Franz304 wrote:jjz2 wrote: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.Fuji is the only company treating aps-c right, but even then, their smaller cams don’t get the goods and have actually been taking key features and buttons away from their smaller cams like xt30 and xe4. Of course those don’t get WR either. The xe4 had particularly been stripped from what the xe2 had... So to get more buttons and features or wr you have to get the x pro or x t4, then you’re spending FF money and into FF type weight.Yes and no, you can already get almost everything with an XS10, which costs only 999$ on amazon. Sure, it does not have 100% features of the pro cameras, but that's really good value for the money. Above all, you get IBIS over the Z50.No WR, and that body is noticeably bigger than the 2 I mentioned, esp the XE4, 100g heavier. The no WR small body is still a big whiff for Fuji I always thought, esp with having 16/23/27/35/50mm primes that were all WR.Yes, I know there are a lot of pros/cons and each. My fave Fuji cam in design was the XE2, it's what got me into mirrorless. I guess I am kind of mad at what they did to it over the iterations.The XS10 has the PSAM setup which is good for those who want that, that's true. I would still recommend Fuji over Nikon for basically anything APS-C related if you are only shooting APS-C.

jjz2 wrote:The XS10 has the PSAM setup which is good for those who want that, that's true. I would still recommend Fuji over Nikon for basically anything APS-C related if you are only shooting APS-C.Yeah, I probably would have gone for a XS10 if it was out when I bought the Z50. I think it was released about a year later. Not that the Z50 is a bad camera, quite the opposite. But there's simply not much room for growth in Nikon APS-C. Well, let's see how the 24 mm DX turns out at least. Seems like a really good pairing for the Z50.

jjz2 wrote:Franz304 wrote:jjz2 wrote: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.Fuji is the only company treating aps-c right, but even then, their smaller cams don’t get the goods and have actually been taking key features and buttons away from their smaller cams like xt30 and xe4. Of course those don’t get WR either. The xe4 had particularly been stripped from what the xe2 had... So to get more buttons and features or wr you have to get the x pro or x t4, then you’re spending FF money and into FF type weight.Yes and no, you can already get almost everything with an XS10, which costs only 999$ on amazon. Sure, it does not have 100% features of the pro cameras, but that's really good value for the money. Above all, you get IBIS over the Z50.No WR, and that body is noticeably bigger than the 2 I mentioned, esp the XE4, 100g heavier. The no WR small body is still a big whiff for Fuji I always thought, esp with having 16/23/27/35/50mm primes that were all WR.Yes, I know there are a lot of pros/cons and each. My fave Fuji cam in design was the XE2, it's what got me into mirrorless. I guess I am kind of mad at what they did to it over the iterations.The XS10 has the PSAM setup which is good for those who want that, that's true. I would still recommend Fuji over Nikon for basically anything APS-C related if you are only shooting APS-C.If the X-S10 was out when I got my Z50 I might have considered it. The fact that the Z50 two-lens kit is less than the X-S10 with 18-55mm really does put them in entirely different price brackets. The X-S10 also isn't weather sealed which heavily limits its usable scenarios.

Leonard Shepherd wrote:xlucine wrote:Leonard Shepherd wrote:EduPortas wrote:Film can still go head-to-head with the vast majority of sensors out there.If you mean for resolution - are you joking?For resolution, he's right. There are some absurdly high res BW film stocks out there. Stocks like adox CMS ii are packing similar lines/mm as an unbinned smartphone sensor (800 l/mm, so kind of like 0.625um pixels), so long as you use the right developer.My point is Smartphones do not have the resolution capability of high end ML.OK. Who is saying that they do? I was discussing the resolution of good film, which is well in excess of the capability of ML sensors, and I was replying to you discussing the resolving power of film.

xlucine wrote:Leonard Shepherd wrote:xlucine wrote:Leonard Shepherd wrote:EduPortas wrote:Film can still go head-to-head with the vast majority of sensors out there.If you mean for resolution - are you joking?For resolution, he's right. There are some absurdly high res BW film stocks out there. Stocks like adox CMS ii are packing similar lines/mm as an unbinned smartphone sensor (800 l/mm, so kind of like 0.625um pixels), so long as you use the right developer.My point is Smartphones do not have the resolution capability of high end ML.OK. Who is saying that they do? I was discussing the resolution of good film, which is well in excess of the capability of ML sensors, and I was replying to youdiscussing the resolving power of film.That's true - but your example was a very specialised film. To achieve the quoted extreme resolution, one has to be happy to shoot in monochrome at no more than 100 ISO, and to employ one particular development chemical.That's not an indicator of the capabilities of film in general. I could just as easily postulate that digital is better than film because it's possible to create something like the LSST camera, which has around 3,200MP...https://petapixel.com/2022/10/04/3200-megapixels-the-worlds-largest-camera-is-almost-complete/...but I won't

And how many will they sell?it’s galling when I’ve bought thousands of dollars of grown up equipment for birding and now i’m buying a D850 because there is no affordable body for this in the Zed line.nikon has done some incredibly clever work rationalising their lens offering, but then cut off the bodies or make rubbish for vloggers.

The boomer part is quite accurate. So is the shilling for that matter.literally no one is saying what needs to be said:- you shouldn’t have to buy the flagship to get what you want.- you probably don’t need the flagship anywayit’s lazy and it’s short term.

Ramon767 wrote:And how many will they sell?it’s galling when I’ve bought thousands of dollars of grown up equipment for birding and now i’m buying a D850 because there is no affordable body for this in the Zed line.What's wrong with the D500 that's in your gear list?

Nothing, why?what was wrong with anyone’s camera before they handed over their boomer dollars and bought a Z9?

Ramon767 wrote:And how many will they sell?it’s galling when I’ve bought thousands of dollars of grown up equipment for birding and now i’m buying a D850 because there is no affordable body for this in the Zed line.nikon has done some incredibly clever work rationalising their lens offering, but then cut off the bodies or make rubbish for vloggers.It's not like they will never update the $2k and $3k full frames again and sell only the Z9. If you're not switching away to another brand, you can Just wait for the Z7iii instead of potentially suffering buyers remorse on the D850.You can of course still go ahead with the D850. Just don't say we didn't give you a heads up.

You could be right. But the Z7iii could be another incremental change too.and it could be 6 months away or it could be announced, be 6 months from production and then never be produced in numbers significant enough to supply the non-US market.

Buttons252 wrote: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.)The s line lenses are really good… like… really good. I know the Fuji primes are good but the Nikon s lenses are on another level entirely esp combined with a ff sensor.As a mostly prime shooter, it’s the main reason I went nikon. Just the look and quality of the imaging coming out of them is awesome. It’s def easily noticeable above fuji. Plus I get WR and IBIS.I do not really like the size of them, yeah they are bigger. Fuji body suits my taste better also. I am getting better results though. esp for paid work.

briantilley wrote:xlucine wrote:Leonard Shepherd wrote:xlucine wrote:Leonard Shepherd wrote:EduPortas wrote:Film can still go head-to-head with the vast majority of sensors out there.If you mean for resolution - are you joking?For resolution, he's right. There are some absurdly high res BW film stocks out there. Stocks like adox CMS ii are packing similar lines/mm as an unbinned smartphone sensor (800 l/mm, so kind of like 0.625um pixels), so long as you use the right developer.My point is Smartphones do not have the resolution capability of high end ML.OK. Who is saying that they do? I was discussing the resolution of good film, which is well in excess of the capability of ML sensors, and I was replying to youdiscussing the resolving power of film.That's true - but your example was a very specialised film. To achieve the quoted extreme resolution, one has to be happy to shoot in monochrome at no more than 100 ISO, and to employ one particular development chemical.That's not an indicator of the capabilities of film in general. I could just as easily postulate that digital is better than film because it's possible to create something like the LSST camera, which has around 3,200MP...https://petapixel.com/2022/10/04/3200-megapixels-the-worlds-largest-camera-is-almost-complete/...but I won'tThat camera gets the same resolving power as a pack of large format T-max 400 sheets, and as it's also a bunch of small sensors stuck together that's a fair comparison. Film broke the gigapixel mark (or at least the lp across the sensor equivalent) at least 70 years ago with large aerial photography cameras, it's far easier to make big sheets of film than a big digital sensor. Of course, any genuine argument would at least compare equal sensor sizes.CMS is widely available, fits in any 35mm camera, and even meters in quite a few. It's accessible to the vast majority of film shooters (all except those with other formats or p&s cams with fixed exposure). If you want to argue that it's not representative of film, then you'd have to accept that smartphones are the only thing that can represent the capabilities of digital (after all, ILCs are less than half a percent of the overall camera market)

Years ago somebody made a pinhole out of a railway box car. I have a vague memory of somebody doing something similar with a barn. Both would dwarf that camera in the link.

Ramon767 wrote:And how many will they sell?it’s galling when I’ve bought thousands of dollars of grown up equipment for birding and now i’m buying a D850 because there is no affordable body for this in the Zed line.It perhaps partly depends on your point of view.There was a long, long gap between the D300 and D500 - with perhaps people like you not inclined to accept the D7000/7200 had much better AF and much higher resolution - and could overall be a better product.What perhaps you are actually complaining about is Nikon seem to be taking around a year to bring out Z9 trickle down technology products.Right now while you can use a Z9 in crop mode with the 500 PF in your gear list with no loss of image quality - at a high entry price - the Z9 AI (bird recognition) has yet to trickle down to lower priced bodies.Like it or not; Nikon was last with a high end pro body - though an extremely good one. Nikon are likely to be last with "trickle down" bodies - which could be extremely good.Right now there is unlikely to be anything better for performance and price for birding than a D500 and 500 PF - from any manufacturer.

At best, there is discontinuity in the range. The “transition” to mirrorless has been handled pretty poorly. There are other brands with very decent birding setups that far exceed the D500 and 500PF combo.any other assumptions you decide to make about anyone wanting a new camera body are just that.

Ramon767 wrote:Nothing, why?I was just wondering why you are considering a D850 when you already own what is acknowledged to be the best "affordable" birding kit - D500 plus 500mm PF. If it's for subjects other than birds, it would at least be worth considering the Z7 II.Interestingly (or not., you be the judge..), my first outing to test the Z6 after I bought it 3 years ago was to my local country park. Coupled with the 500mm PF, it coped admirably with birds, both in flight and perched amongst the foliage. And of course that was with the original firmware, which some would have you believe was rubbish...!

Ramon767 wrote: The “transition” to mirrorless has been handled pretty poorly. There are other brands with very decent birding setups that far exceed the D500 and 500PF combo.I take it you are not aware of the 400 f4.5 S bare, or with 1.4/2x converter

It’s really just for birds. If you can get in close enough, and apply enough pixels, I just enjoy the results, the D500 is amazing, but it has its limits.if you really have to crop to aps-c you still can. And, if you want more pixels for something else, you have it.presumably all the reasons that people are picking up a Z9?like I said, I had a Z9 in hand the other day, and just decided that $9000AUD was a bridge too far. Lenses for that amount, easy, a body, nope.Im irritated because I backed Nikon via my purchasing and had an expectation of a fuller range whereby I could transition to ML: that said, I should have reminded myself of the time period between the D300S and D500!I think that’s what they don’t get: a lack of certainty pushes customers to where the certainty is. Other brands, or in my case back to the secondhand market, which might even be a revelation.

Of course I am, and if I had a Z7ii I’d use it with that just because I have it, but that body is nowhere near as useful as a D500 or even a D850.I did a lot of trialling with the Z6, and if you have a bird slow or big enough it can do a few things, but nowhere near the Ds. I can’t even acquire a swallow for example with a Zed. And you’re right it even could be me, but that’s still a valid reason to want more, especially when you could have a Canon R5, a Z9 that’s not a flagship, or a Sony offsome kind.anyway, off to try out my new D850.