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.
Not so much a morale booster, but Nikon needs to show that it can develop as good of an AF system as Canon and Sony. They haven't done that yet. Nikon needs this camera so people don't stay away from the brand saying, "they don't do good AF." Rightly or wrongly (and I think wrongly) that is a concern right now that needs to be addressed. After this camera nobody is going to be able to say that about Nikon in a general sense. They might be able to criticize a specific camera on AF but not the brand. That is worth more than I think you are giving credit.
1bwana1 wrote:
the Nikon community who are currently a bit insecure after years of not having a class leading offerings, often described as " mediocre"
I really would appreciate it if you could refrain from using or repeating that kind of condescending language. It's not helpful for a fact-based discussion on photographic gear.
Aug 13, 2021 at 11:02 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Nikon Rumors is reporting this morning that the 400 f/2.8 with a built-in 1.4X TC and the 85 f/1.2 are going to be coming with the Z9. So I guess that means the 600 f/4 (or maybe f/5.6 PF?) is coming a bit later. This would provide a 560 f/4, however, with probably very good to excellent IQ.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Nikon Rumors is reporting this morning that the 400 f/2.8 with a built-in 1.4X TC and the 85 f/1.2 are going to be coming with the Z9. So I guess that means the 600 f/4 (or maybe f/5.6 PF?) is coming a bit later. This would provide a 560 f/4, however, with probably very good to excellent IQ.
I'm also wondering why many people would buy a 600mm f/4 if a 400 f/2.8 is available, resolution will surpass the pixel pitch and a cropped shot will still have more than enough pixels on a 45MP full frame sensor. Maybe the 600mm f/4 lens will also have a built-in teleconverter?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Nikon Rumors is reporting this morning that the 400 f/2.8 with a built-in 1.4X TC and the 85 f/1.2 are going to be coming with the Z9. So I guess that means the 600 f/4 (or maybe f/5.6 PF?) is coming a bit later. This would provide a 560 f/4, however, with probably very good to excellent IQ.
AcuteShadows wrote:
I'm also wondering why many people would buy a 600mm f/4 if a 400 f/2.8 is available, resolution will surpass the pixel pitch and a cropped shot will still have more than enough pixels on a 45MP full frame sensor. Maybe the 600mm f/4 lens will also have a built-in teleconverter?
A 400/2.8 does not provide much reach for individual species and is typically a sports lens nowadays. After you get one and use it with a 1.4x most of the time, a 600/4 makes more sense. A 600/4 with a 1.4x is better optically than a 400/2.8 with a 2x.
I much prefer a 500/4 over either of those lenses. However, I would accept a short (PF) version of the 600/4 or even f/5.6.
AcuteShadows wrote:
I really would appreciate it if you could refrain from using or repeating that kind of condescending language. It's not helpful for a fact-based discussion on photographic gear.
Agree, on the language. I was just using that tone to respond to a post from someone who repeatedly uses the term "mediocre" when referring to FM members that shoot another brand. A little taste of his own medicine. Tsk, Tsk...
EB-1 wrote:
A 400/2.8 does not provide much reach for individual species and is typically a sports lens nowadays. After you get one and use it with a 1.4x most of the time, a 600/4 makes more sense. A 600/4 with a 1.4x is better optically than a 400/2.8 with a 2x.
I much prefer a 500/4 over either of those lenses. However, I would accept a short (PF) version of the 600/4 or even f/5.6.
EBH
I too would greatly appreciate a 500/4, but as someone who likes environmental shots of wildlife a 400 2.8+TC is appealing. There are definitely times where I would appreciate the light gathering of an F/2.8 or when shooting large mammals. On an early morning safari or dark forest this would be the lens to have. If I was a dedicated birder, I'd wait for the 600/4 without question. Then I would sit in a puddle of tears when they release a ~2 kg 500/4 DO lens
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.
I agree...the Z9 will interest pro sports and wildlife photographers who have been using the D Series pro body cameras for years and have invested heavily in Nikkor telephotos and longer zooms.
The weight, size and bulk will be a big turn off to many who are looking for a smaller, lighter camera with pro level features.
Many that I work with even wince when they pick up my D6 and 70-200 f/2.8E so a few ounces lighter Z9 won't make much difference.
The D6 is an incredible DSLR and the Z9 will be even better at sports and action photography but many pros passed on the D6 due to poor web reviews and are keeping their D5's or just holding onto their Nikon gear with the slimmest hopes that the Z9 will have R5/R6 or Sony AF performance.
That is the way off live,
everyone have a top model, and the lighter versions.
if its a camera, a car, a motorcycle, a pc, the monitor, clothing, shoes.
even in your local food shop.
EB-1 wrote:
A 400/2.8 does not provide much reach for individual species and is typically a sports lens nowadays. After you get one and use it with a 1.4x most of the time, a 600/4 makes more sense. A 600/4 with a 1.4x is better optically than a 400/2.8 with a 2x.
I much prefer a 500/4 over either of those lenses. However, I would accept a short (PF) version of the 600/4 or even f/5.6.
EBH
mbike999 wrote:
I too would greatly appreciate a 500/4, but as someone who likes environmental shots of wildlife a 400 2.8+TC is appealing. There are definitely times where I would appreciate the light gathering of an F/2.8 or when shooting large mammals. On an early morning safari or dark forest this would be the lens to have. If I was a dedicated birder, I'd wait for the 600/4 without question. Then I would sit in a puddle of tears when they release a ~2 kg 500/4 DO lens
Most of the time a 100-400 will cover the shorter reach. However, I understand your point and tend to shoot species tighter than many people because I'm not a photographer shooting for an audience. Of course I do shoot somewhat wider with 45-50MP than with 20-24MP. I'm more likely not to use the 1.4x on the 500 as much.
I do wish that Nikon would revisit the 1.7x TC in Z format. That is one for the wish list.
leewoolery wrote:
I agree...the Z9 will interest pro sports and wildlife photographers who have been using the D Series pro body cameras for years and have invested heavily in Nikkor telephotos and longer zooms.
The weight, size and bulk will be a big turn off to many who are looking for a smaller, lighter camera with pro level features.
Many that I work with even wince when they pick up my D6 and 70-200 f/2.8E so a few ounces lighter Z9 won't make much difference.
The D6 is an incredible DSLR and the Z9 will be even better at sports and action photography but many pros passed on the D6 due to poor web reviews and are keeping their D5's or just holding onto their Nikon gear with the slimmest hopes that the Z9 will have R5/R6 or Sony AF performance....Show more →
Um, I bought a battery grip for the D750 just to have a better grip with larger lenses.
1bwana1 wrote:
Yep, and now you have choice depending on circumstances. You can always make a camera bigger. Never smaller, That is how I am set up as well.
Of course some do prefer the built-in grip and claim it flexes less than an add on grip. Myself I would prefer the smaller camera all things considered, but I appreciate the bigger camera for the better grip it provides when I use one. I do think that is nice even if it isn't my preference.
AcuteShadows wrote:
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.
I do realise they may have got their ratios wrong from looking at the photos, it is diffcult to get accurate measurements from the photo due to the perspectives etc. I guess what I should have said was that they estimated 131mm when I would have thought they would think that it would be the same width as the Z7II at least, thus estimated it as 134mm as well.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Of course some do prefer the built-in grip and claim it flexes less than an add on grip.
I remember this being a real problem on my buddy's D100 in college and one reason he was super jealous of my D1x
But in 2021 I think people are just being paranoid.
Rather, my argument for built-in grip (or no grip) over add-on grips is superior ergonomics (mainly meaning control and screen layout, but even grip itself is USUALLY [*glares judgementally at the GFX100*] shaped better when it's built in).
mbike999 wrote:
I too would greatly appreciate a 500/4, but as someone who likes environmental shots of wildlife a 400 2.8+TC is appealing. There are definitely times where I would appreciate the light gathering of an F/2.8 or when shooting large mammals. On an early morning safari or dark forest this would be the lens to have. If I was a dedicated birder, I'd wait for the 600/4 without question. Then I would sit in a puddle of tears when they release a ~2 kg 500/4 DO lens
I second this statement... My favorite focal length continues to be 400mm. I shot a 200-400mm f/4 for years and loved the range and the f/4 aperture. It's been 5 months since I've owned one and this is the longest stretch I've been without that lens since 2014. The bulk, balance, and promise of a Z 200-600 led to my decision to sell the lens. Unfortunately, Nikon has not given any indication about when their 200-600 will be made available... fingers crossed that it arrives and can be had before my trip to Africa in July, 2022.
Anyway, as a person who prefers to photograph mammals, large birds, and wildlife landscapes, I find the 400mm focal length to be near perfect. On an FX body... well, it's 400mm while on a DX it has a 600mm field of view. With modern lens design, it seems that these long teles lose nothing when a 1.4x converter is added... this makes for a super versatile super-tele.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I second this statement... My favorite focal length continues to be 400mm. I shot a 200-400mm f/4 for years and loved the range and the f/4 aperture. It's been 5 months since I've owned one and this is the longest stretch I've been without that lens since 2014. The bulk, balance, and promise of a Z 200-600 led to my decision to sell the lens. Unfortunately, Nikon has not given any indication about when their 200-600 will be made available... fingers crossed that it arrives and can be had before my trip to Africa in July, 2022.
Anyway, as a person who prefers to photograph mammals, large birds, and wildlife landscapes, I find the 400mm focal length to be near perfect. On an FX body... well, it's 400mm while on a DX it has a 600mm field of view. With modern lens design, it seems that these long teles lose nothing when a 1.4x converter is added... this makes for a super versatile super-tele.
200-600 should be out this year for sure. I heard from someone else that Nikon started production line for this lens quite awhile ago so hopefully once they have sufficient stock for worldwide distribution, they will go on sale soon.
Now I am a bit conflicting about supertele lenses to get. On one hand, I shoot a lot of birds locally so 600/4 make a lot more sense. However, once traveling is back to normal, hopefully I do plan to go to Africa at least once every one to two years and I have a few other trips plan for larger animals in the next couple of years so may be 400/2.8 with internal TC would make more sense. TCx2 for Z mount is a lot better than TC20e iii so the need to use TC more often with 400mm may be a worthwhile compromise to have the option for 400/2.8 at the shorter end. One option of course is to get keep 600/4e FL for when I shoot birds locally and use 400/2.8S when I travel (hopefully it will have weight reduction like its current competitor).
A 200-600 would be awesome.
And a firmware upgrade to the z6ii and z7ii to add better real time tracking, plus the z9, and Nikon would be back in form.
Next challenge will be to meet demand, with supply chain issues going on in Asia.
Still hoping to see the z micro lens in stock.
The NR sifted estimates from the comments into the images they collated. Hence the variation, and errors
I agree one would expect the Z9 to be wider than a Z7. Even compared to the D850, the wider D5 and D6 add that much more room for one's fingers to grip the heavier camera, and reach at the front buttons. The estimate scaled against the width of the 24-70 f2.8S is probably the more accurate benchmark. So.... using the estimated ratio of 85% smaller than the D6, the Z9 ~ 135 width x 139mm height
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.
Agree. The 400 vs 600 conflict is back and it is even worse (in a nice way) with the in-built TCs in place. I am a mixed wildlife shooter too and had a dilemma when i had to decide between 400 E vs 600 E. I rented out both and was more interested in comparing the 400 with 2X as against 600 with 1.4X and didn't really notice a big difference. Maybe the 600 with 1.4 had a slight edge in terms of AF and lens balance but i found the 400 with 2X was very good optically. In the end i chose the 400 because of the 400mm focal length and f 2.8 which is very handy for mammals in dense forests. My plan B was to buy a 600 F4 and a 300 F4 PF but there was something a little "extra" about the 400 E that made me chose one.
With the new Z teles we are left with the following choices:
For birders the 600 is hard to beat but for mixed shooters i think the 400 will be a great choice, particularly if the AF performance at 800 5.6 is better than the DSLRs..for me personally, 800mm is about as long as i'd get to considering all the atmospheric challenges...
suteetat wrote:
200-600 should be out this year for sure. I heard from someone else that Nikon started production line for this lens quite awhile ago so hopefully once they have sufficient stock for worldwide distribution, they will go on sale soon.
Now I am a bit conflicting about supertele lenses to get. On one hand, I shoot a lot of birds locally so 600/4 make a lot more sense. However, once traveling is back to normal, hopefully I do plan to go to Africa at least once every one to two years and I have a few other trips plan for larger animals in the next couple of years so may be 400/2.8 with internal TC would make more sense. TCx2 for Z mount is a lot better than TC20e iii so the need to use TC more often with 400mm may be a worthwhile compromise to have the option for 400/2.8 at the shorter end. One option of course is to get keep 600/4e FL for when I shoot birds locally and use 400/2.8S when I travel (hopefully it will have weight reduction like its current competitor). ...Show more →
