Nikon Z6II vs Nikon Z6III - Image Quality Review

How does the Nikon Z6II compare to the Nikon Z6III? In this video we compare the image quality of these two cameras. We examine the ISO performance and dynamic range of the Nikon Z6 II vs the Nikon Z6 III. We also look at some night sky images. We compare side by side RAW files in Lightroom and I give my thoughts on the Nikon Z6II vs the Nikon Z6III.

🔴 Subscribe to the channel for more photography related content

📱 iPhone Photography Gear - 10% OFF

📸 Photo / Video Gear Rentals - 15% OFF

✦ Purchase the cameras from this video

📷 Current list of all of my gear

Disclaimer: Some of the links in this description are affiliate links, which means I will earn a small commission if you place an order after using them. As an amazon associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you when using the links and it really helps support the channel, so thank you for using the links when purchasing your own gear!

📖 Video Chapters
00:00 - Intro
00:40 - Image Comparisons
01:12 - ISO Performance
02:56 - Underexposure Tests
04:26 - Overexposure Tests
05:46 - Night Sky Photography
08:02 - Conclusion

#nikon #photography #landscapephotography

[ZJMichaels]

Check the video description for gear discounts, my gear list, and more. Thanks for watching!

[ElGrecoDaGeek]

I've done some similar "real world" tests between my Z6 and Z6iii.

I wanted to prove to myself that Tony Northrup's "dungeon" studio DR test wasn't very realistic in terms of real-world use cases a photographer might find themselves in. While I've certainly been in situations where I've had subjects who are both well and poorly lit in the same photo, the range he was dealing with was beyond rational limits (i.e. not going to be common that it actually matters).

While it was a valid test, it was pushing the envelope or DR tests by focusing on DR in which the shadowed subject was in complete darkness. The number of photons that could be collected bouncing off the poorly lit subject were going to be on the very low end so off the bat SNR is going to be low. That certainly is going to push the limits of what the sensor can do, and in that regards it fell behind a bit, but again such a niche use case considering the tech involved. While it does give the nod to the other sensors it was a cherry pick of a test.

If done under more realistic lighting conditions, the differences in SNR between the sensors - as far as shadowed areas are concerned - are not going to be as noticeable. That's because more photons will be collected even in shadowed areas. It's for this reason that I dealt with well light subjects that, like your images, had areas in shadow and then exposed those just like you did (0 to -5EV).

In those cases, I found both cameras had similar noise with the Z6 having slightly less BUT once I hit 5 stops the Z6 also had the same magenta shift where the Z6iii was a more natural tone. I call that a win for the Z6iii that Tony's low light test did not account for.

Given his focus on sunsets/rises I did some test there and once again in those situations where there was enough ambient light and therefore more photons to collect the difference that Tony "exposed" was in this studio photo was not as obvious, even after pushing.

Again, his test is valid, it shows a specific use case (high DR shot in very low ambient lit situation forcing a relatively fast shutter (1/80) ). In that case the Z6iii will fall behind if you try to recover shadows, but it won't be that horrible and you can clean it up. Furthermore, as noted, that's just not going to be a common use case for me. Even in outdoor photos I have around a campfire the difference in illumination on people's faces who are closer to the fire is minimal at best. Certainly not 5 stops.

[teak]

If you are in the Nikon System and do not need the new Videospecs/new AF i guess there is no need to "upgrade" from the Z6II to the Z6III - both are very nice and Pro level cameras.

[markamarkam]

The Photons to Photos site that Toneh points to in his "test" actually shows that the Z6III matches the dynamic range of the z8 & z9 up to ISO 400, between 400 and 650ish the Z8 and Z9 have slightly more dynamic range, but by ISO 800 and onward they all match up again. But I don't hear anyone complaining about the dynamic range in the z8 or z9. Sure, the z6II, z7 and Zf seem to have consistently slightly higher dynamic range but, again, by ISO 800 the z6II, z6III, z7, z8, z9, zf ALL have roughly the same DR. The Sony a7III lags behind all of them between ISO 630 and 1200ish before catching up. And as you and many other folks on YouTube are now demonstrating the real world differences in DR if you are not shooting magazine pictures are negligible.

[mrdarryljones]

Haven’t purchased my Z6iii yet but I figured that the dynamic range took a small hit! I’m keeping my Z6ii as my backup for everything except when I’m out shooting landscape. Thanks for doing this! 👍🏾

[afalco]

I only use my cameras for photography . Seeing many such videos after Tony Northrup My conclusion is: with such small differences in image quality and dynamic range and the large differences in autofocus performance and viewfinder brightness and resolution seems to make the upgrade from a DSLR to a Z6III worthwhile.

[siimkinnas]

Great analysis! Thank you! I was worried there for a second after Tony Northrup's take on the Z6 III, but that was quite the elephant he made of the mosquito.

[dominiclester]

Great video and a fair conclusion, thanks!

[Jviotr]

Maybe people are making a bigger deal about this than necessary. In real world usage, I rarely go above ISO 3200, and I pretty much never underexpose by 3+ stops, so by the time you notice a difference in quality at the extremes, both cameras are not performing great, and I don’t expect to use results from either. Thank you!

[Vrgr]

Thank you for doing a photo centric video. I don't use the video side of a camera, and this shows me that the Z6 II is good enough for my needs.

[plusplus]

It looks like they actually found a nice sweet spot between DR vs readout speed for the price. +3 stops exposure looks great. The DR only falls apart in extreme scenarios where the shot is unrecoverable anyway on any camera. The color shift is toward green instead of magenta and less intense. So I wouldn't use the Z6iii if I commonly found myself boosting shadows by 4 or more stops, but for me that is rare.

[duncanbryceland]

Thanks for doing these comparison tests, I'm sure they will help many people. I think it would have been better to use people as the subject, rather than inanimate scenes to do comparisons between 2 cameras, as noise, lack of sharpness and and deterioration of definition are far more obvious when zooming in on peoples faces.

[Aem-iyxx]

Thanks for this video. Great and to the point. 🎉🎉🎉

[okyaratilla]

High iso is funtional in low light. So high iso day light compretation will not give thru result.

[BlaineShillington]

Super helpful video. Much appreciated! Thanks! Seems that we are at a point is digital cameras where sensor tech has pretty well leveled out and the next push is more about processing speeds and performance. Great place to be!

[carlmcneill]

There's pros and cons for both cameras. If you have a z6 II you'll have to decide what you're willing to give up to get something different.

[esterra]

Nice work Z! Tony Northrup did a video showing poor dynamic range when pulling up the exposure in underexposed images. Not sure why you are getting differing results. Interesting.

[moksaphotograph]

this kind of comparation that i looking for, no i know the image quality are simmilar for this two camera, thankyou for making this videi. this is very help me to decide to take z6ii cuz i dont really need z6iii feature, n z6ii autofocus is enough for me...

[georgedascalasu]

only if you are blindfolded you underexpose or overexpose by +5 or -5 stops.

[ronrotunno]

Excellent job! I’ve been wanting to get back to the S Series lens system and I watched this for probably the opposite reason, that is to see if the Z6II performs at least as well as the III for stills. I don’t shoot video and af performance isn’t a big deal for me. I’ll save a few bucks on the II and have a nice travel and Astro camera (plus I’ve always liked Nikon color science). For wildlife I’ll continue to use an R5 anyway. Again, nice work.