Nikon Z AF

I said my experience...I also declared not just for a few hours (paraphrasing). You didn't read that part clearly.

I did read it, but that's a claim not evidence. Show us please.

Note that I am genuinely interested in this question, but I can't believe claims without evidence. I have no interest in trying Canon though, but I want to understand if Nikon is doing something worse.

You did read it but you go on to ask me if I used them? Seems like you aren't reading this properly.

Ps you honestly think I kept the masses of out of focus shots that the z7 garnered me just to prove some very obvious point on a forum in future?

What I am trying to ascertain is have nikon now caught up. I know fine well the z 6 and 7 are poor with regards to studio conditions or fast moving subjects. And I mean caught up. Not dpreview rose tinted glasses caught up.

What a childish way to talk to each other!

I didn't question if you used them or not, I was hoping you had compared them side by side.

Out of interest why do you care? Since you have the R5 why does it matter?
You should stick with Canon I think; its no use switching brands because one model beats another.

My experience is different.
I find the Z7 is quite capable of fast AF tracking - though I recognised from day 1 a relative weakness relative to say the D850 is a lack of dynamic AF size alternatives.

The Z9 and other more recent cameras including at a higher price point the R5 have more recent AF systems.

What will be announced by Nikon on 10th May, with a possible first delivery on 25th May, may be a step in replacing the camera you appear to despise - despite many other photographers getting excellent results - including AF - with a Z6 or Z7.

Most experienced skilled photographers recognise that getting good results is rarely more than 15% due to the equipment being used.

Do you agree?

I have tried recent Sony and Canon ML and have found for me the Nikon system wins.

Yes I used them side by side. How else can one compare? I overlapped having both bodies. My experience aligns with everyone else that explains an r5 af system wins out over a z7

Okay I'll explain....I don't have the r5 now (that was my buddies and he loaned me it for a few weeks to try against the z7 which I bought and returned). The r5 would not work for me as it drops to 12bit in electronic shutter mode. For astro shooting this would dramatic drop the quality of hours of stacked exposures for deep sky. The point was to find out the differences between the af systems. I have a ton of nikon equipment and as I said it is hard to find truth or believe the folk that told me (on dpreview) that a z7 has a decent af system in it. It just doesn't im any way by modern standards have that. It can barely focus on static studio subjects.

it is safe to assume that CAF/tracking with R5 is better than Z6/Z7 ( not even Mark II mind you ) :-) ... not even Thom 'd say otherwise ... there are even allegations in some corners that Nikon has to make Z8 with stacked sensor to compete with a FSI/non-stacked/3 years old sensor Canon camera that makes do reading out 90mp (DPAF = 45mp x 2) in an old fashion ...

If you are the same chap from dpreview then we used to argue about the d800 left af issue and inconsistent af and you kept telling me that it was user error. Remember when what I was telling the forum turned out to be true? If you are not that person disregard what I said. I don't really have much more to say on it at this point.

Well I own Z6 and Z9. I still get out of focus images with Z9 - so sure its way more advanced than Z6. But is it perfect? No.

Will it be 100% infallible? No.

Deflection I see. I did not ask if the z9 had a 100% hit rate and would always get everything in focus.

LOL....the narratives you spin while calling others contributions BS. The irony is thick. I never bob and weave, never got a thread shut down, never complained to anybody but you about your Z forum trolling. You two treat this subject as if it was your job. I have a Z6, I actually use it. I used it at a drag racing event last summer, my avatar here is from a vintage event at Road America. The images are in focus. Is it the best AF system for action, either for its time or today? Certainly not. Never once said otherwise.

But I will leave it at that and try to remain polite.

Well maybe it is YOU then - because me and tens of thousands of others DON'T -- we get and SELL great images with Nikon Gear and other gear too. Try not being a dick perhaps that would help.

Where is "there" in your ambition? What's with talking about a rumoured "Z8" that no-one as yet except Nikon really know much if anything about? The only way that you will find out, if you really are all that interested, is to first wait and see what actually get announced, then try one for yourself if it looks likely to be for you.

In my experience with the Z9 for birding and wildlife the camera is definitely all "there". Also superb for landscape work with the latest Z glass although I'd prefer something a bit lighter to hike up mountains with. I would imagine it ought to handle studio work with ease although that is not what I do. I think all MILCs (all brands AFAIK) currently have no compatibility with flash AF assist so that might be something to consider.

I think most of the chatter about possible deficiencies in Z9 AF historically (well it has been over a year !) arose from experience with some of the vagaries of the performance with firmware v1.0 and to a lesser extent slightly later versions. I can't speak for others but since Nikon got v3.10 out the Z9's performance has been, for me at least, rock solid. I get accurate AF locking on and tracking, with accurate eye AF, even distant birds like glue even against confusing and "difficult" backgrounds, where previously the system wouldn't have even noticed the bird at all. With v3.10 firmware I get very high AF accuracy success rate tracking even with very difficult fast and erratic subjects that previously (older v1 and v2 firmware versions) would have evaded the AF.

I have had quite a few current users of various Canon systems come up to me in the field curious to know more, trying the camera (usually with 800PF mounted, sometimes with 1.4 or 2x TC in addition) and being somewhere between impressed and completely blown away.

I also know several chaps who are very pleased with their Canon R5 setups and probably wouldn't switch - well it's a pretty good camera and nice and lightweight so I can see the attraction - but I'm just very pleased with my Z9!

Recently in the UK there was a large invasion of Alpine Swifts, normally an extremely rare vagrant species in this country and I eventually caught up with a small group at a reported location. I think I took around 1000 flight shots using the Z9 and 800PF. I didn't meticulously analyse the success/failure rate but I would estimate that I got only about 20 shots that failed (and several of those were my fault) and of the rest I would say about 98% or so were critically sharp and crisp with excellent detail. Here's a couple of examples:

So I don't really care how good the R5 is because I'm just enjoying the Z9.

Frank

If you can't get it to focus on static subjects, that sounds like the problem is behind the camera, not in it.

I was able to get swallows in flight with the og z7 on firmware 2. something.

Hi, what's up with you?

I have seen your work and you take amazing pictures. It is always the skill of the photographer that counts.

But if you are saying that you never have Z9 mis-focusing ever, then it is hard to believe that.

I know several excellent studio guys and I have seen the problem myself. If you don't shoot studio work you don't know how bad it is for that use case.

Likewise, I know plenty of people that shoot studio work and haven't had any problems.

Until you provide objective evidence that it can't focus on static subjects, then I'll treat your opinion with the respect it deserves.