tctmp
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences" | |
Steve Spencer wrote:
tctmp wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
tctmp wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
tctmp wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
tctmp wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
tctmp wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
Holger wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
Holger 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.
? One camera got the shot the other didn't. Your take with both failing is wrong imo. Only because you don't like the circumstances, it doesn't make the camera fail, it seems to be the artistic outcome you object to, which is your right of course. And of course one should additionally check settings etc. when comparing both cameras.
I think the question is what it means to get the shot. You seem to be equating getting the shot with getting the shot in focus. I am not. To me getting the shot means not only getting the shot in focus but also having acceptable lighting and I could add a couple other minimum characteristics as well, but I won't here. Simply put the lighting isn't acceptable in any of these shots, so IMO he did not get any of the shots. You of course can have a different opinion, but I am not willing to say he got the shot with lighting that is that bad.
PS - compare this poster's results with Steve Perry's results using the new 800 PF in this video:
Note also what Steve says when he compares his impression with the Z9 and this lens to other systems (spoiler alert he thinks the Z9 800PF is as good as any combination he has used including the Sony A1). He will test more later, but even in pretty flat light he is getting dramatically different results than were reported in the post above.
Again, you can have your opinion what getting the shot means. But you said the camera/lens failed. It didn't. The camera did its job. The photographer is to "blame" for not going out in decent light.
I would describe it differently. The camera and lens failed in very difficult circumstances. The camera's job is more than just getting the focus right. Although I doubt any camera could have gotten that shot with today's technology, one can image improved performance in which the camera not only got the focus right but was also able to handle the terrible lighting. Being able to handle bad lighting is something I would like my camera to do and neither camera could do that in this situation.
Lighting is lighting. Camera is supposed to capture it as realistically as possible, not alter it to your liking. Sounds like you want a camera that has a built in AI that can PS a picture to a "perfect" one automatically.
Ah, no. I simply want a camera that performs better at high ISO and therefore can handle poor lighting better. I don't think that is a novel concept in any way.
So now you are saying the noise from the web picture is what killed it? If that picture doesn't have noise, then the camera meets the expectation? Honestly, you still couldn't elaborate how your ideal camera can perform better in that situation. 
No I am not. Boy, you like to put words into my mouth. There is a lot more to high ISO performance than just noise. High ISO also has less dynamic range--dramatically less. Hi ISO also has much worse color performance. My ideal camera in this situations would have more dynamic range, better color, and less noise. The shot is both flat and crunchy. Simply put my ideal camera would produce an image that doesn't look terrible.
At least part of the problem with this image is that it is no doubt very high ISO. Again very flat light, f/8 max aperture, and high shutter speeds to freeze movement is going to mean very high ISO and very high ISO reduces image quality in a lot of ways and not just by adding noise. That isn't the only problem here, but it is a big part of the problem. The bottom line is just because the shot was in focus is not enough. It was still a shot that was, IMO, a total reject that wouldn't make it off the card if I was shooting. So the A1 in this situation didn't help at all. It also produced a shot that would go straight into the bin.
Now I wasn't there. Perhaps the light was so flat that it was silly to even be out shooting. I don't know, but what I do know is that both cameras failed in this situation.
Sorry man, dynamic range is inversely related and a direct consequence to noise. Similarly color fidelity. Besides, are you arguing the camera couldn't capture well because the scene has to much DR or color is off? I didn't get that feeling that it has too much DR or wrong color when looking at that picture. I think you are grasping for straws.
You need to brush up on your photographic concepts. Dynamic range is a function of read noise and photon noise so no doubt is influenced by noise, but it isn't quite as you make it out that noise as you see it in image is the whole issue. Color fidelity, is also influenced by noise but it certainly is not the only influence. I do think the image might have been better with lower ISO. As I said before we are talking a long focal length, a narrow aperture, a fast shutter speed needed to freeze action, and lousy light. The ISO should have been very high. If the shot was either at a lower ISO or with a camera that had better high ISO performance I think it would have been better. It might not have even needed to be deleted from the card it was so lousy. Do, I know that for a fact? Of course not I didn't shoot the shot I wasn't there. Perhaps, the conditions were just so bad it was poor judgment to even try to be shooting. If that is your take, then I don't see a reason I need to challenge it. The whole issue from my point of view is that the shot posted with the A1 was far from a keeper even if it was in focus so I don't see any evidence that the A1 could produce any keepers in this situation either.
Sorry, I know exactly what I was talking. You put up all those handwaving arguments which don't hold logic regarding whether the camera did its job or not, but still couldn't elaborate how your ideal camera can turn up a better picture of that scene.
Your problem is that you tend to insist on doubling down on your failing arguments and end up digging bigger holes for yourself. You started with an objective of trying to equalize the two cameras. Since Z9 failed that particular scene AF wise, that forced you trying to argue A1 also failed as a camera. Since A1 AFed fine, you are now arguing A1's high ISO performance is not enough.
Everyone knows that sensor ISO performance is all similar between Nikon and Sony over the last few years, and they are quite good enough. That scene certainly is no challenge for those sensors regarding high ISO performance. If you can't see that, it's only because you are still digging.
The clear problem with your argument is that you make false claims about my motives and objectives. You claim my objective was to equalize the two cameras. That is a false premise and it is that false premise that leading to your whole tortured line of reason about my supposedly having to double down and how I was forced to make arguments. All that reasoning is just pure rubbish because you did not understand and make false assumptions about my objective.
As I explained to Geoff in the last post my objective was simply to point out the clear lack of evidence for a claim and hold the poster to account to produce real evidence for the claim. Many here and apparently you included were willing to take the big claim without evidence as real evidence because it was consistent with your prior beliefs and your camera choice. I am not willing to do so. There was no evidence of the superiority of the A1 in that post because there weren't any good shots posted with the A1 in that post. Further the poster still hasn't told us what lens he used so we don't even know whether he was using a comparable set up. Despite those clear deficiencies in evidence for his claim you swallowed his arguments hook, line, and sinker and defended it by making false accusations about my objectives. That strikes me as bit more than being a tad bit defensive.
Then when I said maybe (and I wasn't definitive at all) that part of the problems with the initial A1 shots was that the ISO was so high that good shots weren't possible. You felt you had to challenge my defense of the A1. That was just a tortured and nonsensical attack on my defense of the A1. I tried to be civil about this tortured argument, but that was clearly a mistake. I should have pointed out then as I did now that your argument is just ridiculous. I was defending the A1 in those statements and you somehow felt you needed to attack that defense. Ok, maybe I was wrong and the A1 shots can't be defended, but that doesn't change my initial point one iota. That original post provided zero evidence for the superiority of the A1 because it provided no evidence the A1 could get good shots in that sort of setting.
Well, multiple people responded to your arguments in previous pages. My intepretation of your posts is consistent to their intepretations. Anyone (including you) can go read those themselves. Doesn't matter how you want to spin now.
I am not spinning. That would be you. Yes, multiple people on a board that has a similar bias (i.e., in favor of the A1) coming to the same conclusion does not mean they interpreted my objective correctly. I think I know my objective a lot better than you do or the other posters. You could admit you got my objective wrong, which you did, but I doubt you will admit that.
Instead I expect you to continue to make false accusations that I am not being truthful about my objectives and that I am spinning my story, but if you won't believe me about my objectives there is really no point in having a discussion with you.
You are the one claiming A1 layed an egg in that scene, but yeah, right, everyone is mischaracterizing you. You probably will come back and dispute what I just wrote "You are the one claiming A1 layed an egg in that scene" too.
You are still digging. I know, you will claim that's another accusation. So be it, most others will agree that's a factual statement. Enough said.
You can claim people are biased, but people can't make claims on your motives.
|
