OK, if the question is
"Nikon or Sony?", the answer is as always: there's no absolute, it's a strictly personal choice based on requirements and preferences.
Thanks to the extremely agressive pricing, good available stock and at the time ridiculously low British pound exchange rate, a couple of months ago i more than seriously investigated the possibility of a complete switch to Sony at virtually no cost -or even get a few bucks out of it.
Reasons? Simple. For one, unexpectandly (and reluctantly) i'm starting to need a higher pixel count. As we all know the Nikon offer in this respect is limited for now to the darn expensive D3X. I happen to have regular access to a full a 5D MkII kit and files and since it's not the subject here let's just say that as fine as this system is, it's definitely not for me. Then, on a general basis i love Zeiss glasses and could occasionally use the AF provided by the Sony system. Plus there's this wonderful 135mm 1.8, with no real Nikon equivalent, and i'm now pretty much exclusively a prime shooter, so... it looked like i had the perfect profile, and opportunity.
I eventually abandoned this swap possibility for different reasons, all personal -that's why i never talked publicly about it. But since the topic is raised, let's take a little time here not to let unaddressed some maybe bold -and for some misleading- assertions that could be perceived as a general truth. First, i truly did not care for the camera handling. Second, camera operation was definitely not a plus compared to Nikon. AF? For the quite occasional use of AF on Zeiss i would trade off the very versatile and efficient Nikon AF options. Not of the essence to me, but not really worth it either.
Also, for my array of uses the Live View (or absence of) was a
huge downside: shooting products a lot in studio conditions with many close-ups, the terrific D700/D3 LV with instant 10x magnification feature allowing for ultra fast, ultra precise manual fine focusing was more than hard to let go. Not if mostly everything else was not only on par but better.
Yes, this is personal, since obviously enough if you mainly/only shoot weedings or candids or even some category of landscapes, this is typically not as relevant. But still, the high ISO performance can then be. Or not. Again a matter of personal evaluation.
Lenses: let's put one thing out of the way first... Comprehensiveness wise, in the DSLR department Canon lens offer is unrivaled, period. Not only the brand own line up, but a lot of alternatives are out there, too, including Zeiss ZE (+ZF if needed) and all sorts of adaptations, OM lenses, even Contax N AF zooms can be tweaked, etc. Both Nikon and Sony suffer from a lesser choice, on the Nikon side because despite a lot of available recent zooms, many primes are old design and would welcome or even require an significant (!) upgrade. For Sony, the Zeiss offer is limited and the various lenses are not equal -to say the least. All this is perfectly documented here and there already, so let's skip the details. In a few words and sticking to primes, Sony do have a winner with the 135mm 1.8. Nikon has one with the 105VR. These two would be completing nicely... too bad. Sony 50mm offer is minimal if not poor, no Zeiss, and overall that's a setback for some (me included). Surprisingly, the Sony 1.4 version seems to turn out a pretty slick lens... but then, Nikon 1.4G is, too. And you get access to Zeiss primes, including the terrific 50/2M.
In the zoom section, thoughts on the 24-70 comparison, which was after all the OP question: personal (again) feeling, i like the Sony Zeiss version better than the Nikon. Despite the latter super reputation, i'm among the Nikon users who still like the good ol' 28-70 version. Funny enough, talking the other day with a guy operating a shop with a four-photographer team shooting hundreds of weddings and (mostly family) events a year, 3 out of 4 still use the 28-70 because they love its character and don't bother for the extra sharpness and corner precision of the newer avatar for their work -sorry, off topic. Or not, i guess my point here is taking an example where none of us would dare say "it is better than the 24-70". Just feeling good with that one.
Lens wise, in one word -and this is no news- Sony has one clear trump card: the Zeiss AF.
Not all equal in results, with a limited choice, and for some not as good as their MF counterparts. But they're here.
A quick note on the mentionned "better colors": old debate, and truly it's really a matter of tastes and situations, not discounting software choice, knowledge, and skills. Two thoughts: first, LR/ACR is definitely not the best RAW engine for Nikon NEF files. NX2 and C1 are. But again, some get super results with LR/ACR and/or Aperture. IIRC, Jorgen who posted above, is one of them, or Jono Slack talking about defectors
into the Sony camp. Then, what do we cover with "colors"?
Macro, products... Nikon colors are extremely good. For these i have proof. No need to repost macro shots in this thread, just have a look at the galleries out there, most of mines (of course you can find much better ones) have limited processing. Products? i shoot a lot of products and paintings for catalogs, and anyone with experience in these areas will confirm that you can rely on any engineer, designer and artist to get super picky when it comes to color accuracy and not readily finding them ok if they're off. Nature? Look at the work of Andy Rouse and alike, with there also minimum processing. Fotomassimo anyone? (sorry can't remember his real name right now, just the moniker). OK, skin tones then... that's what we hear sometimes, but to stay with what's available handy, how come for example that Jorgen Udvang's work is so good in this regard (not only with the S5 but also with the D80). If he gets better results with candids than most of us (better than me, for certain), is it because he has better equipment? Fat chance. Seeing what he can get out of a D80 with a Tamron zoom, one keep wondering what would he'd get out of a D700 and 50 1.4G or 105VR (not talking about a 200VR, but he's too frail for that)... What about Dustin Diaz? List could go forever...
Nope... not breaking astonishing news here, but... it's a matter of photographic skills in the first place.
And yes, time, efforts to tame and understand any given system.
In the end, as often if not always comparing systems, there's no clear line.
Sony has a great kit, with limitations and some quirks, but a couple of great lenses, affordable high-pixel package, very good IQ. That can be enough for some -example of Mark Williams comes into mind- and make their day, but not for everyone.
Nikon makes available to their long-term or more recent users, very high quality, reliable equipment with proven, known operation and feel, along with a couple of unique features.
To each his own.
Me, today? I'd like a Fuji S7
Or a D800 -if it's a D3X packaged into a D700 form. Or a more affordable D3X. :cussing:
Oh well... while holding my breath :sleep006:, i found my personal -complementary to Nikon- solution for having Zeiss AF in a super slick body.
Got myself a Contax 645 kit for Christmas :angel: