p.12 #1 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
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.
Imagine that Sony is not your favorite camera system, and you are trying to have a dispassionate discussion about photography gear. But, the discussion keeps getting interrupted with weak people that must for some reason resort to personal attacks.
Especially sensitive to the subject of Sony because they falsely feel Sony lead to the downfall of their favorite brand. Yet they never contribute to the conversation itself. Yes, it is fascinating that such weak, small people do exist. They do serve purpose in some roles I as I do have to hire and fire such people regularly. One of the more unpleasant parts of owning businesses.
p.12 #2 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
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.
Cheers,
Bernard
The only thing I have been rejecting is your statement that "everyone agrees". That is a declarative statement that is simply not true...
p.12 #3 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
groob wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Well you either have no need for the same things I or any of the other many former Nikon users (the majority of them I believe) do, or you are just taking a little longer than most to come to that same realisation. However friend Bernard's predictions of what the future will bring should keep you going for a little while longer.
(march 2024)
My guess is that Nikon is going to announce in the coming months the following trio of lenses:
- 100-200mm f2.0 TC
- 100-300mm f2.8 TC
- 200-500mm f4 TC
Pure guess, but it makes too much sense not to be the case.
p.12 #4 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Yes, I still believe this to be a likely description of what Nikon is going to release next in the super télé segment.
Why so?
- their F mount 180-400mm f4 had a TC
- their 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 both have TC and that has attracted many Sony and Canon wildlife and sports users to Nikon Z
- they have a brilliant 120-300mm f2.8 in F mount that convinced Canon to release a 100-300mm f2.8
- they always released their 200mm f2.0 and 300mm f2.8 using the same technology so if their Z 100-300mm f2.8 has a TC it would make sense to go with a similar 100-200mm f2.0 TC
I also think that the 100-200mm f2.0 TC will be accompanied by a 24-70mm f2.0.
p.12 #5 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
duncangr wrote:
Well you either have no need for the same things I or any of the other many former Nikon users (the majority of them I believe) do, or you are just taking a little longer than most to come to that same realisation. However friend Bernard's predictions of what the future will bring should keep you going for a little while longer.
No, we have similar needs, but I’m aware that the minuscule differences in edge-case AF performance are all but meaningless. Your entire conceit, and overwhelming misperception, is that there is a yawning gap between Nikon and Canon/Sony as to AF performance. In reality, any current differences are tiny and not enough for me to move away from Nikon, particularly because there is a truly meaningful gap between Nikon and Canon/Sony in regard to their lens lineups. I would agree that Nikon’s lack of RAW or HE pre-capture is a meaningful difference, but that will almost certainly be remedied by the end of 2025. I can wait that long.
p.12 #8 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
duncangr wrote:
Well you either have no need for the same things I or any of the other many former Nikon users (the majority of them I believe) do, or you are just taking a little longer than most to come to that same realisation. However friend Bernard's predictions of what the future will bring should keep you going for a little while longer.
(march 2024)
My guess is that Nikon is going to announce in the coming months the following trio of lenses:
- 100-200mm f2.0 TC
- 100-300mm f2.8 TC
- 200-500mm f4 TC
Pure guess, but it makes too much sense not to be the case.
500/4 mirrorless please. Doesn't matter which brand, I will get it and find a camera to go with it. It should be around 5LB. A dream hand holdable lens for BIF. I know 600 is great for many. Even though I started going to gym, I have no hope that I will be able handle that lens for too long. But 800 PF @ 5.2LB works for full time hand shooting (barely)...
p.12 #9 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
arbitrage wrote:
here, hold my beer....
The perfect response to untrue declarative statements so prevalent on this particular board.
Talent, not gear...
But as these images show in talented hands the 300 f/2.8 GM is an optically spectacular lens, very fast, light, and small. So many ways to great images gear wise, in all the major brands.
p.12 #11 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Jemini wrote:
500/4 mirrorless please. Doesn't matter which brand, I will get it and find a camera to go with it. It should be around 5LB. A dream hand holdable lens for BIF. I know 600 is great for many. Even though I started going to gym, I have no hope that I will be able handle that lens for too long. But 800 PF @ 5.2LB works for full time hand shooting (barely)...
Uh, no. The 800 PF is really "hand holdable" for short periods of time and the 600 TC ( for me at 7#3OZ) really needs to be on a mono/tripod. My old Canon 500 f/4 IS II weighed in at the same weight as the Nikon 600 TC and if Nikon could shave weight off, it would likely be offset by the addition of a TC. Besides, my 500 almost always had a TC on. Should Nikon make one, my best guess is that it would top the scales at 6+#. The 600 PF is a gem not only in terms of weight and size but IQ. I doubt Nikon is looking at a 500 f/4 and a 120-300 or 300 f/2.8 are more likely .
p.12 #12 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
armd wrote:
Uh, no. The 800 PF is really "hand holdable" for short periods of time and the 600 TC ( for me at 7#3OZ) really needs to be on a mono/tripod. My old Canon 500 f/4 IS II weighed in at the same weight as the Nikon 600 TC and if Nikon could shave weight off, it would likely be offset by the addition of a TC. Besides, my 500 almost always had a TC on. Should Nikon make one, my best guess is that it would top the scales at 6+#. The 600 PF is a gem not only in terms of weight and size but IQ. I doubt Nikon is looking at a 500 f/4 and a 120-300 or 300 f/2.8 are more likely . ...Show more →
I believe that we are going to get a 200-500mm f4 TC. I would expect it to weight around 5.4 pounds.
p.12 #13 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
I believe that we are going to get a 200-500mm f4 TC. I would expect it to weight around 5.4 pounds.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, I've heard that too and it would likely be quite the lens. If they could shave the weight to 5.4 pounds that would be a miracle. The 186 f/5.6-6.3 without a TC weighs in at 4# 11oz. I have a hard time believing that Nikon would produce a 500 f/4 on its own, but who really knows?
p.12 #14 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
arbitrage wrote:
here, hold my beer....
Nice images, thanks for sharing.
I like the color grading you have applied. It conveys a dark mood that speaks of remotness and a looming winter around the corner. Very well done.
The rest is a matter of personal taste. The look of the bokeh reminds me of everything I disliked about the 135mm f1.8 GM. It does look a bit lifeless and AI generated on these samples. The lens may perform better on other types of backgrounds?
But anyways, to each our own I guess. Great if you like that kind of neutrality.
p.12 #15 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
The 500/4 IS II is of older generation (substantial weight reductions occurred for the 400/2.8 and 600/4 IS III as well as Nikon 400/2.8 TC and 600/4 TC) so a 2.5 kg weight for a new 500/4 is realistic. However, a 200-500/4 TC is a different matter and likely would weight more than the current 180-400/4 TC. I doubt that such a lens is realistic. If it happens then I would expect a 20k€+ price for such a lens, maybe 4 kg or greater weight. The weight penalty for a zoom lens vs. prime can be estimated by calculating the ratio of weights between Canon RF 100-300/2.8 and Sony 300/2.8 GM.
The 500/4 might not be a priority since Nikon has the 400/4.5 and 600/6.3 lightweight options but eventually all the usual focal lengths will be filled.
armd wrote:
Uh, no. The 800 PF is really "hand holdable" for short periods of time and the 600 TC ( for me at 7#3OZ) really needs to be on a mono/tripod. My old Canon 500 f/4 IS II weighed in at the same weight as the Nikon 600 TC and if Nikon could shave weight off, it would likely be offset by the addition of a TC. Besides, my 500 almost always had a TC on. Should Nikon make one, my best guess is that it would top the scales at 6+#. The 600 PF is a gem not only in terms of weight and size but IQ. I doubt Nikon is looking at a 500 f/4 and a 120-300 or 300 f/2.8 are more likely . ...Show more →
p.12 #16 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
The look of the bokeh reminds me of everything I disliked about the 135mm f1.8 GM.
The owl photo at the bottom is a great example of why I left Sony behind...I can't stand the bokeh on many of their lenses. The subject looks amazing and the rest of the image is a total distraction. Saw it more on Sony than on any other system I've shot. I assume it comes down to some of their optical compromises they like to make to keep glass small.
p.12 #17 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The 500/4 IS II is of older generation (substantial weight reductions occurred for the 400/2.8 and 600/4 IS III as well as Nikon 400/2.8 TC and 600/4 TC) so a 2.5 kg weight for a new 500/4 is realistic. However, a 200-500/4 TC is a different matter and likely would weight more than the current 180-400/4 TC. I doubt that such a lens is realistic. If it happens then I would expect a 20k€+ price for such a lens, maybe 4 kg or greater weight. The weight penalty for a zoom lens vs. prime can be estimated by calculating the ratio of weights between Canon RF 100-300/2.8 and Sony 300/2.8 GM.
The 500/4 might not be a priority since Nikon has the 400/4.5 and 600/6.3 lightweight options but eventually all the usual focal lengths will be filled.
Why? Look at the Canon 100-300mm f2.8 vs older 300mm f2.8 lenses from Canon (themselves the lightest at the time). The zoom is lighter. Part of this is of course the result of it being newer.
The thing is that for such high end super télé lenses the weight overhead is very limited compared to a fixed focal lens.
Same for the built-in TC mechanism in fact. The Nikon 400mm f2.8 TC has the same weight as the RF and FE 400mm f2.8 without a TC.
p.12 #18 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
RoamingScott wrote:
The owl photo at the bottom is a great example of why I left Sony behind...I can't stand the bokeh on many of their lenses. The subject looks amazing and the rest of the image is a total distraction. Saw it more on Sony than on any other system I've shot. I assume it comes down to some of their optical compromises they like to make to keep glass small.
Yes, probably so. It would be naive to think that there could be no impact. But then again I do respect the desire to prioritize one’s comfort over ultimate image quality. Especially for amateurs who are probably busy professionals and just want to enjoy their hobby.
The comparison of the Sony 200-600 vs Z 180-600 is another stunning example I find. The Sony is a bit sharper but the cost in terms of bokeh is high.
Some people are more sensitive than others to that. And if you don’t print and like looking at your images zoomed in at 200% and self tap you on the back for having bought a camera that that focuses well on your behalf and a very sharp lens then it doesn’t matter. And that’s totally fine.
p.12 #19 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
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.
Cheers,
Bernard
So, the respected reviewers are referenced were the reviewers at DPR at the time. Yes?
I believe these reviewers have now moved on the Peta Pixel. Yes?
I must assume that they are still respected reviewers no matter who they are currently employed by. Yes?
Past reviews are not as relevant to the current discussion as their current reviews. Yes?
But these very reviewers are of the opinion that the Sony " a1 II is the best and most powerful tool for the broadest range of serious photographers", and "the best all around camera available"
They list a lot of reasons and other category topping products in Sony's lineup for making Sony the "Mirrorless Leader".
I post this not to make the claim that Sony is in fact the best. But to point out that not "everyone agrees" on which is the best as you said in your declarative statement. Not even those people you used as the "respected reviewers" to back up your statement.
Lots of interesting stuff to read and watch on how they came to their conclusions. But let's remember not "everyone" will "agree" with them either. The current state of the camera market being as close as it is technologically right now.
p.12 #20 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
So, the respected reviewers are referenced were the reviewers at DPR at the time. Yes?
I believe these reviewers have now moved on the Peta Pixel. Yes?
I must assume that they are still respected reviewers no matter who they are currently employed by. Yes?
Past reviews are not as relevant to the current discussion as their current reviews. Yes?
But these very reviewers are of the opinion that the Sony " a1 II is the best and most powerful tool for the broadest range of serious photographers", and "the best all around camera available"
They list a lot of reasons and other category topping products in Sony's lineup for making Sony the "Mirrorless Leader".
I post this not to make the claim that Sony is in fact the best. But to point out that not "everyone agrees" on which is the best as you said in your declarative statement. Not even those people you used as the "respected reviewers" to back up your statement.
Lots of interesting stuff to read and watch on how they came to their conclusions. But let's remember not "everyone" will "agree" with them either. The current state of the camera market being as close as it is technologically right now.
