Archive 2021 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #1 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
j4nu wrote:
You are obviously right, but I think you might have missed the main point, which is that the lack of mechanical shutter is not a feature (especially when A1 has been present on the market for close to 9 months now) .
I know it's marketing gimmick but it's irritating. It's like saying that A1's lack of full mechanical shutter is a "feature"...
Of course it isn't a feature, but it does mark a different way to build a camera. Sony could have built the A1 without a mechanical shutter, but decided to up the flash sync rate instead to 1/400 with the half mechanical shutter. I think both Sony's decision and Nikon's decision is defensible. It personally doesn't matter to me as I wouldn't shoot the A1 with 1/400 flash sync speed anyway (I have a MF system that does this much better). The A9, however, I would use the mechanical shutter and do for flash. It is not a camera for which Sony could have left out the mechanical shutter.
p.5 #2 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Steve Spencer wrote:
Of course it isn't a feature, but it does mark a different way to build a camera. Sony could have built the A1 without a mechanical shutter, but decided to up the flash sync rate instead to 1/400 with the half mechanical shutter. I think both Sony's decision and Nikon's decision is defensible. It personally doesn't matter to me as I wouldn't shoot the A1 with 1/400 flash sync speed anyway (I have a MF system that does this much better). The A9, however, I would use the mechanical shutter and do for flash. It is not a camera for which Sony could have left out the mechanical shutter....Show more →
Yes, A1 is supposed to be the "one" camera. A marketing gimmick too, I know, but a bit less so as I've fallen for it . Z9 is more tailored for specific (sports/wildlife/?) usage.
p.5 #3 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
low light focusing is better on the Z9? That's big!
NonDecaf wrote:
There are several important (to me) metrics where the Z9 is clearly superior - price, ergonomics, faster storage, faster sensor readout, superior experience when quickly changing lenses, sensor stabilization, low light focusing, etc.
I would lose lose enough money switching to the Z9 that its not worthwhile for me. If I was upgrading from an older camera, I would not choose the A1 at that price point.
p.5 #4 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Personally, I think it is a Bold move that Nikon removed the mechanical shutter in the Z9 for their "professional" flagship Z9. IMO they must be very confident this approach doesn't impact professional level performance requirements in any way.
As Sony shooters we know the benefits of "silent shutter" but we've always had the mechanical shutter as a back-up even in the latest A1 body where it is provided as a benefit for synchronizing with Sony flashes up to 1/400sec. So the question is what are the user's practical benefits between the two approaches as deployed in both cameras. Does the user give up anything without an included mechanical shutter in the Z9?
p.5 #5 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
EdwardDye wrote:
low light focusing is better on the Z9? That's big!
Yeah, low light auto-focus will probably transform how I use a camera.
The Sony A1 spec is AF at EV=-4 with an f/2 lens. That means it still focuses when I need a shutter speed of 60sec (not 1/60 sec, a full minute).
The Nikon Z9 is way better. At f/2 it focuses when I need shutter speed of two minutes!
p.5 #7 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
dclark wrote:
Yeah, low light auto-focus will probably transform how I use a camera.
The Sony A1 spec is AF at EV=-4 with an f/2 lens. That means it still focuses when I need a shutter speed of 60sec (not 1/60 sec, a full minute).
The Nikon Z9 is way better. At f/2 it focuses when I need shutter speed of two minutes!
I thought about this too. I do wonder however if there is a standard measurement used across the manufacturers when they list AF at EV specs?
p.5 #8 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
LBJ2 wrote:
Personally, I think it is a Bold move that Nikon removed the mechanical shutter in the Z9 for their "professional" flagship Z9. IMO they must be very confident this approach doesn't impact professional level performance requirements in any way.
As Sony shooters we know the benefits of "silent shutter" but we've always had the mechanical shutter as a back-up even in the latest A1 body where it is provided as a benefit for synchronizing with Sony flashes up to 1/400sec. So the question is what are the user's practical benefits between the two approaches as deployed in both cameras. Does the user give up anything without an included mechanical shutter in the Z9?...Show more →
Two things:
1) rolling shutter
2) banding due to led lightning.
With Z9/A1's fast readout 1) is mostly eliminated, but I guess in extreme cases EFCS will still prove superior.
Banding control is possible using electronic shutter on A1 and I expect Z9 to follow suit, as it's too important for sports shooters (and not only them) to omit this feature.
p.5 #9 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
j4nu wrote:
Two things:
1) rolling shutter
2) banding due to led lightning.
With Z9/A1's fast readout 1) is mostly eliminated, but I guess in extreme cases EFCS will still prove superior.
Banding control is possible using electronic shutter on A1 and I expect Z9 to follow suit, as it's too important for sports shooters (and not only them) to omit this feature.
Yes. Thanks for listing the details. It will be very interesting to see how the Z9 performs in these scenarios given what we've seen with Sony implemented technology so far.
p.5 #10 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
Reading a thread in the Nikon forum about HE* & explanation (way over my head), it came to me that it is very similar to Sony lossy compressed raw. It is dropping the delta for compression & like the Sony compression (which as been used forever) it shows a substantial reduction in raw size.
p.5 #11 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
mogul wrote:
Reading a thread in the Nikon forum about HE* & explanation (way over my head), it came to me that it is very similar to Sony lossy compressed raw. It is dropping the delta for compression & like the Sony compression (which as been used forever) it shows a substantial reduction in raw size.
Yes. I have been thinking about and lightly attempting to investigate the same. Hopefully someone with greater know-how and experience on this topic than I will dig into the details for a direct comparison.
p.5 #12 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
dclark wrote:
Yeah, low light auto-focus will probably transform how I use a camera.
The Sony A1 spec is AF at EV=-4 with an f/2 lens. That means it still focuses when I need a shutter speed of 60sec (not 1/60 sec, a full minute).
The Nikon Z9 is way better. At f/2 it focuses when I need shutter speed of two minutes!
Hi Dave,
I understand the AF capabilities with either camera for 1 minute vs. 2 minutes, but how about the ability to use MF for even longer exposures? Since the A1 has a better EVF, would it allow for using MF in even lower lighting conditions than the Z9? Many of us may find the ability to MF focusing in low light conditions something to consider.
p.5 #13 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
dclark wrote:
Yeah, low light auto-focus will probably transform how I use a camera.
The Sony A1 spec is AF at EV=-4 with an f/2 lens. That means it still focuses when I need a shutter speed of 60sec (not 1/60 sec, a full minute).
The Nikon Z9 is way better. At f/2 it focuses when I need shutter speed of two minutes!
I don't pretend to understand the science/math of all of this, but, for example would the Z9 be able to more quickly and accurately grab focus at a night football game lit by terrible high school stadium lights than the A1 when both shutters are set to say 1/800. To me this is more important than a hypothetical 1 or 2 minute focusing.
p.5 #14 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
chez wrote:
The 1.3 pounds is the extra weight of the Z9 that you need to drag along with you every day.
The 1.3 pounds of extra weight are more than I expected, and for me a reason not to consider the Z9 as a replacement for my D500, and stick with dslr a while longer.
The thing is that these three pounds can never be taken off, and a lot of that extra weight is to accomodate for specs that are unneccessary for me, like lσng battery life, and lσng 8K video.
The Canon R3 is more in line with what I expected the Z9 to weigh, and at that weight I would have probably jumped for the Z9, although I still feel the size is bigger than neccessary as well, and would optimally be a bit smaller.
The Z9 breaks away from the mirrorless concept completely, and does not only look huge and heavy compared to the Sony A1, but also to every other Z camera. It is simply an όber camera, and not one I would want to use. I like Canon's and Sony's approach with the R3 and A1 much better where actual usability is concerned. Sony's A1 looks best to me, because it is a camera that can be used for everything, eliminating the need to have multiple cameras. I use the A7RII for general shooting, but if I were shooting Sony for birding/wildlife as well, then all I would need is an A1.
p.5 #15 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
chez wrote:
Feel free to tell everyone that a big heavy bulky camera is more ergonomic and comfortable to drag along than a compact light camera. Too each their own...but heavy and big does not make it ergonomically better after a 12 hour day in your hands.
I believe you are wrong on this point. A gripped a1 is much more comfortable to hold and shoot for my style of shooting, which is mostly portraits and sports. I'd much prefer an R3 sized A1. When I shot Canon I had a hand strap on my 1dxII and with that, I never felt the camera was too heavy. And most of the time, the camera is attached to heavy lenses and sits on a monopod so weight is largely irrelevant. As has been stated, a reduction in weight alone does not make it easier to shoot with. Having a vertically oriented grip and shutter can make it much easier to shoot with. The A1 sans grip can be frustrating to use, which is my grip almost never comes off, unless I'm putting it into a cage to shoot video.
p.5 #16 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
"Sadly Sony does not make PF lenses...." Yet
Nov 08, 2021 at 10:42 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #17 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
EdwardDye wrote:
low light focusing is better on the Z9? That's big!
There are at least four ways that the A1 specs are better and those include:
Higher resolution (50 vs. 45 MP)
Higher frame rate (30 fps lossy compressed RAW vs. 20 fps lossless compressed RAW)
Faster flash sync speed (1/400 with the half mechanical shutter vs. 1/200 or sometimes 1/250 with low enough power)
Size and weight (the A1 weighs almost 600 grams less and is smaller in substantially smaller in width and height).
There are at least four ways that the Z9 specs are better and those include:
Faster sensor scan speed (we will know more when the camera is release, but Nikon seems to have a small advantage here)
Longer video shooting capabilities (the Z9 claims 2 hours of 8K video whereas Sony doesn't appear to be able to shoot that long).
Faster storage cards (the CFE B type cards in the Z9 are definitely faster than the CFE A type cards in the A1)
Better battery life
Most of these differences are quite small and likely hard to notice (like 50 vs 45 MP and differences in sensor scan speed). Others are likely to be needed by only a fairly small number of shooters (like 1/400 flash sync or real long 8K shooting or need really long battery life). Others are about preferences that will vary from one person to another (whether you like a camera to be small and light or whether you don't care about weight and want lots of room for your hands and easier operation in portrait mode). In the end I think for most people the differences in performance are going to be small, but differences in preference are going to loom large, and it is fine that there are differences in preference.
p.5 #18 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
NonDecaf wrote:
There isn't anything "super weird" except you not realizing that many of us prefer using cameras with grips, and that is what I will be using as a point of comparison - for my use. For people who hate grips, the Z9 or R3 is not even on their radar, so no point even comparing it.
The fact is that Sony (like Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Panasonic) continues investing time and money making grips for so many of their cameras. Heck, there are plenty of third-party companies making grips. Seems to me like there is plenty of demand for these grips
Well, it is super weird because inserted your own preference as the default comparison. No, the default comparison is the A1 vs the Z9. Not an A1 with an accessory attached. A now antiquated accessory for anyone that isn't a portrait shooter. Times have changed. There is no more fps boost from a grip, as no mirror needs to be flapped faster. Long teles are now center balanced vs the front heavy teles of older times. A1 by itself can take thousands and thousands of pictures without extra batteries.
That isn't evidence in any way that there is a significant amount of people who would use grips. The existence of an accessory doesn't prove demand.
And you also completely ignored my response to the E mount having 4x+ the amount of native lenses as Nikon. You claimed that third party lenses are less valuable because you can't get 30fps, yet with Nikon, you can only EVER get 30fps as JPEGS , and so 20fps is the max for raws, which is a negligible amount of difference compared to 15fps.
p.5 #20 · "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 The 10 main differences"
timgangloff wrote:
Nikon, like Canon has one giant advantage over Sony and that is sports lenses and the availability of used sports lenses. Just checked the buy and sell forum and Nikon 400 2.8's are bought and sold regularly. And Nikon offers a 120-300 2.8 which is a brilliant focal length for sports shooters. I think they also have a 500f4 that is readily available. Sony has a 400 that is very expensive with no cheaper earlier version to offer those who can't afford the $11k+ for a 400. Sony doesn't have a native E mount 300. I know of zero Sony sports shooters (granted, I only know a small handful of Sony sports shooters) who would or have bought the Sony A mount 300. Yes, Sony also has the 600 f4 but I don't know of any sports shooters who prefer that focal length. I take that back, we do have one local Canon guy who shoots football with his 600. But again, those are rare and again, Sony doesn't yet have a good used market for 600s.
Look, I love the A1 and mated with the 400 2.8 GM, it's a great combination. But if Canon can produce an very good, competitive R1, I'd be tempted to go back to Canon just for the lenses. And if I can be tempted, I know that means lots of Canon guys would have zero reason to look at Sony. I think the same will hold for Nikon guys now with the Z9.
We can argue/discuss the features and ergonomics of the A1, R3 and Z9 all day long, but for most, if not all, of my sports shooting friends, it comes down to the lenses they already own or can reasonably purchase. All of these bodies can produce excellent images. No doubt. ...Show more →
"In the hand, it's not only the ultralight mag-alloy design that aids in ease of handling and maneuverability, but much like in the 400mm f/2.8, there's also a thoughtful, deliberate optical design that places more of the lens elements (and thus weight) towards the rear of the lens for better balance. Plus, there's a large air gap between the lens' big front element and the rest of the elements that further aids in lightening the overall bulk and moving the balance back towards the lens and camera's center of mass, thus reducing front-heaviness." https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-600mm-f4-gm-oss/review/
So, not only are those used Nikon and Canon lenses more front heavy, you then need to use adapters, which puts the center of gravity even farther forward. This poor front heavy balance is part of why people often think there is a need for the humongous and heavy dslr gripped cameras...to balance out the front heaviness.
.
. Z9 is more tailored for specific (sports/wildlife/?) usage.