Official Nikon Z9 Launch, Info, and Discussion Thread

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

That was exactly my read. If He* was lossless Nikon would have said so and gotten rid of lossless compressed

Makes sense, but I could see them keeping it for application compatibility reasons.

And the literature is hard to interpret. Note the use of the word "same". Of course, we could have translation issues in either direction and disconnects between the engineers and marketing people:
Screenshot 2021-11-11 084212.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Also note 1/3 size claim is compared to the _uncompressed_ raw (see footnote).

 
Thanks. I thought the weight would have to be close given how light the 500mm is. Seeing the cost numbers you posted made me think I might be spending too much money on this expensive hobby 😬
Although the quoted weights show the a1 + 200-600 as lighter, the Sony lens weight is ex the tripod collar and lens hood. I’ve seen a figure for the Sony lens including this of 2410g. That gives a total of 3157g compared to the z9 + ftz + 500pf of 2935g, a bit less if the ftz2 is lighter than the ftz.
 
Although the quoted weights show the a1 + 200-600 as lighter, the Sony lens weight is ex the tripod collar and lens hood. I’ve seen a figure for the Sony lens including this of 2410g. That gives a total of 3157g compared to the z9 + ftz + 500pf of 2935g, a bit less if the ftz2 is lighter than the ftz.
Interesting information considering the people saying how they are happy they went with the A1 + 200-600mm because it is smaller and lighter. I'm sure it will be compared to the Z9 + Nikon 200-600mm, but it's tough to beat the 500mm PF.
 
The Sony 200-600 is an internal zoom, not small.
I saw a size comparison photo between the 500mm PF and 200-600mm in an older thread on this forum and it is certainly larger than I could pack on some trips. Everyone says it is lightweight for its size and I know the Z9 is heavy for its size which is why I was curious, especially with some posters saying the Nikon setup is too heavy. For me, I think the Z9 + Z7ii will end up being a very good two camera setup. I will order the Nikon 200-600 when it comes out to use when I can bring along the extra size (assuming it is comparative to the Sony) and the 500mm PF when I need the smaller camera. I'm very curious of the 800mm PF that appeared on the latest roadmap. We all have different needs/wants, so its good to have choices.
 
Agreed,
My personal opinion is that the 200-600 is not much worse for me to carry than my D850,500PF but larger overall and probably a little heavier. A great imho
I have shared this photo before but he it is again. W/hoods- Nikon 200-500, Tamron 150-600, 500pf and Sony 200-600
View attachment 27338
Thanks for sharing that photo. It helps put size in perspective. Do you mainly handhold the 200-600 or do you shoot from a tripod? With the 200-500mm I find I can hold it up fine, but after some time it gets heavy. No issue with the PF. For me, I frequently need to pack small more so than light so physical size is important to me. That is one of the reasons I’d struggle to justify an big prime, the amount of use I could get out of it for the price isn’t there. The price of the Sony 200-600mm is within reason so hoping the Nikon is in that ballpark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hut
Thanks for sharing that photo. It helps put size in perspective. Do you mainly handhold the 200-600 or do you shoot from a tripod? With the 200-500mm I find I can hold it up fine, but after some time it gets heavy. No issue with the PF. For me, I frequently need to pack small more so than light so physical size is important to me. That is one of the reasons I’d struggle to justify an big prime, the amount of use I could get out of it for the price isn’t there. The price of the Sony 200-600mm is within reason so hoping the Nikon is in that ballpark.

Size and weight are really not an issue with the 200-600 + A1 compared to a D850+500pf, what takes time to adjust to is the weight balance. The Sony combo is a lot more front heavy which requires a different holding stance.
 
TFS. In terms of the noise performance I don't see a big difference between Z7 II vs Z9. What I can see is how the color tones are slightly different between the two. Z7 slides towards a slightly magenta tone vs greenish tone on the Z9. Any thoughts? Matt says the color tones are better in the Z9 but I just feel they're just different tones but not so much about which one's better?

Z9 vs Z7ii vs Z6ii - High ISO & Banding Tests


 
TFS. In terms of the noise performance I don't see a big difference between Z7 II vs Z9. What I can see is how the color tones are slightly different between the two. Z7 slides towards a slightly magenta tone vs greenish tone on the Z9. Any thoughts? Matt says the color tones are better in the Z9 but I just feel they're just different tones but not so much about which one's better?

There's a stand alone thread for this.

But basically I think he's comparing an image with a high dynamic range to an image with low dynamic range, so I don't think you can really tell much of anything from his test. You really want to run this test with a very controlled static image and even then you have issues such as different cameras performing differently at different ISOs.
 
Size and weight are really not an issue with the 200-600 + A1 compared to a D850+500pf, what takes time to adjust to is the weight balance. The Sony combo is a lot more front heavy which requires a different holding stance.
For me, the size of the 200-500mm was already too large to be able to take on some trips so the size of the 200-600mm would be too. It all depends on how big of a camera bag I can take and what other items I’d need to bring. Since COVID, I’ve been mainly traveling by car so not as big of a deal for now but something I need to consider if/when things return to more normal.
 
TFS. In terms of the noise performance I don't see a big difference between Z7 II vs Z9. What I can see is how the color tones are slightly different between the two. Z7 slides towards a slightly magenta tone vs greenish tone on the Z9. Any thoughts? Matt says the color tones are better in the Z9 but I just feel they're just different tones but not so much about which one's better?

I'm not convinced that the LR processing of the various images is similar. The Z9 was showing clear color noise, which (I know) LR automatically clears for Z6 II. I suspect that LR doesn't yet know Z 9, at least not fully, and as such the processing done for it is much less than what it does for the Z6/Z7.

A proper test would be to look at the in-camera JPEG with exactly same picture controls, as flat as possible, and with zero noise reduction. Or wait until LR has native support for Z9.
 
You are quite correct; one of the problems being that we see far more absolute statements online than are warranted, and when somebody tries to not make an absolute statement and attempts to brings nuance, many try to read it as absolute. Which leads to a lot of incivility that would far less frequently happen if we were all sitting around a camp fire sipping beer, whiskey or wine. We‘d be actually commenting on each other’s pictures, not the cameras that took them.

But, be as it may, my experience with the z7ii placed it more on equal footing with my D750 for AF performance and keeper rate and far behind my D850 and D500. It did great on big slow BIF and fell apart as soon as I had small, fast birds and / or complex backgrounds. I am an omnivore when it comes to photography, so that wasn’t good enough for me.
When the rumors firmed up on the z9, I decided against it for the same reasons as you, size weight plus the fact that Nikon Is going deeper into the customizable function buttons on the front and I just don’t like that, it doesn’t work for me.

And here we go, switched to a Sony, against my better judgement and loving it. The A1 is not perfect, far from it, but it is incredibly better than the D500/850 or the Z7ii in about every way (I still think the sensor in the Z7ii has better image quality at lower isos). Most surprising to me is that despite its inherent complexity, it’s made concentrating on the image easier. When you know that the camera will not fail you 98% of the time, you just let it do it’s thing. People switching to the Z9 will experience the same or even better, and I sure hope a Z8 comes shortly as well.

my last comment is that unlike you, for me Nikon ergonomics is the one thing I had to “put up with” over the last 7 years I shot nikon. It was worth it because of all the other benefits (sensors and pf lenses) but I never liked it. Maybe because I shot canon for 25 years.., crazy as it sounds, the ergonomics of the new Sony bodies (A1, A7s3 and now A7iv) work for me. I just wish they had pf lenses too :)
Different folks…different strokes…and I hear you. But a $6500 body better be better than a $3500 one…so comparing the two is sort of an lemons to leeks thing…they’re not price for or aimed at the same market. Nikon…of course…was late to the mirrorless game and the 2nd generation Zs are just that…second gen where Sony is on gen 4 or 5…so it makes sense that they’re ahead. It is also true that switching systems ain’t cheap…we see some of the Sony folk saying they spent only $8K or whatever on an a1 and 200-600…but unless one is willing to live with 2 different menu and focusing systems then it’s a whole system switch…and that means multiple lenses and probably bodies plus batteries, L brackets and all the other system specific stuff.

None of that makes the Sony…or Nikon or Canon line bad or good…as I’ve noted before everybody has different needs and as Steve’s 80/4 rule states…the person matters a lot more than the equipment. Sony is a fine brand…but I’m not interested in either a body the size/weight of the Z9 or a body that costs that much…so I’m happy to wait on a firmware update for the Z7II and a III model or whatever they call the 45MP $3500 body…if that doesn’t come then I would rent whatever Sony or Canon body is in that price range…and based on that might change…but it would be a system change for me, not a second limited parts system.

As for system ergonomics and menus…most people re biased toward what they’re familiar with…so I’m not surprised that a long time Canon user might not really appreciate the Nikon ergonomics…but I would have thought that 7 years would have trained you but maybe 25 years of training won.
 
The camera you want will eventually come along as the technology trickles down.
Your first paragraph got me thinking. How does Nikon make a profit off the Z9? It doesn't seem possible given the expected low low production we have seen mentioned here. Imagine the R&D, tooling, manufacturing, and everything else it took to get it into someone's hands. /random thought
Not the entire answer, for sure, but I would imagine manufacturing costs per unit are lower if you do not need a mirror mechanism (same as A1) and shutter mechanism (different than A1). Both are complex, precise and I expect expensive.
 
I am just a blue collar guy and I wasn't trying to break it down but I do agree, that would probably save some costs. It still kinda blows my mind. Someone else mentioned it is all about future glass sales. Could be I don't know but I do know that costs these days are crippling.
I suspect that part of the answer may also be that Nikon was willing to take less per unit. Being behind in mirrorless, especially at the highest end, they may have felt the need to do something dramatic to spur sales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hut
Back
Top