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

[David - Sydney]

USD6500 1DXiii
USD6500 D6
USD6500 A1
Canon/Nikon were happy to share the same price for their flagship DLSRs and Sony priced their A1 accordingly but did make the R5 look like good value in comparison.

USD6000 R3
USD5500 Z9
USD2700 5Div
USD2300 R (initially but now USD1700!)
Canon thought that a USD500 discount for the R3 (not flagship but basically better specs all round than the 1DXiii) would be sufficient and that matches their pricing strategy similar for R being much cheaper than the 5Div despite being better in many ways.

Canon is really wedged here for R1 pricing. Predictions were that USD8k being the flagship and assumed to be R3 but better (global shutter, quad pixel AF, 45mp, dual CFe).
USD8k would now seem outrageous now compared to Z9's USD5500.
If Canon releases R1 @ USD6500 to match Sony and assumes that a USD1k premium over Z9 is okay then it is only USD500 more than the R3. It would seem reasonable that the R3's price will be reduced once the R1 is released. Canon would sell some R1 @USD8k but the USD2.5k "Canon tax" would make some buyers think twice.
Canon does what Canon wants
What else could Canon add to R1 to be a step above the Z9?

 

[neuroanatomist]

If Canon releases R1 @ USD6500 to match Sony and assumes that a USD1k premium over Z9 is okay then it is only USD500 more than the R3. It would seem reasonable that the R3's price will be reduced once the R1 is released. Canon would sell some R1 @USD8k but the USD2.5k "Canon tax" would make some buyers think twice.
Canon does what Canon wants
What else could Canon add to R1 to be a step above the Z9?

The R1 may be a ways off. If Canon releases it around the next summer olympics in 2024, they may just replace the R3 (i.e., the R3 is a one-off like the EOS 3), in which case they can price it similar to the R3.

Realistically, I don't think there's much switching at the top regardless of the price of the top bodies.

 

[SHAMwow]

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.

 

[john1970]

USD6500 1DXiii
USD6500 D6
USD6500 A1
Canon/Nikon were happy to share the same price for their flagship DLSRs and Sony priced their A1 accordingly but did make the R5 look like good value in comparison.

USD6000 R3
USD5500 Z9
USD2700 5Div
USD2300 R (initially but now USD1700!)
Canon thought that a USD500 discount for the R3 (not flagship but basically better specs all round than the 1DXiii) would be sufficient and that matches their pricing strategy similar for R being much cheaper than the 5Div despite being better in many ways.

Canon is really wedged here for R1 pricing. Predictions were that USD8k being the flagship and assumed to be R3 but better (global shutter, quad pixel AF, 45mp, dual CFe).
USD8k would now seem outrageous now compared to Z9's USD5500.
If Canon releases R1 @ USD6500 to match Sony and assumes that a USD1k premium over Z9 is okay then it is only USD500 more than the R3. It would seem reasonable that the R3's price will be reduced once the R1 is released. Canon would sell some R1 @USD8k but the USD2.5k "Canon tax" would make some buyers think twice.
Canon does what Canon wants
What else could Canon add to R1 to be a step above the Z9?

To address your last question I would like to see the following on a R1 to differentiate from a R3:
1) Dual CFE slots (like Z9)
2) Quad Pixel AF to give X-type sensors on a Canon mirrorless camera
3) Quad Bayer Array that provides both high sensitivity and high resolution in a single camera body
4) Limitless buffer in high sensitivity mode and 30 second buffer in high res mode
5) Keep the same EVF resolution but increase the brightness (like Z9) and if possible up the refresh rate to 240 Hz
6) Keep the Eye AF from the R3 and refine it.
7) An exceptionally fast stacked sensor or global sensor

Lastly, I am glad to see that Nikon has produced a very competitive mirrorless camera. We now have three major players in the mirrorless market which is good for everyone.

 

[HenryL]

USD6500 1DXiii
USD6500 D6
USD6500 A1
Canon/Nikon were happy to share the same price for their flagship DLSRs and Sony priced their A1 accordingly but did make the R5 look like good value in comparison.

USD6000 R3
USD5500 Z9
USD2700 5Div
USD2300 R (initially but now USD1700!)
Canon thought that a USD500 discount for the R3 (not flagship but basically better specs all round than the 1DXiii) would be sufficient and that matches their pricing strategy similar for R being much cheaper than the 5Div despite being better in many ways.

Canon is really wedged here for R1 pricing. Predictions were that USD8k being the flagship and assumed to be R3 but better (global shutter, quad pixel AF, 45mp, dual CFe).
USD8k would now seem outrageous now compared to Z9's USD5500.
If Canon releases R1 @ USD6500 to match Sony and assumes that a USD1k premium over Z9 is okay then it is only USD500 more than the R3. It would seem reasonable that the R3's price will be reduced once the R1 is released. Canon would sell some R1 @USD8k but the USD2.5k "Canon tax" would make some buyers think twice.
Canon does what Canon wants
What else could Canon add to R1 to be a step above the Z9?

For the sake of discussion - quad-pixel AF, global shutter, 30fps in RAW off the top of my head.

As it stands now, when comparing each camera as a whole, it seems to me that the Z9 achieves parity with but does not exceed the R3 since each clearly out specs the other in certain areas. Both manufacturers have made compromises so it's up to the individual to decide which specs are important and which compromises are acceptable. I've got an R3 on order, not sure I will get along well going back to 24MP but that's the only reservation I have with it. It will work beside my R5, so I figured I'd take it for a test drive. Conversely, even if I was a Nikon shooter, I'd not be tempted by the Z9 because the fps limits for shooting RAW, and that is something important to me.

Still, even though I'm not in the market for one, I'm looking forward to seeing how well it's received once it hits the streets. It's nice to feel happy for the other guys for a change.

 

[john1970]

The R1 may be a ways off. If Canon releases it around the next summer olympics in 2024, they may just replace the R3 (i.e., the R3 is a one-off like the EOS 3), in which case they can price it similar to the R3.

Realistically, I don't think there's much switching at the top regardless of the price of the top bodies.

I suspect you are correct on both predictions: 1) the R1 is a ways off and 2) the R3 is likely a one-off like the EOS 3. My instinct is that that R1 will not get a development announcement until Q1 2023, which is only 14 months away at this point....

 

[David - Sydney]

The R1 may be a ways off. If Canon releases it around the next summer olympics in 2024, they may just replace the R3 (i.e., the R3 is a one-off like the EOS 3), in which case they can price it similar to the R3.

Realistically, I don't think there's much switching at the top regardless of the price of the top bodies.

Replacing the R3 with the R1 would be a good solution to their price wedging but hard to imagine that Canon would replace a new body within 1-2 years of release.

I am not a pro tog but there would a number of togs out there who make sufficient money to buy the gear they need for a job(s). The Z9 is an attractive option for the price. USD1k probably isn't going to sway people significantly but most people would say that the Z9 looks to be good value for the money (in its niche).

 

[AEWest]

USD6500 1DXiii
USD6500 D6
USD6500 A1
Canon/Nikon were happy to share the same price for their flagship DLSRs and Sony priced their A1 accordingly but did make the R5 look like good value in comparison.

USD6000 R3
USD5500 Z9
USD2700 5Div
USD2300 R (initially but now USD1700!)
Canon thought that a USD500 discount for the R3 (not flagship but basically better specs all round than the 1DXiii) would be sufficient and that matches their pricing strategy similar for R being much cheaper than the 5Div despite being better in many ways.

Canon is really wedged here for R1 pricing. Predictions were that USD8k being the flagship and assumed to be R3 but better (global shutter, quad pixel AF, 45mp, dual CFe).
USD8k would now seem outrageous now compared to Z9's USD5500.
If Canon releases R1 @ USD6500 to match Sony and assumes that a USD1k premium over Z9 is okay then it is only USD500 more than the R3. It would seem reasonable that the R3's price will be reduced once the R1 is released. Canon would sell some R1 @USD8k but the USD2.5k "Canon tax" would make some buyers think twice.
Canon does what Canon wants
What else could Canon add to R1 to be a step above the Z9?

16 bit files.

 

[David - Sydney]

To address your last question I would like to see the following on a R1 to differentiate from a R3:
1) Dual CFE slots (like Z9)
2) Quad Pixel AF to give X-type sensors on a Canon mirrorless camera
3) Quad Bayer Array that provides both high sensitivity and high resolution in a single camera body
4) Limitless buffer in high sensitivity mode and 30 second buffer in high res mode
5) Keep the same EVF resolution but increase the brightness (like Z9) and if possible up the refresh rate to 240 Hz
6) Keep the Eye AF from the R3 and refine it.

Lastly, I am glad to see that Nikon has produced a very competitive mirrorless camera. We now have three major players in the mirrorless market which is good for everyone.

Those would differentiate the R1 from the R3 on an incremental basis but not a step above the Z9.
The R5 will be remembered for the first camera with 8K raw video like the 5Dii for adding video to stills.
The Z9 will be remembered for removing the mechanical shutter.

 

[john1970]

Those would differentiate the R1 from the R3 on an incremental basis but not a step above the Z9.
The R5 will be remembered for the first camera with 8K raw video like the 5Dii for adding video to stills.
The Z9 will be remembered for removing the mechanical shutter.

Fair point. Maybe even a faster stacked sensor or a global sensor as well?

 

[David - Sydney]

16 bit files.

16 bit would be great. DR for the Z9 doesn't seem to be quite as good as the Z7ii. Not a headline spec in general though. I don't expect a mp monster 12k video (100mp 3:2) but that would be a wow moment and would justify USD8k
Incremental improvements are realistically all we can expect.

 

[David - Sydney]

Fair point. Maybe even a faster stacked sensor or a global sensor as well?

Global shutter (or equivalent), quad pixel AF, 45mp, dual CFe would be expected and hopefully delivered.
8k/60 raw would need crazy internal card capacity. HDMI 2.1 does support it and 4k/120. Not sure about bit depth though. Atomos would have to be onboard.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Replacing the R3 with the R1 would be a good solution to their price wedging but hard to imagine that Canon would replace a new body within 1-2 years of release.

2024 – 2021 = 3 years. Consider the 1-series progression: 2012, 1D X; 2016, 1D X II; 2020, 1D X III...an R1 in 2024 fits perfectly.

I am not a pro tog but there would a number of togs out there who make sufficient money to buy the gear they need for a job(s). The Z9 is an attractive option for the price. USD1k probably isn't going to sway people significantly but most people would say that the Z9 looks to be good value for the money (in its niche).

Definitely a good value. But worth it for someone with a collection of Canon lenses? And with the knowledge that Canon will probably leapfrog in the near future? For some, probably. For many? Probably not.

 

[slclick]

Very nice. They just haven't had the whole enchilada of glass since film days when they were king. Pass.

 

[David - Sydney]

2024 – 2021 = 3 years. Consider the 1-series progression: 2012, 1D X; 2016, 1D X II; 2020, 1D X III...an R1 in 2024 fits perfectly.

The 1DX was announced in 2011 but available 8 months later. Let's hope not the same situation for the R1
There could be a comparison as the 1DX merged 1Div/1DSiii (2009/2007) lines. The R3 would need to be discontinued at the same time or priced down a lot.
No doubt that there is increasing pressure to release on time but covid/part shortages is playing havoc with the best plans.
4 year product cycles are good for manufacturers to amortise their R&D but there is more competition now
Sony are using ~3 year cycles (a7 2013/2015/2018/2021, a7R 2013/2015/2017/2021?)

 

[TravelerNick]

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?

With the faster card IIRC he got 1800+ shots. With the Sony card 550 shots. Now even if he's shooting jpg that's telling you the main limitation isn't the camera but the card.

Remember they've announced the camera can record 8K 60FPS raw video INTERNALLY.

 

[maulanawale]

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.

It may have been posted already (sorry if it has) but fwiw check the review by Nigel Danson.
He's a landscape photographer but when you see the BTS of him shooting his dogs, there's no way you'd think the camera has had time to acquire focus. Both for the speed of the pup and the background .
Of all the reviews I watched yesterday, that's the one that impressed me the most.

 

[unfocused]

Definitely a good value. But worth it for someone with a collection of Canon lenses? And with the knowledge that Canon will probably leapfrog in the near future? For some, probably. For many? Probably not.

Even though I have serious GAS issues, I cannot fathom the number of people on this site who claim to switch back and forth between camera brands. Within a single brand, the improvements from one generation to the next are usually pretty marginal, but the differences between brands of the same generation seem tiny and transient.

The last thing I want to do is learn the nuances of a new camera brand and start a new lens collection. Bad enough having to replace EF with R and learning the peculiarities of Canon mirrorless vs. Canon DSLR. There is no way I would ever consider chucking it all for a new brand. Especially because I know that it won't make a dime's worth of difference in my pictures.

 

[maulanawale]

Even though I have serious GAS issues, I cannot fathom the number of people on this site who claim to switch back and forth between camera brands. Within a single brand, the improvements from one generation to the next are usually pretty marginal, but the differences between brands of the same generation seem tiny and transient.

The last thing I want to do is learn the nuances of a new camera brand and start a new lens collection. Bad enough having to replace EF with R and learning the peculiarities of Canon mirrorless vs. Canon DSLR. There is no way I would ever consider chucking it all for a new brand. Especially because I know that it won't make a dime's worth of difference in my pictures.

First of all, "GAS issues" will never not be funny for my apparently 12 year old brain

I've jumped brands twice, but was never heavily invested in any, or not as heavily as I assume you and many other's here are, specially with big glass.
The day I finally own something like a 600 F4 from whatever brand, that's coming with me to the grave.

Reg adapting to a new system, it can be painful (it was when I switched from Nikon to Sony) or a delight (Sony to Olympus).
Now I'm at at fortunate stage where I can consider investing in a second system from whoever tickles ma pickle. And seems like there hasn't been a better time to do so with so many awesome options from at least the 3 big ones.

I'd say, of all those that claim are jumping ship online, some do, most don't but feel like shouting on the interwebs will somehow fix their frustration.

Side note: Just had a look at your website, the control you have over contrast is fantastic! It's one of my many nemesis in editing

 

[Joules]

Interesting camera.

A 'courageous' move, removing the mechanical shutter entirely. It will be interesting to see if that is actually viable already.

In the DPR preview, they quote 14.3 ms for the rolling shutter read out in 8K 30p video. Not much better than the 15.5 ms measured by cined for the R5 in 8K.

Is there a proper table listing the different frame rate and file format / bit depth combinations yet? I get the impression that a lot of the marketing around the speed are focused around the JPEG and new lossy compression RAW formats. Which are certainly interesting and relevant, but from a purely technical, apples to apples comparison I'd be interested in the caveats that come with shooting proper RAW.

Obviously one can achieve much higher read out speed and frame rates by going JPEG only. I did not see what thr bit depths of the compressed RAW formats are in the press release, just the size claims?

Only 60 FPS for the viewfinder seems like a weird move when they simultaneously boast about not having blackout and not interpolating any frames - good things in theory, but if they prevent you from going for a higher refresh rate, that's not worth highlighting from my point of view.

It does seem to help with battery life though. A slightly worse CIPA rating compared to the R3 when using the screen, but far better when using the view finder. Still, if you're not going to keep it small and light, going more substantial on the battery could have been a cool point to differentiate more from the competition.

Edit: It will also be interesting to see some side by side comparisons for the new IBIS that better combines lens and body motion. Canon had that in their IBIS from the start and does it for all of the lenses as far as I'm aware, unlike this new Nikon Implementation that seems more limited. I'm curious if that also indicates worse performance over all.