Tony has left the chat, lol. Great test! I'm a working photographer and pay my bills with my camera. I felt like his test was nonsense and you showed exactly why. Kudos!
@@kellysparksphotography I wouldn't even dare go over/under 3 stops on my GFX. I think it's just good practice (and a ton of common sense) to expose for the subject or point of interest in your image. I can't wrap around how DR is still an issue in this day and age. All camera brands have pretty good DR and today's software tools that let you quickly do selective exposure adjustments in an image just makes it even more of a moot point.
@@enshongmiranda The latitude doesn't work this way, this shows you how much highlight and shadow detail you have, lets say you have a white sky with even some sun in it and a face you have to expose to, With this test you can be ok to expose by at least 3 stop under to preserve the highlight.
I want to mention something as someone who shoots a lot of fashion and gives a perspective most people here won't have. The Magenta in the extreme underexposure comes from IR pollution. You will see this in much less extreme situations with a lot of special, often awful expensive garments and this is a hell to edit out. This is even more pronounced by a couple of flash brands/tubes, something no one is really testing. It is also a huge problem with a lot of Softboxes, they can even empower this behavior. Means with the right garment, you can see an awful magenta shift at iso100 without underexposure, just from the combination of the camera sensor, softbox, flashtube and black garment. If the sensor has now a better IR Cut filter, this can lead to a bit more noise in super weird underexposure tests, but for fashion photographers this can mean hours of less editing in normal shoot conditions.
Great stuff, good enough to convince me the partially stacked sensor of the Z6 III is no worse for DR against the older BSI ones. More importantly, this saves me from ever having to watch TN's videos :-P
Tony Northrup is a biased blind canon fanboy ...he is a paid reviewer and no matter how Good Nikon performance are he always tried to create some bad drawback of Nikon which misguided the camera buyers....
Tony is struggling for relevance. He wants the clicks Thanks for you testing and info. I might add, that per the photos to photos testing, the Z6iii showed some of the best shadow recovery. Heads above any other Z line camera.
That’s a helpful, clear, and most importantly *pragmatic* comparison between the old and new sensors. Seems like Nikon have done a good job holding onto the image quality despite a slight technical narrowing of the DR in the Z6III sensor. For the price it’s a fantastic camera as far as I’m concerned particularly for video where the ISO6400 high-native setting does wonders in marginal lighting conditions.
Tony N. has recently shown himself to be an un-serious person when it comes to review content and methodology. He's now released back to back Nikon reviews that come off more as hit-pieces. First the Zf "long term review" (with about as much depth as a Day 1 review on any other channel) where they compare with Fuji, only on UX, though, saying Fuji is vastly superior. There are no AF, Image Quality or Feature comparisons with Fuji to be had. Then they do a tough AF test (subject running at camera is always hard), show some missed shots, but have controls with other cameras to compare against. Then this Z6III DR video, where he compares it to a Z7II (not fair comparison because it's been shown multiple times that higher MP cameras preserve details better in noisy situations). Then he goes on to make the un-serious suggestion that for weddings you're better of with a Z7II??? 1. Who's underexposing by 6.3 stops at a wedding? 2. It's a known fact that the Z7II has much worse low-light AF, so you're much more likely to miss the moment with that camera, which is what's far more important in Event Photography than shadow recovery. If you go back and look at his Z6III specs announcement video, I think he reveals his hand. Apparently he's been black-balled by Nikon from receiving any review samples since the original launch of the Z cameras. I think as a previous life-long Nikon guy, this bruised his ego or something, and now he's just out to get them. Unfortunately this means his content is basically trash, and he's not worth watch. Sorry for that long rant, just had to let it out after your reference to Tony N.. As for your video, I think it was very well-done with well-controlled test. Looking forward to more!
@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020 I remember the video he shot with his wife, where they were discussing the industry, I think it was close to 3 years ago, he speculated that Nikon would close up. Never forget.
@@chrismacky7548 as much as I would classify JP in the same category as TN when it comes to their bias against nikon, JP at least has something good to say about the Z6 III in his latest review.
I'm actually seeing generally the Z6III has less chroma noise, mainly reds. The Z6III has bolder, more saturated color rendering. The Z6II does have better retention of the mid tones and shadows, but they tend to be splotchy when recovered. So basically it seems the Z6III loses maybe 1 stop at worst, but gains even more accurate color rendering.
Tony is just mad because he wasn’t invited by Nikon event for the Z6 III. People can’t comprehend that stacked sensor take a small hit. Regardless of manufacture. Look how bad the A9 III is vs A9 II, A1 too. That’s the nature of these sensors. But I think it mostly has to do with Nikons LOG that needs updating
Obviously Tony is an extremely canon biased fanboy, hates Nikon since the start of his career, that's how he paid from canon and youtube to create misleading information about Nikon
Hi Kelly, thank you for posting your test results. I literally ran my own tests between my z6iii and the z6 and ZF last night as I too was curious about the way Tony had achieved his results. The results of my tests mirror yours (including the blacks clipping test). In real world there really isn't a massive difference that you would see on a regular basis. However, the point has to be made that rolling shutter and issues with shooting fast action on slower sensors will be easily noticeable. I think the Z6iii is a cracking little camera. As a side note I think you might want to run a high ISO test between the cameras as I found the 6iii to also produce slightly (very slightly) better results in that department also. Thanks again
Yes, I am also somewhat concerned about the higher noise of the Z6iii compared to the Z6ii, as Tony is not the only one wo has Notizen this. Based on what I've seen on "testcams" especially on "photons to photo" the disadvatages in noise and dynamic range cannot be ignored.
What a roller coaster week with a great ending. From this point whatever Nikon have done with this sensor it seems to have been the right choice with no compromise worth worrying about. Now if the high iso is less noisy than the Z8/9 then we have even more to be happy about.
I believe that Tony's test was done using a photo of a photo (originally shot with a Canon camera over 10 years ago... and we know how 'good' Canon's dynamic range was! - the worse in the business I dare say back then).
Thanks for this video, it clears up the air a bit... (much needed these days). As you know I normally underexpose 8 or 9 stops... No wonder my images are a bit weird... (Good job!)
Great Video! That gave me some new perspective about the Z6 iii‘s capabilities. I‘m very interested in a similar comparison between the Z6 iii and Z 8 since the price gap between the the two is not that big over here in europe. Particularly as a wildlife photographer I’m very curious if the smaller pixels of the Z8 end up being a big disadvantage in comparison to the Z6 iii. I’d be super glad if you could do a similar video about that :)
This was helpful! I had a feeling the z6iii DR might be technically less but in practice not matter at all. Also in the DR charts that Tony used, at iso100, the z8 and z6iii are basically the same DR. (tho the z8 can go down to iso64 so it can get an overall DR advantage)
Like yourself I have both the Z6II & Z6III. I've done one shoot so far with the newer Z6III with approx 2000 photos captured. I used the electronic shutter for every image ( it was an outdoor event ). Having edited the resultant images in Lightroom I didn't notice any issues regards dynamic range although I didn't need to recover any images as they were for the most part exposed correctly. Most of my shots were at base ISO 100 but I did quite a few up to ISO 500. Admittedly thats not particularly high and any modern sensor should cope with much higher ISO's and still get relatively clean results. I did watch Tony Northrop's video, I can't remember if he said if his Z6III shots were taken with the electronic or mechanical shutter. Would that make any difference anyway? All in all I'm a very satisfied Z6III owner, the AF seems as good as my Z9 and that unlimited 20fps buffer is incredible! If there is a dynamic range hit due to the part stacked sensor than I didn't notice it in real use but then again if I was shooting five stops out I'd have to question if photography is something I should even be doing in the first place 😊
@@kellysparksphotography - Hey, your methodology of testing, are you taking the same exposure on both images, and pushing them in post both up/down exposures? I think they tried to over expose 5 stops and bring it down and under expose and bump it up 5 stops. Can you try that?
@@IPGAuto, I purposefully under and over exposed each test by various g the shutter speed. High shutter speeds resulted in under exposure, low shutter speeds resulting in over exposure.
The DR is not the issue at 5 or 6 stops under. Its the noise in the Z6-3 image is the issue. The noise is visible to me in your pics starting at around 4 stops, and at 5 stops its quite noticeable, but it can be fixed with tools like Topaz.
Fantastic video. Thanks for taking the time to run the tests and share your results. I stopped watching Tony awhile back because but got sucked into his video on this, which had me doubting if I would get a Z5III because I would be using it for weddings. Well I guess I can go back to ignoring him lol.
@@TheJugaadProduction thanks. Current the only way to save footage to an external SSD, is via HDMI. I have a NinjaV. It would be awesome if Nikon would enable USBC to SSD, but that isn’t a feature currently.
What about if you're shooting a scene that has a variance of more than 6 stops between shadows and highlights? Say, for example, a landscape shot at dawn or dusk with the sun in play? Just wondering whether to go for the Z7 ii or the Z6 iii. Or hold out to see if a Z7 iii comes out. I get that these are two different cameras, for different purposes. Just wondering out loud :)
@@Unshouthat's what lighting the scene, exposure compensation, bracketing and HDR modes are for. It's good to know the camera can darn neat see in the dark but let's be realistic here.
@@nightowlnzab Nope, you just have to get someone darker skin under and overcast cloud. I live in a tropical Island with gorgeous beaches and turquoise lagoons. Your cell phone would get you great postcards, but put a couple in their and try to expose well.
If you want to improve Tony’s test methodology, please do it better not worse. Forget the remote, get two humans and put one under the sun and the other one in varying degrees of deep shadow. Thank you for trying 😊
@@olesheim that would be a different test. Two humans could never stand perfectly still for 20min. But your comments are most welcome. Many more tests coming. Cheers!
Josh Sattin did a dynamic/noise test comparing Z6III against Canon Rc and Black Magic 6k camera. He filmed himself in front of a window which is a challenging shot and when zoomed I saw both more noise and green tint to the shadows. I saw it in yours too. A couple of points: 1. How does it compare with current cameras in the same price range. To nit pick even if the Z6III performed the same as the previous version then why buy the new camera if the image quality is the same or a touch worse? Yes I understand there are other improvements but purely on IQ which most ppl care about. 2. What type of situations are you planning to use it for? What is good enough for me might not be for someone else. So it's subjective. My take away is that there is a small trade off that has been made for faster readout and autofocus performance using a partially stacked sensor. I think under normal situations it's fine and I would value better AF than DR. In fairness to Tony he set out to test if it's visible. The answer is yes. Then we can debate whether it was fair or useful in the real world. What is good enough? That's when everyone will have their own opinion. So I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong.
@@kellysparksphotography Answer to No.1 is- Why would people buy Sony A9i/A9ii/A9iii over a Sony A7iii ? Why would people buy A7R5 over A7R4 ? Answer to No. 2- Name a hybrid camera in this price category or any category that lets you recover 6 stops under without having rolling shutter issues ?
I have also seen his test, one thing that puzzles me is that the DR/ latitude, was about the same for the H265 10 bit log and the raw version. Which simply can't be as the h265 log is already quite contrasty. In the CineD test of the z9, their is about two stops difference between the h265 log compared to the Nikon Nraw. Nikon has a very bad implementation of its Nraw video workflow with its super contrasty Log profile. Just by changing from Nikon Log to Panasonic Log, Gerald undone got half a stop better DR. I hope we get someone to do a latitude test of the Z6iii in Nraw with different profile. In this test we are like 1 to 2 stop better latitude that his test. About 3 above and 5 to 6 below.
@@danielvilliers612 I agree there was no appreciable difference with raw and log. This is the danger of making a buying decision from the manufacture specs release reviews. They often can be technically true but still misleading. How many consumers going to do that test and out of those who's going to return the camera because of that?
Hallo Kelly! Ein richtig gutes Video! Wie immer mit Sachverstand und objektiv! Besten Dank!!! Ich warte leider immer noch auf meine Z 6III. Beste Grüße aus Deutschland!
Thank you for making a realistic test of the DR range we'll actually be using instead of cherry picking the worst possible value and then comparing to the best DR camera models in the Z range at their best ISO to maximize how bad you can make the Z6iii look. Funny how another large subscription base CZcamsr did that, right on the heels of a ZF hit piece for fuji. It seems like Nikon traded some extreme ends of DR that we won't use in real world shooting for speed and AF capability we will use. That is a tradeoff I prefer.
Thanks for this - it's good to see some real examples. I think post people who need anything close to 7 stops of dynamic range would bracket! They look virtually the same in most of the examples. I think it's a real non-issue.
6:45 - Personally, at -5, I find them simply different. Z6 II tends to go on the magenta side, while the Z6 III on the green-ish side. At -6, you can noticed it even more. 9:07 - I think you can also see here. I would say the Z6 III keeps color noise a little more under control, but difficult to judge looking at a screen.
Is the Z6II "clipping" the blacks because its lower noise let's it reach 0 in the shadows while the higher noise in the Z6III prevents it from ever getting down to 0?
At 8:03 although the z6iii has a consistent green shift, there seems to be much more blotchy magenta areas showing up in thez6ii. I prefer an even color shift. I would love to see these same tests done at higher ISO's. From my limited testing the z6iii has better high ISO performance than my z9.
Tony just wanted to get some clicks/integrations to feed the algorithm. He chose a composition with an overexposed subject and a barely exposed subject and pushed that because he knew that the resulting exposure required to not blow out the overexposed subject (1/80th at ISO 100) would tank SNR on the shadows given the limited number of photons that could be captured. There are so many other examples of real-world photos, including unevenly exposed subjects such as in wedding photos he described in this video, that clean up very nicely on the Z6iii. His example was the most outlier of outliers. I started watching his videos back in 2011, specifically his star trails videos. I admire his passion, but he, like many other big name photogs, sold out to the algorithm and sponsorships. He might say he makes all his money off book sales and that he just has our wallets in mind when he makes such videos, but, sad to say, I've not bought it for a long time. His methods are based on science, but he's performing the most obsurred test that can be devised. It may have given the nod to the Z5, but consider that the QE (Quantum Efficiency) of the Z5 is much lower than the Z6iii given the latter is a BSI sensor, and you realize he's really pushed the limits of any sensor. (Sorry if I repeated a bit but it's late) In short, while other sensors may "win" under those conditions, how many photographers will find themselves taking photos in those conditions, with those exposure settings, and then pushing their files that much. What I know is the Z6iii and other Nikon cameras produce amazing images but compared to the Z6/ii Z7/ii Z5, the Z6iii's AF is in a league of its own and that is a difference I know I will see in all my images.
Thanks for this test. I saw Tony's too. Personally, I think the Z6iii outperformed its predecessor. I see more color shift in the 2 version the more underexposed the images were.
TN really looked like he was cherry picking the worse possible setting he could find and then comparing to the highest DR Z cameras he could fine to maximize how bad he could portray the Z6iii. It's hard to take him seriously when he didn't bother comparing to other stacked sensor cameras, where the Z6iii is basically par for the course. He also couldn't figure out the Zf ISO in 8 months, so there's that.
do you think where the z63 really excels is low light high iso performance? some are saying its one of the best available, especially with a base iso of 6400. what do you think. i enjoy your methodology, very clear and easy to follow. thanks for the video
See Tony's review the last time he was invited by Nikon to review the Z6 (1). Everything he said and did was wrong, downright stupid, therefore he was never invited by Nikon again. Btw, nice review, thanks.
Thank you for this Kelly. New sub here. I sold my Z6II before the III was launched so I couldn't 't do a side by side comparison. You did it for me. I haven't noticed any perceptible difference in image quality between the two cameras, noise wise or otherwise. Both are excellent. I will say that the Z6 III is a huge upgrade over the Z6 II for a sports action shooter.
this was great as this brought some reality in T’s ‘test’. Thank you for clarifying by giving facts. What a photographer would underexpose an image 8 stops and then try to recover it? A 10 year old would know better.
When you say 'straight out of the camera' do you mean raw or JPEG? Also, I think you miss the point completely when you ask 'how many images are 8 stops under'. The point is can you deal with scene with extended brightness range. Plus, quite a bit of confusion about what exposure is, and how you set it. Clipping to black is all about where the black point is set, not much about the sensor - it's about your processing tools.
@@kellysparksphotography Thanks for the clarification. I don't think that the term 'SOOC' makes much sense applied to raw files. The major difference between raw and JPEG is that in the former none of the basic rendering decisions, like how light or dark the image looks, the colour balance applied or, crucially, the black and white levels have been made, whilst in a JPEG they all have. There is no 'SOOC' look for a raw file, all of that is done in the raw processing software. Sure, they have defaults, but that's all they are, and they differ from program to program. The question of selection of black and white points is crucial to the results you can get when working to the extremes of available DR, as is how you apply DR. When you consider that the demosaicking algorithm, that varies from software to software, has a key effect on visible noise, whether or not you apply NR, then it becomes very difficult to say hard and fast things about DR. The analytical numbers give a clue to the what's available (about 1/2 stop more for the Z6III than the Z6II), but it's that, a clue. And the truth is, for most photographers sensor DR is not really an issue. Far too much is made of it.
@@BobN54 Thaks for the additional information. I guess I should call it, SOOMC. Straight out of my camera, and explain my setup a bit more, along with “your mileage may vary”. Appreciate the feedback!! Cheers
@danielvilliers612 no there's a clear difference z6iii turns into greenish hue not really much of a shift on the z6ii at least not as obvious gets noisy but colors still look relatively normal
I don't get it. Is the measurement from photons to photos accurate or not? I'm not talking what do we see in the photos. My S23 is much slower than S24. But that's true in paper. In real life you won't tell the difference. But the measurements are accurate. So are the measurements for Z6 III accurate or not. That's the question. And numbers never lie even though they don't tell the whole truth. They tell their own truth. So what's gonna be?
@@georgemcr1802 as I said in the video, we are nitpicking at 100%. In reality there isn’t much of a difference between the Z6ii and Z6iii on iso performance. IMHO.
Good work and unbiased. Well done!👍👍 The “other guy” is just an egotistic idiot with absolutely no knowledge of anything, creating unnecessary controversial content to generate traffic. I have my CZcams setup not to recommend his channel, but it still pops up from time to time with nonsense click bait headlines. I won’t take the bail. 😂
You misunderstood your own test. Look at the word "ENTER" and it disappears on the left image as exposure decreases. On the last test, the word is gone on the left and not on the right.
I think this shows that the two camera ISO are not the same. The Z6ii one seems a bit lighter than the z6iii. Which in fact could mean the are about same DR, as at 9.05 when watching the patches above the z6iii retains more color and black border than the z6ii, while clearly the image is darker of the remote below.
Tony Northrup has already blocked my comments after I wrote some negative things about his reviews. This just shows that this man has an agenda and cannot be taken seriously.
Hi Kelly, Thank you for your effort and the time you spent on your tests. I also find it more advantageous to use real objects instead of potentially low-quality printed photos for testing purposes. I would have been very interested in an object with gradients in your testing conditions, as I find it difficult to assess a remote control, which almost exclusively has homogeneous colors without fine gradients. Best regards Pawel
That's a great unbiased work. Truly practical and real. Not just a lab test. I've a question, is this noise issues in high iso or slightly less DR can be managed later to atleast 1 stop with Nikon's firmware update?
@@rajp5493 many thanks. 1) DR - 1,2 or 3 stops is certainly manageable in post. DR + 1 or 2 is certainly manageable in post. 2) High ISO is somewhat subjective. You would need to define high. Also, in every case, cropping makes the results worse, so that is also a factor.
@@CJMajesty I guess there are always some differences, however so slight. The images are at 100%. In a normal universe-cropped view, it would be harder to see. At 200%, easier..
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 CZcams are now demonstrating the real world differences in DR if you are not shooting magazine pictures are negligible.
Bill Claff knows how to test, unlike this utuber. And no, z6iii and z8/9 don't have the same DR, z6iii (10.44) is almost a stop behind z8 (11.31). DR at high ISOs rarely matters, it's rarely about highlights clipping (and if you care you can always use lower ISO and correct in post). At high ISO's SNR is what matters, and here again Z6iii is about a stop behind Z6ii. The same is true about z8/9 at high ISO, but at least they have ISO 64 so they manage to get as good DR as Z6ii.
This test seems quite invalid. What ISO settings were used for these tests? I didn't see any attempt to recover details from under-exposed areas to see how the image holds up. This test seems unreliable and deceptive. You guys should acknowledge that the Z6III's dynamic range is not particularly impressive and move on. Try comparing the Z6III dynamic range with the Fuji xh2s and see how bad it is. It's not even close. The xh2s is more than two stops better than the Z6III, and yet the xh2s is a full-stacked sensor and cropped. Z6III dynamic range is about 10.3 stops based on all the reputable tests I have seen so far.
That is what he did when he brought the image from -1 ev to -8 ev. Those images are in total darkness. This is how latitude test are done, except that in general we put a human of mannequin and a test chart.
We did the test ourselves a few days ago, and found that it really is much worse than what Toni found. And Toni had again made a typical poisonous praise for Nikon in his video. I shoot with a Z9 and we did the comparison with Z6ii and Z6iii. I don't know why you don't see it in your shots, but the Z6iii is significantly worse than the Z6ii, but still better than the Z9 in terms of noise. And it's not about correcting the exposure by 4 stops. If you need to do that, you should learn photography first. It's enough if you just use the slider in Lightroom to lighten the shadows. This is something that is much more relevant in practice. And you can see the difference immediately. So our own tests have absolutely confirmed Tony's tests and we are Nikon photographers, so far from wanting to denigrate the brand.
I've shot with the Z9 for years, and if it's worse than the Z6iii, than the Z6iii will be just fine. My Auto ISO limit is set to 25,600 on the Z9 and ISO is the very last thing I give a rat's ass about when I shoot. My output, when handled with skill and proper tools, is better than 99% of output I see posted online.
@@bsc001 the partially stacked sensor is a marketing gimmick once people have the camera in their hands the poor dynamic range is evident. they're trying to play with the big boys, and this isn't the way. It has poor dynamic range in video as well.
@@bsc001, I think I’m the only person who said the sensor would be stacked, 8 months ago. In my view, all the competing bodies in the $2500 price range will have stacked sensors of some kind. The Canon R6iii is rumored to use the r3 sensor. Some trade offs for sure, but intentional.
Tony may not be perfect, but three things: - His test was more robust/ well thought out - His test confirms other third-party testing - He doesn't care about the DR in the Z6III, he tests many cameras. This and many of the comments are pure copium.
![Nikon Z6 III - Dynamic Range Test [real-world example]](/img/n.gif)
Tony has left the chat, lol. Great test! I'm a working photographer and pay my bills with my camera. I felt like his test was nonsense and you showed exactly why. Kudos!
@@bluemystic7501 many thanks!
If you have to correct 5 stops of over or under exposure, it's not the camera that's at fault.
@@enshongmiranda right?!?!?
@@kellysparksphotography I wouldn't even dare go over/under 3 stops on my GFX. I think it's just good practice (and a ton of common sense) to expose for the subject or point of interest in your image. I can't wrap around how DR is still an issue in this day and age. All camera brands have pretty good DR and today's software tools that let you quickly do selective exposure adjustments in an image just makes it even more of a moot point.
@@enshongmiranda The latitude doesn't work this way, this shows you how much highlight and shadow detail you have, lets say you have a white sky with even some sun in it and a face you have to expose to, With this test you can be ok to expose by at least 3 stop under to preserve the highlight.
Exactly
Maybe in high contrast scènes, when you want to recover some shadows, it might be a problem, despite a proper exposure?
I want to mention something as someone who shoots a lot of fashion and gives a perspective most people here won't have.
The Magenta in the extreme underexposure comes from IR pollution.
You will see this in much less extreme situations with a lot of special, often awful expensive garments and this is a hell to edit out.
This is even more pronounced by a couple of flash brands/tubes, something no one is really testing.
It is also a huge problem with a lot of Softboxes, they can even empower this behavior.
Means with the right garment, you can see an awful magenta shift at iso100 without underexposure, just from the combination of the camera sensor, softbox, flashtube and black garment.
If the sensor has now a better IR Cut filter, this can lead to a bit more noise in super weird underexposure tests, but for fashion photographers this can mean hours of less editing in normal shoot conditions.
@@TasteofTaboo super helpful!
great point! Thanks (I hope the brand you mentioned isn't Broncolor!)
Great stuff, good enough to convince me the partially stacked sensor of the Z6 III is no worse for DR against the older BSI ones. More importantly, this saves me from ever having to watch TN's videos :-P
@@quagmire321able many thanks! :)
Tony Northrup is a biased blind canon fanboy ...he is a paid reviewer and no matter how Good Nikon performance are he always tried to create some bad drawback of Nikon which misguided the camera buyers....
@@Jackourd I didn't watch his stuff even back when I was still using Canon. Found it too much fluff with no substance 😛
Tony is taking pix at only 25,000 iso😂🤦🏻♂️ looks like he forgot to shoot below 2,500 ISO… or use it in the real world scenario..
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is a total fail.
Tony is struggling for relevance. He wants the clicks Thanks for you testing and info. I might add, that per the photos to photos testing, the Z6iii showed some of the best shadow recovery. Heads above any other Z line camera.
That’s a helpful, clear, and most importantly *pragmatic* comparison between the old and new sensors. Seems like Nikon have done a good job holding onto the image quality despite a slight technical narrowing of the DR in the Z6III sensor. For the price it’s a fantastic camera as far as I’m concerned particularly for video where the ISO6400 high-native setting does wonders in marginal lighting conditions.
Tony N. has recently shown himself to be an un-serious person when it comes to review content and methodology. He's now released back to back Nikon reviews that come off more as hit-pieces.
First the Zf "long term review" (with about as much depth as a Day 1 review on any other channel) where they compare with Fuji, only on UX, though, saying Fuji is vastly superior. There are no AF, Image Quality or Feature comparisons with Fuji to be had. Then they do a tough AF test (subject running at camera is always hard), show some missed shots, but have controls with other cameras to compare against.
Then this Z6III DR video, where he compares it to a Z7II (not fair comparison because it's been shown multiple times that higher MP cameras preserve details better in noisy situations). Then he goes on to make the un-serious suggestion that for weddings you're better of with a Z7II??? 1. Who's underexposing by 6.3 stops at a wedding? 2. It's a known fact that the Z7II has much worse low-light AF, so you're much more likely to miss the moment with that camera, which is what's far more important in Event Photography than shadow recovery.
If you go back and look at his Z6III specs announcement video, I think he reveals his hand. Apparently he's been black-balled by Nikon from receiving any review samples since the original launch of the Z cameras. I think as a previous life-long Nikon guy, this bruised his ego or something, and now he's just out to get them. Unfortunately this means his content is basically trash, and he's not worth watch.
Sorry for that long rant, just had to let it out after your reference to Tony N.. As for your video, I think it was very well-done with well-controlled test. Looking forward to more!
@@b34k97 many many thanks!!
TN has shown his disdain for Nikon over and over again he just don't want to admit.
@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020 I remember the video he shot with his wife, where they were discussing the industry, I think it was close to 3 years ago, he speculated that Nikon would close up. Never forget.
@@chrismacky7548 as much as I would classify JP in the same category as TN when it comes to their bias against nikon, JP at least has something good to say about the Z6 III in his latest review.
TN couldn't figure out how to use the Zf ISO in 8 months, that's all you need to know about how serious to take him.
I'm actually seeing generally the Z6III has less chroma noise, mainly reds. The Z6III has bolder, more saturated color rendering. The Z6II does have better retention of the mid tones and shadows, but they tend to be splotchy when recovered.
So basically it seems the Z6III loses maybe 1 stop at worst, but gains even more accurate color rendering.
Tony is just mad because he wasn’t invited by Nikon event for the Z6 III. People can’t comprehend that stacked sensor take a small hit. Regardless of manufacture. Look how bad the A9 III is vs A9 II, A1 too. That’s the nature of these sensors. But I think it mostly has to do with Nikons LOG that needs updating
Obviously Tony is an extremely canon biased fanboy, hates Nikon since the start of his career, that's how he paid from canon and youtube to create misleading information about Nikon
@@Jackourd He's more of a Sony fan now, but his Nikon relationship has been s**t for a while. They basically boycotted him when the Z8 came out.
You didn’t need to extend your sentence beyond the first four words...
Pretty amazing. In low light situations, that would allow you to use higher shutter speeds to hand-hold the camera and still capture usable shots.
Great video! The pressure for attention pushes for cherry-picking and exaggeration. As Public Enemy said "Don't believe the hype!"
Hi Kelly, thank you for posting your test results. I literally ran my own tests between my z6iii and the z6 and ZF last night as I too was curious about the way Tony had achieved his results. The results of my tests mirror yours (including the blacks clipping test). In real world there really isn't a massive difference that you would see on a regular basis. However, the point has to be made that rolling shutter and issues with shooting fast action on slower sensors will be easily noticeable. I think the Z6iii is a cracking little camera. As a side note I think you might want to run a high ISO test between the cameras as I found the 6iii to also produce slightly (very slightly) better results in that department also. Thanks again
Yes, I am also somewhat concerned about the higher noise of the Z6iii compared to the Z6ii, as Tony is not the only one wo has Notizen this. Based on what I've seen on "testcams" especially on "photons to photo" the disadvatages in noise and dynamic range cannot be ignored.
What a roller coaster week with a great ending. From this point whatever Nikon have done with this sensor it seems to have been the right choice with no compromise worth worrying about. Now if the high iso is less noisy than the Z8/9 then we have even more to be happy about.
@@kjltube iso comparison is next.. :)
@@kellysparksphotographyLooking forward to that! Subscribed.
I believe that Tony's test was done using a photo of a photo (originally shot with a Canon camera over 10 years ago... and we know how 'good' Canon's dynamic range was! - the worse in the business I dare say back then).
Thanks for this video, it clears up the air a bit... (much needed these days). As you know I normally underexpose 8 or 9 stops... No wonder my images are a bit weird... (Good job!)
Great Video! That gave me some new perspective about the Z6 iii‘s capabilities. I‘m very interested in a similar comparison between the Z6 iii and Z 8 since the price gap between the the two is not that big over here in europe. Particularly as a wildlife photographer I’m very curious if the smaller pixels of the Z8 end up being a big disadvantage in comparison to the Z6 iii. I’d be super glad if you could do a similar video about that :)
@@TomPeters-ux6ef many thanks.
I don’t own a Z8.. but I do plan on doing an iso test for wildlife at long focal lengths..
A buddy of mine has the z6III and he returned it because the dynamic range and AF were a step back from the R6 II that he already had.
This was helpful! I had a feeling the z6iii DR might be technically less but in practice not matter at all. Also in the DR charts that Tony used, at iso100, the z8 and z6iii are basically the same DR. (tho the z8 can go down to iso64 so it can get an overall DR advantage)
@@plusplus940 Many thanks!
Got mine few days ago and pretty happy with it, Tony Northup lately been publishing Clickbait videos. This is an amazing camera for the price.
Thank you very much for your practical and comprehensible test. Tomorrow my Z6 III will arrive and i am so happy!
@@momentlichfotografie4903 many thanks!
time to deal with the wife now... (Don't under expose her! lol!!)
Like yourself I have both the Z6II & Z6III. I've done one shoot so far with the newer Z6III with approx 2000 photos captured. I used the electronic shutter for every image ( it was an outdoor event ). Having edited the resultant images in Lightroom I didn't notice any issues regards dynamic range although I didn't need to recover any images as they were for the most part exposed correctly. Most of my shots were at base ISO 100 but I did quite a few up to ISO 500. Admittedly thats not particularly high and any modern sensor should cope with much higher ISO's and still get relatively clean results. I did watch Tony Northrop's video, I can't remember if he said if his Z6III shots were taken with the electronic or mechanical shutter. Would that make any difference anyway? All in all I'm a very satisfied Z6III owner, the AF seems as good as my Z9 and that unlimited 20fps buffer is incredible! If there is a dynamic range hit due to the part stacked sensor than I didn't notice it in real use but then again if I was shooting five stops out I'd have to question if photography is something I should even be doing in the first place 😊
@@dunnymonster Right!! Elec vs Mech wouldn’t matter in these tests.
Truly the Z6iii is a great piece of kit..
good point. 5 stop or less seems the sweet spot in most real-life applications
@@kellysparksphotography - Hey, your methodology of testing, are you taking the same exposure on both images, and pushing them in post both up/down exposures? I think they tried to over expose 5 stops and bring it down and under expose and bump it up 5 stops. Can you try that?
@@IPGAuto, I purposefully under and over exposed each test by various g the shutter speed. High shutter speeds resulted in under exposure, low shutter speeds resulting in over exposure.
@@kellysparksphotography - Did you try with both electronic and mechanical shutter?
The DR is not the issue at 5 or 6 stops under. Its the noise in the Z6-3 image is the issue. The noise is visible to me in your pics starting at around 4 stops, and at 5 stops its quite noticeable, but it can be fixed with tools like Topaz.
Thank you Fr taking the time to test the Z 6 III HDR. Dan
He didn't anything close to testing DR. 😁
The only thing that a six stop underexposed image is good for is the recycle bin.
Fantastic video. Thanks for taking the time to run the tests and share your results.
I stopped watching Tony awhile back because but got sucked into his video on this, which had me doubting if I would get a Z5III because I would be using it for weddings. Well I guess I can go back to ignoring him lol.
@@kotsy Many thanks!
Thanks a lot!!
@@spinthma you are very welcome welcome
Thanks for making this video! It is more informative and a better test than Tony Northrop’s test.
Many thanks!
Looks good, thank you for making this video.
Very Interesting tests thanks Kelly! QQ is it possible to save footage directly to an external SSD?
@@TheJugaadProduction thanks.
Current the only way to save footage to an external SSD, is via HDMI. I have a NinjaV. It would be awesome if Nikon would enable USBC to SSD, but that isn’t a feature currently.
No one is going to miss exposure by more than 3 stops...
What about if you're shooting a scene that has a variance of more than 6 stops between shadows and highlights? Say, for example, a landscape shot at dawn or dusk with the sun in play? Just wondering whether to go for the Z7 ii or the Z6 iii. Or hold out to see if a Z7 iii comes out.
I get that these are two different cameras, for different purposes. Just wondering out loud :)
@@Unshou if you’re working that extreme of a scenario, it’s probably worthwhile using options like bracketing.
@@Unshouthat's what lighting the scene, exposure compensation, bracketing and HDR modes are for.
It's good to know the camera can darn neat see in the dark but let's be realistic here.
@@nightowlnzab Nope, you just have to get someone darker skin under and overcast cloud. I live in a tropical Island with gorgeous beaches and turquoise lagoons. Your cell phone would get you great postcards, but put a couple in their and try to expose well.
If you want to improve Tony’s test methodology, please do it better not worse. Forget the remote, get two humans and put one under the sun and the other one in varying degrees of deep shadow. Thank you for trying 😊
@@olesheim that would be a different test. Two humans could never stand perfectly still for 20min. But your comments are most welcome. Many more tests coming. Cheers!
Josh Sattin did a dynamic/noise test comparing Z6III against Canon Rc and Black Magic 6k camera. He filmed himself in front of a window which is a challenging shot and when zoomed I saw both more noise and green tint to the shadows. I saw it in yours too. A couple of points:
1. How does it compare with current cameras in the same price range. To nit pick even if the Z6III performed the same as the previous version then why buy the new camera if the image quality is the same or a touch worse? Yes I understand there are other improvements but purely on IQ which most ppl care about.
2. What type of situations are you planning to use it for? What is good enough for me might not be for someone else. So it's subjective.
My take away is that there is a small trade off that has been made for faster readout and autofocus performance using a partially stacked sensor.
I think under normal situations it's fine and I would value better AF than DR. In fairness to Tony he set out to test if it's visible. The answer is yes. Then we can debate whether it was fair or useful in the real world. What is good enough? That's when everyone will have their own opinion. So I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong.
@@petercofrancesco9812 all good points.. I try to be impartial.. add additional info where I can. Thanks for the input!
@@kellysparksphotography
Answer to No.1 is- Why would people buy Sony A9i/A9ii/A9iii over a Sony A7iii ? Why would people buy A7R5 over A7R4 ?
Answer to No. 2- Name a hybrid camera in this price category or any category that lets you recover 6 stops under without having rolling shutter issues ?
I have also seen his test, one thing that puzzles me is that the DR/ latitude, was about the same for the H265 10 bit log and the raw version. Which simply can't be as the h265 log is already quite contrasty. In the CineD test of the z9, their is about two stops difference between the h265 log compared to the Nikon Nraw. Nikon has a very bad implementation of its Nraw video workflow with its super contrasty Log profile. Just by changing from Nikon Log to Panasonic Log, Gerald undone got half a stop better DR. I hope we get someone to do a latitude test of the Z6iii in Nraw with different profile. In this test we are like 1 to 2 stop better latitude that his test. About 3 above and 5 to 6 below.
@@danielvilliers612 I agree there was no appreciable difference with raw and log. This is the danger of making a buying decision from the manufacture specs release reviews. They often can be technically true but still misleading. How many consumers going to do that test and out of those who's going to return the camera because of that?
Hallo Kelly! Ein richtig gutes Video! Wie immer mit Sachverstand und objektiv! Besten Dank!!! Ich warte leider immer noch auf meine Z 6III. Beste Grüße aus Deutschland!
@@Clark-kw2uh many thanks!
Thank you for making a realistic test of the DR range we'll actually be using instead of cherry picking the worst possible value and then comparing to the best DR camera models in the Z range at their best ISO to maximize how bad you can make the Z6iii look. Funny how another large subscription base CZcamsr did that, right on the heels of a ZF hit piece for fuji. It seems like Nikon traded some extreme ends of DR that we won't use in real world shooting for speed and AF capability we will use. That is a tradeoff I prefer.
@@kalimarus Many thanks!
Thanks for this - it's good to see some real examples.
I think post people who need anything close to 7 stops of dynamic range would bracket!
They look virtually the same in most of the examples. I think it's a real non-issue.
@@namboozleUK many thanks!
6:45 - Personally, at -5, I find them simply different. Z6 II tends to go on the magenta side, while the Z6 III on the green-ish side. At -6, you can noticed it even more.
9:07 - I think you can also see here. I would say the Z6 III keeps color noise a little more under control, but difficult to judge looking at a screen.
Would be nice if he could share the files as we are looking through youtube compression.
@@danielvilliers612 this is a great point.. I’ll post the files next time, and note the location in the notes.
Is the Z6II "clipping" the blacks because its lower noise let's it reach 0 in the shadows while the higher noise in the Z6III prevents it from ever getting down to 0?
@@JimVajda82 idk. Maybe?
Really im nitpicking at 100%. In the end, really nearly no difference.
At 8:03 although the z6iii has a consistent green shift, there seems to be much more blotchy magenta areas showing up in thez6ii. I prefer an even color shift. I would love to see these same tests done at higher ISO's. From my limited testing the z6iii has better high ISO performance than my z9.
@@Euphabone I plan on an iso test next. I ran a bunch today.. it is rather subjective, but I’ll get something out soon.
Nice test finally i can buy z6lll
Great job, Kelly. Very balanced presentation.
@@DarrellYoung Thank you Darrell.
Tony just wanted to get some clicks/integrations to feed the algorithm. He chose a composition with an overexposed subject and a barely exposed subject and pushed that because he knew that the resulting exposure required to not blow out the overexposed subject (1/80th at ISO 100) would tank SNR on the shadows given the limited number of photons that could be captured. There are so many other examples of real-world photos, including unevenly exposed subjects such as in wedding photos he described in this video, that clean up very nicely on the Z6iii. His example was the most outlier of outliers.
I started watching his videos back in 2011, specifically his star trails videos. I admire his passion, but he, like many other big name photogs, sold out to the algorithm and sponsorships. He might say he makes all his money off book sales and that he just has our wallets in mind when he makes such videos, but, sad to say, I've not bought it for a long time. His methods are based on science, but he's performing the most obsurred test that can be devised. It may have given the nod to the Z5, but consider that the QE (Quantum Efficiency) of the Z5 is much lower than the Z6iii given the latter is a BSI sensor, and you realize he's really pushed the limits of any sensor.
(Sorry if I repeated a bit but it's late)
In short, while other sensors may "win" under those conditions, how many photographers will find themselves taking photos in those conditions, with those exposure settings, and then pushing their files that much.
What I know is the Z6iii and other Nikon cameras produce amazing images but compared to the Z6/ii Z7/ii Z5, the Z6iii's AF is in a league of its own and that is a difference I know I will see in all my images.
And the Z5 can’t even focus in -5EV. So there is that. The Z6III will not only focus but will find faces in such darkness.
Thanks for this test. I saw Tony's too. Personally, I think the Z6iii outperformed its predecessor. I see more color shift in the 2 version the more underexposed the images were.
@@JackBeasleyMedia yes. Agreed.
TN really looked like he was cherry picking the worse possible setting he could find and then comparing to the highest DR Z cameras he could fine to maximize how bad he could portray the Z6iii. It's hard to take him seriously when he didn't bother comparing to other stacked sensor cameras, where the Z6iii is basically par for the course. He also couldn't figure out the Zf ISO in 8 months, so there's that.
Thank you :)
@@hoani_goivideos5615 you are welcome!
Thank you so much for giving so many facts, I really appreciate the work you put into making this video.
do you think where the z63 really excels is low light high iso performance? some are saying its one of the best available, especially with a base iso of 6400. what do you think. i enjoy your methodology, very clear and easy to follow. thanks for the video
See Tony's review the last time he was invited by Nikon to review the Z6 (1). Everything he said and did was wrong, downright stupid, therefore he was never invited by Nikon again. Btw, nice review, thanks.
@@rotvonrat many thanks.
Thank you for this Kelly. New sub here. I sold my Z6II before the III was launched so I couldn't 't do a side by side comparison. You did it for me. I haven't noticed any perceptible difference in image quality between the two cameras, noise wise or otherwise. Both are excellent. I will say that the Z6 III is a huge upgrade over the Z6 II for a sports action shooter.
@@hughbyrne5633 thanks! Yes, for sure!
this was great as this brought some reality in T’s ‘test’. Thank you for clarifying by giving facts. What a photographer would underexpose an image 8 stops and then try to recover it? A 10 year old would know better.
@@user-es2ne8zf4o Right?!?! Many thanks.
thank you for the useful content ! If you have time and desire I would like to see a high iso comparison between these two.🙏
@@user-kv9bt6sd7r I’ll do it!!
Just to clarify, all these shots were sooc jpegs not raw ?.
@@IanKnight40 yes. I took screen shots at 100% view, Raw files in Lightroom.
I agree, wonderfully useful and presented clearly.
Glad it was helpful!
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment... The II has better control of tinting, less noise, and more detail in the darker parts of the image.
Great and methodical comparison. Thank you for making time to compare and share with us.
@@TouchLifeStudio Many thanks!
Shooting at iso 100 doesn’t tell the full story. How about shooting at 6400 iso and comparing move 1 or 2 stops… that is a much more real life example
@@jamiecurrie4590 iso is my next video
When you say 'straight out of the camera' do you mean raw or JPEG? Also, I think you miss the point completely when you ask 'how many images are 8 stops under'. The point is can you deal with scene with extended brightness range. Plus, quite a bit of confusion about what exposure is, and how you set it. Clipping to black is all about where the black point is set, not much about the sensor - it's about your processing tools.
@@BobN54 thanks for the input!!
@@BobN54 SOOC, loaded 14 bit raw images into Lightroom with no processing, zoomed to 100% crop, took screen shots on 24” monitor.
@@kellysparksphotography Thanks for the clarification. I don't think that the term 'SOOC' makes much sense applied to raw files. The major difference between raw and JPEG is that in the former none of the basic rendering decisions, like how light or dark the image looks, the colour balance applied or, crucially, the black and white levels have been made, whilst in a JPEG they all have. There is no 'SOOC' look for a raw file, all of that is done in the raw processing software. Sure, they have defaults, but that's all they are, and they differ from program to program. The question of selection of black and white points is crucial to the results you can get when working to the extremes of available DR, as is how you apply DR. When you consider that the demosaicking algorithm, that varies from software to software, has a key effect on visible noise, whether or not you apply NR, then it becomes very difficult to say hard and fast things about DR. The analytical numbers give a clue to the what's available (about 1/2 stop more for the Z6III than the Z6II), but it's that, a clue. And the truth is, for most photographers sensor DR is not really an issue. Far too much is made of it.
@@BobN54 Thaks for the additional information. I guess I should call it, SOOMC. Straight out of my camera, and explain my setup a bit more, along with “your mileage may vary”. Appreciate the feedback!! Cheers
Can’t believe you didn’t show clipping in the highlights
@@Yupthereitism That’s a fair point..
I thought about it, but ran out of time..
I’ll consider that as an update on my next video. Very Best!
Z6iii definitely has a green tint z6ii colors dont change
It goes magenta, both have a shift.
@danielvilliers612 no there's a clear difference z6iii turns into greenish hue not really much of a shift on the z6ii at least not as obvious gets noisy but colors still look relatively normal
Well done. Thank you.
@@TCinSoCal many thanks.
I don't get it. Is the measurement from photons to photos accurate or not? I'm not talking what do we see in the photos. My S23 is much slower than S24. But that's true in paper. In real life you won't tell the difference. But the measurements are accurate. So are the measurements for Z6 III accurate or not. That's the question. And numbers never lie even though they don't tell the whole truth. They tell their own truth. So what's gonna be?
@@georgemcr1802 as I said in the video, we are nitpicking at 100%. In reality there isn’t much of a difference between the Z6ii and Z6iii on iso performance. IMHO.
Tony does it for the clikbait Fuzz about nothing
Good work and unbiased.
Well done!👍👍
The “other guy” is just an egotistic idiot with absolutely no knowledge of anything, creating unnecessary controversial content to generate traffic. I have my CZcams setup not to recommend his channel, but it still pops up from time to time with nonsense click bait headlines. I won’t take the bail. 😂
You misunderstood your own test. Look at the word "ENTER" and it disappears on the left image as exposure decreases. On the last test, the word is gone on the left and not on the right.
I think this shows that the two camera ISO are not the same. The Z6ii one seems a bit lighter than the z6iii. Which in fact could mean the are about same DR, as at 9.05 when watching the patches above the z6iii retains more color and black border than the z6ii, while clearly the image is darker of the remote below.
@@vidthreenorth4007 good input. Thanks!
Tony Northrup has already blocked my comments after I wrote some negative things about his reviews. This just shows that this man has an agenda and cannot be taken seriously.
Hi Kelly, Thank you for your effort and the time you spent on your tests. I also find it more advantageous to use real objects instead of potentially low-quality printed photos for testing purposes. I would have been very interested in an object with gradients in your testing conditions, as I find it difficult to assess a remote control, which almost exclusively has homogeneous colors without fine gradients.
Best regards Pawel
this is exactly the reason why I don't watch TN's videos!
That's a great unbiased work. Truly practical and real. Not just a lab test. I've a question, is this noise issues in high iso or slightly less DR can be managed later to atleast 1 stop with Nikon's firmware update?
@@rajp5493 many thanks.
1) DR - 1,2 or 3 stops is certainly manageable in post. DR + 1 or 2 is certainly manageable in post.
2) High ISO is somewhat subjective. You would need to define high.
Also, in every case, cropping makes the results worse, so that is also a factor.
Nice comparison Kelly. Thanks for sharing.
@@arlennercessian4261 many thanks..
I can tell the difference starting -3
@@CJMajesty I guess there are always some differences, however so slight. The images are at 100%. In a normal universe-cropped view, it would be harder to see. At 200%, easier..
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 CZcams are now demonstrating the real world differences in DR if you are not shooting magazine pictures are negligible.
Bill Claff knows how to test, unlike this utuber. And no, z6iii and z8/9 don't have the same DR, z6iii (10.44) is almost a stop behind z8 (11.31). DR at high ISOs rarely matters, it's rarely about highlights clipping (and if you care you can always use lower ISO and correct in post). At high ISO's SNR is what matters, and here again Z6iii is about a stop behind Z6ii. The same is true about z8/9 at high ISO, but at least they have ISO 64 so they manage to get as good DR as Z6ii.
You photographed the worst subject for this test. A dusty remote control unit/ dust particles resembling digital noise. Fail!
@@Arcticfox7 oh yea!! Great point.. Thank you for the input.
You Lost Me, At Tony Northrup!👎🏿
Best.
This test seems quite invalid. What ISO settings were used for these tests? I didn't see any attempt to recover details from under-exposed areas to see how the image holds up. This test seems unreliable and deceptive. You guys should acknowledge that the Z6III's dynamic range is not particularly impressive and move on. Try comparing the Z6III dynamic range with the Fuji xh2s and see how bad it is. It's not even close. The xh2s is more than two stops better than the Z6III, and yet the xh2s is a full-stacked sensor and cropped. Z6III dynamic range is about 10.3 stops based on all the reputable tests I have seen so far.
That is what he did when he brought the image from -1 ev to -8 ev. Those images are in total darkness. This is how latitude test are done, except that in general we put a human of mannequin and a test chart.
@@danielvilliers612 Even at four stops under exposed he was getting clean shadows. That's hard to believe.
@@nigerian-nightmare all shot at 100 iso.
@@nigerian-nightmare It is the part where you nearly have only blacks. I think you would have seen a little bit more noise on grayer/midtone areas.
We did the test ourselves a few days ago, and found that it really is much worse than what Toni found. And Toni had again made a typical poisonous praise for Nikon in his video. I shoot with a Z9 and we did the comparison with Z6ii and Z6iii. I don't know why you don't see it in your shots, but the Z6iii is significantly worse than the Z6ii, but still better than the Z9 in terms of noise. And it's not about correcting the exposure by 4 stops. If you need to do that, you should learn photography first. It's enough if you just use the slider in Lightroom to lighten the shadows. This is something that is much more relevant in practice. And you can see the difference immediately. So our own tests have absolutely confirmed Tony's tests and we are Nikon photographers, so far from wanting to denigrate the brand.
You are saying something and its complete opposite.
I've shot with the Z9 for years, and if it's worse than the Z6iii, than the Z6iii will be just fine. My Auto ISO limit is set to 25,600 on the Z9 and ISO is the very last thing I give a rat's ass about when I shoot. My output, when handled with skill and proper tools, is better than 99% of output I see posted online.
Nikon cutting corners not a good strategy
Ok, I will bite. Which corners have been cut?
@@bsc001 the partially stacked sensor is a marketing gimmick once people have the camera in their hands the poor dynamic range is evident. they're trying to play with the big boys, and this isn't the way. It has poor dynamic range in video as well.
@@Mr.Zen_73 Their is no poor dynamic range, the z6 was among the best at 15+ stops on Imatest/Xyla test. It went from fantastic to a little worst.
@@danielvilliers612 ok fan boy whatever you say
@@bsc001, I think I’m the only person who said the sensor would be stacked, 8 months ago. In my view, all the competing bodies in the $2500 price range will have stacked sensors of some kind. The Canon R6iii is rumored to use the r3 sensor. Some trade offs for sure, but intentional.
Tony may not be perfect, but three things:
- His test was more robust/ well thought out
- His test confirms other third-party testing
- He doesn't care about the DR in the Z6III, he tests many cameras.
This and many of the comments are pure copium.
@@ScreenFiends hey, thanks for your comments.
I am an indian and i’m just booked that camera and saw that video it was just heartbreaking but after watching ur video i feel good 👍