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

[Deleted member 381342]

I want to see some lightroom tests on this compressed format. All I know is you better have a good rig if its anything like current compression. I shot CRAW on the R5 once and never will again. Even on a spec'd out iMac, it just slowed to a crawl unpacking each file.

Otherwise this camera looks to be fantastic.

As long as the Mac has a M-series processor I expect it'll be super fast regardless of what you are doing. M1 Pro and Max will also let you make very quick work of the 8K ProRes RAW video.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Not much has been said about the new Nikon 100-400mm. It will probably be a very nice lens optically, and is about 250g/ 0.5lb lighter than the Canon 100-500mm. But, when it comes to weight again, the Canon R5 + RF 100-400mm is about 1.3 kg or nearly 3 lb lighter, as well as much cheaper. Or, you could get a Sony A1 + 200-600mm for a similar overall weight and price with a much better range. I am a Nikon fan and think they have made some of the best DSLR bodies and lenses ever (some of which I do have), but their marketing does appear weak, like the for the Nikon 1 series farce.

I think Canon was cleaver creating a 100-500 instead of 100-400. That extra +25% reach is great and makes it much more versatile. For wildlife 400mm can be a bit short.

 

[AlanF]

It is odd how much value people seem to put on MP. The 1Dx line and previously the Dx line of Nikon have been ~20 MP range for generations. Clearly there is a significant market for that sensor size. And for those in this market, where 20 MP is enough, the 45 MP is a potential negative due to increased file size.

I actually do not see this as significantly better than the R3. Sure, there are some nice features here. But, if DPR is correct, and it is 2 seconds of shooting full RAW before the buffer fills, that is a significant win for the R3. The R3 is also lighter, it has a mechanical shutter, 30 FPS in full 14 bit RAW (Z9 dropped to a compressed RAW, according to DPR). $500 is a minimal price difference for those buying $6k bodies and mounting them on $12k lenses. Then we get into performance of AF, AF modes, etc, where I'll want to see production models compared before commenting.

Not wanting to get into a spec war, just saying, depending on how things play out, I can absolutely see where the R3 not only holds its own but may even be better than the Z9 in certain scenarios and for certain people. I think it is great for Nikon users, you have a good tool at your disposal, but my world with Canon is doing just fine as well.

It's not odd at all. What is odd is people not taking it in, despite all the posts here, that some of us benefit by cropping and others don't so we have different requirements. And it's not so much the number of Mpx, but the size of those pixels. I'd be very happy to have a Canon APS-C 20 Mpx R with the new AF capabilities.

 

[Ozarker]

@RayValdez360 Well, the R might be out, but it is in no way close to a 5D Mark IV as a mirrorless camera. I have the R. Great portrait camera. Far too slow for action (in my hands), unlike the 5D Mark IV.
Personally, I was hoping the R3 was going to be 30mp.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

It's not odd at all. What is odd is people not taking it in, despite all the posts here, that some of us benefit by cropping and others don't so we have different requirements. And it's not so much the number of Mpx, but the size of those pixels. I'd be very happy to have a Canon APS-C 20 Mpx R with the new AF capabilities.

I am likely to continue not to crop even with the 45 MP I'll have. Cropping amplifies grain and almost all of the time I just got closer to my subject. If I need closer, a 800 PF is on the way that looks like it'll be f/5.6 or f/6.3.

 

[PerKr]

Looking at the pricing around here, the R3 and Z9 are pretty much equally priced at 65kSEK. Both make the A1 look not so attractive at 76kSEK. The Z9 is priced more aggressively than the D6 which one would have to assume is about where the R1 will land (80-85kSEK).

I'd still take the R3.

 

[AlanF]

I am likely to continue not to crop even with the 45 MP I'll have. Cropping amplifies grain and almost all of the time I just got closer to my subject. If I need closer, a 800 PF is on the way that looks like it'll be f/5.6 or f/6.3.

You can get close to your red squirrels. I can't do that with my birds or dragonflies in flight or skittish wild birds! I posted this morning two acceptable crops in the Bird Portraits thread using 1000mm on the R5 (2xTC + 100-500mm). Here is the original pre-cropping, and then the final, upresolved 1.4x with Topaz. The problem here is not grain but the details being beyond resolution of the sensor. A 45 Mpx sensor gives 40% more resolution and 2x the number of pixels on target than a sensor of half that number.

 

[Chaitanya]

It's a pity that it takes a competitor like Nikon to remind Canon that it's still a competitive market and that Canon can't expect to keep over inflating it's prices. The R3 and R5 are great products but they are woefully over priced.

When it comes to pricing one advantage Nikon has over Canon is that they are fabless. In case of R3 lets not forget Canon not only designed their own sensor but probably also have fabbed it house. New sensor manufacturing wont have come cheap, hopefully with R1 they will correct course in terms of pricing. I cannot comment about R5 pricing as it was quite decently priced compared to its competition at release.

 

[john1970]

I am likely to continue not to crop even with the 45 MP I'll have. Cropping amplifies grain and almost all of the time I just got closer to my subject. If I need closer, a 800 PF is on the way that looks like it'll be f/5.6 or f/6.3.

You make a great observation. I purchased a R5, but whenever I cropped in at 500 mm the grain at high ISO was always there and a bit annoying. I do exactly what you do which is get closer to my subject and/or take out the super telephotos.

For small birds, I have found regardless of MP and focal length you can never have too much of either.

 

[scyrene]

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

I see it more like this: Nikon need to boost sales, their market position is precarious. Canon are doing fine, so can be cheekier/more bullish. I am just surmising based on what little information we have, though.

 

[amorse]

You can get close to your red squirrels. I can't do that with my birds or dragonflies in flight or skittish wild birds! I posted this morning two acceptable crops in the Bird Portraits thread using 1000mm on the R5 (2xTC + 100-500mm). Here is the original pre-cropping, and then the final, upresolved 1.4x with Topaz. The problem here is not grain but the details being beyond resolution of the sensor. A 45 Mpx sensor gives 40% more resolution and 2x the number of pixels on target than a sensor of half that number.

Cropping definitely has its place - I've leaned on it heavily on flight tours when I can shoot from a window but can't get the pilot to turn around and don't have time to change lenses. In almost every instance I wish I had more megapixels to work with, but I've had reasonable good results from Adobe super resolution (as long as I do it at the start of my editing process).

 

[Emyr Evans]

Not much has been said about the new Nikon 100-400mm. It will probably be a very nice lens optically, and is about 250g/ 0.5lb lighter than the Canon 100-500mm. But, when it comes to weight again, the Canon R5 + RF 100-400mm is about 1.3 kg or nearly 3 lb lighter, as well as much cheaper. Or, you could get a Sony A1 + 200-600mm for a similar overall weight and price with a much better range. I am a Nikon fan and think they have made some of the best DSLR bodies and lenses ever (some of which I do have), but their marketing does appear weak, like the for the Nikon 1 series farce.

1,435g: Nikon NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens

1.365g: Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM Lens

 

[Antono Refa]

Also, I can't help but think that Nikon is taking a loss with these cameras to drive the Z-mount forward like Sony originally did with it's A7 series. There is no way they could possibly be offering a stacked, 45mp sensor with all this tech at $1,000 under the price of their main sensor supplier, Sony (not sure who make this one for them) and cheaper than Canon who is also manufacturing its own sensor. This camera is a real home run for Nikon.

Who's the target audience?

I can see the appeal for Nikon FX DSLRs, but doubt photographers who own big white lenses worth thousands of dollars each switching brands because the camera is $1K cheaper.

 

[LogicExtremist]

You can get close to your red squirrels. I can't do that with my birds or dragonflies in flight or skittish wild birds! I posted this morning two acceptable crops in the Bird Portraits thread using 1000mm on the R5 (2xTC + 100-500mm). Here is the original pre-cropping, and then the final, upresolved 1.4x with Topaz. The problem here is not grain but the details being beyond resolution of the sensor. A 45 Mpx sensor gives 40% more resolution and 2x the number of pixels on target than a sensor of half that number.

Totally agree, when doing wildlife or macro photography, the subject might rarely fill the frame, and heavy cropping becomes the norm rather than the exception!

 

[docsmith]

It's not odd at all. What is odd is people not taking it in, despite all the posts here, that some of us benefit by cropping and others don't so we have different requirements. And it's not so much the number of Mpx, but the size of those pixels. I'd be very happy to have a Canon APS-C 20 Mpx R with the new AF capabilities.

I am more referring to that there seems to be this equation in peoples minds that there is a direct correlation between higher MP and camera price. But, if Canon invested in buffer depth, circuitry to provide full 14 bit RAW files at 30 fps, and, potentially, great high ISO performance, are those not worth $500 to many users? As for the high ISO performance, I know I am not alone as being intrigued by several ISO 25,600 and ISO 51,200 R3 images go by.

So, essentially we are making the same point, I do in fact "take it in" that a number of people desire higher MP (it'd be hard to miss ). But this is more that these other features may be very beneficial to other users. I do not see for a second the Z9 as an "R3 killer"....its just that some users may prefer the Z9 for higher MP. That is fine. If the R3 is truly a high ISO champion, I'll probably be getting one.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The R3 is in no way shape or form devalued by the Z9. The 24 MP on the R3 is still absolutely fantastic for just about every subject and if the Z9 was a flop I would be buying a R3 and 100-500 not a R5 and 100-500.

 

[jeffa4444]

The Z9 certainly makes the R3 look over-priced but there are significant differences beyond sensor MPs. Canon aggressively priced the R6 and the R5 is slightly on the high side given that mirrorless cameras are cheaper to manufacture that DSLRs. The RF L series lenses are a big hike on the EF lenses and the non L lenses rely on software in the camera to hide the flaws (such as the RF 16mm f2.8 STM and the RF 24-240mm both of which I have). That said the cameras take photos that dont look to the eye miles better than those taken with the DSLRs and the EF lenses kideology is alive and well and our temptation is driven by new autofocus accuracy etc as it is by sensor size which is grossly over-hyped for 90% of the shots taken.
can’t speak about video cause I don’t shoot video on my Canon cameras.

 

[AlanF]

1,435g: Nikon NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens

1.365g: Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM Lens

The figure you have quoted for the Nikkor includes the tripod ring whereas for the Canon it doesn't. The Canon with the ring is 1.63 kg, the Nikkor without is 1.355 kg. The Nikkor is lighter when comparing like-for-like with the tripod ring on, as is generally used in practice.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The RF L series lenses are a big hike on the EF lenses and the non L lenses rely on software in the camera to hide the flaws

The Nikon f/1.8 S line being L equivalents but lower cost is one of the biggest things that moved me over to Nikon other than the 500 PF. Cheep but professional quality f/1.8 lenses for those times I am not shooting wildlife have been great. If I want a 50mm from Canon that matches the 50mm f/1.8 S then I have to jump right to the 50mm f/1.2 L which is something like 5X the expense.

 

[entoman]

Genuine question, do pros often switch systems? Surely the change in ergonomics, retraining muscle memory, and differences in support between brands count more than a few hundred dollars cost difference on a body?

That’s a very good point, and I completely agree, familiarity with gear, and continuity of control layout etc, is one pf the major reasons why I’ve stayed with Canon for the last 11 years. I’m particularly slow at adapting muscle memory, and there’s nothing worse than having a fantastic photo opportunity unfold before your eyes, and miss the shot due to fumbling with unfamiliar controls.

But, most of us have a photographic “low season” when we have some extra time to adjust to new gear - which is why I waited until January this year to swap my 5DS for an R5 (although I still keep my 5DMkiv as a backup).

IF the gains from switching to a new system were substantial enough, and IF the switch was affordable (haha) and IF it looked like Canon would take 2 years to catch up, then I’d certainly consider switching to Nikon (but not to Sony).

Many high end cameras these days can be customised to make dials and control rings turn the “other” way, which makes things a bit easier too.

If I was still a working pro, I’d be weighing up the financial implications - how much would new gear improve my output and sales, balanced against what the cost would be. Nowadays I shoot purely as a hobby, and I only have a limited array of equipment, so I think it would actually make a lot more sense to buy extra lenses rather than switch to a new system. Unfortunately a 400mm F2.8 or 600mm F4 are beyond my financial means these days….