What system do you prefer, now that everything's out?

Sony (FE) - I like my frame full and my system complete?

55 (24.6%)

Fuji - Really good APS-C has plenty of pixels, and oh, those lenses?

45 (20.1%)

Nikon - two great bodies and five light, sharp lenses are a GREAT start?

33 (14.7%)

Micro 43 - I like my cameras light, fast or video-centric?

27 (12.1%)

Canon (EF-R) - I like my lenses FAST and my adapters with extra features?

15 (6.7%)

Fuji GFX - full frame is still a small sensor?

26 (11.6%)

Panasonic/Leica - anything with Leica lenses is worth the weight and cost?

14 (6.3%)

Something else - Sony APS-C(only - vote Sony if you also have FE) EOS-M? Nikon 1?

9 (4%)

Total Members Voted: 165

[chez]

I can think of at least three rational reasons to prefer Nikon to Sony (as well as some to prefer Sony to Nikon).

Nikon>Sony:
Build quality, durability, sealing: Both Imaging-Resource and Roger Cicala (LensRentals) have looked closely at sealing and build, and both say that the Z-series is built like a D850, just as Nikon says it is. The A7r III and below are notorious for lesser weather resistance and build, and both Roger Cicala's teardowns and IR's "get it wet" test bear this out.

Neither seems to have tested an A9, so that might or might not be different. Some reviews say "it's built like an A7r III", while others say "this is different" - in both cases without getting inside, so who knows. The fact that the weight differs by only 16 grams between the A7r III and the A9 suggests that the builds might be very similar - but that 16 grams could all be gaskets...

Interface: In my eyes, Fuji and Nikon have the best user interfaces in the business, and Sony has the worst. This is, of course, entirely personal (for example, I struggle when someone hands me a Canon, but that's almost certainly because I haven't used very many of them). Just from reviews I read and comments on here, it seems like my opinion is relatively common - Nikons tend to be praised for their interface, Fujis are highly praised - except for a minority of reviewers who hate them - while Sonys are often criticized.

Sensor (right now, and only the Z7): The A7III and Z6 appear to be using exactly the same sensor, while the A7rIII and Z7 are using closely related sensors. The Nikon Sauce on the Z7 sensor seems to have some minor advantages, and one more significant one (ISO 64).

Sony>Nikon
Body lineup: Nikon offers a choice of a good general purpose full-frame body or the present King of the Pixel Monsters. Sony offers a general purpose FF body and a pixel monster plus a dedicated sports body, a video-centric body (albeit a bit dated right now - but they'll replace it soon), a bunch of less expensive prior-generation bodies and some (not always sensibly positioned) APS-C bodies. If you count Nikon F and Z together, they offer all the same choices as Sony except a video-centric body, but you can't use Z lenses on an F body.

Battery Life: The newer "big-battery" Sonys will outlast pretty much every other mirrorless on the market, although the older "small-battery" models are among the worst.

Take your Pick
System Depth (other than bodies): Nikon has an advantage in flashes, remotes and other things where the Z system takes F-mount accessories (although modern Sony compatibility is also pretty darn good). Any light that offers TTL at all, for example, will offer "modern Nikon" as a choice. Sony is often also available, but may not be as standard in rentals, and some exotica may come in Canon or Nikon only.

The most important system depth question is, of course, lenses - and either one could win, depending on how you count. If you count only native, non-adapted lenses, it's Sony by a mile (with a note that Nikon is rolling out lenses as fast as they can, and making generally sensible choices).

If you count native lenses plus fully functional adapted lenses with a fast, reliuable same-brand adapter, Nikon wins. The Sony FE system is pretty decent, but 60 years of Nikkors is a lot to choose from - from 6mm to 1200-1700mm, plus tilt-shift lenses and oddities like microscope adapters.

 If you include lenses on (possibly slower or glitchier) third-party adapters, it's Sony again, although I suspect all the adapter manufacturers are working on Z-mount versions of their FE adapters (there's no reason why any of them wouldn't work).

The big one you forgot is AF, both eye-AF tracking and just good old regular AF. Sony definitely has the leg up on this major feature...even Eye AF on animals.

And if you need extreme AF tracking at high rates...the A9 has no competition.

[Martin Kristiansen]

And remember how dual cards was such a thing. Couldn’t consider a camera as proper unless it had dual card slots and Sony didn’t have that. Then Sony did and Nikon didn’t and since then it doesn’t get mentioned much at all.

I’m kind of ambivalent on it. Never had a card fail but I still tend to use the second card as a back up.

[BernardLanguillier]

And remember how dual cards was such a thing. Couldn’t consider a camera as proper unless it had dual card slots and Sony didn’t have that. Then Sony did and Nikon didn’t and since then it doesn’t get mentioned much at all.

You must be kidding right? The lack of dual memory card on the Z6/Z7 was the number one discussion topic for weeks after the camera release, topping Trump's fake news and global warming...

I am unhappy about the Z7 not having two memory cards. Clearly so. The only good news being that XQD is by far the most reliable format there is. But even so, I'd be happy to have a Z9 with 2 slots. And it will have to be 2 XQD slots since one XQD and one SD doesn't make much sense speedwise.

Unless I decide that a Sony a9 II is a better companion for my GFX100. That could very well be the case. The only thing I would regret is what I consider to be a superior lens mount and better lenses overall.

We will see.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

You must be kidding right? The lack of dual memory card on the Z6/Z7 was the number one discussion topic for weeks after the camera release, topping Trump's fake news and global warming...

I am unhappy about the Z7 not having two memory cards. Clearly so. The only good news being that XQD is by far the most reliable format there is. But even so, I'd be happy to have a Z9 with 2 slots. And it will have to be 2 XQD slots since one XQD and one SD doesn't make much sense speedwise.

Unless I decide that a Sony a9 II is a better companion for my GFX100. That could very well be the case. The only thing I would regret is what I consider to be a superior lens mount and better lenses overall.

We will see.

Cheers,
Bernard

Actually Bernard I was referring the post above mine that had a breakdown of where the Sony was inferior and where superior to the Nikon. I thought the card issue should have been mentioned. Did I miss it?

[BernardLanguillier]

Actually Bernard I was referring the post above mine that had a breakdown of where the Sony was inferior and where superior to the Nikon. I thought the card issue should have been mentioned. Did I miss it?

ah ok, that wasn't very clear in your wording sorry.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

ah ok, that wasn't very clear in your wording sorry.

Cheers,
Bernard

I could have been more clear that I was referencing the post above. It was clear in my mind but clearly wasn’t well stated.

[32BT]

So Canon apparently hit another homerun with that 85mm. I vote for a petition to have Nikon fit a Canon R mount in one of their puppies. In fact, one would expect some geek somewhere on the youtubes to have already done that. If there is one thing the internutz has taught us it's this: that no matter how crazy an idea, there is always some tinkerer out there in need of a more reasonable hobby.

[BernardLanguillier]

Just got my F to Z adapter, I am pretty sure that we’ll get sooner than later a R to Z adapter.

This being said, I am sure that the f1.2 line of Z primes will be every bit as good as the R primes.

Nikon has just not gotten to the phase yet.

Cheers,
Bernard

[32BT]

Just got my F to Z adapter, I am pretty sure that we’ll get sooner than later a R to Z adapter.

This being said, I am sure that the f1.2 line of Z primes will be every bit as good as the R primes.

Nikon has just not gotten to the phase yet.

Cheers,
Bernard

I thought R to Z was impossible because the focussing distance is too close (like 2mm or something?). We obviously don't want extra glass behind the lens a la 1.4 converters.

It's not that the current Nikon lenses are bad, it's that drawing of the Canon lenses that makes them so remarkable. Could be the new coatings, that flare resistant sheen, it's like build in orton effect or something. Don't know, but d*mn... Whereas the Nikkors seem to have a more modern matter-of-factly drawing, ultrasharp but also too technically correct perhaps? They seem to lack a bit of personality or character.

[BernardLanguillier]

I thought R to Z was impossible because the focussing distance is too close (like 2mm or something?). We obviously don't want extra glass behind the lens a la 1.4 converters.

The flange distances are:
- Z: 16mm
- FE: 18mm
- R: 20mm

Cheers,
Bernard

[32BT]

The flange distances are:
- Z: 16mm
- FE: 18mm
- R: 20mm

Cheers,
Bernard

Right, that's what i meant. The flange distances are too close. Or would 4mm difference be enough?

[BernardLanguillier]

Right, that's what i meant. The flange distances are too close. Or would 4mm difference be enough?

We have an FE to Z adapter already on 2mm, I have one copy in front of me as I type this.

Cheers,
Bernard

[32BT]

We have an FE to Z adapter already on 2mm, I have one copy in front of me as I type this.

Cheers,
Bernard

Impressive, although is that because the bajonet can partly stick into the Z mount? Which I presume is impossible with the R diameter? I never would figure 2mm to be solid enough to fix a camera to lens tightly, although with modern materials these days, who knows?

[Dan Wells]

The card issue is at least partially mitigated by the single slot being XQD instead of the more fragile SD... 2x XQD is obviously the ideal configuration, but how does 1X XQD compare to 2x SD?

The A9 almost certainly has the best AF in the mirrorless world, which I acknowledged in listing body diversity as a key Sony advantage. We haven't seen the Nikon body that's supposed to have pro sports grade AF yet. A7III to Z6 or A7rIII to Z7 is a pretty fair fight as of Firmware 2.0 (maybe a Sony advantage, but not huge). Throw in the A9, and the advantage is more distinct - but Nikon doesn't yet compete directly with the A9.

[KLaban]

I thought R to Z was impossible because the focussing distance is too close (like 2mm or something?). We obviously don't want extra glass behind the lens a la 1.4 converters.

It's not that the current Nikon lenses are bad, it's that drawing of the Canon lenses that makes them so remarkable. Could be the new coatings, that flare resistant sheen, it's like build in orton effect or something. Don't know, but d*mn... Whereas the Nikkors seem to have a more modern matter-of-factly drawing, ultrasharp but also too technically correct perhaps? They seem to lack a bit of personality or character.

 

This is where adapted third party lenses could be useful.

I've plans to use my Zeiss C Sonnar on the Z7. It has bags of character as it is but given the differing sensor cover glass thickness between Leica M and Nikon Z the resulting images could be "interesting".

Time will tell.

[chez]

The card issue is at least partially mitigated by the single slot being XQD instead of the more fragile SD... 2x XQD is obviously the ideal configuration, but how does 1X XQD compare to 2x SD?

The A9 almost certainly has the best AF in the mirrorless world, which I acknowledged in listing body diversity as a key Sony advantage. We haven't seen the Nikon body that's supposed to have pro sports grade AF yet. A7III to Z6 or A7rIII to Z7 is a pretty fair fight as of Firmware 2.0 (maybe a Sony advantage, but not huge). Throw in the A9, and the advantage is more distinct - but Nikon doesn't yet compete directly with the A9.

From the comparisons I saw, the A7R3 still has better AF, especially eye-AF and tracking. It's these conditions where you need to push AF that the better camera shines.

[KLaban]

From the comparisons I saw, the A7R3 still has better AF, especially eye-AF and tracking. It's these conditions where you need to push AF that the better camera shines.

This place never ceases to amaze me.

Camera A is better than camera B because it does C better.

[chez]

This place never ceases to amaze me.

Camera A is better than camera B because it does C better.

Yes...if C is important to you...if not...then just carry on. If this fact amazes you...

[D Fuller]

...

The A9 almost certainly has the best AF in the mirrorless world, which I acknowledged in listing body diversity as a key Sony advantage. We haven't seen the Nikon body that's supposed to have pro sports grade AF yet. A7III to Z6 or A7rIII to Z7 is a pretty fair fight as of Firmware 2.0 (maybe a Sony advantage, but not huge). Throw in the A9, and the advantage is more distinct - but Nikon doesn't yet compete directly with the A9.

While I think there is a bit of a Sony advantage in the AF performance area, I find that there is a much more-significant stumble on Nikon's parrt in AF usablilty—but only in the continuous tracking/AFC part of the AF feature set. It's just more difficult than it should be to get the camera to lock onto the subject you want it to. Part of that is the decision not to have any visible focus confirmation in AFC, so you don't know when the camera thinks it has acquired focus, and part of it is the button presses required to move between trackable targets. It works, but its more dificult than I'd like it to be. So in this very small subset of its AF functions, the camera feels very much like a first generation effort. This is odd, and disapointing from the manufacturer who brought us the D5.

On the ther hand, in all of their AFS modes, my Z6 and Z7 out-perform my A7R3 because the camera gets there faster. Using AFS, the Sony always feels sluggish, like I have to wait for focus before the shutter will trip. The Nikons just feel snapppier. and for my work, that's more important more often.

For video AF, the Zs are as good as the Sony in every way, and give more control options that let me fine-tune the speed of focus to match the shot. I also feel that when there is no face to focus on (where both cameras do very well) the Nikons make the right choice in what to focus on more consistently than the Sony.