p.14 #1 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
I'm not seeing much difference at all between Sony and Nikon now we see Nikon is capable of matching anyone for specs and performance. I regard the A1 and Z9 equally highly and am happy with either form factor. I never shoot my A9 without a grip, but if I get an A1 it would replace A9 and A7RIII so I would indeed use it sans grip for landscape, macro, general walk-about stuff. Z9 is much more generous around the mount for space and no more crushed fingers would be nice. It's a little heavier than I would have liked, I had expected similar to R3 and no more than 1100g.
I have now decided to abandon Canon fully and am madly trying to sell off my remaining Canon lenses and flashes and bits and bobs. I still have D500 + 500 PF and will keep the 500 PF until I see a 600 PF or if the 800 which I think is f/6.3 is under $10K and pair it with 400 PF. PF lenses alone are why I won't just stick to Sony as I doubt they'll ever offer them. I have several Sony lenses I'll keep for my A1 and will add a few more like the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II and maybe replace my Canon 24-70L II with the 24-70 GM II or even Tammy 28-75 G2. I'll pick lenses I prefer from each camp. I hope to run an A1 and Z9 combo by sometime next year. I doubt we'll see stacked sensors come to A7RV or Z7III so for me I'll stick to the flagships.
p.14 #3 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
ChrisMak wrote:
Sony remains the most likely candidate for me if I am to switch to mirrorless for wildlife and bird photography. After all, I already shoot Sony for general photography and recently added the wonderful FE35mm f1.4GM to my Loxia lens.
When I ordered the Sigma, I was very close to changing the order to a Sony A1 and FE200-600G, but I wanted a f4 prime first and the 600GM was out of my budget.
Other than with the Canon 400DOII, I have no regrets, the Sigma 500S is the best lens for me at this moment, the 500PF is resting on the shelf. It produces what I also saw in the raw samples that I downloaded from the Sony 600GM and what is perhaps territory of the f4 primes. B.t.w. I use it on the D500 without a grip and that is within my comfortable handholding limits. I have zero issues with ill balance or lack of grip. Just not very convenient for portait mode, but otherwise just fine. I would use the Sony A1 ungripped as well with a 600GM, simply because I like to keep weight down for hiking and handholding.
Now and then I think about a Canon R5, but I know I will not head back to Canon. Now that Nikon's Z9 launch has made more clear where they are headed, it's pretty clear to me that Sony is the way to go.
I am in no hurry as I still like the D500 enough, but my plan is to save up for an A1, have the Sigma adapted to Canon mount (with sigma MC-11), sell the 500PF and get a 200-600G. That should give me everything I need until one day I have the cash for a 600GM. If the Sigma does not focus supremely on the A1, that is no real bother, I will use the 200-600 for the fast stuff.
I did think about the Nikon 800mm PF on the roadmap, but I expect it to be around 10.000, being a S line lens, and I would not know what body to put it on. I see a Sony 600GM as much better long term option, perhaps the only wildlife lens that I would need. ...Show more →
I own one wildlife lens, the 600GM. It is superb in every way. If you have the means I would highly recommend it. I have mentioned this somewhere on FM recently but last week I shot all week with someone using the gripped D850 and 500PF. I used the non gripped A1 and 600F4. The weight differences were surprisingly small. Nikon gear was a bit easier to maneuver because of its size but that is about it. The 2 feel so close that they don't make me miss my 500PF all that much at all. If Sony came out with a 500PF type lens I would likely buy it, but feel I am giving up next to nothing with the 600. Pros and cons, one is a bit smaller and lighter but only 500mm and F5.6. The other is 600mm and F4. When paired with the compact and light A1, the 600GM is just a dream to use.
p.14 #4 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
LBJ2 wrote:
Personally, I think the convertibility of the Sony A1 form factor is a big win for the consumer. "Have it your way," so-to-speak is an invaluable benefit.
Literally: small, medium (w/L-Plate Grip) and large (w/ the Sony Grip) pretty much covers all scenarios/needs.
As someone who used D3X and D4 in the past and currently using A9 (since 2019), and as someone who shoots only long lenses (wildlife), I prefer larger body any day. I'm sure I'm not alone. The gripped A9 doesn't even come close to the pro bodies of Nikon or Canon once you are in the field. (A1/A9II are better, still not close). These cameras fit your hand like a glove. I'm sure I'm not alone here. There's a reason why both Canon and Nikon did that for so long. All I'm saying there are different perspectives and requirements.
p.14 #5 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
aboutthelight wrote:
I own one wildlife lens, the 600GM. It is superb in every way. If you have the means I would highly recommend it. I have mentioned this somewhere on FM recently but last week I shot all week with someone using the gripped D850 and 500PF. I used the non gripped A1 and 600F4. The weight differences were surprisingly small. Nikon gear was a bit easier to maneuver because of its size but that is about it. The 2 feel so close that they don't make me miss my 500PF all that much at all. If Sony came out with a 500PF type lens I would likely buy it, but feel I am giving up next to nothing with the 600. Pros and cons, one is a bit smaller and lighter but only 500mm and F5.6. The other is 600mm and F4. When paired with the compact and light A1, the 600GM is just a dream to use. ...Show more →
Yes, I have had my eyes on the 600GM from the day it was released, and the A1 has made it all the more attractive. If I had known about the A1 and its 50mp in advance, I probably would have saved up for it. The 24mp FF A9 was not really a replacement for 20mp crop bodies, and Sony's aps-c bodies .... well let's not raise that topic..
Now with the A1, I would say it is all in place to warrant a spending stop, and raise the funds to get a lens like the 600GM. It helps that the D500+Sigma 500S is a fantastic combo, so the pressure to switch or upgrade to anything better is off.
p.14 #6 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
1bwana1 wrote:
I wouldn't call it goofy. Just factually incorrect. Yes there a other cameras that are mechanical shutterless. In fact more cameras are made today without a mechanical shutter than with one. Pretty much every smart phone camera, point and shoot cameras, security cameras, industrial cameras. In fact mechanical shutters are pretty much limited to the relatively small production of ICL cameras. But even in ICL cameras not having a mechanical shutter is not new nor unique to Nikon. One example is the Sigma camera line.
Nikon may be first to do it in an integrated grip ICL camera. But that is not a huge nor brave thing to do considering. It does sound like an accountant contribution as much as an engineering one. It absolutely does force capability compromise in some areas as well. Flash sync speed limitation being the most mentioned one.
Less expensive, yes. Less maintenence, probably yes. Brave, not so much....Show more →
Well...speaking of "factually incorrect".....Nikon is offering a camera for over 5k that is their first flagship without a mechanical shutter, targeted at pros who typically enjoy the idea of redundancy, and by your own argument....higher flash sync capability, so to remove both of those features as a selling point while they're largely the underdog company at this point in history I'd say is definitely a little "brave"....the accounting aspect is the means by which they can take a brave risk....lower the price by lowering the feature set? Or match feature parity and price to the A1 and R3 essentially.....or...going back to option A, come in at 1k less generally in hopes of cannibalizing some sales back to the Nikon platform.....EACH decision is a risk in Nikon's situation, and I'd say either decision took some bravery not in the dramatic sense but in the literal intellectual sense....the consequences are grave if they don't create a product that sells extremely well and brings an untarnished refreshed attention to their product line. They succeeded in my opinion with the Z9....and if things go well for them in years ahead they will do well.
Lot of brilliant tools for us to enjoy, we have it so much better than previous generations of photographers, and personally am very grateful to have multiple options to enjoy and respect, as each company has a solid product offering and we get to enjoy the fruit of their labor and their engineering expertise of which we typically have none, or we have at least no ability to produce the product even if we have the knowledge.
I'll choose to respect the efforts and the products, rather than Monday morning quarterback with no real deep understanding of the game.
p.14 #7 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
LocoPhoto wrote:
Well...speaking of "factually incorrect".....Nikon is offering a camera for over 5k that is their first flagship without a mechanical shutter, targeted at pros who typically enjoy the idea of redundancy, and by your own argument....higher flash sync capability, so to remove both of those features as a selling point while they're largely the underdog company at this point in history I'd say is definitely a little "brave"....the accounting aspect is the means by which they can take a brave risk....lower the price by lowering the feature set? Or match feature parity and price to the A1 and R3 essentially.....or...going back to option A, come in at 1k less generally in hopes of cannibalizing some sales back to the Nikon platform.....EACH decision is a risk in Nikon's situation, and I'd say either decision took some bravery not in the dramatic sense but in the literal intellectual sense....the consequences are grave if they don't create a product that sells extremely well and brings an untarnished refreshed attention to their product line. They succeeded in my opinion with the Z9....and if things go well for them in years ahead they will do well.
Lot of brilliant tools for us to enjoy, we have it so much better than previous generations of photographers, and personally am very grateful to have multiple options to enjoy and respect, as each company has a solid product offering and we get to enjoy the fruit of their labor and their engineering expertise of which we typically have none, or we have at least no ability to produce the product even if we have the knowledge.
I'll choose to respect the efforts and the products, rather than Monday morning quarterback with no real deep understanding of the game. ...Show more →
Saying that the Z9 was the first camera without a mechanical shutter was factually incorrect which is what I said in my post. That is not quarterbacking Nikon in any way. It is simply correcting a post on FM, and providing examples that proved it.
"Brave" is not a fact based discussion. It is a characterization. Every camera manufacturer makes similar feature choices, and takes similar risks of success or failure every time they invest the R&D money, and release a new product. If you want to characterize that as "brave" that is fine. Not worth arguing over.
I agree that the Z9 is a brilliant product, and will likely have great success in the market.
p.14 #8 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
saaketham wrote:
What if Canon releases an awesome R1 in a few months?
Who cares, it'll be most likely $7.5K+ and honestly what could it offer to be wildly better. At one point it was thought to be global shutter, but that doesn't seem to be happening now. it'll be a slightly souped up R3 with 45-50MP and 8K. Honestly if the R3 had of been 45MP it would have been enough to entice me. Also R1 is reportedly another 12 months away, that's a hell of lot of shooting to be missing out on, on the hope it will me magically a lot better.
Also I just don't like Canon's lens line-up that much and in Australia prices are stupid not that Nikon isn't ripping us off. Z9 is same price or dearer than R3 in Australia, but I much prefer Nikon's lens roadmap.
p.14 #10 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Who cares, it'll be most likely $7.5K+ and honestly what could it offer to be wildly better. At one point it was thought to be global shutter, but that doesn't seem to be happening now. it'll be a slightly souped up R3 with 45-50MP and 8K. Honestly if the R3 had of been 45MP it would have been enough to entice me. Also R1 is reportedly another 12 months away, that's a hell of lot of shooting to be missing out on, on the hope it will me magically a lot better.
Also I just don't like Canon's lens line-up that much and in Australia prices are stupid not that Nikon isn't ripping us off. Z9 is same price or dearer than R3 in Australia, but I much prefer Nikon's lens roadmap....Show more →
That is interesting that the Z9 is as much or more than the R3 in AUS.
Here in Canada we got the R3 coming in at $7999 and the Z9 at $6999. A1 at $8499.
That works out to the R3 being a 1.33x over USD and the Z9 only 1.27x. A1 at 1.31x
I wonder why we get a much better deal?
Nov 11, 2021 at 09:32 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.14 #11 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
arbitrage wrote:
That is interesting that the Z9 is as much or more than the R3 in AUS.
Here in Canada we got the R3 coming in at $7999 and the Z9 at $6999. A1 at $8499.
That works out to the R3 being a 1.33x over USD and the Z9 only 1.27x. A1 at 1.31x
I wonder why we get a much better deal?
I think Aussies often have to pay more than we do in Canada. I think we benefit from the big market to the South that they really don't have. I follow exchange rates pretty closely as I make my money in the US and spend most of it in Canada. Those exchange rates are all fairly reasonable depending on when they were set. If Canon set theirs about 9 months ago that was pretty close. If Sony set theirs about 6 months ago that is pretty close too. And if Nikon set theirs recently that is pretty close as well. I suspect they set the prices off the Japanese Yen not the US dollar, but still any of those exchange rates likely makes sense depending on when they set the exchange rate to determine price.
Nov 11, 2021 at 10:17 AM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.14 #12 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
timgangloff wrote:
Weight distribution is irrelevant if Sony doesn't offer a 300 2.8, a 120-300 2.8 or a 500f4.
since you probably won't see it, i'll post a link to the a1/tamron 35-150 ringside pics of the canelo alvarez title fight:
It is also true that turbodude who shot that very nice boxing sequence has a 400 GM for some of the other sports he shoots. Lenses like a 300 f/2.8, 120-300 f/2.8, and 500 f/4 could be very useful for sports shooting. Probably not boxing ringside, but lots of other sports.
p.14 #14 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Outside sports ( baseball, football, soccer etc... ) long lenses. Inside sports ( basketball, hockey, volleyball, wrestling, etc... ) shorter lenses. So the type of sports one shoots dictates the type of lens one needs. Not every sport requires a 400 2.8 or even a 300 2.8 lens.
p.14 #16 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think Aussies often have to pay more than we do in Canada. I think we benefit from the big market to the South that they really don't have. I follow exchange rates pretty closely as I make my money in the US and spend most of it in Canada. Those exchange rates are all fairly reasonable depending on when they were set. If Canon set theirs about 9 months ago that was pretty close. If Sony set theirs about 6 months ago that is pretty close too. And if Nikon set theirs recently that is pretty close as well. I suspect they set the prices off the Japanese Yen not the US dollar, but still any of those exchange rates likely makes sense depending on when they set the exchange rate to determine price....Show more →
There are also probably different import duties on Japanese, Thai, and Chinese goods in Australia and Canada that have an impact on the price of these things based on country of origin.
p.14 #17 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think Aussies often have to pay more than we do in Canada. I think we benefit from the big market to the South that they really don't have. I follow exchange rates pretty closely as I make my money in the US and spend most of it in Canada. Those exchange rates are all fairly reasonable depending on when they were set. If Canon set theirs about 9 months ago that was pretty close. If Sony set theirs about 6 months ago that is pretty close too. And if Nikon set theirs recently that is pretty close as well. I suspect they set the prices off the Japanese Yen not the US dollar, but still any of those exchange rates likely makes sense depending on when they set the exchange rate to determine price....Show more →
There a lot more to it, Australia has a free trade agreement with Japan, so there's zero duties, I regularly bring in items with zero tax, but I'd pay tax on some other Asian imports.
Shipping from JP to AU is cheaper than JP to US/EU.
It's a different market, Aussies love expensive gear, it's the biggest market for many premium brands, for instance, more AMG Benz's are sold to Australian's (per capita) than any other country. The premium versions of products sell in higher numbers here than other markets.
Also, Sony haven't 'had supply issues' in Australia with the A1, anytime we've wanted one, there was one in stock.
I think (as do the ship owners) that the supply issue in some other countries is engineered to give the perception of high demand.
That doesn't work in Australia as well, if it ain't in stock we're generally buying elsewhere, we don't want to wait as much. My store called me the day the A1 was announced and asked how many do you want? I said I'll take one, thanks, they asked for a pre-order deposit and I said just call when it's in stock. Four days later I get the call and then I gave them my money.
Of course there's exceptions to these rules, but that's how I see it, based on my experience and constant communication with store owners, distributors etc.
So, generally, it's cheaper to buy these high/er-end products in Australia, which is why I rarely, but sometimes visit US and even rarer EU stores.
I got the A1 for $9K even 6 months ago, the equivalent price with shipping and taxes at the time from B&H was ~$10K.
p.14 #18 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
arbitrage wrote:
That is interesting that the Z9 is as much or more than the R3 in AUS.
Here in Canada we got the R3 coming in at $7999 and the Z9 at $6999. A1 at $8499.
That works out to the R3 being a 1.33x over USD and the Z9 only 1.27x. A1 at 1.31x
I wonder why we get a much better deal?
It's pathetic, R3 is about $8700 and Z9 currently listed at $8999. I thought Canon were a bit of a joke. The other day the A1 was discounted to $8209 but mostly sitting at $8899-9199. I assumed Z9 would be $7999 max. I may have to go grey, I'm not getting gouged. Our only tax on camera gear is a flat 10% GST. I know US price doesn't include state taxes with is 7-10%, but if I was able to buy one at $5499 and ship it, with currency exchange and GST it would be about $8299 + $100 for shipping I guess.
p.14 #19 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It's pathetic, R3 is about $8700 and Z9 currently listed at $8999. I thought Canon were a bit of a joke. The other day the A1 was discounted to $8209 but mostly sitting at $8899-9199. I assumed Z9 would be $7999 max. I may have to go grey, I'm not getting gouged. Our only tax on camera gear is a flat 10% GST. I know US price doesn't include state taxes with is 7-10%, but if I was able to buy one at $5499 and ship it, with currency exchange and GST it would be about $8299 + $100 for shipping I guess. ...Show more →
I pay 5% GST on my purchases if I buy out of province. 12% if in province. I don't buy in province
p.14 #20 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:
The same is unfortunately true of pretty well all forms of editorial photography.
Publishers are facing declining revenues because the number of people willing to pay to see an image (vs. seeing something similar for free on social media) has been rapidly declining, so they no longer have much of budget to pay for images - while at the same time, the number of people willing to give away similar quality images for free seems to have been increasing at the same inversely proportional rate.
This is part of why I just understand the constant worshipping of "pros" that occur on photography forums. It is a holdover from the old days, but times have changed an incredible amount over the past 20 years. The deification of pros and then the assertions that this or that are required for the "pros."
Photography sales are more aimed at enthusiast hobbyists more than ever.
Meanwhile, outfits like the AP and UK/Irelands's PA have made deals with Sony, who doesn't have a single dslr style massive integrated grip camera in production. These deals specifically mention the purpose of migrating from dslr mirrorless.
"The largest and national news agency of the United Kingdom and Ireland is switching from DSLR cameras to Sony mirrorless cameras."
I understand that photography hobbyists skew elderly, and stereotypically the elderly are resistant to change, but photography has changed and will continue to change if it ever wants to survive. The old holdovers like closed mounts and gargantuan brick cameras need to be on the way out if they ever want to attract the young. The young don't care what dslr era pros used. We want small, light, and lean.
Go Turbodude Go ! 
