p.13 #1 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I don't know why I keep clicking into this thread. It's like driving by a wreck on the side of the road... don't look... don't look... wish I wouldn't have looked.
If (more like when) I get rid of the z8, it will be for a different reason, probably more emotional and impusle driven and less sound than AF.
p.13 #2 · 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.
Yes, I agree that the 3 years newer a1II is a better still camera and a very good motion camera. To me in camera raw video is important and not having it is a show stopper but I agree that many people will consider the a1II to be overall the better tool at the moment. And yes, I admit that my wording was therefore too broad.
Does it change my view for my needs? No it doesn’t for the following reasons:
- I prefer Nikon lenses and line up
- raw video is important for me
- the ability to adapt Sony lenses is great
- I prefer Nikon colors
- I prefer the ergonomics and design of Nikon bodies
This being said these 2 guys, that I do respect, were not in charge of the main reviews at DPreview, but only of their video reviews.
Anyways, it’s good fun to see that you only start to respect reviewers when they support the point you are trying to make. Considering how close it still is I guess you will agree it’s reasonable to expect the Z9II to become their pick when it ships? Will you still agree with them if/when that happens?
Finally, I hear that people are missing you on the Sony forum? Perhaps you could pay it a visit to congratulate friends about their selection of Petapixel‘s favorite camera?
p.13 #3 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
Steve,
Yes, I agree that the 3 years newer a1II is a better still camera and a very good motion camera. To me in camera raw video is important and not having it is a show stopper but I agree that many people will consider the a1II to be overall the better tool at the moment. And yes, I admit that my wording was therefore too broad.
Does it change my view for my needs? No it doesn’t for the following reasons:
- I prefer Nikon lenses and line up
- raw video is important for me
- the ability to adapt Sony lenses is great
- I prefer Nikon colors
- I prefer the ergonomics and design of Nikon bodies
This being said these 2 guys, that I do respect, were not in charge of the main reviews at DPreview, but only of their video reviews.
Anyways, it’s good fun to see that you only start to respect reviewers when they support the point you are trying to make. Considering how close it still is I guess you will agree it’s reasonable to expect the Z9II to become their pick when it ships? Will you still agree with them if/when that happens?
Finally, I hear that people are missing you on the Sony forum? Perhaps you could pay it a visit to congratulate friends about their selection of Petapixel‘s favorite camera?
Well I did make a point to say that I only brought them up to show that not everyone agrees, not as an endorsement of them. Although they generally do a good job in my opinion. Sometimes I do disagree with there evaluations, but that is to be expected. I would not make my preferences based on any review source(s). They are information points only, and primarily would serve to peak my interest to check things for myself. In the end my preferences are based on my needs, just as yours are.
I have no expectation of which system they will pick in the future. I would not be at all surprised if it was the Nikon Z9II, or a Canon, or whatever.
I also agree that you know yourself, your needs, and your preferences, better than anyone else could possibly know. You are also very competent in the World of photography. So I respect your choice for your own use, and would not presume to argue that. Yes, your post was too broad and declarative, which was what I was saying. No big deal in the end.
In reality the Sony Forum is not where I post most often. I do have friends there and make sure to keep in touch, but I post primarily in another Forum and most conversations are about images, not gear. I would likely not post anything referencing the PetaPixel article or any article like that. These kinds of rankings have little meaning for me. Some enjoy them, and that is a good thing too.
As usual things between us remain good in the end of a discussion. I am grateful for that.
p.13 #4 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Laslo Varadi wrote:
The entire system has to be considered, not just a camera body. I switched from the A1 to the Z8 for the 600 and 800pf lenses which Sony does not have. When the difference in camera body capabilities is small the lenses are the great equalizer.
I am sure that made the most sense for you to do. I have no issue with that.
p.13 #7 · 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.
A particular niche where the PF lenses have led the field - I assume it comes down to some of the optical compromises Nikkon have to make to keep the glass small and light.
Unfortunately the PF lenses are also rather slow so offer little in the way of benefit, other than size/weight, for that compromise.
p.13 #8 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
duncangr wrote:
A particular niche where the PF lenses have led the field - I assume it comes down to some of the optical compromises Nikkon have to make to keep the glass small and light.
Unfortunately the PF lenses are also rather slow so offer little in the way of benefit, other than size/weight, for that compromise.
Oh good. The Sony proselytizer with no glaring brand bias is back with more input!
