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

[thebrothersthre3]

6 minutes ago, Danyyyel said:

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.

You can always shoot further away from the subject and get a longer DOF even with a 1.8 on full frame. But yeah its pretty impractical for close ups outside of specialty situations. Most people aren't going to need 1.4 on full frame in photo or video. 

[noone]

That depends on the subject, distance to subject and focal length.

If you are shooting a macro video of insects, you will have the same problem even at f8 or so with m43.

If you are shooting a video of the stars, an f0.95 lens or faster will stay in focus and the same for shooting video of the ground from a plane I would think.

A sports video with a 300 2.8 lens could be kept in focus by better shooters (certainly not me) as there can be ample DOF and the same if you are shooting a stage show from the back of the room.

There ARE lots of situations when too fast due to being too shallow DOF would not be nice but there are still plenty of times when it is nice to have and of course lots of people will shoot static scenes too.

You don't HAVE to use it if you have got it but you can not use it if you don't have it.

I also think a lot comes down to how lenses have been made.

I think a lot of the faster legacy lenses for instance were made with speed as the primary driver but with some compromises (or very expensive) but now with better high ISOs there will be more and more 1.8 lenses that are optically wonderful wide open (the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 is an example- I have had and loved 1.2 50s but the 55 1.8 has cured me of wanting any for now).

[webrunner5]

And that is why most of these AF cameras, even Canon's DPAF is still not going to work well for serious stuff. Once you see something OOF you keep looking for it the whole time and not paying attention to the movie plot, or interview at all. Bad focus, Bad audio is just a terrible thing to have in Video or Film.

[Danyyyel]

11 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

You can always shoot further away from the subject and get a longer DOF even with a 1.8 on full frame. But yeah its pretty impractical for close ups outside of specialty situations. Most people aren't going to need 1.4 on full frame in photo or video. 

Yes, in theory, I myself just experienced that even using a Ninja Flame, the peaking at this distance start to get unreliable, everything start to peak while with those ultra fast lens the DOF is still quite thin. Its only when you get back home and watch it on a 27 inch monitor that you find that the focus was a little behind the subject. You would need a focus puller with a 20+ inch screen to see this.

[thebrothersthre3]

Yeah backing up to get a longer DOF is often not an option. 

I would say auto focus doesn't work for every situation but it does work for some. 

[Danyyyel]

10 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

And that is why most of these AF cameras, even Canon's DPAF is still not going to work well for serious stuff. Once you see something OOF you keep looking for it the whole time and not paying attention to the movie plot, or interview at all. Bad focus, Bad audio is just a terrible thing to have in Video or Film.

Yes, nothing more distracting after bad audio than watching a film or documentary where the focus is on the background or foreground of the actor or interviewee.

[Mark Romero 2]

8 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Slovenia

I should visit this country.

Yeah, isn't there someone really famous from Slovenia who is living in the USA now???

Let me see... I think I remember who it might be...

Oh yeah, I remember now:

Anže Kopitar

 

 

[webrunner5]

17 minutes ago, Danyyyel said:

Yes, nothing more distracting after bad audio than watching a film or documentary where the focus is on the background or foreground of the actor or interviewee.

Yeah the pumping is the worse, and Panasonic is about as bad as anyone on that.

[IronFilm]

 

http://www.photobyrichard.com/reviewbyrichard/nikon-z6-vs-d750-review/

 

[IronFilm]

 

[IronFilm]

 

[Castorp]

23 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

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..

I disagree with this. I would most of the time prefer an f4 zoom to an f2.8. Weight and size are important things. Even if I had unlimited money. 

I often prefer f1.8 primes to f1.4. I don’t know what other people do, but I hike a lot. There is no way I am carrying that huge heavy glass for a bit more light. I’d rather put those grams into a tripod than carry a super fast super heavy prime that gives me marginally more capability (nothing compared to said tripod).

Fast primes are for the ability to get an extra stop or so when hand holding or needing a fast shutter.

Or sometimes if the background is terrible and you want to blur it out (although in my experience this should be avoided as much as possible since the background often tells the story). 

Thats why I find Canons R release of first lenses very strange. I’m sure the optics are beautiful but it’s incredibly rare that the tiny bit of extra light is worth the huge weight. Talk about diminishing returns. 

The little 35 they released is not top quality L glass, unlike the Nikkor 35 & 50 “S” (for super) f1.8. Some are confused and seem to think these lenses is like your 150$ plastic f1.8. Not the case. I  applaud that I get the option of slower, but still top of the line quality glass. I hope that continues and I hope we get top quality 800-1200$ f4 or even f5.6 primes. Along with the fast stuff for those who need it.

IBIS does not replace fast glass, but sure does replace the need for it some of the time. 

 

[Danyyyel]

 

 

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, Castorp said:

I hope that continues and I hope we get top quality 800-1200$ f4 or even f5.6 primes.

I'd be very surprised if we see high quality F4 primes (which are not telephoto lenses, such as a 300mm f4, or ultra wide like a 15mm f4). 

Maaaaybe see a f4 prime if it is a pancake, I'd very much welcome the likes of a 40mm f4 pancake lens for E / R / Z / L  mount

[noone]

Not sure you would get much of a size and weight saving with a 40 f4 pancake.

A lens like the Canon 40 2.8 STM is already tiny and light and being 40mm f4 would be very unlikely to get any shorter.       As for weight savings, the 2.8 is already only 130g so I guess you could maybe save 30 or 40g but would that little be worth a stop?

Until the Sony FE 85 1.8 came along, I regarded the little Canon 40 2.8 STM as the biggest bargain going in anything photography related.

Cheap but very good and all systems should have a lens like this (and it makes a nice AF portrait lens on M43 too).

If Nikon could adapt it to the Z cameras, it would be a  nice fit I think.

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, noone said:

Not sure you would get much of a size and weight saving with a 40 f4 pancake.

A lens like the Canon 40 2.8 STM is already tiny and light and being 40mm f4 would be very unlikely to get any shorter.       As for weight savings, the 2.8 is already only 130g so I guess you could maybe save 30 or 40g but would that little be worth a stop?

Sure, I agree. But @Castorp brought up F4 primes and I was giving that as an example that I'd find F4 pancakes interesting. Although you're right, F2.8 might give you a whole stop more but at not much more of a weight/size penalty 

[Danyyyel]

Under full moon test

 

[DBounce]

This should be interesting...

 

[ND64]

13 hours ago, DBounce said:

This should be interesting...

.. to see low light comparison with your 1DXm2.

[DBounce]

6 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

.. to see low light comparison with your 1DXm2.

I was pretty busy yesterday with other things. But I did have a brief play with the Z6 in as fairly dark room. I took pictures at 6400 ISO. They came out really clean.  I have a feeling this cameras is going to live up to the hype regarding low light performance. 

Some notes: the camera feels light. It's clearly well made,  but not heavy.  The only lens I've attached so far is the 24-70mm native lens... I like it.  I love the size.  I mostly shot with the Canon yesterday as the Nikon was charging. The Nikon feels like a feather next to the 1DXMk2. As we bought the Nikon to be a go everywhere camera, the small and light combination checks a lot of boxes for us. I usually associate light weight with poor build quality... in most products. But this is strangely not the case with the Nikon. The camera is solid and of high quality. Holding it you feel confident that it will not let you down.  I can report that I do like the ergonomics, but I do miss the battery grip with shutter button. We always opt for a battery grip on our cameras. Nikon missed out on some tidy profits by omitting this option with the Z6/7. 

I suspect I will miss the portrait tilt of the X-T3. Who knew that was a thing? But once you've had a screen with portrait tilt, it's something you realize is pretty handy. I don't miss the flip out screen of the GH cameras. I always use an external monitor or recorder when shooting video anyway. 

Single card slot is a non issue for me. Menus... I like the menus... they seem really easy to navigate. The learning curve is not too steep if you are familiar with modern cameras. 

It's a very different camera than the X-T3 and Canon in feel and handling and vibe. It beats the GH5/S in hand. Overall, I would say it reminds me most of the Sony... if the Sony was more refined. 

I plan to do some shooting with the Z today. I need to understand how it compares to the Canons... both the 1DXMk2 and C200. I want to know how easy it is to match the footage with the Canons... the C200 in particular. I know the C200 can be made to look like the Nikon... RawLite has a lot of depth. But can NLog bend to look like the C200 without breaking? 

A word about the EOS R... that was the camera we wanted to purchase. The cats out of the bag.  I'm confident it would have matched perfectly to the C200. But Canon just had to pull a Canon. Cropping the 4k video to essentially m43... but without the ability to offset the extreme crop with a speedbooster. Hey Canon, Nikon and Fuji send their regards. With that out of the way,  I REALLY want to love this camera. It's off to a good start, I'll know more soon.