Industry News: The first Nikon Z 9 specifications

D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
More cameras that would produce great photos if only you cold get them to focus reliably..

Huh? What on earth is that to do with the mark 2 cameras? In my shots on the Z6 that are all wildlife I have never had so many sharp in perfect focus shots before. Only about 100 out of 18000 has missed focus. I am usually struggling to pick what pose of the wee critter I want to keep.

The Nikon Z only lack the CPU grunt to make the fancy eye af and tracking box modes reliable in the real world and that’s what the mark 2 seem to be addressing. All the traditional af modes are fast and reliable and get the shot.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
11,519
20,153
Huh? What on earth is that to do with the mark 2 cameras? In my shots on the Z6 that are all wildlife I have never had so many sharp in perfect focus shots before. Only about 100 out of 18000 has missed focus. I am usually struggling to pick what pose of the wee critter I want to keep.

The Nikon Z only lack the CPU grunt to make the fancy eye af and tracking box modes reliable in the real world and that’s what the mark 2 seem to be addressing. All the traditional af modes are fast and reliable and get the shot.
I don't think Bert is complaining in general about the AF of the first generation mirrorless from Nikon and Canon - they are great for static shots or easy birds in flight. He, unlike you, is a bird photographer, and they are not great for more demanding bird action photography - good DSLRs beat them hands down for flight photography. The new R5 is a real breakthrough. It's competing with the Nikon D500 and D850 for the action shots and is great for finding and tracking small animals and birds running around on the ground. As you imply, the extra grunt from a second or newer processor will make them fine for BIF or insects in flight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,072
2,335
59
I don't think Bert is complaining in general about the AF of the first generation mirrorless from Nikon and Canon - they are great for static shots or easy birds in flight. He, unlike you, is a bird photographer, and they are not great for more demanding bird action photography - good DSLRs beat them hands down for flight photography. The new R5 is a real breakthrough. It's competing with the Nikon D500 and D850 for the action shots and is great for finding and tracking small animals and birds running around on the ground. As you imply, the extra grunt from a second or newer processor will make them fine for BIF or insects in flight.


^What he said, and far more eloquently than I did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Sep 29, 2018
325
270
2.5 Gb has worked its way down as a good compromise. It doesn't need the massive head spreaders anymore and even the 10Gb in my Mac mini canny be all that big. I think we will see 2.5 Gb sooner than later, it is good enough and doesn't require recabling.

Say they can get 2.5Gb in with out heat and power issues, is the disk system in this camera fast enough to feed 2.5Gb?
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
Say they can get 2.5Gb in with out heat and power issues, is the disk system in this camera fast enough to feed 2.5Gb?

Aye, CF Express read is 1700 MB/s so it'll be a long time before that is the bottle neck on a system that can only transfer 2500 Mbps. The controller may be the limiter they're in read speed.

1700 MB/s is 13,600 Mb/s and ethernet is 2500 Mb/s. The only way to offload the data at full speed would be to install a TB3 port and tether via some TB3 fibre cable... that'll cost more than every piece off camera equipment in the stadium.

And aye as it stands 2.5 Gigabit ethernet is less or equal heat to 1 Gigabit at the moment and equal or less power, depending on the age of the chip. It is making its way into just about everything as it is good enough of an improvement without needing to spend potentially $???????????'s on 10 Gigabit, cable upgrades and the reassuringly expensive switches.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
If you output to the same size of printing or viewing, diffraction will be the same for the high resolution and low resolution sensors and you will have the same depth of field. Similar arguments apply to many of discussions of low vs high resolution sensors, such as noise, DR, shake, movement etc - they will appear worse for the high density sensor only when you enlarge it more than the low density sensor's image.

If diffraction occurs, more megapixels just mean enlarging a photo without any sharpness benefit. It reminds me of a "digital zoom". If I have more megapixels, I do not want to lower the resolution afterwards. It very much turns me off to see a high resultion image at 100% zoom and noticing all those imperfections in an image that show me that the resolution was just to high for the circumstances the photo was shot in.

An image should have the perfect sharpness, if you look at it at 100% zoom on a screen with a resolution that still allows you to see individual pixels.
 
Upvote 0