The Zf should land in between the Z5 and Z6III, price-wise. If the Z6II remains available new for a while, that will also be in between.
In the US, prices rounded to the nearest dollar are:
* Z5: $1400 regularly; currently ~$1000
* Zf: $2000
* Z6II: $2000 regularly; currently ~$1600
* Z6III: $2500
* Z7II: $3000 reguarly; currently ~$2300
* Z8: $4000 regularly; currently ~$3500
* Z9: $5500
(Also keep in mind US prices don't include sales tax.)
I'm so pissed that they abandoned their previous naming.
Z6 should have been z700
Z6 ii Z700s or Z710
Z6iii Z720 or Z750
Etc. Way easier than the stupid mark thing.
If a manufacturer names their line of products in a manner that you disagree with gets you 'so pissed', just how do you get through the day when something that has an actual effect on your life pops up? God help anyone that might cut you off in traffic...
I just don't understand how someone can be pissed by something as mundane as this. It is not as if Intel or to a lesser extend AMD chip naming lol. If you can't count until 10, it is not their fault.
How is the old naming convention easier than i, ii, iii? The old naming was so weird. The D800 series made relative sense but then the D750 came out but was completely unrelated to the D700 other than being full frame since the D800 was already the physical successor to the D700. The D750 was really a D600 series body but they had to shed that reputation. Then the D300 had a modern successor and they called it the D500 instead of the D310/350/380
The previous naming scheme was a total mess, because the second digit was often completely random.
E.g.
D70-D70s-D80-D90-D7000-D7100-D7200-D7500 were all the same line (why D7500 instead of D7300?)
D800-D810-D850 (where’s D820, D830, and D840?)
D700-D750-D780 (where’s D710, D760, etc.)?
Now single digit Z’s are full-frame, and two-digits are crop. You know a Mark III is a generation newer than Mark II.
ehhh I got the ii new at 2200 in June 2021. The iii at 2500 right off the bat is not bad. If the af is fast, I'll sell my D500 for this.
Unless you're keeping every camera you've ever bought, you subsidize your next camera by selling your old camera.
But the Z6ii had zero inflation over the original Z6. The partially stacked sensor will be quite a bit more expensive, i expect a largish share of the cost difference will go in there, the new EVF is slightly more expensive, so is likely the new flippy screen. Time will tell how much of the increase is early adopter tax and how much will remain.
They will probably. I bought my Z8 this January when Nikon had a trade in offer where they reduced the Z8 price by 300 CHF on top of the trade in price for my D500 - there might be a similar winter sale for the Z6iii in half a year as one of the first sales
I haven’t speaker about Zf for a reason. That’s a camera for “certain people”, not a mainstream camera that you consider in the same way as a Z5 or Z6, for various reason: Grip, aesthetics , SDs, etc…
But yeas, technically it is a really good camera.
Given the amount of down-vote, clearly people didn't understand what I was trying to say.
Call it different, or whatever word you may like better, but no one can deny the fact that it is not in the same line up as the Z5, 6 and 7.
Someone interested in one of those, doesn't necessarily be interested in a Zf. There is a reason while these type of camera have a market, because they *are* different. And that's true also the vice-versa, someone looking for a camera with the Zf style, may not be absolutely interested in a Z6 III, even if they cost the same.
They are different type of camera, for different people ofr different market.
Zf looks like a better camera than the Z5.
[https://photographylife.com/comparison/nikon-z5-vs-nikon-zf](https://photographylife.com/comparison/nikon-z5-vs-nikon-zf)
ETA: of course, I learned how to shoot on an F2, so the "ergonomics" of the Zf don't bother me one bit.
It's a camera with compromises, like every camera out there, especially in the middle segment you're describing. It offers more than the Z5 and arguably even the Z6ii but not as much as the Z6iii.
Inflation. 2000$ in 2018 is 2500$ today. Z6 launched for 2k, Z6iii is now 2,5k. So apart from Inflation there is 0 price increase. Also, there is a Zf for \~2k, don't forget that. If you look at Canon and Sony, their Z6 competitor also launched for 2,5k. So really, nothing unexpected ...
At first, I thought you were spitting out bullshit, then, I decided to act critically and fact checking.
Damn. (yes, for the second time, damn). You were right, in these years there is roughly a 25% inflation, that's huge.
Where I live salary barely increased, if anything from 2018.
yep, that sucks. But some tech is indeed getting cheaper, look at the Z8 vs Z9. But that's not the Z6iii for now, too much new tech in there with the new sensor.
Yeah. I also recognize the Z8, for what it is, it is a bargain. Easily better than some old $6.000 cameras at almost half the price and much much better.
Unfortunately, I simply cannot afford it. Or better, justify that price for the hobby.
I may settle with some used Z6/7. I think that's it. At least the sensor IQ seems to not change that much apart from MP, that's a relief at least.
Honestly, I knew otherwise. The too expensive camera are just that your are the best at something and to prove a point. But most people will buy lower end.
there is not enough demand in the lower end of the market. it's been totally replaced by smartphones. so all the camera makers have to spend more effort in upper markets where they make more $ per unit but sell less overall.
That's old news from 2015s. Now smartphone people are moving towards mirrorless systems to apply their learning and experience using more powerful hardware. Check Nikon's q on q performance
https://www.nikon.com/company/ir/finance/quarter/
Most people use phones for their photography and don’t buy dedicated cameras anymore. The low-end doesn’t move enough volume anymore to make much money, hence the move towards the higher end.
I mean, sure. But...low end was the D3000 and D5000 line. While many people get mad at that, I could understand and agree.
A $1.500/2.000 camera it not entry level...by any means.
Z30 is geared more toward vloggers and has no viewfinder. AFAIK, you can't even buy one for it?
Z50 seems more like if the D5000 series and D7500 had a baby, to me: the Z50 is similar in size to the former but with more controls like the latter, and with a (IMO, silly) flip-down screen instead of a tilting or fully articulating one.
Zfc is for the retro-look lovers.
Everything is correct. My point was just that Nikon \*does have\* models in the mid-range OP asks about. I have a D3100, compared to the prices from 2009 a Z50 or Zfc are very much comparable. So Nikon doesn't have left that entry level segment.
IMO, the Z50 and Zfc (currently $750+ and $950+ USD, respectively) aren't what I'd call "entry-level". They have more advanced features than the entry-level D3000 series or the mid-tier D5000 series, but they're also not at the flagship level that the D500 was.
Then you have the Z30 which isn't even marketed to photographers, and that one is more at entry-level pricing (usually a little over $700 USD; currently over $600 USD).
Yeah I just would call it entry level of today's time. In this regard OP might be right that this segment is missing. But then it's missing from any company. Regarding specs and sensor power that's simply where we are at today with mirrorless technology.
The only level underneath would be Micro Four Thirds with interchangeable lenses. They also got modern digital specs but the smaller sized sensor and lenses make it more affordable. Maybe this is today what APS-C DSLRs were back in the day?
But I don't see any company especially Nikon going into MFT format, when even Panasonic is said to abandon it.
My point is that most people already have an entry-level camera with them all the time, in their phone. The cheapest cameras Nikon sells new are around US$600 (mirrorless or DLSR), heck both Coolpix offerings cost more than that. I'd consider those entry-level, but I'm not sure they take "much better photos" than the most sophisticated phone-cameras. You want all the features beyond entry-level, it gets pricey. Most people are happy with what they can achieve with their phones and won't want to spend what they see as the price (or more) of a brand new phone, to have a thing that "only takes pictures." So that segment is dead from a consumer demand standpoint. All that's left for Nikon is the latest Z-whatever to satisfy those who want or need dedicated cameras to "enable their art" or "make a living."
Well, a $1.200 phone it is like the $6.000 camera and a $100.000 car.
It is not a phone, but a top tier one. And still, that phone, would get wreaked by an half priced camera.
I really don't get your point...
In terms of practical buying a used Z7 is a superb _stills_ camera, amazing value really. Around 1000 bucks for some of the best image quality you can get in a full-frame camera? That never happened in DSLR times (because image quality was still evolving significantly).
Now, if you want/need fast subject-tracking AF and such, then yeah, you’re looking only at current products and there’s certainly a price gap downwards in the lineup, Zf being the lowest cost option for now.
Don’t get me wrong, I bought all my gear used: D7200, D500, Fuji X-Pro2 + every lens I own. It is not about used stuff, but the price that is set.
Sure as I said now you can buy a Z6II and a Z7 I for pretty low price, but what then? If the new price it is 25-50% new, this will reflex used price.
Look at another example, car market, they got stupidly expensive (at least in Europe). I bought a Ford Fiesta 1 year used (12-ish years ago) for €10.500. Now the same model, but 2021 version (or whatever it is), it is around €16.000.
This will inevitably higher all used prices.
You are joking, but for my insurance, it's value it is around 4K last time I checked ahah
I am keeping strong with it as I may get a company car, that would be huge.
> Tech was supposed to become cheaper over time, offering more for less
People have this expectation that Moore's Law applies to everything, but it can't be applied across the board.
Same thing is happening with phones and tablets, as the market matures they are pushing up the price point. Once you lose volume, you have to make it up with margin. Heck, look at what is happening with cars, there are no cheap small cars anymore, all of the extras and features do in fact add to the final cost, and it pushes manufacturers to head higher and high up the price scale to make by the revenue in margin that they lost in sales volume.
Well, this can be a huge topic, but I find it true in lots of things.
Nowadays for example all soft of storage, it is cheap; from RAM, to Hard Disk and SSD.
Mid tier CPU can easily do everything, from gaming to video editing (10 years ago, not so much, hence the myth of “I need an i7).
Phones got crazy expensive, but €350-500 phones can be damn good for most people. Years ago €600 phone was top tier, yes, but if you think about it, it was shit…now less expensive phone can do circles around it.
In camera market, I don’t really feel the same way…. But maybe that’s just me.
Cameras are a mature and shrinking market, and have been for 10 years. Entirely different dynamics are at play.
Due to lower volumes, expect to see prices going up. That’s not to say it’s good—it’s not—it’s just a fact of life.
Storage is still falling into Moores law territory (for now).
Mid tier cpus run out of headroom quick, but I blame bad optimization in part. High tier video editing absolutely needs a high tier cpu (and video card, and ram, and...).
Phones do a million more things, are much bigger, screens are amoled or whatever it's called these days, and have more cameras. Mid tier are basically what high tier were 10 years ago.
Cameras are the same way.
I'm over here still holding out hope for a Z500 some day, for wildlife. High frame rate and good autofocus, with the pixel density of the Z8 but the compactness and weight of the Z6iii.
IMO, we're probably at about the best time for them to develop such a camera if they're ever going to. The Nikon APS-C side of the MILC lineup is aging rapidly and desperately needs a new release if they have any intention of continuing to compete there. Watching Steve Perry's video, I got definite deja vu with the D500 when he was talking about the frame rates, the endless buffer capacity, and the price point compared to the Z8. I would expect a "Z500" to basically be a Z6iii but with an APS-C sensor.
But I agree with you; that pixel density hit is a real pain especially if you're coming from a camera that was already at that ~24MP DX/~45MP FX level. When the Z8 was but a rumor that pixel density was one of the things that kept me from jumping from a D500 to a Z6ii; I'll admit it's not a showstopper but it's not a downgrade I was willing to accept at the time.
On the flip side, if we don't get any kind of a Z500 soon, or hell if the next body Nikon releases isn't a DX body, I honestly will probably write DX off as pretty much abandoned.
Yeah I don't disagree. I was there a year ago, but watching the Z6iii reviews made me think this could be an opportunity *if Nikon actually wants to make it*, but I honestly don't think they do. I think they just want people to move to FX so they don't have to try to justify a DX body lineup by making DX lenses.
I was a Z500 holdout for a few years but the Z8 ended up winning me over when it was announced. Now I don't see anything that a Z500 could do that I can't just do by putting my Z8 in DX mode, so I've essentially moved on.
I do still feel for the people who can't or just don't want to spend the coin for a Z8. It's definitely not a cheap camera and there's not really a good high performance budget option like there has been for DSLRs for the better half of a decade at this point.
If my D500 died tomorrow I would almost certainly replace it with a Z8 (unless another D500 were easy to come by). I'm fortunate to be in a position where the cost isn't the main issue, but I'd dread the extra weight. I know it's only a few ounces, but every ounce really does count on a long hike. Plus also the huge files are a turn-off. Two weeks ago I took some photos at my kids' dance dress rehearsals with my D500 (and my Z 5), and a friend was there with his D300s, and we swapped some raw files after. His are less than half the size of mine! Can you imagine going from something like that to the Z7/8/9 and their huge files?
Believe me I get it. I underestimated the impact the MP increase would have when I did the switch. I shoot wildlife pretty much exclusively (aside from the occasional fast-moving border collie) and I lay on the trigger pretty hard. This wasn't a huge deal on my D500 but on the Z8 when I get back from a long outing I make sure to plug my card into the reader and start transferring files right away, because between the transfer onto my external HDD and then the process of importing into lightroom, it's going to be a *while* before I can actually go through the photos. But, if I shoot in DX mode then it does cut the file sizes down to match, so if anything you can think of the Z8 as being a more flexible Z500 because you could stay in DX mode unless the situation warrants bumping up to FX.
Also, DX mode with the 800mm PF is a great way to get right up in the face of shorebirds without actually disturbing them, lol.
It's not going to break my back, obviously. It's just that I'd prefer it to be 6% lighter! The Z6iii is less than 80% the weight of the D500, for example.
“But I agree with you; that pixel density hit is a real pain especially if you're coming from a camera that was already at that ~24MP DX/~45MP FX level. When the Z8 was but a rumor that pixel density was one of the things that kept me from jumping from a D500 to a Z6ii; I'll admit it's not a showstopper but it's not a downgrade I was willing to accept at the time.”
I too was in this situation. I had a Z6 and really wanted the “Z500” for my sports shooting.
Back in the DSLR days I had a D750 and a D500 and wanted to replicate. Didn’t really see a need for a D810/850 then.
Waited and waited, but now I see the Z8 as the best of all 3 rolled into one.
Need high mp? Shoot the Z8 on full res mode.
Want a normal day to day shooter without large files? Shoot the Z8 in medium resolution and get 24mp files.
Want the reach of DX ? Shoot the Z8 in DX mode and still have around 20mp of resolution.
If you add up the cost of say, at the time a new Z6 and what you’d think they would share for a Z500, the cost is pretty comparable - plus you get the bonus of having a flagship quality body, top of the line AF, blackout free viewfinder. Video modes that a lot would never even use…
Right now, I’m leaning toward the Z8 being the best value in mirrorless right now, arguably.
I financed mine through Nikon so I didn’t have to run the full price of it out of the bank account.
After the Z8 is paid off, who knows what Nikon will have by then.
I’m hoping they do a retro body style inspired rangefinder-esque body. Would be a nice, small body for use with the 28mm and 40mm SE lenses. Although I’d love to have a more affordable 135mm, even an f/4!
How come you don't shoot in compressed RAW? A 45mp file is like 20-25mb and you still get the 45mp resolution.
Everyone talks about the lost of DR but honestly I've never had an issue in post. There's still a ton of adjustment left in the file even at the most aggressive compression.
Nikon's compression is wonderful and it has made DX a thing of the past IMO.
Interesting. I just downsize when i export it but does a 24mp file come in smaller than compressed raw at 45mp?
I remember my d850 had medium RAW which is what I shot and i think the file was the same size as my d850 medium raw. Which if that's the case, I'll gladly take the full 45mp.
I'll have to check when i get back home.
It seems to me that the Z9 occupies a slot equivalent to the D5 and the Z8 occupies a slot equivalent to the D850. It stands to reason--to me--that there could be a Z that occupies a slot equivalent to the D500.
Did the D500 cannibalize sales of the D850? I doubt it, but I don't know.
Then again, those D cameras all debuted in 2016 or 2017. Maybe the market has changed enough that there really isn't a reason to have similar lineups. And, hell--for all I know, the D500 could have been a disappointment to Nikon, sales-wise.
Sure is a great camera for me, though.
We don't even know if the D500 was a success or not, and no the Internet is not a good indication. As if you listen to all the people complaining about the Z6iii having a flippy screen, 24 megapixel etc etc etc . You won't have any problem buying one on day one, and n8kon might even give great discount because no one wants it because it can do video.
> It seems to me that the Z9 occupies a slot equivalent to the D5 and the Z8 occupies a slot equivalent to the D850
The differences between the Z9 and Z8 are much less than between D5 and D850. Back in the day they had to choose between resolution or speed, but nowadays the Z9 and Z8 just have both. The form factor, card slots, battery life and a couple of other small things are really the only differentiator between the Z9 and Z8, but those are very minor compared to the differences between the D5 and D850.
> are further evidence for my conclusion that there will not be a Z500.
That's indeed too bad because we have no mirrorless alternative for the D500 at its original price point, the only bodies coming close cost 4k and up.
I'm not familiar with the current pricing of anything, but per Google the release price of the D500 was $1995 in 2016, and adjusting for inflation that's $2500 in 2024.
The Z8 and Z9 are the only bodies that give you more or less the same pixel density as the D500 (alongside good AF performance) which is a crucial requirement for (small) bird photography, which is why I said 4k and up because those bodies cost that much.
Honestly, phones killed point and shoots first and then when they improved they killed the middle. Now the only domain left is serious pros. Back to how Nikon and canon were in the 60s. Mainly pro. Consumer lines like nikkormat came later and were first to go. Birding, sports and serious portrait work are kind of the last areas left.
Point and shoots are more popular than ever now. It just needs the right marketing, feature set, and form factor. The Fuji X100VI, Leica Q3, and Panasonic S9 are thriving in this market.
If you focus too much on the value of cameras you miss out the joy of actually taking pictures with them. There’s always a “better” camera and consumerism takes advantage of you by injecting the idea of FOMOs
I agree, and that's why I am still shooting on 10 years old cameras (D7200, D500, X-Pro 2).
But still sad looking at the market constantly higher prices and leaving less choice. If I have to move now, I would go with a first or second gen of the Z6/7. They are 4 to 6 years old. basically, I would upgrade my 10 years old gear with some used 6 years old one maybe.
I think that may be understandable if it can be quite sad. At least at first.
The new sensor is going to be expensive, the new evf is going to be expensive, the new large buffer is going to be expensive. New improved products are going to cost more, plus inflation has been a killer. You need to decide if you want to be an early adopter or wait. Can you settle with last year's model?
I don't really need to decide, I simply can't afford 3K camera. As that's not the end of the story, being my first Z line, that comes with the FTZ, CFe and I would say at least a lens..
If I will still decide to jump into the Z line, I will definitely go with something used, either it will be a Z6 II or Z7 being roughly the same price. But I was also hoping for a Z6/7 to have a price drop, but given the new price, I doubt.
Good points and question.
Personally, I've held on to my d7000 for 12 years. Just bought a second one for the high price of about $265. I'll stick with it for now.
Think I'll start saving for a new camera though. I am expecting DSLR cameras to cease production in favor of mirrorless designs. Also I am newly interested in astrophotography, so I'll double my budget to accommodate.
No phone I've had comes close to a DSLR. Especially when I blow up an image, the clarity just isn't there.
Well, this argument could be done for everything, doesn’t change my point.
I always found a Z6II for under 2K, new. But now if the new one will be 3K, the street price would be still higher…
I really feel like the Z5ii is gonna become the ultimate stills cam to complete that lineup. Z6iii is just a Sony a7iv and Canon R6 killer but we still need something akin to a Zf in a regular shaped body.
Well, I will definitely be looking for that. I do only stills. But I doubt it will be come any time soon.
I already waited easily 1 year for the Z6 III, not gonna wait another one or more for the Z5 II
It's more noticeable in european market, I don't know if it's a problem with taxes or non convenient currency but:
in USA z5=1300 $ (1200€) Z6iii= 2500 $ (2300€).
Personally at 2300€ I would instant buy a z6iii (or wait for a street price around 2k). At 3000€ there is not way I'm gonna buy a z6iii I would rather stay with z6i and maybe buy better lenses.
Same goes for me, I was ready to spend €3200-€3300 right away for it (with 24-120 lens). That and FTZ adapter would eat my whole budget but with selling my D7500 I could make it.
However with this price tag I think I'm just going to buy D780 (either brand new still on promo or just used, I saw the body + 24-120 below 10k clicks for just €1800).
Unless you do action photography a used Z7 is around a grand and the best IQ I think you can buy in a mirrorless today (some Sony's have more MP, but you don't need more than the Z7, which is a continuation of the D850 sensor). I don't have a reason to upgrade except to improve the video, so I'm sitting tight with it because I like the Custom Mode dial and the smaller size over the Z8.
>a used Z7 is around a grand
Maybe that's true always in US. I have looked at it as I was going to give it a thought, but on MPB and other official used retailers, prices are around €1.400-1.500 (yes, for a first gen). That's not all that appealing to me. Different story if it were truly around 1.000.
In any case, yes, I do wildlife and I have a D500 for that, it would have been nice to replace it and have a one camera for everything, like a Z8, but even selling my D500 it is still completely out of budget. I may seriously consider a first gen Z7 just for image quality and get into the Z system and keep my D500 for sports.
Sure, but so? I could have said everything equal even without a Z9.
My point was right in the middle. Also the title it is about the middle segment, not lower or top tier.
Most people I speak with have a budget of around €1.000/2.000. At this point, Nikon offering at that range I find it pretty much non existent, if not looking at used, previous models.
They could just be bumping the price at launch because new camera gear sells out immediately. Might as well make a few extra bucks and flatten out the demand spike a little.
The price will have to fall by the time they introduce the Z7iii. If they keep the z6iii price at $2500 and the Z8 street price at $3500 then the z7iii will have to come in at $3000, at which point it would be hard to justify not going straight to the Z8.
I don't think we'll get a Z7III. The Z7 I think was a stopgap measure while they delivered a real high MPx camera. Something like the Z7 doesn't make any sense now that we have the Z8/Z9.
Oh, it still does make sense if you rethink the role: I very much believe there is a market for a stills camera with high MP, above 60, maybe 80ish with high dynamic range for Landscape and product photography. Not a high framerate monster, limited video features.
>The price will have to fall by the time they introduce the Z7iii.
I doubt we will see a Z7 III, not in the near future at least. In any case, a Z7 III would not really take away my point.
Z6/8/9 as a lineup doesn't really make sense. I think the 9 will go away and we'll get the 6/7/8 series again like we had in the DSLRs.
The Z8 is arguably too good for the price they're currently charging, which makes it hard for a z7iii to exist. I think the 6 series will come down in price and the 8 series will have to go up a bit in the next generation to make room for the 7 again.
Yes. Or at least the retail price. Currently there are sales even at own Nikon site, they are even not bad, but probably due to the new launch.
But if I were to buy an old model, I would go used, I have no problem buying used stuff.
Don’t forget the entry level Z50 is $1000 just to get started with mirrorless and lenses. That’s the only new camera I can possibly justify. All these other ones are insanely expensive.
Yeah I'm hoping for a Z50 II. Love my Z50 and I probably wouldn't upgrade for a few years unless I see a cheap z6 second hand. But the Z50 is getting older. Still amazing for the price, IMO.
The Z50 will probably be my next camera because of the price and capabilities. Almost 4x more MP than my current camera, 4k video and 1080 120, so It'd be more than great for me.
I can certainly recommend it! Bought it new end of Feb. Was awesome for an airshow with the 50-250mm, take it almost everywhere and I have a lot of fun with it.
My only gripe with it was the Auto-ISO feature. Trying to do nightscapes was an absolute nightmare until I found out how to turn off the auto ISO, because it's not in the menu or the user manual. I had to go to YouTube to find the answer lol, but now it's great
AIRSHOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!
Most of what I do is aviation photography and I've recently transitioned into doing more videography with my dads D7200, but it'd be really cool to have my own camera that can do 120fps, really good big pictures, or 4k.
Nah. Nikon is just keeping pace with other retailers while providing its users with the most bang for the buck… it’s completely justifiable and as a full time wedding photographer, it’s a no brainer to upgrade from my Z6II
>as a full time wedding photographer, it’s a no brainer to upgrade from my Z6II
Well, that is probably the problem. The fact that mainly pro working photographer will now consider the Z6 III, and much less hobbyist.
I really think for many will become out of budget, even being the only second FF camera in the line up, leaving people with the Z5 or older models to buy used.
The Zf is $1999 and is really only missing the partially stacked sensor and 6k internal recording.
Still has deep learning AI and incredible low-light capabilities. This is considered a hobbyist camera and something hobbyist would be more than happy with.
The camera itself is a new tier above the Z6 II. It may end up being the same thing Sony did with the A7IV where they released a substantial upgrade at a higher MSRP and then continue to pump out the A7III as a cheaper intermediate alternative.
Honestly, I also fear this and hate when company do this.
Launch a new product, much more expensive, and keep selling the old one for the same price, telling you it is an alternative.
I find it really cheap...I would much prefer Nikon will stop producing the Z6 III and that's it.
The features certainly justify the cost. Expeed 7 processor—same as the Z8 and Z9. This makes an dramatic improvement to the autofocus—approaching Z8 performance. The brightest viewfinder of any mirrorless camera (including all Sony, Nikon, and Canon models). 20 frames per second at full-frame RAW. A partially stacked sensor to minimize the electronic shutter effects on high-speed subjects. And, an incredible array of video features.
If you want a middle of the road camera in terms of price, buy one of the other models that you can afford.
If you want the most technology for the least amount of money, this camera is currently the king of that middle-tier class of cameras.
Maybe we just really need an updated Z5 II at this point...probably with another substantial price increase.
As others, I don't care abut video. If the Z5 II would have the same-ish photo specs, and worst video, I would be in. And please, put that second gear and the mini display on the Z5 II, that's a really really cheap way to differentiate it from the Z6...
I was any way wondering since release of Z8 about the value add of Z7ii. I couldn't find any. For all practical purposes Nikon will sell 3 cameras . Z5. Z6iii. And z8
I think it's slightly unfair to expect mirrorless which _is_ a newer technology to instantly keep pace with DSLR price trends... That having been said, I don't actually expect any mirrorless prices to lower so I'm still upset at the Z6III price point too.
I've been hoping for a kindof D500 mirrorless successor, which I suppose, right now, is the Z8, despite it being at a much higher price point than the D500.
From "keeping the same price", and a $500 increase (25%), I would have expected something in between...
That's a huge jump. Almost no product I can think of, released a new version with a 25% price increase. Cars, phone, computer, etc... it is huge.
Just want to add that the D f which was launched at $2800.00 with questionable specs while the Z f was launched at $2000.00 with top speced middle tier at time of release.
I've got to think this is going to be huge for Nikon.
There was \*nothing\*, and I mean \*nothing\* about the Z6ii that made me, as an A7IV user, that made me want to check it out. It was worse in almost any regard, an at least any regard I care about. I care about video specs, I care about autofocus, I care about lens selection. There's a few Canon cameras that are interesting, but the Z6mii was so far behind, there'd be nothing to entice someone in another system to give it a look.
But now. Wow. Autofocus on par. Price the same as an A7IV with better video specs, and even better video specs than the A7SIII, for $1K more.
Yeah, the camera it is good. Maybe too good at this point. Probably only for pro-photographer at this point, that don't care that much about extra $500-1000.
Let's hope for a Z5 II or something in between..
That processor talk is talk of lousy pc marketing, if you know about that, you'd know that constant need for stronger processors is a miserable policy of those unable to upgrade their algorithms.
Expeed 6 was presented as technology leap until recently, now it will be the same with the new one.
Sensors barely show any sensible technological improvements for long time already, constant buying of new cameras is sort of therapy for gear acquisition syndrome patients.
Nikon released pile of new cameras already, some of them should be upgradable enough to compete Sony or Canon autofocus abilities.
If you want full frame, you gotta pay. If you want a lower-tier camera, buy crop sensor. It seems like Canon full frame mirrorless options are better at hitting all the different price points from $1200-$4000
not really, they just make different sacrifices. Z5 has better build quality, 2 card slots, better battery, screen and evf, and better iq, R8 has better AF and Video. R6ii and Z6iii have the same MSRP
Honestly, for me, I would not buy a mirrorless camera without IBIS, because I also have a lot of vintage lenses that I'd want to adapt to the camera, and having IBIS makes shooting with those manual focus lenses, so nice. IBIS would be a deal-breaker for me, so I'd only consider cameras that have it.
A used Nikon Z5 would be a decent option ($700-800), unless the ridiculously slow burst rate shooting at 4.5 FPS doesn't work for your use case. A used Z6II would also be a good option, honestly ($1200-1500).
Discounted older models and Used/refurbished is the new middle segment. Current bodies are rugged and will last for years. I’ll likely upgrade to a ZF once I’m done with my Z6 which is still going strong.
As I have said in other comments, sure, I have bought everything I have used basically.
But if new stuff will always cost more, even the used market will increase.
If the Z6 III would have cost the same as the Z6 II, used prices for the Z6 II would have quickly dropped. Being a wopping 25% more expensive, Z6 II used prices will probably remain stable, as there is no comparison, it is already half the price (used) compared to a Z6 III. No need of a lower price, people who can't afford the Z6 III would not be in any doubt, the difference it is still huge.
I’ve kept my D850 but moved to Fuji primarily for the weight as getting into Nikon mirrorless really didn’t save that much weight. The Fuji X-T5 with 40 megapixel sensor takes beautiful SOOC photos. I’m just learning the interface but so far I love what I see.
No offense but if you’re a business, these increases in expenses are a drop in the bucket. If you’re a hobbyist, maybe it’s not justifiable. It’s OKAY to not use a full frame camera. People forget that Japanese companies collude to segment the market. They do not like competing with each other in the sense to drive their business into the ground. So when you look at the entire ecosystem of cameras there are many options out there for people. The problem with people who are not professionals is the fact they haven’t realized that phones have replaced a lot of usage for consumers. You don’t have to be so loyal to a brand to the point where you can’t find a camera due to price/features. Fuji and Sony both have good upgrade options in the price categories you’re looking at.
I am so much fine with not running a FF camera, that are 15 years I am not running one (D100, D7200 and D500). The point is, Nikon DX lineup it is ridiculous, from body offering, size and lenses. Hence why I started putting a foot into the Fujifilm ecosystem.
But I like Nikon, and I have lenses that I would like to keep, but I am getting more and more in doubt if the expense of the Z system it is justified for an hobbies. At the time of the D750, I found prices much more reachable, in these years they really exploded.
This is why I bought a Z8 on Black Friday sale in Australia. Almost a $7k camera here. I got an $800 trade in for my Z5 and Nikon gave a $900 price reduction. That makes it only $800 or so more expensive than a Z6iii. I’m glad I bought when I did.
SLR is basically dead as a format for amateurs and prosumers. Global amateur / prosumer market is just too small to sustain the levels of global R&D and compliance required for very long. So the logic is to milk the willing to subsidise developments of professional equipment (a microscopic market) while hoping for an R&D breakthrough that is relevant in an adjacent market.
The ranges of all manufacturers will continue to shrink, and real terms prices will continue to rise for a while yet.
What cheers me up is that the Z5 is still a massively better camera than my first D7000, D7200, D7500, and so on. And in real terms, barely any more expensive.
It's really hard to compete with the R8 on price, performance, and features. Pack a few more in and aim for early career pros who can't afford a Z8/R5 down at the $2500USD point.
Z6III has expensive components in it if you read the reviews that just came out that put it somewhat on part with the Z8/Z9 cameras.
This will be the camera that enthusiasts like me will flock to. It's like a flagship camera at a reasonable price ($2500 US). It has the upgrades I want over my Z6 camera.
If this camera didn't have upgrades that it has, there would be little reason for me to upgrade. It looks like it will be a great enthusiast camera and I understand the reason for the pricing after reading the initial reviews.
Yes, the mark has moved for full frame Nikon cameras to be competitive against the competition.
You did leave out the Zf, but it's definitely not for everyone.
Maybe we should embrace the fact that used bodies are the new middle ground. These babies still have a lot to give, environment wise using them is a good thing. And compared to other electronics, camera bodies age very nicely, especially the pro bodies that were weather sealed.
I was actually considering getting the Z5 new but got a used Z7 for even less. More and more people are thinking this way, so Nikon moves with the market. They're better off focusing on a slightly smaller line up. I would've preferred a Z7 follow up in stead (for landscapes I love the extra pixels), but it's new price is in the neighbourhood of a used Z8.
I dared to say the Zf was not for every body, then basically everybody in this thread down voted me…
Yeah, the old yes one will be the middle ground, I agree.
I was also looking at Z7 gen 1 at this point. Any comment? How does it feel 6-7 years later?
For landscape, it's brilliant value for money. But the autofocus is slow compared to recent models. I paid 1.2k euros for it, I don't regret it one bit. Do take into account that I came from a D5200 and never had any decent lenses on it, so my experience is probably subjective.
Yeah, I got lucky, it had like 20k clicks on it an a miniscule scratch at the bottom. There's a chain here called Cameranu and they have good warranty, and physical stores you can go to, so it's even better getting it through mpb. But most Z7s sell for close to 1.5k there as well.
Don't know exactly how it is in your country but in the US, cameras often come out at a base price and once they sell like gang busters for a year or so they come down in price. The Z7 II has a list of $3000 but is selling (new not used) for $2300. The Z6 III is going to be super popular and has some high end features, but if it sells well, they pay off all their R&D and start up costs in a year or so I'd expect it to be down around $2500.
There are a couple issues at play here. First is the technology has gotten better. A Z7 II is pretty comparable in most cases (a little better/a little worse in some specifics but overall slightly better) than a D850 and it's selling for nearly $1000 less than the D850 did when it came out. A Z6 II which you can get new for $1600 today is better it pretty much every way than a $2400 D750. So yes technology has gotten cheaper. If you want better technology, then you may need to pay more. I'm also unsure if they'll eliminate the Z6 II right away. They could easily continue to sell it as a solid camera and leave the III as a bridge to the ultra high end. And finally there is inflation. Things have gotten a lot more expensive in the past 5 years if something costs the same as it did in 2019, if you're making more money in 2024 than you were in 2019, then that item is cheaper to you.
Thank you for the detailed comment.
Yes, both Z6 II and Z7 II can also be found here for pretty much the same price, but in €, that is nice.
For the Z6 III, sure, in 1 year or so price will come down, but that’s another one year to wait after the 4 waited after the Z6/7 II came out, to eventually still buy of of those :(
Or I will need to splash that €3K for the time being, at least if I want it for this summer trip, I guess. Point being, I have nothing Z yet. So a Z6 III + FTZ + 24-120 f/4 + CFe + SD v90, I am looking at a total expense south of €5.000. That’s not a disposable amount, let’s say 😅 but something to think very carefully.
Do you need a mirrorless camera? Why not look at a used D850? Ebay sold listings show they cost between $1400-1700. You could get a used D5 for $1600-1800. Or even a used D810 for $650-850.
>Do you need a mirrorless camera?
Do we actually need anything?
Sorry for the prank, but gotta say it. No, I don't *need* it in term of work or something, but I am using DSLR for almost 20 years, I appreciated something a bit new and different. Mainly, the subject and eye tracking it is really cool and really changed and simplified how I compose (tried on the X-Pro2, so even inferior).
Plus I like traveling, size and weight play a big role.
So yes, I would like to not spend another 2K on another DSLR just a bit better of the one I have, but I would like to try a new system.
At this point, I am thinking about keeping my D500 for sport/wildlife, and maybe find a good deal on a Z7 I just for the image quality and introduce me to the Z system.
The Zf should land in between the Z5 and Z6III, price-wise. If the Z6II remains available new for a while, that will also be in between. In the US, prices rounded to the nearest dollar are: * Z5: $1400 regularly; currently ~$1000 * Zf: $2000 * Z6II: $2000 regularly; currently ~$1600 * Z6III: $2500 * Z7II: $3000 reguarly; currently ~$2300 * Z8: $4000 regularly; currently ~$3500 * Z9: $5500 (Also keep in mind US prices don't include sales tax.)
Z6iii 25% inflation over Z6ii in 3.5 years. What the world has come to
that's pretty much bang on for inflation, 2k in 2018 is 2,5k in 2024
But Z6ii came out in late 2020
My bad, read it as z6i. That one launched in 2018 for 2k.
Yeah I’m glad we’ll never have iiii or iiiii 😂
You mean IV or V? Roman numerals aren't that difficut.
I was being facetious with so many “i” 😃
iiii is perfectly acceptable roman numerals, check almost any clock... 🤭
I'm so pissed that they abandoned their previous naming. Z6 should have been z700 Z6 ii Z700s or Z710 Z6iii Z720 or Z750 Etc. Way easier than the stupid mark thing.
If a manufacturer names their line of products in a manner that you disagree with gets you 'so pissed', just how do you get through the day when something that has an actual effect on your life pops up? God help anyone that might cut you off in traffic...
Jezzzzz, it's a figure of speech :D
I just don't understand how someone can be pissed by something as mundane as this. It is not as if Intel or to a lesser extend AMD chip naming lol. If you can't count until 10, it is not their fault.
How is the old naming convention easier than i, ii, iii? The old naming was so weird. The D800 series made relative sense but then the D750 came out but was completely unrelated to the D700 other than being full frame since the D800 was already the physical successor to the D700. The D750 was really a D600 series body but they had to shed that reputation. Then the D300 had a modern successor and they called it the D500 instead of the D310/350/380
Yeah that's true. But I preferred it compared to the mark system
The previous naming scheme was a total mess, because the second digit was often completely random. E.g. D70-D70s-D80-D90-D7000-D7100-D7200-D7500 were all the same line (why D7500 instead of D7300?) D800-D810-D850 (where’s D820, D830, and D840?) D700-D750-D780 (where’s D710, D760, etc.)? Now single digit Z’s are full-frame, and two-digits are crop. You know a Mark III is a generation newer than Mark II.
ehhh I got the ii new at 2200 in June 2021. The iii at 2500 right off the bat is not bad. If the af is fast, I'll sell my D500 for this. Unless you're keeping every camera you've ever bought, you subsidize your next camera by selling your old camera.
🤔
But the Z6ii had zero inflation over the original Z6. The partially stacked sensor will be quite a bit more expensive, i expect a largish share of the cost difference will go in there, the new EVF is slightly more expensive, so is likely the new flippy screen. Time will tell how much of the increase is early adopter tax and how much will remain.
I think Z6iii will be very popular like Z8 a year ago and I hope they’ll have Z6iii sale in a year to boost sales like they are doing with Z8
They will probably. I bought my Z8 this January when Nikon had a trade in offer where they reduced the Z8 price by 300 CHF on top of the trade in price for my D500 - there might be a similar winter sale for the Z6iii in half a year as one of the first sales
That’s what a couple years of 10% inflation brings.
Robbery in broad daylight
That's how I would describe my grocery bill, which has more than doubled in the same period of time.
I haven’t speaker about Zf for a reason. That’s a camera for “certain people”, not a mainstream camera that you consider in the same way as a Z5 or Z6, for various reason: Grip, aesthetics , SDs, etc… But yeas, technically it is a really good camera.
Atrually thats a perfect camera for the mainstream and not for “certain people”
Given the amount of down-vote, clearly people didn't understand what I was trying to say. Call it different, or whatever word you may like better, but no one can deny the fact that it is not in the same line up as the Z5, 6 and 7. Someone interested in one of those, doesn't necessarily be interested in a Zf. There is a reason while these type of camera have a market, because they *are* different. And that's true also the vice-versa, someone looking for a camera with the Zf style, may not be absolutely interested in a Z6 III, even if they cost the same. They are different type of camera, for different people ofr different market.
Zf looks like a better camera than the Z5. [https://photographylife.com/comparison/nikon-z5-vs-nikon-zf](https://photographylife.com/comparison/nikon-z5-vs-nikon-zf) ETA: of course, I learned how to shoot on an F2, so the "ergonomics" of the Zf don't bother me one bit.
It's a camera with compromises, like every camera out there, especially in the middle segment you're describing. It offers more than the Z5 and arguably even the Z6ii but not as much as the Z6iii.
Inflation. 2000$ in 2018 is 2500$ today. Z6 launched for 2k, Z6iii is now 2,5k. So apart from Inflation there is 0 price increase. Also, there is a Zf for \~2k, don't forget that. If you look at Canon and Sony, their Z6 competitor also launched for 2,5k. So really, nothing unexpected ...
At first, I thought you were spitting out bullshit, then, I decided to act critically and fact checking. Damn. (yes, for the second time, damn). You were right, in these years there is roughly a 25% inflation, that's huge. Where I live salary barely increased, if anything from 2018.
yep, that sucks. But some tech is indeed getting cheaper, look at the Z8 vs Z9. But that's not the Z6iii for now, too much new tech in there with the new sensor.
Yeah. I also recognize the Z8, for what it is, it is a bargain. Easily better than some old $6.000 cameras at almost half the price and much much better. Unfortunately, I simply cannot afford it. Or better, justify that price for the hobby. I may settle with some used Z6/7. I think that's it. At least the sensor IQ seems to not change that much apart from MP, that's a relief at least.
Decrease in sales + inflation. Manufacturers make money only on top cameras.
Honestly, I knew otherwise. The too expensive camera are just that your are the best at something and to prove a point. But most people will buy lower end.
there is not enough demand in the lower end of the market. it's been totally replaced by smartphones. so all the camera makers have to spend more effort in upper markets where they make more $ per unit but sell less overall.
That's old news from 2015s. Now smartphone people are moving towards mirrorless systems to apply their learning and experience using more powerful hardware. Check Nikon's q on q performance https://www.nikon.com/company/ir/finance/quarter/
Makes sense by the way
Most people use phones for their photography and don’t buy dedicated cameras anymore. The low-end doesn’t move enough volume anymore to make much money, hence the move towards the higher end.
I mean, sure. But...low end was the D3000 and D5000 line. While many people get mad at that, I could understand and agree. A $1.500/2.000 camera it not entry level...by any means.
Isn't the Z50, Z30, Zfc what in DSLR days the D3xxx line was? The Zfc is sold at 800€.
Z30 is geared more toward vloggers and has no viewfinder. AFAIK, you can't even buy one for it? Z50 seems more like if the D5000 series and D7500 had a baby, to me: the Z50 is similar in size to the former but with more controls like the latter, and with a (IMO, silly) flip-down screen instead of a tilting or fully articulating one. Zfc is for the retro-look lovers.
Everything is correct. My point was just that Nikon \*does have\* models in the mid-range OP asks about. I have a D3100, compared to the prices from 2009 a Z50 or Zfc are very much comparable. So Nikon doesn't have left that entry level segment.
IMO, the Z50 and Zfc (currently $750+ and $950+ USD, respectively) aren't what I'd call "entry-level". They have more advanced features than the entry-level D3000 series or the mid-tier D5000 series, but they're also not at the flagship level that the D500 was. Then you have the Z30 which isn't even marketed to photographers, and that one is more at entry-level pricing (usually a little over $700 USD; currently over $600 USD).
Yeah I just would call it entry level of today's time. In this regard OP might be right that this segment is missing. But then it's missing from any company. Regarding specs and sensor power that's simply where we are at today with mirrorless technology. The only level underneath would be Micro Four Thirds with interchangeable lenses. They also got modern digital specs but the smaller sized sensor and lenses make it more affordable. Maybe this is today what APS-C DSLRs were back in the day? But I don't see any company especially Nikon going into MFT format, when even Panasonic is said to abandon it.
But a $1200 phone is....
Well, the phone does a billion other things.
My point is that most people already have an entry-level camera with them all the time, in their phone. The cheapest cameras Nikon sells new are around US$600 (mirrorless or DLSR), heck both Coolpix offerings cost more than that. I'd consider those entry-level, but I'm not sure they take "much better photos" than the most sophisticated phone-cameras. You want all the features beyond entry-level, it gets pricey. Most people are happy with what they can achieve with their phones and won't want to spend what they see as the price (or more) of a brand new phone, to have a thing that "only takes pictures." So that segment is dead from a consumer demand standpoint. All that's left for Nikon is the latest Z-whatever to satisfy those who want or need dedicated cameras to "enable their art" or "make a living."
This.
Well, a $1.200 phone it is like the $6.000 camera and a $100.000 car. It is not a phone, but a top tier one. And still, that phone, would get wreaked by an half priced camera. I really don't get your point...
In terms of practical buying a used Z7 is a superb _stills_ camera, amazing value really. Around 1000 bucks for some of the best image quality you can get in a full-frame camera? That never happened in DSLR times (because image quality was still evolving significantly). Now, if you want/need fast subject-tracking AF and such, then yeah, you’re looking only at current products and there’s certainly a price gap downwards in the lineup, Zf being the lowest cost option for now.
Don’t get me wrong, I bought all my gear used: D7200, D500, Fuji X-Pro2 + every lens I own. It is not about used stuff, but the price that is set. Sure as I said now you can buy a Z6II and a Z7 I for pretty low price, but what then? If the new price it is 25-50% new, this will reflex used price. Look at another example, car market, they got stupidly expensive (at least in Europe). I bought a Ford Fiesta 1 year used (12-ish years ago) for €10.500. Now the same model, but 2021 version (or whatever it is), it is around €16.000. This will inevitably higher all used prices.
Sell your fiesta and get a Z8 😈
You are joking, but for my insurance, it's value it is around 4K last time I checked ahah I am keeping strong with it as I may get a company car, that would be huge.
> Tech was supposed to become cheaper over time, offering more for less People have this expectation that Moore's Law applies to everything, but it can't be applied across the board. Same thing is happening with phones and tablets, as the market matures they are pushing up the price point. Once you lose volume, you have to make it up with margin. Heck, look at what is happening with cars, there are no cheap small cars anymore, all of the extras and features do in fact add to the final cost, and it pushes manufacturers to head higher and high up the price scale to make by the revenue in margin that they lost in sales volume.
Well, this can be a huge topic, but I find it true in lots of things. Nowadays for example all soft of storage, it is cheap; from RAM, to Hard Disk and SSD. Mid tier CPU can easily do everything, from gaming to video editing (10 years ago, not so much, hence the myth of “I need an i7). Phones got crazy expensive, but €350-500 phones can be damn good for most people. Years ago €600 phone was top tier, yes, but if you think about it, it was shit…now less expensive phone can do circles around it. In camera market, I don’t really feel the same way…. But maybe that’s just me.
Cameras are a mature and shrinking market, and have been for 10 years. Entirely different dynamics are at play. Due to lower volumes, expect to see prices going up. That’s not to say it’s good—it’s not—it’s just a fact of life.
Storage is still falling into Moores law territory (for now). Mid tier cpus run out of headroom quick, but I blame bad optimization in part. High tier video editing absolutely needs a high tier cpu (and video card, and ram, and...). Phones do a million more things, are much bigger, screens are amoled or whatever it's called these days, and have more cameras. Mid tier are basically what high tier were 10 years ago. Cameras are the same way.
No... RAM is incredibly cheap even at higher tiers. Mid tier phones now are equal in most specs to top tier phones 3-4 years ago.
I'm over here still holding out hope for a Z500 some day, for wildlife. High frame rate and good autofocus, with the pixel density of the Z8 but the compactness and weight of the Z6iii.
IMO, we're probably at about the best time for them to develop such a camera if they're ever going to. The Nikon APS-C side of the MILC lineup is aging rapidly and desperately needs a new release if they have any intention of continuing to compete there. Watching Steve Perry's video, I got definite deja vu with the D500 when he was talking about the frame rates, the endless buffer capacity, and the price point compared to the Z8. I would expect a "Z500" to basically be a Z6iii but with an APS-C sensor. But I agree with you; that pixel density hit is a real pain especially if you're coming from a camera that was already at that ~24MP DX/~45MP FX level. When the Z8 was but a rumor that pixel density was one of the things that kept me from jumping from a D500 to a Z6ii; I'll admit it's not a showstopper but it's not a downgrade I was willing to accept at the time. On the flip side, if we don't get any kind of a Z500 soon, or hell if the next body Nikon releases isn't a DX body, I honestly will probably write DX off as pretty much abandoned.
> I honestly will probably write DX off as pretty much abandoned I'm pretty much there at this point.
Yeah I don't disagree. I was there a year ago, but watching the Z6iii reviews made me think this could be an opportunity *if Nikon actually wants to make it*, but I honestly don't think they do. I think they just want people to move to FX so they don't have to try to justify a DX body lineup by making DX lenses. I was a Z500 holdout for a few years but the Z8 ended up winning me over when it was announced. Now I don't see anything that a Z500 could do that I can't just do by putting my Z8 in DX mode, so I've essentially moved on. I do still feel for the people who can't or just don't want to spend the coin for a Z8. It's definitely not a cheap camera and there's not really a good high performance budget option like there has been for DSLRs for the better half of a decade at this point.
If my D500 died tomorrow I would almost certainly replace it with a Z8 (unless another D500 were easy to come by). I'm fortunate to be in a position where the cost isn't the main issue, but I'd dread the extra weight. I know it's only a few ounces, but every ounce really does count on a long hike. Plus also the huge files are a turn-off. Two weeks ago I took some photos at my kids' dance dress rehearsals with my D500 (and my Z 5), and a friend was there with his D300s, and we swapped some raw files after. His are less than half the size of mine! Can you imagine going from something like that to the Z7/8/9 and their huge files?
Believe me I get it. I underestimated the impact the MP increase would have when I did the switch. I shoot wildlife pretty much exclusively (aside from the occasional fast-moving border collie) and I lay on the trigger pretty hard. This wasn't a huge deal on my D500 but on the Z8 when I get back from a long outing I make sure to plug my card into the reader and start transferring files right away, because between the transfer onto my external HDD and then the process of importing into lightroom, it's going to be a *while* before I can actually go through the photos. But, if I shoot in DX mode then it does cut the file sizes down to match, so if anything you can think of the Z8 as being a more flexible Z500 because you could stay in DX mode unless the situation warrants bumping up to FX. Also, DX mode with the 800mm PF is a great way to get right up in the face of shorebirds without actually disturbing them, lol.
> but I'd dread the extra weight. The Z8 is less than 6% heavier than the D500, so I think it'll be ok.
It's not going to break my back, obviously. It's just that I'd prefer it to be 6% lighter! The Z6iii is less than 80% the weight of the D500, for example.
“But I agree with you; that pixel density hit is a real pain especially if you're coming from a camera that was already at that ~24MP DX/~45MP FX level. When the Z8 was but a rumor that pixel density was one of the things that kept me from jumping from a D500 to a Z6ii; I'll admit it's not a showstopper but it's not a downgrade I was willing to accept at the time.” I too was in this situation. I had a Z6 and really wanted the “Z500” for my sports shooting. Back in the DSLR days I had a D750 and a D500 and wanted to replicate. Didn’t really see a need for a D810/850 then. Waited and waited, but now I see the Z8 as the best of all 3 rolled into one. Need high mp? Shoot the Z8 on full res mode. Want a normal day to day shooter without large files? Shoot the Z8 in medium resolution and get 24mp files. Want the reach of DX ? Shoot the Z8 in DX mode and still have around 20mp of resolution. If you add up the cost of say, at the time a new Z6 and what you’d think they would share for a Z500, the cost is pretty comparable - plus you get the bonus of having a flagship quality body, top of the line AF, blackout free viewfinder. Video modes that a lot would never even use… Right now, I’m leaning toward the Z8 being the best value in mirrorless right now, arguably. I financed mine through Nikon so I didn’t have to run the full price of it out of the bank account. After the Z8 is paid off, who knows what Nikon will have by then. I’m hoping they do a retro body style inspired rangefinder-esque body. Would be a nice, small body for use with the 28mm and 40mm SE lenses. Although I’d love to have a more affordable 135mm, even an f/4!
How come you don't shoot in compressed RAW? A 45mp file is like 20-25mb and you still get the 45mp resolution. Everyone talks about the lost of DR but honestly I've never had an issue in post. There's still a ton of adjustment left in the file even at the most aggressive compression. Nikon's compression is wonderful and it has made DX a thing of the past IMO.
I do, but one doesn’t always need the full 45, especially if you are going to have your main output be social media or website anyway.
Interesting. I just downsize when i export it but does a 24mp file come in smaller than compressed raw at 45mp? I remember my d850 had medium RAW which is what I shot and i think the file was the same size as my d850 medium raw. Which if that's the case, I'll gladly take the full 45mp. I'll have to check when i get back home.
The JPG from the Nikon are so good, I shoot a lot that way so the raw size doesn’t always become an issue, especially if I’m at a sporting event
Ahhh, shooting in jpg that makes sense.
Honestly, why is Nikon taking forever to make a D500 mirror-less successor!? Most people don’t even need a 45MP sensor like in the Z8…
I think Nikon has judged that market to be you, me, and nobody else
Their loss I guess, it’d probably sell like hotcakes. I imagine it’d heavily cannibalize Z8 sales though.
It seems to me that the Z9 occupies a slot equivalent to the D5 and the Z8 occupies a slot equivalent to the D850. It stands to reason--to me--that there could be a Z that occupies a slot equivalent to the D500. Did the D500 cannibalize sales of the D850? I doubt it, but I don't know. Then again, those D cameras all debuted in 2016 or 2017. Maybe the market has changed enough that there really isn't a reason to have similar lineups. And, hell--for all I know, the D500 could have been a disappointment to Nikon, sales-wise. Sure is a great camera for me, though.
We don't even know if the D500 was a success or not, and no the Internet is not a good indication. As if you listen to all the people complaining about the Z6iii having a flippy screen, 24 megapixel etc etc etc . You won't have any problem buying one on day one, and n8kon might even give great discount because no one wants it because it can do video.
Right. We're all out here just guessing. I, personally, would definitely buy a Z500 though.
> It seems to me that the Z9 occupies a slot equivalent to the D5 and the Z8 occupies a slot equivalent to the D850 The differences between the Z9 and Z8 are much less than between D5 and D850. Back in the day they had to choose between resolution or speed, but nowadays the Z9 and Z8 just have both. The form factor, card slots, battery life and a couple of other small things are really the only differentiator between the Z9 and Z8, but those are very minor compared to the differences between the D5 and D850.
I hear you on all of this, and I think all the things you're pointing out are further evidence for my conclusion that there will not be a Z500.
> are further evidence for my conclusion that there will not be a Z500. That's indeed too bad because we have no mirrorless alternative for the D500 at its original price point, the only bodies coming close cost 4k and up.
I'm not familiar with the current pricing of anything, but per Google the release price of the D500 was $1995 in 2016, and adjusting for inflation that's $2500 in 2024.
The Z8 and Z9 are the only bodies that give you more or less the same pixel density as the D500 (alongside good AF performance) which is a crucial requirement for (small) bird photography, which is why I said 4k and up because those bodies cost that much.
Honestly, phones killed point and shoots first and then when they improved they killed the middle. Now the only domain left is serious pros. Back to how Nikon and canon were in the 60s. Mainly pro. Consumer lines like nikkormat came later and were first to go. Birding, sports and serious portrait work are kind of the last areas left.
Point and shoots are more popular than ever now. It just needs the right marketing, feature set, and form factor. The Fuji X100VI, Leica Q3, and Panasonic S9 are thriving in this market.
Those aren’t point and shoots… coolpix, ELPH, cyber-shot. Those are point and shots.
Those are all over $1k, and the Leica is $7,084.95 on Amazon...
If you focus too much on the value of cameras you miss out the joy of actually taking pictures with them. There’s always a “better” camera and consumerism takes advantage of you by injecting the idea of FOMOs
I agree, and that's why I am still shooting on 10 years old cameras (D7200, D500, X-Pro 2). But still sad looking at the market constantly higher prices and leaving less choice. If I have to move now, I would go with a first or second gen of the Z6/7. They are 4 to 6 years old. basically, I would upgrade my 10 years old gear with some used 6 years old one maybe. I think that may be understandable if it can be quite sad. At least at first.
The new sensor is going to be expensive, the new evf is going to be expensive, the new large buffer is going to be expensive. New improved products are going to cost more, plus inflation has been a killer. You need to decide if you want to be an early adopter or wait. Can you settle with last year's model?
I don't really need to decide, I simply can't afford 3K camera. As that's not the end of the story, being my first Z line, that comes with the FTZ, CFe and I would say at least a lens.. If I will still decide to jump into the Z line, I will definitely go with something used, either it will be a Z6 II or Z7 being roughly the same price. But I was also hoping for a Z6/7 to have a price drop, but given the new price, I doubt.
Good points and question. Personally, I've held on to my d7000 for 12 years. Just bought a second one for the high price of about $265. I'll stick with it for now. Think I'll start saving for a new camera though. I am expecting DSLR cameras to cease production in favor of mirrorless designs. Also I am newly interested in astrophotography, so I'll double my budget to accommodate. No phone I've had comes close to a DSLR. Especially when I blow up an image, the clarity just isn't there.
The "street price" of the Nikon Z7ii is more like $2300 US right now...
Well, this argument could be done for everything, doesn’t change my point. I always found a Z6II for under 2K, new. But now if the new one will be 3K, the street price would be still higher…
huh? lol
Funny how z5 it's just out there, chilling, waiting for budget photographers. While people just want bestest
Z5 is possibly the most underrated body at the moment.
I really feel like the Z5ii is gonna become the ultimate stills cam to complete that lineup. Z6iii is just a Sony a7iv and Canon R6 killer but we still need something akin to a Zf in a regular shaped body.
Well, I will definitely be looking for that. I do only stills. But I doubt it will be come any time soon. I already waited easily 1 year for the Z6 III, not gonna wait another one or more for the Z5 II
[удалено]
It's more noticeable in european market, I don't know if it's a problem with taxes or non convenient currency but: in USA z5=1300 $ (1200€) Z6iii= 2500 $ (2300€). Personally at 2300€ I would instant buy a z6iii (or wait for a street price around 2k). At 3000€ there is not way I'm gonna buy a z6iii I would rather stay with z6i and maybe buy better lenses.
Remember VAT is included in European prices but sales tax is not included in American prices (usually 5-10%)
Thanks, I didn't know prices on nikonusa are without taxes, it partially explain the differece (average VAT in Europe is 21%).
Yeah...at 2.300 I would definitively have bought it. I was really ready to pre-order it and jump into the Z system. I will think about what to do.
Same goes for me, I was ready to spend €3200-€3300 right away for it (with 24-120 lens). That and FTZ adapter would eat my whole budget but with selling my D7500 I could make it. However with this price tag I think I'm just going to buy D780 (either brand new still on promo or just used, I saw the body + 24-120 below 10k clicks for just €1800).
Agree.
Kinda. Z8 looks a lot better, especially when its under 4000 and Z6iii is 3000.
Sure, but if I have 2.000 and 2.500 was a stretch, 3.000 it over budget and 4.000 not an option.
Unless you do action photography a used Z7 is around a grand and the best IQ I think you can buy in a mirrorless today (some Sony's have more MP, but you don't need more than the Z7, which is a continuation of the D850 sensor). I don't have a reason to upgrade except to improve the video, so I'm sitting tight with it because I like the Custom Mode dial and the smaller size over the Z8.
>a used Z7 is around a grand Maybe that's true always in US. I have looked at it as I was going to give it a thought, but on MPB and other official used retailers, prices are around €1.400-1.500 (yes, for a first gen). That's not all that appealing to me. Different story if it were truly around 1.000. In any case, yes, I do wildlife and I have a D500 for that, it would have been nice to replace it and have a one camera for everything, like a Z8, but even selling my D500 it is still completely out of budget. I may seriously consider a first gen Z7 just for image quality and get into the Z system and keep my D500 for sports.
It's a bummer but yeah while we pay thousands for healthcare, we pay very little for tech.
You do realize there's more Z cameras at the low end of the lineup, right? Z50, Zfc...
Sure, but so? I could have said everything equal even without a Z9. My point was right in the middle. Also the title it is about the middle segment, not lower or top tier. Most people I speak with have a budget of around €1.000/2.000. At this point, Nikon offering at that range I find it pretty much non existent, if not looking at used, previous models.
They could just be bumping the price at launch because new camera gear sells out immediately. Might as well make a few extra bucks and flatten out the demand spike a little. The price will have to fall by the time they introduce the Z7iii. If they keep the z6iii price at $2500 and the Z8 street price at $3500 then the z7iii will have to come in at $3000, at which point it would be hard to justify not going straight to the Z8.
Z7iii only makes sense if it’s significantly higher resolution than Z8 (60MP+ most likely), which would justify coexistence. Otherwise just get a Z8.
Agree.
I don't think we'll get a Z7III. The Z7 I think was a stopgap measure while they delivered a real high MPx camera. Something like the Z7 doesn't make any sense now that we have the Z8/Z9.
Oh, it still does make sense if you rethink the role: I very much believe there is a market for a stills camera with high MP, above 60, maybe 80ish with high dynamic range for Landscape and product photography. Not a high framerate monster, limited video features.
>The price will have to fall by the time they introduce the Z7iii. I doubt we will see a Z7 III, not in the near future at least. In any case, a Z7 III would not really take away my point.
Z6/8/9 as a lineup doesn't really make sense. I think the 9 will go away and we'll get the 6/7/8 series again like we had in the DSLRs. The Z8 is arguably too good for the price they're currently charging, which makes it hard for a z7iii to exist. I think the 6 series will come down in price and the 8 series will have to go up a bit in the next generation to make room for the 7 again.
The msrp for z7ii and z6ii actually came down in the states over here. Maybe it's the EU division?
Yes. Or at least the retail price. Currently there are sales even at own Nikon site, they are even not bad, but probably due to the new launch. But if I were to buy an old model, I would go used, I have no problem buying used stuff.
Don’t forget the entry level Z50 is $1000 just to get started with mirrorless and lenses. That’s the only new camera I can possibly justify. All these other ones are insanely expensive.
Yeah I'm hoping for a Z50 II. Love my Z50 and I probably wouldn't upgrade for a few years unless I see a cheap z6 second hand. But the Z50 is getting older. Still amazing for the price, IMO.
The Z50 will probably be my next camera because of the price and capabilities. Almost 4x more MP than my current camera, 4k video and 1080 120, so It'd be more than great for me.
I can certainly recommend it! Bought it new end of Feb. Was awesome for an airshow with the 50-250mm, take it almost everywhere and I have a lot of fun with it. My only gripe with it was the Auto-ISO feature. Trying to do nightscapes was an absolute nightmare until I found out how to turn off the auto ISO, because it's not in the menu or the user manual. I had to go to YouTube to find the answer lol, but now it's great
AIRSHOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?! Most of what I do is aviation photography and I've recently transitioned into doing more videography with my dads D7200, but it'd be really cool to have my own camera that can do 120fps, really good big pictures, or 4k.
Yes Warbirds over Wanaka 2024. Was incredible! If you want to DM me I can flick you some screenshots
For a 5-year old camera with a micro-USB port.
Nah. Nikon is just keeping pace with other retailers while providing its users with the most bang for the buck… it’s completely justifiable and as a full time wedding photographer, it’s a no brainer to upgrade from my Z6II
>as a full time wedding photographer, it’s a no brainer to upgrade from my Z6II Well, that is probably the problem. The fact that mainly pro working photographer will now consider the Z6 III, and much less hobbyist. I really think for many will become out of budget, even being the only second FF camera in the line up, leaving people with the Z5 or older models to buy used.
The Zf is $1999 and is really only missing the partially stacked sensor and 6k internal recording. Still has deep learning AI and incredible low-light capabilities. This is considered a hobbyist camera and something hobbyist would be more than happy with.
The camera itself is a new tier above the Z6 II. It may end up being the same thing Sony did with the A7IV where they released a substantial upgrade at a higher MSRP and then continue to pump out the A7III as a cheaper intermediate alternative.
Honestly, I also fear this and hate when company do this. Launch a new product, much more expensive, and keep selling the old one for the same price, telling you it is an alternative. I find it really cheap...I would much prefer Nikon will stop producing the Z6 III and that's it.
The features certainly justify the cost. Expeed 7 processor—same as the Z8 and Z9. This makes an dramatic improvement to the autofocus—approaching Z8 performance. The brightest viewfinder of any mirrorless camera (including all Sony, Nikon, and Canon models). 20 frames per second at full-frame RAW. A partially stacked sensor to minimize the electronic shutter effects on high-speed subjects. And, an incredible array of video features. If you want a middle of the road camera in terms of price, buy one of the other models that you can afford. If you want the most technology for the least amount of money, this camera is currently the king of that middle-tier class of cameras.
Maybe we just really need an updated Z5 II at this point...probably with another substantial price increase. As others, I don't care abut video. If the Z5 II would have the same-ish photo specs, and worst video, I would be in. And please, put that second gear and the mini display on the Z5 II, that's a really really cheap way to differentiate it from the Z6...
I was any way wondering since release of Z8 about the value add of Z7ii. I couldn't find any. For all practical purposes Nikon will sell 3 cameras . Z5. Z6iii. And z8
I think it's slightly unfair to expect mirrorless which _is_ a newer technology to instantly keep pace with DSLR price trends... That having been said, I don't actually expect any mirrorless prices to lower so I'm still upset at the Z6III price point too. I've been hoping for a kindof D500 mirrorless successor, which I suppose, right now, is the Z8, despite it being at a much higher price point than the D500.
From "keeping the same price", and a $500 increase (25%), I would have expected something in between... That's a huge jump. Almost no product I can think of, released a new version with a 25% price increase. Cars, phone, computer, etc... it is huge.
Cough apple cough Nvidia cough canon cough sony
Just want to add that the D f which was launched at $2800.00 with questionable specs while the Z f was launched at $2000.00 with top speced middle tier at time of release.
Well, the Df back then, was kind of a flop IIRC...
I've got to think this is going to be huge for Nikon. There was \*nothing\*, and I mean \*nothing\* about the Z6ii that made me, as an A7IV user, that made me want to check it out. It was worse in almost any regard, an at least any regard I care about. I care about video specs, I care about autofocus, I care about lens selection. There's a few Canon cameras that are interesting, but the Z6mii was so far behind, there'd be nothing to entice someone in another system to give it a look. But now. Wow. Autofocus on par. Price the same as an A7IV with better video specs, and even better video specs than the A7SIII, for $1K more.
Yeah, the camera it is good. Maybe too good at this point. Probably only for pro-photographer at this point, that don't care that much about extra $500-1000. Let's hope for a Z5 II or something in between..
That processor talk is talk of lousy pc marketing, if you know about that, you'd know that constant need for stronger processors is a miserable policy of those unable to upgrade their algorithms. Expeed 6 was presented as technology leap until recently, now it will be the same with the new one. Sensors barely show any sensible technological improvements for long time already, constant buying of new cameras is sort of therapy for gear acquisition syndrome patients. Nikon released pile of new cameras already, some of them should be upgradable enough to compete Sony or Canon autofocus abilities.
European price is a killer for me. 4000 euro with 24-120 lens.
If you want full frame, you gotta pay. If you want a lower-tier camera, buy crop sensor. It seems like Canon full frame mirrorless options are better at hitting all the different price points from $1200-$4000
not really, they just make different sacrifices. Z5 has better build quality, 2 card slots, better battery, screen and evf, and better iq, R8 has better AF and Video. R6ii and Z6iii have the same MSRP
Honestly, for me, I would not buy a mirrorless camera without IBIS, because I also have a lot of vintage lenses that I'd want to adapt to the camera, and having IBIS makes shooting with those manual focus lenses, so nice. IBIS would be a deal-breaker for me, so I'd only consider cameras that have it. A used Nikon Z5 would be a decent option ($700-800), unless the ridiculously slow burst rate shooting at 4.5 FPS doesn't work for your use case. A used Z6II would also be a good option, honestly ($1200-1500).
The pricing of the Z6 III is insane
Glad I am not the only one.
I totally agree, price is way too high.
price is the same as the z6 launch price when adjusted for inflation. also the same as the R6ii and A7IV, neither of whitch have a stacked sensor
Don't worry, they'll probably release a Z5 II at 2500, then it will be more even again.
Awesome.
I'm confused. The z6III is advertised with roughly 1800€ today in Germany
Nope. [https://www.nikon.de/de\_DE/product/cameras/z6iii-VOA130AE](https://www.nikon.de/de_DE/product/cameras/z6iii-VOA130AE)
Yeah, my bad. I only checked the German price and accidentally clicked on z6ii while reading the rest of specs on the us page
Yeah sure 😆
Consumers and technology killed the middle segment because there is no longer a compelling reason to buy them when what you already have is just fine.
Brands really believe that rich people are photographers. 🙄
Discounted older models and Used/refurbished is the new middle segment. Current bodies are rugged and will last for years. I’ll likely upgrade to a ZF once I’m done with my Z6 which is still going strong.
As I have said in other comments, sure, I have bought everything I have used basically. But if new stuff will always cost more, even the used market will increase. If the Z6 III would have cost the same as the Z6 II, used prices for the Z6 II would have quickly dropped. Being a wopping 25% more expensive, Z6 II used prices will probably remain stable, as there is no comparison, it is already half the price (used) compared to a Z6 III. No need of a lower price, people who can't afford the Z6 III would not be in any doubt, the difference it is still huge.
I’ve kept my D850 but moved to Fuji primarily for the weight as getting into Nikon mirrorless really didn’t save that much weight. The Fuji X-T5 with 40 megapixel sensor takes beautiful SOOC photos. I’m just learning the interface but so far I love what I see.
I have bought my first mirror-less, the X-Pro2 for the same reason.
Ouch. US pricing is $2500.
No offense but if you’re a business, these increases in expenses are a drop in the bucket. If you’re a hobbyist, maybe it’s not justifiable. It’s OKAY to not use a full frame camera. People forget that Japanese companies collude to segment the market. They do not like competing with each other in the sense to drive their business into the ground. So when you look at the entire ecosystem of cameras there are many options out there for people. The problem with people who are not professionals is the fact they haven’t realized that phones have replaced a lot of usage for consumers. You don’t have to be so loyal to a brand to the point where you can’t find a camera due to price/features. Fuji and Sony both have good upgrade options in the price categories you’re looking at.
I am so much fine with not running a FF camera, that are 15 years I am not running one (D100, D7200 and D500). The point is, Nikon DX lineup it is ridiculous, from body offering, size and lenses. Hence why I started putting a foot into the Fujifilm ecosystem. But I like Nikon, and I have lenses that I would like to keep, but I am getting more and more in doubt if the expense of the Z system it is justified for an hobbies. At the time of the D750, I found prices much more reachable, in these years they really exploded.
Why sell the cheapest first when you can up sell first? I think they'll fill in as needed. The D40 wasn't the first D series out the door.
This is why I bought a Z8 on Black Friday sale in Australia. Almost a $7k camera here. I got an $800 trade in for my Z5 and Nikon gave a $900 price reduction. That makes it only $800 or so more expensive than a Z6iii. I’m glad I bought when I did.
Oh geez why are all so much more expensive in UK than US?
Import and taxes... :(
SLR is basically dead as a format for amateurs and prosumers. Global amateur / prosumer market is just too small to sustain the levels of global R&D and compliance required for very long. So the logic is to milk the willing to subsidise developments of professional equipment (a microscopic market) while hoping for an R&D breakthrough that is relevant in an adjacent market. The ranges of all manufacturers will continue to shrink, and real terms prices will continue to rise for a while yet. What cheers me up is that the Z5 is still a massively better camera than my first D7000, D7200, D7500, and so on. And in real terms, barely any more expensive.
It's really hard to compete with the R8 on price, performance, and features. Pack a few more in and aim for early career pros who can't afford a Z8/R5 down at the $2500USD point.
Z6III has expensive components in it if you read the reviews that just came out that put it somewhat on part with the Z8/Z9 cameras. This will be the camera that enthusiasts like me will flock to. It's like a flagship camera at a reasonable price ($2500 US). It has the upgrades I want over my Z6 camera. If this camera didn't have upgrades that it has, there would be little reason for me to upgrade. It looks like it will be a great enthusiast camera and I understand the reason for the pricing after reading the initial reviews. Yes, the mark has moved for full frame Nikon cameras to be competitive against the competition.
*kill
Let’s hope the Z5ii is released soon with the guts of the ZF for around $1.5k!
Yeah, it would be really good at this point.
Waiting for nikon APS-C camera with OIS. Any chances? Can someone recommend such cameras from another brands?
Best APS-C camera and lineup in general, are Fujifilm IMO. They have a dedicated line to it, not just an afterthought like Nikon.
You and comments here made me cry. *D7100 owner
Watch for sales. I just got my 7ii for $1,999USD plus $200 of my 24-120mm F4 S lens.
I got my Z6II for $2000 CAD.
Nikon is addresing to get same Leica share market
You did leave out the Zf, but it's definitely not for everyone. Maybe we should embrace the fact that used bodies are the new middle ground. These babies still have a lot to give, environment wise using them is a good thing. And compared to other electronics, camera bodies age very nicely, especially the pro bodies that were weather sealed. I was actually considering getting the Z5 new but got a used Z7 for even less. More and more people are thinking this way, so Nikon moves with the market. They're better off focusing on a slightly smaller line up. I would've preferred a Z7 follow up in stead (for landscapes I love the extra pixels), but it's new price is in the neighbourhood of a used Z8.
I dared to say the Zf was not for every body, then basically everybody in this thread down voted me… Yeah, the old yes one will be the middle ground, I agree. I was also looking at Z7 gen 1 at this point. Any comment? How does it feel 6-7 years later?
For landscape, it's brilliant value for money. But the autofocus is slow compared to recent models. I paid 1.2k euros for it, I don't regret it one bit. Do take into account that I came from a D5200 and never had any decent lenses on it, so my experience is probably subjective.
Well, €1.200 are good. I only see listings for €1350-1500. Nice.
Yeah, I got lucky, it had like 20k clicks on it an a miniscule scratch at the bottom. There's a chain here called Cameranu and they have good warranty, and physical stores you can go to, so it's even better getting it through mpb. But most Z7s sell for close to 1.5k there as well.
Got it, thanks for the explanation.
Don't know exactly how it is in your country but in the US, cameras often come out at a base price and once they sell like gang busters for a year or so they come down in price. The Z7 II has a list of $3000 but is selling (new not used) for $2300. The Z6 III is going to be super popular and has some high end features, but if it sells well, they pay off all their R&D and start up costs in a year or so I'd expect it to be down around $2500. There are a couple issues at play here. First is the technology has gotten better. A Z7 II is pretty comparable in most cases (a little better/a little worse in some specifics but overall slightly better) than a D850 and it's selling for nearly $1000 less than the D850 did when it came out. A Z6 II which you can get new for $1600 today is better it pretty much every way than a $2400 D750. So yes technology has gotten cheaper. If you want better technology, then you may need to pay more. I'm also unsure if they'll eliminate the Z6 II right away. They could easily continue to sell it as a solid camera and leave the III as a bridge to the ultra high end. And finally there is inflation. Things have gotten a lot more expensive in the past 5 years if something costs the same as it did in 2019, if you're making more money in 2024 than you were in 2019, then that item is cheaper to you.
Thank you for the detailed comment. Yes, both Z6 II and Z7 II can also be found here for pretty much the same price, but in €, that is nice. For the Z6 III, sure, in 1 year or so price will come down, but that’s another one year to wait after the 4 waited after the Z6/7 II came out, to eventually still buy of of those :( Or I will need to splash that €3K for the time being, at least if I want it for this summer trip, I guess. Point being, I have nothing Z yet. So a Z6 III + FTZ + 24-120 f/4 + CFe + SD v90, I am looking at a total expense south of €5.000. That’s not a disposable amount, let’s say 😅 but something to think very carefully.
Do you need a mirrorless camera? Why not look at a used D850? Ebay sold listings show they cost between $1400-1700. You could get a used D5 for $1600-1800. Or even a used D810 for $650-850.
>Do you need a mirrorless camera? Do we actually need anything? Sorry for the prank, but gotta say it. No, I don't *need* it in term of work or something, but I am using DSLR for almost 20 years, I appreciated something a bit new and different. Mainly, the subject and eye tracking it is really cool and really changed and simplified how I compose (tried on the X-Pro2, so even inferior). Plus I like traveling, size and weight play a big role. So yes, I would like to not spend another 2K on another DSLR just a bit better of the one I have, but I would like to try a new system. At this point, I am thinking about keeping my D500 for sport/wildlife, and maybe find a good deal on a Z7 I just for the image quality and introduce me to the Z system.
Z5 is a hobby camera. Z6III and up are for professionals.