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).

Member's gallery
This was screened live last week video library
Nikon Days: Benefits of the Z 9 | What makes it a Nikon flagship camera?
He covers less obvious customization features
Nikon have packed a lot under the hood of this camera, which will take much time to explore and try out etc. I'm looking forward to this!
you may have to register with Nikon Europe to view (in video library).

[ADDITION after watching the end part again] I stand to be corrected, but in the concluding remarks about Video, after here, he describes how 33mp RAW stills [7680 x 4320] can be retrieved from footage taken @24,26 and 30 fps. Effectively, this can be leveraged as continuous mRAW shooting yielding stiils & video. What is basically 8.2mp sRAW can be captured as higher speeds (60, 100, 120fps @3840 x 2160).
Again he repeats future firmware will expand features, notably for Z9 video

 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
Seeing the cost numbers you posted made me think I might be spending too much money on this expensive hobby 😬
Click to expand...
You and me both. I am often shocked when I see what hobbyists are spending on camera gear. Recently I was trying to get a feel what my wife's reaction would be to a$5k lens. She didn't bat an eye. We started comparing costs of other hobbies and found that photography costs are not really that outrageous. Her brother pays $20k for an annual golf membership. My brothers' hobby is fishing and the boat he bought is well over $25k. Neither of them spend more time in their respective hobbies as I do with photography. So...

After this discussion the prospect of purchasing a Sony A1 or (most likely a) Nikon z9 did not seem that farfetched. Haven't pulled the trigger yet but if not this year then next.
 
Member's gallery
la551ve3 said:
You and me both. I am often shocked when I see what hobbyists are spending on camera gear. Recently I was trying to get a feel what my wife's reaction would be to a$5k lens. She didn't bat an eye. We started comparing costs of other hobbies and found that photography costs are not really that outrageous. Her brother pays $20k for an annual golf membership. My brothers' hobby is fishing and the boat he bought is well over $25k. Neither of them spend more time in their respective hobbies as I do with photography. So...

After this discussion the prospect of purchasing a Sony A1 or (most likely a) Nikon z9 did not seem that farfetched. Haven't pulled the trigger yet but if not this year then next.
Click to expand...

We won’t talk about my wife’s horse hobby.
 
Member's gallery
la551ve3 said:
You and me both. I am often shocked when I see what hobbyists are spending on camera gear. Recently I was trying to get a feel what my wife's reaction would be to a$5k lens. She didn't bat an eye. We started comparing costs of other hobbies and found that photography costs are not really that outrageous. Her brother pays $20k for an annual golf membership. My brothers' hobby is fishing and the boat he bought is well over $25k. Neither of them spend more time in their respective hobbies as I do with photography. So...

After this discussion the prospect of purchasing a Sony A1 or (most likely a) Nikon z9 did not seem that farfetched. Haven't pulled the trigger yet but if not this year then next.
Click to expand...
If photography was my only expensive hobby 🤣. That does help put it in perspective though. I pay $2400 each year just for storage of an RV that only uses that storage for less than half the year but yet complain when looking at the cost of the new 100-400mm. I could always sell my jet ski to pay for the Z9, lol.
 
Member's gallery
zule11 said:
Nikon Z9 Raw Formats Compared - Matt Granger
Click to expand...

I'm watching now, but I don't think his approach is going to be very helpful to me. I would have really preferred some very controlled and static test scene then with a careful examination of pushed shadows, etc.

I suspect if you carefully control the processing, you can probably learn something about the amount of information in the image by comparing the size of exported file, at least with a lossless format like PNG. So basically, you'd expect that if lossless raw and HE* are actually mathematically equivalent, that if you applied the exact same processing and exported them to the same lossless compressed format, they should be the same size. Of course, when dealing with applications like LR, I have little confidence you could actually accomplish that (not to mention, it's probably impossible to have the scene be EXACTLY the same from frame to frame due to lighting variation, etc).
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
I'm watching now, but I don't think his approach is going to be very helpful to me. I would have really preferred some very controlled and static test scene then with a careful examination of pushed shadows, etc.

I suspect if you carefully control the processing, you can probably learn something about the amount of information in the image by comparing the size of exported file, at least with a lossless format like PNG. So basically, you'd expect that if lossless raw and HE* are actually mathematically equivalent, that if you applied the exact same processing and exported them to the same lossless compressed format, they should be the same size. Of course, when dealing with applications like LR, I have little confidence you could actually accomplish that (not to mention, it's probably impossible to have the scene be EXACTLY the same from frame to frame due to lighting variation, etc).
Click to expand...
There are some elaborate discussions of the mathematics of HE*, which appears to be a licensed version of a somewhat proprietary HEIC/HEIF encoding. From the licensing it appears that this may be implemented in hardware, and it's touted as "mathematically lossless/near-lossless/visually lossless/lossy down to 1 bit per pixel." Whatever that works out to mean. From the technical descriptions it may be a big improvement over what manufacturers call 'lossess compressed'. If it really is visually lossless and implemented in fast hardware it may be a big win.
 
Member's gallery
eaj101 said:
There are some elaborate discussions of the mathematics of HE*, which appears to be a licensed version of a somewhat proprietary HEIC/HEIF encoding. From the licensing it appears that this may be implemented in hardware, and it's touted as "mathematically lossless/near-lossless/visually lossless/lossy down to 1 bit per pixel." Whatever that works out to mean. From the technical descriptions it may be a big improvement over what manufacturers call 'lossess compressed'. If it really is visually lossless and implemented in fast hardware it may be a big win.
Click to expand...

Right. My interpretation is you (the licensee) can choose to be "mathematically lossless" or "near lossless", etc, etc. The question is, does "HE*" map to their "mathematically lossless" version? If so, it would be a huge win. If so, there is no reason to use "lossless compressed" other than for application compatibility, you might as well call it "legacy".

So yah, if it's mathematically lossless it could be a huge win. I wish we could get some clarity there.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
The question is, does "HE*" map to their "mathematically lossless" version? If so, it would be a huge win. If so, there is no reason to use "lossless compressed" other than for application compatibility, you might as well call it "legacy".
Click to expand...

I am guessing that HE* maps to near-lossless (which is better than visually lossless), and HE maps to visually lossless. I'm also willing to bet the "visually" refers to correct exposure, not pulled/pushed 5 stop images. Remember that HE is high efficiency, not HF - high fidelity. That implies to me the focus is on file size, hence we still have the old style lossless-compressed for mathematically-lossless, plus one that is near lossless and one that is visually-lossless.

If this is not it, my second guess would they're more to the right - HE* = visually lossless, HE = lossy.

We'll see, really curious how this turned out, but I don't expect "free" 30% savings on top of lossless compressed.
 
Member's gallery
But more seriously, it sounds like their would be advantages to use their lossless instead of the current lossless format, both in terms of file size savings as well as how much processing overhead. That said, it could be they had already implemented the normal lossless compressed in silicon so any additional implementation would cost them more R&D dollars. Dunno.
 
Member's gallery
Hut2 said:
Sorry if it bothers you that I am happy with my badass camera. I have no brand loyalty just glad that it does as advertised,
Click to expand...

It doesn’t really bother me and I wasn’t only talking to you…it is just the overall debpgradation in civility and the denigration of whatever brand an individual user doesn’t use that is less than optimum. A good shooter can get a decent shot with a consumer model…Steve’s 80/4 rule is most definitely on the money. Better cameras get a higher keeper rate…as do better skills. I’m sure the A1 is very nice…but I don’t really like either the ergonomics or menu system…perhaps because I’m used to Nikon‘s…but that’s just opinion. We see many posts that say the Zs are terrible for action or wildlife or BIF…but that’s simply not true as many of us get good shots from them…it’s almost like those who spent the money to change systems need to justify their purchase to themselves. We are happy for the folk who switched…but it seems like the folk who switched aren’t happy for those who didn’t for whatever reason and they get talked down to for that. Not just here either…

We should all just get along…and based on the number of likes on my post apparently I’m not the only one in that camp. As I said before…the Z9 isn’t on my radar for size and weight…cost too but that’s a minor thing. Now a Z7III or Z8 with as many of the Z9 specs that can fit into that price segment…I’m much interested in that.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
To be fair, I'm a Nikon shooter, and I say the Z6ii is not great for action, and I do own one -- I specifically purchased it to try. Admittedly, my idea of action is a bit more acute than most people's.

But yah, the only people brand wars helps is the youtube click-baiters.
Click to expand...
I have the same experience with the Z6. The reality is that camera is probably what caused me to switch brands. I was very happy with my Nikon DSLR and got on the mirrorless train with the Z6 and was horribly disappointed in it for my type of photography. I saw the benefits of mirrorless so rather than buying into Nikon it made me look at other brands. If Nikon had waited and just dropped a Z9 I would most likely still be in the Nikon camp.
 
Member's gallery
Venkatesh VT said:
What about Nikon fanboys who find nothing wrong with AF with Z series for fast action wild life.
Since I found Z series AF is not good for fast action I bought A1 & am pretty happy with it.I did not wait for Z9 since it is heavy for my hands
I will also be buying a Z 8 to pair it with 500 PF when ever it comes .
I judge cameras on merits wrt what I shoot & not because it is Canon Nikon or Sony .
Click to expand...
Most users of the earlier Zs don’t claim there is nothing wrong with them…honest users agree on their deficiencies but they aren’t nearly as deficient as some claim. What you shoot, image destination, and a whole bunch of other factors…including the truth that better is the enemy of good enough…go into choice of system and whether to switch or not. I’m not smart enough to shoot 2 different systems because they work differently…not right and wrong but just different…which destroys muscle memory and where is that damn control on this body is a big issue. This is likely true for most people…and completely switching systems is a lot more expensive than just an a1 and 200-600…a second body and a full complement of lenses needs to be bought and that’s a lot of bucks. As I’ve stated before…I could easily afford to buy a full Sony system for both my bride and myself…but being able to and being willing to are not the same. For an amateur who makes no money and won’t buy a 600f4 for size and weight reasons anyway…the improvements I would see are minimal compared to the costs, especially as we will see the tech trickle down.
 
Member's gallery
I had mentioned in one of my earlier posts that Z series AF is not as good as D 500/D 850 for wild life .I had also said that Nikon should bring them up par with its Dslr AF .I was trolled for this & now NR has posted that one more firmware upgrade has been announced for Z6 & likes to bring it at par with Z6 ll & likes
There are numerous comments in NR by people rushing to apply the firmware.
I rest my case & sincerely hope Nikon brings up Zii series also at par with D850/500 in the near future.
 
Member's gallery
I may have missed it in this 42-page thread, but are there any numbers on how much Z9 video recording can be done using different sized CFExpress cards? I guess at 4k/120p.
 
Member's gallery
Hut2 said:
Really not brand wars at least not for me I couldn’t care less. I own 3 Nikon and 1 Sony. I’m happy to see Z9 reviews look so good. Mostly because people will enjoy it. also I expect less whining every time something like Birdeye auto focus is brought up
Click to expand...
I do own 4 Nikon bodies with 10 lenses & 2 Sony bodies with only one detachabe lens .The only lens I plan to buy for Sony would be Sony 500 PF ( when ever Sony releases it)
I also feel once people start shooting Camera with Birds eye AF they will only gripe about butterfly eye AF not being there :p
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
iustin said:
I am guessing that HE* maps to near-lossless (which is better than visually lossless), and HE maps to visually lossless. I'm also willing to bet the "visually" refers to correct exposure, not pulled/pushed 5 stop images. Remember that HE is high efficiency, not HF - high fidelity. That implies to me the focus is on file size, hence we still have the old style lossless-compressed for mathematically-lossless, plus one that is near lossless and one that is visually-lossless.

If this is not it, my second guess would they're more to the right - HE* = visually lossless, HE = lossy.

We'll see, really curious how this turned out, but I don't expect "free" 30% savings on top of lossless compressed.
Click to expand...
That was exactly my read. If He* was lossless Nikon would have said so and gotten rid of lossless compressed. Do we even know that lossless compressed is the same algorithm as in the previous cameras? They could all 3 be licensed and they just replaced the algorithm underpinning the well known term lossless compressed.
Either way, I think Nikon’s move is very good, offering two levels of lossy compression with various trade-offs I think is very valuable.
 
Member's gallery
Hut2 said:
you sign in to every thread that has A1 or Z9 in it so expect to hear people happy with them.
Click to expand...
I’m happy that people with them are happy…but the frequent ‘I’m better because I have a Sony and non Sony people are
losers’ attitudes are tiring…just like the Nikon folk who say the Zs don’t have any flaws are tiring. There are things I like and dislike about Sony and Nikon…can’t say about Canon as I haven’t used one since the F1…but I do dislike the white lenses…but otherwise have no opinion On 5he brand.

Tof many users have drunk the kool-ade…of all brands…but a debate on who is the worst will just degenerate into chaos so let’s not go there.
 
Member's gallery
Neil Laubenthal said:
It doesn’t really bother me and I wasn’t only talking to you…it is just the overall debpgradation in civility and the denigration of whatever brand an individual user doesn’t use that is less than optimum. A good shooter can get a decent shot with a consumer model…Steve’s 80/4 rule is most definitely on the money. Better cameras get a higher keeper rate…as do better skills. I’m sure the A1 is very nice…but I don’t really like either the ergonomics or menu system…perhaps because I’m used to Nikon‘s…but that’s just opinion. We see many posts that say the Zs are terrible for action or wildlife or BIF…but that’s simply not true as many of us get good shots from them…it’s almost like those who spent the money to change systems need to justify their purchase to themselves. We are happy for the folk who switched…but it seems like the folk who switched aren’t happy for those who didn’t for whatever reason and they get talked down to for that. Not just here either…

We should all just get along…and based on the number of likes on my post apparently I’m not the only one in that camp. As I said before…the Z9 isn’t on my radar for size and weight…cost too but that’s a minor thing. Now a Z7III or Z8 with as many of the Z9 specs that can fit into that price segment…I’m much interested in that.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top