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

[Bob Howland]

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.

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.

 

[Billybob]

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

I actually like your comment but the giggle was the thought of an R1 for <$6k.

 

[definedphotography]

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.

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.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

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.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

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.

 

[AlanF]

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.

 

[Dragon]

I can't get over this price. It's a major selling point and I honestly believe this will be a point where many photographers take the opportunity to switch brands to Nikon - and they deserve it at this price point. That said, I have an R5 that is already more than capable of all my needs for a high resolution camera and when my R3 arrives, I will have my preferred sports camera back in my hands again...because after a year of shooting motorsports with a 45mp R5, I can tell you that I can't wait to go back down to something smaller resolution. Granted, I wish we were talking about a 30-35mp step town and not a 24mp step down.

I am curious if Nikon will offer a low resolution RAW file that Canon simply refuses to give us on the R5...then again they probably know I would be buying a second R5 right now and NOT an R3 if they did this. LOL

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.

 

[Billybob]

Watch the Matt Granger video. His tests are much different.

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?

 

[Zik]

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?

From about 9 mins in. 40 full size lossless RAW

 

[VegasCameraGuy]

hell no. R3 been overpriced for today's standards.

I agree and the Z9 is what I expected for the R3.

 

[Codebunny]

On even more exciting news. There are a 400(4/4.5) PF and 800(5.6/6.3) PF in the road map that are just whispering dark secrets to me about being able to take both up the highlands.

 

[YuengLinger]

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!

 

[Billybob]

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.

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.

 

[Billybob]

From about 9 mins in. 40 full size lossless RAW

Yes, but he's not Matt Granger. The DPR folks, apparently, are the only ones who tested the Z9 shooting compressed RAW. I hope they're wrong, but I fear they're not. I could live with 2 secs of RAW shooting, but I'd like to have at least 5 secs.

 

[highdesertmesa]

…

Congrats to Nikon on their new release and aggressive approach. But, the sky isn't falling for Canon.

The sky isn’t falling for Canon, but their pricing strategy might be.

 

[Czardoom]

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.

 

[Michael T]

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.

 

[Skux]

Really bold move going shutterless, it means Nikon has to be confident in its handling of rolling shutter and banding. And all of the previews say it's up to the task.

 

[john1970]

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.

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.

 

[InchMetric]

This will make Nikon pro-dslr users finally switch to mirrorless. They've been stubbon.

Both of them?