Did we lose the OP? @Telscossie ?
Hope he wasn't just planting a thread hoping to get folks riled up.....
Hope he wasn't just planting a thread hoping to get folks riled up.....
Z9 v A1 Autofocus
- Thread starter Telscossie
- 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).
Roy
Well-known member
I had an A7 and when the A1 came out I tossed up between it and the Z9 - borrowed both.
both cameras are great but I chose the Z9 because it seems much better built and more pleasant to use.
The Z9 and Z8 have been great cameras but most cameras these days are very good and I did like the A1 400 sync speed...
kanonka
Active member
TLDR: sometimes I hate technology, even being programmer myself.
Ok, I did extensive testing this weekend. First of all, out of nowhere my A1 started to behave properly again - probably it heard that I want to switch to Z9
. But seriously, I have no idea what happened in the first place, and why it "fixed" itself.
Now, back to compare.
When bird occupies significant part of the frame (when eye of the bird is big), Z9 behaves better (same or faster speed of detection compared to A1, but more sticky). When bird is small/distant (I mean, small part of the frame)/low contrast eye - A1 definitely is better, even though Z9 uses prime 500PF, and A1 uses 200-600 with 1.4x. One exception is small heron (not sure the exact species name): Z9 refused to find the eye, until bird took full frame. For birds like mockingbirds eyes are easily (immediately) found by both systems, no matter the head angle and background. Both systems sometimes didn't do precise focus (slight, very slight OOF - may be like 1/8 - 1/4 of an inch), but this might be due to VR/OSS effect, as was suggested somewhere.
Z9 shows much less noise with the same ISO/speed as A1 (although different aperture for sure does make a difference), but it's apples/oranges comparison, since I don't have matching lenses. I still can have good (sometimes great) results with A1 after Topaz, but starting with less noise is always better.
So I kinda started to think if I'll really gain anything by going to 800/F6.3 from 200-600 with 1.4x (effective F9), other than available light (faster shutter speed). It's big deal, of course, but still... Yes, I always try to fill the frame, so Z9 should be better with those lens, but for erratic BIF it's rare case when you can fill the frame. On another hand, when bird is just a small part of the frame, it's quite often a no-keeper anyway. Oh boy, I hate the situation when there is just no clear winner in all cases....
Also, just for kinks tried some macro comparison (A1+90mm vs Z9+Z105mm). Everybody was saying that Nikon new macro is more sharp than Sony's, but in my testing Sony was sharper. Granted, I did really stupid pixel peeping at over 300% to notice the difference, but nonetheless...
Still contemplating, but leaning towards Z9. If only Sony produced 800/6.3 with same weight as Nikon....
One more idea I came up with: use Z9+800/6.3 as one body for my regular subjects, and keep A1+300/2.8+1.4TC as second body for closer subjects. On another hand, hauling along 12K+ equipment for "just in case" - not so great idea, I guess. Ah, forget it, it was stupid idea.
Ok, I did extensive testing this weekend. First of all, out of nowhere my A1 started to behave properly again - probably it heard that I want to switch to Z9
. But seriously, I have no idea what happened in the first place, and why it "fixed" itself.Now, back to compare.
When bird occupies significant part of the frame (when eye of the bird is big), Z9 behaves better (same or faster speed of detection compared to A1, but more sticky). When bird is small/distant (I mean, small part of the frame)/low contrast eye - A1 definitely is better, even though Z9 uses prime 500PF, and A1 uses 200-600 with 1.4x. One exception is small heron (not sure the exact species name): Z9 refused to find the eye, until bird took full frame. For birds like mockingbirds eyes are easily (immediately) found by both systems, no matter the head angle and background. Both systems sometimes didn't do precise focus (slight, very slight OOF - may be like 1/8 - 1/4 of an inch), but this might be due to VR/OSS effect, as was suggested somewhere.
Z9 shows much less noise with the same ISO/speed as A1 (although different aperture for sure does make a difference), but it's apples/oranges comparison, since I don't have matching lenses. I still can have good (sometimes great) results with A1 after Topaz, but starting with less noise is always better.
So I kinda started to think if I'll really gain anything by going to 800/F6.3 from 200-600 with 1.4x (effective F9), other than available light (faster shutter speed). It's big deal, of course, but still... Yes, I always try to fill the frame, so Z9 should be better with those lens, but for erratic BIF it's rare case when you can fill the frame. On another hand, when bird is just a small part of the frame, it's quite often a no-keeper anyway. Oh boy, I hate the situation when there is just no clear winner in all cases....
Also, just for kinks tried some macro comparison (A1+90mm vs Z9+Z105mm). Everybody was saying that Nikon new macro is more sharp than Sony's, but in my testing Sony was sharper. Granted, I did really stupid pixel peeping at over 300% to notice the difference, but nonetheless...
Still contemplating, but leaning towards Z9. If only Sony produced 800/6.3 with same weight as Nikon....
One more idea I came up with: use Z9+800/6.3 as one body for my regular subjects, and keep A1+300/2.8+1.4TC as second body for closer subjects. On another hand, hauling along 12K+ equipment for "just in case" - not so great idea, I guess. Ah, forget it, it was stupid idea.
Last edited:
Vincent_VdB
Well-known member
like it how you put things in perspective in the macro comparison. We sometimes are too carried away with charts and pixel peeping. Nobody will know what brand of body or lens you are shooting by looking to your picturesTLDR: sometimes I hate technology, even being programmer myself.
Ok, I did extensive testing this weekend. First of all, out of nowhere my A1 started to behave properly again - probably it heard that I want to switch to Z9
Now, back to compare.
When bird occupies significant part of the frame (when eye of the bird is big), Z9 behaves better (same or faster speed of detection compared to A1, but more sticky). When bird is small/distant (I mean, small part of the frame)/low contrast eye - A1 definitely is better, even though Z9 uses prime 500PF, and A1 uses 200-600 with 1.4x. One exception is small heron (not sure the exact species name): Z9 refused to find the eye, until bird took full frame. For birds like mockingbirds eyes are easily (immediately) found by both systems, no matter the head angle and background. Both systems sometimes didn't do precise focus (slight, very slight OOF - may be like 1/8 - 1/4 of an inch), but this might be due to VR/OSS effect, as was suggested somewhere.
Z9 shows much less noise with the same ISO/speed as A1 (although different aperture for sure does make a difference), but it's apples/oranges comparison, since I don't have matching lenses. I still can have good (sometimes great) results with A1 after Topaz, but starting with less noise is always better.
So I kinda started to think if I'll really gain anything by going to 800/F6.3 from 200-600 with 1.4x (effective F9), other than available light (faster shutter speed). It's big deal, of course, but still... Yes, I always try to fill the frame, so Z9 should be better with those lens, but for erratic BIF it's rare case when you can fill the frame. On another hand, when bird is just a small part of the frame, it's quite often a no-keeper anyway. Oh boy, I hate the situation when there is just no clear winner in all cases....
Also, just for kinks tried some macro comparison (A1+90mm vs Z9+Z105mm). Everybody was saying that Nikon new macro is more sharp than Sony's, but in my testing Sony was sharper. Granted, I did really stupid pixel peeping at over 300% to notice the difference, but nonetheless...
Still contemplating, but leaning towards Z9. If only Sony produced 800/6.3 with same weight as Nikon....
One more idea I came up with: use Z9+800/6.3 as one body for my regular subjects, and keep A1+300/2.8+1.4TC as second body for closer subjects. On another hand, hauling along 12K+ equipment for "just in case" - not so great idea, I guess. Ah, forget it, it was stupid idea.
. And you have to ask yourself indeed the question if Nikon will bring anything extra to your portfolio when changing from Sony. We all choose the gear we have believe gives us the shot, all the rest is irrelevant (and for sure that others claim on competing brands
)TLDR: sometimes I hate technology, even being programmer myself.
Ok, I did extensive testing this weekend. First of all, out of nowhere my A1 started to behave properly again - probably it heard that I want to switch to Z9
Now, back to compare.
When bird occupies significant part of the frame (when eye of the bird is big), Z9 behaves better (same or faster speed of detection compared to A1, but more sticky). When bird is small/distant (I mean, small part of the frame)/low contrast eye - A1 definitely is better, even though Z9 uses prime 500PF, and A1 uses 200-600 with 1.4x. One exception is small heron (not sure the exact species name): Z9 refused to find the eye, until bird took full frame. For birds like mockingbirds eyes are easily (immediately) found by both systems, no matter the head angle and background. Both systems sometimes didn't do precise focus (slight, very slight OOF - may be like 1/8 - 1/4 of an inch), but this might be due to VR/OSS effect, as was suggested somewhere.
Z9 shows much less noise with the same ISO/speed as A1 (although different aperture for sure does make a difference), but it's apples/oranges comparison, since I don't have matching lenses. I still can have good (sometimes great) results with A1 after Topaz, but starting with less noise is always better.
So I kinda started to think if I'll really gain anything by going to 800/F6.3 from 200-600 with 1.4x (effective F9), other than available light (faster shutter speed). It's big deal, of course, but still... Yes, I always try to fill the frame, so Z9 should be better with those lens, but for erratic BIF it's rare case when you can fill the frame. On another hand, when bird is just a small part of the frame, it's quite often a no-keeper anyway. Oh boy, I hate the situation when there is just no clear winner in all cases....
Also, just for kinks tried some macro comparison (A1+90mm vs Z9+Z105mm). Everybody was saying that Nikon new macro is more sharp than Sony's, but in my testing Sony was sharper. Granted, I did really stupid pixel peeping at over 300% to notice the difference, but nonetheless...
Still contemplating, but leaning towards Z9. If only Sony produced 800/6.3 with same weight as Nikon....
One more idea I came up with: use Z9+800/6.3 as one body for my regular subjects, and keep A1+300/2.8+1.4TC as second body for closer subjects. On another hand, hauling along 12K+ equipment for "just in case" - not so great idea, I guess. Ah, forget it, it was stupid idea.
Looks like objectively the a1 has slightly less noise at a given iso. And slightly better dynamic range for a given iso. They are so close it makes no difference. The R5 is slightly better than either, but mostly all the full frame high end cameras are similar for noise.
ajrmd
Well-known member
A lot to unpack here. First, in terms of relative system performance, I would concur with many of your findings regarding the AF differences. Noise is less of an issue these days and is generally easily mitigated in post. I wouldn't really compare the 800 vs. a 200-600 with a TC as they really aren't in the same league and the 800 wins hands down in terms of contrast, IQ, acutance, VR, etc. Yes, I wish Sony and Canon produced high quality, mid-priced, long primes and probably would not have switched from Canon if they did.. There are compromises with every system and it is fortunate there are so many choices. Although I have shot with all three major systems, it is probably best to stick with the one which best fits your needs rather than bouncing around between manufacturers.TLDR: sometimes I hate technology, even being programmer myself.
Ok, I did extensive testing this weekend. First of all, out of nowhere my A1 started to behave properly again - probably it heard that I want to switch to Z9
Now, back to compare.
When bird occupies significant part of the frame (when eye of the bird is big), Z9 behaves better (same or faster speed of detection compared to A1, but more sticky). When bird is small/distant (I mean, small part of the frame)/low contrast eye - A1 definitely is better, even though Z9 uses prime 500PF, and A1 uses 200-600 with 1.4x. One exception is small heron (not sure the exact species name): Z9 refused to find the eye, until bird took full frame. For birds like mockingbirds eyes are easily (immediately) found by both systems, no matter the head angle and background. Both systems sometimes didn't do precise focus (slight, very slight OOF - may be like 1/8 - 1/4 of an inch), but this might be due to VR/OSS effect, as was suggested somewhere.
Z9 shows much less noise with the same ISO/speed as A1 (although different aperture for sure does make a difference), but it's apples/oranges comparison, since I don't have matching lenses. I still can have good (sometimes great) results with A1 after Topaz, but starting with less noise is always better.
So I kinda started to think if I'll really gain anything by going to 800/F6.3 from 200-600 with 1.4x (effective F9), other than available light (faster shutter speed). It's big deal, of course, but still... Yes, I always try to fill the frame, so Z9 should be better with those lens, but for erratic BIF it's rare case when you can fill the frame. On another hand, when bird is just a small part of the frame, it's quite often a no-keeper anyway. Oh boy, I hate the situation when there is just no clear winner in all cases....
Also, just for kinks tried some macro comparison (A1+90mm vs Z9+Z105mm). Everybody was saying that Nikon new macro is more sharp than Sony's, but in my testing Sony was sharper. Granted, I did really stupid pixel peeping at over 300% to notice the difference, but nonetheless...
Still contemplating, but leaning towards Z9. If only Sony produced 800/6.3 with same weight as Nikon....
One more idea I came up with: use Z9+800/6.3 as one body for my regular subjects, and keep A1+300/2.8+1.4TC as second body for closer subjects. On another hand, hauling along 12K+ equipment for "just in case" - not so great idea, I guess. Ah, forget it, it was stupid idea.
Wanderer
Member
Ergonomics is often matter of opinion. Previously I've used Canon bodies, but nowadays when I try one, the position of the front wheel feels really odd, because it is on top of the camera grip, and on the wrong side of the shutter button, compared to Nikon or Sony. It feels very bad after using Nikons for years.Hi all, long time reader here, but first time writer - may be my "review" will help somebody.
Ergonomics: Sorry, but old Canon is still king of the hill in regards of how camera sits in hands. Second place goes to GFX 100S (my wife occasionally lets me to hold it for couple minutes ... when I can pry it from her hands
Glitches: both are guilty. A1 occasionally blacks out when sunlight bleeds to EVF from behind. Z9 sometimes (like in ~20% cases) refuses to go to the menu, and you have to turn camera off/on to resolve the issue. Also, changing battery on Z9 is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw on any camera. You'll get used to it, but it's just plain wrong.
F1-F3 - no problems at all while in landscape mode, but portrait mode may cause problems for my muscle memory. F1 and F3 need to be set to do the same function. Four button configuration would have been better.
Changing battery - I don't really see any problems here, and Z9 battery capacity combined with high voltage is really great. Gripless cameras may cause problems while camere is mounted on tripod head and may need to detached from the head sometimes.
I think ergonomics is what one gets used to, because the z8/z9 requiring to hold a button to control iso or exp comp (no dedicated wheel) is super awkward to me. On the R5 the dials are where they've always been. One on top near the shutter under the index finger and one top back near the shutter under the thumb. A third wheel lower on the back. So couldn't be easier compared with cameras without the third wheel. Shutter speed and f number on the dials near the shutter and either iso or exp comp on the wheel a little lower.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Yeah, the lack of a third wheel is a significant negative to me when comparing the ergonomics and operability of the Nikon cameras compared to Canon and Sony. I can't stand having to press and scroll so I started using the control ring for ISO but that isn't the greatest as it varies in position on different lenses (and is non-existent on 180-600 unless you give up the ability to MF).
Calson
Well-known member
I asked a different question of Sony shooters with regard to the a1 and the a7 III camera. Most felt that the a1 was better overall but that for eye detection the a7 III was better than the a1. That may be due entirely to the firmware installed on the different cameras, much as was true for a time with the Z9 and Z8 cameras.
In terms of camera ergonomics a lot depends on the size of ones hands. My wife with her smaller hands loves her Olympus MFT cameras that I find too small to hold comfortably for long periods. The same was the case with the Nikon D750 camera that for me was less comfortable to hold despite its lower weight than my D5 camera.
Having shot with Nikon and Canon cameras I much prefer the menu structure used by Canon. With Nikon many settings are buried 3 levels down.
In terms of camera ergonomics a lot depends on the size of ones hands. My wife with her smaller hands loves her Olympus MFT cameras that I find too small to hold comfortably for long periods. The same was the case with the Nikon D750 camera that for me was less comfortable to hold despite its lower weight than my D5 camera.
Having shot with Nikon and Canon cameras I much prefer the menu structure used by Canon. With Nikon many settings are buried 3 levels down.
EricKlees
Well-known member
Why would that be? As a wildlife photographer using long glass, the Z lenses with a control ring is significantly easier then having to move your thumb off your AF button. The lens foot rests in your hand and my thumb rests on the control ring making it very easy and comfortable.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Ergonomics and controls are a very personal thing. If it works for you that is great. If I could move aperture to that ring (which I almost never adjust) and have ISO on the back wheel and SS on the front wheel then I'd be happier. I leave my aperture setting on the lower wheel on Sony and rarely touch it but I like to have the two variables I do adjust a lot on the front and upper rear wheels.
Also I don't use BBF so that is a bit different for me.
kanonka
Active member
Did one more testing this weekend. This time I bit the bullet and tried 800/6.3 PF on Z9.
Short outcome: fantastic lens, bad eye AF on camera for this combo.
Disclaimer: all settings for Z9 AF are set per Steve's recommendations.
The good (great) part: lens. Absolutely great subject isolation, fantastic contrast, basically the best lens I ever tried (with exception of GF 110/2, which is on par with this one). Even though it weights a little bit more than Sony 200-600 with TC, it feels much lighter due to proper weight distribution. I didn't feel tired at all after 3 hours handholding it on Z9. The only complains are very minor and usual ones - lens foot is not an Arca-style, and absent front cover. But it's so minor that I mention it only to show that absolute perfection doesn't exist Overall- Nikon for sure knows how to make the best long lens.
The bad part: when I was trying 500PF on Z9, camera AF was keeping almost on par with Sony A1. Situation dramatically changed when I started to use 800PF on Z9. A1 is heads and shoulders above Z9 in this case (800mm) with regards to AF. With Sony, I never even knew where was the manual focus override, because I never needed it - A1 AF is that good. With Z9 and 800/6.3, the first thing I had to learn was to manually bring focus to approximate distance when camera can at least start focusing on a bird. I.e. if I was shooting some distant bird, and then saw one very close (or vice versa) - no way Z9 was going to find it. Manual override, no other way (in Auto-area AF, and even any Wide Area AF modes). Another problem - when shooting against very busy background (trees), and using any Wide-Area AF, tracking doesn't work properly. It finds the eye inside the red rectangle, but when I start to recompose (keeping AF-ON pressed), as soon as eye goes out of the rectangle, just a little bit, boom - camera loses it. Granted, I noticed that only on one bird (white egret), but that makes me concerned about other possible encounters of this issue.
With A1 AF is basically "point-and-shoot", no questions asked, as easy as it could possibly be. With Z9 it's much more involved, and you often have to fuss so much with telling AF where to look for, that it's almost like going back to DSLR era. Again, this applies to comparing A1+200-600+1.4TC vs Z9+800/6.3 PF.
The end result - images are stunning on Z9+800/6.3 PF, but I already hate Z9 AF, compared to A1 - for this lens length/body combo; 500mm is tolerable.
So yes, I switched to Nikon, because the end result is what matters. But, as soon as Sony produces something like this lens, I'm jumping back same moment. Or, if Nikon produces Z9 II with AF at least half as good as Sony A1, I'm getting that one instead current one immediately.
Short outcome: fantastic lens, bad eye AF on camera for this combo.
Disclaimer: all settings for Z9 AF are set per Steve's recommendations.
The good (great) part: lens. Absolutely great subject isolation, fantastic contrast, basically the best lens I ever tried (with exception of GF 110/2, which is on par with this one). Even though it weights a little bit more than Sony 200-600 with TC, it feels much lighter due to proper weight distribution. I didn't feel tired at all after 3 hours handholding it on Z9. The only complains are very minor and usual ones - lens foot is not an Arca-style, and absent front cover. But it's so minor that I mention it only to show that absolute perfection doesn't exist
Overall- Nikon for sure knows how to make the best long lens.The bad part: when I was trying 500PF on Z9, camera AF was keeping almost on par with Sony A1. Situation dramatically changed when I started to use 800PF on Z9. A1 is heads and shoulders above Z9 in this case (800mm) with regards to AF. With Sony, I never even knew where was the manual focus override, because I never needed it - A1 AF is that good. With Z9 and 800/6.3, the first thing I had to learn was to manually bring focus to approximate distance when camera can at least start focusing on a bird. I.e. if I was shooting some distant bird, and then saw one very close (or vice versa) - no way Z9 was going to find it. Manual override, no other way (in Auto-area AF, and even any Wide Area AF modes). Another problem - when shooting against very busy background (trees), and using any Wide-Area AF, tracking doesn't work properly. It finds the eye inside the red rectangle, but when I start to recompose (keeping AF-ON pressed), as soon as eye goes out of the rectangle, just a little bit, boom - camera loses it. Granted, I noticed that only on one bird (white egret), but that makes me concerned about other possible encounters of this issue.
With A1 AF is basically "point-and-shoot", no questions asked, as easy as it could possibly be. With Z9 it's much more involved, and you often have to fuss so much with telling AF where to look for, that it's almost like going back to DSLR era. Again, this applies to comparing A1+200-600+1.4TC vs Z9+800/6.3 PF.
The end result - images are stunning on Z9+800/6.3 PF, but I already hate Z9 AF, compared to A1 - for this lens length/body combo; 500mm is tolerable.
So yes, I switched to Nikon, because the end result is what matters. But, as soon as Sony produces something like this lens, I'm jumping back same moment. Or, if Nikon produces Z9 II with AF at least half as good as Sony A1, I'm getting that one instead current one immediately.
The Z9 is working exactly how it should. Why would you assume it would still focus on whats outside of the designated focus area? The wide area AF mode only exists to say "Dont focus on things outside of this box"
EricKlees
Well-known member
I shoot the Z9 almost exclusively with my 800PF since Feb '22. The eye tracking is phenomenal. I rarely ever get less that a 90% hit rate and often upwards of 95% unless I mage a mistake with my panning. I do know 4 other people with this lens and all get the same performance.Did one more testing this weekend. This time I bit the bullet and tried 800/6.3 PF on Z9.
Short outcome: fantastic lens, bad eye AF on camera for this combo.
Disclaimer: all settings for Z9 AF are set per Steve's recommendations.
The good (great) part: lens. Absolutely great subject isolation, fantastic contrast, basically the best lens I ever tried (with exception of GF 110/2, which is on par with this one). Even though it weights a little bit more than Sony 200-600 with TC, it feels much lighter due to proper weight distribution. I didn't feel tired at all after 3 hours handholding it on Z9. The only complains are very minor and usual ones - lens foot is not an Arca-style, and absent front cover. But it's so minor that I mention it only to show that absolute perfection doesn't exist
The bad part: when I was trying 500PF on Z9, camera AF was keeping almost on par with Sony A1. Situation dramatically changed when I started to use 800PF on Z9. A1 is heads and shoulders above Z9 in this case (800mm) with regards to AF. With Sony, I never even knew where was the manual focus override, because I never needed it - A1 AF is that good. With Z9 and 800/6.3, the first thing I had to learn was to manually bring focus to approximate distance when camera can at least start focusing on a bird. I.e. if I was shooting some distant bird, and then saw one very close (or vice versa) - no way Z9 was going to find it. Manual override, no other way (in Auto-area AF, and even any Wide Area AF modes). Another problem - when shooting against very busy background (trees), and using any Wide-Area AF, tracking doesn't work properly. It finds the eye inside the red rectangle, but when I start to recompose (keeping AF-ON pressed), as soon as eye goes out of the rectangle, just a little bit, boom - camera loses it. Granted, I noticed that only on one bird (white egret), but that makes me concerned about other possible encounters of this issue.
With A1 AF is basically "point-and-shoot", no questions asked, as easy as it could possibly be. With Z9 it's much more involved, and you often have to fuss so much with telling AF where to look for, that it's almost like going back to DSLR era. Again, this applies to comparing A1+200-600+1.4TC vs Z9+800/6.3 PF.
The end result - images are stunning on Z9+800/6.3 PF, but I already hate Z9 AF, compared to A1 - for this lens length/body combo; 500mm is tolerable.
So yes, I switched to Nikon, because the end result is what matters. But, as soon as Sony produces something like this lens, I'm jumping back same moment. Or, if Nikon produces Z9 II with AF at least half as good as Sony A1, I'm getting that one instead current one immediately.
I am not sure why you aren't getting the same performance. I'm a lull off you photography maybe send it in to Nikon to have them check the AF accuracy on the lens?
Doug Herr
Well-known member
Some cameras will follow the bird's eye when it wanders outside the initial focus box. Very handy for active subjects or focus/re-compose.
kanonka
Active member
The whole idea of AF-C is to keep the focus point after initial focus acquisition, no matter where it goes then. Z9 generally works same way, but in case of that white egret it didn't.
kanonka
Active member
Once it got the focus (on the eye), it keeps it (with rare exceptions), and it is precise. Getting it to grab that focus is much more fussy than A1 - on 800PF. On 500PF it was on par. Basically, much more often than with A1 I literally had to manually tell the camera - "hey, bird is in "this" area, right here, at "this" distance, see?"
Yeah..... unless you tell it to look inside a box and to ignore whats outside the box..... like you did when you selected wide area AF then let your desired focus point drift outside of that box lol
ajrmd
Well-known member
I've used all three systems and primarily shoot with the Z8/800 PF combination for WL. Since Nikon upgraded the FW to 2.0+ the AF has improved significantly for WL and should be on par with the Z9. Let me touch on your comments point by point.Did one more testing this weekend. This time I bit the bullet and tried 800/6.3 PF on Z9.
Short outcome: fantastic lens, bad eye AF on camera for this combo.
Disclaimer: all settings for Z9 AF are set per Steve's recommendations.
The good (great) part: lens. Absolutely great subject isolation, fantastic contrast, basically the best lens I ever tried (with exception of GF 110/2, which is on par with this one). Even though it weights a little bit more than Sony 200-600 with TC, it feels much lighter due to proper weight distribution. I didn't feel tired at all after 3 hours handholding it on Z9. The only complains are very minor and usual ones - lens foot is not an Arca-style, and absent front cover. But it's so minor that I mention it only to show that absolute perfection doesn't exist
The bad part: when I was trying 500PF on Z9, camera AF was keeping almost on par with Sony A1. Situation dramatically changed when I started to use 800PF on Z9. A1 is heads and shoulders above Z9 in this case (800mm) with regards to AF. With Sony, I never even knew where was the manual focus override, because I never needed it - A1 AF is that good. With Z9 and 800/6.3, the first thing I had to learn was to manually bring focus to approximate distance when camera can at least start focusing on a bird. I.e. if I was shooting some distant bird, and then saw one very close (or vice versa) - no way Z9 was going to find it. Manual override, no other way (in Auto-area AF, and even any Wide Area AF modes). Another problem - when shooting against very busy background (trees), and using any Wide-Area AF, tracking doesn't work properly. It finds the eye inside the red rectangle, but when I start to recompose (keeping AF-ON pressed), as soon as eye goes out of the rectangle, just a little bit, boom - camera loses it. Granted, I noticed that only on one bird (white egret), but that makes me concerned about other possible encounters of this issue.
With A1 AF is basically "point-and-shoot", no questions asked, as easy as it could possibly be. With Z9 it's much more involved, and you often have to fuss so much with telling AF where to look for, that it's almost like going back to DSLR era. Again, this applies to comparing A1+200-600+1.4TC vs Z9+800/6.3 PF.
The end result - images are stunning on Z9+800/6.3 PF, but I already hate Z9 AF, compared to A1 - for this lens length/body combo; 500mm is tolerable.
So yes, I switched to Nikon, because the end result is what matters. But, as soon as Sony produces something like this lens, I'm jumping back same moment. Or, if Nikon produces Z9 II with AF at least half as good as Sony A1, I'm getting that one instead current one immediately.
1) Observations about the lens. Yes, it does have good contrast and IQ, though I wouldn't say that it was the "best lens" ever. The lightest weight, reasonably priced 800 mm? Yes. One can legitimately complain about the layout of the rings, soft cover, etc. (Thom does), though it is one of my favorite long FL lenses.
2) Does the A1 exceed the Z9 (Z8) in terms of AF? I think that depends on the circumstances and some have found that it tends to drift when there are closer, specular highlights. But again, of the three major systems, I think the Canon and Sony generally detect the subject sooner and track better in most situations though the differences are relatively minor. They all face challenges in situations of "blast offs", strong back/side lighting, etc. and I haven't found one system to be vastly superior to the others. Admittedly, the Nikon AF system does require more user input in many situations though knowing the limitations of a particular system is helpful. For example, yesterday I was shooting some wrens (buff colored) perched on various reeds. The z8/800 struggled in auto and was unable to recognize the subject because of a combination of the size of the subject and the competing reeds. A short tap to spot focus resolved it and the pair nailed the AF. I had my R5/700 combination for comparison, and it too struggled a bit on the same subject though it was better at recognizing the subject and once it did, a "handoff" was not required. For the BIF that day - osprey - both systems performed as expected and extra user input was not necessary. As I said before, the R5 picks up the bird earlier and the eye tracking seems more determined. At approximately the same distance, the Z8's AF bounced between the body/head more frequently. When I compared the images later, the hit rate was equal (note, I didn't have any dive sequences which I've complained about on the Z8). You mentioned something about failures of the wide area and tracking. I haven't experienced this where the tracking stops immediately if I stray (or recompose) outside of the array. Perhaps there is something in the way you have set up the camera? In general, I've found the Auto Area to be extremely good for BIF for most circumstances.
3) Yes, the A1's AF is more refined and the Z8/Z9 requires more user input, though it's not as bad as you make it out. For example, there are times that one has to turn off the A1's tracking or make other adjustments. Again, I concede that the Nikon AF system is not as refined and requires more user input (Apple vs. PC?). They're different, though the differences are such that any of the systems can yield extremely good shots. There is no substitute for knowing the systems, their strengths, and limitations.
4) Hate is a strong word, and I am hopeful that Nikon can "tune" the AF system further to improve the accuracy and tracking. I don't know what to make of your comments regarding the 500 mm. For some people, it is difficult to wield an 800 mm lens b/c of the FOV and other issues. If you have better success with shorter FL's and cropping, so be it.
5) It's not the destination, but the journey. I migrated to Nikon because they are the sole producer of high quality, mid-priced, long length lenses. It is impossible to predict if Nikon will produce better AF'ing bodies or whether Canon/Sony will produce similar lenses. In the interim, I'll enjoy the Z8, my 186, 400, 800 PF and other lenses in the adventures I share.
Best of luck and perhaps with more time, reading, and field experience you're impressions will change.
kanonka
Active member
Yeah, I'm guilty here. I'm too short tempered. I guess, I was probably just expecting too much from Z9, like same effortless focusing as with Sony, so any extra required input makes me angry at it. With time it'll go down, but right now I'm disappointed. If I didn't use A1 for so long before, my view would be different, but having used it now it feels like stepping down. If not the lens, I wouldn't do that.
ajrmd
Well-known member
What you're observing is a phenomenon with all MILC's, namely that the AF occurs directly on the sensor at the lens' aperture. This is unlike the split beam AF of a DSLR where the AF module was separate and consisted of multiple crossed arrays. The exact integration Nikon's MILC cameras phase/contrast detection is proprietary as are all of the manufacturer's systems. Canon benefits from dual pixel AF technology and it may be one of the reasons that the Canon system seems to perform better. Anyhow, back to the issue with the MILC and the 800. Say you're lens AF is racked to some distant point and you aim it at a bird some distance closer. Because the bird is so OOF it doesn't even register as a possible subject and the AF system doesn't even look for it. Bumping the AF either manually or by aiming the camera at something closer with contrast will assist the camera in recognizing that there is a subject there. It is not a problem unique to Nikon, rather all MILC's I've used suffer from this to some degree made worse by FL and narrower aperture.
ajrmd
Well-known member
I empathize completely and had similar feelings when I switched from Canon. Give it some time and while it won't rival the A1 in terms of simplicity of AF (actually, the R5 was the simplest to a fault), you should be able to achieve near parity for WL.
kanonka
Active member
This! It's exactly what I was seeing! And it explains why with 500pf it was easier than with 800pf. Thank you for the clear and simple write up, I think it should be included in the beginning of any thread "this vs that".
And what that also means is if you pre-focus nearer the camera than your subject, the camera will be faster to pick up that subject.
You're also correct in noticing that with 800mm, the subject can be nothing but a blur due to the shallow DOF. While this is frustrating at times, it's also a reality of having 800mm at f/6.3 since DOF is shallow and field of view is very narrow.