Nikon Z fc

[...] When I hit the upload, the camera shut itself down and would not restart. [...] This camera was just over one year old, purchased directly from Nikon and had less than 1,000 actuations. The camera worked perfectly until I tried to upload the firmware. Note - I own over two dozen Nikon cameras including four Z series and I am very familiar with the update procedure. [...]

[...] Nikon does have a wide angle zoom dx z mount finally on their roadmap so that will help as well. [...]

I have a Zfc camera and to me it is a very capable "weekend" camera, where I can take it with me anywhere, without having the feeling of doing a serious photographic "assignment" as such. [...] It is a great camera to use, bridging the inadequacies of a phone camera and the complications of a fully pro camera. [...]

I've had my Zfc in black since summer of '24. [...] It's a great camera. [...] I just have a bunch of picture control presets emulating film with a Voigtlander Nokton D23mm f/1.2. [...]

The Nikon Z fc is our choice as the best budget camera - this retro-inspired beauty is at its best price of the year in this early Amazon Prime Day deal -Space | More on "Nikon Z fc camera deal" at BigEarthData.ai

[...] Im a Nikon fan boy so I have a Z6ii and I bought a Zfc for a get around camera and for my g/g to vlog with. I bought the Smallrig grip which makes it much easier to use. Like you say its a shame the ISO button does not have a Auto option.

If only a Z F (full frame) was on it's way with a normal flip up screen :D , the would be just wonderful ::D Still, the Z Fc is a heck of a camera, and I wouldn't mind having one as a second camera.

I use my Zfc with a SmallRig and Voigtlander VM lenses… if you are comfortable with manual focus, the camera becomes compact and even more fun… I wish they had built a Zf based on Z5… full frame and IBIS would have made this camera amazing for my taste.

There is one thing the Z fc does better than Fujifilm...ISO performance and color and build quality. The Z fc is close in build quality to the Fuji, but the buttons, layout, dials and screen felt higher quality. [...] The Z lens lineup is growing fast, and IMO, having owned many crop and full frame sensor cameras, the 20MP Nikon DX sensor is the best in it's class and IMO not even the R7 or XT5 come close to it's performance. [...]

The 28mm 2.8 and 40mm f/2 are small and light and fit nicely on the Nikon APS-C system - yes they are full frame lenses but they are small enough and light enough to work with the DX Nikon cameras well and they are small and light and great IQ. [...]

i'm looking to get my very first camera. in used market in my country, the zfc is much cheaper than the z50ii by 250usd. [...]

In the beginning I was a bit underwhelmed by the plasticky feel of the body, so you better take care, but in the meantime I love this lightweight camera very much! I also have to confess that I started taking pictures with Minolta SLRs in the 1980s, so I love the retro design and I never had a problem holding the old SLRs so I don’t have problems holding the Zfc. It works perfectly fine, and so far hasn’t let me down a single time.

[...] Yeah, Fuji has a lot of lenses in APS-C format, but many of them are also expensive. [...] The lack of such a zoom is actually the main thing that swings me from Fuji to Nikon. [...] the FX lenses (whether Z or F mount) work great on the Z FC, and Fuji lenses are also expensive. There is no shortage of lenses for this camera. If anything, there's an overabundance, and you'll spend all your money on lenses if you don't watch out.

[...] i am a beginner who doesnt know anything abt cameras, so i would love to know which Nikon cameras should i get? I just want to take daily pictures like for example landmarks, random items, whats on the streets, something like that. [...]

[...] So, the small & light Z fc will be my daily "always in my pocket" camera and with a FTZ adapter I can also use the "big lenses" (some Sigma ART lenses, etc.). I'll keep the D800 - it's still a good camera.

I bought the kit and like it. [...] The battery door is flimsy. [...]

I bought the kit. Great camera! [...] The plastic battery door is very flimsy, though.

[...] I could be convinced otherwise...but as every real world practical RDBMS has to impose order of often multple tables to scale, through logs, cache etc...and as what everyone agrees is SQL has to support various transaction isolation levels which ensures that on a concrete implementation detail, that rows aren't unique, but that the special case of a membership function, expressly being an 'element' is supported in them all. [...] In fact, while useful for teaching and day to day use, you are actually violating the axiom of pairing, which is also used to construct the singleton's in modern ZFC. [...]

[...] I have been using a Z fc for 5 months now alongside my Z7 and I also have a lot of older DX lenses that the Z fc works well with using the FTZ. It has become my main walking around camera and it’s just fun to use.

[...] Now that i've had 10yrs or so to mull over it, I quite like this gen of Si. My fave remains between the EM1 (6th gen 2DR) and FA5 (8th gen 4dr) 📷 Nikon Z Fc weirdcarBS photography

Metamath contributor here! Each proving tool has its pros and cons, but always happy to see Metamath noted :-). One thing that's cool about Metamath is that the axioms are not built-in. It's true that the most-used system is based on classical logic and ZFC set theory ... but you don't have to use that system. There's a well-maintained database using intuitionistic logic: ; on the so-called "New Foundations" (a many-sorted system): ; on HOL ; and you can make your own if you want to. In Metamath the proofs hide absolutely nothing. There's no hand-waving "it's obvious that". Every step in a proof must be rigorously and directly proven by some axiom or a previously-proven theorem with absolutely no exceptions. This also means that while finding proofs can be hard, verifying proofs is fast. I just ran a proof verification run of over 47,000 theorems in 6.35 seconds. In the Metamath Proof Explorer / set.mm database (the one with classical logic and ZFC), we routinely run multiple provers by different people on every proposed change. So not only is the kernel small, it's implemented by multiple different programs, making it extremely unlikely we'll accept an invalid proof. [...]

It is such a fun and capable little camera to use. I've found that the f/1.4 Viltrox AF primes are perfect mates for the Zfc.

I love this camera, I also own a nikon z6iii and a sony a7iii but the zfc is my go-to travel camera.

[...] I do have film cameras as well, Nikon F, F2, F3, F4, F5. [...]

Agree, Nikon is a Z8 and a ZF (full frame) from being my system of choice. Their lenses have been amazing and the Z9 and ZFC show what they are capable of.

zfc doesn't have functions, so you are building something new on top of it. Also, I am not sure successor function is enough for PA.

I mean sure we can do ZFC or ZF as the foundation, and I am sure with enough effort we can make metamath or some modern derivative great again. At some point though I like having years of type-directed program synthesis research helping me write proofs; I like type-checking research helping me check my proofs, and I like my proof assistants to work well for verified program extraction if I also happen to write code because the mathematics academic job market is quite shit for your average pure maths PhD, and if I were to do logic then it might be even shittier. Admittedly the above (except program extraction I suppose) can all be achieved with ZFC + a layer of type theory on top, and again that's a reasonable thing to do, but I hope this makes a strong enough case for the type theoretical foundation.

I am glad you guys made the comparisons to Fujifilm APS-C. Although I loved shooting Fuji for the last ten years, I am in the process of selling off all the gear since I went FF Nikon Z and possibly the D780 for all the F lenses dating back to Ai and AF-D I still have. However the Z fc looks like my silver FE I use from time to time and would be a great companion for it. I am in the camp of preferring manual dials but I agree about the lack of quick auto ISO, this is where Fuji wins. I'm with Chris on this that a FF version with auto ISO would be the best thing but knowing Nikon I think they will want to milk the Z fc for a couple years before a FF would be announces. It would be awesome if the FF version would have the FE shape name plate rather than the FM shape that the Z fc has, With everything else looking the same That there would be a great identifier.

This doesn't seem quite right to me: In the modern academic practice, the question of where a particular idea came from, or whether an axiom is ontologically correct, is considered vacuous and out of scope. For the most part, you’re just handed a rulebook to play someone else’s game. I very much had the opposite problem with Munkres's Topology or Dummit and Foote's Abstract Algebra: those authors hand you the ontological / scientific justifications for "everyday" ZFC without actually telling you the precise rules. I had to read a formal book on mathematical logic before I really understood point-set topology (at which point my misconceptions were clearly trivial confusion). To be clear I think the standard intuitive semi-naive set theory is the correct approach for most math students. But it didn't work for me. I needed to see the axioms and formal language.

The fact that you think I'm talking about the axiom of choice, demonstrates that you didn't understand what I'm talking about. Dude... just a minute ago you were complaining about ZFC... Sure, I brought up AoC but your time to protest was then. The reason I brought up AoC is because it is a common way to learn about the abuse of infinity and where axioms need be discussed. Both things you brought up. I think you are reading further into this than I intended. Now I'm curious. Was there anything that I said that should have been said more clearly? Is this a joke? When someone says Honestly it's difficult to understand exactly what you're arguing. That's your chance to explain. It is someone explicitly saying... I'm trying to understand but you are not communicating efficiently. This is even more frustrating as you keep pointing out that this is not common knowledge. So why are you also communicating like it is?! If it is something so few know about then be fucking clear. Don't make anyone guess. Don't link a book, use your own words and link a book if you want to suggest further reading, but not "this is the entire concept I'm talking about". Otherwise we just have to guess and you getting pissed off that we guess wrong is just down right your own fault. So stop shooting yourself in the foot and blaming others. If people aren't understanding you, try assuming they can't read your mind and don't have the exact same knowledge you do. Talk about fundamental principles...

[...] Two seemingly similar cameras, but quite different to use. I miss the function buttons of the Z50 when on the Z fc, but love the faster auto focus on the prettier of the two. [...]

I caught on to the retro styling immediately when the ZFc was first introduced but was so disappointed to learn that IBIS was not in the specs list. I’ve grown to really appreciate the IBIS in my Z5 so was naturally expecting this ‘must have’ feature…….what a pity😔

I don't see how you can be skeptical of those ideas. Well you can be skeptical of anything and everything, and I would argue should be. Addressing your issue directly, the Axiom of Choice is actively debated: I understand the construction and the argument, but personally I find the argument of diagonalization should be criticized for using finities to prove statements about infinities. You must first accept that an infinity can have any enumeration before proving its enumerations lack the specified enumeration you have constructed. Math is math, if you start with ZFC axioms This always bothers me. "Math is math" speaks little to the "truth" of a statement. Math is less objective as much as it rigorously defines its subjectivities.

I loosely identify with the schools of intuitinalism/construtivism/finitism. Primary idea is that the Law of the Excluded Middle is not meaningful. So yes, generally not starting with ZFC. I can't speak to "truth" in that sense. The skepticism here is skepticism of the utility of the ideas stemming from Cantor's Paradise. It ends up in a very naval-gazing place where you prove obviously false things (like Banach-Tarski) from the axioms but have no way to map these wildly non-constructive ideas back into the real world. Or where you construct a version of the reals where the reals that we can produce via any computation is a set of measure 0 in the reals.

coming back to your argument about peano being obtained from zfc, you obviously can't prove that it happened using purely zfc, and not some logical framework embedded into those proof assistants. I said I am not expert, I am indeed not expert in zfc and godel theorems, but I am an expert (phd) in actual formalization theory. Formal theory is very simple concept: its alphabet, set of formulas on top of this alphabet, and function which translates one formula to another. ZFC can't "obtain" peano, simply because it doesn't have say operator defined. You need to do something on top of it. Additionally, zfc itself looks like loosely formalized say in wikipedia (and I am not sure if there is any strict formalization anywhere), we take it as common sense that it can utilize some simple logical rules (e.g. modus ponens), but what are exactly rules, which could be separate topic of research, this detail is skipped.

My 2 cents is they do justify it by the interest of the consequences, as Tychonoff or Nullstellensatz. I wouldn't call that faith: Best practices is to state Tychonoff as "AC implies Tychonoff" and that last is logically valid. Sometimes the "AC implies..." is missing, buried in the proof or used unawaredly or predates ZFC, and is a bad thing. But very ofen one now see asterisks on theorems needing it.

My other reply is so long that HN collapsed it, but addresses your particular question about how to create the mapping between finite-length strings and the real numbers. Here's another lens that doesn't answer that question, but offers another intuition of why "the fact that there are a countable number of strings and an uncountable number of reals" doesn't help. For convenience I'm going to distinguish between "collections" which are informal groups of elements and "sets" which are formal mathematical objects in some kind of formal foundational set theory (which we'll assume for simplicity is ZFC, but we could use others). My argument demonstrates that the "definable real numbers" is not a definition of a set. A corollary of this is that the subcollection of finite strings that form the definitions of unique real numbers is not necessarily an actual subset of the finite strings. Your appeal that such definitions are themselves clearly finite strings is only enough to demonstrate that they are a subcollection, not a subset. You can only demonstrate that they are a subset if you could demonstrate that the definable real numbers form a subset of the real numbers which as I prove you cannot. Then any cardinality arguments fail, because cardinality only applies to sets, not collections (which ZFC can't even talk about). After all, strictly speaking, an uncountable set does not mean that such a set is necessarily "larger" than a countable set. All it means is that our formal system prevents us from counting its members. There are subcollections of the set of finite strings that cannot be counted by any Turing Machine (non-computably enumerable sets). It's not so crazy that there might be subcollections of the set of finite strings that cannot be counted by ZFC. And then there's no way of comparing the cardinality of such a subcollection with the reals. Another way of putting it is this: you can diagonalize your way out of any purported injection between the reals and th

There's no particular reason to expect any particular formal system to be complete, sans some demonstration that is. Well, Godel's First Incompleteness Thm says that any consistent, effectively axiomatized theory that is strong enough to represent basic arithmetic must be incomplete. So there cannot exist a demonstration of completeness for any such system. ZFC is such a system/theory. (And yes, of course some formal theories are complete and can be demonstrated to be complete, like Presburger arithmetic). Gödelian incompleteness is the specific kind established by Gödel's proof, where theory T can't prove Con(T) without being inconsistent.... That's the Second Incompleteness Thm. But CH is an example of a (an important; or believed to be important) mathematical statement that cannot be proven / refuted from within ZFC. So it is an example of a statement to which the First Incompleteness Thm applies. You're right that Incompletness 1 does not prove CH is undecidable; (assuming ZFC is consistent) it proves that undecidable sentences must exist. CH is one of those sentences. ...is a similar phenomenon as that the group axioms neither prove nor disprove commutativity I haven't done a course in abstract algebra (though I have studied Incompleteness), but the brief research I just did suggests that there is a meaningful difference in ZFC and the ordinary group axioms. The latter are not sufficiently axiomatized to represent arithmetic, so Godel's thms don't apply. ZFC is sufficiently axiomatized to represent arithmetic (and much more). The ordinary group axioms are so weak that they can describe many different structures; they also cannot represent arithmetic. So the ordinary group axioms are incomplete, but they are not Godel Incomplete.

I'm definitely not trying to say that the existence of uncountable sets requires the axiom of choice. Cantor's diagonalization argument for the reals demonstrates otherwise. I'm saying that to go from the uncountability of the reals to the idea that this implies that the infinity of the reals is larger, requires making some important philosophical assumptions. Constructivism demonstrates that uncountable need not mean more. On the algorithm example, you could have asked what I was referring to. The result that I was referencing follows from the The theorem says that any class of finite graphs which is closed under graph minors, must be completely characterized by a finite set of forbidden minors. Given that set of forbidden minors, we can construct a polynomial time test for membership in the class - just test each forbidden minor in turn. The problem is that the theorem is nonconstructive. While it classically proves that the set exists, it provides no way to find it. Worse yet, it can be proven that in general there is no way to find or verify the minimal solution. Or even to provide an upper bound on the number of forbidden minors that will be required. This need not hold in special cases. For example planar graphs are characterized by 2 forbidden minors. For the toroidal graphs, as will verify, the list of known forbidden minors currently has 17,523 graphs. We have no idea how many more there will be. Nor do we have any reason to believe that it is possible to verify the complete list in ZFC. Therefore the polynomial time algorithm that Robinson-Seymour says must exist, does not seem to exist in any meaningful and useful way. Such as, for example, being findable or provably correct from ZFC.

When you say "given ZFC", you're assuming a lot. Errr, I'm just assuming the axioms of ZFC. That's literally all I'm doing. In what sense do [numbers that can't be finitely specified] exist? In the sense that we can describe rules that lead to them, and describe how to work with them. I understand that you're trying to tie the notion of "existence" to constructability, and that's fine. That's one way to play the game. Another is to use ZFC and be fine with "weird, unintuitive to laypeople" outcomes. Both are interesting and valid things to do IMO. I'm just not sure why one is obviously "better" or "more real" or something. At the end, it's all just coming up with rules and figuring out what comes out of them.

While I don't think that we can reason everything from first principles, those who think they can are doomed to fall pray to their own personal bias and repeat errors that our forebearer had, I do think that everyone should give everything a bit of a quick sanity check before accepting anything as a new belief. Just a small, quick, bit of review. Does this thing make logical sense? Does it smell of any logical fallacies? What are the priors, or assumptions, that the argument is making? I am not a fan of Scott Alexander, but he does at least give a fair amount of thought to his arguments and conclusions. However that doesn't mean much if the premise is flawed or his priors are miss calibrated. This goes for anyone. Just because the person you're looking up to has well reasoned arguments doesn't mean they're correct. Aquinas started from the position that god exists and went from there. And while his arguments are really well reasoned and logical, they only make sense if you accept his priors. Any given argument makes sense if your priors start in the right place for them. Euclidian Geometry works great, but if you throw out/modify the parallel postulate you can get wildly different answers for what makes sense. You can craft crazy mathematical worlds if you tweak ZFC, throw away the axiom of choice and some different stuff starts to happen. Anyways, I hope you stop glazing scott, take everything you read with a grain of salt, and think for yourself.

Went with the Nikon Z fc 4K Mirrorless cam kits it came with a Z 28mm f/2.8 lens & I got a Nikkor Z 24-50mm f/4-63 lens. Spare battery has to be exchanged cause I goofed and got the wrong one.

It's an axiom (the axiom of choice, actually). A valid way of viewing an axiom is not dissimilar to a "modeling requirement" or an "if statement". By that I mean, for example with the axiom of choice: it is just a formal statement version of "assume that you can take an element from a (possibly infinite) collection of sets such that you can create a new set (the new set does not have to be unique)." It makes intuitive sense for most finite sets we deal with physically, and, for infinite sets, it can actually make sense in a way that actually successfully predicts results that do hold in the real world and provides a really convenient way to define a lot of consistent properties of the continuum itself. However, if you're dealing with a problem where you can't always usefully distinguish between elements across arbitrary set-like objects; then it's not a useful axiom and ZFC is not the formalism you want to use. Most problems we analyze in the real world, that's actually something that we can usefully assume, hence why it's such a successful and common theory, even if it leads to physical paradoxes like Banac-Tarsky, as mentioned. Mathematicians, in practice, fully understand what you mean with your complaint about "completion," but, the beauty of these formal infinities is the guarantee it gives you that it'll never break down as a predictive theory no matter the length of time or amount of elements you consider or the needed level of precision; the fact that it can't truly complete is precisely the point. Also, within the formal system used, we absolutely can consistently define what the completion would be at "infinity," as long as you treat it correctly and don't break the rules. Again, this is useful because it allows you to bridge multiple real problems that seemingly were unrelated and it pushes "representative errors" to those paradoxes and undefined statements of the theory (thanks, Gödel). If it helps, the transfinite cardinalities (what you call infinity)

IMO it's not far off how most python or javascript devs don't care about registers or cache misses. Someone's thought deeply about those things so you don't have to. Mathematicians do care about how much "black magic" they're invoking, and like to use simple constructions where possible (the field of reverse mathematics makes the central object of study). For example, Wiles' initial proof of Fermat's last theorem used quite exotic machinery called "inaccessible cardinals", which lie outside of ZFC. Subsequent work showed they weren't needed. Another good example of mathematicians caring which 'house of cards' their results are built on is the search for an "elementary" proof of the prime number theorem (i.e. showing it doesn't rely on complex analysis). Edit: here's a great related discussion on MathOverflow, bringing in analogies from CS:

they actually define what they mean in a formal way. Sometimes yes. The big stuff is usually exhaustively formally defined down to the axioms. The further you get away from the absolute largest, most well-tread ground... the wood grows dark quite fast. Math, especially on the cutting edge, is intuitive like anything else and filled with hand-waives. Even among the exhaustively defined, there are plenty which only achieved exhaustiveness thanks to later work. "Programmers" generally don't. On the contrary, all programming languages are formal grammars. I think the best way that I can underline the difference is that mathematicians are primarily utilizing formal grammars for communication to share meanings, and almost exclusively deal with meanings that are very well-defined. Programmers on the other-hand are often more concerned with some other pressing matter, usually involving architecting something unfathomably massive with a minute fraction of the man-hours used to construct ZFC, often dealing with far fuzzier things and with outright contradictory axioms which they have no control over. They are as different as trophy truck rally and formula 1. As someone who lives in both worlds, I'm endlessly disappointed by shitflinging and irrational superiority contests between the two as though they even live in the same dimension. There is in fact some benefit in having consistent names for things There is, in some contexts to some ends. Those are important and influential contexts and ends, and so the relevant math should be studied and well understood on an intuitive level. But they form a minority in both fields. I've known many mathematicians outside of programming contexts, and none of them have any grasp of category theory, type theory, the lambda calculus, etc. They might have heard of category theory, but they look at it with the same suspicion as you might expect from some fringe theoretical physics framework. There is also the problem that these "consistent name

[...] Litt's statement is not wrong; it's just that what he wrote sounds so much like Hilbert's program, that I'm surprised we didn't get some even minor comment on what kinds of truths we could reach if we embarked on such an effort.

Theorem. If ZFC is consistent, then there is a model of ZFC that has a definable complete ordered field ℝ with a definable algebraic closure ℂ, such that the two square roots of −1 in ℂ are set-theoretically indiscernible, even with ordinal parameters. Haven’t thought it through so I’m quite possibly wrong but it seems to me this implies that in such a situation you can’t have a coordinate view. How can you have two indistinguishable views of something while being able to pick one view?

[...] you implying that some people are good building good axiom systems How do you go from "most people aren't very good" to "this implies some people are really good"? [...]

I'd have liked to hear you compare the Zfc to the older Df because I consider that to be the lineage. From retro to retro. As such the Zfc seems inferior but I've seen no such comparisons. BTW, a frozen bear isn't ugly; why would you think that?