This topic is in the 2025 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2025Zr - the review I was waiting for
p.3 #1Zr - the review I was waiting for
ronno wrote:
Interesting that the client specified the codec / file format for a project. They are usually just talking end results.
Care to share what kind of project this is?
Best,
R
it's something in-house for them, thus the XAVC codec. talking head interviews and b-roll, the usual stuffs.
Also, watch Jason Morris's video about the FX2 vs the ZR, aside from the RAW codecs, the Sony has it beat for sharpness.
Interesting that the client specified the codec / file format for a project. They are usually just talking end results.
Care to share what kind of project this is?
Best,
R
it's something in-house for them, thus the XAVC codec. talking head interviews and b-roll, the usual stuffs.
3catsinky wrote
So, I was ready to buy this and add it to my Z8 and Sony kit. But that H.265, ugh. I also booked a job yesterday for 3 days of shooting where the client turned down Prores 422 files due to file sizes, for a job which has 3 days shooting. Once again, they chose XAVC-S4K SLOG3 for this particular use due to file size.Also, watch Jason Morris's video about the FX2 vs the ZR, aside from the RAW codecs, the Sony has it beat for sharpness.
Oct 14, 2025 at 09:23 AM
p.3 #2Zr - the review I was waiting for
bernardl wrote:
Meanwhile, I can do a whole shoot on one card with my A1 with it’s sharp and gorgeous h.265 log files (which are about 1/4 the size of Canon’s inferior h.254 files btw.)
If Nikon can figure out how to provide sharp files with good dynamic range and more efficient sizes (as Sony does), I will buy two of these cameras.
Otherwise, you could easily shoot 10, 20, 30 TB in a day.
All it would take is to use the RED Raw files for editing and then convert them to H.265 for archival to limit hard disk storeage needs. That it will at worst still be slightly better than in camera H.265 (even if Nikon fixed the current softness issue).
Cheers,
BernardSure, but you can transfer the content of your cards to a portable Raid unit or a laptop right? It's not because you shoot 30TB worth of data that you need 30TB capacity with CFExpress cards, is it?
Cheers,
BernardUnderstood, thanks!
Cheers,
Bernard
By the way, above I meant to write "Canon’s inferior h.265," not 254.
ronno wrote
I do a lot of shoots on the beach - as you might expect transferring 30 TB of data to a raid system while working in the sand is not my cup of tea.Meanwhile, I can do a whole shoot on one card with my A1 with it’s sharp and gorgeous h.265 log files (which are about 1/4 the size of Canon’s inferior h.254 files btw.)
If Nikon can figure out how to provide sharp files with good dynamic range and more efficient sizes (as Sony does), I will buy two of these cameras.
bernardl wrote
ronno wrote
If you are just shooting short clips here and there, sure.Otherwise, you could easily shoot 10, 20, 30 TB in a day.
bernardl wrote
I still have hard time understanding this concern with shooting RED raw. I just bought two 2TB Nextorage CF4.0 cards for 430 US$ each leverage Amazon time sale (high end Japanese brand recommended by Nikon, former Sony engineers) and external SSDs can be had for very cheap once that is supported in firmware.All it would take is to use the RED Raw files for editing and then convert them to H.265 for archival to limit hard disk storeage needs. That it will at worst still be slightly better than in camera H.265 (even if Nikon fixed the current softness issue).
Cheers,
Bernard
Cheers,
Bernard
Cheers,
Bernard
By the way, above I meant to write "Canon’s inferior h.265," not 254.
Oct 14, 2025 at 09:47 AM
p.3 #3Zr - the review I was waiting for
This is all kind of a bummer, as I wanted to get this camera on day 1 just to use that huge screen and good IBIS, now gonna have to wait for a decent h.265.
Also here is the video someone referred to, with more soft Zr h.265 footage...
Also here is the video someone referred to, with more soft Zr h.265 footage...
Oct 14, 2025 at 09:52 AM
p.3 #4Zr - the review I was waiting for
ronno wrote:
This is all kind of a bummer, as I wanted to get this camera on day 1 just to use that huge screen and good IBIS, now gonna have to wait for a decent h.265.
Also here is the video someone referred to, with more soft Zr h.265 footage...
Out of curiosity, any relatively compact cameras you would recommend that you tried with good h.265 footage out of the box?
This is all kind of a bummer, as I wanted to get this camera on day 1 just to use that huge screen and good IBIS, now gonna have to wait for a decent h.265.
Also here is the video someone referred to, with more soft Zr h.265 footage...
Out of curiosity, any relatively compact cameras you would recommend that you tried with good h.265 footage out of the box?
Oct 14, 2025 at 02:11 PM
p.3 #6Zr - the review I was waiting for
RustyRus wrote:
All it would take is to use the RED Raw files for editing and then convert them to H.265 for archival to limit hard disk storeage needs. That it will at worst still be slightly better than in camera H.265 (even if Nikon fixed the current softness issue).
Cheers,
BernardSo buy 1 thousand dollars worth of CF 4.0 cards, and a few external SSD's for another thousand bucks-
Also wait for firmware-
Then connect one of those to SSD's with a mini hdmi cable to the camera while recording....Then at the end of all of it, convert to the very codec we are saying should look better out of camera?
Not following your logic here Bernad!!I am of course not saying that Nikon shouldn't improve their H.265 output and I agree that the appeal of the ZR would be further extended if they did.
But the logic is quite obvious isn't it? You get a much better quality and flexibility to grade and correct issues in post. Even if the scale of the benefits may depend on the application.
It's the exact same logic photographers have always been using when shooting raw vs jpg.
There is indeed a cost associated to this and the ratio of file size is larger than for stills. But even with this amount spent on media, you are still at the cost of a C50 or FX3 without anything, right?
Considering the cost of the events being captured with a proper video set up and a videographer, I am a bit puzzled that temporary file size during capture and edit phases would take such precedence over quality.
Cheers,
Bernard(Still) photography and video are not that similar and for video, the demands for storage in raw video are obscene. Because of this, it is not that common to use raw for video and there are ways that add editing flexibility and provide high quality which require less storage than raw, this includes shooting 10-bit log, there are also intermediate codecs where the storage requirements are intermediate between raw and h.265. In video, most cameras which are able to shoot raw only have 12-bit raw (unless we're talking about big cinema cameras), and since it's linear it's not that different from 10-bit log in terms of information content. For photography, the common standards are just jpg (8-bit) and raw which is typically 14-bit, and the difference between the two (in information available for editing) is more obvious (there is HEIF but support is not that widespread). Since photos are individual frames, it's much more practical to edit them sometimes significantly whereas for video such editing with masks on a frame by frame basis would be prohibitatively costly in terms of work time required, unless making a large production. Photo editing software support lens profiles for most modern lenses that provide identification information, aperture and focus distance are stored in the EXIF, and thus RAW files are easily corrected for vignetting and distortion within reason. For video such automatic correction is only available for in-camera processed formats such as h.254, h.265, Prores 422 etc., not raw. So raw for photos is much more established and much better supported by software than raw video, because there are so many people using raw for photos but not for video. Perhaps this will change in the future; I would not hold my breath though.
For photos I always keep the original raw files since I may want to do a different edit later on. For video, let's say I'd shoot 3 hours of r3d 25p per week for 15 years and make two backup copies of the raw footage for safekeeping. That's 1.4 petabytes of storage, just for the video, and then add the edited versions, the photos and so on. It's a significant amount of storage and since with it comes the extra work of bookkeeping to know which lens was used for each clip and what focal length, distance to subject and aperture was used (since distortion and vignetting are focal length, aperture, and distance dependent) creating one's own lens profiles, distortion and vignetting correction algorithms and running them through, there is a lot of additional work in creating something that can actually be presented. And because of the extreme limitations on bandwidth for online sharing of video, the result will look crappy compared to when viewing the original or even the edited file on a modern OLED TV. It just doesn't make any sense except for a large multimillion-dollar production where the stylized vision with strongly edited "moody" color is prioritised vs. realistic rendering that is more typically needed for documentary video and which is pretty much as the footage comes out of the camera as it is.
Sony is a lot more experienced in video than Nikon and it makes sense that they'd prioritize high-quality h.265 over raw video in their mid-range video products, since it's a lot more practical. Nikon is trying to find a niche for itself that would emphasize its strong areas (optical design, reliability etc.) in a crowded field. I'm just glad that Prores 422 HQ is supported probably I would not touch video if I had to shoot raw in order to get good video image quality. I'm able to avoid the lens correction hassle by using Prores 422 HQ and the quality is outstanding. I do delete the original files since I can't spend that kind of money on storage to keep them but it's a loss. I do not do much in terms of editing, slight cropping, cutting, apply a LUT, and adjust curves, insert audio and synchronize it and adjust it for consistency in volume, and such things. I don't think I would benefit from RAW video since I do such minimal edits to the image and the final result is typically a h.254 FullHD video, in some cases 4K but then people in most cases will never go through the trouble of viewing it in 4K. The footage looks so much worse in the online version than when the original exported file is viewed on an OLED 4K TV that fussing about RAW vs. other capture formats seems silly. Will things change as displays get better? No, because most people will still look at the footage on their mobile phones and the human vision in those cases greatly limits the perceived quality. What's funny is that even when BBC use 8K RED cameras to capture their wildlife documentaries, they're still distributed in FullHD, not 4K, so even in those cases there is so much information lost before finally presented. There is some quality improvement over the decades; the BBC documentaries produced in the last 10 years are technically visibly superior than what they had 25 years ago, but ironically it still shows through in FullHD delivered image when you have access to the right channels of distribution and produce it correctly. Free distribution channels that are available to most of us don't seem to provide such quality. So, does it really make sense to put into the cost of capturing raw? Already video streaming is a significant cost to the planet in terms of carbon emissions and if future distribution is improved in quality, the CO2 emissions will likely grow, as old men grab onto power and try to reverse time. IMO it would be much better to try to optimize practical formats rather than capture raw video. I'm guessing Nikon's cameras might need new hardware to support better h.265 (as Sony offers h.265 4:2:2 10-bit) and so it might come in the next generation if Nikon see the light, but they might be so in love with R3D that their focus is in that. Problem is it shuts out a lot of users with more modest means.One thing is sure, had Nikon come up with a perfect H.265 but sub par raw the whole internet would be all over them as well. 
My guess is that it is just a matter of priority and that H.265 can be significantly improved.
Cheers,
BernardIts clear you are way to in love with Nikon to see anything objective-
Multiple people are telling you why H.265 is important....Not worth discussing anymore.
Again, I am not saying it’s not. My earlier wording was not accurate enough. I understand that in some situations and for some videographers it’s good enough and that some situations prevent from shooting raw despite the superior flexibility due to storage impacts.
As I said I think that Nikon will improve their H.265 (if not done yet in production units) and probably add a more compressed version of Red Raw also.
Personally flexibility and image quality are my priorities. I’ll shoot Red raw most of the time, do my editing and keep converted H.265 for archival to avoid additional long term storage costs (knowing that Backblaze includes a one year back up of deleted files). That will essentially limit the additional storage costs to what I need during capture.
My view is that the standards for video are evolving and that the impact on storage needs/workflow have to be seen as an avoidable consequence but I do fully understand the impact on the economics (more or less important depending on workflow evolution) and that not everyone has factored this evolution in yet, or see it as positive.
One solution may be to add raw usage/storage as paid options for clients. As more videographers do this cameras providing this capability may become a competitive differentiator instead of a burden, even for those who prefer to keep using H.265 as the baseline. But both options must be usable for this to work.
Cheers,
Bernard
Edited on Oct 14, 2025 at 08:38 PM · View previous versions
bernardl wrote
ilkka_nissila wrote
bernardl wrote
RustyRus wrote
bernardl wrote
I still have hard time understanding this concern with shooting RED raw. I just bought two 2TB Nextorage CF4.0 cards for 430 US$ each leverage Amazon time sale (high end Japanese brand recommended by Nikon, former Sony engineers) and external SSDs can be had for very cheap once that is supported in firmware.All it would take is to use the RED Raw files for editing and then convert them to H.265 for archival to limit hard disk storeage needs. That it will at worst still be slightly better than in camera H.265 (even if Nikon fixed the current softness issue).
Cheers,
Bernard
Also wait for firmware-
Then connect one of those to SSD's with a mini hdmi cable to the camera while recording....Then at the end of all of it, convert to the very codec we are saying should look better out of camera?
Not following your logic here Bernad!!
But the logic is quite obvious isn't it? You get a much better quality and flexibility to grade and correct issues in post. Even if the scale of the benefits may depend on the application.
It's the exact same logic photographers have always been using when shooting raw vs jpg.
There is indeed a cost associated to this and the ratio of file size is larger than for stills. But even with this amount spent on media, you are still at the cost of a C50 or FX3 without anything, right?
Considering the cost of the events being captured with a proper video set up and a videographer, I am a bit puzzled that temporary file size during capture and edit phases would take such precedence over quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
For photos I always keep the original raw files since I may want to do a different edit later on. For video, let's say I'd shoot 3 hours of r3d 25p per week for 15 years and make two backup copies of the raw footage for safekeeping. That's 1.4 petabytes of storage, just for the video, and then add the edited versions, the photos and so on. It's a significant amount of storage and since with it comes the extra work of bookkeeping to know which lens was used for each clip and what focal length, distance to subject and aperture was used (since distortion and vignetting are focal length, aperture, and distance dependent) creating one's own lens profiles, distortion and vignetting correction algorithms and running them through, there is a lot of additional work in creating something that can actually be presented. And because of the extreme limitations on bandwidth for online sharing of video, the result will look crappy compared to when viewing the original or even the edited file on a modern OLED TV. It just doesn't make any sense except for a large multimillion-dollar production where the stylized vision with strongly edited "moody" color is prioritised vs. realistic rendering that is more typically needed for documentary video and which is pretty much as the footage comes out of the camera as it is.
Sony is a lot more experienced in video than Nikon and it makes sense that they'd prioritize high-quality h.265 over raw video in their mid-range video products, since it's a lot more practical. Nikon is trying to find a niche for itself that would emphasize its strong areas (optical design, reliability etc.) in a crowded field. I'm just glad that Prores 422 HQ is supported probably I would not touch video if I had to shoot raw in order to get good video image quality. I'm able to avoid the lens correction hassle by using Prores 422 HQ and the quality is outstanding. I do delete the original files since I can't spend that kind of money on storage to keep them but it's a loss. I do not do much in terms of editing, slight cropping, cutting, apply a LUT, and adjust curves, insert audio and synchronize it and adjust it for consistency in volume, and such things. I don't think I would benefit from RAW video since I do such minimal edits to the image and the final result is typically a h.254 FullHD video, in some cases 4K but then people in most cases will never go through the trouble of viewing it in 4K. The footage looks so much worse in the online version than when the original exported file is viewed on an OLED 4K TV that fussing about RAW vs. other capture formats seems silly. Will things change as displays get better? No, because most people will still look at the footage on their mobile phones and the human vision in those cases greatly limits the perceived quality. What's funny is that even when BBC use 8K RED cameras to capture their wildlife documentaries, they're still distributed in FullHD, not 4K, so even in those cases there is so much information lost before finally presented. There is some quality improvement over the decades; the BBC documentaries produced in the last 10 years are technically visibly superior than what they had 25 years ago, but ironically it still shows through in FullHD delivered image when you have access to the right channels of distribution and produce it correctly. Free distribution channels that are available to most of us don't seem to provide such quality. So, does it really make sense to put into the cost of capturing raw? Already video streaming is a significant cost to the planet in terms of carbon emissions and if future distribution is improved in quality, the CO2 emissions will likely grow, as old men grab onto power and try to reverse time. IMO it would be much better to try to optimize practical formats rather than capture raw video. I'm guessing Nikon's cameras might need new hardware to support better h.265 (as Sony offers h.265 4:2:2 10-bit) and so it might come in the next generation if Nikon see the light, but they might be so in love with R3D that their focus is in that. Problem is it shuts out a lot of users with more modest means.
My guess is that it is just a matter of priority and that H.265 can be significantly improved.
Cheers,
Bernard
Multiple people are telling you why H.265 is important....Not worth discussing anymore.
Again, I am not saying it’s not. My earlier wording was not accurate enough. I understand that in some situations and for some videographers it’s good enough and that some situations prevent from shooting raw despite the superior flexibility due to storage impacts.
As I said I think that Nikon will improve their H.265 (if not done yet in production units) and probably add a more compressed version of Red Raw also.
Personally flexibility and image quality are my priorities. I’ll shoot Red raw most of the time, do my editing and keep converted H.265 for archival to avoid additional long term storage costs (knowing that Backblaze includes a one year back up of deleted files). That will essentially limit the additional storage costs to what I need during capture.
My view is that the standards for video are evolving and that the impact on storage needs/workflow have to be seen as an avoidable consequence but I do fully understand the impact on the economics (more or less important depending on workflow evolution) and that not everyone has factored this evolution in yet, or see it as positive.
One solution may be to add raw usage/storage as paid options for clients. As more videographers do this cameras providing this capability may become a competitive differentiator instead of a burden, even for those who prefer to keep using H.265 as the baseline. But both options must be usable for this to work.
Cheers,
Bernard
Edited on Oct 14, 2025 at 08:38 PM · View previous versions
Oct 14, 2025 at 03:26 PM
p.3 #7Zr - the review I was waiting for
tzhang4284 wrote:
Also here is the video someone referred to, with more soft Zr h.265 footage...Out of curiosity, any relatively compact cameras you would recommend that you tried with good h.265 footage out of the box?
I find most of the Sonys relatively compact.
A1, A7r5, A74 etc etc all have great (IMO) h.265 (lots of detail, now noise) with high D.R. - especially with SLOG3.
Sony's IBIS is not as good, however.
I would not call the Canon / Nikon bodies small (though Z6 and Z7 are pretty small)
ronno wrote
This is all kind of a bummer, as I wanted to get this camera on day 1 just to use that huge screen and good IBIS, now gonna have to wait for a decent h.265.Also here is the video someone referred to, with more soft Zr h.265 footage...
I find most of the Sonys relatively compact.
A1, A7r5, A74 etc etc all have great (IMO) h.265 (lots of detail, now noise) with high D.R. - especially with SLOG3.
Sony's IBIS is not as good, however.
I would not call the Canon / Nikon bodies small (though Z6 and Z7 are pretty small)
Oct 14, 2025 at 04:28 PM
p.3 #8Zr - the review I was waiting for
Soft H.265 is puzzling, the Z6iii is very sharp as is Z8/9. Is it soft in 6k and 4k?
Oct 14, 2025 at 06:22 PM
p.3 #9Zr - the review I was waiting for
Watch the videos man - that’s all we know.
Some of the clips are so soft that they look like they are out of focus (in several of the reviews).
The raw videos look sharp AF though.
Alistair1 wrote:
Soft H.265 is puzzling, the Z6iii is very sharp as is Z8/9. Is it soft in 6k and 4k?
Some of the clips are so soft that they look like they are out of focus (in several of the reviews).
The raw videos look sharp AF though.
Alistair1 wrote:
Soft H.265 is puzzling, the Z6iii is very sharp as is Z8/9. Is it soft in 6k and 4k?
Oct 14, 2025 at 07:14 PM
p.3 #10Zr - the review I was waiting for
Alistair1 wrote:
Soft H.265 is puzzling, the Z6iii is very sharp as is Z8/9. Is it soft in 6k and 4k?
Very strange indeed yes.
Possibly a pre-production firmware issue. We'll know for sure in a few weeks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Soft H.265 is puzzling, the Z6iii is very sharp as is Z8/9. Is it soft in 6k and 4k?
Very strange indeed yes.
Possibly a pre-production firmware issue. We'll know for sure in a few weeks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oct 14, 2025 at 07:53 PM
p.3 #11Zr - the review I was waiting for
I think they are available in the US on the 20th, which is six days from now.
I’ll probably get one and test it alongside my A1.
bernardl wrote:
Very strange indeed yes.
Possibly a pre-production firmware issue. We'll know for sure in a few weeks.
Cheers,
Bernard
I’ll probably get one and test it alongside my A1.
bernardl wrote:
Alistair1 wrote
Soft H.265 is puzzling, the Z6iii is very sharp as is Z8/9. Is it soft in 6k and 4k?Possibly a pre-production firmware issue. We'll know for sure in a few weeks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oct 14, 2025 at 08:55 PM
p.3 #12Zr - the review I was waiting for
ronno wrote:
I think they are available in the US on the 20th, which is six days from now.
I’ll probably get one and test it alongside my A1.
Very strange indeed yes.
Possibly a pre-production firmware issue. We'll know for sure in a few weeks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed. I should get mine on the 25th.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think they are available in the US on the 20th, which is six days from now.
I’ll probably get one and test it alongside my A1.
bernardl wrote
Alistair1 wrote
Soft H.265 is puzzling, the Z6iii is very sharp as is Z8/9. Is it soft in 6k and 4k?Possibly a pre-production firmware issue. We'll know for sure in a few weeks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed. I should get mine on the 25th.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oct 14, 2025 at 09:09 PM
p.3 #13Zr - the review I was waiting for
I’ve watched a few of the softness tests on the big screen in 4k. Once thing that I notice across them is that they have that “plastic” look that the Sony mirrorless cameras get flak for due to the default high NR setting. With the larger cameras you can adjust how much NR gets applied, and you get a more organic, grainy image at high ISOs.
These were shots in broad daylight, so I don’t think this is particularly what’s going on, but there is a very distinct sheen like a plastic on skin tones. I suspect there’s also some sort of line skipping or pixel binning happening when they shoot the H265 in 4K as if doesn’t look like a downscale of the sensor.
These were shots in broad daylight, so I don’t think this is particularly what’s going on, but there is a very distinct sheen like a plastic on skin tones. I suspect there’s also some sort of line skipping or pixel binning happening when they shoot the H265 in 4K as if doesn’t look like a downscale of the sensor.
Oct 14, 2025 at 11:40 PM
p.3 #14Zr - the review I was waiting for
ronno wrote:
Watch the videos man - that’s all we know.
Some of the clips are so soft that they look like they are out of focus (in several of the reviews).
The raw videos look sharp AF though.
Alistair1 wrote
Soft H.265 is puzzling, the Z6iii is very sharp as is Z8/9. Is it soft in 6k and 4k?I was hoping you would be able to answer that simple question so I didn't have to watch the wretched thing. Man.
Oct 15, 2025 at 12:44 PM
p.3 #15Zr - the review I was waiting for
bernardl wrote:
Alistair1 wrote
Soft H.265 is puzzling, the Z6iii is very sharp as is Z8/9. Is it soft in 6k and 4k?Possibly a pre-production firmware issue. We'll know for sure in a few weeks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, it indicates they have either wicked the NR right up or they are pixel binning. I don't know why they would be doing either as the Z6iii doesn't. It oversamples 4k H.265 right up to 60FPS and the footage is very sharp.
These matters are nearly always design choices made at time of release and it would be good to understand these better.
Oct 15, 2025 at 12:55 PM
p.3 #16Zr - the review I was waiting for
The people using the camera seem to think it's an over-aggressive NR issue - should be easy to fix.
Oct 15, 2025 at 02:00 PM
p.3 #17Zr - the review I was waiting for
ronno wrote:
The people using the camera seem to think it's an over-aggressive NR issue - should be easy to fix.
I am wondering what settings are available in camera to control this, if any, and what value they used.
None of the initial reviews of the camera had mentioned this soft H.265 footage. Possibly because they all were focusing on Red raw, possibly for other reasons.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oct 15, 2025 at 02:06 PM
p.3 #18Zr - the review I was waiting for
bernardl wrote:
I am wondering what settings are available in camera to control this, if any, and what value they used.
None of the initial reviews of the camera had mentioned this soft H.265 footage. Possibly because they all were focusing on Red raw, possibly for other reasons.
Cheers,
Bernard
This is why I titled this thread The review that I was waiting for…No one else was shooting H265…just drooling over red raw ;-).
There was one initial review that did - he said the h265 was soft but then later on said it was decent.
This thing will be out in the public by next week so we will all know for sure.
And I have no doubt that there will be firmware coming pronto.
ronno wrote
The people using the camera seem to think it's an over-aggressive NR issue - should be easy to fix.None of the initial reviews of the camera had mentioned this soft H.265 footage. Possibly because they all were focusing on Red raw, possibly for other reasons.
Cheers,
Bernard
This is why I titled this thread The review that I was waiting for…No one else was shooting H265…just drooling over red raw ;-).
There was one initial review that did - he said the h265 was soft but then later on said it was decent.
This thing will be out in the public by next week so we will all know for sure.
And I have no doubt that there will be firmware coming pronto.
Oct 15, 2025 at 02:32 PM
p.3 #19Zr - the review I was waiting for
ronno wrote:
bernardl wrote
ronno wrote
The people using the camera seem to think it's an over-aggressive NR issue - should be easy to fix.None of the initial reviews of the camera had mentioned this soft H.265 footage. Possibly because they all were focusing on Red raw, possibly for other reasons.
Cheers,
Bernard
There was one initial review that did - he said the h265 was soft but then later on said it was decent.
This thing will be out in the public by next week so we will all know for sure.
And I have no doubt that there will be firmware coming pronto.
Got it, but when a reviewer doesn’t mention something as basic as H.265 we don’t know whether it’s because they tested it and found nothing particular/interesting to say about it or because they didn’t test it.
Most tests of new cameras never speak about jpg image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oct 15, 2025 at 03:23 PM
p.3 #20Zr - the review I was waiting for
EB-1 wrote:
I prefer tests and reviews of the product gainst a fixed standard, not against another random product.
EBH
If you are serious about shooting video/cine on a mirrorless body, the Panny bodies kind of are a fixed standard.
I've long had a love for small (hybrid) box cameras with simple UI.
That started with the Canon EOS M and M2, later the Sigma FP, and now I'm drooling over this ZR.
ZR fixes essentially every issue I had with the FP (in theory), except now it appears you're left with two paths for video codec/format currently- "soft" H265 (which is probably better than most FF options cheaper than it?), or super high bitrate raw.
I am still a total noob when it comes to working with big video projects, I really need to start learning the workflow and improve my personal file archival system- but until i do either of those things, I have zero business thinking about getting an ZR when my ZF does just fine.
Regardless, I'll still be watching the ZR with a lot of interest!
Edited on Oct 15, 2025 at 04:20 PM · View previous versions
I prefer tests and reviews of the product gainst a fixed standard, not against another random product.
EBH
If you are serious about shooting video/cine on a mirrorless body, the Panny bodies kind of are a fixed standard.
I've long had a love for small (hybrid) box cameras with simple UI.
That started with the Canon EOS M and M2, later the Sigma FP, and now I'm drooling over this ZR.
ZR fixes essentially every issue I had with the FP (in theory), except now it appears you're left with two paths for video codec/format currently- "soft" H265 (which is probably better than most FF options cheaper than it?), or super high bitrate raw.
I am still a total noob when it comes to working with big video projects, I really need to start learning the workflow and improve my personal file archival system- but until i do either of those things, I have zero business thinking about getting an ZR when my ZF does just fine.
Regardless, I'll still be watching the ZR with a lot of interest!
Edited on Oct 15, 2025 at 04:20 PM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2025 at 04:07 PM