Well Sh*t just got real...now what to do?

[Nature Man]

I read an interesting article a short while back. It was written by a pro and the context was about switching systems. He had tried many camera brands over the years and just kept coming back to Nikon. He wrote about all the different things he liked and disliked about the various brands. The article was well written but the telling sentence, to me, was the reason he returned to Nikon and stayed with Nikon was the Nikons just work. That was enough for me to quit being fickled. But, to each his own.

 

[Calson]

I shot for nearly two years with both Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses and for a long time with different camera control positions on my Nikon cameras. Now with the D500, D850, and D5/D6 the controls are nearly identical and that is a blessing. So for me the question is to add another set of cameras (main plus backup) and another set of lenses and yet more speedlights.

It is also a question as to if I do go this way should it be mirrorless and if so should it be full frame, APS-C or a MFT system. Going mirrorless my first choice would be the Olympus MFT cameras and their pro level zoom and prime lenses. My Nikon FX kit for Costa Rica weighs in at 37 lbs and goes into a 32L and a 18L backpacks. My wife's equivalent Olympus MFT kit fits in a single 18L backpack and weighs less than 15 lbs and that makes a real difference traveling by air.

 

[William (Bill) Anderson]

I completely agree with Jeff; indeed, some of my best pictures were taken as a financially-challenged college student. However, my main point was not the expense of new equipment; but rather about the AF system of mirrorless cameras at f8 and beyond. My example used a Sony a9ii + 600mm f4 + TC 2.0. I assume that the same would apply for other mirrorless camera, lens, TC combinations regardless of cost. This is an especially bitter pill for me because I have used Nikon SLR/DSLR equipment exclusively for almost 5 decades (now, I am telling my age). Bill

 

[AMJ]

I certainly see your point with the older glass, but I guess I'm thinking long term. In a few years, Nikon and Canon will have a selection of native glass that will accommodate most shooters - and can be used without adapters (I dislike that FTZ adapter a little more every day LOL). However, I know that also means the used market will probably see a flood of newer "older" glass, so if you don't mind the adapters, it may be a good way to save some cash. I think it really depends on your priorities and budget. In this context, the OP was juggling a pair of $6500 cameras and a 600mm

Also, Nikon's AF speed does take a hit with an adapter attached (with most lenses - lenses that are slow to start with seem about the same). Also, just recently we had a member who's adapter refused to release and required repair - just something else to keep me up at night when I'm planning what gear to take on trips LOL! At any rate my point is that I think (and readily agree it's a wild guess on my part) there's a large segment of shooters that will likely want to transition to dedicated native glass sooner rather than later.

I agree with keeping a foot in both camps for sure. I'm still optimistic Nikon will release a drool-worthy pro mirrorless camera eventually.

Nikon's Sony A1 beater: 8K, 45MP, coming in spring / summer (report)

Nikon's 8K answer to the Sony A1 "might be seen as better" according to new report

www.digitalcameraworld.com

 

[Kent B]

I was a long time Nikon user that went cold-turkey to the Sony a7R3 in 2018. I traded in my D750 and lens collection for the a7R3, a 100-400, 16-35 and the standard 24-105. The 16-35 and 24-105 are excellent; the 100-400 gives me fits: excellent at times and poor at others. I shoot mostly landscape and birds. My bird photography has suffered with the Sony. In flight focusing is a challenge; partly due to the variety of options and the menu system. This experience has made me skeptical of the Sony hype. My advice for those drooling over the a1 specs --- TRY before you BUY.

 

[William (Bill) Anderson]

AMJ, this is my main point. I don't doubt that Nikon will eventually catch up with Sony and Canon. Nonetheless, we will still have to buy new mirrorless cameras and native lenses regardless of our current SLR/DSLR kit and Sony seems to be available now. Bill

 

[Doug Herr]

While in its most basic form this is true however it’s mostly wrong. If this was the case we would all be shooting the original film cameras. Fact is as film and the cameras evolved it allowed good/great photographers to capture images that once couldn’t have reliably captured. In fact some couldn’t have been captured at all until technology has advanced photography.

With sensors replacing film, with autofocus replacing manual focus, with lenses rendering more detail etc. we are now seeing photographers creating images with more success than ever before. Using technology to our advantage is not a bad thing. If one chooses to not invest in technology to improve their photography or the likely hood they get the exact image they are looking for is their choice. It’s not right nor wrong however for those who do invest to stay at or close to the bleeding edge are not wrong or right either. It comes down to what does one expect to see improved by buying newer technology. Yea it’s true a crappy photographer isn’t likely to get better images with better cameras.
Software is another area that has advanced. With your logic we should use software from say 10-15 years ago and not invest in current software and in most of our cases pay a monthly subscription for the latest and greatest.
I embrace change and I try to invest into a system that won’t be dated next year. The a1 I think is a camera that even after several generations is advanced enough today to still be cutting edge in the next few years.

That's not how I read Jeff's post. There's much to be said for the latest technology but OTOH much can be done with older tools. Great Egret with 10MP crop-sensor camera from more than 10 years ago, with a 1972 manual-focus lens

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Northern River Otter, Black-tailed Hare & Anna's Hummingbird, same 10MP camera, manual-focus lens from 1984

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

​

These are among my best-selling photos.

 

[Doug Herr]

I completely agree with Jeff; indeed, some of my best pictures were taken as a financially-challenged college student. However, my main point was not the expense of new equipment; but rather about the AF system of mirrorless cameras at f8 and beyond. My example used a Sony a9ii + 600mm f4 + TC 2.0. I assume that the same would apply for other mirrorless camera, lens, TC combinations regardless of cost. This is an especially bitter pill for me because I have used Nikon SLR/DSLR equipment exclusively for almost 5 decades (now, I am telling my age). Bill

I'm not sure the assumptions regarding the AF systems of other cameras are valid. For example the Sony a7rII reverts to contrast-detect AF at apertures smaller than f/8.

 

[Steve]

Sony gets a little beat up for BIF and small bird work, but so far, I haven't really had any issues and really like the system (a9ii, 100-400, 600 F/4). I find it as good or better than my Nikon gear - especially for takeoff shots (the bluebird and swallow are just after takeoff). So, I expect the same or even better performance with the new camera. Time will tell of course and I'm very interested to see what Nikon brings as well.

Sony a9ii + 100-400 on just the second try (I had more than just this but this was a fav). I was unable to get a sharp image with these guys and the D6 + 180-400, even after dozens of tries. I'd have the birds under the AF area, but the camera just couldn't keep up.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Sony a9ii + 600 F/4 + 1.4TC

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Sony A9ii + 600 F/4 (1/20th sec). The blackout free viewfinder helps a lot with these types of shots.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Bruce]

I too fall prey to lust after the next great camera/lense. I try to take a deep breath, think about how well I use my current setup (mostly D850 and 500mm PF), and usually come to the conclusion that I have a ways to go as a photographer before I take full advantage of what I have. Perhaps a rationalization, but usually works for me.

 

[jeffnles1]

Just to clear the air, I wasn't trying to create any controversy. Someone had suggested photography has become a hobby for the wealthy and I was suggesting is need not be that way.

I was simply trying to say beautiful images have been and will continue to be captured without the latest greatest technology. Not a thing wrong with buying the latest greatest camera. Heck, I want one too. However, there is a lot to be said of just enjoying life, enjoying capturing beautiful images and being happy with those things we're blessed to already have. The realization that, for most of us, technique, creativity, and skill in getting the most out of the equipment on hand goes a long way to making one a better photographer than buying the next generation of gear. For those who's skills and creativity have exceeded the limits of their current equipment, sure, go for the latest, and by all means, grow skills to the point where that is exceeded too. There really should not be a right or wrong answer here.


Jeff

 

[Geezer]

Here are some articles by Dan Carr, a commercial, editorial and fine art photographer in British Columbia. I occasionally check out his website, shuttermuse.com. In several articles below he recounts his decision to switch from the Canon to Sony system. He also has an article on the new a1. I haven't read them as they're not really relevant to me at this point. Although Nikon isn't really part of the discussion, I thought they might be of interest to those folks that are considering the switch.

Why he switched: https://shuttermuse.com/why-i-switched-from-canon-to-sony/
And a follow-up to that decision: https://shuttermuse.com/my-switch-to-sony-this-is-not-why-i-did-it/
The a1: https://shuttermuse.com/sony-a1-review/

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

I haven't read all the posts, but if I'm going to jump off the Nikon DSLR wagon, it wouldn't be for the new Sony — I would be going for the Fuji GFX-100S medium format!

(Of course, I would keep my Nikon DSLR kit and large lens collection, but I would probably use the MF for most landscape work ... if I could ever afford it (with lenses)).

 

[Steve]

Just to clear the air, I wasn't trying to create any controversy. Someone had suggested photography has become a hobby for the wealthy and I was suggesting is need not be that way.

I was simply trying to say beautiful images have been and will continue to be captured without the latest greatest technology. Not a thing wrong with buying the latest greatest camera. Heck, I want one too. However, there is a lot to be said of just enjoying life, enjoying capturing beautiful images and being happy with those things we're blessed to already have. The realization that, for most of us, technique, creativity, and skill in getting the most out of the equipment on hand goes a long way to making one a better photographer than buying the next generation of gear. For those who's skills and creativity have exceeded the limits of their current equipment, sure, go for the latest, and by all means, grow skills to the point where that is exceeded too. There really should not be a right or wrong answer here.
Jeff

I don't think it's controversial at all

I still maintain that 80% + of a great image happens 4" behind the viewfinder. I have found that techniques and understating light and composition are far more valuable than any camera upgrade. Because of my books and reviews I'm often using what many would consider a "lesser" camera compared to a D6 or a9ii but the thing is, I can still produce pretty much the same images. The pro bodies just make it a bit easier, but I agree 100% that any camera body is capable of producing outstanding images in the right hands.

 

[Anjin San]

To each their own but you can’t take money with you.

True…but to be fair the weight of carrying a 600/f4 around is as much of an issue for me as the cost. As I said…I could afford it but it doesn't meet the "worth it" criteria for me. OTOH, after I get the 500PF and discover how wonderful it is and how much I like it…perhaps those "worth it" criteria will get modified. I do enjoy photography as a hobby…but then I also enjoy bike riding and computer stuff as well…and I'm still using a 2015 MacBook Pro laptop and riding around a 10 year old Cannondale bike that only has carbon fiber in the front fork and no disk brakes…mostly because the bang for the buck isn't there for me. I'm thinking about upgrading both of them though

 

[DavidT]

True…but to be fair the weight of carrying a 600/f4 around is as much of an issue for me as the cost. As I said…I could afford it but it doesn't meet the "worth it" criteria for me. OTOH, after I get the 500PF and discover how wonderful it is and how much I like it…perhaps those "worth it" criteria will get modified. I do enjoy photography as a hobby…but then I also enjoy bike riding and computer stuff as well…and I'm still using a 2015 MacBook Pro laptop and riding around a 10 year old Cannondale bike that only has carbon fiber in the front fork and no disk brakes…mostly because the bang for the buck isn't there for me. I'm thinking about upgrading both of them though

I’m with you...I like the MacBook call out. Mine is a 2010 model but to be fair it can’t do my photo editing however for everything else it’s perfect. I bought a 2017 iMac used last year that’s loaded out for photo editing. It’s not the latest and greatest but does a good job and I paid half of new. That’s basically the same point I was trying to make earlier about cameras. If I’m going to invest I’d rather be at the newest and best I can afford so the camera or computer ages well and gives me years of service. That’s why if I’m going to invest in a mirrorless and have to buy new lenses anyway I think I’m better off with Sony and the a1 checks off so many boxes I won’t need to do upgrading for a very long time. As much as I love Nikon any of their current equipment doesn’t pass the same test as the a1 for not being out dated in the next say 5 years. I could stick with what I have and play the waiting game but for me I’m finally at the point that making a change now makes more sense. Investing in a 600 f4 is the purchase that tilted the scales for me. If I wasn’t wanting that lens I could be a lot more patient.

 

[William (Bill) Anderson]

Steve, thanks for the BIF pics. I'm curious if you have developed a favorite Sony 'focus area', i.e., wide, zone, flexible spot with or without tracking. Thanks, Bill

 

[Steve]

Steve, thanks for the BIF pics. I'm curious if you have developed a favorite Sony 'focus area', i.e., wide, zone, flexible spot with or without tracking. Thanks, Bill

For general BIF work, I find myself leaning on the Zone AF area. For take-off shots, I use Tracking Flexible Spot Medium. However, I can count on two hands the number of days I've shot BIF with the a9ii and still have a finger or two left for scratching my head. So, still learning.

 

[O]

With the announcement of the Sony a1 which appears on paper to be a wildlife photographers dream it has made future decisions harder.

Talking through this to myself I have the following thoughts:

If we are to assume they took everything great about the a9II and amped it up with better EVF, MP, FPS, bird eye AF, animal eye AF there really isn't anything to not like (well we can still likely complain about the menus, at this point if it delivers on the above who cares).

I am a Nikon shooter and been happy with my D850, not happy with my Z6 which has hardly been used and I need to get around to selling it. I have planned on buying a D6 in a couple of weeks and adding a 600 F4 to my kit in May.

While the D6 has been the plan in the back of my mind I have considered not buying the D6 and rather buy an a9II with a 200-600 to try out since this combo with a grip is essentially the same cost as a D6. This would give me some experience with Sony and if I believe it is better then maybe investing in a Sony 600 rather than Nikon in May might be smarter.

I do believe at some point in the near future Nikon will come out with a pro camera to offer similar performance of the a9II but with the announcement of the new a1 I am now wondering if Nikon is the right path forward for me.

I love my 500pf, I love how Nikon DSLR feel, I love the other trinity lenses and am impressed the Z mounts are even better which has given me hope and staying the path of Nikon by being patient. I do believe that Nikon Z trinity lenses are better than Sony and if this continues the Nikon 600 Z lens should be mind blowing but the Z cameras seem to be a couple of years behind Sony.

I also wonder since Nikon uses some Sony sensors if this will also keep them 1-3 years behind Sony.

One of the pros for sticking with Nikon has been the available used F mount lenses especially the super tele primes such as 400 2.8, 600 F4 etc. This has allowed me to have some awesome glass that I couldn't afford as quickly if buying new Sony glass. Nikon also has F mount lenses that Sony doesn't make which is attractive.

But with all that being said the new a1 really has me second guessing buying a D6 and for that matter even staying with Nikon. This level of gear is expensive and sadly money doesn't grow on trees so deciding how to spend the money we have is a real struggle.

The negatives I see with the a1 is they are using SD-UHS-II and CFexpress A. The only CFexpress A cards B&H has is 80GB at $198 and 160GB and $398 and they are less than have the speed of CFexpress type B! I have got to believe at 30fps and 50MP 160 gig isn't going to last long, not to even mention 8K video which I don't do video now but who knows about the future. I could see a crap ton of money being spent on new cards that are slower than what I currently have. I have to wonder how much buffer Sony is providing since their other cameras take a while to clear and aren't doing 30fps at 50MP so this could be a big bottle neck.

New very expensive cards, new card readers, new batteries, all new lenses to switch (yes I know going all Z in the future would be new lenses at some point but could be a slower migration and still have some special, lower use lenses could stay F mount with the adapter).

Is it worth it? Is it smart to buy a D6 and keep marching on with the gear I have or is the a1 the camera that makes sense to pause on the Nikon gear and begin a transition to Sony?

Ugh sometimes having choices is enough to make one crazy!

Hi,
The release of the A1 Sony on paper is mind blowing, however what it really clearly says to me is ...……... BUY ABSOLUITLY NOTHING SELL EVERTHING, this is not the time to buy anything PERIOD, the game is changing in 2021/22 so much and so fast that when Nikon and Canon lift to the next level the D4 d4s D5 D6 even the 1DX series,
Sony a9, a9 II will be so far out of date you wont be able to give them away, well so to speak.

The game is on for survival or consolidation in the industry, Its time Out, get some ringside seats and just watch for a little while. Put your money back under the mattress.

The very near future will take you to the promised land if you have the BUCKS, if not you will be left in a slightly older world of wonderful used high end gear to choose from at a fraction of the price, isn't that something to think about LOL.

It may also be the time to have an epiphany, and realize you skills in composition, story telling and WoW factor is all the same regardless of the gear?

Time OUT is the call here, the choice to try something new or different......….is not worth it just now.

Sony versus Nikon..............Its like a story my X wife once told me, if you ever venture out one night and have some activity with another women, it will show you that what you have at home is either steak or chuck mince, if its steak you will be so delighted.
The point is darling she said, is it worth finding out in the first place.
If you want to try Sony that bad, spend the money and rent one for a week. This will get it out of your system.

Sony is great, a new innovator, if you haven't a system then its a good place to start, personally I don't like Sony because its a company that changes models as often as we change our clothes so to speak LOL.

Nikon is a pain dragging its heals, but hey, the Z series system has the best image files in the industry a consensus opinion of the industry top reviewers.

Ask your self is the splash out on a whole new system going to make you a better photographer, do you need this new system,........and are you happy with your self as being the best photographer you can be or will the new system make you a better photographer.............its a vicious circle.
Time to get off the agonising decision mary-go-round for a while, generally speaking. Wait and see what new rides are being installed very soon, obsolescence and depreciation can be costly..

Only an opinion

OZ down Under

 

[ShaneB]

With the announcement of the Sony a1 which appears on paper to be a wildlife photographers dream it has made future decisions harder.
...

Is it worth it? Is it smart to buy a D6 and keep marching on with the gear I have or is the a1 the camera that makes sense to pause on the Nikon gear and begin a transition to Sony?

Two thoughts. Firstly, the gushing reviews of the new Sony are based on specs. No-one that I'm aware of has actually used this beast, or even handled one - yet this camera is suddenly the proverbial greatest thing since sliced bread.

My second point is that the bulk of reviews of cameras in general seem to be based either on specs, or quantifiable results - the proportion of perfectly in focus shots made under some very artificial test seems popular. Very few reviews actually look at images - and image quality seems to be a Nikon strength.

I would suggest that if you have pockets deep enough to consider a flagship camera, wait until the camera is actually in the hands of people likely to be objective in their findings, and if those reviews indicate it's better than your current Nikon (or indeed, the inevitable Z8, Z9 or R1) then go for it.

Stay well.

 

[DavidT]

Here are some articles by Dan Carr, a commercial, editorial and fine art photographer in British Columbia. I occasionally check out his website, shuttermuse.com. In several articles below he recounts his decision to switch from the Canon to Sony system. He also has an article on the new a1. I haven't read them as they're not really relevant to me at this point. Although Nikon isn't really part of the discussion, I thought they might be of interest to those folks that are considering the switch.

Why he switched: https://shuttermuse.com/why-i-switched-from-canon-to-sony/
And a follow-up to that decision: https://shuttermuse.com/my-switch-to-sony-this-is-not-why-i-did-it/
The a1: https://shuttermuse.com/sony-a1-review/

These are great articles. Nice to see I’m not the only one who has been thinking about it and finally decided to make the change.

 

[anthonyrobinson]

For general BIF work, I find myself leaning on the Zone AF area. For take-off shots, I use Tracking Flexible Spot Medium. However, I can count on two hands the number of days I've shot BIF with the a9ii and still have a finger or two left for scratching my head. So, still learning.

Hi Steve, it’s notoriously difficult to find this on a google search for some reason. Have you noticed any perceptible delay between what is being displayed on the EVF and what is in front of the camera on your sony a9/a9ii? I found with my Z’s, panning with subjects that I am very confident would be in the middle of the EVF when I click, depending on their speed, can end up being almost cropped out off the image.

 

[Roaring 40s]

Lotsa people bought the 61 MP A7R IV off the spec sheet (thinking supertelephotos were now redundant) and lotsa people got disappointed - AF issues with the 200-600 and noise over ISO 400 especially when cropping.
My A9 doesn't reliably capture small perched birds. If record shots are needed I take a D500.
I've invested 30 thousand Australian in Sony and after two years and around 100,000 bird shots, say this: don't believe the ads.

 

[DavidT]

Lotsa people bought the 61 MP A7R IV off the spec sheet (thinking supertelephotos were now redundant) and lotsa people got disappointed - AF issues with the 200-600 and noise over ISO 400 especially when cropping.
My A9 doesn't reliably capture small perched birds. If record shots are needed I take a D500.
I've invested 30 thousand Australian in Sony and after two years and around 100,000 bird shots, say this: don't believe the ads.

I hope that’s not the case but time will tell. I’m guessing with them now having bird eye af, faster focusing calculations that would be improved but time will tell. They claim the noise is same as a9 and that better be the case or I agree that it won’t demand its price tag.

 

[Roaring 40s]

They'll be using the same hybrid AF.

Will more processing power help? It may. The common just-off focus in a burst is a CD problem. The calculation has to be done fast but the algorithm has to be good.

The flat failure to lock on a small static bird in SAF smells like an algorithm problem to me.

I count 6 types of AF weakness - though the last can now be sheeted home to a faulty 400/2.8, one of 3 I'm aware of.

Sony AF weaknesses - A9, A7R III

www.fredmiranda.com