A curious question about the Z cameras

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Why not judge based on the quality of work that the photographer and camera can produce.
I take a lot of pictures, in fact I'll be stepping out my house after writing this to take a pre-dawn hike to pond to do some late fall wildlife photography.
My work is displayed on the web btleventhal.com on instagram @BruceLeventhal and in Nature Photographer Magazine. I use a variety of gear... from D3s to Z6IIs. Do you think that a photographer who prides themselves on the quality of work they produce would use gear that was not up to the task?
For me, I look at the work first, gear second, and then think... Hmm, I wonder if I can get there too?
Take a look at Brad Hill, Morten Hilmer, and Michelle Valberg... they some, for some reason, sold their D5s, D850s, and D500's for Z6 & Z7 bodies.
cheers,
bruce
I do agree with you that a person should be judged by his photos & not by gear.How ever the issue is not about any person here.
The issue was about AF for fast action
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hut
I'm surprised @Steve has let it go on this long. It went off the rails a while back.
Probably
I think he is talking camera tech and you are talking ability of photographer on slower moving subjects. Seems like people take this stuff too personally, myself included.

Speaking only for myself, I am not interested in seeing how great I can be with the least amount of camera or else I would be using manual focus. I am very happy with my A1 and 200-600mm I only regret not having enough time to use it properly.

Obviously you are getting great results with the early Z cameras as well as thelordofthelight but the advance AF systems are insanely good. It's not like the A1 and probably the Z9 won't do great slow action and still photos.

Just my opinion no offense meant towards anyone here
Unfortunately people do take offence 😀
 
Totally agree with you. I'll be fooling myself if I say gear doesn't matter. It absolutely does and that's the reason I ordered a Z9 and was so jealous about the Sony A1/R5 autofocus when I saw that bird eye af. I know it'll be an indispensable feature for what I do. Better tools will definitely help me yield more keepers. My only contention with some the posts in this thread is about setting wrong expectations and totally disregarding some valid arguments backed with evidences (images). Buying a camera that's not primarily intended to shoot fast action, BIF etc and then blaming the tool or the camera maker is where I have my disagreements. Buying a camera for what is was/is being advertised for with the features and performance set it comes with on the date of release is a prudent approach than buying a tool for its future promised updates (promised on rumour sites and not officially)
With this I'd like to sign off from this thread:)

I think he is talking camera tech and you are talking ability of photographer on slower moving subjects. Seems like people take this stuff too personally, myself included.

Speaking only for myself, I am not interested in seeing how great I can be with the least amount of camera or else I would be using manual focus. I am very happy with my A1 and 200-600mm I only regret not having enough time to use it properly.

Obviously you are getting great results with the early Z cameras as well as thelordofthelight but the advance AF systems are insanely good. It's not like the A1 and probably the Z9 won't do great slow action and still photos.

Just my opinion no offense meant towards anyone here
 
Does it mean that Nikon had no clue that the AF in the cameras in Z ii series would be no good for action/wild life(since they went for Exceed 6 after Z i series
) :p
I've shot barrel racing, running/leaping mountain goats and little league football and baseball with a Z6ii and have been pleased with the results. Large game, like moose, has not been an issue, but they generally move pretty slow. Granted, that while all of these subjects are "actiony", they are also fairly large. It is not hard to fill the frame with them versus elusive or small birds. I do not have the luxury of using a tripod.

The camera held focus on the main subject in youth football even when he/she was surrounded by other players. It was like trying to shoot a cat fight. I will also say that the camera's tracking feature definitely needs improvement, but using dynamic or wide area modes to keep the subject in focus and in the frame the camera has been acceptable so far. Any problems have been operator error.
 
Why not judge based on the quality of the work that the photographer and camera can produce.
I take a lot of pictures, in fact I'll be stepping out of my house after writing this to take a pre-dawn hike to pond to do some late fall wildlife photography.
My work is displayed on the web a btleventhal.com, on instagram @BruceLeventhal, in Nature Photographer Magazine, and in advertisements. I use a variety of gear... from D3s to Z6IIs. Do you think that a photographer who prides themselves on the quality of work they produce would use gear that was not up to the task?
tFor me, I look at the work first, gear second, and then think... Hmm, I wonder if I can get there too?
Take a look at Brad Hill, Morten Hilmer, and Michelle Valberg... they , for some reason, sold their D5s, D850s, and D500's for Z6 & Z7 bodies.
cheers,
bruce
Long ago, in one of my first organized photography classes, the teacher said the most important part of photography is in the light. In fact, as we went along, he often said it was all about the light. It is a base lesson that we forget at our photographic peril.
 
I think he is talking camera tech and you are talking ability of photographer on slower moving subjects. Seems like people take this stuff too personally, myself included.

Speaking only for myself, I am not interested in seeing how great I can be with the least amount of camera or else I would be using manual focus. I am very happy with my A1 and 200-600mm I only regret not having enough time to use it properly.

Obviously you are getting great results with the early Z cameras as well as thelordofthelight but the advance AF systems are insanely good. It's not like the A1 and probably the Z9 won't also do great slow action and still photos.

Just my opinion no offense meant towards anyone here
No offense taken from you or anyone else... life is too short to feel wounded by trivial discussions about camera technology. However, being a scientist, I abhor misinformation when the evidence does not match the rhetoric.
Not to be a broken record, but I think that I have acknowledged the inherent limitations of the Z6/Z7 multiple times on bcgforums and fm.com. With respect to the Sony A9(i or ii), A1, AivR, and Canon R5/R6, the last generation of Nikon mirrorless lack the AF automation found in these other bodies. Furthermore, the high speed viewfinder experience is a notch below the higher end cameras produced by Sony and Canon. To deny this fact is equivalent to denying that Covid makes people ill and that Biden is the legitimate winner of the last presidential election. However, the degree to which some choose to declare the inadequacies of the aforementioned Z-bodies, is much like those seeking to poke holes in the efficacy of the most recent anti-viral vaccines. The Z cameras are imperfect, but they work well for 90%+ of picture making opportunities.
Is my autofocus tracking experience automated?... no. However, while intriguing, I do not believe that the lack of auto AF tracking has cost me any images. On the other hand, I would love a better viewfinder experience than the one I currently have. I would like the start up to be quicker, and I would like image acquisition to be more instantaneous. I am willing to pay a premium for faster AF acquisition and extended battery life, I am not willing to switch systems to meet that desire.

cheers,
bruce
 
I don't know what this means but it seems that I insulted you. That wasn't my intent. The gif is called roll eyes but my use of it was simply eyes looking up. As in thinking but don't know what to say. Because your prior comment was blaming Nikon for what they did not say. I should hope we don't all get blamed for things we don't say. Just imagine it...

Good reminder there's life beyond BIF. Many of us equate wildlife with BIF only. Best way to describe it is that the current Z cameras are not intended for action. Though they work fine even on BIF if the motion is lateral.
They might not be strictly intended for action but for good all around use. That said…my Z7II does just fine with action and BIF. Yes…a Zo or perhaps a Sony as would brobably be better for action…but better is the enemy of good enough for a lot of uses. Almost all of my output is for the screen and not print…so a little less IQ or fewer keepers per encounter isn’t as big a deal as it might be for professionals, those willing to spend that kind of money for a body and the additional money for lenses to make the body purchase worthwhile. There re other things in the world besides cameras…and like I’ve said before I could buy a Z9 and lenses or an A1 and lenses and simply write a check for the 15K to 25K it would cost depending on lenses. But being blue to afford it and willing to afford it are different…as an amateur in late 60s bracket I’m not interested in the size and weight of a Z9 or a 600/f4 lens and the tripod to mount them on…just like I’m not willing to write a check for a Ferrari or buy a 2 million house just because I could. I have many fine shots taken in college days with the forementioned 200ASA film and a Canon TLb that eventually got upgraded to aCanon F1. Me…even if the Z9 was the same price as my Z7II…the size, weight, and size/weight of the lenses to take full advantage of its capabilities just isn’t interesting to me. OtOH…I would buy a Z7III or Z90 that had the AF improvements of the Z9 and shot 12 or 15 FPS on the spot…because I’m much more likely to have tha5 with me than the much heavier rig.

Other folks mileage varies of course…and that’s all good… ut to get back to where this post started the Z7II is good enough for both action and BIF for me…and I’m not the only one. Steve’s opinions are good and I like his books and videos and pretty much all of his stuff…but others…Hudson Henry for instance…have no issues shooting the Z6II and Z7II for action and BIF…and he also makes his living doing this which makes that also a valid opinion.
 
Just to comment about my intent on the original post.... I feel its a compliment to the Z series that they work so well while being obviously hampered by processor power. That lack of processor power could have lead to very innovative programming to accomplish the required tasks. The early Z cameras are why we seem to be getting such a good flagship. Without the lessons learned there Nikon might not be headed in the right direction today.
Part of it might be that with the dual processors Nikon needed to get the line out the door so they concentrated on divvying up tasks between the 2 processors for release…while the harder considerable rewrite needed for taking full advantage of the duals likely got sidelined behind the get the Z9 software done. Now that it is almost finished…taking it back to the dual Expeed 6 cores has a lot of the work already done and I’m still expecting a 2.0 firmware. Won’t be as good as the Z9 because some of the improvement is hardware…but likely better and the Z7III might see the new sensor to spread out the R&D costs…post by Thom Hogan this week speculated on that very possibility and he has a lot of sources in the camera biz.
 
Nikon is quick to point out the Z9 processor is 10X as fast as the XSPEED6 and that it does 120 AF calculations a second. What I'm now curious about is how many AF cals a second were they getting in the Z6II and Z7II. Cursory logic would say around 12/second. If that's the case its a miracle the AF worked at all in those cameras.

This simple opening post has caused three pages of comments, most of it not really related to the original post, and a fair amount that seems to be to be argument just for the sake of argument. Can any of us answer the question Wes put forth? I said it seems likely that this is just marketing talk, and I still believe that. If you've ever written code you know that all calculations are not created equally. Don't believe it? Try calculating pi and see how long it takes. :)
 
True…but it’s still way less off track and confrontational than UHH is.
not sure what UHH is. Seems like it may be a bonus to not be familiar. DPR gets pretty confrontational and boring with the endless brand wars and "my dog is bigger than your dog" discussions about someone's favorite camera brand or model. I've been a member of this forum since shortly after Steve started it. I've always liked the respect folks showed each other and the discussions about nature and wildlife photography without the childish "my brand is better than your brand" stuff that I see on other photo oriented forums like DPR. I hope this one does not become like that.

Jeff
 
Can any of us answer the question Wes put forth?
I'm pretty sure I answered that in the first response on this thread.

The Z9 sensor reads out at 120 Hz which is where that 120 AF calculations per second comes from. The current Z6 II and Z7 II sensor reads out at 60 Hz or IOW, 60 times per second data is fed to the AF system for processing. Sure the processing is more sophisticated on the Z9 but in terms of how many AF samples are calculated per second I'm certain that is just a statement on the sensor readout rate as that's the rate at which AF point data is fed to the AF processing engine.
 
Last edited:
Long long ago, in a time before digital ware, I owned a humble Nikon FM. 1 frame at a time, as fast as could wind the film, no auto focus, no ISO (ASA) above 200, no LCD to chimp on, and so on, yet I, and many even better than me survived and thrived.

It appears that Z9 has beaten the pants off of you and you must now beat up on old Nikon models. How sad.

EDIT: To adapt your signature quote:
"Love your camera & your camera loves you back"

Steve's take on the Z series 6 and 7 for wild life is a great summary of what these models are for, simple and to the point, and if you want to use them for wild life sports action you can if you improve your skill sets more.

People who i know who have the Z series love them and they are shooting all sorts subjects but not dedicated wild life sports action.

A question......what percentage of the total camera market globally is dedicated especially for sports action and wild life, i think that could be interesting to find out.

I find that with the newer mirror less systems and the direction on all brands, while brilliant and the future, for me in many ways is getting a little to geekish and you really need almost have a university degree or be super attentive and versed in understanding or learning the many customizable options, specific settings, button assigning, the list goes on and on, in some ways unless your 20 and a geek it seems a bit of a departure from photography.............

We have smart phones, we have dumb phones, we have smart cameras, well whats wrong with having a dumb camera.

We bitched about weight and size until Sony came and answered our needs, now we see a heavy Z9, i mean if your a pro sports shooter its not an issue, if your a hiker it will be hence i feel the drill down models will be a better option for elderly and hikers etc.

Interesting times, great discussions, but possibly things are getting a little to complicated with all theses menus and you almost feel like you taking out a very compact computer that records things......and nearly anyone with little or no skill can nail pro shots.

Apples phone success is 12 mp and a simple user friendly operating system...........that everyone can use easily...........

I want a Z9 to use in auto mode LOL, but weight from a massive heat sink for video capacity is something i don't need as i don't do video.

Drill downs of the Z9 will have the focusing features with less speed and size as well as affordability, its not an unrealistic assumption.

I have tried to keep away from heavy............

Only an opinion

Oz down under
 
Last edited:
Apparently no one has the direct answer.
Judging by the number of complaints about the Z6II and Z7II AF, combined with my own seat of the pants judgement on the claimed 120 calculation per second A1 his original statement is probably being generous.

The A1 acquires focus before you even think about it, it's that fast. The Z9 will probably be comparable to that.


Once upon a time the universe created light, this light was made up of photons, photons are made up or red green and blue colour, along came man who wanted to capture this light with lovely colour, so man put it into a box, added to this lovely light time and speed and called it a camera.

What are you going to do with this box you call a camera was asked, lets record what we see, show people what the camera box can do, and sell them.

Then man made a lenses in which to see things near and far.............

People everywhere were amazed at how these skillful technicians could do what they did with these boxes that had this a bit of glass sticking out of the front of the box,
the technicians were called photographers.

Some would simply make images of things for record purposes, others became creative and artistic by capturing a moment in time, or told a story, or conveyed a message, or evoked emotion for the viewer, this soon was called composition.

To day in the 21st century, the only thing that hasn't changed in the box and lens called a camera is the use of the combination of time light and speed, the story telling, the evoking of emotion for the viewer, the recording of that special moment in time........

Only an opinion Oz down under
 
missed because your z7 was hunting..... :ROFLMAO:
Hunting? What,....
1636252043935.png

... Wabbits?
 
There are two limitations to 'AF calculations per second' one is the processor and yeah the new EXPEED7 is touted as being 10x faster than the EXPEED6 (of which there are two, not one in the Z6II and Z7II cameras). But the other limitation is how fast data is read off the sensor. The new stacked sensor in the Z9 reads out data at 120 Hz or 120 images per second as opposed to 60 Hz for the sensors in the older Z cameras.

I suspect that 120 AF calculations per second is really talking about the stacked sensor as it just happens to map right to its 120 Hz readout rate. But sure if you get data from the sensor at that rate you also need a processing engine that can handle all that data.

So I'd read that as the Z9 can do 120 AF calculations per second and the Z6, Z7, Z6 II and Z7 II can do 60 AF calculations per second based on the sensor readout rate. The Z9 is likely doing a lot more sophisticated AF calculations when supporting things like tracking modes.
I think you are trying to be kind to Nikon.
 
Nikon is quick to point out the Z9 processor is 10X as fast as the XSPEED6 and that it does 120 AF calculations a second. What I'm now curious about is how many AF cals a second were they getting in the Z6II and Z7II. Cursory logic would say around 12/second. If that's the case its a miracle the AF worked at all in those cameras.

Chris Ogonek from Nikon confirmed that 1 Expeed 7 processor used in Z9 is almost 12X faster than 2 Expeed 6 processors combined.

I have a Z6 ii, it struggles with eye AF even for slow moving human beings too.

Also, for Z9, the AI was totally revamped as per Chris Ogonek.
 
I'm pretty sure I answered that in the first response on this thread.

The Z9 sensor reads out at 120 Hz which is where that 120 AF calculations per second comes from. The current Z6 II and Z7 II sensor reads out at 60 Hz or IOW, 60 times per second data is fed to the AF system for processing. Sure the processing is more sophisticated on the Z9 but in terms of how many AF samples are calculated per second I'm certain that is just a statement on the sensor readout rate as that's the rate at which AF point data is fed to the AF processing engine.

There are a few things that don’t compute in those statements. First, how does one get ES flash sync of 1/200 with a sensor that reads in 1/120s? i may be misunderstanding how flash sync speed works without amechanical shutter but that doesn’t seem possible. So both A1 and Z9 should have sensor read speeds faster than 1/200s which negates the fact that 120 AF calculations is just the sensor read speed.

EDIT: dpreview pegs the z9 sensor read speed at 1/270s so AF calculations run at about half the sensor read speed.

The second thing is whether the z6/7 even reach 60Hz read speeds. That’s the published number for the canon R5 and the Z7ii at least has more rolling shutter effect than the R5 which would indicate a slower sensor. The z6 on the other hand might read at that speed.
i‘LL have to see what I can find but some of those numbers don’t add up.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top