noone

I don't have shares in any of these companies so don't really care who is responsible but I do think if they come from a Sony factory, I will call them Sony sensors others can call them what they like. The D850 sensors had all this said about them but they do have a Sony part number and I would expect the same for the Z7. Certainly has a large amount of Nikon DNA in it as well as Sony. I was just thinking (probably wrongly) that if the Z6 sensor is quite different to most Sony sensors (sensors from a Sony factory), that MIGHT be from a different maker altogether?

Are we sure the Nikon Z6 sensor is a Sony? It is not a normal pixel count Sony sensor. The Z7 seems to be Sony but wouldn't that be stretching Sony's abilities to have yet another Sensor line? I wouldn't mind seeing a $500 FF Yi camera.

Oldest camera with a fully articulated screen I can find IS a Canon (Powershot G2 from 2001), Oldest ILC is that Epson RD1(March 2004) Oly E3 was 2007. First Canon ILC I can find is the Canon 60D from 2010 (after several Olympus, Sony,, Nikon and Panasonic ILCs).

Is a flip out screen a Canon thing? Olympus had a fully rotating flip out screen on their long defunct four thirds DSLRs. Sony is still one of the two largest shareholders in Olympus as well I think (along with Nikon).

Ahh. It is only 33 frames RAW and 60 Jpeg at 30fps (From DPReview's what you need to know article). Pity!

I am waiting for someone to make a video out of the 30fps (with slight crop) sports mode in stills.

Why not? Not every lens but if you have a lens and it isn't available in another mount and you want to use or at least try it elsewhere for something different, why not? Just gives more choice.

Rent an A7iii and Metabones adapter and try your existing Canon lenses on it? Maybe you might find it closer to what you want than you think and you can still get that "cheap" 70-200 2.8 from Canon or third party in Canon mount and use it on the Sony. I think the Z looks ok but currently it is more for people who have a stack of recent Nikon AF lenses more than someone switching or staring from scratch.

I thought the crop was 4k only and that would have been ok. Not great at 1.7x for video at all. Trying to think of what lenses you could use to get something like 15mm FF and I don't think there are that many.

I am a bit more optimistic about it. This is not a camera for video pros but will sell well to wealthier Vloggers. Those lenses are nice but maybe not really for THIS camera (except the 35 macro) but what comes later. Imagine the original A7 with the latest, greatest FE lenses (they make a lot more sense on the third gen cameras). This will be a lot better with current EF lenses than Sony's first gen cameras with Sony /Minolta A mount lenses. Sony just has the advantage that third parties also can make adapters for other mount lenses. I see this CAMERA aimed at keeping remaining Canon 5D/6D/5Dii users with Canon and also at getting APSC users to FF (I expect that to be a huge part of their marketing push). Down the track, as a SYSTEM, those lenses make a lot more sense to me. While I think the better adapters would be better to have now, I don't see that as such a big deal with THIS camera and the plain one should do very well. Still probably not for me, and despite its many limitations even for stills, it is growing on me and while I will not buy one I would keep it if I was given one I think. I guess I would have to get a 10-18 STM APSC lens for use in 4K video.

Very disappointing in some ways and nice in others. Best things to me are the adapters (which will hopefully make EF lenses virtually native) and for the well heeled, some of those lenses. The first camera seems to me to have been made as an A7 (FIRST version) killer though while the Nikon Zeds seem to have at least been made as A7ii/A7Rii killers. IF you have a heap of current Nikon AF lenses, the Zeds make a lot of sense. IF you have a lot of Canon EF mount lenses, then you can use this OR you can use one of the various Sony's. If you are starting from scratch, you can pick and choose your poison. All these cameras will mainly sell for stills shooting and video will be a much smaller part of the equation but the new Canon seems to miss all round to me. THREE frames per second tracking, THREE, really??? Even the first A7 does 5fps with tracking! (I don't use AFC tracking very often so didn't use it all that much when I had an A7 and the A7s can not track focus to save its life but still!). When it was released, the original A7 didn't have any lenses that you could/would really want to use tracking AF and it couldn't track anything really fast moving but it really does have AFC that works ok at 5fps. The EV -6 AF seems nice though is fudging a bit by measuring with a faster lens but at the same time it seems it isn't the greatest low light camera (or it would have higher ISOs I would think) so that is a let down for me. Can not wait until someone test the EV -6 AF in low light against the A7s/A7sii (EV -4 in spec but better than that in practice). Has eye AF but only in AFS just like the first version A7 cameras (they also do it with Canon lenses though focusing slowly). As SYSTEMS on potential, the Canon and Nikon new systems look great but just on the first CAMERAS, I think I still prefer Sony overall but each has some very nice things to like (and dislike). Nikon COULD have the most upside for me but they would need to open up their mount and I have got rid of all my Nikon gear now. Sony is the only one that can take my three E mount and one A mount AF lenses but while very good (and the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 and FE 85 1.8 especially so), they CAN be replaced currently, Sony and Canon can both use my Canon lenses. I would love to try this new Canon alongside a Sony A7s (or A7siii) walk around at night with my Canon wide angle tilt shift lens. From what I have seen so far, I think I am still with Sony.

Even a 1.3x crop would kill it for me for video. There are (plenty of) times that my 17 TS-E is just right but at 22mm, not so much. If I want to use it AT 17mm FF for video, it seems I would still need to use it on a Sony (where I can ALSO use it as a 2x zoom for video as well as jpegs). That said, for stills It might be ok for me.

I like this a LOT more than Nikon's Zeds. I really hope it is a new low light sensor to match the EV -6 AF (A7s has probably got EV -5 AF while spec is EV -4 which does match sensor while the GX7 I had has EV -4 AF but not a camera I would shoot in low light). This will hopefully be a good match. It almost seems to me that Canon knew what Nikon was doing! Nikon brings out a new mount and makes much of the fact it CAN have faster lenses and will have some down the track but Canon keeps its already large mount diameter the same (54mm one less than the Zeds) and starts with fast lenses from the start. I would expect the adapters to be the best yet for using EF lenses adapted (M43 adapters have effectively native AF speed for AFS though not for AFC, Sony E mount has got better and is very good in SOME cases). Pretty much the only difference is the flange distance and being Canon made, I can not see how they could be otherwise. Adapter with a drop in filter is nice touch (have had a Fotga adapter that takes the glass from a 43mm filter with EF lenses for Sony that has been fun- so much nice to do it properly). If my A7s is beyond repair on a cost basis, then (when I can afford it) my choices are getting better- A) Another A7s (since I really love the camera), B) A used A7iii (maybe not quite as good at higher ISOs but better at everything else), Canon R when in price range (though could not use my FF E mount lenses). IF I had a lot of recent Nikon AF lenses, the Z6 when in price reach would be a contender but I don't and the Panasonic will not be in my mount choice I think and is likely a cinema camera anyway. Too early to know yet but this looks very promising.

Unless it was all you can find/afford, I would pass on it as 18-24 is a fair size chunk of focal range to go without and limits you to around 39mm FF equivalent and up if using Canon or 36mm FF equivalent for Sony/Nikon/Pentax (assuming APSC use). The lenses can be found very cheap if patient. If it is Canon and you just want a lens, maybe look at pawn shops and on line for old EOS film cameras as they often have a fully working EF lens attached for very little money (though probably not stabilized and probably starting at 28mm but will give longer range and less likely to stop working all together). Ask friends and family if they know anyone who has an old camera of the same make as yours sitting around unused that might have a lens or two you can use. It would cost a LOT more than the lens is worth to fix it unless it is something like simply dirty contacts on the camera.

He isn't JUST a Sony techno geek. He has posted in the new Nikon Z forum he is going to test the Z cameras as soon as he can. I don't have an issue with Sony for Lenses or ergonomics but that applies to every camera I have used really (currently getting used to an old Canon DSLR until I get my Sony fixed).

Don't know about the 28-75 supposed to be plasticky but it IS a popular lens for a reason (I still have the 28-70 FE kit lens and mine is ok), I thought the 50 1.8 was actually supposed to be a great lens let down by not so great AF but still quite nice for the price and again, pretty popular since it is on the list (I have the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 which is a VERY nice lens, even for its high price compared to most normal 1.8 lenses). As for the FE 85 1.8, I don't know where it has been said it doesn't have great bokeh? This lens is to me, the best value thing going in photography from ANYONE. Bokeh is not the absolute best but it is still very good I think, Nikon and Canon could do very well to make an 85 1.8 for mirrorless as good and cheap as the FE 85 1.8 Again the FE 85 1.8 is cheap but it is also very good and my favourite 85 to date (I still own a Canon FD 85 1.2 L). I think I might have to sell my FE 85 and kit lens t fund my A7s repair (never selling the 55 1.8 and would rather give it to a relative if I can not use it). I have enough Canon lenses to be hopeful that Canon does make a great FF mirrorless camera that adapts well to EF lenses. The FE 85 1.8 is a much better lens than the EF 100 f2 I had (and loved) and the cheap Canon nifty fifty's are not as good as the Sony 50 1.8 I would think (mine wasn't all that great though ok). I have three cheap old Canon zooms and none are as nice as the Sony FE kit lens (which is still just a kit lens).

I have seen it (mount size) mentioned very briefly in passing (though not often) but never mentioned as a disadvantage for Nikon in reviews/first impressions as it is now being mentioned as an advantage for them.

I think it is more that they can HAVE faster lenses with the Z mount and why they have not had many 1.2 or faster lenses to date with the F mount. Something about it being easier to design wider lenses as well. That said, I still think it funny that people are now saying it is an advantage to Nikon over other mounts to have a wider mount at 55mm and yet nobody has ever listed the F mount (44mm) as being a disadvantage compared to the E mount (46.1mm) and especially the Canon EF mount which at 54mm is only one mm less than the new Z mount.

https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_50mmf18s/spec.htm

I am sure I saw them but can not think of where.

The MTFs I have seen do look really good and Nikon does say they are proud of the 50 1.8 so I am guessing it WILL be a really nice lens. Don't know about the Sony Zeiss needing to be stopped down to 2.8 to be sharp though as I mostly use it at f2 and would be happy to use it at 1.8 and only stop down with it for DOF purposes. It has left all my other normal lenses I have had for dead.

You SHOULD be able to adapt almost anything but Nikon keeping it to themselves means it will be a lot longer (if at all) before it happens. I DO think it will happen but not for some time and the early ones may not be great. Sony FF E mount has been around for a few years now but the adapters for E mount started a few years before that with NEX cameras.

You don't HAVE to use them wide open. Shallow depth of field has a place as much as anything. Maybe if that is ALL you do it could be a crutch but it is something I love having even if not used all that much. Don't forget even a 58 f0.95 lens will have infinite depth of field at a given distance (mind you with this lens it would be with a subject distance of around 120 metres with everything from about 60m to infinity in focus). This will sell to collectors and the curious with money and there will be some who would want it at any cost (as long as it is as good as I expect it will be).

I do expect the S lenses to be very good and the 50 1.8 in particular amongst the first group. The Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 FE lens is a fantastic "normal" 1.8 lens at a very high price that most who have used it love (not all though). The Sony does have some issues like LoCa but it still has left me not wanting any other normal lenses (and I have had a LOT including some quite nice ones). This lens might not have LoCa issues. I thought the Sony was good value and even at MSRP though I didn't pay anywhere near that and so that would mean this Nikon is POSSIBLY even a better deal/value. You can not adapt the Sony to other mounts either. Still the point remains, it is ONLY going to be Nikon F and Z lenses that can be used on these cameras and THAT is the issue for me (along with older Nikon lenses probably being of more use on the latest Sony's).

I think colour science is a real thing but I am sure I can not tell the difference between brands MOST of the time. I do look at Instagram photos and know who many are by without looking but most of the time they have been post processed and in some cases have switched from Nikon/Canon to Sony recently. I think there is a difference to Nikon sunset photos than others though (but I have never had any dislike to colours from any brand I have used which is most of them at some time or other).