sungphoto wrote:
You only need to bump the iso once to ruin an entire shoot. Picture profiles not so much
Well, my point was simply that whatever I placed on the ring has never, not even once, changed its setting on its own. I can say that with certainty if I had noticed it immediately. If I had placed the ISO setting there, it logically wouldn't have changed either. But of course, everyone uses their camera differently, and therefore, no guarantee can be given for every user that nothing will change unintentionally.
Going back to the original question, The Nikon Z8 is significantly better than the A7IV. Higher MP, no blackout, better video, etc. I have previously owned the Sony A7R4 and A1. The Z8 is about the same as far as focusing as the A1 and video is better. I switched from A1 which I loved to the Z8 because if more choices in longer telephoto lenses (and some at lower prices and less weight).
If you shoot wildlife/BIF Nikon offers better choices in telephoto lenses as indicated below. It is also nice to be able to adapt Sony lenses as well as older Nikon F lenses to Nikon Z.
wind30 wrote:
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....Show more →
I never said most third party lenses, but you got me curious.
According to B&H, Nikon Z currently has 164 third party full frame lenses, and Sony has 293 full frame thrid party lenses, minus Sigma and Sony has 252 thrid party full frame lenses. That puts the newer Nikon Z lens mount only about 1/3 behind Sony E, once you remove Sigma. I also expect this gap to shrink as some manufacturers like Zeiss and Voigtlander replace their E mount only lenses with lenses that support multiple FF mounts.
If you want to talk first party Sony has a 10 lens lead. According to B&H, Nikon currently has 42 Z Full frame lenses, and Sony has 52 E Full Frame lenses.
Sony does have a very nice f1.4 lens set with the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm f1.4 GM lenses. But Nikon also has a very nice f1.8 lens set with the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm f1.8 lenses. Sony doesn't have a 24mm f1.8 lens, and the 50mm f1.8 is quite lacking. So to me this is a bit of a torse up. If you need it f1.4, Sony definitely wins, but if you want an f1.8 lens setup to save some money or size, Nikon definitely wins. Which is why I didn't put any of the Sony f1.4. or Nikon F1.8 lenses on my list.
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
By the way, even if you completely disregard (e.g., for fear of accidentally changing the setting) the fact that you can assign ISO to any dial, your statement is simply incorrect. I just tried it. By default, ISO is assigned to the right side of the control ring. This means nothing less than that you press this button once and then select the ISO using any dial (it doesn't matter which one; they all work simultaneously at that moment). So, even with the factory setting, multiple presses aren't necessary. It basically works like on a Nikon camera, except you only have to press the button, not hold it down, and you use your thumb instead of your forefinger. You can use your forefinger, for example, to select the ISO on the front dial.
I am glad to read from more than one of you attending the thread that the Z8 has nothing less than an equivalent Sony with regards to AF capabilities, as a stills shooter I am not into video capabilities so that is of no interest to me, I already got a few good lenses in Z mount like the 14-24 which sees little to no use due to my lack of vision with regards to landscape, the very good to be a zoom 24-120 which does very well what it is supposed to do, the 50/1.8S whose only complaint is size for an f1.8 lens but it is superbe about sharpness all across the frame and the 85/1.2 which is a monster of a lens in each and every declination of the world.
I adapt the 58G every there and then and I am almost set, if I could I would add a 70-200, I don't like Nikon lineup to give better f1.8 than f1.4 ones but I understand they wanna push the f1.2 lineup, it was other way round with the F mount, they made a very good and affordable f1.8G series and the f1.4G as premium lenses but it is what it is.
Thank all of you for clearing almost any doubt about Nikon vs Sony
GiovanniAprea wrote:
I am glad to read from more than one of you attending the thread that the Z8 has nothing less than an equivalent Sony with regards to AF capabilities, as a stills shooter I am not into video capabilities so that is of no interest to me, I already got a few good lenses in Z mount like the 14-24 which sees little to no use due to my lack of vision with regards to landscape, the very good to be a zoom 24-120 which does very well what it is supposed to do, the 50/1.8S whose only complaint is size for an f1.8 lens but it is superbe about sharpness all across the frame and the 85/1.2 which is a monster of a lens in each and every declination of the world.
I adapt the 58G every there and then and I am almost set, if I could I would add a 70-200, I don't like Nikon lineup to give better f1.8 than f1.4 ones but I understand they wanna push the f1.2 lineup, it was other way round with the F mount, they made a very good and affordable f1.8G series and the f1.4G as premium lenses but it is what it is.
Thank all of you for clearing almost any doubt about Nikon vs Sony...Show more →
I have thought about picking up the Z 70-200 f2.8, but the F-mount 70-200 f2.8E is still so good and a workhorse lens that it's hard for me to justify it.
The 85 1.2 S is an epic lens. I wish I had more call to go that fast, but I tend to like a little more context in the background and the 1.2 just obliberates it
JadedWriter wrote:
I honestly think if you can't find something natively on Z mount that can suit your needs you have too many conflicting priorities.
Compact and lightweight are not contradictory priorities.
This is such an annoying sliding scale discussion to me that I'm getting tired of having it. I got tired of having it when people started telling me the XF WR 1.4 lenses are huge and these are light weight to me. People want what they want. I don't care, me and this board very rarely agree on it. As I said. If you can't find something native on this system you got issues. I will stand by this discussion point. Nifty Fifty wrote:
Compact and lightweight are not contradictory priorities.
JadedWriter wrote:
I honestly think if you can't find something natively on Z mount that can suit your needs you have too many conflicting priorities.
On one hand, I agree with you. Nikon Z has a fairly robust lens line up. On the other hand, there are a few lenses on the Sony side, I wish Nikon had a close competitor to.
For example, take the Sony 400-800mm. Nikon does not have an 800mm zoom, so either you need to add a TC to the 180-600mm or forgo the zoom and go with a prime such as the 800mm PF. Price aside, realistically, I am not going to walk around carrying both (180-600mm and 800mm). If I could dream, I wish I could use the Sigma 300-600mm on a stacked sensor camera with no FPS or TC limitations, as that single lens would cover 90% of my telephoto needs. Which would totally free up decision making on what lens / lenses to bring with me and use for telephoto use, and probably even allow me to put another landscape lens or two in my bag.
The only win con Sony has at this point on lenses is whatever contract is going on keeping Sigma from putting their glass on Z mount. The rest I kind of feel is a toss up and people not knowing how to compromise. DWOfPaul wrote:
On one hand, I agree with you. Nikon Z has a fairly robust lens line up. On the other hand, there are a few lenses on the Sony side, I wish Nikon had a close competitor to.
For example, take the Sony 400-800mm. Nikon does not have an 800mm zoom, so either you need to add a TC to the 180-600mm or forgo the zoom and go with a prime such as the 800mm PF. Price aside, realistically, I am not going to walk around carrying both (180-600mm and 800mm). If I could dream, I wish I could use the Sigma 300-600mm on a stacked sensor camera with no FPS or TC limitations, as that single lens would cover 90% of my telephoto needs. Which would totally free up decision making on what lens / lenses to bring with me and use for telephoto use, and probably even allow me to put another landscape lens or two in my bag....Show more →
My gut is that if Nikon put out an S line of 1.4 lenses, they would end up being bigger than the Sony GM f1.4 lenses. Sony's compact designs do come with some compromises, for example, the 1.4 GM lenses have about a .5 EV more Vignetting than the Nikon 1.8 S lenses.
If your subject is in the center of the frame, this may not matter much, but if you're doing something like astro photography .5 EV is a noticeable difference. It almost negates the .6 EV difference of f1.4 vs f1.8.
JadedWriter wrote:
The only win con Sony has at this point on lenses is whatever contract is going on keeping Sigma from putting their glass on Z mount. The rest I kind of feel is a toss up and people not knowing how to compromise.
I have definitely become more picky about what gear I buy over the years, and maybe I should even compromise a bit more. Personally, a big factor, though, is that I have most of my "needs" covered by this point. So a lens really needs to either be different enough from the lenses I already have or make my life easier to tempt me to buy. I am not really tempted by a lens being slightly sharper or having slightly faster AF than a lens I already have at this point.
For example, if Nikon put out a 28-70mm f2 that was just as good as Sony's, I would be very tempted to pick it up. I am not really tempted to pick up a new 24-70 f2.8 on any mount, even though my Nikon 24-70 is over 10 years old at this point. A 28-70mm f2 would, for the most part, allow me to leave my 24-70mm f2.8 and prime lenses at home. That ability to simplify my bag / lens selection is what is tempting to me at this point.
Yeah my event bags are basically zooms for convenience and primes for softening a background, the whole thing depends on what the shoot flow is like. In order for me to buy something these days it has to be something very different from what I already have. I feel like people would look at my equipment cabinet and wonder why I bought such and such thing, but things have uses and as long as I know what I'm getting into or have an idea of what I want something to look like it basically dictates what I'm bringing. DWOfPaul wrote:
I have definitely become more picky about what gear I buy over the years, and maybe I should even compromise a bit more. Personally, a big factor, though, is that I have most of my "needs" covered by this point. So a lens really needs to either be different enough from the lenses I already have or make my life easier to tempt me to buy. I am not really tempted by a lens being slightly sharper or having slightly faster AF than a lens I already have at this point.
For example, if Nikon put out a 28-70mm f2 that was just as good as Sony's, I would be very tempted to pick it up. I am not really tempted to pick up a new 24-70 f2.8 on any mount, even though my Nikon 24-70 is over 10 years old at this point. A 28-70mm f2 would, for the most part, allow me to leave my 24-70mm f2.8 and prime lenses at home. That ability to simplify my bag / lens selection is what is tempting to me at this point....Show more →
I don’t see Nikon coming up with a 28-70mm f2.0. I think that all the new tech in the 24-70mm f2.8 mkII was developed to enable the first 24-70mm f2.0. And that’s the lens everyone truly needs.
bernardl wrote:
I don’t see Nikon coming up with a 28-70mm f2.0. I think that all the new tech in the 24-70mm f2.8 mkII was developed to enable the first 24-70mm f2.0. And that’s the lens everyone truly needs.
Exactly. I was going to say the reason why there is no good f1.8 lens on emount is because the competition is so tough on emount, with all the excellent f1.4 choices, the only f1.8 lens that survives are the cheap ones.
Nikon 35mm f1.8 s cost around the same as a lot of excellent emount 35mm f1.4 and that lens just won’t survive in the more competitive emount market.
