leewoolery wrote:
My D6 high ISO performance, from 6400 to 20,000, is quite incredible and I want to see that in the Z9.
I am not expecting the high ISO performance to match the D6. The higher resolution usually has a negative effect on this. On my a1 I am usually reasonably happy at 12800, at 20000 I notice the noise especial if I have to crop, or push exposure.
It a good thing we have excellent noise reduction software these days.
It needs to come out before the value of all of my Fuji stuff plummets further. runamuck wrote:
HURRY UP Z9!!! That will drive down the price of thee z7.
I really wish it would hurry up ... planning on a trip to Bosque del Apache next month. It's unrealistic I would have the Z9 in my hands before then so... is it time to jump ship and give the A1 or R5 a try?
hatch1921 wrote:
I really wish it would hurry up ... planning on a trip to Bosque del Apache next month. It's unrealistic I would have the Z9 in my hands before then so... is it time to jump ship and give the A1 or R5 a try?
Come on NIKON! Let's GO!
Hatch
No way you will have it by then. I don't think there will be wide availability this year.
So, for your Bosque trip I suggest you rent an a1 and an appropriate lens. You can ask one of the a1 BIF specialist members here on FM to send you their setup file. It takes just seconds to install on the rental. Then a quick Zoom call with the file sender and you should be ready to go to the Basque and achieve great results. Not much of a learning curve this way.
hatch1921 wrote:
I really wish it would hurry up ... planning on a trip to Bosque del Apache next month. It's unrealistic I would have the Z9 in my hands before then so... is it time to jump ship and give the A1 or R5 a try?
Come on NIKON! Let's GO!
Hatch
I too am growing weary of the delay on the Z9.
I have a full winter season of basketball games, bowling matches, gymnastics meets, swimming, ice hockey and wrestling and if I see some incredible R3 independent test results from indoor sports and that camera is available by the end of the year, brand loyalty goes out the door if the Z9 isn't available until spring '22.
Nearly all of my winter sports are shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 so my lens investment would be minimal.
As much as I like the results I am getting from the D6 on football, soccer and volleyball this past season, my experience using the R3 and R5 in the spring of 2021 did show me something with eye AF and tracking on those cameras.
The only reason I didn't make that move was ball distortion with electronic shutter, durability and battery life of those 2 cameras.
Weather resistance and battery life are not an issue for indoor sports so even revisiting an R6 and RF 70-200 f/2.8 is an option. 12 frames per second mechanical shutter is not a hindrance.
Basketball is the most difficult sport that I shoot and I missed the 20-21 season due to Covid restrictions and shutdowns but we are back full-strength this year and I want perfect AF and tracking on the court.
If another brand makes that easier, I owe it to my clients to show up with the best gear possible.
I am doing some basketball scrimmage tests with the D6 to help with my decision making.
The D6 is fine for football and soccer but basketball is so much faster and the action closer so faces in focus, not just arms, legs and uniforms, are critical.
The D6 has many AF modes but eye focus is not one of them.
If you are a working pro, you should switch to whatever tools suit you best, IMHO. Whether that be a Canon R5/R3 or a Sony a1/a9ii.
I am an amateur photographer and amateurs can afford to wait and see till patience runs out. Personally, I like to shoot portraits and landscapes with Nikon and birds with Sony. I find the a9 (old, discontinued camera) has better AF for fast moving subjects than my z bodies. But I find the z bodies, menu system and output to be beautiful and familiar, and the AF just right for people/events/perched birds.
saaketham wrote:
But I find the z bodies, menu system and output to be beautiful and familiar, and the AF just right for people/events/perched birds.
The new menus in the current generation Sony cameras is well thought out. Simple, easy, and efficient. Even Thom Hogan, one of the strongest critics on the old Sony menu system had this to say comparing them to Nikon's current menus.
"A more layered menu system. Sony got this right on the A1, and Nikon needs to follow. 32+ things on a scrolling PHOTO SHOOTING menu means too many things are buried and take longer to find/change. We've got room for seven "sub-categories" (e.g. Image/Color, Flash, Focus/Lens, Series Photos [bracketing, multiple exposure, etc.], and so on. Choose a category, choose an option, done. No more scrolling. For this level camera getting to a setting fast is important; you don't want to lose photo opportunities while scrolling through long lists."
Sort of like the bad rap that the Z cameras are still getting on AF. It is not representative of the current generation, and a hang over from the first gen of the the Z cameras on release.
Then great. The a9 menu is long and a bit nuts, but it only took me a couple of days to get familiarized with it. I've not used an a1, so I'll take your word for it, but the Nikon z and DSLR menus are very similar and intuitive.
1bwana1 wrote:
The new menus in the current generation Sony cameras is well thought out. Simple, easy, and efficient. Even Thom Hogan, one of the strongest critics on the old Sony menu system had this to say comparing them to Nikon's current menus.
"A more layered menu system. Sony got this right on the A1, and Nikon needs to follow. 32+ things on a scrolling PHOTO SHOOTING menu means too many things are buried and take longer to find/change. We've got room for seven "sub-categories" (e.g. Image/Color, Flash, Focus/Lens, Series Photos [bracketing, multiple exposure, etc.], and so on. Choose a category, choose an option, done. No more scrolling. For this level camera getting to a setting fast is important; you don't want to lose photo opportunities while scrolling through long lists."
Sort of like the bad rap that the Z cameras are still getting on AF. It is not representative of the current generation, and a hang over from the first gen of the the Z cameras on release. ...Show more →
leewoolery wrote:
I am doing some basketball scrimmage tests with the D6 to help with my decision making.
The D6 is fine for football and soccer but basketball is so much faster and the action closer so faces in focus, not just arms, legs and uniforms, are critical.
The D6 has many AF modes but eye focus is not one of them.
Lee, I used a D6 for basketball last season. I found the new focus adjustments to Group Area AF worked best for basketball. This is one example.
The D6 does have face priority that can be turned on for group-area (including custom group area), 3D tracking and auto area AF. In close distances it focuses on the eyes (but basically one has to be very close, face + upper torso or closer.
I've found face priority in custom group area to work well for fast-moving sports. Normally, group area focuses on the closest subject within the group but with face priority turned on, it prioritises the faces and ideally focuses on the closest face within the selected area. I typically set the top center 11 x 3 AF points as C1 for horizontals and 7 x 3 for verticals so they cover the most typical area I would use for faces in a composition and it is set to switch between selected AF point position and area automatically when I switch between horizontal and vertical orientations. It produces good focus keeper rates in figure skating (including pairs & ice dance and synchronized skating) and reduces the need to move the focus area manually during shooting. If one has the time, small dynamic area can still be more precise but when skaters are spinning around (including each other) I've found the custom group area with face priority on to be a good compromise as it avoids focusing on arms closer than the faces most of the time (unlike standard group area without face priority). If one deliberately wants to focus on a specific face even though it might not be the closest face then small dynamic area might work best.
I would recommend giving it a try if you haven't. When the athlete is really close then the face may not be in the focus area and in such cases depth of field can also be very shallow, but these are the limitations of the technology. Having a fast zoom does help manage these situations so one can zoom out a bit to keep the face under the selected area. 70-200 or 120-300.
leewoolery wrote:
I too am growing weary of the delay on the Z9.
I have a full winter season of basketball games, bowling matches, gymnastics meets, swimming, ice hockey and wrestling and if I see some incredible R3 independent test results from indoor sports and that camera is available by the end of the year, brand loyalty goes out the door if the Z9 isn't available until spring '22.
Nearly all of my winter sports are shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 so my lens investment would be minimal.
As much as I like the results I am getting from the D6 on football, soccer and volleyball this past season, my experience using the R3 and R5 in the spring of 2021 did show me something with eye AF and tracking on those cameras.
The only reason I didn't make that move was ball distortion with electronic shutter, durability and battery life of those 2 cameras.
Weather resistance and battery life are not an issue for indoor sports so even revisiting an R6 and RF 70-200 f/2.8 is an option. 12 frames per second mechanical shutter is not a hindrance.
Basketball is the most difficult sport that I shoot and I missed the 20-21 season due to Covid restrictions and shutdowns but we are back full-strength this year and I want perfect AF and tracking on the court.
If another brand makes that easier, I owe it to my clients to show up with the best gear possible.
I am doing some basketball scrimmage tests with the D6 to help with my decision making.
The D6 is fine for football and soccer but basketball is so much faster and the action closer so faces in focus, not just arms, legs and uniforms, are critical.
The D6 has many AF modes but eye focus is not one of them.
Good news is that I heard the Nikon factory in Thailand has started assembling Z9.
The bad news is that Renasas fire delayed a lot of production line eventhough they supposedly is back to full capacity
since June. This affect not only Nikon though. I was told that R3 may also be delayed or at the very lease
if available in November as planned, it won't be available in large quantity so a lot of wait is expected.
My friend ordered 28-70/2 RF over a year ago and finally got one just recently and finally I got to play with it a little bit
Sort of like the bad rap that the Z cameras are still getting on AF. It is not representative of the current generation, and a hang over from the first gen of the the Z cameras on release.
For fast action it is no bad rap - Z cameras AF is clearly inferior to Canon and Sony.
George Welch wrote:
For fast action it is no bad rap - Z cameras AF is clearly inferior to Canon and Sony.
I think the important qualifier here is "for fast action". For most purposes the Z AF works very well, when correctly used. It's just that it doesn't track subjects well across the frame (easily losing the subject). If one uses other techniques it works fine unless there is fast movement towards or away from the camera. It's important to keep the focus area fully within the subject. For photos of stationary or slowly moving subjects, people in conversation (which is a very typical subject for many photographers in journalism, events, and portraiture) etc. it usually works very nicely. There are some circumstances where it doesn't work well (strong backlight is one such scenario) but many people can work around those limitations without much effort and get great results. The fast-movement crowd is over-represented in the online conversation IMO.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The D6 does have face priority that can be turned on for group-area (including custom group area), 3D tracking and auto area AF. In close distances it focuses on the eyes (but basically one has to be very close, face + upper torso or closer.
I've found face priority in custom group area to work well for fast-moving sports. Normally, group area focuses on the closest subject within the group but with face priority turned on, it prioritises the faces and ideally focuses on the closest face within the selected area. I typically set the top center 11 x 3 AF points as C1 for horizontals and 7 x 3 for verticals so they cover the most typical area I would use for faces in a composition and it is set to switch between selected AF point position and area automatically when I switch between horizontal and vertical orientations. It produces good focus keeper rates in figure skating (including pairs & ice dance and synchronized skating) and reduces the need to move the focus area manually during shooting. If one has the time, small dynamic area can still be more precise but when skaters are spinning around (including each other) I've found the custom group area with face priority on to be a good compromise as it avoids focusing on arms closer than the faces most of the time (unlike standard group area without face priority). If one deliberately wants to focus on a specific face even though it might not be the closest face then small dynamic area might work best.
I would recommend giving it a try if you haven't. When the athlete is really close then the face may not be in the focus area and in such cases depth of field can also be very shallow, but these are the limitations of the technology. Having a fast zoom does help manage these situations so one can zoom out a bit to keep the face under the selected area. 70-200 or 120-300....Show more →
Face priority yes but not eye focus which is quite remarkable on the R5 and R6.
The D6 has served me well and is as fine a focusing DSLR out there but the eye focus feature of Canon has to be seen and witnessed first hand to be believed.
I hope Nikon allows photographers that are testing the Z9 to release some reviews soon to ease any concerns over the eye focus vs. what is already available on the R5 and R6.
I have seen Fro's test reviews on the R3 focusing and you cannot deny the results are a head-turner and if you shoot action for a living, brand loyalty goes out the window.
Right now, I am hanging in there with the the D6 for my outdoor action since there is no other Nikon option (and the expensive, long lenses are already in my hands) but ice hockey, gymnastics and basketball are the most challenging on any camera's AF when compared to football and soccer.
If another system is better for those sports, I will strongly consider it.
leewoolery wrote:
Face priority yes but not eye focus which is quite remarkable on the R5 and R3.
The D6 has served me well and is as fine a focusing DSLR out there but the eye focus feature of Canon has to be seen and witnessed first hand to be believed.
I hope Nikon allows photographers that are testing the Z9 to release some reviews soon to ease any concerns over the eye focus vs. what is already available on the R5 and R6.
I have seen Fro's test reviews on the R3 focusing and you cannot deny the results are a head-turner and if you shoot action for a living, brand loyalty goes out the window.
Right now, I am hanging in there with the the D6 for my outdoor action since there is no other Nikon option (and the expensive, long lenses are already in my hands) but ice hockey, gymnastics and basketball are the most challenging on any camera's AF when compared to football and soccer.
If another system is better for those sports, I will strongly consider it. ...Show more →
R5 is a very good action camera for sure and its eye focus can be remarkable but depending on what you are shooting, it does not walk all over Z7 ii for everything for sure.
I have some experience with R5 as a good friend of mine has it and I got to try it quite a bit and we often go on photography trip together over the years. For example, Z7 ii + 50/1.2s eye focus worked quite a bit better than R5 with 50/1.2 RF in AF-S mode especially in low light situation. I used both side by side a few times and while Z7 ii had no problem in that scenario, R5 sometimes struggle more, especially if it already focus behind the person. Either focus would be stuck in the background or AF motor would refused to move at all until I pointed the camera to the ground to bring AF point forward then R5 was able to find the eyes/face.
In good light, both are equally capable for normal portrait work. My portrait work does not require any capability for action/fast moving object tracking though.
Honestly, beside bif ( I don't really do any sport), Z7 ii is good enough for just about everything else that I do.
After saying that, I recently got to try 28-70/2 and I am very impressed. Its rendering for protraiture is very special and not something
that I can quite achieve with 24-70/2.8s. Even 50/1.2 S or RF are not neccessarily better either. Make me wish there is an adapter for RF to Z mount but with 2mm difference in flange distance, I guess it is rather difficult. For the first time, I almost am interested in Canon system because of this lens
suteetat wrote:
R5 is a very good action camera for sure and its eye focus can be remarkable but depending on what you are shooting, it does not walk all over Z7 ii for everything for sure.
I have some experience with R5 as a good friend of mine has it and I got to try it quite a bit and we often go on photography trip together over the years. For example, Z7 ii + 50/1.2s eye focus worked quite a bit better than R5 with 50/1.2 RF in AF-S mode especially in low light situation. I used both side by side a few times and while Z7 ii had no problem in that scenario, R5 sometimes struggle more, especially if it already focus behind the person. Either focus would stuck in the background or refused to move at all until I pointed the camera to the ground closer than the person then R5 was able to find the eyes/face.
In good light, both are equally capable for normal portrait work. My portrait work does not require any capability for action/fast moving object tracking though.
Honestly, beside bif ( I don't really do any sport), Z7 ii is good enough for just about everything else that I do.
Even for portrait work, the eye AF feature is very reassuring.
For candids, it is as close to point-and-shoot as it gets.
But for action, I have shot sequences of pole vaulters, sprinters and hurdlers with the R5 and R6 and nearly every image is in razor-sharp focus on the eyes.
I hope the Z9 tests are out soon enough before it's too late and many switch brands.
leewoolery wrote:
Even for portrait work, the eye AF feature is very reassuring.
For candids, it is as close to point-and-shoot as it gets.
But for action, I have shot sequences of pole vaulters, sprinters and hurdlers with the R5 and R6 and nearly every image is in razor-sharp focus on the eyes.
I hope the Z9 tests are out soon enough before it's too late and many switch brands.
Yes, eye focus is very handy and when I compared both in AF-S mode, low light, that was in auto area mode with eye detection.
From what I heard, Z9 field testing at the Olympic was very successful and Nikon did its homework very well for human in various sport scenarios. For sport photographers, I think Z9 should not disappoint. I hope some of these features will trickle down to Z6ii/ Z7 ii.
so... is it time to jump ship and give the A1 or R5 a try? 
