artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.5 #18 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance) | |
armd wrote:
That's a very direct question which requires qualification and one is neglecting a discussion of lenses, ergonomics, and other features. I own both and shoot a wide variety of subjects from astrophotography to portraits to landscapes to wildlife. Since I no longer do any studio work to any significant degree, my observations would not be applicable to strobe or indoor use as my experiences in this genre are limited. With respect to AF one should further divide the conversation to stills versus video and AF-S versus AF-C. Admittedly, the situation has changed remarkably since Nikon released FW 2.0 for the Z8 and and one has to afford consideration to the R5's age (2-3 years older).
1) Video - both cameras perform reasonably well though the Z8's VR and AF are definitely superior in all respects including subject detection, tracking, and low light AF. Again, we're ignoring run times, formats, etc.
2) Stills AF-S - In my experience, these two bodies are quick to focus and are extremely accurate. Since the upgrade to FW 2.0 the Z8 has improved AED and it is now on par with the R5 for portraits. Previously, the Nikon was not as accurate for AED and would occasionally focus on the lashes. Comparatively, with respect to low light focusing, the Z8 shines and its starlight mode for AF is not duplicated on the R5. Additionally, it AF's more reliably in low light although it does struggle occasionally with some subjects with strong side/back lighting (as does the R5).
3) Stills AF-C - This is a challenging area to discuss as the cameras' AF systems offer very different settings and implementation. The R5's AF system has fewer "tweaks" and options though in terms of absolute performance, I found that it was highly reliable in terms of subject detection at a distance, tracking, and accuracy. With FW 2.0 the Z8 can now use its "Auto Area" (similar to Canon's "Face + Tracking") mode effectively and accurately. Given the newer processor speed and FW, it seems quicker to acquire the target though it is difficult to translate these results to better accuracy. Overall, I think the results are fairly similar provided the user is employing similar, high-quality glass, and technique. Around water or highly specular situations, the AF systems can get fooled though employing spot or zone AF modes can reduce the confusion. Likewise, when shooting dark wildlife with dark eyes (think gorillas, buffalo, elephants, hippos, etc.) both cameras struggle with AED at times though this can be overcome with spot/zone AF. I would give the edge to the Z8 in these applications. For Airshows, the Z8's Airplane mode is superior to the R5 and it identifies the cockpits of a host of planes from monoplane trainers to biplanes, jets, etc. Comparatively, the R5 does well (usually due to DOF) though it doesn't have the ID mode that the Z8 does. For BIF, the R5 performs very well and I don't have enough experience, yet with FW 2.0 to determine if the Z8 is as good as or is superior to the R5. In the prior iteration, I found the Z8 to be slightly inferior with regard to AED. Again, we're ignoring pre-capture and other features of the Z8 (lack of RS, EVF lag) which might influence a user's choice one way or another. On moving people, the cameras both perform really well and I don't have enough experience with FW 2.0 in sports scenarios to comment either way.
While I appreciate the excitement of comparing one camera to the other, I find such analysis less than meaningful because the AF differences, though present are not enough in themselves to select one body over another. Again, the bottom line is that assuming the idiot behind the camera knows how to use the system, both bodies will deliver accurately AF'ed images the vast majority of the time even in challenging situations. In my experiences, we're talking about AF accuracies of well over 90% and at times 95-97% with only occasional misses.
IMHO, the intangibles are far more important namely the systems (lenses, flashes, etc.), ergonomics, DR, RS, EVF, buffer, etc. The R5 is an extremely capable camera which is a stellar performer in spite of being several years old and depending on one's needs and resources, it is still a very reasonable choice. If I had an array of Canon lenses, was happy with them and the Canon system, and could wait, I probably would hold off for the release of the R5II. I suspect that it will offer similar IQ, DR, MP's to that of the current R5, with improved AF, perhaps a larger buffer, and faster read rate (less RS). Whether it will be a stacked sensor remains to be determined, though I suspect the performance will rival or exceed the Z8.
...Show more →
Great detailed comparison. I agree at this point the AF systems are so close it's like splitting hairs but some brands do have advantages in certain areas, as minor as they may be. If a photographer can't get the job done with an old R5 or similar they need to look in the mirror. I'm happy with the R5 AF as it does everything I need it to do. I also shoot the R3 so I know how nice it is for fast action, but I can still get similar results with the R5. I'm assuming the R5II will have R3 like AF, so that will just be icing on the cake. As for stacked sensor, I don't necessarily need one if Canon can just increase their readout speed a bit to bridge the gap and get closer to stacked sensor performance. As for MP's, I'm happy with 45MP range. It will be interesting to see what the R5II offers.
|
