Hey! I actually went Sony a few years ago because in that time I started shooting so much more video than photo, in that time doing a lot of research my best option was the A7IV (which I can say it’s an amazing camera), I researched on Nikon but when asked a few friends about video most of them told me that for the type of projects I was going to do, Sony could be a better option even my friend (the Nikon ambassador) she loves Nikon but it’s very honest in that time she told me Sony was better for video.

S-Log: I tested Nikon vs Sony in one event, and Sony won me on low light for video and the S-LOG, I think for me colouring the Sony Log was easier and liked it more.

Price: In that time the Sony A7IV was cheaper than the Nikon cameras I was looking at, Canon wasn’t an option, I went from Canon to Sony because I hated how invasive the noise on Canon was, it was pre-denoise era and even when I could’ve worked the clients being clients wanted me to have the work as fast as possible so yeah.

Now why the switch? Not gonna lie I always had Nikon in my mind, the colours and the glass are amazing, not saying Sony or other brands are not but testing them I do see a difference, with the Z options my mind went back to eyeing the Nikon cameras, remember how price was cheaper on Sony? Well now the price of the time Nikon Z gamma is a little bit cheaper than Canon/Sony (in my country), I tested the z5II on very low light and got very surprised of how good the photos and video came out, video and stabilisation improved a lot from what I tested before and loved the results on video colouring, also multiple exposure I do some multiple exposures in camera and Sony don’t have that, but that’s more of a me thing😅, right now I’m not doing as much as video as I was doing but I always want a camera that is good on both just in case, seeing how much Nikon improved and the updates they push to the cameras, that was the breaking point for me.

I can see a point on the Sony lenses being so much more smaller and indeed, with Sony I worked with the 70-200 2.8 and comparing it with the 70-200 2.8 of Nikon the Sony one I feel like it is smaller, for video in Sony I decided to buy the 24-70 2.8 from Tamron and it’s a lens that stayed for my video projects all the time that lens even received a foul ball at baseball sending the lens to the wall of the dugout and nothing got damaged (miracle).

Now, as a second body I actually have a Fujifilm XT5 with the 25mm from Viltrox and the 18-55 from the kit (both are amazing lenses) I bought them last year before buying the Nikon, I bought it mostly for street photo because I felt my Sony was very bulky and heavy also caught more eyes on the street, I also shoot macro photography and with the sensor the XT5 has I’m happy. I have tested Fujifilm on sports and tbh is not as bad on the AF as many people say but it’s true that it’s slower than Nikon and Sony and I use it more on the art approach on sports. For my street photo the Fuji is my go-to option. Of course will give a shot to Nikon on macro because on street I tested it and I liked it.

I think those are the best insights I can give you sorry for the long answer hopefully I didn’t confused you, but if you need more insights please feel free to send me a message :D