rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

MILC are sold as ‘small’ - but that is not true. Wide-angle lenses take advantage of the shortened reduced flange-distance, but longer lenses are the equivalence of a DSLR lens + an adapter.

Housty Loc: Ontario

I am lost to understand where you’re coming from. I don’t think you have much knowledge of cameras or their lenses. Your comparisons are way out of line. I have numerous F lenses and now many of the new Z “s” and I can honestly say I much prefer the new Z lenses for size, weight and quality.

DVZ Loc: Littleton CO

There are a lot of advantages going mirrorless but at least with the Nikon system weight is not one of them. The bodies are somewhat smaller but the weight is in the glass. That's why some are attracted to the 4/3 systems. For long hikes or travel I gererally use Nikon's APC system. I'm heavily invested in the f mount, good bodies and good glass. It's going to be awhile before I bring myself to change.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I believe Canon DSLR users could say the same thing.

krvitali

"bigger than my AF-S 24-120mm f1:4G lens"

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

Bought Z50 and attached my trusty Tamron 24-200 with FTZ adapter, worked well but felt nose heavy, got Nikon Z 16-300 better balance but almost equal size! Guess older optical design just longer empty space in back to keep distance to sensor.
Hope some day for newer design DX Z zooms formulated for shorter total lenght
Anyway a great camera!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I've said it many times here: The ONLY significant mirrorless SYSTEM weight reductions are realized when you buy a Micro 4/3 camera and native lenses for it. BECAUSE:

> The lenses are designed to cover one quarter of the area of a full frame sensor. They don't need as much glass.

> You need HALF the focal length for any given angular field of view. A 100-400mm lens on Micro 4/3 has the equivalent reach of a 200-800mm lens on full frame. It weighs about 1/4 to 1/2 the weight of what would be equivalent if it were available.

This is very often overlooked. The FIRST digital mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras were introduced by Olympus and Panasonic in 2008. They got a LOT of good press for being small and light, and for the lenses being small and light. So a lot of folks got the impression that ALL mirrorless digital cameras — even APS-C and full frame — would be smaller and lighter and have smaller, lighter lenses. THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE, due to the laws of physics...

Manufacturers HAVE made some strides within each format, using different materials and shrinking electronics and focus motors, but nothing as significant as shrinking the sensor.

OF COURSE, you do give up the ease of getting shallower depth of field with full frame. But you GAIN two stops MORE depth of field — at two stops WIDER aperture — on Micro 4/3. And of course, you get about 1.67 stops less overall dynamic range with Micro 4/3. So ISO 6400 on Micro 4/3 looks about like ISO 20,000 on full frame. Life is full of little trade-offs. In good light, I simply don't care. And if I NEED ISO 6400, I'm going to try to light a scene anyway, and remember that MY EYES give me a grainy picture in low light. (If my vision gets noisy, I need more light.)

fosis Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I'm going to just add one consideration not previously mentioned.
Nikon did make a big deal out of enlarging the opening in their Z cameras, enabling lenses to sit closer to the sensor and to reduce the thickness of the camera body, but requiring changes in their optics. The back end of the Z lenses
reach the borders of the FF sensor with a greater angle as a result. And the larger opening would require a larger diameter to the lens.
That may be one small additional factor in "bigger Z lenses," but I make no claims that this is the prominent factor.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

Both mirror and mirror less have the same size sensor so the lens are going to be the same size. The adapter I use on my old SLR lenses add length to the lens when I use it on my FF mirrorless. Now the lenses I have that are made for the crop sensor mirrorless are smaller.

rangel28

I am by no means an expert in lens design but the Z flange is larger than the F mount flange, so the lenses have to be bigger to fit the cameras. I believe because of physics a f1.2 lens is going to be bigger that a f1.8 lens. Also, although they look big and chunky, in reality many of the Z lenses are slightly less heavy than similar F mount lenses, and I speaking primarily of the Z mount 105 f2.8 and the 24mm-120mm lenses. Finally, if you want smaller and lighter, the Z DX lenses are all very light (most have plastic mounts) and a combination like the Z50 or Z30 and the Z 16mm-50mm can easily fit in a jacket pocket.

Canisdirus

The bigger it is...the cheaper it is to make it. Sounds counter intuitive...but true.

It's a cost saving measure.

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

If you’re worried about what it looks like & what non essential options it lacks, maybe you shouldn’t consider buying it

Bill_de Loc: US

Unless you use "Quote Reply" nobody will understand where you are coming from!


---

Artcameraman Loc: Springfield NH

Interesting observation, coming from LR to MF format I guess I like a larger lens. I have "oodles" of "f" mount lenses so an FTZ made the most C 4 me. My Z7ii at 580nm conversion with a 50 is super. Still shoot with my 12" Nikkor 780mm f, drum roll, 128...Try hefting this "Big Boy", bent the front standard on my Toyo. Cheers.

Leinik Loc: Rochester NY

The answer is design (Z-mount bigger than F mount) but mostly budget. Nikon as most camera manufacturers tends to "cookie-cut" lens design, at least the exterior so as to save on design and production costs. Plus the more room=easier to fit more technology in. Now if you do not mind manual focusing look at the new Z-mount Voigtlander lenses: compact, excellent quality.