>>4389036>No, they just aren't that good at making cameras.You can keep telling yourself this lie, but please don't tell it to others. Sony cameras remain among the best. I trialed every major brand (Z6II, ZF, R5, A7IV, A7C) and found that while sony's UI is less appley and lacked rounded corners, and nerds can delight themselves into pushing sony and canon files unrealistically until they break, the actual photo taking experience on sony/canon is vastly superior. They were also the only ones that did not NEED skin tone fixes.
Nikon was the best to fingerfuck with the best UI styling and has nicer screens, but for actually taking pictures, the Z6II was just bad. The ZF was a fucking tragedy that made the a7c feel fully decked out (and still didn't have the same autofocus accuracy as the a7iv and R5). I'm pretty sure nikons hybrid autofocus' contrast side is based on a lower resolution version of the image and they lack cross points because their autofocus is simply not reliably precise enough for the sensor's native resolution. They make the ONLY mirrorless cameras I have ever used where the autofocus gets more accurate in a cropped sensor mode.
I hope you get this isnt about defending sony, because I also canon. Its about defending innocent /p/ users from buying garbage and buying twice . Most people should only consider 2 brands if they're spending big bucks on a camera: Canon for zooms and Sony for primes. Canon has better first party budget shit, sony has better first party premium shit. Canon for FPS, Sony for MP. Camera shopping could not be simpler.
Honorable mention goes to panasonic for cramming all the good video codecs onto otherwise "meh" cameras and giving amateur filmmakers a lower priced non-autofocusing alternative to a "real cinema camera".
>inb4 muh a7iii sucked, muh r6 suckedAnd early DSLRs werent even 1/3 as good as film, which didn't change the fact that they did eventually get up to 24mp, 14 bit color, and 14 stop DR later.
