ilkka_nissila wrote:
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. ...Show more →
If Nikon thinks they need the generic shooters for a Z900 to be profitable then yes. Either come up with some and/or settle their differences with Sigma.
If they think that the "birders" crowd is large enough to make a Z900 profitable then they may not need to come up with more Z mount DX lenses. If I recall, how poor the DX lenses line up was mentioned by many commenters before and after the D500 release (Jan 2016). This didn't prevent Nikon from only releasing one DX lens after the D500, the 10‑20mm f/4.5‑5.6G VR in 2017. So I am not sure they were ever convinced about the need to have a rich DX lenses line up. Even if it true that the F mount line up was nicer than the Z mount one. Many of those F mount DX lenses can be found at super low prices second hand. the 16-55mm f2.8 that I used to own for example.
Btw, I am not a birder, I probably have shot less than 10 BIF images in my life out of millions of frames. I would personnally not be interested in a Z900. I am not pushing for my own needs at all. And anyways, I have no illusion that my needs could influence Nikon.
bernardl wrote:
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.
Heck, after using 45 and 60MP cameras for about 6 years I realized I don’t even need that. I swapped my Z8 for a Z6 III and have been quite happy with the switch and I haven’t really encountered any situation where I really missed the higher resolution. 90% of my prints are 12x18”, and the occasional 30” print, which 24MP is plenty for making quality prints at that size. Interestingly enough, the only prints larger than 30” that I’ve made for myself were shot with 16 MP cameras.
One is a 40” print that, yes, suffers a little if you get up close and examine details, but it’s been hanging in my house for 15 years, and I think I’ve only gotten close enough to notice it’s slightly lower res shortly after the print was made. Since then it just looks great on the wall. The other is a 36” print that was made by stitching several shots from my OM-D E-M5. The file is 80Mp but it was made with a 16 MP camera.
The largest print I’ve ever had made period was 20 feet in width, used as a wall sized installation for a car dealership. That was also made from a 16MP image and it looked great. I had two 24MP images displayed in a museum at 6’ in width, and both looked awesome. Since you back up the larger the print goes, the extra resolution is rarely evident.
bernardl wrote:
If Nikon thinks they need the generic shooters for a Z900 to be profitable then yes. Either come up with some and/or settle their differences with Sigma.
If they think that the "birders" crowd is large enough to make a Z900 profitable then they may not need to come up with more Z mount DX lenses. If I recall, how poor the DX lenses line up was mentioned by many commenters before and after the D500 release (Jan 2016). This didn't prevent Nikon from only releasing one DX lens after the D500, the 10‑20mm f/4.5‑5.6G VR in 2017. So I am not sure they were ever convinced about the need to have a rich DX lenses line up. Even if it true that the F mount line up was nicer than the Z mount one. Many of those F mount DX lenses can be found at super low prices second hand. the 16-55mm f2.8 that I used to own for example. ...Show more →
There was still the 17-55/2.8 DX and a number of DX wide angle zooms and a few DX primes as well. Nikon didn't seem to want to make the D500; note how they called the D7100 and D7200 DX-format flagships (to signal to the customer base that no higher end DX model should be expected) but because of the insistence of some users, they eventually did make the D500. Nikon sold an otherworldly number of D300's but not so many D500's, therefore, they did not make an equivalent camera for the Z mount. Since they now make much more compact, lighter-weight, and affordable or semi-affordable long lenses, I think the same or better functionality can be achieved with the Z8 and these lenses without the total price, weight, or size being too much (or higher than many DX bird photographers paid for their kit). It seems many bird and wildlife photographers using Nikon are quite happy, posting excellent imagery in the various lens threads, and don't much talk about DX these days.
I think the Z8 is a much better choice overall than any DX camera for pixel-density dependent photographers. It has a superfast sensor read time in stills photography and a minimal-lag viewfinder, supports high frame rates and because of the high pixel count, there is the possibility of shooting action subjects in a much easier way by leaving extra space around the subject to be sure that at no time is it cropped unintentionally, and then one can adjust the framing in post while maintaining a good pixel count for the final image. This is not possible with DX as the fastest sensor read time DX sensor currently has only 24 MP available, and so one has to be quite careful when shooting to avoid truncating parts of the subject accidentally if one wants to have enough pixels for the final image. There is also more latitude exposure-wise in the FX format, and it's generally easier to achieve good image quality. With DX the lighting and other conditions where good results are consistently obtained is narrower than with FX. I for one don't want Nikon to go bankrupt trying to make something that is super expensive to develop and would probably be disappointing in how it would sell. Note that neither Sony nor Canon have a high-performance stacked or global sensor DX camera, either. They are the market leaders and should know what the customers actually want to buy.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
There was still the 17-55/2.8 DX and a number of DX wide angle zooms and a few DX primes as well. Nikon didn't seem to want to make the D500; note how they called the D7100 and D7200 DX-format flagships (to signal to the customer base that no higher end DX model should be expected) but because of the insistence of some users, they eventually did make the D500. Nikon sold an otherworldly number of D300's but not so many D500's, therefore, they did not make an equivalent camera for the Z mount. Since they now make much more compact, lighter-weight, and affordable or semi-affordable long lenses, I think the same or better functionality can be achieved with the Z8 and these lenses without the total price, weight, or size being too much (or higher than many DX bird photographers paid for their kit). It seems many bird and wildlife photographers using Nikon are quite happy, posting excellent imagery in the various lens threads, and don't much talk about DX these days.
I think the Z8 is a much better choice overall than any DX camera for pixel-density dependent photographers. It has a superfast sensor read time in stills photography and a minimal-lag viewfinder, supports high frame rates and because of the high pixel count, there is the possibility of shooting action subjects in a much easier way by leaving extra space around the subject to be sure that at no time is it cropped unintentionally, and then one can adjust the framing in post while maintaining a good pixel count for the final image. This is not possible with DX as the fastest sensor read time DX sensor currently has only 24 MP available, and so one has to be quite careful when shooting to avoid truncating parts of the subject accidentally if one wants to have enough pixels for the final image. There is also more latitude exposure-wise in the FX format, and it's generally easier to achieve good image quality. With DX the lighting and other conditions where good results are consistently obtained is narrower than with FX. I for one don't want Nikon to go bankrupt trying to make something that is super expensive to develop and would probably be disappointing in how it would sell. Note that neither Sony nor Canon have a high-performance stacked or global sensor DX camera, either. They are the market leaders and should know what the customers actually want to buy. ...Show more →
We will see. There are insistent rumors about an upcoming Canon high-end APS-C body.
The value of a Z900 would be that a 600mm f6.3 S becomes a 900mm f6.3 S. That combo would weight around 2 kg vs 3 kg for a Z8 and 800mm f6.3 S. I know the Z8 is great. I have been shooting with one for more than 2 years, nearly 4 years for the Z9.
But 2kg vs 3kg is a huge difference for elderly photographers in the field. 5cm shorter also is. It can extend their lifespan as an active photographer several years. And, where do we have the highest ratio of elderly photographers? In Japan. Several of which certainly do belong to the personal circle of the Nikon CEO.
As discussed in another thread, ISO 25,600 on the Z9 is great using DxO. Even if you assume no sensor tech improvement you could do 10,000 on a 32mp APS-C sensor with similar image quality. That's good enough for most situations.
But rest assured that if Nikon has decided to come up with a Z900 it's probably already 90% complete and our discussion will have no impact on its release.
Cheers,
Bernard
p.s.: yes, sorry, I meant the 17-55mm f2.8. I just advised an Indian colleague to buy one second hand for his D7500 a few months ago. That is a lovely lens.
bernardl wrote:
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.
Right
bernardl wrote:
Btw the D500 didn't include a built-in flash. This is not pro-spec according to Nikon.
Yes, I'm not considering the built-in flash of the D7200 or D700. I think a flash similar in size to the one on the Coolpix P7800 wouldn't significantly impact the camera's size and would leave more room for the EVF. However, it could cause waterproofing issues. It depends on how "pro" this hypothetical DX body will be. I don't think we'll ever see it, though.
Here in Europe, Nikon's end-of-summer sales have begun. I'm thinking of getting a Z7II, not so much for the resolution, but for the crop factor: with a 24-120, I would have a 24-180 equivalent, with enough resolution (19.5 MP) for even large prints. 18-20 MP is the file size I used to get from the slides I scanned with my 5000 ED, which I supplied to the photo agency when I still had some ambition to sell images. At the time, I also used the D100, and even the (cleaner) 6 MP files were fine. Then the image market was disrupted to the point that many “physical” photo agencies did not survive. And not because the images did not have 24-36-45 MP resolution... For 99% of editorial uses, the D100 files were sufficient.
While I do think a Z8 is the body of choice for those who are supremely interested in action, I do want to mention the Z50 II here.
Yes, it is not built to the rugged level of a D500. (Though it’s still solidly constructed) Yes, the battery life is less than what one would want. And it also lacks a focus joystick. However, for $1,000 (man, sucks about the recent price hike), you end up with an APS-C camera at 20MP (same as the Z8 in crop mode), full Expeed 7 subject detection including birds (and in my experience, I honestly get very similar keeper rate between the Z50 II and my Z6 III or previous Z8.
You also get 11fps mechanical shutter burst with 200 frame buffer. This is slightly faster burst rate and 4x the buffer size of the D500. The viewfinders have roughly the same general size (the Z50 II is very slightly larger, but effectively the same)….
Is it a direct replacement? No, it’s not…but honestly it does a lot of the important things just as well, and a few things better. Might be worth a look. I do like using it for birds over my Z6 IIi, and while my main use is for a small everyday carry / travel kit, it’s a very capable body. I really enjoy it.
I'd love for Nikon to come out with a stacked high megapixel APS-C body to compliment my Z8. I love my Z8 600PF combo, but having the 600 on a stacked APS-C body would be a dream.
curious80 wrote:
...Moreover the stacked sensor is likely made by Sony...Nikon probably can pick the sensor from Sony and use it if they want.
This exactly. They would have basically no development cost because an off the shelf product already exists, that was a silly comment. That doesn't mean they'll make it, but if they don't it certainly won't be because it's too expensive to develop a stacked APS-C sensor.
Ripolini wrote:
Yes, stacked and BSI, please
Interestingly it seounds like triple layer sensors will be next. For some reason 2 layers (honestly negligibly) reduced dynamic range, but 3 increases it. Though during the presentation on it they did say improved apparent dynamic range, so it could be computational. Or they could implement the pixel transistors in to a layer making it actual dynamic range. Who knows what we'll see.
The difference in looking at a little TV screen in the viewfinder and an optical finder are major for some of us.
Night vision gets wiped out with the TV screen viewing.
Have to have the Z cameras on to view & compose.
Z8 cost!
To have one body for your general work while the telephone sits on the other body ready for the moose/elk, weasel or Eagle - living with one body does not cut it.
Night vision complaint is an irrelevant complaint.
Daniel Smith wrote:
The difference in looking at a little TV screen in the viewfinder and an optical finder are major for some of us.
Night vision gets wiped out with the TV screen viewing.
Have to have the Z cameras on to view & compose.
Z8 cost!
To have one body for your general work while the telephone sits on the other body ready for the moose/elk, weasel or Eagle - living with one body does not cut it.
Daniel Smith wrote:
The difference in looking at a little TV screen in the viewfinder and an optical finder are major for some of us.
...
Calling EVFs a 'little TV screen" is a fairly inaccurate characterization. The EVFs today are significantly larger and more detailed than the OVFs from the DSLRs. The entry level DSLRs in particular had OVFs which were tiny and dim windows through which you looked at the world - i definitely don't miss those. Even high-end DSLRs couldn't match the large high magnification view that you get with today's EVFs. There are reasons to prefer optical viewfinders, no issue with that - however labelling EVFs as little is factually incorrect.
Would love to see a pro dx body using a development of the global sensor from the Red Komodo 6k. I wonder if they could get the scale to make it feasible?
Alistair1 wrote:
Would love to see a pro dx body using a development of the global sensor from the Red Komodo 6k. I wonder if they could get the scale to make it feasible?
I'd want the scale to be about 3.1±0.1 µm pixels. That's basically 1.4x reach of a 45MP FX sensor.
Daniel Smith wrote:
The difference in looking at a little TV screen in the viewfinder and an optical finder are major for some of us.
Night vision gets wiped out with the TV screen viewing.
Have to have the Z cameras on to view & compose.
Z8 cost!
To have one body for your general work while the telephone sits on the other body ready for the moose/elk, weasel or Eagle - living with one body does not cut it.
Then why did you start a thread wanting a Z500? Sounds like you are dead set against EVFs?
I remember picking up my D500 after maybe 6 months of not using it because I was shooting MILCs and looking through that OVF and I couldn't believe that dark, postage stamp sized view was something I used to use every day.
The only OVFs I owned that could come close to the higher end EVFs were the ones in the 1DX and 1DXII (I'm sure the D5/D6 were similar). D500 OVF? Forget about it.
Oh, and to answer your original question........No.
I am using the mirrorless so I can use the Canon 400 f/2.8 lens & a couple others. Adapters make using them work & save a pot load of dollars lost in selling the old & buying new.
The little TV type screen is nowhere as nice as the F3HP or the D850 in use, for me.
Lance B wrote: "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."
-----------------------------------
Problem for me is that I am used to carrying a body for long lenses, another for general work & ISO 64 tripod mounted most often, and a third converted to InfraRed - the same body type as the General Tripod, low ISO one. Changing lenses when in a dry grain field in dust from Farm Machinery is not in the cards. Not a good idea at all - not unless you love a ton of dust on your sensor. It is bad enough on lenses - all protected with good quality UV filters so I can wipe them off often without worrying about ruining lens glass.Photographing in those conditions I often wrap the lens & body in SaranWrap - really makes a difference & I can still work all the buttons. Yes, cut opening for lens glass & viewfinder - but the rest is protected from dust as well as rain.
Moving to Mirrorles digital for specific reasons. (been shooting mirrorless LF for decades) Big reason is the option Nikon has to adapt other makers lenses to the Z bodies as well as ISO 64. Would love it if they went to ISO3, like Tech Pan - even if it were only higher contrast as long as it had the sharpness we got with that film.
My needs and use may not be yours but they have worked for me for some time now, formats up to 20x24 - events from F1 racing to T-Ball kids to 35 day mountaineering trips. I just want what works & currently Nikon is working for me better than Canon did a few years ago.
