1bwana1 wrote:
In my opinion if your question was sincere you made no mistake in posting it where and how you did. The primary fault in this thread is the knee jerk aggressive responses from some of the Nikon fanboys. But we must give them some slack in this regard. They had to suffer some years of abuse during the time Nikon was lagging badly. Those days are now past. But some haven't recognized that yet and tend to be overly sensitive still.
This is the exact type of post that everyone bags on you for Steve. Just drop these posts and you'll be much more liked on this subforum
RoamingScott wrote:
This is the exact type of post that everyone bags on you for Steve. Just drop these posts and you'll be much more liked on this subforum
Except that I do believe many of the Nikon guys are insecure and overly aggressive. The Nikon forum has a reputation that way. It is not just my view. They try and say that it is because Sony people are posting in "their" Forum. Maybe they prefer to only talk with people they agree with. But the World doesn't work that way thankfully. That doesn't make them bad guys. I understand why it is so. I like discussing things most with all of them.
So, let me ask you a direct question. Do you believe that Nikon went through some difficult times in the recent past?
Do you believe that Nikon took some very severe criticism during that time? Much of it unfair and based on falsehood about Nikon economic position?
Do you believe that Nikon has done a remarkable job releasing really excellent products recently, and re-engineering the company back into a profitable and sustainable enterprise?
If so, then we are in basic agreement. That is what I based this post on.
I don't have a personal issue with anyone here on FM. I say what I think, but endeavor to do so politely. Honestly, I do find your tone and choice of words much more aggressive and confrontational than mine in many cases. But that is you. I understand and accept that.
Sony doesn't have these issues even in their previous generation cameras. . I much prefer the simple straight forward workflow of the Sony AF system. It just works, and doesn't seem to be as finicky about small things in the workflow as the Nikon cameras."
I think part of the reason you are getting responses you're unhappy with is because your burden for proof is extremely low when trying to support your views. You linked to a thread where someone made a few comments about the Zf autofocus without any context, sample images, atomos footage - nothing of the sort. Further we know nothing about the person's ability, testing methodology, the shooting conditions, the camera settings, etc. Seemingly based on that, you make the comment "Sony doesn't have these issues even in their previous generation cameras".
Using the same standard of evidence, I can very easily find similar comments made about Sony cameras, and not only that, but I have seen Sony AF experience similar problems while using them myself. Based on those anecdotes, would you then agree that Sony does in fact have those same issues, or is the standard of proof higher when we are discussing your brand of choice?
You then made another comment:
"The elephant in the room of course is why such a complex set of interdependancies in settings, and difficult work flows to get AF to work properly when no other manufacturers have such issues? Especially in a camera with reduced programmable controls to deal with it?"
Once again, I can easily find reports where people are complaining about the complexity of the Sony AF system. In fact, I was out this weekend standing in a group of 3-4 other photographers taking pictures of an owl sitting high up in a tree and since we were there for about a half hour we were chatting, hoping it would move (there was a branch obstructing part of it). The lady beside me had an A1 and 200-600 and not only did she complain that her camera couldn't find the owl, but that she was struggling to understand all the options she has for AF. Another gentlemen who also had a Sony body was trying to help her and they were still going through menu settings when I moved on to look for other wildlife. There is a very real example of someone who struggled with the AF and found the settings difficult to manage. Why does Sony have these issues and why did my camera have no trouble finding the owl? I'm being facetious but you get the point.
Both Nikon and Sony have AF modes that "just work" for the most part. I believe the A1 still requires you select your specific subject type for subject detection to work, so there is an extra step there unless that has changed with FW, but probably not a big deal for most people. I've actually been shooting in full Auto AF for a long time now with excellent results, but both brands benefit from tweaking of AF settings for optimal results depending on the situation. No camera performs it's best out of the box with no changes to AF settings in my experience. I don't know what these difficult workflows are that you are talking about, as I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had to change my AF settings other than when intentionally doing so to experiment.
When people disagree with you based on their own experience or ask you to back up your statements with objective evidence, you call them fanboys or sensitive. How can you expect to have an intelligent conversation or debate if that's your mindset? When you insult everyone who doesn't accept your narrative, while in the next breath say you respond to people politely, how can we take you seriously? We're all here trying to help each other for the most part, there's no need to be disrespectful.
To be honest, I did not know that my thread is going to draw attention like that
RE the other thread: You want to upgrade your A7C, mostly for a better EVF experience when shooting Voigtlander lenses but also for improved AF?
A7III (because you mentioned it in the other thread): 1/8000th shutter and slightly better EVF than the A7C. Cheap.
A7RIII Same as above but better EVF and screen (RIIIA), less PDAF coverage (still good, fast AF though), amazing sensor and processor.
A7CII: Similar to what you have now but with more resolution, much better IBIS and better AF. Slightly better screen and EVF. 1/4000th shutter. Lots of other small upgrades. Slightly cheaper than the Zf.
Z6: Better EVF than the A7C or A7III. 1/8000th shutter. Worse AF than the A7C you already have (IMO). Cheap.
Zf: Better than the Z6 and A7C for everything except handling (IMO). Much better IBIS. Shutter, EVF and screen (double the res.) all better than the A7CII.
Sensors: some will prefer the Zf (sllightly better low light, filmic look etc.) which is quite similar to what you have now, some will prefer the A7CII which offers more resolution. Might be worth checking out some sample images.
CanadaMark wrote:
I think part of the reason you are getting responses you're unhappy with is because your burden for proof is extremely low when trying to support your views. You linked to a thread where someone made a few comments about the Zf autofocus without any context, sample images, atomos footage - nothing of the sort. Further we know nothing about the person's ability, testing methodology, the shooting conditions, the camera settings, etc. Seemingly based on that, you make the comment "Sony doesn't have these issues even in their previous generation cameras".
Using the same standard of evidence, I can very easily find similar comments made about Sony cameras, and not only that, but I have seen Sony AF experience similar problems while using them myself. Based on those anecdotes, would you then agree that Sony does in fact have those same issues, or is the standard of proof higher when we are discussing your brand of choice?
You then made another comment:
"The elephant in the room of course is why such a complex set of interdependancies in settings, and difficult work flows to get AF to work properly when no other manufacturers have such issues? Especially in a camera with reduced programmable controls to deal with it?"
Once again, I can easily find reports where people are complaining about the complexity of the Sony AF system. In fact, I was out this weekend standing in a group of 3-4 other photographers taking pictures of an owl sitting high up in a tree and since we were there for about a half hour we were chatting, hoping it would move (there was a branch obstructing part of it). The lady beside me had an A1 and 200-600 and not only did she complain that her camera couldn't find the owl, but that she was struggling to understand all the options she has for AF. Another gentlemen who also had a Sony body was trying to help her and they were still going through menu settings when I moved on to look for other wildlife. There is a very real example of someone who struggled with the AF and found the settings difficult to manage. Why does Sony have these issues and why did my camera have no trouble finding the owl? I'm being facetious but you get the point.
Both Nikon and Sony have AF modes that "just work" for the most part. I believe the A1 still requires you select your specific subject type for subject detection to work, so there is an extra step there unless that has changed with FW, but probably not a big deal for most people. I've actually been shooting in full Auto AF for a long time now with excellent results, but both brands benefit from tweaking of AF settings for optimal results depending on the situation. No camera performs it's best out of the box with no changes to AF settings in my experience. I don't know what these difficult workflows are that you are talking about, as I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had to change my AF settings other than when intentionally doing so to experiment.
When people disagree with you based on their own experience or ask you to back up your statements with objective evidence, you call them fanboys or sensitive. How can you expect to have an intelligent conversation or debate if that's your mindset? When you insult everyone who doesn't accept your narrative, while in the next breath say you respond to people politely, how can we take you seriously? We're all here trying to help each other for the most part, there's no need to be disrespectful....Show more →
Any you are free to post just such things if that is how you see it. In fact I encourage you to do so.
I will say that my opinion stated in that is not gathered from just that thread. I have tried the camera twice myself. Even Nikon evangelists like Thom Hogan have similar views on the lack of programmable controls on the Zf when especially when using the Nikon AF workflow. But the thread I was taking part in that you quote here was discussing a very complex interdependency in the ZF between IBIS and Focus Point stabilization. These seems to be causing issues at a minimum in complexity. So much so that some of those discussing it were reporting it as a bug to Nikon. My comments were on subject, and are not even outliers in this instance.
In any case it is not a requirement to exhastfully prove the validity of every opinion I post about. None of us do that including you.
I agree that there is plenty to criticize the Sony cameras on, including the A1. But it is not a requirement to bring those things up in all discussions. In fact there were some posts in this very thread that were highly critical of the new small Sony offerings. No one got all upset over those posts. The reposes to that post mostly were polite statements about that not being the right camera for that poster.
Look I posted my sincere position. You objected. I posted what I though of your objection. We are all entitled to do just that.
It is my opinion that the Nikon guys here have the reputation they do for a reason. They have earned it. Like I have said, it doesn't make them bad guys in my view.
I think that about sums it all up. Let's move on and have some fun discussing photography, and it's technology.
Where do the “Nikon guys” have a reputation except in your own mind?
Considering your own reputation why should we be worried?
If anything expressing disagreement with your subtly biased views, typically portrayed as deriving from the naturally superior position of someone knowing better, would appear to be a mandatory, if not sufficient, condition towards objectivity.
Where do the “Nikon guys” have a reputation except in your own mind?
Considering your own reputation why should we be worried?
If anything expressing disagreement with your subtly biased views, typically portrayed as deriving from the naturally superior position of someone knowing better, would appear to be a mandatory, if not sufficient, condition towards objectivity.
Cheers,
Bernard
No one is expecting you to be worried. No one even implied that.
Just search the threads in other Forums. Plenty of references there on this subject.
You are encouraged to express whatever opinions you have. Natural, objective or not.
I won't take personal credit for it of course, but when I started posting on the Nikon subforum, there were quite a few old heads that still viewed mirrorless as the devil, Sony as the root of all evil, and so forth. After repeatedly refusing to take any shit from posters like that (or simply hiding them), this forum because easy to post on with little drama.
Most of the drama today is stirred up from one direction, and it's not from Nikon shooters. Weird how that works. We tend to help each other where we can as we can, as we are enjoying our equipment and the shots we get with it.
Now, I may be abrasive and straight to the point, but at least I have years of first hand experience backing up my posts. Can't say that for certain people that can't leave well enough alone. I know better than to lump everyone together on any particular board. Many of us took a winding road to shooting Nikon now, many of us through Sony land first. Your schtick isn't just tired, Steve, it's insulting and would embarrass me if I were in your shoes.
1bwana1 wrote:
...But the thread I was taking part in that you quote here was discussing a very complex interdependency in the ZF between IBIS and Focus Point stabilization. These seems to be causing issues at a minimum in complexity. So much so that some of those discussing it were reporting it as a bug to Nikon...
Assuming you're referring to my report about the Zf's "Link VR to focus point" feature, in which case:
I don't think the feature is turned on by default on the Zf. Regardless, it's a brand new feature, and the Zf firmware is just at version 1.0. Further, I only can report the issue with one specific lens, specific distance, and only with certain AF modes. One person also reported similar issues but did not elaborate. It's not even certain this is a true bug.
We know from the Zf manual that N-log with its extremely low contrast and wide dynamic range can cause issues with autofocus. Nikon says this is "not a malfunction". I most often use Neutral or Flat picture profiles – that combined with a lower contrast lens like the 40 f/2 I was using could be contributing factors.
All that just to say, it's probably not fair to point to that specific issue and use it as an example of a core flaw in Nikon's AF. It's just a new feature that was causing issues for me in very specific conditions. I think it was my very long description of what those conditions were that makes it seem like a bigger deal than it is. We can't conflate the complexity of when/how/where a potential firmware bug can present itself with how impactful the issue is or isn't.
highdesertmesa wrote:
All that just to say, it's probably not fair to point to that specific issue and use it as an example of a core flaw in Nikon's AF. It's just a new feature that was causing issues for me in very specific conditions. I think it was my very long description of what those conditions were that makes it seem like a bigger deal that it is. We can't conflate the complexity of when/how/where a potential firmware bug can present itself with how impactful the issue is or isn't.
I am not extending that to say the Nikon's AF is flawed at its core. I am saying that it is in my experience more finicky and has a sometimes more complex workflow with handoff techniques and such. Other AF system that I have used are more more simple to high hit rate results with. This is more important when the number of programable controls is reduced. This is a view that is shared by many, including people like Thom Hogan who is very proficient and knowledgeable with Nikon, which is his chosen system.
The subject of Af in the Zf was the topic from the original poster. I linked to your thread so he could read it and decide for himself. I think that is fair.
RoamingScott wrote:
Most of the drama today is stirred up from one direction, and it's not from Nikon shooters.
Well I have never hid anyone. But please show me in my first answer to the OP where I tried to stir things up. That was the post that led to all this boring B.S..
Just for a little balance here are some quotes and links from our friend BernardL where declarative statements of superiority are made without and outside backup as demanded from my simple post. A little more balance in demanding proof seems to be in order.
Leader in what? Not sales or market share, use by sport, or photjournalists. Many would disagree, no documentation.
These are just a couple of examples from the few I looked at on the first page of his post log. There is a word for this and it is not "objective" as claimed.
Why not demand the same level of backup for these statements.
1bwana1 wrote:
I am not extending that to say the Nikon's AF is flawed at its core. I am saying that it is in my experience more finicky and has a sometimes more complex workflow with handoff techniques and such. Other AF system that I have used are more more simple to high hit rate results with. This is more important when the number of programable controls is reduced. This is a view that is shared by many, including people like Thom Hogan who is very proficient and knowledgeable with Nikon, which is his chosen system.
The subject of Af in the Zf was the topic from the original poster. I linked to your thread so he could read it and decide for himself. I think that is fair....Show more →
Your experience or your perception? It's an important distinction.
Well, I will be brutally honest. I actually like the visual design aspect of Sony more than ZFC. I like the design, the muted silver finish. Viewfinder looks like an afterthought unresolved design but other than that, it looks sexy. it can be few steps simpler to be at the level of Minolta CLE. Or may need. A drastic step, a la Apple level simplicity. However, clearly, it is a piece of industrial design I respect more than a reference to the past in an easy way out manner I see in Zf. Zf is not a horrible design, it is not ugly, but I don’t see any rigor in the design itself. . Nikon, in my little world, has never won ‘ good design’ award from me. They have won ‘amazing camera’ award, not the design award. I love Nikon for what they do with the camera, and that is why I wanted to use Nikon D70. Aesthetically , they are ‘meh’, usually a B to A- at best for the aesthetics. Sony is usually A- to some As. Like this one, to me, is a solid A. Zf is a B+ .
All of this, of course, is subjective and has nothing to do with whether I will buy the Sony. That requires Form to meet functions at minimum, and if I were looking to change platform or not, which I am not.
Not much time anymore for this, but you will notice one first important difference... these claims were made by a Nikon user in the Nikon forum. I have never posted in the Sony or Canon forums, not a single time in my life as far as I recall. Probably not even when I was shooting Sony btw.
On your "points", in a few seconds:
- The only other camera offering in camera full frame raw at 8K60 in 12bits without theoretical time limit is the R5 but with well documented over heating issues. No other camera does this short of RED, this is purely factual. I'll amend that with the new video centric R5 C that is probably close to Z9 level but suffers from ruggedness issues since it requires a fan to bypass its structural inability to dissipate heat.
The Sony FX pro video cameras are of course great tools with a proven track record and many video centric capabilities that the Z9 lacks since it targets different usage use cases (the Z9 targeting hybrid shooters doing both still and video, typically for nature/wildlife/sports/events/...)... but in terms of video quality they happen to trail the Z9. This is a fact that I am not particularly sad or happy about. And that's all I wrote in the post that you quoted.
Some of the Black Magic cameras are very interesting too, but they typically use a smaller sensor. Panasonic GH are amazing but small sensors and no in camera 12 bits raw,... the list goes on.
Do you have first hand experience with video (perhaps some footage you shot available online?) or some facts proving me wrong or are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?
- The lead of Nikon DSLRs in terms of image quality (high ISO noise, low ISO DR,...), AF,... was documented in literally hundreds of tests throughout these years. Any objective reader knows. This is the main reason why Canon users fled massively towards Sony mirrorless together with the ability to adapt their EF lenses with reasonably good AF (far from as good as what can be achieved adapting Sony FE mount lenses on Z camera, but still usable).
To be honest, I did not know that my thread is going to draw attention like that
Is that it? With a smiley face.. Really?? No response? Ar you saying, “Why can’t we just get along?” with a smiley face May be this thread should be closed.
Is that it? With a smiley face.. Really?? No response? Ar you saying, “Why can’t we just get along?” with a smiley face May be this thread should be closed.
Luka
Agreed.
Zf has only been out for what, a week? How is anyone supposed to have compared the Zf to the Sonys the OP mentioned much less recommend one over the other?
The original post is what I call carpet bombing for information. When it's all over, they like to walk through the smoldering rubble looking for what's useful. Just because the OP genuinely wanted information doesn't mean the post wasn't soft-trolling to get it.
Not much time anymore for this, but you will notice one first important difference... these claims were made by a Nikon user in the Nikon forum. I have never posted in the Sony or Canon forums, not a single time in my life as far as I recall. Probably not even when I was shooting Sony btw.
On your "points", in a few seconds:
- The only other camera offering in camera full frame raw at 8K60 in 12bits without theoretical time limit is the R5 but with well documented over heating issues. No other camera does this short of RED, this is purely factual. I'll amend that with the new video centric R5 C that is probably close to Z9 level but suffers from ruggedness issues since it requires a fan to bypass its structural inability to dissipate heat.
The Sony FX pro video cameras are of course great tools with a proven track record and many video centric capabilities that the Z9 lacks since it targets different usage use cases (the Z9 targeting hybrid shooters doing both still and video, typically for nature/wildlife/sports/events/...)... but in terms of video quality they happen to trail the Z9. This is a fact that I am not particularly sad or happy about. And that's all I wrote in the post that you quoted.
Some of the Black Magic cameras are very interesting too, but they typically use a smaller sensor. Panasonic GH are amazing but small sensors and no in camera 12 bits raw,... the list goes on.
Do you have first hand experience with video (perhaps some footage you shot available online?) or some facts proving me wrong or are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?
- The lead of Nikon DSLRs in terms of image quality (high ISO noise, low ISO DR,...), AF,... was documented in literally hundreds of tests throughout these years. Any objective reader knows. This is the main reason why Canon users fled massively towards Sony mirrorless together with the ability to adapt their EF lenses with reasonably good AF (far from as good as what can be achieved adapting Sony FE mount lenses on Z camera, but still usable).
I am not objecting to your opinion on whether or not the Nikon is superior in video. I only used it as an example to show where declarative statements of superiority were made without the level of proof you started attacking me for. I fully support you right to have and post whatever opinions you are sincere about. But realize many will disagree. That is no big deal either.
I happily state that I actually have no personal opinion on video as I don't shoot it. So I won't and haven't challenged you on your technical points. But from the outside looking at the level of content being produced, the Sony cameras are being used regularly for far more more challenging, and significant video work than the Nikon cameras are. It makes one wonder if the Nikons are so superior why that is the case. Are these major studio people so ignorant that they can't recognize which system is best? I do doubt that. I am thinking that "best" isn't being defined by those specifications you mention. That a wider look at the total camera ecosystem plays an important role in this. It is also true that the number one camera in the market for independent creators is also Sony. Sony's camera division, outside of their movie cameras, now gets 40% of its revenue from video creators. So for small or large creators the Sony is prefered in the market. Is the market that inefficient. Again I doubt that.
Whether you are a Nikon user in a Nikon forum I don't find to be important at all. In my opinion that gives you no special posting privileges. I am also a Nikon shooter since 2013, and still have a Nikon setup. In fact, last year I won a major photo contest with one of my Nikon made images. Does that now give me rights to post without linked evidence? I don't think so. That was what I was asked for. Your expanding on why you have your beliefs doesn't satisfy that requirement either.
I stand by opinion that my first post in this thread was not troll like or inflammatory in any way. It was a sincere valid opinion, politely written. No worse for sure than those posts I linked to of yours. If you find my declarative position objectionable, what fundamental difference is there from your posts.
Just asking for a little balance is all.
I agree that we have wasted enough of everyone's time with this silly discussion. I harbor no ill feeling towards anyone over it.
May be this thread should be closed.