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

[Kisaha]

The 24 vs 28mm for a workhorse zoom is a pretty serious subject for me.

Those 4mm at the wide end are very important for my shooting style, can make the difference having a small group of people in events and ceremonies, to have only a couple (or three).

With all those high sensitive sensors, 4f for a workhorse zoom lens isn't that bad, especially for people that value size and weight more than a stop of light.

5 years ago, it could be a deal breaker but not now. Even back then, I know a lot of people that choose 4f Canon lenses (especially the 70-200) for their C100 cameras and that was mostly to save in weight and size (the difference is staggering), and additional costs to rigs and tripods (a Sachtler Ace is sufficient, for anything bigger people look at a much higher FSB range which literally doubles, or more, the cost of the tripod/head kit).

This applies to the excellent - for their miniscule price - Sony 18-105, Canon 18-135, that I always find lacking in the wide end, while I enjoy working with the Olympus 12-100 (even though 4f for a m43 sensor is a bit limited), Samsung S 16-50 (which is a unique 2-2.8f zoom) while Fuji has an 16-70(or 80?) 4f zoom ready to launch, which I guess it is coming to satisfy more their hybrid/video crowd (which was non existant a couple of years ago!).

[BasiliskFilm]

48 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

The 24 vs 28mm for a workhorse zoom is a pretty serious subject for me.

Those 4mm at the wide end are very important for my shooting style, can make the difference having a small group of people in events and ceremonies, to have only a couple (or three).

With all those high sensitive sensors, 4f for a workhorse zoom lens isn't that bad, especially for people that value size and weight more than a stop of light.

5 years ago, it could be a deal breaker but not now. Even back then, I know a lot of people that choose 4f Canon lenses (especially the 70-200) for their C100 cameras and that was mostly to save in weight and size (the difference is staggering), and additional costs to rigs and tripods (a Sachtler Ace is sufficient, for anything bigger people look at a much higher FSB range which literally doubles, or more, the cost of the tripod/head kit).

This applies to the excellent - for their miniscule price - Sony 18-105, Canon 18-135, that I always find lacking in the wide end, while I enjoy working with the Olympus 12-100 (even though 4f for a m43 sensor is a bit limited), Samsung S 16-50 (which is a unique 2-2.8f zoom) while Fuji has an 16-70(or 80?) 4f zoom ready to launch, which I guess it is coming to satisfy more their hybrid/video crowd (which was non existant a couple of years ago!).

The 24-70 lens may actually be perfect for on the hoof gimbal/handheld shooting where f4 may give you a better chance of keeping focus, and a moving camera/subject provides for better background separation than a static shot.

[Kisaha]

Just now, BasiliskFilm said:

The 24-70 lens may actually be perfect for on the hoof gimbal/handheld shooting where f4 may give you a better chance of keeping focus, and a moving camera/subject provides for better background separation than a static shot.

Certainly, even when using faster lenses in full frame, I usually step down to 4f/5.6f anyway, even on static shots.

As I said before, even in m43 4f is usable for most things, especially on the new dual ISO sensors (I have to admit that ISO performance is much narrower on a GH5).

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, Kisaha said:

With all those high sensitive sensors, 4f for a workhorse zoom lens isn't that bad, especially for people that value size and weight more than a stop of light.

5 years ago, it could be a deal breaker but not now. Even back then, I know a lot of people that choose 4f Canon lenses (especially the 70-200) for their C100 cameras and that was mostly to save in weight and size (the difference is staggering), and additional costs to rigs and tripods (a Sachtler Ace is sufficient, for anything bigger people look at a much higher FSB range which literally doubles, or more, the cost of the tripod/head kit).

 This applies to the excellent - for their miniscule price - Sony 18-105, Canon 18-135, that I always find lacking in the wide end, while I enjoy working with the Olympus 12-100 (even though 4f for a m43 sensor is a bit limited), Samsung S 16-50 (which is a unique 2-2.8f zoom) while Fuji has an 16-70(or 80?) 4f zoom ready to launch, which I guess it is coming to satisfy more their hybrid/video crowd (which was non existant a couple of years ago!).

Yeah the 24-105mm f4 is one of the most popular workhorse lenses there is for Canon shooters. (and even with its flaw of dimming quite a lot at 105mm)

Hopefully Nikon brings its Nikon 24-120mm F4 F mount lens to Z mount in the near future. 

[noone]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 12:39 PM, thebrothersthre3 said:

Who needs faster than 1.8 on full frame anyways?

It isn't AS needed as it used to be but there are still some needs/uses for faster glass.

IE if you are in REALLY low light, it can mean the difference between a useable ISO or not so (again, later FF cameras can go a lot higher than before).

If you are in fairly low light and need a faster shutter speed, having super fast glass can be of use.

Remember, even an F0.95 lens can have infinite DOF if the subject is far enough away (and why I think a lot of aerial photography medium format lens were very fast for their focal lengths for instance).

I like using fast lenses FF though I do tend to stop them down a bit for most uses (FD 85 1.2 L I would mostly use around f2) but it can be just nice to have a choice.

[Mark Romero 2]

14 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I bet we won't see 10bit in a mirrorless from Sony within the next six months, got to protect their FS5/FS7/Venice!

Sadly, I think you might be right about that.

[IronFilm]

 

https://***URL removed***/articles/8063289145/nikon-z6-video-footage-outshines-z7-simialr-to-a7-iii

Without any deep dive into the 10bit Z log output from the Z6 then  can't possibly call the Z6 video footage to be "similar" to the a7 mk3 when the Sony 8bit video falls so far short of the Nikon in that area. 

[liork]

But in realty, the Sony 8 bit video does not fall far short of the Nikon...

[IronFilm]

17 minutes ago, liork said:

But in realty, the Sony 8 bit video does not fall far short of the Nikon...

Only when you're comparing 8bit vs 8bit internal

[gethin]

well here's one of those things you wont find out till you've been setting it up for an hour or so: you cant have focus peaking and zebras on at the same time.

this is a very typical nikon snafu. I read someone on a forum saying they'll probably fix it in a firmware update. They obviously didn't know nikon either. 

Its also quite simple compared to the a7iii and gh5. no bitrates to select or curves to alter, no vectorscopes or kitchen sinks. This is probably a good thing on the whole.  I shot today with someone elses a7iii and we couldn't figure out how to get it into aperture priority mode whilst in a custom menu setting.  Lol  

I'm gagging to take it out shooting...

[ND64]

Slovenia

I should visit this country.

 

 

[Mattias Burling]

On 11/17/2018 at 10:47 PM, thebrothersthre3 said:

I doubt it 

It's a fact. Not anything to doubt. Otherwise they wouldn't make them.

9 hours ago, noone said:

It isn't AS needed as it used to be but there are still some needs/uses for faster glass.

IE if you are in REALLY low light, it can mean the difference between a useable ISO or not so (again, later FF cameras can go a lot higher than before).

If you are in fairly low light and need a faster shutter speed, having super fast glass can be of use.

Remember, even an F0.95 lens can have infinite DOF if the subject is far enough away (and why I think a lot of aerial photography medium format lens were very fast for their focal lengths for instance).

I like using fast lenses FF though I do tend to stop them down a bit for most uses (FD 85 1.2 L I would mostly use around f2) but it can be just nice to have a choice.

This guy gets it

On 11/18/2018 at 4:58 AM, KnightsFan said:

People who shoot 4k on an eos R.

I never shoot 4K on it but could you explain why it's extra needed on the EOS-R? 

I find the iso very satisfying and don't see why it needs more lighr than any other camera.

[liork]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Only when you're comparing 8bit vs 8bit internal

Have you compared external Sony 8 bit vs Nikon 10 bit and saw a big difference?

[JurijTurnsek]

43 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

Slovenia

I should visit this country.

 

If you fancy going from the seaside to some hiking in the scenic Alps in a single day, you definitely should. It's a small country and you can basically travel  between the furthest parts of the country in less than 3 hours of driving and the diversity of terrain is amazing. 

[webrunner5]

The whole country is mostly mountainous. Beautiful place though.

 

[Kisaha]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

The whole country is mostly mountainous. Beautiful place though.

 

Ah!!! The Balkans! My own country is at the southest end of Europe. 

13.676Khm of coast line, more than the United Kingdom, and a little bit less than China (14.500, U.S has 19.000Khm) and a few thousands of islands!

[KnightsFan]

6 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I never shoot 4K on it but could you explain why it's extra needed on the EOS-R? 

I find the iso very satisfying and don't see why it needs more lighr than any other camera

It was mainly a joke, but smaller surface area means less signal (or more noise, depending on how you look at it), and wider lenses means deeper DOF.

Jokes aside, in some scenarios ultra fast lenses are needed--regardless of how sensitive your sensor is. I don't shoot at f1.4 very often, but it's great to have that option.

[Kisaha]

14 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

It was mainly a joke, but smaller surface area means less signal (or more noise, depending on how you look at it), and wider lenses means deeper DOF.

Jokes aside, in some scenarios ultra fast lenses are needed--regardless of how sensitive your sensor is. I don't shoot at f1.4 very often, but it's great to have that option.

Ofcourse are needed, and we all have a few fast primes.

Personally, I was reffering to zoom lenses, and I explain further.

EF 70-200

2.8f = 89x20089x200mn and 1500gr

4f =80x176mm, 780gr and 1000€ less (which is a lot of money in Europe).

A lot of people can, and do choose, the second option, saving 700+gr in the bag (and their back), 1000euros, and cheaper and lighter tripods, e.t.c. 

 

[webrunner5]

Everyone on here and in the world would have, own, the fastest lens any camera manufacturer makes if money was no object. Camera company's know this. Half the reason they even make them. The other reason is 52 Olympic shooters. But those days are just about gone. They use Smartphones for most newspaper stuff where I live now, and cheap consumer camcorders. Same with TV stations here for the most part. Even the Cincinnati Bengals, Red-legs teams for TV use camcorders that cost less than 10 grand on the field now. Portable, light weight, easy to use, and well cheap to buy. And the output is as good as the old high dollar stuff was. Even better to be honest. Money is tight everywhere..

[Danyyyel]

The thing is that for photo I can understand shooting at these type of apertures like 1.4 because even if you get 1 out of every 2-5 photos in focus it is ok. There is no continuity in photography, you can do 10 out of focus image, if you get one it is ok, more so in our digital world where you can take hundreds if not thousand of photos during an event. While in video you need continuity, you would need at 5 to 10 second for every scene , and unless you are shooting static subject it is near impossible to keep your subject in focus during those take, more so when using FF. For example I do interviews at least at F4 with FF at about chest level and it is still problematic. The person just has to move some cm in front and the focus is gone, so he just as most people move little bit in front or back as he is talking and gets out of focus. If it is only for some fraction of second it is ok, but if half your interview it is the case then it is a big problem.

The second thing is what I would translate as subject attachment to his surrounding. Just after the large sensor revolution with the 5d ten years ago there was that craze to use very shallow death of field that your subject is like floating in an abstract universe that was completely blurry. That's why sometime I think that cine 35 mm was perhaps the rel best medium, because it gave you enough shallow DOF for subject separation and nice bokeh, but not that crazy that it becomes artificial.