N-Raw Z6 III vs B-Raw

Nikon has recently acquired RED, however it has been big news by launching its Z6 III with the incredible ability to record raw internally at 6k 60p...

Many will say, of course BlackMagic already did this a long time ago...

But Nikon can do this with an autofocus system and also with a sensor shift stabilization system.

However, my big question is how N-Raw compares to B-raw...
B-raw boasts its 8:1, 12:1 compression and low size, in addition to eliminating image noise.

What would it be like in N-Raw?

Another of the big doubts I have regarding this camera is whether it has dual native ISO.

Nikon has recently acquired RED, however it has been big news by launching its Z6 III with the incredible ability to record raw internally at 6k 60p...

However, my big question is how N-Raw compares to B-raw...
B-raw boasts its 8:1, 12:1 compression and low size, in addition to eliminating image noise.

What would it be like in N-Raw?

Another of the big doubts I have regarding this camera is whether it has dual native ISO.

How do you legitimately compare two different codecs without shooting both on the same camera which is not possible? The only cameras that currently shoot NRAW are the Z8 and Z9 and neither shoot BRAW. The Nikon Z6 and Z6II can shoot BRAW and ProRes Raw with an external monitor and a paid firmware update but don't have NRAW.

There are only two compression options with NRAW and the file sizes are going to be bigger than heavily compressed BRAW at the same frame size but how do you get numbers on this exactly and how important is it really in terms of deciding to invest in a particular camera system? There are other more important criteria to consider depending on how one intends to use the camera. if you are also a stills photographer (I am) than Nikon has more than an edge here. If file size is really important then use HEVC.

Anyway as a basic non-commital impression without objective measurements, NRAW normal file sizes tend to be smaller than equivalent ProRes Raw at the same frame size and frame rate on cameras where both are available. BRAW tends to be smaller than ProRes Raw at the same frame size and frame rate on cameras where both are available (needs Atomos Ninja and BMD VA).

The Z8 and Z9 have dual native ISO at 800 and 4000. The Z6III apparently has something similar with the second native ISO at 6400 (I think according to Gerald Undone who is one of the few people that seems to give an unbiased assessment).

The Z6III price point was a big surprise for me. I have the Z8 and it is a very capable camera. N-raw produces a very pleasing image although I do prefer B-raw. The autofocus is very good although I think Canon dual pixel is better. In regard to file size, with diminishing cost of media, it isn't difficult to work with. Having said all that, it is still a "stills centric" camera. I do use it often for B roll.

Thank you very much for your answers, it helps me a lot in making a decision.

I find it interesting and logical that it has a second native iso at 6400. It would not have been interesting with only one native iso.

The only thing I would need to know is that if I record in N-RAW 6K I will use the 5-axis stabilizer... or if this is disabled when recording in raw.

This camera also promises to have good rolling shutter times for video.

You might want to verify that when you set it to record video at 24 fps or 30 fps, it does not actually use 23.976 fps and 29.97 fps. If it doesn’t truly use 24 and 30 fps, that would be a showstopper for me.

Thank you very much for your answers, it helps me a lot in making a decision.

I find it interesting and logical that it has a second native iso at 6400. It would not have been interesting with only one native iso.

The only thing I would need to know is that if I record in N-RAW 6K I will use the 5-axis stabilizer... or if this is disabled when recording in raw.

This camera also promises to have good rolling shutter times for video.

You can use IBIS or electronic stabilisation with any video format.

You might want to verify that when you set it to record video at 24 fps or 30 fps, it does not actually use 23.976 fps and 29.97 fps. If it doesn’t truly use 24 and 30 fps, that would be a showstopper for me.

All the Nikon cameras use fractional frame rates. It seems to be the same for a lot of other hybrid cameras. I've read the history and reasoning behind these really odd frame rates but they seem to be embedded and hard to get rid of. Some say it doesn't matter, others say it does. In your case, is this so you can synchronise easily with other cameras where you are shooting integer rates (if that is an appropriate term? Is this for video, audio or both?

North American video post-production is still pretty much 23.976, which goes back to the NTSC days (try dividing 29.97 by 24 and you'll see the problem). The fractional rate only matters if you unknowingly mix frame rates..

The good news is, in Resolve a 24fps timeline can be exported at 23.976 and vice versa.

With a FULL FRAME sensor, 24Mp, 6K RAW 60fps, internally... good shutter speed.

5-axis stabilizer, recording in RAW...

second native iso at 6400.

On paper, it seems to be a very good offer.

At this point I choose to shoot 24.000 instead of 23.976 but even I will admit that this is mostly just a superstition of mine. The tools are there to make either project rate work with any deliverable you can imagine, so I wouldn't sweat it.

Thanks, gentlemen. Yes the issue is with mixed frame rates. I prefer my external audio and BMD video to use integer frame rates so I don’t want fractional video frame rates in the mix. I understand I could shoot entirely fractional rates if necessary but I’m still hopeful that photo camera manufactures will add integer frame rates at some time for use in NTSC regions.