It's interesting reading everyone's perspectives. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer really.
My personal journey was a little different. I started with Canon in 2008, ran into a financial difficulty and had to sell my gear around 2013. When I got back into photography, I was basically starting from scratch and my limited funds and trends at the time steered me towards the original a7. I was tired of the Canon sensor tech lagging behind the competition and was curious about adapting vintage gear, so I had a couple of fun years adapting old manual lenses on the a7 when that was the newest trend.
Around the a7r III time, I was over the vintage lens phase and wanted to rebuild a good AF based kit for general purpose and wildlife. At that time, there weren't good options for wildlife in Sony due to low pixel density on the a9, so I added a D500 and 200-500 for only wildlife. I really enjoyed this kit for a while and then was an early adopter of the 500PF when it was released. This was revolutionary at the time and one of my favorite pieces of kit ever. Something about the D500 and the 500 PF made the perfect wildlife kit for me with great build quality, perfect (for me) ergonomics and fantastic image quality.
I eventually tired of running dual systems and it made more sense to steer towards the Sony end since it served my non-wildlife needs better. I picked up the a7rV and the Sigma 500, and have found a kit that I like going all Sony now. I am a little jealous of a few Nikon offerings in the wildlife space (mostly the PF lineup.) If I ONLY shot wildlife, I'd shoot the Z8 with a 600PF and call it a day. I love those ergonomics for wildlife, but I prefer my a7rV and the Sony lenses outside of wildlife shooting for their smaller size to performance ratio.
I have been happy with lens choices, particularly the Zeiss offerings. This is now my main 50mm (Zeiss Planar T) that destroys anything I put on a Nikon Z (for my purposes) in terms of rendering. Yes its chunky but so is the Viltrox 50 1.4 which this lens blow away, and the Nikon 50 1.2 which is huge. I know the 50 1.8S is smaller and sharper but rendering is important. For the classic Zeiss look, which I love, there is nothing better for a A7Riii.
This goes along with the 35 1.4 Distagon and the 135 GMaster, and the Viltrox 85 1.4 (a no brainer lens if there was one)
Bottom line,between the better AF and these lenses....no regrets switching from Nikon. For the money I spent on these 4 lenses and the camera, the bang for the buck is phenomenal.
I have run two MILC systems for over a decade with Sony being the newcomer. I recently invested further into Sony with the A1 and two OEM radio flashes. Fixing the godawful A7ii menu layout was a key motivation. Both systems have plausible bodies but the lens offerings continue to distinguish one brand from the other: Plena, 24-70/4S, STF, 70-200 G II, etc.
If you ever noticed my posts on Nikon's forums you know I complained about z8 size a lot. While I like the camera and system, I am not a fan of its size. Here is why:
And I like z24-70/2.8. It is an outstanding lens I mostly use in studio because it does not fit into my regular everyday bag. Extending zoom design is perceived as "worse", but it is so much more practical... I expect I will fit godox it32 flash, a small fixed lens, and sony a7r6 + 24-50/2.8 as a not-specialized standard EDC kit.
olegkin wrote:
Absolutely. Too bad I am infected with a high resolution virus, and would not waste my limited time on shooting less than max possible within reason
I put myself in this camp as well, but honestly just came back with only shooting a Q2 and a 10mpx M8 on a family vacation and almost chose the 10mpx M8 over the Q2 four to one ratio. Camera has a lot to do with it, but constraints can be fun and for what I do with the photos, 10mpx was enough.
Xysterz wrote:
As the title states, anyone jump ship from Nikon? And if so, why? I've been a long time Nikon shooter, but my bro-in-law keeps singing the praises for Sony. The biggest thing that is tempting me is the autofocus. Appreciate any insights.
When I switched from Nikon to Sony Nikon still had DSLR's, I tried the Sony A9 II back then (bought one for making videos during covid and then realized it was a great still camera too!) and converted to Sony
I don't think the difference is as pronounced today, and Nikon have some really nice specialized lenses if you are into telephoto
Seabassius wrote:
I put myself in this camp as well, but honestly just came back with only shooting a Q2 and a 10mpx M8 on a family vacation and almost chose the 10mpx M8 over the Q2 four to one ratio. Camera has a lot to do with it, but constraints can be fun and for what I do with the photos, 10mpx was enough.
My z8 is coming back from repairs just in time for vacation. So I will have 45mpx, 67mpx, and probably 100mpx I am fine with this overkill. But usage will be decided by focal lengths, not megapixels.
I very much see the Z8 as an everyday camera. The Z9 is more often not. I take the Z8 everywhere, from vlogging to wildlife hikes. It's a pocket flagship that you can rig out with a battery grip if needed and make it into a cheap Z9. 8K RAW and 45mp photos on a 600 PF in a sling bag is absolutely insane. I really see it as the best take everywhere camera ever made. I also own the Z6III and honestly don't notice the size or weight difference.
RoamingScott wrote:
The Z8 isn't really an "everyday" camera, but it's annoying that Nikon has let this 45mp gap in the modern lineup fester.
A Z5II, Z6III, or Zf and adapted 24-50 or Thypoch version would fit in there just fine.
ZeeMike wrote:
I very much see the Z8 as an everyday camera. The Z9 is more often not. I take the Z8 everywhere, from vlogging to wildlife hikes. It's a pocket flagship that you can rig out with a battery grip if needed and make it into a cheap Z9. 8K RAW and 45mp photos on a 600 PF in a sling bag is absolutely insane. I really see it as the best take everywhere camera ever made. I also own the Z6III and honestly don't notice the size or weight difference.
But a7rX are more Leica Q size than z8. GFX100S2 is z8 size! gfx is actually a bit smaller than z8 where it matters, ... as long as you don't attach lenses to it.
In mirrorless, I owned an early Sony, then migrated to Nikon Z and owned multiple, then went Fuji GFX because of the files for landscape, but it wasn’t a viable travel option. I eventually stopped printing large and wanted smaller and lighter weight so went to Fuji X. I liked the Fuji X size and while files were generally excellent, I definitely missed having the look from at least a full frame format. Now I am down to a single, small Sony A7Cii, love the size and files, especially in lower light situations; and while it’s lacking in the EVF department, I enjoy the size of it enough to live with that limitation. If I got back into wildlife or serious landscape, I’d probably be happy with an A7R5 or 6 and the lens/system compatibility becomes a significant plus.
I am confident in claiming there is no perfect-for-everything camera.
aerospace99 wrote:
I have been happy with lens choices, particularly the Zeiss offerings. This is now my main 50mm (Zeiss Planar T) that destroys anything I put on a Nikon Z (for my purposes) in terms of rendering. Yes its chunky but so is the Viltrox 50 1.4 which this lens blow away, and the Nikon 50 1.2 which is huge. I know the 50 1.8S is smaller and sharper but rendering is important. For the classic Zeiss look, which I love, there is nothing better for a A7Riii.
This goes along with the 35 1.4 Distagon and the 135 GMaster, and the Viltrox 85 1.4 (a no brainer lens if there was one)
Bottom line,between the better AF and these lenses....no regrets switching from Nikon. For the money I spent on these 4 lenses and the camera, the bang for the buck is phenomenal. ...Show more →
Since I wrote this, I made one final adjustment, replacing the Viltrox 85 1.4 with the Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN. So to sort of summarize my experience:
For the first time since I entered digital photography 10 years ago, I am "satisfied" with my equipment setup. I would be lying if I did not say I miss my Z7II for its ergos and overall handling. But the additional lens selections made the switch worthwhile. Out of the 6 lenses I have landed on, 4 of them do not have any Nikon equivalents for price/performance ratio including the used market. My point is that if I was still in Nikon I would be debating which 35, or which 50, or which 85, the core of my kit. In Sony, this was all resolved due to better choices for 1.4 aperture lenses. My AF troubles in lower light are also resolved. More confidence in focus acquisition than before. I gained more than I gave up.....that is the bottom line for me (YMMV).
I have always shot with Nikon since I was a teenager, using film. I currently have a z9 & z8 and shoot mainly sports. At a World Cup game last week I decided to try a Sony A9iii and a 50-150 f/2 as my second body and left my z8 and 70-200 in my roller bag locked up in the photoroom. It was my first time ever using Sony and once I got it set up how I liked it, OMG there is a difference for sure with the AF. The ability to shoot at f/2 and nail focus over and over was like cheating. In saying that, it also made me realize that while a lot of people dog nikon for it's AF performance it's not horrible. Yes, you can make it work but there is no doubt the A9iii with the 50-150 blows away the z8 70-200 combo (for sports). I liked it so much I went back the next match to Sony Professional Services and took it for another spin.. same thing.. I was truly amazed! Will I end up switching? Im not sure it would cost me a lot of money but I might end up keeping my z9 with the big glass and get the A9iii as my second body... I have some thinking to do for sure.
EB-1 wrote:
I use Sony because of the 61MP sensor. Nikon AF is very good assuming Z9 or Z8 and modern lenses and Nikon should have a Z9 II soon enough. The full line of Nikkor teles are unmatched.
I suggest renting any gear from other systems. Coming fron Nikon and Canon (each 25+ years, though only partly overlapped) Sony is the most uncomfortable to use for full-sized, human hands, though they are getting better. Sony does have the best sensors and they have 3 control dials unlike Nikon with only 2. Canon has the best ergonomics for me (3 dials and many buttons accessible to the right hand), but a worse sensor.
If you think about the borkahs more than once in blue moon, you might like the open Sony E mount for primes and all that Chinese stuff.
I'm not understanding how obesity affects the fingers, but I'm not obese.
There is little doubt that many of the puny SOny lenses don't interfere with a hand on the grip.
How do you hold the a7rVI and 200-600 or similar lens that juts out in the area right next to the grip? Maybe that's the worst case lens they ever made but it looks like others are similar in being much wider away from the lens mount.
I have Z8, 600mm PF, 400mm F4.5,180-600mm, 28-400mm, 24-120mm. I am quite happy with Nikon Z8 for wildlife BIF due to excellent 4K120, and you can crop 2.3x. Video stabilization is also excellent. The only thing I wish it can be better is AF. In video mode, often you may have a brief blur when the background is changing. I have tried every combination of AF speed and sensitive without any improvement. It seems that Sony is particular good for quickly grabbing the bird and sticking with it. I am tempted to get A7R VI (I have 200-600mm when I had A7R III). Would appreciate someone with experience with Nikon Z8/Z9 and Sony A1 II, A7R VI or A7V can comment on this. I would prefer A7R VI which has 2.1x crop in Super 35, better Active stabilization than A1 II.
I'm tempted to become one, albeit indirectly since I've been away from Nikon with the GFX 100 for several years. I posted in the A7r6 thread, paraphrased, that 67mp, if dynamic range was good enough, was getting up to the point that mid autofocus and sluggish UX operation just for 33 more megapixels is a tough sell.
I really wish Nikon would put that sensor in a Z8 II or Z8x, since their bodies are superior to Sony's in a variety of ways I care about, but who knows when or if something like that might happen, so.
40Driggs wrote:
It's interesting reading everyone's perspectives. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer really.
I eventually tired of running dual systems and it made more sense to steer towards the Sony end since it served my non-wildlife needs better. I picked up the a7rV and the Sigma 500, and have found a kit that I like going all Sony now. I am a little jealous of a few Nikon offerings in the wildlife space (mostly the PF lineup.) If I ONLY shot wildlife, I'd shoot the Z8 with a 600PF and call it a day. I love those ergonomics for wildlife, but I prefer my a7rV and the Sony lenses outside of wildlife shooting for their smaller size to performance ratio....Show more →
Not into wildlife, but like you I moved up from the A7Riii to a A7rV and I am very satisfied with that camera. In addition to the wider lens selections over Nikon, I have a very competent autofocusing camera with a hefty grip and yes, nice ergonomics. I wore the Nikon Z7II like an old shoe and knew it like the back of my hand. But the customization flexibility of the A7RV is phenomenal and quite easy I might add. As a result, I have not felt this much control over imaging choices since my Nikon D850 days. This camera makes my decision to move to Sony all the more satisfying, and quite honestly might be my last camera (a GAS terminator for sure). No regrets at all.
