Of course there is the price thing too! But to get anything like Z8/Z9 performance you need a stacked sensor. Developing a new APS-C stacked sensor that can't be sensibly used in the rest of the DX low cost line would be likely be prohibitively expensive. A sensor needs to be amortized over many, many cameras. Unfortunately a Z500 is probably far too niche to ever have enough unit sales to justify that. (At DX you might get by with a partially stacked sensor, but still you are developing a new sensor for probably just one camera that won't sell much).
..... ...Show more →
OM-1 has a m43 stacked sensor, and Fuji XH2s has an APS-C stacked sensor - it doesn't seem they found the cost of developing these stacked sensors prohibitive. I am pretty sure the Fuji X-H2s is significantly more niche than what a Nikon Z500 might be considering that Fuji does not have the AF performance, the professional telephoto lenses, as well as the professional user base like Nikon or Canon.
The market for a Pro-level crop camera is dead. The D500 was the last pro influenced crop anything. Considering in theory. They could just take a Z8 right now. Firmware update it to show a "Crop View" that's zoomed in and call it a day. The chances of that is way more than getting a body dedicated for a pro control influenced camera. Unless it does that already.. i've never put a crop lens on my Z6. But a Z8's sensor being higher MP. You still get enough useable from the middle.
The main thing i miss from going from a D500 to a Z6iii is only the controls. And some of the functions like Bracketing was taken away even on the Z9. Like the 2-shot bracket of Over or Under EV comp depending on the lighting situation i was getting the 2nd shot for. Now i'm forced to do 3 and ignore the one i'll never have no use for.
curious80 wrote:
OM-1 has a m43 stacked sensor, and Fuji XH2s has an APS-C stacked sensor - it doesn't seem they found the cost of developing these stacked sensors prohibitive. I am pretty sure the Fuji X-H2s is significantly more niche than what a Nikon Z500 might be considering that Fuji does not have the AF performance, the professional telephoto lenses, as well as the professional user base like Nikon or Canon.
Ultimately, it's like comparing apples and oranges, since m43 and APS-C are the core businesses of both manufacturers.
Of course, development costs in this area are worthwhile if my entire business is based on this niche, as is the case with Olympus, or to a large extent with Fuji.
This is not the case with Nikon, whose core business with the Z system is full-frame.
As DX has presented itself at Nikon MILC so far, Nikon sees it as an affordable entry point into the Z system, hoping to guide users with higher demands to full-frame in the long run.
Accordingly, Nikon has completely different priorities here than a manufacturer that only offers m43, or whose niche largely consists of producing high-quality APS-C camera/lenses/equipment.
At Nikon, development costs go where Nikon believes it can earn the most money and where it specializes: high-quality full-frame solutions and the shift to the increasingly important dedicated high-quality cinema/video/creator sector.
This is a sector that is still lucrative, has suffered relatively little compared to compact cameras or formats such as APS-C and, especially in the field of moving images, still has significant potential for growth.
One question that has been left aside so far is the migration path of current D500/D7500 users.
Those guys currently have F mount lenses matching their needs/applications and I am not sure that they are convinced the Z50II is a step up (even if it probably is overall).
Going full frame to a Z5II/Z6III/Z8 is of course an option, but an expensive one.
What does that leave them with?
My father has a D500 that he uses casually, among other things to take photographs of the basketball games of his grand daughter. Currently I don't know what to advise him to migrate to among Nikon's mirrorless options. If there were a z90 it would be super easy.
Vento wrote:
Ultimately, it's like comparing apples and oranges, since m43 and APS-C are the core businesses of both manufacturers.
Of course, development costs in this area are worthwhile if my entire business is based on this niche, as is the case with Olympus, or to a large extent with Fuji.
This is not the case with Nikon, whose core business with the Z system is full-frame.
As DX has presented itself at Nikon MILC so far, Nikon sees it as an affordable entry point into the Z system, hoping to guide users with higher demands to full-frame in the long run.
Accordingly, Nikon has completely different priorities here than a manufacturer that only offers m43, or whose niche largely consists of producing high-quality APS-C camera/lenses/equipment.
At Nikon, development costs go where Nikon believes it can earn the most money and where it specializes: high-quality full-frame solutions and the shift to the increasingly important dedicated high-quality cinema/video/creator sector.
This is a sector that is still lucrative, has suffered relatively little compared to compact cameras or formats such as APS-C and, especially in the field of moving images, still has significant potential for growth.
Sure strategic focus is a different matter altogether. I was just addressing the 'prohibitively expensive' comment. If a company like OM systems with less than 2% camera market share can afford to invest in this then I don't believe it would be prohibitively expensive for Nikon either. Whether they chose to make that investment based on their strategic direction is a different question. Moreover the stacked sensor is likely made by Sony anyway and I am not sure if OM systems or Fuji had to invest much in that anyway. Nikon probably can pick the sensor from Sony and use it if they want.
This would certainly be feasible for Nikon, and it is entirely possible that the DX range will be rounded up in the future, at least with an IBIS body.
However, I don't see this happening at the moment, at least not with a pro-style body with a stacked sensor, i.e., a DX Mini Z8, and then for $2,000, as many would like to see.
Not only is the market there probably not big enough to justify the investment, but Nikon would also be cutting into its own profits in the more lucrative FX camera segment.
As things stand, Nikon sees cameras like the Z5II, Z6III, and Z8 as an upgrade path for users who find the Z50II insufficient.
When it comes to market share and market development, it is probably also advisable not to create unnecessary competition for yourself.
The launches have been deliberately chosen so that the lucrative margins of a flagship model such as the Z9 could be exploited for some time, and competition within the company is only created when demand for the top model has reached a certain saturation point.
Then, with a Z8 at lower prices, new demand was created.
So it makes little sense for Nikon to significantly undercut the price of its current best-seller in the high-speed/high-performance segment, the Z8, with a Z500 offering stacked sensor technology, comparable or better frame rates and features for significantly less money.
In this case, less can definitely mean more for Nikon in the end.
The latest figures from OM Systems also show how difficult the market environment has become in this area.
I don't think we want to see a similar development at Nikon, so it seems they have backed the right horse.
OM System continues to be in the red in 2024 with a negative operating profit of -¥1.2 billion yen
Sadly it is the case that still photography is dying off compared to the videos of Google U-Tube. Apparently nobody will have more than 45MP or smaller than 4.3µm pixels in a Nikon ever again. It's like when John Gates said that nobody wants more than 640KB. Come to think of it, neither Nikon nor OM have a single camera I'm interested in buying ATM. Maybe it's a good thing.
It's a matter of positioning and of targeted audience. A product is defined as much by its specifications as by the way it is perceived. And the way a product is perceived results from the intend of its designers. This is more than marketing.
Some here see DX as less than FX... but it could be argued that with the right sensor DX is more than FX for tele work. And therefore wildlife, in particular bird in flight photography.
The D500 was not a successor of the D300 in terms of positioning, not at all. The D300 was a high end DX camera for the many folks still shooting DX. The D500 was a complement to the D5 for people looking for more reach.
The pricing is strongly influenced by this. A high end DX camera can't sell for more than 2,000 US$ because you compare it to FX and it has to be cheaper. A niche camera complementing the z9II can sell for more than that. But again, Nikon wouldn't need to make much money from such a camera. It would first have to prevent a dent in the public perception of their line up as the reference wildlife line up. If Canon had a high end APS-C camera and Nikon not, think of how effectively the viral marketing war machine at Canon would flood forums with every day folks boasting about the amazing bird images they shot with their APS-C Canon... We've been through that many times.
the most difficult thing for Nikon might be to decide on a name for it. Z90 or Z900... My bet is on Z900.
EB-1 wrote:
Sadly it is the case that still photography is dying off compared to the videos of Google U-Tube. Apparently nobody will have more than 45MP or smaller than 4.3µm pixels in a Nikon ever again. It's like when John Gates said that nobody wants more than 640KB. Come to think of it, neither Nikon nor OM have a single camera I'm interested in buying ATM. Maybe it's a good thing.
EBH
There is currently nothing significantly better than a Z7II for landscape work. The 60mp sensor of the Sony makes zero practical difference in prints.
So it's not just Nikon who is standing still in terms of resolution. It's indeed the whole market. Probably because very few people really need more than 45mp. That is roughly 4x5 level of quality (and yes I shoot 4x5 and 8x10).
Heck, the truth is that even a 102mp GFX-100II or X2D mkII only makes a limited difference. Perceptible but unlikely to change the perception someone would have of an image. Poor images will remain poor, great images will remain great. Even on large prints.
But regardless, I am sure we are going to get 80+ mp camera from nikon within a year at most. I would think sooner than that.
bernardl wrote:
One question that has been left aside so far is the migration path of current D500/D7500 users.
Those guys currently have F mount lenses matching their needs/applications and I am not sure that they are convinced the Z50II is a step up (even if it probably is overall).
Going full frame to a Z5II/Z6III/Z8 is of course an option, but an expensive one.
What does that leave them with?
My father has a D500 that he uses casually, among other things to take photographs of the basketball games of his grand daughter. Currently I don't know what to advise him to migrate to among Nikon's mirrorless options. If there were a z90 it would be super easy.
I absolutely LOVED my D500 to the point where I had white knuckles as I handed it over to the person who bought it from me. That slapping shutter feel and sound, the excellent cAF and the frame rate at the time were just a joy in my hands. I really liked the image output as well. That said, I always threw a full-frame lens on my D500 and enjoyed the sharpest central areas of those lenses. So on one hand, shifting over to the Z8 was like trading in one kid for another, but on the other hand it was a very easy transition with my lenses and a switch that now doesn't leave me wanting for a new crop sensor camera.
Perhaps others are different, but my hunch is that most people who bought a D500 (vs a D7200) were more likely to have owned the full frame sports / wildlife lenses that can be easily adapted to a Z8.
It is interesting to consider where the market will go next. I never thought I'd switch from wanting a Z500 3 years ago to now wanting small chipped manual lenses for my Zf!
urbanwild wrote:
I absolutely LOVED my D500 to the point where I had white knuckles as I handed it over to the person who bought it from me. That slapping shutter feel and sound, the excellent cAF and the frame rate at the time were just a joy in my hands. I really liked the image output as well. That said, I always threw a full-frame lens on my D500 and enjoyed the sharpest central areas of those lenses. So on one hand, shifting over to the Z8 was like trading in one kid for another, but on the other hand it was a very easy transition with my lenses and a switch that now doesn't leave me wanting for a new crop sensor camera.
Perhaps others are different, but my hunch is that most people who bought a D500 (vs a D7200) were more likely to have owned the full frame sports / wildlife lenses that can be easily adapted to a Z8.
It is interesting to consider where the market will go next. I never thought I'd switch from wanting a Z500 3 years ago to now wanting small chipped manual lenses for my Zf! ...Show more →
I believe that you are very right. Most D500 buyers used it to get more reach compared to a D5.
Which why I think that some folks could be interested in a Z900 that gives more reach compared to a Z9II while having the same AF, same EVF,... and potentially more speed (both read out speed - assuming they are not global shutter - and fps). All that being based on the guess that the z9II stays at the same resolution as the Z9, or even possibly a bit lower.
I could see the following line up, all relying on the Expeed 8:
- Z900: 32mp stacked
- Z9II: 36mp global shutter
- Z8II: 45.7mp stacked (or same as Z9II)
- Z7III: 80mp BSI
bernardl wrote:
I believe that you are very right. Most D500 buyers used it to get more reach compared to a D5.
Which why I think that some folks could be interested in a Z900 that gives more reach compared to a Z9II while having the same AF, same EVF,... and potentially more speed (both read out speed - assuming they are not global shutter - and fps). All that being based on the guess that the z9II stays at the same resolution as the Z9, or even possibly a bit lower.
I could see the following line up, all relying on the Expeed 8:
- Z900: 32mp stacked
- Z9II: 36mp global shutter
- Z8II: 45.7mp stacked
- Z7III: 80mp BSI
I think I see the advantages you're seeking now. The D500 was only 20mp, so your hope is for a crop sensor with 32mp which would also give you a faster frame rate. I would expect the noise levels to be not great though with the smaller pixel size but I'm not really keeping up with the tech / physics of it all. Hitting above 20fps RAW would be a bonus to many I'm sure.
EB-1 wrote:
Sadly it is the case that still photography is dying off compared to the videos of Google U-Tube. Apparently nobody will have more than 45MP or smaller than 4.3µm pixels in a Nikon ever again. It's like when John Gates said that nobody wants more than 640KB. Come to think of it, neither Nikon nor OM have a single camera I'm interested in buying ATM. Maybe it's a good thing.
EBH
If people mostly view photos on their phones, there is no reason for more than a couple of megapixels. I find it actually kind of ironic how the camera resolution has been increasing and the display sizes decreasing at the same time. Clearly the demand for cameras with a practical use in mind and artificial demand created by increasing specs are at odds with each other.
I know many people who own photo printers but basically let the ink dry out of lack of use. I personally still print a lot and enjoy the printed image. But it seems to more and more happen in a one-person bubble.
Come on guys, we could argue for days about whether Nikon will make a professional DX camera, whether APS-C is dead because there's no market for it, etc. It's just talk and personal opinion.
I would much prefer to pair my old Z6 with a “serious” DX MILC, without castrations like the Z50 II (and therefore, with IBIS, stacked sensor, built-in flash that can act as a commander, etc.), which can use the same EN-EL15c battery... but these are just personal opinions.
The fact is that Nikon does not have a (semi)pro APS-C MILC that measures up to those made by others, nor does it have a small and/or lightweight FF, such as Canon (R8) or Sony (the various A7Cs). It produces the Z8, which is smaller than the Z9, but it cannot be a body capable of replacing the obvious shortcomings of the products in the Nikon catalog. The Z8 is NOT, especially considering its price, a replacement for a professional-grade 24+ Mpix APS-C MILC. With all the affection we have for the Nikon brand, we cannot bury our heads in the sand.
Yes, we can discuss for days and share our personal opinions. This is pretty much what these forums are about, isn't it? I have seen you join these more than once.
Btw the D500 didn't include a built-in flash. This is not pro-spec according to Nikon.
I fully agree that the "just use a Z8" is not a credible answer. In particular for people coming from a D500 only, but not limited to them. Even for the many people who were using a D500 as a long lens body amidst a FF line up the Z8 is not a great match for that role.
bernardl wrote:
I believe that you are very right. Most D500 buyers used it to get more reach compared to a D5.
Which why I think that some folks could be interested in a Z900 that gives more reach compared to a Z9II while having the same AF, same EVF,... and potentially more speed (both read out speed - assuming they are not global shutter - and fps). All that being based on the guess that the z9II stays at the same resolution as the Z9, or even possibly a bit lower.
I could see the following line up, all relying on the Expeed 8:
- Z900: 32mp stacked
- Z9II: 36mp global shutter
- Z8II: 45.7mp stacked
- Z7III: 80mp BSI
"Most D500 buyers used it to get more reach compared to a D5", yes. However, the other factor is that the D500 came out 18 months *prior* to the D850 - I purchased a D500 firstly in conjunction with my D810 and then D850. I would argue that many purchased the D500 for the same reason as I first did, a higher pixel density DX camera than the D810, with faster frame rate and way better AF ability - the perfect birding camera. Even after I got the D850, the D500 still AFed a tad faster than the D850 and had a slightly higher frame rate. Add to that, the AF overlay was DX, meaning that the AF sensors went further to the edge of the VF.
I agree with your thoughts about what a Z900 needs to be - as well as the other cameras listed. A Z900 needs to be a stacked DX sensored camera that must have 30+MP or it is a waste of time. If it is any less than that, I may as well use my Z8 or Z9 and crop in post or use DX mode in camera.
Will Nikon make one? If the marketing dept., the engineering dept. and the manufacturing dept. etc think it can work, then they will. Otherwise, they won't. They have to have a sensor available, probably an EXPEED 8 chip, believe that it will sell for a good profit without cannibalizing other camera sales like the Z8, and have to be able to make it small and cheap enough to entice buyers - all those marketing, engineering and manufacturing considerations.
EB-1 wrote:
That's kind of 2017 mentality with the D850, which actually has better S/N than the Z8 with the same pixel pitch. The 2015 D7200 had better IQ than the D500. Technical progress in some ways is rather lame due to the focus on flying BIFs and video. There are other subjects in the universe also.
Some of us are wanting more pixels in croppers. If Fuji can do it, why not Nikon? Of course I'd be fine with an 80-90MP FX body also and just crop from that.
Fuji can do it because their focus is on 1.5x sensors (similar to Nikon DX) and they have a comprehensive lens line with 1.5x sensor coverage. They also make 33x44 mm sensor cameras which is their larger format, but no 35mm full frame.
For Nikon IMO a high-end DX camera can't just exist in a vacuum and needs to be launched with at least a few high-end DX lenses such as 16-55/2.8 and a fast wide angle. This is because as much as the forum would like to believe only bird photographers exist or are worthy of consideration, in reality, a lot of "pro DX" camera users use it as a cheaper high-quality camera with general photography (including landscape, events, sports, weddings, portraits etc.) applications and a big part of the motivation is that the 70-200/2.8 covers up to 300 mm equivalent making it a very practical tool for many things. But the wide angle lenses must exist and be optimized for DX so that there is no extra flare or extra weight. Only by having the lenses to go with the camera would the purchase volume be such that the camera can be commercially viably made.
Fuji has a 40 MP sensor and a 24 MP (X2Hs), of which the latter is stacked and permits fast frame rates and has electronic shutter, the former in practice needs the mechanical shutter to avoid distortion. I think today a lot of people photographing birds and other wildlife would want to use the silent shutter and as the subjects are often moving, there is just the 24 MP model which then doesn't give that much of a pixel density advantage over Nikon Z8/Z9.
Furthermore the XH2S is $2,899 at B&H so the price is clearly higher than the D500, illustrating the cost of producing the high-end stacked sensor. If Nikon made one the people would just complain about the price, lack of dedicated high-end DX lenses, and minimal pixel density advantage. The Fuji sensor is faster than the Z8/Z9 sensor in video mode but slower in photo mode, so even though it has fewer pixels, it can't quite match the speed of the Z8/Z9 in stills shooting from a sensor readout point of view.
Instead of a high-end DX camera, Nikon now make numerous more compact long lenses compared to what they were offering for the F-mount, so it's easier to achieve those frame-filling results on full frame than it was before, making the DX camera less important today. They have 400/4.5, 600/6.3, 800/6.3, and 180-600/5.6-6.3. The total cost of a working setup is not really higher than it was before, considering inflation, and results are not worse, either.
