D
Deleted member 115
Guest
I hear ya! I would buy a Sony today if I had more free time and energy to use it.
Will the Nikon Z9 Deliver?
- Thread starter Abinoone
- 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).
O
Well-known member
Hypothesis with a twist of possible reality where it fits.
You can pay for a first class seat at top $ or fly coach, at the end of the day your still both arrive at the same time at your destination.
Low light performance needs to be advanced built around 16 bit as standard throughout the range. IE put the extra colors in to have it available to take out in low light. Why do you think MF outperforms greatly all 35mm sensors in ISO. Myth or fact ??? My old D3X has 16 bit blacks.
Stacked sensors are the in thing and Nikon may have something special here especially getting away from Sony, if that's true. Nikon has a technology that can record up to 1000 fps......will we see something here ??
I feel the real area for just now is 45-60mp sensors 20-30 fps and climbing and this will be out of date soon anyway, where the score board differs is in the Focus Tracking needed more for Video not just BIF or sports action.
Connectivity and Video in the real world needs to be state of art if the professional sports action market is to survive for Nikon or Canon or Sony as stills in this future world is falling behind like film did to digital, why else is the industry going hybrid, its called change or you wont survive thanks to 5G, 6G, soon to be 8G pro plus.
I feel The D850 style cameras in the industry will be standard 12- 14 fps likely 60- 80 plus mp arena with drill down versions of the improved focus tracking and added 16 bit with staked sensors.
The camera body dictates your lens purchases, so its a mind field, its like buy the printer cheap and they get you on et inks LOL,
Time is too go all mirrorless, FX is dead in the eyes of manufactures, there is so much more profit in mirrorless.
MF is 16 bit and soon will be 200 mp plus....the show goes on.
If your viewing platform is Instagram, Flicker, U tube, your PC or iMac, or iPad, your phone, then stay with what you have and learn to use it properly, if your printing large quality fine art works for clients, or streaming a game to a net work, hey you have to be on point.
One thing for certain Change is upon us.
Gee the the high end FX gear is looking great, soon you can have a 500 PF for $1000 Used.............D5 D6 for chips, when the drill down from theZ9 comes and the Z8 series arrives, man
a Z6 Z7 will be just a giveaway.
I hope Nikon really delivers for once.
Only an opinion as always LOL
OZ down under
You can pay for a first class seat at top $ or fly coach, at the end of the day your still both arrive at the same time at your destination.
Low light performance needs to be advanced built around 16 bit as standard throughout the range. IE put the extra colors in to have it available to take out in low light. Why do you think MF outperforms greatly all 35mm sensors in ISO. Myth or fact ??? My old D3X has 16 bit blacks.
Stacked sensors are the in thing and Nikon may have something special here especially getting away from Sony, if that's true. Nikon has a technology that can record up to 1000 fps......will we see something here ??
I feel the real area for just now is 45-60mp sensors 20-30 fps and climbing and this will be out of date soon anyway, where the score board differs is in the Focus Tracking needed more for Video not just BIF or sports action.
Connectivity and Video in the real world needs to be state of art if the professional sports action market is to survive for Nikon or Canon or Sony as stills in this future world is falling behind like film did to digital, why else is the industry going hybrid, its called change or you wont survive thanks to 5G, 6G, soon to be 8G pro plus.
I feel The D850 style cameras in the industry will be standard 12- 14 fps likely 60- 80 plus mp arena with drill down versions of the improved focus tracking and added 16 bit with staked sensors.
The camera body dictates your lens purchases, so its a mind field, its like buy the printer cheap and they get you on et inks LOL,
Time is too go all mirrorless, FX is dead in the eyes of manufactures, there is so much more profit in mirrorless.
MF is 16 bit and soon will be 200 mp plus....the show goes on.
If your viewing platform is Instagram, Flicker, U tube, your PC or iMac, or iPad, your phone, then stay with what you have and learn to use it properly, if your printing large quality fine art works for clients, or streaming a game to a net work, hey you have to be on point.
One thing for certain Change is upon us.
Gee the the high end FX gear is looking great, soon you can have a 500 PF for $1000 Used.............D5 D6 for chips, when the drill down from theZ9 comes and the Z8 series arrives, man
a Z6 Z7 will be just a giveaway.
I hope Nikon really delivers for once.
Only an opinion as always LOL
OZ down under
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
What if a person actually uses photography for their own personal enjoyment in life and not interested in earning money from photography. Are they allowed to buy a better camera too....lol
O
Well-known member
Absolutely...........
I was asleep in bed last night, I had just finished selecting some GPS locations recorded in my Drone.
My drone was programed to take of on its own at dawn, automatically go to the 3 GPS locations, video the sunrise for 30 seconds from each location, also take 6 stills from each video, and, if along the way home there are any BIF or any wildlife nearby it should track and eye focus locked on snap or video the subject, then stream all video and stills to my in box and Instagram account while on its way home all before I wake for breakfast.
Then I woke up.
Fact or fiction or soon to be reality.
Oz down under.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
Are their luddites of photography?
eaj101
Well-known member
After diving into this a bit, I think the performance of F-mount lenses on the Z9 ought to be the same or better than the same lenses on DSLRs. The issue with 'slower' AF of F lenses through the FTZ appears to be an artifact of the fundamental architectural differences between the implementations on the two designs. Steve has some really really good drill down on the implementations of both Nikon DSLR AF and Z AF in his 'Secrets of Autofocus...' books. The structure of the sensor arrays are really different. (mirrorless AF sites are all line sensors on the main sensor, but there are more of them, DSLRs use a separate AF sensor with line and cross sites but there are fewer of them, for example. But a DSLR AF site is larger than the ones on a mirrorless camera) The differences between contrast-detect and phase-detect come into play as well. After that, there's a big issue of how much compute power you have to throw at the problem and which strategies (phase detect and then tweak with contrast detect, or straight phase etc) you decide to use.
Net, I think that a Z with adequate horsepower should be able to focus an F lens fine, just as fast as a DSLR, if not faster. But a designed-for-Z lens might well focus faster than an F lens.
p.s. Just to confuse us, Nikon also uses the data from the metering array for DSLR AF as well. If I remember correctly, there are over 180K exposure sites on the metering array.
This is just my understanding of what's involved, but global assertions about how different yet-to-be-released models are going to act are slippery.
Net, I think that a Z with adequate horsepower should be able to focus an F lens fine, just as fast as a DSLR, if not faster. But a designed-for-Z lens might well focus faster than an F lens.
p.s. Just to confuse us, Nikon also uses the data from the metering array for DSLR AF as well. If I remember correctly, there are over 180K exposure sites on the metering array.
This is just my understanding of what's involved, but global assertions about how different yet-to-be-released models are going to act are slippery.
mdavis501
New member
I do believe there's something in between YouTube /FB and large fine art prints. Those are two extremes and there's life in the middle.
mdavis501
New member
Until we see the specs of the real Z9, we can speculate a ton about what "ought to be" and "should be" and "I bet will be"...till the cows come home. It's speculation - perhaps based on Nikon past performance, but speculation nevertheless. In the meantime, there's an A1 now, not 2022, but now.
We can also talk about what is "good enough" and that's a very arguable topic. Is the D850 or D5 or D6 with the 500 f/4 "good enough"? It depends on your level of the hobby, disposable income to expend on your hobby, and what you feel is good enough for your tastes. Unless someone is paying you ( a completely different story), then it all boils down to personal preference. 7 years from now, there will be few DSLRs.
We can also talk about what is "good enough" and that's a very arguable topic. Is the D850 or D5 or D6 with the 500 f/4 "good enough"? It depends on your level of the hobby, disposable income to expend on your hobby, and what you feel is good enough for your tastes. Unless someone is paying you ( a completely different story), then it all boils down to personal preference. 7 years from now, there will be few DSLRs.
O
Well-known member
That's certainly legitimate in my view. I bought an A1, 100-400 and 200-600, I'm not interested in making money, but I'm enjoying photography more than ever.
Mate................ thats what its all about....brilliant
Oz Down Under
Last edited:
O
Well-known member
Luddites............ Yes There are some die hards who still want to do film, and that's great, film has its place as it has something very special about it.
In my mind 35mm in film or digital is chronically obsolete.
There are plenty of people who love photography regardless of trending technology be it in FX or Mirrorless, film, video.
Embracing new technology is Defiantly not an issue in my camp, for me I wait for quantum tangible changes, D3X to D850 as everything in between was ahhh so so, I am all for progress and new technology 100%, but only when those new changes have been tested and proven and are a quantum leap forward not just version 5 of 10 or just marketing BS.
How do you feel if you bought a Z6 with the initial F4 Z glass only available, then comes along the Z6 II with overpriced to the hilt F2.8 Z glass, now the Z9 and Z8 with drill downs that will make the Z6 II and 7 II seem like crap.
I unloaded my D4s D5 for 2 x D850 units, I unloaded the 600 F4, NO REGRETS with any of it, I have a basic wholly trio, till about 2022/23.
Meanwhile I borrow what I need or rent it.
I still have my D3X because no one wants to buy it, its old technology with very high shutter count but on the 70-200 FL it is not far from the door step of many things out there.
For other than sports action wildlife I am leaning towards MF 16 bit 100mp soon 200 mp I hear.......and the iPhone 12 pro plus, LOL.
After all gear only contributes around 20% for most people and 10% for others, if that.
Only an opinion as always
Oz down under.
O
Well-known member
fcotterill
Well-known member
To quote the summarized prediction:
" Z9 — As I've said pretty much from the beginning: a 45mp powerhouse all-around camera designed to supplant the D6. Why did I lock in on the 45mp resolution? Because of Nikon's continued use of a particular sized photo diode over time (D850, Z7, Z7 II) coupled with the apparent switch of that technology over to Tower Semiconductor. The only question I've had is what's in the stacked layer of this new sensor: is it just DRAM/output, or is it DRAM/processing/output? The latter would allow the expanded DR Nikon demonstrated in a 1" chip in January. We also don't know if this sensor can go completely global shutter or is just fast rolling shutter ala the Sony A1/A9. But it's clear that it can run at 30 fps full frame, provide 8K video, and drive the EVF without blackout, so it has to be one or the other stacking approach. The focus system is completely rewritten and object aware. The menus get a refresh. The rest is what you'd expect from a D6. Launch in November, dependent upon final testing. "
" Z9 — As I've said pretty much from the beginning: a 45mp powerhouse all-around camera designed to supplant the D6. Why did I lock in on the 45mp resolution? Because of Nikon's continued use of a particular sized photo diode over time (D850, Z7, Z7 II) coupled with the apparent switch of that technology over to Tower Semiconductor. The only question I've had is what's in the stacked layer of this new sensor: is it just DRAM/output, or is it DRAM/processing/output? The latter would allow the expanded DR Nikon demonstrated in a 1" chip in January. We also don't know if this sensor can go completely global shutter or is just fast rolling shutter ala the Sony A1/A9. But it's clear that it can run at 30 fps full frame, provide 8K video, and drive the EVF without blackout, so it has to be one or the other stacking approach. The focus system is completely rewritten and object aware. The menus get a refresh. The rest is what you'd expect from a D6. Launch in November, dependent upon final testing. "
FB101
Well-known member
Hard to fault his logic - his predicted line-up and timelines would fit Nikon’s historical patterns quite well. But when I see no Z8 any time soon and the number of other bodies predicted, my immediate reaction is “can they pull it off”, “when would those bodies and lenses be actually available” and “am I that patient”
That's my challenge. Nikon performance over the past four years continues to challenge my patience and my level of confidence in what Nikon says and "leaks".Hard to fault his logic - his predicted line-up and timelines would fit Nikon’s historical patterns quite well. But when I see no Z8 any time soon and the number of other bodies predicted, my immediate reaction is “can they pull it off”, “when would those bodies and lenses be actually available” and “am I that patient”
O
Well-known member
Not long to go now LOL
Oz down under
Oz down under
O
Well-known member
The Nikon roll out is great news and hope it all works, exciting times. Looking forward to it all. Just need to remortgage the house LOL.
Get ready for more models with incremental upgrades at top $, cameras are being driven now like smart phones, new versions every 2 years or less, Resale will be largely a thing of the past.
Validation - dose it matter, Not really, but As I said 12- 24 months ago, sell everything while you can, entry level will be 45 to 60 mp and the level up will be 80 to 100 plus, speeds will be 20 to 30fps plus , video will be upscaled to 8 k as minimum with stills coming from Video more and more, this is inevitable to be the norm going forward..
Along with the higher pixels we will see a need for new glass that will be pumped 30% - 40% in price for cheaper made more profitable lenses.
Here is the kicker, you have a 80 or 100mp camera, wow, you going to need 5g 6g 8 g whatever to deal with this, faster computers or devices all to see it on an iPad, phone, or iMac ?? face book Instagram web site HMMM oh yes printing will be defiantly better because you can now print to 3 meters easily, LOL.
Its going to be all a new bigger picture and journey going forward......and more expensive, but hey you cant take it with you LOL.
For other than Sports action and wild life a 200 mp MF will kill everything in 35mm, 35mm in my mind is ancient and obsolete.
45mp at 20-30 FPS I feel for those who bought a D850 with a grip its going to be painful.
Only an opinion Oz down Under
Last edited:
Sure film. But also some people take 1 shot at a time. No burst. 1 frame every few seconds. or every 15 seconds. Not recording actions or very good at getting just the moment. I don't have this talent so after a trip, I sort and sort and sort ... only few hundred thousand more images to sort ..
ChrisM
Well-known member
I don't assume it is the 200mp count that does the killing, but the larger lenses and the larger surface for capturing light with MF. The pixel count is an abstraction as long as you don't directly translate it to the viewed image. My 4K screen can show 3800px horizontally. Going up higher will bring little gain, unless I drastically increase the display size, because my eyes cannot discern the extra detail. So my viewed images remain under 10mp. For printing I can use a bit more, but unless printing bigger than A2, all these pixels are not fully used. The larger light capturing surface and the larger lenses though that come with the MF system, for those I can see sense.
O
Well-known member
I hear you, here is some interesting guff on bit and colours I find interesting.
The sensor of a MF camera is all 16 bit.
The MF optic quality in lenses are superior to 35mm.
Hire a medium format camera and lens for a week end do your most dramatic landscapes and I feel you will never use 35mm again.
My D3X has 16 bit in Blacks and that was in 2008 ? The D850 has 16 bit as well in blacks ?
The Guff
The human eye can only discern about 10 million different colors, so saving an image in any more than 24 bpp is excessive if the only intended purpose is for viewing.
On the other hand, images with more than 24 bpp are still quite useful since they hold up better under post-processing.
Color gradations in images with less than 8-bits per color channel can be clearly seen in the image histogram see last image.
The available bit depth settings depend on the file type. Standard JPEG and TIFF files can only use 8-bits and 16-bits per channel, respectively.
See 16 bit then 12 bit then 8 bit last.
In my mind 14 bit is optimal, 10 bit is crap unless its hidden in pixel density of 35mm sensors 16 bit is preferred and used in Medium format.
35mm camera makers in my opinion cheat by using pixel density, 60 mp 35mm sensor the pixel density is going up drastically.
Using images with 16-bits per channel can greatly reduce the risk of posterization since this provides up to 256 times as many color levels as 8-bit. Realistically, you can expect anywhere from 4-16 times as many levels if your image originated from a digital camera since most capture at 10 to 12-bits per channel in RAW mode — regardless of whether or not you saved it as a 16-bit file.
Adjustment layers in Photoshop will decrease the likelihood of unnecessarily performing the same image manipulations more than once.
Even if your original image was 8-bits per channel, performing all editing in 16-bit mode will nearly eliminate posterization caused by rounding errors.
Working in color spaces with broad gamuts can increase the likelihood of posterization because they require more bit depth to produce the same color gradient.
Where you see more of the benefits form MF is in printing, more dimensionality with massively more tones especially created in the detail etc etc
Only an opinion Oz down Under
Attachments
Last edited:
Ad Astra
Well-known member
The question was "Will the Nikon Z9 Deliver?"
Well even Tony thinks so! Nikon Z9 specs beats Canon R3 and Sony a1
Well even Tony thinks so! Nikon Z9 specs beats Canon R3 and Sony a1
There's a lot to be said for that…but OTOH unless you are absolutely sure that your current gear is holding you back it's a lot of money to switch. The other thread that talked about the osprey/trout that made the OP switch…yeah, I could see adding another body/lens for the fast BIF situations but unless that's a significant portion of your shots it's a lot of bucks and then you have to keep proficient with 2 menuing systems and control sets rather than 1 and I have a hard enough time with just a single one. Assuming we ever can freely travel again and wife and I start doing so…then if I'm unsatisfied with action shots I could see myself switching as I'm not emotionally bonded with Nikon…I've used Canon gear as well as Pentax over the years…but I don't and probably never will shoot enough to really stay proficient with 2 different systems. In that case…it would be a switch instead…and I'm not averse to doing that but so far in the current environment it hasn't been worth it.
It is nice talking about and wishing for new toys though.
Oz…I don't think anybody will disagree with you that MF is better than FX or DX IQ wise…assuming you can get about the same number of pixels on target with the larger format…if not then you'll lose some detail as that's just the nature of physics.
For landscapes, portraits, and anything that a relatively short lens (say 105mm or 135 35mm equivalent maximum focal length) then yes, MF will give you better results. But…and it's a big but…you then have to consider…even for landscapes/portraits…any additional size or weight that the MF body forces you into along with any extra cost. In addition…you have to consider the output medium and figure out whether all the extra IQ in your landscape/portrait gives you effectively better output in the final as viewed image. If viewing on screen or print sizes up to 36 inches or so in size…it's not intuitively obvious that the final will be better.
And then there's the issue of wildlife or anything requiring a lot of focal length. Just like DX has an effective focal length advantage over FX…MF has the corresponding disadvantage…and for a whole lot of scenarios in wildlife/action an effective focal length of 500 or 600 or even greater is just what you have to have…and that means your MF lens has to b 1000 or 1200 by the time you take whatever smaller than 1.0 image factor into account. Lenses that long are just about non existent aren't they…I haven't looked…and even if available what do they cost and can one effectively hike around with them to get to where you need to be?
I'm not suggesting MF is a bad thing…but as we all know there's a lot more factors to think about than sensor size…
For landscapes, portraits, and anything that a relatively short lens (say 105mm or 135 35mm equivalent maximum focal length) then yes, MF will give you better results. But…and it's a big but…you then have to consider…even for landscapes/portraits…any additional size or weight that the MF body forces you into along with any extra cost. In addition…you have to consider the output medium and figure out whether all the extra IQ in your landscape/portrait gives you effectively better output in the final as viewed image. If viewing on screen or print sizes up to 36 inches or so in size…it's not intuitively obvious that the final will be better.
And then there's the issue of wildlife or anything requiring a lot of focal length. Just like DX has an effective focal length advantage over FX…MF has the corresponding disadvantage…and for a whole lot of scenarios in wildlife/action an effective focal length of 500 or 600 or even greater is just what you have to have…and that means your MF lens has to b 1000 or 1200 by the time you take whatever smaller than 1.0 image factor into account. Lenses that long are just about non existent aren't they…I haven't looked…and even if available what do they cost and can one effectively hike around with them to get to where you need to be?
I'm not suggesting MF is a bad thing…but as we all know there's a lot more factors to think about than sensor size…
eaj101
Well-known member
The whole medium format vs 35mm thing is sneaky. I shot 6x7 for a long time, and in film it was unquestionably better for large prints than 35mm, though I'm sure that the Pentax lenses weren't actually sharper in a lines-per-millimeter sense than the best Nikon/Canon lenses. In digital 35mm/FX unquestionably out-resolves film, even up to @5x7 these days.
Digital MF is harder to evaluate, in part because there are a number of so-called 'medium formats'. Phase 1 is the leader at @150mp, fuji at both 100 and 50.... I have several friends who shoot Phase 1s, and the large prints from them are remarkable. But I haven't found the 50mp medium format images I've seen to be remarkably better than the 45mp FX ones. The (slightly) larger MF sensor might be a tad smoother and a tad sharper, but you'll cover that much in normal post processing anyway. But it's not like 6x7 film, which was 2.5 times larger than 35mm. Mamiya and Fuji MF lenses are not up to the best FX in lines-per-millimeter (there are a few ridiculously expensive Zeiss lenses that beat them), but MF's advantage in area doesn't push that limit as much. And as Neil says there are all sorts of DOF issues.
I've looked seriously into MF several times, but you have to forget telephotos, the cost is still atrocious - even more so if you go to the clear leader, which is Phase One.
Since I'm not printing wall-sized murals....
Digital MF is harder to evaluate, in part because there are a number of so-called 'medium formats'. Phase 1 is the leader at @150mp, fuji at both 100 and 50.... I have several friends who shoot Phase 1s, and the large prints from them are remarkable. But I haven't found the 50mp medium format images I've seen to be remarkably better than the 45mp FX ones. The (slightly) larger MF sensor might be a tad smoother and a tad sharper, but you'll cover that much in normal post processing anyway. But it's not like 6x7 film, which was 2.5 times larger than 35mm. Mamiya and Fuji MF lenses are not up to the best FX in lines-per-millimeter (there are a few ridiculously expensive Zeiss lenses that beat them), but MF's advantage in area doesn't push that limit as much. And as Neil says there are all sorts of DOF issues.
I've looked seriously into MF several times, but you have to forget telephotos, the cost is still atrocious - even more so if you go to the clear leader, which is Phase One.
Since I'm not printing wall-sized murals....
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
The Olympics are here!!!