If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
For me, the Z9 is likely to become the backup body to the Z8I've always wanted a pro DX camera in Z mount with 30+ MP...The only reason I want a DX is because I'm now in need of a back up to my Z9. Cost is the only factor (maybe also those extra pixels vs DX mode on Z9) as i don't want to spend so much for a back up body but I must admit the Z8 is darn tempting particularly the way they priced it. Im still not convinced about spending 4k for a back up body but that's most likely what I'll end up buying
The only reason the Z9 will be my primary camera is because I like to use the portrait orientation frequently. If not, the Z8 is such a nice camera and the size is so optimal.For me, the Z9 is likely to become the backup body to the Z8
I can see the advantages of a DX camera for price, but I wonder how important it actually will be once the Z6//Z7 updates become available.
Interesting! Perhaps Nikon will add a D500 successor to its mirrorless line.
Hmmmm! Interesting thought!For me, the Z9 is likely to become the backup body to the Z8
I can see the advantages of a DX camera for price, but I wonder how important it actually will be once the Z6//Z7 updates become available.
When a narrower field of view is combined with the associated magnification and a greater pixel density, you could argue that, for all intents and purposes, DX does provide more "reach": However, the distinction is moot if there's no difference in pixel density. I could be wrong, though.
I realize that most will take my previous comments on this topic as being very negative on the idea of a high-performance DX body to fill the gap left by the D500...and that's true, for my needs/wants.Interesting! Perhaps Nikon will add a D500 successor to its mirrorless line.
What about the Fujifilm X-H2S?I realize that most will take my previous comments on this topic as being very negative on the idea of a high-performance DX body to fill the gap left by the D500...and that's true, for my needs/wants.
At the same time, I do believe such a product has merit and will likely show up when/if a reasonably priced, DX, BSI stacked CMOS (or some new tech) sensor is available. Today is not that day and likely not until next year at the earliest.
I've not seen any indication that such a sensor exists for production now, notwithstanding the sensor used in the OM-1 which is pretty slow compared to the sensor in use in the Z9/Z8...and only 20MP. Not likely that Nikon would take an interest in that, though I suppose it could provide a less than ideal interim product that people would then howl about being old tech...especially if it were not based on some sort of stacked sensor. Am I wrong?
Just because you want something doesn't mean Nikon can build it and make a reasonable profit on it. As I used to tell my 3 daughters when they would come to me with a "want" that was out of the question, "People in Hell want ice water, but they're not going to get it!".
Cheers!
that seems to be the closest thing to a mirrorless d500 at the moment.
With the usual disclaimers from a non-optical-scientist, my understanding is that whatever small resolution advantage you get from the higher density sensor is taken away by the increased noise levels at equivalent ISO settings. But based on my own experience having owned two D500 cameras while simultaneously using the D850 (and then the Z7), I could not see any useful advantage to the "greater reach" of the D500 bodies.
Steve Perry did a video on this, that I watched only yesterday: His conclusion was that DX is better than cropping a FF up to the point where the pixel density is the same or in the favour of the FF camera, and that includes noise performance. Of course, if we're talking Z8/Z9 vs the D500, the pixel density is so close that it probably doesn't make any difference.
I'm not aware that a variant of that sensor has been made available for Bayer color filter usage. Could be, but perhaps someone else can chime in.
I’m pretty sure that the crop sensor bodies will be left to consumer level bodies and the vlog crowd…while a Nikon could make a crop size stacked superwamperdyne sensor and jam it, the processor, and all into a body the size of a D500 since it’s essentially the same size as the Z6/7 body…but the market would be so small and the price so high that it just isn’t worth their time and effort. If they put some of the Z8/9 features like the sensor and processor into a Z7III for instance…you can shoot it in DX and you essentially have your mirrorless D500.
Hmmmm..I have a hunch Nikon would launch a pro DX with a stacked sensor in the 26-30mp range. It is highly unlikely for the Z7III to have the same sensor as the Z8/9. I feel they’ll make the Z7III a high res non stacked camera like a Sony A7R5. The only full frame camera, if at all it comes to fruition, that could possible have a stacked sensor could be a lower res 24-30MP full frame that would compete against the Sony A9,Canon R3 series. If not I do not expect to see anymore stacked sensor full frame cameras at least in the next couple of years.
I don’t really have any idea what a Z7III would have…just using it as an example. If they don’t go to a larger MP sensor…then ordering a greater quantity (and thus cheaper) of the Zo/8 sensor seems possible but would also require some more of that the more expensive bodies have to take advantage…and that raises the price as well as model muddling…my point was that a viable D500 Z replacement would need a lot of that same stuff…and again that drives the price up and the market for that body isn’t going to be very large…thus it doesn’t make business sense to me. I would be astounded if they could make something even close to the Z8/9 performance for $2500 anyway…and even at that price how much market is there…not enough IMO.
