Nikon’s new mirrorless system, coming in ... late September 2018

[Kirk_C]

The biggest non-phone camera market is and will continue to be wedding and event photographers and every time I read another post with the specs for the Z it's more apparent to me that's Nikon's thinking here.

IBIS and usable auto focus while shooting video is primarily targeting a stills/video multitasking wedding shooter. Real video shooters don't rely on IBIS and rarely (never) auto focus. Panasonic understands that with the 3 current Lumix bodies.

The initial lenses also suit this type of shooter.

IMHO

[BernardLanguillier]

The biggest non-phone camera market is and will continue to be wedding and event photographers and every time I read another post with the specs for the Z it's more apparent to me that's Nikon's thinking here.

IBIS and usable auto focus while shooting video is primarily targeting a stills/video multitasking wedding shooter. Real video shooters don't rely on IBIS and rarely (never) auto focus. Panasonic understands that with the 3 current Lumix bodies.

The initial lenses also suit this type of shooter.

Indeed, you are most probably right.

Cheers,
Bernard

[D White]

Nikon turning into Leica? That's hyperbole. Nikon doesn't make cameras that are affectations. As for where the market is for high end camera systems these days, I would love to know how many A7RIIIs are sold to so-called pros using them in the pro market versus prosumers or more serious hobbyists. Same with the Nikon D850. Or the Canon 5DIV. The big market is with the prosumer and serious hobbyists, not the so-called pros. The latter don't spend money based upon the availability of disposable income. They are smart and approach the decision on buying new equipment in a hard headed way and only buy what they actually NEED, not what they want. It's just a matter of time until the infatuation with the bokeh nonsense from fast lenses peters out and camera companies start to recognize that the whole market for everything is moving toward smaller and lighter. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about skis,  cameras or backpacks. I personally stop down to f/11 or f/16 almost always to achieve adequate depth of field. Why do I want to carry around an f/1.4 lens that is three times the size and weight? It's insane. Moreover, the latest cameras have amazing high ISO performance. It's 2018. We aren't shooting Kodachrome at ASA 25 anymore. The real world advantages of an f/1.4 lens over an f/1.8 lens are so irrelevant once you get over the infatuation with blurred backgrounds. If Nikon were to offer an 35mm f/1.8 lens with drop dead optical performance that was the same price as an f/1.4 lens that couldn't match the optical performance of the f/1.8 lens and the f/1.4 lens was twice the size and weight of the f/1.8 lens, I believe the f/1.8 lens would vastly outsell the f/1.4 lens.
I actually own a Sony A7RII. to me, it's an electronic toy designed and engineered by an electronics company. I haven't handled a Z7 yet, but my expectation is that the experience of using it will be far more satisfying.

Your are making a lot of assumptions:

Not every one is a landscape shooter stoping down to f16.

Some people actually like the effect of shallow depth of field, and I don't see this evaporating any time soon.

Not every one wants to sacrifice any quality by boosting ISO. There is still a difference between ISO100 and even 800, let alone even higher ratings.

A good system gives choices; Speed vs size and portability. Cost vs maximum performance. Convenience of zooms vs benefits of fixed. Specialty lenses.

And thank god for prosumer users to help fund diversity of products.

[D Fuller]

I just discovered a disturbing spec in the official Nikon TechSpec sheet for the Z7: Battery life for movie recording is listed as 10-15 minutes. Can that be right? If it is, it's the most disturbing spec I've heard so far. Certainly it's one thing to look for some clarity on in the coming days.

[BernardLanguillier]

I just discovered a disturbing spec in the official Nikon TechSpec sheet for the Z7: Battery life for movie recording is listed as 10-15 minutes. Can that be right? If it is, it's the most disturbing spec I've heard so far. Certainly it's one thing to look for some clarity on in the coming days.

That is indeed a bit ridiculous.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Not every one is a landscape shooter stoping down to f16.

Some people actually like the effect of shallow depth of field, and I don't see this evaporating any time soon.

Not every one wants to sacrifice any quality by boosting ISO. There is still a difference between ISO100 and even 800, let alone even higher ratings.

A good system gives choices; Speed vs size and portability. Cost vs maximum performance. Convenience of zooms vs benefits of fixed. Specialty lenses.

That is very true.

Now, the practical difference in look and ISO related image quality between f1.4 and f1.8 isn't that large, especially if f1.8 is excellent as claimed by Nikon.

Besides, we will soon have many other options, starting with existing F mount glass, but also adapted lenses with the soon to show up adapters.

Finally, Nikon had published a roadmap with at least a 58mm f0.95 manual focus (that some seem to see as a luxury item, I see it more as engineers having fun) and 50mm f1.2 autofocus and we can expect more.

I don't think anyone is saying that the Z system is making do without large aperture lenses, it is on the other hand, going to be best in class on that front.

The point is more that it makes a lot of sense to offer very high quality primes opening a bit less than are compact and still suitable for a wide variety of situations. The point being that most brands spec these as cheapish lenses with lesser image quality.

Cheers,
Bernard

[davidgp]

Is it focus-by-wire? And if so, how does one do that?

They say it is going to be a manual focus lens, so no focus by wire.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Political comments are supposed to be banned but I doubt Jeremy is reading this thread.

I am reading the thread; and I do not regard that as a political comment.

Jeremy

[davidgp]

The manufacturer of a sensor is not that important really. There are many fabs out there.

Ohh, yes it is... and very important. A fab it is not just a simply assembly line, a very important success of a chip and its performance depends on the processes how to build transistors and photodiodes in the fab.

As you can read here: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/07/17/pixels-for-geeks-a-peek-inside-nikons-super-secret-sensor-design-lab <-- Nikon already says that they are using photodiodes designed by Sony (well... they don't say Sony, but lets say that from several years now all their sensors are done in Sony SemiConductors). They do a lot of design around the Sony photodiodes, but it is based on their technology.

If, let's say, Nikon decides to go to OmniVision or Samsung, the other bigger sensor manufacturers right now, they will need first to buy all the Samsung or OmniVision sensor design libraries, then start to understand the physical properties of their photodiodes, and go through several test and tries to get their costumized version of the sensors.

The BSI photodiode design that the D850 is using and gives that nice performance, is thanks to the Sony base photodiode design (I'm not saying that Sony designed BSI architecture... I'm saying they are probably building one of the best implementations of it, that it is used in the 45 megapixeles sensor design of Nikon or in the Apple iPhone camera sensor).

[BernardLanguillier]

Ohh, yes it is... and very important. A fab it is not just a simply assembly line, a very important success of a chip and its performance depends on the processes how to build transistors and photodiodes in the fab.

OK fine, but nobody knows what kind of agreement there is between Sony and Nikon and how they crossed shared IP.

So I don't find this that relevant in terms of determining the potential of the Z6/Z7 of future iterations of the Z.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Manoli]

The whole drama about the memory slot is such a pity because it casts a huge negative shadow on what is likely to be the best image quality system in existence in the 35mm world.

hyperbole gone wild

I don't think anyone is saying that the Z system is making do without large aperture lenses, it is on the other hand, going to be best in class on that front.

“going to be” - how do you know ?  Up until the D850 , the last time Nikon produced anything that could reasonably be described as 'best in class' , was the D3 back in 2007.

Other than that, the Z7 is pretty much a mirrorless D850, which itself is pretty much an A7r3 with a mirror. So I'd expect their performance to be pretty similar, give or take a few features on each side (eye focus, better weather sealing, pixel shift, etc.).

Probably the most accurate assessment so far.

It's a notably low-risk introduction, makes full use of existing Nikon components (whilst taking a hefty design leaf out of the Leica SL), and incorporates nothing new except IBIS. No Eye AF on launch – really ?

The only quasi certain upside that I can see is that due to the close existing relationship between Cosina/Zeiss and Nikon, it shouldn't bee too long until Batis lenses sport a redesigned rear z-mount. Should be the same for Sigma 'Art' series glass too, even though existing Art series should mount on the Nikon Z adapter.

[shadowblade]

That only seems relevant if owning all five of those cameras — and carrying several of them in some situations — is a preferable alternative. [Management consultant hat on] Market viability often relates to Pareto-optimality: roughly, having a better balance of pros over cons compared to each single alternative for the priority weightings of a sufficient number of potential customers.

You don't need to own all five cameras - just the right one for your particular situation.

Own a lot of F-mount lenses? What's the incentive for moving to Z-mount now, as opposed to sticking with D850/D5, allowing your lenses to age out/break/get stolen instead of buying more, and choosing a new system in 5-10 years time based on the situation then?

Shoot Canon? If you're happy with the base-ISO DR (and you presumably are, since you're still using it) what's wrong with sticking with Canon SLR and seeing what Canon releases on the mirrorless front in a few months time? Or, if you want better IQ but have a large collection of Canon lenses, why not the A7r3 with the performance-proven Metabones adapters? What does the Z7 offer you that each of these other options doesn't?

Don't shoot full frame and want to move into it? Why the Z6/Z7, with minimal initial lens selection and only a promise of future performance and future lenses, instead of the much more mature E-mount system with known - and good performance?

At the moment, there seems little logical reason to get the Z-mount, except as a compact secondary body for current F-mount users for when they don't want to carry a large body around, or for shooting video. This will almost certainly change with time, as Nikon releases more Z-mount lenses and reduces support for F-mount. But, until that happens, it just doesn't look particularly attractive as a primary system.

[fdisilvestro]

They say it is going to be a manual focus lens, so no focus by wire.

Focus by wire does not mean autofocus. It means there is no mechanical link between the focusing ring and the optics being moved. I don't know if the Nikon Z-mount will be focus by wire

[BernardLanguillier]

“going to be” - how do you know ?  Up until the D850 , the last time Nikon produced anything that could reasonably be described as 'best in class' , was the D3 back in 2007.

Euh... you seem to have forgotten the D3x, D800, D810, D5 as well as many of their recent lenses (19mm T/S, 70-200 f2.8 E FL,...)?

But my point is that nobody else is planning to offer f0.95 super high end statement lenses usable on a high res body as far as I know. I'd love to be pointed to an alternative.

As far as the Z having the potential to offer the best image quality, it seems to be a pretty reasonable assumption based on the facts at hand, starting by the mount, but I totally agree that we need to wait for the actual measurements. The results you can get from the Fuji GFX and Hasselblad H1D indicate what can be achieved with a correctly sized mirrorless mount and those lenses are pretty impressive, especially the 21mm F4 from Hasselblad. I am just extrapolating this to 35mm taking into account the recent performance of Nikon in terms of lens design.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Own a lot of F-mount lenses? What's the incentive for moving to Z-mount now, as opposed to sticking with D850/D5, allowing your lenses to age out/break/get stolen instead of buying more, and choosing a new system in 5-10 years time based on the situation then?

I have provided you with a list of 15~20 reasons a few posts above. Many of which you have been using for months to convince us about the superiority of the a7rIII. 

Cheers,
Bernard

[kers]

At last  Nikon seems to make a decent 50 mm lens; costing three times more.
Too bad i first have to buy a new body to use it.
I am glad to see Nikon makes new lightweight quality lenses

[BernardLanguillier]

At last  Nikon seems to make a decent 50 mm lens; costing three times more.

I guess it depends on what decent means... the way Nikon describes the 50mm, it seems to be an Otus competitor. As far as I know, it is the first time Nikon explicitly mention highly controlled longitudinal color aberations (and we know this is the most challenging aspect to correct in lens design). It that were indeed the case, we could look at it as costing 3 times more... or as costing 4 times less.

Anyway, I understand that Nikon claims seem to be perceived as marketing crap so we'll just have to wait for actual tests.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Manoli]

Euh... you seem to have forgotten the D3x, D800, D810, D5 as well as many of their recent lenses (19mm T/S, 70-200 f2.8 E FL,...)?

Nope, haven't forgotten them - I even owned the first two (and the D3).
There's a difference between describing something as being good, excellent etc and arbitrarily assigning the miniker 'best-in-class'. The D3 was ground breaking. The rest less so and as far as lenses go, read Roger Cicala on the much loved 105 f/1.4, to name but one.

We recently tested the Nikon 105mm f/1.4E ED AF-S lens and were mightily impressed. [...]  I try to identify where my head is whenever I write about anything, so you’ll understand when I go all fan-boy or all snarky. Like everyone else, my expectations going in have a lot to do with my impressions coming out. In this case, I told Aaron before we started that given how awesome this lens was optically that I expected Nikon’s optomechanics were going to modernize, too. Unlike previous Nikon lenses, I thought this lens would have nice,  modular construction, no soldered wires running hither and yon, not so much Kapton tape holding stuff down, and maybe even some curved circuit boards. You know, like a lens from the 21st century, not like one from the 1980’s. Aaron didn’t think so.

Well, I was a little bit right but mostly wrong.

[Manoli]

Anyway, I understand that Nikon claims seem to be perceived as marketing crap so we'll just have to wait for actual tests.

Not always, but often - as you'll read in the LensRentals post I've linked to above .

[BernardLanguillier]

Nope, haven't forgotten them - I even owned the first two (and the D3).
There's a difference between describing something as being good, excellent etc and arbitrarily assigning the miniker 'best-in-class'. The D3 was ground breaking. The rest less so and as far as lenses go, read Roger Cicala on the much loved 105 f/1.4, to name but one.

I guess we are just talking semantics here. To me, "best in class" simply means the best product in a given segment. It is no synonymous to ground breaking. It is possible to be best in class without being ground breaking.

Btw, I don't think we can still call the 105mm f1.4 best in class any longer. It remains brilliant, but has probably been over taken by the much heavier Sigma 105mm f1.4.

Not always, but often - as you'll read in the LensRentals post I've linked to above .

I am not sure this is a good example, because as far as I know, Nikon has never claimed that they had adopted a new lens construction approach to build the 105mm f1.4, did they? All they said is that they have put in place a new "best in class" optical bench to help speed up an improve lens design. A tester at Lens Rental had just made some assumptions that ended up not being correct.

I totally agree that Nikon has progress to make in terms of modularization, and we don't know if they have for Z bodies/lenses, but I don't see how their failure to do so with the 105mm f1.4 is a valid confirmation that their marketing claims cannot be trusted.

Cheers,
Bernard