How good a camera is the Z9 really?
- Thread starter HRB
- Start date
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).
Mmm yes, I do know that.Just stop the aperture down then
I'm sure you know f/1.2 won't get you eyes and nose in focus unless your snout is on the same plane as your eyes and unless it's a pug/bulldog/other flat nosed dog breed or animal, won't see that happen with my little guy, haUnless of course I get him at a side profile...hmmm...challenge for another time
Attempt at humour falls flat.... it was a response to the hordes complaining about their want for face detect, animal face detect, eye detect, animal eye detect, animal species eye detect etc etc etc.
Alistair
Well-known member
This is exactly where the Z9 fits - a comprehensive and self-contained tool for the small business content creator. The Z9, A1 and R3 are all fantastic cameras but are really aimed at quite different use-cases. Problems arise when folk with one use-case purchase a camera intended for a different use-case.
Nikon has always targeted sports/journalism and wildlife photographers as an afterthought. And that is now their clearly stated marketing strategy i.e. targeting professionals/high end of the market. IMO the only reason they've thrown us a bone with animal detection is because Sony did it and began drawing people away. I think Nikon underestimated how many of their customers are bird/wildlife photographers. There's no doubt in my mind that the Z9 performs as well if not better than the competition with human subject/eye detection. I've shot a couple of sporting events for friends and can't even imagine that the subject detection could be any better. What they've done with subject detection for human subjects suggests Nikon engineers are clearly capable. It's a question how much effort/resources Nikon is willing to put into further developing animal detection for a market segment that is not their priority. Unfortunately Japanese companies are very slow to change direction. The question as a wildlife photographer is whether the Nikon AF is good enough or do you have to have the best. And what is it worth. Can you afford/are you willing to make a change. And then of course there's the question of which system offers the best selection of lenses.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
as someone who shoots dogs in action, which imo, is a lot more challenging than shooting humans in action due to the speed, shape, color and texture, this whole topic is getting tiresome. this particular shooting context is quite challenging, and i've shot the d500 for years, i've shot the a1 for a bit and selected the z9 and have no regrets. personally if you gave me a r3, a1 or z9 i would be happy. there are reasons one might choose any of these cameras, and each has strengths and weaknesses, but they're all super capable, z9 included -- even looking at their weakest areas. not just as "all around camera" or whatever. period. yes, you may have challenges in certain situations with any of them.
I agree the discussion is getting old. It's only even a topic of discussion in this forum due to the heavy weighting of BIF shooters. Which is the only area that there appears to be any meaningful difference in the systems. It seems the better the systems get the more people want to argue about which is best. The OP asked whether the Z9 is "really that good". The simple answer is that it's the best Nikon camera to-date. Whether a given individual can get better results with a Z9 versus what they were shooting previously is more about the photographer than the camera. Personally that's where I'm still at. Haven't yet become proficient with the new equipment and it is frustrating.
BTW I used to shoot canine agility. It was a blast.
Ah, humor went over my head then, apologies!
fcotterill
Well-known member
The founding question of this thread is clear as it simple i.e. is it timely to migrate to the Z9 from DSLRs ".... would you trade in your D4S, D5 or D6 for a Z9"?"
It's clear the benefits win out over the costs getting the Z9
As for Nikon tacking on wildlife genres from its primary focus on sport and journalism, there are signs this bias has changed. Notably with the PF lenses. Much of recent marketing picthes (eg Z9 teasers) are on nature eg depicting Shannon Wild in the S African lowveld.... For example, the following statement reveals they sift detailed marketing data : "About 3/4 of NIKKOR F-mount 300mm PF lens users will use with extenders, but demand has been declining since the 500mm PF lens was introduced. At the same time, user demand for telephoto lenses is increasing..."
The 800 PF is explicitly targeting not only birders but also aviation shooters: "....The target users of this lens are high-level photographers and photography enthusiasts who love to shoot birds, wild animals, airplanes and other objects...."
It's clear the benefits win out over the costs getting the Z9
As for Nikon tacking on wildlife genres from its primary focus on sport and journalism, there are signs this bias has changed. Notably with the PF lenses. Much of recent marketing picthes (eg Z9 teasers) are on nature eg depicting Shannon Wild in the S African lowveld.... For example, the following statement reveals they sift detailed marketing data : "About 3/4 of NIKKOR F-mount 300mm PF lens users will use with extenders, but demand has been declining since the 500mm PF lens was introduced. At the same time, user demand for telephoto lenses is increasing..."
The 800 PF is explicitly targeting not only birders but also aviation shooters: "....The target users of this lens are high-level photographers and photography enthusiasts who love to shoot birds, wild animals, airplanes and other objects...."
Chris K
Well-known member
Respectfully, I think that's completely unfair.
Nikon has produced numerous high-end (yet affordable) bodies almost purpose-built for wildlife and a consistent series of "pro" bodies also very well-suited to wildlife. They've also had--and still do--have the most comprehensive wildlife lens lineup in the market, with more options from low to high-end than any system.
Bird eye AF (BEAF) coming into Sony's lineup the past couple years certainly caught Nikon flat-footed, and it has taken them some time to bring a suitable competitor to market. But the D500+500PF was the standard mid-range wildlife setup for years, and Nikon has a long history of being at or near the top of the heap for digital wildlife photography. Personally, I'd say from the D3 (2007) until the A7IV and A1 (2021-ish).
The gap from 2019 to 2022 before the Z9 arrived was painful for Nikon shooters, and body availability remains an issue, but I think saying that Nikon doesn't focus on wildlife is untrue. Nikon has two 300's, a 400 (soon two), two 500's, a 600, two 800's, and a multitude of long zooms. They've obviously put a lot of R&D dollars into their PF lenses, as well, which is a unique advantage (and if I'm honest, the primary reason I have a Z9 instead of an A1 right now).
Nikon wildlife shooters are spoiled for wildlife lens options, and aside from a now-closed "time gap" in BEAF, and a bit of a residual performance gap in BEAF, it's a great system for wildlife.
airestudiosmt
Well-known member
Michelle is a Nikon Ambassador.I met this wonderful professional photographer while looking for Snowy Owls near Kingston, Ontario, a few weeks ago. She was using a Z9. Michelle recently won a gold medal using Nikon, not Sony equipment.
2022 Gold Medal / Michelle Valberg
Boss the Spirit Bear is a rare and elusive species in Canada. I am proud to have the opportunity to photograph and showcase him to the world.wpcteamcanada.com
fcotterill
Well-known member
Good points. Thinking more on the past 2 decades, Nikon also has also recognized a string of high profile wildlife photographers as Ambassadors, such as Moose Peterson.
With respect to my personal, aka parochial, needs, the D850 worked very well 2018-2022. Sometimes however I did need a Mirrorless enabled for near instant changes in AF Modes, besides all the standard features (silent-shooting, wysiwyg etc).
This is why I eventually dropped the Z7 in 2020, as it was clear Nikon had no intentions of expanding the Custom settings via firmware. I used a D780 as a makeshift solution with a Hoodman loupe on the evf for silent shooting (only when desperate). Actually Nikon has also left this DSLR in an underwhelming state, although in fairness its partial D5 AF system is comparativredely more robust than
Last edited:
It's not a matter of fair/unfair. And not saying they don't target wildlife shooters. Just saying it's not their priority. We don't have transcripts of what's discussed in their boardroom/management meetings. Just looking at the data. But whether by intent of by accident things are looking up. The 400mm w/integral TC, Z9 being the first high rez flagship since the D3x and the 800PF released in a reasonable time frame relative to other Z lenses is promising. I suspect they're trying to get an edge by offering things that the competition doesn't currently have.
Chris K
Well-known member
Apart from the Z6 and Z7, whose untimely lack of BEAF made it look considerably worse in the market than the A7IV/A1 and R5/R6, Nikon has targeted wildlife shooters heavily, I'd say. From the D500 to D850 to D5/D6/Z9, they have a body for every wildlife budget, and with the 300PF, 500PF, 800PF, 300/400/500/600/800 big glass, 80-400, 200-500, 180-400, and 100-400 they have the most comprehensive wildlife lens lineup on the market.
If Nikon has slept on any photographic subject, I'd say it's macrophotography. Nikon was the macro system in the F mount days, but aside from the antique R1C1 and the new 50/105 macro lenses, we're left with few choices that fully perform on Z cameras. No >1:1. No long lenses. No R1C1 refresh to kill those silly little batteries. You can't even mount a TC on the 105, and Nikon doesn't make tubes. If Canon had a cheaper FF body, I'd probably have their nifty 100mm macro right now instead of Nikon's 105mm.
I think we can all agree Nikon was late to the mirrorless market, and late on ML autofocus, but they haven't changed their market focus. What they're guilty of is (like Canon) squandering a market leadership position by clinging onto a dead DSLR system, and attempting to segment the market with mirrorless on the low-end and DSLRs on the high-end. Olympus and Panasonic, and later Fuji and Sony ate their market share. Now there's a pile of old CX and EOS M cameras, and the once-mighty "Canikon" are now in a catchup position.
The good news for us consumers is that--squabbling over the last 5% of capability aside--Canikon have now generally caught up, and we're all likely to enjoy new designs and lower prices as a result.
If Nikon has slept on any photographic subject, I'd say it's macrophotography. Nikon was the macro system in the F mount days, but aside from the antique R1C1 and the new 50/105 macro lenses, we're left with few choices that fully perform on Z cameras. No >1:1. No long lenses. No R1C1 refresh to kill those silly little batteries. You can't even mount a TC on the 105, and Nikon doesn't make tubes. If Canon had a cheaper FF body, I'd probably have their nifty 100mm macro right now instead of Nikon's 105mm.
I think we can all agree Nikon was late to the mirrorless market, and late on ML autofocus, but they haven't changed their market focus. What they're guilty of is (like Canon) squandering a market leadership position by clinging onto a dead DSLR system, and attempting to segment the market with mirrorless on the low-end and DSLRs on the high-end. Olympus and Panasonic, and later Fuji and Sony ate their market share. Now there's a pile of old CX and EOS M cameras, and the once-mighty "Canikon" are now in a catchup position.
The good news for us consumers is that--squabbling over the last 5% of capability aside--Canikon have now generally caught up, and we're all likely to enjoy new designs and lower prices as a result.
I, too, wonder at your experience to make such a statement. I have spent hours thinking about the subjects I shoot and how to custom program most of the buttons and dials available to me on the Z9 so that in any given situation I can quickly chose among several AF Area modes, Subject detection on or off, etc. That is the same approach I used previously with my D850 and D5. While we lady photographers are badly outnumbered here by other genders, that doesn't mean that we are less technically inclined.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
FWIW, I don't think it was so much they "clung" to the DSLR or "squandered" their opertunity, so much as they (both Canon and Nikon) didn't see _how_ to build a mirrorless system that could do what the flagship DSLRs did in any sort of reasonable way or time-frame.
I don't think people really understand how big the technology gap they had to fill in order to get here.
I think it wasn't until Sony showed them that it was _possible_ to build a pro sport body (ie, the A9), that they really didn't see a good way to get from point A to B. And once Sony showed them it was possible they realized they didn't really have a choice, it was something they HAD to do and once you know something is possible, you find a way. And find a way they did.
Chris K
Well-known member
Early mirrorless designs were all poor wildlife performers compared to high-end DSLRs. It took years before Sony produced their first body you could speak of in the same sentence as, say, a D500. And during those early days, Canon and Nikon did what they could to promote DSLRs as serious cameras, and produced only token mirrorless offerings with little R&D behind them.
To me, the writing was on the wall far earlier than the A9. When Panasonic released the GH2, they doubled AF speed (from glacial to usable) simply by doubling sensor readout. At that point, it was obvious that Moore's Law would soon obsolete the one last virtue of DSLRs by geometric growth, and it was only a matter of which mirrorless manufacturer's vision would dominate.
That's why I say Nikon and Canon squandered their leadership position. If they had both jumped into mirrorless full-bore circa Micro Four Thirds, their existing user base and lens lineups (and expertise, if we're honest) would have placed them FAR ahead of Sony after those first few years of rough cameras, and it's doubtful Sony would be in the dominant position it is today.
All hypothetical, and alternate-history doesn't matter, of course. I don't mean to denigrate Sony's R&D efforts, which have proven extensive. But it's the same old story as always: market leader becomes too comfortable, decides its market share equals value, and is taken down by an upstart (or a few upstarts in this case) that pushes value by innovation.
To me, the writing was on the wall far earlier than the A9. When Panasonic released the GH2, they doubled AF speed (from glacial to usable) simply by doubling sensor readout. At that point, it was obvious that Moore's Law would soon obsolete the one last virtue of DSLRs by geometric growth, and it was only a matter of which mirrorless manufacturer's vision would dominate.
That's why I say Nikon and Canon squandered their leadership position. If they had both jumped into mirrorless full-bore circa Micro Four Thirds, their existing user base and lens lineups (and expertise, if we're honest) would have placed them FAR ahead of Sony after those first few years of rough cameras, and it's doubtful Sony would be in the dominant position it is today.
All hypothetical, and alternate-history doesn't matter, of course. I don't mean to denigrate Sony's R&D efforts, which have proven extensive. But it's the same old story as always: market leader becomes too comfortable, decides its market share equals value, and is taken down by an upstart (or a few upstarts in this case) that pushes value by innovation.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
possibly. but i think the big key isn't JUST the AF, but the subject detection which is a crazy hard technical problem.
Maljo
Well-known member
Love the Z9. Excellent camera. Terrific for people, landscapes or birds. A joy to use.
Chris K
Well-known member
Agreed. Mirrorless with high performance AF isn’t much different than a DSLR. ML autofocus algorithms is where mirrorless really outclassed DSLRs, and those ML algorithms are only going to get better every year.
Joel N
Well-known member
I agree with Barbara that I shouldn’t generalised, and I had also apologised for the poor wording choice that I had used. it had caused distress to our female members here which was uncalled for.
I am reluctant to response knowing no matter what I say, it will end up being polarized however I do feel the need to clarify myself.
Yes indeed I am speaking from experience where I only know a handful of my photographer friends whom are female, we do work and shoot together and are friends, with different gears and different ways of approaching photography. Most of my female friends doesn’t dwell as hard as me or my male counterparts on new gears or the technical details in. We share what we know and I had benefited much from their advice or experience, their simple but meticulous approach to photography has shown me with similar or modest gear, they were able to take great photos. Are they technically inclined, sure no less than myself for sure but is their approach to photography that I wanted to express in my previous post. I am very grateful to my wife whom had supported my selfish interest in photography, she has very little technical knowledge, but she has a good eye and were always able to set a better composition than me in a photo, in this aspect, she a better photographer than me.
In no way am I trying to be condescending or imply anyone is less technically incline in my post, in fact it’s quite the opposite, I just want to put out that there are more things in photography than specs and For me, being with modest gear or less technically inclined doesn’t make one a less photographer, but clearly it was iterated in my prior post in poor taste.
Till this day, I am still shooting with my Nikon 1 camera and I really enjoy it, no eye AF, no high resolution, single focus point, 1 inch sensor, sure is painful at times but it lets me work hard for the photo which I have grown to love and appreciate.
I just like to end by saying sorry to anyone that felt offended by my prior post regardless of gender.
Last edited:
Steelhant
Member
Just curious how you find the low light shots compared to the D6, I had a D6 after I got my Z9, its a great camera but I bought A Canon R3, like the silent shutter, reason for the switch...and I really like the results in low light ..
Thanks,
Chuck
You have to look at comparative output. Each taken with 100% crops shows the D6 is an order of magnitude better - BUT - downsample the Z9 file and they get closer. The D6 has an edge that can vary by ISO, but usually not more than 1/2 stop. Still, I think the D5/6 handled colors a bit better at higher ISOs, so I do give them an edge there.
simonsi
Active member
OMG - tbh thats quite offensively sexist.
He already apologized for that, 3 posts above yours.
ChrisM
Well-known member
Even with BEAF turned off, the AF of the Sony A1 is much better than the AF of the best DSLR cameras. The AF of my former D500+500PF combo was very good, but there were still the many slight misses, especially when tracking moving subjects. Only when I got the Sigma 500/4, AF finally got to a level where I could enjoy tracking, but even then, it was not as consistent as the A1. The forte of the A1 is the high rate of AF calculations, 120x per second, and of course the fact that AF is calculated directly on the sensor plane, and not on a separate AF sensor.
When you realize that you need a shutter speed of around 1/1500s to freeze the motion of flying birds, it is not as crazy high as it may first sound, but it shows when shooting fast moving subjects, that the Sony A1 is continuously re-adjusting focus position at a very fast rate, and with great precision and consistency.
I do have to say though, that a fast lens is still needed. I currently use the 200-600G, and the combo produces many perfectly in focus images of moving subjects, but the lens just does not receive enough light during 1/1500s, so although perfectly frozen and in focus, the IQ is not rewarding enough to trade in the D500+500PF for i.m.o. It is actually a step back, even though the 500PF is also only F5.6. So I still feel I need to get the 400GM or 600GM to make the switch worth it also on the IQ front.
Last edited: