For a travel camera kit I don't think you can beat the z50, it is truly an amazing bit Nikon has created. As for the 20mm, I kind of liked the look of the z6 best, it seems the colors are a touch better. And the resolution seems very close to the z7. Is that what it looks like on your monitor?
I have the z6 and z50 and have been using the 16-50 and the 50-250 on my 6. Getting some good results, amazing. I am loving the 50. Wonderful little camera.
I'm noticing a bit of chromatic aberration in the 20mm S lens. In your last video I saw it against the railings at the end of the road, and in this one around the specular highlights in the water on the bay. Just a thought.
Yeah I agree Geoff. Only when wide open I think. I’ll make a video and test various f stops. Also I noticed if slightly out of focus it disappears. When I am talking to camera there is nothing in the water, then I walk away and the water comes into focus it changes.
I rarely use the 16-50 now. Only occasionally the Z7 as I grab the Z50 and the 50-250mm for our morning dog walks. Last week I used the Z7 one day, the D500 with the 200-500mm (what a beast! Great results but a pain to walk 3 miles with1). I hardly notice the Z50 and it produces VERY nice results. My only complaint........ I want a 50-500/600.... :D I'd like to see a "pro" version of the Z50, weather sealed, put the card door on the side like the Z7 - you know how many times I remove the battery instead of the card? It's embarrassing! Starting to catch myself now so I'm self correcting. And a better auto focus with more speed. At least as fast as the D500 if not faster. Nice job, glad to see you enjoying the Z50. It punches way above its' weight.
It's nice to see that little Z50 perform so well. Especially when you consider the crop factor affects every aspect of the video, not just focal length, but f stop and ISO as well. Nice little camera for $1000. I have the Z6 and absolutely love it.
@@MattIrwinPhotography My wife and I have thought about it for her. It would serve as her primary camera but then be a travel camera as well. We could share glass this way also. I would stick with the Z6 as my primary camera.
i need your experience, i waiting to Z 70-200 (because the virus all is freeze) i found the Z 24 - 200 what is cheaper and more portable i place of caring my Z 24 -70 & Z 70 -200 i'll put in my bag only 24 - 200. what you think about or maybe 50 - 250 is better ?? thanks in advance
Nice results from all . The 50-250 looks like a nice small do it all lens . The 20 mil is a killer looking lens . The horizon looked flat as a pancake. May be in camera correction, I don’t know . And I was so surprised that I liked the Z7 image the best . It has line skipping where the Z6 doesn’t and I was watching this on a cell phone not a big screen. I did notice the Z7 and the Z50 rendered the sky differently. The Z6 image seemed slightly flatter . Might have to be with the antialiasing filter on the sensor and the internal processing , or lack of extra processing. Either way I really like the Z6 and Z7 sensors . With me having the d850 and d500 when shooting video the d850 image is noticeably better especially when pushed into difficult situations. Thanks for the videos Matt !!!!!!!!
The only RUclips channel where there never is anything negative to say about the equipment, it must be because it's a Nikon channel (a little irony may occur) LOL ..... P.S. However, I still enjoy your videos with a little twinkle in my eye!
Hey Jess, I think it is largely because I am a glass half full guy, which if you have not heard that saying, I try to look at the positive. It is also that when I buy something I do a lot of research and I take its short comings into account. So I never get any negative surprises, I buy knowing limitations. And if I don't buy it, it will be because I don't think it will meet my expectations and will create cause for disappointment ... As I say time and time again, gear is very individual, and is relative to your use case, needs, budget, eco system. But I have to tell you a secret, not sure if you watched my Z50 initial impressions vid, but I had about 4 or 5 negative things to say about it ... ruclips.net/video/DoAeHdbqn-c/видео.html But yeah largely I set my expectations before I buy. So I am mostly not disappointed ... does that make sense ? Cheers Matt And I love having you around keeping me honest :)
Nice comparison Matt. It is hard to say what the performance is based on your test here as depth of field is somewhat limited using F1.8 on the 20MM lens. There appears to be a lot of heat haze too from the coastal location and bright sun. Perhaps if you could you a 'brick wall' test somehwere cycling through the apertures of the 20MM on those same cameras that would be helpful.
Hey Matt, I was surprised when I used the 50-250 for the first time, the results were so good! My camera shop offered me the 2 lens Z50 kit for only 100 more so I just thought ¨ok, how bad can it be” and I bought it. Now I would feel an idiot if I hadn’t, it’s so good that I would pay not 200 but 300 for it!
Thanks for that comparison Matt. I currently have a Z50, but aspire to grab the Z7 very soon, with the 20mm 1.8 S lens to use on the Z50 before I get the Z7. Great lens, and good clip to see how well the latest Nikon Z series products are shaping up. Cheers
Hi Matt , first thanks for your nice videos. Second could you explain a bit about this crop factor you are talking about. If I understand it correct a 50-250 mm kit lens from z50 corresponds to 75-375 mm on z7. Then you also said the 20mm on z7 correspond to 30mm on z50. A bit confusing but perhaps only me that is an old film and darkroom guy that have been away from the photo world for many years that is not Up to Speed 🙂. Happy for a video about that.
Yeah Slotcar, and thanks Danny, indeed each number of focal length, IE 20mm you multiply by 1.5 (as said below) to determine the full frame equivalent focal length on a cropped sensor camera like the Z50 ... 50 becomes 75, 250 becomes 375 - does that make sense? Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography yes but can you be a little more clear please? If the lens was made for DX cameras, it's a 50-250, exactly what it is supposed to be. But when going to a Full Frame camera, why would there be crop? Shouldn't you have vignetting instead? Taking a FX lens to Crop sensor camera would be where the multiplier matters right? So this 50-250 DX Lens would remain a 50-250 mm without crop mode but with heavy vignetting, am I correct?
If only I had some more cash to spend. I think the wide zoom might have to be the next lens on the list, much as I love using the 50 and 85 primes on the z6, the 20 looks tempting though. Thanks Matt, what’s the music by the way?
Matt, thanks for the video , did you have the in camera corrections turned on ? Issues that are a quick one click fix for stills can be a pain in backside for video , hope you and yours keep safe
Hi Jim, this is the first time I have created a test like this. And I like to run them more 'real world'. So I had all the standard corrections on for Nikon in the Z age. The Z50 had Diffraction Compensation On, Vignette Control Normal, Distortion On, Active Lighting Off, I normally have that on, but as the camera is new, I have not set that up yet. Pic profile Flat. The Z6 the same except for Active D Lighting at High, and the Z7 the same as the Z6. Any other settings I should be including? :) Cheers Matt
It still has the aperture of f/1.8, of course, regarding the exposure; this can't change. Regarding depth of field and perspective, you are right, and the excellent FF ultrawide mutates to a somewhat boring near standard lens on DX.
Quite a stunner. What a good video! I've always like the 50-250 lens, which seems to be as good any pro-level zoom provided one doesn't mind the fact it doesn't gather a huge amount of light. Great stuff. Thank you.
The bad about using full frame lenses on APS-C cameras is that you get something very different, especially with wide lenses. 20 mm on full frame is very interresting, 20 (like 30) on APS-C is not. Neither Nikon nor Sony or Canon make exelent lenses wider than 16 mm for APS-C.
Yeah I agree, 30mm does not seem exciting. I feel DX (APS-C) has always been a short term thing ... I genuinely think it wont last forever ... to me it was a creation from the start of digital days so they could make cameras affordable to the masses, and they just have never gotten around to letting go ... I think they should let go personally. Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography using my D810 but thinking of updating, unsure about waiting for the D850 replacement (or getting an 850) or jumping to mirrorless, maybe Z6/7 replacements. I'm primarily a landscape photographer.
Does using a DX lens on a Z6 automatically put the camera into crop mode? I'm curious to know what happens if it thinks it's a full-frame lens, but maybe you can't fool it.
Yes the full frame cameras will crop automatically into DX mode if one attaches an appropriate lens, but it is possible to override this in the custom menu and keep the cameras in FX mode.
I thought the shutter speed should be double the frame rate (if you shoot 30 fps, it should be 1/60s). I always keep the shutter speed fixed, I only change the ISO and the F-Stop. Now I am confused.
Not necessarily. The reason for recommending double the frame rate is that historically film makers did it that way so we are accustomed to the amount of motion blur that it produces from watching movies and tv. If we use too fast a shutter speed, there will be very little motion blur and it might not look cinematic.
Hey Geek, shutter speed can be anything higher than your frame rate, the 30 FPS 1/60 is a rule of thumb in order to create the 'film like look' the faster the shutter the less motion blur you get in each frame and the less light you collect. So I was shooting at 24 FPS, I can shoot from 1/25th upwards ... the 1/25th or 1/60th rule spoken about on RUclips is over emphasised, as often in the real world you don't actually notice ... conversely if I was shooting for Netflix I would stick to the rules ... :) Does that make sense? Cheers Matt
If the film days, that was the golden rule of the masses. It boils down to, technically speaking, half the time exposing and the other time closing/opening the mechanical shutter and advancing the film. At lower frame rates (16 or 18 fps with 8mm and Super 8), a very sharp individual image might give a choppy visual experience. The best movie cameras all had adjustable exposure time - called "shutter angle" when the camera supported different frame rates. The rotating mechanical shutter, connected to the film advance mechanism, never allowed an exposure that was too long. With a recording at 30 fps or a 60 fps to be played back at 60, I would favor sharper individual frames, especially at 4K. Note that anti-aliasing and sharpening is going on in these modern digital cameras with two objectives, to reduce resolution down to 4K and to get excellent frame series with data compression between subsequent frames. The software implementation may do the smoothing that slow speed in film would give. My assumption is that this all together defeats the slow shutter speed paradigm. There were other reasons to expose at low shutter speed, still. Movie film had low ISO - think 64. Maybe an Ektacolor Pro (negative film for 35mm movie) was ever manufactured at 200 ISO. At 400, it would have been too grainy, likely (35mm movie format was about APS-C). And, while small formats have shorter focal length lenses with inherently more depth of field, if you wanted to have good depth of field you still needed to stop down aperture, hence a lowish shutter speed. And there was a risk of shutter lag in old movie film cameras. At faster shutter times, the shutter opening increasingly becomes a slit like in a mechanical focal plane shutter. Look at the front wheel of the race car in this photo [ www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/locomobile-race-car-1906.299032/ ]. Shutter lag of the "Interbellum" (period between WW1 and WW2). That is from an early focal plane shutter that ran vertically (the 35mm photo format started as movie format and the Leica was initially developed as a test tool for the movie format to test a batch of film for its sensitivity and best development processing. In the Interbellum, a commercial production Leica photo camera hence would be advertised in Nat Geo as "double frame"). Most 35mm cameras started like the Leica with a focal plane shutter with cloth "curtains" running horizontally. Now imagine golden Hollywood era movies all were shot on 70mm wide film, perforated along both sides, at 24 fps. In the "Todd AO" 70mm standard, each frame would be 48.56mm x 20.73mm. As human perception of detail resolution does not relate to the area 2nd order unit but to 1st order linear, if we compare image diagonals, the Todd AO frame has 35% more resolution potential than full frame and twice that of APS-C when lens and film qualities are the same. Todd AO used the 21.44mm difference between 70mm wide film and 48.56mm frame for 8 audio tracks. A roll of 120 film for a medium format camera - 12 shots at 56mm x 56mm in a Hasselblad 500 - would give a second of movie. As to (mechanical, rotating) shutter angle - if you could reduce the opening angle during movie recording, down to completely shut, then you could end a scene in a fade out SOOC. If you could manually run the film back some length you could - double expose - create a fade over to the next scene by opening the angle back again from starting that next scene. In the late days of Super 8, some cameras could do that automatically. The quick and dirty fade out was done with a double polarizer (today's "variable ND filter"), if your camera had no variable shutter angle and it cost you a couple f-stops of depth of field or you could only do it under sufficient light. All history. Digitally, easily done in post. Mind you, professional movie film was shot in negative film because that could be printed easily on another negative film, to become positive. The irony of jargon is that films giving a positive result directly were often called "color reversal" because they went from negative to positive in some chemical conversion way. So in movie production, looking at today's results involved processing of the negative film, drying, printing to a print film, processing and drying, and next running these "dailies" through a projector. Shutter angle - exposure time. A lot has changed with technological advances. We see some gaming kids having the ability to guess a monitor's refresh rate up to pretty high speeds, or at least be able to tell which one is faster between two different ones. Old rules related to old technology and need to be updated occasionally. As this channel has a strong Nikon focus, imagine 8K at 60 or 120 fps playback - you really want very sharp individual frames - both in panning and in recording fast moving subjects. (8K is 33.2 MP or at 8 bits per color channel that is about 100MB per frame when uncompressed - 800Mb) IMO, if Nikon are developing a Z 8 (high end pro model) then it should be able to do 8K at at least 30 fps. Which would require an even better Expeed processor and faster I/O controller chips than anything available in the current Z range. The glass is ready for it. And so are the exposure times ;)
JP dJ Wow! What a wonderfully informed and informative answer. I think I only understood about half of it, but that has everything to do with me, and nothing to do with your clear explanations. Thanks.
Canon M50 would do just as well , and many other cameras. I have many used cheap cameras. As long as I dont crop or zoom in , there is no way of telling the true quality of the image. Panasonic LX100 actually is surprisingly ugly, but you will never know until you zoom in.
@@MattIrwinPhotography After watching hundreds of camera reviews I came across this guy only talking about lenses and it changed my perception of camera reviews completely.
Yes it was very obvious at 375mm, which makes sense. Also on the Z7, which I think has the most processing to do of the 3 cameras for video, as it has the most downsampling to do. Cheers Matt
For a travel camera kit I don't think you can beat the z50, it is truly an amazing bit Nikon has created. As for the 20mm, I kind of liked the look of the z6 best, it seems the colors are a touch better. And the resolution seems very close to the z7. Is that what it looks like on your monitor?
I have the z6 and z50 and have been using the 16-50 and the 50-250 on my 6. Getting some good results, amazing. I am loving the 50. Wonderful little camera.
I'm shooting on a nikon z7 and I love the camera! What mic are you using for audio? The sound quality is really crisp!
I just ordered this lens as a content creation kit with my z50. I appreciate the work you put into this comparison. Subbed and clicked
Thanks so much BOA :) Cheers Matt
I'm noticing a bit of chromatic aberration in the 20mm S lens. In your last video I saw it against the railings at the end of the road, and in this one around the specular highlights in the water on the bay. Just a thought.
Yeah I agree Geoff. Only when wide open I think. I’ll make a video and test various f stops. Also I noticed if slightly out of focus it disappears. When I am talking to camera there is nothing in the water, then I walk away and the water comes into focus it changes.
I rarely use the 16-50 now. Only occasionally the Z7 as I grab the Z50 and the 50-250mm for our morning dog walks. Last week I used the Z7 one day, the D500 with the 200-500mm (what a beast! Great results but a pain to walk 3 miles with1). I hardly notice the Z50 and it produces VERY nice results. My only complaint........ I want a 50-500/600.... :D
I'd like to see a "pro" version of the Z50, weather sealed, put the card door on the side like the Z7 - you know how many times I remove the battery instead of the card? It's embarrassing! Starting to catch myself now so I'm self correcting. And a better auto focus with more speed. At least as fast as the D500 if not faster.
Nice job, glad to see you enjoying the Z50. It punches way above its' weight.
Yeah it is a great little camera I totally agree. What other Z lenses do you have? Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography 85mm, 24-70mm f/4, 14-30mm.
It's nice to see that little Z50 perform so well. Especially when you consider the crop factor affects every aspect of the video, not just focal length, but f stop and ISO as well. Nice little camera for $1000. I have the Z6 and absolutely love it.
Yeah Paul, I think you get a lot for the price point, and access to the amazing Z glass. Would you consider a Z50? Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography My wife and I have thought about it for her. It would serve as her primary camera but then be a travel camera as well. We could share glass this way also. I would stick with the Z6 as my primary camera.
@@paulburt8222 Sounds like a great plan Paul. Cheers Matt :)
i need your experience, i waiting to Z 70-200 (because the virus all is freeze) i found the Z 24 - 200 what is cheaper and more portable i place of caring my Z 24 -70 & Z 70 -200 i'll put in my bag only 24 - 200. what you think about or maybe 50 - 250 is better ?? thanks in advance
Nice results from all . The 50-250 looks like a nice small do it all lens . The 20 mil is a killer looking lens . The horizon looked flat as a pancake. May be in camera correction, I don’t know . And I was so surprised that I liked the Z7 image the best . It has line skipping where the Z6 doesn’t and I was watching this on a cell phone not a big screen. I did notice the Z7 and the Z50 rendered the sky differently. The Z6 image seemed slightly flatter . Might have to be with the antialiasing filter on the sensor and the internal processing , or lack of extra processing. Either way I really like the Z6 and Z7 sensors . With me having the d850 and d500 when shooting video the d850 image is noticeably better especially when pushed into difficult situations. Thanks for the videos Matt !!!!!!!!
The only RUclips channel where there never is anything negative to say about the equipment, it must be because it's a Nikon channel (a little irony may occur) LOL .....
P.S. However, I still enjoy your videos with a little twinkle in my eye!
Hey Jess, I think it is largely because I am a glass half full guy, which if you have not heard that saying, I try to look at the positive. It is also that when I buy something I do a lot of research and I take its short comings into account. So I never get any negative surprises, I buy knowing limitations. And if I don't buy it, it will be because I don't think it will meet my expectations and will create cause for disappointment ...
As I say time and time again, gear is very individual, and is relative to your use case, needs, budget, eco system.
But I have to tell you a secret, not sure if you watched my Z50 initial impressions vid, but I had about 4 or 5 negative things to say about it ... ruclips.net/video/DoAeHdbqn-c/видео.html
But yeah largely I set my expectations before I buy. So I am mostly not disappointed ... does that make sense ?
Cheers Matt
And I love having you around keeping me honest :)
Matt Irwin Photography I mean almost all of your gear 😉 I saw the Z50 video, and it was good 👍Cheers Jess
Nice comparison Matt. It is hard to say what the performance is based on your test here as depth of field is somewhat limited using F1.8 on the 20MM lens. There appears to be a lot of heat haze too from the coastal location and bright sun. Perhaps if you could you a 'brick wall' test somehwere cycling through the apertures of the 20MM on those same cameras that would be helpful.
Hey Matt, I was surprised when I used the 50-250 for the first time, the results were so good! My camera shop offered me the 2 lens Z50 kit for only 100 more so I just thought ¨ok, how bad can it be” and I bought it. Now I would feel an idiot if I hadn’t, it’s so good that I would pay not 200 but 300 for it!
Well said Jordan, wow you got that lens for a steal. I agree it is great value, with solids results. Cheers matt
i realize it is kinda randomly asking but do anybody know a good website to stream newly released series online?
Thanks for that comparison Matt. I currently have a Z50, but aspire to grab the Z7 very soon, with the 20mm 1.8 S lens to use on the Z50 before I get the Z7. Great lens, and good clip to see how well the latest Nikon Z series products are shaping up.
Cheers
Maybe think of lowering your aspirations a touch and try the Z6. Wayyyyy better value than the Z7.
@@aussie8114 Onya mate. Im aiming at the Z7 specifically for the pixel count and full frame sensor
cheers
The Z50 has a moodier look to it from what I can see. Almost looked like a 70's movie. I like it. Which is good, because that's the camera I have.
Hi Matt , first thanks for your nice videos.
Second could you explain a bit about this crop factor you are talking about. If I understand it correct a 50-250 mm kit lens from z50 corresponds to 75-375 mm on z7.
Then you also said the 20mm on z7 correspond to 30mm on z50. A bit confusing but perhaps only me that is an old film and darkroom guy that have been away from the photo world for many years that is not Up to Speed 🙂. Happy for a video about that.
Yeah Slotcar, and thanks Danny, indeed each number of focal length, IE 20mm you multiply by 1.5 (as said below) to determine the full frame equivalent focal length on a cropped sensor camera like the Z50 ... 50 becomes 75, 250 becomes 375 - does that make sense? Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography yes but can you be a little more clear please? If the lens was made for DX cameras, it's a 50-250, exactly what it is supposed to be. But when going to a Full Frame camera, why would there be crop? Shouldn't you have vignetting instead?
Taking a FX lens to Crop sensor camera would be where the multiplier matters right?
So this 50-250 DX Lens would remain a 50-250 mm without crop mode but with heavy vignetting, am I correct?
If only I had some more cash to spend. I think the wide zoom might have to be the next lens on the list, much as I love using the 50 and 85 primes on the z6, the 20 looks tempting though. Thanks Matt, what’s the music by the way?
Nice with 50mm-250mm lens. I like the z6 camera better than the z7.
Cheers Cesar, tell me what you see different between the cameras? Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography I particularly to image color and sharpens of the Z6
Another great video Matt, keep up the good work!
Matt, thanks for the video , did you have the in camera corrections turned on ? Issues that are a quick one click fix for stills can be a pain in backside for video , hope you and yours keep safe
Hi Jim, this is the first time I have created a test like this. And I like to run them more 'real world'. So I had all the standard corrections on for Nikon in the Z age. The Z50 had Diffraction Compensation On, Vignette Control Normal, Distortion On, Active Lighting Off, I normally have that on, but as the camera is new, I have not set that up yet. Pic profile Flat. The Z6 the same except for Active D Lighting at High, and the Z7 the same as the Z6. Any other settings I should be including? :) Cheers Matt
Matt is the 20mm 1.8 actually 2.7 on the Z50.
Thanks Mark.
It still has the aperture of f/1.8, of course, regarding the exposure; this can't change. Regarding depth of field and perspective, you are right, and the excellent FF ultrawide mutates to a somewhat boring near standard lens on DX.
Nikon quality I like it camera's and lens thanks Matt.
I'm still blow away by what you can achieve at such an affordable price. : )
Quite a stunner. What a good video! I've always like the 50-250 lens, which seems to be as good any pro-level zoom provided one doesn't mind the fact it doesn't gather a huge amount of light. Great stuff. Thank you.
Great info as always and thanks so much for sharing!!!
The bad about using full frame lenses on APS-C cameras is that you get something very different, especially with wide lenses. 20 mm on full frame is very interresting, 20 (like 30) on APS-C is not. Neither Nikon nor Sony or Canon make exelent lenses wider than 16 mm for APS-C.
Yeah I agree, 30mm does not seem exciting. I feel DX (APS-C) has always been a short term thing ... I genuinely think it wont last forever ... to me it was a creation from the start of digital days so they could make cameras affordable to the masses, and they just have never gotten around to letting go ... I think they should let go personally. Cheers Matt
Hi Matt, enjoyed your video, as always! What's the name of the last song? Outro
Pretty impressive all round Matt.
Yeah Grant, it was interesting test, should I do that will all my Z lenses? Which camera are you creating with in 2020? Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography using my D810 but thinking of updating, unsure about waiting for the D850 replacement (or getting an 850) or jumping to mirrorless, maybe Z6/7 replacements. I'm primarily a landscape photographer.
thank you very much!
do a walking vlog test with Z6 both in daylight and in low-light with 20mm s f1.8 ...
Does using a DX lens on a Z6 automatically put the camera into crop mode? I'm curious to know what happens if it thinks it's a full-frame lens, but maybe you can't fool it.
Yes the full frame cameras will crop automatically into DX mode if one attaches an appropriate lens, but it is possible to override this in the custom menu and keep the cameras in FX mode.
I thought the shutter speed should be double the frame rate (if you shoot 30 fps, it should be 1/60s). I always keep the shutter speed fixed, I only change the ISO and the F-Stop. Now I am confused.
Not necessarily. The reason for recommending double the frame rate is that historically film makers did it that way so we are accustomed to the amount of motion blur that it produces from watching movies and tv. If we use too fast a shutter speed, there will be very little motion blur and it might not look cinematic.
Hey Geek, shutter speed can be anything higher than your frame rate, the 30 FPS 1/60 is a rule of thumb in order to create the 'film like look' the faster the shutter the less motion blur you get in each frame and the less light you collect. So I was shooting at 24 FPS, I can shoot from 1/25th upwards ... the 1/25th or 1/60th rule spoken about on RUclips is over emphasised, as often in the real world you don't actually notice ... conversely if I was shooting for Netflix I would stick to the rules ... :) Does that make sense? Cheers Matt
If the film days, that was the golden rule of the masses. It boils down to, technically speaking, half the time exposing and the other time closing/opening the mechanical shutter and advancing the film. At lower frame rates (16 or 18 fps with 8mm and Super 8), a very sharp individual image might give a choppy visual experience. The best movie cameras all had adjustable exposure time - called "shutter angle" when the camera supported different frame rates. The rotating mechanical shutter, connected to the film advance mechanism, never allowed an exposure that was too long. With a recording at 30 fps or a 60 fps to be played back at 60, I would favor sharper individual frames, especially at 4K. Note that anti-aliasing and sharpening is going on in these modern digital cameras with two objectives, to reduce resolution down to 4K and to get excellent frame series with data compression between subsequent frames. The software implementation may do the smoothing that slow speed in film would give. My assumption is that this all together defeats the slow shutter speed paradigm.
There were other reasons to expose at low shutter speed, still. Movie film had low ISO - think 64. Maybe an Ektacolor Pro (negative film for 35mm movie) was ever manufactured at 200 ISO. At 400, it would have been too grainy, likely (35mm movie format was about APS-C). And, while small formats have shorter focal length lenses with inherently more depth of field, if you wanted to have good depth of field you still needed to stop down aperture, hence a lowish shutter speed. And there was a risk of shutter lag in old movie film cameras. At faster shutter times, the shutter opening increasingly becomes a slit like in a mechanical focal plane shutter. Look at the front wheel of the race car in this photo [ www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/locomobile-race-car-1906.299032/ ]. Shutter lag of the "Interbellum" (period between WW1 and WW2). That is from an early focal plane shutter that ran vertically (the 35mm photo format started as movie format and the Leica was initially developed as a test tool for the movie format to test a batch of film for its sensitivity and best development processing. In the Interbellum, a commercial production Leica photo camera hence would be advertised in Nat Geo as "double frame"). Most 35mm cameras started like the Leica with a focal plane shutter with cloth "curtains" running horizontally.
Now imagine golden Hollywood era movies all were shot on 70mm wide film, perforated along both sides, at 24 fps. In the "Todd AO" 70mm standard, each frame would be 48.56mm x 20.73mm. As human perception of detail resolution does not relate to the area 2nd order unit but to 1st order linear, if we compare image diagonals, the Todd AO frame has 35% more resolution potential than full frame and twice that of APS-C when lens and film qualities are the same. Todd AO used the 21.44mm difference between 70mm wide film and 48.56mm frame for 8 audio tracks.
A roll of 120 film for a medium format camera - 12 shots at 56mm x 56mm in a Hasselblad 500 - would give a second of movie.
As to (mechanical, rotating) shutter angle - if you could reduce the opening angle during movie recording, down to completely shut, then you could end a scene in a fade out SOOC. If you could manually run the film back some length you could - double expose - create a fade over to the next scene by opening the angle back again from starting that next scene. In the late days of Super 8, some cameras could do that automatically. The quick and dirty fade out was done with a double polarizer (today's "variable ND filter"), if your camera had no variable shutter angle and it cost you a couple f-stops of depth of field or you could only do it under sufficient light. All history. Digitally, easily done in post. Mind you, professional movie film was shot in negative film because that could be printed easily on another negative film, to become positive. The irony of jargon is that films giving a positive result directly were often called "color reversal" because they went from negative to positive in some chemical conversion way. So in movie production, looking at today's results involved processing of the negative film, drying, printing to a print film, processing and drying, and next running these "dailies" through a projector.
Shutter angle - exposure time. A lot has changed with technological advances. We see some gaming kids having the ability to guess a monitor's refresh rate up to pretty high speeds, or at least be able to tell which one is faster between two different ones. Old rules related to old technology and need to be updated occasionally.
As this channel has a strong Nikon focus, imagine 8K at 60 or 120 fps playback - you really want very sharp individual frames - both in panning and in recording fast moving subjects. (8K is 33.2 MP or at 8 bits per color channel that is about 100MB per frame when uncompressed - 800Mb) IMO, if Nikon are developing a Z 8 (high end pro model) then it should be able to do 8K at at least 30 fps. Which would require an even better Expeed processor and faster I/O controller chips than anything available in the current Z range. The glass is ready for it. And so are the exposure times ;)
JP dJ Wow! What a wonderfully informed and informative answer. I think I only understood about half of it, but that has everything to do with me, and nothing to do with your clear explanations. Thanks.
@@MattIrwinPhotography Thanks Matt, I get it.
I was expecting heavy vignetting using the Dx lens on the Z7. You probably said and I missed it, but were you shooting the Z7 in crop mode?
Howdy Glen, yes the Z7 automatically crops to DX (crop) once the lens is attached. Cheers Matt
Awesome video 😎✌️
Thanks JD.
Whats your thoughts on the Nikon P1000🤨 that’s what I use and it’s great. Also great video keep it up 😎
thumbs up !!
Cheers Henry :)
Canon M50 would do just as well , and many other cameras. I have many used cheap cameras. As long as I dont crop or zoom in , there is no way of telling the true quality of the image. Panasonic LX100 actually is surprisingly ugly, but you will never know until you zoom in.
Cheers Jan, thanks for your thoughts, when you say 'just as well' do you mean with the 20mm or the 50-250? Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography Your question show that its not about the camera but the lenses.
@@MattIrwinPhotography After watching hundreds of camera reviews I came across this guy only talking about lenses and it changed my perception of camera reviews completely.
ruclips.net/video/uLxQZ6WM7uY/видео.html
@@jan-martinulvag1962 Thanks so much Jan-Martin, I will spend some time with this channel it looks very interesting. Cheers Matt :)
FIRSTIESSSSS
BOOOOM!
I want I want I want I want so badly.....
But: the rolling shutter is pretty awful 😢😢😢
Yes it was very obvious at 375mm, which makes sense. Also on the Z7, which I think has the most processing to do of the 3 cameras for video, as it has the most downsampling to do. Cheers Matt