Official Nikon Z9 Launch, Info, and Discussion Thread

[Mudweasel]

Ok, so I've had my Z9 since Christmas Eve (thanks Santa!) and so far, it's been a mixed bag of results - coming from a D6 (and prior to that a D4s) there's a fair bit to learn and adjust to.

Admittedly, the weather (and therefore the lighting for the most part) in the UK since I've had the camera has been awful, forcing me to shoot at higher ISO's than I would want to - typically having to shoot in the 6,400-12,800 range to get the shutter speeds that I need (I generally shoot wildlife, or my dog running around all over the place). For reference, with my D6/D4s I felt comfortable pushing ISO to 12,800 if really needed, but preferred to keep it below 8,000 if possible. With the Z9, so far, I'd say I'd prefer to keep it below 6,400, but would stretch to the 12,800 if really needed.

Most of my testing/playing so far has been pictures of my dog and local 'wildlife' (ok, so that's been mainly squirrels, pigeons and magpies!) and although the ISO's have been a bit high, I've been impressed with the AF so far. Mostly shooting in either Auto Area or 3D tracking (both with Subject Detection on Auto), I've been amazed by how quickly it can lock onto the eye and keep focus - and even with the high ISO's, generating decent, if not exactly mind blowing, pictures. A bit of work in C1 and DeNoise and results have been pretty good. So, in general, it had been pretty positive to date... just waiting on some decent weather/light!

However, I managed to get out to one of our local zoos today to have a proper play - and I've got to say, I was pretty disappointed with the results. Focus acquisition and tracking still remained good (in as much as it found the eye and appeared to stay locked onto it), but even though in reviewing the image the focus point was showing as being over the eye, in a lot of cases, the whole image appeared soft... and no area was in focus. The first time I noticed this I just assumed that I'd maybe let the shutter speed drop a bit low in an attempt to keep the ISO lower, but this was happening even at 1/1,250 shutter speeds sometimes.

To be absolutely fair and transparent, the majority of the 'iffy' pictures were when shooting through glass/perspex, which I am assuming is 90%+ of the problem, but here's the thing... some shots through the perspex came out fine and others were completely out of focus, even though reviewing them shows the focus point over the eye. Also, my D6/D4s previously didn't encounter so many issues with shooting through the perspex, so I'm wondering whether the higher resolution of the Z9 is more 'fussy' when it comes to things like that. The other thing to note is that the testing has been done with a couple of lenses.. a 500mm PF (a tried and trusted lens of mine) and a brand new 100-400mm Z lens... and I've had the similar mixed bag of results with both, so I'm discounting it being a lens issue (if it had just been the new 100-400, then I might have been concerned that was a problem child).

It's early days and I've still got a lot more work to do figuring out the best ways to get the most out of the camera and some of the results so far have been pretty promising. However, today's experience has given me a bit of a reality check that in some instances, I might have to be a bit more careful than I needed to be with my D6.

Sorry for the long ramble... just sharing my thoughts so far and getting some frustration off my chest!

 

[Steve]

Ok, so I've had my Z9 since Christmas Eve (thanks Santa!) and so far, it's been a mixed bag of results - coming from a D6 (and prior to that a D4s) there's a fair bit to learn and adjust to.

Admittedly, the weather (and therefore the lighting for the most part) in the UK since I've had the camera has been awful, forcing me to shoot at higher ISO's than I would want to - typically having to shoot in the 6,400-12,800 range to get the shutter speeds that I need (I generally shoot wildlife, or my dog running around all over the place). For reference, with my D6/D4s I felt comfortable pushing ISO to 12,800 if really needed, but preferred to keep it below 8,000 if possible. With the Z9, so far, I'd say I'd prefer to keep it below 6,400, but would stretch to the 12,800 if really needed.

Most of my testing/playing so far has been pictures of my dog and local 'wildlife' (ok, so that's been mainly squirrels, pigeons and magpies!) and although the ISO's have been a bit high, I've been impressed with the AF so far. Mostly shooting in either Auto Area or 3D tracking (both with Subject Detection on Auto), I've been amazed by how quickly it can lock onto the eye and keep focus - and even with the high ISO's, generating decent, if not exactly mind blowing, pictures. A bit of work in C1 and DeNoise and results have been pretty good. So, in general, it had been pretty positive to date... just waiting on some decent weather/light!

However, I managed to get out to one of our local zoos today to have a proper play - and I've got to say, I was pretty disappointed with the results. Focus acquisition and tracking still remained good (in as much as it found the eye and appeared to stay locked onto it), but even though in reviewing the image the focus point was showing as being over the eye, in a lot of cases, the whole image appeared soft... and no area was in focus. The first time I noticed this I just assumed that I'd maybe let the shutter speed drop a bit low in an attempt to keep the ISO lower, but this was happening even at 1/1,250 shutter speeds sometimes.

To be absolutely fair and transparent, the majority of the 'iffy' pictures were when shooting through glass/perspex, which I am assuming is 90%+ of the problem, but here's the thing... some shots through the perspex came out fine and others were completely out of focus, even though reviewing them shows the focus point over the eye. Also, my D6/D4s previously didn't encounter so many issues with shooting through the perspex, so I'm wondering whether the higher resolution of the Z9 is more 'fussy' when it comes to things like that. The other thing to note is that the testing has been done with a couple of lenses.. a 500mm PF (a tried and trusted lens of mine) and a brand new 100-400mm Z lens... and I've had the similar mixed bag of results with both, so I'm discounting it being a lens issue (if it had just been the new 100-400, then I might have been concerned that was a problem child).

It's early days and I've still got a lot more work to do figuring out the best ways to get the most out of the camera and some of the results so far have been pretty promising. However, today's experience has given me a bit of a reality check that in some instances, I might have to be a bit more careful than I needed to be with my D6.

Sorry for the long ramble... just sharing my thoughts so far and getting some frustration off my chest!

One thought is that the glass may not be completely uniform and some areas better lend themselves to sharp images than others.

 

[iustin]

One thought is that the glass may not be completely uniform and some areas better lend themselves to sharp images than others.

The same way as in hot days, not all pictures suffer due to heat shimmer, you can get both completely OOF and some reasonable pictures, just seconds appart. Mostly the former, though

 

[grossidm]

Ok, so I've had my Z9 since Christmas Eve (thanks Santa!) and so far, it's been a mixed bag of results - coming from a D6 (and prior to that a D4s) there's a fair bit to learn and adjust to.

Admittedly, the weather (and therefore the lighting for the most part) in the UK since I've had the camera has been awful, forcing me to shoot at higher ISO's than I would want to - typically having to shoot in the 6,400-12,800 range to get the shutter speeds that I need (I generally shoot wildlife, or my dog running around all over the place). For reference, with my D6/D4s I felt comfortable pushing ISO to 12,800 if really needed, but preferred to keep it below 8,000 if possible. With the Z9, so far, I'd say I'd prefer to keep it below 6,400, but would stretch to the 12,800 if really needed.

Most of my testing/playing so far has been pictures of my dog and local 'wildlife' (ok, so that's been mainly squirrels, pigeons and magpies!) and although the ISO's have been a bit high, I've been impressed with the AF so far. Mostly shooting in either Auto Area or 3D tracking (both with Subject Detection on Auto), I've been amazed by how quickly it can lock onto the eye and keep focus - and even with the high ISO's, generating decent, if not exactly mind blowing, pictures. A bit of work in C1 and DeNoise and results have been pretty good. So, in general, it had been pretty positive to date... just waiting on some decent weather/light!

However, I managed to get out to one of our local zoos today to have a proper play - and I've got to say, I was pretty disappointed with the results. Focus acquisition and tracking still remained good (in as much as it found the eye and appeared to stay locked onto it), but even though in reviewing the image the focus point was showing as being over the eye, in a lot of cases, the whole image appeared soft... and no area was in focus. The first time I noticed this I just assumed that I'd maybe let the shutter speed drop a bit low in an attempt to keep the ISO lower, but this was happening even at 1/1,250 shutter speeds sometimes.

To be absolutely fair and transparent, the majority of the 'iffy' pictures were when shooting through glass/perspex, which I am assuming is 90%+ of the problem, but here's the thing... some shots through the perspex came out fine and others were completely out of focus, even though reviewing them shows the focus point over the eye. Also, my D6/D4s previously didn't encounter so many issues with shooting through the perspex, so I'm wondering whether the higher resolution of the Z9 is more 'fussy' when it comes to things like that. The other thing to note is that the testing has been done with a couple of lenses.. a 500mm PF (a tried and trusted lens of mine) and a brand new 100-400mm Z lens... and I've had the similar mixed bag of results with both, so I'm discounting it being a lens issue (if it had just been the new 100-400, then I might have been concerned that was a problem child).

It's early days and I've still got a lot more work to do figuring out the best ways to get the most out of the camera and some of the results so far have been pretty promising. However, today's experience has given me a bit of a reality check that in some instances, I might have to be a bit more careful than I needed to be with my D6.

Sorry for the long ramble... just sharing my thoughts so far and getting some frustration off my chest!

I've had mine since the 24th also and like you it's my first mirrorless (I also use the D6). Now that the honeymoon is over with the Z9, I'm starting to look at it more objectively. I don't think the 3D tracking is much better than the D6, but the added eye focus is what really sets it apart. That said, the eye focus likes to grab the eyebrow/ eyelash (or animal equivalent) instead of the eyeball like... less than 50% of the time. So that's fine I guess. Edge to edge focus points are a dream come true coming from FX DSLR. The camera feels great. The EVF is fantastic, much better than I was expecting. But, something about mirrorless (not the Z9 itself) feels very... sterile. I understand that behind the mirror and mechanical shutter, a DSLR is a computer like any other, but it still has an almost raw feel to it. Believe it or not I still use film cameras. And the jump between that and DSLR feels much shorter than DSLR and mirrorless. All said, the Z9 is a fantastic camera and I'm happy to have one. It's 100% my #1 go to for birds, wildlife and macro at this point. But for everything else I'll keep using my DSLRs and film. Also, I agree with what you said about the ISO. I think that was expected though.

 

[O]

Won't happen for awhile. There's more to the Z9 AF system than just the 3D tracking part and I need to cover all of it in the update. In addition, I need more field time with the camera - I've only had it out for a single afternoon. I believe people buy my books because the advice in them is thoroughly field tested and because over time I've discovered the nuances of the system. Rushing it out would be little more than passing along a bunch of speculation and guesses at this point. So, it'll take some time

FWIW though, it is a top priority and probably the first of the "Z9" things I'll get done (before the review and the wildlife photo setup guide).

look forward to it, all the best of the new year, this year it will be the end of Covid as we know it..........

PS.........i enjoyed flying a twin wing tiger moth with a simple mechanical lever to control and fly safely and reliably,

Now i feel i need a University degree, a helmet with eye controlled computerized robotics where you look is where you fly, I mean Canon has this eye recognition focusing..wow..........scared to get out of bed soon.

Where has good old photography gone as we knew it LOL.[/QUOTE]

 

[O]

Ok, so I've had my Z9 since Christmas Eve (thanks Santa!) and so far, it's been a mixed bag of results - coming from a D6 (and prior to that a D4s) there's a fair bit to learn and adjust to.

Admittedly, the weather (and therefore the lighting for the most part) in the UK since I've had the camera has been awful, forcing me to shoot at higher ISO's than I would want to - typically having to shoot in the 6,400-12,800 range to get the shutter speeds that I need (I generally shoot wildlife, or my dog running around all over the place). For reference, with my D6/D4s I felt comfortable pushing ISO to 12,800 if really needed, but preferred to keep it below 8,000 if possible. With the Z9, so far, I'd say I'd prefer to keep it below 6,400, but would stretch to the 12,800 if really needed.

Most of my testing/playing so far has been pictures of my dog and local 'wildlife' (ok, so that's been mainly squirrels, pigeons and magpies!) and although the ISO's have been a bit high, I've been impressed with the AF so far. Mostly shooting in either Auto Area or 3D tracking (both with Subject Detection on Auto), I've been amazed by how quickly it can lock onto the eye and keep focus - and even with the high ISO's, generating decent, if not exactly mind blowing, pictures. A bit of work in C1 and DeNoise and results have been pretty good. So, in general, it had been pretty positive to date... just waiting on some decent weather/light!

However, I managed to get out to one of our local zoos today to have a proper play - and I've got to say, I was pretty disappointed with the results. Focus acquisition and tracking still remained good (in as much as it found the eye and appeared to stay locked onto it), but even though in reviewing the image the focus point was showing as being over the eye, in a lot of cases, the whole image appeared soft... and no area was in focus. The first time I noticed this I just assumed that I'd maybe let the shutter speed drop a bit low in an attempt to keep the ISO lower, but this was happening even at 1/1,250 shutter speeds sometimes.

To be absolutely fair and transparent, the majority of the 'iffy' pictures were when shooting through glass/perspex, which I am assuming is 90%+ of the problem, but here's the thing... some shots through the perspex came out fine and others were completely out of focus, even though reviewing them shows the focus point over the eye. Also, my D6/D4s previously didn't encounter so many issues with shooting through the perspex, so I'm wondering whether the higher resolution of the Z9 is more 'fussy' when it comes to things like that. The other thing to note is that the testing has been done with a couple of lenses.. a 500mm PF (a tried and trusted lens of mine) and a brand new 100-400mm Z lens... and I've had the similar mixed bag of results with both, so I'm discounting it being a lens issue (if it had just been the new 100-400, then I might have been concerned that was a problem child).

It's early days and I've still got a lot more work to do figuring out the best ways to get the most out of the camera and some of the results so far have been pretty promising. However, today's experience has given me a bit of a reality check that in some instances, I might have to be a bit more careful than I needed to be with my D6.

Sorry for the long ramble... just sharing my thoughts so far and getting some frustration off my chest!

LOVE THE Z9 what a great tool, beautifully built peice of hardware with some nice software.


Interesting, i agree its early days and there is a need to take our time and learn how to drive the Z9 to its potential.

For me at the moment i am just shooting the Z9 no different to the way i successfully shoot the D850 D4s D5.......then slowly just explore one new little thing at a time.

This way i see the benefits in the end result.
I don't think the Z9 has any issues, if it has its not any different to any other comparable camera.
The Z9 so far works flawlessly and any problem's or issues found have been resolved by the person in the mirror LOL.

A lot of great work by Nikon has gone into the z9 and i can tell starting with just the feel alone.

The tracking system or 3D feature of the Z9 i am leaving closed for now, its a chapter that needs respect and time or it will mostly reveal perceived problems, i think getting all the other areas or foundation sorted first is more important.

I didn't buy the Z9 for its tracking, however used properly i feel it will have its place and benefits.

With focusing I always prefer to be in control, i use 25 points mostly on the D850, and i think 21 on other cameras, i cover the head or body of the subject be it a bird dog surfer model, i get good results more than not.

In time if the new auto tracking or focusing feature turns out to be supper cool then hey that's a bonus.

CHANGE What i am starting to feel and it may change with time, is that the newer cameras are really getting like and Android phone or a fighter pilots control cockpit just packed with so many variables, setting options, choices, needs, and what its doing for me is i feel diluting my emotional feel or artistic feel for compositional or creative photography, i am certain all features are beneficial for most people, but photography for me is more about creativeness emotion, art, i am in some ways staring to feel maybe i am becoming more a technical photographer using a computer with a lens...........and my head space is more full of technical settings.

Some say the new auto tracking lets you focus on composition rather than focusing technique.........i don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing Yet, or its right or wrong.

I refresh or de frag my self by putting a 50mm Ziess lens on the Df in full manual mode, this slows me right down, i start to then see the wood in the trees, i start to see things differently.
I guess its all a curve or process of change, i just don't want it to be at the expense of good old fashioned photography.

PS: don't sell the D6 short.............its a sticky camera.

Happy New year here is t a better 2022

 

[O]

I've had mine since the 24th also and like you it's my first mirrorless (I also use the D6). Now that the honeymoon is over with the Z9, I'm starting to look at it more objectively. I don't think the 3D tracking is much better than the D6, but the added eye focus is what really sets it apart. That said, the eye focus likes to grab the eyebrow/ eyelash (or animal equivalent) instead of the eyeball like... less than 50% of the time. So that's fine I guess. Edge to edge focus points are a dream come true coming from FX DSLR. The camera feels great. The EVF is fantastic, much better than I was expecting. But, something about mirrorless (not the Z9 itself) feels very... sterile. I understand that behind the mirror and mechanical shutter, a DSLR is a computer like any other, but it still has an almost raw feel to it. Believe it or not I still use film cameras. And the jump between that and DSLR feels much shorter than DSLR and mirrorless. All said, the Z9 is a fantastic camera and I'm happy to have one. It's 100% my #1 go to for birds, wildlife and macro at this point. But for everything else I'll keep using my DSLRs and film. Also, I agree with what you said about the ISO. I think that was expected though.

Interesting points, we are using more computers now to document..............i agree with the feeling of sterile.............or may i say in my case clinical..........
i wont give up entirely the DSLR...........The D850 i will keep also becuase it has High actuations, the DF is a clasic mint little master piece LOL, i love shooting it in mono and manual on Ziess glass.

 

[grossidm]

the D850 i will keep also becuase it has High actuations.

Best digital camera they've ever made imo. Still a very relevant camera.

 

[O]

Best digital camera they've ever made imo. Still a very relevant camera.

Absolutely,
The D850 is excellent in every way other than Video or 3D tracking, but that's not why we bought it.
It can stack images in camera, the 105 2.8 g macro lens i the best for stacking.
Its got great iso 7 or 9 fps is highly usable........the sensor is great....the list just goes on.
The colour accuracy is awesome as is the dynamic range.
The Z7II is just a mirror less version.........however the D850 has the edge in action scenario, i have ZERO issues with the D850 period.
Defiantly a keeper..........

Bloggers reviewers blow with the wind because they have to............

I have encouraged so many people in the club to get one used what ever they do........
The geeks will say i am made and old fashioned. so be it.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Best digital camera they've ever made imo. Still a very relevant camera.

Absolutely,
The D850 is excellent in every way other than Video or 3D tracking, but that's not why we bought it.
It can stack images in camera, the 105 2.8 g macro lens i the best for stacking.
Its got great iso 7 or 9 fps is highly usable........the sensor is great....the list just goes on.
The colour accuracy is awesome as is the dynamic range.
The Z7II is just a mirror less version.........however the D850 has the edge in action scenario, i have ZERO issues with the D850 period.
Defiantly a keeper..........

Bloggers reviewers blow with the wind because they have to............

I have encouraged so many people in the club to get one used what ever they do........
The geeks will say i am made and old fashioned. so be it.

The D850 is why I'm getting the Z9 to go into the mirrorless camera realm, and I'm keeping my D850, too. I now know that I'll just spend more in the long run if I don't get the best camera I can in the first place.

 

[Lance B]

Ok, so I've had my Z9 since Christmas Eve (thanks Santa!) and so far, it's been a mixed bag of results - coming from a D6 (and prior to that a D4s) there's a fair bit to learn and adjust to.

Admittedly, the weather (and therefore the lighting for the most part) in the UK since I've had the camera has been awful, forcing me to shoot at higher ISO's than I would want to - typically having to shoot in the 6,400-12,800 range to get the shutter speeds that I need (I generally shoot wildlife, or my dog running around all over the place). For reference, with my D6/D4s I felt comfortable pushing ISO to 12,800 if really needed, but preferred to keep it below 8,000 if possible. With the Z9, so far, I'd say I'd prefer to keep it below 6,400, but would stretch to the 12,800 if really needed.

Most of my testing/playing so far has been pictures of my dog and local 'wildlife' (ok, so that's been mainly squirrels, pigeons and magpies!) and although the ISO's have been a bit high, I've been impressed with the AF so far. Mostly shooting in either Auto Area or 3D tracking (both with Subject Detection on Auto), I've been amazed by how quickly it can lock onto the eye and keep focus - and even with the high ISO's, generating decent, if not exactly mind blowing, pictures. A bit of work in C1 and DeNoise and results have been pretty good. So, in general, it had been pretty positive to date... just waiting on some decent weather/light!

However, I managed to get out to one of our local zoos today to have a proper play - and I've got to say, I was pretty disappointed with the results. Focus acquisition and tracking still remained good (in as much as it found the eye and appeared to stay locked onto it), but even though in reviewing the image the focus point was showing as being over the eye, in a lot of cases, the whole image appeared soft... and no area was in focus. The first time I noticed this I just assumed that I'd maybe let the shutter speed drop a bit low in an attempt to keep the ISO lower, but this was happening even at 1/1,250 shutter speeds sometimes.

To be absolutely fair and transparent, the majority of the 'iffy' pictures were when shooting through glass/perspex, which I am assuming is 90%+ of the problem, but here's the thing... some shots through the perspex came out fine and others were completely out of focus, even though reviewing them shows the focus point over the eye. Also, my D6/D4s previously didn't encounter so many issues with shooting through the perspex, so I'm wondering whether the higher resolution of the Z9 is more 'fussy' when it comes to things like that. The other thing to note is that the testing has been done with a couple of lenses.. a 500mm PF (a tried and trusted lens of mine) and a brand new 100-400mm Z lens... and I've had the similar mixed bag of results with both, so I'm discounting it being a lens issue (if it had just been the new 100-400, then I might have been concerned that was a problem child).

It's early days and I've still got a lot more work to do figuring out the best ways to get the most out of the camera and some of the results so far have been pretty promising. However, today's experience has given me a bit of a reality check that in some instances, I might have to be a bit more careful than I needed to be with my D6.

Sorry for the long ramble... just sharing my thoughts so far and getting some frustration off my chest!

I've noticed issues shooting through glass or perspex as well using my Z7/Z7II + 70-200 f2.8 VRS. If you are right up against the glass trying to reduce reflections I sometimes think the AF doesn't always get it right due to some issue or other. Is it the IBIS/VR playing up as you are completely supported by pressing hard against the glass? I have turned off VR/IBIS with varying degrees of success. I don't know, but I take a number of shots and you do end up with some soft and others tack sharp. It may well be an AF issue having issue with the glass or perspex. So, I do not think it is necessarily a Z9 issue but the nature of shooting through glass/perspex.

 

[Mark Garfinkel]

Won't happen for awhile. There's more to the Z9 AF system than just the 3D tracking part and I need to cover all of it in the update. In addition, I need more field time with the camera - I've only had it out for a single afternoon. I believe people buy my books because the advice in them is thoroughly field tested and because over time I've discovered the nuances of the system. Rushing it out would be little more than passing along a bunch of speculation and guesses at this point. So, it'll take some time

FWIW though, it is a top priority and probably the first of the "Z9" things I'll get done (before the review and the wildlife photo setup guide).

I agree with Steve, as I follow this forum and buy his books for his thoroughness.

 

[O]

I think its a challenge for any system don't you think.

I had issues........... hit and miss with resin filters way back.
I moved into glass real fast.

When the world was using plastic or resin filters i was out there using the 4mm thick German Shot Glass Cinema scope 6.6 inch square Schneider ND and GND filters on my 14-24, 24-70, 50mm with step down rings, no one knew what i was actually doing, they just couldn't understand how i was delivering stunning sharpness detail and clarity, at the time i was using the D3x while most people where still on 8 and 12 mp sensors.

I was told be experts, reviewers, and many other people that resin filters where as good as glass if not better yada yada.

To day Glass is the in and the normal thing for filters, i found as you have with resin i had slight focus and clarity inconsistency, mind you that is using a D3X that doesn't have the sensitivity of the newer sensors............The D850 works so well on the glass Schneider...........

Nisi filters are very popular and i hear good things about them, i have never used them, ......i still stay with the Schneider as that's what i have, large and heavy but hey so hard to beat.

Being at 6.5 inches I can use mostly the GND as an ND as well, i can pull the GND right down............ i then have a full ND, so i only need half the number of filter pieces...........

For using 2 filters i just added another layer of holding shoes to the 14-24 holder then i could use two filters that also works on all my other lenses as well.

 

[RoyC]

I've noticed issues shooting through glass or perspex as well using my Z7/Z7II + 70-200 f2.8 VRS. If you are right up against the glass trying to reduce reflections I sometimes think the AF doesn't always get it right due to some issue or other. Is it the IBIS/VR playing up as you are completely supported by pressing hard against the glass? I have turned off VR/IBIS with varying degrees of success. I don't know, but I take a number of shots and you do end up with some soft and others tack sharp. So, I do not think it is necessarily a Z9 issue but the nature of shooting through glass/perspex.

Lance I agree. Since I had my cataract eye surgery where I also had an astigmatism removed from my eyes (Lasik is expensive but good. ) I have noticed how easy it is to add astigmatism to a glass surface just by it being a little dirty. One of my other hobbies is Precision Pistol shooting and I use a Red Dot sight. That dot is perfectly round and without any shooting glasses on it is always perfectly round. But if my shooting glasses get a little dirty, there is a flare around the dot. If the front or rear lens of the sight is dirty the flare appears. Take away the dot and everything looks normal but that astigmatism is still there until I clean the surface. The likely hood that any large glass surface has these types of optical errors I think is quite high. Therefore any image shot through glass has to be thought to be degrade by that glass and not worth consideration as a data point for testing.

 

[Whiskeyman]

To be absolutely fair and transparent, the majority of the 'iffy' pictures were when shooting through glass/perspex, which I am assuming is 90%+ of the problem, but here's the thing... some shots through the perspex came out fine and others were completely out of focus, even though reviewing them shows the focus point over the eye. Also, my D6/D4s previously didn't encounter so many issues with shooting through the perspex, so I'm wondering whether the higher resolution of the Z9 is more 'fussy' when it comes to things like that. The other thing to note is that the testing has been done with a couple of lenses.. a 500mm PF (a tried and trusted lens of mine) and a brand new 100-400mm Z lens... and I've had the similar mixed bag of results with both, so I'm discounting it being a lens issue (if it had just been the new 100-400, then I might have been concerned that was a problem child).

There is no perfect glass. Manufacturers toil very hard to get the glass in our camera lenses as good as possible at a price point we can afford. Extrapolate just the size, and think how much window glass would cost if it were made to the same standards as fine optical equipment glass. Then consider how much it would cost to continously maintain that glass in pristine condition.

When you were shooting through the same material with you D6/D4s, were you using live view, and therefore the same focusing method (contrast detection) as the Z9 uses?

 

[Mudweasel]

When you were shooting through the same material with you D6/D4s, were you using live view, and therefore the same focusing method (contrast detection) as the Z9 uses?

Thanks to everyone who has chipped in with responses - much appreciated!

Nope, when shooting with my D4/D6 it wasn’t in live mode… and I guess that was one of the things going through my mind - is there a technical difference in the AF that might make a difference?

I am far from a technical expert, but in my simple head, the possible reasons I came up with for what I found were;

• Perspex/glass not being as clean as it looked - I’m thinking this is the main reason, even if previous cameras haven’t been affected as much… different days, different amounts of dirt etc!
• Maybe there is a technical difference with mirror less AF that makes it less forgiving of shooting through perspex/glass?
• Maybe the higher resolution of the Z9 is less forgiving also?

Don’t get me wrong - I’m loving the Z9 overall and think that Nikon have done a great job with it. I’m finding the AF acquisition and tracking to be really good - and let’s face it, the D6 wasn’t exactly slacking in that area, but the subject detection thingy is another level (for Nikon, as I can’t comment on Sony/Canon etc as I’ve not used their later models). I’m also finding that the colours produced are slightly better (or more to my liking) and need less post processing and the auto WB gets closer than my previous cameras. Ergonomics and build is as expected from a flagship and the transition to an EVF has been pretty easy, as it’s so well implemented.

Just trying to establish (and work on) the areas that so far I feel it may not be performing as well as my D6… and accept that most of this will be down to me.

 

[lwan]

Any extra piece of glass or transparent plastic will add its own refractive index into the optical mix and results in my experience are more erratic. Sometimes the focus is good but upon closer inspection you can see some doubled images (particularly in slightly defocused parts of the pic), sometimes the focus is plain wrong... I shoot often through glass but i get way less keepers per burst and the keepers are far from as sharp as the bare lens.

 

[John Navitsky]

did the z9 give us any new file name/number flexibility? like more digits?

 

[zule11]

 

[Steve]

That's cool, but the trick is that at that range the DoF is massive. When birds are too far away like that, most of the image will be sharp since any minor AF discrepancies are covered by the DoF. Still, it's cool that the camera didn't try to jump to something else and was clearly staying on target. The Z6/7 series would jump to the background for sure! So, looks promising

 

[O]

Thanks to everyone who has chipped in with responses - much appreciated!

Nope, when shooting with my D4/D6 it wasn’t in live mode… and I guess that was one of the things going through my mind - is there a technical difference in the AF that might make a difference?

I am far from a technical expert, but in my simple head, the possible reasons I came up with for what I found were;

• Perspex/glass not being as clean as it looked - I’m thinking this is the main reason, even if previous cameras haven’t been affected as much… different days, different amounts of dirt etc!
• Maybe there is a technical difference with mirror less AF that makes it less forgiving of shooting through perspex/glass?
• Maybe the higher resolution of the Z9 is less forgiving also?

Don’t get me wrong - I’m loving the Z9 overall and think that Nikon have done a great job with it. I’m finding the AF acquisition and tracking to be really good - and let’s face it, the D6 wasn’t exactly slacking in that area, but the subject detection thingy is another level (for Nikon, as I can’t comment on Sony/Canon etc as I’ve not used their later models). I’m also finding that the colours produced are slightly better (or more to my liking) and need less post processing and the auto WB gets closer than my previous cameras. Ergonomics and build is as expected from a flagship and the transition to an EVF has been pretty easy, as it’s so well implemented.

Just trying to establish (and work on) the areas that so far I feel it may not be performing as well as my D6… and accept that most of this will be down to me.

Both the Z9 and D6 are perfect tools in what they are designed to do.

Have you tried going all manual with focus.

It may also be that the lens set up your using, their are variables in your situation, one is Z system the other is Fx. Which lens on what are you using.

The other factor may be VR or IBIS can make a play here, don't know how your set up.

Its fair to assume 45mp could possibly be a little more challenged than 20 mp purely because of the individual pixel size and therefore the sensitivity to imperfections in the glass widow or perspex may cause different results.


Here is a question....... Thom for outright sports action leaves his A 1 behind and takes the D6, Why he was asked, he answered, the D6 is stickier.
Is that because of 50 mp versus 20 and the D6 focusing intensity concentrates in the center area not edge to edge?
Note, this is for sports action in challenging light conditions, not wild life apllications which is far less demanding.

It would be logical therefore to assume, that the focus acquisition come tracking of the A1 and R3 appears to have the a slight edge on the Z9 for stickyness ? (perfectly fine by the way) that in it self indicates that the D6 has an edge on stickiness, and yes again could this bee because of the D6 focusing pattern not needing to focus edge to edge but just in the center area with massive size pixels ?

You can have a camera that is a perfect like an athlete specializing in just high jump, or you can have an athlete that is a specialists in triathlons, Both are still athletes.
I still think there will be a Low resolution power house pro camera coming eventually when the Z9 pipelines and levels in sales.

The Z9 is an all round triathlon athlete, a D850 on steroids

a nice advancement for Nikon and us.

 

[abc123brian]

That's cool, but the trick is that at that range the DoF is massive. When birds are too far away like that, most of the image will be sharp since any minor AF discrepancies are covered by the DoF. Still, it's cool that the camera didn't try to jump to something else and was clearly staying on target. The Z6/7 series would jump to the background for sure! So, looks promising

The Z6/Z7 would have lost that subject very quickly from my experience. Once out of the frame, probably not stood a chance to regain as it simply lock onto the background and refused to let go. This looks much similar to the Canon and Sony tracking demonstrations so very promising. Looking forward to hearing more from your experience.

 

[Steve]

The Z6/Z7 would have lost that subject very quickly from my experience. Once out of the frame, probably not stood a chance to regain as it simply lock onto the background and refused to let go. This looks much similar to the Canon and Sony tracking demonstrations so very promising. Looking forward to hearing more from your experience.

I agree - it looks a lot more like my a1 / R5 than the Z6/7 series. It'll be interesting to see how it does with more frame-filling birds. The a1 also does stuff like this really well, but when you really start filling the frame (like the bird is taking up 80% of the frame or more) the number of sharp eyes goes down for sure.

 

[zule11]

A "slight" off-topic, but interesting video

 

[O]

Spending time with the Z9 in the filed is critical.

Remember 90% or the result comes from you 10% from the gear, Ok if you feel your not there yet, then invest in your self and your skill sets, use and enjoy what you have before spending money on new gear, you cant buy good photography.

Don't compare the Z9 to your previous camera.............otherwise you shouldn't have bought the Z9 in the first place, look forward and for the benefits that you can harvest, adapt and grow in what you do.

Nikon colour accuracy is class leading, the Dynamic range of the D850 and Z7II is also class leading.

The Z9 appears to be very similar with added speed and improved focusing, what else do you really need or want.

What matters to me is image quality, the glass, focus attack speed, FPS, usable iso, resolution, versatility, anything else is a bonus.

Hence the D850 now the Z9, now its a matter of a learning curve in the field and then consider selectively some glass to to compliment be it Z glass or FX glass.

I feel the frame rates combined with variable shutter speeds lends it self to better controlled panning performance adding opertuinity to be more creative in photgraphy rather than playing with camera comparisons.