"What was Nikon thinking in calling the Z8 a replacement for the D850 when there are no benefits relevant to landscape shooting versus the D850?" —digilloyd
I’ve gotten this feedback from others a lot, as well. So has Nikon. To understand the underlying bias of the statement, you have to simply ask yourself “what was Nikon thinking in calling the Z7 II a replacement for the Z7?” Still missing the point?
It’s the DSLR versus mirrorless bias at work. The Z8 can’t be a replacement for the D850 because for a particular type of photography the DSLR apparently has some clear benefit that the mirrorless camera can’t supply.
But first, let’s look at one word that keeps getting used: “replacement.” The actual word Nikon used is “successor.” The D850 is not being replaced. You can still buy it if that’s the camera you want. I suspect you’ll be able to buy it for quite some time, as the D850 is a seminal DSLR, and some people just want DSLRs. I think what Nikon’s actually trying to say is that it’s time to move on from DSLRs if you want to stay relevant and get all the latest features and functions. I’m not sure a pure landscape photographer is trying to stay relevant ;~).
That said, the Z8 does have some things that make a landscape photographer’s work easier. Consider, for example, what happens when you put a 10-stop ND filter on your D850: the viewfinder goes dark. Consider what happens on the Z8: the scene in the viewfinder is still usable. Wanna check whether rock #3 is in focus? Magnify the viewfinder on the Z8. On a D850 you’d have to do it in Live View, and you’re looking at an LCD in potentially bright light that doesn’t show the 100% view as clearly. Photographing in black and white and want to evaluate tonalities? You’ll have to take an image and look at it on the D850’s Rear LCD (again, possibly in bright light), but on the Z8 you can simply use the Monochrome Picture Control in the viewfinder. (Why is it that I have to come up with all these scenarios and Nikon’s marketing department hasn’t?)
I could go on, as I’ve got a fairly long list of things where I believe the Z8 becomes the better landscape camera than the D850. I also have one where it isn’t: at base ISO of 64, the D850 has between a third and half stop more dynamic range (the Z8’s fast image sensor doesn’t do quite as well up to ISO 400, after which it not only matches the D850, but at the ridiculous ISO values doesn’t tend to “go purple”).
Should you unload your D850 for a Z8? Well, that’s the real question, isn’t it? What people keep trying to come up with are reasons why they shouldn’t. Let me state it clearly: the D850 is a great camera that cost you a lot of money. Nikon’s asking quite a bit of you to move on from it to an even more expensive camera. You have to evaluate whether that is fiscally responsible or not, which potentially revolves around making realistic and fact-based assessments of the differences. Do the eight or so things I can point to make the Z8 a better camera for a D850 landscape photographer? Yes. Are they worth the cost? Well, that’s a different point, and one that many will probably say “no, it’s not” to at this point in time.
It’s okay to say “I get it, but I’m not going to get it.” You understand how the Z8 differs, you just don’t see that as something you’re willing to do at the moment (and probably because of financial reasons; if money were no object, your answer might be different).
Nikon does not really have a unique selling point. Sony: Super Fast Autofocus. Fujifilm: Film Simulation. Canon: “Color Science" —comment on YouTube video
Are those really the unique selling points of those three camera companies? And how is “film simulation” different than “color science”?
While I do generalize from time to time, I try to do so based on real evidence and some common sense evaluation of it. What I keep seeing—particularly in the YouTube “influencers”—is provocation, not evaluation. Make an “authoritative” and strong statement.
I’ll point out that YouTube commentary is a bit like a fight between someone with a gun (video) and a rock (comment sections). It takes a lot of good rocks to try to bring down the YouTuber, but they’ll just return with another loaded gun (video).
One thing I came to learn in college was very McLuhan-esque: the medium is indeed the message. My parents grew up with newspapers and magazines. I grew up with television and Internet 0.7beta. My god-daughter grew up with Internet 1.0 to 2.0. Today’s young are growing up with TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. Tomorrow’s young may grow up with AI friends instead of real ones.
In all cases, the medium is the most powerful thing in the relationship. Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, et.al. were the authority on the glass teat. It was tough to challenge their statements both because of the asymmetry of the relationship, but also because they (attempted) to adhere to a set of reporting standards. (Disclosure: I’m a graduate of the Edward R. Murrow School of Broadcasting.)
But challenge we must. It’s part of the first amendment, after all: freedom of speech and freedom of the press are conjoined in the actual wording, and that’s because they need to be considered together, not as separate things.
So, that YouTuber is certainly free to make his comment.
It’s just wrong ;~).
Moreover, pretty much any serious Nikon enthusiast would be able to tell you Nikon’s unique selling point: legacy. The button-and-dial method we all still use dates back to the N8008 in 1988. Nikon lenses made in the 1950’s still work on our cameras, and our cameras still tell us which way to move the focus and aperture rings ;~). Heck, some of the things we complain about needing an update—banks, for instance—are still the same because Nikon doesn’t make complete swap out changes without a ridiculously compelling reason to do so.
Now, as for the YouTuber’s assertions:
- Super-fast autofocus — I know of no factual evidence that says that Sony is “faster” than anyone else in focusing. Nor “more accurate,” nor “better subject recognition.” Every company is getting really good at these things, and the differences are pretty nuanced. Now, if you’re a complete amateur and don’t want to invest any time in learning the various autofocus systems, I will say this: set to “everything automatic,” the Sony cameras arguably seem to do a somewhat better job. But faster? No. And by the way: faster to a wrong focus point wouldn’t be a good thing, would it?
- Film simulation — I’ve had a difficult time with this term since Fujifilm first started using it. This is a marketing construct more than anything else. All digital cameras have to decide how to render color and tonality. Fujifilm uses the term “film simulation” for an egotistical reason: they believed that their films were better than Kodak’s, and they continue to express that in a passive aggressive manor. Does the X-series Velvia look like film Velvia, though? Nope. Back at the turn of the century I did a newsletter article and created a preset that mimicked some film stocks. It was based upon a real evaluation of the color and tonality of those films. Just to point out two simple things: film Velvia had a serious magenta tint in sky rendering, and the steepest drop-off to black from the shadows we’ve ever seen (e.g. lower dynamic range ;~). The X-series has no such thing. It saturates the colors and increases the contrast, basically. Can you do that on a Nikon? Sure, but it’s called Vivid.
- Color science — This is a term that is all encompassing, as it includes not just physics, but perception, psychology, and reproduction. But to pretend that only Canon is looking at or applying all those things is nonsense. Pretty much all the camera companies have groups, some very large, that work in those areas. Indeed, they have those groups because “color science” doesn’t just apply to digital cameras, it applies to plenty of other products that those companies produce, as well. But if you want to see a video on how Nikon’s “manipulations”…uh, Picture Controls, work in terms of color and tonality, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmtR3C4zKu0. Note that Canon, Fujifilm, and Nikon all use Hue swings in their colors, and indeed double Hue swings, to achieve some of their results. One difference is that Canon and Fujifilm tend to use larger ones than Nikon. Finally, note that Portrait impression balance is a way to adjust Nikon’s adjustment ;~). Of course, all of this is simply about JPEG rendering. Technically, modern digital cameras capturing raw data should only have one bias component when it comes to color, and that’s the Bayer filtration levels used. Even then, if you knew the spectral response of the image sensor and the filtration above it, you should be able to make a Canon look like a Nikon look like a Sony look like a Fujifilm.
