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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 5, 2021)

> Nikon is getting ready to officially announce the Nikon Z 9 flagship mirrorless camera body. It’s rumoured that Nikon will make an official announcement next week.
> Nikon Z 9 Rumored Specifications from Nikon Rumors
> 
> 8256 x 5504px resolution that confirms a 45MP stacked sensor (it is interesting to note that Canon decided to go with a 24MP sensor for their R3 camera).
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 5, 2021)

Given current silicon shortage expecting price to go up for this camera.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 5, 2021)

I hope for Nikon’s sake it’s good. Doesn’t sound that much better than an R5 to me.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I hope for Nikon’s sake it’s good. Doesn’t sound that much better than an R5 to me.



Stacked sensor like the R3 already puts it way ahead of the R5.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2021)

Very hyped for this, my savings account is giving me dirty looks as I am about to empty it.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 5, 2021)

Announcement in October. Shipping in October. R3 announced in September, but not shipping until last day of November. Come on Canon, get it together!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 5, 2021)

It looks really light the way the photographer is holding it.
It is interesting that the teaser is a model shoot instead of sports or wildlife.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It looks really light the way the photographer is holding it.
> It is interesting that the teaser is a model shoot instead of sports or wildlife.



3 more teasers to go.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 5, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Stacked sensor like the R3 already puts it way ahead of the R5.


The A1 has a stacked and is not way ahead of the R5


----------



## BuffaloBird (Oct 5, 2021)

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.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 5, 2021)

So nothing really interesting or groundbreaking at all.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So nothing really interesting or groundbreaking at all.


That depends. A 45mp sensor that has a flagship sized buffer (as opposed to the R5's painfully small and slow buffering) would be a significant accomplishment. Basically, it sounds like a 45mp R3, which is what a lot of people wanted from Canon. I give Nikon credit for that. Top of the line flagships aren't groundbreakers as you know, they need to be solid, steady workhorses and it sounds like this will accomplish that.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The A1 has a stacked and is not way ahead of the R5



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.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> That depends. A 45mp sensor that has a flagship sized buffer (as opposed to the R5's painfully small and slow buffering) would be a significant accomplishment. Basically, it sounds like a 45mp R3, which is what a lot of people wanted from Canon. I give Nikon credit for that. Top of the line flagships aren't groundbreakers as you know, they need to be solid, steady workhorses and it sounds like this will accomplish that.


The bigger joke is the A1's 'buffer' for a 'flagship' model. But really, is the fact that we have arrived at high resolution and fps and buffers a surprise.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 5, 2021)

What's going to be incredibly apparent to anyone who actually uses these cameras for sports and action is the fact that the R3 will easily have the largest and fastest clearing buffer... That's just how math works. 45mp is nice until you miss the touchdown because of the buffer.


----------



## t.linn (Oct 5, 2021)

As a Fuji user for many years, I find Nikon's inclusion of Fuji's 3-way tilt screen to be an interesting decision. Both designs—3-way tilt vs fully articulated—have advantages and disadvantages. As a stills shooter, I easily prefer the Fuji design which is faster to deploy, less vulnerable to damage, vastly more compatible with L-brackets, and far more discreet in use.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> What's going to be incredibly apparent to anyone who actually uses these cameras for sports and action is the fact that the R3 will easily have the largest and fastest clearing buffer... That's just how math works. 45mp is nice until you miss the touchdown because of the buffer.



That will depend. The backup slot on the R3 is SD, the backup slot on the Z9 is CF express type b. What will be more noticeable on sports is that the R3 has less data to push down the 1 Gbps Ethernet port that can only be mitigated in the Z9 by opting to go for 2.5 Gbps Ethernet or better(2.5 is fine, 10 Gbps will likely kill the battery and produce a lot of heat).


----------



## unfocused (Oct 5, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> What's going to be incredibly apparent to anyone who actually uses these cameras for sports and action is the fact that the R3 will easily have the largest and fastest clearing buffer... That's just how math works. 45mp is nice until you miss the touchdown because of the buffer.


I think we need to wait until we know more before we pass judgment on the Z9. Logic would dictate that Nikon would not release a flagship model at 45mp unless they were confident that it could meet the demands of top level professional sports shooters. There are still many Nikons on the sidelines at high end events. Assuming it won't be able to keep up with the R3 without knowing what limitations the Z might come with makes us sound like bitter fanboys.


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I think we need to wait until we know more before we pass judgment on the Z9. .....


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!


----------



## john1970 (Oct 5, 2021)

Looks like a nice camera that should compete well with A1 and R3.


----------



## entoman (Oct 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> That depends. A 45mp sensor that has a flagship sized buffer (as opposed to the R5's painfully small and slow buffering) would be a significant accomplishment. Basically, it sounds like a 45mp R3, which is what a lot of people wanted from Canon. I give Nikon credit for that. Top of the line flagships aren't groundbreakers as you know, they need to be solid, steady workhorses and it sounds like this will accomplish that.


Yes, basically a 45MP version of the R3, but lacking the eye-control focus point selector. Hard to say which of those features is the most valuable. I’d guess that most people shooting human subjects, especially sports, would consider the eye-control of the Canon to be more valuable. But for wildlife photographers, who usually need to crop fairly heavily, the extra MP of the Nikon would take the prize.

Decisions will also be heavily influenced by the rather different selections of native MILC lenses offered by each brand, although both will be able to adapt existing DSLR glass with only a fairly minor loss of performance.

But in reality, people already committed to Canon will probably get the R3, and upgrade to the R1 (which presumably will be 45MP or thereabouts), while people already tied into the Nikon system will jump at the Z9. I don’t honestly think many pros or “high end” amateurs will switch brands, as no one really *wants* to switch brands and have to buy a whole suite of new lenses and flashguns. People shooting for a living also don’t want to have to learn a new “alien” camera, if it can possibly be avoided.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2021)

An interesting note in the video is the models eye makeup. Now some skeptics are saying it was to make it easier for the eye AF (which would be a daft way to train it), or less skeptical suggest it is purely just makeup. To me, since the camera was able to focus in both orientations on a horizontal line it suggests we might have the first mirrorless equivalent of cross type points, especially given that current mirrorless cameras (from any manufacturer) can't focus on lines in the 'wrong' orientation.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 5, 2021)

Go Nikon. Hopefully its a good camera for them and their users. The better it is the better the future Canon camera's will be. 
Nikon has lost alot of users, It needs some sort of boost. If all-round its better than the R3 it helps the brand and encourages uers to stick with them. 
I've friends with the Z6II and Z7II and they are very happy with the cameras.
I think 45MP was a good choice. . I'd have been in favour of that for the R3. 
I own the 1DXIII and I think the 20MP sensor is its only weak point (besides weight). 
If it had been even 30MP it would be have a better all round camera.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Oct 5, 2021)

Not much of a teaser video... in fact, it was a little odd for my taste. All fluff, no details.


----------



## SilverBox (Oct 5, 2021)

I *do* prefer this style of flippy screen


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 5, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Stacked sensor like the R3 already puts it way ahead of the R5.


I really wouldn’t say “way” ahead. Slightly maybe. But not by much.


----------



## entoman (Oct 5, 2021)

SilverBox said:


> I *do* prefer this style of flippy screen


Even better would be a screen that tilts both vertically and horizontally AND swings forward for vloggers AND can be flipped into reverse to protect it from scratches.

i.e. a 2-way tilting screen with a ball joint on the left side (as viewed from behind the camera).

I believe the Panasonic S1H has such a screen.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 5, 2021)

No selfies possible with that screen and yes I have done them with my R5  
In general, 1d and Dx have the best video specs of their 35mm ILCs so it is surprising to me that 4k/120 isn't rumoured especially as the resolution reduces evenly from 8k resolution. I haven't heard of any reason why the A1's 60mp sensor resolution was chosen vs 45mp if 8k was important. That said, the A1's video processing from 8.6k to 8k including compression still generates less heat than the R5's raw.

Which brings us to the R1..... If it doesn't have 45mp then it would be considered poor competition to the A1/Z9 as the R3's resolution is probably the only perceived issue with it
If the R3's eye control works well and generally accepted (compared to the R's touch bar) then it is likely to be retained on the R1. New features could be global sensor (or fast enough read time to make eshutter flash sync to ~1/400s) and quad pixel for horizontal and vertical sensitivity. 
Battery life should be improved over the R3/R5 as well so new battery?
The gap in the body as per the patent would certainly differentiate it, make it lighter but not sure if heat dissipation would be improved.

What else would be considered a new feature?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I really wouldn’t say “way” ahead. Slightly maybe. But not by much.



No, stacked sensors are quite significantly ahead of traditional sensors. Saying otherwise just makes me think of those that where late to catch onto the benefits of dual core processors. You have a sensor that can read out significantly faster giving you the ability to not need the mechanical shutter even when fast panning, you have what you see being markably more realtime, you can shoot and track subjects without blackout. Frankly stacked sensors are the path to the global shutter, and it is the first mirrorless tech that pushes us past the OVF to things that weren't possible before.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Oct 6, 2021)

Well, if and when someone buys and actually receives an R3 and is disappointed with it, please send it my way. I promise not to complain about the extra weight while doing landscape photography.


----------



## AEWest (Oct 6, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> No selfies possible with that screen and yes I have done them with my R5
> In general, 1d and Dx have the best video specs of their 35mm ILCs so it is surprising to me that 4k/120 isn't rumoured especially as the resolution reduces evenly from 8k resolution. I haven't heard of any reason why the A1's 60mp sensor resolution was chosen vs 45mp if 8k was important. That said, the A1's video processing from 8.6k to 8k including compression still generates less heat than the R5's raw.
> 
> Which brings us to the R1..... If it doesn't have 45mp then it would be considered poor competition to the A1/Z9 as the R3's resolution is probably the only perceived issue with it
> ...


16 bit files.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 6, 2021)

AEWest said:


> 16 bit files.


16 bit would be nice and definitely a feature! 
Most users would be happy with 14 bit eshutter but 16 bit would be sweet.
Are there any cameras out there with 16 bit depth in raw stills that isn't medium format?


----------



## sanj (Oct 6, 2021)

Awful promo.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 6, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> An interesting note in the video is the models eye makeup. Now some skeptics are saying it was to make it easier for the eye AF (which would be a daft way to train it), or less skeptical suggest it is purely just makeup. To me, since the camera was able to focus in both orientations on a horizontal line it suggests we might have the first mirrorless equivalent of cross type points, especially given that current mirrorless cameras (from any manufacturer) can't focus on lines in the 'wrong' orientation.



actually, Oly's using cross type PDAF for a few years

https://www.getolympus.com/ca/en/digitalcameras/omd/e-m1-mark-ii.html

scroll down to Tech Specs

Their 'next big thing' may actually be global shutter, too.


----------



## Jordan23 (Oct 6, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> 16 bit would be nice and definitely a feature!
> Most users would be happy with 14 bit eshutter but 16 bit would be sweet.
> Are there any cameras out there with 16 bit depth in raw stills that isn't medium format?


It will definitively be an interesting feature if the Z9 can deliver high enough DR to make those 2 extra bit useful.


----------



## PerKr (Oct 6, 2021)

Will be interesting to see what they have once it's launched. Eye-controlled AF, or really eye-controlled focus point selection, is a far more interesting feature to me than high MP count. As for the fps value, ultimate maximum fps is not nearly as interesting as maximum fps with continuous AF. But it will be very interesting to see the reviews and comparisons. Question is though, when will we see the R1 announced?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2021)

Aglet said:


> actually, Oly's using cross type PDAF for a few years
> 
> https://www.getolympus.com/ca/en/digitalcameras/omd/e-m1-mark-ii.html
> 
> ...



A global shutter would require a monstrously powerful processor that I don’t believe is possible yet, nor necessary for photography as if the readout is fast enough global shutters don’t matter. 

I didn’t know Olympus had cross type, but regardless Sony, Canon, and Nikon don’t yet have a solution.


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 6, 2021)

A revolution for Nikon users:
the portrait screen!!!1

… it is so annoying to me that all other Zs don’t have it… also not the MK2s of Z6 &7…


----------



## 12Broncos (Oct 6, 2021)

I'm trying to decide on the R3 or Z9. I saw part of the teaser announcement that read, 'Nikon announces a Z9' that was all I could at the time. I was super excited! Then when I had time to actually look at it, I found out it was a teaser. I wasn't too happy and then to find there's 2 more teasers, quit teasing and announce it already.


----------



## arbitrage (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The bigger joke is the A1's 'buffer' for a 'flagship' model. But really, is the fact that we have arrived at high resolution and fps and buffers a surprise.


Are you having buffer issues with your A1?
I've been finding the ~150 shot buffer to be more than adequate. And I'm not even using the CFexpress cards. Just V90 SD.
I have more buffer issues with my R5 using CFexpress but I understand the R5 is just a consumer model and not flagship so that has to be expected.
I'm sure the R3 will do fine with its 20MP files.


----------



## arbitrage (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So nothing really interesting or groundbreaking at all.


Before making that statement you might want to wait for Nikon to give us the real specs.

So far the only facts Nikon has given out are:
1) Stacked FF sensor
2) 8K video
3) Dual tilting rear LCD (via this recent teaser)

That is all we officially know. We don't know the resolution (other than it has to be high enough to do 8K). We don't know the buffer, the card slots, the FPS or anything else special it may or may not do.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 6, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> A global shutter would require a monstrously powerful processor that I don’t believe is possible yet, nor necessary for photography as if the readout is fast enough global shutters don’t matter.


Why do you need a powerful processor for global shutter? The sensor takes a massively parallel pixel snapshot before sending to the processor. It is just a faster transfer than current sensor read outs but the processing for evf and to the cards is the same.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 6, 2021)

t.linn said:


> As a Fuji user for many years, I find Nikon's inclusion of Fuji's 3-way tilt screen to be an interesting decision. Both designs—3-way tilt vs fully articulated—have advantages and disadvantages. As a stills shooter, I easily prefer the Fuji design which is faster to deploy, less vulnerable to damage, vastly more compatible with L-brackets, and far more discreet in use.


The Lumix S1H screen has the best of both worlds


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 6, 2021)

entoman said:


> Decisions will also be heavily influenced by the rather different selections of native MILC lenses offered by each brand, although both will be able to adapt existing DSLR glass with only a fairly minor loss of performance.


Z mount cameras do not adapt F lenses nearly as well as RF mount cameras adapt EF lenses


----------



## Tarepanda (Oct 6, 2021)

honestly it sounds like everything the R3 should have been and canon didn't deliver at all
the dual CF card etc are small addition but huge impact as well.. I'm not gonna switch to nikon but I'm happy for nikon owners, this looks like a great camera, would have been worth an upgrade from the R5 if it was the R3 or even R1..
now for our sake let's hope it will move canon to announce what's their R1 will be and when do they plan on releasing it.. cos next olympics are way off still and the R5 being a beast still has flaws that are worth correcting quickly


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2021)

Tarepanda said:


> honestly it sounds like everything the R3 should have been and canon didn't deliver at all
> the dual CF card etc are small addition but huge impact as well.. I'm not gonna switch to nikon but I'm happy for nikon owners, this looks like a great camera, would have been worth an upgrade from the R5 if it was the R3 or even R1..
> now for our sake let's hope it will move canon to announce what's their R1 will be and when do they plan on releasing it.. cos next olympics are way off still and the R5 being a beast still has flaws that are worth correcting quickly



We're just sitting on the edges of our seats to find out if the animal eye AF and tracking match or best Canon's. It is a hell of a camera coming by the looks of it, but so far it's been shown on a mere human subject instead of something interesting. But heck, they showed off it can be your next studio camera.


----------



## Billybob (Oct 6, 2021)

PerKr said:


> Will be interesting to see what they have once it's launched. Eye-controlled AF, or really eye-controlled focus point selection, is a far more interesting feature to me than high MP count. As for the fps value, ultimate maximum fps is not nearly as interesting as maximum fps with continuous AF. But it will be very interesting to see the reviews and comparisons. Question is though, when will we see the R1 announced?


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.


----------



## Billybob (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So nothing really interesting or groundbreaking at all.


So far with what has been announced, rumored and teased, I'd agree that this camera is not groundbreaking. However, even if there are no surprises (there may be one or two), if this camera turns out to have comparable features to both the A1 and R3, just with a 40-45MP pixel sensor and no eye-control focus-point selector, it will be a very interesting camera.

Assuming the rumors so far are correct, the Z9 with have a stacked 40-45MP sensor with extremely fast readout speed, super-sticky tracking, no EVF blackout, no signifcant rolling-shutter distortion, and dual CFE/XQD card slots all in a pro-grade body. In certain respects if Nikon pulls it off, it will be the best features of the A1 and R3 with a few less MP than the A1 and no eye-control.

I find such a camera most interesting indeed.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Z mount cameras do not adapt F lenses nearly as well as RF mount cameras adapt EF lenses



The FTZ2 is due with the Z9 (and spotted in Tokyo). It may make adapting some lenses better, but Nikon have used way to many systems in the past and its come back to bite them in the rear end. If you have the latest E lenses, you are a-ok as long as you're happy with slightly slower AF in some lenses due to lack of power (expected to be sorted in the FTZ2). But the guys with their 30 year old screw drive AF lenses want those adapted too.


----------



## Bonich (Oct 6, 2021)

entoman said:


> Even better would be a screen that tilts both vertically and horizontally AND swings forward for vloggers AND can be flipped into reverse to protect it from scratches.
> 
> i.e. a 2-way tilting screen with a ball joint on the left side (as viewed from behind the camera).
> 
> I believe the Panasonic S1H has such a screen.


Vlogging with this size of camera?
This sport is for Arnold Schwarzenegger only.


----------



## entoman (Oct 6, 2021)

Bonich said:


> Vlogging with this size of camera?
> This sport is for Arnold Schwarzenegger only.


No, I doubt if anyone would use a Z9 or R3 for vlogging, but I’d really like Nikon, Canon and Sony to take a close look at the Panasonic S1H type of articulation, and either copy it (patents permitting), or come up with another design with the same functionality. It would benefit everyone, whether videographers or photographers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

entoman said:


> Even better would be a screen that tilts both vertically and horizontally AND swings forward for vloggers AND can be flipped into reverse to protect it from scratches.
> 
> i.e. a 2-way tilting screen with a ball joint on the left side (as viewed from behind the camera).
> 
> I believe the Panasonic S1H has such a screen.


Interesting design. My EOS R (and presumably the R3, I haven't looked that closely) has a joint on the left side that allows swinging out and a 360° rotation. The Panasonic S1H adds a hinge joint at the top for tilt.


----------



## SHAMwow (Oct 6, 2021)

People are seriously having issues capturing the right moment with 12-20 fps and CFExpress/ SD UHS II on the R5? I predominantly shoot sports with my R5 and not once have I had a moment where the buffer made me "miss the touchdown". Obviously we're all entitled to our opinion based on our experience, but I just don't see how that's happening. Nor would I call the R5, a $3800.00 camera a consumer camera. So if we're enthusiasts we all need an R3 or R1 now?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> People are seriously having issues capturing the right moment with 12-20 fps and CFExpress/ SD UHS II on the R5? I predominantly shoot sports with my R5 and not once have I had a moment where the buffer made me "miss the touchdown". Obviously we're all entitled to our opinion based on our experience, but I just don't see how that's happening. Nor would I call the R5, a $3800.00 camera a consumer camera. So if we're enthusiasts we all need an R3 or R1 now?



Do you shoot subjects faster than humans, humans are pretty slow compared to pretty much any vehicle and most animals.


----------



## maulanawale (Oct 6, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> A global shutter would require a monstrously powerful processor that I don’t believe is possible yet, nor necessary for photography as if the readout is fast enough global shutters don’t matter.
> 
> I didn’t know Olympus had cross type, but regardless Sony, Canon, and Nikon don’t yet have a solution.


Olympus might have x type AF points but they’re not nearly as fast and accurate as the non X from Canon or Sony , and I speak from experience. Can’t comment on the Nikon’s though.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

arbitrage said:


> Are you having buffer issues with your A1?
> I've been finding the ~150 shot buffer to be more than adequate. And I'm not even using the CFexpress cards. Just V90 SD.
> I have more buffer issues with my R5 using CFexpress but I understand the R5 is just a consumer model and not flagship so that has to be expected.
> I'm sure the R3 will do fine with its 20MP files.


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.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> Olympus might have x type AF points but they’re not nearly as fast and accurate as the non X from Canon or Sony , and I speak from experience. Can’t comment on the Nikon’s though.



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.


----------



## entoman (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Interesting design. My EOS R (and presumably the R3, I haven't looked that closely) has a joint on the left side that allows swinging out and a 360° rotation. The Panasonic S1H adds a hinge joint at the top for tilt.
> 
> View attachment 200647


Yes, the Panasonic articulation is a clever design, extremely versatile. It combines the “vlogging” forward facing option found on current Canons, with the on-axis 2 horizontal and vertical tilt of the Z9, and even flips over to protect the screen.

If only all cameras had this!


----------



## unfocused (Oct 7, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> People are seriously having issues capturing the right moment with 12-20 fps and CFExpress/ SD UHS II on the R5? I predominantly shoot sports with my R5 and not once have I had a moment where the buffer made me "miss the touchdown". Obviously we're all entitled to our opinion based on our experience, but I just don't see how that's happening...


I shot half a soccer game with the R5 to compare it to the 1DX III. Player hit a goal, then as soccer players do, the team erupted into a big celebration across half the field. It's utter chaos. Midway through the celebration, I hit the buffer limit and was SOL. Missed some shots I should have gotten. Haven't used the R5 for sports since.


----------



## Billybob (Oct 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 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  (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 (Oct 7, 2021)

Billybob said:


> 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"
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 7, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> 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  (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.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 7, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> 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. 

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 (Oct 7, 2021)

Billybob said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2021)

Billybob said:


> 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.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Oct 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Stacked sensor like the R3 already puts it way ahead of the R5.


I think Canon really stumped their toe on the 24mp sensor but on the other hand it saved me $6,000.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 7, 2021)

Bonich said:


> Vlogging with this size of camera?
> This sport is for Arnold Schwarzenegger only.


Peter McKinnon and Casey Neistat both used to vlog with 1DX II cameras.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> 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 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 (Oct 7, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 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.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 7, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.


----------



## candyman (Oct 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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.
> View attachment 200657


Absolutely great!


----------



## entoman (Oct 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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/[email protected]/


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 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.


----------



## jam05 (Oct 8, 2021)

BuffaloBird said:


> 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 (Oct 9, 2021)

Billybob said:


> 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 (Oct 9, 2021)

Jordan23 said:


> 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).


----------



## SHAMwow (Oct 10, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Do you shoot subjects faster than humans, humans are pretty slow compared to pretty much any vehicle and most animals.


No I don't, but the example was a touchdown, and I shoot a lot of football.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 10, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> 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 (Oct 10, 2021)

Billybob said:


> 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 (Oct 10, 2021)

Jordan23 said:


> 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 (Oct 10, 2021)

Jordan23 said:


> 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.)


----------



## Jordan23 (Oct 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 10, 2021)

Jordan23 said:


> 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.


----------



## SHAMwow (Oct 11, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 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 (Oct 11, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 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.


----------



## entoman (Oct 11, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 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.


----------



## entoman (Oct 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Oct 11, 2021)

entoman said:


> 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 (Oct 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 11, 2021)

entoman said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Oct 12, 2021)

Billybob said:


> 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 (Oct 12, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 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.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 12, 2021)

entoman said:


> 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.


----------



## entoman (Oct 12, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 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.


My reply was to your post which I have pasted below, in which you claimed that the stacked sensor design was superior for “*tracking a moving subject*”

I naturally assumed that you were referring to **AF tracking**, which is exactly what I addressed in my reply.…

Perhaps what you meant, was **visually tracking** the subject in the EVF, where the minimal time lag of a stacked sensor clearly makes a difference?



Codebunny said:


> 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.


----------



## maulanawale (Oct 13, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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.)


If people did that, it'd be the end of the internet as we know it 
But what a beautiful end though. . . 

I think it is even more apparent with high end gear. Many people with pro grade cameras expecting pro grade results without pro grade knowledge or experience, and a massive loudspeaker in the shape of Youtube, forums, social media. . . (note that by Pro I don't necessarily mean paid professional but rather a very experience individual) 

In this day and age, I think it's safe to say that if you fail *consistently* at getting sharp, undistorted photos of whatever subject tickles your pickle, it's 99% a biological interface error , the other 1% being a dodgy camera/lens that slipped through QC.


----------



## maulanawale (Oct 13, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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.


I've thought about this before and discussed it at length with others, though of course not everyone will agree:

I'm a millennial and I think it is my generation and the ones after that are to blame for this.
More seasoned photographers (at least the ones I talk to) will tend to judge today's gear with an eye in the past and compare what they can do today with what they couldn't do 20 years ago.
Us "digital natives" are so used to the next best thing being released year after year, that we tend to look at technology with an eye in the future (or the neighbour) and, despite being amazed by it for a short while, it doesn't take long for it to turn into "yeah it's good, but it can't do 50fps/8k120/NoisefreeISO24x10^9 and of course I need that . . ."


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 13, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> If people did that, it'd be the end of the internet as we know it
> But what a beautiful end though. . .
> 
> I think it is even more apparent with high end gear. Many people with pro grade cameras expecting pro grade results without pro grade knowledge or experience, and a massive loudspeaker in the shape of Youtube, forums, social media. . . (note that by Pro I don't necessarily mean paid professional but rather a very experience individual)
> ...


People want professional results without professional skill.
It may be unrealistic but I do not think there is anything wrong with that.
Where it does go wrong is expecting better results just by buying more expensive gear.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 13, 2021)

Looks like it shoots 8k for quite a bit over a hour. Though, more interestingly it is shown in a wildlife setting so animal eye AF is assuredly coming to Nikon.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 13, 2021)

entoman said:


> My reply was to your post which I have pasted below, in which you claimed that the stacked sensor design was superior for “*tracking a moving subject*”
> 
> I naturally assumed that you were referring to **AF tracking**, which is exactly what I addressed in my reply.…
> 
> Perhaps what you meant, was **visually tracking** the subject in the EVF, where the minimal time lag of a stacked sensor clearly makes a difference?



Visually Tracking. As I said, there is more to tracking a subject than your AF and AF tracking. Which is why stacked sensors are as big a change as OVF to mirrorless. Frankly mirrorless should have waited until we had stacked sensors.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 13, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Visually Tracking. As I said, there is more to tracking a subject than your AF and AF tracking. Which is why stacked sensors are as big a change as OVF to mirrorless. Frankly mirrorless should have waited until we had stacked sensors.


I honestly only prefer stacked sensors for lower rolling shutter distortion.
I will always prefer a mirror to a video screen.


----------



## maulanawale (Oct 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> People want professional results without professional skill.
> It may be unrealistic but I do not think there is anything wrong with that.
> Where it does go wrong is expecting better results just by buying more expensive gear.


Agreed, absolutely nothing wrong, to each their own.
It is just setting yourself up for disappointment and frustration if you expect the best results without putting in the work, but that's just how life works I guess.

Having said that however, I've always been the kind that gets gear above his skill level, and it has become a motivation to learn the necessary skills. I just wouldn't think of blaming the camera for my inability to predict where a bird is going.


----------



## maulanawale (Oct 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I honestly only prefer stacked sensors for lower rolling shutter distortion.
> I will always prefer a mirror to a video screen.


Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your post and this might be the silliest question in this thread.
Do you mean that DSLRs also suffer from rolling shutter distortion for stills? (I know some do for video)
I've had a Google but couldn't find anything and last time I used a DSLR, my subjects were mostly either stationary or very slow moving so can't speak from experience.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 15, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your post and this might be the silliest question in this thread.
> Do you mean that DSLRs also suffer from rolling shutter distortion for stills? (I know some do for video)
> I've had a Google but couldn't find anything and last time I used a DSLR, my subjects were mostly either stationary or very slow moving so can't speak from experience.


DSLRs are exactly the same.
Any camera with a CMOS rolling electronic shutter will have the same issue depending on the readout speed.


----------



## maulanawale (Oct 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> DSLRs are exactly the same.
> Any camera with a CMOS rolling electronic shutter will have the same issue depending on the readout speed.


Of course! I completely dismissed the fact that some DSLR have ES and was thinking purely mechanical.
Thanks!


----------

