I was about to get the Nikon Z8, but the new canon Eos R6MIII is awesome too. I do wildlife, both video and stills are important for me. Also being a canon user would mean being able to own the 200-800.

What are your thoughts?

Hey all,

I am having an internal debate about what to do next with my gear. I currently shoot with a Canon R6 and own a Sigma 35mm f1.4 EF, a Canon RF 50 f/1.8, and a Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8.

While Ive gotten some great photos out of this setup, I feel limited in the stuff I do , specially in low light concert stuff. I find the R6 to be okay and not very reliable in AF for fast-paced performances.

I currently have a budget and looking to upgrade into something more professional. My two top choices are the Canon R5 or switching systems entirely to a Nikon Z8. My dilemma is the following:

- Sticking with Canon I could continue to use my lenses but RF lenses are so damn expensive and lack so many options and EF glass feels like a compromise. I also don't see a long term outlet in Canon .
- Switching to Nikon Id have to start all over, which will be an investment but hopefully with a more long term payout. I am really drawn to the Z8s performance everyone talks about and also would love to own something like the Zf to compliment it.

Has anyone here made a switch like this? How does the Z8 hold up for concert, specially in extreme low light and with fast moving subjects?

I am also aiming to do more sports in the future, so Id love to hear thoughts from those who have made the switch or who use the Z8 in Concerts/Sports.

Thanks, all!

Hey guys I'm looking for thoughts on switching from the Canon R6II + 100-500 to the Nikon Z8 + AF-S 200-500. I spent around $5000 on the Canon system as a whole (r6ii $2500 and 100-500 $2700) and would want to keep the budget around there. That means that a new Z8 paired with a used F 200-500 FtoZ would be in that range and would give me zero rolling shutter and significantly more MP for cropping.

I originally started out with a Nikon 5600 and Sigma 150-600 C and have some other Nikon F lenses lying around like the AFP 70-300 FX and AFS 50 1.8 though I have been trying to sell those. I found the 150-600 to be clunky and often times found the autofocus and stabilization lacking, at times I would also have some issues with connectivity with the Nikon body. Maybe this is just a poor copy but I think I would prefer to stick to native glass if I can in the future. I moved to mirrorless because I also wanted faster framerates, full frame and electronic for landscape, AI autofocus. I would have gone to Nikon mirrorless but based on reviews their animal autofocus was way behind Canon and Sony. I went Canon over Sony A74+200-600 for the faster 4x frame rates and additional body features (rolling shutter, bracketing etc).

Since moving to RF 100-500 I've found the lens to be much lighter, faster autofocus and significantly sharper. However I'm still bothered by the price and the loss of 2/3 - 1/3 stop of light compared to competition, the design also does not pair well with the teleconverter. The loss of light isn't a huge deal as I've found that I can get somewhat acceptable images even at max iso 25600 (with D5600 I would max at 3200) but I would really like that wider aperture for the creamier background rendering. I think moving from APSC to Fullframe I might have underestimated the change in field of view and would appreciate the extra ability to crop. I like the Nikon wildlife lens options more but truthfully most of the Z series are actually more expensive than the RF100-500 so while I would like to have the ability in the future to grow into them I'm not sure I would purchase a 4k+ lens. I'm wondering that the performance of the adapted lens are with a Z8 or Z9, I expect a hit to the tracking. Though with my Canon kit the AI tracking is said to be one of the best but still has a lot of issues with grass, the ground and twigs anyways so I'm not sure if I will find a difference I will care about. I hear that stabilization with the Z8 and Z9 is amazing but I don't know if that's only with Z lenses.

Sorry for the text wall but TLDR: If you were to start wildlife shooting would you go with the Canon R6II + RF 100-500 or the new Z8 + 200-500 + FtoZ adaptor?

Hi, I used to shoot a Nikon D810 and had a bunch of lenses that I all sold with the camera a few years ago. Now looking to get back into photography. Max budget is 2000 cad$. I narrowed it down to 2 candidates within my budget: Canon R8 (1800$) and Nikon Z6 ii (2000$). My photography interests are as follows: 70% landscape and street photography, 25% portraits and 5% (wild life, zoo trips, kids playing ...). As for videos, I would say (90% photography & 10% videos).I consider myself at beginner level now. But might take a project for a friend or go the professional route IF my photography gets better. I'm mentioning this because I can't afford to upgrade cameras often and this one must last a couple of years to come. I'm completely torn between the modern features of the R8 and the professional ones of the Z6 ii. If you had experience with either cameras or both please don't hesitate to chime in. I appreciate your help.

Hey Reddit,

I’m looking to upgrade my camera and considering a few options: the Sony A7 IV, Canon R5, Canon R6 II, and Nikon Z8. I’ll primarily be using it for event photography, portrait photography, and possibly some videography (side gigs, so reliability is important). I’ve narrowed down to these models because they seem to hit the sweet spot between performance, features, and long-term usability.

My Priorities:

• Image quality for portraits and events (with some low-light shooting)
• Video quality (I’m not a full-time videographer, but would like something versatile)
• Lens options and affordability (I know lens prices will add up, so total cost of ownership is a factor)
• Reliability and durability for long shoots

Questions:

• Has anyone worked with two or more of these? Which one did you end up preferring and why?
• How do these cameras handle in real-world conditions like weddings, events, or professional portrait sessions?
• I’m also curious about post-processing software for each brand—are there any that offer better integration or workflow?
• Lastly, any recommendations on which camera might have the best deals coming up (especially with Black Friday around the corner)?

Looking forward to your insights!

I was about to get the Nikon Z8, but the new canon Eos R6MIII is awesome too. I do wildlife, both video and stills are important for me. Also being a canon user would mean being able to own the 200-800.

What are your thoughts?

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!

Hello Guys,

I wanted to buy my first mirrorless Camera and can not decide which one to choose Canon R8 or Nikon Z6ii. I have been shooting with an old Nikon d40 until now. I will mostly use them for Landscapes and animal pictures, but also for videos. It should also be suitable for vacations (the Canon is lighter). Of course I've looked up the differences, but the decision is difficult. Currently I would get the body of the Canon R8 for 1800€, and the body of the Nikon Z6ii for 1590€. Which one would you guys take in this situation?

So I’ve been using the Nikon D7500 for the past few years now and it has served me well but I am now looking to upgrade to a mirrorless. I’ve heard good things about both the Nikon Z8 and the Canon R6 and I feel like either option is great, but I want to get some recommendations on which one I should go with. I am a sports photographer, but I also take travel/landscape photos so I would do best with the more versatile of the two. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated!

I'm basically starting from scratch (meaning I've sold my previous system) and I'm choosing between these.

Surprisingly it's very difficult to find a Z8 used, and they go new for 3000-3500 euros where I live (usually 1-2 years warranty). Canon R3 can be found for about 3200 used on MPB and the R5 for about 2000. I've considered even the R6ii which goes for 1700-1800 used.

Given these numbers the R5 seems to offer terrific value, only issue being canon lenses being quite more expensive and limited.

I would buy the 50mm 1.8/1.4, an ultra wide f/4 they are both great, and a tele zoom in the range 70-300 or 100-400. I already own a macro which I'm going to use mostly manually.

Which would you choose? The only bias I have is that I've tried R6ii and R5 autofocus and is just mind-blowing.

I am 2 years into my sports photography journey. Really having fun. I used to have a few Nikon's,but made a last minute decision in the camera store because Canon had a weekend promo to save the sales tax. I went with an R6mk2 and bailed on Nikon altogether. I own 3 RF lenses: 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L, 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L. So I own some really prime glass in the Canon eco system. That said, I have always kind of regretted not sticking with Nikon. Zoom muscle memory, feel, etc. Now that I have my feet under me and kind of know what I am doing, I still have the itch. I am considering a Z8, but it would represent starting over and selling my Canon gear used. I would likely start with one S line lens or 2 (70-200 and 100-400) and add the 24-120 later (I only use the RF 24-105 occasionally). I am not going to say money is no object, but I do have the ability of making the switch if I choose too. I know the benefit of already having great glass, but I want opinions on the Z8 vs R6mk2 for soccer, basketball and track/XC. I will shoot some landscape from time to time and who knows, Im over 50 so birding is probably closer than I realize! I like the stacked sensor and ability to crop with out loss of resolution. Not opposed to buying a like new used Nikon or lenses either.

(1) $2-3K, USA

(2) R6mk2, 70-200f2.8 and 100-500f4.5-7.1

(3) Soccer, basketball and running

(4) mainly photography but may use it for occasional videography or filming games.

Hey folks,

I’m in that classic dilemma where every option looks good and bad at the same time, depending on the day I wake up.

I'm shooting since several years with a Sony A6300 + tele f3.5-6.3 18-200.

I'm not a professional, I shoot for no purpose. I just love to capture beauty. I travel a lot – walking around cities, forests, temples, random places for hours every day. I shoot street moments, wildlife, small animals, and sometimes low light. I love capturing details - the kind of things your eye usually skips. Sometimes it’s a small insect, sometimes it’s just hidden in the noise of the scene. So I want a tele that I can actually carry, not one that stays in the hotel room because it’s too heavy.

So far I’ve narrowed things down to these three setups:

• Canon R8 + RF 70–200mm f/4 L IS USM

• Canon R6 II + RF 70–200mm f/4 L IS USM

• Nikon Z6 II + Z 70–180mm f/2.8

Here’s where I’m struggling:

• The R8 is light, small, and has the same sensor as the R6 II, but no IBIS and it feels a bit front-heavy with big lenses. I love the weight, but I’m scared I’ll miss stabilization with non-IS lenses or in low light.

• The R6 II fixes all of that – IBIS, big battery, better ergonomics, weather sealing – but adds cost and almost half a kilo more weight. I wonder if it’s overkill for travel.

• Then there’s the Nikon Z6 II, which with the 70–180mm f/2.8 gives me f/2.8, better background separation, and a cheaper price overall. But that lens has no VR, and the autofocus system isn’t quite as good as Canon’s. Still, it’s tempting – cheaper, brighter.

Basically:

• Do I go ultra-light and risk missing IBIS?

• Or go with the R6 II and accept the weight?

• Or forget Canon entirely and grab the Z6 II + 70–180 f/2.8 combo for that extra stop?

I tried all of them in hands for few mins, but I really can't say what feels best as I tried in a store.

I want a setup that’s realistically portable, but still gives me professional-level results. I'm ready to spend a bit more (up to 3000 EUR), but with those options looks like more money spent = heavier setup.

Anyone been through the same dilemma or used these combos in real life? What would you do? Any other option?

Thank you