Nikon Z6 - what do you think?

From my experience with the various MILC offerings, the Nikon system allows for the smoothest transition from DSLR to MILC. Other than the shifting of the AF button from the left side of the lens mount to the custom button on the bottom right it works just like your D750.

The AF system will remind you of the interface/style that you use while in Live View mode. It sill is PDAF however so don't get put off by it.

Image quality wise, I'd say its a bit better than the D750 but that is more so because of the newer lens design and processing rather than anything else. Whether it will last 5-10 years is debatable. Nikon is still a new entry to this segment and their APS-C offering was a joke.

The question is do you really need the new tech? MILC increases costs all around. Lenses are more expensive, battery life will be lower for a while and the system is not as proven as their DSLR.

The biggest advantages you will see is live exposure preview, which is a double edged sword and better video features. As a former D750 user myself I would rather wait for the second gen cameras from Nikon before getting into their system. This will also give time for the lens ecosystem to be built. You can also use this time to save up some cash and get more info.

Rent it and test if possible.

 

I currently have a D750 myself and looking to switch over to mirrorless this Christmas. I need video capabilities for weddings although main use will be photography and the D750 is not a viable option for videos at all. Canon seems to be releasing great glass but their bodies are one of the worst if not the worst. Sony bodies are definitely the most mature, offering great hyrid cameras with excellent AF performance however their ergonomics and weather sealing as well as their gmaster fast zoom lenses falling behind Nikon and Canon offerings (DSLR variants) who knows how far they will be one they release their mirrorless pro zoom lenses. Panasonic also caught my eye, unlike canon and nikon they seem to be offering dual card slots which is desirable for pro wedding use. Furthermore their sensors are manufactured by Sony so I have no doubt that the low light capabilities and Dynamic range will be excellen, aswell as offering 4k 60 fps video!

There are too many choices at the moment and some of the systems have not quite matured and currently lack some of the key lenses for professional work. It might be wise to wait for the second generation of cameras from Nikon Canon Panasonic, who knows Sony may release an insane alpha camera with next generation sensor which has even better dynamic range and low light performance.

On the plus side, Sigma has been releasing great native glass for Sony FE mount, the 35mm f1.2 and 14-24 f2.8 DG DN zoom lens. I expect these lens to have a great optical performance, most likely better than sony native lenses. Sigma also annouced 24-70 f2.8 designed for sony body natively which is being released in december and rumours have it that they are working on a 70-200 f2.8. It might be a good idea to switch to Sony if you are not too heavily invested into the Nikon ecosystem. Their cameras bodies technology will most likely last a lot longer than the first iteration of Nikon and Canon mirrorless cameras.

 

Quick thoughts on each system as I have used it:

Nikon:

They offer the easiest transition from DSLR to MILC. Operation is barely different between the two. Down side is that there are few lenses on offer and will take a while before its truly fleshed out. With the Z series cameras they are taking video more seriously, however the best performance is gated by the requirement of an external recorder.

Canon:

Many people find the EOS R to be lackluster. IMO it does what it was meant to, offer a MILC version of the 5D IV. The camera does operate very differently than their DSLR counterparts though and requires some set up/customization before use. Video features still are lackluster. The system offers the most number of unique lenses with the likes of the 28-70 f/2, the f/1.2 primes, etc. Avoid the EOS RP.

Sony:

This is what I currently own. They offer a camera that is feature rich but is a pain to use over all. It requires the most customization of any system that I have used. They are also the most mature of the MILC (FF) systems. There are a wide range of native and third party lenses and the newer ones are really good. IMHO the biggest drawbacks are QOL issues and the color science.

Fujifilm:

They have some amazing cameras as of this generation. Till the X-T2/20 there were some issues like a bit of hesitation with the AF. The Third gen cameras are amazing. The biggest advantage is the portability of the system, a fully fledged lens ecosystem and one of the best colour sciences. With the release of the X-H1 they are also taking video more seriously.

For those who want to step up from Full Frame (35mm), they are the only brand that offers an affordable Medium Format system. There are/were some issues with the GFX system, will elaborate if required.

Panasonic:

The MFT system is their most mature line up. If video is your focus then Panasonic is the best brand to go for atm for the non ProAV sector. The new S1H is a beast and will most likely become a mainstay for many indie/budget filmmakers. Their AF is sometimes mediocre compared to others as of this gen. IMO the video file are a pleasure to work with. The S1R is no slouch when it comes to resolving details either.

Olympus:

N/A. was supposed to get one of their cameras for testing but haven't followed up. I know they have good weather sealing and some interesting lenses.

Some of the things I consider when choosing a camera:

• Do I like using it? (Rent if possible) (ergonomics, customizability etc)
  
• Is it reliable/consistent? (Battery life, AF performance etc)
  
• Does it offer all the required hardware support for the work I do? (Lenses, Flash support, video accessories, etc)
• Does it have the required features for the work I want to do? (higher bit depth/rate video options, WFM etc)
  
• How is the Image quality? Is there any drawbacks with the files such as Sony's Raw processing? (color reproduction, High ISO performance etc)

For what its worth, other than the MFT systems (for stills), image quality is not really an issue. Most cameras can resolve enough details for all but the most demanding clients. The files also have enough data that you can push a couple of stops without stressing too much.

 

Thank you for the comprehensive summary of your experience with each of the systems. Putting our personal preferences aside, I think it is looking good for consumers as each manufacture is pushing out newer and better technology due to the strict competition between them. Although some if not majority of us may be reluctant to jump onto the new mirrorless tech, I think its a matter of when not if before we see all if not majority of us switching to these new mirrorless cameras. It will take time just like it with the jump from film to digital as the new systems do provide better technology which will make it more convenient for us photographers.

 

My pleasure! Yes, its an exciting time to be a photographer or film maker. Like with the dawn the of DSLR the prices are still on the higher side, I guess we will see it normalize in a few years time. For the moment at least I look to DSLRs when I need speed (of operation), the best ergonomics and the least hassle. MILCs are for almost every other situation. Only time can tell as to what the final evolution of the MILC format will be.

 

Definitely, I remember DSLRs when we were afraid to go past 400/800 ISOs, now you have a7 III which can produce usable images at 3200 and 6400 ISO. Definitely looking forward to how the mirrorless cameras evolve over time.

BTW I currently own the xrite color checker passport, the Sony a7R III and a7 III is known for sub par skin tones and colour science. How does both the skin tones and colour science improve with the colour checker passport. Have you had any personal experience using this particular tool with these cameras and to what extent did you notice in its effectiveness if you have used it? I am swaying towards the a7 iii atm, unless the upcoming z6 firmware which is supposed to enable 12 bit prores raw and significant AF performance improvement changes my mind.

 

I hear you. My first camera had an old Toshiba sensor and would have so much chroma noise at higher ISOs.

I always shoot with the passport. Just going through the steps once:

• So first thing I do with my A7R3 is to set the picture profile to PP2. I shoot with strobes and Sony tends to make skin tones very very red when used with flash.This is more for chimping than anything else TBH.
  
• Second step would be to set my WB, either I use the Passport or set it to my flash's Kelvin. This is usually around 5600K, if you shoot all day long please be aware that your flash/strobe heats and changes its colour temp. I've seen as low as 3k~ after 8 hours.
• Third I get a test shot with the passport in frame.
• Fourth step can be a bit different based on what PP soft you use. In LR you can select the passport image, crop then export it to the x-rite plugin. Then you restart LR and use the corrected profile for all your shots with that light condition.

For CPO its a little more complicated, you need to export it in a specific format then import it into the X-rite software and then export the profile.

The first thing you notice once you correct the profile and WB is that it neutralizes all the skin tones. This is big for the Sony since it can shift in the Magenta/Green scale. If you shoot in with colored ambient then I'd recommend using the Camera Neutral style in your editing software. Usually the color shifts are subtle so don't be alarmed if there isn't a lot of difference.

Since I primarily shoot fashion I want the most neutral base. From there I retouch, then build up my contrast and color. The largest benefits are with skin tones that have a slight coloring. This can be the reds in Caucasian skin, yellow in mongoloid, yellow/red in darker skin tones found in south/south east Asia.

For me the last step is the export. I make sure to view the final image int he format that my client will most likely use. In this day and age its usually on a phone/tablet since most images are viewed digitally. If its for print then that requires a different edit.

Sorry for the long post and hope this answers your question. A good MUA is any day better than these tools IMHO.

 

Apologies for the delay in my response. Once again thank you for your detailed response. No doubt the Sony colour science is inferior to Nikon and Canon but at the same time Nikon and Canon is not perfect either. I think Sony mirrorless makes up for their drawbacks with their incredible AF systems and mature batteries compared to rival mirrorless bodies. I am definitely leaning towards the Sony now. However, I am not sure whether I should buy the A7R III or the A7 III. I am aware that A7 III has slightly better video (full frame 4K video) and better Autofocus system. However, the A7R III has higher MP, 3 custom dials (vs 2 on A7 III), 500k shutter life (vs 200K on A7 III), better EVF and LCD, not to mention it also comes with an external battery charger. The price is not a huge difference from the seller I am buying from, approximately £300 premium for the A7R III over the A7 III. What do you think? I think the A7R III plus A7 4 as back up when it is released later on next year. It could be a good setup for wedding photography.

 

For most I'd recommend the a7III for the simple reason that its a jack of all trades like the D750. How ever the A7rIII is better in your case since it will be a little more versatile. It will require you to rewire the way you shoot since MILC are slower to respond in general.

The a7R's AF is not all that far behind the a7 nor is it's video. As long as you tweak it to your subject matter it will work well enough.

Many believe that higher resolution means a sacrifice in ISO performance (due to smaller photosites) but that only holds true when viewing/printing at higher resolution. I myself have printed 8x12 at ISO 10000 (my key light as a tungsten table lamp) and have given it to my clients.

By custom dials I assume that you mean for controlling exposure? There are 3 on all models. The third being the control wheel on the back. This is not set to anything by default for some stupid reason.

The EVF is a plus for me since I shoot with vintage glass. Sadly it still requires you to punch in to confirm focus, especially at higher ISOs due to the noise. I find peaking to be a hit and miss thing sadly enough. This is one thing I miss when compared to using MF lenses on a DSLR.

The battery life is good but I'd recommend keeping some money for a grip. This is to make the ergonomics of the camera better not the battery life, though if you shoot all day long it will help. The sad thing about Sony is that they designed their bodies without the lenses in mind. This is easily seen in their kit 24-105 lens. If you put it on a 2nd gen body the barrel is too wide when you set the camera down. This was fixed with the larger 3rd gen body, but the ergonomics is still on the bad side.

Coming to lenses. The older glass is for the most part mediocre. Avoid things like the 24-70 f/4 or the 70-200 f/4. The newer lenses are leagues ahead optically and in AF performance. Alternatively you can get the new Tamron lenses such as the 28-75 f/2.8, these are light and sharp to boot. Funny thing is that the 28-75 was cheaper than the 24-105 kit lens when it was being sold with the camera and on a 275USD discount.

If you want to go all in on the Sony system these are the options I'd look at:

• A7r3 body
• Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
• Sony GM 70-200mm f/2.8
• Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8
• Sony GM 85mm f/1.4
• Sony 90mm f/2.8 Macro
• Samyang 135mm f/2 (MF)
• Sony GM 24mm f/1.4 (Shockingly small and light lens)
• Sony 12-24mm f/4

 

Thanks i agree with mostly what you said. I am not too fussed about low light performance as its miles ahead canon and i will buy the a7 4 as second body next year. Havivig one high mp body for print and one body for low light will be a better combo for weddings.

As for lenses i am thinkinf about the following after some indeoth research:

Sigma 14-24 f2.8 dg dn
*Sony 35 f1.8 fe
*Sony Zeiss 55 1.8
*Sony 85 1.8 fe or samyang 85 1.4 af
Possible sigma f24-70 2.8 dg dn due to be reelased next monthwill wait for reviews since 24-70 tends to be weakest zoom lens out oftheir holy trinity lenses.
The GM holy trinity zoom lenses i found rather to be weak and inconsistent with variations in samples as seen lensrental blog tests. When i say weak i am referring the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8glass compared to their nikonand canon counterparts.

Thr 16-35 f2.8 is actually good but the new sigma is sharper parti ularly around the edges not to mention 2mm wider whichcan make a differrence.

 

Variations are of course unavoidable. Also most of my work these days is in as ideal a lighting situation one could ask for since its lit by strobes. This means my lenses perform at their best, which can hide some flaws seen in other situations. That being said the 70-200 GM I got on loan was amazing. I'm not sure how much variation is there between units and its actual impact on IQ.

Samyang does have some QC issues with some lenses so please keep an eye on it. Odd thing is it happens to only certain lens models and not all of their production line.

Have you considered the new 35 f/1.2 from Sigma? That one I want to test next.

With regards to the standard zooms, I'd suggest you test shoot them since they tend to be the most critical lens for many people. This is especially true with third party lenses.

 

Yea samyang does have qc issues i will probably have to order 2 or 3 lenses and return the others if i go for the 85 1.4 route. The 85 1.8 is still a spectacular lens.

I find the sigma 35 1.2 too heavy and bulky and expensive. I dont need extreme DoF at 35mm id rather save thr cash for a 135 1.8gm although a sony 105 1.4gm would be perfectin thr near future. The new 35mm 1.8 fe is morr than capable of fullfiling my needs and its also light.

 

Good to see you've already put a lot of thought into the gear you want to get! TBH I agree with you on the 35 f/1.2, not my first choice (for the FL) at this aperture. But sadly this would be the first one for FE mount. If I recall correctly it was Sigma that pointed out the issue with the E-mount design, which according to them, makes it harder to design fast and wide lenses.

If you haven't shot much of 135 or longer it can be very awkward. For most of my initial career I shot more journalistic work so the ability to keep some BG elements with a 50/85 lens was key. The 135mm is so darn tight for most cases which was a learning experience for me. Still love it since its an amazing lens.

 

I agree with you regarding thr 135 gm lens, its the main reason why I am only going for the 85 1.8. The 85 gm is slow to focus and not super sharp like the 135 gm. I will buy a 105 gm when its released. The 105mm 1.4 art is too damn heavy. Maybe I might get the 70-200 f2.8sigma when its released based on the reviews. I think tamron is working on a 70-180mm f2.8 too but i think sigma will be sharper and have better bokeh.

I would really like a 70-200 f2.8 for outdoor shots since you are able to control the size of background elements woth longer FL lenses by cropping incamera via zoom thus eliminating mp loss compared to cropping with a wider telephoto. Background elements size and defocus ability is importsnt for portraits outside and can also be useful for certain landscape shots.

 

Also I would like to add that sigma has filed patents for a 50mm f1.2 which we are most likely to see on the L mount and FE Mount, that could be a good 1.2 lens, although a 85 1.2 would be perfect but that is a long way away.

 

A good time to be a photographer indeed! My lenses of choice will still be from the film era. They aren't perfect but they have a lot of character.

 

I have one last question regarding Sony cameras.

Situation: Taking a photo of the bride and groom whilst they walk down the isle
Lighting Technique: Slight under expose ambient light and use on camera wall bounce flash to short light the bride.
Camera Settings: Manual Mode, Flash is on TTL.

In these particular scenario, when using spot meter and using flexible spot focus point it would be relatively easy use ttl and keep the focus point on brides dress or groom tux and use Flash Exposure Compensation to make sure it does not turn the white or black dress into medium grey for correct flash exposure. When using Matrix its a bit difficult since the subject is relatively close to the camera and the background is far back, I am not too sure about the effectiveness of matrix/average when using flash here unless the camera puts higher weighting to faces in the scene. Can you tell me what would be the case here and what experiences you have in similar situations when the subject is far away from the background and the background is constantly changing as well as your camera positionand lighting thus you had to resort to TTL.

That is one of my questions, but my main is the the following since the above is not a reason for me to upgrade. Sony cameras are known for the their eye focus tracking and ability to register faces of VIP such as bride and groom for focus tracking in still photography. When using these eye/face tracking during still photography how would you use TTL flash, since you will no longer have spot focus metering, will it meter off the eye? If yes different coloured eyes would need different flash exposure compensation which would be a major headache. How good would matrix exposure metering be for flash TTL mode, or centre or is there something which I am overlooking that would be the ideal for these particular scenarios.

Thanks in advance!

 

Wedding attire in a way is designed to piss photographers off since they are at extreme ends of the histogram. First thing is that spot is attached to the AF point, so moving the AF point shouldn't affect your exposure all that much. Second is Matrix metering, while not a bad way to meter over all, in this case it might be better to go with highlight weighted since whites clip faster than blacks. I should note that I stopped using matrix early on since I worked in widely different light conditions, for this reason using spot and choosing what I wanted exposed was a better route to take.

The advantage of a MILC will help you here since you get exposure preview along with Zebra stripes which will warn you if you are about to clip highlights/shadows. I wouldn't fully rely on the exposure preview when using flash all the time though, since the camera doesn't understand what the flash will actually do, but it should get you in the ball park. Underexpose the shot a little, you can recover shadows easily but clipped highlights are gone for good.

My ideal solution would be to use a flash meter and dial in presets into the custom modes. I'd also try and use direct flash instead of bounce to increase efficiency as well as have better control. You may or may not have the time for this however, or this may not work for your style/situation.

To the best of my knowledge Eye AF doesn't specifically meter off the eye, I think it just uses spot metering. At least I haven't had any issues over/under exposing the eye when using eye AF. I'd only worry about this if you are shooting tight.

Sorry I can't give a definitive answer, high contrast situations are always tough and often need to be tackled by each case. This is more so in a situation where you can't control the variables.

 

Thank you for your response, I guess I may have to dive into the manuals and sony tutorials into here to see what they have to say. Not to mention that on field tests will be needed as well.

I do have to disagree with you about your direct vs bounce flash argument. I think bounce flash is always better as long as light and neutral walls/ceillings are present since it provides a flattering direction of light and also softer quality of light (larger). Furthermore it will reduce the variation of flash exposure since the flash light rays will have to travel to the ceiling and then back down to the bride and groom. This is thanks to the inverse square law of light, direct flash will travel directly thus reducing the distance travelled and yielding higher and more dramatic changes in flash exposure as bride and groom approaches the camera and flash. I hope I haven't overlooked anything with this statement. The only time in weddings where direct flash is ideal is dance floor shutter drags, anywhere else its best to avoid, sometimes you may use it in an emergency but yeah only as a last resort.

BTW you mentioned that the color checker passport does indeed help out with the inferior sony colour science and skin tones. I am aware that the xrite software provides the ability to provide a master profile for a camera and lens combination by importing two photos in 2 different lighting scenes e.g. tungsten, shade, daylight. Have you tried this? How effective is it compared to having profile for each specific scene, I know the latter will be better but surely the law of diminishing returns must be starting to kick in to some extent.

Thanks!