Thom Hogan

Some points have come up in forum discussions surrounding the Tokyo Olympics that need clarification. In no particular order:

• A Z6's battery life (or other mirrorless camera) is to short to use in the Olympics. This is typically presented with CIPA statistics (e.g. D6 is 3500 shots CIPA, Z6 II is 350 shots). CIPA's ratings, as I've pointed out in the past, are pretty much a worst case scenario for a mirrorless camera, because they keep the EVF active the full time of the test, and the shots are spread out to every 30 seconds. That means that the 350 rating for the Z6 II is really close to equivalent of saying the camera can take photos for about two hours per charge. Which turns out to be pretty much the case in my experience. Depending upon what I'm shooting, I've seen instances of well over 1000 images a charge on the Z6 II. So, at something like the Olympics I'd generally be planning on four or five batteries a day per Z camera (assuming I wouldn't have access to charging them). Since the Z6 II can also be charged or run from USB power, carrying a high capacity battery capable of USB Power Delivery would also be of use. The funny thing about these condemnations of the Z6 is that at the 2000 Olympics you would have been changing film every 36 photos or so. How many rolls of film would you have to carry to cover an event as well as you could with a Z6 II and a single battery? And how many photos would you miss while changing film? Generally, most of the battery life arguments are being made by people who don't use these cameras in heated sports action and are really just trying to find an argument about why DSLRs are better. And they don't use a D6, either ;~). 
• The mirrorless cameras don't hold up to the abuse that the Canon 1DX Mark III and Nikon D6 do. Maybe. I haven't had any particular issues with durability with the Z's (or the Sony A1). They're made a bit differently than the big DSLRs are, as their thin bodies allow for a tighter, parallel frame structure that's pretty darned sturdy. But the mirrorless models also don't have lots of mechanical parts flapping about that can go wrong, either, which is exactly where I've seen DSLRs fail in the past. If an athlete lands on you, it's not going to matter much whether you're using mirrorless or DSLR: all pro cameras and lenses are designed with break points at and around the mount, so that repairs don't involve deep frame/element alignment issues that are costly. The one place where I still prefer a D6 to a Z6 II that constitutes abuse is in rain. I'm still not 100% convinced that the mirrorless cameras will hold up the way I know a D5 or D6 to in rain (you'll know you're in heavy rain when the buttons on a D5 on the left side of the camera stop working; this seems to have been fixed on the D6). 
• Nikon doesn't have any Z9's at the Olympics. It's difficult to argue something with no public evidence (to support either side). However, if Nikon is truly going to ship the Z9 in November as I have been told, it would be too early for anything other than mules or hand-built prototypes to be appearing in July. (A mule is an available body outfitted with different internals, typically to test things like image sensor and processor before a final fab production commit is made. Given the provenance, I'd expect a Z9 mule to be in a D6 body) With the November launch date it would be difficult for Nikon to do much that's publicly visible at the Olympics. It's too early for feature/performance things to be discussed openly, as they're still highly subject to change and I doubt firmware is optimized at all right now. Canon clearly has at least one R3 prototype in use (Jeff Cable, Team USA) at the games, which would indicate to me that the Canon camera is likely to be launched soon after the games (e.g. September). Top-end cameras generally benefit highly from being launched near a big event, as being able to show them doing the things that the pros need them to do in the heat of battle is useful. My guess is that Nikon launches the Z9 at the end of the year and then pushes it hard at the Beijing Olympics. Part of that is just launch timing, but part is also availability of the lenses that would need to be used on it. As opposed to what most interested folk are doing on the Internet—looking for Z9 bodies in the images of photographers at the Olympics—I'm looking for something different: the presence of any new telephoto Z-mount lens. The lack of seeing those lenses tells us that the Z9 probably isn't there other than perhaps a couple of early mule/prototype cameras that are tightly guarded. My guess is that Nikon is introducing a few key Ambassadors to these prototypes (probably in post games meetings) and getting first reactions, not testing in what is some of the most competitive production use. Remember, those that are at the Olympics are taking photos for timely publication first and foremost. I certainly wouldn't trust that I could fulfill my agency's needs and requests with something unknown in prototype form. Nikon would have had to do something like Canon did with Jeff Cable: provide a camera prior to Tokyo that could be tested to ascertain what it was going to do when needed (and to practice with it!). 
• Nikon's autofocus isn't up to the Olympics needs with the current Z system. Nope. That old horse doesn't run. I wouldn't be avoiding the Z6 II or Z7 II because of autofocus reasons. There is a real reason that makes the current Z's less useful for a big event like the Olympics, but it isn't autofocus, battery, build quality, or lenses. It's frame rate. One of the things that people haven't noted in some of my comments about how well I find the Nikon autofocus works when controlled properly is a small little detail: there's nothing wrong with the focus system at 5.5 fps (maximum physical shutter rate). Nothing. Nada. It works fine. But if you set Continuous H (extended) and you need to follow the action, you're going to have trouble. That's because the EVF changes from Live View to Previously Shot view. You end up with a lagged slide show in the EVF of the images you take with the frame rate set to 9-14 fps (rate depends upon model). That lag will make you lose composition on any camera motion, and as you lose composition you'll lose control over where focus is attained in most of the AF-Area modes you should be using. To "get the image" in most Olympic sports, you need to be at maximum frame rate so that you can chimp-and-choose the image you push out. Someone sitting right next to you got the moment, did you? The only way you can guarantee that in a pressure-filled situation like the Olympics is with higher frame rates. But...the top Z's do have a hidden feature if you don't need to a lot of megapixels: take continuous still images while set to record video! You're limited to just 1 second of buffer so you need to be careful when you press the button, but you can end up with 8mp images taken at up to 60 fps. And yes, the focus system works for this. 

Sitting in a tightly crowded, limited area with dozens of other photographers all scrambling to post first isn't my exactly my cup of tea, nor would I want to take away opportunities for those hard-working pros. For sports work I tend to work as a supplemental photographer on a loose leash, and am always trying to find new angles/ideas (though even modest venue rules make that difficult). Thus, I've never asked to cover the Olympics and probably won't. 

But it is useful as a thought problem to figure out what I would have taken to the Tokyo Games and analyze that. I'd have the following in my travel bags, I think:

• D5 and D6 bodies
• 70-200mm f/2.8E
• 400mm f/2.8G
• 105mm f/1.4E
• 300mm f/4E
• Z6 II body
• 14-24mm f/2.8 S
• 24-70mm f/2.8 S
• 70-200mm f/2.8 S
• FTZ adapter

I would have asked to borrow a 180-400mm f/4E from NPS, or perhaps the 120-300mm f/2.8E depending upon what I was tasked to cover. I'd also have asked to try out the NX Field app, which would mean I'd also need to borrow a WT-7 for the Z6 II. Most of the actual event coverage would be taken with the DSLRs, with the Z6 II doing the venue, presentation, and casual images. 

Could I have covered the games with just Nikon mirrorless equipment? Yes, but it wouldn't have been my first choice, just as it isn't the first choice of most Nikon pros in Tokyo. That's because the D6 is such a proven beast of burden that it would be difficult to choose something else for the critical sporting moment images.