Official Nikon Z9 Launch, Info, and Discussion Thread

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).

EricBowles

Well-known member
I use this all the time on the Z cameras. It works when the M/A mode is turned on the 500 PF. Are you in Z lenses saying it works when A/M is turned on? (Never used a Z lens)
Yes - if you hold the BB down, you can manually adjust the focus ring and it operates as if you had switched to manual AF mode. Focus peaking is automatically activated.
 

Ken Miracle

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Yes - if you hold the BB down, you can manually adjust the focus ring and it operates as if you had switched to manual AF mode. Focus peaking is automatically activated.
Still waiting on Z9 but got the Z100-400 and did a quick "check is it working" on the lens yesterday mounted on my wife's Z50. I checked the manual focus by changing the switch on the lens from A to M and saw peaking in the view finder for the first time :)

My question is since I do not use BB AF ... if I leave the lens switched to A and turn the focus ring with the shutter half pressed will peaking show up if I have peaking turned on in the Z9 or the Z50 for that matter?
 

Wes Peterson

Well-known member
Still waiting on Z9 but got the Z100-400 and did a quick "check is it working" on the lens yesterday mounted on my wife's Z50. I checked the manual focus by changing the switch on the lens from A to M and saw peaking in the view finder for the first time :)

My question is since I do not use BB AF ... if I leave the lens switched to A and turn the focus ring with the shutter half pressed will peaking show up if I have peaking turned on in the Z9 or the Z50 for that matter?
yes
 

O

Well-known member
I saw Jared's video on a desktop today & paused the video at least 50 times to see where the focus points were.

There is no doubt that R3 & A1 were probably 30% & 25% better than Z9 based on the AF box overlay. I haven't checked the JPEGs available for download. So I am not sure how sharp the Z9 photos are. (I am assuming Jared has uploaded the photos for us to download)

As far as I noticed, the Z9 was actually not even focussing on Jared's head, but the corner of his left eye (right on the screen) & his curly hair beside it! At the same time the R3 would mostly focus on his right eye (left of the screen), while the A1 would switch between his eye & his head.

Canon R3 seemed the most accurate to me. Its AF box was the tiniest & would perfectly encompass his eye, while the A1 wasn't too far behind, but a number of times it would focus bang on his head. Z9, however was clearly slower following his face & would focus on his hair beside his left eye. For a camera with the best hardware that's bizarre.

However, the AF setting 5 & erratic option is not thr best setting for such a scenario.

In my limited use I have found such a setting works best for following a slow moving subject with distractions.

The AF setting on the Nikon is not actually the stickiest, it simply is slower in its ability to focus anything that moves including the subject you want to lock on to. The sticky setting is such a misnomer. That's my opinion anyway!

I think Z9 would have done significantly better with AF setting 3 paired with erratic. It would have actually stuck on to Jared better, as it would have followed him better. I am not sure how such settings work in Canon & Sony, but this is how I feel about the Z9...it seems like I am the outlier here!

I hope Nikon releases 2-3 firmware updates soon to get it 20-25% better...

Agree and well put.

Jarrod simply has put all three cameras up on standard settings as claimed to work by all manufacturers and that's fair.

The focus tracking system should be simple and accurate in the ideal world, the Canon was, the Sony was nearly, The Z9 wasn't quite.......that's the real world results.
Having to address the Z9 and optimize settings for different situations and then bank them on different buttons is plainly unreasonable...........
The Canon worked well, the Sony was close, the Nikon needed adjustment to help get closer to the mark if at all.

This focus tracking business in the whole industry should be simply................turn it on and that's it, it should just work, and that's what Jarrod has done, no different to what the consumer would want to do regardless of brand, We shouldnt need a college degree or become geeks.

Having to go in and adjust settings to optimize performance for use a multitude of different situations simply means that the tracking business is unfinished.........regardless of brand.

If this tracking buissness i was finished you would just turn the camera on, flick the switch to tracking, regardless of the situation or subject bingo it works and thats all that should be required, anything else is a distraction from photography.

I love the Z9 its a great camera for what i do, i think that its not as sticky in certain situations or as accurate and you are somewhat dependent on critical settings for different scenarios to rein in focusing closer. I still have a long way to get the best out of it, Nikon has a way to go to make it better and user fendly not just offer a pile of new optional settings.

I think 3 D tracking and all those things are somewhat still to complicated for the average person or even some experts at times. Its adding in cases to much vulnerability not less.

I still think the D6 is amongst the stickiest in challenging sports action and low light. i could be wrong, Wild life photography is a little less challenging.

I would like to see this trending tracking focusing situation move up a level in accuracy and above all be more user friendly with simplicity.

I feel Its like Not all of us can walk around in the wild and each time we want to take a shot relying on memorizing every key board short cut for every changing situation before we take a photo..........photography should be relaxing as well, yes many of us out there have no difficulty and are geeks at heart, Sadly not me.
Thank the universe i still have my skill sets.
Come on Nikon jusice it up.
 

sid_19911991

Well-known member
The purpose of the Blocked Shot setting at 5 is to slow changes to a new subject. 5 is the slowest setting. 1 is the fastest setting and means your camera will more quickly focus on a new subject - but also more quickly let go of your current subject. 3 is the default. Erratic makes the camera better at following abrupt movement. But Blocked Shot lock on is also related to "stickiness", so if you want the camera to stick with a subject as it moves or be slow to refocus with small movements that block the subject, you would set it to 5.

These are settings that are very situation specific. If you are trying to test focus acquisition, you would set it lower - to 2 or even 1. 3 is a middle ground that works most of the time, but if it's not fast enough, there are options you control.

Video has a separate setting for focus changes. The idea is changes in AF need to be relatively slow to look natural. You don't normally want fast focus in video. That can be customized as well. But just yesterday I heard a YouTuber comment about how slow it was focusing in video and blaming the camera. Then they commented on how they don't shoot much video and obviously had no idea about the setting.

Yeah I overlooked that...the stickiest setting is 3 in in 3d & full auto, but the same logic applies. One has to move the scale to 3 & 1.
I agree. 1 & 2 works best for initial acquisition and fast moving subjects.

But yeah, it is best to start at 3 & work around it later as every situation is different & there is no way to know to use a certain mode for certain situation... should be done on the day...
 

abc123brian

Well-known member
Agree and well put.

Jarrod simply has put all three cameras up on standard settings as claimed to work by all manufacturers and that's fair.

The focus tracking system should be simple and accurate in the ideal world, the Canon was, the Sony was nearly, The Z9 wasn't quite.......that's the real world results.
Having to address the Z9 and optimize settings for different situations and then bank them on different buttons is plainly unreasonable...........
The Canon worked well, the Sony was close, the Nikon needed adjustment to help get closer to the mark if at all.

This focus tracking business in the whole industry should be simply................turn it on and that's it, it should just work, and that's what Jarrod has done, no different to what the consumer would want to do regardless of brand, We shouldnt need a college degree or become geeks.

Having to go in and adjust settings to optimize performance for use a multitude of different situations simply means that the tracking business is unfinished.........regardless of brand.

If this tracking buissness i was finished you would just turn the camera on, flick the switch to tracking, regardless of the situation or subject bingo it works and thats all that should be required, anything else is a distraction from photography.

I love the Z9 its a great camera for what i do, i think that its not as sticky in certain situations or as accurate and you are somewhat dependent on critical settings for different scenarios to rein in focusing closer. I still have a long way to get the best out of it, Nikon has a way to go to make it better and user fendly not just offer a pile of new optional settings.

I think 3 D tracking and all those things are somewhat still to complicated for the average person or even some experts at times. Its adding in cases to much vulnerability not less.

I still think the D6 is amongst the stickiest in challenging sports action and low light. i could be wrong, Wild life photography is a little less challenging.

I would like to see this trending tracking focusing situation move up a level in accuracy and above all be more user friendly with simplicity.

I feel Its like Not all of us can walk around in the wild and each time we want to take a shot relying on memorizing every key board short cut for every changing situation before we take a photo..........photography should be relaxing as well, yes many of us out there have no difficulty and are geeks at heart, Sadly not me.
Thank the universe i still have my skill sets.
Come on Nikon jusice it up.
He didn’t use out of the box settings though. He adjusted them to what he thought would work and would be the equivalent. I don’t know enough about the different systems to know if they all translate to the exact same configuration or if these settings mean/do different things in the different brands. Realistically, all these cameras have these fine tuning settings for different scenarios to make them perform for the given situation. You shouldn’t need to be adjusting them for every shot.
 

John Navitsky

Well-known member
other things to think about in these types of comparisons:

1) while O has reasonably pointed out that just putting them on default settings and seeing what happens is a reasonable test and "fair" to an extent, it's not really finding out what these cameras can do. optimally one would learn what the best approaches for any given context and use that approach in that context. as a result, you cannot extrapolate the performance in these tests to say "i would or would not have gotten this shot" because of the difference shown in these "default settings" kind of tests.

1.5) there is a lot nuance to what is going on behind the scenes with these af systems that, afaik, nobody really knows, and that understanding is really going to be key to using these systems effectively. as an example, i have a hunch that some of these examples where the camera didn't stick with the subject, it's not an issue of it wasn't set to a "sticky enough" setting, but rather the camera didn't realize the person emerging from behind the obstruction was the _same_ subject, and so when it regains the subject, it's really acquiring a "new" subject from its perspective. if that is the case, increasing the "stickyness" setting may work _against_ you. again, i'm not saying it's specifically the case, but pointing out that really understanding them is going to be key to effectively using them and a small change in understanding may dramatically impact your effectiveness.

2) nikon mirrorless cameras have had a history where the little boxes that show the focus don't always keep up with what the camera is actually doing. while less pronounced, it seems to also be true with the z9. that is to say, the boxes sometimes lag behind the actual focus. so you really need to review the images, not just the evf recording to know how things go. a lot of people have made observations based on viewing evf footage alone.

3) it appears that doing an evf recording has an adverse effect on the z9. it isn't clear exactly how or how much, but folks noted that the fps slowed down when you added an evf recorder, so it's possible it also effects other things like af.

4) there are other variables, like af speed of the lens which are not really quantified in a lot of these tests, like... how fast can the 50 1.2s focus**? also, you can speculate if you should be shooting basketball at 1.2. it's a neat trick, and _maybe_ that's what you want to do, but the reality is, maybe that doesn't indicate the overall abilities of the af system. or... maybe a better way to think about it is, comparing at 1.2 is, perhaps, really arguing over very small differences.

which isn't to say nikon is best or anything like that. just that take these types of "tests" with a HUGE grain of salt. i think almost everyone would be well served with either the a1, r3 or z9, and the camera is probably not the reason you didn't get the shot with any of those cameras.

** which isn't to say that other parts of the system, like lenses don't count. if the nikon primes are slow to focus, that would be a valid consideration when considering the system. certainly sony has made a point to put multiple motors in many of the GM primes to provide fast focusing lenses, and that's a benefit, surely. otoh, we don't know if they made any trade-offs, like long term reliability, or whatever.
 

RoyC

Member
So I have now had a Z9 for a full day. I kind of have the menus settings worked out. I will need a day or two of good light and some birds at the feeders to test some new stuff. This afternoon I put the 105 f1.4 E on and walked around the house shooting ISO 200, f1.4 and the SS was between 1/25 and 1/50 second. Handheld, the camera nailed shot after shot with the on board VR. Well that lens is not going to be replaced with an S anytime soon. :)

Also found that the Wide-Area modes have some Group DNA built into them. Shooting things without eyeballs, it will focus on the nearest corner or edge. I put small dynamic Area AF on the Ln button to use when I want a very specific focus point for now.

I read that firmware enhancement is being worked on that should include a "Group" AF which would be great for BIF paired with 3D or Wide-Area.

All good so far.
 

sid_19911991

Well-known member
other things to think about in these types of comparisons:

1) while O has reasonably pointed out that just putting them on default settings and seeing what happens is a reasonable test and "fair" to an extent, it's not really finding out what these cameras can do. optimally one would learn what the best approaches for any given context and use that approach in that context. as a result, you cannot extrapolate the performance in these tests to say "i would or would not have gotten this shot" because of the difference shown in these "default settings" kind of tests.

1.5) there is a lot nuance to what is going on behind the scenes with these af systems that, afaik, nobody really knows, and that understanding is really going to be key to using these systems effectively. as an example, i have a hunch that some of these examples where the camera didn't stick with the subject, it's not an issue of it wasn't set to a "sticky enough" setting, but rather the camera didn't realize the person emerging from behind the obstruction was the _same_ subject, and so when it regains the subject, it's really acquiring a "new" subject from its perspective. if that is the case, increasing the "stickyness" setting may work _against_ you. again, i'm not saying it's specifically the case, but pointing out that really understanding them is going to be key to effectively using them and a small change in understanding may dramatically impact your effectiveness.

2) nikon mirrorless cameras have had a history where the little boxes that show the focus don't always keep up with what the camera is actually doing. while less pronounced, it seems to also be true with the z9. that is to say, the boxes sometimes lag behind the actual focus. so you really need to review the images, not just the evf recording to know how things go. a lot of people have made observations based on viewing evf footage alone.

3) it appears that doing an evf recording has an adverse effect on the z9. it isn't clear exactly how or how much, but folks noted that the fps slowed down when you added an evf recorder, so it's possible it also effects other things like af.

4) there are other variables, like af speed of the lens which are not really quantified in a lot of these tests, like... how fast can the 50 1.2s focus**? also, you can speculate if you should be shooting basketball at 1.2. it's a neat trick, and _maybe_ that's what you want to do, but the reality is, maybe that doesn't indicate the overall abilities of the af system. or... maybe a better way to think about it is, comparing at 1.2 is, perhaps, really arguing over very small differences.

which isn't to say nikon is best or anything like that. just that take these types of "tests" with a HUGE grain of salt. i think almost everyone would be well served with either the a1, r3 or z9, and the camera is probably not the reason you didn't get the shot with any of those cameras.

** which isn't to say that other parts of the system, like lenses don't count. if the nikon primes are slow to focus, that would be a valid consideration when considering the system. certainly sony has made a point to put multiple motors in many of the GM primes to provide fast focusing lenses, and that's a benefit, surely. otoh, we don't know if they made any trade-offs, like long term reliability, or whatever.

Hmmm, too many variables. I guess the best thing is to hear from someone who has shot one of R3 or A1 & Z9. Ideally, he or she shouldn't be biased but at the same time not be diplomatic.
 

fcotterill

Well-known member
The challenges so well summarized by John Navitsky give owners of the new Z9 a useful baseline to optimizing the AF. For those invested in any system (Nikon in this thread), this is more than enough to deal with, as the majority are embedded in the DSLRs and Z6/Z7. The deeper features of the D5 AF engine took some investment to unpick and learn in the D500 and D850; and similar applies to the still new D6 AF engine, despite its similarities to previous DSLRs.

Many of us have too many other priorities to attend to. Thus, comparing AF systems in different systems is off the radar, mainly because attempts are too misleading - rushed out in a social media post seeking an audience. Far too superficial and riddled with elementary mistakes etc. I don't believe I'm not alone in ignoring this stuff as clickbait.

It will takes months of strictly controlled tests to try and glimpse what's going with the AF in the respective black-boxes of high end ILCs.
 

O

Well-known member
Hmmm, too many variables. I guess the best thing is to hear from someone who has shot one of R3 or A1 & Z9. Ideally, he or she shouldn't be biased but at the same time not be diplomatic.

The Sony A1 was released ....................................................1 year ago, 3D FT Works very well, not quite as sticky as the D6 in challenging sports action.
The Canon R3 was released .................................................4 months ago, 3D FT Works very well.
The Z9 was released................................................................ 1 month ago, 3D FT works sought of well but needs more work to get it on par.

If the A1 stickiness is very slightly behind the D6 in critical sports action, then logically the Z9 must be even slightly further behind the D6 in critical sports action, Now i haven't seen any evidence to dismiss this thought - analogy.

Wild life photgraphy is challenging at best but i feel in most situations its not as demanding or challenging for focusing.


After 2 years of development of the Z9 and 12 months example from Sony, sort of speaks volumes..........
Nikon still has a little way to go to catch up if they can, i am hopeful they will.

I feel the coming of the A1 II will be a leap forward, Canons R1 will be built on the back of the R3 with a lot more plus.

Nikon has focused on the Z9 video compnent very well, i feel at the expense of 3 D focus tracking sytem, that today still needs a bit of work or help. I hope they deliver.............

I feel there are some very valid points on this subject.......knowledge/information shared can really help.

The subject for me is about the industry state of 3D tracking focusing, its technology, performance, reliability and above all user friendliness, as well as understanding what is real, what is perception, what works brilliantly, great, or just OK and why in cases its so complicated to get the best out of some cameras.........

Using optimum performance settings will improve performance in each camera understandably, however understanding how to drive each camera perfectly is more complex than ever for the uninitiated end users who don't deserve to deal with such complexity.

Ideally a camera should be just turned on, then turn on 3D focus tracking and it should just work period, not having to adjust or fine tune different settings for each scenario...........

In the case of Sony and Canon neither is 100% perfect however the gap between them is small, the Z9 is behind both by a little margin, maybe a tad more than little, that's well known, how complex each system is to drive to optimum levels is i don't know, and frankly i shouldn't have deal with it.

I am a photographer not a fighter pilot.

I think the test by Jarrod is simple and about the same as how a new buyer would expect a new camera to dleiver, turn it on, turn on 3D and it should just work...........how good became evident in Jarrod's test.
 

O

Well-known member
The challenges so well summarized by John Navitsky give owners of the new Z9 a useful baseline to optimizing the AF. For those invested in any system (Nikon in this thread), this is more than enough to deal with, as the majority are embedded in the DSLRs and Z6/Z7. The deeper features of the D5 AF engine took some investment to unpick and learn in the D500 and D850; and similar applies to the still new D6 AF engine, despite its similarities to previous DSLRs.

Many of us have too many other priorities to attend to. Thus, comparing AF systems in different systems is off the radar, mainly because attempts are too misleading - rushed out in a social media post seeking an audience. Far too superficial and riddled with elementary mistakes etc. I don't believe I'm not alone in ignoring this stuff as clickbait.

It will takes months of strictly controlled tests to try and glimpse what's going with the AF in the respective black-boxes of high end ILCs.
I hear you about the click bates and trending influence-rs, however in this case, I don't think Jarrod is doing click bait on this test, he has validated what other people have experienced in the filed as well. He previously did the same test using Using Sony Canon and Nikon, he is doing nothing different, his summary is Nikon has come a long way in closing the gap on its competitors.

DP review did their coalface tests and yes they came up with similar conclusion.

I feel.......... Steve/Thom after extensive forensic testing will come to the conclusion that Nikon has improved significantly with their mirror less tracking and closed the gap on the competition, however it needs to just go that bit further to catch up fully. Steve and Thom will both offer very welcomed tips and guide to get he best out of your Z9 focusing, i cant wait.

Ok so before investing in a mountaine of Z glass, i feel the new A1 II and R1 should be that step further ahead again....as a Z9 owner its looking like a little more than catch up I would feel.

Only an opinion............
 

EricBowles

Well-known member
He didn’t use out of the box settings though. He adjusted them to what he thought would work and would be the equivalent. I don’t know enough about the different systems to know if they all translate to the exact same configuration or if these settings mean/do different things in the different brands. Realistically, all these cameras have these fine tuning settings for different scenarios to make them perform for the given situation. You shouldn’t need to be adjusting them for every shot.
That's exactly right. Some of his setting choices for the Z9 were just plain wrong and he was failed to understand or use basic menu options that would improve his results. You can reliably test focus performance without having a good understanding of AF settings.

Steve and others spend days or weeks understanding the settings and how they work for specific situations, while Jarod simply expected it to work like any other camera with no effort to make changes or optimize. The default settings are fine to start, but the entire point of a flagship camera for experienced and advanced photographers is to provide the tool and options they need for different situations.

That ability and need to customize settings is why I found the learning curve for the Z6 to be more challenging than anything I had ever experienced. As a first step into advanced mirrorless, I needed to customize the iMenu and function buttons - and that meant understanding choices I would need to make quickly. Previously I had largely ignored customization on my DSLR - and that's not the way you get the most out of modern cameras - especially with an EVF display.
 

O

Well-known member
other things to think about in these types of comparisons:

1) while O has reasonably pointed out that just putting them on default settings and seeing what happens is a reasonable test and "fair" to an extent, it's not really finding out what these cameras can do. optimally one would learn what the best approaches for any given context and use that approach in that context. as a result, you cannot extrapolate the performance in these tests to say "i would or would not have gotten this shot" because of the difference shown in these "default settings" kind of tests.

1.5) there is a lot nuance to what is going on behind the scenes with these af systems that, afaik, nobody really knows, and that understanding is really going to be key to using these systems effectively. as an example, i have a hunch that some of these examples where the camera didn't stick with the subject, it's not an issue of it wasn't set to a "sticky enough" setting, but rather the camera didn't realize the person emerging from behind the obstruction was the _same_ subject, and so when it regains the subject, it's really acquiring a "new" subject from its perspective. if that is the case, increasing the "stickyness" setting may work _against_ you. again, i'm not saying it's specifically the case, but pointing out that really understanding them is going to be key to effectively using them and a small change in understanding may dramatically impact your effectiveness.

2) nikon mirrorless cameras have had a history where the little boxes that show the focus don't always keep up with what the camera is actually doing. while less pronounced, it seems to also be true with the z9. that is to say, the boxes sometimes lag behind the actual focus. so you really need to review the images, not just the evf recording to know how things go. a lot of people have made observations based on viewing evf footage alone.

3) it appears that doing an evf recording has an adverse effect on the z9. it isn't clear exactly how or how much, but folks noted that the fps slowed down when you added an evf recorder, so it's possible it also effects other things like af.

4) there are other variables, like af speed of the lens which are not really quantified in a lot of these tests, like... how fast can the 50 1.2s focus**? also, you can speculate if you should be shooting basketball at 1.2. it's a neat trick, and _maybe_ that's what you want to do, but the reality is, maybe that doesn't indicate the overall abilities of the af system. or... maybe a better way to think about it is, comparing at 1.2 is, perhaps, really arguing over very small differences.

which isn't to say nikon is best or anything like that. just that take these types of "tests" with a HUGE grain of salt. i think almost everyone would be well served with either the a1, r3 or z9, and the camera is probably not the reason you didn't get the shot with any of those cameras.

** which isn't to say that other parts of the system, like lenses don't count. if the nikon primes are slow to focus, that would be a valid consideration when considering the system. certainly sony has made a point to put multiple motors in many of the GM primes to provide fast focusing lenses, and that's a benefit, surely. otoh, we don't know if they made any trade-offs, like long term reliability, or whatever.

Very well covered, interesting read, i thank you for the time and effort, some good points noted.

I feel that things have become somewhat a little more complicated than one really wants to deal with in this mirror less tracking and stickiness etc.

I didn't buy the Z9 just because of its tracking. I mean i was led to believe it was a 11/10 and Nikon delivered what seems a 8.5 /10.
In some very ideal cases it did very well in locking on, in other cases it was so so, i put it down to me at the time.........
I agree that all three flag ships will be great in their own way.............
I guess the question is before investing further into Z glass, the door is still open to switch to Canon because of the glass and the pending R1.
 

O

Well-known member
That's exactly right. Some of his setting choices for the Z9 were just plain wrong and he was failed to understand or use basic menu options that would improve his results. You can reliably test focus performance without having a good understanding of AF settings.

Steve and others spend days or weeks understanding the settings and how they work for specific situations, while Jarod simply expected it to work like any other camera with no effort to make changes or optimize. The default settings are fine to start, but the entire point of a flagship camera for experienced and advanced photographers is to provide the tool and options they need for different situations.

That ability and need to customize settings is why I found the learning curve for the Z6 to be more challenging than anything I had ever experienced. As a first step into advanced mirrorless, I needed to customize the iMenu and function buttons - and that meant understanding choices I would need to make quickly. Previously I had largely ignored customization on my DSLR - and that's not the way you get the most out of modern cameras - especially with an EVF display.

It shouldn't have to be this hard, sensitive or challenging where you need to almost become a road scholar to use the Z system tracking to its potential, i don't want to be a fighter pilot i want remain a photographer. I think this complexity indicates the industry released and under developed focusing system and asking the consumer to do all the setting up to get it to work.

What Jarrod did on the Z9 was no different to what he did to the A1 R3 equally.

I think that the industry is not quite there yet with 3 D tracking etc as you need to use to many special settings combinations of settings to achieve a good results in each situation.
 

EricBowles

Well-known member
It shouldn't have to be this hard, sensitive or challenging where you need to almost become a road scholar to use the Z system tracking to its potential, i don't want to be a fighter pilot i want remain a photographer. I think this complexity indicates the industry released and under developed focusing system and asking the consumer to do all the setting up to get it to work.

What Jarrod did on the Z9 was no different to what he did to the A1 R3 equally.

I think that the industry is not quite there yet with 3 D tracking etc as you need to use to many special settings combinations of settings to achieve a good results in each situation.
I would expect the camera to be set up exactly as you describe in a consumer model, but the expectations of the photographer are different with a flagship camera. Every situation is not the same, and the flagships are designed to provide ultimate customization to skilled users who each specialize in different types of photography.

That's what Nikon tends to do with consumer models. The default settings are geared to Auto this and Auto that. Pick up a new consumer model and it's set for Auto ISO, Area AF, Auto Active D-lighting, Matrix metering, Auto exposure mode, etc. A consumer will get good exposures out of the box with no skill or training. If they are advanced enough to want more customization, they are expected to change the settings.
 

fcotterill

Well-known member
A primary reason for this product/brand specific thread is to filter out reliable material on a specific product (i.e. Z9) which is shared here because it's been judged relevant.

Once again - similarly to 2 weeks ago - a a cross camera "test" video by a utuber influencer diverts this Z9 thread, and now 3+ pages on is diagnosed as flawed. No surprises if this is also shown up as a rushed out social media post seeking an audience. There are many in this forum who refuse/cannot watch these videos, and thus we avoid the threads that share them. This unpalatble problem has been debated in this thread, so nothing more need to be said.

There are other threads more appropriate to discuss utubers' comparisons of cameras as to whether somehow or other this is "the Best/has the Best AF/Eye AF" etc e.g. https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/r3-vs-a1-for-sports-autofocus.11671/
 

abc123brian

Well-known member
It shouldn't have to be this hard, sensitive or challenging where you need to almost become a road scholar to use the Z system tracking to its potential, i don't want to be a fighter pilot i want remain a photographer. I think this complexity indicates the industry released and under developed focusing system and asking the consumer to do all the setting up to get it to work.

What Jarrod did on the Z9 was no different to what he did to the A1 R3 equally.

I think that the industry is not quite there yet with 3 D tracking etc as you need to use to many special settings combinations of settings to achieve a good results in each situation.
What it sounds like to me from what other members are saying is the default out of the box settings for the Nikon would have worked better than what he selected. To me, that is the farthest thing from needing to be a road scholar. You’re right that Jared changed the settings equally; at least in how it appears. He set them all to what is supposed to be ”stickiest” but what we don’t know is to what extent that impacts AF on each model. For example, if he had just said I’m going to set each camera to the fastest frame rate they can shoot for a particular test, they wouldn’t all have the same values/settings (or would they because they are all set to highest frame rate even though the values are significantly different). Say the test was to see if there is an impact to image quality by shooting the fastest frame rate. Well, one would be shooting RAW, one compressed RAW, one jpg. My point is saying the same doesn’t always mean the same. Maybe all three cameras were equally negatively impacted by the same unideal settings 🤷‍♂️. I am not trying to say his test was invalid or would have any different outcome if setting the cameras up for the most ideal settings for each.

i’m not sure what you are referring to when you say 3D tracking. Is this not a brand specific term referring to a specific AF mode? Do you mean subject detection/tracking or fully automated AF? I’m not understanding based on the way you’re using the term.
 

sid_19911991

Well-known member
A primary reason for this product/brand specific thread is to filter out reliable material on a specific product (i.e. Z9) which is shared here because it's been judged relevant.

Once again - similarly to 2 weeks ago - a a cross camera "test" video by a utuber influencer diverts this Z9 thread, and now 3+ pages on is diagnosed as flawed. No surprises if this is also shown up as a rushed out social media post seeking an audience. There are many in this forum who refuse/cannot watch these videos, and thus we avoid the threads that share them. This unpalatble problem has been debated in this thread, so nothing more need to be said.

There are other threads more appropriate to discuss utubers' comparisons of cameras as to whether somehow or other this is "the Best/has the Best AF/Eye AF" etc e.g. https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/r3-vs-a1-for-sports-autofocus.11671/

I would ignore the comments that one does not wish to follow if I were you.
Water under the bridge.
We don't want to be control freaks. It is the Internet.
Let people express what they want as long as their behavior is appropriate.
For the better or worse I have learned a fair bit about photography from YouTubers, I am sure many have too. I even heard about Steve & this forum from his youtube videos.
They should not be looked down upon, IMO.
 

Whiskeyman

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Definition of torture: Just got the call, my Z9 has arrived down the street at my LCS, AND I'm way too swamped with meetings for today and likely tomorrow so can't go get it! My local camera store got four in today and I'm not NPS, so fuller shipping has clearly gotten underway.
That would make me ill, and therefore I'd have to take a sick day. If they asked questions, you could honestly tell them, "Trust me; you don't want to catch what I've got!" ;)

Seriously, the store wouldn't stay open a bit late to let you drop by and pick it up? For that kind of money, were I the owner or manager, I'd stay late to deliver a Z9 to a good customer if they needed me to.
 

ssheipel

Well-known member
Supporting Member
That would make me ill, and therefore I'd have to take a sick day. If they asked questions, you could honestly tell them, "Trust me; you don't want to catch what I've got!" ;)

Seriously, the store wouldn't stay open a bit late to let you drop by and pick it up? For that kind of money, were I the owner or manager, I'd stay late to deliver a Z9 to a good customer if they needed me to.
True story -- At the end of a meeting on Thursday mid afternoon I said to someone in that meeting and going to be in my following meeting that I was cancelling the next meeting and to let people know. I then cancelled the meeting that was to follow that meeting. I then put on my shoes and went and picked up my Z9 :)
 

O

Well-known member
I would expect the camera to be set up exactly as you describe in a consumer model, but the expectations of the photographer are different with a flagship camera. Every situation is not the same, and the flagships are designed to provide ultimate customization to skilled users who each specialize in different types of photography.

That's what Nikon tends to do with consumer models. The default settings are geared to Auto this and Auto that. Pick up a new consumer model and it's set for Auto ISO, Area AF, Auto Active D-lighting, Matrix metering, Auto exposure mode, etc. A consumer will get good exposures out of the box with no skill or training. If they are advanced enough to want more customization, they are expected to change the settings.
A very fresh perspective, thanks for giving it the thought that you have.
 
Top