Nikon Z9 BIF inadequacies with Native lenses vs. Adapted lenses

[Chris Weller]

Steve and other members…I’m following this topic very closely and only found found two sources who seem to have addressed it….

BIF is my primary photographic venture and the Camera/lens combination’s ability to perform here is the single most important feature to me. However, before deciding which system I will invest in moving forward, Sony or Nikon, I want to be certain that the conclusions you, I and others may have come to is based on using the Z9 with Native Z mount glass such as the 800 mm PF, 400 2.8 Z lens and/or the 100-400 Z mount lens, NOT the 500 PF or 600 F/4, F mount with the adapter.

I believe this is potentially a critical and overlooked aspect of this analysis. Everyone seems to believe the adapter is magical and transparent, and it may be, but we must remember that those F-mount lenses are still based on focusing motors and technology that is many years old and were not designed to work with Mirrorless focusing systems, they are being adapted to work with them and will NOT perform as well as the new technology in native Z mount lens or the Sony lenses.

My supposition is that this could be the reason the A1 pulls ahead of the Z9 for BIF but appears to be about the same for all other genres. The old lens technology is stressed beyond its’ capabilities in BIF at 20 fps and won’t perform noticeably better than it did on the best DSLR’s. It will be better, but not to A1 standards with native Sony glass.

In the end this might be about the lenses, NOT the camera’s or the focusing systems, software or hardware.

Mark Smith is the only other photographer that seems to have addressed this and it seems he concluded that the 500 PF on the Z9 performed quite poorly for spoonbills in flight (in focus, on eye for a shot or two, then back focusing on the shoulder, then back to eye, then to the grass) relative to the 100-400 Z mount, which it appears he found to be excellent.

BTW…I just returned from a trip using the Z9 with the 500 PF and 100-400 and generally found the above to be true about focus miscues, but I was also experimenting with a bunch of different focusing modes etc…so it’s difficult to know anything for sure.

Perhaps you’ve discovered it doesn’t matter and the Z9 with Z mount glass is still inferior to the A1

Can anyone comment on this specific issue?

 

[John Navitsky]

yes, i think when people point out the f-mount glass works as well on the z9 as any previous dslr, people confuse that with meaning the adapted glass works as well as a native z-mount lens and that's probably not true most of the time.

and certainly some lower degree of performance of the lens may impact overall performance. certainly Mark Smith suggested that when he compared the 500PF vs the 100-400, although it seemed his suspicions was based on a fairly small amount of time.

that said, i only think it's a factor and it seems that most folks are having problems with subject detection in certain cases and i don't think af performance of the adapted lens is likely to be a big factor there.

 

[FB101]

This video may get at your question, partially - Ray doesn't see much difference in AF behavior and performance between his brand new Z400 f:2.8 TC and his older 500 f:4 G

But others (like Mark Smith) did report bigger differences so the answer is probably a bit lens specific and shooting style specific.

 

[Chris K]

I shoot with both a 100-400 and 500PF. The differences in AF performance (if they truly are any) are so confounded by the number of uncontrolled variables that I cannot make a positive statement.

My feeling is that the two are so close in performance that I simply consider them equal, and both good performers on the Z9.

I need to state for the record that simply using an adapted lens does not necessarily reduce performance. I don't mean to be adversarial, but your points aren't speaking specifically to a functional issue. "Old design" or "old motor" or "not designed for" are not real things, and cannot have an effect on a lens' performance. You can't really even claim that using a specific technology (ie: stepper motor) has a causal effect on overall system performance.

Put another way, you could design a fantastic lens in 2010 with then-current technology, and an awful one in 2022 with new technology.

I'll suggest two things:

1) Consider system performance a single black box, and evaluate each combination on its merits, and not artificial metrics like age or original intended use.

2) Please recognize that coming into a camera forum and throwing around terms like "inadequate" and "inferior" is not a good way to have a technical discussion. You may not intend to make people defensive, but you surely will, as I'm sure you realize.

 

[bleirer]

I don't have either camera but I follow the reviews. Based only on that my take is that if you are starting from scratch the A1 has a very slight edge at the moment. If you are trying to migrate existing lenses or the price difference is important to you I think having the Z9 would not be the reason you didn't get that award winning shot.

 

[Chris Weller]

I shoot with both a 100-400 and 500PF. The differences in AF performance (if they truly are any) are so confounded by the number of uncontrolled variables that I cannot make a positive statement.

My feeling is that the two are so close in performance that I simply consider them equal, and both good performers on the Z9.

I need to state for the record that simply using an adapted lens does not necessarily reduce performance. I don't mean to be adversarial, but your points aren't speaking specifically to a functional issue. "Old design" or "old motor" or "not designed for" are not real things, and cannot have an effect on a lens' performance. You can't really even claim that using a specific technology (ie: stepper motor) has a causal effect on overall system performance.

Put another way, you could design a fantastic lens in 2010 with then-current technology, and an awful one in 2022 with new technology.

I'll suggest two things:

1) Consider system performance a single black box, and evaluate each combination on its merits, and not artificial metrics like age or original intended use.

2) Please recognize that coming into a camera forum and throwing around terms like "inadequate" and "inferior" is not a good way to have a technical discussion. You may not intend to make people defensive, but you surely will, as I'm sure you realize.

Thank you for your reply and your thoughts. I attempted to take care in my post to emphasize that my ideas were theory and supposition, but I understand your point.

I'm grateful to hear from someone who is actively using both types of lenses and can relay their experience.

 

[Chris Weller]

This video may get at your question, partially - Ray doesn't see much difference in AF behavior and performance between his brand new Z400 f:2.8 TC and his older 500 f:4 G

But others (like Mark Smith) did report bigger differences so the answer is probably a bit lens specific and shooting style specific.

Thank you for the reply. I did watch this video as well. I think that is point.....As I believe Steve has indicated in various posts on this forum his A1 with the 600 F/4 put's more BIF "keepers" and critically sharp photo's on his card than any other lens/Camera system he has used in the past and not by a small margin...by a LOT. If the new 400 2.8 Z mount is only performing about the same as the old 500 F/4 F mount. I can deduce that the hit rate is not in the same league as the A1 and Sony Native lenses.

Maybe it's too big a leap.

The best way to compare would be side by side, head to head.

 

[Chris K]

Chris, I know this is an easier thing to say than accomplish, but I think you’d be best served by getting your hands on a Z9 to test.

We can all talk about about which hardware is best and how big the gap is to any other hardware, but all of our words are “laundered” through our perceptions and biases, to say nothing of enough confounding variables that it’s pretty unlikely anyone’s words are going to match your experience quite accurately.

If you can put your hands on a Z9 and any high-performance lens, I think you could conclusively answer in a few minutes what you’re going to drive yourself crazy trying to derive from data and theories.

 

[Chris Weller]

Chris, I know this is an easier thing to say than accomplish, but I think you’d be best served by getting your hands on a Z9 to test.

We can all talk about about which hardware is best and how big the gap is to any other hardware, but all of our words are “laundered” through our perceptions and biases, to say nothing of enough confounding variables that it’s pretty unlikely anyone’s words are going to match your experience quite accurately.

If you can put your hands on a Z9 and any high-performance lens, I think you could conclusively answer in a few minutes what you’re going to drive yourself crazy trying to derive from data and theories.

Hi Chris,

I agree, you have to actually use the equipment yourself to really make any judgements. A person can waste a lot of time trying to decide on things based based on pictures and video's and internet posts. Better to figure it out in just a few minutes actually handling and using equipment.

My post was quite long and maybe it wasn't as clear as I would have liked, but I have, in fact, shot the Z9 with my 500 pf and a 100-400 Z mount lens. I actually rented the Z9 for my trip and shot it extensively for 8 straight days. I just returned from a trip where I took over 9000 images using combinations of both lenses with Osprey's, Egrets, Storks, Spoonbills and other species. I also used my A9 with a 100-400 lens. I'm a pretty competent BIF photographer and have a shot the Nikon system for well over a decade and would strongly prefer to stay in their ecosytem, but only if I can get what I need out of it going forward. I've dipped my toe in the Sony universe with my A9.

I spent about 10 hours studying various manuals including Thom Hogan's, Steve Perry's and the Nikon Manual as well as Video's to be sure I knew exactly how to set-up the focusing system. I also compared notes with several other experienced Nikon shooters on my various outings.

I've yet to fully analyze all of the images from my trip and the sequences, but my initial impressions were consistent with what Mark Smith found....my 500 pf would find focus on the eye, then suddenly back focus for no reason, then come back. Using the 2-3 more desirable AF modes for BIF and even somewhat stationary birds. I'm not too sure about the 100-400 images yet.

I'm looking for others confirmation of my initial findings without any bias towards one system of the other, but I'm secretly hoping the Nikon system with the Z mount lens will be close enough to the A1 to stay with the Nikon ecosystem as I, personally, prefer their ergonomics , nomenclature and overall shooting experience. But not enough to override materially inferior results.

Hope that makes sense. Thanks

 

[Joel N]

Then is time to loan an a1 and try it out to decide for yourself. To be honest, there will still be an experience advantage on the Nikon side since you have being using one for the past decade, if you happen to loan the a1, and experience with the a1 gave you a clear winning answer then go for it. Also a1 focusing may well be influenced by the lense type as well certain lense does reduce the fps of a1, but Nikon touts that their 20fps is not dependent on the lense mounted. Could it be that a1 prioritized on focus shot rather than release thus the slower af lense will reduce the af speed or is it Nikon af is on release mode which prioritize on capture irregardless of acquired focus, no one had yet to conclude and might never be.

if mark hasn’t make that video, probably none might notice or even be concern about that as there is simply too much factor. I am still seeing plenty of great shots coming from both a1 and z9. Try not to stress too much about this.

 

[eaj101]

Mark Smith's opinion of the 500PF on the Z9 runs so much against every other review I've seen using it (as well as against my own rather unsophisticated experience) that I have to question his sample, his methodology, or his intent. My general approach to reviews is to take them all with a grain of salt, and to generally discount extreme outliers either way. This review is, in my opinion, an outlier.

The question of adapted vs native lenses is almost impossible to resolve, however, since we don't have examples of the exact same lens in both mounts. There's no 500 PF Z to compare to. The best you can do is ask whether the lens performs the same on a Z9 as on a D6 (for example). The consensus seems to be that it performs better. Would a 500 PF Z outperform the F version? Who knows?

 

[Joel N]

I also put fore to you the hypothesis that the new SILKY SWIFT VCM (SSVCM) technology might provide a better af performance (or probably none) or maybe Sony will best this with another technology of their leading to even better AF. Is hard to say and harder to test accurately.

What I can tell you is that from the more creditable sources, in the bif af department, a1 seems to still best the z9, whelther the situation might change with a change of a lense like the 400 tc, is still inconclusive.

 

[eaj101]

What I can tell you is that from the more creditable sources, in the bif af department, a1 seems to still best the z9, whelther the situation might change with a change of a lense like the 400 tc, is still inconclusive.

I don't want to be argumentative here, but the fairest statements I've seen seem to boil down to that you can cover the difference in BIF AF between Sony, Canon, and Nikon with a postage stamp. It's getting to the point that personal idiosyncracies of photographers matter as much or more as technical specs.

 

[Joel N]

I can’t and I didn’t. I am just saying that the sources which I deem more creditable suggest that. You can of cos take it with a grain of salt. I am in not in camp Sony or Nikon for that matter. Just an observation, but I do wanna say is that things are always changing it makes no sense to insist on something that is so hard to stamp accurately, that’s all. I shoot Nikon btw but that shouldn’t matter.

 

[padrepaul]

I wouldn't say I had any issues with the 800 5.6 using the FTZII on my Z9, however now having the 800 6.3 and moving to that, my sense is that it seems a little "stickier" than the 800 5.6; it just seems to aquire and stay focused a little bit better. But I have no testing data to provie it. Very happy so far though with how it's performed.

 

[simonsi]

The test would be does the keeper rate (defined by intended focal point being in-focus), drop when you use frame rates above those that DSLRs could achieve - remembering that the D5/6 go to 14fps with full AF. Test at 2-fps upwards and see if the keeper rate drops off, if it does then the Z glass IS designed specifically with the higher frame rates in mind, if it doesn't then there was enough performance headroom built in at the f-mount design stage. Controlling for other variables might be a challenge but over time a difference may appear (or not) with enough data.

 

[Joel N]

I got the z9 with 800pf and 500pf too. While I feel AF is sticker on the native 800pf, I too have no way to definitively say that is the case. My sample size is just too small for now.

 

[fcotterill]

The differences in overall speed and incidents of AF hunting etc are relatively simple to quantify in rudimentary comparisons of a Z9 with the telephotos in question, and both models of the FTZ. A mean of overall performance is probably possible. But the plausibility hinges grappling with the sources of errors: moving subjects, gear as well as the operators (proficiency) testing camera+lens.

The challenges are to estimate the errors with high confidence. This demands at least 5-6 representative operators of the cameras (ideally Z6 II as well as Z9), and a diversity of subjects. Examples include ast vehicles on racing tracks; mountain bikes on tracks; dog agility circuits; dogs racing in flyball; as well as birds such as seagulls and swallows feeding over water etc

 

[fcotterill]

All that one can conclude is it's the performance of the Overall Adapted System (Z camera, Lens, FTZ) compared to a native Z System. A while back Brad Hill wrote a piece explaining the fairly obvious reasons why it's impossible to attribute differences to a single part of the equipment. As Nikon has any ability to build such an apparatus designed for partitioned experiments to test different Autofocus systems.

In practice, there's wide differences between the performance of adapted F Nikkors on the earlier Zed cameras compared to the Z9. No surprise. But here it's most likely the Z9's boosted software on cutting edge hardware.

Is it relevant to compare the adapted top tier telephotos versus the new Z Mount telephotos? Subjectively one can try, but there will always be unresolved indeterminate results for above reasons and more.

And I find no impediments marrying the Z9 with any one of the adapted 70-200 f2.8E, 400 f2.8E, 500 f5.6 PF or 180-400 TC. Personally, I plan to add the 400 PF when available to complement the excellent 800 PF. And based on recent daily usage I find the AF of the 800 PF fast and reliable. Somewhat slower with ZTC2, which I anticipated.

 

[gdecamp]

I have the Z9 and 500pf and finding it to be at least as good or slightly better on the Z9 than it was on the D500. I also have the 400/2.8TC S and the 800pf and find them to be a notch above the 500pf on the Z9. However there are other reasons to own them like sharpness and reach. These are the lenses that should be compared on the Z9 with other systems.

People can believe whatever they choose but no way I personally would give this system up for any other camera or system! Very satisfied, best I've ever owned and I've had several of the Nikon flagship cameras (D2x, D3, D4, etc) over the years as well as the 200-400, 500 f4 and 600vr which are all sold now.

Every camera has quirks just learn to work around them and move on or switch systems but beware all systems have some quirks so just see which is better for you.

 

[John_DE]

I have both the 100-400 and the 500 PF and use both on my Z9. I find the 500pf to be about the same as the 100-400 with the Z 1.4 TC. Both are useful lenses for me and I will be keeping both. I seldom take video, but I suspect Mark Smith is totally correct that the 100-400 is a better choice for video.

BIF is something I care about, but it by no means the only type of photographs I take. For me, the Z9 exceeds what I could do with my, now sold, D850 and D500. Perhaps the A1 and/or the Canon R 6/5/3 (which are seldom mentioned in these forums) are slightly better, or perhaps not. Again, for me the difference is so close that it does not matter. I have a serious investment in Nikon glass and other Nikon camera bodies. Switching brands is far too expensive for me, unless there is an amazing increase in capability.

 

[Chris K]

The Mark Smith report of the 500PF losing Spoonbill eyes is peculiar to me because it runs counter to my experience.

I got my Z9 in January, and at that time the only birds to speak of near me were Canada Geese. A LOT of Canada Geese. My testing generally consisted of geese flying by, geese taking off, geese landing, and geese paddling around. Occasionally a Mallard would drop in.

As my first BEAF camera, I tested the various modes heavily, and every time I came home I found a nauseating number of in-focus images. Ask my wife: I’m sure she was sick of me groaning about culling thousands of near-identical Goose photos as I did my “user acceptance testing” to decide whether I’d go Z9 or cash in for an A1.

I certainly missed shots, and the camera certainly did as well. Especially early on n as I was learning it’s behavior, I’d miss shots with background clutter when the birds were small in frame.

That said, I didn’t notice what Mark is describing… what I used to call “wobble” in the DSLR says, where the camera would float between too-close and too-far as it attempted to track its subject. That’s what impressed me so much: even as a new shooter I had almost all in focus shots. >90% if I could hazard a guess now?

I think others in this thread who are scratching their head must have a similar experience. I’d love to tell you where I’ve found the camera’s weakness, and how I’ve worked around it, but I just don’t see what you’re concerned about.

The worst I’ve found is the standard mirrorless tendency to grab backgrounds, and pre-focusing too-close remains the standard fix for that issue.

 

[Chris Weller]

Recognizing that both the Z9 and A1 are arguably the two of the best camera's in the world for BIF and it can seem like we are being overly critical of small differences in their performance in any category, autofocus or otherwise; I think that is sorta why we are all here. We enjoy the debate, we enjoy the pursuit of excellence and if I can find a way to capture 48 out of 50 in focus images instead of 42 out of 50 in focus images, I'm going to try...It's my hobby, it's fun......You never know....image 43 might be that Hero image.

 

[Steve]

In my experience, it seems like native glass has an edge over adapted glass for BIF work, but it's very slight. It's certainly not why the a1 tends to do better with BIF work. Also, remember that it's notoriously hard to test AF performance - especially with something like birds in flight. You would really have to shoot a long time to come to a determination - if you could at all. (Also, "sharp" is a relative term - I see a ton of stuff that people think is sharp that is anything but. Also, is sharp a sharp eye or just anyplace sharp on the bird? Everyone has different standards, making AF comparisons somewhat difficult in this type of discussion.)

I think the bigger difference is that Sony has a better subject detection system for BIF work. Nikon uses body - face - eye where Sony only uses face & eye. What often happens with Nikon is that when you have the AF area on the bird, it doesn't always see the eye or even the face, so it goes for the body. With subject detection, this means that you can have the AF area smack-dab on the face and the camera will focus on the body instead. OTOH, in that situation, Sony will simply use the AF area as normal or favor close-focus priority (really depends on the AF area) so you usually still get the shot.

You can, of course, turn subject detection off with the Nikon, but that is almost never necessary with the Sony, so the Sony tends to get better AF refinement for BIF work in that scenario.

Sony also seems better at sticking to the face or eye of a BIF target, as well as being better at initial AF locks. In fact, I was out yesterday (I'm in Africa at the moment) and on several occasions I put a Wide AF area right on a bird against a blue sky and the Z9 racked the focus ring in and out (800PF) - each time the bird was directly under the AF area with no background / foreground obstructions. By the time it locked on, it was over. Sony usually gets on the first time in that scenario. Of course, most of the time the Z9 did lock on, so don't read anything into that previous statement that's not there. It's not that the a1 is perfect and the Z9 is awful - there is a lot of common ground there.

In short, both cameras are very capable of BIF work, but Sony does put more keepers on my cards and would be my choice if BIF was my main thing. However, that may not hold forever - look how quickly Nikon is catching up.

 

[JustinGriggs]

I think the bigger difference is that Sony has a better subject detection system for BIF work. Nikon uses body - face - eye where Sony only uses face & eye. What often happens with Nikon is that when you have the AF area on the bird, it doesn't always see the eye or even the face, so it goes for the body. With subject detection, this means that you can have the AF area smack-dab on the face and the camera will focus on the body instead. OTOH, in that situation, Sony will simply use the AF area as normal or favor close-focus priority (really depends on the AF area) so you usually still get the shot.

You can, of course, turn subject detection off with the Nikon, but that is almost never necessary with the Sony, so the Sony tends to get better AF refinement for BIF work in that scenario.

I've only had the z9 for 2 days, and this has been my biggest takeaway from using wide large with subject detection on. Even on a stationary Cooper's Hawk today with a clearly visible eye it would often go to the body first and then a little bit later pick up on the face/eye. Granted both the Cooper's Hawk and the shorebirds I was shooting yesterday were heavily backlit, the only bird I've had in decent light conditions was a Song Sparrow and it locked onto the eye no problem.

I've remedied this currently by mapping Fn3 button to swap to Dynamic-Area Small so I can pinpoint it and then go back to wide and let subject detection take over, this seems to work pretty well.

I've never shot with the A1 so I have no comparison there, but compared to my D850 its an incredible difference, even with some minor faults.

And for record, I'm using a 600mm F4G with a 1.4TC for most shots and it had no trouble keeping up with an Osprey in a dive, nailing almost every single shot