Quote:
Originally Posted by Guite I have been looking at Sony A7 series and Nikon Z5. In terms of image quality which one would you recommend? |
"Image Quality" is a highly technical thing, and honestly, almost all modern mirrorless cameras, especially the full-frame ones, have very good "Image Quality" in terms of ISO performance and low noise, dynamic range, capturing details etc. I have seen detailed technical charts where they do 100% crops and inspect image qualities where I could not see any noticeable difference in most of the full-frame sensors of current generations. Maybe there is some difference when you go to extremes such as some crazy high ISO values which we will never use in practice, or something like that.
Further, the practical aspect of "quality of a photograph" is very different and orthogonal to the sensor "Image Quality". Photograph quality depends on things such as compositions, colors, lights and shadows. These are all in the hands of the photographer. I spend a lot of time on Flickr these days browsing photos from around the world, and when I closely observe those images, many of the great photos have ordinary or sometimes poor "image quality". But that is totally irrelevant unless you purposely look at a 100% crop and go searching for issues such as noise or purple fringing etc. But from the point of view of the art, those are great photographs, with stunning visual effects, thanks to their great compositions and other elements of visual arts, and not because of their "image quality". So in short, unless you are going to print billboard size images, "image quality" is only an academic matter.
In short, Nikon Z5 and Sony A7 III or A7 IV are almost same in "Image Quality" for all practical purposes. Also note that you mentioned "A7 Series", and that is a vast series. There, the camera like A7 9 are phenomenally advanced and leagues ahead of the entry level Nikon Z5. Therefore, it is not fair to compare Z5 with "A7 series". At best you can compare Z5 with A7III. So let me comment only about A7III below.
Having said that technical "Image Quality" of the sensor is almost the same (for all practical purposes), there are other more important differences between Nikon Z5 and Sony A7III. And these are the things which you as a photographer will find very relevant in day to day photography and will decide which camera is right for you.
For example, Z5 has a much better Electronic View Finder (EVF) than A7III. For me, the EVF experience is very important and I love the Nikon Z5/Z6 EVF. Further, I love Nikon menu system and controls, and it is all very intuitive to me. Sony has a very cumbersome and awkward menu systems and non-intuitive controls, and that may or many not be a problem to you.
On the other hand, Sony A7III is much better than Z5 in Autofocus system. Z5 Autofocus system is probably the most basic out of all modern full-frame mirrorless cameras, whereas Sony systems is one of the best.
And finally, Sony A7III has higher FPS for fast action shooting than Z5, which is terrible for action shooting. Thus, if fast action and video is your priority, then Z5 is not for you. But on the other hand, if you would mostly shoot still objects, and want great EVF, and a very intuitive menu systems and a more classical photography experience, then Z5 is a nice camera!
So these other things are far more relevant and will directly affect the quality of your photographs than the technical "image quality" of the sensor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom I don't have mixed feelings about the camera; I do have some about going FF instead of sticking with aps-c. |
Agreed on the FF part. Especially for landscape photography, which many of the members asking for camera suggestions here mention as their main use case.
For landscape photography specifically, I have mixed feelings about full frame cameras. It is incredibly hard to get the entire landscape in tack sharp focus, even when you narrow down the aperture to f/11 or so, in a full-frame camera due to the shallow depth of field. You need to use techniques like focus stacking to get the entire landscape in tack sharp focus. And although my camera has a focus stacking feature built-in, I am too lazy to use that. That also requires a tripod etc. For simple casual handheld shots, it is difficult to get whole scene in focus in a full-frame camera.
On the other hand, in an APSC sensor, you have a much wider depth of field, and while this can be a major disadvantage when shooting close objects and when wanting to isolate the subjects and wanting a lovely bokeh, just for landscapes where you want "all in focus" scene, these ASPC cameras at even f/8 do a great job! I get the entire landscape in tack sharp focus at f/8 in my Nikon D3500 (APSC), and not even at f/11 in my Nikon Z5 (full frame).
If I were to shoot pure landscapes in a trip, I still prefer my Nikon D3500.
But of course, I also shoot other objects and subjects and want to isolate them and produce more specific visual effects, and for that, I prefer Nikon Z5. And of course, going back to that technical "image quality", at times when it does matter, for example when shooting high dynamic range scenes, the full-frame Z5 is leagues ahead of the APSC D3500. So full-frame certainly matters big time in those cases.
So yes, it is not always true that a Full-Frame camera is the best for a given situation and for a given subject and composition, and for the given visual effect that the photographer has in mind.