Build construction of Z8 vs Z9 and previous Dslrs

I noticed nikon put a large chassis frame to support the entire z9 but it has been severely stripped down in the Z8 (just making an observation). Look at how for an example the d810 chassis compares. We cannot really say it is due to weight savings because the d810 is 980g which is only 70 grams more than the z8 and it has a shutter mech and a lot of moving parts. The 850 weighs only 5 grams more than the z8 yet its chassis suggests its better built as its entire chassis extends to all four corners rather than just plastic.

I'm getting tired of the "metal/plastic" faux debates. In the modern world, a good engineer picks appropriate material for appropriate use. In the Z8, all the parts that require maintained precise alignment are mounted to the metal front frame. All the parts that don't require such precise alignment, are made from a carbon-fiber enfused polymer, which actually has more strength than some of the metal frames have had.

The DSLRs required more metal frame to support precise alignment of the focus sensor array at the bottom of the body. And even then, metal didn't do the job, as many D800 owners can attest (a break in the back of that frame would lead to the focus sensor array floating, and imprecise focus).

The only downside I see to the Z8 design is actually a slight plus, too: If you drop a Z8 and it hits hard enough to require a new lens mount be attached, it's quite possible that the entire front frame will need to be replaced, as well. The good news is that this won't "total" a camera and make it unrepairable, as did any problem with a metal frame did on a DSLR.

Thom does not seem to be worried about the build quality anyway.
www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/myths-sprout-spontaneously.html

really ? you forget bean counters ...

Thom’s statement isn’t inconsistent with bean counters. He used the term appropriate, not absolute best.

Appropriate use takes the target market and cost into account. Better materials will be used for cameras intended as professional grade.

It’s easy enough to make a bullet-proof camera. Then sit back to listen to the complaints about weight, heat, and cost.

Yes, you say this, however the Z9 keeps it's much fuller and encompassing frame which covers most of the body to all four corners. Your arguement works in reverse for the Z9: that slight plus you give the z8 a tick for becomes a negative. Are you going to suggest that a Z9 is not as well built because it doesn't have 80% plastic to its overall build compared to the Z8? I doubt we could argue that.

Mirrorless was 'meant to be lighter' yet we've lost the mirror box and the shutter mech and all that jazz and still the (similar sized) bodies' are the same weight or near abouts with a massively reduced frame compared to their more recent dslr counterparts. You try to suggest you don't need that for durability yet they think the Z9 benefits from similar design.

The only thing I'd say the Z9 chassis structure has over the Z8's is passive heat absorption. The internal heat sink basically abuts the metal back under the Rear LCD, whereas it sits against the polymer structure on a Z8. On the flip side, the Z9 chassis has a LOT of drill thrus on it (for extra controls), which means it requires a lot more sealing. But in terms of "strength", I think you're going to find that the material Nikon is using is like that in some high-end performance automobiles: extremely rigid and with no memory on being hit (which most metals have).

I'll say it again: Nikon engineers have chosen a very appropriate materials balance in the Z8. Brings the weight down some without sacrificing rigidity or capability.

I'm not sure who you're quoting as saying "mirrorless was meant to be lighter," but I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works. A D610 and Z5 weigh about the same.

There's a lot to be said to have some mass in a camera. Make cameras too small and too light and they're near impossible to hold on subject with telephoto lenses, for instance.

But I can't make any sense of your last paragraph. We, they, you, and random phrases that don't seem to relate. Let's see if I can state what I believe without you trying to do it for me: "The Z8 is a mid-size camera with excellent durability and weather-proofing, one that can handle big lenses well while still being small enough to pack in packs that fit regional jet overheads."

Meanwhile, I'd say "Like the other Nikon pro flagship bodies before it, the Z9 is wildly overbuilt, and is going to outperform me when the 300-pound linebacker runs me over on the sideline."

If you want a smaller, lighter, more fragile body, you can certainly find one on your camera dealer's shelves. Buy that instead of a Z8. If you want a more rugged body, buy the Z9. You have a choice.

Are you sure you are right?
To a considerable extent you seem to be wrong.

The D8 is about 15% smaller and lighter than the d850 - despite the Z8 having IBIS.
The Z8 also has 20 fps for RAW shooting compared to 7 (without a grip) on the D850.

The Z7 with IBIS is distinctly smaller and lighter than the Z8.

The Z8 and Z7 have a 45 MP image capture sensor similar to the D850 sensor.

'They' is Nikon, the camera companies. ML was touted as a weight saving a lot of times over and over by marketing. And what I am saying further to that is that the z8 is missing a lot of moving parts which obviously have a weight to them and they have got rid of a lot of the metal frame yet it still approaches weights of the d850 and d810 despite the z8 still being slighter smaller than both...

You said that the lack of frame is a minor downside previously but it can be looked at it as a plus. You have to pick one. You can't state having a full frame on the z9 is durable plus point, but a weakness on a d850/d810 (aware of the subframe problem on the 800 non withstanding)...which is what your saying if you are telling me the z8 is just as strong or better than the 850. Should the d850 had more plastic and less frame to make it stronger, really? If the z9 is more durable (no doubt it is) it has the full chassis, the z8 does not so it has to be at least a little weaker than it and the d850/810. I'm just wondering why the weight is so close to the dslr gen with a significantly cut down frame. Flippy screen and ibis okay, but the ML has lost a lot of parts...

Not saying I don't like the z8, nor that I won't buy it. Just making an observation. No doubt it will still be strong (enough). It is potentially true that if they continued making new high end dslrs (eg d900) they'd have adopted the same approach. It is interesting nonetheless.

Yeah aware of that...I owned one years ago. The 810 is better built than the 800.

It may not have been quoted as ML was suppose to be lighter, but, and feel free to go back through DPReview threads, there were dozens and dozens of comments to the effect that ML was lighter and that DSLRs were dinosaurs and "bricks"

I pointed out back then that if you wanted an ML camera with all the dials, function buttons, real estate for holding on to the thing, you would end up with a body pretty much the size and weight of a DSLR. When you factored in that many Zee lenses are bigger and heavier, kinda like for like, that the combo would likely be heavier.

It's amazing that no one remembers that all of this stuff is still there from a number of years ago, when all the rage was "I'm moving to mirrorless because it's lighter". It's not like searching for the scrolls in some archeological dig. It's a trip across the screen to DPReview to the first year or two of the Zs.

So now we are to the point where I predicted it would take to get a nice, fleshed out body, and it's "oh, it was never about the weight"

And I'm not against it, for me, they are getting to the size I'd want.

That seems to be a very broad view on your part of marketing that was model targeted. When Nikon was trying to get a D750/D850 user to switch to a Z6/Z7 that was specifically true. It's also specifically true of the D6 to Z9. However, you're interpreting Nikon's specific marketing as meaning "all mirrorless."

They also added parts, specifically a very heavy VR platform, which the D8xx cameras do not have. "Approaches" is not the same as "equals" by the way. Essentially a Z8 weighs one battery less than a D850.

No I don't. Technology can have both pluses and minuses simultaneously. I'm also not sure I ever wrote "lack of frame is a minor downside." One of the problems I constantly have is people "remember" what I wrote rather than actually quote it.

Don't tell me what I'm saying. Because you'd be wrong. I have not written "as strong or better," that is your conclusion on what I've written so far, and you're going way further than I've actually written.

Both full frame and the hybrid frame approach have their pluses and minuses. I'm not aware of any previous hybrid frame camera Nikon has made—and there are quite a few of them—having chassis issues, but I am aware of more than one all metal frame camera having chassis issues. One design is not necessarily 100% better than another. Until someone shows me how a Z8 chassis fails, and specifically because of the hybrid design, I'll stick to my observations: I've yet to find a hybrid chassis an issue.

Again, that's not the case. The issue with the D800 was in a very narrow part of the metal frame just behind the AF sensor box. When that broke—and again, that only happened on some bodies that had "bad pours" where the tightly constrained area in question didn't join right—the AF sensor box was no longer supported properly, and thus focus sensor alignment would not be consistent or correct. Because this involved the frame of the camera, those D800's were considered "totaled" by Nikon and unrepairable. They would have had to tear the entire camera down to parts, get a new frame, and build it from scratch to repair it. As I pointed out the previous time you said this, I and others consulted with metal experts, showing them photos of a "broken" frame. Their expert opinion was consistent: bad pour through a poorly designed section.

To Nikon's credit, when challenged, they tended to silently offer a refurbished D800 to those that encountered the issue.

Quoted text
That seems to be a very broad view on your part of marketing that was model targeted. When Nikon was trying to get a D750/D850 user to switch to a Z6/Z7 that was specifically true. It's also specifically true of the D6 to Z9. However, you're interpreting Nikon's specific marketing as meaning "all mirrorless."

The z7 is lighter than a d850 but the point is it is not a d850. Not even close. By the time you add all the buttons switches and size it up it becomes not far off the weight of the d850. (Z8). The Z7 is proably nearer half the size of the D850; of course it is going to be lighter weight! This was well touted everywhere on the internet as the reason folk where selling those heavy dslrs as TO Shooter explains.

But you did...here is a direct quote of what you wrote:
"The only downside I see to the Z8 design is actually a slight plus, too"

Quoted text
Don't tell me what I'm saying. Because you'd be wrong. I have not written "as strong or better," that is your conclusion on what I've written so far, and you're going way further than I've actually written.

Hard to tell exactly what you are saying. You admit it could be a downside but are denying you said that. Reality is the z9 has a big solid frame and they are likely going to be more solidly built. The d850 has a big old frame also, like the z9 so it's probably likely to be a little better built than the z8. But time will tell...as usual i see questionable decisions. I really debate why they decide to remove the locking switch on the card door that the Z9 had. The non locking card slot still flicks open as I have seen several youtubers even Ricci Talks is mentioning that one and I believe he is on the payroll? (although less so than the z7 design which was ridiculously poor), why not just go ahead and fix that? Would it have killed them to put that tiny click lock ala the z9; or better still not have the whole door open from the thumbpiece area? Perhaps some beancounting was going on there too, who knows. There are other little minor things but I digress...

Quoted text
Both full frame and the hybrid frame approach have their pluses and minuses. I'm not aware of any previous hybrid frame camera Nikon has made—and there are quite a few of them—having chassis issues, but I am aware of more than one all metal frame camera having chassis issues. One design is not necessarily 100% better than another. Until someone shows me how a Z8 chassis fails, and specifically because of the hybrid design, I'll stick to my observations: I've yet to find a hybrid chassis an issue.

You also said this "The DSLRs required more metal frame to support precise alignment of the focus sensor array at the bottom of the body. "
But the z9 got the full frame and it's not a dslr...So what's more likely here is they knew if they did that the weight would have become too close to the Z9 so they decided to tailor back the frame and use composite material.
[/quote]

NB so many edits to try and fix the quoted parts.

It goes back a lot farther than the first Zs. I remember Sony fanboys buzzing the forums trying to sell everyone and their mother on the concept of ML, with fancy graphics etc. Sonys back then were lighter than most DSLRs. And the first Zs are pretty light too.

It most certainly was the case that reduced weight and size were touted left, right, and center, as primary desirable attributes, advantages, and improvements of ML over DSLR. I bought into it bigtime, and I'm holding them to it. I might consider a medium format camera the size/weight of the Z8, though would use it only with the smallest primes in the class. Actually, what the Z8 has accomplished in my case is to direct my train of thought toward a Fuji GFX with the small zoom and a small prime.

But for 35mm FF, the Z5/6/7 is as heavy/large as I'm going, and a true advancement to me will not be the Z8 or Z9, it will be what Sony has started to develop, though still in unsatisfactory rudimentary form--Z50 size FF cameras like the A7C and RX1Rii. I'm actually wondering what Nikon has up its sleeve in the way of a FF Df that's smaller and lighter than the Z5/6/7 form.