mawz wrote:
I recently went from the A7IV to the Z5ii.
I'm not familiar with the Z5ii. Do you notice significant differences in the EVF or are they reasonably similar? Do you find the EVF of the Z5ii to be similar to that of the Z6 (and Z6ii) or better?
MaTiHH wrote:
That is simply not true. I‘m using both systems in parallel and the Sony EVFs are noticeably better.
This blanket statement is simply nonsense. How good or bad Sony viewfinders are depends on the model. And we're not talking about Sony A1 vs. Nikon Z6 here, but A7IV vs. Z8.
DWOfPaul wrote:
improved on some of the weak spots Sony has traditionally had in their cameras, such as color accuracy and in body stabilization.
Nitpick: nobody wants "color accuracy". Every single digital camera deviates from accurate color in very significant ways on purpose because accurate color is unattractive to viewers. On the very basic level, saturation and contrast are almost always boosted. On top of that, they boost some colors and suppress others to achieve what buyers see as attractive.
This causes major headaches for people who use digital cameras for reproductive, archival or product work where true color accuracy is needed. Out of the box, all cameras fail. To achieve accurate color a custom profile optimized for the light source is made, or purchased from independent profile makers.
Some cameras have a "faithful" or "neutral" color profile which is closer to accurate (look how dull it is, by the way). But even then there are shenanigans.
And by the way, this practice of intentionally distorting colors for viewer's pleasure goes all the way back to the film era. This is why I always chuckle when influencers/marketers use "life-like" and "film colors" in the same sentence. Life-like colors are dull and boring, everyone wants a punchy palette where two complimentary colors are boosted and others are slightly muted. These intentional distortions have always been marketed as "life-like" or "accurate" anyway, because buyers like the sound of it.
Essentially everything is tailored to human behavior: marketing says what your ears want to hear, and the engineering delivers what your eyes want to see.
TLDR: all digital cameras (their JPEG engines) are intentionally color-inaccurate.
mawz wrote:
I spent 6 months shooting it alongside the OG Z7 and the Z7 is noticeably better for a similar spec panel.
Finally, someone said it. When I had to choose between the Nikon Z6 and the Sony A7IV, I compared their EVFs side by side, and the Z6's undoubtedly offered the better image. That's why I chose the Sony not because of, but despite, its EVF.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I'm not familiar with the Z5ii. Do you notice significant differences in the EVF or are they reasonably similar? Do you find the EVF of the Z5ii to be similar to that of the Z6 (and Z6ii) or better?
Z6 and Z6ii are the same as the Z7, which I also own and still shoot with regularly.
The Z5ii has an improved panel (noticeably brighter and reportedly better DR), but there also seems to be some difference in the optics as it is noticeably pickier about eye position. I regularly have to adjust my eye position to avoid blurriness on the Z5ii, which I don't have to do on my Z7. Overall the Z5ii is better, but it's definitely not all improvements.
The Z 50 1.4 is pretty decent from what I've seen and I hope Viltrox makes a 35 1.4 Pro at some point. On the 85 1.4 end you have Sirui and Viltrox so you have options. There's also the Sirui 35 1.4. newyork wrote:
That’s kind of nice especially if you want faster than 1.8 and can’t afford 1.2 but overall not worth the effort and loss of money.
old-gregg wrote:
Nitpick: nobody wants "color accuracy". Every single digital camera deviates from accurate color in very significant ways on purpose because accurate color is unattractive to viewers. On the very basic level, saturation and contrast are almost always boosted. On top of that, they boost some colors and suppress others to achieve what buyers see as attractive.
This causes major headaches for people who use digital cameras for reproductive, archival or product work where true color accuracy is needed. Out of the box, all cameras fail. To achieve accurate color a custom profile optimized for the light source is made, or purchased from independent profile makers.
Some cameras have a "faithful" or "neutral" color profile which is closer to accurate (look how dull it is, by the way). But even then there are shenanigans.
And by the way, this practice of intentionally distorting colors for viewer's pleasure goes all the way back to the film era. This is why I always chuckle when influencers/marketers use "life-like" and "film colors" in the same sentence. Life-like colors are dull and boring, everyone wants a punchy palette where two complimentary colors are boosted and others are slightly muted. These intentional distortions have always been marketed as "life-like" or "accurate" anyway, because buyers like the sound of it.
Essentially everything is tailored to human behavior: marketing says what your ears want to hear, and the engineering delivers what your eyes want to see.
TLDR: all digital cameras (their JPEG engines) are intentionally color-inaccurate. ...Show more →
I completely agree, I was just trying to keep it high level. Mapping light to 256 RGB vlaues is as much an art as it is a science
newyork wrote:
Not opening a vendor war here but I often wonder about Canon coming from Nikon.
In my opinion, Canon does offer some unique lenses like the 28-70mm f2 (now Sony has one), 10-20mm f4, and 200-800 f6.3-9, but the lack of third party lenses, the inability to use R lenses Z or E and the inability to use Z or E lens on R has made it a lot less intresting of a dual system setup to me. Another small note is Canon's zoom direction is opposite Nikon's, so it might mess with your muscle memory a bit swithcing back and forth.
newyork wrote:
Not opening a vendor war here but I often wonder about Canon coming from Nikon.
I think there's a lot of compelling aspects of Canon that make it attractive, but it's quite difficult to beat the potential of using the Megadep ETZ adapter.
I moved from Nikon to Sony after the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics. I had tried an early Nikon mirrorless without luck and decided to make the move. (Sony made test bodies widely available at the Olympics.) Shot primarily A1 bodies and a A9II followed by an A9III. I genuinely liked them, but I was getting KILLED by repair expenses -- sensor realignments, knobs falling off, lens mounts, etc., etc. I expect a certain amount of repairs every year, but it was 3x - 4x my typically Nikon expense. So I moved back in 2024. Z9 bodies and a Z8. I honestly miss the Sony focusing system, but that's about it. And my repair expenses are back to a my "pre-Sony" levels. There's no question that the systems are realllllly close, but they do differ....
Currently using 40/2, 50 and 85 1.8 for AF. Might have to look at those options
JadedWriter wrote:
The Z 50 1.4 is pretty decent from what I've seen and I hope Viltrox makes a 35 1.4 Pro at some point. On the 85 1.4 end you have Sirui and Viltrox so you have options. There's also the Sirui 35 1.4.
Before switching to Nikon I shot with Sony for over 10 years. The last one I had was the A7RV.
I had no real issues with Sony, but I like Nikon more. Better ergonomics, nicer looking files (for my taste) and I like some lenses more than what's currently available for Sony.
What I do like more about Sony is the customizability. You can assign almost everything to almost every button. That's not the case with Nikon.
To me the main reason to shoot Nikon over Sony is the lenses.
The f1.2 primes are clearly superior optically on Nikon side (the Sony 50mm f1.2 is very compact but not as nice in terms of rendering, the 35mm GM is nice but the Nikon 35mm f1.2 is magical,…), the 135mm f1.8 Plena is in a different class,... the tele line up is clearly superior,... Sony finds a remarkable compromise btwn size and image quality but Nikon goes all in on image quality and the difference is clear.
Nikon has not announced yet what I think will be their 24-70mm f2.0 (hopefully not 28mm on the wide end) but the new 24-70mm f2.8 mkII clearly demonstrates their mastery in lens design. 14 elements vs 20 in the new Sony. So Nikon can do lighter, faster and better when it’s their target.
Nikon has been releasing very few new lenses these past 2 years compared to their average capacity because they have been fine tuning new techs and preparing their cine lenses to be announced soon. The 24-70mm f2.8 mkII is the first of many.
2026 will possibly be their best year ever in terms of breakthrough lenses announcement. Together with the Z9II it should deliver to Nikon photographers and videographers impressive value.
Sony has improved a lot. People who have only used Sony gear up until 2021 should revisit it, as their first-generation GM lenses were average, such as the 16–35, 24–70, 70–200, and 85. The only original Sony lens I loved was the 24 GM. The first time Sony truly showed its AF prowess was in late 2019 with the release of the 135 GM. I didn’t like its rendering and much preferred the Samyang/Rokinon AF 135mm.
Anyway, the 35mm f/1.4 GM, released in mid-2021, was the first Sony lens that truly made me say “wow.” Since then, they haven’t put a foot wrong.
I like the idea of Sony A7C/A7CR bodies paired with compact lenses. The A7C was my first Sony camera five years ago, and I loved the look and feel of the setup. It was paired with sharp yet small lenses like the 20 G, 35 GM, and the Sigma 90mm f/2.8.
The same is not true for the A7 IV and A7R V, which I owned later. When paired with longer, heavier lenses, these bodies felt cramped, and the overall setup seemed unbalanced.
Last year, I switched to Nikon, and the Z8 fits my big hands like a glove. I can’t pinpoint anything in particular, but I now prefer Nikon over Sony. Small things add up, and the overall Nikon setup feels much more appealing to me.
I still adapt E-mount glass. I compared the Plena with my copy of the Samyang 135 and decided to keep the Samyang. I also like using Sigma glass, as they offer the smallest and lightest f/1.2 35mm and f/1.2 50mm, as well as the 135mm f/1.4, all priced lower than the f/1.8 lenses from Sony and Nikon. Sigma also offers lenses like the 200mm f/2 and 300–600mm f/4. I’m glad Tamron now has pretty much every lens available in Z mount, and Viltrox is filling the remaining gaps.
Outstanding wrote:
I also like using Sigma glass, as they offer the smallest and lightest f/1.2 35mm and f/1.2 50mm, as well as the 135mm f/1.4, all priced lower than the f/1.8 lenses from Sony and Nikon.
Which Sony 1.8 35 and 1.8 50 lenses are you talking about that are more expensive than the Sigma 1.2 35 and 1.2 50?
Have done the multi system thing with Sony, Canon, Fuji, Leica, but my Nikons have generally been my go to for stills primarily because the skintones. Fuji and Nikon pair particularly well together in terms of color output.
At this point, they all take great photos, but I have never missed a Sony lens aside from the beautiful little zeiss 35 f2 in the RX1, like I do with the Nikon holy trinity of primes and zooms. Also it’s a pain managing multiple battery systems. I know it’s better in more recent bodies, but it’s lame that you have to get the latest greatest body in order to not have mauve skintones with Sony. Also remember when Sony GM 70-200s were breaking in half because of poor design? Pepperidge farm remembers
I can buy an XT2 and D600 and get good skin tones. Sony has no excuse sungphoto wrote:
Have done the multi system thing with Sony, Canon, Fuji, Leica, but my Nikons have generally been my go to for stills primarily because the skintones. Fuji and Nikon pair particularly well together in terms of color output.
At this point, they all take great photos, but I have never missed a Sony lens aside from the beautiful little zeiss 35 f2 in the RX1, like I do with the Nikon holy trinity of primes and zooms. Also it’s a pain managing multiple battery systems. I know it’s better in more recent bodies, but it’s lame that you have to get the latest greatest body in order to not have mauve skintones with Sony. Also remember when Sony GM 70-200s were breaking in half because of poor design? Pepperidge farm remembers...Show more →
bernardl wrote:
To me the main reason to shoot Nikon over Sony is the lenses.
The f1.2 primes are clearly superior optically on Nikon side (the Sony 50mm f1.2 is very compact but not as nice in terms of rendering, the 35mm GM is nice but the Nikon 35mm f1.2 is magical,…), the 135mm f1.8 Plena is in a different class,... the tele line up is clearly superior,... Sony finds a remarkable compromise btwn size and image quality but Nikon goes all in on image quality and the difference is clear.
Nikon has not announced yet what I think will be their 24-70mm f2.0 but the new 24-70mm f2.8 mkII clearly demonstrates their mastery in lens design. 14 elements vs 20 in the new Sony. So Nikon can do lighter, faster and better when it’s their target.
Nikon has been releasing very few new lenses these past 2 years compared to their average capacity because they have been fine tuning new techs and preparing their cine lenses to be announced soon. The 24-70mm f2.8 mkII is the first of many.
2026 will possibly be their best year ever in terms of breakthrough lenses announcement. Together with the Z9II it should deliver to Nikon photographers and videographers impressive value.
.... that is only true if you consider adapting E mount lens to Z mount. We should compare mount and no way any objective person will say the z mount has better lens selection than e mount.
The biggest gap in Z mount is the lack of good f1.4 primes... nikon when a totally different route with their f1.4 primes which does not appeal to me.
