As if the video resolution would really be important in real life. 90% ,me included watch those vlogger videos on a smartphone or at best a pad in a window and to see any advantage in 6 k you need 50 inch screen ,for 8 k at least 60 , for smartphones 1080 is more than enough and saying that you see more with 4 k up is only a placebo effect where your brain is tricked because you are convinced it has to be better since the number is higher.
Hi, thanks for your reaction! I understand your point and idea, seen from your side as a viewer. You make a good point :) If I look at my channel stats, 43% watches my videos on mobile, 32 on computer, 17 on TV, and 6% tablet. Those are just my stats, not of general YT watchers, I know :). And then there is an interesting trend: watching YT on television is rising fast. This means people do watch on Full HD, 4K, or 8K televisions. (They even watch reels!). You'll be able to find more about this trend if your search on youtube :) In 2014, I started shooting 4K films, and people told me it was dumb, as no one had a 4k screen. (Then 4k tvs were extremely expensive, now it is the standard.) But I knew I would make my productions and travel films future proof. Watch them today, and they still keep up very well. From a filmmaker's point of view, 6k is very important, and I mentioned that in my review as well: you have the possibility to zoom in without quality loss. Think of reframing or focusing more on details beyond the zoom of your lens. Thanks again! :)
3000 Euro... yeah right. The Z6ii was 2000 Euro at its introduction. And with the Z6iii they did not even increase the megapixel count. 24.5 MP was invented years ago.
Hi! I understand your frustration, but the Z6 ii was released in 2020, before general world prices went up. (Covid/economics). The Nikon Z6 III has enough upgrades to justify its current price and isnt event that expensive if you look at the competitors and what it can do. Megapixels don't mean much unless you want to go for some crazy cropping. In general you don't want to have more than 25mp. Watch the full video, and you'll find out why :)
@@cameradeals It is not all about megapixels I know. I still use my older cameras like a D700 and D3s and with 12 megapixel you can do a lot. But my D850 with its 46 megapixel is still the best option for landscapes. I have a Z5 and got it for around 1200 Euro or so when it was on sale but I don't see me paying 3000 Euro for a Z6iii. Just does not feel right. And regarding prices in general the world has become insane. If I go to a supermarkt to get some daily stuff like a bread or some milk etc... prices are ridiculous. If somebody wants to start photography I advise him to get a Z5 when it is on sale. Or look at the secondhand market. I noticed that prices are going down. Take a D800. Still a beast of a camera and they are practically giving them away.
It is not unique in terms of beeing able to do 120fps. Also, speed comes with restrictions... I am pretty sure we will not see widespread adoption of this "partially stacked design" - which is not really stacked at all - so it seems adding "stacked" to the name was just done for marketing and to justify the absurd price of the Z6III, which I expect to look really mediocre once the competitors bring their latest developments to the market in 6-12 months.
Thank you for your reply! That is true, there are other cameras reaching 120 photos per second, or were you referring to 120fps in film? If we look at 120fps in photo, only more expensive models can do this. EOS R6 II reaches 40fps and Lumix G9 II 60fps. Of course, the Z8 and Z9 can do 120fps, as well as the Sony A1 (60fps) and other flagship models (which of course are pricier and have more MP). OM-1 reaches 120 fps, but is MFT. In that case, it is quite unique that this full frame camera, in this price range, reaches that 120fps and that is where that stacked sensor comes in. Please let me know if I missed a camera in this price range which can do the same. :). The stacked sensor has more advantages than just being able to do 120fps in photography, of course. Thank you :)
The 120fps are in DX Mode at 10 mpix only as far as i understand. And only jpg and only for very limited time. I appreciate anyone using this Potential creatively. But i find this feature comes at too high a price. The A7s could record 4k at 120fps - video only of course, but still. And this is a camera from 2015... R5 is Not much more expensive, but offers more attractive package, even tough Canon is really falling behind the competition currently.
It is unique to have 120fps (crop jpeg) 60fps (full res jpeg) at this price point. A93 is only full frame camera I know of that can take stills at that speed with full af and exposure, outside of Nikons z9/8. I don’t expect A7v r6iii to be significantly better. These midrange cameras are always refreshed with incremental improvements not revolutionary. R6ii A7iv already have quite a bit of catching up to do. Even the R5 is behind in quite a few areas (sensor readout, hi-res sensor shift, precapture, 1/16000 SS, 14 fps mechanical, 14bit 20fps raw, 60/120 fps stills, buffer, ibis, lowlight af capabilities, 1080 240, overheating isn’t an issue, EVF, battery life)
Absurd price? You’re joking, right? The Sony A7 IV was $2500 when launched, 33 MP BSI sensor, doesn’t shoot 6K. The Canon R6 II was also launched for $2500 24 MP BSI sensor, also doesn’t shoot 6K and neither do RAW internally. Stacked sensor cameras are $4K+, $2500 for a partially stacked sensor camera that shoots up to 6K RAW without the need for an external recorder and you think it’s too expensive? Interesting.
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | ( Bacon Time Vs PSG )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zM25REvnJW4/mqdefault.jpg)
Very good explanation, thanks for your help!
Thank you! I am happy it helped! 😄😄
Thank you so much for watching! If you laughed (a bit) about my stupid jokes or found the review helpful, please leave me a like, comment and sub! :D
I SUBSCRIBED, YOU TOO
@@nickdual Thank you so much! ✅
Just switch to Davinci. It will make you a much less violent person.
Haha, thanks for the advice
the amount of dust on the sensor!!!
You're right! My new sensor swaps came in right after I recorded it 😅
As if the video resolution would really be important in real life.
90% ,me included watch those vlogger videos on a smartphone or at best a pad in a window and to see any advantage in 6 k you need 50 inch screen ,for 8 k at least 60 , for smartphones 1080 is more than enough and saying that you see more with 4 k up is only a placebo effect where your brain is tricked because you are convinced it has to be better since the number is higher.
Hi, thanks for your reaction! I understand your point and idea, seen from your side as a viewer. You make a good point :)
If I look at my channel stats, 43% watches my videos on mobile, 32 on computer, 17 on TV, and 6% tablet. Those are just my stats, not of general YT watchers, I know :).
And then there is an interesting trend: watching YT on television is rising fast. This means people do watch on Full HD, 4K, or 8K televisions. (They even watch reels!). You'll be able to find more about this trend if your search on youtube :)
In 2014, I started shooting 4K films, and people told me it was dumb, as no one had a 4k screen. (Then 4k tvs were extremely expensive, now it is the standard.) But I knew I would make my productions and travel films future proof. Watch them today, and they still keep up very well.
From a filmmaker's point of view, 6k is very important, and I mentioned that in my review as well: you have the possibility to zoom in without quality loss. Think of reframing or focusing more on details beyond the zoom of your lens.
Thanks again! :)
🔥
💥
3000 Euro... yeah right. The Z6ii was 2000 Euro at its introduction. And with the Z6iii they did not even increase the megapixel count. 24.5 MP was invented years ago.
Hi! I understand your frustration, but the Z6 ii was released in 2020, before general world prices went up. (Covid/economics). The Nikon Z6 III has enough upgrades to justify its current price and isnt event that expensive if you look at the competitors and what it can do. Megapixels don't mean much unless you want to go for some crazy cropping. In general you don't want to have more than 25mp. Watch the full video, and you'll find out why :)
@@cameradeals It is not all about megapixels I know. I still use my older cameras like a D700 and D3s and with 12 megapixel you can do a lot. But my D850 with its 46 megapixel is still the best option for landscapes. I have a Z5 and got it for around 1200 Euro or so when it was on sale but I don't see me paying 3000 Euro for a Z6iii. Just does not feel right. And regarding prices in general the world has become insane. If I go to a supermarkt to get some daily stuff like a bread or some milk etc... prices are ridiculous.
If somebody wants to start photography I advise him to get a Z5 when it is on sale. Or look at the secondhand market. I noticed that prices are going down. Take a D800. Still a beast of a camera and they are practically giving them away.
👍🏽
✌🏻
It is not unique in terms of beeing able to do 120fps. Also, speed comes with restrictions... I am pretty sure we will not see widespread adoption of this "partially stacked design" - which is not really stacked at all - so it seems adding "stacked" to the name was just done for marketing and to justify the absurd price of the Z6III, which I expect to look really mediocre once the competitors bring their latest developments to the market in 6-12 months.
Thank you for your reply! That is true, there are other cameras reaching 120 photos per second, or were you referring to 120fps in film?
If we look at 120fps in photo, only more expensive models can do this. EOS R6 II reaches 40fps and Lumix G9 II 60fps. Of course, the Z8 and Z9 can do 120fps, as well as the Sony A1 (60fps) and other flagship models (which of course are pricier and have more MP). OM-1 reaches 120 fps, but is MFT. In that case, it is quite unique that this full frame camera, in this price range, reaches that 120fps and that is where that stacked sensor comes in. Please let me know if I missed a camera in this price range which can do the same. :). The stacked sensor has more advantages than just being able to do 120fps in photography, of course. Thank you :)
The 120fps are in DX Mode at 10 mpix only as far as i understand. And only jpg and only for very limited time. I appreciate anyone using this Potential creatively. But i find this feature comes at too high a price.
The A7s could record 4k at 120fps - video only of course, but still. And this is a camera from 2015... R5 is Not much more expensive, but offers more attractive package, even tough Canon is really falling behind the competition currently.
@@MrBlubb80 You can shoot raw+jpeg as well :)
It is unique to have 120fps (crop jpeg) 60fps (full res jpeg) at this price point. A93 is only full frame camera I know of that can take stills at that speed with full af and exposure, outside of Nikons z9/8.
I don’t expect A7v r6iii to be significantly better. These midrange cameras are always refreshed with incremental improvements not revolutionary. R6ii A7iv already have quite a bit of catching up to do. Even the R5 is behind in quite a few areas (sensor readout, hi-res sensor shift, precapture, 1/16000 SS, 14 fps mechanical, 14bit 20fps raw, 60/120 fps stills, buffer, ibis, lowlight af capabilities, 1080 240, overheating isn’t an issue, EVF, battery life)
Absurd price? You’re joking, right? The Sony A7 IV was $2500 when launched, 33 MP BSI sensor, doesn’t shoot 6K. The Canon R6 II was also launched for $2500 24 MP BSI sensor, also doesn’t shoot 6K and neither do RAW internally. Stacked sensor cameras are $4K+, $2500 for a partially stacked sensor camera that shoots up to 6K RAW without the need for an external recorder and you think it’s too expensive? Interesting.