Canon R3 vs. Nikon Z9 (Price)

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.

Chill. Prices adjust when there is competition. The Z9 is a good thing for everyone.

Nikon has been losing consumers to Canon and Sony. They needed to do something drastic. This will actually help all consumers in the future.  Good on Nikon for this.

I will say that this puts the canon R1 in a weird spot. I wonder how much it'll be.

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

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

z9 is slower frames per second

the z9 is more a r5 competitor

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

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.

Canon released the R5 and the R6, and in the process announced they're back in the game by getting serious in FF mirrorless. These are cameras within the spending power of more users.

Nikon releases the Z9 and announced they can make a better FF mirrorless camera than Canon's R3. It's beyond the price range of many users so they need to make the technology trickle down to future Z bodies in the price range of the R5 and R6.

But hell yeah, the Z9 just slapped the face of the R3, and that except for the Eye AF, the Z9 wins this round. This is good news. Sony and now Nikon (again) will keep Canon busy innovating and farther away from its old habit of being incrementalist. Some might say lenses, RF has the edge over Z mount and that's fair. But older Nikon lenses can be adapted too, just like EF lenses for Canon.

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

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

z9 is slower frames per second

the z9 is more a r5 competitor

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

Spot on Colin, i'm more than happy with my R3 order. Also Colin the Z9 only shoots 30fps in jpeg ?

The main market for a Z9 or R3 are professionals who typically already have invested heavily in one system. Very few of those will switch because of 500 USD price difference on a body. And the new lenses seem to be well in line with Canons pricing.

The Z9 is a great move from Nikon, and its very good they finally bring the 24-120 and 100-400. If they are as good as the other Z glass, they will be great. More competition. Good news overall.

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

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

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.

In the UK Park cameras Nikon Z9 is £5,299.00 the Canon R5 is £4,299.00 + battery grip £419.00 + 2x batteries £228.00 total £4,946

Not only does it make the R3 expensive even the R5 is way over priced.

The Z9 is too impressive to ignore for me.

http://www.naturealbums.com

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.

Since the reviews of the Canon R3 and Nikon Z9 by reviewers on dpreview, I will eventually upgrade from my D3s Nikon to a 49MP Z9 Nikon or the Canon R3. A 12 MP image camera - what is it, 12 years old now? - is not capturing the detail needed especially for landscape as well as most other types of images. I have a few thousand investedin Nikon full frame lenses and wonder if Using an adapter such as just was announced is a good solution. Should I look to replacing all my lenses? If that is the case, then going to the Canon R3 is open.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/8691092252/nikon-announces-new-ftz-ii-a-smaller-version-of-its-f-mount-to-z-adapter

I am tending to keep lenses and go with the Z9. Any ideas or thoughts?

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.

Until Sony woke Canon up, Canon has been notoriously incremental in how it offers "new" camera models. 40D to 50D, and it was not until the 7D when there had been considerable improvements. The 5D series went through the same lazy incrementalism. The M series - from the very first M to the M5/M6 combo and the M50 to M50II (the incrementalism champion, I must say). It was not until the 90D and M6II when they introduced a new sensor, among others. They kept 4k video out of their mainstream cameras for the longest time, justifying all over it's "not needed." When they finally offered it in the 5DMIV and EOS R, it was heavily cropped. It means up to that point, they were struggling big time to match what Sony has to offer.

It's only with the R series that Canon is appearing innovative again, and am sure it's not because for the love of us I hope they sustain it this time.

dmanthree wrote:

I guess eliminating that mechanical shutter saved some money.

Kidding aside, I'm really curious to see how this works out. For example, will it be able to handle artificial lighting that has normally given e-shutters fits? Like banding under fluorescents? Is it really better for action than a mechanical shutter?

It's likely that it will be as good or even slightly better than mechanical shutters with artificial lighting. If the sensor readout speed matches or exceeds the mechanical shutter traverse speed, then there's really no longer any reason to keep a mechanical shutter.

Think of the stuff they left off the body, as well as the fact that it is likely still a step behind the AF of the leaders, I think it is appropriately priced. No data slot hot-shoe, no mechanical shutter, and no mirror box, those three items alone likely represent the price difference to the R3. On the other side of the argument, Sony is simply overpriced relying on its track record so I'll leave that out especially considering they thought $4500 was the going price for a flagship not too long ago.  They simply bumped the price premium up to fit the space they were selling it in.