The comment brought up on banding was about another man’s work, not Lee’s. It appears the refresh rate of digital signage used in certain pro sports for advertising has a refresh rate that can cause artifacts in the digital signage to show.
I can say, this has happened to me before without a Z9. This is likely depending on shutter speed and angle of view to the sign itself. The refresh rate of score boards can also have the same effect. I see times where above 1/1250th of a second I can see a score, and not see a score.
These cameras will likely surface even more scenarios, over time, that may or may not be correctable through firmware, but could likely be resolved in post processing by some very smart people with some kind of plug in.
eorlando wrote:
Great shots Lee! What did you have the auto focus system set to? Just curious.
I changed from 3d to Auto Area to small and large area...varied according to sport and subject...still learning...but always eye detection activated as well as back button focus.
The AF system on the D6 took awhile to dial in properly but the Z9 is so fast and accurate that you need to be much more aware of framing of subjects.
Don't get me wrong, the D6 is the best sports DSLR but once you shoot action with the Z9...I won't answer that but leave it up to each individual to make their own decision.
Camera will grab another set of eyes in background if you aren't careful so I have found the Z9 requires the user to pay much more attention while shooting when more than one player is in the frame or crowds or benches.
That is refreshing to know that the camera will not think for you all the time.
The Nikon guide to Z9 sports and action photography is very helpful. It goes from sport to sport and I have experimented with all AF settings with varying results.
When I finally realized the Z9 is not a point and shoot camera but a highly advanced image capturing device, my keeper rate went up a great deal.
You need to select what AF mode works best for the sport and subject.
If you are photographing individual sports like gymnastics, bowling, rodeo, figure skating and track and field, Auto Area works remarkably well...nearly 100 % hit rate.
Thanks for posting! While I wait for my Z9 order I thought I'd pester you... two of the lenses you used, the 70-200 2.8E and the 300mm 2.8G VRII are lenses I'm going to shoot with on my soon to arrive Z9. How did they focus/work on the Z9?/any issues with either lens/comments opinions on the combo?
Thanks!
leewoolery wrote:
So far, I am very pleased with the Z9 for my sports photography business.
My only complaint is I would have preferred Nikon using the exact same body as the D6...weight, control layout and size but I am getting used to it.
However...the AF and frame rate put the Z9 in a different territory for shooting low-light action.
Those extra frames and eye focus create more editing but I will take that since I get many more options such as ball just leaving the fingers, puck still on the stick and hand not over the face.
The eye focus is quite remarkable during fast action.
I have only been able to cover indoor sports at higher ISO's but spring is just around the corner and there will be tons of baseball, softball, tennis and track through summer.
I look forward to many bright, sunny days and I will be shooting @ISO 64 outdoor action just like in my Kodachrome days.
Daran wrote:
Hmm. I've seen quite a few evening sports or event shots where the players were covered in banding. That was due to the LED boards bright and close enough to significantly contribute to the lighting on the player. So I'd rather hesitate to declare this problem as limited to backgrounds. Of course you can have banding with a mechanical shutter, too.
Blakehfreeman wrote:
Thanks for posting! While I wait for my Z9 order I thought I'd pester you... two of the lenses you used, the 70-200 2.8E and the 300mm 2.8G VRII are lenses I'm going to shoot with on my soon to arrive Z9. How did they focus/work on the Z9?/any issues with either lens/comments opinions on the combo?
Thanks!
Blake:
The 200 f/2 has new life on the Z9 due to the eye AF with that narrow depth of field
The 200-400 f/4 is incredible on the D6 but other world on Z9.
The 400 f/2.8 is just as fast to focus as is on D6.
The 70-200 f/2.8 E is lightning quick and sharpness is unreal.
The 300 f/2.8 focuses as fast as any lens I have used and sharpness is amazing.
All of the lenses perform better on the Z9 than D6 but I attribute that to no calibration needed and focus on pupils.
These observations and samples are all from indoor sports where the best of cameras and lenses are stressed...haven't taken an outdoor sports photo yet with the Z9 so I am expecting flawless performance under the sun.
Sold my 200mm VRII a few years back... I don't need you tempting me anymore 😡. Thanks for writing me back... very excited to get my hands on the camera.
leewoolery wrote:
Blake:
The 200 f/2 has new life on the Z9 due to the eye AF with that narrow depth of field
The 200-400 f/4 is incredible on the D6 but other world on Z9.
The 400 f/2.8 is just as fast to focus as is on D6.
The 70-200 f/2.8 E is lightning quick and sharpness is unreal.
All of the lenses perform better on the Z9 than D6 but I attribute that to no calibration needed and focus on pupils.
These observations and samples are all from indoor sports where the best of cameras and lenses are stressed...haven't taken an outdoor sports photo yet with the Z9 so I am expecting flawless performance under the sun.
In a similar situation a mechanical shutter also produces artifacts (with softer transition but still objectionable). It's the LED ads that need to go, not the e-shutter.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
In a similar situation a mechanical shutter also produces artifacts (with softer transition but still objectionable). It's the LED ads that need to go, not the e-shutter.
But there are ways to mitigate this. These tools are included in cameras from other manufactures even though they also have mechanical shutters. If you delete the mechanical shutter you should also add these tools.
Major facilities around the World are not going to remove just so some photographers don't get banding. Not going to happen, nor should it.
1bwana1 wrote:
But there are ways to mitigate this. These tools are included in cameras from other manufactures even though they also have mechanical shutters. If you delete the mechanical shutter you should also add these tools.
Major facilities around the World are not going to remove just so some photographers don't get banding. Not going to happen, nor should it.
It does not matter what the lighting is. If it is a Z9, there is banding, right? I mean look at all that banding you found in Lee’s photos above. Nobody else can see it, but, you can.
gdsf2 wrote:
It does not matter what the lighting is. If it is a Z9, there is banding, right? I mean look at all that banding you found in Lee’s photos above. Nobody else can see it, but, you can.
I am getting rid of the Z9 and going back to the D2H....no banding there.
I never should have posted pictures with such defects.
Hope Nikon will offer some sort of financial assistance for those of us who were foolish enough to buy a banded camera that cannot be used for sports photos.
Smart man. I'll give you $1,000 for your Z9. I know it's defective, otherwise I'd offer you more.
The interviewed photographer indicated it was the best option available and the banding he saw wouldn't bother 9 in 10 photographers.... and indicated he thought a software update could solve the problem... but I say SELL NOW!!
leewoolery wrote:
I am getting rid of the Z9 and going back to the D2H....no banding there.
I never should have posted pictures with such defects.
Hope Nikon will offer some sort of financial assistance for those of us who were foolish enough to buy a banded camera that cannot be used for sports photos.
Thanks for posting Lee, I enjoyed the Photo's and comments. Not that I will ever buy a Z9, my current camera is more than capable of photographing landscapes
Blakehfreeman wrote:
Smart man. I'll give you $1,000 for your Z9. I know it's defective, otherwise I'd offer you more.
The interviewed photographer indicated it was the best option available and the banding he saw wouldn't bother 9 in 10 photographers.... and indicated he thought a software update could solve the problem... but I say SELL NOW!!
I can't in ,good conscience, even give the camera away, knowing it is incapable of the same quality of sports photos as the competition.
I am refunding the money I was paid while using the Z9 on various assignments since every photo is defective.
For those experiencing issues with this LED flicker and want to understand it more, keep an eye on Jim Kasson's blog. He is currently analyzing the readout pattern and speed of the sensor. Initial indication being a 12 row scan which would accord with the fine lines showing up on some signs. Maybe with next major firmware we will see some functionality to deal with this.
This is of course fixable in firmware but only for one light source at a time. Two different LED signs in the same frame with unsynchronized flicker rates, one will still band.
gdsf2 wrote:
It does not matter what the lighting is. If it is a Z9, there is banding, right? I mean look at all that banding you found in Lee’s photos above. Nobody else can see it, but, you can.
Temper tantrums not withstanding, no the banding is not about the camera, it is about the lighting. As others in this thread have referenced, and published articles have shown, it is a real issue and worth understanding. All cameras are subject to it. Some just have more tools to deal with it than others.
1bwana1 wrote:
Temper tantrums not withstanding, no the banding is not about the camera, it is about the lighting. All cameras are subject to it. Some just have more tools to deal with it than others.
Happy to help.
Not about the camera. Well, let’s see if that is consistent with your statements.
Ok, it is honesty time. In another thread you wrote the Z9 was unacceptable for shooting sports. You then had to walk that back when somebody called you on it. You had exaggerated the conclusions of an interview. Then in this thread you ask “does the banding in your photos bother you a little bit” when there was no banding. You keep nit picking about the Z9 - mostly incorrectly - and you have no interest in buying one. In some circles we would call this troll like behavior.
