p.34 #3 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
arbitrage wrote:
The problem with the A1 is that now that all of my friends have one they are all nailing shots of swallows left, right and center and now none of my shots look unique/special anymore. I tried to move onto more difficult subjects like some warblers in flight...the A1 nailed those...then my friends started posting warblers in flight also.
I think my last chance for something more challenging will be hummingbirds in true flight (ie zipping through the air at full speed)....wish me luck
I guess maybe I'll have to try and convince all my friends to switch to the Z9...then my swallow shots may start to look special again...Show more →
Funny you should mention that. It's bird migration season in NYC right now and everyone's out in Central Park trying to get shots of warblers, swallows, and other small, erratic, fast migratory birds. Happens every year, but this year I'm noticing more and more people posting killer shots of WIF (warblers in flight), which I'd rarely seen in previous years... with both the bird AND the bug it's pursuing in focus! Half the photogs I chat to seem to have an A1/100-400 or A1/200-600 combo.
As you say, swallows in flight are somewhat predictable and a doddle compared to warblers, which I'm still trying to master. It also helps that swallows are usually over water, so the background is easy for the A1 to deal with. Warblers in the park tend to have trees as the background and I've yet to find a setting and technique that gives me more than a 10% in-focus rate (and only about 10% of those in-focus shots are keepers). I tend to stick to Zone or Wide (non-tracking) and it's a lesson in frustration even with arguably the best camera out there.
p.34 #4 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
A1 changes everything. Shots that used to be extremely difficult have become easy. Z9 is good (I have used it multiple times now) but it just is not an A1. The autofocus is not the same. For all of my Nikon buddies I wish it was but it isn't. That is not in any way bashing the camera. I mean being 2nd best is still really good.
p.34 #5 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
I would describe it differently. The camera and lens failed in very difficult circumstances. The camera's job is more than just getting the focus right. Although I doubt any camera could have gotten that shot with today's technology, one can image improved performance in which the camera not only got the focus right but was also able to handle the terrible lighting. Being able to handle bad lighting is something I would like my camera to do and neither camera could do that in this situation.
Lighting is lighting. Camera is supposed to capture it as realistically as possible, not alter it to your liking. Sounds like you want a camera that has a built in AI that can PS a picture to a "perfect" one automatically.
Apr 11, 2022 at 08:30 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.34 #6 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
tctmp wrote:
Lighting is lighting. Camera is supposed to capture it as realistically as possible, not alter it to your liking. Sounds like you want a camera that has a built in AI that can PS a picture to a "perfect" one automatically.
Ah, no. I simply want a camera that performs better at high ISO and therefore can handle poor lighting better. I don't think that is a novel concept in any way.
p.34 #7 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
Ah, no. I simply want a camera that performs better at high ISO and therefore can handle poor lighting better. I don't think that is a novel concept in any way.
So now you are saying the noise from the web picture is what killed it? If that picture doesn't have noise, then the camera meets the expectation? Honestly, you still couldn't elaborate how your ideal camera can perform better in that situation.
p.34 #8 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
I never tried getting dippers in flight with the a9 but when I got the a1 I thought I'd give it a go and while it's not perfect that fact it can do it still leaves me astounded. If I worked on my panning technique the results would improve, ie I'm the hinderance not the camera.
aboutthelight wrote:
A1 changes everything. Shots that used to be extremely difficult have become easy. Z9 is good (I have used it multiple times now) but it just is not an A1. The autofocus is not the same. For all of my Nikon buddies I wish it was but it isn't. That is not in any way bashing the camera. I mean being 2nd best is still really good.
Apr 12, 2022 at 05:00 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.34 #9 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
tctmp wrote:
So now you are saying the noise from the web picture is what killed it? If that picture doesn't have noise, then the camera meets the expectation? Honestly, you still couldn't elaborate how your ideal camera can perform better in that situation.
No I am not. Boy, you like to put words into my mouth. There is a lot more to high ISO performance than just noise. High ISO also has less dynamic range--dramatically less. Hi ISO also has much worse color performance. My ideal camera in this situations would have more dynamic range, better color, and less noise. The shot is both flat and crunchy. Simply put my ideal camera would produce an image that doesn't look terrible.
At least part of the problem with this image is that it is no doubt very high ISO. Again very flat light, f/8 max aperture, and high shutter speeds to freeze movement is going to mean very high ISO and very high ISO reduces image quality in a lot of ways and not just by adding noise. That isn't the only problem here, but it is a big part of the problem. The bottom line is just because the shot was in focus is not enough. It was still a shot that was, IMO, a total reject that wouldn't make it off the card if I was shooting. So the A1 in this situation didn't help at all. It also produced a shot that would go straight into the bin.
Now I wasn't there. Perhaps the light was so flat that it was silly to even be out shooting. I don't know, but what I do know is that both cameras failed in this situation.
Apr 12, 2022 at 05:50 AM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.34 #10 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
Once again you distort my position as saying something I am not saying. What I am saying is that in the post above neither camera was able to get good shots in what was apparently terrible lighting. I actually said neither shot was ok. You are the one who seems to be saying that a shot with terrible lighting that is in focus is ok. I don't share that view The shot above in terrible lighting that is in focus, IMO, is still not ok. For me it would never be a keeper. It wouldn't even make it off the card. You are free to think otherwise. It is fine if all you care about an image is whether it is in focus. All I am saying is that is not my standard. If it is yours that is up to you. What I don't think is appropriate is saying that I was OK with the images from either camera in the post above. Further I think Steve Perry's video makes it clear that the Z9 can do quite well in pretty flat lighting with the right lens and the right approach. He certainly did not seem to have any trouble with the camera giving up in flat light. ...Show more →
Well I certainly have to admire your attempts to equalise the fact there were no images from one camera to even do a comparison.
That someone would have expected a 100% miss rate from the Z9 is interesting - it certainly was a very big surprise to me I was expecting another 90% vs 95% nit pick so a donut was well shocking to say the least.
It seems like they have simply not programmed the subject detection for this scenario and the fact that animals and birds are lumped together means it will almost certainly be slower and less accurate than a mode dedicated to birds only so I guess not altogether surprising. Still I am sure even my Z6 at least detected swallows and did a half job of tracking them.
Hopefully something that can be improve in future via software.
The lack of tracking across the frame is a show stopper though, why on earth do they do that - makes no sense at all. Maybe because they have fewer af points or something - again I hope not because that is not so easy to fix.
The lousy evf is not a show stopper but doesn't help. I didn't even check but the resolution seemed surprisingly poor as I had really only heard quite good reports.
And as for wildlife in general - I certainly wouldnt bother with a Z9 or A1 if that is all I was interested in.
So for those budding bird photographers wanting to capture things like swallows in flight I would recommend you do some of your own testing before you dive in or you might just be disappointed. And while those PF lenses seem nice it sucks not having a zoom for small fast birds and the MFD is a bit of killer for filling the frame.
See a D850 works great for wildlife!! Doesn't even have eye af but who would be able to tell.
p.34 #11 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
No I am not. Boy, you like to put words into my mouth. There is a lot more to high ISO performance than just noise. High ISO also has less dynamic range--dramatically less. Hi ISO also has much worse color performance. My ideal camera in this situations would have more dynamic range, better color, and less noise. The shot is both flat and crunchy. Simply put my ideal camera would produce an image that doesn't look terrible.
At least part of the problem with this image is that it is no doubt very high ISO. Again very flat light, f/8 max aperture, and high shutter speeds to freeze movement is going to mean very high ISO and very high ISO reduces image quality in a lot of ways and not just by adding noise. That isn't the only problem here, but it is a big part of the problem. The bottom line is just because the shot was in focus is not enough. It was still a shot that was, IMO, a total reject that wouldn't make it off the card if I was shooting. So the A1 in this situation didn't help at all. It also produced a shot that would go straight into the bin.
Now I wasn't there. Perhaps the light was so flat that it was silly to even be out shooting. I don't know, but what I do know is that both cameras failed in this situation....Show more →
Sorry man, dynamic range is inversely related and a direct consequence to noise. Similarly color fidelity. Besides, are you arguing the camera couldn't capture well because the scene has to much DR or color is off? I didn't get that feeling that it has too much DR or wrong color when looking at that picture. I think you are grasping for straws.
p.34 #12 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Dragonflies in flight is the final evolution.
arbitrage wrote:
The problem with the A1 is that now that all of my friends have one they are all nailing shots of swallows left, right and center and now none of my shots look unique/special anymore. I tried to move onto more difficult subjects like some warblers in flight...the A1 nailed those...then my friends started posting warblers in flight also.
I think my last chance for something more challenging will be hummingbirds in true flight (ie zipping through the air at full speed)....wish me luck
I guess maybe I'll have to try and convince all my friends to switch to the Z9...then my swallow shots may start to look special again...Show more →
p.34 #13 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
RoamingScott wrote:
Dragonflies in flight is the final evolution.
Naw, you just need a good flash setup for that. See Ronnie Olsen's post on Damsels Flies and Dragon Flies in the Nature and Wildlife Forum. Excellent work.
p.34 #16 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Very northern climate insect macro can be amazing experience, particularly coming from a tropical environment. From what I experienced with flowers blooming, sunlight but still cool/cold temps, I found insects are almost in a state of suspended animation particularly in the mornings allowing me to take as much time as I needed--no AF needed. IMO a macro photographer's dream. Highly recommended.
p.34 #17 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
LBJ2 wrote:
Very northern climate insect macro can be amazing experience, particularly coming from a tropical environment. From what I experienced with flowers blooming, sunlight but still cool/cold temps, I found insects are almost in a state of suspended animation particularly in the mornings allowing me to take as much time as I needed--no AF needed. IMO a macro photographer's dream. Highly recommended.
Those are not in-flight. Take a look at Ronny's in-flight images.
Apr 12, 2022 at 11:53 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.34 #18 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
duncang wrote:
Well I certainly have to admire your attempts to equalise the fact there were no images from one camera to even do a comparison.
That someone would have expected a 100% miss rate from the Z9 is interesting - it certainly was a very big surprise to me I was expecting another 90% vs 95% nit pick so a donut was well shocking to say the least.
It seems like they have simply not programmed the subject detection for this scenario and the fact that animals and birds are lumped together means it will almost certainly be slower and less accurate than a mode dedicated to birds only so I guess not altogether surprising. Still I am sure even my Z6 at least detected swallows and did a half job of tracking them.
Hopefully something that can be improve in future via software.
The lack of tracking across the frame is a show stopper though, why on earth do they do that - makes no sense at all. Maybe because they have fewer af points or something - again I hope not because that is not so easy to fix.
The lousy evf is not a show stopper but doesn't help. I didn't even check but the resolution seemed surprisingly poor as I had really only heard quite good reports.
And as for wildlife in general - I certainly wouldnt bother with a Z9 or A1 if that is all I was interested in.
So for those budding bird photographers wanting to capture things like swallows in flight I would recommend you do some of your own testing before you dive in or you might just be disappointed. And while those PF lenses seem nice it sucks not having a zoom for small fast birds and the MFD is a bit of killer for filling the frame.
See a D850 works great for wildlife!! Doesn't even have eye af but who would be able to tell.
From my perspective there were no images from either camera that weren't clearly destined for the bin. As I said, I would deleted all the images you posted from the card without downloading any of them. That makes zero percent from each camera set up. By the way what lens were you using with the A1? Since there isn't a 700 f/8 combination that I know of for Sony I am wondering what set up you were trying to compare.
You offer a lot of speculation about what was happening with the Z9, but no evidence for any of that speculation. I think the much simpler explanation is that you were using a combination with a 700mm lens with an f/8 max aperture in pretty lousy light. I think it is that simple. We also know for less challenging subjects Steve Perry can use an 800 f/6.3 and get really good results even in way less than optimal light. Putting his results alongside yours the simple take here is that the Z9 is fully capable of shooting wildlife and Steve Perry's results suggest that lion shot would not be hard with that camera, but, I think you have just found the upper limits on what the camera can do in lousy light with a really slow lens. It does not work well in that sort of setting, but guess what neither does the A1 with whatever lens combination you used. You found the upper limit for the A1 as well.
p.34 #19 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
I’m staying out of this one but from memory focusing at F8 some cams cannot do this with F8. At least this was past so not sure about Z9 which I have zero interest in. I left Nikon/ Canon years ago. But is this a real limitation today.
Apr 12, 2022 at 12:12 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.34 #20 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
tctmp wrote:
Sorry man, dynamic range is inversely related and a direct consequence to noise. Similarly color fidelity. Besides, are you arguing the camera couldn't capture well because the scene has to much DR or color is off? I didn't get that feeling that it has too much DR or wrong color when looking at that picture. I think you are grasping for straws.
You need to brush up on your photographic concepts. Dynamic range is a function of read noise and photon noise so no doubt is influenced by noise, but it isn't quite as you make it out that noise as you see it in image is the whole issue. Color fidelity, is also influenced by noise but it certainly is not the only influence. I do think the image might have been better with lower ISO. As I said before we are talking a long focal length, a narrow aperture, a fast shutter speed needed to freeze action, and lousy light. The ISO should have been very high. If the shot was either at a lower ISO or with a camera that had better high ISO performance I think it would have been better. It might not have even needed to be deleted from the card it was so lousy. Do, I know that for a fact? Of course not I didn't shoot the shot I wasn't there. Perhaps, the conditions were just so bad it was poor judgment to even try to be shooting. If that is your take, then I don't see a reason I need to challenge it. The whole issue from my point of view is that the shot posted with the A1 was far from a keeper even if it was in focus so I don't see any evidence that the A1 could produce any keepers in this situation either.
