Nikon officially announced the Z 8, which is aimed squarely at the Canon EOS R5

[Maximilian]

No sarcasm. The R5 losses out to the Z8's sensor. Hands down, that changes everything for action photography. ...

Just *LOL*
When we learned one thing in the past: The sensor isn't everything.
What's the use of a better sensor for action if the AF falls behind.
Open your eyes, wait for real world comparisons, and you'll see that the sensor might be a bit better but not a game changer.
BSI isn't everything. See R3 to R6II sensor...

 

[MiJax]

Just *LOL*
When we learned one thing in the past: The sensor isn't everything.
What's the use of a better sensor for action if the AF falls behind.
Open your eyes, wait for real world comparisons, and you'll see that the sensor might be a bit better but not a game changer.
BSI isn't everything. See R3 to R6II sensor...

Speak for yourself. The sensor matters.

So your argument is, "since the AF isn't the best, what good is the camera".... Really? If I used that thinking I would have thrown my R5 in the trash. "Why should I keep camera that's only really good, when I can have the best". That's a silly argument. Please stop making it. Its nonsensical.

Sure AF matters, and its heavily weighted, but when your comparing a close match, those differences are less of an issue. That's the case here. But please understand this, if you can't make a shot with an R5 or a Z9, the problem is not with the camera.

I'm not sure I understand you argument on the R3 and R6 II. The R6 II is good enough for most things, but the R3 is the best at quite a few aspects. What are you trying to say? BTW on the sensor tech, BSI is not the standout feature, its the stacked nature of the sensor which allows it to be significantly faster in reading out. This speed enables features that a non-stacked sensors cannot offer.

 

[bbasiaga]

I find it interesting that you worded this in this manner, because the R6 II has a better AF system than the R5, as does the R8. Those are based on the updated subject detection system and algorithms from the R3, and are better overall than what the R5 does. Now, as an owner of the R5 and the R8, I can say the differences aren't huge, but they are there, and the R8 (and R6 II by extension) grabs subjects more readily and is stickier on the eyes and subject during tracking.

I worded it that way because the Z9 was largely regarded as behind the R5. So that would be the first step to catch up to. Then the R3/6/8 are head of that, however slightly - a second step for Nikon to attain.

-Brian

 

[MiJax]

Well, maybe Fro Doesn't Really Know Photo All That Well, but he certainly shows some examples of significant fails with the Z8 AF in situations where there should not be issues. YMMV, and @Czardoom has a good point about day 1 reviews (although Polin mentions similar problems with the Z9 AF).

By all accounts the Z8 is a carbon copy of the Z9 for AF and I know how the Z9 focuses. And no, its not as good as the R5. It has odd focus drops here and there. But in all honesty, its not that bad. However, there were areas where its better than Canon products. The Nikon combo I used, focused faster than my R5 and EF 500L II. So its not that simple. There's give and take. The AF issues were just not that big of a deal. If I were to say what's the best focusing cameras on the market, I'd rate them like this, R3 > A1 > R6 II > R5/R6/R7 > Z9. Never shot an A7R5, R8 or R10 so can't place them, however the difference from the worst on that list to the best, is very small. So small, that I wouldn't choose the camera based on AF alone. I could easily buy an R3... honestly tried hard to talk myself into it, but the bleeding tip of AF isn't everything. Even for a wildlife shooter where AF is the most important feature, if the performance is that close, other things come in to play.

You can definitely flaunt the fact that Canon is still ahead in AF, but just know you are largely splitting hairs. This is coming from someone who has bought only Canons for nearly 20 years.

 

[unfocused]

...BTW on the sensor tech, BSI is not the standout feature, its the stacked nature of the sensor which allows it to be significantly faster in reading out. This speed enables features that a non-stacked sensors cannot offer.

Color me skeptical. You seem 1000% convinced that the Nikon sensor is some sort of incredible game changer. But, I'm not seeing a lot of specifics about what you think it does, nor are you citing reviewers who have tried it who share your unbridled enthusiasm. (I'm sure many will talk up the camera, as they do with every other camera, because that's how they attract eyeballs to their videos and sponsors to their sites.)

As I said before, the Z8 sounds like a nice camera (I wonder if Nikon regrets picking a name that has become associated with the worlds worst terrorist regime) but the over-the-top claims about how it changes everything sounds like hyperbole to me.

Maybe it's because I've seen generation after generation of cameras that were supposed to change everything, that didn't. Maybe because I've bought into the hype in the past and even tried to convince myself it was real. Maybe because I've seen slow, steady improvements that are worthwhile, but few true "game changers." Maybe because I use both an R3 and an R5 and I've never once felt like the sensor was the critical difference between the two. Yes, the R3 is a great camera and I love it for sports shooting, but I honestly didn't notice all that much difference from the 1DxIII (other than the size, weight and convenience of having a single RF mount system.)

I'm not knocking the camera. But, you would have to do a lot more to convince me it is the game changer you claim it to be. Instead I think most people will look at it and see a Nikon R5.

 

[AlanF]

By all accounts the Z8 is a carbon copy of the Z9 for AF and I know how the Z9 focuses. And no, its not as good as the R5. It has odd focus drops here and there. But in all honesty, its not that bad. However, there were areas where its better than Canon products. The Nikon combo I used, focused faster than my R5 and EF 500L II. So its not that simple. There's give and take. The AF issues were just not that big of a deal. If I were to say what's the best focusing cameras on the market, I'd rate them like this, R3 > A1 > R6 II > R5/R6/R7 > Z9. Never shot an A7R5, R8 or R10 so can't place them, however the difference from the worst on that list to the best, is very small. So small, that I wouldn't choose the camera based on AF alone. I could easily buy an R3... honestly tried hard to talk myself into it, but the bleeding tip of AF isn't everything. Even for a wildlife shooter where AF is the most important feature, if the performance is that close, other things come in to play.

You can definitely flaunt the fact that Canon is still ahead in AF, but just know you are largely splitting hairs. This is coming from someone who has bought only Canons for nearly 20 years.

This guy does very careful studies of measuring AF accuracy for BIF, and has a quite different order from you https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/
I know from considerable practice that the R5 is considerably better than the R7, consistent with him. The A1 is number 1, consistent with @arbitrage's long and unbiased experience.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The AF issues were just not that big of a deal.

But the stacked sensor is game changing for action shooting? I'm with @unfocused here, it's not game changing. You highlighted readout at full bit depth, but once you hit ISO 800 there's no difference because by that point the DR of the sensor has dropped enough that the extra 2 bits are irrelevant. Personally, I only rarely shoot fast-moving subjects at less than ISO 800, even on sunny days. Looking at the EXIF of typical sports and wildlife shots, I'm not unusual in that regard. So your claim of 'game-changing' based on, "...a higher bit depth (14 bit compressed) at high speed capture (meaning better DR at high speed capture)," a situation that's only relevant below ISO 800, is also just splitting hairs (arguably even more so that the AF differences).

 

[entoman]

By all accounts the Z8 is a carbon copy of the Z9 for AF and I know how the Z9 focuses. And no, its not as good as the R5. It has odd focus drops here and there. But in all honesty, its not that bad. However, there were areas where its better than Canon products. The Nikon combo I used, focused faster than my R5 and EF 500L II. So its not that simple. There's give and take. The AF issues were just not that big of a deal. If I were to say what's the best focusing cameras on the market, I'd rate them like this, R3 > A1 > R6 II > R5/R6/R7 > Z9. Never shot an A7R5, R8 or R10 so can't place them, however the difference from the worst on that list to the best, is very small. So small, that I wouldn't choose the camera based on AF alone. I could easily buy an R3... honestly tried hard to talk myself into it, but the bleeding tip of AF isn't everything. Even for a wildlife shooter where AF is the most important feature, if the performance is that close, other things come in to play.

You can definitely flaunt the fact that Canon is still ahead in AF, but just know you are largely splitting hairs. This is coming from someone who has bought only Canons for nearly 20 years.

I would have thought that the AF and sensor were both equally important.

For any fast action that contains significant circular elements (balls, wheels), a sensor with a very fast readout is highly desirable. Likewise for golf clubs, baseball bats, aircraft propellers, vertical poles while panning, and quite a few other subject details. Very fast readout = stacked sensor.

But it ain't much use having perfectly circular wheels and balls, and perfectly straight bats and poles, if the primary subject isn't in focus.

For most wildlife, rolling shutter effects are rarely noticeable, but AF accuracy and tracking are paramount.

For most other subjects, neither AF tracking or readout speed are critical.

 

[john1970]

Interesting release from Nikon and with time more and more sensors will become stacked as the technology becomes more mature. For the R5 Mk2 I could definitely see Canon putting in a stacked sensor and then having stacked sensor with quad AF in the R1 and a differentiating spec. Time will tell.

 

[MiJax]

Color me skeptical. You seem 1000% convinced that the Nikon sensor is some sort of incredible game changer. But, I'm not seeing a lot of specifics about what you think it does, nor are you citing reviewers who have tried it who share your unbridled enthusiasm. (I'm sure many will talk up the camera, as they do with every other camera, because that's how they attract eyeballs to their videos and sponsors to their sites.)

As I said before, the Z8 sounds like a nice camera (I wonder if Nikon regrets picking a name that has become associated with the worlds worst terrorist regime) but the over-the-top claims about how it changes everything sounds like hyperbole to me.

Maybe it's because I've seen generation after generation of cameras that were supposed to change everything, that didn't. Maybe because I've bought into the hype in the past and even tried to convince myself it was real. Maybe because I've seen slow, steady improvements that are worthwhile, but few true "game changers." Maybe because I use both an R3 and an R5 and I've never once felt like the sensor was the critical difference between the two. Yes, the R3 is a great camera and I love it for sports shooting, but I honestly didn't notice all that much difference from the 1DxIII (other than the size, weight and convenience of having a single RF mount system.)

I'm not knocking the camera. But, you would have to do a lot more to convince me it is the game changer you claim it to be. Instead I think most people will look at it and see a Nikon R5.

It doesn't change the game in terms of new features, everything it can do has been done by the Z9. It changes the game because it does it in a price segment that was prohibitive before. It does things no camera in it price range can do. That is... by definition game changing. Some will argue Olympus started this, but Nikon is going to cement it.

However, if you don't need those features, you will not feel the same. If a fast sensor isn't apart of your photography it shouldn't mean anything to you and that is fine. For some people the Z6 and Z7 were perfect cameras. Different stroke for different folks.

Just understand, fast sensors enable the makers to engineer less tradeoffs. Rolling shutter is the biggest benefit. Take a shot of a swinging golf club with an R5/R6/R6 II/R7 etc.. and you will see what I'm talking about. Sure, you can shoot it with the mechanical shutter, but now you lose the higher speeds and quiet shutter release options. Or take a shot of a bird that's flying by, in the high speed mode you will be distorting your photo turning straight lines in to diagonals or you be stuck in mechanical shutter with its limitations. Even the R5 and R6 II will still distort regardless if it isn't "that bad". Take a shot of a bird taking off and look at the wing tips, if you are using e-shutter there will be an odd banding. No fix for this issue without using a fast stacked sensor or mechanical shutter. You ever take a photo of a still object only to find as you flip through the photos the still subjects is warping? That's not an issue for a stacked sensor. Also, non-stacked sensors don't easily sync with flashes in e-shutter, honestly not sure if its even possible. The R3's 180 FPS and the Z9's 120 FPS modes are only available because of their ability to move data off the sensor at high speeds. Another example of the benefits of stacked sensors are the higher DR and bit depth in high speed modes.

I can go on and on, but the simple matter is, if you have to choose from a camera with a fast sensor or without, I'd prefer the fast sensor. Being only $100 MSRP more expensive is significant because its been long thought that a stacked sensor cost a manufacturer significantly more (my guess has been approximately $500 more) to put it in a camera. Speaking plainly, this is a big deal because I see this starting a shift in moving to stacked sensors in the pro-sumer market. That's likely to define what manufacturers do next. Even more surprising, I'm not sure what this means for the top end of the market, because its hard to make a $6,500 camera that barely matches a $4,000 one.

 

[MiJax]

I would have thought that the AF and sensor were both equally important.

For any fast action that contains significant circular elements (balls, wheels), a sensor with a very fast readout is highly desirable. Likewise for golf clubs, baseball bats, aircraft propellers, vertical poles while panning, and quite a few other subject details. Very fast readout = stacked sensor.

But it ain't much use having perfectly circular wheels and balls, and perfectly straight bats and poles, if the primary subject isn't in focus.

For most wildlife, rolling shutter effects are rarely noticeable, but AF accuracy and tracking are paramount.

For most other subjects, neither AF tracking or readout speed are critical.

AF and sensor tech are both important. But AF that is 5% better than the next isn't the end of the world.

I disagree about wildlife and rolling shutter though. I can find rolling shutter in many action shots I take. However, nature is very good at masking the effect as you allude to. The question how hard do you work to mitigate it. If you shoot a R5/R6/R6 II, take a panning shot and tell me you don't see rolling shutter (using the e-shutter). You would be correct if you prefer the slower speeds of the mechanical shutter, but in action speed is what most of us prefer.

I agree about other forms of photography, readout and AF don't really matter. When something is sitting there and not moving, you can do the job with any modern camera and be just fine.

 

[john1970]

Can we just admit that a newly released camera (Z8) is more technologically advanced than a three year old camera (R5) at a similar price point? For me this is not new news. With digital cameras and modern day electronics three years is a long time to make improvements in technology. In twelve months or so there will be a R5 Mk2, which is likely to be a significant improvement for the current R5. For me I would rather focus on the lenses and am so far content with the lenses that Canon is releasing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just understand, fast sensors enable the makers to engineer less tradeoffs. Rolling shutter is the biggest benefit.

I see. First the higher bit depth at full fps was most important, but now that you’ve learned (or been reminded) that’s meaningless at ISO 800 and higher, rolling shutter is the biggest benefit. You’re moving the goalposts so fast they are bending…or maybe that’s just rolling shutter.

 

[MiJax]

I see. First the higher bit depth at full fps was most important, but now that you’ve learned (or been reminded) that’s meaningless at ISO 800 and higher, rolling shutter is the biggest benefit. You’re moving the goalposts so fast they are bending…or maybe that’s just rolling shutter.

I believe you are mistaking me for someone else or just lying to try to force a point. Please stick to what was said, and stop making your own alternative facts up. I'm finding this hilarious after you pointed out something I was mistaken on, now your just manufacturing stuff up out of thin air.

 

[entoman]

Can we just admit that a newly released camera (Z8) is more technologically advanced than a three year old camera (R5) at a similar price point? For me this is not new news. With digital cameras and modern day electronics three years is a long time to make improvements in technology. In twelve months or so there will be a R5 Mk2, which is likely to be a significant improvement for the current R5. For me I would rather focus on the lenses and am so far content with the lenses that Canon is releasing.

It's news because it has a stacked sensor at a price other manufacturers have found impossible, or have been unwilling, to match. That in a camera that is pretty much state of art in most other regards.

Whether or not a stacked sensor, and it's virtual elimination of rolling shutter, is important to me (it isn't) or to you is irrelevant. The point is that it is probably perceived by a very high percentage of the target market to be highly desirable.

It's likely to encourage a trend among other manufacturers to introduce stacked sensors to models lower down their ranges. I'm not going to use that grossly overused expression "game changer", but it's certainly a significant move by Nikon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Can we just admit that a newly released camera (Z8) is more technologically advanced than a three year old camera (R5) at a similar price point? For me this is not new news.

Agreed!

With digital cameras and modern day electronics three years is a long time to make improvements in technology.

True. But IMO, such improvements are of dubious benefit overall. For example, I suspect the R1 will have quad pixel AF. A benefit with a small subset of subjects. Game changing? Not really. A few milliseconds faster readout, an extra stop of DR, 40 fps instead of 30 fps. Benefits, yes…in certain, limited situations.

For me I would rather focus on the lenses and am so far content with the lenses that Canon is releasing.

Same here. My 1D X served me well for over a decade as my primary camera. The 1D X II and 1D X III offered technological improvements, but none sufficiently impactful for me to buy them (budget was not a limiting factor). The R3 did, so I bought it.

During that decade, I bought other cameras for specific needs, M bodies for travel, the EOS R mainly to try out, but the R3 was the replacement for my 1D X.

Today’s camera bodies are so good that lenses are much more the limiting factor. I expect the R8 that I bought for travel will perform as well as my R3 for many use cases (though the R3 will remain my primary camera, whether or not the R1 changes that will depend, it’s definitely not a given).

 

[neuroanatomist]

I believe you are mistaking me for someone else or just lying to try to force a point. Please stick to what was said, and stop making your own alternative facts up. I'm finding this hilarious after you pointed out something I was mistaken on, now your just manufacturing stuff up out of thin air.

Seriously? Is your memory of what you write so poor? Let's review:

But the fast sensor puts it in on another level. That's the biggest reason to buy an A1 over an R5. IIRC from the Z9, the fast sensor enables a higher bit depth (14 bit compressed) at high speed capture (meaning better DR at high speed capture). The fast sensor gives you the ability to use silent capture and not introduce rolling shutter.

Just understand, fast sensors enable the makers to engineer less tradeoffs. Rolling shutter is the biggest benefit.

Admittedly, perhaps in your first post you listed rolling shutter second but you actually thought it was first in importance. In that case I apologize for accusing you of moving the goalposts, but you have your own poor writing skills to blame for that.

 

[unfocused]

It's news because it has a stacked sensor at a price other manufacturers have found (or chosen) impossible, or have been unwilling, to match. That in a camera that is pretty much state of art in most other regards.

Whether or not a stacked sensor, and it's virtual elimination of rolling shutter, is important to me (it isn't) or to you is irrelevant. The point is that it is probably perceived by a very high percentage of the target market to be highly desirable.

It's likely to encourage a trend among other manufacturers to introduce stacked sensors to models lower down their ranges. I'm not going to use that grossly overused expression "game changer", but it's certainly a significant move by Nikon.

I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. It's a nice feature. "Game Changer" no. It's a camera that is three years newer than the R5, of course it should have newer technology than the R5. I am actually surprised at how closely it mirrors the R5.

The new sensor is an improvement under very specific circumstances. Next year, when Canon releases the R5II, it will have a similar sensor and other new features. Traditionally, Nikon and Canon have leapfrogged one another with new models on different release schedules. My quibble lies not in acknowledging it is a nice camera for Nikon owners, but in the (in my opinion) silly claim that this is revolutionary.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The R8 also seems to drive the STM lenses a lot better, it kept up with one of my kids sprinting towards the camera till their nose was inside the lens hood, using the RF50 STM.

Thanks for the tangential R8 feedback. Honestly, I just took mine out to start setting up the menus today. So far, my only gripe is that the filename cannot be customized (fortunately, my prior IMG_#### files are .CR2, not .CR3).

 

[Czardoom]

Just *LOL*
When we learned one thing in the past: The sensor isn't everything.
What's the use of a better sensor for action if the AF falls behind.
Open your eyes, wait for real world comparisons, and you'll see that the sensor might be a bit better but not a game changer.
BSI isn't everything. See R3 to R6II sensor...

BSI makes little to no difference, but the Z8's sensor is STACKED, and that is very different than a non stacked sensor in terms of speed.