[normhead]

In the Sony world A1 and A9 amateur shooters routinely use deeper buffers for birding and sports. Personally I can’t wrap my head around sitting through that many shots! I can’t get excited about parsing through that kind of volume to find a few keepers. Taking it back a bit I’ve run the buffer dry on all my bodies at one point or another. Typically because I anticipated the action wrong. None of my most used cameras have exceptionally deep buffers (k-3, KP, Sony a7r3).

I'm not sure that's true from my experience. They use deeper buffers, because they shoot higher FPS, but I'm not convinced you get a lot more desirable images.

If you have camera shooting 8 FPS, and a camera shooting 15 FPS, neither camera is like to have exactly the same images as the other and anytime there's a difference which camera gets the better image will be random. Whether or not 15 or higher FPS is useful depends on how fast the subject is moving.

For this image I had 4 identical images at 8 FPS


Or in other words at 8 FPS and 1/2 second my subject didn't move. 8 FPS was 4x overkill. I only needed one. 2 FPS would have done. I have so few shooting experiences where more than FPS is required, looking at higher FPS camera is not viable. Doubling the cost of the camera for 6 hours of shooting a year is fine if you can afford it, it's not even close to being a necessity for enjoying photography.

This habit of defining every one's needs using the needs of the most demanding is truly annoying. But I guess, most just don't have the capacity to actually sit down and analyze thier needs. Most just seem to go with, "I'm not happy, so I must need more."

This bird was moving. So 8 shot burst, one keeper, but 8 FPS got it done. Would I have a better image if I had more FPS? It's unikely, 8 FPS was enough to get the shot I wanted.



And despite the hype on the internet, I've never seen a breakdown of captured images on the internet to show me what I might have missed. A while ago there was a comparison of two action cameras against the K-1. remarkably, in actual images captured, the K-1 did very well, same IQ and results from fewer exposures. The photographers, all pros and heavily invested in gear hype, looked a little shocked. Believe it or not people, that's a plus, no matter how you stack it. Less time spent at the computer, more time spent shooting. You have to be aware that in the gear hyping environment of the internet, the sales model of overselling lives and thrives. People who get paid for selling in volume will always shout down people who point out, you can probably get by with what you have. There's no money in it for the later. They aren't as persistent.

People should not even be asking about the FPS (or buffer) of a camera until they understand what it might mean to thier shooting. For BiF, I would have to go to someplace with wide open spaces and a food source that would draw the birds I want to shoot. I live in a land of hills and valleys with dense tree cover. The opposite of what I'd need for BiF shooting. Maybe a faster better camera would help if I lived closer to more opportunities. But I'm not doubling the cost of my camera on the odd chance I might have an opportunity some day.

For, a couple of events a year it would be better for me to rent an action camera when needed rather than pay for capability that won't likely ever get used.

When I look at shots like the above, I'm convinced sales people rely on people's insecurities. Their answer, completely without justification to "I'm happy with my shot." is "You might have done better." If you're happy with your image, and don't care if it might a have been marginally better by some criteria, they have no way to get your money. And they never mention the other possibility. You might actually have gotten the same shot with a less capable camera and saved yourself some money, which is actually far more likely these days than the likely hood you'll need more than you have by a factor of about 20:1 (rough guess). The other thing they never mention, if you set up 5 cameras and fired off a burst from each at the same time of the same subject, a small percentage of the time the lowest FPS least capable camera would get the best image. An expensive high capability camera can't guarantee you'll always get the best result. Sometimes the single shot 4x5 film camera is going to win that one.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-07-2022 at 09:36 AM.

[repaap]

I got into full frame somewhat by accident. My dad thought I wanted a Sony due to the announcement of the Monster LA-KE1 adapter. He found a deal on an A7R2 and the FE 24-105/4. I find some parallels with comments in the thread about the experience of using the Sony. Since the original A7R2 I have upgraded my camera to the A7R3 and the A7R2 has gone to my dad.

I don’t have a K-1 for direct full frame comparison. I have a KP. I won’t pollute this thread with details but I will echo earlier comments that the body is of similar size with the KP being slightly larger and heavier. The differences are insignificant in that respect.

I used a K-1 for a month with the D FA 24-70/2.8… it was a behemoth. Not that large but like a brick of depleted uranium compared to the K-3+ 16-50 I was used to. In retrospect a 28-105 might have changed my impression.

My Sony lenses tend - like the thread has mentioned for Nikon - towards slower lenses that are lighter and easier to carry/handle. The main lens is the FE 24-105/4, I have the reasonably priced 85/1.8, and a newly acquired Tamron 70-300/4.5-5.6 RXD. The K-1 kit to cover this would probably be the D FA 28-105, FA 77/1.8, DA* 60-250/4 (with diy modifications) or D FA 70-210 + some full frame 1.4x af teleconveter (I own the hd da apsc converter but that does not cover full frame). The Pentax kit would be heavier and bulkier - and slower to focus, but those aren’t major factors, though they do have some impact.

Overall I like both brands and I continue to use my KP. I’ve recently bought a 55-300 PLM lens for it. Paired with the 10-17 and 20-40 this is a nicely compact kit that is quite capable.

I really think this thread is a useful discussion not just of the z6ii but also the driving forces that went into the decision and the adjustment as well as pro/con list vs the established known camera the op owned. Having a K-3 (original model) myself, I understand how it frames the comparison. My upgrade to the KP has given me a taste of the upgraded Pentax vs the old and I can see both the futility of comparing an older camera AND the value of doing it. Deep knowledge of how the k3ii works and experience gives insight into the differences - some of which are still part of the Pentax ecosystem. Additional comparison of those deltas with newer Pentax bodies can help others understand how the shooting experience may differ because this isn’t a superficial comparison.

I really appreciate the tone this thread has taken its a fine example of the forum at its best. I don’t have Nikon on my radar, but this lets me see a little into the world of my former brand (my last Nikon was the F2a).

K-1 is not really the camera to go for when you want speed. I have K-3III and K-1. Barely touch K-1 anymore because K-3III is so good. I also do have da*16-5o SDM and DFA 28-105. I'v seen and handeled 24-70 + K-1+ grip. serious kit. I own DFA 15-30 too. Size does not bother me.


K-3III + DA*16-50 SDM is IMO quite nice and solid, would love to have PLM. DFA 28-105 + K-3III is tiny thou as well as any limited lens on it.

What is being said about AF with K-3III. it is very good, and precise, but you'll need to have recent lenses to really get the best out of it. latest FW 1.41 seems to be really good. Also what has been said about buffer, I have not found any restrictions. pairing it up with iPhone and loading images, is very fast, even with big images. This has been greatly improved. All in all, I think that if they will get those all things in next models, it is going to be nice update for Pentax.


I don't have sony or Nikon, I have Panasonic S5 and it is slouch, af terrible. It has 24 MP FF sensor thou. I think that my K-3III with 26 MP is just as good. FF vs. aps-c is not that big of deal anymore, in any other way than Dof...that said, I'm looking at nikon in terms of if Panasonic won't get AF handeled, buying Sony seems good option too A7 IV, but I'm not so sure if i want to pay the difference, althou monster adapter seems to make Sony more interesting..

[UncleVanya]

I'm not sure that's true from my experience. They use deeper buffers, because they shoot higher FPS, but I'm not convinced you get a lot more desirable images.

I didn't intend to say that they get more keepers, I just said they use their buffers! It's more than Spray and Pray for some but the majority are measurbating not really leveraging the actual capability. Tim over at Alphashooters has a routine he uses to test focus accuracy on Sony bodies and other systems where he goes to a place with a lot of Kite birds and photographs them in the same way. In this way we can see his focus accuracy rate (not his keeper's rate) and such. It's useful info if you shoot action but as you point out you can end up with a lot of the same shot which isn't very efficient.

Let's be honest - most of us are far from really maxing out what we have! A few edge cases sell gear and those features aren't that useful to most of us most of the time. I shoot a KP and an A7R3 - neither of which is a fantastic sports or wildlife rig but I have had rare moments where I needed to use the gear that way. I absolutely didn't have the right gear but I got shots that I liked. Some people strive for more - and those are the folks who might actually care about this. Most of us only want to be in the ballpark so that we are not caught with our Buffers down when we need that shot. It's literally comparison based - looking back at my days shooting film... I didn't even use a winder until the PZ-1 came with it built in. But I lusted after the MD-11 motor drive and the 250xp back for my F2a - why???? I have no idea, I was a teenager and have that excuse to fall back on.

I do think there are some non-pro photographers who really get into shooting hundreds of shots of the same bird until they get that "perfect image". This kind of buffer depth and tracking etc. is for them. Of course it's also for the sales team to say, "Look what we can do!"

---------- Post added 03-07-22 at 03:25 PM ----------

I don't have sony or Nikon, I have Panasonic S5 and it is slouch, af terrible. It has 24 MP FF sensor thou. I think that my K-3III with 26 MP is just as good. FF vs. aps-c is not that big of deal anymore, in any other way than Dof...that said, I'm looking at nikon in terms of if Panasonic won't get AF handeled, buying Sony seems good option too A7 IV, but I'm not so sure if i want to pay the difference, althou monster adapter seems to make Sony more interesting..

Depth of field is a double edged sword. The increased DOF from APSC is something I'm having to unlearn - shooting at f7.1-8 isn't enough sometimes...

As for Sony - the A7IV is nice I just which they hadn't put that dang fully articulating screen on there. I really like the tilt style where I don't have to swing it to the side to angle it. The A7RIVa is quite nice as well. But the sweet spot in used pricing is probably the A7RIII - not a sports camera but a nice multipurpose/landscape kit. Faster than a K-1, lighter than a KP, more MP than is needed, and ergonomically not terrible. The menus aren't fantastic however. The lenses are quite pricey - albeit full of choices and options and 3rd party options can bring costs down. Battery life is good (much better than the previous generation A7RII). EVF is quite improved over older gear but not up to the A-1 level. However there's nothing my Sony does that I probably couldn't get reasonably close to using the K-1. The buffer is larger, the continuous frames per second faster, the megapixels denser... but realistically I doubt side by side photos would tell much tale of a difference. The K-3iii is clearly better than the A6600 APSC Sony Body. The lens choices available for Sony are vast and adapting lenses is fun... but quite a large number of vintage lenses are just native on the K-1.

We live in an era where photography is at once highly developed and neglected. The gear we have is shamefully good. The choices we agonize over are often just hilarious when viewed through the lens of the history of photography.

[morenjavi]

I got into full frame somewhat by accident. My dad thought I wanted a Sony due to the announcement of the Monster LA-KE1 adapter. He found a deal on an A7R2 and the FE 24-105/4. I find some parallels with comments in the thread about the experience of using the Sony. Since the original A7R2 I have upgraded my camera to the A7R3 and the A7R2 has gone to my dad.

I don’t have a K-1 for direct full frame comparison. I have a KP. I won’t pollute this thread with details but I will echo earlier comments that the body is of similar size with the KP being slightly larger and heavier. The differences are insignificant in that respect.

I used a K-1 for a month with the D FA 24-70/2.8… it was a behemoth. Not that large but like a brick of depleted uranium compared to the K-3+ 16-50 I was used to. In retrospect a 28-105 might have changed my impression.

My Sony lenses tend - like the thread has mentioned for Nikon - towards slower lenses that are lighter and easier to carry/handle. The main lens is the FE 24-105/4, I have the reasonably priced 85/1.8, and a newly acquired Tamron 70-300/4.5-5.6 RXD. The K-1 kit to cover this would probably be the D FA 28-105, FA 77/1.8, DA* 60-250/4 (with diy modifications) or D FA 70-210 + some full frame 1.4x af teleconveter (I own the hd da apsc converter but that does not cover full frame). The Pentax kit would be heavier and bulkier - and slower to focus, but those aren’t major factors, though they do have some impact.

Overall I like both brands and I continue to use my KP. I’ve recently bought a 55-300 PLM lens for it. Paired with the 10-17 and 20-40 this is a nicely compact kit that is quite capable.

I really think this thread is a useful discussion not just of the z6ii but also the driving forces that went into the decision and the adjustment as well as pro/con list vs the established known camera the op owned. Having a K-3 (original model) myself, I understand how it frames the comparison. My upgrade to the KP has given me a taste of the upgraded Pentax vs the old and I can see both the futility of comparing an older camera AND the value of doing it. Deep knowledge of how the k3ii works and experience gives insight into the differences - some of which are still part of the Pentax ecosystem. Additional comparison of those deltas with newer Pentax bodies can help others understand how the shooting experience may differ because this isn’t a superficial comparison.

I really appreciate the tone this thread has taken its a fine example of the forum at its best. I don’t have Nikon on my radar, but this lets me see a little into the world of my former brand (my last Nikon was the F2a).

I appreciate your comment.
It wasn't my intention to make a comparison between a K3-II and a Z6II. I perfectly know that the K3-II is a veteran camera and it should not be fair. BUT, It's inevitable to make references to the cameras that I have used so far.
Furthermore, my references to my k3-II (which is still officially my main camera) make sense (for me), as the limitations I have encountered is what has motivated me to look for an upgrade, examining options within Pentax and other manufacturers, considering my budget and the features I needed.
So this thread is just about my user experience, and about what I found on the 'new' camera, just a user report. I don't have a K3III or a K1 series to be able to compare them.
Once I found the system most adequate, I thought it was a good idea to write a post and tell my experience, and that's all.

Regards.

[UncleVanya]

I appreciate your comment.
It wasn't my intention to make a comparison between a K3-II and a Z6II. I perfectly know that the K3-II is a veteran camera and it should not be fair. BUT, It's inevitable to make references to the cameras that I have used so far.
Furthermore, my references to my k3-II (which is still officially my main camera) make sense (for me), as the limitations I have encountered is what has motivated me to look for an upgrade, examining options within Pentax and other manufacturers, considering my budget and the features I needed.
So this thread is just about my user experience, and about what I found on the 'new' camera, just a user report. I don't have a K3III or a K1 series to be able to compare them.
Once I found the system most adequate, I thought it was a good idea to write a post and tell my experience, and that's all.

Regards.

Understood and I think a rational place to post from. You gave me insight since I have owned the K-3 and now own the KP and know some of what has changed but clearly know the K-3ii feature set since it is very little changed from the K-3 (gps & pixel shift mainly) so it was a hugely helpful perspective for me.

[LeeRunge]

I shoot a lot of sports with the K-3 III and I guess my shooting style is different (?) than others, in that I've never really run into a problem with the Mark III's buffer. It's dramatcially better than the K-3 II's. I never have a situation where I hold down the shutter in high speed drive mode for 3+ seconds. That seems like forever for me. In soccer/football the interesting parts of a corner kick or a free kick might last a second or two, I suppose a longer sequence of play would be nice to capture but then you're usually zooming and refocusing and trying to keep up with the ball. I already throw away 50, 60, 70%+ of any 10-frame burst because the content wasn't good; the ball disappears behind a player, nothing terribly interesting was happening, the players are looking away, frames 6-9 are almost identical to 5, etc, etc.

Again, maybe I'm not exploiting the capabilities of the camera enough, and I could be getting more keepers if I was firing off very long bursts at high fps. I don't know, just not how I shoot, maybe others do. I'm probably influenced by my years with a K-30 or K-3 II which just wouldn't do that rate, and couldn't even remotely keep up with tracking focus if you tried.

But for how I shoot now, and I'm pretty happy with the results, not being able to fire off continuous bursts of 40, 50, 60 shots is almost no impact.

I’m still conditioned to bursts that are shorter than 3 seconds because I learned on the K7, K5 and then K3. I still shoot the Z5, D750 the same in shorter bursts.

The Z5 can shoot for 20 seconds strait at 5fps which feels like fooooorever. Then it clears the buffer nearly instantaneous and can do it again. I’ve never shot a string for that period of time.

For me personally the K-3 iii is probably not going to disappoint more than what I could count on one hand.

Might be an issue for some professionals in sports, as the D500 was aimed at a lot of them and birders. But how many in actuality if everyone here says they don’T have an issue with it?

I wonder how my SIgma 8-16 and 18-250 on the K33 work for travel kit. I need to rent one and see I guess.

I do like Pentax for the experience, still the best controls and menus on anything I own.

[UncleVanya]

I’m still conditioned to bursts that are shorter than 3 seconds because I learned on the K7, K5 and then K3. I still shoot the Z5, D750 the same in shorter bursts.

The Z5 can shoot for 20 seconds strait at 5fps which feels like fooooorever. Then it clears the buffer nearly instantaneous and can do it again. I’ve never shoot a string for that period of time.

For me personally the K-3 iii is probably not going to disappoint more than what I could count on one hand.

Might be an issue for some professionals in sports, as the D500 was aimed at a lot of them and birders. But how many in actuality if everyone here says they don’T have an issue with it?

I wonder how my SIgma 8-16 and 18-250 on the K33 work for travel kit. I need to rent one and see I guess.

I do like Pentax for the experience, still the best controls and menus on anything I own.

Bear in mind that those who are still shooting Pentax are aware of the limitations and it isn’t a factor that is high on their list - or isn’t as high as some things Pentax does better than others. The question becomes could the brand add more users if the k-3iii was a better than d500 rather than an almost d500. The Ricoh execs clearly though the delta in sales wasn’t worth the difference in cost.

[LeeRunge]

Bear in mind that those who are still shooting Pentax are aware of the limitations and it isn’t a factor that is high on their list - or isn’t as high as some things Pentax does better than others. The question becomes could the brand add more users if the k-3iii was a better than d500 rather than an almost d500. The Ricoh execs clearly though the delta in sales wasn’t worth the difference in cost.

I learned a lot of tricks that made me more capable working around the AF-C in the earlier Pentax’s and I think the K-7 has a pretty tiny buffer if I remember right. I still got a lot of great aviation shots with it.

Considering the D500 was regarded as one of the best DSLR’s of all time and the K-3iii only really has the buffer to complain about and some hard to see af points in the dark I would say no.

And the K-33 has more features and better controls plus a nicer viewfinder. Stacked up side by side the D500 has price (it’s also about to be gone) and a bigger buffer for the niche who need that. And more lenses in F mount if that matters to some.

Really there’s not much left to want with the camera in the end with the Pentax outside of a few lens options some people might want. I would love a 150-600 with a K33, but you can use other options and be fine.

[repaap]

I’m still conditioned to bursts that are shorter than 3 seconds because I learned on the K7, K5 and then K3. I still shoot the Z5, D750 the same in shorter bursts.

The Z5 can shoot for 20 seconds strait at 5fps which feels like fooooorever. Then it clears the buffer nearly instantaneous and can do it again. I’ve never shot a string for that period of time.

For me personally the K-3 iii is probably not going to disappoint more than what I could count on one hand.

Might be an issue for some professionals in sports, as the D500 was aimed at a lot of them and birders. But how many in actuality if everyone here says they don’T have an issue with it?

I wonder how my SIgma 8-16 and 18-250 on the K33 work for travel kit. I need to rent one and see I guess.

I do like Pentax for the experience, still the best controls and menus on anything I own.

Just two words, rent it you might be pleasantly surprised. Althou, best experience does come with most recent lenses, it is quite a bit different camera now, especially if you have some old tricks in your sleeve.


it is a bummer that there is not most recent 150-600 to be had with Pentax, as it is a nice lens. I don't need that so much, but I know that many do.

[normhead]

it is a bummer that there is not most recent 150-600 to be had with Pentax, as it is a nice lens. I don't need that so much, but I know that many do.

Those lenses are serious impediments to agile movement. They aren't for everyone. Same with high frame rate. Never has so much time been spent pushing a function that has so little effect on most photography.

[pinholecam]

Hello.

So I finally got a Z6 II. After the K3-III announcement I was seriously looking for an upgrade of my Pentax equipment. K3-III was really expensive, K1 route was not clear for me, I was considering to just upgrade lenses... But finally decided that a 24Mpx modern mirrorless FF will be a good upgrade. I commented about my considerations in another thread, so I'm not going to repeat it again. Just a Z6/Z6II was the best bang for my buck.
A couple of days ago, I just receive my new Z6II. Well, just the camera, because the 24-120 S was not in stock, so I'll have to wait one or two weeks to get it.

Congrats on the new camera.

I am just curious as to why you choose Nikon over Canon or Sony.
Canon has nicely worked back its market share and Sony has been in this market space far longer and the range of lenses and camera types (and 2nd hand stuff) is wider than the other 2.

[repaap]

Those lenses are serious impediments to agile movement. They aren't for everyone. Same with high frame rate. Never has so much time been spent pushing a function that has so little effect on most photography.

Yup! (12fps is rarely in use, but I do occasionally use it and it is fun)

---------- Post added 03-09-22 at 13:33 ----------

I didn't intend to say that they get more keepers, I just said they use their buffers! It's more than Spray and Pray for some but the majority are measurbating not really leveraging the actual capability. Tim over at Alphashooters has a routine he uses to test focus accuracy on Sony bodies and other systems where he goes to a place with a lot of Kite birds and photographs them in the same way. In this way we can see his focus accuracy rate (not his keeper's rate) and such. It's useful info if you shoot action but as you point out you can end up with a lot of the same shot which isn't very efficient.

Let's be honest - most of us are far from really maxing out what we have! A few edge cases sell gear and those features aren't that useful to most of us most of the time. I shoot a KP and an A7R3 - neither of which is a fantastic sports or wildlife rig but I have had rare moments where I needed to use the gear that way. I absolutely didn't have the right gear but I got shots that I liked. Some people strive for more - and those are the folks who might actually care about this. Most of us only want to be in the ballpark so that we are not caught with our Buffers down when we need that shot. It's literally comparison based - looking back at my days shooting film... I didn't even use a winder until the PZ-1 came with it built in. But I lusted after the MD-11 motor drive and the 250xp back for my F2a - why???? I have no idea, I was a teenager and have that excuse to fall back on.

I do think there are some non-pro photographers who really get into shooting hundreds of shots of the same bird until they get that "perfect image". This kind of buffer depth and tracking etc. is for them. Of course it's also for the sales team to say, "Look what we can do!"

---------- Post added 03-07-22 at 03:25 PM ----------



Depth of field is a double edged sword. The increased DOF from APSC is something I'm having to unlearn - shooting at f7.1-8 isn't enough sometimes...

As for Sony - the A7IV is nice I just which they hadn't put that dang fully articulating screen on there. I really like the tilt style where I don't have to swing it to the side to angle it. The A7RIVa is quite nice as well. But the sweet spot in used pricing is probably the A7RIII - not a sports camera but a nice multipurpose/landscape kit. Faster than a K-1, lighter than a KP, more MP than is needed, and ergonomically not terrible. The menus aren't fantastic however. The lenses are quite pricey - albeit full of choices and options and 3rd party options can bring costs down. Battery life is good (much better than the previous generation A7RII). EVF is quite improved over older gear but not up to the A-1 level. However there's nothing my Sony does that I probably couldn't get reasonably close to using the K-1. The buffer is larger, the continuous frames per second faster, the megapixels denser... but realistically I doubt side by side photos would tell much tale of a difference. The K-3iii is clearly better than the A6600 APSC Sony Body. The lens choices available for Sony are vast and adapting lenses is fun... but quite a large number of vintage lenses are just native on the K-1.

We live in an era where photography is at once highly developed and neglected. The gear we have is shamefully good. The choices we agonize over are often just hilarious when viewed through the lens of the history of photography.

I’m going to be looking mirrorless mostly for video and occasional photo things(S5 is okay atthere, very nice video). For photos I do want OVF new AF on next FF Pentax should be more than good
Video on Z9 is getting to be on level of the rest, so it will be interesting to see what it is going to be with cheaper models. S5 is okay, but it can be better too

[morenjavi]

Congrats on the new camera.

I am just curious as to why you choose Nikon over Canon or Sony.
Canon has nicely worked back its market share and Sony has been in this market space far longer and the range of lenses and camera types (and 2nd hand stuff) is wider than the other 2.

It's a good question.

I was comparing Sony a7 IV, Canon R6 and Nikon z6/z6 II (on mirrorles world). Points important for me were: good quality EVF, Full Frame without a lot of MPx, 'colors', price and AF technology with Face/Eye detection.

I think the three cameras have a 3.69Mp EVF with at least 60Hz refresh rate, that is considered a good and comfortable EVF.

Canon has 'only' 20Mp, Sony has maybe too much (33Mp) and the Nikon has 24Mp, that is perfect for me. I don't need a lot of Mp and I don't want to deal with too big files.

About AF tech, I think the Sony is the best, It's AF engine detects what to focus on and selects the appropiate AF algorithm (people, animals, objects...). Seems a lot of people complains about the AF on the Nikon, but they improved a lot releasing several firmware updates and I finally decided on the Z6II (instead of mkI version), that seemed to have better autofocus and general speed, less EVF blackout and other minor advantages. Canon is maybe better than Nikon too. But as far as I understood, the main complains with Nikon AF is the 'Auto-area AF (people)'. Sometimes it doesn't know what to focus on, it's not as 'intelligent' as the Sony. So in the Nikon, you have to change to the best focus mode to get things in focus, while Canon and Sony do it for you. But, I found that changing focus mode is realy easy on the Nikon, and the focus precision is excellent. I'm forgetting about the focus and concentrate on composition and get expressions, trusting that the camera will focus correctly on my subject's eye

About the 'colors', that is color rendering. I was comparing several RAW files, downloading and editing in Capture One, and found I liked the Nikon files more. Maybe Nikon colors are more similar to Pentax. So I feel more comfortable with Nikon RAW files. About skin tones, color gradation, shadow recovery, noise... I preferred the Nikon.

And finally, of course, the price, Nikon is cheaper , but it gives you a lot. Sony a7 IV is too expensive for me. Canon is not much more expensive, but I didn't found that lenses were as a good deal as with Nikon's. I liked the NIkon 24-120 F4, and Canon doesn't have a similar lens.

There are also some subjective parameters, I like the Nikon body more than Canon or Sony, and I can't explain why (the marketing, I suppose).

So... decision was clear in my case

[UncleVanya]

It's a good question.

I was comparing Sony a7 IV, Canon R6 and Nikon z6/z6 II (on mirrorles world). Points important for me were: good quality EVF, Full Frame without a lot of MPx, 'colors', price and AF technology with Face/Eye detection.

I think the three cameras have a 3.69Mp EVF with at least 60Hz refresh rate, that is considered a good and comfortable EVF.

Canon has 'only' 20Mp, Sony has maybe too much (33Mp) and the Nikon has 24Mp, that is perfect for me. I don't need a lot of Mp and I don't want to deal with too big files.

About AF tech, I think the Sony is the best, It's AF engine detects what to focus on and selects the appropiate AF algorithm (people, animals, objects...). Seems a lot of people complains about the AF on the Nikon, but they improved a lot releasing several firmware updates and I finally decided on the Z6II (instead of mkI version), that seemed to have better autofocus and general speed, less EVF blackout and other minor advantages. Canon is maybe better than Nikon too. But as far as I understood, the main complains with Nikon AF is the 'Auto-area AF (people)'. Sometimes it doesn't know what to focus on, it's not as 'intelligent' as the Sony. So in the Nikon, you have to change to the best focus mode to get things in focus, while Canon and Sony do it for you. But, I found that changing focus mode is realy easy on the Nikon, and the focus precision is excellent. I'm forgetting about the focus and concentrate on composition and get expressions, trusting that the camera will focus correctly on my subject's eye

About the 'colors', that is color rendering. I was comparing several RAW files, downloading and editing in Capture One, and found I liked the Nikon files more. Maybe Nikon colors are more similar to Pentax. So I feel more comfortable with Nikon RAW files. About skin tones, color gradation, shadow recovery, noise... I preferred the Nikon.

And finally, of course, the price, Nikon is cheaper , but it gives you a lot. Sony a7 IV is too expensive for me. Canon is not much more expensive, but I didn't found that lenses were as a good deal as with Nikon's. I liked the NIkon 24-120 F4, and Canon doesn't have a similar lens.

There are also some subjective parameters, I like the Nikon body more than Canon or Sony, and I can't explain why (the marketing, I suppose).

So... decision was clear in my case

What about the a7iii? Was it too old?

[pinholecam]

It's a good question.

I was comparing Sony a7 IV, Canon R6 and Nikon z6/z6 II (on mirrorles world). Points important for me were: good quality EVF, Full Frame without a lot of MPx, 'colors', price and AF technology with Face/Eye detection.

I think the three cameras have a 3.69Mp EVF with at least 60Hz refresh rate, that is considered a good and comfortable EVF.

Canon has 'only' 20Mp, Sony has maybe too much (33Mp) and the Nikon has 24Mp, that is perfect for me. I don't need a lot of Mp and I don't want to deal with too big files.

About AF tech, I think the Sony is the best, It's AF engine detects what to focus on and selects the appropiate AF algorithm (people, animals, objects...). Seems a lot of people complains about the AF on the Nikon, but they improved a lot releasing several firmware updates and I finally decided on the Z6II (instead of mkI version), that seemed to have better autofocus and general speed, less EVF blackout and other minor advantages. Canon is maybe better than Nikon too. But as far as I understood, the main complains with Nikon AF is the 'Auto-area AF (people)'. Sometimes it doesn't know what to focus on, it's not as 'intelligent' as the Sony. So in the Nikon, you have to change to the best focus mode to get things in focus, while Canon and Sony do it for you. But, I found that changing focus mode is realy easy on the Nikon, and the focus precision is excellent. I'm forgetting about the focus and concentrate on composition and get expressions, trusting that the camera will focus correctly on my subject's eye

About the 'colors', that is color rendering. I was comparing several RAW files, downloading and editing in Capture One, and found I liked the Nikon files more. Maybe Nikon colors are more similar to Pentax. So I feel more comfortable with Nikon RAW files. About skin tones, color gradation, shadow recovery, noise... I preferred the Nikon.

And finally, of course, the price, Nikon is cheaper , but it gives you a lot. Sony a7 IV is too expensive for me. Canon is not much more expensive, but I didn't found that lenses were as a good deal as with Nikon's. I liked the NIkon 24-120 F4, and Canon doesn't have a similar lens.

There are also some subjective parameters, I like the Nikon body more than Canon or Sony, and I can't explain why (the marketing, I suppose).

So... decision was clear in my case

Yeah, I too find that 36mp is already overkill for the hobbyist who prints up to A3+ (ie. me)
24mp is a good balance for file size, storage, processing power and most uses.

The Sony A7iii already has very good AF on par with the later models in the series (excluding A9).
Color is far from good, but can be solved with some custom profiles saved in LR.

I don't think there are cameras that are too bad though, just what we weigh as more important for our needs and budget.