I just want to remind everyone here, that old analog CRT TV frame rate was, 30fps for NTSC, and 25fps for PAL.
First time I had problem watching fast action was when we actually moved from CRT's to plazmas, even worse to first generation of LCDs.
Does this tell us anything what's really important for close to natural EVF look, and how many FPS is enough?
cvrle59 wrote:
I just want to remind everyone here, that old analog CRT TV frame rate was, 30fps for NTSC, and 25fps for PAL.
First time I had problem watching fast action was when we actually moved from CRT's to plazmas, even worse to first generation of LCDs.
Does this tell us anything what's really important for close to natural EVF look, and how many FPS is enough?
. It tells me nothing, because I am new to this technology. Would you please explain what your post means. I would like to learn.
bs kite wrote:
. It tells me nothing, because I am new to this technology. Would you please explain what your post means. I would like to learn.
Thank you.
I think basically refresh rate of 60 Hz is not universal. There are 60 Hz and there are 60 Hz.
We already know that Nikon has dual stream sensor and Sony does not. How much of that effect EVF performance,
we will only know once we take a look at EVF ourselves or at least listen to somebody we trust who have compared both.
However some people is so spec oriented and already criticize Nikon that it cannot possibly be as good as Sony because
of higher fps.
I remember when LCD monitor first became available for desk top computer, refresh rate was pretty the same across the board but it was response time that made a difference to ghosting.
Some people wanted to imply that high resolution EVF must be better. So basically every 4K monitor/TV must be equally good because they all have the same resolution.
When a website said Nikon has better looking EVF, well how could they possibly be correct because the pictures they took
is not upto standard. So what do they know.
In the end, spec can only hilight certain aspects of the equipment but it does not give the whole pictures.
Reading spec only can go so far. There are going to be some opportunities for some of us to find out for ourselves through
some local events.
All I can say is that I have absolutely no complain about Z9 EVF and is perfectly fine for my need. If Sony EVF is better, it wont let me take better picture any how because EVF is not going to be a limiting factor for me.
sjms wrote:
i think this requires a bit more of an explanation
Because there are many factors beside 60 Hz that affect what we see in EVF. May be if everything is equal
and only refresh rate is different then it may be a big factor but we already know that there are other difference between
Nikon and Sony EVF.
Many people already reported Z6/Z7 to be just as good or better (or at least they prefer) than A7r IV eventhough it has high resolution
and refresh rate can be bumped up higher than 60 Hz.
Beside, do we know for sure yet that Nikon EVF is 60 Hz only. There are so many different view on this and Nikon is
not saying.
When it comes to computer screens and TV screens I can’t tell between 24, 25, 30, 50 or 60 fps watching all the different rates on YouTube on my TV which natively supports each.
I doubt that translates to an EVF. I would speculate that on an EVF what is important is as close to zero lag (real-time) as possible rather than absolute frame rate.
So if you some how get 60 Hz with a delay of less than or equal to 4 ms vs 240 Hz at ~4.17 ms (max) then maybe combined with other appearance issues it actually appears the same or better to some people?
Maybe on “intermediate” clock ticks Nikon is scanning some sub-set of the sensor that results in the required amount for the EVF and allows AF calculations but takes less than the full sensor scan of 4 ms and then by having a dedicated processing path they minimize the total time to display on the EVF? Maybe that makes it feel more like a DSLR viewfinder which has near-zero delay (speed of light over an exceedingly short distance).
There are papers published that appear to show as low as 13 ms for human vision processing time but with a built in ability to correct for “lag”.
It is all quite interesting and I bet there is more to it than just refresh rate. I hope that there is a continued push by the various companies to keep pushing on this aspect so we the end-users get better and better experiences.
bs kite wrote:
. It tells me nothing, because I am new to this technology. Would you please explain what your post means. I would like to learn.
Thank you.
My point was, the 25fps analog PAL TV system gave us close to natural look of any kind of fast action, even cheetah's run after the antilope in full speed, which tells me 60fps is more than enough.
Would we notice difference with 120fps, I'm not sure, but obviously there are other factors more important than higher frame rate.
Nikon obviously figured out those other factors, at least that's what people, who used camera already reported.
There will be more opinions in near future, when camera starts shipping.
So, comments like, "only 60 fps, or Nikon was harvesting old evf", are so foolish without basic understanding how these things function, and what's important in that whole concept, to get to the final goal, in transfer what sensor captures to the evf, then to our eye and brain.
Certain specs can look great on paper, but not necessarily important, or without making any difference.
sjms wrote: https://www.howtogeek.com/428987/whats-the-difference-between-ntsc-and-pal/
For those who didn't know, or who forgot, CRT tube would guide beam of electrons through line of screen pixels from one side to the other side, shooting into those creating the light defined by signal strength, then line by line from top to the bottom for each frame, 25fps on PAL system.
That was so fast, that our eyes and brain understood it in very natural way.
Things got worse with early non CRT TVs, but much better now days.
So, beside understanding basics how CRT functioned, I have no best technical knowledge how all that transfers into camera EVF, but it may give us some ideas.
What we know is that Nikon is claiming that they are the first to do this dual stream thing. I'll take them at their word for that. I also have to take them at their word that every other manufacturer is not pushing a new frame to the EVF to match their refresh. Nikon claims the other manufacturers that may claim 120Hz (or higher) are actually duplicating the image and therefore you are only getting a new image every 60th of a second anyways. Or at least they are dropping some frames even if it isn't every 2nd one. I don't know, all I can do it put the thing up to my eye and see for myself. I really don't need this Z9 but I'm too much of a gear head to not see it for myself so I will most likely get the thing and try it out. This is what I kept my 500PF for anyways so might as make the loss of resale on that lens over the past year or so make it worth it.
arbitrage wrote:
What we know is that Nikon is claiming that they are the first to do this dual stream thing. I'll take them at their word for that. I also have to take them at their word that every other manufacturer is not pushing a new frame to the EVF to match their refresh. Nikon claims the other manufacturers that may claim 120Hz (or higher) are actually duplicating the image and therefore you are only getting a new image every 60th of a second anyways. Or at least they are dropping some frames even if it isn't every 2nd one. I don't know, all I can do it put the thing up to my eye and see for myself. I really don't need this Z9 but I'm too much of a gear head to not see it for myself so I will most likely get the thing and try it out. This is what I kept my 500PF for anyways so might as make the loss of resale on that lens over the past year or so make it worth it....Show more →
I am looking forward to reading your honest comments about the Z9. At this point, it doesn't matter how it compares to the A1 R3, or A9ii, I just want to know if it is capable of tracking animals against distracting backgrounds. A liveview viewfinder at 10fps is more than enough for 95% of what I do, so if it can do these things, I'll try to find a way to buy one.
There’re still a lot of missing info.
We don’t know the characteristics of that second simultaneous stream feeding the EVF or where it originates. All that has been claimed is that it is simultaneous even when recording a full sensor read during camera actuation.
We also don’t have all the info about the EVF feed on existing cameras as far as I know. Do we know the bitrate, for example? So comparisons are pretty uninformative at this point IMO.
Anyone seen any L brackets in the works yet? Don't see any placeholders at RRS but do at Kirk, lately preference has led me towards RRS. I have the basic camera arca plate that I can use in the meantime but want to get a real L bracket on order as soon as they hit the market.
swifty168 wrote:
There’re still a lot of missing info.
We don’t know the characteristics of that second simultaneous stream feeding the EVF or where it originates. All that has been claimed is that it is simultaneous even when recording a full sensor read during camera actuation.
We also don’t have all the info about the EVF feed on existing cameras as far as I know. Do we know the bitrate, for example? So comparisons are pretty uninformative at this point IMO.
relevance?
this says a lot to me. it says someone's been busy. do you want the schematics too? :
This section where Chris Ogoden summarizes the EVF, he expressly emphasizes he has no authority to elaborate on the specifications, but he underscored why there is no stuttering and missed frames. This is because no other camera dedicates a data channel entirely to the EVF. And don't expect Nikon to release much more technical information, if any, going forward.
?t=3107
The bottom line is what we know about EVF performance and its "OVF-like" quality from reports over the last week. Some are notable and reliable industry authorities. We know the Z9 EVF not only works well but that the user experience is extremely good shooting challenging action scenes and more.....
swifty168 wrote:
There’re still a lot of missing info.
We don’t know the characteristics of that second simultaneous stream feeding the EVF or where it originates. All that has been claimed is that it is simultaneous even when recording a full sensor read during camera actuation.
We also don’t have all the info about the EVF feed on existing cameras as far as I know. Do we know the bitrate, for example? So comparisons are pretty uninformative at this point IMO.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The runner's face is reasonably sharp and in focus.
no doubt it's good enough by your dslr standards, but not by my experience with shooting the stacked sensor a9 for the last four years.
we don't know if it's user error or a gear problem, but faces being oof is a common theme in those pics.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The track area in front of the runner (from the photographer's perspective) is also in focus due to the shooting angle.
it shouldn't be off by over two feet tho... ultimately this is milc not dslr, parallax isn't a factor with face recognition because the camera should be trying to focus on the face only.
remember that nikon did claim z9 accurate af with those teaser videos that have fake boxes locked solidly on the target area... they set the level of expectation.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
DPR staff seem to be of the opinion that rather than the photographer having to choose settings, the camera should just work and take the correctly exposed and focused shot without requiring anything special (knowledge, experience, skill, familiarity with the tools) from the user. Their sample images reflect that.
we can agree that human error is a big factor here, and some of it could have been due to a lack of familiarity with the tools, although having a nikon rep at the event should have mitigated that.
the object with all modern cameras is to free the photographer from worrying about distractions like focusing, so he can concentrate on composition... there is no question that when it works you'll get a higher ratio of keepers, gear can improve your photography.
this says a lot to me. it says someone's been busy. do you want the schematics too? :
Huh?
My only point is we’re trying to make comparisons with very little actual technical info and b4 the Z9 is even in public’s hands.
And even cameras we have in the wild we don’t have all the technical details whilst ppl are trying to do technical comparisons.
So let’s just wait until at least we have the cameras in hand.
And if the technical data still eludes us then, well the subjective impressions will have to suffice. After all it’s the subjective shooting experience that matters at the end of the day. No?
chambeshi wrote:
This section where Chris Ogoden summarizes the EVF, he expressly emphasizes he has no authority to elaborate on the specifications, but he underscored why there is no stuttering and missed frames. This is because no other camera dedicates a data channel entirely to the EVF. And don't expect Nikon to release much more technical information, if any, going forward.
?t=3107
The bottom line is what we know about EVF performance and quality from reports over the last week. Some are notable and reliable industry authorities. We know the Z9 EVF not only works well but that the user experience is extremely good shooting challenging action scenes and more.....
...Show more →
No issues there. I’m perfectly fine with subjective impressions and a large volume of subjective evaluations are equally valuable compared to technical ones.
My point is we lack the technical info to do technical comparisons currently and with no Z9’s in the public, it’s kinda premature.
it shouldn't be off by over two feet tho... ultimately this is milc not dslr, parallax isn't a factor with face recognition
because the camera should be trying to focus on the face only.
If the stadium bench rows rise in a 30 degree angle compared to ground level, and if the photographer and runner are about equally tall, the focus on the track should be about 2-3 feet in front of the focused subject if the focus is correct on the runner's face. Without knowing the exact geometry, I can't make a better estimate but it should be in that window.
It's not a perfectly sharp image, but given the long distance used for the shot (40-50 m) it's probably as good as one can expect from a PF 500 mm lens on a sunny day. The focus on the track can't really be used to prove front or back focus either way. The fact that the sharpness varies from area to area on the track part of the picture suggests heat-related fluctuations that probably mean a perfect result can't be had in such conditions irrespective of focus.
If you want significantly better results on such conditions you probably need a fast prime supertelephoto lens such as a 500/4 or 600/4 in this situation. The PF lens is convenient but it isn't really optimal for long-distance photography.
