bernardl
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Canon departure thoughts | |
AmbientMike wrote:
bernardl wrote:
AmbientMike wrote:
bernardl wrote:
Adamwilbert wrote:
bernardl wrote:
What was the Nikon camera and lenses combination that generated this much suffering and when did this happen if I may ask?
For what it’s worth, I shoot among other things people with Z8/Z9/a9III/GFX-100II. Leaving the Fuji aside since it’s a couple of generations behind, I find the Nikon and Sony to have similar level of keepers. A keeper being an image with a tack sharp pupil. Lens used for comparison is respective 50mm f1.2 (S and GM). And this rate is high.
Overall the Nikon finds faces earlier and rarely misses completely, the Sony is a bit more consistent with focus accuracy but sometimes fails to focus completely. It’s better stopped down but not as good as the Nikon at f1.2.
So I find the gap quite puzzling with this testimony claiming that “Nikon” eye AF doesn’t work and my own experience of utter excellence. Hence the question, what exact camera and lens are we talking about?
Cheers,
Bernard
I’ve been shooting with a zf recently with the 50mm 1.8 s.
I’ve found the eye autofocus to be mostly good but it fails in a truly infuriating way in situations where there is an object between a person’s face and the camera. The Nikon will CONSISTENTLY change to focus on the object rather than hold the eye. (Yes I have changed the slider to stay on the eye rather than give up)
Jared Polin (not an huge fan, but this is a great example) explains a similar situation in his review here with a small child blowing bubbles (just before the 11 minute mark) and even mentions it being an issue with the z8 as well.
I think the AF is mostly quite good but a large portion of what I shoot these days is candids of my toddler and this situation has been coming up a lot. Doesn’t seem like a specific lens issue, but an algorithm problem to me.
Have also shot on the R6 mark ii and Sony A7 IV and they consistently perform much better in this regard. The Canon truly impressed me here comparatively.
This is getting far from the original intent of this thread so I’ll apologize and stop after this answer.
On your sample, I compared my a9III and Z8 in exactly such a situation a few weeks a ago and the Z8 would jump straight to the eye while the a9III got stuck on the nearby object. So it seems to be strongly situation dependent I would say.
I mostly use my Zf with MF lenses so I can’t comment on that specific camera. There is an easy workaround with custom areas and eye AF, very little practical downside. Just move the box in the part of the image where the face is located.
But I guess you’ll agree with me that the Zf overall has an excellent eye AF. Even if it is of course significantly bettered by the Z6III, Z8 and Z9.
The next comment being that you can easily find particular cases where any camera performs less well. Those shouldn’t be used as measuring stick of the overall performance. Comparison requires advanced mastery and is really difficult to do. I am still not sure I am fully optimizing my usage of the a9III although I have used Sony bodies since the a9II. I find my overall experience excellent but clearly below the perfect focus often hyped in these forums.
Cheers,
Bernard
You are saying Canon is no good, but you bought an A9 III, with its low DR?!? Probably inferior high iso, too. You have got to be kidding me
Fro claims R1 has better af than Z9. You can't complain about the 24mp if you shoot A9 III.
I bought the a9III because of its unique abilities (GS, 120 fps,…). As far as I know the R1 offers none of these, does it?
Besides the ability to adapt Sony lenses with excellent AF is very valuable for all the photographers running a 2 system set up. I consider all the FE mount lenses as being part of the Nikon eco system. I couldn’t do that with RF mount lenses. Not that there are many lenses I consider worth adapting really. The 24-105mm f2.8 is the only one I find uniquely interesting to be honest.
DR with the a9III is indeed not great at base ISO but once you reach ISO 800 it’s similar to other cameras.
No idea how its DR compares to that of Canon bodies though since Canon applies NR to raw files. Nobody knows how bad the base ISO DR measurements would be without that little help… they have basically removed themselves from the competition.
Have I answered your question? Do you still find the decision to add an a9III to a Nikon shooter set of tools hard to understand, not to say self defeating? I am genuinely curious.
Finally I am not saying Canon is not good. I am sure the R1 will perform beautifully for Canon photographers. It will probably take the crown of the best focusing camera for a few months, maybe a year? I am saying it’s disappointing they have apparently given up on delivering equipment that would motivate Sony and Nikon users to be tempted by a switch. If anything the gap seems to be expanding. It seems very likely that the a1II and Z9II will take another significant lead when they show up. And lenses will keep coming up addressing the needs of wildlife shooters.
Honestly bodies have become a commodity. Anybody not getting consistently excellent result from R3/a1/Z8/Z9 should seriously consider changing job/hobby. They are way better than anything we had in the past. The lenses are what matters.
But if you are happy about Canon’s releases and lenses line up, if it enables your photographic vision better than any other brand would, or if the gap is at least small enough that a switch isn’t worth considering, then everything is good. What I think is irrelevant.
Cheers,
Bernard
The Rebel SL2 is capable of higher DR than the A9III
If you want to spend $6k on a 24mp low DR camera, that isn't likely to beat the R1 at high iso, go ahead. But don't come on here and tell us our Canon cameras aren't any good
I don’t know what’s so hard to understand. Global shutter is a unique capability for which I am ok to compromise on other aspects.
The R1 doesn’t have a global shutter so it’s not an alternative to the a9III. So its base ISO DR, fake as it is since Canon is the only company applying DR to their raw files at base ISO, is just irrelevant.
I also shoot with a Phaseone IQ-150 that has the best DR on the market by far, it would not have come to my mind to bring it up in the discussion since it doesn’t have a GS shutter either.
To be 100% clear, Canon and Nikon have nothing coming close to the a9III for the niche use cases when a GS is needed. As a Nikon Shooter I can benefit from these capabilities at limited cost because I can use my Sony lenses on my Nikon bodies with excellent AF. The a9III also has fabulous AF, a deep pré-capture raw buffer, the ability to shoot 120 fps at full res raw with AF and exposure,… it’s overall head and shoulder above the R1 as a sports camera. Your desperate insistence on DR demonstrates that you understand that a global comparison of both cameras would reveal of the extent of the gap.
I can benefit from these advantages at minimal cost while keeping the benefits of my Nikons. This would be more difficult had I committed to the RF mount.
Btw, how good is the AF through these adapters? So good that a Sony shooter using his FE 600mm f4 on the Z8 was complaining in a FB group a few hours ago that the AF of the Z8 is not 100% as good as that of the a1 on humming birds in flight…
Cheers,
Bernard
|
