CanadaMark wrote:
The Z6II already uses a 24.5 MP BSI sensor. The "new" one will almost certainly be a slight revision to the same unit if not identical. Regardless of what optimizations they do to it, it will not be much different assuming the rumor figures are accurate. It's already a fantastic sensor. The only significant improvement they can realistically make is a slight bump to readout speed because it won't be stacked and resolution is the same - DR and ISO performance reached a plateau about 10 years ago. I will be very surprised if it's not the exact same sensor but with perhaps an increased number of PDAF points, which does not require an all new sensor to be used.
If anything I thought they would bump it up to ~30MP, but if they are keeping the Z7 line, it would make less sense to do so.
What do you feel doesn't cut it with the existing Z6II sensor?...Show more →
From Z6 introduction of 2018, it has been over 5 years. Give us Z6 users something to get excited about. Hoping for improved DR, or improved low light capability, or new AF sensor, or improved video capability, or faster readout, or higher mp with same level lowlight capability, if there is anything that marks noticeable improvement, I take it. For tech industry, 5 years is a long time. What has they been working on all this time? Yet another same old sensor, and slap on some little features and calll it a day?? That is just lame. Minor tweak on old sensor just doesn’t make it any exciting especially if it is about the same level performance as Zf, it is an insult to make Z6 users wait for so long. There better be a good solid improvement not only over Z6, Z6ii, but over Zf. Otherwise, it shows that Nikon doesn’t really care or understand Z6 users which doesn’t unfortunately surprise me if that is the case, but disappointing to say the least. That is where my ‘doesn’t cut it ‘ sentiment come from.
akul wrote:
From Z6 introduction of 2018, it has been over 5 years. Give us Z6 users something to get excited about. Hoping for improved DR, or improved low light capability, or new AF sensor, or improved video capability, or faster readout, or higher mp with same level lowlight capability, if there is anything that marks noticeable improvement, I take it. For tech industry, 5 years is a long time. What has they been working on all this time? Yet another same old sensor, and slap on some little features and calll it a day?? That is just lame. Minor tweak on old sensor just doesn’t make it any exciting especially if it is about the same level performance as Zf, it is an insult to make Z6 users wait for so long. There better be a good solid improvement not only over Z6, Z6ii, but over Zf. Otherwise, it shows that Nikon doesn’t really care or understand Z6 users which doesn’t unfortunately surprise me if that is the case, but disappointing to say the least. That is where my ‘doesn’t cut it ‘ sentiment come from.
I would not hold my breath if I was you for improved DR. QE of CMOS sensors peaked some years ago. But readout speed and AF are certainly reasonable expectations. As is a boost to 33mp. Certainly it will get Expeed 7 a la DF and the goodies that brings. It would be nice if they could get the readout speed of the non-stacked sensor to that of Canon's R5. That, in concert with Expeed 7 would make for a very nice camera. Personally, I would not be upset if they stayed with the BSI 24mp underpinnings.
Alistair1 wrote:
I would not hold my breath if I was you for improved DR. QE of CMOS sensors peaked some years ago. But readout speed and AF are certainly reasonable expectations. As is a boost to 33mp. Certainly it will get Expeed 7 a la DF and the goodies that brings. It would be nice if they could get the readout speed of the non-stacked sensor to that of Canon's R5. That, in concert with Expeed 7 would make for a very nice camera. Personally, I would not be upset if they stayed with the BSI 24mp underpinnings.
I do wish a bit more acuity if staying with 24 mp by removing AA filter, though I read somewhere 24mp is not enough pixels to become beneficial. I don’t know if that is true.. I really liked D810 level acuity.
Alistair1 wrote:
I would not hold my breath if I was you for improved DR. QE of CMOS sensors peaked some years ago. But readout speed and AF are certainly reasonable expectations. As is a boost to 33mp. Certainly it will get Expeed 7 a la DF and the goodies that brings. It would be nice if they could get the readout speed of the non-stacked sensor to that of Canon's R5. That, in concert with Expeed 7 would make for a very nice camera. Personally, I would not be upset if they stayed with the BSI 24mp underpinnings.
The readout speed of the 33mp sensor, if simply an implementation of the module Sony is using, would be a regretful choice. However, if Nikon can work some magic to put a bit more pep in its step, I'd be interested. Otherwise, 24mp remains a nice sweet spot for a balance of resolution, speed, and value.
akul wrote:
From Z6 introduction of 2018, it has been over 5 years. Give us Z6 users something to get excited about. Hoping for improved DR, or improved low light capability, or new AF sensor, or improved video capability, or faster readout, or higher mp with same level lowlight capability, if there is anything that marks noticeable improvement, I take it. For tech industry, 5 years is a long time. What has they been working on all this time? Yet another same old sensor, and slap on some little features and calll it a day?? That is just lame. Minor tweak on old sensor just doesn’t make it any exciting especially if it is about the same level performance as Zf, it is an insult to make Z6 users wait for so long. There better be a good solid improvement not only over Z6, Z6ii, but over Zf. Otherwise, it shows that Nikon doesn’t really care or understand Z6 users which doesn’t unfortunately surprise me if that is the case, but disappointing to say the least. That is where my ‘doesn’t cut it ‘ sentiment come from.
A lot of those things isn't tied to the sensor. It's more of the image processing chip i.e. EXPEED7. For example the Zf has a slightly higher native ISO rating than the Z6/ii. The chip also gave it better autofocus than the EXPEED6 bodies.
To be honest, it comes back down to the price. If it costs exactly the same as the Zf, basically just in normal conventional and functional body, then if they park this Z6iii at $2k then it would still make sense. People want that very body. If it costs $400~$500 more like the R6ii and the a7iv $2.4k~$2.5k, then it'll be quite the hard pill to swallow. $200 more is the max I believe we can tolerate.
^^^^^
This. Nikon has a tight window to hit with the crowd on this forum. At $2500 I am just going to spend the extra $500ish and get a used Z8. At $2000 I am not touching it if it has a rewarmed sensor with faster frame rate and better video.
unchecked wrote:
A lot of those things isn't tied to the sensor. It's more of the image processing chip i.e. EXPEED7. For example the Zf has a slightly higher native ISO rating than the Z6/ii. The chip also gave it better autofocus than the EXPEED6 bodies.
To be honest, it comes back down to the price. If it costs exactly the same as the Zf, basically just in normal conventional and functional body, then if they park this Z6iii at $2k then it would still make sense. People want that very body. If it costs $400~$500 more like the R6ii and the a7iv $2.4k~$2.5k, then it'll be quite the hard pill to swallow. $200 more is the max I believe we can tolerate. ...Show more →
I am not a sensor designer, so My lisit is from a user standpoint. Although, a cross type sensor to improve AF sounds Ike a sensor update. Agree with pricing. Few additional features that I would personally count as improvements and worth a bit higher MSRP are:
a. Two way tilt screen (rumored vari-angle imo, is miserable for people shooting stills which still is the primary)
b: self illuminated buttons
c: starlight mode
d: same button layout as current Z6 series
And features that will negatively impact my impression are:
I. Not including battery charger
ii. Vari-angle screen like Z30.
Iii. Removal of AF-ON button
I hope none of these happen to Z6iii
CanadaMark wrote:
Do you mean the AA / OLPF? If so it's there to help with moiré/aliasing which larger pixels are much more prone to. The Z6 is also the more video focused camera compared to the Z7 and those filters are also there for video shooters. It's the same reason why the 24MP Sony bodies (including the A9 I, II, and III) have AA filters as well as the A7S line but was dropped in the A7 line when they finally bumped the resolution to 33MP in the A74 (or on the "R" bodies). There's also different strengths and orientations of AA filters, so they aren't all the same. Depending on how you used the camera, there would be just as many users who would prefer Nikon keeps it on that particular sensor If they bumped it to 30MP+ then almost certainly it would have no OLPF. At 24MP they are much more likely to keep the OLPF.
It shouldn't affect noise unless maybe you are over-sharpening to try and over-compensate for the AA filter effect in some cases. The D800E actually has slightly better noise handling than the D800, for example, but it's an interesting case because it doesn't actually lack an AA filter, it simply has another layer to reverse the effect which made it cheaper to produce alongside the D800. Regardless, AA filter or not, noise wouldn't be affected to a degree that would ever affect the final image in a meaningful way, especially with today's RAW converters....Show more →
Most other manufacturers have known for close to a decade now that the blur filters are no longer needed. They don't eliminate moire, and they reduce the sharpness of the image (which is why they are known as "blur filters" despite the attempts by camera marketing departments to brand them as something more benign, like "OLPF". On cameras like the Z6 the blur filter does have the unintended benefit of reducing the appearance of noise by blurring it so it becomes less noticeable.
molson wrote:
Most other manufacturers have known for close to a decade now that the blur filters are no longer needed. They don't eliminate moire, and they reduce the sharpness of the image (which is why they are known as "blur filters" despite the attempts by camera marketing departments to brand them as something more benign, like "OLPF". On cameras like the Z6 the blur filter does have the unintended benefit of reducing the appearance of noise by blurring it so it becomes less noticeable.
I believe all the major manufacturers (maybe not Leica) use optical low-pass filters on 24 MP sensors of 35 mm size.
Kodak used to make a 14 MP full-frame sensor without OLPF and it was infamous for the prolific artifacts that it produced.
The OLPF should not have any significant effect on noise at least not on large areas of the frame (there may be some on a single pixel level because the content of pixels does change and so does photon shot noise on those pixels). But overall it doesn't make the image darker or brighter so it should have no large-scale effect on noise.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I believe all the major manufacturers (maybe not Leica) use optical low-pass filters on 24 MP sensors of 35 mm size.
Kodak used to make a 14 MP full-frame sensor without OLPF and it was infamous for the prolific artifacts that it produced.
The OLPF should not have any significant effect on noise at least not on large areas of the frame (there may be some on a single pixel level because the content of pixels does change and so does photon shot noise on those pixels). But overall it doesn't make the image darker or brighter so it should have no large-scale effect on noise....Show more →
From noted Nikon expert, Thom Hogan:
"On top of the image sensor we have a low pass filter, unlike the Z7. This filter steals a little acuity from edges and anti-aliases the data, but that also has the tendency to mask some of the photon noise, too."
scalanc2 wrote:
Is the Zf fitted with AA filter?
I don’t believe so.
I believe that Z6 II has an AA filter. Therefore, I expect Zf to have an AA filter as well. Typically, "lower" resolution sensors have AA filters to prevent excessive moire.
molson wrote:
From noted Nikon expert, Thom Hogan:
"On top of the image sensor we have a low pass filter, unlike the Z7. This filter steals a little acuity from edges and anti-aliases the data, but that also has the tendency to mask some of the photon noise, too."
Don't believe the "experts".
There is no significant difference in SNR, color sensitivity, tonal range, or dynamic range between the D800 and D800E, according to DXOMark's measurements; there is a 1 point difference in overall score, which is not statistically significant. The only difference between the two cameras is the AA filter. (They gave 1 point different scores between the D3 and D700 although Nikon claims those two are identical where it comes to the components that capture and process the image data. This gives further evidence that 1-point difference in DXOMark overall score can easily happen by chance.)
In this case the D800E happens to be slightly better in SNR (looking at the measurement graphs), which one could take to imply that the self-cancelling OLPF actually reduces the noise over the functional OLPF, but this is unlikely to be a real effect (more likely the difference is due to random variation in sensors between two camera samples and the random variation in DXOMark's measurement process; if they repeated the measurement with another pair possibly they'd get a different result).
Edited: In fact, the Canon 5Ds gets an overall score of 87 and 5Ds R 86, illustrating exactly what I was suggesting: the 1-point difference is not significant and can go either way.
I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary. If the OLPF fixes major errors in the RGB data (by removing high frequencies that cause aliasing) then the high and low values of some adjacent pixels may be leveled out and this would indeed reduce the photon shot noise slightly but this difference would be overwhelmed by the presence or absence of moire in the picture, and this effect would not exist in even areas of the frame, which is where noise is usually most noticeable.
There is no significant difference in SNR, color sensitivity, tonal range, or dynamic range between the D800 and D800E, according to DXOMark's measurements; there is a 1 point difference in overall score, which is not statistically significant. The only difference between the two cameras is the AA filter. (They gave 1 point different scores between the D3 and D700 although Nikon claims those two are identical where it comes to the components that capture and process the image data. This gives further evidence that 1-point difference in DXOMark overall score can easily happen by chance.)
In this case the D800E happens to be slightly better in SNR (looking at the measurement graphs), which one could take to imply that the self-cancelling OLPF actually reduces the noise over the functional OLPF, but this is unlikely to be a real effect (more likely the difference is due to random variation in sensors between two camera samples and the random variation in DXOMark's measurement process; if they repeated the measurement with another pair possibly they'd get a different result).
I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary. If the OLPF fixes major errors in the RGB data (by removing high frequencies that cause aliasing) then the high and low values of some adjacent pixels may be leveled out and this would indeed reduce the photon shot noise slightly but this difference would be overwhelmed by the presence or absence of moire in the picture, and this effect would not exist in even areas of the frame, which is where noise is usually most noticeable. ...Show more →
I believe someone like Thom more than I believe the armchair critics on these forums... and we're talking about the Z6, not the D800.
I have my little fantasy that Nikon is playing 4D-Chess with these rumors to throw everybody off and plans to shock everybody again like they did with the D500.
A stacked 32-36mp, APS-C, pro-level camera to compliment the Z9 for the Olympics. Of course we'd need a 75-300/2.8 TC14 as well.
Not sure why the Zf is taking some heat here. The AF is really good, it has 3 shops better ibis, it’s Nikons best low light camera. If Nikon simply put the guts of the Zf into a Z6 body and priced it like the Zf, I would bet most would think that’s cutting it.
Max Power wrote:
Not sure why the Zf is taking some heat here. The AF is really good, it has 3 shops better ibis, it’s Nikons best low light camera. If Nikon simply put the guts of the Zf into a Z6 body and priced it like the Zf, I would bet most would think that’s cutting it.
Zf is a side bar camera. Z6 is a main stream meat and potato camera for Nikon. The reason why I refer to Zf, and would not accept reskinned Zf as the Z6iii comes from the notion, that Nikon releases a niche camera before one of their most important camera in their lineup, and trickle ‘up’ to Z6iii and call it a day. There is nothing wrong with Zf. It is fine as it is. It is great that camera seems to be doing well. Problem would be how Nikon situates Z6iii. If the cause of delay of Z6 iii was not due to sensor availability or some other new tech, but a random decision to back burner Z6iii in favor of Zf, I have a problem with such decision.
molson wrote:
Most other manufacturers have known for close to a decade now that the blur filters are no longer needed. They don't eliminate moire, and they reduce the sharpness of the image (which is why they are known as "blur filters" despite the attempts by camera marketing departments to brand them as something more benign, like "OLPF". On cameras like the Z6 the blur filter does have the unintended benefit of reducing the appearance of noise by blurring it so it becomes less noticeable.
Nikon, Sony, and Canon all use those filters on their 24 MP FF sensors for the reasons I described in my previous post - that's ~85% of the camera market and almost every 24MP FF sensor currently available. Who are the 'most other' manufacturers that you are referring to with 24MP FF sensors lacking a filter?
If they bumped it to 30MP+ then almost certainly it would have no OLPF. At 24MP they are much more likely to keep the OLPF.