Debating a switch to Sony mirrorless from Nikon DSLR

[Harry Woodford]

Hello, as per the title I'm deciding on my next move in equipment, I'm currently "in-between" my big lens, and as I am relatively new and don't have an endless pocket I can only really afford upgrades far apart. My setup was a D500 and an older 500mm prime, but as the big lens has been returned I am debating my choice for the next step. I have wanted to go full frame for a while as although wildlife is my primary objective I want to branch out into landscape/general nature and macro. I was looking at the D850 as this seems to tick all the boxes of a camera I'd need with some specific things that jump out to me, the stacked photo setting for macro and landscapes, and the fact if needed it's DX mode seems to basically be a D500. However I agree it seems mirrorless is the future, and something I want to go into, but to get a Nikon that can handle wildlife properly, they are WAY out of budget. The best I'd be able to switch to is a Z7 which I feel would be a downgrade for wildlife AF and also a step down from the D850.

However I have been debating a switch to Sony for some time, as I've seen their mirrorless camera come leaps and bounds ahead, specifically the A9 which has been famed for it's action photography abilities. The question is whether it's worth the switch due to the fact my funds are limited, my two choices at the moment are;

• Stick with Nikon, replacing my prime with a 300mm f2.8 VR1 and picking up a TC14e for use with the D500 for now. Then having to wait a while to save up for the D850, this could be up to a year as the prime would take my current funds for photography equipment, or..
• Switch to Sony, selling all my current Nikon gear and probably being able to afford a decent used A9, the 200-600mm FE OSS lens and to start the 28-70 kit lens.

Obviously they both have their merits, and both would see me with a very good setup for the future to come. A negative I see of switching would be that Sony has a lot less exotic primes that don't cost and arm and leg etc so I would be very limited in improving that setup, bar the body for quite a while, at least on the wildlife telephoto end. Whereas Nikon has a whole back catalogue of fantastic lenses that will all slowly be coming down in price, however it would also take me longer to switch to FF and even longer to move into Nikons mirrorless side.

Any thoughts and advice is greatly appreciated.

 

[MartyD]

You might search the forums, this has been discussed a number of times. In the end you have to make the decision that will make you happy.

 

[Rassie]

If you have to make the decision now, perhaps switching to a used Sony A9 may make sense. If I had to consider new cameras , and with you already invested in Nikon you could also consider the Z8?

 

[Nimi]

Hello, as per the title I'm deciding on my next move in equipment, I'm currently "in-between" my big lens, and as I am relatively new and don't have an endless pocket I can only really afford upgrades far apart. My setup was a D500 and an older 500mm prime, but as the big lens has been returned I am debating my choice for the next step. I have wanted to go full frame for a while as although wildlife is my primary objective I want to branch out into landscape/general nature and macro. I was looking at the D850 as this seems to tick all the boxes of a camera I'd need with some specific things that jump out to me, the stacked photo setting for macro and landscapes, and the fact if needed it's DX mode seems to basically be a D500. However I agree it seems mirrorless is the future, and something I want to go into, but to get a Nikon that can handle wildlife properly, they are WAY out of budget. The best I'd be able to switch to is a Z7 which I feel would be a downgrade for wildlife AF and also a step down from the D850.

However I have been debating a switch to Sony for some time, as I've seen their mirrorless camera come leaps and bounds ahead, specifically the A9 which has been famed for it's action photography abilities. The question is whether it's worth the switch due to the fact my funds are limited, my two choices at the moment are;

• Stick with Nikon, replacing my prime with a 300mm f2.8 VR1 and picking up a TC14e for use with the D500 for now. Then having to wait a while to save up for the D850, this could be up to a year as the prime would take my current funds for photography equipment, or..
• Switch to Sony, selling all my current Nikon gear and probably being able to afford a decent used A9, the 200-600mm FE OSS lens and to start the 28-70 kit lens.

Obviously they both have their merits, and both would see me with a very good setup for the future to come. A negative I see of switching would be that Sony has a lot less exotic primes that don't cost and arm and leg etc so I would be very limited in improving that setup, bar the body for quite a while, at least on the wildlife telephoto end. Whereas Nikon has a whole back catalogue of fantastic lenses that will all slowly be coming down in price, however it would also take me longer to switch to FF and even longer to move into Nikons mirrorless side.

Any thoughts and advice is greatly appreciated.

What's your budget? This motley gang would analyze and oveanalyze every Nikon and Sony possibility and an OM fanboy would chime in with an MFT option.

 

[DavidT]

If you make a move to Sony and consider the a9 get the MKII version as it has a lot of upgrades. Pair it with the 100-400 or 200-600 and you’re set. Sony does have some newer bodies like the a7R5 that is pretty amazing if it fits your budget.

As for Nikon I’d go Z8 if you can afford it. I’ve had a 300f2.8 and it’s just too short. I’d suggest a 500PF if you are staying with F Mount. I’d even get the 300PF before the heavy 300f2.8 if that’s what you really want. The 200-500 is also a great lens for the money.

End of day it depends on your total budget.

 

[Harry Woodford]

If you have to make the decision now, perhaps switching to a used Sony A9 may make sense. If I had to consider new cameras , and with you already invested in Nikon you could also consider the Z8?

I would be more than happy to stick with Nikon and go for Z8 but unfortunately it is out of budget currently.

What's your budget? This motley gang would analyze and oveanalyze every Nikon and Sony possibility and an OM fanboy would chime in with an MFT option.

My budget at the moment could essentially get me either the Nikon 2.8 300mm prime with TC, then waiting a while to upgrade to the D850. Or switching over the A9 and getting the 200-600mm and a 28-70mm.

If you make a move to Sony and consider the a9 get the MKII version as it has a lot of upgrades. Pair it with the 100-400 or 200-600 and you’re set. Sony does have some newer bodies like the a7R5 that is pretty amazing if it fits your budget.

As for Nikon I’d go Z8 if you can afford it. I’ve had a 300f2.8 and it’s just too short. I’d suggest a 500PF if you are staying with F Mount. I’d even get the 300PF before the heavy 300f2.8 if that’s what you really want. The 200-500 is also a great lens for the money.

End of day it depends on your total budget.

Unfortunately I am having to stick to a relatively tight budget at the moment, so the Z8 is out else it'd probably be what I go for. Hence turning my attention to the A9 or A9ii and a 200-600 to start with and expanding again with Sony.

Yeah the shortness on the 300 prime is also what concerns me, even on my D500 I'd probably want the 1.4tc and then moving to FF I'd want to pick up the 2.0tc but both have their disadvantages.
Unfortunately I am on a relatively tight budget for the moment, as my partner lost her job a short while ago.

 

[dabhand16]

I want to branch out into landscape/general nature and macro.

• Switch to Sony, selling all my current Nikon gear and probably being able to afford a decent used A9, the 200-600mm FE OSS lens and to start the 28-70 kit len

Any thoughts and advice is greatly appreciated.

If you want to do landscape and macro you might want to consider higher resolution than the Sony A9. Depends really if you are going to print big or crop.

At the moment I'm shooting with a Nikon Z6ii and a Fuji XT-4. Recently sold my D850 to go Nikon Z having got fed up with waiting for the Z8. Had a long think as to if I really needed high resolution for my images as the Z7ii is not an equivalent to the D850 so after research bought a Z6ii with no regrets. I also sold my Sony a7ii that I bought for my vintage lenses. That gave me great results as does the Z6ii (although the Sony is slightly better for manual focus) and both are 24MP.

At normal viewing size there is no difference in the images, but the detail is not there as you magnify the image. That's what you have to decide on.

Much as I want a Z8, I might just keep my Z6ii and trade one of my Fuji XT-4s for an XH-2s.

 

[Nimi]

I would be more than happy to stick with Nikon and go for Z8 but unfortunately it is out of budget currently.

My budget at the moment could essentially get me either the Nikon 2.8 300mm prime with TC, then waiting a while to upgrade to the D850. Or switching over the A9 and getting the 200-600mm and a 28-70mm.

Unfortunately I am having to stick to a relatively tight budget at the moment, so the Z8 is out else it'd probably be what I go for. Hence turning my attention to the A9 or A9ii and a 200-600 to start with and expanding again with Sony.

Yeah the shortness on the 300 prime is also what concerns me, even on my D500 I'd probably want the 1.4tc and then moving to FF I'd want to pick up the 2.0tc but both have their disadvantages.
Unfortunately I am on a relatively tight budget for the moment, as my partner lost her job a short while ago.

What is your $ budget? If you already made up your mind on a system and need affirmation (sounds like you have) just start a poll and save all of us a lot of time.

 

[DavidT]

Another budget friendly but feature rich option would be Olympus or OM.

 

[dabhand16]

Another budget friendly but feature rich option would be Olympus or OM.

But OP said "I have wanted to go full frame for a while as although wildlife is my primary objective I want to branch out into landscape/general nature and macro."

 

[StefanSC]

I've had a chance to put an A9 with the Sony 100-400 through it's paces a while back.

Except the EVF experience which made it easier to track subjects, the A9 felt on par if not slightly inferior to the D500 (similar image quality, similar percentage of in focus shots and so on... )

So if I were on a budget, I wouldn't go from a D500 to an A9 (especially not for wildlife, macro or landscape).

I would get a Nikon 200-500 f5.6 for the reach and image quality, an used Sigma 105mm macro with the 1.4x APO TC (they go for peanuts these days) and something from Tokina's stable of UW lenses (or even the Nikon 10-20mm) and go out shooting in confindence that I have great capabilities from my gear and I spent less than a Sony 200-600mm to get them.

And in the future there is a clear mirrorless transition path without having to buy new lenses from scratch.

 

[bronaldo]

If you don't plan on doing a lot of birds in flight, I don't think the A9 is a big upgrade. I used Sony A7IV would probably be better in terms of feature-richness, and you'd get a few more megapixels. You may be better off just sticking with Nikon F mount or saving for a Z8.

 

[DavidT]

But OP said "I have wanted to go full frame for a while as although wildlife is my primary objective I want to branch out into landscape/general nature and macro."

Good call out I missed that however if a budget is that tight but wanting the most modern AF and doing macro photo stacking would be nice and pre capture is a game changer. All things OM brings to the table in a very affordable package. It would be worth a look if I was in his shoes.

 

[BrianSmall]

Hello, as per the title I'm deciding on my next move in equipment, I'm currently "in-between" my big lens, and as I am relatively new and don't have an endless pocket I can only really afford upgrades far apart. My setup was a D500 and an older 500mm prime, but as the big lens has been returned I am debating my choice for the next step. I have wanted to go full frame for a while as although wildlife is my primary objective I want to branch out into landscape/general nature and macro. I was looking at the D850 as this seems to tick all the boxes of a camera I'd need with some specific things that jump out to me, the stacked photo setting for macro and landscapes, and the fact if needed it's DX mode seems to basically be a D500. However I agree it seems mirrorless is the future, and something I want to go into, but to get a Nikon that can handle wildlife properly, they are WAY out of budget. The best I'd be able to switch to is a Z7 which I feel would be a downgrade for wildlife AF and also a step down from the D850.

However I have been debating a switch to Sony for some time, as I've seen their mirrorless camera come leaps and bounds ahead, specifically the A9 which has been famed for it's action photography abilities. The question is whether it's worth the switch due to the fact my funds are limited, my two choices at the moment are;

• Stick with Nikon, replacing my prime with a 300mm f2.8 VR1 and picking up a TC14e for use with the D500 for now. Then having to wait a while to save up for the D850, this could be up to a year as the prime would take my current funds for photography equipment, or..
• Switch to Sony, selling all my current Nikon gear and probably being able to afford a decent used A9, the 200-600mm FE OSS lens and to start the 28-70 kit lens.

Obviously they both have their merits, and both would see me with a very good setup for the future to come. A negative I see of switching would be that Sony has a lot less exotic primes that don't cost and arm and leg etc so I would be very limited in improving that setup, bar the body for quite a while, at least on the wildlife telephoto end. Whereas Nikon has a whole back catalogue of fantastic lenses that will all slowly be coming down in price, however it would also take me longer to switch to FF and even longer to move into Nikons mirrorless side.

Any thoughts and advice is greatly appreciated.

FWIW I would move out of DSLR and into mirrorless at all cost. It's that much better. The A9 is a fantastic camera. And remember that your DSLR gear is losing value every day. DSLR is the past...............mirrorless is today and the future.

 

[Palmor]

Hello, as per the title I'm deciding on my next move in equipment, I'm currently "in-between" my big lens, and as I am relatively new and don't have an endless pocket I can only really afford upgrades far apart. My setup was a D500 and an older 500mm prime, but as the big lens has been returned I am debating my choice for the next step. I have wanted to go full frame for a while as although wildlife is my primary objective I want to branch out into landscape/general nature and macro. I was looking at the D850 as this seems to tick all the boxes of a camera I'd need with some specific things that jump out to me, the stacked photo setting for macro and landscapes, and the fact if needed it's DX mode seems to basically be a D500. However I agree it seems mirrorless is the future, and something I want to go into, but to get a Nikon that can handle wildlife properly, they are WAY out of budget. The best I'd be able to switch to is a Z7 which I feel would be a downgrade for wildlife AF and also a step down from the D850.

However I have been debating a switch to Sony for some time, as I've seen their mirrorless camera come leaps and bounds ahead, specifically the A9 which has been famed for it's action photography abilities. The question is whether it's worth the switch due to the fact my funds are limited, my two choices at the moment are;

• Stick with Nikon, replacing my prime with a 300mm f2.8 VR1 and picking up a TC14e for use with the D500 for now. Then having to wait a while to save up for the D850, this could be up to a year as the prime would take my current funds for photography equipment, or..
• Switch to Sony, selling all my current Nikon gear and probably being able to afford a decent used A9, the 200-600mm FE OSS lens and to start the 28-70 kit lens.

Obviously they both have their merits, and both would see me with a very good setup for the future to come. A negative I see of switching would be that Sony has a lot less exotic primes that don't cost and arm and leg etc so I would be very limited in improving that setup, bar the body for quite a while, at least on the wildlife telephoto end. Whereas Nikon has a whole back catalogue of fantastic lenses that will all slowly be coming down in price, however it would also take me longer to switch to FF and even longer to move into Nikons mirrorless side.

Any thoughts and advice is greatly appreciated.

In general you have to ask yourself why you want to go to mirrorless and if those reasons are worth it for you to move. I made the switch from the D500/500PF to the A9II/200-600 and never looked back to DSLR but I determined the shooting experience with that combo was worth the change.

For me I valued

• Blackout free EVF
• Silent Shutter (this may be the most important for me)
• wysiwyg view finder (for viewing exposure)

Once I experienced those three things that was it for me. If those things aren't overly important to you than I really don't know if it would be worth it to switch, spend your money on glass for your D500 (500PF for example).

One thing I believe some people think is that by going to mirrorless they going to have some leaps in IQ over DSLR, but that is not the case. The sensors by-in-large produce the same IQ so the final image won't be much different. It's more about the experience of capturing that photo that has changed with the 3 bullets above (plus now the advancements in AF subject recognition).

Anyway, if you decide that mirroless is what you want to do than every manufacturer has offerings that will hopefully fit your budget. I think knowing what your budget is in terms of actual $ will help people help you

 

[DavidT]

In general you have to ask yourself why you want to go to mirrorless and if those reasons are worth it for you to move. I made the switch from the D500/500PF to the A9II/200-600 and never looked back to DSLR but I determined the shooting experience with that combo was worth the change.

For me I valued

• Blackout free EVF
• Silent Shutter (this may be the most important for me)
• wysiwyg view finder (for viewing exposure)

Once I experienced those three things that was it for me. If those things aren't overly important to you than I really don't know if it would be worth it to switch, spend your money on glass for your D500 (500PF for example).

One thing I believe some people think is that by going to mirrorless they going to have some leaps in IQ over DSLR, but that is not the case. The sensors by-in-large produce the same IQ so the final image won't be much different. It's more about the experience of capturing that photo that has changed with the 3 bullets above (plus now the advancements in AF subject recognition).

Anyway, if you decide that mirroless is what you want to do than every manufacturer has offerings that will hopefully fit your budget. I think knowing what your budget is in terms of actual $ will help people help you

You nailed it. I’d also add subject tracking to your bullet points. Not having limitations on your focus point and not having to constantly move the focus point around is a game changer. The camera is doing that so you can focus on other elements such as composition, background, peak moments etc.

 

[John Navitsky]

also, i don't want to be a bummer (as it's usually less than folks expect), but make sure you are realistic in what you can get for your used gear

 

[Harry Woodford]

I've had a chance to put an A9 with the Sony 100-400 through it's paces a while back.

Except the EVF experience which made it easier to track subjects, the A9 felt on par if not slightly inferior to the D500 (similar image quality, similar percentage of in focus shots and so on... )

So if I were on a budget, I wouldn't go from a D500 to an A9 (especially not for wildlife, macro or landscape).

I would get a Nikon 200-500 f5.6 for the reach and image quality, an used Sigma 105mm macro with the 1.4x APO TC (they go for peanuts these days) and something from Tokina's stable of UW lenses (or even the Nikon 10-20mm) and go out shooting in confindence that I have great capabilities from my gear and I spent less than a Sony 200-600mm to get them.

And in the future there is a clear mirrorless transition path without having to buy new lenses from scratch.

This is.. not an option I thought of myself but I can see it's merits for both short term and long term. I have heard good things about the 200-500 but how much could I lose in quality in comparison to the 300 prime? This option would allow me to still have a big lens for reach, as well as get the macro lens I want to get into as well possibly upgrading my current 18-105mm to a more dedicated landscape lens. This could also allow me to have spare funds left over so I would be a lot closer to getting the D850.
I could then slowly work my way towards the Z8 once prices on the used market are a little more reasonable.

In general you have to ask yourself why you want to go to mirrorless and if those reasons are worth it for you to move. I made the switch from the D500/500PF to the A9II/200-600 and never looked back to DSLR but I determined the shooting experience with that combo was worth the change.

For me I valued

• Blackout free EVF
• Silent Shutter (this may be the most important for me)
• wysiwyg view finder (for viewing exposure)

Once I experienced those three things that was it for me. If those things aren't overly important to you than I really don't know if it would be worth it to switch, spend your money on glass for your D500 (500PF for example).

One thing I believe some people think is that by going to mirrorless they going to have some leaps in IQ over DSLR, but that is not the case. The sensors by-in-large produce the same IQ so the final image won't be much different. It's more about the experience of capturing that photo that has changed with the 3 bullets above (plus now the advancements in AF subject recognition).

Anyway, if you decide that mirroless is what you want to do than every manufacturer has offerings that will hopefully fit your budget. I think knowing what your budget is in terms of actual $ will help people help you

Yeah these points and the one made by David T about subject tracking are some of the key points that I myself look towards the Sony mirrorless option. It's difficult being in this situation with budget restrictions else I'd be more than happy to just go for a Z8 and stay with Nikon, especially as I feel Nikon has a better range of lens options currently, even if some are FTZ.

It's hard to put a $ on the budget as it would involve selling my current kit etc, but I would say below £3k (sterling) is where I am if I started from scratch (sold all kit)

 

[Harry Woodford]

also, i don't want to be a bummer (as it's usually less than folks expect), but make sure you are realistic in what you can get for your used gear

I have kept my expectations realistic, I have quotes from every possible website I could have and also have looked into the private sale market and what I could realistically put it up for. But I appreciate the comment as I think some people could overestimate value.

 

[John Navitsky]

fwiw, as an ex d500 action shooter, i wouldn't have any qualms shooting the a9ii with good glass and the 100-400 is pretty good (i used it with the a1 when trialing that camera). yah, maybe it's kinda lateral, but as some have pointed out, there are benefits of moving to a stacked sensor mirrorless in general.

that said, i did decide not to go with the a1 and instead went with z9/z8 and i'm not regretting that, either.

lots of good choices

 

[Harry Woodford]

fwiw, as an ex d500 action shooter, i wouldn't have any qualms shooting the a9ii with good glass and the 100-400 is pretty good (i used it with the a1 when trialing that camera). yah, maybe it's kinda lateral, but as some have pointed out, there are benefits of moving to a stacked sensor mirrorless in general.

that said, i did decide not to go with the a1 and instead went with z9/z8 and i'm not regretting that, either.

lots of good choices

Yes it is a good and bad world we live in with too many choices. My ideal line would be working towards the Z9/8 as I do like Nikon and like the availability of other lenses that work well with the FTZ. I think weighing up my options, along with a lot of help from everyone here, I'm leaning towards staying with my Nikon F mount for now and going with what Stefan suggested. The 200-500, a macro lens but then possibly using my other funds and selling my D500 for a D850

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Harry I may have missed this but what subjects do you primarily shoot, from what distances, in what light and how much and how fast do they move…. These all influence the choices we might guide you towards.

 

[Harry Woodford]

Harry I may have missed this but what subjects do you primarily shoot, from what distances, in what light and how much and how fast do they move…. These all influence the choices we might guide you towards.

I predominantly shoot wildlife, a broad mix of things from hides, through woodlands etc. I enjoy hiking so preferably lighter is better, hence my previous answer possibly looking at the 200-500 and at 5.6 it could work through broken sunlight in the woodlands.

But I am looking to hopefully get better with landscape and want to get into macro. Hence why I'd love to get a full frame with possibly more MP to try these better.

 

[DavidT]

I predominantly shoot wildlife, a broad mix of things from hides, through woodlands etc. I enjoy hiking so preferably lighter is better, hence my previous answer possibly looking at the 200-500 and at 5.6 it could work through broken sunlight in the woodlands.

But I am looking to hopefully get better with landscape and want to get into macro. Hence why I'd love to get a full frame with possibly more MP to try these better.

If you want to do macro this is an amazing choice!
https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/m-zuiko-ed-90mm-f3-5-macro-is-pro.html

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

u Ok - so based just on this you probably be better looking at DX, APS-C and micro-4/3rds to benefit from the crop factor and right now the best stuff in not Nikon. But you are vested in Nikon gear.

The z50 needs an update - I would not recommend moving to an older mirrorless Nikon DX system as a wildlife shoot unless you fully understand the trade offs you are making.

The 200–500 is not that small or light but is f/5.6 however it is not the fastest af lens — it works great on a D500

One has too look at the bodies and glass you have; what you might get for them and the cost to set yourself up with a new set up.

Fuji X-2HS, OM-1, CANON R7 are the top of the smaller than full frame sensor pile right now. And folk are taking great shots. I would perform a little research on what 100-400 and similar zooms they have to match and work out what it would cost you to shift

The Sony A1 and Sony glass is expensive and a new version is likely next year. Remember Sony uses CF EXPRESS TYPE A CARDS and SD not CF EXPRESS type B OR XQD and none of your Nikon glass will work on it. So this needs to be factored in.

I have reservations about advising Nikon shooters to transition to Canon and vice versa the buttons/controls are very different and the canon af system as great as it is seems overly complex to me…. But any system can be learned.

If you want A1 performance and have the budget then the buy a Z8 and adapt your existing glass —sure it maybe a stretch otherwise put off the decision until later this year when Nikon is likely to launch at least one more body.

I hope this helps