Nikon Announces the Development of D6 and 120-300mm/f2.8 in F Mount

[Andrew Garrard]

I shoot weddings with the 70-200f2.8 AFS, not even the VR.

 

80-200?

[ed_farmer]

80-200?

 

Yep . . . I also type really fast and don't read much of what a type . . .

[BeBu Lamar]

Shun: Yes. The vote happened just before my trip involving a two-week tour around US national parks, and the pound has fallen in the last couple of months just before I have a business trip to New Orleans. The last dip was in July, just before I flew to LA for a week - which partly put me off buying a couple of bits of kit. I should learn to stop travelling. Or at least buying things.

 

The obvious improvement over the D5 would be PDoS for video. That said, I don't know how many D5 sensors Nikon committed to - I can't imagine they've shipped vast numbers of D5 bodies. With the D3 (but not, admittedly, D3s) the sensor turned up in the D700, and they sold a lot. The D3s persisted for quite a long time - I don't know how different the actual sensor was compared with the D3, as distinct from changes to the external circuitry to get the extra high ISO performance. The D4 sensor got shared with the Df, presumably not in huge numbers but possibly enough to use up stock; the D4s sensor is presumably closely related to the D4 one despite the slight improvement at high ISO. If PDoS needs a new sensor and the D6 replaces it, Nikon may need to release a "D700s" to use up stocks (or, I guess, a Df2...) If the D6 switches to, say, the Z6 sensor, it'll solve "where do we get a sensor from?" but lose the advantage of the D5 sensor's performance - unless the D5 stays on the market as an alternative. Guess we'll see.

 

Ed: I looked at the 120-300 Sigma when I picked up my 70-200 FL (the latter being so expensive that they were valid alternatives). The FL seemed visibly sharper (not helped by the Sigma needing fine tuning) - and of course the Sigma was a bit hard to carry after a while, even though normally I have little trouble with a 200/2. (I could still wield a 400 f/2.8 FL afterwards, but I was a little nervous about dropping it. Oddly.) Of course, the 70-200 FL is a very high bar to meet - I'm sure the 120-300 would have looked fine against the 70-200 VR2 I was trading in. In theory a 120-300 f/2.8 is a lens spec that would appeal to me - for fairly dark venues where I need to shoot at a range, and the reach would really be useful for, e.g., getting people presenting at conferences. The Nikkor might be enough of an improvement to be more viable, but I'm sure it'll be well out of the price I can justify for it.

 

You talked about the Df again! If Nikon does something like that it would be an MILC with the traditional controls (traditional as in old MF cameras) but a mirrorless and also a high res sensor and not one from the D6. We can wait and see my prediction.

[Andrew Garrard]

I can quit any time I like, BeBu. :-) (But I am curious about the future of the D5/D6 sensors given the history of recycling. Incidentally, I'm not sure if the D3x sensor has anything in common with the D6x0/D750 or Sony A99, or if the stratospheric price was absorbing a tiny sensor run.)

[joseph_smith3]

Regarding the New 120-300mm f2.8. it looks like it might be as heavy as the 300mm f2.8 and the tripod collar foot looks like it might be too short for balancing on a gimbal mount. However, if the weight is less than the current 300mm f2.8, then the balance matter may not be an issue.

[BeBu Lamar]

I can quit any time I like, BeBu. :) (But I am curious about the future of the D5/D6 sensors given the history of recycling. Incidentally, I'm not sure if the D3x sensor has anything in common with the D6x0/D750 or Sony A99, or if the stratospheric price was absorbing a tiny sensor run.)

If the D6 sensor is one that has excellent high ISO performance with medium/low resolution (like 24MP) then it would go into the Z6 replacement or a high frame rate mirrorless or one that lean toward video. However, with 24MP it can't do 8K video.

[John Crowe]

For me, Nikon needs to get a much better blend of resolution/fps/buffer. Somewhere between the D5 and D850. Unfortunately sports shooters typically are fixated more on speed and their customers do not require the ultimate in image quality.

[Ed_Ingold]

Balance on a gimbal will depend on both the lens and the camera. I have found balance with footed lenses and compatible bodies tends to be relatively easy to achieve. I replace the OEM feet for my lenses with Arca style feet from Really Right Stuff, which are long enough to balance with most rigs. One can always attach a secondary plate, and place it more fore or aft as needed. A fixed, rather than sliding plate, or screwing the lens to a non-QR platform might prove difficult.

[mike_halliwell]

For me, Nikon needs to get a much better blend of resolution/fps/buffer. Somewhere between the D5 and D850. Unfortunately sports shooters typically are fixated more on speed and their customers do not require the ultimate in image quality.

That's not what Nikon want to make 'for' you.

 

Added to that you cannot have very high res, 16bit RAW AND high FPS in the same camera... YET;)

 

Two different cameras that excel one in each is currently common to all brands.

 

Sports shooters, or rather the market that buys their images, do not need 60Mpix 16bit RAW

 

Fine art/landscape/portraiture do need 60Mpix 16 bit RAW but not at 15fps, often only single frame only.

 

So Nikon sells 2 cameras to people who are prepared to spend well over $3k on a body only.

[Andrew Garrard]

If the D6 sensor is one that has excellent high ISO performance with medium/low resolution (like 24MP) then it would go into the Z6 replacement or a high frame rate mirrorless or one that lean toward video. However, with 24MP it can't do 8K video.

 

Unless you have internal knowledge, as that an assumption or a request? :-)

 

Using the current Z6 sensor wouldn't be the end of the world; in at least some measurements it matches or betters the D5 at high ISO while being better at low ISO (and it has the old D4/Df trick of being very good in the mid range - ISO 1600 for the D4/Df, 800 and 1600 for the Z6, to the extent that it's actually better than at ISO 400). The readout speed may or may not be quite enough for a D6-class body. I'm glad to have the theoretical 8K timelapse ability on a D850 (and have simple scaling for 4K) partly for viewing stills on an 8K TV; cameras that can actually record practical 8K at a sensible frame rate are still rare, although I've argued that 8K video and retrospective shot selection from the sequence could change how some photography is done.

 

If it's seen as "good enough", sticking the Z6 sensor in a D6 would solve the sourcing problem - but would mean the Z6 needed to justify its premium position (both over the Z6 and over any D750 replacement using the same sensor). It also raises a question of whether there is an excess of D5 sensors somewhere.

 

For me, Nikon needs to get a much better blend of resolution/fps/buffer. Somewhere between the D5 and D850. Unfortunately sports shooters typically are fixated more on speed and their customers do not require the ultimate in image quality.

 

Well, 24MP would be "between" - and the small raw formats from the D850 (that I've not read an analysis for yet) might help get around any "manageable file size" problems. If the D5 is seen as "shoot the image even under terrible conditions, then send some JPEGs straight to a picture editor" camera, as I've assumed has been the target for this range (except the D3x), resolution is of questionable benefit - and the low-ISO inflexibility of the D5 (and D3s) isn't all that harmful. Some would argue there's a market for an F-mount studio camera to replace the D3x, but I believe there are enough amateur landscape photographers out there that a high MP body will likely always sell better in a more portable shell. The only reason I'd expect to see, say, the Sony 60MP sensor in a D6 would be if Nikon decided to replicate the F6 and make a body for rich amateurs as a last hurrah of a system. It feels a generation early for that.

 

That's not what Nikon want to make 'for' you.

 

Added to that you cannot have very high res, 16bit RAW AND high FPS in the same camera... YET;)

 

To be fair, the A7RIV hitting 10fps at 60MP is no slouch, if not quite at D5 levels. Red (among others) will sell you an 8K sensor that can do 60fps in raw, and also do lower resolutions at higher speeds. Not currently all that affordable or pocketable, though, and I imagine there may be some cooling involved.

 

Two different cameras that excel one in each is currently common to all brands.

 

True, although the A9, A7s and 1Dx haven't been updated in a while.

 

Sports shooters, or rather the market that buys their images, do not need 60Mpix 16bit RAW

 

Fine art/landscape/portraiture do need 60Mpix 16 bit RAW but not at 15fps, often only single frame only.

 

So Nikon sells 2 cameras to people who are prepared to spend well over $3k on a body only.

 

Devil's advocate: as the Red cameras show, you could do both in the same camera - especially if you have some suitably clever binning at the right point in the processing (maybe even in the sensor stack). You're paying for a sensor with more working MP than you might need that way, though. Equally, I'm happy not having to lug a D6-class body around to get D850 behaviour (although I also like the 9fps with the grip).

Things that might be interesting to see turn up:

• Electronic global shutter (which would allow the frame rate to be increased, but might affect sensitivity as in the older dSLRs; curiously, Red seem to do this with a variable ND accessory).
  
• An attempt to take on Sony's eye tracking AF (which the meter may or may not have the resolution to do).
  

I'd be mildly surprised not to see PDoS for video at this point - but to be fair there are easier cameras to carry around if you want video, one of which is probably your phone.

[BeBu Lamar]

Andrew!

I don't have inside connection with Nikon and because of that I am free to use my crystal ball to predict. (Shun on the other hand does have the connection but he is not allowed to say).

[Andrew Garrard]

Just checking, BeBu (you sounded definitive, so I thought I'd check I hadn't missed something). Of course, you wouldn't be allowed to say either...

[BeBu Lamar]

Just checking, BeBu (you sounded definitive, so I thought I'd check I hadn't missed something). Of course, you wouldn't be allowed to say either...

I can say because I use the crystal ball not inside information. Just wait and see if my crystal ball is working correctly.

(may be I can't say??? When making my crystal ball I did use some glass from Nikon)

[Andrew Garrard]

Well, so long as it's fluorite. We wouldn't want a crystal ball with LoCA. :-)

[ben_hutcherson]

24mp seems the next logical resolution "step" for a D6 upgrade from a D5. Not that I have any inside info or ED glass balls, but it's the resolution I've been predicting for the D6 for years.

 

To me, the big question will be if it uses the Z6 sensor or if Nikon branches out and give it its own unique sensor. Given that the latter has been pretty much SOP for the single digit bodies from the beginning(aside from them occasionally making their way into less-than-flagship cameras)

 

The lens is more interesting to me, but I quite literally don't have a use case for it, and there's no conceivable way I could afford it.

[Andrew Garrard]

Incidentally, if we're speculating on features that might be interesting... Canon have just announced a cine camera with "5-axis electronic stabilisation". Three is easy (shift and rotate the rectangle crop of the sensor making the image); the other two axes are new. One possibility would be to use the dual-pixel capture Canon have at every sensor site (unlike, I believe, the Sony sensors) and use it to realign the focal plane, in the same way you can (slightly) adjust focus with their dual-pixel raw on dSLRs. Or it could just be badly advertised sensor movements.

 

For Nikon, you'd have to change their historical sensor philosophy, but it's an interesting bit of (possible) tech. Or you could just shift and tilt the sensor (I've thought a digital camera with substantial rear movements by moving the sensor around would be useful for a long time) - but that's a pain in a dSLR unless you give up on mirroring the result in the viewfinder (you'd have to make a corresponding adjustment to the mirror assembly, and it feels complicated).

 

Just a thought.

[ilkka_nissila]

Canon's C500 II just have electronic stabilization in software, the sensor does not move. But I believe they are working on their version of sensor stabilization.

 

As for sensor stabilization in a DSLR; Konica-Minolta (-Sony) and Pentax have used it. Of course the viewfinder is not stabilized. Even with Nikon's VR lenses, the stabilization is said to be different during viewing (where only some of the movement is corrected, to allow easier composing) and the exposure (where all movement is (attempted to be) corrected apart from panning where the correction is typically not done in the panning direction). I have used the 7D and the K-1 briefly and the sensor-moving stabilization seemed to work fine.

[c_watson1]

Canon's C500 II just have electronic stabilization in software, the sensor does not move. But I believe they are working on their version of sensor stabilization.

 

As for sensor stabilization in a DSLR; Konica-Minolta (-Sony) and Pentax have used it. Of course the viewfinder is not stabilized. Even with Nikon's VR lenses, the stabilization is said to be different during viewing (where only some of the movement is corrected, to allow easier composing) and the exposure (where all movement is (attempted to be) corrected apart from panning where the correction is typically not done in the panning direction). I have used the 7D and the K-1 briefly and the sensor-moving stabilization seemed to work fine.

 

Ever hear about the Fuji X-H1 or GFX 100???

[Andrew Garrard]

Canon's C500 II just have electronic stabilization in software, the sensor does not move. But I believe they are working on their version of sensor stabilization.

 

The question then is how is it "5-axis"? I can see three axes of adjustment within a plane, but not five. Post-focus is one possibility, although I'd be a little surprised.

 

As for matching movements in the finder, I was really talking about larger, static movements, giving you tilt-shift effects within the lens image circle. Since you don't typically need much tilt, at least, I always thought it should be possible - perhaps more so for DX mirrorless. Shifting the whole aperture mechanism around on multiple axes is more of a pain than just doing it to the sensor, admittedly; maybe when/if electronic shutters become universal.

[BeBu Lamar]

The question then is how is it "5-axis"? I can see three axes of adjustment within a plane, but not five. Post-focus is one possibility, although I'd be a little surprised.

 

As for matching movements in the finder, I was really talking about larger, static movements, giving you tilt-shift effects within the lens image circle. Since you don't typically need much tilt, at least, I always thought it should be possible - perhaps more so for DX mirrorless. Shifting the whole aperture mechanism around on multiple axes is more of a pain than just doing it to the sensor, admittedly; maybe when/if electronic shutters become universal.

 

Electronic shutter isn't that important in an SLR designed as it still has the mirror which is more of a limitation for noise and speed than the shutter. Of course in live view you don't need the mirror but if you use live view most of the time with an SLR then the MLIC is much better.

[Andrew Garrard]

Electronic shutter isn't that important in an SLR designed as it still has the mirror which is more of a limitation for noise and speed than the shutter. Of course in live view you don't need the mirror but if you use live view most of the time with an SLR then the MLIC is much better.

 

True, but although my dSLR usually gets used with the mirror down (obviously), it's still useful to be able to achieve the higher frame rates and quieter release from an electronic shutter occasionally - plus there's the EFCS.

 

Currently one issue is that a fully electronic shutter is a rolling shutter determined by the sensor read speed - and currently a mechanical shutter moves faster, so long as you don't have to re-cock it between shots; I assume an EFCS can work because resetting the sensor rows can happen faster than reading the data from them, so it can keep up with the movement of the mechanical shuttter. A true global shutter (as in the D1, if I'm not confused) is approximately instantaneous, and having run into issues with smearing subjects at faster shutter speeds, I think it's a useful technology - maybe even more so if you could do the variable density global shutter that Red offer with their variable ND approach. Sensor read speeds are likely on the up, and it may be we'll have a way of doing a true global shutter that doesn't negatively impact image quality in the future. Plus doing it electronically potentially removes the cost of the mechanical shutter.

[BeBu Lamar]

True, but although my dSLR usually gets used with the mirror down (obviously), it's still useful to be able to achieve the higher frame rates and quieter release from an electronic shutter occasionally - plus there's the EFCS.

 

Currently one issue is that a fully electronic shutter is a rolling shutter determined by the sensor read speed - and currently a mechanical shutter moves faster, so long as you don't have to re-cock it between shots; I assume an EFCS can work because resetting the sensor rows can happen faster than reading the data from them, so it can keep up with the movement of the mechanical shuttter. A true global shutter (as in the D1, if I'm not confused) is approximately instantaneous, and having run into issues with smearing subjects at faster shutter speeds, I think it's a useful technology - maybe even more so if you could do the variable density global shutter that Red offer with their variable ND approach. Sensor read speeds are likely on the up, and it may be we'll have a way of doing a true global shutter that doesn't negatively impact image quality in the future. Plus doing it electronically potentially removes the cost of the mechanical shutter.

 

Actually I like the idea of electronic shutter because it can be accurate. Mechanical shutter simply can't.

[ilkka_nissila]

The shutter creates higher frequency vibrations than the mirror. For sharpness I with lightweight teles, I find EFCS very important also in viewfinder photography (it is available in Q and Qc modes in the D850). It makes a surprisingly large difference. For tripod based shots of static subjects I generally use LV and EFCS as well. I don't usually use the viewfinder much for tripod based landscape shots because it's awkward to look through the VF in many typical situations when the camera is not at eye level. The LCD works great when the subject isn't moving and it can be angled. Actually I disagree that for LV work a mirrorless is better; most mirrorless cameras have smaller and lower resolution LCDs than the D850, and only Nikon so far have implemented the split screen display zoom which I use quite often.

[ilkka_nissila]

The question then is how is it "5-axis"? I can see three axes of adjustment within a plane, but not five.

 

Well, if you think about IBIS, they market that too as "5-axis" but it doesn't have that many degrees of freedom for moving the sensor. I believe they simply consider lateral shifts (where the camera moves sidewise or up/down) and pitch/yaw separately (technically they are different degrees of freedom that can be measured, but the sensor only has three degrees of freedom to compensate the movement). In Canon's software based approach for video, they may model translation and rotation differently in the digital correction and this may somehow lead to a different result than if they had just measured acceleration and rotation in three degrees of freedom in total.

[mike_halliwell]

I had a vague recollection TowerJazz were working on an FX sensor with Global Shutter?

 

5-Axis?? Go ask a Nikon rep......;)