Will the Nikon Z9 Deliver?

[O]

Well made points and cant disagree with them.
However, Phase one is not the end I am interested in, The Fuji 100mp soon to be 200mp I hear is where I am sniffing around, but not for Action.

IE: what is a Z9 going to do for me that D850 cant if I am not shooting BIF sports action, if I shoot on a tripod on still subjects with long exposure then the Z9 is overkill and unnecessary...in this application the D850 will do 99% of what the Z9 will.
The same with a D850 versus medium format, MF can be overkill and not that much better than a D850 if your looking at things on a phone I pad PC etc, Now looking at fine art print works done on 300 gms rag water colour paper in say 90 x70cm then120 x150cm or 150x180cm MF comes into its own, I have seen spectacular works done on the D850, but the next level seems to be MF, now as the industry moves say from 36- 45 mp to 60-80 mp then 90 100 mp, in 35mm we will be seeing an increase in Pixel density I assume, MF 40 mp is the DX version in MF, 60mp is I thought FF in MF, MF has moved to 100-150m soon 200-250mp, their is more head room in MF as 35mm is maxed out at 60-80 and needs to go stacked sensors like the phones ?

The 35mm FF sensor legs are getting shorter and shorter and in my mind closer to its use by than ever before unless there is a massive new technology looming.
I think it would be great if Nikon came out with something larger in a sensor than 35mm say in the Z range, the lens mount size could accommodate the concept I feel.
I have seen some really nice works from the Fuji 100mb MF with amazing tolerance to editing and cropping for still subjects.
I guess if 40mm in MF is the DX equivalent, then 35mm FF must be like the 4/3rds sensor or smaller.
For the going forward if Fuji comes good on a 150-200 mp it would be amazing.

Organic colour tones micro contrast 16 bit plus is what matters to me for high end prints....and..it will be interesting to see how 35mm deals with ethical full on 16 bit colour going forward.

Hey, sorry for dancing all over the place but I think I am heading in the right direction looking at MF for top shelf prints going forward but not entering the Phase I arena.
Its cheaper to hire Phase one for a shoot in that case.

I still see 35mm as being obsolete going forward. I think its a watch this space thing.............

Only an opinion as always

 

[eaj101]

Well made points and cant disagree with them.
However, Phase one is not the end I am interested in, The Fuji 100mp soon to be 200mp I hear is where I am sniffing around, but not for Action.

IE: what is a Z9 going to do for me that D850 cant if I am not shooting BIF sports action, if I shoot on a tripod on still subjects with long exposure then the Z9 is overkill and unnecessary...in this application the D850 will do 99% of what the Z9 will.
The same with a D850 versus medium format, MF can be overkill and not that much better than a D850 if your looking at things on a phone I pad PC etc, Now looking at fine art print works done on 300 gms rag water colour paper in say 90 x70cm then120 x150cm or 150x180cm MF comes into its own, I have seen spectacular works done on the D850, but the next level seems to be MF, now as the industry moves say from 36- 45 mp to 60-80 mp then 90 100 mp, in 35mm we will be seeing an increase in Pixel density I assume, MF 40 mp is the DX version in MF, 60mp is I thought FF in MF, MF has moved to 100-150m soon 200-250mp, their is more head room in MF as 35mm is maxed out at 60-80 and needs to go stacked sensors like the phones ?

The 35mm FF sensor legs are getting shorter and shorter and in my mind closer to its use by than ever before unless there is a massive new technology looming.
I think it would be great if Nikon came out with a something larger in a sensor than 35mm in the Z range, the lens mount size could accommodate the concept I feel.
I have seen some really nice works from the Fuji 100mb MF with amazing tolerance to editing and cropping for still subjects.
I guess if 40mm in MF is the DX equivalent, then 35mm must be like the 4/3rds sensor.
For the going forward if Fuji comes good on a 150-200 mp it would be amazing.
Organic colour tones micro contrast is what matters for high end prints....and..it will be interesting to see how 35mm deals with ethical full on 16 bit colour going forward.

Hey, sorry for dancing all over the place but I think I am heading in the right direction looking at MF for top shelf prints going forward but not entering the Phase I arena.
Its cheaper to hire Phase one for a shoot in that case.

I still see 35mm as being obsolete going forward.

Only an opinion as always

I see your point, but I'd keep in mind that the volumes of MF sensors are so low that at best they're going to be piggybacking on 35mm sensor technology, and probably a few steps behind. Which means, to me, that we're not likely to see stacked BSI sensors (the 'massive new technology' you mention?) in MF anytime soon, while 35mm is heading for 80-100mp pretty quickly.

Do your prints seem to show that current FX is a limitation? I rarely print over 20x30 and I honestly am not sure I'm going to see any benefit in going above the 45mp of my current D850. Be interesting to see what happens. Maybe I'll rent a GFX100 and try it out.

 

[O]

I see your point, but I'd keep in mind that the volumes of MF sensors are so low that at best they're going to be piggybacking on 35mm sensor technology, and probably a few steps behind. Which means, to me, that we're not likely to see stacked BSI sensors (the 'massive new technology' you mention?) in MF anytime soon, while 35mm is heading for 80-100mp pretty quickly.

Do your prints seem to show that current FX is a limitation? I rarely print over 20x30 and I honestly am not sure I'm going to see any benefit in going above the 45mp of my current D850. Be interesting to see what happens. Maybe I'll rent a GFX100 and try it out.

Renting is a good option.

Prints I deal in are all ranging in the larger sizes and the color and quality is amazing, Large Rolland commercial printers are used with colour management formulas that costed a fortune, all original masterpiece painting works have been taken on MF Blads and Phase in a studio with controlled lighting.
High end Epsom and Canon printers also do a stunning job, as dose the D850, but there is just a clear jump at 150 mp MF with Schneider or Zeiss glass done well.
There is a leaning more towards now high quality scanning and drum drum scanning taking over from MF photography in these applications.
Taking landscape photos' with a Camera and printing is a different ballgame altogether, The Fuji 100 GFX defiantly delivers well used properly, 35mm seems flat like on paper, the MF seems more dimensional I feel due to the higher micro contrast colour and shades.
The Artist Norman Lindsay once said, the difference between light and dark creates dimension.
Norman painted masterpieces in his studio that had only one source of light, a window that was high up in the ceiling facing dead south, he only liked painting using a southern light as it was accurate and consistent, the walls were all covered in hessian, the studio subdued in light. NL 1879-1969

Oz down under