Nikon Z62 & Z63 ISO Comparison

A look at the ISO performance between the Nikon Z6iii and the Nikon Z6iii.
RAW Images: tinyurl.com/Z6...
2nd Set of RAW images after some feedback. ISOs 2500 to 51200.
tinyurl.com/Z6...
Adorama Affiliate Links. Consider supporting this channel!
Nikon Z6iii adorama.rfvk.n...
Nikon Z6ii adorama.rfvk.n...
Nikon Z8 adorama.rfvk.n...
Nikon Z9 adorama.rfvk.n...
Adorama Everything Else: adorama.rfvk.n...

[@dunnymonster]

Interesting results, on your test it certainly seems that the Z6III manages higher ISO's a tad better than the mk II. I'm inclined to think that the dynamic range tests carried out by other KZbinrs perhaps reveals more about the Z6 III sensor's " invariant" capability compared to the Z6 II. That is to say that compared directly and assuming exposure is correct to start with that the Z6III improves upon the Z6II in purely higher ISO capability. That would make sense given it us utilizing a more powerful expeed 7 processor. Where the Z6II beats it is in situations where you have to recover a poor exposure in post be it due to under or overexposure. It seems that the Z6II just has a tad more headroom in post processing. I own both the Z6III and Z6II. Even if the Z6III performed less favourably than the Z6II in terms of ISO and dynamic range I'd still take it over the Z6II purely for the improved AF, better EVF and faster fps not to mention the faster sensor readout. These aspects are more use to me in real world image taking than being able to obtain more dynamic range. I very rarely shoot above ISO 6400 anyway. Its also extremely rare I would ever have to recover any image 5 stops or more, heck if you cant get exposure right with WYSIWYG in the EVF then perhaps photography isnt for you 😋

[@camilo8cheryl]

Exposure for newbies..put it in AUTO😂 and if YT newbie surfers complain about camera A vs camera B Dynamic range..then they should go get a Dslr to learn more and hone their skills…more cheaper to learn the basics of photography

[@prokremelskidezolati1426]

ISO 51 200? 🤣

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@dunnymonster well said!!

[@SMOOTTHH1]

Not sure if there is a problem with KZbin? But it is hard to tell any difference in 720P? Based on this video looks like the Z6III is actually better than the Z6II. I was waiting for the Z6III but think I will just buy the Z8 instead. Thanks for sharing 👍🏼🙏🏼

[@pacoperezabella]

Exceptional ISO perfomance!. Thanks.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@pacoperezabella You’re welcome!

[@MrPhotog7]

Your findings bear out what I discovered when playing with the Z6iii at my local camera store recently. I was shooting at 5000, 10,000 and higher, and the files definitely looked cleaner than the Z6ii at the same ISOs. 👍👍

[@richardmurray1858]

I left a comment on your dynamic range video explaining I had been running my own tests and they mirrored your DR results. I also said you should do an ISO video as I found the Z6iii was handling the higher iso's much better than the Z6ii. My results were the same as yours, thank you for confirming things. I shoot sports (mainly football and tennis) and I have found the z6iii is spitting out really great higher ISO images. My real world results were tested last week at the Wimbledon tennis championships and I was very happy with the files. Keep up the good work.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@richardmurray1858 great to hear you are seeing the same results!! Thanks!

[@g00nther]

Thanks for this. The differences are marginal and won't be apparent in most real world situations at lower ISOs. I plan to get the Z6III so all these vids are a great help.

[@twinklestar2490]

Is there an option of noise reduction in z63 raw file???

[@kjltube]

To me the biggest difference between the newest and older Z6 at very high iso is the lack of colour shift.

[@starbase218]

I'm almost thinking, given the body of evidence that concluded the Z6 III is slightly worse, that maybe you accidentally switched up the labels, and it's actually the Z6 II on the left. Assuming you shot RAW and treated the files in the same way.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@starbase218 I was careful.. all the files straight out of the camera were labeled: z62 & z63.

[@georgedavall9449]

Excellent !!!!!!

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@georgedavall9449 many thanks!

[@anddmt]

thanks for both sets of images - it seems that in the second set you fixed the WB and the exposure to match on both cameras - the first set of images in fact differ in WB, EV and the noise reduction is set in camera - from Photons to Photos the difference in the photographic Dynamic Range is between 100 and 636 ISO with the Z6III worse of about 0.8 EV - if there is any difference you would see it in that area - maybe would be helpful is you provide a few images with the same technique you shot the second set.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@anddmt thanks for writing. After a bunch of tests, I just don’t see a significant difference in iso performance between the two cameras. Now I am working on testing the focusing system.. specifically testing bird detection.. more to come.

[@jakilahmoulien9070]

Nice video. Do you have an A7III or something to compare it🤔 would be interesting to see the outcome

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@jakilahmoulien9070 thanks. I have a Z6ii. Not a Sony shooter.

[@jakilahmoulien9070]

@@kellysparksphotography alright thanks again!

[@user-uz5dj6yb8j]

It would be nice if the video was in 4K, we would see the result better.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@user-uz5dj6yb8j was going to, but my screen recording software didn’t do 4k.

[@spinthma]

It could be that on the Z6III due to the Expeed 7 processor some kind of AI AntI Noising and sharpening is happening, nevertheless a very impresseing result for a stacked sensor, maybe a lot better then with the A9III.

[@georgedascalasu8862]

The Sony a9iii looks horrible in the ISO 6400-12800 range. This is an iso comparison site, unfortunately the z6iii is not in their test, but from what can be seen in this video, the z6iii is better than the z6ii at certain iso values ​​from 6400 and up. The z6iii keeps its colors even at high values ​​without turning them into other shades like the green z6ii. It matters if the picture control of the camera or adobe picture control was used in the test and if the sharp Lr is on 0. If you are really not satisfied with the iso, you can reduce from the camera profile-medium sharp (-0.5-1) and you will have a better iso.

[@JET-Photo]

The Z6III background noise looks better to my eyes. I'm more concerned with the color shift. Background colors are definitely different. Maybe it was settings or color profile, IDK.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@JET-Photo some of the interpretations are subjective. The color could be managed in post. As I said, at 100% we are nitpicking.. not much that would be seen unless cropped way in.

[@JET-Photo]

@@kellysparksphotography Agreed, color can be fixed, just wonder why there's a difference. It's subtle but I could see it. Noise isn't an issue these days anyway, but I think the newer processor is helping the Z6III to be slightly better than the Z6II. Both are great cameras.

[@raudelravelo1169]

Honestly that’s a strange result, the z6-3 should definitely have more noise. BTW, the sensor is also a bit sharper which tend to confuse people about the level of detail retained at high iso. The z6-2 should retain a bit more detail even when it’s softer- that’s also a result of the slightly higher dinamic range. Moreover, the Z6-2 has a magenta cast. I don’t have the z6-3 but people seem to find a green cast to it instead.

[@lawrose4]

The new Z6III native ISO ranges to 64,000, so that is "the highest ISO with a number." The Z6II range does indeed stop at ISO 51,000, which is a major reason I upgraded to the III. Thank you for this video. It provides more results for people considering the abilities of these two cameras.

[@prokremelskidezolati1426]

64000 vs 51 000? 🤣🤣🤣

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@lawrose4 yes. I had a shot at 64k for the Z6iii, but didn’t have one for the Z6ii, so I couldn’t compare. Things were so bad at 51.2k I didn’t bother..

[@lawrose4]

@@prokremelskidezolati1426, that is .33 of a stop more gain. In critical situations, and what situation where you would use 64,000 ISO isn't "critical," that can make a difference.

[@kesavachandran6313]

Really useful ❤

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@kesavachandran6313 Thanks!

[@danielvilliers612]

Thanks for the test, is it possible to get the images from the DR test also.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@danielvilliers612 yes. Sorry. Had a busy evening. I’ll post all the raws tomorrow.

[@danielvilliers612]

@@kellysparksphotography Thanks for the text and helping the community. Where are you going to post the files.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@danielvilliers612 check the video description. It’s in there.

[@ZWadePhoto]

Hey buddy. After all the crazy fail tests that KZbinrs have been doing, I’ve been talking about the non issue gripes about the DR of the Z6iii, and your video at least to my eyes, WHEN EXPOSED PROPERLY!!! Looks better on the Z6iii. Haha. I’d love share your channel and this video with my audience. Come get my email from my about section, hit me up, and let’s maybe talk about it in a short video 🤙

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@ZWadePhoto many thanks. Love to chat about it. I’ll reach out shortly.

[@toxotis70]

WHY ONLY 720P ?

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@toxotis70 my screen capture software only recorded at 720p. I need to buy a different solution.. working on that.

[@prokremelskidezolati1426]

Z6 II vs Z6 III = better noise!

[@susheelshrestha2812]

Why you jumped 20000 from 6400. what about 12800.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@susheelshrestha2812 nothing was much different.. between both cameras until 20k. would have taken way longer. Thanks for watching.

[@jakilahmoulien9070]

Watch the whole video

[@jeffpolk4800]

Are these raw or jpegs?

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@jeffpolk4800 14bit RAW.

[@SmartCaster]

I downloaded raw. Check ISO's 6400 and 3200. You have been used different exposure mode ("spot" on z62 and "matrix" on z63), so you have different SS (on z6iii lower), so this is not relevant comparision.

[@SmartCaster]

AND you switch on the "High ISO NR" (= "NORMAL") on z6III, and switch off on z6ii

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@SmartCaster the images are Raw. iso NR is meaningless. Unless you shoot jpeg. And SS has nothing to do with noise.

[@SmartCaster]

@@kellysparksphotography You see on your screen not RAW (you can’t see a raw image, btw). You see jpeg generated by RAW converter you are using or embedded in raw. A SS affects to amount of light, that hits the sensor. I think it’s a basics.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@SmartCaster the common denominator in the images is iso, and aperture, and the amount of light. All constants. The differences are the sensor and ss. I controlled iso, aperture and light, as I think was appropriate for this test. I didn’t care about SS, as that was determined by the sensor. I did have a different metering method, which resulted is slightly different shutter speeds, but in the end I think the tiny adjustment to make them the same was negligible. Oddly, the white balance was set to 5600k on both cameras, and the color was slightly off between the cameras. As I said, this is all nitpicking.. and in the end there isn’t much of a big difference..

[@SmartCaster]

@@kellysparksphotography I have no purpose to convince you of anything. Can I ask you to redo the test for 6400 or 3200 (set the exposure camera settings to the same and turn off noise reduction)?

[@BobN54]

You need to tell us a lot more about your methodology before one can say whether these tests represent anything at all. First, you haven't disclosed the exposure settings - or how you controlled the illumination. Only if the exposure for each ISO setting was the same for both, and at the ISO standard for that setting are we comparing like for like. Also, when you use a tool like ACR, there's a lot of difference under the hood between different cameras. To really know of differences in the raw file you'd need to do a direct analysis of the raw data, or use a neutral converter like dcraw (or successors). (Also, re your header, there is no such camera as a 'Z62' or 'Z63'. From what we know of Nikon's naming conventions those would be DX cameras, if they existed.)

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@BobN54 Hi Bob. Your points are good ones. I’ll tell you my controls. Subject, lens & lighting: all the same. Lens: 70-200 mounted on a tripod. (Cameras attached to lens,on and off) Light LED 5600k Naming: I set the file name prefixes in each camera. It’s sometimes hard to see the difference between ii & iii in small print, so I opted for Z62 & Z63 to avoid and confusion. Cameras were each set in aperture mode at f11 in the first test, f9 I believe in the second set of images I posted. ISO was set to manual. SS was automatically set by the cameras. VR was off. WB set to 5600k I did have a slight difference on WB on the first set of images, as the Z62 had a minor WB adjustment, which I corrected in set 2 of the posted raws. At the end of the day, I couldn’t see much of a difference between the two cameras as they relate to ISO. Thanks again for your feedback!

[@BobN54]

@@kellysparksphotography I would disagree with letting the camera set the shutter speed. You need the same exposure, which if your light is the same (and it should be with a LED light on the same day, they do degrade a bit over time) and the f-number is the same then the shutter speed must be the same. The reason for this is that image noise is mostly related to exposure (times sensor area - but that doesn't matter comparing cameras with the same sensor size). If you centre the meter, then the ISO determines the exposure, at leat in theory. However, the ISO standard allows 1/3 stop latitude, so for instance anything between 712 and 891 can be reported as 800. So a camera manufacturer can set their meter (and processing) to 712 and look better than one that sets it to 891 simply by giving more exposure. In real life, when you're interested in which f-number and shutter speed you can use in the available light, this doesn't help at all. So really, when making this kind of comparison you need to ensure the exposures are the same, which means setting them yourself. You have to choose one meter or another as the master. This also tells you how the relative ISOs are.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@BobN54 To do it that way, I would need to vary the light output instead of shutter speed. In the end it really wouldn’t change the iso noise.. and it take a lot longer to run the tests. But feel free to run some of your own tests.. I’m satisfied that in the end, there is very little difference in iso performance between the two cameras. My test was performed in about 20 min all in.

[@BobN54]

@@kellysparksphotography You're misunderstanding what I said. I said 'You need the same exposure, which if your light is the same and the f-number is the same then the shutter speed must be the same'. The same light, f-number and shutter speed results in the same exposure - Photography 101. So, keeping them all the same keeps the same exposure. So you need both cameras to have the same settings - not to change the light. What you'd do at each ISO is meter (using one camera, or a handheld meter) then set both to the same settings. It doesn't matter of you do that by changing the f-number or shutter speed (reciprocity) so no more difficult that what you're doing. If the meter settings from teh cameras are different, then it indicates either that your metering technique is bad or that the cameras are actually using different ISOs, even though they claim to be the same. You say 'it wouldn't really change the ISO noise' that's part of the problem. There is no such thing as 'ISO noise' - it's a commonly used phrase but actually meaningless. What there is is noise caused by decreasing exposure (which is what happens when you raise the ISO and keep the meter centred). As I said, in practice what matters is the quality that you get when you're f-number, shutter speed and light are all constrained, not what you get at some number of the camera dial - so a proper comparison needs to work at the same exposure.

[@kellysparksphotography]

@@BobN54 I guess I don’t understand then. To test iso ranges, something in the triangle (SS or aperture or the light) must change to get a proper exposure. Or the image will be too dark or too light.