Who's Winning: Nikon, Canon, Sony or PanaLeica?

It appears that the PTB (powers that be) want us all to be using full-frame mirrorless (FFM) SLR-shaped cameras with 24- to 60-megapixel sensors now. The main makers of these are all three of the largest camera manufacturers, Canon, Sony, and Nikon, in that order, and the L-Mount Alliance (in which Panasonic, Leica, and Sigma are participants).

It's true that Ricoh (with Ricoh and Pentax cameras), Fujifilm, OM System, and a few others make viable and attractive cameras. But, taken together, Canon, Sony, Nikon, and Panasonic now account for over 90% of the global interchangeable-lens camera market.

So who's winning?

Not in terms of earnings or market share—in terms of cameras that dedicated photographers want to own and use. I have to admit that at this juncture, I don't have enough experience with the various brands and models to make a call. I've never been as interested in cameras for their own sake as my career choice would seem to predict. I'm a serial enthusiast, but it has mainly been self-centered—that is, what's best for me and for what I want to do? What fires my endorphins and nourishes my enthusiasm? If I'm going to look at FFM cameras and imagine which one would be for me, I'd have to at least visit B&H Photo and spend a day learning the lay of the land and holding the various cameras in my hand and looking through their viewfinders. I'd go from there. I used to pick my cars by going to car shows and getting in the darn things. Eventually one would feel right.

With FFM cameras, I'd also have to accept certain hypothetical conditions—I'd have to imagine that a.) I'm not already invested in any camera or system, and b.) money was no object. That would be the only way to level the playing field between Canon, Sony, Nikon, and PanaLeica. The way we used to say it was, "imagine all your cameras got stolen and you got a big insurance settlement...."

This probably sounds odd, and it might tag me as an outsider or a contrarian (which would not be entirely wrong I must admit), but I think what I would choose would be a Leica SL3 and a small (3–4) set of Sigma Contemporary L-Mount lenses.

Simple. (Photos courtesy B&H Photo.)

This appears crazy on the surface, because why choose the one-off Leica body when slicker, more advanced bodies are available from the vastly larger and more technologically advanced Japanese companies? And, if you are going to choose Leica, then why "settle" for lenses that aren't made by Leica, considering that lenses are what Leica has been known for for decades, and that Leica is the company best able to make its lenses cost-no-object?

Here are my answers: because I have come to believe that higher-level Japanese cameras are too complicated and technologically intricate, such that the excessive complexity—for me, this is—gets in the way of an easy, intuitive, natural connection between tool and operator. If cars were so complicated, only fighter pilots could drive. Leica is the one company that has had the courage to go for a sensible simplicity. And mind you, making devices simple is as difficult as making them complicated, and maybe more so. So I wouldn't be getting an SL3 for the build quality, or the prestige, or the viewfinder, or for the high pixel count (well, maybe a little for the famously good viewfinder and the high pixel count). I'd choose it for its haptics, ergonomics, and controls.

I should try one to make sure. (Actually, I should test an SL3 and have a shootout between my Sigma 45mm and a similarly spec'd Leica L-mount lens. That would be wicked fun.)

And as for the Sigma lenses...well, I know the Leica lenses would be a siren song, beckoning as if from Shangri-La. But I don't actually like large cameras, and the sensibly-sized and light Sigmas would serve to lighten the whole package in the hand. Plus, it's been many years since any good top-quality lens wasn't good enough for me. It's not like all lenses are the same now, but I'm just not as convinced as I was in the old days that the lens is where the magic lies.

More testing would be needed, naturally.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Neil Swanson: "Very interesting to read this now, as just last week I returned a used Leica SL2S and sigma 50mm Contemporary lens. I really just had to try the stuff. I’ve used Nikon for over 40 years. I had a few years with a lot of Fuji gear that I used alongside my Nikon, and then I rented a Sony. For the paying work that I do now it is hard to beat everything the Sony offers. That Leica was nagging at me though, and it is really a very fine camera. As long as you don’t expect it—and you shouldn’t—to do everything a Sony or a Canon or modern Nikon will do. You’ll be fine. Yes that viewfinder is absurdly good. The auto focus is probably a lot like your Fuji XT one; well, maybe a little better. Anyhow, in the end I sent it back for a few reasons, but it’s a fine camera. I’d like to try an SL3 sometime and see how close it gets to the other big brands. I’m also fine with Sigma lenses. They are excellent."

Chris: "I agree completely that the Leica SL3 is a beautiful camera to hold, and indeed part of the reason is that it is so large and wide and yet comparatively thin. I use Sony because of the huge availability of native secondhand lenses from all brands, and in a huge range of quality and prices,. No other brand can match that. In terms of pleasure, though, I use the OM System, which is the only camera that gives me joy all the time when using it. Small and so powerful and well designed. Both Sony and OM systems have notorious menus, but once customized, it's easy."

Christer Almqvist: "I agree that 'higher-level Japanese cameras are too complicated and technologically intricate, such that the excessive complexity—for me, this is—gets in the way of an easy, intuitive, natural connection between tool and operator.' There are ways around that problem. My Sony A7r V has enough progammable buttons to help me avoid diving into the admittedly complicated menu system for day-to-day tasks. For the once-in-a-while situations not covered by the progammable buttons, I press the 'FN' button and I have a dozen easily adjustable menu items selected by me instantly available. When that is not enough, I just ask 'perplexity.ia .' (Remember when the first Sony 'testers' downgraded the camera because you had to insert the memory card the wrong way?)"

Luke: "Re 'If cars were so complicated, only fighter pilots could drive.' Yeah, well, most people on the road CAN'T drive. They rely on traction control and self-steering and radar cruise control and backup beepers. It's like AI controls cars."

Trevor Johnson: "Rather than going to a camera store, renting cameras with a couple of the lenses you would choose to go with it, is what I do. It may take a little longer, but the right choice is more important than living with the wrong one."

Mark: "I have been using the Leica SL2 S with Sigma contemporary lenses, the 17mm ƒ/4, 24mm ƒ/3.5, 35mm ƒ/2 and 65mm ƒ/2. I add in the 20mm ƒ/1.4 for low light city stuff and could not be happier. I suspect one Leica SL APO lens would cost more than all these lenses combined and still would not have an aperture ring.... Sigma is producing wonderful lenses these days. As the SL2-S is about to be replaced you can buy them new for less than a Nikon or Sony top-end body. A lot less."

G Dan Mitchell: "I can't say who is the 'winner' among these brands...and even if I did someone else would make a fine case for why their brand is better for them. The bottom line is that we have excellent cameras from all of these manufacturers these days—cameras that can do things that we could barely imagine a few decades ago. While I understand the appeal of the Leica name, I don't think that would be the right choice for many buyers, regardless of the price. The systems from the other manufacturers provide far more opportunities to tailor the camera to the user—more lens options, more accessories, etc. It isn't that you'll need or want all of them, but it is that you can configure the system almost exactly the way you want."

Comments

[Bruce Bordner]

I don't know about "visit B&H Photo and spend a day learning the lay of the land and holding the various cameras in my hand and looking through their viewfinders. " If you do, I want video.
Perhaps things have changed, but I went to the NYC store decades ago to "look". No. Three checkout clerks with lines at each - know exactly what you want because you've got people waiting... I didn't try, but it is an impressive place - if I remember it correctly. I always ordered from the catalog, even though I'm "local".

[Jeff]

My primary kit is an M10 Monochrom with 28/35/50 M primes. For complementary needs and shooting circumstances, and a totally different shooting experience (with IBIS, weather sealing, AF, etc), I use the SL2 with the SL 24-90, which is as good as 6 M primes (with OIS and weather sealing). Both systems offer superb viewfinders, simple controls and menus, and easy handling. Never thought I’d use a zoom as primary lens, especially given that the M primes can easily be adapted, but the IQ is superb, focal length flexibility is unmatched, and it’s not my all-day walk around kit. Different tools and different shooting approaches, linked by a common philosophy.

[Kodachromeguy]

ByThom wrote recently on his blog that most photographers who claim they "need" to upgrade to one of these new cameras really do not. Plus, they face other expenses, like memory cards, storage space, new lenses, and a faster computer. And then, what happens to all these files???

[SteveW]

I was a lifetime Nikon guy, but about 5 years ago I sold all my full frame Nikon DSLR gear (after having started with APS-C Nikon DSLR gear)and down-sized to Fuji APS-C mirrorless. I might have stayed with Nikon but their DX (APS-C) lenses don't measure up for me. Fuji seems to me to have the best APS-C lens selection. Anyway, I'm happy with a Fuji X-T5 and a couple small lenses.

Full frame is too big and too expensive for me, and unless my X-T5 somehow dies, I think I'm on my last camera. (i.e. Thom Hogan's last camera syndrome). I think I can say it and mean it since the Fuji is for dedicated shooting, whereas I mostly am using my iPhone, which is always in my pocket.

[Richard G]

I like your thinking, as usual. I learnt a lot on Rangefinder Forum, but two core things were 1. It’s not about the glass. Not usually. My Cosina Zeiss 50 1.5 and 21 4.5 are as good or better than the Leica equivalent. And 2. The corollary: it is all about the body. For nearly fifty years between my 1958 M2 and my 2012 M9-P (both good enough for me and not needing upgrades)* I’ve been shooting the same camera essentially, simple controls, scale focus often despite the rangefinder. It all works. Very few ‘mode’ problems.

*The M2 is almost exactly the current issue MA.

[Daniel]

Given the replacement scenario it would be the Fuji 100mp "medium format" camera with lenses.

Mainly because it works and fits what I like to do.

[Andreas Suchert]

You can use Leica M lenses with an adapter from Leica on a SL body. Very light though focusing is done manually.

[Craig Yuill]

I think the winners are probably the users. FFM cameras have matured. Camera makers have had several years to add/improve features and make design and UI revisions. It all comes down to what system works best for its users. I decided long ago to stick with Nikon. You (and others) prefer Leica for its simplicity. Others have their own reasons to prefer other brands. The users win.

[Stan B.]

When using my most technically advanced camera (Fujifilm XT-2), it's not unusual for me to somehow, someway do something that sends me menu diving into oblivion- has NEVER happened with my Q (or GR for that matter).

[Mel]

I'm with you, Mike. It's what fits my hand and delivers the images I want. And that varies depending on my mood and how much stuff I want to lug around, be it large format film or 4/3rds digital. I'm guessing 50% of the features on my digital bodies are ignored right now - don't add to my use or image quality. A simple system that doesn't break the bank? Yeah, I'm for it.

[Kirk]

I think Mike is exactly on the right track. I've been using a range of the contemporary Sigma lenses for FF and have found them to be quite good. And a good fit with the SL2 and SL2-S cameras as well as the Sigma fp. Going with an SL3 is pretty much the best of all possible choices as the menus are near perfect, the handling is great (especially for people with monster big hands) and the files from that camera are the closest to my preference I've found. And really, with the Sigma lenses the total cost isn't that different from top line cameras from N,C,S and the like.

[David Brown]

I am currently working on a book idea which is a survey of various cameras from plastic 50s box cameras through 35mm and roll film to digital and smartphones. With the description of each camera, I pair a photograph taken with that camera. The points to be made are related: Cameras are just tools, and It’s not the camera, it’s the photographer. I’ve been a photographer for over 60 years. Cameras are a personal choice. The right tool for the job, and/or the one you just have to have – for whatever reason. It’s a lot like buying cars. Whenever one of the laity ask me what camera they should buy, I tell them “Honda”!

[Albert Smith]

I'll echo SteveW here. 4 decades with Nikon ending with a D700/D300s pair and dozens of lenses from all F-Mount variations, but Nikon was too slow to go mirrorless. So I bought a Fujifilm X-T2 and a single 23mm as an experiment and now I can go months without touching my Nikons. I have several Fujis, but the newest is relativly old, yet they still produce images that are great to me.

I decided to save up for a Nikon Zf, and have had the two grand sitting in my wallet for months now, and yet I have not felt any urgency to get it. I have no sense of limitation from my Fujifilm cameras (3 generations behind the current models) and I could not replicate the lenses that I have accumulated for the Fujis on that new Nikon without spending yet many more thousands.

FWIW... Since it's that time of the year, I'm doing the One camera, one lens, one year for 2025 with my old Fujifilm X-Pro2 and the classic Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4. Been out everyday since new years day and it is simply a pleasure to carry such a small, light yet capable set up. I believe most people have all the gear they really need if they were honest.

[Rob L.]

I love being able to go to manual mode with my ZF and not have to winder - although golly, I want lenses with aperture rings! I also love automation so I don't have to think - and video when needed, so pretty pleased with where we are even tho I think that the level of complexity is overwhelming at times.

It never seemed that the crop frame lenses ever delivered on the promise of cheaper - smaller, yes (sometimes), but not less outlay of cash. It's what ultimate led me back to Nikon - if it's going to cost the same, I might as well get better low light performance and a wider used market to pick from.

But if I had a magic credit card and starting fresh, a full fuji kit plus a Q Monochrom would be a fun set. I miss the smaller gear!

[Steve Biro]

I think you have it right, Mike. But since I can’t afford a new Leica SL3, I picked up a factory refurbed SL2 for under $3K recently. And my glass for the camera is exclusively Sigma Art (24-70mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4) and several Sigma Contemporary lenses.

When I dipped my toe into Leica World I was determined not to go down that rabbit hole chasing pricey Leica glass. And, in my personal experience, the results I have gotten are indistinguishable from that obtained using borrowed Leica lenses.

As an aside, I own two Leica Ms (a 240 and 240 M-E) and use Voigtlander glass on those.

Purists may howl but, in this age of computerized lens design, sticking with OEM glass on any make of camera just isn’t as important as it used to be - if it ever was actually critical. Sigma’s dramatically improved quality control over the past several years has also helped.

Cameras and lenses are tools. Use whatever makes you happy and can afford.

[Eric Brody]

It used to be said that you "date the bodies, but marry the lenses." I like your approach to lenses. Over time, and I've been photographing for over 60 years, I've concluded, as have many others, that there's no magic pixie dust in any lens (or body). Almost all current bodies and lenses from major manufacturers are more than adequate, and the content of a photo is what counts, not the "bokeh."

I love detail and sharpness though some say it is overrated. I do agree with Ansel that "there's nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept" but still highly value technical quality.

If you are fortunate enough to get a Leica SL-3 (I have a longstanding bias against them though I owned an M3 briefly) I'm sure those Sigma lenses will work beautifully.

[V.I. voltz]

The best FFM camera is a Leica M11 with a Visoflex 2, because it is also light. You lose autofocus, but the interface is even simpler.

Voltz

[William Lewis]

Little late to the conversation, as usual, but I just upgraded on Friday to new to me first generation Pentax K-3 DSLR dating from 2013. Moving up to a whole 24 megapixels again! (It goes along well with my 2012 Leica M type 240.)
Still no need for a mirrorless camera when an APS-C sensor, a pentaprism and a mirror box does the job better for me.

For that matter, over the last year, Pentax has been pretty much all I've bought. The K-5 and mostly Limited lenses have been a delight to use.

I might end up with a K-3iii Monochrome yet, someday. At least I'll have the glass to support it properly 😊

But I'm in no hurry to get a FFM though I can imagine a Z5 if the Leica should decide buy the farm sometime and I need something to use my rangefinder lenses on.

[s.wolters]

At 43rumors they regularly publish a list of best sellers in Japan. Here is the one from July 2024 that shows that full frame is not dominant at all. Mainly cheaper APS-C kits and vlogging cameras are popular.
https://www.43rumors.com/july-report-by-bcn-olympus-e-p7-and-lumix-g100-still-among-the-best-sellers/

[Christer Almqvist]

One (of the two new) Hasselblad (models), one new Hasselblad lens, all the years.

[Tim]

They are too complicated, especially for us sporadic photographers: I set my camera up to do all the things it could do but then by the time I went back to the camera I'd forgotten what that was.

So then I set it up to do the least I needed it to do and now I'm pleasantly surprised when I remeber how I customised it.

Less is more in my case.

[Moose]

The winners are those that survive.

A company with large market share and poor financing, costs, and so on, may disappear.

A company with small share and solid financial and cost controls may survive.

There's a lot going on "under the hood" that the buyer can't know about.

This fool, aware that many folks think that µ4/3 is already dead, just used your link to buy yet another such camera.

The simplicity you seek is more or less the opposite of the broad capability I seek. Built-in, adjustable grad filters, anyone?

Perhaps keeping track of all the buttons and settings is good exercise for the well aged mind?
\;~)>

[David Raboin]

I've built out a camera kit the boring way: I've stuck with one manufacturer (Canon) for twenty years.

This year, I had some financial good luck and I was able to make two major upgrades. I bought Canon's new RF 24-105 f2.8 Z lens, and I upgraded my camera body from the R6 to the R5mkii.

The camera body upgrade is nice but it's not life changing. The big difference between the R5mkii and the R6 is data through-put. The R6 could shoot 12 fps at 20 megapixels. The R5mkii does 30 fps at 45 megapixels. Also, the newer camera has slightly improved auto focus, it's quicker, stickier, and works better in low light. As a hobbiest, do I need this kind of horsepower? Not really. Has it improved my photography? Yes. Do I feel ridiculous taking action photos of my mutts at the neighborhood dog park with a $7500 camera setup? Yes. After shooting with the R5mkii for six months, I am still not 100% sold on it. It's an absolutely wonderful camera, the best I've ever owned, but it wasn't a necessary upgrade. My old R6 is 95% as capable. I could've waited another upgrade cycle between purchases.

On the other hand, I adore the RF 24-105 f2.8 Z. It's simply the best piece of photo gear that I've ever owned. This lens is sharp across the entire zoom range. It's tough and rugged. With its big zoom and focus rings, the handling is top notch. Having f2.8 all the way out to 105mm means this lens replaces my 85mm prime. It has gorgeous bokeh and a cinematic character. I can't say enough good things about this lens. The best compliment I can give it is to say that this lens disappears. It makes your work so easy that you forget about the equipment. It stays glued to my camera.

In 2024,lens technology pushed photography more than camera technology.

[Rene]

I would agree with your choice, Mike, except for one thing: weight. Here in my late 70's with multiple health issues, weight, feel and simplicity are the main factors in my camera choices. That said, I've ended up with a Leica Q2 and (because of my very kind and generous wife) a Q3 43. Even these relatively small cameras are at the edge of my weight limit! The Qs can be simple to operate (i.e. built in macro mode with a simple twist of the lens) and a pleasure in your hands, particularly with a thumb grip.

[James]

For what's it worth I went to my local camera store the other day to inquire about an X-M5. They managed to get me an X100VI so I thought I would see if I could get lucky again. The person I usually work with there told me they have so many pre-orders for it she had no idea when I would be able to get one. Oddly enough they had plenty of Nikon, Sony, Canon, and Leica cameras.

[Edwin]

There's a current camera that doesn't allow you to treak jpg in the camera, no film simulations, color profiles, highlight or shadow tone, Sharpness,grain… no nothing. You can't even shot B/W JPG. And no video too. The menu is extremely simple and there is only minimal number of buttons and dials. In fact,I think it's the most expensive point and shoot… it's the Hasselblad X2D.

[Paulo Jose Saraiva Bizarro]

I have settled in the last few years on Fuji X APS-C system. Specifically on a couple of X-T5 cameras. My latest acquisition was the Voigtlander 27mm f/2 X mount lens. I set the camera to aperture priority with auto-iso, and with the MF lens, can't get simpler than that. The MF aids on current cameras make it easy to use manual focus.

[Matt O'Brien]

I very much like the Leica approach.

On the other hand I am pleased with my Sony A7Rv and A6700 progress. I bought both because of their ergonomics and ease to configure to my needs. I like the new menu system and the Disp button features. Quality and flexibility of rear screen and usability of viewfinder are key purchasing criteria. The A6700 fits in my jacket pocket with the kit lens, while I carry a small prime in my other pocket.

We must be approaching the edge of the envelope in terms of practical usable tech, so hopefully, usability will get more focus going forward.

[Rick in CO]

I recently tried out a (used) Leica Q3 and traded it in on a (returned) Q3 43. I liked the user experience with the Q3 but 50% of my shots are 50mm, the rest split between 28 & 35. I will try the Q3 43 to see how it works for me. With the Q-series I like the spontaneity of autofocus, the in-EVF perspective correction, so far - the quality of the 43mm lens (the Q3 28mm has some distortion issues for me), and the typical Leica simplicity of use. I am keeping my M10R with the 28/35/50 Tri-Elmar in case the experiment doesn't work out. If I keep the Q3 43 I will likely get a wide angle for my M10R for those shots. The choice of a camera is for me a journey, dependent upon, over time, what my needs are for what I happen to be doing - these days mostly travel. I always purchase used cameras and lenses, allowed by a great relationship with my local camera store and that Leica equipment is almost always maintained in great condition.

[John Camp]

I have Fuji X-T5 cameras and despite the dials on the top, which look old-style, these are not old-style cameras. The menus are as complicated as anything you'll find elsewhere. What I've done, because I had some time, was sit down with the enormous downloaded X-T5 manual and I went through it page by page and mostly turned off or learned to ignore features I'd never use; I think some are actually absurd. I have two Fuji lenses and four Sigmas. I think the Sigmas are actually better. I'm particularly fond of my Sigma 18-50 (27-75) f2.8 Contemporary. I also have a Nikon Z7II which I like better than the Fujis because I'm a longtime Nikon user and the camera just feels right and I like the "look" of the jpg files better, though I mostly now shoot raw. The problem with the Nikon is, with Nikon lens attached, it's very big, not good for street.

I've always thought that with the exception of Leica, one mainline camera was about as good as other mainline cameras (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus) and that is now even more the case with the big names (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Leica.) What now seems to be the big difference (for me) is handling -- ergonomics. The Nikon is better than the Fujis that way (for me) but the Fujis, with a few relatively cheap enhancements, like an after-market grip, are okay. I recently spent some time with a big guy who carried a Nikon Z8. That thing is an anchor, but you can do anything you can think of with it. Too large for me, but it's apparently an amazing piece of work.

[Mani Sitaraman]

Ever since the start of the digital camera era, more than a quarter of a century ago, I've been waiting for my dream camera design—a full frame digital camera that is better than a film-era Leica rangefinder camera.

I'm still waiting. My wish list for that ideal digital camera:

1) It should not feel like a brick in the hand nor should it weigh more than a pound and a couple of ounces–about 500 grams, a little less than a Leica M camera.

2) It should have viewfinder with a near life-sized field of view, and, importantly, one that lets you see beyond the edges of the frame, the better to anticipate subject movement.

3) It should have ergonomic controls–dials and wheels–rather than buttons and menu choices.

4) It should have a bare minimum of controls–the fewest necessary to form a properly focused and exposed image.