Nikon mirrorless definitely on the way

redhed17 said:
How long do you wait! This may be the best they can do at the moment. If they think these cameras are good enough, then they go. In some places they are not as good as the Sony's, but do you wait for their next generation seeing how fast they innovate?
Click to expand...
They wait until I deem it good enough ;)
 
photogwannabe said:
Well, a lot of posts overnight! :) One card slot doesn't bother me, I've never had an sd card fail in my D750 and only cheap CF cards on reformatting in camera; quality CF never. Anticipated price for a Z6 is $2600 Cdn. Could be feasible in a year or two. One would hope that eye-AF shows up in a firmware update.
Click to expand...
You are the type of person they after, but they would prefer you to have the money now. ;) :LOL:
 
No
jonneymendoza said:
So you like nikon colours better?

When people slate the sony colours they slate it against canon not nikon as even nikon users wished the colour were as good as canon.

Canon in other words is class leading
Click to expand...
Johnny I find the Nikon colours a bit blue green,I prefer. The canon and Fuji colours but not the Fuji worms :D:exit:
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
No

Johnny I find the Nikon colours a bit blue green,I prefer. The canon and Fuji colours but not the Fuji worms :D:exit:
Click to expand...
I never understand this discussions about colours of different brands. Is this just for Jpegs? I shoot RAW and do a profile for each camera for colour accuracy first, and then make the pics how I want them to look. I had some pics of scene in Venice a couple of months ago taken from a window with a Sony RX100III and Nikon D500 and when opened up, with the profiles applied, they looked almost identical.
 
redhed17 said:
I never understand this discussions about colours of different brands. Is this just for Jpegs? I shoot RAW and do a profile for each camera for colour accuracy first, and then make the pics how I want them to look. I had some pics of scene in Venice a couple of months ago taken from a window with a Sony RX100III and Nikon D500 and when opened up, with the profiles applied, they looked almost identical.
Click to expand...
You can of course set profiles but some are more hard work than others, and some give consistently better results than others. When I tried sample A7riii and A7iii files it took me ages to tweak the colours on one pic to my taste, applied this same profile to the next photo and it was all wrong :facepalm:
 
redhed17 said:
I never understand this discussions about colours of different brands. Is this just for Jpegs? I shoot RAW and do a profile for each camera for colour accuracy first, and then make the pics how I want them to look. I had some pics of scene in Venice a couple of months ago taken from a window with a Sony RX100III and Nikon D500 and when opened up, with the profiles applied, they looked almost identical.
Click to expand...

The whole "colour science" thing bugs me too, it seems to be the trend phrase among reviewers these days. Never heard anyone use that term a few years back. I shoot RAW only too, and find the same to an extent, the images will end up very similar once I go through my usual motions in processing. But ... I have found that there is a notable difference between manufacturers when it comes to reds, greens and blues. I found I was always having to pull back reds a little with Fuji files, like there was an over saturation, and with my Panasonic I'm finding blues creep in everywhere even with WB adjustment, I often find I'm pulling back blues in the HSL panel, even when there's no blues in the scene :thinking:
 
redhed17 said:
I never understand this discussions about colours of different brands. Is this just for Jpegs? I shoot RAW and do a profile for each camera for colour accuracy first, and then make the pics how I want them to look. I had some pics of scene in Venice a couple of months ago taken from a window with a Sony RX100III and Nikon D500 and when opened up, with the profiles applied, they looked almost identical.
Click to expand...

It's more the way when you edit them, changing them to the way you want them to look. On Canon say the photo looks a bit cool so you slide the WB over a couple of notches, it will do what you expect, the Sony does, but then it will do something unexpected to the skin tone, like introduce a slightly/hint of green/red with it too. This is all very faint and in insolation I doubt you can tell but shooting both files side by side it's more apparent.

May be I am used to working with Canon files and I found it very easy to slide a few sliders to exactly where i want, I find myself doing a little more per file on the Sony.
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
I never understand this discussions about colours of different brands. Is this just for Jpegs? I shoot RAW and do a profile for each camera for colour accuracy first, and then make the pics how I want them to look. I had some pics of scene in Venice a couple of months ago taken from a window with a Sony RX100III and Nikon D500 and when opened up, with the profiles applied, they looked almost identical.
Click to expand...
Not saying it can’t be done,as you’ve shown to yourself ,I just found when I had an A7 I gave up trying to get a satisfying to me look,perhaps my lack of editing skills.
 
Cagey75 said:
Looking at them top down it appears Sony wasted a lot of space on the left shoulder. The Nikon looks a little more comfortable, but not much, just the grip protrudes more for those who like that.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the A9 has 2 dials, right where that space is.
 
Cagey75 said:
Looking at them top down it appears Sony wasted a lot of space on the left shoulder. The Nikon looks a little more comfortable, but not much, just the grip protrudes more for those who like that.
Click to expand...

On the a9 there's a drive dial there which is a perfect use of that space.
 
Cagey75 said:
The whole "colour science" thing bugs me too, it seems to be the trend phrase among reviewers these days. Never heard anyone use that term a few years back. I shoot RAW only too, and find the same to an extent, the images will end up very similar once I go through my usual motions in processing. But ... I have found that there is a notable difference between manufacturers when it comes to reds, greens and blues. I found I was always having to pull back reds a little with Fuji files, like there was an over saturation, and with my Panasonic I'm finding blues creep in everywhere even with WB adjustment, I often find I'm pulling back blues in the HSL panel, even when there's no blues in the scene :thinking:
Click to expand...
Olympus need a reduction in blues too, maybe it’s an m4/3 thing ;)

I personally don’t think colour science is a myth, different manufacturers certainly render skin tones differently. A lot of the time I think that without tweaking people look a bit ill when shot with Sony. The mark iii’s do seem better, but LR’s profiles for them aren’t good imo. Well to be fair these are to represent Sony’s jpeg profiles so in essence it’s Sony colours again. I preferred to work from Adobe std with those rather than the Sony profiles.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Sony should put a top LCD on the left hand side in that space :D
Click to expand...
NO...you should by the Nikon:D

In my opinion, the model on the right looks a lot more attractive, the Nikon looks like its got a Canon lens attached :puke:
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I still believe that all these comparisons should have the sensor plane aligned.

Where is the site so I can I have a play with it?
Click to expand...
Camerasize.com
 
it's interesting to hear people talk of being locked into a camera system. I just did our costings had we chosen to go z6 instead of switching to sony.

£2199 x4 = £8796
24x 64gb XQD cards @ £155 each (amazon) = £3720
12 Batteries at £70 (to cover 12-14 hours) = £840

So £13,356 to go mirrorless with nikon for me. Switching my entire system to Sony was around the same but I recouped more by selling lenses and had no card outlay.
 
snerkler said:
Olympus need a reduction in blues too, maybe it’s an m4/3 thing ;)

I personally don’t think colour science is a myth, different manufacturers certainly render skin tones differently. A lot of the time I think that without tweaking people look a bit ill when shot with Sony. The mark iii’s do seem better, but LR’s profiles for them aren’t good imo. Well to be fair these are to represent Sony’s jpeg profiles so in essence it’s Sony colours again. I preferred to work from Adobe std with those rather than the Sony profiles.
Click to expand...
I used to use the Adobe Standard, but then after I calibrated the monitor I watched an online Lightroom workshop and the chap went through making custom camera profiles for mainly, but not only, matching different cameras at a wedding, because even two different cameras from the same manufacturer can be slightly different, nevermind two cameras from different brands. The profiles you make yourself are supposed to make each camera start displaying colours more accurately, and for me at least with the cameras I have done this on, it seems to work. Now I don't know if Raymond did this whether the camera files would react differently to editing in the way they seem to now.
 
Well Nikon has many fanboys so they will flock to this regardless.but canon has the biggest fan base and they can and have been for a while releasing on paper inferior spec camera's compared to Nikon yet still sell more.

I bet you that canon 5ds has sold much more than the d850!
snerkler said:
So after having time to ‘digest’ these new cameras I’m plagued by another question, and it kinda questions Nikon’s attitude. What worries me with Nikon is that they seem happy to release these cameras. Surely they know they’re under par so rather than rushing why not wait until they’ve cracked it? Why should early adopters be beta testers for them? Obviously the next gen cameras will be better, maybe even on par with the current market, why not wait until then?

I think Sony got away with it as they were the first on the market and were seen as innovators. But I can’t help think their’s a bit of arrogance from Nikon thinking it’s ok we can release something below par and people will still buy it.

Maybe I’m being too harsh, maybe it’s the best they can do, but then I still wish they’d waited until they could do better. It’s a shame as they’ve been doing well over the past few years, with the D850 arguably being the pinnacle.

Fingers crossed it does OK so there will be an A6ii and A7ii.
Click to expand...
 
snerkler said:
So after having time to ‘digest’ these new cameras I’m plagued by another question, and it kinda questions Nikon’s attitude. What worries me with Nikon is that they seem happy to release these cameras. Surely they know they’re under par so rather than rushing why not wait until they’ve cracked it? Why should early adopters be beta testers for them? Obviously the next gen cameras will be better, maybe even on par with the current market, why not wait until then?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier it may be the case that this product isn't designed to win them the Internet but instead tide Nikon over while things transition and their existing customers who had no mirrorless options besides competitors until now (which doesn't sound that important but if this had come out a year earlier I would probably still be using Nikon).

The lack of dual slots will rule it out for a lot of professionals but these cameras are still competitive in most other regards.
 
I've been reading this thread with some interest and I think it's safe to say that for the majority of pro photographers the Z6 & Z7 are not going to be what they want. The lack of dual card slots is the main reason. However, I'm still struggling to understand why mirrorless is suddenly so important. My Nikon D750's are as good today as they were when I bought them and I'm still just as pleased with the quality of the images they produce. The only thing that bugs me (and always has) is the central positioning of the AF points. I've always said I'd prefer a wider spread.

I tried the Fuji system and it wasn't for me. I've discussed before why I didn't feel it was suitable for wedding work so I won't go there again. The FF sony system might be a better option for my wedding work but there are certainly pros and cons with it. I'm sure in time the cons will disappear but for now I don't see it as a "must have" system. I don't have any cons with my Nikon kit other than the one small niggle - poor AF point spread. If that's my only "issue" then I'm doing pretty good really aren't I?

If I'm missing something please feel free to enlighten me. I'm certainly not on this thread with an agenda. I don't need to justify my choice of kit, I'm very happy with Nikon. But equally if there was something that would give me a better quality image (that's all that matters to my client) then I would be keen to learn more about it...
 
redhed17 said:
I used to use the Adobe Standard, but then after I calibrated the monitor I watched an online Lightroom workshop and the chap went through making custom camera profiles for mainly, but not only, matching different cameras at a wedding, because even two different cameras from the same manufacturer can be slightly different, nevermind two cameras from different brands. The profiles you make yourself are supposed to make each camera start displaying colours more accurately, and for me at least with the cameras I have done this on, it seems to work. Now I don't know if Raymond did this whether the camera files would react differently to editing in the way they seem to now.
Click to expand...
I make custom profiles for each camera I own after which I can apply it to my images and 99% of the time they’re fine. With Nikon very little fettling was needed, with Olympus there was a bit more and with Sony there was even more, in fact I was never 100% on Sony and I seemed to still have to tweak it a bit on each image. Probably if I spent longer on it I’d have cracked it, but I was losing the will to live by this time ;)
 
ryanyboy said:
I've been reading this thread with some interest and I think it's safe to say that for the majority of pro photographers the Z6 & Z7 are not going to be what they want. The lack of dual card slots is the main reason. However, I'm still struggling to understand why mirrorless is suddenly so important. My Nikon D750's are as good today as they were when I bought them and I'm still just as pleased with the quality of the images they produce. The only thing that bugs me (and always has) is the central positioning of the AF points. I've always said I'd prefer a wider spread.

I tried the Fuji system and it wasn't for me. I've discussed before why I didn't feel it was suitable for wedding work so I won't go there again. The FF sony system might be a better option for my wedding work but there are certainly pros and cons with it. I'm sure in time the cons will disappear but for now I don't see it as a "must have" system. I don't have any cons with my Nikon kit other than the one small niggle - poor AF point spread. If that's my only "issue" then I'm doing pretty good really aren't I?

If I'm missing something please feel free to enlighten me. I'm certainly not on this thread with an agenda. I don't need to justify my choice of kit, I'm very happy with Nikon. But equally if there was something that would give me a better quality image (that's all that matters to my client) then I would be keen to learn more about it...
Click to expand...

The reason is why mirrorless is suddenly so important.

The reason people are so interested in this release, and the next Canon release is deep down, we all know mirrorless is now the future, so that's why we are very interested in these as they sets the path for the company on where they are going. This means the end of the road for all their cameras that they have now (or near the end), it is an important point in both Canon and Nikon's history. It's been 60 years since Nikon changed their mount and it's been over 30 years since Canon changed theirs, both are not Sony who changed it every few years :p so whatever they do, their next mount will very much likely to last our life time.

That's why mirrorless is all of the sudden so important, because you are looking likely at the next 30/40 years of cameras right in front of you.
 
snerkler said:
I make custom profiles for each camera I own after which I can apply it to my images and 99% of the time they’re fine. With Nikon very little fettling was needed, with Olympus there was a bit more and with Sony there was even more, in fact I was never 100% on Sony and I seemed to still have to tweak it a bit on each image. Probably if I spent longer on it I’d have cracked it, but I was losing the will to live by this time ;)
Click to expand...
cant you just grab a preset for the camera profile on someone who has nailed down the camera profile for sony?

Also for @twist

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTPepixEAc
 
So...
The point I’ve been trying to make about lens sizes and the latest crop of mirrorless ff cameras is this
View media item 13296
The Leica has a lens designed for a ‘mirrorless’ camera, the Canon has a std 50mm 1.8 and the new Nikon has what is clearly a lens with a spacer on the rear.

You’ll find a similar story with 35mm. So a ‘small DSLR ‘ is probably as good an option as mirrorless size wise.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
it's interesting to hear people talk of being locked into a camera system. I just did our costings had we chosen to go z6 instead of switching to sony.

£2199 x4 = £8796
24x 64gb XQD cards @ £155 each (amazon) = £3720
12 Batteries at £70 (to cover 12-14 hours) = £840

So £13,356 to go mirrorless with nikon for me. Switching my entire system to Sony was around the same but I recouped more by selling lenses and had no card outlay.
Click to expand...

Christ. The prices of those cards.
 
ryanyboy said:
I've been reading this thread with some interest and I think it's safe to say that for the majority of pro photographers the Z6 & Z7 are not going to be what they want. The lack of dual card slots is the main reason. However, I'm still struggling to understand why mirrorless is suddenly so important. My Nikon D750's are as good today as they were when I bought them and I'm still just as pleased with the quality of the images they produce. The only thing that bugs me (and always has) is the central positioning of the AF points. I've always said I'd prefer a wider spread.

I tried the Fuji system and it wasn't for me. I've discussed before why I didn't feel it was suitable for wedding work so I won't go there again. The FF sony system might be a better option for my wedding work but there are certainly pros and cons with it. I'm sure in time the cons will disappear but for now I don't see it as a "must have" system. I don't have any cons with my Nikon kit other than the one small niggle - poor AF point spread. If that's my only "issue" then I'm doing pretty good really aren't I?

If I'm missing something please feel free to enlighten me. I'm certainly not on this thread with an agenda. I don't need to justify my choice of kit, I'm very happy with Nikon. But equally if there was something that would give me a better quality image (that's all that matters to my client) then I would be keen to learn more about it...
Click to expand...
There’s very little wrong with the D750, or the D850, or the 5D4 etc etc. Mirrorless aren’t the be all and end all, but I think it’s the way the market is shifting. For me it gives the option of a lighter setup when paired with the right lens meaning I could have FF for travel as well as everyday stuff. Also, Nikon has the worst liveview on the market, mirrorless certainly trumps it here. Now to be fair DSLRs don’t lend themselves to frequent use of live view like mirrorless do imo, but then this is another advantage of mirrorless for travel for me (I use liveview a lot on holiday). Lastly AF spread, mirrorless has a big advantage.

But that’s about it for me, all the other bells and whistles I’m not bothered about. The final image will be no better, and there are some downsides to mirrorless such as balance with large/heavy lenses. If it wasn’t for wanting a lighter camera for travel I don’t think I’d honestly be tempted by mirrorless at this stage.
 
jonneymendoza said:
cant you just grab a preset for the camera profile on someone who has nailed down the camera profile for sony?
Click to expand...
You probably could, but I'd rather do it my self for my own cameras. At least I will know (believe;)) it will have been done right. :)

Edit: I should have said someone who has done this with the same camera model, because even cameras from the same manufacturer can be different, even if they sometimes day the have the same sensor.
 
Last edited:
Totally silent shooting during a wedding shouldn’t be underestimated.

I’ve only shot two weddings with my A9’s so far but at the second it meant the vicar allowed me to stand at the front (he’d voiced camera noise as the reason not).

The AF and subsequent sharpness is sublime. Across the frame. I shot 4147 frames at the first wedding and 9 were OOF. 3175 at the second. 3 were OOF.

Real time exposure view is superb.

I loved my D750’s but they feel like dinosaurs in comparison. I expect the new Z bodies will be the same.
 
Radiohead said:
Christ. The prices of those cards.
Click to expand...
They are expensive for sure, although I did buy cheaper. £133 for a 128gb M series Sony XQD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top