Nikon officially announces the Nikon Z 9, and it’s a remarkable $5499

[Bonich]

They also announced a 400mm 2.8 lens with built-in TC. What the RF 400mm should have been!

A prime with a built in TC without any compromises in IQ like i.e. the EF 200-400 is the way to go!

 

[Bonich]

Continue reading...

I appreciate Nikon pushing the market for the better of us all.

 

[HenryL]

Nikon's flagships have I think all (or close to all) used Nikon designed sensors. Some made by Sony. Some fabbed by others.

Sony off the shelf sensors are used for the volume stuff not this level.

Thanks for the info.

 

[HenryL]

That is kinda like saying that AMD sell TSMC processors. And the business unit that sells Nikon sensors also sells the Sony camera business unit sensors. Nikon likely sells equipment to Sony that is required to make sensors, given what a bit part of their business is.

I apologize for not being clear, I was asking more about the design aspect vs who manufactured, I could have been more specific. I'd heard that Nikon had been using Sony "off-the-shelf" sensors, that's why the emphasis on Nikon-designed stood out to me. Based on previous responses to my query, they've been doing both. Thanks for the info.

 

[unfocused]

Not on their own, but all those things combined I'd bet a number would reconsider their R3 order. The real proof though will be with the reviews of the Z9. If it lives up to the specs, its a monster of a camera for the money.

I doubt it. I'm not. I'm not about to switch brands on the basis of any single camera body.

I invite anyone who actually has an R3 on order and is going to cancel it to chime in. I'll bet we hear crickets.

That people think a $5,500 camera, no matter the brand, is a bargain only shows how out of sync we all are with the rest of the world.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud Nikon for their aggressive approach. I'm just saying that at this level, most buyers are already invested in one brand's ecosystem and aren't going to change.

 

[john1970]

I doubt it. I'm not. I'm not about to switch brands on the basis of any single camera body.

I invite anyone who actually has an R3 on order and is going to cancel it to chime in. I'll bet we hear crickets.

That people think a $5,500 camera, no matter the brand, is a bargain only shows how out of sync we all are with the rest of the world.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud Nikon for their aggressive approach. I'm just saying that at this level, most buyers are already invested in one brand's ecosystem and aren't going to change.

I will chime in. I have a R3 on order and do not plan to cancel or switch ecosystems. For me I typically only print 8x10 photos so 24 MP is more than enough even for cropping. In the future, I hope Canon does something with quad pixel/bayer array sensor that provides both a low res and high res on a single sensor.

 

[gavinz]

Continue reading...

Good news. Makes the R3 looks expensive.

 

[john1970]

A little surprised how many people think this price is a game changer. 20fps raw which is the same as an R5 which is less money.
I know that's not apples to apples but switching brands based on comparing the price to an R3 sounds like a gross overreaction.

And I would conjecture that the R5 Mk2 will likely have a stacked sensor.

 

[Tremotino]

This seems to be some cheap camera if it's only 5499

 

[john1970]

This seems to be some cheap camera if it's only 5499

$5500 is hardly cheap! Economical given its specifications maybe, but I would hardly call it or any other pro-grade FF camera cheap.

 

[entoman]

Switching from Canon to Nikon: when you've zero RF gear: might be the best moment ever.

Maybe, but if you have a few EF lenses the AF will work perfectly using the EF-RF adaptors.
Try adapting an EF lens to a Nikon body and you’ll likely be in for a lot of disappointment.
Of course, you could sell all the Canon gear and start afresh with Nikon, but that would be mighty expensive.

 

[mbike999]

This is the typical game of leapfrog camera mfr's have been playing for decades. This kind of competition is good and only helps the consumer - everyone wins. R3,A1, were amazing yesterday, still are today...choose based on the system and lenses, not the bodies. Or buy one of each to avoid FOMO

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Maybe, but if you have a few EF lenses the AF will work perfectly using the EF-RF adaptors.
Try adapting an EF lens to a Nikon body and you’ll likely be in for a lot of disappointment.
Of course, you could sell all the Canon gear and start afresh with Nikon, but that would be mighty expensive.

EF lenses work better on Z bodies than F lenses. There are good AF EF to Z adaptors and the only thing that sucks is that they don't support the old 300mm f/2.8 L USM lens I had as it was from 1988 and focus by wire.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

This is the typical game of leapfrog camera mfr's have been playing for decades. This kind of competition is good and only helps the consumer - everyone wins. R3,A1, were amazing yesterday, still are today...choose based on the system and lenses, not the bodies. Or buy one of each to avoid FOMO

Now we are finally getting back to picking the bloody body to go with our lenses. By the time we see the Z9II and R3II both systems will be well kitted out with lenses and you'll be buying whatever one makes your lenses work best.

 

[Bob Howland]

All you folks saying that Nikon is losing money on the Z9 need to understand the concepts of Non-recurring Expenses (NRE) and Recurring Expenses (RE). NRE is the cost to make the first camera, specifically the engineering and any construction to build the assembly line to make the cameras. RE is the cost to make and market each additional camera. Engineering cost is part of the NRE and one very important engineering task is to reduce the RE cost while developing a quality product. In some organizations I've been in, reducing RE borders on an obsession.

Consider the scenario where the NRE for the Z9 is $50 million, a not unresonable figure, and the RE is $2500 per camera. If Nikon sells 20,000 Z9's at $5000 wholesale, each camera costs Nikon $2500 RE plus ($50 million/20,000=$2500) and Nikon has broken even. If, however, Nikon sells 200,000 cameras at that price, each camera costs Nikon $2500 plus ($50 million/200,000=$250) and Nikon makes $2250 profit per camera or $450 million total.

Pricing strategy is an art form, closely related to marketing strategy and I am not even remotely competent at it but I hope this has been enlightening.

 

[john1970]

According to Nikon one can get 1000+ buffer depth using high-efficiency RAW setting (most lossy compressed) using ProGrade Cobalt card. I would be interested in knowing what the lossless RAW depth is on such a card at 20 fps. With that said the Z9 is still a amazing camera and so are other top of the line offerings from Sony and Canon.

 

[john1970]

This is the typical game of leapfrog camera mfr's have been playing for decades. This kind of competition is good and only helps the consumer - everyone wins. R3,A1, were amazing yesterday, still are today...choose based on the system and lenses, not the bodies. Or buy one of each to avoid FOMO

Very true and a down to earth statement. I would just add to include ergonomics as well, which is a very personal decision.

 

[John Wilde]

Nikon is using Penetration Pricing.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/penetration-pricing.asp

Canon forecasts that their Imaging division will have a 10.4% Operating Profit Margin this year, which is hardly extravagant.

 

[StandardLumen]

The Z9 looks fantastic and, whether I end up buying a Z9 or not, Nikon has succeeded in making me feel like the R3 is overpriced.

 

[dirtyvu]

Wow, way to go Nikon! I am a Canon shooter but the price and the Z9 specs really make the R3 less exciting. I do think the R3 is overpriced for what you are getting. I think this was a significant mistake. Any R1 can't ignore the A1 and Z9 being at this price point.

This is a great cam for Nikon shooters. But I'm not sure it competes against either the r5 or r3. It seems aimed at a different group. It's too expensive to compete against the r5. The Nikon af (going by Jared polin video who was the only one demonstrating footage) doesn't seem as good as the r5 and definitely not close to r3. And for sports shooters, the r3 seems to outclass the Nikon for features that matter to a sports shooter. The Nikon is slower and doesn't have as good af. Resolution isn't that important to a sports shooter. I can see birders using the Nikon over the Canon cameras. You get the higher res and fast enough shooting. We'll see how the animal af is on the Nikon.