As part of our regular appearances on the TWiT Network show 'The New Screen Savers', our Science Editor Rishi Sanyal joined host Leo Laporte to discuss Nikon's entry into the high-end mirrorless market. In this episode, we cover everything from DPReview's initial impressions of the Z7 camera based on hands-on testing of the camera and lenses over multiple days of shooting, to the broader question of what Nikon's serious entry into mirrorless means for the camera industry at large.
The entry of one of the camera industry giants into the full-frame mirrorless ILC segment signals, in our opinion, significant winds of change. Just two short years ago Nikon advertised the benefits of DSLR over competitor mirrorless cameras during its D5 launch, citing the immediacy of the optical viewfinder and higher frame rates during burst shooting.
But shortly thereafter the Sony a9 showed us that mirrorless technologies could not only overcome but surpass these shortcomings. Now in its mirrorless launch, Nikon is introducing cameras with higher burst rates, wider AF coverage and far superior video autofocus than any of its previous full-frame, non-pro-grade DSLRs. And mirrorless' reliance on fast-evolving image image sensor technology means that, just maybe, we can expect faster, far reaching improvements with each generation.
Have a watch of our discussion, and then let us know your thoughts on the launch of the Nikon Z cameras in the comments below.
I guess Dpreview staff have finally diverged into two fanboy camps: Nikon camp on one hand and Sony on another. Let the war come to bare! It's good for a line retail business..
I could not agree more than with what Ben has to say! To me as a D800 user with two slots, I feel I am looking at a company committing suicide, since obviously the commercial investment in this gizmo is huge, and Nikon do not have the resoirces of the other companies. I also noted Rishi's video which is indispensible at this difficult time in our cultural history. It is the best discussion of a new machine that I have seen and I do feel that all those attention-seeking oddities uploading verbose loud and empty reviews to uTube should watch, listen and take note. It would seem there is no vertical shooting button on the grip - is this truly possible. Are they expecting amateurs to flock to be fleeced for limitations and for so little return, like the M 10 Leica buyers who have each paid £6k for APS-C performance?? I shall keep my D800 gratefully near me at all times.
I have real, real trouble filling just my one card with data. And I'm talking a lot of (small, though) films and thousands of pictures. As long as Nikon is inventing, and not just copying sony, they're doing fine. Design on the Z-series is at least twice as good as a7. Not near Leica/Olympus/Fuji, but good enough.
As a Nikon Pro user for 25+ years,shooting for the likes of ELLE, VOGUE, Harper's BAZAAR,GRAZIA, etc... with 4 x FF bodies and 12+ lenses, I was aghast at the obvious oversight and flagrant ignorance in not providing a 2nd card slot. As a fashion photographer, I can afford a card failure, as I often tether and when shooting 10 + clothing changes in a day, I can re-shoot the image if need be. But the HORROR of a wedding, event, a journalist asking that the ceremony be re-done or can that robber re-do his take for that lucky capture or can you ask the CEO of "That Huge Corporation" to re-do his opening speech, is something that makes me cringe just thinking about it. I have 2 systems...Nikon and Fuji for now...NIKON...GOOGLE my name...I am in the Fashion Biz and take this stuff very seriously....What were you thinking...oh and that battery...lets not even go there for now. Those were simple things to consider. Any REAL pro you consulted with would have told you that 1 slot is a huge NO!
Knock it off, Benjamin. Seriously. Then breathe in slowly for a few days, drink some fine coffee, and think about what are you really proposing. You are proposing a 1990s-level, dual floppy disk data management, as a "solution" for a professional photographer. And you know that photographers are always busy, and lazy too, and will insist buying the slowest and worst cards, pulled out from somewhere, and rely — in their imagination — that two slots will magically "save them". That dog won't hunt. That is the recipe for disaster, because better data management practices and better media are not enforced. It is time that some company, like Apple who dismissed floppies (when almost everyone cried foul! just like now!), cut the chase and enforce more robust, future-proof, error-free solution. Apple enforced robust single CD-RW instead and a faster bus. It worked! In our case, Nikon volunteered with robust XQD, faster and error-free data transfer, and they are doing it right.
First tethered shoots typically send files over a laptop with one hard drive, no redundancy. When did mirrorless become "must have" for wedding, event, and journalists photogs? People all of sudden expect quiet at a wedding while you have a drone flying overhead for video. The audience for these camera's is not the Pro's who use D4/D5's and 8xx bodies yet all these wanna be photographers reviewing who couldn't afford to buy it anyways are crying because it's missing a few features they'll never use. Nobody has yet to review the real RAW image quality, high iso, and sensor performance, all just guessing.
Poor quality flash cards and camera firmware typically make up the bulk of corrupted images. One card slot isn't the end of the world. Maybe a method of sending images over via wifi as your shooting to your phone.
And when you tether, is it going to multiple hard drives when you shoot or only to a single hard drive at the time? Your single hard drive can fail also before you do your multiple backups. What is the difference?
Don't worry, the next Sony EVF would have ~5MP, around 5.6 MP...it seems... perhaps already into the A7S Mark III.....soon....the shiny, all new ECX339A does have 5.6 MP, and also 240 Hz Refresh Rate...fast enough for anything, and better than the Z6/Z7/Leica SL/GFX 50s/X-H1 EVF....
I have switched between the a7rIII and a7III, which have similar differences in specs, can can barely if at all tell any difference. There is a huge diminishing rate of return as you keep moving up resolution.
"I have switched between the a7rIII and a7III, which have similar differences in specs, can can barely if at all tell any difference. There is a huge diminishing rate of return as you keep moving up resolution."
You can't tell the difference because Sony is not providing a much higher resolution feed during shooting to the EVF. So the camera aren't taking advantage if the extra EVF resolution, except in playback mode, where you will most certainly notice the difference.
We're in no way at the point of diminishing returns yet for increased EVF resolution.
But yeah if a camera isn't even going to make use of that extra resolution, then sure you won't notice much of a difference.
You absolutely will notice the marked increase in resolution during shooting with the Nikon , despite it using the same OLED panel as the a9/a7R III.
The AF probably not, but if the tracking is much better then the result is probably better (since the nikon also use phase detection to direct focus it probably doesn't haunt ... so...) Anyway, i expect this answer to come in the full review :)
Rishi is, like, an equivalent of CERN in digital photography reviews. He can search for that lost photon and find where it bent its trajectory due to lens design, which exact photosite did it miss, and how much energy was discharged when the solar storm ejected hi-charged particles that were captured when the camera was facing the sun, which created super-short interval burst on the UV filter that affected local photosites.
To Zvonimir. Is it legal to "write under influence" where you live? Did you even understand the noncence you wrote? Should we nominate you for ig nobel prise for achievements in fundamental physics?
Lenses on mirrorless are closer to the body and thus do not drag down so much? If you put a lens of the same size on a dslr and on a smaller mirrorless, they both have exactly the same „distance“ to the body. But since the mirrorless is slimmer and leighter and usually has the worse grip, you can feel the pull of heavy lenses much more and you have less grip to compensate.
If you have two equivalent bodies and lenses, but one body with a much shorter flange distance, the lens is itself held closer to the center of mass of the body. The center of mass is therefore shifted toward your hand, meaning a shorter moment arm, which makes it feel lighter.
Rishi, but at the same time the back of the mirrorless camera is putting less counterweigth against the lens because the back is closer to the center of the mass as well. In addition the DSLR in itself puts much more counterweight agains any lens and with increased size offers usually the better grip anyway. In addition a less substantial grip puts your hand farther back compared to the mass center, All of this is together almost always leads to a more stable and comfortable grip on the DSLR.
But eventually this is getting a moot point since full frame mirrorless cameras are getting bigger and more heavy with every iteration anyway. They are so close to DSLRs already that I have lost most interest in full frame mirrorless.
How many cameras do I have to handle to know what I am talking about? Let´s assume we handled 567:1234 cameras. Does that make one person twice as correct?
I would advice to mount the Sigma 35mm 1.4 to a Sony A7 (first gen) and a D850. If you still feel the 450g camera has a better pull against a lens that heavy compared to a body twice as heavy, then you definitely live on a planet with much lower gravity. ;-)
Actually, it seems that you only have to handle two cameras and two times the same lens in different mounts to have the original claim feel wonky.
Btw. you will feel the same issue when mounting the 400g 56mm 1.2 to an X-E3 and compare it to a 85mm 1.8 mounted to a 5D. My fingers hurt after a short time with the Fuji combo and the leighter combo is more prone to shake due to the less comfortable mass distribution, especially when used one handed. A second hand voids this topic anyway.
TORN has it basically right: for the same lens design the flange to sensor distance doesn't influence the balance of the camera any since the front element to sensor distance is unchanged.
The most effective way to move the balance of a camera backwards is to move the position of the sensor relative to the grip.
That said, mirrorless systems tend to balance more nicely than dSLRs since wide angle native lenses don't have to be retrofocus designs.
The Nikon Z cameras in addition don't have AF motors or mechanical aperture coupling levers in the body, meaning less weight up front around the lens mount.
The key thing is 'shorter moment arm' which might not be very familiar to people. Basically the 'shorter' the lens sticks out from the body, the less downwards 'twisting' force (different lens designs and elements will also have an effect) . Your hand / grip is essentially the pivot so a larger, heavier body is not a counter balance because you will be griping in about the same position (plane). Even on a tripod it will 'behave lighter'.
Obviously I'm not talking about taking a DSLR-designed lens and putting it on a mirrorless. If you're going to take a lens and then add on the same amount of distance to match the flange of a DSLR then no, of course the mirrorless isn't going to feel lighter. It might even feel heavier, like TORN is saying, b/c of the smaller grip (though the Z 7 grip is substantial).
That's not my point at all.
I'm talking about DSLR-designed lenses (for long flange distances) on DSLRs vs. mirrorless-designed lenses (for short flange distances) on mirrorless.
The latter, except for long telephoto lengths where the differences start evening out, will almost always have a shorter moment arm. So even for the same total weight, will always feel lighter.
For even lower total weight, it'll feel even lighter than the the 30% weight savings the Z 7 specs would lead you to believe.
@Peak freak got it. Not sure how I could be any more clear.
Here's a link showing numerous side-by-side images of Nikon/Canon DSLRs and the Sony A7RII, comparing the actual dimensions of these cameras with various native lenses attached. The images and text clearly illustrate and support TORN's point.
Rishi: (un)Fortunately no camera bodies are ‘equivalent’ (the ‘ceteris paribus’ argument). Of course you are right, but only when all other factors (grip f.i.) are equal, which they never are.
Yes if the lens is bigger for the mirrorless, then this advantage disappears. So as you go to longer focal lengths, the advantages become smaller / disappear. But for wider angle lenses, where the mirrorless designs can be made of similar size or smaller, the moment arm should be shorter. See here, for example.
Perhaps I oversimplified my point. There are lots of variables at play, you are absolutely correct.
Rishi is a tech guy. Rishi knows better. I believe Rishi picks his camera based on science. What camera does Rishi have? Is Rishi a professional photographer? Casual Photographer? Advanced photographer? Does Rishi buys camera based on looks? Weight? Size?
I think Canon is playing it smart. When their announcement comes out they might have learned from Nikon's debacle. They are already not doing what Nikon did. Rush out a mirrorless camera that's no where near the A7iii. So far..
I know they have always been conservative (and very slow), but the industry has changed dramatically. The market is no longer a Canon-Nikon market, and they have had many years of watching what Sony has been doing, and at a very fast pace. They should've had a FF mirrorless at least 5, if not 10, years ago.
If they continue their tradition of 5 to 6 years to update a model, I think that will be problematic for them. You can run on inertia, but only for a while, and then customers would get tired of waiting.
Who is increasing market share in 2018? Last time we looked it was Canon. They do very well with aps-c mirrorless, they work on a full frame mirrorless and they lead the markets with their dslrs still. I would not expect them to hurry more than they have to. They never did.
"They never did.". Sometimes they do. No body is perfect. One biggy comes to mind is the big recall for the mirror box issue of the 5D in 2005/2006. Canon has always been conservative and slow, but that may not work well these days when Sony is hitting the market with a new FF very capable camera every year or less than a year. People have been screaming loud for a very long time asking Canon for a FF mirrorless. They should have responded some years ago.
I've pondered this 'slow to the party' thing. Canon will realise that when they offer an EF/EFS compatible mirrorless camera, that will eat into their DSLR sales big time. It is a matter of timing for them. Still selling lots of DSLR's? No rush.
They have already lost lots of customers to Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, and Olympus. Not everyone is a journalist sports photographer. Selling thousands of Rebel models to beginners is not what sustains Canon, but it is good for statistics and for market share figures!
Although I still have a Canon FF and a good set of L lenses, I don't use it nearly as often as I used to since I bought a Sony mirrorless less than a couple of years ago, which is what I now carry most of the time, if not always.
No, but it seems like they are reaming their own customers who want to stay with their existing lenses. New customers would be foolish to spend A9 prices for something slower than A7III/A7RIII with worse AF and a 23 frame buffer and a non-SD card. They are just assuming Nikon lens owners will pay through the teeth any price they want just to avoid jumping ship.
"We were working with a pre-production unit so things might change" -- this was in reference to processing / write speeds. It's a disclaimer we are required to state before making comments on performance, because we were working with such early version units.
I certainly wasn't suggesting a single card slot would become dual by production :-)
I am looking forward to a $2000 camera which I can comfortably use, which does not show little pauses during many basic operations and which does not have a mediocre viewfinder - most important for me on any camera. The Z6 was well worth the wait. In Sonyland I have to get the expensive model to get a somewhat decent EVF. I could not care less about a second card slot or sport AF.
That awkward moment when it becomes clear, by virtue of a particular question, that someone thinks that you are a complete idiot (despite this being manifestly and demonstrably untrue), and you have to provide a polite response.
Acting in a professional capacity sucks sometimes.
Will, it really does sometimes, and thank you for recognizing that. Sometimes it does change the behavior of some individuals long-term, and that's when it's worth it.
Technical perfection inside, elegant design outside. A more elegant outer design for the lenses of this new mount would be a bonus. Please look at the new lenses of Canon, as an example.
I also noticed this. The cameras are well-thought-out and visually attractive in characteristic Nikon trade dress. The lenses look like prototypes or placeholders, with no visual design touches whatsoever.
The Z 7 is unmistakably Nikon. The lenses could be Sigma branded and no one would bat an eyelid.
... "it's interesting how someone can make such a bold statement about my education whilst knowing nothing of it :)".
Nothing new on this forum, Rishi. Been told a "newby" when I disagreed with idiots, although I have been in photography for almost 50 years. :) Lots of 4th-grader idiots with huge egos everywhere.
Yeah sadly ... And expect 93% gold award in the Z7 review. I think nikon will never be able to deliver a better mirrorless then D850 at least before Z7ii
Which features did we attack about the a7 and a9 that we are now praising about the Z 7? Please be specific and I'll investigate / correct any errors, as we take insinuations of bias very seriously. Thanks in advance.
Don’t worry Rishi, many people commenting on here are attacking the “short comings” of the Z bodies while pre mk3 Sony bodies those same short comings where excused and accepted.
For example the single memory card, and whether bodies that don’t have dual cards are not for pros, or the battery life. Many Sony embassidors did this. “Carrying batteries is no big deal, they are so small”... or “I have never had a card fail, I shoot weddings with a pair of A7RII bodies”...
Many just don’t realize how long it takes to design and produce these cameras. I am pretty sure that Nikon started on this way before the mark 3 Sony bodies were released, and certain design decisions were taken without knowing what Sony would do. If Nikon comes out with a larger better balanced with long glass body with dual processors or something like that they would essentially pull ahead of Sony in the “pro”market, in my opinion.
Anyways, Nikon and canon enterkng the marke brings healthy competition.
Without being a sony fanboy. Like it or not the z6 and z7 if not aimed at nikon owners has to be compared to the gen3 sony models and probably gen4 since that will probably hit 50% into the life-cycle of the z6 and z7. I *.nl the z7 is already near the price of a a9 and thats already a hard sell in what you get in return. Nikon by not clearly beating the 3 sony bodies in play today already leaves them open for sony to react who openly expressed they will... Lets see what canon does next... Its so cool when all 3 FF brands are into mirrorless now and as RIshi outlined in this interview with the mirror gone and shutter on its way out the data-gathering becomes way more interesting and open for totally new ideas he hinted at.
"Like it or not the z6 and z7 if not aimed at nikon owners has to be compared to the gen3 sony models" -- agreed. I did make this point in the video :)
I didn't defend the single card slot or battery life in the video. I'm confused by the OP's post. Would love some clarification.
One question I ask myself again and again: So many new steps.. new card standards etc. Why still the antiquated and outdated jpeg format? What about HEIF?
Good question! Compatibility for now, I would suppose, but yes I'd like to see camera manufacturers, not just smartphone manufacturers, embracing HEIF, 10-bit, HDR display encoding, etc.
Thank you :) It could be an option in the settings - it is software after all. Heif support for phones, LIghtroom, Macs and Windows is available.. That would leave only TVs and devices like digital frames to be updated or "migrated".. I would be looking forward to that. Video being the thing atm could play an all new role. Maybe that would be a question to pose for you or one of your colleagues. ^^
I don't mind the JPG, it's the file splitting of video at 2GB that baffles me. For what? Compatibility with 28 year old Fat16 USB sticks perhaps? That's ironic, since they were all too small to even hold any modern video files! I can sorta see breaking at 4GB for Fat32, but 2GB? Fat16? Come on...
thanks @Rishi That interview was to me very insightful and I enjoyed someone telling me what I feel to be both sides. Being a Fuji but also a longt term Nikon DSLR shooter I have many of the questions you mentione.d
This Rishi Sanyal really has a view on things that completely aligns with my own. Has he written any reviews himself? So much insight I never seen in writing from DPR. Felling more hopeful.
Wow, you got to talk to Leo Laporte, /THE/ tech guy? What an honor! I listen to Leo every weekend on the radio, when I can. Hats off to Rishi!
I'm really hoping that once the dust settles, these cameras prove to be truly awesome, depsite their shortcomings. Honestly, I'm disappointed, as a wedding photographer, in the lack of dual card slots.
But I actually blame Canon and Sony for that, because of their complete lack of interest in offering that feature until the very recent A7Riii and A7iii.
Canon could clearly not care less about dual SD slots in its 6-series, even in the face of the D600, D610, and D750. And Sony made six, count them SIX, A7-series bodies with a single, slow, SD card slot, which is probably the time period during which Nikon decided that going with a single XQD card slot would be enough to "blow away the competition". Well, ironically, now that Sony has gone dual SD, all the pros who need dual card slots, but not insane FPS, are extremely angry...
You really blame C & S for Nikon not bringing 2 slots? 😆
They couldn't put 2 XQD slots in, they are to big. Simple as that. But they decided to stick to it instead of going back to SDii. In my opinion that was a wrong decision.
Wrong decision? I remember when everyone blasted apple for removing the floppy disc, then the optical disc, now the headphone jack....and the world continued to function and even adopt their changes and move forward.
Its a step in a different direction. Time will tell if it was the wrong decision.
Obviously, slightly in jest, however the logic is sound: for years, Nikon was the ONLY maker putting dual SD card slots in any of its cameras, period. Canon and Sony simply didn't care to compete with that feature. So Nikon figured it would probably be smarter to beat those single SD card slots (6D's, all six older A7-series) ...with a single XQD card slot.
I'm sure that when the A7Riii and A7iii were announced, Nikon went "oh, crap, maybe we should try and add an SD slot to the XQD, like in the D500+D850." ...but apparently, this is just their 1st generation, and they're sticking with their decision.
Until the A7iii, Nikon had no reason to put dual SD card slots in a sub-$2K FX body, except their OWN D6xx and D750 cameras.
Of course certain working pros DEMAND dual card slots, and in that regard the Z7's price really does dictate that it should have that feature. But those pros are likely going to keep their D850 or D750, and only buy a Z6/7 as a "new toy", I guess.
And you know what? It's freaking annoying, even though I still use Apple products.
However, this is bigger than just a "different direction". It's a serious omission that puts certain working pros in a no-deal situation. Nikon could have easily put both an XQD and SD slot. If you want the most out of your buffer, just shoot JPGs to the SD. Heck they could have given the Z7 a much bigger buffer, too.
Nikon made a bad decision, based on /years/ of zero competition regarding this certain feature from the 6D series and the older A7 series.
Of course, I'm sure they also did plenty of market research, and determined that MOST people would rather have a single high-speed card slot than dual, slow SD slots. We're in the minority. But it still means I won't be buying a Z-series body, unless I can retire from weddings completely in the near future, and do 100% landscape/nightscape work. ;-)
I wonder how working pros survived doing weddings in the past with only one slot(digital or one roll of film), I do not think they retired(sarcasm). I use a single slot for everything since I started using digital and never had a SD card fail. The new cards are supposed to be even more stable. Everything has its risk, but when chances of failure are less than being struck by lighting or killed in a care accident, I would not be concerned about it. Even two card slots a prone to failure. Read what Ken Rowell has to say about this omission.
I read Joe Mcnally today saying that the single card slot was not a big deal, and Joe is one of the best photographers alive today, so I think the whole "pros won't buy" goes right out the window.
HAHAHA... man the tech world moves quickly and people forget just as fast.
The mk3 Sony bodies were released back in NOVEMBER 2017 (A7RIII). Up till then there was this raging debate about dual cards, yet many people accepted the fact that the Sony bodies had one, that battery life was short. It has literally been less than a year that a larger battery capacity and dual cards were introduced.
So you people can complain all you want, but if Nikon had decided to address that, they would have pretty much needed to start almost from scratch again. This is the best they could come out with, and it is a good start. Heck, I had the A7II till a few months ago and had learned to live with it. These nikons are better than it, though not up to par to the A7iii body that I currently have.
But, better ergonomics, better botton size, and awesome weather sealing. So I see more potential here. Polish AF, introduce eye AF and better battery, and it would be better than Sony (IMO)
The requirement for 2 cards is now taken for granted, with absolute nobody can now provide any reliability data to justify why 2 XQD cards are needed. Never mind, same comment over and over again. Is there a way to stop this fallacy to propagate all over the web?
But 80% of the images were recoverable, and the failure did happen on a shoot. But I am no pro.
I had looked into wedding photography and such, and there are some other reasons why one could live with a single card.
1. Shooting several smaller. Size cards will ensure you won’t have all the photos on one card. 2. If you are a real pro, you realize it isn’t just a card that can fail, but a body, lighting systems, etc so having a bare bones backup is a good idea. So many have 2 bodies, so they have a body as back up AND that allow allows you to not have to change lenses.
So if you apply the above you can easily have enough room for the off chance a card fails.
For example I would switch out the card after very major things for a wedding. The kiss, the toss, the first dance. I would have a portable drive that the cards can back up to. For the rest shooting with 2 bodies gives you enough images for the off chance a card fails.
@Lawny13, November of last year is /yesterday/ in terms of camera development, and big decisions such as the image data pipeline. I stand by what I said about the reasons behind why Nikon decided to go with a single ultra-fast XQD card slot instead of dual SD slots, or even XQD+SD.
Regarding card failure, ...that's nice for you! As a wedding photographer who specializes in multi-day, 14-16 hr Hindu weddings, I shoot roughly 1/2 a million raw photos every year, and yes, I have had cards "go south" on multiple occasions. A memory card is only rated for 100,000 read/write cycles, usually.
But, it's more than just card failure or data corruption. Instant redundancy protects against many things, from theft and loss to all kinds of disasters or other breakdowns in the overall workflow of image safety.
Simply put, if I were still shooting with a single card slot, I would in fact NOT shoot million-dollar weddings, not unless I had a field backup device with an XQD card slot. Period.
@Julian, to be quite honest, if I were ANY other type of pro, even a high-end portrait photographer of the caliber such as Joe McNally, or even Annie Leibovitz, I might happily shoot on a Z7, for portraits, editorial, fashion, architecture, sports, wildlife, ...almost anything, OTHER than weddings.
Weddings are unique in that you're spending all day, often 10-12+ hours, walking and even driving all over town, doing journalistic work, shooting posed portraits, ...and at the end of the day, you have 2-3 photographers with a few thousand photos that have to be backed up.
Having dual card slots with raw images written to both cards VASTLY simplifies the workflow: Each photographer gives their primary card to the lead shooter, and their backup card to the 2nd shooter. That way, before you even leave the reception venue, you have a backup of your data. And not just that, but an effortless off-site backup...
...could even the most high-end pro "make do" with taking a single copy of images on single memory card(s) home to back up right away? Sure. But here's the thing: It all comes down to which is more convenient, and which is the worse trade-off. In other words, I could keep shooting with a D850 or a D750, and enjoy the benefit of this amazingly easy workflow, yet continue "making do" without the advantages of things like IBIS and the WYSIWYG EVF. Or, I could put up with the hassle of a new backup workflow, in order to gain those advantages.
And right now, I'd rather stick with a D750 / D850, especially considering the unknown factors of battery life and low-light AF reliability.
Again, as I said before, if the Z6 gets numerous real-world reviews that say the battery life isn't too bad, and the low-light AF is just as reliable as a D850/D750, then I might consider trying it out, and just putting up with a more elaborate on-site backup procedure. But until then, NOPE.
@matthew saville redundancy wont save you from theft if both cards are in the camera when its stolen :-D
Something else people aren't talking about is how you can use snap bridge to lifetime back up photos to an iPhone or iPad over wifi as you shoot. And in their q&a they transferring over RAW was going to happen as well.
There will be options for those who demand some kind of back up. I've owned and shot digital cameras since the mid-90s...I didnt have a dual card slot until I got a Nikon D800...which was two different styles of cards...I only ever shot it single card. Then, I have my XT2 with dual SD slots...there was a while where I was shooting RAW + jpeg between cards...but I quickly stopped, and went back to treating it as single card with an overflow. I feel like the redundancy issue mostly comes from a younger generation or people who got into photography later in life and aren't as trusting.
Thanks Matthew. I appear on the show from time to time (this was my 3rd time). Probably my favorite episode was the one on smartphones. You can watch that video at the bottom of this article 'Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds'.
When shooting any wedding, let alone a 16+ hour one, I use a single 64/128GB card in the primary slot, and the 2nd slot gets 16/32GB cards that are swapped out after every important step of the day. Prep & portraits, ceremony, family formals, reception... So if anyone ever grabs my camera, they're only stealing the most recent few mins/hrs worth of photos. And I /NEVER/ put my camera down for even a second unless I have just swapped cards.
Using Snapbridge to backup 64-128GB worth of NEF files would be theoretically possible, but again still far less easy than just sticking with a D750 or D850. Like I said, it's not a matter of what is possible, it's a matter of what is convenient.
Again, as I said, many different kinds of pros don't /need/ dual card slots. I get that. But it's not about being scared or not trusting a single card. It's about an extremely useful workflow that just makes life easier. I shot hundreds of weddings on the D700, D300, D200, and D70, ...and film.
I get and to some extent agree with what you are saying. But as a wedding photographer the Z6 and Z7 bodies were not for you from the get go, at least not for the first 5 months even if they had dual cards. Logically considering how much you shoot, and how important safe guarding your images is, going the earlier adopter route... somehow I doubt you would have gotten one.
Lastly I think we need to simply step back and think for a bit on what nikon is doing. I think it is pretty obvious they chose this approach to remain consistent, and they are using the Z6 and Z7 bodies to test the waters. What does sony not have??
Sony doesn't really have a body that balances that well with longer glass. There is a place in the markget for a bigger beefier body that would balance will with the tele lenses. If they release such a think... I think it would be more your thing, with maybe a Z body as a B camera to lighten the load. Right?
Whenever I buy a new camera as a wedding photographer, I always have my "tried and true" workhorse at the ready in case I encounter a show-stopping issue. But, as someone who works with cameras full time, (I also do gear reviews) I'm pretty good at getting to know a new camera very well in just a few hours.
If the Z6 had dual card slots, it could have been a nearly /perfect/ wedding MILC, just like the D750 was a nearly /perfect/ wedding DSLR.
I would rather have two Z6's than a single D5-style camera. Most wedding photographers would. In fact, if Nikon decides to /only/ put dual card slots in a $5K MILC, I won't be buying into the system, period. I'll either stick with my D750, or get an A7iii, or see what Canon releases.
Rishi makes a good point: How are Nikon going to attract new users who don't already own Nikon gear?
I don't own Nikon gear but I'm at least intrigued by the new mirrorless cameras but I do ask myself If I was starting new, would I pick the Nikon over the Sony? Not at the moment.
I'm going to wait and see what Canon have to offer and then make the choice out of the three brands.
canon will release a milc that's technically inferior to what sony has, just like Nikon did here, and similar to their own canon weak ef-m bodies, so it'll be years before the dslr companies have competitive milcs.
if you want the advantages of milc, get it from a seasoned milc company like sony, Panasonic, Olympus, etc.
Ergonomics, for those who have the chance to try multiple bodies and systems before they buy. Otherwise, I think Nikon is initially focusing on customer retention. In a few years the Z system should be much more attractive to those starting new.
While the Sony FE system is certainly more refined and more complete than anything Nikon or Canon can cook up at this late date.... I think there is powerful incentive for existing Nikon and Canon users to stay with their brands.
Apart from "ergonomics" you can add brand loyalty, compatible lenses already owned, and similar menus and color science.
Lets be honest. MILC has been around for ten years now. Everyone who desperately wanted one already owns one. So while these Johnny-come-lately systems may not attract many new user, they will do an excellent job holding onto existing users. And they represent around 85% of the potential FF MILC customers.
But those other 15% are in play. The Pentax and Sony DSLR users, compact camera and smartphone users who want to move up, and perhaps a handful of PM4/3, and Fuji X and Sony E crop sensored MILC users who want full frame. But I think most of them would still prefer Sony FE.
I think MILC's comments are fair. Canon have the ability to produce a great and competitive camera but I doubt they have the attitude. Their current closest spec'd camera to the $2000 A7III is the $3300 5DIV and even then the A7III quite a few notable advantages. If Canon base their mirrorless camera on that pricing it'll be a disaster.
I still believe Canon have the technical ability so I remain optimistic.
Weather sealing, and potentially more competitive prices. The bigger mount will give them more flexibility and relax the design quite a bit. Remember what sigma said about designing for e-mount.
If they bump up battery life to match Sony, and performance is 90% of song but with a better feeling of immediency, the ergonomics and weather sealing would be enough to win people over.
Lastly for longer glass since you don’t gain much size advantage in mirrorless. You can get some Nikon lenses for 1 to 1.5k. cheaper even second hand with no performance loss (unlike adapting to Sony). Want a 150-600? Pick up the tamron with adapter for $1650 with full functionality. How about longer primes?
400 f2.8 Nikon goes for 8k vs sony’s For 12k etc etc
a9 af with adapted lenses like the 150-600 can be just as accurate as native bodies, or even better, because there aren't any af fine-tune issues... and especially if you want eyeaf with adapted glass, which no dslr can really do with native lenses: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61446930
I just want a full frame mirrorless camera that handles great and efficient, has an awesome EVF and can be bought for less than $2000. Before the Z6 there was none on the market. Thank you Sony for forcing C&N to do it right and at the same time stay below two grand.
@The Fat Fish. I have similar reservations about Canon body spec/pricing. The Nikon has surprised me a bit and has got my interest - it is all in the lens design potential with the large mount and flange distance. If the Nikon 24-70/4 proves to be significantly better performer than the Sony Z FE 24-70/4 (for example) then yep, I could be interested. [ Unlikely Canon will introduce a completely new mount to take full advantage of mirrorless but prepared to wait and see. Smaller, lighter for the same 'L' glass performance would suit me very much.]
That is wishful thinking. You can go to Brian Smiths’s wed site to check out some of his testing of adapted lenses. What you should notice is that the performance of the Sony system with adapted glass varies depending on the lens.
In many cases you have the FPS drop down to 3 fps, or AF tracking has some issues. Lens performance with adapter thirf party leners is simply not consistent. Looking it up i can find discussions on dpreview that confirms this. Performance is lens dependent, adapter dependent and FW dependent. It is at times difficult to detemine whether the lens you would like to adapt will work as you expect it to.
Apparently things got “better after FW 1.10”. But still, I don’t have the confidence to go out and get a third party lens only to get an unknown performance. There is a bigger risk than adapting Nikon to Nikon.
Also found the 400 f2.8 af-s ed Nikkor VR (non-FL version) for 8k
And you still have other options like the 150-600 that I mentioned.
All in all if Nikon gets AF and battery life up to compete with Sony they become compelling. But we will have to see on the pricing of their lenses. For example if the 70-200 f2.8 is cheaper by a few hundred than the GM. I am always under the impression that you can always say that you can by 3 to 4 lenses and get one free compared to buying Sony glass.
Anyway. Apparently Sony is your thing. Not trying to crap on them. But since they are not the only FF mirrorless on the market they better watch out. Canon had generally always had an edge over Nikon when it comes to affordability when it comes to lenses. People will be less willing to pay that 20-30 percent more for Sony. Especially considering after purchase customer support and repairs etc.
@lawny13 - you are engaging in wishful thinking, along with misquoting lens prices, and it's pretty clear that as usual you don't have experience with this, because you are making claims based on what brian wrote years ago.
I posted adapted 150-600 pics above, that were shot at 10fps, they speak for themselves... the 3fps limit on the cheaper camera bodies does not apply to mc-11 with supported sigma glass; the a7iii for example will do the same 10fps with that combo, that it does with native glass... I get 13-14fps or better with that combo on the a9, which can't be done with Nikon milc.
milc is all about the sensor, and since sony makes the sensors, it has an advantage that Nikon can't ever match... sony also has a full lens lineup of 15-20fps lenses, while Nikon has no lenses and no camera bodies that are anywhere near that.
sony is clearly the tech leader in the space, Nikon will never catch up to sony.
First of all not everyone has an A9. Second of all information about adapted lenses are fragmented and there is always an unknown factor to it. I am glad to hear that the 150-600 works well on the A9. Buy there is no up to dates comprehensive overview with regards to lens comparability and behavior and Sony is not responsible for this nor should they be, after all it is not their lenses and adapters.
I had looked around for a few years when I was considering adapted lenses and gave up. Nikon adapting Nikon lenses can at least guarantee that I don’t have to look this up or worry about it much. I only used sigma as an example, but generally metabones and canon would have been my preferred choice, as sigma lenses comparable with the mc-11 is a limited list.
As for the sensor tech... it is still Nikon designed, with agreed upon interfaces and requirements. In terms of IQ we can already see that the D850 does as well as the RIII. In terms of OSPDAF, it is a matter of optimizing what the camera does with he output and what input is supplied. I used to design optical measurement setups and off the shelf cameras (for scientific use) were things we used a lot. So how about we see how the nikon performs before making bold claims about afvantages.
For example I don’t think Nikon produces its own AF sensor for the D850 and it is class leading there. In fact PDAF AF techniques have been around a long while. osPDAF is presumable a reduction in pixel sizes but the theory is still the same.
@lawny13 - you are not listening to what's been said to you.
1) you don't have experience with adapted sony lenses. 2) you are posting false information about lens prices and adapted lens performance. 3) performance of adapted Nikon glass is a total unknown at this point, the camera isn't even on the market yet, so quit making big claims about it. 4) sony fe-mount lenses are rated at 15-20fps, Nikon has no lenses like that. 5) sony has 155 fe-mount lenses, Nikon will have 3, lol https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Lens+Format+Coverage_Full+Frame+Lenses&ci=17912&N=4196380428+3999800997+4108103537
1. Sony has the best bang for your buck deals on lenses compared to the competition when considering filling one’s FL line up. 2. You can freely adapt third party lenses to Sony bodies without having to worry about adapter, lens, camera combinations. 3. And with “their” 155 lenses available one can easily expect to find AF lenses for any of the popular focal lengths or focal length ranges at various price points to meet the budget of all, similar to Nikon and Sony.
Did I forget anything else? Oh ya...
4. Survice is top notch, repairs as well, and Sony is the type of company that won’t ditch you. Models and all mounts are continuously suppoted, with FW upgrades to implement improved menu systems, AF issues. So invest freely with full confidence that your investment will enjoy long term development around your mount.
Sarcasm aside, I thought to myself. Damn, if he says things have changed and it very well could have I should have another look at this adapting to A7III thing. Cause there are certain lenses I would definitely like to adapt if possible. FYI I do have experience adapting to the A7 mk2 and it was crap.
So... no dude. Based on user descriptions and experiences it is not as you say. I am glad for you that it does what you want, but it looks like it is not consistent fully functional as nikon's adaptation will likely be.
With it apparent that canon will announce next week, it changes things. I might simply maintain two systems.
Canon for the likely more afforable options, and sony to have access to some of those choice zeiss optics
@lawny - "So... no dude. Based on user descriptions and experiences it is not as you say."
yeah, you know nothing at all about adapting lenses to the 3rd-gen sonys under discussion, and now you are trolling us with claims by idiots who don't know anything about it either, lol
So you can guarantee that if I go out and buy a metabones adapter and adapt any canon glass on my A7III that it would work seemlessly, with all AF modes, eye AF, complete OSPDAF coverage, and no weird focusing issues at lower light?
When my buddy is back from Australia, I will borrow his metabones adapter and try out the canon 70-200 and the 17-40. I hope you are right.
I don't own metabones, which means that I never "guaranteed" anything, where did you come up with that nonsense?
see how you come to the wrong conclusions, by reading sources like reddit? you should be searching the dpr sony ff forum, especially wrt the different operating modes of the mb adapter.
I posted a link to photographic proof, a few posts up, of what works for me, the af accuracy there is not arguable, at 10fps.
You told me off for using reddit as a source when looking into adapted lenses, and that I should look up discussions on DPreview instead. So I went ahead and did that and I found one that even covers the latest FW.
According to the poster in the link above he things that going from 1.11 to 1.12 was a bad idea since the performance of the adapted lenses he shows in the vid take a hit.
This actually brings up another issue with sony. FW updates aren't exactly transparent, and you can't roll back.
I at least simply have more confidence that nikon adapted lenses using a nikon adapter on a nikon body will more likely then sony work consistently and as intended. This is simply because nikon owns the protocols to all three, and it in their best interest to make sure things work consistently. Of course adapting 3rd party lenses will likely be an issue though.
@lawny13... the "sarcasm" post was hilarious! Scary thing is.. @MILC man (formerly @osv) truly has to be the biggest Sony fanboy/fanatic here... probably wouldn't have gotten that you were being sarcastic, if you hadn't spelled it out for him. He is not going to like you disagreeing with him that Sony is total perfection.
Hey Milc man.. just for fun, name us 5 things that Sony could improve about their cameras, lenses and system. Areas they come up "short" compared to the competition.
Cheers mate, and thanks. I really really really wish that I thought and saw things like that concerning sony especially since I have the system. But try putting an excel sheet together regarding lenses and price. Or adapting lenses, or blah blah blah. Well everything, and one think you will always run into is consistency. There are just fundamental things that give me pause.
One example would be FW. Turning off live view effects at one point caused wide open focusing of lenses. A FW update came along with a description that said that it improved AF performance. I thought... "hey why not?" And bam!!! Stopped down focus in AF-C (wide open initial focus). That made AF worse. And why?? Cause their GM lenses exhibits big time focus shifts. FW 1.11 to FW 1.12 saw a performance dip in adapted lenses.
I love how they push the tech boundaries. But I just don't feel I can trust sony. Its good for him that MILC man loves his system though. To each his own.
@lawny13 - "going from 1.11 to 1.12 was a bad idea since the performance of the adapted lenses he shows in the vid take a hit."
wrong again, as usual... he figured out that he screwed up that test, and then posted this:
"First, let me say that any of my initial AF concerns are out the window! This thing, even with Canon lenses was amazing... The af system is definitely smarter than Canon DPAF. Though Canon might still have the slight edge in a few areas, overall I would take the Sony in a heartbeat. Not only did the AF work great, but the images seemed sooooo much sharper where they were in focus.
The battery lasted the entire wedding. I've haven't shot an entire wedding on one battery since the 1DX. 10 hours on one battery... Amazing. Overall, I think the Sony has become my main camera. The plan was to use the 5DIV as the main and have the A7III as the second, but I think I'll be switching the pecking order." https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61031854
Adapting lenses is like opening a box of chocolates. You never know what you are gonna get. Reports of what works and doesn’t work or limitations of behavioral differences are all over the place.
Had it improved no doubt about that. But one post says there was a performance hit and then the guh corrects himself 10 posts deep?? Different Sony lenses behave differently. Some always stop down, some partially opens up and then stops down.
There is a simple lack of consistency. I have been shooting Sony since the release of the A7II, and I have tested adaptation several times or looked at it several times and always concluded not to. You might be comfortable with it, but I can draw my own conclusions with regards to my investment in gear.
he contradicted himself because he screwed up his first test, as multiple people pointed out in the thread, but you've ignored that at least twice now.
what part of him saying: "This thing, even with Canon lenses was amazing... The af system is definitely smarter than Canon DPAF", did you NOT get.
that quote was from YOUR link, that YOU posted, but you deliberately failed to post the real truth of what was said in the thread, I had to do it there... you are either trolling, or you have a complete lack of reading comprehension ability.
now you make claims about sony stop-down behavior, while failing to admit that Nikon z bodies are focusing stopped down... it's just one failed post after another from you, lol
@MILC man Yes you proved that for that particular lens that the guy corrected himself and said it performed great.
However I was pointed out that it shows that it is always a big expenditure of time to look and and find what works or not. THINK for example like a regular consumer. You don't plan your entire lens purchases before you buy a body. You might do some research into a hand full of lenses, but that is it.
There is simply no unified up to date location where you can find out how a lens you want to adapt works. You need to dig into that each time and for every lens.
Whereas if nikon or canon state and claim. All nikon lenses adapted to the nikon Z bodies with the nikon adapter will work without compromising the lens or body performance. That is ONE statement, and you are done. The only think you need to research or read reviews about is the body on its own and the lens on its own. Even that can be daunting to the regular consumer.
now you are engaging in idle speculation, about cameras that aren't on the market, being used in situations that no one has tried, and you are again ignoring what's been said.
I specifically pointed out that Nikon milc will be focusing stopped down, and the implications of that went right over your head.
It didn't go over my head. I know it will be focusing stopped down. It remains to be seen if they will allow the user to turn that off. I don't mind that sony cameras focus stopped down. but it annoys me that we can't turn it off, or that they didn't do something smarter about it.
The fact that the nikon at least opens up to f5.6 is something. If I need to stop down past f8 for any reason the sony bodies start to hunt. The only work around to this is to switch to AF-S. Also not fully confident about the critical focus location (if you want focus symmetry around your focus point, not that I actually care too much about this currently). Focus shift beyound f5.6 is insignificant, so there is no gains other than live view of your DOF.
When it comes to stopped down focus, it seems to be manufacturer's choice.
when the camera is running at 15-20fps, the last thing you want is for it to be flapping the aperture leaves around between every frame, in order to focus.
it's a problem for the studio guys, who want the aperture wide open until the photo is actually taken.
I know the reason. But here you are again talking about the A9.
I have the A7III. So there is no 15-20 fps. I understand why stopped down, or the several reasons for it. But the option of being able to turn it off would have been much appreciated, especially for situations from f8 onward, or low light. After all if AF is sluggish due to the system being starved of light you can simply miss a shot.
For example, a candid shot, where you are set at f4 (for DOF) while you have an f1.8 lens. In low enough light I have missed several shots. the subjects weren't running around so the f4 and the slower shutter was acceptable, but AF was slow enough that the precise moment was missed.
Anyways, there is no perfect solution, but they used to not have stopped down focus with live view settings off (in AF-C), and then introduced it via FW without being fully transparent about it.
Lied? You serious? Just because I didn't go and read all the postings of a thread is not lying.
I was making just ONE point. The point is that there is no proper complete overview when it comes to adapting lenses to Sony. Do some googling and you find varying information which makes it difficult to be sure what you will get when adapting. Apparently it is a LOT better on the mk3 bodies, but there is still no unified information out there.
I basically asked you if you pretty much guarantee that adapting canon lenses (for example) will give you full body and lens performance. You say you can't guarantee that with the metabones adapter. I then asked which one then (MC11 for example) and yet you still can't guarantee that, and you are fixed on your A9's performance, which I do not have nor am willing to get for that kind of money.
Yes the Sony mk3 bodies are great, but the lens line up is still lacking (in MY OPINION). With canikon entering there will be more choices.
so now you are blaming the lies that you posted to this thread on incompetence.
i'm not going to argue with that, given that it was already obvious... you claim to own sony, but you don't know squat about it.
and no, there aren't anymore choices with canikon milc, because those bodies don't have any lenses... b&h lists 155 ff e-mount lenses, canikon milc will never approach that.
Z-mount = 55mm EF mount = 54mm EF-M mount =47mm (but electrical contacts might need moving for FF f/1) E-Mount = 46.1mm F-mount = 44mm Fuji X mount = 44mm
People seem to forget that you can make the mount smaller when it's closer to the sensor. There was a nice graph about this at the Nikon presentation - the angle of light widens when you come closer. You see that with EF and EF-M mount.
There are the sharpest and smallest wide angle lenses available for E-mount (Loxia 21mm, 1635GM) - it seem to work good 😉 I'm sure the new Nikons will be great lenses - but SMALLER is not what comes to my mind when we look at them ...
Who is going to buy a f0.95 for edge to edge sharpness!
regardless that lens is not small. You can have small sharp lenses on a smaller mount as proved already.
Anyway we are going off-topic here, all this is still does not justify or relate what Rishi said in the video which was - "That's actually one of the awesome things of about having that wide throat you can have a 0.95 lens" That statement seems inaccurate and misinformed at best so far unless some reasonable justification is provided because you can have and there already are f0.95 lenses on smaller mounts.
Rishi said - "That's actually one of the awesome things of about having that wide throat you can have a 0.95 lens". Unless explained otherwise by Rishi, that statement is **factually** misleading because there are f0.95 lenses for other mounts that smaller. So its nothing special that's particularly a feature of the z-mount. Rishi, you, I or anyone else are not above facts!!
My main point as stated in the video is that the larger throat places less constraints on lens design.
The specific comment about F0.95 could have been clarified - the longer flange distance of F-mount meant that a larger throat particularly might have eased design of fast aperture glass.
The more general point here is that the larger throat and the smaller flange distance place less constraints on lens designers .
Hard to get all these nuances across in live video form, but I hope that clarifies things.
There are multiple factors involved, and the large throat is just one element that removes some constraints from lens designs. It increases the entrance pupil of the mount, requiring less of a need to constrain the cone of light exiting the lens.
That doesn't mean you absolutely cannot make fast lenses with smaller throats (particularly with smaller flange distances), it's that a smaller throat places extra constraints on design you might not have with a larger throat.
For example, for the same flange distance, a larger throat allows for a closer exit pupil and larger exit pupil diameter, lessening the need for elements to constrict the cone of light. So, again, it's about removing lens design constraints.
I'm sure Roger or Brandon could provide more informed commentary. Where's our tagging feature on DPReview!
MILC man: "edge to edge sharpness is a function of lens design, not the lens mount."
So, you think that the throat diameter has no influence on lens design? You haven't a clue what you're talking about. You can make a 0.95 lens for EF mount, sure, and it will be far harder to get the edge-to-edge sharpness required due to the sharp incidence angles of the light rays reaching the outer portions of the sensor. And that's without even mentioning coma.
No, the Z-mount is far better. Have you SEEN the MTF curves of the initial three lenses? Compare them to any comparable Sony. Or Nikon F-mount lens, for that matter.
Thank you Rishi for pitching in :-) Certainly hope Roger or someone else with more optics knowledge would pitch in also. May be he is already writing an article on it so who knows ;-)
I wonder if you would agree that going by pure anecdotal evidence so far it hasn't done nikon any favours. The 58mm noct is rather huge when compared to say leica noct. The nikon z 50mm/1.8 is also fair amount bigger than Sony FE 55mm/1.8. (I don't know of any premium quality 35mm f1.8 to compare against). Of course they aren't the same focal lengths and we don't know how much better or worst these lenses are to full extent but for now the wide throat hasn't fully shown its true potential may be?
Let's compare the MTFs (theortical calculations from different manufacturers ... not sure if there is a lot of value in this)
The Nikon IS a little sharper in the edges. The rest is about the same as the Sony 55mm. Nikon simply follows the trend to oversize lenses to get better edge sharpness. Sony uses 7 elements, Nikon 12.
That's a result of lens design, not purely lens mount. At least the 50mm seems to make use of the big mount, the 35mm has a smaller rear element.
I wasn't a fan of the initial lens choice as many Nikon DSLR owners will already have all three focal lengths and paying a lot to get a somewhat better one (that wouldn't work on their DSLR so they need to keep the existing one) is a bit of a ask. As is just using converted lenses. I'd have included one new lens that existing people wouldn't have. E.g. 43mm f1.2 or 20-80mm f2.8-4 (note not a typo for 24, possibly 20-60 if 4x from 20 proves too hard - I put the f4 to help).
“The Nikon IS a little sharper in the edges. The rest is about the same as the Sony 55mm. Nikon simply follows the trend to oversize lenses to get better edge sharpness. Sony uses 7 elements, Nikon 12.”
Sharper at the edges is the whole point of the larger throat diameter.
@Deliverator: The question is, is it sharper in the edges because it's a larger lens with more glass elements to make it sharper in edges or because of the wider throat? Other way to look at it is if Sony made a lens with an optical formula with more elements and corrections would it be as sharp also?
@Deliverator.. the only reason @MILC man is arguing that throat size does not matter, is because Sony has a small one.. and he believes Sony can do/design nothing wrong.
Throat diameter will help for sure at constructing lenses - but the Sonys are still great and Nikons still big and very complicated. So they don't show the benefit with these lenses - probably it's not THAT big.
starting at 10:38, rishi is fondly lamenting the old Nikon dslr af modes, while the video is giving af examples of where those modes are not needed at all.
"Nikon 3d tracking", with a single subject in the frame? why do you need to push to select the target? sony eyeaf will automatically grab his eye, and it stays glued on his eye, regardless of where his face moves in the frame... Nikon has face detect, it should work in a similar manner, with no need to manually select the target.
with face recognition, the camera will use priority to pick a face out of the crowd and focus on it automatically, every time, again no need to manually select the target.
the future with milc is moving beyond primitive dslr limitations, like no eyeaf, and the focus modes that were developed for that primitive hardware.
rishi got cut off before the af mode discussion could develop into something useful, unfortunately.
@MIlc: I dont know if you ever used Nikon gear. The question he raised about the 3d tracking was something you might call a nikon insider - they offer two modes. HE is validly questioning why they chose one over the other. It leads to the question why Nikon DSLR Users should switch. Currently even that is open to discussion. BTW there are DSLRs with eye AF - lets not get into comparing that to what you mentioned. ^^
yes, comparing dslr so-called eyeaf to sony eyeaf really wouldn't be fair, and that's the point; milc has af capabilities beyond what dslrs can provide.
"What is 4D FOCUS? Conventional autofocus (AF) deals with space alone. 4D FOCUS goes one step further with an innovative image sensor that picks up both space and time to capture moving subjects" https://www.sony.com/electronics/4d-focus-camera-settings
Nikon "3d tracking" is just a gimmick name, like what sony has there... i'm not seeing why milc has to choose between two modes, like you outlined with Nikon... what is the advantage there?
@MILC: Modes - The 1 AF version that was used with the OF had a lot of modes for fast action shooting and was very very dependable. (up to the degree you specified). The other mode was used when using the rear LCD - the mode few DSRL users used due to its slower tracking. Guess which one they picked. The latter. That choice would make you change your working mode.
Apologies, the video doesn't necessarily match the discussion - it was cut in from our sample videos by the TWiT editors, and I had no control over this.
The point of 3D Tracking is that it's useful when you want to pick out a specific face, or even eye of a specific face. The camera will stick to it like glue. For adventure photography, it can even stick to this kayaker moving wildly around.
And though the Z-series has subject tracking, you have to either tap the LCD screen to choose a subject, or always hit 'OK' to reset the AF point to place it over your new subject. With a Nikon DSLR, you just let off the shutter, recompose to place the AF point over your subject, and depress the shutter again. The extra step of having to hit 'OK' or move your eye back from the finder and tap on a new subject can mean all the difference between nailing and missing your shot in fast-paced shooting.
Btw, Sony Eye AF can work kind of like 3D Tracking (though with even more precision) if your 'underlying' (selected) AF mode is something like Flexible Spot, Center, or Lock-on: Flexible Spot. You place the AF point over the face you desire, hold down Eye AF (in AF-C), then recompose and the camera will track that person's eye, no one else's.
Problem is if the person looks completely away, and the camera finds another face, it'll jump to that face/eye, even though you never let go of the AF-ON button. This is not helpful for candid portraiture / wedding / event photography where you have an intended subject in mind... as long as you keep the AF-ON button held, the camera should never lose sight of the subject you've selected... even if he/she looks away.
If I wanted the camera to jump to someone else, I'd just let go of the AF-ON button and re-engage...
much like yourself (surely), the AF of the D5 (or D500, D850) just isn't get the job done lately (after comprehensive & exhaustive but frustrating testing/usage, of course).
Think I'll hold out for the next generation of mirrorless (/drone) cameras. I need to be able to quickly issue a verbal command (e.g. 'balding, middle-aged male, red shirt-blue khakis, semi-moist booger-left nostril, stage left) then be able to toss the camera towards the action. At that point, the camera becomes a locked-on airborne drone awaiting further instructions. When I've had enough high quality images, I can then verbally issue a simple return-to-base command (Home ET, Home!) . Think of the savings on telephoto lenses!
Yes, there might be a few hitches initially (camera hovers a bit noisily, the occasional drop onto an innocent onlookers head etc.) but I'm sure it's nothing a few firmware updates can't solve. Ain't technology grand!
thx rishi for the details on that, it did feel like the examples in the twit presentation were wrong.
I can see the functionality of that fast focus lock being an advantage for sports shooting into a crowd of players, depending on how big the focus area is... the a9 in "wide" mode seems to give precedence to players in the center, but it will sometimes just grab the nearest body, not ideal... need to experiment with some of the other a9 focus options.
"Surpass"? An EVF "surpasses" an OFV? In terms of energy consumption? In terms of immediacy?
What nonsense.
Also, one can use sensor-based PDAF on a DSLR as well. Luckily, not every manufacturer does it yet. There is no question that some MILCs are a great choice for people wanting to do a lot of video (with a camera whose ergonomics are not suited for video work) but there is no free lunch.
EVF is so much better than OVF. Yes, in terms of more accurate representation of the photo. Yes, in terms of real-time histogram and data. In terms of immediacy. You're lying to yourself if you think the 5ms delay somehow affects how quickly you're hitting the shutter button.
@class a - you being stuck on pentax, which has the most primitive dslr af system on the planet, would of course color your opinion about what is best :-/
milc is here, it's the future, you should bring yourself up to speed on why it's better.
My processed images look nothing like the JPG previews the camera shows me or an EVF would present me with.
I recently tried modern Fuji EVFs and it was horrible, from the sick looking image in artificial light, that had the wrong brightness level, and was stuttering both unprovoked (occasionally) and when engaging focus (repeatedly). Just horrible.
Regarding AF speed: Even the glacially slow K100D already allowed me to take make great images of birds in flight (close up). Yes, there are better cameras for action than the K-1, but I don't need them and I'm very glad that Pentax has created this beauty of a camera that I can take up to my eye all day long having a natural view of the scene (which is all I ask for for framing) without wasting a millivolt.
Who dials in the white balance they are after while shooting? Again, a different WB is just the start of the extensive treatment pretty much all my images receive. An EVF means nothing to me in terms of seeing the final image.
raw processing is irrelevant to this conversation, I don't know why you posted that.
I can't speak for Fuji, other than to say that i'd never buy into the platform, it's a dead end, with no path to ff.
your ovf absolutely never looks like your final image, it's simply not possible.
modern milc has much better power consumption than any dslr, the a9 for example can easily take 3k images or more on one battery, using the electronic shutter... you don't have to power the dslr pdaf module, you don't have to power the mechanical shutter motor, etc,
Laporte's one of those silicon valley types who bought the latest-and-greatest digital gadget at every opportunity without knowing a thing about it, just because it looked like a neat toy to play with. He's the type who knows every photo-tech blogger by name and takes Ken Rockwell's advice seriously, but couldn't tell you who shot "Man Jumping the Puddle" or "The Falling Soldier".
The name was based on the acronym for This Week in Tech, the podcast on which the network was built. They have some deep technical shows like This Week in Enterprise Tech, FLOSS Weekly (open source software), and Security Now (one of the most thorough security discussions you'll get anywhere). There is also a fascinating interview series called Triangulation, which usually interviews extremely smart people.
The TWiT name is unfortunate (I don't like it either), but the content is solid, and the network has survived for 13 years.
Leo likes his cameras but he is not the most knowledgeable photographer around, but when he does the right thing, he brings in people who know more, like Rishi, and let them talk instead. It is a strange fact that the most informative shows on TWiT are usually the ones that Leo does not host.
A TWiT network show covering the Z series? Nice, I can't wait to hear what Tom Merritt thinks abo--- oh. Oh, wait, I'm sure John C. Dvo--- oh. Good thing there's always Sarah La--- oh.
Your comment is odd, because none of those personalities would have had anything interesting to say about a professional digital camera...Dvorak? Really? About the Nikon Z?
I enjoyed them too, and yes, the staff have turned over, but I think the shows have not suffered so much. The people you listed were smart, and I respect them, but let's face it, much of their appeal, especially on the old and very fun Tech News Today, was for the "informed wisecrack" (tech-tertainment value) rather than deep actual tech info. Other existing TWiT shows still do a better job of that. Dvorak mostly filled a role like he did as the writer of the "Devil's Advocate" column in the old MacUser magazine where they hired him to be the old crank who criticizes everything.
I get it, you're venting about the Old Days, but while Tom Merritt and Sarah Lane always have interesting things to say about the intersections of tech, culture, and media, not the Nikon Z.
This collaboration doesn't seem to be a good fit. Honestly I don't think TWiT has anything to add that the DPReview team, especially now that Jordan and Chris are on board, don't already offer. Leo, in particular, is not very professional to put it charitably.
Interesting conversation. Most tech writing today is just integrated marketing and communication, more like publicists releasing press copy, but this honestly addresses several issues that have come up here in recent days. I just wish all the disputatious trolls would take their stupid arguments elsewhere.
Skip the introductory fluff and start at 10:00 minutes in where Rishi has to address criticism of the AF. The body language behind the words is classic!
Body design is ok. Lens design on the other hand... How they managed to make the lenses look so cheap? They are suppose to be some of the best lenses out there but they certainly don't look like it.
Nikon be BRAVE !!! Stick with the lens design "...look so cheap?" "...like black plastic beer cans." Or, "Space age polycarbonate beer cans."
Nikon should be reminded bravery is heroic and heroes end up with a tombstone. "Here lies Nikon Z6 & Z7 because of black plastic polycarbonate cheap beer cans"
We want that old-school old-fashion gnarled rubber focusing ring!
Rishi - the AWB on your video cam is struggling with the ambient/artificial mix, and is flipping back and forth as it samples the scene. Worth investigating a fixed WB option if you intend to do video from this location, alternatively build yourself a video booth with just controlled lighting.
Thanks for the feedback. Curious - did you notice this on my previous TWiT segments? The only thing that changed in my setup was I used a Surface Pro this time (instead of Macbook Pro). Wonder if that was it.
Rishi rocks !!!. Rishi is candid about his technical review. I am looking forward to Chris's. I suggest people should listen to Rishi and Chris's than written reviews. In written reviews they are careful what they write.
Interesting video, going over a lot of what is known, but nice to hear again from someone who has used them a bit more than the hour or two that most have. ;-)
That said, if you do something again like that Rishi can you be on a camera feed that locks the exposure and the WB. ;-)
Thanks for the feedback. Curious - did you notice this on my previous TWiT segments? The only thing that changed in my setup was I used a Surface Pro this time (instead of Macbook Pro). Wonder if that was it.
'Amazon needs the needs to penetrate Indian market' is not a grammatically correct phrase.
It seems that despite my 'geopolocality', this US-born, English-language first person with a skin-color different from yours has a stronger command of English than, well, some others on this comment thread.
@Rishi. Nothing wrong with your Indian roots. You should actually be very proud for being first and foremost Indian. This is what Narendra Modi asks off all Indians especially those in western world. Its a global phenomenon..
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
Ambitious goals, new challenges and looking ahead to 100 years of the Z mount – we spoke with senior executives and engineers at Nikon about what lies ahead.
The Nikon Z6 is the lower-resolution, faster sibling to the Z7, and has already shown impressive results in our preliminary testing. Take a look at how it performs outside of the studio.
The Nikon Z6, paired with the new Nikkor Z 50mm F1.8S produces the sort of result you'd expect from a baby Z7. The lens is consistent across the frame and the sensor looks good but, like the Z7, the PDAF stripes aren't perfectly corrected so can occasionally become visible.
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
The GFX 50R is a 50MP rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. It borrows heavily from the existing 50S model but in a smaller body and at a lower price. How does it differ?
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
Keith Ladzinski is a wildlife and adventure photographer and filmmaker based in Colorado. In this interview he explains the background to his most recent project, and looks back at what's changed since he bought his first digital camera in 2004.
As a D750 owner and someone primarily concerned with still photography, DPR staffer Dan Bracaglia does not see a compelling enough reason to go Nikon mirrorless - yet. But that may not be the case for you.
Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.
We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.
The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.
Nikon's D3500 may be an inexpensive DSLR, but the company didn't cut corners when it comes to image quality. See how it handled fall colors and tropical seas in our sample gallery.
Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.
DxO announces the latest update to Nik Collection (version 1.1) that brings better compatibility, fewer bugs to the plugin suite it acquired from Google a year ago
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.
Comments