The question was whether to buy Nikon or Sony and everyone is trying to answer by saying dont by a mirrorless, and talking him out of buying something new.

My two cents are simple; buy the one that feels best in your hand and the working menu is easy to manage. As an old timer of Nikon products, I went for a few Sony cameras until I got tired of their menu layout. Rather than worrying about my pictures is was fiddling with the Sony menus all too often. Sold my Sony equipment and bought the Nikon Z6. That is me, and someone else will swear Sony is the best since sliced bread. That's why all these manufacturers exist.

I am not worrying about Nikon going out of business because my current equipment will keep me happy for many years to come, someone will always pick up the brand and the assets. However I don't think Nikon will be closing shop any time soon.

You invoked the three rules that defines what makes the best camera.

I also own a Z6-Z7 and older Nikons, very happy with all of them; don't need anything else. I hope other people need other brands to keep these other brands in business.

There are no winners and I hope all three survive because we need them to compete and therefore innovate.

Sony, Nikon, Canon; like someone said, I highly doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference viewing an image.

Maybe we all should switch to Minolta or Samsung; then this discussion will be over. Is Lindhoff and Voigtlander in the running?

which one is Goliath? Nikon?

Those advertised as weather resistant cameras and lenses offer a very flimsy protection; they have a thin gasket or O-ring between the lens mount and the body which prevents some water from passing through. it will not prevent water under even with light pressure from penetrating the inner parts; the moving knobs and rings hardly offer any protection from water or salt spray. Of course a little protection is better than none, but I would not count on that as way to keep water or salt in the air as a barrier. Furthermore, washing such cameras and lenses under a water faucet will spell death to the equipment. If you want to make sure the equipment will properly operate under adverse conditions, get a camera designed for that application. Otherwise protect any gear with covers or a housings when rain and water spray is a concern.

Since I never printed my own pictures I remember the exorbitant costs of having them processed and get back prints that were not worth printing. Sometimes when I had quantity, I printed tiny thumbnail prints to select the better ones. This was especially true with my UW photography; where out of the limited 36 pictures I was lucky to get 1 good one. How I now cherish my digital images that have zero cost to throw away, I even loaded my own virgin film to get 39 or 40 shots out of one dive. I also should mention the pleasure of instant gratification of seeing images and then take a dozen more of them just in case.
The remarkable technology (which we take for granted) to send images from anywhere to anywhere is a great way to communicate. I deeply appreciate taking digital images which allows me to express and share my experiences. Of course film has its followers and purist will alway look for the best of the picture-taking art. But us, the mortals will find digital pictures a blessing and the state of the art in image taking. BTW 8 Mp is not equivalent to film, it is much higher, in the neighborhood of 60+Mp. I could be challenged with this comparison, but I am sure it’s not 8Mp.

I had both, the Nikon AW100 and a TG2; both take great pictures. I did not like the Nikon Menu but thought it was better for UW images; it had a range down to 100', which you probably would not care anyway. I took the Nikon UW as a backup to my main camera rig.
I also found the GPS feature of the Nikon useful to tell me where the photos were taken. I am not sure the current Olympus models has that feature. In a nutshell, the Olympus is more rugged but I liked the Nikon size and ability to take pictures UW to greater depths. Can't go wrong with either camera, it is what feels better in your hands. They are both superior to smartphones in the ability to encounter a rough environment, and a better optical zoom.

I am not saying that Sony menus are confusing for everyone, what I tried to say was the Sony menus have so many options, especially methods of focusing that it took time from my picture taking efforts. I never properly mastered the best settings for a shooting situation; always a guessing game, to many permutations. Of course that was me, and others have done better with Sony. That is why Sony sells lots of cameras and Nikon and Canon also do. Let's not argue who sells more; that is not my point.

I fully agree with this statement. I had a Sony A6500 and could not get used to the menus. Going back to Nikon is like going home. Simpler menus and less moving parts. if you want to constantly play with menus and take time out of taking pictures, then Sony is the way to go. Loved the size of the 6500 and had several lenses; used it for underwater photography but in the end i gave up and sold it.

Tanks a lot for that information. Very useful in NYC. But if you had a camera you would have a very stable platform.

I find the EVF of a mirrorless camera superior to the optical viewfinder because it has light amplification. When the subject area is dark a mirrorless EVF will have a brighter view. Also it will show the image produced by the sensor rather than a mirror. Add to the fact that the camera does not have any moving parts, makes it more rugged that having a mirror flip up and down. The only reason the SLR design became popular is because the viewfinder can see what the lens sees; changing lenses made it easy to frame the subject. That was then and now the mirrorless goes one step further and “sees” what the sensor sees. A DSLR needs to go into live view for what mirrorless cameras do naturally.

I only labeled the AI pictures, I did not say it will happen. As someone said before, the fireman and military are using AI already; that is not photography for the sake of the art and to take beautiful pictures. Those guys are trying to put fires out or fire at someone. Most of us take pictures for the sake of having beautiful pictures or for others to have great memories. Hopefully Murphy will not let us down and AI will go wrong.

BTW I heard that Murphy had an cousin who said that Murphy was an optimist. Go figure!

Let me suggest to describe a photo that had AI as the decision maker; we then should call it Artificial Photography by an Artificial Photographer. Or better yet: Fake Pictures. We can send a drone up, go to sleep and it will come back with a bunch of pictures; does not sound too interesting. But who knows, maybe it will be for someone.

great video, George is terrific; I also miss him.