dpreview talked quite a bit about Z9 EVF performance and had very high praise for it even against better spec EVF from the competitors.
This is the quote out of it..
"Simply put, the Z9 offers one of the best viewfinder experiences of any camera on the market. In some ways, it's the most DSLR-like experience in the mirrorless camera universe, while also providing an experience a cut above even the likes of the Sony a1 with its nominally higher-resolution 9.44M-dot electronic finder."
cvrle59 wrote:
This is the quote out of it..
"Simply put, the Z9 offers one of the best viewfinder experiences of any camera on the market. In some ways, it's the most DSLR-like experience in the mirrorless camera universe, while also providing an experience a cut above even the likes of the Sony a1 with its nominally higher-resolution 9.44M-dot electronic finder."
I'm not surprised at all with that. Sony EVFs fall well short of the spec sheet promises. I've made comments on here many moons ago saying my dinky Z50 EVF often looks better than all but the A1 Sony EVF (obviously not for the blackout/slideshow but for just the IQ).
arbitrage wrote:
I weighed my A1 with battery grip with 2 batteries and 2 memory cards inside and that was 1100g compared to 1340g for Z9 with battery and cards.
I mounted my 500PF on the A1 via the Commlite adapter to get a feel for the balance. The FTZ is about 50% longer than the Commlite...not sure of the weight differences (I'll weigh those next).
500PF even with the adapter still feels like a much better balance than the 200-600. Sometimes I feel my 600GM is easier to balance the weight than the 200-600. The 200-600 is just so dense. I still remember the day I opened the box for the 200-600, lifted it out and almost put it back in to return it as it felt like such a heft. Of course in those days I was mostly shooting Sony 100-400 or Nikon 500PF so the 200-600 was a beasty. That said, it is lighter than Nikon 200-500 and way better to use so those used to that 200-500 may feel the 200-600 a nicer weight. We shall see what the Nikon 200-600 ends up being size, weight and spec wise....Show more →
I agree with your assessment having shot all of the lenses mentioned. As much as I love the 200-600 the size/weight turned me off a little bit after using the 500 PF. I found that I rarely zoomed the 200-500 when I owned it since the throw is so long and clunky (to me). It's an excellent bang for the buck, but I've been spoiled by the 200-600 now and it's my favorite tele zoom. There is just something about the balance of the PF in all areas that really works for me.
cvrle59 wrote:
This is the quote out of it..
"Simply put, the Z9 offers one of the best viewfinder experiences of any camera on the market. In some ways, it's the most DSLR-like experience in the mirrorless camera universe, while also providing an experience a cut above even the likes of the Sony a1 with its nominally higher-resolution 9.44M-dot electronic finder."
It looks like a clear decision on Nikon's part to prioritize high speed shooting in the Z9 EVF. Hard to disagree with. I haven't seen it, so I will reserve personal judgment on how big a difference has been achieved. From everything I have seen it seems they have created a very good EVF experience in this regard. Well done.
Sony seems to have chosen a slightly different route. The a1 reduces EVF resolution as fps increases. It does give an excellent EVF experience, and so far I have no complaints. But without question it is a compromise. In use cases such as portrait, product, macro, and landscape, the 9.44M-dot EVF is absolutely amazing. A real advantage to any lower resolution EVF.
Two different sets of compromises. Both valid. Either can be prioritized depending on the which criteria a photographer values most. Choice is great!
So it's not just me. I was recently shooting with the RIV and Z6II side by side...I honestly just do not like Sony's EVF design or optics. They are not fun to look through and just seem too dark. At the very least it's better than the RIII for me which felt like it had vaseline on it, or was that the RII...or both. arbitrage wrote:
I'm not surprised at all with that. Sony EVFs fall well short of the spec sheet promises. I've made comments on here many moons ago saying my dinky Z50 EVF often looks better than all but the A1 Sony EVF (obviously not for the blackout/slideshow but for just the IQ).
arbitrage wrote:
I'm not surprised at all with that. Sony EVFs fall well short of the spec sheet promises. I've made comments on here many moons ago saying my dinky Z50 EVF often looks better than all but the A1 Sony EVF (obviously not for the blackout/slideshow but for just the IQ).
Yes, I remember every of of your comments, and I do respect your opinion.
I don't have access to every camera, but I owed Z50, evf kills Fuji's xt3/4 with more resolution.
I used Z5 and Z7II, then I wanted to buy A7R4 with 200-600 to try it until Nikon releases something long.
I tried a7r4, and I just didn't like EVF compared to Nikon's, regardless resolution.
So, this DPR article doesn't surprise me at all, but, it's said to read comments on internet how Nikon went with old tech evf on z9, people don't understand, it's not all about specs.
chambeshi wrote:
FTZ testing with F-mount lenses, Matt Granger
I have to say that it appears that Nikon has done an amazing job of making sure that F mount lenses perform exceptionally well on the Z9. Well beyond what I ever thought was going to be possible. Matt Granger does say that there is a speed difference between Native and adapted lenses in his tests. But if you get the same or better performance as you did on your DSLRs with F lenses it is a clear win for Nikon.
As I received reports from testers during the development process, it was clear how difficult this was, and how much effort Nikon put into making sure it achieved the best possible result. This is no accident. Nikon very much focused on taking care of it's existing users in this regard.
Kudus and respect is due Nikon for making this happen.
Yes, I remember every of of your comments, and I do respect your opinion.
I don't have access to every camera, but I owed Z50, evf kills Fuji's xt3/4 with more resolution.
I used Z5 and Z7II, then I wanted to buy A7R4 with 200-600 to try it until Nikon releases something long.
I tried a7r4, and I just didn't like EVF compared to Nikon's, regardless resolution.
So, this DPR article doesn't surprise me at all, but, it's said to read comments on internet how Nikon went with old tech evf on z9, people don't understand, it's not all about specs.
Your story is not an unusual one. I also find the Z7II EVF to be excellent, and some (except a1) of the Sony EVFs less so. Equally interesting is that the EVF in the Z7II is said to be a Sony EVF with Nikon optics. So, I must assume that Sony has the capability, and has just chosen to compromise. Sony seems to make the same kind of unfortunate choices with the rear screen on its cameras. In this case including the a1.
People on the net, especially these random Facebook groups are so obsessed with raw numbers, but don't know how much this stuff impacts usability. I complain far less about Nikons lower resolution EVF's than I do of Sony's higher resolution ones. It's a lot easier for me to expose by eye on Nikon's than it is for me with Sony's. cvrle59 wrote:
Yes, I remember every of of your comments, and I do respect your opinion.
I don't have access to every camera, but I owed Z50, evf kills Fuji's xt3/4 with more resolution.
I used Z5 and Z7II, then I wanted to buy A7R4 with 200-600 to try it until Nikon releases something long.
I tried a7r4, and I just didn't like EVF compared to Nikon's, regardless resolution.
So, this DPR article doesn't surprise me at all, but, it's said to read comments on internet how Nikon went with old tech evf on z9, people don't understand, it's not all about specs.
cvrle59 wrote:
This is the quote out of it..
"Simply put, the Z9 offers one of the best viewfinder experiences of any camera on the market. In some ways, it's the most DSLR-like experience in the mirrorless camera universe, while also providing an experience a cut above even the likes of the Sony a1 with its nominally higher-resolution 9.44M-dot electronic finder."
Additional quote…
“Blackout-free shooting with the electronic-only shutter obviously helps here, but this isn't the first time we've seen it: Sony first offered that in a full-frame camera back in 2017 with the release of the a9. But there's more to it than that. Sony has recently upped the ante with the 9.44M-dot finders in its a7S III and a1 cameras, and in some scenarios, like playback, they look fantastic. But when I used the Sony a1 after the Nikon Z9 for actual shooting, I was underwhelmed.”
I'm pretty convinced the main reason the Nikon's EVF's have always typically received very good reviews is the Nikkor optics in front of the electronics. So many people think it's all about the electronics when in fact it's not necessarily true. Then what else comes into play is the human eye's characteristics and what it is most sensitive to. I have a neighbor who is an ophthalmologist and he explained to me the eyes sensitivity to frame rate speeds, color and brightness as well as resolution. it's a package deal not just one issue. I had to laugh when i read how the A1's EVF takes a dive in speed when it's processor deals with it locking focus. That is one area this "Dual Pipeline" of the Z9 may well be a huge boon to it's performance. Just the fact the view won't change no matter what should provide a great visual shooting experience vs. what we've all been used to with the last few generations of EVF's
Nikon and Canon put really good glass in front of their EVF's...Sony does not. dcisive wrote:
I'm pretty convinced the main reason the Nikon's EVF's have always typically received very good reviews is the Nikkor optics in front of the electronics. So many people think it's all about the electronics when in fact it's not necessarily true. Then what else comes into play is the human eye's characteristics and what it is most sensitive to. I have a neighbor who is an ophthalmologist and he explained to me the eyes sensitivity to frame rate speeds, color and brightness as well as resolution. it's a package deal not just one issue. I had to laugh when i read how the A1's EVF takes a dive in speed when it's processor deals with it locking focus. That is one area this "Dual Pipeline" of the Z9 may well be a huge boon to it's performance. Just the fact the view won't change no matter what should provide a great visual shooting experience vs. what we've all been used to with the last few generations of EVF's...Show more →
40Driggs wrote:
I agree with your assessment having shot all of the lenses mentioned. As much as I love the 200-600 the size/weight turned me off a little bit after using the 500 PF. I found that I rarely zoomed the 200-500 when I owned it since the throw is so long and clunky (to me). It's an excellent bang for the buck, but I've been spoiled by the 200-600 now and it's my favorite tele zoom. There is just something about the balance of the PF in all areas that really works for me.
Yes, the throw is very long and the AF is slow.
Mine is very sharp, though I should say that I stop down one stop with most lenses.
Since purchasing the 500PF, I don't pick up the 200-500 anymore. However, I enjoy recording short vid clips of wildlife.
My 200-500's long throw, has been an advantage when it comes to "pulling focus" with Focus Peaking. I am keeping it for video.
Trolling is when one goes to another brand's forum and disses that brand's products. 😁 The "Nikon mirrorless .." thread in the Sony forum is a good example ... people criticize Nikon products, but in the Sony forum ... that is not trolling. 🥶
As to the EVF ... the Sony a1 EVF is excellent for Playback and for normal shooting. I find it a bit jarring though, when AF causes the resolution to drop ... sometimes considerably. When you first look through it, you will be delighted. But during shooting .. it does feel less impressive.
Nikon has always done a lot with lower resolution in their EVFs.
That said, DPR's praise seems a little high for a 60hz EVF on a sports camera, but I'll wait and see what it looks like. Personally, I think it will be fine on resolution, but the refresh rate does raise an eyebrow.
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
Nikon has always done a lot with lower resolution in their EVFs.
That said, DPR's praise seems a little high for a 60hz EVF on a sports camera, but I'll wait and see what it looks like. Personally, I think it will be fine on resolution, but the refresh rate does raise an eyebrow.
But EVF has its own throughput from the sensor rather than sharing it with the rest of the processors. That may make a difference. Lots of comments from Ricci, dpreview and other sites regarding EVF and no complain so far.
EVF captured from tracking moving subject so far looks very good and no obvious issue yet.
So may be Nikon is beating the number game with implementation yet again. Hopefully we will hear more about this soon.
suteetat wrote:
But EVF has its own throughput from the sensor rather than sharing it with the rest of the processors. That may make a difference. Lots of comments from Ricci, dpreview and other sites regarding EVF and no complain so far.
EVF captured from tracking moving subject so far looks very good and no obvious issue yet.
So may be Nikon is beating the number game with implementation yet again. Hopefully we will hear more about this soon.
I think it plays a big role, too!! dual stream!!! one for writing to the memory card and one for viewing
I think the lower res was a smart choice too! If they have good optics for the evf, constant resolution and the brightest evf, it will be a superb evf. The protective shutter is smart too and they also stabilized vr when it's not used, the sensor stay put!!
The protective shutter is super fast vs the competition. Z9 startup time is lightning quick.
