360Photography

Introduction

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years. And, while it’s been doing clever and interesting things with the likes of the a9, it’s the more basic a7 models that have had the most impact. The original a7 was the least-expensive full-frame camera yet launched, which helped make the format look more accessible than it had been since the film era.

They’re all good cameras but there are practical differences

But it’s no longer alone, with both Nikon’s Z6 and Canon’s EOS R both arriving priced in the $ 2000 region. The Canon stands out a little, costing 15% more and, with its simpler control system, not being so overtly aimed at committed enthusiasts. But in most respects, these cameras are direct competitors.

Before going any further, we should make clear that they’re all good cameras (most modern cameras are), they’re all very well built and can all take great photos, so don’t listen to anyone who says any one of them is terrible. However, there are practical differences, so we’re going to look at what each offers in different shooting situations.

Loyalty and inertia

This article primarily looks at the cameras themselves, but lenses should play a fundamental role in any decision. If you have no commitment to an existing system, you can skip ahead to the next slide, but if you already own some lenses, does that mean you have to stay on-brand?

It might be worth taking stock of how committed you really are to your existing lenses

Owners of Nikon lenses can adapt them to work on Sony cameras (and, in theory, someone enterprising could develop an F-mount to Canon RF adapter). But Nikon’s complex legacy of autofocus and aperture actuation systems mean adapting them to other bodies often gives a pretty poor experience. This gives the Nikon Z6 a bit of an edge for F-mount shooters but even then, any lens without its own AF motor is rendered manual focus only on the Nikon.

Canon EF lenses work similarly well on the EOS R and on the Sony a7 III, so need not be a deciding factor in making that choice (though long teles work better on the EOS R). If you own any other Canon accessories, that might tip you towards the EOS R, but if anything, Canon’s forward-thinking in the 1980s means EF lens owners have the most flexibility.

However, especially if you’re coming from APS-C, it might be worth stopping and taking stock of how committed you really are to your existing lenses. That prime lens you like so much on APS-C won’t fulfill the same role on full-frame. And if you only have one really great lens, you may find its second-hand value allows you to switch systems without too much of a loss.

Native lenses

With its five year headstart, Sony has a wider range of native lenses available for its E mount. Sony advocates point to the sheer number of lenses when trying to point-score, and it’s true that the company has developed some small lenses with fast, well optimized autofocus. But the E-mount is a relatively young, raw system and some of those lenses (the 28-70mm F3.5-5.6, the 85mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4 and 24-70s, for instance), possess various quirks in terms of optical quality or AF speed. Others, such as the 24-105mm F4 and 24mm F1.4 are fantastic, though.

These are all young systems so, as well as checking whether the lens you want exists, it’s probably worth researching their performance

However, it’s not safe to assume Canon and Nikon will steer clear of these same pitfalls. Canon’s 24-105mm F4 seems very good. It’s fast and quiet to focus and has been well optimized for video (presumably for some future body that’s good at video). But its 35mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.2 aren’t as snappy, either because they have a long focus throw (the 35mm is a Macro), or because they use ring-type focus motors better suited to DSLRs.

It’s a similar story with Nikon. The 24-70mm F4 is a solid all-round zoom but the bokeh on the 50mm F1.8 isn’t exactly attractive, which is disappointing on a 50/1.8 costing $ 600. Also, it’s interesting to note that the native Z-mount lenses appear to focus more slowly than some F-mount lenses designed for DSLRs. There’s a chance that from a future perspective, these early Z lenses will stand out as the ones to avoid if you want full AF performance on Z cameras.

Sony’s willingness to share its mount specs means an increasing degree of third-party support

Sony’s headstart, but also its willingness to share its mount specification means it has an increasing degree of third-party support. This spans the range from dedicated, full-function mirrorless-specific designs, such as Tamron’s 28-75mm F2.8 and Samyang’s 35mm F2.8, through to the modified DSLR lenses from Sigma and a host of niche manual focus lenses from smaller makers, such as Venus Optics. It’ll be interesting to see which of these get reverse-engineered to work with the RF and Z mounts, but neither camera maker seems supportive of this process.

Ultimately these are all young systems so, as well as checking whether the lens you want exists, it’s probably also worth doing some research into their performance, to ensure you’re not paying to be a guinea pig for a large corporation. You might also consider whether a good F4 zoom gives you much of a benefit over an F2.8 on APS-C. Or perhaps choose to wait to see how each system develops.

Core features

The three cameras have some similarities but there’s also a divergence of spec that suggests none of the camera makers have yet worked out who the target photographer is, and what they need.

The Sony and Nikon both offer 24MP sensors (which are likely to be pretty similar other than, perhaps, differences in phase-detection layout and masking). The Canon offers a variant of the 30MP Dual Pixel chip used in the EOS 5D IV. The difference between 24 and 30MP is pretty small: 11% in each direction, but that Dual Pixel design offers something distinctive.

The Sony has more control dials (three plus a dedicated exposure comp dial), while the other two have top-plate settings displays, which appear to be making an unexpected comeback. All three cameras are solidly built and have pretty comfortable hand grips, and each promises some degree of environmental sealing. The main handling difference is how the cameras let you choose your AF point:

However, while the a7 III’s touchscreen is put to good use for AF point control, it’s the least well utilized for other functions. Both the Canon and Nikon provide more extensive touch control of menus and settings, giving a more consistent experience.

One of the other big spec differences is that the Sony still uses a 2.36M dot viewfinder and 0.9M-dot rear screen, while the Nikon and Canon both go to 3.68M-dot finders and 2.1M dot touchscreens. Finally, the a7 III has a much larger battery than the other two, giving it a huge advantage.

But, rather than dwelling on specifications, we want to look at how the three cameras have performed in different shooting situations.

Portraits

Our choice: Sony a7 III

Anyone arriving from DSLRs is likely to be impressed by any of these cameras for portrait shooting. They can all focus precisely, even when using off-center AF points with a level of consistency that DSLRs can’t match, and will do so even if you choose to shoot with shallow depth-of-field.

The Sony is the easiest of the three to shoot portraits with. Eye-detection AF has existed for a while but Sony’s push-button implementation is hugely impressive for its ability to identify and tenaciously follow your subjects’ eyes. Canon’s Pupil Detection isn’t quite as dogged and only works for single AF acquisition, requiring that your subject stays much more still. It’ll happily focus the 50mm F1.2 wide-open, though, so it does its job.

All three cameras focus precisely, even when using off-center AF points in a way that DSLRs can’t match

The Nikon is weakest in this regard. Its Face Detection doesn’t focus specifically on eyes, so can leave focus mis-placed when working at wide apertures. Its small AF point is effective in some situations but the smaller ‘Pinpoint AF’ system is contrast-detect only, which can be too slow, both to position and to focus, so you’ll need much more patient subjects.

The Sony has the fastest flash sync speed, at 1/250th second but modern high-speed sync and the other cameras’ compatibility with their respective radio-frequency flash triggers may outweigh this small, 1/3EV advantage.

Historically Canon’s JPEG skintones have been widely admired (though the other two brands are closing this attractiveness gap). This may make no difference to you at all, though, if you have a well-honed Raw workflow.

The slightly smaller size of a Sony a7 III with something like the 85mm F1.8 might make it a touch less intimidating than the other, larger cameras, but it’s really the Eye-AF that makes the Sony stand out from the crowd for portraiture.

Sports and Wildlife

Our choice: Sony a7 III

None of these cameras is primarily intended as a sports or wildlife camera but it’s fair to consider how well they can dabble at it.

Sony’s subject tracking system is the best polished and most reliable of the three. The Canon also does well, albeit at a much slower frame rate, while the Nikon Z6 wrestles with an awkward interface and somewhat unreliable subject recognition. In more simple modes, trying to manually keep an AF point over your subject, the performance is more similar, and all three do a reasonable job of refreshing the viewfinder to let you follow action.

The Sony and Nikon both do a good job of balancing shooting speed and buffer depth, despite the Sony depending on the generally slower SD format. The Canon shoots away quite happily but at around half the speed of the other two.

Unsurprisingly, the Sony has the best native telephoto options, with the 100-400mm GM being especially good. The other two cameras do a decent job driving their respective DSLR tele lenses, though.

Overall, we see the Sony as the most reliable performer for sports and wildlife, with the other two falling behind, either in AF reliability or shooting speed.

Wedding and Events

Our choice: Sony a7 III

The price tags and feature sets of these cameras make clear that they’re not the dedicated pro cameras in their lineup, but cameras such as the Nikon D750 have raised expectations of what should be possible for the price. As such it’s fair to assess how well these will behave as second cameras for a professional wedding shooter or as the primary camera for someone shooting weddings as a side-line.

The once-in-a-lifetime nature of weddings is one of the few strong arguments for worrying about the number of card slots a camera has. Whether it’s for separate stills/video capture or the peace-of-mind that redundant backups bring, weddings are one of the areas where the Sony’s twin card slots give it an edge.

The once-in-a-lifetime nature of weddings is one of the few arguments for worrying about the number of card slots

Battery life again plays a big role when shooting weddings and events because, while it only takes a second or two to swap batteries, the need to charge-up spares just ends up adding another pre-event task and another thing to go wrong. The Sony can be expected to offer around twice the battery life of the Nikon and nearly three times that of the Canon.

The Sony’s AF performance, whether in terms of Eye-AF, subject tracking or low light performance, is the most flexible and dependable of the three. The EOS R continues to work in very low light, which is a major asset for this kind of work, making the EOS R and 50mm F1.2 a tempting option, though probably as a second camera.

Sony’s native lens lineup includes more of the classic workhorse lenses than the new RF or Z systems. That said, both the Canon and Nikon are compatible with DSLR-mount versions of these lenses, if you already have them (we wouldn’t generally recommend buying DSLR lenses specifically to adapt to a new system).

The Canon and Nikon are compatible with their respective brands’ RF and IR flash trigger systems, if you own or are renting strobes. That said, none of the three cameras will fire the focus assist lamp on these flashes, which can be a drawback.

Again, Canon’s much-liked JPEG color may play a role in your decision, depending on how much Raw processing your workflow usually entails.

Of the three, we’d feel most comfortable shooting a wedding with the Sony.

Video

Our choice: Nikon Z6

All three cameras promise 4K video, but that’s about where the similarities end. The Canon is clearly the weakest of the three in that it derives its video from a 1.83x cropped region of its sensor and does so with significant rolling shutter.

Both the Sony and Nikon use the full 16:9 region of their sensors, giving detailed, significantly oversampled video. Both have features such as focus peaking and zebra warnings, to help monitor focus and exposure, though the Nikon can’t do both simultaneously. Both cameras are similarly good at video AF.

The Sony and Canon can shoot Log footage internally but only do so in 8-bit, which can limit the files’ flexibility. The Nikon and Canon, meanwhile, will both output 10-bit Log footage to an external recorder over HDMI, giving an advantage in exactly the situations you might need to shoot Log.

The Nikon is the easiest of the trio for switching back and forth between stills and video

The Nikon pulls ahead by retaining separate exposure settings for stills and video. It also gives you the option to use different white balance and color settings. Furthermore, it allows you to define a different i-menu for video and stills shooting. And, in common with the Sony, it lets you define different custom buttons for stills and video. All this makes the Nikon the easiest of the trio for switching back and forth between the two shooting methods.

Ironically, the Canon comes closer to the Nikon in terms of ease of stills/video switching, again maintaining distinct exposure settings and buttons settings, though not distinct white balance settings. Unfortunately, in a camera without in-body stabilization to keep your horizons straight, that offers disappointing resolution, significant rolling shutter and the image quality of a sub-APS-C sensor. Still, it’s a positive sign for whatever comes next.

Of course, if you really find yourself getting into video, Sony’s E-mount is the only one of these three that currently has pro-grade video lenses and cameras available.

Landscape

Our choice: Nikon Z6 or Sony a7 III

Resolution and dynamic range are the critical image quality factors for landscape shooting. The Canon has the edge in resolution, while Sony (in uncompressed Raw mode, at least) wins out in terms of dynamic range. The Nikon is a fraction behind the Sony in this respect, as slight banding can be revealed from the deep shadows if you try to use its full dynamic range.

Close inspection makes the Nikon appear to have the most substantial weather sealing, but the Canon and Sony also make the same claims. The Sony is the only one that can be powered over USB while being used, somewhat ironically since it’s the one that lasts longest on its own battery. All three cameras can be charged over USB.

We’ve also found the Nikon the easiest of the three to operate while wearing gloves

The Nikon has a pretty sophisticated intervalometer and time-lapse move mode, which the other two lack. We’ve also found the Nikon the easiest of the three to operate while wearing gloves, with the Sony a little behind. The Canon and Sony don’t offer any internal interval shooting controls, which is a particular shame on the a7 III, since it can run from an external USB power source and its predecessor let you install a time-lapse function.

The Canon is alone in needing stabilized lenses if you don’t have a tripod, since the other two have in-body stabilization.

Travel

Our choice: Sony a7 III (but they’re all pretty good)

Travel is perhaps the most difficult use-case for any of these cameras, since it could require a little of everything. On top of the capabilities already discussed, all three have pretty good Wi-Fi systems for sharing your images with the people back home.

Some of the strongest lenses in all three systems are the 24-something F4 zooms, with the Canon and Sony examples extending out to a more versatile 105mm focal length. Nikon’s 24-70mm is smaller as a result of its shorter reach, though. Sony’s willingness to share its mount details means Tamron’s 28-75mm F2.8 should also be considered. All three cameras with these do-everything lenses make pleasant (if somewhat large) travel companions, though.

Some of the strongest lenses in all three systems are the 24-something F4 zooms, ideal for travel photography

Nikon’s weather sealing might be more reassuring when you’re out-and-about but its reliance on XQD cards might leave you in a tricky spot if you lose or fill your card on a long trip.

The Sony would probably be our favored travel camera, though. It’s the smallest of the three bodies and for now, at least, has a wider choice of small lenses. It’s got the most capable (though probably most complex) autofocus system, for shooting whatever you encounter. But, most significantly, it offers by far the best battery life.

Conclusion

Even without thinking about lenses, it’s clear that Nikon and Canon still have some work to do to catch up with Sony’s half-decade headstart. It’s not an insurmountable difference, though and both brands have brought their extensive experience of ergonomics and user interfaces, which Sony should probably be worried about.

The camera body you choose now is likely to commit you to a new lens system for the foreseeable future

All three cameras can produce excellent images but the Sony more readily adapts to a wider range of situations. The Nikon acquits itself well for certain types of photography, while also doing unexpectedly well at video, but the Z6 has the least dependable AF system of the trio, which counts against it. Canon has tried to make an easy-to-use camera, rather than simply mimicking its DSLRs, but, while we’re not fully convinced by the results of this first attempt, it’s still a very able camera.

Ultimately, though, the decision is likely to come down to what lenses you own, which lenses you plan to buy and how much faith you have in each company to produce camera bodies to match your needs, several years down the road. Because, if you’re trying to avoid major costs later, the camera body you choose now is likely to commit you to a new lens system for the foreseeable future.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)