Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Case Against the "Z" System — Lighter… Really?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1
Nikon Shooter

Nikon Shooter

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,616 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Location: French Canadian living in Central Europe

All the fuss around the newer mirrorless Z system is getting ridiculous 

if you ask me… it feels like talking to scientology adepts or creationists.

… but it is lighter!

The mirrorless body is indeed lighter — by about a third — but is that
of any good? There will be long road map until there are enough Z len-
ses to accommodate the actual F mount users. The new glasses will be
fatter and heavier to fit the Z mount… lighter, really? Using an F lens on
a Z body means the use of the adaptor. Again, lighter… really?

If one uses Z lenses, like the 50mm ƒ1.2, there will be a outrageous gain
gain in size, weight, and price that all make me shiver and all will make
any combo feel very front heavy. So not really lighter and unbalanced.

There are mirrorless cameras that are very light… the Point & Shoots. :P



#2
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,086 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The reason I am interested in the Z system going forward isn't the bigger throat diameter making it possible to make faster lenses. The strength lies in the shorter register distance making it possible to make wide primes with less retrofocus. After playing around with borrowed 20, 24 and 35 mm lenses, I see them in my future, but I am in no hurry to get there.

 

Less retrofocus makes it possible to make IF lenses with little or no CA, even when shooting branches against fluffy clouds.

 

My wants are far from the norm but Nikon are getting there in winning me over to the Z side, For 50 mm and longer, I still prefer my F cameras and lenses.



#3
Nikon Shooter

Nikon Shooter

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,616 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Location: French Canadian living in Central Europe

 The strength lies in the shorter register distance making it possible to make wide primes with less retrofocus.


Not sure the stronger angulation will be of any advantage though.



#4
fallout666

fallout666

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Locationcfl area of space coast

nikon shooter i know you love your nikon in all but give nikon chance to catch up. not sure why they slow catching up. we had huge issue in past 2 years. we had fire at chip plant shipping lane blocked and virus going around with lockdowns



#5
fallout666

fallout666

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Locationcfl area of space coast

nikon shooter then why do i get this with gen 1 70-200mm nikon lens and Z6 

Attached Thumbnails

  • DSC_1875.jpg


#6
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,086 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter


Not sure the stronger angulation will be of any advantage though.


The microlenses are designed with the shorter register distance in mind.