JoPoV
Active member
Is it difference between wildlife photography and petlife photography ?
Z6iii - not a body for wildlife/BIF?
- Thread starter Kenny88
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Just to rub it in! Then - here in Australia there are the birds that frequent my garden, like Rainbow and Musk Lorikeets, Eastern Rosellas, Galahs, Sulphur-crested Cockatoos, and the endangered Swift Parrot. Then the day we saw eight different birds of prey in one morning. Oh! - AND when I visit a nearby Ramsar site I often do not see another person all day. I shudder when I hear how many photographers turn up at sites throughout the world. Aussi! Aussi! Aussi! Oi! Oi! Oi!
First one I ever saw flew about 30 yards over to me and promptly landed on my head.And what about some of the Scrub Jays in Florida that frequently land on camera bodies and lenses, or even a photographers head?
ricardo00
Well-known member
If one has a higher MP camera and one is usually cropping a fair amount, then getting a 24MP is not a good replacement. Not unacceptable as you said, but not desirable is how I would put it. If one is getting a new camera, one wants it to at least be as useful as one's current camera for one's needs. If one currently has a Z6i or ii, then the Z6iii is a great improvement. Those with a Z8 currently are not stuck waiting for the next better IMO, we can make use of our current gear and forego buying something that won't help us improve our photography.
It is NOT clear that a Z-8/9 is always superior. The OM-1 m2 essentially has an unlimited buffer (250 images) @ 20 f/s and, as Steve indicates, this feature sometimes allows the capture of shots that cameras without this feature only capture by luck. If your goal is action photographs the Z-6iii may well be a better choice.
Tom
Tom
First one I ever saw flew about 30 yards over to me and promptly landed on my head.
I think a Z6III would have worked fine here....as long as it figured out which bird to grab.
Last edited:
To get back on topic, I was wondering if anyone thought the better low-light performance might make it a good counterweight to the higher minimum f-stop lenses like the 180-600mm f/6.3.
As long as the focal length of the lens was sufficient so you didn't have to crop a small size file to begin with, could the better high ISO performance of the camera make the combination a good choice for things like feeder birds in Central & South America?
I'm looking seriously at heading down to Colombia and/or Ecuador to shoot tanagers/toucans/barbets and the like and wondered about this camera/lens combo.
As long as the focal length of the lens was sufficient so you didn't have to crop a small size file to begin with, could the better high ISO performance of the camera make the combination a good choice for things like feeder birds in Central & South America?
I'm looking seriously at heading down to Colombia and/or Ecuador to shoot tanagers/toucans/barbets and the like and wondered about this camera/lens combo.
StefanSC
Well-known member
You can take 2 similar images (e.g: DPRs studio comparison tool) for a Z6 II and Z8/9 at the same ISO.
If viewed at 1:1, the Z8/9 will look noisier. Resize it to 24Mpx and you'd be hard pressed to tell which image is which.
So I'd incline to say no. Especially when you take into account modern noise reduction software.
I did read some articles that the larger pixel pitch of the 24Mpx sensors helps somewhat with low light focusing.
Sure…better noise performance will help…but remember that we have really, really good noise software today whether you use Steve's LR method or Topaz or DxO or whatever. When I was in Serengeti with him recently I had my 600PF and even with the TC and using a beanbag on the vehicle roof I needed to get down to 1/50 second and some ridiculous ISO to get the shots of the lion drinking in the evening twilight. For me…it's a great photo…DxO got rid of a lot of the noise and he was still enough that shutter speed prevented motion blur. For my purposes…getting a great shot of a lion drinking at twilight to downsample to 1024 wide for the blog…the shot was way more than good enough. As I discussed in another response elsewhere…Steve's business depends on getting not more than good enough but the best shots…his requirements are rightfully different and I don't know if he actually kept or plans on using any of the shots I'm sure he got of the same animal and scene…for all I know the ridiculously high ISO required moved his shots immediately to the "oh well, I'll keep them for bad shot examples later on" pile.
But anything that improves low light performance like what the Z6III has can obviously result in less noise…and less noise is always good in the RAW file. But todays' software can and does make a lot of high ISO shots usable depending on what your purpose and requirements are.
At the sensor level, we need a major technology change to materially reduce noise. Everything today is just the size of the photosites - 24 MP has less noise than 46 or 60 MP, noise reduction - either at the raw level by the camera manufacturer or in post controlled by the photographer. Cropping is the other aspect of noise - the more you crop the greater the impact of noise. If the subject is small in the frame and you're using a crop - DX or otherwise - to remove portions of the original image, the noise you have is larger and at some point overwhelms subject detail.
There are various forms of using multiple images to average out noise and make it invisible. Pixel shift is one method but requires a static subject.
Steve is able to use a combination of faster lenses,and good post processing which reduce noise, but the key with him and most pros is they have longer lenses and field technique that reduces or eliminates heavy cropping. Part of teh reason you don't see noisy images is because he does not make photos that have heavily cropped subjects.
With my own photos, I'm very likely to push shutter speed to unreasonably slow levels when I will need to crop. It also depends on how the image will be used. If I am making a photo for social media the ability to crop is very different from a large print of the same subject. One of the reasons wading birds make good subjects is because they are large in the frame and we don't need cropping. Someone who photographs songbirds has a much greater challenge producin print quality images..
It's been a long time since I heard that cheer! It may have been my "shout" at the time!
JoPoV
Active member
Iit seems that Steeve Perry first tests showed that this is not really the case for this camera compare to Z8/9 (due to kind of sensor used probably). Unless I've misunderstood.
Photosite size is probably not the only factor for good low-light performance.
Last edited:
Cheers Wayne! I'm off for my second new hip this morning. Just got a new ground-pod from the USA! New definition of optimism??It's been a long time since I heard that cheer! It may have been my "shout" at the time!
I wish you the best, Neil. A successful surgery, followed by a speedy and complete recovery. With lots of attention from plenty of congenial, good-looking nurses and therapists!Cheers Wayne! I'm off for my second new hip this morning. Just got a new ground-pod from the USA! New definition of optimism??
I look forward to hearing of such, from you, very soon. Followed by a complete review of the new ground pod, of course!
Your subject must have been quite captivating!View attachment 91859
I think a Z6III would have worked fine here....as long as it figured out which bird to grab.
eaj101
Well-known member
Yeah, it all depends. At my local lake you can walk up to within 20' of Black Crowned Night Herons. But other birds are wary enough to be specks in the viewfinder. Maybe we should inventory best places for different species?
Ricspics53
New member
So it doesn’t fit your needs! For some of us people that are on a very tight budget that can’t afford the Z8 or Z9 it’s an awesome upgrade
Honestly, how can one seriously expect a Z6 III with 45 MP at a price that would kill the the Z7 II and the Z8 straight away.
The marketing guy suggesting that would be out of the door before he can finish the sentence .
Times are not long gone where the top pro level bodies had 16,2 or 20+ MP and my D4s gave me some of the best shots ever. There were people doing serious wildlife shooting with D600 and it worked.
As @EricBowles said: There are also tradeoff's with hires sensors and in the end the images are primarily made with what sits betwenn one's ears.
I would probably wait a bit until the is more clarity about the details behind firmware details (like e.g. which function can really be allocated to which button and which function is missing), but then - as a Z8 shooter I yould be seriously tempted by this Z6 III. Functionality much closer to the Z8 than the older Z6 generations, most of the disadvantages of the older generations overcome, Sensor with faster read out allowingg for a higher speed EVF and lat but not least an EVW getting closer to DSLR lok and feel in terms of resolution/IQ, persistantly saved user modes,...
Since the DSLR days I miss my second body, because I simply coudln't afford it.
But if I get a chance to take a Z6 III in my hands an try it, it could well be that I either buy a Z6 III as second body instead of buying a second Z8 or even trade my exisintg Z8 and get two Z6 III instead.
Let's sse what the frontrunners come up with. Good reviews are the cake. Shared experience is tht cream on top.
The marketing guy suggesting that would be out of the door before he can finish the sentence
.Times are not long gone where the top pro level bodies had 16,2 or 20+ MP and my D4s gave me some of the best shots ever. There were people doing serious wildlife shooting with D600 and it worked.
As @EricBowles said: There are also tradeoff's with hires sensors and in the end the images are primarily made with what sits betwenn one's ears.
I would probably wait a bit until the is more clarity about the details behind firmware details (like e.g. which function can really be allocated to which button and which function is missing), but then - as a Z8 shooter I yould be seriously tempted by this Z6 III. Functionality much closer to the Z8 than the older Z6 generations, most of the disadvantages of the older generations overcome, Sensor with faster read out allowingg for a higher speed EVF and lat but not least an EVW getting closer to DSLR lok and feel in terms of resolution/IQ, persistantly saved user modes,...
Since the DSLR days I miss my second body, because I simply coudln't afford it.
But if I get a chance to take a Z6 III in my hands an try it, it could well be that I either buy a Z6 III as second body instead of buying a second Z8 or even trade my exisintg Z8 and get two Z6 III instead.
Let's sse what the frontrunners come up with. Good reviews are the cake. Shared experience is tht cream on top.
Thanks Wayne! It was my second hip replacement in 6 months so I knew what to expect. I was up and walking with one crutch after 48 hrs and had no pain. During Covid I built a macro cage, so I will be dusting that off and that will be my route back to photography. I limped down to that amazing world-wide aurora just before the operation and those poles in the corner (image below) makes this very special for me. The sky (and Fgd) is 9 portrait images with my 14mm wide angle lens and this is the whole southern sky from east to west and it also went past vertical overhead.
Back on topic, after looking at more on-line comments I think the Z6iii will be a perfect transition to mirrorless from the D850, given that I have the 500pf and 1.4TC.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Photons to Photos also shows ISO performance is about the same - the Z8 has an advantage with base ISO 64 but the Z6iii has a very small advantage at highest ISO levels.
But all this assumes you are not cropping or are cropping equally. Cropping deeper with the Z8 changes the playing field.
JoPoV
Active member
So does this apply the same when the output format must be very large or very high resolution ?
Yes, the output image size normalization used in the dynamic range curves over on Photonstophotos gives the same results if the output sizes are very small, very large or anywhere in between. As long as the final images from each camera are sized to the same pixel dimensions those charts stay the same even if those pixel dimensions are very large and require upsizing (interpolation) from one or both cameras.
Morten Hilmer shared this 2 days ago. Very interesting.
I have watched that, and it is very interesting. Makes me consider upgrading from my Z6ii to a Z6iii.
Thanks for sharing ! Not a classical review video, but really nice. By the looks of it, I am actually pretty sure to have been at this bird rock myself years ago. What a coincidence !
Obviously the primary interest was the comments on the Z6 III, but what I really liked even some of his more general statements, foremost the one about sensor resolution.
Admittedly I became part of it by buying a Z8, but the rat race about Megapixels is a bit strange IMO. I really feel the same like him, considering that I started digital with a Fuji S2 Pro and probably have my best memories from times where i was shooting my D4s. But that's how things go.
That said, the primary reason to buy a Z8 was not the resolution and it might even be a consequence of being hesitant to switch to mirrorless for quite some time and then getting feelings like "if now finally, then all you can get".
If I can get first hand input one day about the details in controls configuration of the Z6 III and the differences/limitations compared to Z8/Z9 I would be happy to go back to 24MP and instead of getting a second Z8 to have two bodies again I would take two Z6 III. If I then have the feeling that I want to go back to more resolution, e.g. for landscape or macro, a used Z7 II would be by far good enough for what I do.
Just as him I really don't like to have cameras where the look and feel as well as the configuration cannot be kept identical. I simply don't have the routine and regularity in my shooting that allows me to compensate these - sometimes small - differences and still being able to shoot intuitively and do the right things at the right on the camera controls.