Nikon Z50

1246789

Comments

  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 978Member
    These internal storage systems sound great to me!
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 588Member
    edited January 2020
    I mentioned 128gb as enough, the storage have to be small, and can be made cheap and fast now I think, battery use is also something of course @PB_PM mentioned the power trade off. The CFexpress cards are 3 to 4 times faster then the XQD cards at the moment, copy files to my computer via a USB-C 3.1 Gen2 port is fast.

    My computer photo workflow is SSD only combined with a fast video card. The old harddisks are cheap (€100.- for 4tb) and used for my backups only. I use 2tb NVME SSD's in my computer very fast.

    The Samsung 970 EVO 1TB is € 160.- here, cheaper in the US.

    I like "fast" but at the moment everything is fast enough for me, so that is not my priority, I can better say, everything is faster then I am :).

    The Nikon Z6 has a USB-C port, I connect it with a USB cable to my computer for tether in a Capture One Pro 20 session, this setup is easy now, it is standard in C1. RAW files in full resolution transfer about instant, also a copy goes to my NAS and to an internal drive in the background. Fun, in this (studio) scenario I don't even use the XQD card from the camera.

    This is what we want with Wi-Fi of course so we can skip cables.
    Post edited by Ton14 on
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    So I suppose the question is size of the space needed for adding an internal SSD vs. the size of the space needed for adding a second XQD/CFexpress card vs. the size of the space needed for adding a micro SD card (internal or external). I started thinking about the large amount of memory in those micro SD cards and how they would not take up much space so likely could be incorporated into the existing Z bodies at the next iteration giving an internal backup which can just be reformated when the other removable media card has been used to transfer the files to the computer. I know those micro SD cards are too small to fool with in removing to transfer files but they don't have to be removed to transfer files because the other card can be removed to do that. Just an idea.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,366Member
    SSD style flash chips are larger, but density is increasing. A single 128GB chip wouldn’t be much if any larger than an XQD/CFexprss card. The real difference is the size of the controller and other chips involved. XQD/SDHC etc have much smaller overall package size, which is why they are more expensive per gigabyte.

    Built in storage isn’t going to solve any problems that cameras have, other than the point of failure of the pins for the removable port. You exchange for the loss of use of the camera if the internal storage fails. Likely not worth it in the end.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    "Built in storage isn’t going to solve any problems that cameras have." Sorry, I disagree. It would solve the problem some people have with a Z body having only one card slot so they cannot make backups as they shoot. I am suggesting that a time of shooting backup would not have to be on a second removable media or on a tethered laptop. It could be to internal solid state memory whether SSD or hard-wired micro SD chip. Shoot in whatever form you want, RAW or JPEG or both, and save to both the internal memory and to the removable media card. After you have transferred the images to your computer you can just reformat the internal memory like you would reformat a second removable card. You would have the backup you want and if your one removable card never fails you will never need to extract your images from the internal storage. I am asking if this could be done without enlarging the current Z body size and if it could be done for around $100 and if such an option existed would people want to spend $100 more to get it? I would spend $200 more. One issue I see is that two removable card slots are still preferable because they let you can upgrade the speed, size or type of card used while an internal device is hardwired into the body. However, many people may be changing cameras frequently enough anyway that the hard wired internal memory would not become outdated. Just an idea.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,536Member
    edited January 2020
    Donaldjose, memory takes space. I think that the way to think about the problem is to assume that a 1tb removable card, of whatever format, is “this” large. Where is it going to go?

    I think you are increasing the body size and this is the reason that the Z6/7 only has one card, as they wanted to minimize the size of the “D750 Class” Z6/7. This was a strategic imperative to exploit the size benefits of the Mirrorless Z-mount.

    Then to expand this point, there is a product line strategy.

    To the naysayers, like Thom (no disrespect Thom), that say that Nikon took something away (the Z7 is just below a D850 and the Z50 is just below a D7500, which I agree with), I would say that the Z8 is going to be more than a D850 and the Z9 is going to be more than a D6. There will be no effort to be small and light with these cameras. They are going to be performance with no compromises. I suspect that this is why Nikon is in no hurry to launch the 50 1.2 as the “no compromise on performance” products will come in early 2021 and will include a Z8, Z9, the 50 1.2 and an update to the lens roadmap that includes a stellar 1.2 prime selection.

    Another advantage is that Canon and Sony will be fully committed to their premium lens line and that Nikon’s strategy is that their premium line will be demonstratively better than both, if more expensive.

    Nikon will be the Lexus of cameras, Canon will be the Toyota and Sony will be the Nissan.

    Everybody else will be Ferrari, Mazda, Fiat etc.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    edited January 2020
    "memory takes space" Yes, but what got me thinking about this in the first place was the tiny size of micro SD cards which now can hold 1 TB.

    https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B07P9W5HJV/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2ARRQRLOU8UWC&keywords=1tb+micro+sd+card&qid=1578257554&s=pc&sprefix=1+tbmicro+sd+card,computers,156&sr=1-3

    That is a lot of storage in a very small size. Can Nikon find space to hard wire such sized memory in the existing Z body sizes? It seems they likely could find such a tiny space somewhere or simply buy the chip inside the micro SD card and incorporate that chip into the motherboard. Creating such a Z6 and 7 iteration could keep the same small size and address the criticism of no on-board backup because there is no second card slot. I don't know, just an idea to think about.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 588Member
    edited January 2020
    I'am with @donaldejose , put storage in the camera and one slot, make software to backup photos from the XQD/CFexpress or whatever to this storage IN THE BACkGROUND, when the camera is idle, this should not be that difficult, then it don't have to be superfast either.

    My Samsung S10 (I bought for € 420.-) has 128gb internal memory and I can put in a 512gb memory card, you can even buy it with 512gb and 1tb internal memory and there are new technics for cooling, because that is the main problem with mobiles (and laptops).

    But ... the last years video is coming up in photo camera's, there should be a possibility for backup photos only and that should not be difficult also. For video with these camera's other hardware accessories are used anyway.
    Post edited by Ton14 on
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,092Member
    1 TB of internal memory would cost way more than $200 at retail. Look at phone prices for a bit of an idea - I'm seeing an additional ~$500 for 1 Tb of internal. And cameras would probably be worse because they sell far fewer units than phones, and potentially sit on the shelf much longer, so the camera makers have to take all that inventory cost. Like, in a few cases you can still buy 4 year old cameras as the newest model. Whereas phones get refreshes every year.
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 588Member
    edited January 2020
    Sandisk Extreme 1tb MicroSD U3 V30 A2 160mb/s is €279.- today. The 512gb is €139.-, the 256gb is €55,90 here in Holland. You can use these for 4k film (V30) in action cams, phones tablets etc.

    SSD M.2 Samsung 970 EVO 1TB, this is one of the fastest € 161,- , when I search the "plus" and faster version I can get it for the same price now, everything in normal shops. There is a slow move from 500gb to 1tb drives and a faster move from sata SSD's to M.2 SSD's.
    Post edited by Ton14 on
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,092Member
    edited January 2020
    I'm just saying you can't equate the price of add on standalone storage to the price of built in storage. There is some correlation of course, but built in storage always costs more.
    Post edited by mhedges on
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 588Member
    edited January 2020
    Yes you are right, see the different Microsoft Surface Pro models , but prices are coming down and we are talking here of a system that not exist at the moment.
    Post edited by Ton14 on
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    "built in storage always costs more." Maybe, but why should it? The seller of the micro SD card at that "cheap" price is making a profit or they would not be in business. Why cannot they simply sell the same card, or just it's internal storage, to the camera maker for the same or less price? Yes, the camera maker has to pay for some change in software and for a hard wired internal connection for that chip but with every iteration the camera manufacturer has to pay for some changes anyway to claim it is a "new and improved" version of the last iteration of that body. Let's take another option: just add the same microSD slot which fits in cellphones. You should be able to buy it off the shelf and it must take up minimal space to fit in cellphones. Then users can select whatever micro SD card they want to use in that slot after they purchase the camera and change over time if they then want some different size or speed. It should not take up too much space in the camera body to add a removable micro SD card.

    Of course, users will immediately complain that micro SD cards are too small to be taken out each time you want to move your images to your computer. The camera manufacturer should label this new slot as "removable upgradeable internal storage" and say the proper way to use it is as a backup only and use the other card, CFexpress now, for removing from the camera to transfer to the computer. The proper way to use the "removable upgradeable internal storage" is to not remove it to transfer files to your computer but to simply reformat it when files have been transferred by the other card and backed up through your computer. What would it cost to add this option? Maybe $40? Most people would gladly pay that if they were given a choice.

    Of course, I am not arguing this system should be used as a replacement for a Z body with two CFexpress card slots as I think we will see in the Z8 or 9 which should be out in 2020. In fact, I am eagerly awaiting a "proper" Z body with a build-in or add-on "proper" hand grip and two card slots. I am saying Nikon should look into such a microSD card use option for the Z6, Z7 and Z50 version 2.0 which they are designing now and will be out in 2021 or later. It solves a complaint without changing body size.

    Finally, if such a micro SD "removable upgradeable internal storage" can be added for only $40 I would like to see it added to all bodies, even those with two card slots. People could sent video to one, jpegs to another and RAW to the third on board storage option. Or RAW to one card, jpeg to the second card and backup of both cards to the microSD card. Just an idea to think about.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,092Member
    It costs more because of how manufacturing costing works. Everything you add has to have margin attached to it. You don't add something that costs you $100 and then just increase the retail price by $100.

    The other issue is cost of inventory and volume. Mass market standalone memory turns over very quickly in the market, and has extremely high volume compared to any ILC camera. Both of those help cost wise. Whereas cameras are low volume products, and it can be much longer between when Nikon has to pay for the components and they finally realize the revenue by selling the camera.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,366Member
    Manufacturers pay less than retail, like between 25-30%, so that’s not the real issue. For the end user to cost would likely be equal to retail. The real issue for the end user is not the up front cost, but repair cost. When the built in storage fails, and it will, the entire daughter card it is built into will need to be replaced. That could be a very costly repair, since the board would likely have many other components, far more so than replacing removable storage. That means sending the camera in, and you’d have to because that camera would most likely lock up and be useless.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,092Member
    Well then how come phones tablets etc. charge far more than the retail price for internal memory upgrades? Part of it is "because they can" but it does increase the BOM cost significantly.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    Yes, I have always felt the upcharge for more memory in a cellphone is a scam. It doesn't cost them a fraction of what they charge for it. The hard wiring is already done. It is just the substitution of one chip for another one of the approximate same size.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,366Member
    Most phones cost less than half the retail cost to make, but you also have to account for R&D of the cameras, lenses, other hardware, software/hardware licenses to patent holders that goes beyond the hardware cost, (such as Qualcomm, which charges a licence fee per modem), software development (The OS and future software updates), marketing, packaging, shipping, and all the other things that happen before it gets into your hands. I’m sure even after that there is still a healthy 35-40% markup depending on the brand.

    For camera makers getting flash memory is no problem, the cameras firmware is already loaded onto a flash memory chip onboard. They would just need a larger or secondary chip for internal storage. Some of you might not remember, but many early digital cameras, not DSLRs mind you, did have internal flash memory, in addition to an SD or CF card slot. Typically the internal memory was 128-256MB, which was fine with a 2MP sensor. When sensors started getting over 6-8MP they stopped putting them in because it would only hold a few pictures, and at the time flash memory was very expensive per gigabyte.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    I don't think we will ever see an SD card, or SSD, in a Nikon body. It is just an idea based upon the relatively cheap memory cell phone use of microSD cards has created.
    Nikon must have considered those obvious options long ago and rejected them for good reasons. What we will see is two CFexpress card slots in a couple of larger Z bodies (Z8, Z9) and people will have to choose between the smaller (Z30?, Z50, Z70?, Z3?, Z5, Z7) and the two larger Z bodies. Someday the top of the line D6 body will transition to a mirrorless body. I don't know what Z naming convention Nikon will use for that line. Also, Nikon is going to have to have some way of naming the iterations. For example, a Z6 update will be what? Z6.1? So far FX bodies have a single digit and DX bodies have a double digit. What next for updates? A D50 could become a D51 but a Z6 cannot become a Z61 without confusing the FX vs. DX naming distinction.
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    One thing is certain though. Whatever it would cost Nikon to add internal storage to a camera you can bet it'll add two or three times as much to the MSRP.
    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,536Member
    I think the second Z6 will be a Z6:1. Then you can have a Z6:10, Z6:11 etc.
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 978Member
    edited January 2020
    They should have a Nikon Kit Option to add a set of lens hoods and rear black caps to the Z50 and two kit lens, although B&H photo and video may well be able to do the same thing at a better price and not call attention to the cheater effect of Nikon trying to achieve a consumer price point. Nikon also would be very smart to introduce similar sensible kit lens which have modest apertures, the Noct lens may sell at such a high price, but these two Z50 kit lens will probably make more money for Nikon. They are good enough quality to get considerable usage. Might be even interesting to see what a 250 to 500 f5.6 or variable from f4.5 to f6.3 or in that vicinity might run and I think it would be popular. There are travel situations that would suggest the need for a quite long lens reach much like used on the considerably lesser P900s fleet
    Post edited by DaveyJ on
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 978Member
    edited January 2020
    Has anyone seen a Nikon Z50 sized camera bag that would work for just the Z50 and the 16-50 kit lens? I guess it might have to be one like the belt cases Donald DeJose posted? Nikon sent me a blue woman’s bag from their website which seems more like a bigger purse and was very far from my request. For street carry I rarely use the longer lens. Thom Hogan is going to rate the 16-50 as great, and the 50-250 as quite good! At least that’s what I think he will do? My prediction is based on his initial statement and my own conclusion after using them.
    Post edited by DaveyJ on
  • rmprmp Posts: 568Member
    When will Z50 get image stabilization?
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,536Member
    Never RMP, it is too small for the mechanism too fit. It is the reason the DX zooms have VR.

    You might be interested in seeing what the Z70 will look like. I suspect that will be a Z6 with a DX sensor (mirrorless version of D500).

    I hope they bring out a full frame version of the Z50 (Z5) and that will be too small for IS. I then hope the compact primes on the roadmap have VR. I would prefer 2.8 primes with VR to 2.0 primes without VR. For the type of use I have in mind (full frame in the smallest possible package) that would be the perfect package.
Sign In or Register to comment.