Re: The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
RoamingScott wrote: j4nu wrote: swldstn wrote: molson wrote: arbitrage wrote:
I think Sony does need to rethink their pricing strategy going forward. Canon also.
As in every other industry, the market leaders set the pricing, and everybody else follows... the lower a company is in market share, the more they try to price aggressively versus the leaders. As long as Canon and Sony can sell all the products they produce, their prices will stay high.
Personally if the Z9 is $5500 then the A1 II or even the A1 has added cost of a better viewfinder and added mechanical shutter but then reduced by the added cost of the additional grip and the added cost of penalty of CFexpess Type A over CFexpress Type B in cost per Gigabyte. May also add in price for 30 FPS RAW and reduced until Sony offers pre-capture 😀.
Wold be nice to make a +/- list on what A1 has over the Z9 and what it lacks. Or the Z8 since both the A1 and Z8 can require a battery grip but then what justifies the $2500 more expensive A1. What are getting for that large delta?
1. Better 9 Million dot EVF
2. 30 Fps RAW but only lossy
3. Better battery life’s
4. - more expensive and slower memory card technology
5.. - lack of pre-capture
6. … ?
7. … ?
I guess it depends if you treat A1/Z8 as an action cam first or just one body for everything.
In the former case, Z8 is not even close IMHO. In the latter, they are indeed competitive.
If the batter life ratings are comparable, it's a total dealbreaker for me. To be honest, I'm not super happy with A1 battery usage, so the thought of carrying 3 Nikon spares totally turns me off.
CIPA ratings are garbage. In my experience, the Sony Z battery was always good for 2 days of moderate shooting. Most early previews from the people with a Z8 in hand are saying you'll easily get a day of moderate shooting. If that's true, 2 batteries and a power bank will be more than sufficient (and maybe overkill) for most use cases. Video will be what really kills these little batteries, and it's clear that's why they are offering the grip.
CIPA ratings are probably as good as we're going to get in terms of estimating battery life in a standardized way that enables us to compare. Of course they've not going to match everyone's experience because everyone uses a camera's features differently, for different subjects, with different lenses, and in different climactic conditions. One person's two days of shooting tropical landscapes is another's two hours shooting arctic wildlife.
Beyond perhaps giving some idea of how many spare batteries you should buy with your new camera based on how the CIPA rating compares to your old camera's battery, I doubt anyone pays much attention to CIPA ratings (except perhaps to bash the competition). As you say, spare batteries and powerbanks are cheap and easy to carry in the field so battery life has become among the least of my worries.
May 10, 2023 at 05:09 PM
Previous versions of wordfool's message #16240257 « The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III »
