p.10 #1 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
You know this is absolutely not an answer, right?
- Amazon is a volume retailer and very few photographers buying high end cameras buy them from Amazon
- sales in Holliday season is always strongly biased towards newer models
- there are various segments among content creators and I of course never claimed that the Z8 is overall outselling bodies twice cheaper, although that actually did happen for the best part of a year in Japan.
Try harder is you are really confident in the point you are trying to make.
The reality being that relevant numbers are simply not available until proven otherwise.
Cheers,
Bernard
Complete nonsense Bernard and you know it. You know I am not going to waste my time trying to prove things to you. You made statement that everyone agrees. Everyone would imply that at least a majority of people who shoot both video and stills would choose the Z9/8 cameras. That is clearly not the case. If you want to set a proof standard I suggest you first prove your statement with numbers. But of course you can't do that because it is clearly not true.
p.10 #2 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
Complete nonsense Bernard and you know it. You know I am not going to waste my time trying to prove things to you. You made statement that everyone agrees. Everyone would imply that at least a majority of people who shoot both video and stills would choose the Z9/8 cameras. That is clearly not the case. If you want to set a proof standard I suggest you first prove your statement with numbers. But of course you can't do that because it is clearly not true.
I was counting on your intelligence and good faith to understand the obvious, which is that we are speaking of the segment where the Z8/Z9 sit, meaning cameras that can tackle action in still and motion picture modes. I thought you may have perhaps gotten a hint about that from our joined insistence about top notch AF performance?
But nonetheless, impressive demonstration that cheaper cameras sell in bigger volumes. Such a breakthrough in human knowledge on a X-Mas day!
p.10 #3 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
I was counting on your intelligence and good faith to understand the obvious, which is that we are speaking of the segment where the Z8/Z9 sit, meaning cameras that can tackle action in still and motion picture modes. I thought you may have perhaps gotten a hint about that from our joined insistence about top notch AF performance?
But nonetheless, impressive demonstration that cheaper cameras sell in bigger volumes. Such a breakthrough in human knowledge on a X-Mas day!
Cheers,
Bernard
You can always count on me. Always striving to move knowledge forward for the good of mankind and our planet.
p.10 #4 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
You can always count on me. Always striving to move knowledge forward for the good of mankind and our planet.
Merry Christmas,
Steve
It's not just the autofocus that needs to improve.
It is also interesting to see that the R1 doesn't appear to be any different from the A9iii as far as these metrics go - except without the benefits of global shutter. That really surprised me because it appears that the claim that Canon didn't want to go global shutter in order to not compromise on IQ isn't true - for a measly 10fps increase they seem to have had to make some compromises. What is even more surprising is that according to JP the A1ii and R1 are basically neck-and-neck as far as AF performance goes.
It will be interesting to see if Nikon is able to overcome some of these challenges and join the big boys club once again.
p.10 #6 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
duncangr wrote:
It's not just the autofocus that needs to improve.
It is also interesting to see that the R1 doesn't appear to be any different from the A9iii as far as these metrics go - except without the benefits of global shutter. That really surprised me because it appears that the claim that Canon didn't want to go global shutter in order to not compromise on IQ isn't true - for a measly 10fps increase they seem to have had to make some compromises. What is even more surprising is that according to JP the A1ii and R1 are basically neck-and-neck as far as AF performance goes.
It will be interesting to see if Nikon is able to overcome some of these challenges and join the big boys club once again.
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.10 #7 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
"least ergonomics"
i have the upper-body strength and hand size of a 5-year-old boy and IMO i would take the Z9 over any Sony body in terms of ergonomics. but hey, that's just me.
p.10 #8 · 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.
Don't forget first place in video by a fairly wide gap, probably significantly wider for serious users than the minute differences for stills mentioned above.
3rd in DR if you overlook the fact that Canon bakes in NR in their raw files at low ISO to artificially boost their DR numbers. Which means 2nd. And with a difference that is completely irrelevant in the real world vs the a1 to the extend that I wonder why you are mentioning it?
3rd place in AF for some niche birding cases perhaps, my first hand experience with people showed the Z9 to be overall better than the a9III. And that is based on tens of thousand of images in demanding settings.
As far as ergonomics goes, having extended experience with the best recent Sony, they are fine (Sony is definitely improving and it's nice to see that they didn't believe the vocal folks on forums who were claiming that the older Sony bodies were perfect) but I fail to see how they can be considered as being in front of the Nikons. This is personal preference at best.
And finally, the Z9 is 3 years old and its remarkable how well it still fares vs the much more recent counterparts. There is little doubt that the Z9II will regain the king's crown.
p.10 #9 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
dalegaspi wrote:
"least ergonomics"
i have the upper-body strength and hand size of a 5-year-old boy and IMO i would take the Z9 over any Sony body in terms of ergonomics. but hey, that's just me.
Because of the comically large form factors, most of my friends who have the Z9/Z8 cameras have stopped carrying them for everyday shooting and only bring them when shooting birds. I find this funny because birds is where the Z9/8 seem to lag the worst. They mostly have purchased Zf, or Z6III bodies for everyday shooting these days. That works out well for them.
p.10 #10 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
Don't forget first place in video by a fairly wide gap, probably significantly wider for serious users than the minute differences for stills mentioned above.
3rd in DR if you overlook the fact that Canon bakes in NR in their raw files at low ISO to artificially boost their DR numbers. Which means 2nd. And with a difference that is completely irrelevant in the real world vs the a1 to the extend that I wonder why you are mentioning it?
3rd place in AF for some niche birding cases perhaps, my first hand experience with people showed the Z9 to be overall better than the a9III. And that is based on tens of thousand of images in demanding settings.
As far as ergonomics goes, having extended experience with the best recent Sony, they are fine (Sony is definitely improving and it's nice to see that they didn't believe the vocal folks on forums who were claiming that the older Sony bodies were perfect) but I fail to see how they can be considered as being in front of the Nikons. This is personal preference at best.
And finally, the Z9 is 3 years old and its remarkable how well it still fares vs the much more recent counterparts. There is little doubt that the Z9II will regain the king's crown.
Love the rationalizations here. So, consistent. At least we have lost the "everyone agrees" B.S.. But now there is "little doubt" about a crown it never actually held based on performance.
p.10 #11 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
Because of the comically large form factors, most of my friends who have the Z9/Z8 cameras have stopped carrying them for everyday shooting...
Comically... seriously?
As far as rationalization goes, are you in disagreement about what I write? If yes, why so? I am still waiting for your "factual" data about high end bodies market share. I have little hope of you answering the question, but who knows.
Why do your friends continue to use their comically large and clearly inferior Z8/Z9s btw? Considering your activities here, I am sure it's not due to a lack of Sony promotion from you.
As far as the king goes, I trust DPreview. They had elected the Z9 as the top flashship early Feb-2022 (same ranking as the R3 ahead of the a1) all things considered vs the R3 and a1 (and in particular its AF). Of course it was not surprising considering that the Z9 was the last of the flagships to ship. That was before it got improved very significantly with a series of firmware improvements (that the R3 and a1 never got). Birding? It's of course a tiny niche, but even so, as far as I recall Steve Perry, who knows both systems extremely well, ranks the Z9 a bit ahead of the a1 and Nikon significantly ahead due to lenses line up, doesn't he? I am sure the newer a1II is better. Nothing to be worried about.
And I will trust DPreview again when they compare the a1II, R1 and Z9II whenever the Z9II ships. Knowing also that Nikon will most probably keep improving the Z9II further for years after its release, and that Sony will most probably not do the same with the a1II.
p.10 #13 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
tester_V wrote:
From the post above,'... I trust DPreview...'. it should be nominated as joke of the year...
Why so? I find them to be the most objective equipment review site there is.
They cover each major brand equally well, follow a clear approach that is a good mix between technical assessment and experience based ones. They speak about stills and video. I don't see any issues really.
Of course I understand that some people with a strong brand preference sometimes dislike seeing equipment from other brands being picked. We've all been on the web long enough to know who they are. But looking at DPreview's equipment selection this year, it seems to make total sense and is btw echoed very closely by popular votes.
The Nikon Z6III was picked as camera of the year and piece of equipment of the year and sure enough the popular vote is aligned with this. This despite Nikon having a ridiculously low market share as has been demonstrated by Steve (). So it must mean that a large majority of users from other brands agree that the Z6III is the best camera of the year, right?
p.10 #14 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
Why so? I find them to be the most objective equipment review site there is.
They cover each major brand equally well, follow a clear approach that is a good mix between technical assessment and experience based ones. They speak about stills and video. I don't see any issues really.
I can't speak for tester_V, but dpreview tend to be very oriented towards the idea that any problem in photography should be solved by purchasing the right new gear, rather than learning skills or practicing to get around the problems. This might help them get advertisers but buying new gear is usually not the best way to improve results, especially if you're at the level of photographer who produces sample images like the ones shown in dpreview reviews. The sample photos they produce regularly suggest a level of photographic skills similar to a random person walking on the street rather than an experienced photographer. This, in my opinion, casts some doubt on how valid their assessments might be. I think in the end it's important that there are people doing technical testing and pointing out technical problems, but at the end of the day the kit is only valuable if the outcome is good photographs and for a review to be valuable, performance in making interesting images should also be demonstrated. A lot of so-called issues in cameras may seem like issues if you give the camera to a random person walking on the street to try to use but become trivial when the user is a photographer with a reasonable level of skills and experience and who knows what to point the camera at and when. I really believe dpreview should hire some photographers and give the kit for them to test in actual projects and then show the results and describe the experiences of using the gear rather than take the camera out on the street and point it camera in random directions at random times in the least interesting light and assume those images are useful for evaluating the gear, which is what they appear to be doing.
They do solid technical testing of cameras and have pointed out issues in many cases and this has lead manufacturers to make improvements and fixes. But the most important ingredients of a photograph are artistry, light, moment, and subject rather than technical aspects of the gear, and if the camera isn't used in the proper context, some of the "flaws" reported might not be actual flaws in real use by the people who the product is meant to be used by. Also, some problems that experienced photographers find with the gear in real-world environments might be undetected by dpreview because the testers didn't try to take the camera to photograph interesting subject matter in interesting light. Thus, depending on what you are going to do with the gear, dpreview assessments may or may not be helpful in making purchase decisions.
p.10 #15 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Folks, we are nearly 2025 and even in this year yet to come will there be no answer on the above and other brand related questions. It is getting a but ridiculous to be fair that 10 pages were wasted on a non-topic to start with. Nikon users know the strength and weaknesses of their gear and others just chime in for the sake of being bored and just like to show how far they can piss in the hope some Nikon shooter play their stupid childish game.
Is this what photography boils down to these days? Gear and only gear? Is this what brings photographers to a climax by discussing and interpreting DPReview conclusions or what AF is better in situation A or B but not in C and D only to immediately contested by somebody with another opinion?
For those that get their oprgasms from spoiling every Nikon discussion with their anti Nikon rhetoric one advice: grow up and get a life, even if you are a retired person. It is never too late to go out and enjoy the essence of photography: make photos.
p.10 #16 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
bernardl wrote:
Why so? I find them to be the most objective equipment review site there is.
They cover each major brand equally well, follow a clear approach that is a good mix between technical assessment and experience based ones. They speak about stills and video. I don't see any issues really.
Of course I understand that some people with a strong brand preference sometimes dislike seeing equipment from other brands being picked. We've all been on the web long enough to know who they are. But looking at DPreview's equipment selection this year, it seems to make total sense and is btw echoed very closely by popular votes.
The Nikon Z6III was picked as camera of the year and piece of equipment of the year and sure enough the popular vote is aligned with this. This despite Nikon having a ridiculously low market share as has been demonstrated by Steve (). So it must mean that a large majority of users from other brands agree that the Z6III is the best camera of the year, right?
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.
p.10 #17 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
Vinnie_VdB wrote:
Folks, we are nearly 2025 and even in this year yet to come will there be no answer on the above and other brand related questions. It is getting a but ridiculous to be fair that 10 pages were wasted on a non-topic to start with. Nikon users know the strength and weaknesses of their gear and others just chime in for the sake of being bored and just like to show how far they can piss in the hope some Nikon shooter play their stupid childish game.
Is this what photography boils down to these days? Gear and only gear? Is this what brings photographers to a climax by discussing and interpreting DPReview conclusions or what AF is better in situation A or B but not in C and D only to immediately contested by somebody with another opinion?
For those that get their oprgasms from spoiling every Nikon discussion with their anti Nikon rhetoric one advice: grow up and get a life, even if you are a retired person. It is never too late to go out and enjoy the essence of photography: make photos. ...Show more →
Actually most are not criticizing Nikon's current gear lineup. Like I have said, it is currently excellent and competitive in performance. The discussions are more based on some disagreements over certain declarative statements made in the thread. Gear is just a minor part of the photographic hobby for most of us. Personally, I spend much more time posting and discussing images that I do gear. I also spend considerable time in techniques, and gear usage nad testing threads. Remarkably, I think you will see that is not the case for many of those issuing the declarative brand loyalist statements in this thread. Just click on their profiles and this will become very clear.
p.10 #18 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
1bwana1 wrote:
Because of the comically large form factors, most of my friends who have the Z9/Z8 cameras have stopped carrying them for everyday shooting and only bring them when shooting birds. I find this funny because birds is where the Z9/8 seem to lag the worst. They mostly have purchased Zf, or Z6III bodies for everyday shooting these days. That works out well for them.
the most ridiculous thing about this statement is your claim that you have friends.
p.10 #19 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
dalegaspi wrote:
the most ridiculous thing about this statement is your claim that you have friends.
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...
p.10 #20 · Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse?
duncangr wrote:
It's not just the autofocus that needs to improve.
It is also interesting to see that the R1 doesn't appear to be any different from the A9iii as far as these metrics go - except without the benefits of global shutter. That really surprised me because it appears that the claim that Canon didn't want to go global shutter in order to not compromise on IQ isn't true - for a measly 10fps increase they seem to have had to make some compromises. What is even more surprising is that according to JP the A1ii and R1 are basically neck-and-neck as far as AF performance goes.
It will be interesting to see if Nikon is able to overcome some of these challenges and join the big boys club once again.
For many of us, the DR differences are rather inconsequential compared to the AF and performance issues (RAW pre-capture, FPS, etc). I suggest you look at this recent AF comparison between two competing bodies (R1 and A1II). Unfortunately, my Z8 could not compete in this realm.
