ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.41 #1 · New Z9 Specs (NR) Aug 10th, 2021 | |
speedmaster20d wrote:
I have to disagree with every point .
Maybe it's best to wait to see how the product works in practice than form strong opinions about it at an early stage.
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).
Some users report that in practice the A1 maxes out at 26 fps.
JPGs are used by many professional photographers in fact some employers insist on in-camera JPGs being submitted so that there is less likely tampering with the content. It's less of a limitation now than it was when digital cameras were new and one had to look for the smallest improvements in image quality where they could be had.
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.
For panning, what is important is not only the update frequency but the total lag between real-world event and it being shown on the EVF. The latter is much longer than the update frequency and more important for keeping the subject in the frame. I haven't seen the absolute lag compared between the A1 and Z9.
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.
Yet when the Z6 and Z7 came out dpreview noted that when in live view the Sony cameras at the time displayed a reduced resolution image and only used the full resolution of the EVF in playback. Nikon used the full resolution for both live view and playback. To my eye the Z 6 II EVF has excellent resolution (especially in the outer areas of the frame the optics shine) and stability whereas the Sony viewfinders that I've tried feel like I were placed in a flight simulator with all kinds of activity going on which is not related to the subject, a highly distracting experience to an OVF user, this is why I never got on board with Sony mirrorless cameras (although I have a lot of other Sony equipment in the A/V and storage media sector). I am sure the newest models are an improvement but 5-year-old Sonys were not at the level of the EVF experience of the Nikon Z cameras IMO.
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.
It is, and Nikon are advertising it. Dpreview initial review says "Nikon says the combination of the Stacked CMOS sensor and the faster data throughput of the Z mount allows the camera to process and communicate 120 AF calculations per second."
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.
How it performs matters not how many points it has. Canon R5 has 5940 focus areas, does this mean it is proportionally better than the Sony?
you said A1 drops to 3.60 "mp" when "AF is optimized"? is that some kind of joke?
"It’s notable that the EVF does drop a bit in resolution when half pressing the shutter button, particularly noticeable in AF-C mode, which could make it seem as if the image suddenly went slightly out of focus."
From: https://www.lonelyspeck.com/shooting-for-the-moon-with-the-sony-a1/
Now, it may still be higher resolution than the Z9 EVF but the viewfinder resolution doesn't seem to be a major issue. The subject is seen clearly and in detail.
Dpreview: "The 3.69M dot, 60 fps viewfinder could look disappointing on paper (much less so in the real world)" " However, it does appear that Nikon makes full use of this resolution for the camera's liveview, even while focusing continuously, rather than only utilizing the full detail level in playback. This means it gives a much better, and more consistent, experience than the bare specs imply." "The Z9's viewfinder can run around twice as bright as most previous OLED finders"
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.
The sensor read time is documented to be slightly faster in the Z9 than the A1 e.g. in dpreview.
The mechanical shutter is a point of vulnerability in a camera and there are solid reasons for leaving it out once it is determined it is not needed. The cost of the camera is likely reduced because of that. Of course, you have every right to consider it an important feature but a lot of the specs that you mention you use "all the time" (literal quote) such as 30 fps are not available with the mechanical shutter.
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording.
.
Nikon has 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording from launch and after firmware update it will have internal raw recording in 12-bit 8K60.
I'd argue the quality of the compressed video (note the 4:2:2 part) is more important than the RAW for practical work as most people don't have unlimited time and need to work on a schedule.
Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps.
That's the same as the Z9. Canon records 8K RAW at 2600 Mbps.
unlimited record length.
Sony says the A1 recording time in 8K30 is 30 min. Reviewers have stated sometimes this is achieved and sometimes not.
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.
If you ask that broadcast partner about 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 they'll probably choose the latter and say thank you very much. But it's certainly true that video people are more used to working with traditional video camera companies.
Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
400 Mbps is quoted here:
https://www.newsshooter.com/2021/10/28/nikon-z9-8k-60p-prores-422-hq-internal-raw-recording/
and internal raw recording will become available after firmware update.
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....
Half the Sony fanboys will claim that Sony make the sensor anyway as there is "no way Nikon could have done it with their own design manufactured by someone else". ;-)
But yes, the quality is evaluated from the images once the camera is available in a final production unit.
I prefer the light weight construction of Sony, much easier to carry around all day long.
I like an integral vertical grip camera for shooting portrait orientation shots, more comfortable than the kludge of an add-on grip.
The small form factor makes it more stealth so I can use it everywhere without many noticing the camera or its value.
Nikon have small camera bodies also.
When I had the D5 it always attracted unwanted attention.
The D5 is bigger than the Z9, and much more noisy, so it's to be expected.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019
I guess this is the source of bitterness that leads to these rants. It would be better for the quality of discussion to stick to facts when the correct information is available if one cares to look for it.
Edited on Oct 29, 2021 at 05:54 AM · View previous versions
|
