Rumors: How likely is a Z90?

[Woodyg3]

Some of you will remember that nobody saw the D500 coming, its announcement came as quite a surprise.

I remember a TON of people saying that Nikon would never put out the 180-600 because it "wasn't needed" what with the then current lineup of Nikon lenses.

There were many people who wanted that focal length, but couldn't afford the other Nikon offerings. That's why the 180-600 has sold so well, and I think that's why a crop sensor body with AF that is suitable for sports and wildlife would sell quite well. I think if you are saying that the Z8 is already the replacement are forgetting the affordability factor.

 

[John Navitsky]

That’s because in Nikon’s eyes currently, it is.

it’s definitely not due to the price tag, but it’s possible the z6iii could be. because it sits in that price bracket and may be “fast enough”.

i’m starting to think it’s less likely we’ll see a true d500 replacement instead with the z6iii in that price/role, and them adding creating a new role by putting an expeed7 in one of those really inexpensive crop bodies

 

[Nimi]

The smaller sensor is a "want," not a "need" and Fuji proved how successful it can be. If Nikon comes out with a $2,500 APS-C body, it's because their market research tells them they can move 100,000 bodies and 200,000 lenses. Given that most of the ILC growth is in China and India, they might have a hit on their hands. BTW, the Z30 has a good following among vloggers.

 

[SCoombs]

Some of you will remember that nobody saw the D500 coming, its announcement came as quite a surprise.

I remember a TON of people saying that Nikon would never put out the 180-600 because it "wasn't needed" what with the then current lineup of Nikon lenses.

There were many people who wanted that focal length, but couldn't afford the other Nikon offerings. That's why the 180-600 has sold so well, and I think that's why a crop sensor body with AF that is suitable for sports and wildlife would sell quite well. I think if you are saying that the Z8 is already the replacement are forgetting the affordability factor.

I think some context is required for the statement that the Z8 is already the replacement.

I would agree that from a cost perspective the Z8 is not a D500 replacement.

However, I think that from all other perspectives it is extremely similar to what the D500 was, even down to being the same size.

The context that is important here is that across many, many threads on this topic over several years/months across a number of different forums I have found many people calling for or hoping for what they specifically call a D500 replacement. Since the release of the Z8, I've seen people say it's too big (it is almost exactly the same size as the D500), that it doesn't have enough megapixels (it's DX mode gives almost the same megapixel count as the D500), that it's too heavy (it's slightly heavier but close enough I don't think most people would be able to feel the difference if holding one or the other in each hand), etc.

In other words, most objections to the Z8 I hear are NOT about cost. Some people do raise cost, and I think these are entirely legitimate objections - though as I said above, I'm not sure how you go from a Z8 to something with similar functionality but a $1500-$2500 lower price tag). However I see a lot of people asking for a D500 replacement without concern about the price who still see the Z8 as failing to meet that request only because it is a full frame camera. I've literally seen people who have said that they'd happily pay $3000 for a Z8 with a crop sensor.

It's those comments that I personally don't think make a lot of sense.

 

[Doomrider74]

it’s definitely not due to the price tag, but it’s possible the z6iii could be. because it sits in that price bracket and may be “fast enough”.

i’m starting to think it’s less likely we’ll see a true d500 replacement instead with the z6iii in that price/role, and them adding creating a new role by putting an expeed7 in one of those really inexpensive crop bodies

For the Z6iii to be that camera it would need to have a pixel density equal to or higher than the D500, which would mean a 45mp+ sensor, which I can't see happening.

 

[John Navitsky]

For the Z6iii to be that camera it would need to have a pixel density equal to or higher than the D500, which would mean a 45mp+ sensor, which I can't see happening.

why?! it’s going to be at least 24mp and that’s plenty. d500 was only 20mp. we shot the d500 in crop because it was a crop camera. imo it was about performance at a price point. if at the time i got the d500 i could have afforded a d5 i would have gotten a d5… and i wouldn’t have shot it crop mode and i wouldn’t shoot the z6iii in crop either

 

[Doomrider74]

why?! it’s going to be at least 24mp and that’s plenty. we shot the d500 in crop because it was a crop camera. imo it was about performance at a price point. if at the time i got the d500 i could have afforded a d5 i would have gotten a d5… and i wouldn’t have shot it crop mode

24mp in a full frame camera intended for wildlife photography is not enough, especially compared to what else is out there.

 

[John Navitsky]

24mp in a full frame camera intended for wildlife photography is not enough, especially compared to what else is out there.

if 24 isn’t enough a dx isn’t going to help you. you need longer glass, not a smaller sensor

 

[Doomrider74]

if 24 isn’t enough a dx isn’t going to help you. you need longer glass, not a smaller sensor

I think you're missing the point: I am not referring to a smaller sensor, I am referring to the assertion that the Z6iii could be the D500 replacement, but that would have a full frame sensor, probably a 24mp one. That would equate to a 10.3mp DX sensor, which is half that of the D500. Conversely, a 24mp DX camera from Nikon would be an improvement over the D500.

 

[SCoombs]

if 24 isn’t enough a dx isn’t going to help you. you need longer glass, not a smaller sensor

Eh, I'm extremely critical of people talking about crop sensors giving more "reach," since I think it's an extremely misleading statement, but I think that while 24MP for an FX sensor is not enough for wildlife it is going to be more usable on a DX sensor.

 

[John Navitsky]

I think you're missing the point: I am not referring to a smaller sensor, I am referring to the assertion that the Z6iii could be the D500 replacement, but that would have a full frame sensor, probably a 24mp one. That would equate to a 10.3mp DX sensor, which is half that of the D500. Conversely, a 24mp DX camera from Nikon would be an improvement over the D500.

i’m not missing the point, i’m looking at it differently. i wouldn’t shoot a z6iii in dx mode.

while my use case isn’t wildlife i don’t see why a 24mp fx z6iii and a 180-600 wouldn’t be “enough” for a entry level wildlife setup

i have a big metal in my room i took with the 20mp d500. i don’t look at it and say, wow that stinks, i wish it wasn’t 20mp

 

[Doomrider74]

i’m not missing the point, i’m looking at it differently. i wouldn’t shoot a z6iii in dx mode.

while my use case isn’t wildlife i don’t see why a 24mp fx z6iii and a 180-600 wouldn’t be “enough” for a entry level wildlife setup

i have a big metal in my room i took with the 20mp d500. i don’t look at it and say, wow that stinks, i wish it wasn’t 20mp

It certainly sounds like you are to me, so I'll end this conversation here.

 

[SCoombs]

i’m not missing the point, i’m looking at it differently. i wouldn’t shoot a z6iii in dx mode.

while my use case isn’t wildlife i don’t see why a 24mp fx z6iii and a 180-600 wouldn’t be “enough” for a entry level wildlife setup

i have a big metal in my room i took with the 20mp d500. i don’t look at it and say, wow that stinks, i wish it wasn’t 20mp

If you're not regularly shooting wildlife (is that what you meant that it isn't your use case?) it may not come as immediately to mind, but for many wildlife shooters cropping is a fact of life. Of course, everyone wants to fill the frame if at all possible, but for many of us it's not always possible - and judging from a lot of comments I've read here and elsewhere it can even be very regional, with animals in some areas being much more skittish than others.

This means that for a full frame camera you're often cropping it down. When you are starting with 45 MP, that might mean your final image comes in at 24 or 30MP, so it's still going to have plenty of resolution to look good. On the other hand for a 20 or 24MP full frame camera this can be a problem as it can put a relatively hard limit on how far you can crop an image before the resolution is low enough that it the image doesn't hold up even for smaller print/view sizes.

The difference is that with a DX sensor the image is already cropped but it's still got that healthy 20-24MP.

 

[John Navitsky]

sure, but we're saying that z6iii @ 24mp +, let's say a 180-600 ($1730) you're going to have to crop soo much that you can't have a good result?

i've got a 3'x3' print on my wall that's a _crop_ of a 20mp d500 image.

and compared to what? i can't think of a decent f-mount budget setup for these kind of lengths. and if we're not talking budget prices, yah, you might as well get the z8.

and remember, the d500 had downsides driven by it's high pixel density crop sensor. as much as i loved it it was pretty painful in low light where as a z6iii @24mp would be very good in low light.

and that's even assuming it's 24mp. maybe it'll be 33 or something.

 

[John Navitsky]

and yah, i don't know why i'm arguing. my main point is that i think most folks look at the d500 as a certain amount of performance for a certain price point and given the performance of the zf, it seems like you potentially could get that in a z6iii. if you have specific things where you really really want higher pixel count or density, than sure, the z6iii may not fit that role.

 

[RichF]

Nikon is not putting out many DX lenses. Will they make a DX body and expect users to stick with FX lenses - don't think so but possible.

 

[fcotterill]

For most DX photographers, the only DX lenses they need are an Ultra Wide, Perhaps a Fisheye. The relevant DSLR glass can be adapted to Z mount, plus there are many choices using cross-mount adapters.

A primary challenge in most wildlife genres is getting sufficient Pixels/Duck. In this respect, the D500 delivered and continues to deliver, notably with the venerable 200-500 f5.6E and of course 500 PF.

 

[fcotterill]

The smaller sensor is a "want," not a "need" and Fuji proved how successful it can be. If Nikon comes out with a $2,500 APS-C body, it's because their market research tells them they can move 100,000 bodies and 200,000 lenses. Given that most of the ILC growth is in China and India, they might have a hit on their hands. BTW, the Z30 has a good following among vloggers.

Agree it's surprising there's any argument against this sales strategy. Obviously, the Yes/No decision sits with Nikon's top level management.

The clamour for a Z D500 equivalent is the convenient shorthand term for a "Baby Z9". The Z8 is already here but it's FX at a matching Price..... Too stiff for many thousands of wildlife photographers, even though Thom Hogan flagged the Z8 as the D500 replacement nearly a year ago

So to repeat, where's the Nikon Z answer in a high spec DX ILC to the Fuji stacked sensor....... In the $2500 price bracket? Fuji delivered stacked-sensor et al, then Nikon engineering very definitely can.

The Z90 will be the affordable ILC with the best of Z9 technology. It will sell even more 180-600's.

Anyone else waiting for a Nikon Z (CROP SENSOR) camera that replaces the D500?

I need a camera that can help me get 750mm compositional reach with my 500mm PF lens, right out of the gate. (Plus, $4,000 for a new camera body is still a little bit steep for me.) Anyone else here hoping/waiting for a D500 mirrorless successor? And if so, do you think it will come out...

bcgforums.com

View attachment 61124

 

[StefanSC]

Any hope these dreams/rumors might come true?

Most likely no. Or not at least for a couple of years*.

The D300 was launched alongside the D3 and it's sales pitch was simple: 90% of the D3 with APS-C sensor at half the price. Then Nikon launched the D700 on the D300 platform.

The D500 was launched alongside the D5 and it's sales pitch was simple: 90% of the D5 with APS-C sensor at half the price. Then Nikon launched the D850 on the D500 platform.

If Nikon is going to launch a Z90, I would expect it to be launched alongside the Z9 mk II with the same sales pitch: 90% of the Z9 Mk II with APS-C sensor at half the price. Then Nikon will launch the Z8 mk II based on the Z90 platform . And also hike the price of the Z8/Z9 mk II to around 5000/6500$.

But I wouldn't hold my breath on the Z90 coming out anyway.

The thing is, I don't think there is a stacked, BSI, ~40mpx ASP-C sensor with fast read-out time available currently that offers the noise performance a wildlife and action oriented Z90 would need.**
Also, there still seem to be issues with the supply of semiconductors and various parts required for cameras so I doubt Nikon would use what they can get their hands on for a camera that is quite niche. Especially when they have to deal with the A7IV/A7RV and the R5/R6 ... And this issue doesn't seem to be going away soon, in fact, it might get worse before it gets better (see news about Houthis and the Red Sea attacks).

* Knowing my luck and given that I just gave up on Nikon delivering an APS-C wildlife camera in Z-mount and went the OMDS OM-1 route, I expect the Z90 to be announced in the next 2-4 weeks .

** If I were a manager at Nikon, I would investigate launching a Z9s global shutter camera and a Z90 APS-C global shutter companion as a value offer / unique sales proposition over the rest of the market.

 

[Doomrider74]

The thing is, I don't think there is a stacked, BSI, ~40mpx ASP-C sensor with fast read-out time available currently that offers the noise performance a wildlife and action oriented Z90 would need.**

It's doesn't need to be a 40mpx APS-C sensor. 24-36mp would be the sweetspot for DX.

 

[Anjin San]

I've been vocal across many forums for as long as people have been discussing this topic that (other than price-wise) I don't think a more advanced DX body makes a lot of sense in the current landscape, but I actually think for point B a DX body could in theory fair notably better than the Z8.

Why? The Z8 is almost exactly the same size as a D500, and this is one of the reasons for my broader opinion that the Z8 more or less (price aside) already fills the role the D500 did. Make a Z8/D500 sized body with a crop sensor instead of a full framed sensor, and that probably opens up a pretty useful amount of real estate to put in better cooling and/or a larger capacity battery.

I don’t think the smaller sensor would provide better cooling…and the battery size wouldn’t change much either based on its location. They could make the battery section bigger but that would mean a new battery. The biggest issue is t really the heat or battery though…it’s the price point. DX has clearly for Nikon become the consumer low price arena…and the cost of a higher MP sensor based on the Zi/9, the DVF, Expeed 7 and the other components prices it out of the DX price range. The Zfc is $1100 and they would likely need to make the Z90 closer to $2000 to get the components, reengineering cost, and profit margin right…and while that would be cheaper than a Z8 it’s out of the DX price range and I’m sure their market research tells them the potential market for this body…and I don’t believe it’s large enough to justify the model.

 

[Anjin San]

It's doesn't need to be a 40mpx APS-C sensor. 24-36mp would be the sweetspot for DX.

True…but that’s still a new sensor with all the associated R&D costs…and the pixel pitch would be less than the Z8/9 sensor today and that increases the noise because physics. Not to say it can’t be done…but it’s a small niche market and price would be out of DX range at that point.

 

[Doomrider74]

True…but that’s still a new sensor with all the associated R&D costs…and the pixel pitch would be less than the Z8/9 sensor today and that increases the noise because physics. Not to say it can’t be done…but it’s a small niche market and price would be out of DX range at that point.

Doesn't Sony already have a 26mp APS-C sensor?

 

[StefanSC]

Fuji has a 40Mpx APS-C in their XH2 (made by Sony afaik) and nobody is complaining about the image quality .

And the only thibg about Fuji sensors is that they use a different CFA than normal Bayer sensors...

Just make that but stacked and with a faster readout and slap it in a Z90...

That will also make Nikon's marketing team's life easier too

 

[SCoombs]

I don’t think the smaller sensor would provide better cooling…and the battery size wouldn’t change much either based on its location. They could make the battery section bigger but that would mean a new battery. The biggest issue is t really the heat or battery though…it’s the price point. DX has clearly for Nikon become the consumer low price arena…and the cost of a higher MP sensor based on the Zi/9, the DVF, Expeed 7 and the other components prices it out of the DX price range. The Zfc is $1100 and they would likely need to make the Z90 closer to $2000 to get the components, reengineering cost, and profit margin right…and while that would be cheaper than a Z8 it’s out of the DX price range and I’m sure their market research tells them the potential market for this body…and I don’t believe it’s large enough to justify the model.

What I'm saying is that a smaller sensor would take up less space and therefore leave more room to design the body with better cooling. One of the generally accepted reasons that the Z8 tends to get hotter is that it is a very tightly packed camera with a lot of components fit into a relatively small space and not much room for passive cooling structures. Swapping the FX sensor out of that body for a DX sensor in the same body would open up space which could allow for a more heat efficient design and better passive cooling piping or whatever.