Thoughts on Nikon Z9/Z8 vs. Canon R3/R5(c)?

[ghostwind]

I'm finally making the move to mirrorless from my DSLRs for my photography work (weddings, portraits, sports, events, corporate, etc.), as I have some downtime in December and January to do this. For the past 4 years, I've had to incorporate more and more video into my work, and that's not going to stop; it will only grow. But stills are still very important. So, In looking at what system to go to, the Nikon Z9/Z8 stood out in terms of having quite the video capabilities - no overheating on the Z9 especially (Z8 may have some overheating), internal recording of RAW and ProRes, etc. In the Canon camp, I've been waiting forever for that R1 that keeps eluding everyone. I've shot both Canon and Nikon, so am not tied to either, and I don't only own 4 lenses which I want to upgrade to either Z or RF anyway. So what I have now doesn't factor much into the system I'll move to now. 

So the Z9/Z8 look very attractive, as I was saying. In the Canon camp, I've read mixed things about the R3 and R5c. It seems Canon still cripples some features on their cameras, whereas Nikon went all in with the Z9/Z8. Not having as many products and no cinema line, Nikon can do this I guess. So that's a plus, but perhaps also a negative in that they are not as established, and who knows what the future will look like. Canon is everywhere; they have cinema cameras, and they're not going anywhere, it seems. For stills, I think the Z9/Z8 are superior to the R3/R5/R5c for my use, so I am not worried about that, and I'm sure the future R1 will match the Z9/Z8 for that, but it's the video I'm on the fence about. Some folks at the local camera shops I've spoken to seem really high on Canon for video (how C-log is so great, etc.), and they aren't a Canon shop at all. On the lens front, it doesn't matter much, they seem similar (Z and RF quality), and I think the Z mount is versatile enough to use many other lenses with adaptors - maybe more than the RF mount.

I shoot as a one-man band. My videos are usually corporate stuff (interviews mixed with b-roll, etc.) and, more recently, some sports stuff. But I do it on my own, and I'm not collaborating with other folks. It works for me, I like working this way, and I mention it because I don't need to share files with other folks, which makes choosing a system more individual presence. I've used Canon C100/300 cinema cameras before, but I realized it wasn't worth it or necessary, as my workflow is simple. And with the advent of 32-bit audio recorders like the Zoom F3, I don't care about XLR inputs anymore on my cameras, and want/prefer the simplicity of a true hybrid camera system.

I'm just on the fence about Nikon for the reasons mentioned, and I'm also curious about what people here think. I could go with Canon and get an R3 + R5c or an R5 + R5c and use them until the R1 comes out. I feel like the R1 will be quite similar to the Z9 in specs/features, but it will be Canon and shoot C-log, and people will gush about it. There's also some comfort in the fact that, again, Canon is committed to video whereas Nikon may not be. I've read some negative things about N-log, NRAW, etc. too. 

These are just my thoughts that I wanted to write down and solicit some feedback on. I feel the Z9/Z8 workflow will be simpler, and working with the R3/R5/R5c will be a bit more of a headache managing battery life, heating, etc. 

All feedback is appreciated.

 

 

 

 

[The Dancing Babamef]

I haven't shot with either R3 nor R5 but I have shot with Nikon 5100, Z6, Z6_2 and finally with the Z9.

 

I chose Nikon because the Z glass in my mind is the perfect system. You have affordable 1.8 glass that doesn't look, feel or render as a 50$ kit lens. I have shot with the 50mm 20mm and 85mm wide open and can be 100% satisfied with the results. I have also used the 85 1.2 but I only bought it because I need the extra light.

I have also shot extensively 8.3K NRAW, ask me about it. 60fps and 24fps (23.98) clips and graded them accordingly. For me it's the perfect camera, even more as the switch from photo to video takes under a second (in my test case with fast Angelbird media). Also I have shot in H265. If you watch Camera Conspiracies that guy must be editing on a laptop or something because the H265 from my Ninja on Z6 and on Z9 were not a problem and I didn't create proxies. 

Without the Z8/Z9 the R5 would be a no brainer because of the internal 8K RAW but now a basically R5 but with a bigger battery, no overheating and fast switch. I think it's obvious.

[Jedi Master]

How does Nikon get around the RED patent on internal RAW? Do they pay a license fee to RED, or is their RAW a watered down RAW like BRAW and Canon Cinema RAW Lite?

[ghostwind]

1 hour ago, The Dancing Babamef said:

I haven't shot with either R3 nor R5 but I have shot with Nikon 5100, Z6, Z6_2 and finally with the Z9.

 

I chose Nikon because the Z glass in my mind is the perfect system. You have affordable 1.8 glass that doesn't look, feel or render as a 50$ kit lens. I have shot with the 50mm 20mm and 85mm wide open and can be 100% satisfied with the results. I have also used the 85 1.2 but I only bought it because I need the extra light.

I have also shot extensively 8.3K NRAW, ask me about it. 60fps and 24fps (23.98) clips and graded them accordingly. For me it's the perfect camera, even more as the switch from photo to video takes under a second (in my test case with fast Angelbird media). Also I have shot in H265. If you watch Camera Conspiracies that guy must be editing on a laptop or something because the H265 from my Ninja on Z6 and on Z9 were not a problem and I didn't create proxies. 

Without the Z8/Z9 the R5 would be a no brainer because of the internal 8K RAW but now a basically R5 but with a bigger battery, no overheating and fast switch. I think it's obvious.

What about support and Nikon's commitment to video? These really are the first cameras to have all this, and while Canon is a safe bet, not sure what Nikon's future is. I agree with the lenses. The other thing is Canon colors - not sure how N-log is in comparison, or how easy it is to get it to look good in post.

[PannySVHS]

From what I read on this forum, Clog flavours on their hybrids lag behind their counterparts C300 II and Mark III even moreso. R5 in Raw does perform same latitude as S1H in its h264 codec in test by German test site slashcam, but less in dynamic range according to Cined tests.

NRaw has been a bit of a riddle in post to some youtubers due to akward Nlog curve. But an Aces or other adequate workflow should solve that. It has almost the same but even a tiny bit better latitude than a S1H and the same as C70 Raw according to slashcam, bettering also a R5 in that same test.

Colour fidelity is supposely astonishing.

Nikon has put out convincing 8bit video hybrids with the Z6/7. Even their HD Dslrs D750 and 850 have been 8bit video marvels, such as their Apsc D5300, 5500, 7500. So they are no newbies regarding convincing image quality in video. @ghostwind

That is only talking about image quality, not even mentioning full Hdmi, sturdiness, internal Prores besides Nraw.

Nikon had a few aces in their sleeve during their law case with Red. You could find all about that in the insightful Eoshd thread about that topic. @Jedi Master

[gt3rs]

You can't really go wrong with both systems. Today Z8 is probably the best bang for the bucks.

I shoot with R5 and R5c since the release I'm very happy, you can search my posts here tons of discussion.
R5 overheating is a thing of the past, this summer I was shooting under the sun 8k 25 RAW with on top an iphone 13 pro max in 4k... and the iphone shut down due to overheating and the R5 kept going...
Having said this I think we will se a new R5 early next year as is now more than 3.5 years old.... so not the best moment to buy it. I think R1 will also show up in first half but who knows.
R3 is an amazing camera but I don't want to go back to 24mpix and non 8k video.
My preferred one is the R5c but once you decide Nikon vs Canon we can go deeper in the differences.

Canon has some unique zooms that you may find interesting for your job:
RF 24-105 2.8 (optional power zoom) with one lens you maybe able to cover most of your need.
RF 28-70 2.0, I love this lens, no more primes to carry around, switching lens, etc. Sold all my primes other than a el cheapo 16 2.8.
RF 70-200 2.8, some love it some not due that is an extending design, but is super small and light weight, I use mine on gimbal quite a bit.
RF 100-300 2.8 cost a fortune but is great for sports.

With two super expensive lenses and a 1 TC you can cover almost everything 24-105 2.8 100-300 2.8

If you even plan to acquire or rent cinema cameras, canon RF mount lenses may be a better choice than Z lenses as both Canon and RED have, and will have cinema camera with this mount.

[MrSMW]

Not used any of these cameras, but currently transitioning from L Mount to Nikon for stills and maybe the whole hog, depending on whether a Z6iii turns up, what it is and when…because I have a season and once it begins, I will not be making any changes.

My current set up is:

S1H + S5ii + 28-70 + 70-200 video

 Zf + 40 + adapted Tamron 20-40 + adapted Tamron 70-180 and waiting until the new year to purchase a Z8, for stills.

ie, 2 sets of kit, one for video and one for stills.

If the Z6iii comes out and is available before the end of March 2024, I will buy that, get another adapted Tamron, the 28-75 and sell the 4 pieces of L Mount I still have.

Why? 3 cameras plus 4 lenses all with cross compatibility will work better for me, also a one man band, compared with 4 bodies and 5 lenses that are not all interchangeable.

If I had the funds though, a pair of R3’s, one paired with the 28-70 f2 and the other with the new 24-105 f2.8.

Far too much for my budget though at 18k before trade in and lacks a longer lens which I might get away with not having, but probably ought to have, so 20k+

It all comes down to our individual needs and preferences and these are mine.

I think the Z9 is ‘better’ than the Z8, but I’m trading that ‘betterness’ (ergos, battery life, less likely to overheat) for being a more compact and lighter beast plus cheaper.

But take cost out of it, as above, that exact Canon combo. And I used Nikon for 10 years professionally and have never owned a Canon camera. This set up is just the best currently available for my needs. At least theoretically… 😉

[BTM_Pix]

3 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

How does Nikon get around the RED patent on internal RAW? 

By ignoring it and fighting it through the courts.

 

[ghostwind]

2 hours ago, gt3rs said:

You can't really go wrong with both systems. Today Z8 is probably the best bang for the bucks.

I shoot with R5 and R5c since the release I'm very happy, you can search my posts here tons of discussion.
R5 overheating is a thing of the past, this summer I was shooting under the sun 8k 25 RAW with on top an iphone 13 pro max in 4k... and the iphone shut down due to overheating and the R5 kept going...
Having said this I think we will se a new R5 early next year as is now more than 3.5 years old.... so not the best moment to buy it. I think R1 will also show up in first half but who knows.
R3 is an amazing camera but I don't want to go back to 24mpix and non 8k video.
My preferred one is the R5c but once you decide Nikon vs Canon we can go deeper in the differences.

Canon has some unique zooms that you may find interesting for your job:
RF 24-105 2.8 (optional power zoom) with one lens you maybe able to cover most of your need.
RF 28-70 2.0, I love this lens, no more primes to carry around, switching lens, etc. Sold all my primes other than a el cheapo 16 2.8.
RF 70-200 2.8, some love it some not due that is an extending design, but is super small and light weight, I use mine on gimbal quite a bit.
RF 100-300 2.8 cost a fortune but is great for sports.

With two super expensive lenses and a 1 TC you can cover almost everything 24-105 2.8 100-300 2.8

If you even plan to acquire or rent cinema cameras, canon RF mount lenses may be a better choice than Z lenses as both Canon and RED have, and will have cinema camera with this mount.

Yeah, it's a tough problem to have 🙂 

You make some good points, ones I've also thought about. The problem is that while Canon has some interesting lenses, Nikon does as well. But the main issue is that Canon doesn't have any good bodies at this point IMHO. The R3 is too low at 24MP for me if I need to punch in. Otherwise, it's great. The R5 bodies are getting a makeover soon as you point out. So more waiting for the R1...or buying some R3/R5 combo in the interim and selling at depreciation as I was saying in my initial post. 

That RF 70-200 is a bad design for my use. I would worry about taking it in rain and dust with that zoom mechanism. It also won't take the 1.4x extender, which I use all the time on my EF 70-200 for sports. 

 

[ghostwind]

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Not used any of these cameras, but currently transitioning from L Mount to Nikon for stills and maybe the whole hog, depending on whether a Z6iii turns up, what it is and when…because I have a season and once it begins, I will not be making any changes.

My current set up is:

S1H + S5ii + 28-70 + 70-200 video

 Zf + 40 + adapted Tamron 20-40 + adapted Tamron 70-180 and waiting until the new year to purchase a Z8, for stills.

ie, 2 sets of kit, one for video and one for stills.

If the Z6iii comes out and is available before the end of March 2024, I will buy that, get another adapted Tamron, the 28-75 and sell the 4 pieces of L Mount I still have.

Why? 3 cameras plus 4 lenses all with cross compatibility will work better for me, also a one man band, compared with 4 bodies and 5 lenses that are not all interchangeable.

If I had the funds though, a pair of R3’s, one paired with the 28-70 f2 and the other with the new 24-105 f2.8.

Far too much for my budget though at 18k before trade in and lacks a longer lens which I might get away with not having, but probably ought to have, so 20k+

It all comes down to our individual needs and preferences and these are mine.

I think the Z9 is ‘better’ than the Z8, but I’m trading that ‘betterness’ (ergos, battery life, less likely to overheat) for being a more compact and lighter beast plus cheaper.

But take cost out of it, as above, that exact Canon combo. And I used Nikon for 10 years professionally and have never owned a Canon camera. This set up is just the best currently available for my needs. At least theoretically… 😉

If it were more than 24MP, I'd def get the R3. That and the RF 70-200 limitations (see my prior post) are reasons I won't get either. 

Regarding the Z8, it's in the mix of course. I just worry that I'd have to carry a bunch of batteries all the time. And for video, it doesn't seem to last too long. I'd hate to be on-site with a client and have it overheat. Z9 just doesn't from any testing I've seen, so more reliable even if more heavy and pricier.

[gt3rs]

So you have EF lenses… then why you simply just buy a used R5 + adapter and try out, worse case you can resell the R5 for a small loss.

EF lenses works better on R body than on DSLR.

 

[ghostwind]

I was thinking of things in terms of simplicity today and came up with this:

1. Canon (everything not sports, including video): 1 body with 24-70mm f/2 and 2nd body with 24-105mm f/2.8

2. Canon (sports): 1 body with 24-105mm f/2.8 and 2nd body with 100-300mm f/2.8 (with 1.4x on hand)

3. Nikon (everything not sports, including video): 1 body with 24-70mm f/2.8 and 2nd body with 70-200mm f/2.8 and in lower light a 24/35/50/85mm f/1.8 prime combo on the 2 bodies.

4. Nikon (sports): 1 body with either 24-70mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 and 2nd body with 400mm f/2.8 (with 1.4x on hand for the 70-200mm - the 400mm has the 1.4x built in)

So those are the scenarios I came up with based on my experience with 2 bodies and what I shoot, and what is out there in Canon and Nikon mirrorless land from a lens point of view.

With Nikon the Z9 is the body I'd get. With Canon, it's more complicated as stated before until R1 comes out (assuming it will be similar to the Z9 with more MPs, etc.)

 

[MrSMW]

Well in that case, Options 3&4 combined…

Z8 for 24-70 and primes paired with a Z9 for the bigger zoom lenses, or the 24-70 if using a prime on the Z8.

It’s kind of where I have gone for stills which is having the relatively small & light Zf as my ‘candid’ workhorse paired with the 40mm f2 basically as a fixed lens point and shoot, plus having the Z8 as the platform for more serious work (landscapes, buildings, portraits etc) with a wide zoom and a long zoom.

A kind of ‘lite’ version of what you might do with a Z8/9 combo.

Could I use it for video also? Yes, easily, but needs a third body & lens for how I work and I’m not sure if I wish to commit to that at this time.

My point being that in your case, if you make the Z9 your A unit and the Z8 your B, it should eliminate, or at least massively reduce any battery life or overheating concerns?

Personally, I’m not worried about overheating on the Z8. I’ve seen the tests etc but I’ve used much smaller cameras with much shorter recording times (such as Sony RX100v and ZV1) so have a ballpark working knowledge of what to expect and as I would be shooting 5-15 second clips, maybe up to 2-3 minutes occasionally with the Z8…if I went all in on Nikon for everything, not a concern.

Having said that, I do think the Z9 is the better platform. I just personally am on a smaller & lighter crusade right now.

[gt3rs]

What kind of sports do you cover?

Imo you should choose by lenses not bodies as 3 years ago Nikon had nothing, now they have two of the best cameras but in 6 months from now?

My standard kit 

R5 R5c

RF 100-300 2.8

RF 28-70 2

RF 16 2.8

1.4 tc

I have also RF 70-200 2.8 but I use it basically only on Gimbal now as the 100-300 covers a better range. I'm thinking of changing 70-200 for the 24-105 but I'm not sure I like the 100-200 range on gimbal.

I also have the RF 100-500 that I use for Freeride and MTB where I'm skiing or on a bike so the 100-300 is just too heavy.

I also have the 2x TC but I use it only for daylight horses' competition on big fields and for airplanes/wildlife.

[PannySVHS]

Pro equipment for earning pro money doing pro jobs in pro sports. 😊 @gt3rs I am always impressed by stuff like yours. I enjoy the achievement itself and am always a bit in disbelief about it. There was a member posting here, who was filming sports with a FS5, football and baseball iirc. Was that you as well? Some impressive footage.

[ghostwind]

6 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Well in that case, Options 3&4 combined…

 

My point being that in your case, if you make the Z9 your A unit and the Z8 your B, it should eliminate, or at least massively reduce any battery life or overheating concerns?

Personally, I’m not worried about overheating on the Z8. I’ve seen the tests etc but I’ve used much smaller cameras with much shorter recording times (such as Sony RX100v and ZV1) so have a ballpark working knowledge of what to expect and as I would be shooting 5-15 second clips, maybe up to 2-3 minutes occasionally with the Z8…if I went all in on Nikon for everything, not a concern.

Having said that, I do think the Z9 is the better platform. I just personally am on a smaller & lighter crusade right now.

Right, it would either be 1&2 or 3&4. I was just separating them by what I shoot.

I've thought about a Z8 as the second body, but I prefer to have the same body with the same batteries, button layout, cards, etc. When using 2 bodies at once, it's easy and less thinking involved. 

 

[ghostwind]

1 hour ago, gt3rs said:

What kind of sports do you cover?

Imo you should choose by lenses not bodies as 3 years ago Nikon had nothing, now they have two of the best cameras but in 6 months from now?

My standard kit 

R5 R5c

RF 100-300 2.8

RF 28-70 2

RF 16 2.8

1.4 tc

I have also RF 70-200 2.8 but I use it basically only on Gimbal now as the 100-300 covers a better range. I'm thinking of changing 70-200 for the 24-105 but I'm not sure I like the 100-200 range on gimbal.

I also have the RF 100-500 that I use for Freeride and MTB where I'm skiing or on a bike so the 100-300 is just too heavy.

I also have the 2x TC but I use it only for daylight horses' competition on big fields and for airplanes/wildlife.

I did go by lenses above, but bodies are still important. Nikon also didn't really have video before the Z9 either. They always had lenses for what I do. 

I shoot college sports - football, soccer, hockey, basketball, lacrosse, & baseball. I usually use the 24-70 or 70-200 on one body (depending on the sport) and a 300 or 400 on the other body with a 1.4x at times. With Canon, I could use the 24-105 and 100-300 with 1.4x to replace those 3-4 lenses. Hockey I might still want to use a 70-200 though, as that's what I primarily use and the 100-300 is not so light to hold for the entire game. 

How's the 28-70 for video? My thinking was to use the 24-105 for most other things, with the 28-70 when I want shallower DOF or the light drops. But I would think the 24-105 would be nicer for video with the IS and power zoom. 

 

 

 

[ghostwind]

Forgot volleyball and swimming!

[The Dancing Babamef]

On 11/24/2023 at 6:19 PM, ghostwind said:

What about support and Nikon's commitment to video? These really are the first cameras to have all this, and while Canon is a safe bet, not sure what Nikon's future is. I agree with the lenses. The other thing is Canon colors - not sure how N-log is in comparison, or how easy it is to get it to look good in post.

I shot a bunch of footage in the summer and the files were wonderful. I haven't tried shooting in low light nor in grey cloudy weather because if the weather is like that then I don't even bother to take the camera out. Every picture tends to look flat and ugly. 

I was able to work with the colors and it wasn't hard to create a faithful look even when I didn't have a correct WB/tint during the shooting because I use a 200-500 and I can't go somewhere to meter the correct values. 

I work with a calibrated PA32UCX and I output SDR. Nothing major just before and after grades and for myself and social media. I have however used a RAW video from an R5 and it was really noisy even as it was shot on a sunny beach. With the Z9 you can lower the ISO to 200 from 800 and in Summer it was really helpful to get closer to the 180deg rule.

The Z9 will be a good camera for years to come. It has internal RAW at 8.3K and its RAW format is natively supported in Resolve. I have my trust in Nikon. Only issue I would have is the lens mount as getting a PL to Z was quite tricky but eventually I found an online shop with 1 in stock.

[kye]

15 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

Pro equipment for earning pro money doing pro jobs in pro sports. 😊 @gt3rs I am always impressed by stuff like yours. I enjoy the achievement itself and am always a bit in disbelief about it. There was a member posting here, who was filming sports with a FS5, football and baseball iirc. Was that you as well? Some impressive footage.

Perhaps you were thinking of @Mako Sports?