Hey everyone,

I’m looking for a full-frame mirrorless camera that can handle serious outdoor abuse — multi-day treks off the grid, rough handling, cold, humidity, sand, dust, no backups, no babying.

Right now I’m torn between the Nikon Z8 and the Canon R5 / R5 Mark II. What I really care about is ruggedness and reliability — I already lean toward Nikon because of the lenses, but I need to know:

Is the Z8 body truly durable? What’s the mix of plastic vs metal, and how solid is the build compared to the R5/R5 II?

How do the weather sealing and resistance to extreme elements (rain, cold, dust, sand) compare?

Has anyone used these bodies in rough, remote environments — any weak points or failure stories?

I’m not too worried about specs or autofocus at this point — just which camera is more likely to survive a week in the wild without a padded case or gentle treatment.

Would love to hear real-world experiences or teardown insights. Thanks!

Hi there!

I am a hobbyist photographer, shooting wildlife, portraits, street, and anything with action. I currently have a Canon R7 with RF 100-500 mm f/4.5-7.1 and Rf-S 18-150 mm f/3.5-6.3.

I’d like to save up for a full frame camera down the line. I’m not satisfied with the AF performance of the R7, particularly for birds. I also want better low light performance and better bokeh with nicer lenses for portraits.

I’m considering either sticking with the Canon system and getting a R5 or R5 Mk ii with Rf 24-70 mm f/2.8 or ditching the system (sell the Canon) to go to Nikon Z8, and getting the 180-600 mm and several prime lenses.

I love the lens options on Nikon but not sure how its AF will stack against the R5 and R5 Mkii for wildlife photography. One additional benefit would be that my wife shoots a ZfC already.

Please let me know if you’d like to opine!