gannis wrote:
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.
"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."
"Like a good optical finder, the Z9's EVF is basically transparent. It offers what is possibly the most natural-looking electronic viewfinder I've yet seen, showing its full resolution regardless of what the camera is doing (focusing, shooting, in playback, and so on). You basically forget it's an electronic viewfinder while still benefitting from all the advantages that it brings over an optical one."
"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."
"With the Z9, what you see when you first look through it is what you get. No resolution changes, no hiccups, no jolting. Just a smooth experience that allows for better focus (pun intended). Same resolution, same frame-rate, all the time."
Has anyone seen/read what the average size of a full frame Lossless Compressed or HE* compressed RAW file is from the Z9?
I'm trying to decide what size card to purchase. Some high end CFe cards are still in stock in Canada so I may pick some up now, keep them packaged, and sell them if I don't follow through with the Z9.
arbitrage wrote:
Has anyone seen/read what the average size of a full frame Lossless Compressed or HE* compressed RAW file is from the Z9?
I'm trying to decide what size card to purchase. Some high end CFe cards are still in stock in Canada so I may pick some up now, keep them packaged, and sell them if I don't follow through with the Z9.
I can't remember where I saw the numbers but it was approx 55MB for lossless compressed and 30-35MB for HE*. The lossless compressed is exactly the same kind of file size I'd expect to see out of my D850 or Z7 so that ties up.
I feel like the 325GB prograde cobalts that I've bought are on the bigger end than I'd normally use but I've never had a failure with an XQD and I'll be backing up to a 2nd card and always storing them overnight so I'm not really concerned that I'll no longer be using a bunch of 128GB cards.
Edit: Found it on Thom Hogan's ongoing post here. "What are the file sizes? 55MB Lossless raw, 33MB High Efficiency Raw Star, 22MB High Efficiency Raw, 24MB JPEG Large Fine."
arbitrage wrote:
Has anyone seen/read what the average size of a full frame Lossless Compressed or HE* compressed RAW file is from the Z9?
I'm trying to decide what size card to purchase. Some high end CFe cards are still in stock in Canada so I may pick some up now, keep them packaged, and sell them if I don't follow through with the Z9.
Only estimates I've seen in top row of this table -
arbitrage wrote:
Has anyone seen/read what the average size of a full frame Lossless Compressed or HE* compressed RAW file is from the Z9?
I'm trying to decide what size card to purchase. Some high end CFe cards are still in stock in Canada so I may pick some up now, keep them packaged, and sell them if I don't follow through with the Z9.
I don't have personal experience with the camera but estimates vary from 1/3 of the uncompressed RAW size to 2/3 of it. So maybe average at 40 MB? Nikon's descriptions are a bit vague. The burst performance improvement from use of the HE RAW seems dramatic (i.e. 80 shots with lossless to 1600 shots in HE on high-speed CFexpress cards) so I would expect the space savings to be quite dramatic as well, but Nikon's wording is notoriously conservative, probably reflecting worst-case results.
gannis wrote:
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.
I am amused by this endless focus on the refresh rate of the EVF.
Refresh rate means nothing in itself.
A 120 hz EVF that is not fed with data at the right throughput will not offer a real 120 hz experience.
People having shot the Z9 and a1 side to side find the Z9 shooting experience for action to be the better one. The gap seems to be small and the a1 is obviously excellent.
Yet some here keep going back to this refresh rate spec. As if a spec were more important than the actual performance of the device.
bernardl wrote:
Yet some here keep going back to this refresh rate spec. As if a spec were more important than the actual performance of the device.
That is entirely understandable at this point in the release cycle.
Specs are data points and therefore easily referenced. The statements of people who are mostly employees of Nikon, Ambassadors for Nikon, and reviewrs with financial interests through affiliate links, are more fuzzy. This a natural hierarchy between data and opinions.
That is the reason that I reserve judgment until I have the opportunity to experience it personally.
Expecting everone to accept opinions over data is an unrealistic ask.
bernardl wrote:
I am amused by this endless focus on the refresh rate of the EVF.
Refresh rate means nothing in itself.
A 120 hz EVF that is not fed with data at the right throughput will not offer a real 120 hz experience.
People having shot the Z9 and a1 side to side find the Z9 shooting experience for action to be the better one. The gap seems to be small and the a1 is obviously excellent.
Yet some here keep going back to this refresh rate spec. As if a spec were more important than the actual performance of the device.
Are you referring to my posting on refresh rate?
If so, then I apologize for posting more on it. I did not know a thing about it.
That is why I posted the original question.
And if you know so much about it, why did you not answer my question?
Speedmaster, on Sony’s forum, claims that Nikon’s 60hz will not cut it when panning birds.
That is why I searched around for information on Z9 refresh rate. I figured everyone would appreciate it too. That’s all.
I am not referring to any specific person or post.
And I am all for data instead of opinions, but let's agree that data must be meaningful. And EVF refresh rate alone isn't.
It would be like looking at engine torque as a meaningful measure of acceleration potential of a car while forgetting that weight is just as important.
Regarding opinions, it is indeed obvious that some opinions are more credible than others. I rank DPreview at the very top though.
arbitrage wrote:
Has anyone seen/read what the average size of a full frame Lossless Compressed or HE* compressed RAW file is from the Z9?
I'm trying to decide what size card to purchase. Some high end CFe cards are still in stock in Canada so I may pick some up now, keep them packaged, and sell them if I don't follow through with the Z9.
Matt Granger said lossless raw 51mb, HE* 36mb and HE 20 or 21mb
bernardl wrote:
I am not referring to any specific person or post.
And I am all for data instead of opinions, but let's agree that data must be meaningful. And EVF refresh rate alone isn't.
It would be like looking at engine torque as a meaningful measure of acceleration potential of a car while forgetting that weight is just as important.
Regarding opinions, it is indeed obvious that some opinions are more credible than others.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think we can agree on all of that.
bernardl wrote:
I rank DPreview at the very top though.
We won't agree on this however. I find their record on reviews spotty at best. They often overstate both positives and negatives in search of clicks.
