Z6 ii and Z7 ii

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

Something will become mainstream and SD is not that something. Today the best candidate for that something is CF Express. If that something is something else, it will have most of the cons of CF Express with all the same complaints. A solution with the same capabilities as CF Express (call it CFExpress class) is essential if cameras are going to handle the demands of solutions that require faster sensor read times and faster processors.

For this reason, Nikon is right to be riding the CF Express horse it is riding. I find it annoying that my D850 is being crippled by the SD card and am looking forward to the end of having to deal with that.

If you have a better solution, what is it? In my view, if Nikon stays with SD, a good portion of its users will defect to whoever moves off the SD horse.

This is how I look at it. In my view, a photographic system by capital cost is 10% camera, 10% tripods (not singular - I have 5 at a cost of about $13,000), 20% accessories (cards, bags, batteries, filters etc.) and 60% lenses. The camera is the most ephemeral of these and I regard them as mere "photon detectors" though as others have pointed out, this is not fair of me to say - but I like to say it to drive home the point.

Now everybody will have their own calculus. For some it will be 80% camera and 20% lens. But if you can't afford something that considers the cost of the photographic system, most often you need to re-evaluate how much you are spending on the camera.

Did you know that Sony decided to use CFE, but with a different form factor (the micro version)? Between the CFE-B that Nikon/Canon is using, and the CFE-A that Sony is using, and UHS-2 SD, it's not a given that CFE-B will be the one that becomes main stream. By your logic, betamax would have won the tape battle. BTW, had D850 been released without SD, its sales volume will be way down. Too bad Nikon can't count on you to make up all the difference.

Finally, it's not whether someone can afford it or not. It's whether they see the point of throwing the money at something which they don't perceive to have much value.

WestEndFoto

Yes, I know all about CF A, B and C. And yes, VHS won because it was easier and good enough. This is why I think that CF Express will predominate even if something a little better comes out. CF Express/XQD is the only format better than SD that is likely to be widely adopted, let alone have a prospect of being adopted.

Not sure I agree that sales volume would be way down on the D850 if it had dual XQD. I have never met a D850 owner that did not have a XQD in their slot (I have asked about a dozen through my camera club and classes), though I have met many that did not have SD cards because the card slowed their camera down. And even if that was the case, that was 2017 when XQD was only in two cameras and there were only two or three suppliers. This is 2020/2021 and the situation is shifting as we speak.

Regarding whether something has the value that people need, many won't need a BSI sensor in their Z6 or Z7 and I am sure that upgrading from a FSI to BSI sensor adds several hundred dollars to the cost of a camera. I have not heard any complaints on Nikon Rumours or elsewhere that the 24mp BSI sensor in their Z6 should be downgraded to a 24mp FSI sensor (though some may choose to buy a Z5 now to save some money if they don't care about the benefits of a BSI sensor and a few other things).

So I am saying that a camera has to deliver the goods to its target customer (and Z7 target customers are more and more going to be asking for XQD and CF Express) and customers do not get to cherry pick the individual features of the camera.

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

Yes, I know all about CF A, B and C. And yes, VHS won because it was easier and good enough. This is why I think that CF Express will predominate even if something a little better comes out. CF Express/XQD is the only format better than SD that is likely to be widely adopted, let alone have a prospect of being adopted.

Well, SD has already been main stream. The question is what's going to replace it, whether a completely new form factor or something that's a derivative. There are multiple factors involved. Legacy user base, price, form factor, usage model, performance. And I can tell you performance is the least important of those, by far. Tech history is littered with superior technology losing out to technology coming up from low end. Because performance can always be improved. Form factor, user base, etc can't.

WestEndFoto said:

Not sure I agree that sales volume would be way down on the D850 if it had dual XQD. I have never met a D850 owner that did not have a XQD in their slot (I have asked about a dozen through my camera club and classes), though I have met many that did not have SD cards because the card slowed their camera down. And even if that was the case, that was 2017 when XQD was only in two cameras and there were only two or three suppliers. This is 2020/2021 and the situation is shifting as we speak.

Wow, you must be in a "rich man's camera club". Joking aside, there are multiple D850 owners on this forum. Ask how many of those actually owned an XQD. Symphotic should have it, but he expense all his equipment, so should really be classified as "in your club". Besides he has the Z. Anyone else?

WestEndFoto said:

Regarding whether something has the value that people need, many won't need a BSI sensor in their Z6 or Z7 and I am sure that upgrading from a FSI to BSI sensor adds several hundred dollars to the cost of a camera. I have not heard any complaints on Nikon Rumours or elsewhere that the 24mp BSI sensor in their Z6 should be downgraded to a 24mp FSI sensor (though some may choose to buy a Z5 now to save some money if they don't care about the benefits of a BSI sensor and a few other things).

What are you talking about? You have totally no idea about semiconductor manufacturing, so please don't make things up just trying to substantiate your point. There is probably not much difference at all in the raw cost. I will peg it at $10 per chip if not much less. Just because a chip retails for $500, doesn't mean it costs that much to produce. The actual chip cost is actually a very small part, compared to testing, and assembly, and design, especially for low volume chips.

WestEndFoto said:

So I am saying that a camera has to deliver the goods to its target customer (and Z7 target customers are more and more going to be asking for XQD and CF Express) and customers do not get to cherry pick the individual features of the camera.

Well Canon/Sony has stuck to and never left SD. Nikon left SD, and is now back. I think those facts speak louder than your projection that "if Nikon stays with SD, a good portion of its users will defect to whoever moves off the SD horse." I think the companies have a better pulse on the market expectation than you in this case.

mhedges

WestEndFoto said:

I have never met a D850 owner that did not have a XQD in their slot (I have asked about a dozen through my camera club and classes), though I have met many that did not have SD cards because the card slowed their camera down.

Guess Rockwell wasn't in your club

tc88 said:

Wow, you must be in a "rich man's camera club".

I get that this is a bit of a joke because there aren't exactly a lot of poor man camera clubs, but even given that we are talking about a $3300 camera. The cost of a XQD card or two is not really significant.

tc88 said:

What are you talking about? You have totally no idea about semiconductor manufacturing, so please don't make things up just trying to substantiate your point. There is probably not much difference at all in the raw cost. I will peg it at $10 per chip if not much less. Just because a chip retails for $500, doesn't mean it costs that much to produce. The actual chip cost is actually a very small part, compared to testing, and assembly, and design, especially for low volume chips.

Well I do know something about semiconductor manufacturing after working in the industry for almost 20 years now (good lord has it been that long?). And I will say that yes most chips do not cost much to produce. But typically you have die counts in the thousands to tens of thousands per wafer. You can only get about 45 FF camera sensors on a 300mm wafer. Because of that they are about as far from most chips as possible. Because of the die size the manufacturing cost is very high, both due to the very small number of die per wafer and the susceptibility to yield loss.

Don't forget that it really does not take that much of an increase in the BOM cost to add several hundred dollars to the retail price. The most common ratio I have seen is about 1:4. And for that increase it doesn't matter if the cost was from development or the actual manufacturing cost.

tc88 said:

Well Canon/Sony has stuck and never left SD. Nikon left SD, and is now back. I think those facts speak louder than your projection that "if Nikon stays with SD, a good portion of its users will defect to whoever moves off the SD horse." I think the companies have a better pulse on the market expectation than you in this case.

The much lauded R5 uses CFexpress + SD. SD is really a limiting technology now when you are talking about 40 + MP sensors shooting at high FPS.

I agree there is demand to maintain SD compatibility, especially in the more "everyman" ~24 mp segment. I would still personally prefer dual CFe type b but market wise I think CFe B + Hybrid SD/CFeA is the best current option.

PB_PM

For 15-20 years now people have said JPEG files should be replaced by a better compressed image type, and nothing has managed to do it yet, although it’s coming. I am not debating that, but giving an example how hard it is to change heavily used formats.

Same can be said of the situation with SD cards, the biggest thing against a format change is purely down to how many devices using it. Another is price, SD cards, other than high performance ones, are dirt cheap. Most people aren’t rich, so they like that. It’s going to be hard for anything to overcome that.

WestEndFoto

Regarding BSI vs FSI Cost:

http://www.eetrend.com/files-eetrend/newproduct/201101/100029156-17249-fsi-bsi-whitepaper.pdf

One excerpt:
The higher costs associated with BSI are causing some image sensor manufacturers to initially target high-end, less cost sensitive camera applications. An example is Sony whose BSI sensors primarily target high-end digital video cameras and digital still cameras. One image sensor vendor executive, Bruce Weyer, VP Marketing at OmniVision, had this to say about the higher costs associated with BSI technology, “It typically would carry a higher average selling price. The technology also has more advanced process technology involved with it, so it also carries a little bit higher cost basis as well.”

Another excerpt:
FSI has the advantage of lower cost with equivalent performance when compared to BSI. This cost advantage comes from requiring fewer processing steps, and from achieving the higher yields associated with a more mature manufacturing process. The equivalent imaging performance (for 1.4 micron pixels) is a result of FSI’s lower crosstalk balanced against BSI’s higher quantum efficiency (QE) to generate output images with similar signal to noise ratios (SNR).


And one must add the IP that on FSI, is highly or fully depreciated while BSI is not.

No Rockwell was not in my camera club. But I doubt he actually uses any Nikon cameras. Look at his reviews on lenses like the 14-24, 85 1.4G, 200 macro, 135 DC 2.o and compare them to Nikons reviews he writes today. His reviews are not reviews. They are regurgitations. A bit of a seqway here...…..

I think that MHedges addressed the other issues will.

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

Regarding BSI vs FSI Cost:

http://www.eetrend.com/files-eetrend/newproduct/201101/100029156-17249-fsi-bsi-whitepaper.pdf

One excerpt:
The higher costs associated with BSI are causing some image sensor manufacturers to initially target high-end, less cost sensitive camera applications.

The paper you quoted proves exactly my point. Note it's written in 2010. That's why it was not used in most cameras then because of cost. The only chance for it to become mainstream requires (1) for the cost to come down on par with FSI, (2) backwards compatibility.

(1) It has achieved by now. I'm pretty sure the cost differential between those two types are negligible now 10 years later. Else by your claim, if Nikon can provide a Z6 that's $500 cheaper with a sensor swap that most people wouldn't care, I bet most people will choose the cheaper version (though I don't think your claim is valid in the first place). So unless CFE can achieve a cost that's pretty much on par with SD, it will have a very tough road.

(2) Is a given. It can be incorporated into the camera without practically any change on the camera side. Hypothetically if BSI can only make square sensors, then you bet it won't be adopted regardless of any performance advantage.

One final thing I want to mention, Sony managed to stick CFE-A and SD in a same slot. So effectively you can have two CFE or two SD or 1 each of CFE/SD. The smaller form factor makes me feel CFE-A actually has more potential than the CFE-B.

tc88

mhedges said:

but even given that we are talking about a $3300 camera. The cost of a XQD card or two is not really significant.

I'm just nitpicking here. I usually carry 2-3 256GB SD cards on a week's trip. Assuming I fill up 2 of those, that's $130 for SD and $800 for the other. I think that's significant. Another thing is that the value of the XQD card is tied completely to the camera. If one day I don't have such camera anymore, then those cards become worthless. Not with SD, I can still use those somewhere else.

mhedges said:

Don't forget that it really does not take that much of an increase in the BOM cost to add several hundred dollars to the retail price. The most common ratio I have seen is about 1:4. And for that increase it doesn't matter if the cost was from development or the actual manufacturing cost.

Again nitpicking here. Yes, but that's assuming increase in BOM is associated with increase in design and manufacturing complexity. If your supplier sudden increased a chip cost by $10, you shouldn't increase your total retail price by $40 unless you are extra greedy. In fact, most prices are set by competitive landscape instead of a fixed profit margin. So most companies will just eat that $10 if the final product already costs like $3k.

retread

When I got my D500 I used a SD card while I saved for XQD and SDII cards. 64 GB cards last me as long as I need for most days. I use the SD for backup and am sure it slows me down but has not been a problem as the buffer is deep. All that said I would prefer two CFE-XQD slots to have fewer kinds of cards to carry and keep track of. I now have SD, SDII and XQD cards. SD and SDII do interchange so that helps. When I move up to higher MP cameras and larger files one card fits all, CFE, seems to me to be the way to go. Just my 2 cents worth.

Pistnbroke

someone make me a XQD to SD adaptor so I can use two SD in my D850...yes I know its not possible but I can dream.

WestEndFoto

tc88 said:

mhedges said:

but even given that we are talking about a $3300 camera. The cost of a XQD card or two is not really significant.

I'm just nitpicking here. I usually carry 2-3 256GB SD cards on a week's trip. Assuming I fill up 2 of those, that's $130 for SD and $800 for the other. I think that's significant. Another thing is that the value of the XQD card is tied completely to the camera. If one day I don't have such camera anymore, then those cards become worthless. Not with SD, I can still use those somewhere else.

mhedges said:

Don't forget that it really does not take that much of an increase in the BOM cost to add several hundred dollars to the retail price. The most common ratio I have seen is about 1:4. And for that increase it doesn't matter if the cost was from development or the actual manufacturing cost.

Again nitpicking here. Yes, but that's assuming increase in BOM is associated with increase in design and manufacturing complexity. If your supplier sudden increased a chip cost by $10, you shouldn't increase your total retail price by $40 unless you are extra greedy. In fact, most prices are set by competitive landscape instead of a fixed profit margin. So most companies will just eat that $10 if the final product already costs like $3k.

Sorry, but I am not buying this. Few people will know the exact delta between an FSI and BSI sensor. But BSI sensors are more complicated and difficult to make and spends more time being fabricated. Just looking at a cross section of a schematic will tell you that. And this cost factor is never going to change and again looking at a cross section will tell you why. Yields are also lower - that may change.

Now I am certainly not an expert in this matter. It is my opinion based on what I see knowledgeable people say and write based on my own limited but not irrelevant technical understanding. This is what I am putting my money on. And I do that all the time in my current job - it is part of the job description - making bets and estimates based on advisors and incomplete information.

PS:
And how do you account for the difference in price (and I mean launch price to compare apples to apples) between the Z5 and Z6? Unless there is a significant cost difference between an FSI and BSI sensor, the price difference in the cameras do not add up.

spraynpray

I am not getting the importance of this point. I have an XQD in my D850 and an SD. The only time I need the performance of the XQD is for motorsport when I see an accident is about to happen and I let it rip until it slows. I never get near the end of the buffer other times.

WestEndFoto

spraynpray said:

I am not getting the importance of this point. I have an XQD in my D850 and an SD. The only time I need the performance of the XQD is for motorsport when I see an accident is about to happen and I let it rip until it slows. I never get near the end of the buffer other times.

So my response is "as the customer" and I think there are lots of customers like me:
I shot 2,600 photos on a 4 day vacation last week on my D850 with an XQD and a fast SD. I filled my buffer and went to about three frames per minute about 20 times. I suffer through those 20 times because I want the backup of the second card. It would never have been an issue with two XQD cards and I would pay an extra $500 for a D850 with two XQD in a heartbeat. But instead, I have to suffer with a crippled camera so that people that are too cheap to buy up to date technology are being pandered to. Those cheapskates should buy a D610/Z5, not a Z6 or 7 and absolutely not an 8 or 9.

As an "industry strategist":
Nikon has to find a balance between people like TC88 and I. And I get TC88's position. If you are shooting landscapes, a cheap SD card with a second as backup is just fine. But they are telegramming the message - SD cards are yesterday and XQD/CFExpress is tomorrow and during the transition I live with a crippled D850.

So I bring up the BSI / FSI as an similar issue. BSI has benefits that FSI cannot provide and BSI costs more - or else the Z5 would have a BSI sensor in it capable of offering uncropped 4k video rather than the 1.7 crop 4k it gets with its FSI sensor - any other explanation is non-sensical. BSI sensors offer benefits that FSI sensors don't offer just like CFExpress/XQD offers benefits that SD doesn't offer. People that want those benefits expect to be able to buy cameras that offer them and guess what? Those cameras cost more. If someone wants that particular camera because of some other non-sensor related benefit, then too bad. They don't get to cherry pick. Nikon will make less than 10 camera models. Not the hundred they would need to make if they are going to accommodate the cherry pickers.

Now do you get the importance of this point?

As a side note, I don't think that TC88 is a cheapskate. I see his point and it is reasonable. But if I am in the middle of being frustrated by a slow SD card while shooting my D850, I am cursing Nikon for pandering to cheapskates.

PB_PM

I cannot say I notice any huge difference between XQD and high quality fast SD cards (D850). Cheap brands that got leftovers from the big flash makers, yeah they are bad and slow. So I don’t buy them, simple as that. I get Samsung Pro SD cards, great stuff and it’s lasted for years of heavy use.

Then again I also know that holding the shutter endlessly, even with action, rarely gains much. At least not from a amateur perspective. Even when I shot sporting events I rarely took more than 1000 shots a night (and that was when I was shooting 9FPS), anything more than that led to wasted time sorting later. Never found much use for bursts longer than 10 frames once I got the hang of any new subject.

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

Sorry, but I am not buying this. Few people will know the exact delta between an FSI and BSI sensor. But BSI sensors are more complicated and difficult to make and spends more time being fabricated. Just looking at a cross section of a schematic will tell you that. And this cost factor is never going to change and again looking at a cross section will tell you why. Yields are also lower - that may change

Well, whether you buy it doesn't matter. But the argument is in the first sentence you quoted. In 2010, "The higher costs associated with BSI are causing some image sensor manufacturers to initially target high-end, less cost sensitive camera applications." Now 10 years later, since it is no longer limited to high end and has moved into mainstream unless you call cameras like Z6 high end, the only conclusion I can have is that the cost has come down (which I fully expect given 8-10 years is a long time in semiconductor process development.)

WestEndFoto said:

And how do you account for the difference in price (and I mean launch price to compare apples to apples) between the Z5 and Z6? Unless there is a significant cost difference between an FSI and BSI sensor, the price difference in the cameras do not add up.

You selectively waved off the feature differences as "a few other things". But as I said earlier that the prices are typically set by competitive condition than anything else. Low end and high end products can have very different margins, some can even be loss leaders (though I don't think Z5 is.) Low end products are priced to maintain market and mind shares. That happens from McDonald's to automobiles. Camry and some Lexus share the same engines, but they are priced very differently, and the difference is far more significant than the cost difference would indicate.

WestEndFoto said:

So I bring up the BSI / FSI as an similar issue. BSI has benefits that FSI cannot provide and BSI costs more - or else the Z5 would have a BSI sensor in it capable of offering uncropped 4k video rather than the 1.7 crop 4k it gets with its FSI sensor - any other explanation is non-sensical.

Well actually the video difference is purposely introduced to differentiate the products with fewer overlap than anything to do with the unavoidable limitation caused by the parts.

WestEndFoto said:

I live with a crippled D850. I am in the middle of being frustrated by a slow SD card while shooting my D850, I am cursing Nikon for pandering to cheapskates.

Well, too bad, but obviously all 3 camera makers think you are "small fish" and would rather make sure the bigger customer base is not alienated and pander to cheapskates. But really "crippled" is an inaccurate word since it's not like there's ever a version with non SD slots to start with and then got crippled. That's why I said your best hope is for a special version with dual CFE. But from camera maker point of view, is that a big enough population to spend effort on? Then Nikon doesn't do anything for free. So it probably will charge $400 extra for such version. Now I would think your population will further dwindle when faced with such $400 extra. I would say until your ranks rise to a critical mass, SD will be there for a long time. That's why I have a feeling Sony made a smart move by incorporating CFE-A instead since it can share a same slot as SD, which could also mean CFE-B becomes a dead form factor again, like XQD.

WestEndFoto

Well, whether you buy it doesn't matter. But the argument is in the first sentence you quoted. In 2010, "The higher costs associated with BSI are causing some image sensor manufacturers to initially target high-end, less cost sensitive camera applications." Now 10 years later, since it is no longer limited to high end and has moved into mainstream unless you call cameras like Z6 high end, the only conclusion I can have is that the cost has come down (which I fully expect given 8-10 years is a long time in semiconductor process development.)

I am sure that the cost did come down, but that doesn't mean it is the same or even close (close of course meaning different things to different people).

You selectively waved off the feature differences as "a few other things". But as I said earlier that the prices are typically set by competitive condition than anything else. Low end and high end products can have very different margins, some can even be loss leaders (though I don't think Z5 is.) Low end products are priced to maintain market and mind shares. That happens from McDonald's to automobiles. Camry and some Lexus share the same engines, but they are priced very differently, and the difference is far more significant than the cost difference would indicate.

I believe that the differences between the Z5 and Z6 other than the sensor amount to a "few other things", though collectively perhaps roughly equal to the sensor.

Well actually the video difference is purposely introduced to differentiate the products with fewer overlap than anything to do with the unavoidable limitation caused by the parts.

You really think Nikon crippled 4k video to differentiate their product and that all they have to do is flip a switch to upgrade it but some bean counter has decided not to? If you really think that is what happens, I think you can argue anything.

Well, too bad, but obviously all 3 camera makers think you are "small fish" and would rather make sure the bigger customer base is not alienated and pander to cheapskates. That's why I said your best hope is for a special version with dual CFE. But from camera maker point of view, is that a big enough population to spend effort on? Then Nikon doesn't do anything for free. So it probably will charge $400 extra for such version. Now I would think your population will further dwindle when faced with such $400 extra. I would say until your ranks rise to a critical mass, SD will be there for a long time. That's why I have a feeling Sony made a smart move by incorporating CFE-A instead since it can share a same slot as SD, which could also mean CFE-B becomes a dead form factor again, like XQD.

I am not going to lose sleep over the slow dumb SD card. It is just annoying. And I didn't say that the camera would cost $400, I said that I would pay $500 more and that is an entirely different thing. I suspect the cost for the different camera parts is minimal or zero. Even my slow dumb SD cards cost the same as my XQD cards so no savings there - though I acknowledge if you want a painfully slow dumb SD card, you can save money that way. And I think that you are delusional (OK, that is not fair, but) if you think that CF Express B will become a dead form factor. If I could figure out how to enforce payment, I would bet you $10,000 on that, except that it would cost more than $10,000 to come up with a way to enforce payment.

So let's set up a special "Death of CF Express B" thread and we will make a bet and see how it plays out where all can publicly gauge the result. Game? You can search for the Death of DX thread and see how it is done.

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

So I bring up the BSI / FSI as an similar issue.
Now do you get the importance of this point?

BTW, honestly I don't see analogy between silicon technology and storage formats.

Storage format is an interface standard. The equipment makers need to choose carefully so that the customers are willing to buy into it and buy the matching equipment on the other side so that they can interface. It needs two sides to tango. Otherwise, the equipment is DOA.

BSI/FSI, I would imagine most people don't even know what they mean and as customers that don't care. All they care is the performance, how they are achieved doesn't matter. Equipment makers will just choose the cheapest solution that meets the target requirement. And they can change from one product to another, and one generation to another. So I don't really see the relevance of bringing that up.

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

And I think that you are delusional (OK, that is not fair, but) if you think that CF Express B will become a dead form factor.

Your logic needs to improve, seriously. I never said CFE-B WILL become a dead form factor. I said "COULD also become dead". There is a significant difference between say "something has only 25% chance of winning" and "something is 100% lost". I'm surprised that it's lost on you, or you are purposely misrepresenting it.

WestEndFoto said:

If I could figure out how to enforce payment, I would bet you $10,000 on that, except that it would cost more than $10,000 to come up with a way to enforce payment.

So let's set up a special "Death of CF Express B" thread and we will make a bet and see how it plays out where all can publicly gauge the result. Game? You can search for the Death of DX thread and see how it is done.

Haha, that's very funny. Have you paid out on the DX bet yet? I'm not interested in betting on something that I only have a chance to collect after 10 years, and IF "I could figure out how to enforce payment". BTW, your $10k is just a bluff, nothing more than that. You wouldn't even bet on Nikon stock.

WestEndFoto

tc88 said:

WestEndFoto said:

So I bring up the BSI / FSI as an similar issue.
Now do you get the importance of this point?

BTW, honestly I don't see analogy between silicon technology and storage formats.

Storage format is an interface standard. The equipment makers need to choose carefully so that the customers are willing to buy into it and buy the matching equipment on the other side so that they can interface. It needs two sides to tango. Otherwise, the equipment is DOA.

BSI/FSI, I would imagine most people don't even know what they mean and as customers that don't care. All they care is the performance, how they are achieved doesn't matter. Equipment makers will just choose the cheapest solution that meets the target requirement. And they can change from one product to another, and one generation to another. So I don't really see the relevance of bringing that up.

That is why you don't understand my point.

WestEndFoto

tc88 said:

WestEndFoto said:

And I think that you are delusional (OK, that is not fair, but) if you think that CF Express B will become a dead form factor.

Your logic needs to improve, seriously. I never said CFE-B WILL become a dead form factor. I said "COULD also become dead". There is a significant difference between say "something has only 25% chance of winning" and "something is 100% lost". I'm surprised that it's lost on you, or you are purposely misrepresenting it.

WestEndFoto said:

If I could figure out how to enforce payment, I would bet you $10,000 on that, except that it would cost more than $10,000 to come up with a way to enforce payment.

So let's set up a special "Death of CF Express B" thread and we will make a bet and see how it plays out where all can publicly gauge the result. Game? You can search for the Death of DX thread and see how it is done.

Haha, that's very funny. Have you paid out on the DX bet yet? I'm not interested in betting on something that I only have a chance to collect after 10 years, and IF "I could figure out how to enforce payment". BTW, your $10k is just a bluff, nothing more than that. You wouldn't even bet on Nikon stock.

Well, I was not bluffing because I was not proposing a bet. I was just expressing a desire tempered by sanity.

But screw sanity. My lawyer told me it would most certainly cost less than $3,000 CDN to paper. Here is what I propose. Following is the Offer to Bet.

Beginning Offer to Bet

We split the legal costs 50-50 and I will finance them.

If you win, I pay you $10,000 Canadian Dollars minus half the legal costs to setup the contract (Agreement to Bet) plus reasonable legal and collection costs if I refuse to pay.

If I win, you pay me $10,000 plus half the legal costs to set up the Agreement to Bet plus reasonable legal and collection costs if you refuse to pay.

If I spend any money on legal costs regarding the "Agreement to Bet" and one of us refuses to execute an Agreement to Bet that is consistent with this Offer to Bet, then the one who refuses to execute pays all of the legal costs of setting up the Agreement to Bet plus the reasonable legal and collection costs of enforcing the Offer to Bet.


Between January 1, 2025 and December 31 2028, there will be no Nikon camera launched with a USD MSRP higher than X capable of taking SD cards without an adapter.

X will be the USD MSRP of the body only successor to the Z6. This is likely the "Z6s".

The USD MSRP will be the body only price as expressed on the Nikon USA website on the relevant launch date of the relevant camera or immediately thereafter.

This Offer to Bet is subject to the legal ability in each of our respective jurisdictions to enforce such a bet. If the agreement is unenforceable for this or a similar reason, we agree to split the costs 50/50 and if one of us refuses to pay, we also become liable to the other for the reasonable legal and collection costs.

The process for executing the Agreement to Bet shall be:

1.
We PM each other our name, legal address, telephone number and email address.

2.
We email each other a notarized copy of our government issued photo ID.

3.
I will instruct my lawyer to create a draft Agreement to Bet based on a printout of this Offer to Bet and I will send it to you. You will have 14 days to sign the Agreement to Bet or provide an explanation on why the Agreement to Bet is not materially consistent with the Offer to Bet. If you do not execute the Agreement to Bet I will petition the court to sign the agreement on your behalf and decide who should pay the reasonable legal costs.

You have until Noon, September 30, 2020 EST to accept this Offer to Bet, after which it shall be considered rescinded.

End Offer to Bet

"Offers" are common instruments to decide on the material terms of an agreement without getting into the weeds.

My only advice to you is this. Don't make a bet that you can't afford to lose. I am comfortable with the risk on my side, but if you are not, please feel free to propose a lower amount. But it has to be an amount where we have "skin in the game".

WestEndFoto

PS:
I have not paid on the Death of DX because F-mount DX is not dead yet.

If you are wondering if I am real, PM Symphotic. He can attest that I am real.

snakebunk

I suggest that we don't make bets on this forum because I don't think it helps to make the discussions open and positive. It is also a lousy argument.

Personally I don't have any idea which future cameras will take SD cards. But I guess that it will be gone in the most expensive cameras and present in all other cameras for a long time.

mhedges

Yeah I agree - Not sure bets are helpful. And I think we should move on from this.

When it comes to memory cards the thing I'm curious about (which doesn't really pertain to this thread exactly but still) is will cameras ever stop needing them. Either due to built in storage or using some kind of cloud based service.

WestEndFoto

mhedges said:

Yeah I agree - Not sure bets are helpful. And I think we should move on from this.

When it comes to memory cards the thing I'm curious about (which doesn't really pertain to this thread exactly but still) is will cameras ever stop needing them. Either due to built in storage or using some kind of cloud based service.

I think so. 99% of the province that I live in does not have cell service. But I could see the cheapest cameras ditching them.

photobunny

CF Express and SD Express will be the standard of the next decade. We'll see what happens in 2030 to 2040, most likely world wide blanket 5g coverage.