Re: "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
chez wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: chez wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: chez wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: chez wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: duncang wrote: RoamingScott wrote:
I do what now? Also I dare you to make a post about anything but swallows. You can do it. I believe in you.
duncang wrote: RoamingScott wrote:
The findings are “both the A1 and Z9 are fantastic and 99.9% of FM posters won’t be limited by them in any meaningful way”. The only difference seems to be if you care about BIF wing flapping cadence
I’ve seen exactly 0 shots from either camera that I’m convinced the other camera can’t take. Maybe that’s an indictment of the people behind them, but who can tell, and more importantly, who cares.
multibit wrote:
Would have been more useful to read peoples findings on the strengths and weaknesses that's actually used both cameras with various lenses.
When I first got the A1 the idea was to use it with the 200-600 until Nikon released their flagship mirrorless . I still have my Nikon D850 and a few lenses , I was going to get the Z9 + 500mm PF (I like the 500mm PF) but after owning the A1 for almost a year I must admit I enjoy using it . With the 200-600 its not perfect but really appreciate the customisation and EVF .
Threads like this could have been useful for us thinking of going from one system to the other.
Sure but you also think you can capture flying swallows with a mobile phone
Well I just had a fun afternoon out with the Z9(500PF+1.4TC) last week - sadly not a single swallow image to show for it - and there were plenty about, flying relatively close in a predicable pattern just above the water.
As a reference here is one from the A1. I just grabbed it for a few quick shots to double check there wasn’t something strange going on with the weather(!) - maybe a solar flare affecting electronics.
Not sure w*f is wrong with the Z9 af but it sure does not like swallows.
In fact I was stunned at how it point blank refused to pick them up - that is super disappointing.
I tried every af mode and even with pre-focus where the bird is clearly in focus in the view finder the cameras af just hops off into the ether somewhere. Strange.
It also seemed to really struggle with small terns - its like they were invisible to the camera despite being brightly lit against a dark cloudy sky - you would think it couldn't be easier. See pics at the end taken with the A1.
And for bigger birds really one has to use Wide Area S for best results or it is quite slow to pick them up. Wide Area L is like Wide Area Medium on the Sony but noticeably slower at detecting and acquiring the birds.
I found Auto AF (full frame mode) did not pick anything up so not useful for birds in flight.
And the EVF was dismal for the small birds imo. The typical jerky motion that one sees with slow refresh rates. No noticeable lag though.
All up gets an epic fail from me for my kind of fast action with small subjects - it is just hopeless at fast subject detection and locking on focus - and I mean hopeless - worse than my a6400.
Oh well hopefully they are working hard on some improvements or I find out it was user error. Sadly I doubt it was the latter given there are many others who reported the weird OOF issue.
In my experience it is nothing like the oof issue experienced with other mirrorless camera. This is more like autofocus is just turning off completely or so confused it just stops in its tracks - it was not even hunting - weird.
If anyone has any suggestions as to settings to improve the ability of the camera to even see the small well contrasted birds in the sky (against blue sky, white clouds, dark cloud with sunlit swallows) let me know as it is possible there is some basic setting I missed.
I tried all the AF modes and Wide Area S seemed to be the quickest and most reliable for detecting and locking focus on the bigger birds but even then it will not track them all over the frame.
3D tracking was too small a box to put on a flying swallow.
I was using animal detect only and tried with swallows at various distances. Usually one has to acquire them a bit of a distance off in order to track then as they come closer but I had no success ever of the camera detecting them except the one time only where the bird was directly overhead. That is ONE TIME - I kid you not.
For now I would stick with the A9/A1, R6/R5/R3 for small fast action subjects or even any of the non-stacked Sony's like the a6400, a7riv, a7iv as they at least manage fast acquisition and tracking which is the critical part.
Other than that it is a tank of a camera for sure. The grip lock is not quite up to standard, pretty useless actually and kept getting bumped and unlocked with the resulting unwanted shots from the grip shutter button. Duct tape will solve that though.
Some pics of the lit up terns that also seemed to be somewhat challenging for the focus acquisition.
Pretty harsh comments but there you go. Certainly the exact opposite to my first experiences of picking up the A9 or the R5 where they latch on to anything and everything immediately.
In fact I am pretty sure even my Z6 would have at least acquired the birds even if the lag when shooting made following near impossible.
Horrible light and f/8 max aperture is not really a good recipe to try to get decent shots with any camera and lens. The A1 shot is in focus but the horrible light still ruins the shot. If the advantage of the A1 is it lets you get in focus shots that still look bad because of the conditions, then I don't see that as much of an advantage.
That's not really the point here now is it? One camera laid an egg in these conditions, the other actually captured some images...that's the point.
Actually it is the point. Both cameras laid an egg here and we are only talking about differences in the type of egg. To me that doesn't matter. We don't even know if the Sony was at f/6.3 (which might well be the case if the poster used a 200-600 without a TC), then we aren't even talking a similar set up at all. In any event both camera and lens combinations failed in this situation it was just a matter of how bad they failed, which really doesn't matter much to me.
Remember your view of accepting unfocused images if they capture the moment. Well with one of these cameras you have the opportunity to capture that moment...with the other not so much. Personally I'd rather have the option of deleting an image during post because it didn't make the grade than just not even getting an image.
I remember my views but you obviously don't and you are distorting them as you did before. I have never advocated having shots with really poor lighting. The lighting is horrible in all these shots, That is the problem with them all.
PS - for the record I never said one should accept unfocussed images that capture the moment. You asked if my goal was to have the eye in focus for my shots. I said that wasn't my goal. That obviously is not the same as saying I accept unfocussed images. That is a huge distortion of what I said.
Personally Steve I want to be in charge of determining when the conditions are not that good for an image...not my camera.
Good for you. I do too. What on Earth would make you think that I would feel differently?
Well you seem to think because a camera gives up in flat lighting...then it's OK. Many images are made in not the greatest lighting...that's life in the real world.
Once again you distort my position as saying something I am not saying. What I am saying is that in the post above neither camera was able to get good shots in what was apparently terrible lighting. I actually said neither shots were ok. You are the one who seems to be saying that a shot with terrible lighting that is in focus is ok. I don't share that view The shot above in terrible lighting that is in focus, IMO, is still not ok. For me it would never be a keeper. It wouldn't even make it off the card. You are free to think otherwise. It is fine if all you care about an image is whether it is in focus. All I am saying is that is not my standard. If it is yours that is up to you. What I don't think is appropriate is saying that I was OK with the images from either camera in the post above. Further I think Steve Perry's video makes it clear that the Z9 can do quite well in pretty flat lighting with the right lens and the right approach. He certainly did not seem to have any trouble with the camera giving up in flat light.
Apr 11, 2022 at 01:07 PM
Previous versions of Steve Spencer's message #15914793 « "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences" »
