p.7 #1 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Sony and Nikon user here.
Caveat, that I own a A7RIV, so it's a pretty old AF system, but I have used my friend's A7R5 and A7CII.
The answer is no, there isn't a huge gap between Z8 and Sony AF. One camera does a little better in one area, and the other camera does a little better in the other, and the differences are so small that it's nothing to worry about. It should be a small factor in your camera system decision.
p.7 #2 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
There are plenty of non helpful comments on most threads which is why I normally don't post or comment. I have a few close friends who shoot Nikon and they insist that the autofocus on the z8 is not as good as the z9. But as I don't own the cameras and can't comment from personal experience other than shooting with them for a few times I will defer to their judgment. I can only definitely comment on what my experience has been shooting side by side many people. And of course that experience is only applicable to birds. For the vast majority of birding situations the Z8 is fantastic. But as I stated there are times that it seems to struggle.
And just for clarity I am not saying the A1 doesn't also struggle sometimes as well like jumping to water when an osprey or low flying duck is near the surface. Again I am not making this a brand thing. But I do think there is merit to this thread and to thinking that the Z8 is a step below the Z9 when it comes to the most taxing BIF situations. Hope that helps
p.7 #3 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
i just received a Z8 body over the weekend. been dialing it in and adding junk to it to assist in carry and use . as far as functionality i matched all appropriate settings to my Z9. i went over to Ellis Island where i shoot and give tech support to the NPS Museum branch and took my standard shot there in the hall to "check things out". as far as i can see its a new happy tool (somewhat lighter/smaller too)
"I think they protest too much"
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S lens24mm1/125s1400 ISO
p.7 #5 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I've used the R5, R5 ii, A1, Z8, Z9 all extensively for birds and other wildlife - both portraits and action.
The R5 ii's autofocus is the best I've used to date. It finds the subject a little faster than all the others mentioned, and is less prone to mistaking high contrast in either the foreground or background as the subject. It is very sticky during action as well. The A1 is almost as good re. 'stickiness', but I find it is more prone to be distracted by high contrast (eg. water ripples). The Z8 and Z9 autofocus is good if not great most of the time, but in my experience is a little slower to find the subject, and less 'sticky'. I've also found both the Z8 and Z9 can miss focus slightly on occasion, even if the focus indicator appears to be locked on the eye. That said, at 20 fps, I usually get a more than enough in-focus frames, especially for static subjects.
But as the op says, the Nikon lens selection for wildlife is absolutely heads and tails above both Canon and Sony. The TC lenses are absolutely awesome. For subjects that are static or moving slowly, I will typically much prefer the Z8 or Z9 with a TC lens than either Canon or Sony system.
p.7 #6 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
matth4ever wrote:
I've used the R5, R5 ii, A1, Z8, Z9 all extensively for birds and other wildlife - both portraits and action.
The R5 ii's autofocus is the best I've used to date. It finds the subject a little faster than all the others mentioned, and is less prone to mistaking high contrast in either the foreground or background as the subject. It is very sticky during action as well. The A1 is almost as good re. 'stickiness', but I find it is more prone to be distracted by high contrast (eg. water ripples). The Z8 and Z9 autofocus is good if not great most of the time, but in my experience is a little slower to find the subject, and less 'sticky'. I've also found both the Z8 and Z9 can miss focus slightly on occasion, even if the focus indicator appears to be locked on the eye. That said, at 20 fps, I usually get a more than enough in-focus frames, especially for static subjects.
But as the op says, the Nikon lens selection for wildlife is absolutely heads and tails above both Canon and Sony. The TC lenses are absolutely awesome. For subjects that are static or moving slowly, I will typically much prefer the Z8 or Z9 with a TC lens than either Canon or Sony system. ...Show more →
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.
p.7 #7 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
matth4ever wrote:
I've used the R5, R5 ii, A1, Z8, Z9 all extensively for birds and other wildlife - both portraits and action.
The R5 ii's autofocus is the best I've used to date. It finds the subject a little faster than all the others mentioned, and is less prone to mistaking high contrast in either the foreground or background as the subject. It is very sticky during action as well. The A1 is almost as good re. 'stickiness', but I find it is more prone to be distracted by high contrast (eg. water ripples). The Z8 and Z9 autofocus is good if not great most of the time, but in my experience is a little slower to find the subject, and less 'sticky'. I've also found both the Z8 and Z9 can miss focus slightly on occasion, even if the focus indicator appears to be locked on the eye. That said, at 20 fps, I usually get a more than enough in-focus frames, especially for static subjects.
But as the op says, the Nikon lens selection for wildlife is absolutely heads and tails above both Canon and Sony. The TC lenses are absolutely awesome. For subjects that are static or moving slowly, I will typically much prefer the Z8 or Z9 with a TC lens than either Canon or Sony system. ...Show more →
You do know you can adjust the “sticky-ness” of the Z8/Z9, right?
p.7 #8 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
"A built in TC offers little other than a minor convenience ..."
For me it is WAY more than a minor thing. A bird is on a perch. Flip the 1.4x on to get the detailed portrait then instantly flip it off for the explosive takeoff. Often if not usually you will not have the time to fiddle with an extender and caps and all when the action starts. The z8/9 aren't as good as the r5 ii or A1 for action but they do well enough. And there's other advantages that are beyond minor:
- in dusty, snowy, sandy, rainy, salty etc environments you'll often choose to avoid exposing the sensor
- heck even buggy environments - I once had a mosquito in my camera after putting on an external extender
And yes lots ov convenience advantages
- no misplacing the special TC caps
- no rebalancing your gimbal after adding/removing
p.7 #9 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
matth4ever wrote:
"A built in TC offers little other than a minor convenience ..."
For me it is WAY more than a minor thing. A bird is on a perch. Flip the 1.4x on to get the detailed portrait then instantly flip it off for the explosive takeoff. Often if not usually you will not have the time to fiddle with an extender and caps and all when the action starts. The z8/9 aren't as good as the r5 ii or A1 for action but they do well enough. And there's other advantages that are beyond minor:
- in dusty, snowy, sandy, rainy, salty etc environments you'll often choose to avoid exposing the sensor
- heck even buggy environments - I once had a mosquito in my camera after putting on an external extender
And yes lots ov convenience advantages
- no misplacing the special TC caps
- no rebalancing your gimbal after adding/removing...Show more →
The TC optical formula is also matched to the lens' optics to optimize performance. The regular Z TCs are great but I doubt the external 1.4X would be as good as the internal TC. The internal TC's optical formula is quite a bit different from the external TC's formula.
p.7 #10 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
IMO the built in TC is a very important feature. I am with the others who do not like to have to swap lenses out in the field, so having the added reach when needed is for me a big plus. In terms of cost, the price of these tc lenses has finally come down towards earth...to me it looks like it is a $2k upgrade...still a lot, but for some of us it is worth it.
As far as AF performance goes, these things go in cycles that match when the companies put out new camera bodies. Sony had the edge with the A1, now Canon may have a slight lead with the R5II, but Nikon camera body new versions will be out this year...so likely they will at least catch up. Also, at this point we are talking different shades of amazing. I shot with Canon for a few years and was very happy with the R5 af, and now that I'm back to Nikon I'm very happy with the Z8 af...and so it goes...
p.7 #11 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
duncangr wrote:
If the subject is static or moving slowly (and this includes very large raptors flying) I'll take the A7r5 over anything else. A built in TC offers little other than a minor convenience and that at a hefty additional cost. Heck you can buy a Sony 600 f/4 and an a7r5 for the same price as the Z600TC. You might even have change left over for the 1.4TC.
The dream team to me for wildlife is the A9iii, A7r5 300/f2.8 and 600 f/4 + 1.4 and 2.0 TCs. Lightest, fastest, highest resolution and DR all in a simple bundle of 2 lenses and 2 cameras. All in one carry-on bag - just perfect. ...Show more →
As a wildlife photographer having a TC built in your lens is a dream come true. Many photographers will support the fact that it is not just a minor convenience but a must-have. Coming to the pricing (bhphoto) - Sony 600 f4 is 12,998$, a7RV $3,398.00 , Sony 1.4x TC - $548, and Nikon 600mm f/4 TC - $14,496.95 so not sure how the Sony combo is cheaper.
Looking at a system from the perspective of just photographing birds is pretty naive.
p.7 #12 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Wezre wrote:
The TC optical formula is also matched to the lens' optics to optimize performance. The regular Z TCs are great but I doubt the external 1.4X would be as good as the internal TC. The internal TC's optical formula is quite a bit different from the external TC's formula.
I don’t think the matching claims are as important as some seem to think.
Steve Perry said his external 1.4 was slightly better than the internal on his 600TC. I found the same when I owned the Canon 200-400.
p.7 #13 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
tabishshaikh wrote:
As a wildlife photographer having a TC built in your lens is a dream come true. Many photographers will support the fact that it is not just a minor convenience but a must-have. Coming to the pricing (bhphoto) - Sony 600 f4 is 12,998$, a7RV $3,398.00 , Sony 1.4x TC - $548, and Nikon 600mm f/4 TC - $14,496.95 so not sure how the Sony combo is cheaper.
Looking at a system from the perspective of just photographing birds is pretty naive.
Each to their own - I did say "the dream team for ME".
Not sure why you think this is only suitable for birds though - I shoot big game and landscapes too. A7r5 with its 60mp and better dynamic range is easily the best wildlife/landscape camera I have used. Suitable for everything apart from fast action - and with 60mp you don't even need a TC you can just crop .
If you're not shooting birds in flight why compromise with a stacked sensor image quality when 99.99% of the time you don't need the stacked sensor.
It seems contradictory to on the one hand say you pick the very finest lenses (assuming they are) and on the other hand go with a compromised sensor when 99% of the time you don't need that stacked sensor. Why not just use the Z7ii with its better dynamic range. The autofocus would be more than adequate most of the time.
p.7 #14 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
This whole thread of several pages is a great big nothing burger. Pick the system that works for you and enjoy it. I guess it’s a credit to the manufacturers when the discussions become more about what the camera can do for you as opposed to you the photographer using your tools.
I picked up a Z8 this week to use as an everyday driver and landscape camera to compliment my Z9. I set it up and was out with it today. It performed as expected and I wouldn’t hesitate to use it for sports action or birding.
For the smaller size and same performance I’m as happy as a clam. If company X has slightly better AF or pixel level DR, good for them. If I can’t get what I need out of these cameras, it’s likely not the cameras fault.
p.7 #15 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Great big nothing burger ?
Well I think a lot depends on the type of photography one does. This thread was about AF. I see you do landscape and 'driving'.
Not sure what you meanby driving, but for landscape I would think the AF differences are mostly inconsequential. But for wildlife, especially action, they can be significant.
I think there's good information in the thread for someone picking a system for wildlife, especially action.
p.7 #16 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
duncangr wrote:
Each to their own - I did say "the dream team for ME".
Not sure why you think this is only suitable for birds though - I shoot big game and landscapes too. A7r5 with its 60mp and better dynamic range is easily the best wildlife/landscape camera I have used. Suitable for everything apart from fast action - and with 60mp you don't even need a TC you can just crop .
If you're not shooting birds in flight why compromise with a stacked sensor image quality when 99.99% of the time you don't need the stacked sensor.
It seems contradictory to on the one hand say you pick the very finest lenses (assuming they are) and on the other hand go with a compromised sensor when 99% of the time you don't need that stacked sensor. Why not just use the Z7ii with its better dynamic range. The autofocus would be more than adequate most of the time.
Z7 ii has better dynamic range and slightly lower noise if I remember correctly than Z8; Having own both and Z9,
if I just look at a raw file without looking at exif data, there is no way that I can tell which picture is taken by which camera.
Never once that I process a Z8 file and wish that it was a Z7 ii because I can push the file more in post processing.
I also own GFX100 which I think the file is incredible (but I don't really care for Fuji color, I usually have to work more in
post processing to get the color to what I like) but I never once had a picture ruin because I was using z9/Z8 instead of GFX100. Sometimes people just spend too much time looking at lab number as if the slight difference is really that big a deal
in practice. I do take out Zf a bit more often than Z8 when not shooting action and hardly touch my Z 7ii now, not because of the sensor choice but I like the form factor and the feel of using it especially with techart M to z adapter and my other smaller manual lenses. Nowaday, camera are so good that dynamic range and noise level is not the major consideration anymore and different cameras have more to offer than just lab value, I think.
GFX100 and 110/2 used to be my go to portrait lens but lately I use it less and less as Nikon introduced 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 135/1.8 . However, I recently picked up GF 55/1.7 and that is one impressive lens. I guess what I want to say is that sensor consideration does not have as much impact on my decision which camera I want to use and there are many other considerations and factors to think about.
p.7 #17 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Daily driver means everyday camera. And no I’m not a landscape photographer but I enjoy landscape.
I’m a sports photographer of more than 20yrs who has been published worldwide and I use these cameras for NHL, MLB, MLS, Indycar, alpine ski racing, football and more. I understand action and the need to move to an action sequence in a split second including focusing on a single athlete in the middle of a crowded play.
I set up my cameras for the environment I’m given both outdoors and indoors and they work phenomenally. And yes I miss the occasional shot and so do my colleagues that I’m working besides who are using Canon, Sony and Nikon. I know them well and several have won international awards. They set up their tools and do their best. And they know that everyone in the room is capable of getting what they need and we celebrate the guy that gets “the” shot no matter which system he is using.
matth4ever wrote:
Great big nothing burger ?
Well I think a lot depends on the type of photography one does. This thread was about AF. I see you do landscape and 'driving'.
Not sure what you meanby driving, but for landscape I would think the AF differences are mostly inconsequential. But for wildlife, especially action, they can be significant.
I think there's good information in the thread for someone picking a system for wildlife, especially action.
p.7 #18 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
To each his own. For me, and I would guess most bird/wildlife action photographers, the AF differences in the systems are not insignificant.
I would sum it up as : fast/eratic moving birds, the AF in the Canon R5 ii and Sony A1 (and probably A1 ii) are noticeably superior to the Z8/9. (And, btw, the raw pre-capture on the R5 ii and A1 ii can be a large advantage to capturing peak moments) For all other wildlife, the AF differences between those systems are probably not significant, so for these cases the amazing Nikon wildlife lens selection wins, IMHO.
I offer this perspective for someone starting out. For someone already invested in a system, probably not worth switching as there will likely be continual leap frogging.
p.7 #19 · 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 →
Don't think of it as a 600mm f4 that happens to have a built in TC.
Think of it as a 600-840mm f4-5.6 zoom lens.
If you really wanted to you could still use it with the 1.4 and 2 TC.
p.7 #20 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
matth4ever wrote:
To each his own. For me, and I would guess most bird/wildlife action photographers, the AF differences in the systems are not insignificant.
I would sum it up as : fast/eratic moving birds, the AF in the Canon R5 ii and Sony A1 (and probably A1 ii) are noticeably superior to the Z8/9. (And, btw, the raw pre-capture on the R5 ii and A1 ii can be a large advantage to capturing peak moments) For all other wildlife, the AF differences between those systems are probably not significant, so for these cases the amazing Nikon wildlife lens selection wins, IMHO.
I offer this perspective for someone starting out. For someone already invested in a system, probably not worth switching as there will likely be continual leap frogging....Show more →
For all other cases the resolution and dynamic range of the A7r5 easily trumps the convenience of a built in TC imo.
. as far as functionality i matched all appropriate settings to my Z9. i went over to Ellis Island where i shoot and give tech support to the NPS Museum branch and took my standard shot there in the hall to "check things out". as far as i can see its a new happy tool (somewhat lighter/smaller too)
