Reading mode: Light Dark

Can we give up on the Z90 yet?

Go to last post
chambeshi said:
Droster said:
chambeshi said:
Today, an EXPEED7 CPU pushes performance of a Nikon Z to punch high above its $2000 price.... Look at the Zf

The DX sensor came into existence 25 years ago for the D1, a feasible cost effective option to mass produce with the semiconductor technology of that era. Today, the sensor cost is the big unknown to leverage Z9 level performance in a relatively affordable DX.

Judging on the Z9 hardware design, this requires a stacked-sensor to achieve no blackout.

As discussed recently.....

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67719509

the next MILC releases are whatever Nikon decides/has decided in how it's going to advance with repackaging Z9 technology. Obviously it must recognize the obvious - gapping - hole in the Z lineup.
Click to expand...
They've already done that. It's the Z8.
Click to expand...
The Z8 is too expensive for many Enthusiasts, including D500 owners.

Baby Z9 with zero EVF blackout; high fps RAW with PreCapture on stacked DX sensor; electronic shutter; ENEL15 battery with optional Vertical grip for ENEL18d
Click to expand...
I don't think that this would happen, even on the Z8, you only have EN-EL15 batteries and no EN-EL18 compatibility like it was the case with the D850's grip.

So very unlikely a DX stacked cameras wouldn't do the same thing.

(on that subject, I am really dissapointed in Nikon for changing their vertical grip implementation... their grips in DSLR years were compact and you could pack them super easy. You could also get a super long battery life by having both an EN-EL3/15 in the camera and EN-EL4/18 in the grip at the same time. Current Nikon Z grips take the spot of the battery in the camera and you can only have two EN-EL15)
chambeshi said:
chambeshi said:
chambeshi said:
This is the tier costing $1500-$2500.... A Zf design goes so far only for action genres, because EVF blackout persists.
Click to expand...
We're not going to get a stacked sensor camera for cheap.
Click to expand...
$2500 is mid tier built on a DX Stacked-sensor
Click to expand...
I would say that 2-2.5k is the top end of crop cameras nowadays : stacked flagships from Fujifilm (X-H2S) and OM-System (OM-1ii) are both in that kind of pricepoint (2.5k / 2.3k)

A Nikon stacked DX camera would surely step on some toes, but in my opinion the market isn't super big for it, unlike the mid-range APS-C body where you have the likes of the Canon R7 ($1500), A6700 ($1400) and X-S20 ($1300).

I've been saying it for a long time and I'll say it again : give me an updated / upgraded Z50 with the same very good 21MP sensor (still competitive with the sensors used by Canon / Sony / Fuji), give it IBIS, dual SD slots, weather sealing, EN-EL15c battery, 12fps mechanical shutter / 20fps electronic, EXPEED 7 processor and 10bit video and they already have a winner in their hands.

Worst part being that they already have most of the things they need for it : give it the Z5 body, Zf processor, Zfc sensor and back screen... only thing they would need to make from scratch is a DX IBIS unit, but that's hardly a challenge.
 
jimhughes said:
I get the distinct feeling it's not happening.

It's pretty depressing. I bought the Z50 when it came out because I honestly believed Nikon was going to develop a great mirrorless APS-C line.
Click to expand...
I think that's some combination of blind faith and/or wishful thinking. (Well, maybe not *blind* faith because there's always plenty of internet speculation to pin your hopes on). But Nikon never said anything publicly that suggested APS-C was going to be more than it is in the Z system. I had no real need to move from APS-C to FF, but the writing on the wall looked pretty obvious to me, so when I moved to mirrorless, it was either FF or another brand.
jimhughes said:
Instead, I get to watch Canon and Fuji leave me ever further behind, while Nikon releases the Z50 again and again, in slightly different packages.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure Canon is doing anything to get remotely excited about ... Sony has more offerings, but is pretty stagnant in APS-C as well. Fuji and OM are the only viable options in a serious crop system IMO. And both get expensive in a hurry. To the point where a high res FF body used in crop mode with appropriate lenses would be preferable to me.
 
Dennis said:
jimhughes said:
I get the distinct feeling it's not happening.

It's pretty depressing. I bought the Z50 when it came out because I honestly believed Nikon was going to develop a great mirrorless APS-C line.
Click to expand...
I think that's some combination of blind faith and/or wishful thinking. (Well, maybe not *blind* faith because there's always plenty of internet speculation to pin your hopes on). But Nikon never said anything publicly that suggested APS-C was going to be more than it is in the Z system. I had no real need to move from APS-C to FF, but the writing on the wall looked pretty obvious to me, so when I moved to mirrorless, it was either FF or another brand.
Dennis said:
Instead, I get to watch Canon and Fuji leave me ever further behind, while Nikon releases the Z50 again and again, in slightly different packages.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure Canon is doing anything to get remotely excited about ... Sony has more offerings, but is pretty stagnant in APS-C as well. Fuji and OM are the only viable options in a serious crop system IMO. And both get expensive in a hurry. To the point where a high res FF body used in crop mode with appropriate lenses would be preferable to me.
Click to expand...
Actually... Canon opening up the RF lens mount for RF-S cameras (to selected brands, but still), as well as having a pretty damn good camera with all the features you'd need (32MP APS-C sensor with top of the line autofocus, 4K60 video, 15fps burst rate with up to 30fps in electronic shutter, weather sealing, large battery and large grip, IBIS, dual SD cards slots,...) with two cheaper cameras each with some features removed based on what you need (R10 with no IBIS, no second SD, no large battery but still keeping 4K60 video, 15fps burst rate, top tier AF, jostick in the back and pretty decent grip with dual command dials, R50 being an R10 with teh same sensor and autofocus but removing pretty much everything else apart from the flip out screen and the 12fps burst rate)

I mean don't get me wrong, but this is a much more interesting lineup than what Sony has (which really only has the A6700 as a "good" camera to me, the A6600 is overpriced and A6400 is ergonomically compromised to me), or even Nikon (which really only has the Z50 in 3 different shapes).

Canon doesn't have the good dedicated APS-C long zooms *yet* but they still have decent lenses for that purpose (the 100-400 RF might be a full frame lens but it's small and lightweight making a good paiting with an APS-C body for example).

Let's say that the Canon RF-S system at the very least has a decent camera lineup with a camera specifically made for enthusiasts, replacing the old 7D mark II. I've seen plenty of people owning that camera that felt compelled and happy to upgrade to the R7 as it really feels like a follow-up camera to the 7D2.

Nikon is, at the very least, very late on giving D500 users a decent followup in Z mount (and no, the Z8 is not it).
 
chambeshi said:
rz350 said:
My understanding was that the D500 sensor was a cropped sensor version of the D850. If you shot a D850 in DX mode, you got the same sensor size. Is not the Z50 sensor the same as a D500 sensor? Regardless, I doubt there is much difference in the end result. I couldn't find the exact pixel pitch for them, but I did find this comparison. Looking at this, there is no comparison. My 2 cents.

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-Z8-vs-Nikon-Z50
Click to expand...
Nikon designed the D500 in parallel with the D5, to deliver pro level performance at reasonable cost in a DSLR with the D5 Autofocus technology
Click to expand...
Why the D500? Because the cost of a D5 here is Canada was $8500 and the D500 was $2500. It made sense to offer the D500, even though for me, it was a compromised camera with regards to weight and focusing on off centre objects. I loved the fact that I never ran out of buffer, That price difference no longer exists. Unless they put a Z90 into a Z6 body like Panasonic did with the G9-2, I don't see it happening.
chambeshi said:
https://www.nikon.com/company/technology/design/works/d5_d500.html

The D850 followed as Nikon's Centennial camera, distinguished by its high resolution sensor, compared to the D5-D500 pairing
Click to expand...
Pixel pitch on the D850 is 4.34 vs 4.2 on a D500. An insignificant difference. My whole point was that why would Nikon now release a Z90 which would cost significantly more than a D500 and more like a Z8. They could use a 40MP aps-c sensor like the Fuji and we could fill up our computers with those large files. Right now Nikon aps-c sensors are 21 MP. A cropped Z8 file is 19 MP.

Are you happy with the 21 MP files? Or do you want more?
 
chambeshi said:
Droster said:
chambeshi said:
Today, an EXPEED7 CPU pushes performance of a Nikon Z to punch high above its $2000 price.... Look at the Zf

The DX sensor came into existence 25 years ago for the D1, a feasible cost effective option to mass produce with the semiconductor technology of that era. Today, the sensor cost is the big unknown to leverage Z9 level performance in a relatively affordable DX.

Judging on the Z9 hardware design, this requires a stacked-sensor to achieve no blackout.

As discussed recently.....

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67719509

the next MILC releases are whatever Nikon decides/has decided in how it's going to advance with repackaging Z9 technology. Obviously it must recognize the obvious - gapping - hole in the Z lineup.
Click to expand...
They've already done that. It's the Z8.
Click to expand...
The Z8 is too expensive for many Enthusiasts, including D500 owners.

Baby Z9 with zero EVF blackout; high fps RAW with PreCapture on stacked DX sensor; electronic shutter; ENEL15 battery with optional Vertical grip for ENEL18d
chambeshi said:
chambeshi said:
This is the tier costing $1500-$2500.... A Zf design goes so far only for action genres, because EVF blackout persists.
Click to expand...
We're not going to get a stacked sensor camera for cheap.
Click to expand...
$2500 is mid tier built on a DX Stacked-sensor
chambeshi said:
It's a premium feature.
Click to expand...
Fujifilm X-H2S
Click to expand...
is a high end flagship premium camera.
chambeshi said:
chambeshi said:
chambeshi said:
So a faster sensor in $1.5-2.5K Nikon MILCs seems to be the big challenge balancing inputs and profits. How can it be relatively affordable - DX Stacked-sensor or repeat the Zf Formula?

Filling this gap will only sell more Z cameras to get returns on Nikon's very expensive R&D invested the EXPEED7.
Click to expand...
Yep. And that starts with the Z6iii/Z7iii. Then we move down to the Z50ii. The question now is whether they wanna keep EXPEED7 lineup smaller than usual and drop certain price points like the $3k full frame and the $1.2k crop so they can transition to EXPEED8 sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
Thom Hogan argued the smaller market underscores maximizing sales of the EXPEED7 to recover R&D costs before the next SoC CPU is launched.
Click to expand...
And to maximize sales can also mean strategically looking at models and lines that can provide maximum sales and returns. That means the $900 crop and the $2k full frame. These two segments are the bedrock of the camera industry now.
 
jimhughes said:
I get the distinct feeling it's not happening.

It's pretty depressing. I bought the Z50 when it came out because I honestly believed Nikon was going to develop a great mirrorless APS-C line. Instead, I get to watch Canon and Fuji leave me ever further behind, while Nikon releases the Z50 again and again, in slightly different packages.

I like to shoot birds and animals. When do I bite the bullet and leave Nikon?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't just yet. "Rumors" are Nikon just registered a few more bodies, but I suspect some of those may be video cameras but one may be an APSC body, so I would hold off and not give up yet. Now if we get to this time next year, then, maybe.... as that would make it over 5 years (technically Oct 2024 would be 5 years for the Z50).

But I would give it another 6-12 months. I think Nikon will have some surprises waiting for later this year (end of 3rd quarter / 4th quarter time frame; separate from the upcoming releases in the coming weeks). I think Nikon perhaps has given the Z6 series a priority over APSC for now, but will circle back later this year on APSC.

Of course you're free to give up and go elsewhere whenever you want, but I would give it a little more time. I think sometimes those who wait will reap the benefits of waiting... think of those people who waited some 3-4 years for a Z8 (a true competitor to the R5 and A7R IV).

--

PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.
 
Last edited:
jimhughes said:
I get the distinct feeling it's not happening.

It's pretty depressing. I bought the Z50 when it came out because I honestly believed Nikon was going to develop a great mirrorless APS-C line. Instead, I get to watch Canon and Fuji leave me ever further behind, while Nikon releases the Z50 again and again, in slightly different packages.

I like to shoot birds and animals. When do I bite the bullet and leave Nikon?
Click to expand...
I have a Z90 right now. It’s my Z9 in crop mode.
 
I don’t honestly know what to think about a Z90 per se.

But I do sympathize with your disappointment and believe many of the early responses were somewhat disingenuous. It should go without saying that one should never buy into a new system expecting a particular future upgrade. On the other hand it is absolutely right to buy into a new system expecting some future upgrades. It is absolutely not reasonable for anyone to ever defend Nikon for creating a new system that is in essence a one and done!!
 
jimhughes said:
I get the distinct feeling it's not happening.

It's pretty depressing. I bought the Z50 when it came out because I honestly believed Nikon was going to develop a great mirrorless APS-C line. Instead, I get to watch Canon and Fuji leave me ever further behind, while Nikon releases the Z50 again and again, in slightly different packages.

I like to shoot birds and animals. When do I bite the bullet and leave Nikon?
Click to expand...
Like any other for-profit shareholder company, Nikon is all about maximizing revenue and profit. This strategy seems even more obvious with the release of the Z lenses (more expensive lenses seem to come first) and to a certain degree, cameras.

The Z6III will likely be Nikon's biggest selling Z camera, by volume, so I suspect that will be the next camera that comes out. I am not sure where a Z7III fits into the lineup, but I can definitely see where they need to update the Z50, as it is getting long in the tooth and Nikon still needs a APS-C camera to attract consumers looking for something better than their cell phone. The Z30, with no EVF, and the Z fc, with its retro look and dials, are more niche so while it might not be a Z90, a Z50II needs to come out to fill a void in their lineup.
 
rangel28 said:
jimhughes said:
I get the distinct feeling it's not happening.

It's pretty depressing. I bought the Z50 when it came out because I honestly believed Nikon was going to develop a great mirrorless APS-C line. Instead, I get to watch Canon and Fuji leave me ever further behind, while Nikon releases the Z50 again and again, in slightly different packages.

I like to shoot birds and animals. When do I bite the bullet and leave Nikon?
Click to expand...
The Z6III will likely be Nikon's biggest selling Z camera, by volume, so I suspect that will be the next camera that comes out.
Click to expand...
You would think so, but I'm not so sure anymore... I think the Zf / Z8 might outsell it, since they have waited so long to fill that void. Many users either moved retro or higher end or into a new system entirely during that long wait period for a real improvement over the original Z6.
 
Last edited:
jjz2 said:
rangel28 said:
jimhughes said:
I get the distinct feeling it's not happening.

It's pretty depressing. I bought the Z50 when it came out because I honestly believed Nikon was going to develop a great mirrorless APS-C line. Instead, I get to watch Canon and Fuji leave me ever further behind, while Nikon releases the Z50 again and again, in slightly different packages.

I like to shoot birds and animals. When do I bite the bullet and leave Nikon?
Click to expand...
The Z6III will likely be Nikon's biggest selling Z camera, by volume, so I suspect that will be the next camera that comes out.
Click to expand...
You would think so, but I'm not so sure anymore... I think the Zf / Z8 might outsell it, since they have waited so long to fill that void. Many users either moved retro or higher end or into a new system entirely during that long wait period for a real improvement over the original Z6.
Click to expand...
The appetite's going to be there. There's a lot more people who want a normal camera than a retro camera. And this is what Nikon wants anyway. Milk the Z8 and Zf for as long as they can before the Z6iii gets all the attention. They milked the Z9 for a good 17 months (Dec 2021) before the Z8 (May 2023) came out.

There's consistency in what they're doing.
 
Last edited:
msu79gt82 said:
I don’t honestly know what to think about a Z90 per se.

But I do sympathize with your disappointment and believe many of the early responses were somewhat disingenuous. It should go without saying that one should never buy into a new system expecting a particular future upgrade. On the other hand it is absolutely right to buy into a new system expecting some future upgrades. It is absolutely not reasonable for anyone to ever defend Nikon for creating a new system that is in essence a one and done!!
Click to expand...
What is "one and done" in the Z lineup? I don't get what your argument is.
 
rz350 said:
Pixel pitch on the D850 is 4.34 vs 4.2 on a D500. An insignificant difference. My whole point was that why would Nikon now release a Z90 which would cost significantly more than a D500 and more like a Z8. They could use a 40MP aps-c sensor like the Fuji and we could fill up our computers with those large files. ……………..
Click to expand...
Not just a 40mp apsc sensor, a stacked one too to play well as an apsc z8/z9!!
 
rz350 said:
chambeshi said:
rz350 said:
My understanding was that the D500 sensor was a cropped sensor version of the D850. If you shot a D850 in DX mode, you got the same sensor size. Is not the Z50 sensor the same as a D500 sensor? Regardless, I doubt there is much difference in the end result. I couldn't find the exact pixel pitch for them, but I did find this comparison. Looking at this, there is no comparison. My 2 cents.

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-Z8-vs-Nikon-Z50
Click to expand...
Nikon designed the D500 in parallel with the D5, to deliver pro level performance at reasonable cost in a DSLR with the D5 Autofocus technology
Click to expand...
Why the D500? Because the cost of a D5 here is Canada was $8500 and the D500 was $2500. It made sense to offer the D500, even though for me, it was a compromised camera with regards to weight and focusing on off centre objects. I loved the fact that I never ran out of buffer, That price difference no longer exists. Unless they put a Z90 into a Z6 body like Panasonic did with the G9-2, I don't see it happening.
rz350 said:
https://www.nikon.com/company/technology/design/works/d5_d500.html

The D850 followed as Nikon's Centennial camera, distinguished by its high resolution sensor, compared to the D5-D500 pairing
Click to expand...
Pixel pitch on the D850 is 4.34 vs 4.2 on a D500. An insignificant difference. My whole point was that why would Nikon now release a Z90 which would cost significantly more than a D500 and more like a Z8. They could use a 40MP aps-c sensor like the Fuji and we could fill up our computers with those large files. Right now Nikon aps-c sensors are 21 MP. A cropped Z8 file is 19 MP.

Are you happy with the 21 MP files? Or do you want more?
Click to expand...
Personally I'm extremely pleased with 20mp files from my D6, which complements my Z9. My needs are irrelevant here, however.

I have no need for a Z90 but I know a few wildlife photographers locally, who cannot afford a Z8, let alone Z9. My retailer confirms this demand, especially since Nikon discontinued the D500. The recurrence of forum chatter about the Baby Z9/ D500 update confirms a big demand to fill

This gap in the Z MILCs being a Pro camera that performs in the league of the Olympus and Fuji XH2 equivalents. Cost $2500 for the zero EVF blackout; high fps RAW and more. This combination is impossible to produce at this price point in FX.

....as argued elsewhere, a Z90 will sell more Z telephotos especially the 180-600, attracting DSLR upgraders and others.
 
HeavyDuty said:
jimhughes said:
I get the distinct feeling it's not happening.

It's pretty depressing. I bought the Z50 when it came out because I honestly believed Nikon was going to develop a great mirrorless APS-C line. Instead, I get to watch Canon and Fuji leave me ever further behind, while Nikon releases the Z50 again and again, in slightly different packages.

I like to shoot birds and animals. When do I bite the bullet and leave Nikon?
Click to expand...
I have a Z90 right now. It’s my Z9 in crop mode.
Click to expand...
This argument has been already made in the past and it's still as irrelevant as it ever was : the thing that made the D500 an attractive buy over a D850 or D5 was that it had the same autofocus system and rugged body, similar pixel density as the D850 if you were cropping anyway and was released at half the price.

I'm not paying 5500 USD for a Z9 only to use it like it was a 2000 USD camera, sorry. The whole point of the D500 was to allow customer to pay less and only leave the things they needed, not pay more and purposefully limit the camera. Same thing goes for the Z8 as well.

And that's not even counting the fact that with a Z9 or Z8 I'd much prefer shooting in FX mode and crop in post instead of limiting myself.

Anyway : a Z9 or Z8 in crop mode is not a D500 replacement because of their pricing. Otherwise nobody would complain about it.
 
chambeshi said:
rz350 said:
chambeshi said:
rz350 said:
My understanding was that the D500 sensor was a cropped sensor version of the D850. If you shot a D850 in DX mode, you got the same sensor size. Is not the Z50 sensor the same as a D500 sensor? Regardless, I doubt there is much difference in the end result. I couldn't find the exact pixel pitch for them, but I did find this comparison. Looking at this, there is no comparison. My 2 cents.

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-Z8-vs-Nikon-Z50
Click to expand...
Nikon designed the D500 in parallel with the D5, to deliver pro level performance at reasonable cost in a DSLR with the D5 Autofocus technology
Click to expand...
Why the D500? Because the cost of a D5 here is Canada was $8500 and the D500 was $2500. It made sense to offer the D500, even though for me, it was a compromised camera with regards to weight and focusing on off centre objects. I loved the fact that I never ran out of buffer, That price difference no longer exists. Unless they put a Z90 into a Z6 body like Panasonic did with the G9-2, I don't see it happening.
chambeshi said:
https://www.nikon.com/company/technology/design/works/d5_d500.html

The D850 followed as Nikon's Centennial camera, distinguished by its high resolution sensor, compared to the D5-D500 pairing
Click to expand...
Pixel pitch on the D850 is 4.34 vs 4.2 on a D500. An insignificant difference. My whole point was that why would Nikon now release a Z90 which would cost significantly more than a D500 and more like a Z8. They could use a 40MP aps-c sensor like the Fuji and we could fill up our computers with those large files. Right now Nikon aps-c sensors are 21 MP. A cropped Z8 file is 19 MP.

Are you happy with the 21 MP files? Or do you want more?
Click to expand...
Personally I'm extremely pleased with 20mp files from my D6, which complements my Z9. My needs are irrelevant here, however.

I have no need for a Z90 but I know a few wildlife photographers locally, who cannot afford a Z8, let alone Z9. My retailer confirms this demand, especially since Nikon discontinued the D500. The recurrence of forum chatter about the Baby Z9/ D500 update confirms a big demand to fill

This gap in the Z MILCs being a Pro camera that performs in the league of the Olympus and Fuji XH2 equivalents. Cost $2500 for the zero EVF blackout; high fps RAW and more. This combination is impossible to produce at this price point in FX.

....as argued elsewhere, a Z90 will sell more Z telephotos especially the 180-600, attracting DSLR upgraders and others.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can quote "online chatter" as "big". It's always the same few people. And we more often than not are so out of touch with the real world, I don't take ourselves seriously. Case in point, just look at the Sony parts of the internet and the stance against flip around screens and the "no video in my stills camera" crowd. Lots of online chatter against vlogging cameras, but those cameras have become Sony's bread and butter.
 
Suntan said:
msu79gt82 said:
I don’t honestly know what to think about a Z90 per se.

But I do sympathize with your disappointment and believe many of the early responses were somewhat disingenuous. It should go without saying that one should never buy into a new system expecting a particular future upgrade. On the other hand it is absolutely right to buy into a new system expecting some future upgrades. It is absolutely not reasonable for anyone to ever defend Nikon for creating a new system that is in essence a one and done!!
Click to expand...
What is "one and done" in the Z lineup? I don't get what your argument is.
Click to expand...
For all practical purposes there is only one Z DX model. The Z50 released in 2019 and in essence has been iterated twice. There is rampant speculation in this very forum that Nikon is done with DX.
 
Last edited:
jimhughes said:
I get the distinct feeling it's not happening.

It's pretty depressing. I bought the Z50 when it came out because I honestly believed Nikon was going to develop a great mirrorless APS-C line. Instead, I get to watch Canon and Fuji leave me ever further behind, while Nikon releases the Z50 again and again, in slightly different packages.

I like to shoot birds and animals. When do I bite the bullet and leave Nikon?
Click to expand...
 
msu79gt82 said:
Suntan said:
msu79gt82 said:
I don’t honestly know what to think about a Z90 per se.

But I do sympathize with your disappointment and believe many of the early responses were somewhat disingenuous. It should go without saying that one should never buy into a new system expecting a particular future upgrade. On the other hand it is absolutely right to buy into a new system expecting some future upgrades. It is absolutely not reasonable for anyone to ever defend Nikon for creating a new system that is in essence a one and done!!
Click to expand...
What is "one and done" in the Z lineup? I don't get what your argument is.
Click to expand...
For all practical purposes there is only one Z DX model. The Z50 released in 2019 and in essence has been iterated twice. There is rampant speculation in this very forum that Nikon is done with DX.
Click to expand...
To be honest, that's almost all there is to DX today. DX's role today is for the beginning content creators and for the casual birders. We don't need many lenses or bodies in DX, and we shouldn't expect that either.

That's different from "being done". They can be completely lazy and that's good enough. They just need to put cameras out for the content creators and the birders something to consider between the a6400, ZV-E10, R10, R50 R7 and a6700 from the competition. Do they need to outspec those cameras? Not at all. They just need to undercut the competition like how they undercut the competition with the Z9 and the Z8.

What Canon and Sony has shown us is that as much flak as they draw online for various reasons, the world is still buying their cameras, especially the aforementioned low/mid tier ones. Companies don't need to make the best cameras, they just need to make the right ones.

So going back to how much DX is enough? How much expectation is too much?

What can we fairly expect? A low end Z30 to compete against the like of the R50 and the ZV-E10 in the $700 bracket. Target audience? Content creators.

A mid-tier camera for the more serious content creators. The a6400, the R10, Z50ii in the $900 bracket.

A high end IBIS'ed version of that mid-tier camera. Something like the R7 and the a6700. This will be enough for the birders.

There's going to be a very small group of "professional casuals", and Nikon wants to upsell the Z8 to that group. Otherwise, we will cover almost all of the DX demand with these "lazy" cameras. That's all we need and can expect for DX.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top