John Navitsky
Well-known member
and this will be even more acute when we loose shutters across the line since in the old days, lots was built around the specs of the shutter mechanism
Comparing Nikon Z line up to their dSLR line up
- Thread starter RichF
- 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).
I think the real issue for ALL manufacturers is the shortage of materials….another tired thread I’m afraid. I’d have expected new cameras and lenses in abundance from all manufacturers, but we’ve seen what’s really happening.
This hasn’t anything to do with comparing Nikon F and Z lines, but it’ll explain the gaps If you will.
This hasn’t anything to do with comparing Nikon F and Z lines, but it’ll explain the gaps If you will.
respectfully disagree
The Z 7ii is a D850 replacement, albiet an imperfect one. The 200-600 is one the road map. Granted there is Z equivalent to the D500.
There are a number of lenses missing: T/S, collared macro (180-200 range), 70-200/300 F4, 180-400 TC in Z mount to name a few. Nikon is slowly creating an MILC system, they are smaller than Canon and Sony so likely to move slower. It takes the same resources for Nikon, Canon and Sony to design a camera or lens. Since Canon and Sony are much larger, they can move faster.
works for me. Thanks to the moderators for keeping this forum free of so much of the flame wars that go unchecked in other website forums.
Actually the number of lenses Nikon has released - about 10 per year - is pretty good and covers the bases well. IT's comparable to other manufacturers, and more importantly, most of the lenses are excellent and best in category. There are always niche lenses that can be important or at least useful. For example, the 70-200 f/4 was a very good lens for F-mount but did not sell, the collared macro lenses have not been redesigned for F-mount in 15+ years, and Tilt shift lenses are a very specialized, low volume items. I agree they may be useful, but they round out a kit rather than form the core for most people.
The key to the 200-600 is a companion action camera. That's coming soon but there is no way of knowing whether it will be FX or DX. DX implies a whole set of additional lenses.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
i don't think it is, however i also think people place too much emphasis on it.
people should realize different companies are employing different strategies and tactics. this will get them to different milestones at different times. folks shouldn't mistake this for companies "missing" things. they have prioritized different things.
and i think people underestimate how much work it is to build a new product, be it a camera or lens. these are big, hard undertakings, even when there aren’t materials shortages. and the products keep getting more complex. and those efforts are harder the more you start from scratch.
it's pretty clear to me that nikon, for example, has decided to try make some big, strategic investments in their camera architecture and lay groundwork for future cameras and even evolution of the existing camera.
they seem to have adopted a let’s do what’s necessary to position us for the future and let’s not rush it and are willing to be last to market, which is painful in the short term, but i suspect it will be beneficial for them long term.
this holds true for their lenses. they’re taking the time to rebuild their lenses from the ground up.
and we should consider that while other companies have made different decisions that allow them to get certain products available today, it doesn’t mean they haven’t made trade-offs for short term gains and that there won’t be consequences.
there are advantages to being last
Last edited:
It is very difficult to talk about Nikon's overall direction without talking about two factors. 1) The market. 2) The competition. This is what drives a corporation's overall strategy.
I think that Nikon's decision to include a built-in grip and an ultra-powerful battery in their flagship says worlds about their direction. Nikon didn't need to do that. They could have designed a smaller lighter camera and an optional grip. It was a choice by Nikon and that choice, in-my-view, said loads about where Nikon intends to go with its product line.
My view is that Nikon has made the choice to differentiate rather than compete. Nikon has decided to capture the high-end, professional photographer who wants high-end prime lenses and is prepared to pay the price for this because they make their money from the photographs they take. There is nothing unreasonable with Nikon's decision. Quite honestly the Z-9 and the new prime lenses announced are well on the way to attaining that goal.
The emphasis on the hole, "the 'action camera' to go along with the 200-600" as Jeff puts it, is because so many current Nikon shooters are waiting on that "action camera" to materialize.
Pretty well said. As I read through this thread what strikes me is people getting confused between marketing "slots" in the lineup versus comparative performance. As far as marketing slots the OP pretty well nailed it as far as comparing DSLR/MILC lines. But we have short memories. Nikon MILC technology was not up to the performance of DSLRs in AF until(arguably) the Z9. So from a marketing standpoint the Z6(ii)/Z7(ii) models do compare to the D780/D850. Same general price slots but the tech isn't there yet. Recall the D850 has the same AF module as the D5 but slightly watered down(due to less processing power?). Presumably the next iteration of D6/7 bodies will have improved AF more on par with the DSLR counterparts.
So the rumored Z8 really is interesting because it will fill a role that doesn't really have a counterpart in the last gen of the DSLRs. If it does come out as a watered down Z9 in a smaller package it will be something that didn't exist in the DSLR line i.e. a high speed, high MP camera in the "prosumer" price range.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
and a slower mirror assembly resulting in less mirror down time
DRM
Well-known member
Comparing the two lines, three things stand out the most for me.
1) The Z9 having 45 megapixels whereas the D5 and D6 were noticeably lower.
2) Nikon went with a 400 f/4.5 for the Z version of the 500 PF.
3) There is no direct D500 replacement.
I suspect Nikon’s engineers anticipate continued improvement in noise performance at higher megapixels. I think the bump in resolution, future bodies especially, across the line allowed the 400 f/4.5 to replace the 500 mm F mount version. And/or there is a lightweight 600 f/5.6 or 6.3 coming. I also think Nikon sees the D500 being replaced in some form of a FF body. If a Z90 ever comes, it’ll be a few years down the line when that level body is thought of as entry level.
I think a gripless Z9 will come within the next 6 months, and I think a significantly higher megapixel camera will come as well when they have noise controlled to D850 standards, meaning the new Z body at 60 megapixels or such will show similar noise at ISO 6400 as the D850 did at 6400.
Perhaps the gripless Z9 is how Nikon sees itself replacing the D500, thinking they can get people to pay a lot more for a FF 45 megapixel body if it gives the performance they want in the body size they want. I’ve read a number of posts from former D500 owners that bought the Z9. I imagine it would be easier to convince many more to pay less than a Z9 price for a body more to their liking.
Nikon just released their latest financials and it’s apparent that their focus on higher margin bodies and lenses is paying off. That’s why I don’t think there will be a Z90 anytime soon. And that’s why we haven’t gotten the 200-600 yet.
1) The Z9 having 45 megapixels whereas the D5 and D6 were noticeably lower.
2) Nikon went with a 400 f/4.5 for the Z version of the 500 PF.
3) There is no direct D500 replacement.
I suspect Nikon’s engineers anticipate continued improvement in noise performance at higher megapixels. I think the bump in resolution, future bodies especially, across the line allowed the 400 f/4.5 to replace the 500 mm F mount version. And/or there is a lightweight 600 f/5.6 or 6.3 coming. I also think Nikon sees the D500 being replaced in some form of a FF body. If a Z90 ever comes, it’ll be a few years down the line when that level body is thought of as entry level.
I think a gripless Z9 will come within the next 6 months, and I think a significantly higher megapixel camera will come as well when they have noise controlled to D850 standards, meaning the new Z body at 60 megapixels or such will show similar noise at ISO 6400 as the D850 did at 6400.
Perhaps the gripless Z9 is how Nikon sees itself replacing the D500, thinking they can get people to pay a lot more for a FF 45 megapixel body if it gives the performance they want in the body size they want. I’ve read a number of posts from former D500 owners that bought the Z9. I imagine it would be easier to convince many more to pay less than a Z9 price for a body more to their liking.
Nikon just released their latest financials and it’s apparent that their focus on higher margin bodies and lenses is paying off. That’s why I don’t think there will be a Z90 anytime soon. And that’s why we haven’t gotten the 200-600 yet.
"Nikon just released their latest financials and it’s apparent that their focus on higher margin bodies and lenses is paying off. That’s why I don’t think there will be a Z90 anytime soon. And that’s why we haven’t gotten the 200-600 yet."
This says it all.
This says it all.
fcotterill
Well-known member
The Z9 aims to fill several market niches: sports, press, studio, outdoors including wildlife and landscape.
High end video with sustained recording applies in majority of genres , but it's aimed especially at Pros.
Heavily committed Hobbyists overlap closely in their needs for features with those of Pros above, in many respects and genres.
The Z5 is a parts bin entry camera to attract and lock in hobbyists and students etc. So are the DX Z entry level MILCs. Zfc inclusive. Nikon's employees state this explicitly. The other major difference is they make the bare minimum of DX lenses, because the non S Line FX optics cover dual roles, for most DX owners' needs.
A Pro DX Z90 makes sound sense if it earns high profit margin on repacked Z9 technology, The stacked sensor is probably the big R&D cost that's strategized wrt "When?" or rather "Why?" The big factor is likely RRP vs profit and return on expensive stacked DX sensor (but it already exists).
Further extrapolating from Nikon's stated corporate objectives, summarized in this thread .....
Arguably, more affordable Prosumer Cameras attract more
hobbyists, who will buy not just the 200-600 but other S Line Nikkors, telephotos especially.... 
.... at high profit margins to the seller. (And brand wars aside, but who else has the options in lighter telephoto PF-class models, built-in TCs, PLUS so much diversity to match all the affordable F-mount glass.) So does Nikon need to make a Z90 if the Z8 sells well, and most importantly sells more lenses? The bottom line in the shrunken ILC marketplace is stated as a dominant overarching aim of the newly restructured Nikon: push at the ratio of Camera : Lens Sales to average 1:2 [edited]
High end video with sustained recording applies in majority of genres , but it's aimed especially at Pros.
Heavily committed Hobbyists overlap closely in their needs for features with those of Pros above, in many respects and genres.
The Z5 is a parts bin entry camera to attract and lock in hobbyists and students etc. So are the DX Z entry level MILCs. Zfc inclusive. Nikon's employees state this explicitly. The other major difference is they make the bare minimum of DX lenses, because the non S Line FX optics cover dual roles, for most DX owners' needs.
A Pro DX Z90 makes sound sense if it earns high profit margin on repacked Z9 technology, The stacked sensor is probably the big R&D cost that's strategized wrt "When?" or rather "Why?" The big factor is likely RRP vs profit and return on expensive stacked DX sensor (but it already exists).
Further extrapolating from Nikon's stated corporate objectives, summarized in this thread .....
Arguably, more affordable Prosumer Cameras attract more
hobbyists, who will buy not just the 200-600 but other S Line Nikkors, telephotos especially.... .... at high profit margins to the seller. (And brand wars aside, but who else has the options in lighter telephoto PF-class models, built-in TCs, PLUS so much diversity to match all the affordable F-mount glass.) So does Nikon need to make a Z90 if the Z8 sells well, and most importantly sells more lenses? The bottom line in the shrunken ILC marketplace is stated as a dominant overarching aim of the newly restructured Nikon: push at the ratio of Camera : Lens Sales to average 1:2 [edited]
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
The Z mount architecture allows significant freedom to optical engineers, including improved Teleconverters as well as compact,sharper Uwides. Another bonus of a surprise is the edge to edge sharpness of Z Nikkors, such that the mount underpins "leveraging f1.8 as the new f1.4" and f1.2 primes set new standards in image rendering. These are some of several drivers/benefits of differences of the Z mount industry of Nikon's Imaging Division compared to even 10 years earlier. Robotics, improved optical precision, payoffs from years invested in R&D, corporate integration are some of the others, and as important.
bcgforums.com
Remarkably, because it's been unanticipated by almost all of us photographers, the Z-mount benefits also extend to innovate telephoto designs that modify / replace the telecentric designs of F-mount exotics. Lighter, equalling optical acuity and rendering, improved balance etc.
Thom Hogan's recent review of the 400 f4.5S mentioned this [see discussion wrt "complex converter [rear] group that allows for shortening the overall lens length..."), and more importantly the Nikon designers explain why it's not PhaseFresnel. If Nikon does decide on a 600 f5.6 PF they could possibly scale down the 800 f6.3 design (127mm window) into f5.6 or better 600 f4.8 (125mm window) - or perhaps, as Brad Hill speculates, Nikon might decide to extend the 400 f4.5S model to 600 f5.6S (108mm window). Perhaps, the ultimate optical design will be determined by which (PF or Complex-Converter-Rear Group) best shortens the overall lens and trims the weight to 2kg or less.
bcgforums.com
Also see this interview with two Nikon engineers
phototrend.fr
Does flange distance impact sharpness?
I recently asked the folks running Greys of Westminster YouTube channel via live chat about why the Z lenses are significantly sharper than f mount glass. They implied that the larger Z mount with the 16 mm flange distance as opposed to the 46 mm flange distance on the f mount is a big reason...
bcgforums.com
Remarkably, because it's been unanticipated by almost all of us photographers, the Z-mount benefits also extend to innovate telephoto designs that modify / replace the telecentric designs of F-mount exotics. Lighter, equalling optical acuity and rendering, improved balance etc.
Thom Hogan's recent review of the 400 f4.5S mentioned this [see discussion wrt "complex converter [rear] group that allows for shortening the overall lens length..."), and more importantly the Nikon designers explain why it's not PhaseFresnel. If Nikon does decide on a 600 f5.6 PF they could possibly scale down the 800 f6.3 design (127mm window) into f5.6 or better 600 f4.8 (125mm window) - or perhaps, as Brad Hill speculates, Nikon might decide to extend the 400 f4.5S model to 600 f5.6S (108mm window). Perhaps, the ultimate optical design will be determined by which (PF or Complex-Converter-Rear Group) best shortens the overall lens and trims the weight to 2kg or less.
Z 100-400 or 400 4.5
Thanks for your thoughtful insights Bruce. To give my 0.02c, although much tempted I held back from the 100-400 S waiting to see how this 400 f4.5S turned out, once it'd turned up. Glad I waited, as I've ordered, and will pair it with a 70-200 f2.8E FL (also with TC14 III) and/or 24-120 f4S...
bcgforums.com
Also see this interview with two Nikon engineers
Nikon au CP+ 2019 : « La beauté de la monture Z est de pouvoir guider la lumière de manière très naturelle »
Au CP+ 2019, nous avons rencontré deux ingénieurs de chez Nikon : Kazuharu Imafuji et Satoshi Yamazaki. Nous avons pu revenir avec eux sur la monture Z annoncée en 2018, les avantages qu’elle procure et parler également de vidéo, un domaine où Nikon souhaite faire sa place.
phototrend.fr
Last edited:
FB101
Well-known member
And the systematic shutting down of discussion is why this forum lost most interest to me. I’ll admit I seem to be in the minority who,prefer a spirited debate over an Echo chamber.
agrumpyoldsod
Well-known member
Agreed - entirely pointless -- particular as Nikon said it was dropping low cost solutions.
How about not bashing the brands -- but remaking about attitudes:
a) There are far too many petulant impatient children (of all ages) posting negatively on tut' hinternet
b) There are far too many who simply want a camera to do everything for them
c) If one strays away from tut' hinternet neither Nikon nor its loyal customers have an actual problem - every camera in the Nikon lineup is fit for purpose and in many case have capabilities well beyond those "need" by their users.
Fools fail to fully use the tools they already have, fools blame the tools they have when they miss shots, and only "posers" worry about what others think or say.
Nikon just posted its Second Quarter 2023 financial results -- these show another strong set of financial results, particularly in light of global supply chain issues. Nikon continues to push technical boundaries of what pro-sumer camera gear can deliver AND will, in time, replace older designed and fill out its line up. With a company that is diversifying and building financial strength these are inevitable. Not something one could have said with any confidence 12 months ago -- before the Z9 was launched.
{Tut' guide to Yarkshar required?}
'ee by 'eck lad, we'd be int right buggers muddle without 't guide, eh?
agrumpyoldsod
Well-known member
Now Patrick -- don't please get me started on the accents of your home province (where apparently I lived aged 6 months to 1 year), or the North East (where I was born and am still referred to as a Mak'em in derision by those a tiny bit further North), or the North West (where I worked for years), or the South West (where I kept a home) - let alone where I live (YES the evil arrogant South East and London).
We who live in our blessed isles love our accents (well all bar Guy Ritchie Gangsta) and luv the fact that many from across the pond struggle to understand those of us from "ye olde country"
I have relations who live near Derby and I still cannot get used to being referred to as a DUCK !! {all reet mi duck -- being the most common greeting}
We who live in our blessed isles love our accents (well all bar Guy Ritchie Gangsta) and luv the fact that many from across the pond struggle to understand those of us from "ye olde country"
I have relations who live near Derby and I still cannot get used to being referred to as a DUCK !! {all reet mi duck -- being the most common greeting}
LOL my 'home' province is civilised Surrey. I have a very BBC British accent - I'm an RAF child....I sound a bit like HRH the King. I have many friends in Hull, though since the start of the pandemic I've not been up there/
Sorry resders - well off topic!
agrumpyoldsod
Well-known member
I was confused by the flags -- Well I am not far from you now -- and of course Hull is pronounced Ull by the residents.
I won't comment on how ONE pronounces any of the names of the home counties. Particularly since a lifetime of travel and working around the globe has left me with an RP accent.
AND more off topic
I won't comment on how ONE pronounces any of the names of the home counties. Particularly since a lifetime of travel and working around the globe has left me with an RP accent.
AND more off topic
flags in my sig: England ( I'm British and live here), Northern Ireland (birthright) and Irish (I'm dual Nationality - so I'm also European)
Ya'll really going down a rat-ho'e now!
need a translation I think . . .
For quite some time now Nikon has made it very clear that is their target market. They're not trying to go head to head with Canon/Sony for the broader market. At least not in the near term. That said, they have released some products that don't seem to fit with their stated objectives.
How soon we forget. It took Nikon six years to replace the D300 with the D500. The current buzz about a potential Z8 is deja vu of past D400 discussions. The D850 wasn't intended to be a wildlife camera but rather landscape/studio. The fact that it was also wildlife capable(enough) is one of the reasons it became such a hit. And they clearly recognize the niche filled by the 200-500 by having the 200-600 on the roadmap. In the meantime filling that gap in the Z line is spelled FTZ
As stated above Nikon has been clear on which market segment they are after. With the Z9 there were a couple of drivers(at least) 1) when the A1 came out Nikon started losing pro shooters and they needed to stop the bleeding as quick as possible so that's where they focused their effort. 2) To implement the technology as quickly as possible to "catch up" likely required the large body and certainly the large battery. It's also worth noting that Nikon took a good bit of risk going with the high MP body which many pros don't really desire. Though it turned out well for them in that it made it easier for many D850 shooters to make the jump to MILC.
It is unfortunate for so many serious wildlife shooters that Nikon doesn't offer what we want/desire in MILC. The options are to stick with DSLR a while longer and wait for Nikon to fill the gap or to go elsewhere. I did both. I've sold off nearly all of my F-mount kit and now have a Z9 to replace both D5/D850 and an A1 as a very expensive alternative to the D500. I much prefer the A1 to the Z9 but much prefer/can afford Nikon glass. So for now I'm stuck in the middle. But as much as I like the A1 when Nikon comes out with a smaller high performance body I'll go that way due to the lenses. Camera bodies are a lot more important that they used to be but glass is still the most important part of the system.
Sorry, Tom, didn't mean to pick on you but bouncing off of your comments fit best with the points I wanted to throw in. Counting on a nice guy to be understanding
"Sorry, Tom, didn't mean to pick on you but bouncing off of your comments fit best with the points I wanted to throw in. Counting on a nice guy to be understanding "
Not a problem. I remember vividly waiting for a D-300 upgrade and that probably colors my view of when the Z8/Z90 arrives.
Tom
"Not a problem. I remember vividly waiting for a D-300 upgrade and that probably colors my view of when the Z8/Z90 arrives.
Tom
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?
- Status