Archive 2021 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.13 #1 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
LBJ2 wrote:
"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
THIS is the Z9 target.
exactly... it'll be great for a few select nikon owners, but there will be few platform switchers willing to take on a giant porky body with weak battery life and limited lens selection.
did you see the dprtv review of the new tamron 28-75? the voice coil af motor(s?) look really fast and snappy, probably good enough for sports shooting, and it's relatively cheap... it's a good example of what is completely lacking with all of the canikon mounts, it'll bring in the platform switchers and the new photographers.
p.13 #2 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:
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.13 #3 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
exactly... it'll be great for a few select nikon owners, but there will be few platform switchers willing to take on a giant porky body with weak battery life and limited lens selection.
did you see the dprtv review of the new tamron 28-75? the voice coil af motor(s?) look really fast and snappy, probably good enough for sports shooting, and it's relatively cheap... it's a good example of what is completely lacking with all of the canikon mounts, it'll bring in the platform switchers and the new photographers.
Honestly not a lens that has caught my attention, but will take a look at the video and see what it's all about. Your larger point however regardless of how great our new camera technologies if the lenses we need/want are not available...the infamous "never" present nirvana global shutter desire is "just" a global shutter
p.13 #4 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
ChrisMak wrote:
You may have had a bad copy of the Sigma, or suffered from bad calibration.
I was using it on mirrorless cameras (A9 II and an A7R IV), so calibration should not have been a factor.
I suppose that if you use these lenses on a lower-resolution body and crank up the sharpening and contrast in post, you might not see much difference.
UPDATE:
The lens was sent to the Sigma Canada distributor to be checked for problems and it was returned with a clean bill of health, so definitely not a calibration issue, just a mediocre lens.
p.13 #5 · "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.
brad hill did a bunch of testing on the lenses in question back in 2017, but of course that was with a dslr:
"I have NEVER tested any two competing lenses that are so absolutely similar in image quality (at all distances, apertures, and with or without teleconverters) than the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 and the Nikkor 500mm f4E VR. Image sharpness, quality of the out-of-focus zones, and the progression in increasing sharpness from wide open through to about f5 (where both lenses approach maximum sharpness) is virtually identical between my copies of these two lenses.
The differences in AF performance of the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 and the Nikkor 500mm f4E VR are so subtle that they are unlikely to be noticed under normal day-to-day shooting; both lenses show a very snappy initial focus acquisition, both shift from closest focus to distant focus very fast, and both re-focus quickly and smoothly enough that they rarely miss focus on even fast moving subjects. Repeated trials of continuous high-frame rate shooting on a rapidly moving subject showed "keeper rates" of almost 90% for both lenses, but with the Sigma Sport having a slightly higher rate of sharp shots. Both lenses exhibited high focus accuracy on all 55 selectable focus points of a Nikon D5, but the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 showed a higher degree of focus accuracy on several of the outermost focus points on a Nikon D500." http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/500mmwars_sigma_nikon.html
p.13 #6 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
brad hill did a bunch of testing on the lenses in question back in 2017, but of course that was with a dslr:
"I have NEVER tested any two competing lenses that are so absolutely similar in image quality (at all distances, apertures, and with or without teleconverters) than the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 and the Nikkor 500mm f4E VR. Image sharpness, quality of the out-of-focus zones, and the progression in increasing sharpness from wide open through to about f5 (where both lenses approach maximum sharpness) is virtually identical between my copies of these two lenses.
The differences in AF performance of the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 and the Nikkor 500mm f4E VR are so subtle that they are unlikely to be noticed under normal day-to-day shooting; both lenses show a very snappy initial focus acquisition, both shift from closest focus to distant focus very fast, and both re-focus quickly and smoothly enough that they rarely miss focus on even fast moving subjects. Repeated trials of continuous high-frame rate shooting on a rapidly moving subject showed "keeper rates" of almost 90% for both lenses, but with the Sigma Sport having a slightly higher rate of sharp shots. Both lenses exhibited high focus accuracy on all 55 selectable focus points of a Nikon D5, but the Sigma Sport 500mm f4 showed a higher degree of focus accuracy on several of the outermost focus points on a Nikon D500." http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/500mmwars_sigma_nikon.html ...Show more →
That's pretty consistent with what I originally said - both of those lenses are comparable to the 1999 version of the Canon 500mm f4L IS... and Brad no longer owns either of them.
p.13 #7 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:
I was using it on mirrorless cameras (A9 II and an A7R IV), so calibration should not have been a factor.
The acutance and contrast were pretty similar to the new Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG DN Sports lens I tested recently - pretty good, but a notch below similar Canon or Sony glass.
I suppose that if you use these lenses on a lower-resolution body and crank up the contrast in post, you might not see much difference.
I use it on the D500. which is a pretty high resolution body. I never crank up contrast, always leave that at default, but for sure the character of the Sigma 500mm (and much more the former Sigma 500mm f4.5 as well as the Sigma 150-600mm) is different from the native Nikon and Canon lenses, with overall slightly lower contrast and micro contrast (which you probably mean by accutance) when light is flat. When light is lively, then the Sigma can produce a fantastic balance of contrast and yet smooth rendering. I expect that either the Sigma lens coatings are not as advanced, or Sigma is having another optical design approach that favors smooth bokeh over just absolute contrast. It would be interesting to know which is the case, because the Sigma has some really good OOF rendering.
If you judge a lens solely by its level of global contrast and accutance, then no doubt, the Canon and Nikon top lenses win out. I had the Canon 400DOII and that lens is right up there with the 500/600 lenses.We can easily agree on that. The 500PF has reasonably high contrast, but lower accutance.
But there are other factors that make a good lens. Resolution for instance, OOF rendering or bokeh quality, a 3D sense of the scene. Subject islolation over medium distances. The new Sigma 500mm f4S simply beats the 500PF, which renders rather "flat" looking images without a real sense of depth and the OOF rendering can be busy or harsh. It excells as a BIF lens, when these things matter less.
I had the Canon 400DOII with the 1.4TC, and i.m.o. that combo rendered some ugly and busy backgrounds.
I guess you have to use a lens for a longer time in different scenarios to get a feel for how good a lens is optically. If I had to choose only one of these 3 lenses that I have used: 400DOII, Nikon 500PF or Sigma 500S, based on what they can do for me with regards to bird and wildlife photography, then without a doubt, I would choose the Sigma. In any event, by calling the Sigma 500mm f4S a "1999 lens" you definitely sell it short, and it shows that you have not used it for real. Or perhaps the Canon 1999 lens is a stunner....
Nov 10, 2021 at 04:14 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.13 #8 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
timgangloff wrote:
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. ...Show more →
400mm/600mm is quite different from your insistence that e-mount can't possibly be good enough for sports shooting because it doesn't have a 300/2.8, 120-300/2.8 or a 500/4... that's just plain nonsense, the long glass sports are 600mm/800mm+, did you for instance see the 200-600 and 800mm lenses in the z-mount roadmap? gosh, why don't they list any of those lenses that you told us we must have :-0
the fact that no company is making those lenses for milc says it all... will that upcoming rf 500/4 will be another dslr re-pop, like they did with their rf 600/4.
congrats on your success with youth sports and whatever sports you are shooting, i'd tell you to clone the format for sale to other photogs, but then it may only work in places like tennesse, and it'll be really slow to build up momentum... i suppose that shooters could sign up for maxpreps, where you only get paid a percentage if a photo sells after the event? it'll be hard to pay for gear like that.
p.13 #9 · "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. The limits of AF, for example, have nothing to do with the adaptation and are simply the limits of the lens. Nikon F mount lenses can be used to their full potential on the Z9. Nikon F mount lenses work very poorly on Sony with any of the available adapters. They often won't AF at all and frequently lock up the camera. For you to equate the performance of these lenses on the two systems is ridiculous
And although Sony has 115 autofocus lenses for E mount, they have only 2 primes longer than 135mm and both cost over $12,000. Not much choice there at all. Either pay a huge amount or go without long primes. To make it worse they only have two zooms that reach beyond 300mm and both have very slow apertures. Again not much choice. You might think third parties would step in, but they haven't in either long primes or long faster (i.e., at least f/4) zooms. Nikon will have a huge advantage here both because of their F mount lenses that work to their full capability on the Z9 and because they are building new PF lenses for their Z mount....Show more →
You're very right about the $12,000 point. I'm looking to purchase a fast prime to pair with my A1, and I'm having a hard time justifying the price for just a hobby. If I didn't already have the A1, I'd be all over the R3/Z9 and a used 500/600 prime.
p.13 #10 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
400mm/600mm is quite different from your insistence that e-mount can't possibly be good enough for sports shooting because it doesn't have a 300/2.8, 120-300/2.8 or a 500/4... that's just plain nonsense, the long glass sports are 600mm/800mm+, did you for instance see the 200-600 and 800mm lenses in the z-mount roadmap? gosh, why don't they list any of those lenses that you told us we must have :-0
the fact that no company is making those lenses for milc says it all... will that upcoming rf 500/4 will be another dslr re-pop, like they did with their rf 600/4.
congrats on your success with youth sports and whatever sports you are shooting, i'd tell you to clone the format for sale to other photogs, but then it may only work in places like tennesse, and it'll be really slow to build up momentum... i suppose that shooters could sign up for maxpreps, where you only get paid a percentage if a photo sells after the event? it'll be hard to pay for gear like that.
p.13 #11 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
congrats on your success with youth sports and whatever sports you are shooting, i'd tell you to clone the format for sale to other photogs, but then it may only work in places like tennesse, and it'll be really slow to build up momentum... i suppose that shooters could sign up for maxpreps, where you only get paid a percentage if a photo sells after the event? it'll be hard to pay for gear like that.
It's actually a proven business model, and one that has worked, in a lot of places, for a long time now. You might want to check it out for yourself before making condescending comments...
Nov 10, 2021 at 04:59 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.13 #12 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:
There's little point in debating with you - if the Sigma is the best telephoto you've ever used, that's fine.
i think that post was for chrismak.
Nov 10, 2021 at 05:00 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.13 #13 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:
It's actually a proven business model, and one that has worked, in a lot of places, for a long time now. You might want to check it out for yourself before making condescending comments...
you surely aren't referring to maxpreps.
i don't know what exactly tim is doing, but i'm glad to hear that somebody is making money shooting sports stills.
p.13 #17 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Until Nikon changes its policy of a closed mount, they will be fighting Sony with one hand tied behind their back.
Nov 10, 2021 at 05:23 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.13 #18 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
mogul wrote:
Until Nikon changes its policy of a closed mount, they will be fighting Sony with one hand tied behind their back.
Except with primes longer than 135mm and long zooms with at least an f/4 aperture, third parties aren't building lenses for Sony either. Up to this point that open mount isn't helping Sony at all with this issue.
Nov 10, 2021 at 06:19 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.13 #19 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
400mm/600mm is quite different from your insistence that e-mount can't possibly be good enough for sports shooting because it doesn't have a 300/2.8, 120-300/2.8 or a 500/4... that's just plain nonsense, the long glass sports are 600mm/800mm+, did you for instance see the 200-600 and 800mm lenses in the z-mount roadmap? gosh, why don't they list any of those lenses that you told us we must have :-0
the fact that no company is making those lenses for milc says it all... will that upcoming rf 500/4 will be another dslr re-pop, like they did with their rf 600/4.
congrats on your success with youth sports and whatever sports you are shooting, i'd tell you to clone the format for sale to other photogs, but then it may only work in places like tennesse, and it'll be really slow to build up momentum... i suppose that shooters could sign up for maxpreps, where you only get paid a percentage if a photo sells after the event? it'll be hard to pay for gear like that.
I think the obvious reason that Nikon does not yet have a 300 f/2.8, 500 f/4 or 120-300 f/2.8 in Z mount is that they have these lens in F mount and F mount lenses perform just as well in pretty much all ways and in some ways better on the Z9. They will come out with new versions of these lenses when it is time to upgrade them. I suspect the 500 f/4 to come before too long (say three to four years), but the 300 f/2.8 might be delayed because the 120-300 covers that terrain and is very new. The 120-300 I don't expect in Z mount for close to 10 years when it will be time to upgrade it. Nikon's strategy with long lenses seems quite obvious 1) match Sony and Canon with Z mount lenses; 2) Offer some unique Z mount lenses (like the two new PF lenses on their roadmap); 3) Make sure that their existing F mount lenses are fully functional with zero issues on high level Z mount cameras. 4) Upgrade those F mount lenses to Z mount lenses as they need updating. That gives Nikon a pretty clear strategy going forward with a lot of really nice long lenses with a lot a different prices.
Unfortunately for Sony shooters they don't have much in the way of old A mount lenses to adapt to cover the gaps. They have a few such lenses, but obviously not that many. That means Sony is going to have get off their duff and make some more long lenses and they need to do it soon, or the advantage of the older lenses for Canon and Nikon will leave them at a disadvantage.
p.13 #20 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
arbitrage wrote:
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).
Sony remains the most likely candidate for me if I am to switch to mirrorless for wildlife and bird photography. After all, I already shoot Sony for general photography and recently added the wonderful FE35mm f1.4GM to my Loxia lens.
When I ordered the Sigma, I was very close to changing the order to a Sony A1 and FE200-600G, but I wanted a f4 prime first and the 600GM was out of my budget.
Other than with the Canon 400DOII, I have no regrets, the Sigma 500S is the best lens for me at this moment, the 500PF is resting on the shelf. It produces what I also saw in the raw samples that I downloaded from the Sony 600GM and what is perhaps territory of the f4 primes. B.t.w. I use it on the D500 without a grip and that is within my comfortable handholding limits. I have zero issues with ill balance or lack of grip. Just not very convenient for portait mode, but otherwise just fine. I would use the Sony A1 ungripped as well with a 600GM, simply because I like to keep weight down for hiking and handholding.
Now and then I think about a Canon R5, but I know I will not head back to Canon. Now that Nikon's Z9 launch has made more clear where they are headed, it's pretty clear to me that Sony is the way to go.
I am in no hurry as I still like the D500 enough, but my plan is to save up for an A1, have the Sigma adapted to Canon mount (with sigma MC-11), sell the 500PF and get a 200-600G. That should give me everything I need until one day I have the cash for a 600GM. If the Sigma does not focus supremely on the A1, that is no real bother, I will use the 200-600 for the fast stuff.
I did think about the Nikon 800mm PF on the roadmap, but I expect it to be around 10.000, being a S line lens, and I would not know what body to put it on. I see a Sony 600GM as much better long term option, perhaps the only wildlife lens that I would need.
