Jump to content

Nikon Z6 features 4K N-LOG, 10bit HDMI output and 120fps 1080p


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi all, Very long time lurker, first time poster.  I’ve got my z6 in hands since the beginning of the week, and thought I could share some first impressions. Bought it in kit with 24-70s + ftz +

I'm sure you guys can grade better, but I loved the footage https://vimeo.com/290295765  

Being too close to the colour standards on a chart is what got Sony into colour problems in the first place. It was a 100% science based approach when actually colour is also an art.

Posted Images

  • Super Members
1 hour ago, jonpais said:

How many here have already pre-ordered the Nikon Z7 bundled with 24-70mm f/4 and FTZ adapter for $4,146.90? 

This immediately put me in mind of this scene from The Young Ones.

6f8a29bfbade5ee60fbc1c196ffb76cb.jpg

It has a lot of positives but the bald figures of the pricing might mean it doesn't translate into too many going all in on it.

It's too expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

42 minutes ago, jonpais said:

How many here have already pre-ordered the Nikon Z7 bundled with 24-70mm f/4 and FTZ adapter for $4,146.90? I nearly got sticker shock when I bought my Sony lenses, but Nikon's pricing takes the cake!

A7RIII with 24-70mm f/4 will run you about $4,000. Add a smart adapter and you are well over that.

If you're into video Z6 is the obvious choice anyways.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.. Nikon is being extremely competitive in pricing compared to Sony.. considering you're getting pro weather sealed bodies, 10-bit 4:2:2 out etc..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Django said:

Not sure what point you're trying to make.. 

The point I'm making is that the Nikon Z lenses are overpriced. 

14 minutes ago, Django said:

considering you're getting pro weather sealed bodies, 10-bit 4:2:2 out etc..

I don't see any mention of the lenses being weather sealed and if they're not, it's a moot point!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Django said:

..in that case so are the Sony's:

35mm F2.8 is $800

35mm F1.4 is $1,600

50mm F1.4 is $1,500

also the S-line is supposed to be optimized for video with minimum breathing & noise.

and with the adapter you got access to some really good affordable Nikkor glass, like the 50mm F1.2 i recently purchased for under $400

I'll give you minimal breathing, but as the Nikon lenses aren't linear, that's also a moot point. Not great for video. Practically unusable for repeatable results.

And I thought we were comparing the slow Nikon lenses that feel insubstantial in the hand, not the pro f/1.4 Sony lenses.

Apples to apples, as they say!

And I thought I already addressed your point about Nikon's lenses not being weather sealed. What good is it if the body is weather sealed, but the lens isn't? So I don't see how that justifies the exorbitant price tag of their new lenses...

In fact, Sony's 24-70mm f/4 has optical stabilization and runs $200 less!

And I'm glad you got a deal on a used lens, but we're discussing new lenses here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Django said:

Huh? The Nikon Z lenses are absolutely weather sealed.. please get your info correct

2rfrfog.png

My information is correct. Sony lenses are also dust and moisture resistant. We all know what that means - keep them out of the rain!

Sony's 24-70mm f/4: Dust- and moisture-sealed design better permits working in inclement conditions and rubberized control rings benefit handling in colder temperatures.

Advantage Sony: +2 (lower cost, OSS)

Advantage Nikon: -2 (higher cost, no OIS)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jonpais said:

My information is correct. Sony lenses are also dust and moisture resistant. We all know what that means - keep them out of the rain!

Sony's 24-70mm f/4: Dust- and moisture-sealed design better permits working in inclement conditions and rubberized control rings benefit handling in colder temperatures.

Advantage Sony: +2 (lower cost, OSS)

Advantage Nikon: -2 (higher cost, no OIS)

Sony's 24-70/4 isn't exactly a top performer optically, though...and based on their DSLR f/4 zooms, I would be pretty confident buying Nikon's. Curious to see proper reviews of it and their other lenses, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Django said:

sorry but everybody knows Nikon is on a whole other level of weather resistance then Sony..

Django - take a deep breath.

We aren't discussing bodies. The topic today is lenses.

You said Nikon's lenses are weather sealed and worth every penny. (okay, slight exaggeration!)

I contend that Sony's 24-70mm f/4 is not only more affordable, but has the very useful feature of optical image stabilization.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I contend that Sony's 24-70mm f/4 is not only more affordable, but has the very useful feature of optical image stabilization.

It's $200 cheaper. Not exactly in a different price category. 

And OSS isn't a critical feature when all your bodies have IBIS. Plus, the the Zeiss 24-70/4 isn't exactly blowing the doors off for optical performance.

On a separate note, Jon, I don't think anyone appreciates the condescending attitude. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can say this or that doesn't matter, it doesn't change the fact that the Nikon is $200 (25%) more: which is significant to me.

Maybe it's loose change to you.

And many Sony users find that OSS does make a difference.

For example, I've seen many reviews of the Batis 85mm f/1.8 in which the reviewer has nothing but praise for the optical stabilization.

6 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

It's $200 cheaper. Not exactly in a different price category. 

And OSS isn't a critical feature when all your bodies have IBIS. Plus, the optical performance of the Zeiss 24-70/4 isn't exactly blowing the doors off for optical performance.

On a separate note, Jon, I don't think anyone appreciates the condescending attitude. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Django said:

 

A7RIII with 24-70mm f/4 will run you about $4,000. Add a smart adapter and you are well over that.

If you're into video Z6 is the obvious choice anyways.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.. Nikon is being extremely competitive in pricing compared to Sony.. considering you're getting pro weather sealed bodies, 10-bit 4:2:2 out etc..

 

Sure. With pro lens pricing. And maybe pro battery life, pro 1 card slot :)

For stills if I did not mind of the above I would buy a Z instead of Alpha because Nikon sensor tweak is always a tad better and for ergonomics. But for video, let’s be honest guys, the A7S III will be miles ahead of both the A7III and those Nikon. And because the A7S line is more niche, Nikon won’t bother compete here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

let’s be honest guys, the A7S III will be miles ahead of both the A7III and those Nikon. And because the A7S line is more niche, Nikon won’t bother compete here.

Yes, I desperately strive always to be honest (but so often lack)... where is A7S III? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...