Nikon Z8 with the new Nikon 28-400 lens- An 8K 60p video

[Ken Ross]

Shot at the Bronx Zoo to test out the new 28-400 lens. Many shots were at a full 400mm. Some clips were shot through glass and thus had some compromise in contrast & detail (tiger, some birds etc.). Nonetheless it was an excellent test for this new lens. I was quite pleased with the results. Although I typically shoot in full manual, for this video I used auto ISO and thus you will see some minor exposure changes.

The video was shot in N-RAW, 8K60 and processed in DaVinci Resolve. As of this time it had not yet fully resolved to 8K and was limited to a 4K resolution. YouTube is hard to figure out in terms of how long it takes a given video to full resolve to 8K.

 

[James Stirling]

That looks good Ken, I have shot some 8K with my Z9 and even very close to a 75" 8K TV { my sisters I don't have an 8K TV , yet } it looks amazing. At longer more typical TV viewing distances whilst is still looks excellent it s a bit harder to tell apart from good quality 4K.

I have never owned a super zoom in FF but despite one or two negative reviewers, who seem to expect miracles from a 14x zoom. The results I have seen so far both video and stills look damn good. It would be a fun lens for travel. Thanks for posting the video, YT video compression often mangles video quality.

I started doing video with Panasonic m43 back in 2009 and got the bug . Although in theory video and photography share a lot of the basics it is a whole different ball game

 

[Ken Ross]

That looks good Ken, I have shot some 8K with my Z9 and even very close to a 75" 8K TV { my sisters I don't have an 8K TV , yet } it looks amazing. At longer more typical TV viewing distances whilst is still looks excellent it s a bit harder to tell apart from good quality 4K.

I have never owned a super zoom in FF but despite one or two negative reviewers, who seem to expect miracles from a 14x zoom. The results I have seen so far both video and stills look damn good. It would be a fun lens for travel. Thanks for posting the video, YT video compression often mangles video quality.

I started doing video with Panasonic m43 back in 2009 and got the bug . Although in theory video and photography share a lot of the basics it is a whole different ball game

Thanks for watching, James. I have a 77” 8K OLED and you do need to get relatively close to see the 8K difference. However when you do, it’s truly stunning. To be able to put your nose next to a 77” screen and resolve even more detail, without seeing the picture break down at such a close distance, is quite a revelation.

 

[James Stirling]

That looks good Ken, I have shot some 8K with my Z9 and even very close to a 75" 8K TV { my sisters I don't have an 8K TV , yet } it looks amazing. At longer more typical TV viewing distances whilst is still looks excellent it s a bit harder to tell apart from good quality 4K.

I have never owned a super zoom in FF but despite one or two negative reviewers, who seem to expect miracles from a 14x zoom. The results I have seen so far both video and stills look damn good. It would be a fun lens for travel. Thanks for posting the video, YT video compression often mangles video quality.

I started doing video with Panasonic m43 back in 2009 and got the bug . Although in theory video and photography share a lot of the basics it is a whole different ball game

Thanks for watching, James. I have a 77” 8K OLED and you do need to get relatively close to see the 8K difference. However when you do, it’s truly stunning. To be able to put your nose next to a 77” screen and resolve even more detail, without seeing the picture break down at such a close distance, is quite a revelation.

It is amazing quality for sure, I have been looking at the 8K TV market and I think you need to go big to get the best from it . The prices are not the problem convincing my wife that we NEED a massive 8K TV is the challenge I also viewed some of my 2x macro filling a screen around 1.7m wide is an experience

 

[jimdelves]

Nice video, looks great. Did you use a tripod?

Have you tried pulling stills from it? I must admit I have the Z8 almost a year and have yet to even try video

 

[Ken Ross]

Nice video, looks great. Did you use a tripod?

Have you tried pulling stills from it? I must admit I have the Z8 almost a year and have yet to even try video

Thanks, Jim. No, no tripod, all handheld. I’ve actually been surprised, given the 400mm focal length, how well the lens OIS + IBIS works.

I’ve only pulled stills from my 8K videos a couple of times, but they look quite good.

 

[Tom Stites]

Shot at the Bronx Zoo to test out the new 28-400 lens. Many shots were at a full 400mm. Some clips were shot through glass and thus had some compromise in contrast & detail (tiger, some birds etc.). Nonetheless it was an excellent test for this new lens. I was quite pleased with the results. Although I typically shoot in full manual, for this video I used auto ISO and thus you will see some minor exposure changes.

The video was shot in N-RAW, 8K60 and processed in DaVinci Resolve. As of this time it had not yet fully resolved to 8K and was limited to a 4K resolution. YouTube is hard to figure out in terms of how long it takes a given video to full resolve to 8K.

Nice work Ken...I think it safe to say that for field work shooting 4K or 8K, this lens gets the job done very nicely. More than sharp enough for video and surprisingly crisp in terms of CR. I have a 100-400, which is an excellent lens, but for shooting video, the 28-400 seems much more convenient and ideal as a single lens video solution for general purpose use. You may have just cost me some money!

Since you shot this in RAW (NLog or SDR?), have you given any thought to grading it in Resolve for HDR? Very easy to create a new timeline to output HDR.

I'd say your shots have the potential to work in HDR very well. For the last 9 months or so, I've been shooting in N-Raw NLog and rendering in HDR to upload to YT or Vimeo...I let them worry about conversion to SDR for streaming to SDR displays.

Of course there is the issue of how you monitor for HDR...in my case, a DeckLink Mini 4K and a 48" C3 OLED display.

Cheers!

 

[DaveR43]

Thanks very much, Ken, very helpful.

I originally bought my Z6 ii with the 24-200, as the 24-120 wasn't available at the time.

I remember visiting Whipsnade Zoo with family (when you can't be messing about changing lenses) and thinking that 200mm really wasn't long enough; something reaching 400mm would be more like it. From your video, Bronx Zoo seems very like Whipsnade .

When I exchanged my 24-200 for the 24-120, I said to the salesman "I'm hoping Nikon will be bringing out a wide-angle to telephoto zoom at some point, and if they do, I will very likely be buying it!"

Your video shows the 28-400 really is a brilliant lens for such situations, and it looks very sharp; the fur and feather detail look excellent!

 

[JasonMulvern]

Good work, thanks for sharing this, as others said above it looks plenty sharp enough for video work and therefore quite a versatile lens!

 

[Ken Ross]

Shot at the Bronx Zoo to test out the new 28-400 lens. Many shots were at a full 400mm. Some clips were shot through glass and thus had some compromise in contrast & detail (tiger, some birds etc.). Nonetheless it was an excellent test for this new lens. I was quite pleased with the results. Although I typically shoot in full manual, for this video I used auto ISO and thus you will see some minor exposure changes.

The video was shot in N-RAW, 8K60 and processed in DaVinci Resolve. As of this time it had not yet fully resolved to 8K and was limited to a 4K resolution. YouTube is hard to figure out in terms of how long it takes a given video to full resolve to 8K.

Nice work Ken...I think it safe to say that for field work shooting 4K or 8K, this lens gets the job done very nicely. More than sharp enough for video and surprisingly crisp in terms of CR. I have a 100-400, which is an excellent lens, but for shooting video, the 28-400 seems much more convenient and ideal as a single lens video solution for general purpose use. You may have just cost me some money!
Since you shot this in RAW (NLog or SDR?), have you given any thought to grading it in Resolve for HDR? Very easy to create a new timeline to output HDR.

I'd say your shots have the potential to work in HDR very well. For the last 9 months or so, I've been shooting in N-Raw NLog and rendering in HDR to upload to YT or Vimeo...I let them worry about conversion to SDR for streaming to SDR displays.

Of course there is the issue of how you monitor for HDR...in my case, a DeckLink Mini 4K and a 48" C3 OLED display.
Cheers!

Thanks, Tom! Sorry if I may have cost you some $$$.

This video was shot in N-RAW SDR. I’ve shot in HDR in some prior videos with this and other cameras, but to my eyes almost all consumer/prosumer HDR videos (mine & others) have a bit of an unrealistic look to them. It’s not just Nikon cameras, but I’ve seen it with Sony & Canon too. So my tendency is to shoot SDR. Of course this just how it hits me, and I’m sure others will have a very different opinion

 

[Ken Ross]

Thanks very much, Ken, very helpful.

I originally bought my Z6 ii with the 24-200, as the 24-120 wasn't available at the time.

I remember visiting Whipsnade Zoo with family (when you can't be messing about changing lenses) and thinking that 200mm really wasn't long enough; something reaching 400mm would be more like it. From your video, Bronx Zoo seems very like Whipsnade .

When I exchanged my 24-200 for the 24-120, I said to the salesman "I'm hoping Nikon will be bringing out a wide-angle to telephoto zoom at some point, and if they do, I will very likely be buying it!"

Your video shows the 28-400 really is a brilliant lens for such situations, and it looks very sharp; the fur and feather detail look excellent!

Thanks, Dave. I’ve always felt zooms like this get unfairly condemned in an almost knee jerk response. Some automatically discount a lens like this feeling it can’t possibly be a lens worthy of consideration based on its wide range. However in terms of sharpness & contrast, it’s obvious the lens is certainly up to the task for many/most use cases.

I fully understand the aperture is an issue for some, but for many of us a lens like this is almost always used in outdoor scenarios. Even the issue of subject isolation can be dealt with if needed. Yes, you won’t get the same isolation as you would with an F2.8 lens, but for me this is such a worthwhile compromise for what this lens offers.


The other interesting thing I’ve seen is that I can actually get away without the need to use a variable ND filter as I do with my other lenses. IMO this certainly doesn’t hurt the lens in terms of sharpness. So here the limited aperture has a bit of an advantage.

 

[zephxiiii]

Looks really good in the quick glance I could give it.

Was there any stabilization added in post? If not then that is pretty awesome. How well does it work at 28mm as far as any corner warpage?

 

[shuncheung]

Thanks, Dave. I’ve always felt zooms like this get unfairly condemned in an almost knee jerk response. Some automatically discount a lens like this feeling it can’t possibly be a lens worthy of consideration based on its wide range. However in terms of sharpness & contrast, it’s obvious the lens is certainly up to the task for many/most use cases.

People need to keep in mind that the optical requirements for video is drastically different from still photography. We don't stop a video and pixel peep a frame on some TV monitor, at least most sane people don't. I shoot my share of video and use the 24-200mm super zoom a lot. In some situations it is a huge advantage to zoom from 50mm or so quickly to 200mm for close ups, and I frequently stop down to f8 anyway to get more depth of field, e.g. an orchestra with many rows deep of musicians. I would have used f11 or f16 but I am also limited by ISO indoors.

Currently I frequently use the 100-400 for that purpose, but I can see the lack of a tripod collar can be an issue with the 28-400 for me.

I fully understand the aperture is an issue for some, but for many of us a lens like this is almost always used in outdoor scenarios. Even the issue of subject isolation can be dealt with if needed. Yes, you won’t get the same isolation as you would with an F2.8 lens, but for me this is such a worthwhile compromise for what this lens offers.

For still photography, I would certainly prefer to have 400mm f4.5 or f2.8. f8 is going to be problematic in a lot of wildlife situations. I recently went on a long wildlife trip and had both the 100-400mm (f5.6 @ 400mm) and the 400mm/f4.5 with me. Some others in the group had the 400mm/2.8 TC. There are certainly major differences. But I can see the 28-400 can be useful for video even for me, and for some more casual photographers, it can be a good lens for still photography. It all depends on your needs.

 

[Ken Ross]

Looks really good in the quick glance I could give it.

Was there any stabilization added in post? If not then that is pretty awesome. How well does it work at 28mm as far as any corner warpage?

Thanks, zephxiiii. No stabilization in post at all. The lens/camera duo work together to do a very nice job at stabilization.

The 28mm corners look fine. I’m sure there’s in-camera compensation going on, but at least visually it looks transparent to me. The shot at 0:24 of the deer was at 28mm. The lens is also impressively sharp at that focal length.

 

[Ernie Misner]

That looks good Ken, I have shot some 8K with my Z9 and even very close to a 75" 8K TV { my sisters I don't have an 8K TV , yet } it looks amazing. At longer more typical TV viewing distances whilst is still looks excellent it s a bit harder to tell apart from good quality 4K.

I have never owned a super zoom in FF but despite one or two negative reviewers, who seem to expect miracles from a 14x zoom. The results I have seen so far both video and stills look damn good. It would be a fun lens for travel. Thanks for posting the video, YT video compression often mangles video quality.

I started doing video with Panasonic m43 back in 2009 and got the bug . Although in theory video and photography share a lot of the basics it is a whole different ball game

Thanks for watching, James. I have a 77” 8K OLED and you do need to get relatively close to see the 8K difference. However when you do, it’s truly stunning. To be able to put your nose next to a 77” screen and resolve even more detail, without seeing the picture break down at such a close distance, is quite a revelation.

What about after posting to FB, DPR, or social media? Is there still an advantage of shooting in 8 or even 4K? Thanks.

 

[Ernie Misner]

Nice video, looks great. Did you use a tripod?

Have you tried pulling stills from it? I must admit I have the Z8 almost a year and have yet to even try video

Thanks, Jim. No, no tripod, all handheld. I’ve actually been surprised, given the 400mm focal length, how well the lens OIS + IBIS works.

Do you recommend regular or sport VR for hand holding video? Thanks

I’ve only pulled stills from my 8K videos a couple of times, but they look quite good.

 

[Ken Ross]

Nice video, looks great. Did you use a tripod?

Have you tried pulling stills from it? I must admit I have the Z8 almost a year and have yet to even try video

Thanks, Jim. No, no tripod, all handheld. I’ve actually been surprised, given the 400mm focal length, how well the lens OIS + IBIS works.

Do you recommend regular or sport VR for hand holding video? Thanks

I’ve only pulled stills from my 8K videos a couple of times, but they look quite good.

Ernie, regular provides a greater degree of stabilization but is not recommended if you’re panning. Panning while in the regular mode will result in a jerkiness to the video as the stabilization resists your panning. If you anticipate panning in a given clip, use the sport mode.

 

[Ken Ross]

That looks good Ken, I have shot some 8K with my Z9 and even very close to a 75" 8K TV { my sisters I don't have an 8K TV , yet } it looks amazing. At longer more typical TV viewing distances whilst is still looks excellent it s a bit harder to tell apart from good quality 4K.

I have never owned a super zoom in FF but despite one or two negative reviewers, who seem to expect miracles from a 14x zoom. The results I have seen so far both video and stills look damn good. It would be a fun lens for travel. Thanks for posting the video, YT video compression often mangles video quality.

I started doing video with Panasonic m43 back in 2009 and got the bug . Although in theory video and photography share a lot of the basics it is a whole different ball game

Thanks for watching, James. I have a 77” 8K OLED and you do need to get relatively close to see the 8K difference. However when you do, it’s truly stunning. To be able to put your nose next to a 77” screen and resolve even more detail, without seeing the picture break down at such a close distance, is quite a revelation.

What about after posting to FB, DPR, or social media? Is there still an advantage of shooting in 8 or even 4K? Thanks.

As long as you’re posting to a service like DPR, where the viewer has a link to the original YouTube video, then yes, there is an advantage to posting in higher resolutions. Of course the viewer must have a 4K or 8K display to enjoy the advantages of the higher resolutions. However, with that said, even viewing in lower resolutions will look better if the original video was uploaded in a higher resolution.



Aside from that, there are other advantages in shooting in higher resolutions such as zooming in post, having access to higher resolution frame grabs etc.

 

[Ernie Misner]

That looks good Ken, I have shot some 8K with my Z9 and even very close to a 75" 8K TV { my sisters I don't have an 8K TV , yet } it looks amazing. At longer more typical TV viewing distances whilst is still looks excellent it s a bit harder to tell apart from good quality 4K.

I have never owned a super zoom in FF but despite one or two negative reviewers, who seem to expect miracles from a 14x zoom. The results I have seen so far both video and stills look damn good. It would be a fun lens for travel. Thanks for posting the video, YT video compression often mangles video quality.

I started doing video with Panasonic m43 back in 2009 and got the bug . Although in theory video and photography share a lot of the basics it is a whole different ball game

Thanks for watching, James. I have a 77” 8K OLED and you do need to get relatively close to see the 8K difference. However when you do, it’s truly stunning. To be able to put your nose next to a 77” screen and resolve even more detail, without seeing the picture break down at such a close distance, is quite a revelation.

What about after posting to FB, DPR, or social media? Is there still an advantage of shooting in 8 or even 4K? Thanks.

As long as you’re posting to a service like DPR, where the viewer has a link to the original YouTube video, then yes, there is an advantage to posting in higher resolutions. Of course the viewer must have a 4K or 8K display to enjoy the advantages of the higher resolutions. However, with that said, even viewing in lower resolutions will look better if the original video was uploaded in a higher resolution.

Aside from that, there are other advantages in shooting in higher resolutions such as zooming in post, having access to higher resolution frame grabs etc.

Many thanks for your replies and great info. When you say use sport when panning, so you mean panning as it birds in flight and sports, or just real slow easy pans? Thanks again!

 

[Ken Ross]

That looks good Ken, I have shot some 8K with my Z9 and even very close to a 75" 8K TV { my sisters I don't have an 8K TV , yet } it looks amazing. At longer more typical TV viewing distances whilst is still looks excellent it s a bit harder to tell apart from good quality 4K.

I have never owned a super zoom in FF but despite one or two negative reviewers, who seem to expect miracles from a 14x zoom. The results I have seen so far both video and stills look damn good. It would be a fun lens for travel. Thanks for posting the video, YT video compression often mangles video quality.

I started doing video with Panasonic m43 back in 2009 and got the bug . Although in theory video and photography share a lot of the basics it is a whole different ball game

Thanks for watching, James. I have a 77” 8K OLED and you do need to get relatively close to see the 8K difference. However when you do, it’s truly stunning. To be able to put your nose next to a 77” screen and resolve even more detail, without seeing the picture break down at such a close distance, is quite a revelation.

What about after posting to FB, DPR, or social media? Is there still an advantage of shooting in 8 or even 4K? Thanks.

As long as you’re posting to a service like DPR, where the viewer has a link to the original YouTube video, then yes, there is an advantage to posting in higher resolutions. Of course the viewer must have a 4K or 8K display to enjoy the advantages of the higher resolutions. However, with that said, even viewing in lower resolutions will look better if the original video was uploaded in a higher resolution.

Aside from that, there are other advantages in shooting in higher resolutions such as zooming in post, having access to higher resolution frame grabs etc.

Many thanks for your replies and great info. When you say use sport when panning, so you mean panning as it birds in flight and sports, or just real slow easy pans? Thanks again!

Pretty much any kind of panning, Ernie. Just be aware the stabilization will be somewhat less effective in that mode.