p.6 #1 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
Max Power wrote:
Define light years was meant to be humorous and rhetorical, doesn't seem that worked. As a person who has ridden in both dinky carts and race cars, well, that seems a bit extreme. Gotta love the internet.
Humorous and rhetorical barely ever works in the written word on the internet. Indeed - gotta love it.
p.6 #2 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
bernardl wrote:
Totally agree that AF isn’t anymore a differentiator btwn the 3 FF brands. I would extend this to cameras as a whole, except the a9III that is in a class of its own with its global shutter.
It’s all about native, 3rd party and adapted lenses.
This is what is driving many Sony and Canon shooters towards Nikon these days and I believe that Nikon is far from done. Now that they have delivered on their roadmap commitments and arguably have a system able to handle most shooting situations superbly, the real exciting lenses are coming next.
Why so? Because the best way for them to drive their high end focused strategy forward once people have all the lenses they need and near perfect cameras that they keep improving through firmware is to release lenses that people want. They have the technology, they have the R&D bandwidth, they have the vision/strategy and have apparently addressed their production bandwidth capacity while hedging risks btwn Japan, Thailand and China.
In parallel the CEO of Sigma is speaking openly about Z mount FF lenses and it seems likely that Tamron will continue to unleash their best offering for Z mount. The 35-150mm f2.0-2.8 could of course already be adapted but many prefer native lenses and that is a really wonderful lens for events and weddings even if it’s look isn’t as sweet as Z glass. The trio of affordable f2.8 Tamron zooms released under Nikon brand are selling like hot cakes and Tamron is clearly getting excellent value from their deep partnership with Nikon.
Of course they will answer to the R1 with a Z9II within 6 months and it will have a similar read out speed (and the a1II may be a bit better still) and all but it won’t make a significant difference in 99% of situations for 99% of photographers....Show more →
Yes, the gaps have narrowed considerably and the a9iii is an opening salvo which with refinement and time will likely be the direction the camera manufactures are headed. Ironically, I was out shooting this afternoon with the Z8 with a 180-600 and was firing away at some Sandhill Cranes which were around 10-15 feet away. Just like the R5, the AED kept jumping from the eye to the bum and back again. I could have been shooting the R5 + 100-500 and would have had similar results.
p.6 #3 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
armd wrote:
Yes, the gaps have narrowed considerably and the a9iii is an opening salvo which with refinement and time will likely be the direction the camera manufactures are headed. Ironically, I was out shooting this afternoon with the Z8 with a 180-600 and was firing away at some Sandhill Cranes which were around 10-15 feet away. Just like the R5, the AED kept jumping from the eye to the bum and back again. I could have been shooting the R5 + 100-500 and would have had similar results.
By now I would have expected those damn birds to have learned their lesson…
p.6 #4 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
armd wrote:
Yes, the gaps have narrowed considerably and the a9iii is an opening salvo which with refinement and time will likely be the direction the camera manufactures are headed. Ironically, I was out shooting this afternoon with the Z8 with a 180-600 and was firing away at some Sandhill Cranes which were around 10-15 feet away. Just like the R5, the AED kept jumping from the eye to the bum and back again. I could have been shooting the R5 + 100-500 and would have had similar results.
I guess none of these recognition systems are perfect. A few days ago I did a bunch of environmental portraits of ~25 people, all in the same location. The camera's face/eye detection generally worked flawlessly in a challenging, heavily backlit setting, except for one person where it just wouldn't recognize their face. I think it was thrown off by the thick rimmed glasses and full beard.
p.6 #5 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
AmbientMike wrote:
Glad you know it all, if you could point me to the Bill Claff article that states these non Canon cameras don't have any Noise Reduction. Not that he's 100%.
Your interpretation of a graph, does not a fact make
Canon had low noise on aps by the 2010 60D, if not the 7D. FF certainly by 2012 5D3/1Dx/6D
I have copies of travel magazine covers and full stories (Conde Nast Traveler, T&L etc etc) photographed with medium format, full frame mirrorless, iPhones…They are indistinguishable when shot well and printed in a glossy magazine or ad campaign.
If I were able to, I would attach some images here for reference…
(Thus IMHO going berserk about minute noise differences only viewable at 400%…🙃
p.6 #6 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
I originally shot Canon, having owned the R6, R6 II, R5, Ra, and R7. I now shoot Nikon Z9s and Z6s, but have owned the Z8.
I don't find any perceptible difference between the bodies in low light AF. they're all good enough to the point where the body is not going to make or break your photo.
I find the lenses are much more important. Expensive, more recent, higher quality wide aperture lenses will be more impactful.
An R6 with RF 600 F4 will beat a Z9 with a 180-600 f5.6 - f6.3.
A Z8 with Z 600 F4 will beat an R5 with 100-500 f4.5 - f7.1
on equal grounds, R5 with RF 600 F4 vs Z9 with Z 600 F4, you shouldn't notice a difference.
Get a life.