Sony a9II vs Nikon Z7II focus speed test

[DavidT]

I found this video on YouTube this morning and found it pretty interesting.

I have never shot a Sony camera before and it seems what we hear about is the incredible focus tracking of say bif.

I was surprised by how the a9II focuses past before locking on as compared to the Nikon at times appears to be slower but it just locks on and doesn't seem to go past focus and then lock on. To me the Nikon is more appealing and I didn't time it but is likely faster. I am curious as to what you all think about it.

I also noticed the Sony could not seem to lock on focus of the lens on the table. I also noticed that a few times the Sony appeared to say yup it's in focus but lettering on the tripod head wouldn't be in focus at first and then gradually be sharp if he stayed on it. The Nikon on the other hand hit it first time with no creep into focus.

I am a Nikon shooter so not trying to be biased here but I have to say Nikon focus point box and how it works is a lot less distracting than Sony. I also feel if Nikon is here already on version 2 as compared to the many models Sony has had to get to where they are now Nikon could pull ahead in the years to come.

I read an article yesterday that said Sony mount size is an issue for them. If you notice the corners of their FFS are cut off because the mount was originally made for APSC. This will be interesting as to what Nikon and Canon can do in the near future that Sony won't be able to.

 

[Pablo]

Wow! the performance of the Nikon is solid!

 

[EricBowles]

Kind of an odd comparison. It's like comparing a D850 (high resolution) with a D5 (pro action camera). The Z6ii should perform even better due to the higher frame rate and smaller files. Still - it's a good point of reference and both were very good. The misses were predictable for both cameras - straight horizontal lines and very low contrast targets.

 

[abc123brian]

I watched this yesterday. I was surprised with how well the Z7ii performed in low light. That appears to be better than what I’ve seen from the originals that acted more like the A9. I have to admit I haven’t used low light mode though, which is probably what is helping here.

 

[Steve]

The problem with tests like that is the lack of control. Each time the AF point lands on a target, it's in a slightly different position from camera to camera and even from try to try with the same camera. This can result in grabbing right on the first time and missing the next. In addition, comparing a 135 to an 85 isn't really apples to apples. The shallower DoF of the 135 makes focusing more difficult plus the area that it has to grab onto has less available detail than that same amount of frame does at 85mm. In the end, I think all this tells us is that both camera can focus on stuff at close range reasonably well

 

[kimball]

Theoretically speaking, which would be better for BIF: a camera with a slightly better AF hit rate, but significant EVF blackout during continuous shooting, or a camera with an ever-so-slightly worse AF hit rate, but no blackout?

Practically speaking, which will deliver more keepers? My guess is the camera with the lower AF hit rate but no blackout.

This is just a thought experiment for me. I don't yet own a Z, I have no intention of switching to Sony, and I'm primarily a backcountry travel shooter, not a BIF or wildlife shooter. Feel free to ignore me.

 

[Steve]

Theoretically speaking, which would be better for BIF: a camera with a slightly better AF hit rate, but significant EVF blackout during continuous shooting, or a camera with an ever-so-slightly worse AF hit rate, but no blackout?

Practically speaking, which will deliver more keepers? My guess is the camera with the lower AF hit rate but no blackout.

This is just a thought experiment for me. I don't yet own a Z, I have no intention of switching to Sony, and I'm primarily a backcountry travel shooter, not a BIF or wildlife shooter. Feel free to ignore me.

From my BIF experience with both the a9ii and the Z6ii, how about a camera with a higher hit rate and no EVF blackout?

The truth is, while the MKii cameras are better, I'm not seeing a higher percentage of sharp BIF images with the z6ii over the a9ii. The a9ii is still giving me a higher overall keeper rate. In fact, the a9ii is almost boring to shoot sometimes - you come back and everything is sharp, no challenge.

(Although I joke about the lack of a challenge, it really seems nearly every a9ii image I shoot is spot on. The Zii cameras are able to do action, but not in the same league as the a9ii. However, for more static subjects, the Zs are just as good as the a9ii and incredibly accurate.)

 

[DavidT]

From my BIF experience with both the a9ii and the Z6ii, how about a camera with a higher hit rate and no EVF blackout?

The truth is, while the MKii cameras are better, I'm not seeing a higher percentage of sharp BIF images with the z6ii over the a9ii. The a9ii is still giving me a higher overall keeper rate. In fact, the a9ii is almost boring to shoot sometimes - you come back and everything is sharp, no challenge.

(Although I joke about the lack of a challenge, it really seems nearly every a9ii image I shoot is spot on. The Zii cameras are able to do action, but not in the same league as the a9ii. However, for more static subjects, the Zs are just as good as the a9ii and incredibly accurate.)

How about the D5/D6 compared to the a9II?

 

[Steve]

How about the D5/D6 compared to the a9II?

For a9ii vs D5, I'd give the a9ii the edge.

For the a9ii va the D6 it's more of a tie. I shot both while doing the D6 review. For normal shots, no difference, although the D6 has a bit better high ISO capability and sometimes its cross-type sensors can make a difference on low contrast subjects. Of course, this is offset by the a9ii's eye AF and full coverage AF points. For BIF, it's mostly neck and neck. For some condition the a9ii was better (takeoff shots with small birds) and for other times the D6 was better (grabbing those small birds as they flew). Overall, I think it's tie between them. Going in, I sort of expected the D6 to edge out the a9ii with all those cross-type sensors, but that just wasn't the case. Both are really top notch. (However - there was an update for the D6 that I haven't had a chance to put to the test, so many that got it over the finish line by a nose.)

Oh, but the D6 is more fun to shoot

 

[Woodyg3]

Thanks for posting this. This is an interesting video, but it would be better if done outside with areas of bight and dark and the subjects at a great variety of distances from the camera. Also, of course, everything can change once you have moving subjects. Still an interesting video, but it doesn't cover a very wide use scenario.

 

[Roaring 40s]

In the vid the first two Sony attempts on the bare lens were fine but not the later ones. At a guess this is due to the previous focus distance.

With Sony AF performance can vary whether you're doing a dry run or actually shooting.

In CAF burst the Sony will be using hybrid AF - starting with phase detect and fine tuning with contrast detect. That explains why you get hunting sometimes. And doing a test of objects at varying distances without a fresh AF request for each may just be keeping the camera in CD and that would be no test at all.

Added: I don't know about the Z but the A9 focusses at the set aperture in CAF. In SAF it opens up and so has more information to work with. With this kind of subject most would be using SAF.

 

[Skye.prf]

Very funny to see people compare the Z6 and the A9... more than twice the price ... and people try to find with one is the best??? The Z série is for “anthousiasm “ mid size range while the A9 is a top professional sport camera... you should also compare the D750 with the D5 or the D6? .... but it shows that the Z6 is a very capable camera for the price with almost affordable great glass!