So I'd say rent a Z8 for a long weekend + adapter to use your current lenses, and see how that works.
Couple of observations/comments:
I suspect a minty used Sony a1 or even a a7V would go the job (a1 has better buffers, fully stacked sensor, better EVF, etc) Unless you yearn for f/1.2 I would much prefer a Sony 85/1.4 GM II in a smaller, lighter, faster and less expensive package. If you like primes, I think you will find that Sony 20/1.8G, 24GM, 35GM, 50/1.2 GM or 50/1.4 GM, and the 85GM, won't disappoint at all. Au contraire.
Then again, it seems like you photograph a lot of people, then there are always the camp that says Canon has the most pleasing skin colors... but then you have those pesky and expensive RF lenses.
Good responses here, especially the advice to start with the glass. A few things I would add, because I haven't noticed any mentions of:
The JPEG engines. If you exclusively shoot RAW and enjoy pumping everything through Lightroom, it doesn't apply. But the current generation of Nikon's EXPEED in auto-WB mode delivers marvelous JPEGs under all kinds of lighting, and this applies to their desktop RAW processor, of course. Sonys are more hit and miss. If you don't enjoy sitting in front of a computer, Nikon offers better defaults.
The latest Z-Nikons are much better if you enjoy manual focus lenses like modern chipped Zeiss and Voigtlanders. The famous "green box" is fantastic, and works with subject recognition too.
If you are primarily a primes lover, I would argue that Nikon is far behind. Z-primes are too large for what they are, lack aperture rings, feel cheap in hand, and there are fewer of them. For popular focal lengths Sony often offers 3 options (a cheap one, and two premium verions: fast+compact). And if you include the 3rd parties, the variety gap widens even more.
Sony's desktop software is more robust, much faster, and better designed. I am talking about their RAW converter and tethering application for studio work, if this matters to you.
Sony cameras have no rivals when it comes to power management. It is the only mirrorless system on the market that works full day on a single battery for me, but YMMV.
And if I were to compare the ecosystems, I'd say that the Sony's is more comprehensive and "complete", if you will. The Nikon's is quirkier in a fun way and offers better value.
RoamingScott wrote:
You're not gonna get a feel of what the Z8 can really do unless you put a capable CFE-B card in it, which is a little annoying for a rental.
That's a really, REALLY good point. And quite annoying. The A1 takes CFE-A, so I can't even buy a memory card to keep.
I switched to Sony when I moved from DSLR to mirrorless, and overall I’ve been pretty happy with that decision. The huge lens selection, the smaller bodies and lenses, and the lightning‑fast AF were all immediately noticeable upgrades for me. Still, I’ve always had a soft spot for Nikon, probably because my first real camera was a Nikon. The Zf keeps calling my name, but I’m not sure it makes sense to switch systems just for the retro look. My X100VI already scratches some of that vintage itch, but the Zf really does look beautiful in a way that’s hard to ignore. I might even pick up the Zf with the 40mm and an E‑to‑Z adapter just to see how it feels in actual use.
You can't go wrong with either brand. I run both Nikon (F, Z) and Sony Alpha. Coming from a D3, you will notice a big difference in battery life which is the nature of EVF. My D3X can work for days on one charge. If you use flash, the AF-assist grid doesn't work with Z bodies (a mystery, that one). Each system has special lenses to attract you: AF-S 28/1.4E, AF-S 500/5.6 PF, Z 24-70S, Plena, Sony STF. Both Z and Alpha are great for adapted lenses: I mix and match older glass like a fiend.
RoamingScott wrote:
You're not gonna get a feel of what the Z8 can really do unless you put a capable CFE-B card in it, which is a little annoying for a rental.
---------------------------------------------
Xysterz wrote:
That's a really, REALLY good point. And quite annoying. The A1 takes CFE-A, so I can't even buy a memory card to keep.
Lens Rentals rents CFE cards and readers, for your convenience.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I switched to Sony when I moved from DSLR to mirrorless, and overall I’ve been pretty happy with that decision. The huge lens selection, the smaller bodies and lenses, and the lightning‑fast AF were all immediately noticeable upgrades for me. Still, I’ve always had a soft spot for Nikon, probably because my first real camera was a Nikon. The Zf keeps calling my name, but I’m not sure it makes sense to switch systems just for the retro look. My X100VI already scratches some of that vintage itch, but the Zf really does look beautiful in a way that’s hard to ignore. I might even pick up the Zf with the 40mm and an E‑to‑Z adapter just to see how it feels in actual use....Show more →
I'm in the same camp, but I've tried to run Nikon - my latest adventure was with a Z6 III, 24-120/4, 50/1.8, and 40/2, but while it feels great in hand, the EVF is top notch, I couldn't find any compelling reason to keep it - I just prefer the output and performance from e.g. the Sony a7V. The Zf is a great retro-looking and feeling camera for those of us who used to shoot film, but I don't think Nikon has the lenses to go with the offering (Voigtlander does but then you are shooting manual focus).
Xysterz wrote:
That's a really, REALLY good point. And quite annoying. The A1 takes CFE-A, so I can't even buy a memory card to keep.
But your brother-in-law shoots Sony, so surely he has a card and reader to loan you.
Although I don't know much about Nikon legacy glass, for both modern mirrorless systems, you will find faster focusing AF motors. It is the stronger case to buy native glass than adapter avoidance, IMHO. In Sony's case, the AF motors on newer G and GM lenses can crank out 240 AF adjustments per second on the A9iii. When shooting sports with that body, the results (to me at least) seem just magical.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
The Zf keeps calling my name, but I’m not sure it makes sense to switch systems just for the retro look. My X100VI already scratches some of that vintage itch, but the Zf really does look beautiful in a way that’s hard to ignore. I might even pick up the Zf with the 40mm and an E‑to‑Z adapter just to see how it feels in actual use.
Same! I wanted to supplement my primary Sony system with a cheaper/simpler everyday fixed lens camera with good SOOC JPEGs, and couldn't decide. Then I figured that both cameras are popular enough and hold their value well, especially the Fuji. I ordered both. The X100VI and the Zf + 28mm f/2.8 Nikkor.
I owned the original X100 and fully expected the Fuji to emerge as a winner: gorgeous looking, pocketable, lighter, higher resolution and better lens... and yet, it's the Zf I am keeping and it's not even close. YMMV but it's worth a try.
old-gregg wrote:
Same! I wanted to supplement my primary Sony system with a cheaper/simpler everyday fixed lens camera with good SOOC JPEGs, and couldn't decide. Then I figured that both cameras are popular enough and hold their value well, especially the Fuji. I ordered both. The X100VI and the Zf + 28mm f/2.8 Nikkor.
I owned the original X100 and fully expected the Fuji to emerge as a winner: gorgeous looking, pocketable, lighter, higher resolution and better lens... and yet, it's the Zf I am keeping and it's not even close. YMMV but it's worth a try.
I find the X100 to be mentally lightweight. It lives in my EDC backpack, and I just point and shoot without thinking about all the photography details I’m mindful of when I’m using my Sony. B&H has the silver Zf with the 40mm for under $2K on the student discount, and with Payboo wiping out tax, it’s really tempting. But deep down I know Fuji will still win for me because of its overall simplicity.
It all depends on what you shoot and how. I quite liked the output of the Nikon Z 40/2, and it is a very good value, at the same time, it is plastic fantastic, even the mount, and it is rather soft wide open at short focus distances.
I am a recent convert, and can throw in a few points. While I have done some paid work (product, school), I am an "enthusiast" for primarily portraits. The biggest issue I had was holes in their system that Sony was able to fill. This was primarily about the accuracy of eye focus, particularly in low light situations, and the lack of moderately priced lenses in the 1.4 aperture. I own 8 lenses of various types, and only 2 have equivalents in the Nikon system when you factor in price, weight performance.
I suspect Nikon over time will fill these holes but I got tired of waiting. Their primary goal is to take back market share in the professional market it seems. The ergos are better on Nikon, some of the rendering of their glass can be a hair less sterile. On the other hand, many of the Nikon lenses are larger, heavier.
Interestingly enough, it was the Samyang lenses that pulled me over, along with the Sony 50 1.4 and 135 1.8. The Samyang lenses, even with a Techart Pro adapter on the Z7II had amazing eye focus in every situation I could throw at it. One exception was a 35mm that was like a Tamron 35 1.4 but would require a fine tune when using flash. I decided to make the switch when I saw the the 35 1.4 Nikon Z against the Samyang and just saw exactly what the true differences were. In the end I was able to make the switch with only minimal cost. Still refining the camera setup, but the bottom line is in "must get the shot situations" in lower light, I am more confident with the Sony.
This conclusion was predicted by Jason Lanier in you tube videos back in 2019 when the Z7 was first rolled out. (I was using the Z7II when I left). In that he said that accurate eye focus would be a major consideration for him and other Pros. He was right then and still is.
I know a lot of Nikon shooters found some relief in Z8/Z9. But I liked the smaller form of the Z7II and A7R3's. The Z8 contains a lot of tech I do not need. I am satisfied with my lens lineup maybe for the first time only after switching.
I considered running both systems but that was quickly ruled out. I am done with adapters of any kind. Muscle memory is still forming for the controls and customization of the camera. But I have no regrets in making the switch. I would have or should have made it sooner if I could see how slow Nikon was on catching up certain detail.
I will finish with this: Nikon makes some of the best glass out there if you don't mind hauling weight around and can afford it. But Sony makes denser lenses that are better balanced for overall performance, weight, cost etc and have more 3rd party offerings (Sigma example). The AF is still better and the ergos can be learned. Color science (so called) can also be overcome in post. That is my 2 or 3 cent opinion.
aerospace99 wrote:
I am a recent convert, and can throw in a few points. While I have done some paid work (product, school), I am an "enthusiast" for primarily portraits. The biggest issue I had was holes in their system that Sony was able to fill. This was primarily about the accuracy of eye focus, particularly in low light situations, and the lack of moderately priced lenses in the 1.4 aperture. I own 8 lenses of various types, and only 2 have equivalents in the Nikon system when you factor in price, weight performance.
I suspect Nikon over time will fill these holes but I got tired of waiting. Their primary goal is to take back market share in the professional market it seems. The ergos are better on Nikon, some of the rendering of their glass can be a hair less sterile. On the other hand, many of the Nikon lenses are larger, heavier.
Interestingly enough, it was the Samyang lenses that pulled me over, along with the Sony 50 1.4 and 135 1.8. The Samyang lenses, even with a Techart Pro adapter on the Z7II had amazing eye focus in every situation I could throw at it. One exception was a 35mm that was like a Tamron 35 1.4 but would require a fine tune when using flash. I decided to make the switch when I saw the the 35 1.4 Nikon Z against the Samyang and just saw exactly what the true differences were. In the end I was able to make the switch with only minimal cost. Still refining the camera setup, but the bottom line is in "must get the shot situations" in lower light, I am more confident with the Sony.
This conclusion was predicted by Jason Lanier in you tube videos back in 2019 when the Z7 was first rolled out. (I was using the Z7II when I left). In that he said that accurate eye focus would be a major consideration for him and other Pros. He was right then and still is.
I know a lot of Nikon shooters found some relief in Z8/Z9. But I liked the smaller form of the Z7II and A7R3's. The Z8 contains a lot of tech I do not need. I am satisfied with my lens lineup maybe for the first time only after switching.
I considered running both systems but that was quickly ruled out. I am done with adapters of any kind. Muscle memory is still forming for the controls and customization of the camera. But I have no regrets in making the switch. I would have or should have made it sooner if I could see how slow Nikon was on catching up certain detail.
I will finish with this: Nikon makes some of the best glass out there if you don't mind hauling weight around and can afford it. But Sony makes denser lenses that are better balanced for overall performance, weight, cost etc and have more 3rd party offerings (Sigma example). The AF is still better and the ergos can be learned. Color science (so called) can also be overcome in post. That is my 2 or 3 cent opinion....Show more →
Thank you!
Did you find that you are having to overcome the Sony color science in post much?
Also, what aspects of the Nikon ergo do you miss on the Sony? I have found Nikon ergo to be excellent.
I've kind of gone the opposite direction and added a Zf to my kit and am impressed with how far Nikon has come in bridging the technical gap vs Sony. I'm not a critical sports and wild-life guy but do shoot some paid work (portraits and weddings). Personally the differences between Nikon and Sony these days are not anything that get in the way or that I can't work around in post. Be it AF performance, or color science. To the latter point, Nikon and Sony have a different baseline in the green channel mainly, but nothing that can't be worked in post.
The benefit to Nikon is that Z mount can adapt e-mount lenses and for my purposes, they might as well be native lenses. And there are some nice lenses in the Z mount. The 40 F2 is a fun lens to shoot with, and I'd love to get my hands on the Plena. Can't adapt Nikon glass to a Sony body though.
My two cameras these days are the Nikon ZF and A7CR...too cameras that do way more than I need in terms of performance, but with questionable ergonomics that favor form over function.
Just sold the rest of my NIkon gear. I have zero issues with the ouput however. Few things that made me lean back on Sony (I won't say switch as I've kept multiple systems over the years):
AF- I bought a Z50II to sample the exspeed 7 processor. While fast, the actual hit rate I found to be sub par. It didn't matter the lens I used which included the 50mm 1.8 s and 35mm 1.8 s. I tested the AF several times against my Canon r50 and found it was significantly worse in AF-C. I also have an A7C which despite it's age and slower response has a much much better hit critical rate. Kind of shocking TBH given it's age at this point. I was hoping to ditch my Z5 and upgrade to a Z6 III if the Z50 II worked out because I do like Nikon. However, I just didn't want to sign on any further with that AF for now.
Lack of sub 600g full frame body. This obviously isn't the biggest issue as I like bigger bodies but...I really want this at least as an option.
Few minor points are the lack of touch to drag feature on Z5II and Z50II. For eye level AF adjustments, I find it better than any combination of joystick, touchscreen and d-pad focusing. I also didn't like the Z50 II placement of d-pad and it had loud clicks.
Just not ideal. Would I add Nikon back in the future? Maybe next gen if they fix that AF at least. I do like the output but I like them all. I imagine they will add an AI chip in the Z6 IV and Z5 III...several years from now though.
Please Nikon, fix the low light AF and critical focus eye detect. It shouldn't need the eyes to essentially be lit to get them in focus (In my expeirence this is what was needed or the AF goes down quicklyl).
I plan on making a leap to a more current Sony camera soon too and funds aren't endless. Given what I've now researched- it'll be an A7V. Bit pricey, but Mark Galer's review really drove home the refinements to me which appears to be what I"m looking for.
lets be honest all the big 3 make some amazing bodies! I have big brands like anything always pros and cons. If your used to shooting Nikon the Z8 would be great. I do like the button layout and menus.
I got back in the game after a couple of years, of waiting on the Z8 and they never would release it. We live in a Sony world, by that I mean, the majority of buy/sell here and FB is sony gear. That means its easier to score used deals on Sony gear than other brands. Sony also has the most native 3rd party lenses. (big factor for me).
Which I figured out where Sony put the buttons and the custom menu its not been bad. Sony has some great bodies. A7RV is cheaper than the Z8. (I know not quite the same A7RV don't have a good E-shutter really).
Sony Bodies are smaller than Z8/Z9 too if that matters.
Good luck and I hope you find what your looking for.
Mystik wrote:
I've kind of gone the opposite direction and added a Zf to my kit and am impressed with how far Nikon has come in bridging the technical gap vs Sony. I'm not a critical sports and wild-life guy but do shoot some paid work (portraits and weddings). Personally the differences between Nikon and Sony these days are not anything that get in the way or that I can't work around in post. Be it AF performance, or color science. To the latter point, Nikon and Sony have a different baseline in the green channel mainly, but nothing that can't be worked in post.
The benefit to Nikon is that Z mount can adapt e-mount lenses and for my purposes, they might as well be native lenses. And there are some nice lenses in the Z mount. The 40 F2 is a fun lens to shoot with, and I'd love to get my hands on the Plena. Can't adapt Nikon glass to a Sony body though.
My two cameras these days are the Nikon ZF and A7CR...too cameras that do way more than I need in terms of performance, but with questionable ergonomics that favor form over function....Show more →
It’s like you went to Nikon and picked their worst‑ergonomics camera, and then went to Sony and picked their worst.
The Z mount’s ability to adapt E‑mount lenses is a huge plus. I’m certain I’ll own a Nikon ZF at some point because it’s such a beautiful camera, but modern Nikon lenses look a bit odd on it and I’m not interested in their larger glass. Sony’s relatively compact approach to full frame still suits me better. My plan is to buy the ZF with a couple of small primes and then add the Megadap adapter so I can keep using my lovely Sony lenses.
I am still a little concerned about the weight and overall size of the ZF, but I’m a sucker for retro looks, so I’ll just have to live with it. And I know the ZF won’t replace my Sony, and it definitely won’t replace my X100VI, which is still my favorite camera to date.
