Agreed with others who say the Z6III is the best Z approximate to the D500. You can’t be overly literal in your expectations or hopes. The D500 was a relatively inexpensive, great AF, lower res, fast body. The Z6III is each of those things, and has a lot to offer that the D500 couldn’t keep up with.
I respectfully do not agree ... except that, of course the
10 year old D500 can't keep up with the Z6III ... But, that's why it’s called an "
upgrade".
No sh!t.
The Z6III is not a Pro Body in the sense of the D5 and D500, or the Z8 and Z9. And, 24MP on a Full frame sensor is good, but not as dense as 21MP on a DX sensor.
The mental gymnastics you have to do to put a D500 in the same, even roughly defined class as both a D5
and Z8 & Z9, while
also maintaining the Z6III has no place in the line up… truly incredible.
The 21MP D500 was built to be THE DX version of the Flagship 21MP D5, and as the top APSC camera for Sports and Wildlife, more than lived up to it. At the time, ONLY the D5 could "keep up with it". The Nikon Flagship is now the Z9. The Z8 is a Z9 without the built in vertical grip. So ... D5 > D500 ... Z9 (or Z8) > !?
If you were around when the12MP D300 (the DX version of the full frame (FX) 12MP D3) was ready for an upgrade replacement, you will know the FX D4 was released without a DX version D400. Some D300 shooters left the Nikon brand, while others opted for the more consumer level Dxxxx line. Nikon, then, was sure to announce the D5 and D500 in tandem in Jan of 2016. Nikon dropped the Pro DX line after the D500. So shooters have been looking for a Z DX version of the Flagship Z9 since 2021 ... which never came, and likely never will, and the result is many D500 shooters have skipped to brands that have exactly what they want, or are taking the lower level Z Bodies, with only a few Enthusiast and Professional shooters opting for the Flagship(s). (many professionals used and still use the D500)
Your post reads to me like such a narrow use case and such
selective expectations. I would bet the pool of professionals still using the D500 is
tiny. I’d caution against confusing demanding amateurs, active on forums, with actual pros. Of the dwindling number of pros I actually know still discussing SLRs, it’s all talk about the D850.
To invert your assumptions and offer a different read of Nikon’s recent history… in contrast to birders, for anyone filling the frame with something human sized and relatively short distances (typical human distances, as opposed to bird), the D100, D200 and D300 were at best
mediocre bodies that kept “the Nikon brand” just barely alive in the context of pro-am digital SLRs.
I
was around and owned the D200 and D300. They were the “and also Nikon” bodies, as in “everyone is shooting on the Canon 5D. And also Nikon still makes cameras.” It was
rough.
The D700 was eventually *the* camera for anyone like me, looking for a FF sensor in what was essentially, broadly speaking the F100 body type. No amount of weather sealing or button placement puts an APS-C camera on the table - it doesn’t even make it into the room. In fact, I won’t get the exact spec off the top of my head but IIRC the D200s viewfinder coverage was pretty bad, cutting out a
considerable portion of the frame. For people like me, designing a pro workflow, combined with tepid AF and already frustrating DX FOV, that made the D200 regrettable
at best.
I have zero interest or need to chase pixel density past a certain threshold because I’m almost never shooting longer than 135mm, my subjects are human sized, and I’m cropping little. A much bigger priority, and core for considering something a “Pro Body” is to have my lens FOV behave “as it should”, inheriting the proper characteristics of what you expect attaching a 28, 50, 85 or 105 on your camera and not restricted to the narrower FOV of a DX crop. If I can get that and a viewfinder approaching 100% coverage, that’s a good baseline for pro work. To put an even finer point on it: 35mm aspect and FOV was a resented stepchild of “real photography” at one time, with working professionals scoffing at the format in comparison to large format. Expecting to do pro work with even greater compromises required by APS-C is for some a non starter.
The Pro Body speed and features are important to D500 shooters, as many have been using similar bodies since the D100, D200, and D300. An upgrade in resolution (regarding the 21MP sensor) for Nikon DX is long overdue, as well. Only the Z8 and Z9 approximate those criteria, and yet, are still not quite the pixel density of the 21MP D500.
You claim a pro DX body is
long overdue - for you, sure. For Nikon? Doubtful
. But you write it with such entitlement, like Nikon made you an unfulfilled promise
. I’ll never understand where this attitude comes from
.
To put it as simply as I can ... as an upgrade replacement for the D500, shooters would like a Z8-like Body, Speed, and features, with a 30-37MP stacked DX sensor (like Fuji XH2s, Canon R7). Why shouldn't we expect a 1.75x progression in resolution? 12 is to 21 as 21 is to 37
And to put it as simply as I can:
If pixel density and an APS-C crop are your core needs, without being overly literal, the Z8 gets you there. But if you’re instead looking at general price/performance ROI, approaching the $2k release price of the D500, with pro controls, the Z6III is the camera.
Otherwise, the single most compelling feature is that these cameras
exist.
The whole approach of “a Z body D500 replacement should be an APS-C FOV, same
exact or greater pixel density than the D500 (while magically, I assume, sidestepping the sensor read problems associated with doing so), pro build & controls, cost less than the Z8’s $3k and only then will I be happy” pipe dream is just… outside what I feel is sensible. It’s a collection of restrictive, choose your own specs that play well to some on a discussion forum, but don’t seem to be tethered to any reality I know.
Hypothetical: Can the Z6III "keep up with" the 34MP DX Z8?
Hypothetical: what kind of pictures can you take with a pretend camera? Otherwise… depends on the context, workflow and goals. For my uses, absolutely. In some ways the Z6III pulls ahead.
As to Price. My D300 was $1600 in 2007. The D500, 9 years later, in 2016, was $2000. Why wouldn't Nikon expect us to pay $2500 or progressively more, in 2022.
I have no idea. I’m not even clear on who this question is for.
But, water under the bridge. The market is mostly gone, and I would be very surprised if such a camera is offered by Nikon.
Then why waste time writing about it…
--
http://jimlafferty.com
Evocative beats academic.
,
