DPReview TV: Best entry-level full frame mirrorless – Nikon Z5 vs. Canon EOS RP

Uhm, this is quite wrong. The "previous" generation of FF sensors provide 99% the IQ of the "current" generation. The improvement in the newest sensors comes from the faster read-out speed which allows for better AF and video features.

DrewRick no you are incorrect saying you need to stopdown FF lenses for IQ.. 1 if you on APS-c need the DOF that F2.8 will give you, on FF you will be on F4 for the same DOF meaning the lens will be sharper
2 if you go on any test website like DXO or any site that use Imatast to measure lens sharpness you will clearly see the same lens on FF evan with the same MP will get a better score than when that same lens is on APS-c therefore resolving more detail
also the most notable metric for determining IQ is ISO..as photographer the biggest thing to lose IQ is low light... APS-c sensor today have only recently matched or just exceeded so you wouldn't notice a Canon 5Dmki from 2005

Z system doesn't have any affordable lenses though. (Except the super boring 24-50 kit zoom). I have to think that people shopping for entry level FF are going to want well-priced lenses to go with it.

It is new to me that there would be a canonical pronunciation everyone could agree upon. I've heard different Japanese speakers using different versions... (That said, and I might be wrong, but my impression is that neye-kon seems to be particularly popular only in English speaking countries.)

What rot!

None of your sarcasm does anything to change the fact that the Z5 is the best mirrorless full frame camera for the money by miles.

The Z5 has a 2 stop dynamic range advantage at base ISO (100), a 1 stop advantage at ISO 400, and little or no advantage above ISO 1200. Still, 2 stops at base and 1 stop at ISO 400 is nothing to sneeze at. It can make a big difference with backlit subjects, etc.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

@ T.L. Rutter. I am guessing you meant to say RP? The hit on the RP at low ISO is shadow recovery with RAWs. It is almost 3 stops short of an R5 at ISO 100, so you will get 3 stops of shadow recovery rather than 6 stops. If you are shooting JPEGs, you will never see the difference. All "not that great" means is that you need to be just a tiny bit careful with lighting, and maybe, just maybe you might have to shoot a bracket once in a while.

Couldn't the Z50 also adapt and use all the Nikon DX glass? That would all be modern AF capable and work as native.

Deliverator: Who would want to buy large, expensive Z-FX glass to use on a Z-DX body? I'm sure some people who own Z-FX bodies will use the option, but most of the people getting APSC cameras aren't going to want to spend $850 on a 35mm lens.

The Z50 is competing against mounts with inexpensive and convenient APSC lenses like EF-M and E. Look at the excellent F1.4 Sigma lenses that are available for other mounts and how convenient they make APSC systems.

Sure you can jump through hoops by adapting DSLR glass or overpaying for FX lenses, but there's no reason to do so when the Z50 is so mediocre compared to competitors from Fuji, Canon, and Sony. It has literally nothing going for it unless you're sitting on a pile on Nikon glass already.

I agree about the future look out. I shot Sony FE since five years back when there were no other fullframe systems around. If I would swap to another system now it would be to Canon, which is sad since I used Nikon for 22 years in the mirrorflopping age. Though neither the R or the RP are interesting in my eyes. So that statement is based on using the R5/6. If I had to choose between going Canon with a RP or Nikon with the Z5 I'd pick the Nikon any day.

@Jonathan F/2

There are quite many manual focus lenses already for Z that originally was developed for Sony E-mount (see Laowa for instance).

3d party makers needs to make their lenses compatible to as many systems as possible (= their business model: high volumes - low prices) which makes the optical restrictions they need to live up to is the shortest flange-sensor distance which is Z (16 mm) since you can always add on a little tube up to Canons 20 mm, & the most narrow diameter which is E, since you can always add on a little material at the mount for the systems with larger such.

Even though very few offer lenses for Z & R (there is a Samyang 85/1.4 for R) they most likely already now construct all new lenses optically to also work on L, Z & R mounts as well so if they want to enter into those markets their current constructions will work.

Why they haven't gone into those mounts is a matter of cost vs income & the amount of FF Z, R & L bodys out there are still rather low.

The Nikon Canada site lists 16 lenses.

Nikon Sweden has a picture on their site which mixes both current and future all in one, but it seems to say 14 current FF Z lenses.
(+ two APS-C lenses and two tele converters).
The largest price runner type of site we have here lists the availability as rather low among the vendors. Especially the 70-200/2.8 (only few has it) and the 14-24/2.8 (none has it).

The Nikon Canada site lists these lenses, all of which are available, if in limited supply, for a total of 16 lenses:
50/1.2 S
14-24/2.8 S
24-50/4-6.3
20/1.8 S
24-200/4-6.3
70-200/2.8
58/0.95 Noct
16-50/3.5-6.3 DX
50-250/4.5-6.3 DX
24/1.8 S
85/1.8 S
24-70/2.8 S
14-30/4 S
24-70/4 S
35/1.8 S
50/1.8 S

For most general and professional photography outside of needing extra long telephoto, macro, or tilt/shift lenses, you'd be hard pressed to find a lens you need that's not on that list.

also EOS R maybe can be good budget choice if you want to adapt EF lenses (you just need to be aware of worse low-light capabilities), but still there's not a single one really good and really budget option at the same time. z5 is not so bad considering it's price and good sensor but still it's can't be called best budget option due to lack of proper af system. there's no good budget options right now. just deal with it

mzx you just summarized why many people are staying away from entry-level FF because as soon as you want contemporary features and performance, you are paying at least $2.5k. Meanwhile I have all these features available to me, more subject separation and dynamic range than I'll ever need, and have never paid more than $500 for a body. Maybe a few years from now one of the mid-range FF mirrorless will drop to that level in the used market - of course it won't be contemporary anymore but maybe then we'll still think it's good enough. Depends on the pace of technological progress.

@ IsaacG1975

The user mzx was asking for low cost alternatives. In my answer I replied that such are available in the Sony system. If they are good enough is up to each and everyone to decide, there are plenty of tests out there.
Also there are off course alternatives on the high end side as well. For other prices obviously. See the link with the complete E-mount FF lens list I posted for more information about what is available.
If you have similar compiled information about what is available in L, R and Z mounts please post those lists here so we can compare. Thanks!

it's dozens of reviews on youtube, you can go and watch for yourself, every review i watched said that AF is slightly improved, considering the fact that on original z6 it was far behind competition - minor improvments can't change a game a lot, also considering superior a7m3 AF, which is still unbeatable, even by more expensive cameras like r6

"on original z6 it was far behind competition"

Wrong. After FW 3.0 the AF became really good. Original Z6 isn't much behind any more. Actually the main problem was the UI of AF modes, not the tracking capability. Nikon fixed the UI greatly also.

still not a single one face-to-face comparison on internet so we could only guess did Nikon caught up or not

You count it in %. Otherwise it's completely stupid..
and it's not 300 vs 600, it's 300 vs 500

For some people that might be true. " Not some but most. At best perhaps 5% actually can claim to be a photographer where you can control the results of an image when you take it. A 20 axis IS will not help most nor will a majority of the newest features. Its like having every option available on a car. Sure you may feel better having them but it wont get you to your destination any better than an older or stripped down model. There's little if any emphasis on developing real skills but rather being able to cite mostly insignificant specs. Along with developing skills what most people lack is visual recognition. That is knowing what a good image looks like and why most who post lousy images simply do not realize they are bad. In that regard it's why they only focus on specifications. Much easier to keep buying than to learn how to use them.

This video is absolutely relevant to someone on a budget looking to put their money into a new FF mirrorless camera TODAY.

@Quiverbow.
You confirmed my post. If you don't know what a lousy image looks like you will never know how to take a good one. Furthermore you'll never benefit from any camera.

2nd Wind

As long as I like the photos I take, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about them. I take photographs for my own enjoyment. I have no interest in looking at anyone else's photos unless it's to do with me.

HJVN

Who do you take photos for? Yourself or others? Don't concern yourself with what others think, only what pleases you.

I don't get it, the K-1 and D1 are the same weight, probably similar build quality too.

It seems like if your last/current camera is an X-H1, then has Nikon got something for you..

(I'm an X-H1 owner)

When I had Canon APSC I had the 24-105L as one of my lenses... also an EF 70-300, luckily they both just went right on my 5D2 when that arrived... plus with no non-working features like some of the various Nikon options give you on the Zs... (Not that Nikon doesn't make some great lenses.)

Plus DX/APS lenses on a FX/FF body have assorted image-circle limitation, so owning APS lenses for either format really isn't a plus when you go FF.

The Canon FF lenses all work on their APS bodies (or mirrorless with the adaptor). The Nikon FF lenses work on some DX and some Z cameras with the adaptor, as while EF is one standard F is a bunch of them, some needing focus motors, etc.

Also the bodies alone still have a $300 price difference, and that really matters to some people. The Z5 is better, but you pay for that so have to decide if it's worth it. You can pay a little more and have something better still... it's called marketing...

There is also the Z5 + 24-200 kit for about $2200. By all accounts it's a very good lens for a superzoom, and it gives a lot more reach with a far better body for only ~$200 more.Nikon is coming out with a 24-105 f/4 S next year, according to their roadmap.

Your reply just makes me want to order Pizza...

The RF 24-105 is excellent BTW, the DPReview TV gallery is well worth a look.

My view is currently the cameras aren't that direct competition as people buying at the low end of the market really do care about the cost, plus there are other options (although the old Sony camera probably shouldn't be high on the list). It will be interesting to see where Z6 pricing goes.

I'd just end up driving the car into a pool and getting there a minute late.

I'm looking forward to the Nikon 24-105/4 S. If it's as good as the other S lenses have been, it will be time to pull the trigger on a Z kit including it.

Yeah, I recommend RP for still, great price for performance especially after price cut

In video it's fail to impress, but 1000 full frame is 1000, beggars can't be Choosey

Lab photo and realworld is different, that's what i realize before my purchase, probably due to lens performance? Idk, since RF lenses are great performer so probably canon is cheating here as to test rp people stuck with high performing lenses in real world usage

Nah man, xT3 start sucking donkey balls at iso 3200, while RP start sucking at 6400, dr yes rp is behind, when exposed properly RP is clearly ahead

Also, despite using bigger sensor, RP is a bit smaller than xt3, but the grip protrude further

Lens? well, it's fullframe afterall, can't defy physics

You can expose "properly" all you want, once you have to push the shadows in an image, you need DR. The SNR argument is irrelevant; the visual impact of the image matters in real life (noise-per-image-height), not some per-pixel measurement.

SNR is not intrinsically more per-pixel than DR is, you can normalize both of them. On DxOMark, “screen SNR” is per-pixel, while “print SNR” is normalized to 8 MP. The “landscape DR” that they report is normalized to 8 MP as well.

The fact that you think that suggests that you missed the reason for the distinction. It definitely still applies.

Assume two cameras, A and B, with the same resolution so that normalizing or not doesn’t change anything.

If camera A saturates at 3k electrons per pixel, and has 3 electrons of read noise, that’s an engineering dynamic range of 1000, i.e. 60 dB or approximately 10 stops.

If camera B saturates at 30k electrons per pixel and has 30 electrons of read noise, it has an engineering DR of 1000 as well.

And yet, at, say, 50% of saturation (1500 electrons for camera A, 15000 for camera B), camera A will have an SNR of 1500 / sqrt(3² + 1500) ≃ 32 dB, while camera B will have an SNR of 15000 / sqrt(30² + 15000) ≃ 41.5 dB.

Same dynamic range (normalized or not), different SNRs (idem), because of the different relative contributions of photon shot noise.

The RP has high read noise at base ISO, limiting its DR, but it also has a high saturation capacity.

In fact, in case you hadn’t noticed, the RP does have the exact same definition as the X-T3 and 4, so I couldn’t possibly have been counting on a distinction between normalized and unnormalized metrics.

To illustrate, here are the SNR curves of our hypothetical cameras A (green) and B (red): https://i.imgur.com/FTiujES.png

Abscissa: stops to saturation
Ordinate: SNR in dB

Relative to their respective saturation levels, the two are limited by the same signal-to-read-noise curve (which shows us the 60 dB dynamic range at x=0), yet camera B has better SNR throughout because it has a better signal-to-photon-noise ratio.

Bottom line: DR and SNR are less correlated than you think. DR does not paint the entire picture.

My goodness, look at image captured in practice man
RP clearly have more details and holding up at iso 3200

https://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/fujifilm/x-t3/vs/canon/eos-rp/image-quality

spider-mario Why does the signal occur in the denominator of your signal-to-noise calculation? It should be the standard deviation, and that isn't calculated the way you demonstrate.

Alam12 They look pretty identical to me, as expected because the RP sensor is one stop behind technologically. In the selection of details you shared as well as the DPR scene comparison.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosrp&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt3&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&normalization=full&widget=13&x=0.875874607459644&y=0.24566164980672744

Drew, you need to check your eyes to hospital man

There's no need to compare with chart or whatever, RP clearly yield more detail and hold up at high iso

If your argument is against other ff in the market, then it's true, but against the best apsc sensor in the market it's still ahead

@Alam12. Usually those comparisons use ACR for converting the RAWs. Use C1 and you will get similar results.

I used a more common sense definition of (usable) signal to (acceptable) noise which correlates closely with dynamic range, which is equal between the Canon RP sensor and the Sony derived APS-C sensor.
So while SNR per well can be measured compared to full well depth (were cameras do not operate due to nonlinear saturation behavior), "SNR basically expresses that ability to see contrast details in bright parts of the image, DNR indicates the total contrast resolution of the sensor (from dark to white)....
Dynamic range provides a much more useful indication (compared to SNR) regarding the ability of the camera to provide the desired image details."
https://www.adimec.com/read-noise-versus-shot-noise-what-is-the-difference-and-when-does-it-matter/

Incidentally, shot noise relates to electrons, so efficiency of photon conversion also plays a role. Not sure which of the many physical effects holds the RP sensor back but the result is clear to everyone who observes results with an unbiased perspective.

“I used a more common sense definition of (usable) signal to (acceptable) noise which correlates closely with dynamic range, which is equal between the Canon RP sensor and the Sony derived APS-C sensor.”

And what definition is that? It sounds like photographic dynamic range (which uses an *SNR* criterion for its lower bond). Independently of its usefulness, that’s unlikely to be what anyone means by “SNR”. SNR is the ratio of the signal to the noise *at that signal level*. It’s not a useful discussion if I say “SNR is not the same as dynamic range” and you say “it is, because I assumed that by ‘SNR’, you meant ‘PDR’.” How common-sensy is that?

“Dynamic range provides a much more useful indication (compared to SNR) regarding the ability of the camera to provide the desired image details.”

Why would it be “much more useful”? It may be more useful for high dynamic range scenes, but it’s much less useful for narrow dynamic range scenes. As I said, different metrics.

One metric which is manifestly useful for everyday photography, the other - isn't. As for why, I recommend you read the article I linked.

I did, it doesn’t explain it. The bit about the higher “contrast detecting resolution of the camera” is a non sequitur.

(And their formula for SNR is wrong, which doesn’t inspire confidence either.)

In Russia prices are surprisingly similar and Z5 is kit-only purchace. So depends, I guess.

I agree actually, recently I bought an A7II just because of excellent lens selection of the E-mount. I like Z5 much more btw, but A7II is a good camera for my amateur photography, no regrets.

@Slideshow Bob 6400ISO is your regular shooting mode? For me DR of the normal ISO is more important.
Look at the chart, the DR levels of RP is even worse than some modern APS-C cameras on normal ISOs (100-600 ISO). It's very weak result for a modern FF.
https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20RP,Sony%20ILCE-7M2

Also for landscape photography (which is important for me) the A7II sensor is better as well.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-RP-versus-Sony-A7-II___1302_996

FF Camera from 2014 is better than 2019 camera. Ridiculous.

Apparently you fanboys are just too silly to just look at the link I posted earlier, or notice that I said "In terms of noise". Oh well.

"The Z6, Z6II, A7III, S1, S1H, S5, fp all have the same second generation 24M Sony BSI (back-side illuminated) sensors."

If I recall correctly, the reviews here on DPR specifically mention that the Panasonics do not have BSI sensors, unlike the Sony and Nikon models.

@merkator, unless you're shooting a static scene in low light, IBIS isn't going to do you much good, because more often than not, it's subject motion that you want to freeze. To do that, you need faster shutter speeds, which requires higher ISO.

For a given megapixel count (and generation of sensors), FF produces less noise than a smaller sensor. Usually by about 1 stop. It's just physics. The photosites are bigger, and capture more light. It's one of the main reasons people buy FF. The A7II was a FF camera that had 1 stop WORSE noise than it's FF peers, which really made it perform more like a very expensive APS-C camera.

You can buy an APS-C camera right now for much less than the current price of an A7II, that has better noise performance. Every other FF camera released in the past decade has better noise performance than current APS-C cameras.

Of all of the FF cameras that an APS-C shooter might "upgrade" to, the A7II is by far the least compelling, IMHO.

@Niko Vita: "From what you said I gather that A7II was deliberately omitted by Chris and Jordan although it is in the same price range as RP and Z5. Too bad for Sony, unfortunately" – I concede that my original reply was no reasonable argument against including the Sony into the comparison, as long as it is still manufactured and sold. I also concede that the camera's having some severe disadvantages doesn't justify leaving it out of the comparison, either. After all, depending on their personal preferences, someone may not even find those disadvantages to be critical. That said, the A7 II's omission might have been good for Sony rather than bad, as the outcome couldn't have been favourable.

@Hubertus Bigend, "I fear your assumption is wrong more often than not."
How so? There isn't really an assumption in that quote.

@Hubertus Bigend,

"From what I'm seeing, in the (vast) majority of photographs being shot there is no subject motion to speak of that someone would want or need to freeze."
Right, so that would be a static scene. I said "low light" earlier, because you don't need stabilisation in great light. That would be a base ISO situation (I think I'm sensing a theme here!).

"The other assumption was that "IBIS isn't going to do you much good" outside of "static scenes", which is wrong, too. IBIS can, for example, be used to intentionally blur subject motion, like water, while keeping everything else sharp without having to resort to a tripod."
Right. This would also be a base ISO situation. It's like you can't see any use for higher ISO. But do you really think people shoot more photos of blurred water than they do of moving things (kids, wildlife, cars, bikes, planes, trains etc...)?

Definitely sensing a theme here. Sony A7II is not good at higher ISO, so we mustn't talk about higher ISOs!

Why shouldn't we talk about the A7 II's higher ISOs? It really made me laugh when I just had bought mine and I found that its high ISO noise is hardly better than that of my Olympus E-M1 II.

Still, what you said was wrong for the reasons I gave, and what you're saying now I didn't even comment on. But you're adding more points on which you're in error: "you don't need stabilisation in great light" – yes you do, sometimes you need stabilisation even in decent or good light, with very long focal lengths.

Why wouldn't I see use for higher ISO? That's what the "static scene in low light" you were talking about already called for. IBIS now can extend the limit of how low the light can get even more, or increase image quality by needing less ISO.

"But do you really think people shoot more photos of blurred water than they do of moving things?" I never claimed they would. I just showed that the assumption that "IBIS isn't going to do you much good" outside of "static scenes" is wrong.

"Why shouldn't we talk about the A7 II's higher ISOs? It really made me laugh when I just had bought mine and I found that its high ISO noise is hardly better than that of my Olympus E-M1 II."

And yet all you'll give examples of is situations where BASE ISO is applicable. You see, when it comes to BASE ISO, it's a foregone conclusion that you don't need a fast shutter speed. And that's fine. But Merkator said that you don't need to use such high ISO's BECAUSE the A7II has IBIS.

In other words, why use a faster shutter speed when you've got IBIS?

The answer is simple. A faster shutter speed freezes all motion in the shot, and IS doesn't.

So my response to Merkator was simply that, while IS might help in some scenarios, a faster shutter speed will help in far more (hence the "more often than not" comment).

And then you said that I'm wrong, and tried to prove it by only mentioning base ISO relevant situations, in which either nothing moves, or you actually want motion blur!

Wrong again all over, because I never said *you* were wrong. I said some of what you said was wrong, and I pointed out what, and why.

Everyone knows IBIS is most applicable for fairly static subjects in low light. Never was a doubt about it.

I'd still say, though, that for most people the scenarios which would need both high ISO and fast shutter speeds are rather the exception than the rule, no matter how much more such situations are imaginable than those which profit from IBIS. If that's what "more often than not" was to be meant, it wouldn't have been literally wrong, but intentionally misleading.

I think the thing that you're missing is that this started with the comment from Merkator that implied that when you're USING HIGH ISO, IBIS would allow you to use a lower ISO (and slower shutter speed) on an A7II to get a better result than better performing cameras which lack IBIS (maybe he's never heard of stabilised lenses!).

My issue with Merkators comments is that if I'm already using high ISO, "more often than not" it's because I need faster shutter speed to freeze motion. If I didn't need a faster shutter speed, I'd already be using lower ISO (and in low light I'd be using stabilisation, or preferably a tripod).

You're quoting me out of context. When I said that "unless you're shooting a static scene in low light, IBIS isn't going to do you much good", it was directly in response to Merkator suggesting that IBIS would allow you to use a lower ISO, which simply isn't the case If the subject is moving.

The point being, if I'm using high ISO, I'm doing so because I need to freeze motion. Slowing the shutter speed and dropping the ISO by a stop on an A7II to compensate for it's bad high ISO performance really isn't any kind of answer, because in the end It's either a stop slower, or a stop noisier.

You yourself said that the A7II's high ISO performance was barely better than your E-M1II. Don't you think it should be?

I just don't think the A7II is a good introduction to FF for either a beginner or someone looking to move up from APS-C.

Yes, I'm quoting you out of context. Because my opposition is not about the context. My opposition is against some aspects of your reasoning. The context is undisputed. The A7 II's high ISO limitations are undisputed. In fact, I was one of the first posters who mentioned them in this same thread very clearly (https://www.dpreview.com/videos/8258341177/dpreview-tv-best-entry-level-full-frame-mirrorless-nikon-z5-vs-canon-eos-rp?comment=1183384029). I only added somewhat later that they were no reason to exclude the camera from the comparison, even if the result wouldn't have been to Sony's liking.

That said, from some of your reasoning it became more and more clear what I suspected right from the beginning, that your grasp of what IBIS and what stabilization is and what it can do is severely distorted. [cont'd]

[cont'd]

If *I'm* using high ISO, I might be doing so because I need to freeze motion, but most of the time I'm doing so because I want to reduce camera shake in hand-held shots. Most of the time I use stabilisation to get along with less ISO than what I would have had to use without stabilisation, and thereby to reduce noise to what is absolutely unavoidable. Most of the time, my subjects either aren't moving, or I agree to the moving elements in the scene becoming blurred, as long as the static parts of the scene are sharp. And I think this is what's happening more often than needing to freeze subjects. If you're an exception to that rule, if moving subjects make up most of what you shoot, that's fine and stabilisation may be of little value to you personally, but that's not necessarily how it is for everyone else.

Again, I'm opposing your reasoning there, not your view of the A7 II. Even the A7 II's IBIS as such isn't really good. Still, it is better than not having it at all.

I'm not going to dispute your reasoning for doing things however you choose to do them. But I will state that I don't do things the way you do them at all. That's fine, we should be able to agree to disagree.

I have fairly a stable handholding technique. I don't use the highest megapixel cameras, but I shoot landscapes with a 36mp D800. At 40mm (Sigma 40mm Art), I'd be down to about 1/30sec before I started worrying about stabilisation, and I don't ever go that slow in good light.

So the question becomes...

At 40mm, with a moving subject, is 1/30sec fast enough to freeze the subject motion of the kind of things I shoot?

...and the answer is simply NO. IS is not going to do anything at all for me, because the required shutter speed is above what I can confidently handhold. I don't need "more stable", I need "faster".

At longer focal lengths, it becomes more complicated. I can do 1/120sec pretty well at 300mm, so do I need IS to shoot the things that I shoot at 300mm? [cont'd]

Not really. Different specs. Different user requirements.

Swerky - No. No. Both cameras are equally user-friendly for novices, so they are comparable for that reason, as well as being the 2 cheapest FF models from their respective manufacturers.

But the Z5 is far superior in capabilities, so a much better long term choice.

@entoman in that case the Z6 and Z7 are just as user friendly as the Z5 since they share almost the same body layout and menus. It’s just a fact that the Nikon isn’t an entry level camera like the Canon. If both options are the cheapest in their respective lineup, that doesn’t mean they’re both entry level. I guess a user might look at those two as cheaper options to choose from. I give you that. Since yesterday the RP with 24-105 stm kit lens retail for 999$. This differentiates the RP even more from the Z5. The Z5 and 24-50 kit is still for about 1600$.

Personally I am hoping for a decent full featured APS-C "R90". There must be a vast number of enthusiastic xxxD, xxD, and 7D users out there with EF-S glass who would love to upgrade their body, but have so far been forgotten in Canon's push to sell increasingly overpriced (i.e. totally out of reach) FF bodies and R lenses.

Z5 is over £300 more than the RP in the UK - choice then is Z5 or RP with 24-105. For a new customer it’s an interesting choice......😊

@entoman
For a newbie? Surely not very interested in twin card slots, IBIS, marginal difference in peripherals, but with the Canon gets a very useful lens.......

@hubblefunk
Where exactly in Europe is this price difference you mention ❓❓
Here in Portugal the price difference is €550.........VERY keen to hear your answer 🤔

Difference at Rhino camera in Germany is €410!!!
Where exactly IS this mystical Nikon wonderland of value that you live in❓❓❓❓❓❓

@Kandid Ireland. it's not so much that Nikon is cheap but rather Canon is expensive... same goes for the EOS R.

@entoman
Well - wishful thinking imho. The RP is fully capable as a camera and would provide an excellent backup as the newbie progresses.....
Btw did you take the tiger photo next to your name in the wild? If so pretty damn good - if captive still rather nice 👍

@hubblefunk
Fair enough and apologies for the earlier tone. Worth mentioning however that in Ireland the RP with the 24-105 lens attached is only a bit more than the body plus adapter and is thus the same price as the Z5 body - only so the consumer is still presented with the same choice as in most markets....

Kandid - RP is certainly a nice little camera, and a *usable* backup, but my advice to any newbie would be to get the most capable model they can afford (provided that it is novice-friendly, which both RP and Z5 are).

I've been through the progression cycle of newbie > enthusiast several times with various hobbies and occupations, and I've invariably found that if I buy the simplest device first, I always regret it and wish I'd gone straight to a slightly higher-end model.

The A7C is new.

And significantly more expensive.

And limited in its control layout.

And if the DPR sample pics at higher ISO are any indication.. the RP is better in low light and also $700 cheaper for the body. The Nikon Z5 is.. well, it's just a better camera for still $200 cheaper.

I wouldn't call Nikon a titan in the mirrorless market.
in fact they might now even be on par or lower than Sony for overall market share too.

The entry-level segment in nowadays are the guys between nouveau riche and brand's saddle-backs with over fed egos, some of them even making a life out of it. Real pros and real enthusiasts have nothing to do with them and in the case an "entry level camera" is found in their gear, this cam lies there for a very special reason based upon totally different criteria.