Nikon vs Sony and Canon

Member said:

I need a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, a good fast 35mm, a nice 50 (perhaps even the 1.2 even though i dont actually need it) and later on a nice macro for product photography. Maybe if there is some money left i could buy either a second body or the 14-30

Click to expand...

I would serious think about if you really want to travel with two 2.8 zooms.

They are big heavy and the amount of lens swapping drove me to carrying two bodies one for each lens and in the end going back to using 35-135 for traveling with a 24mm f2.8 in the bag for the odd wide shot.

I think the 24-200 would be a much better lens for traveling with a couple of chosen primes depending on how and what you like to shoot. I would add a 35mm F1.8 and and 85mm f1.8 and leave it at that for gear.

I think it is important to not get carried away with gear and to focus on the reality of what we really do with our images.

The 2.8 zooms have always been great lenses but ask your self what do you need them for and what will you need the F2.8 for and would an F4 zoom limit you in any way.

The same goes for the prime lenses, is F1.4 needed. I've seen way too many shots made with F1.4 and F2 lenses that the only thing going for the shot is the nice out of focus areas. The actual content, composition and use of light has rarely been though out and so the image is really just a flop with a nice out of focus background.

Choice of a new system should really come down to lenses primarily - decide which lenses you would buy first within each system, and determine which offer the best for your purposes. Also consider which lenses you are likely to consider adding in the near future.

The body is important of course, but all three of the mentioned options are excellent cameras which should be a major step up from your current body. Between the bodies, it really comes down to which things you value the most, as this varies from person to person. There is a fairly wide agreement however, that Canon and Nikon offer a more enjoyable shooting experience for many photographers than do Sony, largely down to the better grip, ergonomics, menus and viewfinder experience. The Sony does have better battery life though, I believe, which is a genuine plus.

Personally, if I was in the market to get into one of these systems, and landscape was my main subject, I would get the Nikon and the 24-70 f4, since for landscapes I wouldn't need 2.8 and this lens seems to offer a size/weight/cost/quality balance not available with the other systems. I also have no doubt that I would be happy with the body, whereas I'm pretty sure I would find many niggles with the Sony.

Just one opinion, based on the use of many different cameras, but none of the ones in question! Good luck with your choice.

Stujomo said:

Nickemmano said:

I need a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, a good fast 35mm, a nice 50 (perhaps even the 1.2 even though i dont actually need it) and later on a nice macro for product photography. Maybe if there is some money left i could buy either a second body or the 14-30

Click to expand...

I would serious think about if you really want to travel with two 2.8 zooms.

They are big heavy and the amount of lens swapping drove me to carrying two bodies one for each lens and in the end going back to using 35-135 for traveling with a 24mm f2.8 in the bag for the odd wide shot.

I think the 24-200 would be a much better lens for traveling with a couple of chosen primes depending on how and what you like to shoot. I would add a 35mm F1.8 and and 85mm f1.8 and leave it at that for gear.

I think it is important to not get carried away with gear and to focus on the reality of what we really do with our images.

The 2.8 zooms have always been great lenses but ask your self what do you need them for and what will you need the F2.8 for and would an F4 zoom limit you in any way.

The same goes for the prime lenses, is F1.4 needed. I've seen way too many shots made with F1.4 and F2 lenses that the only thing going for the shot is the nice out of focus areas. The actual content, composition and use of light has rarely been though out and so the image is really just a flop with a nice out of focus background.

Click to expand...

This is a mistake I have made twice and think I have finally learned my lesson. I had previously shot with Canon, then Fuji and ended up with F/2.8 lenses because the slower lenses had too many compromises. One of the reasons I switched to the Z was the reviews of the 24-70mm F/4 and it hasn’t disappointed. I primarily enjoy landscape and wildlife photography and do some architectural shooting. My main lenses are 14-30mm F/4, 24-70mm F/4, 70-300mm AF-P, and 500mm F/5.6 PF and I have the 24mm PC and 50mm F.1.8G for when needed. This is amazing lightweight travel kit with outstanding image quality and I have no desire to add massive lenses to it. I also have a relatively small, lightweight, carbon fiber travel tripod. All this has made a world of difference in how easy and comfortable it is to take my gear along.

abc123brian said:

Stujomo said:

Nickemmano said:

I need a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, a good fast 35mm, a nice 50 (perhaps even the 1.2 even though i dont actually need it) and later on a nice macro for product photography. Maybe if there is some money left i could buy either a second body or the 14-30

Click to expand...

I would serious think about if you really want to travel with two 2.8 zooms.

They are big heavy and the amount of lens swapping drove me to carrying two bodies one for each lens and in the end going back to using 35-135 for traveling with a 24mm f2.8 in the bag for the odd wide shot.

I think the 24-200 would be a much better lens for traveling with a couple of chosen primes depending on how and what you like to shoot. I would add a 35mm F1.8 and and 85mm f1.8 and leave it at that for gear.

I think it is important to not get carried away with gear and to focus on the reality of what we really do with our images.

The 2.8 zooms have always been great lenses but ask your self what do you need them for and what will you need the F2.8 for and would an F4 zoom limit you in any way.

The same goes for the prime lenses, is F1.4 needed. I've seen way too many shots made with F1.4 and F2 lenses that the only thing going for the shot is the nice out of focus areas. The actual content, composition and use of light has rarely been though out and so the image is really just a flop with a nice out of focus background.

Click to expand...

This is a mistake I have made twice and think I have finally learned my lesson. I had previously shot with Canon, then Fuji and ended up with F/2.8 lenses because the slower lenses had too many compromises. One of the reasons I switched to the Z was the reviews of the 24-70mm F/4 and it hasn’t disappointed. I primarily enjoy landscape and wildlife photography and do some architectural shooting. My main lenses are 14-30mm F/4, 24-70mm F/4, 70-300mm AF-P, and 500mm F/5.6 PF and I have the 24mm PC and 50mm F.1.8G for when needed. This is amazing lightweight travel kit with outstanding image quality and I have no desire to add massive lenses to it. I also have a relatively small, lightweight, carbon fiber travel tripod. All this has made a world of difference in how easy and comfortable it is to take my gear along.

Click to expand...

The reason i want the 2.8 is because i could use them during the day for some touristy portraits. The 70-200 would give me the flexibility for some more serious portraits as i dont plan to buy an 85mm. Plus i like shooting during the sunset and sunrise with those lenses and the added stop would be of great help. I am not sure if i could do what i do with primes but i think the extra hassle of changing lenses will be too much. I have a breakdown of the various FLs i use with their use case. I could upload it and hope for some feedback and advice

Here is the breakdown (686 photos that i liked and edited)




in the conclusion: renting a prime of 16-20 mm (ignore my greek)

Nickemmano said:

Here is the breakdown (686 photos that i liked and edited)


in the conclusion: renting a prime of 16-20 mm (ignore my greek)

Click to expand...

Just an observation: almost half (44% @ 14mm - 28mm) of your liked-and-edited images fit within the 14-30/4's focal range.

--
DutchBoy17

DutchBoy17 said:

Nickemmano said:

Here is the breakdown (686 photos that i liked and edited)


in the conclusion: renting a prime of 16-20 mm (ignore my greek)

Click to expand...

Just an observation: almost half (44% @ 14mm - 28mm) of your liked-and-edited images fit within the 14-30/4's focal range.

Click to expand...

but then again almost 60% is covered by a 24-70...:/

DutchBoy17 said:

Nickemmano said:

Here is the breakdown (686 photos that i liked and edited)

Click to expand...

Just an observation: almost half (44% @ 14mm - 28mm) of your liked-and-edited images fit within the 14-30/4's focal range.

Click to expand...

I consider the Z6 + 14-24f/4 + 24-70f/4 + 70-300AF-P (FTZ) to be an ideal FF travel kit; this all fits in a Peak Design Sling 10L with room for accessories (incl iPad Pro 11").

The above is ideal unless I want to go even smaller and then the Z50 + 16-50DX + 50-250DX + another lens is super compact fitting in a Peak Design Slide 6L with room for accessories (incl iPad Pro 11").

Nickemmano said:

DutchBoy17 said:

Nickemmano said:

Here is the breakdown (686 photos that i liked and edited)

Click to expand...

Just an observation: almost half (44% @ 14mm - 28mm) of your liked-and-edited images fit within the 14-30/4's focal range.

Click to expand...

but then again almost 60% is covered by a 24-70...:/

Click to expand...

Then get them both and you've got 77% covered by a super compact kit.

Nickemmano said:

DutchBoy17 said:

Nickemmano said:

Here is the breakdown (686 photos that i liked and edited)


in the conclusion: renting a prime of 16-20 mm (ignore my greek)

Click to expand...

Just an observation: almost half (44% @ 14mm - 28mm) of your liked-and-edited images fit within the 14-30/4's focal range.

Click to expand...

but then again almost 60% is covered by a 24-70...:/

Click to expand...

Between 14-70mm, Nikon is more landscape friendly, lens wise. Also Nikon Z7 doesn't have AA filter. If you shoot landscape mainly, probably you don't need sophisticated AF R5/R6 applies. Besides you can take advantage of Z mount design, possible to access Canon EF and Sony FE lenses by adapters, which I am currently enjoying.

Nickemmano said:

DutchBoy17 said:

Nickemmano said:

Here is the breakdown (686 photos that i liked and edited)


in the conclusion: renting a prime of 16-20 mm (ignore my greek)

Click to expand...

Just an observation: almost half (44% @ 14mm - 28mm) of your liked-and-edited images fit within the 14-30/4's focal range.

Click to expand...

but then again almost 60% is covered by a 24-70...:/

Click to expand...

You still have a high percentage in the uwa range. Why not do 14-30 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, and a 70-300mm or 70-200mm f/4 type lens as you seem to only need one larger aperture lens.

Varuas said:

Do you already have FX Nikon lenses? As you’re coming from the DX D5300, assuming you are not tied to Nikon due to lenses/flashes, I would seriously consider Canon R5. It is basically the flagship mirrorless — high resolution with high speed burst and best AF, plus has amazing video specs to match. Perfect for anything you can think of in 2020.

Click to expand...

I would change my recommendation based on reading your replies. You would most benefit from a cheaper high resolution stills body because you do not need 8K video or high speed video at 4K.

So, I suggest you save $1200 and get the Nikon Z7. Spend that additional money on a Z lens.

Varuas said:

Varuas said:

Do you already have FX Nikon lenses? As you’re coming from the DX D5300, assuming you are not tied to Nikon due to lenses/flashes, I would seriously consider Canon R5. It is basically the flagship mirrorless — high resolution with high speed burst and best AF, plus has amazing video specs to match. Perfect for anything you can think of in 2020.

Click to expand...

I would change my recommendation based on reading your replies. You would most benefit from a cheaper high resolution stills body because you do not need 8K video or high speed video at 4K.

So, I suggest you save $1200 and get the Nikon Z7. Spend that additional money on a Z lens.

Click to expand...

Think so. OP is not looking for a D850 replacement/upgrade. A Z7 instead of Z7II or R5 will be my recommendation, and put the savings into lenses.

I have two Z7 bodies and will add a Z7II when available.

I do landscapes and the Z7 is terrific. The small size of the body and the 14-30/4 zoom is a terrific combo. I downsized my tripod one notch and am really happy with this combo.

I also do a lot of bird photography and the Nikon 500 f5.6 PF lens is fantastic. 500 mm in a smaller, lighter package. I don't know how I ever hiked with the 500 f4 on my back.

I do a lot of travel photography, also. Would rather travel than be at home.

The Nikon D5 has the best focus tracking of any DSLR per DPReview. To me this means Nikon has the tools and talent to give us autofocus tracking in mirrorless cameras that will eventually be as good as Canon and Sony. The Z7II should be a big step in that direction

The quality of the Z lenses is stellar and the cost is reasonable. The size and weight of the f4 zooms is perfect for hiking and landscape photos. The Z bodies are affordable.

I am happy with the Z system.



However...

I think at this moment the Canon R5 is the best of the bunch. If you can forget 8K video, it is a near perfect camera for all sorts of photography. I am envious of the autofocus tracing and eye detection of the Canon R5. I could be very happy with two F5 bodies and a collection of lenses. Canon has focused on fast expensive glass which I don't need. I find the f4 zooms to be a sweet spot. Also a good choice if you want a camera to keep you warm on a cold day.

If I went with Sony, which is also not a bad choice, I would get a A7Riv and A9ii to cover the bases and give the necessary redundancy to deal with dropped or defective bodies. The Sony lenses are also big and heavy and expensive.

When it comes to eye focus and focus tracking Nikon is currently in third place. For image quality, waterproofing, ergonomics they are probably in first place.

You can't go wrong!

maljo

z7 + 24-17 f4 zoom:

rokoko said:

Nickemmano said:

DutchBoy17 said:

Nickemmano said:

Here is the breakdown (686 photos that i liked and edited)


in the conclusion: renting a prime of 16-20 mm (ignore my greek)

Click to expand...

Just an observation: almost half (44% @ 14mm - 28mm) of your liked-and-edited images fit within the 14-30/4's focal range.

Click to expand...

but then again almost 60% is covered by a 24-70...:/

Click to expand...

Between 14-70mm, Nikon is more landscape friendly, lens wise. Also Nikon Z7 doesn't have AA filter. If you shoot landscape mainly, probably you don't need sophisticated AF R5/R6 applies. Besides you can take advantage of Z mount design, possible to access Canon EF and Sony FE lenses by adapters, which I am currently enjoying.

Click to expand...

I agree with rokoko. If you want a light or high quality wide angle 2.8 lens (if 2.8 is a must), Nikon wide-angle lenses fit you better than Canon.

I would suggest the following lenses if you decide to get Nikon:

Nikon 14-24 f2.8 + 24-70 f2.8 + Tamron 70-180 f2.8 (adapted with Techart TZE-01 on Z camera). Regarding the performance of the Tamron lens, I remember a guy saying the autofocus of the Tamron lens work fine on the FM forum.

Thanks Nikon's new 14-24 is really light, surprisingly light. If OP shoots more longer end, Canon's 70-200/f2.8 and f4 maybe easy to carry. The new f4L is like this:

Nikon has the upper hand on the wide-angle zooms while Canon does so on the telephoto zooms. Weight and size are as important as the optical performance. Not everyone likes carrying the large and long 70-200 when he travels around.

Jeff_0000 said:

Nikon has the upper hand on the wide-angle zooms while Canon does so on the telephoto zooms. Weight and size are as important as the optical performance. Not everyone likes carrying the large and long 70-200 when he travels around.

Click to expand...

I have just shot with 70-200mm 2.8 S and the level of image quality is simply insane. It feels like it has less CA and LoCA than the Otus at the same aperture. This isn’t pixel peeping, it’s striking seen on an ipad.

Compact is great but I’ll always prefer image quality. Nobody has complained till now about the bulk and weight of such lenses, it’s totally manageable.

what remains is the images isn’t?

cheers,
Bernard

bernardlang said:

Jeff_0000 said:

Nikon has the upper hand on the wide-angle zooms while Canon does so on the telephoto zooms. Weight and size are as important as the optical performance. Not everyone likes carrying the large and long 70-200 when he travels around.

Click to expand...

I have just shot with 70-200mm 2.8 S and the level of image quality is simply insane. It feels like it has less CA and LoCA than the Otus at the same aperture. This isn’t pixel peeping, it’s striking seen on an ipad.

Compact is great but I’ll always prefer image quality. Nobody has complained till now about the bulk and weight of such lenses, it’s totally manageable.

what remains is the images isn’t?

cheers,
Bernard

Click to expand...

If you can manage it then it's good for you. Enjoy taking great pictures with your lens!

If money are not an issue I would go for Canon R5. Canon's sensors are now on par with Nikon and Sony, but seems that recent AF module implementation in R5 and R6 is the best one. Unfortunately Nikon AF is still on 3rd place compared to Sony and Canon.

The reason to choose Nikon is very good Z lenses (they are very expensive, but probably not as much as their CANON counterparts).

Having said the above if the body capabilities are most important R5. If lenses are more important Nikon Z.