NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: chambeshi on November 02, 2021, 07:26:48
-
https://bythom.com/newsviews/yes-the-camera-world-change.html
and
https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/winners-and-losers.html
-
I keep a memento personal page with the salient specs of the flagship Nikon models, I recently updated the page with the Z9's features:
1999 D1 Original model, 2000x1312, 2,7 Mpix, ISO 200-1600 4,5 fps, 1/16000"
2001 D1H FPS up to 5 fps
2001 D1X Resolution upped to 3008x1960, 5,3 Mpix (still 1/16000")
2003 D2H FPS upped to 8 fps, 4,1Mpix, 2464x1632 (shutter speed down to 1/8000")
2004 D2X Resolution upped to 4288x2848, 12 Mpix, ISO max 800, 5 fps
2005 D2Hs Added ISO Max 6400
2006 D2Xs Added ISO Max 3200, High-speed Crop Mode
2007 D3 FX, 4256x2832, 12 Mpix, 9 fps, ISO MAX 25600
2008 D3X 6048x4032, 24 Mpix, ISO Max 6400, 5 fps
2009 D3s 4288x2848, 12 Mpix, ISO Max 102400, 9 fps
2012 D4 4928x3280, 16 Mpix, ISO Max 204800, 10 fps
2014 D4s ISO Max 409600, 11 fps
2016 D5 5588x3712, 20,8 Mpix, ISO Max 3280000, 14 fps
2020 D6 EXPEED 6, improved AF, GPS included, added 900" in M mode
2021 Z9 EXPEED 7, 1/32000", 1/250" flash sync, stacked sensor, improved AF, 20-120 FPS, 8256x5504 (45.7Mpix), 8K video, infinite shutter life. Did I forget something?
I have mentioned a feature only when there is an improvement or feature addition over the previous model. GPS and 900" features were not included in the Z9's list, because they were already present in the D6. Z9 has a lower ISO MAX than the D6, but it can focus in almost total darkness (probably improved over the D6).
Naturally, improvement is a continuum, with quantum leaps at the D3 point (introduction of FX sensor, 25600 ISO) and Z9 (changing the game all over). The initial D1 leap (birth of pro digital camera in the Nikon world) should be accounted for.
Ciao from Massimo
-
I completely agree, the D1 and D3 where crucial and very big steps in the evolution of the DSLR!
Sure the Z9 is also worthy of that, but more on a technological achievement, not necessarily a huge difference for the 'normal' photographer shooting travel, streets, landscapes etc.
-
The biggest game changer imho is that there is now one pro body which can do everything without compromise.
Since the D1 there has been a High speed, high ISO but low res and low DR model for fast action and a slower Xtra resolution model for the high resolution, high DR at the cost of high ISO performance and fps. And since the D4 the latter wasn’t even available in a pro body but only in the D8xx or Z7 cameras.
With the Z9 we have high resolution, high ISO, high DR and insane frame rates in one pro body which is a first for Nikon and the competition.
This curve is the main reason why I wasn’t interested in any of the pro bodies after moving from the D3s to the D800E ages ago, below is the D6 compared to the Z7II which shows why the D6 is not suitable at all for landscape photography whereas the Z9 should be able to do both landscape and action.
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D300S,Nikon%20D700,Nikon%20Z%206,Nikon%20Z%207
-
The biggest game changer imho is that there is now one pro body which can do everything without compromise.
Or at least the compromises are smaller.
-
Or at least the compromises are smaller.
Indeed, there are always compromises. In the days of film, the pro cameras were best at everything and thus justified the highest price. With Z9 this becomes true again and I think the Z9 will be quite popular.
-
Exactly, working pro’s or prosumers whom need to cover multiple disciplines can do pretty much everything with very little compromises with one or two Z9 bodies instead of relying on two or more completely different cameras with different button layouts, different cards, batteries, chargers, remotes, etc.
Personally I would like to see a Z8 in a compact body so it shares the same accessories as my Z6 :)
-
Personally I would like to see a Z8 in a compact body so it shares the same accessories as my Z6 :)
I think the bigger body (still smaller than D6) is used as a heatsink to allow longer recording times, and to hold the larger battery also necessary for the longer recording times. A more compact form factor may have to dial back some of the video capabilities or maybe have some new body features (fins?) for heat dissipation.
-
Exactly, working pro’s or prosumers whom need to cover multiple disciplines can do pretty much everything with very little compromises with one or two Z9 bodies instead of relying on two or more completely different cameras with different button layouts, different cards, batteries, chargers, remotes, etc.
Personally I would like to see a Z8 in a compact body so it shares the same accessories as my Z6 :)
Metoo ;)
-
I think the bigger body (still smaller than D6) is used as a heatsink to allow longer recording times, and to hold the larger battery also necessary for the longer recording times. A more compact form factor may have to dial back some of the video capabilities or maybe have some new body features (fins?) for heat dissipation.
Sure, but a big part of the D3 moment for Nikon was that 95% of the game changing technology also trickled down into the smaller and more affordable D700 which brought in the bulk of the revenue to cover the R&D cost of their first high ISO FX sensor, faster AF, etc.
With the aggressive pricing of the Z9 and limited pro(sumer) market its highly likely that Nikon will introduce a smaller “Z8” sibling to cover the multi year investment of the new sensor, xspeed engine, af, etc. I think that most of us can do just fine with 95% of the Z9 performance :)
-
Sure, but a big part of the D3 moment for Nikon was that 95% of the game changing technology also trickled down into the smaller and more affordable D700 which brought in the bulk of the revenue to cover the R&D cost of their first high ISO FX sensor, faster AF, etc.
With the aggressive pricing of the Z9 and limited pro(sumer) market its highly likely that Nikon will introduce a smaller “Z8” sibling to cover the multi year investment of the new sensor, xspeed engine, af, etc. I think that most of us can do just fine with 95% of the Z9 performance :)
I do not disagree. I'm certain that the AF and lack of shutter will spread throughout the line over time. Removing the shutter reduces weight, cost, complexity and noise. It should improve reliability. Best in class AF (or even matching competitors) will help sell cameras.
I think the Z9 will be a big hit, so it will be a hard decision about when to release follow-on cameras. Will they be bold enough to provide the best possible features aggressively from top to bottom and push aside competitors, or ration them to protect their own internal flagship sales? I'm hoping the former.
-
I think the bigger body (still smaller than D6) is used as a heatsink to allow longer recording times, and to hold the larger battery also necessary for the longer recording times. A more compact form factor may have to dial back some of the video capabilities or maybe have some new body features (fins?) for heat dissipation.
Mark Cruz from Nikon Canada states that the decision to have a full size body with integrated grip allowed them to increase the role of the body as a heat sink. That feature was important in the ability to have 8k video for two hours - and is unique compared to smaller bodies. It was around the 8 minute mark in this roundtable discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF6HxMtinu8
-
My two cents is the Nikon D1 was a true game changer being the first truly practical DSLR and it was priced such that demigods could buy one even if mortals could not.
The Nikon D3 was not the first full frame DSLR, only the first full frame Nikon DSLR. As such the Nikon D3 was an important step for Nikon shooters. The D3 and also the D300 brought a very welcome improvement in dynamic range. The D1 and D2 series cameras were sorely lacking in dynamic range compared to B&W and color negative film. It's only with the D800 series cameras including the D850 (as well as the Nikon Z7 series cameras) that we see dynamic range comparable to B&W negative film. Dynamic range comparable to color negative film is still in the future.
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D1,Nikon%20D3,Nikon%20D300S,Nikon%20D800E,Nikon%20Z%207II (https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D1,Nikon%20D3,Nikon%20D300S,Nikon%20D800E,Nikon%20Z%207II)
I believe the Nikon Z9 is a game changer as it's the first interchangeable lens mirrorless camera in a 35mm form factor that is without a mechanical shutter. It's a game changer as it brings together in one camera much of what one could have in a D850/Z7 II and a D6 but could not have in one camera. Also the auto focus looks to be a major step forward such that a Z9 will be required for competitive reasons for Nikon professional photographers.
I hope Nikon has a good run with the Nikon Z9. I hope that there will be a little sister to the Z9 in the form of a Nikon Z8 or Z7 III by whatever name Nikon uses. I hope Canon and Sony will not be too quick to equal or surpass the Z9. Time will tell.
Dave
-
The D3 and also the D300 brought a very welcome improvement in dynamic range.
And high ISO performance. The D3S pushed this even further. I think these were "game-changing" improvements from this generation of cameras.
-
I believe the Nikon Z9 is a game changer as it's the first interchangeable lens mirrorless camera in a 35mm form factor that is without a mechanical shutter. It's a game changer as it brings together in one camera much of what one could have in a D850/Z7 II and a D6 but could not have in one camera. Also the auto focus looks to be a major step forward such that a Z9 will be required for competitive reasons for Nikon professional photographers.
Dave
Not to mention video...
-
This question might be better off in a thread of its own.
The arrival of the Z9 and the expansion of the Z mount lens ecosphere has got me thinking that we may not get to see a D7 and that new F-mount cameras might be few if any.
Given that building Z mount cameras with pure electronic shutters and no mirror boxes is significantly simpler and cheaper than building DSLRs I cannot see Nikon building new F mount cameras (although there is no reason I suppose that an electronic shutter/sensor could not be fitted to a DSLR, but then the mirror would hobble the frame rate and I cannot see Nikon getting into pure mirrorless F-mount cameras either - that would make no sense to me).
And not too many F-mount lenses either I would surmise, although any such new build F mount lenses might be developed in parallel with a Z mount counterpart. Certainly an F mount "E" lens is a safe enough investment for Nikon and its customers given that the FTZ adapter allows such lenses to work well on Z bodies. But how long would/could Nikon provide such legacy support for F mount bodies?
What are others thoughts on new F-mount camera and lens futures?
How dead is F mount?
(Or is it a case of King F is already dead; so long live King Z! ;D )
-
It's not easy to make a prediction. However, the scenario with D3 and F6 comes to mind. The superior technology usurped the throne. There never was an F7. And it is likely there never will be a D7 either. We already have the Z7.
-
I agree the Z mount and Mirrorless, digital technology is finally beginning to overtake the hegemony of DSLRs in sales, and most recently Mirrorless has caught up to the flagships, with the Z9 overtaking the Z9 in overall features (expect perhaps lowlight Image Quality!?!). This shift has intensified since the Sony A9. The pioneering R&D by Nikon is clearly accelerating the focus on stacked-sensors as the new frontier. As Thom Hogan argues, these will build in more and more of the functions, many of which have always been mechanical (ie focus and the shutter).
I was up at the tender hour of 0130 this morning - GMT+1 - for a zoom talk with Thom Hogan and Mark Comon (Paul's Camera, Torrence CA). Much information was covered, some useful insights new to me, so well worth the nocturnal event. TH reiterated why the Z9 is a D1 Moment at several points in the Discussion. He also underscored an aspect of the Z9 autofocus, which no one else had mentioned IME (in screening a lot of material over the past few days). I've enlarged on a fascinating aspect of the new AF System in the Z9 release thread....
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=post;quote=177329;topic=10206.120;last_msg=177329
Back to F-mount system, the strong emphasis by Nikon on the ~94 G and E Nikkors compatible with the Z cameras via FTZ translate into their persistence for some years to come, as are the medium and top DSLR, for the sound reason Nikon built rather too well ;D ;D And I for one plan to keep working with an integrated system (D5 and D850)...if Used D6 prices crash this state of the art DSLR for its Custom Group AF modes and better Recall Shooting Functions alone, and this could replace the excellent D5... It's still early days, indeed.
-
There was never an F7, but the F6 was available for a rather long time. Same pattern might apply for D7/D6 as well.
-
What are others thoughts on new F-mount camera and lens futures?
How dead is F mount?
(Or is it a case of King F is already dead; so long live King Z! ;D )
The D6 is mortally wounded and the D7 will not see the light of day. With Z series reaching parity and beyond on AF, burst speed, video, weight, reliability and other functionality there is no point in trying to improve the mirror, shutter and optical viewfinder which are the only remaining features which distinguish the D series from the Z series. Those technologies are very mature and I can't imagine how a D7 would improve on the existing assemblies in the D6.
I think that Z mount will be the primary design target for lenses as well. In some cases, long lenses for example, it is likely that a lens developed for Z series could be repackaged for F series if the rear element is far enough from the sensor. On the wide side I think F mount is dead as the Z line is showing clear advantages of the shorter flange distance.
-
And this was likely the higher manufacturing costs of Nikon's last flagship film SLRs
At a significantly larger scale in the evolution of technology, History often rhymes, when we look back to the complicated life history of the FM3a (long read):
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-fm3a/
With the Z9, digitalization has removed the last obstacle to a fully electronic Interchangeable Lens Camera. Thus as Thom H argues, the Z9 has indeed initiated a unavoidable switch of the photography industry to a new trajectory.
Rival companies will already have begun to scramble to find equivalent sensor-based technology to build their cameras more efficiently and with similar scope of cutting edge features and capabilities....This could have long delays, if it's even feasible in the newly defined ILC industry in which stacked-sensor costs have become the brand new leveller as to profits and market share, and who survives to persist over the longer term. It's likely that Nikon will tactically expanded the scope of its new strategy months back to embrace and extend its advantages into forthcoming Z cameras
It's not easy to make a prediction. However, the scenario with D3 and F6 comes to mind. The superior technology usurped the throne. There never was an F7. And it is likely there never will be a D7 either. We already have the Z7.
-
People are getting a little carried away, I think.
The camera system won't be void of mechanical components. Focusing, zooming, image stabilization (both in body and in lens) involve moving parts, and some of the controls also operate mechanically. Not that I think there is any great need to get rid of mechanical systems, IMO. Of course, high fps rates and video operate with electronic shutter and this is an important development, to have electronic shutter with fast enough read cycle so that most rolling shutter and banding are avoided. However, there is likely some cost in dynamic range (dpreview estimated less than 1 stop compared to Z7 II, which in turn is slightly worse than the D850). This is still better than cameras like the D6 which have a sensor optimized for a narrower set of applications, but it may not be the best DR achievable for applications such as landscape. High fps rate and fast read time also may be incompatible with the highest resolutions that might be implemented in the future, such as 100 or 200 MP. Electronic shutter does have advantages for high-resolution photography as shutter-induced shake is avoided (but most of this is already avoided using EFCS).
EVF lag is dependent on light level as in dim light they need to amplify the signal and e.g. to see objects at night, they may also need to collect data over a longer integration interval further increasing the delay. Variable delay can be a problem when timing shots in different lighting conditions. I believe a lag-free EVF when I see it; currently I don't really believe it's possible. I know my timing goes completely off when photographing with an EVF camera in a dim restaurant, the captured shots do not match what I saw in the viewfinder. Z9 may be better, but whether it is good enough, remains to be seen.
Low light creates another problem, for the AF. In low light, autofocus based on embedded PDAF sensors can struggle and the cameras typically augment the data with CDAF or switch completely to a CDAF algorithm, which can work poorly with adapted F-mount lenses (apart from the stepper motor lenses). Although it has been shown that adapted lenses work great on the Z9 in bright daylight, I haven't seen a similar demonstration of the capability in low light (with adapted AF-S Nikkor lenses). Time will tell.
IMO silent photography is the big benefit of mirrorless cameras and the Z9 appears to feature it in general photography without significant artifacts (beyond those that the mechanical shutter also produces). However, currently the full-frame stacked BSI sensors are not available on any medium or lower-cost cameras, which suggests that the cost of producing such sensors is too high (or the production volume that is possible now is low) to use in the mid- and lower-end models that probably constitute way over 90% of the ILC market. Thus it remains a dream and not reality for most photographers, including professionals except the more wealthy end of the market.
One should probably factor in the cost of a Z lens setup and backup bodies etc. into the cost of gaining access to the full capability of the Z9. So if one really believes that it makes sense to do a broad variety of subjects, the cost of the "transition" will be very high. It will take quite a while to happen for most photographers with existing complete systems. Many lens types are still absent from the Z lineup, including all f/1.4 lenses, 135mm, 200mm and 300mm primes, tilt/shift lenses, and also movie-specific lenses including powered zooms (that other manufacturers such as Sony and Canon have). The 16mm flange-back distance may be limiting for the implementation of built-in ND filters (not sure, but think it might become a struggle) which are needed for video in bright sunlight and may be helpful in other circumstances as well.
While I like high-resolution still cameras, I don't believe that high resolution is genuinely useful or often practical in video. Generally, to create fluid movement, a slow shutter speed is needed and this blurs the details in the main subject. It's of course possible to have high resolution landscape video etc. but I generally feel video is best used for moving and living subjects and high-resolution is best used in still photography (because to perceive details, one needs time to scan the scene or image, and in video things are in motion and so there is no time for details). I can understand why Nikon would argue that high-resolution in video is just as important as in stills because their main argument for their system is image quality. But I believe that for most professional applications of video, even 4K is overkill and probably most work continues in HD, certainly in the case of streaming. What disadvantage does an 8K camera have for HD? Usually the HD in high-resolution cameras is not as high quality as it from dedicated professional video cameras that are optimized for it. You can get a good outcome by recording in higher resolution and exporting in HD but this isn't applicable to applications requiring immediacy. Z9 has no physical audio controls, only one microphone input, and no built-in NDs. The colour profiles are different from what more traditional video camera companies use which means you can't as easily collaborate with others on video (especially for live coverage). I just don't have such a rosy outlook on this. I am not doubting that it's necessary for Nikon to produce equipment for video but don't really think that they have the right plan on how to do this; I think it's much more important to have access to lenses designed for video (which Nikon are doing to some extent by considering focus breathing etc., but not yet power zooms) and full controls on the camera (designed around the needs of video work including comprehensive ND and audio controls) rather than 8K. (I totally get that because of the high resolution of the Z lenses Nikon would want to argue that 8K is the way forward, but I think it'll be difficult to get people on board).
I also don't believe that photographers equipped to do stills will be skilled in video and vice versa, despite the claims that these media will integrate into one and you just need the right camera (!). The processes are completely different and most of the equipment are not shared. Video requires gimbals, fluid heads, cranes, powered zooms, microphones, audio recording systems, streaming equipment, GPUs, and above all a plan for everything when shooting, and often a crew. In still photography, a single photographer can capture shots from different camera angles by quickly moving without having to consider continuity which would be a kind of straightjacket (that videographers have to adhere to, but still photographers have more freedom). Typically to cover multiple camera angles in video you need multiple cameras and operators. Post processing is very time-consuming as well, the audio needs to be cleaned up and artifacts removed, colour needs to be maintained across the cameras and over time, and it's more difficult to edits since one has to consider the continuity there as well. I just don't believe there are great advantages to the hybridization. Believing that it's a good idea leads more people to invest in the wrong equipment and waste money instead of getting the right equipment for the tasks and also limiting one's focus is necessary to acquire the required skills.
I don't believe that it's a good idea for most photographers to try to be generalists. It can be more difficult to market work as a photographer if one shows a lot of different disciplines of work, as people are usually looking for those who do specifically the kind of work that the customer needs in a particular job and may not believe that one person can be as good in photographing and videographing every subject as a specialist.
I have no doubt the Z9 will be a great camera just don't believe that cameras in the future will be all electronic or all-purpose instruments and photographers will be even less so.
-
Thank you for the sanity check ;) I can nod to all of the above points.
-
So do I. It resonates with my experience working in theater. People -and above all clients- tend to get carried away
-
Recently found this interesting article about the pro’s and cons of a mechanical, full electronic and electric first curtain shutters:
https://photographylife.com/mechanical-electronic-shutter-efcs
Nikon claims to have solved all the known issues of the current electronic shutters but would be interesting to see if it is the best of both worlds now.
As for DR, Ricci mentioned that DR was on par or better than the current Nikon hi res cameras and same for the high ISO performance compared to the D6.
-
One of the major use cases for 8K video is having enough pixels to reframe, punch in, pan, and rotate in post production.
-
I was not acquainted with "EFCS" (Electronic Front-Curtain Shutter) so I did a search and this is the first article I read which also contains a video...
https://petapixel.com/2018/12/07/psa-electronic-front-curtain-shutter-may-be-quietly-hurting-your-bokeh/ (https://petapixel.com/2018/12/07/psa-electronic-front-curtain-shutter-may-be-quietly-hurting-your-bokeh/)
Here is a direct link to the video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQTarMu_y6Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQTarMu_y6Y)
This is totally new to me. It appears that the use of an EFCS adversely affects one's bokeh. As I understand the article and video this issue appears at about 1/1,000th second or higher shutter speed when using an EFCS and seems to be a feature of all camera brands.
I wonder what others think of this article and video?
Dave
-
Recently found this interesting article about the pro’s and cons of a mechanical, full electronic and electric first curtain shutters:
https://photographylife.com/mechanical-electronic-shutter-efcs
Thank you for posting this link. I hope to read this article soon. I scanned it and found nested in it a link to the article I offered above.
Best,
Dave
-
People are getting a little carried away, I think.
The camera system won't be void of mechanical components. Focusing, zooming, image stabilization (both in body and in lens) involve moving parts, and some of the controls also operate mechanically. Not that I think there is any great need to get rid of mechanical systems, IMO.
I have no doubt the Z9 will be a great camera just don't believe that cameras in the future will be all electronic or all-purpose instruments and photographers will be even less so.
I don't think the existence of the Z9 will change photographers. I think it will change Nikon's product development roadmap and already has. Getting rid of optical viewfinder and shutter reduces weight and cost. Arguably removing the shutter also improves reliability.
I wouldn't suggest that everything become electronic. Only things which have fewer compromises than the alternative will be successful. This doesn't mean it is the absolute best or even equal to existing alternatives. 35mm film is inferior to medium format or large format for image quality, yet the 35mm form factor became dominant because it was smaller, lighter, faster and cheaper. Smaller formats failed because image quality was too compromised to make up for their advantages. Optical viewfinders have zero lag and high resolution. But they black-out during image capture, they are heavy, they require a complex and expensive mirror and prism arrangement, they can not easily be zoomed to view fine details, they can not boost brightness in dark conditions. So while high resolution and zero lag are important, when the alternative (EVF) minimizes the compromise in those areas to a point where the advantages of EVF outweigh the compromises, the evolution in the former technology will slow or stop. In my opinion that has happened with the Z9, and will be followed by other camera manufacturers. Don't worry though! Nikon F series cameras were made in the millions and are available for very low prices.
-
I was not acquainted with "EFCS" (Electronic Front-Curtain Shutter) so I did a search and this is the first article I read which also contains a video...
https://petapixel.com/2018/12/07/psa-electronic-front-curtain-shutter-may-be-quietly-hurting-your-bokeh/ (https://petapixel.com/2018/12/07/psa-electronic-front-curtain-shutter-may-be-quietly-hurting-your-bokeh/)
Here is a direct link to the video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQTarMu_y6Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQTarMu_y6Y)
This is totally new to me. It appears that the use of an EFCS adversely affects one's bokeh. As I understand the article and video this issue appears at about 1/1,000th second or higher shutter speed when using an EFCS and seems to be a feature of all camera brands.
I wonder what others think of this article and video?
Dave
This is the reason newer Nikons (e.g. Z7) have an auto shutter setting, which changes the shutter type from EFCS to fully mechanical at 1/250s. Slower than 1/250s the shutter works in EFCS mode, faster than 1/250s the shutter works fully "mechanical". Very handy setting b.t.w.
-
I was not acquainted with "EFCS" (Electronic Front-Curtain Shutter) so I did a search and this is the first article I read which also contains a video...
https://petapixel.com/2018/12/07/psa-electronic-front-curtain-shutter-may-be-quietly-hurting-your-bokeh/ (https://petapixel.com/2018/12/07/psa-electronic-front-curtain-shutter-may-be-quietly-hurting-your-bokeh/)
Here is a direct link to the video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQTarMu_y6Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQTarMu_y6Y)
This is totally new to me. It appears that the use of an EFCS adversely affects one's bokeh. As I understand the article and video this issue appears at about 1/1,000th second or higher shutter speed when using an EFCS and seems to be a feature of all camera brands.
I wonder what others think of this article and video?
Dave
In the Z cameras (other than the Z9 which only has full electronic shutter) you have the option of Auto EFCS which chooses between EFCS and mechanical shutter operation automatically depending on lens, shutter speed etc. In the auto mode it probably avoids EFCS at high shutter speeds avoiding these bokeh issues. In some Z lenses there is no explicit mechanical option (e.g., 105 MC), only auto and EFCS.
Nikon do not in most cameras allow EFCS at faster speeds than 1/2000s (not sure about how things work on the 105 MC when at high speeds, if it does go to mechanical or continues with EFCS); this should avoid most of the bokeh issues.
I've personally not encountered any bokeh issues that I would have noticed but with PC lenses at wide apertures and with tilt in use, there can be some image shading (gradient) in EFCS mode.
EFCS should be the default operation mode on most mirrorless cameras as otherwise the camera would complete two cycles of the mechanical shutter for every shot, increasing vibration. EFCS also reduces shutter lag (in mirrorless cameras and in some DSLRs in live view).
The Z9 of course makes EFCS irrelevant for its users. For those cameras which don't have fast electronic shutters, EFCS can dramatially enhance sharpness, to the point that one can struggle to view through the somewhat smeared mechanical shutter shots.
-
Don't worry though! Nikon F series cameras were made in the millions and are available for very low prices.
I'm not worried, I am happy that people can get the kind of camera they want. I keep my cameras so tidy that I think going for a used-market camera would be quite a shock in most cases... but I already have enough cameras.
-
I'm not worried, I am happy that people can get the kind of camera they want.
In my case I am not worried anymore, to me the Z9 shows that Nikon is the way to go and that mirrorless has finally matured after 8 very long years since my move from the well refined D800E DSLR to a very mediocre Sony a7R in 2013.
I had the pleasure to travel the world and test optical gems from other brands and kept the ones I liked like the Canon 85/1.2 FD and CV125 in Canon EF mount but a lot of money was burnt down the road by being an early adopter. I have more adapters than I can count and the chase for decent AF performance with tele lenses only ended with a move back to a Nikon DSLR 5 years later with the purchase of the D500 and 200-500VR in 2018 for my trip to Down Under.
Now with the Z9 announced I feel confident enough to sell my last Sony gear and go all in on the Zee platform even though the lenses I would like to buy like a 35/1.2 and 14/1.8 haven’t even been rumored yet let alone announced whereas Sony does already have an excellent and compact 14/1.8.
-
These are at best preliminary results at best comparing ISO of the Z9 and Z7 II, with a provocative interpretation of the Z9 by the reviewer: comparing its innovations against to the D3. But he does not mention the earlier cameras which introduced a stacked sensor
https://www.nikonzone.com/review-nikon-z-9/