>>4032664I'd say the Nikon easy clap if you were doing portraits, just because Nikon always seems to have beautiful skin color renditions, but you don't shoot people, so there goes the Nikon's main advantage.
You might as well treat either camera as moving to a whole new system and bringing almost nothing. You might think another positive for the Nikon is the fact you have Nikkor lenses ready to be adapted, but FTZ is a complete dogshit system. You mentioned leaning on autofocus for bird photography, well prepare for half your old lenses to become fully manual because some older lens' af straight up dont work with FTZ. It's not like Canon's seamless EF to RF system. It has serious issues.
Pixel shift isn't really a plus for the Sony because it's a very situational tool. It works best for micro four tards 20MP cameras. With the A7IV at more than triple their resolution, I dont think you'll be getting that much use out of it compared to those complete retards with phone sensor cameras.
If you want to shoot birds a little more, Sony's the easy choice because bird-eye AF. Wildlife is really moving to videography so you might want to consider that. Still wildlife is so over unless youre doing something really unique. Canon has top-tier pro wildlife on lock, but Sony AF and decent tele stab can rival Canon's dream setup at like 1/6th the price or some shit. Sony 200-600 OSS is only like 2k. That combo is great and Sony keeps birds in flight locked like a fucking heat seeking missile. It's a complicated setup though. Its definitely not a point and shoot situation and retarded youtubers complain about Sony teles. I don't speak from experience but I have looked into it because it's what I want but Im a poorfag.
But maybe you are getting sick of wildlife and so Sony AF doesnt matter so much. I dunno man.
