Ok im about to lose my mind. So a few years ago i switched from a Z7 to an R5 because of the AF system at the time. It was a costly switch but worth it at least at the time. Fast forward to now and I recently bought the Nikon Zf and love it. The Nikon build is just so nice and solid. The R5 is nice but it just doesnt have the same feel. Anyway i had planned on just having both systems because i wanted something my kids can shoot with, Zf, while im out in the field. Something they can learn on as well. At the same time I bought the new RF 50mm F1.4 VCM lens from canon, 1400 dollars for a 50 was a hard pill to swallow but the results are fantastic. Until they weren't. Well i kept getting a lens error after about a month, sent the lens in 3 times and they couldn't reproduce it. Even sent the R5 body in with the same results. I even took 3 videos showing the error. They want me to send it in again and im so fed up im almost thinking of switching my entire system again back to Nikon, getting a Z8 to compliment the Zf. It would be a no brainer at this point except I really do love my Canon lenses. I havent used much of the newer nikon lenses so i cant compare but i love how small the canon 70-200 f2.8 is when stowed away along with the 100-500 as well. It looks like comparatively the Nikon lenses are much bigger. Anyway something to ponder I just wanted to vent to the void and see if anyone had similar experiences. Is the Z8 on par with the R5 AF nowadays? What else would i be giving up by switching if anything?
Yes, Nikon has continued to focus on physical robustness with their 70-200mm f2.8 S and it therefore isn't a collapsible design. The proposal here would be to consider the 70-180mm f2.8 that is light and excellent.
As far as the 100-500mm, I would look at Tamron lenses which are probably the closest, in particular the 150-500mm.
As far as other lenses go, there are some absolute gems in the Nikon Z lenses line up and it is possible to adapt any Sony FE mount lens with very decent AF which opens tremendous opportunities.
As far as AF goes, IMHO they are very close with +/- depending on the use case. Some reports give a significant lead to Nikon for birding, but other speak more of similar performance. Not sure which one to believe. If this is of interest for you, then I would suggest watching Steve Perry's videos.
Depends on what you shoot. I shot Canon (with an R5, R6 and R8) for a couple years but moved to Nikon two years ago.
The Z8 is easily on par or better than the R5 for action and wildlife photography, IMO. I do think the R5 still has an edge for shallow depth of field portraiture. My R5 basically never missed when using EyeAF, but the Z8 (as well as my current Z6 III) will still occasionally throw focus to the eyebrow instead of the iris. It’s not constant or anything, but it happens more often than it did on Canon. But outside of that scenario, they are at least on par, with the Z8 perhaps being better.
My big draw was the mid range glass, and the ability to use more glass from others (including adapting Sony lenses). The 24-120/4S is phenomenal, and IMO superior to the 24-105L. The 70-200s are different. The Nikon is fantastic but larger and heavier than the v1 Canon, but nikon also has the 70-180/2.8, which is even slightly smaller than that Canon. I’d give the edge in image quality to the. Anon in that comparison, but the 70-180 is not too far behind, and is a very good lens.
Some of the Nikon primes are enormous, but the f/1.8S line is generally compact and outstanding, with the 50/1.8, 20/1.8 and 85/1.8 especially being stellar. I think the Nikon 105 Macro is a superior lens to the RF 100L, and the 180-600, while larger than the 100-500, is a great lens for the price. The 100-400 S is phenomenal if you’re Ok with 400mm, as is the 400/4.5 prime (which is incredibly lightweight).
The R5 is obsolete. I would compare anything to the R5 II. At first I did not think there was much difference, but the R5 II is clearly better than the R5 with the latest FW and does 30FPS RAW. Ideally you could wait a bit and get the Z9 II. I have a feeling they will not update the Z8 nearly as soon or it won't be as similar.
Whatever you do, rent some gear before spending a small fortune and finding another shade of green in the other fields.
EB-1 wrote:
The R5 is obsolete. I would compare anything to the R5 II. At first I did not think there was much difference, but the R5 II is clearly better than the R5 with the latest FW and does 30FPS RAW. Ideally you could wait a bit and get the Z9 II. I have a feeling they will not update the Z8 nearly as soon or it won't be as similar.
The Z9II is likely to be outstanding yes.
The duo Z8/Z9 has been universally reviewed as a key strength of the Z system. What makes you think that Nikon would move away from this offering?
What I find more likely is in fact a shorter time gap btwn Z9II and Z8II since:
- most people expects a Z8II already
- the development of the Z9II will certainly have been planned since day 1 with the Z8II in mind
In the past 30 years Nikon has done that sort of thing at least 3 times, but maybe I'm missing some others.
F5+F100
D3+D700
D9+D8
Given that the Z9/Z8 sensor was such a major improvement over previous slow-read sensors, what exactly can they do to upgrade the Z9 and Z8, yet also create enough distinction between those lines? If you recall they upgraded the D3 to D3s, but did not the D700. The D800 went in another direction.
Fair points but:
- the distinction could remain the exact same one there currently is btw Z8/Z9 in the context of whatever they improve on the Z9II, meaning essentially form factor, media type and price
- there are many things they could improve on the Z9II with no or only minor sensor improvements, many resulting from a much faster Expeed 8, new EVF, faster data bus, more compact components, better materials,…
Your problems with the new 50mm are acknowledged but personally I would not recommend a swap. You have two lenses that closely fit your needs, neither of which Nikon has direct replacements for. My suggestion is to persist with a return or fix for your 50mm and upgrade to the R5ii which has features that won't be available until the mkii versions of the Z8/9. Once those new versions appear, by all means reassess. But I am not sure there is a compelling reason to be switching systems these days with the possible exception of certain lenses.
Jman13 wrote:
Depends on what you shoot. I shot Canon (with an R5, R6 and R8) for a couple years but moved to Nikon two years ago.
The Z8 is easily on par or better than the R5 for action and wildlife photography, IMO. I do think the R5 still has an edge for shallow depth of field portraiture. My R5 basically never missed when using EyeAF, but the Z8 (as well as my current Z6 III) will still occasionally throw focus to the eyebrow instead of the iris. It’s not constant or anything, but it happens more often than it did on Canon. But outside of that scenario, they are at least on par, with the Z8 perhaps being better.
My big draw was the mid range glass, and the ability to use more glass from others (including adapting Sony lenses). The 24-120/4S is phenomenal, and IMO superior to the 24-105L. The 70-200s are different. The Nikon is fantastic but larger and heavier than the v1 Canon, but nikon also has the 70-180/2.8, which is even slightly smaller than that Canon. I’d give the edge in image quality to the. Anon in that comparison, but the 70-180 is not too far behind, and is a very good lens.
Some of the Nikon primes are enormous, but the f/1.8S line is generally compact and outstanding, with the 50/1.8, 20/1.8 and 85/1.8 especially being stellar. I think the Nikon 105 Macro is a superior lens to the RF 100L, and the 180-600, while larger than the 100-500, is a great lens for the price. The 100-400 S is phenomenal if you’re Ok with 400mm, as is the 400/4.5 prime (which is incredibly lightweight).
Overall I really like the Nikon lenses. ...Show more →
I would get the occasional eyelash/brow af on earlier FW. On 3.01 I have yet to see it. Even trying to trick the system at difficult angles to side that had been demonstrated to cause issues on earlier FW. It’s rock solid. 1.2 shallow DOF is no issue. Now with the ability to focus wide open OCF performance is also much improved.
Idk if you still have a Z8, but I’d recommend you check it out again.
I just did a night dance shoot in the city with the Z8. Pretty low light levels, ISO 22,000 at f1.2 and 1/250s, backlit the Z8 focused reliably on the eyes. Mighty impressive.
A friend of mines shooting in the same location with a R5II got no more than 50% keepers. Better to be hype aware…
The Z9II is likely to be the best focusing camera on the planet considering how good the Z8 is with essentially 4 years old hardware.
It doesn’t mean that switching back to Nikon is the better option for the OP of course. The R5II is a great camera.
draacor wrote:
Ok im about to lose my mind. So a few years ago i switched from a Z7 to an R5 because of the AF system at the time. It was a costly switch but worth it at least at the time. Fast forward to now and I recently bought the Nikon Zf and love it. The Nikon build is just so nice and solid. The R5 is nice but it just doesnt have the same feel. Anyway i had planned on just having both systems because i wanted something my kids can shoot with, Zf, while im out in the field. Something they can learn on as well. At the same time I bought the new RF 50mm F1.4 VCM lens from canon, 1400 dollars for a 50 was a hard pill to swallow but the results are fantastic. Until they weren't. Well i kept getting a lens error after about a month, sent the lens in 3 times and they couldn't reproduce it. Even sent the R5 body in with the same results. I even took 3 videos showing the error. They want me to send it in again and im so fed up im almost thinking of switching my entire system again back to Nikon, getting a Z8 to compliment the Zf. It would be a no brainer at this point except I really do love my Canon lenses. I havent used much of the newer nikon lenses so i cant compare but i love how small the canon 70-200 f2.8 is when stowed away along with the 100-500 as well. It looks like comparatively the Nikon lenses are much bigger. Anyway something to ponder I just wanted to vent to the void and see if anyone had similar experiences. Is the Z8 on par with the R5 AF nowadays? What else would i be giving up by switching if anything?...Show more →
Switching systems comes at a fairly steep cost, not only financially but in terms of functionality. Jman provided a reasonable summary IMHO and if you are happy with your lenses, perhaps you should be looking at a new body such as the R5II or R1?
FWIW, I switched to Nikon some two years ago after a long and storied career shooting Canon since the late 1980's. The overriding issues for me were Canon's lack of lightweight, mid-priced, high performing telephoto lenses. My EF lenses were aging and the "newer" RF lenses were uninspiring apart from the 100-500 (with its associated problems). Also, I appreciated that Nikon opened their mount and collaborated with Tamron to produce some really good, compact, fast zooms. For me, switching made sense and this may or may not apply in your circumstance.
Until I'd seen some strong reviews for the Z8/Z9, I was running the R5 + C70 and D850 + Z6ii together because I do a fair amount of video alongside stills. After I tried out the Z9 and realized what a monster it is for video, I sold off the R5 and C70 and have not regretted the decision whatsoever.
The R5 was ok from a build standpoint but still felt a bit plasticky compared to my Nikon kit, but the C70 was horrible - it went back 3 times for various issues, twice for the monitor hinge. From a stills standpoint, I found the Canon RAWs are still behind in terms of highlight and shadow recovery before they start to feel crunchy vs the Nikon RAW files.
Canon does have some beautiful glass, and I was excited to try out the 28-70 f2 as well as play with old EF glass that I missed using like the EF 50 1.2L but Nikon also has great glass, just different. I wish the Z 50 1.2 was smaller, and they had a collapsible 70-200 f4 like Canon RF, but on the other hand the S 35, 50 and 85 are all excellent (lately have really enjoyed the 40 f2). The 24-120 f4 S has been one of my most used lenses lately (particularly for video - the manual focus ring works very well). And of course old F-mount glass like the 28 1.4E, 58 1.4G and 105 f1.4E are still great. I chose to just adapt my old 70-200 f2.8E because it's still very good for the price, and I prefer the option of being able to use it on both my D850 and Z9 rather than switching to Z version.
I'd say go for it. The AF on the Z8/Z9 is on par with the R5 now. I haven't noticed a difference in hit rate going back all to Nikon.
Nikon lenses are generally somewhat larger in order to (a) reduce vignetting and (b) minimize focus breathing. As a result of (a), you get smoother bokeh and - as less vignetting means more light rays in the periphery of the optical system - a bit more optical aberrations.
I don't think this is primarily about robustness.
