Bang on review/analysis! You've touched on subjects no other have. The x-factor is the main one for me and is something Nikon not only knows how to instil in their cameras, but has also been true to it for decades. Nikon knows what their pro photographers want to feel when using a flagship body and the Z9 is packed full of that elusive x-factor. I started many years before you and my second camera was a brand new Nikon F-5 that I purchased in 1998. It's DNA(as well as on those bodies you've shown) is here as well and shows how Nikon has kept the basics that work, and refined and fine tune the details over the years to bring a camera that feels familiar and at the same time innovative and contemporary. I love my Z9. A 'jack of all trades' that is actually, for one, also a 'master of all'. Kudos to Nikon and kudos to you for this insightful review.
excellent, seasoned review. thanks. Have the Z9 and use it for video and landscape with the 20 1.8 and 24-120 f4 and 50 1.2. I am truly stunned with video and pic quality.
The Z7II is not 90% of the same camera as the Z9 for me. Stacked CMOS sensor, 8K at 60P, Starlight mode and glowy buttons, build quality, and vertical grip make it at least double the camera for me. I haven't used the pre-capture yet for UT lightning storms; but, I totally will. Great video. thanks. :)
I think it’s a sliding scale because I too find the z9’s features to be absolutely worth the double price. But I had to try to zoom out and look at features a pure landscape photographer would use and it’s hard for me to say your getting $2500 worth of value… but if you shoot landscape and literally anything else the z9 is easily twitch the camera of the z7ii.
I agree. I’ve wanted a gripped camera from Nikon ever since I saw the D3 for the first time. When this one came out, AND it was great for landscape…well…I pulled the trigger. Moved from z6ii. Big investment for sure. Excited to get some first photos.
Great video!! I have to disagree with you about the canon rf line up tho. The 100-500 has a max aperture of 7.1 at 500 for $3k. Not to mention it should have been a 200-600 (at least for wildlife), a 100-400 makes a lot more sense for landscape. I haven’t noticed it to be any sharper than my tamron 150-600 g2 adapted to my z9. Also the 70-200 is small but does not deliver the results image quality wise of the Nikon. I feel like canon has focused on making their lenses small which is cool but there are sacrifices. Keep up the good work!
Absolutely love your review. I’m moving to a z9 from my z6ii. It’s on order. Thought about the z7ii and z8, but I’m one of those who have always wanted a built-in vertical grip. Goes way back to the first time I saw a D3.
I have the Z6 II and Z7 II. I am holding off on the Z9 because of the price and size. I am mainly a landscape photographer hobbyist. I agree with the 24-120 f/4 S, it's the best standard zoom for landscapes in the Z ecosystem. I am happy that I got the lens. It took a while to get, though. I used to have the Z 24-200 mm, and that lens was not sharp at the edges. My regret was selling my Z 20 mm f/1.8S. I sold it along with the Z 14-30 f/4 S to fund the purchase of the Z 14-24 mm f/2.8 S and to consolidate. Don't get me wrong, the 14-24 mm f/2.8 S was amazing, but I miss the character of the 20 mm f/1.8 S for Astro.
Great Vid… Tell me, Why do you like the 20mm Z F1.8 over the 14-24mm Z F2.8s… This is actually what prompted me to watch the vid because I wanted the perspective on the wide angle lens of choice and the Z9…. I am a Canon Shooter however I have always love the images the 14-24mm has produced… thanks for sharing!!!!
So the big reason was the filters. I shoot a lot of video and the 14-24 is not great for video because the VND is great with using the lens hood. But in addition to that, being able to go to 1.8 for Astro was great and is was smaller and lighter. That being said, the 14-24 is a great lens is you main focus is stills.
Last Question, In your vid, you mentioned the three mainstream camera manufacturers, Sony, Nikon and Canon… In your experience, Do you like one over the other because they may product a better particular glass… Example, I have the Canon 24mm -70mm F2.8, To me, it was always a Hit and Miss… But I have seen images from the Nikon Lens, 24mm -7 0m, F2.8 and Have like the results, Have you found that to be true in your photography journey?@@summitbid
This question deserves its own video! But to summarize there are big pros and cons to all the systems. To address your example, I have used both the RF 24-70 and Nikon 24-70 and the sony 24-70 GM II. they are all good, but Canon is not as good the Nikon and the Nikon is not as good as the Sony. BUT, when it comes to the super-telephoto lenses in the 100-400 range it's the exact opposite (Nikon is better than Sony and Canon is better than Nikon). I honestly wish there was a clear cut best company, but there is not. Canon's weak area is their standard zooms. The 24-105 is not great and the 24-70 is mid (and big and heavy!). Nikon's 24-120 and 14-30 are Great, but all the other lenses are not better than the other company's. Sony's big advantage is size and weight. An a7r V and a 2.8 trinity is lighter than an equivalent Nikon set up but f4. If you do the Sony F4 lenses, it's a fraction of the weight of Canon and Nikon. So honestly it comes down to what you shoot (focal range, subject) and what your personal preference is. I know it sounds cliche, but I have spent a lot of time and money coming to this realization.
The absence of a 4:5 crop mode and a bracket mode does not allow for two shot brackets is a hinderance for my landscape work. My z72 has both in a much easier to tote package. The 9 is landscape-capable, but it's not a camera built for landscapes. (The 72 also has an exposure timer that goes to 30 minutes just like the 9.)
Thanks for that! I appreciate your thorough coverage of a complicated topic. As an older guy who hikes (sometimes) a long way with a pack, the Z9 isn’t for me. I’m eager to see what Nikon does with either a Z7iii or Z8. Then it will finally be time to ditch my D810 and jump into the Z system.
I'm still shooting the D810. I do some hiking but also a lot of wildlife. Hoping to see something in between the Z7II & Z9. I like Canon's R5 & feel it is the best bang for the buck right now when you include the wildlife genre. Also, Canon has the really great EF-tilt/shift lenses & the 1-5X macro lens. Now that Sony has added focus stack photo taking to the A7R5, it is a contender also. Still, being vested in Nikon F-glass & purchasing all new lenses is going to hurt no matter what. With all that said, I believe Sony & Canon have a better AF when it comes to fast moving subjects like wildlife. Once you get past wildlife, the biggest features for me would be the EVF & tilt screen. I doubt never using any of them & upgrading from the D810/200-500 I wouldn't have any complaints no matter which one I would purchase.
I think the Nikon ecosystem will get better with 2-3 cameras this year. Seeing all the updates to firmware and software may be preparation for the next gen to be well received at launch.
I'm only in 1:43 of this vid & have to say, I seen some really, really , really good landscape photos from the D700 (12mp) in the Outdoor Photography Magazine. MP doesn't hurt but it is not the do all of landscape photography. Let me watch the rest of this vid& see if I spoke too soon. If I did I'll edit.
If you specialise in landscapes, you can save a significant lense's amount of money in buying a Z 7 or Z 7ii rather than a Z 9. These are smaller and lighter. Also excellently weather-sealed. And have similar resolution and colour rendition. The Z 9 has a bit better low light performance, though, but "above" that light level, dynamic range is comparable. If "availability" is important to you, both at camera and image level, then you must forget at two card slots - you need two cameras. Even when that seems theoretical with a brand as robust and reliable as Nikon.
I guess people are just unlucky. The copy of Z 100-400 that I own beats my own Z 70-200. That finding is also backed by Hudson' video where he saw similar pattern. And it also edges out my EF 100-400 L mkII. Considering RF 100-500 would probably be extremly similar to the EF just with 100mm extension being the most different thing, I think it's just such a pity that people can't enjoy this lens for it what it was projectiled to be.
The rf 100-500 is a completely new design (all rf glass is). At close range my Nikon 100-400 and 70-200 are very similar at the same apertures with a slight edge to the 70-200. It’s at distance (200 or more yards out) that my copy of the 70-200 maintains much better resolution than the 100-400. Now I still use the 100-400 a lot because it’s obviously a lot sharper at 400 than the 70-200 cropped. I’m willing to chalk it up to copy variance (an issue Nikon has had problems with) because I have heard from lots of photographers who don’t seem to have this issue as well as lots who have. I have also used the 400 4.5 which at 400 is significantly sharper wide open than the 100-400 ever gets.
I own both as well… I agree that overall the 24-70 has better image quality wide open and also has maybe a bit more character overall. But the 24-120 is same or better sharpness from 5.6 on down (at least my copies), has a better range and is smaller and lighter. For me that makes it the better tool for my work.
Nikon D850 is the same MP count, tried and trued workhorse that fits the bill for landscape and half the price of this model. Let's be honest, it's the latest and greatest from Nikon but the D850 doesn't tie you to a gripped monstrosity like the Z9 and you can add one if necessary. MP count also isn't the defining spec that designates a camera as a landscape camera, neither is the type of sensor or gizmos that drive it. Great review, and beautiful shots!
On my Z9 after 10 month light sensor went down . Nikon service refused to fix it. Because electrical shutter it's very limited camera .I was Nikon guy for many years. They service turn me to Sony. I love A1 for many reasons. Now my $30k equipment from Nikon Z going for sale
You shoot with this camera for the colors. At the time of its release, what cameras had a stacked full frame sensor at over 40mp? The Z9 has a bigger battery, and is the top mirrorless hybrid video/stills camera. Being able to shoot 8K internal and downsample to 1080p will give you higher quality than most cameras 4K. Build quality far exceeds the Z7. It's like trying to compare a D3, D4, D5 to someone buying a D700, D800 etc. Pro landscape photographers who shot in less than ideal conditions chose a D3, D4, D5, etc. Bob Krist, Morton Hilmer to name a few. Bob now shoots a smaller Sony kit and only b/c he mostly shoots travel and is old. Morton shot with a D4, D5 until the Z6/Z7 was released, now shoots with a Z9. He works in very harsh conditions. If you're going to spend days if not weeks out in the muck, you want to make it back and not be concerned about the camera destroying all your hard work, especially if your life literally depends on it.
"Nikon" started as "Japan Optical Ltd." (Nippon Kogaku). It made lenses (period). And e.g. Canon made cameras that they sold with Nippon Kogaku lenses (through 1947) when they went rogue (with their "own" lenses). Nippon Kogaku then released their first camera Nikon I (where I is roman numeral 1) in 1948. The trade name Nikon is not yet 100 years old, they didn't make cameras more than 100 years either. But, yes, more than 100 years lens design and manufacturing. As German (Carl) Zeiss had its "Ikon" camera range, the trade name Nikon was considered, in Germany, as rip-off and forbidden, initially. "Japan" still had to learn that copying may be a very polite acknowledgement of someone else's mastery, but in business is theft of intellectual property. An important line of Nikon business is, has been, development and making what we could simply call "chip printers". Chips are designed logically in CAD software and the CAD file, after feasibility review, then is "printed" by a "foundry" company that uses such "chip printers". Chip designers ARM never "made" their own designs, yet they are in billions of smartphones. Early 2000s, "Japan" could not keep up chip printer development or innovation with Moore's Law and lost their lead to Dutch startup ASML. When component density is not an issue, as in sensors, chips could still easily be printed with those older generation printers. Sony Semiconductor in this sense is just a foundry - a print house using another company's printers to "make" chips designed by their clients, with their foundry name on them.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
Bang on review/analysis! You've touched on subjects no other have. The x-factor is the main one for me and is something Nikon not only knows how to instil in their cameras, but has also been true to it for decades. Nikon knows what their pro photographers want to feel when using a flagship body and the Z9 is packed full of that elusive x-factor.
I started many years before you and my second camera was a brand new Nikon F-5 that I purchased in 1998. It's DNA(as well as on those bodies you've shown) is here as well and shows how Nikon has kept the basics that work, and refined and fine tune the details over the years to bring a camera that feels familiar and at the same time innovative and contemporary.
I love my Z9. A 'jack of all trades' that is actually, for one, also a 'master of all'. Kudos to Nikon and kudos to you for this insightful review.
Bang on review. Love my z9. One of the most in depth talks about the z9 with substance. Thank you
Thanks for watching!
Oh, and I totally agree with you about the Nikon philosophy. I appreciate that about the brand. Thanks again!
excellent, seasoned review. thanks. Have the Z9 and use it for video and landscape with the 20 1.8 and 24-120 f4 and 50 1.2. I am truly stunned with video and pic quality.
The Z7II is not 90% of the same camera as the Z9 for me. Stacked CMOS sensor, 8K at 60P, Starlight mode and glowy buttons, build quality, and vertical grip make it at least double the camera for me. I haven't used the pre-capture yet for UT lightning storms; but, I totally will.
Great video. thanks. :)
I think it’s a sliding scale because I too find the z9’s features to be absolutely worth the double price. But I had to try to zoom out and look at features a pure landscape photographer would use and it’s hard for me to say your getting $2500 worth of value… but if you shoot landscape and literally anything else the z9 is easily twitch the camera of the z7ii.
I agree. I’ve wanted a gripped camera from Nikon ever since I saw the D3 for the first time. When this one came out, AND it was great for landscape…well…I pulled the trigger. Moved from z6ii. Big investment for sure. Excited to get some first photos.
Great video!! I have to disagree with you about the canon rf line up tho. The 100-500 has a max aperture of 7.1 at 500 for $3k. Not to mention it should have been a 200-600 (at least for wildlife), a 100-400 makes a lot more sense for landscape. I haven’t noticed it to be any sharper than my tamron 150-600 g2 adapted to my z9. Also the 70-200 is small but does not deliver the results image quality wise of the Nikon. I feel like canon has focused on making their lenses small which is cool but there are sacrifices. Keep up the good work!
i just got my z9 last month, (came from a z5),its already made me a much better photographer
Tech doesn't do that, only experience does. You're justifying the $5500 price tag you paid.
@@Caballeroshot oh , i didn't realize that's what i was doing, thank you, btw i didnt pay anywhere near $5500
I haven't used my z9 and 24-120mm f4 lens for landscape....I think I should try to explore
Absolutely love your review. I’m moving to a z9 from my z6ii. It’s on order. Thought about the z7ii and z8, but I’m one of those who have always wanted a built-in vertical grip. Goes way back to the first time I saw a D3.
Something about those gripped bodies…
Fantastic review of the Z9 and to some degree Nikon in general.
Look forward to your z8 review for landscape! I can’t afford one camera for landscape and one for sports/action. I need a general one and done
I have one preordered! I have NPS so I’m hopeful to get some videos about it out in the next few weeks
Superb video
Thank you so much 😀
I have the Z6 II and Z7 II. I am holding off on the Z9 because of the price and size. I am mainly a landscape photographer hobbyist. I agree with the 24-120 f/4 S, it's the best standard zoom for landscapes in the Z ecosystem. I am happy that I got the lens. It took a while to get, though. I used to have the Z 24-200 mm, and that lens was not sharp at the edges. My regret was selling my Z 20 mm f/1.8S. I sold it along with the Z 14-30 f/4 S to fund the purchase of the Z 14-24 mm f/2.8 S and to consolidate. Don't get me wrong, the 14-24 mm f/2.8 S was amazing, but I miss the character of the 20 mm f/1.8 S for Astro.
That 20mm is sneaky awesome. One of the few times a prime was actually more versatile than the 14-24 zoom.
Great Vid… Tell me, Why do you like the 20mm Z F1.8 over the 14-24mm Z F2.8s… This is actually what prompted me to watch the vid because I wanted the perspective on the wide angle lens of choice and the Z9…. I am a Canon Shooter however I have always love the images the 14-24mm has produced… thanks for sharing!!!!
So the big reason was the filters. I shoot a lot of video and the 14-24 is not great for video because the VND is great with using the lens hood. But in addition to that, being able to go to 1.8 for Astro was great and is was smaller and lighter. That being said, the 14-24 is a great lens is you main focus is stills.
Last Question, In your vid, you mentioned the three mainstream camera manufacturers, Sony, Nikon and Canon… In your experience, Do you like one over the other because they may product a better particular glass… Example, I have the Canon 24mm -70mm F2.8, To me, it was always a Hit and Miss… But I have seen images from the Nikon Lens, 24mm -7 0m, F2.8 and Have like the results, Have you found that to be true in your photography journey?@@summitbid
This question deserves its own video! But to summarize there are big pros and cons to all the systems. To address your example, I have used both the RF 24-70 and Nikon 24-70 and the sony 24-70 GM II. they are all good, but Canon is not as good the Nikon and the Nikon is not as good as the Sony. BUT, when it comes to the super-telephoto lenses in the 100-400 range it's the exact opposite (Nikon is better than Sony and Canon is better than Nikon). I honestly wish there was a clear cut best company, but there is not. Canon's weak area is their standard zooms. The 24-105 is not great and the 24-70 is mid (and big and heavy!). Nikon's 24-120 and 14-30 are Great, but all the other lenses are not better than the other company's. Sony's big advantage is size and weight. An a7r V and a 2.8 trinity is lighter than an equivalent Nikon set up but f4. If you do the Sony F4 lenses, it's a fraction of the weight of Canon and Nikon. So honestly it comes down to what you shoot (focal range, subject) and what your personal preference is. I know it sounds cliche, but I have spent a lot of time and money coming to this realization.
Nikon needs massive improvement in image stabilization for high megapixel and long lenses to be handheld effectively.
Interesting that you basically predicted the need for the Z8 in this video :)
The absence of a 4:5 crop mode and a bracket mode does not allow for two shot brackets is a hinderance for my landscape work. My z72 has both in a much easier to tote package. The 9 is landscape-capable, but it's not a camera built for landscapes. (The 72 also has an exposure timer that goes to 30 minutes just like the 9.)
Great all around & fair review.
What is the tripod head shown @6:54?
Can't wait for the mark iii versions.
Thanks for that! I appreciate your thorough coverage of a complicated topic. As an older guy who hikes (sometimes) a long way with a pack, the Z9 isn’t for me. I’m eager to see what Nikon does with either a Z7iii or Z8. Then it will finally be time to ditch my D810 and jump into the Z system.
I'm still shooting the D810. I do some hiking but also a lot of wildlife. Hoping to see something in between the Z7II & Z9. I like Canon's R5 & feel it is the best bang for the buck right now when you include the wildlife genre. Also, Canon has the really great EF-tilt/shift lenses & the 1-5X macro lens. Now that Sony has added focus stack photo taking to the A7R5, it is a contender also. Still, being vested in Nikon F-glass & purchasing all new lenses is going to hurt no matter what. With all that said, I believe Sony & Canon have a better AF when it comes to fast moving subjects like wildlife. Once you get past wildlife, the biggest features for me would be the EVF & tilt screen. I doubt never using any of them & upgrading from the D810/200-500 I wouldn't have any complaints no matter which one I would purchase.
Dude you should just add that curve into the Z9 profile so you have it in camera.
I think the Nikon ecosystem will get better with 2-3 cameras this year. Seeing all the updates to firmware and software may be preparation for the next gen to be well received at launch.
I'm only in 1:43 of this vid & have to say, I seen some really, really , really good landscape photos from the D700 (12mp) in the Outdoor Photography Magazine. MP doesn't hurt but it is not the do all of landscape photography. Let me watch the rest of this vid& see if I spoke too soon. If I did I'll edit.
Finally!
If you specialise in landscapes, you can save a significant lense's amount of money in buying a Z 7 or Z 7ii rather than a Z 9. These are smaller and lighter. Also excellently weather-sealed. And have similar resolution and colour rendition. The Z 9 has a bit better low light performance, though, but "above" that light level, dynamic range is comparable. If "availability" is important to you, both at camera and image level, then you must forget at two card slots - you need two cameras. Even when that seems theoretical with a brand as robust and reliable as Nikon.
I guess people are just unlucky. The copy of Z 100-400 that I own beats my own Z 70-200. That finding is also backed by Hudson' video where he saw similar pattern. And it also edges out my EF 100-400 L mkII. Considering RF 100-500 would probably be extremly similar to the EF just with 100mm extension being the most different thing, I think it's just such a pity that people can't enjoy this lens for it what it was projectiled to be.
The rf 100-500 is a completely new design (all rf glass is). At close range my Nikon 100-400 and 70-200 are very similar at the same apertures with a slight edge to the 70-200. It’s at distance (200 or more yards out) that my copy of the 70-200 maintains much better resolution than the 100-400. Now I still use the 100-400 a lot because it’s obviously a lot sharper at 400 than the 70-200 cropped. I’m willing to chalk it up to copy variance (an issue Nikon has had problems with) because I have heard from lots of photographers who don’t seem to have this issue as well as lots who have. I have also used the 400 4.5 which at 400 is significantly sharper wide open than the 100-400 ever gets.
We made a whole video comparing the 70-200 to the 100-400 but the audio got ruined… might be worth doing a re-shoot
I own both the 24-70 and 24-120 S lenses. 24-120 is my most used, but no way is it superior to the 24-70.
I own both as well… I agree that overall the 24-70 has better image quality wide open and also has maybe a bit more character overall. But the 24-120 is same or better sharpness from 5.6 on down (at least my copies), has a better range and is smaller and lighter. For me that makes it the better tool for my work.
Nikon D850 is the same MP count, tried and trued workhorse that fits the bill for landscape and half the price of this model. Let's be honest, it's the latest and greatest from Nikon but the D850 doesn't tie you to a gripped monstrosity like the Z9 and you can add one if necessary. MP count also isn't the defining spec that designates a camera as a landscape camera, neither is the type of sensor or gizmos that drive it. Great review, and beautiful shots!
Your opinion I guess.
Love my Z9!
@@robwheeler7660 Yes you are correct, it's an opinion, glad you caught on.
You sold me I have the r3 & R5c which I love …… now I need z9 with 24-120 my wife is going to kill me
On my Z9 after 10 month light sensor went down . Nikon service refused to fix it. Because electrical shutter it's very limited camera .I was Nikon guy for many years. They service turn me to Sony. I love A1 for many reasons. Now my $30k equipment from Nikon Z going for sale
Did you have a gray market Z9?
ruclips.net/video/QMXZuXjuX1Y/видео.html
Unless you shoot fast action photography, I dont see the point in spending 5K on this camera. The Z7II can be had new now for $2,500-half the price.
You shoot with this camera for the colors. At the time of its release, what cameras had a stacked full frame sensor at over 40mp? The Z9 has a bigger battery, and is the top mirrorless hybrid video/stills camera. Being able to shoot 8K internal and downsample to 1080p will give you higher quality than most cameras 4K. Build quality far exceeds the Z7.
It's like trying to compare a D3, D4, D5 to someone buying a D700, D800 etc. Pro landscape photographers who shot in less than ideal conditions chose a D3, D4, D5, etc. Bob Krist, Morton Hilmer to name a few. Bob now shoots a smaller Sony kit and only b/c he mostly shoots travel and is old. Morton shot with a D4, D5 until the Z6/Z7 was released, now shoots with a Z9. He works in very harsh conditions.
If you're going to spend days if not weeks out in the muck, you want to make it back and not be concerned about the camera destroying all your hard work, especially if your life literally depends on it.
I'd say just the Sand protection alone is worth using over the Z6/Z7.
"Nikon" started as "Japan Optical Ltd." (Nippon Kogaku). It made lenses (period). And e.g. Canon made cameras that they sold with Nippon Kogaku lenses (through 1947) when they went rogue (with their "own" lenses). Nippon Kogaku then released their first camera Nikon I (where I is roman numeral 1) in 1948. The trade name Nikon is not yet 100 years old, they didn't make cameras more than 100 years either. But, yes, more than 100 years lens design and manufacturing.
As German (Carl) Zeiss had its "Ikon" camera range, the trade name Nikon was considered, in Germany, as rip-off and forbidden, initially. "Japan" still had to learn that copying may be a very polite acknowledgement of someone else's mastery, but in business is theft of intellectual property.
An important line of Nikon business is, has been, development and making what we could simply call "chip printers". Chips are designed logically in CAD software and the CAD file, after feasibility review, then is "printed" by a "foundry" company that uses such "chip printers". Chip designers ARM never "made" their own designs, yet they are in billions of smartphones. Early 2000s, "Japan" could not keep up chip printer development or innovation with Moore's Law and lost their lead to Dutch startup ASML. When component density is not an issue, as in sensors, chips could still easily be printed with those older generation printers. Sony Semiconductor in this sense is just a foundry - a print house using another company's printers to "make" chips designed by their clients, with their foundry name on them.