The Nikon Z6 will be the firat consumer camera to output 12 bit video

[Danyyyel]

19 hours ago, currensheldon said:

Totally agree on the 4K Ninja Star. As much as I love 10-bit 422 output and ProRes and ProRes Raw and all the other great things that external recorders give us, I hate external recorders. Putting a Ninja V on an EOS R or Z6 or X-T3 is sort of ridiculous (as others have mentioned here) and automatically negates why I would use those cameras in the first place (small, unassuming, versatile, total lightweight package, easy to mount on gimbal, etc).

With the Ninja V, you also need to carry around 5-6 big NPF batteries (and therefore 5-6 chargers) just to get through a day of shooting. And also make sure your sound recordist is standing a good distance away from the camera. Which is difficult when you are also the sound recordist. 

Whether it's my C200 or EOS R or when using something like the GH5 or C300, I don't have any issues with the screens on those cameras. A monitor/recorder is often redundant, loud, and unnecessary (unless you're using the EVA-1, then an external monitor is totally necessary).

PLEASE Atomos. Give me a compact 10-bit 422 4K Recorder without a screen and with a 5-watt per hour power draw (like most non-recording monitors). 

I just don't understand what people expect anymore. The size and weight of a z6 and a Ninja 5 is smaller that using one of those entry level dslr and a small flash. That is less than the average Japanase/chinese tourist with his small Nikon/canon camera walking around taking photos in some random tourist location. The C200 is much bigger and not full frame, to have a full frame video camera with 10 bit just 5 month ago was the Canon C300 a much bigger shoulder only camera and now you have to add a codex recorder to put RAW. The fact is that your type of (small, unassuming, versatile, total lightweight package, easy to mount on gimbal, etc) does not need more than 8 bit shooting, 10 bit and even prores is an overkill to shoot those low level production.

Just six month ago, absolutely no one was expecting any manufacturer (I even include the likes of blackmagic)was going to release a full frame camera with RAW. In fact everyone was begging for 10 bit for at least the last 2-5 years. Just for a measure, this is the Nikon d3200, the smallest Nikon dslr compared to the z6-z7. In pure volume the Z6 is smaller (much thinner) and I advise anyone to look at the Nikon D3000 series camera in a showroom or people using it. This thing is tiny to the point of being uncomfortable if you have average man hand.

[Geoff_L]

1 hour ago, Danyyyel said:

I just don't understand what people expect anymore. The size and weight of a z6 and a Ninja 5 is smaller that using one of those entry level dslr and a small flash. That is less than the average Japanase/chinese tourist with his small Nikon/canon camera walking around taking photos in some random tourist location. The C200 is much bigger and not full frame, to have a full frame video camera with 10 bit just 5 month ago was the Canon C300 a much bigger shoulder only camera and now you have to add a codex recorder to put RAW. The fact is that your type of (small, unassuming, versatile, total lightweight package, easy to mount on gimbal, etc) does not need more than 8 bit shooting, 10 bit and even prores is an overkill to shoot those low level production.

Just six month ago, absolutely no one was expecting any manufacturer (I even include the likes of blackmagic)was going to release a full frame camera with RAW. In fact everyone was begging for 10 bit for at least the last 2-5 years. Just for a measure, this is the Nikon d3200, the smallest Nikon dslr compared to the z6-z7. In pure volume the Z6 is smaller (much thinner) and I advise anyone to look at the Nikon D3000 series camera in a showroom or people using it. This thing is tiny to the point of being uncomfortable if you have average man hand.

Thanks for these wise words ! All I can say is that I'm really satisfied with my z6, as it is, although conscious and irritared by some quirks (like every camera eh ?). At first, I wanted to later buy a bmpcc4k, or even a 5d iii + ml for the raw capabilitie and more cinematic/narrative stuff. If adding a ninja v with the future firmware update will bring me close or not too far from to the 2 aforementioned cameras, in terms of imagery, I'll be more than happy. In that case, the ninja v would only be added for specific shots, more planned, with more stuff around, thus the "bulk" generated being completely invisible.

[hansel]

19 hours ago, mercer said:

I believe it’s for ProRes Raw which is currently only compatible with FCPX.

Aarghhh. I specially looked it up the ninja v can record dng, too. But this probably does not mean it can rec raw from z6, meehhhh?!?

[mercer]

4 minutes ago, hansel said:

Aarghhh. I specially looked it up the ninja v can record dng, too. But this probably does not mean it can rec raw from z6, meehhhh?!?

Actually... maybe it will be able to record to dng... I thought I remembered hearing it was for ProRes Raw... but I could be ProRes Wrong. 

[Danyyyel]

11 minutes ago, Geoff_L said:

Thanks for these wise words ! All I can say is that I'm really satisfied with my z6, as it is, although conscious and irritared by some quirks (like every camera eh ?). At first, I wanted to later buy a bmpcc4k, or even a 5d iii + ml for the raw capabilitie and more cinematic/narrative stuff. If adding a ninja v with the future firmware update will bring me close or not too far from to the 2 aforementioned cameras, in terms of imagery, I'll be more than happy. In that case, the ninja v would only be added for specific shots, more planned, with more stuff around, thus the "bulk" generated being completely invisible.

Exactly, I just did nearly two week non stop shoot around my tropical island for a reportage on a Victoria Secret model coffee book shoot. That shoot was intense in very harsh tropical summer climate with a lot of rainfall, heat and humidity (shooting a lot around the water). At first I was a bit embarrassed to shoot on such a small camera and rigged it a little, after not even half day, I was shooting mostly hand held and with my 7 inch Ninja. This shoot was going fast and I did not want to interfere at all as most of the team was coming from US and with the weather had a very tight schedule. After watching the fotage at night I slowly moved to only the internal shooting and was really impresed by the internal 120 fps 1080p footage. Where I en-counted problem with the footage was banding in the blue sky, I watched some tutorial and got some great result with qualifier and ofx debanding in Davinci resolve.

Perhaps for a Nikon shooter this is extraordinary and would have been normal for other MILC shooters. But for me it was extraordinary, I got some amazing tracking and slowmo handheld footage (I was starting to have to restrict myself with the slowmo because it was so gorgeous), that Nikon quality with all the features of the Z6 video capabilities like Ibis, auto focus, handling ergonomic, build quality is mind boggling in such a small package. Now if I was first camera and I had a more compact Ninja V than my 7 inch one. I would have perhaps done more 10 bit shooting and use an external recorder. But even then, with mostly the 4k and 120 fps codec bitrate, I am stunned by the quality.

The last thing I don't understand is the supposed non cinematic image of the camera. I guess some people might understand that its not shooting in crappy light that will make their camera look cinematic or not, perhaps they should look at the meaning of the word. Because for me, my images are coming out great. There is not one people from the US team (photographer working for vogue etc) thought the image were crap. 

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, Danyyyel said:

Exactly, I just did nearly two week non stop shoot around my tropical island for a reportage on a Victoria Secret model coffee book shoot. That shoot was intense in very harsh tropical summer climate with a lot of rainfall, heat and humidity (shooting a lot around the water). At first I was a bit embarrassed to shoot on such a small camera and rigged it a little, after not even half day, I was shooting mostly hand held and with my 7 inch Ninja. This shoot was going fast and I did not want to interfere at all as most of the team was coming from US and with the weather had a very tight schedule. After watching the fotage at night I slowly moved to only the internal shooting and was really impresed by the internal 120 fps 1080p footage. Where I en-counted problem with the footage was banding in the blue sky, I watched some tutorial and got some great result with qualifier and ofx debanding in Davinci resolve.

Perhaps for a Nikon shooter this is extraordinary and would have been normal for other MILC shooters. But for me it was extraordinary, I got some amazing tracking and slowmo handheld footage (I was starting to have to restrict myself with the slowmo because it was so gorgeous), that Nikon quality with all the features of the Z6 video capabilities like Ibis, auto focus, handling ergonomic, build quality is mind boggling in such a small package. Now if I was first camera and I had a more compact Ninja V than my 7 inch one. I would have perhaps done more 10 bit shooting and use an external recorder. But even then, with mostly the 4k and 120 fps codec bitrate, I am stunned by the quality.

The last thing I don't understand is the supposed non cinematic image of the camera. I guess some people might understand that its not shooting in crappy light that will make their camera look cinematic or not, perhaps they should look at the meaning of the word. Because for me, my images are coming out great. There is not one people from the US team (photographer working for vogue etc) thought the image were crap. 

The Nikon Z6 has a great image and nice colors. Some people dislike the Sony sensor which has a certain feel to it, people say it has a video look. The thing is there is nothing wrong with a video look and with work anything can be made to look more filmish if that is the intent of the project. There are other things to consider like motion cadence, but few people will notice things like that. Most things people talk about on here don't matter that much, its just tech people obsessing over tech.

[anonim]

6 hours ago, Danyyyel said:

The last thing I don't understand is the supposed non cinematic image of the camera.

IMO because it is above understandable for mortal, uninitiated mind. Obviously you have yet to learn most profound true - cinematic image is just that coming from Canon, and although it may have some subsidiary following attributes as "fat" or "natural", all of that is actually misguiding attempt to express something inexpressible that belongs only to especially gifted perception. Personally,  after struggling to understand and carefully reading perpetual states - in almost every thread - frome most passionate gurus of that question, I have found logical peace in such formulation: where the specs stops begin cinematic image, exclusive companion of uber-specs Canon.

[DBounce]

7 hours ago, Danyyyel said:

The last thing I don't understand is the supposed non cinematic image of the camera. I guess some people might understand that its not shooting in crappy light that will make their camera look cinematic or not, perhaps they should look at the meaning of the word. Because for me, my images are coming out great. There is not one people from the US team (photographer working for vogue etc) thought the image were crap. 

Please go ahead and post some examples... and I don’t mean frame grabs. That will speak volumes.

I can personally only speak from my own experience. Having had the Nikon Z6 and Atomos V for two months. A professional lighting kit. Setting up a number of shots, metering for correct exposure, correct white balance and using equivalent lenses, I concluded that the imagery from the Nikon seemed less organic, more digital than the comparable Canon offering.

Yes, the Nikon was less noisy at high ISOs, but in spite of having a technically superior sensor, it nevertheless yielded a more digital/vidieoish image.

Do some test back to back like I did... Canon EOS R vs the Nikon Z6. The difference will become apparent.

[mat33]

Plenty of people complained that the BMPCC4k looked more videoish than the original BMPCC, which really comes down to the original having more noise giving some texture and having less resolution.  Canon is kind of the same with its 1:1 sampling.  Really all the cameras are bloody good, and can be made to look bloody good with the right glass, lighting, grading etc etc.  I've seen some beautiful stuff from the Sony A7 range despite generally disliking Sonys colour science, and also seen some horrible stuff shot on an alexa.  At the end of the day, we all have different tastes and like what we like, its just pretty hard to articulate that and so we end up using terms like filmic and mojo etc.  Heck a lot of films shot on actual 35mm use a lot of extra diffusion with nets etc, are they more organic than other films shot on film without diffusion?

[anonim]

5 hours ago, mat33 said:

Heck a lot of films shot on actual 35mm use a lot of extra diffusion with nets etc, are they more organic than other films shot on film without diffusion?

It depends if they I are shot with Canon - it's first that has to be checked before any answer. Actually, there's no need for answers (as also for samples), just to check if it is/was Canon or not.

[Kisaha]

The funny thing is that Canon wasn't even a cinema brand for the greatest part of its history, and only a few high end films per year are shot by Canon cameras.

Alexa/Red/Sony/Panasonic/Film cameras must be something like 99% of those productions.

In reality, the only filmic Canon I ever owned, and I still do, is the 814..

[Django]

Yet i dunno why we are suddenly referencing cinema cameras or the entire history of film when clearly the subject comparison are hybrid mirrorless cameras of a sub $2500 range.

Canons 1:1 sampling, Clogs super low sharpening, high bitrate ALL-I codecs etc.. all help towards that elusive filmic look IMO.

That's not to say Z6 can't get there, especially if that RAW output does indeed bypass all the image processing, internal sharpening etc..

But as it currently stands, the supersampled & over-sharpened IQ doesn't output the most filmic imagery IMO. it doesn't help either you need a recorder just to get past baked picture profiles.

[anonim]

13 minutes ago, Django said:

Yet i dunno why we are suddenly referencing cinema cameras or the entire history of film when clearly the subject comparison are hybrid mirrorless cameras of a sub $2500 range.

Maybe because suddenly on every single topic about hybrid mirrorless cameras somebody (from above perspective) referencing exactly "cinematic" image as exclusively default property from manufacturer that takes minor part in cinema (and cinematic-image defining) industry?

 

[Django]

Well we are on EOS HD, aren't we? ?

Don't take my word for it either.. here is what Andrew had to say about EOS R IQ:

Fantastic 4K image quality from a larger sensor than a GH5S. That sounds like an appealing camera, doesn’t it? Throw in the same cinematic mojo in 4K as the classic 1D C

Canon colour science – it is VERY film like. Still the best out of the box

The codec is actually surprisingly decent – ALL-I is pretty beefy (very high bitrates) and cinematic on this camera.

The 4K isn’t over-sharpened – pixel peep it and you’ll think it’s too soft (viewed in normal way, the image is naturally detailed)

__________________________________________

Those are the same exact reasons why IMO Canon has some of the most cinematic mojo in the hybrid camera game.

That's not to say you can't get cinematic IQ out of other cameras obviously .

Fuji are on their way now that they are doing high bitrate 10-bit ALL-I DCI 2K/4K F-LOG internally.

And Fuji has never even made a cine cam... same for Nikon if they don't screw up their RAW output. so screw the hollywood establishment.

BTW I'm not trying to be a Canon overlord. I got mad love for Fuji & Nikon ( I much prefer them to Canon as far as company philosophy etc)

 

[anonim]

But I really take and respect your word for it, as also Andrew's... But maybe problem is that I dare to take word for it ("cinematic" image) also from somebody else? (Or, that somebody feel something fishy or uncomfortably to perpetually read corrective cautions type of "viewing something in normal way" as part of argumentation.)

What if, to put it just logically, some other manufacturer's aim is not at all to mimic "cinematic" look of minor player in high end cinema industry, but, say, legendary Alexa?

Or we all have to think about Alexa's image also just as little bit more Canon-ish?

[Django]

Well actually Canon in their latest Clog color science are doing exactly that: mimecking ARRI Alexa. They're not trying to re-invent the wheel.

If Sony were to wise-up, they'd include their Venice color science in their Alpha cameras. Panasonic should do VariCam. Oh but wait, those companies don't protect their cine lines right? Only Canon does..

Again Fuji woke up to that with Eterna film simulation.

Nikon offering RAW... definitely a step in the right direction. 

[kye]

8 hours ago, mat33 said:

Plenty of people complained that the BMPCC4k looked more videoish than the original BMPCC, which really comes down to the original having more noise giving some texture and having less resolution.

Noted!

When we try and make the BMPCC4K look like the BMPCC and BMMCC I will try those and see how well that works

[anonim]

I understand, in any case, being as parts of panoramic or alchemical seeing, all roads must lead to Canon

[DBounce]

13 hours ago, mat33 said:

Really all the cameras are bloody good, and can be made to look bloody good with the right glass, lighting, grading etc etc.  I've seen some beautiful stuff from the Sony A7 range despite generally disliking Sonys colour science, and also seen some horrible stuff shot on an alexa.  At the end of the day, we all have different tastes and like what we like, its just pretty hard to articulate that and so we end up using terms like filmic and mojo etc.  Heck a lot of films shot on actual 35mm use a lot of extra diffusion with nets etc, are they more organic than other films shot on film without diffusion?

Glass, grading and lighting etc... do not affect motion cadence. And since we are speaking of motion picture or movie recording the "motion" part is pretty important. 

If you are going for the video look/sterile digital look,  there are a myriad of options. It really comes down to the look you prefer. Neither is "right", it's a personal choice. 

[Geoff_L]

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

Glass, grading and lighting etc... do not affect motion cadence. And since we are speaking of motion picture or movie recording the "motion" part is pretty important. 

If you are going for the video look/sterile digital look,  there are a myriad of options. It really comes down to the look you prefer. Neither is "right", it's a personal choice. 

It must be my limited English skills, but why use "sterile digital look", thus giving a pejorative tint ?! I have always enjoyed your tests, but since you circled back to canon, I feel you are quite negative toward other stuff, including stuff you have tested and liked recently. If I recall, each of those cameras you have tested the last months (quite a lot !) , received a high "score" in your posts : gh5s, xt3, z6... Of course, you compare them to your C200, but every time, when the cameras were in your hands since several days, you were nothing but positively surprise by the quality. I might be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprise if in the next months, you try a panasonic S1, a future A7siii, a Xh2, and jump from one camera to another, the newest erasing the qualities you have found in the previous. I don't want to critic, or sound like and ass, but it's my feeling, reading you on a lot of posts.

Concerning the cinematic aspect of the imagery, and the Canon special sauce attached to it, seriously, the only camera that match this so called magic, to me, is the 1DC (5d iii ML raw excluded !). But my tastes and my eyes must be crap ; I'm open to that conclusion ! The image out of a 1Dxii is seriously good, with a "je ne sais quoi" (yeah, the only words I can write without making a mistake ? ), that you may called organic, but not close to the 1DC. In fact, we can argue that Canon got a special mojo, given by the motion cadence or whatever technical stuff, but I've seen a massive amount of shitty video shot with Canon, 5div, 1dxii etc. I have also watch beautiful cinematic footages shot on a GH5, which seems, for some persons, to be the opposite of Canon in  cinematic, organic etc. terms.

I'm a newbie in video, but not in photo, and I can say that we ear the same from old photo snobs, that describe the Canon mojo as the pinnacle of image quality, thus throwing away everything else. Too bad, nowadays, the majority of photos and videos are ruined by presets sold buy the instagram influencers and luts by youtube stars, so, whatever magic those cameras got, it will be crushed ?