Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon to Sony...would you (did you)?
- Thread starter Moakesy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I recently switched from Nikon to a combination of Sony and Fujifilm! I loved the Nikon but I was always carrying a lot of kit. I picked up a second hand Sony RX100m3 to try out the compact size with the 1" sensor and was mightily impressed with what I could capture with it. After looking around at various options and trying out a friends Fujilfilm X-T20 I have plumped for 3 cameras - the Sony RX100 purely for when I want a compact in the pocket camera, the Sony RX10m4 for travelling - awesome all rounder by the way and finally the Fujifilm X-T20 with kit 18-55mm and Samyang 12mm F2. The latter I use for general family photos close to home and for specific cases such as night photographs and wideangles. I find the Sony's really practical and the Fuji gives me the same image quality of the Nikon but in a smaller, lighter package. I initially wanted to get the Sony A6500 after trying out a second hand A6000 but the APS-C e mount lens selection just isn't close to Fujifilm for the money. The A6500 and Zeiss 16-70mm was running about twice the price of the Fujifilm kit and had softer images.
As per DXOMark, the the D850 and D810 both have more dynamic range than the A7RIII and A7III. The difference is splitting hairs-the Nikons are rated at 14.8 stops and the Nikons are 14.7 stops.
Nikon and Sony dominate their DR rankings for FF sensors. The Pentax K-1, at 14.6 stops, is the only FF camera in the top 19 that is not made by Nikon or Sony.
Nikon's older offerings even make this "top 19" with my D800 coming in at 14.4 stops. The D750, D600, and D610 are also on this list.
The highest ranked Canon comes in at #20, and it is the 5D Mk IV, at 13.6 stops.
https://www.dxomark.com/cameras/lau...Options=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDyn
I know this is a totally different area of Fuji history, but this one actually surprised me
All I can say is that you need to do some magic to get that kind of DR out of those cameras, and you either need to to shoot JPEG or process your RAWs with Fuji software-Lightroom doesn't handle the extended dynamic range that well. Don't venture off base ISO either. Also, the S3 is obnoxiously slow in extended DR mode(the S5 is a lot better). Way back in 2005, the photographer at my sister's wedding used an S3-I think that wedding and portrait photographers were the main places where they managed to make inroads.
For those not familiar with them, the Fuji Finepix Pro "S" series cameras(S1, S2, S3, S5) were basically Nikon bodies that had Fuji's proprietary "Super CCD." The S1 used the dirt cheap N65, while the S2 and S3 were built on the much better N80 body. The S5 could easily be mistaken for a D200, aside from the fact that it only works with Fuji batteries(the S5 batteries will work in a D200 or any other EN-EL3e Nikon just fine, but the reverse isn't true).
In any case, the CCD uses a novel approach to extending dynamic range in that it has two pixels per photosite. It also uses a "honeycomb" layout. The two pixel approach allowed extended DR, while the honeycomb layout interpolated resolution. The S3 and S5 sensors had 6 million photosites but 12 million pixels-Fuji advertised them as 12mp, others liked to say 6mp, and in the real world they were equivalent to about a 9 or 10mp conventional sensor.
I have a bit of a collection of early Nikon and Nikon-mount DSLRs. It was actually tough to find a functioning S2-a lot of them have dead sensors, or another fault where they will capture an image but not record it to the card. Plus, having to worry about two batteries on the S1 and S2 is a pain(although the CR123As last forever).
In a moment of weakness, I NEARLY bought a DCS 760c the other day. They're from the Kodak "F5 with a digital back" era(the body says Nikon on the prism and F5 on the top plate, and since it IS an F5 you can use F5 finders and focus screens). The 760c was the best of them-it was contemporary to the D1X and had the same resolution. In comparison, though, it used a 1.3x crop sensor(and no AA) and had conventional square pixels. Still, though, it's a MASSIVE beast with a couple of inches hanging below the camera where the D1X is effectively the same size as an F5.
I also came out the under-bidder on a Kodak SLR/n the other day. I have a DCS 14/n, which is an N80 with a full-frame 14mp CMOS(and also no AA filter). Aside from the limited DR, slow speed(it takes 30 seconds from the time you flip the power switch on until it's ready), "chunkiness", noise, and poor battery life it's made in such a way that some lenses will not physically mount. The VR on-off switch on my 24-85 won't clear the "chin" on the camera. The SLR/n supposedly fixes some of the shortcomings of the DCS 14/n, although it's still the same fundamental body.
It's a shame that Kodak basically invented digital photography, but never actually managed to be successful at it when things got serious.
Realise I first started this thread a while ago, but for those of you who are interested or considering doing the same...
In the end, I had loan of a Fuji X-T2 for almost three weeks. Having it this long has helped reassure me that selling the Nikon gear and going for something smaller was the right choice. Great colour, nice and small and used it at times when I know I would have left the Nikon at home.
Had to wait quite a while for the Sony A7iii to arrive and, although early days, I can now finally shoot with it and am very happy. Really not missing the Nikon at all (so far) and taking the camera with me to so many more places....which is what it was all about.
Thanks to everyone for their advice, really helped.
In the end, I had loan of a Fuji X-T2 for almost three weeks. Having it this long has helped reassure me that selling the Nikon gear and going for something smaller was the right choice. Great colour, nice and small and used it at times when I know I would have left the Nikon at home.
Had to wait quite a while for the Sony A7iii to arrive and, although early days, I can now finally shoot with it and am very happy. Really not missing the Nikon at all (so far) and taking the camera with me to so many more places....which is what it was all about.
Thanks to everyone for their advice, really helped.
Prove it! Post Nikon free images!!!
Posted this one in photo of the day today...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/photo-of-the-day-may-2018.2117143/page-8#post-26048364
Other shots from the same trip here... https://adobe.ly/2jLVEgp
All taken on the Fuji X-T2
I like the boat shotsPosted this one in photo of the day today...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/photo-of-the-day-may-2018.2117143/page-8#post-26048364
Other shots from the same trip here... https://adobe.ly/2jLVEgp
All taken on the Fuji X-T2
[doublepost=1525985937][/doublepost]
You're band!
Thought that might get a reaction...
I had Nikon for years, and sold it off last year for a Sony. I didn't have a ton of glass, just a 14-24.
Now I have an A7r2, C/Y 35-70*T, C/Y 80-200 and just picked up a ZE 21mm, as the C/Y version is still $1800 or so.
If there was a way to easily adapt the Contax Zeiss lenses to Nikon, I probably would have stayed with Nikon, but the Leitax conversion is not cheap; especially when you have several lenses.
In the end, they are both cameras. You can just adapt way more lenses on the Sony - and there are "several" gems out there
Now I have an A7r2, C/Y 35-70*T, C/Y 80-200 and just picked up a ZE 21mm, as the C/Y version is still $1800 or so.
If there was a way to easily adapt the Contax Zeiss lenses to Nikon, I probably would have stayed with Nikon, but the Leitax conversion is not cheap; especially when you have several lenses.
In the end, they are both cameras. You can just adapt way more lenses on the Sony - and there are "several" gems out there
The reason you keep the nNikon is for the 2.8 80-200 lens. What else is going to give you the selective focus and the range you get with f/2.8 on full frame?
If you reduce the sensor size you'd need a f/2.0 lens for the same effect. Can you even buy that?
There are two kinds of photography. (1) you have a certain kind of image in mind before you leave to go out. This is the kind of photography where you want your big SLR or whatever you use and (2) yo just want a camera in case something comes up unexpectedly. This is why you have a cell phone.
If the Nikon with 80-200 lens is to big to walk around with try the same Nikon but with a 50mm prime. Unless I KNOWi'm after certain shot I would never just walkarud with a 200mm lens. It is to specialized. The 18-50 VR kit lens is a better range for general use and the 50mm is faster
Downsizing to a 4/3 or other mirrorless body is not enough downsizing tomatoes and you get almost the same reduction by staying in the Nikon but using lighter gear like the 5000 series with 35mm fixed lens that setup is like hauling around box of air. Used bodies are cheap so is the lens. I'd stay with Nikon but buy a light weight setup DX consumer rig.
And buy a good cell phone for when ever the light weight Nikon is to big.
And here is a secret -- almost everyone looks at photos on an electronic screen. Screens mostly have at most about 3 megapixels unless the screen is a 4K TV set. But mostly people use phones are photo viewer So,... no one looking at you phots can tell the ones you took with the DSLR from the ones you tool wit the iPhone except for the photos where you used the 80-200 at f/2.8 THAT lens has can have a razor thin DOF at good distance
How would I know? I have an old used D80 body I bought for very little no ones yet noticed which images are from the cheap D80.
If you reduce the sensor size you'd need a f/2.0 lens for the same effect. Can you even buy that?
There are two kinds of photography. (1) you have a certain kind of image in mind before you leave to go out. This is the kind of photography where you want your big SLR or whatever you use and (2) yo just want a camera in case something comes up unexpectedly. This is why you have a cell phone.
If the Nikon with 80-200 lens is to big to walk around with try the same Nikon but with a 50mm prime. Unless I KNOWi'm after certain shot I would never just walkarud with a 200mm lens. It is to specialized. The 18-50 VR kit lens is a better range for general use and the 50mm is faster
Downsizing to a 4/3 or other mirrorless body is not enough downsizing tomatoes and you get almost the same reduction by staying in the Nikon but using lighter gear like the 5000 series with 35mm fixed lens that setup is like hauling around box of air. Used bodies are cheap so is the lens. I'd stay with Nikon but buy a light weight setup DX consumer rig.
And buy a good cell phone for when ever the light weight Nikon is to big.
And here is a secret -- almost everyone looks at photos on an electronic screen. Screens mostly have at most about 3 megapixels unless the screen is a 4K TV set. But mostly people use phones are photo viewer So,... no one looking at you phots can tell the ones you took with the DSLR from the ones you tool wit the iPhone except for the photos where you used the 80-200 at f/2.8 THAT lens has can have a razor thin DOF at good distance
How would I know? I have an old used D80 body I bought for very little no ones yet noticed which images are from the cheap D80.
There are two kinds of photographers, ones that sit in their living room and compose before they set eyes on what they want to shoot. And those with sufficient creativity and self confidence to find photographic interest around every corner. I'll ignore your advice just so I don't brush the correct approach aside.
Also those who make money and those who don't. If you are shooting for a paying client It is best to think ahead and get the shot they need.
If you are doing video and the shot involves other people you had BETTERhave you act totes long before or yu annoy the crew and talent.
Then there was Ansel Adams and others like him (who I think were better, Like Weston and his sons. Adams used to write about "previsualizing" the image. He always knew the result he wanted and would some times have to wait months forth wethers and lighting to be what he wanted
Yes I've done the thing where you take a camera ad hope for an opportunity. I've done a fair amount of underwater dive photos But still I have an idea of the kinds of photos that are possible and what I will ignore. The previsualizing thing even works when jumping into an unknown environment. I tae the off camera lighting equipment needs for the kinds of shots I'm looking for
Same even for family snap shots. I know in advance about the kind of shots I want - environmental portraits or my daughter. Go I select the 85mm f/1.8 lens and go out on a cloudy overcast day. IF the light was not right (to sunny) I've either leave the camera at home or shoot some other kinds of images. Likely leave it home as my daughter would be along.
SO in short for almost all commercial work you do likely have exact compositions in mind and even for what look like snapshots, they come out better if you already know what light you want, what kind of DOF and colors and then you keep your eyes open for shots that are on your list Even photo journalism an sports is like this. If shooting gymnastics or snownbording you wait for the shot you have in mind.
I agree with your comments in this post and (to a lesser extent) your previous one. I don't do paid work (though I have shot events for friends). For my landscapes if I'm going back to a spot I've been to before I think about what shots I want to get and pack accordingly. What focal length (or focal length range) am I going to need to get the image I'm thinking of? What filters and what strength of ND filters are going to get me what I want?
Even for outings where I'm not going to be shooting from a tripod, what is the one lens that I'm going to mount before I leave that will get me what I want for where I am going?
For example, if I am going to a zoo I pick one of three lenses if it's going to be an "animal" day: 100-400, 70-200 f/2.8, or 70-200 f/4. If it's going to be a "people at a zoo day": 24-70 f/2.8 or 50 f/1.4 or 55 f/1.8. Rarely I'll take one of the longer lenses and throw the 55 into the bag "just in case". But I've never actually switched lenses at a zoo. I get into the zone with the lens I have mounted and find the compositions that are appropriate for that lens.
This same principle applies whenever I leave the house: what am I expecting to see and what images am I expecting to walk away with? Yes, you have to be open to whatever opportunities present themselves, but you either have a photographic agenda (and pack accordingly) or you don't. In the latter case you still have to make choices about the gear you bring....
Back to the OP.
I switched to Sony from Nikon (with a Leica M stop in-between).
I prefer my Sony (currently A7R III with an A7R II now serving as a backup body). Why?
While I agree that the overall weight savings aren't great once you start attaching fast zooms, the body itself is still smaller which affects bulk--even with a long lens you can get away with a slightly narrower bag. Minor point, I know.
The real reasons I prefer my Sony's over my Nikon D810 are lots of little small things that add up to a better package for my needs.
I like the in-body image stabilization. Works with any lens. Useful when shooting handheld.
On the A7R III I love the thumb joystick that makes it easy to change the focus point (as opposed to the A7R II).
I love eye AF (especially with Sony lenses that have a button on the lens to activate this). The A7R III is better than the A7R II in this regard. Eye AF works really, really well. Obviously only matters for people pics, but I use this all the time. It nails focus on the eyes and holds it even when you recompose. I don't post pics of my son or other people here, but it is a decent chunk of what I shoot now. Eye AF is awesome if you shoot a lot of people pics.
No need for lens calibration. Many of my Nikon lenses were slightly off in focus on my D810. Was a PITA to manually calibrate them. For my Leica Ms I would test each lens on the body and then have to send the body and lens off to Leica to have them calibrate them. It got old really fast. In the end with my Leica M I would only shoot using an external EVF--which added bulk (specifically height) to the camera which required a bulkier bag and the external EVF had crap resolution.
The Sony flash system is really, really good. Better than the Nikon flash system in my experience. TTL flash works remarkably well and I don't find that I *have* to shoot in manual flash mode to get the results I want. It is also really intuitive and easy to adjust. They are the first flashes I have used that I don't have to pull out the manual if I haven't used them in a bit. The newer flashes are all radio and easy to use off camera. The commander unit (either a flash or a non-flash commander unit mounted on the body) are *really* easy and intuitive to use. Easy to set settings on the remotes from the unit mounted on the body. It's very Apple-like--it's intuitive and it "just works". Both TTL and in manual mode. For much of what I am currently shooting, this matters to me. Flash photography is challenging, though the results can be game-changing. Having gear that "just works" vs gear that you have to fight with can matter. This is obviously subjective and if you use flash daily you quickly learn how to make the adjustments you need with the flashes you have. But for me at least, the Sony flashes are a pleasure to use rather than a hassle.
Ultimately I'm happy with my Sony because it does what I need it to do in a way that works for me. The total system does what I need it to do better than either my Nikon D810 or my Leica M.
Last edited:
Choosing the right equipment for the day is a constant battle for me as I often end up taking too much or leaving the correct lens at home.
However I'm curious why you would take a 70-200mm 2.8 and a 70-200mm 4.0 to the zoo on the same day?
Interesting reading....
I went Sony A7III in the end and am very happy with my decision.
Having had a big bag full of lenses, it's such a refreshing change to have switched. I now have the camera, the 90mm macro and the new 24-105mm. The 24-105mm focusses insanely fast...even faster than the D850 and 70-200mm. I'm constantly amazed by it.
Whilst neither lens is feather light, they are much much lighter than before. I've avoided the f/2.8 lenses because that would put me back where I was before in terms of bulk, and truth is I haven't miss them.
Eye-AF is, like you say, just incredible. The IQ overall is great....the D850 was better, especially if heavy cropping but there is not a lot wrong with the Sony for most shots. The EVF lag, which put me off the Fuji X-T2, is very minimal and has not been an issue so far. That said, I haven't shot sports yet, so will wait and see.
My aim was to reduce bulk so I actually took the camera with me.
- Doing a comparison on actual weight of what I'd typically shoot with, my D850 'normal use' setup came in at 3kg, the Sony comes in at 1.3kg.
- The camera + lens setup I have now is also physically smaller. I'm talking Height / Width here, rather than weight. I'd guess it's about 60% of the Nikon
- This means my camera bag has gone from a large, heavy rucksack size to a small shoulder bag.
- Technical IQ is lower, but in the real world the images still amaze me. My step daughter hates her photo being taken (unless she does it herself for Instagram), but I used her to as a test model my new lens and she loved the image it produced (yes, it went on Instagram as well)
- Although relatively early days still, I have not once thought 'I wish I had my Nikon'
- I'm just starting to tinker with using it for video, something I never did with the Nikon. I've discovered I'm a pretty rubbish videographer!!
- I'm taking my camera out a lot more
- Oh, and having sold all my old kit and brought new, I'm still about £1k better off
So all in all I'm very happy and definitely converted. The long-term test will be when the cyclo-cross season starts again, as this was one of the things I shot the most.
Certainly no regrets here so far and thanks again to those who posted advice here.
Switching systems is too much of a hassle for me. Too many lenses to replace and it won't be cost-effective for me to replace them. The only thing missing from my kit is a camera with capable video autofocus, and I'll wait for Nikon's mirrorless to fill in that void.
And the reason I chose Nikon over Canon all those years ago was when I started out, my boss told me to go and hold those cameras in your hands, and choose which one fits better. Didn't like the Canon back then, don't like the Sony now.
That said, if I'm going to recommend something to a enthusiast shooter, I'd highly recommend Sony's A7m3 to start if the budget fits them and if it feels good in their hands.
And the reason I chose Nikon over Canon all those years ago was when I started out, my boss told me to go and hold those cameras in your hands, and choose which one fits better. Didn't like the Canon back then, don't like the Sony now.
That said, if I'm going to recommend something to a enthusiast shooter, I'd highly recommend Sony's A7m3 to start if the budget fits them and if it feels good in their hands.