For Nikon's sake it would be nice if you're right. By the way, I almost upgraded to the D500 but decided to go with the R5 and R7 since I was moving to mirrorless and wanted a good birding camera.
April 21, 2023
126
-
-
Nikon do seem to be slow getting new high performance bodies to market - though when they last did 16 months ago the Z9 is very, very good.
Nikon's longer focal length ML lens range currently leads the market.
-
They might well use the Z8 model name, but a 'baby Z9' is a non-starter, for quite a few reasons. Where the OP got it wrong is that Nikon has an R% competitor. It's the Z9. It's not a one for one match, but people in the Nikon camp who would buy R5 if they were with Canon are buying Z9s - that's why Nikon has sold so many. Sure, the Z9 is more expensive, but when you get to $4k + you're already talking about people with the cash to get the camera they want - the Z9 costs more but offers more, so people looking in that price range will go there. And Nikon makes a bit more money from them. That's reason 1 why there won't be a 'baby Z9' - unless it's a DX Z90 (then it won't really be a baby Z9, Nikon will just kid you along that it is). There are quite a few other reasons.
-
Which camera company are you head of product planning for? And how is your level of profitability?
I think it's quite bizarre how someone can criticise a predominantly camera manufacturing company for not making the correct products -in difficult times mind you, despite being profitable. Especially when considering their dire financial situation just a couple of short years back.
No, I don't own a Nikon camera, never have, have no intention of doing so either. -
The total system cost is also substantially different between canon and nikon - if you want the camera's AF system to work properly, then nikon has much cheaper lens options. The 800 f/6.3 saves over 10k £/$/€ compared to the canon equivalent, and the budget canon offering is fixed at f/11 so only the central AF points work. The lens price differential more than makes up for the R5/Z9 price difference.
While canon has fairly affordable 100-500, canon's obsession with limiting the aperture on their lenses means you're slightly better off in light gathering terms cropping the nikon 100-400 - and that's a cheaper lens!
-
I think Nikon will outlast most of us!
-
I’m not sure that’s the whole picture. The Z9 weighs nearly twice as much as the R5. I could afford a Z9 if I wanted one, but I’m put off by the weight and bulk. I’m pretty happy with my Z7 ii and my Z50, but if there was a camera with something like the Z9’s capabilities in a Z7 sized body I’d be placing my order.
-
Oh, I think there will be a "Baby Z9", just like there was a D5/D6 and D850, but I suspect that the hold up is the availability of the specific technology that Nikon needs to meet their next generation design goals. I also suspect their intention is for the next round of bodies to be equally as groundbreaking as was the z9, perhaps newer, stacked CMOS sensors in top tier bodies to forego mechanical shutters in all but the entry level, Expeed 7 and/or newer processors across the board. As for body size, there is a good case to be made that something around the size of the D850/D500 to fit between the Z9 and Z6/7 form factors has merit for many, especially if current processor and support electronics power requirements and heat dissipation severely limit capabilities in a Z6/7 form factor.
I worked for a major Japanese electronics company for 22 years and having been tangentially involved in product planning, I know full well that your design goals are often held hostage by the availability of cutting edge technology to achieve those goals. Nikon has shown the ability to play the long game and wait for technology availability to catch up with their design goals. The Z9 likely could have been launched much earlier with a mechanical shutter and less capable video features, but Nikon waited until they could build the product that they wanted the Z9 to be. I believe they're doing the same right now and when the do launch the next round of new products, they won't be "me too" products...and they'll have the lens lineup to match!
Cheers!
-
This is spot on. Nikon IMO badly needs a body that has improved AF capabilities in a few specific areas (for my use cases, AF under studio modelling light conditions is a huge problem with current non-Z9 bodies), more responsiveness in general (faster EVF, less lag), and a bit more resolution, in a size that doesn't take so much space in a travel backpack as a Z9 does. I think if the mythical Z8 ever comes out, it may end up being the most back-ordered, hard to get body in the history of Nikon - almost every Nikon shooter I personally know is screaming for one. To be brutally frank, if this were 10 years ago, but with current choices, and I was doing the volume of studio work I did then, today, I would have no choice but to augment the Nikon kit with a Canon R5 just for AF/responsiveness alone, for the studio work, even though I don't really think the R5 files are anywhere as malleable and "nice" as what comes out of Nikon. The Z9 doesn't solve my problems as well as an R5 would (for the studio use case). I don't like the bigger bodies for the way I work and what I do.. the Z7 form factor is about perfect actually. So actually, I do agree with the OP a bit - Nikon has lost some of their mojo on the body side of things. Love their lenses, but man, their bodies, other than the Z9, need work, and this work should have been done earlier than it appears it's going to be. That's not anti-Nikon IMO - I think that's just realistic criticism of a company who isn't what they once were, although obviously with camera sales sliding and supply chair shortages, perhaps they couldn't be. Unfortunately, in the old dpr forum, any criticism wasn't listened to and it seemed one had to be either "nikon" or "not nikon" when the reality is more nuanced. I just look at things from a realistic point of view within the context of what I do and Nikon has some issues. Luckily, since I'm aging and doing less in the domain where they are behind the curve (studio work), it's not so much an issue, but still, I'm frustrated and perplexed with the company in terms of bodies.
-
Didactic statements and an air of certitude in so many posts here and you accuse others of bullying? This is just an animated discussion. Someone who doesn't shoot Nikon anymore comes into the Z forum and "wonders" what's going on with Nikon. Of COURSE that's going to invite lively responses. I spent 23+ years on the old DPR forums and this was par for the course. The signal to noise ratio there was very bad at times, mainly because of wandering speculative posts.
The OP was NOT "simply looking for a discussion to his question." He was leading up to announcing that "I feel like they are falling behind," then announcing his ongoing journey with that competition, then talking about how sad it was for Nikon. That kind of post is of a specific genre and probably belongs in the Canon forums, honestly. Nikon is still doing great stuff. Canon is still doing great stuff. So is Fuji, for that matter, and I know many working pros who use each of those systems with no quibbles. Most all of them do not post much online about how they feel, though.
-
At this juncture we have no proof one way or the other wether there will be a Z8 (or is it called a Z7III?), which people seem to want to be the "baby Z9", the desire being a ML version of the D850. Whether that eventuates is anyone's guess, but I think Nikon need this camera as do quite a number of Nikon users. I also stated that there will also be an APS C ML D500 which, as you say, maybe called a Z90.
-
I'm thinking that a "baby" Z9 could only be DX. But like everything else in this thread, that's only an opinion.
-
It's nice to see others state what their feelings are regarding the OP without going off the deep end. This is only a discussion, and one I thought was better suited for the Nikon boards than the Canon forum. Another thing is, for those of us who may be in our 70's time isn't on our side when it comes to waiting and hoping a manufacturer comes out with something suitable for us. We kind of have to act sooner than later to get what suits our needs now and not a year or two from now. For me the Z9 is too big and heavy, albeit a great camera from what I have seen. I'm glad we had this discussion nevertheless, as it lets us see what others think regarding this subject. Didn't mean to rock anybody...if I did I apologize!
-
Nikon was very clear when it launched that they considered the Z7 to be the ML version of the D850. It was all over their advertising. But the D850 was never a 'baby D5' (or D6) so maybe the real question here is what would constitute a 'baby Z9'. The idea of a Z9 without the integrated grip is, as I said, a non-starter. Other camera specifications are very much starters.
-
No-one said that they have to have 1 for 1 correspondence. Also, no-one said that Nikon (or Canon) needs to tailor a camera for each individual. In the Nikon range that performance comes with the 'weight and bulk', which to be honest isn't, much more than the D8x0 cameras. It's much more svelte than the D5.
-
Because I wasn't sure what was the point of this thread. Simple as that.
And he hasn't been bullied at all for it. He started a thread that in many forums would be seen as straight and simple trolling, and has been treated politely and with respect. If his intention was trolling (and I'm not saying that it was - I was never told what was the point) then the troll has abjectly failed.
i) None of the proponents of a 'Z8' seem to agree on what it is.
ii) 'mini Z9' means almost nothing at all.
iii) Is there room in the Nikon range for a $4k+ camera when the Z9 is only $5.5k? -
To address just your last point, and speaking from the user point of view rather than the point of view of the business, the reason I haven’t bought a Z9 is not that it’s too expensive, it’s that it is too big and heavy. Isn’t there room for a Z6/7 size body with some of the Z9’s AF capability?
-
And isn't making money what they are in business for?
