Funny. PetaPixel is going back and fourth, first they release an article saying "The Nikon Z6 III’s Peak Dynamic Range Lags Far Behind its Predecessor’s" and now, they release an article "Nikon Z6 III Dynamic Range and Performance Are Vastly Superior to the Competition"
ArizonaImage wrote:
Funny. PetaPixel is going back and fourth, first they release an article saying "The Nikon Z6 III’s Peak Dynamic Range Lags Far Behind its Predecessor’s" and now, they release an article "Nikon Z6 III Dynamic Range and Performance Are Vastly Superior to the Competition"
It looks like he managed to a situation using a fast frame rate and electronic shutter where the Z6III performs equal,or better than the competition. This is probably expected with the smaller partially stacked sensor. In typical website click bait titles he chose that situation to gain views. It is the World we live in.
However, in most situations the Z6III is well behind the A7RIV resolution, dynamic range, and noise. I will leave comparison to the Canon to others more familiar with those cameras.
1bwana1 wrote:
It looks like he managed to a situation using a fast frame rate and electronic shutter where the Z6III performs equal,or better than the competition. This is probably expected with the smaller partially stacked sensor. In typical website click bait titles he chose that situation to gain views. It is the World we live in.
However, in most situations the Z6III is well behind the A7RIV resolution, dynamic range, and noise. I will leave comparison to the Canon to others more familiar with those cameras.
I do not fully trust Photons to Photos as its a one man show, and from what I heard from others, the owner of that website was using JPEGs. Idk, I just can't put all my eggs in one basket and take his word for it. From the test I did, and seen from others, there is less than half a stop in stills DR between a Z6 II, and my Z5 when I tested it. Video is something else entirely, but in stills, I think the Z6 III is basically on par with Z6 II and EVEN SO, whatever negligible difference is attributed to the stacked nature of that sensor. The A1, Z9, and any other camera with a stacked sensor has taken a hit. That's just how that sensor is.
I mean Photons to Photo rates the Z6 III higher in DR than the Z8, when real world stills/video tests prove otherwise. The Z8 has no flickering, no color shifts like the Z6 III, and the noise is somewhat cleaner too. I don't trust PtP.
ArizonaImage wrote:
I do not fully trust Photons to Photos as its a one man show, and from what I heard from others, the owner of that website was using JPEGs. Idk, I just can't put all my eggs in one basket and take his word for it. From the test I did, and seen from others, there is less than half a stop in stills DR between a Z6 II, and my Z5 when I tested it. Video is something else entirely, but in stills, I think the Z6 III is basically on par with Z6 II and EVEN SO, whatever negligible difference is attributed to the stacked nature of that sensor. The A1, Z9, and any other camera with a stacked sensor has taken a hit. That's just how that sensor is.
I mean Photons to Photo rates the Z6 III higher in DR than the Z8, when real world stills/video tests prove otherwise. The Z8 has no flickering, no color shifts like the Z6 III, and the noise is somewhat cleaner too. I don't trust PtP. ...Show more →
Fine, but in this case Photons to Photos results are consistent with the broader industry results , and with what is currently expected from the partially stacked sensor technology. This is why stacked sensor technology is not used in cameras that are optimized for studio/landscape orientated cameras.
Whether the small difference is relevant too our use case is for you to decide. I will say that it would not be the primary determinant in my choice. My response was more to address the sill click bait title of the article in question, not the merits of the Z6III which I feel is a excellent camera and super competitive in its class.
Thankfully DPR have put their studio scene up and we can all see the difference in actual photos. If anyone can see the difference between Z6II, Z6III and Canon R6II then you have better eyesight than me, or possibly better imagination. Interesting the Sony A7IV looks considerably noisier than any of these 3, even in the print mode view.
Alistair1 wrote:
Thankfully DPR have put their studio scene up and we can all see the difference in actual photos. If anyone can see the difference between Z6II, Z6III and Canon R6II then you have better eyesight than me, or possibly better imagination. Interesting the Sony A7IV looks considerably noisier than any of these 3, even in the print mode view.
Yea its pretty incredible the level or measurebating that is done anymore- There is a place for it but the camera needs to be used-
I love it-
For photos its just a perfect size- Video has been a joy to shoot with as well. Its a really well done camera. There are a few kinks to work out but its new technology- There always is
ArizonaImage wrote:
I do not fully trust Photons to Photos as its a one man show, and from what I heard from others, the owner of that website was using JPEGs. Idk, I just can't put all my eggs in one basket and take his word for it. From the test I did, and seen from others, there is less than half a stop in stills DR between a Z6 II, and my Z5 when I tested it. Video is something else entirely, but in stills, I think the Z6 III is basically on par with Z6 II and EVEN SO, whatever negligible difference is attributed to the stacked nature of that sensor. The A1, Z9, and any other camera with a stacked sensor has taken a hit. That's just how that sensor is.
I mean Photons to Photo rates the Z6 III higher in DR than the Z8, when real world stills/video tests prove otherwise. The Z8 has no flickering, no color shifts like the Z6 III, and the noise is somewhat cleaner too. I don't trust PtP. ...Show more →
Bill Claff's measurement at Photons to Photos aren't wrong - the Z8 and Z6 III do have very similar stills-mode DR for ISO 100, within 1/3EV of each other.
But it's clear from my video comparison that the Z8 has noticeably better video DR vs the Z6 III. I just posted my theory on this here:
snapsy wrote:
Bill Claff's measurement at Photons to Photos aren't wrong - the Z8 and Z6 III do have very similar stills-mode DR for ISO 100, within 1/3EV of each other.
But it's clear from my video comparison that the Z8 has noticeably better video DR vs the Z6 III. I just posted my theory on this here:
Excellent reasoning, sounds feasible to me. Assuming that is the case, Nikon has taken a decision to prioritize lower jello over lower noise in video. Personally I am happy with that, but that trade off may not be optimal for all use-cases.
ArizonaImage wrote:
I mean Photons to Photo rates the Z6 III higher in DR than the Z8, when real world stills/video tests prove otherwise. The Z8 has no flickering, no color shifts like the Z6 III, and the noise is somewhat cleaner too. I don't trust PtP.
Not sure how you're getting that. Max DR of the Z8 is measured at 11.31 stops per PtP, with the Z6 III maxing out at 10.44. So, about a stop apart. At similar ISOs, they are very close, but the Z8 has a lower base ISO that is cleaner and better.
Alistair1 wrote:
Excellent reasoning, sounds feasible to me. Assuming that is the case, Nikon has taken a decision to prioritize lower jello over lower noise in video. Personally I am happy with that, but that trade off may not be optimal for all use-cases.
Sounded good, but I think i proved my theory wrong this morning
Possibly related seems to be that there is little penalty to using the electronic shutter on the 6/iii. This seems quite material compared to the 6/ii and competitor's sensors.
Possibly related seems to be that there is little penalty to using the electronic shutter on the 6/iii. This seems quite material compared to the 6/ii and competitor's sensors.
The DR penalty on the R6/R6 II is because they run the electronic shutter readout at 12-bits, because the sensor isn't fast enough at 14-bits to achieve the faster frame rates they want vs the mechanical shutter.
An ad for KEH Used masquerading as an unbiased review . And I can never imagine shooting a subject in deep shade with a background in bright sunlight or underexpose footage so much as that lens test. Any such footage would be destined for the recycle bin.
That said, the pulsing AF in low light is useful information.
Hmm. I'm wondering how Tony gets a slower read time in video from the Z6 III than the R6 II. It should be the other way around based on other reported findings online. Maybe a settings issue?
The shots where a person is in the shade with sunlit background and the subject is shadow-lifted look pretty horrible in all the cases IMO. They really should be lighting the foreground rather than compare which camera looks more horrible than the others when all three look pretty bad... I'm not suggesting the noise isn't worse in the Z6 III deep shadows but they should at least try to edit the outcome to look decent in those cases where it can look decent after editing, or admit that the situation calls for lighting to obtain a presentable outcome.
