenely expensive. Nikon... I just said. Panasonic has dumb autofocus. Sigma is whacky. I can't really justify an FF system right now, not outside of "noise".
>>3899170>120g lighter than F equivalent >fucken huege and heavy sure thing>there is no point in mirrorless ffpoorfags will convince themselves of anythingNikon D850 - 1015gNikkor F 105mm Micro - 750gTOTAL: 1765gNikon z7 - 675gNikkor Z 105mm Micro - 630gTOTAL: 1305g
>>3899171I can afford it with a lenses right now. It doesnt mean that I am willing to pay 2k on a body that will become obsolete in three years.In comparison lenses hold value much better and can be sold with little to no loss.
>>3899176>60hz refresh rate EVFHere's the thing, it is very very low lag and it keeps native res during fast movement, unlike most other cameras. In practice, it blows my Fuji X-T4 out of the water, for example. Because once res starts dropping and stuttering that high refresh doesn't mean jack shit.>tilting screenThat is an absolute positive for most photographers. Articulating screens are annoying as hell for anything not involving video or shooting portrait on a tripod.>CF Express is pricey as hell per GBseems to me that 128gb cards are about the same price as 128gb UHS-II cards right now... not sure what the problem is? Also, if you ever have to transfer a lot of files onto you're computer, those read speeds are very very nice to have.
Honestly, with more people jumping to mirror less, it drops the price of F mount, which works for me. Gimme some bargains on AI/AI-S glass.
>>3899179Yes. Huge and heavy. And what's with that fake bokeh? Iphone?
>>3899176>But their lenses zoom the wrong way. And they focus the wrong way too!!!>(I know you can reverse focus by wire in the menus).There's no right or wrong way.>There's only 1 SD card slot, and that's not too bad if that were to be an entry level model, or some kind of cheaper mid-range product, but for a camera of its price? That just seems dumb to me. I understand CF Express cards exist and it has a slot for it, but CF Express is pricey as hell per GB (compared to SD card, and especially UHS-II SD cards), but what's the point of CF Express if you're not shooting lots of sports photography or uncompressed raw video?So you want two SD slots plus CF express? Also if you're buying that camera surely a CF express card can't be all that expensive to you.Dual SD is a meme.
>>3899181>EVFI've never seen resolution drops or stuttering on my micro four thirds camera's EVF at 120hz.The only reason you'd use the EVF at 60hz is probably for what little battery life you save.>tilting screenI'd be totally pissed off by a tilting screen, personally. I shoot a lot of macro shots, and on a tripod, having full articulation allows you to very easily adjust the manual focus (along with focus peaking). Where either the camera is above or below my eye level, the fully artifacting screen is so good. Despite having so many fully articulating screens on their DSLRs, I find it bizarre that Nikon have skipped on them with the Z series. I also don't like Sony user experiences for this exact same reason.That kind of brings me to also ask what the hell were Nikon thinking of to have an extending focus on their 105mm and 50mm macro lenses. Sigma's 105mm DG DN Macro has internal focussing, and even accepts teleconverters. And Sony's 90mm Macro also internally focuses.The macro lens I use, the Olympus 60mm, also internally focuses, like a normal modern lens...>CF ExpressA UHS-II V90 SD card at 64 GB (277 MB/s) costs about £47.A CFExpress card at 64 GB (400 MB/s) costs about £120.A UHS-II V90 SD card at 512 GB (105 MB/s) costs about £366A CFExpress card at 512 GB (1480 MB/s) costs about £625I'll grant you that CF Express is fast. Such is the nature of NVMe storage, but it's also expensive.Even reading it can be a problem, because even though I could get a CF Express reader, it requires USB 3.1, which my PC cannot accept. I'd have to obtain a PCI-E card for my desktop to even have that (I know my PC is old).I just don't think we should be looking at a commercial market format war... again.Wasn't it so tiring when we had SD vs CF vs Memory Stick vs M.2 vs XD vs SmartMedia?
>>3899198>UHS-II V90 SD cardwell, here in burgerland, the quality sandisk stuff is about the same price. So you get a slower, less durable card at the same price. Maybe you don't like that you need faster USB type for those read speeds... that's why choices exist, I guess? I would hate to go back to 300 / 400 mbps read speeds particularly for video.Just seems a lot of your arguments are preference as opposed to any sort of flaw of the system / camera itself. Maybe your Panasonic G9 or whatever you're using has a better EVF? That's about it. Card slots and back screen hinge is preference. Right now the Z stuff, including lenses hit a nice balance of price to performance and justify their existence.That's not discounting M4/3, I think there is something to be said about the Panny and Olly systems and their nice balance of size and performance. Doesn't discount what the Z system offers, though. Particularly compared to other FF systems.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2021:06:10 11:56:48Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1520Image Height1116
>>3899217I have no idea how to even understand the American camera/electronics market, because I really can't fucking understand how many things are more expensive over there than they are over here.Don't your prices usually exclude General Sales Tax?All prices in the UK (and the EU) include Value Added Tax - only VAT registered businesses can buy products without VAT.In general, EU prices are higher than UK prices as most camera gear in the EU is subject to an electronics tax (an attempt to get more money out of people buying smartphones, PCs and stuff).Regardless, I picked best prices from various SanDisk, Sony Tough and Lexar flash memory.As for my MFT camera, it's a 20.3mp Olympus body without phase detection, is all I'll say on the matter.It has almost all the ergonomics and features I like, and in the world of FF cameras, the bodies that appeal to me are the Panasonic S5 and the Sigma fp L... Idk... for some reason L-Mount appeals to me most, though that's more for how good the Sigma DG DN lenses have been. Plus, the I-Series primes are so light and compact, it's like the good old days of 35mm SLRs with all sorts of cute primes.What annoys me is that Panasonic still keep to DFD, and that the Sigma fp L is a whacky and weird design.When really the only thing FF offers me right now is higher resolutions and very high ISO performance... nothing really makes me want to "jump ship".Maybe in a year or two I might get a high res FF body for use cases MFT just can't deal with. Of course, all while competing with my interests in 35mm SLRs from the 80s and 90s lmfao....
>>3899179Canon's EF 100mm f2.8 macro is 625g.Mirrorless FF is pointless.
>>3899229Panasonic's af right now is better than the best Fuji. It's actually quite amazing how they could improve it with firmware updates alone. I've experience with Canon R, G9, GH5, GH5S, and XT4. Canon is the fastest with highest keeper rate for stills, but it's video features are severely lacking. For example, you don't get smoothing options, without that you can't tweak it for a nice slow cinematic feel. Both Panasonci and Fuji have proper controls for this. Now, both can hunt and miss focus on occasion, but remarkably, Panasonic performs better. I need to stress that I'm talking about latest update. It used to be outright horrible, second af update was about where Fuji is now, and the latest update brought it into a very good territory. On a side note, xt4's video ibis is outright fantastic. Nearly as good as on a quality gimbal.
>>3899261Fuji puts me off with its pricey lenses, especially their primes...Panasonic AF is something that I understand is acceptable in S-AF anyway, which I use the most anyway. Continuous tracking AF seems like it's best used for video, at least that's my opinion, which is strange because Panasonic have some of the best video capabilities, but not really any decent continuous AF.I do wonder... If I got either an S5 or an S1H, would the DFD work as prescribed if I used predominantly Sigma lenses? I like primes, predominantly....
>>3899160>>>/gear/[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2020:12:06 13:03:44Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width400Image Height292
>>3899171Af-d glass is all you need
>>3899282>Fujifilm is pricey!!! >I wonder whether I should get the S1H ($3.5k camera, enough for X-T4 with 3 lenses) or S5 ($2K enough for X-T4 + 1 lens) >Now I only need to buy some """glass""" (basedspeak for lenses) which cost between $900 and $2000 for a zoomWhy do people like you come here and post garbage like this
>>3899282>Fuji puts me off with its pricey lensesphew if you think fuji is expensive, dont look at native canon rf sony e nikon z primes.
>>3899587>nikon zAccording to unbiased Nikon shills on here it's a cheap system, are you trying to say they sell the cameras at a loss to entrap you into their overpriced ugly lens collection?And all the incels on here are literally adapting ancient DSLR lenses instead because they can't afford Z lenses?Ridiculous.
>>3899171>whats the point if you cant afford to stick glass in front of it>>3899246>adapters>>3899570>Af-d glass is all you need>>3899598>And all the incels on here are literally adapting ancient DSLR lenses instead because they can't afford Z lenses?/p/ is a meme unto itself.
>>3899598>ugly lensFound the /fa/ggot
>>3899602These things look worse than LingLing and Smegma lenses despite costing double.I suppose people will be less inclined to steal your camera now but other than that it's just lazy
>>3899598>muh native glass>proceeds to use a manual focus 7chinks to avoid worm tax
>>3899608They’re not designed for you to have sex with, but since you never take photos I now understand why their external appearance matters more to you
>>3899608Those are a great example of form following function.
>>3899608Where is the aperture ring?
>>3899160>105mm macroyou'll need more than a macro lens to pretend you're BACK from something.>new pancake primes?source?>be enough to save Nikon?no it wont. Their pricing is ridiculous. Also no third party.>Will Z9 btfo the a1?yeah just like D6 btfo'd all the high end competition lmao
>>3899160I literally cannot get over the fact that they're all focus by wire.
>>3899584I meant to say the S1R. Idk why I typed S1H... I'm not really a big video shooter in the first place.Anyway, the S5 is a £1699 body only.The S1R is £2799 body only.The Fuji X-T4 is £1399 body only.The Fuji X-S10 is £949 body only.I don't need the high resolution all that much outside of instances when I want to crop (not often) or instances when high pixel count matters.24mp isn't a big jump from 20mp, so the point of FF turns more into a high ISO camera.APS-C isn't what I'm looking for. If you offered me an option between keeping to Olympus and going to Fuji... I'd keep to Olympus.But let's look at a lenses, shall we?The L-Mount Sigma 105mm DG DN f/2.8 Macro is £699.The Nikon Z 105mm f/2.8 S is £999.The Fujifilm XF 80mm f/2.8 LM OIS WR is £1149.>>3899587Nikon Z primes are actually alright, and are about in line with Sigma's Digital Neo lenses.Canon RF, however is expensive, and what's annoying is that the 35mm and 85mm primes are built as macro lenses first, and general photography primes second. Look at the 50mm primes and you get a cheap f/1.8 and a very expensive f/1.2.What's nice about Sigma is their £759 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom that's optically good.Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8 is £2390...
>>3899655>But let's look at a lenses, shall we?now do the holy trinities
>>3899160Save Nikon from what exactly? In the last financial reports (3/21) they declared they made profit. But answering your question, no. Macro lens would not save any camera company.
>>3899680I'll tell you the Nikon "holy trinity".Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 £2319Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 £1819Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 £2119But let's compare lenses I actually care about - primes.Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art £699 (adapted DSLR lens)Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S £824Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art £749Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S £709Sigma 50mm - MIA (I understand Sigma plan to make one, DG HSM Art is £649)Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S £439Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN Art £999Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S £619Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Art Macro £699Nikon Z 105mm f/2.8 Macro £999Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art £1149 (adapted DSLR lens)Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art £1149 + Nikon FTZ Adapter £269I'd conclude that Nikon and Sigma are about even on price and that really just brings the question of preference between Nikon Z cameras or L-Mount/Sony E cameras.
>>3899655>British rupees>Smegma lensesAh it's you
>>3899697>Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 £2319>Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 £1819>Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 £2119wow with affordable lenses like these, no wonder everyone here urges you towards any full frame body.
>>3899697>nothing but Sigma lensesWhat’s with this obsession? Why not Leica or Panasonic lenses if you’re so obsessed with L-Mount? There isn’t even one lens that interests you?Same goes for Nikon or Canon... surely Sigma’s advantage in optical quality in the DSLR days like 5 years ago has evaporated at this point?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width450Image Height450Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3899709I don't like this country, but it's the prices I get quoted with here. Can't really help it.I also don't understand your hatred of Sigma. They make their lenses and cameras in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. Few manufacturers can say their stuff is still Japanese made.>>3899764The big problem with Leica are the Leica prices.The Leica APO-Summicron 35mm f/2 is £3900The Leica APO-Summicron 50mm f/2 is also £3900The Leica APO-Summicron 90mm f/2 is £4250If you wanted something brighter, well...The Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 is £4350The Panasonic lineup of lenses mostly consists of zooms and I have a personal preference towards prime lens anyway.But here's the kicker - the Panasonic Lumix S Pro 50mm f/1.4 is £2299.That's an obscene price, and it's not as if they've put IS in the lens. Compared to Panasonic lenses on MFT, it's as if Panasonic has forgotten the word "affordable prime".Now, the Lumix S 50mm f/1.8 is £429, which isn't bad, but if Sigma make an f/1.4 DG DN prime that's about the same price as their 35mm and 85mm lenses, then there's no real competition.The Lumix S 85mm f/1.8 is £599, which isn't bad, but the Sigma is brighter.As for Sigma's optical qualities? Well, the fact that the DG DN sets of lenses are not just smaller than and cheaper than their DSLR lenses, but manage to surpass them optically, and make use of in-camera correction place Sigma into this strange place of reasonably priced lenses with superb optical performance (though a bit breathy).
>>3899160i'll unironically switch from fuji to nikon if the 40mm pancake is weather sealed
>>3899828>switch from fujiThat's what I did. Bought a Z6 on a whim to see if FF was worth all the hype it gets. It wasn't until I sold it to get a X-T4 that I realized just how superior Nikon Z is as a system, from Interface, Ergos, Glass Quality, even Colors (in RAW anyway) For anything other than travel / street fuji just is not up to par.My X-H1 stays because it isn't worth selling anymore... but I've gotten rid of everything else.
>>3899179>Nikkor F 105mm Micro - 750gAnyone who shoots with Nikon DSLR got the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 for macro. It beats the hell out of that 105mm micro.Can get one for $250 used. I myself is planning to buy one
>>3900911fuck taht, i just got some Kenko extension tubes, that with my nikkor 50 1.8d and the ftz adapter is better than any dedicated macro lens
>>3899903>using an aps-c bigger than a FFdo fujicucks really?
cool but I prefer extension tubes + dedicated macro lens
>>3899828I switched to Nikon as well, I can't believe I got memed into Fuji, don't listen to retards on Youtube.
>>3899160those new pancakes look fucking good desu. that with a z6 which are like $1200 new now is a powerful portable package that would buttfuck any fuji in image quality, ergonomics and even price now
>>3900917>do fujicucks really?It came out as a premium body for telephotos and cine-lenses. A body to buy if you're already heavily invested into the system... not as your only camera.It is great, and better than the Z6 in some ways. The super quiet shutter mech is beautiful, faster refresh EVF, leafspring shutter button, better eye relief, vertical tilting back screen, touch interface less laggy. Sensor size isn't everything you fucking dweeb. Like I said, it's worth jack shit these days, so it stays with the Z6 and works as a nice B-Cam.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1400Image Height1549
>>3899903>>3900922are you me? i've done exactly the same, a pretty big fuji system around the xh1, but with a z6+50mm f/1.8. happy as a pig in shit with both, though.
>>3899198>I dont understand what UREs, write endurance or IOPS are>the only spec that matters is bandwidththe absolute state. Whats next, are you going to compare hard drive and SSD prices? Desktop to enterprise class disk prices?>>3899598>And all the incels on here are literally adapting ancient DSLR lenses instead because they can't afford Z lenses?I've been waiting on their 24-105 and 100-400 to come out, till then i'm still using my sigma arts and 100-400C>>3899697>comparing 1.4 to 1.8 lensesffs, just go compare the prices between the F mount Nikon 1.4 and 1.8s to see there is a huge difference>>3899828its not a pancake, its just "compact' but still like 1.5" long
>>3901072>its not a pancake, its just "compact' but still like 1.5" longThat's acceptable, but then you read that it's got plastic lens mount! I'm all for plastic everywhere else, but lens mount and plastic is just dust magnet. Nikon went full Canon on this one.
>>3899160>Yeah, I'm thinking they're back...kek... they never left
>>3901361>but lens mount and plastic is just dust magnetexplain why to this anon plz
>>3899598>ugly lens collectionThey look fucking good. A lot better than the horrible gold on black plastic shit the F mount was subjected to for over a decade.