Nikons killing it

[Kjellis]

Nope it sure isn’t but it’s closer than any camera I’ve owned in 35 years. Of course we want improvements but without repeating myself people are wanting to focus in on one thing and totally ignore why Nikon is on firmware 1.4. It isn’t all because of new features and some of the advancements are really to fix what they learned in the beta stage or first year selling the camera.

I got to play a little with te A1 and the 400/2.8 a couple of weeks back and it was an amazing combo. The AF was really snappy focusing on small birds and it impressed me. If I wasn’t so heavy invested in Nikon I could really see my self going with Sony gear.

 

[thelordofthelight]

The irony is alive and well because you just did all of the same things you claim I did.

If you read the comments many are saying the Z9 was perfect on launch. So people disagree with you as well. I guess since opinions are irrelevant then can you show proof that it was perfectly fine for 90%? That’s an oddly specific number so surely there must be a case study because you apparently live in a world of facts not opinions.

I responded to the OP who I get along with well that I saw things differently as he also shoots Sony and was contrasting the two companies. And then all the Nikon crowd came to defend their beloved Nikon. Funny I shot Nikon for 27 years and sitting back and seeing how Nikon shooters have such a superiority complex I’m glad I don’t anymore.

Cheers

Funny, you make statements like this “ I’d also expect canon to drop an r5mk2 and the R1 that’s going to make anything Z look obsolete.” and then blame the Nikon crowd being defensive! Posts like this is the reason there are unpleasant threads and even a rule on brand bashing.

Some folks here who have owned/tried both the systems extensively have made some very objective statements (mostly backed with facts/ images) in this thread and other threads about the subtle AF differences between brands and those were very interesting and people always agreed but this post of yours, sorry to say you could‘ve avoided making such blanket/subjective statements.

Yeah I’ve never experienced the af getting worse. You’ll see an a9III later this year and then an a1MK2 after that. These cameras will be more advanced than anything on the market. I’d also expect canon to drop an r5mk2 and the R1 that’s going to make anything Z look obsolete. That’s the price you pay for being late to the party. Canon and Sony got there first and will more than likely stay at the top.

 

[Lance B]

Nope it sure isn’t but it’s closer than any camera I’ve owned in 35 years. Of course we want improvements but without repeating myself people are wanting to focus in on one thing and totally ignore why Nikon is on firmware 1.4. It isn’t all because of new features and some of the advancements are really to fix what they learned in the beta stage or first year selling the camera.

But aren't *you* focusing on *one* aspect, the AF, and dismissing the huge benefits of the many other new features which have been implemented that Sony has not implemented. I mean, why is that not a great thing? Many, many new features have been added of which many have been from owner requests. I also don't see that there is an issue with tweaking the AF and the way it works after 18 months of owners using the camera in the field and Nikon heeding user's desires rather than inflicting what Nikon believes is the "right way" to implement the AF and settings. I'm sorry, I just can't even begin to understand your criticisms of the way Nikon has added FW updates and many feature sets as it seems a great way to build a system.

 

[Joel N]

Opinions backed with a strong ego can be a potent recipe for chaos no matter what brand one is currently in.

I agree with the OP that firmware updates are welcome even if the camera is great or not on day one. That is to our benefit and frankly the manufacturers as well.

 

[Wes Peterson]

The irony is alive and well because you just did all of the same things you claim I did.

If you read the comments many are saying the Z9 was perfect on launch. So people disagree with you as well. I guess since opinions are irrelevant then can you show proof that it was perfectly fine for 90%? That’s an oddly specific number so surely there must be a case study because you apparently live in a world of facts not opinions.

I responded to the OP who I get along with well that I saw things differently as he also shoots Sony and was contrasting the two companies. And then all the Nikon crowd came to defend their beloved Nikon. Funny I shot Nikon for 27 years and sitting back and seeing how Nikon shooters have such a superiority complex I’m glad I don’t anymore.

Cheers

Where was this said?

He said 90%+ which is not really specific at all

 

[sh1209]

There are three reasons I have heard from every person that has left Nikon over the last few years state. The first one is the lack of a small capable body. The second reason is lack of firmware for the existing Z bodies, and third, which is the most common complaint I’ve heard is the lack of a 200–600 mm lens. They now have two of these problems addressed and it is my opinion if they produce a good 200–600 mm lens, that a lot of the folks that left will come back.

 

[simonsi]

Just tells me the Z9 was released too early in its development cycle. There is no extra revenue in firmware updates so they are obviously a necessary development evil for Nikon. YMMV

 

[Geoff_G]

There is absolutely NO VALUE to this thread.
Fact is Nikon did what they did and most folks are happy. Nikon, like anyone, can't please everyone.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Who can pee farther. Well, not me, I'm outta here - again.

 

[fcotterill]

I agree there's much more that matters to the suitability of a modern (i.e. 2021-) flagship camera than whether its AF is that much better than some other models. Customization and image quality are two vital factors for a high end wildlife camera IMHO. Prior to the Z9 launch, Nikon had 4 top flagships with excellent Autofocus and customization for Nikon was the D6 and the D5 Triumvirate, as many photographers found the Z6 and Z7 series MILCs struggled with demanding action shots.

In any case, practicable system-specific differences between the Autofocus systems of the current flagships was finalized recently.

So, where are we with tracking? Sony v Nikon v Canon?

I've yet to see a solid comparison between the three brands, and I'm not sure why it's so hard to find information about this - perhaps it's simply a very expensive test to do. I for sure wouldn't be able to afford over £700 in renting gear to do the test myself ☺ Ignoring all things rolling...

bcgforums.com

Much more goes into determining the quality of wildlife images - as Steve often says the 4" behind the viewfinder especially!

As for firmware updates, it is bizarre to imagine a user refusing to update their camera with major new features that improve performance, because the device should not need updated software or some other excuse.

 

[StefanSC]

And the original iPhone didn't have a copy paste function...

Sometimes it is better to put out a working product out there to get sales, good press and keep the fans happy then to work on it for too long and miss the train.

The Z9 kinda feels like that... they got it 90% there, then kept improving it to bring it up to class-leading. And all while charging only 80% of what the competition was charging...

 

[EricBowles]

Hi everyone - this thread has run its course. The dialogue still keeps reverting to confrontation and disagreement rather than the discussion Stephen originally intended.

We're going to go ahead and lock the post. Thanks for participating in a civil manner.