What's wrong with the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM?

[davidgp]

This only begs the question: were they using G lenses or E lenses?

There is an avalanche of the former, hardly any of the latter.

It matters, because the former has a mechanical lever (making adapters struggle more) while the latter does not.

I apologize if I'm wrong in my assumptions, but I'm assuming that you think we are saying that Nikon lenses can not AF quick, not at all, they do, and probably mounted in a D5 they are one of the fastest systems on the market if not the faster.

The problem, not exclusively with Nikon lenses, but adapting any electronic AF lens, it is that the adapter manufacturer needs to do the following: Understand the commands the Sony camera does and translate them to whatever the lens electronic signals talks and viceversa. So here, you need for the adaptor to do this translation well and really quick.

For complicating matters, the Sony E system you can get the specification from Sony to build lenses, so I suppose also adaptors manufacturers can also access to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_E-mount#Third-party_lens_manufacturers (but even with access to it, Sigma is having problems right now saying their adaptor does not work well with the Sony A9... probably Sony changes something in the electronic signals). But Nikon F mount it is not documented and probably that changes a lot each time Nikon releases a new type of lens, like the G or E lenses you mention. So, adaptor manufacturers need to reverse engineer whatever Nikon lens signals need to understand and send back (this is the main reason why Sigma has his dock connection to easily update lens firmware, each time a new camera is out in the market some incompatibilities appear with third-party lenses).

That it is more or less the same in Canon EF lenses.

So yes, the Nikon lenses can be as good as you want in AF, the translation done by the adaptor it will be never be up to the native implementation Nikon does in their D5, D500, D810... etc... so, for AF in the Sony system, the safe bet it is native glass.
So yes, at the end,

[shadowblade]

Perhaps, but the older G lenses with mechanical levers were harder to mesh with other systems via third-party adapters.

The G lenses do not give precise aperture control, whereas other manufacturers (Canon) did not have the same lever control mechanism in their camera bodies.

This has all been changed with Nikkor's E lenses.

You used to use the Canon 70-200, which satisfied you, so the Nikkor 70-200E FL ED would have upgraded you from your past position.

You just finished a long series of laments, after trying the "native Sony," which let you down and couldn't even compare to your old Canon.

Yours therefore appears to be a self-inflicted dilemma, as the best of both worlds, right now, rests with Nikkor E FL ED telephoto lenses ... on Nikon cameras for sure ... and even Sony cameras ... and it will likely stay this way for several years.

You keep arguing theory and future prognostications for a purchase decision to be made today or next month.

Hope that works out for you,

The only reason I used the Canon is because I already had it, from back when the 5D2 was king of landscape photography. In other words, extra outlay = $0.

Combined with an A7r2 body, Canon lenses on adapters made for an excellent landscape system for virtually zero extra cost, far beyond what Canon put out for a few years (and even the 5Ds isn't great, due to DR limitations and poor ISO performance). For wildlife and action, just throw the same set on a 1Dx or 1Dx2 and you're good to go. And it would also be good to go if Canon (as looks likely) decided to up their game and release a 5Ds2 with a competent sensor.

But cobbling together a set from preexisting parts isn't the same as building one from scratch. You'd never spend $30k putting together a non-medium-format system that can barely autofocus, unless you shoot only one thing and that thing does not require AF. Spending very little to get a competent landscape system that can't AF, as a stopgap measure using lenses you already have, is one thing. Spending $30k to get the  same system from scratch, that still can't AF, is another thing entirely.

And have fun replacing your entire setup in 5-10 years' time when SLRs are obsolete, Nikon is a subsidiary of someone else and F-mount (and possibly EF-mount as well) is history.

[SrMi]

...

And have fun replacing your entire setup in 5-10 years' time when SLRs are obsolete, Nikon is a subsidiary of someone else and F-mount (and possibly EF-mount as well) is history.

I would think that DSLRs have still a very long and successful life in them. I you look at the 14 adult winners of NHM Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2016, you'll notice that all of them were shot with a Nikon or Canon DSLRs. All the top photographers that I have traveled with still use Nikon or Canon, none of them contemplate switching to a mirrorless. I like using my mirrorless cameras (Sony excluded), but I like to try out new cameras and switch from DSLRs to mirrorless and back. IMHO, both technologies will appeal to different photographers and will coexist for a long time.

[JKoerner007]

The only reason I used the Canon is because I already had it, from back when the 5D2 was king of landscape photography. In other words, extra outlay = $0.

Combined with an A7r2 body, Canon lenses on adapters made for an excellent landscape system for virtually zero extra cost, far beyond what Canon put out for a few years (and even the 5Ds isn't great, due to DR limitations and poor ISO performance). For wildlife and action, just throw the same set on a 1Dx or 1Dx2 and you're good to go. And it would also be good to go if Canon (as looks likely) decided to up their game and release a 5Ds2 with a competent sensor.

Makes sense.

But cobbling together a set from preexisting parts isn't the same as building one from scratch. You'd never spend $30k putting together a non-medium-format system that can barely autofocus, unless you shoot only one thing and that thing does not require AF. Spending very little to get a competent landscape system that can't AF, as a stopgap measure using lenses you already have, is one thing. Spending $30k to get the  same system from scratch, that still can't AF, is another thing entirely.

Your impediment is your Sony-fixation.

You can't spend $30K with Sony and get a complete system (unless 3rd-/4th-tier telephotos are acceptable to you, which you've already indicated are not).

The only way to spend $30K, today, and get a complete system is to go with Canon or Nikon.

If you want that $30K to bring you the very best AF + telephoto lenses, that narrows your choice down to Nikon (although both are excellent).

And have fun replacing your entire setup in 5-10 years' time when SLRs are obsolete, Nikon is a subsidiary of someone else and F-mount (and possibly EF-mount as well) is history.

No problem.

During those 5-10 years, I will have enjoyed a complete system, at the top of its game, with all of its parts, that will still be taking superb images a decade from now (plus whatever innovations Nikon brings to the table as time progresses).

Meanwhile, have fun waiting 5-10 years to have "a complete system" with Sony ... while you limp along complaining about the inequities

[hogloff]

Makes sense.



Your impediment is your Sony-fixation.

You can't spend $30K with Sony and get a complete system (unless 3rd-/4th-tier telephotos are acceptable to you).

The only way to spend $30K, today, and get a complete system is to go with Canon or Nikon. If you want the very best AF + telephoto lenses, that narrows it down to Nikon (although both are excellent).



No problem.

During those 5-10 years, I will have enjoyed a complete system, at the top of its game, with all of its parts, that will still be taking superb images a decade from now.

Meanwhile, have fun waiting 5-10 years to have "a complete system" with Sony ... while you limp along complaining about the inequities

Everyone's version of a complete system is totally different. For me, my longest lens I need is around 200mm and that's very rare. I focus on travel photography and landscapes and the vast majority of my photos are below 100mm, with many below 20mm. This range is completely covered for me on my Sony system. I have zero interest in the big heavy telephoto lenses.

As far as a travel camera that will not cripple you after carrying it on your wrist on on your neck...what does Nikon have? Maybe Nikon is not quite as complete as one thinks huh?

[JKoerner007]

Everyone's version of a complete system is totally different. For me, my longest lens I need is around 200mm and that's very rare. I focus on travel photography and landscapes and the vast majority of my photos are below 100mm, with many below 20mm. This range is completely covered for me on my Sony system. I have zero interest in the big heavy telephoto lenses.

Your point is well taken for your purposes.

Shadowblade, however, says he wants to have telephoto primes/zooms, which makes my post relevant to him, the O/P.

As far as a travel camera that will not cripple you after carrying it on your wrist on on your neck...what does Nikon have? Maybe Nikon is not quite as complete as one thinks huh?

Exaggerating to make a point isn't helpful.

Nikon has the D810 (soon to be D850) and far more excellent normal primes than Sony.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Sony.

However, without Zeiss lenses, adapters, third-party assistance, etc. it's a Swiss-cheeze product line compared to Nikon's.

After Shadowblade waits-out the 5-10 years he mentioned, they may be complete unto themselves.

[hogloff]

Your point is well taken for your purposes.

Shadowblade, however, says he wants to have telephoto primes/zooms, which makes my post relevant to him, the O/P.



Exaggerating to make a point isn't helpful.

Nikon has the D810 (soon to be D850) and far more excellent normal primes than Sony.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Sony.

However, without Zeiss lenses, adapters, third-party assistance, etc. it's a Swiss-cheeze product line compared to Nikon's.

After Shadowblade waits-out the 5-10 years he mentioned, they may be complete unto themselves.

One of the big advantages I see with the Sony system is their relationship with Zeiss. The loxia and Batis line of lenses are superb. You look at this as a negative to using a Sony system...I see it as a total positive. See I don't care who makes the lenses...I'm not attached to brands like some others

[hogloff]

As a landscape photographer,  infinity is the distance which matters.

The primes are all best-in-class, or not far from it. I'm far less confident in the zooms. The 70-200s I tried certainly won't hold up at 100MP, as had been promoted - they don't even hold up at 42MP. Same story as with Sigma, really - primes are great, but they've yet to convince me about their zooms.

The 24-70 I have seems really solid, but one lens doesn't make a full system.

Since you are looking at landscapes, have you considered the Sony 70-200 f4 lens? From what I've seen, it is stellar.

[BernardLanguillier]

One of the big advantages I see with the Sony system is their relationship with Zeiss. The loxia and Batis line of lenses are superb. You look at this as a negative to using a Sony system...I see it as a total positive. See I don't care who makes the lenses...I'm not attached to brands like some others

Sony is building very quickly a great system, no doubt. They are indeed the only game in town when you want a very compact system with excellent image quality and have some unique features that make them untouchable for some applications such as those requiring totally silent shooting. It is really wonderful for us photographers to have such new amazing options to address some shooting situations.

On the other hand, if compactness and those silent application are not really important, and if you care about today's performance and not future potential, my view is that today Nikon is still on top of the hill.

Are there clear concerns that they may not stay on top of the hill very long? Yes. But will they still have an amazing system in 10 years with image quality potential far exceeding the actual needs of 95% of photographic application? I believe the answer is yes also.

When you go a bit beyond the Sony hype and the Nikon bashing, you look at facts and a very telling one IMHO is the fact that the newly released Sony 70-200 f2.8 - to which they must have devoted their very best engineers - is quite a bit behind the Nikon released only a few weeks later. The same can be said about the Sony 85mm f1.4, that although it is excellent, is also slightly behind the Nikon 105mm f1.4 both in terms of technical qualities and look. And both the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 105mm f1.4 can be focused consistently at their max aperture with the D5.

Personally, I also prefer the feel of a D5 compared to that of the Sony A7/A9 with vertical grip when shooting large lenses such as a 200mm f2.0 or 400mm f2.8. But this is really a matter of taste.

A Sony a9r and a few compact primes will probably be on my wish list this year because I am fortunate enough to be in a situation at the moment where I don't really have to choose. If I had to choose I would stay with Nikon only for now.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

I would think that DSLRs have still a very long and successful life in them. I you look at the 14 adult winners of NHM Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2016, you'll notice that all of them were shot with a Nikon or Canon DSLRs. All the top photographers that I have traveled with still use Nikon or Canon, none of them contemplate switching to a mirrorless. I like using my mirrorless cameras (Sony excluded), but I like to try out new cameras and switch from DSLRs to mirrorless and back. IMHO, both technologies will appeal to different photographers and will coexist for a long time.

Given that the A9 was only released a few weeks ago, and is the first mirrorless camera capable of handling fast action, that's to be expected. All the winners in 2016 used Canon or Nikon because no-one else made a wildlife-capable camera.

The A9 changes everything. I had expected 5D3/D810-level, or maybe 5D4-level AF, but this thing matches the D5 when attached to a native lens. Now it just needs a few long lenses,  and it looks like they're on their way (400mm prime at the end of the year).

[shadowblade]

Since you are looking at landscapes, have you considered the Sony 70-200 f4 lens? From what I've seen, it is stellar.

At f/4, it's less sharp in the corners than the GM at the same aperture (the GM being stopped down one stop, the f/4 being wide open). It seems to have fewer manufacturing/decentering issues, though.

[hogloff]

At f/4, it's less sharp in the corners than the GM at the same aperture (the GM being stopped down one stop, the f/4 being wide open). It seems to have fewer manufacturing/decentering issues, though.

What apertures do you shoot your landscapes at? I typically am stopped down to f8 or f11 where I'm sure the two lenses both deliver great results.

[shadowblade]

Makes sense.



Your impediment is your Sony-fixation.

You can't spend $30K with Sony and get a complete system (unless 3rd-/4th-tier telephotos are acceptable to you, which you've already indicated are not).

The only way to spend $30K, today, and get a complete system is to go with Canon or Nikon.

If you want that $30K to bring you the very best AF + telephoto lenses, that narrows your choice down to Nikon (although both are excellent).



No problem.

During those 5-10 years, I will have enjoyed a complete system, at the top of its game, with all of its parts, that will still be taking superb images a decade from now (plus whatever innovations Nikon brings to the table as time progresses).

Meanwhile, have fun waiting 5-10 years to have "a complete system" with Sony ... while you limp along complaining about the inequities

You're forgetting the bodies.

The D820 looks set to have a resolution around 46MP, which is almost certainly far less than what Canon and Sony will bring in the 5Ds2 and A9r/A7r3. DR should be in the same ballpark, going by recent releases.

Also, with regards to AF, the D810 was no D4 and the D820 will probably be no D5. How much this means depends on what Sony brings out. If it's an A7r3, it doesn't matter so much. If it's an A9r, though, Sony will just have upped the ante for wildlife and sports photography, with a top-tier tracking system as well as high resolution for cropping (something not seen since the 1Ds3 in 2007).

But my main interest is landscapes. Sony has the elements of a complete system there - 24-70, 70-200 and primes, with 100-400, 12-24 and 16-35 coming shortly. TS-E lenses can easily be adapted with no loss of function. For the occasional dedicated wildlife trip, it's easy enough to borrow a 1Dx2 with 200-400 and 600mm lenses. The problem is that the 70-200 isn't very sharp (or just has so many manufacturing issues it's impossible to get a sharp copy), and that adapting a sharper 3rd-party lens would mean losing its secondary function for candid portraits and occasional action shots - something I've missed being able to do while using Canon lenses on the A7r2.

[shadowblade]

What apertures do you shoot your landscapes at? I typically am stopped down to f8 or f11 where I'm sure the two lenses both deliver great results.

I shoot more than just landscapes. Mainly landscapes, but also the occasional shot that requires more DOF control. So I'm looking for lenses that can do it all within their respective focal length ranges (plus a few specialised lenses, such as macros and tilt-shifts). F/4 is fine for most things, but when you need something faster, there's no alternative.

[JKoerner007]

You're forgetting the bodies.

The D820 looks set to have a resolution around 46MP, which is almost certainly far less than what Canon and Sony will bring in the 5Ds2 and A9r/A7r3. DR should be in the same ballpark, going by recent releases.

I am not.

The (I'll bet) D850 will have 46/50mpx, which is all 99.999999999999999% of photographers will ever need.

The rest is a waste of computer space, unless you authentically produce 50"+ prints.

Also, with regards to AF, the D810 was no D4 and the D820 will probably be no D5. How much this means depends on what Sony brings out. If it's an A7r3, it doesn't matter so much. If it's an A9r, though, Sony will just have upped the ante for wildlife and sports photography, with a top-tier tracking system as well as high resolution for cropping (something not seen since the 1Ds3 in 2007).

Again, you rely on too many if-clauses IMO. There is no doubt the Nikon D850 will be in the 50mpx range, which is why I just sold my D500 (I will be able to crop my D850 shots and still get better images with that sensor than with a 20mp sensor at 1.5x). No need to deal with a APS-C camera at this kind of mpx (no more advantage).

Sony does not have a "top-tier" tracking system, but a second-best tracking system. It is Nikon's tracking system which is top-tier. Further, since Sony telephoto glass isn't even 2nd tier (Canon holds that distinction), or 3rd tier (Sigma holds that distinction), you're basing your whole future on a 4th-best lens system coupled with a "maybe" AF system.

You're setting yourself up for more thread-topics of disappointment, rather than thread topics of complete satisfaction.

But my main interest is landscapes. Sony has the elements of a complete system there - 24-70, 70-200 and primes, with 100-400, 12-24 and 16-35 coming shortly. TS-E lenses can easily be adapted with no loss of function. For the occasional dedicated wildlife trip, it's easy enough to borrow a 1Dx2 with 200-400 and 600mm lenses. The problem is that the 70-200 isn't very sharp (or just has so many manufacturing issues it's impossible to get a sharp copy), and that adapting a sharper 3rd-party lens would mean losing its secondary function for candid portraits and occasional action shots - something I've missed being able to do while using Canon lenses on the A7r2.

You're still going to come out a loser.

You're forgetting Nikon is going to be upgrading its 14-24mm f/2.8 lens [which came out in (and totally dominated everything since) 2007] to E FL ED. Guarantee this will blow Sony's clumsy effort away.

The same thing will be true when Nikon upgrades its 24-70 VR to an "E FL VR" shortly as well.

No way will Sony's entry efforts beat Nikkor's upgrades.

Look, we've debated for a few pages' worth, and I doubt we will ever agree.

If you purchase now, you're purchasing 3rd/4th best overall.

You believe that, in 5-10 years, Sony will "dominate everything." We disagree.

In the more important "now" equation, Nikon already is dominant.

In the next 3-5 years, after Nikon upgrades all its lenses to E FL ED ... and brings out its D850 (D5s and, likely, D500s) ... you're still going to be lamenting the inequities of Sony's mere 10 years' experience in lens production ... while Nikon users will be enjoying the fruit of over 100 years' experience in that regard.

[davidgp]

The (I'll bet) D850 will have 46/50mpx, which is all 99.999999999999999% of photographers will ever need.

Umm... I heard that argument a lot in the past... With 12 MPx, with 16MPX, etc...

In some years I'm sure people will say, 100 MPx it's really what any photographer will need.



Enviado desde mi iPad utilizando Tapatalk

[BernardLanguillier]

Umm... I heard that argument a lot in the past... With 12 MPx, with 16MPX, etc...

In some years I'm sure people will say, 100 MPx it's really what any photographer will need.

Mp is really just one kpi.

My D5 images perfectly focused often contain more detail than my imperfectly focused H6D-100c images.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

I am not.

The (I'll bet) D850 will have 46/50mpx, which is all 99.999999999999999% of photographers will ever need.

The rest is a waste of computer space, unless you authentically produce 50"+ prints.

That's almost all I print. I rarely print small.

Again, you rely on too many if-clauses IMO. There is no doubt the Nikon D850 will be in the 50mpx range, which is why I just sold my D500 (I will be able to crop my D850 shots and still get better images with that sensor than with a 20mp sensor at 1.5x). No need to deal with a APS-C camera at this kind of mpx (no more advantage).

None of which helps if the AF system can't keep track of the subject. If it's an A7r3, then every high-resolution body is in the same boat. If it's an A9r, then Sony comes out on top by a long way.

Sony does not have a "top-tier" tracking system, but a second-best tracking system. It is Nikon's tracking system which is top-tier. Further, since Sony telephoto glass isn't even 2nd tier (Canon holds that distinction), or 3rd tier (Sigma holds that distinction), you're basing your whole future on a 4th-best lens system coupled with a "maybe" AF system.

Sounds like you haven't tried the A9 yet.

Speed- and accuracy-wise, without eye focus, I couldn't tell them apart when shooting performing birds. Both with a 90% plus hitrate. But Sony's AF covers a greater proportion of the sensor,  and the eye AF for shooting human subjects puts it over the top.

You're still going to come out a loser.

You're forgetting Nikon is going to be upgrading its 14-24mm f/2.8 lens [which came out in (and totally dominated everything since) 2007] to E FL ED. Guarantee this will blow Sony's clumsy effort away.

Almost certainly not.

The shorter flange distance makes UWA lens design for mirrorless much easier than for an SLR. The optics required are far less extreme.

In any case, the Canon 11-24 beats Nikon's corners, except when you need f/2 8. No doubt the next-generation Nikon wil beat the Canon, until the next-generation Canon comes along after that.

The same thing will be true when Nikon upgrades its 24-70 VR to an "E FL VR" shortly as well.

Before that happens, Canon will release 24-70 and 70-200 Mk III lenses, since the current ones are half a decade old. These should surpass the current Nikon E lenses, going on the previous record of the two companies leapfrogging each other.

No way will Sony's entry efforts beat Nikkor's upgrades.

They've already matched them at other focal lengths. Compare the various 24-70mm lenses. Or the primes. Nikon is better in some, Sony in others, Canon in others. It's just this one lens where the Sony seems to be phenomenally weak - or, more likely, just poorly-made rather than poorly-designed, since it seems that sharp samples exist, and the lenses I tried all had at least one super-sharp corner.

You believe that, in 5-10 years, Sony will "dominate everything." We disagree.

In the more important "now" equation, Nikon already is dominant.

In 2000, Kodak was also dominant. They also had no plan for the future, except for more of the same.

Canon and Sony have both made big moves in next-generation mirrorless technology. Nikon hasn't even started, and doesn't have the resources to catch up - all they can do is make a bigger and better SLR, which isn't going to help them when mirrorless exceeds the limitations of SLRs, the turning  point likely being this year. Canon is behind in mirrorless camera design at the moment, but has the necessary technology, as well as the resources to catch up.

So, in 10 years, I don't know who will be dominant - Canon or Sony. But it certainly won't be Nikon.

The 'now' question doesn't matter. I'm not buying a system for the next five years. I'm buying a system where I can accumulate lenses and other gear over the next 10 or 15 years, with clear, ongoing support for the system and without having to worry about it floundering as it gets overtaken by technological developments (by which I don't just mean a sharper lens or better AF system comes out,  but a shift occurs, like MF to AF or SLR to mirrorless, which renders current equipment unusable or significantly suboptimal on the new system).

In the next 3-5 years, after Nikon upgrades all its lenses to E FL ED ... and brings out its D850 (D5s and, likely, D500s) ... you're still going to be lamenting the inequities of Sony's mere 10 years' experience in lens production ... while Nikon users will be enjoying the fruit of over 100 years' experience in that regard.

10 years, 100 years, doesn't matter. It's the product that counts. Even Canon and Nikon still produce lemons. And Sony's path for improvement is a lot clearer than Nikon's. It's obvious what Sony needs to do to make a better 70-200, and no doubt their engineers are already doing that. It's not so clear what Nikon can do from here, apart ftom make it compatible with an as-yet-nonexistent class of mirrorless cameras. The next generation will likely be equal, with indistinguishable performance.

[jwstl]

You're forgetting the bodies.

The D820 looks set to have a resolution around 46MP, which is almost certainly far less than what Canon and Sony will bring in the 5Ds2 and A9r/A7r3.

I seriously doubt the A9r when released will be at or more than 46mp. There's a reason they had to stick with a 24mp sensor on the A9 instead of using a higher MP sensor such as the one from the A7RII; they needed fewer MPs to get that performance. The A7R series will always be the high MP line and the A9 the performance line...just like Nikon with the D8xx and the D5. You can't compare the A9 line with the D8xx line at all: apples and oranges as they say.

[JKoerner007]

That's almost all I print. I rarely print small.

Um, okay.

None of which helps if the AF system can't keep track of the subject. If it's an A7r3, then every high-resolution body is in the same boat. If it's an A9r, then Sony comes out on top by a long way.

Well, by all means, do carry on then with your hopes of future achievement for Sony.

Meanwhile, I don't I have to "wait" for class leading excellence.

Sounds like you haven't tried the A9 yet.

Speed- and accuracy-wise, without eye focus, I couldn't tell them apart when shooting performing birds. Both with a 90% plus hitrate. But Sony's AF covers a greater proportion of the sensor,  and the eye AF for shooting human subjects puts it over the top.

No, I have not tried the A9 yet ... and what is a performing bird?

Almost certainly not.

Almost certainly you will continue to live "in wanting" for many years, given your Sony fixation. After all, you are the one complaining about the behavior of the 70-200 AF performance with your Sony system as well as complaining about the mushy sharpness at f/2.8.

Meanwhile, no one with a Nikon D5 + 70-200E FL ED is complaining about their autofocus speed or extreme acutense of their images. They're simply enjoying the best in the world.

This juxtaposition between your lack-of-total enjoyment (with your system preference) and Nikonian deep enjoyment (with their system preference) will continue-on for another several years.

The shorter flange distance makes UWA lens design for mirrorless much easier than for an SLR. The optics required are far less extreme.

In any case, the Canon 11-24 beats Nikon's corners, except when you need f/2 8. No doubt the next-generation Nikon wil beat the Canon, until the next-generation Canon comes along after that.

Before that happens, Canon will release 24-70 and 70-200 Mk III lenses, since the current ones are half a decade old. These should surpass the current Nikon E lenses, going on the previous record of the two companies leapfrogging each other.

We disagree.

They've already matched them at other focal lengths. Compare the various 24-70mm lenses. Or the primes. Nikon is better in some, Sony in others, Canon in others. It's just this one lens where the Sony seems to be phenomenally weak - or, more likely, just poorly-made rather than poorly-designed, since it seems that sharp samples exist, and the lenses I tried all had at least one super-sharp corner.

The only lens arena where Sony dominates is in its 85 mm recent release, which is competing with a 7-year-old Nikkor lens ... and the Sony just barely surpassed the aged Nikkor. When Nikon updates to an E lens, the Sony will be left wanting by a wide margin.

In 2000, Kodak was also dominant. They also had no plan for the future, except for more of the same.

Canon and Sony have both made big moves in next-generation mirrorless technology. Nikon hasn't even started, and doesn't have the resources to catch up - all they can do is make a bigger and better SLR, which isn't going to help them when mirrorless exceeds the limitations of SLRs, the turning  point likely being this year. Canon is behind in mirrorless camera design at the moment, but has the necessary technology, as well as the resources to catch up.

So, in 10 years, I don't know who will be dominant - Canon or Sony. But it certainly won't be Nikon.

Since you jumped from Canon to Sony, you give each more credit over Nikon than either deserves.

The truth is, Nikon has "enough technology" to have more class-leading cameras and lenses than Canon and Sony put together.

When Nikon decides to invest its considerable talents into a serious mirrorless system, its users will benefit from its already-superior lens portfolio.

The 'now' question doesn't matter. I'm not buying a system for the next five years. I'm buying a system where I can accumulate lenses and other gear over the next 10 or 15 years, with clear, ongoing support for the system and without having to worry about it floundering as it gets overtaken by technological developments (by which I don't just mean a sharper lens or better AF system comes out,  but a shift occurs, like MF to AF or SLR to mirrorless, which renders current equipment unusable or significantly suboptimal on the new system).

Now and tomorrow are both relevant.

'Now,' you are complaining, and you will continue to complain tomorrow, and for the next few years, easily.

Meanwhile Nikon users really have nothing to complain about. Five years from now, Nikon users will just have more innovations available to them, and Sony will still be catching up.

0 years, 100 years, doesn't matter. It's the product that counts. Even Canon and Nikon still produce lemons. And Sony's path for improvement is a lot clearer than Nikon's. It's obvious what Sony needs to do to make a better 70-200, and no doubt their engineers are already doing that. It's not so clear what Nikon can do from here, apart ftom make it compatible with an as-yet-nonexistent class of mirrorless cameras. The next generation will likely be equal, with indistinguishable performance.

Nikon hasn't produced any lemons at all, in their professional offerings, in quite a while. Mostly, they've been hitting everything out of the park (read all the top spots on SenScore/LenScore, and you will see Nikon dominating 2-1 over Canon, Leica, Sony, and Zeiss).

I guess I will conclude my debate with you by agreeing with your very last sentence.

In 10 years, Canon, Nikon, and Sony will all have awesome systems for the end-user.

The only difference is, now, only Canon and Nikon do.