Recklesscoding
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #11 · Moving to Canon RF; R5, R5 II, or R6 III in 2026? | |
nhmorgan wrote:
I will offer a viewpoint from having used Nikon, Sony, and Canon extensively. What it boils down to at this point is to buy into the system for the lenses you want to use and/or how well you get along with the RAW files when editing. It's a myth that all RAW files are just RAW files can be made to look like other systems. Even profiles like Cobalt a great but don't achieve that goal. A lot happens to the file before it gets to the RAW file you edit. Canon applied noise reduction. Nikon applies spacial filtering. The sensors may even be the same, but the sensor glass in front of them isn't. Certain lenses for certain mounts create color shifts that need correction more than others, etc. Most importantly though, the color filter arrays that are on the sensors are unique to each brand and they all have differing spectral responses. That said, I just find Nikon's files so much easier to edit than others. Canon isn't bad. Sony just takes me more work. That's a preference not objective fact.
As far as autofocus, my experience with the R5ii is that I kinda think the z8 does better. I never use the ball tracking mode. The a1ii and A7RVI are better than Nikon or Canon, but not by much. They just pick up subjects earlier. I find canon's to be trying to do too much thinking for you. That said, they are all really close. My R5ii front focuses eyes just as much as my Z8 does.
This brings us to lenses. If small, light, and clinically sharp is my preference, then it would be Sony all the way. They do a pretty remarkable job doing what they do best: small, sharp, and light, with surprising low dependence on digital correction. Whether they are too sharp and lack character is a viable debate. Sony's 50-150 is also a game changer for many events and sports shooters.
Nikon has an old world feel to their lenses. The Z primes maintain excellent rendering, excellent sharpness, and minimal need for corrections. The tradeoff is their size. That's an issue for many. Nikon also lacks in innovative zoom offerings available for other platforms.
Canon is in a weird place right now IMO. Their bodies are great. Some of the early RF lenses are much like Nikon's offerings: great rendering, minimal corrections, but big and heavy. The VCM series is an odd tack for the company. Those lenses make huge compromises that do impact image quality. The distortion and vignetting is off the charts. That might not seem like an issue, but if you're using say the 14mm 1.4 for astrophotography and start stacking, you are going to run into problems in a hurry. Similarly, people are often using these fast primes in low light. When you have 4 stops of vignette getting corrected but were already at ISO 10,000, those mid frame to edges become downright unusable. The distortion correction does impact corner sharpness. Uncorrected, they have sharp corners. This isn't just the primes, but also lenses like the 24-105. There is a rumored 24-70 F2, but by all indications it will likely need significant digital corrections. So, with canon there are a lot of good existing lenses, but their path forward looks more dubious. Also the closed mount is a bummer because they don't have the adapters that you can use for Nikon.
My opinion is that the z8 really is the best all-rounder. So, think before switching. The grass is always greener with camera systems. I think they are really all way more than most photographers need, so you can't really go wrong. A system switch will often create more friction and frustration points than benefits. No brand is clearly ahead. I will also concede that all my comments are preference and largely biased toward the fast primes and fast zooms. I don't know much about the slower zooms for example, so many of my points may not hold up for those. ...Show more →
Thanks. I appreciate the input. I agree that overall, any of these cameras will perform well and will have me as the limited factor. It is interesting that our AF experiences are different. I would clearly put the Sony ahead of Nikon for people, based on the A7RV performance, but Nikon ever slightly so for birds. I found Sony's RAWs horrible to work with. Nikon is indeed much easier; colors and overall exposure feel more 'spot on' out of the camera. Still, I would have probably sticked to Sony if it wasn't for extremely bad customer service.
Nikon lenses are probably the best in terms of sharpness and overall optical performance, but their size is just too much. It seems with the MkII versions of its f/2.8 zooms, Nikon is also moving to more digital corrected lenses. Other than my 85mm f/1.2 S, I don't think that I have fallen any particularly in love with any Nikon lens' rendering. To my surprise, Sony's GM —and select G line— lenses have better rendering for my taste.
If the Z8 was at the size of the R5 or if there was certainty that Nikon will fix the eyelash eyeaf, I would have sticked to Nikon. Right now, neither are true and the Z7 III won't be out until 2027 at the earliest so realistically I won't be looking into it until 2028 —I never buy a camera that has just gotten out, first batches always have some QC issues nowadays...
|
