Nikon officially announced the Z 8, which is aimed squarely at the Canon EOS R5

[David - Sydney]

The R5 was great, but used conventional sensor tech. A stacked sensor cost more money. If Nikon brings a camera to market with a more expensive sensor to manufacture (or buy in their case) at the same or near same cost, they have done something special on the cost front.

Frankly, the tech used is not important as the results. FSI/BSI/BSI-stacked is just the technology but please concentrate on the final measurements for comparison.
Yes, we could expect that a more complex technology costs more... we don't know how much and to what extent it is a significant driver in the end price. You could say in the same breath that the camera should be cheaper because it doesn't have a shutter box.

I don't think its "delusional" to suspect that Canon may be re-thinking there update cycle. I actually think its odd the Canon is rumored to be throwing a number of updates at an older body. This is completely outside of the trend for Canon. And note, scrapping doesn't infer clean sheet, just looking at its plan and making sure it still relevant and setting the necessary changes.

We have made assumptions and forecasts previously about Canon cycle times. Some products have been consistent and others quite different. The R6ii surprised a lot of people so who knows for the future.
Magic Lantern showed what was really possible in the hardware of the 5Diii and the engineers were let off their chains for the R5. There have been lots of firmware updates for the R3/5/6 with new features and bug fixes over the last 3 years. It is also a global phenomenon covering cars, phones, PCs and other devices.

If you really think its a clone, you are missing the gorilla in the room. Additionally, I wholeheartedly see this doing a lot more than just "maintain(ing) its market position". This camera is going to set the tone for this segment of the market.

The Z8 is a clone of the Z9 but in a smaller package. The gorilla in market share is Canon and the current market shows the R5 as being the best value for money body. Sure you can spend more and get more of course but decreasing returns to scale in my opinion.

Nikon makes great gear but if they can't sell enough of it then it will be a shame to lose a competitor. Setting the tone is basically offering a good value for money product and maybe undercutting the competition in price but if it doesn't translate to long term revenue then that is a bigger problem.

 

[David - Sydney]

Yes, that grip is nuts. It makes the ZED 8 gargantuan, and by the time you've bought it and a couple of batteries, you may as well just spend a bit extra and get the ZED 9. I honestly can't see many people buying the grip, but of course if they didn't offer one, everyone and his uncle would be whinging.

tomato, tomato
potato, potato
Nikon, nigh-kon

 

[Maximilian]

So your argument is, "since the AF isn't the best, what good is the camera".... Really?

No, my argument is that the Z8 doesn't get the R5 "hands down", as you said.
I didn't say the Z8 is bad. I didn't say the R5 is better.
My argument is, that the sensor alone doesn't make a good camera.
And I posted here, that the R5 street price is much lower right now than the almost equal equipped Z8.

About sensor performance, here's R5 vs. Z9:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R5,Nikon Z 9

Maybe the Z8 sensor will be better concerning rolling shutter problems.
But I haven't heard much complains about the R5 here either.

BSI makes little to no difference, but the Z8's sensor is STACKED, and that is very different than a non stacked sensor in terms of speed.

And yes, I forgot to type "stacked", but meant to.
But is it really that much to call it

Hands down

?

 

[AlanF]

Open your eyes, wait for real world comparisons, and you'll see that the sensor might be a bit better but not a game changer.

Isn't your motto: "sometimes you have to close your eyes to see properly"?

 

[Maximilian]

Isn't your motto: "sometimes you have to close your eyes to see properly"?

the key word is "sometimes"

 

[entoman]

tomato, tomato
potato, potato
Nikon, nigh-kon

NIKON as in NIKKOR and NIPPON
ZED as in ZEBra

 

[padam]

Just understand, fast sensors enable the makers to engineer less tradeoffs. Rolling shutter is the biggest benefit. Take a shot of a swinging golf club with an R5/R6/R6 II/R7 etc.. and you will see what I'm talking about. Sure, you can shoot it with the mechanical shutter, but now you lose the higher speeds and quiet shutter release options. Or take a shot of a bird that's flying by, in the high speed mode you will be distorting your photo turning straight lines in to diagonals or you be stuck in mechanical shutter with its limitations. Even the R5 and R6 II will still distort regardless if it isn't "that bad". Take a shot of a bird taking off and look at the wing tips, if you are using e-shutter there will be an odd banding. No fix for this issue without using a fast stacked sensor or mechanical shutter. You ever take a photo of a still object only to find as you flip through the photos the still subjects is warping? That's not an issue for a stacked sensor. Also, non-stacked sensors don't easily sync with flashes in e-shutter, honestly not sure if its even possible. The R3's 180 FPS and the Z9's 120 FPS modes are only available because of their ability to move data off the sensor at high speeds. Another example of the benefits of stacked sensors are the higher DR and bit depth in high speed modes.

Let's just look at the other side as well, though:

-There is a small penalty with regards to noise (so the advantage of having ISO 64 is a bit wasted).
-If you take pictures from fast-moving vehicles, there is still a bit of rolling shutter, banding may still occur, too, which probably can't be fully avoided.
-Having a mechanical shutter also means better flash compatibility, 1/250 sync speed or HSS, which electronic shutter can't do.
-The R5's shutter is also quiet to the point of not distracting at all in most scenarios.
-Consumes less power as well, so other things, like EVF can be higher-res.
-Also more difficult to design, either get too limited video in a smaller body like an A1 or bigger size and weight like the Z8/Z9.
-Video does not seem to bring much benefit with Sony or Nikon either, as the ~14.5ms rolling shutter is almost the same as the ~15.5ms on R5 (the R3 is quicker 9.5ms there is an improvement, but there is something different with the processing, as it is still not as good as stills).


Point is: a hypothetical R5II for 3899$ with the current sensor linked to a newer processor will remain more than competitive with the Z8 because a stacked sensor isn't something everyone needs, or just not utilised to its full potential in present cameras just yet.
Where is the computational element to boost dynamic range for instance? Adding skin softening or skin tone accuracy isn't doing much with that sensor. They still use Expeed 7 from 2021 - but processors evolve quicker than sensors...

So, all, in all, just a question of which one prefers: going fully in on newer tech that is not quite there yet, or just go with what the present offers that is fully refined.

 

[neuroanatomist]

ZED as in ZEBra

Sorry, but the correct pronunciation is ZEEEbra.

 

[entoman]

Sorry, but the correct pronunciation is ZEEEbra.

In Africa, they call it the English way

 

[neuroanatomist]

In Africa, they call it the English way

Do you mean the British English way, or the American English way? When I was in Tanzania, they used the long E. YMMV. Or is that YKMV, your kilometeradge may vary? That really rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?

 

[bbasiaga]

BSI makes little to no difference, but the Z8's sensor is STACKED, and that is very different than a non stacked sensor in terms of speed.

I think its akin to how BSI used to make a big difference in noise. Over time, the FSI sensors got to the point where they were equal.

Rolling shutter is not a problem in every action shot in an R6. The R5 readout is faster, so there are fewer shots where it will be an issue. At some point, the read speeds of traditional sensors will be fast enough that the rolling shutter is essential non-existent. At that point the EVF experience may be the differentiator, although that will get closer together as well.

-Brian

 

[AlanF]

Do you mean the British English way, or the American English way? When I was in Tanzania, they used the long E. YMMV. Or is that YKMV, your kilometeradge may vary? That really rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?

The Brits use mph and miles for travel. And we get more mpg than you Yanks with your teeny weeny gallon.

 

[entoman]

Nikon makes great gear but if they can't sell enough of it then it will be a shame to lose a competitor. Setting the tone is basically offering a good value for money product and maybe undercutting the competition in price but if it doesn't translate to long term revenue then that is a bigger problem.

IF Nikon disappeared, it wouldn't be a shame, it would IMO be an absolute tragedy, but don't worry, they *will* sell enough cameras and lenses, so we won't be "losing" Nikon. Actually I don't really see either Nikon or Sony as competitors, I think the 3 brands complement each other, providing different specs, different ergonomics and different prices. That gives us huge choice, and is good for us and the camera manufacturing business in general. Nikon is by no means dooooomed, a company doesn't have to be huge to ensure its continued success.

 

[koenkooi]

[...] Point is: a hypothetical R5II for 3899$ with the current sensor linked to a newer processor will remain more than competitive with the Z8 because a stacked sensor isn't something everyone needs, or just not utilised to its full potential in present cameras just yet.
[...]

Comparing my R8 to my R5, a theoretical R5II with Digic X from the R8/R6II and the associated software would be a significant improvement. Being able to resize and reposition the AF zone and have eye AF and have tracking makes a very big difference for me.

I wouldn't buy such an R5II, but I bet lots of other people would

 

[neuroanatomist]

When looking at the introduction price don't forget the eye-watering inflation of the last years.

The R5 introduction price of 3899 USD in 2020 translates to roughly 4570 USD in today's money. So the Z8 seems like a pretty nice deal in comparison.

In Japan (home currency for both companies), inflation from 2020 to today was ~5%, far less than the ~17% in the US.

 

[Maximilian]

When looking at the introduction price don't forget the eye-watering inflation of the last years.

The R5 introduction price of 3899 USD in 2020 translates to roughly 4570 USD in today's money. So the Z8 seems like a pretty nice deal in comparison.

I wouldn't call anything at such prices a nice deal, even if you won the jackpot or have kidneys to spend.
And the R5 street price dropped, even with that "eye-watering inflation".
What about that nice deal?
Oh, I forgot. The R5 got caught "hands down", as other said.
So the price drop was just because of the lack of competitiveness of that outdated R5. /sarc mode

 

[Czardoom]

I think its akin to how BSI used to make a big difference in noise. Over time, the FSI sensors got to the point where they were equal.

Rolling shutter is not a problem in every action shot in an R6. The R5 readout is faster, so there are fewer shots where it will be an issue. At some point, the read speeds of traditional sensors will be fast enough that the rolling shutter is essential non-existent. At that point the EVF experience may be the differentiator, although that will get closer together as well.

-Brian

I don't believe BSI ever made a big difference in noise, at least when it comes to anything but tiny sensor camera phones. For ILC cameras, BSI seems to make little difference compared to FSI. It has always been more of a marketing gimmick, in my opinion. But based on the number of people who continually criticize Canon for not having BSI in the R5 and most other cameras, never underestimate the power of marketing. Sony would be a minor player in the ILC game if not for their fantastic marketing, in my opinion, and Nikon would still be #2 if not for their poor marketing.

 

[bbasiaga]

I don't believe BSI ever made a big difference in noise, at least when it comes to anything but tiny sensor camera phones. For ILC cameras, BSI seems to make little difference compared to FSI. It has always been more of a marketing gimmick, in my opinion. But based on the number of people who continually criticize Canon for not having BSI in the R5 and most other cameras, never underestimate the power of marketing. Sony would be a minor player in the ILC game if not for their fantastic marketing, in my opinion, and Nikon would still be #2 if not for their poor marketing.

You could be right. Over in the dedicated astrophotography world, the first BSI sensors that came out had much lower read noise - which is very important when most of your image is black. But even that is hard to totally decouple because newer sensors generally have less noise than old ones. Now if you look at even DSLR/MILC CMOS sensors, most of them have 1-2 electrons of read noise regardless of FSI or BSI. The stigma remains though - BSI or bust on your astro cam.

Note that noise is not experienced in the same way in that hobby as it is in low light terrestrial viewing, where signal still dominates noise even in dark subjects.

-Brian

 

[Aaron D]

I really like that floppy screen and wish Canon would adopt one like it. It'd be nice to be able to use it like a waist level finder. Sure you can approximate such a thing with Canon's, but not so much with an L-bracket attached...

 

[Kit.]

But in the action photography realm, fast sensors matter. The R5 will have better AF which taints the action comparison a little, but the Z8 will still be really good, so that's not a deal breaker.

You sound like a camera brand fanboy... or a paid marketer.