-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Future Of High End Nikon Cameras For Landscape / Architecture ?
- Thread starter chrisD46
- Start date
Based on the road map issued by Nikon, all the primes and zoom trinity is already done so the remaining one are
compact 28
compact 40
Z 24-105
Z 100-400
Z 200-600
Z 105 MACRO
Z 60 MACRO
DX 18 - 140
T
TheGrilledCheese
Guest
The best landscape camera in the business right now is the Fuji GFX 100S.
For Nikon to be taken seriously as a high-end landscape photographer's brand, Nikon needs to bring to market a camera that effectively competes with this model.
For Nikon to be taken seriously as a high-end landscape photographer's brand, Nikon needs to bring to market a camera that effectively competes with this model.
Last edited:
lokatz
Veteran Member
Says who?
If Nikon want to be taken seriously, they need to continue following their own path rather than duplicating others' directions.
100 megapixels vastly exceed what most photographers need or even want. Virtually nobody, expect for a very small number of pros, prints that large, and on a computer screen that kind of resolution makes not even one iota of difference. Fuji is carving its own niche with this model, hoping that niche is large enough. I think it will be, but only because a lot of folks want the bragging rights, not because they need the huge files.
IMO, Nikon would be ill advised to follow into that same niche.
ChromeLight
Senior Member
Ditto. Nikon's cameras (D800 and beyond) can easily fill a 16x24 inch print. A 16x24 properly framed is a rather huge thing to hang on your wall.
I think the D850 is an excellent camera, in part because it does most things--including from landscape to action, which have traditionally been opposites--well.
It's hard to say if Nikon will make a DSLR successor to it though. I'd guess that if they do at all, it either won't be much different from the current one (maybe using the Z7's OSPDAF for live view); or it will use a much higher resolution sensor that Nikon will also put onto a higher-resolution mirrorless camera. The difference being that the Z version will be able to also use Z lenses.
I would guess that what is more probable than a "D880" would be a high-resolution & high-DR--but slower--mirrorless Z camera. Maybe they call it a "Z8." And it's 90MP, with ISO 64 base, and does sub-pixel-shift-stacking and things like that. It'll be more like a Fuji GFX than a D850. And notably, it will work with the Z lenses, which generally give better results especially at the sides & corners of the images.
WildlifePhotog
Senior Member
If I was a landscape or street photography person I’d definitely buy the GFX100S and I would agree with you. People will defend their beloved D850 and for good reasons. I’m a D5 shooter myself but I did own the D850 when it first came out and it’s a phenomenal camera. I had the Nikon grip and shared my D4s charger and batteries. However I’m a photojournalist who also shoots lots of wildlife. So the Fuji GFX series isn’t for me. However I think what you get with the new GFX 100S is an incredible value! The image quality is phenomenal and the lenses are all mostly good enough to match, but they do cost a fair bit.
For most people I think the D850 or even D810 is the best option as most people don’t really need the 102mp! However if all I did was landscapes or even product or architectural photography the GFX 100S would be at the top of my list. It’s just not everyone sees the value or will appreciate the relatively small gains they get for the money. So I kind of understand why some people are arguing with you. I see your point and I personally agree with you about the GFX 100S, but I also think most people are fine with their beloved D850! To each their own, but if I ever stopped being a photojournalist, sports action and wildlife guy...I’d sell all my gear and buy the GFX100S for sure. I’m jealous of the GFX100S, but it’s not exactly something I could afford as my walk around system.
T
TheGrilledCheese
Guest
Says me. Who else should I be speaking for?
That makes a lot of sense. Their current path is right into the ground.
You seem to misunderstand the advantages of MF to FF. It's more than resolution and print size. Perhaps you should read up on why the Fuji GFX 100S is sweeping the landscape photography front.
For $6,000
Many pro landscape photographers use FF cameras and do just fine ...
I fully agree. As others pointed out above, the Z does slightly better because of its impressive lenses. If one can do with the 20mm prime, or 14-30/24 zooms, the Z7 II is better in my book. If one needs the PC-E lenses, then D850 is better.
All the photographers I personally interact with are hobbysts. So, none of them shoot landscape or architecture exclusively. For that audience, who shoot more subjects and variety, the D850 might be better than Z7 II. Or, as in my own case, the D810!
Put another way, we don't have a compelling reason to move to the Z system at a significant expense. For new buyers, it is different (see below).
The D850 and D500 are currently money makers for Nikon. They help sell lot of lenses as well. So, I do not expect them to abandon them at this point. May be a minor refresh to sell more bodies and clear up the lenses. It is definitely not the long-term vision at this point.
As I said above, if 20mm prime and one of the 14mm zooms are sufficient to cover one's needs, Z7 II is better than D850.
Given that any future development will be clearly in the Z world, that's what one should buy today as soon as their most used lens is available. Buying a D850 + lenses and switching in a couple of years will be expensive.
--
See my profile (About me) for gear and my posting policy.
Last edited:
T
TheGrilledCheese
Guest
The Z9 is expected to sell for around $6,000 so I don't understand why the price is a point of criticism. We are talking about "high end Nikon cameras" aren't we? As such, $6k is not unheard of in the Nikon world. Just not for anything with capabilities that appeal to a landscape photog.
It's all about using the tool most appropriate to tackle the job at hand. For the greatest image fidelity, tonality, and detail—factors of absolute importance to any serious landscape photographer—you cannot beat MF.
The thread title is about the future of high end Nikon cameras for landscape/architecture. I simply put forth the point that for Nikon to market directly to this group with a future product, it will have to address the shortcomings of FF in landscape photography. Namely the superiority of MF wrt image fidelity.
FF cameras are designed to be jacks of all trades. Landscape photographers aren't looking for lightning fast focus, eye tracking, super low light capabilities, etc. Good to have but not necessary for the job, especially if those features come at the expense of other, more important aspects like sensor size.
Nikon does not currently make a camera that addresses the needs of true, professional landscape photographers who demand the highest image fidelity, tonality, and sharpness. Compare any high end Nikon to Hasselblad, Fuji, or Phase One in these areas and it's no contest.
To address the needs of pro landscape photographers (i.e., those who make a living doing it) with a high-end Nikon camera, Nikon will have to make its offering competitive with other MF brands in areas like resolution, color depth, tonality, etc. Nikon isn't there, currently, with any product.
Last edited:
I will put it differently. The implied context is important. When we talk about Nikon on these forums, we understand that Nikon wants to produce the higest possible performance in FF space. That's why they started going with the hi-res d800 and the high speed D5 years ago. If I remember correctly, they were the first ones to do so, before Sony did A7/A7R and beffore Canon's 5DSR.
They have treated DX as a second priority and have not provided enough lenses that the buyers wanted. So, I do not take the topic/subject to imply DX space either.
If someone asked for better quality from their cameras in M43 forum, people would expect that to be within their M43 space, not moving up to APS-C/FF unless it was expressly mentioned.
Another context is that Nikon is struggling to release promised lenses for Z system, which has been well thought out and three years old. I am referring to 11 more lenses expected by end of next March. I cannot think of them producing completely new MF lenses. Not with their budget (the company's budget).
What the context does not imply for Nikon owners/readers is a Nikon brand MF camera. They wiill take for ever to build necessary lenses for it. And they would not be in the price-range of Fuji but probably a lot more. That is a sure way to bust the company.
The argument doesn't stop there. People argue that 44x33 sensor is not really "Medium Format". It's just a label. It could go all the way up to 60x90 if budget was not a limit.
So, yes, increasing the FF resolution beyond 47MP, going lower on ISO below 64, etc., are all imaginable in Nikon's high-end future, but MF is not.
That's my opinion.
They have treated DX as a second priority and have not provided enough lenses that the buyers wanted. So, I do not take the topic/subject to imply DX space either.
If someone asked for better quality from their cameras in M43 forum, people would expect that to be within their M43 space, not moving up to APS-C/FF unless it was expressly mentioned.
Another context is that Nikon is struggling to release promised lenses for Z system, which has been well thought out and three years old. I am referring to 11 more lenses expected by end of next March. I cannot think of them producing completely new MF lenses. Not with their budget (the company's budget).
What the context does not imply for Nikon owners/readers is a Nikon brand MF camera. They wiill take for ever to build necessary lenses for it. And they would not be in the price-range of Fuji but probably a lot more. That is a sure way to bust the company.
The argument doesn't stop there. People argue that 44x33 sensor is not really "Medium Format". It's just a label. It could go all the way up to 60x90 if budget was not a limit.
So, yes, increasing the FF resolution beyond 47MP, going lower on ISO below 64, etc., are all imaginable in Nikon's high-end future, but MF is not.
That's my opinion.
T
TheGrilledCheese
Guest
I never said Nikon needs to make a MF camera. I said Nikon should make a camera that competes with MF in areas of image fidelity.
Last edited:
OK. That's fair.
You didn't directly mention it but your arguments sounded like you're eluding in that direction.
To your point, I don't feel that they need to meet the 100Mp resolution but if they're able to go lower than 64 as a native ISO, the IQ will be almost there.
I don't know if the sensor tech is available to make that possible.
You didn't directly mention it but your arguments sounded like you're eluding in that direction.
To your point, I don't feel that they need to meet the 100Mp resolution but if they're able to go lower than 64 as a native ISO, the IQ will be almost there.
I don't know if the sensor tech is available to make that possible.
The Z7ii & D850 are high end cameras and cost half as much
And let’s not compare the cost of the lens
FF does well enough for landscape photography
And put together the whole lens + body system to reach the 1% of landscape photographers who use MF?
A D810 for instance is great landscape camera
Nikon addresses the needs of the vast majority of landscape photogs who can’t afford MF prices
Sure, cost difference?
Many pro landscape photographers make less money than you think and FF (even DX) work just fine
--
Thierry - posted as regular forum member
Last edited:
A major plus for the Z7/II is you can adapt Canon's TSE's on them. Can't do that with a D850.
f bass
Forum Enthusiast
The three most important things in landscape photography is content, content, content, one of my favorite quotes by Ansel Adams was “ There is nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept “.
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
What advantage does the D850 have over a Z7 II for landscape/architecture only photography? There is a wider native lens selection. That is true. On the other hand, you can mount just about any lens on a Z body with equally good IQ results. Although in some cases you lose AF.
Speaking for myself only, I have no need of a DSLR any longer when it comes to landscape and architecture photography. I'm not sacrificing any IQ in going with a Z body. However, with my bird photography I still find the D850 to have advantages over a Z7.
What's Nikon going to do in the future? Only Nikon knows. I wouldn't be surprised to see a D880. I wouldn't be surprised if the D850 was the end of the line.
Speaking for myself only, I have no need of a DSLR any longer when it comes to landscape and architecture photography. I'm not sacrificing any IQ in going with a Z body. However, with my bird photography I still find the D850 to have advantages over a Z7.
What's Nikon going to do in the future? Only Nikon knows. I wouldn't be surprised to see a D880. I wouldn't be surprised if the D850 was the end of the line.
Daniel Bliss
Senior Member
It's a bit difficult to say because the Z7II strikes me as a camera with near pro-build quality like a D850, and similarly high-end sensor and card and video support, but otherwise much more of a mid-range feature set.
Kaj E
Forum Pro
But the Z S lenses are better than the F mount ones. That is the essential difference.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum