SrMi
Veteran Member
Nikon could have used only 12 bits instead of 14, making the readouts even faster and files smaller (better buffering).
Marketing probably disliked it.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
My Z6 III tech thread
- Thread starter Horshack
- Start date
Marketing probably disliked it.
ClintGryke
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 495
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 570
Thanks for performing and posting all of these tests. I've been following most of them and trying to make a reasoned interpretation of the results in the context of real world usage. It seems to me that some of the comments are making negative conclusions about the Z6III but not discerning the real world implications of the tests.
As far as I can see, the real world differences in noise and dynamic range are minimal between the two cameras. There is almost no noticable difference in noise until you hit ISO 6400. Even then it is relatively insiginificant and can easily be dealt with in post, particularly with Adobe Denoise. I would rarely go above ISO 6400 for real world shooting so effectively there is little difference at all.
In the case of the dynamic range tests, again there is minimal difference until going to extreme underexposure values where I would only be seeking results if I had made a grave mistake when shooting.
I have the Z6III myself for a few days now and still have a Z6II, and the reality is that I can see little difference between them viewing on a 27" monitor at 100% when exposing normally for various lighting conditions and virtually no difference in noise after using Adobe Denoise.
So my point is that the tests are really valuable and most interesting but readers and viewers need to be discerning in interpreting the results. The Z6III is a great camera for stills photogaraphy and the small sacrifice in dynamic range and slightly higher noise are more than compensated for by the advances in speed afforded by the new sensor.
The video features are in another league altogether compared to the Z6II of course.
Well stated and I agree with everything you wrote.
Comparison of a 6K NRAW HQ frame vs NEF for the same scene, ISO 100, Minus -7EV. This is mostly a proxy for 14-bit vs 12-bit sensor readouts, with NEF using a 14-bit readout and NRAW using a 12-bit readout.
Animation: NRAW vs NEF, ISO 100 -7EV, 100% Crop
Animation: NRAW vs NEF, ISO 100 -7EV, 100% Crop
When I watch the anim, Z6 III seems to have more of a blue tint, whereas the Z6 hasn't got a tint and the image actually looks better. At least to my eyes. Is that the indicator of the III having lower DR? Further, if you did the same test and used the Zf versus the Z6, would it be pretty much the same as the Z6 since both share similar variants of the older generation sensor?First up - base ISO dynamic range comparison between the Z6 III and Z6. ISO 100, Minus 9EV exposure, Zeiss 100MP, WB Cloudy, Electronic shutter. Processed in ACR/LR with respective camera-neutral matching profiles, all developer settings zeroed out, 45/0.7/35 sharpening, Chroma+Luma NR disabled. Framing is a little off due to my Z6 L-Bracket vs Z6 III temporary base bracket but the exposure is perfectly matched.
Animation: Z6 III vs Z6, ISO 100 -9EV, ACR/LR Neutral, NR disabled, 20% downsample
Z6 III definitely looks to have lower base ISO DR. I put this test together quickly so I'm reserving final judgement in case of methodology errors from my haste to get something posted
Well that's kind of confusing. Lower ISO always means lower noise, at least it's supposed to. I can verify that it always is on my Fujis, but they're older. (X-H1, 2018).
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
I don't see a meaningful difference anywhere except at ISO 51200, which is a setting I'd never use.
Pretty satisfied with the compromises the Z6III does to get faster burst rates.
Pretty satisfied with the compromises the Z6III does to get faster burst rates.
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
Planning on getting a Z6III in a couple of years. I was wondering if I'd sell my Z6 then.
Considering I only seldomly do faster shooting (but would really appreciate the better video), and the fact that I prefer tilt screens over FA ones, keeping my Z6 and pair it with a Z6III is starting to sound like a pretty good idea.
Z6 for slower paced stuff for the very slightly better DR, and bit lower noise when pushing the files, and Z6III when I need the autofocusm, burst rate or video performance.
Awesome testing and information, good job.
Considering I only seldomly do faster shooting (but would really appreciate the better video), and the fact that I prefer tilt screens over FA ones, keeping my Z6 and pair it with a Z6III is starting to sound like a pretty good idea.
Z6 for slower paced stuff for the very slightly better DR, and bit lower noise when pushing the files, and Z6III when I need the autofocusm, burst rate or video performance.
Awesome testing and information, good job.
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
Could you test the live view lag in the 12bit 12fps mode with the Z6?
Ruby Rod
Veteran Member
I'm keeping my Z6 to have a spare body and also because I don't have to disturb it if I have it on a copy stand for slide and negative dupes. It's also handy if I need to document how something was set up and lit with the other camera. Hey, you can't have too many!
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
Counting all the camera I own (including compact cameras and 20yo DSLRs) I have 13 cameras...
... pretty sure my girlfriend would like to have a word or two on "how much is too many" !
... pretty sure my girlfriend would like to have a word or two on "how much is too many" !
Ruby Rod
Veteran Member
Speaking of rates, I just did a few quick shots of a stopwatch to see how long bracketing and pixel shifting take. They were casual tests and I'd be curious if others get similar numbers. It seems you can do a +2/-2 stop bracket series in about 160 ms, assuming a reasonably short shutter speed and continuous mode shooting. A 16 frame pixel shift series, again with 1/100 sec shutter or faster, takes about 1.9 seconds. IMO, those numbers are pretty decent.
Aleks Che
Well-known member
Hello. I would like to express my gratitude for your comparative tests and my desire to share their results with the community of photo enthusiasts on this forum. For me this is very interesting and useful information. Can I hope that in addition to the comparative tests already carried out, you will consider the opportunity to conduct another one? its essence is to compare the slide show on the rear screen (in the viewfinder) during continuous shooting at different shooting speeds (different number of frames per second). Thanks in advance for any response you have to this question.
Thanks. I believe the video in my post here has the information you're asking for.
kurczeblade
Active member
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 98
Is it possible to compare the DR image with ZF?
Zf has indistinguishable IQ from the Z6, so you can use my Z6 III vs Z6 comparison as a proxy for the Zf.
Last edited:
Aleks Che
Well-known member
thanks for the answer. I saw this comparison test. but this is not exactly what I asked about. Perhaps my question was not formulated entirely clearly. I'll try to clarify. two cameras are placed side by side, set to continuous shooting at 3 frames/sec (then 5 frames/sec, then 9 frames/sec, then 12 frames/sec). to visually see if there is a difference (and how much it differs visually) in the darkening of the slideshow during continuous shooting between the two cameras (side by side). I understand that my question may not seem interesting to you, so I cannot insist on it. I will accept any of your decisions. Thank you.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum