1bwana1 wrote: arbitrage wrote:
I should also report that despite the forecast for sunny breaks there was none of that today. Just a tsunami advisory that closed my regular shooting spot.
So once again I shot in pretty cloudy conditions although a little brighter than yesterday.
I just got done culling my 2100 shots from today.
Some quick notes/impressions....all to be taken as preliminary at this stage (especially considering the lighting):
1) Thom Hogan made a comment that Z9 may not show focus indicated as much as A1 but that it was actually in focus when it does (where as A1 isn't). I'm not seeing that. Z9 is actually indicating subject and eye much more readily than A1 does but focus consistency is in and out, in and out, in and out when I go through culling. Not way in and out like off the bird but sharp, sharp, sharp, soft ,soft, sharp, soft, etc. Of course it varies from sequence to sequence. And no my shutter speeds weren't as high as I'd prefer so there is that to consider.
2) So far I think if you present the Z9 a BIF against clean background it is really, really good. Neck and neck with A1 and A9 and I think probably better than R5 (I haven't been able to test R3 yet). And as mentioned above it seems to focus the subject detect box and head detect box more readily than the A1 which often just keeps "dancing the dots" for BIF.
3) BEAF for perched, wading and floating birds is super snappy and I think identical to A1/R5 in its effectiveness. Just like those cameras if the bird is in a pose that you'd actually want as a keeper the eye-af is working. The rest of the time...who cares...R5 still best at identifying birds in whacky poses, but again, who cares. I haven't used Z9 enough yet to see if it gets confused on spots and other feather patterns like R5 and A1 sometimes do.
4) I do see a stronger tendency so far for the Z9 to lose its tracking to backgrounds and water ripples. Obviously worse as the bird is smaller in the frame. I mentioned this in a previous post but certainly Wide-Area is the safest and Auto and 3D can really get lost sometimes.
The good thing about today is I think I now have the camera setup efficiently enough that I can do what I need to do quickly. Sure there are a million things I would change with buttons and customization options if Nikon allowed me to but the system has just enough options and flexibility to make it work in the way I'm accustomed to on an R5 or A9/A1. And of course my muscle memory is now getting dialled into my setup which is half the battle.
One more test day before the work week. Unfortunately no signs of sun. Next weekend forecast is all sun so hopefully that will happen.
Great report, and in line with what I am hearing when shooting adapted lenses like the 500 PF. Do you have access to borrow a long native lens like the 100-400 S? I would like to see you do a comparison on the focus consistency, as well as being distracted by water and backgrounds.
Thanks.
I don't know anyone with a 100-400S. All the Nikon shooters I used to shoot with shoot Sony now. If what I'm seeing is specific to adapted glass or the 500PF itself then I sure hope Nikon starts getting some more native long lenses out on the market ASAP. I mean, what's next, do we all need to buy the fancy $12K 400S with the rumoured new AF motors to get maximum Z9 AF performance??
I'm always cautious and suspicious of that kind of opinion. I was told many times that my R5 evaluations weren't valid because I was "only" using the RF 100-500 and not a super tele f/4. Well once I got a 600/4 to test my findings didn't change. Yes, that example is sort of backwards given I was testing with native and it was argued an adapted f/4 did better...but still.
1bwana1 wrote: arbitrage wrote:
I should also report that despite the forecast for sunny breaks there was none of that today. Just a tsunami advisory that closed my regular shooting spot.
So once again I shot in pretty cloudy conditions although a little brighter than yesterday.
I just got done culling my 2100 shots from today.
Some quick notes/impressions....all to be taken as preliminary at this stage (especially considering the lighting):
1) Thom Hogan made a comment that Z9 may not show focus indicated as much as A1 but that it was actually in focus when it does (where as A1 isn't). I'm not seeing that. Z9 is actually indicating subject and eye much more readily than A1 does but focus consistency is in and out, in and out, in and out when I go through culling. Not way in and out like off the bird but sharp, sharp, sharp, soft ,soft, sharp, soft, etc. Of course it varies from sequence to sequence. And no my shutter speeds weren't as high as I'd prefer so there is that to consider.
2) So far I think if you present the Z9 a BIF against clean background it is really, really good. Neck and neck with A1 and A9 and I think probably better than R5 (I haven't been able to test R3 yet). And as mentioned above it seems to focus the subject detect box and head detect box more readily than the A1 which often just keeps "dancing the dots" for BIF.
3) BEAF for perched, wading and floating birds is super snappy and I think identical to A1/R5 in its effectiveness. Just like those cameras if the bird is in a pose that you'd actually want as a keeper the eye-af is working. The rest of the time...who cares...R5 still best at identifying birds in whacky poses, but again, who cares. I haven't used Z9 enough yet to see if it gets confused on spots and other feather patterns like R5 and A1 sometimes do.
4) I do see a stronger tendency so far for the Z9 to lose its tracking to backgrounds and water ripples. Obviously worse as the bird is smaller in the frame. I mentioned this in a previous post but certainly Wide-Area is the safest and Auto and 3D can really get lost sometimes.
The good thing about today is I think I now have the camera setup efficiently enough that I can do what I need to do quickly. Sure there are a million things I would change with buttons and customization options if Nikon allowed me to but the system has just enough options and flexibility to make it work in the way I'm accustomed to on an R5 or A9/A1. And of course my muscle memory is now getting dialled into my setup which is half the battle.
One more test day before the work week. Unfortunately no signs of sun. Next weekend forecast is all sun so hopefully that will happen.
Great report, and in line with what I am hearing when shooting adapted lenses like the 500 PF. Do you have access to borrow a long native lens like the 100-400 S? I would like to see you do a comparison on the focus consistency, as well as being distracted by water and backgrounds.
Thanks.
I don't know anyone with a 100-400S. All the Nikon shooters I used to shoot with shoot Sony now. If what I'm seeing is specific to adapted glass or the 500PF itself then I sure hope Nikon starts getting some more native long lenses out on the market ASAP.
I'm always cautious and suspicious of that kind of opinion. I was told many times that my R5 evaluations weren't valid because I was "only" using the RF 100-500 and not a super tele f/4. Well once I got a 600/4 to test my findings didn't change. Yes, that example is sort of backwards given I was testing with native and it was argued an adapted f/4 did better...but still.
1bwana1 wrote: arbitrage wrote:
I should also report that despite the forecast for sunny breaks there was none of that today. Just a tsunami advisory that closed my regular shooting spot.
So once again I shot in pretty cloudy conditions although a little brighter than yesterday.
I just got done culling my 2100 shots from today.
Some quick notes/impressions....all to be taken as preliminary at this stage (especially considering the lighting):
1) Thom Hogan made a comment that Z9 may not show focus indicated as much as A1 but that it was actually in focus when it does (where as A1 isn't). I'm not seeing that. Z9 is actually indicating subject and eye much more readily than A1 does but focus consistency is in and out, in and out, in and out when I go through culling. Not way in and out like off the bird but sharp, sharp, sharp, soft ,soft, sharp, soft, etc. Of course it varies from sequence to sequence. And no my shutter speeds weren't as high as I'd prefer so there is that to consider.
2) So far I think if you present the Z9 a BIF against clean background it is really, really good. Neck and neck with A1 and A9 and I think probably better than R5 (I haven't been able to test R3 yet). And as mentioned above it seems to focus the subject detect box and head detect box more readily than the A1 which often just keeps "dancing the dots" for BIF.
3) BEAF for perched, wading and floating birds is super snappy and I think identical to A1/R5 in its effectiveness. Just like those cameras if the bird is in a pose that you'd actually want as a keeper the eye-af is working. The rest of the time...who cares...R5 still best at identifying birds in whacky poses, but again, who cares. I haven't used Z9 enough yet to see if it gets confused on spots and other feather patterns like R5 and A1 sometimes do.
4) I do see a stronger tendency so far for the Z9 to lose its tracking to backgrounds and water ripples. Obviously worse as the bird is smaller in the frame. I mentioned this in a previous post but certainly Wide-Area is the safest and Auto and 3D can really get lost sometimes.
The good thing about today is I think I now have the camera setup efficiently enough that I can do what I need to do quickly. Sure there are a million things I would change with buttons and customization options if Nikon allowed me to but the system has just enough options and flexibility to make it work in the way I'm accustomed to on an R5 or A9/A1. And of course my muscle memory is now getting dialled into my setup which is half the battle.
One more test day before the work week. Unfortunately no signs of sun. Next weekend forecast is all sun so hopefully that will happen.
Great report, and in line with what I am hearing when shooting adapted lenses like the 500 PF. Do you have access to borrow a long native lens like the 100-400 S? I would like to see you do a comparison on the focus consistency, as well as being distracted by water and backgrounds.
Thanks.
I don't know anyone with a 100-400S. All the Nikon shooters I used to shoot with shoot Sony now. If what I'm seeing is specific to adapted glass or the 500PF itself then I sure hope Nikon starts getting some more native long lenses out on the market ASAP.
