Nikon releases the Z8 mirrorless camera

2 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

You may already do this,  adjusting the JPEG quality settings in camera when shooting RAW applies those settings to the embedded JPEG and this is what is displayed and used to calculate the histogram at least on most manufacturers cameras.  Reducing the contrast setting on the JPEG will extend the range on the highlights a little allowing you to get closer to clipping the highlights with your exposure.  You could readily experiment with JPEG settings to get closer. 

Extended bit range for the embedded JPEG with HEIF will certainly be an advantage.  It may even help with showing sunballs in the EVF?

Sony who makes the sensors for Nikon has been outputting HEIF for a while

You can store 8,10 bits HEIF with 420 or 422 encoding. This can give you more levels and tonal depth (assuming the display can handle it) but does not result in anything different that an sRGB or Adobe 10 bit file.

You can save an HLG HEIF HDR but then you can no longer save the RAW

How the histograms are displayed is not affected but the output

The predominant reason for HEIF is compression efficiency which is much higher than jpeg and suitable to cameras with 40-60 megapixels

Canon can produce HDR PQ HEIF files that are genuinely different unsure about the limitations on RAW

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

How the histograms are displayed is not affected but the output

 

I guess you mean for Sony cameras.  I checked on my EM-1 mkII taking shots at +1 exp compensation to push the highlights to the edge.  Took the shot with +0 contrast and at -2 contrast image settings.  The images are visibly different on the screen and the histogram is also noticeably shifted to the left with the -2 contrast setting for the jpeg.  You can see the highlight warning blinkies are much reduced in the -2 contrast version as well.  The images are taken at the same exposure and lighting so the Raw file would be the same in both cases.  Clearly for Olympus the histogram is calculated from the embedded jpeg.

2 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

I guess you mean for Sony cameras.  I checked on my EM-1 mkII taking shots at +1 exp compensation to push the highlights to the edge.  Took the shot with +0 contrast and at -2 contrast image settings.  The images are visibly different on the screen and the histogram is also noticeably shifted to the left with the -2 contrast setting for the jpeg.  You can see the highlight warning blinkies are much reduced in the -2 contrast version as well.  The images are taken at the same exposure and lighting so the Raw file would be the same in both cases.  Clearly for Olympus the histogram is calculated from the embedded jpeg.

For all cameras the histogram is based in srgb curve
Raw histograms in camera don’t exist. 
If you change the settings of your jpeg you also change the histogram on case the gamma curve is altered from standard. HEIF or JPEG matters nothing
The claim that HEIF can output more luminance because is based on 10 bits is also flawed as luminance goes from 0 to 1.

Y = aR + bG +cB 

What 10 bit gives you is gradations however the camera display is normally 8 bits.

If you send an HEIF to a mobile phone that is 10 bit you will see the extra gradations and tones

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The claim that HEIF can output more luminance because is based on 10 bits is also flawed as luminance goes from 0 to 1.

Y = aR + bG +cB 

What 10 bit gives you is gradations however the camera display is normally 8 bits.

If you send an HEIF to a mobile phone that is 10 bit you will see the extra gradations and tones

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They must be doing something that takes advantage of the HEIF file if the demonstration with the reduction of blown highlights shows extra headroom on the screen and histogram.  Potentially they are doing what I described earlier taking a low contrast possibly slightly underexposed HEIF and then stretching the data taking advantage of the extra bits that way.

Just now, ChrisRoss said:

They must be doing something that takes advantage of the HEIF file if the demonstration with the reduction of blown highlights shows extra headroom on the screen and histogram.  Potentially they are doing what I described earlier taking a low contrast possibly slightly underexposed HEIF and then stretching the data taking advantage of the extra bits that way.

That could have been done with a jpeg. HEIF has nothing to do with it

The value of luminance or RGB is always 0 to 1 and the bit depth controls gradations not dynamic range

Gamma compression is the process that makes 8 bits RGB contain 10 stops of dynamic range.

You can of course compress more for example using log but the display is limited to the said 10 stops before

All of this has been available since forever on my GH5 I used to shoot in CineD because it has 12 stops DR

However some of those compressed gamma alter the ISO so in the end it is better to understand how your camera works and use the display for what it is

One thing that many people do not know is that you may still have a perfect gray histogram when shooting however later you find out one of the RGB channels clipped. As luminance is an average you will not find out if you do not look at the RGB histograms

2 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

One thing that many people do not know is that you may still have a perfect gray histogram when shooting however later you find out one of the RGB channels clipped. As luminance is an average you will not find out if you do not look at the RGB histograms

agree, but on my cameras they are too small to be useful, they don't even provide a line at 256!

On 5/14/2023 at 4:01 AM, ChrisRoss said:

agree, but on my cameras they are too small to be useful, they don't even provide a line at 256!

This is because the scale begins at zero but 2 to the 0 power = 1. There are thus 256 values in the 8-bit histogram scale; 0 to 255.

On 5/14/2023 at 12:21 AM, Interceptor121 said:

If you send an HEIF to a mobile phone that is 10 bit you will see the extra gradations and tones

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is what I was referring to above.

BTW Thom Hogan had to make  >1 menu changes to invoke this.

7 hours ago, Tom_Kline said:

This is because the scale begins at zero but 2 to the 0 power = 1. There are thus 256 values in the 8-bit histogram scale; 0 to 255.

This is what I was referring to above.

BTW Thom Hogan had to make  >1 menu changes to invoke this.

What I mean is the end of the scale where 255 would be there is no marker so you can't tell how close the histogram is to clipping.  Thye could put a white vertical line there to make it obvious.

DxoMark and Photonstophotos measurements are out

The Z8 is very similar to the Sony A1 but has less DR and slightly worse performance at high ISO

Interestingly the Nikon Z7 II performs better than the Z8/9 and similar to the D850 however it suffers from slower sync speed and does not do that well at 1/200

I think Nikon is doing great steps towards professional video but becoming less and less interesting as an underwater platform with their mirrorless offering

The EVF resolution is also average for the Z8 and identical to the Z7II making the latter I believe a better buy for the underwater photographer wanting to use a nikon mirrorless

There may be valid points for dismissing a Z8 for underwater use, I've even heard that red light focusing doesn't work, but I would absolutely not dismiss it on the basis of pixels in the EVF. The refresh rate is incredible and it has not hindered me at all on land, in fact I forget it's an EVF a lot of the time. But perhaps Sonys offerings are even better. 

I own a Z8 for topside wildlife, but I'm 50/50 about upgrading to using it underwater. 

There may be valid points for dismissing a Z8 for underwater use, I've even heard that red light focusing doesn't work, but I would absolutely not dismiss it on the basis of pixels in the EVF. The refresh rate is incredible and it has not hindered me at all on land, in fact I forget it's an EVF a lot of the time. But perhaps Sonys offerings are even better. 

 

I own a Z8 for topside wildlife, but I'm 50/50 about upgrading to using it underwater. 

Am not talking about the camera in absolute terms but for underwater use this doesn’t seem a big step forward from the z7II for photos

For video and topside it probably is

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi! Maybe this should be a new topic, but I'll try here.

I've bought a Z8 for topside use. So far I'm not planning on taking it underwater, but I'd like the option. However, I'm in the Sea&Sea ecosystem. Say... what's happening with Sea&Sea? They got bought by someone, didn't they? I'm noticing they don't have a Z9 housing which makes the Z8 outlook bleak.

On a more general Z8 note, you may have seen it already, but here is a great review of the Z9 underwater. Performance (not necessarily ergonomics) should be identical for Z8.
https://theunderwaterclub.com/review-the-nikon-z9-and-nauticam-na-z9-housing/

Edit: not to anyone's great surprise I now see the review above has been posted before.

One of my group had the new Sea & Sea Sony A1 housing on my recent Red Sea workshops - which looked nice.

I think most housing manufacturers would figure out that the Z8 is going to sell much better as an underwater camera than the Z9 and there will be lots of housings available. Just as there were always far more options for a D850 housing than a D5 housing. 

4 hours ago, horvendile said:

Hi! Maybe this should be a new topic, but I'll try here.

I've bought a Z8 for topside use. So far I'm not planning on taking it underwater, but I'd like the option. However, I'm in the Sea&Sea ecosystem. Say... what's happening with Sea&Sea? They got bought by someone, didn't they? I'm noticing they don't have a Z9 housing which makes the Z8 outlook bleak.

On a more general Z8 note, you may have seen it already, but here is a great review of the Z9 underwater. Performance (not necessarily ergonomics) should be identical for Z8.
https://theunderwaterclub.com/review-the-nikon-z9-and-nauticam-na-z9-housing/

Edit: not to anyone's great surprise I now see the review above has been posted before.

All is not lost you can use your S&S ports on Isotta housings directly and you can also change out the lug ring on many of the ports to use them on Nauticam housings.  You would need new focus gears I believe.  Not saying you should do that but it's an option.

Thanks @Alex_Mustard and @ChrisRoss. I'm not in a financial position right now to get the Z8 underwater, but I may be in some future. Easiest for me would of course be if Sea&Sea get a housing together, but I'd probably at least investigate transitioning to Nauticam. Not sure it would be worth it but if ports can be carried over with some modification, that would be an important factor. 

And why not Isotta? Partly because Nauticam is easier to buy, and probably also easier to own, in Sweden.

I got the Z9 last summer, and then bought a Nauticam housing for it.   I use the 14-30 and the 105mc.  I had to buy a new macro port, and I bought a shorter extension port for the 230mm dome.   I'm coming from a D850/Nauticam rig and a D810 one before that.

I think the Z9 has definite advantages underwater over pretty much every other Nikon.  Compared to the DSLRs, I now have good video with working autofocus.   The 3D tracking works pretty well underwater, and I see it as equivalent to my D850 there.  But having the focus points go to the edge of the frame is a definite advantage.  The battery life is excellent, and this is where I see a big advantage over the Z8, particularly if shooting video. 

On the other hand, the housing cost is outrageous at $7500 for the Z9, while the Z8 comes in at a more affordable $4800 or so.

Underwater handling is about the same as the D850.  Once you get the rig balanced, it isn't any more significant effort to push through the water even though the housing is taller. 

I haven't used a Z7, so I can't really compare the autofocus speeds.  But my D850 was noticeably faster than my D810, and that allowed me to get some shots easily that I struggled with on the D810.   Fast autofocus is certainly useful underwater.  I'm also finding it quite useful to reprogram some of the function buttons for specific underwater purposes, like moving the ISO button to the left hand.

4 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

I got the Z9 last summer, and then bought a Nauticam housing for it.   I use the 14-30 and the 105mc.  I had to buy a new macro port, and I bought a shorter extension port for the 230mm dome.   I'm coming from a D850/Nauticam rig and a D810 one before that.

I think the Z9 has definite advantages underwater over pretty much every other Nikon.  Compared to the DSLRs, I now have good video with working autofocus.   The 3D tracking works pretty well underwater, and I see it as equivalent to my D850 there.

Are you not seeing any advantages underwater from an AF point of view, upgrading from the D850?

When reading reviews such as the A1, it feels like the AF system brings quite a lot of tracking improvements over traditional DLSRs

2 hours ago, sinetwo said:

When reading reviews such as the A1, it feels like the AF system brings quite a lot of tracking improvements over traditional DLSRs

It seems a common reaction from many posts here on Wetpixel that going from good SLR to latest Sony MRL - AF is a big step on. Going from those same SLRs to Nikon Z9/Z8 the AF is probably better.

In my experience of both the Z9 and Z8 topside (I plan to use the Z8 underwater next week) I would say that the 3D tracking is better than the D850 (with the latest firmware). I would say that the general tracking of subjects is way better. Plus you have subject recognition and full frame coverage with AF. So I feel the Z8/Z9 AF is superior to the D850 for underwater shooting. 

On 7/17/2023 at 11:53 PM, sinetwo said:

Are you not seeing any advantages underwater from an AF point of view, upgrading from the D850?

When reading reviews such as the A1, it feels like the AF system brings quite a lot of tracking improvements over traditional DLSRs

I have had the Z9 for a year, and I still haven't mastered the AF system above water.  It changes a bit for the better with each firmware release, but I haven't even tried Auto Capture yet.   I generally have good luck when the subject fills the DX frame, but start struggling more and more with distant/smaller subjects in the viewfinder.   This is for any mode with Subject Detection.  I have NOT tried a small custom AF area yet, but also haven't had a lot of shooting lately.

What I did for years with the D850 and new Z9 is 3D Tracking.   I found 3D Tracking to be very fast and accurate on the D850, and it didn't really matter much what the distance was.  Underwater, I used it all the time, and it worked on the D810, and it worked better on the D850.  My goal with the Z9 was to at least match the D850, and it does, thankfully.  I was worried it would grab onto the background, a tendency that was a lot worse with firmware 2.1.   It not only 3D tracked my subjects, but it did so to the edges of the frame.  The D850 never gave me an issue in my shooting, so I consider it basically perfect.  The Z9 is also perfect.  If the Z9 is even faster, it's hard to tell.

It's Subject Detection that drives me nuts.  I tried it underwater, and it mostly did not work, or focused on the wrong part of a fish. (Fake eyes.)  So I just leave it off and shoot like I did with the D850.

Above water, Subject Detection is either the greatest good or the greatest evil.  It either grabs the right subject faster than humanly possible, or it grabs the wrong subject and fights you for control.   I think the biggest issue I have is that Subject Detection works quite far outside the 3D Tracking focus box, and you don't have pinpoint control with it on.  

I've had up to 5 function buttons programmed with different AF modes.  It's taking a long time to decide which to use. 

MY underwater photography is more often small, slow or stationary things where the biggest movement is me approaching the subject.   But I can see a great advantage for a wide area AF mode for certain bluewater subjects.   Me, I've long wanted to pinpoint where my focus point is, so I'm happy with 3D Tracking.

In looking at the Nikon’s new Z8, I am note getting a very warm and fuzzy feeling about this camera. 

First there was something regarding some kind of issue with the lens mount - https://www.notebookcheck.net/Nikon-Z8-recalled-due-to-lens-mount-defect-that-prevents-users-from-attaching-lenses-to-camera-body.727912.0.html and https://petapixel.com/2023/06/26/some-nikon-z8-cameras-arent-allowing-a-lens-to-be-attached/#:~:text=“Users of the Z8 camera,may occur with Z8 cameras.

And now an issue with the strap lugs in camera body breaking off – something that Nikon seems to be aware of: https://nikonrumors.com/2023/07/19/update-on-the-z8-separated-broken-strap-lugs-nikon-is-aware-of-the-issue.aspx/

I for one am going to wait awhile on this one.