Canon R3 vs. Nikon Z9 (Price)

whumber wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

whumber wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

I guess I would be willing to spend an additional $16 for a CFE card with 5 times the write speed of the SD after spending $5-6k for a camera. At very least the cost difference would not be a factor in system decision.

I agree with you in theory, but $16 extra seems a bit optimistic for the kind of speed you're talking about. From what I've seen the CFExpress cards that actually perform as rated are still quite expensive.

The $16 difference for an incredible step up in performance is what was quoted in the post to which I responded, two Sandisk 128GB cards at B&H;

”128GB 1400MB/s write Sandisk Extreme Pro CFExpress cards go for $180 at B&H Photo

128GB 260MB/s write Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-II cards go for $164 at B&H Photo“

My point is you can get SD cards for far cheaper than CFE cards, but if you want top levels of SD card performance the prices are similar to CFE, but the performance is far behind.

The issue is that $180 Sandisk CFExpress card is not going to deliver anywhere close to 1400 MB/s, Sandisk's CFExpress card ratings are, unfortunately, complete garbage. To actually get speeds like that you're looking at cards like the ProGrade Cobalt which start at $400. As a reference, in the R5, the Sandisk Extreme Pro CFExpress gives an actual write speed of ~335 MB/s while the $100 128GB Kingston V90 gives an actual write speed of ~215 MB/s. Certainly an advantage to the Sandisk, but nothing like what was implied earlier.

Ricci has done some buffer tests with different cards and raw settings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YND5oacJBl4

Tazz93 wrote:

roby17269 wrote:

RogerZoul wrote:

mermaidkiller wrote:

Some RF lenses are heavier and bulkier than their EF counterparts.

I can’t think of any right off the bat, so they must not be the ones I use. Which ones are you thinking of?

The RF 50 and 85 f/1.2L primes are quite bigger and heavier than the EF equivalents

But they are both also some of the best lenses ever created. It is amazing what they did with the 85L f/1.2. Its unrivaled, unless you add in the $3800 manual focus 85mm f/1.4 Otus.

They are! but the question was about RF lenses bigger / heavier than their EF equivalents, that's why I listed those 2. I have both RF ones and had both EF ones. The RF ones are much better than the EF ones apart from portability

Nimonus wrote:

roby17269 wrote:

The RF 50 and 85 f/1.2L primes are quite bigger and heavier than the EF equivalents

RF50L, RF85L, RF400L, RF600L, RF28-70L

Above are true L

RF14-35, RF15-35L,RF24-70L,RF70-200L (2.8 and 4), RF100-500L

Above are compromised L.

"Compromised L"???? What on earth does that mean?

RF100L ----- I don't know.

Nimonus wrote:

roby17269 wrote:

The RF 50 and 85 f/1.2L primes are quite bigger and heavier than the EF equivalents

RF50L, RF85L, RF400L, RF600L, RF28-70L

Above are true L

RF14-35, RF15-35L,RF24-70L,RF70-200L (2.8 and 4), RF100-500L

Above are compromised L.

RF100L ----- I don't know.

Not sure why you're replying to me?

Also not sure what's your point here? It's always been the case that some L lenses were better than other L lenses, in EF as well as in RF

roby17269 wrote:

Tazz93 wrote:

roby17269 wrote:

RogerZoul wrote:

mermaidkiller wrote:

Some RF lenses are heavier and bulkier than their EF counterparts.

I can’t think of any right off the bat, so they must not be the ones I use. Which ones are you thinking of?

The RF 50 and 85 f/1.2L primes are quite bigger and heavier than the EF equivalents

But they are both also some of the best lenses ever created. It is amazing what they did with the 85L f/1.2. Its unrivaled, unless you add in the $3800 manual focus 85mm f/1.4 Otus.

They are! but the question was about RF lenses bigger / heavier than their EF equivalents, that's why I listed those 2. I have both RF ones and had both EF ones. The RF ones are much better than the EF ones apart from portability

I understand, my point was, I don't mind bigger if its sufficiently better. I tapped out of the incredible shrinking camera race long ago. As some manufacturers are in the odd race to zero, I can only remember how much I hated the feel of the small cameras I had. Give me the "Right Size", not the smallest. And again as far as lenses, if you can give me a tangible improvement, but have to add size, I'm ok with that. However, I will say the RF 85L is about limit of feasibility to me.

Interesting thread. Good read. I guess the short version is, if you have no need for the 45mp, the r3 is an option.

Philip Eihuyar wrote:

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?

I’d stay with what you know. Learning a new system can be tough. I believe the FTZ adapter makes the use of F-mount lenses seamless, just like EF lenses on R cameras with an EF-RF adapter. It also cost a lot to change, so the benefit needs to be substantial.

For Landscape the higher MPs of the Z9 will be a benefit to you if you print large. For Sports the R3 edges the Z9 according to Jared Polin, who has access to Nikon, Sony and Canon and now shoots with an R3.

Nimonus wrote:

roby17269 wrote:

The RF 50 and 85 f/1.2L primes are quite bigger and heavier than the EF equivalents

RF50L, RF85L, RF400L, RF600L, RF28-70L

Above are true L

RF14-35, RF15-35L,RF24-70L,RF70-200L (2.8 and 4), RF100-500L

Above are compromised L.

RF100L ----- I don't know.

What does this mean?