Do you want a Z500 body

[areallygrumpyoldsod]

A dedicated DX camera like the D500 delivers a greater pixel density than does an FX camera with the same pixel count. Most responses that have mentioned pixel counts are asking for 30+ MP, rather more than the Z7/8/9 can deliver in DX mode.

Yes this is the increasing less hidden demand in "we must have a D500 replacement" -- nope we must have a Nikon Z version of R7, but with a 32.5MP DX sized stacked BSI sensor like the Z8/Z9 and the performance of a Z8 all for less than $2.5-3k AND that is ludicrous.

We all know that Z50 and D500 are functionally very similar - same sensor, except the Z50 has an Expeed 6 chip, far far greatly improved AF, 11 fps not 10. But the D500 had a higher resolution LCD, 1/8000th not 1/4000th, and so on.

Neither have IBIS and anything updated would have USB-C, CFE-B and improved EVF/LCD.

My feeling is that a DX body that comes out at the same size as an FX body isn’t quite what is wanted. With mirrorless technology there’s no reason why a DX camera shouldn’t behave and perform in exactly the same way as it’s FX brother, but in a smaller package. The trend is that lighter means smaller.

The 397g Z50 is half the weight of the 860g D500 and a little smaller (127x60x94mm -vs- 147x81x115mm) However, BIF/wildlife shooters want IBIS, 2 cards, robustness and at least an EN-EL15 sized battery not just lightness and that means a D500 sized solution not a Z50 sized body - IBIS and battery need space AND the larger grip is essential when shooting with large lenses.
No casual shooter would naturally buy a D500 and nor would one buy a Z500 -vs- a cheaper, smaller and lighter Z50ii. The Z500 would be for a different market.

The R7 is 132.0 x 90.4 x 91.7 mm and weighs in at 530g - a little under midway between the 860g D500 and 397g Z50. The R7 comes with a 38.4 x 21 x 56.8 mm 79g LP-E6NH battery which has a capacity of 2130 mAh; whereas a similarly sized EN-EL15C is 50x40x20 but heavier weighs 100G and provides 2280 mAh. +21g and 7% more power. However the hot running Expeed 7 eats power.

Some argue that a non-stacked BSI sensor would be a way to deliver a cheaper Z500 -- sure but what would be lost? Blackout free shooting, much lower fps, and much more.SO no I am not in favour, but I suspend judgement until we see what an actual Zf comes with and how it performs -- this is rumoured to be a non-stacked BSI sensor+IBIS with the Expeed 7 chip... but we have to wait to see.

I you are going to make your whole camera range DX with the associated lenses and accessories optimised for DX there is an obvious advantage. I you are going to build the majority of your lenses for FX and produce DX bodies of the same size and weight as FX bodies, where’s the weight advantage? Just add a 1.4x teleconverter to get the same effect? I’m sure that’s not what is being requested.

You are correct this is not what is being requested -- BIF shooters who cannot or do not want to pay more than the cost of a 180-600 and certainly would not buy a Z800 want the cheaper higher resolution Z500. However, I am with you the Z8 and Z9 are perfect for me AND yes if I want more reach then I also carry ZTC14.

I contend that Nikon has far far more pressing demands - Z6iii, Z7iii and YES an update to the Z5 and Z50 -- well well before any Z500 -- unless the Z500 is priced at $4500.

--
areallygrumpyoldsod
Nikon and Hasselblad shooter -- wildlife and and --
https://www.andymillerphoto.co.uk/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajm057/
I do not respond to PMs or messages via my website

 

[cosmicnode]

There is a lot of discussion for or against kneading a very high spec D500 replacement, so perhaps a poll is in order. There seems to be those who want all the bells and whistles of the Z8 and those that want a smaller less featured body. perhaps a Z50 size or Z6 size,

Of course there are non users who simply do not want Nikon to produce a higher spec body so there is a choice for them, it will be interesting to see the split in opinions between those that want a better body and those not interested in DX camera's

Whilst Nikon does not have a large number of DX lenses I believe most who want a high end DX body will be using the longer lenses on them and are quite happy to be using full frame glass.

Hi!

Poll you have created lacks options, and option I could tick...

A s l a

And out of interest what would those options have been.

 

[cosmicnode]

Considering the size of the D500, as compared to say a D780, one is not talking about much of a difference in weight or size. Include the fact that wildlife and sport lenses from Nikon are all FX type lenses, the only thing that's really smaller is the sensor and guess what? You can either put the FX Z 8/9 in DX mode and get that "greater reach." I really don't think a specialized Z type DX camera is necessary.

That is great where can I get a Z8 for £2000. But unfortunately the DX crop on these bodies is only around 20mp, most wanting a sport's, wildlife body want higher than that, say 30mp plus. Perhaps you don't understand others requirements.

 

[cosmicnode]

Considering the size of the D500, as compared to say a D780, one is not talking about much of a difference in weight or size. Include the fact that wildlife and sport lenses from Nikon are all FX type lenses, the only thing that's really smaller is the sensor and guess what? You can either put the FX Z 8/9 in DX mode and get that "greater reach." I really don't think a specialized Z type DX camera is necessary.

A dedicated DX camera like the D500 delivers a greater pixel density than does an FX camera with the same pixel count. Most responses that have mentioned pixel counts are asking for 30+ MP, rather more than the Z7/8/9 can deliver in DX mode.

My feeling is that a DX body that comes out at the same size as an FX body isn’t quite what is wanted.

I believe quite a lot of people have mentioned that this is exactly what they want in order to use those full frame long lenses on it.

With mirrorless technology there’s no reason why a DX camera shouldn’t behave and perform in exactly the same way as it’s FX brother, but in a smaller package. The trend is that lighter means smaller.

The Z50 is already that package and many would like a improved version of that body

I you are going to make your whole camera range DX with the associated lenses and accessories optimised for DX there is an obvious advantage. I you are going to build the majority of your lenses for FX and produce DX bodies of the same size and weight as FX bodies, where’s the weight advantage? Just add a 1.4x teleconverter to get the same effect? I’m sure that’s not what is being requested.

Its not about a weight advantage, try adding a 1.4x teleconverter to a DX body for greater effect.

 

[WildlifePhotog]

I want a DX ($1,500) AND FX ($2,500) body that keeps up with the competition's offerings.

• Both 30mp
• I'm flexible on stacked (in favor of IQ)
• IBIS (3-4 stops is fine for 1/30th)
• Expeed7 (Expeed8?)
• No AA filter
• Fully articulating screen
• Bring back the AF "pod" (Panasonic)
• 10fps RAW 20fps JPG
• CFE-B with SDHC-II micro (ideal)
• Weather sealed
• Video friendly strap attachments (not the danglers)
• Smaller top display with a locking/unlocking custom dial
• Custom EFCS sounds
• 1/3 grid view
• Face only detection
• Sensor/shutter cover
• Lock AF area
• MODE BUTTON/clover setup
  • includes BKT/ISO/WB buttons
  • frees up ISO button for subject tracking
• More customization
• Integrated Arca-Swiss bevel, at least on the base
  • enough users add an L-bracket anyway
  • would still be thinner than adding a bracket
  • could allow for a longer/larger battery
  • EN-EL15 spacer for backwards compatibility

DX SPECIFIC:

• Joystick
• EN-EL15c battery
• pop-up warm LED flash (with constant settings)

”Bring back the AF “pod” (Panasonic)” What on Earth is an AF pod? I Google searched it, nothing, nada, zilch! Please explain…I’m in way too deep now, I got to know!

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Considering the size of the D500, as compared to say a D780, one is not talking about much of a difference in weight or size. Include the fact that wildlife and sport lenses from Nikon are all FX type lenses, the only thing that's really smaller is the sensor and guess what? You can either put the FX Z 8/9 in DX mode and get that "greater reach." I really don't think a specialized Z type DX camera is necessary.

It could come down to cooling Perhaps if they released a "Z80" or Z500 that lacked a few features, like only 4k30 and say not 4k60 (or 8k -- if the sensor has enough resolution, which it probably wouldn't) and other elements that may contribute to heat generation during standard use, then it might be possible, but my guess is that the reason the Z8 is as big as it is, has something to do with heat dissipation so a larger body so they can include better cooling (mainly for 4k/8k video recording would be my guess).

 

[NikonBiologist]

I believe Nikon should issue an updated Z50 body that is functionally a Sony A6700 done the Nikon way. After reading the recent review on DPR of the A6700 and following ANAYV's thread about him considering purchasing an A6700, I am convinced this is approximately the specification Nikon should aim to match. Among various things, I would like the camera to include IBIS (but executed with more refinement than the shutter-shock proneness of the Canon R7), a fully articulated screen, as in the Zfc and Z30, EN-EL15-type battery, and improved EVF with at least faster refresh. As far as the pixel count, it should be as high as possible while preserving the same level of high iso performance of the current Z50/Zfc/Z30 sensor. A megapixel champ certainly it does not have to be. It should at least match the supposedly better AF-C of the R7 and A6700 without resorting to stacked sensors.

I believe Nikon is certainly capable of issuing such a camera. The big question is, do they want to?

Sony came out with mostly a Video centric camera as opposed to anything else. Didn't Sony call it their Content Creator Camera. Didn't Sony state that the a6700 isn't their Flagship cropped Body.

Nikon, please don't use the C-Hammer and use a horrible EVF/LCD combo along with a Mediocre, 11FPS at best. Plus the IQ coming out of that Sony camera is possibility Worse, then the previous model. Nikon can and Should, do better.

I would say most Nikon users in this potential higher price Range, $1500- $2500, want a far more capable Wildlife Camera. Not some Content Creator Camera. Things like a proper Pre Buffer. High FPS in electronic Mode. 30MP or more wouldn't hurt either.

I think anything above $1500 for DX is going to be off limits, as that gets into Z6 III territory. So if anything it will be an improved DX camera (possibly the same resolution, but maybe faster AF, trickled down from the Z8 perhaps -- atl east some things like 3D AF, and IBIS, but probably not much more, possibly the Expeed 7 but with limitations). But in the end, the price will be around $1500 at most, as the closest competitor would be the A6600/6700 and the R7 (which are all around that price).

Do people forget the release price of the D500? Nikon can go over $1500. Fuji did on multiple cameras and still sold plenty.

 

[NikonBiologist]

A dedicated DX camera like the D500 delivers a greater pixel density than does an FX camera with the same pixel count. Most responses that have mentioned pixel counts are asking for 30+ MP, rather more than the Z7/8/9 can deliver in DX mode.

Yes this is the increasing less hidden demand in "we must have a D500 replacement" -- nope we must have a Nikon Z version of R7, but with a 32.5MP DX sized stacked BSI sensor like the Z8/Z9 and the performance of a Z8 all for less than $2.5-3k AND that is ludicrous.

We all know that Z50 and D500 are functionally very similar - same sensor, except the Z50 has an Expeed 6 chip, far far greatly improved AF, 11 fps not 10. But the D500 had a higher resolution LCD, 1/8000th not 1/4000th, and so on.

Z50 has a far far greatly improved AF over the D500? now I've heard everything...

Neither have IBIS and anything updated would have USB-C, CFE-B and improved EVF/LCD.

My feeling is that a DX body that comes out at the same size as an FX body isn’t quite what is wanted. With mirrorless technology there’s no reason why a DX camera shouldn’t behave and perform in exactly the same way as it’s FX brother, but in a smaller package. The trend is that lighter means smaller.

The 397g Z50 is half the weight of the 860g D500 and a little smaller (127x60x94mm -vs- 147x81x115mm) However, BIF/wildlife shooters want IBIS, 2 cards, robustness and at least an EN-EL15 sized battery not just lightness and that means a D500 sized solution not a Z50 sized body - IBIS and battery need space AND the larger grip is essential when shooting with large lenses.
No casual shooter would naturally buy a D500 and nor would one buy a Z500 -vs- a cheaper, smaller and lighter Z50ii. The Z500 would be for a different market.

The R7 is 132.0 x 90.4 x 91.7 mm and weighs in at 530g - a little under midway between the 860g D500 and 397g Z50. The R7 comes with a 38.4 x 21 x 56.8 mm 79g LP-E6NH battery which has a capacity of 2130 mAh; whereas a similarly sized EN-EL15C is 50x40x20 but heavier weighs 100G and provides 2280 mAh. +21g and 7% more power. However the hot running Expeed 7 eats power.

Some argue that a non-stacked BSI sensor would be a way to deliver a cheaper Z500 -- sure but what would be lost? Blackout free shooting, much lower fps, and much more.SO no I am not in favour, but I suspend judgement until we see what an actual Zf comes with and how it performs -- this is rumoured to be a non-stacked BSI sensor+IBIS with the Expeed 7 chip... but we have to wait to see.

I you are going to make your whole camera range DX with the associated lenses and accessories optimised for DX there is an obvious advantage. I you are going to build the majority of your lenses for FX and produce DX bodies of the same size and weight as FX bodies, where’s the weight advantage? Just add a 1.4x teleconverter to get the same effect? I’m sure that’s not what is being requested.

You are correct this is not what is being requested -- BIF shooters who cannot or do not want to pay more than the cost of a 180-600 and certainly would not buy a Z800 want the cheaper higher resolution Z500. However, I am with you the Z8 and Z9 are perfect for me AND yes if I want more reach then I also carry ZTC14.

I contend that Nikon has far far more pressing demands - Z6iii, Z7iii and YES an update to the Z5 and Z50 -- well well before any Z500 -- unless the Z500 is priced at $4500.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

I believe Nikon should issue an updated Z50 body that is functionally a Sony A6700 done the Nikon way. After reading the recent review on DPR of the A6700 and following ANAYV's thread about him considering purchasing an A6700, I am convinced this is approximately the specification Nikon should aim to match. Among various things, I would like the camera to include IBIS (but executed with more refinement than the shutter-shock proneness of the Canon R7), a fully articulated screen, as in the Zfc and Z30, EN-EL15-type battery, and improved EVF with at least faster refresh. As far as the pixel count, it should be as high as possible while preserving the same level of high iso performance of the current Z50/Zfc/Z30 sensor. A megapixel champ certainly it does not have to be. It should at least match the supposedly better AF-C of the R7 and A6700 without resorting to stacked sensors.

I believe Nikon is certainly capable of issuing such a camera. The big question is, do they want to?

Sony came out with mostly a Video centric camera as opposed to anything else. Didn't Sony call it their Content Creator Camera. Didn't Sony state that the a6700 isn't their Flagship cropped Body.

Nikon, please don't use the C-Hammer and use a horrible EVF/LCD combo along with a Mediocre, 11FPS at best. Plus the IQ coming out of that Sony camera is possibility Worse, then the previous model. Nikon can and Should, do better.

I would say most Nikon users in this potential higher price Range, $1500- $2500, want a far more capable Wildlife Camera. Not some Content Creator Camera. Things like a proper Pre Buffer. High FPS in electronic Mode. 30MP or more wouldn't hurt either.

I think anything above $1500 for DX is going to be off limits, as that gets into Z6 III territory. So if anything it will be an improved DX camera (possibly the same resolution, but maybe faster AF, trickled down from the Z8 perhaps -- atl east some things like 3D AF, and IBIS, but probably not much more, possibly the Expeed 7 but with limitations). But in the end, the price will be around $1500 at most, as the closest competitor would be the A6600/6700 and the R7 (which are all around that price).

Do people forget the release price of the D500? Nikon can go over $1500. Fuji did on multiple cameras and still sold plenty.

They can, but I think with the APSC they are trying to segment them differently than they did with DSLRs with less overlap, both in price and function probably. In the dslr days at least Nikon had a lot of overlap and basically extra "fat" in the line-up. They've slimmed up the Z system a bit more.

The other thing is the competition too. The R7 is $1500 or so just for the body. The A6600/A6700 are around $1400. So while Nikon COULD charge more than $1500, they would pricing themselves out of that market to an extent. Nikon can charge whatever they want, but if you want to be competitive, you have to price competitively as well, unless your camera has something totally unheard of that the competition lacks, which I don't think is the case for Nikon.

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..

 

[bgbgbgbgbg]

We all know that Z50 and D500 are functionally very similar - same sensor, except the Z50 has an Expeed 6 chip, far far greatly improved AF, 11 fps not 10.

I have both the D500 and the Zfc ( which supposedly has a slightly better AF than the Z50 ) and to say that it is far far better is ridiculous. It's focus speed and accuracy isn't anywhere near the D500.

 

[BackToNature1]

Nikon can charge whatever they want, but if you want to be competitive, you have to price competitively as well, unless your camera has something totally unheard of that the competition lacks, which I don't think is the case for Nikon.

Nikon has already shown they can undercut pricing for FF stacked sensors. Why can't they do the same with DX. Say 30MP stacked might do exactly that. At around $2200.

 

[NikonBiologist]

I believe Nikon should issue an updated Z50 body that is functionally a Sony A6700 done the Nikon way. After reading the recent review on DPR of the A6700 and following ANAYV's thread about him considering purchasing an A6700, I am convinced this is approximately the specification Nikon should aim to match. Among various things, I would like the camera to include IBIS (but executed with more refinement than the shutter-shock proneness of the Canon R7), a fully articulated screen, as in the Zfc and Z30, EN-EL15-type battery, and improved EVF with at least faster refresh. As far as the pixel count, it should be as high as possible while preserving the same level of high iso performance of the current Z50/Zfc/Z30 sensor. A megapixel champ certainly it does not have to be. It should at least match the supposedly better AF-C of the R7 and A6700 without resorting to stacked sensors.

I believe Nikon is certainly capable of issuing such a camera. The big question is, do they want to?

Sony came out with mostly a Video centric camera as opposed to anything else. Didn't Sony call it their Content Creator Camera. Didn't Sony state that the a6700 isn't their Flagship cropped Body.

Nikon, please don't use the C-Hammer and use a horrible EVF/LCD combo along with a Mediocre, 11FPS at best. Plus the IQ coming out of that Sony camera is possibility Worse, then the previous model. Nikon can and Should, do better.

I would say most Nikon users in this potential higher price Range, $1500- $2500, want a far more capable Wildlife Camera. Not some Content Creator Camera. Things like a proper Pre Buffer. High FPS in electronic Mode. 30MP or more wouldn't hurt either.

I think anything above $1500 for DX is going to be off limits, as that gets into Z6 III territory. So if anything it will be an improved DX camera (possibly the same resolution, but maybe faster AF, trickled down from the Z8 perhaps -- atl east some things like 3D AF, and IBIS, but probably not much more, possibly the Expeed 7 but with limitations). But in the end, the price will be around $1500 at most, as the closest competitor would be the A6600/6700 and the R7 (which are all around that price).

Do people forget the release price of the D500? Nikon can go over $1500. Fuji did on multiple cameras and still sold plenty.

They can, but I think with the APSC they are trying to segment them differently than they did with DSLRs with less overlap, both in price and function probably. In the dslr days at least Nikon had a lot of overlap and basically extra "fat" in the line-up. They've slimmed up the Z system a bit more.

The other thing is the competition too. The R7 is $1500 or so just for the body. The A6600/A6700 are around $1400. So while Nikon COULD charge more than $1500, they would pricing themselves out of that market to an extent. Nikon can charge whatever they want, but if you want to be competitive, you have to price competitively as well, unless your camera has something totally unheard of that the competition lacks, which I don't think is the case for Nikon.

agreed if non-stacked sensor; if stacked sensor, they could ask Fuji prices, I think.

 

[greenmanphoto]

I believe Nikon should issue an updated Z50 body that is functionally a Sony A6700 done the Nikon way. After reading the recent review on DPR of the A6700 and following ANAYV's thread about him considering purchasing an A6700, I am convinced this is approximately the specification Nikon should aim to match. Among various things, I would like the camera to include IBIS (but executed with more refinement than the shutter-shock proneness of the Canon R7), a fully articulated screen, as in the Zfc and Z30, EN-EL15-type battery, and improved EVF with at least faster refresh. As far as the pixel count, it should be as high as possible while preserving the same level of high iso performance of the current Z50/Zfc/Z30 sensor. A megapixel champ certainly it does not have to be. It should at least match the supposedly better AF-C of the R7 and A6700 without resorting to stacked sensors.

I believe Nikon is certainly capable of issuing such a camera. The big question is, do they want to?

Sony came out with mostly a Video centric camera as opposed to anything else. Didn't Sony call it their Content Creator Camera. Didn't Sony state that the a6700 isn't their Flagship cropped Body.

Nikon, please don't use the C-Hammer and use a horrible EVF/LCD combo along with a Mediocre, 11FPS at best. Plus the IQ coming out of that Sony camera is possibility Worse, then the previous model. Nikon can and Should, do better.

I would say most Nikon users in this potential higher price Range, $1500- $2500, want a far more capable Wildlife Camera. Not some Content Creator Camera. Things like a proper Pre Buffer. High FPS in electronic Mode. 30MP or more wouldn't hurt either.

I think anything above $1500 for DX is going to be off limits, as that gets into Z6 III territory. So if anything it will be an improved DX camera (possibly the same resolution, but maybe faster AF, trickled down from the Z8 perhaps -- atl east some things like 3D AF, and IBIS, but probably not much more, possibly the Expeed 7 but with limitations). But in the end, the price will be around $1500 at most, as the closest competitor would be the A6600/6700 and the R7 (which are all around that price).

Do people forget the release price of the D500? Nikon can go over $1500. Fuji did on multiple cameras and still sold plenty.

NB,

And I believe that if Nikon were to come out with a "Z500" that followed the same pattern of DX bodies represented by the D300/D3 and D500/D5 pairings, they could easily price it at $2000 and it would probably sell VERY well. Just like the D300 and D500 sold VERY well. I know that a "Z500", if it had the right specs, would almost certainly find its way into my bag!

Sam

 

[greenmanphoto]

I believe Nikon should issue an updated Z50 body that is functionally a Sony A6700 done the Nikon way. After reading the recent review on DPR of the A6700 and following ANAYV's thread about him considering purchasing an A6700, I am convinced this is approximately the specification Nikon should aim to match. Among various things, I would like the camera to include IBIS (but executed with more refinement than the shutter-shock proneness of the Canon R7), a fully articulated screen, as in the Zfc and Z30, EN-EL15-type battery, and improved EVF with at least faster refresh. As far as the pixel count, it should be as high as possible while preserving the same level of high iso performance of the current Z50/Zfc/Z30 sensor. A megapixel champ certainly it does not have to be. It should at least match the supposedly better AF-C of the R7 and A6700 without resorting to stacked sensors.

I believe Nikon is certainly capable of issuing such a camera. The big question is, do they want to?

Sony came out with mostly a Video centric camera as opposed to anything else. Didn't Sony call it their Content Creator Camera. Didn't Sony state that the a6700 isn't their Flagship cropped Body.

Nikon, please don't use the C-Hammer and use a horrible EVF/LCD combo along with a Mediocre, 11FPS at best. Plus the IQ coming out of that Sony camera is possibility Worse, then the previous model. Nikon can and Should, do better.

I would say most Nikon users in this potential higher price Range, $1500- $2500, want a far more capable Wildlife Camera. Not some Content Creator Camera. Things like a proper Pre Buffer. High FPS in electronic Mode. 30MP or more wouldn't hurt either.

I think anything above $1500 for DX is going to be off limits, as that gets into Z6 III territory. So if anything it will be an improved DX camera (possibly the same resolution, but maybe faster AF, trickled down from the Z8 perhaps -- atl east some things like 3D AF, and IBIS, but probably not much more, possibly the Expeed 7 but with limitations). But in the end, the price will be around $1500 at most, as the closest competitor would be the A6600/6700 and the R7 (which are all around that price).

Do people forget the release price of the D500? Nikon can go over $1500. Fuji did on multiple cameras and still sold plenty.

They can, but I think with the APSC they are trying to segment them differently than they did with DSLRs with less overlap, both in price and function probably. In the dslr days at least Nikon had a lot of overlap and basically extra "fat" in the line-up. They've slimmed up the Z system a bit more.

The other thing is the competition too. The R7 is $1500 or so just for the body. The A6600/A6700 are around $1400. So while Nikon COULD charge more than $1500, they would pricing themselves out of that market to an extent. Nikon can charge whatever they want, but if you want to be competitive, you have to price competitively as well, unless your camera has something totally unheard of that the competition lacks, which I don't think is the case for Nikon.

sirhawkeye,

That would depend a LOT on the feature set of the "Z500". If its feature set beats the feature sets of the Sony and Canon bodies, why not? Competitive is NOT just in price! Competitive would be a similar set, and probably a similar price, if not a bit lower. Leading the segment would be like the Z9, MUCH better specs AND a lower price. And Nikon COULD do that, or they could match the price or even be a bit higher. It all comes down to the exact specifications of the mythological beast.

Sam

 

[sirhawkeye64]

We all know that Z50 and D500 are functionally very similar - same sensor, except the Z50 has an Expeed 6 chip, far far greatly improved AF, 11 fps not 10.

I have both the D500 and the Zfc ( which supposedly has a slightly better AF than the Z50 ) and to say that it is far far better is ridiculous. It's focus speed and accuracy isn't anywhere near the D500.

One aspect I think people neglect here when comparing the DSLRs to the ML cameras (except the Z8 and Z9, although it still applies there for comparison sake) is that the DSLRs have dedicated AF module, whereas the Z cameras uses on-sensor AF (similar to how live-view AF works on a DSLR). So this likely impacts the speed. Again, the Z8 and Z9 have different hardware than the rest of the bunch (which are still operating on perhaps older sensor technology and the Expeed 6(s) and that likely impacts their AF abilities. Obviously the Expeed 7 and the updated sensor in the Z8 and Z9 helps compensate for this and bring at least the high end Z cameras more in line with the DSLRs. My guess is that some of this tech will flow down to the cheaper cameras (although maybe not the cheapest of the Z cameras, like the Z5 or a Z5 II or a Z50 Mark II, III, etc).

 

[Vince P]

We all know that Z50 and D500 are functionally very similar - same sensor, except the Z50 has an Expeed 6 chip, far far greatly improved AF, 11 fps not 10.

I have both the D500 and the Zfc ( which supposedly has a slightly better AF than the Z50 ) and to say that it is far far better is ridiculous. It's focus speed and accuracy isn't anywhere near the D500.

It's basically the same as the Z7 Z6 and they both, in objective testing, outperformed the D500 (Well on birds in flight). So if the cameras AF is better it's probably just the different approach you are noticing. I have a ZFc but no longer a D500. I do still have a D850 and if I use them both properly the ZFc is definitely better, not far far better but better.

 

[Rich Rosen]

Considering the size of the D500, as compared to say a D780, one is not talking about much of a difference in weight or size. Include the fact that wildlife and sport lenses from Nikon are all FX type lenses, the only thing that's really smaller is the sensor and guess what? You can either put the FX Z 8/9 in DX mode and get that "greater reach." I really don't think a specialized Z type DX camera is necessary.

That is great where can I get a Z8 for £2000. But unfortunately the DX crop on these bodies is only around 20mp, most wanting a sport's, wildlife body want higher than that, say 30mp plus. Perhaps you don't understand others requirements.

Perhaps I don't. I had a D500, and for sports, 20 Mpixels was sufficient. Even at 20, however, the D500 had noise issues for night shooting, at f2.8 and 1/1000th when shooting sports. It would be interesting to see if tech has improved enough to eliminate that noise on a 30 Mpixel DX sensor. My needs have also changed as well and a DX camera is not one of them. Nikon's improved AF, its line of long telephotos, and Lightroom Classic all contribute to the unnecessariness of a DX camera. The sweet spot for shooting field sports is about 400mm. Nikon has three such lenses in that vicinity (including the prohibitively expensive 400 2.8 TC). One of those lenses on a Z 8 or 9, could pretty much handle almost any sporting event, from daylight to late night, and do it with a 45 Mpixel full frame sensor that is more capable of handling low light . And with Lightroom, I can do a crop of a 70-200 f2.8 to zero in on my subject. Cost; I already own a Z 8 so in a way, a $2500 DX body is just adding unnecessary expense to my system that already covers that need...if I ever feel I need it.

 

[Dan_168]

There is a lot of discussion for or against kneading a very high spec D500 replacement, so perhaps a poll is in order. There seems to be those who want all the bells and whistles of the Z8 and those that want a smaller less featured body. perhaps a Z50 size or Z6 size,

Of course there are non users who simply do not want Nikon to produce a higher spec body so there is a choice for them, it will be interesting to see the split in opinions between those that want a better body and those not interested in DX camera's

Whilst Nikon does not have a large number of DX lenses I believe most who want a high end DX body will be using the longer lenses on them and are quite happy to be using full frame glass.

Not exactly just a D500 guts in the Z body, but a improved APS-C sensor with higher resolution and noise performance.

I don't even care for DX lens, when I used my D500, I only shot with FF telephoto lens on it only, so will do the same for "Z500".

 

[PatMann]

Yes, small but with IBIS to support the (too many) Z lenses useful on APS-C that don’t have it, and with the autofocus of the Z8/Z9. I have used my D500 for more shots than my Z system since wildlife photos take many shots.

The Z8 works as an APS-C camera with 19 megapixels, but I’m hoping that some size and weight savings and cost savings can be had with a smaller sensor. The Z5 is substantially lighter than the other full frame Zs, not that much more than the Z50, and does have IBIS. The Z500 needs to come with a worthy APS-C midrange zoom. The 16-50 is surprisingly good, but f/6.3 doesn’t an all-around midrange make. APS-C is a worthwhile format that deserves a real camera and worthy lenses from Nikon.

OTOH, the Z f/4 lens trinity (still minus 1) is quite compact, so a lightweight, compact travel kit in full frame is becoming more realistic than it was under the F regime.

 

[Vince P]

Yes, small but with IBIS to support the (too many) Z lenses useful on APS-C that don’t have it, and with the autofocus of the Z8/Z9. I have used my D500 for more shots than my Z system since wildlife photos take many shots.

The Z8 works as an APS-C camera with 19 megapixels, but I’m hoping that some size and weight savings and cost savings can be had with a smaller sensor. The Z5 is substantially lighter than the other full frame Zs, not that much more than the Z50, and does have IBIS. The Z500 needs to come with a worthy APS-C midrange zoom. The 16-50 is surprisingly good, but f/6.3 doesn’t an all-around midrange make. APS-C is a worthwhile format that deserves a real camera and worthy lenses from Nikon.

OTOH, the Z f/4 lens trinity (still minus 1) is quite compact, so a lightweight, compact {travel kit in full frame is becoming more realistic than it was under the F regime.

I would like a DX camera with IBIS if it doesn't add much weight. Smaller and lighter camera and lenses is pretty much the only reason I use them. Since the D850, DX for more pixels on target is no longer enough of a benefit and Z7/8/9 have cemented that even more.

However Z5 is 25g (4 percent} lighter than a Z6ii and 195g (50 percent} heavier than a Z50 I am not sure how the former is "Substantially" whilst the latter is "Not that much more".

Cost savings for the buyer are less revenue per sale for the seller. The opposite of what Nikon said they want to see.