Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, but so should excessive built-in automation that can't be overridden and I suspect that Nikon will have less of automation that takes over and can't be controlled. Thom was suggesting that Nikon will have less fully automated modes, but also less automation that can't be overridden. Camera makers can error in either direction, as an example eye AF that makes it hard to override the camera's default choice of which eye to focus on is excessive automation and if that can't be easily overridden then that too is a flaw. Thom's point, which is counter to my person preferences, is that people often are willing to settle for excessive automation but are less tolerant of less automation being built in. I think the Z9 will have little excessive automation, but may not have as much automation built-in. I am fine with that trade off, but I am not sure that the trade off won't hurt them in the marketplace. ...Show more →
I can't think of any automation in AF subject selection or tracking that cannot be overridden simply and quickly with a single button click in my a1. That includes which eye is selected in Eye AF, including either the default choice, and the current choice. It extends to all of the subject selection, and tracking configuration at all levels down to MF with no focus aids.
Of course a properly designed system enables this level of choices and the agility to respond in real time to changing requirements easily and quickly. In fact I can change the whole AF, AE, Shooting Mode, and Drive Modes in a single button press if I choose. I can have many buttons with many instant reconfigurations of automation and AI.
Describing deep levels of configurable automation as "excessive" seems a bit like a weak attempt at justification for a reduced feature set.
I expect no less from the Z9. I believe that Nikon will deliver on this. Possibly in an promised future firmware update announced with the camera. If this turns out not to be true, it will properly be seen as shortcoming. That is what TH seems to be concerned with.
Oct 04, 2021 at 12:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
1bwana1 wrote:
I can't think of any automation in AF subject selection or tracking that cannot be overridden simply and quickly with a single button click in my a1. That includes which eye is selected in Eye AF, including either the default choice, and the current choice. It extends to all of the subject selection, and tracking configuration at all levels down to MF with no focus aids.
Of course a properly designed system enables this level of choices and the agility to respond in real time to changing requirements easily and quickly. In fact I can change the whole AF, AE, Shooting Mode, and Drive Modes in a single button press if I choose. I can have many buttons with many instant reconfigurations of automation and AI.
Describing deep levels of configurable automation as "excessive" seems a bit like a weak attempt at justification for a reduced feature set.
I expect no less from the Z9. I believe that Nikon will deliver on this. Possibly in an promised future firmware update announced with the camera. If this turns out not to be true, it will properly be seen as shortcoming. That is what TH seems to be concerned with.
Just because you can't think of it doesn't mean the problems aren't there or could be there compared to a different system. Let me give two examples that are automation in the Sony system that you cannot override easily:
1) say you are shooting a scene with a number of people and you want to focus on a person in the middle of scene using eye AF. Sony automates focussing on the closest person and the closest eye. It is not easy to switch people. This is a cumbersome process. One could argue the automation is over done.
2) In focus acquisition and tracking there is often a tradeoff between how quickly the subject is acquired and how well the AF system avoids focussing on the background. Sony doesn't let you set that tradeoff on the fly. You are stuck with the automated preference of the camera.
You just haven't thought very carefully about the different things that could be set on the fly if you think any system has given you choices about all of them. Which things are automated and which things are under user control is always a decision that software designer have to make. The claim that everything is under user control just doesn't hold water. No one is going to want a system with that little automation. It is equally true, however, that a system can have way to much automated and having control over a few more parameters on the fly might be nice.
Yes, over-automation is possible and for me that is true for the Sony system but I also understand why some like the automation even if I don't.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Just because you can't think of it doesn't mean the problems aren't there or could be there compared to a different system. Let me give two examples that are automation in the Sony system that you cannot override easily:
1) say you are shooting a scene with a number of people and you want to focus on a person in the middle of scene using eye AF. Sony automates focussing on the closest person and the closest eye. It is not easy to switch people. This is a cumbersome process. One could argue the automation is over done.
2) In focus acquisition and tracking there is often a tradeoff between how quickly the subject is acquired and how well the AF system avoids focussing on the background. Sony doesn't let you set that tradeoff on the fly. You are stuck with the automated preference of the camera.
You just haven't thought very carefully about the different things that could be set on the fly if you think any system has given you choices about all of them. Which things are automated and which things are under user control is always a decision that software designer have to make. The claim that everything is under user control just doesn't hold water. No one is going to want a system with that little automation. It is equally true, however, that a system can have way to much automated and having control over a few more parameters on the fly might be nice.
Yes, over-automation is possible and for me that is true for the Sony system but I also understand why some like the automation even if I don't....Show more →
Not sure about point #2, but #1 is incorrect. Sony gives you many, many options to control exactly where the system will seek out an eye. If you want limited Eye-AF systems just go over to Canon and Nikon. With Sony you can choose anything from a tiny Small Flex Spot up to an entire sensor and have it look only in that area for the eye. You can be as precise or as automated as you so choose. After that you have the option for the system only to continue to look and track the eye in that area or you can engage a Tracking On custom button (I use my AF-ON button) that will then track that eye over the entire frame. If you instead opt to use a Wide AF area to detect eyes then the option is there to toggle with the joystick between whatever eyes the system detects. I believe Nikon and Canon have this ability also.
In regards to #2, I'm not sure what type of system you are envisioning that would allow you to have total control over AF acquisition v. background distraction on the fly. I've not encountered any camera from Nikon, Canon nor Sony that allow you to do that. All of them have some sort of scale (fairly simple for Nikon and Sony and overly complicated and useless for Canon) to fine tune the system into how reactive you want it to be versus how "sticky" you want it to be.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Just because you can't think of it doesn't mean the problems aren't there or could be there compared to a different system. Let me give two examples that are automation in the Sony system that you cannot override easily:
1) say you are shooting a scene with a number of people and you want to focus on a person in the middle of scene using eye AF. Sony automates focussing on the closest person and the closest eye. It is not easy to switch people. This is a cumbersome process. One could argue the automation is over done.
The issue you describe is only applicable when using Wide Area AF. Which is only one way out of many to configure the Eye AF feature. IT is both easy and instant to switch which person is selected. I think you misunderstand the very advanced capabilities, flexibilities, and configurability of the Sony AI AF system.
If you choose one of the smaller AF area modes you can select the person you are interested in no matter where they are in the crowd.
You can switch AF Areas instantly with the click of a button.
You can preselect which eye the AF focuses on, and/or switch instantly.
You can select the person out of the crowd with the small AF Area, and once selected the Eye AF will continue to track them no matter where in the the frame they go as long as you 1/2 press the shutter button. This is entirely configurable to happen or not as you choose.
With Real Time Tracking, to select a different person just lift off the shutter 1/2 press and you can instantly select another face. You can turn Real Time Tracking on/off instantly with a single butting click also.
In fact you can take images of people in the crowd and put them in order of importance and the camera will recognize the highest priority face in the scene and focus on that person. I think you can order up to 12 faces. Turn that on/off instantly also.
The WIDE AREA AF with EYE AF is often what is shown in videos because it works so well and makes an impressive demo. That is only one configuration. But the system is very deep and configurable. It is not limited nor difficult to adjust in real time as your example suggests that it is.
Unfortunately many don't make the effort to learn all of the power that is built into the system. Misconceptions like you have described then get propagated through sites like this.
Steve Spencer wrote:
2) In focus acquisition and tracking there is often a tradeoff between how quickly the subject is acquired and how well the AF system avoids focussing on the background. Sony doesn't let you set that tradeoff on the fly. You are stuck with the automated preference of the camera.
This is also untrue. There are parameters you can set 1 through 5 that address this very issue you describe. These parameters are available with the click of a single button. Between those settings and AF Area you can eliminate this background issue. Once again it is usually shown with BIF in Wide Area AF because it works so incredibly well. For those rare times it doesn't, you have instant access to other configurations that may handle a particular circumstance better. In any case, you are never stuck with the automated preference of the camera in this regard.
Steve Spencer wrote:
You just haven't thought very carefully about the different things that could be set on the fly if you think any system has given you choices about all of them. Which things are automated and which things are under user control is always a decision that software designer have to make. The claim that everything is under user control just doesn't hold water. No one is going to want a system with that little automation. It is equally true, however, that a system can have way to much automated and having control over a few more parameters on the fly might be nice.
Yes, over-automation is possible and for me that is true for the Sony system but I also understand why some like the automation even if I don't....Show more →
I have thought very carefully about the issues you bring up because I tend to be an all around shooter and want to instantly be able to switch configurations to handle a variety circumstances. I think it is possible to select a very wide level of automation from giving the camera full control, to all user control, and lots of levels in between. It seems your understanding of the depth of the system may be what is lacking. Your examples are sure not persuasive and full of misconception. The system is absolutely not limited in the way you suggest in them.
No system is perfect. There is room for improvement in the current systems. However, the examples you give do not demonstrate and of these limitations. In the Sony system I se no evidence of "over automation", just AI that can and will improve and evolve over time.
In any case this is a Z9 thread in a Nikon forum and not the place to dig into these features. I suggest we move on so we can stay focused on the Z9. I got a new update just this afternoon.
arbitrage wrote:
Not sure about point #2, but #1 is incorrect. Sony gives you many, many options to control exactly where the system will seek out an eye. If you want limited Eye-AF systems just go over to Canon and Nikon. With Sony you can choose anything from a tiny Small Flex Spot up to an entire sensor and have it look only in that area for the eye. You can be as precise or as automated as you so choose. After that you have the option for the system only to continue to look and track the eye in that area or you can engage a Tracking On custom button (I use my AF-ON button) that will then track that eye over the entire frame. If you instead opt to use a Wide AF area to detect eyes then the option is there to toggle with the joystick between whatever eyes the system detects. I believe Nikon and Canon have this ability also.
In regards to #2, I'm not sure what type of system you are envisioning that would allow you to have total control over AF acquisition v. background distraction on the fly. I've not encountered any camera from Nikon, Canon nor Sony that allow you to do that. All of them have some sort of scale (fairly simple for Nikon and Sony and overly complicated and useless for Canon) to fine tune the system into how reactive you want it to be versus how "sticky" you want it to be....Show more →
Exactly.
Descriptions of limited functionality such as those posted here are actually only limitations of understanding of the system. They are not actually limitations of the camera's AI and automation features.
Unfortunate to say the least. But as I said, we should move on.
Oct 04, 2021 at 05:50 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Descriptions of limited functionality such as those posted here are actually only limitations of understanding of the system. They are not actually limitations of the camera's AI and automation features.
Unfortunate to say the least. But as I said, we should move on.
Ok, we have the Sony fans over claiming yet again. You are actually saying there are no limits to the Sony system only limits to understanding of the system. Come on that is pretty preposterous. Yes, I was talking about wide are AF with Sony. That is the automated mode and that automated mode has some serious limitations as I pointed out. I wasn't talking about customized modes and yes the Sony system has some nice customized modes, but please don't try to say it has zero limitations. That is just an indefensible argument. Even with customization there are limitations to the system and if you think there are zero limitations you just have not thought enough about what the system could do. I am sure Sony will make improvements to the system simply because it has limitations and in time they will overcome some of those limitations, but even then there will still be limits. I find it hard to believe you want to challenge that basic point. Yes, let's please move on.
arbitrage wrote:
Not sure about point #2, but #1 is incorrect. Sony gives you many, many options to control exactly where the system will seek out an eye. If you want limited Eye-AF systems just go over to Canon and Nikon. With Sony you can choose anything from a tiny Small Flex Spot up to an entire sensor and have it look only in that area for the eye. You can be as precise or as automated as you so choose. After that you have the option for the system only to continue to look and track the eye in that area or you can engage a Tracking On custom button (I use my AF-ON button) that will then track that eye over the entire frame. If you instead opt to use a Wide AF area to detect eyes then the option is there to toggle with the joystick between whatever eyes the system detects. I believe Nikon and Canon have this ability also.
In regards to #2, I'm not sure what type of system you are envisioning that would allow you to have total control over AF acquisition v. background distraction on the fly. I've not encountered any camera from Nikon, Canon nor Sony that allow you to do that. All of them have some sort of scale (fairly simple for Nikon and Sony and overly complicated and useless for Canon) to fine tune the system into how reactive you want it to be versus how "sticky" you want it to be....Show more →
With #1 I was just talking about the automated wide AF mode. I should have been more clear about that. With regard to #2 I was simply pointing to the limits of the current systems. The system that I am envisioning is one that uses AI in a new way and is designed to consider different types of backgrounds and their properties to aid focus acquisition. Nobody has done this yet, but it should be possible. In such a system one way this could be done is that the operator selects the type of AI that will work best for the background in the scene. Imagine sky, leafy, and woody backgrounds for example and AI designed to aid focus acquisition given the type of background. Such a system could potentially be powerful and a nice improvement in AF.
Personally, what I would like to see is AF systems that require the operator to select the AI for the scene and potentially several types of AI and then the user directs the system where to start. This is quite far from an automated system, but it is what I would prefer. A large group of people, however, seem to prefer more automated modes--like wide area AF with Sony eye AF. Thom seems to be arguing that he thinks the Z9 won't or might not have these types of automated modes and he worries that might hurt sales. Personally, it won't affect my purchase, but I think he is right it might affect Z9 sales if the camera has less of these automated modes.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Ok, we have the Sony fans over claiming yet again. You are actually saying there are no limits to the Sony system only limits to understanding of the system. Come on that is pretty preposterous. Yes, I was talking about wide are AF with Sony. That is the automated mode and that automated mode has some serious limitations as I pointed out. I wasn't talking about customized modes and yes the Sony system has some nice customized modes, but please don't try to say it has zero limitations. That is just an indefensible argument. Even with customization there are limitations to the system and if you think there are zero limitations you just have not thought enough about what the system could do. I am sure Sony will make improvements to the system simply because it has limitations and in time they will overcome some of those limitations, but even then there will still be limits. I find it hard to believe you want to challenge that basic point. Yes, let's please move on....Show more →
Actually I explicitly said that the system was not perfect, and there was room for improvement and further advancement.
I never said there were zero limitations. There are.
What I clearly said that it was not limited in any of the ways you stated it was. Wide area AF is not "over automation" which was you original premise. It is both configurable and tunable. In fact, if you turn off face and eye AF, it has many other uses.
This is true, confirmed by others, and I stand by it.
The other modes we mentioned are not at any level of customization greater than Wide Area AF. They are peers and choices in the system.
I am not challenging anything about "perfect systems". I am challenging your statements of uncontrollable over automations, and the incorrect examples you tried to use to demonstrate that.
Once again the obfuscation is thin and transparent.
Steve Spencer wrote:
[Thom seems to be arguing that he thinks the Z9 won't or might not have these types of automated modes and he worries that might hurt sales. Personally, it won't affect my purchase, but I think he is right it might affect Z9 sales if the camera has less of these automated modes.
Actually the Z9 has these features. In fact, it will actually have more subjects in its list than the current a1 has. It is how well they will work on release that is going to be the issue. Currently, it has some issues with small, far away, and fast moving subjects. This is not hardware related and will be improved in the firmware. It will also matter how easy the system is to configure for shooting. In the current Z cameras this takes more work and understanding than it does on the Sony and Canon cameras. This extra work doesn't result in better results so it can easily be painted as a fault as TH is concerned about.
Oct 04, 2021 at 07:32 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
1bwana1 wrote:
Actually I explicitly said that the system was not perfect, and there was room for improvement and further advancement.
I never said there were zero limitations. There are.
What I clearly said that it was not limited in any of the ways you stated it was. Wide area AF is not "over automation" which was you original premise. It is both configurable and tunable. In fact, if you turn off face and eye AF, it has many other uses.
This is true, confirmed by others, and I stand by it.
The other modes we mentioned are not at any level of customization greater than Wide Area AF. They are peers and choices in the system.
I am not challenging anything about "perfect systems". I am challenging your statements of uncontrollable over automations, and the incorrect examples you tried to use to demonstrate that.
Once again the obfuscation is thin and transparent. ...Show more →
Let's agree to disagree Steve. I find wide AF in Sony cameras to be over automation. The obvious difference between wide AF and the other modes is with wide AF the camera selects from a huge area where to start focussing and with other modes the operator does. That choice by the camera where to start focussing I see as over automation and hard to reverse once it has made that choice and starts tracking. You might see it differently, but let's agree to disagree about that.
Instead let us agree that AI and automation are too very different things and that AI can be used for more or less automation. Software designers can use the same AI an introduce modes with more and less automation based on the AI. What Thom was talking about is that he is worried that the Z9 wouldn't include more automated modes and he said nothing about AI at all. We ought to be able to agree on all of that.
I think we also both share Thom's concerns that not including those automated modes will hurt sales of the Z9. Where we differ is in whether we think not having those modes are a genuine weakness in the camera. I think such a camera wouldn't be limited for me at all and I don't see for my personal use the lack of such automated modes to be a genuine weakness (in the same way that I wouldn't see elimination of a totally automated mode that selects shutter speed, ISO, and aperture without use input would be a weakness). It seems you on the other hand see the lack of automated modes as a genuine weakness. I think we can agree to disagree about that, however, and we should. No need to discuss this further.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Just because you can't think of it doesn't mean the problems aren't there or could be there compared to a different system. Let me give two examples that are automation in the Sony system that you cannot override easily:
1) say you are shooting a scene with a number of people and you want to focus on a person in the middle of scene using eye AF. Sony automates focussing on the closest person and the closest eye. It is not easy to switch people. This is a cumbersome process. One could argue the automation is over done.
2) In focus acquisition and tracking there is often a tradeoff between how quickly the subject is acquired and how well the AF system avoids focussing on the background. Sony doesn't let you set that tradeoff on the fly. You are stuck with the automated preference of the camera.
You just haven't thought very carefully about the different things that could be set on the fly if you think any system has given you choices about all of them. Which things are automated and which things are under user control is always a decision that software designer have to make. The claim that everything is under user control just doesn't hold water. No one is going to want a system with that little automation. It is equally true, however, that a system can have way to much automated and having control over a few more parameters on the fly might be nice.
Yes, over-automation is possible and for me that is true for the Sony system but I also understand why some like the automation even if I don't....Show more →
The AI is clearly not doing a good job if it cannot differentiate background from a subject. That's part of the deep learning process they employ and why the animal eye AF works so well at sticking to the subject. Old AF system just relied on colour, contrast, brightness, but we now have subject recognition at three scales, total subject, face and eye as well as those other features. Even my A9 which doesn't really have any fancy AI is very sticky when locked onto a subject flying across a busy background. Acquiring a well camouflaged subject against a background of course is a much harder feat because even the human eye itself can fail there too. What I amazed at is how early Canon eye AF comes on line for a distant subject, the AI has been trained very well to recognise subjects and eyes and it will lock on earlier than with Sony. But once both are locked on they are very sticky even if the subject is against busy backgrounds.
I'm not sure what this over-automation is you talk about. For me that's the old green mode on the mode dial for newbies, camera decides everything for you. The Sony's are so ridiculously customisable to achieve just about any AF feature there's little you can't do. Canon now adds eye controlled AF which ups the game again.
Oct 04, 2021 at 07:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The AI is clearly not doing a good job if it cannot differentiate background from a subject. That's part of the deep learning process they employ and why the animal eye AF works so well at sticking to the subject. Old AF system just relied on colour, contrast, brightness, but we now have subject recognition at three scales, total subject, face and eye as well as those other features. Even my A9 which doesn't really have any fancy AI is very sticky when locked onto a subject flying across a busy background. Acquiring a well camouflaged subject against a background of course is a much harder feat because even the human eye itself can fail there too. What I amazed at is how early Canon eye AF comes on line for a distant subject, the AI has been trained very well to recognise subjects and eyes and it will lock on earlier than with Sony. But once both are locked on they are very sticky even if the subject is against busy backgrounds.
I'm not sure what this over-automation is you talk about. For me that's the old green mode on the mode dial for newbies, camera decides everything for you. The Sony's are so ridiculously customisable to achieve just about any AF feature there's little you can't do. Canon now adds eye controlled AF which ups the game again. ...Show more →
I am not making up the idea of over automation. In fact, in the Thom Hogan article linked earlier in the thread he says this:
Which brings me to an irony. The (mostly) guys buying US$6500 pro cameras don't always take the time to learn how to use them. The job of a photojournalist or sports photographer is hard enough without having to learn some camera nuance. Things happen so fast in their world, and they're expected to deliver the goods instantly. So much so that the all-auto approach is usually their first choice. Of course, to stand out in that world, good enough is not good enough. You'd better be the master of your tools if you want to stay at the top of that heap. Nevertheless, lately I've seen a lot of folk that should know better start down the good enough path and give it plenty of verbiage.
This is what I am talking about. When people rely on automation when they would get better results from using a more customized mode, the automated mode has in my view over automation. The automation is getting in the way of getting the best results, but people grow enamored with it because it is easy. A certain U-tuber with huge amounts of hair comes to mind in how he uses a Sony system almost exclusively in wide area AF with eye AF serves as a good example of this over automation.
suteetat wrote:
This might be true. I just saw on FB, a post by VP of Nikon Thailand that there is a big announcement this evening
an hour ago and that was 7AM here.
Yep, the drums are beating in multiple places now. Something exciting is up with Nikon over the next 12 hours or so. If it is the Z9 that would be a great surprise!
1bwana1 wrote:
Yep, the drums are beating in multiple places now. Something exciting is up with Nikon over the next 12 hours or so. If it is the Z9 that would be a great surprise!
I hope it is not an announcement that Z9 will be launched on ....(date inserted)
I am getting tiresome of announcement that there will be an annoucement
Of course, 100-400, 200-600, 400/2.8, 600/4, 85/1.2 are all a possibility for announcement instead of Z9 as well.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am not making up the idea of over automation. In fact, in the Thom Hogan article linked earlier in the thread he says this:
Which brings me to an irony. The (mostly) guys buying US$6500 pro cameras don't always take the time to learn how to use them. The job of a photojournalist or sports photographer is hard enough without having to learn some camera nuance. Things happen so fast in their world, and they're expected to deliver the goods instantly. So much so that the all-auto approach is usually their first choice. Of course, to stand out in that world, good enough is not good enough. You'd better be the master of your tools if you want to stay at the top of that heap. Nevertheless, lately I've seen a lot of folk that should know better start down the good enough path and give it plenty of verbiage.
This is what I am talking about. When people rely on automation when they would get better results from using a more customized mode, the automated mode has in my view over automation. The automation is getting in the way of getting the best results, but people grow enamored with it because it is easy. A certain U-tuber with huge amounts of hair comes to mind in how he uses a Sony system almost exclusively in wide area AF with eye AF serves as a good example of this over automation....Show more →
Have you tried the A1 wide area with tracking or without to know if you would or would not get better results by using one of the other 12 configurations that are possible?
As an aside in order to get 30FPS you need to use Wide AF with no tracking so maybe that is why you are seeing that.
Also in my experience the wide with tracking works extremely well at finding the bird and locking on the the eye in a split second. In instances where you may have multiple birds or need to be more precise as has been explained, you can use small, medium or large spot focus and the joystick to point where you want the camera to focus. I have my shutter set up with large spot focus with bird eye tracking so I can point it at my birds eye. Once it locks on it will follow the bird anywhere in the frame. I have the AF/ON button set to wide with tracking. Both work extremely well. I also have the AEL button set to center zone with tracking. So depending on the situation I have any 3 modes I want in an instant. As all buttons are customizable you can set it up to turn tracking on and off, to pull up image quality settings so can in 2 seconds without having to look at the menu change from 20 to 30 fps and so on. The automation that you are speaking of is a fantastic tool that can in certain instances get you shots that with any other camera and system would be significantly more difficult. Of course you can eventually get any shot with any camera but with the A1 you don't just get any shot, you get to pick which of the 200 that you got is the absolute best of the best.
I still have lots of friends that are heavily invested in Nikon. People I shoot with all the time. I sincerely hope that the Z9 is all that everyone hopes it will be and more. Competition is great for the market. But it really has a ton of ground to make up. A ton. EVF with zero lag, insane autofocus, fully customizable buttons, 1/400 flash sync speed with the electronic shutter, 20 fps with full raw and up to 30 fps with a compressed raw. The features go on and on. Throw in the Sony 600 f4 and Nikon is left in the dust. But hopefully the Z9 catapults them right back to the front of the pack where they have been for many years with DSLRs. And hopefully they will continue to innovate and come up with products that no one has like the 400 2.8 with built in 1.4x.
arbitrage wrote:
No Nokishita leak = No announcement in the next 12 hrs
Unless Nikon hasn't let any new outlets know the information ahead of time so they haven't been able to prepare their press releases yet.
We shall see...I'm hoping for an announcement so I can decide if it is finally time to sell off my remaining Nikon gear or not.
It may not be the official announcement. It may be just setting the date for the announcement or something entirely different. We need to wait and see. They may just want to talk about the 28th.
