Nikon from the canonist's point of view /Z5

There is no "if" in

.

Also there is no very justified reason to think I have not owned or used Canon gear when I wrote I am resenting it for a decade. It implies I did own and used Canon gear.

I had Canon cameras for well over a decade. Not sure if I started being unhappy with Canon for last six or eight years, but indeed, I was somehow unhappy.

There is no requirement to use formal language here. It was just harsh conclusion after my long lasting resentment. I'd say justified expression for my frustrations.

But now I rather understand that the issue is not with the stupidity of my claim (I am entitled to, because I might be imprecise in my speech or even stupid). I somehow might trigger you, not expecting Canon people getting hurt in Nikon place. If that is the case, I would indeed apologize. My intention was not to trash Canon users. It is the gear, and my personal feelings about it, not users. Please don't feel attacked for my opinions and feelings about the gear or companies. 🙏

//Now I realise my input might upset some Nikon people, and it was a negative entry in a way. I am sorry for that too. Didn't want to make anyone upset. Just shared my observation in free speech environment. I will suffer the consequences of that, sure. Better to be checked out, and to suffer what was coming for me. Maybe the tread name was better suited for open talk forums.

The findings though, these persist. There are flaws and compromises in anything.

Whatever it is - you seem not to be comparing apples to apples.

One way to form a misunderstanding is to to learn only parts of how each system works and to overlook some important detail.

With both systems with the same aperture lens, both lenses wide open I and others have been unable to detect a screen difference in low light.

Nikon has the advantage or disadvantage of showing stopped down depth of field using apertures wider than wide open with lenses faster than f5.6.

If you put an f1.8 lens wide open on each system are you SURE you can see the difference you refer to. I cannot.

If you use the Nikon at f5.6 it shows f 5.6 depth of field and just over 3 stops less light transmission.

If you use the Canon at f5.6 you cannot normally see f5.6 depth of field.

Nikon gives you the choice as you can always view wide open.

The Canon lens was f/5.6 not a faster lens. My observations go long time back, when I had Samyang f/1.4 lenses and Canon f/1.4 lenses.
Of course more scientific approach with apples to apples would be more valuable. I don't have such lenses by me anymore.

I was posting observation "as is" for that reason, and for consistent outcomes across many observations with different gear.

I had also this annoyance of very unsure MF and focus acquiring issue. This is further magnified by the fact that review could be zoomed in such a way(amount) that the image (detail and sharpness) looked like trash anyways, leaving me with no assurance of whether the image taken is sharp or it isn't. But here I was able to do my homework. After finetuning the lens, after custom picture control, and setting low sensitivity peaking, The focus is very usable, and in review mode, it looks like double tap is zooming in 100% and not more. So my lesson is that the camera can do very well, it's just the default settings that are counterintuitive and not suited for a pixel peeper like myself.

Fair enough - though what you report is different to my hands on experience.

This nullifies the value of your claim - especially as you say you have no recent experience of appropriate Canon equipment.

In competent hands following the manufacturers guidance I find cameras do not have focus acquisition issues.

Yes, experiences can differ. I posted mine. If someone has different usage, workflow and tolerance, he can of course experience different stuff.

Depends on which claim. You do not have to have experience in the field to evaluate stuff. That is false premise. I do not need to be a murderer or victim of murder to judge a murder.

First Canon FF RF body with IBIS is R6/R5, and that is quite expensive for first entry into IBIS. The basic primes line is "EF 50mm STM like" cheap built and function, but the prices doubled from EF. I did not invent Canon Cripple Hammer term, it is a community wide consensus of many people.

There is good part of it where this is true. I point to the fact that with Canon this was intuitive and seamless, without using manual. With Nikon, I struggle through manuals, tutorials, forums, trainings, testing and evaluating to get there.

Last evening I probably got AF right by lens tuning, finding zoom ratio, altering picture profile and testing on the way. None of that needed to be done with Canon.

Great example is UniWb. With Canon, it is 10seconds task to set. I did not manage to do that with Nikon yet.

You might not like me sharing this experience, but it does not nullify anything.

For a reasonably priced, great performing, compact & relatively light entry level 135 format camera, I think you'd be hard pressed to go past an A7III, or A7c. Huge range of very reasonably priced -and great performing 3rd party prime lenses, top notch AF, there's not a lot to dislike from where I'm sitting. And that's coming from a bit of a Sony hater.

Indeed.
But the Sony does not have compact 35mm F/2 lens. Samyang AF is tempting, but so is Samyang MF that is available for Nikon too. I must admit that on top of better ergonomics, Nikon steered me with price/performance ratio of the sensor. A7 III does not bring higher resolution, so that is not a choice to go for me. And with knowledge that I don't have to stay with Z5 forever, I made a decision. Time will tell. There is nothing more wrong to happen that I switch again. But Nikon is slowly growing on me.

My quests are solve sharpening in LR (too thick no matter what I do) and UniWB. Once solved, things will be much better than with what Canon could offer me.

No, but Sigma does. Which is probably the way I'd go if I went Sony. You could build a really nice, small, light & reasonably priced prime kit with the Tamron 20mm, Siggy 35 and 65mm f2, as a really capable travel/walkaround setup. The Siggy f2 range seems to be very well regarded. Been a little bit tempted myself on occasion, as that would cover 90+ % of what I shoot.

That doesn't look exactly pancakey-ish. And prices also not that far from Nikon Z, although still cheaper. At first look, it does not appeal to me.
I have ordered Samyang MF 85mm f/1.4
after Nikon Z 40mm f/2. Next one is decision between 16mm and 24mm. Needs to be fast one too.