Another A1 vs R3 vs Z9 shoot out !

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).

Member's gallery
Griffym said:
There is no point in You Tube posts from this man. His preview of the Z9 which he hadn’t even used is a classic example of how not to do things. I’ll watch the Fro. I have much less respect for Tony.
“I don't believe they ever deliberately try to mislead....why would they?” Clickbait is a powerful reason for lots of people. Maybe it is also a belief that they can properly analyse and evaluate with without taking the time to fully explore all the options In depth.

I actually DON’T CARE which camera is “better” or faster or sexier from a marketing viewpoint. All that matters is does it have the flexibility to allow the user to take great images? I am certain that all of the cameras take great images. All I care about How will it help ME deal with those tricky situations I would love to be able to cope better with in the field?

All cameras at this level require the user to make choices and work out how to maximise the capabilities of the camera system of their choice. I use Nikon. I don’t plan to change. The skill and effort of the user with a given system and their ability to visualise the image then use the camera is what photography is actually about.

All that matters to me is how well I am able to bond with the camera system. I find the best images come when the camera gets out of the way and is flexible enough to work with me. Do viewers really look at a wonderful shot of a BIF and evaluate it based on the camera brand or on the content?
Click to expand...

We all need to use and watch what makes us happy..... If you don't want to watch Tony, and like Nikon that's great. In terms of photography...my creativity and ideas definately expand with any improvements of af, eye af and the increase in resolution and FPS of the latest cameras..... None of them are quite there yet in terms of af for what i have in my imagination...but they are close. Technology and creativity can work hand in hand.. If i were a landscape shooter i could have stayed with my D850 and been very happy, but i am not....i shoot action at very close range which pushes the technology hard.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
RichF said:
Just think if nikon you could have Nikon ergonomics on a Sony A1. Either great or a disaster.
Click to expand...

Ergos - maybe. But Nikon does not have 4 wheels (S/A/ISO/Ecomp) and lacks remapping options.

I would like to see a sony A9III with body like z9 but with all sony controls and options, no shutter, maybe similar sensor without MS and aA9 price (-500 bucks for shutter). That camera would mean bussiness.

BTW the way T and C fail to use R3 is just hilarious. Besides price and MP count that is one hell of a camera.
 
Member's gallery
JLT said:
I stopped watching the angry photographer, then I stopped watching the fro guy and looks like these guys are next. Their videos are just infomercials with no real value.
Click to expand...
Fro does provide breaking news. If you step back and see it for what it is, entertainment, and information, he’s an opinionated reviewer. His review’s lack substance but they do showcase the product. The other two channels are void of both entertainment, and information.
 
Member's gallery
hmm..maybe their earlier videos on Z9 spec review or the canon R5 review was so terrible that this one actually felt better in comparison. The drop in FPS when using slower shutter speeds was something i wasn't aware of so to me that was the key take away. Fro is much better than the rest and even the northrups show what they do with the cameras they review but the angry photographer is a joke. Some of his videos in the past about old Nikon glass were pretty informative although he didn't show any images/ real world performance videos but his video about the Z9 buffer was a nail in the coffin.
 
Member's gallery
thelordofthelight said:
hmm..maybe their earlier videos on Z9 spec review or the canon R5 review was so terrible that this one actually felt better in comparison. The drop in FPS when using slower shutter speeds was something i wasn't aware of so to me that was the key take away. Fro is much better than the rest and even the northrups show what they do with the cameras they review but the angry photographer is a joke. Some of his videos in the past about old Nikon glass were pretty informative although he didn't show any images/ real world performance videos but his video about the Z9 buffer was a nail in the coffin.
Click to expand...
Problem is they don't disclose what their "Release Priority" settings were on Nikon and Sony. They have messed that up before and have come up with less than stellar FPS results. The R5 doesn't have a Release Priority in AI Servo anymore so I doubt the R3 does either.
 
Member's gallery
zule11 said:
Here is another compratation, but in french

Nikon Z9 vs SONY a1 vs Canon EOS R3 : Comparatif Autofocus

Click to expand...
That is an excellent video and mirrors my own findings between the Canon R5 and Sony A1..... The Canon has better eye af detection with birds by quite a margin...its the only aspect of the Sony (which I now use) that lets it down in my view. Hopefully Sony can improve it with either a firmware update, or with an updated version of the A1.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
That is a very fair video. But as he mentions if you give the A1 more guidance to the subject it will never lose it. However if you expand the "watch area" then the R3 and Z9 do better in detecting the bird. I'd agree with that. This is one reason that I've always recommended people to avoid Wide:Tracking on the A1 (and previous Sony bodies). It is not a reliable mode. If you use Wide non-tracking or better yet for this video's complicated surroundings when testing on the birds, if you would use Zone, Zone:Tracking or any of the smaller:Tracking options the success would be easily equal to the R3/Z9. You could also further help out the Z9 by using Wide Area L or S. The R3 always looks over the entire frame no matter what AF mode you start Tracking in so not sure if you can really narrow it down much. With the R5 you can narrow it down by using the Single point starting area.

The huge benefit of the Sony is you can use a Small Flex Spot with Tracking and tell it exactly what to track. You can do this on the Z9 with 3D mode but 3D mode jumps to other things all the time in my testing even when the subject is all that is in the frame and everything else is just a simple perch or totally distant and OOF. The R3 can use the smaller points to initiate tracking but it still assesses the entire frame so I'm not sure how well that is (I haven't had the chance to test the R3 but it is changed from the R5's methods). On the R5 you either had a smaller square to start with (not as small as the Z9's 3D or the A1's Small Flex) or Full Auto. In my testing with R5, Z9, A1 the Canon and Sony are better at this than the Z9's 3D.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
That is a very fair video. But as he mentions if you give the A1 more guidance to the subject it will never lose it. However if you expand the "watch area" then the R3 and Z9 do better in detecting the bird. I'd agree with that. This is one reason that I've always recommended people to avoid Wide:Tracking on the A1 (and previous Sony bodies). It is not a reliable mode. If you use Wide non-tracking or better yet for this video's complicated surroundings when testing on the birds, if you would use Zone, Zone:Tracking or any of the smaller:Tracking options the success would be easily equal to the R3/Z9. You could also further help out the Z9 by using Wide Area L or S. The R3 always looks over the entire frame no matter what AF mode you start Tracking in so not sure if you can really narrow it down much. With the R5 you can narrow it down by using the Single point starting area.

The huge benefit of the Sony is you can use a Small Flex Spot with Tracking and tell it exactly what to track. You can do this on the Z9 with 3D mode but 3D mode jumps to other things all the time in my testing even when the subject is all that is in the frame and everything else is just a simple perch or totally distant and OOF. The R3 can use the smaller points to initiate tracking but it still assesses the entire frame so I'm not sure how well that is (I haven't had the chance to test the R3 but it is changed from the R5's methods). On the R5 you either had a smaller square to start with (not as small as the Z9's 3D or the A1's Small Flex) or Full Auto. In my testing with R5, Z9, A1 the Canon and Sony are better at this than the Z9's 3D.
Click to expand...
I would agree with what you say about the Sony, and that is where experience and time with the camera really tells.....Out of the box, the Canon R5 eye tracking is easy and consistent to use, whereas the Sony takes time to master the different aspects of its AF system.....The longer I spend with the A1 the happier i feel....but improved eye af recognition in the wider af modes would be a real plus in certain situations, especially where very quick aquisition is needed.
 
Member's gallery
ivor said:
I would agree with what you say about the Sony, and that is where experience and time with the camera really tells.....Out of the box, the Canon R5 eye tracking is easy and consistent to use, whereas the Sony takes time to master the different aspects of its AF system.....The longer I spend with the A1 the happier i feel....but improved eye af recognition in the wider af modes would be a real plus in certain situations, especially where very quick aquisition is needed.
Click to expand...

I still feel the A1 (and even A9/A9II) is the best of the bunch for very quick acquisition but the subject/eye tracking is not adding to that. For any fast, erratic BIF or for any really quick reaction to a fleeting, unexpected moment is most easily captured with an A1/A9/A9II via the Zone or Wide non-tracking modes. Those two modes are a step above anything I've used from Nikon and Canon (Z9 and R5 (R3 not tested)). The BEAF stuff is better in some aspects on Canon and Nikon compared to Sony. However, I find that even though the Canon and Nikon can detect the birds easier, they both still suffer from their inherent algorithms that often lose that subject to surroundings. I also find that when a bird (not in flight) presents itself to the camera in a pose that would be worth a photo, all three cameras do equally well and work as intended.

There are so many nuances to these systems and all of them are great. Probably at this point best to stick with the lenses you want and learn to make that system's camera work as best as possible. After using them all I've come back to the A1. My Z9 is going to its new owner later today. If the R3 was 45+ MPs I would have bought and tried it also. As it stands, I will get a 3 day R3/RF600 test drive from CPS once swallow season arrives in April. I'm looking forward to that.
 
Member's gallery
This video is great but I'm a bit confused on certain parts of the video. First where the EVF recording vs his scoring looks contradicting maybe his scoring is based on the actual review of images and not the EVF. Likewise i was surprised to see that EVF recording of the kingfisher where the A1 kept missing the focus and isn't this the test for which he scores 1 for Sony and 2 each for R3 and Z9? I thought this was the biggest weakness of the Z9 (Focus in clutter BG) and the biggest strength of the A1? Not sure if i'm missing anything in translation.

arbitrage said:
I still feel the A1 (and even A9/A9II) is the best of the bunch for very quick acquisition but the subject/eye tracking is not adding to that. For any fast, erratic BIF or for any really quick reaction to a fleeting, unexpected moment is most easily captured with an A1/A9/A9II via the Zone or Wide non-tracking modes. Those two modes are a step above anything I've used from Nikon and Canon (Z9 and R5 (R3 not tested)). The BEAF stuff is better in some aspects on Canon and Nikon compared to Sony. However, I find that even though the Canon and Nikon can detect the birds easier, they both still suffer from their inherent algorithms that often lose that subject to surroundings. I also find that when a bird (not in flight) presents itself to the camera in a pose that would be worth a photo, all three cameras do equally well and work as intended.

There are so many nuances to these systems and all of them are great. Probably at this point best to stick with the lenses you want and learn to make that system's camera work as best as possible. After using them all I've come back to the A1. My Z9 is going to its new owner later today. If the R3 was 45+ MPs I would have bought and tried it also. As it stands, I will get a 3 day R3/RF600 test drive from CPS once swallow season arrives in April. I'm looking forward to that.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
Using the right AF area mode may be the trick. Maybe this test was performed only using Auto area modes (wide on Sony). But even with Auto mode, i'm surprised with these results as i found the Z9 perform exactly like that KF example on the A1. To me the key takeaway so far is that, there are certain situations where one camera does better than the others and every camera seems to have some strengths/ weaknesses. It boils down to how each camera manufacturer address the weaknesses through fw updates.

Hut2 said:
I don't speak French but that was terrible on the kingfisher. We have Belted Kingfishers in my region. The few times I have seen them with my A1 in hand, it easily locks on and sticks with them resting or in flight. I admit I have not had any close encounters since having an A1 but from 50 to 100 feet or even further out it easy to focus and doesn't seem bothered by background on belted kingfishers. I do keep my focus area in zone and always have bird eye AF turned on and use the button for tracking on.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
<tongue in cheek>
Wasn't the A1 supposed to be automagical in it's AF? What is this nonsense I am reading, about 'Using the right AF area mode' and the different functions?
</tongue in cheeck>

Joking aside, I remember shooting the A9 with the latest firmware and having quite a few shots where the camera confirmed focus but it was actually slightly out of focus.

So when I see videos commenting on AF performance based on recordings of what the camera is doing in the EVF, I do reach for my saltshaker ;).
 
Member's gallery
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Some years ago myself and three friends were out photographing birds. There were three camera brands all the premium bodies of each brand. Our lenses were all similar focal length and speed. We were all reasonably competent shooters at about the same skill level. One of our group (a really nice guy) kept on about how his brand was better at a,b,c,d etc than the other two brands in use. He was becoming a veritable pain in the proverbial so we devised a little (very subjective test)

We agreed on a particular species of bird we would shoot and each photographer take a maximum of 100 shots.

We then downloaded the images onto a computer into four folders A, B, C and D without identifying which camera and shooter they came from. We then wrote A,B,C and D on four seperate pieces of paper, folded the paper and randomly chose a piece of paper each.

The images were then loaded by group into Bridge in full screen view to hide the camera and lens data. The 100 images in each group ( A, B etc) were reviewed and rated by the holder of the corresponding paper letter until all four groups had been reviewed and rated.

We then went into thumbnail view and compared the ratings of each group as assigned by the reviewer and low and behold while they weren’t exactly the same the results were within around 2 percent of each group.

We agreed that each brand had weaknesses and strengths that are slightly different. We also agreed that the main factors were the skills of the photographer and each photographers in depth knowledge of the weaknesses and strengths of each system and how to tweak them to maximise successful image captures, rather than one system being inherently better or worse than the others. Very subjective of course.

Our friend has ceased rattling on about how good his system was comparative to others.

Peace at last.😜😂
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
I still feel the A1 (and even A9/A9II) is the best of the bunch for very quick acquisition but the subject/eye tracking is not adding to that. For any fast, erratic BIF or for any really quick reaction to a fleeting, unexpected moment is most easily captured with an A1/A9/A9II via the Zone or Wide non-tracking modes. Those two modes are a step above anything I've used from Nikon and Canon (Z9 and R5 (R3 not tested)). The BEAF stuff is better in some aspects on Canon and Nikon compared to Sony. However, I find that even though the Canon and Nikon can detect the birds easier, they both still suffer from their inherent algorithms that often lose that subject to surroundings. I also find that when a bird (not in flight) presents itself to the camera in a pose that would be worth a photo, all three cameras do equally well and work as intended.

There are so many nuances to these systems and all of them are great. Probably at this point best to stick with the lenses you want and learn to make that system's camera work as best as possible. After using them all I've come back to the A1. My Z9 is going to its new owner later today. If the R3 was 45+ MPs I would have bought and tried it also. As it stands, I will get a 3 day R3/RF600 test drive from CPS once swallow season arrives in April. I'm looking forward to that.
Click to expand...

I have ordered the 100-400 lens to see if that is quicker for close action. I'm actually getting more used to the af system even with the 200-600 but things can get tight at 200mm.
1 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
2 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
6 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
5 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
4 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
3 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
ivor said:
I have ordered the 100-400 lens to see if that is quicker for close action. I'm actually getting more used to the af system even with the 200-600 but things can get tight at 200mm.
1 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
2 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
6 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
5 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
4 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
3 by ivor ottley, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I feel the linear motors in the 100-400 do make it faster for extreme situations. When I try to get passerines in flight like finches and chickadees I will use either the 100-400 or 600 and skip the 200-600. However for most action the 200-600 is more than capable.

cool shots!!

With the 100-400
May 28, 2021-4.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
Fecal sac out.... by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
May 28, 2021.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Venkatesh VT said:
Click to expand...


This comparison test is not really any different to what the average pro shooter would possibly do, i think its a reasonable take on all three systems, yes you can get a lab test but in the real world what would you do different.
I think they all have pluses and minus but as a collective industry mirror less still have a way to go.
Thats not saying DSLRS are better or worse.
 
Member's gallery
When I recently tried my friends 600 f4 GM on my A1 first thing I noticed was how fast it was for those quick micro adjustments, going back to my 200-600 felt almost laggy . Even with the TC’s on it’s quicker than my bare 200-600 .


arbitrage said:
I feel the linear motors in the 100-400 do make it faster for extreme situations. When I try to get passerines in flight like finches and chickadees I will use either the 100-400 or 600 and skip the 200-600. However for most action the 200-600 is more than capable.

cool shots!!

With the 100-400
May 28, 2021-4.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
Fecal sac out.... by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
May 28, 2021.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
A1 sucks at Kingfishers...

ezgif.com-gif-maker-10 by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr

ezgif.com-gif-maker-11 by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr

July 28, 2021.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
July 10, 2021.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
July 03, 2021-2.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
July 03, 2021.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
July 24, 2021-2.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
Click to expand...


I mean really how much better could you wish for.............its dam excellent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top