Raw precapture is the single change I would like to see most in my Z9 and Z8s. (Of course there are many other improvements that would be nice.) I’d take HE* and something less than 30 fps if needed, if the change comes in new firmware. I can’t see buying a Z9II or Z8II as an upgrade without raw precapture. And if it comes in a new camera, rather than a firmware update, I think the performance bar would be higher. I think I’d want at least 30 fps with HE* in a new camera.
Thom Hogan on “something that might be called a Z9II”
- Thread starter JAJohnson
- 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).
John Navitsky
Well-known member
and i think we can generalize to just photojournalists in general. i think we're not too far off to where a journalist clicks the shutter, the camera marks it with c2pa and it's uploaded to the cloud where the editors will pick it up and publish it.
and jpg is probably optimal for that workflow, not only because it's fast, but also because it's ready-to-go.
Alistair
Well-known member
Completely agree with this. I would much rather Nikon focus on software for a couple of years. Even if we have to pay for major release.
I suspect that expeed 7 still has good headroom. 30fps raw and pre-capture should be feasible. Just drop the bit rate down a la Sony and others.
jpgrove
Active member
I don’t read too much into Thoms post, but I do agree that developing a new SoC like and Expeed 8 is not cheap especially when it’s the current Z9 owners you need on side to buy a new flagship.
Personally I think FW 6.0 will bring some updates that will help keep the Z9 as the flagship it needs to be.
I can’t see many photographers shelling out about 6k for only minor hardware updates.
Ultimately only Nikon knows what can be achieved in FW
Personally I think FW 6.0 will bring some updates that will help keep the Z9 as the flagship it needs to be.
I can’t see many photographers shelling out about 6k for only minor hardware updates.
Ultimately only Nikon knows what can be achieved in FW
I’m sure a nice number of A1 owners are waiting it out for the nexr A1-3. Unless Sony learned from Nikon to up a current camera by FW.
Regarding the Z9-2,
I think we already got the Z9-2 ahead of Canon R1 and Sony A1-2, with all the FW Nikon released. It is clearly not the same Z9 it was when it launched.
Regarding the Z9-2,
I think we already got the Z9-2 ahead of Canon R1 and Sony A1-2, with all the FW Nikon released. It is clearly not the same Z9 it was when it launched.
Unscript
Active member
Well, so they dominate vocally.
I found these survey results, for what they're worth. The number of participants isn't huge (and they're mostly in the US), but it should be more than enough to be relevant. Apparently, portraits and weddings are leading, sports and events being only in 4th and 5th position (disregarding phone cameras, so not the results at the top of the page).
State of The Photography Industry - April 2024
Explore insights from our comprehensive survey in the 2024 State of the Photography Industry report. Discover key trends, challenges, and opportunities shaping photographers' experiences, equipment preferences, and business strategies in today's dynamic landscape.
zenfolio.com
The demographics of DSLR, mirrorless and phone cameras is interesting, too, but I think the results of that type of survey can change dramatically depending on who answers if it includes a category for phone cameras. Fortunately, it's only a small portion of the participants, and it seems to involve only people really interested in photography rather than anyone who owns a camera (which is everyone with a smartphone... so almost everyone).
Last edited:
As for me, I've perfectly happy with my Z9 and Z8; to the point that I'm likely soon giving my D850 to one of my children. I will, however, keep my D700 and its antiquated CF Flash memory cards.
And I'm also perfectly happy with what seems to be Nikon's emphasis on designing, producing and bringing great new lenses into the market!
And I'm also perfectly happy with what seems to be Nikon's emphasis on designing, producing and bringing great new lenses into the market!
thelordofthelight
Well-known member
Totally agree with this. I will definitely not buy a camera just for a few added features when my existing camera is already good enough. I would much rather prefer a major firmware update for which i wouldn’t mind paying..say new AF features, pre-capture in HE/HE*, higher FPS in HE formats and I don’t mind paying another 1000-1500$ depending on the features.
Robert.Panick
Member
He took time off during the holidays. My guess is he got bored and wrote a lot of posts.
I think the big revolution in photography going forward is to master high dynamic range.
I have been around high dynamic range ever since they introduced it in TV's. Until recently I have not been particularly happy with how high dynamic range has worked. I think it is because the existing screens and software do not do all that good a job of making high dynamic range palatable and interesting.
More recently however HDR has gotten to Lightroom as a feature you can explore during development. The problem of course is you can't see the high dynamic range image on most screens. HOWEVER, the latest Retina screen in the MacBook Pro's changes all that. I recommend that if you get hold of one of those, or if you find a good HDR monitor for PC, try running some of your images through HDR adjustment. When done right the results are breathtaking.
Of course mainstreaming HDR requires a lot of things, which of course means spending a lot of money on new equipment. Just what the photography and video companies need, a large new market.
To bring HDR fully into the mainstream the following must happen:
1. You need quality HDR screens in a massive way so most of the public can actually view these stunning images.
2. Some method needs to be found to print HDR images. This might mean using light boxes of LCD screens for images. Printing technology is way behind in capability.
3. You need cameras capable of taking photos natively in HDR. While Nikon Z9's can photograph in HDR, I learned the hard way recently that they only do that by taking two sequential images that can later be combined in post. The problem with that is you can only shoot HDR with a tripod, on a completely stationary subject. Obviously not a good wildlife tool.
I think it is pretty clear that you will need new equipment to come up with a true HDR camera. Judging from recent posts on this forum,, it is apparent that Nikon has been working with some major advances in sensor technology that will greatly speed things up. That sort of technology should make true HDR cameras possible.
I was walking along a beach earlier this week near my new house during a rare sunny day in the Pacific Northwest rainy season. I was impressed with the sunlight glistening on the water. I think it is clear to me that we as human beings live in a high dynamic range environment and we would respond to images that can fully replicate that range.
If I am right about this HDR is going to be a technique for the future. But a lot has to happen before this becomes a reality. There will never be a market for HDR images if the public does not have screens that are capable of viewing these images.
Having played around with this recently, I can tell you that HDR handled properly can really make images pop. I was very impressed with the potential.
Apple is typically in the lead or near the lead in content creator screens. The Apple Studio monitor as fine as it is does not do HDR. You have to spend 5 grand for their 6k pro monitor to get there. Yet they obviously know how to do it, you can get it today in a MacBook Pro retina screen.
Doubt me? Get a decent HDR screen and run some of your existing images through HDR in Lightroom. Let me know if you think I am onto something.
I have been around high dynamic range ever since they introduced it in TV's. Until recently I have not been particularly happy with how high dynamic range has worked. I think it is because the existing screens and software do not do all that good a job of making high dynamic range palatable and interesting.
More recently however HDR has gotten to Lightroom as a feature you can explore during development. The problem of course is you can't see the high dynamic range image on most screens. HOWEVER, the latest Retina screen in the MacBook Pro's changes all that. I recommend that if you get hold of one of those, or if you find a good HDR monitor for PC, try running some of your images through HDR adjustment. When done right the results are breathtaking.
Of course mainstreaming HDR requires a lot of things, which of course means spending a lot of money on new equipment. Just what the photography and video companies need, a large new market.
To bring HDR fully into the mainstream the following must happen:
1. You need quality HDR screens in a massive way so most of the public can actually view these stunning images.
2. Some method needs to be found to print HDR images. This might mean using light boxes of LCD screens for images. Printing technology is way behind in capability.
3. You need cameras capable of taking photos natively in HDR. While Nikon Z9's can photograph in HDR, I learned the hard way recently that they only do that by taking two sequential images that can later be combined in post. The problem with that is you can only shoot HDR with a tripod, on a completely stationary subject. Obviously not a good wildlife tool.
I think it is pretty clear that you will need new equipment to come up with a true HDR camera. Judging from recent posts on this forum,, it is apparent that Nikon has been working with some major advances in sensor technology that will greatly speed things up. That sort of technology should make true HDR cameras possible.
I was walking along a beach earlier this week near my new house during a rare sunny day in the Pacific Northwest rainy season. I was impressed with the sunlight glistening on the water. I think it is clear to me that we as human beings live in a high dynamic range environment and we would respond to images that can fully replicate that range.
If I am right about this HDR is going to be a technique for the future. But a lot has to happen before this becomes a reality. There will never be a market for HDR images if the public does not have screens that are capable of viewing these images.
Having played around with this recently, I can tell you that HDR handled properly can really make images pop. I was very impressed with the potential.
Apple is typically in the lead or near the lead in content creator screens. The Apple Studio monitor as fine as it is does not do HDR. You have to spend 5 grand for their 6k pro monitor to get there. Yet they obviously know how to do it, you can get it today in a MacBook Pro retina screen.
Doubt me? Get a decent HDR screen and run some of your existing images through HDR in Lightroom. Let me know if you think I am onto something.
Re HDR...I've been shooting HDR video for a couple years now with my Z9 and since I started that and needed to acquire a display that would serve as a suitable HDR monitor, I've also been using Adobe's HDR tools in Lightroom and Photoshop for HDR stills...and the Z9 and Z8 can absolutely do so with a single image. No need to take multiple exposures...shoot in Raw with a Z9 or Raw or HEIF with a Z8 and process for HDR in Lightroom or Photoshop. The images are absolutely stunning on a calibrated OLED display.
Anyone viewing on a fairly recent iPhone or Android phone has a surprisingly HDR display in the palm of their hand. I got tired of sharing SDR content to phones via text messages or attached files that looked inferior to HDR images taken with the phones themselves.
I rarely shoot video that isn't acquired in a mode that can be processed as HDR and delivered as HDR content to YT or Vimeo. NRaw NLog or H.265 10-bit NLog will do just fine. Again, anyone with a fairly recent 4K TV or phone can view the content in HDR mode, as well as most recent mid to upper end Macbooks and Mac desktops also have a display suitable for HDR content, though not as capable with some extreme highlights.
Editing HDR and understanding the different formats is entering a new world and requires some work, but it's well worth it and the critical mass for viewing is just about there. I'll be curious to see what comes out of CES this year.
Printing...that's going to be a challenge to take full advantage of HDR qualities. The benefit of HDR comes at the high end of an image for the viewer...and extra 3-stops of scene dynamic range, all gained at the high end. That's been the challenge for displays, having high enough native contrast ratio to not wash out the blacks to get the highlights...and the same goes true for traditional prints. HDR can be done with transparencies, but when you go to that mode, you might as well use a flat panel display.
It's exciting and much will change over the next few years, but the tools are there to dive in now.
Anyone viewing on a fairly recent iPhone or Android phone has a surprisingly HDR display in the palm of their hand. I got tired of sharing SDR content to phones via text messages or attached files that looked inferior to HDR images taken with the phones themselves.
I rarely shoot video that isn't acquired in a mode that can be processed as HDR and delivered as HDR content to YT or Vimeo. NRaw NLog or H.265 10-bit NLog will do just fine. Again, anyone with a fairly recent 4K TV or phone can view the content in HDR mode, as well as most recent mid to upper end Macbooks and Mac desktops also have a display suitable for HDR content, though not as capable with some extreme highlights.
Editing HDR and understanding the different formats is entering a new world and requires some work, but it's well worth it and the critical mass for viewing is just about there. I'll be curious to see what comes out of CES this year.
Printing...that's going to be a challenge to take full advantage of HDR qualities. The benefit of HDR comes at the high end of an image for the viewer...and extra 3-stops of scene dynamic range, all gained at the high end. That's been the challenge for displays, having high enough native contrast ratio to not wash out the blacks to get the highlights...and the same goes true for traditional prints. HDR can be done with transparencies, but when you go to that mode, you might as well use a flat panel display.
It's exciting and much will change over the next few years, but the tools are there to dive in now.
MoroPixel thanks for your comments.
I have been taking my RAW shots and processing them as HDR in LR. I am observing it is better not to go to extremes because you get exaggerated results. But with reasonable moderation things really pop. This HDR really can supercharge an image by greatly expanding the bright end,
I have been taking my RAW shots and processing them as HDR in LR. I am observing it is better not to go to extremes because you get exaggerated results. But with reasonable moderation things really pop. This HDR really can supercharge an image by greatly expanding the bright end,
kanonka
Active member
By the way, what is practical use of HDR images? Printing is out of question as the best paper can only do ~6.5 stops. Monitors of most people looking at the images online are still limited to SDR. So, what to do with that image, other than looking at it yourself on HDR monitor? The reason I'm asking is that I was touting the idea going same route, but cannot see the real use of it.
Quite simply, most of my family and friends view the images I share via text and email on cell phones or tablets which have HDR displays. For broader distribution of personal videos that I create those go to YT or Vimeo almost exclusively in HDR, whether shot on one of my cameras, action cam or cell phones. Those videos, often of places I visit in the course of my travels, are typically viewed on a home HDR TV or cell phone/tablet. I’ve gotten a lot of compliments on how life-like many are…partly due to being 4K and also HDR. Many have HDR capabilities and don’t know it.
Also of note, Instagram is supporting HDR now for stills, as well as video. It's also fairly easy to put together an HDR video slideshow of stills as a way of sharing still images to a wider audience than is generally available to standalone still. As an aside, I was never a fan of the multi-shot HDR stills, 90% of which were overdone and looked cartoonish....but that's just my own aesthetic and apparently, many liked it.
Last edited:
All that has to happen to get HDR to really take off is for the average person to have access to a decent HDR screen.
Screens get better with time. I remember when HD was new and it was a big deal to finally get a HD tv set. Now 4k is commonly available and it it not all that difficult to add decent HDR too a 4k screen.
Most picture sharing these days is via internet anyway and print media is less and less being used.
Once there is a critical mass of HDR screens it becomes possible for us to pass HDR images around. Doing a decent job of creation will result in stunning images compared to what we have been seeing. At that point interest will catch fire just as HD tv captured the audience and HD became the norm, just as 4k is now taking off.
Progress is inevitable. Just a matter of time.
Screens get better with time. I remember when HD was new and it was a big deal to finally get a HD tv set. Now 4k is commonly available and it it not all that difficult to add decent HDR too a 4k screen.
Most picture sharing these days is via internet anyway and print media is less and less being used.
Once there is a critical mass of HDR screens it becomes possible for us to pass HDR images around. Doing a decent job of creation will result in stunning images compared to what we have been seeing. At that point interest will catch fire just as HD tv captured the audience and HD became the norm, just as 4k is now taking off.
Progress is inevitable. Just a matter of time.
fcotterill
Well-known member
[Edited for clarity] According to Nikon's traditions, assuming these still apply, a new flagship Nikon ILC introduces a new sensor, radical Autofocus revision and the new hardware and firmware to optimize the functionality of the camera in the most prominent, technically demanding genres of photography.
The D4s, for example, did not update the sensor, so arguably a Z9 II could augment the existing hardware with more buffer space as well as an AI processor, and Z6 III EVF. It will then probably be followed up with a new sequence of Firmware upgrades as utilization of this improved hardware platform is maximized. A Z9 III then gets the new sensor and EXPEED8.
Photojournalism, Studio and Professional Sports have always been the primary customer base of flagship DSLRs and this still applies to the Z9. However, Nikon obviously rates cinematography as extremely important for its Imaging Division. Thus , the Z9 departed from the flagship tradition of 20mp FX primarily for action photography. 8K RAW needs at minimum a 34 mp sensor. However, improved sensor design has also reduced the barrier to optimizing higher resolution sensor noise in low light.
Remarkably, the Nikon engineers designing cameras - equally lenses - also recognize the importance of the wildlife photography market. So Z flagships are also targeting these customers. The launch Marketing of the Z9 certainly promoted the camera's strengths for wildlife photography.
fstoppers.com
The D4s, for example, did not update the sensor, so arguably a Z9 II could augment the existing hardware with more buffer space as well as an AI processor, and Z6 III EVF. It will then probably be followed up with a new sequence of Firmware upgrades as utilization of this improved hardware platform is maximized. A Z9 III then gets the new sensor and EXPEED8.
Photojournalism, Studio and Professional Sports have always been the primary customer base of flagship DSLRs and this still applies to the Z9. However, Nikon obviously rates cinematography as extremely important for its Imaging Division. Thus , the Z9 departed from the flagship tradition of 20mp FX primarily for action photography. 8K RAW needs at minimum a 34 mp sensor. However, improved sensor design has also reduced the barrier to optimizing higher resolution sensor noise in low light.
Remarkably, the Nikon engineers designing cameras - equally lenses - also recognize the importance of the wildlife photography market. So Z flagships are also targeting these customers. The launch Marketing of the Z9 certainly promoted the camera's strengths for wildlife photography.
How Do You Define a Flagship Camera?
In our never-ending search for the perfect camera, we often bandy around a common term to describe the ultimate in performance: flagship. But what really is a “flagship” camera? I’ll start by pointing out that this is one of those open-ended questions without an objective answer. So, if you’re...
fstoppers.com
Last edited:
We need windows to update its picture viewer to support HDR.
We need Adobe to allow us to save RAW images editing in HDR to HEIF.
I could see Nikon also bringing a red global sensor into the Z9ii at higher megapixels than the Sony A9iii and making a camera that surpasses that one while keeping the stacked 45mp in a future Z8 variant or Z7iii.By Nikon traditions, assuming these still apply, a new flagship Nikon ILC introduced a new sensor, radical Autofocus revision and the new hardware and firmware to optimize the functionality of the camera in different genres of photography.
The D4s for example did not update the sensor, so arguably a Z9 II could augment the existing hardware with more buffer space as well as an AI processor, and Z6 III EVF. It will then probably be followed up with a new sequence of Firmware upgrades as utilization of this improved hardware platform is maximized. A Z9 III then gets the new sensor and EXPEED8.
Photojournalism, studio and Professional Sports have always been the primary customer base of flagship DSLRs and this still applies to the Z9. However, Nikon obviously rates cinematography as extremely important for its Imaging Division. Thus , the Z9 departed from the flagship tradition of 20mp FX primarily for action photography. 8K RAW needs at minimum a 34 mp sensor. However, improved sensor design has also reduced the barrier to optimizing higher resolution sensor noise in low light.
Remarkably, the Nikon engineers designing cameras - equally lenses - also recognize the importance of the wildlife photography market. So Z flagships are also targeting these customers. The launch Marketing of the Z9 certainly promoted the camera's strengths for wildlife photography.
How Do You Define a Flagship Camera?
In our never-ending search for the perfect camera, we often bandy around a common term to describe the ultimate in performance: flagship. But what really is a “flagship” camera? I’ll start by pointing out that this is one of those open-ended questions without an objective answer. So, if you’re...
Having 35-38 mp global at 120fps would be the advancement people would like to see then fill in a faster Z8ii that’s a modest advancement at a good price point under that camera.
With some modifications (size), that's the sensor in the Raptor XL. But the cost of the sensor alone probably exceeds the price of two Z9 bodies. The XL retails for $45k.
The more I learn about the A9iii, the more impressed I am. I think the high MP version of that, when it comes out will power the Z9iii and in the meantime Nikon will use the same sensor in the Z9.
It could be an economy of scale issue with the RED sensor which Nikon may be able to solve with the Z9 selling more units. RED probably sells a very small number of units per year. I believe that sensor is made by Tower Jazz who also made the sensors in other Nikon DSLRs in the past so a larger volume order may drastically bring that cost down.
The Sony A9iii is an impressive camera and if Nikon wants to prove that they can make first rate cameras without Sony dependence using that RED sensor would send that message.
I think you are correct. It's actually a Forza Sillicon chip, but Tower fabs it. Not sure what rights to it Nikon picked up when they acquired Red. Would love to see something like that in a sub $10k body.
Michael Dreese
Member
The one improvement that would send me over the moon would be precapture Raw at 20fps or higher. I would purchase a new model for that feature alone.
Kuau
Member
I’m a winter sports photographer currently shooting 2 Z9’s and recently shot an event with the new R1
Which performed flawlessly
My wishlist is short though and yes I am one of the few sports guys who shoots raw all the time so here my short list
30FPS raw
Raw Precapture
At least a 5mp EVF
and
Of course further enhancement with subject detection
Which performed flawlessly
My wishlist is short though and yes I am one of the few sports guys who shoots raw all the time so here my short list
30FPS raw
Raw Precapture
At least a 5mp EVF
and
Of course further enhancement with subject detection
Robert.Panick
Member
A few fallacies here:
1. Taking HDR shots handheld is easy, been doing it for years. Assuming of course that your shutter speed is high enough. Simply set the camera for high speed burst and bracketing. A set of brackets can happen faster than you can blink.
2. Many cameras can do 14 bit capture. HDR monitors are usually 10, 12 or 16 bit, so 14 bit should handle all but the 16 bit.
3. The human eye can't distinguish more than 8 bits. The brain can take in a scene and come up with a composite that is greater than 8 bit.
When I had the Z9 set to take HDR images it would not allow me to do bursts. The HDR setting locked out burst shooting.