arbitrage wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised at that. Even with my Z50 I find that the AF looks like it won't be good due to the overlays or bouncing red squares in Auto but then the final image is tack sharp where I hope for.
Still wish there was a group option, maybe even two sizes, regular grp we are used to and since we have so many more AF points a tighter grp for when subjects are skimming close to water or low on ground and grp can snag foreground as the bottom of the grp is on water, ground etc.I currently just switch to D25 (smallest on D500) or single for less erratic subjects where head is close to ground.
fsi22 wrote:
2:32 with the moth / butterfly. That was mind blowing good. I can’t track anywhere near that good with my A1.
Pretty wild for sure. The video was/is a little confusing at least to me.. going from green boxes to red for tracking in focus threw me off. I was thinking anything in red and it wasn't hitting.
Holy mother clucker.. What a beast! Canon/Nikon are going full guns, squeezing Sony out of the pro market. I always thought it was foolish when the Sony trolls claimed nobody except Sony could make stacked sensors.
saaketham wrote:
Nikon is back, folks .. (if all this marketing BS holds up)
Until the Z9 passes my swallow into long grass test (that the R5 failed miserably on) I will withhold final judgement.
Things look promising in the live feeds I've seen but who knows how it starts reacting when you try to acquire against super complicated backgrounds or let it track from uncomplicated down to complicated. That is where the R5 failed all the time. Yet looking at most R5 live feeds online make it look invincible.
fsi22 wrote:
2:32 with the moth / butterfly. That was mind blowing good. I can’t track anywhere near that good with my A1.
It does look good but I was doing that all summer long with the A1 (and R5) on bees moving from blossom to blossom. Not sure why your A1 would struggle with that? What AF mode were you trying it with?
arbitrage wrote:
It does look good but I was doing that all summer long with the A1 (and R5) on bees moving from blossom to blossom. Not sure why your A1 would struggle with that? What AF mode were you trying it with?
Been trying spot S to initially grab insect and then track, also wide, zone and expand spot without tracking. I’ve been practicing with bees this past week. After initial focus acquisition of bee on a flower, it loses it as soon as it takes off, more times than it keeps up @ 400mm f5.6
NonDecaf wrote:
Holy mother clucker.. What a beast! Canon/Nikon are going full guns, squeezing Sony out of the pro market. I always thought it was foolish when the Sony trolls claimed nobody except Sony could make stacked sensors.
Huh? Sony was 2-3 years early into the mirrorless market and started stacked sensor development back in 2017. It is great that Nikon finally delivers it but I wouldn't expect anyone to sell their A1 to move to Nikon because of the Z9.
Regardless, the Z9 looks amazing and is hopefully a milestone camera that will turn the corner for Nikon commercially.
patotts wrote:
Huh? Sony was 2-3 years early into the mirrorless market and started stacked sensor development back in 2017. It is great that Nikon finally delivers it but I wouldn't expect anyone to sell their A1 to move to Nikon because of the Z9.
Regardless, the Z9 looks amazing and is hopefully a milestone camera that will turn the corner for Nikon commercially.
Yeah, I'm more than willing to credit Sony for lighting a fire under Canikons butts. My point was that you can't really count out major camera manufacturers just because they were choosing not to invest in certain sensor tech.
I've always struggled with Sony's ergos so R3/Z9 are looking very attractive to this Sony A1 user.
I fully agree with you. Posting links to these vulgar attention seekers achieves nothing in discussions about photography. The truth matters not least considering the prices of gear and trips and all.
These clickbaiters feed off brand wars. So it appears do the posters who cite them, to stir up trouble (even getting some infantile joy fannning controversy?). I doubt I'm the only member on forums who consigns both source and deliverer/evangelist to the echochamber.... prunes noise and worse out of these threads. (Bear in mind, posts cited by a Hidden poster are also Hidden).
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I just can't agree about the praise on Polin. He often says things that are incorrect about products that he has not used. It's weird how you guys claim that he is accurate. Probably you also haven't used those products and just assume that what he says about them is correct.
I grew up in a culture where modesty is a virtue. Polin can't go through a video without talking about his muscles, sometimes showing himself shirtless, about how sending a camera to him or not somehow decides the fate of the camera in the market, blowing spit and air and sniff testing, talking about his plugins etc. never spending a long time on topic. I find it hard to watch without feeling I'm going to throw up.
Granger by contrast stays on topic regarding the products but all of his subjects are barely clothed young women borderline something you can be seen watching without embarrassment. I couldn't send a link to a Granger video to anyone really without feeling that it's borderline inappropriate. It's a shame as he does pretty demanding AF testing and seems to explain the results as they came out. If he decided to photograph people with clothes on, it would be easier to recommend his reviews.
I realize that there are people who like these but I prefer serious reviews where they stick to the topic. It is better if the cameras were not provided by the manufacturer and they had to purchase them themselves. Complaining about a manufacturer not sending a free review unit to someone isn't really appropriate IMO.
Further, one issue is that these photographers have a very narrow range of subjects that they normally shoot and often insist on shooting in a certain way rather than being willing to learn how to work with the product. Yet thousands and thousands of photographers get great results even with the cameras that these "influencers" trash because they're willing to learn the equipment rather than assume it was designed specifically for their subjects and shooting style....Show more →
chambeshi wrote:
I fully agree with you. Posting links to these vulgar attention seekers achieves nothing in discussions about photography. The truth matters not least considering the prices of gear and trips and all.
These clickbaiters feed off brand wars. So it appears do the posters who cite them, to stir up trouble (even getting some infantile joy fannning controversy?). I doubt I'm the only member on forums who consigns both source and deliverer/evangelist to the echochamber.... prunes noise and worse out of these threads. (Bear in mind, posts cited by a Hidden poster are also Hidden).
What you forgot is that the criteria of noise and validity on these topics can be very subjective. By the time you pruned all the "noise" in your opinion, you are just talking with your own mirrors. Maybe posting and hearing your own points repeatedly has some psychological benefit of confidence builing (but really just igorance building), I don't see the point.
speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
bernardl wrote:
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2. ...Show more →
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards.
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
you said A1 drops to 3.60 "mp" when "AF is optimized"? is that some kind of joke? typo? no idea what you're talking about.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
build:
I prefer the light weight construction of Sony, much easier to carry around all day long. The small form factor makes it more stealth so I can use it everywhere without many noticing the camera or its value. When I had the D5 it always attracted unwanted attention . In fact I bought a pair of D850's just for places where I wanted to be more discrete.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today for me A1 would still be worth it at $10K compared to what else is on the marker now.
but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon. something tells me that is the case but before reputable, skilled and independent photographers in each discipline give it a shot, we don't know for sure.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
You have conclusions regarding which camera od better before even z9 ships? Untill it is delivered and af tested by non sponsored shooters it is inpossible to actually rate z9 at all. It definately looks promising! But at the sheets a1 is still the best of the bunch.
speedmaster20d wrote:
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards.
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
you said A1 drops to 3.60 "mp" when "AF is optimized"? is that some kind of joke? typo? no idea what you're talking about.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
build:
I prefer the light weight construction of Sony, much easier to carry around all day long. The small form factor makes it more stealth so I can use it everywhere without many noticing the camera or its value. When I had the D5 it always attracted unwanted attention . In fact I bought a pair of D850's just for places where I wanted to be more discrete.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today for me A1 would still be worth it at $10K compared to what else is on the marker now.
but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon. something tells me that is the case but before reputable, skilled and independent photographers in each discipline give it a shot, we don't know for sure.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
Lots is not yet determined or Nikon had not announce yet but a few things to consider,
Nikon will support internal 8K60 12 bits raw recording. It already can record 8K videos for 2 hours without overheating in warm weather. I would like to see A1 does that.
When 8K/60P internal raw recording is available, do you think Nikon will be stuck at 20 fps raw/30 fps jpg for still photography?
Have you seen EVF capture from Z9? You can postulate all you like about EVF number but personally I think it is a good compromise as EVF is probably the reason why A1 battery life is underwhelming for this class of camera while Z9 battery will last much longer eventhough battery capacity on Z9 is not that much higher than A1. Also wait until you actually look through EVF on Z9 in comparison to A1 and I think you will be nicely surprise that those number does not mean as much as battery life.
Overall I think both are capable cameras with different strenght and weakness and one will suit some people better than the other as each person has different needs and priority. People who are entrenched in Sony camp is unlikely to migrate to Nikon. But there are going to be some people who left Nikon because of A9/A1 superior AF for the past few years who will migrate back to Nikon because they like other aspects of Nikon better but just need a body with AF at the same level at A1. That is already happening. Then there will be some people who finally will leave Nikon for Sony because they don't like the weight/size, may be they don't want to bet on Nikon supporting 30 fps raw shooting in the future and other reasons.
PS I don't claim that Nikon EVF will look better but I think Nikon EVF looks really good and certainly is more than good enough for the purpose. Prettier and better looking EVF is not going to give you better picture or better tracking ability and finite electrical resource is better spent elsewhere.
speedmaster20d wrote:
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards.
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
you said A1 drops to 3.60 "mp" when "AF is optimized"? is that some kind of joke? typo? no idea what you're talking about.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
build:
I prefer the light weight construction of Sony, much easier to carry around all day long. The small form factor makes it more stealth so I can use it everywhere without many noticing the camera or its value. When I had the D5 it always attracted unwanted attention . In fact I bought a pair of D850's just for places where I wanted to be more discrete.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today for me A1 would still be worth it at $10K compared to what else is on the marker now.
but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon. something tells me that is the case but before reputable, skilled and independent photographers in each discipline give it a shot, we don't know for sure.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
A few things I've found trying to digest the available videos yesterday.
Only DPReview said the EVF was 60Hz (please let me know if any other reviewers said 60) and they said they were just estimating. More than one other review (including Jared's notes from his meetings with Nikon) said 120Hz for the EVF. Do you actually use the A1 at 240Hz with the decrease in mag to 0.76x? I don't find that mode useful at all even for swallows or hummingbirds. But 120 is a critical number as 60 on my A9 was too slow to see where a hummingbird moved to when it quickly darts from one flower to another just a few inches out of the FOV. If Z9 is 60 that is a big disappointment but it seems more likely it is 120.
In the Nikon presentation they show a slide that says it does 120 AF calculations per second. Same as A1.
The A1 EVF in anything but 60Hz high quality mode drops to 5M odd pixels (can't remember the exact number). On top of that engaging AF drops resolution further so more than likely it is around the same 3M odd pixels when actively firing in 120 or 240Hz mode in AF-C.
Nikon readout is 1/270 where as A1 is 1/240. But flash sync speeds allowed are identical at 1/200. Although A1 also has the option to sync faster in APS-C and faster still in MS. I don't think removing the MS was a great idea either. I'm certain some will find issue with that. Nikon doesn't have a mode like Canon and Sony where you can set the frequency to eliminate banding under certain lights so we shall see if that becomes an issue for some indoor shooters. That said I've never found ruined humming bird shots on the A1. On the A9 at 1/160 and filling the frame I could see it sometimes but even then it is rare. At 1/270 (which is as fast as a lot of MS anyways) I don't think that is anything to worry about.
Number of AF points is likely meaningless....R5 advertises 5000 or something AF points and it doesn't match the A1. So I wouldn't base my predictions on marketed AF points.
Chris from DPR confirmed in the youtube video comments that they checked with Nikon and the EVF is indeed 60Hz.
arbitrage wrote:
A few things I've found trying to digest the available videos yesterday.
Only DPReview said the EVF was 60Hz (please let me know if any other reviewers said 60) and they said they were just estimating. More than one other review (including Jared's notes from his meetings with Nikon) said 120Hz for the EVF. Do you actually use the A1 at 240Hz with the decrease in mag to 0.76x? I don't find that mode useful at all even for swallows or hummingbirds. But 120 is a critical number as 60 on my A9 was too slow to see where a hummingbird moved to when it quickly darts from one flower to another just a few inches out of the FOV. If Z9 is 60 that is a big disappointment but it seems more likely it is 120.
In the Nikon presentation they show a slide that says it does 120 AF calculations per second. Same as A1.
The A1 EVF in anything but 60Hz high quality mode drops to 5M odd pixels (can't remember the exact number). On top of that engaging AF drops resolution further so more than likely it is around the same 3M odd pixels when actively firing in 120 or 240Hz mode in AF-C.
Nikon readout is 1/270 where as A1 is 1/240. But flash sync speeds allowed are identical at 1/200. Although A1 also has the option to sync faster in APS-C and faster still in MS. I don't think removing the MS was a great idea either. I'm certain some will find issue with that. Nikon doesn't have a mode like Canon and Sony where you can set the frequency to eliminate banding under certain lights so we shall see if that becomes an issue for some indoor shooters. That said I've never found ruined humming bird shots on the A1. On the A9 at 1/160 and filling the frame I could see it sometimes but even then it is rare. At 1/270 (which is as fast as a lot of MS anyways) I don't think that is anything to worry about.
Number of AF points is likely meaningless....R5 advertises 5000 or something AF points and it doesn't match the A1. So I wouldn't base my predictions on marketed AF points....Show more →
Canon/Nikon are going full guns, squeezing Sony out of the pro market. I always thought it was foolish when the Sony trolls claimed nobody except Sony could make stacked sensors.
for me A1 would still be worth it at $10K compared to what else is on the marker now.