bernardl
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse? | |
1bwana1 wrote:
duncangr wrote:
bernardl wrote:
duncangr wrote:
bernardl wrote:
1bwana1 wrote:
bernardl wrote:
Two key elements to consider IMHO are focus and momentum.
And it seems obvious that Nikon is the brand that has demonstrated the highest level of focus on wildlife as well as the highest momentum. They are improving much faster that Canon and Sony.
Considering how close the 3 years old Z9 is vs the latest Canon and Sony it seems obvious that the Z9II will be the best focusing camera on the planet when it ships in 2025.
Add to this the ability to adapt Sony FE mount lenses and things are very clear cut. The best brand on which to base a wildlife set up is Nikon.
I have been reading posts like this from you for the better part of a decade (a9 released in 2017) now. One day it may even come true.
As a former a9II and a9III owner, I don't think you have, no.
I have never debated the fact that the a9/a9II was far ahead in tracking vs the Nikon bodies at the time. That's the very reason why I bought an a9II and I have always been very positive about it's AF performance. The issue I had with the a9II was colors and the lack of lenses I liked in the line up (significantly improved since then with master pieces such as the 50mm f1.2 GM or 35mm f1.4 GM).
But that is beside the point. The point today is that the a1 and Z8/Z9 are very close in AF performance and the a1II is certainly better but isn't a huge upgrade compared to the a1.
This leaves the door opened for Nikon to jump in front... but even if they did I fully agree that it can't be much better than the a1/Z8/Z9 considering how good all these cameras are. Let's not forget that Nikon had a significant lead over Canon in pro sport DSLR focusing performance. AF always was a major strong point with Nikon. It has certainly taken some time to reach the same level of excellent with their mirrorless bodies, but again, just draw the curves plotting the performance vs time and you see a much steeper upward curve on Nikon side. The points where the curves cross is most probably with the Z9II. The contrary would be surprising knowing everything we know at this point.
Since you have emphasized many times in the past that you are not a brand person, I am sure you won't mind.
My point remains that lenses are what matters and this is what has motivated so many wildlife shooters to start using Nikon these past 3 years.
Cheers,
Bernard
The door has been open for Nikon since 2011 when they released their first mirrorless camera - 1 year before Canon and 2 years before Sony.
The only surprising things is that, knowing everything we know, you continue to believe this will happen on our lifetime. I see you appear to acknowledge now that your fantasy firmware upgrade that fixes everything on the Z8/Z9 will likely never happen.
Presumably you have heard of a thing called confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is the term used to describe the tendency of people to only accept data that confirms their existing beliefs and to ignore data that doesn't.
Mark Twain had a slightly different take on it.
No idea what you are talking about. I never thought or wrote that the Z8/Z9 needed any fixing nor that Nikon would release a magic firmware doing that. But I am really glad I just got shutter angle for video in a 3 years old body while Canon charges 100 US$ for a firmware doing crop lines… 
I use Nikon because I think they offer the best mirrorless system at the moment with the best lenses line up, cameras that focus 95% as well as bodies 3 years younger (and more than welll enough for my diverse needs), the best hybrid video and the widest access to lenses through adapters.
This conclusion coming on top of actual ownership of the best Sony equipment. There is a lot of things to like about Sony and I could probably live with the system as I don’t do much wildlife photography. I just think that Nikon is overall the better horse for my needs.
As far as AF goes, we will see. There are 5 main factors that impact AF performance. In decreasing order of importance:
- processor speed or speed to power efficiency ratio which relates to the physical size of the camera and its thermal design (and battery capacity)
- algorithms
- AF technology (on sensor, contrast,…)
- sensor read out speed
- AF controls
I don’t see anything in the a1II that Nikon couldn’t do better with the Z9II/isn’t already doing better. The larger body of the Z9 and higher battery capacity will end up being significant advantages everything else being equal.
Both Sony and Fujitsu (Expeed) use a variation of Arm designs and have access to good enough chip manufacturing. In the end the running speed of the processor, and therefore AF ultimate performance, will depend on heat dissipation and Sony has probably locked themselves with the size of their cameras. That’s why there is no in camera video raw and why they can’t win the ultimate AF performance. IMHO. Not that it would be super relevant knowing how good current cameras already are.
But again, we will see.
Finally, just to be clear, I think that built-in TCs are a game changer for many usage patterns. Most of the people who disagree are falling for confirmation bias. Or if you don’t get what you like then like what you get. I respect that very Buddhist take on the world. I personally prefer to have options. I have more progress to make towards illumination and still care.
Many former Sony shooters already know what value they get from Nikon. Some apparently have an emotional attachment to Sony that seems to slow down their ability to acknowledge the facts and where things are headed.
I’ll say it again, now it’s mostly about lenses. Including the ability to adapt lenses from other mounts.
Cheers,
Bernard
so you keep saying - but putting adapted lenses on my A1/A9iii and giving up 30/120fps and risk compromising the AF - you must be joking. That would defeat the very purpose of having bought these cameras in the first place.
But I guess if I had a Z9 and was stuck at 20fps anyway I might be more inclined to think of that as an advantage.
Anyway I am heading off to Sri Lanka for a couple of weeks carrying around just 2.5kg of camera gear.
One A9iii and 3 lenses a 300/2.8, a 420f/4 and a 600f/5.6 - just image all that lot weighing in at just 2.5kg - just crazy !!
Couldn't be happier with my choice of lens(es) - it's just one surprise after another with Sony .
Merry Christmas and happy shooting.
It seems that everyone doesn't agree.  .
In fact judging by market share numbers a large majority doesn't agree.
Since you asked, I see the comically large form factors of the Z8/9 as a "huge" negative. This carries on through to many of the Z lenses.
Ok, I guess you are not interested in the technological side of the question… or know I am right and refuse to admit it. Either way, I understand better your apparent blind faith in the superiority of Sony. It for sure is comfortable to think that things will continue as they are.
As far as market share goes, you know it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, right? Does Wallmart offer superior shopping experience vs Harrod’s as a result of their superior market share? Are Toyotas superior to BMWs? How about Leica? They have never made as much cash? Frankly, why are you talking about market share?
Finally, the 300mm f2.8 GM is IMHO a great addition to the portfolio of lenses I can use on my Z bodies. Even if, for my needs, the upcoming 100-300mm f2.8 or f2.8 TC will be way more useful even if it were to weight twice more. But that is just me, I have always seen photography as a result driven activity. My own comfort resulting from lower weight will always be second to the odds of getting the shot.
But I will love to have both options. I understand it’s hard to imagine the value of adapted lenses if you have chosen a system that makes it impossible. I used to be in that position as an F mount shooter. What were these EF users talking about when they were using the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 for 8 years until Canon was able to come up with a good wide zoom lens…
Don’t get me wrong, native lenses will always perform better. But the practical question we photographers are facing isn’t that of a technical benchmark about using a camera to the best of its potential, it is whether we can get the shot. And more lenses options is always increase those odds.
Cheers,
Bernard
|
