Nikon camera map

[EricBowles]

The Sony A1 is much lighter than the Z9. It appears that Nikon intentionally went to an integrated grip and large battery as opposed to needing that size/weight for the new tech. Right now, for D-500/500pf users that are willing to pay a 2# penalty to get the new tech, the A1/200-600 seems better than the Z9/500pf/ftz approach.

I ran a roundtable discussion for Z9 owners yesterday on Nikonians. For the flagship camera audience of the Z9, there was no concern whatsoever about the size and weight. They felt the weight of the body was less than previous flagship bodies and combinations were similar in weight to a D850 - so it was lighter. More important to them was the balance which had improved with the Z9 compared to the D5/6 bodies. These photographers need a camera that is durable and performs in any conditions.

The other benefit they described was no one had been able to use up a single battery in a full day of shooting stills. The battery is has 50% more capacity than the earlier batteries. Nobody had any issues with overheating under any circumstances - video or stills.

As they describe how they used the camera and set it up, there was a lot of thought and discussion about the Fn3 button - a function button tht is in prime position when you switch to portrait orientation. A couple of photographers mentioned that they had set the camera for a lower frame rate - 7-10 fps - and were using the Fn3 button to activate a 20 fps rate if needed. The first to mention that idea is a sports photographer who described the need for a high frame rate if there was an accident at a NASCAR race (and his scrolling background at the time was Dale Earnhardt Jr. flying through the air sideways).

For my personal use, I do want a smaller body but did not expect that in a flagship model. That Z camera is coming down the road so for now I'm being somewhat patient. We'll see if I can hold out.

 

[bleirer]

I'm no optical physics guru nor engineer (!), but I've read the flange cannot be much shallower without risking damage to the sensor. Well at least on a ILC with many user applications and lens changes in rough conditions etc. A specialized industrial camera could be built on much tighter tolerances presumably.

The fully electronic shutter removes the need for an accommodation space of a mechanical shutter, which is also rather delicate. And here again in scoping out the Z system, Nikon probably were planning their future sensors to evolve to a fully electronic shutter .

The closer the rear elements sit to the sensor - shorter flange - the better to avoid retrofocus corrections (needed with a OVF with mirror etc) but too close can increase vignetting. Theoretically the lens mount can wider but Z mount has the diameter for the FX sensor to use IBIS (oscillate)

Camera Lens Mounts - Everything You Need to Know About Lens Mounts

photographylife.com

That video of the Nikon engineer explaining it was pretty cool. Thanks for the link!

 

[fcotterill]

Well, these reports, collated on NR, might be indicating the turnover of a venerable DSLR, the D500, to perhaps even a new high end DX MILC.

And the latest Z Brochure by Nikon Europe does not list the Z6 nor Z7 on the comparison page.

 

[John Navitsky]

Well…they've already got the Z50 and the Zfc…so the only other DX body that might make sense would be something akin to a D500…and it likely wouldn't really be much cheaper than a Z6II or Z7II and unless they build another super duper DX size sensor (or cut the Z9 sensor pixel count and size down) they won't really get much more performance out of it than one already gets with the 6II or 7II…so I really don't see the point of making one for Nikon. We'll probably see minor revisions of the 50 and fc…but I would be surprised if we saw a higher end model…especially as the 6II or 7II is actually lighter and about the same physical size as the D500 is.

fair points. my main takeaway is that DX isn't going away. they could always benefit from af performance improvements, but i'm not sure i really seeing them put an expeed 7 in a lower end camera. maybe running at lower power. it's possible a dual expeed 6 will get them close enough for now?

 

[John Navitsky]

The other benefit they described was no one had been able to use up a single battery in a full day of shooting stills. The battery is has 50% more capacity than the earlier batteries.

unlike the R5C, which can't power some functions with the internal battery. i think people fail to appreciate the importance of power form factor in designs. there is only so much power you can put into a physical space, and the more functionality/speed you have, the more power you need.

i think folks should think about this in the context of the en-el15, and consider what impact that will have on the third gen designs. i think we'll see a split with the emergency of a "middle ground" sized camera with a "middle ground" sized battery.

just guesses of course

 

[John Woodworth]

From a marketing strategy standpoint, the halo of the Z9 will extend to other cameras with similar features. They don't need to have the same power and speed - just similar. Even in a perfect world, the high end for sales of a flagship camera was 100,000 units or so for the D3. It's just not enough to drive volume by itself.

Nikon has always had both flagship and enthusiast/volume cameras. There could be sourcing challenges, but ultimately they will be resolved. I don't think the Z9 in any way limits their plans. What they really gain is efficiency with design and engineering by redeploying technology that has already been used.

From a marketing strategy standpoint, once you have an edge you always want to exploit it. I don't think waiting or holding back has any chance of being a successful strategy because the volumes of the Z9 are too small. They also have limited resources, and if you delay one product, it pushed back everything. There are certain time windows for specific product development and introductions. If you miss those windows, you have a D400 type situation where you delay two additional years until the next slot is available.

The 7III makes more sense to me…dropping the Z9 sensor into it and the Expeed 7 then throttling back the capabilities a bit to maintain price point and model separation…that approach doesn't take any R&D cost except for minor changes in capabilities like FPS or whatever. Scaling a Z9 sensor down to FX size is a fairly easy engineering task but would give a 19.5MP sensor and for competitive reasons they probably don't want to go that low…and building a new sensor with smaller pixels to get it to the 21MP of the D500 or even 24 to match some of the other brands along with the R&D necessary to do stacked sensor and all the latest sensor buzzwords/tech even more R&D bucks…and for a relatively small market. The financially efficient decision would be to stay with FF and use the Z9 sensor…which then spreads the R&D cost of that sensor over more units, especially as the FF models are already essentially the same size/weight as the D500…plus the less mechanical parts and more reliable body issues.

I generally agree, but there is some work that would need to be done to optimize it for lower power. You have a smaller battery, lower voltage, and lack of a heat sink in a smaller body. That means you need to throttle back the processor, reduce the frame rate, and reduce write speed at a minimum. I'm not sure how much you would want to slow AF rates if at all, and the EVF needs the same type dual readout and refresh rate. This probably means a serious compromise for 8k video. Still - a 12-14 fps 46 MP camera with a virtually live EVF would be very attractive.

It's possible with a Z6iii you could take the opposite approach and emphasize smaller files, faster frame rates, and fastest focus response. This is an alternative approach to scaling back the Z9 hardware to a Z6iii power and pody level, but you would need a lower resolution sensor with larger photosites - bringing better low light performance. A DX counterpart would likely be very similar to this approach and mean a similar DX sized sensor and AF and display modified for the smaller display.

Most of the users I have talked to have routine shooting of the Z9 at 7-10 fps or less. Several have programmed a function button to immediately go to 20 fps on demand including a full time sports pro. The thought from most is 20 fps is far to many files, and a slower frame rate is much more practical most of the time.

One of the things I've found interesting is there seem to be a number of third party tech companies supplying the intellectual property. Nikon has confirmed a third party is responsible for file compression. I've also heard the AI for Subject focus is a third party for both Nikon and Canon cameras. That accelerates the speed of innovation and implementation.

I agree with the above. People are reporting "better-than-D6" battery life out of the Z9. It is obvious that the new Z9 guts--Expeed 7, evf and monitor--are an energy efficient combination and a breakthrough in more than just raw performance.

Seems like these guts might be put into a Z7 form factor--call it the "Z950"--with only slight compromises in performance. This "Z950" would be compromised by its smaller battery capacity and poorer heat dissipation.

We don't know exactly where the power is consumed in the Z9, but hi-rez/hi-speed video is probably the most obvious spec to get trimmed in a "Z950".

It's not clear at all that either stills frame rate or focusing speed specs would change that much, but Nikon knows how to successfully make these performance trades. They did it in the era of the big D5/D6 slr's and produced the widely acclaimed D850.

My guess is that we will see this "Z950" sooner than anyone expects, and that it will relate to the Z9 as the D850 did to the D5. Except more better.

 

[Anjin San]

I generally agree, but there is some work that would need to be done to optimize it for lower power. You have a smaller battery, lower voltage, and lack of a heat sink in a smaller body. That means you need to throttle back the processor, reduce the frame rate, and reduce write speed at a minimum. I'm not sure how much you would want to slow AF rates if at all, and the EVF needs the same type dual readout and refresh rate. This probably means a serious compromise for 8k video. Still - a 12-14 fps 46 MP camera with a virtually live EVF would be very attractive.

It's possible with a Z6iii you could take the opposite approach and emphasize smaller files, faster frame rates, and fastest focus response. This is an alternative approach to scaling back the Z9 hardware to a Z6iii power and pody level, but you would need a lower resolution sensor with larger photosites - bringing better low light performance. A DX counterpart would likely be very similar to this approach and mean a similar DX sized sensor and AF and display modified for the smaller display.

Most of the users I have talked to have routine shooting of the Z9 at 7-10 fps or less. Several have programmed a function button to immediately go to 20 fps on demand including a full time sports pro. The thought from most is 20 fps is far to many files, and a slower frame rate is much more practical most of the time.

One of the things I've found interesting is there seem to be a number of third party tech companies supplying the intellectual property. Nikon has confirmed a third party is responsible for file compression. I've also heard the AI for Subject focus is a third party for both Nikon and Canon cameras. That accelerates the speed of innovation and implementation.

Yep…although I would think that some combination of reducing the frame rate a bit and perhaps adding a maximum burst length would help with the heat problem…and really for all practical purposes for me 20 FPS is really overkill. Yes…it might get a few better wing position shots but realistically 10 or 12 FPS is plenty for almost all situations short of professional shooters…particularly if the. tradeoff for the slower frame rate was the lighter body without the grip. My point was that adjusting the frame rate or burst length or whatever is just a bit of firmware work and overall that's pretty simple as far as R&D goes as compared to that required to make a new sensor…and that (assuming sensor production rate allows) dropping the Z9 sensor into a Z7III or if they wanted to bulk up the body a little to put the larger Z9 battery in it a Z8 or whatever further spreads the R&D cost of that sensor over a much larger body production run. For me at least…20 FPS or even the crazy larger frame rates albeit at reduced size or jpeg images would just generate way, way, way too many images to evaluate in LR after the shoot. It's hard enough when I come back with 300 or 400 shots from a day's shooting with the Z7II, and if I shot everything at 20FPS bursts that would be up towards 1,000 to review instead.

And I'm actually just fine with some lower number of shots per battery over what I get now. The Z9 battery which is double-ish the capacity of the Z7II battery gets about 50% use in a day's shooting from a lot of reports…so doing the same number of shots with a Z7II battery would kill a battery…and realistically who ever goes out without a spare battery. I would much rather swap the battery halfway through the day than carry the heavier Z9 on a 5 mile hike…and even if I had to carry 3 batteries for a full day's shooting I'm still way ahead weight wise.

For price separation and model feature separation purposes…Nikon would obviously want to make sure that you didn't get Z9 performance out of a body that's about 2K cheaper…so making it 12/20/60 FPS and limiting video to 4K does a lot of that for them…and at the same time improves drastically the mid range body which will sell far more than the Z9 ever will. Even if it can be easily afforded…there's a lot of people that are weight conscious and would (like me) eliminate the Z9 from consideration because of that combined with the style of photography, the not wanting a grip, and the lack of income the more expensive body might provide since they're not making income anyway.

Only Nikon knows for sure I guess…

 

[Anjin San]

fair points. my main takeaway is that DX isn't going away. they could always benefit from af performance improvements, but i'm not sure i really seeing them put an expeed 7 in a lower end camera. maybe running at lower power. it's possible a dual expeed 6 will get them close enough for now?

I don't think the DX line is going away either…but it's more of a price thing that's keeping it around than anything else. DX bodies are cheaper and aimed at consumers or beginners…and thus I think seeing a mirrorless 'pro' DX like the D500 is unlikely. In order to be a significant improvement over the Z50 it would need a new higher performance sensor and EVF as well as the Speed 7…and all of that would drive the price higher and out of the consumer/beginner market segment…and it wouldn't be much cheaper than a 6Ii or 7II at that point anyway.

 

[John Navitsky]

@Neil Laubenthal yah, i think we're looking at that segment the same way

 

[fcotterill]

High sensor cost was the main motivation for DX in the case of the D1, and low production costs a decade later underwrote the high volume trade in DX consumer DSLRs....

Then smartphones caught up .... MILC market shrunk with DX as the affordable entry camera but only for those genuinely wanting to build a ILC System.

Arguably relatively higher unit yields of DX stacked sensors per wafer should lower costs in this new generation of Digital cameras, especially if Nikon can build a high performance MILC - aka Z90 - at $2500 RRP

 

[John Woodworth]

unlike the R5C, which can't power some functions with the internal battery. i think people fail to appreciate the importance of power form factor in designs. there is only so much power you can put into a physical space, and the more functionality/speed you have, the more power you need.

i think folks should think about this in the context of the en-el15, and consider what impact that will have on the third gen designs. i think we'll see a split with the emergency of a "middle ground" sized camera with a "middle ground" sized battery.

just guesses of course

Yes. I think that battery power is at the crux of the issue of what we will see next.

The tradeoff is both technical, and what the market will accept.

 

[EricBowles]

Yes. I think that battery power is at the crux of the issue of what we will see next.

The tradeoff is both technical, and what the market will accept.

Nikon has already done that with the EN-EL15 series as well as the EN-EL18 series. The most recent batteries have 30-50% more capacity in the same form factor.

The related issue - Amps - is a different story. The EN-EL18 is more powerful than the EN-EL15, and the processor tuned accordingly. In some designs, more amps did allow higher performance but not in all cases. With mirrorless, you also have the heat issue.

 

[John Navitsky]

right, but the point is that they've RECENTLY updated the en-el15 to the "c" version so there isn't really any room for improvement until technology improves

 

[John Woodworth]

Nikon has already done that with the EN-EL15 series as well as the EN-EL18 series. The most recent batteries have 30-50% more capacity in the same form factor.

The related issue - Amps - is a different story. The EN-EL18 is more powerful than the EN-EL15, and the processor tuned accordingly. In some designs, more amps did allow higher performance but not in all cases. With mirrorless, you also have the heat issue.

I never had a D500 or D850 but weren't a lot of their ingredients from the single digit flagships?

In the case of the D850, wasn't the focusing and frame rate downgraded from the Dx's, but it turned out to be one of most capable and popular pro-level DSLR's. And in both the D500 and D850, adding the optional grip increased performance.

So, Nikon knows how to trickle down their new tech very well and have done excellently in the past. It's just a question of how soon.

 

[EricBowles]

I never had a D500 or D850 but weren't a lot of their ingredients from the single digit flagships?

In the case of the D850, wasn't the focusing and frame rate downgraded from the Dx's, but it turned out to be one of most capable and popular pro-level DSLR's. And in both the D500 and D850, adding the optional grip increased performance.

So, Nikon knows how to trickle down their new tech very well and have done excellently in the past. It's just a question of how soon.

It's been a while, but I don't think the grip impacted performance on those two cameras. It did on some earlier cameras like the D800/D800E.

The D5 had a huge buffer and fast write speed. The D500 had a slower write speed but paired it with a slower frame rate so a smaller buffer never filled. The D850 had a similar strategy for a different reason - larger files with a slower frame rate so the smaller buffer did not fill. All of those tradeoffs were modest and made sense while keeping the camera with a smaller battery and smaller internal memory but great AF.

I agree - I think Nikon will balance the tradeoffs to provide 95% of the functionality for most enthusiasts. Right now I'm hearing a lot of warnings from new Z9 users that 20 fps is really for unusual situations, and they are all quickly dialing back to a much slower speed (7-10 fps) for typical use. When you need a quick turnaround, going through masses of files is not necessarily good.

 

[John Woodworth]

It's been a while, but I don't think the grip impacted performance on those two cameras. It did on some earlier cameras like the D800/D800E.

The D5 had a huge buffer and fast write speed. The D500 had a slower write speed but paired it with a slower frame rate so a smaller buffer never filled. The D850 had a similar strategy for a different reason - larger files with a slower frame rate so the smaller buffer did not fill. All of those tradeoffs were modest and made sense while keeping the camera with a smaller battery and smaller internal memory but great AF.

I agree - I think Nikon will balance the tradeoffs to provide 95% of the functionality for most enthusiasts. Right now I'm hearing a lot of warnings from new Z9 users that 20 fps is really for unusual situations, and they are all quickly dialing back to a much slower speed (7-10 fps) for typical use. When you need a quick turnaround, going through masses of files is not necessarily good.

I should have looked it up:

" Despite its monumental resolution, the D850 is capable of an astoundingly fast capture rate of up to 7 frames-per-second (fps) or 9-fps with the optional battery grip and EN-EL18a/b battery, while offering a range of new user-friendly features requested by Nikon shooters around the world" from a DPReview.

The point being, that one can have a smaller camera system by slowing the camera due to the resulting smaller battery, but optionally make it back up with a grip having a bigger battery.

Problem solved, Nikon! What's keepin' ya.

 

[EricBowles]

I should have looked it up:

" Despite its monumental resolution, the D850 is capable of an astoundingly fast capture rate of up to 7 frames-per-second (fps) or 9-fps with the optional battery grip and EN-EL18a/b battery, while offering a range of new user-friendly features requested by Nikon shooters around the world" from a DPReview.

The point being, that one can have a smaller camera system by slowing the camera due to the resulting smaller battery, but optionally make it back up with a grip having a bigger battery.

Problem solved, Nikon! What's keepin' ya.

It was updated to 9 fps with a firmware update and the regular EN-EL15 battery without a grip.

 

[RichF]

Does anyone know or have an idea when Nikon will come out with a New Z DX camera. I am waiting from a Z500 or Z90, what ever they might call it.

The Z50 is way to small for my hands. I can't even install the memory card in it.

Thanks for any idea's

Levi

How valuable would it be if Nikon gave us a road map with camera names - what would you do if they said a Z 6 III is on the roadmap. Or there will be Z90. With lens they provide focal length, FX or DX, but little else.