Will the Nikon Z9 Deliver?

[JANuser]

I think the writing is on the wall really, as for Nikon being used for high performance shooting. When I go to the local camera store the brand with the most used gear in stock has been constantly Nikon for the past four years. It’s getting to the point that I wonder if the store will stop taking Nikon gear as trade ins, because they cannot move anything other than the high end F-mount stuff, and even that will dry up in time as it ages.

Personally, I love it, tons of mint high end Nikkor’s for less than half of new price. Got a mint 300mm PF for $800 less than brand new. Can’t want for some mint big guns to get traded in, I wouldn’t mind a 600mm F4G for $5k.

 

[GrandNagus50]

Nikon's 500 pf was a strike of genius at its price and I'm sure we'll see that lens in R mount at some point, maybe whenever that trickle down Z8 appears. In the meantime, the 500pf on FTZ adapter with a Z6ii is underwhelming - I far prefer shooting it on the D850, it's more responsive, acquires focus more reliably, tracks better (for stills, on video I had a lot of fun experimenting with Z6ii and 500pf).

I have found the 500 pf a tremendous performer with my Z7 (with adapter, obviously). It focuses fast enough, the focus points are more extensive in the frame than with the DSLRs, and it performs amazingly (in my opinion) with teleconverters, including the TC20eiii. The autofocus and VR performance at f8 and f11 is better than with my DSLRs. Provided there is adequate light, I can hand-hold a 1000mm f11 rig and get what I consider excellent results. I will add that I also use the Olympus M43 system, and so I have experience with a decent bird tracking system (I know that Sony's and Canon's are better), Pro Capture, and other assorted focus-related bells and whistles. For my purposes, these advances are just not essential enough (yet) to motivate me to switch away from Nikon. If Nikon does not at least make some huge strides overall within the next couple of years, however, ask me again about possibly switching in 2023

 

[FB101]

I have found the 500 pf a tremendous performer with my Z7 (with adapter, obviously). It focuses fast enough, the focus points are more extensive in the frame than with the DSLRs, and it performs amazingly (in my opinion) with teleconverters, including the TC20eiii. The autofocus and VR performance at f8 and f11 is better than with my DSLRs. Provided there is adequate light, I can hand-hold a 1000mm f11 rig and get what I consider excellent results. I will add that I also use the Olympus M43 system, and so I have experience with a decent bird tracking system (I know that Sony's and Canon's are better), Pro Capture, and other assorted focus-related bells and whistles. For my purposes, these advances are just not essential enough (yet) to motivate me to switch away from Nikon. If Nikon does not at least make some huge strides overall within the next couple of years, however, ask me again about possibly switching in 2023

That really wasn't my experience with fast erratic birds like Sanderlings right at the waterline, even without a TC. The Z6ii just couldn't lock on them before they had decided to dart in another direction, whereas I got quite a few usable shots with the D850.
Now on static subjects, yes the Z6ii did better, especially with TCs as you pointed out. But I don't shoot with a 2x TC and the D850 does OK with the 500pf + 1.4x TC for static subjects - the improvement I really needed to see from the Z6ii was with fast erratic birds and my experience was underwhelming, both in absolute terms and even worse after trying the Canon R5.

At my backyard feeder, where birds sit on a branch for 10 or 20 seconds the Z6ii would do fine, but honestly the D850 does fine too so why change for that kind of shooting? I got plenty of time to adjust exposure so wysiwyg isn't nearly as valuable as on split second shots.

In the end, if I want to be honest with myself, the only reason I have not gone to the R5 yet is the 500pf lens - but if it means holding off 2 years for a hypothetical Z8... and not even being sure that the adapted lens will rock it on the next generation of bodies... that's a tough proposition, even with the 500pf as lovable as it is.

 

[fulltimewanderer]

The report is they will be demonstrating the camera and lenses at the Olympics in late July with an announcement or release in November.

The stacked sensor is a big deal. It allows the camera to use part of the sensor readout for AF, and allows faster readout to reduce rolling shutter. This alone should make the camera comparable to the Sony A1/Canon R3 or better. Nikon has also indicated there are some advanced processing technologies in the new camera - above and beyond Eye AF.

The testing at the Olympics is supposed to include new long lenses. You can't release an action or sports camera without long lenses. So the 400, 600, and 100-400 will be released in a similar time frame. These lenses will be priced accordingly. The 100-400 will probably be more of a 80-400 replacement and competitive with Canon and Sony alternatives. The 200-600 seems to be more of a consumer lens, so in my mind it fits a prosumer or enthusiast counterpart to the Z9. All of these lenses will be great optically - they are all S lenses and Nikon's Z lineup is first rate.

Don't be confused by what Sony and Canon already provide. The A1, R3, and Z9 are in a different category from other camera bodies. I ran a webinar a couple of nights ago with Arthur Morris and he indicated he's getting a 10% keeper rate with his Bird in Flight images using the A1. That's very different than perched subjects where the keeper rate is quite high. The reality is quite different than the internet would have you believe. Now his standards are high, but there are a lot of bad photos that are made even with eye AF.

With the high standards that Arthur Morris sets and has for himself his 10% keeper rate is what I’d pretty much expect. But, let’s be honest, for most of us I’d be proud of the 90% that he deletes. This would also hold true for say Steve, Moose and a whole bunch more.

 

[GrandNagus50]

Some people have gone ahead and purchased a non-Nikon body and a bird lens to get that one foot in a different door. A Canon R5 plus the 100-500mm zoom is a hefty investment, but for a lot of people in this hobby it probably won't break the bank, particularly if one offsets the expenditure by selling some older gear not currently being used. Personally, my own "second system" is M43, as overall the gear is more compact and hence easier to carry on international flights. But if what one is looking for is that one rig that has superior eye tracking for your fast-moving birds, maybe you don't have to immediately ditch the whole Nikon system.

That said, I confess that in my own bird photography I don't abide particularly by the Holy Grail of "BIF" as the decisive objective. I look for birds to be doing "something interesting," and that can be any number of other behaviors or postures. I will add that out in the field I use the 500mm PF with the TC14eiii most of the time, and at 700mm f8 the autofocusing of the D850 seems largely limited to the center focus point(s). The Z7 does much better. And yes, I do like the WYSIWYG aspect of mirrorless. So for the time being, what Nikon offers is good enough for just about everything I want to do. As I said, however, I do kinda expect Nikon to at least match Canon and Sony for eye focus tracking, as of course this is a terrific feature.

 

[ChrisM]

Yes the 400 f:4 DO v2 is an outstanding lens but it's not getting that much love as it is in an odd spot. With the latest weight reduction on the 500 f:4 and the fact that the 400 DO costs almost $7k - most folks decide to bite the bullet and go all the way to the 500f:4.

Nikon's 500 pf was a strike of genius at its price and I'm sure we'll see that lens in R mount at some point, maybe whenever that trickle down Z8 appears. In the meantime, the 500pf on FTZ adapter with a Z6ii is underwhelming - I far prefer shooting it on the D850, it's more responsive, acquires focus more reliably, tracks better (for stills, on video I had a lot of fun experimenting with Z6ii and 500pf).

You are right about the 400DOII being in an odd spot. I had it for a year, but owning it made me decide never to buy anything other than a 500mm prime. I now have the Nikon 500PF, and have a Sigma 500mm f4S on the way.
I believe Canon is workingon a RF500/4 which is rumored to be not only lighter, but also shorter than the current Canon 500/4, and it may be a DO lens, who knows.

 

[Abinoone]

You are right about the 400DOII being in an odd spot. I had it for a year, but owning it made me decide never to buy anything other than a 500mm prime. I now have the Nikon 500PF, and have a Sigma 500mm f4S on the way.
I believe Canon is workingon a RF500/4 which is rumored to be not only lighter, but also shorter than the current Canon 500/4, and it may be a DO lens, who knows.

I would be interested to know what your experience is using the Sigma - how much better it is than the 500PF.

 

[ChrisM]

I would be interested to know what your experience is using the Sigma - how much better it is than the 500PF.

I am interested myself as well. I have heard/read so many opinions on this topic, that it will be nice to finally come to my own conclusion.
I was at a crossroad of spending the money on the Sigma 500, or on a Canon R5+RF100-500. My lack of need of a zoom and the f7.1 max. aperture prevented me from jumping ship to mirrorless though.

 

[eaj101]

I would be interested to know what your experience is using the Sigma - how much better it is than the 500PF.

Having used all three - the 500PF, Nikon 500F4 and a weeklong rental of the Sigma on a D850 - you could cover the difference between the three with a postage stamp. I could never reliably tell the difference between shots and had to check the EXIFs. The 500 Nikon takes TCs better than the 500PF, I think (I couldn't check the Sigma, not having a Sigma TC). Other than that, a wash.

 

[ChrisM]

Having used all three - the 500PF, Nikon 500F4 and a weeklong rental of the Sigma on a D850 - you could cover the difference between the three with a postage stamp. I could never reliably tell the difference between shots and had to check the EXIFs. The 500 Nikon takes TCs better than the 500PF, I think (I couldn't check the Sigma, not having a Sigma TC). Other than that, a wash.

I am aware that there are many users of the 500PF that do not see any difference between it and the Nikon 500mm F4E, and as there are also quite a few that do not see any difference between the Nikon 500mm f4E and the Sigma 500mm f4S, it is easy to do the math and come out with the conclusion that the 500PF, 500E and sigma 500S all produce identical images.
There are also users that do see a difference, some users that see a noticeable difference, and even some that swear by the Nikon 500E, but don't like the 500PF.

For someone like me, only having the 500PF and not having used the Nikon 500E and Sigma 500S, it is impossible to come to ány conclusion based on the wide and contradictory scope of opinions, so it has played no role in my decision to purchase the Sigma 500S.
I have not been satisfied with the 500PF's performance with the 1.4TC, and have always shot at longer than 500mm before going Nikon, so it was inevitable for me to get a f4 500mm lens. I would have gotten the Nikon 500E, but given the state of F-mount, I chose the more affordable Sigma.

 

[Doug Herr]

Is he paid by Sony to promote their products?

Just wondering.

Whether Morris is paid by Sony or not (at one time he was a Canon Explorer of Light and more recently he used Nikon equipment), my experience is similar to his: when using the a1, the vast majority of the time the bird's eye is in focus. No, Sony isn't paying me to promote their stuff.

 

[anthonyrobinson]

Still can't get a Sony A1 or a 200-600 or a 600mm here in the UK. All major suppliers put you on a pre-order list, Nothing available to buy. I haven't quoted the rest of your fanboy nonsense. I get you don't like Nikon. I get you have spent a load of you're money on Sony gear and want to justiffy your outlay but I think your judgement is seriously compromised.

Being genuinely interested in a product, going out to buy it to test it to see if it works for them and then coming to their self-drawn conclusion, and sharing said conclusion results in seriously compromised judgement, does it?

 

[NorthernFocus]

I am aware that there are many users of the 500PF that do not see any difference between it and the Nikon 500mm F4E, and as there are also quite a few that do not see any difference between the Nikon 500mm f4E and the Sigma 500mm f4S, it is easy to do the math and come out with the conclusion that the 500PF, 500E and sigma 500S all produce identical images.
There are also users that do see a difference, some users that see a noticeable difference, and even some that swear by the Nikon 500E, but don't like the 500PF...

I had the 500 f4G, 200-500, and the 500 PF. As far as sharpness I could not tell the difference in 500 f4 and the PF. So much so that I sold the 500 f4 with hopes of picking up a used 600 f4E without having to take out a mortgage. There's no question that the bokeh of the f4 looks better when you do shoot it at f4. And in some lighting conditions the bokeh of the PF can get a little weird. But I used LR metadata to analyze my history of how I use the lenses and found that less than 10 percent of the time did I shoot the 500 f4 wide open. And then mostly on song birds. For BIF and larger animals I always shot it at 5.6.

Similarly I looked at the data for a few thousand shots with the 200-500 and found that 90 percent of the time I shoot it at 500mm. And most of the shorter FL shots were made on one trip with unique conditions. So I've got the 200-500 up for sale now. I could as well glue the 500 PF to my D850 considering how little I use it for other stuff. The only thing I really miss about not having the big prime is the occasional need to use a TC. It's awfully nice to be able to go to 700mm at f5.6.

Can't speak at all to the Sigma but by all accounts I've seen it is right up there with the Nikkors for optical performance.

 

[DaveR]

Whether Morris is paid by Sony or not (at one time he was a Canon Explorer of Light and more recently he used Nikon equipment), my experience is similar to his: when using the a1, the vast majority of the time the bird's eye is in focus. No, Sony isn't paying me to promote their stuff.

Was only wondering if he was a Sony ambasssdor or not. I read his stuff and admire his work. Wouldn't think any less of him if he was.

 

[DaveR]

What a dick response. If you have spent any time on this forum and actually read threads you would know what you said is complete bullshit. I own plenty of Nikon gear and I’ve spent some money buying Sony gear to try for myself. I live in the USA and don’t have any issues getting any Sony gear I want but waited 2 years to get a 500PF and trying to get a vertical grip for a z6II I gave up and bought a Sony.

Fair enough. I don't get how you can reach a conclussion that Nikon's new offerings won't match or beat any others or that 'no one will be able to buy a Z9 till this time next year'. We simply don't know that. On Nikon's supply issues I get your point but there are supply issues with many products worldwide due to recent events. There are NO Sony A1 cameras in stock anywhere in the UK that I can see.

 

[DavidT]

Fair enough. I don't get how you can reach a conclussion that Nikon's new offerings won't match or beat any others or that 'no one will be able to buy a Z9 till this time next year'. We simply don't know that. On Nikon's supply issues I get your point but there are supply issues with many products worldwide due to recent events. There are NO Sony A1 cameras in stock anywhere in the UK that I can see.

No different then everyone who is claiming how great the Canon R3 or the Z9 will be yet we know little to nothing about them let alone used one.

 

[DaveR]

No different then everyone who is claiming how great the Canon R3 or the Z9 will be yet we know little to nothing about them let alone used one.

Indeed that is true. Equally I don't see how you can say ' I personally don't believe when you can actually buy the Z9 it will be an equal in AF performance'. You may well turn out to be right. The point is we don't know yet.

Just checked out the B&H site. Sony A1's are quoted as being in stock in 2 to 4 weeks. The 600mm is 2 to 4 months! Interesting is that Sony pruducts are restricted delivery to the UK. No delivery to the UK. I couldn't move to Sony even if I wanted to.

 

[DaveR]

Being genuinely interested in a product, going out to buy it to test it to see if it works for them and then coming to their self-drawn conclusion, and sharing said conclusion results in seriously compromised judgement, does it?

No, of course not. But stating that ' I personally don't believe when you can actually buy the Z9 it will be an equal in AF performance' or that you won't be able to buy a Z9 until this time next year does.

 

[RichF]

I, too, am sitting on the fence and trying to decide what to do.

Historically Nikon has lagged competitors and then suddenly leapfrogged them (D850 and D500 topped the Canon bodies, by a good bit, 500 PF is a hit) We can expect this with the Z9, a technology leap and then a dead time for perhaps years. Not sure why Nikon has such a hard time producing a continuous stream of break through products (other than lack of ideas). Perhaps there is a problem putting items into production, some sort of bottleneck???

I think the Z9 will be a great camera, when will there be a Z9 M2 or Z8 is anyone's guess.

 

[fcotterill]

The core issue with Mirrorless camera technology is the big companies face challenges to design (relatively) affordable cameras for action that can match a DSLR. The primary reason is the solutions exist at the bleeding edge of sensor technology. The sensor must be 'stacked' integrate solid state circuitry and near-line memory with the actual photosensitive cells.

The persisting advantage of DSLR design is the separate AF system. It can only have paid off high dividends for Nikon to clone its AF systems into successive generations of high performance prosumer DSLRs following the launch of the D3, D4, D5. The D500 and D850 embody this strategy....so it's likely similar trend will follow the D6 ie D880. Nikon surely will ignore recovery R&D invested in the D6 Autofocus Engine, even though some of software can probably be ported to Z autofocus algorithms.

Cloning the high performance AF of a MILC cannot escape making more stacked sensors at high unit cost after long lead ins of not only design but also high precision fabrication. This demands repeated layering with meticulous QC etc.

Nikon has not been sitting on its hands, as MILC technology improves. We know because their 1" industrial sensor was announced in February. This and the FX stacked sensor for the Z9 will have been worked out over the past few years as the Z system was planned before inaugural launch in August 2018.

These demands inject formidable demands in high precision with risks of unacceptably high errors in mass production. Incidentally, Nikon designs some of the key high precision lithography machines for IC fabrication.

Costs escalate in Large area sensors, with relatively lower yields from foundries working with 300mm wafers. The following post argues we can look forward to these costs dropping as manufacturing scales up fab methods to 450mm wafers with higher yields- chasing after more sensors for AI etc

 

[fcotterill]

It is blatantly obvious Mirrorless technology is still maturing - as all the main camera producers iterate new models at a relatively high rate.

As it has become clear the performance of the top end cameras hinges on advances in sensor technology: and especially stacked sensors which integrate high performance AF to match a leading Nikon DSLR. In practice, only the action genres require this level of performance in an ILC. It is clear DSLR or MILC can deliver n other genres: and older DSLRs (eg D3) still deliver the images for professional photographers' livelihoods.

So it follows we can expect - in a few years hence - the maturation of stacked sensor technology should surpass the AF performance of contemporary DSLRs... AND unit stacked sensors will become more affordable.

Currently, stacked sensors are much more expensive than the orthodox image sensors in DSLRs, and set the cost of a high MILC at a premium. Embedding the AF in the sensor also constrains cloned an advanced AF system into a range of camera bodies, which Nikon has done several times in DSLRs.

As fabrication technologies improve to feed demand to build the 'Internet of Things', stacked sensors should become more commonly utilized at lower unit costs. Until then, I will wait for MILC cameras to (1) mature, and 2) be more affordable. By then the Z system should total over 30 lenses, and I can still use my investment in G and E and other lenses seamlessly.

Compiled in 2019, this slide presentation points to immanent expansion in sensor manufacturing to move beyond the current impasse at 300mm wafers with current technology to Large Area Technology based on 450mm dia. wafers, and allied advances in spluttering and stacking sensors.

Lowering Production Cost of "Big MEMS (and Sensors)" Chip Technologies using Large Area Manufacturing Techniques

Lowering Production Cost of "Big MEMS (and Sensors)" Chip Technologies using Large Area Manufacturing Techniques - Download as a PDF or view online for free

www.slideshare.net

 

[fcotterill]

Finally, and I will go away after this to take some photographs (with a D850)....

It is well worth reading through the cited articles and keys posts in this thread, including essays by Thom Hogan and interviews with Nikon's executives. Nikon will look utterly gormless if the Z9 performance falls short of their predictions. If they are wrong.... well, enough said. It will be very surprising indeed if this camera does NOT deliver on the claims.

For anyone intrigued by the remarkable intricacies of evolving sensor technology, I learnt a lot from the key posts by electronics expert Bob Newman (in a cited dpr thread) about image sensors.

Z9 it is....

Makes sound sense. All these features for the Z9 are entirely achievable https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/what-the-z9-needs-to-satisf.html

bcgforums.com

 

[JP Onstwedder]

A lot of the autofocus performance is now data processing and software: sensors generate so much data that *can* be used to recognise faces and eyes, to follow and anticipate movement that the overall performance is just as much as case of software algorithms and processor speed as it is lens focus motor speed and positioning accuracy. And software can be improved dramatically without requiring major hardware changes. It's one reason why so many were/are disappointed with the Z II cameras - the dual processor architecture implied greater improvements than the cameras delivered. It may be that the entire 'pipe' for data processing has a bottleneck in the current Z's; or that the software is still not integrated fully with the existing autofocus firmware; either way, Nikon has been sounding very confident on the Z9 performance and I am happy to wait to see if they deliver or not.

 

[ChrisM]

I had the 500 f4G, 200-500, and the 500 PF. As far as sharpness I could not tell the difference in 500 f4 and the PF. So much so that I sold the 500 f4 with hopes of picking up a used 600 f4E without having to take out a mortgage. There's no question that the bokeh of the f4 looks better when you do shoot it at f4. And in some lighting conditions the bokeh of the PF can get a little weird. But I used LR metadata to analyze my history of how I use the lenses and found that less than 10 percent of the time did I shoot the 500 f4 wide open. And then mostly on song birds. For BIF and larger animals I always shot it at 5.6.

Similarly I looked at the data for a few thousand shots with the 200-500 and found that 90 percent of the time I shoot it at 500mm. And most of the shorter FL shots were made on one trip with unique conditions. So I've got the 200-500 up for sale now. I could as well glue the 500 PF to my D850 considering how little I use it for other stuff. The only thing I really miss about not having the big prime is the occasional need to use a TC. It's awfully nice to be able to go to 700mm at f5.6.

Can't speak at all to the Sigma but by all accounts I've seen it is right up there with the Nikkors for optical performance.

One question that comes to mind after reading about your experiences (and that of many others) is that, if a larger f4 lens with conventional optics has so little over the 500 f5.6 lens, then why would you ever buy a 600mm f4 lens, much larger and heavier still? Why not simply put a 1.4TC on a 500/4 lens or crop the images from the 500PF?

 

[DaveR]

Finally, and I will go away after this to take some photographs (with a D850)....

Z9 it is....

Makes sound sense. All these features for the Z9 are entirely achievable https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/what-the-z9-needs-to-satisf.html

bcgforums.com

Just got back after a good trip out with my D850. I hope you did the same.

Thanks for your interesting links and insights into stacked sensors. It is the fact that Nikon moved away from using Sony sensors to develop their own that gives me hope, rather than confidence, that Nikon can come up with something special with the Z9.

There are a couple of areas that you didn't mention that also fuel my optimism. The new processor that Nikon have developed for the Z9. It will have at least one of these installed and this is a key component in maximising the performance it can get out of the new sensor.

Another is advances in AF technology such as Quad Pixel AF. At the moment if you're holding your camera horizontally and the edge you're focusing on is also horizontal, then you may find that the AF can struggle. I have read about this problem with some bird photographers saying that they have trouble getting focus on a perch and having to twist the camera sideways to achieve it. Having four 'sub-pixels' would theoretically mean that a camera would be able to lock onto high contrast areas – no matter what orientation the camera or the subject is. At present I have only read about Canon working on this for their upcoming flagship R1 but other manufacturers must surely looking at this too. I would at least hope Nikon is.

Canon EOS R1 to include Quad Pixel AF and a global shutter?

The Canon EOS R1 is one of the most hotly anticipated cameras this year – and specs rumors are already rolling in

www.digitalcameraworld.com

I share your view that things are moving fast with these new cameras and the technology and it is better to wait a while to see how it matures.