Nikon Announces KeyMission 360, 170, and 80 Cameras

<p>The 170 seems to be competing against GoPro.</p>

<p>News article on Nikon Japan's web site: http://www.nikon.com/news/2016/0919_action_01.htm<br>

<br /> KeyMission 360</p>

<ul>

<li>Capture stunning true 360° video in 4K UHD or Full HD (1080p)</li>

<li>Two f/2.0 NIKKOR lenses with 20-megapixel sensors combine for beautiful video or stills without blind spots</li>

<li>Compact and waterproof (98 ft.), shockproof (6.6 ft.) and freezeproof (14° F) – ready for any adventure</li>

<li>Shoot remotely, connect and share completely stitched full 360° from a compatible smart device using the Nikon SnapBridge 360/170 app</li>

<li>Compatible with numerous optional mounts and accessories</li>

<li>Available starting in October for $499.95 SRP</li>

</ul>

<p>KeyMission 170</p>

<ul>

<li>Super-wide 170° angle-of-view, f/2.8 lens, 8.3-megapixel CMOS sensor captures brilliant 4K UHD or Full HD (1080p) video</li>

<li>Extremely compact and adventure-ready – waterproof (33 ft.), shockproof (6.6 ft.) and freezeproof (14° F)</li>

<li>Utilize create tools to help create engaging content, including Highlight Tagging, slow motion movies, Time-Lapse and Loop Recording</li>

<li>Frame any shot, play back vide and change settings with ease using rear LCD display</li>

<li>Shoot remotely, connect and share from compatible smart devices using the Nikon SnapBridge 360/170 app</li>

<li>Available starting in October for $399.95 SRP</li>

</ul>

<p>KeyMission 80</p>

<ul>

<li>Capture hands-free, beautiful stills and HD video (1080p) video using 12-megapixel (80° angle-of-view) f/2.0 lens</li>

<li>Utilize Time-Lapse and interval timer functions to chronicle life’s journeys</li>

<li>Sports a secondary, front-facing 5-megapixel camera that helps seamlessly snap selfies on the go</li>

<li>Waterproof (3.2 ft.), shockproof (6 ft.) and freezeproof (14° F) and ready to travel with you off the beaten path</li>

<li>Versatile 1.75 in. touch LCD display allows for changing of settings, framing shots or play back</li>

<li>Available starting in October for $279.95 SRP</li>

</ul>

So... Unless there's more to come in the press event (ah, apparently there wasn't),

Nikon announced a couple of GoPros and a Gear360

clone (that they'd already announced), while Sony have a

42MP camera with a new dedicated AF system and

12FPS. I know Nikon have allegedly got delayed by

Sony's sensor factory closure, but... Oh dear.

<blockquote>

<p>while Sony have a 42MP camera with a new dedicated AF system and 12FPS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sony's new 42MP camera that can do 12 fps is another SLT. The only surprise is that Sony is still adding another camera to that product line, while its main focus is mirrorless. I don't think Nikon is too concerned about the new SLT from Sony.</p>

<p>Nikon's concerns should be whether the new KeyMission cameras are competitive since even GoPro is no longer doing that great, and Nikon's well received DL line has had a very long delay, still with no firm release date.</p>

<p>And there is no direct answer to Canon's 5D Mark IV.</p>

<p>It's true, the new Sony isn't an SLR - although it does have off-sensor phase-detect autofocus that should give it better subject tracking than the A7R2. I'm not suggesting that it's the most exciting camera for most people (especially since, as you say, it's not E-mount), but I'm moderately impressed that they managed to read 42MP at 12fps - though I suppose that's only the same ball-park as 60fps 4K video (if shot raw).<br />

<br />

Thom Hogan commented that he feels Nikon won't produce a D810 replacement with this sensor because it would be a "me too". If true, I think that would be a shame - I remain concerned that going for higher pixel counts just shrinks the area that would capture 8K (and therefore probably 4K) video natively, and frankly I don't need much more than 36MP for stills. I could believe that Nikon are stymied by the Sony factory sensor production issues, or that they just want to make sure that the D810 replacement actually works before they ship it (for once), but it's got to be a bit bad for PR that they have nothing to counter the 5D4. Well, except for the D810, which is still better in some ways and competitive in others. Nikon have had a good history of getting out there just before Canon (D700/5D2, D610/6D...) so I guess either they dropped the ball this time, they're genuinely stuck with production problems, or the 5D4 and 5Ds are Canon's belated response to the D810. Arguably though, the competition to the 5D4 should come from the D750's successor, given how the models have been pitched.<br />

<br />

GoPro are pretty entrenched, despite their limited profits, and I'm not sure the glut of others trying to fill the same market can be making any money, given that the rest of the compact camera market is in free-fall - and GoPro themselves have just announced some more updates (and a drone). For the prices they're asking, these cameras had better be exceptional - and even then Nikon seem to have missed out on GoPro's mounting ecosystem. I comment Nikon for trying something different, but they're a long way behind the competition here, not helped by the pre-announcement. The compact market may have finished drying up by the time the DL line appears at this rate - I already have an RX100 (after years of waiting for the price to drop) and the current RX100 and GX7 lines are pretty mature now. Plus Nikon have history of messing up the UI of the 1-series (I'm a V1 sufferer), so I'd need to be convinced they'd made it usable this time.<br />

<br />

Sensors aside, though, it's a shame not to see any new lenses from Nikon. I guess the 105 f/1.4 (I gather it's lovely, but 105mm isn't my focal length) and the two DX 70-300mm lenses (no interest to me) were Nikon's get-in-before-the-Photokina-rush announcements. Sigma just announced an 85mm f/1.4 Art (which may tempt me if it fixes the LoCA issues I have with the f/1.8 AF-S), a 12-24 f/4 Art (which may cure my Canon envy) and a 500mm f/4 prime (okay, I'll probably stick to my 400 f/2.8 lust and 200-500 reality). Having nothing from Nikon is a bit unfortunate.<br />

<br />

Anyway, so much for optimism. I'm still hoping for good things from the D810 replacement, when it eventually arrives.</p>

<p>What does SLT stand for? </p>

Apparently, if I can trust AcronymFinder, "single lens

translucent". I believe there's a fixed (at least during shooting - you may be able to move it to clean the sensor) pellicle mirror

reflecting some light to the dedicated AF system, though

it's been a while since I paid attention to Sony's non-

mirrorless line.

Single Lens Translucent. Sony is using a fixed semireflective/semitransparent material which lets most of the light through to the main

sensor while a part of the light is reflected to the separate AF sensor. The idea is that you can get continuous AF sensor

readout during a sequence of shots and there is no "dead time" between exposures. Since the "mirror" doesn't move as it

does in an SLR, it is always in the same place and so the light that the AF sensor receives always goes through the same

path which should, in theory, reduce shot to shot variation in focus and improve the continuity of focus tracking. However,

the question is whether these advantages translate into better results in the real world and the answer is not clear. Sony is obviously

pursuing this technology because they think it has its own advantages compared to DSLR and mirrorless.

Keymission 360 seems like a fun tool to try at crowded events with dancing etc. giving a sense of "being there". I am not

familiaf with the 360 scene - what kind of tools are available to edit these kinds of videos? Can the viewer choose the

direction where they are watching or is it fixed by whoever makes the video? I don't know how the distortion would distract

but also I imagine it could be an interesting alternative to real estate videos, where the camera is walked through the

indoor premises to show how it feels like and the relative position of different rooms. This could be an interesting

alternative to showing a standard wide angle view.

360 cameras are often used to create virtual reality

images or videos (or, to put it another way, they solve

the problem of how to create content for VR) - there are

editing tools out there (though I imagine conventional

tools will work if you don't care about the distortion,

especially for stills), and content distribution on

YouTube etc. In theory you get an undistorted view that

you can look around (from a fixed position) if you're

using an Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, Google cardboard, Gear

VR or PlayStation VR (or a range of less famous things

you can stick a phone in). Have a look on YouTube for

the Lion King stage show introduction in VR for an

example. Most phones can generate a spherical

panorama by stitching and let you view it, but a

dedicated camera should avoid the worst of the artifacts

and be more convenient - plus video, of course.

 

Lytro have just changed their business model to go

down this route; the Nikon version is cheap in

comparison, but not the cheapest such thing on the

market. On the other hand, it's cheaper than a couple of

DSLRs with 6mm f/2.8s on them, which I gather have

been used for VR in the past (there's a useful overlap in

view, whereas a 180 degree fish-eye is running out of

resolution at the rim).

 

It's the current hotness (as in Nikon are a bit behind the

curve), although I was in a company that shared a

building with a VR business in the 1990s, so I'm cautious

about it going the way of 3DTV. Still, there's a lot of

money being invested, so if you don't mind being sealed

off from the world...

<p>I would not want to use goggles or require the viewer to do so. For my purposes, it should be viewable by just a web browser without extra equipment. I saw some videos and stills where one can just drag the image around to see in different directions; this seems more reasonable and viewer-friendly. 29MP still image resolution seems practical for many purposes. I think this could be quite useful to show an overview of the interior of an apartment, for example, yet fast to use and not all that expensive. Also at events the camera could be positioned at a central location and what exactly the viewer sees in the end could be selected in editing. Occasionally I've seen wedding photographers use a fisheye lens (such as the Canon fisheye zoom) to get an overview of the location; this would be sort of an extension of that to 360 degrees. I know the distortion can leave the viewer uneasy but used sparingly I imagine it could be useful. Rectangular ultrawide angle lenses can also lead to a perception of distorted faces, for example, at the edges of the images.</p>

<p>The Nikon introductory videos where the viewing angle is fixed (in the Photokina video stream) are a bit too wild in the sense that the shifts in direction angle (and angle of view) are too fast for my taste; a bit too music video -like. I would prefer the movements to be slow and smooth. I guess it is a bit like zooming while recording video - in movies, if it is done at all, it happens very, very slowly (and I guess it's often done by altering camera position instead of zooming). </p>

<p>Oh yes, goggles of some kind just allow you to move

your head to change the view (well, and offer 3D stereo,

but there's no indication that this or most cameras can

capture that). Just as a spherical panorama taken by

stitching can be driven by manually panning around, the

same should be true of video. There should be no spherical distortion unless you want one, since the remapping to the display should be making everything rectilinear, give or take approximations. I've not tried it on the

desktop interface, but you can certainly pan YouTube

360 videos with a finger on the phone screen, as well as

just turning the phone (and I've not bothered with

wearing goggles either, but turning around holding a

phone works well). <a

href="https://youtu.be/7T57kzGQGto">Have a go.</a>

I've not yet looked at Nikon's content, but I'll go hunting

now.</p>

<p>Nikon has some videos here which seem to be fixed viewing angle</p>

<p>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBS5Xb5ZAPAuQ7rRuEnltqw</p>

<p>in this one you can spin the viewing angle around:</p>

<p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezwF7rSzcjo</p>

Hmm. Nothing stops the videographer from choosing a

crop out of the full capture during editing, of course - if it

was always best to leave freedom to the viewer, cinema

and theatre would be less different. Looks like the

lenses are a little over 180 degrees on the 360 - there

seems to be some softness at the join, but it might be

because the views are being blended. There are clear

stitching artifacts on close subjects, but that's hard to

avoid without many more cameras. Interesting, anyway -

at least the dynamic range didn't seem awful.

<p>A virtual reality experience is one application but it may be that the videographer wants to create conventional content but uses a 360 camera for practical reasons. They may want to use it as a remote camera to avoid having to adjust its angle during the shoot using a motorized head or such additional equipment. Ruggedness of the KeyMission 360 suggests Nikon thought of this kind of applications. The 360 angle camera then captures the scene from one vantage point and the angle and crop are decided in post-processing to select what the viewer sees (possibly selecting among views from several cameras). Personally I see both kinds of applications for this type of a camera. I am a little uncomfortable letting the viewer control what they are looking at and prefer strict editorial control when photographing events, for example. ;-) However, in an apartment tour on a website, I think a virtual reality type presentation might be just the ticket.</p>

<p>Agreed, Ilkka. Indeed, my previous employers worked with a security company who, rather than offering a mechanically servoed camera, used a fish-eye and offered dewarping to get a rectilinear image which could move around the captured frame retrospectively. No reason the same can't be done here. I imagine it may be especially useful because Nikon's mount system for these cameras is a tripod thread, so there's a sporting chance they'll get knocked and rotated during any violent activity. This approach means you can rotate the view back in software! :-P<br />

<br />

I'm about to put a house on the market. I'll have to find out what technology they use at the moment - though I'd expect stills with a cellphone panorama rather than video, to be honest.</p>

<p>Just noting that Kodak (or a company using the Kodak name, presumably the one offering the previous 360 degree camera) have just announced a 360 camera at the same price point as the Nikon one. I'll be interested to see reviews of how they compare. Nikon haven't historically exactly been video specialists.</p>

<p>probably not Nikon's best Photokina.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's true, the new Sony isn't an SLR - although it does have off-sensor phase-detect autofocus that should give it better subject tracking than the A7R2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>is anyone really excited about this? there's no real reason you need focus tracking <em>and</em> 42mp. Even 36 mp is overkill in just about every conceivable scenario. Plus, anyone who already bought the A7RII and invested in lenses probably isn't going to get an A99 just for the addition of this feature, so it's difficult to imagine who this camera is for, other than those still clinging to Sony full-frame A-mount. At $3200, it's not a relative bargain, and may cannabalize A7 series sales, if it sells at all, rather than take a bite out of D810 and D5 sales. Other than the shock of the SLT line coming back from the dead, there's really nothing to see here. So far, it's looking like Panasonic is making the most aggessive moves at Photokina. i do hope Nikon recovers, but then they pre-launched the D5 and D500, which are both strong cameras from them. </p>

The on-sensor AF of the A7R2 got good reports for AF

accuracy, but not for tracking moving subjects. The D5

AF is state of the art, but can't guarantee the accuracy of

on-sensor AF. The A7R2 sensor, being BSI, is also very

competitive with lower pixel count sensors at high ISO.

Other than the light loss due to the pellicle mirror

blocking the sensor, the A99 2 ought to offer the perfect

mix - the speed of the D5 with the resolution of the

D810. So technically, it's interesting.

 

It is, as Eric says, for a mount that has little modern

glass available for it, and I'm way too invested in the F

mount to switch any time soon - so my interest is mostly

for the possibility of Nikon inheriting a 36+MP sensor

with this kind of transfer rate. But I've seen the A7 series

being used to capture video at high profile sporting

events, and I don't think Nikon can be complacent.

 

I've said before that the moment someone manages to

capture 8k for enough frames at near video rates that

one could choose between them before writing (best-

shot style), the only thing doing them from getting a lot

of interest will be autofocus. If the A99 2 can keep the

target in focus and still hit 12FPS (and the AF sensor

has more time to do it in than on an SLR), I wouldn't be

surprised if some pros at least investigated it.

<p>The A99 II does 12 fps only without live viewfinder image, the highest speed with viewfinder showing the live view image is 8fps. Also the camera uses UHS-I cards so if the buffer runs out of space, which it likely will, it will take a while before the buffer is empty again. Thus comparing to D5 speed may be premature.</p>

<p>Also from what I've seen from dxo measurements of previous SLTs, the high speed design seems to come with some low ISO DR drawbacks. The A77 II has 13.4 EV dynamic range at base ISO whereas the D7200 has 14.6 EV. Nikon's high speed DX model (D500) has 14 EV. Thus even Nikon can't quite make their fast cameras as good at base ISO image quality as their slower but still high end models. I doubt the new A99 II is an exception to this. Fast reads => increased shadow noise at low ISO is typical.</p>

<p>However, since the A99 II doesn't have to move its mirror up and down between shots means there may be less dead time between exposures and the high speed may be partly achieved through this. The D5 can do 14fps with live view but no AF. (I have never tried this actually.) Both AF and some means of composing and following the action are basic requirements for action photography. Only in special circumstances can the high speed without a viewfinder image be used in practice, such as for wide angle action sequences with a fixed camera position, or some lab setup where the action is controllable and known in advance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oops, I'd missed the live view update restriction. That's a small matter of engineering in their (new) "BIONZ" chip, and given that the camera claims full sensor read-out for 4K video, I'm unsure why this would have been a problem, unless they're using a different path for live view to avoid overheating - or if they're frame-rate locked. (Even so, 12fps from 60Hz should work better than 8fps...) The autofocus should be good for video, but I concede that not having viewfinder updates at the full rate is a bit restrictive - I've no idea how many D5 shooters use the 14fps mode. That said, if you're doing something like waiting for a bird to take off or a horse to jump over something, maybe a half-second burst without viewfinder isn't the end of the world, especially if the AF tracks for you. And for some reason I thought Sony had gone to UHS-II by now; I guess I've not been watching. I know there have been reports about slow UI behaviour in the A7R2, but I don't know how fixed it will be here.<br />

<br />

SLT's partial blocking of the sensor does mean less light gets through, so I'm guessing all of their ISO values are boosted a bit compared with the same sensor "bare". I'm holding judgement on the rest, though - the BSI sensor does allegedly offer some abilities for on-sensor reading without messing with the image quality, although the A7R2 obviously lacks the D810's "ISO 64" and suffers for it. I do believe that in the general case, speed probably hurts accuracy for sensor read-out, though.<br />

<br />

Anyway, I wish we were talking about the abilities of a D810 replacement here. Fingers crossed we actually <i>are</i> (once the manufacturing issues get sorted). I'm not going to have much to say about the D3400, after all... Oh, and I notice that another company has launched a 360 degree camera at Photokina, this time with stereo support, though I've not investigated how. And I owe Nikon a small apology for repeating Thom's complaint about the tripod mount - Nikon are offering an accessory to make one of their action cameras compatible with GoPro mounts, I see.</p>

<p>If it is easy, why do all the mirrorless cameras have issues with live updates to the viewfinder in high speed continuous shooting? Fuji's latest X-T2 can do only 5 fps with live view updates between captures (8-11 fps without). Samsung's late NX1 could do 15 fps without live view updates (but displays a slide show playback rather than a live view image at that speed; I haven't been able to find at what speed it would display a live view image). Dpreview has an interesting account on the A6300 which displays a single real time image between frames at 8fps but not at its top speed of 11fps</p>

<p>https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8617316604/play-by-play-frame-by-frame-live-view-continuous-shooting-with-the-sony-a6300</p>

<p>Canon's M5 can do live view at 7fps and 9fps without live view or AF.<br>

It does look like the manufacturers just can't do it at this stage of technology development, or at least in the price class they are offering these products. If it were really easy to do, everyone would just do it and action photographers might be happy with less expensive equipment. Anyway regarding the 14fps feature of the D5, I suppose it is useful when the camera is at a fixed position e.g. bird leaving a nest, or a remote camera positioned inside a hockey goal or something similar to that, with focus set in advance. There are circumstances where it can be used, for sure, it's just not as general purpose as the 12 fps with full autofocus tracking and optical viewfinder in use. When you say that D5 "can't guarantee the accuracy of on-sensor AF" to be honest I find that a little academic. I routinely shoot moving subjects with f/1.4 lenses wide open and with f/2.8 zooms a lot as well, in both cases the out of focus percentage is <10% at the 21MP sensor level, even in dim light. D500 users are also reporting single digit percentage of out of focus shots with the more demanding 21MP DX sensor. I find the discussion of further accuracy a little academic, unless we push the main imaging sensor much higher in resolution in which case the demands change. I am willing to work with no guarantee but a very high keeper rate. Yes, I fine tune my lenses before I use them for real. This is not a problem for me, any more than annual service of my car. Of course it would be nice if I didn't have to do that, but I'm not willing to give up the optical viewfinder to get that. All my photography of people is founded on decades of practice in looking at the subject in real time and learning to anticipate when the best moment to capture the shot is. If I lose the optical viewfinder they might as well replace me by a monkey and results would likely be as good.</p>

<p>Yes, the D810's successor and its makeup is a part of this discussion. However, without any information, any discussion is bound to be speculative. I assume that Nikon is busy making D500's and D5's and with wide shortage of Sony manufactured sensors, the D810 (and possible D750) successors may be delayed until Nikon can manufacture cameras in volume. Given their image quality and feature set, I personally don't think Nikon is in any urgent need to replace them. It doesn't make sense to issue a huge range of professional cameras within one year, they would possibly affect each others' sales. I think it makes perfect sense to let the D500 and D5 sell for a while (there are few complaints about these products if we ignore the D5's pronounced focus on low light high speed performance instead of general purpose) and then make D810, D750 successors at later a time when sensors are not in short supply. If manufacturing volume is constrained, there is no point in spreading the small volume over a plethora of models all of which might be hard to find. I understand that for people whose needs are not satisfied by the current models or the new D500 and D5, are anxious for updates. In the case of the previous major earthquake, the D4 and D800 were delayed as well and I was concerned they might not come, or that there would be manufacturing problems. I would rather they fix the production before announcing the products and have a solid run, when they do bring them to market.</p>

<p>Personally I would prefer Nikon would not increase the D810's pixel count; 36MP is more than good enough resolution for any need that I might and too much data quite a lot of the time. However, to get 36MP in focus in action situations, the D5's AF system should be incorporated in the new high resolution model to improve focus especially for vertical full body shots (runners, catwalk, etc.). I want to see support for the new radio controlled flash system, of course, and the absence of the pop-up flash and more space for the 24mm PC-E to run would be welcome, along with a viewfinder with more even illumination (a Df or D5 style viewfinder implementation would work perfectly for me). The D810 viewfinder is crisp but at least for me its not as evenly lit to the corners as the D5's, and after using the latter I find the difference noticeable. Finally the anti-flicker feature of the D5 (in still photography, timing of shots can be delayed by the camera to obtain peak lighting and consistent exposure and colour) would help the D810's more limited ultra high ISO image quality in indoor flickering light situations. With these changes I would be happy to upgrade my D810. If it is 50MP or 100MP then I would not be so happy as processing the files would again be too slow as it has been these past four years (I did get a new computer recently which is a big improvement especially in disc IO). To be frank I think Nikon would do well to stick with the current, excellent sensor of the D810 - at least it is solid and a known performer. The 42MP BSI sensor may be a Sony in house design available only for their own cameras (note Pentax also used 36MP in their recent K-1, not the 42MP; if Sony wanted to sell the latter I suspect Pentax would buy it). Nikon may prefer something exclusive for the D810's successor if it is not the D810's sensor then it's probably something new Nikon's been working on with Sony. Sony may sell the 42MP sensor later on but past history suggests Nikon likely wants to work on the design rather than just take a component someone else designed without their participation.</p>

<blockquote>If it is easy, why do all the mirrorless cameras have issues with live updates to the viewfinder in high speed continuous shooting?</blockquote>

 

<p>I assume the live view is normally only sampling a fraction of the sensor, so as to avoid overheating it or using too much battery. My argument here was that the Sony's sensor can do a full (16:9) frame readout at video rates in order to do 4K, so it shouldn't require much more to extract the same information during still capture. I could believe you'd have to drop to the camera frame rate rather than the normal video rate (12fps rather than, say, 60) but losing the image completely shouldn't be necessary. However, it does require a different path through the image processing pipeline. So from the sensor's perspective, getting it to work should have been a small matter of engineering. I guess something in the spectrum of cost and importance meant that nobody made it happen. I'm a software engineer - I assume that if something is theoretically possible for the hardware, making it work is a small matter of engineering. Electronics engineers tend to assume that everything else is a small matter of programming, so it all balances out. :-)<br />

<br />

Regarding the autofocus accuracy of the D5, I'm glad it improved. The MultiCAM 3500 is by no means bad (in its D810 variation), but I do get a number of misses; I guess we'll see how the update goes when we get the new AF module on a high-res sensor. I didn't have problems with the D500 I hired (except when focus hit the wrong subject), but I wasn't at f/1.4.<br />

<br />

I'd like a modest increase in the sensor resolution of the D810 simply because the current resolution doesn't quite fit the 7680x4320 requirement for UHD 8K - and correspondingly won't downsample to 4K cleanly. I'd accept the removal of the on-camera flash if a wireless trigger for Nikon's new radio flash system was integrated; otherwise I'm not keen on having to attach things (flashes or radio triggers) to my D8x0 in order to make cordless flash work. I'd like the anti-flicker shooting as well (something else the A99 2 has). As for the D810 sensor's performance, my biggest concern is that it's a stop or so behind state of the art at high ISO, and that's something that a move to a BSI sensor like Sony's would help. But I wouldn't want to give up the ISO 64 dynamic range to get it. I guess we'll see when Nikon gets around to it. There's lot's of stuff I'd like to see (the most preposterous of which is mounting the sensor on screw drives to give rear movements), but I can hope for a decent subset - the competition has moved on, and I don't think Nikon should be thinking of a D800-D810 style refresh.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A99 2 ought to offer the perfect mix - the speed of the D5 with the resolution of the D810. So technically, it's interesting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps more interesting from a spec-sheet/engineering perspective than in real world usage. The buffer issue is one thing, but I can't imagine that this is the camera which will catalyze all Canon/Nikon pro sports photographers to switch systems. There are a plethora of reasons for this. Where does one even start? 1) Let's take the 42mp sensor. Which is unneccesary for pro sports/action photogs, and files of that size don't naturally lend themselves to a quick workflow, such as sending pics to your editors while the game is in progress for quick web blasts. The D810 has the same issue, as does the A7RII. You really don't need more than 16-20 mp for sports, and 12 was actually fine, except for wildlife shooters who needed to crop. 2) Where's the glass? As Andrew alluded, the SLT cameras were a neglected stepchild, locked in the closet while Sony developed its mirrorless system. There are a few lenses for it, but many more which are missing. How likely is it that anyone invested already into Canon or Nikon glass is gonna take a deep plunge into the A99 II? Nearly all pro sports photogs use one of the Big Two's products. For such a monumental shift to happen, the A99 II would have to be more than just a little innovative, it would have to be utterly phenomenal -- and you'd also have to have a committment from Sony to develop more lenses for it, which no one can guarantee right now. 3) The price point isn't as competitive as it would need to be to entice switchers. It would probably have to come in at 2/3rds of its initial MSRP to stand a chance of doing that. As it stands now, budget landscape shooters would probably look at the Pentax K-1 first, resolution and IQ junkies might metriculate to medium format Fuji, and legacy glass collectors might pick the A7RII. So, at best, we are talking about a niche product with questionable support. 4) I just don't see Sony making a serious run at the action/sports market. That would create expectations they may not be able to deliver among pros, so that leaves them with well-heeled enthusiasts who for whatever reason have passed on other cameras. 5) the introduction of this camera is completely counter-intuitive to Sony's mirrorless mantra of the past few years. if DSLRS are NOT the wave of the future, as Sony's marketing dept. has been trumpeting, why are you still making them? I could see Nikon making a mirrorless D5 before i could see the Sony catching on, for all the reasons stated above. As for a "perfect mix," i just don't think that will bear out when we consider practical uses and all the other factors which go into a camera system. The specs might look appealling on paper, but is there a compelling reason to get this camera if you're not already an A-mount user? Are you getting one, Andrew, or just singing it's praises from afar? <br>

</p>

<p>Seriously? This is all Nikon has to offer for a major trade show that only occurs every 2 years??</p>

<p>Eric: I guess my persective is that most people shoot a bit of both - I hired a D500 to complement my D810 on my recent holiday because I needed high frame rate (and pixel density in crop), but I also wanted the dynamic range and resolution for landscapes. Other than that I wanted a back-up anyway, one camera that can do everything is better than having to mix and match - and I did have some occasions where the wrong lens was on the wrong camera. Indeed, the biggest argument I have in favour of a 50+MP sensor is that it might match the pixel density of the 24MP DX sensors, getting rid of that either/or choice. (I've suggested a high density central region surrounded by something less dense - which would save storage space, but be electrically very fiddly and complicate the raw converters, so I doubt it'll happen.) And yes, transferring huge numbers of high-res images is wasteful, but transferring a lot of shrunken versions with a couple of full-res pics suitable for a full-page spread isn't so unreasonable.<br />

<br />

I don't think sports shooters in general will be jumping to a camera with these specifications - if you're sure you don't need more than 20MP, it will just eat storage and performance (even if both are still increasing and getting cheaper). But if I were shooting the 100M final at the Olympics, would I want to capture the whole sequence and still be able to fill a page with the winner's face by cropping? You betcha. If I were a wedding shooter, would I want to shoot the bride throwing her flowers at 12fps? Very likely.<br />

<br />

Am I personally interested in switching to Sony? Absolutely not. I have way too much invested in Nikon glass (so I wouldn't switch even if it were a Canon body), and I enjoy the obscurer parts of the (Ca)Nikon systems way too much. But a lot of shooters, especially in journalism or event photography, get along perfectly well with a smaller lens selection - a 24-70 and a 70-200 will cover a huge proportion of journalistic and event shooting roles. Yes, Sony haven't exactly been keeping up their A-mount glass (as far as I know), but it wouldn't take much to fill those gaps, even if it would take much longer to fill in all the obscure stuff that only the big two have ever got around to making.<br />

<br />

Would pros switch to get the best images? Normally I'd have said yes, in a heartbeat, because the right image can be worth a lot of money. In recent times, budgets for photojournalism have hugely reduced, so it may not be so clean cut (John Oliver did a thing on newsrooms closing down recently) and wedding photography has got more competitive. Still, as I reported, I've seen people using the A7 series for apparently serious shooting, so I don't think we can assume nobody will ever go outside the big two.<br />

<br />

Personally I'm way more interested in what the capabilities mean for Nikon's future cameras, but nonetheless it's impressively far ahead of what Nikon's current generation can do in terms of shifting data around. I'm sure Sony will get some people interested, if for niche use; I don't expect it to sweep the market, but I don't think they should be dismissed - sluggish and buggy handling in the A7R series won't stay that way forever. Exciting times.<br />

<br />

Gerry: Well, we did have the D500 and D5 this year. Reports are that Nikon (and Pentax) are hampered by Sony's sensor plant being temporarily closed by an earthquake earlier this year. Maybe it's better that Nikon show up with real announcements rather than pre-announcements (*cough*, DL), and if what they're showing is all they've got, that's sad but true. Nikon probably do need some way to diversify; like others, I'm not convinced that the KeyMission cameras are the right thing to ge distracted by (given the market), but I could be wrong. Even if they were, they'd likely be less interesting to members of this forum than, say, sticking a D810 sensor in a D5 body (which feels like a small engineering effort). From a PR perspective and supporting their user base, the current situation unfortunate - although given the issues with high-end DSLRs that Nikon have had recently there's something to be said for making sure their next releases work properly, or they'll get worse PR. (At least their batteries haven't been exploding...) Still, the current Nikon range remains very competitive (I have very little 5D4 lust, for example) and there are more shows coming this year. I'd rather Nikon took their time and did a significant update than just rewarm the current range. Yes, I took the "rewarmed" D800-to-D810 switch, but the D810 is much less compromised as a starting point. Let's see what happens - and I'll be among the first to criticise; for now, I'm mostly sympathising.</p>