Canon R3 vs. Nikon Z9 (Price)

canon5dsquared wrote:

Z6User wrote:

Colin46 wrote:

rlaplaca wrote:

I'm a very happy owner of an R5 camera with 4 RF "L" lenses, including the spectacular 100 - 500 mm zoom lens. I can afford an R3, but continue to choke when I remember the price ($6000 US). I simply can not justify that price given the resolution and overall capabilities of the R5.

Then today, I see that Nikon's Z9 is priced at only $5500 US and I wonder what Canon is thinking now. I'm surprised that no one on this forum has mentioned this up to now. Before Nikon's announcement, I was thinking that Canon's price for the R3 is very aggressive. Now I think it's just plain arrogant.

Let’s have a look

z9 has lower res viewfinder

z9 has lower resolution rear screen

z9 doesn’t have eye focus

z9 doesn’t have advanced hot shoe

z9 has no mechanical shutter

As to no shutter, that's not a negative. It has a ~1/270" readout time, so it matches mechanical shutters, no worse with flickering lights. Also the viewfinder has essentially no delay and it has no backout.

z9 doesn’t have incremental adjustment of shutter to eliminate flicker

z9 is slower frames per second

the z9 is more a r5 competitor

It has 45 Mega pixels and 8K video. Does it need a mechanical shutter which is a potential point of failure? It can shoot in complete silence at 20 FPS in raw. The R5 records videos for 30 minutes max. The R5 does 12 FPS max with the mechanical shutter and it has viewfinder lag at higher FPS. It also has a different form factor and presumably much lower build quality/durability. To say it matches the R5 is nonsense. As for autofocus and frame rate, it’s best to wait for reviews, specs don’t tell the real story.

Anyway as someone said, you don’t buy a camera, you buy into a system.

i will stick with the r3 order I have placed to go with the r5’s

don’t get me wrong I love Nikon and I hope the camera is a big success, I have a d850 and d6 and various lenses but they don’t get a lot of use alongside my canon kit.

let’s wait to see the price of the new Nikon 400 with built on 1.4x tc, I will predict £14000 here in the Uk

The Z9 still has a shutter, they're just calling it a Sensor Protector, which could still be a point of failure.

Hardly, it's a simple shutter to protect the sensor. It doesn't need to move fast like a shutter, it doesn't need to repeatedly activate in high speed bursts, or even low speed bursts, hence it can be made much more rugged with a much longer lifetime.

The Z9 also doesn't shoot 20fps in RAW, it shoots that in Compressed Raw. Which means you have to unpack it on your computer later. The R5 can shoot 20fps RAW with its electronic shutter. No unpacking.

Irrelevant, when you open the file in Photoshop or whatever, it takes no time to uncompress the file on a modest PC. Compressed lossless raw saves disk space, so copying files to your PC or sending them over air is quicker.

The R5, being $2,000 less, allows you to get an Atomos to shoot 8K with. But we already know no one needs 8K, and if you do, then get a BlackMagic.

Then why does the R3 do 8K?

To hit 30fps the Z9 drops to jpeg, Sony's A1 doesn't.

Then anyone needing 30 FPS raw will buy the Sony.

To hit 120fps it drops to 11MP jpegs, which is a joke. Gimmicks shouldn't be necessary to sell cameras anymore but here we are. Everyone ripped Canon for the 8K thing, now it's Nikon's turn.

Let the market decide.

Saying the Z9 is equivalent to the Canon R5 is absurd. Then again, let the market decide. If it really is closer to the R5, people will buy the R5 instead.