"What raw converters support the Z9 High Efficiency formats?”
- Nikon NX Studio
- Adobe ACR 14.3, Lightroom Classic, Photoshop Elements (2022)
- Capture One 22 (15.4.1)
- On1 Photo RAW
- Affinity Photo 2 on macOS Ventura or current iPadOS only using Apple core support
Nikon High Efficiency NEF formats basically stuff an intoPIX’s TicoRAW data package into the usual Nikon NEF container. Technically, intoPIX updated their SDK to support the latest operating systems and chips (including Apple silicon) in fall of 2022. Not all developers have yet added support to their product.
“Do you still need the paid firmware update to record raw video (ProRes RAW and Blackmagic RAW) on an external capture device?”
Yes for the Z6, Z6 II, Z7, and Z7 II (as long as they weren’t purchased in the “filmmaker’s kit” version).
No for the Z9.
The US$199 cost almost certainly arises from the fact that Nikon did not pay royalties to MPEG-LA for raw video compression when these cameras were manufactured. NikonUSA sort of buries this update on their site, so here’s the link: raw video firmware update.
Things to note about this particular update: (1) you pack your camera up and ship it to Nikon; (2) Nikon will inspect, clean, and install the firmware within 48 hours; (3) you’ll be asked to pay the update/repair fee before Nikon releases the camera; and (4) Nikon will ship it back to you at your expense. Thus, you’ll likely be without your camera for a week to two weeks, depending upon where you live and how it is shipped.
The issue to be aware of is #2: any camera that goes through the inspect and clean process at Nikon will trigger an estimated repair cost if Nikon finds something is wrong with it (damaged or out of spec). Nikon generally won’t work on a camera unless they can bring it up to at least refurbished standards, because they are essentially saying the camera will “work as expected” when it leaves their hands. Your choice if your camera is found to be damaged is to either approve the estimate, or to have it returned without the work performed.
Before you ask, I’ll answer the question of “is it worth it?”
Maybe.
Okay, you want more. Generally you want to avoid compression in your video editing cycle. Every non-raw option will have a serious form of compression to it, and this is always lossy compression on the Z6 and Z7 models internally. Externally, you’d still be compressing the HDMI output from the camera, but that compression can be far less lossy. Indeed, I’d tend to say that 10-bit ProRes 422HQ is a very friendly compression for videographers, and would be my first choice for improving both video quality and having a video editor compatible compression that doesn’t trigger transcoding (recompression).
ProRes RAW, though, produces smaller file sizes than ProRes 422HQ, can produce essentially 4:4:4:4 color, allows you apply LUTs to linear data, and generally has the same benefits as do the still photography raw formats. One small downside to using raw video on a Z6/Z7 model is this: to keep up the data stream the video is produced with a pixel-skipping technique on both axes, which can produce some very low-level artifacts on motion.
“How do I set a Z9 for BIF (birds in flight?).”
I actually have a presentation I do in my workshops now that’s a seven step program to better Z9 focus (which is already incredibly good; Z9 focus, I mean, not my presentation ;~). Maybe I’ll get around to recording that as an online course at some point (I’m in the process of improving my Z9 book’s descriptions for the next update first).
I will say that working with students the number one thing that has to be corrected is camera/lens handling. If you can’t reliably keep pointed at the subject, you’re going to have focus misses, even with automatic features turned on. Yes, I know the Z-mount telephotos and PF lenses are light. Perhaps too light, as I see the fronts of student lenses bouncing all over the place when I look at them.
The second biggest problem tends to be exposing for the background, not the bird (you left the camera in matrix metering, didn’t you?). Dark exposure on the subject makes the autofocus system work harder, and sometimes it fails.
Finally, you’ll get to the issue of which AF-area mode. The temptation is to use Auto-area AF. Don’t. Try a Wide-area AF (C1) (custom) and a narrowed area for subject detection. Why Wide-area? Because it has some priority to the closest subject, and the BIF is usually the closest subject. Why Custom? Because the regular versions are too small for all that lens waving you’re doing (see above).
Consider a Hybrid Button Focus approach, but, I’ll warn you, that won’t work well if you haven’t done the above first.
Cameras are tools. Learning to properly use the tool will always work better for you in the end.
“Should I switch to Sony?”
Yes. Please do. The economy is slowing down; we need more consumer economic activity, so consider yourself an early volunteer.
I continue to be amazed at the switchers. They don’t tend to stay switched.
I used to think that was due to lenses, but that’s not turning out to be very true. I thought that the ubiquitous lens adapters were fueling the switching, as people were averse to buying new lenses. But looking at the stats, these folks switched, bought new lenses anyway, then switched back, and bought still more lenses.
My current belief is this: the switchers are looking mostly for a lazy way of improving their imagery. More pixels, better autofocus, film simulations, it’s always a feature or perceived performance that their current product doesn’t seen to have.
So why do they switch back? Because ultimately you still have to learn the tool to get better results, and the old brand tool's style is more familiar than the new and requires less relearning (e.g. menus, controls, etc.). The other reason is that these folk are just impatient. They apparently can’t wait for Nikon to get around to making the camera they desire, and are convinced that someone else has. And then something like the Z9 comes along and blows that all up.
Thus, my new response to all future “should I switch? emails” is going to be: “Yes, and let me know when you switch back so I can continue to help you.”
“Should I really install new firmware when it appears?”
Yes.
The distrust has recently shown up with Z9 users, who found that firmware updates changed something that they were relying upon. Nikon even caught onto to one of those (Prioritize viewfinder) and eventually added both the version 1.00 and version 2.00 firmware versions of that starting with, yes, you guessed it, firmware 3.00.
The initial firmware updates with most of the Z models have been somewhat disruptive, adding new features, changing performance parameters, and moving or renaming things. Nobody likes their cheese moved less than I do. That said, Nikon’s goal on virtually every firmware change was to make the camera better, and I’d argue that they have. Yes, sometimes the firmware updates introduce a new bug or an unintended consequence, but I’ve found that rare and once noted, not an issue that stops me at anything.
But the real reason why I say “yes” to the question is simple: you can always go back. Somewhat rare in the software update world, Nikon uses a “complete overwrite” in the firmware update process, which means that version C2.00 can be installed over C3.00, if need be.
I keep a folder with all Nikon firmware updates. I originally started doing that so that I could deal with workshop students who hadn’t performed a needed update, but it also allows me to go back and check how a camera operates with older firmware, if necessary. I suggest you do the same: just drag all the .BIN files for the firmware updates to a "Firmware Updates" folder you create on your computer. They don’t take up much space.
“What about lens updates?”
Actually, it’s becoming very important that you keep your lenses up to date, as camera firmware changes rely upon the lens communication being correct.
Nikon introduced focus ring changes in recent Z6 II, Z7 II, and Z9 camera firmware. But for those to work, the lens has to have been updated to support it. At present, 18 of Nikon’s Z-mount lenses have firmware updates, so it’s quite possible that you’ve forgotten to update one.
“Is Nikon now obsessed with video?”
Let me explain the reason why some people are asking this question: they don’t use the video features of their camera. They have the belief that if only Nikon didn’t work on video features, they’d get a cheaper camera with more still features.
First, not much cost would be taken out by not adding video. The MPEG-LA and other royalties have to be paid by Nikon (and every other camera maker). Data offload from the image sensor has to be engineered to be faster. At 4K/60 and above you need really fast card write speed and management. You have to add an HDMI connector, microphone(s), speaker, and perhaps mic in and headset out jacks. You probably want a bigger battery capacity.
Yet all of those things benefit still photography, too ;~). Yes, even that first one. Say what? Some of you complain that the Z9 can’t take 60 fps raw. Sure it can: record 8K video at 60P in 12-bit N-Raw (which required an intoPIX license by Nikon that you said video paid for ;~). Unfortunately, the process of getting to a single frame and processing it as a still is convoluted at the moment, but perhaps some savvy software developer will have an Aha! moment and provide the solution. Iliah, are you listening? How about a NEV-to-DNG converter?
Yes, even the microphone(s) and speakers have a stills use: voice annotation, which not enough of you have discovered and use.
From a professional’s standpoint, we can’t just be a still photographer anymore. Virtually all RFQs (Request for Quote) these days have both still and video aspects to them, and the smart pro has figured out how to turn that into more revenue.
So I don’t have any real problem with video being added to our cameras, though I use this function less than many other pros (but probably more than you). Moreover, making a hybrid still/video camera takes away a potential competitive disadvantage that could make Nikon’s lowish volume into a real problem for the future.
That said, I believe we need to lobby for more still photography functions in our camera. Pixel shift, for instance, is one tech that Nikon is now in last place with, as they haven’t even driven the car, let alone started the engine.
To those of you objecting to video features, I’d say this: stop protesting those and simply get more adamant about adding missing still features. It isn’t a zero sum game (though product development at Nikon might think it is ;~).
Oh, I forgot to answer the question: yes, they are. It’s the “why” that’s a little disconcerting, as I don’t see any clear strategy on Nikon’s part other than to play somewhat the same game as others. The Nikkor group, for instance, hasn’t really gotten around to embracing video, despite all the claims of no focus breathing. So: no clear strategy.
My goals for Nikon: develop a real video strategy and add more still photography features.
