New photos of the back of the Z9 at the Olympics

[Droster]

I really don't understand why Nikon needs Z9 to be in the ML game. An A1 competitor is only for the few working pro's, most consumers will never ever buy an A1 or a Z9. Canon themselves explained that the reason they have made a lot more revenue is due to R5 and R6. The prosumer cameras are the important models, not the flagships. If Nikon had an R5 competitor, it would be much better for the company than having an A1 competitor.

The flagship is a statement of intent, a showcase of what the company is capable of.

It also tells us what to expect for the next generation bodies like the Z 7iii and Z 6iii prosumer bodies and because of that it's also a marketing tool. It's there to help sell those bodies further down the line, that there's the reassurance that there's a path of progression that doesn't stop at the prosumer bodies.

This first generation Z9 is even more so important. Nikon needs it out to shut the naysayers up. They need it to tell the world they've finally shaken the cobwebs, finally arrived and ready to take over the F-mount, and are ready to go toe to toe against Sony and Canon.

I think it would be better for Nikon to release a 4000$ R5 competitor first and then release something similar to A1. It would help them a lot more financially.

And who in their right mind doubted that Nikon wouldn't be able to release something like Z9 anyway? It's tech. It's available to everyone. Buy or develop a stacked sensor, buy or develop a faster CPU and you have one. I know it's not this simple but basically every camera manufacturer can build a Z9 as long as they know someone will buy this. The tech is out there. Building this in 2017 would have been difficult, doing it in 2021 is expected. It was just a question of when, not if.

Anyone to everyone. Even for users like us, there needs to be a real machine out there that can at the very least be on par against the very best the competition has to offer. The a1 is currently a thing. You can't defend against the detractors when you have no ground to stand on.

So after we get the Z9, just as the D850 came after the D5 and inheriting the D5's innards like the expeed 5 and af module, so will the Z6iii and Z7iii inherit the Z9's innards. You release the top of the line halo product first and then work your way down the line and start the cycle proper. The cycle then repeats when it's time for the Z9ii to usher in the next generation tech.

More importantly, you milk the money from those who can't wait. If you instead release the $6.5k body later than the $4k body, chances are there'll be people who settled for the $4k body and have no more appetite for the $6.5k body. If the Z9 does what it allegedly does, there will a performance gap leap over the current generation 2 bodies. That together with the fact that this is also the first of it's line, the hunger for something better than the gen 2 bodies is definitely there. The existing F-mount users are also waiting for it.

 

[Tailslol]

I really don't understand why Nikon needs Z9 to be in the ML game. An A1 competitor is only for the few working pro's, most consumers will never ever buy an A1 or a Z9. Canon themselves explained that the reason they have made a lot more revenue is due to R5 and R6. The prosumer cameras are the important models, not the flagships. If Nikon had an R5 competitor, it would be much better for the company than having an A1 competitor.

The flagship is a statement of intent, a showcase of what the company is capable of.

It also tells us what to expect for the next generation bodies like the Z 7iii and Z 6iii prosumer bodies and because of that it's also a marketing tool. It's there to help sell those bodies further down the line, that there's the reassurance that there's a path of progression that doesn't stop at the prosumer bodies.

This first generation Z9 is even more so important. Nikon needs it out to shut the naysayers up. They need it to tell the world they've finally shaken the cobwebs, finally arrived and ready to take over the F-mount, and are ready to go toe to toe against Sony and Canon.

I think it would be better for Nikon to release a 4000$ R5 competitor first and then release something similar to A1. It would help them a lot more financially.

And who in their right mind doubted that Nikon wouldn't be able to release something like Z9 anyway? It's tech. It's available to everyone. Buy or develop a stacked sensor, buy or develop a faster CPU and you have one. I know it's not this simple but basically every camera manufacturer can build a Z9 as long as they know someone will buy this. The tech is out there. Building this in 2017 would have been difficult, doing it in 2021 is expected. It was just a question of when, not if.

Anyone to everyone. Even for users like us, there needs to be a real machine out there that can at the very least be on par against the very best the competition has to offer. The a1 is currently a thing. You can't defend against the detractors when you have no ground to stand on.

So after we get the Z9, just as the D850 came after the D5 and inheriting the D5's innards like the expeed 5 and af module, so will the Z6iii and Z7iii inherit the Z9's innards. You release the top of the line halo product first and then work your way down the line. Then the cycle repeats when it's time for the Z9ii to usher in the next generation tech.

More importantly, you milk the money from those who can't wait. If you instead release the $6.5k body later than the $4k body, chances are there'll be people who settled for the $4k body and have no more appetite for the $6.5k body. If the Z9 does what it allegedly does, there will a performance gap leap over the current generation 2 bodies, so the hunger for a higher end body is definitely there. The existing F-mount users are also waiting for it.

If anyone asked me today, I'd bet that all FF camera manufacturers will have 8K 60 fps bodies in the next 5 years. I'd bet that all FF camera manufacturers will have a 80+ MP high res model in the next 5 years.

I get that releasing a Z9 first might be feasible, but I still think something close to R5 coming first would have made more sense. But it doesn't really matter in the long run. I bet that we'll get an R5 competitor in 2022 anyway. I think I'll buy a Z9, not because I cannot wait for a cheaper one, but because I'm planning to go into sports photography and Z9 will help more than any R5 competitor. But otherwise I'd wait.

 

[NickZ2016]

If anyone asked me today, I'd bet that all FF camera manufacturers will have 8K 60 fps bodies in the next 5 years. I'd bet that all FF camera manufacturers will have a 80+ MP high res model in the next 5 years.

I get that releasing a Z9 first might be feasible, but I still think something close to R5 coming first would have made more sense. But it doesn't really matter in the long run. I bet that we'll get an R5 competitor in 2022 anyway. I think I'll buy a Z9, not because I cannot wait for a cheaper one, but because I'm planning to go into sports photography and Z9 will help more than any R5 competitor. But otherwise I'd wait.

This morning on the Davinci Resolve user forum one of the BlackMagic staff stated that for 8K 60FPS you should be looking at a video card with at least 24GB of VRAM. That's a 3090 if you can find it for the minimum. Okay in five years maybe we'll be there but it gives you an idea about some of the things people will need.

In some ways a high volume R5 is harder. The manufacturing needs to be that much more on . A lower volume camera can almost be hand made with each one have far more individual attention

 

[rhlpetrus]

If this is correct, Nikon may continue to loose sports/action photographers. They have already, from what we are seeing in the Olympics, it’s almost a monopoly by Canon now.

Not all of those white-barreled super-telephoto and zoom lenses we are sing at the Tokyo Olympics are Canon lenses, many are made by Sony.

I know, but Canon’s leadership is pretty clear. Either way, Nikon’s presence is much reduced from the days when the D3 was able to help an impressive comeback by Nikon. The R3 seems to be exactly what sports/action photographers have been using, in a ML body. The Z9 looks much smaller and, if 45MP or more, looks more like a hybrid line. Maybe landscapers and wildlife shooters will like it better, but it looks like Nikon may be throwing the towel in action photojournalism.

Nikon throwing the towel because they managed to make the Z9 2cm smaller than the D6 while keeping it a vertical grip body and made the camera high speed and high resolution with 8k thrown in the mix.. but you acknowledge the success of Sony with the a1 that’s even smaller and lacks a vertical grip?

Where did I mention the A1? The action camera that brought some degree of recognition and movement towards Sony was the A9. What do you exactly know about the Z9 in terms of speed and AF, or even about its res, its mostly a rumor. My point is, if it is 45MP and that costs in terms of speed, af or low light abilities, it’s not the best way to compete in sports/action pro photography.

I totally fail to see any logic in what you write, sorry.

Any way you look ar it the R3 is far behind for all targeted applications and Canon is the one in trouble. Not to mention their lukewarm telephoto upgrades.

Really, how can you say that, w/o any clear detail on Z9 and/or testing of both cameras? Let’s lower our guessing expectations and wait for the real products. Canon should never be underestimated, this has been a market truth since the early 1980s. The same used to be true of Nikon, let’s hope the Z9 reassures that that can still be the case n the ML world. They dropped the ball for not seeing the ML revolution coming, despite the signs on every wall, but they are a great company, it’s possible that the Z9 will be what most hope to see.

I really don't understand why Nikon needs Z9 to be in the ML game. An A1 competitor is only for the few working pro's, most consumers will never ever buy an A1 or a Z9. Canon themselves explained that the reason they have made a lot more revenue is due to R5 and R6. The prosumer cameras are the important models, not the flagships. If Nikon had an R5 competitor, it would be much better for the company than having an A1 competitor.

Nikon does have a competitor to the R5.

it’s called the Z7II, is less expensive and as capable or more for 98% of applications.

Only for some specific use cases requiring best in class tracking is the R5 measurably superior.

But at this point this isn’t about facts, it’s about the biased image created in the collective mindset that Nikon is behind in technology in the mirrorless segment.

The Z9 is designed to change that.

I was going to write exactly that, the R6 and R5 are Canon’s reply to Z6 and Z7. Btw, watching what was likely one of the greatest volleyball matches ever, Brazil 3 x 2 France, with a 39x37 second set and 19x17 tie-breaker, I saw a guy using, of all cameras, a Canon R6 right behind people serving, with a relatively short lens.

My guess is the mark III iterations will come very soon after the launch of Z9, Nikon cannot wait and hope to get the extra margin from 6,000usd bodies, the tide is going up quickly, R5/6 are selling very well.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[photography-lover]

If this is correct, Nikon may continue to loose sports/action photographers. They have already, from what we are seeing in the Olympics, it’s almost a monopoly by Canon now.

Not all of those white-barreled super-telephoto and zoom lenses we are sing at the Tokyo Olympics are Canon lenses, many are made by Sony.

I know, but Canon’s leadership is pretty clear. Either way, Nikon’s presence is much reduced from the days when the D3 was able to help an impressive comeback by Nikon. The R3 seems to be exactly what sports/action photographers have been using, in a ML body. The Z9 looks much smaller and, if 45MP or more, looks more like a hybrid line. Maybe landscapers and wildlife shooters will like it better, but it looks like Nikon may be throwing the towel in action photojournalism.

Nikon throwing the towel because they managed to make the Z9 2cm smaller than the D6 while keeping it a vertical grip body and made the camera high speed and high resolution with 8k thrown in the mix.. but you acknowledge the success of Sony with the a1 that’s even smaller and lacks a vertical grip?

Where did I mention the A1? The action camera that brought some degree of recognition and movement towards Sony was the A9. What do you exactly know about the Z9 in terms of speed and AF, or even about its res, its mostly a rumor. My point is, if it is 45MP and that costs in terms of speed, af or low light abilities, it’s not the best way to compete in sports/action pro photography.

I totally fail to see any logic in what you write, sorry.

Any way you look ar it the R3 is far behind for all targeted applications and Canon is the one in trouble. Not to mention their lukewarm telephoto upgrades.

Really, how can you say that, w/o any clear detail on Z9 and/or testing of both cameras? Let’s lower our guessing expectations and wait for the real products. Canon should never be underestimated, this has been a market truth since the early 1980s. The same used to be true of Nikon, let’s hope the Z9 reassures that that can still be the case n the ML world. They dropped the ball for not seeing the ML revolution coming, despite the signs on every wall, but they are a great company, it’s possible that the Z9 will be what most hope to see.

I really don't understand why Nikon needs Z9 to be in the ML game. An A1 competitor is only for the few working pro's, most consumers will never ever buy an A1 or a Z9. Canon themselves explained that the reason they have made a lot more revenue is due to R5 and R6. The prosumer cameras are the important models, not the flagships. If Nikon had an R5 competitor, it would be much better for the company than having an A1 competitor.

Nikon does have a competitor to the R5.

it’s called the Z7II, is less expensive and as capable or more for 98% of applications.

Only for some specific use cases requiring best in class tracking is the R5 measurably superior.

But at this point this isn’t about facts, it’s about the biased image created in the collective mindset that Nikon is behind in technology in the mirrorless segment.

The Z9 is designed to change that.

I was going to write exactly that, the R6 and R5 are Canon’s reply to Z6 and Z7. Btw, watching what was likely one of the greatest volleyball matches ever, Brazil 3 x 2 France, with a 39x37 second set and 19x17 tie-breaker, I saw a guy using, of all cameras, a Canon R6 right behind people serving, with a relatively short lens.

My guess is the mark III iterations will come very soon after the launch of Z9, Nikon cannot wait and hope to get the extra margin from 6,000usd bodies, the tide is going up quickly, R5/6 are selling very well.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

No need for a MkIII. The few things the Z7II doesn’t do as well as the R5 will be adressed with the Sept firmware.

 

[shuncheung]

Nikon does have a competitor to the R5.

it’s called the Z7II, is less expensive and as capable or more for 98% of applications.

For landscape photography, the Z7 ii probably can do pretty much everything the R5 can do. If you shoot action and video, not so much.

Only for some specific use cases requiring best in class tracking is the R5 measurably superior.

But at this point this isn’t about facts, it’s about the biased image created in the collective mindset that Nikon is behind in technology in the mirrorless segment.

The Z9 is designed to change that.

I was going to write exactly that, the R6 and R5 are Canon’s reply to Z6 and Z7. Btw, watching what was likely one of the greatest volleyball matches ever, Brazil 3 x 2 France, with a 39x37 second set and 19x17 tie-breaker, I saw a guy using, of all cameras, a Canon R6 right behind people serving, with a relatively short lens.

Back in 2018, Nikon introduced the Z6 and Z7 at $2000 and $3400, respectively. Last year, in July 2020, Canon introduced the R6 and R5 at $2500 and $3900. In other words, the two Canons were priced considerably higher than the two Nikons, and I think quite deservedly. By November 2020, Nikon refreshed the Z6 and Z7. While the Z6ii kept the $2000 price tag, Nikon dropped the Z7ii to $3000. In other words, Nikon has acknowledged that the Z7ii is in a very different price category from the R5, which has maintained that $3900 price tag now one full year later.

Incidentally, if there was one person using a Canon R6 with short lens for a little while at an Olympics volleyball game, what exactly does that prove? Do you know what kind of images that photographer was trying to accomplish in that moment?

My guess is the mark III iterations will come very soon after the launch of Z9, Nikon cannot wait and hope to get the extra margin from 6,000usd bodies, the tide is going up quickly, R5/6 are selling very well.

No need for a MkIII. The few things the Z7II doesn’t do as well as the R5 will be adressed with the Sept firmware.

I wouldn't expect the Z7ii would suddenly start capturing 20 fps and 8K video after a firmware upgrade this year. While Nikon's DSLRs are great, as a Z6 and Z6ii owner myself, Nikon still has a lot of work to do to catch up with Sony and Canon in terms of mirrorless. The Z9 will likely be great, but I wonder whether it will be a lot more than $6500 and exactly how many non-pros can afford it. And Nikon still have a bit of catching up to do in terms of Z lenses.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

I don't see the logic in hiding it's a folding screen as tbh that's not really a big secret and is pretty standard.

It is? I can't say that I know of a flagship body that has one...

 

[AcquiredTaste]

I hate the idea of a really big body. Before, bodies were bigger because they had to be. The Z9 should be bigger than the rest of the Z bodies, but it would be idea if it were the size of a D850 or just smaller.

I don’t know that I like the idea of companies making massive bodies in 2021, just to remind users of back when they had to be massive.

Are you planning to buy one? I only ask because I know a number of photographer who DO purchase flagships (including myself) and most of them WANT a large body, also including myself. A small body Z9 would be an absolute deal breaker for me personally and I suspect for many others in the target market.

 

[shuncheung]

I hate the idea of a really big body. Before, bodies were bigger because they had to be. The Z9 should be bigger than the rest of the Z bodies, but it would be idea if it were the size of a D850 or just smaller.

I don’t know that I like the idea of companies making massive bodies in 2021, just to remind users of back when they had to be massive.

Are you planning to buy one? I only ask because I know a number of photographer who DO purchase flagships (including myself) and most of them WANT a large body, also including myself. A small body Z9 would be an absolute deal breaker for me personally and I suspect for many others in the target market.

Personally, I find the Z6 and Z7 a bit too small. For DSLRs I currently use a D5, D850, D750, and D500, and I am fine with all of those sizes.

I think a larger body with a built-in grip is a must if you want to use a larger battery such as the EN-EL18 with a higher voltage to power all the fast electronics. Also it provides space for dual CFexpress Type B cards. So far only the D3, D4, D5, and D6 have dual CF, XQD, and CFx Type B cards. (So does only the 1Dx series on the Canon side.) I don't think Canon and Nikon make large bodies just to remind people something.

In fact, the Sony A1 turns me off because it is small. I have seen people use it with a 600mm/f4 lens and it looks quite unbalanced. Worse yet, Sony is forced to use the tiny CFexpress Type A cards. Those cards are much slower than Type B and the 160G version is $400, and yes, so far Sony has a monopoly on Type A cards.

 

[rhlpetrus]

Nikon does have a competitor to the R5.

it’s called the Z7II, is less expensive and as capable or more for 98% of applications.

For landscape photography, the Z7 ii probably can do pretty much everything the R5 can do. If you shoot action and video, not so much.

Only for some specific use cases requiring best in class tracking is the R5 measurably superior.

But at this point this isn’t about facts, it’s about the biased image created in the collective mindset that Nikon is behind in technology in the mirrorless segment.

The Z9 is designed to change that.

I was going to write exactly that, the R6 and R5 are Canon’s reply to Z6 and Z7. Btw, watching what was likely one of the greatest volleyball matches ever, Brazil 3 x 2 France, with a 39x37 second set and 19x17 tie-breaker, I saw a guy using, of all cameras, a Canon R6 right behind people serving, with a relatively short lens.

Back in 2018, Nikon introduced the Z6 and Z7 at $2000 and $3400, respectively. Last year, in July 2020, Canon introduced the R6 and R5 at $2500 and $3900. In other words, the two Canons were priced considerably higher than the two Nikons, and I think quite deservedly. By November 2020, Nikon refreshed the Z6 and Z7. While the Z6ii kept the $2000 price tag, Nikon dropped the Z7ii to $3000. In other words, Nikon has acknowledged that the Z7ii is at a very different price category from the R5, which has maintained that $3900 price tag now one full year later.

Maybe Canon can afford to extract a larger margin, which Nikon cannot.

Incidentally, if there was one person using a Canon R6 with short lens for a little while at an Olympics volley game, what exactly does that prove? Do you know what kind of images that photographer was trying to accomplish in that moment?

The people in the OG are pros. The guy had other bodies and lenses. Does not prove anything, actually, it’s a one case observation, evidence that pros use whatever they think is required or enough.

My guess is the mark III iterations will come very soon after the launch of Z9, Nikon cannot wait and hope to get the extra margin from 6,000usd bodies, the tide is going up quickly, R5/6 are selling very well.

No need for a MkIII. The few things the Z7II doesn’t do as well as the R5 will be adressed with the Sept firmware.

I wouldn't expect the Z7ii would suddenly start capturing 20 fps and 8K video after a firmware upgrade this year. While Nikon's DSLRs are great, as a Z6 and Z6ii owner myself, Nikon still has a lot of work to do to catch up with Sony and Canon in terms of mirrorless. The Z9 will likely be great, but I wonder whether it will be a lot more than $6500 and exactly how many non-pros can afford it. And Nikon still have a bit of catching up to do in terms of Z lenses.

 

[Rico Tudor]

Personally, I find the Z6 and Z7 a bit too small. For DSLRs I currently use a D5, D850, D750, and D500, and I am fine with all of those sizes.

...

In fact, the Sony A1 turns me off because it is small.

I agree. Small bodies are hard to hold (the pinkie problem), hard to maneuver with large lens attached, lack real estate for buttons larger or more numerous, lack larger batteries. Most of these problems are ameliorated with an accessory grip, and I purchased them for my serious cameras (D300, D500, A7ii). The unibodies with vertical grip (1Ds, D3X, D4 in my case) remain superior with their secondary LCD, rigid construction and additional controls.

Since I run Canikony systems, the Z9 is looking somewhat less attractive than the R3. Just my opinion in the gear-agnostic lane.

 

[shuncheung]

Back in 2018, Nikon introduced the Z6 and Z7 at $2000 and $3400, respectively. Last year, in July 2020, Canon introduced the R6 and R5 at $2500 and $3900. In other words, the two Canons were priced considerably higher than the two Nikons, and I think quite deservedly. By November 2020, Nikon refreshed the Z6 and Z7. While the Z6ii kept the $2000 price tag, Nikon dropped the Z7ii to $3000. In other words, Nikon has acknowledged that the Z7ii is at a very different price category from the R5, which has maintained that $3900 price tag now one full year later.

Maybe Canon can afford to extract a larger margin, which Nikon cannot.

Fortunately for Nikon, that is not the case. Traditionally Nikon products tend to be a bit more expensive than the equivalent Canon, or at least the same. Back in 2016, the D5 was the first sports DSLR that was released at $6500. (The D3X was introduced at $8000 in 2009, but I don't consider that a sports DSLR.) The Canon 1Dx Mark II was $6000. Finally in 2020, the 1Dx Mark III matched the D5 and D6's $6500 price tag.

The fact that Nikon needed to drop the initial price from the Z7 to Z7ii is very telling. Sony has also dropped the price for the A74 to $3000. For 45 to 60MP mirrorless bodies outside of the sports-oriented Sony A1, the Canon R5 stands alone at $900 more than its main competition.

 

[Andre Yew]

Personally, I find the Z6 and Z7 a bit too small. For DSLRs I currently use a D5, D850, D750, and D500, and I am fine with all of those sizes.

Same here. Also the buttons on the current Zs get too cramped to use comfortably, and a larger body would let them add at least 1 if not 2 more custom buttons, which are needed.

 

[Matt_007]

Back in 2018, Nikon introduced the Z6 and Z7 at $2000 and $3400, respectively. Last year, in July 2020, Canon introduced the R6 and R5 at $2500 and $3900. In other words, the two Canons were priced considerably higher than the two Nikons, and I think quite deservedly. By November 2020, Nikon refreshed the Z6 and Z7. While the Z6ii kept the $2000 price tag, Nikon dropped the Z7ii to $3000. In other words, Nikon has acknowledged that the Z7ii is at a very different price category from the R5, which has maintained that $3900 price tag now one full year later.

Maybe Canon can afford to extract a larger margin, which Nikon cannot.

Fortunately for Nikon, that is not the case. Traditionally Nikon products tend to be a bit more expensive than the equivalent Canon, or at least the same. Back in 2016, the D5 was the first sports DSLR that was released at $6500. (The D3X was introduced at $8000 in 2009, but I don't consider that a sports DSLR.) The Canon 1Dx Mark II was $6000. Finally in 2020, the 1Dx Mark III matched the D5 and D6's $6500 price tag.

The fact that Nikon needed to drop the initial price from the Z7 to Z7ii is very telling. Sony has also dropped the price for the A74 to $3000. For 45 to 60MP mirrorless bodies outside of the sports-oriented Sony A1, the Canon R5 stands alone at $900 more than its main competition.

And this is the key point around the R5 - its 8K / AF capability has forced competitor models to drop their price whilst Canon can command a premium for it. This will remain the case until Nikon presumably release the Z7III with a new sensor and 8K video and Sony do the same. Then I'm sure we'll see the price point settle around the 3.5K range for these models.

One could argue that Canon have made a bad decision in the R3 with 24MP. They could find themselves in a counter position with Nikon and Sony with 45MP+ / 8K flagship cameras with just as good or better performance. Will be interesting to see how they price it.

 

[rhlpetrus]

Back in 2018, Nikon introduced the Z6 and Z7 at $2000 and $3400, respectively. Last year, in July 2020, Canon introduced the R6 and R5 at $2500 and $3900. In other words, the two Canons were priced considerably higher than the two Nikons, and I think quite deservedly. By November 2020, Nikon refreshed the Z6 and Z7. While the Z6ii kept the $2000 price tag, Nikon dropped the Z7ii to $3000. In other words, Nikon has acknowledged that the Z7ii is at a very different price category from the R5, which has maintained that $3900 price tag now one full year later.

Maybe Canon can afford to extract a larger margin, which Nikon cannot.

Fortunately for Nikon, that is not the case. Traditionally Nikon products tend to be a bit more expensive than the equivalent Canon, or at least the same. Back in 2016, the D5 was the first sports DSLR that was released at $6500. (The D3X was introduced at $8000 in 2009, but I don't consider that a sports DSLR.) The Canon 1Dx Mark II was $6000. Finally in 2020, the 1Dx Mark III matched the D5 and D6's $6500 price tag.

The fact that Nikon needed to drop the initial price from the Z7 to Z7ii is very telling. Sony has also dropped the price for the A74 to $3000. For 45 to 60MP mirrorless bodies outside of the sports-oriented Sony A1, the Canon R5 stands alone at $900 more than its main competition.

And this is the key point around the R5 - its 8K / AF capability has forced competitor models to drop their price whilst Canon can command a premium for it. This will remain the case until Nikon presumably release the Z7III with a new sensor and 8K video and Sony do the same. Then I'm sure we'll see the price point settle around the 3.5K range for these models.

Correct, Nikon has been going against their own tradition of charging a bit more than Canon for similar model, that is telling.

One could argue that Canon have made a bad decision in the R3 with 24MP. They could find themselves in a counter position with Nikon and Sony with 45MP+ / 8K flagship cameras with just as good or better performance. Will be interesting to see how they price it.

I doubt that the camera which is being used by Sony photogs at the Olympics is the A1, it’s probably the A9, which was the camera that gained them the status of competitors in action photography. I think Canon knows what their very large action photography userbase wants for a transition to ML and they are delivering it. The main points are AF, speed and low light abilities, not resolution. Newcomers may think of alternatives, but my guess is that Canon does not want to lose any of their large action userbase to A9. A1 is a statement camera, not something to be sold in higher volumes, and it seems the low light performance is not on par with A9’s.

Nikon seem to think in a different way, but I am seeing Canon’s more conservative approach as the one with a more chance to work. They can afford to update the R5 later, to 60MP or more, it is already selling well. I think the Z9 should have been the direct translation of the D6 to ML, with AF, low light abilities and speed as its main strengths. We have to wait and see its performance, maybe I’m wrong and it will excel in all three areas. If not, the hemorrhage will continue.

 

[Ellis Vener]

“I think the Z9 should have been the direct translation of the D6 to ML…”

to me that would be a lateral move at best and a backwards move at worst.

“…with AF, low light abilities and speed as its main strengths.”

There is nothing in what we currently do know and also in what has been rumored about the technical capabilities of the Z9 that preclude any of that and possibly surpassing the D6 in those areas.

 

[rhlpetrus]

“I think the Z9 should have been the direct translation of the D6 to ML…”

to me that would be a lateral move.

Not at 30fps, AF points covering frame and better base ISO DR and higher ISO performance.

“…with AF, low light abilities and speed as its main strengths.”

There is nothing in what we currently do know about the Z9 that precludes any of that.

Correct, my post was conditional. Those requirements before high-res. If they can do that at 45MP, great! But we have to think about a buffer and processing AF amd files at 30fps and 45MP RAW files. How many seconds? It’ll happen, eventually, but is technology there already? I’m not sure it is, my ignorance.

 

[photography-lover]

Nikon does have a competitor to the R5.

it’s called the Z7II, is less expensive and as capable or more for 98% of applications.

For landscape photography, the Z7 ii probably can do pretty much everything the R5 can do. If you shoot action and video, not so much.

Only for some specific use cases requiring best in class tracking is the R5 measurably superior.

But at this point this isn’t about facts, it’s about the biased image created in the collective mindset that Nikon is behind in technology in the mirrorless segment.

The Z9 is designed to change that.

I was going to write exactly that, the R6 and R5 are Canon’s reply to Z6 and Z7. Btw, watching what was likely one of the greatest volleyball matches ever, Brazil 3 x 2 France, with a 39x37 second set and 19x17 tie-breaker, I saw a guy using, of all cameras, a Canon R6 right behind people serving, with a relatively short lens.

Back in 2018, Nikon introduced the Z6 and Z7 at $2000 and $3400, respectively. Last year, in July 2020, Canon introduced the R6 and R5 at $2500 and $3900. In other words, the two Canons were priced considerably higher than the two Nikons, and I think quite deservedly. By November 2020, Nikon refreshed the Z6 and Z7. While the Z6ii kept the $2000 price tag, Nikon dropped the Z7ii to $3000. In other words, Nikon has acknowledged that the Z7ii is in a very different price category from the R5, which has maintained that $3900 price tag now one full year later.

Incidentally, if there was one person using a Canon R6 with short lens for a little while at an Olympics volleyball game, what exactly does that prove? Do you know what kind of images that photographer was trying to accomplish in that moment?

My guess is the mark III iterations will come very soon after the launch of Z9, Nikon cannot wait and hope to get the extra margin from 6,000usd bodies, the tide is going up quickly, R5/6 are selling very well.

No need for a MkIII. The few things the Z7II doesn’t do as well as the R5 will be adressed with the Sept firmware.

I wouldn't expect the Z7ii would suddenly start capturing 20 fps and 8K video after a firmware upgrade this year. While Nikon's DSLRs are great, as a Z6 and Z6ii owner myself, Nikon still has a lot of work to do to catch up with Sony and Canon in terms of mirrorless. The Z9 will likely be great, but I wonder whether it will be a lot more than $6500 and exactly how many non-pros can afford it. And Nikon still have a bit of catching up to do in terms of Z lenses.

Agreed, the the fps of the Z7II will not increase with the Sept update.

But the main issue people have been complaining about the Z7II isn't fps, it's AF. Per my tests eye AF is already on par with the R5. What remains is the tracking part.

But I agree with you, once AF will have addressed completely, the internet warriors will move to something else to demonstrate the superiority of the Canon.

 

[PerTulip]

Personally, I find the Z6 and Z7 a bit too small. For DSLRs I currently use a D5, D850, D750, and D500, and I am fine with all of those sizes.

Same here. Also the buttons on the current Zs get too cramped to use comfortably, and a larger body would let them add at least 1 if not 2 more custom buttons, which are needed.

Same here. I like larger bodies. I don't have children-size hands, I like proper controls, etc. The "pro" cameras are not out there to be pocketable. Trying to operate a small body with tiny buttons with gloves: nightmare. A smaller body: smaller controls, less space between controls, etc.

I "preordered" a Z9, so let's see what it brings to the table....

 

[NickZ2016]

Don't forget Canon is also pushing out firmware updates.