New Nikon Camera coming…Z8?

[Ilkka Nissila]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

When it comes to the specific case of the Z8/Z9, the answer to the question of “who the hell needs all that resolution?”, the answer, quite simply, is the target market for them do.

These are cameras intended for photojournalists/sports photographers/wildlife photographers.

In the case of the latter two in particular, with f2.8 long lenses costing £20-30 per millimetre of focal length, the variable 2x digital zoom functionality pays for the camera itself.

If you are shooting a match then from your fixed position at one end of the field you will generally not have enough reach with a 400mm. Depending on the stadium you might actually be so far behind the goal line that even 600mm will struggle. As the distance is variable you end up having to bring 1.4x, 1.7x and 2x TCs whereas with the Z8/Z9 you can dial it in and not have to worry about losing stops of light, IQ and AF performance.

Cropping using the digital zoom on these much higher resolution Z8/Z9 sensors, even at 2x is still giving you the D5 resolution and giving you impossible lenses such as 70-400mm f2.8 and 400-800mm f2.8 for free.

Just that one aspect - which is standard operating procedure for the intended market rather than a niche outlier- is absolutely massive and justifies the bump in resolution.

The image achieved by 2X cropping a 4K image from 8K to the center 4K in order to achieve a 400mm field of view using a 200mm f/2.8 doesn't look like the image from a 400mm f/2.8 lens (except for the field of view). The image will look like a 4K full-frame image from a 400mm f/5.6 lens, instead. This is in terms of image noise as well as depth of field. You cannot magically turn a 70-200/2.8 into the practical equivalent of a 400/2.8 by simply taking the center of the frame in a crop. Now, the digital zooming offered by the Z8 is handy and practical as it offers the equivalent of a motorized zoom which is not offered by Nikon on the lens side, at least not yet. By developing the firmware further, Nikon will be able to offer variable digital zooming rates and the image detail should hold up quite well in this case, due to the lens optical quality and the fact that it's using an 8K sensor to implement it. However, if you then actually take a 400/2.8 and compare the images to ones obtained using the 70-200/2.8 with the 2X high-resolution zoom, they will be very different. Nonetheless I think this is a smart use of the high-resolution sensor, as long as the lens itself can actually resolve that kind of detail and the focus can be maintained to the higher resolution level. If shooting in low light, however, one can then quickly see why it's not a real 400mm f/2.8.

 

IMO the high-resolution zoom is best used for tripod-based operation, as in the zoomed-in state, the hand-held stabilization is not as good as it would be without the zooming-in, and electronic VR is not available when using the high-resolution zoom feature. Of course, for wildlife use, a tripod used to be considered a given, but nowadays...

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

The image will look like a 4K full-frame image from a 400mm f/5.6 lens, instead. This is in terms of image noise as well as depth of field. You cannot magically turn a 70-200/2.8 into the practical equivalent of a 400/2.8 by simply taking the center of the frame in a crop

My point was to the exposure, field of view, AF consistency and optical degradation.

If I am using my 400mm at f2.8/ISO6400 and 1/1250th and either crop in post to get to an 800mm FOV or use the Hi-Res Zoom then the exposure won’t change, the AF won’t change and the optical quality won’t change.

If I attach my TC-2.0x then my exposure WILL change (by two stops), the AF will degrade and as good (relatively) as the Nikon TC is then it does take a hit.

So the lenses will always be f2.8 and my exposure remains unchanged (which is hugely important when even category A stadiums for night matches are very tight when balancing high shutter speeds and ISO) and my FOV needs are met in a more dynamic way. A 70-200mm becomes a whole lot more useful when an extra 100mm can be activated without having to commit to having it on all the time.

Will they be “real” f2.8 in terms of absolute equivalence ALL the way throughly the range once they’ve got beyond their base focal length ?  

Nope.

But the compromise in those areas when using a clear image zoom type of function compared to using TCs when you need extra reach on tap are absolutely minimal compared to losing two stops of light and AF performance as and when you need it.

HOWEVER…..

Having said ALL of that, I’ve just discovered to my researching shame that unlike the Sony (and JVC) options  the Hi-Res Zoom feature is ONLY available in video mode not stills!

So disregard everything I’ve said on the subject from a sports photography point of view as it is moot 🙂 

[kye]

9 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Having said ALL of that, I’ve just discovered to my researching shame that unlike the Sony (and JVC) options  the Hi-Res Zoom feature is ONLY available in video mode not stills!

So disregard everything I’ve said on the subject from a sports photography point of view as it is moot 🙂 

I have a vague recollection that some cameras were able to tag or put comments onto specific images as you were taking them (or just afterwards) and that the info would be embedded in the images metadata or some such.  It might even have been you that mentioned it.  

Anyway, if you were taking full-res stills and they were being sent instantly to the photo/video village for quick editing and upload to the networks and social media channels, then you could simply tag which images you thought should be cropped?  If you are shooting full-res images then cropping in post is the same as cropping in-camera I would imagine?

[BTM_Pix]

23 minutes ago, kye said:

I have a vague recollection that some cameras were able to tag or put comments onto specific images as you were taking them (or just afterwards) and that the info would be embedded in the images metadata or some such.  It might even have been you that mentioned it.  

Yes, the voice memo has been a standard feature on pro bodies for many years.

Operated as per the Z9 here by a dedicated button on the back panel.

 

30 minutes ago, kye said:

Anyway, if you were taking full-res stills and they were being sent instantly to the photo/video village for quick editing and upload to the networks and social media channels, then you could simply tag which images you thought should be cropped?  If you are shooting full-res images then cropping in post is the same as cropping in-camera I would imagine?

Yes you could do that and there will be dedicated photo editors on the other end of your LAN cable who will do that for you even without the voice prompt (which you would mainly use for player identification for the caption anyway).

Not everyone has the luxury of an editing team though and not every match is covered that way either.

In those instances when you are on your own then having it in camera is the best solution and by best I mean fast because it’s all about getting the image onto the photo desk of the newspaper as quickly as possible. The bigger the file (as the unedited version would be) has speed implications all along the way from ingest into the laptop, editing and export and most importantly out of the stadium when you won’t always have the luxury of wired internet and will often be having to even tether off your phone.

Another less obvious advantage is in terms of navigating the image on the back of the camera for player identification and focus checking. If you’re using your 400mm as a 600mm because the opposite goal is so far away then you have one less button press to get it to the right size on playback on the camera. I know that sounds trivial but it isn’t (particularly in gloves in the pudding down rain) and every second counts when you might be having to quickly analyse a 30 shot burst to find the best one.

What a pity the Z8/Z9 only do it in video mode then, at least in the current firmware.

[MrSMW]

5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I’m pretty sure wedding/event videographers are seeing increased demand (quite literally) from clients for vertical format delivery at least in part.

I’m not receiving demand for it but jumped on that train ahead of it leaving the station. Rare for me!

I switched from 4k to 6k last 2 jobs just so I can re-crop productions from my usual 16:9 to 19:6 for social and shorts.

[Emanuel]

7 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Vertical video in this instance is delivery rather than capture and is a fact of life now even for national broadcasters pushing content through their social media feeds.

I’ve just walked past three grown men here dancing a routine for TiKTok (presumably) in front of a smartphone on a tripod.

This may not be the camera for them.

Yet.

Although such is the way of the race to the bottom with the fees for editorial images they it’s entirely possible that they will be making more money with that content than the intended users of the Z8/Z9 will be.

I’m pretty sure wedding/event videographers are seeing increased demand (quite literally) from clients for vertical format delivery at least in part. 

Unfortunately.

It's not so different when I hear people saying they don't watch old movies because of their grainy aspect.

Or why people shoot B&W when the world is not made of colour blindness.

Or yet they can barely handle actors when not Hollywood stars.

And on and on.

To put the bar high is not so easy, to make it lower beats it ;- )

[MrSMW]

13 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I switched from 4k to 6k last 2 jobs just so I can re-crop productions from my usual 16:9 to 19:6 for social and shorts.

Quoting myself, this statement is not entirely true…

I did not switch from shooting 4k to 6k ‘just’ for better vertical cropping options in post, but also because I prefer the quality of the 6k files over the 4k.

There is a definite ‘quality’ to them that is hard to define and it might be what some refer to as ‘micro contrast’?

I still shoot 4k, but only in certain situations where I wish to slow the result to 40% in post. Plus longer stuff as there is a 30 minute limit on the 6k.

But I am not shooting it just because I can crop vertical which is more a case of another reason for me to shoot 6k.

[kye]

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Quoting myself, this statement is not entirely true…

I did not switch from shooting 4k to 6k ‘just’ for better vertical cropping options in post, but also because I prefer the quality of the 6k files over the 4k.

There is a definite ‘quality’ to them that is hard to define and it might be what some refer to as ‘micro contrast’?

I still shoot 4k, but only in certain situations where I wish to slow the result to 40% in post. Plus longer stuff as there is a 30 minute limit on the 6k.

But I am not shooting it just because I can crop vertical which is more a case of another reason for me to shoot 6k.

One of the (potentially numerous) differences when swapping from 4K to 6K (on a 4K timeline) is that the downsampling goes from being before the compression to afterwards.  Compression is one of the significant contributors to the digital look IMHO (just compare RAW vs compressed images side by side), and if you can downsample from 6K to 4K in post then you're downsampling and also interpolating (blurring) the compression artefacts that happen on edges.  

I would favour a workflow where the image is debayered, downscaled, then recorded to SD with very low or even no compression.  It would effectively have the benefits of downsampling and the benefits of RAW, but without the huge file sizes of RAW at the native resolution of the sensor.  Of course, no-one else thinks this is a good idea, so....

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, kye said:

One of the (potentially numerous) differences when swapping from 4K to 6K (on a 4K timeline) is that the downsampling goes from being before the compression to afterwards.

I use a 6k timeline and upscale my 4K but then export the finished production as 4k.

The amount of 4k is maybe 20-25% but I’m not the techiest of guys when it comes to this kind of thing so go on ‘if it looks right it is right’.

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, kye said:

One of the (potentially numerous) differences when swapping from 4K to 6K (on a 4K timeline) is that the downsampling goes from being before the compression to afterwards.

I use a 6k timeline and upscale my 4K but then export the finished production as 4k.

The amount of 4k is maybe 20-25% but I’m not the techiest of guys when it comes to this kind of thing so go on ‘if it looks right it is right’.

I’m guessing this might be why editing these days on my M1 chip MacBook Pro feels like wading through mud?

Just ordered a 16 inch M2max version to replace it and a desktop so I can do photo and video on it.

Currently doing photo on the desktop and that is always mud wading 🤪

[Ilkka Nissila]

On 6/12/2023 at 5:01 PM, BTM_Pix said:

My point was to the exposure, field of view, AF consistency and optical degradation.

If I am using my 400mm at f2.8/ISO6400 and 1/1250th and either crop in post to get to an 800mm FOV or use the Hi-Res Zoom then the exposure won’t change, the AF won’t change and the optical quality won’t change.

If I attach my TC-2.0x then my exposure WILL change (by two stops), the AF will degrade and as good (relatively) as the Nikon TC is then it does take a hit.

So the lenses will always be f2.8 and my exposure remains unchanged (which is hugely important when even category A stadiums for night matches are very tight when balancing high shutter speeds and ISO) and my FOV needs are met in a more dynamic way. A 70-200mm becomes a whole lot more useful when an extra 100mm can be activated without having to commit to having it on all the time.

Will they be “real” f2.8 in terms of absolute equivalence ALL the way throughly the range once they’ve got beyond their base focal length ?  

Nope.

But the compromise in those areas when using a clear image zoom type of function compared to using TCs when you need extra reach on tap are absolutely minimal compared to losing two stops of light and AF performance as and when you need it.

HOWEVER…..

Having said ALL of that, I’ve just discovered to my researching shame that unlike the Sony (and JVC) options  the Hi-Res Zoom feature is ONLY available in video mode not stills!

So disregard everything I’ve said on the subject from a sports photography point of view as it is moot 🙂 

When using the hi-res zoom, e.g. at the 2X setting, the area that each original image pixel takes in the final (zoomed-in) image increases by a factor of 4 which makes the noise more visible than when not zooming (because each pixel of a 4K image is normally (when not hi-res zoomed in) made by averaging four pixels in the 8K sensor, these resampled pixels are less noisy). 

 

However, I still consider the hi-res zoom a valuable and even exciting feature. The reason for this is that for video, 4K is arguably more than enough for almost all practical purposes, and already high-quality 4K video takes a lot of storage space; shooting in 8K would result in significantly increased storage needs and not necessarily give anything for the final presentation.  Using the 8K sensor in this way to solve a practical problem (current lack of powered zooms in the Nikon system) is quite sensible even if it is limited to 1X-2X zooming. A few limitations should be mentioned. First, in the normal shooting of 4K video, it is created by oversampling from 8K. When zooming in, the degree of oversampling is reduced. However, in my opinion the resulting quality is still very good. When doing hand-held footage, it should also be noted that only the optical (with VR lens) and sensor-based VR are available together with hi-res zoom, and the electronic VR is disabled.  Finally, when in hi-res zoom mode, the focus area is not displayed in the viewfinder or in the LCD, and it is automatically selected to be wide-area L presumably in the center of the frame. One can have subject-detection on while using hi-res zoom, but one can't see exactly where the limits of the AF area are, and one can't move it about in the frame. So there are a few caveats with this feature in its current implementation. I would like to see Nikon display the focus area even if it can't be moved about. Still I quite like the feature and the ability to zoom in and out in a way that is a bit more smooth than when using the mechanical optical zoom control on the lens. On the Z9 new firmware update 4.0, this feature gets more options regarding the rate of zooming.

 

As for your last point, I understand that Sony has a more advanced interpolation available to preserve details when digitally zooming in. Adobe and other software offer this kind of a feature in post-processing software, so I would guess the benefits of doing that in camera are mainly that one can have the final result immediately available. For sports photography, I suppose this is a priority. However, digital zooming always results in the amplification of noise.

[Evgeniy85]

Had Z8 for a spin and it's such a great camera.

I wish more companies will go for internal RAW/ProRes recording because h265 doesn't cut it. 

[kye]

14 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

However, digital zooming always results in the amplification of noise.

I agree, zooming definitely increases the visibility of the noise in the image.

One thing I think worth remembering is that cinema cameras have traditionally been quite noisy and noise reduction used to be a standard first processing step in all colour grading workflows.  It is only with the huge advancements in low-noise sensors, which allowed the incredible low-light performance that high-end hybrid cameras have today, that this noise has been reduced and people have gotten used to seeing clean images come straight from the camera.

I just watched this video recently, and it is a rare example of high-quality ungraded footage zoomed right into.  He doesn't mention what camera the footage is from, but Cullen is a real colourist (not just someone who pretends to be one on YT), so the footage is likely from a reputable source.

It's also worth mentioning that the streaming compression that YT and others utilise has so little bitrate that it effectively works as a heavy NR filter.  This really has to be seen to be believed, and I've done tests myself where I add grain to finished footage in different amounts, uploaded the footage to YT, then compared the YT output to the original files - the results are almost extreme.  So this also plays a role in determining what noise levels are acceptable.

[Evgeniy85]

 

[IronFilm]

On 4/30/2023 at 3:53 AM, BTM_Pix said:

If the Z8 does indeed turn out to be a form factor reduced Z9 with a 25-30% price reduction too then I’m probably in.

But then you have to wait another six months for that to show up secondhand too.... and so the cycle continues! 😉

[TomTheDP]

On 6/14/2023 at 10:22 PM, kye said:

I agree, zooming definitely increases the visibility of the noise in the image.

One thing I think worth remembering is that cinema cameras have traditionally been quite noisy and noise reduction used to be a standard first processing step in all colour grading workflows.  It is only with the huge advancements in low-noise sensors, which allowed the incredible low-light performance that high-end hybrid cameras have today, that this noise has been reduced and people have gotten used to seeing clean images come straight from the camera.

I just watched this video recently, and it is a rare example of high-quality ungraded footage zoomed right into.  He doesn't mention what camera the footage is from, but Cullen is a real colourist (not just someone who pretends to be one on YT), so the footage is likely from a reputable source.

It's also worth mentioning that the streaming compression that YT and others utilise has so little bitrate that it effectively works as a heavy NR filter.  This really has to be seen to be believed, and I've done tests myself where I add grain to finished footage in different amounts, uploaded the footage to YT, then compared the YT output to the original files - the results are almost extreme.  So this also plays a role in determining what noise levels are acceptable.

I’d argue modern hybrid cameras are noisy too unless using heavy internal noise reduction. Shadows are always noisy at base iso. You gotta over expose to negate that. 
 

for example on my pana S1, for a noise free image, I would overexpose by 2 stops. Pretty much the same thing on my Alexa, I’ll shoot at 200 iso if I want it completely clean. 

[Django]

New N-Log Low 2.0 (ISO200) setting that eliminates noise issues from reports. The update should soon come to Z8..

 

[Ilkka Nissila]

On 6/26/2023 at 9:13 PM, TomTheDP said:

I’d argue modern hybrid cameras are noisy too unless using heavy internal noise reduction. Shadows are always noisy at base iso. You gotta over expose to negate that. 
 

for example on my pana S1, for a noise free image, I would overexpose by 2 stops. Pretty much the same thing on my Alexa, I’ll shoot at 200 iso if I want it completely clean. 

This has to do with the creation of exposure latitude in N-log mode by exposing like this ISO 64 sensor like an ISO 800 sensor. 😉  From the perspective of stills shooting this would be the equivalent of underexposing the image by 3.7 stops and then pushing it to be brighter in post-processing. So yes, there will be noise. Even in video, you can shoot in SDR mode and use the base ISO of 64 of the Z8 and not get much noise, but then you don't get the kind of highlight recovery that you get in log. I think it would not be quite correct to say that these cameras are noisy, as the noise level is not that far from theoretical limits set by physics. While there is a little bit less noise recorded by cameras where there is better cooling and dual gain etc. it's not like a night and day difference. When watching a 4K UHD blu-ray of Rogue One at 60 Mbit/s what is evident is that there is a lot of noise visible that isn't as obvious when streaming. What's great is the audio quality compared to streaming. I'm surprised how much noise in the image there is and how they chose to distribute it like that given the large sensor used to shoot it (Arri Alexa 65). I suspect this has to do with people in the cinema field being used to the grain of color negative film and not going for a straight clean digital image due to aesthetic preferences. If they had shot it at lower ISO I would think the result could be squeaky clean. (I have seen videos suggesting that some colorists add noise on purpose, and there are even still photographers who do that to mimic film grain and to hide some imperfections. I'm not convinced that adding noise has more than a transitional benefit between generations of people where technology is changing quickly.)

 

There are cinema cameras which do record the image with two gains to improve the dynamic range and merge the data into the video file.  There are also other approaches on the sensor level to achieve increased dynamic range, such as Super CCD by Fujifilm some years back, but this requires a different photodiode layout and it seems they're not continuing this line of product development. What is possible, of course, is to take advantage of the temporal redundancy and reduce the noise based on the similarity of consecutive frames. But really, the easiest way to reduce noise is by giving up exposure headroom in the highlights and recording more light, which is also what you are saying.

 

I find it curious how cinema camera manufacturers define ISO differently than still cameras. I get it that displays can have a larger dynamic range than paper, and this could be a part of the reason, i.e. still cameras are designed to expose by giving as much light as possible to the sensor while still being able to display highlights up to the whites on a photographic print paper. Basically ink on paper has a dynamic range of 200:1, while high dynamic range displays have 20000:1 or higher. Thus there may be the need to consider the display when deciding on an exposure, and basically, it also means the images made for HDR displays would potentially be noisier in parts of the image because of the need to include those highlights in the shooting phase. In stills photography HDR images can be made by exposing two or more frames at different exposures, but this wouldn't exactly work for video; what they can do is record two sets of data with different gains, but the rewards obtainable from this approach are more limited.

[markr041]

Speaking of cropping. The Z8 has a massive crop to 4K UHD for 120P NRAW. No pixel binning, no "subsampling," no line skipping. But, a 2.3X crop.

This was shot in 12bit N-RAW HIGH, ZLog cropped 4K 120P to see what we get:

There is audio too; it is not an S&Q mode.

[markr041]

You all like frame grabs...