# Nikon has advantage of being #2



## RGF (Aug 23, 2018)

As #2 Nikon can afford to be bold with their new products. Look at the Z7, it competes with the D850. They are not afraid to have the Z7 steal business from the D850. Plus the Z7 will steal business from Canon.

Canon on the other hand protects their products from each. They provide clear points of difference between each body. I wonder what they will do with the new ML? Will it compete (and exceed) the 5D M4 or 5DSR? Or will they cripple the camera is some critical way.

I think has made some great products but currently they are too conservative. They seem afraid that a new product will eat an existing products lunch. Well if theIr ML products are too cripple to product the 5D M4, 5DSR or 1Dx M2, they will fail. And to some extend Nikon will steal business from Canon.

So what is this. A plea to Canon, do your best. If the Z7 can shot 45.7MP at 9 FPS, then the next generation of 1DX or D6 should be able to shoot 30 MP at 12 FPS. Go for it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 23, 2018)

RGF said:


> As #2 Nikon can afford to be bold with their new products. Look at the Z7, it competes with the D850. They are not afraid to have the Z7 steal business from the D850. Plus the Z7 will steal business from Canon.
> 
> Canon on the other hand protects their products from each. They provide clear points of difference between each body. I wonder what they will do with the new ML? Will it compete (and exceed) the 5D M4 or 5DSR? Or will they cripple the camera is some critical way.
> 
> ...



If anything, Nikon has to be bold because its share has decreased over the years. It has ceded the compact camera market, it was a no-show with its DLs, its key mission was a flop. Nikon needs the Zs to be a success.


----------



## amorse (Aug 23, 2018)

RGF said:


> As #2 Nikon can afford to be bold with their new products. Look at the Z7, it competes with the D850. They are not afraid to have the Z7 steal business from the D850. Plus the Z7 will steal business from Canon.
> 
> Canon on the other hand protects their products from each. They provide clear points of difference between each body. I wonder what they will do with the new ML? Will it compete (and exceed) the 5D M4 or 5DSR? Or will they cripple the camera is some critical way.
> 
> ...


To be fair, I'm not convinced that the Z7 will compete with the D850 in a few key places, so I'm not sure this will fully cannibalize the D850. Some of the places the D850 maintains an advantage include:

Z7 has one card slot, D850 has 2
Z7 battery rated for 330 shots, D850 rated for 1840 shots
Z7 autofocus down to -3EV, D850 down to -4EV
Some of those are big differences and could make a very big difference to a working professional. If I was a Nikon user who didn't need mirrorless, I'd choose the D850 first. Considering that Nikon has noted that their mirrorless line is intended to compliment their DSLR line, you could suggest that some of these features were left out to prevent cannibalization - at least single card slot vs double. Even the D750 has double card slots.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 23, 2018)

RGF said:


> As #2 Nikon can afford to be bold with their new products. Look at the Z7, it competes with the D850. They are not afraid to have the Z7 steal business from the D850.



Let's unpack that, shall we? 

D850 was given two card slots. Z7 was given one slot.​​D850 legitimately delivers the 9 fps it advertises. The Z7 is only 5.5 fps unless you want to lock exposure after the first frame.​​D850 has a 14 bit uncompressed RAW buffer of 51 shots. The Z7's buffer is only 18 shots deep.​​D850 is CIPA rated for 1850 shots per charge. The Z7 is rated for 330.​​D850 works with just about every F mount lens there is. The Z7 adaptor has aperture control but not AF control for older lenses (from what I've read).​​D850 has the AF rated for -4 EV sensitivity. The Z7 can deliver -4 EV in 'low light mode' (which has not been defined to us yet, may have lens requirements), "-3EV on lenses with apertures of F2 and faster", and -1 EV if not. (All kinds of conflicting verbiage on this is circulating right now)​
*And that's just what we know today. *When the manual drops, reviews come in, etc., the real fine print is going to surface.

Personally, I don't know if this is 'nerfing', a prioritization on a smaller form factor, or (quite possibly) Nikon can't do all the sensor heavy lifting that Sony can and this is the best they could do. But the D850 is a roundly and comprehensively impressive professional instrument, while this Z7 looks like it's trying to fool all of us into thinking that it's a sleeper D850 in a smaller package. With all the fine print going on, it looks more like something between an A7R1 and A7R2 to me.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 23, 2018)

RGF said:


> Plus the Z7 will steal business from Canon.



Now let's talk about stealing business from Canon. How/why would it succeed there?

The '45 x 9' argument. Not really a unique selling point to the Z7. The A9, A99 II, D850, A7R3 already deliver this neighborhood of throughput. Throughput matters, Canon needs to improve here for sure, but we have little data saying Canon is getting hammered in the market over throughput. Most believe Sony's surge in FF sales in the US is more about a $1999 A7 III than the selling power of a 'supercamera', remember the A7 III only has about half the throughput as the 5 supercameras listed above.


IBIS. If Canon doesn't go with IBIS, 'there's something there' there. Some folks really want it -- either for adapting older lenses, video, a stabilized EVF, and possibly to keep lens prices down. But again, this is not a unique selling point to the Z line. A7/A9 has this as well.


Small size. Canon will only get undercut for small size if they only release a full EF mount platform, which I doubt is going to happen.


Comically big f/0.95 glass. The big one they are showing off is manual focus only, practically a Nikon Otus, if you will. That's a very niche opportunity for some.
Don't get me wrong, there are Canon folks on this very forum that have already pre-ordered Z7s. People will buy it. But it is overwhelmingly being offered to protect against further A7 defections and (principally) to get the Nikon SLR owning faithful to buy another $3k camera. Canon is going to aim it's FF mirrorless at its own people first as well -- they are far and away the easiest sale.

I'll worry about Nikon stealing large numbers of Canonites when Nikon offers an EF to Z adaptor and demonstrates its AF efficacy with L lenses, aka the Z7 II and Z6 II models in a few years. 

- A


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2018)

RGF said:


> So what is this. A plea to Canon, do your best. If the Z7 can shot 45.7MP at 9 FPS, then the next generation of 1DX or D6 should be able to shoot 30 MP at 12 FPS. Go for it.



As I have just written in another thread, 9fps locks focus on the first shot and you have to drop to 5.5fps to get continuous AF - that's less than a 5DIV and marginally above a 5DS. Sony A9 does 20fps and A7RII and A7III 10fps with continuous AF. Nikon is far behind Sony.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 23, 2018)

AlanF said:


> As I have just written in another thread, 9fps locks focus on the first shot and you have to drop to 5.5fps to get continuous AF - that's less than a 5DIV and marginally above a 5DS. Sony A9 does 20fps and A7RII and A7III 10fps with continuous AF. Nikon is far behind Sony.



I've heard it slightly differently -- AF isn't rate limiting, but _AE_ is. So I'm reading that if you shoot in (in Canon speak) M mode, you can have 9 fps with AF, but if you want auto-exposure (Av in my case is commonly used), it will downshift to 5.5 fps.

From DPReview:

"The Z 7 can shoot bursts at 9 fps with full autofocus but with exposure locked on the first shot, or at 5.5 fps with with continuous exposure and focus."

- A


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2018)

True. But, it's odd that the AF can react fast enough but not the AE. With the Olympus OMD E-M1 it was the AF that locked.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

AlanF said:


> True. But, it's odd that the AF can react fast enough but not the AE.



I find that very weird too. Would really have thought AF to be way more challenging/computation intense than exposure metering.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> D850 legitimately delivers the 9 fps it advertises.​​


​
D850 can do 9fps but only with grip and larger battery. 


> Stated properly, the D850 is a 7 fps camera, the Z6 is a 9 fps camera, the Z7 is a 5.5 fps camera.


https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-post-z-discussion-begin.html


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 24, 2018)

RGF said:


> As #2 Nikon can afford to be bold with their new products. Look at the Z7, it competes with the D850. They are not afraid to have the Z7 steal business from the D850. Plus the Z7 will steal business from Canon.



Nikon are offering two different cameras to attract two different buyers. If they are approximately the same price - WHY would Nikon care which one you buy???

By utilizing some of the components developed for the D850 in the new Z7, is could also reduce the R&D costs, so win/win. 



RGF said:


> Canon on the other hand protects their products from each. They provide clear points of difference between each body. I wonder what they will do with the new ML? Will it compete (and exceed) the 5D M4 or 5DSR? Or will they cripple the camera is some critical way.


Canon will identify their target market, and design a camera to appeal to that. That is all. If it ends up being a better value proposition than the 5D4... then maybe people who purchased the 5D4 will also buy the new camera. How is that bad for Canon???


----------



## RobbieHat (Aug 24, 2018)

What won't make me happy is if Canon release their mirrorless option and it is just the 5DS (or SR) dumbed down into a smaller body with all the sacrifices Nikon made to fit the form factor (fewer FPS, one card slot, etc.). I like the 5DSR but it needs better DR, better focusing system and more throughput. If these aren't addressed I will continue to sit on the sidelines for that combination in a FF sensor or crop sensor (will buy either or both upon release) so that I can upgrade my 5DSR or acquire a dedicated wildlife rig (7DMIII). 

I am afraid all the attention focused on mirrorless will just further delay the release of those upgrades to 2020 or beyond.


----------



## RGF (Aug 24, 2018)

Thanks for the technical correction. I jumped the gun a bit - did not have all the specs. Z7 does not appear to be D850 replacement but a supplement. For example for actions (D850 w grip or D5/D500 on long glass) and perhaps Z7 on 24-70 for the overview/scenics.

Never-the-less my comments about Nikon being bold and willing to position cameras close to one another, still stands. Nikon appears to be less concerned about one camera cannibalizing another versus Canon which appears to position their cameras further apart.

I have not done study but it seems to me that Nikon introduces more cameras than Canon (especially notable due to the difference in size). I think Canon wins in lenses


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2018)

Interesting to see how Nikon spec'd it's two cameras w.r.t. it's comparable SLR offerings:

In the top segment, Nikon had just released a new DSLR in the D850. So it was a relatively straightforward transcription of the D850 specs into a mirrorless counterpart. They obviously had to give up some things in the size reduction / shift to much more sensor heavy lifting. But for those who simply harp over topline specs to 'peg' a rig's value/level of esteem, this was easy: 45 MP x 9 fps = 'best' (as misplaced as that might be).

But in the next two FF SLR segments down, the D750 is awaiting a refresh and the D610 is an outright neglected child. So Nikon didn't have a clear current blueprint spec-wise for the Z6, and they just had to put their best foot forward while (presumably, with Nikon's habit for good/better/best) not undercutting the appeal/price/prestige of the Z7 above it.

I've heard some people say the Z6 is effectively in the D750 slot, but it's launching at $1999. So I'm wondering if Nikon really wanted to launch the [Z6 and new D760] or [Z6 and new D650] together as the real 'parity in spec' option, but they didn't want an DSLR getting launched at the same time to steal the mirrorless buzz.

So I'm very curious to see if a D760 or D650 arrives at Photokina for them.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2018)

Now, all that said, where does that leave Canon if a FF mirrorless does indeed arrive in the next 3-6 months?

Canon would be sitting squarely in the Z6 situation above. A FF mirrorless Canon camera released in Q1 2019 would have this slate of FF SLRs to resembe, dare I say _mirror_ spec-wise:
​5DS/5DS R would be a full 4 years old at that point​5D4 would be 2.5 years old at that point​6D2 would be almost 2 years old at that point​
So this puts Canon in a pickle. If they...

Clone the specs of whatever SLR Canon wants to logically put this mirrorless rig alongside (unclear which product lines will get a mirrorless equivalent) and fans will freak the eff out about ancient specs and tech


Bring the specs up to date for the various price points (in effect, delight the fans), but this would clearly and directly undercut the DSLR sales -- which Canon strategically doesn't want to do. Canon wants to sell a mirrorless rig to every SLR customer and (in the best case) keep photographers buying an SLR and a mirrorless rig each generation (until mirrors go away).


'Pull a Nissan' and offer mirrorless rigs in price points/feature sets *in between established price points/feature sets*, it could confuse the market, specifically the Canonites they are counting on for initial sales. ('Wait, is this the 5D4 mirrorless equivalent or the 5DS equivalent? I'm going to wait.')
I am genuinely curious what they do. They may do the latter above and then quickly follow with new SLRs to match/best those mirrorless specs, but that only naturally works for the 5DS. Releasing a 5D5 or 6D3 soon would be a huge profitability hit for the 5D4 and 6D2, which were surely planned for a long-ish 4-5 year lifecycle.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2018)

RGF said:


> it seems to me that Nikon introduces more cameras than Canon (especially notable due to the difference in size). I think Canon wins in lenses



Don't believe that's correct. See attached. Canon may not refresh the higher end stuff often, but their sheer number of body introductions is not small.

Nikon does get credit for the D750 creating a good/better/best setup to choose from (leaving out the grip sports rigs, of course). The 5D3 sort of fell into that spot for a while in its later years, but that wasn't Canon's strategy at launch.

Nikon _seems_ to refresh the sexy FF bits more often than Canon (and for general cycle times they are a hair quicker), but consider:

The D800 / D800E / D810 were a mad mad push to market that they won't ever do again. I still don't get the rationale for all three cameras coming out so quickly together.


The D600 / D610 was not a new model, it was a shameful fix. Calling it a D610 was a way to stop current D600 sales from ongoing and increasing their litigation exposure while they weren't (at that time) fixing the D600s problems. One of Nikon's weakest periods of leadership.


The D500 market segment was left to die for what seemed like two full cycles, and they appear to be doing that again with the D610 slot. So enjoy your sweet new camera in the price point you want, but it might not ever get refreshed.
So it can be a little smoke and mirrors with them. Canon, on the other hand, rarely has that steaming turd of a new ILC product line that has them abandon things (one could argue the 760D --> 77D is one example, but that might be more a segmentation/naming problem than a product appeal problem). They launch something, support it, and before too long it gets a refresh because all of them (appear to be) succeeding financially.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> D850 can do 9fps but only with grip and larger battery.



Of course, but the D850 is at least honorable / up front about it, and then it delivers what they say. That's how Canon and Nikon do business. Fine print was always the scourge of Sony, and after the world called them out on it, it was (largely) purged by the time the A7 III models came out. Advertised fps + uncompressed RAW + mechanical shutter could finally happen at the same time and Sony could finally say that they were wearing big boy pants like all the other kids at school. 

So this is a setback for Nikon, IMHO. How many people will buy the N7 thinking they'll actually get 45 x 9 performance? And the manual hasn't dropped yet to my knowledge. It may be a hornet's nest of 'working fps varies as a function of compressed vs. uncompressed RAW, if you want AF or AE, if you are gripped, if you believe in ghosts, etc.

I think if the Z7 was 45 x 6 with no strings attached (everything working, full RAW, AF, AE, etc.) folks would understand. Especially with 24 x 12 9 (excuse me, same problem with the Z6) speedier option also available.

I really hope Canon doesn't fall suit here with basic throughput. Keep it simple, keep it modest, and 1000% deliver what you advertise.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

+1 I also much prefer honest specs without footnotes and caveats.

However, if I had to take a compromise I'd consider 
1) fast fps + AF with AE locked much better than 
2) fast fps with AE and no AF-tracking. 
Slightly off exposure can easily be fixed in post. Out of focus captures ... not.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> +1 I also prefer honst specs without footnotes and caveats.
> However, if I had to take a compromise I'd consider fast fps + AF with AE locked much better than fast fps with AE and no AF-tracking. Slightly off exposure can easily be fixed in post. Out of focus captures ... not.



...unless you are a guy who generally shoots Av like me. I need all of it. Focus + AE.

But in fairness, 5.5 fps is only a hair under my 5D3's 6 fps, which I rarely fully put to task in what I shoot.

I guess I just bristle at folks fawning over throughput at time of announcement that they will never realize without big concessions: 'My future Ferrari will go 200 mph if I take my hands off the steering wheel after 120 mph. Wooooooo!' 

- A


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ...unless you are a guy who generally shoots Av like me. I need all of it. Focus + AE.


Don't you AE-lock and recompose anyway?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Don't you AE-lock and recompose anyway?




_When shooting in burst?! _ No.

Sure, there's a time for locking AE, but leaning on the shutter at max fps is not the time to do it. You either shoot M* or you don't. If you don't, you need to run the AE calculations every frame or (for instance) a panning shot over a varying lightness background (sports, wildlife, etc.) will be a hot mess exposure-wise.

*And I don't own a 1-series camera but I _believe_ some of them still do the metering/AE lift in the background in M mode (if you love auto ISO, EC, etc.)

I'm not saying the Z6/Z7's max fps is useless, I'm saying it's conditional based on settings. Right now we know one of those conditions to be AE working with each frame. We might also find in the manual that you only get it with JPG or compressed RAW. I would rather just be told 6-7 fps in all use cases than have my framerate have to be something that I game/tune to get what I want, but (in fairness) others might like that level of tribal lore and tinkering.

(Folks: Am I completely high for thinking conditional FPS / 'we say X fps but it's really way less than X in practice' is dumb? I'll get off my horse if so.)

- A


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> _When shooting in burst?! _ No.
> 
> Sure, there's a time for locking AE, but leaning on the shutter at max fps is not the time to do it. You either shoot M* or you don't. If you don't, you need to run the AE calculations every frame or (for instance) a panning shot over a varying lightness background (sports, wildlife, etc.) will be a hot mess exposure-wise.


I think it's quite a rare situation when your _subject_ - or the details in the background you want to keep - is unpredictably illuminated during burst shots.



ahsanford said:


> (Folks: Am I completely high for thinking conditional FPS / 'we say X fps but it's really way less than X in practice' is dumb? I'll get off my horse if so.)


I am personally not a sports photographer, but I think than when you are shooting an artificially illuminated soccer field, you can as well shoot JPEGs in M, if that gives you +50% increase in FPS.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2018)

Kit. said:


> I think it's quite a rare situation when your _subject_ - or the details in the background you want to keep - is unpredictably illuminated during burst shots.



The problem is the metering. When panning a bird in flight, or a runner they can have a background of deep shadow one moment and bright background literally the next.
When shooting a wedding do you really want to be recalculating exposure depending on how much of the bride's white dress is in the frame?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> The problem is the metering. When panning a bird in flight, or a runner they can have a background of deep shadow one moment and bright background literally the next.
> When shooting a wedding do you really want to be recalculating exposure depending on how much of the bride's white dress is in the frame?


That's what I'm trying to say. When panning in a burst over a variable-lightness background with continuing AE metering, it's harder to negotiate with the camera exposure AI what exposure _you_ think is proper, than if you prenegotiate the exposure on a more predictable scene and then AE-lock the result.

And in the case of most sports, it is not even needed, because the lighting is already setup for you (and everyone else) to be predictable.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 25, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Folks: Am I completely high for thinking conditional FPS / 'we say X fps but it's really way less than X in practice' is dumb? I'll get off my horse if so.
> - A



hmmm ... i also dislike advertising containing phrases like
* flight to Berlin "starting from only 29 €" ... and when i jump at it and want to book it, i am asked 239 €
* or a camera with "up to 330 shots on a single battery charge", but every time i use it i have to swap batteries after only 220 to 310 shots? ;-)

BUT! ... on the other hand, if a camera can honestly shoot at 9 fps under certain conditions which are ok for many/most use cases but only 5.5 fps under all conditions and all use cases ... should the maker not be allowed to say "shoots (up to) 9fps" and an asterisk footnote to explain the "up to"?

the cat is grey, not black or white - as so often in life.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 25, 2018)

another situation where i would not like to lose AE during bursts is in concerts ... when stage lighting goes from dim moody blue to 10.000 watts glaring orange while i shoot short bursts of the singer (or the entire band) to have a number of images to chose the best from afterwards? granted, 5.5 fps may also suffice for that, but yet ... again not a dealbreaker to me, but definitely something to be aware of.

on that note: do z6/7 have anti-flicker feature?


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2018)

RGF said:


> As #2 Nikon can afford to be bold with their new products. Look at the Z7, it competes with the D850. They are not afraid to have the Z7 steal business from the D850. Plus the Z7 will steal business from Canon.
> 
> Canon on the other hand protects their products from each. They provide clear points of difference between each body. I wonder what they will do with the new ML? Will it compete (and exceed) the 5D M4 or 5DSR? Or will they cripple the camera is some critical way.
> 
> ...



This is just more market diversification. And I don't think it is any different than Canon, if they really are working on their own FF mirrorless. It's a new competitive market. Some people just plain and simply do not want a DSLR, and FF mirrorless has been dominated by Sony for a while. Canon, Nikon and even Panasonic it seems are now entering the FF mirrorless market. Even if it does "compete" with the D850, it will still bring in new business for Nikon, because there are many die-hard Nikon fans who want mirrorless FF, and would LOVE to have it from Nikon. It should be a growth opportunity for them more than anything. 

There are some things I will only do with a DSLR. There are other things I really only care to do with mirrorless. Lot of times a DSLR is just way too bulky. Lot of times an EVF is so much more useful than an optical viewfinder (and it's odd for me to say that, as there was a time I wouldn't touch an EVF with a 10 foot pole...but they finally came of age, I guess. ). I would even offer that people could easily buy and own both Nikon D-series and Z-series cameras at the same time, as they are not necessarily mutually exclusive products. Same thing goes for Canon DSLRs and Mirrorless, or Sony DSLRs and Mirrorless.


----------

