Will the Nikon Z9 Deliver?

[NorthernFocus]

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..

Presumably much of this is based on an intuitive feel for the various lenses mentioned. Unfortunately intuitions often misleads us. Particularly when physics and economics are involved. For example, the concept of the "fat boy" 200mm. This seems to imply that by some design trick Nikon was able to achieve higher magnification with a shorter and larger diameter stack on that particular lens. However if one looks past the intuitive feel to the facts they reveal the opposite. Of the "exotic" telephotos the 600mm f4 already has the shortest, "fattest" dimensions. Consider the following comparison of equivalent focal length vs physical length of three of the "exotics":

200mm f2 actual length = 203mm
400mm f2.8 actual length = 358mm
600mm f4 actual length = 432mm

So relative to the equivalent focal length the 600 f4 is already the "shortest and fattest". Which begs the question, if it's 432mm long why is it called a 600mm lens? And why do other optics like binos and spotting scopes use a magnification factor like 6x, 9x, etc, rather than focal length? I won't bore those who don't care with the explanation. Those with inquiring minds can Google it for themselves.

 

[fcotterill]

The excellence of this longest Z Dragon - aka 70-200 f2.8S - is pertinent to statements dismissing the FTZ to be inferior / too slow - so much so as to be impractical?!? Where's the link that has compared the AF of the E + FTZ and S 70-200 on a Zed to prove the FTZ is best avoided? Currently this is the only comparable pair of F and Z Nikkors with which a reviewer such Rob Cicala at LensRentals could evaluate any impacts of the FTZ on missed images. Using the same Z cameras with each lens and their respective TC's in controlled conditions etc etc

My own experience with the FTZ on several F telephotos is AF performance in the field has no limitations on a Z7 ( including 70-200 f2.8E, 300 PF, 500 PF, 200 f2G VRII, 400 f2.8E FL, and with all 3 Teleconverters). Yes, there is a discernable speed difference demonstrated if one cranks time to focus from MFD to & fro infinity. Does this slight difference in AF speed matter when photographing wildlife on a Z camera? Absolutely Not.

I found there are - and remain - a Z camera far greater constraints on challenging wildlife subjects. Personally, I find the underwhelming Custom settings the most serious - the inability to optimize switching between 3-4 complimentary AF modes (ie Instant-Switching using AFOn + Autofocus Mode assigned to Fn, PV etc). Priced at $2 K and more a Zed camera should not be missing such core features, especially as they have been available in the less expensive D500. And a Used D850 or Used D5 do not cost much more :

Custom Settings (Nikon DSLRs) for (Fleeting) Wildlife Subjects

I have refined the following Custom setups linking menus with control buttons on a D500 and latterly D850. These have proven to work rather well, particularly captures of fleeting animals and birds. However, Nikon has designed these features primarily to help Pro sports photographers capture...

bcgforums.com

If I could justify a 3rd or 4th Z camera to back up my prosumer DSLRs, then as their features dictate, the Zeds will only do silent shooting (with bonus of industry leading lowlight IQ (is D5 / D6 standards) in the Z6 cameras). Currently, my DSLRs deliver very very well with my F-mount lenses (and I'm not alone in substantial investment in several of the best yet built).

As I just concluded in a current thread here comparing 'budget' MILC systems for wildlife.... the lenses are the crux, as the quality and the reliability has always been the overriding factor in investing in a photographic system with minimal losses... "...change the Bodies, Keep the Lenses...".

As for the core question of this thread. The Z9 will deliver for the reasons given. If the AF and Custom options matches those in the D5, then will deliver in spades. Better than that will be a bonus

 

[O]

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.

Interesting, but I wonder where is the future market for sales are in the professional area, the professional market is dwindling with no singe of pulling up the decline, and there isn't enough market left to go around for the all in the G3, the sports action market is being hijacked with new technology demand like Drones and streaming Video.........Nikon heavily culled their NPS sector for a reason.

Agree the slots for the F4 exotics will be there but gee if you want to take the company forward in sales and growth, the scouts need to saddle up the horses and pave the way to the wild west of the huge middle class by actually delivering innovation and engaging with the new generation, the old ways of doing business has changed the world is a new place,

Its like 3 hungry bears facing winter soon all three are at the waters edge skinner and weaker each season, waiting for the Salmon that are later each year and dramatically less in numbers each year.
Converting FX users to Mirrorless cameras and lenses is one way to carry through for a while to place numbers of some recovery on the boards table, but in reality what then............

There is not enough salmon for 3 bears to grow big and fat, unless ?
I hope Nikon comes good on its claims and plans.
I wont invest in the new Z9 system for the first 2 years if at all, for the occasional special needs I find hiring is more cost effective........especially given the plethora of model releases and tech changes ahead.

Only an opinion Oz down under

 

[O]

I think it would be nice to focus on photography and enjoy what we have...........that's a nice thought now isn't it.

Oz down under

 

[NorthernFocus]

The patent for a 600mm f5.6PF was there allright, together with the patent for the 500PF....

Interesting you should mention that. When the first rumors came out about a PF supertele it was regarding the 600mm. For my part I'm so infatuated with the PF lenses that if Nikon came out with a 600mm PF for the S mount I would likely stick with them for the mirrorless journey rather than jump ship. However, per your post above I'm not holding my breath. I suppose only Nikon has the data to decide whether sales of the 500mm PF made them more money than they lost through reduced volume sales of the 500 f4. But based on what we've seen from them in the recent past how they base their decisions on what/when makes it to market is a total mystery.

 

[DRwyoming]

I suppose only Nikon has the data to decide whether sales of the 500mm PF made them more money than they lost through reduced volume sales of the 500 f4.

I'm not sure Nikon has seen any problems with the sales volume of any of their super telephoto lenses considering they're all sold out across the board with waiting lists even when the 500mm PF is in stock with many suppliers. IOW, it's very hard to find a new 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 right now but not hard at all to find a 500mm PF in stock at major suppliers so it doesn't seem the PF lens is cannibalizing Nikon's long lens market judging in simple supply and demand terms.

 

[JANuser]

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

If all you shoot is wildlife, sure. If you also use a set of high end 2.8 zooms or fast primes for, you know shooting other things, it adds up fast.

 

[fcotterill]

links about Nikon's patents for PF lenses and interview after launch of the 300 f4E PF

More Nikon PF Lenses?

I think the PF technology is incredible! However, none of the existing lenses using it are exactly what I want from it. So I thought it would be interesting to talk about other possibilities for the technology. For me, I wish they were slightly heavier. Not cause I want more weight but because I...

bcgforums.com

Some time back there was a poll here asking which PF lens people want the most, which I cannot find using the search tools on this forum

 

[fcotterill]

links about Nikon's patents for PF lenses and interview after launch of the 300 f4E PF

More Nikon PF Lenses?

I think the PF technology is incredible! However, none of the existing lenses using it are exactly what I want from it. So I thought it would be interesting to talk about other possibilities for the technology. For me, I wish they were slightly heavier. Not cause I want more weight but because I...

bcgforums.com

Some time back there was a poll here asking which PF lens people want the most, but I cannot find with the search tools on this forum

Nikon continues to register new patents, including for a 70-150 Micro-Nikkor and "200mm f/4 with built in teleconverter options using a new type of TC-relay design. This produces a 200mm f/4 with 280mm f/4 (!) and 400mm f/5.6 options....." https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/two-new-lens-patents.html

 

[GrandNagus50]

There is a school of thought (expressed in other forums) maintaining that despite the well-known, alluring patent sketch of the 600mm f5.6 PF, the actual lens would be heavier and more front-heavy than some potential buyers realize, and perhaps a newer, Z mount design with a maximum f stop of 6.3 is a more likely scenario somewhere down what has become a very long lens map road. I have no idea whether this is truth, of course (somehow I feel compelled to insert this). Also, at least as of the time of the release of the 500mm f5.6 PF, the difficulty of manufacture of the PF element(s) was a bottleneck in the process and was a reason why production lagged for so long.

I think it made sense to release the 500mm version first. It is a real winner and at this point must be making Nikon a lot of money. And my goodness, the release of just about any new lens will almost necessarily reduce the demand for one or more existing lenses. In the case of the 500mm it must be pointed out that the less expensive Sigma Sport 500mm f4 has siphoned off some of the demand for Nikon's own version. Meanwhile, the 500 PF has kept a lot of Nikon wildlife photographers loyal who otherwise might already have defected, and I personally know a few people who switched to Nikon (or at least purchased a Nikon camera/lens rig) just because of this product.

There being no apparent longer focal length PF lens on the current Nikon lens map is disappointing, of course, and there is just about zero chance that Nikon will release another F mount PF lens. Meanwhile, it would be interesting to calculate (somehow) what percentage of lens design patents ever make it into production. Probably a low figure.

 

[ChrisM]

I think it would be nice to focus on photography and enjoy what we have...........that's a nice thought now isn't it.

Oz down under

Absolutely. I was set on moving to mirrorless and did not intend to spend any money on dslr bodies or lenses, but I saw no offerings from Nikon, Sony ór Canon, that I felt had the desired value for money for me.
So I decided to stay with the D500 for the coming years and purchased a Sigma 500mm f4S. I will probably never be able to sell it, but I feel it will give me more satisfaction per euro than any current mirrorless offerings. I know it is completely personal, but I simply would not enjoy a slow expensive zoom on an even more expensive body that ultimately does not at all produce better images.

 

[GrandNagus50]

I think it's possible to enjoy our photography and simultaneously also be equipment geeks. I know we are supposed to maintain that it's all about the artistry and not about the gear. But some of us unabashedly enjoy "stuff" partly for its own sake, like grownups playing with toys. Also, it's June, and in my neck of the woods, this is the slowest time of year for the kind of photography I mostly do (birds).

 

[O]

Absolutely. I was set on moving to mirrorless and did not intend to spend any money on dslr bodies or lenses, but I saw no offerings from Nikon, Sony ór Canon, that I felt had the desired value for money for me.
So I decided to stay with the D500 for the coming years and purchased a Sigma 500mm f4S. I will probably never be able to sell it, but I feel it will give me more satisfaction per euro than any current mirrorless offerings. I know it is completely personal, but I simply would not enjoy a slow expensive zoom on an even more expensive body that ultimately does not at all produce better images.

I am driven by image quality and 80 or 90% of that comes from the person behind the lens.......I did however find an amazing experience with the D850...........that saw me sell my D4s D5 with no regrets.

Oz Down Under

 

[O]

I think it's possible to enjoy our photography and simultaneously also be equipment geeks. I know we are supposed to maintain that it's all about the artistry and not about the gear. But some of us unabashedly enjoy "stuff" partly for its own sake, like grownups playing with toys. Also, it's June, and in my neck of the woods, this is the slowest time of year for the kind of photography I mostly do (birds).

Agree I am guilty your honor as charged..........I don't let it effect me in what I do and yes I have an interest at times in new technology, i held onto my D3x and passed on the D800 D810 D800E and only bought the D850 x 2 after it was out for a year to be certain it wasn't an issue even then I had to give back to Nikon for a replacement as it suffered from high noise at iso 200...I have seen a few samples like that.

Bottom line if I take out my DF D3x D850 I enjoy them all i mean you cant sell a D3X these days but gee on good glass its still super impressive and the DF hey I know exactly what it is LOL and I got it cheap new $1000 of RRP, but hey I love it for its IQ and ISO and I like to shoot it manually in mono. It hasn't the speed of the D4 or D4s but hey for what I shoot I don't need speed, my go to lens is a Zeiss 50mm 1.4 and WOW.............Nice.

Oz down under

 

[bleirer]

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

You get people on Facebook or even this forum that aren't aware that browsers are not color managed or if they are they expect srgb. You post something with prophoto or Adobe RGB imbedded and the colors will look wrong because they are wrong. Doesn't reflect on the camera, just on the fact that the one posting the pic didn't know how to convert to srgb. Then they blame their $4000 camera for having bad color.

 

[NorthernFocus]

You get people on Facebook or even this forum that aren't aware that browsers are not color managed or if they are they expect srgb. You post something with prophoto or Adobe RGB imbedded and the colors will look wrong because they are wrong. Doesn't reflect on the camera, just on the fact that the one posting the pic didn't know how to convert to srgb. Then they blame their $4000 camera for having bad color.

It's not only an issue about srgb colors. I hear people talk about differences in colors from various camera bodies as rendered in 16 bit RAW conversion software as well. In my ignorance I just assume that's dealt with in software by setting up custom profiles. Or ability to manipulate color at all for that matter

 

[bleirer]

It's not only an issue about srgb colors. I hear people talk about differences in colors from various camera bodies as rendered in 16 bit RAW conversion software as well. In my ignorance I just assume that's dealt with in software by setting up custom profiles. Or ability to manipulate color at all for that matter

I would bet cash money that you could take any higher end Canon or Nikon camera and you could use the conversion software provided by the camera maker to get a fine result. Or in lightroom, running color checker passport or similar to calibrate the colors. Third party conversion might or might not be good without fiddling with it and creating a preset. Given that each raw pixel is just a single number representing a monochrome value, there is a lot of interpretation possible with the different raw conversion methods.

Now if you or one of the regulars here told me the R5 colors were bad, I would definitely take notice.

 

[Anjin San]

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

I didn't actually add the numbers up and don't follow Sony prices…but the idea is that you're not going to buy a single telephoto zoom if you switch brands…and at least for me running two brands isn't in the cards because the menu-ing and control systems vary so much. I'm having trouble keeping up switching back between my D7500 and the Z7II and they're both Nikons. So if I was to switch to Sony and buy an A1…that's 6500 there…and spending that much on a body means you need the good lenses to match. Many folks would want the trinity of 2.8 zooms and that would be another 6000 or so which gets the number up to 12500. Now add in the long fast prime…and while I don't track Sony prices that's another 12K or 13K which gets the total cost to switch systems up in the range I talked about.

Yes…an A1 and a single tele zoom is under 10K…but that's not a complete kit.

 

[O]

I didn't actually add the numbers up and don't follow Sony prices…but the idea is that you're not going to buy a single telephoto zoom if you switch brands…and at least for me running two brands isn't in the cards because the menu-ing and control systems vary so much. I'm having trouble keeping up switching back between my D7500 and the Z7II and they're both Nikons. So if I was to switch to Sony and buy an A1…that's 6500 there…and spending that much on a body means you need the good lenses to match. Many folks would want the trinity of 2.8 zooms and that would be another 6000 or so which gets the number up to 12500. Now add in the long fast prime…and while I don't track Sony prices that's another 12K or 13K which gets the total cost to switch systems up in the range I talked about.

Yes…an A1 and a single tele zoom is under 10K…but that's not a complete kit.

We spend a fortune on gear and then we often just look at all the images on an iPad, phone, lap top, or iMac, or a forum, LOL...only joking, but what do people really do with their images and where do they go in the end.
My grandkids will look at the amount of images and the gear and likely put them all out in the street when I am gone.......LOL

I hear you on the cost of change or renewal, and it doesn't stop there, I think if we could put more energy into actual photography and composition we may detoxify a little.
I am all for new technology and that stuff but gee one needs to know when to jump of the merry go round to stop the head spin and games and look at things logically as to what really matters.

I mean if you cant get stunning results with the gear you have then hey why upgrade.

Only and Opinion Oz down under

 

[O]

I would bet cash money that you could take any higher end Canon or Nikon camera and you could use the conversion software provided by the camera maker to get a fine result. Or in lightroom, running color checker passport or similar to calibrate the colors. Third party conversion might or might not be good without fiddling with it and creating a preset. Given that each raw pixel is just a single number representing a monochrome value, there is a lot of interpretation possible with the different raw conversion methods.

Now if you or one of the regulars here told me the R5 colors were bad, I would definitely take notice.

I find that the Nikon D850 20-200 FL Z6 Z7 and Z lenses have hands down the best and most accurate colours straight out of camera hence I prefer OEM glass on OEM bodies for synergy's sake.
Why because 98% of what I shoot is only ever in Jpeg Fine...........for serious large stuff I use TIFF with raw editor and NIK. I don't need any more, and I am anti subscriptions, I don't sit and edit images all day but hey that's me.
If its a serious job with serious money I out source editing to people that are simply graphic designee masters and for $35 a pop for a money shot then just print at a lab.
When you even put images into serious club competitions against some serious people with high end gear and someone wins image out right Merit and image of the month taken on a Samsung 10 phone then one needs to ask the question...........!!!!!! this doesn't mean phones are better, its just the best camera at the time was the one in the hand and the moment caught spoke volumes.

Only an opinion

Oz down Under

 

[GrandNagus50]

I would bet cash money that you could take any higher end Canon or Nikon camera and you could use the conversion software provided by the camera maker to get a fine result. Or in lightroom, running color checker passport or similar to calibrate the colors. Third party conversion might or might not be good without fiddling with it and creating a preset. Given that each raw pixel is just a single number representing a monochrome value, there is a lot of interpretation possible with the different raw conversion methods.

Now if you or one of the regulars here told me the R5 colors were bad, I would definitely take notice.

One well-known bird photographer of my acquaintance complained in his public review of the R5 about how poorly Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom handle raw files from the camera. Yes, it appears ultimately to be an Adobe issue, not Canon's, but I suppose for R5 owners having to implement a workaround is annoying.

 

[FB101]

You get people on Facebook or even this forum that aren't aware that browsers are not color managed or if they are they expect srgb. You post something with prophoto or Adobe RGB imbedded and the colors will look wrong because they are wrong. Doesn't reflect on the camera, just on the fact that the one posting the pic didn't know how to convert to srgb. Then they blame their $4000 camera for having bad color.

Actually the R5 issue is well known; the Adobe LRc profiles aren’t up to snuff yet. Just develop in DPP or spend $25 on independent profiles and the color issue goes away.

 

[O]

You get people on Facebook or even this forum that aren't aware that browsers are not color managed or if they are they expect srgb. You post something with prophoto or Adobe RGB imbedded and the colors will look wrong because they are wrong. Doesn't reflect on the camera, just on the fact that the one posting the pic didn't know how to convert to srgb. Then they blame their $4000 camera for having bad color.

100% spot on you should have been a doctor LOL so well said,.

Regardless of what anyone says the moment you transmit an image through the internet in any way it changes to a degree sometimes fractionally sometimes more.
Even using Drop Box sending a 600mb Tiff or Raw image, Drop Box is not necessarily an issue its the Telco, here in Oz its Telstra and you cant send or receive anything without going through them, which is like your AT and T thing I don't know what you have there ??? the other thing is images can look different on a lap top compared to say a 27 ins iMac or 30 inch mac screen or a high end Ezio screen, also all different devices have different quality graphics cards which have a huge effect on images and how there seen.

I see this image variation so often especially from digital club comp entries, even in this forum images are ok but do differ but that's just a synergy issue not necessarily a sole forum viewing issue.
Yes there are camera and lens samples that are off song, defiantly, yes the G3 are known for consistently putting out a lot crap samples from time to time because they know most consumer or armatures couldn't tell the difference or know what their looking at with an off song item. I think its still acceptable running at an industry device reject 6.% or issue rate ? I might be out of date here. What ever happened 0.5%.

If I get a new camera or lens I drop it in to Nikon here in Sydney there awesome, I get a full 100% check over on their high tech factory replica computer, I do this with all my lenses as well, sometimes things need a tweak but often not, at least I am not going to Tasmania or New Zealand for 3 weeks to find out I have issues in the filed........and wasted shots.

A good carpenter neve blames his tolls LOL.

Only an opinion

Oz Down under

 

[O]

Absolutely. I was set on moving to mirrorless and did not intend to spend any money on dslr bodies or lenses, but I saw no offerings from Nikon, Sony ór Canon, that I felt had the desired value for money for me.
So I decided to stay with the D500 for the coming years and purchased a Sigma 500mm f4S. I will probably never be able to sell it, but I feel it will give me more satisfaction per euro than any current mirrorless offerings. I know it is completely personal, but I simply would not enjoy a slow expensive zoom on an even more expensive body that ultimately does not at all produce better images.

I have 150,00 actuations left on my D3X, 130,000 on the DF, 150,000 on D850 one, 170,000 on D850 two, good glass on these say like the 70-200 fL deliver outstanding results.
A Z 7II is not going to do anything different to the D850 at 9fs..........other than offer VR on the sensor which I don't need as I have it on the lens and always seem to shoot at reasonable speeds anyway.
Yes the new gear is great but why spend 90% of the money to get a 5% gain, I know its not everyone's cup of tea to think like this but gee whiz if its standing still the iPhone 12 pro documents some nice images for day to day stuff.
My eye is on the drill down models from the Z9 killer if it ever delivers but that doesn't mean I will change as i am over 35mm and eye off 100mp Pluss Medium format as 35mm has been massively and will even be more so overpriced going forward.
Hire a MF 100 mp camera or larger just for a weekend and take some landscape sea scape shots, it will show you how much you are missing out one with 35mm.

Only an opinion

Oz down under

 

[O]

Presumably much of this is based on an intuitive feel for the various lenses mentioned. Unfortunately intuitions often misleads us. Particularly when physics and economics are involved. For example, the concept of the "fat boy" 200mm. This seems to imply that by some design trick Nikon was able to achieve higher magnification with a shorter and larger diameter stack on that particular lens. However if one looks past the intuitive feel to the facts they reveal the opposite. Of the "exotic" telephotos the 600mm f4 already has the shortest, "fattest" dimensions. Consider the following comparison of equivalent focal length vs physical length of three of the "exotics":

200mm f2 actual length = 203mm
400mm f2.8 actual length = 358mm
600mm f4 actual length = 432mm

So relative to the equivalent focal length the 600 f4 is already the "shortest and fattest". Which begs the question, if it's 432mm long why is it called a 600mm lens? And why do other optics like binos and spotting scopes use a magnification factor like 6x, 9x, etc, rather than focal length? I won't bore those who don't care with the explanation. Those with inquiring minds can Google it for themselves.

Love and appreciate the great response and sensitivity diplomacy in calling my rant intuitive, you have my respect fully as a gentleman.
Things start with a thought, then turn to words then to action, a dynamic think tank often delivers.

Take your 600mm calculation and Fat Boy focal length of 432mm, given the fat boy super short build what if you build in a quality 1.4 or 1.7 TC that really works ?.

I appreciate your time and thought you put into to your reply.

I believe Nikon will come back with innovative new gear and direction that will transform existing gear and users.
Sadly the world is a place where nothing is a secret anymore and the competitors are all ready mirroring Nikons moves behind the scenes, I guess we cant do much about that.

I just feel Nikon has just left its market and loyalist drift a bit to far behind..
We buy something today and 3 months later you out of date almost for many.

We will pay for the new gear and innovations that's for certain.

For me A camera is a tool that records an image using a combination of time light and speed that is it, an image needs to evoke emotion tell a story connect with the viewer, the image needs to be reasonably technically sound, it needs to have a WoW factor, I use this mantra to keep me grounded and free of GAS disease.
Sadly I feel the ratio of Still shots versus Video is changing due to technology from the internet and user generational change. This is derived observation from the coal face.


Oz down Under