Re: The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
tzhang4284 wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: berimbolo wrote: chez wrote:
tctmp wrote:
If someone is starting from scratch, and has no preference on size (both cameras and lens), I have to say Z8 has the best performance/price ratio right now among the top of the line from all 3 manufacturers.
Glass is much more important than cameras these days. Sony has by far the best overall selection of glass.
Depends on uses and budget. If you're starting from scratch, doing wildlife/bird photography, and have the budget for a 400F2.8 or 600F4, the Nikon system seems superior. For everything else, I think you Sony's lens selection is superior.
If you only have the budget for a 400 f/4.5 or the budget for that and an 800 F/6.3 PF, those are some really good and small for what they are Nikon lenses. Sony has no alternatives.
On a tight budget there is also the Nikon F glass that works as well as (or a bit better) on a camera like the Z8 as it ever did on a DSLR. That can provide a bunch of compelling options for inexpensive but still useful and even quite nice glass that generally isn't available on Sony (although I do love my Sony/Zeiss A mount 135 f/1.8).
Sony has great lenses, but so does Nikon, and so does Canon and each has some unique lenses too (some absolutely love the Canon 28-70 f/2L). At this point I think general statements like company X has better glass are meaningless. Rather we are at the point where company X's glass is the better fit for me and people will have very different and reasonable answers.
The Sony 200-600mm is a much better value proposition for most wildlife shooters who “don’t have the budget” for a 400mm 2.8 or 600mm f4. If i can afford both a 400mm f4.5 and a 800mm f6.3 (almost $10k for both and carrying both is much larger in volume than a 200-600mm), I might as well as just stretch and buy a 400mm f2.8 + TCs or 600mm f4 + TCs.
Main value proposition of the 400mm f4.5 is that it’s smaller but it’s not necessarily better than the 200-600mm. Nikon has no answer for that yet beyond a slide in a presentation. The idea of Nikon being better in wildlife is true for a certain midrange of photographers that’s probably over presented on this forum but at the lower end, there isn’t an answer for the 200-600mm yet and maybe Nikon’s premium super telephotos are marginally better than Sony’s for having a built in TC but you’re paying for it too.
I’m confused. Those reviews show the 400 4.5 is quite a bit sharper than the 200-600 at 400mm.
At 5.6 (the max aperture for the 200-600 @400) the Z 400 approaches 2250 in the center. The 200-600 is just above 1750. Only at its sharpest focal length 100mm stopped down 5.6 does it approach 2250. Wide open at 4.5 the 400z is sharper than the 200-600 at 5.6. Edge performance is also better on the prime lens wide open vs the 200-600 at 5.6.
May 19, 2023 at 05:45 PM
Previous versions of Buckeye2604's message #16248462 « The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III »
