TBH I’m not sure if the next gen Z’s will match the D5 or D500 in terms of AF, let alone an AF update. If they match the D850 that’s be fine for me though.
I’d expect price to be £4.5-5k though.
Of course, this is all just pure speculation on my behalf
Tbh I’m only judging it on the A9/A9-II price. The D6 should be a beast
To be fair it’s a great first attempt from Nikon, don’t forget it’s taken Sony 3-4 generations to get it right in terms of AF performance. IIRC it wasn’t until the 3rd gen that they introduced dual slots.
When my kids were toddlers it was manual focus with a Nikon FM. If the brats dared move they’d get a clip round the ear. (Only joking. Ish.)
Whilst I agree from a consumer point of view I'm not sure it makes a good business model. If they make "the perfect camera" (if there's such a thing) then how will they sell future models. It's a "what a consumer wants" vs a "business model".
TBH I think all camera manufacturers are guilty of this, and most likely for the reason I just gave Cagey. Making a camera from scratch that as Nikon have billed themselves as a "Pro Camera" with only one card slot is crazy, and has been deliberately designed that way. Not enough room for two? Well they could've made the camera a few mm thicker, it was designed from scratch. Or why not just use 2 x UHS-II? You say that the A7iii caught them by surprise, but the A7RIII didn't and I'd argue that the A7RIII's AF is still slightly better.
Absolutely, I don’t think any of us ‘need’ the tech in modern cameras but we often think we do
Is it a great first attempt though! I said it at the time of the release of their FF mirrorless cameras that Nikon and Canon had years to get ready for market, and by biding their time, they should have at least had cameras that matched what Sony had, but hopefully exceeded what they had on the market, and for me they didn't, and were still lagging. Given the pace that Sony release cameras, it is likely that they could be another generation behind when they release more cameras, always playing catch up.
It is no good leaving things out for the future releases, if what you have put out isn't seen as good enough alternative to those with no allegiances brand wise. And that is assuming that they have stuff to leave out. Maybe that is as good as Nikon (and Canon) can do atm.
ergonomics.Is it a great first attempt though! I said it at the time of the release of their FF mirrorless cameras that Nikon and Canon had years to get ready for market, and by biding their time, they should have at least had cameras that matched what Sony had, but hopefully exceeded what they had on the market, and for me they didn't, and were still lagging. Given the pace that Sony release cameras, it is likely that they could be another generation behind when they release more cameras, always playing catch up.
It is no good leaving things out for the future releases, if what you have put out isn't seen as good enough alternative to those with no allegiances brand wise. And that is assuming that they have stuff to leave out. Maybe that is as good as Nikon (and Canon) can do atm.
Nikon and Canon were always going to sell well initially to their loyal bases who wanted FF mirrorless, and had been waiting patiently, but they have to appeal beyond that. Because Sony have had such a head start, and all the native lenses they now have in comparison to Nikon and Canon, and the sensor and AF advantage they have, I would find it hard to recommend anyone not go Sony other than the usual advice of try and feel the cameras you are interested in first to see whether you get on with the ergonomics. Ergonomics may be a selling point for some, but Sony have proved that if the camera/system is good as a whole, people will put up with 'not the best'
Sony certainly have a lot going for them, especially in tech terms, they are impressive. That being said I’ve tried them several times and they’re just not for me.Is it a great first attempt though! I said it at the time of the release of their FF mirrorless cameras that Nikon and Canon had years to get ready for market, and by biding their time, they should have at least had cameras that matched what Sony had, but hopefully exceeded what they had on the market, and for me they didn't, and were still lagging. Given the pace that Sony release cameras, it is likely that they could be another generation behind when they release more cameras, always playing catch up.
It is no good leaving things out for the future releases, if what you have put out isn't seen as good enough alternative to those with no allegiances brand wise. And that is assuming that they have stuff to leave out. Maybe that is as good as Nikon (and Canon) can do atm.
Nikon and Canon were always going to sell well initially to their loyal bases who wanted FF mirrorless, and had been waiting patiently, but they have to appeal beyond that. Because Sony have had such a head start, and all the native lenses they now have in comparison to Nikon and Canon, and the sensor and AF advantage they have, I would find it hard to recommend anyone not go Sony other than the usual advice of try and feel the cameras you are interested in first to see whether you get on with the ergonomics. Ergonomics may be a selling point for some, but Sony have proved that if the camera/system is good as a whole, people will put up with 'not the best'
It’s different for everyone, which is why there’s no one camera for everyone. For me it’s the whole package, the IQ, AF, build, ergonomics, quality of the screen etc etc.
Don’t get me wrong, I get GAS for tech sometimes but if I’m being honest with myself that alone doesn’t give me longevity with gear.It’s different for everyone, which is why there’s no one camera for everyone. For me it’s the whole package, the IQ, AF, build, ergonomics, quality of the screen etc etc.
I like things that ‘feel’ quality. It’s like phones, Samsung and Huwaii (or however it’s spelt) have tech that’s better than the iPhone but the iPhone just ‘feels’ a better product imo.
I understand it’s different if people are paying or relying on your shots but for me it’s a hobby so I prefer something that’s nice to use over the latest and greatest tech
Lol.
snerkler has been diseased, spending way too much time in 'that' thread
They're not bad tbh. I don't mind flirting with the idea of buying other gear as I have the ability to say know if it doesn't add up
You've been poisoned! :O
Lol, just kidding obviously, no harm in looking at other options. It's all just gear end of the day, what you do with it counts most
Very true. I'm always looking, always have and sure I always will. I've been lucky that I've owned some really nice gear, and have been able to swap and change how I have. I've very nearly gone back to Sony a few times over the years, and this time was no exception. I think if I could have got my fingers between the grip and lens properly on the A9 I could well have swapped as it would have just about been affordable. The A9-II is just not an option.You've been poisoned! :O
Lol, just kidding obviously, no harm in looking at other options. It's all just gear end of the day, what you do with it counts most
Very true. I'm always looking, always have and sure I always will. I've been lucky that I've owned some really nice gear, and have been able to swap and change how I have. I've very nearly gone back to Sony a few times over the years, and this time was no exception. I think if I could have got my fingers between the grip and lens properly on the A9 I could well have swapped as it would have just about been affordable. The A9-II is just not an option.
But all that being said I could have ended up regretting it as there's so many things about the Nikon that I prefer. Also, I'm sure Nikon will get there and if I'd gone to the dark side I'd have ended up with a camera that doesn't feel as nice to use with no better/only marginally better performance and would be wanting to swap back to Nikon again
Part of me thinks I may have jumped into the Z system too early as the AF system isn't there yet, and maybe I should have stuck with the D850 for a while, but at the end of the day I do prefer using the Z7 so I don't really have any regrets 'as a package'. The only reason I've been feeling like this is due to the new puppy, the speed of acquisition and therefore the speed that you can start shooting is definitely not there on the Z7. For example yesterday my puppy came running round the side of the house and I went to take the shot, but I pressed the shutter and nothing happened as the camera hadn't acquired focus, by which time she'd run right up to me and the moment was gone. The D850 would have got the shot. It's clearly not the end of the world, I did get some shote and there'll be plenty more photos opportunities, I'm just using it as an example of where the Z7 isn't quite there yet.
Think you've misunderstood. The camera was on already and ready to go, puppy ran around the corner, raised the camera to take the shot but the AF didn't acquire focus fast enough and it wouldn't take the shot (I always have my cameras set to focus release)
