p.11 #1 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
Wow, really butt hurt aren't you. So very, very weak. Such posts say so much about you and nothing about anyone else let alone contribute to a polite conversation. Realize that we were having a respectful discussion here until your juvenile post took it down a level. It is just a camera, grow up already Poindexter. Jeez...
again with the projection. it's clear you are not here for a "respectful" discussion that you claim; you simply stir up the Nikon forum and then the name-calling happens when get called out.
p.11 #2 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
dalegaspi wrote:
again with the projection. it's clear you are not here for a "respectful" discussion that you claim; you simply stir up the Nikon forum and then the name-calling happens when get called out.
maybe you should re-read the thread. No animosity until you posted. Talk about childish projection...
p.11 #3 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
I just believe that the overall market is the most efficient in establishing overall value, performance, and use cases. All of the well known reviewers and websites have at least a profit motive bias in them. Just like with car sites they award their picks by profit, and try to alternate and/or balance them. The user polls are even worse with a level of organised efforts to skew the voting one way or another.
I said that Nikon has an appropriately low market share, not a ridiculously low share. Market share is not based on anyone's bias, it a straight up numbers metric. The only babberations you are likely to find is when looking short term which is affected by release cycles. Annual data is probably the best metric for current understanding.
I still don’t get how a smart person could genuinely not agree with the following 5 undisputed facts:
1. Global market share is driven by low cost volume goods, typically through certain retailing generalist channels such as Amazon that are able to negotiate volume discounts and often promote some brands over others as a result of their incentives (which results from their quest for market share).
Canon and Sony are better able to compete on price thks to their (mostly) in-house sensor manufacturing which plays a role for lower end cameras (the sensor represents a much higher share of the bill of material). Their higher volume strategy also helps with volume discounting from their supply chain.
2. Different brands have different strategies, some focus more on the higher end of the market, others more on the lower end. Nikon had a clear strategy to focus on mid/high end. It’s public information available in the report’s their are obliged to publish for investors as a result of international accounting laws
3. There is no correlation at all between global market share and market share in the higher end segment
4. There are no published data about the market share in the higher end segment
5. Value (real or perceived) to photographers isn’t correlated to marketshare
So although commercial success is definitely a key metric, you just don’t have any relevant data demonstrating that Nikon isn’t as successful as Sony and Canon for the market they are targeting.
I could mention stock value as an indicator indicating that Nikon is actually doing better. But I won’t as I am aware that it isn’t more relevant than global market share.
So if you reject the conclusion of respected reviewers, and in the absence of relevant market data as just demonstrated, all that’s left is your own biases or beliefs.
p.11 #4 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
Steve,
I still don’t get how a smart person could genuinely not agree with the following 5 undisputed facts:
1. Global market share is driven by low cost volume goods, typically through certain retailing generalist channels such as Amazon that are able to negotiate volume discounts and often promote some brands over others as a result of their incentives (which results from their quest for market share).
Canon and Sony are better able to compete on price thks to their (mostly) in-house sensor manufacturing which plays a role for lower end cameras (the sensor represents a much higher share of the bill of material). Their higher volume strategy also helps with volume discounting from their supply chain.
2. Different brands have different strategies, some focus more on the higher end of the market, others more on the lower end. Nikon had a clear strategy to focus on mid/high end. It’s public information available in the report’s their are obliged to publish for investors as a result of international accounting laws
3. There is no correlation at all between global market share and market share in the higher end segment
4. There are no published data about the market share in the higher end segment
5. There are no value to photographers isn’t related to marketshare
So although commercial success is definitely a key metric, you just don’t have any relevant data demonstrating that Nikon isn’t as successful than Sony and Canon for the market they are targeting.
I could mention stock value as an indicator indicating that Nikon is actually doing better. But I won’t as I am aware that it isn’t more relevant than global market share.
My response was to your post claiming that "everyone agrees that the Z9 is the best camera for hybrid shooters" (sic). You are aware of course that Sony says that their Content Creator video centric hybrid cameras now account for over 48% of all their camera sales, and this was corroborated by BCN retail data. Since depending on the Quarter Canon and Sony are contending for sales leadership in the mirrorless market we can conclude that for Hybrid shooters Sony maintains a significant market share advantage over the Z9. Since it is my belief that people buy what they perceive to be the best for their use case we can rely on those numbers when evaluating whether your statement that "everyone agree" .
Now if we wanted to evaluate whether for action orientated photographers who shoot "flagship" style cameras, and value shooting in camera RAW video, and RAW still images with the same camera, then that is a different statement and different data would need to be looked at. But you made a different declarative statement.
p.11 #6 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Spectro wrote:
FFS people. Move on or DM each other with the market measurebating! It’s exhausting.
OK by me...
But judging from your earlier posts in this thread you thought the whole thing is a "nothing burger" and people should just move on. So, what in this thread should we be focusing on going forward? You lead...
p.11 #7 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
OK by me...
But judging from your earlier posts in this thread you thought the whole thing is a "nothing burger" and people should just move on. So, what in this thread should we be focusing on going forward? You lead...
Nothing. This thread was already long past its best before date when we were treated to these last several pages of the same old market share nonsense that nobody cares about except maybe you guys that need go have the last word.
Perhaps you can get the powers that be to set up a forum for corporate and market share discussions and see if anyone shows up.
Don’t mean to be disrespectful but too many gear discussions end up down the same rabbit hole.
p.11 #8 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Spectro wrote:
Nothing. This thread was already long past its best before date when we were treated to these last several pages of the same old market share nonsense that nobody cares about except maybe you guys that need go have the last word.
Perhaps you can get the powers that be to set up a forum for corporate and market share discussions and see if anyone shows up.
Don’t mean to be disrespectful but too many gear discussions end up down the same rabbit hole.
So, just a question out of curiosity.
If the thread has zero interest to you no matter the direction it takes, why follow it and interject yourself into it. Only to tell people who are engaged in a discussion to move on? Do you see a bit of hubris in doing that?
There are so many ways you could lead the conversation forward in positive ways. Why not just do that?
p.11 #10 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
At the risk of furthering this never ending nonsense, I'll wade in. Steve's market share point answers neither the question posed nor the points he's using it for. The Occam's Razor explanation is that Sony couldn't grab a foothold among DSLR shooters, so it was the first mover in high performing mirrorless cameras. It was a brilliant move, and Sony stole marketshare by doing so. Nikon also shot itself in the foot by being the slowest mover to high performing mirrorless cameras. During that time, Sony cemented its reputation as the mirrorless leader, which is an incredibly powerful marketing tool (indeed, just look at all of the personally aggrieved Sony shooters when someone deigned to believe Sony was not the leader; every reputable reviewer made comments about it).
But given the eventual parity among the brands, including, again, the length of time it took Nikon to get to AF parity, plus the cost of switching systems, Sony has held onto its market share. It just doesn't make sense for people to incur the cost of switching systems when the competence among the systems is so close. So, market share is not a signal of which system has an advantage in focusing on swallows at 76.3 yards in front of a varied background, as has become the accepted AF test on FM. Nor is it a signal that invisible differences in DR are affecting a huge number of people's purchasing decisions. Like everything else in life, market share is a function of innumerable factors, some objective, lots subjective, that lead people to their specific purchasing decisions.
p.11 #11 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
duncangr wrote:
so you keep saying - but putting adapted lenses on my A1/A9iii and giving up 30/120fps and risk compromising the AF - you must be joking. That would defeat the very purpose of having bought these cameras in the first place.
But I guess if I had a Z9 and was stuck at 20fps anyway I might be more inclined to think of that as an advantage.
Anyway I am heading off to Sri Lanka for a couple of weeks carrying around just 2.5kg of camera gear.
One A9iii and 3 lenses a 300/2.8, a 420f/4 and a 600f/5.6 - just image all that lot weighing in at just 2.5kg - just crazy !!
Couldn't be happier with my choice of lens(es) - it's just one surprise after another with Sony .
I can't help but point out again the absolute perfection of this guy. He's literally bragging about a lens that he'll have to use almost exclusively with teleconverters after, mere moments before, saying that built-in teleconverters are nothing more than a minor convenience and accusing others of blind brand loyalty for suggesting otherwise. The lack of self-awareness is mind blowing.
p.11 #12 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
groob wrote:
At the risk of furthering this never ending nonsense, I'll wade in. Steve's market share point answers neither the question posed nor the points he's using it for. The Occam's Razor explanation is that Sony couldn't grab a foothold among DSLR shooters, so it was the first mover in high performing mirrorless cameras. It was a brilliant move, and Sony stole marketshare by doing so. Nikon also shot itself in the foot by being the slowest mover to high performing mirrorless cameras. During that time, Sony cemented its reputation as the mirrorless leader, which is an incredibly powerful marketing tool (indeed, just look at all of the personally aggrieved Sony shooters when someone deigned to believe Sony was not the leader; every reputable reviewer made comments about it).
But given the eventual parity among the brands, including, again, the length of time it took Nikon to get to AF parity, plus the cost of switching systems, Sony has held onto its market share. It just doesn't make sense for people to incur the cost of switching systems when the competence among the systems is so close. So, market share is not a signal of which system has an advantage in focusing on swallows at 76.3 yards in front of a varied background, as has become the accepted AF test on FM. Nor is it a signal that invisible differences in DR are affecting a huge number of people's purchasing decisions. Like everything else in life, market share is a function of innumerable factors, some objective, lots subjective, that lead people to their specific purchasing decisions. ...Show more →
But I was not responding to the OP's original question. I did that earlier when I said that all the systems were now excellent and basically at parity with each leading in some use cases. So, I fully agreed with pretty much everything you just posted.
My market share post were addressing a declarative statement by a poster claiming everyone agreed that Nikon was the best for hybrid shooters. Market data suggests that this one statement is not true. It is not a criticism of the Nikon system. We can each have our own valid views on the ranking of each system at this point. Not "everyone agrees" on this.
p.11 #13 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
groob wrote:
I can't help but point out again the absolute perfection of this guy. He's literally bragging about a lens that he'll have to use almost exclusively with teleconverters after, mere moments before, saying that built-in teleconverters are nothing more than a minor convenience and accusing others of blind brand loyalty for suggesting otherwise. The lack of self-awareness is mind blowing.
Man you're really confusing two completely separate things. And you're apparently confusing me with someone else. A little bit of awareness goes a long way.
p.11 #14 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
But I was not responding to the OP's original question. I did that earlier when I said that all the systems were now excellent and basically at parity with each leading in some use cases. So, I fully agreed with pretty much everything you just posted.
My market share post were addressing a declarative statement by a poster claiming everyone agreed that Nikon was the best for hybrid shooters. Market data suggests that this one statement is not true. It is not a criticism of the Nikon system. We can each have our own valid views on the ranking of each system at this point. Not "everyone agrees" on this....Show more →
Which is not what I meant. I clarified right away what I thought (and still think) was obvious, that I was sticking to the context of this discussion, which always was the high end segment including the Z8/Z9. ChatGpT would have understood. We need a Steve-o3.
p.11 #15 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
duncangr wrote:
If the subject is static or moving slowly (and this includes very large raptors flying) I'll take the A7r5 over anything else. A built in TC offers little other than a minor convenience and that at a hefty additional cost. Heck you can buy a Sony 600 f/4 and an a7r5 for the same price as the Z600TC. You might even have change left over for the 1.4TC.
The dream team to me for wildlife is the A9iii, A7r5 300/f2.8 and 600 f/4 + 1.4 and 2.0 TCs. Lightest, fastest, highest resolution and DR all in a simple bundle of 2 lenses and 2 cameras. All in one carry-on bag - just perfect. ...Show more →
Umm, this is you. And I see that you made a point about how anyone who believes Sony does not currently—and will not always—reign supreme when it comes to AF is guilty of confirmation bias. Those takes are certainly worlds apart. Quite an error on my part, I suppose. It’s definitely not confirmation bias to believe that an internal TC is something more than a minor convenience. In fact, it’s way better to stop shooting and physically detach/attach TCs to a 300 mm f/2.8, which, again, is all but unusable without TCs. One day, I hope the scales can be removed from our eyes so that we pitiful non-Sony users can understand the true genius and power of almighty Sony.
p.11 #16 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
Taken by itself the Z9/Z8 cameras are excellent performers which is why it's users are so happy with it. They are getting great quality images out of it and enjoy the process of shooting despite some rather quirky workflow at times. It is only when held up against the competition that differences like these matter. But at least in this case, in the final analysis the market makes sense to me. Third place in AF, third place in DR, least ergonomics, at least when one considers size and weight, and least expensive of its peers.
But at least recognize that Nikon has made huge steps forward in the mirrorless market with the Z8/9 cameras coming from very far behind. Nikon is legitimately playing in the big boys club already.
p.11 #17 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
groob wrote:
Steve, you literally just said this.
Yes, I see that as consistant from my perspective. My point is that Nikon is excellent, but not everone agrees it is the leader.
Dynamic range is numbers based. You can see the charts. There should be no disagreement there. So here not everyone agrees.
AF is also clear to me that in some areas it falls behind the latest generation of Sony and Canon. Canon likely leading here currently.But again not everyone agrees.
Form factor is very personal but Nikon is the largest and heaviest in a market that is moving the other way. But some may legitimately prefer Nikon's form factor. Surely not everyone agrees.
Prices are published so no argument there. My point being that if everyone agreed Nikon was the performance leader it would likely not be the lowest priced.
The market makes sense to me in the context of the things I listed. There are many more things of course but typing on a phone and forum discussions are not conducive to the length that would take.
p.11 #18 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
imagine being a Sony superfan spending an exorbitant amount of effort talking down to
Nikon users on a Nikon forum without a hint of self-awareness is fascinating to witness.
p.11 #19 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
And they do it for free 🤣
dalegaspi wrote:
imagine being a Sony superfan spending an exorbitant amount of effort talking down to
Nikon users on a Nikon forum without a hint of self-awareness is fascinating to witness.
