Just *LOL*
Speak for yourself. The sensor matters.
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.
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.
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.)
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/
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).
I would have thought that the AF and sensor were both equally important.
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.
AF and sensor tech are both important. But AF that is 5% better than the next isn't the end of the world.
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.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.
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.
Agreed!
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.
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.
Seriously? Is your memory of what you write so poor? Let's review:
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.
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).
