Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #13 · New Z9 Specs (NR) Aug 10th, 2021 | |
Elusivesouls wrote:
I don't know. I find Nikon's approach confusing, to be honest. The R5, in hindsight, makes sense. It was Canon's very successful effort to stop the bleeding. It came out and people thought it was overpriced. Then Sony released the A1 and suddenly the R5 looked like an incredible value. Top tier AF, 45MP, 20FPS, and almost half the price of the A1.
I see the R5 as Canon's forward bulkhead against the A1. Looking back, it seems obvious that Canon was aware of the A1's imminent release and wanted to make sure the R5 was out before it was launched. Now it doesn't matter if people are disappointed with the R3 because it's aimed at the professionals who wanted smaller files and a faster work flow, along with the increase in speed, and benefits of a stacked sensor.
This buy them time to make the R1 and get it right. The earnings report show this was very successful.
Meanwhile, you have Nikon, who focused not on fast glass but instead on high quality yet slower F1.8 / F4 glass... then proceeds not to release an R5 competitor at a price point that would be financially appealing to the majority but rather the minority that spends 6-7k on a pro body.
So they appear to have gone one direction with the lenses but another with the body. IMO, their top priority should be to get an R5 competitor out as quickly as possible to appeal to the larger overall potential user base and then do the flagship afterwards once they've locked customers into their system (by appeasing them, such as Canon has done with the R5 & R6)....Show more →
I think you are missing some of the weaknesses of the R5. Sure it shoots 20 fps, but only in electronic shutter mode and only when the battery is fully charged. The electronic shutter mode means some pretty big losses in dynamic range and for faster action some noticeably rolling shutter issues. And if the battery charge drops you lose the 20 fps as well as the camera slows down. These are real and not trivial limitations, IMO. In many situations the R5 is a 12 fps mechanical shutter camera. That is still a quite decent thing to be, but one shouldn't confuse that camera with the 30fps stacked sensor BSI sensors in the Sony A1 or the sensor with similar capabilities in the Z9. You get a lot more for the extra money with those cameras. I am not saying a less capable but less expensive camera is a good idea, but let's not be fooled into thinking the R5 isn't a lot less capable than the A1 and the Z9 (if Nikon gets it right).
Also keep in mind that Nikon has a very interesting less capable less expensive camera in the Z7 II. That camera is excellent for shooting things that don't move or move slowly, and that covers a lot of what a lot of people want to shoot. Landscapes, architecture, still life, most nature photography, macro, and even a lot of portraits the Z7 II is a fantastic camera and in a number of ways a lot better than the R5 at a cheaper price. Sure the R5 can be used for some types of shooting that the Z7 II doesn't do as well, but if you don't shoot those things then the R5 clearly isn't better.
Note I am not saying the Canon R5 isn't a groundbreaking and really interesting camera. I think it is all of that. It is the first camera to put fairly high MP shooting together with good fast action capability. That was quite an accomplishment and it is still a compelling camera at its price point. The A1 and Z9 are clearly better, but they are way more expensive.
I also think it is a really interesting question how Nikon should try to compete with the R5. Should they try to build a similar camera without a stacked BSI sensor but with lots of processing power and lots of compromises to boost sensor scan speed or should they opt for a more expensive camera, but less than the Z9 that has a stacked BSI sensor. Personally, I think they are better off going with the stacked sensor BSI and go for a price point of $5,000 for the Z8. This would be a smaller camera body, it would have less processing power than the Z9, it would have a smaller buffer, it might well be 20 fps (but a real 20 fps) instead of 30 fps, but it would still have very fast sensor scan speed and no or virtually no rolling shutter effect. Such a camera for $5,000 which is still clearly better than the R5 I think competes well even with the R5 at a lower price of $3,800. Keep in mind Nikon still has the Z7II and Z6II for people with other needs.
|
