NatureScapes.net Forums

I was wondering if anybody had a chance to compare Nikon D500, D850 to Sony a9 in BIF shooting.
I sold my Fujifilm camera and am selling my Nikon Z50 as none of them came even close to my Nikon D500 and D850 in terms of BIF.
I might pick up a used a9 and try to use it with a smart adapter and Nikon lens for now and buy the Sony 200-600 later.
Thanks.

Mark Smith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3RKfT4pUho

and other of his videos.

I have the A9 and D500. I find the AF on the A9 to be better across the board compared to the D500. But I do love that 500 PF.

The a9 is superior in virtually every way to a D500 but for what you are proposing it is not. You will never achieve the AF performance required for flight on a Nikon lens with an adapter. Nikon lenses just do not adapt well with a Smart adapter. It's fine for still subjects but not fast moving eratic subjects. you need a native Sony lens for that. The other thing that could be a problem for you is that the a9 is full frame while the D500 is APS-C...

I have been shooting Nikon for many years.  I have the D5 and had the D500.  I picked up a used sony a9 for like $2500 and the sony 200-600mm and have been blown away by the autofocus capabilities and the sharpness of the lens.  I had a Nikon Z6 on which I was using  the FTZ adapter and the 500pf and was virtually useless for BIF compared to the Sony combo. I think EJ is right that trying to adapt the Nikon lens to a sony body would not be a good idea for BIF.

Thank you all the info and advices.
If Nikon won't come out with a reasonable, similar to Sony a9 camera in a 6-12 month time, then I will consider that Art had done, buy a used Sony a9 and maybe a used or a new 200-600 lens. I would also sell the D500 and keep the D850 only with the 500 f 5.6 PF lens.

I currently shoot BIF with Nikon D500 plus the first generation AF-S 500/4D ED + TC14E II.
By courtesy of Sony Hong Kong I was able to test drive myself the a9 and FE200-600/5.6-6.3G OSS + 1.4x TC for a period of three weeks.
In the end I didn't switch despite the 'better' AF on a9!

I’m picky on file image quality hence I always try to keep the ISO setting as low as possible when shooting. I hate the look of noisy files using very high ISO settings. Photography is all about having light; there is no free lunch! You find yourself needing a shutter speed of 1/2000 or above shooting actions. With this combo I have no choice but to go for very high ISO even for a bright day.

I like the a9 auto focus implementation. AF is stickier on subjects you follow and AF tracks wonderfully.
I use EVF on both my Fujifilm X-T1 & X-T20 and Canon EOS RP so I’ve my share of experience using EVF in mirrorless bodies. For fast action, BIF included, I still prefer optical VF. The thing I missed most shooting the a9 is the Optical VF. The a9’s EVF is good without black-out at high speed shootings but it can't beat the good old optical viewfinder which is clear and bright all the time.

Yes, battery drain is another major concern speaking from my first field outing on the a9.
Overall, I am finding the image from the a9 very sharp and detailed in real world situations. This camera produces great looking image.

A collection of shots from the test run can be viewed at https://www.flickr.com/photos/169408738 ... 3487972848

Thanks KK. You have beautiful images in your collection, not only the BIF shots but Landbirds and songbirds as well.
What I do lately most of the time is, I set the shutter speed to 1/3200s and the aperture to F7.1 and lock them on the D850 so it won't accidentally be moved when it is hanging on my side. I change ISO on the continuous basis to adjust to the changing light. However, I very rarely do BIF when it is overcast so I have plenty of light.

E.J. Peiker wrote:The a9 is superior in virtually every way to a D500 but for what you are proposing it is not.  You will never achieve the AF performance required for flight on a Nikon lens with an adapter.  Nikon lenses just do not adapt well with a Smart adapter.  It's fine for still subjects but not fast moving eratic subjects.  you need a native Sony lens for that.  The other thing that could be a problem for you is that the a9 is full frame while the D500 is APS-C...

E.J.

I was wondering if you have ever compared the mirrorless Nikon camera with a non Z mount Nikon lens and adapter, does it take a hit on AF speed with the adapter?

Thank You!

George DeCamp wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:The a9 is superior in virtually every way to a D500 but for what you are proposing it is not.  You will never achieve the AF performance required for flight on a Nikon lens with an adapter.  Nikon lenses just do not adapt well with a Smart adapter.  It's fine for still subjects but not fast moving eratic subjects.  you need a native Sony lens for that.  The other thing that could be a problem for you is that the a9 is full frame while the D500 is APS-C...

E.J.

I was wondering if you have ever compared the mirrorless Nikon camera with a non Z mount Nikon lens and adapter, does it take a hit on AF speed with the adapter?

Thank You!

Yes absolutely it does.  It is probably good enough for very predictable movement like mammals and large predictable flyers but not good enough for fast flyers or erratic flyers.  My experience is with the 500PF mounted via the FTZ adapter to a Z7. 

E.J. Peiker wrote:

George DeCamp wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:The a9 is superior in virtually every way to a D500 but for what you are proposing it is not.  You will never achieve the AF performance required for flight on a Nikon lens with an adapter.  Nikon lenses just do not adapt well with a Smart adapter.  It's fine for still subjects but not fast moving eratic subjects.  you need a native Sony lens for that.  The other thing that could be a problem for you is that the a9 is full frame while the D500 is APS-C...

E.J.

I was wondering if you have ever compared the mirrorless Nikon camera with a non Z mount Nikon lens and adapter, does it take a hit on AF speed with the adapter?

Thank You!

Yes absolutely it does.  It is probably good enough for very predictable movement like mammals and large predictable flyers but not good enough for fast flyers or erratic flyers.  My experience is with the 500PF mounted via the FTZ adapter to a Z7. 

OK I kinda figured it would. I am really looking forward to the Z8 or whatever it will be called but not at the expense of slowing my AF. I like the 500pf so if it will slow it down I'll have to pass on that one or not use it for my bird stuff. I'll get the new D860 or whatever it will be called when that comes. Oh well....

Thank you!

Regarding the a9 and a9 mkII what is it in the camera that makes it so fast compared to the A7r IV On the Canon 1d series in part it was the larger battery giving more power to the motors but on these 2 the battery is the same.

Rob.

Sony a9 / a9 II
Its 24MP full-frame Stacked CMOS allows processing circuitry nearer the pixels and features built-in memory to deliver all the data to the off-board processors. The fast readout allows 60 AF/AE calculations per second, promising better subject tracking and prediction ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q-nzcf ... e=youtu.be

Lensmaster wrote:Regarding the a9 and a9 mkII what is it in the camera that makes it so fast compared to the A7r IV  On the Canon 1d series in part it was the larger battery giving more power to the motors  but on these 2 the battery is the same.

Rob.

In the simplest terms, the a7R4 needs to move 61mp images around where the a9 only needs to move 24mp so the a7R4 would need to do 2.5x the amount of work for everything else to be the same....

Thanks EJ Sorry I wasn't very clear I meant focus acquisition and the speed the a9 tracks. to me it seems quite a bit faster and more accurate than the a7r IV
would it be the processor or stacked sensor making it so.

the lens on my tests is the FE 600f4 .

Rob.

It's still the data pipeline.  This isn't a DSLR where the AF is done off-sensor and therefore is completely independent of the imaging sensor design.  Here the AF is done on-sensor and the sensor of the a7R4 has to move 2.5 times as much data which includes the AF data which comes through that same pipeline.

Perhaps the reason I am having more success here is that I virtually always shoot birds in APS-C (Super 35 mode) where the sensor only needs to move 26 megapixles and in that scenario I find the AF plenty good enough for the flight shooting I have done with few missed focus frames.

Thanks so much EJ that's very clear and I did not know this is how it works I have always shot full frame and then crop as it gives a wider field of view but will give the crop mode a try .

All interesting stuff

Rob.