Nikon's response to A1...

[michaeladawson]

More importantly, how will Nikon respond to a 5000$ 100MP Medium Format camera from Fuji tomorrow?
For landscape shooters, that pretty much nails it for all other camera brands. Why shoot anything else when you can get 100MP Medium Format at 5000$?

Nikon is not in the medium format market. Apples and oranges.

Aside from high res sensors in full frame, Nikon does need to release a high res pixel shift feature. Anyone know why they haven't done this yet? Is it a patent issue of some sort?

Yeah but Medium Format is about to come into the FF territory, price wise.
A 50MP GFX50s didn't give too big of an IQ increase over 47MP Z7, but a 100MP one does.
I think all camera makers need to be watching out for Fuji medium format.

Medium format bodies are not the main stream bodies for things like retail portraits, family sessions, weddings, etc. They are big, heavy and typically do not feature fast AF-C systems (mirrorless has helped with size). Plus file sizes slow your pp considerably. Cost of lenses not to be ignored either. They are typically tools better reserved for studio work and high end jobs, e.g. fashion/beauty/product.

Full frame is the one who has reached a sweet spot lately, encompassing offerings within reach for the avid consumer / hobbyist (up from crop sensors), as well as the professional photog involved in retail and commercial work. If anything, it's the medium format guys who need to watch out. They need to push the envelope on their end because full frame is knocking at their door. Naturally, sensor size advantage is something that cannot be changed, but full frame has narrowed several gaps in recent years, such as resolution and DR.

Like I said, apples and oranges.

I said for landscape shooters. Not for anything else, maybe studio as well. But if I was primarily shooting landscape and was looking for a FF, I'd look into a 100MP MF as well.

I would agree. If I was strictly a landscape shooter I would probably be buying into Fujifilm GFX. The GFX100S is intriguing.

 

[michaeladawson]

Pentax will rule landscape photography? Hilarious.

 

[travelinbri_74]

Price is prohibitively expensive. I am a Sony shooter, but this drives me towards Canon.

 

[justcrusin]

The battle is going to be between Sony and Canon. Both of them have the money to pump into R&D, both of them produce sensors that drive a lot of things around them.

Sony came out with an answer to Canon R5...and till the time Nikon comes with an answer they will have something better.

Nikon at the present is not leading..that is for sure!

The A1 is more than an answer to R5. It's in a totally different league. It's DU, 1Dx territory, and above that.

Yeah, A1 is not really an answer to R5. R5 currently is still the best mirrorless camera out there. If A1 costed 4000$ with these specs, that would be an R5 killer, but a 6500$ camera is aimed at too few people to make any difference. The only important thing is that the tech exists to create this camera right now, so it'll eventually trickle down to cheaper cameras.

Agree not in terms of price, but in terms of features, it competes with the best mirrorless camera out there ( at least on paper). I am sure Canon will have a better answer soon. The question is does Nikon have the tech and if yes...how long does it take them to productize it ?

 

[justcrusin]

The battle is going to be between Sony and Canon. Both of them have the money to pump into R&D, both of them produce sensors that drive a lot of things around them.

Sony came out with an answer to Canon R5...and till the time Nikon comes with an answer they will have something better.

Nikon at the present is not leading..that is for sure!

The A1 is more than an answer to R5. It's in a totally different league. It's DU, 1Dx territory, and above that.

Agree...but at the present in terms of tech specs, it stands higher than the rest.

 

[justcrusin]

I don't think they need any response to A1.

A1 is way too expensive. What Nikon needs is an answer to R5. A 3500-4000$ camera which does high fps with better AF and less blackout. It doesn't even need 8K video, which is a pure gimmick for stills shooters. You cannot even watch an 8K video at home. Who has an 8K monitor or plans to buy one soon? Apple's highest resolution monitor is 6K at 6000$.
It doesn't even need more MP. 45MP is plenty but if they want higher MP, so be it.

So give me a 45MP 20 fps almost blackout free Z8 with slightly better AF at 3500$ and I'm done. I wouldn't think about upgrading that for 4 years at least.

20 fps vs 30 fps, no thanks. I already have too many photos at 9 fps of Z7. Can't even think about 30 fps. Each extra frame has much less effect once you get high enough.

Nikon will have to respond to the A1 if they are still interested in the Pro market and still want to be reckoned as a technology leader...

 

[Love Photography 888]

Price is prohibitively expensive. I am a Sony shooter, but this drives me towards Canon.

What’s going to happen when canon and Nikon inevitably release something at this price? Where you going to go next?

 

[Ellis Vener]

Are you a professional sports or fashion shooter?
if not, this is not a camera for you.

Otherwise it is a “halo product”, the purpose of which is to attract down market attention to the brand.

 

[NickZ2016]

The A1 is more than an answer to R5. It's in a totally different league. It's DU, 1Dx territory, and above that.

Depends what features you care about.

The A1 doesn't do 8K raw. Doesn't do 4:2:2 8k. Uses the smaller Cfe cards which are slower.

 

[NickZ2016]

I think this hits the nail on the head. It makes sense for Nikon to produce two higher-end cameras -- one for action and one high-MP -- and sell both at considerably lower price points than the Sony A1.

You really expect a D6 replacement to cost less than a D6?

 

[NickZ2016]

Type A is only available from Sony at WEX in the UK - with 800MB/s - maximum size 160GB

Type B with 1750MB/s are available from several manufacturers at much lower (though still not inexpensive) prices and with much greater capacity - likely to be essential for high resolution video.

The A1 is limited to compressed 8K. Max bitrate of 400MB. At least that's what I read. If you want more than that you'll need an external recorder. Not something economical like the Ninja.

 

[Tailslol]

More importantly, how will Nikon respond to a 5000$ 100MP Medium Format camera from Fuji tomorrow?
For landscape shooters, that pretty much nails it for all other camera brands. Why shoot anything else when you can get 100MP Medium Format at 5000$?

Nikon is not in the medium format market. Apples and oranges.

Aside from high res sensors in full frame, Nikon does need to release a high res pixel shift feature. Anyone know why they haven't done this yet? Is it a patent issue of some sort?

Yeah but Medium Format is about to come into the FF territory, price wise.
A 50MP GFX50s didn't give too big of an IQ increase over 47MP Z7, but a 100MP one does.
I think all camera makers need to be watching out for Fuji medium format.

Medium format bodies are not the main stream bodies for things like retail portraits, family sessions, weddings, etc. They are big, heavy and typically do not feature fast AF-C systems (mirrorless has helped with size). Plus file sizes slow your pp considerably. Cost of lenses not to be ignored either. They are typically tools better reserved for studio work and high end jobs, e.g. fashion/beauty/product.

Full frame is the one who has reached a sweet spot lately, encompassing offerings within reach for the avid consumer / hobbyist (up from crop sensors), as well as the professional photog involved in retail and commercial work. If anything, it's the medium format guys who need to watch out. They need to push the envelope on their end because full frame is knocking at their door. Naturally, sensor size advantage is something that cannot be changed, but full frame has narrowed several gaps in recent years, such as resolution and DR.

Like I said, apples and oranges.

I said for landscape shooters. Not for anything else, maybe studio as well. But if I was primarily shooting landscape and was looking for a FF, I'd look into a 100MP MF as well.

You're still closer to $10k with 1-2 solid lenses, vs closer to $5k with 1-2 solid lenses in full frame - and again, further expenses on the post processing side with those large files. Unless you have a compelling reason for 100mpx / medium format, a high res full frame option is very attractive over medium format for most people out there. Some high res ff bodies also offer a pixel shift feature which can produce even higher res images, if that's all you care about.

No, it's definitely not for me. I shoot landscapes but wildlife as well, so I need a fast camera, at least faster than a medium format.

But I was only shooting landscapes and basically nothing else, I'd take a good look at a 5000$ish costing 100MP body. GFX100s does not seem to be a lot bigger than a Z7 either. So the MF at really high MP is sweeping really into the FF territory with these prices. 3 years ago, these kinds of high res MF bodies were out of reach for everyone except the richest, now it's an option.

That's what I'm saying.

 

[Tailslol]

I don't think they need any response to A1.

A1 is way too expensive. What Nikon needs is an answer to R5. A 3500-4000$ camera which does high fps with better AF and less blackout. It doesn't even need 8K video, which is a pure gimmick for stills shooters. You cannot even watch an 8K video at home. Who has an 8K monitor or plans to buy one soon? Apple's highest resolution monitor is 6K at 6000$.
It doesn't even need more MP. 45MP is plenty but if they want higher MP, so be it.

So give me a 45MP 20 fps almost blackout free Z8 with slightly better AF at 3500$ and I'm done. I wouldn't think about upgrading that for 4 years at least.

20 fps vs 30 fps, no thanks. I already have too many photos at 9 fps of Z7. Can't even think about 30 fps. Each extra frame has much less effect once you get high enough.

Nikon will have to respond to the A1 if they are still interested in the Pro market and still want to be reckoned as a technology leader...

I really don't think they have to. Suppose they respond to this and then Sony releases a 65MP 60 FPS camera. Yes, technologically it'll be far superior, but when is enough enough in terms of specs on paper? At some point nobody will care about more FPS. It's for stills after all. Who wants to deal with sooo many frames that look more or less the same?


In terms of AF, we are almost at a situation where all the frames you shoot are in focus. After that, "better AF" won't mean much either.

 

[Ernie Misner]

...hopefully.

I think the Z8 will be more of a D850 replacement, and Sony's A1 is a D6 replacement (and price). A Z9 or 10 should also be a $6,500 D6 replacement, given time.

maljo

 

[SaltyPeanut]

More importantly, how will Nikon respond to a 5000$ 100MP Medium Format camera from Fuji tomorrow?
For landscape shooters, that pretty much nails it for all other camera brands. Why shoot anything else when you can get 100MP Medium Format at 5000$?

Nikon is not in the medium format market. Apples and oranges.

Aside from high res sensors in full frame, Nikon does need to release a high res pixel shift feature. Anyone know why they haven't done this yet? Is it a patent issue of some sort?

Yeah but Medium Format is about to come into the FF territory, price wise.
A 50MP GFX50s didn't give too big of an IQ increase over 47MP Z7, but a 100MP one does.
I think all camera makers need to be watching out for Fuji medium format.

Medium format bodies are not the main stream bodies for things like retail portraits, family sessions, weddings, etc. They are big, heavy and typically do not feature fast AF-C systems (mirrorless has helped with size). Plus file sizes slow your pp considerably. Cost of lenses not to be ignored either. They are typically tools better reserved for studio work and high end jobs, e.g. fashion/beauty/product.

Full frame is the one who has reached a sweet spot lately, encompassing offerings within reach for the avid consumer / hobbyist (up from crop sensors), as well as the professional photog involved in retail and commercial work. If anything, it's the medium format guys who need to watch out. They need to push the envelope on their end because full frame is knocking at their door. Naturally, sensor size advantage is something that cannot be changed, but full frame has narrowed several gaps in recent years, such as resolution and DR.

Like I said, apples and oranges.

I said for landscape shooters. Not for anything else, maybe studio as well. But if I was primarily shooting landscape and was looking for a FF, I'd look into a 100MP MF as well.

You're still closer to $10k with 1-2 solid lenses, vs closer to $5k with 1-2 solid lenses in full frame - and again, further expenses on the post processing side with those large files. Unless you have a compelling reason for 100mpx / medium format, a high res full frame option is very attractive over medium format for most people out there. Some high res ff bodies also offer a pixel shift feature which can produce even higher res images, if that's all you care about.

No, it's definitely not for me. I shoot landscapes but wildlife as well, so I need a fast camera, at least faster than a medium format.
But I was only shooting landscapes and basically nothing else, I'd take a good look at a 5000$ish costing 100MP body. GFX100s does not seem to be a lot bigger than a Z7 either. So the MF at really high MP is sweeping really into the FF territory with these prices. 3 years ago, these kinds of high res MF bodies were out of reach for everyone except the richest, now it's an option.

That's what I'm saying.

Gotcha.

 

[BasilG]

Price is prohibitively expensive. I am a Sony shooter, but this drives me towards Canon.

You think Canon's flagship will cost less?

 

[Qbalion]

So it could be kind of barter cross-selling deal Makes sense.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Trying to predict the future from what is available now I put Canon first for the R bodies, some mid range exotic lenses (for those with a significant budget) and the shutter blind to help keep dust off the sensor when no lens is attached.

Although the A1 is not perfect it is extremely good. However predicting the future I reduce Sony to second place - because over time they will loose out without a wider lens throat.

Nikon. is right now for me is lagging in third place. They have some superb ML lenses out now and on the roadmap but have yet to launch a "professional specified" ML body.

Panasonic/Leica I leave in. fourth place as take up in the UK is small.

If Nikon introduces a Pro body or bodies and new lenses next month (rather than next Christmas) depending on what is announced I expect Nikon for me to jump ahead of Sony and maybe to equal or beat Canon.

 

[Qbalion]

I was far from photography at that time (partially because of my poor Sony a6000 choice BTW) but I am glad to hear that.

It was so nice feeling to be back with Nikon half a year ago when I bought Z50.

I like Sony specs - they impress and attract people due to those bells and whistles. I am keeping my fingers crossed for Nikon cause I like shooting their cameras and lenses a lot!

They need to announce something innovative, something which would give them rewards like DPR gold, etc. They need it to attract customers, especially in the shrinking market.

 

[justcrusin]

I don't think they need any response to A1.

A1 is way too expensive. What Nikon needs is an answer to R5. A 3500-4000$ camera which does high fps with better AF and less blackout. It doesn't even need 8K video, which is a pure gimmick for stills shooters. You cannot even watch an 8K video at home. Who has an 8K monitor or plans to buy one soon? Apple's highest resolution monitor is 6K at 6000$.
It doesn't even need more MP. 45MP is plenty but if they want higher MP, so be it.

So give me a 45MP 20 fps almost blackout free Z8 with slightly better AF at 3500$ and I'm done. I wouldn't think about upgrading that for 4 years at least.

20 fps vs 30 fps, no thanks. I already have too many photos at 9 fps of Z7. Can't even think about 30 fps. Each extra frame has much less effect once you get high enough.

Nikon will have to respond to the A1 if they are still interested in the Pro market and still want to be reckoned as a technology leader...

I really don't think they have to. Suppose they respond to this and then Sony releases a 65MP 60 FPS camera. Yes, technologically it'll be far superior, but when is enough enough in terms of specs on paper? At some point nobody will care about more FPS. It's for stills after all. Who wants to deal with sooo many frames that look more or less the same?

In terms of AF, we are almost at a situation where all the frames you shoot are in focus. After that, "better AF" won't mean much either.

It does not matter what you and I think...the market drives things. Yes, things will stabilize after some time but you need to drive things and not be a follower.