DPReview CP+ (March) 2019 Interview with Nikon

CP+ 2019 - Nikon interview: 'The view through the viewfinder should be as natural as possible'

 

Not a whole lot of surprises, and as usual Nikon does not disclose most of their future plans. My main take aways are:

1. Nikon designed the EVF on the Z6 and Z7 to optimize for very high resolution rather than speed, while optical viewfinders still have their advantages.
   
2. There will be DX/APS-C Nikon mirrorless cameras, and I am quite sure that it will also be in the Z mount. However, the wider Z mount, while great for FX, will make DX camera larger than necessary to accommodate the wide mount.
   

My experience is that I am very happy with the EVF on the Z6 and Z7. It is especially great under low-light situations; in that case it is better than the optical viewfinder. I find the EVF delay negligible; however, it may still be an issue for sports, action photography, Under daylight situations, I still prefer the optical viewfinder.

 

I think the implication is that there will be a D6 DSLR by January 2020 for the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics, but that is pretty much expected. Nikon, and most likely Canon, will not introduce any mirrorless sports/action mirrorless camera in the near future (i.e. next couple of years) similar to Sony's A9.

 

There will be Nikon DX mirrorless cameras in the Z mount. That is, Nikon will not repeat Canon's separate EOS-M (APS-C) and RF (full 35mm frame), incompatible mount fiasco. IMO, the Z6 and Z7 are already too small; there is no need to make even smaller DX mirrorless bodies. A common mount means DX bodies can use the same longer teles from FX and there will be a simple upgrade path for DX users to move to higher-end FX. However, Nikon's DX DSLRs are still selling well so that Nikon is in no rush to produce mirrorless DX, which will have to come with a few basic DX Z-mount lenses as well. As a new system, Nikon is still behind in Z-mount, FX lens selection.

Shun, just read the DPREVIEW article and came here to comment. I figure that any problems that Nikon has to over come other than the physics and constraints of lens design, such as mirrorless shutter lag are at this point engineering problems that will need to be tackled. I hope Nikon does not go too small with DX or at least makes a D500 equivalent sized mirrorless camera that will handle well on a long lens when that time comes. I would consider substituting the Z7 for my D850 if not for its size. Mr. Naoki Kitaoka and Mr. Takami Tsuchida stated that Nikon will be listening to the voices of its customers. I hope this is so but not so much that it constrains Nikons creativity. Other than that I would only be paraphrasing your comments even more so nothing more to say or speculate.

Seems Nikon disagrees with most of the posters here...!

 

DX Mirrorless?

2Oceans, shutterlag shouldn't be all that different between SLR and mirrorless, but EVF has an additional latency since the sensor needs to capture the image, maybe do some processing, and then display it on the EVF or rear LCD. We have discussed that topic on the following thread:

 

Nikon Z6, Early Impressions

 

And I was re-creating a test by Jim Kasson over on DPReview:

Z7 EVF latency: Nikon Z Mirrorless Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

The EVF latency used to be very long in the early-generation mirrorless cameras, but on the Z6 and Z7, we think it is about 0.03, 0.04 second (30 to 40 milli-seconds). To me that is pretty much negligible. However, if you capture fast-moving subjects, that can still be an issue.

 

If you shoot landscape or other still subjects, plenty of landscape photographers have already switched from the D850 to the Z7. A lighter camera is attractive for hiking, and the native Z wide angles are going to be superior to any wide optics that needs to make room for the mirror. However, at least IMO Nikon mirrorless AF is definitely not at the same league as the Multi-CAM 20000, and I don't like having just one memory card slot.

 

Concerning Nikon DX mirrorless, sharing the Z mount with FX is a no-brainer. Nikon is already supporting an old F mount and a new Z mount. Nikon 1 is dead. Introducing a third, incompatible mount for DX will be a disaster, which Canon is now experiencing.

Mirrorless does allow for smaller cameras - as does DX, which means a mirrorless DX body isn't a surprising concept, and multiple companies produced APS-C mirrorless bodies before going to full frame. There are diminishing returns: for some, 4/3 is too small, 1" is too small for most (except in a compact camera), and Pentax proved that a tiny interchangeable lens camera where the sensor is swamped by the mount doesn't set the world on fire. (Plus one spec of dust covers half the sensor.)

 

I'm less sure that mirrorless allows for lighter cameras. An EVF is probably lighter than a pentaprism, but not so much a pentamirror, especially a small one; the D3x00 series are a lot lighter than a Z-series. Add a bigger battery so you can run the EVF for longer, and it's difficult to make something that light even if you wanted to. I suspect shipping weight makes more of a difference than size (or there'd be less space in boxes), so the trade-off at the budget end comes down to whether Nikon can make a DX mirrorless system for enough less than a D3500 that it makes up for a shipping difference. (This isn't an idle observation - flat screen monitors took over not because they were better, especially in early versions, but because they were vastly easier to ship and store than CRTs.)

 

Fortunately, making a camera heavier is easy enough. Or would be if Nikon had actually managed to ship the battery grip prototype that they showed off months ago (in as much as it wasn't a random lump of plastic that didn't do anything.)

 

I suspect Nikon would like to be in all the markets it can, so long as they don't poach each other. They can hardly say "we're getting out of DX because cell phones and compact cameras with 1" sensors are too good", though. Going FX first meant that they don't have the possible marketing issue that Canon had with the Eos M series: make it small and cheap, and people treat it as a compact camera rather than part of an aspirational system; at least the Z bodies are more or less state of the art in image quality. (Nikon tried the "don't pass on the manufacturing savings and price a cheap camera as though it were premium" with the 1 series, and I don't think it worked.) Whether there's enough DX market left for it to be worth Nikon joining it when they can is another matter - but if they're going to go for anything smaller than FX, the DX lens catalogue makes it the only really viable option.

So, they're going to be making DX lenses in F and Z mount..........:D?

 

So FX Z lenses will fit DX Z Bodies..

 

What is a DX Z lens going to fit? Not a DX F body! Maybe an FX Z body in force crop mode...!

 

FTZDX mount anyone?

 

Or maybe NO DX Z lenses?

Edited March 25, 2019 by mike_halliwell

and the native Z wide angles are going to be superior to any wide optics that needs to make room for the mirror

That could (and hopefully will be) the main argument for getting into the Nikon Z mirrorless system. At this time though, for me, the camera bodies themselves aren't sufficiently convincing. I believe we do see the "better optical quality" to some extent in newer lenses for the Sony A7 system - despite the fact that their flange throat diameter is substantially smaller than Nikon's Z-mount.

Mirrorless does allow for smaller cameras

Sony has shrunk the APS-C sensor cameras to the point that one can hardly hold them stably (and comfortably) with anything but the smallest lenses attached.

That could (and hopefully will be) the main argument for getting into the Nikon Z mirrorless system. At this time though, for me, the camera bodies themselves aren't sufficiently convincing. I believe we do see the "better optical quality" to some extent in newer lenses for the Sony A7 system - despite the fact that their flange throat diameter is substantially smaller than Nikon's Z-mount.

To me, it has always be important to use the same lens for both composition (viewfinding??) and actual image capture. Many years ago, I have decided not to settle with rangefinders or twin-lens reflex, both of which I have owned as a teenager decades ago. During the film era, that either meant using a view camera if its slow workflow was acceptable or an SLR.

 

In the digital era, (1) better lens design, unobstructed by a mirror that is no longer necessary, should be one of the main arguments for getting into any mirrorless system, Nikon or not. (2) The other arguments are simpler cameras without the mirror box mechanism. That should lead to cheaper cameras that are less prone to mechanical problems. And finally, (3) to me, potentially we can get to much faster frame rate for action photography, 20 fps, 30 fps and beyond, but clearly not everybody needs that kind of speed.

 

As far as I know, so far all three Nikon Z-mount lenses are excellent, although I don't have the 50mm myself. I would imagine most of the Sony lenses are also great, but Sony has far more selections now and I am sure there are better ones and more consumer ones. I would imagine Sony's FE mount is ok, although it was probably designed for APS-C initially. A wider mount and shorter flange distance probably will only have minor effects on the final quality, but those are issues that will be exploited by marketing and generate lots of useless forum debates. For decades the Nikon F mount have a longer flange distance and smaller diameter, but there is no shortage of legendary F-mount lenses over the years.

Whether by foresight or accident,Nikon is slowly adjusting for lower sales volumes with its full-frame MILC system. Doubt there's much planned for downmarket Z cameras at present,

 

APS-C MILC? Still think Nikon missed the boat here.Fuji will only get better at MILC systems after a years-long head start.

to me, potentially we can get to much faster frame rate for action photography, 20 fps, 30 fps and beyond, but clearly not everybody needs that kind of speed.

Seeing that at this point Nikon can't even provide continuous live view, AF and AE for frame rates faster than 5.5fps (though with AE locked at the first frame, some 12 or 9 fps for the Z6 and Z7, respectively, are possible (not with live view though); it's certainly preferable to lock AE rather than AF), I think it is fair to state that Nikon is a ways away from providing A9 (and beyond) performance.

That should lead to cheaper cameras that are less prone to mechanical problems

Hasn't yet, has it? Z7 costs more than the D850 and, at least IMHO, delivers less.

Seeing that at this point Nikon can't even provide continuous live view, AF and AE for frame rates faster than 5.5fps (though with AE locked at the first frame, some 12 or 9 fps for the Z6 and Z7, respectively, are possible (not with live view though); it's certainly preferable to lock AE rather than AF), I think it is fair to state that Nikon is a ways away from providing A9 (and beyond) performance.

Nikon doesn't at this time provide a mirrorless camera that competes against the Sony A9 , but how do you know they can't.

 

The difference between Canon and Nikon vs. Sony and Fuji is that Canon and Nikon have very successful DSLR systems, both FX and DX, that are still working well. Mirrorless is all Sony and Fuji have. (I am completely ignoring Sony's SLT system.)

 

As I have been saying since Nikon and Canon announced their FX mirrorless systems last August, September, I fully expect an EOS 1D Mark 3 and Nikon D6 DLSRs before the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics. Canon has just introduced new 400mm/f2.8 and 600mm/f4 DSLR lenses. Since DSLRs still dominate that segment, Nikon is not going to introduce a mirrorless camera to compete against the D5 and the future D6.

 

That is also precisely why neither Canon nor Nikon had introduced any FX DSLR until a few months ago. Meanwhile, in the last few years, Sony and their customers have been doing a lot of pioneer work on figuring out the early issues with FX mirrorless. The technologies have finally matured enough so that all of a sudden Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic are now getting in.

Hasn't yet, has it? Z7 costs more than the D850 and, at least IMHO, delivers less.

In the US, the real cost for the Z7 is actually already cheaper than the D850. The D850 started at $3300 in 2017 and has finally dropped a little by $200 to $3100.

The Z7 started at $3400 last year, but now Nikon is providing a $400 incentive for a trade in, and they are also throwing in a free FTZ adapter. Forget about the free FTZ, the final cost for the Z7 is already down to $3000. I think Nikon still has plenty of room to discount the Z7 further throughout 2019.

A bit disappointed the Nikon would want to make DX camera in Z mount.

but how do you know they can't

By the simple fact that they haven't even matched the A7III/A7RIII performance (in the areas mentioned in my previous post) with the Z6/Z7. Why didn't they if they could have? Maybe the upcoming firmware upgrade increases the Z6/Z7 performance - we'll have to wait and see.

In the US, the real cost for the Z7 is actually already cheaper than the D850.

Yes and no. While the D850 gets an instant discount and thus a (possible permanent) reduction of the base price, for the Z6/Z7 one gets the rebate only if one has something to trade-in - the base price for the Z6/Z7 is still the same as it was when the cameras were introduced. AFAIK, the trade-in bonus is also set to expire by the end of March.

I think Nikon still has plenty of room to discount the Z7 further throughout 2019

The camera should be priced at the introductory price of the Z6 - and the Z6 below the price for the A7III. And Nikon should come out with a Z6s and Z7s sooner rather than later - fixing what are clearly "rush to market" mistakes.

I've become less convinced by the wide-angle argument of mirrorless over time. Certainly the mirror box is providing an artificial constraint on placement of the rear element, but the telecentricity demands of sensor (and PDoS AF systems) mean that a designer can't just place the rear element almost on the focal plane, as with some Leica M ultrawides from the film era, and expect everything to work well. I do think the ability to have a wider rear element (from the perspective of the sensor) ought to be beneficial for image quality even for conventional lenses, though - for vignetting if nothing else. Many recent higher-quality normal lenses are effectively retrofocal designs; I suspect Z lenses won't suddenly revert to being simplistic, at least in the premium segment. So better image quality, yes, but the improvement is likely to be incremental.

 

As for whether mirrorless leads to cheaper cameras... of itself, it does. But once you add an EVF, the EVF itself is not a simple or cheap part (done right), and Nikon have spent a very long time trying to work out how to make cost-effective OVFs.

I've become less convinced by the wide-angle argument of mirrorless over time. Certainly the mirror box is providing an artificial constraint on placement of the rear element, but the telecentricity demands of sensor (and PDoS AF systems) mean that a designer can't just place the rear element almost on the focal plane.

Why not? That is exactly what Nikon does with the 24-70mm/f4 S. Just because a wide angle may still be telecentric, it does not preclude them from placing rear elements close to the sensor.

 

It is best to view this with a cut-away image with the Z7 and D850 side by side. Both have 24-70mm zooms on, but the Z7 has the f4S and the D850 has the f2.8 AF-S VR. Therefore there is a huge size difference:

 

http://www.steves-digicams.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/nikon-Z7-and-D850-cutaway.jpg

 

It should be very clear that the rear element of the 24-70mm/f4 S is pretty close to the 16mm flange-to-sensor distance from the sensor. Obviously Nikon has to leave some room for the shutter, which is in front of the sensor. And as they discuss in the interview, they are also leaving some room for impact so that the lens wouldn't hit the sensor too easily.

 

And we have already discussed before that the Sony Zeiss 35mm/f1.4 also has rear elements very close to the mount:

Sony Distagon T* FE 35 mm F1.4 ZA

 

The 24-70mm/f4 S is definitely excellent. I am looking forward to testing the 14-30mm/f4 S. That lens should really tell us how good wide angles are in the new mirrorless era.

 

While you are looking at the cut away diagram I linked to above, it is clear that Nikon does put in a complex EVF. A few years ago, the Sony and Fuji EVFs really turned me off. I would imagine everybody's technology has also improved, but I am very happy with the one in the Z6 and Z7. However, the OVF on the D850 is not simple either, with a huge pentaprism, and I still feel that OVF has its advantages.

 

But the big difference between the two is the huge mirrorbox in the DSLRs. I always find the secondary mirror behind the main mirror kind of suspect. The secondary mirror bounces light down to the AF module at the bottom of the Nikon DSLR. The additional hinge behind the mirror, etc. is complex and must be precise, but Nikon has proved that with excellent AF over the years.

 

In any case, mirrorless should be much easier to manufacture, and I understand that Nikon is now using a lot of automation, like over 60%, to make the Z6 and Z7.

 

Finally, the last Nikon 1 body, namely the J5 introduced in 2015, could already do 20 fps with AF, but I have no idea how well that works.

AF has always been quite good on the Nikon 1 series. The sensor is just too small.

Nikon 1 J5 | Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Digital Camera

Sorry, Shun - I mis-spoke: I meant to say that the rear nodal point of the lens can't be especially close to the sensor (as it was in some film rangefinder lenses). In any case, wide angles for digital sensors tend not to be the tiny optics that we used to see. Cool cut-away, by the way - I'd not seen that.

 

I've also always been a bit dubious about relying on the tolerances of multiple flapping mirrors in producing accurate autofocus. I'd love to see a hybrid system that uses the sensor (either via contrast detect, or with PDoS - which Canon could be doing, no idea if they do) as a final AF confirmation. On my infamous D850 wish list is the ability to get very close to AF quickly, using the mirror system, but then confirm focus; it wouldn't work for wildlife, but it would handle subtle misses in slower subjects for event shooting.

 

No doubt mirrorless manufacturing should cost less; my concern is more about the bill of materials for a (decent) EVF. I doubt a D850's viewfinder is all that cheap either (Nikon have been making various superlative claims about the viewfinder quality in these bodies for several generations) - but I'd be pretty surprised if a D3500's viewfinder cost much to make, even with the mirror system. I also have to assume that the budget bodies have pretty automated manufacture, although I'm prepared to be wrong if Nikon are sourcing enough cheap labour; therefore I'm not sure how far under the manufacture cost for a D3500 Nikon could go with a mirrorless system. Well, trivially lower if there's no viewfinder on it and it has a small battery (and maybe a touchscreen instead of mechanical controls) - but there comes a point where the ergonomics aren't desirable.

The rear nodal point of a lens is exactly the focal length of the lens from the sensor when focused at infinity. Even with long flange distance like the F mount the rear nodal point of the 18mm lens is still 18mm from the sensor. The only problem is that the lens has to be a retro telephoto design which requires more element and possibly some penalty on image quality.

The difference between Canon and Nikon vs. Sony and Fuji is that Canon and Nikon have very successful DSLR systems, both FX and DX, that are still working well. Mirrorless is all Sony and Fuji have. (I am completely ignoring Sony's SLT system.)

While that's good for the quarterly report, it's a potential liability for future development and growth. Sony is free to compete with legacy DSLR technology without constraint. Can you say that about divisional competition within Nikon or Canon?

While that's good for the quarterly report, it's a potential liability for future development and growth. Sony is free to compete with legacy DSLR technology without constraint. Can you say that about divisional competition within Nikon or Canon?

I think mirrorless technologies have matured to a point that, except for the top-of-the-line sports/news cameras, the emphasis will be mirrorless from now on. Most likely the D6 and any Canon EOS 1D Mark 3 will be the last of their kinds. I kind of doubt that Nikon will have many more F-mount lenses to introduce in the future. Personally, I'll probably never buy another F-mount lens again (unless one of my current work-horse lenses is damaged or stolen so that I'll get a replacement).

 

It is not a coincidence that Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic/Sigma all got into FX mirrorless within a couple of weeks from one another, effectively all at the same time.

 

Back in 2004/2005, the transition from 35mm film to DSLRs happened rapidly, much faster than I thought. I could be wrong again, but I suspect DSLRs will be around for longer. There might not be very many new models, but there are already a lot of DSLRs in circulation and on the used market.

Edited March 27, 2019 by ShunCheung

I guess it would be possible to build a DX mirrorless body that can take current DX lenses....without an adapter.

 

By putting the sensor as far back in the body as possible and having a slightly protruding lens mount it wouldn't have to be very 'thick'.

 

Of the DX bodies I've taken apart, the sensor is quite a long way forward. Obviously the new circuit boards would have to be designed with a central hole in!

 

Sure, there's 30.5mm difference between Z (16mm) and F (46.5mm) flange distance, but you could probably scavenge 15mm by better sensor placement.

 

That's gotta be better than making another Z-mount lens series.

 

Mind you, we are back to 'what are the advantages of mirrorless' ?

The rear nodal point of a lens is exactly the focal length of the lens from the sensor when focused at infinity. Even with long flange distance like the F mount the rear nodal point of the 18mm lens is still 18mm from the sensor. The only problem is that the lens has to be a retro telephoto design which requires more element and possibly some penalty on image quality.

 

With a huge "I don't know as much about optics as I'd like and also I haven't had much sleep" disclaimer, is this true? I thought for a retrofocal or telefocal lens, the point was that the rear nodal point and front nodal point aren't in the same place - a retrofocal lens "looks", to the sensor, as though it was longer? My understanding is that the rear nodal point determines where light appears to emerge from at a (theoretical) 0-sized aperture. It's a bit of a hazy understanding, though.

I guess it would be possible to build a DX mirrorless body that can take current DX lenses....without an adapter.

 

Yes, and I'm sure they have considered this, but the body would be thicker than what they (Nikon) consider ideal for a comfortable grip and this is why this is perhaps not going to be implemented. I noticed the interviewee didn't say what mount the DX mirrorless would use, would it be Z, F, or something else entirely. I think having to develop many different lens lines is a problem but I was always annoyed that Nikon didn't make a full lineup of primes for DX because I didn't want the extra flare from using a wider lens on a camera with a smaller sensor. Also a smaller sensor inherently requires more precise AF because the image will be magnified from the sensor to the print by a greater factor than when using a larger sensored camera, so the step size that may be ok for FX may not be sufficient for a high-pixel-density DX camera. A purpose-made DX mirrorless mount would allow the camera to have optimal size and shape (something that takes advantage of the smaller size of the sensor) whereas a Z mount DX mirrorless would not be quite as small. Nikon say in the interview "If we employ APS-C sensors [in mirrorless] maybe the system can be made even smaller." Of course, it can be debated, what is the ideal camera size.

 

Sony is free to compete with legacy DSLR technology without constraint. Can you say that about divisional competition within Nikon or Canon?

 

Sony have, however, professional video cameras, some of which are an order of magnitude more expensive than their mirrorless cameras, so they for sure will limit what they offer in their mirrorless cameras in terms of video features (heat management, fast memory cards etc.). Canon have a limitation that their 4K in their full frame mirrorless is a heavy crop. Nikon don't have a competing video division, so they can try to make the Z cameras as good video cameras as they can. Dpreview also claim that Z7/Z6 have the best video AF in any mirrorless camera, and there is high bit depth log writing to external recorder etc. Also "On the optics side, in the S-series lenses we took great care over the video functionality as well, so for example when you zoom the focus stays there, there’s no defocusing, and there’s no change in the image angle when you focus, either."

 

I don't think Nikon will purposefully limit what they offer on their mirrorless, but they may focus on certain applications for their mirrorless (notice lack of telephoto lenses) and other applications for DSLR, but this decision is mainly made based on arguments of what each technology does best.

 

I think mirrorless technologies have matured to a point that, except for the top-of-the-line sports/news cameras, the emphasis will be mirrorless from now on. Most likely the D6 and any Canon EOS 1D Mark 3 will be the last of their kinds. I kind of doubt that Nikon will have many more F-mount lenses to introduce in the future. Personally, I'll probably never buy another F-mount lens again (unless one of my current work-horse lenses is damaged or stolen so that I'll get a replacement).

 

Well, personally I don't think I will live long enough to see a full line of Z mount lenses that could replace all DSLR lenses and I don't want to use adapters, and I certainly don't want to wait 20 years for Nikon to build a new line, rather I will use F lenses and cameras to do my photography, and perhaps 2-3 lenses for Z to cover my silent photography needs, once they make a camera with global shutter (with the current Z mount silent shutter implementation, there will be artifacts due to flickering lights and rolling shutter effects).

 

So better image quality, yes, but the improvement is likely to be incremental.

 

I agree. Digital camera world's review of the 14-30/4 although the text is enthusiastic, the measurements show that the edge sharpness is not that great. It seems a lens that while it may be better than the closest F mount equivalents (16-35/4 or 18-35) and certainly smaller, it still isn't as good as 14-24/2.8. And the 14-24 isn't as good as the 19mm PC or 20mm f/1.8. Of course, over time we can read how it stacks up once more lenses have been tested and reviewed.

 

And note also that F mount lenses have been getting better as well.

By the simple fact that they haven't even matched the A7III/A7RIII performance (in the areas mentioned in my previous post) with the Z6/Z7. Why didn't they if they could have? Maybe the upcoming firmware upgrade increases the Z6/Z7 performance - we'll have to wait and see.

 

Nikon have different priorities than Sony in their camera design. One thing that puts the Z7/Z6 at a disadvantage in low light AF (one area of criticism) is that Nikon use the shooting aperture for EVF/LV viewing and autofocus (not smaller than 5.6 though), so if you have a 50/1.8 lens, and are shooting at f/4 or f/5.6 to get some depth of field then the camera maintains the shooting aperture during viewing and autofocus, and so the AF gets less light and greater DOF which may make focusing difficult in low light. The advantage is that the EVF view doesn't flicker in the way it does on cameras which change aperture for focusing vs. for taking the picture. I find this change in brightness of the EVFs very annoying and the Nikon implementation is so far the least bad, in my opinion. However, there is some penalty in AF in some circumstances, due to this decision. Perhaps they will offer a software option to let the user choose in the future. As for the famous Sony eye AF, Nikon are working on their version and probably will release it this year.

Edited March 27, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

Seeing that at this point Nikon can't even provide continuous live view, AF and AE for frame rates faster than 5.5fps (though with AE locked at the first frame, some 12 or 9 fps for the Z6 and Z7, respectively, are possible (not with live view though)

 

AF is available within the 9/12fps bursts, currently AE is not and the viewfinder images are shown as a slide show rather than real time. However, in the development announcement for the upcoming firmware, AE will be made available during these high-speed bursts (in addition to the AF that is currently available). The viewfinder update however continues to be delayed in >5.5fps bursts. Also, low-light AF performance will be improved.

 

It is quite possible that because Nikon shows a full-resolution EVF image rather than a reduced-resolution image, there is just too much processing to be done to provide high speed real time updates, or the sensor cannot be read fast enough. Sony provide a reduced-resolution EVF image during viewfinder use and only show the full resolution EVF image in playback. These are again matters of priority: whether the quality of the viewfinder image is more important than speed of updates.

 

I think it is fair to state that Nikon is a ways away from providing A9 (and beyond) performance.

 

This may be true, but if they made different choices, they might be closer. I personally don't like the Sony or Canon EVFs and prefer Nikon's implementation. Though my preferred choice is still the OVF.

 

Hasn't yet, has it? Z7 costs more than the D850 and, at least IMHO, delivers less.

 

In some areas it provides more: there is a high speed wifi interface built in, there is better live view AF, and better video AF, along with 10-bit log output of video to external recorder and in the upcoming firmware update, raw video. In other areas (real-time viewfinder during bursts, no viewfinder lag, better AF tracking of moving subjects, lens support, availability of vertical grip, battery life) the D850 is arguably better.

 

I think once the firmware update with eye AF is made available, there will likely be a surge in Z7/Z6 sales. Hopefully more native lenses will have been made available by then.

I think once the firmware update with eye AF is made available, there will likely be a surge in Z7/Z6 sales. Hopefully more native lenses will have been made available by then.

Eye AF sounds nice to have, but I kind of doubt that it will have a huge impact on Z6/Z7 sales. Apparently initial sales of the Canon R is pretty good, although it doesn't have basic features such as IBIS (VR).

 

For the most part, Canon DSLR users will migrate to Canon mirrorless and Nikon users will stay with Nikon. For one thing the UX factor is familiar, and mount adapters are available for the same brand while maintaining most of the functionalities. Given the popularity of Canon SLRs and DSLRs, the Canon RF mount has a head start.

 

For Nikon, further price reduction on the Z6 and Z7, maybe the addition of a consumer model similar to the $1300 Canon RP, plus more new native Z-mount lenses will help.