Hey y’all! I am a wildlife photographer, but I still have pretty beginner equipment. I am heading up to Yellowstone this December and was looking to… More on reddit.com

It wasn't sharp when viewed at short range, but as a work of art, it was beautiful. Bread-and-butter professionals may be more resistant to marketing based on high megapixel counts. ... To put it in crass terms: Nikon Z9 body (BHPhoto), $5.5k Canon R5 body, $3.7k The Z9 body is large. More on dpreview.com

I mean the R3 is a much different animal than the R5. It's meant for low light and high speed such as sports and wildlife since nearly all lighting conditions are out of your control. A photographer I know has the R3 and Z9, he does confirm that the R3 is absolutely fantastic in low light. We shoot wildlife and that's why I'm drooling all over the R3 since most of my subjects are in low light. However, he does obviously say the Z9 (like R5) can be cropped a lot which is a huge thing in wildlife photography. As for the R5 vs Z9, there's not point in getting a Z9. IQ would be the same. More on reddit.com

I switched from using Z6II's to Canon R6 mk2's and there's a noticeable difference in the autofocus, the Canon can lock onto the eyes (and stay there) much, much better. I had the latest firmware on the Z6II and everything. My second camera was a Z6I and it was truly an awful camera in the dark. I know the Z8/Z9 is better but, the R6ii is half the price basically. Also just want to throw out there that Canons RF lens lineup is much more impressive than Nikon's, and the adapter to EF is about half the width/weight of the FTZ adapter, making using DLSR lenses easier to use as well. More on reddit.com