Nikon Z6 features 4K N-LOG, 10bit HDMI output and 120fps 1080p

[jonpais]

Just now, Stathman said:

Reading this lines crossed my mind if it would be ever possible to have waveforms on top lcd.

That would be something!

agreed.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

How many here have already pre-ordered the Nikon Z7 bundled with 24-70mm f/4 and FTZ adapter for $4,146.90? 

This immediately put me in mind of this scene from The Young Ones.

It has a lot of positives but the bald figures of the pricing might mean it doesn't translate into too many going all in on it.

It's too expensive.

[Django]

 

42 minutes ago, jonpais said:

How many here have already pre-ordered the Nikon Z7 bundled with 24-70mm f/4 and FTZ adapter for $4,146.90? I nearly got sticker shock when I bought my Sony lenses, but Nikon's pricing takes the cake!

A7RIII with 24-70mm f/4 will run you about $4,000. Add a smart adapter and you are well over that.

If you're into video Z6 is the obvious choice anyways.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.. Nikon is being extremely competitive in pricing compared to Sony.. considering you're getting pro weather sealed bodies, 10-bit 4:2:2 out etc..

 

[jonpais]

9 minutes ago, Django said:

Not sure what point you're trying to make.. 

The point I'm making is that the Nikon Z lenses are overpriced. 

14 minutes ago, Django said:

considering you're getting pro weather sealed bodies, 10-bit 4:2:2 out etc..

I don't see any mention of the lenses being weather sealed and if they're not, it's a moot point!

[Django]

..in that case so are the Sony's:

35mm F2.8 is $800

35mm F1.4 is $1,600

50mm F1.4 is $1,500

also the S-line is supposed to be optimized for video with minimum breathing & noise.

and with the adapter you got access to some really good affordable Nikkor glass, like the 50mm F1.2 i recently purchased for under $400

[jonpais]

8 minutes ago, Django said:

..in that case so are the Sony's:

35mm F2.8 is $800

35mm F1.4 is $1,600

50mm F1.4 is $1,500

also the S-line is supposed to be optimized for video with minimum breathing & noise.

and with the adapter you got access to some really good affordable Nikkor glass, like the 50mm F1.2 i recently purchased for under $400

I'll give you minimal breathing, but as the Nikon lenses aren't linear, that's also a moot point. Not great for video. Practically unusable for repeatable results.

And I thought we were comparing the slow Nikon lenses that feel insubstantial in the hand, not the pro f/1.4 Sony lenses.

Apples to apples, as they say!

And I thought I already addressed your point about Nikon's lenses not being weather sealed. What good is it if the body is weather sealed, but the lens isn't? So I don't see how that justifies the exorbitant price tag of their new lenses...

In fact, Sony's 24-70mm f/4 has optical stabilization and runs $200 less!

And I'm glad you got a deal on a used lens, but we're discussing new lenses here.

[Django]

Huh? The Nikon Z lenses are absolutely weather sealed.. please get your info correct

[jonpais]

12 minutes ago, Django said:

Huh? The Nikon Z lenses are absolutely weather sealed.. please get your info correct

My information is correct. Sony lenses are also dust and moisture resistant. We all know what that means - keep them out of the rain!

Sony's 24-70mm f/4: Dust- and moisture-sealed design better permits working in inclement conditions and rubberized control rings benefit handling in colder temperatures.

Advantage Sony: +2 (lower cost, OSS)

Advantage Nikon: -2 (higher cost, no OIS)

[Django]

sorry but everybody knows Nikon is on a whole other level of weather resistance then Sony..

 

 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

12 minutes ago, jonpais said:

My information is correct. Sony lenses are also dust and moisture resistant. We all know what that means - keep them out of the rain!

Sony's 24-70mm f/4: Dust- and moisture-sealed design better permits working in inclement conditions and rubberized control rings benefit handling in colder temperatures.

Advantage Sony: +2 (lower cost, OSS)

Advantage Nikon: -2 (higher cost, no OIS)

Sony's 24-70/4 isn't exactly a top performer optically, though...and based on their DSLR f/4 zooms, I would be pretty confident buying Nikon's. Curious to see proper reviews of it and their other lenses, though.

[jonpais]

Just now, Django said:

sorry but everybody knows Nikon is on a whole other level of weather resistance then Sony..

Django - take a deep breath.

We aren't discussing bodies. The topic today is lenses.

You said Nikon's lenses are weather sealed and worth every penny. (okay, slight exaggeration!)

I contend that Sony's 24-70mm f/4 is not only more affordable, but has the very useful feature of optical image stabilization.

[Django]

Newsflash: Body & Lenses are weather resistance tested together. Think about it, doesn't make sense any other way..

FYI the Sony 24-70mm F4 isn't close to this level of weather sealing (it has no rubberized gasket around the mount)..

[TheRenaissanceMan]

5 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I contend that Sony's 24-70mm f/4 is not only more affordable, but has the very useful feature of optical image stabilization.

It's $200 cheaper. Not exactly in a different price category. 

And OSS isn't a critical feature when all your bodies have IBIS. Plus, the the Zeiss 24-70/4 isn't exactly blowing the doors off for optical performance.

On a separate note, Jon, I don't think anyone appreciates the condescending attitude. 

[jonpais]

We can say this or that doesn't matter, it doesn't change the fact that the Nikon is $200 (25%) more: which is significant to me.

Maybe it's loose change to you.

And many Sony users find that OSS does make a difference.

For example, I've seen many reviews of the Batis 85mm f/1.8 in which the reviewer has nothing but praise for the optical stabilization.

6 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

It's $200 cheaper. Not exactly in a different price category. 

And OSS isn't a critical feature when all your bodies have IBIS. Plus, the optical performance of the Zeiss 24-70/4 isn't exactly blowing the doors off for optical performance.

On a separate note, Jon, I don't think anyone appreciates the condescending attitude. 

 

[anonim]

But what's the point - or what urgent need is - about discussing Z7 price at the topic entitled as "Nikon Z6... features 4K N-LOG, 10bit HDMI output and 120fps 1080p"?

[Django]

Basically the point is no matter what you say or prove to him:  Sony > Nikon. 

I've already been through it once back when XH1 was announced. Back then GH5 was the holy one.

 

[wolf33d]

1 hour ago, Django said:

 

A7RIII with 24-70mm f/4 will run you about $4,000. Add a smart adapter and you are well over that.

If you're into video Z6 is the obvious choice anyways.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.. Nikon is being extremely competitive in pricing compared to Sony.. considering you're getting pro weather sealed bodies, 10-bit 4:2:2 out etc..

 

Sure. With pro lens pricing. And maybe pro battery life, pro 1 card slot

For stills if I did not mind of the above I would buy a Z instead of Alpha because Nikon sensor tweak is always a tad better and for ergonomics. But for video, let’s be honest guys, the A7S III will be miles ahead of both the A7III and those Nikon. And because the A7S line is more niche, Nikon won’t bother compete here.

[mercer]

Haha, I think Jon has had discussions with his own posts arguing that the a7iii is better than the GH5. ?

[anonim]

3 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

let’s be honest guys, the A7S III will be miles ahead of both the A7III and those Nikon. And because the A7S line is more niche, Nikon won’t bother compete here.

Yes, I desperately strive always to be honest (but so often lack)... where is A7S III? 

[Django]

Lol.. ok now were defending an unannounced hypothetical future camera.. wow the force is strong with this one!