p.8 #2 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Two key elements to consider IMHO are focus and momentum.
And it seems obvious that Nikon is the brand that has demonstrated the highest level of focus on wildlife as well as the highest momentum. They are improving much faster that Canon and Sony.
Considering how close the 3 years old Z9 is vs the latest Canon and Sony it seems obvious that the Z9II will be the best focusing camera on the planet when it ships in 2025.
Add to this the ability to adapt Sony FE mount lenses and things are very clear cut. The best brand on which to base a wildlife set up is Nikon.
p.8 #3 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
I guess I’ll make one last comment and move on.
If the title of the thread said “that much worse for erratically flying birds” then this thread would likely be several pages shorter and the discussion would primarily be between bird photographers.
Instead the title reads as a broad brush generalization about Z8/9 AF which will usually lead to what this thread devolved into.
BTW I looked at your Instagram page. Your photos are fantastic.
Merry Christmas to all!
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 →
p.8 #4 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
"For all other cases the resolution and dynamic range of the A7r5 easily trumps the convenience of a built in TC imo."
For wildlife portraits I'd agree the A7r5 is the best camera. That said, most wildlife photographers I know like to capture action too, where speed (eg. higher frame rates, pre-capture, fast read-out speed to avoid distortion etc) become critical advantages. For these folks that do a mix of portraits and action, the A1 i/ii, R5, Z8/9 are imho usually better solution, as one is often above ISO 500 anyways, where the DR differences fairly small.
p.8 #5 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
Two key elements to consider IMHO are focus and momentum.
And it seems obvious that Nikon is the brand that has demonstrated the highest level of focus on wildlife as well as the highest momentum. They are improving much faster that Canon and Sony.
Considering how close the 3 years old Z9 is vs the latest Canon and Sony it seems obvious that the Z9II will be the best focusing camera on the planet when it ships in 2025.
Add to this the ability to adapt Sony FE mount lenses and things are very clear cut. The best brand on which to base a wildlife set up is Nikon.
p.8 #6 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
After using a fast readout camera, for sports and wildlife, I don't think I want to go back to a mechanical shutter camera.
For landscape, I'm holding on to my A7R4, and for that subject matter, the R5 doesn't offer much over it. For sports and wildlife, I'd go for the A9 or A1 series... but given that I can't really afford a frickin' A1, economics sort of made the decision for me.
p.8 #7 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
I have been reading posts like this from you for the better part of a decade (a9 released in 2017) now. One day it may even come true.
As a former a9II and a9III owner, I don't think you have, no.
I have never debated the fact that the a9/a9II was far ahead in tracking vs the Nikon bodies at the time. That's the very reason why I bought an a9II and I have always been very positive about it's AF performance. The issue I had with the a9II was colors and the lack of lenses I liked in the line up (significantly improved since then with master pieces such as the 50mm f1.2 GM or 35mm f1.4 GM).
But that is beside the point. The point today is that the a1 and Z8/Z9 are very close in AF performance and the a1II is certainly better but isn't a huge upgrade compared to the a1.
This leaves the door opened for Nikon to jump in front... but even if they did I fully agree that it can't be much better than the a1/Z8/Z9 considering how good all these cameras are. Let's not forget that Nikon had a significant lead over Canon in pro sport DSLR focusing performance. AF always was a major strong point with Nikon. It has certainly taken some time to reach the same level of excellent with their mirrorless bodies, but again, just draw the curves plotting the performance vs time and you see a much steeper upward curve on Nikon side. The points where the curves cross is most probably with the Z9II. The contrary would be surprising knowing everything we know at this point.
Since you have emphasized many times in the past that you are not a brand person, I am sure you won't mind.
My point remains that lenses are what matters and this is what has motivated so many wildlife shooters to start using Nikon these past 3 years.
p.8 #8 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
As a former a9II and a9III owner, I don't think you have, no.
I have never debated the fact that the a9/a9II was far ahead in tracking vs the Nikon bodies at the time. That's the very reason why I bought an a9II and I have always been very positive about it's AF performance. The issue I had with the a9II was colors and the lack of lenses I liked in the line up (significantly improved since then with master pieces such as the 50mm f1.2 GM or 35mm f1.4 GM).
But that is beside the point. The point today is that the a1 and Z8/Z9 are very close in AF performance and the a1II is certainly better but isn't a huge upgrade compared to the a1.
This leaves the door opened for Nikon to jump in front... but even if they did I fully agree that it can't be much better than the a1/Z8/Z9 considering how good all these cameras are. Let's not forget that Nikon had a significant lead over Canon in pro sport DSLR focusing performance. AF always was a major strong point with Nikon. It has certainly taken some time to reach the same level of excellent with their mirrorless bodies, but again, just draw the curves plotting the performance vs time and you see a much steeper upward curve on Nikon side. The points where the curves cross is most probably with the Z9II. The contrary would be surprising knowing everything we know at this point.
Since you have emphasized many times in the past that you are not a brand person, I am sure you won't mind.
My point remains that lenses are what matters and this is what has motivated so many wildlife shooters to start using Nikon these past 3 years.
p.8 #9 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
I guess we will know if and when it happens.
Maybe, maybe not... Probably not considering the amount of disinformation available on line on this topic.
Sony bodies always are absolutely perfect AF-wise until the day the next generation shows up... then all of a sudden the previous body had in fact many focusing shortcomings... Some people are already claiming that the a1II is far far better than the a9III... according to that source the gap is so large that they make it look like it's surprising any a9III user was ever able to get vaguely ok focus on a static subject in bright daylight... and 6 months ago the a9III was wayyyyy better than the a1... I am starting to think that the a1 did in fact not have any AF capability at all.
p.8 #10 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
As a former a9II and a9III owner, I don't think you have, no.
I have never debated the fact that the a9/a9II was far ahead in tracking vs the Nikon bodies at the time. That's the very reason why I bought an a9II and I have always been very positive about it's AF performance. The issue I had with the a9II was colors and the lack of lenses I liked in the line up (significantly improved since then with master pieces such as the 50mm f1.2 GM or 35mm f1.4 GM).
But that is beside the point. The point today is that the a1 and Z8/Z9 are very close in AF performance and the a1II is certainly better but isn't a huge upgrade compared to the a1.
This leaves the door opened for Nikon to jump in front... but even if they did I fully agree that it can't be much better than the a1/Z8/Z9 considering how good all these cameras are. Let's not forget that Nikon had a significant lead over Canon in pro sport DSLR focusing performance. AF always was a major strong point with Nikon. It has certainly taken some time to reach the same level of excellent with their mirrorless bodies, but again, just draw the curves plotting the performance vs time and you see a much steeper upward curve on Nikon side. The points where the curves cross is most probably with the Z9II. The contrary would be surprising knowing everything we know at this point.
Since you have emphasized many times in the past that you are not a brand person, I am sure you won't mind.
My point remains that lenses are what matters and this is what has motivated so many wildlife shooters to start using Nikon these past 3 years.
The door has been open for Nikon since 2011 when they released their first mirrorless camera - 1 year before Canon and 2 years before Sony.
The only surprising things is that, knowing everything we know, you continue to believe this will happen on our lifetime. I see you appear to acknowledge now that your fantasy firmware upgrade that fixes everything on the Z8/Z9 will likely never happen.
Presumably you have heard of a thing called confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is the term used to describe the tendency of people to only accept data that confirms their existing beliefs and to ignore data that doesn't.
p.8 #11 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
Maybe, maybe not... Probably not considering the amount of disinformation available on line on this topic.
Sony bodies always are absolutely perfect AF-wise until the day the next generation shows up... then all of a sudden the previous body had in fact many focusing shortcomings... Some people are already claiming that the a1II is far far better than the a9III... according to that source the gap is so large that they make it look like it's surprising any a9III user was ever able to get vaguely ok focus on a static subject in bright daylight... and 6 months ago the a9III was wayyyyy better than the a1... I am starting to think that the a1 did in fact not have any AF capability at all.
Bernard, you are making this way too complicated. We will know that Nikon has finally caught up when threads with titles like this ne has stop showing up with regular frequency. The market is very efficient this way.
p.8 #12 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Spectro wrote:
I guess I’ll make one last comment and move on.
If the title of the thread said “that much worse for erratically flying birds” then this thread would likely be several pages shorter and the discussion would primarily be between bird photographers.
Instead the title reads as a broad brush generalization about Z8/9 AF which will usually lead to what this thread devolved into.
BTW I looked at your Instagram page. Your photos are fantastic.
Merry Christmas to all!
Good point ! I agree.
(And thank-you kindly for the comment on my instagram page. Merry Christmas to all as well !)
p.8 #13 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
duncangr wrote:
The door has been open for Nikon since 2011 when they released their first mirrorless camera - 1 year before Canon and 2 years before Sony.
The only surprising things is that, knowing everything we know, you continue to believe this will happen on our lifetime. I see you appear to acknowledge now that your fantasy firmware upgrade that fixes everything on the Z8/Z9 will likely never happen.
Presumably you have heard of a thing called confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is the term used to describe the tendency of people to only accept data that confirms their existing beliefs and to ignore data that doesn't.
Mark Twain had a slightly different take on it. ...Show more →
This is literally the same guy who *just* said that TC lenses offer nothing more than a minor convenience. Absolute perfection. The Internet is undefeated. Fred should charge for this level of comedy.
p.8 #14 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
Bernard, you are making this way too complicated. We will know that Nikon has finally caught up when threads with titles like this ne has stop showing up with regular frequency. The market is very efficient this way.
Simple
Have a great Holiday season,
Steve
Umm, this thread was started because some Canon shooters who’d never used Nikon cameras said that Canon's AF was better when the R5ii was released. Wasn’t exactly a profound insight into AF differences.
p.8 #15 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
As a former a9II and a9III owner, I don't think you have, no.
I have never debated the fact that the a9/a9II was far ahead in tracking vs the Nikon bodies at the time. That's the very reason why I bought an a9II and I have always been very positive about it's AF performance. The issue I had with the a9II was colors and the lack of lenses I liked in the line up (significantly improved since then with master pieces such as the 50mm f1.2 GM or 35mm f1.4 GM).
But that is beside the point. The point today is that the a1 and Z8/Z9 are very close in AF performance and the a1II is certainly better but isn't a huge upgrade compared to the a1.
This leaves the door opened for Nikon to jump in front... but even if they did I fully agree that it can't be much better than the a1/Z8/Z9 considering how good all these cameras are. Let's not forget that Nikon had a significant lead over Canon in pro sport DSLR focusing performance. AF always was a major strong point with Nikon. It has certainly taken some time to reach the same level of excellent with their mirrorless bodies, but again, just draw the curves plotting the performance vs time and you see a much steeper upward curve on Nikon side. The points where the curves cross is most probably with the Z9II. The contrary would be surprising knowing everything we know at this point.
Since you have emphasized many times in the past that you are not a brand person, I am sure you won't mind.
My point remains that lenses are what matters and this is what has motivated so many wildlife shooters to start using Nikon these past 3 years.
I don’t personally care if Nikon surpasses Canon or Sony when it comes to AF for birds in flight. My Z9 already offers performance that will allow me to capture any shot I want. Even a slight bump in competence would be impressive, and although I haven’t shot other brands, I have seen nothing that shows the new Canons/Sonys are anything more than a whisker better, if they are better at all.
p.8 #16 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Ok, who cares? Once Nikon started issuing their impressive line of lightweight Z super telephoto lenses, I picked up a Z9, an 800 PF, a 100-400 and pivoted toward handheld BIF work after a long period of mostly shooting Nikon’s excellent 14-24 2.8 and 24-120 4 zooms for landscapes on a tripod (Z7). While I can’t really say whether the Z9’s AF is ‘far behind’ other makers, I can say I don’t care one bit. Anyone who can’t consistently capture amazing BIF on a Z9 is likely more impaired by technique than impaired by equipment. I enjoy field craft, anticipating the action, and knowing how to use my gear with muscle memory. Nothing about my Nikon kit gets in the way. I also use my Z9 with super wide angles underwater and in surf (in Aquatech housing) and focus is amazing. In fact, I begged Aquatech to make a port for the 24-120 because I saw opportunity for some creative work in the surf with that lens couple to the Z9 AF system. They did so and it’s a killer combo. So, you can probably tell I’m a glass centric end user and I like lightweight versatile lenses with high IQ (great color, contrast, and sharpness). The Z9 took AF out of my concern to get the most from Nikon glass. Couldn’t care less what Sony or Canon are doing because neither make the glass I want and Nikon’s AF is plenty.
p.8 #17 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
groob wrote:
I don’t personally care if Nikon surpasses Canon or Sony when it comes to AF for birds in flight. My Z9 already offers performance that will allow me to capture any shot I want. Even a slight bump in competence would be impressive, and although I haven’t shot other brands, I have seen nothing that shows the new Canons/Sonys are anything more than a whisker better, if they are better at all.
Depending on what you shoot - in my case mammals (typically large African cats) the Z9/Z8 is not nearly as fast to acquire the subject as Canon, Sony or Olympus. But more so, when shooting with the Z9/Z9, if the subject is not taking a good amount of the frame then the eyes can be a bit soft at times. I had the Z9 since launch and Z8 since launch along with the 400TC for over 2 years and the 600TC for a year along with a large number of fast S-Line lenses (14-24mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 24-120mm, 70-200mm 2.8, 85mm 1.2, 135mm Plena, 600PF, 800PF, 100-400) so I am fan--the lens selection for wildlife is hands down the best. However that doesn't excuse the fact that Nikon has the weakest subject algorithms of the 3 major FF camera manufacturers and can be at times fairly inconsistent.
p.8 #20 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
groob wrote:
This is literally the same guy who *just* said that TC lenses offer nothing more than a minor convenience. Absolute perfection. The Internet is undefeated. Fred should charge for this level of comedy.
Seems uncontentious to say that for someone who would rarely put a TC on/off more than two or three times a day a built in TC offers little other than a minor convenience let alone dispute how they actually feel about it.
