Archive 2023 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.13 #1 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
1bwana1 wrote:
Yep, as I said, different sets of compromises with each way of getting to the same field of view. Pick which one you prefer.
Yes, it is the same old compromise that is typical with zooms vs. primes. Zooms give you flexibility of focal length. Primes give you a faster aperture. Pick which one you prefer.
p.13 #2 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
swldstn wrote:
While the GM 400/2.8 and 600/4 are great and available in Sony if I remember getting both will cost me $25,000 I don’t have even if Sony has them. Nikon has a Z 400/4.5 @ $3000 and the adaptable 500/5.6 PF at $2600 used. Those are both available and affordable for me. So consider buying a Z8 to support them even if I have a A1 and a FE 200-600 G. Thats because each is between 1000 to 800 grams less in weight. So it would be a point solution to use along side Sony.
If I didn’t consider this what alternative is there? Any suggestions?...Show more →
Nikon certainly has the non-exotic prime birding lens lineup which Sony doesn't have. Sony has the 200-600 and 100-400(1.4TC) but no primes other than the 400/600GM.
The only other option that one could entertain is using the MC-11 and adapting Canon EF glass. If one isn't after fast BIF, then the adapted Canon glass works really, really well. But you are limited 15FPS and sometimes FW updates can mess with performance good or bad so the future is always uncertain.
I'd be thinking along the lines of 400DOII or 300/2.8ISII with TCs. I used my 400DOII on A9/A9II a lot and it took amazing pictures of all my perched and floating subjects. I never got to try it on A1.
But Z8 and 400/4.5 or 500PF is a better option if you are okay with all the muscle memory coordination that comes along with shooting two systems. I almost kept the Z9 and 400/4.5 just for a more portable walk around setup. If it wasn't for the weight and size of the Z9 (which the Z8 solves) I would have been much more likely to keep it.
I may entertain a Z8/400f4.5 in the future. But I have a feeling Sony will release some new camera (A9III) that will eat up my photography budget. For now A1 and 100-400 +/-1.4TC is my compact, walk around setup. I sold my 200-600 when I bought my latest Z9/400/4.5 and I'm don't plan to reacquire one. I find I either want maximum performance, AF, light gathering out of my GM primes OR I want max size reduction with the 100-400.
p.13 #3 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Steve Spencer wrote:
Sorry, for me the Z8 plus the 400 f/4.5S plus the 1.4X TC I am pretty sure I will much prefer over my current A1 plus 200-600.
Let's look at weight and size. The Nikon combo is 2290g (that is camera, plus TC, plus lens) and the front of the lens is just 253mm from the lens mount. My A1 plus 200-600 G combo is 2852g (that is well over a 500g heavier) and it is 318mm from the lens mount (or 65mm longer). So the Nikon system is clearly a lot lighter and smaller now that there is a Z8.
Let's talk price (these are new prices from B & H).
The Nikon system is $3999 for the camera, $3,000 for the lens and $547 for the TC that is a total cost of $7,546 for the system.
The Sony system is $6,498 for the camera, and $1,898 (on sale right now) for the lens for a total cost of $8,396 for the system.
So the Nikon system is lighter, smaller, and cheaper. It also at 400mm has a stop faster aperture and if you look on the Nikon board can produce some pretty stellar images.
For me and what I shoot it isn't even close. I prefer the Nikon system here. Of course YMMV....Show more →
It all depends on what your style of photography is. For my needs, I prefer zoom, even though it's a bit heavier and slower, but allows more framing flexibility without changing lenses.
May 13, 2023 at 06:29 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.13 #4 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
MarkG2 wrote:
It all depends on what your style of photography is. For my needs, I prefer zoom, even though it's a bit heavier and slower, but allows more framing flexibility without changing lenses.
For me with wildlife I rarely need shorter focal lengths. I find with my 200-600, I am at 600 about 90 percent of the time, and the times I can get closer for shorter focal lengths it is often dusk or dawn and I could really use a wider aperture. For me the 400 f/4.5S and/or the 800 f/6.3 PF (if I could afford it) would be a much better solution. Of course, YMMV, but I have been quite frustrated that Sony has not developed any primes longer than 135mm that cost less than $10,000. For those of us who would like such lenses it is hard to stick with Sony.
z8:
-no 30fps raw
-no heat sink on the sensor
-no 3rd-party lens support to speak of
-weak low rez evf
-backup shooting crippled with uhs-II speeds and two different cards, no cfx-a
-nothing comparable to sony real-time tracking subject acquisition
-still no 200-600, can't trust the nikon lens roadmap
-entire z-mount platform crippled with stepper motors and inability to display true wysiwyg dof
etc.
the only good news i see for the z8 is that it's priced where the z9 should have been priced all along, given that they are basically the same camera. ...Show more →
p.13 #6 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Steve Spencer wrote:
What the 400 f/4.5S prime offers is a faster aperture than any Sony zoom. That you don't recognize that as anything special is puzzling. What the 800 f/6.3 PF offers is a lot of reach at a much lower price than anything Sony offers, That you don't recognize that as special is puzzling. I have zero interest in a 12-14mm AF lens, YMMV. I have lots of interest in the long less expensive prime and again YMMV.
f.5 difference is insignificant, and the range and semi macro of the 100-400 makes it superior by far. The 800 is nice, but extremely specialized. Until now it was stuck with only a hulking camera that negated its weight advantage. Still stuck with only 20 fps raw. I'd rather 200-600 range with a light and small camera, with 30 fps raw.
I bought into the system because it was the only one with 12-13 range, and still is.
I am curious. Do you only do one type of photography? Do you travel? I am abroad for 1/3 of the year, so I need lenses with flexibility.
May 13, 2023 at 08:46 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.13 #7 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
shadow9d9 wrote:
f.5 difference is insignificant, and the range and semi macro of the 100-400 makes it superior by far. The 800 is nice, but extremely specialized. Until now it was stuck with only a hulking camera that negated its weight advantage. Still stuck with only 20 fps raw. I'd rather 200-600 range with a light and small camera, with 30 fps raw.
I bought into the system because it was the only one with 12-13 range, and still is.
The 100-400 GM is 2/3rds of a stop and not half a stop slower and although it might be insignificant to you, it isn't to me. The 100-400 is not only slower by that 2/3rds of a stop, it is 265g heavier, and as I have said previously I am not interested in those shorter focal lengths for what I shoot. Slower and heavier, with no advantage of the shorter focal length to me makes it a non-starter. I also have lots of lenses that do well for close focus. I would not ever be using a 400mm lens for close focus. As always, YMMV.
p.13 #8 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Main feature of Z8 is in disruptive pricing for flagship camera tech. So yes, no innovation here, and Sony had this stuff already for few years, but not in an affordable body.
Ultimately, all cameras will likely have stacked sensors, in few years maybe. Nikon starts this ‘trickle down’ with Z8.
Tells me about the margins Sony has been enjoying with A1 A9 bodies.
p.13 #9 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
molson wrote:
My apologies - the original blunder was on the part of another user, not you:
You kept incessantly trying to defend their bad math, so much so that I had forgotten who had originally posted it.
There is one factor I had failed to consider when comparing the relative systems - the big Nikon telephoto lenses are not actually available, so you save quite a bit of cost and weight going the Nikon route, whereas with Sony you would be bogged down with those exceptionally good 200-600mm, 400mm f2.8, and 600mm f4 lenses.
While the GM 400/2.8 and 600/4 are great and available in Sony if I remember getting both will cost me $25,000 I don’t have even if Sony has them. Nikon has a Z 400/4.5 @ $3000 and the adaptable 500/5.6 PF at $2600 used. Those are both available and affordable for me. So consider buying a Z8 to support them even if I have a A1 and a FE 200-600 G. Thats because each is between 1000 to 800 grams less in weight. So it would be a point solution to use along side Sony.
If I didn’t consider this what alternative is there? Any suggestions?
p.13 #10 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Or just carry couple of more batteries
1bwana1 wrote:
Don't forget the two usb ports on the Z8 that allow charging, and charging while shooting. This will enable a number of mitigation strategies even if what you are doing tends to eat battery power. Remember the Z8 battery charges at approximately 1% per minute through the USB port.
Shooting landscapes or video from a tripod? Just strap a battery bank to the tripod and connect it. Pretty much unlimited shooting on a single battery then.
Driving between subjects? Just plug your Z8 into a USB port in your car. Battery will most times be full by the time you get there.
Hiking? just have a battery bank strapped to your backpack strap, or in the bag, and charge will walking.
Stopping for a coffee or something to eat? What coffee shop, or restaurant doesn't have charging ports these days?
You get the point. Add your own mitigation strategy to deal with your situation. I wouldn't waste my time worrying about the Z8 CIPA ratings.
p.13 #12 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
I missed the a7RV announcement as i was too caught up in other stuff. Surprised to hear it has better AF than A1 !
arbitrage wrote:
I have a hard time ranking the DSLRs against the MILCs. There are so many advantages to MILCs that I would never go back to a DSLR. I kept my D500 around for a long time (right up to the Z9 release) and every time I decided to pick it up and shoot it, I'd put it down after an hour and go back to the MILCs I'd come to love. But that wasn't because of the AF, it was just because of the many other things I like about shooting MILCs.
All I can say about the DSLRs is Nikon had some magic sauce in the AF for their final generation of DSLRs. Something Canon couldn't touch.
Specific to the D850/D500 vs Z9/Z8 for AF there are two sides to the story...the Z9/Z8 are better because of the BEAF and because of the full sensor tracking. They are also more consistent in focusing due to focusing on the sensor and not bouncing light down to an AF sensor in the floor of the mirror box.
However, as I said in the previous post, I think the D850/D500 (shot in Auto AF or Zone AF) are better at acquisition which includes at distance and over complicated backgrounds than the Z9/Z8.
But I would always choose a Z9/Z8 over a D500/D850. You will get more keepers even if you have to struggle with acquisition in certain situations compared to the DSLRs. But for most situations the Z9/Z8 will acquire, will track over the whole frame, will give you a blackout free live feed as you follow the action and actively fire the shutter and will have more accurate AF due to on sensor AF. Not to mention you will get 20FPS compared to 9-10FPS.
If we focus just on the MILCs then I'll copy and paste what I posted the other day in that R5 vs Z8 thread. My rankings of the AF systems overall (and yes with a focus on more difficult, fast, erratic BIF) VS my ranking of what I'd buy which takes into account a lot of other factors like MPs, FPS, quality of life improvements and even lens selection.
My AF ranking: A7RV>A1>A9II>R3>R5>Z8/Z9
My camera I would buy for BIF: A1>Z8>Z9>A9II>R3>R5>A7RV
As you can see, my #1 AF ranking goes to last place for camera I'd buy to do BIF (especially any type of challenging BIF).
p.13 #13 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Yea don't shoot birds. Im half serious here. If you put in what you need and estimate what kind of results you want then it's pretty darn expensive if you don't have another need. For me it's easy birds can't write checks to me. Im about revenue but totally understand the desire to photograph them but also the other problem is you want the really nice clean images that others spending the real money are getting as well. No question if there was a 300mm 2.8 I would have one but I also have that need that generates revenue. As soon as you throw in the magic word revenue then the whole thing shifts into another frame set. So if you want more standard costs then you're looking more at the zooms. No bird on the planet will let me spend 12 grand on them.
This is one area you really have to watch yourself and frankly any brand can and will get you in trouble with the spouse. This whole Nikon Vs Sony thing is frankly just BS to be honest. And don't get me wrong I like birds and wildlife but you need to realize its a lost revenue stream and no the 2 images you may sell can't make up the 12 grand for the lens.
p.13 #14 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
I'll preface by saing that I think Z8 is looking like a great camera at even greater price (the only thing that in my mind can preven it from reaching greatness is battery life, it if proves to be irritating, but that's personal in the end), but:
nandadevieast wrote:
30 fps RAW is compressed, both cameras shoot 20 fps RAW in lossless
the statement about compressed and lossless while true, can be deceiving to a lot of people who don't know the details. In short, when you're shooting stuff that needs 30 fps, it's extremely unlikely that you will meet the conditions required for the compression artifacts to be visible:
* around ISO100
* extreme contrast transition across 16 (AFAIR) pixels (e.g. night sky -> something illuminated by other light source).
I don't shoot astro or nightscapes at 30 fps, but then the artifacts could be visible. The closest case I can think of are fireworks, so I'll have to try that one day. Maybe some kind of night BiF (bats?) photography, but I'm not aware if something like this even exists. Of course, if you have an example shot at 30fps where those compression artifacts are visible, I'd be very happy to see it.
Now, I also believe that at the price Sony is asking for A1, it should be 30 fps lossless. It is what it is though .
p.13 #15 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
I see stepper motor stepping in on this thread in 2023….cannot stop smiling because last i was here was a while back, and even then it was a parallel sub theme that keept being discussed amongst few members no matter what the thread was !
Lets make a thread ‘All stepper motor discussion here’ !
p.13 #16 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Shocked you guys having found the exact best combination equipment for every person on the planet.
You can do it!
May 13, 2023 at 10:00 AM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.13 #17 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
nandadevieast wrote:
We can take 2-3 batteries..
no, you have to buy more batteries with the z8 in order to use it, which was also true with the z9.
the advantage with z8 over z9 is that you don't have to carry the battery weight in your hand, but it's still a porky brick compared to sony.
nikon does not know how to make efficient cameras; inefficiency = more waste heat = greater potential for overheating, that's why nikon gave the z8 a lower video recording time spec.
nandadevieast wrote:
30 fps RAW is compressed, both cameras shoot 20 fps RAW in lossless
1)having compressed raw is far better than no raw at all,
2)sony compressed raws have xlnt p.q.
nikon 30fps is heavily compressed jpeg, it's not even their best jpeg quality, z8/z9 are simply not in the 30fps a1/r3 class of cameras.
nikon had 1.5 years to fix that with the z8, but they didn't improve the camera at all... i don't know of any other brand that has released duplicate cameras like that, with the same target market.
p.13 #18 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
1bwana1 wrote:
Yep, as I said, different sets of compromises with each way of getting to the same field of view. Pick which one you prefer. For me right now I prefer smaller/lighter/more flexible.
I can travel the World with just 3 relatively small light lenses in a shoulder bag and cover from 17mm to 420mm with no FL gaps in coverage. I just need to be aware of my compromises and shoot to accommodate them. I end up with images like this one which has IQ I am happy with.
What three lenses are you using? If a TC is one of them, fine, but I count that as a lens since I have primes that are no bigger.
p.13 #19 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
swldstn wrote:
What three lenses are you using? If a TC is one of them, fine, but I count that as a lens since I have primes that are no bigger.
I don't count the TC as a lens. Just two ways of looking at it I guess. The other three are all 2.8 zooms. 17-28, 28-75, 70-200.
I also have very small primes for my Leica M11.
Yes, I could come up with a smaller kit from my lens collection by using primes. Even smaller with MF primes. But this kit is extremely capable, and flexible. My experience with it shows that i can get pretty much and shot I want when I am traveling with it.
p.13 #20 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
osv2 wrote:
so you agree that vcm is superior "sure they do!", but you can't understand how a company that puts vcm in all of their lenses "leads the pack"? that doesn't make sense.
the difference here is that nikon had vcm back in 2011 or earlier, but quit using it until just recently; now they are trumpeting it as being better than any other lens motor technology, but you can't have it unless you pay $10k+ for a lens!
No, I said they offer an advantage, not that they are superior in every aspect. The things that are going to be important from a design standpoint for consumer electronics - low-power, compactness etc will outweigh top-end performance. I gave the example of why some lenses are using two or four motors, because even the weaker performance is preferable to the other advantages. As an engineer, I can see a design being completely different if the priority is performance, reliability, or compactness. I personally would prefer a simple design with fewer moving parts.
