>>2996615>Oh, I thought the S was supposed to be the good one.It's about the best camera in around -1 to -4EV very low light.
It's not good in more light. In conditions where PDAF could work, you'll miss PDAF - even if it has respectable CDAF it's still just CADF. Plus it's 12.2MP only ('cause big pixels for low light).
> it takes too long to scroll across themYea, it generally takes too long to do that, no matter which camera?
Even the touch screen AF on the A6500 and RX100 V won't really do it too well. That said, you tell me how you select AF points faster than with a touch screen...? Not that these are perfect touch screens yet, but you're still not going to do that faster with a knob.
What you really usually do is obivously aim the center at your subject and try to track ( even if it slips outside the center of your frame). You definitely aren't changing the AF points around as your subject moves.
And certainly, some Nikon / Canons still do that better, but not AF. Plus there are also moments where the face detection of a Sony kicks in or you aimed right, and then you quite possibly have a more precise focus.
> Partly because we already had Nikon glass but I also thought they were the best all-around choice anywayMaybe you did, and it's certainly a defensible point of view that Nikon makes some good cameras. They also do have some with nearly the best AF.
But I have almost no doubts you'd have decided otherwise if you had a pile of Sony glass (55mm Z, 50 and 90mm macro, 70-200GM, 21mm Loxia, 85mm GM, a bunch of Bati's and all that glass) already.
Once you own that, you're not going to switch to a Nikon (with worse and heavier glass) . Never mind for a community college student newspaper.
