I keep hearing requests for a 61mp camera to match Sony’s A7R Mark IV. I also keep hearing that Nikon has been tinkering with 80mp and 100mp image sensors. Whether either of those two things will come together and result in a new Nikon body with more pixels is interesting to ponder.
Historically, Nikon has liked high pixel cameras. The whole X/H thing has a long series of repeats at the top end of Nikon’s camera lineup. D1h/D1x, D2h/D2x, and D3/D3x. You can regard the D800 (high pixel) and D4 (high speed), plus the D850 (high pixel) and D6 (high speed) DSLR combos as variations on the X/H idea.
So from 2001 until the present, the Nikon DSLR lineup has always had pixel/speed combos targeted at the pros.
The Z6/Z7 is, of course, are a pixels/speed type of combo, though this duo is more consumer than pro, and doesn’t push either pixels or speed to current attainable heights. While pros are using these cameras, they have a much more consumer interaction and are missing features the pros would consider necessary on a Nikon pro body.
What’s going to happen? I see two basic scenarios that seem somewhat likely:
- Z9 and Z9x, Z7 gets dropped. “Pixels” becomes a pro thing, while the Z6 III moves up to straddle the old pixels/speed numbers.
- Z9 and Z9x, Z6 and Z7 continue. We continue to get a prosumer echo of a pro duo.
A Z9x might actually be a Z8, or the naming may differ in some other way than I use in my two options, but the above are the two most likely scenarios. Indeed, I fully expect to see Nikon follow one of those two options, because, well, it’s not rocket science. It’s just standard product line management.
Here’s the thing. All the future model lineup speculation I see out there on the Internet has a common problem: the resulting camera lists require too many unique sensors. At the low model volumes of the current era, not re-using image sensors across models is a recipe for cost (and timing) disaster. I’m not talking about sensor tweaks, such as improving bandwidth on an existing sensor. I’m talking about all the near-start-from-scratch scenarios: stacked, high pixel counts, rollover pixels, and any other types of electronic changes that basically trigger cascading R&D decisions.
Historically, Nikon has been a sensor re-user par excellance. In the current full DSLR/mirrorless lineup we have 20mp FX, 20mp DX, 24mp FX, and 45mp FX (though the last one now has two clear variants). Five image sensor sizes for what is basically 12 current cameras (the 24mp DX is now discontinued). The Z5 24mp image sensor is basically the older version of the Z6 24mp image sensor, which got bandwidth upgrades, so I tend to count them as the same. Meanwhile we have five DX cameras sharing the 20mp sensor (with again one minor update), which is one of the ways Nikon can keep their profit up at the lower end of the camera market. Some folk are speculating a lineup that would include seven or more image sensors, and I don’t see that happening. Nikon likes to concentrate its sensor R&D energy when it comes time to make production decisions, not spread it. (Note: that doesn’t mean that Nikon doesn’t examine pretty much every option that comes down the pike. Examining and tinkering is not the same as developing for production.)
12mp, 16mp, 24mp, 33mp, 45mp, 61mp are all separated by something near a 15% resolution change. That’s about the least increase you can make and have enough people see a difference in image quality to justify. I’d argue that we really need 30% resolution increases across models to make camera X stand out from camera Y. So 24mp, 45mp, and 80mp+ make more sense to me than Sony’s 33mp, 50mp, and 61mp cameras at the moment.
We know that Nikon wants to drop physical shutters. So we also have to look at how they’d do that. Basically it is done by: (1) the Z9 way using a new dual stream stacked sensor designed from scratch; (2) using a stacked sensor with a single stream, which exists currently at 26mp DX and 24mp FX; and (3) generating a faster offload speed using current BSI sensor technology (e.g. improve the on-sensor circuitry speed of an existing sensor). Nikon has obviously done #1 with the Z9, and historically they’ve been one of the leaders in pushing #3. #1 is very expensive, while #3 is less expensive, but tougher to create without side impacts you don’t want (more speed has traditionally meant more read noise, though this is becoming less so with the most recent technology changes).
Moreover, once Nikon puts R&D money into whichever options they’re pursuing in terms of no mechanical shutter, they’re probably not going to move to more scenarios that use more sensors. They’re only going to want to do all that work with a small number of image sensors (three, maybe four, including DX).
Thus, if we knew what Nikon was thinking in terms of image sensors in cameras two to four years out, we’d have a better sense of what camera models we’re getting.
Personally, I’m currently happy with the current 24/45 options in FX, a little less happy about still being 20mp in DX (Nikon had excellent 24mp DX sensors for quite some time, so some might consider that we’ve slipped backwards). Sony’s basically now at 33/61 in full frame, with 24mp for crop sensor. Fujifilm this year will be 26/40mp for crop sensor. So Nikon is once again constantly hearing that they’re behind. Generally, that’s compelled them to leap-frog in the past.
I don’t really think Nikon is really behind in 45mp versus 61mp full frame, nor for 20mp versus 24mp crop sensor, but everyone knows bigger numbers are better, so according to everyone Nikon’s been marketing from behind for awhile. Indeed, I’d consider that one of Nikon's biggest current marketing weaknesses. Yet I can make the argument that Nikon’s 45mp produces better looking images than Sony’s 61mp in their current form. Indeed, I sold my Sony A7R Mark IV because of that.
Still, I’ve long argued that more sampling is always better, so explaining why I’d rather use my Z7 II than my A7R Mark IV starts in a hole that I have to dig out of with clear information. In marketing, the larger number is pretty much always going to win over a careful and detailed technical analysis (though that doesn’t forgive Nikon from not trying).
So I’d have to guess that all those shouts of “show me the pixels” is going to move Nikon off the 45mp mark, and probably sooner rather than later. When and how they do that, I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure they will. 12K video, anyone? ;~)
