Yeah it's not global shutter numbers, but man that does more than enough in my opinion to not have to deal with the resolution hit you take. neoshazam wrote:
Yeah rumored ISO 32 with rumored x-sync speed 1/720 is balancing most sun at ISO 32, F3.5, with shutter speed of 1/720, that's pretty slick.
I'd like a leaf shutter but being able to tame sun at F3.5 and F4 like would be super impressive; just a small 3 stop ND filter gets it down to F 1.2.
It’s like something got messed up in translation there. Maybe on purpose. The technical point should have been provides base ISO dynamic range equal to some medium format digital cameras.
RoamingScott wrote:
I love how the rumors imply lower ISOs make photos look like medium format
If they deliver on that flash sync and ISO lower limit without compromising grain, color response, dynamic range or resolution it will be a major hit. As in a "people won't be talking too much about global shutter anymore" kind of hit.
Don’t need it, won’t need it, I am not a professional and don’t make money. But a sync speed that fast is exciting for the creative possibilities alone.
RoamingScott wrote:
I love how the rumors imply lower ISOs make photos look like medium format
Those type of rumors make me not believe it. Nikon could sorely use a high-res sensor but not in a Z9 form factor.
If Nikon is still dependent on Sony for sensors so I doubt it have better IQ than whatever Sony has by then, though speed is what the pro Nikon Z bodies should have.
EB-1 wrote:
Those type of rumors make me not believe it. Nikon could sorely use a high-res sensor but not in a Z9 form factor.
If Nikon is still dependent on Sony for sensors so I doubt it have better IQ than whatever Sony has by then, though speed is what the pro Nikon Z bodies should have.
EBH
It's not really about better IQ, rather its about value. Remember when the Z9 came out, it obliterated the competition for value. And even to this day, the Z9 remains the value king, for example, Z9 offers resolution where the R1 doesn't, and stellar video where the A1 II doesn't, among other features. It's not Nikon vs Sony vs Canon. I don't care that Nikon uses Sony sensors or on some cameras, Sony Semiconductor Solutions to manufacture a Nikon designed sensor.
"46MP stacked CMOS image sensor: instead of using a global shutter, it uses a new stacked sensor that is 3.5x faster than the Z9"
I wonder what this'll do (if anything) in terms of dynamic range. Sadly, not sure what Nikon can do about price thanks to tariffs... maybe this will be in line with R1 and A1 II prices. Still I suspect based on these specs, it'll poke R1 owners in the eye
PixiPhotography wrote:
"46MP stacked CMOS image sensor: instead of using a global shutter, it uses a new stacked sensor that is 3.5x faster than the Z9"
I wonder what this'll do (if anything) in terms of dynamic range. Sadly, not sure what Nikon can do about price thanks to tariffs... maybe this will be in line with R1 and A1 II prices. Still I suspect based on these specs, it'll poke R1 owners in the eye
The R1 was talked about like the new coming for years before its long delayed availability and nobody has been talking about it since then...
A stacked sensor, especially if it uses a tech similar to that of the new Sony a7V, will have significantly higher DR than GS sensors like the a9III. Between 1 and 2 stops more.
The price is for anybody to guess, either Nikon continues to sell low priced bodies to attract users to the system or they price on value and then it would need to be significantly more expensive that both a1II and R1 since it will obliterate them if the rumors are correct.
PixiPhotography wrote:
I don't care that Nikon uses Sony sensors or on some cameras, Sony Semiconductor Solutions to manufacture a Nikon designed sensor.
I don't either. Most likely Sony still uses Nikon wafer steppers in its production process. And since the Nikon designed components of the sensor are proprietary to Nikon the sensors could not be used in Sony cameras.
The Z9ii just needs to check a few boxes to make it worth upgrading:
- Precapture RAW...even though it's niche, they need this on their flagship to compete with the A1ii
- A bump to at least 30 FPS RAW...15fps isn't fast enough for the decisive moment in birding, and 30 would give us more wing beat options
- A brighter, higher resolution EVF
- Faster data pipelines if they insist on using the video feed for the EVF...it's embarrassing that my Zf has almost zero lag while magnified while the Z9 is unusably laggy
Everything else will be cake. I'd personally love to have the ability to disable the vertical shutter button in software, the amount of times my palm has enabled it is ridiculous.
I don't need lower ISO, 64 is still incredible. I don't need better video specs, though shooting RED would be really nifty. I don't need less DR. Just do it right and don't get cute and it'll be a hit.
RoamingScott wrote:
The Z9ii just needs to check a few boxes to make it worth upgrading:
- Precapture RAW...even though it's niche, they need this on their flagship to compete with the A1ii
- A bump to at least 30 FPS RAW...15fps isn't fast enough for the decisive moment in birding, and 30 would give us more wing beat options
- A brighter, higher resolution EVF
- Faster data pipelines if they insist on using the video feed for the EVF...it's embarrassing that my Zf has almost zero lag while magnified while the Z9 is unusably laggy
Everything else will be cake. I'd personally love to have the ability to disable the vertical shutter button in software, the amount of times my palm has enabled it is ridiculous.
I don't need lower ISO, 64 is still incredible. I don't need better video specs, though shooting RED would be really nifty. I don't need less DR. Just do it right and don't get cute and it'll be a hit....Show more →
cvrle59 wrote:
"15fps isn't fast enough" it's actually 20fps.
I used 15 as an example for wing beats. If you blast away at 15, you'll get different beats than at 20. 30 gets you the same beats as 15 AND gets you the decisive moment. Thanks for mansplaining my own camera to me though
Sony makes a lot of sensors. What is Sony doing with the XH2S and GFX sensors? Nothing. Z9 and A1 have very similar sensors and even those don't perform the same. None of Sony's cameras give you iso 64 for example. So I really do not think it matters if Sony is making the sensor. The two companies clearly put value on two different things so it just turns into a wash in my opinion. EB-1 wrote:
Those type of rumors make me not believe it. Nikon could sorely use a high-res sensor but not in a Z9 form factor.
If Nikon is still dependent on Sony for sensors so I doubt it have better IQ than whatever Sony has by then, though speed is what the pro Nikon Z bodies should have.
JadedWriter wrote:
Sony makes a lot of sensors. What is Sony doing with the XH2S and GFX sensors? Nothing. Z9 and A1 have very similar sensors and even those don't perform the same. None of Sony's cameras give you iso 64 for example. So I really do not think it matters if Sony is making the sensor. The two companies clearly put value on two different things so it just turns into a wash in my opinion.
Sony fans love to point out that "Sony" makes sensors for Nikon (and others). But they hate to admit that: 1) Sony Semiconductor is the division doing the work, 2) Nikon has designed many of their owns sensors over the years even if Sony Semi manufactures them, 3) Sony uses OSPDAF tech that Nikon and Aptina designed and patented many years back and that was used in the Nikon 1 before it ever made it into Sony cameras, and 4) as you mentioned, Sony's camera division doesn't have free reign to use any Sony Semi sensor they want. The camera companies all use each others' (and other non-camera companies') IP under various licenses. There's a lot of non-Sony tech packed into the sensors used in Sony cameras.
