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

[BasiliskFilm]

2 hours ago, Nikkor said:

It's not like af-d lenses could be used in continuous video af, the noise is tremendous.

Yes it would be nice to have compatibility for stills, but noise and focus juddering would be no use for video AF.  On the other hand my AI/S lenses should be fine - I think there is still aperture coupling on the adaptor?

Ironically the main reason I would dither is actually to do with Tamron. The new E mount 28-75 f2.8 looks for an excellent base configuration for budget run-and-gun use on the A7III. Will there be a Nikon version? The 24-70 f4 looks fine but a bit unexciting.

 

[hansel]

2 hours ago, BasiliskFilm said:

 On the other hand my AI/S lenses should be fine - I think there is still aperture coupling on the adaptor?

Has anyone seen that ominous list of 200-300 lenses suitable?!?

[Geoff CB]

4 hours ago, BasiliskFilm said:

Yes it would be nice to have compatibility for stills, but noise and focus juddering would be no use for video AF.  On the other hand my AI/S lenses should be fine - I think there is still aperture coupling on the adaptor?

Ironically the main reason I would dither is actually to do with Tamron. The new E mount 28-75 f2.8 looks for an excellent base configuration for budget run-and-gun use on the A7III. Will there be a Nikon version? The 24-70 f4 looks fine but a bit unexciting.

 

Having tried out the 28-75 and the Nikon 24-70 F4, I would say that the only thing better on the Tamron is the F-stop. 

Unfortunately there is not an aperture lever on the adapter.

 

[wolf33d]

1 hour ago, Geoff CB said:

Having tried out the 28-75 and the Nikon 24-70 F4, I would say that the only thing better on the Tamron is the F-stop. 

Unfortunately there is not an aperture lever on the adapter.

 

The 28-75 is terrific. Terrific IQ and price, for the weight of a F4. 

For me it makes it the best lens I have ever used. I can travel and go in the mountain with a light set up. When Tamron releases a E mount 15-28 that is also very light it will be the first real combo beating by a big margin the DSLR combo in term of weight. 
When you see the IQ/weight of the Sony 12-24 compared to DSLRs you start to understand the benefit of short flange distance for wide angle lenses. 

Having a 2.8 wide angle + standard zoom at such weight + the low weight of mirrorless body is a real plus for me. 

The 24-70 F4 I don't even touch it. Why not use a GH5 with 12-35mm then? gives you same DoF, better light .... The point of FF in video is chasing some specific looks. F4 on FF is an absurdity for me. You have all the cons. Except for stills where in the case of landscape you shoot at F11 anyway and benefit a lot from higher DR and so on. But in 8 bit video, well not so much. 

[Mattias Burling]

Imo buying a 24-70/4 for a FF makes more sense than buying a totally different camera just for that focal range. Kinda diminish the point of an interchangeable lens camera.

[Castorp]

Tried a Z7 today. It feels extremely good. Also the 24-70 lens feels great, better than my Fujinon 16-55 2.8. All the buttons and controls feel incredibly good. The joystick and AF ON button are in perfect place and well sized. Usable with winter gloves. The shutter release feels fantastic. The sound of the shutter is also really great. If the Z6 feels as good, which it should considering the body is exactly the same, it’s a home run. 

Pre-ordered. 

[webrunner5]

17 minutes ago, Castorp said:

Tried a Z7 today. It feels extremely good. Also the 24-70 lens feels great, better than my Fujinon 16-55 2.8. All the buttons and controls feel incredibly good. The joystick and AF ON button are in perfect place and well sized. Usable with winter gloves. The shutter release feels fantastic. The sound of the shutter is also really great. If the Z6 feels as good, which it should considering the body is exactly the same, it’s a home run. 

Pre-ordered. 

Yeah Nikon sure does know how to build a really good body that is for sure. Even back in my film days they just stood out from the rest of the pack on ergonomics body wise. And their lenses were top notch. Great company.

[gethin]

On 9/24/2018 at 9:37 PM, jonpais said:

I don’t envy Nikon and Canon shooters who’ve got to decide whether to keep buying DSLR lenses or hold out for the mirrorless versions.

that assumes we can afford to buy lenses.

But actually I imagine theres a lot of people like me who have 2 systems.  In theory - if the vid is up to it - it will enable me to sell my panasonic gear (2 cameras, 2 lenses, speedbooster, plus 3 apsc nikon lenses that I used with adaptors, plus 2 apsc nikon bodies).   The only lens I've got my eye on at the mo is next years 14-30.   

[jonpais]

10 minutes ago, gethin said:

that assumes we can afford to buy lenses.

But actually I imagine theres a lot of people like me who have 2 systems.  In theory - if the vid is up to it - it will enable me to sell my panasonic gear (2 cameras, 2 lenses, speedbooster, plus 3 apsc nikon lenses that I used with adaptors, plus 2 apsc nikon bodies).   The only lens I've got my eye on at the mo is next years 14-30.   

Theoretically speaking, if you haven’t already ordered, I wouldn’t expect to be holding the Z6 until 2020. Unless you’re willing to pay a scalper.. ?

[jonpais]

Sigma issues official statement confirming adaptability on Z7 with FTZ adapter. 

 

[Mark Romero 2]

2 hours ago, gethin said:

that assumes we can afford to buy lenses.

But actually I imagine theres a lot of people like me who have 2 systems.  In theory - if the vid is up to it - it will enable me to sell my panasonic gear (2 cameras, 2 lenses, speedbooster, plus 3 apsc nikon lenses that I used with adaptors, plus 2 apsc nikon bodies).   The only lens I've got my eye on at the mo is next years 14-30.   

Are you mostly shooting real estate (like me)???

If so, have you checked out Matt Rosendahl's work with the a7 III?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoKNd-cLR8u2C2zXh4A696g

He's using the a7 III and the 16-35 f/4 on a (rather expensive) Movi M5 Gimbal. His results are pretty impressive:

 

Anyway, if you are mostly shooting real estate (like me) it just MIGHT be the best hybrid camera for RE until the Z6 is actually available in the real world.

Of course, the new Panasonic FF might be better so there you have it, and there is supposed to be a new Sony APS-C camera releasing soon, so there is that.

I think the Tamron 28-75 is kind of a game changer for us people who liked Sony but were dismayed by the lens selection and pricing.

[Danyyyel]

Some AF video stabilization test. I those videos, the AF looks very very good (I mean as if using tripod), stabilization looks very good  from a standpoint but I dont know what to say about the only walking I saw. It doesn't look good, but I don't know if someday I would walk like this shooting a video. People who have been using more IBIS might have a better idea if it is good or bad.

In this one you have those walking stabilized shots, AF sometime is sick in this thing

 

another more general video test of z7

 

[Geoff CB]

43 minutes ago, Danyyyel said:

Some AF video stabilization test. I those videos, the AF looks very very good (I mean as if using tripod), stabilization looks very good  from a standpoint but I dont know what to say about the only walking I saw. It doesn't look good, but I don't know if someday I would walk like this shooting a video. People who have been using more IBIS might have a better idea if it is good or bad.

In this one you have those walking stabilized shots, AF sometime is sick in this thing

 

another more general video test of z7

 

Looks like in addition to the IBIS they have much improved their electronic stabilization, did not expect that. 

[Emanuel]

On 9/24/2018 at 10:01 PM, wolf33d said:

 F4 on FF is an absurdity for me.

As much as f/2 on MFT or f/2.4 on APS-C

(Fuji users tend to appreciate their 16-55mm f/2.8... but I second that one, man ; )

In any case, my 24-105 f/4 is one of my favs ever : -)

[wolf33d]

7 hours ago, Emanuel said:

As much as f/2 on MFT or f/2.4 on APS-C

Not really. At least they got more light. 

F/4 is slow, and not bokelicious. And it is still heavy and big because it's FF. Really, I don't see the point of F/4 on FF. 
Try the 28-75mm 2.8 tamron on A7III. With video APSC crop it goes to 105mm as well, it's cheaper, better, faster, lighter. And to have equivalent DoF on M43 you would need a 14-35 F1.4 !! Which does not exist. Here you have the real advantage of FF. Not with a garbage 24-70mm F4. I would rather have a GH5 with 12-35mm 2.8 then. More light, way lighter... almost same DoF

[Emanuel]

29 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

Not really. At least they got more light.

How come?! You'll exactly have the same DOF as much as f/4 you have going with FF. 

29 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

F/4 is slow, and not bokelicious. And it is still heavy and big because it's FF. Really, I don't see the point of F/4 on FF. 
Try the 28-75mm 2.8 tamron on A7III. With video APSC crop it goes to 105mm as well, it's cheaper, better, faster, lighter. And to have equivalent DoF on M43 you would need a 14-35 F1.4 !! Which does not exist. Here you have the real advantage of FF. Not with a garbage 24-70mm F4. I would rather have a GH5 with 12-35mm 2.8 then. More light, way lighter... almost same DoF

12-35mm f/2.8 is lighter but slower comparing with FF where you have +2 stops of difference, so f/4 (FF) it is still 1-stop faster (35mm equivalent).

You show to handle all that in your math though... so?! : -)

Ah, you mean, lighter? Mirrorless is lighter.

Go figure when you'll put your hands in your glass for the new large format by Panasonic... Weren't you so enthusiastic about the idea? ; -)

[wolf33d]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

How come?! You'll exactly have the same DOF as much as f/4 you have going with FF. 

12-35mm f/2.8 is lighter but slower comparing with FF where you have +2 stops of difference, so f/4 (FF) it is still 1-stop faster (35mm equivalent).

You show to handle all that in your math though... so?! : -)

Ah, you mean, lighter? Mirrorless is lighter.

Go figure when you'll put your hands in your glass for the new large format by Panasonic... Weren't you so enthusiastic about the idea? ; -)

Man, try the tamron on A73 and let me know if you ever use again a 24-105 f4 on this camera.

as for the “how come” : same dof yes but 2.8 gives you more light than 4 whichever sensor you use. 

I am not defending M43, I think it’s shit anyway. As is F4 zoom on FF

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Man, try the tamron on A73 and let me know if you ever use again a 24-105 f4 on this camera.

as for the “how come” : same dof yes but 2.8 gives you more light than 4 whichever sensor you use. 

I am not defending M43, I think it’s shit anyway. As is F4 zoom on FF

Ah your focus is not light tools but the amount of light arriving to the sensor whatever size is. However, your contradictory 'the larger the better' motto trumps : D

I am still puzzled, mate... ; )

Only to answer your question, aside ergonomics, weight, focal length range or any other options to make, I tend to use the best choice to serve my purpose. If some tool fits the job, why some other? No special love for MFT. Lightweight may serve better though. I see photography as it is: a combo of factors, not stuck to obsessions, FF or wherever they suit. Unfortunately, FF is (only) one of them. I love large formats. But not underestimating the sciences of light and shooting where convenience stands.

 

OK, last but not least, following your style: do you know the only reason why I am just looking for Z7 Mark II?

Yes, because I don't disregard resolution at all as hybrid all included (let one of fine obsessions for large format printing flow at least LOL).

4K/60fps. We might call it obsession. I'd rather see it as mandatory instead. As you know, I am not alone on that one, isn't it?

[thebrothersthre3]

F4 on full frame is pretty good tbh, for most situations. Especially when you can use 6400 and 12800 iso.

[webrunner5]

14 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

F4 on full frame is pretty good tbh, for most situations. Especially when you can use 6400 and 12800 iso.

Yeah other than DoF control Needing a fast lens for low light is a thing of the past anymore with most newer cameras. And even f 4.0 is not too shabby on a FF camera DoF wise. Why haul around a heavy big lens unless you are doing some damn specific shots. And then you need to be on a tripod locked off to ensure it is in focus to hit the mark. You aren't hand holding a f 0.95 lens and hoping it gets the shot! Also you would have to be in a coal mine or have ND's to stay with the 180 rule. But nobody ever said video was cheap or easy to do. ?