Comparing Nikon Z line up to their dSLR line up

[NorthernFocus]

Surely Nikon is looking at historic sales of different products and building a strategy around that. They have data that none of us have. Plus we each view the world through our own knowledge/experience. They're only interested in making us happy if it results in profit. As they should as a for profit company.

 

[John Navitsky]

A number of wildlife shooters have 180-400 (Nikon) and 200-400 (Canon). For some, this is the primary wildlife lens. Neither Canon nor Nikon have replaced this lens in a ML mount. Not sure if the decision is financial (volume would be lower than 400/600 prime) or technical - how can they add value besides from changing the mount?

same way they have for each other lens. by doing a full overhaul, they make each lens better on almost every level, albeit, incrementally.

witness the 70-200. the 70-200 2.8s is better in basically every way than the 70-200 2.8e which was already pretty much one of the best 70-200 2.8 lenses ever made.

it focuses faster, it has better image stabilization, it has better image quality corner to corner.

and, it doesn't need an FTZ (less length, balance) and it takes Z TCs (better results).

does this make it worth upgrading from a 70-200 2.8e to a 70-200 2.8s? for some yes, for some no. but it definitely is an upgrade.

 

[EricBowles]

A number of wildlife shooters have 180-400 (Nikon) and 200-400 (Canon). For some, this is the primary wildlife lens. Neither Canon nor Nikon have replaced this lens in a ML mount. Not sure if the decision is financial (volume would be lower than 400/600 prime) or technical - how can they add value besides from changing the mount?

It's a tough financial decision for owners to replace the 180-400 with a Z version. The people I know using the 180-400 are content to use the FTZ2 on the Z9. The 180-400 is among the most recent F-mount lenses. They will likely upgrade, but other lenses have priority for now.

 

[Nimi]

I hope Nikon is not spending too much time looking at the rearview mirror to figure out where they're going.

The vast majority of photo-takers (95% to be exact) moved away from cameras into phones, and with the new Snapdragon chip, that number will continue to increase.

Professional photographers (wedding, events, sports, real estate, press and to lesser degree studio) are all asked to deliver video, and the other three major manufacturers have staked their positions and are launching products to support that. Sony, the biggest, has a very strong cine line and appears to to be segregating products and protecting it. They still sell a very good hybrid, a7siii, but they also rebodied it as a new camera in their cinema line (FX3). Until recently they only had full-frame which gives them more flexibility on delivery format if they figure out the overheating. Which they have not. Canon has a very strong cinema line of cameras and lenses, and recently rebodied the R5 into the R5C which is extremely capable. Fuji does not have a video camera but makes some of the best cine lenses in the world and their new XH2 might be the most competent hybrid on the market, and cheapest too.

So if video is a must for professionals and the competitors are already deep into it, what's Nikon to do. Well, they showed their hand with the Z9. Gerald Undone, a videographer, YouTuber and Sony user called it the best hybrid on the market even before 2.0 which made it twice the camera. Autofocus is unmatched, internal 8k with no overheating, great stabilization, full HDMI output, and more. However, Nikon is not known in video and it will take more to convince Sony and Canon users to switch.

If they asked me: essentially a gripless Z9, same video capability, 8k without overheating, bigass battery, Frame.io (c2c) capabilities, rigging accessories starting with a proper cage, works in the DJI RS ecosystem, front tally light, fully articulating screen.

PS: keep an eye out for DJI. They will be releasing a Hassy clone (they own Hasselblad) and have the best image stabilization software and hardware among all non-military suppliers. They already use Sony sensors like everyone else. They are coming into the market. Also, Atomos just introduced a very interesting CMOS sensor that might allow someone else to enter the market.

 

[bjanes]

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.

That is a good point. To compare the two sensors would require normalizion as done at DXOmark (print measurements). I don't see DXO measurements for the D6, but they rate the Z9 sports low light score slightly higher than that of the D5. In comparing the Z9 to the D6 for low light I would like t see quantitative measurements rather than anecdotal accounts.

Bill

 

[John Navitsky]

That is a good point. To compare the two sensors would require normalizion as done at DXOmark (print measurements). I don't see DXO measurements for the D6, but they rate the Z9 sports low light score slightly higher than that of the D5. In comparing the Z9 to the D6 for low light I would like t see quantitative measurements rather than anecdotal accounts.

Bill

yep, you need to normalize. i think Brad’s take is reasonable http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#anchor_Z9_Prelim_ISO

 

[Tom Reynolds]

An analysis based on Nikon's current financials by Thom Hogan concludes that we won't see a new camera before Nikon's next fiscal year which starts in April 2023. If you are hoping for a DX camera the specs of the Fuji X-H2S are what the camera should look like. 26mp stacked BSI sensor, 40 f/s electronic shutter. Sensor transfer speed 9.6ms (Z-9 is 4.0). I would think no mechanical shutter which should drop the weight and manufacturing cost a bit but don't expect Nikon to drop below Fuji's $2500 price tag, if it even gets there. That, a 500pf and a ftz II would make a very nice birding lens. (pre-capture in RAW).

Regards,
Tom

PS: Would this happening make me lament my switch to OM Systems? No, although it was available April 2022 I would not have switched.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

PS: keep an eye out for DJI. They will be releasing a Hassy clone (they own Hasselblad) and have the best image stabilization software and hardware among all non-military suppliers. They already use Sony sensors like everyone else. They are coming into the market. Also, Atomos just introduced a very interesting CMOS sensor that might allow someone else to enter the market.

DJI's ultimate holding company and local investors own a lot of things -- what Hassy clone are you expecting?

 

[Nimi]

DJI's ultimate holding company and local investors own a lot of things -- what Hassy clone are you expecting?

X1D looking at the 2019 DJI patent and 4/22 leaked photos. I'm actually wondering if it's the video version of the X1D II.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

X1D looking at the 2019 DJI patent and 4/22 leaked photos. I'm actually wondering if it's the video version of the X1D II.

Hasselblad has no legacy in Video -- why would it seek to complete in this crowded market?

In 2020 Hasselblad ("H") pointlessly added video to the X1Dii and 907x -- I do mean pointless. AND I chose NOT to include Video in the X2D-100C -- a VERY good decision.

I own the X2D-100C and simply do not want video anywhere near it.

As I have said many times - I have multiple other and better ways of shooting Video, including up to 8.1k 12-bit RAW, than the X2D.

I am fully expecting and demanding H to deliver the firmware and software updates that give us the capabilities we had as still shooters in and with the X1D-ii and then a long list of other improvements we want on top of those that I simply do not want H to waste any time messing with raming pointless video in a MF body "just because a Fuji-GFX100/100s has it".

 

[Nimi]

Hasselblad has no legacy in Video -- why would it seek to complete in this crowded market?

In 2020 Hasselblad ("H") pointlessly added video to the X1Dii and 907x -- I do mean pointless. AND I chose NOT to include Video in the X2D-100C -- a VERY good decision.

I own the X2D-100C and simply do not want video anywhere near it.

As I have said many times - I have multiple other and better ways of shooting Video, including up to 8.1k 12-bit RAW, than the X2D.

I am fully expecting and demanding H to deliver the firmware and software updates that give us the capabilities we had as still shooters in and with the X1D-ii and then a long list of other improvements we want on top of those that I simply do not want H to waste any time messing with raming pointless video in a MF body "just because a Fuji-GFX100/100s has it".

We agree. I'm saying that DJI, a video company, may introduce the video version of the Hassy. As to the why, who the hell knows. Most Oscars are won on an APS-C (S35) sensor. Maybe as payload for one of their big copters? Right now the Komodo is being used for that.

I use a GFX50r as a studio camera, and wishing to move to higher resolution. I think I'm settling on a GFX100 (not the S) but looking closely at your camera as well.

 

[Highbow]

I let my D7500 go along with some f-mount lens as I went to the Z6ii and followed that with selling my D780 to get a Z5 so that I'm now mirrorless. Too late to worry about any difference if there was any in comparing quality of photos, I guess the most that I miss is the DX 1.5 advantage of the D7500 but my cropped photos from the FX z-cameras is just as good.

 

[John Navitsky]

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.

i think nikon really thinks about use cases, not specs, and it's a very good point that for the low light use case, nikon sees a lot of those folks using jpg, and they have constantly tried to up their jpg game. it seems likely this is one of the reasons.

 

[Judy Lapetino]

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.

Unfortunately - from the standpoint of an amateur photographer, I quickly started selling gear to afford the Z6ii and Z7ii and some Z lenses. Although I am pleased with these cameras and lenses, I will not give up my D500 and long lens for birds in flight. I am a little sorry that I gave up the D850 for the Z7ii. It is too bad that the Z9 is so costly. If it is two years until the next "best" camera arrives, I will be more patient before jumping to the newest camera.

 

[Roy]

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.

The Z9 is a great camera but
The Z7ii is far less impressive than the D850 - I sold mine and kept a D850.
The D500 is still a great budget wildlife camera.

M.I.L.Cs seem to be going back to phase detect AF instead of contrast detect that has its problems...

 

[O]

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

DX cameras


D7500. Perhaps the Z50 fills this slot.

D500. Gaping hole. I don't think the Z50 is close enough. I think there isn't a PRO level DX camera or full D500 replacement yet ?
D780. Z 6 and Z 6ii. Like the Z 7 and Z 7ii,fills the slot but mirrorless technology has upped the ante. Don't know here, the Z6 is a great camera and backed with good glass.

D6. Flag ship camera. Z 9 fills that roll, exceeds the D6 in many ways but still has a potential to be even greater. A low resolution high ISO pro camera is missing in the MLs line up

D850. Z 7 and Z 7ii. Fills the same slot but again has potential. The D850 is still king here but behind in glass other than the 70-200 FL 105 1.4. I feel te hZ8 may be heading in the right direction for us as the market moves us into higher res cameras.

Bottom line: D500 equivalent Z camera is missing. AGREE ML cameras will continue to out perform their dSLR counterparts and evolve much more quickly. This seems to be the industry trend and other than speed (i question if its needed so much) now they come without the shutter and mirror, the rest is more leaning towards a mix of perception sprinkled with a little reality, however they are becoming very much more complicated and for many unfriendly with a steep learning curve, and with more and more electronics comes more and more potential cliches mostly created by the user, i mean their becoming more like computers that take video and stills from video..........still photography will be a simple thing of the past as we see more software driven models released more frequently like phones and lap tops.

Only an opinion

 

[O]

In the past I think we only ever get feed what suits the manufactures unless we revolt or their is a threat of competition like Sony going small light and mirror less.
The industry in the past has been giving us just bread and water drip feed and occasionally a drop of jam at extortionate cost.

Phones have become a bigger threat to the camera industry than they imagined, wild life and sports action is a small market by comparison to the use of smart phones, so the internet stats tell us.

Why a 50% plus decline is global camera sales, the internet is driving video, the traditional camera industry desperate to catch up has gone hybrid prioritizing on video performance, why, the internet direction is clear.
To the best of my recollection, Canons CEO once said, we need to move into video, streaming, connectivity if we are to survive, the internet says so and the smart phones are accommodating that to happen.

In my opinion Smart phones and the internet are simply vertically integrated, one is the hardware the other is the software.

The camera industry as we know it needs to carve out its spot, going mirror less is a start.


Only an opinion

 

[Bobby Moulden]

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.

An interesting thing happened Friday night - I was shooting a HS Football Playoff game and had both my Z6II & My Z9 at the ready as play began. After the game I shot a few Team pictures with my Z6II. in post processing I noticed a substantial difference in the ISO noise in my Z9 as compared to my Z6II. Z6II had a 24-100 lens on it and the Z9 had the 100-400 lens. Comparing lens and camera image quality - The Z6II beat my Z9 hands down in noise. I realize 1 is an f4 lens across the board but I didn't have enough 100mm shots on the 100-400. Just wondering if anybody has noticed that?

 

[John Navitsky]

yes, the z6ii is somewhat better for high iso performance. that said, the 100-400 is 4.5-5.6 so you could be comparing f/4.0 vs f/5.6. the other thing, to really compare you have to normalize the image size

 

[EricBowles]

An interesting thing happened Friday night - I was shooting a HS Football Playoff game and had both my Z6II & My Z9 at the ready as play began. After the game I shot a few Team pictures with my Z6II. in post processing I noticed a substantial difference in the ISO noise in my Z9 as compared to my Z6II. Z6II had a 24-100 lens on it and the Z9 had the 100-400 lens. Comparing lens and camera image quality - The Z6II beat my Z9 hands down in noise. I realize 1 is an f4 lens across the board but I didn't have enough 100mm shots on the 100-400. Just wondering if anybody has noticed that?

In addition to John's suggestion, take a look at the images in Nikon Studio NX. There are some combinations of settings in Adobe products that can show more noise than in the native image.

 

[RichF]

An interesting thing happened Friday night - I was shooting a HS Football Playoff game and had both my Z6II & My Z9 at the ready as play began. After the game I shot a few Team pictures with my Z6II. in post processing I noticed a substantial difference in the ISO noise in my Z9 as compared to my Z6II. Z6II had a 24-100 lens on it and the Z9 had the 100-400 lens. Comparing lens and camera image quality - The Z6II beat my Z9 hands down in noise. I realize 1 is an f4 lens across the board but I didn't have enough 100mm shots on the 100-400. Just wondering if anybody has noticed that?

You gave the Z6 ii two advantages - lower resolution (1/2 that of the Z9) and a stop (or more)? faster lens. Given these I am not surprised by your results.

 

[EricBowles]

An interesting thing happened Friday night - I was shooting a HS Football Playoff game and had both my Z6II & My Z9 at the ready as play began. After the game I shot a few Team pictures with my Z6II. in post processing I noticed a substantial difference in the ISO noise in my Z9 as compared to my Z6II. Z6II had a 24-100 lens on it and the Z9 had the 100-400 lens. Comparing lens and camera image quality - The Z6II beat my Z9 hands down in noise. I realize 1 is an f4 lens across the board but I didn't have enough 100mm shots on the 100-400. Just wondering if anybody has noticed that?

Here is the best source of data on comparing the Z6ii with the Z9. They are less than a half stop difference in terms of noise - a level you can't visually observe. If there is a difference, it's something other than native noise.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

photonstophotos.net

 

[O]

An interesting thing happened Friday night - I was shooting a HS Football Playoff game and had both my Z6II & My Z9 at the ready as play began. After the game I shot a few Team pictures with my Z6II. in post processing I noticed a substantial difference in the ISO noise in my Z9 as compared to my Z6II. Z6II had a 24-100 lens on it and the Z9 had the 100-400 lens. Comparing lens and camera image quality - The Z6II beat my Z9 hands down in noise. I realize 1 is an f4 lens across the board but I didn't have enough 100mm shots on the 100-400. Just wondering if anybody has noticed that?

Light gathering capacity in so many different ways has been sold to us since the beginning of time, all in incremental variations and price.
ie: glass F5.6 F2.8 F2 F1.4 F1.2
Film-different grades reflected smaller or large pixels ie: = different light gathering capacity along with more or less detail or noise
Digital- pixel pitch size 8mp, 12mp, 16mp 20mp 24mp, 36mp 45 mp, 60,mp again each varies in light gathering performance, detail and noise

fundamentally all gear is dependent on or around just LIGHT TIME and SPEED that hasn't changed since the Box Brownie LOL to the Z9

To measure a lot of it for glass they have MTF charts for lenses

Only an opinion

 

[John Navitsky]

Here is the best source of data on comparing the Z6ii with the Z9. They are less than a half stop difference in terms of noise - a level you can't visually observe. If there is a difference, it's something other than native noise.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

photonstophotos.net

1/2 stop is what Brad estimated as well