Does the Z9 specs meet your expections

[ChrisM]

Imagine getting 200-500 focus speed from your 600 F/4E when mounted via a FTZ on a Z camera.... (possibly exaggerated a bit, but you get the point) that's what happens essentially. You get a different response in AF speed performance vs mounted to a DSLR. The Canon system does not do this, using the EF to RF adapter is like using a native mount lens, AF speed doesn't change between DSLR & MILC bodies.

The FTZ adapter does slow down performance, maybe not (or less) with shorter focal lengths but it definitily did slowdown the 180-400 and 800mm.
I’m shooting the R5 nowadays with some native lenses but allso with the 400 F/4 DO adapted.
The Canon adapter is just a ring which adapts the EF lens to the RF mount without any penalty regarding performance.
When you’re using the cheaper than a FTZ adapter with the control ring you allso get even more functionality.

/edit
Ruley74 was a bit faster LOL

I understand that adapting F-mount lenses to Z mount camera bodies results in slower AF performance compared to AF performance on DSLR bodies like the D500/D850.
I use the 500PF on the D500, but I owned a Z7 for 6 months, adapting the 500PF, and even sold my first D500.
Since then, I sold the Z7 and re-purchased the D500, not only because the AF performance was slower, but also, and mainly, because I found the viewfinder lag unacceptable, and did not like the EVF in bright daylight at all.

I am amazed though that everyone is looking at the FTZ adapter to blame and scold without illustrating in any way why they think the underperfomance is caused by the adapter.
It may well be that Nikon has issues getting the F-mount lenses to perform on a Z body because of a too radical change in AF protocol for the F-mount lenses to be driven properly. That has nothing to do with the physical adapter, but everything with the difference between Z AF and F AF.
On top of that, there are no Z mount native long telephoto lenses yet to make a sensible comparison between adapted telephoto lenses on the current Z6II/Z7II and native telephoto lenses.

I vividly remember a review of the original EOS-R with the Canon 500mm f4II adapted through the EF to R adapter, and the perfomance was just as bad or worse as I hear you describing the 500mm f4 or 600mm f4 on the Z6/Z7 bodies. Shorter lenses were OK, but the 500mm f4 was plain bad on the EOS-R, slow, slow, slow.
Along comes the Canon R5 et voliá, native performance. Did I miss a newly issued EF to R adapter? I don't think so, I am fairly sure it is exactly the same EF adapter that is being used with the R5 as that which gave such poor perfomance on the EOS-R.
Please people, keep it real. Memory is so very short it seems, as if all has been well in Canon land forever. It was not. The R5 and R6 take all the credit, it has nothing to do with the EF to R adapter.

 

[fcotterill]

Two constructive replies, quoted below. Thank you both

My experience with the FTZ was also on a Z7. It paired very well with my 70-200 f2.8E, 300 f4E PF and often with a TC14 III or TC17. The 500 f5.6E makes an equally superb light rig with the Z7.

On wildlife subjects, I did not find the fast AF of my 400 f2.8E Nikkor to be handicapped by the FTZ nor a Z7 AF. This long 3.8kg telephoto pairs better with the gripped D850 for 1. Balance, and 2. Custom controls; consequently, this is the ideal rig.

As ChrisM found, I also found it is the camera, specifically the Z AF, that makes for unreliable AF ie grabbing backgrounds etc. This being for wildlife subjects only. In fact, I found over and over in other genres the zeds beat the DSLR AF, however. An excellent example of this Z AF advantage is how the fickle 58mm f1.4G nails fine focus on the Z7.
Asides from the FTZ topic, I finally found an Used D5 in excellent condition: at an affordable ~25% the RRP of a D6. It not only exceeds a D780 for the lowlight challenges, with all of its industry leading AF; as importantly, the D5 haptics outstrip the D850 standards I set as a minimum for wildlife photography.

An expensive lesson post Z7 and D780 etc; henceforth, if I buy a costly camera, It must deliver reliably across ALL genres I shoot, wildlife mostly. I learnt this after 2 years using a Z7, then traded in the Z7 for an affordable solution available - a D780 with its D5 AF engine and Z6 sensor (given circumstances of the 2020 crisis). Why a D780? I had waited on the pdf manuals to check out series II Z6 and z7. It was now obvious Nikon had not fixed the underwhelming Z menus etc, it was equally obvious Series II Z AF had still to catch up to D5/D850 reliability/customization.

All in all, almost 2 years as one of the first Z7 shooter was a rewarding experience. Much works well in the Z7, but field testing underscored which features are critical for a wildlife camera to perform reliably. Highly contingent on the photographer’s skillset (the bottom line), a reliable AF system is the key obviously, but so are many others aspects of the camera. I am confident the Z system will mature into not only a leading, but one of the most complete and reliable ILC systems for all genres of photography, especially wildlife.

Give the Zeds 1 year, even less i think, 2 at most.

I think Nikon made a big mistake with their FTZ in that they tried to make one adapter to work with as many lenses as possible. I think the FTZ is fine as a "universal" adapter, but they probably should have made an FETZ (adapter for E lenses) and an FDTZ (adapter for screw-drive) lenses. I have a feeling that they could have increased the performance in their E lenses because they do not require a mechanical link to move the aperture blades. In this way, Canon had a huge advantage over Nikon. The EOS system has always had electronic controlled diaphragm. In contrast, Nikon tried to maintain backwards compatibility and this, once successful model, has now handicapped their capacity to optimize their F-mount performance with the Z-bodies.

bruce

I understand that adapting F-mount lenses to Z mount camera bodies results in slower AF performance compared to AF performance on DSLR bodies like the D500/D850.
I use the 500PF on the D500, but I owned a Z7 for 6 months, adapting the 500PF, and even sold my first D500.
Since then, I sold the Z7 and re-purchased the D500, not only because the AF performance was slower, but also, and mainly, because I found the viewfinder lag unacceptable, and did not like the EVF in bright daylight at all.

I am amazed though that everyone is looking at the FTZ adapter to blame and scold without illustrating in any way why they think the underperfomance is caused by the adapter.
It may well be that Nikon has issues getting the F-mount lenses to perform on a Z body because of a too radical change in AF protocol for the F-mount lenses to be driven properly. That has nothing to do with the physical adapter, but everything with the difference between Z AF and F AF.
On top of that, there are no Z mount native long telephoto lenses yet to make a sensible comparison between adapted telephoto lenses on the current Z6II/Z7II and native telephoto lenses.

I vividly remember a review of the original EOS-R with the Canon 500mm f4II adapted through the EF to R adapter, and the perfomance was just as bad or worse as I hear you describing the 500mm f4 or 600mm f4 on the Z6/Z7 bodies. Shorter lenses were OK, but the 500mm f4 was plain bad on the EOS-R, slow, slow, slow.
Along comes the Canon R5 et voliá, native performance. Did I miss a newly issued EF to R adapter? I don't think so, I am fairly sure it is exactly the same EF adapter that is being used with the R5 as that which gave such poor perfomance on the EOS-R.
Please people, keep it real. Memory is so very short it seems, as if all has been well in Canon land forever. It was not. The R5 and R6 take all the credit, it has nothing to do with the EF to R adapter.

 

[ruley74]

I understand that adapting F-mount lenses to Z mount camera bodies results in slower AF performance compared to AF performance on DSLR bodies like the D500/D850.
I use the 500PF on the D500, but I owned a Z7 for 6 months, adapting the 500PF, and even sold my first D500.
Since then, I sold the Z7 and re-purchased the D500, not only because the AF performance was slower, but also, and mainly, because I found the viewfinder lag unacceptable, and did not like the EVF in bright daylight at all.

I am amazed though that everyone is looking at the FTZ adapter to blame and scold without illustrating in any way why they think the underperfomance is caused by the adapter.
It may well be that Nikon has issues getting the F-mount lenses to perform on a Z body because of a too radical change in AF protocol for the F-mount lenses to be driven properly. That has nothing to do with the physical adapter, but everything with the difference between Z AF and F AF.
On top of that, there are no Z mount native long telephoto lenses yet to make a sensible comparison between adapted telephoto lenses on the current Z6II/Z7II and native telephoto lenses.

I vividly remember a review of the original EOS-R with the Canon 500mm f4II adapted through the EF to R adapter, and the perfomance was just as bad or worse as I hear you describing the 500mm f4 or 600mm f4 on the Z6/Z7 bodies. Shorter lenses were OK, but the 500mm f4 was plain bad on the EOS-R, slow, slow, slow.
Along comes the Canon R5 et voliá, native performance. Did I miss a newly issued EF to R adapter? I don't think so, I am fairly sure it is exactly the same EF adapter that is being used with the R5 as that which gave such poor perfomance on the EOS-R.
Please people, keep it real. Memory is so very short it seems, as if all has been well in Canon land forever. It was not. The R5 and R6 take all the credit, it has nothing to do with the EF to R adapter.

There's no question that I may be the Z bodies that don't do well with the F lenses, could be something as simple as voltage/current feed to the lens, however unfortunately we've got an example in Canon to suggest it doesn't need to be a loss in performance. WRT the EOS R and adapting, I owned the EOS R and used it adapted and have to say the AF I experienced was not poor, was as quick as using a 5D4 etc. Where the EOS R was horrible was the low contrast focusing, I lost so many shots because it didn't lock on properly, particularly in single point.

I guess to rephrase, Nikon need to improve adaptation of F lenses on Z bodies... however they do it!

 

[FB101]

Enlighten me please
Why are so many cursing the FTZ adapter, as if a different adapter would magically make your 500f5.6 focus like it were mounted on a Canon R5 or Sony A1?

I don't know what an adapter is supposed to do beyond passing a signal through if you expect this, but I don't think such a magical adapter exists...

what people are asking is that the lens operates at its full potential speed, not slower. So if mounted on a Z6ii, it should have the same speed as on a D780; if mounted on a Z7ii it should have the same speed as on a D850. Today, that’s not the case for long lenses (and the difference is very meaningful on first focus acquisition).

And the FTZ does a bit more than just passing a signal - what that is, is unclear but the fact that there was a firmware update for it tells us 2 things. One, there is a chip in it and two there is firmware that can be improved. Whether speed can be improved via firmware is anybody’s guess at this stage.

 

[FB101]

I am hoping that the Z9 will have a focus motor in the body for the AF lens without a focus motor.

thats unlikely unfortunately - it would also mean Nikon releases another FTZ adapter that can pass that action to the lens and their leadership is on record saying multiple times that it is not a priority (neither is an FTZ with the motor in the adapter).
i think they are really turning the page on supporting early lens generations.

 

[ChrisM]

what people are asking is that the lens operates at its full potential speed, not slower. So if mounted on a Z6ii, it should have the same speed as on a D780; if mounted on a Z7ii it should have the same speed as on a D850. Today, that’s not the case for long lenses (and the difference is very meaningful on first focus acquisition).

And the FTZ does a bit more than just passing a signal - what that is, is unclear but the fact that there was a firmware update for it tells us 2 things. One, there is a chip in it and two there is firmware that can be improved. Whether speed can be improved via firmware is anybody’s guess at this stage.

I think that people are reading far too much into the fact that the adapter is chipped. All lenses, adapters and TC's are chipped. For one, the camera needs to know that the adapter is attached and in use. You would never get that with a dumb adapter.
The adapter does not drive and control the attached lens, the camera does. If something slows down, I can only imagine two causes:
1.) conflict in AF protocol between a Z mount camera body and F mount lens
2.) insufficiently developed OSPDAF, either hardware or software based, or both, for long focal lengths, leading to slowing down AF operation.

 

[Thern]

Please people, keep it real. Memory is so very short it seems, as if all has been well in Canon land forever. It was not. The R5 and R6 take all the credit, it has nothing to do with the EF to R adapter.

So what are you saying?
Like I see this…
I shoot fast erratic subjects MOST of the time..
I really like the advantages of mirrorless. (Over the disadvantages)
I buy the Z7 and love it, never even bothered with a D850, kept a D800E and bought a D500 for high rez work but used mainly the D5’s since I was shooting in lowlight conditions all the time.
Like a lot of other folks I try to use the Z with a long tele and I notice the slowdown.
Since the tracking capabilities of the Zeds happen to be not so good anyway there’s no man overboard and I’m still very happy with the Z7 especially because I don’t need the Z for that kind of work…, remember I shoot the D5/D500 allso.
Okay? So far so good.
Then I rent an A9 for a week, use it, like it very much but it misses good weathersealing, ergonomics, some other minor ‘flaws’ and on top of that I’m heavily invested in Nikon stuff.
So I decided to wait for Nikon.
Then the Zeds second gen are released, YES some things are adressed, AF becomes a bit better, but performance with a F-mount lens still is less than optimal.
There’s rumor about Z8-9 etc, okay let’s wait and look how the paint dries…
In the meantime Sony releases the A9II with a lot of the ‘thingies’ I didn’t like about the first gen solved/bettered.
Still I manage to hold my horses.
Then Canon releases the R5/R6 (and I must confess I never even looked at Canon for a potential switch.) but it looks like the mirrorless which will deliver the goods.
Easy to decide to switch brands? NOPE! Happy I did? YES! 200%!

 

[Whiskeyman]

...
The real truth is that practically nobody on this forum is being seriously limited by whatever they have now…even my wife’s Z50 is far superior in technically to my Canon F1 I had back in college…it is our skills that are lacking.

So true, Neil, so true! However, one aspect of mirrorless that is likely to be a big improvement/help to most photographers is in the weight reduction. Some will be able to continue in their photographic endeavors in ways they would be unable to without the weight reductions possible.

 

[BLev65]

So what are you saying?
Like I see this…
I shoot fast erratic subjects MOST of the time..
I really like the advantages of mirrorless. (Over the disadvantages)
I buy the Z7 and love it, never even bothered with a D850, kept a D800E and bought a D500 for high rez work but used mainly the D5’s since I was shooting in lowlight conditions all the time.
Like a lot of other folks I try to use the Z with a long tele and I notice the slowdown.
Since the tracking capabilities of the Zeds happen to be not so good anyway there’s no man overboard and I’m still very happy with the Z7 especially because I don’t need the Z for that kind of work…, remember I shoot the D5/D500 allso.
Okay? So far so good.
Then I rent an A9 for a week, use it, like it very much but it misses good weathersealing, ergonomics, some other minor ‘flaws’ and on top of that I’m heavily invested in Nikon stuff.
So I decided to wait for Nikon.
Then the Zeds second gen are released, YES some things are adressed, AF becomes a bit better, but performance with a F-mount lens still is less than optimal.
There’s rumor about Z8-9 etc, okay let’s wait and look how the paint dries…
In the meantime Sony releases the A9II with a lot of the ‘thingies’ I didn’t like about the first gen solved/bettered.
Still I manage to hold my horses.
Then Canon releases the R5/R6 (and I must confess I never even looked at Canon for a potential switch.) but it looks like the mirrorless which will deliver the goods.
Easy to decide to switch brands? NOPE! Happy I did? YES! 200%!

Thern,
I totally get where you are coming from! You and I have chatted throughout the years, and seem to have s similar low-key perspective about things like this.
With the investment you made in the 180-400, you were definitely in a tough spot... stay or go? These decisions are never easy. However, if the cost to change is not financial, it is often easier to say... "Hell, let's do it!"
I made the switch from Nikon to Canon in 2003 (or 04) because Nikon was slow to improve their 6MP D100 camera. A remarkable camera at the time it was introduced, the company was slow to respond as Canon made bodies with better dynamic range and larger sensors (1.3 and 1.0X). I bailed on Nikon, lost my shirt doing so, and stayed with Canon until 2014. I wanted better cameras and access to Tilt/Shift lenses and affordable long glass (400mm f/5.6, 100-400, 300mm f/2.8). It wasn't until 2014, when I became friends with a Nikon shooter using a D800E, D3s, and 200-400VR that I realized that Canon was both the more expensive option and behind. A used 200-400 for $2700 (a bargain in 2014) is what lured me back... With $20,000 + in Nikon gear, I am now stuck again. This time, I am willing to wait and see what the pro bodies look like before jumping ship. Because I have no interest in chasing little birds, and still appreciate the cropped D500 as well as the lowlight performance of the 24MP Z6ii, I am not at a point where a system switch will translate into increased productivity. The latter is what I am using as a change indicator. When I can't make the images I want to make, I'll find a system that meets my needs. Fortunately, Nikon's AF, UI, and optics are more than good enough for me and my image-making goals.

bruce

 

[Anjin San]

Imagine getting 200-500 focus speed from your 600 F/4E when mounted via a FTZ on a Z camera.... (possibly exaggerated a bit, but you get the point) that's what happens essentially. You get a different response in AF speed performance vs mounted to a DSLR. The Canon system does not do this, using the EF to RF adapter is like using a native mount lens, AF speed doesn't change between DSLR & MILC bodies.

There is a difference between simply measuring end to end focus time and whether it makes any real world difference. Yes…my 500PF does focus more slowly end to end on my Z7II than on my D7500. However…the lens has the focus limit switch on almost all the time anyway…which makes the difference even smaller…although the Z is still ‘slower‘ by stopwatch. But it hasn’t affected my shooting in the slightest…it is still more than good enough. Yes…a better FTZ that had no reduction would be nice…but it wouldn’t make any usable difference for me. My point with my previous post was that few to none of us are *actually* limited by our equipment…that one guy aside who said his A1 eliminated the issue for him so maybe he is the exception. As I said…it is nice to talk about and wish for better…but then the cold realities come into play…dollars to upgrade a complete system…weight since the Z9 will be heavy as will the pro grade optics for it…the loss of muscle memory…the completely different names for things and menu system that invalidates all of your brain memory as well…and the realization that your current stuff really (well, except for one of us) isn’t holding you back…and this from a retired buy who could write a check for $30K and upgrade…then write another d50K check for that dream trip to Africa. Money aside…it is all that other list of factors that makes my point…and the skills not being limited by the equipment is about the most important one.

This is a hobby…not my living…and that’s true for most of us. I really wanted that little Mazda 2 seater sports car last February when I was buying a new car too…but then the drawbacks started to pile up. A convertible is nice…but there rent that many days a year in FL when you can put the top down, not to mention my wife’s ear issues that prevent it. Then add in the very low profile…I would need a derrick to get my wife out of it in heels not to mention her skirt would be around her waist…and the trunk would carry a six pack sized cooler but no more. So…got the high end Mazda 3 instead…still fun to drive and a whole lot more practical all around.

Just my $0.02 though…

 

[Anjin San]

So true, Neil, so true! However, one aspect of mirrorless that is likely to be a big improvement/help to most photographers is in the weight reduction. Some will be able to continue in their photographic endeavors in ways they would be unable to without the weight reductions possible.

The weight reduction is good…I didn’t see much since I went from the D750l to the Z7II but did get FF a smaller overall body…but compared to the FF DSLRs there is a nice reduction…and us old guys like that.

 

[Stephen Berger]

In response to this comment, I just have to wonder when good (great) is good enough.
If Nikon can deliver a camera with A1 capabilities (2020-21 tech), with Nikon color/files, and designed to optimize Nikon's optics, would that be good enough?
Everybody seems to be looking to ride a unicorn along a rainbow road into a pot of gold. The current crop of cameras (ZII's included) are so good today that incremental improvements will do little more than automate the photographic experience. In many ways, the modern tech is so loaded with AI, that I find the photographic experience to be cheapened a bit. Today I photographed my 3rd beaver tail slap in less than 6 months. It took me 5 years to get my first shot like this, and I felt so much pride in catching the moment...
While today's image is beautiful for the light and composition, it is now a "ho-hum" moment because the gear is soooo good. Was the image due to my 30+ years of experience as a wildlife and nature photographer, or just something made possible by technology?

Instincts, reflexes, composition/artistry, knowing the behavior of your subject, understanding light, etc, etc. will never go out of style with technology but I think what some of this new technology does is, with the correct settings, allow one to focus on the creative aspects while the camera's brain takes care of much of the rest.

 

[Deleted member 115]

There is a difference between simply measuring end to end focus time and whether it makes any real world difference. Yes…my 500PF does focus more slowly end to end on my Z7II than on my D7500. However…the lens has the focus limit switch on almost all the time anyway…which makes the difference even smaller…although the Z is still ‘slower‘ by stopwatch. But it hasn’t affected my shooting in the slightest…it is still more than good enough. Yes…a better FTZ that had no reduction would be nice…but it wouldn’t make any usable difference for me. My point with my previous post was that few to none of us are *actually* limited by our equipment…that one guy aside who said his A1 eliminated the issue for him so maybe he is the exception. As I said…it is nice to talk about and wish for better…but then the cold realities come into play…dollars to upgrade a complete system…weight since the Z9 will be heavy as will the pro grade optics for it…the loss of muscle memory…the completely different names for things and menu system that invalidates all of your brain memory as well…and the realization that your current stuff really (well, except for one of us) isn’t holding you back…and this from a retired buy who could write a check for $30K and upgrade…then write another d50K check for that dream trip to Africa. Money aside…it is all that other list of factors that makes my point…and the skills not being limited by the equipment is about the most important one.

This is a hobby…not my living…and that’s true for most of us. I really wanted that little Mazda 2 seater sports car last February when I was buying a new car too…but then the drawbacks started to pile up. A convertible is nice…but there rent that many days a year in FL when you can put the top down, not to mention my wife’s ear issues that prevent it. Then add in the very low profile…I would need a derrick to get my wife out of it in heels not to mention her skirt would be around her waist…and the trunk would carry a six pack sized cooler but no more. So…got the high end Mazda 3 instead…still fun to drive and a whole lot more practical all around.

Just my $0.02 though…

A D7500 is out of someone's budget just as much as the Z9 will be out of someone else's or a Z7II for that matter.
I don't hear too many wildlife and bird photographers sticking with film and manual focus lenses.

 

[ChrisM]

So what are you saying?
Like I see this…
I shoot fast erratic subjects MOST of the time..
I really like the advantages of mirrorless. (Over the disadvantages)
I buy the Z7 and love it, never even bothered with a D850, kept a D800E and bought a D500 for high rez work but used mainly the D5’s since I was shooting in lowlight conditions all the time.
Like a lot of other folks I try to use the Z with a long tele and I notice the slowdown.
Since the tracking capabilities of the Zeds happen to be not so good anyway there’s no man overboard and I’m still very happy with the Z7 especially because I don’t need the Z for that kind of work…, remember I shoot the D5/D500 allso.
Okay? So far so good.
Then I rent an A9 for a week, use it, like it very much but it misses good weathersealing, ergonomics, some other minor ‘flaws’ and on top of that I’m heavily invested in Nikon stuff.
So I decided to wait for Nikon.
Then the Zeds second gen are released, YES some things are adressed, AF becomes a bit better, but performance with a F-mount lens still is less than optimal.
There’s rumor about Z8-9 etc, okay let’s wait and look how the paint dries…
In the meantime Sony releases the A9II with a lot of the ‘thingies’ I didn’t like about the first gen solved/bettered.
Still I manage to hold my horses.
Then Canon releases the R5/R6 (and I must confess I never even looked at Canon for a potential switch.) but it looks like the mirrorless which will deliver the goods.
Easy to decide to switch brands? NOPE! Happy I did? YES! 200%!

I am merely saying that no one at this stage can say how well adapted f mount lenses will perform on state of the art future Nikon Z bodies, except for Nikon engineers. It is an easy pitfall to imagine that Nikon produced an inferior ftz adapter, but there is no technical support for that theory as of yet. At least, I have no one provide anything in that direction.

 

[ruley74]

There is a difference between simply measuring end to end focus time and whether it makes any real world difference. Yes…my 500PF does focus more slowly end to end on my Z7II than on my D7500. However…the lens has the focus limit switch on almost all the time anyway…which makes the difference even smaller…although the Z is still ‘slower‘ by stopwatch. But it hasn’t affected my shooting in the slightest…it is still more than good enough. Yes…a better FTZ that had no reduction would be nice…but it wouldn’t make any usable difference for me. My point with my previous post was that few to none of us are *actually* limited by our equipment…that one guy aside who said his A1 eliminated the issue for him so maybe he is the exception. As I said…it is nice to talk about and wish for better…but then the cold realities come into play…dollars to upgrade a complete system…weight since the Z9 will be heavy as will the pro grade optics for it…the loss of muscle memory…the completely different names for things and menu system that invalidates all of your brain memory as well…and the realization that your current stuff really (well, except for one of us) isn’t holding you back…and this from a retired buy who could write a check for $30K and upgrade…then write another d50K check for that dream trip to Africa. Money aside…it is all that other list of factors that makes my point…and the skills not being limited by the equipment is about the most important one.

This is a hobby…not my living…and that’s true for most of us. I really wanted that little Mazda 2 seater sports car last February when I was buying a new car too…but then the drawbacks started to pile up. A convertible is nice…but there rent that many days a year in FL when you can put the top down, not to mention my wife’s ear issues that prevent it. Then add in the very low profile…I would need a derrick to get my wife out of it in heels not to mention her skirt would be around her waist…and the trunk would carry a six pack sized cooler but no more. So…got the high end Mazda 3 instead…still fun to drive and a whole lot more practical all around.

Just my $0.02 though…

Sorry Neil, don't really get your response related to this (I get your context regards your use)... someone asked the question, I answered it, that's all.

 

[Thern]

I am not at a point where a system switch will translate into increased productivity. The latter is what I am using as a change indicator. When I can't make the images I want to make, I'll find a system that meets my needs. Fortunately, Nikon's AF, UI, and optics are more than good enough for me and my image-making goals.

Bruce, Like you know I’ve been shooting more than 10 yrs for three different organisations aimed at research, education and nature preservation.
When we contemplated wether we would migrate to France that was (one of) the major drawbacks for me, but in the end we decided to go despite some easy to overcome drawbacks.
Our move could have changed my view on photography since I don’t need the best lenses and the best lowlightperformance anymore.
Despite that I don’t have to be productive or have to earn a living with photography, I still like the better stuff and I’m willing and able to pay for it.
It’s like driving our twoseater, we don’t need it, there’s no sensible explanation to spend that kind of money on a car, but it’s a lot nicer to drive than driving our sensible, roomy and handy AWD SUV
On top of this I’m 68 now and I don’t want to wait for tech which is allready available…

I am merely saying that no one at this stage can say how well adapted f mount lenses will perform on state of the art future Nikon Z bodies, except for Nikon engineers. It is an easy pitfall to imagine that Nikon produced an inferior ftz adapter, but there is no technical support for that theory as of yet. At least, I have no one provide anything in that direction.

You’re a full 100% correct Chris!
Fact however is that the use of F-mount (long) glass is affected by shooting it adapted…
Wether that’s caused by the camera or the FTZ frankly doesn’t interest me at all.

For a first gen camera and/or adapter I was certainly willing to take the penalty for being an early adaptor, but Nikon released the second gen Zeds, no groundbreaking progression there and not a single word about the F to Z performance.
I really hope and wish for those who stay with Nikon for whatever reason will be rewarded for their patience, but I didn’t want to wait any longer.
Like I said before why should I wait for tech when it’s allready available..

 

[Anjin San]

Sorry Neil, don't really get your response related to this (I get your context regards your use)... someone asked the question, I answered it, that's all.

I was just saying…albeit maybe long winded…that we in general are spending too much time worrying about the next big thing…and that other factors beyond lust influence our actual decisions…I wasn’t replying to you directly as much as continuing the conversation. No worries on my end.

 

[ruley74]

I was just saying…albeit maybe long winded…that we in general are spending too much time worrying about the next big thing…and that other factors beyond lust influence our actual decisions…I wasn’t replying to you directly as much as continuing the conversation. No worries on my end.

All good, thanks for clarifying.

 

[splatbass]

Figuratively speaking, a camera that will be held in the same regard as the d850 as being the best all-rounder and a genuine standout that a lot of other bodies get compared to, though I reckon the A1 has that title.

I can't afford to constantly chase the newest thing, but I am more than happy with my D850. It was a great camera before the current mirrorless cameras and it didn't stop being a great camera because of them. It is more camera than my skill set needs, that's for sure.

 

[Deleted member 115]

I can't afford to constantly chase the newest thing, but I am more than happy with my D850. It was a great camera before the current mirrorless cameras and it didn't stop being a great camera because of them. It is more camera than my skill set needs, that's for sure.

I have a D850 too it is a great camera but it doesn't have animal eye tracking or lossless raw 20 fps

 

[Ado Wolf]

With every new model / camera comes a new or improved feature that the older model does not offer. It all comes down to -> is this feature a "must have" or "nice to have".

For some like me, we stick to D850 because it covers our needs. For others, they make the jump to newer models because they need eye tracking or the higher frame..

I think we are all lucky to have the option to choose and the opportunity to experience these technological "leaps" that seem to be coming faster these days.

 

[fcotterill]

And sometimes the new camera introduces new/improved feature(s) at the expense of losing other feature(s) that had worked well. Time and again, Nikon has reversed away from features that worked rather well (eg controls); in releasing the upgraded model after each previous camera model, Nikon has continued to leave undone fixes to the longstanding gaps/glitches/tweaks (eg Menus), which would be relatively simple to update.
It sometimes pays off overall to stay with gear that works well.

With every new model / camera comes a new or improved feature that the older model does not offer. It all comes down to -> is this feature a "must have" or "nice to have".

For some like me, we stick to D850 because it covers our needs. For others, they make the jump to newer models because they need eye tracking or the higher frame..

I think we are all lucky to have the option to choose and the opportunity to experience these technological "leaps" that seem to be coming faster these days.

 

[Maurie]

On my my Nikon wishlist is a Z camera without video. Get rid of the clutter of video, maybe gain some performance, hopefully lower the price. I use a video camera for video and a still camera for stills.

 

[fcotterill]

The elephant in the room will be the cost of a Z9. Sales These gaps in the Z system have been mentioned already but the reality for many of us is we will only be able to afford a high performing MILC if it's priced close to the Olympus OMD EM1 / D500 at £2K launched if DX or FX at ~£4K. These will be even more crucial if Nikon aims for its product range to persuade Hobbyists aka Enthusiasts to buy.... One projection in a recent Nikon corporate report predicts they see this Pro/Hobbyist sector will be 90% of Nikon's Imaging customers by late 2022.

The primary premise is a Stacked sensor must be the 1st order component of a Prosumer Zed. Otherwise it cannot get close to the performance of a Z9. This premise also argues even "optimized" code on dual EXPEED7 (or EXPEED*) CPUs (or some such boosted processors) will still fall too short at combining (1) high fps (2) high EVF refresh, let alone (3) bleeding edge Autofocus.

Perhaps, a more affordable Z8 is one possible way to sell more stacked-sensors (against predicted Z9 RRP of £6K +)? Thus, one would expect its price at approx £4K in a larger Z7 styled body, but with the Z9 Customization features (and optional battery grip using ENEL18d).

A DX Stacked sensor should cost less (given higher yields/wafer), and I read somewhere on one forum Sony have recently listed such a sensor in their inventory. Well, looking through a glass-half-full.... Nikon may have selected this for a Z90 - packing Z9 haptics around the stacked sensor in a gripped body powered by ENEL18d (similar size and weight as Olympus OMD EM1).

Nikon can market a DX Z90 in a logical pair with the Z9, similarly to the D500 (£1800) and D5 (£5000) released early 2016. If Nikon can price a DX Pro Zed close to £2K, this will sell well. And it will close a huge gap for the "Hobbyist" market which Nikon Imaging projects to be 90% of its sales late 2022.

 

[Anjin San]

Nikon can market a DX Z90 in a logical pair with the Z9, similarly to the D500 (£1800) and D5 (£5000) released early 2016. If Nikon can price a DX Pro Zed close to £2K, this will sell well. And it will close a huge gap for the "Hobbyist" market which Nikon Imaging projects to be 90% of its sales late 2022.

I would buy one of those in a heartbeat. I went with the Z7II as mostly a tech upgrade on or 4 or 5 yer old gear and mirrorless is clearly the future so another DSLR didn’t make sense. Went with the FF Z as opposed to the DX 50 for features, not sensor size…si went with the 7II OVER THE 6II to balance out the loss of crop factor lens reach…but in reality for my purposes a crop sensor is more than good enough. So…a more fully featured crop Z…if it had most or all of 5he Z9 AF and FPS along with the stacked sensor would make me very happy.