Nikon Z9 BIF inadequacies with Native lenses vs. Adapted lenses

[Steve]

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

And that's the big thing - although the a1 does do better for BIF work, the Z9 is still very capable. I think a lot of people see it as the "Z9 sucks" and the "A1 is perfect" and both of those are far from the truth. Both cameras get the job done most of the time.

 

[gdecamp]

And that's the big thing - although the a1 does do better for BIF work, the Z9 is still very capable. I think a lot of people see it as the "Z9 sucks" and the "A1 is perfect" and both of those are far from the truth. Both cameras get the job done most of the time.

Yes!! If you can't get the shots most of the time with these cameras it means you probably have not put the time in to learn them well enough yet! Read Steves AF book and practice practice practice, both things go a long way!

 

[gdecamp]

To be clear, Right out of the box Sony A1 in wide area will lock focus on the first bird eye it sees. Super easy to use.

Yes it seems it is easier to use out of the box, more time is needed learning with the Z9 for that.

 

[Strodav]

Steve is a professional and has mastered the art and science of photography so a slight difference in performance of his equipment can make a difference in his income. For the rest of us, you are over thinking this. I was very happy with the results I was getting with a D850/D500 combination, a 200-500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/4G lenses. I got a Z9 to be able to keep using my f mount glass while transitioning to Z glass and hopefully up my keeper rate. Mission accomplished. To me, finding great spots to shoot, getting out during the bird migrations, the light / sky / clouds that day, picking a good exposure, practicing good technique and hoping for a little luck are much more important to getting good results than the small differences between an A1, Z9, but I guess it's human nature.

 

[Wes Peterson]

As a Z9 owner since December, the only shots the Z9 seems to miss regularly are the shots you shouldnt be taking anyway. Too far, too small, too cluttered, against a clear blue sky etc.... if youre a heavy cropper or like photographing bird asses against a clear blue sky I guess the Z9 might not be ideal.

 

[gdecamp]

As a Z9 owner since December, the only shots the Z9 seems to miss regularly are the shots you shouldnt be taking anyway. Too far, too small, too cluttered, against a clear blue sky etc.... if youre a heavy cropper or like photographing bird asses against a clear blue sky I guess the Z9 might not be ideal.

Love it!

 

[NaturRosi]

Maybe the Sony A1 is a touch better at bif. But in the end it's the overall performance that counts. The handling and the ergonomics and what lenses are currently available for the system. According to my observation and short tests, it is already the case that the Z9 benefits from native lenses. I find that the Z9 with the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S recognizes the Motov faster and also tracks it more precisely.

 

[gdecamp]

Maybe the Sony A1 is a touch better at bif. But in the end it's the overall performance that counts. The handling and the ergonomics and what lenses are currently available for the system. According to my observation and short tests, it is already the case that the Z9 benefits from native lenses. I find that the Z9 with the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S recognizes the Motov faster and also tracks it more precisely.

The most awesome lens on the market!!

 

[TonyF]

For the record; any posts you've seen from me up until now relate to the Z9 with a PF 500 (so I cant comment on Z lenses right now)
On AF for BIF issues; I concur with other people's experience - already well documented above. I dont very often lose focus (not for many frames anyway) but I do have issues with initial acquisition in certain scenarios. I think an awful lot of things will be solved if Nikon would improve subject detection including having a good look at how Sony let you customise your AF options.. The ability to so easily choose and seperate the individiual elements of AF Area / AF Area with tracking / Eye is brilliant implemetation compared with Nikon's hybrid kind of 'bundling' mixed with legacy DSLR menus and customising options.
It sometimes feels like a game of stick or twist at the moment. Sony currently has the edge (a significant one for dedicated BIF/Birds) but what is there to be unlocked in the Z9?

 

[Chris Weller]

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.

Thank you, Steve! This is very insightful. I am so happy you answered from Africa. I am keenly interested in one of your in-depth reviews of how the Z9 with the 800 PF compares with the A1 and the 600 F/4 with and without 1.4 tele in extended use in a variety of situations. In all aspects; image quality, focusing, handling and weight distribution etc.... Not sure if that's something you are entertaining.

Notwithstanding the cost differential, personally, I will be choosing between these two combinations as my primary set-up's for Avian photography.

 

[Calson]

Lots of assumption being made based on ignorance of the Z cameras and the FTZ adapter which functions as a mount adapter and an extension tube. There is a miniscule amount of current loss from the camera body to the attached lens and so no different than with a S lens. What is different is the drive motors and the battery capacity to drive the lens motors and a Z9 is going to do better than a Z7.

With the S lenses one is getting better optics and possibly better VR although the 1/2 stop gain stated by Nikon for a S lens on a Z9 leads me to believe that VR is little improved with the S lenses.

With a Canon I have the option of using a Canon 100-500mm zoom lens. With the Nikon I have the 500mm PF and soon the 800mm PF. With Sony I have the option of a 200-600mm lens. Having owned the Nikon 200-500mm lens I would not be terribly interested in the Sony 200-600mm lens except for video.

With the Z9 I get a pro 45MP body with exceptional autofocus. That is not an option from Canon or from Sony at this point in time.

 

[Joel N]

Lots of assumption being made based on ignorance of the Z cameras and the FTZ adapter which functions as a mount adapter and an extension tube. There is a miniscule amount of current loss from the camera body to the attached lens and so no different than with a S lens. What is different is the drive motors and the battery capacity to drive the lens motors and a Z9 is going to do better than a Z7.

With the S lenses one is getting better optics and possibly better VR although the 1/2 stop gain stated by Nikon for a S lens on a Z9 leads me to believe that VR is little improved with the S lenses.

With a Canon I have the option of using a Canon 100-500mm zoom lens. With the Nikon I have the 500mm PF and soon the 800mm PF. With Sony I have the option of a 200-600mm lens. Having owned the Nikon 200-500mm lens I would not be terribly interested in the Sony 200-600mm lens except for video.

With the Z9 I get a pro 45MP body with exceptional autofocus. That is not an option from Canon or from Sony at this point in time.

Not too sure what you are trying to get at but most of the comments of f mount lense on z bodies made so far are based on usage and feelings generated from use and that is just their personal opinion, without knowing all the technical workings which maybe a good thing so it does not bias.

Dun think is best approach to conclude Sony 200-600 lens using another one from another system, but that’s just me.

A1 is definitely a pro body to me has exceptional af as well. Canon r3 can be said the same but that’s just me again putting it out there.

 

[Kuau]

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.

IMHO Steve is 100% correct. If BIF was my main subject I would go with the A1. The Z9 is to me a more balanced camera meaning it’s really good at everything yet not great at just one thing if that makes sense. I own 2 Z9’s and love them I’m a winter sports photographer and I am hoping now that Nikon has pushed out FW 2.0 which we all know is very video specific with a few photo improvements, Nikon will be able to address and further fine tune the AF for us photographers.
It took Sony almost 3 years to go from the A9, A9ll and now the A1 to really “get” it
So Nikon really has its work cut out for them and I am just hoping with the success of the Z9 Nikon can get things rolling again and my last comment is price
Z9 $5500, A1 with battery grip and second battery is close to $7000 so if one believes you get what you pay for then the A1 should be “better”

 

[Roy]

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?

I've used the A1 and its a great camera, But used properly the Z9 AF is better.
As for the lenses until Sony upgrades it mount from the old Minolta crop mount they will always be inferior to Canon or Nikon...

 

[Ken Miracle]

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?

I have never shot the Sony or Canon.

I am just wrapping up a week long photography symposium in West Yellowstone Montana. It is put together by the owners of Yellowstone Camera in West Yellowstone,and Perfect Light Camera in Idaho Falls same owners. They are full line dealers for Nikon, Canon and Sony and the owner is a professional photographer who has shot them all and did not make the switch to mirrorless until he had put the Z9 through it's paces. He prefers Nikon colors but likes all 3 of the flag ship mirrorless cameras and each fits some shooters better than others.

There were also experienced shooters there that have used the flag ship Sony, Canon and Nikon users there. Nikon and Canon sales reps were there and Chaz Glatzer Nikon Explorer of Light, Tamron lens expert Marc Morris, Tamron makes a lot of Sony's glass and sells native mount Tamron branded lenses for Sony also. They also make a lot of Canon branded mirrorless glass and now one Nikon Z mount lens. So while there was some discussion and use of adapted glass most was related to the native mount glass.

Pretty much the consensus is the top of the line Sony, Nikon and Canon all have their pluses and minuses but all are great cameras. The consensus is that they all perform very well with subject tracking turned off which in some ways is the best comparison and that there are times that all of them struggle with tracking wildlife in certain situations and far less with people. The majority in attendance were wildlife shooters with a smattering of landscape so people not the primary subject. The consensus was that some of the adapted lenses performed better than on the DSLR's they were made for but lenses like the Nikon Z mount S series lenses and Sony, Canon and Tamron native mount lenses were just better than their adapted counter parts.

I have my Z9 set up to turn subject tracking off with a push and hold on my video record button and the Sony and Canon shooters had similar set ups. When it works subject tracking is great and there are also times when you do not want to focus on the eye of wildlife to have the eye sharp. For example 600mm or 800mm on a grizzly or moose facing you you need to focus halfway between the nose and the eyes if you want the eyes and nose sharp depending on the distance and focal length but normally it is more than far enough away using those focal lengths for that to be true. A bull elk side shot is frequently metered bette by focusing and metering on the dark/light hide intersection and at most distances and focal lengths the dept of field will have the eye sharp.

All were impressed with image stabilization of all 3 brands. I shot my Z9 with my Z100-400 and 800 PF experimentally on rapids and waterfalls with rocks and logs in or around them hand held at 1/20 of a second and from f/4 to f/9 with very surprising results ... not every shot in a burst was sharp but several were from each burst.

So it boiled down to what works best for an indivduals, shooting style, ergonomic preferences etc..

 

[Ken Miracle]

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

The pro photgrapher camera store owner running the week long symposium that just wrapped up and I both have found dynamic area AF M to be our primary tool on most everything ... unlike the ones on DSLR's it is more of an over sized single point. I still use single point on bird buried deep in brush shooting for ID and sometimes that needs a little manual focus help. I have also had pretty good success with BIF and fast moving subjects using the new customizable wide area with or without subject tracking turned on depending on the situation ... 5x3 being a favorite so far.

 

[eaj101]

I have never shot the Sony or Canon.

I am just wrapping up a week long photography symposium in West Yellowstone Montana. It is put together by the owners of Yellowstone Camera in West Yellowstone,and Perfect Light Camera in Idaho Falls same owners. They are full line dealers for Nikon, Canon and Sony and the owner is a professional photographer who has shot them all and did not make the switch to mirrorless until he had put the Z9 through it's paces. He prefers Nikon colors but likes all 3 of the flag ship mirrorless cameras and each fits some shooters better than others.

There were also experienced shooters there that have used the flag ship Sony, Canon and Nikon users there. Nikon and Canon sales reps were there and Chaz Glatzer Nikon Explorer of Light, Tamron lens expert Marc Morris, Tamron makes a lot of Sony's glass and sells native mount Tamron branded lenses for Sony also. They also make a lot of Canon branded mirrorless glass and now one Nikon Z mount lens. So while there was some discussion and use of adapted glass most was related to the native mount glass.

Pretty much the consensus is the top of the line Sony, Nikon and Canon all have their pluses and minuses but all are great cameras. The consensus is that they all perform very well with subject tracking turned off which in some ways is the best comparison and that there are times that all of them struggle with tracking wildlife in certain situations and far less with people. The majority in attendance were wildlife shooters with a smattering of landscape so people not the primary subject. The consensus was that some of the adapted lenses performed better than on the DSLR's they were made for but lenses like the Nikon Z mount S series lenses and Sony, Canon and Tamron native mount lenses were just better than their adapted counter parts.

I have my Z9 set up to turn subject tracking off with a push and hold on my video record button and the Sony and Canon shooters had similar set ups. When it works subject tracking is great and there are also times when you do not want to focus on the eye of wildlife to have the eye sharp. For example 600mm or 800mm on a grizzly or moose facing you you need to focus halfway between the nose and the eyes if you want the eyes and nose sharp depending on the distance and focal length but normally it is more than far enough away using those focal lengths for that to be true. A bull elk side shot is frequently metered bette by focusing and metering on the dark/light hide intersection and at most distances and focal lengths the dept of field will have the eye sharp.

All were impressed with image stabilization of all 3 brands. I shot my Z9 with my Z100-400 and 800 PF experimentally on rapids and waterfalls with rocks and logs in or around them hand held at 1/20 of a second and from f/4 to f/9 with very surprising results ... not every shot in a burst was sharp but several were from each burst.

So it boiled down to what works best for an indivduals, shooting style, ergonomic preferences etc..

Thanks for an illuminating summary.

 

[gdecamp]

I have never shot the Sony or Canon.

I am just wrapping up a week long photography symposium in West Yellowstone Montana. It is put together by the owners of Yellowstone Camera in West Yellowstone,and Perfect Light Camera in Idaho Falls same owners. They are full line dealers for Nikon, Canon and Sony and the owner is a professional photographer who has shot them all and did not make the switch to mirrorless until he had put the Z9 through it's paces. He prefers Nikon colors but likes all 3 of the flag ship mirrorless cameras and each fits some shooters better than others.

There were also experienced shooters there that have used the flag ship Sony, Canon and Nikon users there. Nikon and Canon sales reps were there and Chaz Glatzer Nikon Explorer of Light, Tamron lens expert Marc Morris, Tamron makes a lot of Sony's glass and sells native mount Tamron branded lenses for Sony also. They also make a lot of Canon branded mirrorless glass and now one Nikon Z mount lens. So while there was some discussion and use of adapted glass most was related to the native mount glass.

Pretty much the consensus is the top of the line Sony, Nikon and Canon all have their pluses and minuses but all are great cameras. The consensus is that they all perform very well with subject tracking turned off which in some ways is the best comparison and that there are times that all of them struggle with tracking wildlife in certain situations and far less with people. The majority in attendance were wildlife shooters with a smattering of landscape so people not the primary subject. The consensus was that some of the adapted lenses performed better than on the DSLR's they were made for but lenses like the Nikon Z mount S series lenses and Sony, Canon and Tamron native mount lenses were just better than their adapted counter parts.

I have my Z9 set up to turn subject tracking off with a push and hold on my video record button and the Sony and Canon shooters had similar set ups. When it works subject tracking is great and there are also times when you do not want to focus on the eye of wildlife to have the eye sharp. For example 600mm or 800mm on a grizzly or moose facing you you need to focus halfway between the nose and the eyes if you want the eyes and nose sharp depending on the distance and focal length but normally it is more than far enough away using those focal lengths for that to be true. A bull elk side shot is frequently metered bette by focusing and metering on the dark/light hide intersection and at most distances and focal lengths the dept of field will have the eye sharp.

All were impressed with image stabilization of all 3 brands. I shot my Z9 with my Z100-400 and 800 PF experimentally on rapids and waterfalls with rocks and logs in or around them hand held at 1/20 of a second and from f/4 to f/9 with very surprising results ... not every shot in a burst was sharp but several were from each burst.

So it boiled down to what works best for an indivduals, shooting style, ergonomic preferences etc..

Must have been a great time! Charles Glatzer is a good friend of mine. Actually he was my guru 20yrs ago when he was a Nikon shooter and I still message him and see him when I can. We lived close to each other on Long Island. Spent many hours learning from him even one on one with him when cutting my teeth. The one thing he always said to me was learn your camera. Don't use one mode on your camera use them all and know how to switch as needed to get the optimum shot. He drummed that into me and I still do that today. He started a photo club on Long Island and stuck me with being the first president that creep! Hahahaha. We went from 10 members to 130 in a few years, all wildlife and won natures best award as best camera club. I had stepped down as president before we won that because of my job, too busy!

Anyway sounds like a perfect outing with some smart people!!

 

[Ken Miracle]

Must have been a great time! Charles Glatzer is a good friend of mine. Actually he was my guru 20yrs ago when he was a Nikon shooter and I still message him and see him when I can. We lived close to each other on Long Island. Spent many hours learning from him even one on one with him when cutting my teeth. The one thing he always said to me was learn your camera. Don't use one mode on your camera use them all and know how to switch as needed to get the optimum shot. He drummed that into me and I still do that today. He started a photo club on Long Island and stuck me with being the first president that creep! Hahahaha. We went from 10 members to 130 in a few years, all wildlife and won natures best award as best camera club. I had stepped down as president before we won that because of my job, too busy!

Anyway sounds like a perfect outing with some smart people!!

It was and Chaz has not changed his tune. He and several of the other pros are finding that there favorite feature of mirrorless is a live histogram in the viewfinder and I concur.

 

[gdecamp]

It was and Chaz has not changed his tune. He and several of the other pros are finding that there favorite feature of mirrorless is a live histogram in the viewfinder and I concur.

I've had that on as soon as I discovered it. Awesome feature and I'm sure most high end cameras have the same.

 

[BorderBirder]

It was and Chaz has not changed his tune. He and several of the other pros are finding that there favorite feature of mirrorless is a live histogram in the viewfinder and I concur.

Another yes to that……….and being able to see immediately if you’ve left Ex Comp on

 

[NaturRosi]

I like to point out in most cases sharpness is totally overrated. I will give you an example. This hawk owl was shot with the Z9 and the "old" AF-S 400 E FL with TC-14 E III attached and handheld.

100% crop with out any editing

The following shot is one of two photos out of the series that weren't tack sharp, but sharp enough.

100% corp unedited

100% crop after editing and than downsampled to the resolution of an D6

That's although an example that shows that you have to be really careful of what you are comparing! I think to focus more on taking pictures would help more to get better images, than pixel peeping. Just my 2 cent!

 

[Howard5252]

I have used the 500PF on the Z9 and found it to do a fine job on BIF ... even with a 1.4TC. I'm reminded of a story about the time I bought skiis. I asked the salesperson if the set I was looking at was really good. The response was "They will go down the mountain very well, whether you're still on them is another story". What I'm trying to get across is that you may have to up your game to keep up with the Z9.