M_XG1_82 wrote:
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 censor....Show more →
There were zero rumors of a semi-stacked sensor until a few weeks before the Z6III announcement. No Sony camera is using this sensor 15 months after the Z6III release.
So we have ample evidence that the lack of rumors and known Sony sensor carries no meaning at all on what may happen.
While the pixel density is not higher than the D500's, the Z8 gives silent photography at up to 20 fps in raw (and 30/60/120 fps in JPG) which makes it a better camera for many applications. Since there are now more affordable long lenses in the lineup, you can get more detailed images of the (typical telephoto) subject (such as wild animals) combining the Z8 with these lenses, and the animals are not spooked in the same way as the DSLR sound might make them, thus you get more opportunities in close range.
The economies that made the D300/D300S/D500 possible in their time are different today due to mirrorless cameras requiring different technology to work well for action subjects (fast sensor readout and processor) than DSLRs, and the smaller market and FX camera prices having come down.
M_XG1_82 wrote:
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.
M_XG1_82 wrote:
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.
IMHO a replacement is about 90% the same as it's predecessor.
I would think the Z8 is a 95% upgrade of the D500. Only thing I see is price (for that you get a 45Mpx FF sensor) and battery life (I don't count the 1Mpx DX difference).
Of course I would like an 30-35Mpx stacked DX sensor, but the price won't be far off an Z8.
EB-1 wrote:
But you will save many thousands on tele lenses.
EBH
But how will Nikon make more money by producing a Z900 than not producing one, all things considered, if the main purpose is customers not to have to buy long lenses?
ilkka_nissila wrote:
But how will Nikon make more money by producing a Z900 than not producing one, all things considered, if the main purpose is customers not to have to buy long lenses?
By avoiding customers going from D500 to Canon if they come up with a wildlife APS-C camera?
bernardl wrote:
By avoiding customers going from D500 to Canon if they come up with a wildlife APS-C camera?
Cheers,
Bernard
But Canon doesn't make such a camera. System changes also involve expensive lens purchases especially if going into the Canon system which is locked more tightly than Nikon or Sony. Nikon Z has several telephotos specifically appealing to those who want a lightweight telephoto setup with high image quality, including 400/4.5, 600/6.3, 800/6.3, and 180-600/5.6-6.3. Canon does make a 200-800/9 but I would argue that an f/9 lens with APS-C sensor would be severely impacted by diffraction.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
But Canon doesn't make such a camera. System changes also involve expensive lens purchases especially if going into the Canon system which is locked more tightly than Nikon or Sony. Nikon Z has several telephotos specifically appealing to those who want a lightweight telephoto setup with high image quality, including 400/4.5, 600/6.3, 800/6.3, and 180-600/5.6-6.3. Canon does make a 200-800/9 but I would argue that an f/9 lens with APS-C sensor would be severely impacted by diffraction.
Canon does make one now that does it badly, the current R7, which is rather fast (15fps mech shutter) and has m43 level pixel density, but the AF and buffer can't keep up with the rest of the body. An R7mII is expected as the body release after the long awaited R6mIII so it's likely Canon shooters will have a solid option by next spring.
Canon also has their delightful little RF 100-400/5.6-8, a lens which doesn't get a lot of love by those who haven't owned it, but it's tiny, light, cheap and sharp and even TC compatible. It's just slow so it's not a low light lens on anything that isn't a high ISO monster. The R7/RF100-400 combo is the smallest, lightest and cheapest practical zoom combo for wildlife if you can live with the AF (which has Issues to put it bluntly). Note that if cropped down to 20mp on the R7, you are getting m43 reach, so a 100-400 is a lot more viable as a wildlife lens on that high-MP cropper than it would be on 20MP APS-C.
The Canon community is expecting R6mII level AF from the R7mII, which I think is a viable expectation. If they get that and a deeper buffer, the R7mII becomes a real player in this space, even if they are lacking some of the prime options Nikon shooters have.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
But Canon doesn't make such a camera. System changes also involve expensive lens purchases especially if going into the Canon system which is locked more tightly than Nikon or Sony. Nikon Z has several telephotos specifically appealing to those who want a lightweight telephoto setup with high image quality, including 400/4.5, 600/6.3, 800/6.3, and 180-600/5.6-6.3. Canon does make a 200-800/9 but I would argue that an f/9 lens with APS-C sensor would be severely impacted by diffraction.
Canon doesn’t offer such a body… yet. Which doesn’t mean they won’t.
I would argue that F mount lenses adapt on RF cameras about as well as on Z mount bodies and the opposite is true as well.
So a D500 users will be strongly influenced by the performance of the matching mirrorless body.
OK, I will bite. Which adapter for RF mount cameras would you recommend for Nikon F-Mount E-type Autofocus lenses? I checked B&H and their adapter filter only had options for (a) lenses with aperture rings and (b) G-type lenses. Most recent Nikon lenses are neither and the E types are the best autofocusing ones and likely the most compatible with mirrorless technology due to the more modern motors. So, which adapter would you recommend for use of E type autofocus Nikkors on Canon RF cameras (naturally the one you have used a lot so you can verify it works at least as well as the FTZ II)?
bernardl wrote:
Canon doesn’t offer such a body… yet. Which doesn’t mean they won’t.
I would argue that F mount lenses adapt on RF cameras about as well as on Z mount bodies and the opposite is true as well.
So a D500 users will be strongly influenced by the performance of the matching mirrorless body.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
While the pixel density is not higher than the D500's, the Z8 gives silent photography at up to 20 fps in raw (and 30/60/120 fps in JPG) which makes it a better camera for many applications. Since there are now more affordable long lenses in the lineup, you can get more detailed images of the (typical telephoto) subject (such as wild animals) combining the Z8 with these lenses, and the animals are not spooked in the same way as the DSLR sound might make them, thus you get more opportunities in close range.
The economies that made the D300/D300S/D500 possible in their time are different today due to mirrorless cameras requiring different technology to work well for action subjects (fast sensor readout and processor) than DSLRs, and the smaller market and FX camera prices having come down.
I'm not suggesting the D500 is as good, or better than the Z8 in any way. In fact I would say the Z8 is BETTER than the D500 in almost every way, except one. The ONE important feature a good chunk of people who want a UPGRADED Z80 or Z90 want.....AN INCREASE IN THE APSC PIXEL DENSITY. A 32-40 MP stacked APSC sensor.
Chris Dees wrote:
IMHO a replacement is about 90% the same as it's predecessor.
I would think the Z8 is a 95% upgrade of the D500. Only thing I see is price (for that you get a 45Mpx FF sensor) and battery life (I don't count the 1Mpx DX difference).
Of course I would like an 30-35Mpx stacked DX sensor, but the price won't be far off an Z8.
Again your not understanding my main point, maybe I wasn't clear. A good chunk of people wanting a Z80 or Z90 UPGRADE camera, consider a HIGHER pixel density APSC sensor absolutely mandatory. 32+ MP preferred. It's the only feature that matters. I say the "only feature that matters" because in a pro/semi-pro body all the other features will be in line with what people who don't want a "beginner" APSC camera want.
As I posted above, and I agree with you completely, that the Z8 is a better camera than the D500 in almost every way. But since the Z8 is a 20'ish MP APSC camera, yes better in every other way, I don't consider the Z8 my ideal/dream D500 replacement.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
But how will Nikon make more money by producing a Z900 than not producing one, all things considered, if the main purpose is customers not to have to buy long lenses?
As I said above I think Nikon should take the Z80 or Z90 up-market. A poor man's Z9, and not a camera for a "poor" person. It may initially be a loss-leader but Nikon needs to keep as many people as possible away from the Canon and Sony systems. If Canon's upcoming 300-600/5.6 lens isn't stoooooooooopid priced, and/or the R7 II is strong, Nikon might lose the amateur birder who is tired of waiting.
LostLensCap wrote:
A Z500 will happen when Nikon thinks there is a biggest enough market for it. Shooting a Z8 or Z9 in crop mode will give you what you want.
If Nikon isn't first to market with a pro/semi-pro APSC (with higher than 20 MP sensor) there won't be much market left. I think Nikon and their ancient thinking that APSC is the gateway to Full-Frame, and/or will take sales away from the higher end needs to change. Make the Z80 or Z90 high end.
If you look at the other threads talking/dreaming about a new Z-mount D500 notice the specs they list. Most want a higher pixel density than the old, approaching 10 year old 20mp sensor.
And I would argue a Z8 doesn't give me what I want. Yes, I completely agree a Z8 is a better D500 but it's not the APSC camera I want from Nikon.
The "target demo" has moved on already to other brands.
Not too much critical thinking is needed for such consumer products. You map the user requirements to the specs, assign weights to each, assess values and determine the best match. Simple math is so 20th century that you might want to throw in some pseudo-AI, but it's not very difficult.
Most likely there is a supply chain limitation. Nikon is not integrated and does not make their own sensors like Sony and Canon, so it's probably too costly for them to outsource the development and production of the small quantities needed.
I recently moved over to a ZF from the R7, and for the most part I'm very happy with it- but I just can't bring myself to pony up the cash for the native Z-mount telephoto options available in order to get the same reach I had on the R7.
32mp APS-C with the excellent and light ($400 used) RF 100-400IS was just so much fun, and so versatile. That is the ONLY scenario where I miss that setup.
Nikon currently has a TON of awesome telephotos for Z, but nothing that directly competes with that RF100-400. That tells me they are taking tele options very seriously. That leads me to believe that if they are going to do a serious DX camera, it would also be a serious camera.
As others have already noted, a (pro) small-sensor camera in a Full Frame system is niche... It would either be a dedicated telephoto host, or a video beast.
ISO1600 wrote:
Nikon currently has a TON of awesome telephotos for Z, but nothing that directly competes with that RF100-400. That tells me they are taking tele options very seriously.
How is the Nikon 100-400mm S not competing with the Canon 100-400mm RF?
ilkka_nissila wrote:
OK, I will bite. Which adapter for RF mount cameras would you recommend for Nikon F-Mount E-type Autofocus lenses? I checked B&H and their adapter filter only had options for (a) lenses with aperture rings and (b) G-type lenses. Most recent Nikon lenses are neither and the E types are the best autofocusing ones and likely the most compatible with mirrorless technology due to the more modern motors. So, which adapter would you recommend for use of E type autofocus Nikkors on Canon RF cameras (naturally the one you have used a lot so you can verify it works at least as well as the FTZ II)?
