CKrueger wrote:
CIPA ratings are a synthetic benchmark. They don't reflect real-world use.
I never had to change my Z6 battery until the day was done. I brought two batteries with me many times, but never had to swap. I came back many days with 500 to 1000 frames on one battery, sometimes in cold weather.
Even if I did have to switch batteries partway through the day, is that such a horrible thing? How short is our memory as photographers if we think we can't get the job done if we have to switch a battery? I'd sometimes bring three batteries for my 5D and a dozen AA's for my flashes for a long event. Somehow I managed.
If you absolutely must not ever change a battery, the Z9 is the only camera for you. But I'm sure nobody is actually switching systems over such minor matters....Show more →
I think the CIPA ratings are relative. In other words a camera rated at twice the CIPA battery usage is most likely twice the actual usage in real life shooting.
gheller wrote:
People may not be switching because of it, but it certainly will make a difference when considering jumping ship (like for me).
It was not the only reason, but kind of the "straw that broke the camel's back" kind of thing.
Is it that profound? YES! In the real world (I shoot weddings full time) and going from the Sony RX10IV to the Sony A7III (in terms of battery life) was a *huge* benefit.
I refuse to take a step backwards, especially when laying out ~ $7k for the transition
YMMV
I think you need to talk to some wedding or event photographers who shoot Nikon about their experience. Listening to forum scuttlebutt is going to be misleading.
I hung up my skates years ago, but all of the cameras I've used of late (with the possible exception of the Fuji GFX100S) have more battery life than the DSLRs I used for events.
chez wrote:
I think the CIPA ratings are relative. In other words a camera rated at twice the CIPA battery usage is most likely twice the actual usage in real life shooting.
It's still based on a synthetic test, and one that often doesn't reflect reality. For example, I can get thousands of images from my Z9 when shooting wildlife, bring it home, and go out the next day without charging the battery and do it again. But I wouldn't shoot a two-day event without charging, cause the usage pattern is different.
(That said, I could probably get away with it, especially if I turned the rear LCD off. I feel like a fool buying a second battery for the Z9... it seems infinite.)
chez wrote:
I think the CIPA ratings are relative. In other words a camera rated at twice the CIPA battery usage is most likely twice the actual usage in real life shooting.
I don't. Based on experience I have had several cameras with almost identical battery ratings and my usage patterns or habits haven't really changed much over the years but the real world experience was dramatically different to the point where it is easy to reproduce. The problem IMO is that CIPA can't possibly justify testing complex cameras in the hundreds of ways they are used between, EVF usage, LCD usage, video usage, stills usage, sports/action, landscape, AF types, studio, sleep modes, and on and on. I think the idea that specific ways of using a camera or similar features will affect battery life in the same way across brands is misguided. I'm sure CIPA is a little bit useful when they're rating one camera for 2000 shots and another for 300 shots but if the gap isn't pretty wide I'm not sure the ratings are particularly useful. For CIPA to be more than just a little bit useful, I think they'd need many ratings for each camera based on typical ways of using a camera. Even then it would only be approximate unless they gave us hundreds of ratings for each camera with many combinations of settings and usage patterns.
Maybe I'm wrong but I'd be surprised if you could take two cameras used in the specific way you use them and reliably predict twice the actual usage based on CIPA ratings showing double.
RobCD wrote:
I don't. Based on experience I have had several cameras with almost identical battery ratings and my usage patterns or habits haven't really changed much over the years but the real world experience was dramatically different to the point where it is easy to reproduce. The problem IMO is that CIPA can't possibly justify testing complex cameras in the hundreds of ways they are used between, EVF usage, LCD usage, video usage, stills usage, sports/action, landscape, AF types, studio, sleep modes, and on and on. I think the idea that specific ways of using a camera or similar features will affect battery life in the same way across brands is misguided. I'm sure CIPA is a little bit useful when they're rating one camera for 2000 shots and another for 300 shots but if the gap isn't pretty wide I'm not sure the ratings are particularly useful. For CIPA to be more than just a little bit useful, I think they'd need many ratings for each camera based on typical ways of using a camera. Even then it would only be approximate unless they gave us hundreds of ratings for each camera with many combinations of settings and usage patterns.
Maybe I'm wrong but I'd be surprised if you could take two cameras used in the specific way you use them and reliably predict twice the actual usage based on CIPA ratings showing double....Show more →
Maybe not twice the actual usage…but guaranteed that a camera rated at 300 will run out much sooner than a camera rated at 600 under any shooting conditions. I have two cameras, one rated at around 320 and the other at 650 and there is a huge difference in battery life.
chez wrote:
Maybe not twice the actual usage…but guaranteed that a camera rated at 300 will run out much sooner than a camera rated at 600 under any shooting conditions. I have two cameras, one rated at around 320 and the other at 650 and there is a huge difference in battery life.
I'm not saying a camera rated for 650 doesn't have better battery life than a camera rated for 320. I'm just saying I don't believe there is a way to confidently predict each users real world experience between those two cameras based on CIPA ratings. I would expect some users to see a huge difference and others maybe a smaller gap.
The EN15C and FZ Sony 100 are both the same capacity so the must be some reason the A7III gets more shots than the Z6. Top LCD might be one?
I read there is a new processor and IBIS in the Zf so there is that. The A7RIV is rated higher than the A7RV.
My Z6 never goes lower than 600 on each charge (en15C).
bluehawaii wrote:
The EN15C and FZ Sony 100 are both the same capacity so the must be some reason the A7III gets more shots than the Z6. Top LCD might be one?
I read there is a new processor and IBIS in the Zf so there is that. The A7RIV is rated higher than the A7RV.
My Z6 never goes lower than 600 on each charge (en15C).
You can't rate batteries between brands on capacity alone. It's the draw rate combined with capacity that equates to battery life.
Something interesting that I haven't seen mentioned any where else is that ?si=lIQ2cLhnKwvnY0dk&t=530" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Matt Granger states that they are allowing an option to have the shutter close during lens changes along the lines of the sensor shield of the Z8/Z9. I didn't think they would do that with cameras that still had shutters.
BPsmith511 wrote:
Something interesting that I haven't seen mentioned any where else is that ?si=lIQ2cLhnKwvnY0dk&t=530" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Matt Granger states that they are allowing an option to have the shutter close during lens changes along the lines of the sensor shield of the Z8/Z9. I didn't think they would do that with cameras that still had shutters.
Why not? Pretty much every other manufacturer has had that feature for years now. Leica for around 20 years I think.
Nikon makes a big deal out of finally offering it, but it is nothing new in the industry. Sort of like shooting stacked sensors without a mechanical shutter. It been available of over 7 years now. Also nothing new.
RobCD wrote:
I'm not saying a camera rated for 650 doesn't have better battery life than a camera rated for 320. I'm just saying I don't believe there is a way to confidently predict each users real world experience between those two cameras based on CIPA ratings. I would expect some users to see a huge difference and others maybe a smaller gap.
Right!
CIPA should name their benchmark the “CIPA Battery Index”, and make it clear those numbers are NOT “number of shots”. Just a “goodness index”, like many computer benchmarks (ie: GeekBench).
For extra credit, create a few usage cycles. Maybe call them “event” or “wildlife” or “studio”. Each type of shooting has different amounts of idle time, LCD usage, and Continuous AF usage. Combine those into an index and also report separately.
This would be a more useful benchmark to compare cameras, and would help us understand which cameras can do the job. (ie: “I need a camera with >500 ‘CIPA Event Score’ to make it through a whole wedding”.)
Nikon's reference guide is finally out, so I figured I'd see what they had to say about the new ISO dial, and if there is any hope of using "C" as "Auto"...I think I'm more confused NOW than when I started.
When the ISO sensitivity dial is rotated to C, ISO sensitivity can be adjusted using:
[ISO sensitivity settings] > [ISO sensitivity] in the photo shooting menu,
[ISO sensitivity settings] > [ISO sensitivity (mode M)] in the video recording menu,
touch controls, the i menu, and custom controls (0 f2: Custom Controls (Shooting), g2: Custom Controls）
The values that can be selected using these methods are listed below.
Still photography: ISO 100 to 64000; the camera also supports settings below ISO 100 by about 0.3, 0.7, and 1 EV (ISO 50 equivalent) and above ISO 64000 by about 0.3, 0.7, 1.0, and 1.7 EV (ISO 204800 equivalent). An additional setting of [Auto] is available in Auto Mode.
Auto ISO sensitivity control can be enabled in modes P, S, A, and M by selecting [ON] for [ISO sensitivity settings] > [Auto ISO sensitivity control] in the photo shooting menu.
The thing I'd want to test is putting the dial to C, setting the value to Auto, and then toggling back and forth from C to a dial setting to see what happens. However this documentation seems to be a bit contradictory as to when Auto can be selected.
Something I'd not really considered yet is the camera having a PASM switch in general. Your dials are all set to hard values, and you flip the switch to S, for instance, a value that is set by a dial. Does the camera suddenly only respect that one dial?
Man, I really prefer Fuji's method of just putting an A for Auto setting on every physical dial.
BPsmith511 wrote:
It can, Matt Granger mentioned as much in a video.
Yes I saw that review by Matt Granger. Then I saw two other videos that said that feature was not included because Nikon doesn't believe it is a good idea to use a high sped shutter as a dust prevention mechanism. I find that an odd position since there is literally over 100 years where film cameras have the shutter closed when off, including when changing lenses. All the other mirrorless camera brands are allowing it without issues. Leica has had this as the default in all cameras they have ever made I think.
In the video below both Set Miranda, and Mark Cruz (Nikon Rep) say that the Zf cannot use the shutter as a dust protector. Start watching at around minute 38:00.
It’s not in the reference manual, that’s as clear of an answer as you can get. If there’s no menu item to enable it, it’s not a thing.
1bwana1 wrote:
Yes I saw that review by Matt Granger. Then I saw two other videos that said that feature was not included because Nikon doesn't believe it is a good idea to use a high sped shutter as a dust prevention mechanism. I find that an odd position since there is literally over 100 years where film cameras have the shutter closed when off, including when changing lenses. All the other mirrorless camera brands are allowing it without issues. Leica has had this as the default in all cameras they have ever made I think.
In the video below both Set Miranda, and Mark Cruz (Nikon Rep) say that the Zf cannot use the shutter as a dust protector. Start watching at around minute 38:00.
