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).
One thing is that DPReview are totally unbiased.
They gave AF #1 to Z9 because it switched focus from a headlight to a door handle....lol opposite of what most people doing that type of photography want.
For wildlife and especially birds it seems like most everyone else seems to think the R3 does best closely followed by A1 and Z9 finally has something good enough to be competitive.
That seemed like an almost fair comparison. It sure proves that Nikon shooters love their Nikons, Sony shooters love their Sony's, and Canon users love their Canons.
Also interesting that they called it a flagship comparison, since the r3 is more of a niche camera with only 24mpx compared to the do everything Sony and Nikon. Have to wait for the Canon R1 to really go apples to apples.
I just watched that. It's one of the worst reviews I've ever seen. Basically three fan bois from each brand arguing specs to cameras they don't own.
Save yourself 19 minutes, and just bring up the three specs side by side on your computer. That's all they discussed. Useless video.
I agree with the general sentiment that all three camera systems are very close now. If Canon did a 45-50 / 60mp refresh, it would be essentially the same as the other two. That's the only real drawback to the Canon, and I understand why they haven't made the leap to high megapixel counts (since the D6 is still under 24mp).
At this point the decision should once again be about which system has the best LENS lineup for you, and which system you want to invest in for LENSES.
For what it's worth, they played the part of a "fan boy" for the entertainment value of the video, but if you have seen them in other videos they are very unbiased. They all have used the other systems and are very knowledgeable. The style of the presentation doesn't appeal to you, and I get that, but these three really do know all three systems quite well.
I agree that the lenses in the system need more attention when comparing the camera bodies. This will be ever changing through time, of course, but if you are paying $5500-6500 for a camera body, you don't want to wait around for a lens that fits your needs to be produced some time in the future.
Interesting review, which left me feeling that all three cameras are excellent, and good solutions for wildlife, sports, and other action. However, overall it strikes me that the Nikon Z9 provides the best overall capability at a significantly lower price, especially when one takes into account the 47mp image size, and advanced video.
I couldn't disagree with you more. While light-hearted (and refreshingly so), I think it's a fair comparison by real photographers in the field, which is where the rubber meets the road. Although not an in-depth, side-by-side analysis, the review offers real-use observations - something that "specs" alone cannot provide. And, your quip about it being for people who will never buy any of these cameras is as absurd as it is wrong. I myself am evaluating whether to continue with the Nikon platform and buy the Z9, or switch to Sony, and I found the review helpful.Their entire way of rating the cameras was nonsense in my opinion, and largely based on the way they were perceiving the systems from their "fan boy" point of view. They were also making some ridiculous superficial comparisons instead of diving into valuable, comparative information that would be relevant. This video was made for people who will never buy one of these cameras.
I could give examples, but since the video didn't state anything more than you could read off the basic descriptions / specs of the cameras there is little point.
As someone who just evaluated the three cameras discussed, and made a decision (which arrived on Tuesday) I can say with 100% certainty that this video is completely useless in making a decision about any of the three platforms.
It's a 20 minute video meant to generate views on Youtube. It discusses nothing of substance beyond basic specs. The real use observations are superficial. The three photographers discuss nothing about the systems that would apply to real world shooting. My observation is neither absurd, nor wrong.
If you make any decision about a $5,500-$7,000 camera based on that video, you're a fool. If you think that video was made for people who intend to purchase one of those cameras, you're a fool.
Well, you're entitled to your opinions, but please take your abrasive name calling elsewhere. It doesn't belong on BCG.As someone who just evaluated the three cameras discussed, and made a decision (which arrived on Tuesday) I can say with 100% certainty that this video is completely useless in making a decision about any of the three platforms.
It's a 20 minute video meant to generate views on Youtube. It discusses nothing of substance beyond basic specs. The real use observations are superficial. The three photographers discuss nothing about the systems that would apply to real world shooting. My observation is neither absurd, nor wrong.
If you make any decision about a $5,500-$7,000 camera based on that video, you're a fool. If you think that video was made for people who intend to purchase one of those cameras, you're a fool.
Wow. Calling people a fool twice in the same paragraph... That's talent that we don't see very much on this forum. I certainly hope that you might have more than this to contribute here. But not for me.As someone who just evaluated the three cameras discussed, and made a decision (which arrived on Tuesday) I can say with 100% certainty that this video is completely useless in making a decision about any of the three platforms.
It's a 20 minute video meant to generate views on Youtube. It discusses nothing of substance beyond basic specs. The real use observations are superficial. The three photographers discuss nothing about the systems that would apply to real world shooting. My observation is neither absurd, nor wrong.
If you make any decision about a $5,500-$7,000 camera based on that video, you're a fool. If you think that video was made for people who intend to purchase one of those cameras, you're a fool.
As someone who just evaluated the three cameras discussed, and made a decision (which arrived on Tuesday) I can say with 100% certainty that this video is completely useless in making a decision about any of the three platforms.
It's a 20 minute video meant to generate views on Youtube. It discusses nothing of substance beyond basic specs. The real use observations are superficial. The three photographers discuss nothing about the systems that would apply to real world shooting. My observation is neither absurd, nor wrong.
If you make any decision about a $5,500-$7,000 camera based on that video, you're a fool. If you think that video was made for people who intend to purchase one of those cameras, you're a fool.
It's three people shooting 3 awesome cameras side by side and comparing how they feel about it.... in other words, fun.
They gave AF #1 to Z9 because it switched focus from a headlight to a door handle....lol opposite of what most people doing that type of photography want.
For wildlife and especially birds it seems like most everyone else seems to think the R3 does best closely followed by A1 and Z9 finally has something good enough to be competitive.