MrHollywood

The thing is this... The Z9 is a monstrously great camera and perhaps, for quite a few shooters, the best there is. That proves that Nikon can build something amazing without qualifications. But ...

I'm no brand-fan. I like Nikon and my lens investment has me waiting for the next round of bodies. But if Nikon comes up short, I'll probably sell it all and move to Sony. On two movie shoots we ...

Correct. Not looking good for Nikon. Of course they will have something great at some point, but WOW...besides the Z9, they are getting outrun badly by all of the Sony and Canon releases. Maybe ...

A little stress and griping over cameras is just fine! Look, there are no bad cameras anymore! Virtually everything is insanely fantastic! Ever since my D700 and the 5DMKII, things have been awesome. ...

And R3 is not the same kind of camera as a Z9. The resolution gap is significant/meaningful for a LOT of applications where the Z9 will be a better choice. I would never cross-shop a R3 vs. a Z9. R ...

The narrative is entirely accurate regarding AF. Nikon has to step up unless they want to give up a lot of market in the prosumer range. And lets remember that pros use prosumer stuff a LOT. Robert

It's becoming an old song at this point. Nikon has one camera that I'd buy today and that's the Z9. But I didn't buy it because my Z7II and Zfc were doing well enough for me and I really didn't ...

I haven't used it much, but it does seem to have a (meaningless) tiny edge in sharpness. It also breathes less, which is a nice upgrade, though my Nikon 24-70s also does a solid job on controlling ...

Sony's new 24-70 G Mark II is about as good (maybe a bit better to be honest) as my Nikon 24-70 2.8s and easier to handle. It also has a manual aperture ring for video work! I suspect Nikon will ...

Using both the Zfc (with the kits lens) or my Z7II (with 24-70 2.8s) to shoot auditions (moving subjects in some cases), we've found that eye AF works fairly well, but plenty of light makes things ...

100% on point. Nikon seems (for quite a while now) to be pretending that they never even released the Z7II/Z6II. The Z7II has been a solid camera for me, but I'm a little disappointed that Nikon ...

The 24-200 does an okay job for subject isolation since is has an extra 80mm of reach. I prefer longer focal length for portraits, so the 120mm isn't really for me. For casual stuff the 24-200 is ...

I still have the Sigma 135mm 1.8 ART, which is spectacular on my Z7II. Even if Nikon comes out with a Z version, I doubt it can be better in any significant way for my needs. Pretty much the same ...

Outside of not being fast glass, it's pretty well established that the 24-200 is pretty terrific. Nice shots! Robert

The 24-120 F4 is the new kid on the block, but I want a zoom of this type for versatility above all else. 24-200mm is a LOT more versatile and F4 isn't fast glass anyway. I own the 24-70 and 70-200 ...

I've never seen a lens with a soul. The best lenses on Earth are those closest to clear windows into the imagination; that is they imbue as little character on their own as possible. The Nikon Z is ...

No one is "bashing." If I had a huge issue with Nikon, I wouldn't 15-20K worth of their stuff. What people ARE doing is REPORTING. So here's a perfect situation where the weaker AF was exposed: Sho ...

A perfect summation. After a multi-camera shoot in two weeks my last Z7II will be sold. I will wait patiently for a Z8 or ZIII. Note the top shelf of Nikon lenses....I'm not about to bail on the ...

We used these camera on two film shoots with very experienced shooters. Set photography exposes AF troubles pretty quickly. When I say "experienced" I'm not talking hobbyists. These are pricey ...

Shoot the Z7II next to the new Sony's and you'll soon realize that the Sony is easier to work with regarding the AF. It's not about "blaming" the gear. The Nikon simply has am inferior interface ...