p.24 #1 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
robert614 wrote:
This maximum buffer depth requires very specific settings. Settings that most people wouldn’t use in normal shooting.
It's in order to facilitate fast submission of files via wireless (probably with the Winter Olympics in mind). You can flick through the images and select the ones to be submitted and the camera will send the lower-quality basic JPG very quickly even with poor connections. The file which gets to publication first has a higher probability of being published (the larger file could be later used for higher-quality print publishing). Nikon just want to make sure this dual-quality approach (where a higher quality file is retained but not immediately submitted) doesn't hinder the burst performance too much, so they issued this update.
p.24 #2 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
duncang wrote:
BTW this (heavier it is the harder the impact!) is not true. Did I correct you on this already ?
The impact (aka deceleration) is only dependent on the velocity and distance to decelerate.
And an A1 and a Z9 will have the same velocity if dropped from the same height since both are subject to the same acceleration as wind resistance will be negligible over the typical dropped height (assume held by a human) and they will have as near as damnit the same deceleration on impact with the ground.
Perhaps the Z9 has a crumple zone built in though.
Perhaps Geoff can test with his?...Show more →
Impact force is mass dependent. Impact velocity isn't (under your assumptions).
p.24 #3 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
duncang wrote:
BTW this (heavier it is the harder the impact!) is not true. Did I correct you on this already ?
The impact (aka deceleration) is only dependent on the velocity and distance to decelerate.
And an A1 and a Z9 will have the same velocity if dropped from the same height since both are subject to the same acceleration as wind resistance will be negligible over the typical dropped height (assume held by a human) and they will have as near as damnit the same deceleration on impact with the ground.
Perhaps the Z9 has a crumple zone built in though.
p.24 #5 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Holger wrote:
Impact force is mass dependent. Impact velocity isn't (under your assumptions).
Exactly. As a former race car driver I am aware of how much effort was made to shed mass during impacts in order to protect the primary component of the car. Which was me. Those efforts were greatly appreciated.
Mass is a store of kinetic energy in a moving object. It is very relative in impacts
p.24 #6 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
F=mg 🙂
Jan 17, 2022 at 12:12 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #7 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
1bwana1 wrote:
Exactly. As a former race car driver I am aware of how much effort was made to shed mass during impacts in order to protect the primary component of the car. Which was me. Those efforts were greatly appreciated.
Mass is a store of kinetic energy in a moving object. It is very relative in impacts
Mass is very relevant for impact, but so is surface area of the impact. This is why something is a lot less likely to break when it hits flat on the ground versus on the point of a jagged rock. The Z9 has more mass but it has more surface area (on some sides, anyway) and both cameras have quite different materials on some surfaces than others and some of these are more likely to break than others. Whether a camera breaks or not when dropped depends on all these factors (and how far you drop it from etc.). The point is dropping a camera is bad and the specifics of how it is dropped, what surface it hits, what orientation the camera is in when dropped, and likely several other things. This means luck actually is a big factor in whether a camera breaks when dropped. Even a short 1 foot drop if there is a sharp point of contact and you hit the wrong surface of the camera can break the camera, and a long drop of three or four feet may not break the camera if it is dropped on the right material, lands flat, and a tougher area of the camera is where it lands. So, IMO, it is kind of silly to say one camera is better than another when they are dropped. That depends on the nature of the drop that it would not be surprising if one camera did better with one type of drop and the other camera did better with another type of drop.
p.24 #8 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
Mass is very relevant for impact, but so is surface area of the impact. This is why something is a lot less likely to break when it hits flat on the ground versus on the point of a jagged rock. The Z9 has more mass but it has more surface area (on some sides, anyway) and both cameras have quite different materials on some surfaces than others and some of these are more likely to break than others. Whether a camera breaks or not when dropped depends on all these factors (and how far you drop it from etc.). The point is dropping a camera is bad and the specifics of how it is dropped, what surface it hits, what orientation the camera is in when dropped, and likely several other things. This means luck actually is a big factor in whether a camera breaks when dropped. Even a short 1 foot drop if there is a sharp point of contact and you hit the wrong surface of the camera can break the camera, and a long drop of three or four feet may not break the camera if it is dropped on the right material, lands flat, and a tougher area of the camera is where it lands. So, IMO, it is kind of silly to say one camera is better than another when they are dropped. That depends on the nature of the drop that it would not be surprising if one camera did better with one type of drop and the other camera did better with another type of drop....Show more →
This.
The fact is that when cameras get dropped they sometimes break, sometimes not. None of the flagship cameras have a reputation for being too fragile for their intended purpose. I try to take the same care of my cameras no matter which brand they were/are.
p.24 #10 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
Mass is very relevant for impact, but so is surface area of the impact. This is why something is a lot less likely to break when it hits flat on the ground versus on the point of a jagged rock. The Z9 has more mass but it has more surface area (on some sides, anyway) and both cameras have quite different materials on some surfaces than others and some of these are more likely to break than others. Whether a camera breaks or not when dropped depends on all these factors (and how far you drop it from etc.). The point is dropping a camera is bad and the specifics of how it is dropped, what surface it hits, what orientation the camera is in when dropped, and likely several other things. This means luck actually is a big factor in whether a camera breaks when dropped. Even a short 1 foot drop if there is a sharp point of contact and you hit the wrong surface of the camera can break the camera, and a long drop of three or four feet may not break the camera if it is dropped on the right material, lands flat, and a tougher area of the camera is where it lands. So, IMO, it is kind of silly to say one camera is better than another when they are dropped. That depends on the nature of the drop that it would not be surprising if one camera did better with one type of drop and the other camera did better with another type of drop....Show more →
The probability for the camera to hit the ground favourably is extremely low.
But I would include lens (very important) and battery weight + battery grip for Sony, too. With lenses difference can be clear, as the gripped a1 will weigh about 1/2 kg less with 50/1.2 or 70-200/2.8 than the Nikon with corresponding lenses.
With 24-70 the difference is negligible.
Jan 17, 2022 at 02:03 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.24 #11 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Holger wrote:
Impact force is mass dependent. Impact velocity isn't (under your assumptions).
So, in the context of dropping a camera we are not talking about damage done to the earth, which would be the receiver of that force on impact.
The camera would obviously be subject to and equal and opposite force but given the extra weight of the camera is likely primarily due to the heavier construction designed specifically to resist such forces one cannot conclude that greater force as a result of greater mass will result in greater damage.
My point is simply that the weight of the object has absolutely no relationship at all to the amount of damage it sustains when dropped otherwise it would follow that dropping a 10gm steel ball bearing would result in much less damage to the ball bearing than a 1kg steel ball bearing would suffer if dropped from the same height.
Obviously the same could not be said of the damage that would be suffered by your foot if it was the target of these drops.
More likely the camera will sustain damage to some internal component, like the sensor. And assuming the camera's sensors are more or less the same weight then the likelihood of them suffering some damage if probably proportional to the acceleration they are subject to and not the weight of the camera.
A mirrorless camera has no mirror, which is the other main internal component likely to be damaged and again, the amount of damage is likely to have no relationship the weight of the camera itself. One could argue that a heavier camera would result in greater deflection of the target object and therefor less acceleration on the cameras internal components and therefor less likely to sustain damage.
Anyway a rather stupid discussion - since without a doubt a unibody construction is more robust, and particularly so if manufactured to Nikons usual standards.
p.24 #12 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
"Perhaps Geoff can test with his?"
This looks like the only way this question can be resolved. Geoff (a.k.a. Arbitrage) should run a series of drop tests with his A1 and Z9 to see how they each fare.
He can then file his report here. That will definitively settle this issue and everybody's happy.
Edit: I suggest running the BIF AF test prior to conducting the drop tests.
p.24 #15 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
dclark wrote:
"Perhaps Geoff can test with his?"
This looks like the only way this question can be resolved. Geoff (a.k.a. Arbitrage) should run a series of drop tests with his A1 and Z9 to see how they each fare.
He can then file his report here. That will definitively settle this issue and everybody's happy.
Edit: I suggest running the BIF AF test prior to conducting the drop tests.
I think the test needs to be run to it's end...keep raising the height of the test until parts start flying off the cameras. We need to know at what height we should be concerned about dropping these cameras.
p.24 #16 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
dclark wrote:
"Perhaps Geoff can test with his?"
This looks like the only way this question can be resolved. Geoff (a.k.a. Arbitrage) should run a series of drop tests with his A1 and Z9 to see how they each fare.
He can then file his report here. That will definitively settle this issue and everybody's happy.
Edit: I suggest running the BIF AF test prior to conducting the drop tests.
No that would be anecdotal, need to do it to a large enough bodies to make it statistically significant
...