arniebook

Thank You, Russar.

Thank you, Russar.

Wow! My sense is, that if I could keep enlarging some of the portraits, I would begin seeing skin cells, atoms, electrons, and protons! Detail is beyond amazing.

I would normally upgrade every two to five years, but I am still using 2015, so this may be the year to upgrade. I'm not a pro, don't have income from my photography, and feel no need to get the full Photoshop, or Lightroom subscriptions, as I am comfortable and content with my workflow as it has evolved. I'm sure many will disagree with my reasoning. Guess I'm old-school ... I like software I can buy and use as long as it fits my needs. I dislike online subscriptions, and can avoid this one. I'm not waving banners recommending my workflow to anyone, but I think it works for me.

Kill me ... I've used this software for more years than I can count ... These days, mostly, just for saving jpgs, output from Nikon NX-D, where I do the majority of my editing on the raw files. It is a handy place for all of my plug-in stuff, like Topaz, and Nik Define, among others. The cloning tool works exceptionally well, as many other "local" action tools do, and NX-D does not have those types of features.

Thank you!

I might consider an R7, if such an adapter were available. Nikon has been reluctant to make a pro-level aps-c. All of my current lenses are "E" type. Fringer has a good adapter for Nikon F to Fuji X.

That's awesome ... almost like having the Mach Loop right outside your condo.

Just in case you are not aware, The Mach Loop, (also known as the Machynlleth Loop), in Wales, is among the few places in the world where photographers can see combat aircraft flying below them.

Arnie

Mine is the BM 201 with 35mm F3.5 and Auto-Variable Flash. I remember that it took very nice photos, and slipped easily into a ski-jacket pocket, while attached to the included lanyard. It is smaller and lighter than my Nikon P7000, which is my most recent "pocket" camera from about 2009.

I have a Konica Big Mini I used mostly for Snow Skiing and White Water Canoeing. Remarkably, I see them for as much as $280 on Ebay.

It seems like Nikon is doing it again ... trying to steer current Nikon DSLR users to current Z Bodies, but, this time, in a much more volitile environment. Considering the recent options available to "PRO" APS-C shooters, as well as the availability of lens adapters, there's a greater potential for Nikon DX users to jump to other brands.
I think Fuji will sell a "ton" of X-H2s, and, if Nikon doesn't, very soon, announce a "Z900", many of them will be current D500 users, and may even include me. The risk, of course is that Nikon will later come out with a "Z900" DX, with the tech and pro body D500 shooters are accustomed to, and want, thus creating the conundrum of now owning an alternate brand and another, even more difficult, "justification" decision.

Jaberg ... My response to Idaho_X agrees with your above post, which I totally misunderstood. I'm all in, when it comes to spending on hobbies. I'm a golfer, photographer, and computer fan (not a geek or nerd). I'm retired, so nearly everything I do these days is either a hobby, or somehow, connected to a hobby. Lately, the core of my postings on these type of threads is aimed directly at encouraging Nikon to produce an answer to Canon and Fuji in the "PRO" level APS-C arena. Notably, a "Z900". Nikon has historically done that, starting with the D100, but they skipped D400, which was a mistake, and cost them a large number of D300 users who would have eventually been D500 users, but bought into another line or brand. I think Nikon was trying to steer DX shooters into the D7000 line, and I, myself, nearly bought a D7200, but the D500 popped up just in time.

Cropping a Z9 to achieve the same reach of the D500, is a downgrade in pixel density, and not cropping eliminates the enhanced telephoto reach of the D500. We want all that new tech, but are not willing to sacrifice pixel density to get it. Wildlife and sports shooters typically crop some in post for composition as well as create a larger image of the subject. With the Fuji XH2S, 26mp is an upgrade in Pixel Density from the D500, as well as the newest tech. Canon's R7 is 33MP on the APS-C Sensor ... a HUGE leap in pixel density! It would not be an easy decision to switch from Nikon (been there since 1988), but there are mount adapters, which work very well with Nikon F mount lenses, which I would have to have with any Z camera, anyway. Nikon has a history with the D3 and D300, D5 and D500. We simply want Nikon to follow that template with a Z900.

jaberg ... I have to assume, since you weren't specific, your remarks are aimed at D500 shooters' refusal, or reluctance, to pay $5700 for a Z9. But, it seems you don't understand the real reasons. For me, it is not the money at all. The fact is, I don't want to downgrade my current capabilities, in exchange for supersized image files, lower pixel density, and less telephoto reach. So, yeah, the Z9 has all the latest AF, sensor, and processing technology I WANT, as well as the pro ergo I am accustomed to ... but it is full frame, and even though it sports a 47MP sensor, it does NOT equal the pixel density of the 21MP, DX, D500.

Idaho_X ... They may tempt a lot of Nikon D500 Shooters. I, myself, have an eye on the XH2S, as a mirrorless APS-C version of the Z9. With Fuji not being the only player in the PRO DX (APS-C) arena, Nikon had better be reading the signs, and produce a DX version of Z9, and rather soon, or experience an Exodus of Pro DX shooters from Nikon to Fuji, Sony, and Canon.

GREAT video!
Love “Go with the momentum the Z9 gives them”, and ”Nikon can just look at the Template they already have with the D3, D700, and D300”. There is definitely a tone of optimism in those statements for me. Canon and Fuji shot over the bow of the Nikon “Ship”, with their recent, high performing mirrorless APS-C offerings, and I hope Nikon has taken notice, and, is working on a DX “Z900” to replace my two D500’s. I am 80, a Nikon user since 1988, and a Pro DX fan, but it wouldn’t be hard for me to “jump” ship to Fuji or Sony, and an F-mount adapter, and still, never have to purchase another lens. I would go for a Z9, but would be giving up an opportunity to increase pixel density and maintain the telephoto reach, a comparable 26 - 32MP DX of any brand would do.

Yes, I would be first in line to buy a pro DX camera like a Z900, but I think 40MP is a bit too much of an ask for the smaller sensor. I think Canon got that part right with 32MP, which, as such, is a higher pixel density than the Z9, and, I believe, the highest pixel density of any DSLR or Mirrorless “35mm form factor” camera.
The lenses you mention, 600 & 800mm Z DX lenses … ? If Nikon were able to develop such lenses, why would they deprive FX shooters, by making them in DX image circle? With the FX 500mm PF being at a very reasonable, $3600 US, those prices are unrealistic, as well.
Unless you want lenses made of cardboard (hyperbole), I would quit begging for cheap, DX Z-mount lenses.

Scott, Do you think Nikon's 500mm PF should be offered in a DX version? It is already incredibly small, light, fast focusing, very reasonably priced, and brings great reach and image quality within reach of the prosumer shooters. But it's a full frame lens. I can't believe anyone (DX Shooters) would really care, yet, you "believe it DOES make sense for" (/hyp) Nikon to engineer, develop, and fabricate separate tooling, to produce an APS-C version, and make it cheaper, as well. Hey, maybe put a plastic mount on it.
"Then there are those who just can't afford $12,000 for a lens, but want to shoot at 800mm or even more, but don't want to compromise too much in quality by getting a super-zoom". That is EXACTLY the target market for Super-Zooms, and today, they are barely more compromise than putting a 1.7 TC on a 500mm lens. What do you expect the price of an 800mm DX lens should be? ... (Yep ... more /hyp)

Scott ...
WARNING! ... There might be a bit of hyperbole (/hyp) here.
You're Right ... we all want a cheap, small, light, high quality 800mm lens. Brush your Unicorn while you wait for it.
It makes no sense to expect a lens manufacturer to provide two versions of any lens! ... least of all, long telephoto types. Given there is the same amount of production development, tooling, and labor involved, as well as high quality materials (unless you want compromised quality), and even more challenging engineering and product development needed to make a more compact device ... why do you expect Nikon, or any other lens maker to do double the work and charge half (/hyp) the price? And furthermore, why should a person with both FX and DX cameras want to buy two lenses of the same focal length (or equivalent) when one suffices for both formats?

Don't need em' ... full frame lenses have always worked fine on aps-c cameras ... same mount isn't it? As a D500 shooter, I prefer full frame lenses. They are inherently sharper corner to corner on DX sensors.