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

bobn2 wrote:

dkyl wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

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?

The Z50 platform is designed to take an APS-C sensor, uses an APS-C shutter, arranges the internals where they need to be for an APS-C sensor. Just like they used the D7x00 platform for the D500, because it was a platform designed for the smaller sensor.

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.

The 'platform' includes the key components which are different for APS-C. It's not as different for a mirrorless as it is for a DSLR, but it's still different. In any case, part of the object would be to update the Z DX platform to include IBIS (if it hasn't already been designed to take it). Does it make you feel better about it if I call it the Z DX platform rather than the Z50 platform?

Not feel better but it certainly makes it clearer because it is not at all obvious to a layman that these platform’s internal designs are only specific to the sensor format.

So yes, calling a Z50 the Z DX platform does make things very clear.

So does calling the Z5/6/7 the Z FX platform since it no longer ties a specific body size to the platform, but just the sensor format.

And the Z9 would be called a Z FX unibody platform so there wouldn’t be any confusion that the body can have its integrated grip cut off without causing major structural detriment.

Thank you. Sorry I may seem like a pain trying to understand things but I can assure you I’m just trying to learn so thanks for the perseverance. I don’t mind being the idiot asking the stupid questions. Perhaps others have also found it informative.

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.

Sure, no problem for Nikon in making a bigger camera on the same platform. So, if they wanted to make the next Z7 bigger, fine. If they wanted to call that bigger Z7 a Z8, fine. I just don't think there's room for both the big and the little if that's all that separates them, and if the choice is between big and little, I think in the mirrorless market, little is the one that wins.

I don't either. I think the larger body require more to it to justify a bigger price tag but as you’ve written earlier, the non-bespoke stacked FF sensor doesn’t appear to be on the cards so it’s missing it’s most important market differentiator to the smaller one.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

 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