I shot these side by side for a year and I‘ve taken about 70,000 shots on the D500 and 50,000 on the A9. I’ve also used a D810, Pentax K3 and Panasonic G9 for birds.
Both have strengths and weaknesses as a tool; I don’t expect a tool to be good at everything. This is my experience as a bird shooter intent on capturing BIF.
Here's the summary: the Nikon is easier to live with once you’ve mastered it while the Sony IQ is more impressive.
Currently I use the A9 mostly with the Sony 400/2.8 with either TC having started with the Sony 100-400mm, and the Nikon with the Nikkor 500 PF (with the 200-500 f5.6 before that and also the Tamron 150-600mm G2). I understand that the Sony A9 II has had connection, body and colour changes which little affect my assessment of the model.
I also sometimes use a Sony A7R III (42 mpix) which adds noticeable extra detail to plumage while losing some AF performance.
AF
The Nikon is more reliable and generally a little more accurate. With small static birds the Sony regularly fails to get a lock full stop. This happens with the A7R III/IV as well and for this reason I wouldn’t recommend these for folk who need record shots. On this and other weaknesses see https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1664839/0?nc=1#15354065
The Nikon does a bit better at locking on a BIF against a busy background if you get the Group points on it while the Sony allows you catch something at the edge of the frame.
The A9 is easier to get a lock on a BIF with its spread of AF points but of course you still have to compose.
I don’t see any consistent difference in AF speed.
VF
When the light is OK the Nikon offers a big clear view. When the light is low the Sony is better.
The Sony is WYSIWYG so you instantly see under/overexposure and you can have overexposed points and focus peaking shown in its EVF. I find both too distracting for BIF. Sony’s dancing green boxes in non-tracking CAF obscure small birds and its resolution means you miss some detail while shooting.
Being able to shoot 10 or 20 fps without blackout on the Sony makes BIF easy – but I’d say once you’ve mastered a DSLR in keeping them in the frame this isn’t a big advantage. The D500 requires a kind of learned blindness where you stop noticing the blackout.
IQ
The Sony does better with detail, colour and DR as you’d expect. ISO 6400 is my limit cp 2200 with the D500.
Ergos & body
Sony buttons and body are not hand friendly to me. There’s no feel to AE-lock when it’s cold. It is however very customisable and it’s easy to put almost all the settings you need for BIF on one button and for portraits on another.
Sony dust and water protection are poor. The 9 II added gaskets to the doors.
My Nikon rig can be used comfortably for hours when I’m on foot or a rolling boat because it sits easily in the hand and most of the relevant controls can be used by feel. My Sony rig weighs 4.3 kg and that limits how spontaneous handheld shooting can be. Of course that can be lighter with the Sony 100-400mm which is wonderfully sharp for a zoom.
…………………
Steve’s made the point that the user is 80% of a good photo and I agree.
I see 4 components behind a shot: gear, technique, patience and luck. Partly luck is a matter of time in the field and the better your technique and knowledge of the avian world the less you need luck.
There are a heap of bird pics on the internet that have loads of detail and good light but are instantly forgettable. They have no ‘moment’. Content is king.
Both have strengths and weaknesses as a tool; I don’t expect a tool to be good at everything. This is my experience as a bird shooter intent on capturing BIF.
Here's the summary: the Nikon is easier to live with once you’ve mastered it while the Sony IQ is more impressive.
Currently I use the A9 mostly with the Sony 400/2.8 with either TC having started with the Sony 100-400mm, and the Nikon with the Nikkor 500 PF (with the 200-500 f5.6 before that and also the Tamron 150-600mm G2). I understand that the Sony A9 II has had connection, body and colour changes which little affect my assessment of the model.
I also sometimes use a Sony A7R III (42 mpix) which adds noticeable extra detail to plumage while losing some AF performance.
AF
The Nikon is more reliable and generally a little more accurate. With small static birds the Sony regularly fails to get a lock full stop. This happens with the A7R III/IV as well and for this reason I wouldn’t recommend these for folk who need record shots. On this and other weaknesses see https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1664839/0?nc=1#15354065
The Nikon does a bit better at locking on a BIF against a busy background if you get the Group points on it while the Sony allows you catch something at the edge of the frame.
The A9 is easier to get a lock on a BIF with its spread of AF points but of course you still have to compose.
I don’t see any consistent difference in AF speed.
VF
When the light is OK the Nikon offers a big clear view. When the light is low the Sony is better.
The Sony is WYSIWYG so you instantly see under/overexposure and you can have overexposed points and focus peaking shown in its EVF. I find both too distracting for BIF. Sony’s dancing green boxes in non-tracking CAF obscure small birds and its resolution means you miss some detail while shooting.
Being able to shoot 10 or 20 fps without blackout on the Sony makes BIF easy – but I’d say once you’ve mastered a DSLR in keeping them in the frame this isn’t a big advantage. The D500 requires a kind of learned blindness where you stop noticing the blackout.
IQ
The Sony does better with detail, colour and DR as you’d expect. ISO 6400 is my limit cp 2200 with the D500.
Ergos & body
Sony buttons and body are not hand friendly to me. There’s no feel to AE-lock when it’s cold. It is however very customisable and it’s easy to put almost all the settings you need for BIF on one button and for portraits on another.
Sony dust and water protection are poor. The 9 II added gaskets to the doors.
My Nikon rig can be used comfortably for hours when I’m on foot or a rolling boat because it sits easily in the hand and most of the relevant controls can be used by feel. My Sony rig weighs 4.3 kg and that limits how spontaneous handheld shooting can be. Of course that can be lighter with the Sony 100-400mm which is wonderfully sharp for a zoom.
…………………
Steve’s made the point that the user is 80% of a good photo and I agree.
I see 4 components behind a shot: gear, technique, patience and luck. Partly luck is a matter of time in the field and the better your technique and knowledge of the avian world the less you need luck.
There are a heap of bird pics on the internet that have loads of detail and good light but are instantly forgettable. They have no ‘moment’. Content is king.
