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.
I don’t believe that is correct info for the Z8. From Nikon USA: Detection Range-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 not and he's already been corrected about it, but of course his Sony-loving heart just couldn't edit the truth into his original, very wrong post.
JadedWriter wrote:
Nikon is literally Kryptonite for Fro. I follow enough talented wildlife Nikon ambassadors to the point where Fro's opinion means squat. I don't care if people do think they're shills, they're talented photographers.
I don't think anyone, even Fro, is saying that the Z8 can't be used for outstanding action photography. I'm sure it can. What those Nikon ambassadors don't have, though, is experience with the other systems. And it's just a reality that Sony and Canon are a step up at the moment. No one is saying that Nikon can't be used to get the shot, or in professional settings...just that all things being equal, you're going to get a few more keepers with the Sony and Canon bodies.
Any ya know what. Even without having touched an A1 or R3 Michelle Valberg and Kristi Odom can squeeze out excellent shots out of their Z9's. You want a good sports photographer. Andrew Hancock. Done. He could out shoot Fro using the same equipment. It don't matter. I care about output. The three photographers I mentioned have more credibility to me than Fro. Jman13 wrote:
I don't think anyone, even Fro, is saying that the Z8 can't be used for outstanding action photography. I'm sure it can. What those Nikon ambassadors don't have, though, is experience with the other systems. And it's just a reality that Sony and Canon are a step up at the moment. No one is saying that Nikon can't be used to get the shot, or in professional settings...just that all things being equal, you're going to get a few more keepers with the Sony and Canon bodies.
MRomine wrote:
I don’t believe that is correct info for the Z8. From Nikon USA: Detection Range-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)
I was just going by what was posted on some web sites early this morning, which have since been edited to correct the error.
I sold my R5, R3 and all my RF L series glass when I got my Z 400mm 2.8 TC - for me that lens made it absolutely worth moving over.
berimbolo wrote:
IMO if you're doing bird/wildlife photography, the only reason to switch to Nikon is if you are willing to pay for 800pf or the 400/600 with built in TCs. If there was a reasonably priced zoom that competed with the Sony 200-600 or RF100-500, I'd consider it. Right now I'd rather use the 20k CAD it costs for a 600mm on a few wildlife photography focused workshops/trips.
robert_in_ca wrote:
I sold my R5, R3 and all my RF L series glass when I got my Z 400mm 2.8 TC - for me that lens made it absolutely worth moving over.
I'm not yet ready to make that kind of investment on a single item. That could change in the future, but at my age (33), I still feel super apprehensive about big purchases (even if I can more than afford them).
Steve Spencer wrote:
You missed the Nikon 400 f/4.5S, which is part of the reason in time I will very like move to Nikon over Sony. Great lens, great price, great size.
That lens convinced me to buy a Z9 and a few other Z lenses a few months ago. It's a beautiful little lens, and I wish other manufacturers would come out with similar products. However, it's a bit too short for birds, even in crop mode, and once you add a 1.4x TC, it's pretty much on par with the Sony 200-600 zoom - and the zoom is a lot more convenient. Too bad Nikon couldn't have squeezed in a built-in TC on that lens.
Alistair1 wrote:
Looks like there is HLG in Raw stills on this camera. That could be very interesting. Will need to see how the raw converters handle it.
Utterly useless until you can share them online IMO (outside of including them in an HDR youtube video). Does look neat though.
And you’re missing my point entirely. As I said, the Z8 and Z9 are definitely more than capable of professional work and capturing of amazing action shots.
But those people also don’t have experience with the other systems, so how is their opinion more important than that of someone who has used all of them, when making a comparison between brands?
These photographers are certainly capable of telling whether or not the Z8 is a capable tool for professional sports photography, but they are not equipped to compare between systems. Those are two different things.
I also believe that despite there being differences, none of these systems have anything so revolutionary to warrant switching systems if you’ve invested, and even if you haven’t, how a camera feels and works for you is every bit as if not more important than small differences in AF capability.
JadedWriter wrote:
Any ya know what. Even without having touched an A1 or R3 Michelle Valberg and Kristi Odom can squeeze out excellent shots out of their Z9's. You want a good sports photographer. Andrew Hancock. Done. He could out shoot Fro using the same equipment. It don't matter. I care about output. The three photographers I mentioned have more credibility to me than Fro.
berimbolo wrote:
I'm not yet ready to make that kind of investment on a single item. That could change in the future, but at my age (33), I still feel super apprehensive about big purchases (even if I can more than afford them).
You're lucky, I guess, at 33 I didn't have to think about fast lenses as I couldn't afford them even if I had wanted them. In some way, that was a solution as well.
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.....
It is posted in Nikon and Canon so yes it is very confusing and inflamatory in an unmoderated forum.
I wanted so much to like the Z8, but only 45MP in 2023
Jman13 wrote:
And you’re missing my point entirely. As I said, the Z8 and Z9 are definitely more than capable of professional work and capturing of amazing action shots.
But those people also don’t have experience with the other systems, so how is their opinion more important than that of someone who has used all of them, when making a comparison between brands?
These photographers are certainly capable of telling whether or not the Z8 is a capable tool for professional sports photography, but they are not equipped to compare between systems. Those are two different things.
I also believe that despite there being differences, none of these systems have anything so revolutionary to warrant switching systems if you’ve invested, and even if you haven’t, how a camera feels and works for you is every bit as if not more important than small differences in AF capability.
It's true that most pros are among those knowing the least about various brands. Unless their job is comparing brands, they're too busy making money shooting with what they have.
I've found myself several times telling pros that something new existed that they had no clue about. This includes a guy who shot professionally in NYC and used to assist Annie Leibowitz and a former classmate of mine who had Time magazine covers when Time magazine still had covers...
lighthound wrote:
It'll probably come close to the performance of the Canon R1 but sadly fall short.
That is going to be fun to see. A battle for the ages. Nikon will be far behind. I'll certainly renew my CPS Platinum so I can get the R1 and 600/4 in hand to test it out against the A1II.
Jman13 wrote
I also believe that despite there being differences, none of these systems have anything so revolutionary to warrant switching systems if you’ve invested, and even if you haven’t, how a camera feels and works for you is every bit as if not more important than small differences in AF capability.
How dare you be rational ! This is the internet !
I remember folks on this forum arguing about the D2H vs whatever Canons offering was at the time . Some things never change.
