agrumpyoldsod wrote:
AND please get past the base iso in the Z8/Z9/D850 etc being 64 and Canon choosing 100, which is why at 51200 the top regular ISO is higher in the canon -- so what who shoots at 51200.. BUT with ultra wide glass like the 85/1.2 64 is a godsend.
How would ISO64 be beneficial vs ISO100 for fast glass, when the Z8 and Z9 have shutter speeds up to 1/32000s?
AND please get past the base iso in the Z8/Z9/D850 etc being 64 and Canon choosing 100, which is why at 51200 the top regular ISO is higher in the canon -- so what who shoots at 51200.. BUT with ultra wide glass like the 85/1.2 64 is a godsend. Any how... of course Canon will launch a competing product soon -- like sony will with its A1 successor this is simply what happens.
Canon EOS R5 Mark II Specifications (Rumored)
New 61MP CMOS BSI sensor
Dual DIGIC X processor -- perhaps Canon's ii moment then -- not a new designed chip like the Z8/Z9
30 FPS electronic shutter with tracking / 12 FPS mechanical shutter -- what are the precise specs for 30fps -- 12-bit downsampled RAW or full lossless 14-bit
Same 8-stop IBIS
New High Resolution mode similar to pixel shift shooting found on Sony/Fujifilm -- -- yes a welcome addition for those that want it AND some of us Z9 and future Z8 owners wonder why Nikon has not given this to these bodies YET
2x/4x/8x digital teleconvertor
Same Dual Pixel CMOS AF II from EOS R3 and EOS R6 Mark II -- contradicts line 1 -- will it be a new sensor or reusing the old one like the Z6/Z7 did
Internal 8K 60p video recording (8K RAW video spec to be confirmed)
Internal 4K 30p/60p/120p video recording (all by oversampling)
FHD 240p video recording
Focus breathing correction for video so still no decent glass then Canon - electronic cropping is required !!!!
New overheat prevention design similar to EOS R6 Mark II, at least 40min for 8K video, and over -- way worse than the Z8
60 min for 4K video -- way worse than the Z8
Dual CFexpress type B card slot -- well this would be welcome
Standard HDMI port
Dual USB-C port -- perhaps one would be for power delivery like in the Z8
9.44M-dot EVF -- pointless waste of processing capacity
New design of vari-angle LCD monitor optimized for video shooting -- does this mean flippy screen OR a Z8/Z9 style tilting screen
Launch time: 2023 Q2 -- only a few months left to guess then ...Show more →
Price matters , this is not the same class of camera. Everyone fails to remember when the Z9 was released everyone was shocked that they took on the A1 and R3 for 1000 plus cheaper. Now they slashed the price again another 1500 , This camera should be compared to the R5 / A7R5 only , and in that case it raises the bar.
There will always be something new coming around the corner R1, A9III , but are the changes worth switching brands ? probably not .. all of these cameras are great in the right hands.
Do you use flash? Do you want to be a little more wide open while staying at the flash sync speed? Well yeah. There you go. Same can also be applied to video work and you're trying to be at like 1/60th. It has it's benefits. Daran wrote:
How would ISO64 be beneficial vs ISO100 for fast glass, when the Z8 and Z9 have shutter speeds up to 1/32000s?
JadedWriter wrote:
Do you use flash? Do you want to be a little more wide open while staying at the flash sync speed? Well yeah. There you go. Same can also be applied to video work and you're trying to be at like 1/60th. It has it's benefits.
Also there are times where one may want to shoot wildlife/birds at slower shutter speeds. Lots of longish exposure shots of wildlife produce very pleasing artwork. If someone has one of the larger telephoto lenses, they may not have the ability to conveniently pop on an ND filter.
JadedWriter wrote:
I don't need them to have experience shooting Sony. I have experience shooting Sony personally. I enjoyed shooting Sony so much that I got rid of my entire E mount system after getting my Z9. That system was practically on the chopping block already when I got my lowly Z6II, a camera I enjoyed shooting more than my RIII and RIV. I could've gotten an A1 or A9II, but I never enjoyed shooting the stuff enough to warrant buying the higher end stuff. I was originally in 2020 going to get rid of my D4 and D810 to fund an A9...never happened and I still to this day own those two cameras. I filled in whatever Sony knowledge gaps they had with my own and made my own decisions. Regarding Canon I'm not shooting Canon unless Nikon disintegrates as a company. ...Show more →
I mean, that's fine. I also, as I've stated many times, am not saying that Nikon's AF is terrible or anything of the sort. It's just that using Nikon ambassadors as a comparison isn't one of those things that is going to give you an actual comparison, though for your needs, it may not matter. I've also said a few times, that I think that all these systems are amazing, and there's really not enough of a difference to push many people to switch. I also think there are far more important things about choosing a camera than just a specific feature or ability.
I shot Sony for about 6 years, and had a great experience with them, but after using the Canon gear, the improvements in ergonomics, IBIS, and yes, AF (from the A7R IV to the R6/R5), pushed me to switch. I'd likely also be happy with the Nikon bodies, and I like their lens lineup for the most part as well. In any case, everyone should be using what works best for them.
Jman13 wrote:
Most modern EVFs are pretty darn good...even the 2.36M dot EVF on my R8 is pretty nice, and certainly doesn't hinder usage at all...though the higher res 5.8M dot EVF in my R5 is still clearer and sharper. And I have no doubt the Z8's finder is very nice...but it is still a little odd to shove a finder that is a few years out of date resolution wise into a $4,000 body. I'd expect to at least see a 5.8M dot EVF in a camera of this spec. It definitely shouldn't be a dealbreaker for anyone, but it's also a finder panel that is more common among $2,000 range cameras (similar to R6 II and A7 IV) than $4,000 range cameras. ...Show more →
I actually really like the EVF for the Z8 and Z9. It is a little lower resolution but a really nice display and it has an innovative separate feed to the EVF that is not only blackout free but doesn't lose resolution even when shooting at the highest fps with the most demanding data throughput. The R5 might have higher resolution but it isn't truly blackout free and uses frame insertion in some modes. I much prefer the Nikon strategy here of a bit lower resolution with zero loss in quality in other modes, vs. higher resolution that varies depending on the shooting conditions.
I'll just chuck this in here to possibly spur a side discussion. I know the Z8/Z9 are geared towards fast subjects, given the stacked sensor, but I've had my fill of everyone and their brother roleplaying a NatGeo wildlife photographer, so...
Would there be any sense in a landscape/architecture photographer purchasing a Z8 over a Z7II? Why or why not? Are there other types of photography where having this stacked 45MP sensor could be beneficial, even if the readout speed likely doesn't matter for that type of photography? How would the R5 compare in those scenarios?
AZHeaven wrote:
I just responded that after watching the Fro's video and writing what I did? I also watched Manny Ortiz and Steve Perrys videos on the Z8. And the response from Jared was correct about what the Fro said.
And with todays tech? It's no longer the person but the camera. The Eye AF is a game changer for many, including me. Not everyone is an expert like you stated above. The other day I photographed a Western Tanager. It was imbedded in a tree with branches in front and to the sides. My Bird Eye AF nailed the shot. As for physical strength? Come talk to me when you have had 2 knee replacements. 2 thumb joint surgeries. And 2 hand surgeries. Maybe I took your response the wrong way. But seems you are jealous of Sony's AF. ...Show more →
My entire point was that, given today’s choices, AF performance among brands is the most overrated and over-discussed topic in all photography fora.
marsguy wrote:
Would there be any sense in a landscape/architecture photographer purchasing a Z8 over a Z7II? Why or why not? Are there other types of photography where having this stacked 45MP sensor could be beneficial, even if the readout speed likely doesn't matter for that type of photography? How would the R5 compare in those scenarios?
The differences between the Z7ii and Z8/Z9 for landscape application go beyond the sensor speed. Any camera can take a landscape photo.
Where the Z8/Z9 help are the quality of life improvements like backlit buttons, red mode display, and starlight mode for late night/astro shooting. Multi tilt display for low portrait orientation shots, so you don't have to get yourself down on the ground. Improved button placement and ergos. Better EVF. HE* files that are actually easier to work with in post. Sensor cover. GPS (in the Z9). Better weather sealing. A play button location that is actually functional.
You're not buying JUST a sensor, you're buying the whole package around it. In that regard, the Z8/Z9 are great evolutions of the Z7ii formula.
The Z7ii is a fantastic camera, just one with its share of quirks and pain points. In my use, the Z9 solved them all, while introducing a new one in terms of weight/size. Now the Z8 seems to be striking a very nice balance between the two.
marsguy wrote:
I'll just chuck this in here to possibly spur a side discussion. I know the Z8/Z9 are geared towards fast subjects, given the stacked sensor, but I've had my fill of everyone and their brother roleplaying a NatGeo wildlife photographer, so...
Would there be any sense in a landscape/architecture photographer purchasing a Z8 over a Z7II? Why or why not? Are there other types of photography where having this stacked 45MP sensor could be beneficial, even if the readout speed likely doesn't matter for that type of photography? How would the R5 compare in those scenarios?
You remind me people who buy 4 WD vehicles and don't use the 4L gear. The transfer gear box may get damaged if not lubricated/used for long time.
I agree buy what meet your usage not necessarily the highest in the class.
In such case Z7II does the job even better than Z9 ( lighter, cheaper)
karkawry wrote:
Not sure the A9II qualifies as a modern AF system, I own the original A9 and the tracking is far behind that of the A1,Z9,R5 offerings
If you are specifically referring to the use of the Real-time Tracking variants of the AF modes (lower half of the AF mode selection list)...eg Zone:Tracking, Flex Spot:Tracking then I would agree that the A9 and A9II are a ways behind. The Real-time Tracking modes are not my preferred AF modes for BIF even on the A1 and A7RV. And especially not on the A9/A9II.
I use Wide (no tracking) for 90% of my BIF and Zone (no tracking) for the other 10%. Tracking modes are inferior to the regular Wide and Zone. I only use the Tracking modes for perched birds, slow waders and slow swimmers.
I still feel that even on the A9/A9II the regular Wide and Zone modes with AF sensitivity set to 1 are superior to the Canon and Nikon systems for fast, erratic BIF.
Of course there are other aspects of the AF system where the Canon and Nikon systems are better than the A9. Mostly because they have BEAF and the A9 doesn't. So for slower subjects those systems would rank higher.
RoamingScott wrote:
The differences between the Z7ii and Z8/Z9 for landscape application go beyond the sensor speed. Any camera can take a landscape photo.
Where the Z8/Z9 help are the quality of life improvements like backlit buttons, red mode display, and starlight mode for late night/astro shooting. Multi tilt display for low portrait orientation shots, so you don't have to get yourself down on the ground. Improved button placement and ergos. Better EVF. HE* files that are actually easier to work with in post. Sensor cover. GPS (in the Z9). Better weather sealing. A play button location that is actually functional.
You're not buying JUST a sensor, you're buying the whole package around it. In that regard, the Z8/Z9 are great evolutions of the Z7ii formula.
The Z7ii is a fantastic camera, just one with its share of quirks and pain points. In my use, the Z9 solved them all, while introducing a new one in terms of weight/size. Now the Z8 seems to be striking a very nice balance between the two....Show more →
Very salient points. I didn't mean to imply that the sensor was the only difference or only thing that could make a difference, but I don't actually know everything that's different, and was hoping for exactly your response; a list of things that would make a difference for anyone not shooting action. It sounds like the Z8 is a big step up for many reasons!
NissanPatrol wrote:
You remind me people who buy 4 WD vehicles and don't use the 4L gear. The transfer gear box may get damaged if not lubricated/used for long time.
I agree buy what meet your usage not necessarily the highest in the class.
In such case Z7II does the job even better than Z9 ( lighter, cheaper)
Sometimes you have to buy the 4WD vehicle because it also contains features that the 2WD versions don't, or there simply isn't a 2WD version. This kind of forced product segmentation exists for many different types of tech and it can be very frustrating that sometimes you need to spend an extra 30-100% to get the next step up, when all you want is a single feature that could very easily exist in the lower end model. An example would be if you wanted Eye AF in your R5 but you don't want the big heavy R3 body, lower resolution sensor, and don't need the super fast readout. I'd wager MOST people aren't going to even consider the step up in price and weight for Eye AF alone (and would potentially consider the resolution decrease as a serious downgrade), but sometimes a feature matters enough to you that you end up buying the newer/more expensive product (even when it comes with additional penalties).
marsguy wrote:
I'll just chuck this in here to possibly spur a side discussion. I know the Z8/Z9 are geared towards fast subjects, given the stacked sensor, but I've had my fill of everyone and their brother roleplaying a NatGeo wildlife photographer, so...
Would there be any sense in a landscape/architecture photographer purchasing a Z8 over a Z7II? Why or why not? Are there other types of photography where having this stacked 45MP sensor could be beneficial, even if the readout speed likely doesn't matter for that type of photography? How would the R5 compare in those scenarios?
I happen to consider the files from my Z9 are cleaner than those from my Z7.
The Z9/Z8 have far far more capabilities than the Z7 - IN BODY HDR, STARLIGHT and the ability to shoot very long exposures -- neither have multi-shot pixel shifting high res yet. AND yes the Z8/Z9 are bigger and heavier.
As I said, output is important to me. While not an unbiased source a lot of the ambassadors I follow are just straight up excellent photographers. I never got that sense from some of the Sony Artisans. I can only name Mark Galer (he's good) and Miguel Quiles (who basically creates his images in photoshop, more than in camera). Like all in all I'm a get out and shoot photographer and less tech spec pissing contest photographer. Jman13 wrote:
I mean, that's fine. I also, as I've stated many times, am not saying that Nikon's AF is terrible or anything of the sort. It's just that using Nikon ambassadors as a comparison isn't one of those things that is going to give you an actual comparison, though for your needs, it may not matter. I've also said a few times, that I think that all these systems are amazing, and there's really not enough of a difference to push many people to switch. I also think there are far more important things about choosing a camera than just a specific feature or ability.
I shot Sony for about 6 years, and had a great experience with them, but after using the Canon gear, the improvements in ergonomics, IBIS, and yes, AF (from the A7R IV to the R6/R5), pushed me to switch. I'd likely also be happy with the Nikon bodies, and I like their lens lineup for the most part as well. In any case, everyone should be using what works best for them. ...Show more →
johnvanr wrote:
As I said at the beginning I’m just curious how these cameras compare on specs. Nothing more. I have no intention to get a Z8. It’s just a - hopefully - friendly discussion about cameras, that’s all. No need for drama.
Okay, how about the specs for both are readily available for you to compare side-by-side?
What you are getting now is a friendly discussion of personal opinions about a variety of cameras, without any drama.
johnvanr wrote:
It seems people are fine with this discussion. If you are not, you don't have to participate. Oh wait, you aren't.
Maybe you can ask Fred if you can become a moderator, so you can justifiably tell people what they should do and shouldn't do.
Sometimes, I think you're just enjoying too much being a curmudgeon.
It's a good thing you're an excellent photographer and you have your good moments, otherwise you'd be unbearable here.
Here's the deal man. Imagemaster can be very outspoken, bordering on irritating, however he is totally right. He is a GREAT photographer. He just mirrors what many of us think towards the inane questions and Bs that follow so many threads.
