ArizonaImage wrote:
Boy, this whole Z6 III dynamic range thing is spiraling out of control. PetaPixel, YouTube, DPreview and others are going nuts about it with 2-3 articles about the same thing. I don't recall them making a big deal when Sony introduced stacked sensors that lagged in DR and low light vs their BSI CMOS sensors. According to Photons to Photos, the Z6 III is close to the performance of the A9 II and A7S III in DR. I watched others put the Z6 II and Z6 III side by side, over and under exposed 5 stops and had no difference in IQ. Idk what's going on here... smear campaign? If you search Z6 III on Google, the 3rd most searched comes up as Z6 III dynamic range. Searching Z6 III on YouTube, the first suggestion is Z6 III Dynamic Range. Crazy...Show more →
I’m waiting for some idiot to demand Nikon do a recall on the Z6III because the dynamic range is broken!
huddy wrote:
For me, this is all just a hobby and I don’t need to buy a body at release MSRP without full reviews anyway.
I get not wanting to pay MSRP, but the full reviews are unlikely to have any meaningful information to help make a decision - unless you are deciding between systems. It has been a LONG time since Nikon released a dud body (perhaps the D80?) so the decision matrix is pretty simple
1) Want a midrange midresolution body? Z6x is your answer
2) Want to save serious $ above everything else? Z6ii
3) Absolutely believe you can make use of an extra half stop of DR at base ISO? Z6ii
4) Hate flippy screens with all your soul? Z6ii
5) Want to have fast action stills capability? Z6iii
6) Have saved enough to pay for retinal damage from a bright EVF? Z6iii
7) Interested mostly in video? Why are you on this forum
Did a little test. I wanted to see what Tony Know Nothing Northrup is talking about. I shot the Z5 and Z6 III, both cameras the exact settings, same lens, scene, etc.. (1/400 f1.8 at 100 ISO) then pushed it up 5-stops.
ArizonaImage wrote:
Did a little test. I wanted to see what Tony Know Nothing Northrup is talking about. I shot the Z5 and Z6 III, both cameras the exact settings, same lens, scene, etc.. (1/400 f1.8 at 100 ISO) then pushed it up 5-stops.
Honest question: Did you prove him wrong with these images?
I decided against getting Z6III due to its poor dynamic range, especially for video. I had sold my z6II for the same reason. The video quality of my z6ii was good, but the dynamic range sucks, and it was disappointing to learn that Z6III had a similar or worse dynamic range. I want to go for Z8 now, but I'm unsure if Z8 is any better.
I shoot 100% RAW videos for weddings. Z6 would have made my life easy, but I am so used to the dynamic range in Fuji XH2s that I don't want to go backward. Also, noise looked so much better with Fuji. I'm not sure what is going on with Z6III. I won't have any issues with Z6III for stills, and I know this forum is not for videos.
A funny comment I saw on a pretty poor YT video of a lost soul trying to compare the Z6ii and Z6iii:
"We did the test ourselves a few days ago, and found that it really is much worse than what Toni found. And Toni had again made a typical poisonous praise for Nikon in his video. I shoot with a Z9 and we did the comparison with Z6ii and Z6iii. I don't know why you don't see it in your shots, but the Z6iii is significantly worse than the Z6ii, but still better than the Z9 in terms of noise."
Well, please direct me to any Z9 shot of mine ruined by noise that I've posted, including ones up to 12,800 and beyond. Hint: you can't! This is all total hyperbole by bench monkeys that need any excuse they can get, at least on the stills side of the house.
ArizonaImage wrote:
Did a little test. I wanted to see what Tony Know Nothing Northrup is talking about. I shot the Z5 and Z6 III, both cameras the exact settings, same lens, scene, etc.. (1/400 f1.8 at 100 ISO) then pushed it up 5-stops.
My Z6iii arrived today, spent most of the afternoon going through menus and setup, and did a few quick usability tests. I find the basic functionality to be significantly improved over the Z6, particularly with the ability to reduce clutter on screens and the small but useful additions to capabilities, for example manual exposure duration up to 900s that IMO removes the need to carry a wired trigger release or the additional programmability of buttons. Each of them is trivial by itself, but as a collection they add up to a meaningful benefit.
But boy, are there a few warts in there that are really annoying.
First, the flippy contraption. Next to the Z6 tilt mechanism this feels fragile and ready to be torn off the first time it snags on something in the field. And when extended off to the left side it interferes with operation of the buttons on the upper left side of the body, particularly when hand holding. If I don't end up keeping the Z6iii that will be thing responsible for it. I thought I would not like it, but I actually despise it.
The eye sensor that triggers the switch from monitor to viewfinder. It is way too sensitive and triggers when an object moves 10 inches way from the viewfinder. I did a few quick tests and manipulating the camera controls on a tripod can definitely trigger it. Is there a way to turn down the sensitivity?
Moving the payback button to the lower rught corner and putting the release control in its place. I use release control maybe once a day. Why does it need to be in such a prime location? Fortunately they made these two buttons programmable and I promptly flipped them back to their rightful places.
Focus shift menu implementation is as terrible as ever. Fiddle with a menu, select focus shift, navigate further in a submenu and press start. In contrast pixel shift works exactly the way focus shift should - you press a button that enables pixel shift and next time you press the shutter release you are off to the races. You could have at least made the shitter button trigger the start option, instead of asking us to finger contortions down to the OK button. Why Nikon, why?
Pixel shift is assignable to a custom button but not focus shift. You can work around this by putting focus shift as the top item in my menu and then triggering that via a custom button, but I have to ask again... Why Nikon, why?
Setting Live View to "adjust for ease of viewing" (which is my preferred implementation, why on earth would I want my screen to mostly black because I am shooting into the sun and have set the EV compensation to -3?) disables histogram display on both the LCD and the viewfinder. Whaaat? Apparently the histogram is calculated from the modified video feed, not the raw data coming from the sensor. At the risk of sounding like a broken record... Why Nikon, why?
On a somewhat related note, boy am I glad I was not tempted by the used prices on the Z8. Even the relatively subtle size difference with the Z6 is immediately apparent and noticeable, I can't imagine lugging around d a Z8 sized body on my hikes these days.
GroovyGeek wrote:
My Z6iii arrived today, spent most of the afternoon going through menus and setup, and did a few quick usability tests. I find the basic functionality to be significantly improved over the Z6, particularly with the ability to reduce clutter on screens and the small but useful additions to capabilities, for example manual exposure duration up to 900s that IMO removes the need to carry a wired trigger release or the additional programmability of buttons. Each of them is trivial by itself, but as a collection they add up to a meaningful benefit.
But boy, are there a few warts in there that are really annoying.
First, the flippy contraption. Next to the Z6 tilt mechanism this feels fragile and ready to be torn off the first time it snags on something in the field. And when extended off to the left side it interferes with operation of the buttons on the upper left side of the body, particularly when hand holding. If I don't end up keeping the Z6iii that will be thing responsible for it. I thought I would not like it, but I actually despise it.
The eye sensor that triggers the switch from monitor to viewfinder. It is way too sensitive and triggers when an object moves 10 inches way from the viewfinder. I did a few quick tests and manipulating the camera controls on a tripod can definitely trigger it. Is there a way to turn down the sensitivity?
Moving the payback button to the lower rught corner and putting the release control in its place. I use release control maybe once a day. Why does it need to be in such a prime location? Fortunately they made these two buttons programmable and I promptly flipped them back to their rightful places.
Focus shift menu implementation is as terrible as ever. Fiddle with a menu, select focus shift, navigate further in a submenu and press start. In contrast pixel shift works exactly the way focus shift should - you press a button that enables pixel shift and next time you press the shutter release you are off to the races. You could have at least made the shitter button trigger the start option, instead of asking us to finger contortions down to the OK button. Why Nikon, why?
Pixel shift is assignable to a custom button but not focus shift. You can work around this by putting focus shift as the top item in my menu and then triggering that via a custom button, but I have to ask again... Why Nikon, why?
Setting Live View to "adjust for ease of viewing" (which is my preferred implementation, why on earth would I want my screen to mostly black because I am shooting into the sun and have set the EV compensation to -3?) disables histogram display on both the LCD and the viewfinder. Whaaat? Apparently the histogram is calculated from the modified video feed, not the raw data coming from the sensor. At the risk of sounding like a broken record... Why Nikon, why?
On a somewhat related note, boy am I glad I was not tempted by the used prices on the Z8. Even the relatively subtle size difference with the Z6 is immediately apparent and noticeable, I can't imagine lugging around d a Z8 sized body on my hikes these days. ...Show more →
Could you by any chance be moving towards the grumpy old man phase of life? You may have to change your handle to grumpygeek.
But as one who has transitioned already, it's fun and beats the alternative.
TL;DW: don’t shoot like a dumbass and the Z6iii holds up just as well to the Z6ii in the real world. The Z6iii even has an advantage because it doesn’t color shift to magenta when lowering an overexposed image.
okafoja wrote:
Honest question: Did you prove him wrong with these images?
I decided against getting Z6III due to its poor dynamic range, especially for video. I had sold my z6II for the same reason. The video quality of my z6ii was good, but the dynamic range sucks, and it was disappointing to learn that Z6III had a similar or worse dynamic range. I want to go for Z8 now, but I'm unsure if Z8 is any better.
I shoot 100% RAW videos for weddings. Z6 would have made my life easy, but I am so used to the dynamic range in Fuji XH2s that I don't want to go backward. Also, noise looked so much better with Fuji. I'm not sure what is going on with Z6III. I won't have any issues with Z6III for stills, and I know this forum is not for videos....Show more →
The image thing proved that to me that the dynamic range thing may be more of a clickbait thing than actual facts. As for video, Gerald Undone got between 11.9-12.5 stops of what he calls, usable dynamic range but got 14.1 total stops… which is a smidge better than what he got with the Z8/Z9. The issue was NLOG which managed 9.89 stops but that’s without any noise reduction. When he switched to other logs, it jumped dramatically. I think the Z6 III is perfectly fine for video. I think Nikon needs an NLOG2. For me, the low light capability of the Z6 III is what I wanted vs my Z8.
I don't think one should assume anything about the dynamic range of the camera in video recording based on tests done using still images; the different modes may have different bit depths and processing applied (certainly for N-Log and RAW).
The Z6 II only supports 8-bit video internally while 10-bit, 10-bit N-Log and RAW video are available using external recorders. The Z6 III can do all of these with internal storage, without requiring an external recorder. Furthermore, since the Z6 II RAW video is 4K and somehow made from what is essentially a 6K sensor, it has to use some kind of line skipping to achieve RAW video, and increased aliasing is reported in this mode. The Z6 III does 6K RAW video recording so all the sensor data is used and there should not be significant aliasing, and per area noise should be lower than with the Z6 II RAW video, because more data is being used. Thus the Z6 III should have the advantage with regards to RAW video image quality. It also has less rolling shutter.
Cined.com do dynamic range tests on various cameras and I would expect them to publish results for the Z6 III at some point in the not too distant future. I would not make conclusions about the Z6 III's RAW dynamic range without some lab test work by a party which is familiar with this type of testing and has tested many different cameras with the same protocols.
okafoja wrote:
Honest question: Did you prove him wrong with these images?
I decided against getting Z6III due to its poor dynamic range, especially for video. I had sold my z6II for the same reason. The video quality of my z6ii was good, but the dynamic range sucks, and it was disappointing to learn that Z6III had a similar or worse dynamic range. I want to go for Z8 now, but I'm unsure if Z8 is any better.
I shoot 100% RAW videos for weddings. Z6 would have made my life easy, but I am so used to the dynamic range in Fuji XH2s that I don't want to go backward. Also, noise looked so much better with Fuji. I'm not sure what is going on with Z6III. I won't have any issues with Z6III for stills, and I know this forum is not for videos....Show more →
I agree without with regards to the fully articulating screen; I have the Zf which has a similar screen and I find it quite problematic and clumsy in use. I very much prefer the Z8's (and Z9's) screen which tilts on two axes.
The flip-out screen doesn't allow tilting so that it stays aligned with the optical axis of the lens. This makes it more difficult to use the camera as one has to turn one's gaze to the left side even though the subject is directly in front of the camera.
When opening the screen, it gets tangled up with the camera strap very easily, making it more difficult to get ready to shoot. It also makes the photographer seem like they don't know what they're doing as they get tangled up with their gear (for no other reason than a poorly designed camera).
Finally, the EVF eye-sensor often assumes that the user is operating the EVF when they're simply trying to access left-hand-side buttons or the camera strap (again) is where it is not supposed to be.
I've experienced none of these issues with either the Z8's two-axis screen or the one-axis tilting screen in various other Nikon cameras.
The only benefit, as far as I can see, of the "fully articulating" screen is that those photographers and videographers who are mostly interested in showing themselves can use it to make sure that they're in the picture or video.
RoamingScott wrote:
TL;DW: don’t shoot like a dumbass and the Z6iii holds up just as well to the Z6ii in the real world. The Z6iii even has an advantage because it doesn’t color shift to magenta when lowering an overexposed image.
The TL;DR likely still holds, but the comparisons presented in the video are under "easy" light and IMO not very informative because none of the images reviewed have a challenging dynamic range. There is no attempt to answer the question "can you pull up the shadows as effectively" which is typically THE technical challenge with many interesting landscape images.
I have not yet seen real-life tests involving shots into the sun and post processing the image without exposure bracketing. I will do some tests like this over the weekend but expect that with real world images the measurable DR reduction of the Z6iii will be a don't care. Noone in their right mind pulls up shadows more than 3 stops. If you need to pull up 5+ stops then you screwed up the exposure and/or should be using bracketing.
Alistair1 wrote:
Could you by any chance be moving towards the grumpy old man phase of life? You may have to change your handle to grumpygeek.
But as one who has transitioned already, it's fun and beats the alternative.
I will readily admit that over the years I have started exhibiting a mild form of grumpiness. But grumpiness typically implies complaining for the sake of complaining. Which of the points I raise do you find to meet this threshold? 🤔
It seems to be in stock everywhere in Canada, and I've seen some stores "unofficially" selling them at 10% off already. I guess Nikon made sure they had enough inventory to meet the initial demand this time around.
GroovyGeek wrote:
I will readily admit that over the years I have started exhibiting a mild form of grumpiness. But grumpiness typically implies complaining for the sake of complaining. Which of the points I raise do you find to meet this threshold? 🤔
It's entirely possible to be a curmudgeon whose rants are completely based in logical reality. Don't expect party invites much anymore though
