wind30 wrote:
.... 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.
I didn't write that Nikon had a better lens selection, I wrote that they had better lenses.
But since you mention it, the possibility to adapt E mount lenses with excellent AF is of course a huge value of the Z mount. No mount will ever offer all the possible options, so the possibility to use lenses from the 2 best mounts offers tremendous value and flexibility to Nikon shooters.
wind30 wrote:
.... 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.
It really all comes down to your needs. Some high level, mount unique lenses (excluding size / price / weight differences):
I am purposely not including third party lenses because, outside of Sigma, a lot of E lenses are available native for Z mount, and Sony limits third party lenses to 15fps and no TC support, which Nikon does not do.
I miss having an x100 camera. Sure the AF still sucks with the latest version, but damn they are fun to shoot with. I am just waiting for the used prices on the GFX100ii to get down to the 4k range. That EVF makes every other one feel tiny and grainy
JadedWriter wrote:
I can buy an XT2 and D600 and get good skin tones. Sony has no excuse
Don't hold your breath. Maybe in 2029 sungphoto wrote:
I miss having an x100 camera. Sure the AF still sucks with the latest version, but damn they are fun to shoot with. I am just waiting for the used prices on the GFX100ii to get down to the 4k range. That EVF makes every other one feel tiny and grainy
I did see one sell recently for that much on B&S but I think that was a somewhat unusual occurrence.
Back to the OP’s question though, the last Sony I owned was the A7R4, used prices being pretty reasonable and I still much preferred my Z8, so I sold it off. The latest GM primes are nice and small, and the files do look nicer in C1 than previous gens, but I don’t see a compelling reason to have more than one full frame system at a time. Maybe when Sony makes a medium format camera.
JadedWriter wrote:
Don't hold your breath. Maybe in 2029
Nifty Fifty wrote:
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?
errrr Sigma has made the lightest 50mm f/1.2 autofocus lens ever, and they have also made the lightest 35mm f/1.2 autofocus lens. Sigma, which was once known for “Bigma” lenses, is now beating the big players when it comes to weight. And they are cheaper than both Nikon and Sony.
Outstanding wrote:
errrr Sigma has made the lightest 50mm f/1.2 autofocus lens ever, and they have also made the lightest 35mm f/1.2 autofocus lens. Sigma, which was once known for “Bigma” lenses, is now beating the big players when it comes to weight. And they are cheaper than both Nikon and Sony.
Errrr. I asked which Sony and Nikon 1.8 lenses you were referring to that were more expensive than the Sigma 1.2 lenses. Because that's exactly what you had written.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Errrr. I asked which Sony and Nikon 1.8 lenses you were referring to that were more expensive than the Sigma 1.2 lenses. Because that's exactly what you had written.
I did not mention “f/1.8” anywhere in my post. I don’t know where this confusion is arising from.
Again, what I said:
"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".
I don’t know what you’re on about. I only mentioned that Sigma makes the cheapest and lightest f/1.2 glass.
Outstanding wrote:
I did not mention “f/1.8” anywhere in my post. I don’t know where this confusion is arising from.
Again, what I said:
"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".
I don’t know what you’re on about. I only mentioned that Sigma makes the cheapest and lightest f/1.2 glass....Show more →
I apologize. I was reading the translated version. When I quoted, it was in English, and until now I thought that was the original text. However, this is not the case. Apparently, the text is then translated back, possibly incorrectly. The mistake was therefore my own, and I apologize again. The good thing is that I now know I must always proofread the original before quoting anything.
Back to the OP - yes, the grass is greener as in Sony's files have a green tint ;-)
I'm a longtime Sony shooter who recently went back to Nikon (as many here, I grew up on Nikons back in the day). Sony isn't better in all aspects, but their ecosystem offers more flexibility and choices. I do agree that their human subject detection AF is ridiculously fast and accurate, but I have no issues with the one on my Nikon Z6 III. I think their lens lineup is very compelling, esp the GM primes. I think any of us can use a Sony system and get the results we want, but you can sort of tell that their cameras were made by consumer product engineers and not photography lovers by their UI and handling. I just enjoy picking up my Nikon and the way it feels in the hands while my Sony a7RV was a technically feat, it was a squared box with lots of button (and customability).
In reality, these days there is no benefit to change system if you have a Nikon, Canon or Sony. They are all exceedingly capable. If you have the money and interest, sure, it is fun owning multiple brands and shooting them side-by-side (like it is fun to have a Toyota Land Cruiser, a Porsche 911, and a Tesla in your garage, but you only really need one car). But if you are thinking that you will get better results by switching from Nikon to Sony, I highly doubt you will be satisfied.
patotts wrote:
I think any of us can use a Sony system and get the results we want, but you can sort of tell that their cameras were made by consumer product engineers and not photography lovers by their UI and handling.
I don't know if it's more a matter of imagination or if it has more to do with categorizing something we know from the past as "that's how it's supposed to be." Personally, I feel the opposite. Let me give you an example of something that was commonplace in the days of SLRs and DSLRs and suited the usage scenarios of the time, and which Nikon (and others) still build today, even though it's disadvantageous in current usage scenarios. I'm talking about the +/- button for exposure compensation. With the sophisticated tracking autofocus technology of today's mirrorless cameras, Tracking AF-C has become my default setting, even though I very rarely photograph moving subjects. But I aim at the desired focus point with the centered spot metering area, half-press the shutter button, and then compose the shot. If I see in the EVF that I want to adjust the exposure, I simply turn the compensation dial on the Sony with my thumb, and that's it. Unfortunately, the Nikon exposure compensation via the +/- button doesn't work for that, because I'd need my index finger, which has to stay on the shutter button. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's not designed with the photographer in mind. Do you see what I mean?
patotts wrote:
I just enjoy picking up my Nikon and the way it feels in the hands while my Sony a7RV was a technically feat, it was a squared box with lots of button (and customability).
And it's precisely this adaptability and direct access via dials that makes the Sony body such an excellent tool for me. Everything I need is immediately and intuitively adjustable, which I find simply brilliant given the sheer number of functions a mirrorless camera offers. I'm not actually a big fan of the Sony brand, but I find their operating concept fantastic because I don't have to accept buttons with functions I don't even want. That's why I never understand why people consider Sony cameras particularly complicated to use. I find them very simple to operate once you've customized them to your needs. And I say this as someone who previously used a Hasselblad 500, where you could only adjust three things: aperture, shutter speed, and focus.
If you shoot all manual, the Nikon is more efficient for changing exposure settings quickly. Changing ISO takes multiple button presses on a Sony, whereas Nikon you press/hold and turn a control ring.
Whatever works for you, works for you, it’s all a matter of opinion
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I don't know if it's more a matter of imagination or if it has more to do with categorizing something we know from the past as "that's how it's supposed to be." Personally, I feel the opposite. Let me give you an example of something that was commonplace in the days of SLRs and DSLRs and suited the usage scenarios of the time, and which Nikon (and others) still build today, even though it's disadvantageous in current usage scenarios. I'm talking about the +/- button for exposure compensation. With the sophisticated tracking autofocus technology of today's mirrorless cameras, Tracking AF-C has become my default setting, even though I very rarely photograph moving subjects. But I aim at the desired focus point with the centered spot metering area, half-press the shutter button, and then compose the shot. If I see in the EVF that I want to adjust the exposure, I simply turn the compensation dial on the Sony with my thumb, and that's it. Unfortunately, the Nikon exposure compensation via the +/- button doesn't work for that, because I'd need my index finger, which has to stay on the shutter button. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's not designed with the photographer in mind. Do you see what I mean?
And it's precisely this adaptability and direct access via dials that makes the Sony body such an excellent tool for me. Everything I need is immediately and intuitively adjustable, which I find simply brilliant given the sheer number of functions a mirrorless camera offers. I'm not actually a big fan of the Sony brand, but I find their operating concept fantastic because I don't have to accept buttons with functions I don't even want. That's why I never understand why people consider Sony cameras particularly complicated to use. I find them very simple to operate once you've customized them to your needs. And I say this as someone who previously used a Hasselblad 500, where you could only adjust three things: aperture, shutter speed, and focus. ...Show more →
sungphoto wrote:
If you shoot all manual, the Nikon is more efficient for changing exposure settings quickly. Changing ISO takes multiple button presses on a Sony, whereas Nikon you press/hold and turn a control ring.
Whatever works for you, works for you, it’s all a matter of opinion
That's not the case. If quick access to ISO is important to me, I can assign it to a dial. So I don't have to go into a menu or press a button, I just turn it. And I can also choose the M function separately.
That's exactly what I meant by simply configuring it however you like.
sungphoto wrote:
If you shoot all manual, the Nikon is more efficient for changing exposure settings quickly. Changing ISO takes multiple button presses on a Sony, whereas Nikon you press/hold and turn a control ring.
Whatever works for you, works for you, it’s all a matter of opinion
---------------------------------------------
Nifty Fifty wrote:
That's not the case. If quick access to ISO is important to me, I can assign it to a dial. So I don't have to go into a menu or press a button, I just turn it. And I can also choose the M function separately.
That's exactly what I meant by simply configuring it however you like.
I have to say that I wish Nikon would take the same approach as Sony and Canon and make the 4-way directional pad into an additional vertical control wheel that also has directional pad capabilities. Sony and Canon shooters can assign that wheel to adjust ISO. Nikon shooters are stuck with button + wheel ISO changes. Sure, we have the control ring on lenses, but the clickless rings on most Nikon lenses are just annoying and I found myself constantly bumping it to the point where I have them disabled. Otherwise though, I much prefer Nikon's controls and ergonomics.
I wish it were possible to switch between Auto ISO and a previously saved ISO setting with the press of a button. But I suspect nobody else wants that.😄
The problem I ran into with Sony bodies using that approach is that it’s far too easy to accidentally bump your iso setting in the heat of the moment, because it’s not locked. If you have live view exposure setting turned off (common if you’re using off camera lighting) you won’t notice you accidentally switched from iso 100 to 1000 as you picked the camera up. Having a press/hold and turn of the wheel is preferable for me because I have done that more than once on Sonys. That’s just me of course, but that is also why I deactivate the control ring on all the Z lenses that have that because it often defaults to aperture.
I have to say that I wish Nikon would take the same approach as Sony and Canon and make the 4-way directional pad into an additional vertical control wheel that also has directional pad capabilities. Sony and Canon shooters can assign that wheel to adjust ISO. Nikon shooters are stuck with button + wheel ISO changes. Sure, we have the control ring on lenses, but the clickless rings on most Nikon lenses are just annoying and I found myself constantly bumping it to the point where I have them disabled. Otherwise though, I much prefer Nikon's controls and ergonomics.
You only need to bump the iso once to ruin an entire shoot. Picture profiles not so much
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I have the Picture Profiles on the rear dial, and to this day, nothing has ever accidentally changed. But user requirements certainly vary.
I am purposely not including third party lenses because, outside of Sigma, a lot of E lenses are available native for Z mount, and Sony limits third party lenses to 15fps and no TC support, which Nikon does not do.
That is factually wrong. Most third party emount lens are not available in zmount.
Sony has all the excellent light weight f1.4 Gm primes which zmount don’t have. If u want a good 35mm prime that is not super heavy,… btw, I own two z8 one a7r5 and zve1 so I am more invested in Nikon. But I am not delusional about the lens selection on z mount. Sure there are some zmount lens for me is better than what emount have, the Nikon 35mm f1.2 and plena but I am clear that overall for the average person, emount will have better lens.
sungphoto wrote:
The problem I ran into with Sony bodies using that approach is that it’s far too easy to accidentally bump your iso setting in the heat of the moment, because it’s not locked. If you have live view exposure setting turned off (common if you’re using off camera lighting) you won’t notice you accidentally switched from iso 100 to 1000 as you picked the camera up. Having a press/hold and turn of the wheel is preferable for me because I have done that more than once on Sonys. That’s just me of course, but that is also why I deactivate the control ring on all the Z lenses that have that because it often defaults to aperture.
