Nikon Z9 pre-production sample gallery (DPReview TV)

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7395303261/sony-alpha-a9-ii-sample-gallery/1123012362

If you are going to troll at least entertain us… please.

Nov 3, 2021permalink

wx-man90

Couldn't agree more

Nov 6, 2021permalink

BackToNature1

Seems going back to look at the DPR samples, we have an wide variety of testing conditions for those top level sports photography aimed cameras. So it's really hard to make an decent comparisons. I don't even think DPR shot sports with the A1.

This(Z9) was clearly done in decent lighting as opposed to for example the a9ii sports shots mostly were not. IMO. Then there is operator error to worry about seeing this isn't their everyday camera. So it's hard to come to certain definitive conclusion based solely on the DRP gallery samples. By comparison.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7395303261/sony-alpha-a9-ii-sample-gallery/1480400869

Nov 2, 2021permalink

MikeRan

So to people used to looking at sports photography from 20MP sensors and suggesting some of the action shots are not tack sharp (I haven't really checked them critically), Keep in mind for equivalent sharpness with a 45MP sensor you need almost 2/3 stop faster shutter speed for the same amount of pixel level motion blur.

Some of these action shots are 1/800 or 1/1000 and I would argue those are not fast enough for action with a 45.75MP camera. If you find the shots at 1/3200 are not sharp then it's probably not motion blur. Again I haven't looked critically to see so I'm not judging.

You can make your own judgement.

Nov 2, 2021permalink

Karl Huber

"...so I'm not judging." Really???

Nov 2, 2021permalink

MikeRan

Nope.
What did I say here that was judgemental?

Nov 2, 2021permalink

MILC man

there are caveats to that, for example if the camera is panning to match the speed and direction of travel you can often use a slower shutter.

recognizing that it's not tack sharp is a start, but some posters have stated that they can't even see that, which is either a lack of knowledge or it's done to be deliberately misleading, in order to protect their brand identity.

the first rule of troubleshooting is to always evaluate at 100% view.

see this example at 1/1600th, notice how the lettering on the ball is sharp, but her face is a blurry mess: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5284215245/nikon-z9-pre-production-sample-gallery-dpreview-tv/9094673419

that's not motion blur and it's not sensor resolution, it's front-focusing... 1/1600th again, same type of photo, but the ball is blurry and the letters on her jersey are sharp, because the focus is much better: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5284215245/nikon-z9-pre-production-sample-gallery-dpreview-tv/5099454460

Nov 2, 2021*permalink

Karroly

Karl Huber,
Judging and trying to give an explanation are not the same...
Are you trying to judge MikeRan ? ;-)

Nov 3, 2021*permalink

Some real good attractive shots and some that can’t match an iPhone for color,sharpness.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

What???

Oct 31, 2021permalink

19. 35. 44. are a few.Not impressed.Expect a lot more from a flagship camera.Wouldn’t trade my D500 for it.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

Yes you would.

Nov 1, 2021permalink

jaberg

As much as I love my iPhone and iPhone photography…

This statement is, at best, offbase. Any camera can produce bad images and I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that many, if not most, of us who shoot digital are prone to “take a chance” when we click the shutter. (No slight towards deliberate shooters intended.) Choosing three out of a gallery that “don’t impress” is cherry picking. I have thousands of iPhone photos that “don’t impress”. They’re on my camera roll alongside winners that hang on walls. Some of those winners were happy accidents.

Nov 1, 2021permalink

Just another tog
I have been commenting on here about Nikon cameras for 15 years.You joined last week or something.The comment is my opinion.You are welcome to yours.Who’s the troll.

Nov 1, 2021permalink

Jayberg
Not cherry picking.Take a look at those three and match up others of the same quality yourself.Not impressed.Lot of nice shots as well.

Nov 1, 2021permalink

Madeinlisboa
Wouldn’t want that size camera.Wouldn’t buy that camera.Pretty straight up comment.What do you have a problem with understanding.

Nov 1, 2021permalink

Karroly

Ridiculous,
Just show us 45MP iPhone picture that shows the same level of details in the hair of the two persons like in picture #19 at ISO 640...
Just show us 45MP iPhone pictures as good as pictures #35 and #44 at ISO800 and ISO1600 respectively... Note also that, because of the short DOF, you cannot expect everything sharp in these pictures (the focus is on the ball).
And you just forgot that, to take similar pictures with an iPhone, you would have to digitally zoom with a catastrophic consequence on the final IQ.

Nov 1, 2021*permalink

I comment on a camera and you throw the insults.Your a real bright spark eh.

Nov 1, 2021permalink

Some of the shots are so unattractive I don’t know how they could be included.A lot are real good.That’s my opinion.Watched the video by Jordan and was impressed.The ones I originally mentioned could be beat by a throwaway plastic film camera yet alone a iPhone.
It’s a comment section.

Nov 1, 2021permalink

@ jackspra

You’re here for 15 years and you still don’t know the goal of those sample galleries? SMH

Nov 1, 2021*permalink

Look at the the recent GR3 sample gallery.Great shots and no duds.
Take shot one,great shot but don’t look sharp to me.Cold colors as well.The athlete deserves the best looking shot and I am sure Chris wants to give him that as well.Flagship camera and going to be used for sports.Velodrome shots and a lot of others were real nice.
Be careful with the head shaking,it can cause Black Sabbath headbangers syndrome.

Nov 2, 2021permalink

You are so funny and yet so reality off. LOL

Nov 2, 2021permalink

LoSPt1

@jackspra, right, so you're saying that somehow iPhone's camera would fare better in the same situations? Bad trolling is bad, enough said...

Nov 2, 2021*permalink

Yes better colors and focus than some of these from the seven grand or close with lens camera.Calling people trolls is so goofy.

Nov 3, 2021permalink

@jackspra
This is what you said in another article - Sony A7-IV article.
“ Great camera.Impressive shots.Sony photos look so much better than a few years ago.”

Nov 3, 2021permalink

And

Nov 3, 2021permalink

Elisam

I don’t get the praise of colours. They look like iPhone / smartphone over saturated colours. Not what I would expect of a dedicated camera. But people seem attracted to these kind of retina searing colours.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

ProDude

Not sure if it was a shutter speed issue but so many of the sports shots are anything but tack sharp which I have seen from some Sony and Canon shots before.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

HowaboutRAW

ProD:

Can you link those beta body out of camera fast action jpegs from the Sony A1, Sony A9 II (not the Sony A9 I) and the Canon R1?

Perhaps the beta out of camera fast action jpegs that DPR posted from the Canon 1DX III?

Thanks, I await your thoughts, examples, and links.

No, didn't mean to type "Canon R3".

Oct 31, 2021permalink

There you go. It starts to look like Sony/Canon fanboys joined together against Nikon. I've seen this type of Sony/Canon comments everywhere, They must feel real bad, specially those who moved to one of those brands and now, desperately need to show they were right

Oct 31, 2021*permalink

HowaboutRAW

madeinlisboa:

And show they were "right" based on jpegs from a still beta body.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

HowaboutRAW

madeinlisboa:

And show they were "right" based on jpegs from a still beta body.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

BackToNature1

@ProDude

You do know that tack sharp is many times dependent on what you where aiming at an or the camera operator, settings, etc, etc. What's the focus point desired for each shot, That isn't listed in any photo DPR photo gallery.

Also, the Sony A1 gallery wasn't sports related from what I recall. The R3 was an mix. I have seen plenty of TACK Sharp Images from the Z9, so that really isn't an issue from I have seen so far.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

A Owens

Women's rugby is great; players look like they are really enjoying themselves!
Colours? I'm not so sure. I think I prefer recent Sony colours!

Oct 30, 2021permalink

One thing Nikon never disappoints is pleasant colors.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

Outstanding colors indeed!

Nov 1, 2021permalink

Brev00

Love the colors. Lots of great shots. Some I could critique. I am not sure where some of the rugby shots were focused. The ball is clearly the subject in some and is sharp in those. In others, the player should be the center of attention but the ball still seems to be sharper than the person. One pic of the light haired player with ball close seems to be back focused on her hair. The indoor tennis shots don't look great to me. The player is soft at the high iso and the noise reduction leaves several artifacts. Raw is probably needed for high iso shots. Nitpicking perhaps but it is a $5500 camera.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

JE River

Great colors by default!

While I know how to get mostly the colors I want out of any RAW file, it goes a VERY long way having a camera and workflow that just output great colors right away with no fussing. Big deal for sport shooters sending away JPEG files with no editing time.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

peter zuehlke

excellent sample gallery! see a lot of close/wide in performance photography, but in sports, yikes. nice to see a range of subjects with different skin tones. camera did really well. (btw: Canon user since the New F1 here.)

Oct 30, 2021permalink

pylorus21

Why there is vast difference in pixel sharpness between action and static shots? That is when zoomed in the static shots appear sharper than action shots which mostly appear soft at pixel level.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

I cannot withstand from placing this comment: the out-of-camera jpegs are just great. No comparison to the dpreview samples of the A7 IV last week:
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/9643662619/sony-a7-iv-sample-gallery-dpreview-tv

Oct 30, 2021permalink

s-trap

I prefer Nikon colors too, but these two galleries are too different for definitive conclusions IMO. Different subjects, different lighting...

Oct 30, 2021permalink

BackToNature1

I would love to see similar cameras do similar subjects. Many times that isn't the case. So I would agree, harder to make definitive conclusions.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

DrCastle

quite different setting and different lighting(weather and such). I hardly think it's any fair a comparison, at least if you understand what role light plays in photography..

Oct 31, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

It's like in real life: working hard increases the likelihood to succeed. The Z9 shows that Nikon worked hard. Not even late October Seattle weather could withstand ;)
But also have a look at other published material. Often taken with challenging light and even rain, e.g.:
NIKON Z9 on Svalbard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjRBEw-NLlI&t=455s

Oct 31, 2021permalink

Hmmm…. Deja vu. I’m getting the feeling we’ve already seen these images. Nice attempt to retread old content as something new, though.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

Jealous?

Oct 30, 2021permalink

Maybe you should consult your dictionary on the definition of the word “jealous”. It’s got no rational possibility here.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

Barney Britton

Pointing people towards previously-published content that they may have missed (and which wasn't specifically promoted when it was first published) is online publishing 101.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

https://m.dpreview.com/samples/2130422042/sports-and-action-our-first-sample-images-from-the-new-nikon-z9

Yes, but the gallery was basically already promoted here:

Usually with Chris and Jordan in Calgary they have a different gallery to show. Here, with them in Seattle at the same event, it’s deja vu.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

The most impressive pictures, like #1 and #4 are not part of the other gallery. Also, I like them here in combination with the video showing how they have been made.
Meriam-Webster, jealous: "feeling or showing an unhappy or angry desire to have what someone else has"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jealous

Oct 30, 2021permalink

@Ruekon - Note that I said “deja vu” not “identical”.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

f1point4andbethere

People always praising Canon colours…smh. Look at the colours and skin tones here; they’re beautiful. Now go look at the the R3 gallery.
I’ma Sony A1 user, and its does have amazing colours, imho better than any Canon I’ve seen…but this Z9 looks just gorgeous.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

wats0n

I have shot with so many different brands over the years, each has a signature look. For me personally Fuji is probably one of the most remarkable brands ever in terms of how they handle color - its nothing short of stunning. Canon is a bit more cinematic in its rendering (neutral, but strong contrast) with very respected red hues. Nikon has some beautiful colors, albeit sometimes they tend to shift and look a bit unnatural. Olympus can be beautiful, albeit a bit over saturated at times.

Oct 30, 2021*permalink

Karroly

Saturated colors are georgeous for many people.
But this is not my cup of tee..
And skintones of pictures #7 are weird, IMHO.
But this can be tweaked to some extent in the JPEG engine, I hope.

Oct 30, 2021*permalink

Sold Canon, though portraits look good, the landscapes do not. Still have Sony, because of the lenses and good AF, but colors usually suck. Also have Nikon, love the colors, but lens selection is still poor. There is still no perfect camera system out there.

Oct 30, 2021permalink

Djehuty

Sounds like much ado about nothing. Its pretty meh, imo anyway, then again DPR sample pics typically are.

Oct 30, 2021*permalink

Karroly, If you prefer natural skin tones and are sensitive to skin tones, do not think that you can tweak a Nikon to your liking. Not even with RAW.

I have been there thrice times. D750/7500/7200. It just is not possible. Always with the weird un-natural skin tones.

Landscapes, buildings etc... Nikon excellent. If one already prefers Nikons weird skin tones then by all means keep enjoying them.

papajohnny is correct. Canon for natural portraits. Nikon for anything but. Sony tends to be pukey or just hard to work with although much improved since a7III.

I could tell immediately the samples were from a Nikon because of the skin.

I say this from really loving Nikon bodies and doing everything to try to keep them, but alas.

Canon also have lost some of their magic anything newer than the 80D. I suspect it a trade-off going for DR and noise handling = weaker CFA and colour.

Oct 30, 2021*permalink

Film_enthusiast

I'm still waiting for a "film looking" digital camera. :)
Sadly, nothing of the kind in the digital world. An early CCD digital backs were close (they looked less digital, especially blue/cyan tones) and that's it.
Canons are good for Caucasian skin, not so good for landscapes.
Nikons have that bluish tone.
Fuji's film simulations look like anything but film.
Sony has an accurate/neutral output but the palette is slightly desaturated.
Olympus Jpegs are a favourite of mine, lots of presets, easy to adjust.
Leicas - it depends on the model.
Panasonic keeps changing its Jpegs, or is it just my impression?

Oct 31, 2021permalink

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6500/sony-a6500A5.HTM

Desaturated normally yes, but I dont understand why people keep saying Sony are accurate:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA5.HTM

My tests find the same from using multiple models each from Sony/Canon/Nikon.

Even the a7III which has good colour for a Sony is delta error 4.83 and dingy yellows.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

@SteveAnderson - those measurements are pretty useless. You can calibrate any camera to have small delta error at standard D65 illuminant at base ISO. As soon as you start shooting in real life environment all the colors will go in may different directions, there are too many variables the lab test doesn't account for. In the final analysis what's important if the colors are pleasing in real life and that has little correlation with those tests.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

papajohnny, I am the first to state there is much more to colour than we could simply present here.
Those measurements do show some pattern of where accuracy is pleasing and where to sacrifice accuracy for pleasing. Not just the numbers themselves of course.

Buy the camera with the colours you prefer is my advice.

Along with that is advice that those Sony dingy yellows do cause some ugly skin. And Nikon if you prefer natural skin tones may have you pulling your hair out. RAW or JPG.

It is torture twisting a brand or model colours you dont like to your liking. RAW included.
Its mostly skin that is noticeable and notorious. Buy the skin tones you prefer.

There is only one way to a calibrate a camera and it takes hardware+software. Very few people do this. I understand your point though.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

wats0n

@ papajohnny Try Fuji. I went from Nikon FF (where I started a decade ago to Canon FF. After years of Canon FF I decided to try mirrorless and went to Sony FF, but quickly returned to Canon. I had a lot of photog friends tell me i needed to switch to Fuji. I was never a Fuji fan, but on a whim I decided fo try it . I have been with Fuji ever since . To me it strikes a balance that no other system has provided. The image quality is second to none even with its cropped sensor, it’s fun, compact, the lenses are superb.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

Preferred the R3 gallery colors.

Oct 31, 2021permalink

It's important to note than Nikon has kept refining their skin tones colors with Z cameras. This is particularly visible when using C1 Pro ProStandard profiles since C1 Pro 21.

It does feel that the Z is another step up, but we'll have to wait for C1 Pro 22 to get the full understanding about how great it can be in raw. The jpg are very encouraging.

Nov 1, 2021*permalink

@Just Another Tog -- I find it amazing how many people buy into postmodern subjectivism.
There are good reasons why all healthy people react similarly to important colors, like skin and nature. That's evolutionary, the skin color is learned through thousands of generations to distinguish healthy from ill. The colors in nature allow distinguishing edible from poisonous.
Unless we are talking about objects that have no importance in natural selection, humans are in total agreement. In fact, otherwise, there wouldn't be any art galleries, because everybody would disagree with everybody.

Nov 1, 2021permalink

justanothertog, That goes for many of course. But we are not all Dunning-Krugers.
Some of us are competent and skilled.

Take a natural portrait with an a6500 and you will see what papajohnny is talking about.
I wouldnt eat that fruit.

And if I havnt said so already, I am loyal to no brand. I know these colours well from using many models from many brands. As well as countless hours fighting the colours.

Nov 1, 2021permalink

milkod2001

I bet that you or 99% of us, other experts would never be able to tell if this was shot with Nikon, Sony or Canon. All cameras these days are outputting decent colours but they all equally sucks if you want very precise colours. For that you need to shoot raw/grey card and fix colours in post.

Nov 3, 2021permalink

As I said, some of us know all that and enough more to comment fairly and competently.

No one prefers an a6500 portrait to a Canon portrait. The a6500 is far enough off in skin hues for most people to see that. Sony engineers got it wrong. They didnt land where they wanted to for preference.

It is difficult and they dont win every time. Thats why each new iteration of a Sony has had better colour.

Colour can be wrong but still pleasing, which is Nikon.

And there are still hours of writing to just scratch the surface on this subject.

Nov 3, 2021permalink

New member criticizing and insulting any negative comments on the new nikon.

Nov 3, 2021permalink

Read your comments.

Nov 3, 2021permalink

Whenever I can I will always look at photos from people.I wouldn’t bother with someone like you.I just enjoy taking photos and looking at photos.Not interested in putting them on any kind of media.Trip up to the Leica store for the exhibits is a lot of fun.The recent Sony phone shots were excellent.

Nov 3, 2021permalink

Sure.

Nov 3, 2021permalink

justanother, What I have said is fact. I will say preference/subjective/objective/fact when the use requires.

You are barking at the wrong person. When yellow is engineered towards green, pukey is a visually valid term. I think DPR said "unfortunate" instead of "pukey".

Just because you dont believe I know what i am talking about doesnt mean that I do not. Nothing you have shown is objective.

I placed links to a site that gets the same test results as myself and has been stable for 20yrs. Objective facts from using and testing cameras.
I can teach you if you want, or you can just keep telling me that I dont know what i am talking about and that my eyes are broken.

Take a proper eye hue test and have a calibrated IPS monitor first though. 2 camera models each from 3 companies is helpful also.

Nov 3, 2021*permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xt3&attr13_1=canon_eos7dii&attr13_2=nikon_d7200&attr13_3=sony_a6500&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=160&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_0=1&attr171_1=1&attr171_2=1&attr171_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=543&x=0.03243507223778809&y=0.6123342372591599

You have proven now you have no idea what you are talking about. Cant even stay on subject.

You are completely off subject or do not even comprehend what I am saying. Not my fault but I can help if you want.

Yes, unfortunate is a good word. Pukey also works.

Canon for natural portraits, Nikon for pleasing but inaccurate skin tones, Sony not so great for portraits.

As i also stated, Sony has gotten much better with colour, which coincidentally helps prove my point since even the Sony engineers agree with what I see.

Dont be a Dunning-Kruger.

Nov 3, 2021*permalink

You do also realize that it is your arrogance or ignorance not mine when you refuse to be taught by someone else right?

There is no way for you to see if the colours in my photos are accurate to the scene and model. Therefore it would be inaccurate of me to show you a photo.

Go get models of cameras from different brands and a model. Take the photos and see for yourself.

Your photos are great but none are portraits and all are heavily processed. You cant possibly know what I am talking about if you think showing photos prove anything.

Nov 3, 2021*permalink

Why are you so weak? Its too bad. Your loss.

You saw the "unfortunate" yellow and are walking away. Thats what happened here.

Dont interact with you? Who do you think you are Mr.Special.

Nov 3, 2021*permalink

Again, about color these days I would not seriously consider a camera for which C1 Pro doesn’t have ProStandard profiles as a credible candidate for best colors.

This is simply a revolution in profiling.

The skin tones I am getting with my phase back and Nikon Z cameras when using ProStandard profiles are by far the best I have seen. The reason? The way these profiles handle the relationship between contrast and saturation is simply a breakthrough.

Nov 3, 2021*permalink

@photography lover
That’s interesting.

Nov 3, 2021permalink

Continuing
Does the program for just Nikon have the same features.

Nov 3, 2021permalink

I will try those profiles photographylover. Its hope against hope but lets see what they do to my Nikon portrait files.

Thanks

Nov 3, 2021permalink