p.12 #1 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
nikon doesn't have any of those lenses in the z-mount roadmap, but canon is rumored to have an rf-mount 500/4 coming at some unknown date.
even if it was in their roadmaps canikon doesn't have linear voice coil af technology, and nikon has been putting slow stepper motors in many of the z-mount lenses... nikon really isn't positioning itself as a sports-shooting platform, but they are finally making a 600mm superzoom with af, for the first time in nikon history.
the dslr versions of those sports lenses could barely keep up with 10-12fps af-c, but at least they should have eyeaf and face detection on milc, so that will be an improvement... if you already own the glass a z9/r3 would be worth it, e-mount owners will have to use the adapted sigma versions at 15fps.
sports shooters can't afford new glass because sports shooting itself is d.o.a., that's why you won't be seeing milc versions of those lenses from the big 3:
Interesting article! In think in this 2015 article the problem was defined as "...Unfortunately, a lot of it has to do with editorial clients turning away from the professional photographer to sports enthusiasts who are willing to trade their photos for season tickets."
Wonder what is the state of the same problem in 2021.
p.12 #2 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
I'd be cautious making a system switch based on the idea of adapting a Sigma 500/4 to either Canon or Sony.
Canon adapting is probably the better bet but even then not sure how the Sigma works. With Canon you have to make a choice between higher MP with slideshow EVF versus low MP and livefeed EVF. With an A1 you are limiting the camera functions using adapted Sigma. 15FPS (maybe that will be enough) but also unknown AF prowess. I mean I've tested Canon lenses on Sony bodies before and they will work for anything not BIF and for some larger/slower BIF but you sort of handicap the $6500 body by going that route.
p.12 #3 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Interesting, though it seems odd to compare two flagship cameras in this way. I would expect most targets for either the Z9 or A1 are invested in one system or the other, and relatively few people contemplating a system shift based on one-upmanship by either company at this flagship level.
That said, I am an exception to my own rule in that I have a lot of Nikon and Sony gear - we shot (and occasionally still shoot) Nikon cameras for the last 12 years. But when I choose a camera to shoot with today, it's always the A1. It makes everything else feel ridiculous, and I am about to sell all my other cameras (including other Sony cameras) to commit to the wonder that is the A1.
I'm doubtful that the Z9 could change that view for me given its enormous size and obligate vertical grip - two things I hate.
p.12 #4 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
nikon doesn't have any of those lenses in the z-mount roadmap, but canon is rumored to have an rf-mount 500/4 coming at some unknown date.
even if it was in their roadmaps canikon doesn't have linear voice coil af technology, and nikon has been putting slow stepper motors in many of the z-mount lenses... nikon really isn't positioning itself as a sports-shooting platform, but they are finally making a 600mm superzoom with af, for the first time in nikon history.
the dslr versions of those sports lenses could barely keep up with 10-12fps af-c, but at least they should have eyeaf and face detection on milc, so that will be an improvement... if you already own the glass a z9/r3 would be worth it, e-mount owners will have to use the adapted sigma versions at 15fps.
sports shooters can't afford new glass because sports shooting itself is d.o.a., that's why you won't be seeing milc versions of those lenses from the big 3:
Yes and No. See, not everyone buys sports gear to make a profit. Just like not everyone who buys expensive golf clubs is going to make a profit with them. Not everyone who buys a Porsche is racing it. And to suggest Canon, Nikon and Sony don't want a piece of that pie is well, a bit crazy. And not informed.
Sports are still a great venue for the 3 and all 3 try to make a big splash at the biggest events like the Olympics and Superbowls, etc.
And the death of sports shooters is largely just a shift. Most guys like me on the sidelines are not making a killing shooting on spec or for wire services. But there is lots of money to be made on the youth sports sidelines if you have a good model. My accountant can verify that. ;-) In fact, as sports have started kick back into full force, parents are spending lots of money on youth sports images.
So, the guys/gals shooting sports on the sidelines of your local HS for youth game may not be making a lot of money shooting sports, but there are a lot of them and they are spending loads of money. But if they can't afford the $12K Sony 400 and need something longer than their 70-200, the will have to look at Canon or Nikon for 300s. And some might even be able to afford a used Canon or Nikon 400 at less than half the cost of the Sony 400, who don't have a less expensive version as it is just too new. They probably don't care about having the world's fastest FPS or AF system. They want a system to make nice images and that they can afford.
Look, I like Sony and am heavily invested, but for someone starting out or wanting to get more serious, Canon and Nikon make a lot more sense right now financially.
p.12 #5 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
We really dont know what situation Nikon is in, what if the sensor production cant meet the demand of Z8 type of camera? (It seems make more sense to offer top of line camera first to control the supply and demand) What if Nikon desperately need something in pro section which they always value highly?
Once the initial demand die down, sensor production is up, they can certainly bring another wave of hype by introducing Z8 like camera.
Z9 is not only as significant as D3 moment for Nikon but also they are following the D3 path that D700 came after one year later than D3.
I am sure many wouldnt mind a 4000-4500 Z8 one year later. A 5500z9, 4500Z8, 3000Z7, 2000z6 seems a very good line up offering upgrade path for all needs.
If I cant wait for this type of camera for my need from Nikon, I will just get a A9ii or A1 now. There are really not much difference left between these three brands if you get rid of personal feeling attached each IMHO. Down to road, even less.
ChrisMak wrote:
I think it is "either...or"
I don't think a new Nikon flagship-like camera will be developed which is more in style with the Sony A1. There is no room for several concepts of flagship cameras in todays market.
i don't need nor crave for a flagship camera, but for a proper action camera, so with the situation in todays mirrorless market, you are quickly pressed to move up to a flagship model if you want to shoot action. Perhaps in five years or so, things will have evened out.
so it is not a strange idea to start with a body of choice and then get by with the lenses.
i am in no hurry, but of course I will be considering in time if Sony is an option. The demise of crop in the transition to mirrorless has further complicated things. ...Show more →
p.12 #6 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
saaketham wrote:
Sorry Chris. I didn't mean it in any bad way. In the past, when we chatted about the Sigma 500, I mentioned to you that it worked even better with my z6ii (no AF tuning specifically). At the time, you'd told me that you were hoping to move to a Nikon mirrorless at some point, and use the Sigma 500. But since the z9 is not something you're interested in, and Nikon's move to release a D5/D6 style body frustrated you (what I learned from some of your posts) + you mentioned a few days ago about mount conversion to Canon, and then using an adapter to use the Sig 500 on a Sony, I assumed that's what you decided. I was genuinely curious about why you didn't already switch to Canon or Sony, since they already have good bodies. With the chip supply shortage and Nikon moving production to Thailand, it may be many months before a z8 will come out. Sad, and I wish it weren't so, but that's what current conditions seem to indicate.
Again, no offense meant in any form or fashion. I too shoot Nikon and Sony and love both systems for different reasons. ...Show more →
No problem.
really, if there was any frustration in going from dslr to mirrorless then I dealt with that years ago already. I remember waiting for the rumored Sony "mini A9", a supposed 24mp crop version of the A9. I could then go one-system, as I was already using the A7RII with the Loxia lenses. Not yet one-camera, but at least one-system.
The mini A9 turned out to be yet another lacklustre A6xxx update.
My real frustration has been the slashing of high end aps-c crop in the mirrorless world. The D500-D850-D5 line was a superb line-up, because it had superb IQ αnd superb performance in the package of your choice.
Nikon Z is still years away from such a superb line-up in mirrorless.
I may well stay with dslr (D500) for the rest of my shooting years (I am 55 yrs), simply because there are no equivalent value offers in any brand to be seen. The sigma 500mm f4S is growing on me, the 3D rendering capabilities and subject isolation of that lens amaze me. The weight does not tire me, because I know what it is for. With the Z9 I would be lugging around 600 grams extra weight over the D500 without really knowing why a smaller lighter body cannot give me the same performance. So it's highly subjective. I would be much happier shooting a Sony A1 with 600GM if I want to add size and weight.
So it is clear that the Z9 is not for me, but I wish everyone that get's one a lot of pleasure using it.
Nov 10, 2021 at 12:38 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.12 #7 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
timgangloff wrote:
Yes and No. See, not everyone buys sports gear to make a profit.
that's not a business, it's a hobby, but ultimately it doesn't matter, the lenses are either for sale or they aren't, and in this case they aren't, there just isn't a profitable market for companies to sell niche sports glass.
timgangloff wrote:
Sports are still a great venue for the 3 and all 3 try to make a big splash at the biggest events like the Olympics and Superbowls, etc.
yeah sony was there, without a native 300/2.8 and the other niche lenses that you claimed are a requirement for shooting sports... i shoot action sports and motorsports, i can't use any of those lenses because the focal lengths are wrong.
the tokyo olympics added baseball, softball, skateboarding, surfing, sport climbing, karate, 3x3 basketball and freestyle BMX, for the most part you don't need expensive oddball lenses to cover those sports.
i'm glad that guys like you and lee woolery are able to carve out an income with youth sports and whatnot, even if it takes the rest of eternity to pay for the gear he summed up the reality of it pretty well: "But glad I don't have to make that decision today because I would look at start-up costs and find another line of work." https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1725899/0#lastmessage
p.12 #8 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
ChrisMak wrote:
No problem.
really, if there was any frustration in going from dslr to mirrorless then I dealt with that years ago already. I remember waiting for the rumored Sony "mini A9", a supposed 24mp crop version of the A9. I could then go one-system, as I was already using the A7RII with the Loxia lenses. Not yet one-camera, but at least one-system.
The mini A9 turned out to be yet another lacklustre A6xxx update.
My real frustration has been the slashing of high end aps-c crop in the mirrorless world. The D500-D850-D5 line was a superb line-up, because it had superb IQ αnd superb performance in the package of your choice.
Nikon Z is still years away from such a superb line-up in mirrorless.
I may well stay with dslr (D500) for the rest of my shooting years (I am 55 yrs), simply because there are no equivalent value offers in any brand to be seen. The sigma 500mm f4S is growing on me, the 3D rendering capabilities and subject isolation of that lens amaze me. The weight does not tire me, because I know what it is for. With the Z9 I would be lugging around 600 grams extra weight over the D500 without really knowing why a smaller lighter body cannot give me the same performance. So it's highly subjective. I would be much happier shooting a Sony A1 with 600GM if I want to add size and weight.
So it is clear that the Z9 is not for me, but I wish everyone that get's one a lot of pleasure using it. ...Show more →
Other than the increased size, the A1 (ungripped) with 600GM would come in ~393g lighter than the D500 and Sigma 500. Put a shorty hood on the 600GM like I do and the thing is shorter than the Sigma 500 with normal hood. Of course there will be a little more girth to the 600 and longer to pack in a bag (once the hoods are off or reversed). Also the balance of the 600GM is way better to handhold than the Sigma 500 (I'm basing that on my handheld use of similar Nikon 500E and Canon 500II).
p.12 #9 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
that's not a business, it's a hobby, but ultimately it doesn't matter, the lenses are either for sale or they aren't, and in this case they aren't, there just isn't a profitable market for companies to sell niche sports glass.
yeah sony was there, without a native 300/2.8 and the other niche lenses that you claimed are a requirement for shooting sports... i shoot action sports and motorsports, i can't use any of those lenses because the focal lengths are wrong.
the tokyo olympics added baseball, softball, skateboarding, surfing, sport climbing, karate, 3x3 basketball and freestyle BMX, for the most part you don't need expensive oddball lenses to cover those sports.
i'm glad that guys like you and lee woolery are able to carve out an income with youth sports and whatnot, even if it takes the rest of eternity to pay for the gear he summed up the reality of it pretty well: "But glad I don't have to make that decision today because I would look at start-up costs and find another line of work." https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1725899/0#lastmessage
"I have been so used to the weight, size and build quality of the D series camera bodies over the years that my tests with the R6 and R5 (even with battery packs) showed they just were too small and felt toy-like and fragile." https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1725899/0#lastmessage
p.12 #10 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
arbitrage wrote:
I'd be cautious making a system switch based on the idea of adapting a Sigma 500/4 to either Canon or Sony.
Canon adapting is probably the better bet but even then not sure how the Sigma works. With Canon you have to make a choice between higher MP with slideshow EVF versus low MP and livefeed EVF. With an A1 you are limiting the camera functions using adapted Sigma. 15FPS (maybe that will be enough) but also unknown AF prowess. I mean I've tested Canon lenses on Sony bodies before and they will work for anything not BIF and for some larger/slower BIF but you sort of handicap the $6500 body by going that route....Show more →
I wasn't too impressed with the one copy of the Sigma 500mm f4 I tried. I thought the few images that were actually in focus were about equal to the first version (1999 vintage) of the Canon 500mm f4L IS in terms of sharpness, and lens designs have improved quite a bit since then.
p.12 #11 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
You are pretending that all camera lens combinations that use an adapter have the same performance. The clearly do not. Nikon F mount lenses adapted to Nikon Z mount cameras (at least the Z9) with a Nikon adapter perform at least as well as they perform on a Nikon F mount cameras.
Which F-mount lenses have you used on your Z9 so far?
Some of Steve Perry's videos certainly seem to demonstrate that not all F-mount lenses focus as fast on the mirrorless bodies as they do on the DSLR's.
Nov 10, 2021 at 01:59 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #12 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:
Which F-mount lenses have you used on your Z9 so far?
Some of Steve Perry's videos certainly seem to demonstrate that not all F-mount lenses focus as fast on the mirrorless bodies as they do on the DSLR's.
Obviously I haven't, but there are lots of videos out there including a super compelling one from Brad Hill, who I trust, demonstrating there is no drop in performance with F mount lens on the Z9. Steve Perry AFAIK has not reviewed the Z9. His conclusions based on earlier cameras do not seem to hold with the Z9. It appears that the limitations he noted were camera based (as some of us suggested at the time) and had nothing to do with the F mount lenses or their adaptation.
p.12 #13 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
LBJ2 wrote:
Interesting article! In think in this 2015 article the problem was defined as "...Unfortunately, a lot of it has to do with editorial clients turning away from the professional photographer to sports enthusiasts who are willing to trade their photos for season tickets."
Wonder what is the state of the same problem in 2021.
The same is unfortunately true of pretty well all forms of editorial photography.
Publishers are facing declining revenues because the number of people willing to pay to see an image (vs. seeing something similar for free on social media) has been rapidly declining, so they no longer have much of budget to pay for images - while at the same time, the number of people willing to give away similar quality images for free seems to have been increasing at the same inversely proportional rate.
p.12 #14 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
that's not a business, it's a hobby, but ultimately it doesn't matter, the lenses are either for sale or they aren't, and in this case they aren't, there just isn't a profitable market for companies to sell niche sports glass.
yeah sony was there, without a native 300/2.8 and the other niche lenses that you claimed are a requirement for shooting sports... i shoot action sports and motorsports, i can't use any of those lenses because the focal lengths are wrong.
the tokyo olympics added baseball, softball, skateboarding, surfing, sport climbing, karate, 3x3 basketball and freestyle BMX, for the most part you don't need expensive oddball lenses to cover those sports.
i'm glad that guys like you and lee woolery are able to carve out an income with youth sports and whatnot, even if it takes the rest of eternity to pay for the gear he summed up the reality of it pretty well: "But glad I don't have to make that decision today because I would look at start-up costs and find another line of work." https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1725899/0#lastmessage
Like I said, with the right business model, you can make mid five figures working a few days a week, maybe 20 hours or so. My gear paid for itself very quickly. November is a pretty slow month for me and I'll probably invoice $3 to $4k. I'm not the smartest guy around, so if I can figure it out, I'm sure a lot more shooters can too. If you are taking a long to pay for your gear, you are not truly a professional but more of a hobbyist. Nothing wrong with that though. It can still be a lot of fun. I'm not bragging, but just trying to give some insight into what is possible, even for a sole proprietor in a small market.
I am curious as to what lenses you use for "action sports", motorsports, baseball, softball and surfing or think are appropriate. Those all seem like long glass sports to me. And I never said the 300 was a requirement. Perhaps more careful reading is appropriate. I said that for a company who wants to compete in the sports market, a 300 would be helpful in luring new shooters to your brand or for hobbyists/pros starting out.
I do find it interesting that Sony thought it important enough to develop a 400 and 600. I'd surmise it is because if you want to make and sell sports bodies like the a9 and a1, you need sports glass to go with them.
p.12 #15 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:
I wasn't too impressed with the one copy of the Sigma 500mm f4 I tried.
Perhaps a bad copy? These downsized images don't show how good the Sigma 500 is.
On my 5K monitor, these and others taken with the Sigma 500 f/4 Sports look terrific.
As Chris said - it's a beautiful lens, and it makes sense why he is trying to figure out camera bodies,
on which he can continue using this lens.
For $6000 new ($3000 to $3500 used), you have very few options for a super-telephoto at f/4.
Edit .. no matter how I resize/sharpen, etc .. the other 3 pics I tried to upload look horrible once I downsize and post,
although they look great on my screen at full res
But, trust me .. it's a very good lens for the $$$. Probably not anywhere near the $13,000 600 GM, but for the price!
p.12 #16 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:
I wasn't too impressed with the one copy of the Sigma 500mm f4 I tried. I thought the few images that were actually in focus were about equal to the first version (1999 vintage) of the Canon 500mm f4L IS in terms of sharpness, and lens designs have improved quite a bit since then.
I wonder what your standards are then. Nothing wrong with high standards, but the Sigma 500mm f4S outdoes the Nikon 500mm f5.6PF in about everything, except for global contrast in flat light and neutral color rendering. So I guess your standards are significantly higher than the 500PF, which again is fine.
When light is rather flat, the Sigma will render a duller image than the 500PF, which will draw more contrast and color even from flat light. The downside of that, is that in high contrast light, the 500PF images can suffer from harshness and too high a level of contrast.
The other thing about the Sigma 500mm f4S, is that it adds a slight warming cast to images, whereas the Nikon 500PF is very neutral.
That is about all that I can find against the Sigma. Your phrasing seems to imply that you had AF problems, which I don't recognize whatsoever. It is more precise and consistent than the 500PF on the D500.
I dont care for defending gear against other gear, but I rate the Sigma 500mm f4S higher than the 500PF, the bokeh, subject isolation, OOF rendering as a whole, 3D feel to the images, fine detail, distance performance, it is all better than the 500PF, and I have a good copy of that lens. I was actually sceptical of the Sigma 500S when I bought it, becasue I really wanted the Nikon 500mm f4E. But that lens is 12.000,- euros where I live, versus 6300,- for the Sigma. My scepsis has disappeared though, and except when light is very flat, I don't feel it can be much if anything, below the Nikon 500E.
You may have had a bad copy of the Sigma, or suffered from bad calibration.
p.12 #17 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
saaketham wrote:
Sorry Chris. I didn't mean it in any bad way. In the past, when we chatted about the Sigma 500, I mentioned to you that it worked even better with my z6ii (no AF tuning specifically). At the time, you'd told me that you were hoping to move to a Nikon mirrorless at some point, and use the Sigma 500. But since the z9 is not something you're interested in, and Nikon's move to release a D5/D6 style body frustrated you (what I learned from some of your posts) + you mentioned a few days ago about mount conversion to Canon, and then using an adapter to use the Sig 500 on a Sony, I assumed that's what you decided. I was genuinely curious about why you didn't already switch to Canon or Sony, since they already have good bodies. With the chip supply shortage and Nikon moving production to Thailand, it may be many months before a z8 will come out. Sad, and I wish it weren't so, but that's what current conditions seem to indicate.
Again, no offense meant in any form or fashion. I too shoot Nikon and Sony and love both systems for different reasons. ...Show more →
Maybe a bit more self awareness then ?
Nov 10, 2021 at 02:39 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #18 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
nikon doesn't have any of those lenses in the z-mount roadmap, but canon is rumored to have an rf-mount 500/4 coming at some unknown date.
even if it was in their roadmaps canikon doesn't have linear voice coil af technology, and nikon has been putting slow stepper motors in many of the z-mount lenses... nikon really isn't positioning itself as a sports-shooting platform, but they are finally making a 600mm superzoom with af, for the first time in nikon history.
the dslr versions of those sports lenses could barely keep up with 10-12fps af-c, but at least they should have eyeaf and face detection on milc, so that will be an improvement... if you already own the glass a z9/r3 would be worth it, e-mount owners will have to use the adapted sigma versions at 15fps.
sports shooters can't afford new glass because sports shooting itself is d.o.a., that's why you won't be seeing milc versions of those lenses from the big 3:
All three of the lenses Tim mentioned will do 20 fps on the Z9. This has already been demonstrated if you care to look up the videos. The limitations in fps before the Z9 were camera based not lens based.
If Sony can't find a profitable way to make lenses like the ones Tim mentioned then it is obvious that they will be at a competitive disadvantage for people who want to shoot long glass. More choice of lenses is a good thing and if Sony has a lot less choice for long lenses that puts them at a disadvantage. I am betting that Sony can build E mount lenses that can compete with the older Nikon F and Canon EF long glass. Sony did well with the long zooms they made as these are competitive both in performance and price. They just need to get off their ass and make some longer less expensive primes and some faster long zooms that are also competitive.
p.12 #19 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
saaketham wrote:
Perhaps a bad copy? These downsized images don't show how good the Sigma 500 is.
On my 5K monitor, these and others taken with the Sigma 500 f/4 Sports look terrific.
As Chris said - it's a beautiful lens, and it makes sense why he is trying to figure out camera bodies,
on which he can continue using this lens.
For $6000 new ($3000 to $3500 used), you have very few options for a super-telephoto at f/4.
The blue against the yellow bird image is really nice
he summed up the reality of it pretty well: "But glad I don't have to make that decision today because I would look at start-up costs and find another line of work." 
