Ilkka Nissila

With dynamic range, the actual number that results from a measurement depends on a number of factors, what SNR level is used as the lower end limit of acceptable quality, and whether the SNR is calculated based on patches or pixels, or something in between. An 8K camera at pixel level will have lower DR than a 4K camera or 8K camera downsampled to 4K which in turn will have lower dynamic range than 2K native camera or a 4K/8K downsampled to 2K, and so on. Noise reduction that is applied to the footage also affects the dynamic range. Only by applying an equal test at equal final presentation resolution can a fair measurement of DR be made. In stills there are well-defined standards (PDR at photonstophotos and engineering DR by DXOMark, for example, all evaluated after resampling the images to 8 MP size) but for video there doesn't seem to be any unified standard which would result in comparable numbers.

Right, but for those of us familiar with other Nikon products and their video-related features, we can guess that the feature would be supported in the ZR. For people who are not already users of other recent-generation Nikons, it may be unclear which features are in fact supported until the manuals actually show up online. In fact some features can't be found even in the manuals.

All the Expeed 7 cameras have it so it is expected in this model as well, no need to mention a standard feature I guess.

Typical high-speed sync implementations either require the flash to fire a long pulse or a series of short pulses to match the timing of the moving gap of the focal-plane shutter. This results in flash energy loss due to most of the light being blocked by the shutter curtains at faster shutter speeds than the sync speed. When using a central shutter lens such as the Hasselblad XCD lenses, you don't lose light as you increase the shutter speed (to a point). So basically if you want to shoot at f/4 in bright sunlight, with a high-speed sync implementation, your flash needs to be several times more powerful than if using a central shutter lens. With the Hasselblad you can do this with a small flash instead of a powerful battery-powered flash which would be needed when balancing bright sunlight and flash at fast shutter speeds on a camera without either a global shutter or a central shutter. Each stop faster than sync speed loses one additional stop of light with the high-speed sync in a typical implementation. For the Fuji this would mean 1 stop loss at 1/250s, 2 stops at 1/500s, 3 stops at 1/1000s. So there is a huge difference in flash size that may be needed. Having to choose between strong rolling shutter distortion and line-skipped video (and cropping) is not really a pleasant compromise to make if your reputation is mainly based on producing images of the highest quality. I can understand that Hasselblad would simply not want to deal with the heat generated by resampling 100 MP images to (say) 8 MP (4K) since it's much more practical to make high-quality video using a camera with a smaller-format, lower-resolution sensor. The X2D II is particularly small and lightweight for a medium format camera and I can see them wanting to prioritize that over a heat-managed, larger, heavier camera that can shoot high-quality video. Hasselblad makes several reasonably affordable lenses for the X1D/X2D series of cameras. The 28/4 PP is 1899€, the 45/4 P is 1199€, and the 75/3.4 P is 2529€. Basically I would need the 28 and the 75. From what I can see there isn't much difference to Fuji lens prices. Considering what Jim Kasson revealed about Fuji GF series lenses not holding focus from shot to shot (even when set to manual focus) but instead there are slight shifts in focus that are enough to cause noticeable shot-to-shot variability in MTF in lens tests, it is difficult for me to see purchasing into their system. The slow flash sync speed just kills it for me. Another factor is that Hasselblad makes a digital back that can work with the XCD series of lenses and alternatively can be used on a view camera (with the sensor flush with the front of the back facilitating the use of movements).

Given the central shutters in the X series lenses, it's more special as a portrait camera for location use than landscape or studio IMO. The fast sync speeds possible without power loss make it a good choice for outdoor portraits with flash lighting combined with natural light. In dim conditions and if the subject is more dynamic, the LIDAR should be a good technology to incorporate given DJI use it elsewhere (drones, movie camera). IBIS is obviously very useful for portraiture in low light. Yes, of course it is also great for landscape etc. but for me at least, having access to tilt/shift lenses and telezooms is important for landscape. Video from a slow read time 100 MP sensor seems like an exercise in frustration: there would be rolling shutter and the processor would have to work very hard to downsample the 100 MP to sane video resolutions. DJI owns a majority stake in Hasselblad but probably these cameras are still designed and manufactured in Sweden with some technology collaboration (LIDAR) with DJI.

The Z6 III likely has a similar optical low-pass filter as the other models of the Z6 series which is reported as one axis only, so if there are high spatial frequencies on the other axis, these can cause moire or other forms of aliasing. Stopping down the lens to smaller apertures (such as f/11, f/16 etc. or using other means to soften the lens, such as a front filter) should eliminate the aliasing (including moire) if it does occur. The cause of this phenomenon is that the adjacent color filter array pixels can get different light (including different color of light), causing an interference pattern to form. Attenuating the high spatial frequencies optically should resolve the issue (and is the normal way to solve the issue). A thicker (two layers) optical low-pass filter on the sensor has the issue that the blurring is always there even though for some subjects (that are random enough not to cause problems) you might prefer the higher sharpness of the weaker, one-axis OLPF that the camera probably has at the moment. In video, moire can (in some cameras) be caused by line-skipping, e.g., when going for a high frame rate mode, this is common with some cameras to achieve 4K120, but on the Z6III 4K120 is achieved by cropping to DX so there is no line-skipping and there should not be any additional aliasing or moire happening due to the use of that mode.

If I understood correctly, the OP plans on being several years on the road on a bike around the world, so any equipment or other items needed during that period of time would presumably need to be carried on the bike, unless there is a support crew. Those videography-related items may sound like they are small and lightweight but after everything else that one needs in a life on the road to survive several years in different countries, I believe most people would agree there is no space for anything absolutely not needed. Are we talking about a bicycle, or a motorcycle? I assumed bicycle.

I can't imagine this working out without traveling as a pair or a group who take on different responsibilities (such as riding ahead and placing the camera for a shot, in case it's a static position), the amount of gear needed for interviews could also be problematic for a single biker. Camera, backup camera, microphones, lighting, tripod, stands for the lights, storage, laptop, sets of clothing for different weather conditions and spares in case cleaning on the road is not possible, camping gear, sleeping bag, tent, food, drink, tools for repairing the bike and the cameras, etc. I just can't imagine this amount of gear (considering the timespan of years) to be feasible to take when biking long distances etc. If a group of 2-3 bikers go and are all trained to use the equipment, then it could work. Stuff is going to break, what are the contingency plans, how is repair accomplished etc.

I can't work with LR alone, I also need Photoshop to do any meaningful editing and finishing of photos. 20 years ago Photoshop cost about $700 which in today's money is $1150. If you don't need a new version in five years then the permanent licenses for PS and LR would have been roughly on par with the subscription cost (as the photographer's bundle), but I certainly want key software that I use updated more often than once in five years. And if you occasionally need Illustrator, Acrobat, Premiere etc. but not on a regular basis, the subscription makes access to those much cheaper as well (the full suite as a permanent license cost $2500 which would in today's money probably over $3000). Thousands, in any case. With subscription pricing you could just pay for a month or two and get the work done without having to purchase the lot. Although these programs have a lot features I don't need or use (since it's not only used by photographers but also various kinds of graphic designers and artists), I frequently see Adobe improve the software in ways that are meaningful to me. I obviously do not work for Adobe. My point is just that for me and others that I know, the subscription pricing made Adobe software accessible while previously it was not. My guess is that Adobe likely went with subscription pricing because they had a huge problem with pirated software as a lot of people chose not to pay but used cracked copies of the software, basically stealing. For video editing it makes a lot of sense to use Davinci Resolve since a lot of people prefer it to Premiere on its own merits, but it can be used for free (if you don't need certain features which require the paid version). It also supports Nikon N-RAW. However I suspect that eventually the free version disappears and this software will also become something you have to pay to use since software development is expensive.

So if there was a permanent license available, the grandmothers with 20 or 30 year old licensed software would install old operating systems in virtual boxes to run these outdated software and all the while doing so, make sure that the old OS's notorious security flaws are not attacked by hackers and the computer's security violated? I can see some highly competent technical people doing this (in fact I have a couple of Windows XP laptops for running old software but I don't in practice use them except in emergency if it should happen that there is no other way) but for the majority of regular users of cameras, this isn't really the best option. Instead, updating key software regularly to keep it up to date security and OS compatibility wise, and gaining valuable new features (AI subject selection makes selective edits massively less time consuming than manual drawing of masks, new noise-reduction algorithms and raw conversion algorithms have also improved greatly since Adobe went into the subscription model) and all the while keeping the software industry healthy is the best way to go for most ordinary users. Getting regular software improvements without separate expensive purchasing decisions is a great benefit. And there are tons of alternatives to Adobe software, some are free and some cost a lot of money. IMO Adobe now is among the best value software for still photography, not so much for video. In the perpetual license era most of their software was too expensive to justify financially.

In Arri's case they offer (1) Alexa 35 with all features included in the purchase price, (2) Alexa 35 base model with the most commonly used features enabled, and (2a) subscription to optional features that you may need for a specific project, (2b) permanent licensing of those features that you want to keep, so the subscription is just one option and permanent licenses to those features are available if you want them. I don't understand what the issue is. Having more options in how the payment is made is good and means more people/companies will be able to afford the stuff. No one is complaining that leasing or renting cars (or getting a taxi ride) are available in addition to the option of purchasing and owning a car. Public transport tickets are available on a single trip, load value, or pay for use for a period of time basis. Again no one is complaining about the existence of these options. Why then is subscription software or firmware as an option a problem? I think people are complaing about these things because they don't understand that software development costs money and if you want to continue developing a particular piece software in the future you probably need to keep those same people who developed it continuously employed so that you can do it efficiently in the future. If you have to let the people who developed something go, to add features, the cost is multiplied because no one new initially understands the existing code. The subscription model works best for software because it enables continued employment so the knowledge of how the software works internally is not lost. Today since operating systems are continuously changed, the applications software also needs frequent maintenance. So for Adobe the subscription model works best. They are able to maintain broad hardware support and have a huge library of cameras and lenses that are supported in terms of raw processing and lens corrections. The subscription cost is really low for the (still) photography software kit (LR + PS) and while the other stuff is kind of expensive, it was always expensive even in the then-thought-permanent license era. And as there are free or inexpensive options available for the tasks which Adobe prices expensively (Davinci Resolve instead of Premiere Pro), there is something for everyone available in the market. What would be much worse is that people rely on a particular product and have a lot of material made with it and suddenly those files could not be opened or edited as a result of the company making the software ending their operations or support of the product.

I'm a bit surprised that you'd find Moire with this camera. With 4K120 and 4K60 without "Extended oversampling", sure, since these settings lead to line skipping, there will be aliasing. I did see aliasing occasionally with the 36 MP D810 but on the 45 MP models it seems to require using extremely sharp lenses at their optimal apertures. I usually shoot either wider than that (i.e. f/1.4-f/2.8) or stopped down (f/8-11) and at these apertures it is rare on 45 MP. At f/5.6, sure. Overheating should be mitigated by using cards that are cool-running and perhaps also avoiding the most demanding video modes. I've never seen a heat indicator on the Z8 though I have seen it on the smaller Zf body. Though it must be stated that I live in Finland which isn't the hottest place on Earth and I did base my card purchases on the available information on which cards run the coolest. 😉 A little bit of sunlight? How much exactly?

I completely agree. The fully articulating screen on the Zf is a pain to use, as in order to use it tilted, I need to fold it out to the left (rotating it on its axis 180 degrees and then 170 degrees to the left on the other axis), and at least for me the camera strap gets in the way often when doing this, and can also block the EVF proximity sensor which then turns off the LCD. Further, the LCD is then off axis vs. the optical axis of the lens. The LCD folded out gets in the way of supporting the camera when doing macro work on the ground (low to the ground). The Z8 two-axis tilting screen keeps the screen appoximately on-axis for all orientations and can be adjusted to different angles for vertical and horizontal shooting (including even mixed tilt angles) easily. I think the Z8 system is better for everything except photographing or videographing one's own face. However, I can believe that the fully articulating mechanism may be lighter and less expensive to make.

A 200-800 may be appropriate for wildlife documentary but adding TCs to an f/9 long lens to increase the size of long-distance subjects in the image is unlikely to be very useful. The aperture with a 2X will be f/18 and usually one starts to see significant blurring due to diffraction at f/13 and smaller. The best use of TCs is generally for increasing the magnification at close to intermediate distances where the image quality degradation is not significantly present. At long distances, especially when photographing over water, the temperature variations across layers of air, and humidity in the air, distorts and blurs the image and the longer your focal length, the more obvious it becomes. It's almost always better to be in a location which allows the wildlife to get closer and then shoot without a TC. I'm saying "almost" because there are situations where the light is good only when photographing subjects at longer distances and at closer distances the light is blocked by trees, hills etc. so in that case the longer focal length is needed to get the good light (but atmospherics still apply). In a video, the small aperture may not be a critical issue as the shutter speed is typically lower than in stills (e.g., 1/50s to 1/100 s when at 25 or 50 fps), bright sunlight giving f/16 1/100 s at ISO 100, for example. However, bright sunlight can lead to harsh shadows and in order it to look good, it should come at the right angle (which is usually low above the horizon). At low angles the sunlight is attenuated more by the longer distance of travel in the atmosphere. This generally improves the quality of light on the subject but the quantity is reduced. For stills, usually people want high sharpness in the details of the animal which can dictate a faster shutter speed such as 1/400 s or even 1/3200 s for birds-in-flight. A lot of the time there are clouds and in many cases the most atmospheric and beautiful light is before and after sunrise and sunset, and in those conditions you might be at ISO 25600 even with a f/5.6 lens. A lot of wildlife are the most active in these time windows. So the best times-of-day for photography might not be possible with an f/9 lens let alone f/18. Having the skills to pan effectively make it possible to do some shots successfully in lower light by allowing the subject to have controlled movement blur (sharp head, blurry wings, landscape blurred into trails) but this requires great skills. Even though some softness can be corrected with sharpening and noise-reduction algorithms, garbage-in-garbage-out still applies. A lens with a really small aperture means usually elevated ISO and increased noise. A 200-800+2X will have significantly reduced contrast over a native 1200 mm lens, for example, and if the noise is increased by the need to use fast shutter speeds and higher ISO, then the deciding parameter (contrast divided by noise) in terms of the clarity of subject details will be reduced from multiple factors: atmospherics, low-light-noise, reduced contrast due to use of imperfect optical system (with TC), all working to make it harder to get high-quality images. I'm not saying it's not a good idea to use a lens like the 200-800 for the stated purpose; especially for video with the camera+lens on a tripod and fluid head, it may be a very practical compromise for travel-based wildlife photography, but one should have realistic expectations and when people talk about 2X use to magnify long-distance subjects with a small-aperture lens, then I can't really but feel that the OP hasn't thought it out through and might not have a lot of experience with very long lenses. I think a lens like the 100-500 is much more travel-friendly and might give a greater pleasure of the experience but it also requires you to be closer to the wildlife or select subjects that work with that range. It might be a good idea to take both the 100-500 and 200-800 and use the 200-800 when you feel up to it (traveling can be exhausting) and when photographing subjects which require the reach while the 100-500 can be carried along more casually and with other lenses. For video I think fluid head and tripod give the best results when it comes to these focal lengths, but a fluid head won't easily adopt to regular photography with shorter focal lengths such as landscape in low light. A 1600 mm lens is going to be tough to keep steady no matter what gear is used.

I think the solution is to have distribution channels independent of the USA. Create your own streaming platforms for content made regionally and also internationally (among movie-producing countries that don't go into trade wars with each other). This way the market becomes much more healthy and less dominated by a small number of current players that are very large. Of course I understand that funding can be an issue, but such platforms could gather public financing (either via subscriptions that are a bit larger than the big platforms' fees initially, or via government or intergovernmental support from tax money). The streaming costs that a platform incurs are dependent on the quantity of content and if the focus is on quality, this shouldn't be a huge issue.