DPReview TV: With new firmware, Nikon Z6 and Z7 autofocus gets closer to 3D AF tracking

Right. It's trolling to call out Nikon for their failures. Don't read my comments then.

"Failures".

Please forgive Mr. A for his ignorance, after all he has no gear and no images.

@Itc
what is the point of repeating what I say?

@Hasa
Ah, can't win an argument, so go right to the personal insults. It's OK, I'm used to it. I wouldn't expect much else from the keyboard jockies who post on here.

So, in your mind, you’ve already made it an “argument” to be “won”. Is that a hallmark of civil conversation, or trolling?

I made a statement, and others turned it into an argument. People who can't dispute the facts resort to calling people trolls. I don't really care what all of you waste your money on. Me? I will never buy a Z6 or Z7 because there are much better tools for the job. If Nikon can make a ML camera that surpasses the D850, I'll consider it, but until then, I'm not giving them a dime. They need to earn it.

Troll gotta troll.

Apples to oranges comparison. Last time I looked both of those Sony cameras are at least twice as expensive as my Z6. You get what you pay for. A fair comparison will come when Nikon releases the next camera that is high end and if it doesn't measure up then well you are correct.

I just came back from Fuji XT-3 and it is even worse for BIF especially when you consider there is only one Fuji lens you can do this with. Right now if you want to do BIF you go D500 or D850 or High end Sony. I don't know of any other MILC that are great at BIF other than Sony right now.

Sony's main advantage will be their lens lineup, but that will gradually ebb too. The new Nikon firmware really does improve the AF on the Z6, its a lot easier to use and its faster and more reliable at hitting its focus, still not perfect though, so probably we will get more updates.

@sillen - you have to admit that Sony don't have a great track record at hanging onto the sdvantages they have built up in other (non photographic) areas of their operations to date. I hope they continue to be a significant player in photography as they have been instrumental in upping everybody's game, but we'll have to see.

I know sony was pretty reluctant to make a more ergonomic body... but if they would be caught up by canon and nikon, what is that really stops them from modifying a bit the body form? After all they don't have to make it smaller, just add sub material here and there :)
Previously they did that already, both with the better grip and being the first to introduce a really large battery. They also have the know how, after all nobody complained about ergonomics on their SLT series.

Sony SLT series were a product of Minolta not Sony. They were also already under development when Sony bought Minolta. So arguably something went wrong with Sony when they decided it was time to start building their own mirrorless cameras.

Why on earth would one like to build cameras with bad ergonomics and a highly unstructured menu system in the first place? Then somebody at Sony came up with the idea to use a lens mount designed for APS-C and use it for a Full Frame camera system.

The result of that decision now is that Sony depends upon SLR lens designs to build its system up into the future, while they should have been smart and started from scratch like Fujifilm, Panasonic, Canon and Nikon did.

They didn't do that because they wanted to, but because they know a larger mount has advantages in optical designs that allow them to built lenses with higher resolving power for higher resolution sensors. The lens mount is what will become the achilles heel of Sony on the long run.

As always you need to look at the details. Ergonomics are discussed in this thread. There is not a ”one answer” to what are good ergonomics. It depends on person and on situation. Eg what is the right size of a camera depends on the context in which it is used and the persons preferences. Do you want to be stealthy, do you want to travel light/compact, do you have large hands, etc. Do you preferr highly customizable body or large buttons or other.
Based on sales volumes many seem to favor smaller camera bodies, but not all do that.

@Prosecutor - don't really know about that mount thing. Sure it has some advantages, but unless you really want F0.9 - 1.2 lenses with no vignetting, it is not really an issue. For the moment being, the situation simply is that Sony recent lenses are just as good as anything nikon has put on their Z, while Canon has put on the table some exotic, impressive lenses that because of the size and price can be a bit ... too much.

Simply put today Sony E has it's important advantages, as do the other brands. The legacy glass working "native" on canon and nikon is one very under-rated such advantage, pretty much dismissed by "forumists" however critical for working photographers.

By the way, I personally choose Fuji, so i am not "defending" Sony, or anything. But i am shooting for fun so i only care about the things i want to care. Just that we should care less about marketing speech and more about reality.

Badi - So can one already use Sony e-mount glass on Z systems with an electronic adapter. The advantages you talk about can all be found in the Z as well as it uses the shortest flange range. As for sharpness one can always argue and I don't want to get into a brandwar. Everybody needs to decide for themselves what fits him/her best. For me it is not Sony.

Sony had the advantage of being the first Full Frame mirrorless system, but as with everything being the first is no guarantee to stay first or being the best over the long run.

Sony is quickly loosing all of the advantages they have had. Nobody can deny that Canon and Nikon came from far and are closing in very fast and even faster than many here had even expected. Next generation of MILC cameras will all be very close to each other with nobody having a real advantage any longer over the other.

Buy whatever system suits you. No cameras are bad these days.

@Thoughts R Us you clearly have either never dealt with nikon support, or where very lucky. Either way they are generally god-awful.

@ Prosecutor - Sony didnt "have" the advantage of being the first Full Frame mirrorless system. They "made it" an advantage by decision. You can extend that to other aspects as well, eg they decided to enable good 3rd party lens support. Now you have excellent 3rd party autofocus lenses like the Zeiss Batis line, The Tamron Di zooms and primes, the Samyang line, Sigma.... .
As well as excellent MF lenses such as Zeiss Loxia line, Voightländer, .....

Sillen - Sony was FORCED to go mirrorless. They could not get any ground in the DSLR market. So all they could do was to gamble and put loads of money into mirrorless. That decision for them turned out to be a lucky draw.

The credits go to Sony, Fujifilm and Olympus for opening up a whole new product range. But the FF camera Sony has put onto the market back then was awful in all ways.

People had no other choice for FF then to go to Sony if they wanted mirrorless and so it was into their advantage. One can wonder if Sony would have been so successful if they had not been forced out of the market.

Once you start to look at the available market figures from an objective point of view, you will see Sony gained market share between 2014 and 2017. The last two years have seen a decline in that market share compared to Nikon and Canon

It is hard to say at this moment in time if they will stay the number one in MILC, become number two or end up in the situation they were in back in 2012

I would actually not be surprised at all if Sony in the end will step out. They have no history to keep products into markets that are under pressure.

VAIO is a typical example of Sony's way of thinking.
Once they are under stress of not being able to grow marketshare they quit the market alltogether.

If it were not for Panasonic being also in this market Sony would probably have quitted already.

The rumors over reallocation of memory chips in favor of the PS5 and the thin rumors over an A74 are an indication that Sony is rethinking its photography business. They are no company that have photography into their DNA. They are a financial company foremost and treat their product range as such.

It doesn't matter if Sony sells sensor to Sony Digital Imaging or sell those same sensors then to their OEM customers. Without the development costs of new cameras, production costs, wharehousing and marketing costs they will loose nothing financially if they step out the market.

If one does an objective risk assessment on the photography market then this market is a high risk undertaking. High development costs with poor ROI.

Nikon can not go anywhere else. So they will stay onto this market as long as they financially can. Same more or less applies to Olympus. Fujifilm has photography into their heart and digital imaging is just 5% of their total revenue these days.
Canon has a large stake in photography business but also for them photography is not their core business. As for Sony photography is far from being important to them too.

Why would one want to stay in a market that is shrinking by 15-20% on a yearly base and that will probably end up by 4 million pieces.

The most likely outcome is that the three largest players will each have about 25 to 30% marketshare. In the end it will just resolve in the sales of 800.000 to 1 million MILC cameras yearly each for Sony, Nikon and Canon.

The question is will Sony be satisfied with those numbers?

@ Prosecutor - you can pretend to know the decision material Sony had at different times, but you dont know. You think it was blind luck to go for mirrorless, to invest heavily in eye AF, to go for good 3rd party lens support, etc.
You speculate about future market shares. There have been signs for a couple of years that the market is reshaping quite a lot right now. You may like it or not like it. You can speculate if the reshaping will knock out some companies who are slow to change to new tech and who are lossing market share. But its all speculation.

No I have no information over such things and you know that too.

I am just looking at this from an objective standpoint.
I have no way of knowing if Sony will stay or leave this market.

All I am saying is that if you look at it without the emotion attached that leaving might be a wise decision from a financial point of view. It would not differ for Sony if they would remain or leave the camera market. Except by staying they take more risk.

It is a known fact that Sony wants to loosen its bond it had with consumer electonics and want to focus upon three pilars: Financial (banking and insurance), Entertainment industry and to be a component supplier.

I don't see how consumer electronics camera do fit into that productrange. Especially when this market is under such immense pressure.

It is also a known fact that many investors have more or less directed Sony to focus more on products that bring Sony a financial gain and focus less on consumer oriented products.

By looking at the current trend and supported with the current world economics it would just not come to a surprise if Sony would take such steps. Unimaginable for Sony users of course. I fully understand!

BUT... They have done it before (with VAIO) and why should they just not do it again?

It is a no brainer that Sony on the long run might not stay if the situation on this market gets worse.

It also doesn't matter for Sony components to sell the sensors to Sony Digital Imaging or to those who stay behind on this market.

For Sony components the same numbers of sensors would be sold anyway. Just to other (OEM) customers.

It also means; No product development, no production costs, no wharehousing needed and no marketing costs involved. Leaving is also less risk of failure of a product that doesn't stick.

That's the vision without the emotion.
I am not saying they will make that descision, but it would be logical if they did from a financial perspective.

Samsung also declared they want to be top of the top, and even managed to do so with some incredible releases. But in the end for them the cake proved to be just a tiny cookie not worth fighting for.
For Sony such a decision could make sense at some point or not. For Nikon, Sigma, Leica it would mean basically bankruptcy. Would Sony close photo business before Nikon? Of course nobody can tell, but clearly Nikon will try harder to stay in the game.

That is how I see it as well.

Sony will not go bankrupt without camera's.
A complete different story for those that have their roots within this business. So indeed for companies like Nikon, Olympus, Sigma, Leica and all those well known traditional photography brands they will fight to stay. It is in their interest.

In the end it is a business decision and a financial decision over emotion and end users.

@ Prosecutor - ”I have no information over such things”, ”I am just looking at this from an objective standpoint” 😋

Sony could very well be planning a drawdown from their camera business.

Last year all of their new releases were lackluster, mostly just warmed over rehashes of earlier models with incremental updates. Even the A7R4, which some considered so great, was really the A7III with a bigger grip bolted on and a bit more megapixels.

They'll probably release an A74 this year that will be basically the same model with the bolted on grip and body of the A7R4.

The much sought after A7S3 remains a unicorn.

Many thought they'd release new super tele lenses to support their a9II and that did not happen.

We've seen this movie before with A mount. Prosecutor lays out the case well: Sony very well may not see it as a big enough business to stay in the camera market.

@ TRU - if it wasnt for your history of 1000+ negative stories on Sony. You are systematically trying to smear the most successful FF system out there.

Tele lenses? Just the 600F4, 400F4, 200-600, all received as the best you can get. No other mirrorless system has that capabillity without adapters. And the Sony FE tele system has real usable 20fps, no other camera system whatsoever has that.
A7r4 lackluster? There is no other camera out ther with that broad capabillity of top resolution, top AF system in both photo and video. Awarded camera of the year.

Sony's advantage is the lead they had because they decided to embrace the future sooner, there are tons of advantages that Sony cameras have over the newest and dare I say less mature systems from Canon and Nikon.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate the difference between what was a line of "protect the DSLRs" mirrorless cameras from Nikon and Canon and what's being offered now,, but as an example battery life (a difference over 400 shots less per battery compared to Sony) is still the big problem of Canon and Nikon.

Canon alone still has this silly mentality of protecting their higher end line by introducing software caps on the lower end products (No 24p in movie mode remember?) and this is something Fuji and Sony have been smarter about it.
They were late to the party and it shows, they are trying desperately to catch up and they will but so far the "damage" their passive approach to adaptation to new trends is still looming on 'em for the moment.

This is from a Canon shooter.

Jared has bashed Nikon over the last year and there is no way he can change his opinion overnight. It is his ego and attitude that stands in his way.

Even raging over a firmware update he did not even bother to download but for which he already had a strong opinion over was the point that made him look pathetic.

He made it a personal thing to go all out against Nikon so his current opinions are worthless these days.

Jarred is a buffoon and the only successful thing his done is marketing his Afro and T-Shirts. As a photographer he is far from impressive.

The only reason he has stopped bashing Nikon is because of the back clash he had from the Nikon community and the down votes.

YES, the Sony has better 3D tracking and AF overall and switching between Eye AF and Tracking is seamless BUT the Z series are also great and not far behind. In addition, some of us don't need to be tracking erratic subjects so often so for me personally the problem is minimal. If you are a Sports photographer and tracking is so paramount for your work, obviously there are better solutions than the Z bodies...

What really annoys me about Nikon's strategy is that they are not opening the AF protocol so we can have 3d party manufacturers joining the party and although Nikon might lose revenue in the lens department, I am sure many folks will have an easier decision agaist Sony and their current lens selection.

Jared is all out against Nikon ..not sure what reasons are but he is very ballistic against Nikon to the point where his opinions are not balanced. I used to see his reviews but he is not a rational reviewer. Northrop is doing better job these days

I like Jared for being straightforward, delivering the cold hard truth and will say your photos are trash straight in your face. He doesn't sugar-coat his words. That's the "ego" people label him for, but i don't see it that way.

It's hard to find such people in a world where everyone tries too hard to be nice to avoid offending mentally weak people. Sugar-coat img what's not good is just hypocrisy behavior to me.

His most recent 3.0 fw review was informative. However, as long as it was, I was surprised he didn't test the "eyelas" autofocus issue.

@sunilkumar Jared, much like the Northups goes with controverted and ill informed videos to the public knowingly they will get lots of engagement, comments, shares, dislikes (which Youtube won't punish) and also engagement in his social media.

Pretty much they love to bank on the own drama they create to have large number of people viewing their videos and turning that into sweet, sweet youtube money.

It is sad that there are still people watching them.

Compared to all other Mirrorless competitor's 1st gen bodies, both Nikon and Canon did an excellent job, getting it right to be great enough to be trusted in an assignment. for Example, Sony get it right only on their 3rd gen.

Don't listen to fPrime, he has never used much less owned any of the these cameras.
He hasn't bought a camera in 12 years (take a look at his profile) but likes to come on any Nikon article to troll and sound like he knows what he's talking about... Truly sad individual

Nothing lately is as bad as the A7 was at release.

The Z6 is better than the A7 or A7ii ever were, and actually very usable for sports and action.
There are dozens of BIFs shots in the Nikon forums that look better than most Sony images because the colors are so much better.

But back then the a7 was the first entry level FF mirrorless with no precedent to follow. Nikon however has already had experience with their blazing fast AF in their Nikon 1 mirrorless bodies, so theres more of an expectation to carry that over to the Z bodies.

But Nikon 1 is a 1" sensor (implying relatively deep DoF, less stress to AF) and also the lens elements are smaller/lighter and easier to move. While it's great, it can't directly be assumed that its AF performance be carried over to Z.

"[...] actually very usable for sports and action. There are dozens of BIFs shots [...]"

Well, this is no evidence of the performance of an AF system. You can see amazing sport and BIF photos taken with manual lenses. I am not great at manual focusing, but even i can get 1/100 a perfect eye-focused of my kid running in circles.

Also a person accustomed with a certain AF mechanism (say a reasonable, reliable one, some 1DX mk1) would get a better sport shots percentage using that compared to him using a better AF from a camera he didn't get the time to learn.

It seems if it was a processing power limitation, that would show up on other ways....not just the autofocus.

You could be right, but I am keeping my fingers crossed that you aren't :)

Looks like we are talking about two different cameras. I was talking about the Z6.

That is not the case from personal experience.
Eye AF is far better than it was before, I use it everyday and I can tell you it is much improved.
Not to mention that he has eyes that are far more recessed than most people. Take a look at the shot that they posted, his eyes are almost half an inch behind his lids.

I think the Sony eye-tracking prowess has been greatly exaggerated as well. If you’re looking for reliable critical focus from eye detect AF routines, then no manufacturer really delivers.

A9 and A99ii are great.
There is a big dropoff to the other Sony's. There are several sites that took a few 1000 pictures at all settings and found if the correct settings are used Fujifilm has caught up to A6x00 cameras.

Why everyone does is find examples where the wrong settings are used to say a camera is not as good. Both sides do it.

I agree that the a9/a9ii are great and really the only worthy Sony's. The rest are not nearly as responsive. Someone let me borrow their a7r4 for a day, and granted that's all the time I've had with it, but it was sluggish by comparison and not impressive at all; the most overrated camera of the last year.

I was in the same situation: buy a second D750, wait for the D750 successor or buy a Z6. I went for the Z6 when it came out. Using two D750's and a Z6, now after more than a year, I can say the Z6 has its pros and cons. Anyone claiming it's only an improvement over anything DSLR, is just plain wrong or lying.

I'm hoping Nikon improves the system and addresses the cons. And don't let it be a pro body with a price tag of €5000. I'm having trouble with switching to a complete next gen system when for simple actions I have been doing the past decade with Nikon DSLR's, I now get a respons like "Yeah, you can't do that anymore, you need to work around it". Three steps forward, one step back kinda thing.

no, you don't need to see the images in this example.

i watched the 4k version of this video on a 65" LG C9 oled TV, there is no question that the nikon af performance in that bridge clip is extremely poor.

compare it with this skateboarding sequence that was shot with the sony fe90 macro lens, it's 13 ooc jpegs, they are *all* in focus, and the target was moving a lot faster than jordan was:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61630683

how does a macro lens blow away an 85/1.8 prime? because the 85/1.8 prime has slow focus motors in it.

Yeah, you have to see the end result. See Jared Polin's last YouTube piece on firmware 3.0
From the video one judges differently.

Still I believe AF is junk compared to Nikon DSLRs and get flamed for voicing my opinion in the Z Forums every single day.

PictureTakerPhotoMaker, I agree. I am not saying the Nikon is great, I am saying you can't tell from a video of the display.

Why are you flamed? Because you're spouting nonsense. The AF is not "junk" compared to anything. The Z-system AF is different, not junk.

No, he's being flamed because those who have bought into first gen Nikon Z are unable to tolerate any opposing viewpoints in either their forum or anyplace else on DPR.

Weird that every day he feels the need to say the Z AF is bad.

@MILC man
Come on, that skate scene has a near lateral movement of less than one meter and the dof is not terrible or difficult. He could have focused on the cone and the whole sequence would have still been quite in focus.

The sequence in this video has a guy running towards the camera, one of the hardest things to track. He's also jumping sideways. And all at F1.8 instead of F2.8. And a lot closer to the camera, so the DOF is a lot thinner.

Well, the Nikon is a lot better for video.
The Sonys have such a low bit rate and inefficient codec (a crippled version of AVC) that people who are clueless about video are sticking powered zooms (huge joke in video world) on them to turn them in to the worst camcorders like what you see at Walmart for only $4000.
Somehow Sony now has the worst IBIS in the industry too. Nikon beat them on the first try (as they did with weather resistance and build quality).

No sane Sony owner is going to put a power zoom on their camera for video. Its not 2003 and these are not cheap super zoom P&S cameras.
Anyway, don't brag about Nikon video. Panasonic and Fuji do it better. Nikon is a distant third.

Most Sony lenses are not certified for 20 fps (70-200/4? nope) . In fact the A9 and A9ii won't even let you try.
And since LED and other artificial lighting is such a problem for the A9 and other cameras with electronic shutters, Camera should also be rated with their mechanical shutter. The A9 can only do 5 fps, the A9ii only 10 fps, the X-T4 and NX1 can shoot 15 fps.
Basically, the Z6 and most other cameras will get more keepers per second than the A9 in artificial lighting, because its mechanical shutter can only do 5 fps.

There are 23 lenses certified to AF at 20FPS. And an additional 26 lenses certified at 15FPS, including that 70-200/4.0.

What other full frame cameras can actually shoot at 15FPS with AF? For real. Not some theoretical perfect situation? Sony has 49 lenses certified to shoot at 15FPS or faster and they actually ACHIEVE those speeds with ridiculously high hit rates...

@ StarLord - troll that joints last week. Whats your real username?

Oh and pretty sure the A9 will blow away the field with respect to keepers per second. Haha.

Also your assumption that artificial lighting invalidates the use of electronic shutter on the A9 is just not true. There are a very few situations where 1/160 readout speed isn’t fast enough. However in the vast majority of situations the A9 electronic shutter handles artificial light just fine.

Steve. I actually shoot with the A9. And pan. And there is no jello. Any other camera will be impacted. The A9 impact is virtually zero. And the 20FPS is with full AF and AE with any of the 23 lenses listed in the spec. I have a few of them and confirm you actually get 20 exposures in the same second.

You should try it before you knock it. And if you tried an A7xxxx it doesn’t count.

SHOW ME THE JELLO!!!
(It’s a movie reference.)

Did you know it takes 1/250-1/300 sec for the slit of a mechanical shutter to move down the frame? Yep, your mechanical shutter has jello too. Oh. You don’t see it? Neither do I. Just like you don’t see it on the A9. While it’s technically there, you don’t see it... just like mechanical shutter.

The A7 when it was launched 5 years ago was a revolutionary camera and the first mirrorless FF camera with AF. There was nothing like it in the world when it launched. The Nikon z7 was launched at a time when the technology was very mature so it wasn't half as impressive as the A7 launch.

Brendon - The A7 when it came out had 1 cardslot the A7II had two slots of which one was the outdated memory stick.

It is only with the A7III is where things more or less fall into place. However Sony still doesn't know how to create an ergonomically convenient camera to hold and operate, which may well be as important if not more important than a candy animal eye focus system that 'sees' the eye at 30 foot distance.

If you can't get eyes within that distance into focus then something is most seriously wrong with your technique.

I don't care which camera you use.
I care for the complete eco-system.

The general devotion a brand has for photography and if this is in the heart of the manufacturer. I care more over how a system can evolve into the future than over a first generation camera.

With that I just have more faith in Nikon than I have with Sony.
That on itself does not mean Sony makes bad cameras. They are just not for me.

"The A7 when it came out" it was a garbage version of the D600.
It was worse in every way imaginable. It had no good lenses, did not focus well, and had terrible ergonomics and menus.
It was not the first mirrorless FF camera, and even Sony made better mirrorless cameras (NEX 7, etc).

Prosecutor - I never ever said the A7 was a fantastic camera. I actually had one for over 100000 clicks and God knows I didn't really care for the focusing and it had lot more quirks. I merely said that at the time it was revolutionary as the first mirrorless FF camera and for all its quirks I used it professionally for 2 years and 100000+ clicks. Was it for everyone? Hell no but you can't compare the Z6 which is a decent but not revolutionary camera to one that was launched when mirrorless technology was in it's nascent stage.

@Starlord - The D610 was a good camera and better than the A7 but the A7 was a lot lighter and smaller and it had no oil on its shutter assembly which was a big plus point!

@brendan1000. Mirrorless was brought to market by companies losing to Canon and Nikon. Olympus bet wrong on DSLR 4/3 and to differentiate themselves they came out with mirrorless first; m4/3. Sony, having bought KM and promptly lost money for the next 10 years, was never going to surpass CaNikon. DSLR, SLT, APS-C mirrorless, they tired. They threw the last of their pasta at the wall with the a7 and it stuck. I don't think they expected it's success. The only thing innovative was shoehorning a FF sensor into a system never intended for FF. Just look at the mount without a lens on it and the mount seems to clip the corners of the sensor. No other brand is like that. I don't find the a7 innovative. I see it as their happy accident. But, I will give credit to the a7II and a7rIII for basically putting pressure on the big 2 to come out with mirrorless and fundamentally changing the market.

That shoehorning FF into a mount never meant for FF is a lie that has been reapated to death multiple times over.

The Sony E mount is a lot larger than any APSc only mount like the Fuji X mount or the Samsung NX mount so it was definitely designed for 35mm sensors from the beginning.

So yes it was the world's first mirrorless FF camera system with AF and it was the future given that even Canon and Nikon have joined the party a lot later.

It is NO lie Brendon - It is more fact.

It also shows in the design. All four corner of the sensor fall behind the mount and are covered by it. It can be easily seen.

Light fall off to the corners is a well known problem with the e-mount and optical engineers of several companies like Sigma also have said that making good lenses for the e-mount is an extra challenge over lenses for other camera manufacturers. They even said it looks much like this mount was designed for APS-C.

What Sony does is fall back to SLR designs to lengthen the flange range by using a built in adapter. Deepening the flange range is a way to hide the shortcomings of the mount.

Of course Sony will never admit it is using a lens mount that was not meant to be used for Full Frame. What else would you expect them to say?

It would basically be suicide for Sony to admit as everybody would fall over them including their customers for fooling them into a system with a faulty design layout at this 1.8cm flange range.

There is absolutely no evidence to support your so called facts. ZERO. Its a good theory but thats about it.

The E mount is about the same size as the Nikon F mount which is very much a FF capable mount and the Lecia M mount is even smaller in diameter than the E mount and last I checked it was a 35mm capable camera.

The mount diameter may not be the best designed for sure but to say it was built was APS-C is pure speculation on anyone's part and Sony on their part continues to churn out gems like the 24mm f1.4 GM, 135mm f1.8 GM and others even though they have a so called APS-C mount.

Sony would be stupid to tell the world what trick they perfomed.

However fact is that the optical formulas used in most e-mount lenses are copied from regular SLR and that indicates the mount is not suited for FF but made for APS-C. Everybody can also see that the barrel on many of their lenses is extended to enlarge the flange range.

Nuff said over 'no evidence'. That's clearly a smoking gun.

I am not discussing the optical quality of these lenses.
Buy whatever you want. I don't care what system you use.
Your response is emotional not rational.

Which Sony lenses are based of a DSLR design and ported to mirrorless ? Only Sigma does that. Since you said most I am assuming that means even the newer ones like the 24mm f1.4, 135mm f1.8 or maybe the 20mm f1.8 are all DSLR designs ? Or do you mean the 12-24mm f4 or the 55mm f1.8 ? Which are DSLR designs exactly ?

Brendon I am stopping this discussion as you are making it into another brandwar. I have seen enough of these. Your preference is clear and you made your point. You only ignore what is known over this mount and like to stick you head into the ground. All fine by me.

I am now going out to to take photos.
Have fun with your Sony.

Zed’s dead, baby. Zed’s dead.

frpime
of course, you got no proof to show.
Nice try, though.

AF bar? what kind of measurement is that? Can they add more AF bars with firmware to improve focus, or is it a physical upgrade?
lol

Haters will unfortunately always be haters.

I have found the latest firmware of the Z actually be very good and I am glad to see Nikon closing in on the competition.

@NexLupus - And? The compare mode AF bar shows Sony AF still noticeably ahead of Nikon Z. D'oh!

Canon R is currently behind it but only because DPR haven't updated their Canon R review post Canon's v2.0 firmware like they did for Nikon.

@fprime...be prepared to reap the wrath of those that think Nikon can do no wrong. It's blasphemy around this forum to speak out against Nikon. You're already called by Prosecuter a hater for speaking the truth.

Yes fPrime,
The Sony 4th generations are currently better, BECAUSE you are comparing 4 generations and 8 cameras later to get to this point in AF performance for Sony.
You are also comparing an A9II which is comparable to a D5/D6 in focusing, no other Nikon nor no other Sony is comparable to these cameras in focus...
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about since you have never shot with any of these cameras much less owned one.

@StoneJack - Check out the comparative reviews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Ql0Q3DB_g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lJOHTNYhbU

to be fair
Nikon has had the luxury to study the blueprints of the 4 generations from Sony
;-)

@Veloster75 - So true. I'm basically a Nikonista at heart, but I have to call the shots fairly if they are to improve.

The "Z"ealots here who want to make believe that their Nikon Z cameras have caught up to Sony and Canon AF will squeal but they know it will take another generation of Z cameras before Nikon's AF will be competitive.

Can people please start to report fprime. So he can be put under quarantine by DPReview staff. He trolls over every Nikon product and this trolling is now getting to the point that it is becoming pretty annoying.

@Prosecutor and others
Canon, with the 1DXIII has proven to have the technology to pretty much match the Sony AF of the A9. What the R pr RP are capable of is irrelevant. I did not see a muscle display of mirrorrless AF technology in the D6....
fPrime comment is relevant and not a troll.
I tried a Z6 with the new update last week. It works well when it works... Its unpredictability is what makes it weak compared to the others.

@Prosecutor - How aptly you are named. A fan of censorship, are you?

My comments are routinely ranked by others here as "Most Popular" exactly because they pull no punches. You would rather that only favorable comments be made about Z, wouldn't you? You are a sad individual.

Your face is sad to be honest

@armandino
Nikon D3, D4, D5 have always been the gold standard, I would assume the the D6 will follow this track record.
Once the D6 ships we will be able to test all models against each other.
The 1DXIII is having reports of getting locked up, so if you can't shoot, there is no point in having a great AF system.

@fPrime
Dude you are so sad, you with your old cameras that can't keep up in focus, dynamic range, image quality, low light capabilities etc. etc.

But go ahead, keep explaining to us about cameras that you've never shot nor owned.

Go back to your mom's basement and play with your D700, but make sure all the lights are on, use the high ISO on it is terrible...

.
@fprime my friend.

Did you eat something bad and now have to throw up the stuff here?
Poor boy...

@NexLupus, I doubt that you actually shot with a Z after that FW update. It improved the handling but neither the speed nor the accuracy nor the "stickiness". And that goes for Z 7 as well as Z 6. I still hope to see a day coming when Z's tracking mode is glued to the object like the Sony's are. Earlier on you blurbed about the "AF bar" - at first, that's metering and focusing. Not exactly a small field, and not exactly telling how good an AF-C really is. You tone and the rest of your statement remain not convincing.

@JJSo
I have both Z6 and Z7 along with a D850.
The AFC is much improved, not just the implementation.
I have tried Dynamic area, AFC Wide and AF-A and all perform better and are stickier than the previous firmware.
I use them everyday, so yes, I do comment from actual use...

fPrime,
"My comments are routinely ranked by others here as "Most Popular" exactly because they pull no punches."

You're embarrassing yourself.

@NexLupus
"Nikon D3, D4, D5 have always been the gold standard, I would assume the the D6 will follow this track record."
We are talking about mirrorless-on sensor- AF. With the D6 Nikon did not even bother trying.
"The 1DXIII is having reports of getting locked up, so if you can't shoot, there is no point in having a great AF system."
That is such a lame excuse to hide behind a bug while not recognizing the great achievements of the 1DXIII.
You might want to check out Jared's AF comparison to see where Canon stands at with DPAF: https://youtu.be/VaYQ5yphhsE.
This is real cutting edge AF performance freezing or not. Your comments are so obviously biased and off mark, difficult to take your statements seriously.

@armandino
You are calling my comment biased, yet you are commenting on a Nikon article about a Nikon camera that you don’t own...despite being a Canon shooter.

Pot calling the kettle black much?

With regards to the 1DXIII, it looks like a great camera on paper, and it definitely is cutting edge, but for the Pros using these cameras they are concerned with one thing and one thing only... capturing the image.
If the camera is locking up it is a brick for sports photographers

@armandino
You are calling my comment biased, yet you are commenting on a Nikon article about a Nikon camera that you don’t own...despite being a Canon shooter.

Pot calling the kettle black much?

With regards to the 1DXIII, it looks like a great camera on paper, and it definitely is cutting edge, but for the Pros using these cameras they are concerned with one thing and one thing only... capturing the image.
If the camera is locking up it is a brick for sports photographers.

Even if that were true, which I don't really care, Z6 and Z7 have such focusing system that only better focusing Nikon cameras are D5, D850 and D500. That being said and the fact that Z6 and Z7 are not professional cameras is kind of impressive. If all this older cameras like D750 were good enough to work with and create, why wouldn't Z's be equally good enough? And why does it matter if Sony or Eos R is better or not? In fact, only people who don't even own a Z camera care about if Sony is better. Kind of puzzling, isn't it?

@NexLupus
it seems like you just keep on missing the point. This entire thread is about Nikon AF tracking performance using on sensor phase detect lagging when compared to Sony and Canon. It seems to me that none of your comments so far are relevant. I do not care if the 1DXIII is a great camera or not, not a camera I would buy, it is a dinosaur imo, my observation is that the 1DXIII DPAF is impressive and catching up with Sony A9 while Nikon is lagging. So just corroborating fPrime initial comment. This is factual and not rocket science.

@armandino - Thanks. Your point was well made. In my opinion NexLupus will never get it. He's bought a Nikon Z and now he has to jump on every criticism of it to defend it lest he face the reality that he bought an unfinished product.

I'd have no problem with him if he only trumpeted Nikon Z's known advantages like IBIS, ergonomics, or video. But instead he feels he has to deny its known negatives like its laggy C-AF and inability to pick up Eye-AF until the subject is with several feet of the camera.

People aren't stupid. They can see in three way tests that Nikon Z's AF is still struggling. For example, Jared Polin had all three mirrorless cameras (Nikon, Canon, & Sony) connected to Atomos Ninja screens as they simultaneously tracked a moving subject. Everyone could see that Sony's AF was stickiest, had the least lag, and picked up Eye-AF from significantly further away. Everyone, of course, except NexLupus who will always insist there's "no proof" that Nikon Z AF is in last place.

You deserve it Jordan, love your work too 👍🏼

You both are amazing, Jordan, I can't prefer one over the other, to me the best show on YouTube. Congenial, really!

Probably because management decided it was time to market and speeded up development. The camera was probably ready to be released but the software team was not ready yet.

On itself the Z never has been a bad system, but it was marketed wrong and Nikon never had thought that Sony would use guerrilla marketing tactics to safeguard its hard worked position in this market.

Despite all the negative sentiment here and on youtube these cameras are in reality actually selling pretty well.

@steelhead3, The 3D tracking engagement process on Nikon's DSLR's predates the Z''s development by many years. The Z's development team would have to be new to Nikon or never used a Nikon DSLR to independently come up with a different 3D tracking engagement method by chance.

Who cares?
Nikon listened and made the needed changes.
They continue to improve these cameras and that is what matters!

The initial z tracking comes from the v series. It is not something Nikon invented on the z. It had its logic.

@fprime
Of course, you got no proof to show.

@fPrime
How would you know? You're still shooting with a 12 year old D700 and have never owned any of the cameras you listed...

Take a look at the compare mode in the Z6 review conclusion and you will see that DPReview ranks the Z6 focusing as better than the EOS R.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z6/9

It also outperforms the R in every other parameter according to the compare mode graph.

@NextLupus

The thing is, they never updated the EOS R review, the scoring doesn't reflect it's capabilities, that's a reason i asked the professionnal testers, which reviewed all cameras, for their input.

@Adrien D - Thanks for seeing through NexLupus's smokescreen. You are correct. Once DPR updates the Canon R review for their v2.0 firmware we'll also see DPR ranking the Nikon Z dead last for AF just like every other reviewer currently does.

@fPrime
I own the Sony A7R3 and AF performance is ok but not great. A lot of missfocused images even with FW 3.0. Tracking is not as reliable as suggested in most reviews.

I guess that the A7R4 uses an updated FW with better AF algorithms. I only say AI. So when it comes to AF A7R4 > A7R3.

@fPrime
I may have a smoke screen, but we need waders to walk through your horse s---.

The comparison was never updated and Canon's R got updates, too. See https://youtu.be/1fju65OUzek. I don't know, fPrime, if you know the Z by own experience, but there's nothing to say against your ranking, I would see it the same order although I only saw reports and my personal experience is strictly limited to both Z bodies. Not exciting in terms of AF, none of them.

Oh no! If Sony exits then the Northrups and Fro would have to find another vendor to sell out to.

Northrups already found its safe haven in Fujifilm the Fro is just done especially after his latest videos where he bashes Nikon without even trying to install the update. That comes down to trolling. No problem seeing Fro leaving the arena.

@Prosecutor - How aptly you are named. A fan of censorship, are you?

My comments are routinely ranked by others here as "Most Popular" exactly because they pull no punches. You would rather that only favorable comments be made about Z, wouldn't you? You are a sad individual.

This has been the nonsense prediction for years by jealous CaNikon owners. Personally I shoot Panasonic, but I acknowledge that Sony is number 1 for a reason and it’s rivals are at far higher risk of exiting the market then it is ....

It is your freedom to say anything.

But starting to call people names is just plain childish.
As well as the 'jury' seem not to be on your side.

Fact is that your comments are being outvoted by people who actually know what they are talking about.

It is only your ego that think you are 'most popular'.

@Prosecutor - I'm a realist. I don't expect any harsh comment about the Nikon Z's AF performance to be most popular when most of the readers here are from the Z community keen to hear what DPR think of firmware v3.0. There is a certain suspension of disbelief that sets in apparently when one buys a Nikon Z.

fprime - You never used this camera so you are not really obliged to talk over something you have never used. You can't speak so to say. Still your opinion is strong while it does not have any weight to it. You don't come with any facts nor experience with this product.

Your opinion is yours, but your attitude is that of a child.
You are acting like a troll and you know it.

My advice to you is to work on your attitude and check for mental health problems over your hate against Nikon. What did they do wrong to you. Have they laid down your dog?

@FujLiver

Sony has never been, and will never be number 1 by any metric. Canon has been number 1 in the market by share and sales, and they will be moving forward. Sony had an uptick as users wanted to move to mirror less full frame cameras, and that was the only choice, but their sales have been in decline the past two years, along with the rest of the market.

Nikon always had good cameras. D800, D810, D850 D700 / D750 / D500 / D3, D4, D5 etc... you could always argue they were ahead of the competition in some way. Yet their market share decreased for the last decade for every consecutive year, and they are in financial troubles.

So I am not so sure just another great camera is what will save them

DPReview comment section is an excellent place if you want expert market analysis for free

Nikon's problem isn't cameras or lenses, it is marketing and senior management where they struggle the most.

@panther fan
Very true, Nikon has arguably been making some of the best cameras if not the best cameras in select categories.
Yet more people purchase Canon than Nikon.
Just like more burgers are sold at McDonalds than at In & Out.

NexLupus, Canon-McDonalds analogy isn't fair to Canon. Canon also has great cameras and lenses but they have way better marketing and corporate management is more down to earth. I k ow exactly what I will get from a Canon camera but Nikon failed big time when they launched Z series because they couldn't explain how to use AF. First users (i.e. st.pod Youtubers) used Z cameras for 20 minutes and they each published 1 hour Youtube videos about how bad Z7 AF is (Nikon didn't even supply Z6 in the first presentation).
Today with firmware 3.0 Z cameras are really great.