Nikon Z9 with 8k Posted on B&H

i don't know about 10-bit (but it'll probably have it) but the z9 is rumored to have 4k120

I'm with you for desiring that large-range video standard zoom. although clear image zoom and/or 4K S35 crop can somewhat alleviate the issue if the zoom doesn't go long enough

"entering the menu do dial sensitivity" - getting to the setting takes me about 2 seconds. and i don't have to change it frequently. you can also probably link it to your scroll wheels, like i have iso and wb linked to 2 of my scroll wheels (the third controls aperture). there are different configurations for the scroll wheels that you can call up with a custom button. so i push my custom button to turn my shutter speed wheel into a WB wheel and then it stays that way. i can probably do that for focus settings and should look into it. so i would push a custom button and turn my shutter speed and iso wheels into focus setting control wheels. but it's not currently slowing me down enough that i thought to look into it.

i'm not sure exactly about the AF improvements and if it's tied to mirrorless itself or just advancing technology, but the wedding photogs i know rave about canon mirrorless af performance for low-light shooting and also eye detect, and seem to think that it's better on mirrorless than on contemporaneous reflex cameras

the app is pretty solid. it's ALMOST low-enough lag for me to operate on gimbal with just that monitor. i'd readily do it in a pinch. it's pretty darn stable although i haven't tested the range. through a car i'm sure would be fine. it has two monitor modes - low-lag/low-res and higher-lag/higher-res. i just keep it on low-lag/low-res. the higher-res version might be nice to check a detail if i didn't have my 7" ikan attached, but the lag renders it useless for operating. i've been using the wifi monitoring just for touch focus so i don't have to tap the camera itself (and its tiny screen). for that it works a charm
 
Its good to chat. Fundamentally none of the manufacturers are really communicating to me that they have understanding of products as I would like to see them. That trust is basically broken.

Im old school genius or simpleton. I'm just after a simple camera. Not one with 8k or world beating MTF or F1.2

Simple camera that wont snap the HDMI when I put it in my bag, one I can see my composition in the sun. One that can record sound not via an easy snap off dongle. ..has an RBG WFM and Decent AF and a huge zoom range and FPS way beyond 120. Has a tally light, Doesnt overlay **** over the image.. Simples
 
I feel ya. That's why I went with rokinon primes. I like the look and I dont need superhuman mtf curves.

The af is pretty cool these days. I wasn't interested in video af until recently. I'll take the complexity of the controls for the performance boost the af gives me

But I agree with you about all that other malarkey. I would like to see a beefed up smartphone control app because it would be so easy to add rgb wfm there. and in a pinch I can monitor off it and smartphone screens are bright these days.

One other thing - I can control the zoom of a power zoom like the 28-135 with the smartphone app. It's a single speed and the small onscreen button is a little hit or miss in terms of pushing it and engaging every time. So I wouldn't want to use it mid-shot. But just to zoom to reframe between shots without accessing the camera or adding another controller, it's pretty handy. (Of course the dedicated bluetooth wireless controller can give you zoom buttons as well, but similar caveat about not relying on it mid-shot)
 
Sony A1 checks for focus 150 times per second. Have a moving object? Good luck in besting 150.

And Nikon will probably sell as many $6,000 8K cameras as Olympus sold $3,000 EM1X's.

And A7RIV with a Sigma 28-70 is a better buy than Z7 with the Nikkor 24-70.

At least, Nikon gets to keep the Sony phase detect AF.
 
Dont forget - canon shaved off 2" and .9lbs from its RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS relative to the ef 70-200 f/2.8 is iii. Those size/weight savings matter a lot to some people
 
For travel it's nicer (even though it's wider), but unfortunately the new design lost its internal telescoping zoom so it may not matter much as it becomes the same size when it's extended out to 200mm.
 
I feel like one of the things going for Canon and Nikon that grounded them was the established lens mounts and lens selections. Once both went mirrorless which they had to do it put them on level playing ground with Panasonic and Sony. None no longer really have the legacy factor anymore or significant advantage over the other. Sure each has its pros and cons but all the mirrorless cameras and mounts are now more or less the same.

Ironically Panasonic is the only company that now kind of stands out in a unique positions because of m43 and the m43 mount which has been around for a long time and has many lens partners. I'm not saying m43 is better of course but they are now the only mount with any kind of a unique standard and a product line that is a bit different then the rest.

I had really hoped we could have adopted a universal mount standard this time with the transition to mirrorless but alas that will likely never happen. Sony may now be the best bet with the E mount and m43 for those ok with a slightly smaller sensor.

With focal reducers I also kind of see APS-C as pointless now. If one feels m43 sucks then APS-C likely isn't going to do it for them either and they want the full frame enchilada. Adding a focal reducer to m43 is pretty much as good if not better than most APS-C options anyway. That really leaves going forward a m43 market and a FF market.

I'm such a fan of the Pocket 4k now for video its kind of hard to go back to the compromises of a DSLR for video. So just about any video features now on a DSLR to me at least are kind of an after thought. No matter what they try to add it likely will not be the same as Braw to a tiny attached SSD drive or SD card and a 5" screen. I really some like myself previously do need a hybrid camera. I still need a hybrid as well land for now I have a GH4 that can do both if need be. I was going to get a Panasonic S5 but the lenses cost too much and just like the new Canon and Nikon mounts they are all on level playing field and I just don't see one as being superior to the other. I'm not going to invest in a brand new lens mount and then a year later discover I would have preferred o go a different route.

So I will wait and see how things go on the FF photography side of the game. I know Nikon is kind of hurting so I'm hesitant to invest in the new Nikon mount. I think a total of ten people on the planet bought into the Panasonic FF mount. I'm just not a fan of Canon and how they treat video and I hate Sony colors and how they structure the interfaces. None really stands out right now as the "holy crap I need that" product line. Someone needs to really wow me or be the last one standing for me to take a chance right now. I was almost ready to switch to Canon for EF since it was kind of an unofficial lens standard for cinema cameras but I'm not sure how long EF will stay alive now. Its kind of a legacy lens mount now.

With that said what are cinema cameras going to use for a larger lens mount going forward? Will they stick to the legacy EF mount? Will they go back to the adaptable m43 mount but tick off those obsessed with larger sensors? Will they move to Sony mount since Sony also makes cinema cameras with the mount? If that happens then I will suck it up and buy a Sony DSLR for photos. Until then I'm going to make due with my GH4 and m43 lenses for now.
 
ahalpert said:
Dont forget - canon shaved off 2" and .9lbs from its RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS relative to the ef 70-200 f/2.8 is iii. Those size/weight savings matter a lot to some people
Click to expand...

Yes canon did but nikon didnt!

And then as you investigate (and norboro says) one sees no actual reduction in 'in use' length just a loss of the no trumboning feature. I hate lenses that trombone..
1) they break
2) they cause havoc if you need a matte box.

This pic is nice https://media.the-digital-picture.c...-F2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Comparison-with-Hoods.jpg

Showing the 300/4 which ive always thought to be the best midrange zoom for the operator whose back is in its final chapter.

The tromboning of these new canon makes me want to buy the original L mount versions!
 
Thomas Smet said:
I feel like one of the things going for Canon and Nikon that grounded them was the established lens mounts and lens selections. Once both went mirrorless which they had to do it put them on level playing ground with Panasonic and Sony. None no longer really have the legacy factor anymore or significant advantage over the other. Sure each has its pros and cons but all the mirrorless cameras and mounts are now more or less the same.
Click to expand...

I don't really think that's true because the canon ef/rf adapter works so well. I was tempted to get an R5 because I had mostly EF lenses. But I got an A7SIII because of the overheating problems.

I would gladly have gotten a pocket (especially the 6K Pro) if they had autofocus. The canon/sony autofocus is too good to ignore, especially for small gimbal users

I think sony colors and interface have gotten better. I really like the new menus. I've been happy with the "Movie" color setting and look forward to trying s-cinetone, though I'll probably stick to "Movie" when I want accurate or punchy color

But I agree that the pocket trounces mirrorless cameras for video and exposure controls and codec
 
With the Z mount system, Nikon targeted and largely achieved absolute optical superiority.

Pretty much all of the new Nikkors are optically best in class. Even the €500–600 f/1.8 primes are phenomenally, unprecedentedly good from the full aperture (unlike the old double-Gauss f/1.8s, much as I still love those tiny lenses).

Was this a good bet? Nikon’s market share says no, but maybe it will work out in the long term … if Nikon survives to see the long term. On that topic, their latest earnings call was surprisingly positive.
 
Canon's EF-to-RF adapters are so good with EF glass, it's hard to notice you're not using native RF glass. AF is fast and snappy, everything just works. I have two RF lenses, the rest are EF... I switch between them effortlessly. If anything, my R5 has reinvigorated some of my EF glass because it's AF system is significantly better than the 5D Mark IV it replaced.

I also don't really think EF is "legacy"... I'd guess it'll remain the most popular lens mount for quite some time. There's just too much installed base both on the camera and lens side for it to get "legacy status" (what does that even mean?) anytime soon.
 
jbregar said:
Canon's EF-to-RF adapters are so good with EF glass, it's hard to notice you're not using native RF glass. AF is fast and snappy, everything just works. I have two RF lenses, the rest are EF... I switch between them effortlessly. If anything, my R5 has reinvigorated some of my EF glass because it's AF system is significantly better than the 5D Mark IV it replaced.

I also don't really think EF is "legacy"... I'd guess it'll remain the most popular lens mount for quite some time. There's just too much installed base both on the camera and lens side for it to get "legacy status" (what does that even mean?) anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I meant legacy because as far as I know Canon will not release any new EF lenses. Of course the lenses and mount will be around for some time but that doesn't mean it will see new options.

While EF may be able to adapt to RF is the opposite true for those that have existing EF mount DSLR or cine cameras? This right there is what makes me a bit hesitant to invest in EF gear going forward. Investing in RG glass means it will not work on cine cameras with EF mounts. Investing in EF glass works for now but for how long? What will that look like if cine cameras to a mount that isn't RF?

I am glad to hear EF lenses work very well on RF cameras. Still not enough to make me want to buy a RF camera however. I still want to see how the industry plays out before I invest in a new mirrorless mount. I'm just not a fan of Canon DSLRs. Not knocking anybody that is but I just don't like them.
 
ahalpert said:
I don't really think that's true because the canon ef/rf adapter works so well. I was tempted to get an R5 because I had mostly EF lenses. But I got an A7SIII because of the overheating problems.

I would gladly have gotten a pocket (especially the 6K Pro) if they had autofocus. The canon/sony autofocus is too good to ignore, especially for small gimbal users

I think sony colors and interface have gotten better. I really like the new menus. I've been happy with the "Movie" color setting and look forward to trying s-cinetone, though I'll probably stick to "Movie" when I want accurate or punchy color

But I agree that the pocket trounces mirrorless cameras for video and exposure controls and codec
Click to expand...

I hate autofocus but will admit at times its a nice tool to have. Especially for gimbal work. Wit that said it will never be my determining factor for buying a camera. On a gimbal I tend to use a wide lens so I don't have t focus as much and have greater infinity focus. Part of the point is to move anyway so a wide angle makes sense. I don't believe in using a gimbal as an alternative to a slider, tripod or whatever. Its a specific tool to use when one wants to rapidly move around a lot of subjects in a fluid way. In those cases an ultra wide lens with a wide range of infinity focus will do as well as a camera with autofocus. Usually. There are exceptions of course but thats why I find it silly to focus on a one camera fits all situations. These things are cheap enough now where we can have the best tools for the right jobs.
 
Thomas Smet said:
I hate autofocus but will admit at times its a nice tool to have. Especially for gimbal work. Wit that said it will never be my determining factor for buying a camera. On a gimbal I tend to use a wide lens so I don't have t focus as much and have greater infinity focus. Part of the point is to move anyway so a wide angle makes sense. I don't believe in using a gimbal as an alternative to a slider, tripod or whatever. Its a specific tool to use when one wants to rapidly move around a lot of subjects in a fluid way. In those cases an ultra wide lens with a wide range of infinity focus will do as well as a camera with autofocus. Usually. There are exceptions of course but thats why I find it silly to focus on a one camera fits all situations. These things are cheap enough now where we can have the best tools for the right jobs.
Click to expand...

ah but it's no fun being married to an ultra-wide when on gimbal. but it just proves the point that gear decisions inevitably depend on what you're shooting. If I'm moving too quickly to use a slider, if I need a longer move than it can provide, or if I can't stage one, then it's gimbal all the way but I don't necessarily want to be on an ultra-wide. Gimbaling around a bride/groom on an 85mm can be nice, for example. Anyway, autofocus can be useful on slider as well. I mostly use slider instead of gimbal for macro/detail shots and the AF is still handy there. But yeah - i only have one good AF camera and I don't feel a burning need to have AF on every rig I'm shooting.
 
The problem isn't so much lens selection - it really isn't - but the body selection and their respective ecosystems. With Canon and Sony, one can start well under a grand and go up to the $11,000 FX-9 and a $16,000 C500 MKII on the same set of glass. Nikon never entered a video-first-and-foremost game. It came short on auto focus, codecs, resolution or something else. And, when you have a choice of two well developed and widely popular ecosystems, Nikon is either third or forth (if MFT doesn't peel off into sunset). And there's no need to choose a sub-optimal option anymore. With Canon or Sony, the worst case scenario is that you pay more to get closer to what you want. With Nikon, the worst case is that they'll never make a camera of your dreams.

Or any camera at all.
 
Operating profit in the middle column shows JPY 9.9 billion as the consolidated total in the bottom line one and above shows the positive operating numbers in all the segments, except for the Imaging Products business. Imaging Products business will turn profitable in real times if we exclude extraordinary costs such as restructuring-related costs and others.

We also had a loss of JPY 29.6 billion at the -- as the onetime cost for the impairment of the fixed asset in Imaging Products business, and this number was depressed by the profit generated in the third quarter.

The first row shows the revenue of JPY 70 billion for the third quarter last year. Operating profit was minus JPY 800 million. This time, revenue was JPY 52.3 billion, down JPY 600 million.

Though revenue went down throughout the year, but we had the same level of profit as the one last year. This was realized because we had a good shift to the models for pro and hobbyist, resulting into a steady increase in the unit sales price. Average selling price for additional camera interchangeable lens type reached the highest level this year, showing in the highest level in the past 10 years for bodies and interchangeable lens.

As for cost, we further reduced the business and operational costs in advance. With this done, Imaging Products business became profitable in substance for the third quarter.
Click to expand...

https://seekingalpha.com/article/44...inof-q3-2021-results-earnings-call-transcript
 
You guys may have convinced me to give Canon RF mount a chance. I didn't realize the mount adapters worked so well. This means I can keep investing in EF glass for the P4k with adapters and also use it on a Canon RP FF camera for stills. Yeah I know the RP is not the best and kind of sucks for video but I really just want a stills replacement for my GH4. It kind of smokes the GH4 and at only $999 its a great entry to FF stills for me. In a pinch the 4k video isn't horrible and if I'm out with the RP and want to grab. few video clips it will be fine.

At first I was worried about the 1.6x crop for 4k video but really its much better than the 2.3x crop I'm used to on the GH4 for 4k video. Again I'm not really planning on using it for video. It will be a stills camera 95% of the time unless I'm being lazy in which case I don't really care about some of the negatives.

I would like to get dual pixel auto focus for 4k but can't see myself jumping up to the R or higher camera just for video I would hardly ever use. I know stills will improve as well but coming from a GH4 I think the RP will already be a large upgrade for only $999.

I would have considered Nikon but the complete lack of at the very least lens stabilization when adapting Nikon lenses kills it for me. That mount always had a huge negative compared to EF due to the lack of electronic control in adapters. The new Nikon mount will never work so its kind of a dead end for me. If I only used cine lenses it might not be a big deal but then again for stills I'm not going to use cine lenses anyway.
 
If you're interested, there are a few Canon models with 4K DPAF for around the same price/cheaper, but they are all high-resolution APS-C bodies.

[And several of the Nikon mirrorless' have digital IS that works pretty well.]
 
One is, (90D, EF-S) - and the other has the older mirrorless mount, (M6 Mark II, EF-M).

Even though not RF, just another option if stills would be the primary task as the 4K video is pretty much identical in all of these models under the R6.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top