Canon R3 vs. Nikon Z9 (Price)

JoWinter wrote:

I've followed the discussions on other boards and below the reports on the DPReview page. It's great for Nikon, no doubt about it. But when the R3 vs. Z9 discussions come up, the one question I have is:

How many people are out there who will switch systems because of a $500 price difference and better MB (with perhaps somewhat inferior specs and performance in other dimensions)?

I think there won't be many. The assumption here is that most people who can spend $5-6000 on a camera body will already be heavily invested in a system, so a switch also means spending more $$$ on lenses. Sure, some people are filthy rich and they don't care, but will that make a difference for Canon?

I don't think that anyone here can answer that question, but I doubt that the number of switchers will be significant.

There might be a bigger effect for DSLR shooters who are on the verge of moving on to mirrorless. That is a more natural point for switching systems. But also for those people, a $500 difference probably does not matter. Unless the Z9 real-work shooting experience is dramatically better than that of the R3 again I doubt that this will be a huge effect.

I agree with those who have argued that Canon's R1 specs and pricing will be really interesting.

When Canon and Nikon launched their "serious" mirrorless products I was using an EOS 5DIII. Looking at the mirrorless offerings I realized that I would eventually replace all my lenses with the RF equivalents -- not right away but eventually. I saw this as an ideal time to evaluate whether to stay with Canon or not. In doing that thinking, I realized that there is a lot more than the bodies and lenses; there is the flash system, "L" Plates, learning curve issues, etc. to list a couple.

I can't imagine anyone switching systems over $500.