Nikon Z* mirrorless

dkh said:
I'm a D750 shooter at the moment. I have developed a hate for the colours in-doors compared to Canon 5D3/4. Especially tungsten and flourescent which some lovely venues have. I have tried to use the built in colour options but these are naff in quick changing situations and especially bad in mixed lighting conditions.

The reason I am bringing the above into this discussion is that EVF 'wysiwyg' is supposed to mean that I could potentially shoot and require minimal processing (one of the advantages of mirrorless right?) but the colours are so awful it takes ages to get them close to the Canon's - especially skin-tones. This is the reason why most of my friends have avoided Sony and now the new Nikon and instead gone with the Canon R.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Canon as I have never really liked Canon and have only ever used a 6d for a short time but the colour science thing is all a load of nonsense in my experience. I shot Nikon for around 15 years or so and switched over to Sony a few months ago. With older Sony bodies colours did seem to have a yellow tinge but that isn't the case with the third gen bodies and the A9.

My missus still shoots Nikon sometimes and as I do most of the editing I am often editing sets of images from both Nikon and Sony bodies. I personally prefer the straight out of camera colours from the Nikon in good light, but in crap or mixed light the Sony has much more accurate colours. It takes less than a second to make the Sony look the same in good light as the Nikon in post there isn't that big of a difference.

The Northrups recently did a video on colour science and did a blind test. Most people preferred Sony colours compared to Nikon, Canon & Fuji.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
View: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EMfCDujQywY
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Most people preferred Sony colours compare to Nikon, Canon & Fuji.
Click to expand...
The 'most people' here (I don't think I would do better) couldn't pick the same photo twice minutes apart - only 8% managed to do that.

Also, the argument of changes to colour (user adjustments in LR or PS) making 'colour-science' a non-starter is not what we are talking about -
EVF's show you what you're going to get but if they're not accurate then why bother? Or, are we technologically at a stage where we can guage roughly the light and dark areas to get a good ISO / shutter / aperture value but nothing more?
 
dkh said:
The 'most people' here (I don't think I would do better) couldn't pick the same photo twice minutes apart - only 8% managed to do that.

Also, the argument of changes to colour (user adjustments in LR or PS) making 'colour-science' a non-starter is not what we are talking about -
EVF's show you what you're going to get but if they're not accurate then why bother? Or, are we technologically at a stage where we can guage roughly the light and dark areas to get a good ISO / shutter / aperture value but nothing more?
Click to expand...

There was a comment about awful skin tones and avoiding Nikon and Sony for Canon and f2.8's post is I assume in response to that as well as the general topic of CS. Personally I think that although WB makes a massive difference what the colour preference tests seem to show is that what makes the biggest difference is if the viewer knows what the badge on the front of the camera says or not :D

Getting away from all that and looking more at the EVF experience, yes, you'll see the changes in the EVF / on the back screen as you alter the WB. This is something I very rarely bother with as I shoot raw but now and again if I'm with someone who will insist on looking at the back of my camera and insist on making a comment like "everything looks yellow/blue/whatever" I'll either take a custom WB or look at the EVF and adjust manually for best effect. In post capture processing I think all this means next to nothing, just my VHO :D if you have time to set the look either by applying changes to batches or to pictures individually.

So yes, you'll see it all on the EVF/back screen with enough accuracy to give you a very good idea what you'll see post capture. IMO.
 
Last edited:
WB is in general the biggest contributor to whether one likes the colours from a certain camera. Or perhaps I should say the default JPEG's. Or perhaps the standard processing in our preferred RAW processor. But of course each camera does tend to have its own little bias. For me -- if I want my Z6 to have Fuji Provia colours then I just use the Capture One 3rd party preset. For Canon, I can just choose a Canon preset. The truth in my experience is that no camera does everything perfectly. For instance the colour bias required for portraits might be quite different for landscape (with winter or summer again being often different) or again quite different in poor or certain types of artificial light. In some cases, the WB/tint sliders can't quite get it right whatever you do. Then it's easiest with a different starting point, i.e. preset.

What you need above all is the ability to easily edit colour and from me, it's another plug for C1 on this one.
 
trevorbray said:
Gotta be. Spent out now..
Click to expand...
Be interested in seeing some of your results. It’s tempting, but I have too much investment in Fuji for now. Besides, it wouldn’t improve my photography. The only thing which could do that is an upgrade of the grey CPU behind the viewfinder.
 
Never has a truer word been spoken Stephen. ;)
 
an upgrade of the little grey cells is what we all need. But of course, that argument can lead to saying smartphones are good enough for anything (although modern ones are actually by no means bad). There is enough difference for me to see that in many kinds of lighting, the Z6, particularly with the lenses that seem to be coming its way, simply can more easily get the shot. A wee test out of the window in rather nice but very subtle light was perfectly captured by the Nikon but the Fuji couldn't managed the very small difference between the very light blue and pinkish grey, despite accurate exposure and similar low-contrast processing. This sort of thing can be crucial between capturing the atmosphere of the scene and not. Of course in very straight summer sushine without shadow, most cameras can do a competent job but equally most photographers find such light boring. Of course this sort of thing can apply equally to portraits and other areas, though it's landscape where the sensor makes the biggest difference imo.
 
lunar22 said:
an upgrade of the little grey cells is what we all need. But of course, that argument can lead to saying smartphones are good enough for anything (although modern ones are actually by no means bad). There is enough difference for me to see that in many kinds of lighting, the Z6, particularly with the lenses that seem to be coming its way, simply can more easily get the shot. A wee test out of the window in rather nice but very subtle light was perfectly captured by the Nikon but the Fuji couldn't managed the very small difference between the very light blue and pinkish grey, despite accurate exposure and similar low-contrast processing. This sort of thing can be crucial between capturing the atmosphere of the scene and not. Of course in very straight summer sushine without shadow, most cameras can do a competent job but equally most photographers find such light boring. Of course this sort of thing can apply equally to portraits and other areas, though it's landscape where the sensor makes the biggest difference imo.
Click to expand...
You’re not making it any easier, David!
 
Did I say say I was trying to make it easier ;)?
But don't worry -- I'll be in Manchester the next four days and probably won't even look at this thread in the meantime. Plenty of time to purge yourself of sinful thoughts!
 
dkh said:
I'm a D750 shooter at the moment. I have developed a hate for the colours in-doors compared to Canon 5D3/4. Especially tungsten and flourescent which some lovely venues have. I have tried to use the built in colour options but these are naff in quick changing situations and especially bad in mixed lighting conditions.

The reason I am bringing the above into this discussion is that EVF 'wysiwyg' is supposed to mean that I could potentially shoot and require minimal processing (one of the advantages of mirrorless right?) but the colours are so awful it takes ages to get them close to the Canon's - especially skin-tones. This is the reason why most of my friends have avoided Sony and now the new Nikon and instead gone with the Canon R.
Click to expand...

Not my experience in the slightest.

If you shoot RAW you can get great skin tones from Nikon, Sony and Canon. I have a base preset that has been tweaked for each and makes all 3 look pretty much identical. The only system I struggled with and worked hard on was the XT2 files in less than optimal light.

We used Sony and Nikon in 2018. Can you tell which is which?
 
decigallen said:
Not my experience in the slightest.

If you shoot RAW you can get great skin tones from Nikon, Sony and Canon. I have a base preset that has been tweaked for each and makes all 3 look pretty much identical. The only system I struggled with and worked hard on was the XT2 files in less than optimal light.

We used Sony and Nikon in 2018. Can you tell which is which?
Click to expand...
Well I certainly couldn't begin to tell which is which... but there's some chuffing gorgeous images in there!
 
Did you get the 24-70 lens as well?

I'm not doing much at the moment because we are moving.
 
Stephen L said:
Ooops! I accidentally just happened to look at the Panamoz site, and whilst I was there chanced on the page where the Z6 was selling, and accidentally clicked on one. What have I done?
Click to expand...

Well done. I look forward to your thoughts.
Great value right now.
Got any other lenses in mind ?
 
trevorbray said:
Well done. I look forward to your thoughts.
Great value right now.
Got any other lenses in mind ?
Click to expand...
Well, I will need a proper wide angle lens. Something around 16mm. Or a zoom, of course. Any suggestions? I have very little funds left. :confused:
 
Peter123 said:
Did you get the 24-70 lens as well?

I'm not doing much at the moment because we are moving.
Click to expand...
Yes, I got the full kit - 24-70 and adapter. Also got a memory card (ouch!) and a spare battery (less ouch).
 
Stephen L said:
Well, I will need a proper wide angle lens. Something around 16mm. Or a zoom, of course. Any suggestions? I have very little funds left. :confused:
Click to expand...

I looked at using 18-35 zoom and adapter. Decided to preorder the 14-30 and save for release date. Around the end of April.
 
That’s the trouble with being an early adopter. Native lens choice is limited and expensive.
 
decigallen said:
Not my experience in the slightest.

If you shoot RAW you can get great skin tones from Nikon, Sony and Canon. I have a base preset that has been tweaked for each and makes all 3 look pretty much identical. The only system I struggled with and worked hard on was the XT2 files in less than optimal light.

We used Sony and Nikon in 2018. Can you tell which is which?
Click to expand...

I have no Idea which is which. But it is very apparent that you colour grade to balance all you shots to have the "Same" colour look.
Not something that every one does. But it give a consistency that makes it easier to market, and would make them stand out against amateur shots taken at the same occasions.
 
Peter123 said:
I'm not doing much at the moment because we are moving.
Click to expand...
So are we! Currently in the doldrums as we get the keys for our “new” place on the 15th Feb, and moving men come on 26th. That’s why I’m bored and spending money!
 
Stephen L said:
Ooops! I accidentally just happened to look at the Panamoz site, and whilst I was there chanced on the page where the Z6 was selling, and accidentally clicked on one. What have I done?
Click to expand...

Can't leave you alone one minute. Just back from Manchester and what do I see???? Anyway, hope you like it and if not, I'll try and make myself invisible.... buying it at the Panamoz site, you could probably sell it for a profit, anyway. I have no such option. Indeed the price in the store where I got it has already been reduced a bit (though I did haggle 30€ off).
 
Well we haven’t got a new place but have to be out on 5th March.
From Cumbria to Surrey is a long way.
 
lunar22 said:
Can't leave you alone one minute. Just back from Manchester and what do I see???? Anyway, hope you like it and if not, I'll try and make myself invisible.... buying it at the Panamoz site, you could probably sell it for a profit, anyway. I have no such option. Indeed the price in the store where I got it has already been reduced a bit (though I did haggle 30€ off).
Click to expand...
It was only about £150 difference between their body-only and the full kit. The 64gb card was “only” £100. Fuji stuff is going off to MPB.
 
Stephen L said:
Well, I will need a proper wide angle lens. Something around 16mm. Or a zoom, of course. Any suggestions? I have very little funds left. :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm of much the same opinion as Trevor. If you have few funds remaining, it might be as well to go for the 18-35 (not the older version of course which is supposedly crap) as you already have the adaptor. I may very do the same (unless I stick with Fuji's 10-24) as the 14-30, better though it will no doubt be, is unlikely to be in my budget for this year.
 
Stephen L said:
It was only about £150 difference between their body-only and the full kit. The 64gb card was “only” £100. Fuji stuff is going off to MPB.
Click to expand...

that's why it's such a good deal though of course you get the card free if bought through an EU retailer. But the card, expensive though it is, is nowhere near the price of the lens which is so far turning out to be a cracker. I've occasionally seen a bit of fringing wide open at 24mm, otherwise struggle to see any real weaknesses so far.
 
lunar22 said:
I'm of much the same opinion as Trevor. If you have few funds remaining, it might be as well to go for the 18-35 (not the older version of course which is supposedly crap) as you already have the adaptor. I may very do the same (unless I stick with Fuji's 10-24) as the 14-30, better though it will no doubt be, is unlikely to be in my budget for this year.
Click to expand...
Being ignorant of things Nikon, how do I tell the old version from new? And FX from DX?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top