As Canon shooters move to Nikon, knowing we can use our Big Whites as we gradually get Nikon glass, would bring more Canon pros over.

Nikon's new 400mm with built in 1.4TC sounds Iike an amazing lens, but perhaps we don't buy that day one.

Getting out of the sports 20MP "jail" is now here and the only competition for the Z9 is a possible R1 and knowing Canon it will cost more than the Z9 and just barley match the resolution.  The history of the 1DX 1DXMKII and 1DXMKIII and R3 shows me that Canon holds back resolution purposely.

Aye, tuning can of course always be done, but I’m a huge fan of out of the box good looks. But it seems to be about more than just colours. Also the look of the noise, sharpening et c

Yes but there is a huge difference in workload if you have raw that look great straight out of camera and only need minor tweaks. A classic example in my experience is the D4 vs the D800. The D4 raw files were incredibly good from the beginning whereas the D800 files needed a lot more work to look as good.

And sometimes you never get there because you don’t necessarily know what you’re editing towards. So a camera with great colours out of the box will save a lot of time and often give better end results.

Hence why the single digit Nikons traditionally have very good colour from the beginning. Time is a resource.

Well Magnar, what can I say? All I can say is that different cameras have different quality colour in their raw files. It makes a huge difference for workflow and workload. That is a fact. Starting an edit with a picture that looks better saves a lot of time and makes the job more fun and inspiring.

The Nikon single digit pro cameras typically have nicer colours and one needs often just make a minor contrast adjustment.

That’s my experience. You may not agree, which you clearly aren’t, and that’s ok.

No reason to be rude Magnar. I am only speaking from my own experience of working with raw files in my own business. I don’t understand why you keep talking about blind tests. I’ve photographed for many years and sometimes using different cameras, for example the D4 and the D800, at the same event, then having to spend considerable more time working on files from one camera than the other. Some cameras have better colour raw files. That means less time editing and just generally more fun making pictures.

I don’t care very much about internet opinion on image quality. I care about my own opinion and experience trying many different cameras, and before that films and paper. And in my experience and opinion, Nikon cameras have the best colours. By that I mean that the files requires the least amount of work to look great.

Magnar, why do you keep being rude? I don’t know why you are accusing me of having confirmation bias? Care to explain yourself?

What I am taking about is photographing the same event with two different cameras, loading the raw files into a computer and then getting both to a satisfactory result.
Sure you can always do work arounds to solve any give situation, but personally I’d just prefer to use the camera that gives me the best results and with files that require the least amount of work to get there.

@MILC man - that's longitudinal chromatic aberration - ain't no correcting for that.

Like the place they had been before, London?

I see only two comments which can be classified as critical to Barney's skills. Is two "many"?

JACS
Yes, I think one is too many. It is one thing to offer constructive criticism, but this isn't that. We are a community. We should be respectful to each other.
Cheers

Thank you! Your kind words are much appreciated.

if you are justifying the price of a camera based on few samples only, then something is wrong somewhere else...

Barney, you need to start taking readers comments on board! We can't be all wrong but yourself !😋

Well, I’m sorry, but I agree. There’s nothing in that gallery which would suggest to me aZ9 is at all out of the ordinary. Or, to be blunt, couldn’t be from a decent point-and shoot.

@photogopinion You think image 54 could be done with a point and shoot? Check the noise in the shadows.
These aren't supposed to be portfolio additions, or art gallery work. It's a sample gallery, we want to see how the camera works in different situations.

It's like complaining about the artistry of the camera test scene.

Maybe we should start a discussion (preceded by an explanation) of what a sample gallery's purpose actually is? Only for those who haven't grasped the concept. Yet.

"Barney, you need to start taking readers comments on board!"

Oh believe me, I do. I love waking up to a bunch of strangers telling me that the pictures I shot during my time off are useless garbage. Hard not to take that on board. But I still go out and take them, because I'm a sucker, apparently. On a more serious note, samples galleries aren't reviews. If you look at the images in this gallery and truly feel like you've learned nothing about the image quality of the camera, then I'm sorry to have let you down so badly - but I'm not sure I believe you.

Apparently the quality of the pictures are being judge mostly by the brand, not the actual results. That's pretty common when it comes to galleries these days. Have the same pictures but a different brand, an it's all of a sudden, they are the best thing since Sliced Bread.

Given the conditions, the winter, I actually thought the results were excellent. Some folks you will NEVER please. So I don't bother trying.

This is an online review publication for an industry in serious decline during a pandemic; there isn't the resourcing to send a representative to say the Australian open for a week of heart-pounding sports shots.

These galleries are here to let you get a broad idea of what is possible with a sensor. If you want to see commissioned images designed to work you into a frenzy and loosen your wallet you can start here: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-cameras/z-9.html

Maybe I haven’t grasped the concept. It just seems to me I have trouble seeing exactly what aspect of the Z9’s technical performance many of the photos are supposed to show and how much ‘better’ it may be than others.

At least not without spending an enormous amount of time poring over the EXIF data of each one.

I’m not asking every staffer at DPR to instantly reincarnate into Cartier-Bresson, David Bailey or Ansel Adams (not showing my age, just trying to avoid invidious contemporary comparisons).

If a DPR ‘sample gallery’ is just intended as ‘a photo album of pictures I took with camera-X and several lenses’ rather than a form of technical addition to a review, so be it.

But I don’t know it really helps (me, anyway) that much in evaluating the Z9 against any other broadly comparable camera.

The samples are not that important. Any recent 45MP sensor is going to be amazing. What you really want to know is how the camera handles, how fast it shoots, how it feels in the hand, how good is the stabilization and the video specs, how big is the EVF.

The photos I find useful are ones that show low light performance, stabilization on long telephoto shots, sharpness in the corners, color rendition inside and out, skin tones, foliage colors, and any blur at slow shutter speeds.

The Sample gallery is fine. It would have been awesome if it was taken on an African Safari or a backpacking tour up the PCT, but as Brent said nobody has $3000 to take an impromptu tour to get 100 shots for a sample gallery. So you try to cover all your bases in the local neighborhood, an hope you don't get snowed on (I guess we know the weather sealing and low temperatures work work fine too),

Photog, image quality is going to look similar on almost every 4xMP camera, assuming similar lenses. This one stands out for things like burst shooting rate, autofocus improvements, etc.

If you got Ansel Adams to shoot with this camera, it would look like any other current 4xMP camera he got his hands on.

Impractical? It was just voted camera of the year by the mostly non-professionals who frequent this site. <snigger>

I think too many keyboard warriors miss the point of what a sample gallery is.

Which shots are decentered according to you?

I posted comments on some of the shots I spotted.

"That 24-120 zoom is decentered or the VR/IBIS is decentering it"

It really isn't.

OK then. In any case, the softness is there.

It seems that some FL's are more problematic. Maybe around 40mm is one of them.

There’s certainly something odd about several of those shots. Glad it’s not just me.