Just my personal experience. I had both. I sold all Nikon gear. Sony just gave me better experience. AF + lenses + overall. 35GM + 24GM are my go to lenses. That’s it. One vote for Sony.
snegron7 wrote:
I too have an A7iv and I'm not thrilled with its AF performance. I've only had it for a couple of months, but I'll probably be selling it soon.
(...) my "regret" cameras (D750, 6dmk2, A7iv, Ricoh GRIII, etc.).
I don't mean to be rude, but I would suggest considering the possibility that the disappointment lies with the user rather than the equipment. Taking the time to familiarize yourself with what you already have (which is really not bad at all), learning its functions in detail, and using it correctly is usually more effective than constantly buying new things, briefly testing them (perhaps without having thoroughly studied the manual), selling them again in disappointment, and starting the whole process over.
I have decided as much as I love my Z8 and nikon lenses, it's time to sell them and stick with Sony. they will be on the buy and sell board later today.
3catsinky wrote:
I have decided as much as I love my Z8 and nikon lenses, it's time to sell them and stick with Sony. they will be on the buy and sell board later today.
This might not matter to anyone, but figured I'd share.
I've used the Sony RX1 and RX1RII for a very long time and they are my favorite cameras by a long shot. Absolutely love them. Before those I used a Canon 5D and 6D, and mostly loved those. I also have an original A7 that I got because it has the same sensor as the RX1, and have mostly toyed around with it here and there. Don't love it, it's clunky, but the images are nice. I bought a Zf last year and have had a love hate relationship with it. Like the design aesthetically, but don't love it in practice a lot of the time.
This year I decided I wanted a second body to the Zf for some professional work. I was deciding between the A7IV, Z6III and Z5. I ended up buying the A7IV because I really like the image quality from the RX1s (a bit more than the Zf). After using it for about a week I decided that while I liked the images, the ergonomics of the camera left a lot to be desired for me.
I then bought a Z6III and WOW. I chose it over the Z5II because I wanted a top screen and a slightly larger camera. From the first moment I held it, I thought "now this is a perfectly designed camera". It feels like a real camera, sounds like a real camera, and is designed in such a way that just makes sense. The only complaint is that I'd MUCH prefer a tilt screen rather than a flippy one.
After getting the Z6III, I sold the A7IV immediately. I was taken by the Z6III and still am. The EVF is amazing and to me looks like real life. The images from it are lovely (although I'm still figuring them out to a certain extent, being so used to my RX1s).
Anyway, food for though. The Z6III feels like real camera designed for a person to use and enjoy. The Sony didn't feel that way and for me, that was enough to stick with the Nikon.
Size. It doesn't fit my hands comfortably, and causes discomfort in my arthritic joint due to weight. Plus, no dual recording for video, and non optimal performance using the adapter. Having two different systems was kind of a waste, plus no clients are asking for 8K or RAW video.
I must admit I’m very intrigued by the A7V or A7RV paired with the A7Cii or A7CR. I’m not good enough to know what I’m lacking. And too broke to throw funds around and old enough to know the grass is always greener.
The size and the lens size and selection and AF speed are attractive. But then again, a Z6III is very attractive and keeps me in mount.
Lots of attractive Z lenses too but some are massive and $$$$
newyork wrote:
I must admit I’m very intrigued by the A7V or A7RV paired with the A7Cii or A7CR. I’m not good enough to know what I’m lacking. And too broke to throw funds around and old enough to know the grass is always greener.
The size and the lens size and selection and AF speed are attractive. But then again, a Z6III is very attractive and keeps me in mount.
Lots of attractive Z lenses too but some are massive and $$$$
I think Sony isn't the place to dabble in when you're trying to save money. Their gear is *so* expensive. Nikon is a good place to be for the budget minded, and the Z6III is getting you a lot. To do better, you have to go pretty far up the range on the Sony lineup to get any appreciable difference.
I have a zf and z8. I can see a z6iii and more lenses in my future. Moving makes no sense anyway.
Idk why I thought Sony was cheaper. Fuji certainly is. I thought Sony, other than a few lenses, were somewhere between Fuji and Nikon prices.
nineblade wrote:
I think Sony isn't the place to dabble in when you're trying to save money. Their gear is *so* expensive. Nikon is a good place to be for the budget minded, and the Z6III is getting you a lot. To do better, you have to go pretty far up the range on the Sony lineup to get any appreciable difference.
I shot all three this past year (Canon R50, Nikon Z5 and Z50 II and Sony A7C). Sold off the canon kit entirely. Sold off both Nikon cameras but kept the lenses. Added mostly Sigma and Sony G series lenses to the A7C.
I was a bit disappointed with the Z50 II autofocus despite the user experience being great. I too experienced a lot of animal and human eye AF misses where the AF would be slightly behind the eye. It seems to me Nikon needs ideal lighting on the subject if you want a high hit rate. IDK how the heck the A7C does it but with G series lenses especially the hit rate is pretty insane. I can get some of the hardest shots with a subject coming right toward the camera where the last few will remain in critical focus. This only happens with G series lenses (I have Tamron and Sigma lenses like the 45mm 2.8 and 90mm 2.8).
Anyway, IDK what to do because as much as I like Sony it's not Nikon. I have the 28mm 2.8 SE, 40mm F2 SE, 35mm 1.8 s, 50mm 1.8 s and 75mm 1.8 TTartisan still. I think when spring hits I'll probably pick up a Z50 II again (Although I really want a Z5 II). Even though the AF isn't perfect the images I get are hard to duplicate with Sony not to mention I like Nikon cameras more. So, I most likely will remain a dual system shooter for the foreseeable future.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I don't mean to be rude, but I would suggest considering the possibility that the disappointment lies with the user rather than the equipment. Taking the time to familiarize yourself with what you already have (which is really not bad at all), learning its functions in detail, and using it correctly is usually more effective than constantly buying new things, briefly testing them (perhaps without having thoroughly studied the manual), selling them again in disappointment, and starting the whole process over.
This morning I took out my old Canon 7dmk2 with an EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 USM and did some side by side comparison shots with my A7iv and R6II. The sharpness, detail capture, and AF accuracy on both my R6II and 7dmk2 were extremely better than my A7iv. My A7iv was also blowing out highlights. All three cameras were set to the same settings. I was actually surprised that an old APS-C sensor (7dmk2) performed better than my 2 month old A7iv! Granted, the skin colors looked better on both my R6II and A7iv, but that is something thst can easily be corrected in Photoshop.
Sometimes camera manufacturers hype up their marketing through advertising and marketing influencers on forums when in fact their cameras are not much better than older cameras.
When I was shooting Nikon (D200 and D750), I didn't like the overall yellowish cast on every image from my D750 compared to my older D200. On the other hand, my older m4/3 cameras were nowhere near as amazing in terms of overall IQ as my newer OM-5. My R6II also has much better IQ than my original R6.
It's not a matter of older gear being better than newer gear; it's that sometimes camera manufacturers make some cameras that are simply not that good. You can argue that sometimes I might have received a "dud" thanks to inconsistent quality control, but overall I know my way around camera gear. I not only shot film professionally for many years before digital cameras were mass produced, but I also adapted to digital early on with my Nikon D1X's. I have also shot digital with several different systems including Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus/Panasonic, and Ricoh.
I could post an extensive list of gear that I have personally owned over the years and provide unbiased opinions on which have been the best or worst. However, as we all know, there will be folks here who will nitpick every minute detail and attempt to ridicule/discredit/insult/humiliate me because they are either fan boys, trolls, or paid influencers. I'm very easy to find on Flickr and FB where I provide side by side comparisons with gear that I have personally owned.
I’m a longtime Nikon shooter that went to Sony A7RV three years ago (kept my Nikon D200, F5, FM2, and a pile of non-Z glass). Been having a lot of fun and productivity with the Sony and have obtained a carefully curated lineup of great glass. Now I’m adding Z6III and Z8 with latest Megadap to try out, not out of need but for fun. I know the Z8 innards well as I was a Z9 shooter, but am interested to see how my hands take to the form factor. The Z6III intrigues me as a travel walkaround replacement for my old Z6.
I’ve been comfortable over the years shooting multiple brands and multiple formats. As others have said before, it’s an incredible time to be photographing with all the choices we have available to us in bodies and glass, from several brands.
Do you shoot your Nikon film cameras much anymore?
Ross Martin wrote:
I’m a longtime Nikon shooter that went to Sony A7RV three years ago (kept my Nikon D200, F5, FM2, and a pile of non-Z glass). Been having a lot of fun and productivity with the Sony and have obtained a carefully curated lineup of great glass. Now I’m adding Z6III and Z8 with latest Megadap not out of need but for fun. I know the Z8 innards well as I was a Z9 shooter, but am interested to see how my hands take to the form factor. The Z6III intrigues me as a travel walkaround replacement for my old Z6.
I’ve been comfortable over the years shooting multiple brands and multiple formats. As others have said before, it’s an incredible time to be photographing with all the choices we have available to us in bodies and glass, from several brands....Show more →
RoamingScott wrote:
Do you shoot your Nikon film cameras much anymore?
Not as much as I should! If I can’t pull myself away from digital on occasion to get more film run through them this year, then I will say goodbye to the pair. Right now I have a roll of color negative in the FM2 that I need to finish and get developed.
3catsinky wrote:
I have decided as much as I love my Z8 and nikon lenses, it's time to sell them and stick with Sony. they will be on the buy and sell board later today.
I tried that, too... and discovered there is little interest in used Nikon gear these days, so I'm still stuck with most of it. Maybe the Sony gear will be easier to sell; I have no particular brand loyalty.
Ross Martin wrote:
Not as much as I should! If I can’t pull myself away from digital on occasion to get more film run through them this year, then I will say goodbye to the pair. Right now I have a roll of color negative in the FM2 that I need to finish and get developed.
Are you still shooting your Nikon film body?
Same boat...I've had a roll of Ultramax sitting in it for 6 months now The whole process of doing the work myself doesn't excite me, and the price of having my lab do it excites me less. I do love the camera from a mechanical perspective, it's a beautiful piece of engineering.
Cliff L. wrote:
I tried that, too... and discovered there is little interest in used Nikon gear these days, so I'm still stuck with most of it. Maybe the Sony gear will be easier to sell; I have no particular brand loyalty.
yep, had no interest, and i am not giving it away, it's too good. I'll just keep it. I can match them nearly identical.
I shoot Leica, Sony and Nikon. Different tools for different work. In my 30 years with Nikon, now with the Z8 and last decade working with Sony for size and quality, and I say this ONLY using native lenses - as long as you're using Nikkor Z S lenses you won't objectively see any quality difference between the two. What you will notice is the ~8 oz lighter Sony body if you're carrying a couple of bodies or the Z8 / A7iv all day. I'm also not sure about any benefit of the Sony focusing over the Z8 I might say the opposite.
My true evaluation would be if you have either system (Z8 or A7iv) keep it and don't look back. If you have neither then I would chart out one/two body and the lenses (same for both) you will want and tally the list. Knowing what I know about the two systems - I would buy the one that's less expensive. From a double-blind test of images I don't believe you would see a difference.
The beast has arrived. Well, at least compared to my Sony it looks and feels like a beast. The feel in hand reminds me a lot of the D850. I bet most would agree that the Z8 wins the brawny, masculine looks award.
The whole process of doing the work myself doesn't excite me, and the price of having my lab do it excites me less. I do love the camera from a mechanical perspective, it's a beautiful piece of engineering.
