Transition from F to Z (TFFTZ)

manhattanboy

Sony already did the Leica thing in mirrorless. Anyone remember Hasselblad? They can do it again if they choose to, but I doubt they see much ROI other than increased street cred.

Regarding shooting the A9, the buffer is so big that most of the time I have no problem shooting with a crappy uhs1 card, which are now dirt cheaper for Sandisk extreme pros. The buffer does take a long time to clear but this is a none issue for normal shooting as you can restart shooting even if the buffer is only partially cleared. You can’t access the menus, but normally I never do, especially with a wysiwyg viewfinder.

I like my Z7. Don’t regret buying it, but wish someone was a little more honest about the autofocus sucking. Granted my expectations were probably high given my A9 to compare it to, but still good reviewers should be honest.

Nikon still makes the best dslrs. I think what people are upset about is the same can’t be said of mirrorless cameras. It’s uncomfortable for a champion to not be the best!!!

History has suggested Nikon is a little slow, and where they should be full pedal to the metal getting out new lenses and better Z improvements, they are pedestrian which is unfortunate as their reputation is taking a beating. For example, how would you answer the following question: What DSLR camera has the best AF? What Full frame DSLR has the best image quality? Now ask yourself the same questions about mirrorless cameras.

PB_PM

mhedges said:

Man you never miss a chance to crap on this system do you?

I have been a long term Nikon users, but that doesn't mean I have to keep using them if they cannot make a truly competitive camera. I'd rather not switch, but Nikon has been making some very poor choices, from my point of view. Sorry for not agreeing with everything Nikon's marketing department says I should salivate over, and hand over my hard earned money without a second thought. As the old sayings go, "fools rush in", and "a fool is soon parted with his money." I happen to be in the wait and see camp. Maybe in 3-5 years, and likely only if my DSLR's stop working, I'll consider it, but until then I see no need to dive into a overpriced beta tester program.

BVS

manhattanboy said:

History has suggested Nikon is a little slow, and where they should be full pedal to the metal getting out new lenses and better Z improvements, they are pedestrian which is unfortunate as their reputation is taking a beating. For example, how would you answer the following question: What DSLR camera has the best AF? What Full frame DSLR has the best image quality? Now ask yourself the same questions about mirrorless cameras.

I'll take a stab at this. I haven't kept up with the L mount and M43 cameras though, so I'm going to restrict my answers to mostly Canon, Nikon, and Sony:

DSLR
Best Stills AF - D5
Best Stills IQ - D850
Best Video AF - 5DIV (maybe?)
Best Video IQ - D850 (maybe?)

Mirrorless
Best Stills AF - A9
Best Stills IQ - Fuji GFX
Best Video AF - Z 6/7, A7III/A7RIII, and Canon R are all pretty good I think
Best Video IQ - Z 6

Of course, there's other things that go into a camera too - lens lineup, pro support, ergonomics, weather sealing, viewfinder, etc. - but if all you care about is the best AF then Sony is the way to go at the moment. I'm sure Nikon and Canon will catch up quickly though. It's not their first rodeo, and they're not that far behind.

donaldejose

3 to 5 years before you will be purchasing new gear? Then likely nothing we are talking about now will be relevant to your decision at that time. In 3 to 5 years I expect the last Nikon DSLR will have been made and a pro Nikon mirrorless body will be out. Sony will have entirely different bodies out then also. Which system will be better in 3 to 5 years is unknowable at this time. Maybe it will even be Fuji medium format is a Dx size.

PB_PM

donaldejose said:

3 to 5 years before you will be purchasing new gear? Then likely nothing we are talking about now will be relevant to your decision at that time. In 3 to 5 years I expect the last Nikon DSLR will have been made and a pro Nikon mirrorless body will be out. Sony will have entirely different bodies out then also. Which system will be better in 3 to 5 years is unknowable at this time. Maybe it will even be Fuji medium format is a Dx size.

Why buy now? I still see no need to go mirrorless today, when I have perfectly good cameras now. Mirrorless offers nothing that I cannot do today at no additional cost.

mhedges

Well I can't fault anyone who's got a big FF F mount investment from taking a wait and see approach. That's a perfectly sensible thing to do. For me, all I had was DX and wanted to go FF, and felt it was worth the early adopter tax to just go ahead and jump in.

As I've said before, here and elsewhere, I think for a first attempt (Nikon 1 notwithstanding) these cameras are as good as one could reasonably expect. Better in some aspects - the inclusion of IBIS was a surprise, and the fact that they have extremely competitive (arguably best in class) video performance really came out of nowhere.

We are undergoing "lean" training at my work and there are a couple catchphrases that I think apply here - "Perfect is the enemy of the good" and "effectiveness before efficiency" - basically meaning that you have to start with "good" and then try to improve from there. If you insist on starting with "perfect" you will never actually produce anything.

I will say that Z7 was clearly overpriced at launch. Z6 too I guess, but not by nearly as much IMO. I can't speak to Z7 AF but I am pretty happy with the Z6 AF with the current firmware. I shot a kids soccer game on Saturday and it did extremely well. Here's an album of some of the keepers if anyone wants to take a look:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGN2qa1

mhedges

donaldejose said:

Maybe it will even be Fuji medium format is a Dx size.

Well I can't see that happening. I don't see MF ever challenging FF as an all-purpose type camera, not unless there is some kind of sea change in lens tech that allows for MF to have fast and long lenses similar to what we get in FF.

tc88

mhedges said:

I think for a first attempt (Nikon 1 notwithstanding) these cameras are as good as one could reasonably expect.

I wouldn't give them a pass on that. While I certainly understand why they did not want to release a mirrorless earlier, they got to be working on it behind the scene for years. If they were not, it's a bigger indictment of the management. So assuming they had been working on it for years, they got to have several internal iterations already, even though Z7/Z6 is the first public version. As such, Z7/Z6 should also be compared with the current versions of Sony, not the first version. After all, that's what consumers are going to compare. That's why I also don't think Nikon will be able to catch up easily. There is no indication that the engineering team can somehow be miraculously more productive than Sony and make up ground after the Z7/Z6 release if they hadn't made up the ground with Z7/Z6.

WestEndFoto

I really fail to see, besides AF, where the differences between Nikon and Sony, would influence a buying decision. And then only AF for a small minority of users.

I can’t think of one difference where the difference is not ephemeral, except the mount specs which favour Nikon and Canon in the long run.

Further, whatever difference you think Sony has over Nikon, Nikon has in spades over Canon. But you will never catch me telling a Canon user to abandon Canon in favour of Nikon, and certainly not Sony.

What is Sony putting in the koolaid that causes you to lose perspective and where are you buying it?

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

I really fail to see, besides AF, where the differences between Nikon and Sony, would influence a buying decision. And then only AF for a small minority of users.

Come on. AF is the most significant differentiator in camera these days. Why do you want to buy a D6? I hope it's not just because money is of no concern to you. What else? Sensor resolution and noise? Wait, Sony has that covered and is the leader. What else? FPS? That's by the sensor too on mirrorless. Why do I think Sony has the upper hand going forward? Because it holds the key to the sensors. Your Z8 will be sourcing a sensor as in A7r4. Whatever Nikon is able to do on AF, resolution, fps, etc, it's enabled by Sony. So if I have to bet at this moment, I certainly will bet on Sony.

WestEndFoto said:

I can’t think of one difference where the difference is not ephemeral, except the mount specs which favour Nikon and Canon in the long run.

I think the mount thing is overblown. Plenty of great photographers on both landscape and wildlife shoot Sony. When you become so good that you have a real life example of why you can only get that picture with the Z-mount and not the E-mount, you can bring it here then and enlighten people.

WestEndFoto said:

Further, whatever difference you think Sony has over Nikon, Nikon has in spades over Canon. But you will never catch me telling a Canon user to abandon Canon in favour of Nikon, and certainly not Sony.

What you do or do not do is irrelevant to this Nikon/Sony discussion. And I don't care about Canon either, so I'm not going to debate where Canon is going to be right now.

WestEndFoto said:

What is Sony putting in the koolaid that causes you to lose perspective and where are you buying it?

This honestly does not help your arguments and only indicates negatively. I certainly am capable in sarcasm if I want to.

WestEndFoto

tc88 said:

WestEndFoto said:

I really fail to see, besides AF, where the differences between Nikon and Sony, would influence a buying decision. And then only AF for a small minority of users.

Come on. AF is the most significant differentiator in camera these days. Why do you want to buy a D6? I hope it's not just because money is of no concern to you. I have answered this at the beginning of this thread. Why are you trying to attribute the decision to a character flaw (in your opinion)? What else? Sensor resolution and noise? No appreciable difference. Wait, Sony has that covered and is the leader. What else? FPS? 9 to 12 isn't enough for you? That's by the sensor too on mirrorless. Why do I think Sony has the upper hand going forward? Because it holds the key to the sensors. They will screw themselves more than Nikon if they abuse this. Your Z8 will be sourcing a sensor as in A7r4. So? Whatever Nikon is able to do on AF, resolution, fps, etc, it's enabled by Sony. I don't understand your point. So if I have to bet at this moment, I certainly will bet on Sony. That is your perogrative.

WestEndFoto said:

I can’t think of one difference where the difference is not ephemeral, except the mount specs which favour Nikon and Canon in the long run.

I think the mount thing is overblown. Plenty of great photographers on both landscape and wildlife shoot Sony. When you become so good that you have a real life example of why you can only get that picture with the Z-mount and not the E-mount, you can bring it here then and enlighten people. Do you think your argument is so weak that you have to resort to trying to win it by making a personal attack? Further, can you show a real life example of something that can only be done on the E-mount, and if not, why do you think that Sony is so superior and that the sky is falling for Nikon?

WestEndFoto said:

Further, whatever difference you think Sony has over Nikon, Nikon has in spades over Canon. But you will never catch me telling a Canon user to abandon Canon in favour of Nikon, and certainly not Sony.

What you do or do not do is irrelevant to this Nikon/Sony discussion. No, but why I am doing it is. And I am doing it because the differences between the three brands are small enough not to matter if your real objective is photography and not gear. And I don't care about Canon either, so I'm not going to debate where Canon is going to be right now.

WestEndFoto said:

What is Sony putting in the koolaid that causes you to lose perspective and where are you buying it?

This honestly does not help your arguments and only indicates negatively. I certainly am capable in sarcasm if I want to. My point is a little more subtle. I am arguing against negativity. Where have you said something positive about Nikon? Try following my lead below.

So positive points about Sony.

In certain attributes of AF on mirrorless they are the market leader.
Came out with eye detect first and still arguably a little better than the Nikon Zs.
Most lenses are good enough that anybody caring about sharpness (as opposed to critiquing or evaluating it) has lost their perspective and is likely spending too much time on gear and not enough on photography.
Older models are discounted which creates access to people not willing to spend on the latest and greatest.
If you don't care about FPS, you can use cheap SD cards which will save you money.
Best native lens selection in full frame mirrorless.
Backed by a large corporate conglomerate that can absorb financial losses if necessary.

So Mr. Anti-Negativity - smile smile smile, I would like to see your equivalent list for Nikon.

And then I would like you to explain how any of these traits are going to help you take better pictures unless you are in a niche (and if AF is the most important to you, why are you not using a D5 or D850).

So my Koolaid comment? I am saying that is much as we like to debate the technical merits of various systems, I cannot think of any technical gear trait that trumps the skill of the photographer. Reading some of the comments suggests to me that some would think differently than me, and to those people, I suggest that perspective has been lost.

WestEndFoto

And just to be clear, I think that if you are shooting Canon, Nikon or Sony you are at 98-99% of the competition depending on what you are measuring and changing brands to chase that extra 1% or 2% is crazy. Can anyone really afford that luxury? Even if you have lots of money, assuming that you worked to earn it, your time should be too valuable to do that.

tc88

Well, if I start from zero at this moment, I will definitely choose Sony because i consider it's the company that's most likely to lead in the future.

But as I said earlier, I'm still at 50/50 currently. So something is helping Nikon holding onto me as a potential continuing customer. That is I can still use some of the F-mount equipment initially on Z mount, and I'm used to Nikon ergonomics. However, long term wise, those alone is not enough. First I'm not switching system, F mount is going to be end of life. I'm picking a new system out of either Z or E mount for the future. And I will make that call once the new system offer significant improvement or other benefit over what I currently have. I will invest in the new system to have a decent amount of native equipment either way whether it's Z or E. So the legacy Nikon thing can only pull me so far. Second it would probably cost me more if I choose unwisely.

Finally being a good photographer and pursuing the equipment do not conflict.

So my perspective? At this juncture of mount change, it's important to assess what's going on in the industry and choose a company that's likely to succeed (or survive) in the long term, especially if I feel the current one I have may not do well in the future.

snakebunk

WestEndFoto said:

And just to be clear, I think that if you are shooting Canon, Nikon or Sony you are at 98-99% of the competition depending on what you are measuring and changing brands to chase that extra 1% or 2% is crazy. Can anyone really afford that luxury? Even if you have lots of money, assuming that you worked to earn it, your time should be too valuable to do that.

I've just been to Svalbard photographing flying birds from a boat (amongst other things) and great auto focus in combination with great handling is absolutely crucial. The difference that a great auto focus system can make is way above one or two percent and I think that right now there is a big difference in what is being delivered for different mirrorless mounts. I also think that some companies will be big and others will not.

Life after f mount, as I see it, is not about changing brands but rather to decide on which mount to build your future camera system. I can't see any point in not evaluating different possibilities.

mhedges

tc88 said:

I wouldn't give them a pass on that. While I certainly understand why they did not want to release a mirrorless earlier, they got to be working on it behind the scene for years. If they were not, it's a bigger indictment of the management. So assuming they had been working on it for years, they got to have several internal iterations already, even though Z7/Z6 is the first public version. As such, Z7/Z6 should also be compared with the current versions of Sony, not the first version. After all, that's what consumers are going to compare. That's why I also don't think Nikon will be able to catch up easily. There is no indication that the engineering team can somehow be miraculously more productive than Sony and make up ground after the Z7/Z6 release if they hadn't made up the ground with Z7/Z6.

So then Nikon should have just given up on mirrorless and stayed DSLR to the end? That seems to be what I'm reading here?

Yes it would be great if Z6/Z7 beat the current Sony's at everything, but that's not how product launches work. When the Sony's first came out they were pretty terrible, right? Certainly not competitive with DSLR - I mean, you can barely give away the A7 these days, and lord knows Sony has been trying. Did Sony decide to wait and do more development? No, they put them out on the market, took their lumps, and now they have this great system. That's how these things work.

The really good news for the Z system is how good all the lenses are. That's the most important part anyway, since camera bodies get updated much more often.

As far as improvement with each generation - isn't Z6/Z7 stills AF at about the same level as the V2 Sony cameras? That's my understanding, anyway (can anyone confirm?). Sony made a major jump in AF ability in only one generation - why couldn't Nikon? Sure, by then Sony will be on V4 which will no doubt be better, but I think once you get past where the V3 cameras are you start to hit the point of diminished returns for the majority of users.

WestEndFoto

tc88 said:

Well, if I start from zero at this moment, I will definitely choose Sony because i consider it's the company that's most likely to lead in the future.

But as I said earlier, I'm still at 50/50 currently. So something is helping Nikon holding onto me as a potential continuing customer. That is I can still use some of the F-mount equipment initially on Z mount, and I'm used to Nikon ergonomics. However, long term wise, those alone is not enough. First I'm not switching system, F mount is going to be end of life. I'm picking a new system out of either Z or E mount for the future. And I will make that call once the new system offer significant improvement or other benefit over what I currently have. I will invest in the new system to have a decent amount of native equipment either way whether it's Z or E. So the legacy Nikon thing can only pull me so far. Second it would probably cost me more if I choose unwisely.

Finally being a good photographer and pursuing the equipment do not conflict.

So my perspective? At this juncture of mount change, it's important to assess what's going on in the industry and choose a company that's likely to succeed (or survive) in the long term, especially if I feel the current one I have may not do well in the future.

OK. I think that is reasonable.

WestEndFoto

snakebunk said:

WestEndFoto said:

And just to be clear, I think that if you are shooting Canon, Nikon or Sony you are at 98-99% of the competition depending on what you are measuring and changing brands to chase that extra 1% or 2% is crazy. Can anyone really afford that luxury? Even if you have lots of money, assuming that you worked to earn it, your time should be too valuable to do that.

I've just been to Svalbard photographing flying birds from a boat (amongst other things) and great auto focus in combination with great handling is absolutely crucial. The difference that a great auto focus system can make is way above one or two percent and I think that right now there is a big difference in what is being delivered for different mirrorless mounts. I also think that some companies will be big and others will not.

Life after f mount, as I see it, is not about changing brands but rather to decide on which mount to build your future camera system. I can't see any point in not evaluating different possibilities.

I agree with that. But your genre is small, even though the practitioners are noisy. So I am not saying this is never a factor, just rarely.

But I would also say this. Even if Sony manages to maintain a one generation advantage in auto-focus forever, which I doubt as Canon and Nikon are not sleeping, do you really need the latest and greatest? For example, if tomorrow's Canon or Nikon is a generation behind Sony, does that mean that Sony sucked today. Because if you think like that, you will be swapping manufacturers every few years.

WestEndFoto

mhedges said:

tc88 said:

I wouldn't give them a pass on that. While I certainly understand why they did not want to release a mirrorless earlier, they got to be working on it behind the scene for years. If they were not, it's a bigger indictment of the management. So assuming they had been working on it for years, they got to have several internal iterations already, even though Z7/Z6 is the first public version. As such, Z7/Z6 should also be compared with the current versions of Sony, not the first version. After all, that's what consumers are going to compare. That's why I also don't think Nikon will be able to catch up easily. There is no indication that the engineering team can somehow be miraculously more productive than Sony and make up ground after the Z7/Z6 release if they hadn't made up the ground with Z7/Z6.

So then Nikon should have just given up on mirrorless and stayed DSLR to the end? That seems to be what I'm reading here?

Yes it would be great if Z6/Z7 beat the current Sony's at everything, but that's not how product launches work. When the Sony's first came out they were pretty terrible, right? Certainly not competitive with DSLR - I mean, you can barely give away the A7 these days, and lord knows Sony has been trying. Did Sony decide to wait and do more development? No, they put them out on the market, took their lumps, and now they have this great system. That's how these things work.

The really good news for the Z system is how good all the lenses are. That's the most important part anyway, since camera bodies get updated much more often.

As far as improvement with each generation - isn't Z6/Z7 stills AF at about the same level as the V2 Sony cameras? That's my understanding, anyway (can anyone confirm?). Sony made a major jump in AF ability in only one generation - why couldn't Nikon? Sure, by then Sony will be on V4 which will no doubt be better, but I think once you get past where the V3 cameras are you start to hit the point of diminished returns for the majority of users.

As it stands now, Sony has slightly better eye AF and better tracking with erratic motion. Other than that, there is no practical difference. The Nikon D5 and D850, however, are still better than the Sony with erratic tracking (shoot a burst at 1.4 is the best demonstration of this) - and I would point out that that is 4 year old technology up against Sony's latest and greatest, so the world is not ending if you are a NIkon user.

It will be interesting to see how the latest Sony compares against the D6.

Also, my shooting continuous motion at 1.4 is an extreme example and there are few shooters where that attribute should be an overriding consideration when choosing a camera. The biggest category by number of shooters where this matters dwarfs sports and wildlife shooters - that is people shooting their kids.

donaldejose

Sony is to be congratulated for producing a system that is a very viable alternative to Canon and Nikon. Just 5 years ago I would not have thought that would be the case. So where will we be 5 years from now? Maybe at another place I don't now think we will be.

Why buy a D6 (now or later)? Three reasons, 1. It may contain a feature you need or want. New technology is promised but we don't know what it is yet. 2. It will be the last of the great Nikon Dx line. Nikon lovers, like myself, would like to have one just for that reason; but not until it sells for about half its original price. I recently collected a D700, D3s and D4. It is interesting to see their limitations and play with their continued viability for many uses today. 3. It may be all you need and you may want to stay in the DSLR world for the rest of your life.

Why start buying into the Nikon mirrorless line? 1. It is the future of Nikon and you can keep using all your current F-mount lenses. 2. EVF is advantageous in many situations. 3. Eye AF is really helpful for portrait shooting at f2.8 and wider. 4. The S mount lenses are superior. 5. Nikon will be producing a line of f1.2 primes and a f0.95 prime in the S mount. 6. More (great?) Z bodies to come, soon, I hope.

My prediction is that if you are a Nikon shooter and don't start buying into the Z system now, you will be in a few years when better bodies and unique lenses are available. But is you prefer Sony or Canon that is fine with me.

WestEndFoto

Good points Donaldjose. A friend of mine that shoots Sony says the eye af at 1.4 is not useful as it focuses on the eyebrow, not the actual eye. Apparently 2.8 is fine on a short telephoto.

Is that your experience with the Nikon?

snakebunk

WestEndFoto said:

snakebunk said:

WestEndFoto said:

And just to be clear, I think that if you are shooting Canon, Nikon or Sony you are at 98-99% of the competition depending on what you are measuring and changing brands to chase that extra 1% or 2% is crazy. Can anyone really afford that luxury? Even if you have lots of money, assuming that you worked to earn it, your time should be too valuable to do that.

I've just been to Svalbard photographing flying birds from a boat (amongst other things) and great auto focus in combination with great handling is absolutely crucial. The difference that a great auto focus system can make is way above one or two percent and I think that right now there is a big difference in what is being delivered for different mirrorless mounts. I also think that some companies will be big and others will not.

Life after f mount, as I see it, is not about changing brands but rather to decide on which mount to build your future camera system. I can't see any point in not evaluating different possibilities.

I agree with that. But your genre is small, even though the practitioners are noisy. So I am not saying this is never a factor, just rarely.

But I would also say this. Even if Sony manages to maintain a one generation advantage in auto-focus forever, which I doubt as Canon and Nikon are not sleeping, do you really need the latest and greatest? For example, if tomorrow's Canon or Nikon is a generation behind Sony, does that mean that Sony sucked today. Because if you think like that, you will be swapping manufacturers every few years.

Are we noisy? That's great to know .

I am not swapping manufacturers. Nikon is swapping mount. It is just the way it is and at some point I will choose my next mount. I want to be open to all options and I will take my time to figure this out. I don't think I can say it in any other way.

mhedges

WestEndFoto said:

I agree with that. But your genre is small, even though the practitioners are noisy. So I am not saying this is never a factor, just rarely.

You ain't lyin

snakebunk said:

<

Are we noisy? That's great to know .

Yes. Yes, you are.

donaldejose

WEF: I have only shot the 50mm S at f1.8 3/4th body length and there was sufficient DOF to have sharp eyes. 85mm S at f1.8 will have a shallower DOF and being closer when shooting headshots will have a shallower DOF. So I don't really know if it will be a problem under those conditions. I have read that it is an issue, that the eye AF area is too large so it picks up the eyebrow rather than the eyeball and that you should switch to single point AF when you are deliberately working with a really shallow DOF. Things like this may be improved with later software updates. The software could be programmed to search for and focus on the eyeball when the eye reaches a certain size in the viewfinder. So I wouldn't worry about it.

FreezeAction

I'm hoping against hope that Nikon will bring Pixel Shift Multi Shooting technology to the front lines of photographic battles in the next generation of the Z series bodies. If not then at may age and schedule of things to do I will opt for the Sony a7R IV as it stands now. All in all from files I've worked with even a Sony a7RIII should fill my needs. With Sigma bringing Art glass out for both L mount and E mount it would be my hope they will soon have it for the S mount. From what my eyes have seen to be fact the new Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 in E mount is lens to be revered for IQ.

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

if Sony manages to maintain a one generation advantage in auto-focus forever

Very few companies survive by being constantly one generation behind. Because they can’t charge premium on the leading edge products, unless they have some secret sauce on low cost manufacturing, when the leader make big money, you make small money. When they make small money, you make no money. When they make no money, you lose money. In an up market, it’s probably ok by not being the leader. In a shrinking market, bad things will happen.