Month: October 2020

Nikon has launched the Z 6II and Z 7II, updates to its top-end Z-series mirrorless cameras, with more powerful processing, twin memory card slots and enhanced autofocus and continuous shooting capabilities.

They seem like they have been around for ever, but the Nikon Z 6 and Z 7 were launched only two years ago in 2018. The accelerating rate of change in the full frame mirrorless camera market, however, means that now seems like a lifetime ago – so just two years after the first Z-series cameras arrived, new and updated versions are here.

These are evolutions of the original cameras, though, not brand new models. Nikon really did get things right with the original Z 6 and Z 7, so the new versions build on the qualities of those cameras rather than starting all over again.

From the outside, the Z 6II and the Z 7II look almost indistinguishable from their predecessors, and the big changes are on the inside. Nikon’s top Z-series cameras how have dual Expeed processors for faster burst shooting with bigger buffer depth, and the extra processing clout brings human and animal eye AF for video shooting, and AF sensitivity down to -6EV with an f/2 lens.

Faster continuous shooting

Both cameras were pretty quick in continuous shooting burst mode, but now they’re quicker still. The Z 6II has a speed increase to 14fps, which it can maintain for 124 12-bit raw files or 200 JPEGs, while the Z 7II can maintain 10fps for 77 12-bit raw files and, again, 200 JPEGs.

The Z 6II might have the faster frame rate, but the Z7 II’s 10fps frame rate is hugely impressive for a camera of this resolution and both cameras have impressive raw buffer depth – the Z 6II has the potential to give pro sports DSLRs a run for their money both in speed and endurance.

Nikon Z 6II and Z7 II sensors

The Z 6II and Z 7II have substantial processing and storage upgrades, but the sensors themselves are the same as those in the previous models. The Z 6II has a 24.5-megapixel sensor and can be considered as the ‘all-rounder’, while the Z 7II has the same 45.7-megapixel sensor of the original Z 7, and is the ‘perfectionist’.

There is now a third full frame Z-series camera, of course. The 24-megapixel Z5 sits below the Z 6II in the range and is designed to be the ‘catalyst’ – the introduction to the full frame mirrorless Nikon system for those upgrading from a smaller camera or a smartphone.

Nikon Z 6II and Z 7II video

The Nikon Z 6II and Z 7II will both shoot 4K 60p video – the Z 7II will have this ability right from the start, but the Z 6II will not get 60p capability until around February 2021. There will also be support for 10bit and ProRes RAW capture via the Atomos Ninja V external recorder, though confirmation about when this will become available and whether cameras will need to go to a service center for an upgrade is still pending.

Although the Z7 II will have 4K 60p recording from the start, it still captures 4K in a cropped oversampled DX format, whereas the Z6 II offers full-width 4K capture. Z 6II buyers will have to wait longer for the 4K 60p feature, but the Z6 II is nevertheless the better option for video, partly because there’s no crop factor and partly thanks to the dynamic range and noise advantages of its sensor’s bigger photosites.

Nikon’s webcam software, incidentally, is now available in a Mac version to join the Windows version originally released.

Dual card slots – at last!

The original Z6 and Z7 came in for some criticism for only having a single XQD card slot. Subsequent firmware updates have extended their compatibility to the CFexpress format (which is physically identical to the now largely obsolete XQD cards), but there is still a lot of demand amongst video shooters and stills photographers for the security and flexibility of dual card slots.

Nikon is hedging its bets, then, with one CFexpress slot and one SD UHS-II slot. This won’t please videographers who like to shoot with matched cards, but it will help users migrating from other Nikon cameras, and other camera brands, who have already invested in high-speed, high-capacity SD cards and don’t want to have to do it all over again straight away with the even more expensive CFexpress format.

New power options

The Nikon Z 6II and Z 7II will benefit from USB-C charging, including ‘hot charging’ while shooting. Ther will also be a new MBN II battery grip designed for the rough and tumble of professional shooting assignments, and with its own AF joystick and AF-ON button. It will attach in the same way as the previous MBN 10, via insertion into the camera’s battery compartment. We don’t yet know if the existing MBN 10 grip will work with the new cameras. You can use the new batteries in the old models, and vice versa – though previous generation batteries won’t support the new cameras’ hot charging feature.

There will be a new WR-11b remote wireless controller too, designed to work with Nikon’s Advanced Wireless Lighting system, and also to offer remote camera control.

Nikon Z 6II and Z 7II price and availability

The Nikon Z 6II and Nikon Z 7II will go on sale later this year. The Z 6II will start at $1,999/£1,999 body-only, while the Z 7II will be $2,999/£2,999. The new Nikon MB-N11 battery grip will be $399/£359.

Introduction

MSI may be best known for its motherboards and graphics cards, but success in those fields has allowed the Taiwanese manufacturer to branch out considerably. These days, it’s possible to kit out a high-end gaming setup with all sorts of MSI gear, ranging from keyboards and mice to monitors and even gaming chairs.

A lesser-known category is PC chassis, in which MSI has over a dozen models to choose from. One of the latest additions is the MPG Sekira 100R, priced at £120 and in for review today.

It is quite clear that Sekira 100R is intended as a visual complement to your other MSI hardware, and the firm isn’t shy in stating the MPG series “brings out the best in gamers by allowing full expression in colour with advanced RGB lighting control and synchronization.” We’re too old and weathered to read into such hyperbole, but while RGB illumination isn’t anywhere near the top of our list of chassis priorities, we will admit the mid-tower box is easy on the eye.

Dimensions of 420mm (D) x 215mm (W) x 475mm (H) are reasonably petite by modern standards, and most of the aesthetic flourishes work well. The split front panel, in particular, has a neat, almost retro feel about it, with the aluminium brush-effect section contrasting nicely with the transparent area below. A strip separating the two is, of course, lined with RGB lighting, while the company logo illuminates to complete the effect, and though the bezels on the both the front and side panels are a little thick, MSI’s tinted windows do a fine job of showcasing the interior.

It’s a good-looking piece of kit and build quality is decent, too. There are few visible seams, everything fits together snug, and an 8kg total weight feels reassuring. Better still, MSI hasn’t skimped on the top I/O panel, which lines the front edge and includes a large power button, reset, USB-C, two USB Type-A, a pair of audio jacks and a button to cycle through the preset lighting effects. Just about everything you’d expect, and it’s good to see the number of USB ports hasn’t been sacrificed for the sake of the newer Type-C.

Going purely by the spec sheet, Sekira 100R has plenty going for it. In addition to looking the part and being well-stocked in the I/O department, there are seven expansion slots, two 3.5in hard-disk bays in a cage at the end of the shrouded PSU compartment, two 2.5in SSD trays (one atop the PSU shroud, another behind the motherboard tray), and more rubber-grommeted cable-routing holes than you’re ever likely to need.

Clearance is defined as 340mm for graphics cards and 170mm for CPU cooler height; mini-, micro-, regular- and extended-ATX motherboards are supported, and cooling really shouldn’t be a problem seeing as there are four pre-installed 120mm aRGB fans (three front intakes and a rear exhaust). Choose to expand on that with a radiator and you’ll find the top of the chassis can house a pair of offset 120s or 140s, while the three 120s at the front can be swapped for two 140s if you prefer. Ample room for expansion, and we like the fact that the supplied fans and front-panel lighting are hooked-up to a control board around back, allowing all the illuminated elements to connect to a single aRGB header on your motherboard.

Creating an eye-catching rig is all but guaranteed, particularly if you’re heavily invested in MSI’s Mystic Light ecosystem, but the build process itself could be made more user-friendly. Most bemusing, the side panels can’t be removed without taking off the mesh top panel first. Two thumbscrews allow the top section to come away, and only then can you slide the sides up and off their rails. A strange arrangement that we’ve not seen before, and while it does result in side panels that are free of unsightly thumb screws or fixings, it feels odd having to remove both the top and side just to get into the case.

As with most RGB-illuminated enclosures, cabling can be somewhat messy. Each of the four fans is pre-plumbed to the control board for synchronised lighting, but additional three-pin cables need to be attached to the motherboard. Fortunately, given that there are four fans as standard, MSI includes a three-way splitter, allowing for four fans via two motherboard headers. Still, a couple more tie-down points wouldn’t go amiss, and if your power supply is as large as our Dark Power Pro, we suspect you’ll want to remove the hard disk cage for a little extra wiggle room.

Elsewhere, filtration is decent throughout. There’s a magnetic filter sandwiched between the roof of the case and the mesh top panel, a full-height filter behind the removable front panel, and a small piece inserted in tabs directly beneath the PSU. The mesh sections to the side of the front panel are also reasonably wide, suggesting that airflow won’t be entirely restricted, but let’s run the benchmarks to see exactly what’s what.

Notes

Our test platform is based around an all-AMD combination of Ryzen 7 1800X and Radeon RX 580. AMD’s eight-core, 16-thread processor is stock clocked and installed beneath a Fractal Design Celsius S24 liquid cooler.

The CPU is joined by 16GB of G.Skill Flare X DDR4 memory operating at 2,400MHz, while the Radeon RX 580 GPU is provided by Sapphire in Nitro+ Limited Edition guise. Power for the entire system comes courtesy of a 750W be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11 supply. Do note that we attempted to run multiple memory kits at higher speeds, but were unable to maintain stability on this particular X370 platform, hence the 3,200MHz G.Skill kit operating at 800MHz less than advertised.

To find out how well the comparison chassis can cool the AMD-flavoured build, we log CPU temperature while encoding a large 4K video clip using the popular HandBrake software utility. This task puts heavy load on all available CPU cores and we extend the stress test by queueing multiple passes. In order to provide a stabilised reading we then calculate an average temperature from the last few minutes of encoding.

To get an idea of graphics-card cooling performance, we log GPU temperature while looping the F1 2017 benchmark at a 4K resolution with ultra quality settings. Last but not least, we also measure chassis noise by using a PCE-318 noise meter to take readings both when idle and while gaming. The meter is positioned 35cm from the front of the chassis in a direct line of sight 30cm from the ground.

All chassis are tested only with the standard manufacturer-supplied fans (any/all of which are set to a low-noise curve in the MSI BIOS or low-speed using a fan controller if present), and to take into account the fluctuating ambient temperature, our graphs depict both actual and delta temperature – the latter is the actual CPU/GPU temperature minus the ambient.

Performance

Cooling our eight-core AMD Ryzen chip isn’t a problem for any of the chassis on show, so perhaps it’s time to upgrade to a more power-hungry chip. Watch this space.

Taming the Radeon graphics card tends to be a tougher task, and given the solid frontage, we’re reasonably pleased to see the MSI MPG Sekira 100R keeping peak temperature to 73°C when gaming.

There is a caveat, mind you. The four supplied three-pin fans offer decent cooling performance, but they aren’t the quietest and the chassis itself makes little effort to dampen noise. Our test build is always noticeable and gets quite noisy when gaming.

Conclusion

MSI wants to give its fanbase an opportunity to adorn their gaming setups with as much Mystic Light gear as possible. RGB-laden hardware continues to prove popular among the target audience, and the MPG Sekira 100R serves as another piece of the jigsaw.

Playing to its strengths, MSI includes four 120mm aRGB fans as standard, which when coupled to the front light bar and illuminated dragon logo, allow for multiple effects and synchronisation opportunities via a single motherboard header. Such features may be deemed superfluous by some, yet the chassis looks surprisingly sleek in the flesh, with MSI managing to find a pleasing balance between subtle illumination and overblown light.

The spec sheet is reasonably well-stocked, too, with plenty of clearance for a high-end build, a decent number of storage and fan mounts, and an I/O panel outfitted with three USB ports, including a modern Type-C. The foundations are there, however the user experience could be better. Having to remove the top panel to get at the sides is an unnecessary extra step, cabling with four RGB fans can get messy, and there’s little effort in suppressing noise.

Bottom line: MSI isn’t the first name that springs to mind when choosing a high-quality chassis, yet for those wanting to amplify their Mystic Light setup, the MPG Sekira 100R fits the bill.

The Canon PowerShot Zoom has just been announced for a release in the west, after the innovative pocket camera – which features up to 800mm zoom, with image stabilized stills and video shooting – was released in Japan via crowdfunding.

One of the manufacturer’s most unusual products, the Canon PowerShot Zoom is unique in the marketplace. Featuring the same 12.1MP image sensor found in the Canon SX70 bridge camera, it combines the functionality of a pocket-sized telescope or monocular – with a three-step zoom system offering 100mm f/5.6, 400mm f/6.3 (optically) and 800mm (digitally) focal lengths.

Boasting 4-axis image stabilization, the Zoom can capture stills at up to 10fps (via an electronic shutter) as well as 1080p video at up to 30fps. This makes it a formidable tool for wildlife photographers, birders, sports and music fans (enabling you to take photographs in arenas where cameras are forbidden), plane and trainspotters, hikers and ramblers, travel shooters, news gatherers and even security personnel.

The remarkable palm-sized body weighs just 145g and is designed to be operated with one hand, ergonomically designed with minimal controls (there are only four buttons, plus the diopter and power button) that can be distinguished by their distinct tactile feel. 

It also features stereo microphones (though it has no speaker), accepts microSD cards for storage, and has a USB-C connection for transfer and charging (yes, it can be charged while in use).

At the heart of the PowerShot Zoom is a Digic 8 processor, with the same 2.36 million-dot OLED electronic viewfinder seen in the Canon EOS M50. This can be used for shooting and reviewing images, though the WiFi enabled camera also pairs with the Canon Camera Connect smartphone app – which obviously gives you the option for a much larger viewing monitor, and also enables remote shooting. 

The Zoom becomes the second concept camera we first saw at CP+ 2019 to make it to market, following the similarly quirky Canon Ivy Rec. 

The Canon PowerShot Zoom goes on sale in November with a price of $299 / £299 (AU$540). Initially available in white (“that matches any of one’s favorite team colors”), Canon is also considering making a black version. 

At the heart of all Bluetooth-based contact tracing apps is one fundamental issue: whether they actually help in the struggle to slow the spread of Covid-19. Whether they’re effective or not can be judged on two factors: epidemiologically and technically. But, months into the pandemic, there are still no clear answers.

“They’re quite unreliable,” says Douglas Leith, the chair of computer systems at Trinity College Dublin, who has been analysing how well devices can use Bluetooth to measure distance. Leith says the reliability of apps to detect other devices around them accurately and calculate their difference can vary widely. Bluetooth wasn’t designed for contact tracing, but in the pandemic era it’s being held up as a potential solution to the crisis.

Contact tracing apps using Bluetooth Low Energy – which is the majority of apps around the world, including those using the Apple and Google protocols – detect other devices around them using Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). In short this is the signal strength. The loss in signal strength between a transmitter in one phone and the receiver in another device is used as a way to determine distance between phones.

The distance between phones is calculated every two and five minutes, this can vary in different countries, and is used to work out if someone being close to another person increases the chances of Covid-19 transmission. Apps are based on the understanding that the virus is more likely to pass from one person to another if they’re within two metres of that person for more than 15 minutes. (Although, as the variety of social distancing measurements around the world show, the science behind distances where transmission risk changes is tricky).

“There are at least four things that can have a big effect on the performance,” Leith says. None of these come as a surprise to engineers, he adds, as Bluetooth works on the same frequency band as microwave ovens and the frequencies are well studied. The type of phone, including the antennas, chipsets and way they’re combined, can all vary Bluetooth performance. How the app was tested before being released to the public can also have an impact, as can the materials of the environment where the app is being used – think thick concrete walls versus thin glass windows. All of these alter the registered RSSI.

Phone manufacturers have been trying to iron out some of the differences in how Bluetooth performs on their devices. Google is hard at work too and has created a method where device makers can configure Bluetooth settings more easily. This involves sticking phones on a tripod, rotating them and collecting lots of data.

A spreadsheet listing more than 12,000 models of phone – including manufacturers from all the big names right down to Coolpad and Tecno – shows how much variance there is. RSSI corrections range from 19 to -29 and the power transmitted ranges by up to 45 different points.

If that weren’t complicated enough, one of the most influential factors on signal strength is simply where a device is placed. “You see fluctuations due to small changes in the relative orientation of the phone,” Leith says. If your phone is in your back pocket, the signal transmitted to someone sitting or standing in front of you will be very different to if it is in your front pocket.

An experiment conducted on a tram by Leith and colleague Stephen Farrell found signal strength didn’t effectively calculate distances in that scenario. They used the app detection rules of the Italian, Swiss and German apps for their experiment. They found that similar ranges of signal strength were observed both between handsets which are less than two metres apart and handsets which are greater than two metres apart – all the way up to five metres. Such differences could have a big impact on Covid-19 transmission – but Bluetooth isn’t sensitive enough to spot them.

In the tram scenario, the lack of accuracy is caused by the metal walls, floor and ceiling, all of which reflect radio signals. “There are some places where we’re fairly sure it just won’t work. And that’s in environments where there’s a lot of metal,” Leith adds.

The inability for Bluetooth to always precisely measure how far away people are from each other is an open secret. And incorrect measurements can result in false notifications being sent. Telling people to self-isolate when there’s lesser risk of them having coronavirus can be economically damaging and erode trust in the overall track and trace system. On the flip side, not identifying people who have a greater risk of contracting the virus means it could spread more easily.

In August, ahead of the launch of the NHS Covid-19 app in England and Wales, the National Cybersecurity Centre discussed “the Bluetooth problem”. It said the issue of false positives – phones thinking their owners had been close to others when they hadn’t been within two metres – was something that was being worked on.

“If you were between 2m and 4m from an infected person, there’s currently a false positive rate of about 45 per cent,” the NCSC’s technical director Ian Levy wrote in a blog post. This means some people are sent notifications of potential infection despite being more than two metres away from someone who has tested positive for Covid-19.

“By way of a simple illustration, during the recent Leicester outbreak, the app would have generated ~50 false positives a day in a population of 330,000,” Mark Briers, from the Alan Turing Institute wrote in a blog post in August about the app’s modelling. That modelling has not yet been published.

Researchers are scrambling to improve the false positive rate. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care, the government department responsible for the app, says that since the NCSC analysis was published the false positive rate for people between two and four metres apart has been reduced by around 25 per cent. People who the app judges are at a high-risk of transmission but are actually low-risk have been reduced from 4.5 out of ten to three in ten, a DHSC spokesperson says.

They add that notifications from the app are only triggered once someone has been confirmed to have tested positive. “We are very clear, everyone who is contacted will have been in close contact with someone who has a confirmed case of coronavirus,” the spokesperson explains.

Key to the operation of the NHS Covid-19 app is a risk-scoring algorithm that combines Bluetooth distance and time data with when the person who tested positive developed symptoms. The DHSC and NHS can change the levels of risk that trigger notifications as more scientific advice becomes available. Briers at the Turing Institute and the NCSC are working to further refine the algorithm and detection methods used.

“The only way that you could minimise or decrease false positives is to decrease the sensitivity,” says Gary Hatke, an engineer at MIT and part of the PACT team working on contact tracing apps and the underlying technology. “Or you’d have to get Apple and Google to change the way the API is working.” Google says it has worked to make Android battery impact as low as possible and, along with Apple, is continually improving the notification system.

Other Bluetooth devices could tackle distance measurement better than phones. Singapore, which was first to develop a contact tracing app for Covid-19, is now trialling a wearable device. “It is possible that wearable devices could, in general, perform better than smartphones in helping to estimate likely exposure events,” says Ken Kolderup, the chief marketing office at Bluetooth SIG, the group that develops the standard. “In many cases, wearables such as wristbands are worn on the body in locations that will result in less interference, and thereby lead to more accurate estimations of the true distance between people.”

But, for the time being, Bluetooth contact tracing is will be done by millions of phones, not a smattering of wearables. Hatke says that the MIT team has shown that Bluetooth reliability can be improved on devices. He says apps can make more frequent RSSI measurements to help determine how far away other devices are, although this could require more battery power to be effective.

The other way, Hatke says, is “to do some self awareness on the phone. Every time I take a measurement, can I tell whether or not I’m in a pocket or not”. This could be through proximity sensors that can tell whether a phone’s surface is covered or near a body, or light sensors. “You could encode that information in the signal that is being transmitted,” Hatke says.

But Hatke and his colleague Marc Zissman still question the exact purpose of development for contact tracing apps. And this makes them harder to optimise. Are they meant to help find people who are unknown to those who have been infected (for instance, people on a train) or to help notify people to self-isolate faster than human contact tracing efforts can contact them?

Seven months into the pandemic, there’s still no obvious answer. Distance and time are only two indicators of transmission risk. Airflow, whether people are indoors or outdoors and the volume at which people are speaking are some of the other variables that impact the Covid-19’s ability to spread. But none of these can be measured easily by an app that collects very little data.

“We really need the data from the jurisdictions that are running this,” Zissman says. As a result, there’s little incentive for researchers to work out how contact tracing apps can be most effective. “There is no published data where we can take the country or state and tell you what these values are.”