Ilkka Nissila

I think the mechanical systems that allow the back LCD to tilt behind the optical axis as well as opening to the left for selfie orientation are more complicated and require more parts than what Nikon is using in the ZR, and this would make the camera heavier, larger, and more expensive (would make it less attractive for many people, and it might not solve the problem it currently solves). Higher-end models will no doubt be made over time with different solutions to how the LCD turns into different orientations. The Z8 and Z9 offer a screen which does not tilt forwards (selfie orientation) but it does retain the LCD approximately on the optical axis.

I could never understand the "accelerated" manual focusing, it makes things just more difficult and unpredictable. Nikon fortunately have firmware updates to most of the S-line lenses (exception: 14-24/2.8) that feature what people call linear manual focusing (I'm not really sure what is linear in it, what it does is make focus ring position and focus distance correspond to each other in a bijective relationship at least within the power cycle of the camera). What's even nicer is that you can choose how much you have to turn to achieve a given focus change, so it is adoptable for different users and needs. I think the focus by wire should never have been accelerated by default in any lens. As for the priority on autofocus, mirrorless so-called hybrid cameras and their lenses are a bit more (still) photography-oriented than video, and so the needs of the stills shooters come first in most models. Autofocus is very useful when you want consistent focus on the eye, for example, or when shooting action subjects (again, stills). For some things (such as when multiple subjects at different distances have to be sharp in the frame, and the best way to achieve this is to focus in between them) manual focus is better but manufacturers chose to prioritize ease of use than the needs of skilled users. Lenses with mechanical manual focus are of course available, natively and via adapters, for those who prioritise MF.

Since RED says the colorimetry and gains are different in R3D NE vs. N-RAW, this seems to support that. Nikon traditionally has done a white balance adjustment before storing the values in the RAW file, and the raw conversion software has to know what processing has been applied in order to correct the WB. My guess is that RED might not do that (to preserve consistency across the different cameras storing R3D files) and so the colors are different in the different raw formats. RED also does not adjust sensor gain between intermediate ISO settings, as far as storing values in the raw file is concerned, apart from the two base ISOs, if I understood this correctly, and this approach is also used in the ZR R3D NE. Nikon applies different gains to the data also at intermediate ISO values when storing data in N-RAW files. So, the two formats work somewhat differently and are intended for different postprocessing pipelines.

I've had good experiences with Prores 422 HQ on Z8, and am thinking the same, why don't tubers test and show the results in their comparisons? While the data rate is quite high (note that Nikon has stated they will add Prores 422 LT to the ZR in a FW update) it is a video file for which in-camera distortion and vignetting corrections available and there is some noise reduction in play as well. Cined has tested it it is included in the database and it seems from the numbers that the camera in Prores HQ mode applies less noise reduction to high ISO files than h.265. It seems like a good compromise and if the LT version comes soon it might turn minds.

Panasonic is reading the sensor slower in both the normal and DR boost modes, explaining how they can get more DR out of it than Nikon in their implementation. It may or may not be the same sensor. In any case Nikon's compromise is different from Panasonic's and these are both legitimate choices. The ZR was under development before Nikon acquired RED and what RED know-how they added in this camera is likely in the firmware (and post-processing support in the R3D NE format pipeline). In cined's testing the latitude test shows better retention of color across exposure adjustments in post-processing when using the R3D NE than N-RAW and so it would seem that the RED acquisition already paid off for Nikon to become more competitive in the video arena, and this is not just marketing if it benefits users. What Nikon should do now is try to make the h.265 a bit more competitive so that more people who cannot handle the raw data rates can still benefit from the camera. It would be very costly for everyone to shoot everything in R3D NE to get benefits from the camera. I personally am looking forward to seeing some Prores 422 HQ material shot with the camera and see how that fares in comparison with the Z8.

Is there somewhere where we can see an example of this problem vs. another camera with a better implementation of h.265? I think it's understandable that when a highly compressed video codec is used, there is noticeable quality loss and the manufacturer is trying to mitigate this with some algorithmic processing of the data. Is it really the case that the quality of the h.265 is worse than in a previous model from Panasonic or another camera in a similar price class, or could it be a case of increasing expectations over time as we see high-quality footage using better screens more often?

How about Prores 422? Prores 422 4K at 25 fps is 433 Mbps vs. 2.3Gbps Prores RAW 6K (normal) and 3.5Gbps for Prores RAW HQ. I would think the Prores 422 on the S1II is likely to be a good intermediate sized format between RAW and h.265, at least from my Nikon experience the quality should be very good.

While I think it would make sense for hybrid cameras to offer similar "looks" across photos and video for easier presentation together, I am not really sure storing photos in log format makes sense. First, while linear encoding would waste bits due to the highlight photon shot noise making the least significant bits meaningless, this has already been corrected in compressed raw file formats such as Nikon's (technically lossy but visually lossless) compressed NEF. If I recall correctly, Nikon simply leaves out the LSBs in highlight pixels, thus saving storage space. In log video mode, cameras bias the exposure metering to produce about three stops of underexposure compared to normal SDR photos, and this leads to a lot of noise in the main subject (if there is one). It may not be such an issue for video because in video you can do temporal noise reduction which you cannot do for photos since they're individual frames with different content in each image. Usually in still photography, people want the main subject to have the highest possible image quality, and exposure metering algorithms typically emphasize the detected or selected subject and only secondarily protect highlights from blowing out. I still almost always increase midtones in post-processing by a curves adjustment, reducing highlight contrast and bringing the subject (midtones) up in brightness. For scenes that require a large dynamic range, many photographers I know of shoot a set of bracketed frames in order to ensure high SNR for each major part of the image and then merge the images with masks or other such techniques (depending on the subject). For video, exposure blending with masks is not possible but some automated DR-enhancement methods that blend two amplification levels exist in a few cameras (dual gain output). While the idea of having highlight exposure latitude is appealing, it comes at a cost in the midtone and shadow SNR and I think many still photographers would consider the outcome to be of poor quality compared to what they are used to. It's also the case that many if not most (?) still photographers use Auto ISO and manual exposure mode as their go-to exposure mode and they expect the camera in most cases to set the ISO precisely to get close to the desired brightness for the main subject as they are shooting. I often set the camera to ISO 100 or 64 and Auto ISO, lettting the camera vary ISO from 64 to 12800 to get the exposure correct and the photos near usable as they come out of the camera with minimal tweaking. This won't work for log as most of the ISO settings are unusable in log given the 3 stop underexposure built-into the approach. Yes, you can apply +2-3 stops of EV correction and then get similar results to linear modes but then the exposures on the screen will look off and it's harder to see the subject and get the correct feeling of the scene and how it would render in the photograph. I just don't see this going anywhere outside of a few filmmakers wanting look-matched still photos when video is their primary output. Still photographers outside of agency photojournalism shoot raw and that's that for the most part.

In still photography, the storage space issue for RAW is less pressing than in video and since each still image can be studied for a long time (at least in print) people can pay more attention to quality (and photographers can afford more time into editing of individual frames with masks etc. while in video it would be extremely tedious to make exposure blending or other manually drawn mask based operations on a frame by frame basis). In the early years of digital system cameras, the difference between RAW and JPEG was more obvious and people got used to RAW because the image details were better and of course the files are more editable. For video, I suspect that RAW usage will be more limited to high end where there are professional colorists etc. and occasional shooters who don't shoot a huge quantity of material. But maybe I am wrong. 😉

Different post-processing pipelines and their settings for N-RAW and R3D NE may be what is causing such differences and not necessarily different primary data in the file, unless the person making the video actually used the renaming hack. However, of course it is possible that the data are different in the files. However, sharpening images and storing them in the raw format makes no sense as the images are not in RGB format at that time. Sharpening in that phase could mess up the colors so I doubt they are doing it.

In an unregulated state, all the money will go to the owners of the AI built on stolen data (from creatives without compensation) and no working person will have money. It'll be like the 1920s again, and remember the tariffs then made the US depression spread worldwide, leading eventually to World War II. After which a period of relative decency began, until the 1980s where all the money more and more were given to the fewest of people, leading eventually to Brexit, Trump, the Russia-Ukraine war. All of these phenomena since the 1980s happened because the multimillionaires and billionaires want to have all the money and keep it too. Adapting is the same as capitulation which makes working people the equivalent of slaves. All the money will go to the techno-oligarchs and their criminal politician friends. The only way to solve the problem is to make AI models based on stolen data illegal and erase them or give due compensation to the creators of the original teaching data that was used to make the model, and tax billionaires so that they end up with only the money that a decent life requires. This would restore fairness and decency in society and good lives to ordinary people.

8K50p N-RAW Normal is 362 MB/s. Comparisons between different codecs at different frame rates doesn't make much sense since frame rate is usually specified by the application and not used just to fill a data rate quota. h.265 is available on the ZR.

So is the High ISO NR item in the Video recording menu grayed-out when selecting h.265?

It's only a 1:2 difference. You can get similar file sizes from Prores 422 HQ 4K as N-RAW Normal 6K, and the Prores looks gorgeous at least from the Z8; I would expect the same from the ZR. There could be an issue though if you want 50 or 60 fps then the quality may not be as good from the ZR as it is with the Z8 (due to lack of support of extended oversampling).

The R3D NE is only available in bitrates similar to N-RAW high quality, not normal, which is what many people seem to be complaining about.