Nikon Z9 Pro specifications

Well, these are just awesome if these were factual.  I've been toying with the idea of an upgrade.  Wondering if the Z9 will be worth the wait.  I think who ever created this video made some good forecasts here.  

We'll see!  Would be nice.  What do you think?

I think whomever put that together has no imagination, doesn't understand the current products, and doesn't know what they're talking about.Features that already exist:

• IBIS
• Tilting screen
• 1/8000s minimum shutter speed. Not maximum.
• HD at 120fps
• WiFi and BT

What does that leave?

Dual XQD - this is a no-brainer, and we all saw this coming. Except no one wants XQD, they want CFE. That's what we're really waiting for.

Sensor size: 21 MP. Really? That's the best you've got? There's no reason to limit the sensor size to 21 MP when storage can easily accommodate more pixels. Then you just provide a way to lower the resolution to whatever you need. Sorta like the D850, etc, already does.

Larger buffer: Really? Keep reading...

Speed: 20 frames per second. Really? Keep reading...

XQD is a PCI device, and as such runs much faster then CF or SD media. So much so that (for example) on a D4, if you hold down the shutter button and the highest continuous  speed the camera will never slow down. XQD cards are more than capable of handling data rates much higher than 20 FPS demands. They can handle 4K at 60p, and more. It's no longer the storage that is the bottleneck. We no longer need any buffer, much less a larger one.

4K up to 60p: 4K at 30p can be handled by UHS-1 cards. XQD is far beyond that. This is a matter of software and processing, and not terribly surprising. Now, offering 8K... that might be something. Something not terribly useful for most folks.

"Slow Mo" 1080p up to 120 fps: It's "slo-mo". And current cameras already do this.

Viewfinder 5.76 million dots: okay, so? We need more detail in a tiny screen?

693 AF points: so? How many points are required to ascertain a suitable focal plane? Such a gimmick.....

Low ISO to 10: that's fine, but not ground-breaking.Larger battery: okay. More power is never a bad thing.

USB 3.1 Gen 1: Um, okay? How many people really plug their camera into the computer to transfer files?

In short: only one thing on this list is a "prediction" and that one almost a certainty. The rest is just... silly.

IMNSHO.

garyrhook wrote: I think whomever put that together has no imagination, doesn't understand the current products, and doesn't know what they're talking about.Features that already exist:

• IBIS
• Tilting screen
• 1/8000s minimum shutter speed. Not maximum.
• HD at 120fps
• WiFi and BT

What does that leave?

Dual XQD - this is a no-brainer, and we all saw this coming. Except no one wants XQD, they want CFE. That's what we're really waiting for.

Sensor size: 21 MP. Really? That's the best you've got? There's no reason to limit the sensor size to 21 MP when storage can easily accommodate more pixels. Then you just provide a way to lower the resolution to whatever you need. Sorta like the D850, etc, already does.

Larger buffer: Really? Keep reading...

Speed: 20 frames per second. Really? Keep reading...

XQD is a PCI device, and as such runs much faster then CF or SD media. So much so that (for example) on a D4, if you hold down the shutter button and the highest continuous  speed the camera will never slow down. XQD cards are more than capable of handling data rates much higher than 20 FPS demands. They can handle 4K at 60p, and more. It's no longer the storage that is the bottleneck. We no longer need any buffer, much less a larger one.

4K up to 60p: 4K at 30p can be handled by UHS-1 cards. XQD is far beyond that. This is a matter of software and processing, and not terribly surprising. Now, offering 8K... that might be something. Something not terribly useful for most folks.

"Slow Mo" 1080p up to 120 fps: It's "slo-mo". And current cameras already do this.

Viewfinder 5.76 million dots: okay, so? We need more detail in a tiny screen?

693 AF points: so? How many points are required to ascertain a suitable focal plane? Such a gimmick.....

Low ISO to 10: that's fine, but not ground-breaking.Larger battery: okay. More power is never a bad thing.

USB 3.1 Gen 1: Um, okay? How many people really plug their camera into the computer to transfer files?

In short: only one thing on this list is a "prediction" and that one almost a certainty. The rest is just... silly.

IMNSHO.

[font=Open Sans,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]Just a couple of niggles with your critique.
1. Standard jargon does call the faster shutter speed the "maximum". It refers to the speed the shutter moves not the length of the exposure. 
2. 120 fps is a bonus as it gives a much different look than 60 fps even if both are rendered in slo-mo. 120 is much desired and preferred by many and not a lot of cameras offer 120fps.
3. 5.76 million dots for the tiny screen. This is also highly desirable when manual focusing and checking fine detail after the fact to check focus.
4. 693 AF points may not be critical for most shooting, but for sports, action and wildlife it helps quite a bit. A lot easier to keep something in focus using CAF.
We may disagree on these things being important, but for some they are very helpful plus I just wanted to rib you some.    [/font]

Shadowfixer1 wrote: [font=Open Sans,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]Just a couple of niggles with your critique.
1. Standard jargon does call the faster shutter speed the "maximum". It refers to the speed the shutter moves not the length of the exposure. 
2. 120 fps is a bonus as it gives a much different look than 60 fps even if both are rendered in slo-mo. 120 is much desired and preferred by many and not a lot of cameras offer 120fps.
3. 5.76 million dots for the tiny screen. This is also highly desirable when manual focusing and checking fine detail after the fact to check focus.
4. 693 AF points may not be critical for most shooting, but for sports, action and wildlife it helps quite a bit. A lot easier to keep something in focus using CAF.
We may disagree on these things being important, but for some they are very helpful plus I just wanted to rib you some.    [/font]

1) Really? That's not at all (technically) intuitive. But the shutter speed isn't 1/8000s, the shutter open time is. Which makes the nomenclature non-sensical, and technically inaccurate. Just sayin'. But I follow your point.
2) Do we use the term slo-mo to refer to a longer shutter-open time? Or what? I fully understand that more fps changes the look, but the distinction is clearly something with which I'm unfamiliar. I'll have to go google that.
3) I get detail for manual focusing, completely. Yet, given that focus peaking is possible on an EVF, does that bump in resolution really matter? Not having a camera with EVF, I'm probably off base here, and that's a learning opportunity for me.
4) Really? I use single point for sports and keep it on the subject, constantly evaluating the focus plane. Maybe because I'm technical, and that's how my brain works. Perhaps I've not been in enough situations where that wouldn't work very well... But I think 600 is overkill. Heck, I think 250 is overkill.

And ribbing me is just fine. I'm always willing to learn, and not take myself seriously all the time.

I still think the video mostly rehashed existing features, and didn't really say anything useful.

[font=Open Sans,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]  [/font][/quote]

1) Really? That's not at all (technically) intuitive. But the shutter speed isn't 1/8000s, the shutter open time is. Which makes the nomenclature non-sensical, and technically inaccurate. Just sayin'. But I follow your point.
2) Do we use the term slo-mo to refer to a longer shutter-open time? Or what? I fully understand that more fps changes the look, but the distinction is clearly something with which I'm unfamiliar. I'll have to go google that.
3) I get detail for manual focusing, completely. Yet, given that focus peaking is possible on an EVF, does that bump in resolution really matter? Not having a camera with EVF, I'm probably off base here, and that's a learning opportunity for me.
4) Really? I use single point for sports and keep it on the subject, constantly evaluating the focus plane. Maybe because I'm technical, and that's how my brain works. Perhaps I've not been in enough situations where that wouldn't work very well... But I think 600 is overkill. Heck, I think 250 is overkill.

And ribbing me is just fine. I'm always willing to learn, and not take myself seriously all the time.

I still think the video mostly rehashed existing features, and didn't really say anything useful.[/quote]

1. Yep. Really. I understand what you're saying but it refers to the fastest the shutter can go. Look at the specs of any camera review on DPR. 

2. Peter McKinnon recently did a video talking about and showing the differences. He uses slow motion a lot in his vlogs. It was an interesting video. I'll see if I can find it when I get the time.

3. Focus peaking is good but not as accurate on some cameras and the magnification technique is better thus a better screen is always a better.

4. Yes. We started that way because we had to. Now with the focus tracking becoming usable, techniques can evolve and change. Just watch videos of the newest Sony and Olympus E-M1X tracking capabilities. Time to learn new tricks old dog. I haven't watched the video yet. Good discussion though. 

I think this is the clip you are after 

I'm holding off on an upgrade for exactly this.  Should be nice.  I'll bet they take what they learned from the Z7 and make one heck of a camera here. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see this get announced in September.  Especially now with Sony's new A7r IV.  

They really need to come out with a cheap version also to compete with the Canon RP. Sony just upped the game a bit with the Sony A7RIV. Big corporation is flexing their muscles.

Shadowfixer1 wrote: Standard jargon does call the faster shutter speed the "maximum". It refers to the speed the shutter moves not the length of the exposure.  

Agreed, that's the way it was always used.

Yep, so you see what I'm talking about.  These last 2 quarters this year should be pretty awesome for Nikon fans.  Plus, to address what you speaking about, they are supposed to have a Z5 coming.  Which will be rumored a cheap (compared to the rest) Z camera.  

I think we are going see some really exciting stuff from both Nikon and Canon during the next few months.  It seems things got a little vanilla between the brands in recent years, however things seems to be moving forward now.