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).

What's the general impression of the Z9 auto focus tracking (eye in particular) vs the Sony A1? Not trying to flame, or start anything. I'm waiting on my unit to ship. Jst curious if the system is operating better than some of the comparison videos I've watched where it still seemed to be struggling a bit.
I don't know which videos you have been watching, but it seems overall, they are all fairly close now. I know you can find videos showing anyone of the cameras is better than another in some specific test. I think you're going to find they each have something they are better at than the other but for most things will perform similar. For example, it seems that Canon finds the bird in the frame faster than the others in EVF recordings. I have had the Z9 out a few times now and it has been performing really well. I don't think you will be disappointed with the A1 or the Z9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: O
I don't know which videos you have been watching, but it seems overall, they are all fairly close now. I know you can find videos showing anyone of the cameras is better than another in some specific test. I think you're going to find they each have something they are better at than the other but for most things will perform similar. For example, it seems that Canon finds the bird in the frame faster than the others in EVF recordings. I have had the Z9 out a few times now and it has been performing really well. I don't think you will be disappointed with the A1 or the Z9.

Mainly the Jared trio comparison. I reviewed the JPGs, and it didn't look like Nikon was hitting the focus. The system appeared to be lagging somewhat. I discerned that was likely from something he was doing (even running the Atmos, slowing down the processor).
 
Mainly the Jared trio comparison. I reviewed the JPGs, and it didn't look like Nikon was hitting the focus. The system appeared to be lagging somewhat. I discerned that was likely from something he was doing (even running the Atmos, slowing down the processor).


They were all set up the same i believe, but regardless its interesting to see where the industry is at regardless of brand.

I am not worried about the Z9 and its position of being 3rd by a slight margin anyway.
DPI, POLAN, pre production use rang true.
I didn't get the Z9 for its 3 d tracking............but its just interesting to see where technology is at and heading.
 
They were all set up the same i believe, but regardless its interesting to see where the industry is at regardless of brand.

I am not worried about the Z9 and its position of being 3rd by a slight margin anyway.
DPI, POLAN, pre production use rang true.
I didn't get the Z9 for its 3 d tracking............but its just interesting to see where technology is at and heading.

They were. I think the Z9 needs a little firmware tweaking, but this is why I wanted people's hands on experience. I can't switch to Sony or Canon because I can't spend 20 minutes fixing each image in post. The colors are all wrong.
 
Just came across a really cool feature in the Z9. Not sure if it's specific to the Z9 though (it's my only mirrorless camera).

I use back-button focus. While holding the AF-ON button in AF-C mode, when I turn the focus ring (50 1.2) it displays focus peaking. Very cool. I didn't think I could see focus peaking unless I was in MF.
This feature is in all the Z cameras. It's very helpful when photographing an obstructed subject. I've also found that once you get focus on the subject even through grasses or branches, the other Z cameras do a pretty good job of holding focus.
 
I don't know which videos you have been watching, but it seems overall, they are all fairly close now. I know you can find videos showing anyone of the cameras is better than another in some specific test. I think you're going to find they each have something they are better at than the other but for most things will perform similar. For example, it seems that Canon finds the bird in the frame faster than the others in EVF recordings. I have had the Z9 out a few times now and it has been performing really well. I don't think you will be disappointed with the A1 or the Z9.
I've got a couple of friends that tested the R5 and Z9 side by side at a zoo. They were talking about what the EVF was reporting on each - AF achieved, AF missed, etc. Their comment was they were almost exactly the same - to the point where it looked like they had licensed the same third party focus solution. I have no idea whether that was true, but it does not surprise me that there is a third party solution involved in subject recognition.
 
Mainly the Jared trio comparison. I reviewed the JPGs, and it didn't look like Nikon was hitting the focus. The system appeared to be lagging somewhat. I discerned that was likely from something he was doing (even running the Atmos, slowing down the processor).
I watched that video, but didn’t slow the speed down to be able to better see what each camera is doing. At normal speed, it seemed fairly close between the three cameras with each losing the eye here and there. I didn’t download his jpgs to look at but did you just look at Nikon’s or where you comparing all of them? I haven’t been out enough times to make any conclusions with complete certainty, but haven‘t noticed anything to worry about. It has been keeping up with birds, about the only subject I’ve shot so far, very well. I’m not saying it’s better or worse than any other, just that it seems to be working very well.

I've got a couple of friends that tested the R5 and Z9 side by side at a zoo. They were talking about what the EVF was reporting on each - AF achieved, AF missed, etc. Their comment was they were almost exactly the same - to the point where it looked like they had licensed the same third party focus solution. I have no idea whether that was true, but it does not surprise me that there is a third party solution involved in subject recognition.
That’s an interesting observation. From the EVF recordings, it seems the Canon finds eyes faster and further in most scenarios. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were using thirds parties for AI training/subject recognition.
 
I watched that video, but didn’t slow the speed down to be able to better see what each camera is doing. At normal speed, it seemed fairly close between the three cameras with each losing the eye here and there. I didn’t download his jpgs to look at but did you just look at Nikon’s or where you comparing all of them? I haven’t been out enough times to make any conclusions with complete certainty, but haven‘t noticed anything to worry about. It has been keeping up with birds, about the only subject I’ve shot so far, very well. I’m not saying it’s better or worse than any other, just that it seems to be working very well.

That’s an interesting observation. From the EVF recordings, it seems the Canon finds eyes faster and further in most scenarios. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were using thirds parties for AI training/subject recognition.

I was comparing all three of them side by side in the JPGs. The Z9 was showing focus points on his forehead in the video, and sadly that's what it showed in the JPGs as well. That being said, it looked like the Nikon was struggling for speed where it was lagging exactly the same amount the entire time (as if something was bogging it down). I can't remember if that was a pre-production model or not.

If it keeps up with birds in real time, it'll be fine for me. I was just curious about the overall experience, which is the only reason I even broached the topic.

The interesting thing was Nikon was picking the eye from a long, long way off --- even better than Canon. It just wasn't hitting the focus points for some reason.
 
They were. I think the Z9 needs a little firmware tweaking, but this is why I wanted people's hands on experience. I can't switch to Sony or Canon because I can't spend 20 minutes fixing each image in post. The colors are all wrong.

20 mins seems a little much. no? I have 1000s of shots taken on R5, A1, D850, Z9 all sitting next to each other in LR...all processed with 95% same settings other than the initial picture profiles. I don't find any of those files any more difficult to "fix" than the other. No one would be able to tell a controlled test between R5, A1, Z9 photo after some very basic LR processing. Sure older Sony cameras were off in the green/yellow but the latest ones are on par with anything from the other two companies. If I was forced to pick a winner between the three I'd give it to Canon files.
 
This feature is in all the Z cameras. It's very helpful when photographing an obstructed subject. I've also found that once you get focus on the subject even through grasses or branches, the other Z cameras do a pretty good job of holding focus.
One of the troubling findings I found with the Z9 during my first 3 days of testing was on a handful of occasions it was clearly indicating successful acquisition of the head/eye when bird was partly obscured by foreground grass. However it was clear as day in the EVF that even though the focus square was green, the camera was focusing on the foreground grass (which in these cases was probably a couple inches in front of the bird). No amount of bumping the AF would help it to unlock from the grass. And yet the green focus square would be moving with the bird as it moved its head around. I'm going to be watching closely for this behaviour as I start my next 3 days of testing this morning.
 
I was comparing all three of them side by side in the JPGs. The Z9 was showing focus points on his forehead in the video, and sadly that's what it showed in the JPGs as well. That being said, it looked like the Nikon was struggling for speed where it was lagging exactly the same amount the entire time (as if something was bogging it down). I can't remember if that was a pre-production model or not.

If it keeps up with birds in real time, it'll be fine for me. I was just curious about the overall experience, which is the only reason I even broached the topic.

The interesting thing was Nikon was picking the eye from a long, long way off --- even better than Canon. It just wasn't hitting the focus points for some reason.
Jared is now using his production model camera. I am sure there are still some required firmware tweaks for the Nikon. It sounds like arbitrage might have discovered one bug above. I'd suggest that the Nikon 50mm F/1.2 is not a fast focusing lens, but that doesn't justify why the focus point was on the head instead of the eye. The Z9 is supposed to prioritize the eye, head, torso so if it doesn't recognize the eye, will move to the head.
 
Jared is now using his production model camera. I am sure there are still some required firmware tweaks for the Nikon. It sounds like arbitrage might have discovered one bug above. I'd suggest that the Nikon 50mm F/1.2 is not a fast focusing lens, but that doesn't justify why the focus point was on the head instead of the eye. The Z9 is supposed to prioritize the eye, head, torso so if it doesn't recognize the eye, will move to the head.


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...

Edit: setting 5 on full auto & 3d defaults to 3. So experiment with 3 & 1, as opposed to 5 & 1. Either way, 3 is the stickiest setting in such full coverage modes. Wide auto large & small is not big enough. Ricci apparently said that we will be able to makes changes to the size of the box following updates. Hope that happens soon.
 
Last edited:
This feature is in all the Z cameras. It's very helpful when photographing an obstructed subject. I've also found that once you get focus on the subject even through grasses or branches, the other Z cameras do a pretty good job of holding focus.


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)
 
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 in his hair beside his left eye. For a camera with the best hardware that's bizarre.

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

In my limited use I have found such a setting work 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 anyway. 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 how I feel about Z9. But it seems like I am the outlier here!

I hope releases 2-3 firmware updates soon to get it 20-25% better...
So in your experience you are seeing the AF doesn’t change as fast when set to 5? I had setup mine to 3 and erratic to try with local birds here yesterday, but when I went out last night to try it after work, all the birds were sleeping with their heads tucked. Maybe I’ll get out tonight to try again, if not, will need to wait until this weekend.
 
So in your experience you are seeing the AF doesn’t change as fast when set to 5? I had setup mine to 3 and erratic to try with local birds here yesterday, but when I went out last night to try it after work, all the birds were sleeping with their heads tucked. Maybe I’ll get out tonight to try again, if not, will need to wait until this weekend.


Yeah, you can test it yourself. I will be curious to know what was your experience.

Use setting 5 & then 1 to focus in mid-flight. When I say birds, I mean fast ones like parrots, terns, or mynas. Not slow & big owls, raptors, kites, ducks, pelicans etc.

Setting 1 is definitely faster at latching on to such fast birds in the first place.


Edit: Setting 5 in auto AF & 3D defaults to 3. So experiment with 3 & 1.
 
Last edited:
So in your experience you are seeing the AF doesn’t change as fast when set to 5? I had setup mine to 3 and erratic to try with local birds here yesterday, but when I went out last night to try it after work, all the birds were sleeping with their heads tucked. Maybe I’ll get out tonight to try again, if not, will need to wait until this weekend.

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top