I am not being snarky here - but in the current mirror less era, I don't understand how or why anyone would by a Nikon Z500/z90/z900 camera? I mean you can get a Nikon Z8 and just use it in crop mode - the AF system is far superior to anything the D500 could do and the telephoto lens released for the Z system are far superior in every to their F counter parts. And with the FTZ, all of the worthwhile Nikon F mount telephotos work for the Z8 also. I fail to understand what real advantage having a crop sensor Z high camera would give? The Z8 with a DX crop would be 20mpx just like the DX so you wouldn't really loose any inherit image quality at all.
vparikh wrote:
I am not being snarky here - but in the current mirror less era, I don't understand how or why anyone would by a Nikon Z500/z90/z900 camera?
According to this reasoning, guys at Canon and Sony are crazy. Why do they make R7 and A6700 if you can use high-res FF bodies in crop mode?
Neither the A6700 or R7 or what you'd want to expect spec wise out of a Z500, which I'm pretty sure I have told you or someone else earlier in this thread. They ain't the same thing. These are basically at the "lower end" of what people would want from that camera. What people basically want is what would essentially be a Fuji X-H2S with more competent auto focus. Ripolini wrote:
According to this reasoning, guys at Canon and Sony are crazy. Why do they make R7 and A6700 if you can use high-res FF bodies in crop mode?
First, you’re thinking too rationally and clear headed. This is the internet, that’s not really what we do here.
Secondly, what some people want is a $2500 Z8 that’s smaller and lighter, but definitely 45-60mp. But with a mechanical shutter. And maybe a rangefinder aesthetic. And no flippy screen. That doesn’t overheat. That also has no rolling shutter effect. Or maybe reduced or completely subtracted video features altogether. Or whatever.
But just embrace the fact that no matter how robust and complete a lineup Nikon has, some people will find things to complain about
vparikh wrote:
I am not being snarky here - but in the current mirror less era, I don't understand how or why anyone would by a Nikon Z500/z90/z900 camera? I mean you can get a Nikon Z8 and just use it in crop mode - the AF system is far superior to anything the D500 could do and the telephoto lens released for the Z system are far superior in every to their F counter parts. And with the FTZ, all of the worthwhile Nikon F mount telephotos work for the Z8 also. I fail to understand what real advantage having a crop sensor Z high camera would give? The Z8 with a DX crop would be 20mpx just like the DX so you wouldn't really loose any inherit image quality at all. ...Show more →
vparikh wrote:
I am not being snarky here - but in the current mirror less era, I don't understand how or why anyone would by a Nikon Z500/z90/z900 camera? I mean you can get a Nikon Z8 and just use it in crop mode - the AF system is far superior to anything the D500 could do and the telephoto lens released for the Z system are far superior in every to their F counter parts. And with the FTZ, all of the worthwhile Nikon F mount telephotos work for the Z8 also. I fail to understand what real advantage having a crop sensor Z high camera would give? The Z8 with a DX crop would be 20mpx just like the DX so you wouldn't really loose any inherit image quality at all. ...Show more →
Wouldn’t it make sense if the Z900 used a 32+ mp stacked sensor in a lighter/more compact body?
jlafferty wrote:
First, you’re thinking too rationally and clear headed. This is the internet, that’s not really what we do here.
Secondly, what some people want is a $2500 Z8 that’s smaller and lighter, but definitely 45-60mp. But with a mechanical shutter. And maybe a rangefinder aesthetic. And no flippy screen. That doesn’t overheat. That also has no rolling shutter effect. Or maybe reduced or completely subtracted video features altogether. Or whatever.
But just embrace the fact that no matter how robust and complete a lineup Nikon has, some people will find things to complain about
Not to mention the sensor shield, which is also a must, and after the release of the Zr, you can also read the first requests for a Mini Z8: has to be lighter, smaller, more compact, but must have a bigger, 4' LCD.
JadedWriter wrote:
Neither the A6700 or R7 or what you'd want to expect spec wise out of a Z500, which I'm pretty sure I have told you or someone else earlier in this thread. They ain't the same thing. These are basically at the "lower end" of what people would want from that camera. What people basically want is what would essentially be a Fuji X-H2S with more competent auto focus.
IMHO, it doesn't make much sense to compare the Fuji system with Canon, Sony, and Nikon because Fuji doesn't manufacture DSLRs or 24x36 MILCs. Nor do I have the market surveys that you have, so I can't say what people would want.
However, I know that Canon and Sony have been making APS-C MILCs with IBIS, rather good AF, and 26-32 Mpix sensors. These sensors are more recent than the one in the D500, which is still used in the Z50II. The Z50II is a cheaper camera, and this is reflected in its performance. In any case, I was emphasizing in my previous comment that you can't tell people to spend $3-4k on a Z8 or R5MkII and use it in crop mode. There are people (including me) who already own one or two 24-33 megapixel full-frame camera(s) and would love to have an APS-C body when they want to travel light or need the crop factor for wildlife or close-up shots.
A friend of mine who didn't want to spend too much and who owns an R8 and a EF-L 100-400 IS II for wildlife photography wanted to buy an RF 800/11 IS. I advised him to get an R7 instead. He followed my advice and is delighted with it. In fact, he now has a second body and gets more or less the same reach at f/5.6 ...
At the moment, I don't see any APS-C bodies in the Nikon catalog that I would like to pair with my two FF cameras.
vparikh wrote:
I am not being snarky here - but in the current mirror less era, I don't understand how or why anyone would by a Nikon Z500/z90/z900 camera? I mean you can get a Nikon Z8 and just use it in crop mode - the AF system is far superior to anything the D500 could do and the telephoto lens released for the Z system are far superior in every to their F counter parts. And with the FTZ, all of the worthwhile Nikon F mount telephotos work for the Z8 also. I fail to understand what real advantage having a crop sensor Z high camera would give? The Z8 with a DX crop would be 20mpx just like the DX so you wouldn't really loose any inherit image quality at all. ...Show more →
Some things people may be chasing:
1) Lower cost
2) Smaller size
3) Higher MP sensor. eg. Canon R7: 32MP 1.6x crop sensor giving you pixel density of a 82MP FF sensor!!
arbitrage wrote:
Some things people may be chasing:
1) Lower cost
2) Smaller size
3) Higher MP sensor. eg. Canon R7: 32MP 1.6x crop sensor giving you pixel density of a 82MP FF sensor!!
Exactly! And even if some folks here apparently refuse to see the value this would have, many D5/D500 owners did see how the D500 afforded more range. Nikon understands this as well. This is why we may get a Z90/Z900.
It's not that I don't see the value, I just realistically don't see it happening. My dream birding set up is a 400 4.5 with Z500 or whatever the heck this thing gets called. bernardl wrote:
Exactly! And even if some folks here apparently refuse to see the value this would have, many D5/D500 owners did see how the D500 afforded more range. Nikon understands this as well. This is why we may get a Z90/Z900.
JadedWriter wrote:
It's not that I don't see the value, I just realistically don't see it happening. My dream birding set up is a 400 4.5 with Z500 or whatever the heck this thing gets called.
I am not 100% sure Nikon will do it, but I think that the odds are fairly high they do. It seems well aligned with their strategy.
God why TF did you have to mention those? glassartist wrote:
I just know that as soon as Nikon announces this the griping is going to start because it won’t support screw drive lenses . . .
I already explained how used Z8s are the same inflation-adjusted price as the D500 was at launch. No shutter = no wear and tear, the Z8 is one of the most trusty used camera buys around.
"smaller"...
We already discussed that the Z8 and D500 have nearly identical dimensions and weight.
The only REAL spec that would shift the conversation is a new sensor that raises the megapixels. This sensor is neither rumored nor anticipated, so again, just shoot a Z8 if you want everything else. If a Z90 happens along, fantastic, and if not, you've been shooting with a near-flagship for years and gotten great (and probably better than D500) images out of it along the way.
There are two different points of view posters on this thread are trying to articulate and their arguments are missing the mark because, in the context of this thread, "replacement," and "upgrade" are being used interchangeably when they shouldn't.
The Z8 is the REPLACEMENT for the D500, as clearly stated above. It is NOT AN UPGRADE. At least not the upgrade the Z90 people want. I personally want an UPGRADE.
For them a new D500 (Z90) UPGRADE means a APSC Z-mount body with an increased APSC pixel density. AKA, greater than 20 MP. At least 28-32MP. Or even 32-40 mp sensor.
I think a new Z90 camera should flip the script as far as how APSC camera are traditionally marketed. Instead of the "cheap" APSC camera being the gateway to Full Frame. The new paradigm should be: "I want the $6,000 Z9 but can't afford or justify it. But I can budget $3000 for a pro/semi-pro Z90 with 32+ MP APSC sensor.
