Nikon Z AF

Good grief really? Legitimate grown up discussions have been held about low light AF such as in a studio at f8. Aperture drive mode on Sony has been discussed and debated as a solution provided by another brand. What proof do you want? Are you suggesting all that was made up and that Aperture drive mode on Sony does not exist?

Or is your mind simply closed to the possibility that sometimes another brand might have an implemented a solution to a particular requirement in a better way?

AKA.... Nikon is perfect and no other brand is ever better at something?

Re Canon R5/R6 - vs Z6/Z7 - I guess the Nikons are first generation models whereas Canon to its credit rapidly evolved from R, and these are second generation models.
Nikon Z6/Z7 II seem to be minor tweaks to Z6/Z7.
Z8 will be the true answer to R5.

Here we go again, with you making up things I said.

I have seen no actual proof provided of these claims (regarding the Z6/7), and as I said I've heard evidence to the contrary to these claims, so if one is valid they both are. This would point to user error (as it is often the case).

I have never said nikon is perfect.

If you want to have an adult discussion, don't make things up.

Yep it will be. It will sit between the A9II and A1 at a very attractive price point and will have a stacked sensor which the R5 does not. I'm excited for Nikon and my friends who still shoot this system. Like I said all along, I'm a Nikon fan.

OMG you have it bad don't you! Aperture Drive AF has been explained including its benefits. The usual Nikon shrill answer is to ignore all the facts, declare Nikon is infallible and then blame the user. I HAVE MADE NOTHING UP

Where did I say that's what I was pointing out? I explicitly said (if you could read, and comprehend what's in front of you, which you seem to struggle with) "regarding the z6/7".

Please point out where I said anything about the sony AF mode. I'll wait.

Also please point out where I said nikon was perfect. I'll still wait.

No actual proof has been provided of the rather extraordinary claims made (that nikon can't focus on static subjects). Therefore I'm treating them (and you, and everyone making them) with the respect they deserve.

So what exactly is your point then, aside from having a meltdown if anyone points outs useful features on another brand? On this thread so far I've not seen you offer one useful tip about Z6/7. ALL you have done is batter anyone else who DARES to suggest alternative approaches.

Not to stir anything up but I was becoming kinda curious so I google'd z9 vs r5 autofocus and this came up as the first result.

There are many more reviews however, specifically comparing the quality, accuracy and consistency between the Canon R5, the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 autofocus system(s).

One thing to keep in mind is the fact that each camera's settings used during these reviews may vary depending on the knowledge/experience of the reviewer(s).

After watching a couple of reviews I personally have come to the conclusion for all of these systems to do an amazing job regardless of which is best or not.

My point is exactly what I said. No proof has been provided, and if we're going off word of mouth I know people who don't struggle with these same issues.

Given that you don't have nikon cameras anymore, and I don't have a z7 anymore, I can't offer specific setting advice and do testing to provide example images showing how and why you set something up incorrectly. You have also failed to provide images and settings showing where the camera failed to focus, so I can't provide any feedback there.

I'm doing what I always have, which is to show that making claims without proof is bad, given the abundance of evidence showing it can be done, and not allowing a brand to get bashed without pushback.

You also keep making claims you can't back up because they're made up, which sure activates the almonds. In other words, provide proof, or nobody should take you seriously.

Generally speaking, I've found the modern high end bodies to all be about the same. Especially z9 vs a1 vs r3. I've played with the sony and canon some (from others that have them). Steve Perry feels his A1 and Z9 basically do the same level of work, which is to say in the right hands they're great. If you misuse them, of course they're going to fall down.

The gear makes up 10% of the picture quality, the rest is skill.

Speaking of misusing, the first video you linked is awful because he's using the wrong modes on the z9 for AF. Case in point about user error.

And I totally agree with you, all systems are good. But a lot of these reviews are about BIF. If I were shooting BIF and money was no object I'd likely be sporting a pair of Z9's with the latest long exotics.

But, as a jobbing unit stills photographer who also shoots general events..... Nikon Z is no longer my choice.

I'd urge everyone to look at budget, size and weight of the ENTIRE system and choose what works for you. If you're already invested in a system stay there unless your needs massively change.

As a unit stills and events photographer who needs minimum weight for minimum cost the overwhelming need for me was to switch to Sony.

If you are a BIF photographer with funds then Z9 with exotics cannot be beaten

If you're a keen enthusiast, choose what makes you happy.

These are all good choices.

So you're saying I have to provide "proof" to a legitimate question that was asked, backed up by more discussion with @AnotherMike and then discussed some more? What proof do you want? The Sony manual, or the missed shots I long since deleted because they were.....err missed???? Are we all liars by discussing tech? Did we have a meltdown like you? Did you provide images to prove you are right and we are wrong ( despite nobody having the faintest clue what your question is, let alone the answer)

Yes, that's how claims work. You provide objective evidence if you make the claim.

I've also seen multiple people claim the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it true. Note, to be absolutely clear since you have reading comprehension issues, I'm not claiming you believe the earth is flat.

I can happily link to any number of sources showing portraits with nikon z6/7s. Just go to flickr for example. You'll see tons. And given the average photographer on there is (likely) much less serious than you claim to be, I'm sure if they can do it, you can too.

I really am just wasting time on this though, because you're not actually here in good faith or to learn anything, and as you don't have the gear can't make any changes and do proper testing.

Have you added anything constructive to this thread? NO
Are you bloating this thread with insults? YES
Are you watering down the useful content in this thread with a barrage of baseless insults? YES
You continually say you are wasting your time and are leaving this thread. PLEASE DO

PS If you STILL cannot grasp why the Z6/7 might suffer with AF at f8 through f11 in low key studio lighting you really need some lessons.

Yes, a lot of lenses peak in resolution before f8/f9. Some way before. The Sigma Art 40 peaks in resolution at around f2.8, yet smaller apertures give "the look".

I've thought about this topic a lot, and can't say that I've come to a conclusive answer. I think part of "the look" is from the strobes, to be more specific, from the flash duration, eliminating motion blur further than we are normally accustomed to. I think part of it is also something that falls into the realm of human visual perception. For example, for some shots, more of the subject being in sharp focus gives our brain the impression of "very sharp", "very detailed", even more so than if just some of the subject were sharper to an even higher degree.

I'd love more input on this. AnotherMike? BurnImage?

My answer would be forget about your lens MTF and sharpest aperture in the studio. If your creative vision and/or client needs want front to back focus then stop down. Thats where the traditional f8 to f11 comes from and it's still valid today.

However, if you and/or your client want creative shallow dof then open up that aperture accordingly.

Don't even think about diffraction and the like. This is where sometimes tech specs get in the way of actual photography.

You are choosing the correct aperture for artistic intent, not the sharpest setting of your lens according to some review or personal tests.

If I have free reign and time on a shoot I tend to do a bit of both. Some safe shots at about f9 then open up to maybe even 1.4 and crack a few more off.

I commented on your statement that entire OP was reasonable which it wasn't.

I love how you'll now try to argue that "tests sites" are somehow legitimate experts because their conclusion fit's your shill game.

Let's not confuse ambition with reality. Nikon is good at attempting to catch up to the competition through firmware updates. The "hopeful firmware updates" are a great tactic for keeping customers on the hook, and not much else.

And no disrespect to Thom. From what I've seen from his posts here, he seems to be a good guy, and I do agree with a lot of his opinions, but the situation is simply that... he's another guy with another opinion, just like the rest of us.