I've done some similar "real world" tests between my Z6 and Z6iii. I wanted to prove to myself that Tony Northrup's "dungeon" studio DR test wasn't very realistic in terms of real-world use cases a photographer might find themselves in. While I've certainly been in situations where I've had subjects who are both well and poorly lit in the same photo, the range he was dealing with was beyond rational limits (i.e. not going to be common that it actually matters). While it was a valid test, it was pushing the envelope or DR tests by focusing on DR in which the shadowed subject was in complete darkness. The number of photons that could be collected bouncing off the poorly lit subject were going to be on the very low end so off the bat SNR is going to be low. That certainly is going to push the limits of what the sensor can do, and in that regards it fell behind a bit, but again such a niche use case considering the tech involved. While it does give the nod to the other sensors it was a cherry pick of a test. If done under more realistic lighting conditions, the differences in SNR between the sensors - as far as shadowed areas are concerned - are not going to be as noticeable. That's because more photons will be collected even in shadowed areas. It's for this reason that I dealt with well light subjects that, like your images, had areas in shadow and then exposed those just like you did (0 to -5EV). In those cases, I found both cameras had similar noise with the Z6 having slightly less BUT once I hit 5 stops the Z6 also had the same magenta shift where the Z6iii was a more natural tone. I call that a win for the Z6iii that Tony's low light test did not account for. Given his focus on sunsets/rises I did some test there and once again in those situations where there was enough ambient light and therefore more photons to collect the difference that Tony "exposed" was in this studio photo was not as obvious, even after pushing. Again, his test is valid, it shows a specific use case (high DR shot in very low ambient lit situation forcing a relatively fast shutter (1/80) ). In that case the Z6iii will fall behind if you try to recover shadows, but it won't be that horrible and you can clean it up. Furthermore, as noted, that's just not going to be a common use case for me. Even in outdoor photos I have around a campfire the difference in illumination on people's faces who are closer to the fire is minimal at best. Certainly not 5 stops.
I've definitely had some travel photos taking pictures of people in shade with well lit bright sunny mountains behind them. Those photos end up in Lightroom with me trying to even out the lighting between the people and the mountain, usually trying to recover the shadows. Things like that have me a little concerned. The only hope I'm having here is that I'm not trying to pull people out of complete darkness like some of these tests are. Do you think in a situation like that you would notice the dynamic range issues? I currently use a d750 and even there I'm feeling like I could use a little bit more dynamic range actually. And unfortunately the z6iii has less dynamic range than the d750.
@@StriderGTSwe respect your concern, in your case just get the cheaper Z7ii for maximum IQ, if your coming from a D750, or wait another 2-3 years for a Z6-4..and if you are shooting outdoors well lit at ISO 100 these new generation of cameras DR are all excellent.
@@StriderGTS In this test, the highlight of the z6iii seems a tad better at the 3 stop overexposed image. Look at the sky at the top on the left and right. These must be due to the lens vignette, but you can see the blue goes lower than the z6ii. It seems that overall they are very very close.
@@StriderGTS I don't think you will have issues with the Z6iii in the situations you describe, and I highly suggest you watch this video: ZJ Michael's YT video titled "Nikon Z6II vs Nikon Z6III - Image Quality Review" You'll see that in scenes where the contrast between the darkest and brightest areas of the image are not as great that you'll get great shots that cleanup easy and are barely distinguishable. In scenes where you do have a very bright subject mixed with poorly lit subjects you will have noise, but it's not nearly as bad as some of the reviewers are making it out to be. In a picture I took on the 4th of July my daughter's had their backs to me while my brother-in-law was lighting some roman candles about 10m away. Their faces were partly lit and recovered flawlessly. The only areas that were rougher in terms of DR noise were the backs of their dresses which were in complete darkness and needed a great deal of shadow boost to recover. This on an image that was exposed at 1/1000 at ISO 750. In short, as I noted above, fewer photons. Something you won't see in the sorts of daytime images where the number of gathered photons will be higher so boosting those shadows won't be nearly as rough. In short Tony's test (and even the example Christopher Frost gives in his new review which I recommend) are extreme edge cases of shadow recovery. It is a bit of a bummer that it's not up to snuff with the Z6/ii, but the faster readout means the AF on this thing is a beast and that has been a game changer. Best autofocusing camera I've owned, certainly on par with the Z8 (I rented one for the eclipse). And regarding that photo, it cleaned up very nicely in LR's AI noise reduction. Could barely tell. FWIW, I switched from a D750 to a Z6 and noticed no loss in IQ, if anything images on the Z6 are much cleaner and don't have the same magenta color casts you'd see on the D750 when pushing some shadows, especially in the corners/edges of the D750's frame. This even though the D750 comes out on top according to charts. Point being, numbers aren't everything. Meanwhile, what the Z6iii has afforded me is insane focus capabilities. I have little kids and taking their pictures at a local carnival this past weekend nearly every shot of them (while on fast moving rides) was spot on in focus. On my Z6 and D750 I never had such a hit rate, note close (they've been going to this kiddie carnival since they were toddlers). I tend to have all my pictures locked down but if I remember I can try to upload some to Flickr and share one or two examples. That said def watch ZJ Michael's comparison to the Z6ii in more real-world/common lighting conditions. And also check out Christopher Frost. He too was bummed by the drop in DR but he is far more egalitarian and IMHO professional about it than Tony Northrup was. PS - I hate that Tony has gone down that path. I was a big fan of Tony's and still am for the most part but both he and Chealsea have been slapping clickbait titles and thumbnails to all their content for years now. I started watching his content ages ago (star trails videos) but IMHO he like many others are beholden to the algorithms. Frost is not like that... Anyway, a lot of info here BUT I promise you this camera rocks. If you really want my advice on such a big purchase - Head on over to Lens Rentals and rent the camera for a week. I did so with the Z8 for the eclipse and to get an idea of where the Z-mount's AF was at back in April. If you do rent the camera from them, let me know and I can email you a link that will help you and me (I'm small potatoes but I'm looking to rent/tryout the 180-600 and that referral would help me.)
@@StriderGTS Overall exposure choice is going to impact you more than having a Z6iii verses a D750. DR decreases as your ISO increases. Once you are shooting at ISO 800 and above on the Z6iii you have slightly more DR than the D750 for the rest of the iso range. If you are shooting an event or on a mountain top you should avoid shooting in a split lighting situation. In your Travel photo example take 2-3 bracketed shots. Expose for the people. Then expose for the sky, in subsequent shots. In the current version of LightRoom is it super easy to replace the background sky. Bracketing is how we dealt with the more limited DR of our older DSLRs. ND filters was another way to take care those pesky bright skys. DR in the Sensor is not the only way to deal with difficult exposure situation. Think about this, Color Slide film has a very poor dynamic range, usually only about 5 stops while maintaining detail and color. The D750 has 11.4 Stops at ISO 100. The Z6iii has 10.4 Stops at ISO 100. So a Z6iii has over double DR of color slide film. Most negative film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. So the D750 is still has less DR than some negative film. The Hasselblad X2D 100C 15-stop dynamic range, and 16-bit colour depth. Maybe when Nikon has a 16Bit Colour Depth Sensor we will have 15 Stops of DR.
Haven’t purchased my Z6iii yet but I figured that the dynamic range took a small hit! I’m keeping my Z6ii as my backup for everything except when I’m out shooting landscape. Thanks for doing this! 👍🏾
I only use my cameras for photography . Seeing many such videos after Tony Northrup My conclusion is: with such small differences in image quality and dynamic range and the large differences in autofocus performance and viewfinder brightness and resolution seems to make the upgrade from a DSLR to a Z6III worthwhile.
@@williambuford6136 I've used both and still prefer the z8 viewfinder. Yes the z6iii has more resolution but the z8 viewfinder is still more bright and has 120hz option which just looks amazing when tracking subjects or any kind of shooting with movement. z6iii is still 60hz
The Photons to Photos site that Toneh points to in his "test" actually shows that the Z6III matches the dynamic range of the z8 & z9 up to ISO 400, between 400 and 650ish the Z8 and Z9 have slightly more dynamic range, but by ISO 800 and onward they all match up again. But I don't hear anyone complaining about the dynamic range in the z8 or z9. Sure, the z6II, z7 and Zf seem to have consistently slightly higher dynamic range but, again, by ISO 800 the z6II, z6III, z7, z8, z9, zf ALL have roughly the same DR. The Sony a7III lags behind all of them between ISO 630 and 1200ish before catching up. And as you and many other folks on RUclips are now demonstrating the real world differences in DR if you are not shooting magazine pictures are negligible.
Great analysis! Thank you! I was worried there for a second after Tony Northrup's take on the Z6 III, but that was quite the elephant he made of the mosquito.
If you are in the Nikon System and do not need the new Videospecs/new AF i guess there is no need to "upgrade" from the Z6II to the Z6III - both are very nice and Pro level cameras.
@@LorenzoFrausto Have you done any very low light comparisons? I shoot in super dim settings a lot with the Z6ii and I'm eager to know more about how the two compare in that regard.
Thanks very much for taking the time to do this analysis and your excellence in actually do the video; i.e. showing pics, good volume control, and speed of talking. Great job!@
It looks like they actually found a nice sweet spot between DR vs readout speed for the price. +3 stops exposure looks great. The DR only falls apart in extreme scenarios where the shot is unrecoverable anyway on any camera. The color shift is toward green instead of magenta and less intense. So I wouldn't use the Z6iii if I commonly found myself boosting shadows by 4 or more stops, but for me that is rare.
Maybe people are making a bigger deal about this than necessary. In real world usage, I rarely go above ISO 3200, and I pretty much never underexpose by 3+ stops, so by the time you notice a difference in quality at the extremes, both cameras are not performing great, and I don’t expect to use results from either. Thank you!
During BIF photography you will often be above ISO 3200 with detail of your Bird possibly 3+ stops below the background sky, yet you can recover that Shadow detail and have a great photo.
Thanks for doing these comparison tests, I'm sure they will help many people. I think it would have been better to use people as the subject, rather than inanimate scenes to do comparisons between 2 cameras, as noise, lack of sharpness and and deterioration of definition are far more obvious when zooming in on peoples faces.
Super helpful video. Much appreciated! Thanks! Seems that we are at a point is digital cameras where sensor tech has pretty well leveled out and the next push is more about processing speeds and performance. Great place to be!
Excellent job! I’ve been wanting to get back to the S Series lens system and I watched this for probably the opposite reason, that is to see if the Z6II performs at least as well as the III for stills. I don’t shoot video and af performance isn’t a big deal for me. I’ll save a few bucks on the II and have a nice travel and Astro camera (plus I’ve always liked Nikon color science). For wildlife I’ll continue to use an R5 anyway. Again, nice work.
Nice work Z! Tony Northrup did a video showing poor dynamic range when pulling up the exposure in underexposed images. Not sure why you are getting differing results. Interesting.
I can explain. Tony chose a test knowing that it would produce a very poor (i.e. low) SNR for all cameras involved and therefore push the limits of the DR test. That's because he did a test in a controlled studio where the only thing being lit was the properly lit book cover. Meanwhile, the 2nd book cover was in complete darkness so the number of photons bouncing off it is near zero. Ask yourself, in how many photos you take do you have a subject under a spotlight while also wanting to expose the subject in darkness. Not many. The outdoor images have more ambient light so even the shadowed areas will produce photons that are collected so the SNR will be higher and so when you recover shadows you have better results. Tony certainly knows this, but Tony can't help himself, he wants to capitalize on this drama and get some clicks. FWIW I really like Tony, always have since I watched his star trails photography tutorials, but like most content creators, he is beholden to the algorithm...
Tony dynamic test is garbage. Just doesnt make sense that a 0.8 stop less in z6iii would that be far off. Wierd thing he photograph a photo in a magazine and zoomed it in. Theres another dynamic test video that compared dynamic range (kelly sparks photography channel) showing very similar results with z6ii. It correlates with this video
Tony love a hating on Nikons and that video was number one vs a Z5 and a Z7ii and at 6 stops under exposed, and then he recommended the Z7ii over the new Z6iiinfor events which makes no sense. No photographer is shooting 6 stops under exposed, specially on a mirrorless camera. That makes no sense.
this kind of comparation that i looking for, no i know the image quality are simmilar for this two camera, thankyou for making this videi. this is very help me to decide to take z6ii cuz i dont really need z6iii feature, n z6ii autofocus is enough for me...
It is not the aim, what this tells you is how much DR you can have with your camera. In this test for example you could easily choose to underexpose by two stops to preserve you highlights for example in a backlight situation.
It is perhaps me, but the 3 stop highlights in the z6iii looks a little bit better than the z6ii one. For example the blue sky which I think is because of the lens vignette goes a tad lower for the z6iii. It is a minute difference, same as we look in the shadows.
I just wished my z6ii came with flippy screen. I went to a nikon event where we could play and test out the z6iii and man i love the flippy screen. Everything else was cool. But i want that screen as it make low angle shots easier to take.
I'd be curious to see a comparison against the z8 and the z6iii - the photons to photos charts show that they have basically the same DR at the same iso.
This really is a what are you using it for decision for me. I would only upgrade if I wanted to use it for video. Or if the fully articulating screen is worth it to you. The fps and buffer size may be worth it for doing sports, formula 1 or wild life photography. FYI - I am shooting a Z6ii and Zf.
If you shoot video, the Z6 II's 8-Bit 4:2:0 wont cut it. Z6 II is great for stills and simple video, especially if you use Nikon's Flat Profile. Otherwise, the Z6 III is an improvement in almost every way
Would you recommend this camera for nightscape, Milky Way? In your opinion do you think is better “low light camera “ than the z9 ? Thank you so much and great information like always!
@demipita9090 I'd guess that the low light performance is pretty close between the Z6III and the Z8/Z9 (when downscaled to 24MP). I'll probably do a dedicated video on the Z6III's landscape astrophotography performance once I get a chance to shoot some more images under the stars, but so far it seems like a solid camera for nightscapes.
@@ZJMichaels i really appreciate it sir, definitely i am looking forward to see your review! I own the z9 , and the z6iii is coming this Wednesday. I purchased thinking will have a better results in low light ( not only for the 24mp)
Just bought the z6III and I have been so disappointed with the focus and the softness of the images I’m getting from the sensor. I also have a z8 and original z6. Even the old z6 with the exact same settings, light, subject etc is noticeable sharper on the eyes. Is my camera just a lemon? Maybe a software update could help? SO bummed out…any thoughts? Thanks everyone.
I think those photographers who do bird and aviation photography will probably be better off with the Z6 II because they do encounter a wide dynamic range in their photography. Those who do street, travel and general photography might never encounter any issues. Now, the $64 question - will you pay so much more for the Z6 III?
Yes! Mine will arrive tomorrow👍I have missed golden moments on my Z6ii/Z7ii back focusing..for me those lost moments are irreplaceable..i was in the fence to get the Z8 but the lower resolution make my work more productive and fast turnaround..if i want to use my studio lights for that portrait work ill grab the Z7ii, but for events/moving subjects the Z6-3 will be the right tool.
I own both cameras. BIF you will get more keepers with the Z6iii. The focusing matters here big time. Birds move swiftly. The Z6ii is ok for Aviation photography, as it can lock onto the less erratic and large planes with its Focusing ability. I would use my D500 over my Z6ii for BIF, until I upgraded to a Z8. Now The Z6ii will be sold as the Z6iii has replaced it for me.
@@camilo8cheryl Charge your clients more for those 45MP photos! Yes the workflow for 24MP is much faster and takes up less storage space. I do love that 45MP output But I think I need to upgrade my computer, just so I can use Denoise on my 45MP photos.
Если честно, то я не вижу ни какой разницы. Когда это дойдет до зрителя он тоже не увидит. 99% экранов не показывает точный оттенок. И 100% печати не даст правильный цвет. Я молчу о том, что большинство людей воспринимают цвета по разному. И большинством людей перебрасывает файлы через мессенджеры, которые изменяют качество и цвет. НО! Если вы работаете в институте точных мер и волн цветовых спектров, то возможно вам будет не всё равно. Но это фотоаппарат, а не прибор. Это вопрос творчества, а не науки. Если ваши фото вас не удовлетворяют, то вряд ли дело в фотоаппарате..😉
Basically the Z6 iii only is worse if you are a terrible photographer that needs to constantly fixing so badly in post he or she would up 4 or 5 stops....if not it's the same
Barely even still, less than one stop of DR is negligible at best. RUclipsrs always have to hyper focus of minute specs with a fine tooth comb to stay relevant. No office to this channel I am sure others that I don't even view anymore plastering this all over their headlines I imagine.
More terrible wanna be photographers watching YT Vs Vs and Test Test videos these days..they are more focused on camera YT reviews they completely forgot how to use it..these are the people that i can teach how to use Auto feature 😂
@@alphaandomega2709I own a Gfx100s and I can tell you that these Nikon images are fine and 100% professional quality in every way lol. Stop being a troll
@@ZJMichaelsPeople ask why Nikon is putting out a 24MP camera in 2024. Well I guess Nikon has a surplus of 24MP sensors originating from 2008 when they had the D3x in production😅😅😅
Can you please make a comparison video between Z7ii vs Z6iii. The price of Z7ii is lesser (around $2000) than Z6iii ( amazon US). Please make a comparison video . Or please suggest which camera would make a value for money purchase.
Thank you for the response. I really appreciate it. Actually I have been saving up for the last 3 years now. To buy a Z6III. But the price variation between Z6 ii and Z6iii is trememdous. So i am confused now. If i am spending that much, should I go in for Z7ii or Z6iii. Also, please make a detailed comparison if possible. Thanks again!!❤
Seems like that the Z6-2 is a lot better in the photography side of things and the Z6-3 has just added features. There is a point where only features are added to the Z6-3 but the sensor's final result looks like is going a little backward when it comes to noise. Too much publicity for nothing it seems.
I'm not sure where you're getting that conclusion from given the (real world) shooting results in this video. Did you watch the video? All the other click-baity content creators covering the DR issue are doing just that, trying to get clicks and not properly reporting the situation. You're talking about 2/3 of a stop lower DR at ISO > 100 and < 800 and 3/4 of stop at ISO 100. In a properly lit scene, including landscape and studio portrait photography, the detail you will recover from shadows will be on par with what you see in this video. Not very noticeable. In Tony Northrup's low light dungeon example that is not the case because Tony knew that such a test was going to push the sensor to its limits. While Tony did a valid test, it wasn't one that tests a very common real-world situation. That is unless one is a photographer who takes pictures of mushrooms under spotlights but also insists that he boost shadows on shrooms not under the spotlight and in near total darkness... Sure it shows an example were the 6iii falls behind, but that example will not apply in 99.999% of photography. The sort that like ZJ did that represents real world situations. FWIW, the Z6iii's AF is next level compared to the Z6ii. It also exhibits much less rolling shutter. I'm quite certain those traits will matter far more than this fraction of a stop at low ISO.
@@ElGrecoDaGeekno its not real world at all , not like gothic churches , dark (for color pigment protection reasons) museums , castles and caves all with flash interdiction exist. Ah sorry forgot that the US is a bit short on those.
Pundits getting dumber and dumber shooting above ISO 5,000 complaining about noise😂🤦🏻♂️ Tony had brain bug and forgot to shoot in real world using ISO below 2,500..and pundits watching YT will prefer their old slow Z6 camera with fewer keepers and back focusing issues than the faster expeed 7 Z6-3😂 if your not shooting in a dark cave where Tony must be using his camera, your all good and will love the budget friendly Z6-3 with ton of features👍
Check the video description for gear discounts, my gear list, and more. Thanks for watching!
I've done some similar "real world" tests between my Z6 and Z6iii.
I wanted to prove to myself that Tony Northrup's "dungeon" studio DR test wasn't very realistic in terms of real-world use cases a photographer might find themselves in. While I've certainly been in situations where I've had subjects who are both well and poorly lit in the same photo, the range he was dealing with was beyond rational limits (i.e. not going to be common that it actually matters).
While it was a valid test, it was pushing the envelope or DR tests by focusing on DR in which the shadowed subject was in complete darkness. The number of photons that could be collected bouncing off the poorly lit subject were going to be on the very low end so off the bat SNR is going to be low. That certainly is going to push the limits of what the sensor can do, and in that regards it fell behind a bit, but again such a niche use case considering the tech involved. While it does give the nod to the other sensors it was a cherry pick of a test.
If done under more realistic lighting conditions, the differences in SNR between the sensors - as far as shadowed areas are concerned - are not going to be as noticeable. That's because more photons will be collected even in shadowed areas. It's for this reason that I dealt with well light subjects that, like your images, had areas in shadow and then exposed those just like you did (0 to -5EV).
In those cases, I found both cameras had similar noise with the Z6 having slightly less BUT once I hit 5 stops the Z6 also had the same magenta shift where the Z6iii was a more natural tone. I call that a win for the Z6iii that Tony's low light test did not account for.
Given his focus on sunsets/rises I did some test there and once again in those situations where there was enough ambient light and therefore more photons to collect the difference that Tony "exposed" was in this studio photo was not as obvious, even after pushing.
Again, his test is valid, it shows a specific use case (high DR shot in very low ambient lit situation forcing a relatively fast shutter (1/80) ). In that case the Z6iii will fall behind if you try to recover shadows, but it won't be that horrible and you can clean it up. Furthermore, as noted, that's just not going to be a common use case for me. Even in outdoor photos I have around a campfire the difference in illumination on people's faces who are closer to the fire is minimal at best. Certainly not 5 stops.
I've definitely had some travel photos taking pictures of people in shade with well lit bright sunny mountains behind them. Those photos end up in Lightroom with me trying to even out the lighting between the people and the mountain, usually trying to recover the shadows. Things like that have me a little concerned. The only hope I'm having here is that I'm not trying to pull people out of complete darkness like some of these tests are. Do you think in a situation like that you would notice the dynamic range issues? I currently use a d750 and even there I'm feeling like I could use a little bit more dynamic range actually. And unfortunately the z6iii has less dynamic range than the d750.
@@StriderGTSwe respect your concern, in your case just get the cheaper Z7ii for maximum IQ, if your coming from a D750, or wait another 2-3 years for a Z6-4..and if you are shooting outdoors well lit at ISO 100 these new generation of cameras DR are all excellent.
@@StriderGTS In this test, the highlight of the z6iii seems a tad better at the 3 stop overexposed image. Look at the sky at the top on the left and right. These must be due to the lens vignette, but you can see the blue goes lower than the z6ii. It seems that overall they are very very close.
@@StriderGTS I don't think you will have issues with the Z6iii in the situations you describe, and I highly suggest you watch this video: ZJ Michael's YT video titled "Nikon Z6II vs Nikon Z6III - Image Quality Review"
You'll see that in scenes where the contrast between the darkest and brightest areas of the image are not as great that you'll get great shots that cleanup easy and are barely distinguishable.
In scenes where you do have a very bright subject mixed with poorly lit subjects you will have noise, but it's not nearly as bad as some of the reviewers are making it out to be. In a picture I took on the 4th of July my daughter's had their backs to me while my brother-in-law was lighting some roman candles about 10m away. Their faces were partly lit and recovered flawlessly. The only areas that were rougher in terms of DR noise were the backs of their dresses which were in complete darkness and needed a great deal of shadow boost to recover. This on an image that was exposed at 1/1000 at ISO 750. In short, as I noted above, fewer photons. Something you won't see in the sorts of daytime images where the number of gathered photons will be higher so boosting those shadows won't be nearly as rough. In short Tony's test (and even the example Christopher Frost gives in his new review which I recommend) are extreme edge cases of shadow recovery. It is a bit of a bummer that it's not up to snuff with the Z6/ii, but the faster readout means the AF on this thing is a beast and that has been a game changer. Best autofocusing camera I've owned, certainly on par with the Z8 (I rented one for the eclipse).
And regarding that photo, it cleaned up very nicely in LR's AI noise reduction. Could barely tell.
FWIW, I switched from a D750 to a Z6 and noticed no loss in IQ, if anything images on the Z6 are much cleaner and don't have the same magenta color casts you'd see on the D750 when pushing some shadows, especially in the corners/edges of the D750's frame. This even though the D750 comes out on top according to charts. Point being, numbers aren't everything.
Meanwhile, what the Z6iii has afforded me is insane focus capabilities. I have little kids and taking their pictures at a local carnival this past weekend nearly every shot of them (while on fast moving rides) was spot on in focus. On my Z6 and D750 I never had such a hit rate, note close (they've been going to this kiddie carnival since they were toddlers).
I tend to have all my pictures locked down but if I remember I can try to upload some to Flickr and share one or two examples. That said def watch ZJ Michael's comparison to the Z6ii in more real-world/common lighting conditions. And also check out Christopher Frost. He too was bummed by the drop in DR but he is far more egalitarian and IMHO professional about it than Tony Northrup was.
PS - I hate that Tony has gone down that path. I was a big fan of Tony's and still am for the most part but both he and Chealsea have been slapping clickbait titles and thumbnails to all their content for years now. I started watching his content ages ago (star trails videos) but IMHO he like many others are beholden to the algorithms. Frost is not like that...
Anyway, a lot of info here BUT I promise you this camera rocks.
If you really want my advice on such a big purchase - Head on over to Lens Rentals and rent the camera for a week. I did so with the Z8 for the eclipse and to get an idea of where the Z-mount's AF was at back in April. If you do rent the camera from them, let me know and I can email you a link that will help you and me (I'm small potatoes but I'm looking to rent/tryout the 180-600 and that referral would help me.)
@@StriderGTS Overall exposure choice is going to impact you more than having a Z6iii verses a D750. DR decreases as your ISO increases. Once you are shooting at ISO 800 and above on the Z6iii you have slightly more DR than the D750 for the rest of the iso range. If you are shooting an event or on a mountain top you should avoid shooting in a split lighting situation.
In your Travel photo example take 2-3 bracketed shots. Expose for the people. Then expose for the sky, in subsequent shots. In the current version of LightRoom is it super easy to replace the background sky. Bracketing is how we dealt with the more limited DR of our older DSLRs. ND filters was another way to take care those pesky bright skys. DR in the Sensor is not the only way to deal with difficult exposure situation. Think about this, Color Slide film has a very poor dynamic range, usually only about 5 stops while maintaining detail and color. The D750 has 11.4 Stops at ISO 100. The Z6iii has 10.4 Stops at ISO 100. So a Z6iii has over double DR of color slide film.
Most negative film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. So the D750 is still has less DR than some negative film. The Hasselblad X2D 100C 15-stop dynamic range, and 16-bit colour depth. Maybe when Nikon has a 16Bit Colour Depth Sensor we will have 15 Stops of DR.
Haven’t purchased my Z6iii yet but I figured that the dynamic range took a small hit! I’m keeping my Z6ii as my backup for everything except when I’m out shooting landscape. Thanks for doing this! 👍🏾
I only use my cameras for photography . Seeing many such videos after Tony Northrup My conclusion is: with such small differences in image quality and dynamic range and the large differences in autofocus performance and viewfinder brightness and resolution seems to make the upgrade from a DSLR to a Z6III worthwhile.
I upgraded for the Autofocus performance of the Z6iii!
After using the Z6iii for a few weeks, that new Viewfinder is a nice improvement over the Z8 viewfinder.
@@williambuford6136 I've used both and still prefer the z8 viewfinder. Yes the z6iii has more resolution but the z8 viewfinder is still more bright and has 120hz option which just looks amazing when tracking subjects or any kind of shooting with movement. z6iii is still 60hz
The Photons to Photos site that Toneh points to in his "test" actually shows that the Z6III matches the dynamic range of the z8 & z9 up to ISO 400, between 400 and 650ish the Z8 and Z9 have slightly more dynamic range, but by ISO 800 and onward they all match up again. But I don't hear anyone complaining about the dynamic range in the z8 or z9. Sure, the z6II, z7 and Zf seem to have consistently slightly higher dynamic range but, again, by ISO 800 the z6II, z6III, z7, z8, z9, zf ALL have roughly the same DR. The Sony a7III lags behind all of them between ISO 630 and 1200ish before catching up. And as you and many other folks on RUclips are now demonstrating the real world differences in DR if you are not shooting magazine pictures are negligible.
Great analysis! Thank you! I was worried there for a second after Tony Northrup's take on the Z6 III, but that was quite the elephant he made of the mosquito.
Thanks!
That guy is a Nikon Hater
If you are in the Nikon System and do not need the new Videospecs/new AF i guess there is no need to "upgrade" from the Z6II to the Z6III - both are very nice and Pro level cameras.
But the AF alone was with it for me. It’s so good compared to Z6ii.
Z6iii is good for sports because 20fps is help alot
@@LorenzoFrausto Have you done any very low light comparisons? I shoot in super dim settings a lot with the Z6ii and I'm eager to know more about how the two compare in that regard.
Thanks very much for taking the time to do this analysis and your excellence in actually do the video; i.e. showing pics, good volume control, and speed of talking. Great job!@
Thanks!
Thank you for doing a photo centric video. I don't use the video side of a camera, and this shows me that the Z6 II is good enough for my needs.
It looks like they actually found a nice sweet spot between DR vs readout speed for the price. +3 stops exposure looks great. The DR only falls apart in extreme scenarios where the shot is unrecoverable anyway on any camera. The color shift is toward green instead of magenta and less intense. So I wouldn't use the Z6iii if I commonly found myself boosting shadows by 4 or more stops, but for me that is rare.
Great video and a fair conclusion, thanks!
Maybe people are making a bigger deal about this than necessary. In real world usage, I rarely go above ISO 3200, and I pretty much never underexpose by 3+ stops, so by the time you notice a difference in quality at the extremes, both cameras are not performing great, and I don’t expect to use results from either. Thank you!
During BIF photography you will often be above ISO 3200 with detail of your Bird possibly 3+ stops below the background sky, yet you can recover that Shadow detail and have a great photo.
Thanks for doing these comparison tests, I'm sure they will help many people. I think it would have been better to use people as the subject, rather than inanimate scenes to do comparisons between 2 cameras, as noise, lack of sharpness and and deterioration of definition are far more obvious when zooming in on peoples faces.
Super helpful video. Much appreciated! Thanks! Seems that we are at a point is digital cameras where sensor tech has pretty well leveled out and the next push is more about processing speeds and performance. Great place to be!
Thanks! Glad it was helpful!
High iso is funtional in low light. So high iso day light compretation will not give thru result.
Thanks for this video. Great and to the point. 🎉🎉🎉
There's pros and cons for both cameras. If you have a z6 II you'll have to decide what you're willing to give up to get something different.
Excellent job! I’ve been wanting to get back to the S Series lens system and I watched this for probably the opposite reason, that is to see if the Z6II performs at least as well as the III for stills. I don’t shoot video and af performance isn’t a big deal for me. I’ll save a few bucks on the II and have a nice travel and Astro camera (plus I’ve always liked Nikon color science). For wildlife I’ll continue to use an R5 anyway. Again, nice work.
The Z6II is a great camera… enjoy it!
Nice work Z! Tony Northrup did a video showing poor dynamic range when pulling up the exposure in underexposed images. Not sure why you are getting differing results. Interesting.
I can explain. Tony chose a test knowing that it would produce a very poor (i.e. low) SNR for all cameras involved and therefore push the limits of the DR test. That's because he did a test in a controlled studio where the only thing being lit was the properly lit book cover. Meanwhile, the 2nd book cover was in complete darkness so the number of photons bouncing off it is near zero.
Ask yourself, in how many photos you take do you have a subject under a spotlight while also wanting to expose the subject in darkness. Not many.
The outdoor images have more ambient light so even the shadowed areas will produce photons that are collected so the SNR will be higher and so when you recover shadows you have better results.
Tony certainly knows this, but Tony can't help himself, he wants to capitalize on this drama and get some clicks. FWIW I really like Tony, always have since I watched his star trails photography tutorials, but like most content creators, he is beholden to the algorithm...
Tony dynamic test is garbage. Just doesnt make sense that a 0.8 stop less in z6iii would that be far off. Wierd thing he photograph a photo in a magazine and zoomed it in. Theres another dynamic test video that compared dynamic range (kelly sparks photography channel) showing very similar results with z6ii. It correlates with this video
@esOterra Thanks! The lighting conditions in my tests are quite a bit different than Tony's... may have something to do with it.
@ElGrecoDaGeek thanks for your analysis
Tony love a hating on Nikons and that video was number one vs a Z5 and a Z7ii and at 6 stops under exposed, and then he recommended the Z7ii over the new Z6iiinfor events which makes no sense. No photographer is shooting 6 stops under exposed, specially on a mirrorless camera. That makes no sense.
Anyway to share the files, just to test how the images clean up with noise reduction and different software.
this kind of comparation that i looking for, no i know the image quality are simmilar for this two camera, thankyou for making this videi. this is very help me to decide to take z6ii cuz i dont really need z6iii feature, n z6ii autofocus is enough for me...
Could you compare it with a7iv ?
Might be able to do that… will need to see if I can acquire an A7IV to test with
only if you are blindfolded you underexpose or overexpose by +5 or -5 stops.
It is not the aim, what this tells you is how much DR you can have with your camera. In this test for example you could easily choose to underexpose by two stops to preserve you highlights for example in a backlight situation.
It is perhaps me, but the 3 stop highlights in the z6iii looks a little bit better than the z6ii one. For example the blue sky which I think is because of the lens vignette goes a tad lower for the z6iii. It is a minute difference, same as we look in the shadows.
I just wished my z6ii came with flippy screen. I went to a nikon event where we could play and test out the z6iii and man i love the flippy screen. Everything else was cool. But i want that screen as it make low angle shots easier to take.
Thanks this is a nice real world comparison.
I'd be curious to see a comparison against the z8 and the z6iii - the photons to photos charts show that they have basically the same DR at the same iso.
Z8 has better DR at ISO 64, 100, 500, 640, almost a full stop of DR over the Z6iii. From 800 ISO up the Z6iii is better slightly
I loved the test involving increasing exposure in astrophotography, would it be possible to do the same test with the Z7 II in the future?
I could probably do that
This really is a what are you using it for decision for me. I would only upgrade if I wanted to use it for video. Or if the fully articulating screen is worth it to you. The fps and buffer size may be worth it for doing sports, formula 1 or wild life photography. FYI - I am shooting a Z6ii and Zf.
Nikon should update the Z5II with the ZF sensor and Expeed 7 focus. The Z6iii is a very well rounded camera.
If you shoot video, the Z6 II's 8-Bit 4:2:0 wont cut it. Z6 II is great for stills and simple video, especially if you use Nikon's Flat Profile. Otherwise, the Z6 III is an improvement in almost every way
And to the folks always complaining just get the cheaper Z7ii , if your looking for top notch IQ then grab the Z7ii 😂
Would you recommend this camera for nightscape, Milky Way? In your opinion do you think is better “low light camera “ than the z9 ?
Thank you so much and great information like always!
Get the cheaper Z8 👍
@demipita9090 I'd guess that the low light performance is pretty close between the Z6III and the Z8/Z9 (when downscaled to 24MP). I'll probably do a dedicated video on the Z6III's landscape astrophotography performance once I get a chance to shoot some more images under the stars, but so far it seems like a solid camera for nightscapes.
@@camilo8cheryl i own the z9
@@ZJMichaels i really appreciate it sir, definitely i am looking forward to see your review! I own the z9 , and the z6iii is coming this Wednesday. I purchased thinking will have a better results in low light ( not only for the 24mp)
Sony for low light. Nikon z6iii has terrible shadow recovery. Hard pass for Nikon.
You will see the most noise difference with long exposure night shots. Doesn't look like much of anything.
Why is it that z6ii iso 6400 is a little better than z6iii when we are told that z6iii has dual gain iso and the second base kicks in at iso 6400.
The dual gain of 6400 is just in video NLOG. For photos it kicks in around ISO 800.
Just bought the z6III and I have been so disappointed with the focus and the softness of the images I’m getting from the sensor. I also have a z8 and original z6. Even the old z6 with the exact same settings, light, subject etc is noticeable sharper on the eyes. Is my camera just a lemon? Maybe a software update could help? SO bummed out…any thoughts? Thanks everyone.
That’s strange. I haven’t noticed those issues at all. Yeah sounds like you got a lemon
You have to take the lens cap off first to take a shot
@@deutschhhhh6922 thanks douche
@@deutschhhhh6922 ahhh that was it…
Nice “real world” comparison.
I think those photographers who do bird and aviation photography will probably be better off with the Z6 II because they do encounter a wide dynamic range in their photography. Those who do street, travel and general photography might never encounter any issues. Now, the $64 question - will you pay so much more for the Z6 III?
Yes but focus?. The ZF its intermediate in terms of focus but grip? jaja....
Yes! Mine will arrive tomorrow👍I have missed golden moments on my Z6ii/Z7ii back focusing..for me those lost moments are irreplaceable..i was in the fence to get the Z8 but the lower resolution make my work more productive and fast turnaround..if i want to use my studio lights for that portrait work ill grab the Z7ii, but for events/moving subjects the Z6-3 will be the right tool.
I own both cameras. BIF you will get more keepers with the Z6iii. The focusing matters here big time. Birds move swiftly. The Z6ii is ok for Aviation photography, as it can lock onto the less erratic and large planes with its Focusing ability. I would use my D500 over my Z6ii for BIF, until I upgraded to a Z8. Now The Z6ii will be sold as the Z6iii has replaced it for me.
@@pacoperezabella The ZF is the sweet spot if you ad a nice grip!
@@camilo8cheryl Charge your clients more for those 45MP photos! Yes the workflow for 24MP is much faster and takes up less storage space. I do love that 45MP output But I think I need to upgrade my computer, just so I can use Denoise on my 45MP photos.
I immediately think about pixal size. Larger pixals would reduce the noise significantly
Если честно, то я не вижу ни какой разницы. Когда это дойдет до зрителя он тоже не увидит. 99% экранов не показывает точный оттенок. И 100% печати не даст правильный цвет. Я молчу о том, что большинство людей воспринимают цвета по разному. И большинством людей перебрасывает файлы через мессенджеры, которые изменяют качество и цвет.
НО! Если вы работаете в институте точных мер и волн цветовых спектров, то возможно вам будет не всё равно. Но это фотоаппарат, а не прибор. Это вопрос творчества, а не науки.
Если ваши фото вас не удовлетворяют, то вряд ли дело в фотоаппарате..😉
Basically the Z6 iii only is worse if you are a terrible photographer that needs to constantly fixing so badly in post he or she would up 4 or 5 stops....if not it's the same
Barely even still, less than one stop of DR is negligible at best. RUclipsrs always have to hyper focus of minute specs with a fine tooth comb to stay relevant. No office to this channel I am sure others that I don't even view anymore plastering this all over their headlines I imagine.
More terrible wanna be photographers watching YT Vs Vs and Test Test videos these days..they are more focused on camera YT reviews they completely forgot how to use it..these are the people that i can teach how to use Auto feature 😂
Can’t accept ”Facts?” Typical Nikon shooters 😂.
@@alphaandomega2709I own a Gfx100s and I can tell you that these Nikon images are fine and 100% professional quality in every way lol. Stop being a troll
Basically the Z6ii is a good buy if it can compete with a Z6iii
And the winner is my D3x😅
haha! awesome
@@ZJMichaelsPeople ask why Nikon is putting out a 24MP camera in 2024. Well I guess Nikon has a surplus of 24MP sensors originating from 2008 when they had the D3x in production😅😅😅
I think before the d800, Nikon sony based sensors were a bit bad in terms of DR.
LOL love to see a D3X verses the Z6iii
Can you please make a comparison video between Z7ii vs Z6iii.
The price of Z7ii is lesser (around $2000) than Z6iii ( amazon US).
Please make a comparison video . Or please suggest which camera would make a value for money purchase.
Those are the two cameras I currently own and yes I will be doing a comparison video in the next week or two actually
Thank you for the response. I really appreciate it. Actually I have been saving up for the last 3 years now. To buy a Z6III. But the price variation between Z6 ii and Z6iii is trememdous.
So i am confused now. If i am spending that much, should I go in for Z7ii or Z6iii.
Also, please make a detailed comparison if possible.
Thanks again!!❤
Seems like that the Z6-2 is a lot better in the photography side of things and the Z6-3 has just added features. There is a point where only features are added to the Z6-3 but the sensor's final result looks like is going a little backward when it comes to noise. Too much publicity for nothing it seems.
I'm not sure where you're getting that conclusion from given the (real world) shooting results in this video. Did you watch the video?
All the other click-baity content creators covering the DR issue are doing just that, trying to get clicks and not properly reporting the situation.
You're talking about 2/3 of a stop lower DR at ISO > 100 and < 800 and 3/4 of stop at ISO 100. In a properly lit scene, including landscape and studio portrait photography, the detail you will recover from shadows will be on par with what you see in this video. Not very noticeable.
In Tony Northrup's low light dungeon example that is not the case because Tony knew that such a test was going to push the sensor to its limits. While Tony did a valid test, it wasn't one that tests a very common real-world situation. That is unless one is a photographer who takes pictures of mushrooms under spotlights but also insists that he boost shadows on shrooms not under the spotlight and in near total darkness... Sure it shows an example were the 6iii falls behind, but that example will not apply in 99.999% of photography. The sort that like ZJ did that represents real world situations.
FWIW, the Z6iii's AF is next level compared to the Z6ii. It also exhibits much less rolling shutter. I'm quite certain those traits will matter far more than this fraction of a stop at low ISO.
in the photography side..... hmm i think sports and wildlife come within that photography side
@@ElGrecoDaGeekno its not real world at all , not like gothic churches , dark (for color pigment protection reasons) museums , castles and caves all with flash interdiction exist.
Ah sorry forgot that the US is a bit short on those.
Pundits getting dumber and dumber shooting above ISO 5,000 complaining about noise😂🤦🏻♂️ Tony had brain bug and forgot to shoot in real world using ISO below 2,500..and pundits watching YT will prefer their old slow Z6 camera with fewer keepers and back focusing issues than the faster expeed 7 Z6-3😂 if your not shooting in a dark cave where Tony must be using his camera, your all good and will love the budget friendly Z6-3 with ton of features👍
Well the ZF is then maybe a good choice! 😊