I noticed that the Z8's AF system is only sensitive down to EV -3 in normal shooting; the Z9 works down to EV -6.5. That's a pretty significant step backwards for the Z8 if you do a lot of low-light shooting. The Sony A1 works down to EV -4 and the Canon R5 works down to EV -6.
Nikon's Z8 product page says "up to -9" without listing the caveats. The Z9 was -8.5 in starlight and -6.5 normal.
Sounds like they perhaps just tweaked starlight mode sensitivity (was already bonkers, but great, bring on better!).
I haven't seen the reduced "normal" sensitivity anywhere for the Z8 yet. I highly doubt starlight mode is MORE sensitive and regular mode is half as sensitive. That doesn't make any sense.
AmbientMike wrote:
I'm thinking if you don't like brand disagreements, you probably shouldn't start an R5 vs Z8 thread, then basically say the expensive R3 stinks (at least vs the other brand,) posting to both Canon and Nikon boards
Doing all that and then saying , oh, I don't want a brand war? Please.....
Let's just say that I have enough faith in people to be able to compare inanimate objects without going ballistic.
I didn't say the R3 stinks. It's just a fact it doesn't match the Z9 in resolution. That's all. I have shot neither one, so can't pass judgement beyond that anyway.
So far, this has been the kind of discussion I hoped it would be. You seem to be the only one reading my post differently.
Assuming no existing lens investment, the R5 and Z8 are not really cameras one would probably bother to cross-shop. The Z8's only real competition spec-wise is the Sony A1 and Canon doesn't not have a competing body in its lineup. It's also now the cheapest FF stacked sensor camera on the market by a $500 USD margin (the aging A9II is next) and has roughly double the megapixels of an A9II or R3.
That's not correct; -3 EV is the low limit for exposure metering (iso 100, f/2 lens).
AF in normal mode is sensitive down to -7 EV (iso 100, f/1.2 lens).
molson wrote:
I noticed that the Z8's AF system is only sensitive down to EV -3 in normal shooting; the Z9 works down to EV -6.5. That's a pretty significant step backwards for the Z8 if you do a lot of low-light shooting. The Sony A1 works down to EV -4 and the Canon R5 works down to EV -6.
From the Z8 product page, what am I missing here? Normal mode increased from -6.5 to -7, and starlight increased from -8.5 to -9, just like I said earlier.
-7 to +19 EV (-9 to +19 EV with starlight view Detection range (ISO 100, f/1.2 lens, 20 °C/68 °F using single servo AF (AF-S))
It's an interesting body for sure both in terms of price, features, etc. I appreciated Fro's observations and the short battery life, wonky add on grip, and AF issues were most disappointing. That my 3 yo R5's AF remains superior is a bit inconceivable and reassuring. Now, if I could combine the best of both worlds, it would be something.
johnvanr wrote:
Let's just say that I have enough faith in people to be able to compare inanimate objects without going ballistic.
I didn't say the R3 stinks. It's just a fact it doesn't match the Z9 in resolution. That's all. I have shot neither one, so can't pass judgement beyond that anyway.
So far, this has been the kind of discussion I hoped it would be. You seem to be the only one reading my post differently.
Should I apologize for being able to read?
If you don't want a brand war, saying the R3 can't compete vs the Z9 and posting that to both the Nikon and Canon boards probably isn't the way to go.
armd wrote:
It's an interesting body for sure both in terms of price, features, etc. I appreciated Fro's observations and the short battery life, wonky add on grip, and AF issues were most disappointing. That my 3 yo R5's AF remains superior is a bit inconceivable and reassuring. Now, if I could combine the best of both worlds, it would be something.
The Fro's AF tests are notoriously bad and generally don't reflect what the majority of people experience. It's also been pointed out that he doesn't always use the recommended AF settings for the subjects/situations he's shooting. For example he is using 3D tracking with more than one near-identical looking subject in the frame when the camera has other AF modes specifically designed to deal with that. As someone else mentioned, I think Canon is paying his bills these days
Another thing to keep in mind is he directly profits off of controversy, and what better ways to get views/clicks than to go against the grain. I think it's a fair assumption that the Z8 AF is identical to the Z9 AF, and the Z9 AF is in a different league than the R5.
AmbientMike wrote:
Should I apologize for being able to read?
If you don't want a brand war, saying the R3 can't compete vs the Z9 and posting that to both the Nikon and Canon boards probably isn't the way to go.
If you don't want a brand war, don't start one
A comparison is not a war. It’s a comparison.
We all know Canon will introduce a fast high-MP camera that will compete with the Z9 and the A1, because the R3 isn’t positioned in that category. I don’t know why you’re getting so worked up about this.
The R5 is not as behind as the specs would indicate. It's still in the top 3 for subject detection and stickiness even 3 years later, and given its price, has been the best value for an action shooter cam for a bit.
johnvanr wrote:
A comparison is not a war. It’s a comparison.
We all know Canon will introduce a fast high-MP camera that will compete with the Z9 and the A1, because the R3 isn’t positioned in that category. I don’t know why you’re getting so worked up about this.
I don't know why you started a brand war thread, can't see it, and then seem to not want one. And then try to act like I'm the problem, for pointing out the obvious.
johnvanr wrote:
This is not to start a brand war. I don't care for those. I'm just really curious how the new Nikon Z8 compares with the Canon R5 in real-world specs.
I have the R5, but use my Olympus OM-1 and Leica more. I'm pretty sure I would have gone to Nikon instead of Canon if Nikon had released the Z8 before or at the time Canon released the R5, as I considered the D850 the best overall DSLR and I prefer Nikon bodies a bit over Canon. Nikon for me screwed up with the release of the Z6 and the Z7 with their slowish AF.
So, do we now have parity between Nikon and Canon in their all-round cameras, at least when it comes to most shooting situations?
Would be interesting, because if the Z8 and R5 kind of match, then the ball is now squarely in Canon's court to come up with a Z9 competitor, which the R3 isn't....Show more →
Both Canon and Nikon make excellent cameras. If you prefer one brand over the other and know what features you are looking for, get either one and start making photographs.
The secret that most don't want to mention is that the brand you choose almost never makes a difference to your photography. Of all the questions you'll face in photography, "Which brand?" is the least important.
Unfortunately, posting a "brand X or brand Y" question in any brand's forum almost always leads to brand wars and does little to clarify the decision.
Well, if there's serious debate that the 3 year old, less expensive at intro R5 is as good as the Z8 that's a pretty good argument for staying with Canon. Who will probably come out with something else if you needed more than the R5
CanadaMark wrote:
and the Z9 AF is in a different league than the R5.
Not in my testing. My 4 main criteria for testing AF where I still find differences between the systems (because they are all so good these days) are acquisition at distance, acquisition over complicated/contrast background, tracking from uncomplicated to complicated backgrounds and BEAF (variety of subjects recognized, variety of poses/positions recognized).
In all four of those categories I'd give the award to the R5 over the Z9.
But ultimate AF isn't everything as the systems are all so good. See my rankings on my previous post....the AF ranking doesn't correspond much at all with my purchase ranking.
johnvanr wrote:
...I'm just really curious how the new Nikon Z8 compares with the Canon R5 in real-world specs.
The lens mounts are different so Nikon is rather useless for Canon users and Canon is rather useless for Nikon users. Are you planning "real world" tests of the cameras using a common third party lens?
The Z8 is mainly just a smaller Z9, so the comparison is not like the R3 vs. R5.
If one is starting from scratch than Nikon is looking good for the flying BIFers that are too weak to use a Z9, but S*ny still is the only one with high-resolution for the vast majority of non-action subjects. Many of us (nikon mount users) were really hoping for the 61MP sensor so the Z8 is a big disappointment. Maybe it is a little better than a Z9, but then one would already have purchased a Z9. If Canon produces an 80MP body then what are you going to do with the 45MP Nikons?
I'm getting too old to carry around Canon, Nikon, AND S*ny products. Somehow I was hoping that Nikon could replace S*ny and Canon at one time, but it's looking doubtful. The low pixel count of 4/3 does nothing for me, but maybe it will as the body deteriorates, which won't be too long. Many of the users I notice converting from FX to 4/3 are in the late 60s or 70s.
Somehow I was hoping that Nikon could replace S*ny and Canon at one time, but it's looking doubtful. The low pixel count of 4/3 does nothing for me, but maybe it will as the body deteriorates, which won't be too long.