Sensible perspective! About where my head is too.
Will the Nikon Z9 Deliver?
- Thread starter Abinoone
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
eaj101
Well-known member
Back up a second. DSLR and mirrorless autofocus are two fundamentally different architectures and technologies. There is, perhaps, some overlap in how you might implement object awareness (e.g. recognize a bird after you've collected the focus data), but that's about it. From what I have read the D6 has an amazing amount of processing power devoted to the AF module alone.
The decision to create the Z6/7 rather than a high-end camera probably had a lot of factors to it, but targeting the middle of the market probably made some sense. It is, after all, exactly what Sony did with the A7.
The decision to create the Z6/7 rather than a high-end camera probably had a lot of factors to it, but targeting the middle of the market probably made some sense. It is, after all, exactly what Sony did with the A7.
FB101
Well-known member
You’re absolutely correct and that’s exactly Nikon’s conundrum right now. They have for the last 6 years been the king of the hill for wildlife at a range of prices. From D500 to D850 to D5/6 with 200/500 to 500pf to 600 f:4. They are all superbly capable options from $4k to $20k. And now they are out to pastures in mirrorless for that segment while the others have not just closed the gap but brought functionalities we never dreamt of on a dSLR.
it doesn’t make the Z6/7 II bad cameras - at their price points they offer a lot for anything but action.
it could be that it was Nikon’s smartest financial decision... but somehow I doubt it. Letting down your most loyal core, that buys your high margin gear with the hope to convert back a higher percentage of the “bigger segment” is a very risky move if intentional (I suspect it was more dictated by what they were able to do, not a strategic decision).
I came across several wildlife photographers in recent years who sold off all their Canon gear and switched to Nikon "because of the D850." One of them said over and over how when he sold his Canon rig he "took a bath," and he also complained bitterly about Nikon's "horrible menu system" (as we all know, the quality of a menu system is very much conditioned by what you have become accustomed to).
Here it is three years since I met that poor guy who took the financial bath, and now there are people who are considering dumping all of their Nikon gear, mostly for the sake of switching to Sony, but some are thinking in terms of Canon, as well (the R5 is a big hit with bird photographers). Going back in time, there was that period when Canon had those wonderful IS superteles and Nikon was lagging in this area. Lots of my friends who shot Nikon switched to Canon.
But then Nikon caught up. And now Sony and Canon are ahead of Nikon in areas that are important to wildlife photographers. Is this a forever thing, a two-year thing, or what? Nikon has had uniquely unfortunate setbacks, including flooding in a factory in Thailand, plus some dumb marketing decisions (Nikon 1). Canon has deeper pockets. Sony may or may not have deeper pockets, depending on whom you ask (I think it does). Is Nikon reeling on its last legs, or is it preparing for another big comeback?
Stay tuned!
FB101
Well-known member
Indeed. I changed from canon to Nikon back in 2014 and took the proverbial bath - at the time, canon sensors were so far behind that i really couldn’t see myself staying with canon. It took me a while to get used to Nikon, but I now love that system. But considering that moving mirrorless at some point, will trigger changing most lenses I own, regardless of the brand, it gives the opportunity to rethink which one I want for the long run. Staying Nikon will delay and stretch out the cost impact by managing some adapted lenses, but will also delay getting access to the new capabilities offered by mirrorless; going canon now speeds up the financial pain but also the reward...
And that's the difference this go around versus past temptations to switch brands. By changing mounts Nikon threw the doors wide open. Not a good time to also fall behind with the technology. I have no doubt it is the right long term technical decision. Question is whether they can survive the short/mid term business impacts.
I read an article some while back(which I unfortunately don't have a link for) which explained why the AF on the Z bodies adapted to G/E series lenses is slower than on DSLRs. It is a fundamental technical limitation. So even when the Z9 comes out it is not likely going to satisfy pro sports/wildlife shooters unless/until it is paired with S mount telephoto lenses. So the switch for pros involves a whole new locker of lenses regardless of whether they stick with Nikon or not. A very risky proposition for Nikon.
I can only think that Nikon was banking on the AF and speed of DSLRs would continue to outshine mirrorless for at least a couple of more years at the high end of the market. Oooops
FB101
Well-known member
I have read that same article and I am surprised that very little noise was made about it; I guess it was too technical to attract much interest. In short, the article explained how Nikon dSLRs acquire focus vs other brands (and there is a fundamental difference), why it gave them an edge in dSLRs (which we all enjoyed) and why it doesn't work well for a mirrorless AF algorithm. It flew over my head in terms of engineering but I took away the fact that, as you said, an F lens adapted to a Z mount is likely never going to focus as fast as a canon EF lens adapted to an R body.And that's the difference this go around versus past temptations to switch brands. By changing mounts Nikon threw the doors wide open. Not a good time to also fall behind with the technology. I have no doubt it is the right long term technical decision. Question is whether they can survive the short/mid term business impacts.
I read an article some while back(which I unfortunately don't have a link for) which explained why the AF on the Z bodies adapted to G/E series lenses is slower than on DSLRs. It is a fundamental technical limitation. So even when the Z9 comes out it is not likely going to satisfy pro sports/wildlife shooters unless/until it is paired with S mount telephoto lenses. So the switch for pros involves a whole new locker of lenses regardless of whether they stick with Nikon or not. A very risky proposition for Nikon.
I can only think that Nikon was banking on the AF and speed of DSLRs would continue to outshine mirrorless for at least a couple of more years at the high end of the market. Oooops
Financially a great move for Nikon as we'll need to renew all the lenses... assuming people stick around long enough.
It has been discussed for some years that the F mount had limitations that would eventually vex Nikon and force a change in mount architecture. Note that Canon made their switch back in the eighties to the EOS mount system. Nikon has always taken price in the backwards compatibility of their lenses, and this probably influenced them to postpone a full-out change of mounts. but the switch to the Z mount was inevitable and necessary. This is indeed necessarily a painful period for Nikon in this regard, on top of the other setbacks the company has experienced. It is certainly not at all surprising that adapted F mount lenses on Z mount cameras bring compromised performance, however slight.
Right, Canon made the second change to the R system. But I do suspect that having already made one major change to its mount system made it easier to make that second change. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I am sure. But it is the case that yes, Nikon tried very hard to maintain backwards compatibility for years after some observers pointed out that the F mount was not for forever.
Not relevant to my thoughts that both the A1 and Z9 are irrelevant to most of us. The body is $6.5K and the lenses to actually use what the body an do make the total cost in the $20K to $30K range…which few of us are either able to spend or perhaps both able and willing…simply because the bang for the buck isn't there for hobbyists.
Yes…if I had 100 million bucks in the bank I would certainly buy one…and I could actually afford to buy a complete Z8 or A1 rig with all the lenses and all…but realistically (a) that's way more camera than the skills of the vast majority of us need, (b) it's a hobby for most of us an not our livelihood, and (c) what do we do with our images.
Add in the limited availability of the A1 and I'm sure the Z9 will be similar…those bodies and the associated expensive lens kit to go along with them make sense for professional photographers who make their living from their images. For the vast majority of the rest of us…yeah, they're very nice but most of us will make the bang for the buck analysis and go with something cheaper. I'm sure that the A1/Z9 are 'better' technically than the $3,500 bodies most hobbyists can/will buy…but the incremental gain for those users seems slight compared to the cost.
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
Don't get me wrong I am totally fine with the fact people don't want to spend that much on one, but...
Does Sony A1 work well with 200-600 ?: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
Alpha 1 with 200-600 G Approx. $8400- tack sharp, eye auto focus on dogs running 45 mph, beautiful color and bokeh.
Last edited by a moderator:
No need to go farther than these forums to see the A1/200-600 pair up well.Don't get me wrong I am totally fine with the fact people don't want to spend that much on one, but...
Does Sony A1 work well with 200-600 ?: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
I don't understand the $20-30 grand claims so this is a great example of basically perfect photos for under $10k on an alpha 1 telephoto zoom lens.
Man I can't type at all today....edit
O
Well-known member
I was on the fence about going Canon. I am disappointed with Nikon. I got the 500pf and used it for a month. Nothing was in focus so it went to Nikon. Got it back and its excellent now. Now I have the z6 and the 24-200. I just sent the lens back to Nikon because I get 10% in focus. Im sure it will come back and be a great lens. I bought the 70-200 2.8 from BH and this time I sent it back to get a good copy. But I saw 2 people on FB book that I know who just got the R5 and posted. The color to me looked so off, to magenta maybe. I changed my mind, They know what they are doing but I did not like the color. I also hate the start up time on the z6. Nothing is perfect and I cant afford the better newer z coming out. I will stick with the D500, D850 and Z6 for landscape and kids. Maybe the future updates with fix the black out and start up time. Come on Nikon Wake UP
Talk about a run of bad luck
.I have heard from several people about issues with the R5 color rendition in RAW files. So it is something that is "out there" in the Canon world.
I don't like the startup delay issue with the Z cameras either (mine is the Z7); I try to touch the shutter button before I bring the camera to my eye so that it's already started up by the time I look through the viewfinder. I would be surprised if this can be fixed through a firmware update, but I expect that the next generation of mirrorless cameras will improve in this regard. I really can't afford the Z9, either, but the longer the time that passes before I can get one the more likely I am to somehow, some way, scrape up the money. I actually figure that if I preorder one as soon as orders open, I probably still will have months of delays during which to arrange the financing. I think this way because even though I probably would more ideally like a "Z8" model more akin to the R5, I don't think we will see this on the market for a couple of years yet
DaveR
Active member
There is another unkown factor in all this. The new Z mount long glass. There have been no details of what this might be other than there will be a 400mm and 600m S class along with a 200-600 zoom. No details of max aperature or weight on these lenses.
This thread has gone to five pages now with everyone's thoughts on the Z9 body and how good the AF will be with no mention of the single most important factor. What is going to be on the front of the new Z9?
In my dreams Nikon come up with an ultra sharp 600mm 2.8 which weighs the same as the 500pf and performs flawlessly with a 2x TC. Ain't going to happen I know but Nikon have a history of coming up with top quality and innovative optics.
This thread has gone to five pages now with everyone's thoughts on the Z9 body and how good the AF will be with no mention of the single most important factor. What is going to be on the front of the new Z9?
In my dreams Nikon come up with an ultra sharp 600mm 2.8 which weighs the same as the 500pf and performs flawlessly with a 2x TC. Ain't going to happen I know but Nikon have a history of coming up with top quality and innovative optics.
Last edited:
eaj101
Well-known member
It's a great point. Nikon has always maintained that the capabilities of the Z mount are as important as mirrorless camera technology itself. The mount, they claim, offers them the opportunity to design optics that were never possible before. They may have a point - other than the halo product of the 58mm f.95 (who will buy it, anyway?) Nikon seems to have produced some of the sharpest lenses anyone has ever seen, from any vendor. I don't know what advantages larger throat diameter and shorter flange distance offer for long glass.
Interesting times
O
Well-known member
It's a great point. Nikon has always maintained that the capabilities of the Z mount are as important as mirrorless camera technology itself. The mount, they claim, offers them the opportunity to design optics that were never possible before. They may have a point - other than the halo product of the 58mm f.95 (who will buy it, anyway?) Nikon seems to have produced some of the sharpest lenses anyone has ever seen, from any vendor. I don't know what advantages larger throat diameter and shorter flange distance offer for long glass.
Interesting times
There are very important reasons for the larger diameter lenses and lens mount across the board, there are experts that can add more scientific facts, however from a simple hypotheses of mine, the principals relate to..........
Light is a photon made up or red green and blue, the more light the better everything is.
1) faster easier more transmission of light edge to edge equals better edged to edge sharpness and tracking performance especially needed for video.
2) easier/more transmission of light equals better focus speed and accuracy.
3) it just adds more light performance which equals better more accurate colours and less ISO needs not friendly to Video, I mean Nikon knows Video is the future especially for sports action ..........period.
4) it allows for better balance given the Z bodies are smaller and lighter.
5) here is my Leon Musk mentality moment showing.......its future proofing, a drop on the opposition who have tooled up and made lens that suites the old 35mm narrow mount, Nikon tooled up and made for the new generation of Z lenses with no determent lenses and bodies that can jump to other than 35mm sensor sizes, ie: they can go to a 40 mp DX equivalent medium format sensor, this should have the drop on the Sony and Canon mob should they wish to catch up........also Sony and Canon will need to resell new lenses a second time to catch up to Nikon, this wont go down well wit Sony Canon owners.
As for the Z9
The end game...if the Z9 comes out with 40 to 60mp with 20-60 FPS with accurate focus and tracking it will make all of the Nikon gear currently used totally obsolete for sports action wildlife, Nikon would then introduce refreshed versions of the Z6 and Z7 containing the key features of the Z9 at a affordable price......Bingo there is the 3rd sting.
The industry Pie is not big enough for the G3, the near future main game is with a minimum bet table now calling for 50-80 mp 30-60 fps and first-class video with full G5 G6.... 8 k with video direct connectivity or you will need to get out of the game.
I feel it will be 2022 to 2023 before we see a string of affordable enthusiast drill down models from the Z9 new technology assuming its even successful or better still exists, I pray it dose.
A digressing thought, Driving to Hanover airport from Delmenhorst Germany to catch a flight, the V8 Audi was beautifully and controllably sliding nicely sideways on the entry ramp leading on to the expressway, nice traction control, it was raining and super dark no overhead lights late in the evening, two weeks after landing home in New York I got an A4 sized letter in the mail with a huge speeding fine, thinking I could getaway with it by saying my German girlfriend was driving, sadly no, as on page two there was a lovely super clear portrait shot of my face clear, eyes open, both hands on the steering wheel, the face image was in a 3 inch circle the rest of the page outside was black .....120klm on a sweeping bend taken from a two inch size square sensor that looks similar to a normal reflector hidden on the armco.....safety rail, there was no flashing light that I ever saw, so how the hell can that be possible. My friends in Germany said yes you cant see them they are highly accurate. That was 20 years ago, so the technology is there, why aren't we seeing it............
Only a Hypothesis and opinion
Oz down Under
ChrisM
Well-known member
I think I could and would have stomached the 6500,- that a Z9 will cost if there had been a truly interesting lens to put in front of it. I don't see the coming Z400/2.8 and Z600/4 as anything other than core lenses for the professional long shooter and perhaps the odd enthusiast with really deep pockets. Apart from the Z400/600 pair though, Nikon is dropping off to large scale amateur glass with the Z200-600, or perhaps that lens will be a big surprise. It will not be faster than f6.3 at the long end though.
I decided to get a Sigma 500mm f4 sports and stick with the D500 for the coming years. But as soon as Nikon releases a Z600mm f5.6PF or a Z500mm f4PF, I will sell all I have and buy a Z9 with either of these lenses.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Well.....to get back to some critical optical criteria wrt ILC systems. Bottom line, only Canon and Nikon present the diversity of telephotos (and more) for the pragmatic pioneer buying into one of the rapidly growing Mirrorless systems. Even for a photographer starting from scratch, the many dozens of options to choose in F mount glass (EF also) gives the vaster majority of photographers pragmatic options - notably Used and in telephotos especially thanks to Canon's and Nikon's respective adapters.
As for Z Mount lenses... A recent review rates the 24-200 Z as most sound investment: even if respective Z primes outperform this zoom . Only a consumer kit zoom, which raises intriguing questions about the 100-400 S Line particularly - and not least the other "consumer' telephoto zoom, the 200-600. As we also know, the 70-200 f2.8S receives accolades, and with expanded options with the pair of Z-TCs. Bettering the F-mount TCs is one thing, but overtake the IQ in status of the 70-200 f2.8E, because this older F model version is rated best optically for DSLRs even though all the fast f2.8 zooms in this class are very sound optics.
As for Z Mount lenses... A recent review rates the 24-200 Z as most sound investment: even if respective Z primes outperform this zoom
. Only a consumer kit zoom, which raises intriguing questions about the 100-400 S Line particularly - and not least the other "consumer' telephoto zoom, the 200-600. As we also know, the 70-200 f2.8S receives accolades, and with expanded options with the pair of Z-TCs. Bettering the F-mount TCs is one thing, but overtake the IQ in status of the 70-200 f2.8E, because this older F model version is rated best optically for DSLRs even though all the fast f2.8 zooms in this class are very sound optics.
Last edited:
DaveR
Active member
I always wondered why Nikon didn't follow up the 500pf with a 600mm version. I did read somewhere (sorry couldn't find the original article) that fresnel lenses are hard to manufacture as they require a lengthy 'curing' process. I hope I have remembered that right. I'm guessing a 600mm version would end up with a max aperture of f8 which would mean their DSLRs would be limited to the central focussing points. I think you might face a long wait for a 600 f5.6pf.
O
Well-known member
It would be great for the long lenses 400 or 600 F4 to be light and smaller exploiting the FL feature even more by becoming smaller fat boys, now shortening may effect the bokah we love at F4 which looks like a 300 f2.8 at 2,8 on the 600mm lens, so increasing the diameter and shortening the length brings some of it back, ie: like the designee for the 200mm F2 fat boy, so in my dreams more a fat boy 600mm F2 would be the ticket, also with all having built in TC of 1.4. and x2 that works perfectly.
As to 200-600 it becomes a 3 times magnification which is ok as apposed to the 200-500 at 2.5 to 1, this may be a trade off unless they make it FL super light and fat boy which allows them to peel it back to F4 better still F2.8 is possible if they want, I mean the 70-200 FL is an awesome example of the concept just exploit the concept..
This is all achievable in my dreams, if Nikon wants to care about the customers, however they have clever management who think differently and focus on hidden agendas and financial politics.
In my dreams I often think of becoming the CEO or assistant CEO of Nikon and driving the business into the present and the future with clever innovations that work and deliver a bottom line never seen before in Nikons history.......please don't wake me just now LOL, I mean really Nikon needs a rocket right up its back side.
Investing in new or alternative systems comprises of a major $ loss on current gear and major expense on ramped up over priced to the hilt new gear in the face of massive lower cost of production gear..........crazy. Nikon doesn't see the current loyal mature customers as its future as they are the obsolete generation.........or is it that the G3 will become G2 after all....
Enjoy what you have, don't waste your time over something till it lands at your feet and that works............
Only an opinion Oz down under.
ChrisM
Well-known member
The patent for a 600mm f5.6PF was there allright, together with the patent for the 500PF.
I think it would be completely possible to produce a 600mm f5.6PF at the 33cm long of the patent. And I would expect it to be in the lowish 2kg, 2,3 or something, and priced around the price of the Z9.
I have given up all hope for such a lens already though, because it ventures away from the non-professional segment too much regarding price as well as performance, and that could explain why even though Canon and Nikon do have high quality DO and PF technology, they will not make a 6000,- lens that invades the professional 600mm f4 reserve. Canon did use their DO technology however to make a 600mm f11.....
Going by all the comments of 500PF owners how the 500PF makes 500/4 lenses redundant, I would expect a succesfull 600mm f5.6PF or DO to disturb the lens market in a way that Nikon nor Canon nor Sony would want. 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 lenses reside in a seperate class and that will remain status quo, I no longer doubt that. The only other way to reach out to 600mm will be territory of the super zooms. In other words, I expect it to be a tactical choice to keep the devide between pro lenses and the rest.