bernardl
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Is Nikon AF (Z9/8) really that much worse? | |
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The 500/4 IS II is of older generation (substantial weight reductions occurred for the 400/2.8 and 600/4 IS III as well as Nikon 400/2.8 TC and 600/4 TC) so a 2.5 kg weight for a new 500/4 is realistic. However, a 200-500/4 TC is a different matter and likely would weight more than the current 180-400/4 TC. I doubt that such a lens is realistic. If it happens then I would expect a 20k€+ price for such a lens, maybe 4 kg or greater weight. The weight penalty for a zoom lens vs. prime can be estimated by calculating the ratio of weights between Canon RF 100-300/2.8 and Sony 300/2.8 GM.
The 500/4 might not be a priority since Nikon has the 400/4.5 and 600/6.3 lightweight options but eventually all the usual focal lengths will be filled.
armd wrote:
Jemini wrote:
duncangr wrote:
groob wrote:
duncangr wrote:
matth4ever wrote:
I've used the R5, R5 ii, A1, Z8, Z9 all extensively for birds and other wildlife - both portraits and action.
The R5 ii's autofocus is the best I've used to date. It finds the subject a little faster than all the others mentioned, and is less prone to mistaking high contrast in either the foreground or background as the subject. It is very sticky during action as well. The A1 is almost as good re. 'stickiness', but I find it is more prone to be distracted by high contrast (eg. water ripples). The Z8 and Z9 autofocus is good if not great most of the time, but in my experience is a little slower to find the subject, and less 'sticky'. I've also found both the Z8 and Z9 can miss focus slightly on occasion, even if the focus indicator appears to be locked on the eye. That said, at 20 fps, I usually get a more than enough in-focus frames, especially for static subjects.
But as the op says, the Nikon lens selection for wildlife is absolutely heads and tails above both Canon and Sony. The TC lenses are absolutely awesome. For subjects that are static or moving slowly, I will typically much prefer the Z8 or Z9 with a TC lens than either Canon or Sony system.
If the subject is static or moving slowly (and this includes very large raptors flying) I'll take the A7r5 over anything else. A built in TC offers little other than a minor convenience and that at a hefty additional cost. Heck you can buy a Sony 600 f/4 and an a7r5 for the same price as the Z600TC. You might even have change left over for the 1.4TC.
The dream team to me for wildlife is the A9iii, A7r5 300/f2.8 and 600 f/4 + 1.4 and 2.0 TCs. Lightest, fastest, highest resolution and DR all in a simple bundle of 2 lenses and 2 cameras. All in one carry-on bag - just perfect.
Umm, this is you. And I see that you made a point about how anyone who believes Sony does not currently—and will not always—reign supreme when it comes to AF is guilty of confirmation bias. Those takes are certainly worlds apart. Quite an error on my part, I suppose. It’s definitely not confirmation bias to believe that an internal TC is something more than a minor convenience. In fact, it’s way better to stop shooting and physically detach/attach TCs to a 300 mm f/2.8, which, again, is all but unusable without TCs. One day, I hope the scales can be removed from our eyes so that we pitiful non-Sony users can understand the true genius and power of almighty Sony.
Well you either have no need for the same things I or any of the other many former Nikon users (the majority of them I believe) do, or you are just taking a little longer than most to come to that same realisation. However friend Bernard's predictions of what the future will bring should keep you going for a little while longer.
(march 2024)
My guess is that Nikon is going to announce in the coming months the following trio of lenses:
- 100-200mm f2.0 TC
- 100-300mm f2.8 TC
- 200-500mm f4 TC
Pure guess, but it makes too much sense not to be the case.
Cheers,
Bernard
500/4 mirrorless please. Doesn't matter which brand, I will get it and find a camera to go with it. It should be around 5LB. A dream hand holdable lens for BIF. I know 600 is great for many. Even though I started going to gym, I have no hope that I will be able handle that lens for too long. But 800 PF @ 5.2LB works for full time hand shooting (barely)...
Uh, no. The 800 PF is really "hand holdable" for short periods of time and the 600 TC ( for me at 7#3OZ) really needs to be on a mono/tripod. My old Canon 500 f/4 IS II weighed in at the same weight as the Nikon 600 TC and if Nikon could shave weight off, it would likely be offset by the addition of a TC. Besides, my 500 almost always had a TC on. Should Nikon make one, my best guess is that it would top the scales at 6+#. The 600 PF is a gem not only in terms of weight and size but IQ. I doubt Nikon is looking at a 500 f/4 and a 120-300 or 300 f/2.8 are more likely .
I don’t think so.
Why? Look at the Canon 100-300mm f2.8 vs older 300mm f2.8 lenses from Canon (themselves the lightest at the time). The zoom is lighter.
The thing is that for such high end super télé lenses the weight overhead is very limited compared to a fixed focal lens.
Same for the built-in TC mechanism in fact. The Nikon 400mm f2.8 TC has the same weight as the RF and FE 400mm f2.8 without a TC.
Cheers,
Bernard
|
