Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Dan Wells on February 01, 2019, 05:37:18 pm
-
Wow... It's been an eventful year for mirrorless, and all the cards are finally on the table. There's nothing really big on the horizon - the manufacturers seem to have run out of possible mounts... Sony may upgrade a body or two, and Fuji may bring the X-T3 sensor down the line, but we finally seem to be out of new systems (~8 viable plus a couple of marginal ones is a LOT). Any body we're expecting is a generational upgrade on something already available (if you don't already like the 42 MP A7rIII, a 60 MP A7rIV isn't likely to bring you to Sony).
A year ago, there were 1.5 full-frame mounts (Sony plus the Leica SL). Now there are four! We've seen everything from a Micro 43 competitor to the 1Dx II and D5 to a medium-format camera that is substantially smaller and lighter that that Micro 43 camera.
There should be a camera for every photographer now - what's yours?
-
GFX 50s —> GFX100 and two phase one backs for now.
On FF I’ll wait a little longer, probably for the next generation in sensors and by then we will have a better picture on how they developed. Currently it would be the Nikon or Panasonic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I am waiting to see what Zeiss does. Loxia lenses on a Sony AR7 III are a nice field kit. As sales of F-mount and EF-mount lenses decline, Zeiss has to decide what to do with the Milvus and Otus lines if they want to stay in the FF lens game.
-
Everything's not out. The Hasselbad X1D-50C II and Leica SL2 will be released in 2019.
-
My Nikon DSLR and Chamonix 4x5 are still doing everything I need. :) I'm using the money I was going to spend on camera bodies on travel to Iceland & Faroe Islands instead. That's the best bang for my buck. :)
Kent in SD
-
My Nikon DSLR and Chamonix 4x5 are still doing everything I need. :) I'm using the money I was going to spend on camera bodies on travel to Iceland & Faroe Islands instead. That's the best bang for my buck. :)
Kent in SD
A wise man.
I still bought the Z7 though, so far I probably could have taken similar pictures with what I already had.
-
I'm happy with my Sony outfit and awaiting their firmware update which will make me even happier. I'm not in the game of chasing the latest greatest gadget that is released.
-
Over 40 years of Canon who brought us the first real DSLR followed by the first affordable FF (5D1) followed by the 5D11 (video and double the pixels). But my first digital was an Olympus (yes) with a fixed beautiful F2 zoom lens and optical viewfinder. Fed up waiting for Canon to stop trickling down new tech so have still got the 5D11. I will given them one more year then the lenses will go. Right now I am loving my Run&Gun Olympus OMD E1 11 with tech that I have been gagging to use INBUILT not added or hanging on like some bitsa nightmare.
Small sensor=Fast, focusing miles better than the 5D11 and yes it is a niche camera but it did not cost me the retail price here in the UK £1800 but from my long time dealer £1200 after the Olympus promotion and with £300 worth of accessories yippee. I hope to see a mirrorless or optical Canon that is smaller and lighter than the current FF DSLRS that is fully featured. I looked at the latest 5D when it came out and concluded I was better putting that money towards a 400DO lens. The new EOS-R is a start but lacking in IBIS needs new sensor and what no time lapse?? The camera is over priced. Good luck to Panasonic with the new FF range at again eye watering prices for early adopters.
-
I still bought the Z7 though, so far I probably could have taken similar pictures with what I already had.
Yes. People get carried away with specifications. Few ask what images will the new cameras allow you to make that you can't make with your current camera. If they answered it honestly fewer cameras would be sold.
-
I really prefer m4/3 for size and mobility and I'm reasonably happy with my GX8s. The m4/3 cameras and sensors are falling behind, though, considering the tech that's showing up in these recent releases. I've got a lot of Nikon glass (and a D3 and D800) but I've not updated my Nikon system since the D800 because I've been focusing on m4/3, but if Panny and Oly don't move forward with their compact cameras, I may move to the Z cameras. (I recently spent some time shooting drag races, and took the D800 because the races went into the night, and the Nikon's low-light response is better.) I'm waiting, though, for rumors about a second generation of Zs and for a wider spread of native lenses for the new mount. For now, I'm good.
About the new FF Panasonic...Somebody in a different thread emphasized the tie-up with Leica, which has caused me to re-think that a bit. Nobody except a few fanboys (IMHO--don't assassinate me) really thought the Leica digital cameras were that great, and they were forbiddingly expensive. It's the Leica *glass* that everybody was hot for. A really excellent (and cheaper!) camera/sensor with Leica glass could be a compelling system.
-
I'm waiting, though, for rumors about a second generation of Zs and for a wider spread of native lenses for the new mount.
Of course there will be a second generation of Z mount cameras. There will also be a second generation of EOS R and Panasonic cameras. And a fourth generation of Sony cameras. And a...
-
Not enough choices allowed in the poll for me to participate. :) I currently use three different mirrorless systems, counting Leica M, and three different sensor sizes (the Leicas use 135 & APS-H sensors). I could always get an APS-C Sony or Leica too, making it four sensor sizes! With the Batis 40mm for Sony all of 'em are filled out lens-wise. For the forseeable future I'm done. Can't say I favor any one of 'em over the others. Each has its place.
-Dave-
-
I bought a Z 6 last month because I need a smaller camera/lens set to travel with. Z 6 is the perfect size for me. Also got the adapter for my existing set of Nikkor lenses. I did not need the Z 7 as I don't print big enough to need all those pixels. I'm looking forward to seeing the new Z lens lineup.
-
I still prefer m43. When you compare 20-24mp cameras, quality from the sensor is virtually the same across the board in real world use so it came down to features. The Olympus still offers me a much more robust package.
I do shoot medium format as well as needed and I really think gfx will be replacing my H system and phase back. We will see. It’s a shame high res mode on cameras has a sync speed limit that is so low. Otherwise it would be a decent alternative when needed.
-
I'm using a Nikon Z7 and an Olympus EPL5. For walking around I like the Olympus with a 17 mm lens.
-
Sony a7rii (or iii) body, KoloriVision Ultra Thin cover glass replacement, Leica M lenses for new 28mm f/2 and up. Plus the Canon 35mm tilt/shift and assorted other lenses. For the M glass the the Voiglander adjustable adapter allows an accurately set infinity stop, which I find very useful for my "dual focus" landscape shooting (shoot close, then quickly at infinity, stack in PS -- allows virtually unlimited depth of field even for hand held shooting).
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Fuji X-T2 & 3; rarely use my Canon 5D3 these days. Why? I like the weight, love the lenses, IQ is fine for me, don't print bigger than A3+ (13x19"). Lack of IBIS is no worry, have been able to get the results I want by increasing the ISO.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
I voted Sony, but not for the reason you comment Dan... basically because it is what I have since nearly three years ago... it is serving me well, I see no reason to switch now. Not saying that Panasonic, Nikon or Canon offers are worst than Sony, basically saying that for my needs, no reason to switch.
-
I was interested in doing some statistical analysis on the voting results to date. With a total N of 61 vote so far, 23 for Sony & 21 for Fujifilm, running a 2-proportion test with the Ho (null hypothesis) set to "equal" and the althernate hypothesis, Ha, set to "not equal" and alpha set to 0.05, to provide 95% confidence, the 2-P test tells us there is no statistically significant difference in the proportions of votes between Sony & Fujifilm.
2-proportion test results:
With a Z-score of 0.3161, and p value =0.7061 (≥ 0.05), it is concluded that the null hypothesis is not rejected.
What this means, statistically, is that with an N of 61 and the votes cast so far, we cannot conclude with 95% confidence that there is any statistically significant difference in the proportion of votes cast between Sony and Fujifilm.
-
My only foray into the world of mirrorless has been the Fujifilm X100s which my son has had for the last year. Of course, that's left me lugging a D800 and associated lenses around, even when I would otherwise baulk at carrying the weight. A wholesale move to mirrorless seems a sensible move at some time, but I've been waiting to see what Nikon would do. Well, on Saturday I got to handle a Z6 with the 24-70 f4 'kit lens'. I loved it. I've read good things about the lens too, suggesting that it is far better than it has any right to be at that cost point & coping very well with the resolving power of even the Z7.
The question for me has now become one of going from 36MP down to 24 or up to 45. Oh, and the second question is where the money is coming from, in particular, if I go to the Z7. Anyone want to buy a kidney?
-
Both Sony and Nikon are offering cash rebates and trade in offers for the next few weeks. I'll be buying an A9 and an an A7RIII as soon as my trade ins get to the retailer. The range of adapters that offer full compatibility for the Sony with legacy lenses of several brands made Sony the best option for me.
-
Sony comes out as the clear FF winner, no surprise here.
The big surprise is Canon.
Based on the common assumption that their marketshare is twice that of Nikon, you would expect twice more votes in favor of the R assuming that the Z and R are most appealing to existing brand owners.
What we see now is 10 for Z and 4 for Canon, which would indicate that the R is 5 times less appealing that it should be...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sony comes out as the clear FF winner, no surprise here.
The big surprise is Canon.
Based on the common assumption that their marketshare is twice that of Nikon, you would expect twice more votes in favor of the R assuming that the Z and R are most appealing to existing brand owners.
What we see now is 10 for Z and 4 for Canon, which would indicate that the R is 5 times less appealing that it should be...
Cheers,
Bernard
the 65 people who voted on a LuLa poll probably are not representative of photographers in general. You would get a much different result on a wedding photography website.
-
What we see now is 10 for Z and 4 for Canon, which would indicate that the R is 5 times less appealing that it should be...
You're seriously going to try and draw any conclusion from the handful of people who bothered to participate in this survey ?
the 65 people who voted on a LuLa poll probably are not representative of photographers in general. You would get a much different result on a wedding photography website.
Exactly my thoughts !
-
You're seriously going to try and draw any conclusion from the handful of people who bothered to participate in this survey ?
I believe that the LL crowd is pretty representative for FF 35mm cameras yes. A lot more than what you would get with a site dedicated to a single type of photography.
And anyway, this trend is pretty much the same we see in other data points.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Actually it’s not. We are to dedicated to perfection. When I talk to some friends, who own a big camera shop (consumer) and a rent shop for professionals the picture is quite different even if I really don’t get why.
They are selling more Rs than Zs, but not by far. More surprising is that rent is something like 3:1. a lot of People want to rent the R but nearly nobody the Z. This is the same as was with the 5Dsr vs the d850....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hi,
Not voting as I don't like the formulation.
In my view the new Panasonic may have great promise. I don't care about Leica stuff, but it seems a solid and well designed system. Having access to the Sigma lens program would be great.
Some question marks about the sensors, though:
- Phase detection on sensor?
- SNR, DR etc.
With Fujifilm, I would find the GFX line attractive, not excited by APS-C.
Canon R is interesting, but I want to see a better sensor from Canon. Canon's lack of in body image stabilisation is boring.
Nikon may have great promise, but I never had a Nikon.
I have Sony A7rII and I can live with it. Using Canon mount lenses. I am not a person who switches systems. Rather spend on travel than selling fully working stuff to get new stuff with near zero benefits.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Not voting as I don't like the formulation.
In my view the new Panasonic may have great promise. I don't care about Leica stuff, but it seems a solid and well designed system. Having access to the Sigma lens program would be great.
Some question marks about the sensors, though:
- Phase detection on sensor?
- SNR, DR etc.
Panasonic has no Phase Detection on sensor... as in the case of the GH5 and G9 they are relying on Contrast-Detect AF + AI algorithms.
-
AI algorithms.
Also known as "hype".
-
Sony comes out as the clear FF winner, no surprise here.
The big surprise is Canon.
Based on the common assumption that their marketshare is twice that of Nikon, you would expect twice more votes in favor of the R assuming that the Z and R are most appealing to existing brand owners.
What we see now is 10 for Z and 4 for Canon, which would indicate that the R is 5 times less appealing that it should be...
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, always one to make it a race between Canon and Nikon. Give it a year and then see where things are. Looks to me Canon is quite serious with their mirrorless system given the lenses they just announced.
-
I bought a Z 6 last month because I need a smaller camera/lens set to travel with. Z 6 is the perfect size for me. Also got the adapter for my existing set of Nikkor lenses. I did not need the Z 7 as I don't print big enough to need all those pixels. I'm looking forward to seeing the new Z lens lineup.
Alan - do you find that the Z6 is bulky/heavy with the adaptor plus lens? I'm currently using a Sony a7iii and I love it because it's so light. (using it for video.) But it'd also be nice to use my Nikon lenses - but my D4S is way too heavy for me for video.
-
Alan - do you find that the Z6 is bulky/heavy with the adaptor plus lens? I'm currently using a Sony a7iii and I love it because it's so light. (using it for video.) But it'd also be nice to use my Nikon lenses - but my D4S is way too heavy for me for video.
I have not used the adapter yet, only the 24-70 zoom. The one key lens that I currently would need it for is the 60mm macro that I use a lot for flower photography. Since there are no flowers here in my part of the country it has not yet been used. The adaptor is pretty light and also has a tripod socket on it so that the camera socket is not taking all the weight.
-
Bernard, always one to make it a race between Canon and Nikon. Give it a year and then see where things are. Looks to me Canon is quite serious with their mirrorless system given the lenses they just announced.
I am more than aware about the progress made by Sony and find that well deserved considering their remarkable transformational value. This was the first sentence of the post you quoted, that in my world, is the most important one.
This being said, I do indeed find that the marketshare between Canon and Nikon is important because I would like to see more cash flow fuel the innovation at Nikon rather than the me-too approach adopted by Canon these past 10 years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Alan - do you find that the Z6 is bulky/heavy with the adaptor plus lens? I'm currently using a Sony a7iii and I love it because it's so light. (using it for video.) But it'd also be nice to use my Nikon lenses - but my D4S is way too heavy for me for video.
Depends on the lens. The adapter doesn't add much weight but shifts the balance. I used it a little with the 70-200 F4 and it's ok but I'm not sure I would use a larger lens. With a Rokinon/Samyang 14 F2.8 or the Nikon 24 F1.8 it's just fine.
-
The question for me has now become one of going from 36MP down to 24 or up to 45. Oh, and the second question is where the money is coming from, in particular, if I go to the Z7. Anyone want to buy a kidney?
I went from 24MP to 46MP and honestly it's too much. I mean it's nice to have the detail and all but for the sizes I tend to print (which I do less anyway), up to 17x22 unless it's a pano, it's unlikely that I need all those pixels.
Now in your case, if you got used to having 36MP I would be tempted go up to 46MP if the cost is not a big issue. I recall you used to have a D700 though, so 24MP doesn't sound that bad after all.
-
I'm pretty well locked into the Nikon system, so the choices for me are the Z7 or Z6. At this point it's a toe in the water for mirrorless because I'm not planning to make wholesale changes to my existing F-mount lenses. So I picked up a Z6 in late November and probably have 4000 frames with the Z6 and various combinations.
I would have chosen the Z7, but I already have the D850 providing a high resolution camera. What I really needed was a full frame medium sized sensor. The cameras are quite similar in other respects, and the Z6 makes a great camerae for events, travel, golf, and many types of wildlife photography.
Image wise, the kit 24-70 f/4 lens is solid and is as good or better than my 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S lens for the F-mount. I've used the FTZ adapter with all types of lenses from the 14-24 f/2.8 to the 300mm f/4 AF-S with teleconverter or the 600 f/4 AFS VR. The FTZ involves minimal weight, a small space in my bag, and provides image quality and AF performance equal to the lens on a DSLR.
There are a few things tht are unique to mirrorless right now. The EVF is like a heads up display. I wear reading glasses and hated using LiveView because I had to put on glasses, then take them off to use the viewfinder. The EVF allows full menu access through the viewfinder. I've programmed function keys to provide zooming either to 50% or 100% through the viewfinder. This allows me to check focus or manually adjust focus before the shot, or check the image after the shot. I've used this function as electronic binoculars leading a bird walk and capturing record shots I could not get with a DSLR. The silent shutter is perfect for golf, and allows me to capture images during the golf swing that would otherwise get me ejected from the event. Focus peaking through the viewfinder allows precise manual lenses for some older lenses - some dating back to the 1970's.
There are lots of internet myths. The AF performance of the Z6 is equal to a Nikon D810 or D7200. Only the newest DSLR cameras with a separate AF processor have better AF performance for birds in flight or action. The Z6/7 has better and more precise focus for everything that does not involve flight or action. The difference is that AF funcitons that seem similar have changed. So some internet clickbaiter who has never learned to use the new Z's AF system, never read a manual, and using the wrong settings for the shot is claiming that AF does not work.
The Z cameras are similar, but have important differences. There is a steeper learning curve than any prior Nikon DSLR since the first models. I'm heading on a trip in a few days, and the Z6 is my second camera - paired with the D850. I could easily use the Z6/7 for almost everything I shoot without limitation for professional work.
-
I needed to buy another body last week because I have 2 studio set ups that are in lock down. Camera's cant' be moved or set changed while my client's are approving images and they're willing to pay for that privilege. However I needed to shoot and didn't want to rent because it's a long term project that's just beginning.
I bought a new 5DIV and another 70-200 EF 2.8 IS II and it was very satisfying. Familiar in every respect so I'm thinking about the images and not the camera. AF is fast and flawless, lens is tack sharp, color needs little or no post and 30 MP is plenty. Out the door for $4K as well. Some days it's hard to improve on what works and clients like.
-
As I do mainly wildlife video the Pana GH 5/Pana-Leica Elmar 100-400 is actually the ideal tool for me. Glass is superb and AF improved dramatically against GH 4. (O.K. after you learned fiddling with the AF menu) The only step up I am waiting for would be a global shutter.
-
I made the switch to Sony last year and I'm not looking back. A7Riii; 16-35mm f/2.8; 55mm f/1.8; 85mm f/1.4. This a wonderful kit of camera and lenses for the landscape, event, and portrait work I do. I sold all my Canon camera gear to help fund it, and I'm not looking back. Canon's latests offering pretty much substantiated the reasons. They're always two steps behind everyone else and I it makes me disgusted to see it. Same old story, let's give the customer not what they want, but what we think will work of our business model. Now they're coming in with a low ball piece of crap, the RP.
I'm so glad I've gotten off the canon wagon, so I don't have to wait and wait and wait for their newer 2 steps behind technology. I guess they've got to do what they doing for some reason, but it's their 'loyal' customers who are taking the hit.
Patrick
-
If this piece of news is correct, it appears that the Sigma lenses for L mount will be similar to the versions released for FE mount, meaning DSLR designs with a built-in "adapter/spacer".
https://photorumors.com/2019/02/26/sigma-announces-the-development-of-11-prime-mirrorless-art-lenses-for-the-l-mount/#more-107220
If correct, this probably means that there will be no gains in terms of image quality or compactness compared to DSLRs design also.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The real moment of truth will be the 2020 Olympics in Japan.
Then the ML-cameras have to be mature or the DSLR will be still in place with a new (latest?) generation.
In any case it will be Sony that will do the Olymics with ML - an upgraded A9, and more telelenses to choose from.
It will be interesting to see what Canon and Nikon will come up with and if they manage to put out an ML camera that is a better choice for sports than the DSLR.
-
We have 11 Sigma lenses so far for FF mirrorless, all of them "stretched" DSLR lenses. As Bernard says, the advantages to these stretched lenses over an adapted lens are minimal. It does eliminate one mount, a place where the connection could be loose, not quite flat, or both. It could also eliminate an electronic translation - assuming Sigma put a chip that spoke native Sony or L-mount in the stretched lenses.
What a stretched lens does not do is allow the more innovative lens designs we've been seeing for mirrorless...
At least to me, a stretched lens is a very close relative of a lens on a very high-quality first party adapter (Nikon lens to Nikon body). If you count the 11 stretched lenses for L-mount and FE mount, I would say that you have to count all Nikon-manufactured F-mount lenses that are fully compatible with the FTZ as Z mount, and all Canon-manufactured EF lenses as EF-R. I would say cross-manufacturer adapters are a little different.
Maybe there are three categories of lenses - true native lenses, stretches and first-party adapted lenses (together), and lenses that were never meant to go on that body but have been made to work.
11 Sigmas so far, 7 (supposedly) to come for L-mount this year. Will they be 7 more uses of the lens-stretching machine, 7 new designs, or a few of each? If they are new designs, what mounts will they come in?
-
Interesting times, for me one of the most interesting developments is what Sony is doing with their Auto focus. After trying out the 6400 I have to say it’s amazing what I can track and how good.
Here canon and Nikon have to play catch up because they are far behind.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Interesting times, for me one of the most interesting developments is what Sony is doing with their Auto focus. After trying out the 6400 I have to say it’s amazing what I can track and how good.
Here canon and Nikon have to play catch up because they are far behind.
I agree both do, but especially Canon who was already far behind Nikon in terms of tracking in the DSLR world. ;) Bird shooters have been migrating to Nikon in masses these past years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have been perfectly happy with the Sony A7riii and a couple of their lenses (menus aside). The lenses are quite astounding, but with advances in the technology the Nikon, Canon, etc are likely just as good. I am a lot more interested in the photos than the equipment.
I also have an Olympus EM-1 with a few Lumix lenses, and it's a great system for when I need to travel light.
-
If correct, this probably means that there will be no gains in terms of image quality or compactness compared to DSLRs design also.
So no facts, just your opinion based on....no facts.
Are the Nikon mirrorless lenses more compact than their DSLR designs ?
-
So no facts, just your opinion based on....no facts.
Are the Nikon mirrorless lenses more compact than their DSLR designs ?
They are the exact DSLRs lenses, same specs. I am not sure what you are disagreeing with?
Yes, the Nikon mirrorless lenses are more compact than the DSLR equivalent and are very different designs with higher performance.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 70-200 looks huge. However, without a direct comparison it’s hard to say. It will be intriguing to see canon and Nikons approach to the 70-200.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The 70-200 looks huge. However, without a direct comparison it’s hard to say. It will be intriguing to see canon and Nikons approach to the 70-200.
Yes, it is close in size to the 70-200 f2.8 E FL. Just saw the protoype with my own eyes a few mins ago.
I have also played with the 24-70 f2.8. It feels smaller than the E but very robust.
There were A1 prints shot with the 14-30 f4... boy is this lens impressive. Tack sharp in the corners, small, light and weather sealed. The ideal landscape wide.
I played with the 58mm f0.95. It feels at f0.95 better than the Otus at f1.4... pretty much perfect in the corners.
Bokeh is to die for overall, but I have seen traces of aspherical elements grinding marks in some oof highlighs. Not bad but not perfect either. Too early to know for sure obviously.
There was an A1 print of a starry sky at f0.95 that revealed extremely low levels of coma in the very corners.
Finally, I tried eye AF and it works very very well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
JIm Kasson : two of several articles on the Z series
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/visibility-of-nikon-z7-pdaf-banding/
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/where-is-accidental-pdaf-banding/
-
JIm Kasson : two of several articles on the Z series
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/visibility-of-nikon-z7-pdaf-banding/
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/where-is-accidental-pdaf-banding/
Yes, it seems there is banding, but I have never seen it so far in real world shooting.
Have you seen it in your images?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hopefully Nikon comes out with a more compact telephoto - that 70-200 does look big! I'd love to see something like a 70-300 f4-5.6 PF (slow, but with quality comparable to the rest of the S line).
I'm really excited for the 14-30 - the few images floating around seem to be excellent.
I'm very disappointed by what Sigma's showing at CP+ (I've only seen it on the rumor sites, so it could obviously be wrong). Not only are the initial 11 lenses they're showing for L-mount (which are the most likely lenses we might see for Z or EF-R as well) all stretched DSLR lenses, the next three lenses on the roadmap are L versions of existing APS-C lenses for Sony E. There appears to be no new development effort going into mirrorless lenses.
Their L-mount camera looks to be a 20 MPx3 Foveon, which they're calling 60 MP... Yes, it'll be 20 really, really nice MP at base ISO, but it's still 20 MP. If older versions of Foveon are any indication, it'll resolve like a Bayer camera slightly under 40 MP, with terrific color but terrible ISO performance. I had hoped for more than that - say a 35 MPx3, which would substantially out-resolve any present Bayer sensor short of medium format. The penalties of Foveon (ISO, slow frame rates) are only worth paying when the low-ISO IQ is spectacular. There are plenty of Bayer cameras that already outresolve a 20 MPx3 Foveon, with color resolution that is very close.
-
Yes, it seems there is banding, but I have never seen it so far in real world shooting.
Have you seen it in your images?
Bernard,
No I haven't primarily because I'm no longer using Nikon.
But instead of turning this into another brand war (see the 7-points in the second article), I picked up on the part where Jim comments that the banding was NOT a sensor issue but a rather an aggressive algorithm that Nikon employed to process data coming off the sensor.
If that's the case then it should be possible for Nikon to correct in the future.
I also picked up on the part that said he wouldn't use the cam for highest quality landscape images but rather the X1D. As he owns 3 Zx's , I'd discount brand loyalty or bias in that comment.
I read the post as a positive for those interested in Nikon.
-
Yes, it seems there is banding, but I have never seen it so far in real world shooting.
Have you seen it in your images?
Cheers,
Bernard
Hold your horses, I just found it literally minutes ago while playing with a shot.
Here is a quick view. I do have multiple bracketed shots of this but if I wanted to get it done in one shot I have banding.
-
https://m.dpreview.com/news/2674382746/leica-announces-new-apo-sumicron-sl-35mm-f2-asph-l-mount-lens?utm_source=self-mobile&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source
And the Nikon 35mm f1.8 S is bulky/heavy/expensive... ;D ;D ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
double post
-
https://m.dpreview.com/news/2674382746/leica-announces-new-apo-sumicron-sl-35mm-f2-asph-l-mount-lens?utm_source=self-mobile&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source
And the Nikon 35mm f1.8 S is bulky/heavy/expensive... ;D ;D ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
$4500 for a 750g f2 35mm lens. Can’t see me ever getting a R.O.I. With that piece of kit.
-
... I just found it literally minutes ago while playing with a shot.
Here is a quick view. I do have multiple bracketed shots of this but if I wanted to get it done in one shot I have banding.
Indeed, the banding is clearly visible in this "simple" real world example.
Jim Kasson's last word reads somewhat sarcastic in this context (point #7 (https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/where-is-accidental-pdaf-banding/)).
--
-
Indeed, the banding is clearly visible in this "simple" real world example.
Jim Kasson's last word reads somewhat sarcastic in this context (point #7 (https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/where-is-accidental-pdaf-banding/)).
--
It's an example of "real world" occurrence. I wasn't planning to obtain it and I didn't think that Z7 will be able to deal with this scene in a single exposure so I took multiple bracketed shots. I did want to try if it's possible though to use a single shot because it was very windy and that poses a significant challenge in using multiple shots for blending. The exposure times were longish a base ISO too.
PS. "simple" ? what do you mean? I have a wild guess but I'll give you the benefit of doubt.
-
I don’t get how they can overlook such a flaw. Horrible, but that goes for all manufacturers...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's an example of "real world" occurrence. I wasn't planning to obtain it and I didn't think that Z7 will be able to deal with this scene in a single exposure so I took multiple bracketed shots. I did want to try if it's possible though to use a single shot because it was very windy and that poses a significant challenge in using multiple shots for blending. The exposure times were longish a base ISO too.
PS. "simple" ? what do you mean? I have a wild guess but I'll give you the benefit of doubt.
Shooting against the sunset sun at an exposure where essentially only the circle of the sun is burned out, should definitively allow to pull out the shadow details in post-processing – with the DR of today's sensors. It would be different (not "simple") if the exposure were reduced drastically to an extend that the sun stays yellow/red (unless the atmospheric conditions are hazy).
At least that's my experience.
Peter
--
-
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2703346587/cp-2019-nikon-z7-eye-af-side-by-side-with-sony-a7r-iii
This pretty much matches my own impressions after having tried the Z eye AF last Friday in Yokohama.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In case someone is looking for a second hand Canon 50mm f1.2 R, there are currently 12 at Map camera in Tokyo.
Nikon users are less lucky, there is only one 50mm f1.8 S...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I can not vote on this.
I have a Sony A7rII with a Sony A7II as a back up. Most of my lenses are Canon mount. The stuff I have is perfectly good for me, so I don't feel any urge to upgrade.
As I like Canon lenses, I may switch to Canon over time.
I mostly see the camera as an imaging device, lenses are more important.
Best regards
Erik
-
Canon, Sony and Nikon have chosen very different strategies for mirrorless lenses:
- Sony: try to mimic DSLR line ups without the exotics (T/S, wide range of super teles, macros,...). Overall very good optically but some feel a bit middle of the road relative to the Canon/Nikon upcoming line up. Yet they are available today as we speak and not on a vague roadmap
- Canon: go for landmark impulsive buy lenses attempting to be very luminous (f1.2 primes, f2.0 zooms) without being too super bulky. Very good optically but probably not as good as could have been with more bulk,
- Nikon: two lines of lenses. 1. pretty compact and affordable f1.8 primes/f4 zooms but still very good optically, 2. Cost/bulk no object f1.2 primes/f2.8 zooms without any optical quality compromise.
Overall many great options, all these lenses are amazing relative to real wold needs and typically superior to DSLR lenses they replace that have been used successfully by the best photographers in the world.
A Nikon Z body gives you access to both Sony and Nikon lenses, Sony has a wide range of third party lenses, as of now Canon R keeps you locked with Canon R lenses and it will most probably stay that may forever.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Actually Sony is able to make some of the best lenses out there. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/ (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/)
Great to see things going forward.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Actually Sony is able to make some of the best lenses out there. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/ (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/)
Yes, some are great.
A 135mm f1.8 is argably much easier to design than other more ambitious designs, but still, a great lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Actually Sony is able to make some of the best lenses out there. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/ (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/)
Great to see things going forward.
Sent from my iP hone using Tapatalk
You can throw lenses like the 24 1.4 and the 400 2.8 into the same mix.
-
Yes, some are great.
A 135mm f1.8 is argably much easier to design than other more ambitious designs, but still, a great lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sure, maybe easy to design...but it's still kicking butt of the other 135 1.8 that are easy to design. Kicking both in over size / weight and image quality. Read what lens rental had to say...best lens they ever tested...
-
Sure, maybe easy to design...but it's still kicking butt of the other 135 1.8 that are easy to design. Kicking both in over size / weight and image quality. Read what lens rental had to say...best lens they ever tested...
Yes, indeed. But Nikon's 135mm is 20+ years old and Canon's about 15... ;)
The only other recent 135mm I am aware of is the Zeiss 135mm f2.0 and and it is very close to the Sony although it is 6 years old.
Anyway, I totally agree that there are some great lenses in the Sony line up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, indeed. But Nikon's 135mm is 20+ years old and Canon's about 15... ;)
So you saying they basically don't care?
-
So you saying they basically don't care?
I think that they should care because I love this focal length (and love my voigtlander 125mm f2.5 APO), but the facts clearly tell that 135 hasn't been a priority for them.
The fact also is that the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 E FL is best at 135mm and pretty outstanding, which may be the reason why they haven't renewed this lens in a long time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think that they should care because I love this focal length (and love my voigtlander 125mm f2.5 APO), but the facts clearly tell that 135 hasn't been a priority for them.
The fact also is that the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 E FL is best at 135mm and pretty outstanding, which may be the reason why they haven't renewed this lens in a long time.
Cheers,
Bernard
2.8 versus 1.8 for portraits makes a big difference.
-
2.8 versus 1.8 for portraits makes a big difference.
Many people would argue that f2.8 at 135mm already results in a DoF that is too shallow for portraiture, but I won't.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think this is still relevant on this thread.
Had a good look at a friends Z6 before it was sold off. It went for a good price but it didn’t really tempt me.
The new firmware for the Sony A9 and A7 iii and riii tempted me. I have changed a whole lot of things with my camera system.
Sold off all my APSC cameras and 4 prime lenses. I had a 6300 and 6500. Also sold the A7RII. Bought an A9 and an A7Riii. I have 28mm 55mm and 90mm Sony primes for the two bodies. Also 16 to 35, 24 to 70 and 70 to 200 Sony f4 zooms. Pretty much covers my personal and commercial needs. At some point I will buy a zoo in the 100 to 400 range. It’s not a biggie for me and is a rarely used focal length so I’m waiting for a deal or for Tamron or Sigma to release something more reasonably priced.
As things settle down I find Sony still the best for me as a complete system than I can earn a living from. Only had the A9 a few days and I really like it. A7Riii arrives tomorrow.
-
My Sony 6400.
-
My Sony 6400.
I can understand that. Wasn’t easy letting the APSC bodies go. I was very fond of them and the 6400 sounds fantastic.
-
Mirrorless war? What war? For this photographer there was no war, not even a skirmish, or for that matter much of a choice.
I’d been working with a Leica M system for six years but eyesight problems meant I was increasingly missing focus. As much as I loved using the system it had become obvious that the problem was only going to get worse, I needed change.
I needed, wanted, a high resolution full frame mirrorless system with compact, lightweight bodies and compact, lightweight and fast AF lenses. My search was complicated by what I admit was a somewhat irrational but nevertheless deal-breaking dislike of Sony mirrorless cameras.
So what else was out there? Canon, with those fabulous fast lenses the size of, well, cannon, the Panasonic S1R with her unfortunate weight problem and the Leica SL with bloated native lenses and price point to match. So…Nikon it was.
The Z7 is similar in size and weight to my Leica M bodies and the native primes although a little larger are decidedly svelte for full frame AF lenses. Most importantly they won’t frighten the natives.
My needs are modest. So far I have the excellent Z 50mm f1.8 S, simply the best all-around ‘standard’ I’ve used and I’m about to take the Z 35mm 1.8 S for a walk. The Z 14-30mm S is a lens I’m keen to try but with the Z 20mm f1.8 S on the horizon I’m keeping my options open. I’m looking forward to and have high expectations of the Z 85mm f1.8 S which is due later this year. That, apart from the possibility of adapting one or two characterful Leica M fit lenses, would be it.
Comparisons between Leica M and Nikon Z7, well they’re very different, but only one meets my needs.
-
My needs are modest. So far I have the excellent Z 50mm f1.8 S, simply the best all-around ‘standard’ I’ve used and I’m about to take the Z 35mm 1.8 S for a walk. The Z 14-30mm S is a lens I’m keen to try but with the Z 20mm f1.8 S on the horizon I’m keeping my options open. I’m looking forward to and have high expectations of the Z 85mm f1.8 S which is due later this year. That, apart from the possibility of adapting one or two characterful Leica M fit lenses, would be it.
Except for the irrational veer away from Sony, this is a head on your shoulders need-based analysis that makes a lot of sense. I'd still wait to see Sony's next offering while Nikon's lens lineup comes to fruition.
-
I can think of at least three rational reasons to prefer Nikon to Sony (as well as some to prefer Sony to Nikon).
Nikon>Sony:
Build quality, durability, sealing: Both Imaging-Resource and Roger Cicala (LensRentals) have looked closely at sealing and build, and both say that the Z-series is built like a D850, just as Nikon says it is. The A7r III and below are notorious for lesser weather resistance and build, and both Roger Cicala's teardowns and IR's "get it wet" test bear this out.
Neither seems to have tested an A9, so that might or might not be different. Some reviews say "it's built like an A7r III", while others say "this is different" - in both cases without getting inside, so who knows. The fact that the weight differs by only 16 grams between the A7r III and the A9 suggests that the builds might be very similar - but that 16 grams could all be gaskets...
Interface: In my eyes, Fuji and Nikon have the best user interfaces in the business, and Sony has the worst. This is, of course, entirely personal (for example, I struggle when someone hands me a Canon, but that's almost certainly because I haven't used very many of them). Just from reviews I read and comments on here, it seems like my opinion is relatively common - Nikons tend to be praised for their interface, Fujis are highly praised - except for a minority of reviewers who hate them - while Sonys are often criticized.
Sensor (right now, and only the Z7): The A7III and Z6 appear to be using exactly the same sensor, while the A7rIII and Z7 are using closely related sensors. The Nikon Sauce on the Z7 sensor seems to have some minor advantages, and one more significant one (ISO 64).
Sony>Nikon
Body lineup: Nikon offers a choice of a good general purpose full-frame body or the present King of the Pixel Monsters. Sony offers a general purpose FF body and a pixel monster plus a dedicated sports body, a video-centric body (albeit a bit dated right now - but they'll replace it soon), a bunch of less expensive prior-generation bodies and some (not always sensibly positioned) APS-C bodies. If you count Nikon F and Z together, they offer all the same choices as Sony except a video-centric body, but you can't use Z lenses on an F body.
Battery Life: The newer "big-battery" Sonys will outlast pretty much every other mirrorless on the market, although the older "small-battery" models are among the worst.
Take your Pick
System Depth (other than bodies): Nikon has an advantage in flashes, remotes and other things where the Z system takes F-mount accessories (although modern Sony compatibility is also pretty darn good). Any light that offers TTL at all, for example, will offer "modern Nikon" as a choice. Sony is often also available, but may not be as standard in rentals, and some exotica may come in Canon or Nikon only.
The most important system depth question is, of course, lenses - and either one could win, depending on how you count. If you count only native, non-adapted lenses, it's Sony by a mile (with a note that Nikon is rolling out lenses as fast as they can, and making generally sensible choices).
If you count native lenses plus fully functional adapted lenses with a fast, reliuable same-brand adapter, Nikon wins. The Sony FE system is pretty decent, but 60 years of Nikkors is a lot to choose from - from 6mm to 1200-1700mm, plus tilt-shift lenses and oddities like microscope adapters.
If you include lenses on (possibly slower or glitchier) third-party adapters, it's Sony again, although I suspect all the adapter manufacturers are working on Z-mount versions of their FE adapters (there's no reason why any of them wouldn't work).
-
I can think of at least three rational reasons to prefer Nikon to Sony (as well as some to prefer Sony to Nikon).
Nikon>Sony:
Build quality, durability, sealing: Both Imaging-Resource and Roger Cicala (LensRentals) have looked closely at sealing and build, and both say that the Z-series is built like a D850, just as Nikon says it is. The A7r III and below are notorious for lesser weather resistance and build, and both Roger Cicala's teardowns and IR's "get it wet" test bear this out.
Neither seems to have tested an A9, so that might or might not be different. Some reviews say "it's built like an A7r III", while others say "this is different" - in both cases without getting inside, so who knows. The fact that the weight differs by only 16 grams between the A7r III and the A9 suggests that the builds might be very similar - but that 16 grams could all be gaskets...
Interface: In my eyes, Fuji and Nikon have the best user interfaces in the business, and Sony has the worst. This is, of course, entirely personal (for example, I struggle when someone hands me a Canon, but that's almost certainly because I haven't used very many of them). Just from reviews I read and comments on here, it seems like my opinion is relatively common - Nikons tend to be praised for their interface, Fujis are highly praised - except for a minority of reviewers who hate them - while Sonys are often criticized.
Sensor (right now, and only the Z7): The A7III and Z6 appear to be using exactly the same sensor, while the A7rIII and Z7 are using closely related sensors. The Nikon Sauce on the Z7 sensor seems to have some minor advantages, and one more significant one (ISO 64).
Sony>Nikon
Body lineup: Nikon offers a choice of a good general purpose full-frame body or the present King of the Pixel Monsters. Sony offers a general purpose FF body and a pixel monster plus a dedicated sports body, a video-centric body (albeit a bit dated right now - but they'll replace it soon), a bunch of less expensive prior-generation bodies and some (not always sensibly positioned) APS-C bodies. If you count Nikon F and Z together, they offer all the same choices as Sony except a video-centric body, but you can't use Z lenses on an F body.
Battery Life: The newer "big-battery" Sonys will outlast pretty much every other mirrorless on the market, although the older "small-battery" models are among the worst.
Take your Pick
System Depth (other than bodies): Nikon has an advantage in flashes, remotes and other things where the Z system takes F-mount accessories (although modern Sony compatibility is also pretty darn good). Any light that offers TTL at all, for example, will offer "modern Nikon" as a choice. Sony is often also available, but may not be as standard in rentals, and some exotica may come in Canon or Nikon only.
The most important system depth question is, of course, lenses - and either one could win, depending on how you count. If you count only native, non-adapted lenses, it's Sony by a mile (with a note that Nikon is rolling out lenses as fast as they can, and making generally sensible choices).
If you count native lenses plus fully functional adapted lenses with a fast, reliuable same-brand adapter, Nikon wins. The Sony FE system is pretty decent, but 60 years of Nikkors is a lot to choose from - from 6mm to 1200-1700mm, plus tilt-shift lenses and oddities like microscope adapters.
If you include lenses on (possibly slower or glitchier) third-party adapters, it's Sony again, although I suspect all the adapter manufacturers are working on Z-mount versions of their FE adapters (there's no reason why any of them wouldn't work).
The big one you forgot is AF, both eye-AF tracking and just good old regular AF. Sony definitely has the leg up on this major feature...even Eye AF on animals.
And if you need extreme AF tracking at high rates...the A9 has no competition.
-
And remember how dual cards was such a thing. Couldn’t consider a camera as proper unless it had dual card slots and Sony didn’t have that. Then Sony did and Nikon didn’t and since then it doesn’t get mentioned much at all.
I’m kind of ambivalent on it. Never had a card fail but I still tend to use the second card as a back up.
-
And remember how dual cards was such a thing. Couldn’t consider a camera as proper unless it had dual card slots and Sony didn’t have that. Then Sony did and Nikon didn’t and since then it doesn’t get mentioned much at all.
You must be kidding right? The lack of dual memory card on the Z6/Z7 was the number one discussion topic for weeks after the camera release, topping Trump's fake news and global warming...
I am unhappy about the Z7 not having two memory cards. Clearly so. The only good news being that XQD is by far the most reliable format there is. But even so, I'd be happy to have a Z9 with 2 slots. And it will have to be 2 XQD slots since one XQD and one SD doesn't make much sense speedwise.
Unless I decide that a Sony a9 II is a better companion for my GFX100. That could very well be the case. The only thing I would regret is what I consider to be a superior lens mount and better lenses overall.
We will see.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You must be kidding right? The lack of dual memory card on the Z6/Z7 was the number one discussion topic for weeks after the camera release, topping Trump's fake news and global warming...
I am unhappy about the Z7 not having two memory cards. Clearly so. The only good news being that XQD is by far the most reliable format there is. But even so, I'd be happy to have a Z9 with 2 slots. And it will have to be 2 XQD slots since one XQD and one SD doesn't make much sense speedwise.
Unless I decide that a Sony a9 II is a better companion for my GFX100. That could very well be the case. The only thing I would regret is what I consider to be a superior lens mount and better lenses overall.
We will see.
Cheers,
Bernard
Actually Bernard I was referring the post above mine that had a breakdown of where the Sony was inferior and where superior to the Nikon. I thought the card issue should have been mentioned. Did I miss it?
-
Actually Bernard I was referring the post above mine that had a breakdown of where the Sony was inferior and where superior to the Nikon. I thought the card issue should have been mentioned. Did I miss it?
ah ok, that wasn't very clear in your wording sorry.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
ah ok, that wasn't very clear in your wording sorry.
Cheers,
Bernard
I could have been more clear that I was referencing the post above. It was clear in my mind but clearly wasn’t well stated.
-
So Canon apparently hit another homerun with that 85mm. I vote for a petition to have Nikon fit a Canon R mount in one of their puppies. In fact, one would expect some geek somewhere on the youtubes to have already done that. If there is one thing the internutz has taught us it's this: that no matter how crazy an idea, there is always some tinkerer out there in need of a more reasonable hobby.
-
Just got my F to Z adapter, I am pretty sure that we’ll get sooner than later a R to Z adapter.
This being said, I am sure that the f1.2 line of Z primes will be every bit as good as the R primes.
Nikon has just not gotten to the phase yet.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just got my F to Z adapter, I am pretty sure that we’ll get sooner than later a R to Z adapter.
This being said, I am sure that the f1.2 line of Z primes will be every bit as good as the R primes.
Nikon has just not gotten to the phase yet.
Cheers,
Bernard
I thought R to Z was impossible because the focussing distance is too close (like 2mm or something?). We obviously don't want extra glass behind the lens a la 1.4 converters.
It's not that the current Nikon lenses are bad, it's that drawing of the Canon lenses that makes them so remarkable. Could be the new coatings, that flare resistant sheen, it's like build in orton effect or something. Don't know, but d*mn... Whereas the Nikkors seem to have a more modern matter-of-factly drawing, ultrasharp but also too technically correct perhaps? They seem to lack a bit of personality or character.
-
I thought R to Z was impossible because the focussing distance is too close (like 2mm or something?). We obviously don't want extra glass behind the lens a la 1.4 converters.
The flange distances are:
- Z: 16mm
- FE: 18mm
- R: 20mm
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The flange distances are:
- Z: 16mm
- FE: 18mm
- R: 20mm
Cheers,
Bernard
Right, that's what i meant. The flange distances are too close. Or would 4mm difference be enough?
-
Right, that's what i meant. The flange distances are too close. Or would 4mm difference be enough?
We have an FE to Z adapter already on 2mm, I have one copy in front of me as I type this.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We have an FE to Z adapter already on 2mm, I have one copy in front of me as I type this.
Cheers,
Bernard
Impressive, although is that because the bajonet can partly stick into the Z mount? Which I presume is impossible with the R diameter? I never would figure 2mm to be solid enough to fix a camera to lens tightly, although with modern materials these days, who knows?
-
The card issue is at least partially mitigated by the single slot being XQD instead of the more fragile SD... 2x XQD is obviously the ideal configuration, but how does 1X XQD compare to 2x SD?
The A9 almost certainly has the best AF in the mirrorless world, which I acknowledged in listing body diversity as a key Sony advantage. We haven't seen the Nikon body that's supposed to have pro sports grade AF yet. A7III to Z6 or A7rIII to Z7 is a pretty fair fight as of Firmware 2.0 (maybe a Sony advantage, but not huge). Throw in the A9, and the advantage is more distinct - but Nikon doesn't yet compete directly with the A9.
-
I thought R to Z was impossible because the focussing distance is too close (like 2mm or something?). We obviously don't want extra glass behind the lens a la 1.4 converters.
It's not that the current Nikon lenses are bad, it's that drawing of the Canon lenses that makes them so remarkable. Could be the new coatings, that flare resistant sheen, it's like build in orton effect or something. Don't know, but d*mn... Whereas the Nikkors seem to have a more modern matter-of-factly drawing, ultrasharp but also too technically correct perhaps? They seem to lack a bit of personality or character.
This is where adapted third party lenses could be useful.
I've plans to use my Zeiss C Sonnar on the Z7. It has bags of character as it is but given the differing sensor cover glass thickness between Leica M and Nikon Z the resulting images could be "interesting".
Time will tell.
-
The card issue is at least partially mitigated by the single slot being XQD instead of the more fragile SD... 2x XQD is obviously the ideal configuration, but how does 1X XQD compare to 2x SD?
The A9 almost certainly has the best AF in the mirrorless world, which I acknowledged in listing body diversity as a key Sony advantage. We haven't seen the Nikon body that's supposed to have pro sports grade AF yet. A7III to Z6 or A7rIII to Z7 is a pretty fair fight as of Firmware 2.0 (maybe a Sony advantage, but not huge). Throw in the A9, and the advantage is more distinct - but Nikon doesn't yet compete directly with the A9.
From the comparisons I saw, the A7R3 still has better AF, especially eye-AF and tracking. It's these conditions where you need to push AF that the better camera shines.
-
From the comparisons I saw, the A7R3 still has better AF, especially eye-AF and tracking. It's these conditions where you need to push AF that the better camera shines.
This place never ceases to amaze me.
Camera A is better than camera B because it does C better.
-
This place never ceases to amaze me.
Camera A is better than camera B because it does C better.
Yes...if C is important to you...if not...then just carry on. If this fact amazes you...
-
...
The A9 almost certainly has the best AF in the mirrorless world, which I acknowledged in listing body diversity as a key Sony advantage. We haven't seen the Nikon body that's supposed to have pro sports grade AF yet. A7III to Z6 or A7rIII to Z7 is a pretty fair fight as of Firmware 2.0 (maybe a Sony advantage, but not huge). Throw in the A9, and the advantage is more distinct - but Nikon doesn't yet compete directly with the A9.
While I think there is a bit of a Sony advantage in the AF performance area, I find that there is a much more-significant stumble on Nikon's parrt in AF usablilty—but only in the continuous tracking/AFC part of the AF feature set. It's just more difficult than it should be to get the camera to lock onto the subject you want it to. Part of that is the decision not to have any visible focus confirmation in AFC, so you don't know when the camera thinks it has acquired focus, and part of it is the button presses required to move between trackable targets. It works, but its more dificult than I'd like it to be. So in this very small subset of its AF functions, the camera feels very much like a first generation effort. This is odd, and disapointing from the manufacturer who brought us the D5.
On the ther hand, in all of their AFS modes, my Z6 and Z7 out-perform my A7R3 because the camera gets there faster. Using AFS, the Sony always feels sluggish, like I have to wait for focus before the shutter will trip. The Nikons just feel snapppier. and for my work, that's more important more often.
For video AF, the Zs are as good as the Sony in every way, and give more control options that let me fine-tune the speed of focus to match the shot. I also feel that when there is no face to focus on (where both cameras do very well) the Nikons make the right choice in what to focus on more consistently than the Sony.