Steve Spencer wrote:
While we are being exact let's be clear the A1 and Z9 sensors are the same size. The A1 sensor is not bigger it has smaller pixels that are packed tighter on the same size sensor. Also the difference between 45 and 50 MP in resolution is quite small. When you look at the actual size of the output that becomes even more obvious. The A1 produces full sized images that are 8640 X 5760 pixels. The Z9 full size images that are 8256 X 5204 pixels. Now when we talk about the resolution of the sensor we usually talk about linear resolution which is the change in resolution on just one side, in this case 8640 vs 8256 (or 5760 vs 5204) and that means the increase in linear resolution for the A1 is just 4.6% if you do the math.
I would say that the difference in resolution between the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 is also a very small difference. So, for both sensor scan speed where the Z9 has a very small advantage and for resolution where the A1 has a very small advantage there is actually little difference between the cameras. Of course some people might prefer either small advantage, but IMO everyone should keep in mind that the differences here for both sensor scan speed and resolution are small and in almost all instances won't make a practical difference....Show more →
I agree, the 5 MPs of the A1 and the 0.1mS faster scan of the Z9 mean zilch in practice. I mean if I had to choose and nothing else was different between the two cameras I'd take the extra 5MPs over the scan speed but those wouldn't factor into a camera decision when there are lots of other more important differences between the two cameras.
(this next part has nothing to do with replying to you)
What makes me roll my eyes are the people that come in here and can't be bothered to reference things before they post. I mean we already provided references to the A1's 1/260 (3.7ms) speed in this very thread and still someone comes in and posts totally incorrect information. I can only guess at the motivation seeing what camera they shoot.
NonDecaf wrote:
I agree, I wouldn't expect Nikon to do oddball things like blocking light from specific angles, but that wasn't my theory to being with!
I tend to agree with theories that the reduced eFF is a side effect of using pixel isolation structures. I'm guessing the IMX309 design is old enough that you can purchase an industry report that will give you all the details.
Not designing to block light but designing the optical formula to a specific sensor's peripheral light performance. As to the original theory on the dpreview thread, presuming its Z7 MTF measurements are accurate, there has to be some sensor-specific departure like the fill-factor theory to explain how that MTF was achievable.
Check their lab tests, the X-H2S is the best for it, followed closely by the Z9. Of course you have to understand that the speeds vary based on the settings you choose for output, but the X-H2S usually remained ahead of the competition regardless of settings (I believe there was only one area it fell behind and not by much).
Add both the Z8 and A1 to the comparison in the database tool.
X-H2S = 2nd best, only falling behind an actual video camera (Open Gate 26 MP Pro Res was 11.5 ms and that’s a 14 bit output and neither of the other two could go higher than 12 bit, embarrassing the A1)
Z8 = 4th Best but likely tied with the Z9 as that is 3rd best (38 MP 12 Bit output was measured at 14.5 ms which also bests the A1).
A1 = 17th Best (8.9ms was the fastest they could achieve, but the 33 MP mode wasn’t even ProRes and was barely under 17 ms). So forgive me if I’m not buying the A1 is matching or even close to the Z9/Z8. The best aspect of the sensor is the DR is better than the other two.
Oh and based on these numbers, I’m not buying the Sony is at all close to the Nikon for speed and you can say it is the memory controller, the processing chip, or even the storage medium, but what you can’t say is that it rivals Z9 in overall speed.
amci4 wrote:
No that’s the result of people that tested it. I’m sorry if I insulted your choice of cameras with facts, but not everything I said was wrong.
Of course you have to understand that the speeds vary based on the settings you choose for output
The first setting of which is that cined's rolling-shutter tests are in video mode, where the readout values being quoted in this thread are for stills, so unless we're talking specifically about video then cined's results don't apply. There are a multitude of reasons a camera maker would choose to limit the readout speed of their sensor in video vs stills, including power consumption and thermals.
snapsy wrote:
The first setting of which is that cined's rolling-shutter tests are in video mode, where the readout values being quoted in this thread are for stills, so unless we're talking specifically about video then cined's results don't apply. There are a multitude of reasons a camera maker would choose to limit the readout speed of their sensor in video vs stills, including power consumption and thermals.
If you can’t keep up with the 38 MP output, while using a 33 MP video mode, then you’re not likely to keep up at higher resolutions. This is the problem that people seem to be struggling with. Fuji actually used the full sensor and is still the fastest hybrid on the market for this.
amci4 wrote:
If you can’t keep up with the 38 MP output, while using a 33 MP video mode, then you’re not likely to keep up at higher resolutions. This is the problem that people seem to be struggling with. Fuji actually used the full sensor and is still the fastest hybrid on the market for this.
Video reads 24 or 30 frames continuously for minutes at a stretch. That doesn't happen in stills mode. So the thermal and power consumption considerations I described for video apply.
You correctly said the settings must be taken into account when comparing across sensors. Why would video vs stills be excluded from that proviso?
For the Z9, cined measured a rolling shutter of 14.5ms in video (link). Jim Kasson measured 3.7ms in stills (link). Both included screen shots demonstrating the actual measurement, with Jim going so far as to fully disclose his methodology.
amci4 wrote:
If you can’t keep up with the 38 MP output, while using a 33 MP video mode, then you’re not likely to keep up at higher resolutions. This is the problem that people seem to be struggling with. Fuji actually used the full sensor and is still the fastest hybrid on the market for this.
Aside from the fact that you seem to be missing the information that rolling shutter for video readout is always slower than for stills for the reason snapsy is pointing out to you, Fuji is achieving reading out “an entire sensor” which is significantly smaller and substantially lower resolution than the a1 or Z8/9.
Guys, you are trying to educate a guy who read some information and didn't understand either its context, nor significance in the framework of digital photography and video. Rather than using it as a learning experience he is being defensive regarding his mistakes, and in pursuit of a brand agenda of some kind.
1bwana1 wrote:
Guys, you are trying to educate a guy who read some information and didn't understand either its context, nor significance in the framework of digital photography and video. Rather than using it as a learning experience he is being defensive regarding his mistakes, and in pursuit of a brand agenda of some kind.
You will not get far in such circumstances.
I’m okay to continue tilting at windmills so long as it makes sure others reading this in the future see all of the info about why he is wrong side by side with his posts. And he might actually take a breather at some point and accept the new information.
Jesse Evans wrote:
I’m okay to continue tilting at windmills so long as it makes sure others reading this in the future see all of the info about why he is wrong side by side with his posts. And he might actually take a breather at some point and accept the new information.
I've had him hidden for years, this behavior is neither new nor surprising. Starve this fool of all oxygen and just stop replying.
amci4 wrote:
No that’s the result of people that tested it. I’m sorry if I insulted your choice of cameras with facts, but not everything I said was wrong.
Check their lab tests, the X-H2S is the best for it, followed closely by the Z9. Of course you have to understand that the speeds vary based on the settings you choose for output, but the X-H2S usually remained ahead of the competition regardless of settings (I believe there was only one area it fell behind and not by much).
Add both the Z8 and A1 to the comparison in the database tool.
X-H2S = 2nd best, only falling behind an actual video camera (Open Gate 26 MP Pro Res was 11.5 ms and that’s a 14 bit output and neither of the other two could go higher than 12 bit, embarrassing the A1)
Z8 = 4th Best but likely tied with the Z9 as that is 3rd best (38 MP 12 Bit output was measured at 14.5 ms which also bests the A1).
A1 = 17th Best (8.9ms was the fastest they could achieve, but the 33 MP mode wasn’t even ProRes and was barely under 17 ms). So forgive me if I’m not buying the A1 is matching or even close to the Z9/Z8. The best aspect of the sensor is the DR is better than the other two.
Oh and based on these numbers, I’m not buying the Sony is at all close to the Nikon for speed and you can say it is the memory controller, the processing chip, or even the storage medium, but what you can’t say is that it rivals Z9 in overall speed....Show more →
OK, just pointing out that the numbers you quoted were wrong (in the context of the discussion around stills photography) and the numbers you are now quoting appear to be for video.
Personally I prefer to pick my stills camera based on its performance for still photography.
1bwana1 wrote:
Guys, you are trying to educate a guy who read some information and didn't understand either its context, nor significance in the framework of digital photography and video. Rather than using it as a learning experience he is being defensive regarding his mistakes, and in pursuit of a brand agenda of some kind.
i love it. what a bunch of pompous fools we all are.
just take good pics (those that satisfy you each individually) if you all actually can instead of talking it to death. show how good you are by delivering the goods. we will never be all things to all people.
every picture tells a story (or can, if you just let it)
sjms wrote:
i love it. what a bunch of pompous fools we all are.
just take good pics (those that satisfy you each individually) if you all actually can instead of talking it to death. show how good you are by delivering the goods. we will never be all things to all people.
every picture tells a story (or can, if you just let it)
People are arguing about the scan rate of sensors, not how good of a photographer they are. 🤪
Jesse Evans wrote:
People are arguing about the scan rate of sensors, not how good of a photographer they are. 🤪
You are in a gear-talk forum section. This is what the gear-talk is for.
Lots of image discussion which probably tells us more about how good of a photographer we are can be found in the Image Presentation galleries and even more relevant in the Photo Critique section.
it should be show and tell. you show and tell how you got the shot with a professional level of explanation that is sorta demonstrated here in between the unbelievable level of you know what being thrown about.
you all allow a brinkmanship war to be perpetuated here.
sjms wrote:
it should be show and tell. you show and tell how you got the shot with a professional level of explanation that is sorta demonstrated here in between the unbelievable level of you know what being thrown about.
How exactly would that be appropriate for a thread about the relative specs and capabilities of the Canon R5 and Nikon Z8?
Jesse Evans wrote:
How exactly would that be appropriate for a thread about the relative specs and capabilities of the Canon R5 and Nikon Z8?
so what are you doing so far besides nothing. i thought these tools were for taking pics and make your images the best in your hands. all these tools with all their competing specs. prove they make a difference.
