Its painfully obvious too. Sony crippled their cameras with CFX-A card ports making them in capable of shooting RAW video internally. And neither the A7Siii nor the A1 can shoot 1.5:1 or 2:1 over sampled 4K (using full sensor), and the A1 can only line skip and pixel bin to shoot 4K using the full sensor. And the A1's headline feature of 8K is only 4:2:0 which has only half the color information of 4:2:2, as well as low bit rates .
And don't expect big firmware updates like we've seen recently from Canon and NIkon. Like I said those cards limit what Sony cameras can do, so they'll never be as good as the Z9. (Ironically Sony video features use such low bit rates they work on older even slower SD cards - which is good because CFX-A are very fast, have a low capacity limit and cost 4-9x as much as CFX-B cards)

Heck you can see from CINED, the Z9 has less rolling shutter than the R5 which is very good, and both obviously have less rolling shutter than the A1

It's always seemed so strange to me that the A1 would have more rolling shutter in video than even the R5 with a non-stacked sensor.

Some think it's because the A1 in video mode uses single ADC rather than multi ADC fast readout like it does in stills.

BTW, Sony with the A1 avoided the overheating issues of the R5 largely by omitting those features that had the problems.
• 8K raw 4:2:2... A1 - MIA
• Oversampled 4K (largely fixed via firmware) ... A1 - nowhere to be seen.

So really only Nikon has gone significantly further than the R5 (and A1) with its lack of heating limitations.

I agree with @Pole Cat. All Sony did to avoid the overheating issues of the R5 was remove features. And people rejoiced and said,”I’ll pay double”.

The A1 is a fabulous camera but in many ways is overrated and overpriced.

About 2 years ago Canon was the first to make an ILC capable of 8K 4:2:2 video.
That would have been a big headline, but they took it a step farther and made it capable of 8K RAW video. And add to that it can shoot 4K video 2:1 oversampled from 8K.
No other camera on the market could do any of those 3 until now. And Nikon took it a step farther. They added 8K 60p.
So the baton has been passed from Canon to Nikon.
With the chip shortage it may be another year or two before we see another camera equal or surpass the R5 (R5C). Maybe next is Panasonic.
One thing we do know, is without CFXpress Type B cards cameras won't be able to touch the R5 and Z9, and their internal RAW capabilities.

So right now for over $5000 the Z9 is a no brainer. Best FF camera on the market by far. 2021 Product of the Year. And for under $5000 there is the R5. Best overall FF camera under $5000 and 2020 Product of the Year.

Some people like big cameras, that's the point.

I don’t like big cameras either, but that doesn’t mean all people are the same. Z9 is not for us. Next. We gotta wait for a Z8 or whatever it’ll be called.

The concept of "gigantic" and "huge" are relative. To me the camera is neither. It's bigger than most cameras but for a pro body with integrated grip it is very reasonably sized.

To me it feels solid, well built, easy to grip, well balanced, and the controls are laid out nicely. It feels like it is a hammer of the gods, and I like that :)

As for lenses, as PL notes, Nikon has some really nice smaller lenses of really high quality. And on the super tele side, Nikon has no peer in terms of providing lenses that are smaller and lighter than any other brand. They have the new Z 800 PF, and the F mount 300 and 500 PF that work wonderfully with FTZ adaptor. They also have the new 400 f/2.8 with TC that is as small as the Canon and Sony 400 f/2.8 but with built in TC can effectively substitute for a 500 f/4 and 600 f/4.

@photography-lover,

This says it all: "This is a matter of limiting wrist injuries."

Q.E.D.

@thoughts-R-us,

" Nikon has no peer in terms of providing lenses that are smaller and lighter than any other brand. "

Olympus? Panasonic, Leica-M, Sigma?

I could go on.

Wasn't the comment from TRU about size meant about the PF tele lenses?

@tedolf: My full quote was this: "And on the super tele side, Nikon has no peer in terms of providing lenses that are smaller and lighter than any other brand. "

Then I mentioned the PF lenses and the new 400 f/2.8 with TC.

It's OK to disagree but please don't take my statements out of context.

I still maintain the accuracy of my original statement. I will modify it a bit to mean in the FF world, as you mentioned micro 4/3. Nothing wrong with that, but FF is the established standard in the world of professional super tele photography, in that it is the most used format by professionals for that type of photography.

@photography-lover - "The 14-24mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 are both significantly lighter and smaller than the excellent F mount lenses they replace"

smaller and lighter than primitive dslr glass is hardly an accomplishment, all platforms are doing that these days.

try comparing modern glass:

fe24-70/2.8ii: 695g
z24-70/2.8: 805g
rf24-70/2.8: 900g
s24-70/2.8: 935g
afs24-70/2.8: 1070g

@Thoughts R Us: "Nikon has no peer in terms of providing lenses that are smaller and lighter than any other brand."

see above.

@MILCman: you know it's not hard on the internet, with these comments in this thread in linear order, to actually read what I wrote instead of taking it out of context.

My full quote: "And on the super tele side, Nikon has no peer in terms of providing lenses that are smaller and lighter than any other brand. "

Then you can read my reasoning for this, citing the PF lenses and the new Z 400/2.8 w/ TC.

So basically your response is totally out of context, because you took my quote out of context. You were not the only one, in all fairness. But geesh.

It's so easy to check what I wrote. Just scroll a few comments up. It's not like we had a conversation in a bar and you didn't remember quite perfectly. My comments are documented for you and all to see.

Also, you cite the quote of @photographry-lover" and mention the brand new Sony 24-70/2.8 lens announced today, ignoring the fact that he wrote his comment before that lens release.

I'm with you, but just because we like small cameras does not mean everyone does. This camera, while not for me, is pretty damn nice for its intended purpose. I wouldn't throw it out of the house...

Plenty of lighter camera systems to meet your needs, Different strokes for different folks. Why not be happy with all the choice in todays market?

@MILC man
I see that you were quick to list the newly announced 24-70mm f2.8 II to your list. :-)

It seems to be a nice lens. 100gr lighter.

Oot highlights seem to display strong aspherical elements grinding marks though. First thing I saw in the sample that seemed nicest at first sight.

Good reason to stick with DSLRs.

> The rumor is that the on sensor PDAF sensors are not sensitive to the red light

I have not studied this issue, but my guess as to the cause would be that modern mirrorless camera sensors usually have an infrared filter which, in theory, may interfere with any focus assist tech that uses infrared light.

DSLRs wouldn't have that problem since they have dedicated focus sensors separate from the image sensor (unless you are in "live view" mode of course).

> Good reason to stick with DSLRs

I would agree but in general modern mirrorless camera sensors do much better in low light than older DSLR sensors.

@ mikegt
" The rumor is that the on sensor PDAF sensors are not sensitive to the red light "
I´m not sure about that.
My old Pana G80 uses a red LED for focus assist light. Sure, it´s not PDAF but anyway the Zs can do CDAF too.
Ergo, I think the explanation is something else.

The old D8xx series are amazing.

But I'm betting the Z9 will be better in every way.

It’s a combination of the IR cut filter over the sensor (which DSLRs do not have over their PDAF array) and the fact that the PDAF pixels are *behind* the CFA. So the red light of flashes (which is not IR, you can’t see IR) is not visible to any blue pixels and only slightly visible to green (of which there are twice as many as red and blue). Only the red pixels (25%) can fully see that light.

Manufacturers (all of them) need to figure this out. Even green light would be much better.

If the sun is shining (not too brightly) and it’s keeping reasonably still my 5DsR will take better shots of it than all the above, but slowly….

I agree that for action or sports, the newer cameras would do a better job. But for landscapes, portraits, travel - arguably the most popular uses of a dedicated photo device - "old" high-res mirrorless cameras that can be purchased for a fraction of the price of the current flagship models can still do a fine job.

Image sensor IQ pretty much hit a limit years ago. One could just as easily cite a D850 as having comparable IQ.

As mentioned by others, the advancements are in other features.

@Kandid
The DR of your 5DR remains the disaster it always was. It was years behind when it hit the market and still is. In particular for landscape.

> my 5DsR will take better shots of it than all the above...

The old DSLR Canon EOS 5DS R does have at least 10% more resolution than the sensors in the Z9 and Sony A7R II, but unfortunately it's an older design with inferior dynamic range and noise performance compared to modern mirrorless sensors. It's DXOMARK is 14 points lower than the Z9, and DPReview gave it only a silver award due to a shutter-shock problem; here are their words on this subject:

Due to the mirrored DSLR design and the lack of an electronic first curtain in viewfinder shooting, the 5DS/R cameras cannot always achieve the entirely vibration-free images Sony's comparable camera, the a7R II, can provide.

The good news is that a brand new Canon 5DS R can be purchased right now for only $1,499 from B&H; for someone with a collection of Canon DSLR lenses on a budget, this could be a good choice.

DR disaster❓Perhaps in inexpert hands......😊. Truth is given reasonable conditions the IQ is spectacular - it does not like challenging scenes however.....as for action? It is lightening fast compared to my old OM2 with winder 2 - however a bit behind the times compared to the best today....

I agree with mikegt here, outright image quality improvements have been relatively small for some time now, and practically negligble in real life use. What has changed is the ability of newer cameras to capture high speed action, there have been substantial improvements there. High speed and high resolution are no longer mutually exclusive, autofocus, even on low end base models is uncanningly good. This also comes with some downsides, for me at least.
I was taking some photos at the weekend and kept having to reign in my shooting because I was taking many more shots than needed. A by-product of high fps, excellent autofocus and no practical limit on how many photos I can take. I don't ever want to go back to rationing my shots because of only having 36 per roll and the cost of developing, but I equally dislike sorting through dozens of virtually identical shots, ah first world problems :)

The A7R2 is probably Sony's best bang for buck offering.

But it's not comparable to the Z9 in any way, such a slow, old body that's really only useful now for landscape, architecture and some slow moving subjects.

@Kandid
If you don't mind letting your camera significantly constrain what you shoot, then any camera can do the job, including the 5DsR. But it simply is one of the worst options made available to purchase these past 7 years.

The one year older D800 is a much better option overall, even if the resolution is lower.

> But it's not comparable to the Z9 in any way

Sure it is. It has a sensor that scores only two DXOMARK points below the Z9. It actually has better dynamic range at medium to high ISOs, compared to the Z9.

As for speed, it can shoot at 5 fps continuously with exposures as fast as 1/8000 of second; while this can be called "slow" compared to the specs of something like the Z9, the A7R II is equal or faster in speed to the best professional 35mm film cameras such as the Nikon F5.

Also, I would not assume you have to buy a Z9 or A1 to get a high frame rate; my old Panasonic G7 for example can shoot 8 megapixel stills at 30 frames per second, with continuous autofocus, and with shutter speeds as high as 1/16000 of second! Not bad for a camera that cost only $600 new.

I still have a 7R2 and have used the Z9.

You cannot compare a camera that is twice the size and weight, shoots 4 times as quick, focuses much, much faster, delivers 8K raw in FF and costs 5-6 times as much etc.

Yes, each still frame will look similar and the 7R2 has cons for one particular style of shooting, mainly single shot applications.

The 7R2 suffers in silent mode, it can't shoot 5fps in silent mode, it's video needs to be in crop mode for best IQ, it's batteries deplete fast, the menus don't work while it's processing images etc.

Great camera the 7R2, not comparable to the Z9 for reasons mentioned.

My old A9 delivers better results than the 7R2 when things are moving or I need AF in video.

> You cannot compare a camera

Still missing the point I see. Here it is again:

For stills, if you took photos of the same landscape or portrait scene with both [Z9 and A7R II] cameras, would you really be able to tell the difference ?

The consensus so far is that you would be unlikely to tell the difference.

A difference you can tell is the price - I paid $1,300 to buy a brand-new A7R II, about $4,200 less than what a Z9 costs and $5,200 less than the Sony A1. If you can afford a Z9 or A1 then buy one, but for folks who can't afford or justify spending $5,500 or more for a camera, there are dramatically cheaper models that are capable of producing still image quality just as good as the Z9 or A1.

The DXOMARK sensor scores prove this - the Z9, A1 and A7R II all scored the same at 98 points.

The answer is yes, the Z9 would produce better images.

The answer for bang for buck is probably the 7R2, but some people see the $5.5K difference as negligible. Especially if they're professionals.

The answer is more nuanced than yes or no, for your particular situation, with your subjects, in your budget, it sounds like the 7R2 (which again I own) would be 'better'.

The Z9 would be better if silence was required, for some architecture that's a bonus. Yes the 7R3 can shoot silently but it incurs a penalty to do so.

The Z9 could also capture 20 stills in a second l, silently, by hand, which when stacked/aligned etc. would deliver significantly more DR with next to no noise than the 7R2 could.

The 7R2 could use smooth reflections which would do a similar job, but it has limitations, mechanical shutter only, significant delays between exposures and the raw file doesn't have the latitude of a single still -just to name three down sides.

The Z9 however, it, like my A9 & A1, collects many more exposures without shutter slap in the same time and my Photoshop actions to automatically and quickly stack, align and merge make light work of delivering superior IQ than the 7R2 when that's possible which is most of the time, even for slow moving subjects.

There's A LOT more to real world IQ delivery than a dxomark score. Not bashing the 7R2, I have a love it, but it's now an inferior camera to the much newer and significantly more expensive gear -fancy that!

Three posts to reply to my one ? You must not feel very secure in your opinions.

This is understandable, you spent tens of thousands on the latest cameras and now someone is saying that they can take photos that look very similar for a tiny fraction of what you spent ? I can understand how that would upset you so much that you would start to spout nonsense about how DXOMARK scores mean nothing, etc. etc.

Newer faster cameras may make it easier to capture the right moment, but that doesn't mean a slower camera can't also capture that same moment - the photographer just has to be better with his/her timing. As proof we just need to look at some of the great sports photos taken on film using cameras that could only go around 3 to 5 fps.

It's okay - you can choose to keep believing that the more money you spend, the better your pictures will be, if that gives you comfort.

Except you're objectively incorrect.
Which is why sports shooters have sacrificed resolution and dynamic range etc. for speed wether it be burst and/or AF.

I praised your camera, which I have, but I explained in three posts why outright IQ isn't important for some types of shooting.

You're the one defending your choice, I'm got access to both cameras we're talking about and was simply stating the obvious benefits of each which are size and cost for the 7R2 and everything else for the Z9.

It's not my opinion, you'd be hard pressed to argue the Z9 isn't better, as I repeatedly stated, at most moving subject image capture as well as video where it is phenomenally better.

Even the 7R3 is better at all types of shooting than the R2, the R4 is significantly better again, as expected.

None of the IQ matters if the composition is compromised by focus issues or similar, but if you're wasting time on dxo, you're still in the initial stages of understanding photography.

Enjoy figuring it all out my friend 👍

We are talking stills here; as I said in my OP video is another matter entirely.

The Sony A7R III actually has the same sensor as the A7R II, and the same DXOMARK score. It can shoot faster but the overall IQ is the same. The "IV" version did go to a higher resolution sensor.

> you're still in the initial stages of understanding photography

If you think that the quality of your photos is primarily determined by how much you spent for your gear, then perhaps your understanding of photography is what needs to be improved here. BTW I used to work as a professional photographer, so I don't think I am the one who needs to defend his knowledge of the topic here.

Having used my Z9 for the first time on the weekend, the EVF is a delight and compared to my equal resolution A9 and A7RIII EVFs, it's chalk and cheese in terms of quality. I could not really tell I was not using an OVF the display is so clear and bright. Sure higher would have been better, but Nikon has gotten more out of their EVF than anyone else and you won't be disappointed. The Sony A!'s 9.7MP is a bit of a gimmick since as soon as you engage the shutter button the resolution immediately drops to 5.76MP. Al Sony's drop their EVF resolution when AF-C is engaged, which is quite pathetic especially on the A1. My A9 drops to 2.36MP when AF-C is engaged.

Yes. That's the experience of using a Z9 EVF: you almost forget that it's an EVF and not OVF. It's that good. You don't get that on any Sony, including the A1.

The resolution specs on the Sony EVF are meaningless since it is really a variable resolution with the specs cited being only the maximum possible. And even at highest res, it still doesn't look as nice as the Nikon.

EVF's need to be judged by more than the dots of resolution. Consistency and brightness need to be added to the mix of specs listed. Even then the best way to compare is actually using them.

I remember when the Z series was first introduced: many made the point that EVF's contain optical elements and that Nikon has the expertise in optics to really make their EVFs shine. Nikon EVFs have always punched above their resolution number.

People really don’t get it, the high resolution is for focus checking etc. that’s what is there for, you don’t really need the resolution when you’re shooting in tracking mode, the effect of the Z9 resembling an OVF is a good choice for Nikon because so large amounts of their users are used to an OVF and this makes the transition more pleasant for them, but it doesn’t really make it better unless you still live in a world where you prefer OVF but still want some of the info from the EVF. It’s really subjective.

The biggest selling point for Z9 is that it’s clearly the one with the best video specs and for those who want integrated grip. But you still need to have a desire for that.

The A1 is it’s form factor, and ability in a small body a lot like that. Do Sony need to make a new firmware update with more video functionality yes I believe they do as well as I believe they need to reduce that price tag.

PL

You can have to little resolution to check focus properly, I certainly found it much easier on the A1 then on any other EVF.

The A1 is still only about 3mp it’s not exactly a lot the Z9 is 1.23mp so can we kill your idea right there.

That’s just pure nonsense

It’s pure nonsense because neither are high resolution, one is rather low resolution and one is a bit over the resolution of HD . Comparing it with something that is in fact high resolution is in fact nonsense.

8k is 33mp
4k is 8.3-8.6mp

As you see 3mp is far very far from being even near that, even talking about pixel seize here is nonsense.

PL because it nonsense have you actually ever looked inside a 3mp evf.

“given that a fixed hood on a zoom lens can only be effective at the wide end”

This couldn’t be more wrong.

Any hood that is keeping direct sunlight off the front element is making a substantial impact at reducing flare. Focal length doesn’t matter.

Nope. Sorry. Not correct.
But that’s okay. I don’t have to convince you.

Seriously if you think about it any spec of dust or defect on the front surface of the lens will scatter that intense sunlight everywhere. Including directly onto your sensor.

Again I don’t have to convince you. Feel free to believe whatever you like.

another self-appointed expert predicting Nikon's demise ... Nikon has died a thousand deaths ... long live Nikon!!!

I agree, Nikon camera division cannot exist just on one very good camera.
Nikon need to bring out a very good mid range mirrorless that the market sees as as good as the Canons or Sony's ie a Z6/Z7iii or a Z8
And bring out a Z6/z7 v2.00 firmware

Products can definitely get too small to be comfortable to use.

There are trade offs for a smaller size. Also some Sony components tend to be more fragile at this size, like their battery door and hot shot.

lol no

I just watched a video where Jordan Drake says the Z9 trounces the A1.

As good as the A1 is I had not heard that it had 'quad' card slots. As far as I was aware it has 2 card slots that are able to take either SD cards or CF express type A cards but not both at the same time in the same slot. Its like calling my bike a quad bike just because I can change the wheel size.

Yes, "quad card slots" is totally misleading. Even Sony marketing doesn't use that term.

When one hears "dual card slots" that implies that one can use two cards simultaneously. Therefore one would expect that "quad card slots" means the ability to use 4 cards simultaneously.

As K27 and others point out, that's not the reality with the Sony A1. You can use only two cards at once, you just have the ability with each slot to select to use an SD card or cfx-a card. BTW, very few use the cfx-a option and so it really means the Sony is more like a dual SD card camera. Nothing wrong with that, but that's the practical reality.

@KZ7 - "As good as the A1 is I had not heard that it had 'quad' card slots."

you'll be surprised to learn that sd cards can't be used cfx-a slots, nor vice-versa neither.

@KZ7 - "As far as I was aware it has 2 card slots that are able to take either SD cards or CF express type A cards but not both at the same time in the same slot."

not relevant to quad slots.

@KZ7 - "Its like calling my bike a quad bike just because I can change the wheel size."

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula "so what you're saying is ..... ?", converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

One could call the A1's 2 slots octo-slots because everything from MMC to micro-SD cards works in them. None are half as good as CFx-B cards, but they will work.
The one card that won't work, is Memory Sticks. But CFx-A are the new memory sticks, except you can get a 256GB memory stick. CFX-A tops out at a tiny 160GB, and costs $100 more than some 1TB CFX-B cards.

@Pole Cat - "One could call the A1's 2 slots octo-slots"

you can call it whatever you want, but that won't change the fact that there are four distinct card drive slots, aka the a1 is a quad-slot camera.

MILCman
Can you use the 4 card slots at the same time?
Would you consider a camera with 1 slot that can take 2 different cards as dual card (especially if it were made by Nikon or Canon) or would you bemoan the fact that there was only one card slot with no back-up?
I personally think Sony has come up with an elegant solution but its disingenuous to make out that the "quad" card is more than it is.
Its also entirely possible that despite being an innovative and clever solition it may end up as a footnote if nobody else takes it up, after all Sony does have prior here, betamax or memory stick anybody? This is from someone who owned a Sony Vaio and a Sony handycam with memory stick slots, although my Sony video recorder was VHS (even Sony knew not to flog that dead horse).

@KZ7 - "Can you use the 4 card slots at the same time?"

1) that is not relevant to the a1 having four physical card slots.
2) you failed to admit that sd cards can't fit in cfx-a card slots and vice-versa, because it proves your claims are wrong.
3) you keep posting strawman claims that have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

those are hallmarks of a gear inferiority complex.

@KZ7 - "betamax or memory stick anybody?"

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula "so what you're saying is ..... ?", converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Double checked the Sony manual.

There are NOT 4 usable card slots.
There is SLOT 1 and SLOT 2. And they camera can only access 2 cards at a time.

I do not doubt that you can jam more than 2 cards into the 2 slots. Maybe you could jam 5 or 6 micro-SD cards and 2 SD cards (octo-card!! -that is lousy compared to Z9 dual card)). But only 2 will work. Sony says NEVER will more than 2 work at a time.
RTFM. Obviously you have not, lol!

I can see the desire to access 4 cards since the card options are so slow and it can take a full minute for the buffer to clear. And type A cards only have a 160GB capacity. Brett who owns an A1 mentioned the A1 uses up 160GB way too fast. So get ready to swap cards frequently and pay $350-$400 for each of those low capacity cards.

@Pole Cat - "There are NOT 4 usable card slots"

no Voyager Won, that's wrong again, because sd cards can't fit in cfx-a card slots and cfx-a cards can't fit in sd card slots.

the a1 is a quad-slot camera, period.

these false claims coming from people who have never seen an a1 are hilarious :-)

Sony says you are wrong.
The camera can only access TWO cards at a time. To access a 3rd or 4th card you would have to remove 2 cards. The camera can't switch because as Sony says the A1 can only access 2 cards at a time. There is no menu option to say use a 3rd or 4th card instead of the first two.
RTFM

But go ahead embarrass yourself.
Your point seems to be you can jam in lots of cards, but can't use more than 2 until you open the card door and remove some.

Of course the camera can never use cards as good as the ones the Z9 uses and that is the point. The A1 is crippled with cheap card slots for slow cards which is why it can't even shoot 8K 4:2:2 video, and can only tiny bit rates. lol!

Quad card slots implies that 4 cards can be used at the same time in the same way as dual card slot implies 2 cards can be used.
Thats why Sony does not mention quad card slots in their literature. They mention only Card Slot 1 & Card Slot 2.
My Samsung Galaxy 10+ is dual card , they don't call it triple card because I can use a nano sim or micro sd in one of the bays, different sized cards, you cannot use the micro sd in the slot assigned for the nano sim, it is one or the other.
I wonder if Canon were to release an RII with one of the A1's type of card slots if MILCman would be happy to call that dual card or whether he would be bagging Canon for not providing dual cards? I certaonly wouldn't consider it dual card.

His actual quote is more of a comedy routine making fun of the A1.

"functionality that's more expensive to research and implement....quad card slots"

As we all know there is NO quad card functionality. You can only use two at a time. He admitted it.

Sony could have actually made a quad slot camera that supported Type B cards, but didn't and that is part of why the A1 will never be able to compete functionally with the Z9 , and why "the Z9 trounces the A1".
It will be another couple years before Sony has a camera that functionally can do what the Z9 (and R3 for video) can do. And yes 6K 60p RAW video is superior to soft 8K 4:2:0 30p.

Yeah but they used the A-1 to film it. Its got a 'time machine' custom function. Sony is the best.

The Z9 has similar settings to other cameras, except the Z9 settings are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic].

The Z9 doesn't adjust DOF, it changes space-time.

The Z9 doesn't flip into portrait position, it flips the earth.

For every 10 shots the Z9 takes, 11 are keepers.

The Z9 portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes.

@TRU
Time for a lie down perhaps.....😁

My sony can take ultra sharp pictures of the human soul

@davidxyz
Every camera i've ever had including film ones have been able to do that

To be honest a fish AF could actually be helpful. Not a fully certified diver yet, but I can imagine that fish AF in a housed camera could be quite helpful in some scenarios.

Agreed, Sony's A mount offerings are a weak compared to Nikon's F mount and the F mount glass works spectacularly well on Z cameras. Sony had a woeful line-up of glass for at least 3 years after going FF and many of their original GM lenses are already being replaced albeit with some superb optics. Nikon started literally 5 or more years later and will have 50 Z mount lenses within another 3 years.

I own both Sony and Nikon but I'll guarantee Sony will never offer PF lenses, doesn't even offer a pro workhorse like the 300 f/2.8 or 200 f/2 5 years after A9 launched, won't do a 500 f/4 most likely either.

Sony had an unlicensed third party Canon EF lens adapter to sell their bodies for 'em, til they were able to make enough lenses on their own.

I'm enjoying the turnabout now, that FE glass can be adapted to Nikon Z cameras.. so wouldn't that mean Z mount has more lenses because it can adapt FE?

Nikon Z9 is a professional tool.
Leica is an accessory for rich people.

Know the difference

That NIKON prices ahead of LEICA. For the money LEICA is starting to make sense in the (same) sensor stakes and for people who prefer smaller cameras. Not that the buyers of these cameras want the same apparatus.

Yeah that's why all the D5 owners are now switching to Leica.

i paid 5900 for the Z9 .....

I'm just quoting Alibaba's CEO, Jack Ma. That is one of his known quotes. So it's actually Chinese not American.

You are placing too much value in things based on brand name alone. Just because it's a Leica it doesn't mean it has to be expensive, though most of the time it is.

Great point. I will sell my Z9, and use a Leica Q2 when I take pictures at the next air show.

Z9 looks a a terrific camera technically. However, even if I would get one with optics for free, I would rather keep my 3 times cheaper set-up.

Also, I could hardly justify 6000€ for a mild IQ gain.

Rather smaller gears, but more practical, more transportable, more enjoyable.

To be fully honest, I though about getting a Leica Q2 instead of a Z9. I knew I wanted to get a 28mm with a wider aperture than f2.8 and I already had a capable Z7 at hand. But seeing how bad the 28mm f1.7 Summilux on the Q2 is (it's a digitally corrected and cropped ~24mm) I decided for the Z9 and a Sigma Art 28mm f1.4 instead. Now I have a camera that perfectly pairs with my long lenses for wildlife photography and a great 28mm f1.4 for portraiture.

I don't know where in Europe you are living, but in Germany the Z9 is 5999 Euro and the Leica Q2 costs 5.290 Euro.

Could just get a Z7ii + Z 28mm 2.8 for nearly half the price of the Q2.... Not even sure why anyone would legitimately think the Q2 and the Z9 are for the same purpose?

So get a Z7 II. Even cheaper and better scoring!

@keolisho56 There are many ways to be sarcastic. If you're being such, you're doing it wrong;, being sarcastic only in your mind for your own amusement. What in the world is your point here? Your original comment has nothing sarcastic in it, so even with your instructional reply that you apparently deleted, it's still a mystery.

@keolisho56 I think I'll keep my feet stuck on planet Earth. Have fun in your isolation.

The DxO results of recent Canon bodies (including R5 and R3) are influenced by the fact that Canon applies noise reduction to their raw files in camera. This is cheating and it will always be possible to apply better NR to shadows of Sony and Nikon cameras in post.

There is no more real raw in the Canon world…

A few years ago this would have been highlighted by many as totally unacceptable and people would have demonstrated in front of Canon’s HQ the same way Amnesty demonstrates to shame human right violation perpetrators… :-)

Another example of the slow shift of Canon away from being a leader in photographic equipment.

Agreed, this can be clearly seen at "photonstophotos.net" I guess
Canon managers like to see smooth blue skies, so NR is also applied
at low iso values. Sadly the result is lower DxO scores which get seen
as a bias against Canon... The bottom line is that nearly all modern
cameras are more than we need and this is just splitting hairs!

No, it's the opposite. It results in higher DxO values, but fake values.

Indeed, the DR computation is done by measuring shadow noise. Applying NR in camera at base ISO reduces artificially the noise and therefore results in a better value than the sensor would normally have had.

Haha! Cudos for reminding us of C. Dundee! I love this phrase and frequently use it the same way by substituting the original "knife". ;)

You have a great set of Z-mount lens and that just get better when you add the full AF-S and AF-P F-mount. I've been using the 85 1.4G on the Z7 and it work just great, even to follow contemporary dancers on dim ligth theaters. Many users try to ignore the full f-mount menu just because they want to keep using the "lack native of native glass" statement, when by now is clear that the FTZ works great and when you put teleconverter the f-mount glass work better ona Z9 than on a F-mount camera.

sony has xlnt af with a 7.2v battery on all camera bodies; the a1 does not need a 10.8v battery to record 30fps raw.

so a smaller more efficient mini-z9 shouldn't need it either.

It’s the cheapest such camera ever and even more so if you factor in inflation.

I would not be surprised if Nikon soon replaced the Z6/7iis with a camera that needs only one processor insteat of two.

Great Idea evaeva

Why would a SONY disciple name themselves after a CANON feature - curious….❓

My favourite lens is a Sony 200-600. A white lens.

Well imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…..😊
Btw if that lens is so good why is it not a GM - if it is that good perhaps GM is a ruse…..❓genuinely curious….

Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I would be extremely pleased with any of them!

Yeah, the A1 can't do it list (compared to Z9):

- can't shoot stills at 120 fps
- don't have pre crapture
- can't shoot 8K60p or internal ProRes raw video
- can't utilize superior CFE-B cards
- can't shoot 15 fps lossless compressed raw with unlimited buffer
- can't clear buffer at 1-2 seconds (takes forever)
- can't shoot 8K video for 3 hrs with single battery (overheats and battery dies)
- don't have integrated grip (subpar solution with flimsy plastic (have owned the grip so I know))

Yes, nothing screams SOUL like 11 MP. JPEG files.

Interestingly I don’t need any of those features. And don’t want the integrated grip (I’m not the only one. Read the comments.)

Many of those features have limitations that…. Limit. Their usefulness.

Like 8k60 is storage gobbling raw only
Pre capture is jpg only.
120FPS is 11MP JPG only.
15FP limitless buffer is also compressed raw only.
CF-B cards are superior but I’m fine with my SD cards.
30FPS is JPG only.
And I shot 8k 30 non stop for 1:20 on a single $80 battery without interruption and no overheat warning. And that’s long enough for me.

Anyway Talk about footnotes.

Horshack is right. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Why do so many hide behind an online handle ??

Kandid, the pure white lens is a Minolta thing (Sony builds on the legacy)...Canon switched from their crème colored lenses to pure white just in the last few years copying Sony.

Why do you think?…

@steelhead
Yes yes - of course they did….
Sony purchased Minolta yes but to claim Minolta ‘heritage’ surely the cams would have to be still badged ‘Minolta’ ❓.
BMW purchased Rolls Royce - yet they don’t claim RR heritage for every 3 series they sell…….

@Fred Mueller:
Why do so many people not post any Pictures in their galleries?
I think it would show a little bit about who you are as a photographer.

Z9 can shoot 30 FPS but only in JPG.
And it is in a lower quality JPG, not the highest JPG setting.
But that is OK if you are Ken Rockwell, that is all he is ever using.

It's not a Sony sensor..

The OP’s comment shows why Sony users have a bad reputation online.

I won’t get into relitigating one more time on the relative advantages of each camera.

But I will say that no one knows outside of Nikon who is making the sensor. And Sony Semiconductor is an entirely separate division from Sony consumer electronics, and does indeed make some great sensors. If Nikon is using them, that’s great and doesn’t subtract from the Z9.

@MikeRan

Unlimited buffer at 15 fps with lesless compressed - not lossy. So full 14-bit data. I tested it myself.

Of course, you don't "need" features that your inferior Sony don't have ;)

These Sony fanatics are really a cancer in these forums - propably paid for their baseless propaganda campaigns.

I’ll happily take pre shutter capture once it supports raw. I prefer not to give up raw flexibility. But that up to you.

I might even use 8k60 occasionally if offered in 10-bit log H265 at something like 600-800MBps. But yeah no interest ing 5-6GBps raw video files.

And I’ve never hit a buffer limit on the A1 with V90 cards.

So yeah. You can keep your Z9. I’ll keep my A1.

We can ignore users in the fora, why not here?

MikeRan, why are you in here defending a rabid Sony fan like whitelens? He posts the typical Sony user spam we see in the comments sections of all other brands. Do you really want to associate yourself with that type of behaviour?

A thread about Canon and Nikon and the usual sonyboys turns the comments inside out as always. I don't see canon users here doing the same. Are you guys really that insecure about your Sony cameras you have to do this every time? Why?

Just because Nikon built a better camera than the Sony or Canon (in some respects) doesn't mean Sony or Canon don't make great cameras. Nikon has roared back with an amazing monster of a camera. While I wait for my Z9, I'll keep enjoying my other Nikon, Fuji and Sony gear. Why do people get upset when a company like Nikon pulls ahead? It only means ALL of the camera companies will make better cameras to compete so it's a win-win.

Einride:
Looks like you can not handle facts.

BTW since some were talking about the white lenses and their origin, here is an article from Canon on the origins of the white lens.

"The story of Canon's white lenses begins more than 50 years ago, when Canon adopted the color for its broadcast camera lenses in 1960. In 1976, white was first used for its SLR camera lenses. Looking back at Canon’s catalog of white lenses, you can tell that the shade of white they sport changes gradually over the years."

https://global.canon/en/quality/story/vol02.html

To be fair, most comments to this particular video review have been gracious and congratulatory to Nikon's recovery and this camera in particular. It is a shame to see things dragged down in the manner of this one thread.

Those that care so much about who made the sensor are fanbois. Now canon makes their own excellent sensors but if they bought one from Sony or someblody else why would i care ? As llong as its good

Let's remind the Sonycfanbois nation that Sony Semiconductor utilizes Nikon stepper technology to build the sensors. So by their logic, Sony sensors are actually Nikon sensors.

evaeva705

"I think DPR should provide users with a 'blacklist' function, so we can avoid wasting our time reading nonsense comments from certain people."

There's nothing nonsensical about Whitelens' comment.

The person you want to blacklist/cancel is referring to the video where Chris points out that the Z9 is not the right camera for him because it's too heavy and has too low a resolution EVF etc.. He then says that the A1 has everything he needs but rejects that too because it doesn't have 'soul'.

I personally don't want to hear Journalists rejecting products because they don't have 'soul'. That's straying way too far into areas of personal taste and even brand allegiance. The A1 falls on rises on what it is and does, not on some 'ghost in the machine'.

@Thoughts R Us

"But I will say that no one knows outside of Nikon who is making the sensor. And Sony Semiconductor is an entirely separate division from Sony consumer electronics, and does indeed make some great sensors."

Sony is a conglomerate. The fact that its various divisions are separate companies does not mean that they don't work together or as some people seem desperate to believe - are in competition with one another.

The sensor in the Z9 is obviously made and designed by Sony. Nobody else has a FF ≈50MP stacked sensor. And it's also very likely that Sony approached Nikon to use the sensor - a strong Nikon benefits Sony, although Fboys can't get their head round that. The last thing Sony wants is Nikon to shrink or disappear, they want Nikon to help grow the mirrorless market - Canon too.

@Rubberdials
I think evaeva knew exactly the person they had in mind for blacklisting - and most seem to agree. That person might welcome some like thinking company on the list…..❓

@Darkshift

"Yeah, the A1 can't do it list (compared to Z9):"

Outside of video, the A1 beats the Z9 in literally every metric, if you want to play top trumps, which you always seem to.

The A1 is also the older camera, so the onus was on Nikon to beat the Sony spec, which they haven't done (outside of video).

@johans81

"Those that care so much about who made the sensor are fanbois. Now canon makes their own excellent sensors but if they bought one from Sony or someblody else why would i care ?"

I get what you're saying, but sensors in mirrorless cameras are more fundamental than DSLRs since they power many secondary functions that were controlled by discrete units in DSLRS. The stacked sensors in the A1/R3/Z9 are also shutters, viewfinders and AF sensors. With a mirrorless camera the sensor is the camera in a way that it wasn't in a DSLR.

@rubberdials…. By that same token I really don’t care to hear about weight. 3lbs may be heavy for some but it’s not heavy for me. And I don’t care about what others think is heavy; it’s too subjective. And let’s be real… the spec sheets say the Z9 is double the weight but it’s only 3lbs. But a sports shooter is probably on a monopod or uses a bag/shoulder strap for shorter lenses and most pro sports last and hour. Wedding photographers have some kind of strap system to let them hang between shots. Backpackers and nature photographers are fit enough to haul their gear for hours, one pound is not the difference maker. You’re more likely to notice the weight difference of a carbon fibre tripod vs aluminum. Not a one pound lighter/heavier body. Etc etc.

@Candid

"I think evaeva knew exactly the person they had in mind for blacklisting - and most seem to agree."

I don't agree, and that's what matters to me.

"That person might welcome some like thinking company on the list….."

Maybe you'll buy a Sony, Candid - you seem near to it - and then you'll understand what astroturfing/trolling really is. Endless two-day-old accounts popping up to your bash your system and everyone else not noticing and gaslighting you as the problem...

@m_black

I don't criticise anyone personally for their choices. If the weight isn't a problem for you then that's great, genuinely, but weight really isn't subjective! I speak as someone who used to carry a medium format film system and tripod around.

It's only 700g, but crucially that's almost the weight of a 2nd A1 body. Carry two Z9 bodies and you've got the weight of 2 A1s with a 70-200/2.8 and a small prime, but no lenses on the Nikon.

Weight's obviously less of a problem in the press pit, or the studio but it will make a difference in other environments as will the lack of an SD card slot (Canon didn't put one on the R3 for fun - having access to widely available media is an important requirement of a pro camera. Sony also developed their dual card system for a reason).

@Rubberdials
Kandid with a K actually 😊
You are saying you don’t think evaeva knew who they meant - but you DO know who they meant❓ Did you actually mean that❓
I would be very happy to have several Sony cameras - however I think that Nikon have stolen a lead in lenses (for what I like to do) at the moment….
Don’t know what ‘astroturfing’, ‘gaslighting’ means….sorry❓

@RubberDials: Re Sony Semiconductor: it's a separate division of Sony that operates independently of its Consumer Electronics division. No one said they were in competition with each other: how could they be as they make different product lines? But they do function autonomously.

In this case they have to. If anyone approaches Sony Semi and wants an image sensor, Sony Semi does not and cannot share that info with Sony Consumer Electronics. That would be a massive conflict of interest.

Sony may make the sensor for the Z9...again, no one knows. You are simply making assumptions. But if they do, then great...Sony Semi makes great sensors. And it wouldn't be the first time that Nikon has gotten more out of a Sony sensor that Sony Consumer Electronics.

That’s a new one. “Z9 was designed for the young and the strong.”

Come on.

The weight is the weight. Look around here at all the people looking for a Z8 or something similar… this technology in a smaller body. Yep some people still think that the large size and weight doesn’t matter.

@RubberDials wrote: "Sony also developed their dual card system for a reason)."

Yes, because cfx-a is going nowhere. It's too expensive and too limited in storage capacity, and slower speed than cfx-b. IMHO Sony put that in because they were worried that cfx-a only would scare many users off. Of course by putting in the SD slot they also ensured that virtually none of their users would turn to cfx-a. But that means that Sony has engineered to the level of performance of SD cards and hasn't been able to take advantage of the faster cfx format, either type A or type B.

Why do you peddle this CF-A is doomed narrative so vigorously?
Why are you so irrationally, emotionally attached to this argument?

@Kandid

I know who evaeva705 was referring to and I don't agree with them. It's not complicated.

@Thoughts R Us

"it wouldn't be the first time that Nikon has gotten more out of a Sony sensor"

The Z9 sensor underperforms vs the A1 sensor. It has less dynamic range, fewer AF sites and fewer megapixels.

"If anyone approaches Sony Semi and wants an image sensor, Sony Semi does not and cannot share that info"

That's handy, because we want the stacked technology of the Z9 getting in a Sony camera - oh wait...

@Rubberdials
Right that's clear 👍 - even if a minority view......

@Thoughts R Us

"Yes, because cfx-a is going nowhere. It's too expensive and too limited in storage capacity, and slower speed than cfx-b."

CFexpress Type A cards were not developed by Sony, they were developed by the Compact Flash Association, of which Nikon and Canon are members (as well as everyone else) specifically for cameras. If you actually knew anything about cameras you'd know that the only bodies on the market with dual type B cards are the D6, Z9 and 1DXIII. It is the dual type B format that is going away, not the type A, because they can't be used in pairs in a regular sized camera body. THAT'S WHY THE COMPACT FLASH ASSOCIATION DEVELOPED TYPE A.

@m_black

"But then I would argue that if you’re in a position to carry around two bodies with lenses attached, 1.4 Kg difference is not the proverbial straw on the back."

There are scenarios where 1.4 Kilo could easily be the straw - a drone for example - or any long hike where a Kilo of water is more useful than a Kilo of grip.

Both Nikon and Canon have attempted to make their mirrorlessless flagships smaller and lighter, but both have come up against issues of power management. Until they are able to get enough power out of a ≈7v battery, the grips and bulk will be staying. Chris mentions this in the video.

So far there are 67 people who agree with evaeva that I should be black listed for pointing out facts.
67 people who would like to pretend the A1 does not exist.
Well, here is an idea:
In the future if you see a post by "whitelens", don't read it if you are allergic to facts.
Problem solved.

There is no huge practical difference in the IQ between the A1 and the D9. I think Nikon has the overall edge, but let's be honest: If you can't get it done with either of these, hang it up! ;-)
Now: In my opinion, the Nikon gives better IQ, especially regarding color. And I like the idea that I can "ungrip" the A1, though my grip pretty much lives on my Z7II these days. Ergonomics? Sony has gotten better, but again, Nikon and Canon still do better on ergonomics vs. Sony.
As to who made the Z9 sensor? Why does anyone care? I don't care if McDonald's make the Nikon sensor or Sony sensor, and don't be so sure they don't!
As a hybrid camera, Nikon wins this battle of the moment, but I can buy the A1 TODAY while I'm waiting for the Z9 to eventually ship! So the A1 wins in the sense that I can actually shoot with one this weekend if I so choose.
But I'm not going with an A1 because I prefer the Nikon Z glass. And that shuts the door on Sony for me.

@whitelens (still makes me smile and think of Canon - sorry))

'So in spite of being really big and twice the weight, Nikon is not able to match the specifications of Sony A1.
But, Nikon bought a Sony sensor, build a big housing around it and added SOUL.
And that makes up for all the shortcomings.
This is funny stuff.'

It would be difficult to describe the above as FACTs. This is spin and opinion - and not shared by many it seems......now 68 dissenters....

Kandid:
Twice the weight is a fact for Z9.
30 FPS but only at lower quality JPG is a fact for Z9.
As far as the Z9 having more soul, this is just making fun of the conclusion of this video. Nikon Z9, the most soulful camera!
Maybe this conclusion is just funny to me!

@MikeRan

The highest bitrates mentioned was with 'High' quality setting, but there is also 'Normal' setting with lower bitrates. Of course, there's much smaller settings available for N-Raw, like 5.3K 60/30p or oversampled 4.1K 30p, which don't consume so much storage space.

After playing with N-Raw in Davinci Resolve, it is possible to take very high quality screen grabs from raw video. So it is perfectly possible to shoot a scene in 12-bit 8K60p video, but still have possibility to extract higher quality 38MP stills from the footage.

@RubberDials
False again. In fact, it seems Z9 has better base iso dynamic range, according to dpreview exposure latitude comparison. Especially when both are shooting e-shutter.

@Darkshift

No, not false, the A1 has better DR throughout the range.

https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D6,Nikon%20Z%209,Sony%20ILCE-1

ES isn't relevant - Z9 is always in ES and the A1 doesn't have any measurable DR difference between ES and mechanical.

I trust my eyes more than calculated dynamic range:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=nikon_z9&attr144_1=nikon_z7ii&attr144_2=canon_eosr3&attr144_3=sony_a1&attr146_0=64_7&attr146_1=100_6&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&attr177_2=on&attr177_3=on&normalization=compare&widget=552&x=-0.14252285266289225&y=-0.8806368039904139

How can there be visible difference? ;)

In real life Z9 produces much cleaner shadows than A1, how it can be?

@Darkshift

It's because the Z9 is set to ISO 64 and is receiving more light. Put them both at same exposure and see how you get on.

@Rubberdials
Just because the A1 doesn't offer 64 ISO does not negate that the Z 9 (which has ISO 64) has better visual dynamic range...

The Z9 image was exposed for 1/200s vs 1/320s for the others.

@RubberDials

A1 doesn't offer ISO64, so naturally its DR is lower.

Oh, and with Z9 at ISO100 the A1 still looks worse ;)
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=nikon_z9&attr144_1=sony_a1&attr144_2=canon_eosr3&attr144_3=sony_a1&attr146_0=100_6&attr146_1=100_6&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&attr177_1=efc&attr177_2=efc&attr177_3=efc&normalization=full&widget=552&x=-0.15059555118886017&y=-0.8550823634647079

@Darkshift/20th Century

Seriously give it up. Both the written and video review even mention the Z9 has worse DR than the A1.

Seriously, calculated engineering DR is not always relevant to real world photos. Did you even look at the comparison? I tend to trust my own eyes more than random generated numbers :D

Also had to check, nowhere in the written review they made the claim that the Z9 would have worse DR than A1, so you pretty much made it up, again ;)

@Darkshift

I don't make stuff up so quit that nonsense.

"There appears to be a (small) price to pay in terms of noise performance at higher ISOs, compared with both the Z7 II and its immediate rivals, but it's only really visible in side-by-side comparisons, even at very high ISO settings."

"And, likewise, noise reduction at high ISOs can't retain as much detail as the Sony. Overall, the Z9 doesn't fall too far behind the Z7 II and isn't too far off the performance of the Sony a1."

"The slightly higher noise level we saw results in a slight reduction in dynamic range, compared with the Z7 II (and hence, with the a1)."

"Image quality is excellent, with the tiny dent in dynamic range, compared with the D850 or Sony a1, not making any appreciable real-world difference."

"(...) if you compare it against cameras like the Z7II, the D850 and the Sony A1 - this will actually have slightly worse dynamic range."
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/6503630741/dpreview-tv-nikon-z9-review

In one sense, think of a camera like a computer or smartphone. Those devices have more capabilities than anyone can use or master. The idea isn't that one individual user will literally utilize every feature to the fullest extent. The idea is that the machine offers enough capabilities to cover a wide variety of users.

Each user individually will select and use those features that matter the most to them. And of course, in doing so, may even choose to branch out and discover other uses. For instance, I'm not much of a video user myself, but more and more I have been trying it out and having some fun with it.

But we need to abandon the old fashioned idea that a camera is made just for one type of user, or that one user will use and master all or most features.

@Felipe Rodríguez, @Thoughts R Us

What I am saying is that someone has to know, well more or less, what is wanted in any case. I' m still saying that in general bridge 1" cams fulfill more than enough the needs of the 80% of users apart those using their smartphone...

@aris14: I would say that for more than 80% of the market that smartphones fulfill their needs and they don't even need 1 inch bridge cams.

If you compare the billions of smartphones sold each year with the single digits of cameras sold each year, the market for dedicated cameras ends up being less than 1% of those using cameras.

That tiny fraction of users wants to have something far greater than a smartphone in terms of camera features. That implies a far larger sensor, maybe very fast burst rate with super intelligent AF, higher resolutions, etc.

Do some buy more camera than they really need? Sure, maybe most. But hey, that's human nature, in part encouraged by a consumer culture. People buy more food than they need, buy bigger homes and cars than they need, buy faster cars than they need, etc. Why should we expect differently in the camera world?

it's call Viewfinder magnification. Z6 is 0.8x while R5 is only 0.76x.
Magnification is used based on 50mm as reference, the bigger they are, the better the view and more natural in opening both eyes when shooting 50mm.

Caleido, A really bright viewfinder makes a big difference when you're in bright light. Your eyes adjust to bright sunlight and suddenly you're looking at a screen which is really dark in comparison. That's why the brightness of the Z9 screen is significant - it is a lot more visible in bright daylight.

The bright, clear, well magnified EVF of the X-H1 is a big part of why I bought it new that day versus the used X-T2 that I was going to buy. It's like a movie screen in there! (It's the same as what the X-T3 and 4 have).

Anyway, prior to the H1, EVFs were for me, just good enough to get the job done and easier to focus in lower light versus a dim OVF, mostly. Every one of these new cams I've peered into (Nikon Z6, 6II; Canon R5 and 6, Panasonic S1, various Sony models) have all ranged from great to breathtaking.

Point being, I don't think there's much fault to be found with any modern high end camera's viewfinder.

The highest res EVFs of competitors are a) not black out free b) variable resolution. But, hey, everyone loves marketing. Reminds me of the megahertz wars.

funny how in SONY cameras, we do not need the best video files available.

It was exactly what was said to trounce Nikon cameras before... Go figure !

Nikon Z9 FW manual states 8K60p N-Raw bitrate as 5786 Mbps (quality High), plus 56 Mbps for the mp4 proxy. That means about 730 MB/s.

Even if that could be somehow recorded with CFE Type A card (max write speeds 700MB/S), the sizes are available only upto 160GB with 365-400 USD price.

CFE Type B cards are available up to 4TB at the moment, with 1TB AV Pro MK2 costing only under 480 USD.

So, the Z9 with dual CFE-B slots is much better choice for high bitrate video.

730 megabytes per second is an obscene amount of storage. That’s 40 gigabytes per minute. Hope you guys all have 8 bay raid drives to store your tens of terabytes of footage.

"730 megabytes per second is an obscene amount of storage."

Indeed - and no viewer will ever be able to tell the difference (unless you are working for Hollywood and your films will be projected onto really large cinema screens).

CFExpress Type B has won out over Type A and has become the industry standard if you want better than SD.

CFE-A will become the next Memory Stick. Neat idea but a failure to launch due to the fact that only one manufacturer uses it, and so pricing remains too high, capacities too low, and CFE-A is outperformed by CFE-B.

There is a reason why Sony allowed SD slots in those camera using CFE-A; even they had doubts about the viability of CFE-A. Most users of those Sony cameras that can use CFE-A opt to use SD. So CFE-A is going nowhere fast.

More prognostications from deep thoughts R us.
Anyway it’s already been shown you don’t have a very good track record.

It’s almost race time. Good luck.

@Thoughts R Us - "CFE-A is going nowhere fast."

hmmmm....

@Thoughts R Us - "Canon put a huge dent in Sony mirrorless marketshare with their EOS M lineup, and that's without even trying that hard." https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7-iii-review?comment=3762035897

@Thoughts R Us - "Switching to Sony at this point is betting on a losing horse. They will get crushed once they have both Canon and Nikon to compete against. Will they even be releasing any new models in 5 years?" https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3099846348/which-is-better-nikon-z7-vs-sony-a7r-iii?comment=2456874538

“There is a reason why Sony allowed SD slots in those camera using CFE-A; even they had doubts about the viability of CFE-A.”

So having options is a bad thing now?

98% of users of flagship cameras also don’t need the extreme speeds.

A Sony fan I am not.. but I have to admit I quite like the idea of the dual card slots that take either type of storage. If I'm out and about somewhere and run out of CFE, at least I can buy SD and keep shooting albeit at a lower bitrate.

the a1 can record everything that it shoots on sd cards, and the a1 has a bigger buffer than the z9.

cfx-a/sd card is perfect for the a1.

I won’t pay a substantial premium for Cf-A. But I will absolutely buy a CF-A card if it makes sense compared to SD. More manufacturers are coming with them. Lexar is showing a 320GB card coming. A Chinese manufacturer is making and shipping cards to 512GB now. If the prices come down I’ll happily switch to CF-A.

@Thoughts R Us - "If users of the Sony A1, their most powerful camera and most expensive, will not pay for CFE-A cards, then who will?"

you don't know what sony owners are paying for, and you don't know anything about the a1 either.

@Thoughts R Us - "Certainly not owners of the A7IV, when one has to spend 25% of the A7IV price on one card and card reader."

are you claiming that the a7iv can't be used as a card reader?

beyond that, you clearly don't know that the a7iv has twin sd card slots.

@Thoughts R Us - "There is no path forward to CFE-A"

hmmm.... i recall when you were claiming that the eos-r dive bar was gonna re-invent photography, lol

just another tru prediction gone wrong... the dive bar failed so badly on eos-r that canon never used it again??

@Thoughts R Us - "That multi function bar...what some have called a small touch bar...could be interesting. If it works as advertised, it could be a real breakthrough in camera UI. Can't wait to try it out!" https://www.dpreview.com/news/4985835462/canon-full-frame-mirrorless-system-begins-with-debut-of-eos-r?comment=8942233142

@Thoughts R Us - "even if you subtract the price of the card reader, the price of the CFE-A card is still $400"

no that's wrong again... cfx-a cards are regularly on sale for $250, and there are better deals than that. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1727981/0

i know you still don't understand this, but cfx-a is not a requirement for sony cameras.

Yes -"what features will trickle down from the Z9?" I think 80% of those reading here will be very curious to know this. A Z7II or Z8, possibly without the stacked chip, but with many of the speed improvements will be an even bigger hit for Nikon.

I don’t know whether it’s that easy to just shrink a z9. Look at the Canon R5/R5C, you either make a compromise with overheating or with battery life.

The raw power and capability of the Z9 is has to do with the size - it has a brutal heat sink part of its mass, and a brutal battery enabling that power.

The stacked sensor and video capabilities may not scale down too easily, but other aspects of usability and firmware surely can. The C-AF implemention and settings on the Z9 are different from the other Z bodies regardless of readout rate no?

The overall EVF implemention is something else that wouldn't be out of place on a smaller body. I think Nikon users have good reason to be excited, YMMV.

I think most Nikon shooters are waiting for the next FF camera, hoping some of that Z9 tech/feature to trickle down.

Nikon has stated that the stacked sensor/shutterless design will likely remain high end for a while. But I can see a Z6/7III with a Expeed 7 processor, Z9 like AF features, and 4K 60 10 bit internal being the headliners.

Yes, I have friends that always say the next better thing is coming along, and they'll wait. However, they end up waiting for years and never get anything because the next new one is right around the corner that they want to consider. Many times, they find it easier to criticize the current offering since the new one will be better, more capable, smaller, etc. But, when the new one does come out, it's back to saying there's another new one coming in the future that will be better. Just go out and shoot photos.

Ultimate is a strange word. It could be the last Nikon, the current best, the best possible, the Nikon on the end of a long line of Nikons, the biggest Nikon, the smallest Nikon. The marketing department will say that it was one or all of the above.

The F2 is the ultimate Nikon :)

Almost everyone doesn’t include hundreds of thousands of photographers who understand that the price gap btwn the R5 and Z9 is less than the price of many lenses they own.

Honestly if you can afford an R5 then you can afford a Z9.

I agree. You can get the R6 which has the same excellent AF as the R5 and shoots at 12fps and 20 fps electronic shutter. Ive never used either, but have seen enough YT to gather that they are excellent at both sports and still objects and video as well. As must don't need 8k, the R6 at $2,500 is an relatively affordable option. I use Nikon, and have a Z6ll, Z7 and the Z9. The one huge downside for me (and more importantly my wife) is the weight of the Z9. It is not a light camera, and I really am not sure why its so heavy. Id give up 8k in a second to have it be liter.

The Z9 is more likely to drive sales of the Z6 and Z7 than the R5 and R6.

Local price of Z9 has already gone up much more than 6500..far more expensive than an A1 costs.

@Mark K: where is local to you, if you don't mind?

Obviously there are different economics for different regions of the world. In the US the Z9 still retails for $5500 with no price increase on the horizon.

@Mark K: are you talking about price from an authorized Nikon dealer, or are you talking about eBay scalpers attempting to profit from its scarcity?

Price here is the same as at launch… I guess we a lucky that we do nit have scalpers as local shops.

Nikon seems to have shipped btwn 30,000 and 40,000 Z9s so far.

There are many reports recently of photographers who got their Z9 in a few weeks in various countries from various retailers.

The same cannot be said about the R3. Demand seems a lot lower and Canon seems unable to even meet that low demand. Considering the increasing gap in favour of Nikon in terms of lenses this is pretty normal really.

One correction to the OP: the A1 is in stock at least at many of the leading US online retailers. Now whether that reflects lower demand or just the fact that the production has had time to increase, or maybe a bit of both...who knows?

Maybe you should understand that what you see in the flagship is a preview of what can come in the rest of the lineup.

Not every product is designed with you in mind.

I would answer exactly the same to the questions you mention. But at the same time, of course I'm excited about the Z9! It means that future Nikon Z bodies, which might be within my budget, can benefit from a trickling down of the capabilities of this new flagship. It also means that Nikon has caught up and, in a number of areas, are leading the pack. Which makes me more confident to invest in the brand. Also, it's not just the Z9 that gives me that confidence. It's everything else as well: the 800mm f/6.3 and its incredible price tag, the collaboration with Nissin and Profoto, the licensing agreeement with Cosina, the vision/direction for the future that they recently published, etc. I think this is an excellent time to be a Nikon shooter.

Eric,
To share his thoughts in a free-to-speak forum maybe? To do that just as you do?

Regards,
Tibor

Some people do get the fuss, and answer "yes" to your list of questions. Here is some insight into the Z9 value..... before the Z system arrived, if you needed a camera with speed, you needed the $6500 D6. If you needed resolution, you needed the $3000 D850. If you needed 4k 120 or 8K or RAW video, you needed a $40,000+ RED or Arri cinema camera (and that's before requiring PL mount lenses). A few years ago it was unthinkable to get all of those in one body for less than $6000. But Nikon has done it. While not quite a specialized cinema camera, it is a D6/D850 and high end video machine wrapped into one. Its what it can do for the price that make it a big deal. In absolute terms, yes, it's expensive, but it's value is incredible. It has less compromise than any other hybrid camera at the moment.

Both those other companies have other more expensive products to protect.

The question is will they be willing to hurt the sales of those products to match the Z9.

These cameras companies leap frog each other all the time. Its been happening for 70 years. But, what Canon and Sony have to contend with is price. Right now their equivelent cameras are more expensive than the Z9. If the Z9 is currently "lead frog" AND cheaper than comparable Sony or Canon offerings, what will an a1II or mythical R1 that match or exceed Z9's abilities cost?

Michael you are very confused.
The A9 EVF was the first viewfinder on a full frame camera to have no blackout. And the EVF lag in 120FPS mode is extremely low.

@Michael Firstlight - "I was one of those DSLR owners that was critical of the MLs prior to the Z9 - which eliminates the issue entirely."

no, sony had a true blackout-free evf way back in 2017, and they had three blackout-free evf bodies on the market before the z9 was released.

sony is also the best wysiwyg platform on the market today, which is one of the biggest advantages of milc over dslr... you never need a dof preview button with sony.

Resolution numbers are not everything. There's consistency and brightness. If you try the Z9 you notice how more natural it looks because of this.

As for Micheal...he never said the Z9 was the first with blackout free EVF; only that the Z9 had this feature and that for him it was the first camera he had used that had this feature. Geesh. He was only commenting on his experience.

I give credit to Sony for bringing the stacked sensor to the FF market and with it the blackout free EVF. But now Nikon has refined the EVF experience even more and shown us that other parameters matter more than just dots of resolution.

Might be because the higher resolution on A9 was not available in many use cases instead used lower resolution, as reported here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4199515

Similar experience with A7RIV vs Z7II (when I had the Sony). The actual live stream resolution when shooting was lower than in playback mode. So the panel dot resolution is not all that counts.

One needs to think of Sony EVF's as being variable in resolution, based on certain settings and use cases. Their top line resolution is only achievable in certain circumstances.

Thank you Thoughts R Us,

Yeah, I was onto their game when I read their responses. As you point out, I never said the Z9 was the first with blackout-free EVF or that only that the Z9 had this feature. You are right; for me is first camera I've had my hands on that is blackout-free. I didn't bother to respond as I wasn't going to take the bait, but as you can see, their desperation is evident that they have to resort to such tactics - quite pitiful.

Having owned the a9II and now the Z9, the EVF experience of the Z9 is much nicer.

The a9II felt like a screen, the Z9 feels like an OVF. My former GFX100 had a 5.6 mp EVF and is also far behind the Z9.

It’s just very misleading to claim that the resolution of the EVF panel correlates well to the viewing experience.

The A9II EVF is from 2017. The Z9 EVF should be better.
How much better probably is down somewhat to personal preference. For sure some of the specs are better like magnification.

The sensor which is responsible for delivering image data to the EVF is also 5 years newer. That should also be better.

Agreed but another key aspect is the optics used in the viewfinder.

Besides I also prefer the EVF of the Z9 over that of the a1, having shot them side to side. A close friend shoots professionally with an a1.

Wait. I read on DPR that professionals don’t use Sony!
😜

PL points out something wise: that every EVF uses optics and that Nikon optics in their EVF are superb. I remember reading about this when they released their first Z models. In fact I have always felt that the Nikon's EVF's of all the Z models punched above their weight so to speak, as they looked better than some other EVF's with higher resolution.

An EVF is a complex system and it is simplistic to judge it by dots of resolution alone. That standard needs to go.

Are you suggesting the optics are so substantially different in some way that defy the specs like eye point and magnification that magically makes the Z9 EVF better than the specs suggest? Like the A1 optics aren’t sharp enough and you can’t effectively utilize all that resolution?

Is that what you’re suggesting?

You are full of it.

Please share any actual evidence that the optics are clearly superior and it impacts the view. Go ahead. I’ll wait. And no I’m not interested in a quote from your most favorite personality, Thom Hogan.

The resolution standard for EVFs was just fine until you found your two favorite brands behind Sony in resolution.

@MikeRan: LOL...you get too upset.

I know what I see and others do as well, apparently. I trust my eyes more than a simple spec.

I found the EVF of the Z7 to be superior in true experience to the A7RIV. I have found the Z9 EVF to be spectacular and better than the A1. I base this on my own experience.

Others have noted the advantages of the Z9 EVF, including some staff members on this site.

The resolution standard does not tell the whole story, as we've seen. It's a simplistic stat.

And yes, I can believe that Nikon uses better optics in their EVF than Sony. Nikon focuses more on user experience than Sony; whereas Sony sometimes just wants a headline number in the specs to tout. Sony's biggest weakness is that they don't put enough effort into the user experience; they make that secondary.

Please share some actual evidence rather than your delusional “thoughts”. You really are holding up to your “thoughts r us” name. No shortage of thoughts you imagine in your mind.

Perhaps you’re just upset your Mercedes is so far back this week after the sprint.

@MikeRan: LOL...I really don't let F1 upset me in any way. It's all a group of multimillionaires racing for race teams and brands valued in the billions. I wish Mercedes were doing better but again, I don't lose sleep over it.

There is such a thing as trusting your own judgement and experience. As for my assertions about Sony, they have a history of making interesting gear with advanced technology, but often not very user friendly, and in many cases, trying to go too small and in doing so not maximizing user comfort.

Sony's one area where they seem to get things better in terms of user experience is with their Playstation video game console. But that's a whole other division, and also of course a whole lot more is at stake for Sony.

Yep. You got nothing other than your feelings. Yet you keep professing that Nikon does EVF optics better than Sony. Because if they don’t you have no other justification.

Anyway in terms of any optical metrics we can actually measure, the Sony beats the Nikon. Only in feelings does the Nikon EVF beat the Sony.

The reality is they are both excellent EVFs. My only problem is your continual putting down of Sony with no basis other than your thoughts and feelings.

Anyway. Good luck tomorrow. Maybe Hamilton can get a point.

Maybe the optics aren’t as sharp so you can’t see the pixel definition as well

I’M KIDDING!

@photography-lover - "I honestly don’t know how Nikon achieves this, but their EVF shows very little pixelation compared to all the Sony’s and Fuji’s I had the chance to own or try."

it's because a1 is the first time that you've seen a big evf:

a1: .64" oled panel with .9x magnification
z9: .5" oled panel with .8x magnification

with a bigger panel at the same viewing distance you'll see details easier, just like you would with a bigger tv screen at home.