Nikon Z6III

[Davide DB]

 

 

• 24.5 megapixel partially stacked CMOS sensor for exceptional image quality
• Expeed 7 processor, from the Nikon Z8 and Z9, enhances power and speed
• 8 stops with 5 axis IBIS + 8.0 stops VR and focus point VR for improved sharpness
• Offers high-speed performance, capable of up to 120 fps in stills and 240p in video
• Excels in low light with -10EV AF sensitivity for sharp focus in dim conditions
• 13+ stops of dynamic range, with ultra-fast data readout for capturing detail
• Supports 4K and 6K RAW in-camera recording for high-quality video capture
• 240p slow motion capability for dramatic, detailed 10x slow-motion footage
• Compatible with N-RAW and ProRes codecs for professional-grade video editing
• 6K oversampling for 4K UHD video ensures an enhanced, high-quality final image
• Subject-tracking technology accurately focuses on people, animals, and vehicles
• 3D tracking precisely follows fast-moving subjects like birds, motorbikes, and planes
• Dual card slots support CFexpress Type B or XQD and UHS-II SD memory cards
• EVF maintains a 60 fps refresh rate for a smooth view during shooting and playback
• Pro-quality audio is enhanced by an external mic input suitable for line-level recording
• 5760K dot hi-res LCD, 4000-nits EVF with DCI-P3 colour gamut and daylight brightness
• High-resolution vari-angle display with 2100k resolution for flexible shooting angles
• A sealed body for weather resistance able to operate in temperatures as low as -10°C

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/videos/photography/versatility-is-king-with-the-nikon-z6-iii

 

 

[DreiFish]

Wow, Nikon definitely pulled out all the stops with this one. Though the dynamic range performance is a bit disappointing.

 

 

I really hope that the introduction of RAW video recording in this and the recent GH7 push Sony and Canon to also include it in some of their upcoming mid-range (and, in Sony's case, even flagship) bodies!

[Davide DB]

I found this very interesting

 

https://www.eoshd.com/news/nikon-z6-iii-lands-with-video-aplomb-but-only-partial-excitement-for-photographers/

 

[zvonimiri]

Just wanted to add my two cents after reading the article.
 

I have an R6 Mark II and moved from a Nikon DSLR (a Nikon D600) to a Canon mirrorless recently expecting that that the Z6 Mark III was not going to impress me as the current state of Nikon is not what it used to be.

 

Additionally, the underwater lens options offered by Canon are better than what is offered by Nikon.
 

The RF 100mm Macro with 1.4x magnification eliminates the need for +6 diopter completely and is very fast to focus (the equivalent Nikon Z lens is slower with 1x magnification).

 

The 8-15mm has became the standard fisheye lens for many other brands including Sony and brands that use M43 sensors and has excellent IQ for a fisheye (Nikon’s version of 8-15mm fisheye zoom is similar in terms of IQ but has a variable aperture between f3.5 and f4.5 whereas Canon’s lens is fixed at f4)

Together with these lenses, I am quite happy with the R6 Mark II as it is a very well rounded do it all camera that performs really well.

 

The image quality is excellent together with a very accurate color rendition.

My hit rate has gone up significantly after switching to mirrorless and SOOC JPEGs are much cleaner than what it used to be in terms of sharpness, ISO and image corrections due to having a much more modern processor and in camera solutions offered by Canon.
 

As for the raw files, they are basically the same after editing them in Lightroom as the sensor technology has not improved much in the past decade for the 24 MP sensors.

 

In terms of video specs, there is no doubt that the Z6 Mark III is the winner at this price point. 
 

However, the paragraph below, which I also read in another source, makes this camera a flop for photography:

 

“The irony is though, that the sensor presents absolutely no image quality advantage for photographers vs the original Nikon Z6 which came out a full 6 years ago. Resolution remains at 24 megapixel and dynamic range might even be slightly worse (due to the very fast partially stacked sensor readout architecture).”

 

Additionally, I can not agree with the paragraph below:

“That said, the Z6 III demolishes the Canon EOS R6 Mark II in terms of the quality and size of EVF, quality of rear LCD screen, overall video specs (especially on the codec side), AF performance, overall speed and the option for CFExpress recording. The Z6 III does not need to drop to 12bit in the full resolution 6K readout mode, either.”

 

The higher resolution EVF, larger and higher resolution rear screen and the CFExpress are only window dressings made by Nikon which do not really affect the final photograph taken by the camera.

 

So far, I have not yet seen a direct comparison between the two cameras but I do not believe that Nikon can surpass the AF performance of the R6 Mark II and the readout speed are the same for both cameras although the Nikon has a partially stacked sensor.

 

To summarize, I would not have purchased this camera for photography even if I had not changed systems and would have gone for a Z8 if I wanted to continue with Nikon. This would have also significantly raised the overall cost of my set-up with a more expensive camera and an associated more expensive housing. Additionally, I would not benefit from the extra 21 MP of the Z8 as I almost do not crop and like to get everything right in camera which would result in an unnecessary expense for me.

 

A side benefit of the R6 Mark II is that if I one day I ever need 45 MP, I might fit the R5 in the same housing as the R6 Mark II with no or minor improvements as both cameras have nearly identical bodies and button layouts. However, I have not tried this yet.

Edited June 27 by zvonimiri

[Davide DB]

31 minutes ago, zvonimiri said:

To summarize, I would not have purchased this camera for photography even if I had not changed systems and would have gone for a Z8 if I wanted to continue with Nikon. This would also significantly raise the overall cost of my set-up with a more expensive camera and an associated more expensive housing. Additionally, I would not benefit from the extra 21 MP of the Z8 as I almost do not crop and like to get everything right in camera which would result in an unnecessary expense for me.

 

These comments or reviews should of course be taken with a grain of salt. These are complex cameras that now do everything, and each use case has some features of the camera that are more important than others. Then underwater photography is perhaps the most extreme use case of all and within it we have further specializations that are worlds apart. Think of wide ange or underwater macro photography. 
For example days ago I was talking to our member @Giancarlo M. and although he also has a Canon R5, he finds that for macro-photography his R6 R7 (APSC) is unbeatable.

 

In short, there is never a final verdict.

Edited June 27 by Davide DB
wrong camera model

[zvonimiri]

Certainly agree that personal preferences triumph over any brand or model @Davide DB. Just wanted to share my thought process I had this winter that led me to purchasing the R6 Mark II rather than sticking with Nikon.

 

I have seen on Youtube that there are many bird photographers who use R5 and R7 interchangeably and especially, the R7 when they need more reach and are quite happy with it. This also lead me to purchase the R7 for underwater use prior to R6 Mark II.

 

However, in terms of autofocus performance and SOOC IQ, I was not quite satisfied with it and could not purchase a housing for the R7 and sold it via a shop. Maybe mine was a bad copy as I read such comments online but I also believe Canon needs to improve it with a Mark II model as it currently sits between a 90D and the 7D rather than being the pure successor of the 7D Mark II.

 

Additionally, to my surprise, the same shop also had a 2002 production Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro lens in mint condition for a very good price and I purchased that prior to purchasing the R6 Mark II. This lens will make the R6 Mark II have a slightly more reach than the R7 with a 100mm lens but will add significant weight to my set-up.

 

I only need an extension ring to try it out for super macro and plan to write here how it will go as well this summer. 

[DreiFish]

On 6/27/2024 at 10:55 AM, zvonimiri said:

 

Can’t fit the R5 body in an R6Ii housing unfortunately. Not even close.

[zvonimiri]

On 6/28/2024 at 10:52 PM, DreiFish said:

 

Can’t fit the R5 body in an R6Ii housing unfortunately. Not even close.

 

How so? Could you please elaborate?

 

The dimensions and button layout are identical.

 

I believe the only the inaccessible buttons will be the mode, the lock button and the top screen illumination button on the R5 which are not required at all for underwater use.

 

 

On paper, my only concern would be the slight misalignment of the multi-controller and the buttons above the rear screen due to a slightly larger screen size on the R5.

 

 

 

[Chris Ross]

6 hours ago, zvonimiri said:

 

How so? Could you please elaborate?

 

The dimensions and button layout are identical.

 

I believe the only the inaccessible buttons will be the mode, the lock button and the top screen illumination button on the R5 which are not required at all for underwater use.

 

 

On paper, my only concern would be the slight misalignment of the multi-controller and the buttons above the rear screen due to a slightly larger screen size on the R5.

 

 

 

You need to look at the top view as well to see how controls line up there, the critical ones being on/off switch and the control dials.  I found the camera decision page and they had top view comparisons, I cut out the R5 and overlaid it on top of the R6 II at 50% opacity:

 

Perfect alignment is not possible so I lined up the lens mounts which is how they would go into the housing,  It looks pretty close on first view but the R5 has the on-off switch where the R6 II has a movie/stills switch and they don't line up, while the R6 has a mode dial where the R5 has a top LCD.  the rear control dial is also a little out of alignment.  For the camera controls to work reliably the dials/buttons need to be aligned to sub millimetre precision and this is only rarely the case between different models.  This seems like enough to render the R5 very difficult to use in the housing even if you could live without rear mode dials and on/off switch.

null

[zvonimiri]

Thank you @Chris Ross! This is a very smart way to sort it out. I still want to check it physically whether the alignment is rough on the camera or the housing or a padding/extension is needed for the controls at sub milimetre level. Will check and report back.  

 

Not to hijack @Davide DB's post anymore regarding the Z6 Mark III, I saw that the photonstophotos has published the dynamic range sensor data for the Z6 Mark III.

 

Due to the partially stacked sensor design, the Z6 Mark III has the lowest dynamic range among its peer group for photography:

It should also be noted that it benefits from the dual native ISO design at and after 800 ISO for videography.

 

The dynamic range levels are in line with the Nikon's line up when compared with the Z8 & Z9:

However, it should also be noted that that the Z8 & Z9 have fully stacked sensors and have only electronic shutters. Whereas, the Z6 Mark III has also a mechanical shutter. It can be argued that the effect of the mechanical shutter is completely eliminated by the partially stacked sensor design by choice or by limitations faced.

 

Comparing the Z6 Mark III with its predecessors also show the affect of the partially stacked sensor design:

 

However, the most surprising result for me is below:

 

The dynamic range of the Z6 Mark III up to 800 ISO is at similar levels of its peer group's cropped resolutions. Ouch!

 

It can be argued that Nikon designed a videography first camera rather than a true hybrid and in order to gain speed to keep up with the competition (Canon R6 Mark II), lowered the dynamic range of the camera with a partially stacked sensor.

 

I believe Nikon should have gone with Canon's route and focused on the in-house processor design rather than ordering a partially stacked sensor from Sony!

 

In addition to everything above, knowing that the Sony A7 Mark IV is 3 years old and the Canon R6 Mark II is almost 2 year old, there is a huge potential that this camera's video specs might be reached or surpassed by its competitors after their respective next product cycle launch putting Nikon in a tough position in terms of market share again.