Nikon Zr is coming

[ArashM]

True, however I know several people personally who have bounced out of the ZR due to the same issue.

My local dealer was mentioning that several ZRs are being traded in for the FX5.

I know a fix is coming, but I'm afraid it will come when it's no longer relevant in the market!

[eatstoomuchjam]

As a person who is waiting for used ZR prices to drop a bit more before picking one up, this all sounds good to me.  😅

[Ilkka Nissila]

5 hours ago, ArashM said:

True, however I know several people personally who have bounced out of the ZR due to the same issue.

My local dealer was mentioning that several ZRs are being traded in for the FX5.

I know a fix is coming, but I'm afraid it will come when it's no longer relevant in the market!

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.

[mercer]

Honestly, I am a little confused. Why buy the ZR if you want an h.265 codec camera?

The ZR will probably be my next camera purchase but I am buying it for the RedCode Raw/n-raw and 32bit float audio. I wish there were better 4K raw options but that doesn't exist so I'm going to deal with it, I won't buy it and then say... Nikon needs to fix the lack of 4K raw options in the camera that I already knew didn't have good 4K raw options.

If I decide to shoot 4K for "lesser" projects, I'll just use the ProResHQ with n-log or even Nikon Flat for certain things. 
 

I don't mean to be rude, but there are so many cameras on the market that shoot great full frame h.265. Raw video isn't for everybody, nor should it be.

[ArashM]

5 hours ago, mercer said:

Honestly, I am a little confused. Why buy the ZR if you want an h.265 codec camera?

The ZR will probably be my next camera purchase but I am buying it for the RedCode Raw/n-raw and 32bit float audio. I wish there were better 4K raw options but that doesn't exist so I'm going to deal with it, I won't buy it and then say... Nikon needs to fix the lack of 4K raw options in the camera that I already knew didn't have good 4K raw options.

If I decide to shoot 4K for "lesser" projects, I'll just use the ProResHQ with n-log or even Nikon Flat for certain things. 
 

I don't mean to be rude, but there are so many cameras on the market that shoot great full frame h.265. Raw video isn't for everybody, nor should it be.

Hi, you are not being rude at all 🙂 happy to have a convo as we all use our gear differently.

Unfortunately where I failed was assuming the H265 was normal, at the time of purchase it seemed like a perfect camera for most projects where for higher end stuff you could shoot red code and for more lower-end project (talking heads/ social content) you could shoot H265. 

The 2 surprises once we started shooting with it was just how massive the red code is compared to other red cameras (we also have other reds with other DOPs on projects) and how unusable the H265 is 

So camera was sold and we're back to using Lumix's / Sony FX for lower end projects and Pyxis 12/Komodo for higher end projects.

This is just my use case in my little world..... I know we all have different wants and needs 🙂 

[MrSMW]

I’ve come close to pushing the ZR button a few times now and there are really only 3 things that have prevented me doing so…

1. The file sizes of that Red Raw codec. Apparently N raw is the next best option and there are of course some ‘workarounds’, but until there is a compressed version that maxes out at no more than 1000 mbps, it’s just too much and one of the principal draws of this camera is the Red codec.

2. I’m not unhappy with L Mount. In fact the opposite except for one factor and that is the absence IMO of equivalent lenses to Sony’s: 28-70 f2, 50-150 f2 and Tamron’s 35-100 f2.8. It’s ‘almost’ worth switching just for these lenses alone, but that last word, ‘alone’, but alone is not enough and lenses aside, everything else that L Mount, specifically Lumix offers, beats that of Nikon & Sony.

3. I still have hope that from within the L Mount Alliance, over the coming Winter and next Spring, either (or even both) a rangefinderesque camera will appear from either Lumix or Sigma and at least one rival for one of the lenses above, will appear. Unlikely to be a Leica, but next gen FP a possibility and even more likely, an S9ii?

4. Bonus reason, - switching not only costs money, but there is always a settling in period with any new system that frustrates.

So my set up now just works, I have it and I like it and as above, my only real crit is with regard to certain lenses, but the ZR body style just appeals to me and I would like that rear LCD, but ideally as a fully articulated unit which is a bit of a missed opportunity IMO.

[Emanuel]

Same here :- )

[Ilkka Nissila]

11 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I’ve come close to pushing the ZR button a few times now and there are really only 3 things that have prevented me doing so…

1. The file sizes of that Red Raw codec. Apparently N raw is the next best option and there are of course some ‘workarounds’, but until there is a compressed version that maxes out at no more than 1000 mbps, it’s just too much and one of the principal draws of this camera is the Red codec.

2. I’m not unhappy with L Mount. In fact the opposite except for one factor and that is the absence IMO of equivalent lenses to Sony’s: 28-70 f2, 50-150 f2 and Tamron’s 35-100 f2.8. It’s ‘almost’ worth switching just for these lenses alone, but that last word, ‘alone’, but alone is not enough and lenses aside, everything else that L Mount, specifically Lumix offers, beats that of Nikon & Sony.

3. I still have hope that from within the L Mount Alliance, over the coming Winter and next Spring, either (or even both) a rangefinderesque camera will appear from either Lumix or Sigma and at least one rival for one of the lenses above, will appear. Unlikely to be a Leica, but next gen FP a possibility and even more likely, an S9ii?

4. Bonus reason, - switching not only costs money, but there is always a settling in period with any new system that frustrates.

So my set up now just works, I have it and I like it and as above, my only real crit is with regard to certain lenses, but the ZR body style just appeals to me and I would like that rear LCD, but ideally as a fully articulated unit which is a bit of a missed opportunity IMO.

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.