Steve Spencer wrote: aCuria wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: aCuria wrote: Immortal wrote: wind30 wrote:
I think the dr difference between the z8 and A7r5 is insignificant. I own both. Who said there was a difference? The Nikon with bad dr is z6iii
Z8 and Z6 III are almost matched in DR till ISO 400, after that till roughly 700-750 Z8 is ahead and again, from ISO 800 and up they're matched. The real benefit of Z8 is that you can shoot at ISO 64 with higher DR than Z6 III at its base ISO of 100.
That's not saying much when they are both worse than the D750, a 11 year old camera.
The Z8 and Z9 are only worse than the D750 below ISO 500, an ISO range that you yourself have characterized as not the range for which these cameras are typically shot given the genres for which they are used.
I am not much of a wildlife photographer either but these are 400-500 7IV01757 by acurian, on Flickr
At ISO 500 there is not difference between the Z8/Z9 and D750. I would have thought it would be obvious that if you shoot the Z8/Z9 at ISO 500 rather than ISO 400, which you should if you care about DR as ISO 500 has higher DR than ISO 400 on those cameras, so if you can shoot at ISO 400 as in your shots, then you can shoot at ISO 500 with the Z8 or Z9 and only lose a quarter of a stop to the D750 and rather ironically for your argument that is the one ISO (500) in which the Z8/Z9 outperforms that A1 II, so in your shots at ISO 500 you would have been better off with a Z8 or Z9 in terms of DR and if you care so much about DR then you really should have turned the ISO up on your A1 II to 640 where that camera has higher DR than at ISO 500.
Yeah but these shots are not on the A1ii so I did not shoot at ISO 640 on purpose
Second base ISO on the A7IV is precisely ISO 400
Oct 08, 2025 at 10:47 PM
Previous versions of aCuria's message #16905095 « After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon »
