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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 28, 2021)

> Nikon’s First Mirrorless Flagship Defies Conventional, Debuts with a Series of Industry-Firsts for Still & Video Creators
> *MELVILLE, NY (October 28, 2021)* – Today, Nikon announced the Z 9, the most advanced Z series mirrorless camera to date. Powered by a completely new, Nikon-developed 45.7 megapixel stacked CMOS sensor and next-generation EXPEED 7 image-processing engine, the full-frame Z 9 renders ultra-high resolution images and offers unparalleled AF performance using a revolutionary new scene detection system built on deep learning technology. Additionally, the camera is capable of sustained fast continuous shooting bursts, in-camera 8K video recordings for extended periods, truly blackout-free Real-Live visibility in the viewfinder and a sensor scan rate so fast that it completely eliminates the need for a traditional mechanical shutter.
> “The Z 9 is the complete package, offering an unprecedented balance of speed, resolution, reliability and performance that will...



Continue reading...


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 28, 2021)

Is the R3 better than this for the money?


----------



## EricN (Oct 28, 2021)




----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 28, 2021)

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


----------



## neurorx (Oct 28, 2021)

Wow, way to go Nikon! I am a Canon shooter but the price and the Z9 specs really make the R3 less exciting. I do think the R3 is overpriced for what you are getting. I think this was a significant mistake. Any R1 can't ignore the A1 and Z9 being at this price point.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 28, 2021)

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.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 28, 2021)

They also announced a 400mm 2.8 lens with built-in TC. What the RF 400mm should have been!


----------



## docsmith (Oct 28, 2021)

Ladies and Gentlemen, a preview of the future specs of the R1.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Oct 28, 2021)

The Empire strikes back!

This will make a lot of happy campers among Nikon fans.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 28, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> Is the R3 better than this for the money?


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


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 28, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> 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.


Their lose is our gain. Too bad i dont have Nikon. I would get a couple of these. Unless i owned that company, I dont care.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 28, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> 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.



Maybe Sony and Canon just overcharging and Nikon still makes decent profit.


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Oct 28, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> 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.


Yes. My exact thought. The camera is a loss leader to sell sell lenses. All I want is Canon's 30 MP sensor from the 5D IV, with that form factor as mirrorless camera. Canon seems to be struggling to get the mix right for people who don't want the 45 MP files.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 28, 2021)

That price is overly aggressive.


----------



## whothafunk (Oct 28, 2021)

Kudos to you, Nikon.


----------



## lethiferous (Oct 28, 2021)

I hope this camera lives up to the hype. While I get there are shortages, and these are niche products these days, canon (especially you canon) and sony are both enjoying better margins. These are bodies they are suppose to make money selling lenses as the main business. Kind of like playstation takes a loss on every unit but makes it back with digital sales, games etc.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2021)

The profit will be selling lenses. Nikon is using the time tested method of a low price for the product but high prices for needed accessories. They will make a ton of money! Canon is doing the same, minimal profit on the camera, big profits on the lenses. They even say it in their financial report.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 28, 2021)

UpstateNYPhotog said:


> Yes. My exact thought. The camera is a loss leader to sell sell lenses. All I want is Canon's 30 MP sensor from the 5D IV, with that form factor as mirrorless camera. Canon seems to be struggling to get the mix right for people who don't want the 45 MP files.


The eos r been out....


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 28, 2021)

Any chance Canon will be "correcting" the price of the R3?
It felt overpriced before, and the feeling just got a lot stronger...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 28, 2021)

Thats my pre-order in. £5299 in Scotland, only £1000 more than a R5 for what looks to be an incredible camera. Ordering the 100-400 later. Really loving the look of the 400 f/2.8 with built in TC.


----------



## landon (Oct 28, 2021)

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


----------



## landon (Oct 28, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Any chance Canon will be "correcting" the price of the R3?
> It felt overpriced before, and the feeling just got a lot stronger...


Maybe not 'correct', but ask for a free battery or something.


----------



## HenryL (Oct 28, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Any chance Canon will be "correcting" the price of the R3?
> It felt overpriced before, and the feeling just got a lot stronger...


in short, no.


----------



## lethiferous (Oct 28, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Any chance Canon will be "correcting" the price of the R3?
> It felt overpriced before, and the feeling just got a lot stronger...


Canon marketing-> Scrolls thru forums. Gauges the level of Customer Justification level for Product pricing on behalf of Canon. Checks preorders vs production numbers. Damn should of priced it at 6500.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 28, 2021)

A great hi-res prograde camera at a very fair price. I really hope the future Canon R1 combines the best of the R3 with the Z9. Could be done with quad-pixel array and pixel binning? Time will tell. One thing I did learn is that if one wants to shot lossless RAW files with a 45 MP sensor it appears the limitation is 20 fps, which while not as fast as 30 fps is still very good. If I were a Nikon shooter I would buy two of these cameras a likely not buy another camera for many many years.


----------



## Kuau (Oct 28, 2021)

Wow the price. I think Nikon hit a home run, though I’m sure these will be close to impossible to get kind of like the R3 which I have backordered from 4 different stores. i was about ready to cancel my R3 order, yet Nikon is still lacking in the shipping of longer Z lenses. 
oh well Canon is really charging a premium now for the R3 which in may ways has been out speced for the Z9.


----------



## Alan B (Oct 28, 2021)

I've yet to go to mirrorless. Maybe its time for a manufactory change, if I decide to go down that route!?


----------



## Berowne (Oct 28, 2021)

I love my R6 with all its "bad" Specs and my L-Lenses for a very simple reason: i can hold it in my hands and can take photos.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Oct 28, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> 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.


Certainly possible, but nobody posting here really knows the details of any manufacturer's production, distribution, or marketing costs, so such statements are nothing more than speculation. Most posters here are generally Canon fans, so we assume that whatever Canon charges is "normal", despite evidence to the contrary.

Product pricing is a complex issue. Microeconomics 101 teaches that pricing is simply a matter of maximizing profits. Charge a lower price and you sell more units but make less profit on each one. Charge a higher price and you make more profit on each sale, but you sell fewer units. So you try to find the happy medium for maximum profits.

In the real world, there may be other, more strategic, considerations in pricing. Companies charge a lower price and sacrifice some of those profits in favor of market penetration. Maybe that's what Nikon is doing here. Or they charge a higher price and give up some sales in order for the product to be perceived as more exclusive. Maybe that's what Canon is doing with the R3.


----------



## Adrianf (Oct 28, 2021)

Nikon have had no choice but to go in with a competitive price. They've been out of the picture for so long they have to try to get back in somehow. They need money fast to recover their investment in D&D. 
Big pixel numbers look good on the shop shelf next to other cameras but this is a pro camera. Pros don't really need or want numbers that big until comms technology advances to the point where they can download, edit and then upload the files quickly. Pros won't be fooled by specmanship either. It's how it performs in the hand and in the field that matters to them.


----------



## AEWest (Oct 28, 2021)

docsmith said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, a preview of the future specs of the R1.


I agree. This release reinforces my belief the R1 will be a high megapixel monster. Canon will not be absent from the high MP pro body market for long.


----------



## jd7 (Oct 28, 2021)

Go Nikon! It certainly sounds like a phenomenal camera, and the price seems fantastic given the specs. Will be very interesting to read reviews in due course, but it seems like Nikon might be back in the game (which is a good thing for all of us).


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 28, 2021)

A while ago Nikon stated that they would be moving all camera assembly out of Japan and into China / Thailand, so that includes the pro ‘flagship’ bodies. I guess this camera will not be produced in Japan either at all or after the initial production, so if that is the case there will be a cost saving to Nikon compared with Canon who have kept higher end equipment made in Japan.
What percentage of customers will pay extra to have a product made in Japan ? Personally I like the fact that most of my Canon gear is made in Japan, but I would not like to estimate what monetary value I place on it. I’ll accept a small premium to be sure. 
Before people point out that the equivalent products made in Thailand / China / Philippines have just the same quality, that’s not where I find the psychological issue; it’s just down to a Japanese product being made in Japan. Outdated concept no doubt, but I like it.


----------



## David_D (Oct 28, 2021)

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


----------



## Billybob (Oct 28, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> Is the R3 better than this for the money?


I suspect that the R3 probably has marginally better AF, a (much) bigger buffer for RAW, and smaller size. For me, if I didn't need more MP and preferred dual-CFexpress card slots, I'd prefer the R3.


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 28, 2021)

Too bad they didn’t release any f/11 lenses to go with it!


----------



## twoheadedboy (Oct 28, 2021)

UpstateNYPhotog said:


> Yes. My exact thought. The camera is a loss leader to sell sell lenses. All I want is Canon's 30 MP sensor from the 5D IV, with that form factor as mirrorless camera. Canon seems to be struggling to get the mix right for people who don't want the 45 MP files.


The EOS R is basically that. I guess the form factor is slightly different, but it's the exact same sensor and they are cheap to acquire now. I took many great photos on it before trading it in for an R5.


----------



## Alan B (Oct 28, 2021)




----------



## Czardoom (Oct 28, 2021)

Funny to read all the comments comparing the Z9 with the R3 by people who have used neither. Still, very impressed to see that people know what a camera is worth by reading the spec sheet.  I guess I am old fashioned, but I believe until you use a camera for at least a few weeks, you won't really know how good (or bad) it is. I learned that lesson when I bought the Sony A7 II...haha!

But I am hopeful that this is a really good camera and it will convince people that Nikon makes a really fine camera (and top of the line lenses.) I recently sold my Canon R and have (for the moment) switched my FF camera to Nikon. For those looking for a more affordable FF mirrorless camera, I would look into the Z5 or Z6. I would consider those cameras a better value than the RP or R, and if you don't need the tracking AF and higher FPS, than the Z6 or Z7 (mark I or II) are more affordable choices that the R6 or R5. The "S" lenses that I have tried are also fantastic.

Of course, based on my earlier statements, don't just take the word of someone on the internet! But if you get a chance to try them out, I would. Nikon, alas, in my opinion, has been the victim of a lot of negative propaganda on the internet, quite the opposite of Sony , which has prospered due to that propaganda. Given the choice, I would recommend Nikon over any comparable Sony offering.


----------



## juststeve (Oct 28, 2021)

The Z9 certainly makes the R3 seem considerably overpriced to me. I thought it was overpriced when introduced but placed an order anyway. My only real disappointment with the R3 at introduction was the 24 MP. I really wanted 45 MP and hesitated for three hours opening day to place an order, so likely will not be receiving it in the first batch.

Even before the Z9 introduction I was waffling on the R3. This weekend I will probably make up my mind whether to cancel the R3 and place an order for an Z9 and Z7ii and some starter lenses and begin selling off some of my Canon lenses. With the fully electronic shutter, what appears to be even a more sophisticated AF system, equivalent handling (although a bit different) and frankly a better back LCD for a wildlife-landscape photographer and the 45MP, the Z9 simply appears to be a better camera for less money.

The question remains about some important lenses. The 400/2.8 + 1.4x looks great but how heavy? The 100-400 looks great and is certainly light and compact enough, but optically how good? Canon's 100-400 ii and 100-500 are superb and the best lenses per dollar I have ever had. Can the Nikon match that? They could not with the old F mount lens. I very much like my 24-105/4 RF lens and use it for landscapes without hesitation as I did the 24-70/4 L IS before it. The old F mount 24-120 was a decent lens but not up to D850 standards. 

Encouraging about a switch is many if not most of the Nikon S lenses have been superb and in some cases preferable, at least optically, over Canon RF lenses. Examples are the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 and the 14-24/2.8. That said, we are talking pixel peeping and not real world usage in the field making real prints to sell for someone's wall.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 28, 2021)

juststeve said:


> The Z9 certainly makes the R3 seem considerably overpriced to me. I thought it was overpriced when introduced but placed an order anyway. My only real disappointment with the R3 at introduction was the 24 MP. I really wanted 45 MP and hesitated for three hours opening day to place an order, so likely will not be receiving it in the first batch.
> 
> Even before the Z9 introduction I was waffling on the R3. This weekend I will probably make up my mind whether to cancel the R3 and place an order for an Z9 and Z7ii and some starter lenses and begin selling off some of my Canon lenses. With the fully electronic shutter, what appears to be even a more sophisticated AF system, equivalent handling (although a bit different) and frankly a better back LCD for a wildlife-landscape photographer and the 45MP, the Z9 simply appears to be a better camera for less money.
> 
> ...


The price of the Z9 is really attractive. Nikon has taken a back seat for so long while giving up market share to both Canon and Sony that they pulled out all of the stops for this one. Sony took a similar position a few years back with the A9 vs 1 series in the pro-space. However appealing, I can't consider a system switch easily anymore like I used to when I was still shooting Canon lenses for cinema and Sony lenses for hybrid. Since moving 100% to Sony for both, with established workflows for everything from audio to stabilization and a ton of lenses, the Nikon is a non-starter for me, but I am quite envious of the specs and initial impressions and the $.


----------



## rbielefeld (Oct 28, 2021)

$5500 for a flagship camera in the Z9 at 45mp and $6000 for a non-flagship camera in the R3 at 24mp. That is very interesting. Of course res is not the only selling point, but it is interesting that Nikon went higher mp for their flagship and priced it under Canon's non-flagship that has relatively low res. So, then the R1 should be at least 45mp as anything less would look strange to potential buyers and be bucking what the other major camera makers think consumers want in a flagship body? It seems necessary of course for the R1 to be more expensive than the R3 with speculation of it being near $8000. Hmm, $8000 for Canon flagship versus $5500 for Nikon and $6500 for Sony. That seems a bit off to me. I wish the R3 would have been in the $5000 range leaving the R1 room to come in at $6500; in the range of the Nikon and Sony Flagships. With the R3 at $6000 I don't see the R1 coming in at anything less than $7000 and most likely $7500+. Oouch! If that is what transpires.


----------



## entoman (Oct 28, 2021)

Just about the most complete specification of any FF camera on the market, and a crazy cheap price that will surely tempt a few people (especially DSLR owners) away from Canon.

Undercutting the cost of the less well specified R3 (and the er, Sony a1), it leaves Canon in an awkward place.

I think the R1 is still at least a year away, and when it’s released it will have virtually identical specs to the Z9, and only be differentiated by the presence of eye-control AF point selection.

If Canon continue selling the R3 at its current price, and bung another $1000-1500 on top of that for the R1, they might find a lot of pros switching to Nikon.

I’m not in the market for a gripped pro sports/wildlife camera, but if I was, Nikon would get my money.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 28, 2021)

I guess for Nikon it's a matter of surviving in an increasingly hostile environment. Their market share is no longer impressive. So their decision to increase it via a highly attractive pricing seems to be the right one, hi-end Canons and Sonys are a lot pricier. This could also put Canon and Sony under price-pressure, good for us...
Euro 6000 for the R 3 will be hard to justify.
I hope they'll succeed in becoming a serious competitor again.
PS: I still love my F2, one of the greatest cameras ever made!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 28, 2021)

The pricing of the Z9 shows once again how Canon is price gouging the UK. The prices in the UK are 15% higher than in the EU, which has the same warranty and VAT as us.
Nikon Z9 £5299 in UK, $5496.95 in USA, €5999 in EU
Canon R3 £5879 in UK, $5999 in USA, €5999 in EU


----------



## HenryL (Oct 28, 2021)

Looks like a great option for Nikon (or potential) Nikon shooters. Having watched the DPR and Fro's video's, it seems to me that getting beyond the press release and a quick read of the specs this isn't overall better than the A1 or R3. Particularly compared to the R3, I see it specs higher on MP count, low-light AF, and dual CFExpress slots. Sure, there are other things like FPS, but there are plenty of caveats to go along with those. Ultimately, when viewed not on individual specs but overall capability/usability, it achieves parity with the R3 but certainly not better (other than price). 

It may be just me, but I'm curious about the repeated references to the Nikon designed and developed sensor. In the past, where Nikon used sensors manufactured by Sony, were they Sony designs as well, or did Nikon design and hire out Sony's manufacture? I'm guessing that's the case the way this sensor is being described, I really don't know though.

So, of course time will tell, but I'm sure it will be well received. As do all product nowadays, in due course it will have many fans and some detractors, too. Between the three big dogs in this race, they all eventually will push each other and incorporate features pioneered by the other so if for no other reason that than, I'm glad to see this announcement.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 28, 2021)

The pricing is interesting from Nikon. 
It certainly makes the Canon R3 feel expensive and the R1 if its 7000/8000 as being very expensive
Considering moving to RF is in itself akin to moving to a new brand , you may also be switching to new RF lens . I
Its an appropriate time to look around at options. Canon needs to be careful not to price itself out of some of its market. 
The actual performance of the Z9 will be important. If its focusing is inferior to Canon or Sony or the electronic shutter causes issues it wouldn't be good for the camera regardless of the price. It's got to work well. I hope it does. A strong Nikon is good for Canon users.
If Canon had planned to make the R1 as 24MP camera it may make them think again.
For me the IDXIII and R3 should have been at least 30MP. It would have been a good file size / performance trade-off.


----------



## frjmacias (Oct 28, 2021)

I will be completely honest. As an R5 shooter, I had no interest in the Z9 prior to hearing the pricing today because I assumed it would be much higher, but with the insanely competitive price, I might have to purchase a body. Of course, changing over systems when I am already invested in RF glass does not make financial sense, but I might add it as a separate kit with a few Nikon lenses. Impressive camera from Nikon, and this is great for the competition!


----------



## angelisland (Oct 28, 2021)

For $1200 more than my R5 + grip; seems like a sweet deal on a very promising camera.
2x CFExpress B (!), fast readouts, no shutter, no overheating...


----------



## bgoyette (Oct 28, 2021)

I think Nikon sees their window to grab back some market share. Lots of folks not yet converted to mirrorless, especially in the Pro Sector...Canon and Sony have been pushing the cost of everything up, up, up...Nikon comes out with some of the best specs yet and kicks the price point down. I think its a smart move, especially with the steady erosion of Nikon's market share the last 10 years.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 28, 2021)

Billybob said:


> I suspect that the R3 probably has marginally better AF, a (much) bigger buffer for RAW, and smaller size. For me, if I didn't need more MP and preferred dual-CFexpress card slots, I'd prefer the R3.


The DPRreview indicated a 40 shot, 2 sec buffer @ 20 fps with 45 MP lossless compression 14-bit RAW using a Sandisk 128 GB card, which I know is not that fastest card, but it gives you an idea. R3 appears to have a better buffer which one would expect given the 24 MP vs. 45 MP sensor.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 28, 2021)

bgoyette said:


> I think Nikon sees their window to grab back some market share. Lots of folks not yet converted to mirrorless, especially in the Pro Sector...Canon and Sony have been pushing the cost of everything up, up, up...Nikon comes out with some of the best specs yet and kicks the price point down. I think its a smart move, especially with the steady erosion of Nikon's market share the last 10 years.



They have a big enough install base that if this pulls some over their marketshare will go up without needing to poach Canon customers. The amount of D850/500/5 user I have spoken to that just weren’t interested in the Z6 and Z7 because their existing cameras were better or at least perceived better. Canon won everyone over with a (more expensive for its class) R5 and Nikon will hopefully do the same I’m with its aggressively priced Z9 and much better FTZ2 adaptor.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 28, 2021)

john1970 said:


> The DPRreview indicated a 40 shot, 2 sec buffer @ 20 fps with 45 MP lossless compression 14-bit RAW using a Sandisk 128 GB card, which I know is not that fastest card, but it gives you an idea. R3 appears to have a better buffer which one would expect given the 24 MP vs. 45 MP sensor.



When I get mine I’ll be more interested in how fast it is ready after a second or two than how long it can run.


----------



## TravelerNick (Oct 28, 2021)

HenryL said:


> It may be just me, but I'm curious about the repeated references to the Nikon designed and developed sensor. In the past, where Nikon used sensors manufactured by Sony, were they Sony designs as well, or did Nikon design and hire out Sony's manufacture? I'm guessing that's the case the way this sensor is being described, I really don't know though.



Nikon's flagships have I think all (or close to all) used Nikon designed sensors. Some made by Sony. Some fabbed by others. 

Sony off the shelf sensors are used for the volume stuff not this level.


----------



## TravelerNick (Oct 28, 2021)

john1970 said:


> The DPRreview indicated a 40 shot, 2 sec buffer @ 20 fps with 45 MP lossless compression 14-bit RAW using a Sandisk 128 GB card, which I know is not that fastest card, but it gives you an idea. R3 appears to have a better buffer which one would expect given the 24 MP vs. 45 MP sensor.



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


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 28, 2021)

HenryL said:


> It may be just me, but I'm curious about the repeated references to the Nikon designed and developed sensor. In the past, where Nikon used sensors manufactured by Sony, were they Sony designs as well, or did Nikon design and hire out Sony's manufacture? I'm guessing that's the case the way this sensor is being described, I really don't know though.



That is kinda like saying that AMD sell TSMC processors. And the business unit that sells Nikon sensors also sells the Sony camera business unit sensors. Nikon likely sells equipment to Sony that is required to make sensors, given what a bit part of their business is.


----------



## wyotex43n (Oct 28, 2021)

A little surprised how many people think this price is a game changer. 20fps raw which is the same as an R5 which is less money. 
I know that's not apples to apples but switching brands based on comparing the price to an R3 sounds like a gross overreaction.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 28, 2021)

Some perspective here might be in order.

Nice camera. Nice specs. Nice price. 

Is a $500 price difference enough to make R3 buyers cancel their orders? No. Is the 45 mp sensor enough to make R3 buyers cancel their orders? No. Are any of the other specs impressive enough to cause R3 buyers to cancel their orders? No. 

As an R3 buyer, I might be a little miffed, but I'm not about to go all in on Nikon. 

Is Nikon taking a loss on the Z9? No. 

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


----------



## definedphotography (Oct 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Is a $500 price difference enough to make R3 buyers cancel their orders? No. Is the 45 mp sensor enough to make R3 buyers cancel their orders? No. Are any of the other specs impressive enough to cause R3 buyers to cancel their orders? No.



Not on their own, but *all those things combined* I'd bet a number would reconsider their R3 order. The real proof though will be with the reviews of the Z9. If it lives up to the specs, its a monster of a camera for the money.


----------



## kirbic (Oct 28, 2021)

Lots of talk about how competitive the pricing is, and I do agree. A part of that is probably the lack of any mechanical shutter. That's _huge _from a manufacturing perspective. There would seem to be no moving parts left in this beast, apart from IBIS. Delete the mechanical shutter, move production to a low-cost country... the price suddenly makes sense. Nikon certainly needs to price aggressively to try to regain market share.
Well, competition is good! I'm certainly not jumping off the Canon ship.


----------



## Bonich (Oct 28, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> They also announced a 400mm 2.8 lens with built-in TC. What the RF 400mm should have been!


A prime with a built in TC without any compromises in IQ like i.e. the EF 200-400 is the way to go!


----------



## Bonich (Oct 28, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I appreciate Nikon pushing the market for the better of us all.


----------



## HenryL (Oct 28, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Nikon's flagships have I think all (or close to all) used Nikon designed sensors. Some made by Sony. Some fabbed by others.
> 
> Sony off the shelf sensors are used for the volume stuff not this level.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## HenryL (Oct 28, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> That is kinda like saying that AMD sell TSMC processors. And the business unit that sells Nikon sensors also sells the Sony camera business unit sensors. Nikon likely sells equipment to Sony that is required to make sensors, given what a bit part of their business is.


I apologize for not being clear, I was asking more about the design aspect vs who manufactured, I could have been more specific. I'd heard that Nikon had been using Sony "off-the-shelf" sensors, that's why the emphasis on Nikon-designed stood out to me. Based on previous responses to my query, they've been doing both. Thanks for the info.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 28, 2021)

definedphotography said:


> Not on their own, but *all those things combined* I'd bet a number would reconsider their R3 order. The real proof though will be with the reviews of the Z9. If it lives up to the specs, its a monster of a camera for the money.


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.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


I will chime in. I have a R3 on order and do not plan to cancel or switch ecosystems. For me I typically only print 8x10 photos so 24 MP is more than enough even for cropping. In the future, I hope Canon does something with quad pixel/bayer array sensor that provides both a low res and high res on a single sensor.


----------



## gavinz (Oct 28, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Good news. Makes the R3 looks expensive.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 28, 2021)

wyotex43n said:


> A little surprised how many people think this price is a game changer. 20fps raw which is the same as an R5 which is less money.
> I know that's not apples to apples but switching brands based on comparing the price to an R3 sounds like a gross overreaction.


And I would conjecture that the R5 Mk2 will likely have a stacked sensor.


----------



## Tremotino (Oct 28, 2021)

This seems to be some cheap camera if it's only 5499


----------



## john1970 (Oct 28, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> This seems to be some cheap camera if it's only 5499


$5500 is hardly cheap! Economical given its specifications maybe, but I would hardly call it or any other pro-grade FF camera cheap.


----------



## entoman (Oct 28, 2021)

pic said:


> Switching from Canon to Nikon: when you've zero RF gear: might be the best moment ever.


Maybe, but if you have a few EF lenses the AF will work perfectly using the EF-RF adaptors.
Try adapting an EF lens to a Nikon body and you’ll likely be in for a lot of disappointment.
Of course, you could sell all the Canon gear and start afresh with Nikon, but that would be mighty expensive.


----------



## mbike999 (Oct 28, 2021)

This is the typical game of leapfrog camera mfr's have been playing for decades. This kind of competition is good and only helps the consumer - everyone wins. R3,A1, were amazing yesterday, still are today...choose based on the system and lenses, not the bodies. Or buy one of each to avoid FOMO


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> Maybe, but if you have a few EF lenses the AF will work perfectly using the EF-RF adaptors.
> Try adapting an EF lens to a Nikon body and you’ll likely be in for a lot of disappointment.
> Of course, you could sell all the Canon gear and start afresh with Nikon, but that would be mighty expensive.



EF lenses work better on Z bodies than F lenses. There are good AF EF to Z adaptors and the only thing that sucks is that they don't support the old 300mm f/2.8 L USM lens I had as it was from 1988 and focus by wire.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 28, 2021)

mbike999 said:


> This is the typical game of leapfrog camera mfr's have been playing for decades. This kind of competition is good and only helps the consumer - everyone wins. R3,A1, were amazing yesterday, still are today...choose based on the system and lenses, not the bodies. Or buy one of each to avoid FOMO


Now we are finally getting back to picking the bloody body to go with our lenses. By the time we see the Z9II and R3II both systems will be well kitted out with lenses and you'll be buying whatever one makes your lenses work best.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 28, 2021)

All you folks saying that Nikon is losing money on the Z9 need to understand the concepts of Non-recurring Expenses (NRE) and Recurring Expenses (RE). NRE is the cost to make the first camera, specifically the engineering and any construction to build the assembly line to make the cameras. RE is the cost to make and market each additional camera. Engineering cost is part of the NRE and one very important engineering task is to reduce the RE cost while developing a quality product. In some organizations I've been in, reducing RE borders on an obsession.

Consider the scenario where the NRE for the Z9 is $50 million, a not unresonable figure, and the RE is $2500 per camera. If Nikon sells 20,000 Z9's at $5000 wholesale, each camera costs Nikon $2500 RE plus ($50 million/20,000=$2500) and Nikon has broken even. If, however, Nikon sells 200,000 cameras at that price, each camera costs Nikon $2500 plus ($50 million/200,000=$250) and Nikon makes $2250 profit per camera or $450 million total.

Pricing strategy is an art form, closely related to marketing strategy and I am not even remotely competent at it but I hope this has been enlightening.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 28, 2021)

According to Nikon one can get 1000+ buffer depth using high-efficiency RAW setting (most lossy compressed) using ProGrade Cobalt card. I would be interested in knowing what the lossless RAW depth is on such a card at 20 fps. With that said the Z9 is still a amazing camera and so are other top of the line offerings from Sony and Canon.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 28, 2021)

mbike999 said:


> This is the typical game of leapfrog camera mfr's have been playing for decades. This kind of competition is good and only helps the consumer - everyone wins. R3,A1, were amazing yesterday, still are today...choose based on the system and lenses, not the bodies. Or buy one of each to avoid FOMO


Very true and a down to earth statement. I would just add to include ergonomics as well, which is a very personal decision.


----------



## John Wilde (Oct 28, 2021)

Nikon is using Penetration Pricing.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/penetration-pricing.asp

Canon forecasts that their Imaging division will have a 10.4% Operating Profit Margin this year, which is hardly extravagant.


----------



## StandardLumen (Oct 28, 2021)

The Z9 looks fantastic and, whether I end up buying a Z9 or not, Nikon has succeeded in making me feel like the R3 is overpriced.


----------



## dirtyvu (Oct 28, 2021)

neurorx said:


> Wow, way to go Nikon! I am a Canon shooter but the price and the Z9 specs really make the R3 less exciting. I do think the R3 is overpriced for what you are getting. I think this was a significant mistake. Any R1 can't ignore the A1 and Z9 being at this price point.


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.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 28, 2021)

dirtyvu said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2021)

David_D said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2021)

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 (Oct 28, 2021)

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 (Oct 28, 2021)

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 (Oct 28, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2021)

Billybob said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


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


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


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 29, 2021)

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 (Oct 29, 2021)

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 (Oct 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 29, 2021)

Zik said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> …
> 
> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

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 (Oct 29, 2021)

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 (Oct 29, 2021)

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 (Oct 29, 2021)

Michael T said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

landon said:


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


Both of them?


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 29, 2021)

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 (Oct 29, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

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 (Oct 29, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Oct 29, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Oct 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> 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.
> ...


16 bit files.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 29, 2021)

john1970 said:


> 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
> ...


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 (Oct 29, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

AEWest said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

john1970 said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> 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.



David - Sydney said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

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


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

Billybob said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

dirtyvu said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

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.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 29, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> The Empire strikes back!
> 
> This will make a lot of happy campers among Nikon fans.


Quite a shrunken empire, Nikon really needs a Z9 success:









Camera market share: Canon owns 48%, Sony 22%, Nikon drops to 14%


Global camera share data reveals that Canon owns half of the market, Sony almost a quarter, but Nikon is down to a seventh




www.digitalcameraworld.com


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 29, 2021)

I am a little bit disappointed about the Z9's "world leading" AF system, because I miss a bug detection mode. There are much more bugs living in this world than people and their pets, so Nikon is missing 99,9 % market potential


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Overall the Z9 will fuel a tough competition, which is good for all users, since competition = progress.


----------



## ausserirdischesind (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The pricing of the Z9 shows once again how Canon is price gouging the UK. The prices in the UK are 15% higher than in the EU, which has the same warranty and VAT as us.
> Nikon Z9 £5299 in UK, $5496.95 in USA, €5999 in EU
> Canon R3 £5879 in UK, $5999 in USA, €5999 in EU



There are broken supply chains everywhere, there are not enough truck drivers in UK, probably quite some slow customs red tape and unclear post-Brexit situation, the Pound exchange rate is all over the place, it might be the other way round with Nikon subsidising UK prices.


----------



## ausserirdischesind (Oct 29, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Quite a shrunken empire, Nikon really needs a Z9 success:


Absolutely, and they need cheaper entry level bodies that are as attractive, otherwise people entering from scratch will not go Nikon in large enough numbers. They should have let go the F system much quicker, as much as this hurts. Canon really managed this better.


----------



## SnowMiku (Oct 29, 2021)

This is good news, competition is good to keep the prices at a good level and for competitors to add more features. Perhaps the R3 may get a price drop down the road and maybe some firmware updates to stay competive. But I think most people in this market would already have a good collection of lenses so I can't see many 1D/R3 users selling the Canon gear and jumping to Nikon anyway.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 29, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> That price is overly aggressive.


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.


----------



## riker (Oct 29, 2021)

gg wp


----------



## AlanF (Oct 29, 2021)

ausserirdischesind said:


> There are broken supply chains everywhere, there are not enough truck drivers in UK, probably quite some slow customs red tape and unclear post-Brexit situation, the Pound exchange rate is all over the place, it might be the other way round with Nikon subsidising UK prices.


The price gouging started way before broken supply chains. I started a thread about this in April https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-price-gouging-in-uk.40351/#post-889762
I can, for example, buy an R5 from a reliable grey market UK dealer with a 3-year warranty at ~£1000 cheaper than from the Canon store or from an authorised Canon dealer. Canon is a global company that maximises its profits by differential regional charging.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 29, 2021)

Specs vs usability?


----------



## tbgtomcom (Oct 29, 2021)

<sarcasm>Well that settles it. Everyone here should trade in their Canon gear and go Nikon. They're back.</sarcasm>


----------



## AlanF (Oct 29, 2021)

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.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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.



Ricci went over it and it looks like a very impressive lens that keeps up with the 180-400 f/4.0 in IQ. Though I am more excited for the 400 PF and 800 PF that have shown up on the roadmap. The 400 PF is as tall as the 100-400 (collapsed) and I am almost more tempted by that than the 400 f/2.8 TC.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 29, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Ricci went over it and it looks like a very impressive lens that keeps up with the 180-400 f/4.0 in IQ. Though I am more excited for the 400 PF and 800 PF that have shown up on the roadmap. The 400 PF is as tall as the 100-400 (collapsed) and I am almost more tempted by that than the 400 f/2.8 TC.


I'd be interested in your experience with the 500 PF + FTZ on the Z9 when it arrives. What's it like on the Z6?


----------



## docsmith (Oct 29, 2021)

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.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> I’m not in the market for a gripped pro sports/wildlife camera, but if I was, Nikon would get my money.


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?


----------



## Billybob (Oct 29, 2021)

docsmith said:


> ...
> 
> 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). ... 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.


As someone who has a preorder in for the Z9, I absolutely see your points and may regret canceling my R3 preorder. To me, the only place where the Z9 clearly wins is in MP count. On the R3 side, the AF seems to be more refined, has a weaker or more refined olpf, and, perhaps, better dynamic range (are we allowed to mention that here?). I have been extremely impressed by the tonal quality of R3 images. So far, most Z9 images have been unimpressive. I just struggle with the R3's 24MP. I dumped my Nikon D5, which shares a lot of the R3's positive qualities (as well as "low" MP count), solely because I was frustrated with the limited detail in cropped images of birds. Perhaps I'll be better off sitting out this round and waiting for the R1.


----------



## Billybob (Oct 29, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> 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.


Our expectations of speed must differ. I have a pretty high spec'ed 2019 iMac, and I perceive little difference between processing cRAW and uncompressed RAW files in Lightroom. Of course it's been a while since I did the comparison--I've used cRAW for over a year--so perhaps a new comparison is in order.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.


The question I have is: Will Canon wait that long or are they going to move faster? I do not see the R1 as a replacement for the R3 more of a supplement. Historically, speaking the EOS 3 was released in Nov. 1998 and the EOS 1v was released in March 2000. If that were the case here, we might expect a R1 as early as March 2023. However, with supply chain issues that could easily be pushed back a year.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I'd be interested in your experience with the 500 PF + FTZ on the Z9 when it arrives. What's it like on the Z6?



On the Z6 the 500 PF focuses as fast as it does on the D500 (I also get about 90% of the images in sharp focus on red squirrels). The AF speed with the FTZ is slower on f/4 and f/2.8 lenses until they are stopped down to f/5.6. I also ordered a FTZ2 which drops that stupid wart. What I will be interested in is if the 500 PF needs to use the focus preset button when going between two extremes. The squirrel hide is an ideal place I can repeatedly test as I'll have subjects at both extremes. 

Also of note, the Z9 buffers at 500 images on the Sony Tough cards and 2300 on ProGrade Colbat cards and not the 2s one Youtube channel is reporting. I'll be ordering some ProGrade cards to make sure my Z9 is racking at full speed. But my older CF Express and XQD cards will still serve as backups.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 29, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

docsmith said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

@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 (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

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 (Oct 29, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

highdesertmesa said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

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 (Oct 29, 2021)

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 (Oct 29, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2021)

scyrene said:


> 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….


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> …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).


The RF 14-35/4 *L* IS also ‘features’ forced correction of geometric distortion (including cropping from a wider-than-14mm FoV).


----------



## entoman (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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.


Absolutely agree, but is it the sensor resolution that’s limiting the detail/sharpness, or is it due to using a 2x extender at the extreme telephoto end of a zoom?


----------



## john1970 (Oct 29, 2021)

IMO the R3 and Z9 target two different markets; for wildlife photography I have been in situation where I want more MP, but I have also been in situation where I wished I had improved ISO performance and higher fps. 

I really hope that the rumored R1 specs of having quad pixel sensor with 21 MP and 84MP flexibility materializes. With a single body one would have more MP when you want it as well has High ISO performance when needed.


----------



## john1970 (Oct 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> Absolutely agree, but is it the sensor resolution that’s limiting the detail/sharpness, or is it due to using a 2x extender at the extreme telephoto end of a zoom?


And depending on distance, there can also be atmospheric contribution to loss of resolution. A professional bird photographer once gave me three rules of advice to improve my photography:

1) Buy the longest fastest telephoto lens that you can afford
2) Learn how to approach subjects without spooking them
3) Know when to walk away from a lousy photograph

The last two are important to learn and are quite economical relative to the first one!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> Absolutely agree, but is it the sensor resolution that’s limiting the detail/sharpness, or is it due to using a 2x extender at the extreme telephoto end of a zoom?


A good question. The overall resolution of the system depends on the product of the resolutions of the sensor and lens: MTF(system) = MTF(sensor)*MTF(lens). So increasing the resolution of the sensor by 40% increases the resolution of the system compared to having the same lens on both, whatever the lens, be it good or bad. If you are asking, whether the 2xTC is any good, it is actually very good indeed on the 100-500mm, and at 1000mm it outresoves the native 800mm f/11. The old EF 2xTC III is not nearly as good. We had a thread on this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-2x-extender-anyone-used-one.40408/


----------



## entoman (Oct 29, 2021)

john1970 said:


> And depending on distance, there can also be atmospheric contribution to loss of resolution. A professional bird photographer once gave me three rules of advice to improve my photography:
> 
> 1) Buy the longest fastest telephoto lens that you can afford
> 2) Learn how to approach subjects without spooking them
> ...


Yes, definitely good advice to buy the longest and widest-aperture lens you can afford, but we’re talking about lenses that cost £30K or more, and even hiring one for a 2 week safari costs a great deal.

Learning how to approach subjects is fundamental to wildlife photography, as is developing a full knowledge of the creature’s habitat requirements, seasonality and behaviour.

I’d pay less importance on “knowing when to walk away from a lousy photograph”, in much the same way that I pay little attention to waiting for the “perfect light”. Very often I’ve found that my *best* photographs have been taken in far from ideal conditions. Patience can bring great rewards.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 29, 2021)

john1970 said:


> And depending on distance, there can also be atmospheric contribution to loss of resolution. A professional bird photographer once gave me three rules of advice to improve my photography:
> 
> 1) Buy the longest fastest telephoto lens that you can afford
> 2) Learn how to approach subjects without spooking them
> ...


1) Needs caveats. If you are on foot, get the longest fastest lens you can carry. Then, if you don't use a tripod, the longest fastest lens that you can hand hold. And, if you are photographing objects in flight, the fastest lens that is sufficiently long but has a wide enough field of view you can work within. 2) and 3) are universally good advice.


----------



## entoman (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> A good question. The overall resolution of the system depends on the product of the resolutions of the sensor and lens: MTF(system) = MTF(sensor)*MTF(lens). So increasing the resolution of the sensor by 40% increases the resolution of the system compared to having the same lens on both, whatever the lens, be it good or bad. If you are asking, whether the 2xTC is any good, it is actually very good indeed on the 100-500mm, and at 1000mm it outresoves the native 800mm f/11. The old EF 2xTC III is not nearly as good. We had s thread on this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-2x-extender-anyone-used-one.40408/


It’s interesting to know that the RF 2x extender is a lot better than the (awful) EF 2x iii extender!


----------



## john1970 (Oct 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes, definitely good advice to buy the longest and widest-aperture lens you can afford, but we’re talking about lenses that cost £30K or more, and even hiring one for a 2 week safari costs a great deal.
> 
> Learning how to approach subjects is fundamental to wildlife photography, as is developing a full knowledge of the creature’s habitat requirements, seasonality and behaviour.
> 
> I’d pay less importance on “knowing when to walk away from a lousy photograph”, in much the same way that I pay little attention to waiting for the “perfect light”. Very often I’ve found that my *best* photographs have been taken in far from ideal conditions. Patience can bring great rewards.


Your last sentence is perfect!!


----------



## Viggo (Oct 29, 2021)

Can the Z9 do HSS with flash?


----------



## DBounce (Oct 29, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> Is the R3 better than this for the money?


As someone who preordered the R3 I regret to say the Nikon appears a much better value. What’s groundbreaking is the appearance of ProRes Raw internal recording that will be added via a firmware update. This codec plays well on Apple’s new silicon, making the post workflow much better than dealing with Canon’s notoriously difficult to playback raw light footage.
I just might cancel my R3 preorder? From now on I request demand ProRes and ProRes Raw internally. Clearly there’s a way to add it, in spite of the Red patent. As such, there’s zero reason to purchase a hybrid cameras that lacks these important codecs.


----------



## Rumours not rumors (Oct 29, 2021)

Shame they went to all that trouble making the promo video for the world and couldn't figure out that the correct pronunciation of the letter Z is "zhed" not "zee". I still think the Z9 body shape looks weird compared to the EOS R3.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 29, 2021)

Rumours not rumors said:


> Shame they went to all that trouble making the promo video for the world and couldn't figure out that the correct pronunciation of the letter Z is "zhed" not "zee". I still think the Z9 body shape looks weird compared to the EOS R3.


Merca says zee instead of zed. I am very much looking forward to my knee con zed nine.


----------



## Roo (Oct 29, 2021)

Interestingly, in Australia, the pricing is reversed - The R3 comes in at $8599 while the Z9 is $8999. When the US pricing of the R3 was released I thought it would be priced about $9.5k here, based on previous 1DxIII pricing, but was pleasantly surprised enough to order one.


----------



## TravelerNick (Oct 30, 2021)

docsmith said:


> 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.



What's changed is many working pros need to deliver video. The R3 has 6K video with high specs because video matters. 

It's also true that most of the people who need speed aren't shooting raw but JPG. A 33MP JPG is already too big for a website by a factor of 33.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 30, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Merca says zee instead of zed. I am very much looking forward to my knee con zed nine.


After a few single malts, it will be a zhed 9.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Oct 30, 2021)

It looks good on paper but the devil is in the detail. I can only assume that with the fast readout speed they must be 100% sure that they will have removed all chamce of banding under artificial lights and ES. if they haven't the lack of MS will be a disaster. The lack of super fast shutter speed with RAW will likely be panned but i dont see it as an issue. 20fps is enough. Gotta admit. It looks like a great camera(especially for the price).


----------



## entoman (Oct 30, 2021)

Rumours not rumors said:


> I still think the Z9 body shape looks weird compared to the EOS R3.


I’d go so far as to say that the Z9 looks positively ugly alongside any of Canon’s stylish cameras, but what counts a great deal more is how the cameras compare in ergonomics, specification and performance.

If I was upgrading/switching from a Sony, and needed a high performance, gripped, sports/reportage battleship, I’d almost certainly get the Z9, but my R5 does pretty much everything that I need/want a camera to do (although I’m hoping for better battery life, eye-control AF twin, CFE-B slots and a few other improvements in the R5 Mkii).


----------



## entoman (Oct 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> After a few single malts, it will be a zhed 9.


I’ve never heard anyone pronounce Nikon as Knee Conn, the name was derived from Nippon Kogaku, so it seems logical to me to pronounce it Nick On, while Nigh Conn seems very lah-dee-dah… I’ll take Zed as in Led Zeppelin too.

And what about So Knee? Or is it Sonnee?

At least with Canon there is only one way to say it!

But after a Laphroaig or three I might stretch to a Pain O Sonic…


----------



## entoman (Oct 30, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Merca says zee instead of zed. I am very much looking forward to my knee con zed nine.


Google translate gives the English pronounciation as Zed

… and the Japanese pronunciation is Zett-uh…


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> I’ve never heard anyone pronounce Nikon as Knee Conn, the name was derived from Nippon Kogaku, so it seems logical to me to pronounce it Nick On, while Nigh Conn seems very lah-dee-dah… I’ll take Zed as in Led Zeppelin too.
> 
> And what about So Knee? Or is it Sonnee?
> 
> ...


Well, if you say it in a southern US accent, and pretend you're in a western movie, it would sound something like "thets uh mighty fahn Knee-con you've got thayure bhoay, but its naw match fahwar mah Sow-knee!"


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> And what about So Knee? Or is it Sonnee?



In Scotland it is Son nay. English people likely pronounce it differently, their language is 'lighter'.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 30, 2021)

As Nikon has a single k following the i one would expect the pronunciation in English to be ‘nigh con’. As Nikkor lenses have a double k following the i it should be pronounced ‘nick or’, at least if it was an English word.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 30, 2021)

It's Nickonn Zedd nuff (in French)


----------



## AlanF (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> I’ve never heard anyone pronounce Nikon as Knee Conn, the name was derived from Nippon Kogaku, so it seems logical to me to pronounce it Nick On, while Nigh Conn seems very lah-dee-dah… I’ll take Zed as in Led Zeppelin too.
> 
> And what about So Knee? Or is it Sonnee?
> 
> ...


Codebunny is more more correct. Knee con is the Japanese pronunciation; in the UK, we shorten the ee somewhat to be closer to nick on; and our transatlantic friends, who are even more linguistically challenged than us, say nigh con. Three Laphroaigs would give me real pleasure, and not pain, as it one of my favourites.


----------



## entoman (Oct 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Codebunny is more more correct. Knee con is the Japanese pronunciation; in the UK, we shorten the ee somewhat to be closer to nick on; and our transatlantic friends, who are even more linguistically challenged than us, say nigh con. Three Laphroaigs would give me real pleasure, and not pain, as it one of my favourites.


As a Nikon executive once diplomatically stated “we don’t care whether you call us Nick On or Nigh Conn”, (just as long as you buy our cameras  ).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> As a Nikon executive once diplomatically stated “we don’t care whether you call us Nick On or Nigh Conn”, (just as long as you buy our cameras  ).


Sometimes it seems that it is all they care about.


----------



## entoman (Oct 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Sometimes it seems that it is all they care about.


I don’t really agree with that, they do of course have to keep themselves in employment and satisfy the lust of their shareholders, but I’m sure that the various manufacturers take a great deal of genuine pride in producing high quality products and that they enjoy embracing new technology.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Codebunny is more more correct. Knee con is the Japanese pronunciation; in the UK, we shorten the ee somewhat to be closer to nick on; and our transatlantic friends, who are even more linguistically challenged than us, say nigh con. Three Laphroaigs would give me real pleasure, and not pain, as it one of my favourites.


What about three Ardbegs???


----------



## AlanF (Oct 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> I don’t really agree with that, they do of course have to keep themselves in employment and satisfy the lust of their shareholders, but I’m sure that the various manufacturers take a great deal of genuine pride in producing high quality products and that they enjoy embracing new technology.


I carefully qualified what I wrote with "sometimes". There are plenty of me-to or second-rate products on sale everywhere so buyer beware. Some companies specialise in them, others have some such lines in their portfolios. A few companies, like Zeiss in the old days, did try to produce the best in whatever they did. There is a law in economics that there is always someone who will try and make it cheaper and worse.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Oct 30, 2021)

A


entoman said:


> I’ve never heard anyone pronounce Nikon as Knee Conn, the name was derived from Nippon Kogaku, so it seems logical to me to pronounce it Nick On, while Nigh Conn seems very lah-dee-dah… I’ll take Zed as in Led Zeppelin too.
> 
> And what about So Knee? Or is it Sonnee?
> 
> ...


After a Laphroaig or three the next thing you should do is have another laphroaig. Or maybe just go all out and bump up to an Octomore.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Oct 31, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> The EOS R is basically that. I guess the form factor is slightly different, but it's the exact same sensor and they are cheap to acquire now. I took many great photos on it before trading it in for an R5.



The EOS R was good enough that I put my R5 money all into glass like the RF 85mm 1.2 L and one extra Zeiss lens. Right now, used EOS R can be found for $1200 to $1600. Best Canon body for the money.

About the Nikon Z9 .... there's a couple values for camera bodies. What does it cost now, and what can it be sold for in a year or two. Unless someone is 99% certain they will keep it for a long time.


----------



## angelisland (Oct 31, 2021)

Skux said:


> 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.


All preliminary reviews (dozens on YouTube) say rolling shutter and banding etc are thus far a non-issue with this camera...


----------



## f119a (Oct 31, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> 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


Well, no one in the industry offers low res RAW anymore at this point, which is probably caused by the evolution of image compression algorithms. 
Nikon's new high efficiency "raw" is actually based on Jpeg XS, a standard aiming for "visually lossless compression" developed by intoPIX.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2021)

f119a said:


> "visually lossless compression"


= lossy.


----------



## f119a (Oct 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> = lossy.


Yes. Even though they claim it's near-lossless at Nikon's compression rate.


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

Skux said:


> 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.


I suspect that within about 3 years, all new high end MILCs will feature purely electronic shutters.

Mechanical shutters are *DOOOOMED*.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> I suspect that within about 3 years, all new high end MILCs will feature purely electronic shutters.
> 
> Mechanical shutters are *DOOOOMED*.



I think the mechanical shutter in the R3 is there purely for the more conservative users that aren’t trusting of the electronic shutter. Frankly not having a mechanical shutter is making me a wee bit nervous with the Z9 and that all the RAW is compressed. But in saying that, I am sure I’ll get better images from it than from my Z6 or at least as good and with so many shots over ISO 1000 to get high shutter speeds it’ll be irrelevant if it is 12bit or 14bit or 14bit lossless compressed for me. If I want more IQ I can shoot at ISO 64.


----------



## entoman (Oct 31, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I think the mechanical shutter in the R3 is there purely for the more conservative users that aren’t trusting of the electronic shutter. Frankly not having a mechanical shutter is making me a wee bit nervous with the Z9 and that all the RAW is compressed. But in saying that, I am sure I’ll get better images from it than from my Z6 or at least as good and with so many shots over ISO 1000 to get high shutter speeds it’ll be irrelevant if it is 12bit or 14bit or 14bit lossless compressed for me. If I want more IQ I can shoot at ISO 64.


Yes, undoubtedly there will be some users who don’t want to be solely reliant on an electronic shutter, and that may have influenced Canon’s approach to the R3.

I’m sure there are some scenarios (e.g. fill in flash in bright sunlight) where even a very fast readout electronic shutter can’t sync fast enough, and there may be other scenarios that don’t immediately spring to mind.

My R5 doesn’t allow exposure bracketing with electronic shutter, it has a fixed (maximum) burst speed of 20fps, and it doesn’t have any means of producing a volume-controllable fake shutter sound. If those issues didn’t exist, I’d be absolutely happy to have an electronic-only shutter.


----------



## Finn (Oct 31, 2021)

The faster Nikon brings the advancements of the Z9 (mainly the processor and AF) to their Z6 and Z7 the better off they will be. Biggest problem is they are beholden to Sony sensors and you know Sony cameras always get them exclusively 6 months in advance!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 31, 2021)

Finn said:


> The faster Nikon brings the advancements of the Z9 (mainly the processor and AF) to their Z6 and Z7 the better off they will be. Biggest problem is they are beholden to Sony sensors and you know Sony cameras always get them exclusively 6 months in advance!


Has it been announced who makes the sensor for the Z9?


----------



## Finn (Oct 31, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Has it been announced who makes the sensor for the Z9?


No, but it is most certainly Sony Semi. The leading CMOS chip manufacture in the world for ILC


----------



## AlanF (Oct 31, 2021)

Finn said:


> No, but it is most certainly Sony Semi. The leading CMOS chip manufacture in the world for ILC


It's all speculation, read this: https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/who-will-make-nikons-next.html


----------



## Finn (Oct 31, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It's all speculation, read this: https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/who-will-make-nikons-next.html


I have read that article. We won't know for sure until someone does a teardown and looks at the sensor directly but I would be shocked if it is not a Sony Semi sensor with custom Nikon specifications, which is how all the other brands besides Canon do their "custom" sensors.


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 1, 2021)

Ah yes, the Z9, a "revolutionary" flagship "sports/action" camera with a buffer of.... 40 raw images?? On a $250 CF Express Type B, none the less.

And yet people wonder why Canon released the R3 at 24 megapixels. There's still a choice between resolution or buffer at this point, and buffer makes a huge difference when you can capture every second of action without hearing that dreadful sound of the shutter slowing down.

It doesn't matter what image quality you have for the images you don't capture because you hit the buffer.

Source: https://www.dpreview.com/videos/4113018773/dpreview-tv-nikon-z9-first-impressions-review


----------



## Jordan23 (Nov 1, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Ah yes, the Z9, a "revolutionary" flagship "sports/action" camera with a buffer of.... 40 raw images?? On a $250 CF Express Type B, none the less.
> 
> 
> Source: https://www.dpreview.com/videos/4113018773/dpreview-tv-nikon-z9-first-impressions-review


DP used a slow card, and Ricci here gives a much more informed view, and his findings are in line with the Z9 manual which says 79 uncompressed raws. 




Still quite low, but I doubt there'll be much difference between lossless and lossy raw for the types of shooting that need 20fps.
Once you drop to one of the lossy raws (still 14bit) the buffer is virtual endless (500+/1000+).


----------



## SnowMiku (Nov 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> I suspect that within about 3 years, all new high end MILCs will feature purely electronic shutters.
> 
> Mechanical shutters are *DOOOOMED*.


I think within the next 5-10 years the entry level models will only have the electronic shutter as well.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Nov 1, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> View attachment 201057
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Z9, a "revolutionary" flagship "sports/action" camera with a buffer of.... 40 raw images?? On a $250 CF Express Type B, none the less.
> ...



No, just no. Please don't spread this fud. The camera does well more than 40 RAW images. It is very dependent on having good CF Express cards, basically it needs the ones with 1450 MB/s write and not the cheap ones with 1000 MB/s write. We also have new cards due next year with faster write speeds. 






As an aside, the DPR guys also complained there is no SD card slot


----------



## AlanF (Nov 1, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> No, just no. Please don't spread this fud. The camera does well more than 40 RAW images. It is very dependent on having good CF Express cards, basically it needs the ones with 1450 MB/s write and not the cheap ones with 1000 MB/s write. We also have new cards due next year with faster write speeds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It needs the fastest Delkin or Prograde. Never mind if you use Sandisk or Lexar - you can fry eggs for breakfast on them as they slowly become filled.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Nov 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It needs the fastest Delkin or Prograde. Never mind if you use Sandisk or Lexar - you can fry eggs for breakfast on them as they slowly become filled.



I have some ProGrade 325 GB ones and some Sony tough. The Sony cards should be acceptable. We’ll also see what next years cards bring, but I won’t be disappointed with the cards I have just now and being able to clear the buffer in what looks like 1.5 seconds.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 1, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> ...I won’t be disappointed with the cards I have just now and being able to clear the buffer in what looks like 1.5 seconds.


When shooting sports, 1.5 seconds is an eternity. I learned that just by experimenting with the R5 (Switching off with the 1DX III). There are few things as frustrating as looking down at your camera and seeing the little flashing red light while it waits to clear the buffer.


----------



## Finn (Nov 1, 2021)

Buffer is perfectly acceptable with a fast, quality CFX card. Angelbird will be releasing newer 660GB cards with fast reliable writing speeds. The buffer will basically be unlimited as you burst fire with a second or two in-between bursts.


----------



## SHAMwow (Nov 1, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I think the mechanical shutter in the R3 is there purely for the more conservative users that aren’t trusting of the electronic shutter. Frankly not having a mechanical shutter is making me a wee bit nervous with the Z9 and that all the RAW is compressed. But in saying that, I am sure I’ll get better images from it than from my Z6 or at least as good and with so many shots over ISO 1000 to get high shutter speeds it’ll be irrelevant if it is 12bit or 14bit or 14bit lossless compressed for me. If I want more IQ I can shoot at ISO 64.


Yes, but I think its simpler than that. Canon doesn't have a fast enough readout. There were still some oblong sports balls, so they kept the shutter out of necessity really.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 1, 2021)

f119a said:


> Well, no one in the industry offers low res RAW anymore at this point [..]


No one ever did, since after downscaling it isn't RAW anymore. On Canon cameras, mRAW and sRAW were downscaled, debayered TIFFs. Better than JPEGs, but most certainly not RAW.
The newer R camera *do* offer lower res, cropped RAWs, though.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Nov 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> When shooting sports, 1.5 seconds is an eternity. I learned that just by experimenting with the R5 (Switching off with the 1DX III). There are few things as frustrating as looking down at your camera and seeing the little flashing red light while it waits to clear the buffer.



Well on sports H* and H are getting thousands or 'fill up the card' numbers of shots. What we need to see is how H* looks compared to lossless as both are 14 bit, I imagine it'll be more than good enough ether way. Nikon are known for outstanding image quality.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 1, 2021)

Dragon said:


> 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.


Previous generations of Canon cameras like my old 5D Mark III has mRAW and sRAW options which would create a CR2 file at smaller resolutions when needed. I have a time and place I’ll use APS-C mode on the R5, but I didn’t buy an R5 to shoot it as an APS-C camera. It’s just unfortunate that I don’t have an option for smaller resolutions at all in RAW.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> Previous generations of Canon cameras like my old 5D Mark III has mRAW and sRAW options which would create a CR2 file at smaller resolutions when needed.


mRAW and sRAW are not RAW. Close, but not.



http://www.dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf


----------



## ISv (Nov 2, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> The Empire strikes back!
> 
> This will make a lot of happy campers among Nikon fans.


Well! I'm a Nikon shutter but I really don't care who is the very best in this exact time! From my point of view the most essential thing is to have the concurrence going on and companies struggling to have the upper hand !


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 2, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> Previous generations of Canon cameras like my old 5D Mark III has mRAW and sRAW options which would create a CR2 file at smaller resolutions when needed. I have a time and place I’ll use APS-C mode on the R5, but I didn’t buy an R5 to shoot it as an APS-C camera. It’s just unfortunate that I don’t have an option for smaller resolutions at all in RAW.


I wish the HDR mode in the R5 didn't come with so much restrictions (no hi-speed evf, no anti-flicker and mode), otherwise HEIF could be a replacement for people wanting m/sRAW. It's downscaled and debayered, just like m/sRAW and has much better-than-JPEG colours and bitdepth.
Seeing how many people fell for the "It has RAW in its name, so it must be RAW" trick Canon pulled, they should rename HEIF to hRAW or something similar.
Some of the R3 (p)reviews imply that turning on HEIF doesn't come with the drawbacks the R5 has, we'll have to wait for proper reviews or the manual to be available to see if that's true.

I also wish the photo ecosystem would support HEIF better, I'd love to have LR Classic export HEIFs instead of JPEGs.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 2, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> Previous generations of Canon cameras like my old 5D Mark III has mRAW and sRAW options which would create a CR2 file at smaller resolutions when needed. I have a time and place I’ll use APS-C mode on the R5, but I didn’t buy an R5 to shoot it as an APS-C camera. It’s just unfortunate that I don’t have an option for smaller resolutions at all in RAW.


You will likely not see Sraw and Mraw come back as the methodology used would probably not work so well with the rather extreme levels of correction used now in DLO for some of the new lenses.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 3, 2021)

Jordan23 said:


> DP used a slow card, and Ricci here gives a much more informed view, and his findings are in line with the Z9 manual which says 79 uncompressed raws.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only 79 RAW files at 20 fps in lossless RAW. I would have anticipated a larger buffer (200) so one would have 10 sec buffer at 20 fps. Must be a limitation in current tech.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Only 79 RAW files at 20 fps in lossless RAW. I would have anticipated a larger buffer (200) so one would have 10 sec buffer at 20 fps. Must be a limitation in current tech.


R3 is 150 RAW at 30 fps.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 4, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Only 79 RAW files at 20 fps in lossless RAW. I would have anticipated a larger buffer (200) so one would have 10 sec buffer at 20 fps. Must be a limitation in current tech.


No limit on the buffer size other than the amount of RAM they want to stuff in the box.


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Nov 6, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> The EOS R is basically that. I guess the form factor is slightly different, but it's the exact same sensor and they are cheap to acquire now. I took many great photos on it before trading it in for an R5.


I tried it, but couldn't get the touch screen focus pointing to work. Also I want image stabilization.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Nov 7, 2021)

UpstateNYPhotog said:


> I tried it, but couldn't get the touch screen focus pointing to work. Also I want image stabilization.


What does that have to do with the 5D MK IV?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Nov 7, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Only 79 RAW files at 20 fps in lossless RAW. I would have anticipated a larger buffer (200) so one would have 10 sec buffer at 20 fps. Must be a limitation in current tech.



2 GB/s CF Express 1.0 cards due next year as well as 4 GB/s CF Express 2.0 cards. The cameras buffer is very card dependent, with the current limit being the 1.5 GB/s CF Express 1.0 cards (which have been fast enough until now).


----------



## tron (Nov 15, 2021)

The trick here would be to be able to lower the fps say to 10, 12 or 15. In that case the number of shots for lossless raw would increase a lot. We do not always need 20fps.


----------



## UpstateNYPhotog (Nov 22, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> What does that have to do with the 5D MK IV?


The 5D IV has spectacular Live View focusing. If your subjects aren't moving very quickly where you need to reframe a lot and you should always be providing room for cropping as I need to, then there is little advantage to an R5 over a 5D IV apart from built in stabilization and the tilt screen. Plus I find the R5 uncomfortable to hold after two different week long trials on paid jobs.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Nov 22, 2021)

UpstateNYPhotog said:


> The 5D IV has spectacular Live View focusing. If your subjects aren't moving very quickly where you need to reframe a lot and you should always be providing room for cropping as I need to, then there is little advantage to an R5 over a 5D IV apart from built in stabilization and the tilt screen. Plus I find the R5 uncomfortable to hold after two different week long trials on paid jobs.


What you said what "All I want is Canon's 30 MP sensor from the 5D IV, with that form factor as mirrorless camera", which is why I recommended the R. I guess it turns out that it's not actually "all you want", since you mention live view performance and IBIS and form factor. To be fair, the R/R5 do not have that form factor, but I always shoot my R5 with a battery grip anyway, partially because I extensively use the vertical shutter.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 27, 2022)

RED Sues Nikon for Infringing on its Video Compression Patents


Nikon is accused of infringing on seven patents.




petapixel.com


----------



## tron (May 27, 2022)

Dragon said:


> No limit on the buffer size other than the amount of RAM they want to stuff in the box.


And possibly the cf-express controller speed and algorithms, since the cf-express cards themselves are very fast.


----------

