I have read through large chunks of this thread trying to understand how Nikon's AF is not the equivalent to Canon or Sony. I am less concerned about why, as this is likely due to engineering and software decisions that would require complete re-tooling or a bottom-up approach to significantly change.
My real confusion lies with this insistence that the Nikon AF system is "so" problematic that this would be the reason to adopt the R5 or A7R(5 or 6?)/A9II over the Z8.
While the Z8 is still an unknown until non-influencers/YouTubers actually shoot it, if the AF system is based on the Z9, it will be more than great enough for 99% of the people 99% of the time. I've been using the Z9 since April '22, and with the exception of the rare moment or two, the AF on the camera has allowed me to produce pictures that I would not otherwise be able to make.
I think that anyone who is not emotionally or financially connected to their brand (as Fanboyism/Fangirlism(??) is quite the disease here) should consider the Z8 on the merits of the entire camera and system. While it is clear that some value button configuration towards the top of their priority list, others might value stacked sensors, lens design, or value per dollar spent.
Much like a lot of Nikon's offerings, the Z8 represents a great value, is rich with technology, and will likely experience firmware updates as more users put the camera through its paces.
So, is it a better option than the R5?... It might be for anyone shooting a D850 with a bag full of F-mount lenses (Nikon's market target), or somebody who is holding onto their old Canon DSLR gear trying looking to find a more affordable way to have a pro body with pro lenses.
Will this camera persuade R-system users to switch?... doubtful, as the R-system has proven to be very good and the price of switching out of a modern mirrorless system is quite prohibitive.
bruce
May 14, 2023 at 07:17 AM
Previous versions of OwlsEyes's message #16243217 « Z8 vs R5? I'm just curious... »
