timgangloff
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences" | |
shadow9d9 wrote:
timgangloff wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Memo to RoamingScott, Z9 sensor is BSI like all stacked sensors. Nothing other than size I see in the A1 that outperforms the Z9 except an on paper higher res EVF that drops resolution as soon as you touch the AF button. Cameras are so equally matched it's pointless exercise to worry about differences. I am just as happy to use a Z9 sized body as an A1 sized body. No I don't care one bit about 30fps RAW or JPG. Both sensational cameras.
Put it this way I'll actually be buying both these cameras. Maybe if Sony offered PF lenses I could just stick with them, but it'll be a very long time at best before that happens. With Nikon's road map showing more 2 more PF lenses and a brilliant 400 f/2.8 with built-in 1.4x TC coming, I'm happy to pick and choose the best glass from each camp. My next lens is the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 II however, amazing they got it down to 1kg with no compromises unlike Canon.
Nikon, like Canon has one giant advantage over Sony and that is sports lenses and the availability of used sports lenses. Just checked the buy and sell forum and Nikon 400 2.8's are bought and sold regularly. And Nikon offers a 120-300 2.8 which is a brilliant focal length for sports shooters. I think they also have a 500f4 that is readily available. Sony has a 400 that is very expensive with no cheaper earlier version to offer those who can't afford the $11k+ for a 400. Sony doesn't have a native E mount 300. I know of zero Sony sports shooters (granted, I only know a small handful of Sony sports shooters) who would or have bought the Sony A mount 300. Yes, Sony also has the 600 f4 but I don't know of any sports shooters who prefer that focal length. I take that back, we do have one local Canon guy who shoots football with his 600. But again, those are rare and again, Sony doesn't yet have a good used market for 600s.
Look, I love the A1 and mated with the 400 2.8 GM, it's a great combination. But if Canon can produce an very good, competitive R1, I'd be tempted to go back to Canon just for the lenses. And if I can be tempted, I know that means lots of Canon guys would have zero reason to look at Sony. I think the same will hold for Nikon guys now with the Z9.
We can argue/discuss the features and ergonomics of the A1, R3 and Z9 all day long, but for most, if not all, of my sports shooting friends, it comes down to the lenses they already own or can reasonably purchase. All of these bodies can produce excellent images. No doubt.
"In the hand, it's not only the ultralight mag-alloy design that aids in ease of handling and maneuverability, but much like in the 400mm f/2.8, there's also a thoughtful, deliberate optical design that places more of the lens elements (and thus weight) towards the rear of the lens for better balance. Plus, there's a large air gap between the lens' big front element and the rest of the elements that further aids in lightening the overall bulk and moving the balance back towards the lens and camera's center of mass, thus reducing front-heaviness."
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-600mm-f4-gm-oss/review/
So, not only are those used Nikon and Canon lenses more front heavy, you then need to use adapters, which puts the center of gravity even farther forward. This poor front heavy balance is part of why people often think there is a need for the humongous and heavy dslr gripped cameras...to balance out the front heaviness.
Weight distribution is irrelevant if Sony doesn't offer a 300 2.8, a 120-300 2.8 or a 500f4.
|
