jimalexander45 Loc: Napa Valley

It just happens that I did a test for this very issue last Saturday. I own a Nikon System with a D810 and a backup D750. As for lenses, I own the Three Horsemen, 14 to 24, 24 to 70, 70 to 200. I also own a complete Fujifilm Xt2 system with the equivalent lenses, 10 to 24, 18 to 55, 55 to 200. I took the menagerie to Yosemite Park for the day. I live close. I set up at Yosemite Falls, Bridal Veil from Gates of the Valley and Tunnel View. We shot from 1;00 to 8:20 PM. My son acted as Assistant. I brought the images home and I loaded them into Lightroom. Each of the 3 cameras used all of the lenses they belonged with. I had over 45 images. Bottom line. The D810 had the absolute best detail, sharpness and color rendition. No surprise! The D750 was almost as good and the difference hardly discernible. The Fuji was last to be tested. Big Surprise here. It turned out to be as good as the D.....wait for it.....810. It blew my mind. In fact I found the sharpness to be a little better than the D810 with all three Nikon lenses. I came to the conclusion that I would be better off using my Fuji System over the Nikon DSLR kits. Why...? It was by far the least expensive. And it was by far the lightest to carry system. But there was another surprise. The Fujifilm stuff was the most fun to use. Yes, more fun! Changing lenses was a breeze, taking photos was remarkably easy. When I completed the series of tests I was excited about how easy the shooting was. So much so that I could not stop shooting. The main reason was that the ease of shooting was so great that it allowed me to focus on composition, sharpness and everything else photographers do other than muscle equipment around and deal with so many buttons in the menu all the time. I am keeping the Nikons, at least for a while. My next shoot will be in Glacier National Park. I am taking only the Fuji gear with me this time. The Nikon gear will not even be in the car.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

So much for this age-old argument, on this very site - that FF is better than APS-C .. huh, Jim???

Haydon

It's under low light conditions where the boys are separated from the men Chris. You'd have to own a FF to understand that. I own APS-C, APS-H and a FF. They all have their purpose as any tool has.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I also have all 3 sensor sizes Haydon, although the APS-C is my daughters but we share. The FF is the clear low high, high ISO champion. As I often say every camera is a compromise. But some more compromised than others perhaps.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

I have three sizes, too - APS-C, MF and Bridge …

They ALL have their uses, Todd …

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

I use both. I have had Nikon for a long time, but I wanted to try the a6XXX series.
I tried it and I really like it. Use it most certainly for travel.
There are a lot more used lenses for the Nikon than the Sony E mount, but the size is a real plus.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

I tried the a6000, and gave it back, Top … the compact size was just too small for me …

I prefer a fairly robust camera - such as my Sony a77 models, et al … but not as big as FF …

The ones I have - suit me fine … not too big, and not too small … and they ALL have centered VFs …

… Yet, another thing which threw me off, about the a6000 … much too far to the left …