p.28 #3 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
mitesh wrote:
Not in that video, at least. I think this is just a case of the poster wanting to share what he thought was a clever zinger to flame Nikon 🤷🏾♂️
I suspect you are right.
If he says it, not much zing.
If he puts those words in Mark Smith's mouth it has more impact.
p.28 #4 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
dclark wrote:
You indicate you are quoting Mark Smith. Did he actually say that?
It doesn't feel like anything Mark Smith would say. He doesn't talk that way. I have watched all of his Z9 videos and never heard anything close to this in them.
The poster should have probably made it more clear in his post that this was satire. One should be careful when using attributions and the use of quote marks.
p.28 #5 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
dclark wrote:
You indicate you are quoting Mark Smith. Did he actually say that?
He did say so in a response in the comment section under his video. The section read:
cellphones zosa: "So is there anything that the z9 would be better at than the A1 like what DPreview has presented? Also, I have noticed that your A1 shots do not have the punch in terms of color than the your Nikon and Canon shots?"
Mark Smith: "I dont know what those things are? I have yet to see anything the z9 does better."
p.28 #6 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Daran wrote:
He did say so in a response in the comment section under his video. The section read:
cellphones zosa: "So is there anything that the z9 would be better at than the A1 like what DPreview has presented? Also, I have noticed that your A1 shots do not have the punch in terms of color than the your Nikon and Canon shots?"
Mark Smith: "I dont know what those things are? I have yet to see anything the z9 does better."
Followed by some outrage...
Ah, thanks for that clarification, Daran. Heres a screenshot of that comment:
p.28 #7 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Daran wrote:
He did say so in a response in the comment section under his video. The section read:
cellphones zosa: "So is there anything that the z9 would be better at than the A1 like what DPreview has presented? Also, I have noticed that your A1 shots do not have the punch in terms of color than the your Nikon and Canon shots?"
Mark Smith: "I dont know what those things are? I have yet to see anything the z9 does better."
Followed by some outrage...
I am still searching for that, but I take your information as accurate. In that case I am impressed that he made such a remark and take back my criticism of duncang's post.
It is also one of the few times I disagree with Mark. Even as a dedicated A1 user, it is clear that the Z9 has some better video capability than the A1.
p.28 #8 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
dclark wrote:
I am still searching for that, but I take your information as accurate. In that case I am impressed that he made such a remark and take back my criticism of duncang's post.
It is also one of the few times I disagree with Mark. Even as a dedicated A1 user, it is clear that the Z9 has some better video capability than the A1.
Dave
Mark didn't claim that there is nothing the Z9 does better, only that he didn't find anything (for his usage). Of course that is not what a Nikon shooter hopes to read. But frankly it seems to correlate well with comments from other birders that shoot more than one system.
p.28 #9 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
I'm pretty sure "cellphones zosa" wouldn't be able to pick out A1 images from R5/Z9 images in a blind test if Mark set one up. I think he probably should stick to his iPhone 13 and call it a day.
p.28 #10 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Daran wrote:
He did say so in a response in the comment section under his video. The section read:
cellphones zosa: "So is there anything that the z9 would be better at than the A1 like what DPreview has presented? Also, I have noticed that your A1 shots do not have the punch in terms of color than the your Nikon and Canon shots?"
Mark Smith: "I dont know what those things are? I have yet to see anything the z9 does better."
Followed by some outrage...
I stand corrected on that then. Thanks for posting the confirmation of the quote.
p.28 #11 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
arbitrage wrote:
I'm pretty sure "cellphones zosa" wouldn't be able to pick out A1 images from R5/Z9 images in a blind test if Mark set one up. I think he probably should stick to his iPhone 13 and call it a day.
I saw your summary of the test you did with the Z9 in the comment section. You never posted it here for obvious diplomatic reasons. I did find it interesting and in line with others I have talked to.
p.28 #12 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
dclark wrote:
I am still searching for that, but I take your information as accurate. In that case I am impressed that he made such a remark and take back my criticism of duncang's post.
It is also one of the few times I disagree with Mark. Even as a dedicated A1 user, it is clear that the Z9 has some better video capability than the A1.
Dave
In the comments section I asked Mark directly if he felt the Z9 was superior to the A1 for video. (On paper it certainly is). His response suggests he wasn't familiar with the "paper spec" differences and declined to comment. Fair enough. Since Mark tends to form his opinions based on empirical evidence, I'm hoping he'll be able to provide some thoughts once he's reviewed the several hours of footage he said he captured. That's more valuable to me than lab test results anyway.
p.28 #13 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Gary Irwin wrote:
In the comments section I asked Mark directly if he felt the Z9 was superior to the A1 for video. (On paper it certainly is). His response suggests he wasn't familiar with the "paper spec" differences and declined to comment. Fair enough. Since Mark tends to form his opinions based on empirical evidence, I'm hoping he'll be able to provide some thoughts once he's reviewed the several hours of footage he said he captured. That's more valuable to me than lab test results anyway.
I'm sure you probably already saw Jan's video but he seemed pretty happy with the Z9 video if used with a 100-400 (and presumably future Z lenses). Certainly seems better than A1 if shooting handheld. Maybe A1 is fine if shot with support. Do you do much handheld stuff or use a fluid head? I'd like to start doing more video but would be looking to do it more handheld so A1 may not be my best option. Guess I should have kept the Z9 and traded the 500PF for the 100-400 Although picking up a used R5 and 100-500 would be more economical.
p.28 #14 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
1bwana1 wrote:
I saw your summary of the test you did with the Z9 in the comment section. You never posted it here for obvious diplomatic reasons. I did find it interesting and in line with others I have talked to.
Yeah, I've been holding back on posting my full opinion. I usually just respond to PMs about it on a daily basis. I'll give it a little more time before posting a more in depth review/opinion.
Feb 08, 2022 at 02:02 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.28 #15 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
dclark wrote:
I am still searching for that, but I take your information as accurate. In that case I am impressed that he made such a remark and take back my criticism of duncang's post.
It is also one of the few times I disagree with Mark. Even as a dedicated A1 user, it is clear that the Z9 has some better video capability than the A1.
p.28 #16 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Have a feeling that Z9 will be back in your life
arbitrage wrote:
Yeah, I've been holding back on posting my full opinion. I usually just respond to PMs about it on a daily basis. I'll give it a little more time before posting a more in depth review/opinion.
p.28 #17 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
arbitrage wrote:
I'm sure you probably already saw Jan's video but he seemed pretty happy with the Z9 video if used with a 100-400 (and presumably future Z lenses). Certainly seems better than A1 if shooting handheld. Maybe A1 is fine if shot with support. Do you do much handheld stuff or use a fluid head? I'd like to start doing more video but would be looking to do it more handheld so A1 may not be my best option. Guess I should have kept the Z9 and traded the 500PF for the 100-400 Although picking up a used R5 and 100-500 would be more economical....Show more →
Well, Sony's IBIS implementation is by far the weakest compared to Canon and Nikon. Obviously it's better than nothing, but a Sony isn't a camera I would be wanting to use if I was planning on hand holding a lot. But in this game another key variable is focal length -- and in our case long focal lengths. A good IBIS system like Nikon and Canon coupled with a modern native lens performs very well up to, say, 400mm or so but beyond that IBIS is much less effective.
As a birder I rely on the 200-600 + 2xTC pretty well all the time, so shooting 600mm-1200mm renders IBIS pretty well useless regardless of what brand I use. In fact, shooting such long focal lengths requires a pretty darned beefy tripod, which in my case is a Sachtler Flowtech 100 and Cartoni Focus 12 head, and even that isn't very stable in any sort of wind at those focal lengths.
As usual the devil is in the details.
Feb 08, 2022 at 03:40 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.28 #18 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Gary Irwin wrote:
Well, Sony's IBIS implementation is by far the weakest compared to Canon and Nikon. Obviously it's better than nothing, but a Sony isn't a camera I would be wanting to use if I was planning on hand holding a lot.
Gary Irwin wrote:
But in this game another key variable is focal length -- and in our case long focal lengths. A good IBIS system like Nikon and Canon coupled with a modern native lens performs very well up to, say, 400mm or so but beyond that IBIS is much less effective.
is that confusing stills with video? because the conversation was about video... stills are shot at fast shutter speeds that can freeze hand-held camera motion, while video is usually at 1/60th-1/120th.
i've done rudimentary testing of ibis-only hand-held video at 300mm with the a9(see below), ibis makes a big difference, and i've seen ibis-only video at 500mm that also showed a significant improvement.
bottom line is that there is no low-cost stabilization system that is suitable for hand-held video at supertelephoto focal lengths.
is that confusing stills with video? because the conversation was about video... stills are shot at fast shutter speeds that can freeze hand-held camera motion, while video is usually at 1/60th-1/120th.
i've done rudimentary testing of ibis-only hand-held video at 300mm with the a9(see below), ibis makes a big difference, and i've seen ibis-only video at 500mm that also showed a significant improvement.
bottom line is that there is no low-cost stabilization system that is suitable for hand-held video at supertelephoto focal lengths.
Ok, fair enough about the IBIS. I just recall the IBIS on my old Z7 was superior to the A1, though I never did a direct comparison. My comments reflect shooting video.
Feb 08, 2022 at 05:24 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.28 #20 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
we call it ibis but it was probably an ibis+ois comparison, and there might be an argument there because companies do it differently, as i understand it:
-sony 3-way ibis+ois(movement of two ibis planes of motion taken over 100% by the ois)
-5-way ibis+ois(same two ibis planes of motion shared by both ibis and ois)
then there is walking with video vs. shooting stills while standing still, do both use the same stabilization algos?
i think that the a1 is at an ibis-only disadvantage because it has that heat sink attached to the sensor, but i wouldn't trade it for a stop or less of improved stabilization.
Although picking up a used R5 and 100-500 would be more economical.