Z5, an entry level full frame body on its way

[ianwatson]

Looking deeper, our little Z50 is priced very close to the new Z5, and IMO. the Z5 is over priced, so we will see a discount on that Z5 before long. On top of that, who knows what Black Friday pricing will offer? Sure, I'd rather have a Z6-24-70 combo, but I'm not wanting to drop an extra $1000 to get one.

Value is subjective but I think that the price of the Z5 is reasonable. More of a problem is which lens to buy to go with it. The 24-70/4 is unlikely to be offered as a kit with it and the new 24-50 is too slow to catch a cold. I don’t see the point in buying a Z if I cannot afford at least one native lens to go with it.

[Luc]

Value is subjective but I think that the price of the Z5 is reasonable. More of a problem is which lens to buy to go with it. The 24-70/4 is unlikely to be offered as a kit with it and the new 24-50 is too slow to catch a cold. I don’t see the point in buying a Z if I cannot afford at least one native lens to go with it.

I guess it all depends on one's photography subjects and style. The 24-50mm f4-6.3 would cover the majority of my holiday and city images. If manual focus is not a problem a K&F F to Z adapter and a second hand manual focus lens could be a nice and cheap supplement.

[chambeshi]

Live on Friday afternoon in London - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-LbZOKDYpk

[CS]

Z50 might not have IBIS, but its handling is pretty good so easy to support the camera steadily.

Thanks for that. Maybe you'll get a Z5 then post a comparison with it against the Z50m and the Z6.

[MEPER]

You make some good points, Oivind.

Looking deeper, our little Z50 is priced very close to the new Z5, and IMO. the Z5 is over priced, so we will see a discount on that Z5 before long. On top of that, who knows what Black Friday pricing will offer? Sure, I'd rather have a Z6-24-70 combo, but I'm not wanting to drop an extra $1000 to get one.

The Z5 does both FX and DX, although I'm in the dark WRT how various F mount lenses function with the FTZ between them and the Z body. That's a consideration for me since my gear is mostly DX, with a small amount of F amount lenses in my bag left over from my film days. One could use the 12-24 on an FX body if they gave up the wider capabilities. How would that play out withe 12-24 mounted to an FTZ? IOW, I don't even know what I don't know about moving into the Z world. Maybe the Z50 is a better choice for me if I did move up to Z, but the lack of IBIS gives me pause as my vision and balance get worse with age.

The Z50 with kit lens 16-50 works extremely well and 16-50 has VR. Also the 16-50 is very compact so it is only if you really need the extra wide angle from the 12-24 and then it is quite easy to hand hold even without VR.  I have Z50, 12-24 and FTZ adapter but have only tried 12-24 to see if it worked. Z50 is a lot less compact with 12-24 + FTZ but seems to be able to make nice images.

[CS]

The Z50 with kit lens 16-50 works extremely well and 16-50 has VR. Also the 16-50 is very compact so it is only if you really need the extra wide angle from the 12-24 and then it is quite easy to hand hold even without VR.  I have Z50, 12-24 and FTZ adapter but have only tried 12-24 to see if it worked. Z50 is a lot less compact with 12-24 + FTZ but seems to be able to make nice images.

If I went for the Z50m I already have stabilized 17-50 f/2.8 that I use on my D7200.Then I have a 70-300 VR that would also sit on the FTZ, so unless the kit lenses are that much better than what I have, I could just go for the body. Of course that blows compactness all to hell, and might turn it to be a bad idea. If you can squeeze off some . images with your 12-24-Z50-FTZ, and post them, I would be grateful.

[MEPER]

I took a couple of the usual test images from my view at home (before my 15k Saturday run) with Z50 + FTZ + 12-24 set at 12mm. First image at F4 (with a couple of 100% crops) and second image at F11 with same 100% crops. I think at 12mm you get the "worst" quality from the lens. But lens makes nice sharp images. I did not play with curves etc. to post process the images. Just "snaps".

From last image is a compare between Z50 with 16-50 and 12-24 with FTZ adapter. It shows that 16-50 is quite compact and the optical quality is very high.

If going for the Z50 I would suggest to get the kit with 16-50 and FTZ as you get these for less than half the normal price......if you take price from kit and subtract price for Z50 body only?
With extra FTZ adapters you can have FTZ permanent on most used lenses. Then it is easier to swap between Z and F-lenses. I have just got one more FTZ for that purpose but paid probably close to double up compared to the kit price. 

[MEPER]

Also the built-in flash in Z50 works better with 16-50 than 12-24 as the big lens will shade for the flash for close-ups.

[Nasos Kosmas]

Maybe the NIKKOR 10-20 afp Dx is a good option that’s lighter and less bulky?

[CS]

I took a couple of the usual test images from my view at home (before my 15k Saturday run) with Z50 + FTZ + 12-24 set at 12mm. First image at F4 (with a couple of 100% crops) and second image at F11 with same 100% crops. I think at 12mm you get the "worst" quality from the lens. But lens makes nice sharp images. I did not play with curves etc. to post process the images. Just "snaps".

From last image is a compare between Z50 with 16-50 and 12-24 with FTZ adapter. It shows that 16-50 is quite compact and the optical quality is very high.

If going for the Z50 I would suggest to get the kit with 16-50 and FTZ as you get these for less than half the normal price......if you take price from kit and subtract price for Z50 body only?
With extra FTZ adapters you can have FTZ permanent on most used lenses. Then it is easier to swap between Z and F-lenses. I have just got one more FTZ for that purpose but paid probably close to double up compared to the kit price.

Thank you very much!

Yes, 12mm is the weak point for the 12-24, but, many consider it to rival primes at 24m. It does not appear that the FTZ created any issues with performance, if you don't count flash shading caused by the low angle built in flash and larger diameter lenses. But, that particular problem applies to more camera bodies than just  the Z line.

The 16-50 looks very nice, something that I notice applies to the Z lenses released so far. It does offer me redundancy that I'm not sure I need. But, it must be said that I have not shot a Z body or any Z lenses, so what do I know? The 10-20 (more redundancy, but also 2mm more on the wide end over he 12-24)is currently enjoying a discount here, and the FTZ is priced at $50 with camera body purchase.

I gad a thought that a Z body would allow me to use my 105-2.5 again. I can't focus manual lenses on my current DSLRs, and my ARMD certainly does not help. I have to rely on AF, so maybe moving to a Z is little more than a pipe dream. In any event, I thank NG for the responses, and MEPER, I quite like that first image!. 

[MEPER]

I had the Z50 and 12-24 with FTZ out for at short walk and took at couple of "snaps".
The large lens handles quite well on Z50. You can really grab on the lens and keep it steady.....almost as good as VR :-)
Images are shot at 12mm around aperture 7. The 12-24 is a very good lens.

[CS]

I had the Z50 and 12-24 with FTZ out for at short walk and took at couple of "snaps".
The large lens handles quite well on Z50. You can really grab on the lens and keep it steady.....almost as good as VR :-)
Images are shot at 12mm around aperture 7. The 12-24 is a very good lens.

I have enjoyed my 12-24 for several years on my D200. For some reason I have not ever mounted it on my D7200, but I have threatened to, if that counts. Oivind has done some great work with that lens. Now my Lr catalogue is having fits, many of my images show as "cannot be found". I was going to post a 12mm shot until i discovered the errors. I will probably have to dump my catalogues in Lr, then re-enter the images from my NEFs. Not exactly what I was looking forward to.

I'll try to get out tomorrow and grab some shots with the 12-24. More threats from the fat man.... 

Thanks for posting the additional images.

[MEPER]

The 12-24 is mentioned at 1001:

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0068/index.htm

They dare to point it at the stars at 12mm at full aperture..... :-)   

[CS]

The 12-24 is mentioned at 1001:

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0068/index.htm

They dare to point it at the stars at 12mm at full aperture..... :-)

Thanks, I will look at that link later today.

[Seapy]

I will probably have to dump my catalogues in Lr, then re-enter the images from my NEFs. Not exactly what I was looking forward to.

Have you tried rebuilding the catalogue or reverting to a recent backup? My Lr catalogue is remarkably robust having about 80,000 images across several drives and shifted to several computers and major software updates without much complaint, even combining catalogues.  Once my catalogue became established I still have the original despite many blunders on my part.

Keep backups...

Check out tutorials...