Excuse me for wanting what I want, and not what Nikon's bean counters think would be most profitable. What do I know anyway? I'm just a customer standing here with money in hand...
Yes it’s quite amazing to see the responses from those owning a Z9, Z8, or a Zf to those who are waiting for Nikon to update the other bodies. It’s as if those who are content owning the only three new Nikon bodies are hoping to keep it at that three body lineup.
As they say, “
just get a Z8” :-|
The consensus here seems to be that the Z90 isn't happening - in fact there will never be another new DX camera. That just seems weird to me.
And like I said earlier: paying $3200 to end up with fewer pixels than I have now is not a compelling upgrade. Surely there are some people at Nikon who agree.
Considering all the other benefits of a Z8 vs a Z50, the couple of pixels argument seems a little weak
$800usd vs $3500 USD is the biggest argument.
I'd love a d500 mirrorless but would be equally happy with d7xxx replacement also, would only have to match the Canon R7. I don't think it's to much ask really..
The Z50 is a D7xxx replacement. A Z-mount D500 equivalent - if Nikon were to develop one - would be priced closer to $2,500 and be worth every penny. That's a thousand less than the Z8 at current pricing.
A kilobuck isn't chump change. It's a significant cost savings. But spending the extra $1K does open the door to higher performance thresholds in noise, resolution and image quality that some find worth the investment.
Given the history of the D300/D500 and the current state of the dedicated digital still imaging market, anyone who continues waiting for a Z900 is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The rock is if - and it's a big one - Nikon develops and releases such a beast, history tells us 8 or 9 years may pass before they'll update or even refreshes it. Early D300 adopters spent a handful of years bemoaning Nikon's weak attempts to roll out so-called replacements. (I'm lookin' at you, D7xxx series.) Many had moved on to other platforms by the time the D500 made it's unexpected appearance in January 2016.
The hard place is that we know Nikon won't develop any APS-C glass for such a body; at least, none that allows a user to take full advantage of its potential in the worlds of sports, wildlife, and fast action. Right now this minute, Nikon offers the best selection of lenses for those genres of any manufacturer...along with camera bodies that can take full advantage of their potential.
Z900 (or Z90 or whatever Nikon would call it) buyers already know which lens or lenses they'd pair with it. That cost is known. The question is this: is $1,000 in savings vs. a Z8 enough to continue waiting a year - probably longer - to make a purchase?
The answer may be, yes. That's a totally legitimate position to take. Suppose that year becomes two, or three...or never? That kilobuck gets smaller v every day. What are the options among offerings by other brands? I personally find that landscape pretty weak.
The X-H2S arguably comes closest to matching what we envision a Z900 to be. The gotcha with that body is that Fujifilm's native X-mount lens selection for wildlife and birds is limited precisely to one lens: the 150-600mm f/5.6-8. While sharp and relatively portable, it's not very good in low light. It's 75mm diameter entrance pupil is the smallest of any major brand.
Canon has the R7, which is clearly a step below what a Z900 would be in performance. Candidly, the Canon lens lineup isn't compelling. The 200-800mm f6.3-9 is interesting but, again, not a top low-light contender. It's 89mm entrance pupil matches the 200-500's. That's not bad but it's also not something that should compel a person to switch brands.
Sony is, well...Sony. You couldn't pay me enough to commit to that system. That's a personal thing. More objectively, they've got one lens (200-600mm f/5.6-8) that's very good. It's at least the equal of the Nikkor 180-600. But Sony doesn't and won't have a 400mm f/4.5, a 600mm PF or 800mm PF anytime soon...if ever.
Sure, there are third party lenses that can be paired with competitor's bodies. But why invest in a system only to put third party glass on it? It's the glass that matters and Nikon's got the glass. They've also got a full-frame option that's within reach. It's a steeper price to pay, no doubt.
But it's right there.
