Comparing Nikon Z line up to their dSLR line up

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).

RichF

Well-known and Infamous Member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
With all the discussion about missing cameras, what will be next I decided to take a view of recent Nikon dSLR and compare these offerings to the Z line up for the pro and prosumer lineup.

Do you agree with my comparison.

FX cameras

D6. Flag ship camera. Z 9 fills that roll, exceeds the D6 in many ways but still has a potential to be even greater.
D850. Z 7 and Z 7ii. Fills the same slot but again has potential.
D780. Z 6 and Z 6ii. Like the Z 7 and Z 7ii,fills the slot but mirrorless technology has upped the ante.

DX cameras

D500. Gaping hole. I don't think the Z50 is close enough.
D7500. Perhaps the Z50 fills this slot.


Bottom line: D500 equivalent Z camera is missing. ML cameras will continue to out perform their dSLR counterparts and evolve much more quickly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
…..

DX cameras

D500. Gaping hole. I don't think the Z5 is close enough.
D7500. Perhaps the Z5 fills this slot.


Bottom line: D500 equivalent Z camera is missing. ML cameras will continue to out perform their dSLR counterparts and evolve much more quickly.
Assume you mean the Z50 in the DX comparison? The Z5 is full frame.
 
With all the discussion about missing cameras, what will be next I decided to take a view of recent Nikon dSLR and compare these offerings to the Z line up for the pro and prosumer lineup.

Do you agree with my comparison.

FX cameras

D6. Flag ship camera. Z 9 fills that roll, exceeds the D6 in many ways but still has a potential to be even greater.
D6 is far ahead of Z9 in lowlight IQ and its AF is like lightening at lock on.
With bullet proof Close Focus Priority, D6 often more reliable in clutter compared to Z9 (all FW iterations), and it's not far behind in reliability at grabbing a sharp eye but Z9 has advantages in more reliable overall tracking .

D850. Z 7 and Z 7ii. Fills the same slot but again has potential.
Z7 AF distinctly wanting, although more customizable buttons (AFmode+AFon) would help significantly IME, but Nikon blundered on this stub IIIbornly and terribly.
Z7 has useful advantages for landscape and macro

D780. Z 6 and Z 6ii. Like the Z 7 and Z 7ii,fills the slot but mirrorless technology has upped the ante.
All share same sensor, excellent lowlight IQ
D780 handicapped like Z6 on poor customization of AFmodes - here again Nikon's bizarre mistake and stubborn refusal to patch firmware. Notably as D780 has far superior AFC (D5 AF code etc)

DX cameras

D500. Gaping hole. I don't think the Z5 is close enough.
D7500. Perhaps the Z5 fills this slot.
No DX or FX Zed comes close in AF especially compared to D500, except Z9
Bottom line: D500 equivalent Z camera is missing. ML cameras will continue to out perform their dSLR counterparts and evolve much more quickly.
Some ways to still catch up , besides Z9 which is closest. Obviously, EVF wysiwyg and silent photography are major advantages of MILCs; better Autofocus precision, which obviates AFFT (notably with Teleconverters), which improves AF performance of F-mount lenses.
Focusing is much better across frame at significantly slower lens speeds.
 
Last edited:
D6 is far ahead of Z9 in lowlight IQ
One stop according to Brad Hill.

It's interesting that both the Z9 and A1 went to a more generic do-it-all approach, and were willing to give up some of the low light performance.

My guess would be that they think this is "good enough" and don't plan to return due to the cost of building a specifically tuned camera vs the anticipated sales to offset.

The only thing that seems like it might bring them back is pressure from Canon, who seems to be putting pressure on them there with both the R6 and R3, not only with low pixel count, but also by adding noise reduction to the raws.
 
One stop according to Brad Hill.

It's interesting that both the Z9 and A1 went to a more generic do-it-all approach, and were willing to give up some of the low light performance.

My guess would be that they think this is "good enough" and don't plan to return due to the cost of building a specifically tuned camera vs the anticipated sales to offset.

The only thing that seems like it might bring them back is pressure from Canon, who seems to be putting pressure on them there with both the R6 and R3, not only with low pixel count, but also by adding noise reduction to the raws.
The D6 AF in the center AF point is -4.5 EV. With firmware 3.0, the Z9 moved from -7.0 to -7.5 EV for any point in the frame.

The Z6ii/Z7ii were originally - 3.0 EV for normal use and -4.0 with Low Light AF enabled.
 
Yes - I think ISO performance of the Z9 is about a half stop below the best Nikon cameras, but it picked up better noise algorithms for video and JPEG so it may be a wash in most cases. The D6 is tuned for low light, but not as good as most top cameras at low ISO levels.
as someone who shoots high speed in low light (action), i personally would be interested in more high iso performance, but i can also say i think they're right that it's "good enough" and i think nikon (and sony) are done chasing this use case with specialized cameras.
 
Mirrorless is such a different world I'm not sure comparing Nikon's Z lineup to Nikon's D lineup is the best way to look at it. I believe the way we should be considering the Z lineup is how it compares to the major competition like Canon and Sony.
Z6 series: Canon R6 series and Sony A7 series (at whatever is current model iteration i.e. A74 or R6ii or Z6ii.)
Z7 series - Canon R5, Sony A7R series
Z5 series - Canon EOS R cameras.
Z9 series - Canon top dog R3 (R1 when if it is available) and Sony A1.

There are some gaps with the lineup compared to competition.
Sony A9 and Canon R3 - I'm not convinced either brand will invest a lot of money and development in these 2 cameras. It almost seems like the R3 and A9 were intended to be proof of concept for a flagship. If they do invest, then this maybe the space where an upcoming Z8 could play (i.e. a "step below flagship" camera).

Nikon doesn't really have anything to compete with Canon's R7 and R10. Perhaps Nikon will, someday, release a successor to the D500 to compete in the R7 space. I'm not familiar enough with Sony DX lineup. The A6400 series seems capable but not in the same league as something that would be a D500 competitor.

That's my thoughts on the subject.

Jeff
 
Yes - I think ISO performance of the Z9 is about a half stop below the best Nikon cameras, but it picked up better noise algorithms for video and JPEG so it may be a wash in most cases. The D6 is tuned for low light, but not as good as most top cameras at low ISO levels.
The D6 is around 24 MP while the Z 9 is twice that. Based upon the doubling of MP, I would expect a decrease in low light performance.
 
I retired a D750 for the Z6ii. (never owned the D780) I found several advantages after the switch, including access to the Z mount glass.
I retired a D850 for the Z7ii. Mixed bag but the mirrorless camera never matched the D850 auto focus for wildlife. It is an excellent landscape camera with Z glass and remains as my favorite for macro and landscape work.
I sold my D5 even before the Z9 was available. Not a direct replacement but the Z9 is a better wildlife and sports camera than my D850, the Nikon lenses are better in many ways compared to the F mount counterparts.
With the three bodies, I have been able to achieve anything I could with the DSLR bodies and I think the Z lenses are a little better. I think there are improvements to be made, but I can't say I find anything missing for the photography I do.
 
Haptics and the Scope for Customization of features are important features for comparing and ranking modern ILCs. IME, the intricacies of wildlife photography magnify their significance. This means at 3 different AF modes can be used almost instantly in tandem, one's custom Setups can switched across Swiftly using shooting banks etc.

This is why I will be never make the expensive mistake of being tempted by a mid-level Nikon camera ie D750,D780,Z6, Z7 designs. (Been there, tried all these, never again.) Basically these all fall short, a shortcoming one learns in practice. Excellent cameras certainly for many Genres, but Nikon has much better - indeed infamous - choices for wildlife, especially when subjects and conditions are challenging - and often most interesting.

The shared / overlapping designs that underlie customizing a D500, D850,D5 and D6 means I find these DSLRs are remarkably similar to the Z9 in the hand. The main differences are the MILC has its well known advantages but conversely it is more complicated to drive - yes Autofocus options. Obviously, however, for silent photography one grabs the Z9, however. And equally the Z Nikkors bring us significant advantages, yet my choice F Nikkors have not lost their high qualities.

DSLRs are simpler to use, in comparison, even the D6. This is one of several reasons why I plan to continue to happily enjoy my mixed system: D6, Z9, D850. Their controls are "muscle-memory friendly". They all work well.
 
.. why I plan to continue to happily enjoy my mixed system: D6, Z9, D850. Their controls are "muscle-memory friendly". They all work well.

Using both dSLR and MILC cameras either limits lens choices if you want lens to work on bodies, or you can limit lens selections to specific bodies (but for wildlife the lens are somewhat limited and overlapping), or bite the bullet and have duplicate lens such as the 600 F/4 E and 600 TC.

Which route did you follow?
 
With all the discussion about missing cameras, what will be next I decided to take a view of recent Nikon dSLR and compare these offerings to the Z line up for the pro and prosumer lineup.

Do you agree with my comparison.

FX cameras

D6. Flag ship camera. Z 9 fills that roll, exceeds the D6 in many ways but still has a potential to be even greater.
D850. Z 7 and Z 7ii. Fills the same slot but again has potential.
D780. Z 6 and Z 6ii. Like the Z 7 and Z 7ii,fills the slot but mirrorless technology has upped the ante.

DX cameras

D500. Gaping hole. I don't think the Z50 is close enough.
D7500. Perhaps the Z50 fills this slot.


Bottom line: D500 equivalent Z camera is missing. ML cameras will continue to out perform their dSLR counterparts and evolve much more quickly.

Taking this one step further - do you think Nikon will offer many more MILC (pro/prosumer) cameras than they offered in the dSLR lineup? If so, what additional segments do you think they will address/features provided? D500 replacement for sure. Lighter version of the Z 9, could that be the Z 7iii or does the line have such a bad reputation that they will switch to a different name? High megapixel camera beyond 45 MP? Would that be the role of the Z 7iii? I don't see NIkon offering both light Z 9 in 45 MP (Z 7iii) and a light 60 MP camera (Z 8). I can see a 60 MP light version of the Z9 in the future. The sensor would be then used in a D500 replacement (60 MP FF, 26+ MP DX mode)

Or will the Z 9ii be 60 MP?

Thoughts?
 
Using both dSLR and MILC cameras either limits lens choices if you want lens to work on bodies, or you can limit lens selections to specific bodies (but for wildlife the lens are somewhat limited and overlapping), or bite the bullet and have duplicate lens such as the 600 F/4 E and 600 TC.

Which route did you follow?
Good question. 400 f4.5S and 800 PF with both ZTCs and I also have 14-30 f4S 24-120 f4S. No plans for any more Zeds unless Nikon does a macro tele-zoom.

Otherwise I 'share' the 70-200 f2.8E, 180-400 TC , 500 PF across both systems. And 70-180 AFD remains my primary macro solution, only on DSLRs obviously. It's unique.

I'm a strong adherent to redundant overlaps and insure I have at least 2 options in key focal lengths/ also Command kit lenses... If I lose or break gear out here, repairs take months typically IME. This is another reason for a pair of 800's, as it's an essential telephoto including ability to go to 1000,1120mm and even 1600.
 
Taking this one step further - do you think Nikon will offer many more MILC (pro/prosumer) cameras than they offered in the dSLR lineup? If so, what additional segments do you think they will address/features provided? D500 replacement for sure. Lighter version of the Z 9, could that be the Z 7iii or does the line have such a bad reputation that they will switch to a different name? High megapixel camera beyond 45 MP? Would that be the role of the Z 7iii? I don't see NIkon offering both light Z 9 in 45 MP (Z 7iii) and a light 60 MP camera (Z 8). I can see a 60 MP light version of the Z9 in the future. The sensor would be then used in a D500 replacement (60 MP FF, 26+ MP DX mode)

Or will the Z 9ii be 60 MP?

Thoughts?
There's nothing wrong with Z6 and Z7 lines for most genres: Excellent complimentary cameras in key aspects. So interesting to see how/if they get revamped soon.

The major gaps are a genuine D850 niche filler aka baby-Z9 and ideally a relatively affordable DX Z90 also empowered with Z9 DNA. This means stacked sensors, electronic shutter, EXPEED7 etc, ENEL18d battery in optional grip to realize full performance, plus cooling possibly.
 
With all these comparisons I have only one point of view. And that is that the Z9 along with the new Z lenses is by far the best camera I have ever had. And the most fun to use.
20 fps RAW 45MP No mechanical shutter. Great image stabilization Great ability to AF with fast moving wildlife using focus points covering the entire viewfinder and great subject/eye detection. WYSIWYG looking through electronic viewfinder Being able to review images without ever taking eye off viewfinder and seeing image so clearly even in bright sunlight PreRelease capture!!! And now I'll soon have a 600mm f4 which weighs only 7 lbs and has a built in TC
And for the first time, I don't have to decide between a fast, low light camera with far less megapixels (D6) and a high megapixel camera (D850). I feel like I have it all in the Z9.
 
Taking this one step further - do you think Nikon will offer many more MILC (pro/prosumer) cameras than they offered in the dSLR lineup? If so, what additional segments do you think they will address/features provided? D500 replacement for sure. Lighter version of the Z 9, could that be the Z 7iii or does the line have such a bad reputation that they will switch to a different name? High megapixel camera beyond 45 MP? Would that be the role of the Z 7iii? I don't see NIkon offering both light Z 9 in 45 MP (Z 7iii) and a light 60 MP camera (Z 8). I can see a 60 MP light version of the Z9 in the future. The sensor would be then used in a D500 replacement (60 MP FF, 26+ MP DX mode)

Or will the Z 9ii be 60 MP?

Thoughts?
One of the key points of Nikon's 2018 reorg was to have more sharing of components. They demonstrated that with the Z6/Z7 and Z5, the Z6ii/Z7ii, and the inner working of the Z50, Z50, and ZFC. With the Z5/6/7 series the outer body is the same, the battery is the same, and most of the functionality and menus are the same - just the sensor and directly related functionality has changed. The same is true for the Z6ii/Z7ii - two flavors with essentially the only difference being the sensor. With the DX cameras, the internal components are largely the same but they look different. With the Z30, they tuned the camera and some specific features in a different direction, but they did not start from scratch. All this is to say it would be relatively easy for Nikon to continue that approach with different flavors of similar cameras and unique positioning or tuning.

I don't think Nikon needs to have lots of cameras that lack differentiation and specific market positioning. There is no reason why I can't change cameras like I change lenses and target specific situations. It may be cheaper, and certainly allows redundancy I want to have. I avoided the D750 because it was an economy model compared to the D500 and D850 - even though a standard resolution camera was appealing. I really like having the Z6 for standard resolution and the Z7ii for high resolution. I think at this point, most people are looking to add an action camera and possible higher resolution video. There is room for high resolution, standard resolution, and DX flavors of action cameras.

There is limited additional value in 60 MP given the presence of 46 MP. The advantage of 46 MP is it gives you 8k video. In addition, it gives you video and still cropping to standard resolution. That's like another camera. If you want high resolution, Nikon needs to go farther and think about 80+ MP. I'm not sure there is much value, but the processor speed and lenses are good enough to support higher resolution so it is possible.

Perhaps a way to think about this is based on AI enhancements. Computation capability is really the key. Look at how much you go to third party software for post processing. Some of that is low hanging fruit for the camera companies. Here there are two paths - creating the raw material for third party software - such as with focus shift. The other approach is to incorporate third party software or functionality in the cameras so it can be applied to stills or video.

The Z9 will probably be two years old before a replacement is announced. It most likely will be a modest update but without the groundbreaking changes. Those features and technologies are in trickle down mode now.
 
It appears to me that Nikon is focusing on professional photographers who make their money taking photographs. I see the Z-9 along with the excellent Z prime lenses as designed to target these professionals.

What I don't see from Nikon is any interest in continuing the DX line of cameras and lenses in the Z lineup, at least so far.

From a wildlife photographer's perspective, for those photographers who want a pro setup, a Z-9+a 600f4 with a built-in TC for example, this focus meets their needs. However, for those photographers who want a lighter, more flexible setup, a ZD500 + a 200-600 lightweight zoom for example, the hole in Nikon's offerings is obvious.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it is VERY hard to follow Steve's "no brand wars" edict and still discuss Nikon's lineup intelligently.

The fact is that Nikon chose to put out a heavy Z-9 and to not (yet) follow with a lightweight alternative as well as announcing a series of awesome prime lenses while the 200-600 in the roadmap has not been announced.

The elephant in the room is the gap in the Nikon lineup. Call it what you want, no D-500 replacement, no D-850 replacement or no 200-500 replacement, that gap is obvious to many Nikon wildlife photographers.

So is it "brand bashing" of Nikon to point out that this gap exists while other manufacturers appear to be focusing on this gap?

Tom
 
The OP is comparing Nikon’s new Mirrorless with its well established DSLRs, and hasn’t asked for comparison to other brands.

I deleted my previous comment as it was misunderstood. However we’ve seen too many heated debates on the forum that evolved from those comparisons, and we end with an unhappy set of members. It’s those very debates that led to Steve’s no brand bashing rule in the first place.

So please, let’s just not go there.
 
Back
Top