p.18 #1 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
you sound exactly like a dslr owner, making claims that evf is garbage and nobody needs wysiwyg... next you'll be telling us that ovf is better, and polarized sunglasses don't matter.
Go read my post, where did I say EVF is garbage? or nobody need WYSIWYG? Where did I said OVF is better?
At the time anyone claim EVF looks like OVF (many manufacture still fighting to do that) in high DR challenging scene, that guarantee to mean it will not be WYSIWYG. It will deviate away the concept of WYSIWYG.
How is that possible for a 8 bit JPEG can represent 15 bit dynamic range without tons of tone mapping or with AI based human eyes simulation?
Again, it needs brain than rudeness to understand.
p.18 #3 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
greensony wrote:
Pretty sure the A1 already uses dual XR processors. The A7S III and the A7 IV use a single XR processor.
The Bionz XR is a dual processor setup and is shared by the A7s III, A1, FX 3, FX 6, and A7 IV. There was misreporting by DPreview that it uses Dual Bionz XR, because the image on Sonys website is different for between the A7s III and the A1, the A1 has a picture showing two processors.
However, all three pages for the cameras with Bionz XR processors claim they are 8x as powerful as the cameras with Bionz X processors. And Sony does not make the claim anywhere that the Sony A1 is using a different setup than the A7 IV. Quite the opposite, they claim the A7 IV has the same processing engine as the A1.
I also thought they had a different processor so I was quite confused as to why I thought that when they announced the A7 IV.
p.18 #4 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Jesse Evans wrote:
The Bionz XR is a dual processor setup and is shared by the A7s III, A1, FX 3, FX 6, and A7 IV. There was misreporting by DPreview that it uses Dual Bionz XR, because the image on Sonys website is different for between the A7s III and the A1, the A1 has a picture showing two processors.
However, all three pages for the cameras with Bionz XR processors claim they are 8x as powerful as the cameras with Bionz X processors. And Sony does not make the claim anywhere that the Sony A1 is using a different setup than the A7 IV. Quite the opposite, they claim the A7 IV has the same processing engine as the A1. ...Show more →
Hmm. What makes you so sure about whether the A1 does or does not have more of the chips? Sony specs are deliberately vague about it. All the written Sony material I've seen states merely that an XR is 8x as fast as an X processor. None is specific about what performance (or chip count) that results in. So dpreview may be confused about the two chips, but they could also be correct.
p.18 #5 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Daran wrote:
Hmm. What makes you so sure about whether the A1 does or does not have more of the chips? Sony specs are deliberately vague about it. All the written Sony material I've seen states merely that an XR is 8x as fast as an X processor. None is specific about what performance (or chip count) that results in. So dpreview may be confused about the two chips, but they could also be correct.
Because if the A1 had two Bionz XR engines then Sony would shout it from the rooftop as a differentiator. Rather than do that, they say the A7 IV has the exact same processor as the A1.
It is not that dpreview is confused about it being a dual chip, they are confused that Bionz XR is not a chip, it is a system composed of two chips. It is improper to call it Dual Bionz XR as that would imply 4 chips. And Sony itself simply calls it Bionz XR.
Nov 14, 2021 at 01:17 AM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.18 #6 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
zhangyue wrote:
Go read my post, where did I say EVF is garbage? or nobody need WYSIWYG? Where did I said OVF is better?
At the time anyone claim EVF looks like OVF (many manufacture still fighting to do that) in high DR challenging scene, that guarantee to mean it will not be WYSIWYG. It will deviate away the concept of WYSIWYG.
How is that possible for a 8 bit JPEG can represent 15 bit dynamic range without tons of tone mapping or with AI based human eyes simulation?
Again, it needs brain than rudeness to understand.
no, you need to read what's been posted and try to follow what's been said, instead of making false claims that the eye needs to "adjust" every time that you use an evf in the sun... you've clearly never calibrated your evf.
your 8-bit jpeg claims are not relevant to calibrating the evf for brightness, and this isn't about trying to represent 15 bits of dynamic range in an evf, you don't need that to frame a shot.
and nobody claimed that evf looks like ovf, a rec 709 monitor can display maybe 6-8 stops of d.r., why should an evf display have better d.r. than a monitor... you don't need that for wysiwyg! you are hijacking the thread away from evf calibration and wysiwyg.
p.18 #7 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
osv2 wrote:
no, you need to read what's been posted and try to follow what's been said, instead of making false claims that the eye needs to "adjust" every time that you use an evf in the sun... you've clearly never calibrated your evf.
Not a false claim but simple physics and science. What did you mean calibrated your evf? How? You calibrated under what ambient light? Do you calibrate it for full sun? How much nits Sony EVF can output? Have you ever calibrate a monitor for editing photo under full sun?
osv2 wrote:
your 8-bit jpeg claims are not relevant to calibrating the evf for brightness, and this isn't about trying to represent 15 bits of dynamic range in an evf, you don't need that to frame a shot.
and nobody claimed that evf looks like ovf, a rec 709 monitor can display maybe 6-8 stops of d.r., why should an evf display have better d.r. than a monitor... you don't need that for wysiwyg! you are hijacking the thread away from evf calibration and wysiwyg.
OK, if you want discuss and learn we can discuss and maybe learn something out of it. First of all, it is not off topic at all. It is very relevant start from my curiosity of Z9 claim of 3000 nit brightness EVF panel, I wonder if it can fix some complain I have during viewing. You blandly brought up brand war Sony vs Other, platform war EVF vs OVF in the post. (I wouldnt expect otherwise based on your post history) which is the one really off topic and hijack the thread.
There are two part in this conversation: Viewing and WYSIWYG
For viewing, this part related to how our human eyes works. Under fun sun or full darkness, any drastic dynamic change on light will confuse our viewing system. For example, a headlight of car can make our eye bland for a sec if not a few under full darkness but not during daylight. (Maybe for anyone shooting at night will know this). Under full sun, a EVF will make you feel the images are darker than it really is. And adjust brightness" is a terrible way to make a good judgement for "exposure". If you want viewing normally under THIS CONDITION, (or like view through OVF), it means you need forget WYSIWYG. Your exposure setting has to be isolated from viewing. EVen with all OVF simulation or other whatever term they called, our EVF panel tech is not there yet.
Mid day sunlight has about 120000 lux that round to about 40000 nits. For a monitor has 500 nits consider good and latest IPHONE has about 1200 nits. That is less than 3% of lightness to "fight" mid day harsh light. I don;t know Sony's EVF panel spec, but 3000 nits of Z9 make me curious how it will fight in this case even it is still far away from it needed to be I believe.
Then, it is the smartness of EVF to adjust lightness based on scene and research of human eye simulation. None of EVF camera I used is smart enough to get it to the level I like.
Canon has introduced OVF simulation mode which is pretty much simulate how we see "scene". I remembered they were using 10 bit HEIC with special tone curve, this will partially address HDR limit of 8 bit JPEG feeding EVF most manufactures using but it is not there yet and I am sure the lightness output is not enough for harsh daylight again.
There are reasons Manufacture did what did here trying to improve viewing experience such as Canon's OVF mode and Nikon's 3000 nits. One is trying to improve limited DR and other is fighting the lightness limitation.
Now, the 2nd part of EVF discussion is WYSIWYG, for more cases, EVF fullfill this role but the situation I described it fails. As we are terrible to judge exposure under different ambient. (that is why you calibrate your monitor under certain ambient condition) In other word, under full sun, you want bring lightness up as high as possible and under darkness, you want bring down the lightness of EVF as low as possible to think you are in the right ballpark. If you using Exposure Compensation to do that, you will have over exposed image under harsh light and under exposed image under darkness. That is one of the reason I think WYSIWYG is way overrated for experienced shooters. For anyone don't shooting JPEG but RAW, WYSIWYG itself is false claim. WYS is build in JPEG curve applied images. WYG is after heavy tone mapping process to really mimic what you saw with your naked eyes.
No disrespect, zero information for me here. It is too basic.
Nov 14, 2021 at 02:34 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.18 #8 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
zhangyue wrote:
Not a false claim but simple physics and science.
it's not science, it's fud, see below for instance:
zhangyue wrote:
What did you mean calibrated your evf? How? Have you ever calibrate a monitor for editing photo under full sun?
nobody edits with a monitor in full sun, so why would you calibrate it in the sun? you don't shoot with sunlight on the evf screen either.
1) shoot several different exposures of the same scene
2) compare both raw and jpg using computer software histogram, pick best exposure
3) review the best exposure in-camera, tweak evf brightness to where it looks the best
zhangyue wrote:
It is very relevant start from my curiosity of Z9 claim of 3000 nit brightness EVF panel, I wonder if it can fix some complain I have during viewing.
Under full sun, a EVF will make you feel the images are darker than it really is.
1) not when you use a big eyecup that blocks out all ambient light
2) and not when you calibrate the evf brightness
zhangyue wrote:
And adjust brightness" is a terrible way to make a good judgement for "exposure".
that's a direct contradiction, because you just stated that turning up brightness with a "3000 nit brightness EVF panel" was somehow going to make things better.
zhangyue wrote:
Mid day sunlight has about 120000 lux that round to about 40000 nits.
that doesn't matter, because all ambient light is blocked with the correct big eyecup.
zhangyue wrote:
None of EVF camera I used is smart enough to get it to the level I like.
you have auto exposure capability on the camera, including auto iso gain for brightness, that effectively changes how bright the image is, so it is automatic.
changing brightness on the evf itself is exactly like changing brightness on a calibrated computer monitor, which you would never do... set both of 'em correctly, one time, then leave 'em both alone.
zhangyue wrote:
Canon has introduced OVF simulation mode which is pretty much simulate how we see "scene".
it's not wysiwyg, so it's a fail, you already admitted that yourself.
zhangyue wrote:
I remembered they were using 10 bit HEIC with special tone curve, this will partially address HDR limit of 8 bit JPEG feeding EVF
do you really think that canon is basing the r3 evf display on heic files? i think you are going off-topic again.
no manufacturer has an hdr evf, so those heic files can't be properly displayed in-camera, and since the vast majority of monitors are rec 709 at best, heic files can't be displayed properly there either.
zhangyue wrote:
most manufactures using but it is not there yet and I am sure the lightness output is not enough for harsh daylight again.
no, your evf is not calibrated and you are letting ambient light in on it, which washes out the evf screen, requiring higher brightness to overcome the light shining on the evf panel.
compare your smartphone screen in direct sun vs. using it inside the house.
p.18 #9 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
I will stop respond. It looks pretty ugly TBH and I don’t want drag this thread down. We are not talking at the same level.
You only see brand name Go on.
osv2 wrote:
it's not science, it's fud, see below for instance:
nobody edits with a monitor in full sun, so why would you calibrate it in the sun? you don't shoot with sunlight on the evf screen either.
1) shoot several different exposures of the same scene
2) compare both raw and jpg using computer software histogram, pick best exposure
3) review the best exposure in-camera, tweak evf brightness to where it looks the best
1) not when you use a big eyecup that blocks out all ambient light
2) and not when you calibrate the evf brightness
that's a direct contradiction, because you just stated that turning up brightness with a "3000 nit brightness EVF panel" was somehow going to make things better.
that doesn't matter, because all ambient light is blocked with the correct big eyecup.
you have auto exposure capability on the camera, including auto iso gain for brightness, that effectively changes how bright the image is, so it is automatic.
changing brightness on the evf itself is exactly like changing brightness on a calibrated computer monitor, which you would never do... set both of 'em correctly, one time, then leave 'em both alone.
it's not wysiwyg, so it's a fail, you already admitted that yourself.
do you really think that canon is basing the r3 evf display on heic files? i think you are going off-topic again.
no manufacturer has an hdr evf, so those heic files can't be properly displayed in-camera, and since the vast majority of monitors are rec 709 at best, heic files can't be displayed properly there either.
no, your evf is not calibrated and you are letting ambient light in on it, which washes out the evf screen, requiring higher brightness to overcome the light shining on the evf panel.
compare your smartphone screen in direct sun vs. using it inside the house.
p.18 #10 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
no, brand names are not relevant to calibrating an evf and using a big eyecup, but you are right that we aren't talking on the same level, you can't even understand those two simple concepts, lol
zhangyue wrote:
I will stop respond. It looks pretty ugly TBH and I don’t want drag this thread down. We are not talking at the same level.
p.18 #11 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
This thread is a laugher...how do you compare an operational camera with a future release. I can't wait to hear some pluses & minuses of the Z9 from actual users instead of paid shills.
p.18 #12 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
So what you’re saying is…all this drama is because DPR sucks! Now that I’d buy for a nickel
Jesse Evans wrote:
The Bionz XR is a dual processor setup and is shared by the A7s III, A1, FX 3, FX 6, and A7 IV. There was misreporting by DPreview that it uses Dual Bionz XR, because the image on Sonys website is different for between the A7s III and the A1, the A1 has a picture showing two processors.
However, all three pages for the cameras with Bionz XR processors claim they are 8x as powerful as the cameras with Bionz X processors. And Sony does not make the claim anywhere that the Sony A1 is using a different setup than the A7 IV. Quite the opposite, they claim the A7 IV has the same processing engine as the A1.
I also thought they had a different processor so I was quite confused as to why I thought that when they announced the A7 IV. ...Show more →
p.18 #13 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
patotts wrote:
I got to handle the Z9 today at the local AD trunk show - it feels amazing in the hands, the AF seems to be on par with Canon and Sony, but it is just way too heavy. I took out the battery and took off the lens, and it is really the body construction that makes it weigh so much. I put an adapter on it and mounted the F-mount 70-200/2.8 - the weight not to my liking. I also handled the Canon R3 and the Sony A1 side-by-side -- I'll stick to the latter.
They probably have a huge heatsink in there to cope with 8K60p, that's an obscene amount of data and processing in a tiny space and heat will be plentiful.
It is disappointing it's quarter kilo heavier than the R3. By the time the Z9 actually is readily available Nikon may have announced a Z7III or Z8 with a lot of the features and performance of the Z9 in regular bodies. Still Z9 is lighter than any 1D series I've owned and the lightest was the 1DIII and I found that pleasant to hold and Z9 is about 100g lighter. Gripped A1 is heavier than R3 too by a little. With a 600 f/4 hanging off these cameras I doubt 250g or so will make a huge difference but when using small glass I'd prefer the A1 sans grip or even R3.
p.18 #15 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
I bought an a Sony grip for my a1 from a fellow FM-er. With it attached, the a1 is nearly perfect for my hands. The camera grip itself is not deep enough, so I have to claw around, but the grip solves my pinky hanging loose issue and the vertical grip is deep and perfect. I still prefer an integrated grip, because that joint between the body & the attached grip hurts my OCD brain, but I am going to ignore my OCD for now as the camera is now much better to shoot with. Thank you to the FMer who suggested it and the FMer who sold me the grip. 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
p.18 #16 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
I like pineapple on my pizza.
I met Mark Smith at Conowingo on Sunday and have a picture to prove it. He didn't have a grip on his A1 with the 600 GM, neither did I. It's just how I prefer to use my cameras (for many things besides the 600mm GM). There is nothing right or wrong in having an integrated grip or not having one. Choice is good.
Everyone in this picture used at least an A1 and 600 GM+1.4 TC at Conowingo
p.18 #17 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Who is pretending to understand the Engineering world when I am an Engineer by trade ? Your comment makes no sense. Go back to basics.. take like for like materials, one piece being larger in diameter than the first, and not only will the larger piece show more flexion, but also exhibit more resonance (vibrations) when tapping with equal force. Unless we know for a fact that the Z9 materials are of a higher quality or can compare the internal structural design for potential stress points , then there is no proof that the Z9 is more durable, or the A1 for the matter. Neither argument can be made for either camera. I do own and A1 and have owned Larger , heavy Canon DSLRs and I have no reason to believe the A1 isn’t as durable based solely on size (which is often an argument made on forums ). I feel it is well made based solely on the feeling the camera exhibits in hand, much like I evaluate any other camera I have owned. Not about to buy both and disassemble for fun lol
If it feels cheap then it probably is
LocoPhoto wrote:
Please don't pretend you know the engineering world.
Did your brilliant mind even think for one second that all the decisions to use magnesium and the design itself by companies like Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Sony (their DSLR's) ALL came about by drum rolll....engineers
"I know the A1 feels very well made, robust even and will stand up to any full sized DSLR in durability"
You would know right? From all your years in the field doing stress tests and real world comparisons of impact testing?
"Also it's funny how some assume because it's bigger it must be tougher... But thats actually opposite in the engineering world. "
Opposite would mean smaller is tougher.... uh huh....smaller amounts of material are tougher than large amounts of material....that's why cars are made out of the thinnest forms of steel and aluminum and not thicker forms of steel and aluminum.....or wait....
p.18 #18 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Douglas L wrote:
I like pineapple on my pizza.
I met Mark Smith at Conowingo on Sunday and have a picture to prove it. He didn't have a grip on his A1 with the 600 GM, neither did I. It's just how I prefer to use my cameras (for many things besides the 600mm GM). There is nothing right or wrong in having an integrated grip or not having one. Choice is good.
Everyone in this picture used at least an A1 and 600 GM+1.4 TC at Conowingo
Very cool… Marks a great person and amazing photographer!
p.18 #19 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Maxxus46 wrote:
Who is pretending to understand the Engineering world when I am an Engineer by trade ? Your comment makes no sense. Go back to basics.. take like for like materials, one piece being larger in diameter than the first, and not only will the larger piece show more flexion, but also exhibit more resonance (vibrations) when tapping with equal force. Unless we know for a fact that the Z9 materials are of a higher quality or can compare the internal structural design for potential stress points , then there is no proof that the Z9 is more durable, or the A1 for the matter. Neither argument can be made for either camera. I do own and A1 and have owned Larger , heavy Canon DSLRs and I have no reason to believe the A1 isn’t as durable based solely on size (which is often an argument made on forums ). I feel it is well made based solely on the feeling the camera exhibits in hand, much like I evaluate any other camera I have owned. Not about to buy both and disassemble for fun lol
If it feels cheap then it probably is
Being an engineer doesn't mean you're good at being an engineer.
Your points are very simplistic and missing mine as well, so no offense but I don't think any further explanation is going to help.
Keeping it simple...you're not an engineer involved in the design of either camera, so I'm simply sure you're not that knowledgeable to assert which cameras are more durable than the other. And no...."Feeling" flimsy doesn't equate to being less than durable. Many plastics can feel flimsy but be quite resilient for a myriad of stress scenarios.
To say it again...you weren't involved in the design of any of these cameras, or any camera I'm suspecting, ever....so you have no real insight into the reasons and limits of each design choice is my main point.
Or does being an "engineer" (which has no meaning unto itself by the way...engineer could mean fresh out of college and just got hired...could mean got your degree but no real experience...could mean thirty years experience at the highest level of expertise in a certain field but no experience in another engineering field..."engineer" is just a broad category that conveys very little about a specific expertise..I've worked with hundreds of them, and have been told I would be a very good one myself, but that isn't the arena of my deepest interests) give you understanding of the matters outside your expertise?
p.18 #20 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
LocoPhoto wrote:
Being an engineer doesn't mean you're good at being an engineer.
Your points are very simplistic and missing mine as well, so no offense but I don't think any further explanation is going to help.
Keeping it simple...you're not an engineer involved in the design of either camera, so I'm simply sure you're not that knowledgeable to assert which cameras are more durable than the other. And no...."Feeling" flimsy doesn't equate to being less than durable. Many plastics can feel flimsy but be quite resilient for a myriad of stress scenarios.
To say it again...you weren't involved in the design of any of these cameras, or any camera I'm suspecting, ever....so you have no real insight into the reasons and limits of each design choice is my main point.
Or does being an "engineer" (which has no meaning unto itself by the way...engineer could mean fresh out of college and just got hired...could mean got your degree but no real experience...could mean thirty years experience at the highest level of expertise in a certain field but no experience in another engineering field..."engineer" is just a broad category that conveys very little about a specific expertise. I've worked with hundreds of them, and have been told I would be a very good one myself, but that isn't the arena of my deepest interests) give you understanding of the matters outside your expertise?
...Show more →
I am involved in other projects that are actually more critical than building of a camera body. I can assure you of one thing- i know MUCH more than you do about engineering and structural materials - it is my area of study. Not going to get into a loony p!ssing contest with someone like you - it a waste of my time. You obviously know next to nothing about engineering but your good at poking people when you dislike what they have to say. i say too bad!!
Go on. 
.
