That's pretty darn impressive. In surrounding and BG like that with a DSLR I'd be using single point focus.
Nikon z9 vs Sony A1---Which one
- Thread starter wolfphotography721
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I think the term "buffer size" needs some clarification. I'm sure what you're referring to is how many frames of continuous shooting before fps starts to suffer. Historically on DSLRs that is achieved by the true "buffer" which is on board memory. With the Z9 it appears Nikon has chosen to go with very little on board memory and is reliant on throughput and write speed of the card. That can be good and bad. Certainly less on board memory is less expensive to build. But for those of us who want that large "buffer" we have no choice but to go with high end CFE cards. So all of the dollars I have invested in high speed XQD cards may not do any good with the Z9. It will be interesting to see how data on "buffer capacity" with different cards as people start to do some quantitative testing.
I'm also keen to learn more about the new RAW formats. Typical Nikon they had to give them new/weird titles. High efficiency???
Jury is still out with me on a path forward to mirrorless. Though Nikon have made it a lot harder to consider a switch.
The one you have glass for?
I would love to use either setup. My personal lean is toward the Z9 with hopes that F mount lenses adapt with minimal loss. As an amateur there is way more used (affordable) quality Nikon glass to be found than there is Sony. For example, a used 600mm F4 G can be found for under $5K. I it marries well to the Z9, it is going to be an awesome BIF setup for under $10K. Excited to find out about the "IF"
I would love to use either setup. My personal lean is toward the Z9 with hopes that F mount lenses adapt with minimal loss. As an amateur there is way more used (affordable) quality Nikon glass to be found than there is Sony. For example, a used 600mm F4 G can be found for under $5K. I it marries well to the Z9, it is going to be an awesome BIF setup for under $10K. Excited to find out about the "IF"
Wrogu
Active member
Sony has no roadmap. Which is bloody annoying. Kudos for Nikon for having one.
I am a very happy Sony shooter. But at some point I will want a tele prime. With no roadmap on Sony ecosystem I might consider Nikon. Time will tell.
I am a very happy Sony shooter. But at some point I will want a tele prime. With no roadmap on Sony ecosystem I might consider Nikon. Time will tell.
abc123brian
Well-known member
I had seen posts from people complaining that Nikon had a roadmap saying Sony had lenses. For me, Sony didn't have many of the lenses I was looking for and Nikon had a roadmap showing me what they intended to release and had what I was looking for in F mount. The recent roadmap from Nikon tells me they are building almost everything I wanted. Fujifilm also did the roadmap and I appreciate having an idea of what is coming soon to make an informed decision.
FB101
Well-known member
Good clarification on "buffer" - yes, I meant how long can you shoot before speed drops - as you said, it may not be due to buffer size anymore but still a very practical and relevant factor.
FB101
Well-known member
That's why I posted this - i didn't expect it to work myself and it did. Not flawlessly as it took 2 tries but it got there better than I ever expected.
Way too early to tell. However, I would echo what others have said - look at the ecosystem between the three. I think the Z9 will certainly be competitive and I doubt any minor technical differences between it, the a1, and R3 are really going to have enough of an impact to matter. Nikon has a lot of interesting glass on the way, Sony already has some very solid offerings, as does Canon. There are a lot of options - the trick is anticipating your needs and seeing which company's system matches those needs. With the Z9, I think everyone's in the game now.
That's an important distinction.
Most of the camera companies don't actually disclose the size of the "buffer". The buffer technically is the number of remaining shots when you start a burst, and then you gradually shoot and write images to the card with any that can't be written retained in the Buffer. Once you slow or stop shooting, the buffer takes some amount of time to clear or empty by writing the remaining images to the card. A few generations of cameras ago Nikon and others changed the reference of buffer to mean maximum burst length. So the D5 and D500 could fire off 200 consecutive 14 bit lossless compressed images without a pause, but the technical "buffer" that holds images only held something like 50 frames.
The reference to a buffer of 20 frames does refer to the original meaning - the number of images remaining when you start a burst. Nikon has a countdown timer showing the remaining space available - r26, r25, r24, etc. as it starts with an empty buffer with 26 shots at the given settings and partially fills the buffer with a burst or series.
There are a lot of dependencies - the size of the file, the time to process the file so it can be written, a check routine to confirm the file was written to the card, compression, etc. File type, bit size, noise and other factors have a big impact on the size of the file, and smaller files may take more processing but have less data to write. So it's a bit of a zoo out there trying to decide exactly how many frames you can shoot without filling the buffer. If you can shoot 20 frames per second, write 19 frames per second, then in 20 seconds you'll have taken 400 shots and just have filled the buffer. Writing 19 fps at 60 MB each is 1140 MB, so you need to have a write speed for your card in the camera of that amount or more.
Card specs are a little hard to figure out. Cards and cameras each have a bus that affects speed and heat. Cards have a thermal cutoff to protect the card from excess heat. Some cards publish minimum sustained write speed as a much lower "guaranteed" figure - but most do not disclose that data.
If you want great performance, you probably need to use the ProGrade Digital Cobalt or the Delkin Black - based on the interviews I've heard from Ricci and from Mark Cruz. Ricci tested a number of other cards with slower performance - some much slower. You can't put a ProGrade Gold or standard card from Lexar or Sandisk in the camera and get the same performance. Each card will have it's own speed - all meeting the criteria for CFExpress but with different components and card firmware.
So yes - Nikon can achieve a 300 frame burst with 14 bit RAW lossless compressed with these cards - and both Mark Cruz and Ricci did it. With JPEG or smaller RAW, you probably can shoot without limit. But if you choose another card, it may not hit that speed. In my testing for example, ProGrade Gold was cheap, but really slow and could not quite write 2 fps in my Z7ii. It may be faster - but not fast enough in a Z9 other than for emergency backup.
I do love the control wheel of A1
My experience is that you will use more and like better the camera that feels good in your hands.
Does it fit? Is it comfortable to hold? Are the buttons convenient to your fingers? how does it feel when you put your eye on the eyepiece?
If it does not "fit" you, you will not like it for long.
For me, I have big hands and big fingers. I am also a little fat fingered when doing things, so in my case, between these two, the Z9 will likely feel better in my hands and there fore would be used more if I were to buy it.
I have a Z6 and a D850. Love them both and they both perform quite well for me. I do find myselg going for the D850 more often because it feels the best in my hands and I am most at ease when handling the larger camera body.
Just my opinion
Does it fit? Is it comfortable to hold? Are the buttons convenient to your fingers? how does it feel when you put your eye on the eyepiece?
If it does not "fit" you, you will not like it for long.
For me, I have big hands and big fingers. I am also a little fat fingered when doing things, so in my case, between these two, the Z9 will likely feel better in my hands and there fore would be used more if I were to buy it.
I have a Z6 and a D850. Love them both and they both perform quite well for me. I do find myselg going for the D850 more often because it feels the best in my hands and I am most at ease when handling the larger camera body.
Just my opinion
I second that.
Sony A1 has set standards high & Canon & Nikon are only doing the catch up game.This is one of the reasons I bought A1.I am sure Sony A1 will have some firmware updates coming up soon & may be a drop in price too ( for which I will credit Z9)
Secondly Sony has encouraged thrid party lens developement which is very good for the consumers since one gets a wider choice .
I am hoping against hope that Sony would release a converter which would let Nikon glass to be used on A1.
Imagine an A1 strapped to 500 PF
Doug Herr
Well-known member
Sony has encouraged thrid party lens developement which is very good for the consumers since one gets a wider choice .
I am hoping against hope that Sony would release a converter which would let Nikon glass to be used on A1.
Sony made the E-mount specs available to third-party lens makers in contrast to the Canon and Nikon closed-spec approach which forces third-party lens makers to reverse-engineer the mount and communication protocols, with varying degrees of compatibility. The result is a wide variety of E-mount lenses including some spectacularly good, such as from Zeiss and Voigtlander.
E-Mount | Voigtländer
www.voigtlaender.de
While every one talks about the initial cost recurring costs are the worrying one.Hence i tried ou the A1 buffer on a normal 64 GB SD card(up to 250MB/s read, 120MB/s write) .I could get 151 shots in 8 seconds before the buffer ran out (With CF Type A Sony cards it never stopped firing)
This 64 GB SD card costs around 2700 Indian rupees (40 $) compared to 16000/(225 $) Indian rupees for comparable sized card(64 GB vs 80 GB)That is a cost factor of 5 & it should not be discounted (The cheapest 64 GB XQD card costs 11000 Indian rupees used in Z9)
I am yet to test Video on it
It was a smart move on Sonys part to keep SD card format in A1 ( since one would be rarely firing a seven second burst & SD cards would take care of most of the situations)
This 64 GB SD card costs around 2700 Indian rupees (40 $) compared to 16000/(225 $) Indian rupees for comparable sized card(64 GB vs 80 GB)That is a cost factor of 5 & it should not be discounted (The cheapest 64 GB XQD card costs 11000 Indian rupees used in Z9)
I am yet to test Video on it
It was a smart move on Sonys part to keep SD card format in A1 ( since one would be rarely firing a seven second burst & SD cards would take care of most of the situations)
Doug Herr
Well-known member
I agree. I've been using V90 64GB SD cards in the a1 (since April this year) and have not had any problems with the buffer.
Nikon and Canon made their living from optics for years and also sold cameras. Even in the digital age they still track how many lenses per camera they sell as one of their main business metrics. They both lost their way somewhat when they were making money hand over fist selling point and shoot cameras and consumer level DSLRs. Now that's gone due to smart phones they are focusing back on their core business strength and traditional customer base i.e. professionals and high end users. So every Tamron and Sigma lens that's sold for Nikon or Canon mounts is money out of their pockets.
Sony got into the camera business during the point and shoot years and snuck into ILCs. They knew squat about designing and manufacturing optics. Sony sharing information on their cameras with optics companies wasn't exactly a public service. They needed lenses on the market to sell cameras, their core strength. They made a business decision to leverage third party optics manufacturing companies who they weren't in competition with. Which was smart. Considering where they are now it was brilliant.
Sony got into the camera business during the point and shoot years and snuck into ILCs. They knew squat about designing and manufacturing optics. Sony sharing information on their cameras with optics companies wasn't exactly a public service. They needed lenses on the market to sell cameras, their core strength. They made a business decision to leverage third party optics manufacturing companies who they weren't in competition with. Which was smart. Considering where they are now it was brilliant.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
I am hoping against hope that Sony would release a converter which would let Nikon glass to be used on A1.
Me too. Or Sony releases a comparable lens.
FWIW Leica when they released the S2 medium-format DSLR also made an adapter (reverse-engineered) for Hasselblad H lenses which actually gave these lenses additional functionality on the S2 that was not available on the Hasselblad H cameras.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
Sony's ILC business was developed from their purchase of KonicaMinolta, which knew quite a bit about designing and manufacturing optics. At one time Minolta was making lenses for Leica.
Agreed it was a good business decision to gain market share. Much as Leica did with the Hasselblad H adapter for their S2 camera. It reduced barriers for those who were contemplating a transition from H to S and made the lens ecosystem much broader.
Last edited:
anthonyrobinson
Member
I thought i'd be indifferent to it, however I really love the control wheel of the A1
arcticfocus
Member
I agree. Sony also joined with Zeiss back in 1996 to aid in lens design and manufacturing. If you look at the cinema industry, Sony has been involved even longer. They've had a presence in the photo/video industry for much longer than most people realize.
geoawelch
Active member
In reply to Frederic’s post, above, I continue to be impressed with the A-1’s ability to find the eye - and maintain hold - with busy backgrounds.
Cheers,
George
Cheers,
George
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
abc123brian
Well-known member
was this using auto area with eye detect (whatever Sony calls it)? Or did you tell the camera what the subject was? If this was completely chosen by the camera, I find this example more impressive due to the bird being the dull color that blends into the tree and this background looks like It could be more confusing to the camera. How long did it take to find the eye?
I'm in much the same boat as you trying to decide which direction to go (if any). Right now, the set up I have with my D500 and array of Nikon and Nikon FMount compatible lenses (one Tamron, one Sigma, rest Nikkor) is meeting my needs and has for quite some time. Part of it is falling prey to marketing (which a lot of us do from time to time) and trying to sort out the real beneficial features that will enhance my enjoyment of photography from those that are simply bragging rights where one can say my dog is bigger than your dog.
I would say if you need a new camera in the near future (i.e. going on a trip of a lifetime, a wedding or family reunion, you got a press pass to shoot a game from the sidelines, etc.) I would consider what is available right now. With the global supply chain issues, chip shortages and limited supply of "stuff" I'd also look at what is readily available used that you can get today. It could be 6 months to a year before new releases of any brand's products are actually on a store shelf, or in-stock at the internet retailers. If you can wait 6-12 months then the world will be at your doorstep.
At least that is what I'm thinking and where my mind is at today.
I usually suggest that people go into a store that sells cameras and “audition” ones they are thinking of buying. I think this helps prospective buyers weed out cameras which they know they will dislike. I know that I can figure out pretty quickly whether I like a camera or not. Sometimes it leads to looking at another camera that wasn’t considered.
What camera system do you use now? If you are generally pleased with it then consider getting the top camera if/when available. If Sony, get the a1. If Nikon, get the Z9 (when it is available). Neither? Look at the top model for that company.
Best of luck with making a decision.
geoawelch
Active member
‘This was in Zone (non tracking). Eye was picked up instantly, in this case.
Cheers,
George