Nikon Z6 III Dynamic Range Review: TESTED
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Buy the Nikon Z6 III ($2496) at SDP.io/Z63
Buy the Nikon Z5 ($996) at SDP.io/Z5
Buy the Nikon Z7 II ($2296) at SDP.io/Z72
The Nikon Z6 III has a serious problem with it’s dynamic range. Photons to Photos (www.photonstop... ) discovered that it’s MORE THAN A FULL STOP behind cameras like the Nikon Z7 II, which is less expensive. A full stop is DOUBLE the dynamic range!
Most likely, Nikon compromised dynamic range to improve the readout speed of the sensor. They might have reduced the well capacity of individual photosites to pack in some other type of circuitry to temporarily hold the charge from an exposure, similar to the way the Sony a9 III achieved a global shutter.
Tony Northrup takes real test shots to show you how much the difference is so you can decide whether it’s good enough or if you’d rather choose a camera with better dynamic range but worse autofocus and video performance. Everything is a compromise, but you deserve to make educated choices. - Наука та технологія
This is how fast sensors perform. The z6iii has no noise reduction. If you compare it against the R6 mark ii in electronic shutter mode (which has no noise reduction) you’ll find the R6 is worse. R6 with mechanical shutter bakes in noise reduction into the raws for better test results.
ya but.. they won't do that.
The Z9/Z8 had worse DR than the Z7II, yet here we are years later and no one seems to care. This is a nothing-burger. Most people are going to bracket and HDR Merge if they need this much shadow recovery. Also AI Denoise is so good these
days.
As for the content... Z7II is one of the best DR on FF cameras of all time, so not really a fair comparison.
And Z7II for weddings? No, AF sucks on that thing (especially in low light). You'll miss the moment, and that's way more important than a bit better shadow recovery.
I don't think that's true and no one has said that except Z7II owners. You do own a Z7II right?
@@contentm3893 Used to... sold it and picked up a Z8 because the AF was trash
He seems to have intentionally not mentioned the other stacked sensor cameras where the Z6iii lines up on the curve. Strange that.
By 0.3EV> this is 0.82 EV between base iso of both cameras son.
I care.
It´s pretty obvious a haf stacked sensor has a DR penalty, just like the Sony A9III with its global shutter. Don´t act like this is a Nikon problem, it´s simply a technology problem.
I'm just curious. (I know; don't poke the bear. I just can't help it sometimes. LOL) At what point in this review did Tony EVER insinuate that this was a "Nikon" problem, versus a technology problem? Go ahead. Be specific. Exact phrases, please.
It's a problem that in 2024 camera makers like Nikon and Lumix have added a ton of features while sacrificing dynamic range. Use you eyes my friend. What do they tell you?
It´s pretty obvious a half stacked sensor for the Z6 III is a "bad decision problem" by Nikon.
Nikon don't comprehend, that the main customer target segment for the Z6 III has mostly ZERO interest in any video orientation, and who are rather annoyed that they have to pay a high extra price to cover such costs. Or have to bear things like a video-flippy screen. And get image quality penalties on top.
Nikon also don't comprehend, that they are too late to the video game anyway. That market is divided already between the video 'trinity' of Sony, Canon, and Panasonic. Everyone with a video interest is already invested in there, also with plenty of lenses. Nobody will change over to Nikon for that, in particular not to a Z6 III.
The type of customers which are still with Nikon, are mostly stills oriented. But now, for a substantial period of 2024 to 2028, Nikon doesn't offer a mid range solution which is competitive with regards to
- resolution
- dynamic range
which is quite a poor marketing position against current and upcoming competition.
Let's remember, that in the DSLR days, Nikon did well against the market leader Canon, because Nikon convinced with better dynamic range and resolution. These were the Nikon genes.
Now, with the Z6 III, they flush all of this down the toilet.
@@tubularificationed I guess thats why Nikon is gaining market share.
@@tubularificationedexactly. get back to making cameras at $1600 ToPS !! And no video. And not 24mp that came out 12 years ago.
I've been using mine for the last three days on a trip and am absolutely loving this camera so far!
Yeah it's one of my favorite cameras of all time to use. The screens are great!
@@TonyAndChelsea Absolutely, so far such a great job by Nikon on this one. Be curious to see what future firmware updates bring! 📸😎
Oh boy. Quite the misnomer to state that the Z6III has a "serious dynamic range problem". It would be far more accurate to state the engineers traded off half a stop or so of dynamic range for a much faster readout speed and far superior autofocus. That's a compromise that works for me. I upgraded from the Z6 II and I am glad that I did. The Z6III is a worthy companion to my Z8 and Z9. (I shoot a lot of pro sports )
Modern software can do wonders as to reducing noise, but no software can fix rolling shutter, missed focus, or missed in the moment shots because the camera was too slow to wake up.
It may be just my perception, but i think the auto white balance works better as well. The files are a joy to work with in Lightroom btw.
I sold the Z6II before I took delivery of the III so I can't compare them side to side, but practically speaking, I don't notice a whole lot of difference in noise at ISO under 10,000. It is not a noisy camera.
It's a pretty big difference, especially compared to the Z7 II... It's a full-frame camera that performs like a APS-C cameras for DR. Someone said it tested worse than Micro Four Thirds.
@@TonyAndChelseawho is someone? There are always trade offs and this deficiency seems rather insignificant to me in the real world
@@martinhommel9967 Check nikon rumours website. This is where he found this problem also,.
@@TonyAndChelsea "Someone said" is a hilariously anecdotal thing to say about something that can be measured through testing like what kind of professional reviewer cites "someone" 💀
But Tony actually says that at 5:42. He says, with that lower DR, you get all the other things... He literally said those things that you just said. How is it a misnomer when he literally acknowledges everything you claim he didn't acknowledge at 5:42
No serious photographer would consider keeping or working on a photo requiring the amount of shadow recovery shown in this test. The examples all look horrible, there is no winner. I am more than sure that in real life scenarios the difference is pretty much insignificant.
"Serious" photographer here, who shoots for "fun". I often shoot in forests - my favorite hiking spots. Lighting is a HUGE mixed bag as part of the experience. And it's incredible the shadow detail I can pull up from some sensors, versus others, while I'm forced to protect bright highlights in a small portion of the shot, while the rest of the scene is in deep shadow.
The point wasn't that someone would actually want the examples he posted. The point was to use an extreme example so you and I are aware that there are limitations. Limitations I absolutely need to be aware of, if I were to want to purchase this camera for shooting in forests.
@@JasonOverHere I am not an expert, but as per the test ISO 800 onwards dynamic range are identical for both the sensor and in darker situation i would prefer to increase the ISO rather capturing a dark photo and recover shadow in post processing. So for me there are no or very rare practical application in real life..
@@Bikash_Jana Hi there. That’s not what I’m referring to. In the real-world situation I’m describing, you have no choice but to recover shadows in post. Well, you always have a choice…I can let my highlights clip and expose for the shadows, but then I’ve lost all detail in the bright parts of the scene. Exposure bracketing doesn’t always work either, because it’s not necessarily a non-moving scene (streams, wind in leaves, etc.). I noticed the chart at higher ISOs as well, and I’m keeping that in mind too. Though preferably, my ISO will be as low as possible.
All part of the fun and games which are photography!
I can't understand people who are so eager about DR shadow recovery and don't use AI noise reduction. Even in lightroom a 5 sec process would make these images THE SAME!
@@f.iph7291 5 seconds on your hardware, perhaps. It’s all about time and available resources. And I assume you’ve also noticed, but doing it in post doesn’t imply automatic perfection. So, it’s a choice: more time in post, or better result out of camera. That’s why people are concerned with DR.
From a Canon user. Even with a semi stacked sensor Nikon DR is similar to Canon. Which does not speak well for Canon.
Good to know Nikon is pushing to be back.
I'm an hybrid shooter and Nikon was behind all these years.
My first camera was am FM2, my father bought it to me, so it will always be in my heart.
Go for it Nikon!
Tony, you called the Z8's DR "standard" in a comment. I know that YT creators don't get notifications for nested comments, so I thought I' d leave my reply here as well for you to consider:
First off, I feel your analysis is sound, however, I feel you're also over stating some aspects of this slight drop in DR and understating others.
Starting with the understating: As far as DR and the Z8/9 go, standard is not accurate for these fully stacked sensors. Compared to the D850 and Z7/ii, the Z8/9 have a similar drop in DR between base ISO 64 and ISO 400 (ISO 500 is the 2nd native ISO of all of those 45mp sensors). At ISO 100 the Z8 has a 1/3 stop less DR than the D850/Z7/ii. That widens to half a stop at ISO 160 thru ISO 300 and then jumps to 1 full stop of diff in DR at ISO 400.
Meanwhile, the Z6iii has about 2/3 a stop along its first native ISO range (100 - below 800 with ISO 800 being its 2nd native ISO). The greatest gap is at ISO 100 where it stands at just over 3/4 a stop of DR so opposite the Z8 which has less of a gap at lower ISO. At ISO 800 and above the Z6iii overtakes the DR of the Z7ii and the Z8 and is only a tiny fraction below a Z6/ii (sandwiched within a tiny sliver).
In short both partial and stacked sensors have a drop in DR compared to their non-stacked counterparts, so calling it standard is not accurate.
Meanwhile, the DR of the 6iii is on PAR with the Z8 save for the Z8's base ISO 64 and above ISO 800 it exceeds it. I suggest putting the D850, Z8, Z7ii, Z6ii, and Z6iii into PhotonsAndPhotos to observe this.
As far as the situations you noted go I feel there was a bit of overstating that went on.
IMHO, candid, minimal/no flash, wedding photography lives at higher ISOs, those where DR is essentially the same. That high ISO requirement is care of the fact that most weddings occur in the late afternoon/evening. As far as flashes go, few things are more annoying at a wedding (reception) than a photographer taking ALL the photos at the reception with flash. One it blinds the guests and it also results in artificial looking results. Higher ISO, even grainy ISO, result in more pleasing images.
As for the bird situation you described (dark birds against a bright lit sky): This is also going to be a bit different than your controlled low (ambient) light studio result. Point being, the QE (Quantum Efficiency) of the Z6iii is certainly higher than that of the Z7/ii given its larger photo sites. That means it will be better at capturing _any_ available photons. While the bird in the unprocessed images may be dark in comparison to the sky, unlike your studio, the ambient light will certainly result in far more available photons bouncing off the bird. Those extra photons can then be collected by each photo site resulting in a far less noisy mess when you recover, at least in comparison to your low-light studio example. Case in point, I have photos taken with my 5Diii, with far inferior DR than any recent Nikons, and I'm able to recover far more detail in a few shots that compare to your proposed situation than I would in your controlled setup.
Same goes for daytime landscapes - more photons are collected even if you don't see them in the un-processed photo if you go with a longer exposure.
Nighttime photos are either in the high ISO/high shutter realm or slow shutter/low ISO realm. The former is an equal playing field across all these cameras in terms of DR, the latter increases the time to collect photons which will help the Z6iii produce a cleaner image.
That leaves the first valid use case - nighttime photography with subjects in mixed lighting. While a valid example, your 6-stop difference is certainly a very large gap in lighting that narrows the likelihood of the use case. The only examples I can think of are a bright light source with people standing in front of it who are in shadow (fireworks, bonfires, etc). The low ambient light at night will limit the number of photons and as such you will certainly see a difference between the Z6iii and Z7ii if you're shooting within their 1st native ISO range.
Your example of sunrise/set photos is also valid but will also be highly dependent on how intense the sun light you are shooting into is (i.e. how far above the horizon) as well as the overall terrain. Shots where the sun has already set or is low in the horizon, will be less of an issue regardless of terrain even if exposed for the highlights than if the sun is still in the sky.
In my experience, shooting even with an old 5Diii in the distant past, this really only starts to be an issue if you are shooting __into__ the sun while it is still very bright (i.e. 20 min - 120 min before sunset or after sunrise). In over 30 years of photography, while I have many such photos, they are a small percentage, especially amongst my sunset photos which tend to favor the last 10 or fewer minutes before sunset. Among those photos I either expose for the highlights and then leave the terrain in shadow or I split the difference and minimally process. Sunsets and sunrises where the sun is only a few degrees in the sky are far more common as far as shooting into the sun goes and less likely to cause issues with the sliver of difference in DR. While my old 5Diii can pull some solid detail from the shadows save for those very harsh lighting situations, the Z6 and the D750 were both champs and I don't see the Z6iii being that much worse given the Z6iii is a full 1.5 stops better off than the 5Diii.
The only exceptions would be perhaps mountainous terrains, but as you noted bracketing or even the much-enhanced NR we have in LR now do a great job. Even then, the intensity of the sun is very minimal. I have photos of the 2012 Venus transit taken with my 5Diii that I was able to recover all sorts of detail even though the sun had yet to set.
I only mention this because most people don't understand the science of photography the way you do and may see this "warning" as a "do not buy" hurting an otherwise very well-rounded camera that may have served them well. Far too often people seek perfection and, in the process, miss out on better setup. In any case, please do what you do and deliver the messages, but do so without hyping it up more than it deserves.
Well said!
No they only want to know the true dynamic range. No need for excuses.
@@contentm3893 No excuses were made.
The only point I made is that this partial stop of DR difference will not be obvious in the vast majority of real-world photographs.
That's because in real world photography, even those shadows that are 5 stops darker will have more photons bouncing off them and being collected by any sensor involved.
Tony's example used what was effectively a photo taken in a dungeon where the only properly lit object had a spotlight cast on it. There was minimal to zero ambient light save what was generated by the spotlight. To boot, there are backlights (magenta and blue) that throw things off further for any subjects in the foreground - i.e. like the book that is in complete darkness/shadow.
As I noted, the result is fewer photons which sets up a low SNR situation, a challenge for any sensor.
As I noted, this is a valid test, and while it certainly shows that the Z6iii has less DR, we already knew that it had 2/3-3/4 less DR for ISO 100-700.
However, by doing the test in near total darkness, under less-than real world (let alone expected) conditions, he was able to get a result that pushes the limit of DR and makes that slight difference in DR look far worse.
Case in point, I suggest you watch the following video that does a far better job of showing this difference in DR and it's impact on IQ in real world landscape photography.
Search for "Nikon Z6II vs Nikon Z6III - Image Quality Review" by ZJ Michaels.
@@ElGrecoDaGeek I just bought this camera (currently in Japan). It was a massive decision… upgrading from the d7200… yes that’s right 😮 can’t open it until I get home from Australia but I think I’m in for a treat. I was set on Sony until I saw this and read the reviews, thanks for your detailed response. Big purchase for me so don’t want any buyers remorse 😊
@@BigfootRunning How is your experience so far?
As someone who shoots a lot of video, the ISO6400 in N-Log is a huge upside for this camera. Plus the low light focusing is exceptional and the fast sensor (at a reasonable price) does make a big difference with fast action situations. For $2500 we were going to give some ground in one area or another, and particularly in this day and age of AI assisted noise reduction, I would rather give a little in DR than be held back by a non-stacked sensor.
Yeah that's a reasonable choice
It all comes down to the processor and how many features they can process before they hit the limit. That's why you see Sony cameras getting more dynamic range from the same sensor. You do have trade offs but it's Nikon's choice just like Sony and others. In 2024 the game is through in a lot of features and dynamic range suffers because said companies never get called out for sub par dynamic range. Look at the R5 vs the R5C.They use the same sensors but the R5C has a lot more dynamic range. When the Z6III replaced the Z6II you shouldn't lose dynamic range. So when Sony comes out with there next $2,500 camera and it has better dynamic range then the Z6III the only one to blame is Nikon. I love Nikon but they need to focus on dynamic range and image or people will not jump over and change brands. Even RED came out and said they couldn't update the Original Komodo because it was basically full. No more space. Also, look at Magic Lantern and see if it makes sense how much dynamic range they pull from those hacked systems. Look at how Nikon is marketing the Z6III, internal RAW, this and that. That's all great but you will never gain dynamic range if the camera can't produce it.
@@contentm3893 I just looked it up. DR for the R5C in CRAW at ISO800 at SNR=2 is 10.2 stops. For the Z6III, same settings in NRAW…9.89 or roughly a third of a stop. For a camera that normally lists at $1800 more! And is slow to boot, impractical at best for real hybrid shooting, etc. That particular difference is minuscule. The 4k Sonys have around 12 stops, but that’s with a lot of internal noise reduction on a very specialized sensor that has very limited practicality for stills. 12 megapixels is weak. There’s always trade offs and speed vs DR is one of them. For my needs, Nikon has hit the mark with the Z6III. Where before I never even looked at a Z6 or Z6II, I now own 2 of the threes. The sum of the parts at this price is what I need to accompany my Z9.
@@bernardlanguillier65 That's a good thing. Most cameras out now are using a Sony sensor from 2018.
That's a great point.
Thank you for finally being the one to mention bracketing
In most scenes I'll definitely use brackets for a majority of my work . You buy this camera for the faster read out and better focus . I just hope one day a manufacturer will give me a true dedicated stills camera with no video
Great focus and solid dynamic range and take care of long exposure noise .
I could care less for videos and I know a majority of people want a camera to do everything but I want a stills camera a true stills camera where the entire focus is centered around great performance and image quality
Quiero lo mismo.
@@pacoperezabella Tambien.
Me too. So far the more recent iPhones at 4K 30 or 60 fps are just fine for my mostly non-existent video needs.
Spot on. Every time I watch these reviews they spend half the time on the cameras video capabilities I wonder how much tech is wasted on that function that I'll never ever use.
I never shoot video with my DSLR or Mirrorless. Definitely appreciate a pure still photo camera all day long.
The test is so bias and bad, and the fact that other youtubers didn't face the same problem but only you did, its for sure that you have a problem with Nikon but this is too much. 6.3 stops wtf was even that, taking photos of photos and intentionally picking the worst images to show shows your biasness.
It‘s a problem of all stacked and semi-stacked sensors.
Actually look at the comparison with the Canon and Sony cameras: at base ISO the Sony a1 is considerably better and the Canon R3 even better than that
Cheap ones, maybe. The A1 is a stacked sensor and it has one of the highest DR ratings of any mirrorless FF camera.
@@burnthappiness R3 uses noise reduction, which inflates its results.
@@sasca854 A1 has the same DR at base ISO as Z8/Z9. They both pay a ~1/3 stop penalty vs. their respective high MP non-stacked cameras (A7RV and Z7ii respectively).
For landscapes, I'd totally recommend the Z7 (II) over the Z6 III, but for weddings and other professional use cases? I don't know, man.
A slightly more noisy image is better than an out of focus image, I'd absolutely recommend the Z6 III over any of the older cameras below the Z8.
Yeah it's a very personal choice. Even if you're a portrait photographer, it depends on your style. If you shoot dynamically, candidly, or photograph children a lot, the Z6 III AF is probably more valuable to you. If they're static studio shots, for sure the Z7 II will produce better images.
@@TonyAndChelsea I absolutely agree. I picked up a used Z7 for only 1000€, for Macro and astrophotography, as a 2nd body besides my Z8. If AF doesn't matter, these are great cameras which you can get at very low prices.
Anyway, it would be interesting to also compare The Z6 III to the Z8, because in the ISO range that is mostly relevant for wildlife, they're nearly identical.
I hope those of us who don't often shoot outdoors or under controlled studio lighting conditions -- my main work is performances on stage and in nightclubs , the latter with widely varying and downright weird and dim lighting-- aren't dissuaded from checking out the Z6 III. The photonstophotos site shows that at ISOs above 800 the Nikon falls in line with other contemporary full-frame cameras, such as the Sony A7C II that I currently use. Gerald Undone's tests gave similar results. For reference, my usual nightclub work ends up with shutter speeds around 1/200 (to freeze rapidly moving drag queens) , apertures full open at either F2.8 or F4, and ISOs starting at 1600 and going up (sometimes very up). Nightclub work is like birding but with wretched lighting. My main interest in the Z6 III is how much any rolling-shutter effects remain in electronic-shutter mode by use of the partially-stacked sensor's fast readout. I don't have the $$ for a Sony A9 III to eliminate the problem entirely. And I have yet to see a Z6 III review that covers this aspect adequately, at least for stills.
Rent and test, Tonny's example is ridiculous, at 4:39 both images look like crap.
@@jaimeduncan6167 I think the test is fine. It is a pretty extreme shadow lift so most camera won't look great but there was a notable green tint in the Z6iii image and coarser color noise that I've seen in test from other reviewers as well. Real question is whether it will actually matter IRL, I feel like the cases that Tony brought up might not be too relevant since I don't think the Z6iii is a landscape body and if a landscape photographer was shooting a scene with direct run they would be better off exposure bracketing anyways.
Almost all landscape / travel photography is hobbyists' photography, and most hobbyists look after a middle-class priced camera, between $2000-$3000 bracket, and which isn't too heavy/too bulky.
Almost all professional photography (where money can be earned) is people/events, in particular, portraits and weddings and such. Also there, a high DR is decisive, whereas nunances in rolling shutter differences are not at all. That is only a thing for the few birds-in-flight hobbyists, and even fewer sports photographers.
Nikon don't know yet the magnitude of the disfavour they did to themselves (offering sub-par resolution paired with sub-par dynamic range with the Z6 III). For the next four years, 2024-2028, they don't offer a camera model which would be convincing enough for the important middle class market segment. The one which is so decisive for the overall market share.
@@jaimeduncan6167 Just saw Jared Polin's RAW file review of the Z6 III. He actually covers rolling shutter in stills in the extreme situation of a baseball batter. He also showed images taken at higher ISOs. What I saw definitely encourages me to rent a Z6 III or at very least to try it out in-store. Luckily my local store here in NYC is BH Photo.
I just saw Jared Polin's review of the Z6 III's raw file performance. His high ISO shots as well as his rolling-shutter tests with an extreme subject (baseball batter) are encouraging me to check out the camera, either by rental or in-store. Fortunately, I live in NYC and have two fabulous local stores, both major online photo retailers.
I know a few wedding photographers and they have started using the Z 6lll and loving the results. In fact one also has a z 8 and Z 9 and has now decided to get another Z 6lll for his second wedding camera, Loves the files and ergonomics of the camera. Says the autofocus is great as well
Something to also consider is how much editing latitude you have after applying lens corrections. A lot of modern lenses have some significant vignetting which can rob 2-4 stops of light on the periphery of the image. Trying to lift shadows from an area that already has been lifted that many stops will have you run into issues quickly.
We really do need DR to improve to compensate for the craze of smaller optics that have worse and worse vignetting.
Really good point! Too bad we can't get computational photography.
With some lenses (Canon 15-35 F/2.8 for example) it's so bad that the older 16-35 at F/4 is actually equally bright if not brighter than the f/2.8 lens in a big portion of the frame.
Oh, and it's not just the DR that's impacted but most importantly the signal to noise ratio, if you lose 2 stop of light it's like going from 1600 to 6400... the 15-35 goes up to 4 stop of light loss, you do the math...
Awesome point!
One stop is the difference between full frame and APS-C. If this didn't matter to anyone, why does the full frame market exist at all then? 😉
The problem with more and more modern lenses is, that the vignetting doesn't just go away when stopping down.
- Wide open, the corners suffer e.g. from -3 to -4 stops (less than 10% of light arrives there)
- Stopped down, still -2 or so.
Vignette as an "artistic value" is a bad marketing tool to sell a weak-DR-performing camera. Most photography doesn't want vignetting, and for some other stuff, it is a matter of taste, many just don't like it.
Nobody wants to be bullied into it just because of a weak camera.
This artsy fartsy stuff (the bad one which depends on vignetting to be worth while) is usually the one where no aspect of image quality has any relevance anyway. Instead of a painfully expensive Z6 III, a cheap used DSLR of 20 years ago would do the artsy-fartsy job perfectly fine, and would be the more appropriate choice.
Nikon Z/S lenses have built in Corrections that remove almost all the vignetting. :)
Remember back in olden times when fill flash was a thing?
@@chuckhatcher5073 Have you ever applied fill flash on a mountain? Or a beach?
@@abhijit-sarkarhave you ever shot a magazine cover 5 stops under exposed ? 🤣 test was ridiculous!
@@michaelmalodrums9674 lol, although TBH, this isn’t the camera intended for that kind of work. It lacks the resolution, and the improved AF as well as high frame-rate are both not very useful for studio work.
@@abhijit-sarkaryou can use any camera for studio work.
@@abhijit-sarkar that’s true but you have the Z 8 or 9 for that and a ton of other companies cameras .
Can you do this comparison vs z8 or z9? Curious to see the difference btwn partial and fully stacked sensors.
using the same source, between ISO 100 and 400, dr is about the same.
The DR isn't as good above ISO 500 as it is on the Z7II... it evens out at 500 (Just like the Z6III matches the Z6II above iso 1000).
@@b34k97 yes, until about ISO 600, the Z7ii has better dr, but above that, the Z6ii is marginally better - according to the PTP graphs.
No he can do it vs Sony a9iii it got a global sensor
@@starbase218 Northrup cheater. Look, it compares the photos of the z7ii taken at 1/50 and at ISO 64 with the photo of the z6iii taken at 1/80 and at ISO 100
this video is stunned as a bag of hammers. The Z6iii has about the same dynamic range as the Z8 and Z9 at ISOs 100-400. Not too many folks whined about that. But ignorance is bliss. Besides, who pulls their shadows up 6.5 stops?
But DR is evaluated and most used at the base ISO, giving the Z8 and Z9 a big advantage. Landscape and wildlife photographers constantly pull shadows up more than 6.5 stops. I discuss it in the video.
@@TonyAndChelsea 1. check the base ISO performance on the same site; 2. as primarily a landscape photographer for the last 50 years, and using digital for the last 25, meter better. 2b. as a landscape photographer, having black in an image can be a good thing. Use it as a design element. 3. even at base ISO, it's a little under 1/2 stop. Not the end of my or anyone realistic's world. I will take the improved af ability in low light any day.
@user-vn1dl9tx6p I'm always bringing up the shadows in lightroom, and that's on my 10 year old d750 which apparently has nearly a full stop better of dynamic range. You guys need to stop with this copium. Nikon blew it making the decision to favor speed over photo quality for this camera.
Unless you are are primarily into sports photography or wildlife videos I don't get why they made this decision.
As a wedding shooter who came off the mk ii cameras and now shoots a Z6iii / Z8 almost interchangeably I can categorically say that this is a bunch of alarmist BS!
Sure the graphs and lab testing may say one thing but in a real world application the Z6iii outperforms my Z8 in almost every way. The Z8's low light autofocus is a simply bad ( the mk ii cameras are a JOKE) and it's high iso performance is terrible. Sure you can suppress the noise and then have super soft images.
Nikon finally got mirrorless right with the Z6iii and to suggest that someone should buy a Z7ii instead is almost negligent LOL.
For me, I'm totally okay with losing a stop of dynamic range as a trade off for better auto-focus and faster sensor readout in video (ie less rolling shutter), all for $2500. So there's definitely a market segment for this camera and I think it'll be a hit. But yeah, Nikon should have been more upfront with this from the get-go and this would have been a non-issue, instead of turning into a big story on the internet.
The dynamic range on the Z9 is just as shit compared to th Z7ii, why aren't you talking about that?
As per the test ISO 800 onwards dynamic range are identical for both the sensor and in darker situation I would prefer to increase the ISO rather capturing a dark photo and recover shadow in post processing. So for me there are no or very rare practical application in real life..
Well he explained the situations for wedding or landscapes. For portraits you are a horrible photographer if you shoot them at 800 ISO.
@@Pochi1 Well you're also a horrible photographer/editor if you find yourself needing to pull up the shadows as much as we see in this video, lol.
The Sony a9 III received a lot of criticism for this. It turns out that noise and DR is a toll on the high speed sensor. Manufacturers also dose power and functions in this way so that individual models do not compete with each other. So the Z6 II is not worse than the Z6 III, it's just different.
“It’s just different” another way to avoid “Facts”. Something Nikon shooters love to do.
@@alphaandomega2709 I've been shooting with Sony for many years, never owned a Nikon. I'm just trying to evaluate it objectively. I fully agree that Nikon users are mostly biased (just like MFT users, for example) :-)
The a9 III is a special purpose camera for special requirements. That's where it excels, and where some other criteria such as DR are less important and forgivable.
However, with the Z6 III, it is a different and much broader market segment.
There, it is not forgivable (from a marketing / marketability perspective), to offer a solution for 2024-2028 which is inferior to its competition (current and/or upcoming), with regards to both
- dynamic range, and
- image resolution.
Actually, there are options to overcome dynamic range. Lighting is at the core of it. It depends just what degree of ambient light available when you're shooting? If indoors, bump it up with more lights, possibly white. Software adjustment could also be done in lightroom too. It really depends on situation?
To me, this new body is a blessing to the masses. For the price point against features offered, I say its a fair deal
Agreed, I bought one! I did a photoshoot with it already. The photos look great. I was shooting in the Golden and blue and hours. No Flash.
@@williambuford6136 At what ISO were you shooting with? I ber you were using aperture priority?
Other reviewers test it down to 5 stops underexposed and it’s neck and neck with the Z6ii before you see a difference at 6-7. Honestly who actually underexposes that much. I don’t see an issue at all with the trade off in an otherwise unused underexposure range for level of speed capability that will be used. It comes off as a very practical engineering decision and not a defect. A9iii got beat up for this at first until real world use cases show if you just get exposure correct like you should, it doesn’t matter. And for that camera you get 120fps RAW which is a great trade off.
shooting into a sunrise or sunset is 11-14 stops. You can see the noise in the shadows of the wildlife clips I captured, even though I added heavy noise reduction. The poor dynamic range will totally be visible in high contrast scenes shot in raw, log or HDR where the subject is in shadow. It's about the performance of an APS-C sensor.
@@TonyAndChelsea APS-C is perfectly adequate to take sunrise and sunset photos. This seems like an extreme test where you found the worse DR output you could and compared the cameras to the best DR output at base ISO you could. How does it compare to other similar sensor technology that's stacked or global?
I would see the same test between the z8 and z6 III. PLEASE
Wow I am glade you pointed this out Tony, I have the z8 and was considering buying the z63 for a back up. Thanks
This is a known disadvantage of stacked sensors. Z9 at ISO64 has lower dynamic range than age old D800 at ISO100. Z6 III has exact same dynamic range as Z9 at ISO100. Its just Z9 can go to ISO64 for improved dynamic range and Z6 can't.
Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering why it seemed like my D800 had better range than my Z9.
Or the Z7 for that matter. Clearly, he is trying to make a storm of nothing, and then will be crying with Nikon excludes him. Notice that Nikon does not exclude Jarred Polin, so that gives you an idea of the degree.
@@jaimeduncan6167yes because he sugarcoat it. Companies loves journalists like that
This is not an issue with the Canon R3, so its not all stacked sensors
Not really, the A1 doesn’t seem to have that much lower DR vs A7R4 or the A7S3. Chances are Nikon is using a Sony sensor that Sony shelved and weren’t willing to put into their cameras.
if you have nikon z6 or z6 ii, I would like to see the high iso performance against z6 iii🙏
They're on par with Z5 anyway, with slight variation between them. Z6 II is a hair split better than Z5.
I was one of the first to receive the new Z6iii. I've been in the Nikon family since the 1970's. I was disappointed with the dynamic range and shadow recovery based on identical shooting scenarios when I compared .nef images of the Z6iii and the Z6ii. I am primarily an existing light and night time shooter. The new and improved Z6iii does not suit my shooting style and use case. I am returning it to my vendor for a full refund.
@@richardmitchell364😂 you're just too funny. So much delusional. Extraordinary what we can read nowadays on the internet
I'd argue the following video does a far better job of showing the difference of IQ under far more realistic/real-world conditions:
"Nikon Z6II vs Nikon Z6III - Image Quality Review" by ZJ Michaels.
His results are certainly far less dramatic, however, that's because his compositions involve far more realistic overall lighting conditions and relevant/resulting exposures. That meant that even areas in relative shadow, even when underexposed by 5 stops and then recovered, had far more photons being collected than in your studio setup.
In short, your studio test showed what we already knew from PhotonsToPhotos, the Z6iii has slightly less DR than other full frame cameras in its class. However, your choice to perform this DR test in a setup that results in a low SNR capture for all sensors involved, makes the problem look far worse than it actually is. It amplifies it.
To be clear, I'm not calling poor lighting unrealistic, but shining a spotlight on one subject while holding the second in relative darkness in an environment with little to no ambient light, and expecting to get clean signal from the latter is not realistic. Sure, it can be the basis of this test, and it does show a difference between the various sensors, but it's skewing what we already know about the Z6iii's DR. This skewed result is making it look far worse than it really is. Meanwhile you're creating a panic and I'm reading so many comments on this video where people are planning to now return or not buy the camera that they had otherwise planned to buy.
Again, I'm not denying it has less DR, but you're amplifying that difference in DR. Do the same tests under real world conditions (just as I've been doing and as ZJ has done) and you'll find that the differences are harder to see. If anything, when pushed 5 stops, the Z6/ii have a magenta tint.
I'll close by saying I could definitely see the difference in DR between my 5Diii and my D750, but the difference between my Z6 and Z6iii are not nearly as noticeable. However, I wouldn't believe that if I didn't know any better and watched this video. In the long term that only hurts your brand. And FWIW, I've watched you for 13+ years (since your old star trails videos).
When you test, I would be very interested in the Z6III vs Z8, since most of my work is wildlife and sports.
Compare it with the Z8 also. People might want to make the jump and pay some more if the difference is noticeable enough.
Can you use nx studio to do the comparison? New sensor so Lightroom may not be optimized for it yet. This is probably why canon bakes their raws with noise reduction, so they are not dependent on 3rd party raw interpreters to “get it right”
Why not do every single test for every person. Come on guys!!!
@@jmp622using the manufacturers raw converter to compare raws should be standard test methodology.
Tony, the z6iii does NOT bave better AF performance than a Z8/Z9. Thats just silly.. all three cameras have the same Exspeed 7 processor, but only Z8/Z9 have a fully stacked sensor which does impact both AF speed and rolling shutter. Secondly, quite a few wildlife experts (mainly birders ) have already stated that the Z8/Z9 still have an AF aquisition advantage, plus a dedicated bird mode that is missing in fhe Z6iii. Personaly, i dont think your qualified as a wildlife/bird photographer so probably best to not misinform your audience. Dont like my comment? Dont care
I would like to see better test examples. This was silly, and if a large amount of professionals these days actually rely on pulling 6 stops in post, then today's professionals are absolute derps.. but hey, this is UA-cam right
Sunsets and sunrises. Backlit wildlife. Backlit portraits. Event photography with uncontrolled lighting and people with both bright white skin and very dark skin. There are many scenarios where deep shadow recovery is the only way to capture images similar to what the human eye would perceive. The human eye is capable of closer to 20 stops of DR.
@@TonyAndChelsea sorry I am a pro portrait and people photographer… if I do a portrait and have to pull so much I have no idea what I am doing. There is a reason why professionals like us are using diffusion, flash etc.
Agreed this is garbage and worse example ever.
I must admit to being shocked........
Few years ago, I almost bought a Nikon Z5 but reviews decried it as as being even worse than the Canon RP.
Carried on waiting while the Nikon Z6 and Z6II were similarly panned for various reasons only to discover here that the four year old Nikon Z5 is actually better than the Nikon ZIII.
Wow, I'll just stick to my ancient Sansung phone.
Nikon Fangirls 2014: "Nikon cameras have the best dynamic range."
Nikon Fangirls in 2024: "who CaReS aBoUt DyNaMiC rAnGe All hAIL nIkOn."😅😅😅
Try to expose above pitch black. Problem solved lol. If you're raising shadows in a wedding or nightlife..You're raising it at most 1-2 stops. You're fine.
And you're likely above iso 800 as is, which is where the z6iii is the same as competition on that chart. Compare at iso 1600 and raise it 6 stops.
Yeah, there are many scenarios where it won't matter, and many where it does. Hopefully this gives you the info you need to determine whether the camera is suitable for how you shoot.
Exactly lol
I would love to see a DR compare of the Z6iii with the Z8. (did the Z8 make a similar reduction in DR with it's stacked sensor?) Thanks for pointing out a weakness/engineering tradoff which they don't put in the ads.
Z8 took a DR hit compared to the Z7ii. A1 took a DR hit compared to the A7RIV. OM-1 took a DR hit compared to the EM-5 III. Looks like all stacked sensors eat some DR loss from being stacked.
I looked at the Canon R5, and the Nikon Z6III in Photons to Photos and they are is neck and neck, very close depending on the iso, Iso 318 they are the same, then at iso 800 the R5 and Z6iii are the same all the way to the max iso. But R5 uses noise reduction from base to iso 650. Same thing with the R3 but the R3 uses noise reduction through it's whole range. Nikon D850 still beats everybody.
ISO 318???!
@@northofbrandon that's the number Photons to Photos had in their chart. I know it's ASA 320.
Nice to see you by yourself. :). Need more of this and only together for specific situations.
It is helpful to see a comparison like this. Charts are useful and necessary, but seeing it in an example is perhaps more helpful in the end.
Is it though? No one is pulling up the shadows like we see in this example. No one.
@@bluemystic7501 That’s not the point I’m seeing. It’s not about the test. It’s about seeing the result of the stress test. It’s the same reason computer hardware is stress tested. Not because people are going to run them like that everyday, but because it shows you the limits.
@@JasonOverHere I'd argue that's not how this information was presented. Let's be honest, the recovered detail out of the jet black shadow looked like trash across the board, which is what we'd all expect at 300%.
At 1:15, I’d argue shooting fast swimmers backlit against the sun is harder than wildlife. Water glare and the swimmer going under water and only popping up for a split second makes for difficult auto focusing.
Ok valid point
Possible to do a comparison between Z6iii and Z8 in terms of high iso. Will the iso 25600 for both cameras be the same or the Z6iii be better in low light shoot when shutter speed will need to be above 1/600 with aperture of F2.8 and above? Will the iso 64000 be usable and produce better low light, high speed photos than Z8? Thanks.
Shocked about the noise in your test wildlife footage!
DR and autofocus are obviously both important for photo and video. For my genre of photography i.e. travel and portraits, DR is very critical for my needs. I think it comes down to what is more important to a particular style or genre of photography and video needs. Thanks for the stimulating and informative topic.
nikon has always had a low mpx camera that has low light capability, and a high megapixel camera for maximum DR. that has always been the case. i have the z6ii best low light camera i ever shot. but the dr on it is ok to good. better than a sony A73, but that camera was mediocre too.
for DR i have a GFX. i am spoiled i admit.
Why didn't you make a special video like this to talk about the DR of the a9iii compared to a cheaper product, saying that it would be a problem?
We made multiple videos about that.
This guys doesn’t learn. He spins stories. No wonder he doesn’t get called by even his daddy brand for a launch. 4 years after.
So I pre-ordered the Z6iii.... It's unopened on my camera shelf. Now, since I don't do video, and since I have a Z8, I might leave it unopened. I love my Z6ii for hiking and walking around. I don't think I need the focusing speed, but I thought it was TOTALLY better. Evidently not for me. I'm going to keep looking for Dynamic Range Reviews. You've been honest and struck a cord with me. My Z6ii does a great job. I had planned to keep it for low light and "snapshots." I think I'll return the Z6iii and replace it with the 135mm f/1.8 Plena. Probably a better choice for $2500. Thanks Tony! PS: Love the choice of books for the test. I recognized the cover. Love its content!
I suggest you watch the following video:
Search "Nikon Z6II vs Nikon Z6III - Image Quality Review" by ZJ Michaels.
Tony chose to do this test under very low light because he knew it would yield a much more dramatic result than one done under real world conditions (for example DR of landscape or even studio portrait photography). Ask yourself how many photos you take where you are taking the photo in a room with near zero ambient light, forcing a spotlight on one subject while expecting then expecting to recover usable results from a subject in complete darkness. Not many.
Sure, that tests DR, but you can test DR under far more realistic lighting conditions and get a cleaner result simply because you are going to be collecting more photons in even the shadowed portions of the photograph. I'd argue that is a fairer test because it represents the vast majority of DR tests.
Legit, Tony is presenting the DR of the Z6iii as if it is inferior to the original 5Diii, and as someone who owned the 5Diii, it has far less DR, on the order of 2 stops, not some fraction of a stop at an already high DR.
As far as those APS-C sensors, they also have limited ISO range let alone DR at higher ISO.
FWIW, I like Tony. I've watched his videos for over 12 years, but he's far more beholden to the algorithm than he is to reporting this factual drop in DR between the Z6/ii and the Z6iii using real world tests that are far less dramatic than the test he chose. Consider that before you return that Z6iii and regret it later. The AF on in the Z6iii is next level. Trust me, your Z6ii is very much limited when it comes to AF.
@@ElGrecoDaGeek thanks for the tip. I watched it. It leaves me at the same spot. If I don't need video, and I have a Z8 for sports and landscapes, why should I keep the Z6iii? I do think the 8-Stop IBIS is a big plus, but I have been OK with the 5 stops... I do have a 3 year warranty on my used Z6ii with 18 months left. I think I benefit more from the 135mm f/1.8 Plena than keeping the Z6iii. Your thoughts?
Does it really have a serious problem? Is it noticable in real shooting scenarios?
I watched videos from other YT who took sports and wildlife pictures in low and high ISO and the pictures looked perfectly good. They even mentioned that they liked the raw files and the dynamic range.
I have currently the Z6 and according to the graph the Z6III has round about 0.6 less dynamic range and from ISO 800 they are basically the same. Honestly i dont know if i personaly will see a difference. Especially when shooting sports and wildlife.
But apparently for some photographers its a big deal.
And every camera has some trade offs . The R6II shots 12bit raw in ES and A7IV shots compresed RAW when shooting 10fps. But do those trade offs really matter in reality and do most people even notice those?
It's different for everyone. Depends on how you shoot and process. Just want to make sure people have the info they need to make an educated decision.
Looks pretty bad. Most of you don’t do actual work, and won’t run into this, but still complaining 🤪
@@TonyAndChelseaThis video is why I went with the Z5 instead
Did you do the test with the mechanical shutter or the electronic shutter? I read that you loose dynamic range when you use the electronic shutter....
Mechanical shutter
Well over the top and blown out of proportion. It only make a very small difference below ISO 800 and if you cant deal with it in editing then there's something wrong with you.
Thanks for this clarification! No problem about the design choices Nikon made with the Z9, Z8 and Z6 III - but that they want to make people believe - through marketing and youtube influencers that these are actually ideal landscape photography tools - which they are not. They are good, but the Z7 II is still better. So there is definitely room for a Z7 III. And the price for the Z6 III is just way to high...
So, I'm still using two original Z6's for weddings. I've learnt to work around the autofocus over the years, preferring back button focusing methods and custom settings. I'm intrigued by the new offerings from Nikon. Especially with the exceed 7 processors. My work, as always, is printed in albums 12" x 12" and occasionally, I'll have 24"x12" single image spread. I've always been impressed with the dynamic range recovery of the original Z6 but I do feel I'm missing out on the autofocus capabilities. However, I'm getting the impression there seems to be a trade off between autofocus speed v dynamic range with the new generation cameras.
Therefore, without losing out on Dynamic range flexibility would I be better off with a Z6ii, Zf or Z8? I was leaning towards the Z8 but the Zf (with ergonomic grip) seems more comparable from a file size and sensor similarities.
I want to mention something as someone who shoots a lot of fashion and gives a perspective that most people here don't have.
The magenta in the extreme underexposure comes from IR pollution.
You will see this in much less extreme situations with a lot of special, often horribly expensive clothing, and it is hell to edit out.
This is even more pronounced with some flash brands/tubes, something no one really tests.
It is also a huge problem with a lot of softboxes, they can even amplify this behavior.
This means that with the right garment, you can see a horrible magenta shift at iso 100 without underexposure, just from the combination of camera sensor, softbox, flash tube and black garment.
If the sensor now has a better IR cut filter, this can lead to a bit more noise in super weird underexposure tests, but for fashion photographers this can mean hours less editing in normal shooting conditions.
Great review, very promising camera for the price. I would like to know about the available bitrates for the h264 and h265 video formats. Could you make a video with this information and the camera's performance in low light video?
ISO 800 and up seems good according to the chart. And at least in my wildlife photography I’m usually at iso 400 or higher and even in the rare occasions I do shoot at base iso the DR is good enough. For me, the camera is on a shortlist and I’m looking forward to your review.
Well, it's more like DR is pretty bad at high ISOs for all cameras. That's why DR is generally evaluated at the base ISO. But yeah, if you can't get a longer shutter speed and lower ISO (something wildlife photographers should definitely strive for) than it's a wash.
But a higher megapixel camera would definitely benefit you.
@@TonyAndChelsea Agreed. Currently shooting with an XT-5 and the XF 150-600. The resolution is nice, but the AF and bugs are driving me nuts. Just this morning the af joystick stop working until a restart then the camera froze. Had to remove the battery to get it going again. So it’s time to switch, it’s between Sony and Nikon for me, canon wildlife lenses are a lot more expensive here compared to Nikon and Sony.
I wanted the Z6iii to be the Nikon Zf in full sized body and maybe with some extra features. But instead we got that partially stacked sensor and worse dynamic range. I'll just buy a Zf
I watched al lot of reviews( Polin, Peta Pixel, Gerald Undone, Matt Granger etc.) who really used and tested the camera.And that was the reason to buy it and the Z6II is better than its predecessor in nearly every othere way and is the best overal camera in its class. It is not a Z8 or Z9 or a new Z7III and has a very sharp price.The Dynamic Range is for me nothing be concerned about with this camera.
That's fine if the DR is enough for you. However, others have other requirements. They would reject a camera with a dynamic range and a resolution like 10 to 20 years ago.
After all, it is also marketing and psychology. People just want the best for their budget. It doesn't help to say, "look, with a Z6 III you can still do pretty pictures, as well". Pentax tried that before, but they failed because they were simply inferior.
Just watch a real life video on DR. I.e Taking a photo of a real object. Virtually no difference from the Z6ii. In fact, the Z6iii showed much better shadow recovery.
The Z6 II will have much better shadow recovery
That's an important point! Buying a 24 MP full frame camera in 2024 suggests very high DR. I would have prefered that over half stacked (baked).
And you are probably representing the vast majority of the intended market segment here.
Most are image quality oriented, and moan the coupling of
- sub-par dynamic range, with
- sub-par resolution
for the next four years 2024-2028.
I'm afraid the the next A7 iteration (A7 V is due already in 2025) will make the Z6 III (low-res/low-DR) look VERY bad.
ridiculous take.
even from 2012 the nikon d800e had better dinamic range than the nikon d4. Actually the nikon d800e still has the best dynamic range out of all the cameras on the market today (- medium format of course) .
lower megapixel cameras have better noise performance, but they never ever had better dynamic range. the Z7 has better dynamic range than the Z6ii but the z6ii has better low light performance than the nikon d5!
Tony has been the most biased UA-camr when it comes to Nikon. Sometimes I feel he does that on purpose to get more comments and this more views. Don’t take him seriously. He said same about z8 and we all know now how wrong he was and the wonders that camera has done in last few years
Come on people...get over with. This camera is crazy good and you can do amazing things with it. Stop complaining and focus on what art you can create with this camera. How can you improve your skills. These things such as dynamic range, ISO, etc represent useless talk. No offense to any creator, i am sure these observations have their place but most people take all these "issues" for granted. In reality, the vast majority of most people will not see the issue. Photography and videography are considered arts and creativity is the nr 1 priority, not the gear. Thats it
It’s not as easy to focus when I only have a z6II. Having a Z6III would help me to focus much better!
and you guys get on my case for bashing these guys on my videos. this is why. Ive warned all you Nikon users about Nikon haters 2 weeks ago . My video title is , Addressing Nikon haters ahead of the Nikon Z6III release and my predictions are coming true.
It’s just one test in probably not perfect or lab equivalent conditions and adds to a debate or discussion but not a show stopper for many who love Nikon.
Well, Photos to Photos did one test, and we did a second test. The results seem consistent. Multiple tests by different people using different techniques is an important part of validating findings. Loving Nikon doesn't need to be a factor one way or the other.
Z6iii vs z5 test is not fair. Z6iii have dual gain and z5 doesn't. There is something wrong with your test
I think you have tested how adobe color profile works with RAW from 2 different cameras.
Please do a comparison on z8 and Z6iii for wildlife video and stills. Should i be going for the big guns and spend the money or not?
Do you need crop-ability or shooting in dark scenarios ability? That's the deciding factor.
@Tony, it's a pity that we don't know if this test was done in Electronic or Mechanical shutter mode. Fast cameras increase readout speeds in Electronic shutter mode at the compromise of DR but slow down in Mechanical shutter to provide a "normal" DR. Not sure if the Z6III does this as well.
Mechanical
@@TonyAndChelsea Thanks for the clarification and this test. Exactly the kind of review consumers need to make an informed decision.
Hi Tony thanks for the vid. I have seen in some chinese Z63 reviews, they mentioned about N-log issue when there is a strong blue colors, there would be a bluish color cast and also in low light parts of videos there is quite a bit of noise. In ur full review would appreciate if you can you test these claims. thanks
Will do... but yes, I've had that experience just shooting HLG. Base ISO is 400, and shadows are distractingly noisy. I've been struggling with correcting the color cast without realizing it might be something specific to the camera.
I appreciate your research, and really do see the differences, but in reality these comparisons do not really matter. Even the "better" high ISO photos are useless.
horrid. what is this guy's problem with Nikon? i can't seem to understand..
put the nikon d6 in the photons to photos.. the nikon z6iii has 2 stop better DR, and the D6 is a beast of a camera.
wtf are we even talking about? you framed a whole discussion from a nothing burger.
The problem are started years ago and still ongoing by youtubers that, "hey man, more speed, more video futures", so now cameras have more speed, more video futures, but less good image quality ! The large majority of photographers do not make videos (if, most do video with phones !) and most photographers do not net more than 5 to 10 fps for still photography ! So please, all you youtubers reviewers, do separate reviews or divide your reviews for photography and video ! NOT all cameras need to have video functions and high speed !!!
The numbers I hear (from camera manufacturers) are that around 92% of camera buyers plan to use the camera for video.
I don't attribute it to YT at all - we, for example, have been asking for more intelligent software, internal memory, anti-theft, etc., for years and have gotten no response. The manufacturers seem to love competing on specs and numbers, so they just keep increasing the numbers and neglect every other part of camera design.
I'm still in love with my D700; still has that unique look to it. I did dip into mirrorless with a Z5 but was not happy as it being my main camera, I upgraded to the D700 after that.
A few months ago I wanted a compact camera for travelling & I ended up getting a Z50; pretty good for a crop sensor camera! :)
@@TonyAndChelsea I do not think that number are right, I know many both pros and hobby photographers, the pros I know who made video, the are also tired of cameras that have both video and photography, the only reason pros but hybrid cameras are the low price. About video for hobby photographers, most use their phone !!! even the pro video photographers I know use their phone for private videos, it is much easier to use a phone. If I need a video, I use my phone. The camera makers can do it easy, just keep the video settings hide in the menu, or when you order a camera, you can choose, if you want photo, video, or photo and video.
I think with the new Sony A9III more people will see it is mad with all the speed and video functions, you only get 24 megapixels that are just about good image quality. I think more will be pleased with more dynamic range and high image quality, less time i front of the computer and more time in the field !
Still better dynamic range than Sony stacked sensor cameras & canon R6II.
The Sony a9 III is a little worse and the R6 II is much better. The a1 DR is almost as good as the Z7 II. www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
@@TonyAndChelseaa9iii raws have Noise reduction to boost dynamic range. So does the R6ii. Can’t compare them without mentioning that
I would like to see low light performance comparisons
as nikon z5 user, im very proud my z5 its still shine for dynamic range, BUTTTT no for autofocus wkwk, honestly i dont care about the dynamic range, as i photographer always shoot right exposure SOOC, butt the Autofocus z5 in lowlight very not capable
Yeah agreed our Z5 test showed the AF really struggled and the Z6 III is MUCH better.
@@TonyAndChelsea i hope Nikon make new Mirrorless in Z5 price range which have Auto-Focus like ZF / Z8 etc,,
@TonyAndChelsea
tl;dr Could you please repeat the test with both subjects lighted a few stops higher?
I really like that you made the effort to design a reproducible test for this phenomenon. It really shows the technical differences and, as you said, it is up to anyone to determine the real world impact on their photography for themselves.
For this, you chose a generally pretty dark scene with one correctly illuminated subject and one extremely underexposed. That lead to a situation, where you had very few photons in the dark areas. Looking at my pictures with very high dynamic range I mostly have normal exposed subject, with very bright highlights (sky, sun, etc) and dark shadows. So it would be interesting to see the dynamic range between (almost) clipping highlights and the dark shadows. You might test this with a third book lighted very bright or just overexposing the bright book until almost clipping and then editing to bring both books to normal exposure.
Thank you, I always like your insightful videos.
I'd love to see a comparison between RAW video and MP4 as well as hear some audio recorded straight into the camera. I remember preamps in a lot of cameras were an absolute insult to the ears and I hope Nikon has improved.
This video does a great job of illustrating the significance of a .8 stop reduction in DR. Camera makers seem to be favoring readout speed over DR with recent camera models. This is the exact opposite of how I would prioritize these two aspects of a sensor. What is notable here is the amount of the reduction. I really worry about this same issue with the R5 Mark II. Canon's sensors are already at a DR disadvantage compared to Sony.
Canon had for years half the dynamic range of Nikon and Sony and no one complained (DSLR times)
We literally switched from Canon to Nikon because of DR and it was a huge deal at the time
@@TonyAndChelsea Okay, all my friends stayed within their brands, so I assumed this was not that big of a problem. However they were no professionals. So their standards were lower I assume.
@@TonyAndChelsea Same here, I changed to Nikon from Canon years ago because of the DR issue with Canon. However, with the newer Canon cameras e.g. R3, R5 and R6 II the DR has been improved dramatically and is no longer an issue for my photography needs.
You should compare it against the SONY A9 III, the direct competitor for the Nikon users at half the price.
They're definitely not direct competitors (the a9 III has 0ms readout speed and does 120 FPS raw, full-width). But the a9 III has worse dynamic range. You can compare any two cameras here: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
The a9 III is a special purpose camera for special requirements. That's where it excels, and where some other criteria such as DR are less important and forgivable.
However, with the Z6 III, it is a different and much broader market segment.
There, it is not forgivable (from a marketing / marketability perspective), to offer a solution for 2024-2028 which is inferior to its competition, with regards to
- dynamic range, and
- image resolution.
@@tubularificationed I agree! I would not buy the Z6 III. I feel like this is recicled tech, and not even true stack3d sensor.
I don't usually need to push 6.3stop (you joking, maybe 2 at most, the image would look totally unnatural), unless it pitch dark and need the shot or my settings were wrong. It is lesser than the z6ii for sure but not a deal breaker. The thing called topaz lab ai, that does noise reduction and sharpening (upscale too but I don't need that most of the time only cropping tiny bird) will over come all of these joke testings. Best software I bought in awhile for concert and lowlight. Keep you from shooting too high of an iso where the false coloring occurs or bleach skin. I have hdr stacked images inside to show the mountain thru the window outside.
i think nikon should cater for landscape photographers and architecture more yes ive got the z9 and its super fast but the dynamic range on my old z7 and z7ii is better ok its not massive but the point is its better so if nikon release a 60mp camera or larger then i wouldnt want a stacked sensor
dude the d800e has better dynamic rage than the z7 or z7ii (witch are top of the line when it comes to full frame DR). old has nothing to do with it. faster cameras are not design for DR, it is what it is.
why not compare them both at 100 iso?
I discuss in the video why DR is generally evaluated at the base ISO
Wenn Sie einen Test veröffentlichen, dann sollten Sie den Test auch mit dem nötigen Sachverstand durchführen! Das war nichts, höchstens ein schlechter Witz! Schauen Sie sich den Beitrag von Kelly Sparks an, hier können Sie lernen wie man so etwas richtig durchführt!
Very important video. Thnx Tony.
The question is, how does it compare to the A74, prob soon to be replaced by the A75 with an even better Dynamic Range.
Highly doubt that. You won't be seeing dynamic range improvements for years until sensors start resolving 16bit worth of DR. I don't see that being possible without dual gain output
The a7v is a semi stacked 33mp aswell.
The a7iv's 33mp is slow as hell , thats why it doesnt compromise much in dr
The "problem" is, already the 3 years old the A7 IV of 2021 is fast enough for 99.999% of photos.
The remaining 0.001% are only the few photos showing a baseball player hitting a ball.
Which is 0.000% outside of the US 😉
OK, I'm exaggerating a little, but for the majority of photo subject areas, it actually matters ZERO indeed. Most don't like that the Z6 III would be a sub-par solution with regards to combining
- sub-par dynamic range, with
- sub par sensor resolution
- price surcharge for some video corner cases, whereas too many have ZERO interest in video at all, and are annoyed by the pricing.
@@tubularificationed The problem as I see it is that the A7IV is good for weddings but not great! Same for any video work. It's quite adequate but in some cases it's just not good enough.
@@tubularificationed sub par? I use a 11 year old Canon 700D/Rebel T5i with 11.2 stops of DR professionally and i rarely encounter situations where DR is an issue
Here comes "Nikon basher" has started ranting again. Who would underexpose that much and use it .... If you underexpose that much you need noise reduction in the post... But no camera is good, in that level of BS photos.. A bad photo is a bad photo no matter what we do to recover it..
It's the DR enough? That's the question
It probably has good enough DR it just comes down to how does it compare to other models and brands for the same price. I would say for most paid work better AF is more important. Meaning missing a crucial shot because it's out of focus is worse than more noise in the shadows. But I'm glad Tony did this test because it is a trade off to be considered.
It's good enough as long as you don't edit shots from concerts and HDR night events
It is certainly enough. It's not bad. There's no "serious problem". It is a very capable camera. Inability to pull a perfectly exposed noiseless image out of almost complete darkness with 20x crop is a "serious problem" only for pixel peepers even if other cameras perform this feat better.
Clearly, in extreme circumstances no camera has it. One needs to be blind to believe that the z7 or the z6 around 4:39 are passing the test, maybe the old Hasselblad H6D will do, maybe.
Dr has always been enough since the 16mp age
🤔(resolution/dynamic range) Almost all landscape / travel photography is hobbyists' photography, and most hobbyists look after a middle-class priced camera, between $2000-$3000 bracket, and which isn't too heavy/too bulky.
Almost all professional photography (where money can be earned) is people/events, in particular, portraits and weddings and such. Also there, a high DR is decisive, whereas nuances in rolling shutter differences are not at all. That is only a thing for the few birds-in-flight hobbyists, and even fewer sports photographers.
Nikon don't know yet the magnitude of the disfavor they did to themselves, offering
- sub-par resolution, paired with
- sub-par dynamic range
with the Z6 III.
For the next four years, 2024-2028, they don't offer a camera model which would be convincing enough for the important middle class market segment. The one which is so decisive for the overall market share.
Even worse, the competition gets even stronger in that time frame. Sonys next A7 V, for example, is due already next year in 2025, which likely will finish off the Z6 III in the market, before the Z6 III could gain some traction.
Portraits don't care about DR. Weddings don't care about DR or resolution. People shot for years on the D5 which had worse dynamic range and worse resolution than the cheapest APS-C DSLRs you could buy.
I've been looking forward to this camera forever and have to admit that I'm disappointed and will probably wait now. I'm not looking to upgrade from my d750 to camera with one full stop worst dynamic range as I'm always bringing up shadows in post.
It sounds like I need to wait for the z7iii and hope that they've upgraded the autofocus.
The challenge is the AF really only gets great (in my experience) when mirror less cameras have a really fast readout speed. Even the a7R V is pretty frustrating to AF on moving subjects, and it has the newest AI chip on board.
@@TonyAndChelsea Honest question then, how does Canon pull it off? I'd just buy the Canon and get a superior camera is most ways (at least according to Ken Rockwell), but I really don't like Canon colors.
Hello Sir. Please if it is possible can you make a full review of the Nikon FTZ Mark II adapter, on UA-cam no one has a real informative review of this product. it will be interesting to see how F-mount lenses from any brand can perform on a Nikon Z mount Camera, how accurate the autofocus is how fast is it, and so on. I think it will be interesting for a lot of people because right now a lot of people are considering buying a Nikon mirrorless camera but Nikon does not offer affordable Z-mount lenses and also there are no real good alternative lenses from other brands like Sigma or Tamron. for example, you can find a lot of perfect lenses for Sony E mount like the latest Sigma24-70mm f/2.8 mark II lens. to make a long story short You know better than me that you can find a lot of good half-price lenses for E mount but not for R mount or Z mount and there are a lot of people including myself want to know if we can buy Nikon Mirrorless camera and adapt F mount lenses without any problem with FTZ adapter and be happy.
Would have been interesting to see the z7ii compared at the matching iso 100 instead of 64.
Who underexposes to -6 stops ??
Even Lightroom sliders work up to 5 stops.
I tested the Z8 & Z6iii High ISO performance yesterday at a shop, the z6iii is 2/3 stops better than Z8 in High ISO (6400-14400), could be 1 whole stop too.
But the 24MP files looks stunning side by side a 45MP file. The 24MP bodies have some magic.
I also tested the A7RV+70-200 GMII side by side, the autofocus seems better on Z8+24-120, because of the blackout free electronic shutter I guess so it can track continuously without losing the subject completely as the shutter comes up & down.
Sunsets, backlit wildlife... Those require more than six stops of recovery.
Whats about highlight recovery? Do we need to expose differently if the Z6 III has more DR in highlights? @@TonyAndChelsea
@@TonyAndChelsea Yes I do that too when oportunity arises, only to bring out fur details of bigcats against backlight, 6 stops never have to do that specifically 6.3 stops. For that you don't need to pull up the whole exposure because it's a low key image anyway. You need a bit of shadow recovery. You want to highlight the animals edges, not bring up the entire animal. If you do that all cameras will show distinct noise may it be the D850 or the Sony A7R5 or the Sony A9iii, it doesn't matter.
The main question is why not test it at 1,2,3,4,5 stops under & over ?? Why 6.3 stops ? What's the .3 for ?
Don't know if someone mentioned it below but could you test the Z6III on Astro? If low light is a problem, how would it work on night shots / astro photography?
I shoot aurora all the time and start out with 1600 ISO but shoot as high as 5000. I'm interested in this question too. Based on the charts on photons to photos, the z6ii is a little better.
The SNR is still probably very good. DR is more about editing latitude.
do not confuse DR with Low light performance.
The nikon d800e had and still has the best DR out of all the cameras on the market, but the low light performance was pretty shitty.
or a Hasselblad H4D -50/60 has amazing DR but can't go over iso 200 without falling apart.
the nikon z6ii doesn't have stellar DR either. but it's the best low light camera i ever shot. and i have a d5 and a d4s.
@@Juventinos fair. I used to have a d5, great camera, but liquidated it to buy a Z9. Safe to say DR is for 'fixing' (pushing/pulling) photos? Just use SNR and high noise capability to get it right imo. I've never had an issue lifting shadows up to 2 stops on any nikon raw file. Not sure who's pushing these files so hard lol
@@northofbrandon compared to all the cameras mentioned, D5 is terrible in terms of DR at base ISO lol. 2 stops worse than Z8 at base. But it never mattered for what the D5 was designed to do.
Disclose, not foreclose. It appears the "half-stacked" pixels that lost one stop of light due to sharing real-estate haven't been gain-corrected. I wonder if that's a firmware update to the sensor? Or maybe there is a Z 6 iii sensor recall/replacement in our future? New technology growing pains.
Boo
@@TonyAndChelsea . The strap lugs seem to be holding, so that's a positive.
@@TonyAndChelsea Please Tony don't foreclose on my camera. I was only late on one payment! 😛
I wouldn't mind buying a foreclosed Z6iii, probably a lot cheaper.
@@brucebardell3792💀💀💀
indoor testing will always showcase perfect scenarios
I would be interested to see how the Z6III stacks up (pun intended) against other camers from Sony, Canon, etc. Also curious to see how it compares the ZF. It seems like the ZF may have more DR, because the sensor is not stacked.
Over 1200iso it performs better than my D750 and I rarely shoot below that at gigs/club nights where lighting is always awful. I'd be interested to see how AF performs in this scenario - dark events, lots of movement, flashing saturating lighting, high iso. Does AF work or just single point focus and recompose? High iso video performance?
The AF will be as good as Z8/Z9, in this scenario maybe even better as the z6iii is rated to -10 EV where the z8/9 are -9 EV. Lower EV in darker scenarios.
As a wedding photographer: You bring up the shadows in a dark suit by maybe half a stop. It's not an issue. Especially not currently, given that dark suits aren't a thing right now. Everyone is wearing grey-green these days.
He said between the the details of white dress and dark suit.