sjms wrote:
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.
We all know pretty much every camera released in the last 5 years if not 10 years can get the pictures. The question is how easy to use, how likely, hit rate, etc. Showing a few pictures that happen to hit the mark reveals none of that information. Unless someone shows the entire set of pictures they take on a day so that it can be judged how many blurry, or out of focus pictures there are. Even that depends on users with some people more judicious in technique than others. So yes, this type of discussion can only be based on technical aspects only.
this is one of the most intelligent things said in all 22 pages
I maintain there is nothing inflammatory about a simple comparison. It only becomes so if people attach emotions to something that doesn't call for emotions.
And cross-posting in Canon and Nikon only makes sense, because those are the brands mentioned.
In the end, the ONLY way to compare two cameras is to either own them both for an extended period of time, or rent them for an extended period of time.
Using one for a day, or even a week, is not nearly long enough to learn the ins, outs, gotchas, and caveats of every brand and model.
Thusly, threads like this will always fail because who cares how X person compares them? Maybe they suck at photography. Maybe they shoot totally different subjects than you. Worse, maybe they are more technically inclined and can overcome a deficiency you can't. Maybe they are more adept at post processing and can overcoming IQ issues when you are simply a JPEG shooter (or any other infinite number of personal differences). No matter what, their experience means little compared to YOURS.
Then you get a 22 page thread filled with misinformation by people that haven't and will never use a particular camera, are tainted by their limited experience and brand loyalties, and absolutely no useful conclusion is reached.
Getting back on track for a moment if you don't mind...
So I've been using my Z8 (with adapted 500pf) for the past 10 days or so. My opinion is not based on tests, only on my 'gut' after having used the R5 extensively (usually with rf600f4) for the past 18 months or so.
I haven't really put the Z8 tracking to the test yet as we don't have a lot of birds flying around my house this time of year, but I think I do have a decent 'feel' for the Z8 at this point..
I have to say, and I'm not surprised, that I like it quite a bit. So far it is fun to use. The viewfinder is terrific, very fast. I like being able to shoot in electronic shutter at different speeds, in silence if desired, although I have it set to make a quiet shutter sound so I can tell it is taking pics. I'd call the camera very fast/responsive overall. AF seems very quick, again without extensive tracking experience I can't say how much quicker it is than the R5, but it isn't slower that's for sure. Controls are typical nikon which I am used to, so also good just as canon controls are good. Also typical nikon colors and good dr, which I like but to my eye basically on par with canon. Battery life is just ok, again not a surprise, and I have several enel15's around so no issue for me.
So I like the camera, no surprises for me. The sensor makes all the difference imo in speeding up everything. Personally I won't miss a mechanical shutter in the Z8, and with the faster readout of the z8 I don't have to worry about rolling shutter. I shoot mechanical shutter on my R5 because of this concern, and also because I don't like being locked into 20fps which I find not necessary for most shooting situations.
I am still hoping that the upcoming R5ii basically copies what nikon has done with the Z8...meaning it needs to have a stacked sensor. Fingers crossed.
cohenfive wrote:
Getting back on track for a moment if you don't mind...
So I've been using my Z8 (with adapted 500pf) for the past 10 days or so. My opinion is not based on tests, only on my 'gut' after having used the R5 extensively (usually with rf600f4) for the past 18 months or so.
I haven't really put the Z8 tracking to the test yet as we don't have a lot of birds flying around my house this time of year, but I think I do have a decent 'feel' for the Z8 at this point..
I have to say, and I'm not surprised, that I like it quite a bit. So far it is fun to use. The viewfinder is terrific, very fast. I like being able to shoot in electronic shutter at different speeds, in silence if desired, although I have it set to make a quiet shutter sound so I can tell it is taking pics. I'd call the camera very fast/responsive overall. AF seems very quick, again without extensive tracking experience I can't say how much quicker it is than the R5, but it isn't slower that's for sure. Controls are typical nikon which I am used to, so also good just as canon controls are good. Also typical nikon colors and good dr, which I like but to my eye basically on par with canon. Battery life is just ok, again not a surprise, and I have several enel15's around so no issue for me.
So I like the camera, no surprises for me. The sensor makes all the difference imo in speeding up everything. Personally I won't miss a mechanical shutter in the Z8, and with the faster readout of the z8 I don't have to worry about rolling shutter. I shoot mechanical shutter on my R5 because of this concern, and also because I don't like being locked into 20fps which I find not necessary for most shooting situations.
I am still hoping that the upcoming R5ii basically copies what nikon has done with the Z8...meaning it needs to have a stacked sensor. Fingers crossed....Show more →
I really appreciate this post from someone who owns and has used both. Please come back again and do another hands-on comparison when you've logged more time on the Z8. Thanks.
Cheers,
Rudy
cm666 wrote:
Z8 seems to be the better camera in most ways for stills, bird and wildlife shooting.
The biggest advantage is the stacked 45MP sensor which does give a much better shooting experience for shooting fast/erratic BIF. (based on my ownership of Z9 and R5).
Where I feel the R5 still has the advantage is button layout, button customization and AF prowess (would be even better if it got the R3,R7,R8,R6II updated modes). I still rank Z9/Z8 AF in 3rd place when comparing CaNikSon.
But If I had to choose, starting from scratch, I'd choose Z8 based on price, size, and mostly the stacked sensor. AF is still amazingly good even though I rank it 3rd. And of course the Nikon lenses rank 1st IMO for birds/wildlife.
My AF ranking: A7RV>A1>A9II>R3>R5>Z8/Z9
My camera I would buy for BIF: A1>Z8>Z9>A9II>R3>R5>A7RV ...Show more →
Nice!
A post where the strengths and weaknesses of a camera system are acknowledged without brand defensiveness. A rational discussion on how a system with 3rd place performance in one area can still be a good choice in a system when viewed as an entire package. The implication of course is that another person could appropriately order the choices differently in the system to buy rankings. A great basis for enjoyable discussions on camera forums.
cm666 wrote:
Z8 seems to be the better camera in most ways for stills, bird and wildlife shooting.
The biggest advantage is the stacked 45MP sensor which does give a much better shooting experience for shooting fast/erratic BIF. (based on my ownership of Z9 and R5).
Where I feel the R5 still has the advantage is button layout, button customization and AF prowess (would be even better if it got the R3,R7,R8,R6II updated modes). I still rank Z9/Z8 AF in 3rd place when comparing CaNikSon.
But If I had to choose, starting from scratch, I'd choose Z8 based on price, size, and mostly the stacked sensor. AF is still amazingly good even though I rank it 3rd. And of course the Nikon lenses rank 1st IMO for birds/wildlife.
My AF ranking: A7RV>A1>A9II>R3>R5>Z8/Z9
My camera I would buy for BIF: A1>Z8>Z9>A9II>R3>R5>A7RV ...Show more →
Of note. I'm a Sony shooter, A7IV, Sony 100-400, etc. I'm not a fanboy by a long shot. I've been saying on the Sony forums that the Z8 appears to be a great camera. And some don't take lightly what I'm saying.
Sony should be looking long and hard at what Nikon has brought to the table. Regarding your list. The A9II is due for an upgrade. Rumor has it the A9III is due this year. But what i'm saying, and it's not very popular btw, Sony needs to be better than the Z8 in every way regarding the A9III. $4K for the Z8?! The A9II is already $4,500. A new A9III will no doubt, based on Sony's history of releases will be near $5K. The question is. Will the A9III be worth the extra cost of the Z8? And Nikon is far ahead in the wildlife glass area. We keep hearing rumors of a 300 f2.8. Meanwhile Nikon has the, from what I hear the excellent 400mm f4.5.
AZHeaven wrote:
Of note. I'm a Sony shooter, A7IV, Sony 100-400, etc. I'm not a fanboy by a long shot. I've been saying on the Sony forums that the Z8 appears to be a great camera. And some don't take lightly what I'm saying.
Sony should be looking long and hard at what Nikon has brought to the table. Regarding your list. The A9II is due for an upgrade. Rumor has it the A9III is due this year. But what i'm saying, and it's not very popular btw, Sony needs to be better than the Z8 in every way regarding the A9III. $4K for the Z8?! The A9II is already $4,500. A new A9III will no doubt, based on Sony's history of releases will be near $5K. The question is. Will the A9III be worth the extra cost of the Z8? And Nikon is far ahead in the wildlife glass area. We keep hearing rumors of a 300 f2.8. Meanwhile Nikon has the, from what I hear the excellent 400mm f4.5. ...Show more →
Any brand would win my $'s with 400f4.5 in the collection.
It happened to be Nikon...🙂
where does the Z8/9 rank compared to the original stacked A9? i am highly considering a switch after shooting with Sony since the A7r2 days. I just feel like Nikon currently offers everything I want in a body, whereas I have four sony cameras to get done what I need/want.
