bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards.
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
you said A1 drops to 3.60 "mp" when "AF is optimized"? is that some kind of joke? typo? no idea what you're talking about.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
build:
I prefer the light weight construction of Sony, much easier to carry around all day long. The small form factor makes it more stealth so I can use it everywhere without many noticing the camera or its value. When I had the D5 it always attracted unwanted attention . In fact I bought a pair of D850's just for places where I wanted to be more discrete.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today for me A1 would still be worth it at $10K compared to what else is on the marker now.
but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards.
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
you said A1 drops to 3.60 "mp" when "AF is optimized"? is that some kind of joke? typo? no idea what you're talking about.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
build:
I prefer the light weight construction of Sony, much easier to carry around all day long. The small form factor makes it more stealth so I can use it everywhere without many noticing the camera or its value. When I had the D5 it always attracted unwanted attention . In fact I bought a pair of D850's just for places where I wanted to be more discrete.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards.
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
you said A1 drops to 3.60 mpixel(?) when AF is optimized? is that some kind of joke? typo? no idea what you're talking about.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
build:
I prefer the light weight construction of Sony, much easier to carry around all day long. The small form factor makes it more stealth so I can use it everywhere without many noticing the camera or its value. When I had the D5 it always attracted unwanted attention . In fact I bought a pair of D850's just for places where I wanted to be more discrete.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards.
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
build:
I prefer the light weight construction of Sony, much easier to carry around all day long. The small form factor makes it more stealth so I can use it everywhere without many noticing the camera or its value. When I had the D5 it always attracted unwanted attention . In fact I bought a pair of D850's just for places where I wanted to be more discrete.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
build:
I prefer the light weight construction of Sony, much easier to carry around all day long. The small form factor makes it more stealth so I can use it everywhere without many noticing the camera or its value. When I had the D5 it always attracted unwanted attention . In fact I bought a pair of D850's just for places where I wanted to be more discrete.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5-7 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success. On the other hand Canon's R5 can also do 50 mega pixel @ 20 fps for a lot cheaper so we have to see if Nikon's AF and other features are truly better than the Canon.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5-7 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec. having a feature is always better than not having it.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today without thinking but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy when panning at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of many birds fluidly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5-7 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today without thinking but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
EVF:
Nikon has only a 60Hz finder which isn't adequate for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. image will be choppy at those focal lengths. 60 Hz isn't even enough to display wing beats of a tern fuildly. Sony's EVF is 240Hz, 4X the speed and much higher resolution even in the highest refresh rate mode. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. no comparison here.
AF :
I doubt if the Z9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect (almost 3 x more points) points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to copied from old DSLR's.
Shutter :
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec.
Video:
Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
IQ:
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, it is at almost at the theoretical limit. Nikon Z9 is TBD....
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today without thinking but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
Nikon lacks 240Hz finder which makes not ideal for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. I doubt if theZ9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to coppied from old DSLR's.
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec.
Video: Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only supports 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps at best.
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, Nikon Z9 is TBD....
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today without thinking but Nikon is moving in the right direction and I do wish them success.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
Nikon lacks 240Hz finder which makes not ideal for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. I doubt if theZ9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to coppied from old DSLR's.
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec.
Video: Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only support 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps.
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, Nikon Z9 is TBD....
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today Nikon is moving in the right direction though and I wish them success.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
Nikon lacks 240Hz finder which makes not ideal for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. I doubt if theZ9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to coppied from old DSLR's.
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec.
Video: Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only support 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps.
Sony's 50 mega pixel sensor is industry leading in its class in terms of SNR and DR, Nikon Z9 is TBD....
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today Nikon is moving in the right direction though and I wish them success.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs backwards
Nikon lacks 240Hz finder which makes not ideal for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. I doubt if theZ9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to coppied from old DSLR's.
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec.
Video: Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. Sony internal recording is at a whopping 400mbps. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera maker for generations. Nikon is new to video, Z9 only support 4:2:2 10 bit recording, it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min. Nikon doesn't quote recording bit rate, I expect it is 100-200Mbps.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today Nikon is moving in the right direction though and I wish them success.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point .
I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs).
it seems to me you have some of the specs wrong
Nikon lacks 240Hz finder which makes not ideal for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. I doubt if theZ9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to coppied from old DSLR's.
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't... Sony max sync speed is 1/400 sec Nikon is 1/200 sec.
Video: Sony is clear winner with 4:2:0 10 bit internal and 16bit RAW video external recording. unlimited record length. Sony log is broadcast and production standard as one of the world's largest video camera makers for generations. Nikon only support 4:2:2 10 bit it cannot record RAW video and is limited to 120 min.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today Nikon is moving in the right direction though and I wish them success.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I have to disagree with every point . I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs). Nikon lacks 240Hz finder which makes not ideal for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. I doubt if theZ9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 phase detect points + 425 contrast detect points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AF AI, system has many degrees of customization designed from ground up as opposed to coppied from old DSLR's.
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't...
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today Nikon is moving in the right direction though and I wish them success.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I disagree. I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs). Nikon lacks 240Hz finder which makes not ideal for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+ which I shoot 90% of the time. Z9 has a low res finder equivalent to what Sony had 5 years ago. I doubt if theZ9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AI....
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't...
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today Nikon is moving in the right direction though and I wish them success. competition is always a good thing for the consumer
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I disagree. I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs). Nikon lacks 240Hz finder which makes not ideal for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths like 800mm+, it has a low res finder too. I doubt if theZ9 AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon doesn't mention its core AF sampling rate. Sony samples at 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that or Nikon would be advertising it. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 points in A1 backed by multiple generations of improved AI....
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some subjects like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings and ruin the frame, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots. Nikon doesn't...
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today Nikon is moving in the right direction though and I wish them success. competition is always a good thing for the consumer
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I disagree. I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps in small jpegs). Nikon lacks 240Hz finder which makes not ideal for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths, it has a low res finder too. I doubt if the AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon's doesn't mention what is the core AF sampling rate for Sony it's 120Hz, I doubt Z9 can do that. Z9 has only 495 phase detect points compared to 759 points in A1 so not sure it can match
Lack of mechanical shutter is a drawback for me not a plus. I am not sure how you conclude the readout speed is faster for Nikon but even at 1/300sec there are some shots like humming birds where you get rolling shutter on the wings, I'd like to have mechanical shutter for those shots.
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I cannot disagree more. I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps there ). Nikon lacks 240Hz finder which makes not ideal for panning rapidly at very long focal lengths, it has a low res finder too for static shots. I doubt if the AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... Nikon's doesn't mention what is the core AF sampling rate for Sony it's 120Hz
I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today
bernardl wrote: speedmaster20d wrote:
looks good on paper, doesn't match the A1 but it is priced accordingly and much more compelling than Canon's 20 mega pixel R3 for sure. I also have a feeling that Nikon's AF is more solid and closer to Sony's performance than Canon's R series that still lacking in consistency when it comes to certain challenging subjects. good day for Nikon.
It doesn't match the a1 in some ways (raw fps, EVF specs if you don't look in details,...), betters it in others (read out speed, simplicity of architecture without mechanical shutter, AF per the initial tests, 120 fps mode, video specs, build,...).
I tend to think that the areas where it's no match are not relevant for actual shooting (20 fps raw is already enough overall, 30 fps is available in jpg, the a1 drops to 3.69 mp or less when AF performance is optimized,...) while the areas where the Z9 is superior are relevant for actual shooting.
Overall to me the Z9 is clearly the better camera of the 2.
I cannot disagree more. I shoot 30 fps RAW all the time, 50% faster is a big deal for what I shoot (I never shoot JPEG in my life and don't care if it does 1000 fps there ) I doubt if the AF can match my A1 for what I shoot and demand form the camera which is close to 100% hit rate... I sold 40 grand of Nikon gear to move to Sony in late 2019 and I'd do it again today in a heart beat
Oct 29, 2021 at 02:30 AM
Previous versions of speedmaster20d's message #15750725 « New Z9 Specs (NR) Aug 10th, 2021 »
for me A1 would still be worth it at $10K compared to what else is on the marker now. 