- Ability to save user settings, like virtually every other camera on the market
- Ability to assign ISO to a dial so as not to have to press a bunch of buttons (and jarring the camera) to change exposure when shooing video in full manual mode
- Improve subject detection and initial focus acquisition to at least match the old Canon R5 and Sony A1 systems
- Add the ability to assign "Near AF" to a back button like the Panasonic cameras
- Ability to use the EVF or LCD when doing focus bracketing
For example in the wide-S/L with eye AF on, it's still not spot-on reliable. For portraits it's still better to just trust the single point and not use the camera eye detect.
Tracking focus on moving subjects can also be a bit stickier. Even with it's delayed AF response settings, it still gets distracted easily.
So yes, we can get things done with the Z9 as it is. But can things also be better too and make life ever so slightly easier? Absolutely.
Personally I expect a Z1. With 40 fps raw, global shutter and vastly improved autofocus. Might be interesting if they go the F6 route and make the grip an optional add on.
I also expect a new battery with vastly improved life. Perhaps a completely new series.
I also expect Nikon to release something to compete with the Sony 400-800 and Canon 200-800.
jwolfe wrote:
Personally I expect a Z1. With 40 fps raw, global shutter and vastly improved autofocus. Might be interesting if they go the F6 route and make the grip an optional add on.
I also expect a new battery with vastly improved life. Perhaps a completely new series.
I also expect Nikon to release something to compete with the Sony 400-800 and Canon 200-800.
How could the AF of the Z9 be "vastly" improved? It's basically already very close to the R5II/R1/a1II/a9III. I am already at a super high keeper rate on pretty challenging subjects.
I have shot in excess of 12,000 images on a single battery... how much more do you need?
On lenses I think that Nikon will first release their rumored 100-200mm f2.0 S TC, 100-300mm f2.8 S TC and 200-500mm f4 S TC first. The latter will be much pricier but very close in range with the TC engaged while offering an extra stop of light.
bernardl wrote:
How could the AF of the Z9 be "vastly" improved? It's basically already very close to the R5II/R1/a1II/a9III. I am already at a super high keeper rate on pretty challenging subjects.
I have shot in excess of 12,000 images on a single battery... how much more do you need?
On lenses I think that Nikon will first release their rumored 100-200mm f2.0 S TC, 100-300mm f2.8 S TC and 200-500mm f4 S TC first. The latter will be much pricier but very close in range with the TC engaged while offering an extra stop of light.
Cheers,
Bernard
I also don't think the large battery needs much improvement, of course it is possible that lower power consumption processors will be developed but the capacity in units of charge stored probably can't be increased without conflict with aviation regulations. I suspect Expeed 7 might not be replaced in the next generation, due to the cost of development, but of course, eventually there will be new processors.
As for AF performance, I think the main issue is sensitivity to details behind the main subject where mirrorless cameras tend to lose the subject if the background is well-lit and has contrasty detail while the main subject may be backlit and its front side dark. This I think is a major issue and I'm not sure on what time scale it would be possible to solve. DSLRs such as the D6 do better in such situations even if in most common situations AF with mirrorless cameras with the eye detection functionality and trueness is better.
Some fantasy zoom list you have there. ;-) I suspect in the next few years Nikon's main focus in lens development will be on a cinema lens line and pro photo lenses might be getting fewer resources. For teles I would like to see a 300/2.8 (with similar weight as Sony's) as a priority and not some otherworldly expensive and not that light or small zooms which overlap with the 70-200/2.8. Of course, everyone has their favorite missing lenses. ;-)
The thing still gets confused with backgrounds. So say I’m shooting two eagles fighting in the distance suddenly the camera will jump to the trees. My D850 doesn’t do that.
By batteries I was referring to if they make the body and grip separate the EN-EL15 series has run its course. It’s time for a serious upgrade.
I think Nikon will make a 300mm 2.8 and more consumer lenses. Exotics don’t sell well.
bernardl wrote:
How could the AF of the Z9 be "vastly" improved? It's basically already very close to the R5II/R1/a1II/a9III. I am already at a super high keeper rate on pretty challenging subjects.
I have shot in excess of 12,000 images on a single battery... how much more do you need?
On lenses I think that Nikon will first release their rumored 100-200mm f2.0 S TC, 100-300mm f2.8 S TC and 200-500mm f4 S TC first. The latter will be much pricier but very close in range with the TC engaged while offering an extra stop of light.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I also don't think the large battery needs much improvement, of course it is possible that lower power consumption processors will be developed but the capacity in units of charge stored probably can't be increased without conflict with aviation regulations. I suspect Expeed 7 might not be replaced in the next generation, due to the cost of development, but of course, eventually there will be new processors.
As for AF performance, I think the main issue is sensitivity to details behind the main subject where mirrorless cameras tend to lose the subject if the background is well-lit and has contrasty detail while the main subject may be backlit and its front side dark. This I think is a major issue and I'm not sure on what time scale it would be possible to solve. DSLRs such as the D6 do better in such situations even if in most common situations AF with mirrorless cameras with the eye detection functionality and trueness is better.
Some fantasy zoom list you have there. ;-) I suspect in the next few years Nikon's main focus in lens development will be on a cinema lens line and pro photo lenses might be getting fewer resources. For teles I would like to see a 300/2.8 (with similar weight as Sony's) as a priority and not some otherworldly expensive and not that light or small zooms which overlap with the 70-200/2.8. Of course, everyone has their favorite missing lenses. ;-) ...Show more →
Just logical:
- Nikon hasn’t done a 300mm f2.8 in years and RF users are super happy about the 100-300mm f2.8, a 100-300mm f2.8 is the obvious option. A 300mm f2.8 isn’t significantly lighter or cheaper to build than a 100-300mm f2.8, but it’s way more limiting for many applications,
- 200mm f2.0 have become a commodity, Sony has a 50-150mm f2.0, Nikon will want to differentiate themselves. Besides they always used similar optical formulas for their 300mm f2.8 and 200mm f2.0. If they do a 100-300mm f2.8 then a 100-200mm f2.0 is probably less R&D work than a 200mm f2.0.
- the 180-400mm f4 will turn into something more ambitious and Sigma has a 300-600mm f4
Overall we will get built-in TCs because it adds tremendous value and has become a Nikon trademark. Their last super tele was released 3 years ago, they have had both R&D and manufacturing bandwidth.
So that’s not what I want, it’s what it would make sense for Nikon to develop. My bet is an phased announcement in a timing similar to that of the Z9II.
I don't expect a 200mm f2 there's already one on the market Nikon licensed.
A 300mm 2.8 is a staple sports and news lens. It's cheaper than a 120-300. And lighter, esp if they use PF tech.
Nikon will make a 180-400 w/1.4x. But they are mostly focused on the lower end of the market where they actually make money. AKA 400-800 f8. That's why they are partnered with Tamron.
I expect a Z1 and a D500 replacement soon.
JW
bernardl wrote:
Just logical:
- Nikon hasn’t done a 300mm f2.8 in years and RF users are super happy about the 100-300mm f2.8, a 100-300mm f2.8 is the obvious option. A 300mm f2.8 isn’t significantly lighter or cheaper to build than a 100-300mm f2.8, but it’s way more limiting for many applications,
- 200mm f2.0 have become a commodity, Sony has a 50-150mm f2.0, Nikon will want to differentiate themselves. Besides they always used similar optical formulas for their 300mm f2.8 and 200mm f2.0. If they do a 100-300mm f2.8 then a 100-200mm f2.0 is probably less R&D work than a 200mm f2.0.
- the 180-400mm f4 will turn into something more ambitious and Sigma has a 300-600mm f4
Overall we will get built-in TCs because it adds tremendous value and has become a Nikon trademark. Their last super tele was released 3 years ago, they have had both R&D and manufacturing bandwidth.
So that’s not what I want, it’s what it would make sense for Nikon to develop. My bet is an phased announcement in a timing similar to that of the Z9II.
jwolfe wrote:
A 300mm 2.8 is a staple sports and news lens. It's cheaper than a 120-300. And lighter, esp if they use PF tech.
JW
A 300mm f2.8 was a staple 10 years ago. Nowadays most people prefer the flexibility of a 100-300mm f2.8. Especially for press/sports when you typically can't control your subject distance nor your own location.
Just like people used to shoot with 180mm f2.8 20 years ago until the 70-200mm f2.8 replaced them completely thanks to their much higher flexibility.
A light 300mm f2.8 certainly can be useful is some situations but is super niche. It's a speciality lens while a 100-300mm f2.8 is a generic one. I am convinced that a modern 100-300mm f2.8 can be done slightly above 2kg. Especially if you are ok with PF tech.
Agreed about a 200mm f2.0, which is why I think they will go with a zoom instead.
Calling their next flagship a Z1 would be inconsistent with the Z camera nomenclature don't you think? It's not because Canon and Sony's camera naming doesn't make sense that Nikon needs to immitate them. I would be very surprised if the next flagship were no called Z9II and if it had significantly lower resolution that the Z9. The relative commercial failure of the a9III seems to confirm that Sony shooters also prefer the cropping potential of the a1II.
bernardl wrote:
A 300mm f2.8 was a staple 10 years ago. Nowadays most people prefer the flexibility of a 100-300mm f2.8. Especially for press/sports when you typically can't control your subject distance nor your own location.
Just like people used to shoot with 180mm f2.8 20 years ago until the 70-200mm f2.8 replaced them completely thanks to their much higher flexibility.
A light 300mm f2.8 certainly can be useful is some situations but is super niche. It's a speciality lens while a 100-300mm f2.8 is a generic one. I am convinced that a modern 100-300mm f2.8 can be done slightly above 2kg. Especially if you are ok with PF tech.
Agreed about a 200mm f2.0, which is why I think they will go with a zoom instead.
Calling their next flagship a Z1 would be inconsistent with the Z camera nomenclature don't you think? It's not because Canon and Sony's camera naming doesn't make sense that Nikon needs to immitate them. I would be very surprised if the next flagship were no called Z9II and if it had significantly lower resolution that the Z9. The relative commercial failure of the a9III seems to confirm that Sony shooters also prefer the cropping potential of the a1II.
I am a retired sports and news photographer and I know most of the top clickers in the field. A 300mm 2.8 is still a standard issue lens, in addition to a 70-200 2.8 and the 400mm 2.8 and 600mm f4 being pool lenses. Another very popular lens are the 200-400 f4's. But if you are shooting major college and pro sports you definitely are using a 300 at basketball and volleyball (on the court) and for remotes. That's why Sony came out with theirs - a ton of their shooters asked for it.
Both Canon and Sony released their flagship cameras and Nikon has stated the Z9 is not the flagship. Again, ahead of the next Olympics I expect a Z1 and a 300mm 2.8 since they discontinued the F mount versions.
Personally I'm too beat up to carry big glass now. And I no longer shoot sports. I'm looking forward to a crop stacked sensor camera, That needs to happen.
This is quoted from their announcement of the Z9 development:
“March 9, 2021: NIKON IS DEVELOPING THE NIKON Z 9 FULL-FRAME FLAGSHIP MIRRORLESS CAMERA
MELVILLE, NY – Nikon Inc. is pleased to announce the development of the first flagship model for which the Nikon Z mount has been adopted: The Nikon Z 9 …”
jwolfe wrote:
I am a retired sports and news photographer and I know most of the top clickers in the field. A 300mm 2.8 is still a standard issue lens, in addition to a 70-200 2.8 and the 400mm 2.8 and 600mm f4 being pool lenses. Another very popular lens are the 200-400 f4's. But if you are shooting major college and pro sports you definitely are using a 300 at basketball and volleyball (on the court) and for remotes. That's why Sony came out with theirs - a ton of their shooters asked for it.
Both Canon and Sony released their flagship cameras and Nikon has stated the Z9 is not the flagship. Again, ahead of the next Olympics I expect a Z1 and a 300mm 2.8 since they discontinued the F mount versions.
Personally I'm too beat up to carry big glass now. And I no longer shoot sports. I'm looking forward to a crop stacked sensor camera, That needs to happen.
jpelt78 wrote:
When did Nikon say the Z9 is not the flagship.
This is quoted from their announcement of the Z9 development:
“March 9, 2021: NIKON IS DEVELOPING THE NIKON Z 9 FULL-FRAME FLAGSHIP MIRRORLESS CAMERA
MELVILLE, NY – Nikon Inc. is pleased to announce the development of the first flagship model for which the Nikon Z mount has been adopted: The Nikon Z 9 …”
jwolfe wrote:
I am a retired sports and news photographer and I know most of the top clickers in the field. A 300mm 2.8 is still a standard issue lens, in addition to a 70-200 2.8 and the 400mm 2.8 and 600mm f4 being pool lenses. Another very popular lens are the 200-400 f4's. But if you are shooting major college and pro sports you definitely are using a 300 at basketball and volleyball (on the court) and for remotes. That's why Sony came out with theirs - a ton of their shooters asked for it.
Both Canon and Sony released their flagship cameras and Nikon has stated the Z9 is not the flagship. Again, ahead of the next Olympics I expect a Z1 and a 300mm 2.8 since they discontinued the F mount versions.
Personally I'm too beat up to carry big glass now. And I no longer shoot sports. I'm looking forward to a crop stacked sensor camera, That needs to happen.
Interestingly enough, I heard from internal sources that Canon came up with the 100-300mm f2.8 out of express demand from the agencies using their products because the Nikon 120-300mm f2.8 was giving too large an advantage to Nikon photographers such as AFP. Canon dominates sports, I trust their marketing data.
And it does make sense, you replace 2 lenses with one. You can do with 2 bodies instead of 3,... cheaper, less weight, less bulk, fewer logistical headaches in airports...
Of course a 100-200mm f2.0 S TC would be even better because it would cover both the 100-200mm range at f2.0 and also become a 280mm f2.8 with a flick of a finger. Two lenses in 1 and one extra stop of light on the bottom half of the range. Sounds like a game changer to me if there ever was one among sports lenses.
I’m not sure you’ve shot a lot of sports. You can’t hand hold a 120-300. So in basketball and volleyball when you’re on the court you shoot with a 70-200 and a 300 and a wide plus remotes if it’s pro or high end college. So a 120-300 has no advantage. And it’s too short for football or soccer where you need a 600 most of the time now.
The AP and many of the major newspaper chains shoot Sony A9s so like I said they are issued an ultra wide, a 24-70, a 70-200 and a 300 2.8.
Also remember making a living being a sports shooter is about dead unless you are a staffer.
bernardl wrote:
Interestingly enough, I heard from internal sources that Canon came up with the 100-300mm f2.8 out of express demand from the agencies using their products because the Nikon 120-300mm f2.8 was giving too large an advantage to Nikon photographers such as AFP. Canon dominates sports, I trust their marketing data.
And it does make sense, you replace 2 lenses with one. You can do with 2 bodies instead of 3,... cheaper, less weight, less bulk, fewer logistical headaches in airports...
Of course a 100-200mm f2.0 S TC would be even better because it would cover both the 100-200mm range at f2.0 and also become a 280mm f2.8 with a flick of a finger. Two lenses in 1 and one extra stop of light on the bottom half of the range. Sounds like a game changer to me if there ever was one among sports lenses.
jwolfe wrote:
I’m not sure you’ve shot a lot of sports. You can’t hand hold a 120-300. So in basketball and volleyball when you’re on the court you shoot with a 70-200 and a 300 and a wide plus remotes if it’s pro or high end college. So a 120-300 has no advantage. And it’s too short for football or soccer where you need a 600 most of the time now.
The AP and many of the major newspaper chains shoot Sony A9s so like I said they are issued an ultra wide, a 24-70, a 70-200 and a 300 2.8.
Also remember making a living being a sports shooter is about dead unless you are a staffer.
I use my 400mm f2.8 S TC handheld most of the time at 2.9 kg. And I am very far from being super muscular. The weight distribution is key.
I used to own the 120-300mm f2.8 and it was more front heavy and indeed challenging to shoot hand handheld for long.
But a 2.2 kg 100-200mm f2.0 S TC or 100-300mm f2.8 S TC with the right weight distribution could be shot handheld without any problem.
Anyways, we'll see what they come up with. Our personal preferences will have no impact. I am pretty sure that we are only a few months from announcement and the designs was probably completed months if not years ago.
Btw, I didn't mean AP, I meant Agence France Press (AFP) that is a Nikon shop.
Personally as a crop clicker I’m hoping they make a d500 replacement sooner or later. I have a nice collection of DSLRs that I’ll never wear out but I’d like some new stuff for certain things. Time will tell.
bernardl wrote:
I use my 400mm f2.8 S TC handheld most of the time at 2.9 kg. And I am very far from being super muscular. The weight distribution is key.
I used to own the 120-300mm f2.8 and it was more front heavy and indeed challenging to shoot hand handheld for long.
But a 2.2 kg 100-200mm f2.0 S TC or 100-300mm f2.8 S TC with the right weight distribution could be shot handheld without any problem.
Anyways, we'll see what they come up with. Our personal preferences will have no impact. I am pretty sure that we are only a few months from announcement and the designs was probably completed months if not years ago.
Btw, I didn't mean AP, I meant Agence France Press (AFP) that is a Nikon shop.
bernardl wrote:
I used to own the 120-300mm f2.8 and it was more front heavy and indeed challenging to shoot hand handheld for long.
But a 2.2 kg 100-200mm f2.0 S TC or 100-300mm f2.8 S TC with the right weight distribution could be shot handheld without any problem.
Canon's very recent RF 100-300/2.8 has no TC and weighs 2590 g; adding a TC and the mechanics of inserting it would make the lens physically longer and heavier, and possibly less good optically (as the optical design has to accommodate the space for the TC and accommodate the performance with a TC that does not go behind the lens but inside it in the optical design, they cannot use what they would have chosen as optimal without TC). A Nikon 100-300/2.8 TC would likely weigh about 2.7-2.8 kg. Canon likely used all the technologies that exist for making the lens as light as it can be while achieving the desired quality and ruggedness. Nikon's 400/2.8 TC is 2950 g while Canon's without TC is 2890 g (60 g less than the Nikon) and 600/4 TC is 3260 g and Canon's 3090 g, a difference of 170g. It's just not possible to make the TC weight disappear into zero even with the newer designs that these Nikon primes have. And the hot-swappable TC seems to increase the lens price by about 2000€ based on previous examples.
Although supertelephoto lenses have been getting lighter over the decades, this cannot go on indefinitely. At some point the manufacturers may go too far, resulting in a less than stellar or fragile product, if they keep at this course. Nikon's lightweight tele lenses haven't thus far been zooms.
