molson wrote:
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.
10% off will put it around $2200 here in the USA. Not bad, but $1999 will be an idle price. It will fly off the shelves for $1999. I will stay strong and resist getting the camera right now. Hopefully, the price will come down very soon.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
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.
I think we will see a nice improvement in dynamic range on the Z6 III, Z8, Z9 when Nikon releases new log profiles. From what I gathered from Nikon video shooters and others like Gerald Undone, the biggest hurdle in dynamic range for these cameras is Nikon's NLOG, because when they tried other logs or even Nikon's Flat Profile, dynamic range does improve very well.
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.
So basically, zero distinguishable difference between the Z6 II and Z6 III for stills. For video, we're discerned that NLOG is the culprit causing the slight loss in DR. I don't see what's wrong with the Z6 III from all these clickbait YouTuber's claiming the Z6 III is a disaster wait till Nikon kicks out an NLOG 2, video DR for the Z6 III, Z8/Z9 will improve.
ArizonaImage wrote:
So basically, zero distinguishable difference between the Z6 II and Z6 III for stills. For video, we're discerned that NLOG is the culprit causing the slight loss in DR. I don't see what's wrong with the Z6 III from all these clickbait YouTuber's claiming the Z6 III is a disaster wait till Nikon kicks out an NLOG 2, the DR for the Z6 III, Z8/Z9 will improve.
And in the end, when results like that matter the most and you want max IQ, you shouldn't be using the Z6iii for that job anyways. If it's your only camera, you'll get perfectly fine results.
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? 🤔
Some of your “warts” are based on personal opinion such as button placement and Pixel Shift vs Focus Shift. Your views are not necessarily everyone else’s views. We’ll have to see if Nikon includes some “Wart Remover” in the next firmware update.
ArizonaImage wrote:
So basically, zero distinguishable difference between the Z6 II and Z6 III for stills. For video, we're discerned that NLOG is the culprit causing the slight loss in DR. I don't see what's wrong with the Z6 III from all these clickbait YouTuber's claiming the Z6 III is a disaster wait till Nikon kicks out an NLOG 2, video DR for the Z6 III, Z8/Z9 will improve.
Are you referring to a different video than the one you referenced? The photographer in that video mentions the Z6 III having more noise in the shadows at both low and High ISO.
snapsy wrote:
Are you referring to a different video than the one you referenced? The photographer in that video mentions the Z6 III having more noise in the shadows at both low and High ISO.
You: The YT guy said there IS a difference
YT guy, and I quote: "The difference is so small it's negligible"
This is the difference between bench testers and field shooters in a nutshell. Literally no able-skilled field shooter gives two hoots about this difference.
RoamingScott wrote:
You: The YT guy said there IS a difference
YT guy, and I quote: "The difference is so small it's negligible"
This is the difference between bench testers and field shooters in a nutshell. Literally no able-skilled field shooter gives two hoots about this difference.
For sure everyone has to decide for themselves whether the differences matter. But when we're referring to a third-party's opinion we should quote them accurately.
"If we look here at ISO 25,600, I can definitely see a bit more noise in the darkest areas here on the Z6 III"
Is there any place where the difference between Zf and Z6III summarized? Obviously we don't need the body difference. I'm curious about information like Evf, blackout, subject detection etc. I read multiple places that Animal in Z6III is better than Z8 in detecting birds. This means Animal may already have most of Bird in it. I'd like to know. Any other major software difference?
snapsy wrote:
Are you referring to a different video than the one you referenced? The photographer in that video mentions the Z6 III having more noise in the shadows at both low and High ISO.
And you can see the difference when he zoomed out? I noticed a negligible difference when he zoomed 100%, but when zoomed out, there was no difference.
Youtube is NOT the platform to do deep IQ comparisons as a viewer, the compression kills a ton of detail and it's impossible to make an educated analysis.
ArizonaImage wrote:
And you can see the difference when he zoomed out? I noticed a negligible difference when he zoomed 100%, but when zoomed out, there was no difference.
Differences in IQ at downsampled resolutions are exceedingly difficult to see after YouTube's compression, which is why I relied on his comments. It's also why I zoom in to 100% or higher when I post an IQ comparison on YT.
snapsy wrote:
Differences in IQ at downsampled resolutions are exceedingly difficult to see after YouTube's compression, which is why I relied on his comments.
I tested my Z5 against the Z6 III and had the same results as ZJ Michaels. When it comes to stills, it's so close that it can be called a tie. I properly expose my photos, so I've never needed to push a photo 5-6 stops in which case any camera is going to suffer, or I'll bracket if I really need the HDR. I truly believe the bad press on the Z6 III's DR is 90% clickbait nonsense. Same for video. NLOG is pretty poor, and using other LOGs increases DR. I point out that Gerald Undone using Imatest got 9.89 "usable" stops of DR out of 14 stops total DR detect, using NRAW + NLOG, without any noise reduction. He compared this to Sony who's known to bake in tons of NR, and when leveling the playing field with a proper LOG and NR, he managed 11.9 to 12.5 stops of "usable DR" which is inline with an A7IV (12.8 stops with S-Log3) and A7S III (11.3 to 13 stops using S-Log 2 or S-Log 3). So once again, I really think the who "Z6 III has terrible dynamic range" is really overhyped nonsense.
ArizonaImage wrote:
I tested my Z5 against the Z6 III and had the same results as ZJ Michaels. When it comes to stills, it's so close that it can be called a tie. I properly expose my photos, so I've never needed to push a photo 5-6 stops in which case any camera is going to suffer, or I'll bracket if I really need the HDR. I truly believe the bad press on the Z6 III's DR is 90% clickbait nonsense. Same for video. NLOG is pretty poor, and using other LOGs increases DR. I point out that Gerald Undone using Imatest got 9.89 "usable" stops of DR out of 14 stops total DR detect, using NRAW + NLOG, without any noise reduction. He compared this to Sony who's known to bake in tons of NR, and when leveling the playing field with a proper LOG and NR, he managed 11.9 to 12.5 stops of "usable DR" which is inline with an A7IV (12.8 stops with S-Log3) and A7S III (11.3 to 13 stops using S-Log 2 or S-Log 3). So once again, I really think the who "Z6 III has terrible dynamic range" is really overhyped nonsense....Show more →
I agree, the Z6 III doesn't have terrible dynamic range. But it is approximately 1 stop below the performance of the Z6/Z6 II. How significant that is in practice is of course up to the individual to decide.
The shadow noise differences at High ISO are visible without any shadow pushing.
The video comparison to Sony is definitely complicated by Sony's NR. But Gerald quoting a DR figure after NR isn't much better. The comparison for video performance arguably should be made to other Nikons, and the difference is material there too.
snapsy wrote:
I agree, the Z6 III doesn't have terrible dynamic range. But it is approximately 1 stop below the performance of the Z6/Z6 II. How significant that is in practice is of course up to the individual to decide.
The shadow noise differences at High ISO are visible without any shadow pushing.
The video comparison to Sony is definitely complicated by Sony's NR. But Gerald quoting a DR figure after NR isn't much better. The comparison for video performance arguably should be made to other Nikons, and the difference is material there too.
What Gerald is showing is that Nikon has potential because there is no NR, vs Sony that already already baked in. Thus, adding more NR degrades the image/footage for Sony, where Nikon has room to improve. I point out the figures, 11.9-12.5 for the Z6 III vs 11.3-13 for the two Sony cameras. As for stills, there is less than half a stop between the Z6 II and Z6 III according to the holy grail Photons to Photos, and less than 1 stop between 100-800. I haven't seen a full stop at any ISO from any reviewer, and not from my tests between the Z5 and Z6 III. Between the Z6 III and A7IV, the difference is a bit more between 100-800, and than less than .5 stop from 800+... the data doesn't backup the hype of "terrible" dynamic range for the Z6 III.
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? 🤔
All genuinely held opinion is valid and meets the threshold, I'm just trying to cheer you up🙂
ArizonaImage wrote:
What Gerald is showing is that Nikon has potential because there is no NR, vs Sony that already already baked in. Thus, adding more NR degrades the image/footage for Sony, where Nikon has room to improve. I point out the figures, 11.9-12.5 for the Z6 III vs 11.3-13 for the two Sony cameras. As for stills, there is less than half a stop between the Z6 II and Z6 III according to the holy grail Photons to Photos, and less than 1 stop between 100-800. I haven't seen a full stop at any ISO from any reviewer, and not from my tests between the Z5 and Z6 III. Between the Z6 III and A7IV, the difference is a bit more between 100-800, and than less than .5 stop from 800+... the data doesn't backup the hype of "terrible" dynamic range for the Z6 III. ...Show more →
Right, Sony's baked-in NR is why any comparison to Sony's DR is problematic because there's no way to know how much NR is baked in or how to normalize for it, so adding NR to the Z6 III video and reporting the result DR doesn't provide any useful information for comparing to the Sony.
Regarding 1 stop difference in DR, this can be seen in Bill's input-referred noise data, which is a purer comparison of engineering DR performance vs his PDR results, which factor in other noise cutoffs:
snapsy wrote:
Right, Sony's baked-in NR is why any comparison to Sony's DR is problematic because there's no way to know how much NR is baked in or how to normalize for it, so adding NR to the Z6 III video and reporting the result DR doesn't provide any useful information for comparing to the Sony.
Regarding 1 stop difference in DR, this can be seen in Bill's input-referred noise data, which is a purer comparison of engineering DR performance vs his PDR results, which factor in other noise cutoffs:
I'm comparing it to Sony because apparently Sony is the holy grail of cameras. We're getting an idea how much NR they use based on the detectable stops of DR which is about 14 to 14.5 on average with usable being 11.5-12.8, which is what the Z6 III is scoring with just a change in LOG profile.
ArizonaImage wrote:
I'm comparing it to Sony because apparently Sony is the holy grail of cameras. We're getting an idea how much NR they use based on the detectable stops of DR which is about 14 to 14.5 on average with usable being 11.5-12.8, which is what the Z6 III is scoring with just a change in LOG profile.
I certainly understand the utility i comparing to the Sony - I'm just saying the comparison performed by Gerald is invalid because the NR can't be normalized between the cameras.
wait till Nikon kicks out an NLOG 2, video DR for the Z6 III, Z8/Z9 will improve. 