jaybird555 wrote:
Nikon should have gone in a different look and direction with the full frame model and base it off the F2. It is such beautiful camera.
Let's step back further... the Nikon SP.
Actually I think the ZF looks great, just like a Fuji XT-5. But with leatherette on the pentaprism.
I am aware that in order for the readout speed of the sensor to be fast enough that it needs to be stacked. Neither the Z6 (due to its resolution) or the Z7 (due to its form factor) are in a similar class. Also odds are they both will lack additional features the Z8/Z9 have.
1bwana1 wrote:
What you are saying is that they will be stacked sensor cameras, because that is the only way to get rid of a mechanical shutter. This would put them in a similar class to the Z8/9 series, but at a significantly lower price point. I really see no indication of that happening.
robert_in_ca wrote:
Also odds are they both will lack additional features the Z8/Z9 have.
You could remove a couple of features but it's a slippery slope. To differentiate the cameras enough, Nikon would have to intentionally remove a bunch of features that the camera could easily support and that's not a good look in my opinion. I think Nikon would have to include most of the features that are made possible because of the stacked sensor so the biggest decision they'd have to make is how to price it.
I don't enough benefit in a stacked sensor in a Z7III so that leaves the Z6III. If Nikon has an improved sensor available for the Z6III, I think it's safer for them to forego the stacked sensor this time around but if they don't have a new sensor then it might be a more difficult decision.
robert_in_ca wrote:
I am aware that in order for the readout speed of the sensor to be fast enough that it needs to be stacked. Neither the Z6 (due to its resolution) or the Z7 (due to its form factor) are in a similar class. Also odds are they both will lack additional features the Z8/Z9 have.
I think it is entirely possible (even likely) that this is not a pure Z6II sensor ported into the Zf. It may be a Z6II sensor design but manufactured by a new provider. Remember that when the Z8 was being tested there were two sensors in different test mules. It turned out the the new sensor provider could not guarantee the timeliness and production volume needed for the Z8, so it was released with a Sony manufactured sensor.
Today, I heard a hint that Nikon has now managed to successfully source a sensor manufactured by someone other than Sony. Toshiba was specifically mentioned, but the Zf was not. However, the tense of the sentence implied that the new sourcing has taken place.
File this under wild rumors floating in a very soft breeze. But we know this has been a long pursued goal by Nikon.
1bwana1 wrote:
I think it is entirely possible (even likely) that this is not a pure Z6II sensor ported into the Zf. It may be a Z6II sensor design but manufactured by a new provider. Remember that when the Z8 was being tested there were two sensors in different test mules. It turned out the the new sensor provider could not guarantee the timeliness and production volume needed for the Z8, so it was released with a Sony manufactured sensor.
Today, I heard a hint that Nikon has now managed to successfully source a sensor manufactured by someone other than Sony. Toshiba was specifically mentioned, but the Zf was not. However, the tense of the sentence implied that the new sourcing has taken place.
File this under wild rumors floating in a very soft breeze. But we know this has been a long pursued goal by Nikon.
I thought Sony bought Toshiba sensor/semiconductor plant a long time ago probably not long after Aptina and
pretty much became the giant in Japanese market. I think D7100 was the last Toshiba made sensor for Nikon (or may be
D700?) think in Japan, the only other remaining player is Tower but it
is very confusing in their relationship with Israel's Jazz Semiconductor.
I was told but I have no way to prove it that supposedly readout speed on DF sensor is faster than Z6 ii.
Isn't Canon R5/R6 sensor also quite a bit faster than Sony/Nikon non stacked sensor, kind of half way between Z6/Z7 and Z8/Z9 ? So I think there is
a room for improvement on readout speed wihtout going stacked. AF tracking on R5 seems pretty good
but still suffered slide show EVF when shooting high FPS a bit.
jaygould wrote:
I think I would've gotten this if it had the 45mp sensor from the Z7/Z7ii. But now it doesn't feel like an upgrade (in terms of image quality) to the Z5.
But let's not forget, it is also less of a price jump to upgrade. (Look at the price difference between an A7CII and an A7CR.)
After it moves away from the 2000$ mark, it becomes very different with regards to marketing.
Also, certain video features, low-light AF, etc. won't be as good, and it is just too many megapixels for most people.
Personally, I think flip screens and IBIS are just too overhyped these days. Not that they are not good for certain things, but I do not think every model has to have them either.
I really like the 'retro' design of the original A7 series and they moved quite far off from that form factor and weight (and the A7C line is just not the same layout)
If they made it even cheaper and more basic with a tilt screen and no IBIS (just like an A7), it would be been even better, but way more people are likely to buy it as-is.
suteetat wrote:
I thought Sony bought Toshiba sensor/semiconductor plant a long time ago probably not long after Aptina and
pretty much became the giant in Japanese market. I think D7100 was the last Toshiba made sensor for Nikon (or may be
D700?) think in Japan, the only other remaining player is Tower but it
is very confusing in their relationship with Israel's Jazz Semiconductor.
I was told but I have no way to prove it that supposedly readout speed on DF sensor is faster than Z6 ii.
Isn't Canon R5/R6 sensor also quite a bit faster than Sony/Nikon non stacked sensor, kind of half way between Z6/Z7 and Z8/Z9 ? So I think there is
a room for improvement on readout speed wihtout going stacked. AF tracking on R5 seems pretty good
but still suffered slide show EVF when shooting high FPS a bit.
Canon R5/R6 is about 1/60s sensor scan speed, which is quite a bit faster than the Z6II which is about 1/25s. Neither of these are in the league of the Z8/Z9 which is about 1/240. The R5/R6 is even close to halfway in between. So yes sense scan speed could improve in a non-stacked sensor, but there would still be a big gap.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Canon R5/R6 is about 1/60s sensor scan speed, which is quite a bit faster than the Z6II which is about 1/25s. Neither of these are in the league of the Z8/Z9 which is about 1/240. The R5/R6 is even close to halfway in between. So yes sense scan speed could improve in a non-stacked sensor, but there would still be a big gap.
Thanks for the correction. I guess I remembered the number wrong So R5 only about 25% of Z9 speed then and not 50%.
Desmolicious wrote:
Ok, I see what you are talking about. It is to save settings for non-cpu lenses. I set that a long time ago for my non chipped AI-S lenses and use one of my Function buttons to recall it. Playing with it the only thing it seems to do is set min shutter speed to 1/focal length. So for my 105 1.8 AI-S it picks 1/125. In AE with auto ISO, the speed stays at 1/125 with the ISO changing as you change aperture with the aperture ring.
If you turn off auto ISO, shutter speed climbs and falls as expected w aperture changed. You cannot change aperture with the camera body as it is not a chipped lens.
When you set it to Manual metering, that you can control the shutter speed directly but this works with Auto ISO where it picks the ISO for 'correct' exposure depending on your Shutter/Aperture combination, or full manual if you do not have it set as Auto ISO.
Basically I do not see any difference in behaviour than if you just had a super cheap 'dumb' adapter if you are using non-chipped lenses.
With chipped lenses it doesn't make any difference. The camera recognizes that it is a chipped lens and so ignores whatever non-cpu setting you have. You still get a message saying you need to set aperture to the min setting, and you still cannot control the aperture with the aperture ring. The main difference is the FTZ can AF with G and higher lenses.
Bottom line - with the Z cameras all pre-setting non-cpu lenses in the menu does is select the min shutter speed based on 1/focal length. I do not see aperture setting saved in EXIF....Show more →
Setting this will also insure ibis is stabilizing correctly. On the z6ii/z7ii whatever aperture value you choose in the non-cpu lens menu will record to exif, the original z6/7 don't even if you pick an aperture value.
Considering the dual pixel nature of the Canons (it’s a doubling of number pixels that they actually read out), they are very impressive for non-stacked, especially the R5 reading out 90Mp in around 1/60s. I have to check but R5’s sensor might not even be BSI.
Btw Z9 is around 1/270s.
suteetat wrote:
Thanks for the correction. I guess I remembered the number wrong So R5 only about 25% of Z9 speed then and not 50%.
If you account for the actual number of pixels the R5 reads out (2x45Mp), it would work out to be around 1/120-1/130 (depending on source) if it only had to read 45MP which is roughly half that of the Z9.
So the tech is quite impressive.
jigesh wrote:
A YouTuber removes some of the black paint to expose partially the brass dials here at around 15:22 timestamp - they look nice and probably add some weight too:
?t=922
Ugh, they at least could have used a lighter grit sandpaper so as not to gouge the top surface of the dials like that.
I really like the brass dials.... Would have been neat to also include brass top and bottom plate but likely would have increased the weight of the camera too much I'm thinking? Maybe softer than magnesium and easier to dent/scratch etc as well?
Hardcore wrote:
I really like the brass dials.... Would have been neat to also include brass top and bottom plate but likely would have increased the weight of the camera too much I'm thinking? Maybe softer than magnesium and easier to dent/scratch etc as well?
My Nikon F2 is decades old now, has some edge paint rubbed off but zero dents/scratches. Brass is tough. But I think nowadays it is also expensive to make cameras from it.
Brass distractions on an extremely complicated electronic camera where if one element breaks the entire camera becomes non-functional is just the type of silliness that I've been grousing about in this thread. Ohhhh, shiny! The most durable part of the camera is the badly designed ISO dial now
I can't knock Ricci for sandpapering his, I took a brillo pad to my OG ipod to give it a brushed metal look.
I don’t think it’s silly and I bet they sell boat loads of them. Anyone old enough to have owned and liked an Fm2 ( I still have mine) will love this camera for it’s form factor. I tried the Fuji X-t cameras for similar reasons but never quite gel’d with them.
This camera needs to be looked at for what it represents and not whether it’s the next best Nikon.
I’ll likely get one down the road but not as my main camera.
RoamingScott wrote:
Brass distractions on an extremely complicated electronic camera where if one element breaks the entire camera becomes non-functional is just the type of silliness that I've been grousing about in this thread. Ohhhh, shiny! The most durable part of the camera is the badly designed ISO dial now
I can't knock Ricci for sandpapering his, I took a brillo pad to my OG ipod to give it a brushed metal look.
Man, Scott I generally appreciate your posting, and you take great photos, but when you don't like something, you are extremely negative about it, almost to the point of being condescending. It is OK for other people to like cameras and styles you don't. The camera clearly isn't for everyone, but there's not really a point to keep coming back into this thread and bashing a camera that isn't even in the wild yet simply because it doesn't align with things you'd want in a camera.
So R5 only about 25% of Z9 speed then and not 50%. 