p.35 #1 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
RoamingScott wrote:
Dragonflies in flight is the final evolution.
Most, if not all DIF are shot hovering or going along in a straight line. I've done those lots...simple for most stacked sensor MILCs and the hovering ones are simple for just about any camera with a little MF aid at the beginning to get the AF in the ballpark.
If you manage to get a dragonfly as it changes from straight flight into a quick dart for a bug then that is certainly challenging and will basically just require some spray and pray and a lot of wasted shots or Olympus Pro Capture with a wide enough FOV so it doesn't dart right out of the frame.
p.35 #2 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
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....Show more →
I'm still struggling to understand this argument. I mean I understand what you are saying, in that the final image in those conditions would not be an image you would keep because of the dull light. But that is sort of beyond the point, what we do know is that in this particular situation the Z9 struggled for AF on the quick swallows and the A1 didn't. And we know the Z9 was shot with a 500PF/1.4TC combo and I guess we still haven't heard what lens was on the A1? I assume it was with the 200-600 +/- 1.4TC?
You can certainly get good swallows shots in that sort of lighting. In fact I actually prefer that lighting as AF works better and gets distracted a lot less off of contrast in the water ripples and/or the background vegetation.
I spent all of last Sunday shooting swallows in those conditions. The better shots are certainly when the swallow flies up against a background and not over the white/grey water. I don't know if duncang has any shots like that from that day or not?
As an example here are a few shots from Sunday in dreary, rainy conditions. I still think they are keepers even though they aren't in the sun like I had from the days before.
p.35 #3 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
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....Show more →
Sorry, I know exactly what I was talking. You put up all those handwaving arguments which don't hold logic regarding whether the camera did its job or not, but still couldn't elaborate how your ideal camera can turn up a better picture of that scene.
Your problem is that you tend to insist on doubling down on your failing arguments and end up digging bigger holes for yourself. You started with an objective of trying to equalize the two cameras. Since Z9 failed that particular scene AF wise, that forced you trying to argue A1 also failed as a camera. Since A1 AFed fine, you are now arguing A1's high ISO performance is not enough.
Everyone knows that sensor ISO performance is all similar between Nikon and Sony over the last few years, and they are quite good enough. That scene certainly is no challenge for those sensors regarding high ISO performance. If you can't see that, it's only because you are still digging.
Apr 12, 2022 at 01:20 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.35 #4 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
arbitrage wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand this argument. I mean I understand what you are saying, in that the final image in those conditions would not be an image you would keep because of the dull light. But that is sort of beyond the point, what we do know is that in this particular situation the Z9 struggled for AF on the quick swallows and the A1 didn't. And we know the Z9 was shot with a 500PF/1.4TC combo and I guess we still haven't heard what lens was on the A1? I assume it was with the 200-600 +/- 1.4TC?
You can certainly get good swallows shots in that sort of lighting. In fact I actually prefer that lighting as AF works better and gets distracted a lot less off of contrast in the water ripples and/or the background vegetation.
I spent all of last Sunday shooting swallows in those conditions. The better shots are certainly when the swallow flies up against a background and not over the white/grey water. I don't know if duncang has any shots like that from that day or not?
As an example here are a few shots from Sunday in dreary, rainy conditions. I still think they are keepers even though they aren't in the sun like I had from the days before.
My whole point is that complaining about the Z9 when you can't get good shots with the A1 either is not really a reasonable complaint. If you are going to claim superiority of the A1 then you should be using a similar set up with both cameras and show that you can get good shots with the A1 and you can't get good shots with the Z9. I trust you when you say you have done that. I like a number of the shots you posted here, but I still am not sure this is a fair comparison. Are these shots with the 600 f/4 or the 400 f/2.8 plus 1.4X TC? That of course would not be a fair comparison to a 500 f/5.6 plus 1.4X TC. We would be talking two stop difference in max aperture and those two stops very well could be the difference rather than the cameras. Now if these shots are with the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 with a 1.4X TC that would be a combination if anything would give the advantage to the Z9 and then we are talking evidence that the A1 can get shots when the Z9 cannot. Now ideally such evidence would be from the same shooter in the same setting with about the same capabilities of shooting both cameras.
Let me ask you Geoff, in the lion shot do you really believe the Z9 would be incapable of getting that shot as the poster suggests? Or do you think he is using shots from very different scenarios to make a dubious point? It is that sort of making arguments that are popular on a board like this without real evidence to support them that I find maddening. People like such posts, but it isn't real evidence at all.
p.35 #5 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
arbitrage wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand this argument. I mean I understand what you are saying, in that the final image in those conditions would not be an image you would keep because of the dull light. But that is sort of beyond the point, what we do know is that in this particular situation the Z9 struggled for AF on the quick swallows and the A1 didn't. And we know the Z9 was shot with a 500PF/1.4TC combo and I guess we still haven't heard what lens was on the A1? I assume it was with the 200-600 +/- 1.4TC?
You can certainly get good swallows shots in that sort of lighting. In fact I actually prefer that lighting as AF works better and gets distracted a lot less off of contrast in the water ripples and/or the background vegetation.
I spent all of last Sunday shooting swallows in those conditions. The better shots are certainly when the swallow flies up against a background and not over the white/grey water. I don't know if duncang has any shots like that from that day or not?
As an example here are a few shots from Sunday in dreary, rainy conditions. I still think they are keepers even though they aren't in the sun like I had from the days before.
Good images in dreary conditions are not down to the camera used are they? They are down to the lens used.Those big front elements that suck in light come to the rescue when light itself is dreary and dull and uninspiring.
The short time I had the Sigma 500/4 on the D500, was enough to see that even when light itself is dull and uninspiring, with such a lens you can still take good images. With a lens like the Sony 200-600 or even Nikon 500PF it just stops there.
In honesty, this is why I am doubting my resolve to get the Nikon 800PF, apart from the fact that the A1 is my ultimate body for all photography, and the sole body I now own.
I may still push on for the Sony 600GM, just to be able to continue in dreary light.
Apr 12, 2022 at 01:37 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.35 #6 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
tctmp wrote:
Sorry, I know exactly what I was talking. You put up all those handwaving arguments which don't hold logic regarding whether the camera did its job or not, but still couldn't elaborate how your ideal camera can turn up a better picture of that scene.
Your problem is that you tend to insist on doubling down on your failing arguments and end up digging bigger holes for yourself. You started with an objective of trying to equalize the two cameras. Since Z9 failed that particular scene AF wise, that forced you trying to argue A1 also failed as a camera. Since A1 AFed fine, you are now arguing A1's high ISO performance is not enough.
Everyone knows that sensor ISO performance is all similar between Nikon and Sony over the last few years, and they are quite good enough. That scene certainly is no challenge for those sensors regarding high ISO performance. If you can't see that, it's only because you are still digging. ...Show more →
The clear problem with your argument is that you make false claims about my motives and objectives. You claim my objective was to equalize the two cameras. That is a false premise and it is that false premise that leading to your whole tortured line of reason about my supposedly having to double down and how I was forced to make arguments. All that reasoning is just pure rubbish because you did not understand and make false assumptions about my objective.
As I explained to Geoff in the last post my objective was simply to point out the clear lack of evidence for a claim and hold the poster to account to produce real evidence for the claim. Many here and apparently you included were willing to take the big claim without evidence as real evidence because it was consistent with your prior beliefs and your camera choice. I am not willing to do so. There was no evidence of the superiority of the A1 in that post because there weren't any good shots posted with the A1 in that post. Further the poster still hasn't told us what lens he used so we don't even know whether he was using a comparable set up. Despite those clear deficiencies in evidence for his claim you swallowed his arguments hook, line, and sinker and defended it by making false accusations about my objectives. That strikes me as bit more than being a tad bit defensive.
Then when I said maybe (and I wasn't definitive at all) that part of the problems with the initial A1 shots was that the ISO was so high that good shots weren't possible. You felt you had to challenge my defense of the A1. That was just a tortured and nonsensical attack on my defense of the A1. I tried to be civil about this tortured argument, but that was clearly a mistake. I should have pointed out then as I did now that your argument is just ridiculous. I was defending the A1 in those statements and you somehow felt you needed to attack that defense. Ok, maybe I was wrong and the A1 shots can't be defended, but that doesn't change my initial point one iota. That original post provided zero evidence for the superiority of the A1 because it provided no evidence the A1 could get good shots in that sort of setting.
p.35 #7 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
My whole point is that complaining about the Z9 when you can't get good shots with the A1 either is not really a reasonable complaint. If you are going to claim superiority of the A1 then you should be using a similar set up with both cameras and show that you can get good shots with the A1 and you can't get good shots with the Z9. I trust you when you say you have done that. I like a number of the shots you posted here, but I still am not sure this is a fair comparison. Are these shots with the 600 f/4 or the 400 f/2.8 plus 1.4X TC? That of course would not be a fair comparison to a 500 f/5.6 plus 1.4X TC. We would be talking two stop difference in max aperture and those two stops very well could be the difference rather than the cameras. Now if these shots are with the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 with a 1.4X TC that would be a combination if anything would give the advantage to the Z9 and then we are talking evidence that the A1 can get shots when the Z9 cannot. Now ideally such evidence would be from the same shooter in the same setting with about the same capabilities of shooting both cameras.
Let me ask you Geoff, in the lion shot do you really believe the Z9 would be incapable of getting that shot as the poster suggests? Or do you think he is using shots from very different scenarios to make a dubious point? It is that sort of making arguments that are popular on a board like this without real evidence to support them that I find maddening. People like such posts, but it isn't real evidence at all....Show more →
Yes, those shots posted are with the bare 600GM. I wasn't posting them to prove the A1 can shoot in those conditions, just that those conditions can provide decent images even though the light is dull. Therefore if duncang had got his swallow off of the water, over a green or brown background I would think the A1 would have produced a keeper. Now, yes if his shots were at f/6.3 or f/9 then he will have to up the ISO or sacrifice the SS compared to mine. Mine were shot at f/4, 1/3200 and ISO 1250. I do have others shot in more dreary conditions at higher ISO and down to 1/2000 shutter speeds. I don't know what ISO and SS his shots were at or what lens/aperture. I assume I had the advantage with my 600GM. Maybe his A1 shots would still have been ruined by noise in order to get a fast enough shutter speed even if they were against a nicer background.
I do agree that you would need the same shooter with two similar combos in the same conditions to really compare. I also don't think the 500PF/1.4TC is suitable for those conditions. Personally I found it very average on the Z9 for even simple ducks in flight.
I think a better test for duncang next time out will be bare 500PF at f/5.6 versus bare 200-600 at f/6.3 to see if the Z9 does better. I also agree that if he was shooting the bare 200-600 versus the 500PF/1.4TC then that wasn't fair to the Z9. If he had the 1.4TC on the 200-600 then that is more fair.
As for the lion...I don't even know where that came from or what it had to do with anything. In my experience, the Z9 would have no issue subject detecting that lion and bringing up eye-af.
p.35 #8 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
The clear problem with your argument is that you make false claims about my motives and objectives. You claim my objective was to equalize the two cameras. That is a false premise and it is that false premise that leading to your whole tortured line of reason about my supposedly having to double down and how I was forced to make arguments. All that reasoning is just pure rubbish because you did not understand and make false assumptions about my objective.
As I explained to Geoff in the last post my objective was simply to point out the clear lack of evidence for a claim and hold the poster to account to produce real evidence for the claim. Many here and apparently you included were willing to take the big claim without evidence as real evidence because it was consistent with your prior beliefs and your camera choice. I am not willing to do so. There was no evidence of the superiority of the A1 in that post because there weren't any good shots posted with the A1 in that post. Further the poster still hasn't told us what lens he used so we don't even know whether he was using a comparable set up. Despite those clear deficiencies in evidence for his claim you swallowed his arguments hook, line, and sinker and defended it by making false accusations about my objectives. That strikes me as bit more than being a tad bit defensive.
Then when I said maybe (and I wasn't definitive at all) that part of the problems with the initial A1 shots was that the ISO was so high that good shots weren't possible. You felt you had to challenge my defense of the A1. That was just a tortured and nonsensical attack on my defense of the A1. I tried to be civil about this tortured argument, but that was clearly a mistake. I should have pointed out then as I did now that your argument is just ridiculous. I was defending the A1 in those statements and you somehow felt you needed to attack that defense. Ok, maybe I was wrong and the A1 shots can't be defended, but that doesn't change my initial point one iota. That original post provided zero evidence for the superiority of the A1 because it provided no evidence the A1 could get good shots in that sort of setting....Show more →
Well, multiple people responded to your arguments in previous pages. My intepretation of your posts is consistent to their intepretations. Anyone (including you) can go read those themselves. Doesn't matter how you want to spin now.
p.35 #9 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Not paying to much too this but it smells a failed comparison at large. No real reason to argue over it. Just my thoughts
Apr 12, 2022 at 02:46 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.35 #10 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
tctmp wrote:
Well, multiple people responded to your arguments in previous pages. My intepretation of your posts is consistent to their intepretations. Anyone (including you) can go read those themselves. Doesn't matter how you want to spin now.
I am not spinning. That would be you. Yes, multiple people on a board that has a similar bias (i.e., in favor of the A1) coming to the same conclusion does not mean they interpreted my objective correctly. I think I know my objective a lot better than you do or the other posters. You could admit you got my objective wrong, which you did, but I doubt you will admit that.
Instead I expect you to continue to make false accusations that I am not being truthful about my objectives and that I am spinning my story, but if you won't believe me about my objectives there is really no point in having a discussion with you.
p.35 #11 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
The clear problem with your argument is that you make false claims about my motives and objectives. You claim my objective was to equalize the two cameras. That is a false premise and it is that false premise that leading to your whole tortured line of reason about my supposedly having to double down and how I was forced to make arguments. All that reasoning is just pure rubbish because you did not understand and make false assumptions about my objective.
As I explained to Geoff in the last post my objective was simply to point out the clear lack of evidence for a claim and hold the poster to account to produce real evidence for the claim. Many here and apparently you included were willing to take the big claim without evidence as real evidence because it was consistent with your prior beliefs and your camera choice. I am not willing to do so. There was no evidence of the superiority of the A1 in that post because there weren't any good shots posted with the A1 in that post. Further the poster still hasn't told us what lens he used so we don't even know whether he was using a comparable set up. Despite those clear deficiencies in evidence for his claim you swallowed his arguments hook, line, and sinker and defended it by making false accusations about my objectives. That strikes me as bit more than being a tad bit defensive.
Then when I said maybe (and I wasn't definitive at all) that part of the problems with the initial A1 shots was that the ISO was so high that good shots weren't possible. You felt you had to challenge my defense of the A1. That was just a tortured and nonsensical attack on my defense of the A1. I tried to be civil about this tortured argument, but that was clearly a mistake. I should have pointed out then as I did now that your argument is just ridiculous. I was defending the A1 in those statements and you somehow felt you needed to attack that defense. Ok, maybe I was wrong and the A1 shots can't be defended, but that doesn't change my initial point one iota. That original post provided zero evidence for the superiority of the A1 because it provided no evidence the A1 could get good shots in that sort of setting....Show more →
"That original post provided zero evidence for the superiority of the A1 because it provided no evidence the A1 could get good shots in that sort of setting."
The A1 shot was sharp, the minimum requirement I have in a camera, the Z9 wasn't. One can debate why this was the case.
Whether the shot is good or not is subjective and cannot be objectively debated. Such a vague criterium is never able to lead to any conclusion regarding superiority. And my subjective impression/suspicion is that is why you like it, that way you can twist arguments your way however you like. Because you love to argue. And because one can never be nailed down.
I think it is irrelevant, too, whether you had to have high iso or whether the light was good or bad. The thing needs to be in focus. If a camera isn't able to achieve that, however, then for me it is inferior in that respect (always based on trying to equalise parameters as much as possible - and this, particularly, is where one should put thoughts into. Was it camera, lens related, adapter related ...).
p.35 #12 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am not spinning. That would be you. Yes, multiple people on a board that has a similar bias (i.e., in favor of the A1) coming to the same conclusion does not mean they interpreted my objective correctly. I think I know my objective a lot better than you do or the other posters. You could admit you got my objective wrong, which you did, but I doubt you will admit that.
Instead I expect you to continue to make false accusations that I am not being truthful about my objectives and that I am spinning my story, but if you won't believe me about my objectives there is really no point in having a discussion with you. ...Show more →
You are the one claiming A1 layed an egg in that scene, but yeah, right, everyone is mischaracterizing you. You probably will come back and dispute what I just wrote "You are the one claiming A1 layed an egg in that scene" too.
You are still digging. I know, you will claim that's another accusation. So be it, most others will agree that's a factual statement.
You can claim people are biased, but people can't make claims on your motives. Enough said.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.35 #13 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Holger wrote:
"That original post provided zero evidence for the superiority of the A1 because it provided no evidence the A1 could get good shots in that sort of setting."
The A1 shot was sharp, the minimum requirement I have in a camera, the Z9 wasn't. One can debate why this was the case.
Whether the shot is good or not is subjective and cannot be objectively debated. Such a vague criterium is never able to lead to any conclusion regarding superiority. And my subjective impression/suspicion is that is why you like it, that way you can twist arguments your way however you like. Because you love to argue. And because one can never be nailed down.
I think it is irrelevant, too, whether you had to have high iso or whether the light was good or bad. The thing needs to be in focus. If a camera isn't able to achieve that, however, then for me it is inferior in that respect (always based on trying to equalise parameters as much as possible - and this, particularly, is where one should put thoughts into. Was it camera, lens related, adapter related ...).
Well I think your post proves what I said in my last post. Like the other poster criticizing me you too are making false assumptions about my motives and that simply has no place on this forum. You are wrong about me loving to argue. You are wrong about my preferring a vague criterium.
If you think I love to argue and don't argue fairly, then the solution is simple: Don't try to have a discussion with me. I certainly don't want to have a discussion with someone who starts out with such negative assumptions about my motives. Those assumptions virtually guarantee a poor discussion. Keep in mind you don't know me and to make such negative assumptions about me probably says at least as much about you as about me.
Apr 12, 2022 at 03:22 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.35 #14 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
tctmp wrote:
You are the one claiming A1 layed an egg in that scene, but yeah, right, everyone is mischaracterizing you. You probably will come back and dispute what I just wrote "You are the one claiming A1 layed an egg in that scene" too.
You are still digging. I know, you will claim that's another accusation. So be it, most others will agree that's a factual statement.
You can claim people are biased, but people can't make claims on your motives. Enough said.
No I did claim the A1 laid an egg in that scene. I would have deleted the image without even downloading it from my card. Do you think that A1 shot by dcang was a keeper?
I have no problem at all when you note what I said. It is of course a very different thing to interpret my motives (especially when you get it all wrong), but quote what I said all you want.
p.35 #15 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
No I did claim the A1 laid an egg in that scene. I would have deleted the image without even downloading it from my card. Do you think that A1 shot by dcang was a keeper?
Please don't redirect. That was never the question. No one is arguing that's a keeper. Whether something is artistic or great lighting is not a camera's job. The question has always been whether the camera did what it's supposed to do regarding capturing the scene or whether it failed and layed an egg in its task. You claim it failed.
Apr 12, 2022 at 03:58 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.35 #16 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
tctmp wrote:
Please don't redirect. That was never the question. No one is arguing that's a keeper. The question has always been whether the camera did what it's supposed to do regarding capturing the scene or whether it failed and layed an egg in its task. You claim it failed.
OK, I think we got to the root of the issue. We differ in what we mean by saying a camera laid an egg. I say the camera (and I would be glad to specify camera/lens/photographer if you prefer) laid an egg if it did not produce any keepers. That was all I was saying. You seem to be saying that the camera's only job is getting the image in focus and as long as it did that even if all the images were quite bad it did not lay an egg. Perhaps we can agree to disagree about what the nature of laying an egg in this situation is all about.
As I said for me the issue is evidence for the claims being made. I believe that to claim the camera being better you have to show evidence that you can get good shots with a similar set up and the same shooter that are clearly better than the images you get with the other camera. This post fell far short of that standard. To begin the claim you have to show you can produce good images with the better set up. That was never shown. Providing real evidence to support claims is what I care about and this poster never did that.
Apr 12, 2022 at 04:07 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.35 #17 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
My whole point is that complaining about the Z9 when you can't get good shots with the A1 either is not really a reasonable complaint. If you are going to claim superiority of the A1 then you should be using a similar set up with both cameras and show that you can get good shots with the A1 and you can't get good shots with the Z9. I trust you when you say you have done that. I like a number of the shots you posted here, but I still am not sure this is a fair comparison. Are these shots with the 600 f/4 or the 400 f/2.8 plus 1.4X TC? That of course would not be a fair comparison to a 500 f/5.6 plus 1.4X TC. We would be talking two stop difference in max aperture and those two stops very well could be the difference rather than the cameras. Now if these shots are with the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 with a 1.4X TC that would be a combination if anything would give the advantage to the Z9 and then we are talking evidence that the A1 can get shots when the Z9 cannot. Now ideally such evidence would be from the same shooter in the same setting with about the same capabilities of shooting both cameras.
Let me ask you Geoff, in the lion shot do you really believe the Z9 would be incapable of getting that shot as the poster suggests? Or do you think he is using shots from very different scenarios to make a dubious point? It is that sort of making arguments that are popular on a board like this without real evidence to support them that I find maddening. People like such posts, but it isn't real evidence at all....Show more →
I absolutely never claimed the lion shot would not be possible with the Z9 - you're making that up to try and claim the high ground lol(I see you) - of course the Z9 could get that shot.
My point was that you don't need Z9 or A1 af capabilities for that shot or 90% of wildlife shots and a D850/Z7ii will be just as good if not slightly better for those scenario.
A stacked sensor with fast readout and high frame rates is usually intended for fast action - no? How many real challenging fast action subjects did Steve test on - any terns, swallows, fly-catchers, sparrows, falcons ? Ducks and kites don't count - they fly in straight lines!
As for evidence - I am not here to provide evidence - just feedback on my experience - yours may vary so do you own tests was all I was suggesting but don't say you haven't been warned.
Apr 12, 2022 at 05:32 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.35 #18 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
duncang wrote:
I absolutely never claimed the lion shot would not be possible with the Z9 - you're making that up to try and claim the high ground lol(I see you) - of course the Z9 could get that shot.
My point was that you don't need Z9 or A1 af capabilities for that shot or 90% of wildlife shots and a D850/Z7ii will be just as good if not slightly better for those scenario.
A stacked sensor with fast readout and high frame rates is usually intended for fast action - no? How many real challenging fast action subjects did Steve test on - any terns, swallows, fly-catchers, sparrows, falcons ? Ducks and kites don't count - they fly in straight lines!
As for evidence - I am not here to provide evidence - just feedback on my experience - yours may vary so do you own tests was all I was suggesting but don't say you haven't been warned.
Now we have the third poster who claims to know my motives. All three have now made the same inappropriate claim to know my motives and made assumptions my motives were negative. And yes, just because the three of you are on the internet and agree does not mean that you know my motives. None of you know me and you certainly don't know my motives and as I said with Holger that you assume I have negative motives when you can know no such things I think says at least as much about you as about me.
I did misunderstand what you were trying to say about the lion. I admit that. Now that I understand what you were trying to say, however, I still think the shot was irrelevant. Showing that you can take a shot of a sitting lion tells us nothing about what can and cannot be shot with regard to wildlife more generally. Do you really think that single shot tells us that we don't need a stacked sensor for 90% of wildlife photography? I don't think a single shot can do that. Again you are making big claims with the scantest of evidence (one single pretty irrelevant picture).
Your point that ducks and kites don't count is completely subjective. If you like to shoot ducks and kites it most certainly does count. For me he shot egrets and herons. Those matter to me. Those are some of the species I shoot most. I also love to shoot swans, too. They are generally not all the hard to shoot either, but I like to see how a lens performs with things I like to shoot, so Steve's video I found informative. Evidently, you did not. We can agree to disagree about that.
Yes, you offer your opinion that is fine, but as I said before so did Steve Perry and I hope your aren't offended that I give his opinion more weight than yours. One reason I give his opinion more weight is that he makes it clear that it is his opinion and makes it clear that he will present more rigorous tests to either support or refute his opinion. That is starkly different from how you present your opinion.
Apr 12, 2022 at 06:07 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.35 #19 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
OK, I think we got to the root of the issue. We differ in what we mean by saying a camera laid an egg. I say the camera (and I would be glad to specify camera/lens/photographer if you prefer) laid an egg if it did not produce any keepers. That was all I was saying. You seem to be saying that the camera's only job is getting the image in focus and as long as it did that even if all the images were quite bad it did not lay an egg. Perhaps we can agree to disagree about what the nature of laying an egg in this situation is all about.
As I said for me the issue is evidence for the claims being made. I believe that to claim the camera being better you have to show evidence that you can get good shots with a similar set up and the same shooter that are clearly better than the images you get with the other camera. This post fell far short of that standard. To begin the claim you have to show you can produce good images with the better set up. That was never shown. Providing real evidence to support claims is what I care about and this poster never did that....Show more →
You are comparing no egg to a bad egg and saying they are equal because you don't eat eggs. But for those who do a bad egg is better than no egg at all.
In competition terms, as you are want to put it, it was a walkover in those conditions with this photographer - the Z9 never even got out the starting blocks ! but as I said your mileage may vary.
You know like in tennis where the other guy gets to go to the next round if you can't play for any reason.
You don't get to wait until the wind stops blowing or the temperate reaches a level that suits you.
Likewise with wildlife you can't always chose the conditions.
The purpose of the outing was to get some, any shots of swallows with the Z9 and not to compare the two cameras - which appears to be something you are doing. I have a good number of decent swallow images in worse conditions so no need to prove that again. If that is what you were hoping for then sorry to dissapoint.
Now you may feel I was being unfair because it was a gravel track - but that is where I play - in the gravel, as does anyone targeting these subjects - so my tools need to work there.
Sounds like you may be on nice smooth hard asphalt so your mileage may vary - but then my post isn't applicable so just move on.
In any event at the time for me it was simply sufficient to prove that acquisition and focus tracking was indeed possible in those conditions and to then get back to trying to get at least one image with the Z9 before the swallows took off, which they duly did.
Hanging around in one spot invites trouble in the form of falcons as they have learned.
...And then it was on to the terns and more stubborn reluctant acquisition surprises...
Next time I will endeavour to record the EVF and send it to Nikon imploring them to fix it - as I said previously I am sure a dedicated bird mode could be made to be much more responsive to these subjects.
I don't have a Z6 anymore but I am sure even it would have done a better job with the initial acquisition.
And yes it may well be that the Z9 works better in other conditions, or with a different photographer for these same subjects - and I have never claimed it wouldn't.
It was a cautionary post indicating that I had little or no success under conditions where I would not expect to have problems, and I think I have had more success than most at capturing swallows in flight so have some experience to call upon.
Sunlit subject against dark background - it doesn't usually get much better imo. Harsh light might help autofocus but not really conditions I would shoot in.
Anyway I am not giving up just yet.
Apr 12, 2022 at 06:54 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.35 #20 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
Now we have the third poster who claims to know my motives. All three have now made the same inappropriate claim to know my motives and made assumptions my motives were negative. And yes, just because the three of you are on the internet and agree does not mean that you know my motives. None of you know me and you certainly don't know my motives and as I said with Holger that you assume I have negative motives when you can know no such things I think says at least as much about you as about me.
I did misunderstand what you were trying to say about the lion. I admit that. Now that I understand what you were trying to say, however, I still think the shot was irrelevant. Showing that you can take a shot of a sitting lion tells us nothing about what can and cannot be shot with regard to wildlife more generally. Do you really think that single shot tells us that we don't need a stacked sensor for 90% of wildlife photography? I don't think a single shot can do that. Again you are making big claims with the scantest of evidence (one single pretty irrelevant picture).
Your point that ducks and kites don't count is completely subjective. If you like to shoot ducks and kites it most certainly does count. For me he shot egrets and herons. Those matter to me. Those are some of the species I shoot most. I also love to shoot swans, too. They are generally not all the hard to shoot either, but I like to see how a lens performs with things I like to shoot, so Steve's video I found informative. Evidently, you did not. We can agree to disagree about that.
Yes, you offer your opinion that is fine, but as I said before so did Steve Perry and I hope your aren't offended that I give his opinion more weight than yours. One reason I give his opinion more weight is that he makes it clear that it is his opinion and makes it clear that he will present more rigorous tests to either support or refute his opinion. That is starkly different from how you present your opinion....Show more →
My post was about my experience shooting swallows - and any opinion was only about the usefulness for shooting small fast subjects like swallows and terns - but I am careful to point out that it is up to the reader to do their own testing and form their own opinion and yet you seemed to expect more 'evidence'.
