Z5-4 = Z1 ... FX or DX Rumored ..who knows

ADKDaveyJ

I predict Nikon WILL produce a mirrorless DX version similar to the Nikon Z6. I also think they will,keep it big enough to have real value to serious photographers not a detuned version like the D3500. Not to knock the D3500 but with attributes more like the D500 in a mirrorless version. Time will tell!

PB_PM

If they do, would it be a mirrorless D7500 or D500, my guess somewhere between the two spec wise. Same old 20MP sensor, etc.

I suspect we’ll be seeing the “pro” D5 replacement mirrorless body first, but that’s just me.

BVS

PB_PM said:

If they do, would it be a mirrorless D7500 or D500, my guess somewhere between the two spec wise. Same old 20MP sensor, etc.

I suspect we’ll be seeing the “pro” D5 replacement mirrorless body first, but that’s just me.

They should really use a sensor similar to the A6400 and XT3, which have much faster readout speeds I believe.

Ton14

I read Nikon DSLR patent spotted with Built-in Image Stabilization, IBIS in DSLR's.

mhedges

Well it's been done before - The Pentax has it, I think. And didn't Olympus do it first?

I would still be very surprised to see it from Nikon.

ADKDaveyJ

I understand that Nikon is getting a LOT of suggestions to introduce more modest f4 or F5.6 S lens. The mot preordered Nikon S lens is the 14-30 f4S. The most requested I understand is 70-200 f4 or even F5.6. That is from the Nikon customer email and hotlines......

Msmoto

Some of us may remember the Elmar 3.5cm from Leitz. Sharp, adequate speed, and this in the day of ASA 25 color and ASA 400 B & W films. Our attitudes were a bit different then and we shot hand held at shutter speeds, unheard by many folks today. In this modern era, we may have lost some of our concern about the techniques due to the extreme capabilities of the latest sensors. IMO if we focus on the task at hand, the f/4.0 - 5.6 lenses should be entirely adequate unless we are really in the darkest of dark venues.

donaldejose

Agreed: I shot a lot of ISO (it was ASA back then) 25 Kodachrome slides with manual everything and spot or center weighted metering only. And even then I liked to expose at -0.3 stop for increased color saturation. Seems "impossible" now doesn't it. ISO 64 was my "high speed" film. Now ISO 64 is the lowest native ISO on high dynamic range bodies like the D800 and D850. Of course, my hands do shake more than they used to!

rmp

If we did not have the sensors of today, I wonder if I would still be using cameras. ISO of 6400 on my Z7 produces so little noise I can handhold a lot of shots at SS 1/100s.

Capt_Spaulding

I resisted digital for a looong time. Heck I resisted autofocus. My "best" film camera was a Minolta x-570 (which I still have) with a couple of SRT-101s as backups.

In the late 90s I had my Dad's old Rolliecord CLAd and a new focusing screen installed. Digital seemed too easy.

Then I got old.

The new sensors are still mind blowing for me. The fastest film I ever laid hands on was Royal Gold 1000. It introduced me to astrophotos. But if you had told me in 2000 that I'd routinely shoot at ISO/ASA6400 some day, I'd have laughed you out of the room. I still shoot a lot in manual, but, I'm not sure where I'd be if I had to get the focus spot on.

Pistnbroke

LOL LOL then I got old LOL LOL

NSXTypeR

rmp said:

If we did not have the sensors of today, I wonder if I would still be using cameras. ISO of 6400 on my Z7 produces so little noise I can handhold a lot of shots at SS 1/100s.

I remember cranking ISO up on a D40 to 1600 one day during an indoor auto show based on some suggestions from another Nikon owner (D80) and instantly regretting that because I has incredibly noisy photos the rest of the day.

How far we've gone with cameras now.

Pistnbroke

I should hope you could hand hold at 1/100s but as for the 6400 were you in the daylight or in a 13th century church lit with 5 watt low energy bulbs ( or equivalent) ? Outside is not a test

Ton14

Yes, outside is not a test, I put an example I made in 2017 on pad.
Here ISO 1600 is max to leave some detail in the photo.
I would like to see pictures of the Nikon Z6 in these circumstances.

Pistnbroke

When testing ISO I don't understand why they don't illuminate a target in a dark room and turn the lighting down to force the iso up ..that a true test.

rmp

Today, for me, handholding at 1/100s is a good thing. Yesteryear was another story. II will bet my hand shake is greater that your hand shake It was not a "test" is was a grab, or snap shot of a deer in the lawn after the sun went down.

Msmoto

So where is the deer?

rmp

Facebook (The shot was not worth much more.)

ADKDaveyJ

JPEG which I use almost all the time will eventually become 10 bit to jive better with movie, video. Sony is going there rapidly in terms of testing, hopefully Nikon is doing the same when it heads toward an APS-C Z mirrorless DX Camera.

FreezeAction

I'm waiting to see what Nikon will do with a DX body. It would fill a void for birds not in flight that are up close and the silent shutter would be a big plus. A D7500 turned into a mirrorless sort of like the D850 to Z7 body would suit me fine. More pixels would not be good for low light in early morning outings. For my use even if it comes with only one memory card slot I would not complain. Just make it as low light capable as possible using XQD or the newer faster CFexpress. And please Nikon don't be stingy with the buffer... At least 75-100 frames in the buffer for extreme situations. How much does it really cost to give it some buffer? Even if an 18mp sensor is used to give cleaner reduced noise images I will buy it. It never will be a one camera does it all for everyone for sure but for what intended it should be best in class.

WestEndFoto

FreezeAction said:

I'm waiting to see what Nikon will do with a DX body. It would fill a void for birds not in flight that are up close and the silent shutter would be a big plus. A D7500 turned into a mirrorless sort of like the D850 to Z7 body would suit me fine. More pixels would not be good for low light in early morning outings. For my use even if it comes with only one memory card slot I would not complain. Just make it as low light capable as possible using XQD or the newer faster CFexpress. And please Nikon don't be stingy with the buffer... At least 75-100 frames in the buffer for extreme situations. How much does it really cost to give it some buffer? Even if an 18mp sensor is used to give cleaner reduced noise images I will buy it. It never will be a one camera does it all for everyone for sure but for what intended it should be best in class.

It costs them the price difference between a D5 and whatever you are contemplating.

FreezeAction

There was a time when Mercury Marine made two identical outboard motors that were exactly alike except for the feed line in their carburetors. Hundreds of dollars difference in selling price. The reason given is they were in the business of selling horse power and that is what they were charging for. So I suppose Nikon is charging for performance not necessarily what it costs them to build a product. I don't believe for one minute the D5 costs double to build the price of a D850....

WestEndFoto

One should always charge for performance. The cost to manufacture is irrelevant, unless the cost is higher than what you can charge for performance.

I am also sure that the variable costs per D5 are not double the variable costs per D850. But I assume that the fixed costs are roughly similar and there are way more D850 s than D5s.

donaldejose

"Cost to manufacture" is not a static price. You cannot just add up the cost of each part without considering ultimate sales volume. For example, if it cost Nikon $3,000 to pay for each part (assuming 50,000 of each part was ordered) plus assembly labor cost (assuming cost per worker on a line designed to assemble 50,000 bodies) for one D5 and they sold only that one D5 for $6,000, Nikon would not make a $3,000 profit. Cost also depends upon how many sales you can spread those costs over. Lower sales volume cameras, like the Dx series bodies, will always cost more per part than the cost per part of a high sales volume camera. The most cost effective time to purchase a Dx series body may be when it is a generation old and has dropped to about half its original price. It still may offer all you need for the situation you are shooting unless that "latest and greatest" new feature in the current generation Dx body would make a substantial difference to you. If so, you just have to pay the high price that feature currently commands. I have recently become an advocate for the good value offered by older Dx bodies.

FreezeAction

I paid the price for the D500 because it was the best bang for the buck for birding. I am familiar with cost center accounting and have been involved in manufacturing in years past. Managerial accounting was an interesting college level class that I did benefit from. Once again when a body that fits my needs most comes along I will pay the price within reason. I still shoot some with a D5300 which was my first Nikon body when I dumped Canon's 1D MII pro body. The D500 is my 4th body and now l want two more I think. A DX mirrorless and a D860 at 60mp. Then I'm done for more ways than one. Next spring it's back to St. Augustine where some of us enjoyed shooting birds and architecture at the old fort. Today 3 DX bodies are packed for an outing shooting birds and stitched panoramas. The stitched image is a test for a full frame high resolution body to follow. It's worth the extra effort to get a particular image I have not seen made into a mural panorama and it's there to do so why not. This is why I have a peaked interest in either a D860 or Z8 as theoretical bodies soon to come I hope. Unless price is like a D5 it will not matter if it gets the job done.