DPReview TV: Nikon Z7 II versus Sony a7R IV for landscapes

These comparisons are for fun and for education, not as some sort of religious proclamation. Some take these far too seriously.

Most people commenting here already have their minds made up anyway and so the discussion becomes another point of fun and education, and should not be taken too seriously.

I don't understand these comments. Do you also go inside an IT store and just buy whatever laptop you see "because they all can surf the internet fast enough"? Or your smartphone? Or when buying a new car? Without zero pauses or thoughts about differences and options?

And I'm not even talking about pros where small differences have more impact than your typical enthousiast photographer.

We're at a point where ALL of the current cameras are pretty amazing. The same goes for phones. I prefer Nikon, but I could easily shoot ANY system and be happy. I shoot more than one system and I feel that Nikon has the best camera in the price range that the Z7II occupies. Part of that is also the amazing Z lenses, which I've compared directly to Canon and Sony. Does ANY of that mean that Sony and Canon aren't fantastic? Nope. We're talking tiny differences and a lot of my choice is based on ergonomics.

DPR already had an article about why not to pay much attention to these types of DPR awards. Yet some folk will continue...........

why is it surprising that the overall score of two cameras favors one, but a particular use case favors the another?

I get that the Sony fanboys are going to be upset with this, just like the Nikon fanboys would be upset with the opposite. It shouldn't require calling this out, but there's a difference between the "ratings" given by DPReview for the camera overall (video, focus accuracy and so forth) with limiting the use of the camera for landscape, where some of Sony's perceived advantages don't matter. You love your Sony? That's great, there is nothing "wrong" with it. It's a great camera. But appreciate the difference between the two different approaches to analyzing the cameras.

white, key word here is "Landscape" in "better landscape camera"

"For professional wedding photographers, landscape shooters and studio portraitists, the Sony a7R IV is, frankly, the camera to beat right now."

"Good for
Landscape photographers, wedding and event shooters, studio photographers that specialize in portraits and product photography, and anyone that wants to make really big prints."

This is what DPReview had to say when they tested the Sony A7R4.
Please note in both cases they mentioned "LANDSCAPE".
And now all of a sudden the Nikon is a better landscape camera?
Looks to me like they are throwing Nikon a bone!

I was about to mention the Z7ii is one of the best sensors for what this video did a comparison of. Look at DXOmark.

@whitelens, when did DPR say those things? back in 2019. Is is possible that a new camera can come along and exceed that? apparently that is what has happened here. At least, all the Sony fans can be proud that Sony made the sensor.

Before you lose sleep over the "Best Full Frame Landscape Camera" title that DPR has bestowed on the Z7ii, realize that is is only extreme pixel peeping and subtle user preferences that sway this "massive" prize one way or the other. The biggest factor by far is the operator.

Since you all want me to look at DXOMARK:
They rate the Sony for LANDSCAPE at 14.8 and the Nikon at 14.7.
I hope you guys understand that a 14.7 rating is not as good as a 14.8 rating?

Geesh. @whitelens is really trying to stretch and spin things to do damage control for Sony.

"This is what DPReview had to say when they tested the Sony A7R4.
Please note in both cases they mentioned "LANDSCAPE"."

Who is "they"? DPR has numerous people that write DPR articles. Not everyone agree on the same thing just because they work at the same place. You're complaining about a "0.1" point difference. They're both incredible cameras.

@Moon:
Your Nikon friends: MyDog Is Incharge
&
TheBestCameraIsTheOneYouActuallyShoot
Insisted that I checked out DXOMARK to see that the Nikon had higher rating.
So I did. Guess what, they were both wrong!
If you want to know who "they" are, just read the Review for the Sony A7R4!

@TRU:
I am sorry you confuse stating facts with trying to stretch and spin things to do damage control for Sony.
Everything I posted is a fact. Looks like you still have problems with facing facts!

whitelies, You misunderstood when I asked who "they" are. They, the people who wrote the articles you quoted ("For professional wedding photographers, landscape shooters and studio portraitists, the Sony a7R IV is, frankly, the camera to beat right now.") are not the same people in the video. Now that that was explained, re-read my sentence right after I wrote the question.

I don't own a single piece of Nikon equipment nor have I ever.

And why are you yelling(!) at me?

People who know they are wrong don't know what to say so all they do is yell. Sorry I made you so upset. Cheer up, pal.

S1R DxO overall rating 100
Z7ii DxO overall rating 100
A7Riv DxO overall rating 99.

If they included sensor output speed it would be even worse. The A7riv has the slowest sensor output speed of any sensor today. Which is likely why it has such poor AF speed (as proven by mirrorless comparisons)

@ MyDog Is Incharge:
I was sure this discussion was about using these cameras as a landscape camera?
As such, Sony rates higher than the Nikon (as I already stated).

What's funny about this whole discussion is that @whitelens is so desperate to protect his precious Sony from actually being ranked lower than another brand.

All of those rankings cited...whether it be the DPR scores, DXO, etc...really don't show much of an advantage for either camera in the technical specs department. Really any differences are negligible here.

What does make a difference to each user is which camera has the best ergonomics and handling for them, along with other user friendly features, like the time lapse feature showing you the composited movie. Here I believe that Nikon has a clear edge.

It would also appear that Nikon has an edge in terms of build quality.

So in the areas that really matter, user experience and durability, the Nikon wins.

In this case we are talking about an article where the Nikon wins. That we can all agree upon.
And this site agrees with the video.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-for-landscapes
Two solid arguments that the Nikon is the best today.

@whitelens: you wrote "They rate the Sony for LANDSCAPE at 14.8 and the Nikon at 14.7.
I hope you guys understand that a 14.7 rating is not as good as a 14.8 rating?"

Tell me what practical difference there is between the 14.7 and 14.8 rating? Your comment is almost a self parody.

The DPR score, as others have noted, is influenced by the state of the camera market at the time, and is wholly arbitrary. Because these cameras were released at different times means you can't really compare the scores. The fact that there is a number attached does not make it scientific in any way.

So really you have nothing. But you have rushed in to try to defend Sony. I agree that Sony does not need your efforts. But you offer it up for them regardless.

It's like saying: "Lens A is SOOOOOO much more affordable @ $147 than Lens B at $148" , lol

@whitelens: you wrote "You have to ask DXO why they bother do give such negligible differences."

So I'm glad you agree that the differences are negligible. So why do you cite that as some sort of proof that the Sony is better? Why even mention it?

That's my whole point. You bring up meaningless data to try to prove the Sony to be superior. Why bother? Why care so much?

keep doing those whiteLines

sure, in an alternative universe :-)

A quick look at Amazon best sellers shows nr1 is Sony A7iii, and 4 out of top 10 ML cameras are Sony. The Z7ii is the first Nikon camera to show up, at nr23, and after the old A7r4.
And as you know in the BCN sales ranking the Nikon ML doesnt even show up because they are so small, even smaller than the nisch players.

Wow, Ying Yon is right, Canon has 2 of the 3, 3 of the top 5, and 6 of the top 11 cameras on Amazon right now. The #1 camera is a Canon.
Canon dominates BCN with 6 of the top 9 cameras too.
At B&H the best selling camera is the R5 followed by the R6.

So according to him, the R5 is the best camera for landscapes because it is the best selling high resolution camera.
Or we can listen to Chris and Jordan.

@ MyDog Is Incharge - the fact remains that Z-mount is unpopular = not wanted by most. And the newest Z7ii is not selling so well. Its just a fact.

Regarding your Canon nr1 ML comment, its a pitty Canons best seller M-mount is a dead end, isnt it?

Unfortunatley, considering the amount of Canon DSLR users it is a downright failure the RF mount hasn't sold more cameras than it has.

Regarding your R5 comment, I beleive R5 is very usable for landscape photography, but somewhat worse on image quality than Z7ii for that niche. But R5 is a more broadly usable camera than Z7ii, thanks to better AF.

I agree with you Canon is #1. Look at B&H best sellers. Look at Amazon. Look at BCN. You proved Canon is #1 by your standards,

I love the guys saying "oh this can't be true because my camera is more popular on Amazon." Boo-hoo. If you believe sales figures are a direct corollary to quality I guess that makes a Chevy Corvette (21,000 sold in 2020) a better vehicle than a Porsche 911 (8,800 sold for same year) (even though both are great vehicles); a McDonald's Cheeseburger (billions sold) better than [insert name of your favorite cheeseburger joint] (thousands sold?). You have no idea how many of the sales were to people who wanted a general use camera versus landscape camera (and Sony is still a fine landscape camera so calm down) or bought a camera and stuck it in the closet to use three times a year, versus those who use it continuously. Sales figures are not correlative to the single use proposition in this video. Don't be snowflakes.

@ RamD - a Porcshe 911 sells for a lot more than the Chevy Corvette, and rightfully so. For the cameras in the review it was just pointed out that the Z7ii is cheaper, and still sells much less. Q-E-D.

@YingYon, no, actually that's not correct.. The Chevy Corvette LT-2 (probably the most comparable to a Porsche 911) had a list price of $117,000. The Porsche Carrera 4 was $117,500. Porsche 91s1 come in prices lesser and greater and Corvettes come in mostly less expensive, but if you gave me a choice between the Corvette LT-2 and the Porsche Carrera 4, there would be no comparison, though I appreciate that others might prefer the Corvette.

Yeah, they just lack the intense marketing people seem to like. I find it strange that people like the heavy handed marketing of other companies (ex. Rolling out pre-release equipment to a bunch of video bloggers which generates a ton of previews which tend to gush and not really do deep reviews until the product is released). I like the actually comparisons especially by DPreview.

@Ying Yon
I think you're repeating yourself with these false claims. Extra risk of front heavy lenses? Whaat :D

Can you explain what kind of extra front heaviness will 2 mm adapter add to lens like Voigtländer 15mm f4.5 lens? I think you're inventing issues to where they don't really exists.

Also, sometimes there is no other options as Sony is still missing the Tilt-Shift options which are available in Canon (TS-E 17mm) and Nikon (PC-E 19mm) lineups.

"sometimes there is no other options as Sony is still missing the Tilt-Shift options which are available in Canon (TS-E 17mm) and Nikon (PC-E 19mm) lineups."

Sure, its just that so many more options are missing for Z-mount. So even more regular lenses will have to be adapted for Z system. Its a clear negative, much the same way it was for E-mount once upon a time.

LOL. @Ying Yon better not tell all of those Sony users out there using lenses with adpators that somehow this is a lesser and flawed way of using lenses.

It is truly funny that for years the Sony promoters extolled the value of using adapted lenses, but now all of a sudden it's the worst thing.

"photographers who feel they are on their final run"

@Ying yon - sorry, but that's just rude

Lack of (native) tilt-shift lenses is a flaw in Sony lens lineup. They must know that many people use adapted Canon or Nikon lenses when that type of equipment is needed.

I've been in discussions here where if someone brought up the tilt shift lenses of Canon/Nikon, the Sony fans would just say, well you can use those with an adapter on a Sony camera, and so it is no advantage to Canon/Nikon.

Now when it suits them, their argument has changed.

Its not like the Z7ii which can auto focus Z mount, F mount and E mount lenses accurately for landscape photography.

You can adapt lenses to the GFX cameras, even FF lenses.

Funny, the GF lenses are far superior, they are just expensive, big, heavy and slow with limited reach. But they are the best glass line in the world for sure. Best for product, portraits, landscapes .... not for action, birds, wildlife, sports....

GFX is an amazing system and certainly great for landscapes. There are enough lenses in the GF system for landscape photographers. Most landscape photographers use only one or a few lenses anyway. And has been mentioned GFX will take other lenses with adapters.

It's foolish to dismiss the GFX system. For a landscape photographer it is a dream.

I don't know why some people can't accept the fact that there is more than one system that can get the job done very well. For most it will come down to a few details that matter to them.

At nearly 2x the cost 5,999, I expect a medium format to perform well. That’s a weird comparison once you look at the price point and size/weight. Maybe GFX vs Sony A1 makes more sense. Also, I suspect the Z7ii and Sony still have better low light perf and AF. Just a guess from reviews.

@Greg how are the GFX lenses superior?

Trust me. GFX is a lot of money once you start down that path. But the path is getting smoother. The image fidelity is incredible. Try it. But it is a bit addicting and once you shoot it, it is hard to pick up your other gear.

"At nearly 2x the cost 5,999, I expect a medium format to perform well."

I think it's amazing to be able to get into medium format at that low of a price. I remember not long ago you had to go more like 5x or 10x the cost to get into MF.

Thanks to Fuji, for many it's not that much of a stretch budget wise to get into MF. And if photography is one of your passions, then why not? People spend a lot more on hobbies like golf, boating, cars, motorcycles, etc.

So cost is one factor but not the only one. For many the Fuji system will be worth it.

I heard what he said about the drawbacks of multishot and I agree that it has some serious limitations.

My point is that these cameras compete at a feature level, not at the level of image quality that receives such a large portion of this video even with shots from the dpreview image quality comparison tool. The IQ is just too similar.

I agree that the IQ is very similar. Even the feature sets are going to be roughly similar, esp since AF doesn't really matter that much for landscape photography.

To me the comparison comes down to which camera is the more user friendly. That to me is one reason why that Nikon advantage in time lapse photography become so magnified. Many landscapers love to do time lapse and the Nikon implementation is so superior. If I were only into landscapes, for that feature alone I would choose the Nikon. That would be the "split hair" that would tip the equation for me.

To me any feature, whether it be time lapse or multishot, that you cannot check in camera has very limited usefulness in real world use. I am shocked that with Sony one cannot shoot a time lapse and then watch the composited video in camera.

Yes I agree that for resolution the multishot feature is crucial, if you really need the highest resolution. If you use it daily, it is also very important how easy it is to use it and how the resulting photos are.
But the Sony way of doing it is very limited, you could almost say outdated (a PC is needed to get the final image) and certainly not user friendly. The results are also not great, as soon as a tiny bit of movement is involved.
In a Panasonic S1R or Leica SL2 with highres mode/multishot (187 MP) it is implemented in a much better way, more user friendly, much quicker and with better options. (which gives in the end better results).
So guess which camera is for me the best landscape camera ? It is neither the Sony nor the Nikon.

Agreed, other gear would probably be more important, like lenses, tripods, bags etc, you'd have to get there to begin with before even thinking of pictures, which is why drones are awesome.

MyDog is in charge how do you ignore the unbiased posts without ignoring your own?

I have no problem with people ignoring yours and my opinion here. I would pick the R5 over both.
Instead read the unbiased reviews and tests I and others posted. Watch the video Chris and Jordan posted. Maybe the myth that the A7Riv has great AF will finally get killed off. For things like Birds in Flight it is no better than an old X-T2 (this from an unbiased site that is very familiar with how to get the best AF from Sony cameras).
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

MyDog Is Incharge: So comparing the Nikon Z with a 200 mm f:2.8 lens and 1.4x teleconverter with other cameras with at least twice as long focal length & much slower aperture, also with 1.4x converter "proves" the Z autofocus better.

We could also discusss AF settings, and how difficult it might be to "repeat" a test with wild birds and pictures taken on diffrent days.

Well, well ...

well, well,,,
If you read, the person testing who is primarily a Sony shooter, said he achieved better results than the A7Riv using the Z7 with old firmware and a 3rd party adapted 150-600mm lens.
Older model
older firmware
3rd party adapted lens
same focal length and aperture
And the Z7 still beat the A7Riv
lol!!!!! 😁

The reviewer, who has great experience with Sony, proved the A7Riv is not a good focusing camera compared to other recent cameras.

Another thing he proved is adapted F lenses work as well or better on Z mount than Sony native lenses on an A7Riv.

@ MyDog Is Incharge: So this should wipe out more than the differences between a bright 70-200 mm zoom lens and a more than twice as long, slow zoom lens.

Well, well. Not so in my world.

Just ignore the biased posts. Especially the posts from biased posters that just happened to show up out of nowhere (last month in this case) with very strong opinions.

"Some like to mention lens selection, but Nikon Z cameras work well with E mount lenses, and focus though not the fastest is very accurate. "

Why would anyone specifically buy an E mount lens to use on a Z mount camera? It's a crazy idea and so not a plus for Z mount.

Yeah. All of those incessant posts about how the EF lens selection is the best in the world and completely ignoring all of those are adaptable to either. Again, cherry picking facts.

Oh and really on the FE mount practically any lens you can possibly want for landscapes is already available from any number of manufacturers. No adapter needed.

Mike is right, ignore the biased brand fan posters here. Unbiased people say the Z7ii is better.

We have the unbiased video as well as the mirrorlesscomparison article showing the Z7ii is better. Especially for AF. We have the unbiased article (though written by a Sony shooter) who found the older Z7 was a little better than the A7Riv even though the Z7 used old firmware and an adapted 3rd party lens. Then when he updated the firmware the Z7 was significantly better than the A7Riv.
If you look at the facts and ignore brand fans you see its not the the A7 is a great camera for BIF, its that the A7Riv is lousy. It has the worst AF of any Sony camera test and is as bad as the X-T2. So ignore the biased posters false claims. Look at the facts.

I agree. I consider I’m merely borrowing the Canon 200/2.0 I own from the guy I’m going to sell it to someday.

For pixel shift to be a viable feature, and not just a novelty that checks off a box in the spec sheet, it has to meet 2 requirements:

1) The image has to be composited in the camera. This is for the same reasons given by Jordan as to why having the camera composite the time lapse video is important: so you can check your work out in the field. That's one of the biggest advantages of digital. Also, it saves one some time if one doesn't want to composite the image using software on a computer. And let's say I want to pop out the card and use a dongle to connect to my iPhone or iPad out in the field, and transfer the image into my device, I can easily do so.

2) The camera and software have to correct for tiny amounts of motion, whether it be in the subject or in hand holding.

Right now only the Panasonic cameras do that to the best of my knowledge. Kudos to Panasonic. If they can do it there is no reason why others cannot.

These are made up arguments by TRU. The reality is most people are going to bring their best landscape shots back to a raw editor anyhow. You all whine about 0.5 stops of DR and then say you’re gonna use the in camera Multishot JPG?

Are you suggesting that a camera should produce a 200MP JPG in camera so someone can zoom in 1:1 on their 3” screen to pixel peep and give up multiple stops of DR vs shooting RAW?

Another disingenuous fabricated argument by TRU because he doesn’t like Sony and has less and less valid things to complain about.

(Just look at his ramblings about the improved menus on new Sony’s…. He has to dwell on the previous menus to try to justify he was right when he whined the old menus sucked.)

@ MikeRan - that a very correct analyses of TRU:s argumentation here!

Thank you. It’s just logic really.

Mike, do you realize that the Panasonic cameras composite the multishot RAW image as well as the jpeg one?

Also, another problem with your argument is that you forget the utility of checking your multishot in the field.

Just like with regular photographs, when you check your work on your camera you are really seeing the jpeg. But that still allows you to check the image, see if you need to reshoot, and then edit the RAW back home or office on your computer. That's a huge advantage for the Panasonic. With the Sony you take the image and hope for the best. If it has a problem when you get back to your PC, oh well, too bad.

Also the Sony multishot does not allow for even the slightest movement in the subject or the hand if handholding. The Panasonic does.

Finally the Sony requires you to use somewhat clunky proprietary Sony software to composite. With the Panasonic you can edit the file in Adobe Lightroom, Capture One, or any supported software.

I read some reviews and the panasonic didn’t handle movement so well. I also read the composites are not raws. Perhaps I’m mistaken.

Do you shoot panasonic?

I’m not denying these would be nice features. I’m just denying your insinuation that such shortcomings make the feature useless like you want everyone to think.

You know. That Sony cameras are useless.

Mike, I never said the Sony cameras are useless...you know. better. In fact in many posts I have complimented Sony for various things.

But their multishot mode is pretty much useless to the vast majority of users.

Yes, I did try out the S1R, first at a conference, and then for about a week after that. It's a very nice camera. The only real drawback is that DFD AF, but that only impacts certain situations. But the Panasonic multishot mode is the real deal. Got some amazing shots of flowers with it.

In-camera processing is for the novice or the lazy photographers. For those going for quality and precision, post processing is the path to follow.

The drawback of the in camera processing is that it takes time to produce the combined file. On the field this is not good as you'd rather want to shoot as fast as possible, during sunset for example.

IMO the 16X mode in Sony is overkill, but 4X mode is more practical. It reduces moire and also noise which is bit excessive with the A7RIV.

Come on Darkshift you are being too practical.
<\sarcasm>

A minute?!? And that’s not a long time?!? 😂😂😂 (sorry Kandid)
Can the process be interrupted if you want to get another shot?

Sometimes the light changes very quickly.
Tick tock tick tock.
With minutes of processing you may only get a few shots.

You said you tried the S1R. Was that in a camera store?

I agree the aligning element of the multi shot NR is important and perhaps Sony can implement improvements in software to improve that.

But the value you put on in camera combining is a little extreme.

I guess you never shot a sunset with quickly changing light. Or never shot on a really nice blue hour evening. If so you would know those optimal moments sometimes last only a few minutes. That’s 3-4 shots maybe with the S1R you used in a camera store once but don’t own.

“In fact in many posts I have complimented Sony for various things.”

Hahaha, nice joke! Thanks for the good laugh. I clearly remember your compliments for A7 III, A7c, A7S III, A9 II, A1 etc.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

If it were me i would just do 4 or 5 sets of shot in about 15 seconds if I was using a crappy tripod. You would still be waiting 10 minutes later.

And you say if the light is changing fast you couldn’t use multishot on a Sony? A burst of shots takes a few seconds, no? You could easily take a bunch of attempts within 30 seconds. All while you’re still waiting for your panasonic to show you a 180MP file you have to pixel peep for artifacts because the image didn’t go together properly.

How long have you used an A7RIV?
How long have you used a Nikon Z7II?

Those are the cameras being discussed in this article.

So what is your point? Both vendors have excellent lenses for landscape photography. Who *needs* even more? And who *needs* third party lenses?

Speaking of poor lens selections, yes, that could be a contender if you don't mind spending twice as much for lenses with zero attendant advantage in sensor. But sure, if you have more money than sense, Fuji's small-MF could work.

Actually, Fuji GFX series lenses are quite reasonable, esp for their quality...they range from around $1000 to a high of around $3000. That's right in line with Sony pricing for their quality lenses.

Their Fuji GFX series bodies are reasonably priced too for what they deliver. Their newest GFX 100s retails for about $6000, and it was introduced at about the same time as the Sony A1 at $6500. Obviously they are different types of cameras but the point is that the Fuji is not priced into the tens of thousands of dollars like some other medium format cameras.

The Fuji MF sensor is 70% larger than a full frame sensor; that's not a trivial advantage in terms of light gathering capability.

Believe what you want, but the Fuji GFX series is the real deal.

Let's put that to the test -

Reasonable landscape kit from UWA to telephoto zooms, since that's this video (all USD) -
45-100 f4 = $2300, that's 38-80 mm-e and f3.2-e, which is less flexible than the S 24-70 f/2.8 (slower too) that's $2300 so same price but I'd much rather have significantly wider than slightly longer, but okay

32-64 f4 = $2300, except Fuji can't get enough people to pay that so it's massively discounted at $1800 right now, and it is 26 mm-e to 51 mm-e - and its range is completely covered by the S 24-70 from above

100-200 f4 = $2000, which is 80-160 mm-e, which may be okay but 160-200 mm-e matters to me so let's throw on the 1.4x TC which is another $850 (!!), versus the S 70-200 $2600.

You want UWA? Zero zoom options which is unfortunate but apparently the 23 mm f4 is good but man, at $2626 (interesting price), that's a huge cost for a 18 mm-e f/3.2, versus the apparently amazing S 14-24 for $2400.

So let's go with three lenses, that leaves out the handy for many things but perhaps not landscape middle of the range - the 23, the 32-64, and 100-200 + TC.

You're at $7776 but less flexible than all zooms. Sure, good lenses, but they better be for that price and what you're giving up in flexibility.

Versus the S family for full 14-200 coverage for a total of $7300.

Then there are the primes that are shockingly priced versus FF equivalents but I'm bored with this now.

Fuji clearly has a market for their MF-lite system and good for them. APS-C + MF-lite is a great pairing and I'm glad they're able to support both, a good lesson for Canon and Nikon.

So what have you proven? That the Fuji MF lens combo you cited is about $500 more than the FF one? That's not an outrageous price difference. And many landscapers may choose to use only one or two lenses, not the three that you cited.

But it's not a matter of who is rock bottom in pricing. That proves nothing. At the price points we aren't talking about budget shoppers here.

My point isn't that the Fuji system is lower priced, but that it's in the same ballpark and not outrageously priced.

You wrote "But sure, if you have more money than sense, Fuji's small-MF could work." My counterpoint is that buying into Fuji MF is a viable and sensible option, contrary to your claim.

I demonstrated that you spend more for a less flexible system. That is hardly sensible.

I've learned a long time ago in these discussions not to answer questions about myself/mygear/my gear use habits, because the questioner usually doesn't ask them in good faith but rather to then try to further criticize me.

I will respond by noting this. There has been general and widespread criticism of the Sony menu system for years. I will let anyone who wants to research that. Even Sony fans, including some pro Sony YouTubers, have consistently complained about the menu system.

How do we know the menu system is bad? Well, Sony did an entire redesign. That is their acknowledgement that the menu system was really a problem for their users. It is rare for any camera company to so thoroughly redesign their menu system because that can upset users who are already used to one type of design. That only happens if the current menu's are really bad.

The new Sony menu system is better, but still behind Canon and Nikon. But at least it's better.

@mydog How is that related to the question?

TRU regularly makes ridiculous statements not based in any kind of reality. The VCR one was just one such example.

@TRU

So you based your opinion on other's experience? So any group of people criticizing certain thing in a camera it will be a disadvantage or a bad thing? How many users are upset?

Also, you are saying that because Sony changed the system so this backs up your claim? Are Canon and Nikon are using the same menu system since 10 years ago without any refinements?

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1-d-x-iii-review/10
"Menus are increasingly complex, could benefit from more organization"

Here you go, an experts describing Canon's menu system as increasingly complex! Why didn't you talk about it? Ever.

Yeah, I don't really get that part. You don't need to dive into the menu system every time you look for settings especially after you have assigned all the buttons to their respective functions. The only time I get into menu is if you want to change file formats, resolution, face registration, zebra and focus peaking sensitivity and button assignments. What perhaps make the menu system perceived as confusing is because of its redundancy. You find the same setting in the menu where it is accessible with a button instead.

haha...so now the argument is that the menu system doesn't really matter because people rarely use it. I guess Sony disagrees because they sure invested a lot of money into a complete redesign of their menu system and use it as a selling point.

I see a common argument: if some feature is not in Sony's favor, just try to trivialize its importance. If a feature is in Sony's favor, then play it up to make it the most important thing ever.

@TRU

I am not trying anything, I can say whatever system is bad based on my preferences or experience. I am asking about the reasons that lead you to consider it as a bad menu system? Whatever camera I get, I spend ,y time learning and customizing it to my preferred settings without the need to use the menu again.

I rarely use the menu system because I don't need it, and when I need it I don't have any issues as I spend less than a minute doing whatever I want to do from formatting the cards or selecting a specific option. No one I know (and I know many) uses the menu more often, from Canon, Sony, Nikon or other systems. So you are complaining about something and refusing the give valid reasons.

Still didn't answer me, why didn't you talk about Canon's bad menu system?
How often do you use the menu and for what?

TRU They invested a ton of money in a new processor.
They had to rewrite the software anyway. You consider continuous improvement as a sign of past abject failure.

You are an anti-Sony troll that likely doesn’t even own an interchangeable lens camera.

@TRU

Trying to avoid answering the questions again. I will repeat then.

why didn't you talk about Canon's bad menu system?
How often do you use the menu and for what?
I am asking about the reasons that lead you to consider it as a bad menu system?

@Mike

He is very smart at avoiding answering the questions like he didn't see them. I will admit that he is a very capable person in avoiding legit arguments and questions.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1-d-x-iii-review/10
"Menus are increasingly complex, could benefit from more organization"

I asked him to comment on this months ago and he still trying to avoid it because it is Canon's menu system.

Yeah and he says he doesn’t answer questions because they’re not in good faith. Like all of his comments.

I still haven't heard a good explanation on why Sony invested so much in a completely redesigned menu system if the prior one did not have a lot of flaws as acknowledged by their user base. And it was not a tweak or evolution, but a complete redesign.

As to the Canon menu system, it is excellent, probably the best on the market. You can't compare minor flaws that some find to the major ones inherent in the basic structure of the Sony menus. That is a classic misdirection argument.

We can debate this ad infinitum, but suffice to say that Sony agreed with me as proven by their actions and money spent.

Agree! And the A7ii wins that too.
Mirrorlesscomparison.com does a demading AF test with Birds in Flight. The Z7 fininished near the top (Z7ii should be better) while the A7Riv was at the bottom below cameras like the X-T3. It had about the same score as the X-T2.

I value IBIS and build quality too, and along with AF, unbiased test showed the Nikon scored well above the A7Riv.
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

Obviously that first sentence should have been Z7ii wins that too.
Sony makes some cameras with great AF (A1, A9ii, A6400), but the A7Riv isn't one of them. We have unbiased tests proving it.

Both cameras offer a lot, but where the Z series shines over the A7R4 is definitely in build quality and usability. No contest. The Sony camera is like working an old VCR. Really not fun at all, and it uses the old Sony menu system, one so bad that Sony was forced to make dramatic changes.

I had forgotten the Z cameras can use E mount lenses with perfect focus accuracy. I'd rather use F or Z lenses, but no one can say another system has an advantage with lenses when it comes to landscape photography.
I can't think of any reason to pick the A7Riv over the Z7ii. The Z7ii wins in all the ways mentioned in the video, has better build quality and sealing, is easier to use, has better video, faster AF (see my link above with unbiased tests), and much more.

IBIS is affected by focal length. You must usually set that value manually when you use a "foreign" lens. That's a PITA after a while.

Totally agree Mangnar. Same can be said for many things in photography. The editing and final output is as important as the gear used

@ JT26: Skills are often underrated. 😉

The most important for amateurs is to enjoy using their/our gear, no matter what brand they/we use. Gear snobbery isn't helpful at all.

Funny seeing the Sony guys do damage control. When they lose some tech comparison, all of a sudden the gear doesn't matter, some specs don't matter, other factors are more important, adapters are a pain to use, etc.

Now I do agree that these sort of comparisons are more for fun, and that gear is not the most important element in getting a photo, but that's not the tune the Sony promoters have been singing for the last few years, until Nikon and Canon caught up and in some cases surpassed in mirrorless.

@ Thoughts R Us: Cameras and lenses are what they are. Buy the highest end models, and some traditional brands are still way behind the newcomer. Buy something in the same price range, and brand does not matter, unless there are some specific features that are very important for your photography.

For most of us, the most important feature is which native mount lenses that will fit perfectly into the large hole in front of the camera.

@Magnar: "For most of us, the most important feature is which native mount lenses that will fit perfectly into the large hole in front of the camera."

LOL. For years Sony promoters argued the exact opposite. When it was Sony MILC against Canon/Nikon DSLRs, the argument was for adapters and that native lenses didn't matter so much. Of course even today many use Sony ILC's with adapted lenses.

And with landscape photography, any hassle of using an adapter becomes even less of a factor, as does any trade off in AF performance. So it's interesting to see a change in tune.

So please don't tell the many Sony users out there using adapted lenses that there is a problem with that now.

It should also be noted Z mount was design to use over 60 F mount lenses natively, as well as many Sigma F mount lenses. But for landscape photography any lens that fits on the camera will do. AF speed isn't a factor. So E mount lenses work well on Z mount too.

But lets review here. Nikon Z cameras work with both Z mount and E mount lenses as well as over 100 F mount (Nikon and Sigma) lenses.
The Z7ii focuses faster and more accurately than the A7Riv according to mirrorlesscomparison.com who test both cameras with birds in flight. That won't matter for landscapes, but Magnar brought it up.
We also know from Lens Rentals the Z7ii is built better.
We know from various tests (I posted a link to one) the Z7ii IBIS is better.

So going by all the unbiased tests and this review, the Z7ii is a better camera. Forget the opinions of random Internet people. Watch the video. Read the unbiased reviews.

Yes, I have used many F mount lenses and they really work fine. ONe thing that is rarely mentioned: Matt Granger had this test where he used a lot of F mount lenses and some were nice, others not.

This CHANGED with the firmware updates. I had some issues with firmware 1.0 with my 80-400 and with the 105 macro which was hunting like crazy. Also, some issues with the 70-200 vrii. With the 3.2 firmware on the Z7, these work just as they worked on dslrs before.

So, yes, the native lens lineup, Sony wins. But with adapter, really not an issue. Even though the Sony does have slightly better autofocus performance for certain situations. (Especially when you use the dynamic AF setting for a non-dynamic portrait...)

@ Thoughts R Us: Adapters are ok until there is a decent lens line-up. So no wonder this was used as an argument in the early days of mirrorless. But times have changed. When the lenses are there, the vast majority prefer native mount lenses with full functions over adapted lenses. Then adapters are used mostly for specialized equipment.

@Magnar: I agree that it's easier to use native lenses than ones with adapters. But funny how the Sony promoters never pointed this out when discussing adapting lenses onto Sony mirrorless before. Also, for purposes of landscape photography, which is the point of this video, the hassle of adapters is probably the least of all types of photography.

I would argue thought that many Sony users are still using adapted lenses, because then they don't incur the cost of buying new native lenses.

I would also argue that using Nikon adapted DSLR lenses via FTZ incurs less penalty in terms of performance. In some cases the lenses work better on the Nikon mirrorless bodies than on the DSLR.

So really any accounting of lenses for any mirrorless body does need to taken into account adapted lenses.

Moving animals and BIF are an entirely different type of photography than landscape.

But the Nikon system is very good at that too, and probably better than the A7R4. The A7R4 has not had the greatest track record for its AF.

I am using F-mount lenses just fine on the adapter and find this a very fine argument. When someone says "but there is no long zoom" i can always say "I have an 80-400 that works fine, soon there will be a sharper one."

The adapter really isn't any kind of problem...

Sony has lenses that other systems don't have.
What makes Sony lenses so unique is the small size in combination with the fastest and most silent AF motors, such as:
- 14mm f/1.8
- 20mm f/1.8
- 24mm f/1.4
- 24mm f/2.8
- 35mm f/1.4
- 40mm f/2.5
- 50mm f/2.5
- 50mm f/1.2
- 85mm f/1.8
- 135mm f/1.8
Lenses I mentioned above have no equal in other brands (canon, nikon, panasonic) because of the AF motors, small size and video shooting capabilities.

Best lens systems:
Canon EF/RF
Nikon F/Z
Micro Four Thirds
Sony E mount

Also you might not want to mention video when talking about the A7Riv, since it has such poor video specs.

I disagree. The Sony 70-200 f/4 is very sharp, and much easier to carry than the f/2.8 version (and half the cost). Likewise, the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4. I have no incentive to "upgrade" these lenses. The 24-70 was another matter. The original Sony/Zeiss f/4 version left much to be desired. The newer Sony 24-105 f/4 is better, but still not up to the Sony f/2.8. This is the "workhorse" lens for many, and IMO worth the expense of the GM version.

All take screw-in filters, 77 mm for the zooms, and 52 mm to 95 mm for others in my menagerie.

A landscape photographer can get by with three lenses if they are zooms. All you need as a good shoulder strap (and shoulder), and avoid shooting in the direction of the sun.

The canon RF system is plagued with STM and poor focusing lenses that are noisy and not sealed. That disqualifies the RF system for any outdoor use or video use.

The Z mount lenses didn't keep their promise of "big mount = better lenses". The nikon Z 50 f/1.2 reviews all mentioned it performed noticeably worse than Canon and Sony . Also no 3rd party option.

FV: practically everything you wrote about Canon RF lenses is wrong. The focusing is stellar, almost all of the lenses and certainly all L lenses are weather sealed. Many RF lenses are USM and not STM.

Funny also how in spite of what you claim, the Canon RF system is being used plenty for outdoor and video use.

Nikon Z lenses are also great. You show your bias when you dismiss wonderful lenses by brands other than Sony like they are junk, when in reality they are fantastic.

All 3 systems, Canon, Nikon and Sony offer plenty of great lens options for just about everyone. And it will it only get better over time.

Because I've used the Canon R6 with RF 85 f2 and RF 35 f1.8 STM for more than 6 months daily and ended up switching to Sony.

My opinion is based on my user experience.
Canon STM lenses are noisy, slow to focus, and not sealed. That's a fact.

Hi Ed,

I owned the 70-200 4 and the 16-354 too and both were decent. But not close to the performance of the 14/30 and 24/70 from Nikon. These really are so good that I don’t really see any difference via the GFX lenses I used before.

That being said the F4’s that Sony have are perfectly good, just noticeably less so than the F2.8s. Not that you’d ever care unless comparing side by side.

Most RF lenses are L series with weather sealing and USM, not STM. So nice to cherry pick.

I've used the R and R5 with several RF lenses and no problem, even using them in a variety of outdoor situations including rain and heat.

Look at all of the photos and videos online taken with RF lenses outside...that disqualifies your original statement.

Most Sony cameras through the years are not properly weather sealed. Only the more recent Sony lenses offer high quality. Sony has gotten better, but generally still is lowest on the build quality ranking.

Yeah let's just ignore the RF STM lenses:
- 35
- 50
- 85
- 24-105
- 24-240
- 600
- 800

"The canon RF system is plagued with STM and poor focusing lenses that are noisy and not sealed. That disqualifies the RF system for any outdoor use or video use."

Very misleading statements. You've used two non-L lenses that you didn't find satisfactory, and based on that you dismiss the whole system? Is the Canon EF system also disqualified from outdoor use then, since the cheaper EF lenses aren't sealed either?

"The Z mount lenses didn't keep their promise of 'big mount = better lenses'. The nikon Z 50 f/1.2 reviews all mentioned it performed noticeably worse than Canon and Sony."

Nikon was primarily comparing the Z-mount with their own F-mount, and most Z lenses released so far are indeed optically better than the equivalent F-mount lenses. Comparisons against competitors are of course interesting, but that's not what Nikon's claims were about.

Funny Valentine intentionally misleads. Would you like me to list the Canon USM lenses? We can play that game too.

Would you like me to list the Sony lenses that lack weather sealing, or are slow to focus, or make noise? We can play that game too.

BTW, let's talk about how Sony lags behind both Canon RF and Nikon Z in terms of a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8...both bread and butter lenses, staples in most photographer's bags. The Sony offers the worst of the lot for both of those lenses.

So Mr. Funny only has experience with the 2 macro lenses and thinks that means all lenses have slow AF? That is more a problem with him and his lack of understanding about lenses . Macros are always slower than sports/action lenses.
I have the 85mm macro he mentioned and the 24-240. I had the 24-105 STM too. The macro is obviously slower and the 24-105 was lightening fast and silent. Its as fast as my old Sony FE 70-200/4 easily.
But yeah, if you don't understand that macro are usually slower, your not going to have a credible opinion,

Good point about the macro lenses. The Sony FE 90 Macro is a very sharp high quality lens, but is also a slow to focus lens. But remember, Mr. Funny has an obvious agenda. I believe he knows the score but wants to slant the facts to present an argument.

I invite all of you to try a modern single or dual voice coil AF motor and you will understand how behind STM is.

@ Thoughts R Us: I think Mr. funny is disqualifying himself from the discussion with his overly exaggerated claim about noise and lack of weather sealing for RF lenses: "That disqualifies the RF system for any outdoor use or video use."

there are a lot of *highly realistic expectations" not met by any of the camera makers and any of their boring, all the same "lemming run" hybrid cameras.

my expectation would be a decent, compact and affordable "pure stills" mirrorfree ILC camera with excellent > 45 MP FF sensor, state of the art EVF, and no video capture at all.

You probably have to go to medium format to find a camera with absolutely no video. However, the Sigma fp cameras have a video/still switch, which when set to Still cuts out all the video options from menus and controls, so you have the next best thing to a camera with no video at all.

The fpL has the same sensor as the A7R4 and seems to be particularly aimed at landscape photography. It is cheaper than the two cameras in this video, even including the optional EVF.

Don Cox

Kiril, You mean the other way round right? ISO 100 is 2/3 worse than ISO 64.(other things equal)

I own Canon, so, just logic checking your post.

Atleast I can say that my A7RIV has more noise in even surfaces and worse quality in shadow areas vs. the Z7II with similar exposure (same EV value). What it means in practise that the Nikon raw files are easier to edit.

No on Sony it does not work like this. I think it also does not work like this on Canon. There is native iso which is best e.g. ISO 100 on most Sony cameras. Anything below or above that is worse. On many Sony camera there is second native iso done in analogue way e.g. iso 640 on A7r3. iso 640 is better than iso 400 for example and better than 800 too. iso 640 is worse than iso 100

So iso 50 and iso 64, iso 80 are there to give you slower shutter speed e.g. if you shoot portrait in bright light. However they are bad for landscape.

Kiril, The fake ISO 50s you are correct but the Nikon has a real ISO 64.

So, it is the other way round as I said. ISO 64 is better IQ than Sony ISO 100. Especially for landscape.

According to Photons to photos measurements, A7RIV at ISO 100 has the same (or slightly better) PDR as Z7II at 64. There are no meaningful dynamic range differences.

Looking at photonstophotos.com scientific comparison of dynamic range vs. ISO, it's clear that the dynamic range of the Nikon and the Sony are equivalent, in spite of the Nikon's lower ISO availability. DR of Nikon at ISO 64 is measured at 12.6 and DR of Sony at ISO 100 is measured at 13.62, so no difference. At higher ISOs Sony has a slight DR advantage over the Nikon.

Chris obviously only looked at ISO numbers, not at any actual test results.

Sorry, CarlitosM, I didn't see your post before I wrote this.

@CarlitosM

I am a bit suspicious of the Photonstophotos measurements, and the way of using normalized image sizes for producing the results (same with dxomark in 'print' mode). I've both cameras and clearly the Nikon has better IQ with the same exposure at 100% resolution. Less noise, less banding and better quality in shadows with the Z7II. The same effect can be easily seen at the DPR exposure latitude comparison tool.

Personally I'm not interested in results at 8-10MP downscaled resolution, because it doesn't tell how the images actually look at full resolution. I trust my own eye to draw the conclusions.

Native lenses are more convenient and auto focus is faster than manual, but for landscape work. especially when using a tripod, the advantages are not significant.

Don Cox

All Sony FE lenses can be used on Z mount cameras with adapters.

Yes, the adapters are for Nikon users to start to buy into the Sony system. That makes their transition easier when they finally give up on Nikon (or Nikon goes bust) and switch to Sony.

Broadcast and photography is 2 different things you know

Sony partner with quite few photographers... So that is plain wrong as a statement.

You can actually follow their "ambassadors" in the area of photography you are interested and at least see what are the latest gear ideas and how to apply them.

That's how I want cameras to be made, by engineers, not by photographers who have no engineering background. Let the real photographers show what the cameras are capable of.

Cameras should be designed by an interplay of professional designers, engineers, and with input from real world photographers. I would imagine this is how it works with all companies.

With their consumer products, Sony has always stressed high tech but seemed to not understand usability as well or didn't want to. They do keep getting better with their cameras, but still lack the understanding and refinement of user experience that Nikon and Canon have.

Thank you PIOT,

I was just going to sell my R5 for the Z7II.

Nikon builds quality equipment. They may not always be first to do something but when they do it, they do it right.

There are many landscape photographers who hike to difficult to get to locations and who do not like to carry tripods. More importantly if your IBIS is good enough there is no need for tripods. I've seen 5-10 second exposures from Olympus cameras that were hand held.
But there also many who use focus bracketing with tripods. Nikon has a good number of lenses that do no focus breath too. Most Sony lenses focus breath, but since Sony cameras don't have focus bracketing it does not matter,

Were the 5-10 second handheld exposures worth a darn? Please provide a link to a verified handheld 5-10 second exposure.

You need to learn about Google. 😁
It will show you all kinds of examples like this one
https://petapixel.com/2017/05/23/gorgeous-10-second-milky-way-photo-shot-hand-held/
This has little to do with Nikon being so much better with their IBIS, but oh well.

I consider myself a landscape photographer and when I'm on a "hike" with hikers, I often do not take a tripod. But when the purpose of the hike is to photograph landscapes I will always take a tripod, no matter how long the hike or how difficult the ascent.

"Nikon builds quality equipment. " Where were you when I was having all kinds of issues with my D600 and D750 back then? See my review on the D750.

joed700: revealing that you have to go back to cameras from 2012 and 2014 to find flaws in Nikon equipment.

Of course my phrase "Nikon builds quality equipment" doesn't mean that they have been perfect. No brand is perfect. We can find plenty of quality flaws in Sony equipment through the years, for instance.

But overall, yes, the track record of Nikon in building quality equipment is excellent.

“Nikon builds quality equipment. They may not always be first to do something but when they do it, they do it right.”

I hope by the time the Z9 actually comes out that they have figured out mirrorless autofocus.

Thoughts R US - Do you or have you ever own any Nikon equipment?

TRU’s gear preferences are top secret. If he told you he would have to kill you.

He judges everyone else on their gear choices but doesn’t want to be judged himself.

I suspect he only uses a cell phone.

That test does not really show what you claim.

It would be cool to have a mule, though :)

Maybe not rubbish, but ill-considered.

@ MikeRan, Funny that when you accusing of other being subjective, your claims seems to be intentionally misleading.

You said "Z7 prefocused shutter lag is 3 times more than A7riv." But this statement only applies to shutter lag in electronic front-curtain shutter mode. In fully mechanical shutter mode, Z7's shutter lag is actually less than A7riv (65ms vs. 93ms). Z7 also has way less shutter lag in manual focus mode (66ms v.s 124ms).

What you are doing here is a perfect example of spreading misinformation. You definitely read through all measurements made by Imaging-resource.com, but you choose to select the only one circumstance where A7riv does better, ignoring all the rest where A7riv does worse, and falsely use the former to make claims about the whole situation. This I call it fan-boyism at its terminal phase.

So, Sonys have been leading in lag time performance for a few generations already? Huh?

Don’t be silly. There is no point in using two mechanical curtains for usually stopped down landscape photography where you wouldn’t have high shutter speeds anyway. I really don’t know anyone that regularly leaves EFCS off always. So your comment is basically not relevant. Especially for landscape photography.

Performance summary from the same reviews:
Z7:
“Bottom line, the Z7's performance in the lab was generally good for its type. Startup and play to record times were about average for a mirrorless, but sluggish compared to most DSLRs. Autofocus speeds were good as was shutter lag, but again not as fast as most prosumer DSLRs.”

A7RIV:
“Bottom line, the Sony A7R IV generally offers very good performance for the class and resolution, with relatively quick startup speed, good AF speeds, low shutter lag, fast burst speeds and generous buffer depths, however buffer clearing can be slow, particularly with JPEG files.”

(Imaging Resource)

TomCodyPleasedToMeetYa, there is a lot of evidence to support what you said. Lens Rentals found Nikons are built better and sealed better (called them the best built mirrorless cameras). And Foto Magazin found Nikon IBIS is better.
https://nikonrumors.com/2021/07/22/nikon-z7ii-ibis-compared-with-other-cameras.aspx/#more-159371

Nikon knows how to create cameras with a high degree of usability and durability. That is part of their heritage.

Sony, OTOH, generally struggles in their consumer electronics with usability, ergonomics, and user experience. It's just been their blind spot for years, and not just with cameras. I don't really know why; they have examples from other companies like Nikon to learn from. And they certainly can hire in some good design experts.

Perhaps the biggest thing that Sony is guilty of with respect to UI is too many options for customization. It does take time to really optimize the setup for the way you shoot. But once you do it’s fantastic.

I like how much more customizable the Nikon is. You can customize time lapses a lot more, and you can customize focus stacking which the Sony doesn;t have at all. All these with easy to use menus.

I don’t know how customizable time lapses need to be.
But whatever.

In general it seems that all of the mirrorless cameras from Nikon, Sony (and Canon) are about as customizable as one can get (not talking only timelapses). But the Nikon definitely has easier to use menus, a better grip, etc.

The A7RIV does do timelapses, but if you watch the video, it doesn't do it as well as the Nikon Z7II. One of the advantages of the Nikon Z is that it composites the shots into the time lapse video in the camera. That's a big advantage so you can check your work in the field. Also the menu settings are more refined and the Nikon offers exposure smoothing.

So WRT timelapse, it's like a lot of other features: both Nikon and Sony do it, but Nikon does it with more refinement and attention to the details of what the user really needs and values.

Well yeah. You can take Nikon’s refinement when you do time lapses.
I’ll take Sony’s refinement when I use autofocus.

Do you shoot nikon?

Granted, Sony has better AF, but this is a comparison of using cameras for landscape shooting, and so the AF is not really an issue. All of this is noted in the video.

So for landscape photography, yes, the time lapse advantages of the Nikon will generally prove more important than the AF advantages of the Sony.

(Although many users report that the Nikon Z7 II and Nikon Z6 II do have improved AF that gets closer to the Sony's.)

TomCody’s observations really have nothing to do with landscape photography too. So I thought this was a general discussion about cameras.

Anyway I still know a lot of people that use autofocus for landscapes a lot more often than they do time lapses. Although I agree for stuff not moving Nikon autofocus is pretty good too. Ha.

Do you shoot Nikon?

Like shutter lag differences of milliseconds are jugular for landscapes?😂

@MikeRan

More annoyingly, the lag AFTER shooting is much longer with the Sony A7RIV, than with the Z7II. It takes practically forever to write buffer with larger raw images even when using faster card (both having a SDXC card). Playpack start and zoom takes much longer, so has to enable RAW+JPEG on Sony to make it slightly faster. Nikon is practically instant which makes it nicer to use.

Maybe the most annoying thing when shooting number of shots is that the Sony won't display the last image when initiating playpack, but some random image in the middle. Nikon will always show the last image which is much more logical for me.

We also don't know the shutter lag numbers for the Z7II which is different model compared to the Z7. Waiting for the imaging resource test results.

as someone with glasses, somehow I'm unable to the whole viewfinder of my z6.
the buttons around the mount are totally useless if you have small hands. my finders are to short to reach them because the grip is too deep. with the bigger dslrs and less deep grip I hadn't this problem. yes there are a lot of people smaller hands

Lenses differ by more than focal length and zoom range. I prefer manual focus lenses for landscapes, and Zeiss Loxia lenses fit the bill perfectly. Nikon steadfastly refuses to partner with 3rd party manufactures, which is one reason Sony now dominates the mirrorless market.

There are plenty of Zeiss manual focus lenses for F mount and they can be used on Z cameras with the FTZ adapter.

So if one doesn't care about autofocus anyway, then there are plenty of third party options for Nikon Z cams, not to mention all of that classic legacy F mount glass.

In fact, as someone else noted, FE mount lenses can be used on the Z system via adapters.

BTW, Sony does not "dominate" the mirrorless market. They are very strong, but do not have anywhere near a dominating market share.

I have several "classic" Nikon manual focus lenses, which share a drastic inverteted-tele design and not enough elements to fix the problems that entails. I used them on my Sony from the onset, but found their performance disappointing. There are sharper lenses than Loxia, but few are as sharp from corner to corner while remaining compact. I say that because Sony now has a bevy of prime lenses engineered to near perfection, but are large and heavy as a result.

Sony IL camera sales are greater Nikon and slightly less than Canon. If you consider only MILC's, Sony has a clear lead.

Any of the Zeiss or Voigtländer manual focus lenses can obviously be used on the Z mount cameras due to the shorter flange distance. I use my Voigtländers with the Tech-Art adapter.

I am not interested in sales numbers - I already know which advantages the Z7II has over my A7RIV.

Noone wants to use adaptors unless its the only choise availabe. Adaptors are a liabillity. Its no coinsidence Canon and Nikon are doing there best to qucikly fill out their ML lens system, its a clear liabillity and complication to have to rely on adapters for the photogaphy and movie work. Unfortunately for Nikon they have very few Z lenses, as is correctly pointed out in the video. It may be less critical if you 100% strictly only shoot landscape. But most photographers do some more than only one genre of stills photo.

agreed. Even if you 90% is a one trick pony landscape photographer, why lock yourself into such a limited eco system such as Z.

@Ying Yon

Wrong! Adapters not rocket sience and for landscape or architecture they work pretty well. Why wouldn't I use all the great glass I have regardless of camera body?

Adapters are not much of a liability when shooting landscape, and esp if using a tripod.

For those citing adapters as a liability, please don't tell that to all of those who use Sony cameras with adapted lenses from various brands.

The aforementioned Zeiss Loxia lenses will work on Nikon Z with adapters. Also if Zeiss is your thing, there are all sorts of great Zeiss Otus, Milvus, etc lenses for F mount that can be used on Z.

Realistically, most landscape photogs are going to find one or few favorite lenses to use. Most will easily find what one needs for landscape photography with either Nikon or Sony.

Since it was mentioned, one cannot even say that Sony has some "clear lead" in mirrorless camera sales. (Funny also how the person making that claim backed down from Sony "dominating the market.") Canon is close and may even be in the lead.

And the Sony 12-24 f/4G is a superior lens at less than half the size and weight, let alone being much cheaper. Even Sony's 12-24 f/2.8GM is lighter and smaller and even better than the G.

@TX1136, AF in the A7Riii is anything but rubbish, and is outdistanced by the Riv and Siii models. It is one thing to believe what you read from a reviewer who barely got past the box opening phase. It is another to actually experience the A7iii for a year or two before switching up.

The A9 had exceptionally fast AF, if you were in the right mode for the situation. That took a bit of experience to work through. The Riii and Riv AF work in nearly any mode, some slightly better than others.

Can you read! I said A7RII, not A7RIII. I own the A7RIII so I read nothing. I also own the A9, so don't lecture me about AF. Next time think before you have a rant.