Personally I was so impressed by the Z system that I bought into it - after many years happily staying just m43 Olympus but finally I felt it was time to a future proof FF mirrorless system.
For comparison ....
1) Sony - they still might have the most impressive AF today and also lead in sensor design I never could get friends with their camera bodies and ergonomics. And especially basing a FF system on their FE mount that is in best case suited for APSC was always turning me down.
2) Panasonic - in theory the L mount is something really great but in practical life the cameras - while being stellar quality (Leica and Panasonic) are for too heavy for what I think a FF mirrorless system should be. And also the often discussed DFD AF is unfortunately not up to the game as I would like.
3) Canon - with their RF mount they came pretty close to perfection and now with the R5 and the R6 thy proved they can really do it in FF mirrorless - even video and sensor design. What kept me off from going that route was their lens lineup - while mostly create lenses they are too expensive and bulky for my taste and needs.
4) Nikon - well the Z mount finally rang all the bells and whistles, especially with the lenses they develop so far and also the ones that are coming. Not only is this technically the best FF mirrorless mount, the lenses are all superb quality and the lineup is perfect for my needs. And their cameras (Z6/Z7) are just perfect even with only one card slot - and the Z6s and Z7s will have 2 card slots and dual processors that will also significantly increase the speed of the cameras again. Having said that - both the Z6 and Z7 are already balzing fast and also the often underrated AF (eye AF) is light years above from what I was used to by Olympus and more than enough for me. And if it improves again with their dual processor variants it will be nothing left to complain about.
So for me the Z mount wins and I am sure if the whole camera industry survives these general downturns then in 10 years from now we all will see the big merits of the Z mount - maybe closely followed by the RF mount.
I’m glad the Z is working for you. I truly am. I know you bounced thoughts of what system to adopt in your head for what seemed like years and deep down I believe you always wanted to make the Z system work for you no matter what. Nothing wrong with that but it’s just an observation. Ultimately I’ve accepted every system has flaws and it’s why I currently own two different ones. The one that works for nearly everything and the one that I want to use (that ironically also works for nearly everything). A few comments though.
The Sony lens mount isn’t too small. It’s in fact larger than both the Leica M and Nikon F mount. The theoretical optical limits of the mount is more or less on par or exceeds both the L and RF mount due to the size and distance of the mount. Now whether it’s harder to create great wide angle lenses... one could argue but I don’t know of anyone that’s complained about the 24/1.4 GM in performance. I don’t know many clients that have been unhappy with results that are the fault of any camera. Not getting along with the Sony menu system is overblown IMO. If you use any camera and own if for some time it becomes second nature. I generally don’t bring up things like that because eventually they become moot with usage. The same way that the Canon system isn’t second nature to me any longer since I haven’t owned one of their cameras in 12 years. The Nikon menus might as well be Greek because I never owned one... Olympus was all over the place for me the brief time I had one but I will say any system that I owned I could figure it out in time just like I did with the Lumix S menu.
L-Mount DFD performance isn’t anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be and I’d argue that for photography it’s the second best performing AF system after Sony (though I reserve the right to alter that comment after I get my hands on an R5/R6). The place it can falter is in continuous AF on a gimbal with fast lenses being used to shoot wide open. That’s one of the few actual “flaws” of the camera systems IMO. I think this is compounded by a few reasons. First is how many people have unrealistic expectations for adapting their old lenses instead of buying native lenses. Simply put a lot of people buy into systems that they can’t truly afford to own... and I’m not saying that from an elitist viewpoint but rather a place where people believe if they have enough for a body and one memory card then they’re good to go. Said person then goes on the internet and bad mouths a camera without ever assuming their setup and expectation management is the largest problem. Performance just isn’t going to be an issue now for most types of shooters. You’re even seeing people doing wildlife on a more consistent basis now that the Sigma 100-400 is out. I can understand the size not being to everyone’s liking and there are some smaller bodies being rumored to come soon. As the technology improves I could honestly see a time in the future where I become just an L-Mount shooter in all honesty. I really like the lenses and the bodies for me. I think if they continue to add lucrative members (I hear Tamron and Voigtlander are rumored future partners) then that could help to serve the customers on the lower end of the price spectrum with cheaper bodies coming.
The Nikon Z is fine. I think my personal reaction to the system is and was based on my personal viewpoints surrounded by the absolute poor marketing of the system, Nikon’s comments against mirrorless for years, and the actual objective performance of the camera. When the camera was released it was a much better body that the EOS R. Canon improved the EOS R through firmware to surpass the Nikon... and they had more interesting lenses. Sony didn’t have to do much of anything and everything is still being measured against the A7III years later. I think the S lenses are capable but not groundbreaking IMO... but I personally don’t think anyone is doing groundbreaking in lens designs beside Canon and Leica honestly. There are some excellent optical options that are stellar from most everyone from Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Leica, Panasonic, etc. but groundbreaking costs. Now the other issue is that people have (and this applies to any camera system) are personal preferences and if a camera doesn’t perform in a manner that one is used to (and this can be a variety of things from AF speed, to pushing the capability, to poor marketing of capabilities, to over promising features, to not having the menus they already know, etc.) then its human nature to withdraw from a camera that does things differently.I think we all fall into this category. I think a lot of people “poo poo-ed” on innovations like Eye AF when it was released about 6 years ago. Now every new mirrorless user of Nikon or Canon is singing the praises of how “revolutionary” it is... and it is... but people have been saying that for many years now.
Canon RF system is the one that I believed form the get go would most challenge Sony. They have mindshare. They have lenses. They now have a body that’s suited for photography and pushed the boundaries for video... but I think Canon is playing 4D chess with all of us in order to move more Cinema EOS cameras when all these video people figure out that the R5 isn’t a suitable substitute for high end video work... and it doesn’t have to be but it goes back to marketing and expectation management. They grabbed the headlines with the video specs and out out a presser on the limitations and in the real world it seems to be worse than what people expected. It’s even overheating when being output to an Atomos recorder albeit it takes much longer to do that way. I think it’s a great photography camera that is fine for limited video clips. I think people are likely still better off going the Cinema EOS route if they’re serious about their video... or get a RED Komodo if the idea is to stay in RF mount... also it’s apparently easier to edit 12K BRAW from the new Blackmagic Design camera than it is Canon 4K HQ or 8K All-I... so the codec need a lot of transcoding on a powerful computer even.
I think this is where some just throw their hands up because for year people have spoken about camera systems like sports teams and I get how brand pride can be a thing. I think I’ve mostly come from a place where I celebrate the companies moving the bar forward because I do want a healthier industry... but I have mixed feelings on companies that don’t innovate. On the human side, I don’t want the people that work at these places to suffer but on the business side if a company is resistant to innovation, changing markets, and ways ahead I think it’s inevitable that they’ll fold as a company. Personally I’m also hesitant to root against disruptor companies. I think if there was no Sony, we would still be getting the next iterations of whatever DSLR was out there from Canon and Nikon. I don’t think there would be a Z or a RF anything without Sony because Fuji wouldn’t be cutting deep enough into their sales and L-Mount is a pretty high end system in costs to where the average user can’t afford to invest in it really without compromises.