coralnut wrote:
I'm not a video guy either, and I take issue with video being forced into every camera that Nikon is currently manufacturing, irrespective of whether or not the customer wants to pay for video capability.
The act of forcing increasingly high performance video capabilities into every camera benefits Nikon in the form of higher unit sale prices, but it does not benefit the customers who are seeking a still-centric high-IQ camera. Those customers who feel that they are being forced to pay for features that they do not want have no choice other than to buy a different brand of camera. IMO that's a mistake on Nikon's part. I've been a loyal Nikon customer since the film era, but the realization that stills-centric high-IQ can only be had elsewhere has killed several decades of brand loyalty for me.
With the acquisition of Red it appears evident that Nikon intends to transition from a stills-centric photography company to become a videography company. It would seem that with the acquisition of Red, Nikon intends to amortize that acquisition cost across it's entire customer base by forcing incremental improvements in video performance into all of their cameras, irrespective of whether or not their customers want to buy video.
That's a great thing if your interest is in cinematography and you aspire to own Red video technology as it trickles down into smaller camera bodies, but it's not such a great thing if your interest lies in photography. Nikon is actively transitioning from a stills camera company into a video camera company, and they expect to distribute the cost of that transition upon everyone who buys one of their cameras. Being interested in a stills-centric high-IQ camera, I have no interest in subsidizing Nikon's decision to democratize Red cinematography technology across it's entire line of cameras.
At this time it seems that Nikon doesn't have any interest in producing stills-centric high-IQ cameras any more. If that's the case, then I won't be buying any more new Nikon bodies, and my needs will have to be met in the world of medium format. I could be wrong though -- I really hope that Nikon is willing to produce an stills-centric high-IQ camera. I'd buy it. But I think that because it would be technologically sparse and would not require any of the Red tech, such a camera would need to be priced like the Z6 and not the Z8....Show more →
There is only ONE major company producing a stills only FF camera- That company is Leica and its the M series. There is also only one player in Medium Format and thats Hasselblad-
Every other player is making video a major component of every single camera released. Even the Sony A7RV is a phenomenal video centric camera that masks itself as a high resolution still camera.
coralnut wrote:
I'm not a video guy either, and I take issue with video being forced into every camera that Nikon is currently manufacturing, irrespective of whether or not the customer wants to pay for video capability.
The act of forcing increasingly high performance video capabilities into every camera benefits Nikon in the form of higher unit sale prices, but it does not benefit the customers who are seeking a still-centric high-IQ camera. Those customers who feel that they are being forced to pay for features that they do not want have no choice other than to buy a different brand of camera. IMO that's a mistake on Nikon's part. I've been a loyal Nikon customer since the film era, but the realization that stills-centric high-IQ can only be had elsewhere has killed several decades of brand loyalty for me.
With the acquisition of Red it appears evident that Nikon intends to transition from a stills-centric photography company to become a videography company. It would seem that with the acquisition of Red, Nikon intends to amortize that acquisition cost across it's entire customer base by forcing incremental improvements in video performance into all of their cameras, irrespective of whether or not their customers want to buy video.
That's a great thing if your interest is in cinematography and you aspire to own Red video technology as it trickles down into smaller camera bodies, but it's not such a great thing if your interest lies in photography. Nikon is actively transitioning from a stills camera company into a video camera company, and they expect to distribute the cost of that transition upon everyone who buys one of their cameras. Being interested in a stills-centric high-IQ camera, I have no interest in subsidizing Nikon's decision to democratize Red cinematography technology across it's entire line of cameras.
At this time it seems that Nikon doesn't have any interest in producing stills-centric high-IQ cameras any more. If that's the case, then I won't be buying any more new Nikon bodies, and my needs will have to be met in the world of medium format. I could be wrong though -- I really hope that Nikon is willing to produce an stills-centric high-IQ camera. I'd buy it. But I think that because it would be technologically sparse and would not require any of the Red tech, such a camera would need to be priced like the Z6 and not the Z8....Show more →
What are you talking about ? If you don't want the video features don't use them. Their cameras are priced the same or cheaper than all others they compete with , both the Canon and Sony offerings are similar in price at release. As for high IQ stills camera, there has been almost 0 advancement in IQ over the last few years , maybe a half a stop of dynamic range , but really it has plateaued. Now you are paying for all the AI features, sensor speed, and frame rates , with that comes better video.
You're not subsidizing anything , I would bet money that you don't use most of the features of your phone , car, camera, etc ... Just because you don't want to shoot video now, doesn't mean that won't change in the future , better to have it and not need it than vice versa.
Some component characteristics which make a stills / hybrid camera good for video also make it better for stills in several ways:
Fast sensor read time => faster AF, more real-time viewfinder, and silent shutter with less distortion. Silent shutter is also a completely shake-free shutter so you get sharper images.
If you always photograph a subject that is absolutely still, you may not need a fast read time but as the resolution increases, the degrading impact of the mechanical shutter on sharpness becomes more obvious, and you probably want it anyway, even for subjects that are slowly moving (to avoid distortion, and to be able to time shots based on the viewfinder image should there be some change).
Try medium format if you like, but you might be shocked how long ago the moment shown by the image shown in the viewfinder actually took place on the front side of the viewfinder. So you're always trying to take shots of something that happened a moment ago, quite a long moment. I'd find that extremely frustrating that it's impossible to ever capture the same moment that is shown in the viewfinder in the actual photo, so there is no medium format in my bag and there might never be if they don't solve that problem.
I don't think Nikon bought RED because they want to transition into a video camera company at the cost of stills but simply because almost no one (allegedly) today will buy a stills-only camera and a lot of users need not only compact mirrorless hybrid cameras but also professional video cameras using the same lenses and image characteristics, colour etc. so in order to continue to exist, Nikon must have both in their lineup (as their main competitors Sony and Canon do). RED becomes Nikon's professional high-end video line, basically. I'd expect RED to offer Z mount as an option in a few years.
This is just the way the world is now. I personally don't think stills and video have much in common and don't think the hybrid camera idea is a good one (since the hybrid camera is just a small part of a functional video rig) but that's what the majority of customers want so the manufacturers have go along with it. I think the true motivation behind this transition is that the client (newspaper etc.) thinks they can get two things for the price of one. It doesn't really work that way in practice but what would large companies not do to try to get more out of the little guy.
Since the EVF is really showing a video feed, you can't remove the video camera out of a mirrorless camera, so you might as well accept that it's there, even if you never record a single video clip.
coralnut wrote:
I'm not a video guy either, and I take issue with video being forced into every camera that Nikon is currently manufacturing, irrespective of whether or not the customer wants to pay for video capability.
The act of forcing increasingly high performance video capabilities into every camera benefits Nikon in the form of higher unit sale prices, but it does not benefit the customers who are seeking a still-centric high-IQ camera. Those customers who feel that they are being forced to pay for features that they do not want have no choice other than to buy a different brand of camera. IMO that's a mistake on Nikon's part. I've been a loyal Nikon customer since the film era, but the realization that stills-centric high-IQ can only be had elsewhere has killed several decades of brand loyalty for me.
With the acquisition of Red it appears evident that Nikon intends to transition from a stills-centric photography company to become a videography company. It would seem that with the acquisition of Red, Nikon intends to amortize that acquisition cost across it's entire customer base by forcing incremental improvements in video performance into all of their cameras, irrespective of whether or not their customers want to buy video.
That's a great thing if your interest is in cinematography and you aspire to own Red video technology as it trickles down into smaller camera bodies, but it's not such a great thing if your interest lies in photography. Nikon is actively transitioning from a stills camera company into a video camera company, and they expect to distribute the cost of that transition upon everyone who buys one of their cameras. Being interested in a stills-centric high-IQ camera, I have no interest in subsidizing Nikon's decision to democratize Red cinematography technology across it's entire line of cameras.
At this time it seems that Nikon doesn't have any interest in producing stills-centric high-IQ cameras any more. If that's the case, then I won't be buying any more new Nikon bodies, and my needs will have to be met in the world of medium format. I could be wrong though -- I really hope that Nikon is willing to produce an stills-centric high-IQ camera. I'd buy it. But I think that because it would be technologically sparse and would not require any of the Red tech, such a camera would need to be priced like the Z6 and not the Z8....Show more →
RustyRus wrote:
There is only ONE major company producing a stills only FF camera- That company is Leica and its the M series. There is also only one player in Medium Format and thats Hasselblad-
Every other player is making video a major component of every single camera released. Even the Sony A7RV is a phenomenal video centric camera that masks itself as a high resolution still camera.
...thank you. What a waste of perfectly good rant space.
If I were to guess about what's next, I think some sort of DX sensor mini cinema camera is coming, something like a Sony FX30. If they share codec formats and color science across their RED cinema line, it would be an easy way to sell existing technology in a different way. Video is a huge growth area for Nikon.
I don't think the majority of the camera buying market cares about things like global shutter and 90+ megapickles.
sungphoto wrote:
If I were to guess about what's next, I think some sort of DX sensor mini cinema camera is coming, something like a Sony FX30. If they share codec formats and color science across their RED cinema line, it would be an easy way to sell existing technology in a different way. Video is a huge growth area for Nikon.
I don't think the majority of the camera buying market cares about things like global shutter and 90+ megapickles.
I hope they make a D500 replacement. That camera has been very successful, and I think Nikon shooters would like a faster, smaller mirrorless.
coralnut wrote:
I'm not a video guy either, and I take issue with video being forced into every camera that Nikon is currently manufacturing, irrespective of whether or not the customer wants to pay for video capability.
The act of forcing increasingly high performance video capabilities into every camera benefits Nikon in the form of higher unit sale prices, but it does not benefit the customers who are seeking a still-centric high-IQ camera. Those customers who feel that they are being forced to pay for features that they do not want have no choice other than to buy a different brand of camera. IMO that's a mistake on Nikon's part. I've been a loyal Nikon customer since the film era, but the realization that stills-centric high-IQ can only be had elsewhere has killed several decades of brand loyalty for me.
With the acquisition of Red it appears evident that Nikon intends to transition from a stills-centric photography company to become a videography company. It would seem that with the acquisition of Red, Nikon intends to amortize that acquisition cost across it's entire customer base by forcing incremental improvements in video performance into all of their cameras, irrespective of whether or not their customers want to buy video.
That's a great thing if your interest is in cinematography and you aspire to own Red video technology as it trickles down into smaller camera bodies, but it's not such a great thing if your interest lies in photography. Nikon is actively transitioning from a stills camera company into a video camera company, and they expect to distribute the cost of that transition upon everyone who buys one of their cameras. Being interested in a stills-centric high-IQ camera, I have no interest in subsidizing Nikon's decision to democratize Red cinematography technology across it's entire line of cameras.
At this time it seems that Nikon doesn't have any interest in producing stills-centric high-IQ cameras any more. If that's the case, then I won't be buying any more new Nikon bodies, and my needs will have to be met in the world of medium format. I could be wrong though -- I really hope that Nikon is willing to produce an stills-centric high-IQ camera. I'd buy it. But I think that because it would be technologically sparse and would not require any of the Red tech, such a camera would need to be priced like the Z6 and not the Z8....Show more →
All i have to mention here is that I don't think you're paying really anything extra for the video capabilities. I mean the Z9, by far the best hybrid camera video capabilities and came out $1,000 cheaper than Sony A1 and $500 cheaper than the Canon R3. The Z8 with the same capabilities as the Z9 was $3999 and destroyed anything else in it's price point. It's the same with the Z6III now. That extra $500 is likely due to the partially stacked sensor, which benefits stills more than video.
So I didn't think you're going to save much money if they left out the video capabilities. The hardware will be the same. So why not just have the capabilities in case you ever decide to use them?
Mirrorless cameras are basically video cameras that take pictures at this point. There is probably no noticeable cost savings to making a photo only mirrorless camera. If anything stripping the video features might make the camera more expensive as there would be more firmware changes to keep track of compared to other models.
Technicals aside, I think we also have to realize that the content market as a whole has heavily switched towards video. It's going to be a tough sell to explain to someone who is used to making quick videos with there phone that they should buy a 2k+ camera that can't take a video at all.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Mirrorless cameras are basically video cameras that take pictures at this point. There is probably no noticeable cost savings to making a photo only mirrorless camera. If anything stripping the video features might make the camera more expensive as there would be more firmware changes to keep track of compared to other models.
Technicals aside, I think we also have to realize that the content market as a whole has heavily switched towards video. It's going to be a tough sell to explain to someone who is used to making quick videos with there phone that they should buy a 2k+ camera that can't take a video at all. ...Show more →
IMO, the fact that YouTube, vlogging, etc is growing, its sparking more interest in video cameras and cameras in general. Cheap vlogging cameras push people to eventually buy more expensive cameras because their skills expand, they want higher quality. If you look at camera sales they're better than 2023 and 2022, so inconclusion, crummy little phone cameras won't cut it and I doubt anyone uses a phone camera for anything serious besides capturing typical videos.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Mirrorless cameras are basically video cameras that take pictures at this point. There is probably no noticeable cost savings to making a photo only mirrorless camera. If anything stripping the video features might make the camera more expensive as there would be more firmware changes to keep track of compared to other models.
Technicals aside, I think we also have to realize that the content market as a whole has heavily switched towards video. It's going to be a tough sell to explain to someone who is used to making quick videos with there phone that they should buy a 2k+ camera that can't take a video at all. ...Show more →
Exactly.
Those hoping for non video enabled mirrorless camera simply don't understand the underlying technology.
ArizonaImage wrote:
IMO, the fact that YouTube, vlogging, etc is growing, its sparking more interest in video cameras and cameras in general. Cheap vlogging cameras push people to eventually buy more expensive cameras because their skills expand, they want higher quality. If you look at camera sales they're better than 2023 and 2022, so inconclusion, crummy little phone cameras won't cut it and I doubt anyone uses a phone camera for anything serious besides capturing typical videos.
I agree the number of people interested in taking videos and photos is probably larger then it ever has been. YouTube, social media, streaming, and the internet overall has given us many new ways to share videos and photos.
Also cellphone cameras getting better and better has give almost everyone with a smart phone a decent camera in there pocket. It's easier to get into a something that doesn't require an additional purchase.
What I do disagree with though is people are actually using their phones more and more to make good enough content. Even on YouTube you have successful creators that mostly used phones, or action cameras to build their channels. While we might obsess over image quality all day, a large majority of people consuming media just want interesting and engaging content that is good enough to be enjoyable to watch.
While my iPhone still can't take images as good as my dedicated cameras, I can't deny each time I update my phone I end up reaching for my camera less. For example 10 year ago I would have likely taken a camera with me to take photos of a family birthday at a restaurant, now most likely I am just going to bring my phone. The images are decent enough now to remember the night, it's more convenient to use, I can ask someone else to use my phone to get a group photo and they actually know how to use it, and I can share the images right away to the people I was with.
It's going to be interesting to see if overtime we will see more people wanting dedicated cameras again as appreciation for photo and videos increase, or if phones will end up replacing cameras more and more as they get better.
ekam wrote:
80MP on FF will be noisy due to the pixel size. Just get MF if you want 100MP.
At pixel level it’ll be noisier but not at picture level.
We can extrapolate from various other formats.
G9 II and Gh7 will give you an idea what 100MP will look like at pixel level.
X100VI and X-H2 will give you an idea of what 90MP FF will look like at pixel level. But they’re XTRAN, not Bayer though.
OM1 will give you an idea what 80MP stacked quad Bayer FF will look like at pixel level. They’re packing 80M sub pixels on m43 which is a whopping 320M sub pixels if extrapolated to FF.
From an IQ standpoint we don’t really need to fear pixel volume. The total sensor area stays the same per format.
Now offloading that many pixels is another story and a management issue to overcome.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I agree the number of people interested in taking videos and photos is probably larger then it ever has been. YouTube, social media, streaming, and the internet overall has given us many new ways to share videos and photos.
Also cellphone cameras getting better and better has give almost everyone with a smart phone a decent camera in there pocket. It's easier to get into a something that doesn't require an additional purchase.
What I do disagree with though is people are actually using their phones more and more to make good enough content. Even on YouTube you have successful creators that mostly used phones, or action cameras to build their channels. While we might obsess over image quality all day, a large majority of people consuming media just want interesting and engaging content that is good enough to be enjoyable to watch.
While my iPhone still can't take images as good as my dedicated cameras, I can't deny each time I update my phone I end up reaching for my camera less. For example 10 year ago I would have likely taken a camera with me to take photos of a family birthday at a restaurant, now most likely I am just going to bring my phone. The images are decent enough now to remember the night, it's more convenient to use, I can ask someone else to use my phone to get a group photo and they actually know how to use it, and I can share the images right away to the people I was with.
It's going to be interesting to see if overtime we will see more people wanting dedicated cameras again as appreciation for photo and videos increase, or if phones will end up replacing cameras more and more as they get better. ...Show more →
There is almost no latitude in post for cell phone cameras. Those crummy little sensors have nothing much in terms of editability, so users quickly hit a wall if they want better quality. For instagram, its good enough, but for more serious work, no one serious is using an iPhone. I do like the simplicity of the phone, less risk as well. Even with Apple's ProRES and RAW in their iPhone Pro, its still just mehh
sungphoto wrote:
If I were to guess about what's next, I think some sort of DX sensor mini cinema camera is coming, something like a Sony FX30. If they share codec formats and color science across their RED cinema line, it would be an easy way to sell existing technology in a different way. Video is a huge growth area for Nikon.
I don't think the majority of the camera buying market cares about things like global shutter and 90+ megapickles.
I think DX is next too. But I’m not sure it’ll be a cinema focussed model though.
I’m guessing enthusiasts level akin to a D7500 level in Z.
Around 40MP DX is my guess, which makes 90MP FX suddenly a bit more interesting.
As for cine, I think there was a statement about cine lenses during the RED acquisition IIRC? I think any full cine orientated camera won’t come until accompanying cine lenses are also ready.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I agree the number of people interested in taking videos and photos is probably larger then it ever has been. YouTube, social media, streaming, and the internet overall has given us many new ways to share videos and photos.
Also cellphone cameras getting better and better has give almost everyone with a smart phone a decent camera in there pocket. It's easier to get into a something that doesn't require an additional purchase.
What I do disagree with though is people are actually using their phones more and more to make good enough content. Even on YouTube you have successful creators that mostly used phones, or action cameras to build their channels. While we might obsess over image quality all day, a large majority of people consuming media just want interesting and engaging content that is good enough to be enjoyable to watch.
While my iPhone still can't take images as good as my dedicated cameras, I can't deny each time I update my phone I end up reaching for my camera less. For example 10 year ago I would have likely taken a camera with me to take photos of a family birthday at a restaurant, now most likely I am just going to bring my phone. The images are decent enough now to remember the night, it's more convenient to use, I can ask someone else to use my phone to get a group photo and they actually know how to use it, and I can share the images right away to the people I was with.
It's going to be interesting to see if overtime we will see more people wanting dedicated cameras again as appreciation for photo and videos increase, or if phones will end up replacing cameras more and more as they get better. ...Show more →
It's more like why are people still using cameras given how good phones already are these days. Things like the removeable battery and cards to start and then there are the HDMI and 3.5mm jacks. Things that phones have lost over the years. Cameras are better production tools than phones are and outside of the business end of photography, that's the role of most cameras today.
Just watch content on Instagram and it's very clear that many things are now being promoted with video and no more with stills.
Photographers who want to remain relevant in the commercial/event/people sphere simply have no choice but to add a videographer hat. They typically act as hybrid shooters and I believe that Nikon has read that market trend better than anybody else and has executed extremely well over a short period of time. The Z6III/Z8/Z9 are perfect for a multi-camera set up with top notch pro level video quality in camera. Ideal for one man shops who need to shoot quickly high quality things without a truck and a crew. The lenses are also perfect for such applications.
This mostly isn't about vlogging, which is a small market, it's about content creation.
Since instagram only allows 1080 pixels of width, it's basically 1K resolution. I don't quite see how the purchase of a 8K or 12K camera is justified let alone needed for such use.
What's worse is that instagram is typically viewed from a very small screen at some distance away and so very little detail is conveyed. If viewed on a larger screen (an iPad, for example), it doesn't use the whole screen which is ridiculous.
A Z7 series camera is like from the polar opposite world, made for creating high-resolution, high image quality images. You really need a larger presentation size to appreciate what this camera (and its probable successor) is for. I am pretty sure you know that which makes it so peculiar why you'd show examples from instagram to illustrate the need for a Z7 III to feature 8 or 12 K video for the photographers to stay relevant.
bernardl wrote:
Just watch content on Instagram and it's very clear that many things are now being promoted with video and no more with stills.
Photographers who want to remain relevant in the commercial/event/people sphere simply have no choice but to add a videographer hat. They typically act as hybrid shooters and I believe that Nikon has read that market trend better than anybody else and has executed extremely well over a short period of time. The Z6III/Z8/Z9 are perfect for a multi-camera set up with top notch pro level video quality in camera. Ideal for one man shops who need to shoot quickly high quality things without a truck and a crew. The lenses are also perfect for such applications.
This mostly isn't about vlogging, which is a small market, it's about content creation.
So the Z7III will mostly not target this segment, but I am pretty sure it will nonetheless feature very high quality 8K if not 12K video....Show more →
ArizonaImage wrote:
There is almost no latitude in post for cell phone cameras. Those crummy little sensors have nothing much in terms of editability, so users quickly hit a wall if they want better quality. For instagram, its good enough, but for more serious work, no one serious is using an iPhone. I do like the simplicity of the phone, less risk as well. Even with Apple's ProRES and RAW in their iPhone Pro, its still just mehh
I think it comes down to the definition of serious work. If we are talking about large scale prints or something like professional headshots a true camera is going to run circles around an iPhone. But for example reporting braking news is serous and professional work that can often be accomplished with a phone. Since those photos and videos can be sent out almost instantly after being captured on a phone, that content could be even more valuable than high quality footage that takes longer to get out.
Personally I still prefer trying to make the highest quallity images I realistically can. I have spent a lot of time trying to learn how to optimize camera settings, optimizing my editing flow, and trying various programs to get the best IQ out of my images. I still often do stacking with my photos for either for increasing dynamic range, or reducing noise in long exposure images. But those photos often end up taking me an hour + to edit. To me it's more like making art than making a photo. Now if for example if I just took 100s of photos at an event and trying to process 100+ photos I am going to use a totally diffrent flow and process.
unchecked wrote:
It's more like why are people still using cameras given how good phones already are these days. Things like the removeable battery and cards to start and then there are the HDMI and 3.5mm jacks. Things that phones have lost over the years. Cameras are better production tools than phones are and outside of the business end of photography, that's the role of most cameras today.
I think this shift in content production is part of why we saw Nikon put out there small lenses like the 40mm f2, 28mm f2.8, and 26mm f2.8, and Sony put out there small lenses like the 24mm f2.8, 40mm f2.5, and 50mm f2.5. While none of these lines are going to win awards for outstanding image quality, there popular because they give camera users a smaller and lighter setup, which in my opinion is more like the phone in there pocket there used to using.
Personally while I have multiple better lenses in the 35mm - 50mm range I am planing on getting the Nikon 40mm f2 for when I want the size and wight savings.
...thank you. What a waste of perfectly good rant space.