Is it possible that the device that costs you more could cost you less? Let’s explore together.
Lately, I’ve been writing a lot about the new Nikon Z 9. In part, this is because I’ve just bought one and have spent the past few months obsessing about it, and have spent an inelegant but somehow completely relevant time of mine over the past few months. But mostly I wrote about it because, to my pleasant surprise, I found the camera solved a lot of workflow problems I’ve had in the past. All of these little problems, such as overheating, hard-to-edit video codecs, my cranky old man allergic to most electronic viewfinders, are minor inconveniences compared to the benefits the camera has to offer. My other brings. But they were big enough problems for me that my camera bag ended up looking like a UN piece of tech. Instead of one trusty camera to do it all, each trip to the set will involve multiple camera bags with multiple cameras. Each camera will do one thing well. But each will certainly also have at least one built-in vulnerability that makes it impractical (or at least difficult) for all the specific tasks I need to perform. So I ended up having to have a collection of cameras to work together to be the perfect camera.
Now, I don’t think my Z 9 is a perfect camera. To be fair, though, I haven’t found any reason to think it’s not a perfect camera. But the simple fact of the matter is, since buying it, I have found no reason to shoot with anything else. I feel completely comfortable walking away from almost any work with the Z 9 and only the Z 9, knowing there is nothing a client can throw at me that the camera won’t be able to handle. Sure, there are times when a cinema camcorder is really the better choice. And sometimes medium format is required. But, beyond that, I can feel confident that if there’s something I’m having a hard time doing on set, it’s because of me and not because of awkwardness with my camera of choice. However, in addition to wowing me with this particular camera, it raised a much more realistic question in my mind.
In all my years as a professional photographer, I have never owned a “top” camera. I already own a large amount of “professional” equipment because I am a professional photographer. We are not going to argue about what is “professional” and what is not here. Having said that, all of my cameras are “professional” enough to help me make a living. But, I’ve never owned one of those larger, tank-like built-in handles, working horses that the companies themselves have labeled as their flagship flagships like Nikon D6 or Canon EOS 1D X Mark III. All in all, this is a practical choice. I am an advertising photographer as opposed to a documentary photographer. For the type of content I shoot, resolution tends to outweigh shutter speed. The company’s flagships are always able to shoot out the most frames per second while offering world-class build quality and weather resistance that lets you shoot those frames out in a downpour. large or in the middle of the battlefield. Traditionally, this speed comes at the expense of megapixels. On the other hand, I rarely need to accelerate past five or six frames per second, and will more than likely do so from the comfort of the studio, or at least, on a controlled set that has gotten my gear wet. not a requirement. So the camera is just below the top, in my case, something like Nikon D850is always more than enough.
But, of course, there’s another practical reason I’ve never owned a flagship. Simply put, they are consistently the most expensive camera in a brand’s line-up. Of course, you would expect this. That’s why they are called “headline”. Being the best, also being the most expensive is their thing. But since I don’t need the higher speed and, despite what I may have dreamed of last night, I don’t make any money, so I always decide for the next camera in line.
Then there’s the Z 9. I promise you I won’t go on talking about how much I love the camera. But I will say that no matter how much I’m enjoying it, my bank account is enjoying it even more. “But how is that possible,” you might say. There are cheaper models in the Nikon line. There are other models in the line from other brands that also offer similar options. Even if I own multiple non-Nikon cameras. The Canon EOS R5, for example, is a great camera for most of my needs. Before buying the Z 9, I might even have said that the R5 is the best mirrorless camera out there for what I need to do. At $3,899, it’s also obviously cheaper than the Nikon Z 9’s $5496.95. However, while the math doesn’t seem to be on my side, I’ve found that the R5 has cost me a lot of money. than Z 9. How can that be?
Well, it depends on the total cost of ownership. The R5 is a great camera capable of doing 95% of the tasks I asked for. However, as is well documented, the camera overheats. It doesn’t do it all the time. That’s the over-inflated bit. But, it happens. Because of this, it means that I can never be 100% comfortable using it as my A-camera on longer video projects. Despite all the right specs, my worry that it will overheat at the wrong time means I have to take precautions. I can only buy two so I always have a cool one to swap in case the first one gets too hot. But that means an upfront cost of $7,798. Another option is to record to an external monitor. The Atomos Ninja V + can record ProRes Raw at 8K from R5 and cost $999. There are some practical problems with this solution for my workflow as things like my editing go through DaVinci Resolve Studio and it doesn’t support ProRes Raw which also means that for long-form 8K shooting, I now absolutely have to attach an external monitor instead of being able to shoot inside. However, despite these hiccups, the setup still works. Then again, that now also brings the cost of the R5 to $4,898. If we throw in the SSD required for Atomos, such as Angelbird AtomX SSDmini 2 TB for $549.99, we’re now at $5,447.99. Add a little extra battery to the Atomos, which can chew through like a jar or accessories for a V-mount solution, and you’ve comfortably eclipsed the cost of the Z 9. Meanwhile, the Z 9 can record seemingly endless audio at internal 8K without an external monitor, doesn’t overheat, runs almost all day on a single battery, and does all of this in no time. ie without purchasing any additional tools.
That’s not an option on the R5. I also quite like that camera and it’s currently being used as a backup for the Z 9. In some combination work where I need to run two separate assembled cameras concurrently, I’ll be using both. two. But from the point of view of absolute numbers, realizing all the quantifiable financial benefits the Z 9 is giving me, is simply in the essence of not having to spend money on additional accessories to Make the most of it, I emphasize that sometimes spend less upfront. ‘ doesn’t always mean you’re saving money.
I used the R5 as an example just because I own both cameras and it’s an easy real-world comparison. But, the more I think about it, the more I realize that this financial benefit extends to other ways as well. As I mentioned, before the Z 9, I brought multiple cameras to put. I use the D850 for most of my work because I still prefer the optical viewfinder (the Z 9’s dual-line EVF solved most of this for me). I’ve got an R5 for video demanding matching but I know I’ll need to gear it up to get the best out of it. I’ve had a cinema camera and a medium format camera, which hasn’t been superseded by the Z 9 much. In the case of cinema cameras, however, the Z 9’s ability to shoot isn’t limited to 30-minute recordings. and do so for hours. However, a single battery, in the ProRes HQ 4:2:2 , means it can take on more tasks in that department and sometimes allow home cinema cameras. However, even if you don’t focus on accessories, the fact that I have so many different cameras doing so many different things allows for a quick math. It’s not like any of those cameras are free. So the need to buy multiple cameras to address their flaws again quickly adds up to more than just paying more upfront for the flagship, to begin with.
And, of course, while I’ve talked a lot about the Z 9 in this article, the logic isn’t just camera-related. I have written before about my relationship with Profoto lighting kits. These kits are not the least expensive option available. However, when I was loading the equipment into my truck the day before to go shoot and communicate with a Profoto lamp that was about to turn 17 and still in perfect working condition, I realized that you Usually get what you pay for.
Currently, I’m in the process of needing to replace the MacBook Pro that I use to connect to the Internet on-site. My current system was purchased almost on a whim and was the cheapest model on the shelf at the time. But the system has been with me for nine years and has become an important part of my workflow. Now, knowing how important a laptop can be to my workflow, I’m considering spending more time on a much more powerful system. Getting the lowest cost option is tempting. However, given the longevity of its predecessor and my ever-evolving handling needs, I think spending this little extra time could be well worth it.
Of course, this doesn’t mean you always need to buy the most expensive car. You have to work within your budget and needs. Like I said earlier, the price tag is just one reason why I’ve never owned a “flagship” before the Z 9. It’s also a practical choice as the cheaper model offers a feature. power, high resolution, which I need more than that. My toolbox is also stocked with tools, such as an old laptop computer, which were certainly discounted when I bought them but have far outstripped them in actual value. So I wouldn’t recommend buying the most expensive item every time you pull out your credit card.
However, what I suggest is that before you make a purchase, big or small, run the total cost of ownership numbers. You may soon realize that the money you thought you were saving could cost you more in the long run. And spending a little more upfront can give you both a better instrument and a better investment.
