Ilkka Nissila

The ZR does allow the main card and battery to be replaced without taking the camera off the tripod provided that the plate or rig is designed right for the camera and a suitable head is used. Yes, the micro slot is unfortunate. But for video, no Nikon camera has dual card recording anyway, so the main card is where it's at. The orientation of the battery and main card along the width of the body makes the body a bit wider than it could have been if there had been a larger grip, but if optimizing for the fraction the LCD takes up of the camera's back side surface, this design is understandable. The MKE 600 shotgun microphone is 25 cm long and with the supplied cold shoe foot, its rear end extends quite a bit behind the camera, like with many longer shotgun mics it blocks comfortable access to the viewfinder. Longer shotguns give better side rejection and can sound less distorted but because they are long and mirrorless cameras tend to be short, there is a bit of a compatibility issue which does not exist with professional camcorders that are long enough to accommodate these mics without interfering with the picture or the shooter's forehead. However, camcorders typically give lower image quality at wide angle focal lengths which are a priority for me for many situations where I want the camera to be close to the subjects. My desire for a larger screen is not without limitations, the camera must be small and light enough to comfortably use on a gimbal (for potentially long shoots), for those situations where I do want to use one. Of course, one can use a camera without a gimbal, but I have situations where it is useful and a priority. A BMCC would make the gimbal setup too heavy. I have Nikon lenses so it makes economic sense for me to use Nikon camera bodies as well, and get lens corrections automatically applied to the video footage. Yes, 3.2" is usable but 4" would be better. I find particularly for manual focusing a larger screen would be better. I already have the Z8 which has a full-sized HDMI, though it has no XLR connections. I imagine Nikon would within the next few years make a higher-end video-first model that would sit between the ZR and the Komodo, and be more head-to-head competitor with the FX5. The ZR is just one camera in presumably a lineup that Nikon have yet to make. Why do I want to use a gimbal with a mirrorless camera? Let's say I am shooting a parade with music and performances moving across the streets. I need wide angle (because subjects can be tall) with keystoning controlled, and since there is no guarantee that a fixed spot along the way will give me the best moments, a tripod is not ideal. The gimbal keeps keystoning from appearing (with a suitable lens and appropriate mode), and keeps the camera level while I'm moving. The drawback is that I need a separate sound person - which is a big drawback.

The difference might seem small in specs but it's a 25% increase in area and 50% increase in display pixels. If making the display still larger, the camera would need to increase in size, and the balancing of the current size on a gimbal is easier than a taller camera such as the Z8 or Z9. Rigs get bigger, gimbals get bigger, total weight of the working setup goes up. I think it's a very good compromise in this aspect.

The ZR is small and lightweight for a full-frame camera with such a large and high resolution back display. The ZR body is 22% lighter than the Z6 III. The hand grip of the Z6 III is not just a grip, it houses the battery which is in a different orientation in the ZR. The large diameter Z mount also places constraints on how small the camera can be. To me it is difficult to imagine how one would make a still smaller camera body that has in-camera VR and a 4" or larger display. Why is the size of the LCD important? I want to clearly see what I am shooting without touching the camera (potentially shaking it). EVF use on mirrorless cameras is often not practical as it's fundamentally incompatible with gimbal use, and also many shotgun mics like the MKE 600 would not make it possible for me to use a viewfinder. Thus I want the best back LCD I can have for video applicarions. I do want the camera to produce practical files as well and hope Nikon can do something about it. I am not surprised it takes them some time, but hopefully within 2026.

I think you'll find that you are expected to pay disproportionally (/a lot) more money for a slightly better feature set. 😉 How else are manufacturers supposed to bridge the gap in pricing between an individual vlogger's camera (2000€) and cameras made for cinema and TV network productions (30k€-300k€) where 50-100+ people are listed in the credits and their salaries total much more than the equipment used in the production? This apparent gap in prices is likely due to the fact that there are so many vloggers (a low price can be offered due to the large volume and stills photographers using the same cameras) and a small number of studios and networks with very specific needs and completely different production workflows (so a small number of units with very specific needs are made, at high prices). How this gap between product categories is covered is likely a significant challenge, and will always cause some customer unhappiness. For gimbal use, and extended arm use (vlogging with person shooting and talking to the camera) the small size and low weight, combined with a large display of the ZR are probably ideal. What such a user needs a R3D RAW workflow for, is a bit of a mystery for me. 🙂 I imagine productions using RED cameras as main cameras might be happy to use the ZR for situations where the RED camera is too large to fit, or too expensive, such as mounting on cars, etc. they can then more easily color match the footage from the different cameras. The larger the camera and the heavier it is, the larger the gimbal needs to be, and hand-holding a gimbal gets tiring quickly if the setup is heavy. For this purpose I would imagine the ZR is good, provided that one can handle the data. I find the Z8 with 24-70/2.8 internal zoom and RS 5 would be too heavy for me. Nikon does offer better h.265 and other codecs in Z8 and Z9 (with no excessive noise reduction in log footage), for example, but no R3D NE. Here the color matching is good between traditional Nikon stills camera color science and the video, rather than that of traditional video and cinema camera manufacturers.

N-RAW Normal at 25 fps should be below 1000 Mbps. If I calculated correctly, N-RAW High Quality (which is similar to R3D NE) has a compression ratio of approximately 1:4 compared to uncompressed raw video (which is not available on the ZR, for obvious reasons). N-RAW Normal is about 1:8. RED's own codecs (not TicoRAW) in the (not Nikon) RED cameras range from 1:2 to 1:22 depending on settings. I suspect Nikon didn't implement the lower quality TicoRAW in the R3D NE codec (although both Normal and High Quality are available in N-RAW) because of the additional quality loss, and as a matter of protecting the quality expectations associated with the RED brand. They could be simply trying to impress. The ZR body is quite lightweight and slim, and adding more heat sink materials, a fan etc. to enable better quality compressed codecs would have made it larger and heavier, as would adding more hinges and mechanics to make the back LCD screen more flexible in the angles that are offered. I can imagine a bunch of things that could be wanted, such as full size HDMI, SDI, XLR, etc. connectors. THe ZR is probably as small and light as Nikon could make while enabling long recording times and R3D NE recording. Rather than focus on the data rates, I am puzzled at the lack of fully featured software support for the raw video formats. Some formats (R3D NE) reportedly offer a good visual match between what you see on the camera LCD with LUT applied but if you want to apply distortion corrections, a separate transcoding utility need to be applied to convert the footage to Prores. With N-RAW you can get lens profiles applied in Davinci Resolve, but the color doesn't apparently look like how it was on the camera display (?). If you use Premiere, N-RAW is shown with RED's Log profile, which then is different from what you see on camera in the view assist mode. People complain that you cannot cut the R3D NE and remove parts and rewrite the edited footage in the R3D NE format, instead it has to be transcoded into something else before the trimmed footage can be stored (if it is stored in R3D NE format the file does not get smaller). With N-RAW you can cut parts out and store it in N-RAW, so why is this different for R3D NE? Or did I get I could have gotten some parts wrong but to me it seems the software support is as much missing as the camera firmware, and the raw video is sort of an experimental feature at this point. Some comment and seem to think that to get the maximum quality is essential but then complain that the resulting files are too large, even though they are compressed at 25% of original data size, and further compression visibly reduces the image fidelity. I think for video there has to be a realization that you cannot get still-camera like detail and expect small file sizes. A compromise needs to be made. I like using Prores 422 HQ 4K on the Z8 as it allows the distortion profiles to be applied based on lens type and still looks fantastic to my eye, while avoiding the 8K. I can immediately tell the h.265 (which in Nikon's case is always 4:2:0) does not have as rich color on textured, colorful clothes as the 422 codec. Absurd in-camera file sizes, almost as big as 6K RAW? Yes, but it just looks gorgeous and is easy to edit. I delete the original files once I'm done with editing. I can't imagine shooting 8K RAW but with a 6K camera the RAW option is a possibility, once storage costs go down. At the moment the cost of a fast external SSD I got 3 years ago is three times as high as it was in 2023! Hard drives seem less affected and are a possibility for long-term storage, but for editing the SSDs are better. About your lens preferences, the 50-150/2.0 is 4599€ here, quite pricey! Although a set of f/2.0 primes would also be expensive, and together would be heavier, I still would choose the primes for their smaller size in hand, or use the 70-200/2.8 as a classic choice which is available on all major mounts. But I can see that a portrait and event-oriented photographer might prefer the f/2.0 zooms over primes or the f/2.8. I don't think the f/2.0 zooms will become mainstream though, as the f/2.8 are very high quality, lower priced, and have greater range.

The FX5 is 5599€ here, the ZR is 2449€. I think most customers understand the ZR is not meant to be an FX3 or FX5 at half price.

The ZR is a smaller and lighter body and thermal management could be the issue. The Z8 and especially Z9 have a lot of mass that includes heat sinks that help keep components cool. None of them have cooling fans. The Zf (the one with the dials) is another smaller and lighter body (compared to Z8; it is not nearly light as the ZR) and it's actually quite easy to get it to get hot in stills shooting. Nikon made a choice to keep the ZR design quite thin without a built-in fan, and to make long recording times available, they seem to have compromised on the shadow noise reduction algorithm to reduce processor load, the result is a h.265 codec which in log mode is soft. They have indicated that they are working on a firmware update with a higher quality h.265 in mind.

The main reason these patents have been considered legit in the US patent system despite the so-called inventions being obvious to any technical person familiar with photography, is probably that the US patent office's main purpose is to protect the interests of US-based companies, such as RED, against foreign businesses. Rational arguments don't necessarily apply, if the case involves a US vs. foreign manufacturer and the litigation happens in the US. Now, since a Japanese company (Nikon) currently owns RED, it's quite possible the US position also changes (not because of Panasonic's arguments but because there is no longer a US-owned business interest for the US patent office to protect). It is difficult see how a Nikon lawyer would defend these patents with a straight face, so their arguments may be ineffective. Anyway, most camera manufacturers nowadays seem to have some raw video capabilities in their cameras so the issue is not that pressing any more. It made sense for Nikon to buy RED to gain expertise and a presence in the mid and higher end video markets, irrespective of any patent issues. What do users complain the most about the first Nikon video camera? That the raw video files are too big. So, why was there so much fuss about the patents anyway, if people don't actually want to use raw video recording in practice?

If you have 20 mm and 60 mm as the equivalent focal lengths that are available, the wider angle makes sense for including oneself in the footage, and showing a bit of environment, which must be a common thing in social media. However, at least I would preferentially shoot with 35 mm or 50 mm a lot of the time. By starting with an 8K sensor, you can get more detailed crops that mimic those lenses at least in angle of view. Of course, you lose light in cropping so the quality won't be the same as using one of the native options, but it is probably less damaged than if you start with a 4K sensor and crop from 20 mm to (say) 50 mm. I'm personally perfectly happy shooting in 4K with a 35 mm full-frame mirrorless camera and doing a bit of cropping doesn't really bother me, but the camera that I use makes the 4K footage by downsampling from 8K resolution, so even in the 4K file (typically for me Prores 422 HQ), there is a better starting point for cropping than if I had shot with a 4K native sensor camera (due to the Bayer sensor not registering all colors for all pixels natively). I think 20 mm would be extremely wide to shoot everything with (that's what the DJI Pocket 4P's magical sensor produces, 20 mm equivalent footage), and I'd want to moderate the angle of view a lot of the time to something in the 35 to 50 mm range. Thus the sensor resolution is likely to play some role in the practical quality that can be obtained. Although I like the idea of a camera that has a gimbal and can be just taken out of the bag and used, and I commend DJI for bringing the long-in-development LOFIC sensor into an actual consumer product, neither of these cameras (luma ultra and Pocket 4P) are really for me as I basically never do videos with myself in the footage, and the 20 mm equivalent angle of view is just not what I want from a video camera. Cropping (to get an acceptable angle of view) from a small-sensor camera is going to make noise more visible and detail less clear. I think use of a gimbal on a heavy full-frame mirrorless camera is painful for the setup that is required. Eventually I think some good compromises will arise, with moderately light total weight, internal (optical) zooms that don't require recalibration after FOV change, better integration of camera controls into the gimbal user interface, and some digital signal processing that is optimized to reduce the gimbal motor noise from on-camera audio tracks (this will require work on the motors themselves and the processing) are likely to make things more practical for me, but for now most of the time my gimbal is just not being used. With regards to the dynamic range, I'm used to slide film from long ago and when using it (for still photography) it was essential to photograph in what we called good light, which meant light that was suitable for the material, with no exposure latitude whatsover, and I still try to choose where I shoot so that the subjects and the scene will look good straight out of the camera where possible. With my camera the top video dynamic range is 12 stops and I've not run into anything that would make that feel inadequate, given the starting point of acceptable conditions for photography to begin with, in fact it feels wildly liberating what kind of post exposure adjustments are possible today. I would argue that if there is a situation which requires higher dynamic range, then alternatives probably result in better quality: use lighting for the main subjects in the foreground. If the scene can't be lit then shoot in a location which gives better results without lighting. Post-processing has its limits and I would argue it is not easy to mimic really good lighting on a scene with high contrast but no light (or too little light) on the subjects in post-processing. However, if you can use and benefit from 17 stops of dynamic range, by all means use it if available. I think my life is easier by carefully choosing where the original material is shot.

If you can afford the cards and temporary space on an internal drive, you could shoot in R3D NE in camera and then after transferring the files to the computer, convert it to log h.265 and delete the original files. By doing this you can get high-quality h.265 and avoid the long-term accumulation of storage otherwise needed for the raw files, not much different from having a high-quality h.265 codec in the camera, apart from the fact that you would need large memory cards and some space on the computer's internal drives for this step. I'm not trying to make an excuse for Nikon for the h.265 but suggesting a workaround who have this camera for one reason or another, and need a practical workflow.

Maybe. It could also be how the lens renders people, that gives me the sense of artificiality. I do see a significant image (and sound) quality reduction when uploading my own video to youtube at the settings and video format recommended by youtube. I've been trying to figure out how to minimize this issue, and one way is to use the highest-quality format as an intermediate for uploading (QuickTime with Prores HQ). I've not gotten to test this enough to come to a conclusion. I think to evaluate noise reduction and other algorithmic processing done by the camera, one would need to look at subject detail also, and how faithful the details and color in the image are to the subject. This is affected by the lens in addition to digital image processing and compression, but when evaluating a fixed (non-removable) lens camera, it is fair since the user can do nothing to change the optics. Anyway, if this sensor and optics available for 1" sensors satisfy the video community then a lot of money can be saved by not having to invest in larger sensor cameras. It also means making videos of satisfactory quality (or quality that is perceived as very good by the public) will become much more accessible to the general public and thus worth less in the job market, as has become the case for still photography. However, I'm not really convinced just yet.

No, I have only viewed DJI's and various youtubers' material of the Pocket 4P. I assume everyone will use settings that will make the footage look its best as they would for their normal work, what would be the point of using settings that produce subideal results? Some of the youtubers did mention tweaking the settings to their preferences. A lot of cameras don't have any settings that would reduce noise reduction of their video files to zero, I would not be surprised if this is the case here as well.

I noticed when watching various videos made with the Pocket 4P using my TV that the images had a processed appearance, especially faces seemed overly plasticky in appearance, like they were not of real people. This could be due to image processing (noise reduction & sharpening) and partly due to the characteristics of the lens. However, the dynamic range did seem spectacular and it is only this processed appearance of the main subject that bothered me. Is the processing something the manufacturer applies due to smaller area of the photodiode vs. conventional BSI sensor, the small overall sensor area or due to the expected requirements of the user base (which may be social media mainly viewed using small mobile device screens, and used to processed outputs from mobile device cameras)? The Pocket 4P image appearance wasn't that bad compared to typical mobile phone output, I would say it was very good in that category, but the overly smooth and dolled-up appearance of faces did bother me and it would make me question whether I would be willing to work with such a compromise, especially if there is no option to turn the NR down or off. I believe DJI has used dual gain paths before and combined the two ISOs in their cameras before (e.g. my Mini 5 Pro when in Auto ISO mode) and while my initial reaction was that this looks processed, I don't notice that so much any more, it seemed to help things when I set the camera into Pro mode rather than the default (Auto). I'm talking about still images in the case of the drone though. Is this kind of combination of dual gain signals prone to artifacts (I can see why it might be, but it depends on how well they can get the technology to work). I've happily used two different 32-bit float audio recorder products and not noticed any artifacts in the results despite at least one of the two using dual ADCs and combining the outputs into one signal. Canon use DGO in the C70 and C300III Super 35 mm cinema cameras but not in their recent full-frame C80 and C400 models, is this because they can't make it work or produce economically in 35 mm full frame size, or are there problems with the technology which lead them to use a different design in their newer products? Although this hand-held gimbal camera might not be my cup of tea (due to the processed appearance of the image, and lack of support for bluetooth timecode and requiring an adapter to take a 3.5mm audio signal), I am interested in seeing if DJI will be bringing out drones with this new 1" sensor, such as in Air 4 or Mini 6 Pro, and if the technology is applicable to still photography. I find that in my Mini 5 Pro, the image quality on flat days is quite good, but in high-contrast environments such as streets between tall buildings, I find the images quite noisy, and not sure what could be done about it while staying within C0 or C1 classes that can be flown over or near people. I have noticed the drone camera in Auto ISO mode (still photography) seems to select excessively high shutter speeds in order to be able to use both base ISOs (100 and 400, if I recall correctly) for a combined image with larger dynamic range. I might not quite make the same choices myself, as I usually am more concerned with the signal-to-noise ratio in the main subject areas of the image. Anyway, more transparent and manually controllable logic in these devices would be useful. I am not keen on purchasing a Mavic 4 Pro (with the larger sensor camera, presumably with less noise) because it cannot be flown over people even accidentally (lawfully), and in the type of environment where I would be mostly interested using the drone, there are usually uninvolved people. I would be keen to try out a new C0 or C1 class drone with this LOFIC sensor, to see what kind of images it would produce in my applications. I think the 20 mm equivalent focal length of the main camera makes sense in the Pocket 4P as it is probably intended to be used frequently to record video of the operator using it at arm's length and to see at least some environment, the wide angle is needed. Also, one can take the 4K video and crop a bit to get a more normal angle of view (40 mm equiv) while still preserving 1080p quality. The sensor area used for this crop would be quite small though, and the image quality can be a concern. Even in full sensor size (no crop) the images don't show that much real detail based on the videos I saw. I think for social media and news usage this is probably fine for special situations such as videos of action (racing cars or bikes, with the camera mounted on a moving platform, or when the operator walks around the subject to capture it from different sides, while the device automatically keeps the subject in the frame). For quick clips of such subjects I am sure it is a great device, and very tempting. But if the purpose is to make video that looks really beautiful, and where the automatic subject tracking is not a priority, I would still assume larger cameras are preferred. The Pocket 4P doesn't have an adjustable diaphragm, and the ND filters have to be clipped onto the lenses, and the Auto ISO doesn't work in the high DR log2 mode (if I got this correctly), which means the operator may often be relying on the dynamic range to get acceptable results rather than controlling exposure. A lot of users will probably let the shutter speed vary, leading to not so smooth motion, but this might not be obvious or completely objectionable when viewed on tiny screens at reading distance away. I am surprised that the integrated gimbal cameras have the options of these tiny devices (230 g) and then the next step up is the Ronin 4D at 4.67 kg. The other options in between include using a generic gimbal and mirrorless camera which can lead to quite heavy setups as well. I would assume there would be space in the market for some intermediate options, such as micro four thirds sensor size with dual lens(cameras) but no interchangeable lenses, that could weight around 500 g or so. Is there something in the market with those parameters?

It's more likely that some features are not considered a high priority as many would not necessarily use them at all, and so to get the hardware product (with early firmware that supports the main features) out earlier they do not release all the features they are working on. They can then use the revenue from early camera sales to fund further work on the firmware. 4K240 produces an enormous amount of data and there could be serious challenges in implementing it, including (1) how to compress the data so that it will be possible to write on CFexpress type A cards, (2) how overheating can be avoided, (3) what kind of compression to apply, and (4) what kind of dynamic range is possible given the sensor read time (dual gain output readout) and high frame rate (240 fps). Finally all the aspects of the feature need to be tested thoroughly before releasing the firmware out to the users.

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.