NatureScapes.net Forums

adamsti wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote:Weight is an important factor.
One of the major appeals of mirrorless cameras was weight reduction.
Z9 is not in this category, it is heavy and bulky.
Aging photographers won't like it IMO.

Not this guy. I do not want a tiny camera on the back of my 500 f/4. It handles terrible. And unfortunately at 56 I am aging.

Guess I’ll have to start lifting weights
I wasn’t aware that the camera size was any different than other pro cameras with the grip attached. (?)
And I wish I was 56 again …
Alas

adamsti wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote:Weight is an important factor.
One of the major appeals of mirrorless cameras was weight reduction.
Z9 is not in this category, it is heavy and bulky.
Aging photographers won't like it IMO.

[snip] I do not want a tiny camera on the back of my 500 f/4. It handles terrible. [snip]

I tend to agree. I mean, it's not really that difficult to understand that.

If weight is a concern, one shouldn't be using a full-frame camera to begin with IMO, especially not when you're into birds and wildlife photography.

Ricci has used the Z9 for 3 months and has this video out today, very good!!

https://youtu.be/BoVu1OMDvOE

DChan wrote:

adamsti wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote:Weight is an important factor.
One of the major appeals of mirrorless cameras was weight reduction.
Z9 is not in this category, it is heavy and bulky.
Aging photographers won't like it IMO.

[snip] I do not want a tiny camera on the back of my 500 f/4. It handles terrible. [snip]

I tend to agree. I mean, it's not really that difficult to understand that.

If weight is a concern, one shouldn't be using a full-frame camera to begin with IMO, especially not when you're into birds and wildlife photography.

My Sony a7R4 FULL FRAME camera weighs 1.46 lb use it with a Sony 100-400 lens wheing 3.0 lb. My Nikon D500 CROP CAMERA  weighs 1.89 lb using it with Nikon 500 f 5.6 PF weighing 3.2 lb. So what's your point?

Of course there are much lighter/smaller and highly capable APS-C cameras than a D500. The Fuji X-T4 comes to mind. I think that’s where DChan was coming from…

Karl Egressy wrote:

DChan wrote:

adamsti wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote:Weight is an important factor.
One of the major appeals of mirrorless cameras was weight reduction.
Z9 is not in this category, it is heavy and bulky.
Aging photographers won't like it IMO.

[snip] I do not want a tiny camera on the back of my 500 f/4. It handles terrible. [snip]

I tend to agree. I mean, it's not really that difficult to understand that.

If weight is a concern, one shouldn't be using a full-frame camera to begin with IMO, especially not when you're into birds and wildlife photography.

My Sony a7R4 FULL FRAME camera weighs 1.46 lb use it with a Sony 100-400 lens wheing 3.0 lb. My Nikon D500 CROP CAMERA  weighs 1.89 lb using it with Nikon 500 f 5.6 PF weighing 3.2 lb. So what's your point?

If one is concerned about size and weight, one should have chosen a smaller sensor camera system. Bigger sensor, bigger lenses.

DChan wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote:

DChan wrote:

adamsti wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote:Weight is an important factor.
One of the major appeals of mirrorless cameras was weight reduction.
Z9 is not in this category, it is heavy and bulky.
Aging photographers won't like it IMO.

[snip] I do not want a tiny camera on the back of my 500 f/4. It handles terrible. [snip]

I tend to agree. I mean, it's not really that difficult to understand that.

If weight is a concern, one shouldn't be using a full-frame camera to begin with IMO, especially not when you're into birds and wildlife photography.

My Sony a7R4 FULL FRAME camera weighs 1.46 lb use it with a Sony 100-400 lens wheing 3.0 lb. My Nikon D500 CROP CAMERA  weighs 1.89 lb using it with Nikon 500 f 5.6 PF weighing 3.2 lb. So what's your point?

If one is concerned about size and weight, one should have chosen a smaller sensor camera system. Bigger sensor, bigger lenses.

  I think you are missing Karl's point, clearly the Z9 is substantially heavier than other comparable full sensor camera's, like the Sony alpha 1.  Yes the Nikon has a long list of things that these other full sensor camera's lack but this added to the weight.  Potentially the next iteration of mirrorless that Nikon brings out will have some of the advantages that the Z9 has (the much improved eye focus, etc) but without the weight (though don't think they will be crop sensors).  For those aging photographers (like myself) who have been waiting for the Nikon mirrorless for wildlife photography to go with the lightweight and fantastic 500mm PF and 300mm PF lenses, they will have to decide between sucking it up and adding the fairly heavy Z9, waiting for the next iteration of Nikon's mirrorless or switching systems. 
PS.  The Sony alpha 1 plus 200-600mm lens weighs slightly less than a Nikon Z9 plus 500PF with adaptor

the Nikon has a long list of things that these other full sensor camera's lack

I'm coming up nearly empty on the long list compared to the a1...?  ;)

E.J. Peiker wrote:

the Nikon has a long list of things that these other full sensor camera's lack

I'm coming up nearly empty on the long list compared to the a1...?  ;)

  I am referring to things that make it heavier, not necessarily "better".  For example, the built in vertical grip (adding the Sony vertical grip weight to that of the Sony A1 makes the difference much smaller) is probably the biggest contributor to the extra weight of the Z9 but there is also a larger and heavier battery (700 versus 500 shots), sensor shutter,  two slots for the CFexpress B cards, a more sturdy LCD flip screen mechanism, GPS antenna?  Personally, I would forego these for a lighter version of the Z9.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

the Nikon has a long list of things that these other full sensor camera's lack

I'm coming up nearly empty on the long list compared to the a1...?  ;)

If the A1 did not exist, and the camera was compared to the A9II, then it would be a different story. I suspect that was the target they were aiming for when they designed the Z9. The Z9 is not the camera to make customers switch, but rather, the camera to keep their customer base from jumping ship(and a heavy camera may be counterproductive to that goal). 
Sony has a far more comprehensive system than Nikon, and unless Nikon opened up their mount(which I can't see happening), I can't see them being able to build out a lens lineup for many years; too many IMO. The longest lens is now the 100-400, but who knows when that will ship? I guess people can adapt lenses, but using adapters brings issues, especially if the lens train has a teleconverter in it as well. 

adamsti wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote:Weight is an important factor.
One of the major appeals of mirrorless cameras was weight reduction.
Z9 is not in this category, it is heavy and bulky.
Aging photographers won't like it IMO.

Not this guy. I do not want a tiny camera on the back of my 500 f/4. It handles terrible. And unfortunately at 56 I am aging.

The Z9's size & weight is an instant NO for this nearly 70-yr-old.  The a1 balances very well with the Sony 600mm f/4.  Perhaps the 500 f/4 is the problem.

Just watched this very comprehensive hands-on Z9 overview - tons of real world shooting by somebody who isn't a Nikon ambassador or fanboy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaZIURvvIvk

E.J. Peiker wrote:Just watched this very comprehensive hands-on Z9 overview - tons of real world shooting by somebody who isn't a Nikon ambassador or fanboy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaZIURvvIvk

Yes it was very interesting

Bob

E.J. Peiker wrote:Just watched this very comprehensive hands-on Z9 overview - tons of real world shooting by somebody who isn't a Nikon ambassador or fanboy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaZIURvvIvk

I actually posted that on page one. Fro has actually been more of a Nikon basher the past couple yrs, not that I disagreed with his comments it was more the way he did it. He actually worked at Allen's Camera where I've purchased my equipment for the past 15yrs or so.

For Nikon to give him the camera speaks volumes of how Nikon has total confidence in the Z9. I also give him high credit for changing his mind (so to speak) on what he currently has thought about Nikon. As he even mentioned he started with Nikon yrs ago then switched. So anyway kudos to Jared for this review and his totally unbiased opinion!

I think he has some really good suggestions for Nikon in the review and hope they keep them in mind as firmware updates come about.

Now take a look at the Ricci video I posted above also. Yeah he works for Nikon but still seems very honest in his assessment.

Mine is ordered! I needed a kick in the butt to get me out there more and to try new things....and I get to use my 500pf because it will work awesome!   (ordered the 100--400 as well)

This is a nice depiction of actual size of the Z9

Here's a size comparison of the Sony alpha 1 and the Nikon Z9:

https://camerasize.com/compare/#867,884

Yep very small in comparison. I tried the D500 and D850 without grips and hated it so got grips on both. Small cameras not for me but I know lots of people prefer them!

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/sony-vs-nikon/z9-vs-a1/

The comparison of size between the Sony (with the grip) and the Z9 is part way down the article. 
It shows they are about the same - Altho I do believe the Z9 is heavier (?)

Obviously I’m interested in the Z9 and have ordered one (Nikon shooter and nearing 70  ) but it seems like there is a great choice for almost anyone now wanting a great camera. 
Hope I get the camera before I’m too weak to lift it

I don't see a whole lot of talk about the buffer. Here's a video that shows test results with different cards.
https://youtu.be/YND5oacJBl4

Maybe I'm off base on this, but it seems the buffer in the camera is quite small compared to the competition. You definitely need to buy the fastest cards you can afford if you expect great buffer performance.

Scott Fairbairn wrote:I don't see a whole lot of talk about the buffer. Here's a video that shows test results with different cards.
https://youtu.be/YND5oacJBl4

Maybe I'm off base on this, but it seems the buffer in the camera is quite small compared to the competition. You definitely need to buy the fastest cards you can afford if you expect great buffer performance.

On the Nikon link I posted earlier, the buffer is stated to be 1000 shots (at 20 fps) High Efficiency RAW or JPEG fine(L) files with the recommended CFexpress card. If you can afford the camera, why would you not use the fastest card?

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-cameras/z-9.html

Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:I don't see a whole lot of talk about the buffer. Here's a video that shows test results with different cards.
https://youtu.be/YND5oacJBl4

Maybe I'm off base on this, but it seems the buffer in the camera is quite small compared to the competition. You definitely need to buy the fastest cards you can afford if you expect great buffer performance.

On the Nikon link I posted earlier, the buffer is stated to be 1000 shots (at 20 fps) High Efficiency RAW or JPEG fine(L) files with the recommended CFexpress card. If you can afford the camera, why would you not use the fastest card?

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-cameras/z-9.html

Joe

I don't typically buy a high-end camera to shoot jpg, or a lossy Raw format, so those numbers mean nothing to me. Watch the video I posted. If you are using anything less than a top card, the buffer is pretty limited, and even with a top card, the best you will get is 80 shots when shooting 20fps. True, the buffer will clear quickly, but 80 shots seem small to me. And if you've got some XQD cards hanging around from your other Nikon's, you're only getting a little over 30 shots. For comparison, the Sony A9 is 241. The Z9 seems to have a small internal buffer and depends on a fast card for clearance. Maybe there are faster cards on the horizon, I don't know.