Nikon releases a teaser video for the upcoming flagship Z 9 mirrorless camera

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
236
494
No, but I’ve used one. What staggers me about the Sony ‘flagship’ is the restrictions and limitations to functionality. Few of their lenses actually enable 30fps many are 20fps or even less and if you shoot RAW at those high fps you are tied to lossy compression.

Most people will be fine with the buffer, but on the occasions you hit it the lock out and the time it takes to clear are not consistent with ‘pro’ level tools.

The AF from the R5 is consistently rated as ‘better’ by actual users and the resolution difference between the A1 and R5 is similarly considered by users to be a non difference.

Given all that and the fact that the R5 is considerably cheaper than the A1 I’d find the Sony a very hard sell and an impossible tool to justify purchasing.
Interesting framing. Of course, you are the only one who could justify whether it's worth your hard-earned money. But let's look at your criticisms a bit closer:

"Few of their lenses actually enable 30fps many are 20fps or even less"

True, but many hit 25fps, and most of the lenses you'd want to max out burst rate--135GM, 70-200GM, 100-400GM, 200-600G and the exotics of course--do come close to 30fps if not hit it. I don't see it as Sony's fault if third-party lenses don't hit the max burst rate.

" and if you shoot RAW at those high fps you are tied to lossy compression."

This is also true, but with 50MP, you're not losing anything significant. To the point, you're going to have more resolution than the R3 can ever hope to achieve, and I haven't heard any complaints about a loss of DR or variations in color fidelity.

"Most people will be fine with the buffer, but on the occasions you hit it the lock out and the time it takes to clear are not consistent with ‘pro’ level tools."

If you say so. I've never tested, but there has already been someone in this thread to question the validity of this assertion.

"The AF from the R5 is consistently rated as ‘better’ by actual users"

Oh, come on! No one is going to accept this assertion without some independent support especially when the readout speed of the A1 gives it a tremendous advantage. Personally, my R5 has let me down on multiple occasions due to its inability to keep up with fast and erratically moving subjects. It also can be slow locking on. These are areas for which the stacked sensor was designed for. A1 users I know wax poetically about how the A1 locks on and is very sticky once it does. So, please excuse my skepticism about this claim.

" and the resolution difference between the A1 and R5 is similarly considered by users to be a non difference."

True. I've never used the A1, but I have used the 60MP A7r IV. I struggle to see a difference between that Sony and the R5. Most say that you need to (at least) double the resolution to see a difference, so 5MP is trivial.


"Given all that and the fact that the R5 is considerably cheaper than the A1 I’d find the Sony a very hard sell"


YMMV. For me, the fast readout, lack of rolling shutter, stickiness of AF in tracking fast and erratically moving birds, and zero blackout and no lag had me tempted. But in the end, I prefer Canon and Nikon ergonomics, and I wanted a pro-style body. But I was definitely tempted.

"and an impossible tool to justify purchasing."

Again, YMMV. I'm willing to wait for the Z9 or R1 and--perhaps even more importantly--whether a company offers a compelling prime like a 600mm pf/DO f/5.6. Whichever company comes out with this lens first--even if it's Sony--will get my money for both the lens and body.

So, unlike you, there are circumstances for which I can justify purchasing an A1.
 

maulanawale

EOS M6 Mark II
May 25, 2021
67
128
We'll Sony, Nikon, and the Canon's I tried all just can't focus on certain extremes. Such as a fence or even the ribs on a lens.
this video shows the issue on a Sony, but it is not a Sony specific problem.
That's interesting.

I guess speed and accuracy (when it works) are more noticeable in general than not being able to focus on certain patterns. Because I don't think many people would class M43 AF as better than Canon or Sony :ROFLMAO: (although perfectly usable of course)

It is somewhat reassuring and exciting though, that if both these brands can deliver the amazing AF systems they have now while still having room for improvement in terms of the core technology used, we should see some sci-fi stuff in the next few years.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,665
11,598
Interesting framing. Of course, you are the only one who could justify whether it's worth your hard-earned money. But let's look at your criticisms a bit closer:

"Few of their lenses actually enable 30fps many are 20fps or even less"

True, but many hit 25fps, and most of the lenses you'd want to max out burst rate--135GM, 70-200GM, 100-400GM, 200-600G and the exotics of course--do come close to 30fps if not hit it. I don't see it as Sony's fault if third-party lenses don't hit the max burst rate.

" and if you shoot RAW at those high fps you are tied to lossy compression."

This is also true, but with 50MP, you're not losing anything significant. To the point, you're going to have more resolution than the R3 can ever hope to achieve, and I haven't heard any complaints about a loss of DR or variations in color fidelity.

"Most people will be fine with the buffer, but on the occasions you hit it the lock out and the time it takes to clear are not consistent with ‘pro’ level tools."

If you say so. I've never tested, but there has already been someone in this thread to question the validity of this assertion.

"The AF from the R5 is consistently rated as ‘better’ by actual users"

Oh, come on! No one is going to accept this assertion without some independent support especially when the readout speed of the A1 gives it a tremendous advantage. Personally, my R5 has let me down on multiple occasions due to its inability to keep up with fast and erratically moving subjects. It also can be slow locking on. These are areas for which the stacked sensor was designed for. A1 users I know wax poetically about how the A1 locks on and is very sticky once it does. So, please excuse my skepticism about this claim.

" and the resolution difference between the A1 and R5 is similarly considered by users to be a non difference."

True. I've never used the A1, but I have used the 60MP A7r IV. I struggle to see a difference between that Sony and the R5. Most say that you need to (at least) double the resolution to see a difference, so 5MP is trivial.


"Given all that and the fact that the R5 is considerably cheaper than the A1 I’d find the Sony a very hard sell"


YMMV. For me, the fast readout, lack of rolling shutter, stickiness of AF in tracking fast and erratically moving birds, and zero blackout and no lag had me tempted. But in the end, I prefer Canon and Nikon ergonomics, and I wanted a pro-style body. But I was definitely tempted.

"and an impossible tool to justify purchasing."

Again, YMMV. I'm willing to wait for the Z9 or R1 and--perhaps even more importantly--whether a company offers a compelling prime like a 600mm pf/DO f/5.6. Whichever company comes out with this lens first--even if it's Sony--will get my money for both the lens and body.

So, unlike you, there are circumstances for which I can justify purchasing an A1.
The person you quote for stating that there are not buffer problems is Arbitrage. He is one of the very best birds in flight photographers, shoots the A1 mainly but had an R5, which he tested exhaustively and rates it nearly as good as the A1. If you have problems with the R5 for erratic BIF then don’t expect them to be miraculously cured by the A1. Arbitrage enjoys buying and testing new gear to extremes for BIF objectively and I trust his direct experience.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
961
1,024
Scotland
That's interesting.

I guess speed and accuracy (when it works) are more noticeable in general than not being able to focus on certain patterns. Because I don't think many people would class M43 AF as better than Canon or Sony :ROFLMAO: (although perfectly usable of course)

It is somewhat reassuring and exciting though, that if both these brands can deliver the amazing AF systems they have now while still having room for improvement in terms of the core technology used, we should see some sci-fi stuff in the next few years.

It certainly leaves room at the top end for the R1 to have Quad Pixel AF and Nikon to have cross type PDAF in the Z9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maulanawale

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
74
45
What a concept! Not gonna happen on this site! That would take all the fun out of everyone promoting their own agendas! Facts will just get in the way!
Guaranteed this camera will be judged, tried and sentenced before anyone has even held it in their hands. Speculation and imagination will run wild, all manner of conclusions will be drawn, and elaborate castles will be built in the sky.

After the product release and reviews, everyone will discover that its basically just another small incremental update over previous models, like every other camera by every other brand released recently, with one or two outstanding features, and certain compromises which will be to some people's dislike, but not others.

After be a bit of commotion, a new camera will be released by someone else, and then wash, rise, repeat cycle will happen once again, just like every other time before. :ROFLMAO:

PS - for the hair-splitters amongst us, this is partly a tongue-in-cheek comment, with a hint of truth to it, so don't sweat over it! ;)
 

PerKr

EOS 90D
Jul 11, 2018
135
135
Sverige
I have to agree that eye-control is more interesting, and if it works, clearly more innovative than a high-resolution sensor.

However, for my type of shooting, the high-MP count (is 40-50MP even particularly high when we have a two-year-old 60MP Sony and 80-90MP cameras in the works?) is a far more useful feature. A focus assist that produces less detail than my 11-year-old Nikon d800 is far less important than quick snap-on AF that is super-sticky in a body that allows me to crop as needed.

Thus, innovation is nice, but a camera that puts together the best of existing technologies is a win in my book.

It's a matter of use case I suppose. And what one is used to. Of course, having both would be nice. It's very rare that I miss having more pixels though it does happen and having more pixels would make editing easer in some ways. Most of the time, it just doesn't matter anymore (and when it really does, is anything below 100MP worth considering?), it was something that was more of a bother back when I only had 8MP (and even then only because of editing details that were hardly noticeable in the end image). A better, more intuitive AF system would make me curse my camera, and myself, a bit less on most shoots and that would be a major improvement. So to me, the R3 would be the better option than the Nikon or Sony offerings as an only camera, if the ECAF works as well as it seems.

However, my wallet tells me to stay away from them all so that's what I will do.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
236
494
The person you quote for stating that there are not buffer problems is Arbitrage. He is one of the very best birds in flight photographers, shoots the A1 mainly but had an R5, which he tested exhaustively and rates it nearly as good as the A1. If you have problems with the R5 for erratic BIF then don’t expect them to be miraculously cured by the A1. Arbitrage enjoys buying and testing new gear to extremes for BIF objectively and I trust his direct experience.
Good point. I'm not expecting miracles. The R5 is extremely good, and it is (currently) my primary wildlife camera. At this level we're talking about incremental improvements. The comment I was addressing claimed that, "[t]he AF from the R5 is consistently rated as ‘better’ by actual users". This extraordinary assertion goes far beyond "[R5 AF is] nearly as good as the A1". I find the first statement ludicrous. Your statement is plausible and makes sense given how good the R5 is. However, I have heard no other photographer/reviewer who has used both claim that the R5 outperforms the A1. Just the large amount of rolling distortion present in so many of my panning shots--which is virtually a nonfactor in A1 images--makes it inconceivable for me to believe the R5 has better AF than the A1.

Whether the A1 provides me specifically with useful performance gains over the R5 is an empirical question. The wonderful thing about camera retail in the US is that you can rent or buy equipment and test it for yourself. If the test equipment fails to meet expectations, it can be returned. But as I stated in my previous post, the body is only one factor in my buying decision. I'm looking for a "pocket rocket" equivalent to the 400 DO and 500 pf that gives me 600mm of reach. That is the biggest determinant of what body I purchase.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,665
11,598
Good point. I'm not expecting miracles. The R5 is extremely good, and it is (currently) my primary wildlife camera. At this level we're talking about incremental improvements. The comment I was addressing claimed that, "[t]he AF from the R5 is consistently rated as ‘better’ by actual users". This extraordinary assertion goes far beyond "[R5 AF is] nearly as good as the A1". I find the first statement ludicrous. Your statement is plausible and makes sense given how good the R5 is. However, I have heard no other photographer/reviewer who has used both claim that the R5 outperforms the A1.

Whether the A1 provides me specifically with useful performance gains over the R5 is an empirical question. The wonderful thing about camera retail in the US is that you can rent or buy equipment and test it for yourself. If the test equipment fails to meet expectations, it can be returned.
That's fair enough. I don't believe it's true either that the R5 is consistently better than the A1, but the difference between the two is pretty small. I get annoyed by people panning the A1 as it is clearly really good and just as much by those who rubbish the R5 as it's in the same league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maulanawale

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,047
830
No, but I’ve used one. What staggers me about the Sony ‘flagship’ is the restrictions and limitations to functionality. Few of their lenses actually enable 30fps many are 20fps or even less and if you shoot RAW at those high fps you are tied to lossy compression.

Most people will be fine with the buffer, but on the occasions you hit it the lock out and the time it takes to clear are not consistent with ‘pro’ level tools.

The AF from the R5 is consistently rated as ‘better’ by actual users and the resolution difference between the A1 and R5 is similarly considered by users to be a non difference.

Given all that and the fact that the R5 is considerably cheaper than the A1 I’d find the Sony a very hard sell and an impossible tool to justify purchasing.
The one real advantage that the A1 has is the stacked sensor in photos.
It actually has a slower rolling shutter than the R5 in video for some reason.
I imagine it has something to do with the fancy binning and then supersampling it does.
The 30 FPS is a farce.
The R5 can't maintain 20 FPS but neither can the A1.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,665
11,598
The one real advantage that the A1 has is the stacked sensor in photos.
It actually has a slower rolling shutter than the R5 in video for some reason.
I imagine it has something to do with the fancy binning and then supersampling it does.
The 30 FPS is a farce.
The R5 can't maintain 20 FPS but neither can the A1.
The R5 can get pretty close to 20 fps with the RF 100-500mm. I've done a 4 sec burst in RAW of a dragonfly in flight, for example, and got 76 shots.
Emperor_Dragonfly_flying_GIF3_4sec.gif
 
Last edited:

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
961
1,024
Scotland
I think Canon really stumped their toe on the 24mp sensor but on the other hand it saved me $6,000.

Nothing wrong with the 24 mp sensor. I have never been limited since we past 18 MP when it comes to large prints for my wall or to sell. 24 hasn't limited me and the 40+ of the Z9 will possibly spoil me though I am unsure what I'll get out of it when my prints are already pin sharp.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
Nothing wrong with the 24 mp sensor. I have never been limited since we past 18 MP when it comes to large prints for my wall or to sell. 24 hasn't limited me and the 40+ of the Z9 will possibly spoil me though I am unsure what I'll get out of it when my prints are already pin sharp.
I have to agree. Indeed the only real functionality I see for high mp sensors is cropping, which could surely be done much more cheaply and efficiently with crop sensors.

Yes zooming it to 100% of a 100mp RAW file is deliciously fun, but it doesn't actually give me anything that I am missing, it just fills in blanks that aren't there at normal output sizes...
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,305
3,838
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I have to agree. Indeed the only real functionality I see for high mp sensors is cropping, which could surely be done much more cheaply and efficiently with crop sensors.
It depends. With birds and anything else where you are distance limited, a crop sensor is better. With sports, where the action can occur randomly and quickly change position in the frame, it can be handier to have a full frame image and be able to crop. However, with high mp sensors, frame rate and buffer can be a more limiting factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LogicExtremist

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
325
330
UK
The person you quote for stating that there are not buffer problems is Arbitrage. He is one of the very best birds in flight photographers, shoots the A1 mainly but had an R5, which he tested exhaustively and rates it nearly as good as the A1. If you have problems with the R5 for erratic BIF then don’t expect them to be miraculously cured by the A1.
As an R5 owner who hasn’t used an A1, I make no comment, but for those interested, here is a link to Arbitrage’s Flickr galleries: https://www.flickr.com/photos/100907765@N08/
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,665
11,598
It depends. With birds and anything else where you are distance limited, a crop sensor is better. With sports, where the action can occur randomly and quickly change position in the frame, it can be handier to have a full frame image and be able to crop. However, with high mp sensors, frame rate and buffer can be a more limiting factor.
In practice, 90% or more of my bird shots are covered by the crop field. But, for birds in flight, full frame is better than crop for capturing rapid or erratically flying birds. I'll always choose one of my FF bodies over one of my APS-Cs as some of my best shots would have been clipped on crop. Nice thing about cameras like the R5 is that you can switch between full frame and crop, but at a price.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,047
830
It depends. With birds and anything else where you are distance limited, a crop sensor is better. With sports, where the action can occur randomly and quickly change position in the frame, it can be handier to have a full frame image and be able to crop. However, with high mp sensors, frame rate and buffer can be a more limiting factor.
I would rather have a 24 MP sensor for sports but I guess I can see the benefit of cropping for some team sports.
Some sports photographers prefer higher megapixels and some don't.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,305
3,838
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I would rather have a 24 MP sensor for sports but I guess I can see the benefit of cropping for some team sports.
Some sports photographers prefer higher megapixels and some don't.
Yes, I agree 24 is fine. In fact, 20 mp on the 1DxIII has been fine. I would have preferred about 30 mp as a sweet spot, but the 24mp didn't stop me from pre-ordering the R3. I just meant that with some sports (soccer for example) the wider view of a full frame that can be cropped vs. a crop sensor can be helpful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life