>>4480614
Then OP will be waiting a very long time because nikon is essentially a subsidiary of sony. They resell sony's old camera guts in a new body, turn up the saturation, and call it a different camera. Every time.
They bought RED and you know what sensor they used for their cinema camera? A modified a7iii sensor, again.
A7IIIs on the market:
Sony a7iii
Sony a7c
Nikon Z6
Nikon Z6II
Nikon Z5
Nikon Z5II
Nikon ZF
Nikon ZR
Panasonic S9
Panasonic S5
Panasonic S5II/X
These are all the sony a7iii. All of them. Same sony sensor. All of them have a minor edit made to the same shitty sony color science and at the most, a slightly modified AA filter or enhanced readout circuitry (sony still designs and manufactures the modification). Only fuji, canon, hassy, and p1 have their own color rendition. A7III, S5II, and Z6II raws can easily land on the same result!
Nikon also has tamron (which is majority owned by sony) manufacture a lot of their lenses (including rebrands). And Z mount's non-compete clause spills over to E mount and gives sony first party lenses an edge as well. Curious that nikon would have a policy that benefits sony's sales and makes Z mount less appealing.
>>4480660
Now this guy has a point. Digital cameras can only get so good before returns diminish sharply. A 100mp digital camera would only have about 75 "real" megapixels. Bayer is always 1.5x less resolution than mono unless shooting a mono target, then it's close but still has aliasing. Meanwhile measly 645 can be comfortably scanned beyond 100 real megapixels if you don't diffract your shit up at f11+ or lose detail to fucked up glass or mirror slap/hand shake.
ironically, using a digital camera, but dirt cheap m43 or pentax pixel shift+stitching does the job and no digital camera can do what film does in a single shot, let alone produce an unfakeable physical original that is compatible with real (darkroom) printing.