Pixel Perfect wrote:
Or wait for the 600 f/4 + 1.4x which is a given. At least the Nikon superteles won't be just DSLR lenses with an adapted bolted on permanently. Z9 obviously will have a huge reach advantage when FL limited. Would have been nice to see a 1.7x TC built-in on the 400, 680 f/4.8 would be really nice and barely noticeably different to 600 f/4.
True....I just really want a short lens for once. That is why 400/2.8 or 600/4PF(DO) makes so much sense to me. I hate the big long 600/4s. Having the super short hood on my Sony 600GM has made it more palatable to me but I still quest for a shorter option.
The big question is where the weight of the 400S and 600S (with built-in TCs) ends up falling. We know the Sony 1.4TC is so tiny you forget it is attached (not so with the RF 1.4TC). I'd be wanting to see the 400S and 600S match the 400GM/600GM/RF400/RF600 in weight even with the built in TC.
arbitrage wrote:
True....I just really want a short lens for once. That is why 400/2.8 or 600/4PF(DO) makes so much sense to me. I hate the big long 600/4s. Having the super short hood on my Sony 600GM has made it more palatable to me but I still quest for a shorter option.
The big question is where the weight of the 400S and 600S (with built-in TCs) ends up falling. We know the Sony 1.4TC is so tiny you forget it is attached (not so with the RF 1.4TC). I'd be wanting to see the 400S and 600S match the 400GM/600GM/RF400/RF600 in weight even with the built in TC....Show more →
Yes I made this comment on NikonRumours and said if they can make the weight of the new 400 the same as the Sony and Canon versions even with built-in TC that would be impressive. I would also much prefer the length of the 400 f/2.8 especially for travelling. It might not ever come, but 500 f/4 + 1.4x combo would be my sweet spot while I wait for that elusive 600 f/5.6 PF.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Yes I made this comment on NikonRumours and said if they can make the weight of the new 400 the same as the Sony and Canon versions even with built-in TC that would be impressive. I would also much prefer the length of the 400 f/2.8 especially for travelling. It might not ever come, but 500 f/4 + 1.4x combo would be my sweet spot while I wait for that elusive 600 f/5.6 PF.
I'm banned from the NR comment section
Some NFBs can't handle the truth.
arbitrage wrote:
True....I just really want a short lens for once. That is why 400/2.8 or 600/4PF(DO) makes so much sense to me. I hate the big long 600/4s. Having the super short hood on my Sony 600GM has made it more palatable to me but I still quest for a shorter option.
The big question is where the weight of the 400S and 600S (with built-in TCs) ends up falling. We know the Sony 1.4TC is so tiny you forget it is attached (not so with the RF 1.4TC). I'd be wanting to see the 400S and 600S match the 400GM/600GM/RF400/RF600 in weight even with the built in TC....Show more →
I love the idea of a 400 w/ built in converter, unfortunately an f/2.8 lens will not be in my budget. Were it to be a 400 f/4 or 4.5 (it's not) I'd find the $5000 (+/-) to buy it.
Regarding the TC, if the current Z 1.4x is a model for the built in converter, the converter in the 400 will be diminutive.
arbitrage wrote:
I'm banned from the NR comment section
Some NFBs can't handle the truth.
Yeah, telling the truth on those rumor sites goes down like a lead balloon. I don't get many likes on NR, but on SAR, I think I've somehow been blocked from everyone's view. I can post but have not had a single reply in 12 months. That site is full of raving trolls and I'd estimate 12-15 year olds.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I love the idea of a 400 w/ built in converter, unfortunately an f/2.8 lens will not be in my budget. Were it to be a 400 f/4 or 4.5 (it's not) I'd find the $5000 (+/-) to buy it.
Regarding the TC, if the current Z 1.4x is a model for the built in converter, the converter in the 400 will be diminutive.
bruce
Well to me 600 f/5.6 PF is nicer than 400 f/4 + 1.4x. I'd gladly pay $5K for a 600 f/5.6 PF, still cheap compared to no doubt what'll be a $15K+ 400/2.8 or 600 f/4 with built-in TC.
Lance B wrote:
Looking at the photos published so far and if my calculations are about right, I am getting around 135mm in height for the Z9. Width looks to be similar to the Z6II/Z7II at ~135mm. This makes it sit about 35mm higher than the Z7II bare, 17-18mm higher than my Z7II with SmallRig plate attached, about 10mm higher than the D850 and about 18mm lower than the D6. At that size, it looks quite diminute for it's supposed ability compared to say the D6 and not much different in volume to the D850.
It is possible the new EXPEED processor forthcoming in the Z9 is as important as the new stacked sensor (likely produced by TSC)
However, there is no explicit confirmation Nikon-Socienext has already migrated Milbeat to 5NP. Nevertheless, basing the new EXPEED in 5NP will avoid the Z9 overheating alongside a few other benefits
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I would have thought that Z8 will be the high MP camera to challenge the rumoured R5s which is said to be testing sensors of 75-80MP. Z7III can still be 45MP just all new sensor with much faster scan speed, even if not stacked at least 1/60s so ES is usable for action, and the higher scan speeds allow for far higher AF speed combined with new animal eye tracking and probably others given we are hearing about motorsports tracking as well from Canon.
Don't forget Sony no doubt will want to hit back hard at R5 with the A7RV, so Z7III needs to be a huge upgrade as R5 will no doubt be two years old at least when Z7III drops. I would actually like Sony A7RV to dump 61MP and go back to a sensor in the high 40MPs and add 8K30, 4K120p, 6K60p....Show more →
I don't see why they need to delay the Z7 III. If anything they ought to be able to get that body out quicker than and Z8 as they are mostly just putting in a new sensor. And I don't see how the speed up a 45 MP sensor without either making it a stacked sensor or doing like Canon did in the R5 and reducing the image quality at lower ISO which I think would be a mistake. So, I maybe totally wrong, but when I heard hints from interviews with management at Nikon that the Z8 might use the same sensor as the the Z9 that made a lot of sense to me. Let the Z7 III take the high MP sensor and then you don't have to worry about speed with that sensor, and then let the Z8 be a fast action camera just not quite up to the Z9. That Z8 then competes very well with the R5 as it has a clearly better sensor and less compromises even though it is $1,000 or so dollars more expensive.
I'm a bit surprised by the width being slightly narrower at 131mm than the Z7II which is 134mm, according to the dimensions given. I would have thought that it would be the same width as the Z7II as that would seem to keep it all uniform in a way. I mean, the width looks the same and looking at the cameras, there really isn't any room to make it narrower with the grip, the mount and the distances in between them etc. Interestingly, my estimate for height looks about right.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't see why they need to delay the Z7 III. If anything they ought to be able to get that body out quicker than and Z8 as they are mostly just putting in a new sensor. And I don't see how the speed up a 45 MP sensor without either making it a stacked sensor or doing like Canon did in the R5 and reducing the image quality at lower ISO which I think would be a mistake. So, I maybe totally wrong, but when I heard hints from interviews with management at Nikon that the Z8 might use the same sensor as the the Z9 that made a lot of sense to me. Let the Z7 III take the high MP sensor and then you don't have to worry about speed with that sensor, and then let the Z8 be a fast action camera just not quite up to the Z9. That Z8 then competes very well with the R5 as it has a clearly better sensor and less compromises even though it is $1,000 or so dollars more expensive....Show more →
Didn't say they were going to delay, but honestly can't see it being out in less than 12 months with Z9 development, and most likely Z30 coming and you also seem to think there is a Z8. Something has to give.
Overstating the image quality at low ISO on the R5 thing a bit. Yes in ES it's DR is lower below ISO400, but use EFCS or mechanical that doesn't happen, and the baked in RAW NR doesn't cost it detail. Only extreme nitpickers would notice a difference between R5 and say Z7, A7RIII etc at low ISO.
Can't see how on earth you would differentiate the Z8 and Z9 based on that. The differences would be minimal and you'd just be gimping it for gimping's sake to keep price down. Z9 at 30fps with 45MP or what, Z8 at 20fps, no 8K despite being 45MP.
Also for an unknown quantity you seem to know a lot about how good the Z9 sensor is.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well to me 600 f/5.6 PF is nicer than 400 f/4 + 1.4x. I'd gladly pay $5K for a 600 f/5.6 PF, still cheap compared to no doubt what'll be a $15K+ 400/2.8 or 600 f/4 with built-in TC.
Sadly, there will be no 600mm f/5.6 PF for USD 5,000.
Here is the Z9 charger and battery registered in Taiwan. Nokishita says N2014 is the Z9.
From Nokishita: https://twitter.com/nokishita_c/status/1426162127417450501
"Nikon's "N2014" has also been registered in Taiwan NCC. The battery is EN-EL18d (10.8V, 3300mAh), and the charger is MH-33 (Input: 5V / 9V-3A, Output: 12.6V-1.6A). Confirmed with Z 9."
P.S. Can't wait to rock that 16-50 DX lens on my Z9
I'm a bit surprised by the width being slightly narrower at 131mm than the Z7II which is 134mm, according to the dimensions given. I would have thought that it would be the same width as the Z7II as that would seem to keep it all uniform in a way. I mean, the width looks the same and looking at the cameras, there really isn't any room to make it narrower with the grip, the mount and the distances in between them etc. Interestingly, my estimate for height looks about right.
The 131mm estimate may be off by 3mm if it did not take the perspective of the photograph that was used to determine the size of the camera into account.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Didn't say they were going to delay, but honestly can't see it being out in less than 12 months with Z9 development, and most likely Z30 coming and you also seem to think there is a Z8. Something has to give.
Overstating the image quality at low ISO on the R5 thing a bit. Yes in ES it's DR is lower below ISO400, but use EFCS or mechanical that doesn't happen, and the baked in RAW NR doesn't cost it detail. Only extreme nitpickers would notice a difference between R5 and say Z7, A7RIII etc at low ISO.
Can't see how on earth you would differentiate the Z8 and Z9 based on that. The differences would be minimal and you'd just be gimping it for gimping's sake to keep price down. Z9 at 30fps with 45MP or what, Z8 at 20fps, no 8K despite being 45MP.
Also for an unknown quantity you seem to know a lot about how good the Z9 sensor is....Show more →
Well let's agree to disagree. I think the R5 is a groundbreaking camera in that it could both do fast action and high MP, but it had to implement a bunch of compromises to get there. A stacked sensor allowed Sony (and I presume Nikon) to get there without the compromises but at a higher price. Prices are going to come down, inevitably on the stacked sensor and there will be no reason to implement the compromised solution that Canon used.
I expect Nikon to implement this strategy with the Z8. I am suggesting it could be differentiated from the Z9 by having a smaller sized body and by having less (but not terrible) processing power and a smaller buffer (I expect both of these to be huge on the Z9 and that has already been hinted at in prerelease leaks).
Now as for timing I expect the high MP Z7 III by the end of next year and the Z8 by the end of first quarter 2023. These are just my guesses. There is no sense arguing about it. If you disagree that is fine. What we really disagree about is the R5 and I think you overestimate how good it is, but I don't think this is the place to discuss that. This is not a thread about the R5.
saaketham wrote:
The most anticipated camera in history .. hopefully Nikon will delight us all.
Makes no sense.
It is targeted at the smallest demographic of photographic consumers. It will sell at a high price, but in low volumes just like the D6. It will be insignificant for the vast majority of photographers because they will never buy one.
It may serve a more general purpose as a moral booster for the Nikon community who are currently a bit insecure after years of not having a class leading offerings, often described as " mediocre", and being (unfairly?) criticized by the photographic media.
I remain optimistic that in fact the Z9 will delight us all.
. That is why 400/2.8 or 600/4PF(DO) makes so much sense to me. I hate the big long 600/4s. Having the super short hood on my Sony 600GM has made it more palatable to me but I still quest for a shorter option.
