Welcome, Canosony. I see you've met Canon Rumors' ever-vigilant troll patrol. They pretty quickly turned me off to what looked like a promising website. You have committed the cardinal sin. You have pointed out that Canon cameras are not without shortcomings. We'll have none of that here, sir. For starters, you'll be dragged into the village square and and stoned with names like "troll."
It doesn't matter that your remarks about the performance of current Canon sensors are based in solid fact--both scientific testing and the empirical experience of thousands of Canon users. The keepers of the flame know a troll when they see one, and you, sir, are a troll. A saboteur, an agent provocateur embedded by the fiends at Nikon and Sony to breed sedition among the loyal minions of Canon. You crossed your fingers behind your back when you took the loyalty oath. Shame on you.
Expect to be met with absurd claims such as the one that Canon's technology never limited anyone's photographic options. If you disagree, the Pavlovian response of the troll patrol is to claim that the equipment doesn't matter. Criticism of Canon is simply prima facie evidence that you, sir, are a bad photographer.
Like me. I'm a bad photographer every time I take my 5D2 outdoors on a bright day. It's blown highlight city unless I mount and fiddle with ND filters, keep the horizon out of the composition, exposure compensate well to the left, or bracket and hope that nothing moves. But wanting more dynamic range, like, dare I say, Nikon's D800? That just proves I'm an incompetent whiner.
If you haven't figured it out already, Canosony, know this: there are a fair number of people on this forum who seem to think that any criticism of their chosen camera maker is tantamount to questioning their sexual endowment. You know how touchy people can be about that.
It ought to be possible to state a simple fact--such as the comparatively limited dynamic range of Canons sensors--without people immediately becoming defensive and resorting to name-calling. And it's a pity one can't. A number of knowledgeable people do bring up interesting and important issues in this forum. But all too many CR threads (like this one) quickly degenerate into the same tired, vitriolic defense of Canon as the only true photographic religion.
I can only speak for myself, Canosony, but there are people on this forum who would make me proud to wear the scarlet T of trolldom. As proof, let me throw this additional oil on the fire. I've come to rely almost exclusively on my cell phone when I want simple candids to share with family without the bother of a lot of post-processing. And it's not because I'm oblivious to IQ in those shots. On the contrary, I use my cell phone because under artificial light its simple camera nails white balance time after time. Can we expect as much from the world's largest manufacturer of photographic equipment? Not in my experience. Under the same conditions, and no matter what white balance setting I use, my 5D2 and S95 turn people colors never seen in nature.
Of course, 90% of all photographers don't need or care about accurate white balance anyway. It's picky and churlish of me to point out this niggling shortcoming. So smite away, guardians of the gate.
I often felt the same.
Seems like if 1DX + 24-70 L II are unrivaled in many respects, then all of Canon lineup is to be considered on the same level.
I often hear this DR thing about Nikon cameras, and that as far as everything else is concerned they are worse. Seriously?
Is the 1DX better than the D4? Probably.
Is the 5D3 better than the D800? Disputable, mostly it depends on the application. Sure the 5D3 is more expensive.
Is the 6D better than the D600? Disputable - but leaning toward most likely not
. And the D600 is again cheaper.
Below that, every Nikon Camera crushes its Canon equivalent in terms of IQ (aka sensor), MP, AF, features, etc. And price
. And that's not only Nikon, before I get called Nikon troll of fanboy. Even Pentax has better sensors. Olympus, Fuji and Sony are lightyears ahead in CSC and mirrorless. Panasonic and Samsung seem to get better and better too.
How about lenses? Yes, Canon has some great ones and even unique, especially in the +1500$ range. But below that? Would we like to compare mid-priced primes and zooms? Would we like to assess Canon's deficiency in providing good value for money for the enthusiasts, or just students and other hobbyst who won't/can't shell out several grands each time? Affordable Canon lenses are most often old and not comparable to competing products in the same price range. Luckily Tamron and Sigma are seeing to that, providing excellent lenses at reasonable prices.
Funniest thing I always hear is that Canon is better because of the easier UI. Apparently the average Canon user can't stand reading a manual and going through the most gentle learning curve. That's much more important than IQ, value for money, etc. Nikon... izzz... diffeekoolt... me no undestandz...
So Canon is kinda becoming like Leica: great system, but the entry fee is quite steep. Are you willing to spend 5000-10000$ for your gear? Then yes, Canon is competitive in that segment. Are you willing to spend 1000-4000$ (which is not small money, as a matter of fact)? Then Canon is the worst you can buy. Buy anything from Canon below the 5D3 and L glass (some, not even all of them are that good) and you're sure getting much less than with competing products but paying much more.
But no, it's just whining... Canon products are good enough
. As Curmudgeon stated, owners of 1DX like to say that gear doesn't matter. Complaining about plain discrepancies between performance and pricing of Canon's recent releases is a symptom of poor skill and knowledge. Canon cameras are the most sold, so they must be better.