New Nikon Camera coming…Z8?

[Emanuel]

On 5/18/2023 at 6:48 AM, Emanuel said:

I've actually been wondering on how much we can workaround and circumvent the overheating hassle with something like this:

https://www.zitay.net/ZITAY-CS-305-CFexpress-Type-B-to-SSD-Convertor-Card-Reader-Adapter-XQD-CFE-CFX-Replacer-Substitute-Nikon-Z6-Z7-D5-D6-D850-D500-PANASONIC-DC-S1-S1R-Canon-EOS-1DX-MarkIII-R5-C500-MarkII-p779221.html

Let alone set it with a more convenient temperature cutout from (auto) standard to high:

source

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/REF8FCYFJ9L0J/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B08HJB2C6L

[Django]

Just thought I'd mention I've revisited the Z8 with now better understanding of how the camera operates (read the manual beforehand) and of how to work with N-log (using color management bypassing the awful official LUTs) and well I guess all I can say is it is my new favourite camera! 4K ProRes HQ on an SD card edits like butter on my ageing iMac Pro and the IQ gives so much room for grading. Neutral & Flat profiles are also great SOOC profiles and 8K60p is of course top notch and I haven't yet even explored RAW. 

I guess ultimately the switch back to Nikon would be quite effortless as Z mount has smart adapters for my Sony & Canon EF glass and even my Leica M glass. Alongside my old Nikkor AIS, every single lens I own could be supported!

I do have a question for Z8/Z9/Nikon users: does the camera have custom banks like C1/C2/C3 etc where you can have various custom settings like codec/frame rate/resolution settings and recall them quickly?

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Django said:

it is my new favourite camera

I'm not sure if it is that for me, but probably my next main camera...

I have now sold a load of gear or am in the process of and now down to a single S1H and S5ii with a single lens each, the Lumix 70-200mm f4 and Sigma 28-70mm f2.8

The units are now designated as 'static long duration' (S1H ceremonies and speeches in my world) with the S5ii, 'run & gun'.

For stills, I have the Nikon Zf with 40mm f2 and soon, 28mm f2.8 SE lenses. This is both my personal 'EDC' camera and my new work 'candid' unit which probably accounts for around 65-70% of my work on any job, maybe more.

I still need another unit and that will be based around a lens. Specifically an adapted Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 G2.

I was going to go with the latest Nikkor S 105mm f2.8, but I am going to compromise things when I need to shoot tighter but cannot get closer.

Does this lens suit another Zf?

Not really, so it's a case of; wait and see what any Z6III/Z7III might be, or go Z8, or go Z9.

I was going to go Z9 because I was going to go with the Tamron 35-150mm which is now native, but I would be back to that big chunky unit and if I was only operating 1 cam, then OK, but not juggling 2 or 3.

So Z8 fits the bill as my 'pro' camera best and with that Tamron, comes in around 1.8kg which is a whopping full 1kg less than the set up I have been running with this year. And far more capable.

The only question I have is whether I ditch the S5ii and use the Nikon pairing as hybrid stills/run & gun video units which makes a lot of sense.

The only question mark I have over this is, is that the S5ii + Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 is a highly capable, relatively compact, extremely well known (to me) system and requires zero learning, but if I ditch it and go hybrid with Nikon, I am back on a learning curve at the beginning of next season as I get up to speed...which will take a few jobs.

And the Lumix camera DO have C1/2/3 so yes, interesting question...

And then there is how we use our tools...

S1H is going static now. With battery grip and 70-200, it's a massive lump that produces beautiful results, but has to live on a tripod now and is reduced to that single role.

The S5ii + Sigma is a near perfect run & gun and I'd get just under 1.5k trade in for it, so is it even worth selling? I could even put it in a second static role if going Nikon hybrid, but then it's something else to set up, needs another tripod, a different set of batteries again...

The Zf captures the spirit of the cameras I have most enjoyed shooting with; the FM2 for film back in the day, the X100 and X Pro series from Fuji. It's a slightly bigger but far more capable version of all of those.

And the Z8. I like it, I'd admire and respect it, but I doubt I'd ever love it, but the simple reality is I need a tool that is going to best suit my needs as a pro camera and with a focal range of '70-200'.

Plus (bonus ball), it has internal raw capability and I do want to have a go with that.

Most likely is unless I can be tempted by any next gen Z6/Z7 (which would probably need the 33mp sensor from the Sony A7iv to tempt me), it will be a used Z8 in the early Spring and then run the 4 camera system over 2024 before losing the S5ii and going hybrid full-time with the Nikons.

I'd rather have a Canon R3, but that's a totally different story and the cost to go in that direction is just too silly this or next year.

The bottom line is I think we are now spoiled with options. There's even that new Sony for those that are interested. I'm not.

[Django]

Yeah well its funny because I initially had mixed feelings about the Z8 but it has really grown on me, especially the files it produces. Really clean footage, easy to work with. Good DR, snappy AF. All kinds of codec options. High-resolution stills. Basically a workhorse camera. Will get even better when the LoISO update gets implemented.

The R3 has imo the best ergonomics. and the video specs are quite nice too albeit not that flexible with either 6K in RAW only or 4K h26x. And 24MP stills. DR on Canons is also kinda mid, especially with no Clog2. 

The Z8 gives you 45MP stills and 8K, 5K, 4K in RAW. UHD & FHD in ProRes & 8K, UHD & FHD in h26x. Plus 2X crop modes and digital zoom. All for about two thousand less than an R3. It's just much more bang for the buck imo. Plus the Z mount opens up compatibility to my entire various mount lens collection. Tilty screen which I miss. And lockable IBIS which I don't think anyone else is doing. It's almost a no-brainer for me personally. Paired with a Zf for more casual shooting, that would be a sick combo.

The Nikon Z f1.8 primes are also super silent and optimised for video with minimal breathing, compact and fairly priced. So after so much hesitation on where to go next I think I'm pretty set on Nikon after all. 

 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Django said:

Paired with a Zf for more casual shooting, that would be a sick combo

Covers all my bases whether I use Nikon for purely stills or decide to shoot them fully hybrid.

I haven’t tried the Zf for video yet but seen plenty of very nice examples and the Z8 of course can do 8K 60p internal raw which I would very much like to try.

 

[MrSMW]

OK, decision made, locked & loaded, lenses ordered!

Keeping: S1H + Lumix 70-200mm f4 as my static set up.

Keeping: S5ii + Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 as my 'run & gun' strap/monopod/gimbal unit.

Have: Nikon Zf + 40mm f2.8 as my EDC/personal plus work candid stills unit.

Getting: Nikon Z8 + Megadap adapter + Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 + Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 G2 as my 'pro' stills set up.

This way I have a dedicated 2 camera/2 lens video set up I know intimately plus a separate 2 camera/3 lens photography kit and combined, a 'perfect' (for me) hybrid set.

Phew, had to go around the houses a bit to get there, but finally I feel (know) I will have the no compromise set up that I need for specifically what I do.

I'm getting the adapter and lenses in now because I have a chateau (interiors & exteriors) shoot to do plus some land/seascape personal projects over the Winter, but the Z8 body itself will have to wait a few months until I can refill the coffers a bit!

 

[D Verco]

Yeah that 35-150. I was looking at the 70-180 but the 35-150 is basically double the range. 

[MrSMW]

6 hours ago, D Verco said:

Yeah that 35-150. I was looking at the 70-180 but the 35-150 is basically double the range. 

For a while it was my favourite lens and as a ‘one & done’ or for perhaps a single body user, it can’t be beaten other than by perhaps Canon’s new 24-105mm f2.8…providing you are in the RF Mount system and can live with a max focal length of 105mm.

And it was going to be my ‘one & done’ on a single Z9 for mainly stills and some hybrid, mainly for the 8k raw.

But in the end I decided a pairing of ‘adapted’ Tamron 20-40 and 70-180, gave me far greater range and use ability with a Z8 making for a much more compact, lightweight (in comparison) and discreet package.

Pretty much the same cost for the 2 lenses vs one new 35-150 as I snagged a used 20-40 at an excellent price.

So I know have…or will shortly have, ‘a’ 20-180mm f2.8. Kinda… 

[MrSMW]

35-150 = 1165g

70-180 = 855g

20-40 = 365g

The 20-40 is obviously a lot smaller, but not so much difference in size between the 35-150 and 70-180 at 158mm x 89mm and 156mm x 83mm.

It's the flexibility of the combo that wins it for me because with having a second body (Zf), I can cover another focal length if needs be at the same time, ie, without any kind of lens swap.

There is a benefit to the 35-150 though in that it's available native Z Mount and the other 2 are not. At least not yet...

[Eric Calabros]

On 11/8/2023 at 2:48 PM, Django said:

do have a question for Z8/Z9/Nikon users: does the camera have custom banks like C1/C2/C3 etc where you can have various custom settings like codec/frame rate/resolution settings and recall them quickly?

As a Nikon user you really need to follow these two men on YouTube: Hudson Henry and Steve Perry. They're wildlife photographers 99% of the time, and don't shoot video a lot, but they have a tone of info to offer about how your camera works. 

 

 

[D Verco]

The canon 24-105 looks great. I've never had anything longer than 85, so getting something longer would just be for fun to mix it up. 

I guess the 35-150 can be an all in one, but it's almost not wide enough for events. Good point on weight too.

My dream would be for Nikon to release a 24-50 f2 zoom. Ideally not as big and heavy as the canon 28-70. I really want that 24mm, and 70mm is a bit of a nothing length, I'd rather pair it with an 85. 

[kye]

3 hours ago, D Verco said:

The canon 24-105 looks great. I've never had anything longer than 85, so getting something longer would just be for fun to mix it up. 

I guess the 35-150 can be an all in one, but it's almost not wide enough for events. Good point on weight too.

My dream would be for Nikon to release a 24-50 f2 zoom. Ideally not as big and heavy as the canon 28-70. I really want that 24mm, and 70mm is a bit of a nothing length, I'd rather pair it with an 85. 

I used to shoot 90% of the time on a 35mm equivalent prime, but have since realised that one part of the "cinematic look" is using longer focal lengths.  I'm switching to zooms for this purpose.

Also, you might be interested to know that loads of the old 16mm zoom lenses were around 35mm at their widest end.  When I first started looking at them I couldn't understand, especially considering that we're drowning in 16-35mm FF lenses at this point, but I realised that most productions don't shoot with anything that wide.

If you look at those "list of movies shot on one prime lens" posts, you'll notice that basically none are shot on anything wider than 35mm, but that's 35mm on S35, so more like 50mm equivalent.

Of course, I'm not saying anyone is wrong to shoot on anything wider than a 35mm equivalent, and of course I have been talking about narrative content, not event coverage, but I find it's useful to keep this in mind when thinking about what tools create what looks.

[MrSMW]

56 minutes ago, kye said:

I used to shoot 90% of the time on a 35mm equivalent prime, but have since realised that one part of the "cinematic look" is using longer focal lengths.  I'm switching to zooms for this purpose.

I’ve always been a longer lens shooter myself.

For weddings, it used to be the ‘classic’ 24-70 plus 70-200 combo for zoom users and 35 + 85 or 24 + 50 for the prime users with the more photojournalist types opting for the 24 + 50 approach.

I tried the 24 + 50 and hated it finding the 24 far too wide for well over 95% of my work and the 50 OK indoors, but far too short outdoors.

The 35 + 85 was much more me and when I moved from Nikon DSLR and the twin zoom set up, it was to something around these focal lengths, especially by the time I got to the X Pro2 and then the XH1 with 35 and 90 equivalent lenses.

Today, post-Covid and social distancing etc plus simple preference, I would put my two ideal focal lengths as 40 and 100 with outlier focal lengths of 28 and 150.

28mm is my preference for a medium-wide because I feel the 24 is just that bit too wide, but for those very few occasions when I do need something wider, 20mm is where it’s at for me.

I have had various 20mm lenses recently and now switching to Nikon for stills (possibly hybrid at a later date), the imminent arrival of Tamron’s 20-40mm f2.8 ticks all my ‘wide’ bases of 20/28/40mm.

Checking off 40mm and purely 40mm is the SE version of this lens that will be welded to my Zf pretty much all the time because there is no better option in terms of preferred focal length, size & weight and aperture (f2) for this candid unit.

For the longer stuff, I am one of those odd people that likes the 60/65/70mm focal range. It could not be my longest focal length without major compromise, but I use and prefer this focal length over 50mm.

In fact, 40-65mm for me is something of a dead zone. It’s rare I ever shoot in this focal range even with zooms as it is a kind of ‘nothing’ range to me, not being quite wide nor long enough. Too ‘normal’ I guess?

For longer stuff, outdoors especially, I find the classic 85mm just a bit short in recent years and prefer 90 or 105mm and for my longer/longest lens, was going to invest in Nikon’s own macro 105mm f2.8 but in the end decided I really needed to cover off ‘100-200’ because I do have a need.

On that basis, I opted for again, another adapted lens, the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 G2 model.

Nikon’s own 70-180 is based on the previous gen Tamron lens and is over-priced and only a couple of hundred less than the Nikon ‘old Tamron’ and is hardly a compact or light lens, but much more so than a more trad 70-200mm being ‘just’ 855g.

Pair that with a Z8 instead of a Z9 and it’s a MUCH more compact and ‘lightweight’ set up compared with a Z9 + 70-200 or my old D3s + 70-200 set ups.

So 2 bodies + 3 lenses and I am done. 

The Zf rocks the 40 all day everywhere as my candid lower res ‘snap’ unit with the Z8 pulling more ‘considered’ wider + longer unit of 20-40 or 70-180 as required.

This is for stills, potential hybrid but the same focal lengths apply for my video work which is essentially a mirrored extension of my stills photography.

To that end 28-70 on one camera and 70-200 on the other and the only thing I cannot do with Lumix, is shoot wider than 28, but for 90% of my video work I am actually shooting 28/42/70/105 with the 42/105 being crop modes making a very versatile compact lens out of Sigmas 28-70mm.

’Cinematic’? Depends on the definition according to our own preferences I guess but for me, longer lenses and tighter compression are part of that equation.

[kye]

10 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

In fact, 40-65mm for me is something of a dead zone. It’s rare I ever shoot in this focal range even with zooms as it is a kind of ‘nothing’ range to me, not being quite wide nor long enough. Too ‘normal’ I guess?

The other thing people don't consider is that there are a relatively small number of compositions that are required, and almost all shooting situations have various constraints or factors that influence where you position the camera, so for any given scenario these factors will often result in preferences for specific focal lengths over others.

10 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

’Cinematic’? Depends on the definition according to our own preferences I guess but for me, longer lenses and tighter compression are part of that equation.

Sure, it depends on your preferences, but there is definitely common ground and preferences.

Not a lot of folks would look at hand-held footage shot on a rectilinear ultra-wide (16mm FF equivalent or wider) lens from above head-height with tonnes of micro-jitters and say that's just as cinematic as a locked-off 85mm close-up shot from eye-level.

If they did, then everything would be equal, and there would be no language of cinema at all.

[MrSMW]

@kye indeed.

My own preferences regarding any scene is a wider establishing shot or picture that basically tells the viewer ‘where’.

Then a tighter ‘mid’ shot that introduces ‘who’.

Followed by tighter still ‘what’ imagery.

I may end any chapter going wide again but as with all these things, rules can be broken.

The above is really all the focal length stuff and next up is handheld, floaty, or locked off…

For the wide stuff, always locked off.

For candid, steady handheld. I detest the ‘handheld jittery’ look personally as is used in a lot of modern productions. Hate it. The camera/production should be invisible and not intrusive ‘found footage’ style. Personally.

Couple stuff, especially walking, gimbal. Warpy backgrounds do my nut. Guilty, but back to using the gimbal 100% for this next year.

And then we have all the stuff such as lighting and grading etc, the latter being very individual indeed. Personally, I prefer a more modern rendering rather than the softer and more granular older style, so prefer say full-frame over say 16mm, but again, just personal taste.

I can’t abide the camcorder look though which is why in the past I have always used a lot of slow mo as it’s an easy fix (partially anyway) to removing that look. Going forward, I am backing off quite a bit from the slow mo approach and using capture techniques and grading instead to eliminate that ‘digital’ look.

The one thing I can’t blame is the tools however as they are all ‘perfect’ for my needs so it’s just a case of what I can produce with them…

[markr041]

35 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

@kye indeed.

My own preferences regarding any scene is a wider establishing shot or picture that basically tells the viewer ‘where’.

Then a tighter ‘mid’ shot that introduces ‘who’.

Followed by tighter still ‘what’ imagery.

I may end any chapter going wide again but as with all these things, rules can be broken.

The above is really all the focal length stuff and next up is handheld, floaty, or locked off…

For the wide stuff, always locked off.

For candid, steady handheld. I detest the ‘handheld jittery’ look personally as is used in a lot of modern productions. Hate it. The camera/production should be invisible and not intrusive ‘found footage’ style. Personally.

Couple stuff, especially walking, gimbal. Warpy backgrounds do my nut. Guilty, but back to using the gimbal 100% for this next year.

And then we have all the stuff such as lighting and grading etc, the latter being very individual indeed. Personally, I prefer a more modern rendering rather than the softer and more granular older style, so prefer say full-frame over say 16mm, but again, just personal taste.

I can’t abide the camcorder look though which is why in the past I have always used a lot of slow mo as it’s an easy fix (partially anyway) to removing that look. Going forward, I am backing off quite a bit from the slow mo approach and using capture techniques and grading instead to eliminate that ‘digital’ look.

The one thing I can’t blame is the tools however as they are all ‘perfect’ for my needs so it’s just a case of what I can produce with them…

What exactly are the "camcorder look" and the " digital look"? And what is bad about them?

This should be easier to answer than what is "cinematic."

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

What exactly are the "camcorder look" and the " digital look"? And what is bad about them?

This should be easier to answer than what is "cinematic."

Looks exactly like 'real life' but if anything, 'over-exaggerated real life' with brighter colours, typically deep DOF and everything in focus is clinically sharp to the point it looks a bit jagged.

There is nothing necessarily bad about this and I have never said it is bad, just that I personally do not like this look because IMO, it looks SOOC and cheap and as if you have made no effort, ie, the camera did it all.

At the same time, I don't want to spend huge amounts of time grading every individual second of footage to the nth degree so work to something I call the 90/50 rule which is if I can get 90% of the look I want with 'just' 50% of the effort, I am not going to spend another 50% of my time on getting that last 10% because that 50% extra effort I would be making would in fact be 200% of my effort (as my initial '50%' is actually already my 100%), so anything beyond that (initial 100% effort) is either not feasible (for any reason that suits me including being financially viable) or life's simply too short!

So my capture could be from raw (never tried it but want to for certain things), from log or from an in camera profile such as Flat or Standard etc, but it is never solely going to be SOOC even with one of the profiles either at the capture stage, or in the edit.

[Django]

17 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

As a Nikon user you really need to follow these two men on YouTube: Hudson Henry and Steve Perry. They're wildlife photographers 99% of the time, and don't shoot video a lot, but they have a tone of info to offer about how your camera works. 

 

 

Thanks. FWIW I'm not yet a Nikon user just doing research on the Z8. The menu system is so dense and confusing to me, I had to skim through that video. Its great there are so many custom options, it just sucks the UI is like a Y2K Nokia with all the nested list items. Anyways so there are 4 custom banks (A,B,C,D) I'm assuming they are also present for video settings.. is that an extra 4? Are they easy to recall, I don't think he goes over how to quickly access them?

[kye]

11 hours ago, markr041 said:

What exactly are the "camcorder look" and the " digital look"? And what is bad about them?

This should be easier to answer than what is "cinematic."

You'd think it would be, but there are still elements of it that I can't work out.

30p and an overly compressed and sharpened image is a pretty solid start though!

The thing I don't like about the digital look is that it looks like real life in the sense that it makes the scene look like people in a room saying things to each other, rather than there being a sense of scale..  that "larger than life" thing people talk about.

[D Verco]

https://nikonrumors.com/2023/12/02/rumored-nikon-z9-z8-firmware-updates-roadmap.aspx/

 

If this is true, I might have to finally commit