Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 … 5 6 end

Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

Hi All, I currently have a Nikon Z6 and am planning to upgrade to either the Z8 or R5. Does anyone have any real world experience regarding how these two compare with respect specifically to the AF performance in indoor low light. My Z6 tends to hunt a fair bit which I can't handle any longer.

Feb 26, 2024 at 05:20 PM

bernardl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

No direct experience comparing these 2 in low light, but to me Canon is ruled from the onset for the following reasons:
- largely inferior native lenses line up
- inability to adapt other mirrorless mount lenses
- no third party lenses support despite rumors for years
- typical delay of several years compared to Sony/Nikon in terms of the latest sensor tech
- low value firmware update policy
- habit of introducing nasty half hidden limitations in their gear, from the heating issue of the R5 with video to lenses not supporting TC or only in a sub set of the range
- unique UI which differs too much from other brands I am using such as Fuji and P1
- ...

Feb 26, 2024 at 06:02 PM

Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

bernardl wrote:
No direct experience comparing these 2 in low light, but to me Canon is ruled from the onset for the following reasons:
- largely inferior native lenses line up
- inability to adapt other mirrorless mount lenses
- no third party lenses support despite rumors for years
- typical delay of several years compared to Sony/Nikon in terms of the latest sensor tech
- low value firmware update policy
- habit of introducing nasty half hidden limitations in their gear, from the heating issue of the R5 with video to lenses not supporting TC or only in a sub set of the range
- unique UI...Show more →

You got the religion. Preach, dude preach!

Feb 26, 2024 at 06:05 PM

CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

They both focus pretty well in low light, I doubt you would have many complaints about either up until the point where you quit shooting for other reasons. Both are a big step up from the Z6 AF system. In terms of manufacturer claims, the Z8 will focus a full stop darker and 3 stops darker in starlight mode than the R5. I shoot a lot of BIF in the late evening and the AF on the Z8/Z9 works just as well as it does in brighter conditions by the time I quit shooting after the sun goes down as my limit is usually around ISO 12,800-25,600 max. In other words, it will still very easily track BIF at the point where I feel like I am having to make too many compromises in terms of ISO/shutter speed and call it a day.

Any AF complaints you have with your Z6 will be solved and then some if you move to a Z8 - totally different world.

It's hard to directly compare the shooting experience between an R5 and Z8 because the R5 does not have a stacked sensor, so it does not get the blackout-free EVF, there is visible lag both while shooting and especially when switching between live view and the 'slide show' during continuous shooting, and the AF cannot update nearly as fast as a stacked sensor body. I haven't seen any credible info yet that the R5 will be moving to a stacked sensor for the Mark II version, but who knows. My guess is that it won't have a stacked sensor as Canon tries to protect the R1, but I'd love to be wrong.

Feb 26, 2024 at 06:19 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

Feb 26, 2024 at 07:20 PM

suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

I shot Z7 + 50/1.2S side by side with R5 + 50/1.2 RF in a dimly lit restaurant at night with
paneled dark glasses facing the street so you get some car's headlight from the street in the background.
This is one situation, one time experience shooting static person, mind you, Z7 grab the face faster and R5 more frequently focussed the background rather than the person in front. Both are very usable in that situation but I would give Z7 a slight edge there. However, that was quite a few years ago, no idea if there is any improvement on R5 parts from fw upgrade or anything or not. Since then, my friend switched to R8 for something smaller for casual shooting when we go out.

Feb 26, 2024 at 08:14 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

Hi Gary, hope all is well!

I transitioned from the Canon 1DX series cameras to the crappy R6II and have been using it for all my paid work, including sports like NFL all the way down to local youth hockey tournaments. For the latter I'm using my adapted EF 200-400 and often in the ISO 12,800 range to stay around 1/500 or 1/640 shutter speed. I've even had some games in the ISO 20,000 range, which felt noticeably darker, yet the camera continued to track subjects acceptably for action photos.

Before settling on the crappy R6II I tested all the Canon FF mirrorless options up to the R3 and found they were extremely comparable in respect to AF performance relevant to my needs (sports and events coverage). The R5 had a better EVF panel (brighter, wider dynamic range) than the R6 series but indeed the R5/R6 generation (as opposed to the newer R6II) do have a slightly less smooth shot to shot EVF experience, but are much better in e-shutter continuous advance. If you use EFCS or mechanical you will get some blackout (due to the nature of the mechanical shutter). The e-shutter EVF experience with these models is still not quite as good as stacked. R6II does have some subtle improvements over the R5/R6 for shooting action, in respect to EVF performance that were significant enough for me to choose it over those two, in addition to slightly better rolling shutter performance than those two, which as FSI sensors, notably outperform all other non-stacked sensors, including BSI models, of comparable resolution. I suspect the R5II will further improve on this, but of course will have to be confirmed whenever it's released.

If you're not already invested in EF lenses then you'll likely benefit a lot less from the near seamless integration of EF lenses adapted to the RF mount. But you certainly would be able to add EF lenses if they met your needs/requirements while covering minor gaps in the RF line-up. This also holds true for adapting third party EF lenses that previously may have been less reliable for AF performance on Canon's DSLRs. But indeed, there is a significant lack of 'official' native RF third party options (only a few manual focus lenses from Voigtlander). But there's no problem adapting any 'vintage' mechanical SLR and rangefinder glass to RF. And if any of those are on chipped EF adapters, you should benefit from Canon's 'focus assist' function that will support subject/face/eye detection/tracking in manual focus with such adapted lenses.

From my point of view I'm content with Canon's RF lens offerings and don't feel pangs of remorse for the decision to stay with Canon when I could have easily made a brand change as part of my mirrorless transition. In fact, there were certain lenses only available from Canon that kept me in the system, such as lack of native 200-400 equivalent from the others and no RF 28-70/2 equivalent. Plus I like the compactness of the extending zoom design of the 70-200s. But that's me and my needs for event coverage and field sports. Nikon sure does have some nice options at relatively reasonable price points if you're a bird/wildlife photographer.

All that said, if you're already invested in decent Nikon glass, it sure looks like the Z8 is a great camera on paper, at a very competitive price compared to the competition. Whenever the R5II lands, Canon is certain to price it at a premium for as long as they can. Meanwhile the Z8 has been out a while, bugs have been identified and likely resolved, and perhaps there's a bit more price flexibility now (no idea as I don't regularly follow Nikon pricing).

I feel bottom line is that the actual use differences probably won't be huge. Factors other than in-the-field performance may have greater influence on which way to go.

Feb 26, 2024 at 09:35 PM

lukemeup
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

Base your decision on the lenses you want to shoot with. You live in a big city - go to a camera store and test both bodies in crappy camera store light. Don't listen to opinions from internet experts (you'll get many different ones that may or may not be correct).

Btw, Z6 vs Z8 AF - there's no comparison (you'll be blown away by the stacked sensor blackout free viewfinder experience as well. I was).

Feb 26, 2024 at 11:50 PM

cohenfive
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

I own both the R5 and the Z8, and like them both a lot. I know it's silly to straddle two systems, but I keep the Canon because I was able to snag an RF600 f4, and I keep the nikon because their pf lenses are without competition. Not to answer your question specifically because I don't shoot a lot in really low light, but generally I'd say the two cameras are about the same in terms of subject acquisition. If anything I might give the edge to the ancient R5, but only slightly. In terms of tracking, again the R5 is still no slouch although on many other things, the Z8 is just a better, and faster camera and more fun to use as a result. I think the Z8 is a bargain for around $3k mint used, and the R5 is a bargain at just over $2k mint used. So I would tend to agree that both will be a massive step up for you, so some of it comes down to what lenses you want to use. Especially in the longer focal lengths there are big differences in the two systems, with nikon's offerings having nothing comparable...at least not yet. In other focal lengths it seems more of a tossup to me.

Feb 27, 2024 at 12:21 AM

bernardl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

Gochugogi wrote:
You got the religion. Preach, dude preach!

What's not factual in what I wrote? These aspects may not matter to you but they do matter to me.
- I wouldn't want to use another 400mm f2.8 without a TC, living without a 400mm f4.5 would be hard as well. I love being able to choose between a top notch 85mm f1.8 S and a 85mm f1.2 S depending on the situation,... and when I use my 85mm f1.2 S I like it being a T1.3 lens and not a T1.5 lens like the Canon, these 0.2 Stops being why I pay big money for the lens,
- I use my Sony FE lenses through adapters which is great when I mix the 2 brands in a shoot
- I shoot with the native Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-2.8 and love it (just this Saturday it enabled me to both capture the latest landscape images on my Instagram and 20 minutes later ski action photographs), that lens isn't accessible to Canon users, so aren't the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 35mm f2.0 and 50mm f2.0 (they may come at some point)
- I wouldn't want to work without a high DR 45mp stacked sensor camera both for still and video and I have been able to do this for 2+ years and would have been able to do that for 3 years had I been a Sony user. I also prefer to apply my high ISO NR in post processing instead of my camera de-noising my raws without any user control like the R5 does,
- I didn't have to buy a new camera to get auto capture and pixel shift
- I can use my TCs with all my tele lenses from 70-200mm f2.8 to 180-600mm and can shoot for hours with my Z9 in Nraw 8K 60p if needed without having to buy a separate dedicated video camera,
- I switch easily between my Z8 and GFX-100II because the physical controls are very similar

What exactly would Canon offer me that Nikon or Sony don't?
- I first thought that the 28-70mm f2.0 was one appeal of the RF system then I checked the IQ in details and the look of oof highlight alone told me what I needed to know. Sure enough Canon is already rumored to be about to update this lens. Too bad for early adopters who trusted the brand. Besides 28mm isn't wide enough for that kind of lens,
- The 24-105mm f2.8 would come handy at times, but I can live without it,
- The 100-300mm f2.8 is absolutely great but why on earth did they not equip it with a TC?
- The R1 may be great if rumors are true, we will see. It comes 3+ years too late honestly speaking.

Is any opinion about gear differing from "they are all good enough" the proof of an irrational liking of a brand? Are the points I listed above not all real world aspects impacting photography?

Cheers,
Bernard

Edited on Feb 27, 2024 at 07:21 AM · View previous versions

Feb 27, 2024 at 01:02 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

I guess you adapt the Sony 28-70/2? If you don't care about the 24-105/2.8 &;28-70/2, but are big into built in tc's, maybe your argument makes sense?

Bill Claff lists the R5 DR as higher than the Z8 & Z9, but apparently this is a negative for you somehow? R5 is listed as about the highest, on his site

My understanding is that the Nikon adapter is nowhere near the Canon, or does it allow the older lenses like Canon does? Of course I don't think it take any screw drive, for one thing

Feb 27, 2024 at 01:53 AM

alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

Feb 27, 2024 at 02:37 AM

bernardl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

AmbientMike wrote:
I guess you adapt the Sony 28-70/2? If you don't care about the 24-105/2.8 &;28-70/2, but are big into built in tc's, maybe your argument makes sense?

Bill Claff lists the R5 DR as higher than the Z8 & Z9, but apparently this is a negative for you somehow? R5 is listed as about the highest, on his site

My understanding is that the Nikon adapter is nowhere near the Canon, or does it allow the older lenses like Canon does? Of course I don't think it take any screw drive, for one thing

Answering to the 2 previous posters.

I believe this is on topic. The choice of a camera has to be made with awareness of the full system value, not just according to one isolated KPI about low light focusing. I don't see any brand war here, just a rationale fact based analysis of the merits of 2 systems. Those thinking that a 28-70mm f2.0 or 24-105mm f2.8 is what they need should definitely go Canon for now. I would be very interested in a list of the reasons why those preferring the R5 over the Z8 think it is a better solution for their needs and I will be more than willing to acknowledge any fact based argument. I don't believe that people with different backgrounds and opinions shouldn't talk with each others, on the contrary.

To answer your "questions":
- I adapt the Sony 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2
- A 28-70mm is of no use for what I do, be it 2.0 or f2.8. The move from 28-70mm f2.8 to 24-70mm f2.8 15 years ago was game changing, no intention to go back. I wouldn't be any more interested if Nikon had a 28-70mm f2.0,
- The value of Nikon's line up for serious shooters isn't limited to built-in TCs as mentioned above,
- If you read Bill Claff well you will see a little asterix that highlights the fact that the R5 DR numbers result from the application of noise reduction on the raw files in camera, so this isn't sensor DR. Since it's not possible to access real R5 raw files nobody knows how good the sensor is but Canon apparently thought that a little software help was needed,
- The FTZ takes all the Nikon lenses with built-in motors (AF-S onwards dating back 1998, 25 years ago) and they work better on mirrorless bodies that on native F mount cameras (Z8/Z9 vs D5/D6 comparison). Not sure how it could be any better than this. And I don't see how the Canon adapter is superior. The fact that Nikon kept the F mount while they moved to lenses with built-in motors instead of stranding all their users shouldn't be seen as a negative, should it? Anyway AF on those screw type older lenses is so slow that tracking isn't an option and MF with mirrorless bodies works just as well as AF-S on static subjects.

Adapting DSLR lenses to mirrorless isn't difficult. EF lenses through an adapter focus better on a Z8/Z9 that on a 1Dx mkII and I believe that F mount lenses adapted focus better on an R3 than on a D5/D6 also, although I haven't tried that.

I'll stop here.

Cheers,
Bernard

Feb 27, 2024 at 03:01 AM

Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

Thanks Ron! I appreciate the input from you and everyone else. I think the logical thing for me to do would be to pick up a used Z8 and see for myself. I do have a few lenses but certainly not heavily invested in the glass. Thanks again - take care.

rscheffler wrote:
Hi Gary, hope all is well!

I transitioned from the Canon 1DX series cameras to the crappy R6II and have been using it for all my paid work, including sports like NFL all the way down to local youth hockey tournaments. For the latter I'm using my adapted EF 200-400 and often in the ISO 12,800 range to stay around 1/500 or 1/640 shutter speed. I've even had some games in the ISO 20,000 range, which felt noticeably darker, yet the camera continued to track subjects acceptably for action photos.

Before settling on the crappy R6II I tested all the Canon FF mirrorless options up to the R3 and found they were extremely comparable in respect to AF performance relevant to my needs (sports and events coverage). The R5 had a better EVF panel (brighter, wider dynamic range) than the R6 series but indeed the R5/R6 generation (as opposed to the newer R6II) do have a slightly less smooth shot to shot EVF experience, but are much better in e-shutter continuous advance. If you use EFCS or mechanical you will get some blackout (due to the nature of the mechanical shutter). The e-shutter EVF experience with these models is still not quite as good as stacked. R6II does have some subtle improvements over the R5/R6 for shooting action, in respect to EVF performance that were significant enough for me to choose it over those two, in addition to slightly better rolling shutter performance than those two, which as FSI sensors, notably outperform all other non-stacked sensors, including BSI models, of comparable resolution. I suspect the R5II will further improve on this, but of course will have to be confirmed whenever it's released.

If you're not already invested in EF lenses then you'll likely benefit a lot less from the near seamless integration of EF lenses adapted to the RF mount. But you certainly would be able to add EF lenses if they met your needs/requirements while covering minor gaps in the RF line-up. This also holds true for adapting third party EF lenses that previously may have been less reliable for AF performance on Canon's DSLRs. But indeed, there is a significant lack of 'official' native RF third party options (only a few manual focus lenses from Voigtlander). But there's no problem adapting any 'vintage' mechanical SLR and rangefinder glass to RF. And if any of those are on chipped EF adapters, you should benefit from Canon's 'focus assist' function that will support subject/face/eye detection/tracking in manual focus with such adapted lenses.

From my point of view I'm content with Canon's RF lens offerings and don't feel pangs of remorse for the decision to stay with Canon when I could have easily made a brand change as part of my mirrorless transition. In fact, there were certain lenses only available from Canon that kept me in the system, such as lack of native 200-400 equivalent from the others and no RF 28-70/2 equivalent. Plus I like the compactness of the extending zoom design of the 70-200s. But that's me and my needs for event coverage and field sports. Nikon sure does have some nice options at relatively reasonable price points if you're a bird/wildlife photographer.

All that said, if you're already invested in decent Nikon glass, it sure looks like the Z8 is a great camera on paper, at a very competitive price compared to the competition. Whenever the R5II lands, Canon is certain to price it at a premium for as long as they can. Meanwhile the Z8 has been out a while, bugs have been identified and likely resolved, and perhaps there's a bit more price flexibility now (no idea as I don't regularly follow Nikon pricing).

I feel bottom line is that the actual use differences probably won't be huge. Factors other than in-the-field performance may have greater influence on which way to go.
...Show more →

Feb 27, 2024 at 09:53 AM

Hairy Heron
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

Gary Clennan wrote:
Hi All, I currently have a Nikon Z6 and am planning to upgrade to either the Z8 or R5. Does anyone have any real world experience regarding how these two compare with respect specifically to the AF performance in indoor low light. My Z6 tends to hunt a fair bit which I can't handle any longer.

I am not concerned with any other performance metrics at this point. Just AF performance in crappy indoor light. Also considering the R5M2 as it will be available fairly soon. Any help/advice would be appreciated! Thank you. PS - cross posted to...Show more →

I was a long time Nikon DSLR user (last was a D500 which I still miss, but I don't miss DSLR). Dabbled with both the Z6 and Z7II. Both disappointed me relative to the performance of the D500. I don't shoot indoor but I do shoot outdoor during low light situations -- golden and blue hour. Nikon AF in both of those bodies frustrated me enough that I tried out the R5 (first time I ever used a Canon ILC, though did own several P&S and video cams). I was hooked by the R5's comparatively sticky AF and subject tracking when there is nothing in the foreground competing with the subject.

I have not played with the Z8 but everything I've read and watched seems to put its AF at parity or near-parity with the R5. These are like Gen 2 mirrorless AF systems. I do anticipate the R5 II as a Gen 3 system to improve AF accuracy in low contrast situations and also incorporate a bit of AI to hone in on the subject rather than a close-to-object foreground -- similar to what photo edit app now do. Not perfect, but more accurate than current AF systems.

My advice, if you can wait until the fall when the R5 II should be in the wild, it may be worth your wait so you can compare R5 II vs Z8 to at least erase any doubts on your choice. It's not inexpensive to switch systems, I know, especially if you have a lot of lenses. Sometime unless the competing system is WOW it's not worth the effort. For me the R5 was definitely WOW vs both the Z6 and Z7 II's performance for wildlife. If I was a portrait or street shooter I probably would not have switched.

Feb 27, 2024 at 10:13 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

bernardl wrote:
Answering to the 2 previous posters.

I believe this is on topic. The choice of a camera has to be made with awareness of the full system value, not just according to one isolated KPI about low light focusing. I don't see any brand war here, just a rationale fact based analysis of the merits of 2 systems. Those thinking that a 28-70mm f2.0 or 24-105mm f2.8 is what they need should definitely go Canon for now. I would be very interested in a list of the reasons why those preferring the R5 over the Z8 think it is a better...Show more →

You don't seem very familiar with Nikon compatability problems at all. It's hard to keep track of if a certain lens af's on a certain body, need an entire chart, I might have gone Nikon years ago if D70 had metering using older lenses, even 80's film cameras had compatability issues. The Canon adapter takes EF lenses back to 1987, period

If you seriously think that the various cameras don't have NR corrections baked in, that is pretty doubtful, at best. Didn't see any asterix on Bill Claff for the R5, maybe I missed it. Did see the 6D ML, presumably Magic Lantern, having really high DR, I have doubts a lot of this is due to hardware

Even the Z8 is as heavy as the DSLR's that people complain about. I don't necessarily care, but if you are going mirrorless to get lighter, the R5 is lighter than the Z8, and MUCH lighter than the Z9. Cuts into the light tele advantage pretty good if you're not careful 400 DO II + R5 about the same as Z9 + 500pf

Feb 27, 2024 at 11:08 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

Hairy Heron wrote:
My advice, if you can wait until the fall when the R5 II should be in the wild, it may be worth your wait so you can compare R5 II vs Z8 to at least erase any doubts on your choice. It's not inexpensive to switch systems, I know, especially if you have a lot of lenses. Sometime unless the competing system is WOW it's not worth the effort. For me the R5 was definitely WOW vs both the Z6 and Z7 II's performance for wildlife. If I was a portrait or street shooter I probably would not have...Show more →

I think the downside of this is 1) waiting, 2) actually being able to get an R5II on release, 3) paying the early adopter premium it will command, 4) dealing with early bugs.

Meanwhile, the Z8 is a known quantity and can be had right now, has had various FW updates/improvements and can be found used. It will be a significant improvement over the Z6 and will allow Gary time to decide if it meets his requirements. If it does, the search ends and there's really no need to consider the R5II, even if it is quantifiably better than the Z8 in a number of parameters. It's unlikely that it will be a massive leapfrog over cameras in its category currently available from other systems. It should catch up and surpass these in some metrics, but based on past release cycles from all brands, it's highly unlikely that it will be a true 'game changer.'

Feb 27, 2024 at 11:29 AM

CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

AmbientMike wrote:
If you seriously think that the various cameras don't have NR corrections baked in, that is pretty doubtful, at best. Didn't see any asterix on Bill Claff for the R5, maybe I missed it. Did see the 6D ML, presumably Magic Lantern, having really high DR, I have doubts a lot of this is due to hardware

Look again - Bill Claff's data shows that the R6II, R5 and R3 are all cooking their RAWs starting right at base ISO (the downward facing triangle indicates baked in NR). This wouldn't be an issue really if the option was given to the user to disable this in-camera, but unfortunately you have no choice.

Sony and Nikon are not baking NR into their RAW files. The only real exception being that Sony does bake some in on some of their bodies beyond ISO 51,200, but not before.

Feb 27, 2024 at 01:31 PM

snapsy
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

CanadaMark wrote:
Look again - Bill Claff's data shows that the R6II, R5 and R3 are all cooking their RAWs starting right at base ISO (the downward facing triangle indicates baked in NR). This wouldn't be an issue really if the option was given to the user to disable this in-camera, but unfortunately you have no choice.

Sony and Nikon are not baking NR into their RAW files. The only real exception being that Sony does bake some in on some of their bodies beyond ISO 51,200, but not before.

I'm not sure what method Bill is using to detect NR but it's missed at least a few cameras. For example the Sony A7III:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60991785

Feb 27, 2024 at 01:58 PM

bernardl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)

AmbientMike wrote:
You don't seem very familiar with Nikon compatability problems at all. It's hard to keep track of if a certain lens af's on a certain body, need an entire chart, I might have gone Nikon years ago if D70 had metering using older lenses, even 80's film cameras had compatability issues. The Canon adapter takes EF lenses back to 1987, period

True, although I have been using Nikon cameras since 1986 I find the AF compatibility matrix of pre-AF-S lenses released before 1998 to be completely irrelevant as I haven’t used any in more than 15 years except my 135mm f2.0 DC that I use in MF or on my D5, but it’s so far behind the 135mm f1.8 Plena in performance that I only use it when I am after a vintage look.

I can use a single adapter (the FTZ) to mount any F mount Nikon released in the past 70 years in MF mode on my Nikon mirrorless bodies and find that impressive.

So again the FTZ is amazingly good for actual working photographers trying to use their AF-S F mount Nikkors released since 1998. Lens collectors can still use their very old Nikkors in MF mode and are mostly fine with it as well.

Does the Canon adapter enable AF on pre USM lenses? Why set the start of history on the year when Canon decided it was ok to abandon earlier lenses without any solution to preserve AF? How is that an objective comparison of both systems?

Is it coherent to both chase the latest improvements between an R5 and hypothetical R5II, that will require the latest RF lenses anyways, and to stress heavily the importance of lenses older than 25 years on Nikon side?

The reality is that both Nikon and Canon adapters do an equally great job at ensuring continued usage of lenses that practically matter to photographers.

On the weight topic I find it a bit ironic to both highlight the weight difference of the R5 vs Z8 (which is real) and to boast about the 2 heaviest normal zooms in the history of photography, the 28-70mm f2.0 and 24-105mm f2.8. If weight is a major concern then Sony is obviously the way to go.

Cheers,
Bernard

Feb 27, 2024 at 04:40 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.