All Activity

Finally got ZR yesterday. After changing all the settings like I have them in Z6iii, except Zebras and Vignette for R3D, got to test it a bit too. 1st, the screen is really good, you can change almost everything needed via the touch id and new menus quite quickly and intuitively. Need to figure out still what I need to set on those 4 custom buttons really. The grip is tiny but feels ok in the hand. Still, with heavier lenses like 1kg 50 f1.2 and 135 f1.8 having the L shaped gage’s bigger grip seems to be a must, as it also has the Arca-swizz base plate for easy tripod use too. Quickly tested R3D NE vs NRaw to R3D hack with ISO 800 and 6400, and R3D NE was a bit cleaner in the shadows and seemed to hold the colors better too. The Z6iii EVF and all of it’s buttons in muscle memory seems still of course more convenient to use, but there is no going back to timy 3.2” screens after this. In various Panas and Z6iii I almost never used the screen. Cinema tools has made a false color LUT, propably have to buy and try that too, if setting the zebras to 245 for R3D highlights does not work like zebras at 255 for NRaw. The build quality seemed robust, but the shutter button needs a bit heavier press. Could not find the focus limiter in the menus either. Hopefully the weather allows to take both ZR and Z6iii outside, and see how the ZR handles, and what the footage looks like.

I think the mechanical systems that allow the back LCD to tilt behind the optical axis as well as opening to the left for selfie orientation are more complicated and require more parts than what Nikon is using in the ZR, and this would make the camera heavier, larger, and more expensive (would make it less attractive for many people, and it might not solve the problem it currently solves). Higher-end models will no doubt be made over time with different solutions to how the LCD turns into different orientations. The Z8 and Z9 offer a screen which does not tilt forwards (selfie orientation) but it does retain the LCD approximately on the optical axis.

I could never understand the "accelerated" manual focusing, it makes things just more difficult and unpredictable. Nikon fortunately have firmware updates to most of the S-line lenses (exception: 14-24/2.8) that feature what people call linear manual focusing (I'm not really sure what is linear in it, what it does is make focus ring position and focus distance correspond to each other in a bijective relationship at least within the power cycle of the camera). What's even nicer is that you can choose how much you have to turn to achieve a given focus change, so it is adoptable for different users and needs. I think the focus by wire should never have been accelerated by default in any lens. As for the priority on autofocus, mirrorless so-called hybrid cameras and their lenses are a bit more (still) photography-oriented than video, and so the needs of the stills shooters come first in most models. Autofocus is very useful when you want consistent focus on the eye, for example, or when shooting action subjects (again, stills). For some things (such as when multiple subjects at different distances have to be sharp in the frame, and the best way to achieve this is to focus in between them) manual focus is better but manufacturers chose to prioritize ease of use than the needs of skilled users. Lenses with mechanical manual focus are of course available, natively and via adapters, for those who prioritise MF.

at certain point, the lens industry is more for other things than the iq. canon l lenses are a good example, dust free, build quality (fine for me on this), af, optical is (fine for me in certain situations). they are working horses, but not creative tools. use another example, vintage voigtlander heliar lenses are so good for portrait. not sharp, but good enough, great oof, just right on the spot for human faces, even better in bw. even 50 years ago, they did it right.

If only they had opted for the S1H/S1RII/A7RV style mech 🙈 It’s not a dealbreaker (for me) but might just have sealed the deal for me as this kind of fundamental, but so easily could have been included. I work exclusively off the LCD for both photo & video and simply prefer it behind the camera, in line with the lens and not on top or off to one side.

Seems like another hidden cost of the internets obsession with AF. The more everyone screamed about it from the rooftops the less that manufacturers cared about anything else. The worst thing about the camera industry is the BS that the online communities prattle on about. Now we have clinical lenses and megadollar-megapixel cameras that fill up your card in 10s flat with 8K 60p RAW and require all kinds of Film Emulation in post to get rid of the sensation that digital scalpels are being hurled into your eyeballs when you look at the footage. No wonder vintage lenses have never been more in-demand. ...or vintage point-and-shoot cameras or digicams for that matter.

I was shooting 4k 120fps on my Lumix GH6 today and ran into a weird issue I've never encountered before and I have owned the camera since it was first released. I shot about 15 clips with no issue before this problem occurred and then all of a sudden when I pressed record I was met with a wall of pulsating pixels in the viewfinder (see photo grab below). I stopped and started recording again and had no more issues for the rest of the day (30-40 more clips taken in various frame rates/codecs: 4k 120 4:2:0, 4k 60 4:2:2 long gop, 4k 60 4:2:2 All-I 600mbps). Camera setup: Lumix GH6, Leica APO-Telyt-R 180mm f3.4, Metabones smart adapter, Tilta NP-F battery plate w/ NP-F 770 (charging camera via usb-c) Curious if anyone has any thoughts on what could have caused this or if you've encountered it yourself.

If it comes from China, why would they care about Patent. Even I think Portkeys are doing a stop base false color system in their new monitor. I think it uses different colors and is customizable. It ill be difficult to patent something like that outside of the US.

Its just a name, probably because the guy who made that believes it works like EL. True EL Zone needs license from its patent holder. Yea, I use the app and some videos have English subtitles. The strange thing is there is no real ISO at 400. With log video, ISO 800 is the same as ISO 100 in still mode. There is lower ISO below 100 in still mode but they're known as fake ISOs. For example ISO 50 has the same amplification as ISO 100, but fools you to give the sensor one stop more light.

Since RED says the colorimetry and gains are different in R3D NE vs. N-RAW, this seems to support that. Nikon traditionally has done a white balance adjustment before storing the values in the RAW file, and the raw conversion software has to know what processing has been applied in order to correct the WB. My guess is that RED might not do that (to preserve consistency across the different cameras storing R3D files) and so the colors are different in the different raw formats. RED also does not adjust sensor gain between intermediate ISO settings, as far as storing values in the raw file is concerned, apart from the two base ISOs, if I understood this correctly, and this approach is also used in the ZR R3D NE. Nikon applies different gains to the data also at intermediate ISO values when storing data in N-RAW files. So, the two formats work somewhat differently and are intended for different postprocessing pipelines.

Do you use the app, I see like English subtitles. I am also asking myself if it is just noise to at least 11.9 to 12 stops. As the SNR 2 is about the same in the ISO 400 and 800 coverted to R3D. And then at 6 minutes you get that image with the tomatoes from the conversion of NEV to R3D. And perhaps you can just get back the DR in the Nev version with a simple curve, or the R3D has much more DR.

I see it is written ELzone, is it the ELzone system, or do you think it is traditional false color?

The difference is noticeable even by looking at the image Thats funny to be honest Even colors are different I think Davinci is responsible for all this.

I found a false color LUT for ZR in a chinese forum. It was on a Chinese cloud host unavailable for foreigners, so I got it and uploaded to jotta: https://jottacloud.com/s/433167a024c75694baa94438259ee5d1b8e

By the way to continue my my post above, I saw a very intriguing test by a Chinese Channel where he tested the ZR not only at 800iso but also at 400/ And the results are astounding. So he is getting more than a stop of DR at 400 vs 800 ISO in Nraw!!! at ISO 800, the slope-based DR is 14 EV, SNR=1 is 12 EV, and SNR=2 is 10.6 EV. At ISO 400 (Lo1), the slope-based DR is 14.6 EV, SNR=1 is 13.1 EV, and SNR=2 is 11.9 EV. Another surprise is with the NEV to R3D conversion. The measured DR for Slope-based DR reaches 15.1 EV, SNR=1 reaches 13.3 EV, and SNR=2 reaches 12 EV. These are incredible results. His test using the Xyla chart looks very solid, perhaps the best and most detailed I have seen. I would have hoped he would have tested the R3D at 400 (Is it even possible?) and the latitude test with 400 so as to have a double check on the chart numbers. If anyone speaking chinese could translate in case I am saying stupid things, and has the app, as I can only see the video at 360 P. The channel name is 家硕_JiashuoMedia," https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV19KWkzQEq1/?spm_id_from=333.1387.homepage.video_card.click

I have been a pro photographer for 20 years now and live in a tropical island with lighting ratios you can't even imagine in most countries. This is why I have been always very sensible to Dynamic range result/progress/testing for the last two decades, as most of the population including me are darker skin and we have very hard light. During that time I saw the first digital cameras (I would say from 2 to 3rd generation) depending on how you count, go from about 10 to 14-15 (SNR) DR test in RAW, as contrary to most videographers, photographers been shooting in raw for decades. I have seen what a 10 stops DR camera image look like and my ZR is no way as bad as this. Last week I had to film some B rolls for the launching of an international car brand here, where we had to mix some of our country shots with their own media. And as I had little time, I had to go around and shoot in less ideal conditions with harsh middle day shoot and some with harsh backlight and I had to dig deep into the shadows. This is start of the summer in the southern hemisphere, so the light was already hard even not quite as from December to March. So to come back to CineD, I have enough experience to know their numbers/conclusion are just BS. In fact they are some of the reference that have educated me, mostly with the latitude test, which I consider the best test today. But when you take RAW numbers and pit it against mostly compress/NR based codec, guess what, it is disingenuous. Because if you had watched DR test for the last decade with Xyla charts and Imatest, you would know that Raw data tend to score much less because of noise, but in that noise is still a ton of Data. Gerald Undone who is himself not a Nikon Fan, does the explanation very well in the ZR dynamic range test. First he got 10.9 stops at 0.5 medium noise rating, which strangely jumps just a little bit to 11.1 on a normalized 4k timeline, and just adding a little NR, where as he says the details in the shadows are still very high he reaches 12.6. This is in the RED Komodo X range. I have seen other test from french (I am a french Speaker) to even Korean which were around same numbers and which corelate with multiple side by side test. And no way their are 2.5 stops difference between the KX and the ZR!!! But it is not the first time I see them cooking their numbers to support some kind of narative. But this time it was the exact opposite for the Sony A9iii. The one with the Global shutter that even with your eyes could see with a bad DR, but I remenber the guy putting so much NR to get 9STOPS of exposure latitude, to say it had great latitude. Yes it is a 1080p image, but doesn't mean it has 1080p details, which I pointed in the comments.

It's been a while since I had to film on land, and I'm using many lenses that I had almost forgotten about. For my rare terrestrial shooting, I always used old Yashica ML lenses in manual mode, and then I got an opportunity where an entire Panasonic kit came almost for free. - Panasonic Leica DG Macro 45mm f/2.8 - Panasonic Leica DG 12-35mm f/2.8 - Panasonic Leica 35-100mm f/2.8 - Panasonic Lumix G 100-300mm f/4-5.6 But I only used the 45mm macro a lot, which is superb underwater. After two days of shooting (I have a GH5 and a GH5MII, and my buddy has a GH5S), I wanted to throw them all down the toilet. Actually, the image quality of the Panaleica lenses is stellar for my taste (maybe even too clinic), but what really gets on my nerves is the impossibility of using manual focus creatively. They all have focus-by-wire, which means it is not linear, and the focus changes with the speed you turn the ring. I know, I'm stating the obvious. But let me vent, and then I'll get to the point. I rummaged through the GH5MII menus and discovered that since it has a similar firmware to the GH6 and GH7, in theory, it would be possible to choose whether to have linear focus and also set the focus throw. But—and here's the fun part—only on some types of Panasonic lenses. Finding the list is like looking for a unicorn, and when you finally get it, you discover that few of the listed lenses (which would almost be a basic kit) have this capability. It's crazy. Basically, it doesn't matter how many new camera bodies Panasonic makes (personally, I think the GH7 is the last of its kind) if you then have crappy lenses that haven't been updated for 15 years. Playing with continuous AF, I discovered that the 45mm Panaleica macro can't even keep the focus in AFC in basic scenarios. And it should be the king of macro in the M43 line and it doesn't support linear focus. In the end, I had to do some relaxing therapy by mounting the Yashica ML 50mm f1.4 and enjoying turning the manual focus ring. Out of curiosity, what is the situation with Panasonic FF lenses? Is it the same situation there too?

I initially dismissed the Nikon ZR. The compact body and odd I/O layout made it seem like a prosumer crossover rather than a serious tool. After spending real time shooting with it, that impression completely changed. The huge integrated display transforms the experience. It feels intuitive, immersive, and for the first time a Nikon mirrorless seems built for video operators. Pair with a Leica M lens and it delivers this uncanny mix of smartphone agility and FF cinematic depth, a combo that feels surprisingly liberating (think sigma FP but with IBIS). The body is metal and feels rock solid. The flip out screen isn’t ideal for low angle work, but that’s about the only ergonomic miss. The stills side remains capable and thoughtfully separated from the video mode. The redesigned video interface finally feels modern, with waveform, quick exposure tools, and four customizable banks all within reach. The main system menu still feels like a maze, but the dedicated video page is a major step toward a proper cine oriented workflow. I just hope Nikon will pull more from the RED side (traffic lights, open gate, 17:9 etc) in a firmware update. Despite its understated design, the ZR stands out as Nikon’s most forward-thinking hybrid yet. The 32-bit float audio, internal R3D recording, and that massive touch display all combine into a package that feels disruptive and modern at a mid-tier price point. Haven't been this tempted by a camera in a while.

There’s a lot to be said for buying only second hand in general. Cameras, cars, clothes, houses etc As a freelancer I have a mix as after claiming back VAT the second hand prices are more or less the same. In saying that I bought a brand new Sigma 18-50 apsc for 300€ for 50p gimbal work on the S5mk2.

The C50 is a $3,900 camera. It's quite good and I'd love to have one, but there's a LOT of competition in the $4,000 space. It shouldn't surprise cined that not everybody's talking about it. Ultimately, it will probably be a good seller for Canon. On the other hand, adding something with "Redcode" in the name as a feature for the ZR was a fantastic marketing decision on Nikon's part. With a decent colorist, the differences in a final image between the Redcode NE and Nikon raw are likely to be negligible - but it doesn't matter because people can now say that they have a camera that records Redcode RAW. These days, used Komodos are not that much off the ZR in price - and lensrentals.com has their early BF special on off-rental gear where you can get 15% off one of their Komodos which are still in decent condition - putting them almost equal to the ZR in price. But getting an OG Komodo means a bigger camera with a smaller sensor, much worse autofocus, worse/less flexible built-in screen, much ergonomics, worse media (Cfast vs CF Express), and probably buying a v-lock battery plate so you don't need to source older/expensive Canon camcorder batteries (I did exactly that), and a less flexible lens mount with fewer third-party lenses available. But you do gain global shutter and 16-bit raw with better test chart performance. So yeah, of course everybody's talking about the ZR. Not sure why anybody, cined included, should be mad about it. People are welcome to use whatever hammer they like - and more competition in the cinema camera space, especially affordable (in comparison) competition is great for us as consumers of those cameras.

The reason people don't see the difference reported with chart tests in real life is the saturation limit of modern sensors, and they're all in the same ballpark. Improvements are mostly in the readout noise, which is good to have, but nobody lifts the shadows more than one, or in rare cases two stops, anyway. I don't blame CineD for reporting 10 stops, as its what they professionally do and they have to be consistent. But calling it an "average" camera was personal, for whatever reason. Average between what and what? But its not just a CineD thing. I sometimes doom scroll Chinese social networks and there are also some video shooters over there who sounds angry that this camera exists! Which is crazy.

The Best video to debunk that hit piece from CineD about the ZR dynamic range test they did. This is a side by side of the ZR and the Red dragon Monstro and they are literally indistinguishable. The Zr tone curve seems to grab a little bit more highlight and loses a little bit in the shadows. They must be a bit pissed at CineD, no one is talking about the C50, hen they were flown to Japan to film a promo video.

Still waiting for a better package than an S1H... Waiting pretty eagerly for Panasonic's next move but in the mean time I'm happy with an ~almost~ perfect camera.

once you are in the mf lenses realm, there is no way back. you will be a hoarder lol

There's so many different levels and needs in motion picture production, no doubt. Now, it's a debate whether I'd be considered a professional or not, but I am scrapping by making a living at it. Somehow. Still, I'm stubborn about shooting my films with manual focus. The inherent flaws and mistakes the practice of manual focusing creates? I value the humanity in it. I actually like the look of a real camera person focus hunting. It's a love-hate relationship for sure, but, yeah, I just refuse to stop using it.