Nikon. Their S glass is so sweet, and the Viewfinder actually gives the most natural experience. In terms of ISO, they are in a league if their own. I say this as a current Canon shooter.
@@jeepjoseph9036 wtf are you talking about... Fro keeps Sigma glass in his bag for a reason. The Art line is beautiful. Just look at the 35mm 1.2 and I own the 35 GM
Just got an R6 and I'm very happy with it. The main reason to get Canon was all the EF glass I already had. It did make sense to stick with it. I'll probably will be swapping to more RF glass in the future but I'm covered so far.
I'm leaning in the same direction for the same reason. I want to upgrade from my 60D to a full-frame camera that shoots 4K with a bit more dynamic range than standard 8-bit, plus all the benefits of ten years of R&D, while keeping all my glass. Was looking at the EOS-R first, but the crop factor in 4K is kind of a dealbreaker. My widest lens is an EF-S, so it's going to have pretty much the same crop factor as I already have, but it's 10-22mm so it's still pretty wide. I was initially bummed to learn that there isn't (and might never be) a Magic Lantern build for that camera, but then I learned that Canon has taken almost all the ML features I use and made them native in the R6. Almost. I just learned from this video (which is now a month old) about redundant video recording. Guess Canon's been paying attention to the reviews.
@@stephencurah1059 One thing to keep in mind. This will sound totally wrong at first but hear me out. The R6 has a slightly higher resolution than the T2i, but the T2i has a 1.6x crop factor. What this means is that the individual pixels on the R6's sensor a physically larger. Great for low-light performance, but that does mean fewer pixel's per mm of the image projected on the sensor itself. So if you're at maximum zoom, 600mm, and looking at the Moon, the T2i is going to give you more pixels of "Moon", and the R6 will give you fewer. It only really matters if you really need the extra resolution though. I'm very happy with my R6. I don't need the resolution for my work, at least not to the extent that I could justify the cost of switching brands or getting an R5.
I can't wait to see the "I SHOOT NEF" fro shirts when the Z III's hit the market. Seeing all the other Nikon comments within these comments is VERY interesting. My Z7II JPG's are fantastic btw. I tested loading nearly identical Canon, Sony, and Nikon RAW images into LRC, all with neutral camera profiles, hit Control-U, and Nikon was the clear winner. The F4S lenses are fantastic, and I don't need as many lenses or primes with the Z system, because the zooms are so good.
Replaced my D7100 with a Z6II...very happy camper. Very curious what the Z6III will look like if it ever surfaces. The Z glass is absolutely spectacular and when they start supporting the third parties like Tamron and Sigma I'll be even happier.
This is very helpful! I shoot on a D500 and D5600. Looking to trade out the D5600 with the Z6II to move into the full frame space. I'm sure it will be better than anything I have now. Curious, did you use any adaptors on the Z body? I have some FX lenses want to figure out if it's worth it.
@@Sammoab I use the FTZ adapter currently, getting rid of my DX lenses but will keep the F mount FF lenses for now. My F mount 70-200 f4 works great on my Z6II with the FTZ.
thanks! This is the same move I'll be making, Jarod's constant bashing of the Nikon AF has me a little leary of the purchase but I like so much else about Nikon and I already own some F mount FF glass. I've been so unhappy with my AF on my D7100 (my wife's D5200 misses fewer shots) that the Z6ii should definitely be an upgrade.
I bought a Nikon Z5 for a thousand bucks. Dual cards, IBIS, and a 24mp sensor. Waiting for the next gen Nikon for better autofocus as it trickles down from the Z9. I really like the image quality of Nikon compared to Sony and Canon. I have a lot of older Nikon glass and am really excited to see the new F mount adapter without the tripod hump.
The Z5 is probably the most underrated full frame on the market. Does it compete with pro bodies? No. But for everyone else, the Z5 is a truly great place to start. A Z5 with the 24-200mm Z lens gets you out the door for under two thousand US dollars and it's more than enough camera for 90% of the people watching this right now. And that's coming from a Canon R5 guy 😉
I would really like this camera but they crippled it just a little too much to make it entry level full frame. It's great that it has IBIS but video is cropped significantly. And then in burst mode you're only getting 4.5 shots/sec which is almost useless.
@@dsoprano13 I hear you on the video end - the big crop sucks, even with the Z 20mm 1.8 prime. But the 4.5 burst rate... yeah, that's useless if you're trying to catch a football right on the receiver's fingertips or that perfect moment when an eagle takes flight, but I was mainly speaking to the 90% who really aren't reaching that high. The landscapers, the streeters, the portrait hounds - the Z5 is great for them at a fraction of the cost of your R5's, A1's, and now Z9's🙂
I have to Sony a7r3 bodies and a a6400 with various primes. I looked at Nikon because of their 24-70 s lens which I found to be better than the Sony gmaster version. Went with the Nikon Z7ii and have been very happy. As you stated, I prefer the images of the Nikon, colors and skin tones. Autofocus hold up well for me. Check my chanel to see how the z7 performs autofocusing for portraits and video.
As a landscape hobbyist photographer I think sticking with Nikon is what's best for me! Great image quality, like my wide angle adapted lens, not enough compelling features in the others to change.
As i asked in the reply to the previous person, I'm somewhat puzzled by this almost mythical "image quality". Just how is it superior to that from the Sony sensors? Perhaps you should have a look at Gavin Hardcastle's photos on flickr then see if the "quality" is lacking there. I'm not criticizing your choice, just puzzled about the "image quality".
I think the big issue is whether or not you want to trade out lenses, buy adaptors or upgrade across the board. I have dozens of F mount FX lenses some old some brand new and will slowly convert to Z format. Primarily because of the color rendition from Nikon and the familiarity of their menu layout and button arrays. Nothing wrong with either of the other brands. Its just what I am accustomed to after 35 years with Nikon.
Simple truth, they are all three great cameras. It comes down to the lenses you might already own, and your particular preference for "feel in hand", which certainly varies between systems.
And if you have mostly manual focus older lenses, you can be agnostic in brand of camera vs lenses. $20 dummy adapter. It’s only the more modern AF lenses that make use of the adapter AF for Nikon. I think the Canon system is better since the whole Nikon some lenses with and without motor drives with screw linkage. So Nikon shot themselves in the foot 20 years ago, but hey those were dx lenses anyway. (Meh lenses).
That's what makes camera reviews so crazy, new updates come out faster than reviews can be published :) Will be interested to see by how much these new updates improve eye tracking and if suddenly these cameras hang with the Z9!
"About a minute after the Z9’s announcement on Thursday October 28th, it just went insane,” said Gray Levett, owner of long-established London dealership, . “Raffi, our sales manager, and myself were in the office until just before midnight on the day, still handling orders. We saw the highest number of pre-orders in a single day in our history, and we’ve been in business for 35 years. It even eclipsed the D850, which was off the charts, and the D3.”
@@harryvuemedia5106 You seem to have some inside info...what kind of numbers can you recall about the Sony A7IV camera? That would be interesting to know.
@@Isaypreach Checking your image too much, zooming 100% - even with crazy zooming 500% and finally comparing to other brand with high MP. The R6 prodoce really really great image, very pleasing. Well sometimes I'll do it "pixel peeping" at my R6 hahahaha
It's fun to go back to reviews like this after these cameras have aged. Canon's lens prices are a huge drawback. Sony probably has the best lens options. The focus system on the Z6II is good for portrait, landscape, and street photography in my view. The R6 is probably the best for action, but be prepaired to shell out big bucks ($2k or more) for even their older EF lenses.
The α7 IV's burst up to 10 fps raw is in drive mode Hi+, which-as unmentioned in this video [07:06]-conceals the present scene and displays the prior shot [1,2]. The fastest burst while viewing live, as to track critical action, is in drive mode Hi, which offers up to 8 fps [1,2]. But, while 10 fps raw, Hi+, is usable on subjects staying roughly on axis or predictable [3], it needs a CFexpress type A card [1]. A capacity 160 GB costs some 400 USD. Further, on SD card, the buffer drops from over 800 frames to some 25 frames [4]. Also, the clunky shutter likely wastes some resolution [5,6]. Anyhow, the benefit of either uncompressed raw or lossless compressed raw versus standard compressed raw is generally insignificant, as is 14 bits. The standard compressed file may impart more noise near the periphery of highlights that are basically blown [7,8], and may fall apart in post- if the exposure is raised over 3 stops [9,10]. The 14 bits versus 12 bits figures to add another 2 stops leeway [9], _if_ raw capture was near base ISO [11]. About video, Sony's imposition of Super35mm format-a 1.5x crop factor-on α7 IV's 4K 60 fps can complicate shooting [32:23]. It can require more lenses, lens changes, and gimbal rebalancing. And, on any lens, it increases the shallowest depth of field by about one stop, rendering f/2.8 like f/4. These differences can be critical if, let's say, using Sony's FE PZ 28-135mm f/4, an ENG zoom, on fullframe to duplicate an 18-90mm f/2.8 cine zoom on Super35mm. When shooting 4K 60 fps, one would get, after all, 28-135mm f/4 on Super35mm. - 1) Gordon Laing, "Sony A7 IV review: Photography vs A7 III vs EOS R6 part one", sec "A7 IV focus and burst speeds", UA-cam @ _/watch?v=8Mil4Jn51Fc&t=957s,_ 21 Oct 2021. 2) Ryan Mense, "Sony Alpha 7 IV review: The best camera Sony ever made. . . almost", _PetaPixel,_ 21 Oct 2021. 3) Jason Vong, "Sony a7 IV-the upgrade we've been waiting four!", sec "Autofocus performance is so fast!", UA-cam @ _/watch?v=eVvUs9lFatY&t=444s,_ 21 Oct 2021, indicates simply "10 fps" while showing footage of α7 IV's monitor during burst with subject walking on axis toward camera on tripod, which footage to me looks compatible with display either of present scene or of prior shot. 4) Dan Watson, "Sony A7IV | 20 best & worst features on Sony's latest mirrorless camera", UA-cam @ _/watch?v=oeZQzYJWbvE&t=496s,_ 29 Oct 2021. 5) Dan Watson, "Sony A7IV | 20 best & worst features on Sony's latest mirrorless camera", UA-cam @ _/watch?v=oeZQzYJWbvE&t=106s,_ 29 Oct 2021. 6) Sony's quieter shutters were introduced in 2015 with the α7R II, whereby Sony advertises, "The new shutter's braking mechanism cuts mechanical front/rear curtain vibration by about 50%." "This not only minimizes camera shake that can blur details in 42.4-megapixel images-it makes the shutter durable enough to have been tested to 500,000 cycles." 7) Richard Butler, "What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed raw", _DP Review,_ 23 Sep 2015. 8) Bright highlights mildly overexposed seemingly show no difference in compressed raw versus uncompressed raw [Mike Smith, "Raw compressed vs uncompressed Sony A7III", UA-cam @, _/watch?v=euVGDd3S9U8&t=239s,_ 11 Apr 2019]. 9) Greg Benz, "8, 12, 14 vs 16-bit depth: What do you really need?!", _PetaPixel,_ 19 Sep 2018. 10) In an α7 III, uncompressed may show no to scant difference-maybe perceptible at 4x magnification-until underexposure by 4 stops and then raising 4 stops in post- may ruin compressed raw [Mike Smith, "Raw compressed vs uncompressed Sony A7III", UA-cam @ _/watch/?v=euVGDd3S9U8&t=302s,_ 11 Apr 2019]. 11) Richard Butler, "Raw bit depth is about dynamic range, not the number of colors you get to capture", _DP Review,_ 1 Sep 2017. To see benefit from raw beyond 12 bits on, for instance, the α7 III, one may shoot up to ISO 400, where dynamic range is some 13 stops, or from ISO 640, where DR rises again to just over 14 stops, until ISO 1600, where it is just under 13 stops [Rishi Sanyal, "Sony a7 III dynamic range and high ISO improve over its predecessor", _DP Review,_ 17 Mar 2018].
Made it all the way. Having seen Nikon image quality, and being able to get the job done with the AF on the Z5, I have to say I'd pick the Z6II. #madeitalltheway
I'm somewhat puzzled by this almost mythical "image quality". Just how is it superior to that from the Sony sensors? Perhaps you should have a look at Gavin Hardcastle's photos on flickr then see if the "quality" is lacking there.
@@kevinrtres Nikon users are idots is my conclusion 🤣 I have heard this countless times. And as a former Nikon user and now on Sony, image quality on all 3 is very even. I prefer Sony due to third party lens options 😅 plus the GMs like 50 1.2 🥰😍
@@lifeafterbeats Me neither as in I couldn't give a $h17 TBH although it's kinda annoying having to constantly listen to peeps talk about Fro this and Fro that if you know what I mean. I don't hate on him either, although I suspect he did tear down my review on his Z9 spec sheet reading from the Nikon forum, but that's another story. Anyhow IMO if anyone needs to rely heavily on a bit of AF software to get the shots they otherwise would have missed they clearly are not a Pro and probably should't be wearing an I shoot NEF shirt or whatever. As for the rest of the $hitshow all I can smell is a rat and that' pretty much all there is to say.
Would be great to see timelapse features included between all 3. Nikon z6ii excels here: lenses focus to infinity when switched on, can do holy grail in P mode with exposure smoothing and it renders a 4K timelapse file simultaneously whilst shooting raw photos and comples the render even if the camera loses power. That said can’t wait to see a z6iii hopefully next year with z9 Af system a resolution bump to complete with the others for moving subjects
Lens Rentals conclusion after Nikon Z 7 teardown: "I’ll leave you with one last shot of the sensor / IBIS / frame assembly. Not a lot of air in this one, but a lot of really strong looking supports and connections. I’m impressed by the very solid construction of the chassis and IBIS unit. I’m impressed with the neat, modern engineering of the electrical connections." Sony was weak with IBIS mechanism. Is this still the case?
I got this far. I would start with Sony. The main reason is the E-mount. You can get used Sony FF or APSC and get a couple of sigma primes for less than $1000 and still be able to use you existing Canon and Nikon Lenses with an adapter. You also learn with Sony about picture profiles, and S-log. That is how I started with Sony. I repeated the same process again last year with the newer APSC bodies. Very happy. I also love the small footprint. They fit anywhere easily
Nikon Z-Mount can adapt any lens from Sony (E-Mount), Canon (EF-Mount), Pentax (K-Mount), Leica (M-Mount), Z-Mount and F-Mount. It's the most versatile on the market.
Adapters are a fine transitional tool or as something for a specialty lens. They really suck as a long term solution for all or most of the glass you use. Just by into the ecosystem that actually has the glass you want.
@@IanHobday Adapters are highly recommended for Sony users as well. This was the case for many years touting out loud from the Sony community. Why should it be suddenly a problem for other brands?
@@theartofimaging618 That's certainly not something I have ever said. I do have a Metabones EF adapter and as far as adapters go it's great. However using adapters is a terrible user experience compared to native mount lenses, especially if you have a mix of native glass and a number of non-native lenses that share one adapter. If you can afford to buy one adapter per lens or if you very rarely use adapted lenses it's fine but native glass is always a better experience.
I would definitely start with Sony! I love the fact that one can shoot unlimited time and the battery is great. The 120 fps 1080 is wonderful as it is still the most common format anyway. The fact that it shoots 4k too is a bonus that would future-proof me as starter videographer. The flipping/fully articulating screen is of course a muts as I would like to go into content creation.
Thank you for the great breakdown. I went with the Sony. After a lot of research it was always between the Cannon and Sony. Over the last several weeks it came down to the shutter speed of the Cannon vs the cost of the glass from Sony. Money won. I ordered my Sony body with the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Art Lens and saved $1,300 dollars right out of the gate compared to the Canon RF. No looking back now.
Now that you've had some time with this setup are you happy with your choice? I'm currently debating on going with the same setup. I really like the Canon user experience, but the new Sony bodies and menus have improved drastically and the Sony/Sigma combo can't be touched price wise with Canon and their glass.
#igotthisfar I chose Nikon. I do mostly landscape stuff so it didn't really matter when it came to the speed of the autofocus. I just love the colors I get from their sensors. Can't really go wrong with any of them these days though.
I stuck with Nikon for the same reason and I really love the form factor and the buttons. As you said as long as you don't need lightning quick AF on moving subjects, it's a fantastic camera.
I feel I noticed Nikon has deeper colors than canon years ago. I wasn’t too into photography but that was my impression . Seeing videos won’t people comparing photos from these , for some reason the differences seem less . I wonder if the new tech has taken away a bit of the vibe? Anyone else notice this?
Which would I start in? I am a Nikon z7ii owner who came over from a Nikon DSLR so the question, for me, is where would you start with or without an existing relationship? If you already have experience with a brand and don't hate it - stick with it. Long-term none of these brands will be substantially better than the other; right now Sony / Canon are better at AF, Nikon has superior colours, build quality and ergonomics; its also significantly cheaper. Next year the z6iii will, in all likelihood, have Sony/Canon level/beating AF until they then bring out their next gens and improve further; Sony & Canon have taken ergonomic cues from Nikon to improve their cameras and will likely improve their files over time too. Ultimately if you are canon stay canon, Sony Sony and Nikon Nikon - the cameras are so good these days it genuinely is down to the one you are comfortable with. And for all the doom-mongering Nikon - as the smallest of the 3 companies by a long way - is not going anywhere and is punching above its weight! If you have no existing camera then that's a different story. First... You could argue that the newest e.g. Sony's 4th gen is the best option and for the short-term, based on specs, that's probably right but in the medium- long term I don't know I'd agree. In 6-12 months Canon might & Nikon will certainly have brought out their 2nd gen offerings; for Nikon specifically the tech that will trickle down from the z9 will almost certainly make the AF discussion disappear. Ultimately you need to think longer term as you'll likely be in the system for a long time with glass investments. Not for nothing on that aspect it might be worth considering that at some stage Sony (and maybe even Canon) will have to change their mount to allow for larger sensors which will put them behind Nikon who have already absorbed that and is well on its way of having a fully fleshed out lens line up. If you are buying into a system now and starting to buy glass you have to consider that if they change their mount you'll be outlaying that cost all over again even if they allow you to adapt their old glass to tide you over. Second... (and most importantly) the decision of which camera you buy should 100% be based on use case. Reviews like this about specs (and some real world usage) are great but context is lacking. What are you shooting? If you are getting into sports or birds that's a very different need set to photo journalism (like the Fro) or landscapes or portraiture etc etc etc. Some of the prioritised or lauded specs *cough* AF *cough* FPS *cough* mean absolutely nothing if you are doing landscape photography while they absolutely matter if you want to shoot fast action subjects. Don't buy specs buy something that helps you create the images you want to create Third... Cost - If you are starting out the savings you'd make going with the Nikon mean you could probably buy one of their amazing 1.8 primes and still have change out of the Canon/Sony which will help your photography far more than specs (you may not use) or going with the so called cool crowd will ever do I genuinely believe the Canon and the Sony offerings are exceptional - if you went into their systems I doubt you'd be sorry. BUT I also think the Nikon offering is also exceptional, criminally underrated as a camera due solely to the AF and will only get better - for me its the long-term choice. I have used a Sony but not a Canon (so can't compare them) and completely understand what Fro says about the AF - it makes certain types of photography easier for certain BUT the cameras also have big drawbacks vs the Nikons - their ergonomics aren't as good (subjective but generally accepted), their files and colours just don't look as good straight out of camera (Fro seems to agree with this), their menus aren't great (learnable but not great as a beginner) and generally I don't think they are as well built as Nikons. These are less sexy things to compare BUT over any sort of time they are more critical than the current AF offering So if it was me? I would buy a Nikon z5 and get into the system with something like the new 24-120. I'd then save the rest of the cash to trade that body in against a z6iii in about a years time
*_So if it was me? I would buy a Nikon z5 and get into the system with something like the new 24-120. I'd then save the rest of the cash to trade that body in against a z6iii in about a years time_* Great idea!
Yeah I agree with the last person that this is the best comment on here. I invested in my Nikon gear and don’t really want to switch. I also like the Z9, but damn that price tag. I told myself I’d wait to see what Nikon does next for the cameras below the Z9. If they don’t incorporate the tech that in the Z9 into the others then I’ll pull the trigger on the Z9. If they do then I’ll switch to the more affordable options. For now I’m definitely going to purchase the FTZ2. It might sound dumb to do so, but I know I’ll be making the switch eventually. I just want to be ready once that time comes to make a decision.
Sigma lenses are amazing. More impressive than the canon lenses for sure so hopefully canon allows 3rd party soon. If they do there is less reason to go with sony. Both cameras are so similar at this point though so I guess it comes down to preference and details. Hopefully we see prices on full frame go down overall in the coming years. Still really expensive for anyone just doing this as a hobby.
If I were starting out today...Nikon. I mostly do landscape photography and an extra $500 will not get me a better camera (compared to the other two reviewed models). Money I could put toward a lens. Currently a 6D user and since I already have several good lenses, I could not financially change to Nikon. Two different slot cards is a waste for me, so the SD card slots in a 6D would work for me.
As someone who has been shooting for 7-8 years with a Canon T5i (and shot on a Canon 6D for a few months for a previous job) I had been waiting for both of these camera's to come out before making my decision of which system to invest in when making the jump to full frame. For me, I am leaning towards the Sony with my main deciding factors being the higher mp and all of the third party lenses available. Other more minor things include no record limit, the digital hot shoe to pair with sony mics without cords, full hdmi port, and the ability to switch from photo to video modes and keep the settings (not sure if the R6 does that). It's definitely not an easy decision though.
Sony is good for all use cases but the body is a bit priced like canon. Personally, I'd go with sony for low light photograpy and videography because of the BSI sensor, and the lenses choices. For landscape Nikon colors, contrast, weather sealing are the best (I think they also use sony sensors). For portraits, I'd go with any of them, even the RP does a very good job for portraits
I moved from Nikon DSLR to Sony A7 III because of the better lens selection, smaller/lighter body, and the availability of 3rd party glass. Extremely happy with the decision.
Stiill going with Nikon because of the images quality i get. I started with a canon traditional camera before and it broke less than 2 years, hated it so much that a few years after i got a Nikon F100 and never looked back.
Nikon provides medium format image quality with the D850 / Z 7 II at ISO 64. Still unmatched my the competition since the introduction of the D810 in 2014.
I like my Z6 a lot. Autofocus accuracy may not be as good as the others, but I really only notice it being a problem when using the 2x teleconverter on my 70-200 or with my Sigma 24-70 2.8 using the FTZ. The Sigma just seems to "hunt" a lot more than it did with my DSLR. Seriously thinking about selling it because I find myself using the Z 24-70 f4 instead most of the time.
I have a Z6 and both 35mm and 85mm and don't have any problem with autofocus. It's only a problem if you try to use eye autofocus when shooting fast action. This camera is not meant for sports or BIF.
I went with Nikon for the quality and colors. I also like the full line of relatively lower priced f/1.8 primes that have no focus breathing and don't make a lot of noise when focusing. I feel like I can deal with the autofocus and they are continually improving it. In time, it won't matter and I think I have some of the best glass with really high quality images with files easy to work with.
Lens Rentals conclusion after Nikon Z 7 teardown: "This is not marketing department weather resistance. This is engineering department weather resistance. Anything that can be sealed has been sealed. I’m impressed, and I will say for future cut-and-paste blurbs: this is as robustly weather sealed a camera as we’ve ever disassembled." Sony was a lot behind with weather resistance. Is this still the case?
There are many people giving reviews but once again your presentation is enjoyable to watch and you actually know what your talking about ... Big Props Jared
I sold my a7iii about a year ago and bought a9. Still a beast. I don’t think I would do a lot of videos, so I probably should wait a9iii. Hope it will have 33 mp.
@@SMoeun-zs9ji I disagree. A1, the perfect hybrid, is already here and still unmatched by any other camera. All Sony needs to do rn is to cripple each model based on pricing.
Yeah I did the exact same thing. Sold off the a7iii and went to the a9. The age of the a9 worried me at first but it was way ahead of the game when it came out and firmware updates (significant ones at that) made it even a bigger monster over time. The camera still beats all 3 of these models in many categories as far as photography goes. Video is another story but the a9 is still amazing to this day.
#IMadeItThisFar - I still think the Sony has an advantage on how much cheaper their native lenses are compared to Canon's. Not to say that Canon's latest lenses aren't amazing in their own right, but looking at a monetary front.. its an easy choice I would think
#igotthisfar Sony takes it for the ecosystem, especially at this level. Their willingness to work with third parties like Tamron and Sigma have created by far the best overall mirrorless platform for people who don’t have unlimited funds available.
@@joeltunnah The Tamron 150-500 is excellent as is the Sigma 150-600. Sigma's 85/1.4 is fantastic. I love my Sigma 100-400 as well, very compact and absurdly inexpensive. I also bought my daughter an a6600 with the Sigma 16/1.4, 30/1.4, and 56/1.4 lenses and all are excellent glass. Many of the Sigma ART DSLR lenses were fantastic but huge, they're working on DG DN versions for E mount that are much smaller. The Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 is a very versatile lens with fantastic image quality. Sure, many of these lenses (but not all!) are available as native Sony glass for those who prefer it but the fantastic thing about E mount is the choice it provides. That's not available on RF or Z and was the main reason I moved to Sony E from Nikon F (and before F, Canon EF). More options is better for consumers.
@@IanHobday this video is extremely misleading. Via adapters there are hundreds of lenses available for the Z mount (and probably RF). Sigma and Tamron both do the same thing: take an old dslr lens, slap a different mount on it, and call it a “mirrorless” lens. They’re absolutely enormous, especially in length, because they were designed for the 40-50mm registration distance of an SLR. I shot Sigma lenses back when I owned the Canon 80D. Every lens needed massive focus adjustment. I hope they’ve improved in the last 5 years.
@@joeltunnah You're living in the DSLR and very early mirrorless world. Every lens I mentioned (and many I did not) are specifically designed for mirrorless cameras with the correct short flange distance. There are older DSLR designs with the flange extension on them still being sold (including all of Canon's crazy expensive super-teles!!) but they are being replaced. I don't think Tamron is selling any DSLR lenses adapted for mirrorless now and Sigma has many DN series mirrorless-native lenses with more being released pretty regularly. As far as using actual adapters goes, it's a short term stop gap and not a good replacement for mirrorless glass. Not only does it make the lenses bigger and heavier but unless you buy an adapter for each lens ($$$) it's a PITA to have to swap the adapter around. It's fine if you only have 1-2 lenses you need to adapt but beyond that it really sucks. Sony has a couple of other advantages too. They bought a chunk of Tamron shares and seem to have been technology-sharing with them. That's likely why Nikon got stuck with the older G1 28-75 instead of the new and much improved G2. They are also accepting of 3rd party glass in general rather than actively working against the makers like Canon and Nikon have always done. It's a very nice change in the market. I picked up my Sigma 100-400 DG DN lens for about $800 and it punches way above its weight. Incredible deal. Would the Z or GM 100-400 be better? Probably a bit, but they are bigger, heavier, and 3x the price. Edit: And focus adjustment isn't really a thing with mirrorless. Focus points are built into the sensor which pretty much eliminates front or back focus on every lens. Even adapted DSLR lenses can benefit from this.
This is a great breakdown of all three camera bodies. I started out with a very cheap Dslr from canon and already have a couple EF lenses. Might stick with them when I upgrade thanks to their EF adapter for the RF body.
I personally love my R6 and think that the entry-level glass for RF is really slept on. There's no other system that has so many cheap first-party lenses that perform well in photo as well as video, and though I have some L glass, too, I think that the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro is the most useful lens that I have ever owned.
I tried the R6 and loved it but the resolution and video of the r5 made it worth it to get the r5. In any case whatever camera gets you excited to go out and shoot, that camera is the best. I seriously take my r5 everywhere. It sits by me when I'm driving. I take it into restaurants. When I'm sitting with friends and the waiter comes by, I give him the camera. He looks confused and I say just tap the screen like a smartphone and he's in shock how nice the picture looks. When a camera makes you that excited to shoot everywhere you know it's a keeper
Yeah, the r6 is great, and recently I have purchased the 35mm 1.8 as well with a big discount (super worth it). Now that lens is glued to the camera, which I use daily for zoom meetings and I take it with me everywhere. I will wait to see if I have to sell a kidney to get the 50 mm 1.2 as the only prime I’ll ever need at 1.2, and a telephoto like 100-500. ATM both cost to damn much, but they seem to be worth the dough.
@@andreimicle 50mm f/1.2 is the only super premium RF glass I have, and it's amazing. That said, I still use 35mm f/1.8 way more because it's just way more versatile and portable, but when I take the 50mm f/1.2 to shoot, it's usually the only lens I end up using. It's almost confusing how good it is that anything can be such a perfect combination of sharp, detailed, smooth, and dreamy.
It's quite simple: For an all porpouse camera autofocus is key. CA, distorsión, vignetting, color rendition, etc can all be solved in pos. Due to budget reasons, I went into the z ecosystem. Dont let any camera take your enjoy for shooting away. They are all great.
I got this far! I am currently in the market for a camera of the caliber you've reviewed and I am leaning towards the R6 because I like the buttons, menu, feel, ease of use, autofocus, and the ability of 12 to 20fps.
In 2022 I plan to replace my Canon 6D. I have 3 lenses with the EF mount. With an adaptor, I can save a ton of money on glass. But I want to get back into the Nikon system! Not sure what to do? This video was very helpful in explaining the different features of each system. Fortunately, I have some time to make a firm decision and see what new cameras come out in the new year. Thanks for sharing..............
I think you should put a note on MP when talking about FPS. Some may not remember, the FPS is related to the MP. Sure the Canon is fastest but the MP is limited to 20.
I purchased a7iii for a good price and saved enough money to buy 24-70f2.8 sigma and 85 f1.8 with extra battery and 2 Hoya filters and a SD card for 12000 AED.
Coming from a Sony APS-C camera, I bought the R6 ten months ago, which is awesome. I bought it mostly because I didn’t want the 2 year old A7III, and couldn’t wait for The A7IV. Right now, I would be hard pressed to decide between the two. I was a little disappointed to hear about the Sony frame rate being limited to 6 for full res raw, but I would love the extra resolution of the 33mp sensor. Starting now I may have gone with Sony, but I don’t think I would switch because the R6 is a beast.
I’m trying to decide between Sony and canon. Only thing with canon is the expensive ass glass. I could wait for the 7iv or just get the a7iii. Currently have Fuji xt3. I’m just hobbyist nd kinda just shoot everything. Really enjoy wildlife and capturing family moments. I might just splurge on the canon r6 and just use the 24x105 that comes with for as long as possible while keeping the Fuji and determine later down the road if I wanna stay with canon
Sony doesn't have the best lens selection, even Fro hinted that some of their lenses are pants ... the only thing they did was to open their mount up to 3rd party lens manufacturers knowing full well that they couldn't compete with the big boys otherwise.
@@deontecary432 which kinda tells you a lot about the overall native lineup of Sony lenses, no? The likes of Tamron, Sigma etc will eventually be granted permission to produce lenses for the big boys, it's just at the moment Canon and Nikon don't need to do this and are more interested in selling us their own brand lenses. Unfortunately if Sony tried to do this, they wouldn't have anywhere near as many customers LOL
I went with the Canon R6. I jumped from the Nikon ship and passed that equipment to my younger son. We are both happy. I now need to invest in Canon glass.
As An A7iii shooter I think the A74 is a solid upgrade especially in the video deparment but I kinda wish they left the FPS @ 10 for at least the lossless compressed RAW and made both slots take either CF-A or SD cards. The A74 is not an entry level body anymore (They have the A7C for that) so I feel that both slots should take the same cards.
Yep the brand spanking new Sony is not an entry level camera at all (FFS it costs 2.5k after all!!) and yep this makes its pathetic FPS even worse, especially at that price point ... IMHO Sony is the big looser in this lineup, by a long shot!
@@vickosis I wouldn't say Sony is the clear loser in the roundup (aside from FPS). The video, AF and hardware design changes are all big upgrades compared to the A73. I would like to know though much editability you lose if you go to compressed RAW compared to Uncompressed/lossless compressed Raw.
This video is aimed at peeps who are "just starting out" and IMHO to invest 2.5k in any camera when starting out is just nuts, and then to pick one which has such a low FPS rate is just insane. Do you really think this is such a huge upgrade to what you already have, really? Wow!
@@vickosis if you want high FPS, get an a9. I honestly could care less about the duo Type A card slots because those memory cards are already expensive enough. No one today will need 10 fps for non-sports and wildlife shots.
@@harryvuemedia5106 I too don't need it, I was merely trying to point out that the A7 IV doesn't appear all that to me for a camera with such a hefty price tag, that's all. I was a Canon shooter (AP-C) and I was happy with my gear until I decided it was time to go full frame. Now back then it kinda made sense to keep my half doesn't lenses and upgrade my body, but I just didn't like the Canon full frame offering and I couldn't justify the huge price for the R6 which I fancied, so I looked around and coincidentally discovered the Nikon Z system. Oddly enough the more peeps like Fro started bashing it, the more I got interested. I seem to be a sceptic especially when it comes to all these vloggers and after weighing out the options I found an inexpensive Z 6 in mint condition to try out. Never looked back. Nikon is the best camera manufacturer for me and they are head and shoulders above everyone except for this poxy AF which the likes of Sony currently have an edge, but it's already very close and Nikon AF is already extremely usable and improving all the time. My short experience with the Z 6 was enough to persuade me to upgrade to the later model during last years Nikon sales. I didn't really need it if I'm honest, but I got it for about 400 bucks cheaper than it is today, which was a huge saving on top of what is already the best value for money camera on the market. Still, obviously I wouldn't recommend anyone starting off to go for a Z 6II or equivalent, that's just crazy IMHO. I'd probably recommend an good APS-C camera or if they have money to burn an entry level full frame and for sure spend money on a good lens or two instead.
#igotthisfar #teamnikon ! If I was starting out, I'd probably start with the Nikon since most of the lenses are Nikon mount. You can still get amazing shots with any of these cameras too. It's insane how good these 3 cameras are. Also to add, for the new photographers, no one is going to judge you with the gear you have, especially if you can create astonishing images. :)
One year ago I had to decide between the Z6 II or the R6. I chose the R6 and have been shooting with the RF 15-35 f/2.8, RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 and RF100 macro 2.8. I sometimes wonder if maybe the grass was greener with Sony. However, I'm loving the R6 and with the glass I've purchased so far I imagine a better body will replace in a few years time. I love the R6 #igotthisfar
Jared thank you for keeping it honest been watching your videos since 2012 and im finally looking to upgrade my setup from a d7100 and d750. Thank you for you and your teams work
I wish I was in your position. I have the Canon R6 and want to buy a second hand EOS R. Unfortunately I don't see a lot of people selling the R here in Denmark. Instead, everyone is selling their old 5D MK IV, 6D MK II, 80D, 90D, 7D MK II, et cetera.....
@@kevinrtres Everyone’s reasoning is valid and interesting to hear. Seems like he’s into landscape/automobile (awesome work btw), so I’d be interested to hear the why as well, when Z7ii, GFX A7RIV exists.
@@kevinrtres Haha figured might as well try something different! Currently shooting on a D610 that is getting to the end of its life (or at least feels that way) and has had one shutter replacement with a nice scratch on the sensor to go with that. My main lens is a Tamron 24-70 2.8 (also getting long in the tooth/VC is failing) and occasionally a nifty fifty 1.8. The rest of my gear is the old kit lens from the D610 and some APS-C gear that's collecting dust. My plan is to have the D610 as a second/backup camera probably with the 50mm living full time on it.
@@lilnape2604 Thanks Marc! Landscape is the hobby and automotive photography is the day job. The majority of my clients are only using the photos on social so at this point 40+ MP isn't needed. So my original plan was to get a Z6 II with a FTZ to use my current lens, then save up a bit and get a Z 24-70 2.8. Then the realization came that I am the only Nikon shooter out of all my coworkers and friend group with about 75% of them being Sony shooters (the rest Canon). Between them all I'd have a selection of telephoto and wides that I could borrow when needed wile I stick with a 24-70 for now and maybe a 85mm. My next idea was to pick up a used A7R III or a new A7R IIIA then the A7IV was announced and I felt that was a good midpoint between what I have now (D610) and an A7R with the bonus of the latest tech.
@@dylankingphotography8248 sounds like a good plan! I don’t mean to throw a curve ball into that thought process but there’s a few different autofocus adapter (megadap, techart, etc) you could use to adapt your friends Sony and Canon lenses if you you decided to stay in the Z system. Works surprisingly well too. The A7iv looks spectacular though. Enjoy and happy shooting.
I use Nikon Z6II to shot weddings last wedding I done with this Camera end up taking around 1860 photos in RAW and guess what in focus was 1850 only 10 phots was out of focus, so I have been 10 years shooting with Nikon 2 years with Z6II and I agree is the AF on the screen showing a bit of playing around but when you check the photos you will find out all been in focus, I'm talking from my personal experience.
For me, it was an easy choice. Here in Sweden, the Z6II costs ~2150 $, and with the latest firmware, I personally think you get the most camera for the money, R6 ~3050 $ and A7IV ~3300 $, prices incl.VAT Now I had some F lenses before and that also made the decision easier. Really happy with my Nikon Z6II :-)
Hi As usual good and precise video. Got 3 Questions for These 3 models. In Which Model Q1) Does the Autofocus works in 120 frames Slow motion? Q2) Does the Eye Autofocus works in 120 Frames Slow motion? Q3) Does Audio Recording works in 120 frames Slow motion? Thanks Regards NM.
Awesome review. I am still a Nikon faithful with the z7ii. Sony and Canon do have some great offerings but I'm invested in F-mount glass so I have the F2Z adapter. Also, I like the feel of the Nikon which I think they did a good job of maintaining even going from DSLR to mirrorless. I was able to get a new z7ii and feel comfortable enough to go shot a wedding right away. If you've ever done weddings then you know that knowing your way around your gear is a big deal. Don't think you can go wrong with any of the cameras you reviewed but of course I am primarily a shooter of stills and not so concerned about the superior video capabilities of Sony and Canon. Thanks and peace and prosperity to you Fro bro. #igotthisfar
I agree the Nikon Z5 or (Zee 5) is entering camera. The Z6 II is better camera than Z5, but I still went with the Z5 due to the price. When I went to Air Show at Cherry Point, I wished I got more than 4.5 continuous shooting. I agree the Sony and Canon does have a better AutoFocus, but for what I shoot the picture quality is more important. I do more landscape than action shot.
If I was new entering into photography I’d seriously consider older and even used A7iii, Z5/6, R and spending extra $ on a high quality lens. Biggest differentiation is Sonys native first and third party lens selection. Not that it matters but original Z6 was 9fps 14bit. Z6ii increases to 10fps.
Just sold all my old canon aps-c stuff (3 bodies, 5 lenses, a couple adapters… all of them had different batteries and chargers filling two pelican cases🤦🏽)… to condense down to ONE camera and lens… I’m mainly video… but I’d like to learn photography. Decided to go with the Sony A7iv and the Sigma 24-70 2.8 art lens… Hoping to keep it simple for a while 😅
I don't understand this Nikon bashing. I use a Z6II and take pictures of weddings with it. The picture quality is outstanding and the pictures are 99% sharp. The problem in most cases is not the camera, as the guy behind the camera.
I wouldn't take it as Nikon bashing. If I hadn't gone mirorless as an early adopter on the Sony and went FF later, I would go Nikon. At the time, Nikon and Pentax shooter would bash Sony because mirorless isn't a true system (no mirror? Wtf). But it's all a subjective comparison against what I like/need. Nowadays I shoot a lot of kid photos (playgrounds, parties) and kids move fast. It's worse than sports. Sony AF is second to none when helped by decent glass. I still shoot Nikon film and I'd love me a Z6 (I or II) but I fear it would just sit there.
Thanks man. I know this video is a little old now but I'm a novice looking at the Sony A7III and the Canon EOS r6 MKII to get me going. This was really helpful. I know technology has changed again but soundls like either one of these will hold me up for a bit. Appreciate your Video.
Got an R6 after using Canon DSLRs starting with the 10D up to 5D mkiv and 6D mkII. I am simply overwhelmed by the performance of the R6 in speed, lowlight quality and autofocus. Since I have some 25 EF lenses I was not really up to switch all of my lenses. But now I‘ve got the 35/1.8 IS and the 50/1.8 RF versions and it just feels so well and the results are so good I am really tempted to get rid of my EF park and invest in fewer but absolutely superb RF lenses.
Just received my a7iv and did some tests. One more thing about the difference between these three bodies: if you want to film an event that's anywhere longer than 30 minutes (say a musical concert), Sony is the only way to go. I know this is not a common usage, but it's still a nice-to-have. Even the a6400 can record video pretty much indefinitely, so I don't know why Sony is still the only company that allows users to film continuous video on their cheaper bodies.
I would go with the Sony. I am a non-professional enthusiast and have had Nikon forever. However, I only have one expensive lens ($1000 ), and my pro-summer d7000 camera is getting old, and it misses focus every time! I have done a few weddings, some college level sports, a little wildlife. Focus and Low Light are what matter to me the most. I have also transitioned into mostly video. The video on my d7000 looks great, but it takes a lot of work and good conditions for decent results. I want a camera that does a good job, without all the fuss.
Great video as usual! Regarding prize: it could be interesting what the prize for a complete setup will be including 2-3 lenses, vertical grip etc. That could be an eye opener because only looking at the price of the camera could be misleading.
Aye, this. It seems Sony is being less aggressive on the body price now that they are the number 1 mirrorless brand while Nikon is getting very aggressive pricewise on the body.
I'm currently switchimg from nikon to sony, I pre-ordered an a7iv and the sigma 24-70, and the sigma 85 1.4. Those are 2 great lens for the price of about one good RF glass. That's a lot more pictures I can take and a lot more options to actually get out there and start shooting.
I think you give the Z6II a little too little credit for a particular market even if they have no glass already for it. Hiking/scenery shooters. I actually totally get why you (for your work) would prefer the other two, however if you're a dedicated hiker/landscape photographer, everything you said only cemented the Nikon over the other two. Lightest (every oz matters for hikers), best image quality because landscapes are usually expanded to huge scales, and best censor for all light environments. I really appreciated this review, but I think you gave the Nikon a little too little love in that for that particular audience, they love it.
As a Z6ii owner, I just figured I’d watch this entire video to be reminded the I purchased the third place camera. 😂 At least the Z9 gives me hope that a Z6iii might finally catch up.
I own Z6. I was going to chose between A7iii / XT3/Z6 . I thought I would get Sony as it was so good from all the reviews , but when I got hold of z6, I knew it was a camera, not just a tool. In the end I choose the one I feel comfortable with , not the one has most ticks on the list . I only wish they can release a firmware upgrade so Z6 can have better focus . Other than that . I am very happy with Z6’s photo quality.
I got this far. Nice balanced assessment, the z6ii tech is still pretty first generation. Gonna hang onto my D810 until the z6iii / z7iii finally appear.
Well since year ago i sold my D610 to buy Z5 + FTZ and i'm so happy with it!!! but i'm also waiting for Z6iii. in my opinion you could buy Z5 like me and get used to mirrorless world. for me mirrorless is much much better than DSLR. I am Fashion & portrait photographer not sports and wildlife.
@@mohamedmagdy3697 I mean I could but it would be a bit of a downgrade in picture quality. I mostly shoot landscaps so I think I'd miss my pixels and dynamic range. The z7ii would be fine for me, if the z6iii were to come up to the 33-40MP range that would probably be my go to.
Thank you very much Jared! this video was excellent! I find myself moving technology to mirrorless, and trying to decide if I should buy the Canon R6 or the Sony a7 IV, and you really helped me to decide. Thanks!!! Cheers from Paris!
If you’re already in an ecosystem, realistically you’re going with that brand. If you were starting out, you’d probably go Sony, although the Canon form factor/ feel in the hand is much nicer. #igotthisfar What we do know is that the images produced from any of these cameras would be indistinguishable once processed and printed.
@@fanc096 They just seem to be slightly ahead of the game when it comes to features and image quality. I’m a Canon user and won’t be swapping because of the amount I’ve got invested in lenses, but if you look at the bodies Sony have out - A7R4 and A7S3 for photography and video respectively, they’re outstanding.
@@sagetheowlfatfeathery2083 I am also currently deciding between going sony or canon but I am slightly leaning towards canon. I am looking for good hybrid camera as I do both video and photo, eventually upgrading more in the future. but getting two bodies for the respective field on sony in for the best seems daunting to me.
I have owned Sony Digital Cameras since the 90's. I love my AX53 Camcorder. But I have purchased two Canon R6 Bodies and 3 RF Glass Pieces that just work. They are a joy to shoot with and the color out of camera is generally good enough quality that I don't need to grade the footage in post. Huge Time saver!. 24-70 2.8, 15-35 2.8, and 50mm 1.8 glass are all rock solid.
Nikon. Their S glass is so sweet, and the Viewfinder actually gives the most natural experience. In terms of ISO, they are in a league if their own. I say this as a current Canon shooter.
z
If you want to jump between photos and video literally instantly, for hybrid coverage, the z6ii is brilliant.
The real reason Sony is the winner here is because of Tamron and Sigma glass. The fact that you can have quality glass for much less is a God send
You're so right! Just got my Tammy 28-75mm G2 lens.
absolutely right！
Give a couple of years...sigma has a very high failure rate
@@jeepjoseph9036 lmao ok bruh u smokin crack
@@jeepjoseph9036 wtf are you talking about... Fro keeps Sigma glass in his bag for a reason. The Art line is beautiful. Just look at the 35mm 1.2 and I own the 35 GM
Just got an R6 and I'm very happy with it. The main reason to get Canon was all the EF glass I already had. It did make sense to stick with it. I'll probably will be swapping to more RF glass in the future but I'm covered so far.
I bet most of those lenses work fine on the R6
I'm leaning in the same direction for the same reason. I want to upgrade from my 60D to a full-frame camera that shoots 4K with a bit more dynamic range than standard 8-bit, plus all the benefits of ten years of R&D, while keeping all my glass. Was looking at the EOS-R first, but the crop factor in 4K is kind of a dealbreaker. My widest lens is an EF-S, so it's going to have pretty much the same crop factor as I already have, but it's 10-22mm so it's still pretty wide.
I was initially bummed to learn that there isn't (and might never be) a Magic Lantern build for that camera, but then I learned that Canon has taken almost all the ML features I use and made them native in the R6. Almost.
I just learned from this video (which is now a month old) about redundant video recording. Guess Canon's been paying attention to the reviews.
Thinking of getting the r6 too. I currently own the tamron 150-600 and old Canon 300mm lenses. I would be moving up from my old t2i
@@stephencurah1059 One thing to keep in mind. This will sound totally wrong at first but hear me out.
The R6 has a slightly higher resolution than the T2i, but the T2i has a 1.6x crop factor. What this means is that the individual pixels on the R6's sensor a physically larger. Great for low-light performance, but that does mean fewer pixel's per mm of the image projected on the sensor itself. So if you're at maximum zoom, 600mm, and looking at the Moon, the T2i is going to give you more pixels of "Moon", and the R6 will give you fewer.
It only really matters if you really need the extra resolution though. I'm very happy with my R6. I don't need the resolution for my work, at least not to the extent that I could justify the cost of switching brands or getting an R5.
@@tom_something t556yt4 50mm y5t4,5tt6t,4yrtr577c0
I can't wait to see the "I SHOOT NEF" fro shirts when the Z III's hit the market. Seeing all the other Nikon comments within these comments is VERY interesting. My Z7II JPG's are fantastic btw. I tested loading nearly identical Canon, Sony, and Nikon RAW images into LRC, all with neutral camera profiles, hit Control-U, and Nikon was the clear winner. The F4S lenses are fantastic, and I don't need as many lenses or primes with the Z system, because the zooms are so good.
Replaced my D7100 with a Z6II...very happy camper. Very curious what the Z6III will look like if it ever surfaces. The Z glass is absolutely spectacular and when they start supporting the third parties like Tamron and Sigma I'll be even happier.
This is very helpful! I shoot on a D500 and D5600. Looking to trade out the D5600 with the Z6II to move into the full frame space. I'm sure it will be better than anything I have now. Curious, did you use any adaptors on the Z body? I have some FX lenses want to figure out if it's worth it.
@@Sammoab I use the FTZ adapter currently, getting rid of my DX lenses but will keep the F mount FF lenses for now. My F mount 70-200 f4 works great on my Z6II with the FTZ.
thanks! This is the same move I'll be making, Jarod's constant bashing of the Nikon AF has me a little leary of the purchase but I like so much else about Nikon and I already own some F mount FF glass. I've been so unhappy with my AF on my D7100 (my wife's D5200 misses fewer shots) that the Z6ii should definitely be an upgrade.
@@jeremyk2740 seriously, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. 😎📸
I bought a Nikon Z5 for a thousand bucks. Dual cards, IBIS, and a 24mp sensor. Waiting for the next gen Nikon for better autofocus as it trickles down from the Z9. I really like the image quality of Nikon compared to Sony and Canon. I have a lot of older Nikon glass and am really excited to see the new F mount adapter without the tripod hump.
The Z5 is probably the most underrated full frame on the market. Does it compete with pro bodies? No. But for everyone else, the Z5 is a truly great place to start. A Z5 with the 24-200mm Z lens gets you out the door for under two thousand US dollars and it's more than enough camera for 90% of the people watching this right now. And that's coming from a Canon R5 guy 😉
I would really like this camera but they crippled it just a little too much to make it entry level full frame. It's great that it has IBIS but video is cropped significantly. And then in burst mode you're only getting 4.5 shots/sec which is almost useless.
@@WolfgangWhyte well said!
@@dsoprano13 I hear you on the video end - the big crop sucks, even with the Z 20mm 1.8 prime. But the 4.5 burst rate... yeah, that's useless if you're trying to catch a football right on the receiver's fingertips or that perfect moment when an eagle takes flight, but I was mainly speaking to the 90% who really aren't reaching that high. The landscapers, the streeters, the portrait hounds - the Z5 is great for them at a fraction of the cost of your R5's, A1's, and now Z9's🙂
I have to Sony a7r3 bodies and a a6400 with various primes. I looked at Nikon because of their 24-70 s lens which I found to be better than the Sony gmaster version. Went with the Nikon Z7ii and have been very happy. As you stated, I prefer the images of the Nikon, colors and skin tones. Autofocus hold up well for me. Check my chanel to see how the z7 performs autofocusing for portraits and video.
As a landscape hobbyist photographer I think sticking with Nikon is what's best for me!
Great image quality, like my wide angle adapted lens, not enough compelling features in the others to change.
As i asked in the reply to the previous person, I'm somewhat puzzled by this almost mythical "image quality". Just how is it superior to that from the Sony sensors?
Perhaps you should have a look at Gavin Hardcastle's photos on flickr then see if the "quality" is lacking there.
I'm not criticizing your choice, just puzzled about the "image quality".
@@kevinrtres ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"mythical "image quality," no, no, just different color science and image quality I like and is accustomed to.
@@RickMentore Thanks, for making that clear. I was wondering if there was some marvelous technical issue involved.
The lumix S5 can give you 89mb pics on a tripod
I think the big issue is whether or not you want to trade out lenses, buy adaptors or upgrade across the board. I have dozens of F mount FX lenses some old some brand new and will slowly convert to Z format. Primarily because of the color rendition from Nikon and the familiarity of their menu layout and button arrays. Nothing wrong with either of the other brands. Its just what I am accustomed to after 35 years with Nikon.
Simple truth, they are all three great cameras. It comes down to the lenses you might already own, and your particular preference for "feel in hand", which certainly varies between systems.
I wish there was a camera store near me so I could try them, but some stick on 3d printed grips, to make Grip a better shape and bigger.
And if you have mostly manual focus older lenses, you can be agnostic in brand of camera vs lenses. $20 dummy adapter. It’s only the more modern AF lenses that make use of the adapter AF for Nikon. I think the Canon system is better since the whole Nikon some lenses with and without motor drives with screw linkage. So Nikon shot themselves in the foot 20 years ago, but hey those were dx lenses anyway. (Meh lenses).
@@alexshdvideo Very true! I have some 1966 legacy lenses and they are fun to use on the R5/R6.
Yeah but the opening line was "For someone starting out ..." which I presume excludes peeps that are tied in to a brand with lots of glass
@@vickosis Not necessarily. It could mean those starting out with mirrorless.
New Firmware Updates are out from Nikon for the Nikon Z 50, the Z 5, the Z 6 Mark I and Z 7 Mark I including improvements in Eye-AF Tracking.
That's what makes camera reviews so crazy, new updates come out faster than reviews can be published :) Will be interested to see by how much these new updates improve eye tracking and if suddenly these cameras hang with the Z9!
It's a minor update. It will not upset the Sony and canon af Systems.
@@MT-eb2dx it is a very big update, the eye af tracking power double up
@@MarcoYu-x5b hm, ok, will try to revisit it. Any running dog towards the camera success?
"About a minute after the Z9’s announcement on Thursday October 28th, it just went insane,” said Gray Levett, owner of long-established London dealership, . “Raffi, our sales manager, and myself were in the office until just before midnight on the day, still handling orders. We saw the highest number of pre-orders in a single day in our history, and we’ve been in business for 35 years. It even eclipsed the D850, which was off the charts, and the D3.”
Amazing place. Purchased several cameras from them
Lots of people with *_LOTS_* of money!!!
tell me about it! Sony a7IV pre-orders were off the charts!!! Never have anyone ever seen a camera this damn good
@@harryvuemedia5106 You seem to have some inside info...what kind of numbers can you recall about the Sony A7IV camera? That would be interesting to know.
I love my R6. 20MP hasn't held me back at all. Of course, I don't pixel peep all day long. Clients are happy, I'm happy... it's all good.
May i ask what is pixel peeping
@@Isaypreach Checking your image too much, zooming 100% - even with crazy zooming 500% and finally comparing to other brand with high MP. The R6 prodoce really really great image, very pleasing. Well sometimes I'll do it "pixel peeping" at my R6 hahahaha
It's fun to go back to reviews like this after these cameras have aged. Canon's lens prices are a huge drawback. Sony probably has the best lens options. The focus system on the Z6II is good for portrait, landscape, and street photography in my view. The R6 is probably the best for action, but be prepaired to shell out big bucks ($2k or more) for even their older EF lenses.
The α7 IV's burst up to 10 fps raw is in drive mode Hi+, which-as unmentioned in this video [07:06]-conceals the present scene and displays the prior shot [1,2]. The fastest burst while viewing live, as to track critical action, is in drive mode Hi, which offers up to 8 fps [1,2].
But, while 10 fps raw, Hi+, is usable on subjects staying roughly on axis or predictable [3], it needs a CFexpress type A card [1]. A capacity 160 GB costs some 400 USD. Further, on SD card, the buffer drops from over 800 frames to some 25 frames [4]. Also, the clunky shutter likely wastes some resolution [5,6].
Anyhow, the benefit of either uncompressed raw or lossless compressed raw versus standard compressed raw is generally insignificant, as is 14 bits. The standard compressed file may impart more noise near the periphery of highlights that are basically blown [7,8], and may fall apart in post- if the exposure is raised over 3 stops [9,10]. The 14 bits versus 12 bits figures to add another 2 stops leeway [9], _if_ raw capture was near base ISO [11].
About video, Sony's imposition of Super35mm format-a 1.5x crop factor-on α7 IV's 4K 60 fps can complicate shooting [32:23]. It can require more lenses, lens changes, and gimbal rebalancing. And, on any lens, it increases the shallowest depth of field by about one stop, rendering f/2.8 like f/4. These differences can be critical if, let's say, using Sony's FE PZ 28-135mm f/4, an ENG zoom, on fullframe to duplicate an 18-90mm f/2.8 cine zoom on Super35mm. When shooting 4K 60 fps, one would get, after all, 28-135mm f/4 on Super35mm.
-
1) Gordon Laing, "Sony A7 IV review: Photography vs A7 III vs EOS R6 part one", sec "A7 IV focus and burst speeds", UA-cam @ _/watch?v=8Mil4Jn51Fc&t=957s,_ 21 Oct 2021.
2) Ryan Mense, "Sony Alpha 7 IV review: The best camera Sony ever made. . . almost", _PetaPixel,_ 21 Oct 2021.
3) Jason Vong, "Sony a7 IV-the upgrade we've been waiting four!", sec "Autofocus performance is so fast!", UA-cam @ _/watch?v=eVvUs9lFatY&t=444s,_ 21 Oct 2021, indicates simply "10 fps" while showing footage of α7 IV's monitor during burst with subject walking on axis toward camera on tripod, which footage to me looks compatible with display either of present scene or of prior shot.
4) Dan Watson, "Sony A7IV | 20 best & worst features on Sony's latest mirrorless camera", UA-cam @ _/watch?v=oeZQzYJWbvE&t=496s,_ 29 Oct 2021.
5) Dan Watson, "Sony A7IV | 20 best & worst features on Sony's latest mirrorless camera", UA-cam @ _/watch?v=oeZQzYJWbvE&t=106s,_ 29 Oct 2021.
6) Sony's quieter shutters were introduced in 2015 with the α7R II, whereby Sony advertises, "The new shutter's braking mechanism cuts mechanical front/rear curtain vibration by about 50%." "This not only minimizes camera shake that can blur details in 42.4-megapixel images-it makes the shutter durable enough to have been tested to 500,000 cycles."
7) Richard Butler, "What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed raw", _DP Review,_ 23 Sep 2015.
8) Bright highlights mildly overexposed seemingly show no difference in compressed raw versus uncompressed raw [Mike Smith, "Raw compressed vs uncompressed Sony A7III", UA-cam @, _/watch?v=euVGDd3S9U8&t=239s,_ 11 Apr 2019].
9) Greg Benz, "8, 12, 14 vs 16-bit depth: What do you really need?!", _PetaPixel,_ 19 Sep 2018.
10) In an α7 III, uncompressed may show no to scant difference-maybe perceptible at 4x magnification-until underexposure by 4 stops and then raising 4 stops in post- may ruin compressed raw [Mike Smith, "Raw compressed vs uncompressed Sony A7III", UA-cam @ _/watch/?v=euVGDd3S9U8&t=302s,_ 11 Apr 2019].
11) Richard Butler, "Raw bit depth is about dynamic range, not the number of colors you get to capture", _DP Review,_ 1 Sep 2017. To see benefit from raw beyond 12 bits on, for instance, the α7 III, one may shoot up to ISO 400, where dynamic range is some 13 stops, or from ISO 640, where DR rises again to just over 14 stops, until ISO 1600, where it is just under 13 stops [Rishi Sanyal, "Sony a7 III dynamic range and high ISO improve over its predecessor", _DP Review,_ 17 Mar 2018].
My man did an entire academic article doe, citations and shit ☠
Ironic point 6 about Sony shutters, class-action a73 lawsuit on premature failure due to its design.
Made it all the way. Having seen Nikon image quality, and being able to get the job done with the AF on the Z5, I have to say I'd pick the Z6II.
#madeitalltheway
I'm somewhat puzzled by this almost mythical "image quality". Just how is it superior to that from the Sony sensors?
Perhaps you should have a look at Gavin Hardcastle's photos on flickr then see if the "quality" is lacking there.
@@kevinrtres Nikon users are idots is my conclusion 🤣 I have heard this countless times. And as a former Nikon user and now on Sony, image quality on all 3 is very even. I prefer Sony due to third party lens options 😅 plus the GMs like 50 1.2 🥰😍
Hold on just a minute, you do realised Fro said the exact same thing about Nikon picture quality in his video, right? 🤔🤣
@@vickosis I do, but to him it doesn't outweigh the focus issues. To me it does.
I'm not out here hating on Fro
@@lifeafterbeats Me neither as in I couldn't give a $h17 TBH although it's kinda annoying having to constantly listen to peeps talk about Fro this and Fro that if you know what I mean.
I don't hate on him either, although I suspect he did tear down my review on his Z9 spec sheet reading from the Nikon forum, but that's another story. Anyhow IMO if anyone needs to rely heavily on a bit of AF software to get the shots they otherwise would have missed they clearly are not a Pro and probably should't be wearing an I shoot NEF shirt or whatever. As for the rest of the $hitshow all I can smell is a rat and that' pretty much all there is to say.
Would be great to see timelapse features included between all 3. Nikon z6ii excels here: lenses focus to infinity when switched on, can do holy grail in P mode with exposure smoothing and it renders a 4K timelapse file simultaneously whilst shooting raw photos and comples the render even if the camera loses power.
That said can’t wait to see a z6iii hopefully next year with z9 Af system a resolution bump to complete with the others for moving subjects
Lens Rentals conclusion after Nikon Z 7 teardown: "I’ll leave you with one last shot of the sensor / IBIS / frame assembly. Not a lot of air in this one, but a lot of really strong looking supports and connections. I’m impressed by the very solid construction of the chassis and IBIS unit. I’m impressed with the neat, modern engineering of the electrical connections." Sony was weak with IBIS mechanism. Is this still the case?
I got this far. I would start with Sony. The main reason is the E-mount. You can get used Sony FF or APSC and get a couple of sigma primes for less than $1000 and still be able to use you existing Canon and Nikon Lenses with an adapter. You also learn with Sony about picture profiles, and S-log. That is how I started with Sony. I repeated the same process again last year with the newer APSC bodies. Very happy. I also love the small footprint. They fit anywhere easily
I will be sticking with Nikon thanks very much!
Nikon Z-Mount can adapt any lens from Sony (E-Mount), Canon (EF-Mount), Pentax (K-Mount), Leica (M-Mount), Z-Mount and F-Mount. It's the most versatile on the market.
Adapters are a fine transitional tool or as something for a specialty lens. They really suck as a long term solution for all or most of the glass you use. Just by into the ecosystem that actually has the glass you want.
@@IanHobday Adapters are highly recommended for Sony users as well. This was the case for many years touting out loud from the Sony community. Why should it be suddenly a problem for other brands?
@@theartofimaging618 That's certainly not something I have ever said. I do have a Metabones EF adapter and as far as adapters go it's great. However using adapters is a terrible user experience compared to native mount lenses, especially if you have a mix of native glass and a number of non-native lenses that share one adapter. If you can afford to buy one adapter per lens or if you very rarely use adapted lenses it's fine but native glass is always a better experience.
I would definitely start with Sony! I love the fact that one can shoot unlimited time and the battery is great. The 120 fps 1080 is wonderful as it is still the most common format anyway. The fact that it shoots 4k too is a bonus that would future-proof me as starter videographer. The flipping/fully articulating screen is of course a muts as I would like to go into content creation.
Thank you for the great breakdown. I went with the Sony. After a lot of research it was always between the Cannon and Sony. Over the last several weeks it came down to the shutter speed of the Cannon vs the cost of the glass from Sony. Money won. I ordered my Sony body with the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Art Lens and saved $1,300 dollars right out of the gate compared to the Canon RF. No looking back now.
Where did you get those savings from ?
@@EC-iu3yb Buying sigma instead of canon lens i think?
Now that you've had some time with this setup are you happy with your choice? I'm currently debating on going with the same setup. I really like the Canon user experience, but the new Sony bodies and menus have improved drastically and the Sony/Sigma combo can't be touched price wise with Canon and their glass.
#igotthisfar
I chose Nikon. I do mostly landscape stuff so it didn't really matter when it came to the speed of the autofocus. I just love the colors I get from their sensors. Can't really go wrong with any of them these days though.
Why is Nikon the better choice for landscape? Is it the slower shutter speeds?
@@PabloAGarcia73 He said he loves the colors
I stuck with Nikon for the same reason and I really love the form factor and the buttons. As you said as long as you don't need lightning quick AF on moving subjects, it's a fantastic camera.
I feel I noticed Nikon has deeper colors than canon years ago. I wasn’t too into photography but that was my impression .
Seeing videos won’t people comparing photos from these , for some reason the differences seem less . I wonder if the new tech has taken away a bit of the vibe?
Anyone else notice this?
Which would I start in? I am a Nikon z7ii owner who came over from a Nikon DSLR so the question, for me, is where would you start with or without an existing relationship?
If you already have experience with a brand and don't hate it - stick with it. Long-term none of these brands will be substantially better than the other; right now Sony / Canon are better at AF, Nikon has superior colours, build quality and ergonomics; its also significantly cheaper. Next year the z6iii will, in all likelihood, have Sony/Canon level/beating AF until they then bring out their next gens and improve further; Sony & Canon have taken ergonomic cues from Nikon to improve their cameras and will likely improve their files over time too. Ultimately if you are canon stay canon, Sony Sony and Nikon Nikon - the cameras are so good these days it genuinely is down to the one you are comfortable with. And for all the doom-mongering Nikon - as the smallest of the 3 companies by a long way - is not going anywhere and is punching above its weight!
If you have no existing camera then that's a different story.
First... You could argue that the newest e.g. Sony's 4th gen is the best option and for the short-term, based on specs, that's probably right but in the medium- long term I don't know I'd agree. In 6-12 months Canon might & Nikon will certainly have brought out their 2nd gen offerings; for Nikon specifically the tech that will trickle down from the z9 will almost certainly make the AF discussion disappear. Ultimately you need to think longer term as you'll likely be in the system for a long time with glass investments.
Not for nothing on that aspect it might be worth considering that at some stage Sony (and maybe even Canon) will have to change their mount to allow for larger sensors which will put them behind Nikon who have already absorbed that and is well on its way of having a fully fleshed out lens line up. If you are buying into a system now and starting to buy glass you have to consider that if they change their mount you'll be outlaying that cost all over again even if they allow you to adapt their old glass to tide you over.
Second... (and most importantly) the decision of which camera you buy should 100% be based on use case. Reviews like this about specs (and some real world usage) are great but context is lacking. What are you shooting? If you are getting into sports or birds that's a very different need set to photo journalism (like the Fro) or landscapes or portraiture etc etc etc. Some of the prioritised or lauded specs *cough* AF *cough* FPS *cough* mean absolutely nothing if you are doing landscape photography while they absolutely matter if you want to shoot fast action subjects. Don't buy specs buy something that helps you create the images you want to create
Third... Cost - If you are starting out the savings you'd make going with the Nikon mean you could probably buy one of their amazing 1.8 primes and still have change out of the Canon/Sony which will help your photography far more than specs (you may not use) or going with the so called cool crowd will ever do
I genuinely believe the Canon and the Sony offerings are exceptional - if you went into their systems I doubt you'd be sorry. BUT I also think the Nikon offering is also exceptional, criminally underrated as a camera due solely to the AF and will only get better - for me its the long-term choice. I have used a Sony but not a Canon (so can't compare them) and completely understand what Fro says about the AF - it makes certain types of photography easier for certain BUT the cameras also have big drawbacks vs the Nikons - their ergonomics aren't as good (subjective but generally accepted), their files and colours just don't look as good straight out of camera (Fro seems to agree with this), their menus aren't great (learnable but not great as a beginner) and generally I don't think they are as well built as Nikons. These are less sexy things to compare BUT over any sort of time they are more critical than the current AF offering
So if it was me? I would buy a Nikon z5 and get into the system with something like the new 24-120. I'd then save the rest of the cash to trade that body in against a z6iii in about a years time
*_So if it was me? I would buy a Nikon z5 and get into the system with something like the new 24-120. I'd then save the rest of the cash to trade that body in against a z6iii in about a years time_*
Great idea!
Best comment so far
Yeah I agree with the last person that this is the best comment on here. I invested in my Nikon gear and don’t really want to switch. I also like the Z9, but damn that price tag. I told myself I’d wait to see what Nikon does next for the cameras below the Z9. If they don’t incorporate the tech that in the Z9 into the others then I’ll pull the trigger on the Z9. If they do then I’ll switch to the more affordable options. For now I’m definitely going to purchase the FTZ2. It might sound dumb to do so, but I know I’ll be making the switch eventually. I just want to be ready once that time comes to make a decision.
Longest comment ever, but worth reading. "If you already have experience with a brand and don't hate it - stick with it.", I love it.
Agree. I started with Z5 a year ago and I added now a Z6ii. I'm satisfied. :)
I love Canon but if I was starting over, I would go with Sony. Sony is less expensive compared to Canon and has a better 3rd party lens support.
I agree. Canon needs to get it together and allow 3rd party support. Sony has them beat in that category.
Canon has a lot of EF lens that works great on R cameras. No way I will never pay for third part lens.
@@SuomiFinland78 I understand and agree with you. That is why I said if I were starting over or starting new, I would go with Sony.
@@SuomiFinland78 sigma has been producing sharper lens than canons tho
Sigma lenses are amazing. More impressive than the canon lenses for sure so hopefully canon allows 3rd party soon. If they do there is less reason to go with sony. Both cameras are so similar at this point though so I guess it comes down to preference and details. Hopefully we see prices on full frame go down overall in the coming years. Still really expensive for anyone just doing this as a hobby.
If I were starting out today...Nikon. I mostly do landscape photography and an extra $500 will not get me a better camera (compared to the other two reviewed models). Money I could put toward a lens. Currently a 6D user and since I already have several good lenses, I could not financially change to Nikon. Two different slot cards is a waste for me, so the SD card slots in a 6D would work for me.
VILTROX IS GETTING THIRD PARTY LENSES FOR NIKON Z MOUNT, Love the image quality of the nikon cameras!
As someone who has been shooting for 7-8 years with a Canon T5i (and shot on a Canon 6D for a few months for a previous job) I had been waiting for both of these camera's to come out before making my decision of which system to invest in when making the jump to full frame. For me, I am leaning towards the Sony with my main deciding factors being the higher mp and all of the third party lenses available. Other more minor things include no record limit, the digital hot shoe to pair with sony mics without cords, full hdmi port, and the ability to switch from photo to video modes and keep the settings (not sure if the R6 does that). It's definitely not an easy decision though.
Sony is good for all use cases but the body is a bit priced like canon. Personally, I'd go with sony for low light photograpy and videography because of the BSI sensor, and the lenses choices. For landscape Nikon colors, contrast, weather sealing are the best (I think they also use sony sensors). For portraits, I'd go with any of them, even the RP does a very good job for portraits
R6 cant do it the custom profiles (C1,C2,C3) ae only for photo
I moved from Nikon DSLR to Sony A7 III because of the better lens selection, smaller/lighter body, and the availability of 3rd party glass. Extremely happy with the decision.
Tough decision for sure. I'm moving up from the t2i and I stuck between the r6 and a4
Stick to Canon if color science is important to you.
Stiill going with Nikon because of the images quality i get. I started with a canon traditional camera before and it broke less than 2 years, hated it so much that a few years after i got a Nikon F100 and never looked back.
Nikon provides medium format image quality with the D850 / Z 7 II at ISO 64. Still unmatched my the competition since the introduction of the D810 in 2014.
I like my Z6 a lot. Autofocus accuracy may not be as good as the others, but I really only notice it being a problem when using the 2x teleconverter on my 70-200 or with my Sigma 24-70 2.8 using the FTZ. The Sigma just seems to "hunt" a lot more than it did with my DSLR. Seriously thinking about selling it because I find myself using the Z 24-70 f4 instead most of the time.
I have a Z6 and both 35mm and 85mm and don't have any problem with autofocus. It's only a problem if you try to use eye autofocus when shooting fast action. This camera is not meant for sports or BIF.
@@mlai2546 I have no problem at all with autofocus speed using the native Z mount lenses. Even with shooting action.
@@mlai2546 With my Z6 I've had great results for BIF since the 3.4 update. It's finding and locking focus very fast.
I sold my z6s and got the canon R the best decision ever, after 15 years with Nikon, I cant stand Nikon as a company, screw them.
What exactly was your problem with nikon?
I went with Nikon for the quality and colors. I also like the full line of relatively lower priced f/1.8 primes that have no focus breathing and don't make a lot of noise when focusing. I feel like I can deal with the autofocus and they are continually improving it. In time, it won't matter and I think I have some of the best glass with really high quality images with files easy to work with.
You think the z line glass is cheaper?
Great video! I am looking to get into professional photography and possibly video so I am leaning towards the Sonly A7IV
Lens Rentals conclusion after Nikon Z 7 teardown: "This is not marketing department weather resistance. This is engineering department weather resistance. Anything that can be sealed has been sealed. I’m impressed, and I will say for future cut-and-paste blurbs: this is as robustly weather sealed a camera as we’ve ever disassembled." Sony was a lot behind with weather resistance. Is this still the case?
no
@@fixxforliferedskies8428 Sony was a lot behind in weather sealing with the A7 II and A7 III. You can also find these articles on that page.
@@theartofimaging618 I already knew that.
There are many people giving reviews but once again your presentation is enjoyable to watch and you actually know what your talking about ... Big Props Jared
I sold my a7iii about a year ago and bought a9. Still a beast. I don’t think I would do a lot of videos, so I probably should wait a9iii. Hope it will have 33 mp.
A7IV could be the experiment for A9iii
@@SMoeun-zs9ji I disagree. A1, the perfect hybrid, is already here and still unmatched by any other camera. All Sony needs to do rn is to cripple each model based on pricing.
I don't care about 33MP. If it can't match Canon R3 in terms of photo and video spec, it'd be disappointing.
Yeah I did the exact same thing. Sold off the a7iii and went to the a9. The age of the a9 worried me at first but it was way ahead of the game when it came out and firmware updates (significant ones at that) made it even a bigger monster over time. The camera still beats all 3 of these models in many categories as far as photography goes. Video is another story but the a9 is still amazing to this day.
I shoot weddings with my Z6 Nikon and it's great and does the job.
My clients don't complain.
#IMadeItThisFar - I still think the Sony has an advantage on how much cheaper their native lenses are compared to Canon's. Not to say that Canon's latest lenses aren't amazing in their own right, but looking at a monetary front.. its an easy choice I would think
Especially with tamron and sigma glass on Emount being just as sharp or about 90 percent as sharp as gmaster stuff for half the price
Thank you so much for your review. You helped me to choose my first mirrorless camera. I decided to go for Canon R6
#igotthisfar Sony takes it for the ecosystem, especially at this level. Their willingness to work with third parties like Tamron and Sigma have created by far the best overall mirrorless platform for people who don’t have unlimited funds available.
Does anyone really dream of shooting with Tamron and Sigma glass? It’s a workaround that shouldn’t be needed.
@@joeltunnah The Tamron 150-500 is excellent as is the Sigma 150-600. Sigma's 85/1.4 is fantastic. I love my Sigma 100-400 as well, very compact and absurdly inexpensive.
I also bought my daughter an a6600 with the Sigma 16/1.4, 30/1.4, and 56/1.4 lenses and all are excellent glass.
Many of the Sigma ART DSLR lenses were fantastic but huge, they're working on DG DN versions for E mount that are much smaller.
The Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 is a very versatile lens with fantastic image quality.
Sure, many of these lenses (but not all!) are available as native Sony glass for those who prefer it but the fantastic thing about E mount is the choice it provides. That's not available on RF or Z and was the main reason I moved to Sony E from Nikon F (and before F, Canon EF). More options is better for consumers.
@@IanHobday this video is extremely misleading. Via adapters there are hundreds of lenses available for the Z mount (and probably RF).
Sigma and Tamron both do the same thing: take an old dslr lens, slap a different mount on it, and call it a “mirrorless” lens. They’re absolutely enormous, especially in length, because they were designed for the 40-50mm registration distance of an SLR.
I shot Sigma lenses back when I owned the Canon 80D. Every lens needed massive focus adjustment. I hope they’ve improved in the last 5 years.
@@joeltunnah You're living in the DSLR and very early mirrorless world. Every lens I mentioned (and many I did not) are specifically designed for mirrorless cameras with the correct short flange distance. There are older DSLR designs with the flange extension on them still being sold (including all of Canon's crazy expensive super-teles!!) but they are being replaced. I don't think Tamron is selling any DSLR lenses adapted for mirrorless now and Sigma has many DN series mirrorless-native lenses with more being released pretty regularly.
As far as using actual adapters goes, it's a short term stop gap and not a good replacement for mirrorless glass. Not only does it make the lenses bigger and heavier but unless you buy an adapter for each lens ($$$) it's a PITA to have to swap the adapter around. It's fine if you only have 1-2 lenses you need to adapt but beyond that it really sucks.
Sony has a couple of other advantages too. They bought a chunk of Tamron shares and seem to have been technology-sharing with them. That's likely why Nikon got stuck with the older G1 28-75 instead of the new and much improved G2. They are also accepting of 3rd party glass in general rather than actively working against the makers like Canon and Nikon have always done. It's a very nice change in the market.
I picked up my Sigma 100-400 DG DN lens for about $800 and it punches way above its weight. Incredible deal. Would the Z or GM 100-400 be better? Probably a bit, but they are bigger, heavier, and 3x the price.
Edit: And focus adjustment isn't really a thing with mirrorless. Focus points are built into the sensor which pretty much eliminates front or back focus on every lens. Even adapted DSLR lenses can benefit from this.
@@IanHobday enjoy your Sony. I’m sure it’s a very capable camera.
I have the nikon z6ii.
I love it, would i like another one more? Maybe, who knows, not me.
This is a great breakdown of all three camera bodies. I started out with a very cheap Dslr from canon and already have a couple EF lenses. Might stick with them when I upgrade thanks to their EF adapter for the RF body.
I start in 2022 from scratch with a Nikon Z System. The holy trinity, 14-24,24-70,70-200 f2.8, and the 105macro. And waiting to the 600mm
I got this far! I'm currently slinging dual R6's and am deeply emursed (and getting deepter) in RF glass. So far so good.
I personally love my R6 and think that the entry-level glass for RF is really slept on. There's no other system that has so many cheap first-party lenses that perform well in photo as well as video, and though I have some L glass, too, I think that the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro is the most useful lens that I have ever owned.
I tried the R6 and loved it but the resolution and video of the r5 made it worth it to get the r5. In any case whatever camera gets you excited to go out and shoot, that camera is the best. I seriously take my r5 everywhere. It sits by me when I'm driving. I take it into restaurants. When I'm sitting with friends and the waiter comes by, I give him the camera. He looks confused and I say just tap the screen like a smartphone and he's in shock how nice the picture looks. When a camera makes you that excited to shoot everywhere you know it's a keeper
Yeah, the r6 is great, and recently I have purchased the 35mm 1.8 as well with a big discount (super worth it). Now that lens is glued to the camera, which I use daily for zoom meetings and I take it with me everywhere. I will wait to see if I have to sell a kidney to get the 50 mm 1.2 as the only prime I’ll ever need at 1.2, and a telephoto like 100-500. ATM both cost to damn much, but they seem to be worth the dough.
@@andreimicle highly recommend the RF 50mm 1.2. Got it 3 weeks ago. Loving it so far.
@@andreimicle 50mm f/1.2 is the only super premium RF glass I have, and it's amazing. That said, I still use 35mm f/1.8 way more because it's just way more versatile and portable, but when I take the 50mm f/1.2 to shoot, it's usually the only lens I end up using. It's almost confusing how good it is that anything can be such a perfect combination of sharp, detailed, smooth, and dreamy.
Great video! I'm just considering starting out and I've learned so much here, not just about the cameras.
It's quite simple: For an all porpouse camera autofocus is key. CA, distorsión, vignetting, color rendition, etc can all be solved in pos. Due to budget reasons, I went into the z ecosystem. Dont let any camera take your enjoy for shooting away. They are all great.
Witch one better please...? I plan buy Sony a7vi
I got this far! I am currently in the market for a camera of the caliber you've reviewed and I am leaning towards the R6 because I like the buttons, menu, feel, ease of use, autofocus, and the ability of 12 to 20fps.
In 2022 I plan to replace my Canon 6D. I have 3 lenses with the EF mount. With an adaptor, I can save a ton of money on glass. But I want to get back into the Nikon system! Not sure what to do? This video was very helpful in explaining the different features of each system. Fortunately, I have some time to make a firm decision and see what new cameras come out in the new year. Thanks for sharing..............
I think you should put a note on MP when talking about FPS. Some may not remember, the FPS is related to the MP.
Sure the Canon is fastest but the MP is limited to 20.
I purchased a7iii for a good price and saved enough money to buy 24-70f2.8 sigma and 85 f1.8 with extra battery and 2 Hoya filters and a SD card for 12000 AED.
Coming from a Sony APS-C camera, I bought the R6 ten months ago, which is awesome. I bought it mostly because I didn’t want the 2 year old A7III, and couldn’t wait for The A7IV. Right now, I would be hard pressed to decide between the two. I was a little disappointed to hear about the Sony frame rate being limited to 6 for full res raw, but I would love the extra resolution of the 33mp sensor. Starting now I may have gone with Sony, but I don’t think I would switch because the R6 is a beast.
This is my exact scenario and my thoughts/analysis are almost identical✅
I’m trying to decide between Sony and canon. Only thing with canon is the expensive ass glass. I could wait for the 7iv or just get the a7iii. Currently have Fuji xt3. I’m just hobbyist nd kinda just shoot everything. Really enjoy wildlife and capturing family moments. I might just splurge on the canon r6 and just use the 24x105 that comes with for as long as possible while keeping the Fuji and determine later down the road if I wanna stay with canon
@@a97b18b canon have 24-240mm it's good for wildlife,.
@@a97b18b If you like wildlife the Canon is the best choice.
@@a97b18b for your requirement I think Canon is by far the best choice , none can beat their animal eye autofocus
Thanks for review! Which would be better for short music video and UA-cam?
I shoot with the Z6ii!! And I love it!(Z glass is top tier!!!) Canon is a close second! Sony does have the best lens selection though!!!
Sony doesn't have the best lens selection, even Fro hinted that some of their lenses are pants ... the only thing they did was to open their mount up to 3rd party lens manufacturers knowing full well that they couldn't compete with the big boys otherwise.
@@vickosis That's what I mean. Sigma and Tamron work well with Sony. Better than some of the native glass.
@@deontecary432 which kinda tells you a lot about the overall native lineup of Sony lenses, no?
The likes of Tamron, Sigma etc will eventually be granted permission to produce lenses for the big boys, it's just at the moment Canon and Nikon don't need to do this and are more interested in selling us their own brand lenses.
Unfortunately if Sony tried to do this, they wouldn't have anywhere near as many customers LOL
I went with the Canon R6. I jumped from the Nikon ship and passed that equipment to my younger son. We are both happy. I now need to invest in Canon glass.
As An A7iii shooter I think the A74 is a solid upgrade especially in the video deparment but I kinda wish they left the FPS @ 10 for at least the lossless compressed RAW and made both slots take either CF-A or SD cards. The A74 is not an entry level body anymore (They have the A7C for that) so I feel that both slots should take the same cards.
Yep the brand spanking new Sony is not an entry level camera at all (FFS it costs 2.5k after all!!) and yep this makes its pathetic FPS even worse, especially at that price point ... IMHO Sony is the big looser in this lineup, by a long shot!
@@vickosis I wouldn't say Sony is the clear loser in the roundup (aside from FPS). The video, AF and hardware design changes are all big upgrades compared to the A73. I would like to know though much editability you lose if you go to compressed RAW compared to Uncompressed/lossless compressed Raw.
This video is aimed at peeps who are "just starting out" and IMHO to invest 2.5k in any camera when starting out is just nuts, and then to pick one which has such a low FPS rate is just insane.
Do you really think this is such a huge upgrade to what you already have, really? Wow!
@@vickosis if you want high FPS, get an a9. I honestly could care less about the duo Type A card slots because those memory cards are already expensive enough. No one today will need 10 fps for non-sports and wildlife shots.
@@harryvuemedia5106 I too don't need it, I was merely trying to point out that the A7 IV doesn't appear all that to me for a camera with such a hefty price tag, that's all.
I was a Canon shooter (AP-C) and I was happy with my gear until I decided it was time to go full frame. Now back then it kinda made sense to keep my half doesn't lenses and upgrade my body, but I just didn't like the Canon full frame offering and I couldn't justify the huge price for the R6 which I fancied, so I looked around and coincidentally discovered the Nikon Z system. Oddly enough the more peeps like Fro started bashing it, the more I got interested. I seem to be a sceptic especially when it comes to all these vloggers and after weighing out the options I found an inexpensive Z 6 in mint condition to try out. Never looked back.
Nikon is the best camera manufacturer for me and they are head and shoulders above everyone except for this poxy AF which the likes of Sony currently have an edge, but it's already very close and Nikon AF is already extremely usable and improving all the time.
My short experience with the Z 6 was enough to persuade me to upgrade to the later model during last years Nikon sales. I didn't really need it if I'm honest, but I got it for about 400 bucks cheaper than it is today, which was a huge saving on top of what is already the best value for money camera on the market.
Still, obviously I wouldn't recommend anyone starting off to go for a Z 6II or equivalent, that's just crazy IMHO. I'd probably recommend an good APS-C camera or if they have money to burn an entry level full frame and for sure spend money on a good lens or two instead.
I bought the R6, I was already in the Canon ecosystem so it just made sense. After purchase, I LOVE THIS CAMERA❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
#igotthisfar
#teamnikon !
If I was starting out, I'd probably start with the Nikon since most of the lenses are Nikon mount. You can still get amazing shots with any of these cameras too. It's insane how good these 3 cameras are. Also to add, for the new photographers, no one is going to judge you with the gear you have, especially if you can create astonishing images. :)
Thanks for all yer great reviews, you helped me make my decision. I just ordered the Canon R6 and Rf 24~70mm.
I would go Sony, Have always been a Nikon shooter since the 70's....recent purchase of a Sony has changed everything for me.
I have to say the Sony excites me… even though I started with the Canon M50…should I switch? Have been thinking about the A7iv for months….
Jared, Viltrox has 24, 35, 50 and 85 for the Z mount.
So who makes the better lenses?? Good glass can make a difference.
One year ago I had to decide between the Z6 II or the R6. I chose the R6 and have been shooting with the RF 15-35 f/2.8, RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 and RF100 macro 2.8. I sometimes wonder if maybe the grass was greener with Sony. However, I'm loving the R6 and with the glass I've purchased so far I imagine a better body will replace in a few years time. I love the R6 #igotthisfar
Any updates?
How’s your back? The Canon lenses are like strapping a keg to your camera, and they cost as much as a decent used car.
Jared thank you for keeping it honest been watching your videos since 2012 and im finally looking to upgrade my setup from a d7100 and d750. Thank you for you and your teams work
I love both my Canon “R” and my “R 6”.
I wish I was in your position. I have the Canon R6 and want to buy a second hand EOS R. Unfortunately I don't see a lot of people selling the R here in Denmark. Instead, everyone is selling their old 5D MK IV, 6D MK II, 80D, 90D, 7D MK II, et cetera.....
My “R” is strictly my backup camera. I have not used it since I got my “R 6”, but it goes with me wherever my “R6” goes.
Thank you, I was literally looking for this comparison video and couldnt find a good source
I got this far! I've been shooing on Nikon DSLRs for 13 years, I'm making the move to mirrorless and I've decided to jump ship to the A7 IV!
Strange choice, valid but strange! Did you get rid of all your Nikon lenses? If not then what are you going to do with it? I use an A7III by the way.
@@kevinrtres Everyone’s reasoning is valid and interesting to hear. Seems like he’s into landscape/automobile (awesome work btw), so I’d be interested to hear the why as well, when Z7ii, GFX A7RIV exists.
@@kevinrtres Haha figured might as well try something different! Currently shooting on a D610 that is getting to the end of its life (or at least feels that way) and has had one shutter replacement with a nice scratch on the sensor to go with that. My main lens is a Tamron 24-70 2.8 (also getting long in the tooth/VC is failing) and occasionally a nifty fifty 1.8. The rest of my gear is the old kit lens from the D610 and some APS-C gear that's collecting dust. My plan is to have the D610 as a second/backup camera probably with the 50mm living full time on it.
@@lilnape2604 Thanks Marc! Landscape is the hobby and automotive photography is the day job. The majority of my clients are only using the photos on social so at this point 40+ MP isn't needed. So my original plan was to get a Z6 II with a FTZ to use my current lens, then save up a bit and get a Z 24-70 2.8. Then the realization came that I am the only Nikon shooter out of all my coworkers and friend group with about 75% of them being Sony shooters (the rest Canon). Between them all I'd have a selection of telephoto and wides that I could borrow when needed wile I stick with a 24-70 for now and maybe a 85mm. My next idea was to pick up a used A7R III or a new A7R IIIA then the A7IV was announced and I felt that was a good midpoint between what I have now (D610) and an A7R with the bonus of the latest tech.
@@dylankingphotography8248 sounds like a good plan! I don’t mean to throw a curve ball into that thought process but there’s a few different autofocus adapter (megadap, techart, etc) you could use to adapt your friends Sony and Canon lenses if you you decided to stay in the Z system. Works surprisingly well too. The A7iv looks spectacular though. Enjoy and happy shooting.
I use Nikon Z6II to shot weddings last wedding I done with this Camera end up taking around 1860 photos in RAW and guess what in focus was 1850 only 10 phots was out of focus, so I have been 10 years shooting with Nikon 2 years with Z6II and I agree is the AF on the screen showing a bit of playing around but when you check the photos you will find out all been in focus, I'm talking from my personal experience.
You need to test the Viltrox Z mount glass for Nikon. Surprisingly good, AF at 24, 35m and 85.
it's ok, waiting for sigmas Z
@@montazownianr1 gonna be waiting for a long time for Sigma and Tamron.
Fair & informative video, you do the best side-by-side comparisons out there. Thanks Jared
For me, it was an easy choice. Here in Sweden, the Z6II costs ~2150 $, and with the latest firmware, I personally think you get the most camera for the money, R6 ~3050 $ and A7IV ~3300 $, prices incl.VAT
Now I had some F lenses before and that also made the decision easier.
Really happy with my Nikon Z6II :-)
In Romania Sony a7 iv it cost now 2.783 euros Nikon Z6ii 1.726 euros and Canon R6 2,944 euros.
Hi
As usual good and precise video.
Got 3 Questions for These 3 models.
In Which Model
Q1) Does the Autofocus works in 120 frames Slow motion?
Q2) Does the Eye Autofocus works in 120 Frames Slow motion?
Q3) Does Audio Recording works in 120 frames Slow motion?
Thanks
Regards
NM.
Awesome review. I am still a Nikon faithful with the z7ii. Sony and Canon do have some great offerings but I'm invested in F-mount glass so I have the F2Z adapter. Also, I like the feel of the Nikon which I think they did a good job of maintaining even going from DSLR to mirrorless. I was able to get a new z7ii and feel comfortable enough to go shot a wedding right away. If you've ever done weddings then you know that knowing your way around your gear is a big deal. Don't think you can go wrong with any of the cameras you reviewed but of course I am primarily a shooter of stills and not so concerned about the superior video capabilities of Sony and Canon. Thanks and peace and prosperity to you Fro bro. #igotthisfar
I agree the Nikon Z5 or (Zee 5) is entering camera. The Z6 II is better camera than Z5, but I still went with the Z5 due to the price. When I went to Air Show at Cherry Point, I wished I got more than 4.5 continuous shooting. I agree the Sony and Canon does have a better AutoFocus, but for what I shoot the picture quality is more important. I do more landscape than action shot.
If I was new entering into photography I’d seriously consider older and even used A7iii, Z5/6, R and spending extra $ on a high quality lens.
Biggest differentiation is Sonys native first and third party lens selection.
Not that it matters but original Z6 was 9fps 14bit. Z6ii increases to 10fps.
Absolutely, "for anyone starting out ..." they would do well to heed your words.
Just sold all my old canon aps-c stuff (3 bodies, 5 lenses, a couple adapters… all of them had different batteries and chargers filling two pelican cases🤦🏽)… to condense down to ONE camera and lens…
I’m mainly video… but I’d like to learn photography.
Decided to go with the Sony A7iv and the Sigma 24-70 2.8 art lens…
Hoping to keep it simple for a while 😅
I don't understand this Nikon bashing. I use a Z6II and take pictures of weddings with it. The picture quality is outstanding and the pictures are 99% sharp. The problem in most cases is not the camera, as the guy behind the camera.
It's is overly exaggerated to say AF on the Nikon is bad because not everybody is shooting high action sports and birds in flight the whole time.
I wouldn't take it as Nikon bashing. If I hadn't gone mirorless as an early adopter on the Sony and went FF later, I would go Nikon. At the time, Nikon and Pentax shooter would bash Sony because mirorless isn't a true system (no mirror? Wtf). But it's all a subjective comparison against what I like/need.
Nowadays I shoot a lot of kid photos (playgrounds, parties) and kids move fast. It's worse than sports. Sony AF is second to none when helped by decent glass.
I still shoot Nikon film and I'd love me a Z6 (I or II) but I fear it would just sit there.
Thanks man. I know this video is a little old now but I'm a novice looking at the Sony A7III and the Canon EOS r6 MKII to get me going. This was really helpful. I know technology has changed again but soundls like either one of these will hold me up for a bit. Appreciate your Video.
Got an R6 after using Canon DSLRs starting with the 10D up to 5D mkiv and 6D mkII. I am simply overwhelmed by the performance of the R6 in speed, lowlight quality and autofocus. Since I have some 25 EF lenses I was not really up to switch all of my lenses. But now I‘ve got the 35/1.8 IS and the 50/1.8 RF versions and it just feels so well and the results are so good I am really tempted to get rid of my EF park and invest in fewer but absolutely superb RF lenses.
20 mp tho
@@ralph5609 It's more than plenty if you know what you're shooting.
Just received my a7iv and did some tests. One more thing about the difference between these three bodies: if you want to film an event that's anywhere longer than 30 minutes (say a musical concert), Sony is the only way to go. I know this is not a common usage, but it's still a nice-to-have. Even the a6400 can record video pretty much indefinitely, so I don't know why Sony is still the only company that allows users to film continuous video on their cheaper bodies.
I am going to wait for the Z7 III featuring an expeed lightning.
For landscape I would choose Nikon.
After Z9 had launch, and insane quality of Nikkor lens. I would said invest into Nikon would not failed you.
I would go with the Sony. I am a non-professional enthusiast and have had Nikon forever. However, I only have one expensive lens ($1000 ), and my pro-summer d7000 camera is getting old, and it misses focus every time! I have done a few weddings, some college level sports, a little wildlife. Focus and Low Light are what matter to me the most. I have also transitioned into mostly video. The video on my d7000 looks great, but it takes a lot of work and good conditions for decent results. I want a camera that does a good job, without all the fuss.
Great video as usual!
Regarding prize: it could be interesting what the prize for a complete setup will be including 2-3 lenses, vertical grip etc. That could be an eye opener because only looking at the price of the camera could be misleading.
Aye, this. It seems Sony is being less aggressive on the body price now that they are the number 1 mirrorless brand while Nikon is getting very aggressive pricewise on the body.
love RF glass, but good god those prices give me pain
I'm currently switchimg from nikon to sony, I pre-ordered an a7iv and the sigma 24-70, and the sigma 85 1.4. Those are 2 great lens for the price of about one good RF glass. That's a lot more pictures I can take and a lot more options to actually get out there and start shooting.
I think you give the Z6II a little too little credit for a particular market even if they have no glass already for it. Hiking/scenery shooters. I actually totally get why you (for your work) would prefer the other two, however if you're a dedicated hiker/landscape photographer, everything you said only cemented the Nikon over the other two. Lightest (every oz matters for hikers), best image quality because landscapes are usually expanded to huge scales, and best censor for all light environments. I really appreciated this review, but I think you gave the Nikon a little too little love in that for that particular audience, they love it.
As a Z6ii owner, I just figured I’d watch this entire video to be reminded the I purchased the third place camera. 😂 At least the Z9 gives me hope that a Z6iii might finally catch up.
I own Z6. I was going to chose between A7iii / XT3/Z6 . I thought I would get Sony as it was so good from all the reviews , but when I got hold of z6, I knew it was a camera, not just a tool.
In the end I choose the one I feel comfortable with , not the one has most ticks on the list .
I only wish they can release a firmware upgrade so Z6 can have better focus . Other than that . I am very happy with Z6’s photo quality.
@Apple Pear absolutely!
I was shocked when I read the news! Looks like Nikon is doing something right in 2021 and not holding anything back .
Thank you very much, your complete opinion on this 3 body.
I’ve ordered the Z9
Me: cries in poor... anyway congrats
Good choice
@@vukasinmartinovic2243 thanks I’m now broke lol
@@tcwhite0104 Not as much if you bought a Sony, and don't forget about the grip!
@@tcwhite0104 lmao
Which is better for Sport, Railway, and Aviation Photography?
I got this far. Nice balanced assessment, the z6ii tech is still pretty first generation. Gonna hang onto my D810 until the z6iii / z7iii finally appear.
Well since year ago i sold my D610 to buy Z5 + FTZ and i'm so happy with it!!! but i'm also waiting for Z6iii. in my opinion you could buy Z5 like me and get used to mirrorless world. for me mirrorless is much much better than DSLR. I am Fashion & portrait photographer not sports and wildlife.
@@mohamedmagdy3697 I mean I could but it would be a bit of a downgrade in picture quality. I mostly shoot landscaps so I think I'd miss my pixels and dynamic range. The z7ii would be fine for me, if the z6iii were to come up to the 33-40MP range that would probably be my go to.
Thank you very much Jared! this video was excellent! I find myself moving technology to mirrorless, and trying to decide if I should buy the Canon R6 or the Sony a7 IV, and you really helped me to decide. Thanks!!! Cheers from Paris!
If you’re already in an ecosystem, realistically you’re going with that brand. If you were starting out, you’d probably go Sony, although the Canon form factor/ feel in the hand is much nicer. #igotthisfar What we do know is that the images produced from any of these cameras would be indistinguishable once processed and printed.
Why is Sony better for starting out? I'm considering between the three and need some advice... Thanks!
@@fanc096 They just seem to be slightly ahead of the game when it comes to features and image quality. I’m a Canon user and won’t be swapping because of the amount I’ve got invested in lenses, but if you look at the bodies Sony have out - A7R4 and A7S3 for photography and video respectively, they’re outstanding.
@@sagetheowlfatfeathery2083 I am also currently deciding between going sony or canon but I am slightly leaning towards canon. I am looking for good hybrid camera as I do both video and photo, eventually upgrading more in the future. but getting two bodies for the respective field on sony in for the best seems daunting to me.
FYI That's 100 lives in Contra Up Up down down left right left right start (or select start for two players).
"So lets go with 20 check marks right here for the Canon" Love it!
I have owned Sony Digital Cameras since the 90's. I love my AX53 Camcorder. But I have purchased two Canon
R6 Bodies and 3 RF Glass Pieces that just work. They are a joy to shoot with and the color out of camera is generally good enough quality that I don't need to grade the footage in post.
Huge Time saver!.
24-70 2.8, 15-35 2.8, and 50mm 1.8 glass are all rock solid.
These videos must take an insane amount of time and effort to make
LOL
As a beginner this is great info video ... no bias ... just straight good info .. .thks a million !!!
I own the R6 and love it. it does everything I need it to do. Just dropping a comment for my boy Jared.
Im moving from Nikon to the R6. Only thing ill miss is nikons photo/video switch.
@@markshirley01 you'll love it! it feels so good in hand!
@@Lu-sj6ni Im hoping theyll add custom vodeo setting in a future update.
I got this far, great video I learned so much about which direction i'm going to head in!