CKrueger wrote:
LED flicker exists, just like CRT scanning, CFL white balance shifts, and CFL flicker.
The Z9's stacked sensor shows LED banding in a different way to legacy mechanical shutters. Photographers will adapt, as we always do.
One thing is for sure, full electronic shutters are the future. Either advertisers won't care, or advertisers will insist on displays with no flicker as electronic shutters take over the market.
Juvenile "my team" trolling aside, we all benefit from being aware of what causes these kinds of effects, so we can all learn to adapt. Anyone laughing at the Z9 right now is only laughing at what they'll be adapting to in a few years when their favored system migrates to an electronic-only shutter.
I've coaxed banding and pattern noise out of my Z9, just like I've managed to do with my Z6, Fuji cameras, Sony cameras, Olympus cameras, and Canon cameras. I'm just happy the Z9 doesn't have the awful AF motor banding issue like the 5D2 had. I had to avoid servo AF above ISO1600 with some lenses for that one. This is a footnote by comparison. ...Show more →
Thanks for the informative contribution to the subject. As you say we all learn from such discussions.
Lee and I have been bantering about the Z9 on the Sports Forum for awhile but I thought I would post here to get folks to opine on the "moderately low-light" performance of their Z9s. Let's just say 5,000-12,800 ISO range is "moderately low light (MLL)." That's subjective, of course. It's certainly not astrophotography.
I am blown away by this camera. It has exceeded my expectations in so many ways. I open my files to find 90%-plus in focus and sharp. And the fps allows me to get images I never could have before. That said, I feel like I've taken a small step backward on MLL performance. With the D5/D6 in that ISO range in many cases I did not have to touch the file from a noise perspective -- now I do.
It's a small price to pay. Wondering if others are experiencing the same and/or tactics being used to mitigate the issue via settings, file size, compression etc...
PureMichigan wrote:
Lee and I have been bantering about the Z9 on the Sports Forum for awhile but I thought I would post here to get folks to opine on the "moderately low-light" performance of their Z9s. Let's just say 5,000-12,800 ISO range is "moderately low light (MLL)." That's subjective, of course. It's certainly not astrophotography.
I am blown away by this camera. It has exceeded my expectations in so many ways. I open my files to find 90%-plus in focus and sharp. And the fps allows me to get images I never could have before. That said, I feel like I've taken a small step backward on MLL performance. With the D5/D6 in that ISO range in many cases I did not have to touch the file from a noise perspective -- now I do.
It's a small price to pay. Wondering if others are experiencing the same and/or tactics being used to mitigate the issue via settings, file size, compression etc......Show more →
Extra noise at the same ISOs is likely a product of the much higher megapixel count. Normalizing/downscaling your pics to 20mp will get rid of a lot of noise (same tactic employed by Sony R4 users for years).
Yep, extra MP will show more noise. Luckily we have new AI based tools to remove noise without loosing detail that work really well in most situations.
PureMichigan wrote:
It's a small price to pay. Wondering if others are experiencing the same and/or tactics being used to mitigate the issue via settings, file size, compression etc...
Yes, absolutely. As we have made the step up to cameras capable of capturing fast action at high mpx the appearance of more noise has become an issue that must be address in post processing for best results. Fortunately, there are tools that make this quick, easy and effective. Just adjust your workflow to incorporate them and you will end up with the best of both.
PureMichigan wrote:
Lee and I have been bantering about the Z9 on the Sports Forum for awhile but I thought I would post here to get folks to opine on the "moderately low-light" performance of their Z9s. Let's just say 5,000-12,800 ISO range is "moderately low light (MLL)." That's subjective, of course. It's certainly not astrophotography.
I am blown away by this camera. It has exceeded my expectations in so many ways. I open my files to find 90%-plus in focus and sharp. And the fps allows me to get images I never could have before. That said, I feel like I've taken a small step backward on MLL performance. With the D5/D6 in that ISO range in many cases I did not have to touch the file from a noise perspective -- now I do.
It's a small price to pay. Wondering if others are experiencing the same and/or tactics being used to mitigate the issue via settings, file size, compression etc......Show more →
I have gladly traded slightly more noise from the Z9 for 30 frames per second, much better low light AF performance, greatly improved overall AF eye focus and the larger file size.
There are places I have regularly photographed for years where even the D6 had difficulty achieving focus because the lighting is so bad plus the white balance was near impossible to correct due to different or burnt out lights.
The Z9 solved all of that.
I shot some team photos the other day with the Z9 lit with studio strobes (which is 80% of my studio revenue each year) and the results are stunning.
Most of the team/media days I do this spring and summer will be outdoors and those will be @ ISO 64 with 4 or 5 studio strobes...so the Z9 will be an immediate revenue generator...especially for banners.
I see the Z9 as an excellent portrait/studio camera that is equally adept as a sports and photojournalism camera and the D6 as an excellent sports/photojournalism camera that is okay for portraits and studio work.
1) This camera is really noisy!
2) How are my images suddenly so blurry?
After a brief panic, I remembered that my "sports" camera is also my "megapixel" camera. Scaled-to-fit, the Z9 looks fantastic. As megapixels rise, so must our standards for 100% crops.
To the topic, I haven't had much opportunity to play with the Z9 for indoor action yet, but I did some brief martial arts shooting a couple weeks ago (under LED lights no less). I found that even at f/5.6 indoors the Z9 has no issues holding focus. I also found that both the 120fps mode and the video-frame-capture feature work pretty well, but I prefer the 120fps mode for its photo aspect ratio and the fact that I can cull in LR rather than in-camera.
I was especially surprised to not suffer a degradation in AF performance at 120fps. These "novelty" modes tend to have a half dozen asterisks after them, and while "11mpix JPEG" is a pretty big asterisk, it's not one that's a functional issue for action photography for me. Heck, it wasn't long ago I was shooting 12mpix and was happy to print it 20x30.
I'm excited to photograph some sparring or board breaking at 120fps. It's not exactly difficult to get the shot at 20fps, but at 120fps you almost have to try to miss the moment.
leewoolery wrote:
I see the Z9 as an excellent portrait/studio camera that is equally adept as a sports and photojournalism camera and the D6 as an excellent sports/photojournalism camera that is okay for portraits and studio work.
Yes, we are finally getting very close to achieving that Unicorn, the true "all a rounder" camera. We have been searching for so long but so far has proved to be so illusive. Once this level of technology and performance trickles down to smaller form factors we will be able to add travel and walk about to the list. It is coming.
Who gets to define what makes a true «all a rounder»?
For me the Z9 sure looks like one.
1bwana1 wrote:
Yes, we are finally getting very close to achieving that Unicorn, the true "all a rounder" camera. We have been searching for so long but so far has proved to be so illusive. Once this level of technology and performance trickles down to smaller form factors we will be able to add travel and walk about to the list. It is coming.
In the DSLR era, Peter Read Miller consistently said that every time the MP count in a camera went up, he needed to increase his shutter speed to get the same sharpness/freeze capability in his images. I trust PRM experience, as I'm sure most here do.
Have you experienced this? And I wonder if it would apply to mirrorless cameras the way it apparently does with DSLRs?
Interestingly, if it is true, it suggests that we will/would see any gains in ISO performance mitigated in part by the need to increase shutter speed as MPs increase.
PureMichigan wrote:
In the DSLR era, Peter Read Miller consistently said that every time the MP count in a camera goes up, he needed to increase his shutter speed to get the same sharpness/freeze capability in his images. I trust PRM experience, as I'm sure most here do.
Have you experienced this ... and I wonder if it applies to mirrorless cameras the way it apparently does with DSLRs.
The shutter speed needed to freeze subject action does not change based on MPs. However, as MPs increase, I have seen the need to increase shutter speed when hand holding with longer lenses (VR held constant).
