As far as we know the only major difference between Z9 and R3 is 45MP vs. 24MP, and that may or may not be important to the potential buyers. It's the AF-performance that will define these cameras, and AF will be compared to A1 and R5. I doubt Nikon will release Z9 without being confident it will match the AF-performance of the A1 and R5.Z9 will probably have 18 months unchallenged before R1 makes an appearance.
It's all about options. Canon also has 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 for those with deep pockets. As for now Nikon only offers up to 200mm natively on the Z-mount.Nikon won't be doing stupidly slow superteles either.
I think the comment meant that with the amount of production issues manufacturers have right now, the Z9 will only become properly available deep into 2022, at which point Canon will have spun up the hype machine they currently dedicate to the R3 for the R1.I don't think so. the Z9 prototype was already being used at the Olympics, but no R1. Only the R3 so far.
Yes this is what Canon are saying but you wonder if it will be convincing if the R3 reviews well. Other than battery life it’s hard to say at the moment as to what you’d point to say the 1DXIII is the better model. I think it will give it an old fashioned out of date feel to the 1DX III. It will be interesting what the real world attitude will be and whether Canon struggle to continue to sell the 1DXIII without discounting (they may also reduce supply of the 1DX III).That is not, however, what Canon themselves say. They say the 1DX III is the flagship until the R1, the R3 is marketed below the 1DX III.
With 100-400 S, 200-600 and 400 f/2.8 S and 600 f/4 S incoming. No f/11 abominations as part of the line-up or f/7.1 either. Nikon will no doubt release the superteles with the Z9 and you must have missed the fact they already have 400/ f/2.8 and 600 f/4 and Canon's so-called RF versions are just adapted EF lenses, so better than using the current Nikon's with an adapter.As far as we know the only major difference between Z9 and R3 is 45MP vs. 24MP, and that may or may not be important to the potential buyers. It's the AF-performance that will define these cameras, and AF will be compared to A1 and R5. I doubt Nikon will release Z9 without being confident it will match the AF-performance of the A1 and R5.
It's all about options. Canon also has 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 for those with deep pockets. As for now Nikon only offers up to 200mm natively on the Z-mount.
The D800/810 had really bad colors right out of camera, e.g. they turned mauve colors into cold blue impossible to recover - like the older 12 MP Nikons (I know what I am talking about). Ming Thein, a Nikon user, therefore loved the 5DSR for the fact, that he just could use the images right of the camera (https://blog.mingthein.com/2015/08/19/long-term-canon-5dsr/). With recent generations, Nikon engineers improved their color science much indeed, so the D850 is a really good camera. But this game is over, I guess.Nikon have never failed to make great cameras, yes they have made some duds along the way too, but the D800 and D850 were class leading DSLR’s.
Incoming yes, as for now not released. Even though you dislike the f11 superteles they're cheap and available, and those who own them are taking wonderful photos with them.With 100-400 S, 200-600 and 400 f/2.8 S and 600 f/4 S incoming.
I'm comparing Z-mount teles to RF. Both Nikon and Canon has a wide selection of F and EF teles.you must have missed the fact they already have 400/ f/2.8 and 600 f/4
These cameras are aimed for the professionals, not for amateurs.Reading this thread, there is one question popping up again in my mind: does the change from Canon to Sony to Nikon and maybe back to one of this list (if the specs of a new camera are too mouthwatering) improve anyone's photography? I doubt this, given the fact, that today's tech is so good that most probably the (non-pro) photographer himself may need some brainware upgrade, if he is not satisfied with his results (I stress the masculine gender, because according to my experience, women are less prone to GAS and more interested in improving their photographer's skills). But that's just my humble few cents here...
Enthusiasts with sufficiently deep pockets buy these high spec cameras in numbers - you can see them here and on Fred Miranda. You can't quantify in terms of percentage what improvements they make. What they often do is to extend the range of what you can do or enable you to do more easily what you could do only with difficulty in the past. Or simply increase the fraction of keepers. Sometimes, the improvements, like animal eyeAF for example, are quite dramatic.These cameras are aimed for the professionals, not for amateurs.
But, answering your question…yes, they improve our photography, but not as much as one would think. It’s not directly proportional, not by a long shot. Usually there’s a significant improvement on replacing entry level gear with better equipment, but in these scenarios…I guess you can expect that doubling your investment may give you a 10% overall improvement, if you learn how to use the new camera properly. Or maybe less than that.
But again, these are professional cameras, aimed at professional photographers.