I need to see Gerald's video for it, but Maati likes it, Cammackey also seems to like it. Alistair1 wrote:
I find what they have done with the camera very interesting. It kind of creates a new category; cinema quality output with an unrigged camera and a cool brand association for 2k. Even the tiny mic recording to 32 bit internally is really nice, a 2 or 4 Tb card makes the card slot placement a non issue, the HDMI and mic ports are redundant. Content creators are going to love it but the Undones of this world will lose their mind over it.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Users don't come from voids, they have existing equipment and it should be compatible with a new camera that they buy. Since the only way to get external audio into the video file with Nikon cameras has been through the analog mic input connector and so people have those microphones and audio recorders that can do just that, but then this camera doesn't allow the screen to be tilted up (a very common position to be able to record video from a natural height for full-body images) when an external microphone is used with the audio input connector. That there may be microphones for the digital hot shoe interface doesn't solve the issue that people already have equipment that they want to use and purchasing Nikon's digital microphone may not solve their use cases and it's extra equipment to buy that they wouldn't need to buy if using another camera. The digital microphone interface is probably a different one than what Canon and Sony use (which are different from each other), so audio device manufacturers would need to make custom products to fit and function with the Nikon hot shoe. This will take time and limit the options available to users. The ZR supports bluetooth-based timecode recording and this, when combined with a timecode generator and a compatible audio recorded can result in a working system without the use of any camera-specific audio device, you need the timecode generator, an adapter, and compatible audio recorder which can then use TRS or XLR microphones, and then you can just sync the audio with the video more easily, but it's still extra work, and if you want the audio to be directly input into the video file you still need to use the analog audio input connector and not be able to tilt the screen. Any way this is put, it's an inconvenience that would affect many people, and probably an unnecessary one. I don't care about the micro HDMI as the built-in screen is large and the camera can record high-quality video in camera, so an external display and/or recorder is not needed at least not by me. However, again, a lot of people who are potential buyers of this product may already own external displays and recorders that they might want to keep using, and even view the footage on multiple displays from different angles at the same time.
If Nikon launched a product which would fit the hot shoe and accept analog microphone cables and convert the signal into 32 bit float digital signal without having to go through the analog connector that would be great and it would alleviate the problem. It would then increase the height of the camera (there should be a cold shoe on top at the very least) and that might be awkward for some but at least it would allow the screen to be tilted freely.
Making a relatively inexpensive product (ZR) that requires the purchase of additional products (that replace ones that the user may already own and is happy with) could end up just as expensive as a slightly more expensive product that doesn't have these design flaws (such as the Z8). However, I think for in-camera audio recording the 32-bit float option should be very practical, but the limitations imposed due to the camera being so small may make this feature not directly usable for some. Of course, if one wants to accept the screen as a fixed angle screen like those in older stills cameras (though one would have to try hard to find a video camera with a screen that is fixed and can't be tilted) then the analog audio interface can be used as it is. I am fairly tall and don't like the idea of having to kneel down to be able to shoot at the height I would want to shoot.
Sure, one can always bend over and try to understand a product like camera manufacturers' sales reps do, but then products would never get good if people are willing to do that. ...Show more →
Also sounds about right. I don't remember half the crap these people say verbatim. I just never got an overly negative tone from him while watching it. RoamingScott wrote:
Cam said it was a total dealbreaker for him personally but he gets the appeal.
ahinesdesign wrote:
A bit tangential to the ZR, but it baffles me that manufacturers don’t bring in a few professional videographers that use competitors’ products as consultants. I can’t image the cost of doing so would add much more than a rounding error to the overall development cost…
With a little help, a camera manufacturer could easily create the “perfect” video body, right ports with the right placement, right media type and access, right body design, etc, etc, etc. — spec’d with sensor and features that allow it to hit the intended price point. Any manufacturer that did this would be way ahead of their competition. Even Nikon, after acquiring RED, cuts corners in some head-scratching ways. Cutting corners isn’t the issue so much — they need to hit a certain price point after all — but some design decisions just leave you baffled. It would be extremely interesting to hear Nikon design team’s logic and reasoning for the ZR!
Instead, every manufacturer has a long list of seemingly dumb or easily-solved issues in every camera they produce, even on relatively high-end models. You don’t get close to perfection until you get into truly professional big-budget models that the majority of consumers will never even consider, and even then those often have some design features that seem out of place.
The Fuji Eterna 55 is one of those higher-end models that is certainly designed for pro use — Fuji being no stranger to the pro broadcast market — yet has a wacky sensor choice that seems totally out of place for a cam in its category, yet seems to be the primary USP…...Show more →
If all the issues being brought up were remedied …… the ZR would be a $4500 camera. The ZR hits at the $2199 price point. People should let the ZR be a ZR. Nikon clearly wasn’t trying to make a FX3 competitor at this time. The corners that were cut were intentional for the price point.
Also that too. It's kind of like a cinema Canon Rebel. Short change a couple of things, give people time to grow in the system and when they come in to upgrade at some point you upsell them on the new version or start talking them into a Komodo X or something. Looking at sites now...if Nikon can make something that bridges the gap between this and a Komodo X 6K and get that at the $4500 range I think they would make a killing on it because the ZR would be a rather good B or C cam to whatever that would be. You can get a RF mount Komodo X 6K for slightly more than the ZR, but Nikon wants to sell glass as well. Buckeye2604 wrote:
If all the issues being brought up were remedied …… the ZR would be a $4500 camera. The ZR hits at the $2199 price point. People should let the ZR be a ZR. Nikon clearly wasn’t trying to make a FX3 competitor at this time. The corners that were cut were intentional for the price point.
JadedWriter wrote:
Also that too. It's kind of like a cinema Canon Rebel. Short change a couple of things, give people time to grow in the system and when they come in to upgrade at some point you upsell them on the new version or start talking them into a Komodo X or something. Looking at sites now...if Nikon can make something that bridges the gap between this and a Komodo X 6K and get that at the $4500 range I think they would make a killing on it because the ZR would be a rather good B or C cam to whatever that would be. You can get a RF mount Komodo X 6K for slightly more than the ZR, but Nikon wants to sell glass as well.
Although the ZR can do 95% of what the FX3 can do and probably has very similar video (if not superior) and clearly superior audio potential, it doesn’t fit perfectly with the way FX3 users are used to working.
But many of the content creators won’t care and will just buy the ZR, Nikon’s new mic, a Smallrig cage and start creating pro looking content that nobody will be able to tell apart from FX3 generated stuff. And that at a much lower price and with a more simple set up that will be more compact, lighter, easier to put together and to maintain.
And by the time time they get to think they need that extra 5% of quality Nikon will have released the cine version of the Z9II and that will most probably be perfect at 4,500 US$.
I don’t see how Nikon could mess this up. They are bound to dominate the market within a year.
I think I watched PotatoJet's video comparing the video between the ZR and the FX3...and let's just say once he got to the landscape shot the FX3 stopped looking impressive. ZR ain't perfect, that's been argued to death on here, but honestly if you're solution oriented enough the ZR can work. It obviously wouldn't cut it on an Arri production, but that's clearly not what this thing was designed for. bernardl wrote:
My thoughts as well.
Although the ZR can do 95% of what the FX3 can do and probably has very similar video (if not superior) and clearly superior audio potential, it doesn’t fit perfectly with the way FX3 users are used to working.
But many of the content creators won’t care and will just buy Nikon’s new mic, a Smallrig cage and start creating pro looking content that nobody will be able to tell apart from FX3 generated stuff. And that at a much lower price and with a more simple set up that will be more compact, lighter, easier to put together and to maintain.
And by the time time they get to think they need that extra 5% of quality Nikon will have released the cine version of the Z9II and that will most probably be perfect at 4,500 US$.
I don’t see how Nikon could mess this up. They are bound to dominate the market within a year.
JadedWriter wrote:
I think I watched PotatoJet's video comparing the video between the ZR and the FX3...and let's just say once he got to the landscape shot the FX3 stopped looking impressive. ZR ain't perfect, that's been argued to death on here, but honestly if you're solution oriented enough the ZR can work. It obviously wouldn't cut it on an Arri production, but that's clearly not what this thing was designed for.
Indeed!
Besides the much talked about imperfection results mostly from trying to fit the ZR in usage patterns based on how the reviewers have been working with their FX3. Starting with an external screen,…
If you start from a blank page you see things very differently and end up with something much more simple. That’s how I would personally approach it.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Users don't come from voids, they have existing equipment and it should be compatible with a new camera that they buy. Since the only way to get external audio into the video file with Nikon cameras has been through the analog mic input connector and so people have those microphones and audio recorders that can do just that, but then this camera doesn't allow the screen to be tilted up (a very common position to be able to record video from a natural height for full-body images) when an external microphone is used with the audio input connector. That there may be microphones for the digital hot shoe interface doesn't solve the issue that people already have equipment that they want to use and purchasing Nikon's digital microphone may not solve their use cases and it's extra equipment to buy that they wouldn't need to buy if using another camera. The digital microphone interface is probably a different one than what Canon and Sony use (which are different from each other), so audio device manufacturers would need to make custom products to fit and function with the Nikon hot shoe. This will take time and limit the options available to users. The ZR supports bluetooth-based timecode recording and this, when combined with a timecode generator and a compatible audio recorded can result in a working system without the use of any camera-specific audio device, you need the timecode generator, an adapter, and compatible audio recorder which can then use TRS or XLR microphones, and then you can just sync the audio with the video more easily, but it's still extra work, and if you want the audio to be directly input into the video file you still need to use the analog audio input connector and not be able to tilt the screen. Any way this is put, it's an inconvenience that would affect many people, and probably an unnecessary one. I don't care about the micro HDMI as the built-in screen is large and the camera can record high-quality video in camera, so an external display and/or recorder is not needed at least not by me. However, again, a lot of people who are potential buyers of this product may already own external displays and recorders that they might want to keep using, and even view the footage on multiple displays from different angles at the same time.
If Nikon launched a product which would fit the hot shoe and accept analog microphone cables and convert the signal into 32 bit float digital signal without having to go through the analog connector that would be great and it would alleviate the problem. It would then increase the height of the camera (there should be a cold shoe on top at the very least) and that might be awkward for some but at least it would allow the screen to be tilted freely.
Making a relatively inexpensive product (ZR) that requires the purchase of additional products (that replace ones that the user may already own and is happy with) could end up just as expensive as a slightly more expensive product that doesn't have these design flaws (such as the Z8). However, I think for in-camera audio recording the 32-bit float option should be very practical, but the limitations imposed due to the camera being so small may make this feature not directly usable for some. Of course, if one wants to accept the screen as a fixed angle screen like those in older stills cameras (though one would have to try hard to find a video camera with a screen that is fixed and can't be tilted) then the analog audio interface can be used as it is. I am fairly tall and don't like the idea of having to kneel down to be able to shoot at the height I would want to shoot.
Sure, one can always bend over and try to understand a product like camera manufacturers' sales reps do, but then products would never get good if people are willing to do that. ...Show more →
All that is true, but I also look at it another way. I can pick up the Nikon shotgun mic which is tiny, and I can dispense with my external screen, Zoom F3, larger XLR Mic and associated cables and rigging. Probably it will not replace the larger rig but I can see this type of form being very useful for unrigged handheld video of good quality. I can see the larger rig gathering dust!
Alistair1 wrote:
All that is true, but I also look at it another way. I can pick up the Nikon shotgun mic which is tiny, and I can dispense with my external screen, Zoom F3, larger XLR Mic and associated cables and rigging. Probably it will not replace the larger rig but I can see this type of form being very useful for unrigged handheld video of good quality. I can see the larger rig gathering dust!
This!
The quality of the results will be the deciding factor in the end. And it does feel like this is where the ZR punches way above its weight category.
Sorry if it was already posted, but I just watched this video showing what the Zr can do in the hands of a professional crew...
?si=IC_tQq_6eN3n5Bcv
Super impressive. I hope that those claiming this is at best a vlogger camera revisit their views after having watched this. I see no difference between this quality of production and 99% of the adds I see on TV, typically shot with equipment way more expensive.
Alistair1 wrote:
All that is true, but I also look at it another way. I can pick up the Nikon shotgun mic which is tiny, and I can dispense with my external screen, Zoom F3, larger XLR Mic and associated cables and rigging. Probably it will not replace the larger rig but I can see this type of form being very useful for unrigged handheld video of good quality. I can see the larger rig gathering dust!
I understand that this configuration would work for some uses if the Nikon microphone is good. However, from what I've seen, I have some doubts about small microphones. I have the Rode VideoMic Pro+ shotgun mic and it's quite decent but also quite big. To get good location sound, however, I've had best luck by combining X/Y Microphone of the Zoom H6 recorder with the VideoMic Pro+ and mixed the tracks in the audio recorder or in post. This combination produces quite rich sound with ability to emphasize forward direction or the left/right, but of course it means that I need to mount the audio recorder somewhere where it can pick up the sound well, and then while I can output the line feed into the camera's audio track via a cable to ensure good syncing (the audio tracks can then be replaced by the files stored on the audio recorder for best results and also to be able to adjust the tracks independently), but this requires two cables (one from the shotgun mic to the recorder and one from the line out of the recorder to the camera. If I don't set it up this way and rely on syncing based on the similarity between the shotgun and X/Y tracks (basically if I record the shotgun in camera and X/Y in the audio recorder without connecting the latter to the mic input of the camera), correct syncing is not guaranteed using automatic methods and can be laborious to do frame by frame, clip by clip in post. But the rich sound of the combination of the two microphones is something I like very much, it gives a feeling of being there and a rich sound experience. To avoid the cables I want to move into bluetooth based time code but my recorder doesn't support it, so I'd need to purchase a new recorder (my Z8/Zf do support it). If I want to keep using my existing audio gear, which has been only lightly used, with the ZR I would need to accept the screen doesn't tilt. I could try to sell my mics and recorder and buy a new-generation, bluetooth timecode compatible setup, an Nikon's shotgun mic, but it would increase the purchase price into the ZR somewhat, even if the convenience of not having those cables would be great. I am sure a lot of people are in a similar situation where they are used to and have existing audio gear with analog connections and it will take some time to move into the newer solutions. And people who use cameras and audio gear from different manufacturers might not be able to. I do think having a digital audio interface is a good thing but it should be standardized across camera brands and not everyone doing their own thing incompatible with other manufacturers. I am assuming that TASCAM will make their XLR-compatible top handle/audio interface compatible with Nikon's digital hot shoe and that will allow converting from the analog to the digital domain without needing the analog audio input on the camera to be used (and so the screen is free to tilt). However, this product is not yet available AFAIK. Over time these issues will no doubt be resolved.
Yeah once I stopped viewing it as a "Nikon FX3" I started to see the appeal for it. Doesn't hurt that you can see the marketing behind it and get where it was aimed at. It's a B cam for those already in Red since Andrew Hancock bought one day one or an intro kit. It can be rigged out, it just breaks a persons brain if they're super entrenched into a work flow already. bernardl wrote:
Indeed!
Besides the much talked about imperfection results mostly from trying to fit the ZR in usage patterns based on how the reviewers have been working with their FX3. Starting with an external screen,…
If you start from a blank page you see things very differently and end up with something much more simple. That’s how I would personally approach it.
I have a few questions about the Zr but a main one, as someone not familiar with video.
The Zr does appeal to me for what I understand is the in camera treatment that can give some color grading and kinda cinematic output from the body alone.
I saw a bunch of reviews and even here it’s not much talked about.
Am I wrong to think that is peculiar to that camera as opposed to my Zf for example?
90% of how “cinematic” a video looks is due to the lens and color grading. Cinema cams often get you access to more flexible bit rates and codecs for deeper post processing.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
I have a few questions about the Zr but a main one, as someone not familiar with video.
The Zr does appeal to me for what I understand is the in camera treatment that can give some color grading and kinda cinematic output from the body alone.
I saw a bunch of reviews and even here it’s not much talked about.
Am I wrong to think that is peculiar to that camera as opposed to my Zf for example?
RoamingScott wrote:
90% of how “cinematic” a video looks is due to the lens and color grading. Cinema cams often get you access to more flexible bit rates and codecs for deeper post processing.
Not knowing much, I feel I can agree with that, can the Zr save me a part of the process of the color grading part with its profiles, tools and such that it would have in body?
My Zf for instance can give me some picture profiles to my videos and not much else, I have to have a suit of softwares to complement it.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
Not knowing much, I feel I can agree with that, can the Zr save me a part of the process of the color grading part with its profiles, tools and such that it would have in body?
My Zf for instance can give me some picture profiles to my videos and not much else, I have to have a suit of softwares to complement it.
Serious video work requires shooting in file types the Zf simply doesn't support, and applying premade LUT files in post, or doing color grading manually in post. You are asking, basically, for "JPEG Picture Controls" but for video. Those already exist across all Z cameras, as you can use any picture control on your standard file type footage, including your Zf. If you don't get the colors or exposure right though, there's less latitude to fix later, just like a JPEG vs a RAW.
Depending on what you're doing on the back end you're not going to escape editing. If you're trying to shoot in Log or Raw now you basically need to buy a Davinci Resolve suite, some ND filters and learn to color grade. Sonnar-7 wrote:
Not knowing much, I feel I can agree with that, can the Zr save me a part of the process of the color grading part with its profiles, tools and such that it would have in body?
My Zf for instance can give me some picture profiles to my videos and not much else, I have to have a suit of softwares to complement it.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Fuji says they will have open gate (3:4 aspect ratio) 4K on the Eterna cinema camera, that would make it the tallest sensor in a video camera available today. Arri 265 is 54.12 mm x 25.58 mm, Fuji's MF sensor is 44 mm x 33 mm.
I've heard from cinema-focused people that the Fuji GFX 100 II's video image is very beautiful, and this motivated Fuji to make Eterna using the same sensor (for cost reasons, but also because people like the image).
The RED Z-mount models don't have built-in ND filters, maybe the flange distance is too short? ND filters can be used with a RED Z to PL mount adapter when using PL mount cinema lenses. It's not yet known whether the Eterna will have built-in ND filters. I think this will be a significant practical factor. Having SDI connectors that lock securely is something that I regret not present in mirrorless cameras as USB and HDMI cables can be accidentally disconnected easily. Images of the Eterna show also Genlock, so it would be suitable for a multi-camera live production. Fuji is also a well-known maker of cinema and TV lenses. ...Show more →
I was one of the early users who used the original GFX100 primarily for video with stills for personal stuff. At the time I asked about open gate and Fuji said it wasn't technically possible. Fast forward and now there was enough to demand that they made it happen with the Eterna. As for rolling shutter and even dynamic range, that's important but not the most important as you're going to control almost every aspect of your contrast ratio on set in a serious production anyway. Sometimes I even use 360 shutter angle and the rolling helps with some types of shots. I've used it in handheld work with zero issues, because the major difference is the look you can get with certain lenses in conjunction with it. I believe what happened with s35 > ff will happen again with Fuji leading the way this time.
Now that vertical anamorphic is finally overtaking the horrid petzval trend, open gate becomes a huge advantage with lens pairing options.
Regarding the actual topic at hand, the ZR looks awesome to me. The biggest thing to me is the binaural 32-bit float and the volume of the camera. With a wide angle setup, you can just run the gain super hot then get really good audio. The price point and marketing structure tells me more and more of the general populace is getting into better quality cinema and the same thing that happened with photos is happening with video. Great for all future developments.
