amci4
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Z8 vs R5? I'm just curious... | |
RoamingScott wrote:
amci4 wrote:
arbitrage wrote:
patotts wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
Lance B wrote:
So, you can see this is not about ML not being better or "laughiung it off", just that it was definitely not ready at that time when I made those comments. Why would I or anyone jump to an inferior system (at that time) compared to my D850/D500 which obtained the results I required? Why would anyone? As a "toe in the water" and gradual transition, the Z7 was the perfect way to go for me and it would seem quite a number of others. I thought Nikon's transition into ML was well done, IMO. However, once ML obtained a level that was satisfactory for my use, I was happy to jump completely over but it needed the technology to get there first. It would seem that is the case for so many Canon and Nikon users, it has finally obtained a level of ability across all aspects that people are now coming across.
The above and what Steve posted pretty much sums up why I waited until 2022 to finally explore Canon's mirrorless options. Between 2013 and 2017 a friend working at Sony sent me many of their mirrorless cameras to try, but they just didn't really tick the boxes for me. It wasn't a clear improvement over DSLRs for what *I* did (and the early models were clearly inferior in respect to AF performance). The best though was getting a preproduction a9 along with 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 in 2017 to try at football games alongside my 1DXII and various Canon lenses, including 200-400. It was the first Sony mirrorless camera I actually liked using because it pretty much worked like my DSLRs. But it also wasn't an overall clear improvement, therefore my conclusion at the time was the a9 would be a side grade move that probably wouldn't noticeably improve my output, so I held off. Really, the primary reason I held off with a potential move to Sony was lack of native Sony lenses I wanted. At that time there weren't any long 'sports' lenses. Eventually the 400/2.8 and 600/4 were released. But no equivalent to the 200-400 that I much, much prefer (I had zero interest to adapt it to Sony via a third party adapter with potentially flaky firmware). And I'm glad I waited. Canon has been somewhat creative with their RF designs. Some are perhaps not what performance enthusiasts might want, like slow zooms and the 600 & 800 f/11 duo. But the 28-70/2, which I initially thought was ridiculously large and heavy for a standard zoom, totally won me over. As did the 70-200 duo redesign. Those are two lenses I use A LOT for event coverage. For me, they're clear improvements over the EF versions and lack equivalents in other systems. I'm also loving the look of the recently announced 100-300/2.8 and am hoping the rumored 200-500/4 is true (though whether I can swing it will be another matter).
Sony did a lot of good things to move mirrorless along and certainly lit a fire under Canon and Nikon, which clearly has benefitted all of us, no matter our system preferences. I'll give one example how I think Canon has been prodded to modify its ways. In the DSLR era, I only bought 1D bodies because all the other options were slugs when it came to covering sports. When I started evaluating Canon's mirrorless options, I assumed I'd have to get the R3 for comparable speed and AF performance. Any time I tried a 'fast' prosumer DSLR I was always disappointed. So I started with the R3 and loved it. Then I tried the R5 and R6 and was astonished that they were ~90% as good (for AF performance and frame rates). Even their slower e-shutter was usable for football. I ended up with the R6II and it's has generally been an overall improvement over the 1DXII in virtually every performance category (except viewfinder experience). While it's clearly not a 'pro' camera in build, it's also not performance crippled like the 6D/6DII was compared to the 1D series.
I'm really happy to see that the Z8 is basically 90% of the Z9's performance because I really want Canon to do similar with the R5II. I'm hoping Nikon's use of a stacked sensor in a ~$4K body will force Canon and Sony to follow. That really is the only performance feature I wish the R6II had and would get an R6III if it recycled the R3's sensor without considerable price premium. Maybe in two years the time will be right for such a camera.
Nikon put the stacked sensor in a $4K body because they had to for market share and competitive reasons. Apart from that sensor tech, most of the features in a Z8 were more or less available in a Canon R5 almost 3 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I think the Z8 is mostly like the "best" prosumer body on the market right now and clearly the value leader, but I don't think Canon or Sony will put a 45mp-ish stacked sensor in any camera body under $5K anytime soon. As you said, perhaps a stacked 24mp sensor will be the first step, but not this year or next. Needless to say, this is just speculation and my opinion.
I think Nikon had to put the stacked sensor into the Z8 because they haven't figured out how to get top end AF without it. But that is really a win, win for Nikon shooters as the stacked sensor brings the smooth EVF experience when actively firing the shutter and tracking a fast subject at a killer price point.
Sony and Canon have figured out how to have their top end AF in non-stacked sensor cameras. Which is nice that you can get down to a ~$2K body and have AF close to the top end stacked cameras but you don't get the other benefits of the stacked sensor until you jump to the $6-6.5K price point. Canon has done the best with non-stacked in the R5 with the 1/60 scan speed. Sony is pitiful in that arena, so despite the A7RV having AF which IMO is better than A1, the camera is still not suitable for fast action due to EVF experience. I'm not familiar with how the other Canon cameras like R6II, R7, R8 do for EVF in ES compared to the R5??
Well, you know, the X-H2S can do all of that A1 / Z9 stuff at half the price. 😊
Not bait at all. Functionally it is on par with many of them even if you don’t like the sensor size.
|
