Nikon Z9 120FPS CONFIRMED - LEAKED VIDEO - YOUTUBE

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).

Don't we all need the Z9.. 😅

Truth is, most of us has a long way to go
before the gear is what hold us back
from taking the photos we want.
There are a few aspects of mirrorless that are appealing to me. Ability to preview the final exposure in the EVF as well as being able to see a live histogram in the viewfinder. Silent shutter. Ability to "chimp" through the viewfinder saving me the public humiliation of being laughed at by all the real pros when I "chimp" on the rear LCD screen.

Other than saving myself from the complete embarrassment and humiliation of having all the real pros out on the trail pointing fingers and laughing at the person chirping [ edit - should read "chimping"autocorrect strikes again] the photos, none of the above big appeals would make me necessary a better photographer. I don't think they will hurt and may even help get some shots I otherwise would have missed. However, being a "chimping" amateur missing a couple shots here and there are not going to be the difference between feeding myself for another week or not.

I am sure I have missed shots because of the desire to sneak behind a tree or bush out of sight of the real pros and clandestinely chimp a photo or two.

Jeff.
(Ok, chimp sarcasm off now).
 
Last edited:
The Z-9, assuming it equals or exceeds the Sony A-1 [per Steve's video] would make getting the eye sharp easier (bird eye AF) and a more interesting snap (high fps) than my current D-500. Still it would be a $15+K investment since I will need two (Wife and I).

I am an "award winning" (small time) underwater macro photographer and I know how gear affects technique but the price is too high for me.

Tom
 
There are a few aspects of mirrorless that are appealing to me. Ability to preview the final exposure in the EVF as well as being able to see a live histogram in the viewfinder. Silent shutter. Ability to "chimp" through the viewfinder saving me the public humiliation of being laughed at by all the real pros when I "chimp" on the rear LCD screen.

Other than saving myself from the complete embarrassment and humiliation of having all the real pros out on the trail pointing fingers and laughing at the person chirping the photos, none of the above big appeals would make me necessary a better photographer. I don't think they will hurt and may even help get some shots I otherwise would have missed. However, being a "chipping" amateur missing a couple shots here and there are not going to be the difference between feeding myself for another week or not.

I am sure I have missed shots because of the desire to sneak behind a tree or bush out of sight of the real pros and clandestinely chimp a photo or two.

Jeff.
(Ok, chimp sarcasm off now).

Maybe I have no pride, but I am not embarrassed by chimping. It's sure beats the alternative of completely missing a shot everyone is expecting.

I often shoot in very low light (which results in motion blur because the subject(s) move), or someone in a group shot closes their eyes or does something else momentarily which can ruin the shot. Or shoot a drummer at 1/60s to blur the sticks but if (s)he's shuckin' and jivin' getting face and eyes sharp requires timing and lucky shots to eventually get it right.

Gone are the days when I gathered the band, take 10 shots and think I have it nailed, only to spend hours in Photochop transplanting head and or eyes from one of the other shots, to try to fix some screwup :mad:.

I was on a video set and the producer wanted a shot with a popular actor. I took one easy shot, over confident it couldn't possible be screwed up, didn't chimp. For some reason it was completely OOF and totally unusable. And unrecoverable. Fortunately the producer forgot and never asked me for it. I've never forgotten that lesson.

Yesterday I took a band shot. Just five members. 10 shots. I was surprised at how many of the shots had poor poses. I think we were goofing around too much (which lead to some good poses). But I chimped and know I'm not skunked.

Obviously, "spray and pray" is an alternative to "precision shooting", but buries one in an avalanche of post processing and still doesn't guarantee a perfect shot. Sometimes best to blend the two approaches.

Chimping through the viewfinder definitely is faster and easier. But I chimp if I get a chance, even on DSLR's, and I'm proud of it. In event photography, it's unprofessional not to.

NB In San Francisco we are having a major storm so I am house bound thus making y'all the beneficiaries of my vast experiences. :rolleyes:
 
Maybe I have no pride, but I am not embarrassed by chimping. It's sure beats the alternative of completely missing a shot everyone is expecting.

I often shoot in very low light (which results in motion blur because the subject(s) move), or someone in a group shot closes their eyes or does something else momentarily which can ruin the shot. Or shoot a drummer at 1/60s to blur the sticks but if (s)he's shuckin' and jivin' getting face and eyes sharp requires timing and lucky shots to eventually get it right.

Gone are the days when I gathered the band, take 10 shots and think I have it nailed, only to spend hours in Photochop transplanting head and or eyes from one of the other shots, to try to fix some screwup :mad:.

I was on a video set and the producer wanted a shot with a popular actor. I took one easy shot, over confident it couldn't possible be screwed up, didn't chimp. For some reason it was completely OOF and totally unusable. And unrecoverable. Fortunately the producer forgot and never asked me for it. I've never forgotten that lesson.

Yesterday I took a band shot. Just five members. 10 shots. I was surprised at how many of the shots had poor poses. I think we were goofing around too much (which lead to some good poses). But I chimped and know I'm not skunked.

Obviously, "spray and pray" is an alternative to "precision shooting", but buries one in an avalanche of post processing and still doesn't guarantee a perfect shot. Sometimes best to blend the two approaches.

Chimping through the viewfinder definitely is faster and easier. But I chimp if I get a chance, even on DSLR's, and I'm proud of it. In event photography, it's unprofessional not to.

NB In San Francisco we are having a major storm so I am house bound thus making y'all the beneficiaries of my vast experiences. :rolleyes:
My whole "chipping" [edit - should read chimping autocorrect bit me again] thing was more or less in jest. I "chimp" quite frequently for the same reasons and have no problem with it.

Seriously, I once had some clown who thought he was a pro make a comment about me "chimping" a shot while at an eagle nest. I just shrugged it off and asked if he wanted to see the shot I just nailed. I think he got the message. Encounters like that are why I usually prefer to be out shooting by myself or with my wife. Less arm-chair professionals.

I do see the ability to quickly look through the EVF to see the most recent couple shots as a plus but at the end of the day, I haven't bought a mirrorless just yet. When/if the D500 decides to die then I'll be looking (or if I find a big bag full of money laying on my front porch some day).
Jeff
 
Last edited:
My whole "chipping" thing was more or less in jest. I "chimp" quite frequently for the same reasons and have no problem with it.

Seriously, I once had some clown who thought he was a pro make a comment about me "chimping" a shot while at an eagle nest. I just shrugged it off and asked if he wanted to see the shot I just nailed. I think he got the message. Encounters like that are why I usually prefer to be out shooting by myself or with my wife. Less arm-chair professionals.

I do see the ability to quickly look through the EVF to see the most recent couple shots as a plus but at the end of the day, I haven't bought a mirrorless just yet. When/if the D500 decides to die then I'll be looking (or if I find a big bag full of money laying on my front porch some day).
Jeff

Thanks for the reply. I got your humor and it made my day.

Is it "chipping" or "chimping"?

Some people look it as showing lack of skill. They must not have anyone expecting actual good images to be produced without excuses.
 
The Z-9, assuming it equals or exceeds the Sony A-1 [per Steve's video] would make getting the eye sharp easier (bird eye AF) and a more interesting snap (high fps) than my current D-500. Still it would be a $15+K investment since I will need two (Wife and I).

I am an "award winning" (small time) underwater macro photographer and I know how gear affects technique but the price is too high for me.

Tom

I was hoping the 4th teaser to be about Bird AF/tracking. Hope the leaked video is not the 4th teaser. It is a concern & a red flag to me if Nikon does not tease a bird tracking video.

Probably shows that their software capabilities needs more time & data to be on par with Sony & Canon.
 
I was hoping the 4th teaser to be about Bird AF/tracking. Hope the leaked video is not the 4th teaser. It is a concern & a red flag to me if Nikon does not tease a bird tracking video.

Probably shows that their software capabilities needs more time & data to be on par with Sony & Canon.

They can tease all they want, but I wouldn't take any of it to the bank. At this point we are lead to believe it will have bird focus along with lots of other stuff.

But if I believe some, Z7ii has solid eye focus. I must have the only copy that is so unreliable that I never use it.

I think all these teasers are for the birds until someone of Steve's credibility says otherwise...Or I have it in my hands to see for myself for my use cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hut
But if I believe some, Z7ii has solid eye focus. I must have the only copy that is so unreliable that I never use it.

I totally agree with the gist of your post (one shouln't count the chickens…) but here I am confused: you _never_ use human Eye-AF? It's not perfect, but it does work and for anything that is not fast movement it is good enough in my (Z6 II) case?
 
I totally agree with the gist of your post (one shouln't count the chickens…) but here I am confused: you _never_ use human Eye-AF? It's not perfect, but it does work and for anything that is not fast movement it is good enough in my (Z6 II) case?

No. I don"t use it. People are expecting my results and it is just too unreliable compared to single point.

However, if the composition changes it is slow to move the focus point manually and I sometimes miss shots...The reason I've ordered a Z9...And possibly the reason Nikon hasn't upgraded the Z7ii.

It is interesting to speculate why Nikon hasn't upgraded the Z7ii in firmware. Is it because it's not possible, or are they driving sales to the Z9.

In my case, it would increase my confidence that Nikon knew what they are doing with contemporary autofocus if they made the current cameras whole. But also, I wouldn't need to jump to the Z9.
 
No. I don"t use it. People are expecting my results and it is just too unreliable compared to single point.

However, if the composition changes it is slow to move the focus point manually and I sometimes miss shots...The reason I've ordered a Z9...And possibly the reason Nikon hasn't upgraded the Z7ii.

I don't get this, honestly. A fully OOF shot because the single focus point is in the wrong position is surely worse than slightly OOF because AF focused on the head/body instead of the eye? If Eye-AF detects an eye correctly, its focus precision is the same as single-point. And for portraits, it detects eyes reliably for me when the face is not too backlighted (which would make a bad picture anyway) and not tiny in the picture.

I would be interested to understand in which situations you say the Eye-AF is significantly unreliable. I agree it's not perfect/too solid, but I find it much better for slow moving humans, either full body shots or face portraits.

Anyway, to each their own. Yes, I fully expect Nikon to milk the Z9 first, and if any improvements to the Z6ii/Z7ii exist, to be shipped significantly after the Z9. It's also not clear if the Z9 is really put forward as an all-rounder, including portraits (the first trailer), or more action.
 
I don't get this, honestly. A fully OOF shot because the single focus point is in the wrong position is surely worse than slightly OOF because AF focused on the head/body instead of the eye? If Eye-AF detects an eye correctly, its focus precision is the same as single-point. And for portraits, it detects eyes reliably for me when the face is not too backlighted (which would make a bad picture anyway) and not tiny in the picture.

I would be interested to understand in which situations you say the Eye-AF is significantly unreliable. I agree it's not perfect/too solid, but I find it much better for slow moving humans, either full body shots or face portraits.

Anyway, to each their own. Yes, I fully expect Nikon to milk the Z9 first, and if any improvements to the Z6ii/Z7ii exist, to be shipped significantly after the Z9. It's also not clear if the Z9 is really put forward as an all-rounder, including portraits (the first trailer), or more action.

I hope you don't mind me continuing this dialog. If you are successful with Z7ii eye focus I would like to understand that in detail.

Firstly, I am pretty fussy. My long-awaited Z 50mm f1.2 S lens came in last week and I asked the shop keeper if I could open it and would he lend me his eye. He agreed and I shot him wide open (f1.2) on my Z7ii with full automatic eye detect in reasonable light, at about 5 feet, with his Caucasian complexion against a dark background. The yellow eye box signaled triumphantly that it was locked on, hovering confidently over just the eye that Jousuf Karsh would have picked. (There were only two in the shot.) The Z7ii had zeroed in on the lower eyelashes with with no hesitation at all. So the eye is not perfectly in focus. I almost went into cardiac arrest. Confidence turned to hubris. This not an acceptable result for me to give to clients. I would never have used eye detect on a professional shoot for just this reason. I would use single point, toggle the point into position and then the Z7ii would give me a perfect result.

A lot of my shooting is in difficult lighting and at wide apertures. Outdoor performances in the daylight are often backlit and changing. At night it is better although then I'm bumping up against iso 6400 and f2.8 to f1.2. I've even shot at iso 20,000 when the room is moody with an acceptable result, but always using single point! Sometimes I will be shooting an individual framed in a crowd...The are a lot of eyes to choose from and there the Z7ii has no chance. If it does pick out some eyes you can try to toggle over to the correct one, but usually the scene will change, so do the chosen eyes and so it's hard to impossible to eventually lock on the one you want. Single point just works.

In even the best (realistic) cases, I'm never sure what the Z7ii will choose to focus on if left to its own devices. It is maddening to have it lock on to something and then waste time trying to trick it back to what the true subject should be. I've tried Wide Area with eye detect but it is still iffy and if I need to move a box around then it might as well be the single point where I can get it exactly where I want it. If you try to toggle the focus point before your eye activates the viewfinder in viewfinder priority (as your raising the camera to your eye), it won't move. I'm near sighted and can't see the screen well enough to use touch focus, but that, too, is a clumsy option.

Single point usually works perfectly. I can keep focus on the eye (using single point or sometimes Group) and wait for a good composition to form. But, if the scene changes quickly and unexpectedly and I need to shift the focus point, it's a scramble and I all too often loose the shot. And usually these surprises produce good compositions.

Anyway, as far as eye detect is concerned, I might as well be back with a Nikon DSLR. Be nice if weren't so.

Be nice if you could give an idea about what circumstances eye detect reliably works for you.
 
I hope you don't mind me continuing this dialog. If you are successful with Z7ii eye focus I would like to understand that in detail.

Firstly, I am pretty fussy. My long-awaited Z 50mm f1.2 S lens came in last week and I asked the shop keeper if I could open it and would he lend me his eye. He agreed and I shot him wide open (f1.2) on my Z7ii with full automatic eye detect in reasonable light, at about 5 feet, with his Caucasian complexion against a dark background. The yellow eye box signaled triumphantly that it was locked on, hovering confidently over just the eye that Jousuf Karsh would have picked. (There were only two in the shot.) The Z7ii had zeroed in on the lower eyelashes with with no hesitation at all. So the eye is not perfectly in focus. I almost went into cardiac arrest. Confidence turned to hubris. This not an acceptable result for me to give to clients. I would never have used eye detect on a professional shoot for just this reason. I would use single point, toggle the point into position and then the Z7ii would give me a perfect result.

A lot of my shooting is in difficult lighting and at wide apertures. Outdoor performances in the daylight are often backlit and changing. At night it is better although then I'm bumping up against iso 6400 and f2.8 to f1.2. I've even shot at iso 20,000 when the room is moody with an acceptable result, but always using single point! Sometimes I will be shooting an individual framed in a crowd...The are a lot of eyes to choose from and there the Z7ii has no chance. If it does pick out some eyes you can try to toggle over to the correct one, but usually the scene will change, so do the chosen eyes and so it's hard to impossible to eventually lock on the one you want. Single point just works.

In even the best (realistic) cases, I'm never sure what the Z7ii will choose to focus on if left to its own devices. It is maddening to have it lock on to something and then waste time trying to trick it back to what the true subject should be. I've tried Wide Area with eye detect but it is still iffy and if I need to move a box around then it might as well be the single point where I can get it exactly where I want it. If you try to toggle the focus point before your eye activates the viewfinder in viewfinder priority (as your raising the camera to your eye), it won't move. I'm near sighted and can't see the screen well enough to use touch focus, but that, too, is a clumsy option.

Single point usually works perfectly. I can keep focus on the eye (using single point or sometimes Group) and wait for a good composition to form. But, if the scene changes quickly and unexpectedly and I need to shift the focus point, it's a scramble and I all too often loose the shot. And usually these surprises produce good compositions.

Anyway, as far as eye detect is concerned, I might as well be back with a Nikon DSLR. Be nice if weren't so.

Be nice if you could give an idea about what circumstances eye detect reliably works for you.

With the 50mm f/1.2 5 feet away, you have an incredibly shallow DOF. Depending on the CoC you choose, it's as small as a few millimeters. Add that to the resolution of a Z7ii, and it's going to be hard for focus to meet your needs. I've run into a similar situation with other modes involving a captive owl. The camera focused on the feathers in front of the eye unless I was VERY careful. I used AF Fine Tuning to force focus behind the normal focus point by a half inch.

But I have seen some of the same thing with Wide Eye AF at a recent event. I was photographing an awards ceremony for the PGA Tour Championship using the Z7ii and Z 70-200 f/2.8 lens. Most photos were at f/3.2. I was in the photo scrum so the subject was 20-30 feet away - and was backlit some of the time. The subject - winner Patrick Cantlay - was wearing a cap. When I reviewed the images for normal use, I had just 3 serious misses out of 100 frames. In all three cases the camera picked up a foreground element - the winner's trophy being held in from of the subject. Theoretically it should have picked up the eye of the subject. But later when I looked closer and looked at the AF point, the small AF box representing Eye AF consistently picked up the face, but not the eye. AF was good enough that both eyes were relatively sharp - but viewed at 200% you could see a difference and know that it was very close but not perfect.

In this kind of event, like the work you describe, there are a lot of looks directly at the camera of different photographers, but my opportunity was typically just 1-2 frames with no time to adjust. Bursts had low value because the flash needed time to cycle, so I was getting just 1-2 frames with eye contact. Because of the limited chances I would have and no ability to adjust, I decided I could not completely rely on on Eye AF so I used Single and Wide Small.

After the individual shots, there were small group photos with the winner and 1-10 additional VIPs. For those images I needed to make sure the winner was in perfect focus, and needed to use DOF and small changes in the choice of AF target to get the rest of the group. Again - there was time for 1-2 frames at most, so I could not afford any errors. I used Wide Small and it worked well. I did not want to have Eye AF picking the wrong subject because I would not have time to adjust.

Some of this is because of the gear we are using now. I have a high resolution camera, a very sharp lens, and a usable wide aperture producing a shallow DOF, so I can resolve more detail and can see the difference between close and perfect focus. At normal viewing and normal client output, the images meet all requirements. So maybe it's just I can see a difference that does not really matter.
 
OK, f/1.2, that I don't have. I have at most f/1.8, and usually shoot at f/2.8, which is way more forgiving.

But I just did a test (on a picture and not moving subject), and the size of single point and the size of eye-af box are about the same at normal head portrait distance/size. If the face is further away, the eye-af box is actually smaller than single-point. How can a large single-point focus better on the eye and not the eyelashes, when the box covers both? Only when the face is large enough to fill entire picture height, is the eye-af box larger than the single-point box. At least, on my Z6 - is it different on the Z7?

Anyway, I'm just an amateur. In good light, Eye-AF is good enough for my needs, and if I focus on the eyelashes, it's still good enough for me. I was just surprised that some people find Eye-AF entirely unusable.
 
While searching for this, I also found this older thread on dpreview, which says the same - EyeAF consistently misfocusing. Who knows… I'll need to pay more attention to Eye-AF vs. single-point AF. Thanks!
 
With the 50mm f/1.2 5 feet away, you have an incredibly shallow DOF. Depending on the CoC you choose, it's as small as a few millimeters. Add that to the resolution of a Z7ii, and it's going to be hard for focus to meet your needs. I've run into a similar situation with other modes involving a captive owl. The camera focused on the feathers in front of the eye unless I was VERY careful. I used AF Fine Tuning to force focus behind the normal focus point by a half inch.

But I have seen some of the same thing with Wide Eye AF at a recent event. I was photographing an awards ceremony for the PGA Tour Championship using the Z7ii and Z 70-200 f/2.8 lens. Most photos were at f/3.2. I was in the photo scrum so the subject was 20-30 feet away - and was backlit some of the time. The subject - winner Patrick Cantlay - was wearing a cap. When I reviewed the images for normal use, I had just 3 serious misses out of 100 frames. In all three cases the camera picked up a foreground element - the winner's trophy being held in from of the subject. Theoretically it should have picked up the eye of the subject. But later when I looked closer and looked at the AF point, the small AF box representing Eye AF consistently picked up the face, but not the eye. AF was good enough that both eyes were relatively sharp - but viewed at 200% you could see a difference and know that it was very close but not perfect.

In this kind of event, like the work you describe, there are a lot of looks directly at the camera of different photographers, but my opportunity was typically just 1-2 frames with no time to adjust. Bursts had low value because the flash needed time to cycle, so I was getting just 1-2 frames with eye contact. Because of the limited chances I would have and no ability to adjust, I decided I could not completely rely on on Eye AF so I used Single and Wide Small.

After the individual shots, there were small group photos with the winner and 1-10 additional VIPs. For those images I needed to make sure the winner was in perfect focus, and needed to use DOF and small changes in the choice of AF target to get the rest of the group. Again - there was time for 1-2 frames at most, so I could not afford any errors. I used Wide Small and it worked well. I did not want to have Eye AF picking the wrong subject because I would not have time to adjust.

Some of this is because of the gear we are using now. I have a high resolution camera, a very sharp lens, and a usable wide aperture producing a shallow DOF, so I can resolve more detail and can see the difference between close and perfect focus. At normal viewing and normal client output, the images meet all requirements. So maybe it's just I can see a difference that does not really matter.

Eric,
Thank you for sharing your use case with me which is indeed just the circumstance I often find myself in. I have not had much real-world experience with the Z 50mm f1.2 since it only came last week.

I impressed that you even attempted eye detect at a professional shoot. I just don't have the guts to do it because of my success rate with it. Most of the time it will go walkabout in the Great Australian Outback...And that's a long way from California.

My success with SP on the eye is very high and , as you, often there is no second or third chance for an absolute must-get shot. Generally I am very pleased with the Z7ii--including its ability to focus accurately--and also the quality of the Z glass.

I will experiment more with the Wide Area's when I have the opportunity.

" I have a high resolution camera, a very sharp lens, and a usable wide aperture producing a shallow DOF, so I can resolve more detail and can see the difference between close and perfect focus." Yes. This is a failure of systems engineering on Nikon's part. Sure hope they have the A Team on the Z9.
 
While searching for this, I also found this older thread on dpreview, which says the same - EyeAF consistently misfocusing. Who knows… I'll need to pay more attention to Eye-AF vs. single-point AF. Thanks!
OK, f/1.2, that I don't have. I have at most f/1.8, and usually shoot at f/2.8, which is way more forgiving.

But I just did a test (on a picture and not moving subject), and the size of single point and the size of eye-af box are about the same at normal head portrait distance/size. If the face is further away, the eye-af box is actually smaller than single-point. How can a large single-point focus better on the eye and not the eyelashes, when the box covers both? Only when the face is large enough to fill entire picture height, is the eye-af box larger than the single-point box. At least, on my Z6 - is it different on the Z7?

Anyway, I'm just an amateur. In good light, Eye-AF is good enough for my needs, and if I focus on the eyelashes, it's still good enough for me. I was just surprised that some people find Eye-AF entirely unusable.

As you pull back, DOF will get deeper and this will partially compensate. Actually, for proper portraiture lighting and distance, eye detect on the Z7ii with the Z 50mm f1.2 lens may work ok. I just got it so don't have much experience with it.

Often enough, my Z7ii often doesn't even detect an eye or a face and just wanders right on past it to the background.

Thanks for the link to DPReview. I will check it out.
 
...The Z7ii had zeroed in on the lower eyelashes with with no hesitation at all. So the eye is not perfectly in focus....
If I understand this you're saying that the DOF is so flat that they eyelash is in focus but the eye itself is not. It stands to reason then that no other part of the face was in focus. So if in fact the eye had been in focus then nothing else on the face would be in focus. I'm not a portrait photographer but I have looked at quite a few portraits through the years and I don't recall ever seeing the eyes in focus and the rest of the face being OOF. What am I missing here?

On the other hand I may have had it wrong all these years with wildlife. I thought the rule of thumb was that "if the eye is OOF nothing else matters". Now I'm wondering if I've missed the boat all these years and misunderstood what should be "if the eye is in focus then nothing else matters"?

I'm beginning to miss the film days when ignorance was truly bliss.
 
Back
Top