Nikon Announces D6 and Two Mirrorless Z-Mount Lenses

[erik_christensen3]

Out of interest, why? I wouldn't want it as a way to find my way around, but are you wanting to triangulate to where a bird nest was? I wouldn't have thought a D5 was the obvious body to carry up a mountain in a jungle (or for pixel density for birds), although I admit it's about as waterproof as Nikon will get short of Nikonos and the 1 AW.

I am not myself a bird photographer, however, I understand, that when you go for some specific birds, they only f.inst. at altitude of 1,000 to 1,500 meters, hence that function is important. The reason for D5 is the fps, but many also use the D500. Regarding using a gps that is for plotting the various birds. I myself use a gps to identify, where I have taken various photos during my trips, as I sometimes visit the small villages with ethnic people several times, and to be honest my memory is not always, what it used to be.

[Andrew Garrard]

Thanks, Erik. I'd have thought tethering to a phone or a dedicated GPS (or smart watch) would be better, but I don't have personal experience, other than to observe Nikon's track record when it comes to state of the art connectivity (bluetooth, wifi, USB - possibly until the D6...)

 

Interesting to know how stuff is used, anyway.

[bgelfand]

The future of NIkon lenses IMHO is really the Z lenses without an adapter. The adapter is just a temporary measure and for those lenses Nikon may not place a priority on. In 5yrs from Nikon's Z lenses would be more complete than now.

 

I think the main reasons for the FTZ adapter are:

 

1) To remove an the economic disincentive to converting to mirrorless of having to purchase new lenses as well as a new body - a considerable disincentive for people who own several F-mount lenses.

 

2) For those Nikon users who wish to convert to mirrorless an incentive to purchase a Nikon Z-series body so they can use their existing lenses. Without the adapter, it would cost the same to purchase a Sony rather than a Nikon and purchase Sony and third party E-mount lenses. Sony has a mature ecology of E-mount lenses and there are third party lenses for the Sony mount, but none for the Nikon Z-mount. Without an adapter for the Z-series bodies, that would be a good reason to jump to Sony if you had to go mirrorless, or to stay with DSLR F-mount cameras if you had no urgent reason to convert to mirrorless.

[kevin_beretta]

Thanks, Erik. I'd have thought tethering to a phone or a dedicated GPS (or smart watch) would be better, but I don't have personal experience, other than to observe Nikon's track record when it comes to state of the art connectivity (bluetooth, wifi, USB - possibly until the D6...)

 

Interesting to know how stuff is used, anyway.

Another use is in the mountains. If you are shooting landscapes and capture small villages far away, you sometimes just want to know what they are called. With a GPS that has a digital compass this is a piece of cake. Just look it up on Google maps from your processing software which has the location and direction of your lens. I use a Dawntech Eco Pro 2. It's a minuscule GPS unit that plugs into the Nikon 10 pin connector. Works a treat. Only had it for a year or so but wish I would have bought it years ago.

[RaymondC]

I think the main reasons for the FTZ adapter are:

 

1) To remove an the economic disincentive to converting to mirrorless of having to purchase new lenses as well as a new body - a considerable disincentive for people who own several F-mount lenses.

 

2) For those Nikon users who wish to convert to mirrorless an incentive to purchase a Nikon Z-series body so they can use their existing lenses. Without the adapter, it would cost the same to purchase a Sony rather than a Nikon and purchase Sony and third party E-mount lenses. Sony has a mature ecology of E-mount lenses and there are third party lenses for the Sony mount, but none for the Nikon Z-mount. Without an adapter for the Z-series bodies, that would be a good reason to jump to Sony if you had to go mirrorless, or to stay with DSLR F-mount cameras if you had no urgent reason to convert to mirrorless.

 

I agree. With Nikon and Canon now having a completely new lens mount, myself and others can now go back to the drawing board and have an opportunity to try a different manufacturer. Ideally and in the long term it is about having a Z body with a Z lens. One could use a Z body with a F lens but it is less ideal.

 

Remember also to autofocus the adapter requires AF-P/AF-S/AF-I lenses. So the AF-D will not retain autofocus ability. Some might be OK to manually focus but the most would not.

 

If I already have a Z body and I am going to buy a new lens, why would I buy a F lens if a Z lens is available? It might be a bit cheaper but ... If one is really going to use this on a Z body, while you could mount a F lens, the resale value would take a hit. You can wait for the review but it is pretty sure that the Z lenses are superior but they do cost more and are newer.

[rodeo_joe1]

Edit: that 24-200 better be good. I loved my 28-200 until I stuck it on a D8x0 body, but it's faster than the new lens and certainly wasn't $900!

Amen to that!

Especially since that 900 bucks will translate directly to 900 quid here in the UK. For a kit-standard, slow-aperture superzoom, that's just crazy money.

 

I can almost hear Sigma's corporate hands rubbing together in glee.

 

Still banging on about dynamic range Andrew? To increase that substantially a 16 bit A/D converter would have to be used (or an analogue logarithmic amplifier). And since a 16 bit converter isn't really compatible with high frame rates; that's really a non-starter for a PJ's speed-demon tool.

 

I also wonder how big the market for a six and a half grand camera is among sports shooters these days?

Edited February 14, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[erik_christensen3]

Another use is in the mountains. If you are shooting landscapes and capture small villages far away, you sometimes just want to know what they are called. With a GPS that has a digital compass this is a piece of cake. Just look it up on Google maps from your processing software which has the location and direction of your lens. I use a Dawntech Eco Pro 2. It's a minuscule GPS unit that plugs into the Nikon 10 pin connector. Works a treat. Only had it for a year or so but wish I would have bought it years ago.

I have the same GPS model plus the one without compass and agree they are very good. I had 3 others prior to the Dawntech units and they were terrible. If you upload to Flickr then the name of location is automatically shown, but not always the correct name, but that is Flickr.

[BeBu Lamar]

With the D6 I feel Nikon won't make the D7. The D6 might be the end of the line. It seems that they run out of things to add to the DSLR. The features Andrew is talking about in the other thread won't make it.

[mike_halliwell]

The features Andrew is talking about in the other thread won't make it.

But I guess they'll all be equally good for a Z8....:cool:

[conrad_hoffman]

I've had many Nikkor AiS manual primes over the years. Being able to use them was a big factor in getting the Z6. That said, I only use a couple of them for specialized purposes, macro or large aperture. The "kit" lens, the 24-70 f/4 S puts almost every one of them to shame. In the past I always considered Nikon to prioritize ruggedness and longevity over state of the art optical performance. Not that they weren't good lenses, but some other systems seemed to have consistently higher contrast and "pop". Not so the new stuff. In spite of the price, I can't see buying anything other than a new Z-mount S series lens until I see multiple reviews of some third party lens that's equal or better. The FTN adapter got me into the system, but they needed to do that to sell me on the new lenses. A smart strategy, IMO.

[rodeo_joe1]

With the D6 I feel Nikon won't make the D7. The D6 might be the end of the line.

Maybe even the D6 is a step too far in the current market.

The heyday of Photojournalism is long gone, and there are no longer scores of local papers and news-stands full of magazines, all with deep pockets to pay for a dozen or so new Nikons to equip their 'staffers' every couple of years. Times is tight.

 

No. The custom keeping Nikon's photo arm afloat is the enthusiast market. And Nikon and its distributers should recognise this, and treat their non-professional customers with a bit more deference. As well as gearing their products and pricing toward this market. Sigma know this, Tamron know this, Tokina, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji (to an extent), etc all know this.

 

The Golden Goose and Milk Cow are dead and everyone else is stoney broke Nikon!

[mike_halliwell]

As well as gearing their products and pricing toward this market. Sigma know this, Tamron know this

They dropped the ball ages ago with releasing so-so lenses at way above sensible prices and the independents made better lenses more cheaply.

 

Equally, where they were more expensive, esp. the Sigma Art series, people still bought them. And everyone raves about them........:)

[Andrew Garrard]

But I guess they'll all be equally good for a Z8....:cool:

 

Most of them are. I felt the D850 was already a "best dSLR we can do" body without leaving much for the future; I wouldn't be surprised if there's a D60/D880/whatever, but I suspect we're deep in its design cycle. At this point for the dSLRs, my features are more hoping for a paid-for firmware upgrade if Nikon wants to make money and worries that those who might go to Z are at risk of jumping to Sony/Canon if their only way to get more features involves mirrorless. Milk me, Nikon...

 

It's been pointed out that the D1/D3/D5 were pretty major upgrades. The D2/D4/D6 maybe less so. I suspect it would have been have to push D5 users to mirrorless in this cycle (a9 or no), and I'm sure there was a feel that symmetry between the F6 and D6 made sense - although the F6 is very much a D8x0-positioned camera. I would be unsurprised if the D6 successor was mirrorless, it depends whether Nikon can get their PDoS clearly ahead. It may well also be a prosumer body like the F6 (and arguably D700).

[Andrew Garrard]

Still banging on about dynamic range Andrew? To increase that substantially a 16 bit A/D converter would have to be used (or an analogue logarithmic amplifier). And since a 16 bit converter isn't really compatible with high frame rates; that's really a non-starter for a PJ's speed-demon tool.

 

Just pointing out a deficiency in the sensor compared with, say, the D4. It's where Nikon made more of an improvement (Vs high ISO) with the D4 over the D3s. I absolutely agree it probably doesn't affect journalists much (not to say that a journalist won't ever be in a high contrast scenario). Wildlife people using a D5 for frame rate may want it, although these days a gripped D850 is a pretty good alternative. I'd be less inclined to take a D5 than a D4 to shoot a wedding (if I didn't want D850 pixel count). We could argue that the D4's sensor characteristics worked for the Df, so Nikon need to "improve" the D5 sensor before the Df2. :-) They might have made some tweaks - but I absolutely think they made the right call for the most obvious target market. It's a factor in the "I won a lottery and want to buy the best Nikon body" discussion which affects a few people, though; halos need dynamic range...

 

I also wonder how big the market for a six and a half grand camera is among sports shooters these days?

 

Indeed. Although big lenses are still expensive no matter what you put them on, so one could argue the body price is relatively negligible. There aren't going to be as many agencies with these as there used to be, not least because of the state of print media (and you can grab from a 4K/8K video feed). It's possible that expected low sales are why it's expensive - but clearly a lot of people have been bumbling along with the D3 generation (or 1D pre-X series) and still get images good enough to buy dinner, if not upgrades.

[RaymondC]

I've had many Nikkor AiS manual primes over the years. Being able to use them was a big factor in getting the Z6. That said, I only use a couple of them for specialized purposes, macro or large aperture.

 

Being started photography with a D70. I got into film afterwards. Pre-owned equipment. Just got my first manual 35mm F2.0 lens recently. Yep, I only use it on my manual film body. I can understand specific places where one might use it. Like we had a seminar and someone went from a Canon 5D to a Sony and he uses Canon's T/S lenses. I wouldn't adapt lenses as a everyday outing.

[ilkka_nissila]

Just pointing out a deficiency in the sensor compared with, say, the D4. It's where Nikon made more of an improvement (Vs high ISO) with the D4 over the D3s

 

But the D5 does have improvement over the D4 at high ISO (especially 6400 and above). At base ISO the tonal range and color sensitivity of the D5 are slightly ahead of D4 but dynamic range behind. Note that photojournalists working for photo agencies such as Reuters are not allowed to submit images unless they were captured as in-camera JPGs, because the agency is concerned about the lack of authenticity in the images that resulted from working extensively on RAW captures. With JPG the DR is more limited which is what the agency wants (to discourage extensive editing). High base ISO DR is the domain of landscape photographers who work extensively on making adjustments to the images. They wouldn't normally choose to work with a 20MP camera, anyway, given that 24-45MP cameras can be had for a lot less money.

 

I'd be less inclined to take a D5 than a D4 to shoot a wedding

 

How's that? I find there was a dramatic improvement in in-focus image rate when positioning the subject's face in rule-of-thirds position as the linear points in the Multi-CAM 3500 were really unreliable especially when tracking approaching subjects in low light. The D5 made a huge improvement in this kind of situations (e.g. center corridor walk of the bride or bride and groom), as well as any time when working on 1/2 or full body portraits with face close to the top of the frame.

 

It's a factor in the "I won a lottery and want to buy the best Nikon body" discussion which affects a few people, though; halos need dynamic range...

 

The D5 has the best dynamic range at high ISO. Why is base ISO DR so important in a fast action camera? If you expose correclty and don't make shadow-lifting exercises, the smoothness of tones and colours is more dependent on tonal range and color sensitivity.

 

I don't think you're seriously suggesting that Nikon should design their professional cameras for lottery-winners in mind, rather than the needs of professional photographers?

 

Indeed. Although big lenses are still expensive no matter what you put them on, so one could argue the body price is relatively negligible. There aren't going to be as many agencies with these as there used to be, not least because of the state of print media (and you can grab from a 4K/8K video feed).

 

Not negligible but not outrageous, either. Print media isn't in THAT bad shape, the leading newspaper in Finland sell about 50% fewer print copies than they did 20 years ago. But 50% is still a lot, and they sell a lot of digital subscriptions. The company makes a 15% profit. That's more than typical in most business fields and illustrates that the reason staffers are sacked is not because they don't have the money to keep them but their owners simply prefer to make a boatload of money rather than pay salaries and beneifts to employees who create content. As content-generation is made with less money, the quality declines and this further causes a decline in interest to subscribe. Note, I am not saying the content of this particular newspaper has declined in quality, but in general this is what happens when owners squeeze the workforce to do more for less. One area of cost-cutting is that photographers are also videographers now. I would argue that they still haven't learned to make acceptable video. Probably they'll soon realize that video needs a videographer and photos need a photographer, if both are to be made well.

 

It's possible that expected low sales are why it's expensive - but clearly a lot of people have been bumbling along with the D3 generation (or 1D pre-X series) and still get images good enough to buy dinner, if not upgrades.

 

Pros do use older cameras but typically not THAT old. A D3 in the hands of professional sports photographer will be in pretty bad shape by now, and is no longer in its repair life. I don't think it makes much sense for a professional to use a camera that cannot be repaired any more, unless there is something really special about it, which there isn't in the D3's case - all aspects of the camera have been substantially improved since.

[ilkka_nissila]

They dropped the ball ages ago with releasing so-so lenses at way above sensible prices and the independents made better lenses more cheaply.

 

Nikon simply timed their design and release of the AF-S f/1.4 primes for 12-24MP, before sensor image quality reached current levels, whereas Sigma launched their Art primes in the 36MP-50MP era, so Sigma had designed their lenses for higher resolution sensors than Nikon. Newer Nikon lenses such as 20/1.8, 28/1.4 and 105/1.4 are outstanding. Sigma's 50mm, 85mm, 105mm and 135mm are also staggeringly heavy for the focal length and aperture. The wide angles are more in line with competition in size and weight (heavy but not as outrageous as the longer focal lengths). I generally want consistent aperture across all focal lengths where possible, and the same image charateristics in so far as possible and with Sigma Art primes the bag would simply be too heavy for me to consider. Nikon offers nice f/1.8 primes now for F mount and outstanding ones for Z mount and these are what I would preferentially buy because of the sane weight and high quality (especially the Z mount versions).

 

I know several users of Sigma Art primes who are complaining about back spasm. No money saved or quality gained is worth having cronic back pain.

 

Additionally Nikon have created several telephoto lenses that save bag weight, including the 300/4 PF and 500/5.6 PF which are the longer lenses that I use. They are a delight and fun to shoot with, and no back or neck or knee pain. It's almost like I'm levitating they are so lightweight compared to other lenses at these focal lengths and apertures.

 

Equally, where they were more expensive, esp. the Sigma Art series, people still bought them. And everyone raves about them........:)

 

People might rave about them but then they complain about their backs and don't see the causal relationship. However, I'm reasonably confident that eventually people will discover it and make corrective moves in the lenses they use.

[ilkka_nissila]

Most of them are. I felt the D850 was already a "best dSLR we can do" body without leaving much for the future; I wouldn't be surprised if there's a D60/D880/whatever, but I suspect we're deep in its design cycle.

 

The D850 without doubt will get a successor with the D6's AF system. Because of the technology that Nikon chose for their mirrorless AF, they will probably never make a mirrorless camera that matches the dynamic range of the D850. That was what mattered above all, wasn't it?

 

It's been pointed out that the D1/D3/D5 were pretty major upgrades.

 

IMO the D1 was not an "upgrade." Even in small size in magazine print you could see the relatively poor image quality vs. 35mm film. If you turned the camera off while it was writing the buffer to card, it would turn off and you'd lose the images. "upgrade", huh?

 

I would be unsurprised if the D6 successor was mirrorless,

 

I have no doubt Nikon will launch a mirrorless sports camera before the D7, but there may still be a D7 because of the hundreds of thousands of lenses in use. The mirrorless camera will need its own lenses before its AF can be competitive. This is why Nikon doesn't have any fast long primes in the Z lineup, it's because they can't launch them without knowing what the camera will be like. The motor in the lens is a crucial part of successful AF implementation and so the lenses will be launched concurrently with the camera.

 

The cost of a D6 pales with having to buy all new lenses to get competent AF performance in mirrorless.

[mike_halliwell]

Very true Ilkka!

 

Most of my heavy Sigma prime use is studio and tripod/copystand work.

 

If I want to go play astro, I usually only pop one in the camera bag and my D850 and my Star Adventurer and a few heater pads...Oh, and, of course, the tripod...;)

[ilkka_nissila]

I have to assume that the number of sports/photojournalist customers, whose priorities have typically been to get a basic shot in limited light that can be sent to an editor quickly, who might actually want a 36MP camera in this form factor, would be limited.

 

I've never seen a D8x0 series body in use by a professional at a sports venue.

 

But Nikon do have the solution for those who need all of the following: high resolution, high base ISO DR, and high fps rate in the form of the D850. And probably the D8x0 series sold 10x more copies than a D4X/D5X could ever have sold.

 

I am not completely averse to base ISO dynamic range improvement - I just don't think it's a big issue for the target crowd, especially considering Reuter's position (I recall there is another big agency who denied the use of RAW from their photographers even before Reuters did). But I believe the D850 and D500 expertly cover those needs that the D5 does not. And for less money, the D750 and D780 (and D7200/D7500) should also do a decent job in low ISO photography, including dynamic range at ISO 100. Nikon have an abundance of camera bodies ideally suited for photography where good base ISO dynamic range is needed.

 

So far we have no data on the D6's sensor performance. Having the same number of pixels doesn't mean identical performance.

 

That said, Thom Hogan had been vocal about the lack of successor to a D3x meaning batteries etc. are incompatible between sports and landscape/pro portraiture bodies.

 

But that's not correct, the D850 can use the D5's batteries.

[mike_halliwell]

But that's not correct, the D850 can use the D5's batteries

Indeed, I have one EN-EL18 that swaps between my D500 and D850 grip.

 

However, it would have been nice to use my EN-EN4s from my D3S.....:(

[Andrew Garrard]

Argh. The interface wouldn't let me reply by phone.

 

But the D5 does have improvement over the D4 at high ISO (especially 6400 and above). At base ISO the tonal range and color sensitivity of the D5 are slightly ahead of D4 but dynamic range behind.

 

Significantly behind at that. I'm absolutely not saying that the D5 sensor isn't optimised in the right way for its expected use - as was the D3s. The D5 is class leading at high ISO. I'm just pointing out that if you wanted to find a deficiency in the sensor it would be at low ISO, something Nikon felt inclined to look at in the D4. I assume even journalists sometimes find themselves in inconsistent (as well as dark) lighting and might want to recover a shot.

 

Note that photojournalists working for photo agencies such as Reuters are not allowed to submit images unless they were captured as in-camera JPGs, because the agency is concerned about the lack of authenticity in the images that resulted from working extensively on RAW captures. With JPG the DR is more limited which is what the agency wants (to discourage extensive editing).

 

That's... mad. But okay. Maybe it explains why there are in-camera raw editing facilities on Nikon bodies, which seems like a terrible place to do that work.

 

High base ISO DR is the domain of landscape photographers who work extensively on making adjustments to the images. They wouldn't normally choose to work with a 20MP camera, anyway, given that 24-45MP cameras can be had for a lot less money.

 

Oh, indeed. Let me be clear - the D5 is primarily a camera aimed at journalists and sports shooters. That means managable file sizes shot at high shutter speeds in iffy light, triaged and transferred quickly from the camera, rather than, most of the time, fully flexible raw files. That's what the D5, like the D3s, was quite rightly designed to do. But I believe the D4 was designed not just for press pen photographers who have to get the image to their editor in seconds to beat the competition and make sure they get the exact timing shot in a sporting event. I believe it was designed to be pulled out of a press pool by a jobbing journalist who goes out to interview a member of the public in contrasty conditions, and who might not be able to nail the exposure, and whose editor can recover a misexposed shot. Being able to do the high ISO thing is critical. Being good at low ISO as well is a bonus.

 

If the D6 can gain a stop over the D5 at high ISO, that's amazing. But if it can't, I imagine looking at the D5's "weak point", even if it's irrelevant for some users, would be the low-hanging fruit.

 

I'm in no way complaining about the D5 (for its intended use). Just predicting that, given the D3s/D4 as a pattern, I would not be shocked if Nikon engineering had spent some time tweaking this, rather than turning in a sensor with identical performance to the D5. Before the D850's dual-ISO sensor I claimed that the D4/D4s/Df sensor was arguably the best generalist sensor that Nikon made, in that it was very good at high ISO and still capable at low ISO. Not that it was ever the best sensor for me, and the latest iteration of the 24MP sensor is arguably better than the D4.

 

(Weddings)

 

How's that? I find there was a dramatic improvement in in-focus image rate when positioning the subject's face in rule-of-thirds position as the linear points in the Multi-CAM 3500 were really unreliable especially when tracking approaching subjects in low light. The D5 made a huge improvement in this kind of situations (e.g. center corridor walk of the bride or bride and groom), as well as any time when working on 1/2 or full body portraits with face close to the top of the frame.

 

I'm absolutely not a wedding photographer, professional or otherwise. But in shots I've taken at weddings, there has been a distressing tendency for the bride to wear an off-white dress and stand in direct sunlight next to a groom wearing black, often hiding from the sun in the shade (or groomsmen in beige and the bridesmaids in purple). I didn't really have trouble with autofocus with my D700, D800e or D810 at weddings, but I concede missing focus would be catastrophic (as with my 135mm DC experience).

 

The D5 has the best dynamic range at high ISO. Why is base ISO DR so important in a fast action camera? If you expose correclty and don't make shadow-lifting exercises, the smoothness of tones and colours is more dependent on tonal range and color sensitivity.

 

Because no camera is only used for only one thing. If improving the low ISO performance affects the frame rate or high ISO performance, obviously that's a bad trade-off for this camera. If it doesn't, it makes the camera useful in more situations, and that's really what is needed for these cameras - always get the shot. But I was really only saying "I wonder if...", not "the D5 is terrible because..."

 

I don't think you're seriously suggesting that Nikon should design their professional cameras for lottery-winners in mind, rather than the needs of professional photographers?

 

No, just that if the professionals are happy, no harm in getting extra sales from the lottery winners. It's what they swung for with the F6, after all.

 

Not negligible but not outrageous, either. Print media isn't in THAT bad shape, the leading newspaper in Finland sell about 50% fewer print copies than they did 20 years ago. But 50% is still a lot, and they sell a lot of digital subscriptions. The company makes a 15% profit. That's more than typical in most business fields and illustrates that the reason staffers are sacked is not because they don't have the money to keep them but their owners simply prefer to make a boatload of money rather than pay salaries and beneifts to employees who create content.

 

That's actually reassuring to hear.

 

One area of cost-cutting is that photographers are also videographers now. I would argue that they still haven't learned to make acceptable video. Probably they'll soon realize that video needs a videographer and photos need a photographer, if both are to be made well.

 

Yes - arguably that's something that really kicked off with the 5D2 generation. It's certainly something Canon seemed to be aware of with the capabilities of the 1Dx3 - and makes it a little surprising that Nikon didn't go more that way. Maybe the D780 is supposed to suffice for that role.

 

Pros do use older cameras but typically not THAT old. A D3 in the hands of professional sports photographer will be in pretty bad shape by now, and is no longer in its repair life. I don't think it makes much sense for a professional to use a camera that cannot be repaired any more, unless there is something really special about it, which there isn't in the D3's case - all aspects of the camera have been substantially improved since.

 

I'm relaying Thom Hogan again - I've not looked closely enough at press pools to do more than spot the Canon/Nikon/Sony ratio. The D3 is ancient; the D3s keeps up pretty well with the D4, depending on how much you want to crop, if you're on a budget. The D5 clearly has the edge, but it doesn't stop you taking decent images with the older camera. If you have to justify the expenditure of a new body, I could see a D5 taking a while to happen if you're just shooting in low light for the web or small print and making JPEGs. You upgrade it when you break it - they don't have much resale value now.

[Andrew Garrard]

The D850 without doubt will get a successor with the D6's AF system. Because of the technology that Nikon chose for their mirrorless AF, they will probably never make a mirrorless camera that matches the dynamic range of the D850. That was what mattered above all, wasn't it?

 

A bit (to me). But I feel my comment about the D6 sensor was taking out of context... Quite a small subset of the sensor is used for PDoS, the dynamic range difference ought to be small (and is).

 

IMO the D1 was not an "upgrade." Even in small size in magazine print you could see the relatively poor image quality vs. 35mm film. If you turned the camera off while it was writing the buffer to card, it would turn off and you'd lose the images. "upgrade", huh?

 

Compared with a Kodak hybrid body or scanning a film and trying to get the result to your photo editor by a deadline? Yup. If it weren't, and the D1x and D2 hadn't taken off, the F6 would have looked more like the F5.

 

I have no doubt Nikon will launch a mirrorless sports camera before the D7, but there may still be a D7 because of the hundreds of thousands of lenses in use. The mirrorless camera will need its own lenses before its AF can be competitive.

 

Why? I understood that the Z bodies work pretty well with the FT-Z and recent superteles. There's some difference in the optical behaviour of the AF systems, but the "mirrorless lens" thing with AF-P lenses is, I believe, more one for the contrast-detect repeatable "wobble"; PDoS should be able to do open-loop fast AF just like mirror autofocus. Or maybe I'm missing something. The question is whether Nikon can get it as good as the D6 - and I suspect eye-detect might be the killer feature, depending on how well the D6 can do it in phase detect.

 

This is why Nikon doesn't have any fast long primes in the Z lineup, it's because they can't launch them without knowing what the camera will be like. The motor in the lens is a crucial part of successful AF implementation and so the lenses will be launched concurrently with the camera.

 

Or because there's no benefit to a short back focus on a supertele and it's better to have F-mount lenses that have a maximal audience, especially for a press pool already full of single-digit bodies?

 

The cost of a D6 pales with having to buy all new lenses to get competent AF performance in mirrorless.

 

I've no personal experience with them. Current, first-gen, Z autofocus doesn't always keep up with the state of the art dSLRs under some circumstances. Are the lenses definitively the problem?

[Andrew Garrard]

I've never seen a D8x0 series body in use by a professional at a sports venue.

 

Indeed. (Okay, unless you count me shooting tiddlywinks, but it's not that fast-moving.)

 

But Nikon do have the solution for those who need all of the following: high resolution, high base ISO DR, and high fps rate in the form of the D850. And probably the D8x0 series sold 10x more copies than a D4X/D5X could ever have sold.

 

They do. Like I've said, I think Nikon learnt from the 5D2 and realised that lots of landscape amateurs want a light camera with dynamic range and a lot of pixels. Whether a journalist ought to need a second camera in order to handle those situations the D5 is (relatively) bad at is another matter.

 

I am not completely averse to base ISO dynamic range improvement - I just don't think it's a big issue for the target crowd, especially considering Reuter's position (I recall there is another big agency who denied the use of RAW from their photographers even before Reuters did).

 

I'm completely on the same page. It doesn't hurt, and would sometimes be nice to have, it's just not the priority compared with what the D5 is good at. I just speculate at what the engineers might have decided to do.

 

But I believe the D850 and D500 expertly cover those needs that the D5 does not. And for less money, the D750 and D780 (and D7200/D7500) should also do a decent job in low ISO photography, including dynamic range at ISO 100.

 

Well, a bit. But then you have different handling styles compared with the D5, the D850 may have more pixels than you really want (and small raw is a mixed blessing), there are different cards, (mostly) different batteries, and you have to carry a second body. I can see some might at least vaguely like a single body that was more general.

 

Nikon have an abundance of camera bodies ideally suited for photography where good base ISO dynamic range is needed.

 

And none of them are as good as the D5 when you need high ISO and speed - although the Z6 is pretty competitive. which bodes well for the D780. One ring to rule them all (if you don't need resolution)...

 

So far we have no data on the D6's sensor performance. Having the same number of pixels doesn't mean identical performance.

 

Absolutely. I was speculating, with a view to wondering how the sensor might behave. I look forward to finding out, which is all I really meant.

 

But that's not correct, the D850 can use the D5's batteries.

 

The curse of parroting Thom again without context. It does, but only if you use the grip - which is bulky and has a weird uncomfortable lip (for reasons I don't understand). It also stops you adding the network adaptor. Meanwhile you have at least one incompatible card type (no D5 uses SD, and the CF/XQD transition may or may not align between bodies), different cases and plates, different handling. If all you want is a tethered studio camera, I can see why the D850 lacks the appeal of the same sensor in a D3x successor. As someone who is very glad to have that sensor in a D700-class body, and I suspect being in the majority, I think Nikon did right.

[ilkka_nissila]

A bit (to me). But I feel my comment about the D6 sensor was taking out of context... Quite a small subset of the sensor is used for PDoS, the dynamic range difference ought to be small (and is).

 

I don't know what the cause is but photonstophotos show D750 to have better PDR at low ISO than Z6 and dxomark show an engineering DR drop in the Z7 vs. D850 (these are different metrics with different thresholds so they show slightly different results). There are reports of banding and striping. The Z are newer cameras so they should be better, not worse, if it weren't for the requirements of the OSPDAF.

 

Compared with a Kodak hybrid body or scanning a film and trying to get the result to your photo editor by a deadline?

 

If the quality isn't good enough it's not good enough and that certainly affects magazine sales if the picture quality is poor. It was really discouraging IMO: I don't believe the D1 would ever have picked up if there hadn't been promise of better technology becoming available very soon afterwards. D1X was already much better and closer to acceptable quality. If you disagree by all means look up some files from the D1 to see what you think. And also consider usability.

 

Why? I understood that the Z bodies work pretty well with the FT-Z and recent superteles. There's some difference in the optical behaviour of the AF systems, but the "mirrorless lens" thing with AF-P lenses is, I believe, more one for the contrast-detect repeatable "wobble"; PDoS should be able to do open-loop fast AF just like mirror autofocus. Or maybe I'm missing something.

 

In low light there is a lot of hunting with older SWM lenses. The native lenses just snap instantly into focus. There is a noticeable difference. Newer SWM lenses are somewhere in between, e.g. the AF-S VR 24-70/2.8 is a pretty good autofocuser in CDAF.

 

On-sensor PDAF sensors don't have the range or CNR of dedicated PDAF sensor modules. The limited range means it only works if the lens is already close enough to being in focus, while really out of focus situation (such as when a subject moves fast, or at first acquisition) results in hunting. The hunting can be avoided if the lens can do a tiny focus adjustment that's absolutely reproducible and fast, so it can be used to calculate a gradient for the contrast function and this requires something like STM (or likely Sony's linear motor), after which the lens is driven to the position directed by the gradient, and so it goes. With SWM the lens can't perform a reproducible small focus adjustment, so the gradient leads to a random place, from which another attempt is then made, and this results in a sequence of inaccurate attempts at finding focus. This happens very easily with an adapted lens, less likely with a native one because the designers took this into account in the design of the lens.

 

The CNR problem is because of the small area of the embedded PDAF sensors in the image sensor, and it simply is because there is not enough light to get a clean reading of the phase difference in low light. So in low light the mirrorless camera -driven SWM again goes on a hunting spree, whereas an STM lens solves the day by allowing a substitute phase difference to be estimated by estimating the gradient of the contrast function.

 

All of these situations need to be managed for a mirrorless camera to focus well in indoor lighting with fast subject movement. So Nikon need both the development of new lenses with new motor solutions and new sensors with fast read time and processors that can handle the data and algorithms quickly. It's a complex thing to substitute a relatively simple technology such as a DSLR in this application.

 

Canon don't have CNR problems in low light because dual pixel covers the whole sensor area basically so it collects a lot more light for PDAF. But they then need twice as many photosites and this creates its own problems. For example with the sensor read time and creating high-resolution cameras.

 

Current, first-gen, Z autofocus doesn't always keep up with the state of the art dSLRs under some circumstances. Are the lenses definitively the problem?

 

Lenses are a part of the problem; mirrorless AF places different requirements on lens autofocus motors and communication between body and motor. Also the motor solution cannot be separated from the optical design. Sony have pioneered new motors (linear electromagnetic drive) and have put 2 or even 4 motors in a lens to speed up the autofocus in a way that has the precision required by mirrorless camera autofocus algorithms. As far as I know, none of Nikon's Z mount lenses uses an ultrasonic motor (SWM) which is the dominant technology in DSLR lenses (even new ones). The stepper motor allows the precise and reproducible control of focus in tiny increments but it doesn't have the power to move large focus groups around, so solutions to this problem for larger lenses have involved increasing the number of motors. What happens if you use an SWM lens on mirrorless? More frequent hunting than with STM lenses or when using SWM lenses on DSLRs, and less precise results.

Edited February 15, 2020 by ilkka_nissila