Lance B
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: New Z9 Specs (NR) Aug 10th, 2021 | |
speedmaster20d wrote:
DGettisNC wrote:
speedmaster20d wrote:
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. something tells me that is the case but before reputable, skilled and independent photographers in each discipline give it a shot, we don't know for sure.
competition is always a good thing for the consumer at the end.
cheers 
I'm sorry but I find this exchange funny.
The post you are replying to is a subjective, personal opinion. And honestly it really just seems like maybe your feelings got hurt because that person had the audacity to say that, in their opinion the Z9 is overall a better camera for THEM (maybe something to do with the fact you got rid of "40k in nikon gear" recently?) .
But the funny part is your reasoning for disagreeing with their opinion that the Z9 seems better overall for THEM, is due to a bunch of reasons that YOU prefer the A1 because of what and how YOU shoot?
Some notes:
- Yes, the sony EVF has a faster refresh rate of 240fps and higher resolution, but you cannot actually use AF and take pics with the Sony at 240 refresh rate AND 9M dots. If you want to use the highest resolution then the refresh rate drops to 60, to get to 240, you have to drop resolution and magnification.
We'll see real world comparisons soon enough. Some have already stated that the Z9 EVF looks more natural. Polin had been a bit pissy with Nikon but even he said he doesnt see a big difference in the EVFs.
In the end, we're basically talking about 1.5k @ 0.9x mag vs 1k at 0.8x mag during real use.
Here's a rundown from someone else that has used it already:
The Z9 EVF. I shot with both eyes open, I was shooting one of out electric motorcycles hooding about in the dirt. Hand on heart, it was just like looking with both my own eyes. No delay in the right eye and absolutely no blackout on that eye either. It was astounding.
Going back to work with my Z7 the next day was a revelation in the backwards sense of the word. S L O W startup, slow focus, slow AF tracking. A capable camera but I really had been spoiled rotten by those short moments with the Z9.
Winner - Sony probably but not nearly as huge a deal as people are trying to make it out to be.
- It took Sony until, what May via a FW update to fix issues with IBIS and EVF blacking out? How many A1 buyers had to put tape over the sensor in order for it to work correctly for the first few months?
- Both cameras shoot full lossless RAW at 20fps, neither camera shoots full RAW at 30FPS (and for the A1 to get the 30FPS with the lossy RAW it has to be with certain lenses and certain shooting modes...beware of those lossy compression artifacts)
And if we're talking about having to reduce file size to get to 30FPS anyway, then 120FPS is better than 30FPS. People will draw their proverbial lines in the sand at different spots. I don't see this being a big win for either camera.
- AF sensitivity on the Z9 is better
- Sensor readout speed is better on the Z9
- The Z9 can record 8k much, much longer.
- I personally prefer the iso64-25,600 vs the A1's 100-32000, though that is a super minor difference in most instances, it is just my preference, and I would really only use iso64 occasionally since I am mainly wildlife, but its still nice to have that option.
- The Z9 is $1000 less than the A1 and $1400 less if you wanted to add a grip to the A1.
So yes, there are obviously some reasons why someone could have the OPINION that the Z9 is the better camera for them. And there are reasons why someone could have the OPINION that the A1 is the better camera for them.
I have zero problem with someone claiming that a camera is better *for them*. An iPhone is a better camera for some folks than an A1 is. A kia is a better car for some than a Ferrari. No argument with subjective opinions.
My problem is a nobody with nothing to show but internet rants and raves trying to tell me why I am wrong for what and the way I shoot. that is total BS and I called it out. I have owned the best of Canon, Nikon and now Sony thought the years and shot with all them extensively, I have the experience to tell what makes a difference and what doesn't for what I specialize in.
As for A1 finder in 240 Hz it resolution is 1600 x 1200 or 5.6 million dots, still significantly better than Nikon 3.7 million dot 60Hz EVF. Now one can claim the slow low res finder is better for them, hey it looks prettier with the jagged edges....OK, fine, good for them. But for me it's dead in the water. I would not have moved to mirrorless if I had to deal with a 60Hz finder.
I don't find A1's lossy raw format to make any visible difference for what I shoot after having shot 200K files with the camera. When you say lossy compression artifact can you show an example of it? something that you have shot yourself with A1 and found unacceptable? 30 fps makes the difference between an epic and a mediocre shot for some subjects. again if you don't shoot such subjects you may not comprehend at all but for some it does so you can't say oh they are the same.
Also do you have any solid refercnes to back these statements ? I am curious what are your references for these claims.
1. Z9 has faster readout. I am not looking for speculation on a random blog/site claims out of thin air...I am asking for actual solid measured data or official manufacture spec. do you have it?
2. Z9 AF is better. who made this claim ? was it someone independent, talented in skilled in the art with the kind of images to back it up shooting both cameras side by side and forming an onion ? or was it a blogger's imagination ?
3. Z9 can shoot 8K for longer (again side by side shooting 8K until both shut down). where is this comparison ?
cheers
But isn't the a1's 240hz refresh at lower EVF resolution when shooting in burst modes? In reality, you do not need a higher resolution in burst modes as you are just following action rather than critically needing to know the frames are in focus - there would be now way to see that anyway.
Also, rather than us all jumping to conclusions about which cam is better, wouldn't it be better for us all to wait until the rela reviews come out? There are many making claims that we have no way of knowing whether they are fact or speculation regarding AF performance, EVF refresh rates and in reality how much of a benefit it is for fast action etc, espeically when you consider there is no black out due to no shutter etc. I have a Nikon brochure that shows that the camera will shoot at over 2 hours in 8K.
|
