Oh I don’t doubt that. But I don’t shoot Astro. Nor do I shoot BIF.
What I do shoot is people, film sets, events, studio, street and travel. Having switched from Nikon Z to Sony for these genres, Nikon isn’t at the party at this time. That’s both for bodies and lenses.
I also don’t think the Z8 will change this. Especially if kit size and weight to carry 8 hours a day is part of the decision for a jobbing photographer.
Look at the weight and bulk of the 24-70mm and 70-200mm Nikkor Z vs Sony GM2 versions. There’s a 500g saving straight off the bat for Sony for equivalent IQ and faster quad linear AF motors. No Z mount advantage there. NONE!
That said, Sony isn’t perfect, nor is Canon or Nikon. They all frustrate with their implementations at times. What is clear to me is that Nikon is pursuing niche BIF and the like with their sublime long exotics.
This is one of the dumbest things I've seen all week, and I've been in a lot of meetings where people rambled about things they didn't understand.
The z7/6/ii can be a good camera (and they are), and the z9 can be better.
Or do you think every Sony but the top tier is bad? Or everything but the Canon r3 is bad?
It's like you tried to make a point, and failed miserably on every level, destroying your own argument and making yourself look dumb. That takes some level of skill.
Why is it dumb? I like Nikon Z, I owned the system for ages. What I do know (now) is that with an A9 II, which is basically A9 tech from 2017, you get a camera that is still equal for AF to a Z9 and they are half the price used (or you can get 3 x A9 mk 1 bodies from 2017 for the price of a single Z9). The bodies are also half the weight of a Z9. I can also save a further 500g on the 24-70mm 70-200mm 2.8 workhorse zooms.
Frankly the Z6 and Z7 bodies can’t be mentioned in the same breath as the A9 series at the same size and weight.
So I’m not going to lower myself and resort to mindless unsubstantiated insults such as:
It's like you tried to make a point, and failed miserably on every level, destroying your own argument and making yourself look dumb. That takes some level of skill.
I’d rather stick to the facts, as already stated. The great thing about facts is they tend to trump emotional outbursts such as yours, which you made with zero facts to back it up.
Because things can be good, and other things can be better? I can explain this to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Re: Emotional outbursts, that wasn't emotional. That was me calling you out for making a worthless point and wasting oxygen, which you should apologize to the nearest tree for. I haven't even gotten riled up yet, this is just another day for me of dealing with rampant ignorance.
The facts are the z series are pretty good, unless you don't read the manual, or do any actual work yourself. The z9 is one of the best three bodies out there all things considered.
The next fact is if you can't hit a static subject with a modern (in the last decade, say) camera 9 out of 10 times in anything approaching halfway decent lighting, that problem is behind the camera, not in it. It's not hard, but apparently some people struggle with it (and miss focus so badly even at f9 that nothing is in focus). That's not a camera problem. That's massive user error.
The third fact is plenty of people have shown this is possible, you can feel free to search on your preferred search engine/website and see plenty of photos taken with the z series that show nicely done images of all sorts.
The last fact is you can enjoy your nikon bashing circlejerk, and I'll still call you on it, because it's a load of crap.
Man you are far too emotional and brand sensitive. I pointed out why Sony is better in the studio due it’s very sensible Aperture Drive AF options. I fleshed that out with some asides about size and weight. These are all facts. Not hearsay or brand bashing. I simply pointed out the differences, having shot both systems.
In turn that seems have put you into some form of full blown emotional breakdown. I’m concerned for you and hope you feel better soon.
Riiiiiiiiight. Just ignore that you completely don't understand how a z9 can be better than the z7/6 and the 7/6 can still be good. Way to avoid admitting anything.
Also just ignore every point about other people proving others have done repeatedly what you struggle with, because you don't have a counter argument.
Just go back to your circlejerk, it's obvious you're allergic to actual facts about the issues at hand, I'm done wasting my time and energy on this topic.
I entered this thread to discuss my experience with both the Z6II and Z7II in the studio under studio lighting. I then went on to explain how, much as I like the Z system, the Sony system is so much better in this regard due to aperture AF mode. This isn’t hearsay, it’s just a simple fact.
That’s triggered you because I’ve pointed out a simple fact where another brand does a better job in the studio. A better job than ANY Nikon Z.
Unfortunately, that’s sent you into a total meltdown which you are dealing with by throwing insults at me with nothing back it up aside from clutching at straws.
I’m sorry you are upset, but I’m not going to withhold the truth at the expense of upsetting somebody on a forum who puts emotional brand attachment over facts and logic.
I tend to be a 1.4 whore, but in a studio setting with a solid back drop, f8 is usually my starting point. Under controlled lighting conditions with strobes, you can achieve a.... how do I describe this... let's just say, an ultra clean, super detailed look, and it requires those smaller apertures.
Now not all shots will end up at f8. That's just a typical starting point. Like any other situation, it depends. The rate of transition from the sharpest plane of focus to the varying degrees of lesser sharp focus is part of the art. Obviously, sensor size, focal length, distance to subject, as well as aperture all play a role. And maybe not so obvious to some, the in focus to out of focus transition characteristics of the lens matters too. And then also, where you actually place the point of focus in combination with some front or back focus adjustment dialed in just for the particular situation.
Agreed, assuming a full frame camera in a typical sized studio shooting headshots through to full length single subjects then f8 to f11 has been the studio photographers go to since forever. This ensures front to back DOF from tip of the nose to back of the ears and so on. But of course it’s a starting point and we may open the aperture for deliberate shallower DOF or other reasons. BUT, the starting point of f8 to f11 is PRECISELY why it can introduce challenges for AF for ANY camera that doesn’t perform focus wide open.
Equally, if shooting crop your equivalent aperture changes. So if shooting m43 substitute f8 for f4 and so on.
The z9 might just be one of the great bodies but his point stands as he said it. A9 tech from 2017 still beats the z7 ala the rest of nikons small bodies by a long way. It's advanced flagship af trickled down.
All I know is that my Sony zoom lenses have quad (yes 4) linear motors and are best in class for AF acquisition. I don’t know how much that affects AF in the real world, but blimey those lenses latch on instantly and track tenaciously. Sony folk and reviews all comment that the GM2 lenses latch on and track faster than earlier generations (on the same bodies). So in that regard yes lens motor tech is a major factor, not just body tech. AFAIK Nikon does not use linear motors, never mind 4 of them…..
