Does changing Picture Control Sharpness improve AutoFocus accuracy with Mirrorless bodies in low light?

[agrumpyoldsod]

In his Z System user blog Tom Hogan recently posted "I've long had a back and forth with some about how well the Z9 focuses in low light. My results seem better than their experience. When it finally sunk into my head that the focus decision wasn't coming from a pre-Picture Control data stream, a little Aha! moment happened: what's your Picture Control? Since then I've surveyed the folk I was debating with. They're all using the Auto Picture Control and haven't really changed any parameters. I'm using the Neutral Picture Control with one parameter changed: Sharpening. While it's really difficult to get any repeatable, controlled evidence that this creates a difference, it sure seems like a clear difference when I change between Auto (at defaults) and Neutral (sharpened considerably) in a low contrast scene of 1/40, f/2.8, ISO 3200"

Have any Nikon Mirrorless (particularly Z9) shooters tried adjusting the picture control settings - for example increasing sharpness, contrast and clarity by +3 and brightness by +1 or +2 AND seen any difference in low light performance?

I will be trying my own tests. But I am interested to see if others have conducted similar tests and this might save some time.
Obviously I shoot RAW and I entirely ignore these settings and any embedded JPGs when I process the images.

 

[Patrick M]

I always thought that PC settings didn't affect raw files ,,, only how the camera displays the jpeg conversion. If you import the raw file to ViewNX then it will read and apply any PC. I understaff that progs like LR doesn't read the PC data, so doesn't apply any change.
So does a PC affect how a camera focusses? Logic says not.

 

[Steve]

"While it's really difficult to get any repeatable, controlled evidence that this creates a difference, it sure seems like a clear difference when I change between Auto (at defaults) and Neutral (sharpened considerably) in a low contrast scene of 1/40, f/2.8, ISO 3200"

If he can't get consistent repeatable results, then I'd hesitate to take this conclusion as hard evidence. "Seems better" is often just confirmation bias - like when people think the D850 focuses faster with the grip than without (I've tested it, it doesn't). (To be fair, Thom usually isn't subject to this)

The downside to this extra sharpening is that if you're using "embedded and sidecar" as your Lightroom import, you may get a false sense of how sharp you images actually are until you view the RAW file.

Finally, FWIW, I have used AWB with the Z9 and don't have most of the AF problems with it I see others having.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be interesting to explore this further, it's just that I can see a ton of people in their Z9 menu cranking up the sharpening without much proof it makes any difference.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

In his Z System user blog Tom Hogan recently posted "I've long had a back and forth with some about how well the Z9 focuses in low light. My results seem better than their experience. When it finally sunk into my head that the focus decision wasn't coming from a pre-Picture Control data stream, a little Aha! moment happened: what's your Picture Control? Since then I've surveyed the folk I was debating with. They're all using the Auto Picture Control and haven't really changed any parameters. I'm using the Neutral Picture Control with one parameter changed: Sharpening. While it's really difficult to get any repeatable, controlled evidence that this creates a difference, it sure seems like a clear difference when I change between Auto (at defaults) and Neutral (sharpened considerably) in a low contrast scene of 1/40, f/2.8, ISO 3200"

Have any Nikon Mirrorless (particularly Z9) shooters tried adjusting the picture control settings - for example increasing sharpness, contrast and clarity by +3 and brightness by +1 or +2 AND seen any difference in low light performance?

I will be trying my own tests. But I am interested to see if others have conducted similar tests and this might save some time.
Obviously I shoot RAW and I entirely ignore these settings and any embedded JPGs when I process the images.

​

​

I'm confused by the question. Forgive my inexperience.

I shoot U1 as a RAW only preset on a Z7. Just like you I use flat with it. Flat with the preset sharpness of +1 turned down to 0. In essence, I turned picture control off because all the settings are zero. And of course the preview images used by the camera are much duller than if i used vivid, which I use on another preset. That is exactly what I was going for when I set it up that way. I wanted to see the most unadultrated image as possible without picture control post processing.

FYI, U2 and U3 have Vivid and Standard as presets.

This is where I got confused by the question. Do you mean "does Picture Control control what you see in the view finder or camera monitor while focusing in low light" or do you mean "does the Picture control setting make a diference in what you see in the focus of NEF RAW data images". In other words, do you mean does the Picture Control setting alter the operation of the CPU autofocus function or do you mean does the operation of the CPU control how data is gathered before processing even begins (if at all).

Or are you just asking which Picture Control setting makes it easier to see what you are shooting in an EVF when you shoot in low light?

Am I wrong that NEF RAW data contains no processing information and thus picture control has no effect on a raw image outside of the camera without the use of post processing software? In otherwords am I correct in my understanding that, if I shoot an image with U1 at flat with no bias on any setting and then switch to U3 with vivid and high sharpness and contrast settings, the RAW image data from both contains identical data because it's NEF RAW and is therefore unprocessed.

Forgive me for not speaking Z9 language. I understand that it has it's own RAW designation and isn't NEF RAW.

Thanks.

​

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Steve/Guys thanks for your responses -- but again please do not get distracted by processing issues or what is saved on the RAW files or the quality/tones of images or what you see. Nothing I normally shoot uses any in camera picture settings and I certainly do not use LRC or NX Studio to process RAW files from the Z9. But that is a different discussion.

That was not the line of enquiry I started. My question is an enquiry about whether fellow users have found that after making a few tweaks in Picture Control settings they have seen noticeable improvements in low light AF performance (wildlife in my case). This is a how does the camera perform question.

As Thom said (see extract): "the focus decision wasn't coming from a pre-Picture Control data stream" - it is clear therefore that Thom considers AF processing is post/after picture control. So moving away from Auto to a specific PC choice and then adjusting this to make edges more visible is a refinement that "might" lead to improvements.

I agree if Thom was not persuaded either way there is a fair likelihood the results will be marginal. But more data is also useful.

AND while I note your caution - I am not willing to just stop trying to find performance improvements.
I am much more interested in posts that start with "I did this .... and as a result AF performance was [more/less] accurate/fast than when Picture Control was set to ..... etc.. AGAIN nothing directly to do with the quality or tomes in picture those settings produce.

As noted - I will be conducting more systematic tests when the temperature here in London UK falls down to a bearable level for Northern Europeans of a Anglo/Saxon/Viking antecedence (much colder than in Spain, France and my previous work in the Middle East though). Hopefully when the next gift from the Americas arrives across the north atlantic later this week we can move away from these relatively dreadfully hot south easterlies. AND then I can get out to shoot.

 

[bleirer]

In his Z System user blog Tom Hogan recently posted "I've long had a back and forth with some about how well the Z9 focuses in low light. My results seem better than their experience. When it finally sunk into my head that the focus decision wasn't coming from a pre-Picture Control data stream, a little Aha! moment happened: what's your Picture Control? Since then I've surveyed the folk I was debating with. They're all using the Auto Picture Control and haven't really changed any parameters. I'm using the Neutral Picture Control with one parameter changed: Sharpening. While it's really difficult to get any repeatable, controlled evidence that this creates a difference, it sure seems like a clear difference when I change between Auto (at defaults) and Neutral (sharpened considerably) in a low contrast scene of 1/40, f/2.8, ISO 3200"

Have any Nikon Mirrorless (particularly Z9) shooters tried adjusting the picture control settings - for example increasing sharpness, contrast and clarity by +3 and brightness by +1 or +2 AND seen any difference in low light performance?

I will be trying my own tests. But I am interested to see if others have conducted similar tests and this might save some time.
Obviously I shoot RAW and I entirely ignore these settings and any embedded JPGs when I process the images.

I'm thinking there would be some ways to test it. How about a light source on a dimmer shooting a static scene. Set to zero sharpening and gradually lower the light to find the exact light level where it barely stops auto focusing. Keep that light constant and now gradually increase sharpening to see if it starts autofocusing again.

 

[Shutterbug fan 1]

I always thought that PC settings didn't affect raw files ,,, only how the camera displays the jpeg conversion. If you import the raw file to ViewNX then it will read and apply any PC. I understaff that progs like LR doesn't read the PC data, so doesn't apply any change.
So does a PC affect how a camera focusses? Logic says not.

I see your point. The only thing I wonder about is the use of an "auto" setting which may slow in camera processing down. I have seen this written about regarding early auto focus systems in other cameras especially in regard to dynamic range type settings in those cameras. I have not faced the issue yet in the Z9.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

I'm thinking there would be some ways to test it. How about a light source on a dimmer shooting a static scene. Set to zero sharpening and gradually lower the light to find the exact light level where it barely stops auto focusing. Keep that light constant and now gradually increase sharpening to see if it starts autofocusing again.

I can't testify to how a Z9 responds to what you just recommended but I can tell you that D810s essentially autofocus in the dark regardless of Picture Control settings. I'd hope that Nikon kept that ability intact with their flagship mirrorless but I guess you never know for sure.

 

[Steve]

Steve/Guys thanks for your responses -- but again please do not get distracted by processing issues or what is saved on the RAW files or the quality/tones of images or what you see. Nothing I normally shoot uses any in camera picture settings and I certainly do not use LRC or NX Studio to process RAW files from the Z9. But that is a different discussion.

That was not the line of enquiry I started. My question is an enquiry about whether fellow users have found that after making a few tweaks in Picture Control settings they have seen noticeable improvements in low light AF performance (wildlife in my case). This is a how does the camera perform question.

As Thom said (see extract): "the focus decision wasn't coming from a pre-Picture Control data stream" - it is clear therefore that Thom considers AF processing is post/after picture control. So moving away from Auto to a specific PC choice and then adjusting this to make edges more visible is a refinement that "might" lead to improvements.

I agree if Thom was not persuaded either way there is a fair likelihood the results will be marginal. But more data is also useful.

AND while I note your caution - I am not willing to just stop trying to find performance improvements.
I am much more interested in posts that start with "I did this .... and as a result AF performance was [more/less] accurate/fast than when Picture Control was set to ..... etc.. AGAIN nothing directly to do with the quality or tomes in picture those settings produce.

As noted - I will be conducting more systematic tests when the temperature here in London UK falls down to a bearable level for Northern Europeans of a Anglo/Saxon/Viking antecedence (much colder than in Spain and my previous work in the Middle East though). Hopefully when the next gift from the Americas arrives across the north atlantic later this week we can move away from these relatively dreadfully hot south easterlies. AND then I can get out to shoot.

I get the idea and his reasoning, but I also wanted to point out the downsides

I was thinking about it and what I might do is set a shooting bank using his parameters so I have quick access to it. I also happen to be in Costa Rica at the moment, so if (lol, when) I run into a dark, tough to focus subject where the Z9 is struggling, I'll switch to the other bank and see if it improves. I'd welcome a real improvement, but I have a feeling any difference is likely marginal.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

I see your point. The only thing I wonder about is the use of an "auto" setting which may slow in camera processing down. I have seen this written about regarding early auto focus systems in other cameras especially in regard to dynamic range type settings in those cameras. I have not faced the issue yet in the Z9.

I ask this as a serious question. Is this a serious flaw in the Z9? Is the Z9 shutterless sensor and it's specific features worth 6 grand if one already knows how to use their Z7 or D850 competently and doesn't have a job working the sidelines of pro sports or NCAA games? Do the people using this at NHL games really have low light autofocus issues with the Z9?

Or is this just something that onlne critics write about because they have to find fault with every product they talk about? I read Thom Hogan articles and I get the drift that cat fights break out between online reviewer about minute details

Help me out folks, is the Z9 really such a flawed tool that it isn't fascinating enough as a camera to fill the day just taking great pictures? It almost seems that buying one doesn't make sense if it is so imperfect and that I can do everything I want with the other two 47mp bodies I already own. I hope I am wrong. I just don't want to get one and find out I already have tools that do the same thing and maybe do some of the same things better or at least do them in a way that I already know how to use.

Let me finish this with two questions and end my particpation in the discussion more confused than when I began because it seems to be flying way over my head right now. As a mortal camera user will any of this ever handcuff me if I buy a Z9 or is it just something Hogan wrote to stir controversy? Does any of this mean anything?

 

[Bob Hullinger]

Steve/Guys thanks for your responses -- but again please do not get distracted by processing issues or what is saved on the RAW files or the quality/tones of images or what you see. Nothing I normally shoot uses any in camera picture settings and I certainly do not use LRC or NX Studio to process RAW files from the Z9. But that is a different discussion.

That was not the line of enquiry I started. My question is an enquiry about whether fellow users have found that after making a few tweaks in Picture Control settings they have seen noticeable improvements in low light AF performance (wildlife in my case). This is a how does the camera perform question.

As Thom said (see extract): "the focus decision wasn't coming from a pre-Picture Control data stream" - it is clear therefore that Thom considers AF processing is post/after picture control. So moving away from Auto to a specific PC choice and then adjusting this to make edges more visible is a refinement that "might" lead to improvements.

I agree if Thom was not persuaded either way there is a fair likelihood the results will be marginal. But more data is also useful.

AND while I note your caution - I am not willing to just stop trying to find performance improvements.
I am much more interested in posts that start with "I did this .... and as a result AF performance was [more/less] accurate/fast than when Picture Control was set to ..... etc.. AGAIN nothing directly to do with the quality or tomes in picture those settings produce.

As noted - I will be conducting more systematic tests when the temperature here in London UK falls down to a bearable level for Northern Europeans of a Anglo/Saxon/Viking antecedence (much colder than in Spain and my previous work in the Middle East though). Hopefully when the next gift from the Americas arrives across the north atlantic later this week we can move away from these relatively dreadfully hot south easterlies. AND then I can get out to shoot.

I can say this much AJ. I set up to shoot a spider creating a web yesterday in a bush in shade and the flat, no sharping setting was soft (in the EVF), annoying and hard on my eye and I switched to vivid. That was with a Z7. It not only nmade a difference. It made a big difference. It had no effect on the images although I haven't adjusted them yet.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

I can say this much AJ. I set up to shoot a spider creating a web yesterday in a bush in shade and the flat, no sharping setting was soft (in the EVF), annoying and hard on my eye and I switched to vivid. That was with a Z7. It not only nmade a difference. It made a big difference. It had no effect on the images although I haven't adjusted them yet.

oops, almost forgot. It autofocused fine either way.

 

[Steve]

I ask this as a serious question. Is this a serious flaw in the Z9? Is the D9 shutterless sensor and it's specific features worth 6 grand if one already knows how to use their Z7 or D850 competently and doesn't have a job working the sidelines of pro sports or NCAA games? Do the people using this at NHL games really have low light autofocus issues with the Z9?

Or is this just something that onlne critics write about because they have to find fault with every product they talk about? I read Thom Hogan articles and I get the drift that cat fights break out between online reviewer about minute details

Help me out folks, is the Z9 really such a flawed tool that it isn't fascinating enough as a camera to fill the day just taking great pictures? It almost seems that buying one doesn't make sense if it is so imperfect and that I can do everything I want with the other two 47mp bodies I already own. I hope I am wrong. I just don't want to get one and find out I already have tools that do the same thing and maybe do some of the same things better or at least do them in a way that I already know how to use.

Let me finish this with two questions and end my particpation in the discussion more confused than when I began because it seems to be flying way over my head right now. As a mortal camera user will any of this ever handcuff me if I buy a Z9 or is it just something Hogan wrote to stir controversy? Does any of this mean anything?

The Z9 is a great camera, but in my experience - both from what I read in my e-mail box and online, as well as watching people in workshops - the biggest "problem" with the Z9 is that it's more camera than people are used to. There are a lot of Z9 shooters in over their head and when the camera doesn't live up to they hype, they blame it and not their poor understanding of how to use it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Z9 is perfect - it has its flaws and there is a lot that could stand improvement - but overall much of the negativity is overblown.

 

[NorthernFocus]

The Z9 is a great camera, but in my experience - both from what I read in my e-mail box and online, as well as watching people in workshops - the biggest "problem" with the Z9 is that it's more camera than people are used to. There are a lot of Z9 shooters in over their head and when the camera doesn't live up to they hype, they blame it and not their poor understanding of how to use it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Z9 is perfect - it has its flaws and there is a lot that could stand improvement - but overall much of the negativity is overblown.

I agree and have commented on this before. A lot of wildlife shooters who have never owned a pro level camera bought the Z9 because it's the only way to get adequate AF performance in a Nikon MILC body. People don't understand that as you step up to the pro level cameras they are more, not less difficult to use than "consumer" level cameras. Add all of the hype around the Z9 and you have a lot of disenchanted folks. The Z9 does NOT live up to the hype. But IMO it is in fact the best product Nikon has released to-date.

 

[Steve]

OK, just did some informal testing. I'm in my room in Costa Rica (we have the morning off) and have a tile wall (lots of texture) in our shower that makes a nice target. With the bathroom lights off, I can go along the wall and it gradually goes from where the camera can't focus to where it can. I set Shooting Bank A for the default Auto picture control, set bank B the way Thom describes, and then bank C for Vivid (I don't use the banks and just made copies of bank A before I started, so all other settings - and exposure settings - are the same). As I go along the wall with each, they all grab focus at the exact same spot, no difference. I would think if added sharpening (and contrast in the case of Vivid) were helping the AF system, I'd see those options grab on just before the Auto picture setting (since the wall is the same all over - the only difference is brightness) and that's not the case.

Again, it's informal but I wanted to share. If I run into a real world situation where the camera struggles, I'll switch to bank B or C and see if things improve and report back.

 

[John Navitsky]

I see your point. The only thing I wonder about is the use of an "auto" setting which may slow in camera processing down. I have seen this written about regarding early auto focus systems in other cameras especially in regard to dynamic range type settings in those cameras. I have not faced the issue yet in the Z9.

yah, i don't think there is any evidence that different settings slow down the z9. if anything might you'd think it would be something like the 120fps evf and nobody has noticed a performance impact there. i think i'd put this in the "not an issue" bucket until someone actually encounters a problem.

I'm thinking there would be some ways to test it.

seems like you could set up the camera on a tripod viewing a video with a moving recognizable/trackable subject that you can replay. optimally while recording the evf to help get quick feedback to see if camera settings are having an impact.

I ask this as a serious question. Is this a serious flaw in the Z9? Is the Z9 shutterless sensor and it's specific features worth 6 grand if one already knows how to use their Z7 or D850 competently and doesn't have a job working the sidelines of pro sports or NCAA games? Do the people using this at NHL games really have low light autofocus issues with the Z9?

Or is this just something that onlne critics write about because they have to find fault with every product they talk about? I read Thom Hogan articles and I get the drift that cat fights break out between online reviewer about minute details

Help me out folks, is the Z9 really such a flawed tool that it isn't fascinating enough as a camera to fill the day just taking great pictures? It almost seems that buying one doesn't make sense if it is so imperfect and that I can do everything I want with the other two 47mp bodies I already own. I hope I am wrong. I just don't want to get one and find out I already have tools that do the same thing and maybe do some of the same things better or at least do them in a way that I already know how to use.

Let me finish this with two questions and end my particpation in the discussion more confused than when I began because it seems to be flying way over my head right now. As a mortal camera user will any of this ever handcuff me if I buy a Z9 or is it just something Hogan wrote to stir controversy? Does any of this mean anything?

i think you're reading more into what he was saying than he intended. i didn't get any impression Thom was making any sort of commentary about the quality of performance of the Z9. i think he was trying to state a hypothesis about how the subject recognition system worked.

in general while i think Steve is right, differences are likely marginal, if present at all, i do think it is worth considering that it would make a certain sense for the subject detection to be influenced by your settings, especially your exposure. only you truly know what the subject of your photo is, and if for example, you're shooting a dark subject like a black dog for example, would it not seem to make sense if you can't make out the subject's face due to exposure that it might make it harder for the camera to?

that said, we should also be careful not to conflate subject detection with the camera's ability to af on something and i suspect in a lot of cases we're talking about subject detection here. the gotcha of course is they work together, so if we're using these automatic focus modes we need to identify the subject before we can af.

 

[John Navitsky]

OK, just did some informal testing. I'm in my room in Costa Rica (we have the morning off) and have a tile wall (lots of texture) in our shower that makes a nice target. With the bathroom lights off, I can go along the wall and it gradually goes from where the camera can't focus to where it can. I set Shooting Bank A for the default Auto picture control, set bank B the way Thom describes, and then bank C for Vivid (I don't use the banks and just made copies of bank A before I started, so all other settings - and exposure settings - are the same). As I go along the wall with each, they all grab focus at the exact same spot, no difference. I would think if added sharpening (and contrast in the case of Vivid) were helping the AF system, I'd see those options grab on just before the Auto picture setting (since the wall is the same all over - the only difference is brightness) and that's not the case.

Again, it's informal but I wanted to share. If I run into a real world situation where the camera struggles, I'll switch to bank B or C and see if things improve and report back

i think it might be good to start a baseline testing if exposure has an impact. if it doesn't this whole thing is dead on arrival.

 

[fcotterill]

I am skeptical, especially for RAW images. As I understand on sensor AF, light from the dedicated blue-green sensor pixels is feed into the AF algorithm(s) within the sensor circuitry, and this is where the Z9 stacked sensor kicks in - it speeds up the feedback loops @120 times/sec, according to Nikon.

It follows the Picture Control settings are executed off sensor in the EXPEED7, and if Picture Controls are enabled, their primary output are the jpgs and /or ancillary raster data (plus independent RAW files if selected). These are written to the memory card. A separate dedicated EXPEED7 datastream feeds the EVF. Presumably the photographer is seeing/glimpsing post-processed downsized graphics files at 60fps or 120 fps in the EVF.

Much faster AF decision making is a primary benefit of stacked sensors. In this case, it would be counter intuitive for the Z9 to rely on off-sensor image data to control the AF settings tightly looped with the focusing ring in the lens.

The alternative is the Deep-Learning data "libraries" aka Bayesian algorithms are running off sensor in the EXPEED7. Thus the Z9 may indeed be evaluating patterns (shape and also tones) from jpgs in real time (or some such downsized, compressed graphics). And the AI engine(s)evaluate the post processed images in realtime. It follows in such a scenario that sharpened, colour-enhanced images would improve pattern recognition performance in the AI for object-detection and 3D tracking.

In the real world, i doubt one can do much about all this but rather optimize the Z9 settings and workflow for tasks at hand. One learns the most from experience in the field/studio. It's more than a handful for most of us with all its config options

 

[John Navitsky]

I am skeptical, especially for RAW images. As I understand on sensor AF, light from the dedicated blue-green sensor pixels is feed into the AF algorithm(s) within the sensor circuitry, and this is where the Z9 stacked sensor kicks in - it speeds up the feedback loops @120 times/sec, according to Nikon.

It follows the Picture Control settings are executed off sensor in the EXPEED7, and if Picture Controls are enabled, their primary output are the jpgs and /or ancillary raster data (plus independent RAW files if selected). These are written to the memory card. A separate dedicated EXPEED7 datastream feeds the EVF. Presumably the photographer is seeing/glimpsing post-processed downsized graphics files at 60fps or 120 fps in the EVF.

Much faster AF decision making is a primary benefit of stacked sensors. In this case, it would be counter intuitive for the Z9 to rely on off-sensor image data to control the AF settings tightly looped with the focusing ring in the lens.

The alternative is the Deep-Learning data "libraries" aka Bayesian algorithms are running off sensor in the EXPEED7. Thus the Z9 may indeed be evaluating patterns (shape and also tones) from jpgs in real time (or some such downsized, compressed graphics). And the AI engine(s)evaluate the post processed images in realtime. It follows in such a scenario that sharpened, colour-enhanced images would improve pattern recognition performance in the AI for object-detection and 3D tracking.

In the real world, i doubt one can do much about all this but rather optimize the Z9 settings and workflow for tasks at hand. One learns the most from experience in the field/studio. It's more than a handful for most of us with all its config options

i highly suspect this is about subject detection, not af. ymmv.

 

[fcotterill]

i highly suspect this is about subject detection, not af. ymmv.

Makes sense as the AI is comparing patterns and presumably guiding the on-sensor AF. It is unlikely Nikon will explain much if anything about all this

"We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows."
Robert Frost

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

I get the idea and his reasoning, but I also wanted to point out the downsides

I was thinking about it and what I might do is set a shooting bank using his parameters so I have quick access to it. I also happen to be in Costa Rica at the moment, so if (lol, when) I run into a dark, tough to focus subject where the Z9 is struggling, I'll switch to the other bank and see if it improves. I'd welcome a real improvement, but I have a feeling any difference is likely marginal.

Thanks Steve. AND yes a better use of my time would be to go shoot but it is too hot for me outside and so .........

I am interested in hearing more about the tests you are performing in Costa Rica, listening to the triop report and seeing photos.

"Slowing the camera down" -- Setting release to Focus not just release, VR and Flickr Reduction are three processes that I am aware of that are said to slow the camera down - nothing else (unless you have cards too slow to keep up with the buffer). Everything else in the Z9 designed to and works at 120 FPS, 30fps RAW 14-bit lossless and 120fps 4.1k or 8k 60fps - I and many others have proven this. I am not aware changing the EVF from 60fps to 120fps was adversely impact the speed of the camera. Sure it might use a tiny bit more power?

For decades many many wildlife shooters have turned Release to Release not Focus. To stop this test from slowing down shooting "just because the camera could not report in focus". And I believe you Steve and others have advised to turn VR off when shooting with shutter speeds over 1/1000th (although I have head both faster and slower). The disadvantage of this is if the subject is image is bouncing around to a significant extent that the camera cannot lock focus. The response to this to shout at your driver/guide to stop chasing after the cheetah while one is shooting !!! Often as not it's prey will turn back to you or away at 70mph so .......

AND then there are all the other vehicles -- what is the Blocked Response setting for a harrassed driver with his ancient mother in law in the backseat who "cannot see" when a Privately driven Land Cruiser gets in the way of 12 safari vehicles and a film crew? Apparently my reaction could be heard at the top of the Rift Valley. The look on the poor heavily nagged driver's face was a picture "what am I to do she is nagging me """AGAIN""" - well that was a couple of years ago and I am sure it is much better now.

 

[thelordofthelight]

This is interesting. One of the challenges with mirrorless AF is to understand what all variables can impact the AF performance. I remember when the Z6/7 were launched, there was this setting "apply setting to live view' and turning that off improved AF performance and I couldn't understand why on earth would a setting like that affect AF. One of the biggest benefits of mirrorless cameras are the WYSIWYG EVF and you turn that off to get better AF? But then the AF improvement was noticeable. Just before the launch of Z9, I rented out Z7II to get a hang of Nikon mirrorless and I noticed (again, subjective) there were times when pumping the exposure up by half a stop to a full stop resulted in slightly better AF. This was when I was photographing a bird with very little contrast against high contrast BG. When I saw this article by Thom regarding picture control, It was yet another surprise and something I'd really want to test myself in challenging situations. I haven't had the time to even test the Fw 2.1 yet but I wouldn't ignore his article either. It is better to understand all these finer nuances as you never know when it can come in handy.

In his Z System user blog Tom Hogan recently posted "I've long had a back and forth with some about how well the Z9 focuses in low light. My results seem better than their experience. When it finally sunk into my head that the focus decision wasn't coming from a pre-Picture Control data stream, a little Aha! moment happened: what's your Picture Control? Since then I've surveyed the folk I was debating with. They're all using the Auto Picture Control and haven't really changed any parameters. I'm using the Neutral Picture Control with one parameter changed: Sharpening. While it's really difficult to get any repeatable, controlled evidence that this creates a difference, it sure seems like a clear difference when I change between Auto (at defaults) and Neutral (sharpened considerably) in a low contrast scene of 1/40, f/2.8, ISO 3200"

Have any Nikon Mirrorless (particularly Z9) shooters tried adjusting the picture control settings - for example increasing sharpness, contrast and clarity by +3 and brightness by +1 or +2 AND seen any difference in low light performance?

I will be trying my own tests. But I am interested to see if others have conducted similar tests and this might save some time.
Obviously I shoot RAW and I entirely ignore these settings and any embedded JPGs when I process the images.

 

[John Navitsky]

When I saw this article by Thom regarding picture control, It was yet another surprise and something I'd really want to test myself in challenging situations. I haven't had the time to even test the Fw 2.1 yet but I wouldn't ignore his article either.

one random thing to consider is i think that article came out before fw 2.1, so it's possible things changed with fw 2.1

 

[Bob Hullinger]

The Z9 is a great camera, but in my experience - both from what I read in my e-mail box and online, as well as watching people in workshops - the biggest "problem" with the Z9 is that it's more camera than people are used to. There are a lot of Z9 shooters in over their head and when the camera doesn't live up to they hype, they blame it and not their poor understanding of how to use it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Z9 is perfect - it has its flaws and there is a lot that could stand improvement - but overall much of the negativity is overblown.

Thanks, Steve. Sounds perfect to me. I love challenges and don't mind knowing more at the end of the day than I did at the beginning. I'm going to buy one anyways first time BH or Adorama has one in stock. You do great work, Steve.

Great site

 

[ButlerKid]

I ask this as a serious question. Is this a serious flaw in the Z9? Is the Z9 shutterless sensor and it's specific features worth 6 grand if one already knows how to use their Z7 or D850 competently and doesn't have a job working the sidelines of pro sports or NCAA games? Do the people using this at NHL games really have low light autofocus issues with the Z9?

Or is this just something that onlne critics write about because they have to find fault with every product they talk about? I read Thom Hogan articles and I get the drift that cat fights break out between online reviewer about minute details

Help me out folks, is the Z9 really such a flawed tool that it isn't fascinating enough as a camera to fill the day just taking great pictures? It almost seems that buying one doesn't make sense if it is so imperfect and that I can do everything I want with the other two 47mp bodies I already own. I hope I am wrong. I just don't want to get one and find out I already have tools that do the same thing and maybe do some of the same things better or at least do them in a way that I already know how to use.

Let me finish this with two questions and end my particpation in the discussion more confused than when I began because it seems to be flying way over my head right now. As a mortal camera user will any of this ever handcuff me if I buy a Z9 or is it just something Hogan wrote to stir controversy? Does any of this mean anything?

I suggest you read Steve Perry's response #13 above.

And yes, Steve Perry has used the Z9 extensively and believes that it is a great camera! Not perfect, but great....

The Z9 is a very complex camera and even seasoned photographers have struggled to adapt their type of photography to take advantage of the Z9's strengths. YMMV............