speedmaster20d wrote:
My problem is a nobody with nothing to show but internet rants and raves trying to tell me why I am wrong for what and the way I shoot.
The Internet is full of "nobodies" arguing. You're calling the kettle black. Please relax; we can discuss without attacking.
speedmaster20d wrote:
I have zero problem with someone claiming that a camera is better *for them*. An iPhone is a better camera for some folks than an A1 is. A kia is a better car for some than a Ferrari. No argument with subjective opinions.
My problem is a nobody with nothing to show but internet rants and raves trying to tell me why I am wrong for what and the way I shoot. that is total BS and I called it out. I have owned the best of Canon, Nikon and now Sony thought the years and shot with all them extensively, I have the experience to tell what makes a difference and what doesn't for what I specialize in.
As for A1 finder in 240 Hz it resolution is 1600 x 1200 or 5.6 million dots, still significantly better than Nikon 3.7 million dot 60Hz EVF. Now one can claim the slow low res finder is better for them, hey it looks prettier with the jagged edges....OK, fine, good for them. But for me it's dead in the water. I would not have moved to mirrorless if I had to deal with a 60Hz finder.
I don't find A1's lossy raw format to make any visible difference for what I shoot after having shot 200K files with the camera. When you say lossy compression artifact can you show an example of it? something that you have shot yourself with A1 and found unacceptable? 30 fps makes the difference between an epic and a mediocre shot for some subjects. again if you don't shoot such subjects you may not comprehend at all but for some it does so you can't say oh they are the same.
Also do you have any solid refercnes to back these statements ? I am curious what are your references for these claims.
1. Z9 has faster readout. I am not looking for speculation on a random blog/site claims out of thin air...I am asking for actual solid measured data or official manufacture spec. do you have it?
2. Z9 AF is better. who made this claim ? was it someone independent, talented in skilled in the art with the kind of images to back it up shooting both cameras side by side and forming an onion ? or was it a blogger's imagination ?
3. Z9 can shoot 8K for longer (again side by side shooting 8K until both shut down). where is this comparison ?
But isn't the a1's 240hz refresh at lower EVF resolution when shooting in burst modes? In reality, you do not need a higher resolution in burst modes as you are just following action rather than critically needing to know the frames are in focus - there would be now way to see that anyway.
Also, rather than us all jumping to conclusions about which cam is better, wouldn't it be better for us all to wait until the rela reviews come out? There are many making claims that we have no way of knowing whether they are fact or speculation regarding AF performance, EVF refresh rates and in reality how much of a benefit it is for fast action etc, especially when you consider there is no black out due to no shutter etc. I have a Nikon brochure that shows that the camera will shoot at over 2 hours in 8K.
For me the important things about the EVF resolution are use case dependent.
When I am shooting super fast action like BIF I am not so concerned with resolution. I am most concerned with things like refresh rate, blackout, and smoothness. These are what helps me keep the subject in the frame.
When doing slower moving sports I prefer a compromise of the above.
Doing portraits and landscapes I want as much resolution as I can get.
When reviewing my shots in the EVF I want all the resolution, and exposure accuracy that I can buy. This is really a big deal when judging critical sharpness and exposure in the field. The back screen is never good enough for that in my experience. It is a job for an EVF, and one of mirrorless cameras biggest advantages.
For me the Sony a1 provides the best set of compromises at various speed for this of any camera I have tried. Its compromises match my use cases very well. The 9 million dot EVF is incredible for reviewing images.
I will wait until I see the Z9 EVF in action in various use cases and light conditions before passing any judgements or doing any comparisons. Nikon has always done their own optics for their EVS. They have been very good, and seem to perform better than the resolutions numbers indicate. They are also claiming a unique brightness capability that may be very useful. We should wait and see it first. Numbers are only part of the criteria for a great EVF.
Lance B wrote:
But isn't the a1's 240hz refresh at lower EVF resolution when shooting in burst modes? In reality, you do not need a higher resolution in burst modes as you are just following action rather than critically needing to know the frames are in focus - there would be now way to see that anyway.
Also, rather than us all jumping to conclusions about which cam is better, wouldn't it be better for us all to wait until the rela reviews come out? There are many making claims that we have no way of knowing whether they are fact or speculation regarding AF performance, EVF refresh rates and in reality how much of a benefit it is for fast action etc, espeically when you consider there is no black out due to no shutter etc. I have a Nikon brochure that shows that the camera will shoot at over 2 hours in 8K....Show more →
+1 to everything you said. No sense in arguing the specs until the details are abundantly clear. And no sense in arguing what may or may not be as good when none of us has real world experience with the Z9 yet anyway. Also often times a camera is better than the sum of its parts or specs. Z9 seems to be an awesome camera. Clearly catapulting Nikon ahead of what Canon currently offers and getting into the realm of the A1 on many specs. Kudos to Nikon for closing the gap big time. I would assume (picked that word for a reason ) that every current Nikon owner with the means to afford the Z9 has placed a pre order or is deeply considering it and with very good reason I should add. And if they have not ordered it they have talked about it, dreamed about it, schemed what they could sell to afford it. That is a major step in the right direction compared to Nikons other mirrorless offerings. I have 4 friends that placed preorders and all can't wait to start shooting it regardless of how it compares to the A1.
Lance B wrote:
I have a Nikon brochure that shows that the camera will shoot at over 2 hours in 8K.
I agree, we need to wait for most of these things. I don't shoot much video, and never 8K yet.
I have seen a good number of tests that show the a1 shoot 8K video for unlimited time, which really means until the cards are full. But hours for sure.
I have seen others where it gave the overheat warning sooner than 30 minutes.
The only way to really set a benchmark for this would be under laboratory conditions to ensure consistency Even then it will be a challenge to create such a test that is not biased in a way that favors one camera's design over another.
The really important thing is whether the camera will shoot in the resolution you need, for the time you need, to complete your project. Any short coming in that becomes failure. Any capability above that is sort of like having a stereo that plays frequencies only your dog can hear. It provides no benefit except possibly a comfort zone expansion.
aboutthelight wrote:
+1 to everything you said. No sense in arguing the specs until the details are abundantly clear. And no sense in arguing what may or may not be as good when none of us has real world experience with the Z9 yet anyway. Also often times a camera is better than the sum of its parts or specs. Z9 seems to be an awesome camera. Clearly catapulting Nikon ahead of what Canon currently offers and getting into the realm of the A1 on many specs. Kudos to Nikon for closing the gap big time. I would assume (picked that word for a reason ) that every current Nikon owner with the means to afford the Z9 has placed a pre order or is deeply considering it and with very good reason I should add. And if they have not ordered it they have talked about it, dreamed about it, schemed what they could sell to afford it. That is a major step in the right direction compared to Nikons other mirrorless offerings. I have 4 friends that placed preorders and all can't wait to start shooting it regardless of how it compares to the A1. ...Show more →
I was sitting on the shoreline photographing ducks this morning and two ladies probably in their 70s walked behind me discussing the merits of the Z9 and Z6...so yeah...everyone is buying one....watch out
1bwana1 wrote:
For me the important things about the EVF resolution are use case dependent.
When I am shooting super fast action like BIF I am not so concerned with resolution. I am most concerned with things like refresh rate, blackout, and smoothness. These are what helps me keep the subject in the frame.
When doing slower moving sports I prefer a compromise of the above.
Doing portraits and landscapes I want as much resolution as I can get.
When reviewing my shots in the EVF I want all the resolution, and exposure accuracy that I can buy. This is really a big deal when judging critical sharpness and exposure in the field. The back screen is never good enough for that in my experience. It is a job for an EVF, and one of mirrorless cameras biggest advantages.
For me the Sony a1 provides the best set of compromises at various speed for this of any camera I have tried. Its compromises match my use cases very well. The 9 million dot EVF is incredible for reviewing images.
I will wait until I see the Z9 EVF in action in various use cases and light conditions before passing any judgements or doing any comparisons. Nikon has always done their own op[tics for their EVS. They have been very good, and seem to perform better than the resolutions numbers indicate. They are also claiming a unique brightness capability that may be very useful. We should wait and see it first. Numbers are only part of the criteria for a great EVF....Show more →
Most times I think my Z50's EVF is better than the A9II (or even A7RIV). The Canon R5 EVF is in some ways a nicer thing to look through than the A1. Sony has always had something odd goings on with their EVFs. I don't know if it is the resolution dropping they do or the type of feed they send or the optics in front or what. But it seems Nikon and Canon know what they are doing and outperform the spec sheets.
Now the one thing that I do prefer about the A1 EVF is the 0.9x mag. Z9 is 0.8x so better than any DSLR but not as expansive as the A1. Sometimes though the A1 is so expansive I have to turn my eyeball to see the edges. So maybe 0.8 will be okay.
Pius thinks the R5 EVF is far superior to the A1, especially for reviewing images.
arbitrage wrote:
I was sitting on the shoreline photographing ducks this morning and two ladies probably in their 70s walked behind me discussing the merits of the Z9 and Z6...so yeah...everyone is buying one....watch out
Please ask them what their secret is? I want to know how at age 70's, they can still consider carrying 1.3kg body + lenses.
This will extend my expiration date for photography a lot
I really didn't try big players like A1 or R5, but I like better Z50 EVF than x-t4 EVF, even Fuji has higher resolution, or I like better z7II EVF than a7r4, regardless a7r4 has higher resolution.
Nikon does something different, I don't understand what, but I know what my preference is.
People get stack in spec wars so badly these days, without trying on their own, YT celebrities just add file to that flame.
We will learn more, once some like arbitrage gets z9 into his hands, and he tells us what his experience is, and how they compare, until then, just speculation.
speedmaster20d wrote:
I have zero problem with someone claiming that a camera is better *for them*. An iPhone is a better camera for some folks than an A1 is. A kia is a better car for some than a Ferrari. No argument with subjective opinions.
My problem is a nobody with nothing to show but internet rants and raves trying to tell me why I am wrong for what and the way I shoot. that is total BS and I called it out. I have owned the best of Canon, Nikon and now Sony thought the years and shot with all them extensively, I have the experience to tell what makes a difference and what doesn't for what I specialize in.
As for A1 finder in 240 Hz it resolution is 1600 x 1200 or 5.6 million dots, still significantly better than Nikon 3.7 million dot 60Hz EVF. Now one can claim the slow low res finder is better for them, hey it looks prettier with the jagged edges....OK, fine, good for them. But for me it's dead in the water. I would not have moved to mirrorless if I had to deal with a 60Hz finder.
I don't find A1's lossy raw format to make any visible difference for what I shoot after having shot 200K files with the camera. When you say lossy compression artifact can you show an example of it? something that you have shot yourself with A1 and found unacceptable? 30 fps makes the difference between an epic and a mediocre shot for some subjects. again if you don't shoot such subjects you may not comprehend at all but for some it does so you can't say oh they are the same.
Also do you have any solid refercnes to back these statements ? I am curious what are your references for these claims.
1. Z9 has faster readout. I am not looking for speculation on a random blog/site claims out of thin air...I am asking for actual solid measured data or official manufacture spec. do you have it?
2. Z9 AF is better. who made this claim ? was it someone independent, talented in skilled in the art with the kind of images to back it up shooting both cameras side by side and forming an onion ? or was it a blogger's imagination ?
3. Z9 can shoot 8K for longer (again side by side shooting 8K until both shut down). where is this comparison ?
lmao calm down, no reason to be calling people “nobodies”
Between the name calling and extreme hyperbole (iPhone vs a1, claiming the z9 Evf images will simply be “jagged edges”) there is no doubt you are just looking to stir something up and are possibly even being defensive because of your switch to Sony.
(That link also states that the AF rate is 120/s further down in the page, which I believe is the same as the A1)
2: I didn’t say “AF is better” I said AF sensitivity is better (on the same link I just posted, -5ev for Z9 and -4ev for A1)
But as I also pointed out the AF rate for the Z9 is 120/s and I’m pretty sure that’s the same as the A1.
So as far as do I “think” the AF overall is better on the Z9 or the A1? I have no idea. Based on what I’ve seen I honestly expect them to effectively be equals in that regard. I’ve watched almost every review I could find. Most of the ones that have actually used it just comment how they like it but don’t really give comparisons to others. Jared Polin is the only one that did, and he said he doesn’t put the z9 AF on the exact same a1 or r5 level just yet, but his only reasoning for that was literally because the a1 and r5 have had good AF for a year or two already. Which basically sounds like he just isn’t ready to admit that they are all really good and about the same (my opinion of his intent, but c’mon if you’re not gonna put it “on the same level” you have to be able to point out an actual useful reason why, not just because “it just came out”)
3: Sony rates the a1 8k at 30minutes before overheating can start. Nikon rates the z9 8k at >120 minutes until overheating can start
If you want to use 240 frame rate your magnification has to drop below the z9s 0.8x to a 0.7x.
And again, I’m not claiming the z9 evf is better anyway. Dots and frame rate and even magnification aren’t the only things that matter with an evf. The AF calculations obviously come into play as well as the sensor readout speed, then the processors running the cameras can affect it along with the wiring/circuits/etc (how fast is the info actually getting to the evf once the sensor readout is complete? ), overall scene reproduction, dynamic range, brightness/clarity, etc
Just focusing on dots and refresh rate is absurd. Especially when the 2 stats that always get thrown out cannot even be used together (9m and 240hz)
But since we like hyperbole 😁 maybe Sony put in the 9m dot resolution for playback in the camera because they have a game boy screen for the rear lcd 😁😁
And finally, I’m not even saying the Z9 is overall better than the a1. It is not ridiculous to think some people will like it better.
I personally think, at this point, they are probably about the same overall and the only thing that will edge one out over the other is the person behind it
Lance B wrote:
But isn't the a1's 240hz refresh at lower EVF resolution when shooting in burst modes? In reality, you do not need a higher resolution in burst modes as you are just following action rather than critically needing to know the frames are in focus - there would be now way to see that anyway.
Also, rather than us all jumping to conclusions about which cam is better, wouldn't it be better for us all to wait until the rela reviews come out? There are many making claims that we have no way of knowing whether they are fact or speculation regarding AF performance, EVF refresh rates and in reality how much of a benefit it is for fast action etc, espeically when you consider there is no black out due to no shutter etc. I have a Nikon brochure that shows that the camera will shoot at over 2 hours in 8K....Show more →
Hi Lance
A1 has 3 EVF modes
Normal : 60 Hz 9.4 million dots (2048 x 1536)
Hi: 120 Hz 5.6 million dots (1600 x 1200)
Hi + : 240 Hz 5.6 million dots (1600 x 1200) 0.8x magnification
normal mode is useless in my experience for shooting at 600mm+ handhold as the image is too choppy. 120 Hz is fast enough for panning but cannot keep up with wing beats (e.g. Forester's tern). 240Hz is what I use all the time.
Nikon's EVF is only 3.69 million dots which is what Sony had 5-7 years ago. After using a higher resolution EVF going back to the low res feels like going back from HD TV to an 80's CRT TV with a VHS tape.. it ain't pretty. I agree with you that refresh rate is more critical than resolution, but because of blackout free technology you can actually see the subject clearly in the finder as you pan and shoot at 30 or 20 fps. In the DSLR days I could not see or even remember what exactly happened during the burst but now I can vividly see closeup details even mid flight.
as for 8K I think you need to read the footprint to see whether it is internal or external recording. to my knowledge there is no flash card that can fit 2 Hrs of 8K video so they are likely talking about external recording which many cameras can do for a very long time. The longest I have shot 8K with my A1 was about 45 min after which my card was full. If I were to shoot the highest quality the card would have filled up in less than 20 min so it was a moot point. Production guys typically use external recording and I don't expect any issues there.
and yeah, everything is TBD and until then there is only paper spec's to entertain.
People are so competitive these days. 😂
I was asked by a nice, elderly lady in Milwaukee, Wisconsin "What are you shooting with?"
I replied : "Sony a1 and Nikon z7ii, why?"
She : "I shoot with a Canon EOS R, it is great"
Me : "Awesome"
saaketham wrote:
People are so competitive these days. 😂
I was asked by a nice, elderly lady in Milwaukee, Wisconsin "What are you shooting with?"
I replied : "Sony a1 and Nikon z7ii, why?"
She : "I shoot with a Canon EOS R, it is great"
Me : "Awesome"
That’s so true but it seems most of the real crazy competitive people are online. The people I meet at the park are curious and somewhat opinionated but mostly interested and non competitive but I’m sure they hold back when standing in front of you! Online is way different! 🤣
DGettisNC wrote:
lmao calm down, no reason to be calling people “nobodies”
Between the name calling and extreme hyperbole (iPhone vs a1, claiming the z9 Evf images will simply be “jagged edges”) there is no doubt you are just looking to stir something up and are possibly even being defensive because of your switch to Sony.
(That link also states that the AF rate is 120/s further down in the page, which I believe is the same as the A1)
2: I didn’t say “AF is better” I said AF sensitivity is better (on the same link I just posted, -5ev for Z9 and -4ev for A1)
But as I also pointed out the AF rate for the Z9 is 120/s and I’m pretty sure that’s the same as the A1.
So as far as do I “think” the AF overall is better on the Z9 or the A1? I have no idea. Based on what I’ve seen I honestly expect them to effectively be equals in that regard. I’ve watched almost every review I could find. Most of the ones that have actually used it just comment how they like it but don’t really give comparisons to others. Jared Polin is the only one that did, and he said he doesn’t put the z9 AF on the exact same a1 or r5 level just yet, but his only reasoning for that was literally because the a1 and r5 have had good AF for a year or two already. Which basically sounds like he just isn’t ready to admit that they are all really good and about the same (my opinion of his intent, but c’mon if you’re not gonna put it “on the same level” you have to be able to point out an actual useful reason why, not just because “it just came out”)
3: Sony rates the a1 8k at 30minutes before overheating can start. Nikon rates the z9 8k at >120 minutes until overheating can start
If you want to use 240 frame rate your magnification has to drop below the z9s 0.8x to a 0.7x.
And again, I’m not claiming the z9 evf is better anyway. Dots and frame rate and even magnification aren’t the only things that matter with an evf. The AF calculations obviously come into play as well as the sensor readout speed, then the processors running the cameras can affect it along with the wiring/circuits/etc (how fast is the info actually getting to the evf once the sensor readout is complete? ), overall scene reproduction, dynamic range, brightness/clarity, etc
Just focusing on dots and refresh rate is absurd. Especially when the 2 stats that always get thrown out cannot even be used together (9m and 240hz)
But since we like hyperbole 😁 maybe Sony put in the 9m dot resolution for playback in the camera because they have a game boy screen for the rear lcd 😁😁
And finally, I’m not even saying the Z9 is overall better than the a1. It is not ridiculous to think some people will like it better.
I personally think, at this point, they are probably about the same overall and the only thing that will edge one out over the other is the person behind it ...Show more →
One correction, From Nikon US for z9
Detection Range
-6.5 to +19 EV (-8.5 to +19 EV with starlight view (Measured in photo mode at ISO 100, f/1.2 lens, at a temperature of 20 °C/68 °F)
DGettisNC wrote:
lmao calm down, no reason to be calling people “nobodies”
Between the name calling and extreme hyperbole (iPhone vs a1, claiming the z9 Evf images will simply be “jagged edges”) there is no doubt you are just looking to stir something up and are possibly even being defensive because of your switch to Sony.
(That link also states that the AF rate is 120/s further down in the page, which I believe is the same as the A1)
2: I didn’t say “AF is better” I said AF sensitivity is better (on the same link I just posted, -5ev for Z9 and -4ev for A1)
But as I also pointed out the AF rate for the Z9 is 120/s and I’m pretty sure that’s the same as the A1.
So as far as do I “think” the AF overall is better on the Z9 or the A1? I have no idea. Based on what I’ve seen I honestly expect them to effectively be equals in that regard. I’ve watched almost every review I could find. Most of the ones that have actually used it just comment how they like it but don’t really give comparisons to others. Jared Polin is the only one that did, and he said he doesn’t put the z9 AF on the exact same a1 or r5 level just yet, but his only reasoning for that was literally because the a1 and r5 have had good AF for a year or two already. Which basically sounds like he just isn’t ready to admit that they are all really good and about the same (my opinion of his intent, but c’mon if you’re not gonna put it “on the same level” you have to be able to point out an actual useful reason why, not just because “it just came out”)
3: Sony rates the a1 8k at 30minutes before overheating can start. Nikon rates the z9 8k at >120 minutes until overheating can start
If you want to use 240 frame rate your magnification has to drop below the z9s 0.8x to a 0.7x.
And again, I’m not claiming the z9 evf is better anyway. Dots and frame rate and even magnification aren’t the only things that matter with an evf. The AF calculations obviously come into play as well as the sensor readout speed, then the processors running the cameras can affect it along with the wiring/circuits/etc (how fast is the info actually getting to the evf once the sensor readout is complete? ), overall scene reproduction, dynamic range, brightness/clarity, etc
Just focusing on dots and refresh rate is absurd. Especially when the 2 stats that always get thrown out cannot even be used together (9m and 240hz)
But since we like hyperbole 😁 maybe Sony put in the 9m dot resolution for playback in the camera because they have a game boy screen for the rear lcd 😁😁
Normal : 60 Hz 9.4 million dots (2048 x 1536)
Hi: 120 Hz 5.6 million dots (1600 x 1200)
Hi + : 240 Hz 5.6 million dots (1600 x 1200) 0.8x magnification
normal mode is useless in my experience for shooting at 600mm+ handhold as the image is too choppy. 120 Hz is fast enough for panning but cannot keep up with wing beats (e.g. Forester's tern). 240Hz is what I use all the time.
Nikon's EVF is only 3.69 million dots which is what Sony had 5-7 years ago. After using a higher resolution EVF going back to the low res feels like going back from HD TV to an 80's CRT TV with a VHS tape.. it ain't pretty. I agree with you that refresh rate is more critical than resolution, but because of blackout free technology you can actually see the subject clearly in the finder as you pan and shoot at 30 or 20 fps. In the DSLR days I could not see or even remember what exactly happened during the burst but now I can vividly see closeup details even mid flight.
as for 8K I think you need to read the footprint to see whether it is internal or external recording. to my knowledge there is no flash card that can fit 2 Hrs of 8K video so they are likely talking about external recording which many cameras can do for a very long time. The longest I have shot 8K with my A1 was about 45 min after which my card was full. If I were to shoot the highest quality the card would have filled up in less than 20 min so it was a moot point. Production guys typically use external recording and I don't expect any issues there.
and yeah, everything is TBD and until then there is only paper spec's to entertain.
I hope this makes sense.
cheers
...Show more →
Now see this is a perfectly reasonable response 😁
DGettisNC wrote:
But since we like hyperbole 😁 maybe Sony put in the 9m dot resolution for playback in the camera because they have a game boy screen for the rear lcd 😁😁
If you are going to do hyperbole you need to get it right. Sony has PlayStation, Nintendo has Game Boy.
speedmaster20d wrote:
but dpreview doesn't cite where it got the number from or how it measured it (if at all ) with such precision 1/270 vs. 1/260 sec.
Fair enough. They could be wrong.
But I have no reason to just assume they are lying or wrong either, and Nikon claims it too, but based on their own research of mirrorless cameras over 30mp on the market. They could be lying, but I don’t “think” they are. It’s not a huge difference anyway, but if true, that would still be a technically a slight advantage to the Z9
) that every current Nikon owner with the means to afford the Z9 has placed a pre order or is deeply considering it and with very good reason I should add. And if they have not ordered it they have talked about it, dreamed about it, schemed what they could sell to afford it. That is a major step in the right direction compared to Nikons other mirrorless offerings. I have 4 friends that placed preorders and all can't wait to start shooting it regardless of how it compares to the A1. 
