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 is the reason for the size....but I don't see why the Z9 has to weigh so much.
The different material the R3 is made from makes it lightly but also if i remember correctly that i read also doesn't allow for all that great of heat dissapation. I think the R3 also is known to overheat.
I’ve had 300’s in the past and typically to short however for how it handles TC which my Nikon 300’s didn’t I’m tempted as well for something more compact.
It's pretty clear to me that the A9III is a fantastic camera with groundbreaking tech. If I was shooting the Super Bowl tomorrow and could pick any camera body, it would be the A9III.
Gerald..............good to see you here. Just keep in mind that the great majority of the folks on these forums are wildlife shooters along with some landscape shooters. For those jobs, I think the consensus is that the A9iii falls far short of what most of us would like in a camera. Sure, it has some wonderful applications for a pro like you but many of us need/want the significantly higher MP and more that the A1 and hopefully by next year the A1ii will offer. I too have been making my living as a professional photographer for many years shooting birds...............but for what I need the A1 is still the best option for me. Anyway, glad you've joined our forums.
It’s all a guess. Typically when a camera is in high demand I wouldn’t be able to walk into any of my dealers and buy 5 of them. B&H and Adorama wouldn’t be in stock. So yes it is a guess but when compared to other new cameras this one is easy to get.
I wouldn't give any credibility of online retailer reviews. Places like Amazon, Walmart and large retailers like B&H, Adorama and the like often have fake paid reviews. But I doubt the percentage is very high for the A9III that wildlife shooters are the buyers of it. It's a sports body that the large majority will be sports shooters, not wildlife/BIF shooters.
Are you referring to stills or video? The reason I ask is I thought you were more video centric. I cannot see any advantage whatsoever in a global shutter for video unless there's something I am not understanding.
Global shutter for video is great! When panning or shooting rapid movements you don’t get the motion blur you’ll get from a non global shutter.
I can't imagine it being any better whatsoever over the A1 which has zero rolling shutter. I absolutely embrace new technology in every regard but this situation IMO offers no real world benefits to 99% of the photographers out there. I would have rather it had a stacked sensor and been 40mp as well as shooting 40 FPS. Those specs would offer real world benefits, but that's just my opinion.
Agreed, though the Z9 sensor readout is faster at 3.7ms compared to the A1's at about ~4ms
You just described what I believe will be the next a1.
Just silly to say that Nikon is trying to “stay afloat.” Nikon has never been close to financial ruin. It was late to mirrorless and paid the price, but rumors of its demise were never based in “fact.”
I have said this many times, even when they were reporting $770 million in losses. The profit loss lasted 18 months. A 100 year old company that the camera division isn't it's main money maker was way way way overstated. Their an optics and medical optics company first and foremost.
Precisely. Nikon is a publicly traded company that submits plenty of economic disclosures. Its financial condition was transparent for anyone who wanted to see it. Nikon contracted due to the broader camera and economic marketplace and its slow transition to mirrorless, but Nikon was never close to failing.
