DWOfPaul wrote:
It's plausible, that would be fairly close to scaling up the Fuji 40mp sensor to full frame. That would also almost double the resolution of the Z8 which would help stop the cameras from competing against each other. Would probably also cause quite a bit of marketing buzz if Nikon hit 80mp before Sony and Canon.
We probably have the processing capability at this point to make a camera that can be 88mp and do around 10fps. My main question is what would that do to camera cost. If it's going to be a 4k+ camera people will probably expect a Z8 style body, which means it's not fitting the size or cost of the Z7 in Nikons line up.
Realistically I think we are more likely to see Nikon and Canon hit 60-75mp first. Even for Sony I think they would be likely to hit 70mp before 80mp. The general feeling I get is most A7rV users are not asking for more resolution but asking for faster readout times, which seam to get slower the more mp a camera has.
Since we are totally speculating what future cameras might look like at this point I can also see future 80mp+ cameras having something like a 1/4 resolution mode when they combined 4 pixels into one and create a high quality 20mp+ image, kind of like the iPhone pros do with there 48mp sensor that by default generates a 12mp image. ...Show more →
Such a sensor is not speculation. It already exists in Sony's sensor library. The pixel binning capability is included in the latest Leica 60mpx sensors. It is said to add up to a stop of DR, lower noise, as well as reduced file size.
swifty168 wrote:
For a high MP sensor, my guess is it’s another FX/DX bespoke combo in non or partial or full stack
Eg.
40MP non stacked/partial stack DX (Z50 III/Z70)
90MP partial stack FX/full stack (Z7 III/Z9 II)
Seems quite possible. And dovetails with the question of what exactly is Nikon doing for DX down the road.
I think the key point here is that the likely reason there is no Z7III at the same time as the Z6III is that it was time for a new sensor for both lines and rolling out two new sensors simultaneously was not in the cards. Previously, as you pointed out, there weren't actually new sensors for the Z6/Z7 or Z6II/Z7II and so it was much more straightforward to release the cameras side by side.
So now we've seen the new sensor for the Z6III, and it makes perfect sense to prioritize that camera as that was where an update was needed the most. As you say, there are probably already plans to roll the Z6III sensor into additional bodies.
Partial stack seems like a potential good fit for a high resolution Z7III since it sounds like the A7RV is already getting complaints about read-out times at 60MP. A7 users potentially don't need the speed of a full stack and partial keeps the price down presumably.
Anyway, a lot of speculation, but excellent point on the specifics of Nikon's typical approach to rolling out sensors and amortizing them across multiple products. It is a very reasonable argument for the Z7III being "not yet" as opposed to "not at all".
coralnut wrote:
This does seem to be the tack that Nikon is taking -- and it is exactly why I haven't bought a new Nikon FF camera.
Maintaining IQ instead of improving IQ is not a forward looking objective. Improving IQ should be Nikon's goal if it wants to be a leader rather than a follower.
Being competitive in video is not necessary for a stills camera.
I think there's room in the marketplace for a stills camera that is focused on high IQ that doesn't require all of the automation bells and whistles, and don't require video. This type of camera could be marketed at the same price point as another camera that offers lower resolution with all of the automation bells and whistles. The way that I see it there's a market niche for a high-res stills camera at the Z6iii price point. The Z7iii could do that if Nikon were to dispense with everything that's not necessary in making a high resolution stills camera.
I need a noise free high resolution sensor for a still image camera. I don't need automation. I am not a bird paparazzi or a fast-action sports shooter, so I am not swayed by advancements in AF and frame rates. I don't care about video. What I do care about is high IQ at high resolution. When Nikon makes a camera that markedly improves on their high resolution cameras I'll buy it, but until that happens I'm left unimpressed by the path Nikon is taking.
The problem is that many camera manufacturers are trying to create cameras that are universal all-purpose cameras that are everything for everyone. Packing every feature into every camera raises the average unit cost, it doesn't lower it. I would be happy if Nikon took away all of the ancillary add-ons and made a basic-featured high-res stills camera at a lower price. Conceptually, there's no reason that a minimalist high-res camera couldn't co-exist at the Z6ii price point....Show more →
Agree totally. Not paying for gimmicks and unneeded tech, video etc. This video convinced me to stay with my Z7II for now: Nikon Z8 vs Nikon Z7ii : Which one is right for you and why. The longer battery life, lower sensor noise, higher dynamic range are important. I want the same ergonomics in the Z7III, lower noise, better AFC, same controls and no gimmicks, no video. Nikon needs to”purify” the 7ZIII for its intended use, otherwise they are diluting their market with too many choices for similar results. Trying to squeeze speed out of these sensors has a penalty in certain IQ characteristics as I see it.
aerospace99 wrote:
Agree totally. Not paying for gimmicks and unneeded tech, video etc. This video convinced me to stay with my Z7II for now: Nikon Z8 vs Nikon Z7ii : Which one is right for you and why. The longer battery life, lower sensor noise, higher dynamic range are important. I want the same ergonomics in the Z7III, lower noise, better AFC, same controls and no gimmicks, no video. Nikon needs to”purify” the 7ZIII for its intended use, otherwise they are diluting their market with too many choices for similar results. Trying to squeeze speed out of these sensors has a penalty in certain IQ characteristics as I see it. ...Show more →
Bear in mind IQ is not a limitless endeavour.
There’s a theoretical ideal (100% efficiency of sensor and nought electronic noise added) and we’re within a stop of that. The rest are photon shot noise which is a properly of light unless you intend to change physics.
So it’s a diminishing return problem so the question is are our expectations realistic?
On the resolution end, the ideal is to be diffraction limited at all aperture. Since Nikon tops out at f/0.95 then to be diffraction limited at f/0.95 is our limit so somebody can work out the resolution required to reach that. Then look at the practicality of offloading that amount of data and people will realise the pursuit of speed is not purely for ego. It’s an enabler of all sorts of other improvements too such as EVF, AF and scene recognition performance which I’m sure all the stills folks (like myself) will appreciate.
Eric214 wrote:
If Nikon is to be believed and there will be a pretty good delay in filing orders, it may be sometime in 2025 before there are very many returns for refurbished sales. Though personally i don't think there's going to be a crazy high demand like there was for the Z9 and even to a much lesser degree of the Z8. i also think that many many more people will want to buy new and not refurbished in general and for warranty considerations
I am not sure Nikon refurbs are even very dependent on returns.
What I am sure is that after 2 years of Z6iii speculation threads, I have about had my fill. Polls indicate that of all the participants in said threads, maybe 15% of the people speculating have any interest in actually buying one. I get that it isn't a requirement, but over on DPR some people think that commenting on every speculation thread is their job, saying the same crap over and over. Makes me want to punch my tablet….lol.
Max Power wrote:
I am not sure Nikon reverb are even very dependent on returns.
What I am sure is that after 2 years of Z6ii speculation threads, I have had about my fill. Polls indicate that of all the participants in said threads, maybe 15% of the people speculating have any interest in actually buying one. I get that it isn't a requirement, but over on DPR some people think that commenting on every speculation thread is their job, saying the same crap over and over. Makes me want to punch my tablet….lol.
🤣 Sorry. DPReview is a cesspool and I haven't been on that site on well over a year.
coralnut wrote:
This does seem to be the tack that Nikon is taking -- and it is exactly why I haven't bought a new Nikon FF camera.
Maintaining IQ instead of improving IQ is not a forward looking objective. Improving IQ should be Nikon's goal if it wants to be a leader rather than a follower.
Being competitive in video is not necessary for a stills camera.
I think there's room in the marketplace for a stills camera that is focused on high IQ that doesn't require all of the automation bells and whistles, and don't require video. This type of camera could be marketed at the same price point as another camera that offers lower resolution with all of the automation bells and whistles. The way that I see it there's a market niche for a high-res stills camera at the Z6iii price point. The Z7iii could do that if Nikon were to dispense with everything that's not necessary in making a high resolution stills camera.
I need a noise free high resolution sensor for a still image camera. I don't need automation. I am not a bird paparazzi or a fast-action sports shooter, so I am not swayed by advancements in AF and frame rates. I don't care about video. What I do care about is high IQ at high resolution. When Nikon makes a camera that markedly improves on their high resolution cameras I'll buy it, but until that happens I'm left unimpressed by the path Nikon is taking.
The problem is that many camera manufacturers are trying to create cameras that are universal all-purpose cameras that are everything for everyone. Packing every feature into every camera raises the average unit cost, it doesn't lower it. I would be happy if Nikon took away all of the ancillary add-ons and made a basic-featured high-res stills camera at a lower price. Conceptually, there's no reason that a minimalist high-res camera couldn't co-exist at the Z6ii price point....Show more →
I used to feel that way too, don't spend R&D dollars on video, focus on stills. But video actually drives many aspects of sensor and camera design that customers want. Specifically high data rates that enable high frame rates and purely electronic shutters, blackout free EVFs, ever brighter and more vibrant EVFs, and wafer stacking that allows putting logic close to the pixel to do things like pre capture and pixel shift. Some years down the road the Expeed will live in the same die as the sensor, we will have high speed full resolution raw pre-capture, option for raw HDR, and perhaps even the computational imaging that Lytro attempted to pioneer too early. There is also Eric Fossum's concept of a "gigajot" sensor that brings the image response back towards film. None of that would be economically feasible without video providing the economic incentives.
My phone already has a 200 Mpx sensor from Samsung, and there is at least one other major vendor with a similar product that is sampling.
If you don't care about any of this and want no automation you already have great cameras to work with - Z7ii and D850
So I am pretty sure I am going to do a really tough, super remote high elevation trek over the course of three weeks in the Himalaya this Fall. I’m in great shape but this one at 140 miles is a bit of a beast and portage will be a bit limited. I would really like to take my Hasselblad X2D and a few lenses but I could save a lot of weight if I brought my Z7II, 24-120S and maybe the new 35mm 1.4.
A 60MP Z7III in the same size body would make the decision a no brainer but I doubt I would get a yet to be announced camera before the trip in late October.
swifty168 wrote:
Bear in mind IQ is not a limitless endeavour.
There’s a theoretical ideal (100% efficiency of sensor and nought electronic noise added) and we’re within a stop of that. The rest are photon shot noise which is a properly of light unless you intend to change physics.
So it’s a diminishing return problem so the question is are our expectations realistic?
On the resolution end, the ideal is to be diffraction limited at all aperture. Since Nikon tops out at f/0.95 then to be diffraction limited at f/0.95 is our limit so somebody can work out the resolution required to reach that. Then look at the practicality of offloading that amount of data and people will realise the pursuit of speed is not purely for ego. It’s an enabler of all sorts of other improvements too such as EVF, AF and scene recognition performance which I’m sure all the stills folks (like myself) will appreciate. ...Show more →
Well I am quite happy with the Z7II IQ now. But yes to your wish list. If I don't upgrade I am ok. Not looking for a revolution here. Definitely not looking for a major price increase either to chase down tech I do not need.
Seems Nikon still needs a slower high-MP landscape camera in their lineup, if the rumored 67MP sensor from a couple of years ago is to be believed why not a fully-stacked sensor slapped into a Z9-class body or Z8-class body and a Z7III partially-stacked sensor slapped into a Z6III body? MSRPs of approximately ~$5.5K, ~$4K and ≤$3K should round out their Expeed7 lineup before moving onto Expeed8 next year.
Ai_Print wrote:
So I am pretty sure I am going to do a really tough, super remote high elevation trek over the course of three weeks in the Himalaya this Fall. I’m in great shape but this one at 140 miles is a bit of a beast and portage will be a bit limited. I would really like to take my Hasselblad X2D and a few lenses but I could save a lot of weight if I brought my Z7II, 24-120S and maybe the new 35mm 1.4.
A 60MP Z7III in the same size body would make the decision a no brainer but I doubt I would get a yet to be announced camera before the trip in late October.
Ai_Print wrote:
So I am pretty sure I am going to do a really tough, super remote high elevation trek over the course of three weeks in the Himalaya this Fall. I’m in great shape but this one at 140 miles is a bit of a beast and portage will be a bit limited. I would really like to take my Hasselblad X2D and a few lenses but I could save a lot of weight if I brought my Z7II, 24-120S and maybe the new 35mm 1.4.
A 60MP Z7III in the same size body would make the decision a no brainer but I doubt I would get a yet to be announced camera before the trip in late October.
Are you doing this trek with porters ? Last November I did about the same distance - 16 days longest and hardest Trek to Everest Base Camp. I bring a lot of equipment and carry myself
2 cameras, 3 lenses including Nikon Z 70-200 2.8 and much more stuff
Bring your Hasselblad X2D if you want, but Nikon Z7 II is also perfect ( I used Z7II and Z6 )
PIOK wrote:
Are you doing this trek with porters ? Last November I did about the same distance - 16 days longest and hardest Trek to Everest Base Camp. I bring a lot of equipment and carry myself
2 cameras, 3 lenses including Nikon Z 70-200 2.8 and much more stuff
Bring your Hasselblad X2D if you want, but Nikon Z7 II is also perfect ( I used Z7II and Z6 )
This will be ported but far more remote than the Everest Basecamp trek which saw over 57,000 people last year, this one less than 900. I have been running some DXO exported improvement tests from the 24-120S and honestly they look great, just far greater FOV range than my X2D can achieve with even 3-4 lenses. I would like to bring my Z8 to keep the sensor far cleaner than the Z7II can but the Z7II just looks better in terms of dynamic range.
I live at 8,000 feet and have been training with the day pack haul weight doing more than the max daily milage of the trek at 10,000 to 13,000 feet. I'll likely summit a few 14,000 foot peaks a couple weeks before hand and be good to go regardless of my haul weight.
Ai_Print wrote:
I have been running some DXO exported improvement tests from the 24-120S and honestly they look great, just far greater FOV range than my X2D can achieve with even 3-4 lenses.
Everyone has their own way of shooting and composing of course.
For me, however, when it comes to landscape, where you stand and what you frame are what matters more than anything. There is no such thing as "zoom with your feet" as that changes perspective. So all you are really left with is "zoom with a crop" (or "zoom with a pano stitch" if trying to zoom out more).
That leads me to value focal length flexibility above the absolute last little bit of sharpness. If I have to crop the sharper lens it is no longer the sharper lens. In addition I'm also increasing effective image noise when I crop. If I tell myself "I'll just compose differently so I don't have to crop" then what I'm really saying is "I'm compromising my composition chasing sharpness" or as Ansel Adams put it, making a "sharp photo of a fuzzy concept".
So if the 24-120S is meeting your IQ threshold and giving you more focal length flexibility then in my opinion it is the thing to take before even considering the size/weight benefit.
I would like to bring my Z8 to keep the sensor far cleaner than the Z7II can but the Z7II just looks better in terms of dynamic range.
It doesn't sound like you'll need to change lenses very often though. I've shot a Z7 in the desert a lot and with a fair number of lens changes. A bulb blower has really been all I needed for the occasional dust issue though I also carry a sensor brush which I've used once in the field.
It is actually a bit of an open question to me whether the sensor cover really helps or not. As I understand it a good bit of dust comes from the back of the lens after it is attached to the camera which the sensor cover doesn't help with.
Anyway, you probably know your environment and dust experience better than me!
Ai_Print wrote:
This will be ported but far more remote than the Everest Basecamp trek which saw over 57,000 people last year, this one less than 900. I have been running some DXO exported improvement tests from the 24-120S and honestly they look great, just far greater FOV range than my X2D can achieve with even 3-4 lenses. I would like to bring my Z8 to keep the sensor far cleaner than the Z7II can but the Z7II just looks better in terms of dynamic range.
I live at 8,000 feet and have been training with the day pack haul weight doing more than the max daily milage of the trek at 10,000 to 13,000 feet. I'll likely summit a few 14,000 foot peaks a couple weeks before hand and be good to go regardless of my haul weight.
That was my plan for a Karakoram expedition this fall... until it got canceled. Was going to summit the most unremarkable 14-er in the lower 48 (White Mountain Peak) at every opportunity in lieu of boring gym time. Have fun, I am envious. I am with you - weight above image quality any time of day. I am heading to a week long backpacking trip at the end of September, pack will start at 55-60 lbs on day 1, of which at least 25 lbs is photo and drone gear. I am taking the minimal possible but it still adds up, particularly the damn batteries.
kwalsh wrote:
Everyone has their own way of shooting and composing of course.
For me, however, when it comes to landscape, where you stand and what you frame are what matters more than anything. There is no such thing as "zoom with your feet" as that changes perspective. So all you are really left with is "zoom with a crop" (or "zoom with a pano stitch" if trying to zoom out more).
That leads me to value focal length flexibility above the absolute last little bit of sharpness. If I have to crop the sharper lens it is no longer the sharper lens. In addition I'm also increasing effective image noise when I crop. If I tell myself "I'll just compose differently so I don't have to crop" then what I'm really saying is "I'm compromising my composition chasing sharpness" or as Ansel Adams put it, making a "sharp photo of a fuzzy concept".
So if the 24-120S is meeting your IQ threshold and giving you more focal length flexibility then in my opinion it is the thing to take before even considering the size/weight benefit.
It doesn't sound like you'll need to change lenses very often though. I've shot a Z7 in the desert a lot and with a fair number of lens changes. A bulb blower has really been all I needed for the occasional dust issue though I also carry a sensor brush which I've used once in the field.
It is actually a bit of an open question to me whether the sensor cover really helps or not. As I understand it a good bit of dust comes from the back of the lens after it is attached to the camera which the sensor cover doesn't help with.
Anyway, you probably know your environment and dust experience better than me!...Show more →
For now, the end use case of much of my gear varies a lot...
A few weeks ago I did an aerial stitch commission that needed to fill a space 4.6' feet high by 36' feet long. I used the Z9 for speed and accuracy with the 70-200 2.8, it worked great. The Winter season that I first used the Z6 & Z7 I told NPS that they really needed to get a sensor shutter by some mode to safely change lenses in snowy conditions for ski area work on those cameras, the Z9 and Z8 work exceptionally well in this regard and I find I have far less dust on images in general with them.
Everything is very light and effective with the Z7II and 24-120S combo, I use that kit a lot for ski area work and found it really does hit a lot of the landscape points well and yet I am comfortable ripping fast lines down double blacks with it in a small pack. It's not as sharp as either the 24-70 2.8 or 70-200 2.8 in ultimate terms but it is just too close to criticize it given the amazing range-in-package aspects of it.
I think the Z7II / 24-120S with the new 35mm 1.4 and a 2lb tripod and I will be more than golden for this first ever foray into the Himalaya. A second trip would likely see custom guiding and portage and the X2D (or Z7III?) with the proper complement of lenses...that is next league image making.
