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

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
508
334
Makes the R3 look even more lame. Lol. Hopefully this will accelerate the go-to-market for the R1, which it seems I have to wait for in order to get a full-bodied wildlife/birding camera.
You would still be waiting regardless. The chip shortage isnt ending any time soon. Camera releases mean absolutely nothing. As only a mere handfull are shipping each month if any anyhow. By the time a Z9 unit ever reaches the vendor the R1 will be released.
 

Jordan23

EOS M50
Sep 13, 2014
39
29
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.
The rolling distortion has nothing to do with the AF, that's the advantage of a stacked-sensor - fast read-out speed.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
236
494
The rolling distortion has nothing to do with the AF, that's the advantage of a stacked-sensor - fast read-out speed.
So you agree that the A1 performs better than the R5 on many dimensions (the fast read-out also improves AF due to less latency between AF readings and calculations).
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
961
1,024
Scotland
No I don't, but the example was a touchdown, and I shoot a lot of football.

Your subject is slow moving humans on a sport that you could successfully use a 1div on. If you try shooting tricky subjects that move faster and erratically then you’ll likely actually run into the limitations of these cameras.
 

Jordan23

EOS M50
Sep 13, 2014
39
29
So you agree that the A1 performs better than the R5 on many dimensions (the fast read-out also improves AF due to less latency between AF readings and calculations).
I don't follow you on what you mean with"many dimensions".
I have not tested the A1 myself, but in this thread and other sites there seems to be users saying the A1 has an edge on AF, and others say they're rather equal.
Anyway, the biggest difference between A1 and R5 is the distortion free shooting on A1, actually any camera with stacked sensor.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
236
494
I don't follow you on what you mean with"many dimensions".
I have not tested the A1 myself, but in this thread and other sites there seems to be users saying the A1 has an edge on AF, and others say they're rather equal.
Anyway, the biggest difference between A1 and R5 is the distortion free shooting on A1, actually any camera with stacked sensor.
Apparently neither one of us shoots the A1, so neither one of us has credibility discussing the relative merits of the two cameras. When our best arguments start with "I have not tested..." and include "[some] seem to... say", I think it's apparent that neither one of us has anything worthwhile to add to the debate about which camera is superior and how it surpasses the other.

Thus, I'm officially done discussing the relative merits of cameras in this thread.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,665
11,598
I don't follow you on what you mean with"many dimensions".
I have not tested the A1 myself, but in this thread and other sites there seems to be users saying the A1 has an edge on AF, and others say they're rather equal.
Anyway, the biggest difference between A1 and R5 is the distortion free shooting on A1, actually any camera with stacked sensor.
The distortion is only when rapid panning or with rapid fan-like subject movement when you are using the electronic shutter. Just use mechanical shutter in those situations and you won't have distortion. If people would learn how to get the best from their gear and what to do in different circumstances, then there would be far less misleading criticism. (I have never had any of my shots spoiled by distortion using the electronic shutter, anyway.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: maulanawale

Jordan23

EOS M50
Sep 13, 2014
39
29
The distortion is only when rapid panning or with rapid fan-like subject movement when you are using the electronic shutter. Just use mechanical shutter in those situations and you won't have distortion. If people would learn how to get the best from their gear and what to do in different circumstances, then there would be far less misleading criticism. (I have never had any of my shots spoiled by distortion using the electronic shutter, anyway.)
Yes, there are workarounds to avoid distortion with R5 but those usually come with drawbacks like dropping from 20 to 12 fps and the need to watch battery-life more carefully to maintain 12 fps. Whatever the solutions R5-owners (me included;)) might choose to avoid distortion, would have been a non-issue with a stacked sensor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Codebunny

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,665
11,598
Yes, there are workarounds to avoid distortion with R5 but those usually come with drawbacks like dropping from 20 to 12 fps and the need to watch battery-life more carefully. Whatever the solutions R5-owners (me included;)) might choose to avoid distortion, would have been a non-issue with a stacked sensor.
For what I do, but not for many or even most others, a high density 45 Mpx FF or 20 Mpx crop sensor is a must as I can't hump around a 600mm f/4 with a 2x TC. If rolling shutter in ES was any impediment for me, I'd go out and buy a Sony A1 and a 200-600mm in a flash. If Canon brings out an R1 or something with a high density sensor, I might consider that. By the way, I don't get poorer battery life using EFCS in practice because there are fewer duplicates to bin at 12 fps than at 20 fps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jordan23

SHAMwow

EOS M50
CR Pro
Sep 7, 2020
47
85
Your subject is slow moving humans on a sport that you could successfully use a 1div on. If you try shooting tricky subjects that move faster and erratically then you’ll likely actually run into the limitations of these cameras.
I still don't get what point your arguing or defending. The camera was criticized for football/sports. I defended it on the grounds of that use case.

As to your birding or race car examples, I still don't think that "limitation" is the right word, but I'm not going to argue about something I don't shoot.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
325
330
UK
The A1 has a stacked and is not way ahead of the R5
A statement like that needs to be qualified.

If you are talking about image quality, there’s little to choose between them. Looking at studio test scenes I’d say that the R5 has marginally better DR, but less fine detail at certain ISO settings due to heavier noise control combined with slight over-sharpening.

But if you are talking about rolling shutter, the AI beats the R5 hands down.

As always, it’s swings and roundabouts, gains here and losses there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
325
330
UK
For tracking subjects a moving subject it is. There is more to a sensor than megapixels and more to a lens than its focal length. The A1 is in a different class to the R5, and the R3 and Z9 sit on their own at the top.
Reviews that I’ve read, such as the excellent R5 vs A1 comparison by top BIF photographer Jan Wegener, place the cameras about equal regarding tracking fast-moving subjects.

The R5 apparently detects animal eyes at a greater distance, and is less likely to jump onto the background, but both cameras seem to perform equally well in the hands of a practiced user. The selection of focus cases, focus zones etc differs considerably between the two cameras, and in either case it will take a user a fair bit of time and experience to get the best from them.

Would I swap my R5 for an A1 if they were the same price? Unlikely, as I consider the Canon to have better ergonomics and to be more intuitive to handle.
Would I swap my R5 for an R3? Again, unlikely, because I need the 45MP.
Would I swap my R5 for a Z9? Definitely, if I could afford a system switch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
325
330
UK
The distortion is only when rapid panning or with rapid fan-like subject movement when you are using the electronic shutter. Just use mechanical shutter in those situations and you won't have distortion. If people would learn how to get the best from their gear and what to do in different circumstances, then there would be far less misleading criticism. (I have never had any of my shots spoiled by distortion using the electronic shutter, anyway.)
Rolling shutter is only really a problem in limited scenarios, such as if there are straight vertical lines (e.g. poles in the background of a panned shot), or if part of the subject is a near-vertical straight line (e.g. a golf club in action), or if photographing a very fast-moving fan or propeller.

The wings of birds and insects have curved edges, they flex naturally, and in the case of birds, butterflies and dragonflies the wing-beats are relatively slow so I don’t think rolling shutter would ever be noticeable in BIF or insect-in-flight shots.

It’s certainly true that one needs to learn when and when not to use different shutter modes, but for some users there may be scenarios where 20-30fps is needed/wanted but mechanical or EFCS are ruled out because silent shutter is needed. But don’t ask me for an example, because I can’t off-hand think of one!
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,665
11,598
Rolling shutter is only really a problem in limited scenarios, such as if there are straight vertical lines (e.g. poles in the background of a panned shot), or if part of the subject is a near-vertical straight line (e.g. a golf club in action), or if photographing a very fast-moving fan or propeller.

The wings of birds and insects have curved edges, they flex naturally, and in the case of birds, butterflies and dragonflies the wing-beats are relatively slow so I don’t think rolling shutter would ever be noticeable in BIF or insect-in-flight shots.

It’s certainly true that one needs to learn when and when not to use different shutter modes, but for some users there may be scenarios where 20-30fps is needed/wanted but mechanical or EFCS are ruled out because silent shutter is needed. But don’t ask me for an example, because I can’t off-hand think of one!
A rare example of rolling shutter is sometimes with humming birds. As I mentioned, I haven’t had a single bird or dragonfly in flight shot spoiled by rolling shutter. The EFCS on the R5 is pretty close to being silent, a sort of reassuring buzz that you are actually shooting and fo how long rather than the eerie silence of ES.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
325
330
UK
A rare example of rolling shutter is sometimes with humming birds. As I mentioned, I haven’t had a single bird or dragonfly in flight shot spoiled by rolling shutter. The EFCS on the R5 is pretty close to being silent, a sort of reassuring buzz that you are actually shooting and fo how long rather than the eerie silence of ES.
I definitely agree about the “eerie silence” problem - personally I really wish Canon would issue a firmware update that enabled users to have the option of a volume-adjustable fake shutter sound with electronic shutter. But that’s about as likely as them issuing a firmware update that allowed users to shoot electronic shutter at 5ps and 10fps as well as 20fps….

I’ve been mainly shooting birds this summer, rather than insects, but a lot of insects (particular satyrine butterflies) are very sensitive to noise. So next spring (or earlier if I travel to the tropics) I’Il be interested to see how they react to the sound of EFCS or mechanical.

The last time I shot hummingbirds was with my DSLRs, I haven’t had the opportunity since Covid to get back to the neotropics and shoot them with my R5, but given the natural curvature of bird wings, I don’t think rolling shutter would be significant enough to be apparent, unless you have evidence to the contrary of course.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
961
1,024
Scotland
Reviews that I’ve read, such as the excellent R5 vs A1 comparison by top BIF photographer Jan Wegener, place the cameras about equal regarding tracking fast-moving subjects.

The R5 apparently detects animal eyes at a greater distance, and is less likely to jump onto the background, but both cameras seem to perform equally well in the hands of a practiced user. The selection of focus cases, focus zones etc differs considerably between the two cameras, and in either case it will take a user a fair bit of time and experience to get the best from them.

Would I swap my R5 for an A1 if they were the same price? Unlikely, as I consider the Canon to have better ergonomics and to be more intuitive to handle.
Would I swap my R5 for an R3? Again, unlikely, because I need the 45MP.
Would I swap my R5 for a Z9? Definitely, if I could afford a system switch.

You are not quite getting it. Canon's AF is great, it can lot on focus and track a subject better than just about anyone. But the R5 isn't any better at following a subject than any other camera with the more traditional sensor, even at 120hz. The stacked sensor in the R3 is simply better than the R5. You have much less latency between what you see on the screen and real life. When you press the shutter the details are captured quicker than the R5. We also see this in the A1 and unless Nikon has buggered up their new processor, we'll see this in the Z9.

The new R3 and Z9 sit on a very different level from the R5 from just those sensors having a markedly faster readout. FPS, focus calculations per frame, and even megapixels become irrelevant if you are always 300ms behind your target and can't keep it in the frame. Rather extensive testing showed real-world differences in gamers that had a 120hz vs 240hz vs 360hz screen. We'll see the same in future pro bodies where they'll get even faster readouts, faster EVF's, and likely faster startup times to set them apart from the 5-series bodies. Just now we get the stacked sensor, and it really seems people don't get how much of a change that is. It is as big a change as switching from a DSLR to mirrorless is.

If the R5 was given a 45MP stacked sensor, it would put just about every other camera to shame but likely cost a good £1000 more. Most likely the R1 will be the stacked R5.
 
Dec 6, 2018
192
310
Apparently neither one of us shoots the A1, so neither one of us has credibility discussing the relative merits of the two cameras. When our best arguments start with "I have not tested..." and include "[some] seem to... say", I think it's apparent that neither one of us has anything worthwhile to add to the debate about which camera is superior and how it surpasses the other.

Thus, I'm officially done discussing the relative merits of cameras in this thread.

If a builder had never constructed 12 inch walls, why can't they tell someone that 12 inch walls can insulate better than 4 inch stud walls? If someone has never pulled a 10,000 pound trailer with a Ford F150, why shouldn't they tell someone that the Ford F150 is better for that than a Transit 150 van?

It doesn't take much depth of thought to realize that credibility is not based solely on using or not using. What's more important is whether information is correct, and if somebody can reference a source.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
325
330
UK
You are not quite getting it. Canon's AF is great, it can lot on focus and track a subject better than just about anyone. But the R5 isn't any better at following a subject than any other camera with the more traditional sensor, even at 120hz. The stacked sensor in the R3 is simply better than the R5. You have much less latency between what you see on the screen and real life. When you press the shutter the details are captured quicker than the R5. We also see this in the A1 and unless Nikon has buggered up their new processor, we'll see this in the Z9.

The new R3 and Z9 sit on a very different level from the R5 from just those sensors having a markedly faster readout. FPS, focus calculations per frame, and even megapixels become irrelevant if you are always 300ms behind your target and can't keep it in the frame. Rather extensive testing showed real-world differences in gamers that had a 120hz vs 240hz vs 360hz screen. We'll see the same in future pro bodies where they'll get even faster readouts, faster EVF's, and likely faster startup times to set them apart from the 5-series bodies. Just now we get the stacked sensor, and it really seems people don't get how much of a change that is. It is as big a change as switching from a DSLR to mirrorless is.

If the R5 was given a 45MP stacked sensor, it would put just about every other camera to shame but likely cost a good £1000 more. Most likely the R1 will be the stacked R5.
Oh, I absolutely “get it” and agree with your comments, but the point I was making is that *in practice* the traditional sensor in the R5 is virtually indistinguishable in tracking performance from the stacked sensor A1. I haven’t used an A1 personally, so I qualified my comment by referring to the A1 vs R5 BIF video by Jan Wegener - a very highly regarded and brand-neutral BIF photographer.

Whether the R3, R1, Z9, or Sony’s successor to the A1 improve on that tracking ability remains to be seen. Clearly the R3 (and hence R1) has faster *acquisition* than the R5 but that is largely due to the inclusion of eye-controlled AF point selection.

Certainly in *theory* a new generation (for Canon) stacked sensor should be better at tracking, as a result of faster readout, improved subject recognition and better tracking algorithms, but whether the R3, R1, Z9, or Sony’s successor to the A1 improve on that tracking ability in any significant way has yet to be demonstrated.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
961
1,024
Scotland
Oh, I absolutely “get it” and agree with your comments, but the point I was making is that *in practice* the traditional sensor in the R5 is virtually indistinguishable in tracking performance from the stacked sensor A1. I haven’t used an A1 personally, so I qualified my comment by referring to the A1 vs R5 BIF video by Jan Wegener - a very highly regarded and brand-neutral BIF photographer.

Whether the R3, R1, Z9, or Sony’s successor to the A1 improve on that tracking ability remains to be seen. Clearly the R3 (and hence R1) has faster *acquisition* than the R5 but that is largely due to the inclusion of eye-controlled AF point selection.

Certainly in *theory* a new generation (for Canon) stacked sensor should be better at tracking, as a result of faster readout, improved subject recognition and better tracking algorithms, but whether the R3, R1, Z9, or Sony’s successor to the A1 improve on that tracking ability in any significant way has yet to be demonstrated.

You are still talking about AF, tracking, acquisition, and even subject recognition. But the stacked sensor is a OVF to EVF type change. The R3 is better than the R5 because that stacked sensor lets you see the subject closer to real time. If we take that a OVF has 0ms latency because it is just a mirror and glass, you are seeing in realtime what is happening. The R5 (regardless of the 60 or 120hz) is say 300ms behind the real world. Well a stacked sensor could be 30ms behind the real world and could eventually hit 1-2ms in future versions.