Ilkka Nissila

Voigtländer made a 90 mm f/3.5 Apo Lanthar for DSLRs. Nikon made a series E 100 mm f/2.8 that is very compact. I think most people today prefer to use zooms for landscape photography. Short tele lenses of smaller maximum apertures typically have some close-up capability or even may be optimized primarily for close-ups. I believe for the most part, manufacturers follow sales and make their product lineups based on sales data combined with estimated future demand. Often users just have to adapt to what is available if they want to use new lenses. Even popular lenses can be neglected or discontinued if the manufacturer wants to promote something new. One issue with non-macro primes of smaller apertures is that manufacturers find it easier to market product lineups where there is a clear line of progression from one level of product upwards to the mid-level and top-of-the-line, and every parameter of performance should improve along the way. This means that although it would be easier to make smaller-aperture lenses better optically than large-aperture lenses of corresponding focal lengths, the manufacturers will make every effort to make the reverse true and the larger-aperture lenses better in image quality, focus speed, etc. and sometimes this means the smaller aperture lenses don't get all the quality they could have. This is unfortunate as I believe there is significant demand for compact, very high quality lenses.

Perhaps it is the algorithms giving me content I am likely to be interested in, but none of my social media feeds give me posts where old camcorders or old digital cameras are seen as desirable from the point of view of achieving a particular look. I have heard about it, but I suspect it could be mainly in particular algorithm-created bubbles. People who are interested in serious photography and video work with good image quality tend to be given that kind of posts and so on. 🙂 There are certainly people who are fascinated by old things. I like steam engines myself, and sometimes photograph steam trains because of the visual and auditory aesthetics, although I recognize that the steam engine did gross harm to the environment, air quality, caused fires, lots of CO2 emissions etc. Despite these I really like the sound and feel of it. 🙂

I find it difficult to believe that worse quality as such is the motivating factor, but a less polished result, a less artificially processed and perfected result may be desirable when one wishes to appear authentic and I do believe a lot of people are tired of the ultra-processed images from mobile phones and editing apps. They may also be tired of commercial images for partly similar reasons: DYI images may look more real and home-made, and somehow more true to the person in the photos, even if not captured by extended arm holding the camera but someone who truly knows the person in the picture. In some cases, commercially produced portraits which often reflect the photographer's tastes and some product or image style that the photographer has found successful and applies to all their clients. Doing it yourself for an authentic feel doesn't mean the quality of the photo has to be poor. Of course, it's possible that some people specifically want a "different" look such as 8 mm film etc. but I don't think this is common or at the core of the issue, the excessive processing and manufactured "perfection" is much more likely to be what triggers a change in fashion (or perhaps I am just wishing that). You may be correct that the smartphone generation sometimes just wants to use something other than their smartphone, that's perfectly understandable and would be a healthy development. In my mind "high quality" and "smartphone" are difficult to put in the same sentence with a straight face. High quality for some things, yes, but for a lot of things, not good quality at all.

This is quite misleading as mirrorless cameras can be set up to do a similar thing where the image is tone-mapped and written to a rec 709 video, usable immediately. The use of a log format and pretending that it is meant for direct viewing and comparing that to a highly processed video from a different camera is a bit disingenuous when cameras have menus with processing settings that allow the user to get a video without editing, with less AI for sure, but with good algorithms that do a roughlysimilar thing more predictably and with higher quality. I am not familiar with how Canon or Sony cameras do things but on Nikon I often use ADL which is their tone-mapping algorithm and it allows me to shoot high contrast, suboptimally lit scenes and get good results without editing. Log video is specifically a storage format and not meant for immediate viewing, which you of course know. Extremely edited night time footage where subjects have been dug out from the shadows will never look very good, and using appropriate lighting and/or making the video in conditions where the existing lighting is half decent is better than relying on extreme AI processing. This is probably one of the reasons why compact cameras are enjoying a resurgence: people are sick and tired of the sickly-looking overprocessed results from smartphones, and even a compact camera that has a small sensor but does not overprocess the image is preferred.

The sensor isn't all one flat plane, there are filters in front of the photosensors and the dust is on top of the outermost filter surface. It definitely shows up more clearly at small apertures than wide open.

I think it's inevitable that the original footage is not kept and only the edited and exported video is stored for the long term. If you want to be able to re-edit footage in the future then the intermediate storage format has to be selected to accommodate this. The 7K comes from use of a sensor that has sensible resolution for a broad variety of still photography applications and saving costs by re-using the same sensor in a bunch of cameras. A camera that is genuinely made for video and only video would likely be more expensive, and so video users have to deal with the large files if they want to shoot original files with the best quality. But one can presumably choose to shoot 4K or even 1080p and the problem is alleviated. It's a bit like with cars: top speed helps to sell them even if it can never be actually used.

Presumably, the h.265 quality is better on the Canon. The vertical mounting hole is so you can use as much as possible of the sensor (for the lowest noise and shallowest DOF, if desired) when 100% committed to vertical video. The extra resolution is for when you want to shoot both horizontal and vertical content and crop the latter from the content. Presumably billboard screens can display higher resolution video content if they are really 4K TVs mounted vertically. Of course the extra resolution is not really necessary and the vertical orientation in 16:9 aspect ratio is quite badly suited for video but for narcissistic content showing only the creator rather a person in an environment, it is what seems to be used. In my opinion, a less narrow vertical aspect ratio would work much better but the pocketability, hand-holdability, and availability of devices seems to dictate the aspect ratio. Above all, the manufacturers need increased specs to sell more cameras than are truly needed for any practical purpose, and they don't care about the e-waste, because they are not forced to care.

This has been widely discussed before. It's not clear why the h.265 results are so different. Perhaps Nikon has some difficulty keeping the temperature down during long recordings with higher-quality noise-reduction algorithms in the thin body of the ZR? The large screen could also produce more heat. It's obviously something they need to address. Nikon's blotchy high ISO NR algorithms have been a problem since around the D5 generation (in stills) where it is clear that in-camera high ISO NR needs to be turned off (if shooting JPG, and if you use Nikon raw converter, also in that software) to avoid this blotchiness. The files themselves (without high ISO NR) look much better. To my eye the kind of noise reduction the ZR shows in N-Log h.265 look a bit similar to that Nikon used for very high ISO NR in stills. N-Log just brings it out likely mainly due to the user giving less exposure to those videos by following the nominal ISO (800 base ISO in N-Log), so the shadow NR becomes more apparent. Anyway, it's a bit strange Nikon has been silent about this so far.

That's a rather absolute statement and probably easy to debunk. Also, hinting progress isn't making an announcement of any kind. You'd probably agree that it shouldn't be expected that Lumix would make a announcement with CINED either. But, saying there's development is certainly doable. There is always development. My point is just that mentioning an upcoming product too much before its launch can negatively affect the sales of current products and could be seen as acting against the interests of the company's owners. Obviously if the current products are not competitive, then this is an issue, but still, I think most companies would prefer to promote to consumers what they have rather than what they may have in the future. Of course, when trying to get investment into the company, then future products become critical. Does it? This is mature tech now and certainly not on the cutting edge. I think the cost is more in weight than anything else. Although, the E-P7 is only 337g and has proper 5-axis IBIS. IBIS was originally developed by Konica-Minolta and later Sony bought the camera division and got this technology. Olympus developed improvements to the technology. Other companies probably need to pay license fees to use this technology, including Panasonic. The least expensive Canon camera with IBIS is the R7 which costs $1,549.00 at B&H; for Nikon it is the Z5II ($1,596.95); Sony A6700 is $1,598.00. These manufacturers all have much less expensive camera models which do not feature IBIS. Since it requires motors and sensors, and in case of Nikon, they also use a separate locking mechanism to avoid the sensor moving while the IBIS is not active, these all add to the cost and complexity and make the camera slightly bigger. There is also heat dissipation to consider (it is more difficult to transfer heat from the sensor if it is mounted on a lightweight moving platform). Since the E-P7 is also micro four thirds, it could be used with the same lenses as the Panasonic MFT cameras, so why not use that for situations requiring extremely small size and low weight? Or does that camera miss something that Panasonic could offer without making the camera larger? My feeling is that if they can do stuff in a phone, they could also do it in a camera. Cameras are sold at most in a hundred thousand copies (or so) per model, whereas a phone can sell a hundred million copies, so the phone has the advantage of a 1000x larger scale of production. The camera manufacturers certainly cannot do all the things that phone manufacturers can do because of the cost of development of a camera or a lineup of cameras is divided among several orders of magnitude smaller number of units. there's been an "Americanization" of these cameras, meaning bigger, chunkier cameras and seemingly without too much consideration for how components could be miniaturized. For me small cameras don't work as I have fairly large hands and it's not possible to hold a camera like many of the smaller Olympus/OM-D models comfortably in my hands, I'd be holding the camera in my fingertips, and the controls are too small and difficult to use. A camera like the Zf is just about the smallest I can handle (with added grip) and consider it a comfortable experience. Miniaturization requires development of custom integrated circuits which is very expensive. Sony can do it because that's their main thing and they make so many electronics products they have the special knowledge on how to do that, and it seems they've made it the overwhelming priority (high performance in the smallest possible size).

No manufacturer is going to reveal a future product before it is ready to be sold unless they are in dire straits and their current products have zero chance of selling. To me it seems that manufacturers consider small cameras more entry-level and make a progression so that in each level up, most aspects of the next higher-level camera is better than the level below, except for size and weight, and the cost increases along with weight, features, performance, and quality. Since Panasonic have (more expensive) 35mm full-frame cameras, they have incentive to make the micro four thirds products less in most ways, to motivate people who can afford the FF to go with it instead of the MFT. Sony does emphasize small size and low weight throughout their stills/hybrid camera lineup. A small camera is more difficult to make more powerful (in terms of performance, image quality, high end video codecs etc.) and people will invariably complain about whatever its flaws may be, be it lack of efficient codecs, overheating, operation etc. IBIS makes the camera significantly more expensive. In the small sensor class, IBIS would be useful (just as it is with larger cameras) but it would increase the camera size, weight, and cost, all three factors noticeably, hence reducing the advantages of small size, light weight, and moderate to low cost. And this class of cameras is competing with smartphones as well, due to their pocketability and communications abilities. It's just a tight place to be in. Probably this is why Nikon discontinued the 1 series and Canon their M system. Full-frame telephoto lenses have also gotten much smaller and lighter in recent years.

On the cined web site, there is a text version summarizing the interview - much less time-consuming to digest.

When setting up the ZR with the camera-specific Smallrig cage, there is space at the bottom of the cage to pull the battery and cards out, if needed. I think the ZR's main applications are not in large rigs but where the small form factor is advantageous. Hopefully Prores 422 LT will be suitable as a compromise format to make the camera more useful for those who cannot use the RAW formats. I personally like to shoot Prores 422 HQ 4K on the Z8 and although the files are huge they are not quite as huge as (with that camera) the N-RAW 8.2K, and I like having built-in lens corrections applied to the video file.

R3D NE data rate is about 2x of that of N-RAW Normal, which in turn is 2x that roughly expected of Prores 422 LT 4K which is coming to the ZR in a firmware update according to Nikon. So you can get a 75% reduction in data rate compared to R3D NE in a 4K 422 format in the future. Would this be enough to make the camera practical for you? Another possible help is if video editors will be able to make shortened R3D NE files (after cutting) in the future, to save storage space. I imagine this is just a matter of time, if the camera is popular, it will probably be implemented.

Nikon has indicated there will be a firmware update with Prores 422 LT which should give a better compromise in data rate between RAW and h.265. I love Prores 422 HQ on the Z8; the color and appearance of the image are so similar to still images, but the files are admittedly large. It is curious why the ZR h.265 is not as detailed (in reviews; I don't have the ZR) at high ISO as the Z6 III. Maybe Nikon felt it was a priority to avoid overheating and allow long recording times while keeping the camera body compact?

Maybe the problem here is more about the targeted advertising, social media sites and generally the web showing ads based on the data that they've collected on your interests, basically always suggesting something you might be interested in buying, than the products themselves? Before the internet, and even in the early years of the web, people were shown generic ads for things such as diapers, books, cleaning equipment, clothes, cars, etc. rather than ads targeted to very niche users, to each user their own portfolio of potential wants and desires. In the past we would be annoyed by ads but ignore them because they were largely not relevant to us most of the time. Today the ads are so precisely targeted that they're harder to ignore. I personally think this data collection and targeted advertisement should be made illegal because it leads to people buying things they don't need and can't afford, and a sense of misery if they don't buy. Young people growing up with the smartphone and social media have increased rates of mental problems. Generally, commercial interests of big companies seem to override the needs of regular people in the decisions made by politicians, leading to a society where people are less happy than before, even though we have more "things" than we had before.