You're almost right, nikon bashing happens there all the time, and never gets any push back because doing so gets your posts removed by the mods for 'not being nice'. Then all the bashing continues.
And yes, I'm still correct about that being one of the dumbest things I've seen all week.
By all means, circlejerk away though. I'm checking out of the topic unless something actually intelligent is said.
I started it and it has provoked some good discussion. I say the title stays.
By using the word circlejerk (btw it's two words) when you got nothing else to say tells me alot about your mental age. Perhaps you should grow up a little.
Yikes, this thread....
@BurnImage Thanks for your input; it was helpful and educational. I'm sorry you had to be on the receiving end of some of the nonsense in this toxic thread, but for what it's worth, I found your input helpful.
Most test sites back in 2017 did not agree with this claim.
Do you think many experts were wrong?
As people like Thomas Hogan point out Nikon is good at improving AF by firmware updates over time - and Sony tends to stick in a time warp - indicating if there was any truth in this claim it is less true now than in 2017.
Back then Sony could not use Nikon lenses, and now Sony cannot take much advantage of the several Nikon S grade lenses that are superior to Sony lenses.
A Z7 can!
It’s well known (or have we forgotten?) that the weakness with Nikon’s first foray into mirrorless with the Z6/7 was AF performance (compared to the competition), specifically subject tracking, eye detect, subject recognition and the like, but not AF accuracy and consistency with static subjects and wide open performance which was a significant advance over their DSLR predecessors. So there should be no surprises here that the overall AF performance of the Z6/7 and even their II successors leaves something to be desired when compared to much of the competition. So, yes, no surprise that for example 2017 Sony “flagship” tech outperforms 2017-2020 Nikon tech in that regard. Nikon were late to the ML game and clearly struggled with AF. This is a fact and nothing anyone should be losing their composure over. I don’t shoot studio so this thread helped me understand some further potential limitations with Z6/7/I-II AF in that regard. Knowing that Nikon has been playing catch-up, in all fairness, it probably makes more sense to compare the Nikon Z9 to its competing peers, right? Like I said I don’t shoot studio, but I have recently done a couple of informal sessions, prom night with my daughter and her friend, and then my daughter’s graduation photos. In each of these sessions I was using my Z9 with an SB-700 with Z 24-70 f/2.8S and the 70-200 2.8S. I shot about 300 shots per session, pretty much all wide open (yes, not stopped down as I’ve learned in this thread is typically done in studio work), and for each of those I had one tops two images with missed focus. I was mainly using Auto area AF with human subject detection. Suffices to say I was seriously impressed with this performance and it far exceeded my expectations.
Are you are you sure you have got the calculation right?
For the same angle of view smaller formats have more, not less, depth of field. f4 becomes close to f2.
Yes I’m quite sure thank you. Shooting a traditional f8 studio aperture of a full frame 50mm lens would equate to 25mm at f4 on m43.
Using your maths the m43 would be at f16…….
OFFS!
I'm a bit puzzled as to why that would be the case.
If you're shooting f/8 on FF to give you the DOF you need, then you'd shoot f/4 on mFT to give you the same DOF.
btw, 'a lot' is two words...
Exactly!
I don't understand that, either. If 'ultra clean, super detailed' depends on lens performance, most lenses are operating at their best f/4-5.6, or sometimes lower for modern mirrorless lenses.
That's the norm for DOF control. But how much do you need, lets take a single person portrait, 85mm from 3 metres, we need about 1/2m DOF. DOFmaster says we get that at f/8 - so looks to me like that's the basis of it. Other shots would be different.
Because I’m now a unit stills photographer on film sets where silent shooting is mandatory. In silent mode on a non stacked sensor you’re gonna have to deal with flicker banding and rolling shutter which is largely if not completely eliminated by using a stacked sensor camera.
Many in this industry are using A9 or A9 II for that reason, plus for the kit compactness which is appreciated when wearing two bodies and zoom lenses for 8-10 hours per day every day.
Z8 should bring stacked sensor technology to a smaller body. It will be interesting to see how it compares to A9.
I was wondering what the impact of Sony's aperture drive is on continuous AF mode, as it means the aperture would need to be constantly adjusted from fully open to the actual shooting aperture, much like a DSLR. I imagined that this might slow down continuous AF.
Here is the documentation.
helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1650/v1/en/contents/TP0001690898.html
helpguide.sony.net/ilc/2040/v1/en/contents/TP1000423593.html
Looks like it behaves like a DSLR, i.e. you would see flicker as the aperture opens and closes - but without the DSLR blackout.
Does Canon have anything similar?
The cameras that do that at the moment are the R3, A1, A9, and Z9. However, did Sony add the tunable shutter speeds to the A9 (I don't recall)? When you get in some lighting situations or have certain displays in the background, you need to be able to tune the shutter speed to the frequency being used by the lighting or display. The R3, A1, and Z9 have that.
I'd say that it's more likely that the Sonys are being used more ubiquitously because they were the first cameras that allowed the still photographer to roam on set without a blimp. Canon and Nikon didn't get there until far later.
