My guess is that the Z9 will have a reduced jpg mode, perhaps 22.5MP, at faster than 20 FPS. From what I understand, sport shooters like to use jpg for the thousands of images that they have to deliver in 15 minutes.
Upvote
0
Nikon officially announces the Nikon Z 9, and it’s a remarkable $5499
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I actually like your comment but the giggle was the thought of an R1 for <$6k.This sounds like everything I hoped the R3 would be. If it had been announced a month ago I might have seriously considered switching to Nikon. For now I'll continue to explore mirrorless with my R5 and maybe reconsider next year, when the Z9 is likely to be more readily available. Who knows, Canon may release a similarly spec'd R1 by then for <$6,000
Upvote
0
it can do 120fps, but at 11mp and in jpg.
also the 30fps mode is jpg only and the 20fps is compressed raw only (according to the Fro), so not quite the monster I thought it was. Still, a very good camera for the money.
Upvote
0
If you've already bought into the R system with a significant investment in RF lenses (which can't be adapted), this probably isn't worth switching.
But if you only have EF lenses (which can be adapted), and you've thought that you'd love an R5 but wish it had the larger body and integrated grip like the R3 and 1 series, this might be worth serious consideration.
But if you only have EF lenses (which can be adapted), and you've thought that you'd love an R5 but wish it had the larger body and integrated grip like the R3 and 1 series, this might be worth serious consideration.
Upvote
0
it’s well priced for sure, but It does seem like they have cut some costs to reach that price point. Lower spec EVF, Lower burst speeds for RAW, Quite a small buffer size for full quality RAW files.
Upvote
0
I’d love to have a mirrorless to use with my lightweight 500mm f/5.6 PF. But, weighing in at 1340g, it’s 600g (1lb 5oz) heavier than the R5, which outweighs for me any other advantage it may have.
Upvote
0
The R5 will give you an APS-c raw file at around 17 MP. A FF raw file cannot be low resolution (unless you pixel skip) or it isn't actually a raw file anymore. RAW is exactly that, the raw data from each pixel.
Upvote
0
Yes, it wasn't clear to me that he was shooting RAW (doubtful since there is no RAW converter yet). The Z9 is clearly extremely fast shooting jpeg, but can it keep up shooting RAW?
Upvote
0
It looks like one great camera. Kind of reminds me of the excitement about the D810, which was also great for its time.
However, this form-factor has always been too big for me, and the R5 has hit the sweet-spots for my shooting needs.
I'm glad Nikon is hanging in there!
However, this form-factor has always been too big for me, and the R5 has hit the sweet-spots for my shooting needs.
I'm glad Nikon is hanging in there!
Upvote
0
Okay, I canceled my R3 order last night and ordered a Z9 this morning. Now, I've shot both Canon and Nikon from time to time, and I still have a D850, which is paired with a 500mm pf almost all the time. However, I've used that combo sparingly this year as I've found the R5 a more enjoyable camera in use. I wanted the R3 for the improved AF performance and better, quicker EVF. The size seemed perfect as well, and I definitely prefer Canon ergonomics. However, in the end, I couldn't see giving up that many MP. I had a used D5 for awhile. Fantastic AF and great low-light performance. However, the detail for my heavily cropped BIF images just wasn't there. In the end, the Z9 was simply a better choice. I still think that the R3 has better AF, and the Z9 buffer is clearly smaller. And did I mention size? Clearly Nikon wasn't trying to reduce the size of their new flagship. But the Z9 is close enough, and together with lenses--my 500pf and I have an eye on that 400mm 2.8 if it's not too heavy--it was a clear choice.
Upvote
0
If I was a sports shooter, the eye-controlled AF might easily be worth the extra $500 for the R3. Maybe even for BIF shooters. Obviously, we won't know how well it works until the cameras are actually out in the wild. Plus, the R3 is considerably lighter, which would be another big plus for me.
Upvote
0
I am quite surprised by the Z9 price. I changed over from Nikon D5 after 47 years, to Canon, bought the RF lenses and expected that the Z9 would be $6,500 to $7,000, while waiting on my R3. This indicates that Nikon is a bit worried about further market share erosion as mirrorless mostly takes over. I feel now that the R3 is overpriced by $700 to $1,000.
Upvote
0
I think everyone is surprised at Nikon competitive pricing. The Z9 looks to be a very solid camera. My only concern would be the 3.69 M dot EVF.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
