rangel28 wrote:chambeshi wrote:Thom's Latesthttps://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/who-is-nikons-customer.htmlThe average consumer who may have an interest in photography is not going to jump from their cell phone to an expensive full frame camera and numerous lenses.Agree.  Average consumer either doesn't care about image quality difference or does not notice.There is also issue of convenience.  Few of us are going to carry a FF Digital camera with wide-telephoto lens around nearly as much as we carry a compact and lightweight smartphone.In some places, you simply are not allowed to carry FF Digital camera with small lens.   But you can waltz right in with a smartphone!

NikonBiologist wrote:TheWillRogers wrote:Nikon has let many of those become Fujifilm and Sony customers due to neglect.This is something I don't understand. I bought the Z50 because of its price point, and at the time I bought it, there was nothing that competed. Fuji cameras at the price point of the Z50 lacked weather sealing, shot slower, has slower AF, did not have modern ergonomics, fewer customizability options, had poorer performing lenses, higher quality lenses cost similar to FX Nikon lenses, and were similarly sized. Fuji cameras' price per density unit (g/cm^3 or w/e you want to use) is not efficient when compared to full frame cameras they compete against. Fuji cameras definitely competed poorly against the Z50 kit at the same price point.I kinda understand Sony, though I found the ergo of their APS-C line to be quite bad, particularly the EVF and grip. Also at the price point of the Z50, the Sony offerings lack weather sealing. The thing Sony has going for it is the significantly better AF and glut of affordable lenses. But the body itself is simply worse.I had a Z50 and moved over to the XT3 which was superior in almost every way. Same price used vs the Z50 at the time (since it was new; probably too much of a difference now). The XT3 has far better AF and FPS, better ergonomics, customization, EVF, less blackout, weather sealing, and far more lenses than Nikon dx z could offer. Not sure which Fuji lenses you used compared to Nikon's 3 DX lenses, but Fuji has a lot of great lenses. The only thing better the Z50 did was offer a nice grip, smaller size, and access to z glass (though FX glass on it often was rather large).For the record, I also have the Z6 and it definitely has its place in my gear selection, plus several Nikon lenses (F and Z mount), which are excellent. But Nikon DX is very weak; it's why I got an X-H2S for wildlife/sports.Being an event/sports photographer, I work with two bodies side by side at a time because we have no time to switch lenses. It was a D810 and D500 pair, but when the Z6 came along, it replaced the D500 easily even though the D500 performed more consistently.Why? It's the crop factor. With a DX and FX pair, the DX lenses (namely the 10-20 and 16-80) stay on the DX body and stayed away from the FX body. With a high resolution and normal resolution FX pair, it doesn't matter which body.High end crop is a niche that they (including Sony and Canon) can afford to leak to Fujifilm. The full frame companies don't have to fight in that space. Nikon has given us the low end crop camera in the Z30. It should give us the R10 and R7 competitors. But everything has it's turn and the priorities now aren't those cameras. It's the $2k and $3k full frames. That's where the competition is really happening. It's the $2k and $3k full frame customers Nikon cannot afford to continue to lose to the Sony and Canon.

Even this article by Thom is a half a year late, although I’m grateful for it. I’m at a point where my options could honestly be:- buy  a second hand D850 to cover FF, doesn’t really advance my change to ML any.- buy a Z9 (that almost no one can supply), and frankly why should I have to buy a flagship camera and an FTZ2  to get nearly what I want, not much more than a D500/D850?- sell everything and start again at Canon or Sony. This is appearing to be the best option.Nikon showed promise for a while there but really they are showing very little now.nice enough Z9, but everything else is too few, too little, becoming too late.Someone asks “do you know the size of the market?” Well yes, it’s much bigger than one company, and certainly big enough for other manufacturers to maintain a proper range of bodies.The “one flagship, 4 sub-par bodies” approach is getting old fast.

I'm likely in the minority. I drug a D700 around everywhere I went for years. I recently bought a Z6II and ended up selling it. Even though it was lighter, the basic 24-70f/4 was still a pretty hefty setup for my purposes. I bought a Zfc and it's been a breath of fresh air. Most importantly, it's been a really fun camera to take out. I can't say that for many cameras I've owned. I hope Nikon keeps the crop system rolling along.

Franz304 wrote:That's kinda a flawed logic, because if phones can take over APS-C, it doesn't take that much more to take over FF too. The reason APS-C has fallen behind more than FF is because camera makers hold back features in almost all of their APS-C bodies, because they paternalistically decided that DX=casual....but the casual segment of the market has been gone since years by now, so they will of course struggle selling such bodies.Having owned the D500/D750, and for years desired an updated D750 with the performance of the D500, FX, CFE support, USB-C, a flippy screen, onboard flash, and updated 30mp sensor (IE competition for the Canon R and Sony A7R's.)IMO, the five year gap of nothing is what lost them market share.I put together an XT3 system a few times, and it was still kind of pricey for what it is.I'm pretty happy with my Z50, but it needs to be updated to at least match the responsiveness of the D500 as others have mentioned. Even if it was $2,000, I'd sure be interested in it. Why can't we have a smaller "pro" camera with a smaller form factor in 2022?!

This is an interesting thread. I've never owned a D850, but I fail to see why so many people talk about the Z7/II like it's a useless camera in comparison. It's my understanding that the autofocus is a bit better, but the Z7 II shoots way faster, has a bigger viewfinder, allows for eye and animal eye AF and has IBIS so you can stabilize your primes. It's also 300 grams lighter. That's huge.I bought a Z50 because I'm an idiot. I shot Nikon already (got in with a D3500) and had a 50mm 1.8G lens that I liked. The Z50 had by far the best ergonomics of the cameras in its price range and a great sensor. Since then I've spent far more on glass than I saved by staying with Nikon, and I hold on to my Z50 because I don't feel like taking a hit selling a great camera that is hamstrung by Nikon's refusal to produce glass for it.If I could go back in time, I would buy a Fujifilm camera, because they have glass that is excellent, and there's no BS about the "real" photographers shooting full frame. I've been waiting two and a half years for Nikon to give me a 24mm DX prime. It's all I want. I've held off on buying the Viltrox for that reason. Nikon makes amazing glass and has cameras with amazing ergonomics, but we don't all drink the FF Kool-aid. FWIW, the autofocus on the Z50 is quite solid if you shoot it with nice, bright glass like you would on FF. Nikon just refuses to make stuff like that.I think Nikon would benefit from communicating a bit better and/or figuring out internally who their target customers are. Sony targets everyone, and will sell you a great camera regardless of your interest. Fuji is moving in that direction with their latest push into wildlife. Canon is Canon and people will buy their stuff regardless. OM System is all about the outdoors and Panasonic is all in on Video. If I knew what I know now years ago when I bought into Nikon, I would run in the opposite direction.Are you a pro who wants great autofocus, two card slots, access to awesome glass and lots of custom settings? The OM-1 and XH2-S await. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would be happy to buy your Nikon gear and then complain about it!

My sony a7r2 with a 28-75mm F2.8 lens is smaller and lighter then ANY aps-c camera with that lens combo ive owned(fuji, sony, nikon, pentax, sigma, etc)Ergonomics suck, battery life is dreadful, but its really cheap, light, small, and flagship IQ.

I got my X-H1 for $950 which has very good build quality and a much better lens line up then the Z mount for Z50. I recently handled a Z6 and really love the ergonomics but not giving up my 3rd party tamrons -- i could see myself getting a Z6 / Z7 if this ever changes (assuming i dont just upgrade to a sony A7iv first.)

chambeshi wrote:Thom's Latesthttps://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/who-is-nikons-customer.htmlI'll throw my hat in here:My 18-23 year-old students ARE AMAZED when I display photos and videos from my APS-C gear using the classroom proyector. They clearly see the difference in quality, DOF and color rendition vs. their phones.I'm not pulling any tricks. These are photos and vids taken INSIDE the classroom with zero editing and correction. They go from the camera to the SD card-slot in my computer to the proyector.So no. I'm going to differ and state that younger generations are capable of appreciating the imagery produced by decent gear.They just don't know Nikon can produce high quality results.That's a huge territory camera companies ceded to smartphone makers and now is all but lost.

archerscreek wrote:Last I saw Fuji sold more mirrorless cameras than Nikon sold mirrorless.Canon claimed the TOTAL camera market for this year would be just over 5 million cameras. Others have lower numbers. That's EVERYTHING: ML, mirror and compacts etc.If Nikon finally shipped 50k Z9 that's 1% of the total market.  Most estimates put Fuji at 4% total. DX and MF.I think Nikon expects to sell 700K bodies. There claim is 13% of the market.Canon is back over 40%Sony mid 20%Fuji is mid single digits. 4?Panasonic and whoever is leftPut it in perspective. If Nikon had enough production they might have sold more Z9 than the total Fuji sales.

ericbowles wrote:Has anyone really looked at the size of these markets?There are 250 smartphones sold for every ILC camera. 99.6% of smartphone owners will never buy any ILC camera even though they buy a smartphone every 3-5 years.60% of the ILC camera market is entry level, low margin products. That market has declined by 80% and the volume will never return. The smartphone is good enough.The entry level camera market continues to shrink. It's marginally profitable or unprofitable even though it represents 60% of volume. It requires mass market advertising, extensive sales and marketing support, and the lifetime value of a customer is remarkably low. How much money can you make when 80% of your sales are through Amazon, Walmart, Costco and Target? Those companies wrote the book on low costs and thin margins. Only a small percentage of entry camera owners ever buy an enthusiast level or professional camera.Nikon has a clear strategy to focus on the enthusiast and professional segments. They have clearly communicated a plan to move away from entry level completely by 2025.There is plenty of room for DX cameras in support of enthusiasts and content creators. It's behind the FX enthusiast segment in terms of priority because the FX segment overlaps with the pro segment and is completely in the target market. But you will see DX cameras over the next couple of years targeted at enthusiasts.Price points for cameras start at $800-1000. That's high enough to eliminate the one time entry level purchase. But look at Apple - their high end iPhone 14 Pro is the top seller, and the market below $1000 is relatively small. They sell more high end phones than the entire camera industry sells ILC cameras of any type.Don't expect Nikon to change their stated strategy. They are more than 4 years into a strategy that is both profitable and efficient with capital. The quality of the products is excellent. It may not serve the low end customer, but it does work for the markets they choose to serve.Good points and assessment, as usual. ThanksEven in a shrunken market clipping off the consumer budget cameras, a DX sensor costs significantly less than a FX. This is probably the main reason it persists in the Z system. It continues to lower the entry cost into FX.Even though many D500 owners were indeed are, happy with only the single camera, Guess what? They will own at least 1 FX lens which is a Telephoto. Similarly the Z30 and Z50 owners are likely to buy a Muffin prime, eg 28 f2 or even more expensive Z FX lenses.One important question, Where do the hobbyists and Pros start off in photography? With what Nikon camera?This is the first ILC a student begins taking decent images, where Used lens and 2 then more is a logical entry.... A Z50 Zfc or z5 are perhaps sufficient here. A Uwide DX zoom is on the roadmap, which is crucial. The FTZ likely rescues and motivates many emerging photographers on tight budgets.Then there're the keen beginners in sport and wildlife. This is where the D500 and 200-500 were ideal being relatively affordable. When will Nikon release the close equivalent in the Z system ie Z90 and 200-600 ?https://photographylife.com/nikon-d500-200-500mm-f-5-6

EduPortas wrote:My 18-23 year-old students ARE AMAZED when I display photos and videos from my APS-C gear using the classroom proyector. They clearly see the difference in quality, DOF and color rendition vs. their phones.I guess nobody doubts that they'll appreciate the better quality. However, if you watch them consuming content, it's just flipping through Instagram and Snap. If they spend 5 seconds on a particular photo, that's already a lot. It will be tough to appreciate the difference in between APS-C and mobile phone during this time span. If you go on a safari nowadays, the modus operandi seems to be to shoot vertically with your mobile phone. Because 90% of views will be on a mobile phone.On your phone, you have filters and various apps at your fingertips. I don't see any camera manufacturer offering those with similar ease on the camera. And transferring it via the incredibly bad apps (does not really matter if from Nikon, Sony, Panasonic,...) to your mobile device is a hassle nobody needs.So I would argue that the camera companies got it mostly right.

chambeshi wrote:Thom's Latesthttps://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/who-is-nikons-customer.htmlYes I read it, and it suffer from the false assumption that it is still 2015.Time has changed, and the marked is not big enough for dual models in 8 different categories (duplicating the aps-c and FF line)The meta I think will be aps-c = low-end 0-1500usd,  entré level 1000-2000usd, enthusiasts 2000-3000usd, prosumer 3000-4000usd and pro level +4000usd.And don't expect two camera in each category. Maybe in some categories there is room for two, but not in all.

Ruby Rod wrote:We all know the world has changed, but probably differ on exactly how. IMO, there's less and less rationale for crop sensors. I spent the entire 13 years I had a D200 waiting to be able to afford a ff sensor camera and never would have bought the D200 if I had the money for ff. The advantages for image quality and narrower DOF really matter. Cropped is good for BIF, but how big is that market really?The market is much bigger than BIF, try going to a motor race and see the thousands of people who turn up with crop sensor DSLR bodies, who have not yet moved over to FF mirrorless with the disadvantage of requiring larger heavier more expensive FF glass with a longer focal length to get the same shot.If they can't/won't fully support crop sensor cameras with a proper lens selection, Nikon should just make the hard decision, discontinue them, and concentrate on ff stuff. I'd rather they did a great job with a narrower product line, than spread themselves too thin.

No, its not 2015 for many manufacturers, but they still have a bunch of interesting offerings. I don't think it'd be unfair to say that Nikon's offering is a little slim at the moment.If they aren't going to produce what people want then people will merely go elsewhere - something that i'm sure is underway now, whilst people complain about the size of the market.

Longdolphin01 wrote:This is an interesting thread. I've never owned a D850, but I fail to see why so many people talk about the Z7/II like it's a useless camera in comparison. It's my understanding that the autofocus is a bit better, but the Z7 II shoots way faster, has a bigger viewfinder, allows for eye and animal eye AF and has IBIS so you can stabilize your primes. It's also 300 grams lighter. That's huge.I bought a Z50 because I'm an idiot. I shot Nikon already (got in with a D3500) and had a 50mm 1.8G lens that I liked. The Z50 had by far the best ergonomics of the cameras in its price range and a great sensor. Since then I've spent far more on glass than I saved by staying with Nikon, and I hold on to my Z50 because I don't feel like taking a hit selling a great camera that is hamstrung by Nikon's refusal to produce glass for it.If I could go back in time, I would buy a Fujifilm camera, because they have glass that is excellent, and there's no BS about the "real" photographers shooting full frame. I've been waiting two and a half years for Nikon to give me a 24mm DX prime. It's all I want. I've held off on buying the Viltrox for that reason. Nikon makes amazing glass and has cameras with amazing ergonomics, but we don't all drink the FF Kool-aid. FWIW, the autofocus on the Z50 is quite solid if you shoot it with nice, bright glass like you would on FF. Nikon just refuses to make stuff like that.I think Nikon would benefit from communicating a bit better and/or figuring out internally who their target customers are. Sony targets everyone, and will sell you a great camera regardless of your interest. Fuji is moving in that direction with their latest push into wildlife. Canon is Canon and people will buy their stuff regardless. OM System is all about the outdoors and Panasonic is all in on Video. If I knew what I know now years ago when I bought into Nikon, I would run in the opposite direction.Are you a pro who wants great autofocus, two card slots, access to awesome glass and lots of custom settings? The OM-1 and XH2-S await. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would be happy to buy your Nikon gear and then complain about it!I was in the same exact situation as you, came from a d3500 + 35 mm DX combo, which i really loved. Bought the Z50, loved the small body and good ergonomics. The twin kit lenses also are really good performers, way above my expectations. I was very willing on spending more money to buy some more lenses for the Z50 but...Nikon is just not providing the options. I was initially planning on buying both the 12-28 mm and 24 mm DX lenses whenever they come out, but the first turned out to be a power zoom, so it's a no go for me. The 24 mm DX...who knows when it comes out at this pace. If Nikon can't find the resources to make DX lenses fine (though I hardly believe that), but then why not strike a deal with Sigma or Tamron to get their APS-C lenses to Z DX? The answer is simple, they want to force DX user into FX, even if they don't want to. And they are free to do it, just don't expect me to be a part of it. I would rather step back to smartphones than do that.

ericbowles wrote:Nikon has a clear strategy to focus on the enthusiast and professional segments. They have clearly communicated a plan to move away from entry level completely by 2025.+1Don't expect Nikon to change their stated strategy. They are more than 4 years into a strategy that is both profitable and efficient with capital.Again +1The quality of the products is excellent. It may not serve the low end customer, but it does work for the markets they choose to serve.If you are not running parallel to Nikon's current/future photographic strategy - Nikon seems to be making it clear where it is heading.

Ive taken the exact same images with my S22 cell phone and Sony A7R2 with 40mm F1.4 art lens -- everyone preferred the images from the S22 because they had more saturation and i edit my A7R2 images with natural real to life color and such.Viewed on a 18x24" print or a 55" TV would probably change most peoples opinions but when viewed on a 6" cell phone...

Buttons252 wrote:Ive taken the exact same images with my S22 cell phone and Sony A7R2 with 40mm F1.4 art lens -- everyone preferred the images from the S22 because they had more saturation and i edit my A7R2 images with natural real to life color and such.Viewed on a 18x24" print or a 55" TV would probably change most peoples opinions but when viewed on a 6" cell phone...It depends on your audience.Smartphones know that most casual observers prefer highly saturated images.  That's the default setting for smartphone cameras.  Photographically, they are usually over saturated - but they are bright, colorful, and work on social media.The same is true for video.  If your objective is likes and compliments, color and highly saturated video draws attention.  It's what social media is targeting with their evolution.ILC camera video is a lot better than smartphone video - but it takes some effort.  Smartphone video gives you a 5-10 second clip that looks good and can be shared immediately.

cosmicnode wrote:The market is much bigger than BIF, try going to a motor race and see the thousands of people who turn up with crop sensor DSLR bodies, who have not yet moved over to FF mirrorless with the disadvantage of requiring larger heavier more expensive FF glass with a longer focal length to get the same shot.I think many people haven’t fully realized that a 45 MP camera run in DX mode pretty much equates what most DX bodies can do. The biggest issue here is cost, which is why I believe Nikon needs a Z D500 replacement.