Z6 / Nikon question. Overall, I've really been enjoying the output of the Z6, but one thing that sometimes bothers me is the overly warm WB. Is this a Nikon trait? I'm a jpeg and AWB guy most of the time. I've been shooting mostly Fuji for the past few years and the only time I need to dial in a special WB is under special or odd lighting.
I did set the Z6 AWB to "reduce warm colors" which does seem to help some.
I know that if I shot RAW this would be less of an issue but I've been shooting for a long time and I really only like to shoot RAW when absolutely necessary.
Here's a few examples.....
Z6, AWB ("reduce warm colors"") - window lighting
Fuji X-E2, AWB
Z6, AWB ("reduce warm colors"") - this shot is so warm I can't really fix the jpeg in PP
In the Menu, Shooting Settings, what is your setting? You might try NL (Neutral), which gives a cooler color. I always shoot RAW and auto WB and usually as shot works well. I do notice that if I set the WB in Adobe to daylight the color is a little too warm.
Laslo Varadi wrote:
In the Menu, Shooting Settings, what is your setting? You might try NL (Neutral), which gives a cooler color. I always shoot RAW and auto WB and usually as shot works well. I do notice that if I set the WB in Adobe to daylight the color is a little too warm.
Thanks, I have been using the "Auto" Picture control. Standard might be better.
groob wrote:
I think a better question is why in the world are you shooting JPG?
I've been shooting digital since 2005 and film before that. When I shot Canon I always shot RAW, but once I started shooting Fuji I found that I just didn't need to shoot RAW. 99% of the time the jpegs were perfect. Once I started shooting jpegs my workflow got so much simpler, LR viewing and edits were so much faster, I was wasting less hard drive space and I was simply enjoying photography more, spending more time shooting and less time post-processing - at this point I only shoot RAW when I know I really need to, which is rare. If a camera can't get colors and WB right most of the time then I'm moving on.
michael49 wrote:
I've been shooting digital since 2005 and film before that. When I shot Canon I always shot RAW, but once I started shooting Fuji I found that I just didn't need to shoot RAW. 99% of the time the jpegs were perfect. Once I started shooting jpegs my workflow got so much simpler, LR viewing and edits were so much faster, I was wasting less hard drive space and I was simply enjoying photography more, spending more time shooting and less time post-processing - at this point I only shoot RAW when I know I really need to, which is rare. If a camera can't get colors and WB right most of the time then I'm moving on.
I also found that Nikon's default color is too warm with too much yellow/orange tint to my liking so I only shoot RAW file now. I use Capture One Pro do a quick auto process with built-in Nikon camera profile to generate jpeg files. In comparison, Canon jpeg files have cooler color and Fuji's files are about just right.
ijm5012 wrote:
We got a little bit of snow this past Saturday, so I headed out to get some shots of the city with my Tamron 17-35 on the Z6. Camera and lens worked flawlessly, even in the snowstorm.
Max Power wrote:
Is this the new Tamron or its predecessor?
Hi Max. This is the new Tamron. I bought it from a camera store close to me, and had them perform the firmware update prior to shipping the lens to me. It works great on the FTZ adapter, and is basically the same weight as the forthcoming 14-30 f/4 S (although it doesn't go quite a wide, but gives you a bit more telephoto reach).
I'm really torn, as I was super excited for the 14-30 S when I saw it on the lens roadmap, but when I saw "2019" I figured it would be a ways off, so I purchased the Tamron as a temporary stop-gap solution. However, owning it and having shot with it, I'm really struggling with the thought of selling it and picking up the 14-30, as it would end up costing me ~$900 (figuring I net $400 on the Tamron sale). Is the Nikon really worth an extra $900? I'm not so certain...
At $600, the Tamron is IMO the best UWA bargain for Nikon cameras. It works on any Nikon FF body (including Z cameras), is faster than the Nikon 18-35 G, smaller and lighter than the Nikon 16-35 G, and is weather resistant. It's a really good lens. If I had to find fault with the lens, it's that the focus ring will rotate during autofocus, and lacks any real feedback when set to "MF". However, at $600 I can easily overlook this minor fault given how it actually performs.
Standard and neutral are for both photo and video. Flat and the new N-log are video specific. Gestaltdev wrote:
Standard is intended just for videos. Are you using natural light auto or just auto for WB? Natural light auto gives very warm colors.
ijm5012 wrote:
Hi Max. This is the new Tamron. I bought it from a camera store close to me, and had them perform the firmware update prior to shipping the lens to me. It works great on the FTZ adapter, and is basically the same weight as the forthcoming 14-30 f/4 S (although it doesn't go quite a wide, but gives you a bit more telephoto reach).
I'm really torn, as I was super excited for the 14-30 S when I saw it on the lens roadmap, but when I saw "2019" I figured it would be a ways off, so I purchased the Tamron as a temporary stop-gap solution. However, owning it and having shot with it, I'm really struggling with the thought of selling it and picking up the 14-30, as it would end up costing me ~$900 (figuring I net $400 on the Tamron sale). Is the Nikon really worth an extra $900? I'm not so certain...
At $600, the Tamron is IMO the best UWA bargain for Nikon cameras. It works on any Nikon FF body (including Z cameras), is faster than the Nikon 18-35 G, smaller and lighter than the Nikon 16-35 G, and is weather resistant. It's a really good lens. If I had to find fault with the lens, it's that the focus ring will rotate during autofocus, and lacks any real feedback when set to "MF". However, at $600 I can easily overlook this minor fault given how it actually performs....Show more →
Thanks for the feedback, I have the earlier version and was wondering if it was worth the upgrade. Looking at your images at the office now on the big screen I can see more detail. How much sharpening did you apply to these in post, if any?
Max Power wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, I have the earlier version and was wondering if it was worth the upgrade. Looking at your images at the office now on the big screen I can see more detail. How much sharpening did you apply to these in post, if any?
The new design is VASTLY superior to the previous version. It's not even close.
As far as the sharpening, it's just my general sharpening settings in LR (sharpening at 50, radius at 0.5, detail at 25, masking at 75).
What is(are) the good, extra battery you use for your Z6/7s, if not Nikon EL15b?
I'm looking for one that's compatible with included Nikon charger, but not willing to pay $60 for a battery.
And anyone using a good half-case?
Thank you in advance!
Picture This! wrote:
There's lots of options for cheaper but I would not purchase a camera for thousands and try to save on batteries for $60. But that's me.
I agree with your good point, but I rarely have to use a spare battery. I don't shoot more than 100 shots a days, and only for family pictures. I just need a spare battery in my bag just in case the original one run out unexpectedly.
One thing (besides couple other things) I miss from my Sony A7R3: the Sony battery! I purchased a spare Sony A7R3 battery along with the camera and I never needed it, even never opened the package ! After a year, I ended up just sold the Sony battery brand new last week since I'm selling my A7R3 as well.
So I though may be it's not worth for me to buy a $60-battery again, but Nikon Z battery is much worse than the Sony. After two weeks of using my Z6, I think 2 things Nikon must work on to improve: battery life and AF speed (especially AF-C) to compete with Sony A7 series.
! After a year, I ended up just sold the Sony battery brand new last week since I'm selling my A7R3 as well.