arbitrage wrote:
Just make sure you are okay giving up customizability and button layout. R5 is better than Z8. Also I still think R5 AF is better than Z9 (Z8)...especially BEAF for non-BIF.
But Z8 is surely easier to shoot fast action with the dual stream EVF and no slideshow like R5 presents. And of course the Z lens lineup can probably make any camera shortcomings worth putting up with.
I've never had an issue with the layout or configurability of my nikon cameras vs canon. There are a couple of things I like better with the canon setup, but mostly I can work with either. What I'm hoping for is for canon to release an r5ii that is fully competitive with the performance of the z8...and hopefully not in another year. That means it must have a stacked sensor imo. I've kept a few nikon lenses around as well as a z7ii. That camera is a nice camera except it is terrible in terms of af and general speed when shooting wildlife or other action. The z9 is too big for me, but otherwise the performance sounds just about perfect for me. I don't want or care about 30fps...even 20fps is too fast for most shooting situations imo. I shoot in mech shutter on my r5 most of the time to slow the camera down to only 12fps. But the faster readout and ability to shoot 20fps without worrying about shutter distortion would be a big plus for me.
And if canon releases an r5ii without a stacked sensor, imo it will fare very badly in the market. That tech is where things are heading.
cohenfive wrote:
The Z8 is a better camera than the R5, full stop. On paper is it literally everything I have been hoping for, and it is priced well. I have been shooting the R5 and R6 for a couple of years now, and will be buying a Z8 in the near future if they become available. Canon is behind now. The Z8 is basically akin to the mirrorless version of the D850. That camera did a lot for nikon's market presence for a couple of years at the prosumer end of the market, and the Z8 may do the same. Should Canon panic--certainly not, they are still much bigger than Nikon. But it is a shame that nikon is beating canon to the punch in the prosumer market...as well as in the wildlife/sports lens end of the market. Canon would do well to speed up the release of the R5ii as they are now behind the market a bit. ...Show more →
I'm wondering the logic of offering an opinion on a camera which you've neither used nor owned. Yes, perhaps, the Z8 will outperform a nearly 3 year old R5 but who knows if that is the case and if so by what margin? Given that my R5 has and can still take amazing photos nearly effortlessly, I am hardly worried about a camera which is not currently available. I remember distinctly when the Z9 came out and I had to wait nearly a year and a half before I could shoot with one and it was crippled by inferior firmware. Rather than being "behind" the R5 enabled me to take photos that I wasn't able to achieve prior to its release and Nikon certainly didn't have anything which compared at the time. Let us know when you receive your Z8, post some pics, and describe your experience.
cohenfive wrote:
I've never had an issue with the layout or configurability of my nikon cameras vs canon. There are a couple of things I like better with the canon setup, but mostly I can work with either. What I'm hoping for is for canon to release an r5ii that is fully competitive with the performance of the z8...and hopefully not in another year. That means it must have a stacked sensor imo. I've kept a few nikon lenses around as well as a z7ii. That camera is a nice camera except it is terrible in terms of af and general speed when shooting wildlife or other action. The z9 is too big for me, but otherwise the performance sounds just about perfect for me. I don't want or care about 30fps...even 20fps is too fast for most shooting situations imo. I shoot in mech shutter on my r5 most of the time to slow the camera down to only 12fps. But the faster readout and ability to shoot 20fps without worrying about shutter distortion would be a big plus for me.
And if canon releases an r5ii without a stacked sensor, imo it will fare very badly in the market. That tech is where things are heading. ...Show more →
I'd have a bunch of wishes for the next R5 if I still used it to do bird photography, but I've switched to Olympus for that. So, now, I probably upgrade to the II if it comes out while I'm still in the US, but not if I'm already in Europe. I plan to use Canon mostly for 'scanning' and portrait/model photography and I'm narrowing down my lenses for Canon in that vein as well. No wides, no superteles, just macro and portrait length stuff (and a nifty-fifty).
gdanmitchell wrote:
Nikon makes great gear.
Canon makes great gear.
Sony makes great gear.
Pick one. Go make photographs. That's the actual point of all of this, right?
;-)
What's the point in typing something up that has nothing to do with the topic and doesn't help anyone in the thread?
I don't get it
Mister-Mr wrote:
AND the R5 price has dropped to $3395 USD.. For those without a large lens investment, this is appealing, IMO..
For people willing to consider the used market, R5s at $2000 - $2500 are the best value camera out there.
Especially if you're willing to use the phenomenal and cheap 3rd party lenses and EF mount ones.
From a cost to performance perspective, I don't think Nikon comes close there. But if price is something that someone is sensitive to, then the Z8 probably doesn't make sense no matter how you slice it.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Nikon makes great gear.
Canon makes great gear.
Sony makes great gear.
Pick one. Go make photographs. That's the actual point of all of this, right?
;-)
johnvanr wrote:
And Leica too...
A whole bunch of brands, actually. Photographers use all of them to make great photographs, and the brand used is virtually never the difference among them
(I do half of my photography with Fujifilm, FWIW.)
- - - - -
nmerc_photos wrote:
What's the point in typing something up that has nothing to do with the topic and doesn't help anyone in the thread?
I don't get it
It is directly relevant to the topic and the subsequent discussion. And to your follow up in the same post. :-)
OwlsEyes wrote:
I have read through large chunks of this thread trying to understand how Nikon's AF is not the equivalent to Canon or Sony. I am less concerned about why, as this is likely due to engineering and software decisions that would require complete re-tooling or a bottom-up approach to significantly change.
My real confusion lies with this insistence that the Nikon AF system is "so" problematic that this would be the reason to adopt the R5 or A7R(5 or 6?)/A9II over the Z8.
While the Z8 is still an unknown until non-influencers/YouTubers actually shoot it, if the AF system is based on the Z9, it will be more than great enough for 99% of the people 99% of the time. I've been using the Z9 since April '22, and with the exception of the rare moment or two, the AF on the camera has allowed me to produce pictures that I would not otherwise be able to make.
I think that anyone who is not emotionally or financially connected to their brand (as Fanboyism/Fangirlism(??) is quite the disease here) should consider the Z8 on the merits of the entire camera and system. While it is clear that some value button configuration towards the top of their priority list, others might value stacked sensors, lens design, or value per dollar spent.
Much like a lot of Nikon's offerings, the Z8 represents a great value, is rich with technology, and will likely experience firmware updates as more users put the camera through its paces.
So, is it a better option than the R5?... It might be for anyone shooting a D850 with a bag full of F-mount lenses (Nikon's market target), or somebody who is holding onto their old Canon DSLR gear trying to find a more affordable way to have a pro body with pro lenses.
Will this camera persuade R-system users to switch?... doubtful, as the R-system has proven to be very good and the price of switching out of a modern mirrorless system is quite prohibitive.
I couldn’t agree more. The amount of proselytizing that occurs in the Sony forum would cause a southern Baptist preacher to blush. Concerning the AF capabilities of the three big manufacturers, I’ve never seen a better example of the narcissism of small differences. It is stupefying to witness. As you note, a Z8/Z9 is more camera than 99% of photographers need in 99% of circumstances. By all accounts, the A1 is *slightly* better overall, and yet there are countless posts attempting to magnify these slight differences into a Grand Canyon sized gap. It’s absurd and completely divorced from reality.
I have been a professional photographer for many years. When I look back on all of the shots I have published I am endlessly amazed at how well I did with those absolutely awful cameras, and what a striking resemblance those photos have for the ones I am shooting today with the latest whiz-bang kit. Now, of course the new ones look better on this 43" monitor than the old ones did on the 17" one. And those old shots don't hold up when I set the center wheel of my mouse spinning inward quite as well as the new ones.
But the real deal is that for the overwhelming majority of shooters who will buy any of these cameras to replace last years absolutely essential latest gizmo, the money would be much better spent on training. And failing that better glass. (No. I correct myself. Not better. More appropriate glass for the task at hand.) All of the mid to top tier cameras made in the past 5 years are pretty darned good. Better than most of us ever need for what we shoot most all of the time.
And for the Sony shooters out there who endlessly feel compelled to tell me how incapable of focusing my Nikons are, focus on this. The other day I was at a local zoo/museum with a very good friend and Canon shooter. I needed a couple of shots to finish up an article, and having done that we were just spending some time not working and enjoying shooting whatever popped up. A guy with (presumably) the latest Sony camera (and vest, and bush hat, and little card holding thingies, and lenses in hip cases) stopped my friend and began the usual comparison of his Sony to my friend's 1DX MkII. After this fine fellow had run his course my friend said, "I know this camera is very limited compared to yours. It is a wonder National Geographic published any pictures from it. I guess I just squeaked by." Sometimes there are just those moments.
Very rarely do any of us push the outside of the envelope with our cameras. And it is on these edges that any real difference from model to model lives. The Nikon mirrorless lineup has me pretty jazzed. I have two major assignments next week. I can promise you this. The auto focus performance of my cameras is the very least of my concerns. The cameras will perform magnificently. That is if I point them at the right thing, at the right time, using the right lens and apply a level of expertise in composition and story telling that lets them do their job.
RickPJ wrote:
I have been a professional photographer for many years. When I look back on all of the shots I have published I am endlessly amazed at how well I did with those absolutely awful cameras, and what a striking resemblance those photos have for the ones I am shooting today with the latest whiz-bang kit. Now, of course the new ones look better on this 43" monitor than the old ones did on the 17" one. And those old shots don't hold up when I set the center wheel of my mouse spinning inward quite as well as the new ones.
But the real deal is that for the overwhelming majority of shooters who will buy any of these cameras to replace last years absolutely essential latest gizmo, the money would be much better spent on training. And failing that better glass. (No. I correct myself. Not better. More appropriate glass for the task at hand.) All of the mid to top tier cameras made in the past 5 years are pretty darned good. Better than most of us ever need for what we shoot most all of the time.
And for the Sony shooters out there who endlessly feel compelled to tell me how incapable of focusing my Nikons are, focus on this. The other day I was at a local zoo/museum with a very good friend and Canon shooter. I needed a couple of shots to finish up an article, and having done that we were just spending some time not working and enjoying shooting whatever popped up. A guy with (presumably) the latest Sony camera (and vest, and bush hat, and little card holding thingies, and lenses in hip cases) stopped my friend and began the usual comparison of his Sony to my friend's 1DX MkII. After this fine fellow had run his course my friend said, "I know this camera is very limited compared to yours. It is a wonder National Geographic published any pictures from it. I guess I just squeaked by." Sometimes there are just those moments.
Very rarely do any of us push the outside of the envelope with our cameras. And it is on these edges that any real difference from model to model lives. The Nikon mirrorless lineup has me pretty jazzed. I have two major assignments next week. I can promise you this. The auto focus performance of my cameras is the very least of my concerns. The cameras will perform magnificently. That is if I point them at the right thing, at the right time, using the right lens and apply a level of expertise in composition and story telling that lets them do their job. ...Show more →
Interesting about this thread that the people mad at OP for "starting a brand war" are the [only] ones being uncivil and *making it* a brand war.
The whole thing about EVF resolution is a very devils-in-the-details thing. Not all cameras drive their EVF at full resolution under all conditions. I don't think Sony tries to hide this with the A1, but I have my suspicions about, for example, the Panasonic S1r I briefly owned.
As to Fro videos, I don't know if I believe he's in the bag for Canon, but I will say that counting the in-focus shots in a burst shot at 20-friggin-fps of someone zooming around on a skateboard at 7000-friggin-mph has become very "meh" for me. Seeing how much I can do with even the tortoise that is the Fuji GFX, I've come around to the idea that Nikon, Canon, and Sony AF are all sufficiently magical that nobody who doesn't shoot fast sports or BiF (or isn't starting from scratch with no glass investment) should be arguing about it. And even then I'm not sure it's the top concern. Or maybe I'm just getting old and crotchety and wish we were all still manual focusing Hasselblad film cameras.
Jman13 wrote:
The Z8, overall, is likely the superior body. And it probably should be - it's 3 years newer.
For action, the Z8 has the advantage of having a stacked sensor, reducing rolling shutter in electronic shutter mode, plus a few other newer bells and whistles. The R5 has a higher resolution viewfinder, and most of the same capabilities, minus a few newer features (some of which like pre-roll burst, are on newer RF cameras like the R6 II and R8).
I definitely don't think the Z8 is enough of a difference to switch systems for, though. All of these cameras (including the A7R V and A1 as well) are just so damn good nowadays. ...Show more →
The Z8 has advantage over the R5, but the advantage to switch systems comes in the glass. The same or better performance than Sony and Canon with far better pricing. Neither Canon or Sony have a comparable 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm 1.8 like the Nikon Z glass at their pricing. Those 1.8 primes are simply unbeatable at the price to performance. And as we know, Nikon will continue to improve the Z8 and Z9 through firmware updates as well as release highly anticipated glass like 200-600. These alone is enough for me to switch (if I were not shooting Nikon). The Z8 in video I think edges out the R5 and as you said in AF thanks to the stacked sensor.
Whatever 'advantage' there is will be like it has always been, as one system leapfrogs another only to have the next release from another system leapfrog it. The fact the Z8 is being compared to the 2.5 year old R5 should in a way be a compliment to the R5, that it's still a contender.
Lens advantages for a given system can be cherry picked quite easily depending on your priorities/needs. For me it was Canon's 28-70/2, which I initially didn't take seriously being such a huge, heavy and expensive lens. But then I used one, and again and again. And was really impressed by how it rendered like a bunch of f/2 primes (IMO 24-70/2.8 lenses, while convenient, don't look prime-like - whether clients care about this is a totally different matter). So while I do admire Nikon's line of f/1.8 primes and wish Canon made their f/1.8 line more premium to match, I like the versatility of a single f/2 zoom that covers ~4 primes. Then there's Canon's RF 70-200 duo. Sure, no TC compatibility, which I initially didn't like, but love the optical performance compared to the EF versions, which were already really good, along with the extending zoom design that results in much smaller size while packed away in transit. A major reason I didn't jump on the Sony bandwagon a few years ago with the a9 was the lack of a native equivalent to Canon's 200-400 and wasn't interested in adapting it with whatever compromises would result. So I waited for Canon's R system to mature and that lens works even better on an R system camera than it did on even a 1DX series body, so I am very happy. I think bottom line is that if you need the performance advantages mirrorless offers over DSLRs, whether shooting sports, wildlife, or can benefit from eye detection and tracking for people photos, you can make any of the systems work for you (also Panasonic now that they've finally adopted PDAF). I agree that lenses are likely the more critical factor and each system covers certain niches better than others. So if you fall in one of those niches, sure, that system is probably the one for you (if you can afford to switch).
rscheffler wrote:
Whatever 'advantage' there is will be like it has always been, as one system leapfrogs another only to have the next release from another system leapfrog it. The fact the Z8 is being compared to the 2.5 year old R5 should in a way be a compliment to the R5, that it's still a contender.
Exactly the point I was making in an earlier post. It is like a horse race with no actual finishing line. One horse pulls ahead by a nose for a few months, then then next catches up and passes by half a length, then a third horse makes a move on the outside, and...
Over the typical useful lifespan of ANY camera from ANY manufacturer, it will exceed the competition in some way when new and gradually be exceeded by the completion from newer models as time goes on. Switching brands to try to change this and "stay ahead" is madness... and it surely won't make your photography better.
ArizonaImage wrote:
The Z8 has advantage over the R5, but the advantage to switch systems comes in the glass. The same or better performance than Sony and Canon with far better pricing. Neither Canon or Sony have a comparable 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm 1.8 like the Nikon Z glass at their pricing. Those 1.8 primes are simply unbeatable at the price to performance. And as we know, Nikon will continue to improve the Z8 and Z9 through firmware updates as well as release highly anticipated glass like 200-600. These alone is enough for me to switch (if I were not shooting Nikon). The Z8 in video I think edges out the R5 and as you said in AF thanks to the stacked sensor....Show more →
The Z8 and Z9 will not improve much beyond where they are today. The latest Canon and Sony cameras have added additional hardware to improve their subject detection and autofocus. Nikon's brand new release, the Z8, is a generation behind in terms of subject detection and autofocus abilities.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Exactly the point I was making in an earlier post. It is like a horse race with no actual finishing line. One horse pulls ahead by a nose for a few months, then then next catches up and passes by half a length, then a third horse makes a move on the outside, and...
Over the typical useful lifespan of ANY camera from ANY manufacturer, it will exceed the competition in some way when new and gradually be exceeded by the completion from newer models as time goes on. Switching brands to try to change this is madness... and it surely won't make your photography better....Show more →
There has been no leap-frogging of Sony who have been the undisputed mirrorless leader ever since they entered the market, first with the A9 and then the with the A1. And there is still no sign of any real competitor to the A1.
Nikon have just managed to enter the market with half decent offerings (Z8/9) - but these are a generation behind in terms of subject detection and autofocus - they will need new hardware releases (with neural engine) to keep up with what Canon and Sony are doing in their midrange cameras.
duncang wrote:
The Z8 and Z9 will not improve much beyond where they are today. The latest Canon and Sony cameras have added additional hardware to improve their subject detection and autofocus. Nikon's brand new release, the Z8, is a generation behind in terms of subject detection and autofocus abilities.
My God, you Sony people are insufferable. How is it possible there are so many disparate accounts who are basically the same person? Do you all live together in a commune and take turns logging into FM to scan for comments that do not laud Sony as the lord and savior of the photographic world? Or perhaps you all jointly feel a disturbance in the matrix if someone dares engage in a discussion that doesn’t involve the A1 or an AI augmented AF system? You’re truly making FM a miserable place to visit.
And your points, even if they have some objective truth concerning hardware, are worthless because there isn’t a photographer in the world who is limited by the AF functionality of a stacked sensor, or even an R5.
duncang wrote:
There has been no leap-frogging of Sony who have been the undisputed mirrorless leader ever since they entered the market, first with the A9 and then the with the A1. And there is still no sign of any real competitor to the A1.
Nikon have just managed to enter the market with half decent offerings (Z8/9) - but these are a generation behind in terms of subject detection and autofocus - they will need new hardware releases (with neural engine) to keep up with what Canon and Sony are doing in their midrange cameras.
Comments like this are asinine, worthless blather. Go ahead, let us know which subjects a Z9 can’t get in focus at a 90+% clip.
