Z6 III sensor - dynamic range give up??

[Jppark]

Clearly the Z6 III is an outstanding new offering by Nikon. I am unusually sensitive to dynamic range. Are there yet any tests of the Z6 III's DR at base ISO compared to that of the Z6 II and Z8 (I mention the latter because some will, like me, be considering buying either a Z6 III or Z8, in my case to supplement Z6s and D810)?

Other things equal, a stacked sensor (and this will apply to a partially-stacked sensor, though logically less so) will have slightly reduced dynamic range due to increased noise and reduced photon efficiency. This is a trade-off for very swift read-out, and I fully appreciate that the faster read-out will be the right side of the balance for most users.

My question is solely whether any reliable figures have yet been produced for the Z6 III's DR at base ISO, to guide me in making a determination. There are features of the Z6 III (shared with the Z8 and Z9) that would be very handy for me, and which are not found on the Df or Z7 II, both of which have excellent DR, I realise. (My post here is not intended to prompt discussion of the relative merits of DR versus read-out speed, or the merits of the various Nikon models).

JPP

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Clearly the Z6 III is an outstanding new offering by Nikon. I am unusually sensitive to dynamic range. Are there yet any tests of the Z6 III's DR at base ISO compared to that of the Z6 II and Z8 (I mention the latter because some will, like me, be considering buying either a Z6 III or Z8, in my case to supplement Z6s and D810)?

Other things equal, a stacked sensor (and this will apply to a partially-stacked sensor, though logically less so) will have slightly reduced dynamic range due to increased noise and reduced photon efficiency. This is a trade-off for very swift read-out, and I fully appreciate that the faster read-out will be the right side of the balance for most users.

My question is solely whether any reliable figures have yet been produced for the Z6 III's DR at base ISO, to guide me in making a determination. There are features of the Z6 III (shared with the Z8 and Z9) that would be very handy for me, and which are not found on the Df or Z7 II, both of which have excellent DR, I realise. (My post here is not intended to prompt discussion of the relative merits of DR versus read-out speed, or the merits of the various Nikon models).

JPP

IDK I would wait. I think the loss of DR is not going to be anything noticeable in practice. I mean the Z8 and Z7 II for example i think differ maybe by 1 stop at most, and probably not even that much but that's full stacked sensor vs BSI (non-stacked). So I'd expect the Z6 III to fall somewhere in between and probably closer to the Z6 II and Z7 II (maybe slightly worse than those, but not nearly as "bad" -- which isn't bad honestly -- as the Z8).

I would say wait until someone does a comparison, but nobody really has this camera yet so give it a few weeks (i think they start shipping at the end of June/early July). I haven't seen any comparisons myself but my guess is they have taken IQ and DR into account when designing the partially stacked sensor.

Personally I don't obsess about DR anymore (even being a landscape shooter) because if a scene has that much DR (say 12-stops or more) then I'm probably going to be bracketing anyway. I know for wildlife shooters and sports shooters this may not be an option, but it's something I've worried less about over the years since most cameras will give a good amount of DR and any differences are not likely to be visible in 95% of cases. The other reason I don't care as much is because DR has become more somewhat of a marketing thing like MP and burst rates. For example, I think Sony's A7R IV was touted as having 15 stops of DR (but there was a caveat to that and it was something like only at ISO 100, otherwise it dropped a bit to say 14.5 or 14 stops beyond that, and unless you're only doing landscape and thus only at ISO 100, the fact it had 15 stops didn't mean much for other practical uses like wildlife and sports where you might be at ISO 800 - 3200 but only say 13-stops pf DR). So I don't personally obsess too much about this myself. As long as we can get something like 13-15 stops I think that's pretty good.

--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.

 

[skyrunr]

The Z7II versus the Z6II in dynamic range go back and forth, so when you mention better, you have to specify which ISO's. Even then, we're talking about such small difference that I doubt they would be noticeable, or be a deal breaker. So I wouldn't worry about it.

It is a new sensor that will have better high ISO performance, maybe by 1-stop at the most. There are quite a few reviews and samples to check out from JPG's, but we won't know anything until RAW support is available to compare side-by-side in other software.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

(You even have to expand to a full window to see the minor differences.)

 

[mosswings]

The Z7II versus the Z6II in dynamic range go back and forth, so when you mention better, you have to specify which ISO's. Even then, we're talking about such small difference that I doubt they would be noticeable, or be a deal breaker. So I wouldn't worry about it.

It is a new sensor that will have better high ISO performance, maybe by 1-stop at the most. There are quite a few reviews and samples to check out from JPG's, but we won't know anything until RAW support is available to compare side-by-side in other software.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon Z 6II,Nikon Z 7II,Nikon Z 8,Nikon Z 9,Nikon Z f

(You even have to expand to a full window to see the minor differences.)

It seems as if the OP is sensitive to less than 0.4 stops DR at base ISO. it is true that the Z8/9's stacked sensor suffers that much loss in general WRT Z7, Zf, and D850 with some bobbles around the conversion gain transition point.

The thing to remember about the Z6iii is that yes, it reads out faster than the Zf, but nowhere near as fast as the Z8/9 do - estimates are something like 1/4 as fast. So I'd guess that at worst it splits the difference between the two at maybe 0.1 - 0.2 stops. I'd be interested in understanding why a loss of 0.2 stops or less hurts so much.

 

[pafish]

Sadly, it's more than only 0,2 stops ... it's more like 1 Stop less than the Z7II and 0,8 less than the Z8 and Z6.

 

[raunak]

If you're interested in technical comparisons of cameras on various review sites and having the camera with the best DR matters then sure you may feel something is 'given up'

For real world shooting I think the Z6 III captures plenty DR for capturing amazing landscapes. I don't recall thinking that a landscape photo could have been more beautiful if only it had that half a stop of DR more.

 

[ClintGryke]

Sadly, it's more than only 0,2 stops ... it's more like 1 Stop less than the Z7II and 0,8 less than the Z8 and Z6.

So sad. I'm crying. What to do. I've already got one beofre seeing the test results. I'm going to bin it, bang it off a wall, use it as a weapon against the next incredibly annoying political activist that knocks on my door.

Or wait a minute. Maybe I should just give it a go. Read the test results and interpret them using my brain in a real world context. Check it against my Z6II. Realise that the loss of a tiny amount of dynamic range and a tiny increase in noise have no impact whatsoever in real world photography.

And the new video features - WOW. Make a video of the next annoying political activist that knocks on my door. Now there's a weapon. The age of reason is not quite over. Watch this space.

 

[Restoc]

And a penalty in dynamic range is worsened by the size of the larger photosites of a 24 Mpix only sensor vs 45 Mp. An equivalent Noise Reduction is less efficient visually or said differently NR software have less opportunity to deliver a sharp image etc .

A penalty in DR is not only at luminance level but the final visual resilt at the end of the development and retouching..

 

[sandy b]

It's almost identical to the Z8

 

[Kamil Z]

It's almost identical to the Z8

Ouch, this is much worse.

 

[sandy b]

How? At ISO 100+ they are basically identical.

 

[24Peter]

How? At ISO 100+ they are basically identical.

I think the point being made is nearly identical DR from a sensor with slower readout and less resolution. Z8 outperforms the Z6III in this regard. Of course the Z6III is $1000 less at current prices.

 

[skyrunr]

Sadly, it's more than only 0,2 stops ... it's more like 1 Stop less than the Z7II and 0,8 less than the Z8 and Z6.

Given your other posts and recent join date, I think some here missed your sarcasm.

"I totally believe that the "global sensor" of the A9 feels good in the hands ... But on the Nikon side, we touch only the cameras... maybe Sony focus too much on the sensor? " pafish

I currently own the Z6III and A7CII. Neither are exactly what I am looking for, and both will get just about any job done. None of my issue are the DR or Noise.

 

[HRS]

If you're interested in technical comparisons of cameras on various review sites and having the camera with the best DR matters then sure you may feel something is 'given up'

For real world shooting I think the Z6 III captures plenty DR for capturing amazing landscapes. I don't recall thinking that a landscape photo could have been more beautiful if only it had that half a stop of DR more.

Every moment pixel-peeping is one that could have been used for improving one's technique with whatever camera you already own.

Frankly, my best shots were with (film) cameras with absolutely no "auto" anything. And in those days, we didn't "grain"-peep, thank goodness.

 

[herrMartin]

From an advertising, fashion and people photographer perspective - if you really have this range in your photo that you see this, you are doing something absolutely wrong … even worse. Even if the gap would be 4 times as high this would be true XD

 

[mosswings]

From an advertising, fashion and people photographer perspective - if you really have this range in your photo that you see this, you are doing something absolutely wrong … even worse. Even if the gap would be 4 times as high this would be true XD

true...but the loudest complaints are coming from people shooting high dynamic range scenes at lower ISOs (real estate, landscape, sunset shots) and compressing in post for printing/viewing. Boosted noise is a no-no.