I don't know whether it has already been reported, but Tascam has announced the Z R digital hot shoe compatible version of their XLR mic adapter. More details will become available early October.
bernardl wrote:
I don't know whether it has already been reported, but Tascam has announced the Z R digital hot shoe compatible version of their XLR mic adapter. More details will become available early October.
This pretty much solves the jack issue mentioned by many as a major issue.
It does solve that problem but it makes the camera significantly larger and heavier (by about 350 g, the final weight of the (digital) N version (the AN is the analog one) does not seem to be yet in the specs). This is a good way to connect microphones to the camera but there is no mention of native 32-bit float support so it probably is just an intermediate solution that digitizes the signal using a single ADC per channel and does not protect the user from clipping, instead the user has to set levels like they would have in the past, and the advantages of the camera's support of 32-bit float are not realized using this product.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
It does solve that problem but it makes the camera significantly larger and heavier (by about 350 g, the final weight of the (digital) N version (the AN is the analog one) does not seem to be yet in the specs). This is a good way to connect microphones to the camera but there is no mention of native 32-bit float support so it probably is just an intermediate solution that digitizes the signal using a single ADC per channel and does not protect the user from clipping, instead the user has to set levels like they would have in the past, and the advantages of the camera's support of 32-bit float are not realized using this product. ...Show more →
That is indeed possible. But Nikon has been a partner of Tascam since the beginning, Tascam has 32 bits float devices, so I think it is a bit too early to make assumptions about that aspect.
jlafferty wrote:
Thankfully they made the body as small and light as possible without all the clutter some people think would be a good idea
The small size and light weight is appreciated by many but only by making it a little bigger they could have accommodated mic, headphone and HDMI ports that are not blocked by the tilting back screen, and perhaps also a full-size SD card. I feel that Nikon is intentionally placing this into a niche and in the next step they will make something a little larger that has more fully usable connections. However, this doesn't mean this isn't something that can be used for many applications.
Todd Warnke wrote:
Morten Hilmer has an hour, twenty-two-minute review of the ZR up, covering 19 days of field use. Not going to give away the conclusion ... just going to say it looks like I'm going to buy a ZR now.
I liked Morten's tip for drying out your gear-not for the faint of heart though.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The small size and light weight is appreciated by many but only by making it a little bigger they could have accommodated mic, headphone and HDMI ports that are not blocked by the tilting back screen, and perhaps also a full-size SD card. I feel that Nikon is intentionally placing this into a niche and in the next step they will make something a little larger that has more fully usable connections. However, this doesn't mean this isn't something that can be used for many applications.
Well that « niche » probably contains 90% of video creators.
Most creators today start with a phone. Do you think they would rather upgrade to a Z R or to a fully rigged Sony with a great 5 inch external screen and a 32 bits Zoom external recorder synced with time code v3.27.2?
You’re just slippery sloping back to a different camera design with no real boundaries apart from what you personally care about 🤷🏻♂️
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The small size and light weight is appreciated by many but only by making it a little bigger they could have accommodated mic, headphone and HDMI ports that are not blocked by the tilting back screen, and perhaps also a full-size SD card. I feel that Nikon is intentionally placing this into a niche and in the next step they will make something a little larger that has more fully usable connections. However, this doesn't mean this isn't something that can be used for many applications.
jlafferty wrote:
You’re just slippery sloping back to a different camera design with no real boundaries apart from what you personally care about 🤷🏻♂️
What?
In the post you cited I didn't say anything about what I personally care about.
When a post seems one-sided (e.g. rejecting concerns made by others about a particular flaw) I try to bring the missing perspectives to the debate so that the discussion as a whole considers different points of view. When possible I try to incorporate different points of view in my posts (even integrating them to the same post) but sometimes I only add what I feel is currently missing from the argumentation as a counterargument.
Here's what I really think: The micro-SD card is ridiculous and almost impossible to use in practice except by treating it as internal storage. Taking the card out requires a complicated procedure and the card is so small it's easy to break or misplace, possibly never to be found again. Use of the USB-C for data transfer is questionable because if the connector breaks it could be very expensive to repair, or parts could be missing altogether after 10 years. So I always avoid connecting a computer directly to the camera or camera to charger because of this. Just pull from the cable once in a bad way or stumble into the cable and the camera could be falling on a floor and needing repair. Thus the MicroSD solution for a second card is something manufacturers should avoid. It also limits the codec options available when using that card for storing video while a full-sized (still small) SD card would be easier to use and enable more codecs, and the cards are much more widely available and many support UHS-II speeds.
I also think that many potential buyers of the ZR will have other cameras and because up until now, Nikon only supported analog microphone input via the 3.5 mm connector and thus we are likely to already have such audio equipment. Not being able to tilt the screen when using an on-camera shotgun or stereo microphone (or audio recorded whose line out is connected to the camera) is very limiting and can lead to additional costs which the buyer may or may not realize when making the camera purchase. What's more, the shotgun microphone that Nikon offers for the ZR (ME-D10) doesn't seem to have an analog output so it can only be used in this one camera (ZR) for now. I get it that Nikon's goal is to sell new equipment and they don't care about people being able to use what they already have since they don't make money from that, but in all manufacturing we should consider the ecological footprint and if I already own microphones I should be able to use them on a new camera and also any new microphone should work with new and old cameras.
I will also repeat that many users will find use for the ZR despite this, but if the camera had incorporated full SD card support, and if the microphone input was in the front side so that the screen can tilt, it would still work basically just as well for those users that will buy and use the ZR but it would have been better for many of us. The only real justification for these designs is that Nikon want to sell first the ZR, then higher-end Z cinema cameras to as many people as possible rather than making a workable solution for everyone from the beginning, which they could have done, but it's not in their style. They build cameras with glitches so they can sell more cameras in the future to customers who need solutions to those glitches which they designed in.
Now you have my personal opinion about the issues in the camera.
bernardl wrote:
Well that « niche » probably contains 90% of video creators.
Most creators today start with a phone. Do you think they would rather upgrade to a Z R or to a fully rigged Sony with a great 5 inch external screen and a 32 bits Zoom external recorder synced with time code v3.27.2?
If by a "(video) creator" you mean "social media (video) content creator", unfortunately I don't know that many of them personally. Only the ones whose social media content is mainly talking about cameras seem to be really interested in the camera equipment and others just use any camera with decent video capabilities. The quality of the final result has more to do with audio and lighting in many social media type content situations than the camera itself.
I think there is a broad variety of compact mirrorless cameras for these creators to consider and choose from, and some start from the $1000 ball park, so it is probably natural for the first-time camera buyers to get one of those. The quality of most of the social media videos is good if the lighting is good and camera is decent whereas the ZR is a more advanced camera from the image quality point of view. Sony and Canon have a bunch of models targeting this group of users. The ZR has a bit more advanced feature set and is correspondingly more expensive which is probably a putoff for many first-time camera buyers.
What I think the ZR is going to be purchased by include existing Nikon and RED camera users, and these are not hypersensitive to the smallest size possible. Sony's product profile is much more targeted towards making the cameras as small as they can be, and so Nikon seems to be taking a page out of their book with the ZR. RED users will want small cameras to be placed in tight spots that produces colors similar to or almost indistinguishable from their big cameras and can be edited with the same workflow. These people are likely to be able to buy ZR or multiple ZRs without too much stress about the cost. Nikon Z camera system users who typically shoot both stills and video may want a more video-focused camera that loses some of the baggage of the stills cameras (mechanical shutter etc.) but works with the same lenses and has similar menus etc. so it is easier to use coming from the background of already being a Nikon user. Some of these users have a lot of money and lenses etc.
I think maybe Nikon can benefit from RED's prestige in cinema and attract some new customers via the association, but mostly what I see on the streets and at events are Sony and Canon equipment for video and I don't think this will change quickly. But the ZR will probably mean people who do both stills and video are less likely to be concerned about Nikon not offering good video capabilities or producing colors that are different than their customers are used to seeing in videos, and they'll look at Nikon as a legitimate choice now and in the future, quirks and all.
Anybody with any amount of common sense is buying this thing though. We bought the non digital version for our Nikon cameras and it opened the audio possibilities for the cameras ten fold. If you do event work for press and need to plug into an audio feed it's going to be an XLR input. The Z9 with the 70-180 we have basically took over for one of our larger camcorders with this attachment. When you're dealing with audio stuff you honestly don't give 2 F's about it making your camera bigger you just care about it working since the audio is the MOST IMPORTANT THING in a production. Also I think the 32 bit float is very important, but at the same time you're usually setting levels any way. I'm "lazy" with my interview stuff, but you best believe I'm setting the audio levels. The less you have to do clean up work on the better. ilkka_nissila wrote:
It does solve that problem but it makes the camera significantly larger and heavier (by about 350 g, the final weight of the (digital) N version (the AN is the analog one) does not seem to be yet in the specs). This is a good way to connect microphones to the camera but there is no mention of native 32-bit float support so it probably is just an intermediate solution that digitizes the signal using a single ADC per channel and does not protect the user from clipping, instead the user has to set levels like they would have in the past, and the advantages of the camera's support of 32-bit float are not realized using this product. ...Show more →
JadedWriter wrote:
Anybody with any amount of common sense is buying this thing though. We bought the non digital version for our Nikon cameras and it opened the audio possibilities for the cameras ten fold. If you do event work for press and need to plug into an audio feed it's going to be an XLR input. The Z9 with the 70-180 we have basically took over for one of our larger camcorders with this attachment. When you're dealing with audio stuff you honestly don't give 2 F's about it making your camera bigger you just care about it working since the audio is the MOST IMPORTANT THING in a production. Also I think the 32 bit float is very important, but at the same time you're usually setting levels any way. I'm "lazy" with my interview stuff, but you best believe I'm setting the audio levels. The less you have to do clean up work on the better.
Yeah man, but each of these points is obvious to even a casual observer, and by now pretty well beaten to death. What's strange to me is that you, and others, suggest "just some simple changes" to make the camera "better", as if it doesn't throw the design aesthetic/size/price+performance off balance.
"Just add an EVF"
"Just add full HDMI"
"Just change the port design entirely"
"Just change the cards used and their position"
"Just change the approach to how it handles audio"
Setting aside for a moment you're not the industrial designer/engineer with a few camera designs under your belt (are you?), put simply you're not accepting the camera as it is, and bit by bit you're backing it into resembling every other camera already on the market.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
What?
In the post you cited I didn't say anything about what I personally care about.
When a post seems one-sided (e.g. rejecting concerns made by others about a particular flaw) I try to bring the missing perspectives to the debate so that the discussion as a whole considers different points of view. When possible I try to incorporate different points of view in my posts (even integrating them to the same post) but sometimes I only add what I feel is currently missing from the argumentation as a counterargument.
Here's what I really think: The micro-SD card is ridiculous and almost impossible to use in practice except by treating it as internal storage. Taking the card out requires a complicated procedure and the card is so small it's easy to break or misplace, possibly never to be found again. Use of the USB-C for data transfer is questionable because if the connector breaks it could be very expensive to repair, or parts could be missing altogether after 10 years. So I always avoid connecting a computer directly to the camera or camera to charger because of this. Just pull from the cable once in a bad way or stumble into the cable and the camera could be falling on a floor and needing repair. Thus the MicroSD solution for a second card is something manufacturers should avoid. It also limits the codec options available when using that card for storing video while a full-sized (still small) SD card would be easier to use and enable more codecs, and the cards are much more widely available and many support UHS-II speeds.
I also think that many potential buyers of the ZR will have other cameras and because up until now, Nikon only supported analog microphone input via the 3.5 mm connector and thus we are likely to already have such audio equipment. Not being able to tilt the screen when using an on-camera shotgun or stereo microphone (or audio recorded whose line out is connected to the camera) is very limiting and can lead to additional costs which the buyer may or may not realize when making the camera purchase. What's more, the shotgun microphone that Nikon offers for the ZR (ME-D10) doesn't seem to have an analog output so it can only be used in this one camera (ZR) for now. I get it that Nikon's goal is to sell new equipment and they don't care about people being able to use what they already have since they don't make money from that, but in all manufacturing we should consider the ecological footprint and if I already own microphones I should be able to use them on a new camera and also any new microphone should work with new and old cameras.
I will also repeat that many users will find use for the ZR despite this, but if the camera had incorporated full SD card support, and if the microphone input was in the front side so that the screen can tilt, it would still work basically just as well for those users that will buy and use the ZR but it would have been better for many of us. The only real justification for these designs is that Nikon want to sell first the ZR, then higher-end Z cinema cameras to as many people as possible rather than making a workable solution for everyone from the beginning, which they could have done, but it's not in their style. They build cameras with glitches so they can sell more cameras in the future to customers who need solutions to those glitches which they designed in.
Now you have my personal opinion about the issues in the camera.
My biggest complaint of the camera itself is turning into the 2 hour record limit. I do a good amount of video work for my job, I'm very tempted to show videos of this thing to my boss. I just wish it had unlimited record time, but this thing for B roll and interviews paired with the Z9, Z8 and Z6III we have would be a monster. RoamingScott wrote:
It just shows that the average person the Zr marketing is appealing to has no clue what goes into ACTUAL production.
RoamingScott wrote:
It just shows that the average person the Zr marketing is appealing to has no clue what goes into ACTUAL production.
It does indeed, but is the camera not fitted for an amateur?(If the end result is not aimed at a professional heavy production)
The camera is appealing to me but I still ponder if it’s too much for me but I don’t think it’s not enough.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
It does indeed, but is the camera not fitted for an amateur?(If the end result is not aimed at a professional heavy production)
The camera is appealing to me but I still ponder if it’s too much for me but I don’t think it’s not enough.
I would think the average amateur needs to decide if having n-log/red type footage is necessary for themselves. If that user already has, say, a Z6iii, what does red get them that their current n-log can't? Are they willing to switch workflows? Is the 4" screen worth the squeeze vs a monitor, etc.
NLog and NRaw/RedRaw isn't the same type of codecs though. I have yet to shoot Nraw personally just due to turn around times and data management. The ZR honestly feels like an intro product into the Red line or a B/C camera for one in the Red line already. Anybody looking at this just has to figure out if they want to move into a Davinci workflow and grade for a few hours. RoamingScott wrote:
I would think the average amateur needs to decide if having n-log/red type footage is necessary for themselves. If that user already has, say, a Z6iii, what does red get them that their current n-log can't? Are they willing to switch workflows? Is the 4" screen worth the squeeze vs a monitor, etc.
JadedWriter wrote:
NLog and NRaw/RedRaw isn't the same type of codecs though. I have yet to shoot Nraw personally just due to turn around times and data management. The ZR honestly feels like an intro product into the Red line or a B/C camera for one in the Red line already. Anybody looking at this just has to figure out if they want to move into a Davinci workflow and grade for a few hours.
That's my point, are you going to shoot n-log on a z6iii, throw a lut over it and be done, or are you going to adopt a full video workflow? i'm not sure the amateurs the Zr seems to appeal to know what they are in for if they want to shoot red, or what gains that would even give them.
True. Even with LOG your'e usually doing more than just slapping a LUT on top of it...I mean you can just stop there, but that's so effing lazy in my opinion I'm very tempted to do something in Nraw and just mess around with it in Davinci, but I don't know what's coming up on my end with that kind of flexibility that's worth me pulling my hair out for RoamingScott wrote:
That's my point, are you going to shoot n-log on a z6iii, throw a lut over it and be done, or are you going to adopt a full video workflow? i'm not sure the amateurs the Zr seems to appeal to know what they are in for if they want to shoot red, or what gains that would even give them.
RoamingScott wrote:
I would think the average amateur needs to decide if having n-log/red type footage is necessary for themselves. If that user already has, say, a Z6iii, what does red get them that their current n-log can't? Are they willing to switch workflows? Is the 4" screen worth the squeeze vs a monitor, etc.
What was appealing to me was the in body Lut treatment with the cinebias, I thought it was pretty handy, I thought it was less gimmicky than a picture profile.
I understand that it might feel cheap to someone more versed in video but I thought it was less cheap than the photo equivalent of a filter.
The other thing was access to some framerates without crop that I could only access through a Z8.
The Zr felt compelling to me as a second body companion to my Zf with not too much redundancy.
But I’m still pondering, it was my initial thoughts but doubts are lurking.
I'm very tempted to do something in Nraw and just mess around with it in Davinci, but I don't know what's coming up on my end with that kind of flexibility that's worth me pulling my hair out for