I get this question a lot, so I thought I would just throw it into a blog post. Surprisingly, many of the people who ask me are always considering either the X-T3 or the Z6. But Canon has a lot of potential, and Sony should still be considered a strong choice.
As someone who has all the systems and shoots with them regularly, I’ll tell you what I know, and hopefully, some of this will apply to your situation. This is really hard, but I’ll do my best to be as honest as possible. If I’m factually wrong about something, let me know. This was all written pretty quickly.
Which Camera System Is The Best?
This is such a hot topic and most reviewers are not detailed enough or honest enough to help consumers make a sound decision as to which system they should buy. At the end of the day, they are all incredible, and you can’t go wrong with either.
I will say that Sony is the trendy system right now. Everyone under 30 seems to be on Sony unless they’re McKinnon fans or Japanese; the Japanese love their Canons!
The Rundown
Each camera is set up slightly differently, and each system has advantages and disadvantages, which may or may not affect you depending on how you like to shoot.
Believe it or not, there is also a lot more to a camera than eye autofocus. I know it’s been crazy for the last few years, but cameras do offer other features that might be important to you that you may not have heard about.
I can’t break down each camera’s stats in this article, but I have started doing that in separate articles where I compare each camera to the Nikon Z6. I chose the Nikon Z6 as the baseline because it is mostly loaded with the best technology right now, except for a few of the newer cameras. So, the Z6 is kind of the camera to beat when compared to other cameras from that generation.
But, you’re not buying a camera, you’re buying a system, so you can’t just look at buying any of these cameras by looking at the technology that’s in bodies alone, which is how this article will be focused.
You can see my first comparison here between the Nikon Z6 and the Sony A7III here.
IBIS ( In-Body Image Stabilization )
I won’t talk about Fujifilm IBIS since they discontinued the X-H line, and Canon is still a mystery.
The IBIS in the Z6 is very good, so I wouldn’t think a future Canon IBIS + Lens IS would be able to create a huge performance gap, but we still don’t know. They could go with a smaller IBIS system like Sony or maybe have several different types of IBIS we’ve never seen before.
I have tested Sony IBIS + IS with the Batis 85, and it still wasn’t as good as the Nikon IBIS alone. From my tests, with the Canon RF 35mm f1.8 IS, the lens IS was a little better than Sony IBIS, minus tilt shake, which the Sony IBIS was able to correct. Sony IBIS is pretty pathetic, but I’ve always loved it for casual video shooting to reduce all those micro shakes. I actually think the X-T4 should implement a baby IBIS like Sony uses.
I also noticed that because the Sony IBIS is weaker, it allows you to get away with panning the camera around more with video without huge jumps. In the Nikon Z6 or even the X-H1, you really can’t run around handheld or your footage will jump all over the place each time the sensor needs to recenter. So there are some advantages to the weaker IBIS.
Is IBIS super important? That depends on what you’re doing, street photography, no. Landscape, and travel photography, can be but only if your lens doesn’t have IS, which many of my Canon lenses do. For video? It depends on what you’re doing, if you’re a serious videographer, there are better ways to stabilize a camera.
Autofocus – Eye / Face Detection
They all do EYE AF differently now, but I’ll explain how it works.
Nikon Z6 / Z7
Nikon Z6/Z7 allows you to quickly change between eyes and faces with the focus joystick. This is the best and fastest for the user experience. I go back and forth between cameras a lot, and honestly, guys, Nikon wins here.
Because of those two buttons near the lens mount, you can set up the camera so that you can take control of the different focus modes extremely fast, so if the camera is ever a dummy, you can instantly change modes, switch to track, switch to zone boxes or whatever you need to get the shot immediately. Nikon is just the best autofocus system of them all, with the user experience and user control, and it’s also very good now, even in low light after firmware v2.1.
You can, of course, customize the Sony so you can change between modes, too, but it’s not as easy. The C2 and C1 buttons are just in a dumb spot and C4 is too far out of the way.

Sony A7III / A7rIII – not the A9II
Sony A7III / A7rIII is in second place, but people still praise them for being the best. I don’t think people are being honest or fair about Sony AF as a whole, or maybe they just don’t know what they’re talking about.
I shot for a weekend going back and forth from the Z6 to the A9II and saw no advantage when looking at the results, zero; this was with Nikon firmware v2.0. But I could probably stress test all the cameras to make one camera look better than another. For example, the Nikon is better at quickly snapping focus to objects entering the frame, whereas the Sony always favors more of a center frame. Sometimes, I prefer Nikon’s way, sometimes I prefer Sony’s way. It’s so situational.
Sure, the Sony A9 II has a sticky tracking box with a fast refresh rate, but Canon and Nikon AF are both fast enough for 99% of what most people shoot. It’s like that difference between 600hp and 630hp supercars while the lenses set the speed limit.
But you know, at this point (firmware v2.1), I would even argue that the Nikon could probably hang with the A9II in a professional sports setting if you know how to take control. What I mean by that is, you’re not some Youtuber who borrowed the camera from B&H Photo for a day, slapped it on a tripod next to three other cameras (one being an A9II that costs almost 3x as much money and is newer) to do an eye AF comparison then said, see the Sony is better.
Professional photographers will change their settings on the fly ( at least I do ) to get the camera to do exactly what they need it to. I constantly have to toggle between my focus settings, even on my Sony. Maybe one day Sony will read my mind, but it’s not there yet.

There are some things I like more about shooting with Sony and some things I like less.
With groups of people, there is still no way of controlling whose eye or face gets prioritized. If you want to isolate eye and face detection, you must work with focusing zones. This is kind of handy because you can move your zone box around and sort of control whose eye and face you want to isolate, but it’s a lot more wiggling the box around all the time and adjusting the damn thing to make it do what you want it to do.
It really annoys me when you shoot back and forth between portrait and landscape modes. With all the wiggling and adjusting to control the zone box, it’s just annoying and you quickly realize that it’s only a little better than manually adjusting your focus points like in the good old days.
That’s with groups, with just one person you can just throw the eye and face AF on the Wide Zone it works great. Better than the Canon or Nikon? It depends on the camera. The A7III is not. My Z6 definitely has better real-time tracking than my A7rIII.
Sorry, I had to be a little aggressive against Sony here, but the church of Sony and its disciples have scrambled many people’s brains. I just want people to have confidence knowing Nikon and Canon have basically caught up. Fujifilm needs a touch more work, IMHO, but there is supposed to be one more AF firmware coming.
Fujifilm X-T3
Fujifilm X-T3 hasn’t really figured out what it wants to do with its eye AF implementation, and it is probably the worst when it comes to the focusing user experience—well, maybe tied with Canon.
The X-T3 only lets you switch between faces with the focus joystick when you’re looking through the EVF – this is dumb. You can use the touch screen, but that experience sucks.

Then, eye and face detection will work in the different focusing modes like with the zone boxes, but the boxes don’t take priority. So basically eye and face always just look at the whole frame no matter what zone mode you are set in. You can control which eye it will prioritize, but you have to do that with menu controls. So I find myself rarely using eye and face detection. I just use the zone boxes mostly. Well, actually I use manual focus lenses with my Fujifilm mostly, so none of this even matters to me.
In general, focusing on the Fujifilm is very good, but you are limited by what lenses you use. Some people say the f1.4 lenses are fine, but they do struggle with AF-C, especially in low light. AF-C is all I shoot anymore except for landscape, and it sucks having to switch back to AF-S because of old lenses.
This isn’t to pick on Fujifilm; there are some Sony lenses that also suck at autofocus. Nikon hasn’t figured out how to make lenses that suck yet, Canon is pretty good at it though. I’m Joking.
Basically, Fujifilm needs to decide if they want to go with the Sony style or the Nikon style because you can’t do both, and being in between isn’t working either. You can’t control a zone box and toggle between eyes at the same time with a single-focus joystick.

Canon EOS R
Canon R– Canon has some interesting technology with its dual-pixel autofocus going on. Their video focus is so smooth. I don’t think anyone can touch Canon even today with how well their cameras focus when in video mode, just my opinion.

Canon’s approach to EYE AF is a little strange. The EYE AF only works in the one focus mode that works with the tracking box (you can set up the Sony to work this way, too; I can just never get it to engage with the eyes as well).
In general, the EOS R will try to track whoever’s eye you set the tracking box on, and it does an amazing job. But like with Fujifilm, there is no good way to switch between eyes other than releasing the half-pressed shutter and then moving the tracking box over to a different eye or person, which means constantly changing your framing. It’s kind of like that old school approach where you have the focus point in the center, you move that to the person to focus, lock it, then move your framing back. You theoretically could use the touch screen to slide around that focus box, it even works while looking through the EVF, but man I hate doing that. Does anyone honestly like doing that?
It’s functional, I guess, but not my favorite eye AF system. I still prefer the Sony or Nikon way.
I also want to say that Canon, like Sony, doesn’t track eyes very well when the subject is very close (like a full face in frame); Nikon is better here.
It also seems like Canon is using the 3d data for eye and face detection from the 5000+ phase detection pixels because it often ignores faces on screens or on billboards, which is strange. I’m not 100% sure about this and am still testing, but as someone who shoots a lot of street photography in the city with many billboards and advertisements, it is nice that it kind of ignores 2D faces. – I want to test this more, though.
Also, know that there is a huge difference between how well a camera draws focus boxes on the rear screen and how well it pulls focus. Sony throws up a beautiful little dancing display of boxes that blip around like a little fireworks show, and it gives you the illusion that the camera is doing more than it’s really doing. Canon’s focus box used to lag, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t working; it was just a graphical display that Canon chose not to throw a lot of system resources into. Watch out for little gimmicks like this. They aren’t making things better in any way. Another big gimmick is eye AF when someone is really far away.
AF Conclusions
At the end of the day, the autofocus on all these cameras is very functional. I rarely have issues or serious complaints about any system when I’m out shooting, even in very complicated situations. I adapt to how the cameras are set up, and it’s always a great experience. Usually, it’s the lens that’s annoying, like some of my Fujinon lenses, and my cheap Sony 50mm f1.8 is not so great at AF.
Like anyone, I have preferences, but at the end of the day, all the cameras produce great results here. It’s a little frustrating to me when 90% of every camera review today is exclusively about how well the damn things autofocus an eyeball without any mention of implementation or the potential of control. Between each camera, deciding which is better at AF is splitting hairs, and it really comes down to how you like to shoot. I like cameras that give me maximum control. Someone just needs to turn the Xbox controller into a camera, and Nikon has almost done it.
APS-C vs. Full Frame
Personally, I think APS-C is good enough for most people. I shot mostly Fujifilm for several years before jumping back into full-frame, although I still shot with my A7rII and A7rIII for landscapes.
What made me start using full-frame more was that I started shooting a lot more night street photography and just wanted some cameras/lenses that were better in low light, like the f1.8 Z lenses. Still today I shoot between APS-C and Full Frame about 50/50 and there really aren’t that many advantages to the full-frame system for me, except with landscape photography, where there is a big advantage for full-frame since APS-C can’t really compete right now when it comes to resolution.
Speaking of resolution, I also want to say that in low light, there is no difference between the A7III and the A7rIII or the Z6 and the Z7 other than the resolution you lose with the A7III’s and Z6’s AA filters.
Once you cross about ISO 800, you can no longer pull in additional resolution in low light. The keyword is low light. There is this thing in physics called Photon Coherency, which is basically photon density. It’s why they use lasers when doing things like the double-slit experiment versus bright flashlights. It also affects micro-contrast, so you get more pop with strobes than sunlight or continuous lighting. Light has a built-in resolution depending on how dense the rays are.
ISO 800 will behave differently when neutered down to level (via the shutter) while still in a lot of light, like with the DPreview camera comparisons or in many of my test charts, compared to actually shooting ISO 800 because you’re in the dark.
This means that bigger 24MP sensors will technically be able to produce a better image than 24MP APS-C sensors because the photosites are larger. However, the X-T3 does not have an AA filter, so you can pull in slightly more detail, which makes up for some of the lost detail at those higher ISO values—just a little bit, and this is specific to the X-Trans sensors. Despite what Fujifilm’s marketing team tells you, the X-Trans sensors will still show a bit of moiré.
Full Frame – Better For Zoom Lenses
I personally would go full-frame if I wanted to get mostly zoom lenses. I don’t own any APS-C zoom lenses anymore. Most of my zooms are for my Canon, and I have one for my Sony that I use for landscapes. The reason is that an f4 full-frame lens gives you about the same look as an f2.8 APS-C zoom lens, and they’re often cheaper and sometimes about the same size except maybe a little thicker.
The X-T3 / Z6 / A7III / EOS R bodies are all relatively the same size, too, so it’s not like you’re getting a huge small-size advantage with a smaller-size APS-C sensor camera. There are some with lenses, but when you match equivalency, usually, the lenses get pretty close in size. Just APS-C lenses are often a little thinner and less girthy.
So I think you can spend just a little more on the full-frame body and have access to f4 zoom lenses that are pretty much a better value than the f2.8 APS-C lenses. Some exceptions, of course, and it depends on the lens. With full-frame, you can also always go to f2.8 in the future, with APS-C you’re stuck at their f2.8 lenses which have the depth of field equivalency of f4 full frame. I hope that makes sense.
APS-C – Advantages Are With Prime Lenses
The only brand really striving to make a professional APS-C system is Fujifilm. They are close to having a perfect lineup, but they have a fairly large hole in their lens lineup that keeps me using full-frame half the time. Sigma does make some cool Sony APS-C lenses as well and I do like the Sony APS-C cameras. They are super fun. I use to have an A6400 that I only sold because my A7rIII shoots an 18MP APS-C crop which was good enough for me.
The reason to go APS-C is for the primes. Or, like, if you want one zoom and a couple of primes. APS-C doesn’t require as large of a circle of projection from the lens, so you can always get some thinner, smaller lenses. With prime lenses, this makes a bigger difference than with full-frame lenses. The f2 Fujinon lenses are fantastic, and all the third-party lenses are fun and well-priced for manual focus photography.
To keep me exclusively shooting Fujifilm for all my street and daily photography, I would need them to release some faster-focusing, weather-sealed lenses, like f1 or f1.2, to produce a nice FF equivalency of at least f1.8 and f1.5.
I shoot a lot with the XFf1.4 lenses and the 56mm f1.2, but there is definitely no contest when it comes to using the f1.8 Z full-frame lenses when it comes to the technology in the lens.
Fujifilm plans to make a 50mm f1 lens, and hopefully, they will update the rest of their ranges to f1.2 or something. This is my dream: When this happens, I will probably only use the full-frame for landscapes and adventure zoom lenses.
Best Hobbyist System
Here is a breakdown of the best system for the hobbyist.
Sony

Sony cameras to me seem a little boring, the UI is pathetically behind (still no touchscreen menu, something Canon introduced in 2012) and they’re just not as fun to shoot with.
However, the system overall is still very powerful and very cool. I think Sony will eventually catch up with the competition with UI, but it probably won’t be for another 2-3 years. They’ve shown us they won’t update the screens / UI with the A7rIV and A9II, which means they won’t do it for the A7IV either. This means we’ll have to wait for the next generation. Probably two years from today.
The cool thing about Sony is there are some really great third-party lenses available right now that are good enough, mainly the Samyang / Rokinon lenses. I’m not sure if they sell those in Australia; they don’t here in Japan, but there are some crazy sales going on right now in the US with those lenses. These lenses are actually pretty good. I own several Samyang lenses for APS-C, which have gotten very good over the last five years. So that would be super appealing to me if I was a low-budget hobbyist. I’ll actually probably order some for my Sony soon. Sigma glass is also a great value.
Samyang is rolling out their lenses with AF functionality for Canon RF now. They just released the 14mm with autofocus in the RF mount, so it looks like Sony will eventually lose this advantage.
I’m not sure if or when anyone will make AF lenses for Nikon with autofocus. Nikon might keep its system closed up like Fujifilm’s.
So, you can build a prime lens collection with Sony very cheaply, but their Sony-brand zoom lenses are usually more expensive.
Fujifilm

Fujifilm has everything you could really need. If all you ever wanted was f4 zoom lenses for a Nikon or Canon, you could instead get the f2.8 Fujifilm lens, which would give you the same depth of field and more light. Fujifilm f2.8 lenses are very good. FujiFilm is just good. Colors are good, lenses are good, and their cameras are packed with features.
But there are some disadvantages –
There is no IBIS in their new cameras and no weather sealing in their fast f1.4 or f1.2 lenses. (This is why I started buying into Nikon.) By the way, I rarely need IBIS.
The main thing I love about Fujifilm is that they are great for all those cheap Chinese third-party lenses, which are a ton of fun, especially for hobbyists. I especially like the new Kamlan 50mm f1.1 II.
Fujifilm also has my favorite colors, and you can use all its film simulators to get some classic Fujifilm looks.
If or when Fujifilm starts rolling out some modern lenses that are f1 or f1.2, it will probably change the landscape for APS-C, and I imagine a lot more people like myself will shoot less full-frame.
Nikon

Nikon takes the cake for having the best overall camera body right now. The Z6 is just so far ahead of everyone else unless the Canon flippy screen is important to you or you need dual card slots or a vertical grip. Two things that are probably not that important to the hobbyist. You can even use Sony lenses on Nikon bodies with an adapter. The AF kind of sucks still, but it will likely get better.
You can also now send your camera to Nikon for ProRes RAW video. However, the Z6 does have an optical low-pass filter (AA filter), so I get slightly crisper images with my Fujifilm X-T3. The AA filter does help things look nice when shooting video since it removes the moire. The A7III and EOS R have similar AA filters as well. My A7rIII does not, and the Z7 does not.
The f1.8 Nikon lenses are very good, very high quality. I shot with the 85mm f1.8 all night once during a typhoon, and the weather sealing worked perfectly. The lenses are also great for video since they are silent and fast. They are a little clinical, though, in terms of look, and the 85mm does have quite a bit of cat eye bokeh, which sometimes is distracting. But for the most part, the Z lenses are some of the best, if not the best, sub $1,000 mirrorless lenses you can buy. Unless a Zeiss Batis goes on sale or something.
Canon

Today, Canon is just not there yet because they don’t have any good hobbyist lenses. I hope to see some more third-party support from Canon; it’s just hard to know what will happen. I mean, the RF 35mm f1.8 is fine, but it has one of the worst astigmatism (bad coma) I’ve ever seen.
Canon will likely roll out a Beast R camera with dual card slots and IBIS, and Third-Party lenses will eventually fill out the system, so it’s obviously going to be a great system in the future. You could buy into it today for cheap with the Canon RP and just wait for the system to grow, or if you’re willing to wait for new stuff to roll out and want Canon today, I shot a lot last year with the Canon R with the 24-105mm f4, and it was a great experience with great results. A setup like this could get you through a few years while you wait for new bodies / future lenses.
It’s never a bad idea to buy into Canon.
Colors Science
All the cameras have different colors. My favorite colors to work with are Fujifilm’s. They have the most realistic look. Canon, of course, has a nice out-of-the-box color. If you don’t use film simulators, Mastin, RNI, or VSCO, then Canon has some great color. But it’s not just the color; it’s the color gradation. It seems that Canon cameras handle complicated color shifts in lighting better than anyone.

Sony colors try to simulate reality, but Fujifilm does this nicely. I think maybe Sony’s greens are nicer than Fujifilm’s, but for the most part, there is this subtle digital feel to Sony images that you sort of have to undo. They also struggle a little more with complicated color transitions like sunsets. Although Sony has said they’ve fixed some of this with A9 firmware, it should also be fixed a little with the A7rIV and the A9II. Sony has always been an underdog here, and they’ve done a pretty decent job of catching up.
Sony has a bad reputation for its colors, but really, Sony colors only bother me when shooting landscapes since they feel more digital than Canon or Nikon. Ironically, I still shoot mostly Sony for my landscapes. But my preference for landscape shooting would be Canon and Nikon. Nikon colors can be weird sometimes, though.
Sony’s colors aren’t so bad for daily life. They just got a bad reputation because they were the first to be full-frame mirrorless, and their early cameras had terrible problems with AWB, which people mistakenly took for “bad color science.” You can go to my main Instagram; most are images shot with my Sony cameras. It’s fine.
Nikon colors are interesting. It’s the Nikon look; you either love it or hate it. I love it sometimes, but I find it a little difficult to work with when changing the look to match a Kodak Gold or something. I’m getting better at it, but Nikon colors have a pastel feel.
I still think they look great when shooting the natural world, like landscapes. You will get used to them, and they do grow on you.
Since so many IGers are using Sony and Canon now, Nikon gives you a nice opportunity to have a different look. I’m constantly getting compliments regarding the color of images shot with my Nikon.
Conclusions
My bias is probably obvious, for the way I shoot I’m mostly using Nikon and Fujifilm. I’m still using my A7rIII for most of my landscape stuff and occasionally I use my EOS R whenever possible. I just brought back my 70-200 f2.8 II EF lens from California so hopefully, I can use my EOS R a little more this next year and I’m keeping my Canon as my zoom lens system for now.
At the end of the day, you really can’t go wrong with any of these systems. However, I personally have a hard time recommending any of them because my shooting style is different from yours. I buy what I need; you should buy what you need and always try to demo a camera in hand. You will end up having a clear preference.
I will say that Nikon probably has the best full-frame camera right now, but Canon and Sony will soon leapfrog them, and then Nikon will leapfrog them, and the cycle continues.
I recommend you really consider the lenses before buying into a system, too. Figure out what lenses you think you want or need, and look at the different options. I have several lists on this site of all the lenses from each brand, which you can find in the top menu.
All those AF third-party Sony lenses really make Sony hard to ignore, but they are already coming to Canon and, hopefully, Nikon.
When buying a camera, you should compare what you need and what’s available now to what you’re willing to wait for.
Today, you can still get everything you need from the Nikon f1.8 lenses, and they have expanded their zoom lenses with some cool options, like the 14-30mm f4.
Canon has made some mind-blowing lenses, like its f1.2 primes and f2 lenses, that no other system can’t match. But they are expensive.
Sony, just take your pick. They have everything that’s reasonable.
At this point, Fujifilm is probably the best jack-of-all-trades, master of none system, and I think that the APS-C system (specifically Fujifilm) is the best option for the average Joe. Actually, I would say that Fujifilm has the best internal video recording of them all, with 400Mbps 10-bit H.265 and the Eterna film simulator.
My Personal Favorite
My personal favorite cameras right now are the Z6 and the X-T3. I do enjoy shooting with the Z6 a little more and I like those f1.8 Z lenses.
However, if my house were burning down, I would probably grab all my Fujifilm gear before my Nikon, Canon, or Sony. Although I think I would reach for my A7rIII even if it meant getting a little burnt since that camera was expensive when I bought it, and I love its versatility.
I have always loved shooting with my Canon; I just don’t have many great lenses for it, so I don’t use it too often.
Samples From Every Camera
Here are all my shots taken with the different cameras from the last year or two. Each camera can get you there. Some shots in this post were even shot with the older X-T2 or the A7rII, which aren’t nearly as good with features as the newer cameras.
I hope you found this helpful! Good luck!
Follow me on my street Instagram here to stay updated.




































**This website contains affiliate links. We will earn a small commission on purchases made through these links. Some of the links used in these articles will direct you to Amazon. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. |
Hi Alik! Thanks for this blog post, I think you really tried to be as honest as you could. I only tried Fuji and Sony systems but hopefully next year there will be a chance to try Canon and Nikon aswell. I have been following your blog for years and your Fuji photos are still my favorites. Through your pictures it clearly seems that FF low light possibilities are much better then APSC but I like that you are jusing both sensors.
Just a question, why do you use Fuji AF-C mode, I barely switch from AF-S? Maybe I’ll learn something today, thanks 🙂
I use AF-C because I’m often shooting people that are always moving and I often burst, so I need the constant tracking. Especially with my kids who never stop moving. It’s been fairly game changing for me. The X-T3 or X-Pro3 with those f2 Fujinon lenses in AF-C is just insanely responsive now. I couldn’t do it as much with the X-T2, X-Pro2, and it still struggles on the X100F.
I still have to use AF-S when I want absolute precision like when I’m doing my macro product shots for review, and I use AF-S or manual when shooting landscapes.
If you have a model that’s just holding still, some people say you get better results if you keep AF-S but I’m always in motion shooting things in motion. But like when I was shooting my kids newborn photos with the XF56mm f1.2 I would use AF-S because they didn’t move much and it allowed me to have more precision.
But that was like a big aha moment for me last year switching to AF-C for most of the motion stuff I’m doing.
Thanks I’ll also give it a try 🙂
A link for Samyang in Japan (85mm for example) at Yodobashi Camera:
Oh thanks, man. I didn’t realize they had them here. My buddy even made be buy a Samyang for him last time I was in the US. It looks like they don’ thave the crazy sales though. :/
Posts like this are why I value your reviews so highly. Even though I’m not looking to change systems, the candid approach you’ve taken here inspires confidence in all your work.
Thanks, hopefully this all comes off as a comparison from my perspective, it’s just all about taste and style with these cameras.
I saw Jared Polins video today about the Z cameras and he seemed to feel the same about how all the cameras are pretty much giving the same results now, but with what he shoots and the way he shoots, he’s using a lot of the single point AF dot that he likes to move around and it’s not as responsive for him as he can get with the Sony or Canon. Which I have to agree. So I thought that was interesting, and yeah now I realize if I used that single dot for AF it would probably be annoying on the Zs, then I realize that’s why Fujifilm allows you to reduce the dots to like 190 so you can jump around in bigger moves. Nikon should implement that. I bet there is so much Internal politics with these companies arguing and fighting over features like that.
People just need to stop saying that f1.8 lenses are not professional. When I’m working at the agency I work at in LA they hire photographers to shoot a lot of billboards for TV shows, and they shoot medium format usually. They never are shooting with super shallow depth of field. I don’t think Netflix would be very happy if you did a photo shoot with the Punisher for a global billboard campaign and only his left eyeball was in focus in all the shots. You’re usually shooting a deep depth of field with a white or black background, then everything else is added in post. Or imagine shooting for a fashion magazine for clothing, and only the models left eyeball was in focus, but the company actually needs the cloths to be in focus as well. I really don’t get these people that keep thinking professionals need everything wide open all the time. Most super professionals really don’t shoot that way, especially landscape, real-estate and product photographers but yet everyone keeps saying that f1.2 and f1.4 are professional lenses not f1.8. And the thing is, you’ll always get better bokeh from the f2.8 lens at f2.8 then you will from an f1.2 lens at f2.8. So a professional buying f1.2 lenses for everything will actually be degrading his image by shooting it at f2.8 vs just buying an f2.8 lens.
Maybe I’ll see if I can get some images and interviews and do a post about that. That might be a cool eye opener for a lot of people.
Sounds like a great idea for a post.
Speaking of Pros, funny enough Nikon F100 and some other film cameras have a special mode where it would pick the highest aperture number possible for given light conditions to allow wide DoF.
But I haven’t seen a “narrow DoF priority” mode in film cameras – not the same as aperture priority mode since it won’t step down your aperture when you have, let’s say, too much daylight.
I wonder why that is, it seems like it would be handy. I do notice different cameras do behave different when in full auto mode when shooting video. I think it was my Canon that was always trying to optimize the shutter speed for video. Some of it might just happen behind the scenes in some cameras. Nobody reviews that stuff so nobody makes a big deal about it.
Hi Alik, great series of articles on your site. Fantastic to read a well researched and well written article rather than having to suffer through a YouTube “expert” review. Been trying to decide between sticking with Sony or jumping to the Z6. Any thoughts on the Nikon 24-70 f4?
I don’t have any Nikon zooms yet. It looks cool though but I just don’t know how it compares to what Sony has. The Sony f4 lenses from my experience are not great. I use the 16-35mm f4 and it’s never been awesome. It’s fine, but not awesome.
I’ve actually been in the same situation, do I simplify my life and just move my landscape camera over to a Z7, which has the massive 3.2″ screen with awesome resolution that I find to be super helpful for landscape photography, and get the 14-30mm lens. Or, do I just stick it out with the Sony A7rIII for a few more years. Since there is little resale value to Sony cameras now, I’ll probably just stick with Sony for landscapes.
It’s a little difficult to justify switching brands though if you’re very heavily invested and have a lot of lenses. I get switching from DSLR to mirrorless but going from one mirrorless to another if you own a bunch of lenses would be expensive.
However, switching from Sony to Nikon is a little easier since you can adapt Sony lenses with simple but crude AF functionality. So you can take your time selling your Sony lenses and replacing them with Nikon.
What are you looking to get from Nikon that you can’t get from Sony? Besides, RAW video, better IBIS, better screen and less expensive good glass? Actually nevermind, I just answered it.
Thanks Alik. Mostly need to get snappier AF than what I have at present with my A7ii. Not too heavily invested in Sony glass just have some of their small primes.
AF is going to be the clincher for me. Can the Nikon AF keep up with fast moving sport? Tough call as all the cameras look great, the Nikon build, weather sealing is a big selling point and affordable glass.
That depends if you want to get an A9, A9II or A7rIV. Those will be better than a Z6 and Z7 for af stickiness.
As far as the Z6 being good enough for real world sports. Yeah easily especially now that it’s better in low light. The tracking box on my Z6 is definitely more reliable than the tracking box on my A7rIII. Not sure how it compares to the A7III though. It’s been awhile since I’ve had that camera in hand.
I think we’ve crossed that threshold with these new cameras were improvements to AF really are giving diminishing returns. The Z6/Z7, A7III and A7rIII could be a little better, but it’s probably not possible to get better results with the A7rIV and A9 II without implementing AI and human body recognition. To me it’s all about user control and quickly being able to command the camera to change course to make it do what you need. Nikon in my opinion is the best at this. If you just like the leave the camera in full auto grandma mode, then the A9 is a little more reliable. If I was trying to get into doing professional sports, I would probably lean more towards A9 since Sony has the lenses for that profession.
Do you have long term experience with the Nikon Z7? If so, what has been you’re experience with tracking and it’s accuracy? Do you have any recommendations when it comes to setting the camera up for tracking? I’ve always used Nikon but I am about to jump to Sony by purchasing a Sony a9ii mainly for tracking. I will keep the Z7 for now. I’ve sold my D850 which could do so many things with excellence.
Hi, really fan of your reviews.
Que: How would you compare AF performance in good/ bad light between the Z6 and Fuji XT3
They are all getting so good now that it kind of depends on the lens. Nikon is a bit faster, stickier, but the X-T3 is a little more customizable. The Fujifilm struggles with AF-C with a lot of the older f1.4 lenses. Things are pretty responsive with the f2 lenses. I only have problems with the Fujinon if I’m using those older lenses but even then it doesn’t really make a huge impact on performance, it depends on what you need out of it and learn the limitations of it and it’s fine.
I like that on Fujifilm you can adjust front or rear priority focus, so if there is a fence or something in the foreground the Fujifilm will ignore it a little better, where as the Nikon always favors foreground objects. This can sometimes be a problem if you’re shooting with eye AF and the girls bangs drop a little in front of the eye it will focus on her hair instead of her eyes. Where I think Fujifilm uses rear priority with eye AF, i think?
According to rumors, there is still suppose to be one more firmware upgrade coming to the X-T3 for AF though. And who knows how much Nikon will continue to change.
Tnx for the answer..
Have the old 1,4 and 1,2 lenses for my XT3. Wondering change to the Z6 with some 1.8 lenses.
I’m shooting mostly my (moving) kids, occasionly portraits,street,landscape.
How would you consider the handling/ergonomics on the 2 cameras?
Eurgo and handling is totally different between the two. The Z6 overall is a much bigger camera. The lenses are big, I actually wish they had some pancakes but I love the ergonomics. No camera is faster when it comes to switching between focus modes, the screen is massive the controls are amazing. In my opinion the Z6 probably has the best ergonomics and control overall. But, the X-T3 is unique and the 3-way tilting screen is really nice, I use it all the time. There is a lot I really like about the X-T3. I love that you can throw on a vertical grip for better handling, or take it off to go small.
It’s a really tough thing deciding between those two systems. They both have very unique and strong advantages.
Alik, what about people that shoot mostly landscapes and travel photography and value zooms like a 24-105, 70-200, 100-400 and 16-35, would you still recommend the fuji system or tell them to check Sony or Nikon instead? Even though Nikon has just a few native Z lenses for now.
I’m asking because I have an XT3 and was eagerly waiting for the 16-80 which got average reviews and costs almost as much as the Sony or Canon 24-105. Same for the 16-55 which is huge and we now have for the same price a sigma 24-70 for L and E mounts. Based on my experience so far my main kit would probably be either the 24-70+70-200 combo along with a 35 or 24 prime for low light or the 24-105+100-400 combo with the prime as well.
It’s hard for me to say which system to use for landscape, because so many people get great results with APS-C and they love their systems and how compact they were. But me personally, I prefer full frame for landscape because you always have the option to go with higher MP cameras for printing and you’re going to get better results with low light and astro work.
And, Fujifilm zoom lenses are basically the same price as the f4 zoom lenses on full frame systems. The only thing you get are slightly smaller lenses because those lenses can have smaller barrels since they don’t need to project as large of an image circle. So for me it makes no sense to use Fujifilm for landscape work, unless you’re using it 70% of the time for street, portrait, then 30% of the time for landscape.
Also, my Sony 16-35mm f4 is basically the same size as my Fujifilm 10-24mm f4. So it never made sense for me to pursue APS-C for landscape, especially since the A7rIII and the X-T3 are also a very similar size, but I get soooo much more out of the Sony system.
I’d say landscape and travel are 90% of what I shoot, 5% motorsport and 5% the rest. What I’m looking for is a system with good options for both f4 and f2.8 zooms, a nice 24-105 for travel and a few 1.8 primes that dont break the bank, bonus points if they are weather resistant.
So the Nikon Z is certainly a good pick except for the 24-105 zoom that is currently missing even though a 24-120 is in the roadmap for 2021, and the 100-400 or 70-200 f4. The 1.8 primes are excellent so there’s a big plus as well. Regarding motorsport focusing I’m not sure how they’d fare. What scares me a bit is that Sigma hasn’t event talked about bringing their new lenses to the Z mount, which they already confirmed they’re doing to the RF mount.
Sony has the lenses I need (24-105 G, sigma 24-70 2.8, tamron and sigma 70-200 2.8 coming soon, sony 70-200 f4, 35 and 85 1.8) but I hate using their cameras and the weather sealing is a bit lacking.
Canon R can be found for a cool price on gray market with the 24-105 and the EF adapter provides a lot of nice lenses on the used market but what scares me a bit is that they only have super pro stuff for now with no f4 zooms announced. The 1.8 lens is not on the same level as Sony and Nikon.
I’d definitely go Z mount if the lenses were already there but right now I don’t really know.
Sony has everything but a lot of the Sony lenses are still DSLR designs. Like most of the Sigma lenses for the Sony are DSLR adaptations but they are moving over to more mirrorless designs now, finally.
That is the big reason why people jump into Sony, because everything is there, even though a lot off the lenses everyone gets excited about are technically DSLR lenses at the core which means you could get the same by adapting F or EF lenses to Nikon or Canon. But the idea of buying lenses just to adapt doesn’t sound fun though at all and just doesn’t seem like a good idea.
Both Canon and Nikon will eventually get there. It looks like Canon is going to go cheap with their f1.8 lenses based on rumors I’ve seen. This is good and bad depending on how good they are. Canon also looks like they are being more friendly to third party companies than Nikon. Already Samyang has AF lenses for the RF.
It’s so hard to know what company will do what right now. I really like that Nikon has good f1.8 lenses Sony has a few as well but not all of them are weather resistant.
Nikon is probably the closest to having the most practical lineup since they have those f4 lenses. Canon just needs a few more f4 zooms. I would love a 70-200mm f4 from both of them. 70-200 f2.8 lenses are just too heavy for travel.
It kind of sucks right now for new people buying into mirrorless because Sony cameras skimp on their user interface and user design, Canon and Nikon lack lenses, who knows if Canon will produce an affordable iBIS camera in the future. Then Fujifilm has some great f1.4 lenses but they are old designs with no weather sealing and have old autofocus chips in them. There is no winning right now with any system.
The Sony weather sealing and euro is a lot nicer on their new cameras. But the A7III is not a new one. I wonder if they will release an update to that soon. I would imagine an A7IV would be this spring.
So basically:
Sony – great lineup of sony and 3d party lenses, however I don’t really like the MK3 bodies ergonomically. A7RIV has improved it and the weather sealing but cheapest is 2.8k on gray market which is a lot. A7IV probably coming H1 2020 so I can wait a bit to see its improvements over the MK3
Fuji – XT4 being announced soon with better battery and IBIS which were my 2 complaints on the XT3. Doesn’t have access to high MP cameras though. I love the 55-200 for price/quality but the other zooms are almost the same price and size as Sony ones, which makes them a bad deal imo. Lenses roadmap being announced soon probably.
Canon – Great 1.2 and 2.8 lenses which aren’t really my target, both regarding price and size. I’m more interested in F4 and 1.8s to carry less weight. They’ll probably release some nice F4 lenses though.
Nikon – Good bodies, awesome 1.8 primes, everything is properly weather sealed. However there’s a lack of telephoto lenses so far and a 24-105 and the Z mount is lacking 3rd party support.
Basically for me is between getting a Z for now with the 24-70 and adapt a 70-200 f4 or 70-300 or wait to see how the new A7IV comes out. Or get an A7RIII and just ignore everything I said before.
I think you nailed it here:
Yeah, so about that new body on the Sony, it really does feel like a real pro camera now. I was shooting with the A9II for a bit last year and it definitely feels good. Before Canon and Nikon cameras felt just so much better, but now the Sony camera actually feels like a professionally designed camera, not a prototype.
I think a lot of people are misreading the X-T4 rumor as an X-T4. I think it will be an X-Tx or something like the EM1x where there is one large battery that just lives in the vertical part of the grip, like the Canon sports cameras and this will be the only camera with that configuration. https://static.bhphoto.com/images/images2000x2000/1548291021_1450952.jpg
The A7rIII is a cool camera. I still shoot on that and was going to buy the Samyang 85mmm f1.4 for use in good weather street shooting, if it’s not too heavy, but the Z system does feel so much better. It’s a tough one, I wish Nikon just opened their mount to third-party companies, then the system would be a no brainer. Maybe this new Canon R5 coming will be the answer.
Here is the photo of the Olympus. I think the X-T4 will be a Fujifilm version of this, except APS-C.
Well that actually makes sense since there’s olympics this year and maybe they’re trying to showcase a sports oriented camera? I think its awkward for them to release an XT4 with a new sensor and processor after having just released the Xpro3. It would probably kill the xpro3 a bit like how the xt3 killed the xh1. On the other hand, fujirumors clearly states its an XT4 and the fact is that even the XA7 has new features that havent reached the XT3, so they me crippling it a bit in order to sell the XT4.
I havent tested a A7R4 or A9II yet but those improvements are really good news and make me wanna wait to see how whats in store for the A7IV. Same for those crazy Canon R5 rumors.
Everything’s basically telling me to wait before commiting to a new camera system so I think I’ll do just that while keeping my Xpro1 with the 18-55 for now.
X-T3 firmware just came out today that improves the AF. It might be on par with the A7 now.
You might want to wait until late feb, early march when all these companies sort of show their hand.
Price is going to be a huge thing to. Canon flagship cameras are not cheap. R5 will likely be in the $3,000 range and I bet that X-T(4) is not going to be cheap either.
Yeah, the X-T3 already costs almost as much as the A7III and Z6 which I find it hard to justify. As the full frame bodies become cheaper and cheaper I dont know how Fuji will justify selling the XT line for these prices.
I think I’ll take your advice and wait a few weeks/months to see what’s in store for this year, mainly regarding the A7IV, new canon bodies under 2k and possibly Z6 Mk2? I really wanna go Nikon but we have no idea it’s coming out this year besides a few Z lenses.
I probably wouldn’t expect a Z6 II for at least another year or two. Nikon typically has a long update cycle on their cameras since they often throw everything into them. Even the D780 has very good components. They’ll probably do a D850 type camera with like 61MP or something like a Z7 maybe Z9, and i hope to see an even more video focused camera that can do 4k60. I actually fully expect them to do an 8k camera before the olympics. The olympics will broadcast in 8k so I’m almost sure all the big brands will present something to sort of Honor Japan as a tech giant.
This review is very helpful especially for people like me who haven’t the chance to try a lot before buy. But, in my very little experience, also software availability is a very important point to choose between each ecosystem.
I shoot with a several years old Sony and I used to have some problems with awb, so I always shoot raw+jpeg with manual white balance. But Sony own raw converter is full of problems and Adobe color rendering is not so good. I end up with much more jpeg shot than raw converted (even if I have made my own profile with color checker) in my albums.
I think that with Fujifilm + Capture One for example I would be able to get more out of raw files.
What is your thought about raw conversion (especially regarding color rendering) with different camera manufacturer?
Lightroom is pretty good for most things, Luminar last I compared struggled with highlight recovery a little. Capture one handles the Fujifilm files the best, it’s almost like it applies a small noise reduction with an edge sharpness. But I feel like Capture one feels a little waxy even though you’re getting more detail with the Fujifilm files. The colors between all the software is different too. Adobe Color is more flat, more neutral, Capture one’s default is punchier with the reds, so it’s a little nicer for just batch processing. But they all give you options and you can load in the camera colors as well.
But the RAW converter thing is such a big topic because there are so many other strengths and weaknesses between the programs. I care more about workflow and organization more than how the noise pattern looks at a 200% crop, so I end up using Lightroom mostly and Luminar for effects. But I’m experimenting with capture one more. It’s a very powerful tool with color wheels, levels and curves. You can do so much with it.
I’ve understood that Adobe starting point is on the neutral side and requires a little bit of work to get pleasant appearance (which on the other side can give more degrees of freedom), while Capture One goes further and is almost ready to export (which can be very helpful for me), but is this valid for every camera brand or only for Fujifilm?
For example regarding Canon (which typically has good color), Capture One rendering is still accurate out of box? Moreover does it reproduce Canon style or a Capture One own style?
This is for every brand, kind of, the main thing you get with Fujifilm is the improved noise since Capture One handles the X-Trans sensor differently. But you can load all the camera profiles with the different brands with LIghtroom.
Like if you shoot Nikon, Lightroom automatically loads your camera settings.
So here is an untouched sample. Lightroom Left, with the NIkon Z6, Capture One on the right. Here, Lightroom looks, waaay better. 100% crop.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/553d37969de07959a6fa838dbc431bdd3d7283dc6f07ee840d26160eabb32253.png
Here is a sample where I match exposure. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/92d1113e7890f38ebfd88fc2a4b89752e37747501d6b6a8b53ac987d6a16da77.png
Here is a 100% crop with Fujifilm. On the Left is Lightroom on the Right is Capture One
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4df05d75c1af67d59d86900ea1e7fa129a3cc09e74120eb9e2b29addc723d085.png
This sample exhibits a huge difference: Lightroom rendering is more on the yellow side while Capture One is more on the red side. I guess Lightroom is producing more realistic skin tones.
How would have been a Nikon jpeg?
That one was loading the Nikon profiles. LR does that automatically. That was the camera standard. Nikon colors are a bit more yellowish. I don’t think the JPG wouldn’t look too much different. I’ll show a few more samples.
Here is one using Adobe Color all settings reset. This is usually what I load when editing.
LR on the left C1 on the right. I found a much better sample to use too. Now you can see C1 is actually sharper too compared to default Nikon sharpness.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/634a1a9e87d765117d32178f2ef844796971a48bdaa205addb4957e14dd6b159.png
He is one using Nikon’s Camera Portrait.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a2304e33973dfe485bcfc4141420509986de8ea4692f5803622874dc2b975fe9.png
Here is one using Nikon Camera Standard Profile.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0edccd9feead2a26c8f4275e9e6e08a30101ac2d21d434cb8b4bcc813ca6d50.png
Thank you, now I have understood that Lightroom, beside Adobe profile, has also camera manufacturer profiles while Capture One has only Fujifilm ones.
I think that I would go for Capture One in case of Fujifilm and maybe Sony and I would go for Lightroom in case of Canon and Nikon.
Since photo editing and organizing software are so important in the workflow, I will consider it as part of the camera system.
I unloaded all my Fuji stuff for Nikon… I had Fuji 14mm, 23mm, 56mm, 18-55… now do Nikon Z6, 20mm 35mm 85mm 1.8 z lenses plus 24-70 f4… Have IBIS now, plus everything is nicely weather sealed (none of my lenses were on Fuji). The 20mm 1.8 significantly better for astro as well. I think the Nikon lenses are better actually. And not much weight penalty either. I’m primarily a landscape/travel shooter, and often in bad weather, so I do think Nikon Z is better suited for this. I do miss Fuji dials/aperture ring, but that’s about it, not worth losing sleep over.
That’s good to hear. I still go back and forth between Fuji and Nikon, but Nikon lenses are nice. I always forget that you can just get F mount lenses as well. Seems like Fuji is refreshing all their lenses to to make the WR now, which is great to see.
A lot of the Nikon gear, is actually lighter and cheaper than the Fujifilm equivalent too. The Nikon Z6 + 24-70mm f4 vs Fujifilm X-T4 + XF 16-55mm f2.8. I kind of feel like Fujifilm is best it if you go primes and try to keep the package small, since you have cool cameras like the x-Pro, or X-E series.
Hello Alik, just your opinion, currently I’m funding for A7Riii but have to sold one of my lens to fund it. My current Fujifilm lens below:
XF23mm f1.4 WR
XF56mm f1.4 WR (not much usage but nice to have)
Voigtlander 27mm f2
XF80mm f2.8 (not much usage but nice to have)
The lens im planning to use for Sony is the 24-50mm 2.8 which covered most of my daily usage and travel, so I’m not really sure which to let go since there will be focal length duplication for the 23mm and 27mm.
That’s a tough one and a really nice setup.
I personally would use that 80mm a ton, but I can see why it’s not necessary if you’re not running a blog and shooting product photos constantly. So, I would probably sell the Voigtlander. TTArtisan now has a cheaper 27mm f2 that you could always buy down the road for cheap that’s good enough for a pancake lens. Or just get the 35mm f1.4 later on. But that’s kind of my bias; I’m fine without pancake lenses. But that Voigtlander I hear is amazing. I haven’t tried it.