Nikon mirrorless definitely on the way

[twist]

Interesting, I don't shoot video so not sure why this would be useful?

Even with my 400mb/s read and 150mb/s write XQD's I'm 'only' getting circa 25 shots lossless compressed 14 bit (around 50mb files), so you have to use the 400mb/s write to get the max 53 buffer. With the Sony do you need the high speed UHS-II (ie 300mb/s write) cards to get the 28 shot buffer on the A7Riii?

Actually its also in stills. Pretty good video explaining the A7iii AF functions. 6m50 and 20m.

View: https://youtu.be/67tJ1-yJhQo?t=6m50s

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Call BS all you like. It's a fact.

And shutters fail early or late. I put 250k on both of my D750's and they're still going. You don't replace a shutter until it fails. I've seen people put 400k+ on them with no issues.

...........anyway, transferring 4000+ RAW images to your computer each wedding must take ages, therefore my solution would suit you perfectly and save loads of time as you are transferring the images as you shoot to a hard drive!

 

[nandbytes]

...........anyway, transferring 4000+ RAW images to your computer each wedding must take ages, therefore my solution would suit you perfectly and save loads of time as you are transferring the images as you shoot to a hard drive!

The WD system looks rather cool.

Expensive too but might be worth it to move towards this.

 

[Raymond Lin]

...........anyway, transferring 4000+ RAW images to your computer each wedding must take ages, therefore my solution would suit you perfectly and save loads of time as you are transferring the images as you shoot to a hard drive!

An hour to 2 hours, irrelevant as I would be home and not on the clock. I could be making dinner or taking a nap and let it import.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

The WD system looks rather cool.

Expensive too but might be worth it to move towards this.

I'm going to purchase one on payday as I hate the 'transfer' process and like the idea of just returning home and my images are on my hard drive to import

 

[Fraser Euan White]

An hour to 2 hours, irrelevant as I would be home and not on the clock. I could be making dinner or taking a nap and let it import.

My time is important to me! Why is this not a good solution?

You seem to be able to find fault in everything by your posting history on here Raymond - do you complain that the sun rises each day or just revel in the fact at having a whinge at the camera companies?

 

[Raymond Lin]

My time is important to me! Why is this not a good solution?

You seem to be able to find fault in everything by your posting history on here Raymond - do you complain that the sun rises each day?

It's not so much a fault, it's there is a perfectly working solution that is effective, easy, cheap.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

It's not so much a fault, it's there is a perfectly working solution that is effective, easy, cheap.

.............but not nearly as good

 

[snerkler]

Sony does not even have lossless compression. I will imagine you'd need the highest speed ones. manufactures normally give figures in the best possible scenario when all the 8 planets and the sun have lined up. Eg: 9fps in Z7.

Yeah, this was something else that prevented me buying the A7riii tbh.

...........anyway, transferring 4000+ RAW images to your computer each wedding must take ages, therefore my solution would suit you perfectly and save loads of time as you are transferring the images as you shoot to a hard drive!

I have to say, XQD cards are great for transferring files. I know you're talking about wifi, but for me I plug the card into the computer directly and the speed of transfer from my XQD is night and day compared to my Sandisk Extreme Pro SD cards.

 

[nandbytes]

Yeah, this was something else that prevented me buying the A7riii tbh.

The lossy compression is just fine

 

[Fraser Euan White]

@Raymond Lin

Don't stand in the way of progress! Instead of 'wasting' a couple of hours transferring the files you could be editing and technically be far more efficient! 30 weddings a year is 60hrs/yr wasted just transferring files - that's a working week of wasted revenue!

 

[twist]

Yeah, this was something else that prevented me buying the A7riii tbh.

I have to say, XQD cards are great for transferring files. I know you're talking about wifi, but for me I plug the card into the computer directly and the speed of transfer from my XQD is night and day compared to my Sandisk Extreme Pro SD cards.

Are you using UHSII?

 

[Radiohead]

...........anyway, transferring 4000+ RAW images to your computer each wedding must take ages, therefore my solution would suit you perfectly and save loads of time as you are transferring the images as you shoot to a hard drive!

Straight onto an SSD. Takes about 20 minutes or so. I'm sorting my kit and charging batteries anyway so it's not something I even notice. And you don't honestly think I only back up to one hard drive do you?

You don't need to try and talk to me about time management.

Your solution is an alternative. Not an ideal one and certainly less easy that writing to a second card in-camera.

 

[Raymond Lin]

@Raymond Lin

Don't stand in the way of progress! Instead of 'wasting' a couple of hours transferring the files you could be editing and technically be far more efficient! 30 weddings a year is 60hrs/yr wasted just transferring files - that's a working week of wasted revenue!

Wasting?

I have to eat, I have to sleep, I need to relax, I do transfer it when I get home. Even if its on a harddrive, you need to import it into LR library anyway. You don't understand that if I carry that with me, is that the ONLY copy on a HDD that I have and the copy I work from? There is no way I am carry that HDD back out again and shoot another wedding to back up to it. That means it needs backing up at home anyway, wouldn't that "waste time" too?

 

[woof woof]

A poster at DPR says...

"The Z lenses provide corner to corne almost perfect IQ, low CA, excellent detail."

I assume they meant "corner to corner" and if they did it's nice to have it confirmed that the lenses are excellent

How does all this hyperbole come about when so few people have had a camera and lens in their hands and the gallery shots at DPR seem to have created a lot of vitriol.

There seems to be a lot of colourful claims from hyperventilating over the reinvention of mirrorless to handwringing over a hamstrung focusing one card slot duck system even before it's hit the streets.

Was it like this when the A7 came out? I remember thinking it looked like it'd been knocked up in a garden shed, although the looks grew on me, and whinging about the lack of built in flash but I don't remember these extremities of view.

 

[decigallen]

@Raymond Lin

Don't stand in the way of progress! Instead of 'wasting' a couple of hours transferring the files you could be editing and technically be far more efficient! 30 weddings a year is 60hrs/yr wasted just transferring files - that's a working week of wasted revenue!

You do realise that you can do other things whole the photos import? We have 4x64gb cards to backup. I set my RAW folder and photomech ingest. I am required to be at my computer 4 times for around 30 seconds at a time during the ingest.

And after a 12 hour working day I'm watching netflix. I wouldn't be editing or culling during this time. I could If I want, but I don't. Often I actually have most of the wedding backed up during meal time.

And as for the volume. Between myself and my wife, we shoot 6-7k per wedding. You don't edit that amount. I can cull that down to my final images within 2 hours if I power through it in photomech.

 

[Riz_Guru]

I’m not so sure it’s a crock tbh, the fastest UHS-II cards at the mo are ‘only’ 75% as fast as the top XQD. Granted I don’t know what the capability of either is but it’s possible that XQD (and CFexpress) might have the capability to go much faster. With res and buffer steadily increasing perhaps they’re future proofing? I know to get the max buffer out of my D850 I need the 440/400mb/s XQD, anything else and the buffer drops.

I think it depends on how much internal buffer a body has, I assume Nikon have saved on costs by having a smaller internal buffer and going with the faster single XQD card vs. dual SD card slots.
The Sony A9 has a large buffer so the SD write speeds don't really affect most users..... the fastest Sony SF-G Series SD cards read at 300MB/s and write at 200M/s which isn't too shabby.
Personally I still think it was the wrong move, they should have had a larger internal buffer and gone with a dual SD slot.

I wonder how many shots you can take on the Z6/Z7 before you hit the buffer and have to wait?? The Sony A7 III achieves 89 compressed RAW / 40 uncompressed RAW before it slows down.

 

[decigallen]

Two cards in the same body doesn't really offer full 'redundancy' though- why is no one considering the option I gave?

Because it doesn't work for me.

How likely is it that my camera will have such a catastrophic error that the two cards are destroyed? I've has camera failures before. None affected the cards.

My cameras are (literally) tethered to me all day. The only time they're not is if I'm eating (they're on the table in front of me) or driving. How likely am I to get mugged or hijacked? At the moment I'm at 3 card failures and zero muggings and car jackings.

How well will that nikon battery cope with constant transferring over wifi? What if the ssd is broken, lost or stolen - a more likely scenario for me.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

In my line of work risk assessments are frequently made where questions are asked like:
What could happen
Whats the likelihood of it to happen.
How fast will we recognize the failure.
what's the scenario if it happens. Like data loss etc. and how will it affect the work we have done.
What can be done to prevent that scenario and so forth.
E. G we don't deal much with what would happen if we had an earthquake. It highly unlikely.

I'm sure photographers dealing with irrepeatable events does kind of the same line of thinking.

 

[nandbytes]

surely there are other things to discuss other than the cards for 30 pages!!

Am I the only one excited by the new PF lens!?

 

[twist]

surely there are other things to discuss other than the cards for 30 pages!!

Am I the only one excited by the new PF lens!?

Maybe move onto the 5.5 fps?

 

[decigallen]

All the reports of AF probs are with the the Z7 aren't they!? Will be interesting to hear the reviews of the z6 as it has a different (inferior?) system.

 

[f/1.2]

Because it doesn't work for me.

How likely is it that my camera will have such a catastrophic error that the two cards are destroyed? I've has camera failures before. None affected the cards.

My cameras are (literally) tethered to me all day. The only time they're not is if I'm eating (they're on the table in front of me) or driving. How likely am I to get mugged or hijacked? At the moment I'm at 3 card failures and zero muggings and car jackings.

How well will that nikon battery cope with constant transferring over wifi? What if the ssd is broken, lost or stolen - a more likely scenario for me.

The wireless ssd drive suggestion is nonsense anyway no way is that a workable solution.

So many people online are defending Nikon's decision to choose only 1 xqd card stating that xqd is very reliable but failures do happen and there is no point pretending they don't. Several Nikon people saying xqd is ultra reliable yet back in real life there is quite a few people who have lost data from these.

Simple truth is if for example you are a wedding photographer and you choose to use one of these and it goes tits up you are to blame and when the client sues and your business is ruined you don't have a leg to stand on.

In the case of a camera or cards being stolen that isn't your fault as long as you taken reasonable precautions and that is absolutely what a judge would say. Using a camera with only 1 card when other options are available is not taking reasonable precautions.

 

[nandbytes]

The wireless ssd drive suggestion is nonsense anyway no way is that a workable solution.

Doesn't seem like non-sense after having looked into this solution just now. Expensive may be but not nonsense.

 

[nandbytes]

All the reports of AF probs are with the the Z7 aren't they!? Will be interesting to hear the reviews of the z6 as it has a different (inferior?) system.

i don't think it'll be inferior. Probably will be exactly the same.

Maybe move onto the 5.5 fps?

what about it?
marketing it as 9fps was certainly rather cheeky but sony does it too and so do many other manufactures.

 

[Phil V]

@Raymond Lin

Don't stand in the way of progress! Instead of 'wasting' a couple of hours transferring the files you could be editing and technically be far more efficient! 30 weddings a year is 60hrs/yr wasted just transferring files - that's a working week of wasted revenue!

Fraser
Has there been a sudden influx of pro photographers on motorsport forums telling you how to reprogram your ECU’s better or manage your business?

Because frankly the most frustrating thing about photography fora is the constant stream of clever dicks who genuinely believe they are fit to offer photography or business advice. Its at best exceedingly rude and at worst total nobbery.

 

[f/1.2]

Doesn't seem like non-sense after having looked into this solution just now. Expensive may be but not nonsense.

It isn't expensive its just unworkable in real life.

 

[nandbytes]

It isn't expensive its just unworkable in real life.

have you tried it?

 

[f/1.2]

have you tried it?

Have you?

 

[nandbytes]

Have you?

going to yes.

Though not sure this would work well with nikon z with its lower battery life. But for a camera with higher battery capacity I am going to give it a go.

 

[f/1.2]

going to yes.

Best of luck with that.

I have a hyper drive which is supposed to be the best of these with an ssd and it's crap, connection times out etc. It's also a real hassle to use when working. Like I said a nonsense suggestion.

 

[Radiohead]

Also. You do realise that press and sports pros are working in a time-sensitive environment where speed of transmission is critical. I’m working in a time-sensitive environment where security of transmission is critical.

And yet here we are where someone who hasn’t shot a single wedding is telling me that a ‘solution’ where I need to carry a portable hard drive and transmit via WiFi whilst hoping that the battery on the hard drive doesn’t run out (so I need to back up to two of those now, in case it does because I’ve now introduced a new single point of failure) is better than one that’s ensured I haven’t lost a single image in over 500 weddings.

 

[snerkler]

Are you using UHSII?

No I was purely relating them to my Sandisk Extreme Pro 95mb/s, I'm aware obviously that the UHS-II will have noticeably faster transfer speeds

 

[redhed17]

going to yes.

Though not sure this would work well with nikon z with its lower battery life. But for a camera with higher battery capacity I am going to give it a go.

"not sure this would work well with nikon z with its lower battery life", but that is what Fraser is proposing to do just because Nikon decided not to have a 2nd memory card slot.

 

[Riz_Guru]

No I was purely relating them to my Sandisk Extreme Pro 95mb/s, I'm aware obviously that the UHS-II will have noticeably faster transfer speeds

Sony SF-G series SD cards are pretty fast... 300MB/s read and 299MB/s write

 

[nandbytes]

"not sure this would work well with nikon z with its lower battery life", but that is what Fraser is proposing to do just because Nikon decided not to have a 2nd memory card slot.

we'll never get past this one card slot thing will we!!

 

[redhed17]

A WiFi network in a controlled environment is one thing, out in the real world is a whole lot different.

The network adapter for the D4, the WT-5A Wireless Transmitter is a dedicated device costing £480+ if you can find one to buy. The reason for the price is the range and reliability. I very much doubt Nikon have ben able to but the same quality and range into their bodies. And also the ability to connect to computers.

Ditto another option is the WT-7 wireless transmitter, which offer more feature and is over £1000. Again, do you think they have put this technology into a camera.

Now they also do a Nikon WU-1b Wireless Mobile Adaptor for about £65 that lets you establish a wireless connection between specific Nikon digital SLRs and a smart mobile device. Now that sounds like what I have built into my D500, and what these Z cameras may have, but, the range is limited and Nikon have limited access to their WiFi to their app, though I think I read they may have opened it up a bit on these new cameras. Another but, are you going to be the guinea pig to try this out in the stress of a wedding. Taking images in a studio is one thing, the real world is a whole lot different.

And what is the problem with having two cards and WiFi back up! You just increased your redundancy, though probably drastically reduced your battery performance.

It is amazing all over the internet how people are making excuses for these flawed design choices. Those that need two cards or want two cards know who they are, and for a lot of them this may mean they don't buy these cameras, or maybe just one when they were considering more. Those that don't need two cards, or do but are willing to let it slide because it is Nikon, those who don't see the potential problems continue to make excuses, for what reason I don't know, it doesn't matter to you, but at least see the point of view of people for whom it does.

And as for the choice of card for these cameras, other than 4k video, which other cameras do quite well on fast SD cards, these cameras so far are not pushing the XQD performance limits in any way. The buffer is small, and does not clear quickly from some reports, even with Jpegs. On my D500 I could take 200 lossless 12bit RAW files, lift the finger off the shutter button and do 200 more. These cameras are severely limited in buffer size, and I'm fearing clearing the buffer, when the D500 proves that that shouldn't ever be a problem with XQD, especially with the small number of fps.

 

[Radiohead]

“
• Built-in Wi-Fi® for direct connection to a smart device using SnapBridge

• Built-in Wi-Fi® makes the transfer of images and movies to a computer possible

• Support for existing digital SLR camera accessories such as the WT-7 wireless transmitter (available separately) for transferring images and movies at high speed over a wired or wireless LAN.....”

That tells me any built-in solution isn’t going to work for real-time continuous backups.

 

[redhed17]

“
• Built-in Wi-Fi® for direct connection to a smart device using SnapBridge

• Built-in Wi-Fi® makes the transfer of images and movies to a computer possible

• Support for existing digital SLR camera accessories such as the WT-7 wireless transmitter (available separately) for transferring images and movies at high speed over a wired or wireless LAN.....”

That tells me any built-in solution isn’t going to work for real-time continuous backups.

The WT-7 "transferring images and movies at high speed over a wired or wireless LAN" makes me think the other options may not be high speed. And I think with SnapBridge it was slow with 2Mb files. And more than 50% of the time I can't get my D500 to connect to SnapBridge just for the GPS coordinates, never mind relying on it to transfer files.

 

[Raymond Lin]

WiFi back up in the field when you shoot alone is stupid, cumbersome and stupid. I can check both cards on my camera with a few clicks, any time of the day. How do you check the files are being copied over to my bag? Get my laptop out and preview it?

It’s a convoluted solution to a problem already solved. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.