rick2906 wrote:
The protective shutter is super fast vs the competition. Z9 startup time is lightning quick.
z9 shooter could of already fired off at least 40 shots and be on his way home to a hot steak dinner by the time the sony shooters camera is ready to use after a lens change
rick2906 wrote:
The protective shutter is super fast vs the competition. Z9 startup time is lightning quick.
I am curious. What is considered a fast start up time?
I just tried out my a1. With my CV 75mm 1.5 mounted with an adapter, completely turned off, to full viewfinder and ability to click a shot was sub 1 second. Call it 1 second to be safe, timing such a short time is difficult.
I thought maybe being a manual focus lens it was quicker because of less work to do. So, I tested again with my 35mm 1.4 GM prime. Still call it one second. No real difference. Of course this lens is really quick to focus.
I then tried a slower lens. My Tamron 28-200mm super zoom. It is not an exceptionally fast to focus lens. Still just around 1 plus minus 1/2 second, from switching on to first shot. The Tamron sometimes missed focus during this test.
In all cases the camera was up and ready to shoot before I could get it from my side to looking through the EVF.
Is that a problem?
Is the Z9 meaningfully faster than that?
Frankly, I never noticed an issue with start up time on the a1 so never paid attention to it much.
The EVF issue is a complex one. What I think nikon have done is kept the lowest common denominator above a certain performance bar they’ve set out, resulting in a very predictable experience.
The lack thereof electronic artefacts and/or noticeable slow downs may make the experience far more natural and enjoyable even if peak performance is seemingly not very impressive. They basically went for sustained performance over peak performance.
That to me feels like they took the time and effort to study the nature of the viewing experience rather than purely aim for numbers.
1bwana1 wrote:
I am curious. What is considered a fast start up time?
I just tried out my a1. With my CV 75mm 1.5 mounted with an adapter, completely turned off, to full viewfinder and ability to click a shot was sub 1 second. Call it 1 second to be safe, timing such a short time is difficult.
I thought maybe being a manual focus lens it was quicker because of less work to do. So, I tested again with my 35mm 1.4 GM prime. Still call it one second. No real difference. Of course this lens is really quick to focus.
I then tried a slower lens. My Tamron 28-200mm super zoom. It is not an exceptionally fast to focus lens. Still just around 1 plus minus 1/2 second, from switching on to first shot. The Tamron sometimes missed focus during this test.
In all cases the camera was up and ready to shoot before I could get it from my side to looking through the EVF.
Is that a problem?
Is the Z9 meaningfully faster than that?
Frankly, I never noticed an issue with start up time on the a1 so never paid attention to it much.
...Show more →
I am taking when you are using the shutter protection. Z9 is super fast for start up time sony and canon have delay.
rick2906 wrote:
The protective shutter is super fast vs the competition. Z9 startup time is lightning quick.
Another question about this. According to what Nikon is saying since the protection shutter doesn't have to be as fast as a functional shutter that needs to shoot at 1/8000 sec, they were able to build it heavier and stronger so it provides better protection. That implies that it is slower than a 1/8000 sec capable shutter shutter.
That leads me to question if the Nikon is faster at start up, that is likely faster for another reason than the protection shutter.
I don't have enough information to answer these questions at this time. So, not drawing conclusions.
I am talking when changing lense . The new z protective shutter is instant vs the a1 who does take much longer. It can mean missing a shot vs getting it . These situation don't happen a lot, but in my case I like to use tc on my 600mm. It will be mice to not waste time because of this function. Even JP said that sony will probably copy nikon on that.
Z9 statrup time are supposed to be super fast too.
I just think it was a really well thought camera, not perfect but it will be amazing for my needs. Also almost any adapted lenses do the 20 fps and 30 fps and they seem to focus just as fast now on the z9.
I am juste excited and can't wait to get my hands on one.
1bwana1 wrote:
I understand what you have been saying.
My tests were with the shutter protection active on my a1. Start up time was consistently in the + - 1 second range.
How much faster is the Z9 than 1 second?
How do you know?
What constitutes a meaningful difference when shooting?
JP demonstrated this in his Z9 video and stated it was basically instantaneous compared to his slower A1. It's actually one of his better vids, pretty fair, worth a watch.
swifty168 wrote:
The EVF issue is a complex one. What I think nikon have done is kept the lowest common denominator above a certain performance bar they’ve set out, resulting in a very predictable experience.
The lack thereof electronic artefacts and/or noticeable slow downs may make the experience far more natural and enjoyable even if peak performance is seemingly not very impressive. They basically went for sustained performance over peak performance.
That to me feels like they took the time and effort to study the nature of the viewing experience rather than purely aim for numbers.
Ok yesterday was told by a Nikon reviewer that Nikon told him, the EVF is of variable refresh rate and does indeed go to 120fps. He said the idea of variable refresh is like one phones use to maximise battery life. He said though he wasn't allowed be more specific. So this IMO would be a great approach if Nikon has worked it so the refresh adapts to say the shooting speed chosen and while the AF button is half depressed it operates at 120Hz, otherwise it drops to 60Hz.
It should be easy to verify if Z9 is always 60Hz by comparing it side-by-side to A1 or even A9II in one of the 120Hz modes and follow a fast moving subject and see if Z9 is as smooth or gets a more slide show effect.
Any way I hope this variable refresh approach is what Nikon have implemented.
The Viewfinder Refresh Rate on the Z9 is listed at 60 Hz everywhere I look.
The Viewfinder Refresh Rate for the a1 is listed as 120 Hz at full resolution (up to 240 Hz at lower resolution). At least double the speed of the Z9 and up to 4 times faster at similar resolutions.
So, on the box cover the a1 wins hands down. But, the important thing is what is the user experience when shooting through the EVF. I can see the possibility that having a dynamically changing refresh rate can perceptually be a worse experience that a seamless consistent refresh rate at a lower speed and resolution. After all, we are working through the human brain and perceptions. That is much more fuzzy than pure numbers. Our eyes don't change resolution or refresh rates when viewing fast moving objects. It could also be user specific where one person reacts differently to the stimulus, and prefers different systems over another.
I will once again have to reserve judgment on this until I see both systems in a variety of shooting situations.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Ok yesterday was told by a Nikon reviewer that Nikon told him, the EVF is of variable refresh rate and does indeed go to 120fps. He said the idea of variable refresh is like one phones use to maximise battery life. He said though he wasn't allowed be more specific. So this IMO would be a great approach if Nikon has worked it so the refresh adapts to say the shooting speed chosen and while the AF button is half depressed it operates at 120Hz, otherwise it drops to 60Hz.
It should be easy to verify if Z9 is always 60Hz by comparing it side-by-side to A1 or even A9II in one of the 120Hz modes and follow a fast moving subject and see if Z9 is as smooth or gets a more slide show effect.
Any way I hope this variable refresh approach is what Nikon have implemented....Show more →
That's very interesting info. Thank you.
Time will tell what the implementation is exactly as there are a few prolific members with engineering backgrounds eg. Jim Kasson on dpreview that do a great job deep diving into technical traits. I don't know if he has any intentions of getting a Z9 though.
As long as a variable refresh is seamless, I think it'll be great. Apple's promotion display is variable and as seamless as I've seen and looks noticeably improved over their non-promotion displays IMO.
My guess is people notices and find the imperfections like jumps/jolts, momentary glitches and lags etc. far more objectionable. A bit like gaming I guess where a high frame rate is great but if things jolts and lags at the moment of action it's incredible annoying whereas a consistent sustained moderate frame rate might be more useful.
swifty168 wrote:
A bit like gaming I guess where a high frame rate is great but if things jolts and lags at the moment of action it's incredible annoying whereas a consistent sustained moderate frame rate might be more useful.
Given that statement, it would be humorous if Nikon beat the Worlds number one gaming console maker at this. You would think they would be the best at it.
1bwana1 wrote:
Given that statement, it would be humorous if Nikon beat the Worlds number one gaming console maker at this. You would think they would be the best at it.
Why humorous? It'd just indicate Nikon understands the parameters that lead to a desirable viewfinder experience.
I'm sure Sony Interactive Entertainment are prolific at what they do.
I think this is one topic that has to be revisited after the Z9 is out in the field. All this while we were of the impression that higher EVF dots and higher refresh rates directly translate in to smoother experience for panning fast moving subjects..But not according to Nikon. Based on my understanding so far, 60hz refresh is still very good as there is no frame drop in the EVF due to their dual stream tech. Whereas with other EVFs regardless of higher refresh rates and dots, the EVF may drop few frames in between resulting in minor compromises.
bs kite wrote:
How much refresh rate (Hz?) is needed to pan birds in flight effectively and smoothly?
Have they listed the official spec as 60Hz anywhere? There was a video where Chris Ogonek from Nikon Canada mentioned that Nikon doesn't disclose the official EVF refresh rate.
1bwana1 wrote:
The Viewfinder Refresh Rate on the Z9 is listed at 60 Hz everywhere I look.
The Viewfinder Refresh Rate for the a1 is listed as 120 Hz at full resolution (up to 240 Hz at lower resolution). At least double the speed of the Z9 and up to 4 times faster at similar resolutions.
So, on the box cover the a1 wins hands down. But, the important thing is what is the user experience when shooting through the EVF. I can see the possibility that having a dynamically changing refresh rate can perceptually be a worse experience that a seamless consistent refresh rate at a lower speed and resolution. After all, we are working through the human brain and perceptions. That is much more fuzzy than pure numbers. Our eyes don't change resolution or refresh rates when viewing fast moving objects. It could also be user specific where one person reacts differently to the stimulus, and prefers different systems over another.
I will once again have to reserve judgment on this until I see both systems in a variety of shooting situations....Show more →
1bwana1 wrote:
The Viewfinder Refresh Rate on the Z9 is listed at 60 Hz everywhere I look.
The Viewfinder Refresh Rate for the a1 is listed as 120 Hz at full resolution (up to 240 Hz at lower resolution). At least double the speed of the Z9 and up to 4 times faster at similar resolutions.
So, on the box cover the a1 wins hands down. But, the important thing is what is the user experience when shooting through the EVF. I can see the possibility that having a dynamically changing refresh rate can perceptually be a worse experience that a seamless consistent refresh rate at a lower speed and resolution. After all, we are working through the human brain and perceptions. That is much more fuzzy than pure numbers. Our eyes don't change resolution or refresh rates when viewing fast moving objects. It could also be user specific where one person reacts differently to the stimulus, and prefers different systems over another.
I will once again have to reserve judgment on this until I see both systems in a variety of shooting situations....Show more →
I know, but we have different people telling us Nikon told them something different. It would be nice to get a definitive answer. I find it hard to believe Nikon would tell someone it was variable refresh. This guy did not say it was just 120Hz, it would be a weird lie to caught out in.
With the new faster cf express coming out in 2022 it will already get faster. If ricci talk already got 1100 pictures buffer at 20fps in he*, I don't see why they couldn't do 30 fps in the firmware update. Anti Nikon shooter's won't be too happy about that,lol
As for the refresh rate, Jp stated that the z was 120hz
At this point I'm pretty content with the amount of details I've seen up to this point and don't see a way that the Z9 will disappoint my expectations. Now I'm just patiently waiting for the middle of December to come so I can see what the end of 2021 has in store for me.
