Fro posted an unboxing of a production unit, I presume from his friends at Allen's camera. I guess that means dealers have already started receiving copies.
DanielJStein wrote:
Curious to see how this does for astrophotography. I ordered one, I will have to do some testing.
Unfortunately, I suspect it will be decent by not great. Sony took the step of finally addressing the RAW filtering that creates issues for astro. Wish Nikon would but I seriously doubt they have. Also, it seems like Nikon decided to trade a little bit of dynamic range and noise for speed with the partially stacked sensor, which I'm not sure is the wisest tradeoff for stills. The Z8 is so close in price point and is more of a sports cameras. I think many Z6 users value the low light performance.
I was surprised to see that Matt Grainger was a little ho hum about the autofocus putting it on the level of the ZF.
sungphoto wrote:
I don't understand the complaining. Using the Canon R5 for a while with its shutter shield function made me wonder why every camera manufacturer doesn't do this. I have accidentally placed a finger directly onto the sensor so many times when changing lenses on mirrorless cameras. I remember shooting a yoga retreat in the jungles of Costa Rica about 8-9 years ago (a couple day voyage from the airport including a boat ride down the Amazon river), and placing a big sweaty thumb print right in the middle of a Sony A7ii sensor. I got really good at using the healing brush haha...Show more →
Next time you'll do this with the shutter as a shield you'll end up with a broken shutter and a camera that cannot be used anymore.
Hopefully that doesn't happen in the middle of a paid shoot.
1bwana1 wrote:
Yes pre-slr sold in fewer numbers, but sold for many years so I am sure there are millions out there. which is what I said.
Actually as I said in my previous quote, when someone tried to credit Sony as first, I corrected him and credited Canon for the current feature. But again I pointed out that it was actually Leica who was first doing this in mirrorless a decade before Canon, Sony and the rest.
As I repeatedly stated in my post I am basing my opinion on the lack of reports of problems, not published data.
Your natural instincts to protect Nikon has colored your reading of posts, and your views on the appropriateness of this feature. I am not praising Sony in any way. I am just questioning Nikons choice in this matter. But I guess for you questioning Nikon is equivalent to praising Sony. Absolutely no common sense in that. ...Show more →
As expected, no answers on the points I made. It makes a conversation a bit difficult.
nhmorgan wrote:
Unfortunately, I suspect it will be decent by not great. Sony took the step of finally addressing the RAW filtering that creates issues for astro. Wish Nikon would but I seriously doubt they have. Also, it seems like Nikon decided to trade a little bit of dynamic range and noise for speed with the partially stacked sensor, which I'm not sure is the wisest tradeoff for stills. The Z8 is so close in price point and is more of a sports cameras. I think many Z6 users value the low light performance.
I was surprised to see that Matt Grainger was a little ho hum about the autofocus putting it on the level of the ZF. ...Show more →
It's always reassuring to welcome our friends from the Sony forum here to tell us how poor the latest release from Nikon is.
bernardl wrote:
As expected, no answers on the points I made. It makes a conversation a bit difficult.
Cheers,
Bernard
You made 3 points.
Point 1 regarding pre-slr directly answered
Point 2 was a statement about the A9III dust shield, your point is accepted without comment.
Point 3 regarding data was directly answered.
Your unjustified accusation about my defending Sony in my posts was directly answered.
Faced with such dia direct and valid set of responses you then resort to the age old tactic of those without a remaining basis to make a demonstrably false accusation and fleeing. Something normally seen in a grammar school play yard. Very weak Bernard. Really disappointing.
nhmorgan wrote:
I was surprised to see that Matt Grainger was a little ho hum about the autofocus putting it on the level of the ZF.
Well I am expecting better with the speed of the partially stacked sensor. I will reserve judgement until I try for myself. Granger's experience seems to be an outlier from the other reviews I have seen. But yes, if true that would be a bit disappointing.
story_teller wrote:
I can’t believe all the dust that’s been kicked up about this! (pun intended) We’ve taken trillions of great photos without a sensor shields and now, all of a sudden, it’s a life or death situation?? A little common sense goes a long way.
Yes, however people have taken trillions of great photos without AF/VR/IS/IBIS etc. Does this imply we shouldn't ask for a sensor shield in Z6 III? And why sensor shields have been implemented in other Z pro bodies if trillions of great photos without a sensor shield were taken?
Now, it's evident why Z6 III can not have the same sensor shield as Z9. However, why Nikon does not provide a user selectale option to use the shutter to cover the sensor when changing lenses? Other manufactures (e.g., Canon) do actually provide such an option. If I had such an option in my Z6 menu, I would use it to save time in post production.
Probably, a FW update could add this feature.
nhmorgan wrote:
Unfortunately, I suspect it will be decent by not great. Sony took the step of finally addressing the RAW filtering that creates issues for astro. Wish Nikon would but I seriously doubt they have. Also, it seems like Nikon decided to trade a little bit of dynamic range and noise for speed with the partially stacked sensor, which I'm not sure is the wisest tradeoff for stills. The Z8 is so close in price point and is more of a sports cameras. I think many Z6 users value the low light performance.
I was surprised to see that Matt Grainger was a little ho hum about the autofocus putting it on the level of the ZF. ...Show more →
It's all speculative for now. I need to do my own testing. Sony's still have a ton of issues for astrophotography including the inability to mod due to on sensor IR emitters as well as issues with telescope compatibility/3rd party accessories for deep space.
Things that look good for the Z6III for astro are star view mode, and maybe perhaps the AF may work to focus on brighter stars. Also curious to see if the red LCD option and extended shutter speeds like in Z8 will make its way to the new Z6.
Things like dual gain ISO stops and DR will need to be tested thoroughly. For now we can only speculate.
Could you explain what problems you've had with Nikon filtering in astrophotography? I know they used to clip shadows (could be seen in high ISO raw histograms) 10+ years ago but then they've made cameras that don't do that, and I haven't seen the clipping in a long time.
If you're suggesting the raw files should be completely without prior processing, the manufacturers are not likely to do that since there are artifacts in the raw data directly from the sensor that they don't really want to give as unprocessed input to third-party raw converters that don't have hardware-specific corrections built in.
Point 2 was a statement about the A9III dust shield, your point is accepted without comment.
Point 3 regarding data was directly answered.
Your unjustified accusation about my defending Sony in my posts was directly answered.
Faced with such dia direct and valid set of responses you then resort to the age old tactic of those without a remaining basis to make a demonstrably false accusation and fleeing. Something normally seen in a grammar school play yard. Very weak Bernard. Really disappointing.
Point 1, not answered at all, sorry.
Point 2, glad you agree that Sony moved to a dedicated shield as soon as they could out of durability concerns with the shutter being used. Which is the point I have been making all along.
bernardl wrote:
Point 1, not answered at all, sorry.
Cheers,
Bernard
In response to point one I said that there are likely millions of pre-slr cameras produced because there were many manufacturers sell over many years. I consider that a direct answer in opposition to what youu said.
Maybe not the answer you wanted, but an accurate answer. I feel like now you are just being silly or possible insincere. Again I am disappointed.
Speaking of data, do you have any that points to a significant ?
1bwana1 wrote:
In response to point one I said that there are likely millions of pre-slr cameras produced because there were many manufacturers sell over many years. I consider that a direct answer in opposition to what youu said.
Maybe not the answer you wanted, but an accurate answer. I feel like now you are just being silly or possible insincere. Again I am disappointed.
Speaking of data, do you have any that points to a significant ?
Point 1 said "1. The pre-DSLR cameras sold in much lower volumes than what you indicate, there was no other choice, the mounts were smaller in diameter and deeper (the shutter was less likely to be accidentally hit), the shutter type were much cruder, and therefore a lot less fragile, than modern shutters syncing at 1/250 or faster. So there is really no comparison and your historical "data" is of low relevance I am afraid,"
bernardl wrote:
Next time you'll do this with the shutter as a shield you'll end up with a broken shutter and a camera that cannot be used anymore.
Hopefully that doesn't happen in the middle of a paid shoot.
Regards,
Bernard
I doubt it, but even if I did I always have a couple backup cameras. I use the D850 the most for stills on jobs because I prefer the OVF and the Z8 and Z6ii are used mainly for video
bernardl wrote:
Point 1 said "1. The pre-DSLR cameras sold in much lower volumes than what you indicate, there was no other choice, the mounts were smaller in diameter and deeper (the shutter was less likely to be accidentally hit), the shutter type were much cruder, and therefore a lot less fragile, than modern shutters syncing at 1/250 or faster. So there is really no comparison and your historical "data" is of low relevance I am afraid,"
Cheers,
Bernard
I directly answered you volume question. As for the mount section I addressed that when Said maybe Nikon engineers did some testing that showed that the wider mount and shorter flange distance made the Z mount more suseptable to damage than all the other brands.
How were both points not answered. We just disagree. But because of that got personal and you falsely accused me of praising Sony which I had not done.
You tried to make this simple feature discussion a brand thing not me. Now you are twisting things looking to justify your juvenile behavior. Very dissapointing Bernard. Really...
ArizonaImage wrote:
Like ordering multiple quantity or one person ordering from numerous different places in the hopes they have better chances of getting one sooner?
Manufacturers always like to state that there is over demand and short supply, as that illusion helps them to sell cameras.
I know that placing multiple orders with different merchants is common among people who can't wait for the new high-end cameras like the Z8/9, but are people really that hard core about the Z6 series? That would surprise me. So I'm guessing that was a joke, right?
If duplicate pre-orders are common (and subject to cancellation) that could suggest that the overall demand for the camera isn't what the initial orders might suggest. The Z6iii Order Poll thread shows that only about 15% of the respondents are actually interested in purchasing the camera.
Nikon has released a new version of NX Studio (1.7.0), which adds support for the new "Flexible Color" picture control that was announced with the Z6 III. I did a quick demo of what this new picture control provides, applied on a Z8 raw I shot.
Note NX Studio lags in updating the preview whenever making any changes to the control, so you'll see a second or two delay after I manipulate a control before the preview is updated.
I got really good at using