Anyone else waiting for a Nikon Z (CROP SENSOR) camera that replaces the D500?

[Len Shepherd]

I need a camera that can help me get 750mm compositional reach with my 500mm PF lens, right out of the gate. (Plus, $4,000 for a new camera body is still a little bit steep for me.)

Anyone else here hoping/waiting for a D500 mirrorless successor? And if so, do you think it will come out within the next two years?

I can see a market for what you want - at a price around $/`£3000 - if it can be made with Z9 ability.

As Nikon is taking 18 months to release the Z8 after the Z9; unless Nikon speed up "high end" camera body releases a currently mythical "Z90" if next in line could take around 18 months.

I expect a Z6 III with around 30 MP and either a Z7III or a Z10 with around 60 MP will come first - making 2 years for a "Z90" optimistic.

Back when Nikon FX was 36 MP and DX was 24 MP I found using DX alongside FX to put more MP on a subject with very little image quality loss at low ISOs - DX was a lot more affordable than fast long lenses.

With ML viewfinders being dramatically brighter than DSLRs, relatively affordable long lenses such as the 400 f4.5 and 800 PF combined with Z teleconverters loosing less image quality than F converters - in a much "smaller advanced camera market" than 5 years ago - if you were a Nikon executive would you develop a 600 S PF and upgrade the 500 PF to S - or develop a "Z90" with around 33 MP?

Although 33 MP DX exists some reports say as of now it distinctly slows up camera performance.

If Nikon introduce a "Z90" 33 MP with Z9 performance I would buy it.
If it comes I do not see one inside of 2 years.

 

[fcotterill]

Nikon Marketing is pushing the Z8 hard as the "D850 replacement".

However, in a 2 1/2 hr presentation/discussion with Paul's Camera, Thom Hogan flagged what Nikon is not saying, which is this is logical upgrade from the D500. In his view, the Z8 takes the title as the ideal all-round camera

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[JulieE]

This is me. I currently shoot d500 and G lenses. I’ve been looking to upgrade my lenses and decided to buy z glass. Once the Z8 specs leaked I knew it was the body for me. I don’t need 45 mp and I don’t want to fiddle with an adaptor. Right now my plan is to shoot in dx mode. I’ll try it and see.

 

[Ricky Simpson]

I would like to see a mirrorless D500 but it has to be 30 plus MP otherwise a lower megapixel D500 like body isnt needed when one can shoot DX mode (full screen) in a smaller form factor Z8.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Potential cost -- of a DX version of the Z8 -- same pixel density. My guesses are in the top left of the table below.

What if the DX sized 26mp sensor in Fuji X-H2S was "up to standard" for use with Z8/Z9 tech -- this has a pixel density 87% of that used in the Z8/Z9 -- so effectively 52.5 MP useable in FX (52.8mp sized) - if sensor cost is proportional to pixel density and size then a 26mp Z80 sensor might cost 50% of the cost of a Z8/Z9 sensor -- I very much doubt this is the case -- but stick with the numbers in green as a guide on my guess.

Then what if one goes to a DX sized sensor version of the R7's smaller APS-C sensor - 32.3 MP would increase by 12% to 36.1MP -- but remember the sensor in the R7 is NOT stacked -- 36.1mp on DX equates to 84mp (83.95mp) in FX -- such a sensor does not exist in Stacked BSI CMOS. But if it did then it is not conceivable that it would be priced the same as a lower pixel density sensor -- using the same linear rules -- 83.95/45.5 = 185%., If then one assume the cost of the sensor varies in proportion to size as a lower bound then - the lower bound cost could be 43% of the cost of an FX -- if both are multiplied then the cost would be 80% of the current sensor -- ie a 20% saving (roughly) -- therefore the cost would be in the top 3-4 rows of my table not lower down.

Every assessment like this is pure speculation. As are guesses when such a very high density fast sensor might actually be developed.

What I would have liked to see is the cost/benefit of having twin CFE-B card slots rather than the split slot used in the Z8 -- AND to understand the thermal implication of putting both so close to each other.
I would also like to have seen the cost/benefit of including a GPS receiver in the body as opposed to not including it -- would it have fitted or only with a higher upstand under where the dial used to be.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I'm not waiting for one but it would be nice to have a smaller, less expensive but fully action capable camera for travel purposes and second body on a zoom lens for serious shoots.

That camera is an OM-1 and a 100-400 zoom. That combo is $2200 for the body and $1400 for the lens and is less that 4 pounds. It looks to me that that niche is covered by OM Systems.

Tom

 

[John Navitsky]

one thing to consider is cost of development. nikon appears to be focusing on one or a couple of major components at a time, as makes sense. there was a huge amount of development that was needed for the z9.

when the z8 came out i think people forget there is real development work needed to develop a new body.

but now that they have a midsize body, they mostly need a sensor to make a d500 style camera feasible

the big question is where they are going to focus next, the z6iii type camera? and if so, what development work is needed, and will that development work be something they can leverage for the future?

i’ve gotten the impression they are pretty loathe to do development that isn’t strategic. it’s a bit unclear if mating an expeed7 to a non stacked sensor is throw away work. will there be a role for non stacked sensors in nikon’s lineup? it’s also unclear how much development is needed to upgrade the small body for expeed7 and how that might change if it’s a stacked vs non stacked sensor.

but the dx is very straightforward at this point since you’ve built the midsize body. you just need the sensor

the other option is you build a lower resolution stacked sensor and also put that in the midsize body

 

[dupcak]

I continue to be amazed at how many people still believe that a crop sensor really gives you "more reach." And on my recent trip to Ohio one of my fellow participants tried to argue that using a smaller sensor (or even switching to "crop mode" on a larger one somehow means meaningfully faster autofocus. Really? One can use DX lenses on an FX body, no problem, and you can switch to DX mode in situations where you know you want a smaller field of view (or want to save space on your memory card).

Reaching back a few responses ago... I have tested and can attest to the fact that Subject Recognition and tracking is better in DX mode for objects that don't fill the frame. In other words a small bird won't be recognized reliably (or at all) in FX mode on the Z9, but switch it to DX mode and keep all other variables constant and it will recognize the bird. I didn't believe it until I tested it for myself. I actually posted how I didn't think it would be possible - but I was definitely wrong. After thinking about it for a bit, it all comes down to subject recognition and how readily the processor matches the subject to a known pattern in it's internal "database."

Anyway - that being said, with the arrival of the Z8 I'm no longer waiting for a D500 replacement. I still have my D500, but it's about to be sold (or maybe gifted) - definitely one of my favorite cameras.

 

[James C.]

It's an interesting point that some here have made that Nikon (and many reviewers) have touted the Z8 as a "D850 successor."

However, considering the widespread popularity and use of the D500 for wildlife, in general; and birds, in particular, it stands to reason that the D500 should have a mirrorless successor of its own.

Having a smaller sensor and fewer "pro" features, a crop sensor camera should put it at a size/weight and price point below the Z8. This could make it an attractive camera for wildlife photographers who neither want, need, nor can afford all of the features of the Z8 or Z9, but still want, what I understand to be, the increased pixel density that a crop sensor can put on a subject in a photo. It could also make for a more affordable upgrade/stepping stone from an older Z camera or DSLR. Certainly, this is a potential market that shouldn't be ignored.

If there is to be a D500 successor, I would want it to have:

• APS-C sensor of 24-32 MP
• 15-20 FPS in RAW (14-bit)
• Silent shutter
• Stacked sensor
• Sensor shield
• Blackout-free electronic viewfinder
• Up to 1/10,000 of a second shutter speed
• Bird/Animal/Human Eye AF
• A fast/accurate AF system
• EV that can go down to +/-6.0
• Fully articulated view screen (like the D5600) for doing videos of oneself for content creators
• Dual memory card slot (CFe Type B and SD)
• Weather-sealed
• Lightweight (i.e., ≤ 2 pounds)
• Price $2,000 to $3,000 (US)

Since a number of these features are now becoming well-established in the Z8 and Z9, I would think that it may be less problematic getting them into a DX camera body.

 

[John Navitsky]

more random thoughts about a dx.

i suspect from a development perspective it would make sense to retain the pixel density of the current z8/z9 sensor. i suspect that would reduce development costs, basically all the same tech, just make it smaller.

also, based on the current architecture of the z8/z9, i would expect a dx to have a HIGHER frame rate because it’s less data to transfer

 

[John Navitsky]

Reaching back a few responses ago... I have tested and can attest to the fact that Subject Recognition and tracking is better in DX mode for objects that don't fill the frame. In other words a small bird won't be recognized reliably (or at all) in FX mode on the Z9, but switch it to DX mode and keep all other variables constant and it will recognize the bird. I didn't believe it until I tested it for myself. I actually posted how I didn't think it would be possible - but I was definitely wrong.

i think this may be due to the way they use the evf stream for subject recognition. basically what you see in the evf is what the subject recognition stream “sees”.

it also seems to be the same with exposure. if you can’t see a subject’s face, the camera likely will have trouble as well

 

[Woodyg3]

Considering how well the OM-1 has been received, I would think Nikon might well be interested in producing a smaller, lighter system for people to whom that appeals. Also, a less expensive mirrorless with things like animal eye recognition and the other benefits of a high quality mirrorless would certainly sell well. I don't know much about the Fuji aps-c cameras, but I do know that there are a fair number of sports photographers that think the latest Fuji models are great for action photography. Again, I would think that Nikon might want a part of that market.

I would certainly welcome a less expensive d500 style mirrorless, myself.

 

[Ivy]

I've been watching a LOT of Nikon Z8 reviews in the past few days, and I am glad to see that a lot of the Z9 functionality is there in a slightly smaller/lighter/less expensive form factor.
However, I was hoping for a mirrorless APS-C (i.e., crop sensor) camera. A successor, specifically, to the tried and true bird photographer's camera, the D500.

Yes, I know that the Z9 has a DX mode, but not being someone who can afford a $15,000+, 600mm + 1.4TC lens, I need a camera that can help me get 750mm compositional reach with my 500mm PF lens, right out of the gate. (Plus, $4,000 for a new camera body is still a little bit steep for me.)

Anyone else here hoping/waiting for a D500 mirrorless successor? And if so, do you think it will come out within the next two years?

D850, Z9, Z8 all are higher megapixel cameras than D500 and offer option to shoot in DX or FX mode. So no advantage to a crop camera and losing that versatility.

 

[Doomrider74]

D850, Z9, Z8 all are higher megapixel cameras than D500 and offer option to shoot in DX or FX mode. So no advantage to a crop camera and losing that versatility.

Except for price (don't underestimate the importance of that for many).

 

[Ivy]

Except for price (don't underestimate the importance of that for many)

 

[Ivy]

Good point. I have made the jump from D7100 to D500 to D850 to Z9/Z8 over the years but am quite content to use my FX lenses and have no plans to spend money on any Z lenses. Expensive hobby for sure.

 

[ccirelli]

At this point, considering the flexibility and mp's of the Z8/Z9, I'm done with APSC bodies. I understand shooting in Dx mode isn't quite the same thing, but for me / my needs, it effectively is.

* This also doesn't mean I don't want Nikon to produce a pro-level APSC body, for those that do want one.

 

[Shutterbug fan 1]

D850, Z9, Z8 all are higher megapixel cameras than D500 and offer option to shoot in DX or FX mode. So no advantage to a crop camera and losing that versatility.

I think there is an advantage at least for me. Using the crop mode or cropping down in pp is less accurate AF. The crop sensor camera allows for closer placement of focusing points because the image is larger in the viewfinder. I am not sure of the Z9 in crop mode. It may fill the viewfinder. On the DSLRs, it did not.

Epilogue. Just checked the Z9's viewfinder in crop mode and it does fill the viewfinder.

 

[maverick777]

I think there is an advantage at least for me. Using the crop mode or cropping down in pp is less accurate AF. The crop sensor camera allows for closer placement of focusing points because the image is larger in the viewfinder. I am not sure of the Z9 in crop mode. It may fill the viewfinder. On the DSLRs, it did not.

The Nikon mirrorless bodies in DX mode will fill the viewfinder. There are no disadvantages from an AF perspective either. The sensor has way more focus points than what the AF boxes represent. The Z8/Z9 in DX mode is a Z500. Of course when the real Z500 comes out it's likely to have more than 20MP, but the current crop mode is at least a mirrorless D500 and then some. I will post crop rather than shoot in DX mode for stills. That gives me more room for error if I'm tracking something small and fast. I usually only use DX mode for video.

 

[Shutterbug fan 1]

The Nikon mirrorless bodies in DX mode will fill the viewfinder. There are no disadvantages from an AF perspective either. The sensor has way more focus points than what the AF boxes represent. The Z8/Z9 in DX mode is a Z500. Of course when the real Z500 comes out it's likely to have more than 20MP, but the current crop mode is at least a mirrorless D500 and then some. I will post crop rather than shoot in DX mode for stills. That gives me more room for error if I'm tracking something small and fast. I usually only use DX mode for video.

Thanks. Good to know.

 

[EricKlees]

otoh, i would totally buy a lower mp stacked sensor z8

I couldn't shoot wildlife with a FF 24mp sensor WAY WAY WAY to limiting for cropping Anna the oven density is crappy. APS-C 24mp would be fine. But for full frame, i need a minimum 45mp

 

[Guido]

After looking very hard at the Z8, I decided was not the solution for me. I will find my camera in an upcoming semi-Pro APS-C if it ever comes with new high resolution zooms. 30+ MP would be very nice. Or I may be well served with an Z7III and use the Full Frame for headshots, family reunions. When In the field, I need a lower weight and I will crop the hell out of my pictures to get A3 prints. I never print larger than A2. Then I will use denoise and upsampling. The Z8 is too heavy for me in the countryside, and the Z7II may get upgraded some time.

 

[Guido]

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.

A DX does not give more reach, agree. But a DX is a very practical light system. Just for argument’s sake, Ii have more resolution with my D7500 than all high-end FF Film camera's. The Dx system gives me pictures I can live with for a weight I can carry around. Compare an FF 400 mm lens and a 600 mm D. After cropping the DX image, I get the same reach, although I get in trouble in low light.

 

[Anjin San]

A DX does not give more reach, agree. But a DX is a very practical light system. Just for argument’s sake, Ii have more resolution with my D7500 than all high-end FF Film camera's. The Dx system gives me pictures I can live with for a weight I can carry around. Compare an FF 400 mm lens and a 600 mm D. After cropping the DX image, I get the same reach, although I get in trouble in low light.

True…but my Z7II is lighter body than the DX D7500. A DX lens would be lighter than an FX lens…but I had all FX lenses when I was using the latter…so actually for me only a Z DX would be a lighter system.

 

[Anjin San]

However, considering the widespread popularity and use of the D500 for wildlife, in general; and birds, in particular, it stands to reason that the D500 should have a mirrorless successor of its own.

I really don’t see the point…because if it has the pixel density of the Z8/9 along with the RVF, better sensor, better processor, and all that…it is not going to be anywhere near the price point that D500 users are willing or able to pay…the reason the Z8 costs $4000 is it has all of that stuff in it. The Zi body weighs 3 ounces more than the D500…so one can reasonably argue that it is both the D850 and D500 replacement. Personally I think that the Z DX bodies re and will remain consumer and or first camera options. The market for a mirrorless D500 with all the goodies at the price they will require isn’t going to be big enough to make the dev cost worthwhile IMO.