Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
dkyl Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: Z9 (and Z8)

bobn2 wrote:

dkyl wrote:

And I'm also sure Nikon's engineer can do it in a Z50 platform if given that task but when the camera probably needs to be bigger and have a protruding grip and perhaps more space is easier for IBIS, why not just start with the larger platform in the first place, which I think the target market would likely react positively to anyways. There may be other advantages in heat dispersion, dual card slots, larger battery, sharing of vertical grip etc. which are already common to the Z6/7 platform.

The 'platform' isn't just the case. It includes the physical internal components of the camera such as the shutter and viewfinder, power systems and so on and the CAE files for how the thing is constructed and fits together, how the loads between mount and sensor are handled and so on. The same platform can be used to make bigger or smaller cameras, with grips or without grips, and so on. To develop a camera from an existing platform is a much smaller job than from scratch. Nikon tends to work from a small number of basic platforms which they elaborate to make different cameras. It is relatively infrequently that they develop an new platform from scratch. Because the thing is CAE based, they have quite a lot of freedom to adapt platforms if they want, and they do.

Anyways, this isn't important but may just illustrate our different views on the subject. Perhaps you're approaching it from the cheapest/smallest platform that can do the job philosophy, which I think is fine. But I just have a different view.

I'm not thinking of it from being the 'smallest' platform. The resulting camera can be any size that Nikon wants, just as the D500 was bigger than the D7200, even though they were built on the same platform. But it being the cheapest for Nikon is important for Nikon to make money, which it needs to do to survive. People who want to think that they can get a cut price D6 or Z9 just have to realise that's not what they are getting. They are getting a camera built around one of Nikon's production platforms which is designed to mimic some of the top end's design cues and shares some of the same features - though in the case of a mirrorless system, since many of the Z9's features will be down to that sensor, a 'mini-Z9' won't get those either.

Sure. So what makes the Z50 platform more suitable for a Z90 than the Z6/7 platform when the eventual camera might end up closer to a Z6/7 in size and perhaps sharing the same EVF, battery, battery grip, dual card slots and maybe even the IBIS system of the Z6/7?

It's still developing from an existing platform and not starting from scratch and perhaps with less modifications. Is it cost that's the main reason to go with a Z50 platform? We're not talking about DSLRs where DX and FX require different mirrorbox sizes and this Z90 would be what the target market would consider the mirrrorless D500.

In the same vein, after considering what you mentioned above I'd just ask for a Z8 (or Z7III depending on how Nikon wants to pivot) to start with the Z6/7 platform but built larger/wider to mimic the dimensions and UI of the Z9 so that it appears to be a non-integrated grip version of the Z9. Note I'm not asking for myself but just a sense that there's demand for this size class of body. If they can do so using the Z6/7 platform then great for both Nikon and customers that want that larger body.

BTW, In Nikon world should we not be saying IBVC?

I'm sorry but I don't know what IBVC is.

In Nikon world 'IS' is 'VC'.

I got that afterwards. But it may illustrate that some (many?) ppl won't recognise IBVC without thinking about it since IBIS is so ubiquitous.

 dkyl's gear list:dkyl's gear list
Olympus Tough TG-4 Nikon D700 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Olympus E-PL9 Nikon Z6 II +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow