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.