Andrew Reid

It's scary good

I have a Sony for autofocus. Leica for manual focus and GFX 100. I can live without pretty much any modern mirrorless camera lens, as I feel they have lost the plot... both on price and size. The rendering isn't exactly great either on the modern stuff... too perfect.

After finally selling some stuff (Nikon D850) was all set to buy a Zf today but chickened out and got a Leica SL2 instead. A bit of a u-turn that! First up, the Z6 III. It's a tubby and ugly looking body, it makes the original Z6 feel a lot more premium and slimmer. The screen is worse, build and ergonomics. The spec however is really good and the 6K RAW internal recording is un-cropped at 60fps, with 4K/120p available too in DX crop mode. So the spec is a winner and it has everything but they forgot to add a soul. Which is a pity. 2200 euros brand new with current special offers is good, and 6K RAW internal 60p would have been a dream spec back in 2019. In 2024, it is becoming normal to see 6K in some form, and RAW is not really the form I want it in. The file sizes are too big and it's overkill for me. Next up, the Nikon Zf. 4K oversampled 10bit N-LOG with the best IBIS and autofocus for under 2k... This is a full frame Fuji X-T5, and was selling at 1800 euros new which is decent price to be honest. But it is clear Nikon's intention was to capture the Fuji X crowd with a cheap camera and iffy build quality, rather than make something special and that's where the Leica SL2 comes in because this is a former $6800 camera that's now worth just 2300 euros in good condition second hand, so why settle for the Zf when for just 500 smackers more you can get a proper Leica? There are aspects of the Zf design that completely spoil it. The massive ugly sticker on the back, which you can't remove, ruins the retro appearance of it, and in the hand, the buttons wouldn't be out of place on a Casio calculator for £2, the battery and card slot door is appalling - plastic and full of scratches even on the display model which has never left the shop, and the general grade of plastic parts wouldn't be out of place in Poundland or on a coke bottle. The plastic mount and general build of the 40mm F2 SE is borderline insulting. A real shame, because the Zf is a very capable machine with a superb image. It needs an L-bracket with a grip, it needs a better 40mm, it needs premium materials and not the strange mix of brass and plastic. The front and top of the camera look and feel great, but the bottom and back are shockingly awful and out of place. Now the thing is... I would have bought it anyway, it's great for video, really good 10bit N-LOG, stabilisation is superb and the EVF is large and clear. But the price difference is now just so small, and look at what you get... 47 megapixels, 5K open gate, 4K/60 full frame, even better EVF, and build quality / ergonomics in a different league. There's also the firmware updates since release, and a new battery which I'll come to in a moment. The firmware updates have added in-camera LUT support, so you can load a .Cube file and monitor with it through the EVF and screen, very nice. L-LOG is much improved from the first SL. The SL2-S was also an option, at just 2200 used from the Leica store in Berlin. This however, does not do full frame 60p, no 5K open gate, less resolution for cropping and photography, though you do get slightly crisper 4K from the oversampled sensor with no pixel binning. The new battery which came along with the Q3 is much needed on the SL2 to avoid the original issues with it locking you out of high-powered video modes like 4K/60p 10bit when the battery drops below 50% charge - the old battery is just very unstable, and it really put me my first SL2 back in 2020. So with the firmware updates and new battery, allegedly Leica have finally fixed the biggest issue with the SL2. I think it's a really underrated cine camera, and a pleasure to shoot with. So there you have it... If you want soul, retro, feel, premium materials... Leica SL2 over Nikon Zf any day... for just 500 euros more.

Yes it will, you load the file onto the camera via Nikon's utility on the web

When the 5D Mark II and Panasonic GH1 were all the rage, I picked the GH1. I keep thinking back to why and it appears that the full frame look wasn't important enough compared to other factors, like price, codec, articulated screen, EVF, autofocus and so on. Now Panasonic is doing it again... The G9 II has 4K/120p for $1500, extremely good codec, packed feature set, cheaper than GH7 but same sensor, very clean in low light, the list goes on... If I wanted these features on a full frame camera I'd have to pay at least $3000. Also something else is nagging me... I have grown to dislike the cliche of a shallow DOF where you can't see the setting or background properly. Yet I still want the character of a lens wide open, the smoother bokeh, the light vignette, more 3D and the best flares. So I think back to my Kern Switar 26mm F1.1 or Voigtlander Nokton 25mm F0.95 on the GH2, and realise that I can shoot wide open at mega fast apertures yet still see the background. It will be lightly out of focus (unless the subject is REALLY close) and that I like. On a large sensor it would look very different. I think it's time to do a Micro Four Thirds vs full frame test, at fast apertures wide open on both, same FOV, same setting and framing. It will be really interesting to see what the rendering is like and how the G9 II stands up in terms of image quality, dynamic range, and high ISO. As they have come a LONG way since the GH2 and GH4. I also think some of the Super 16mm and 2x crop lenses out there are really characterful, whereas full frame lenses at least all the modern ones tend to be too perfect looking. I think it's more challenging to set up a shot on a large sensor... You often have to stop down, which negates the low light advantage, changes the rendering and bokeh, the flare, and nearly everything. By the way, I'm sure part of this is nostalgia... In 2009 when Vimeo and DSLR filmmaking community first got going, everyone was happy to be called a filmmaker. It's interesting that now "creator" is the preferred term, as it covers anyone who creates anything. But does that also mean we are specialising less in one area and relying on modern technology over human artistry and the human hand? With IBIS, shallow DOF, unmotivated camera movement, drones, walking around with IBIS handheld, autofocus, and such like... I feel all this usually fails 9 times out of 10 compared to a simple locked down shot on a tripod Spielberg style. Maybe it's time to get a G9 II, turn off IBIS, take my time, stick it on a tripod with a C-mount prime on the front and see how this style works compared to the convenience of luxury of no-tripod, a faster shoot, a full frame Nikon Z8 with IBIS and autofocus on a modern lens.

It's good enough for more than that really, we're talking pixel peeping level differences to RAW with a demanding grade. 13 stops is Low dynamic range now? The problem with all these new raw formats is they are all debayered in-camera, and compressed quite a bit. Magic Lantern Cinema DNG has more character.

All depends what your benchmark for happiness is. If it was the stock 1080p codec on those cameras, then the raw was an insane improvement in every possible way. It's still a stunningly beautiful image today. With none of the super-smooth and clean look of today's not-quite-raw codecs.

Interesting answers 👍

The gap between APS-C and Micro Four Thirds has turned into an advantage to Micro Four Thirds with the G9 II And the gap between the G9 II and full frame is very small. Impressive little camera.

So with N-RAW we have file sizes in the region of 2500Mbit/s, which is huge. With H.265 we can go as low as 50Mbit/s and still have a very usable 10bit LOG image with as much dynamic range as the sensor can give us. This guy did a comparison... And RAW should not really look like this, should it? I thought RAW is supposed to have a very fine grain and a lot more dynamic range than H.265, as well as less compression especially in the shadows but instead we have WORSE macroblocking and noise than in the H.265 and less dynamic range. When I had my Z9 I did a similar comparison as well to the Sony a1 H265 8K. And found pretty much the same. So... Can someone tell me what the point of N-RAW is? (Click to enlarge...)

This is a pity. Can you carry over the current exposure settings from one mode to the other? Apparently in video mode you can shoot only JPEG photos, so again have to switch and switch and switch again. Then again this is not a GH1. I suppose you can shoot 8K RAW in video mode and just extract the stills from that, for a hybrid shoot. Wow the 4K/60p is oversampled from 8k/60? I bet the battery life takes a bit of a hammering though. Good, I get along well with H.265 at 50-100Mbit, it has a great image for tiny file size. That's my main concern as well, does the EIS alone work well with a Leica M lens on the front? And it doesn't work at all for photos. And I am wondering how big the crop is without an OIS lens. 2000 euro EOS R5 / 3000 euro EOS R3 / 3000 euro EOS R5 C second hand in Europe. R3 is tempting at that price as well. Why are Canon bodies depreciating so much more than they used to? People switching to Sony maybe?

The good old GF1 for size

Denizens of the internet... I present to you the Panasonic Q It is Netflix approved with 6K open gate. Phase-detect AF and IBIS Leica lenses (And some nifty Noktons) In-camera LUTs And still nobody cares because it has a Lumix badge - not a Sony. Yes, it is as small as a Leica Q. Yes, it is much better for video than a Leica Q. The Leica Q3 is 6300 euros. This set me back 1299 special offer in Olive Green. The lens can be changed... On the Leica Q you are stuck to a fake Leica lens that needs heavy digital correction to look ok. It has IBIS... the Q of course doesn't. And in the end, they are both the smallest full frame cameras you can get along with a Sony RX1R II or Sigma Fp/L So in conclusion, Panasonic are doomed. The social media response to this camera made it out to be some sort of silly toy. It just goes to show how uncreative these zealots are. Would it have been nice to have a built in EVF, the only feature aside from extra resolution you get for your 6300 euros on a Q3? Of course. Would it have been nice to be Leica grade in terms of materials, looks, and so on? Well it's not THAT far off really. There has never been such a good image and wide range of features in a camera this small or cheap, end of story. Add a Sigma 35mm F2 or Voigtlander M 40mm F1.2 and enjoy!

NX1 one was the first camera that moved the needle following the GH4 which brought 4K to the masses at a cheap price for first time, and Samsung needed to stay the course, they are the only equal to Sony in terms of manufacturing capabilities... at least were, in 2014 anyway. I agree consistency is the problem, they chop and change too often. Imagine a full frame NX1 style camera from Samsung with IBIS, 10bit Samsung LOG, and all that custom hardware today, would really take the fight to Sony and Canon. I suppose the nearest we have today is what Nikon is doing.

Zf is an interesting one. I find 10bit H.265 offers 99% of image quality, with N-RAW that extra 1% for 2000% larger file size. So although the Z8 is fancy and everything, it really only has 4K/120fps that floats my boat creatively, over the Zf. So in that respect the Zf is very good at 1800 euros currently, with the December discounts. I had a go of one, and the surprisingly thing was that they went to the effort of brass nobs on top, and the worst kind of Z50 bargain bin plastic buttons on the back, which is a very confusing mismatch of build quality and feel. So that back of the camera kind of sours the overall body with all those nice materials on it, and I don't like the silly Micro SD card slot in the base. It should really have proper dual card slots on the side like an X-H2. Aside from that, great deal and preferable for me over something more work-a-day like an EOS R6 Mark II. Only dilemma is that for just 300 euros more you can get... 8K RAW 4K 120fps Full frame 45 megapixel stills And yes that is the spec not of the current latest and greatest Sony a1 II but the good old hand grenade, our friend EOS R5. It's just a pity the EOS R5 specs are not in the Zf!

Well... that answers the stabilisation part I guess. Wonder if you need an RF OIS lens or does it do as well with EF OIS?

Questions for EOS R5C users... Can it shoot a full range of codecs and video in stills mode, like an EOS R5, or do you always have to be in the Cinema EOS mode to get 8K, 4K, etc.? Do you miss IBIS, or not so much and how's the electronic stabilisation? Does it have 10bit H.265 at 50Mbit/s in 4K for tiny file sizes? I've never used one but the more it comes down in price the more tempted I am

We are too harsh on the little S9, it has very good dynamic range in V-LOG and the RAW stills only have 1 stop less dynamic range which you only notice if you're grading for the HDR puke look. The technical facts are interesting in themselves but the creative look of a camera is another matter, and the S9 is like a shrunk down S1H for cheap... A lot to like creatively about it. The most interesting thing for me about these results is to look at what sensor designs were most clever. Samsung with that NX1 was so far ahead of 2014 when it came out, to have such wide DR and clean shadows on a 28 megapixel crop sensor from the earlier 2010s is just an amazing achievement.

Not really with CMOS. There is with CCD though. This is showing the raw sensor performance.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=panasonic_dcs9&attr144_1=sony_a9&attr146_0=100_5&attr146_1=100_5&attr177_0=on&attr177_1=efc&attr404_1=1&normalization=full&widget=938&x=0.3283158193694973&y=0.27216529765433156 Some interesting results in DPReview's chart which is tucked away at this URL and not spoken about very often There's also an ISO invariance one but the RAW dynamic range is the most interesting Some fun results can be had... The Samsung NX1 has more dynamic range than a Sony a9. (Look at +5ev!) The GH6 was a big step back for RAW dynamic range in stills, vs GH5 The humble A7 III is surprisingly good, up there with the best (Nikon D850 and Pentax K-1 Mark II) And check out the Nikon Zf C vs X-H2S... Which would you think would win out of those, the cheap piece of crap that inherited the D500's sensor or the state of the art X-H2S designed for low light and latest sensor fabrication tech? The gap is massive!! Zf C wins by a mile! Obviously the cameras which have a faster sensor readout suffer, and so do ones which only have an E-shutter like the Lumix S9. Still... Interesting to see how huge the differences are when you really go digging. Finally... Look at the GFX 100 and it's fixed pattern noise in shadows at +5 stops compared to the clean and detailed Zf C. APS-C beating a medium format camera for dynamic range? Yep

Some good reviews by Connor here... Sold his R6 II for the a7R V... I've yet to try the Zf... Time to get one might be when they put the Z6 III internals in it?

A7RV is an interesting one. It has the new screen design which is fantastic. Gets it out the way of the ports too. Fantastic EVF, very good IBIS and latest AI AF The ergonomics are superior to the a1 and a7 iv, and I really rate that 60mp sensor (similar to Sigma Fp-L and Leica SL3). You could argue it is superior to the a1 if you don't need 4K120fps, as the binned 4K quality is actually a tad better than the a1 with less moire! Where it is lacking by comparison to that beast is rolling shutter performance especially in 8K, and the top-bitrate 500Mbit 10bit 422 8K mode which the a1 got with a firmware update. But for 4K, stills, 60p and ergonomics it's a winner.

I've never been a cinema camera shooter, I am mirrorless all the way and stills too.

Really the images are all very similar, you're just getting different ergonomics and mounts. Even at just 50Mbit/s or 100Mbit/s H265 (like a Samsung NX1!), the image on these modern cameras in 10bit LOG holds up well against RAW at many many times the data rate. We underestimate H.265 A7 IV for most people is the ultimate 4K image for the price (and oversampled from 7K!), if you don't mind the rolling shutter. The S1H is smoother looking on fine detail thanks to the AA filter, but it's a chonky boy in comparison and of course for those who need autofocus a complete no-go. The C70, I would not be as interested in... purely because it isn't full frame, but 90% of my lenses are. Shout out to the humble Sigma FP-L... If you want the smallest possible thing to plonk on a tripod and do its best Alexa imitation, you can't beat the 4K Cinema DNG goodness on that... Just make sure you put it in oversampling mode (1.3x crop) and if you plan on digging deep into the shadows, use an SSD.

Sharing my notes... If I were to consolidate a few cameras (I'm selling 3-4 of them) into one newer one, which would it be? My current main cameras are Fuji GFX 100 and Sony a7 IV. I sold the a1 as wasn't really using the extra resolution or speed, but mainly because of the risk of crazy depreciation now the new one is out... We'll come back to that in a moment though. I see the EOS R6 Mark II is currently on sale for 1800 euros brand new, which seems like a good deal but then you realise a used EOS R5 costs about the same now as it's 4 years old. Given the R5 does 4K/120p, internal 8K RAW, higher resolution stills, oversampled 4K from 8K, whereas the R6 Mark II is... erm... newer, maybe less overheating issues, the R5 starts to look like a better buy.... Although the R6 II has a much more convenient movie/stills switch and a proper mode dial. Main drawback of RF cameras for me is the poor performance of IBIS when used with adapters and manual focus lenses. It almost stops working entirely. Same goes for EOS R3, and the R5C lacks IBIS entirely. Now let's compare to Nikon Z6 III is 2500 euros / dollars. It is very similar to the EOS R6 Mark II in most regards but the lens mount is more flexible and you get better IBIS no matter the lens. 6K, 4K120fps (cropped?), but is it better than an EOS R5? Z8 would make more sense for me... but now we're in the 3500 euro range. It's an exciting camera but at that price, we're back at looking at a used a1 surely? E-mount for me has more going than Z. Problem is the Sony a1 used is still £3200/3800euro/dollar, so it hasn't come down much yet since the a1 II announcement... Better to wait until it has reached the 2500-3000 range, at which stage it's a no-brainer and would be my choice over everything else mentioned so far. The 8K codec internally, is a match for Canon RAW and N-RAW in my experience. The a7 IV is best bang for buck... 1400 used, for a camera with very little missing... No 4K120fps of course, and rolling shutter is higher than something like the Z6 III. 4K/60p is a crop, but I'm still more of a 24fps guy and it does that very well. A9, the original one... is about the same price. If you don't mind the lack of LOG, 10bit codec, H.265, new colour profiles and 4K/60p, the a9 is very capable especially for stills. It's the only one that has a fast enough electronic shutter for under $1500 to truly be a silent stills camera like the Z8 and Z9. Now to the latest and greatest, and we have to go to $5k-$7K realm... Doesn't seem worth it to me? The mid-range is just so good now. EOS R5 Mark II is an evolutionary update. EOS R3 doesn't do as much as a Z8 when it comes to video + IBIS issues. Z9 is trumped by the smaller and cheaper Z8 for the same spec. The A1 II and a9 III are just too crazy expensive, although really cutting edge. Which would you choose between $2k-3.5K? A7R V gets a shout?