Listen, don’t be a manchild. No one’s stopping you from buying the a9iii because it’s your money. What you are looking for is emotional comfort. Sorry to disappoint. Exposure is matched. Details are based on lenses, I might have placed focus on a point that’s not shown in the 200% crop. Lens review will happen soon.
Good video Frames. It would be interesting to use the same lens for both cameras. Do you have the E-mount adapter for the Nikon? I did notice the Color noise on the Z6iii. I wonder if Nikon could add a setting in the firmware for NR, that if you wanted to use it, especially for the red and green flashing in the video noise.. Currently enjoying my Z6iii waiting for the Bird focus mode in the firmware.
@@FramesTM I used my Z8 for Birding mostly but there is no reason the Z6iii should not have the same focus mode. There are times I do not want the heavier camera or the larger files of the Z8. I have used D500/D850 size cameras in the past. I found I enjoyed using my Z6II for wildlife and model plane photography, but birds in flight were way to erratic for the Z6ii. The Z6iii and the Nikkor Z180-600mm are lighter that using the Nikkor F 200-500 lens and F mount DSLRs. With the lighter kit I can be more flexible hand holding and getting shots. I used my tripod more with the heavier F mount cameras and lens.
Although the Nikon has less noise than the a9iii, the Sony files do look more contrasty and appear sharper!Looking to the Photons to photos dynamic range and read noise figures , your results are not consistent with their information!For one reason of the other , there is a bias or error in your methodology.PS I have both cameras and each has their use.the sony kills the Nikon though in AF speed And accuracy!Different price levels though!
Please go back to photons to photo and check the chart again. The triangle marks on the A9III values indicate noise reduction baked in the RAW/ ARW files. Which means from base to highest ISO the reported DR is higher that actual DR. Companies do bake NR in when DR is particularly bad. So does Canon consistently. It’s not a good practice but they’re doing it. It’s supposed to be RAW. On sharpness, I might have focused on a different point with the Nikon. It’s a bag of chips and a bow of chips. Contrast and sharpness are lens characteristic, than sensor.
People are stating the Sony is sharper, but to me it looks like the image is being overly sharpened - it's horrible. Look at the specular highlights on the textured plastic, either the lighting was drastically changed or there is some sharpening going on. Look at the lettering on the bag and compare the Z6III to the Sony at base ISO - seriously? Sony applies NR across the entire ISO range so it's a bit of a strange comparison to make. It's good click bait for fanboys though.
Btw the idea of a clickbait if very left-liberal victimhood lane stuff. The clicker is responsible for the click. To lie, is a different matter. Don’t think I am duplicitous or lying anywhere.
@@FramesTM Wow way to make something political that isn't. Clickbait is not a political term and its roots are not UA-cam. Clickbait is sensationalism and simply a term for headlines that are somewhat misleading or untrue - hence enticing more to read/watch further. By making a video title comparing two brands and saying "the real story", that's exactly what you've done. The video only shows one example and the testing methodology and explanation is not documented. This is not to imply you are out to deceive anyone, but how is it the "real story" when you're not showing the process from beginning to end or even discussing the differences in image processing. In one comment you even entertain that the Nikon may be applying noise reduction??? Nice job of deflecting though. I guess when one feels threatened these days they simply play the political card. 🤡
...just shot a whole paid event with the a9iii in a low light environment at iso 4000, the lens plays a huge part but I'm sure this test definitely has to be full proof, ya know its on UA-cam so its gotta be true. But to add more nuance even if any of these cameras have crazy noise guess what? Your photo editor makes it a non problem, and trust me I shot with this a9iii in the least appealing environment with the 24 1.4 gm and 70-200gm ii with no flash (performers could be hurt if there was a flash)
That Nikon image is soft, muddy, missing tons of details. A9III still shows more details at ISO 3200 (maybe even 6400 but there its getting hard to pick whats real detail and whats noise in few places) than Z6III at 100. Nikkor 70-200 for Z mount is very sharp lens with simmilar optical performance to 70-200 GMII so that doesnt make much sense and I expect that during multiple shots for direct comparisons you have made sure the focus is correct on both. So, is Z6III applying some very heavy noise reduction in body smearing the image? Im not aware that either Sony or Nikon bake in NR into RAWs all the way from base ISO, thats a Canon thing, but the loss of detail is one of side effect of that practice and also would explain low ammount of grains and smoothness of the image. Noise is visible earlier and is more pronounced on A9III, but its a neutral colour noise even all the way to 12800. I notice a green tint on Z6III even at 1600, so thats what I would concider maximum limit for Z6. For me (and through YT compression) its hard to judge anything about details loss on Nikon as it had none to begin with, but on Sony it doesnt really loose much all the way to 3200 and still is usable for its application at 6400 and 12800 and most importantly keeps good colours. Who cares that its less grainy with shots going through a postprocess including much more advanced noise reduction algorithms than anything done in body. The colour shift and loss of colour information on high ISO is harder to fix. Grain is fine, colour shift is not. I think the problem with dynamic range and why some people bash on Z6III and not A9III is partially also because Z6III is supposed to be all rounder hybrid (which is debatable whether Z6III is better than Z6II in other than sports, birds and other that needs high framerate and precapture), whereas A9III is very specialized tool and in applications for which its made the visible grain doesnt matter as much, but warping from rolling shutter and banding from artificial lights does.
I agree with you. Btw, these tests are so tiring that in the end one ends some with small acceptable deviations. I’m sure that the I focused on a slight different point on the bowl of chips with the Nikon. + according to photons to photo, the A9iii has baked in noise reduction but not the Z6iii. I have been shooting with the Z6iii for some time. The tests I do, I do for myself. UA-cam video is a careless by product. I needed to check if the Z6iii files are significantly low quality enough for me to consider a used Z7ii. Between, Zf, Z8 and Z6iii, I realise I have no reason to look anywhere else. The A9iii does actually great given the speed it pulls of. But don’t get swayed away by the contrast and saturation of the images. I will find out what caused that. The flash lights might have moved slightly since my wife was helping me out. Multiple factors. In my other work, the colors from the Z6 are better, not worse.
Thank you ... very interesting. Just confirming I made the right decision to leave Sony and buy Z8 and Z6iii. Sony's a1 and a9iii are superb cameras in terms of some of their features but if you do not really need this you can get more bang for your buck elsewhere. The Z6iii is an absolute value bargain especially for wildlife and action.
Worthless comparisation. Sony is over 1 stop more exposure, and way more detail.
Listen, don’t be a manchild. No one’s stopping you from buying the a9iii because it’s your money. What you are looking for is emotional comfort.
Sorry to disappoint.
Exposure is matched. Details are based on lenses, I might have placed focus on a point that’s not shown in the 200% crop.
Lens review will happen soon.
That’s Right Frames Stand Your Ground!!! Keep Shinning sir!!!
Thank you for your honest review! Amazing job! Love it that you tell it straight and that your not Biased toward any camera company!
Thank you friend
I would like to see more street photography in the cities of india, maybe even landscape videos
+1, I agree that would be great.
Good video Frames. It would be interesting to use the same lens for both cameras. Do you have the E-mount adapter for the Nikon? I did notice the Color noise on the Z6iii. I wonder if Nikon could add a setting in the firmware for NR, that if you wanted to use it, especially for the red and green flashing in the video noise.. Currently enjoying my Z6iii waiting for the Bird focus mode in the firmware.
Aah yes! My fav for birding is Z8
@@FramesTM I used my Z8 for Birding mostly but there is no reason the Z6iii should not have the same focus mode. There are times I do not want the heavier camera or the larger files of the Z8. I have used D500/D850 size cameras in the past. I found I enjoyed using my Z6II for wildlife and model plane photography, but birds in flight were way to erratic for the Z6ii. The Z6iii and the Nikkor Z180-600mm are lighter that using the Nikkor F 200-500 lens and F mount DSLRs. With the lighter kit I can be more flexible hand holding and getting shots. I used my tripod more with the heavier F mount cameras and lens.
Although the Nikon has less noise than the a9iii, the Sony files do look more contrasty and appear sharper!Looking to the Photons to photos dynamic range and read noise figures , your results are not consistent with their information!For one reason of the other , there is a bias or error in your methodology.PS I have both cameras and each has their use.the sony kills the Nikon though in AF speed And accuracy!Different price levels though!
Please go back to photons to photo and check the chart again. The triangle marks on the A9III values indicate noise reduction baked in the RAW/ ARW files. Which means from base to highest ISO the reported DR is higher that actual DR. Companies do bake NR in when DR is particularly bad. So does Canon consistently. It’s not a good practice but they’re doing it. It’s supposed to be RAW.
On sharpness, I might have focused on a different point with the Nikon. It’s a bag of chips and a bow of chips. Contrast and sharpness are lens characteristic, than sensor.
@ how can we know if a noise reduction is baked in? Does Nikon z6iii not have it?
So says photons to photo if we go by them.
is DR the same as ISO performance?
People are stating the Sony is sharper, but to me it looks like the image is being overly sharpened - it's horrible. Look at the specular highlights on the textured plastic, either the lighting was drastically changed or there is some sharpening going on. Look at the lettering on the bag and compare the Z6III to the Sony at base ISO - seriously? Sony applies NR across the entire ISO range so it's a bit of a strange comparison to make. It's good click bait for fanboys though.
Yea A9iii applies NR in raw files across
Btw the idea of a clickbait if very left-liberal victimhood lane stuff. The clicker is responsible for the click. To lie, is a different matter. Don’t think I am duplicitous or lying anywhere.
@@FramesTM Wow way to make something political that isn't. Clickbait is not a political term and its roots are not UA-cam.
Clickbait is sensationalism and simply a term for headlines that are somewhat misleading or untrue - hence enticing more to read/watch further.
By making a video title comparing two brands and saying "the real story", that's exactly what you've done. The video only shows one example and the testing methodology and explanation is not documented.
This is not to imply you are out to deceive anyone, but how is it the "real story" when you're not showing the process from beginning to end or even discussing the differences in image processing. In one comment you even entertain that the Nikon may be applying noise reduction???
Nice job of deflecting though. I guess when one feels threatened these days they simply play the political card. 🤡
...just shot a whole paid event with the a9iii in a low light environment at iso 4000, the lens plays a huge part but I'm sure this test definitely has to be full proof, ya know its on UA-cam so its gotta be true. But to add more nuance even if any of these cameras have crazy noise guess what? Your photo editor makes it a non problem, and trust me I shot with this a9iii in the least appealing environment with the 24 1.4 gm and 70-200gm ii with no flash (performers could be hurt if there was a flash)
So true man. Btw I used 70 200 for both these brands here
Very honest review
❤️
WELL Done!!!
Great
That Nikon image is soft, muddy, missing tons of details. A9III still shows more details at ISO 3200 (maybe even 6400 but there its getting hard to pick whats real detail and whats noise in few places) than Z6III at 100.
Nikkor 70-200 for Z mount is very sharp lens with simmilar optical performance to 70-200 GMII so that doesnt make much sense and I expect that during multiple shots for direct comparisons you have made sure the focus is correct on both. So, is Z6III applying some very heavy noise reduction in body smearing the image? Im not aware that either Sony or Nikon bake in NR into RAWs all the way from base ISO, thats a Canon thing, but the loss of detail is one of side effect of that practice and also would explain low ammount of grains and smoothness of the image.
Noise is visible earlier and is more pronounced on A9III, but its a neutral colour noise even all the way to 12800. I notice a green tint on Z6III even at 1600, so thats what I would concider maximum limit for Z6. For me (and through YT compression) its hard to judge anything about details loss on Nikon as it had none to begin with, but on Sony it doesnt really loose much all the way to 3200 and still is usable for its application at 6400 and 12800 and most importantly keeps good colours. Who cares that its less grainy with shots going through a postprocess including much more advanced noise reduction algorithms than anything done in body. The colour shift and loss of colour information on high ISO is harder to fix. Grain is fine, colour shift is not.
I think the problem with dynamic range and why some people bash on Z6III and not A9III is partially also because Z6III is supposed to be all rounder hybrid (which is debatable whether Z6III is better than Z6II in other than sports, birds and other that needs high framerate and precapture), whereas A9III is very specialized tool and in applications for which its made the visible grain doesnt matter as much, but warping from rolling shutter and banding from artificial lights does.
I agree with you.
Btw, these tests are so tiring that in the end one ends some with small acceptable deviations.
I’m sure that the I focused on a slight different point on the bowl of chips with the Nikon.
+ according to photons to photo, the A9iii has baked in noise reduction but not the Z6iii.
I have been shooting with the Z6iii for some time. The tests I do, I do for myself. UA-cam video is a careless by product.
I needed to check if the Z6iii files are significantly low quality enough for me to consider a used Z7ii.
Between, Zf, Z8 and Z6iii, I realise I have no reason to look anywhere else.
The A9iii does actually great given the speed it pulls of. But don’t get swayed away by the contrast and saturation of the images.
I will find out what caused that. The flash lights might have moved slightly since my wife was helping me out. Multiple factors. In my other work, the colors from the Z6 are better, not worse.
Thank you ... very interesting. Just confirming I made the right decision to leave Sony and buy Z8 and Z6iii. Sony's a1 and a9iii are superb cameras in terms of some of their features but if you do not really need this you can get more bang for your buck elsewhere. The Z6iii is an absolute value bargain especially for wildlife and action.
Yes that’s true in the real world. And no way taking away from the fantastic stuff the Sony are doing
Heavy noise reduction is applied in z6iii photos ... loosing sharpness
Could be. Or the focus is slightly off. Will check. It’s a lot of work. So maybe I won’t bother.
Colours are more vibrant on the Sony.
@@FramesTM You think Sony is goosing the color of their Raw output on the A93 How does it compare to your other Sony cameras?