coralnut wrote:
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.
This place is filled with bird paparazzis.
Z6 caters to a ton of women and seniors that want a small and light camera, not BIF.
ekam wrote:
This place is filled with bird paparazzis.
Z6 caters to a ton of women and seniors that want a small and light camera, not BIF.
I am neither a woman, nor a senior, and a small and light camera definitely caters to me. So much, in fact, that I would not call the Z6iii small and light.
I am a senior paparazzi for all of nature and the Z8 is already small enough for me. I love it!
The only other camera I might get would be the Z9. That's because I do not like my small finger hanging off the Z8. or rotating the Z8. 90 degrees for a vertical composition.
snapsy wrote:
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 just wish NX Studio would integrate an intervalometer. I trialed camera control 2, which allows you to tether while doing timelapses (without needing an external electronic intervalometer), but close to $200 is stupid. They should include camera control for free like they do NX Studio.
bs kite wrote:
The only other camera I might get would be the Z9. That's because I do not like my small finger hanging off the Z8. or rotating the Z8. 90 degrees for a vertical composition.
Camera form factor is up to the individual.
I'm with you, Robert. I don't like having to grip a camera with less than all of my fingers, and I really like a camera that's easy to grasp for a vertical composition.
While I understand some peoples' like for dainty/compact camera bodies, I just can't manage with them when using any large lens. To me large lenses handle best on a large frame camera and a battery grip makes all the difference in the world.
There are some handling conditions where a large, easy to grasp camera would be much safer to handle -- I'd hate to be in a kayak and lose hold of a small camera because I was trying to hold onto it with less than all of my fingers!
sungphoto wrote:
I just wish NX Studio would integrate an intervalometer. I trialed camera control 2, which allows you to tether while doing timelapses (without needing an external electronic intervalometer), but close to $200 is stupid. They should include camera control for free like they do NX Studio.
coralnut wrote:
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.
Sorry, I meant Tether not Studio. I tried Tether recently as well, but the issue is that the intervalometer gets greyed out when you tether (same with Capture One).
sungphoto wrote:
Sorry, I meant Tether not Studio. I tried Tether recently as well, but the issue is that the intervalometer gets greyed out when you tether (same with Capture One).
It's greyed out in the NX Tether but you can still configure and start it from the camera, and if you have the NX Tether configured for the camera to send to the PC it'll send the intervalometer images to the computer.
snapsy wrote:
It's greyed out in the NX Tether but you can still configure and start it from the camera, and if you have the NX Tether configured for the camera to send to the PC it'll send the intervalometer images to the computer.
Interesting! So what would the order of operations be? Start intervalometer on camera, then connect tether cable with Nikon Tether running with the hot folder setup? If that's the case, I wonder if I could do the same with capture one... I am going to try it out! Thank you
sungphoto wrote:
Interesting! So what would the order of operations be? Start intervalometer on camera, then connect tether cable with Nikon Tether running with the hot folder setup? If that's the case, I wonder if I could do the same with capture one... I am going to try it out! Thank you
Connect to NX Tether first, configure it to send the images to the PC (or PC+card if you prefer), then go into the camera menu to configure and start the intervalometer.
JasonMello wrote:
I have a Sony a7rv and all my gm lenses. I want to play with a Nikon. Are the Sony lenses adapted on Nikon bodies responsive AF wise?
The general consensus seems to be surprise and pleasure at how well they perform. Not quite "native" but very useable for lens sharing.
Awesome thanks! Love my Sonys and hope the next iteration of the a7s or a7 compete with the z6iii. But for now the z6iii is everything that sony lacks in a complete package for me. A7iv overheats and crop, a7siii only 12mp, fx3 no evf.
RoamingScott wrote:
The general consensus seems to be surprise and pleasure at how well they perform. Not quite "native" but very useable for lens sharing.
JasonMello wrote:
Awesome thanks! Love my Sonys and hope the next iteration of the a7s or a7 compete with the z6iii. But for now the z6iii is everything that sony lacks in a complete package for me. A7iv overheats and crop, a7siii only 12mp, fx3 no evf.
The A7iv is what happens when a market leader rests on their past successes what a confusing camera that is.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Nikon are actually some of the best for astro. I think they are referring to some of the spatial filtering found by some of the brain surgeons over on Cloudy Nights which demonstrate some slight filtering of smaller stars. However this is easily fixed by aiming to shoot with the bulk of the data on the histogram, not too much to the left.
Sony on the other hand have been notorious for this spatial filtering "bug," and in their case there was no workaround and it was and still is a nuisance. The coin was termed as star eater, and the algorithm cannot be turned off and is baked into the raws. The Sony variant is also far more destructive than the Nikon one. However, Sony most recently fixed this in their latest gen A7rVm but it is still present in every other body. It has been ongoing since the original A7S.
Yeah the a7iv never stood out for me. I love the a7rv though. Beautiful camera. RoamingScott wrote:
The A7iv is what happens when a market leader rests on their past successes what a confusing camera that is.
1bwana1 wrote:
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...
I am not twisting things at all. I just debunked your arguments and you are apparently unwilling/unable to admit it. At least clearly not willing to engage in an honnest discussion.
Have I made this into a brand thing? I don’t think so. My view applies equally to Canon and Leica. If I did mention Sony it was as an example because we all know your unconditional love of anything they do. I just made it easier to relate to for you. And to make my view Cristal clear. I am not even reproaching these brands to provide this capability. It does make sense in some extreme dust situations. My point is that it’s a terrible idea to use this function in normal circumstances because the risk to reward balance is very poor. Should Nikon provide this option? I think they should.
The pre-DSLR discussion is self-explanatory. You claim that past data proofs the lack of risk of the practise. I demonstrated that the comparison isn’t valid. You now claim to have answered the objection by using my very explanation against yourself. Indeed your point is that Nikon would not be using the approach because their mount is shallower than Sony’s… admitting that mount depth impacts on the level of risk… but your didn’t go all the way and admit that the much deeper pre-DSLR mounts should therefore be even much less likely to result in damage (especially since the shutters were much more simple and robust back then). So you have indeed validated my point perfectly but refuse to admit it. It doesn’t look like I am the one twisting things here, does it?
I don’t remember accusing you of praising Sony. But my view remains that anything you perceive as a criticism of Sony technical decisions (shared by other brands or not, irrelevant) generates an uncontrolled defensive reaction from you that isn’t based on facts or logic. We’ve seen this time and again. I am a happy Sony customer, I love the brand as much as anybody else. Great company and great products.
It’s all the more amusing that you have admitted a second time in this very exchange that I was right when avoiding carefully to explain why Sony decided to move to a dedicated shield design in the a9III although, according to you, the shutter is/was absolutely not problematic and presents zero risks.
Sorry, I won’t comment on the personal attacks.
To bring this discussion back on healthier tracks, I have pré-ordered a Z6III. No idea when it will show up, I wasn’t able to do it until 2h after the opening. I am probably tens of thousands units down in the wait list.
JasonMello wrote:
I have a Sony a7rv and all my gm lenses. I want to play with a Nikon. Are the Sony lenses adapted on Nikon bodies responsive AF wise?
I used a few e-mount lenses on a Nikon Z5 a while ago, and the AF seemed as good as with the A7c. I got the feeling that the edge performance (sharpness etc) was not quite as good as on the Sony, but that could well have been paranoia and confirmation bias
