Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear

[minim2]

I dont understand what this DR gossip/bragging is all about.. Anyways, I got convinced and went to sell all my canon gears to buy nikon 6D.. shop owner was offering sensor cleaning kit for free (dont know why).... but when I asked for some speciality lenses.. he returned my money and got angry....

Later on he was mumbling something like this...

Actually the sensor in mine is from Sony.
Notice how Canon owners don't know their stuff.

[minim2]

I know it is pointless thing I have written... but then people started all that pointless discussion.

In forums like this... I feel there are far too many repeaters and very few transmitters... otherwise we should see lot of examples of how canon is limiting their creativity and how often they run into those scenarios...

[wickidwombat]

I know it is pointless thing I have written... but then people started all that pointless discussion.

In forums like this... I feel there are far too many repeaters and very few transmitters... otherwise we should see lot of examples of how canon is limiting their creativity and how often they run into those scenarios...

glad you cleared that up as google translate came up blank too
I still have no idea what you were actually trying to say there

[Albi86]

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.

+1
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.

[Rienzphotoz]

Unless those black rocks are shadowed, any modern DSLR should have no trouble at all holding detail in them in a single exposure -- assuming, of course, you don't underexpose (which is surprisingly easy to unwittingly do, especially considering the way most onboard meters desperately and over-aggressively try to avoid blowing highlights). If they're in open or filtered shade, you should still be okay, but maybe not if you're looking for a more painterly HDR-ish rendition. If they're significantly shadowed, yes, you'll either have to wait for better light or use a graduated neutral density filter or blend multiple exposures.

But...thing is...Nikon only gives you a couple extra stops to work with. Most situations where the Canon actually does lack the dynamic range, you're going to need to add more than just a couple extra stops. Realistically, you're probably looking at a +/-2 - +/-3 stop bracket, which works out to four to six stops of additional dynamic range -- and even the Nikons can't do that in a single exposure.

So, all those times that you've wished you didn't need your two-stop GND or that you didn't have to do that +/-1 bracket, that's when a Nikon would have saved the day. The rest of the time? When you're reaching for your four-stop GND or doing a +/-3 (or more) bracket? Not so much.

I totally agree ... but those who want to crib about Canon will not want to accept facts.

[Rienzphotoz]

Expect to be met with absurd claims such as the one that Canon's technology never limited anyone's photographic options.

It is only absurd to those who continue to dodge the questions such as "did Canon technology ever limit your options from making a great photo" or to those who are smoking certain magic stuff grown from a Unicorn's behind in Narnia.

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.

You sir are most amusing, perhaps thou hast not thought this through ... allow me the liberty of stating that it applies to those who are  blowing trumpets and worshiping a few small increments of DR and 6 small additional Mega pixels (on their Nikon & Sony Sensors) on a Canon forum ... common sense says do NOT flaunt thine small "endowment" in someone's abode without expecting someone to call thee a troll - but I suppose common sense is not very common ... DR is such a small thing that it will not make or break a photographer from making a magnificent image. If someone thinks that a few small increments in DR and 6 additional MP are going to magically transform their images to some magical heights of brilliance then their immediate need is solid education in the basics of photography.
BTW, I use both Canon & Nikon systems and appreciate both for their unique abilities and I try to use the best of each system (within my means) without cribbing and crying that one does not have what the other has etc ... use what you like or switch to the other side ... after all they are just tools limited only by our skill.

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.

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

[Albi86]

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

Not to mention the new Sigma 17-70. Add the new Nikkor 1.8 G primes, the DX primes, the very good walkarounds like 18-105 and 18-300, etc. I could add the 200-400/4 too, but that's not the point: as I said I'm not talking about the +1000-1500$ segment. If price is never a problem, Canon is indeed quite good.

I also never stated that Nikon system is perfect. I stated that Canon is failing in delivering quality at a reasonable price. I'm talking about the segment of market made of people willing to spend some good money, but below the pro-gear price range. With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers. If there is always more value in non-Canon lenses, which means one ends up buying mostly non-Canon lenses, there's very few reasons to stick with Canon cameras. On top of that, as I mentioned before, below the 3000$ price range, Nikon cameras offer more than their Canon counterparts for less money. But the same is true for the mirrorless and CSC segment, clearly dominated by Fuji, Olympus and Sony.

The bigger picture of Canon's recent releases has been: we don't care about the mid-price segment. That's what people complain about, and what's perfectly embodied by old sensor technology and stripped-down-to-the-bone bodies. Sensor shortcomings go down much easier if paired to a good set of features (like the 5D3 or 1DX) or a more affordable price. Unfortunately that's not the case.

[Canon-F1]

what the fuk.. the same old 18MP sensor just with some wider hybrid AF area.
and the hybrid focus is still slower then mirrorles cameras.

i feel with the poor simpletons here who thought canon will bring an improved sensor. 

[Rienzphotoz]

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

I've used both those lenses (Sigma: bought and sold in 2010, Tamron: bought and sold in 2011)  and they are NOWHERE near the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, be it IQ, built quality or the AF performance. Also those 2 lenses have had numerous quality control issues including but not limited to front focus, back focus, noisy stabilization & noisy AF issues. Spending $600 - $700 on those lenses is not worth it, when one can get a gem of a lens by spending another $300 more to get the EF 17-55 f/2.8 L IS

With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers.

First you were questioning Canon lenses "below $1500", when I gave you proof you quickly turn around and drop your figure to below $1000 ... no problem lets go through those lenses ... but let me agree with you on Nikkor 18-300 VR, I recently purchased this lens and it is a decent performer (not as good as 18-200 VR but decent nevertheless), yes Canon does not have an equivalent of 18-300 VR in price or size.

Here are some great lenses from Canon under $1000, both zooms and primes:
1. Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens = $649
2. Canon EF-S 10-20mm lens = $719
3. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = $699
4. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L = $674
5. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L IS = $899
6. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 = $449
7. Canon EF 24mm IS = $649
8. Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS = $579
9. Canon EF 24mm f/1.8 = $449
10. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 = $339
11. Canon EF 50mm Macro = $269
12. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 = $94
13. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro = $399
14. Canon 85mm f/1.8 = $359
15. Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 = 149
16. Canon EF 70-300 = $499
17. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L = $949
Now here are a couple of bonus lenses for you: Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS & Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS normally sell for under $1049 but there are dozens of online stores and regular stores who are selling it for $949 (i.e. below "1 grand"). By the way I have not listed several other decent lenses that are under "1 grand" and also those that can be purchased during sale or refurbished for under "1 grand" e.g. Canon EF 400 f/5.6 L or the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
If someone tells me that they cannot make great images with any one of those above lenses, then they first need to check all the millions of FANTASTIC images made with those lenses on flickr and many other sites, then they need to sign up for a course on some basic understanding of photography. 

[Hobby Shooter]

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

I've used both those lenses (Sigma: bought and sold in 2010, Tamron: bought and sold in 2011)  and they are NOWHERE near the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, be it IQ, built quality or the AF performance. Also those 2 lenses have had numerous quality control issues including but not limited to front focus, back focus, noisy stabilization & noisy AF issues. Spending $600 - $700 on those lenses is not worth it, when one can get a gem of a lens by spending another $300 more to get the EF 17-55 f/2.8 L IS

With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers.

First you were questioning Canon lenses "below $1500", when I gave you proof you quickly turn around and drop your figure to below $1000 ... no problem lets go through those lenses ... but let me agree with you on Nikkor 18-300 VR, I recently purchased this lens and it is a decent performer (not as good as 18-200 VR but decent nevertheless), yes Canon does not have an equivalent of 18-300 VR in price or size.

Here are some great lenses from Canon under $1000, both zooms and primes:
1. Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens = $649
2. Canon EF-S 10-20mm lens = $719
3. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = $699
4. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L = $674
5. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L IS = $899
6. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 = $449
7. Canon EF 24mm IS = $649
8. Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS = $579
9. Canon EF 24mm f/1.8 = $449
10. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 = $339
11. Canon EF 50mm Macro = $269
12. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 = $94
13. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro = $399
14. Canon 85mm f/1.8 = $359
15. Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 = 149
16. Canon EF 70-300 = $499
17. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L = $949
Now here are a couple of bonus lenses for you: Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS & Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS normally sell for under $1049 but there are dozens of online stores and regular stores who are selling it for $949 (i.e. below "1 grand"). By the way I have not listed several other decent lenses that are under "1 grand" and also those that can be purchased during sale or refurbished for under "1 grand" e.g. Canon EF 400 f/5.6 L or the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
If someone tells me that they cannot make great images with any one of those above lenses, then they first need to check all the millions of FANTASTIC images made with those lenses on flickr and many other sites, then they need to sign up for a course on some basic understanding of photography.

Rienz, forget it. It's pointless. Some people will spend an awful lot of time badmouthing Canon and its' products and they're clearly not interested in listening to reason. I'm glad you listed the 15-85 first, it's simply an awesome lens and I miss mine every day simce I went FF.

[J.R.]

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

I've used both those lenses (Sigma: bought and sold in 2010, Tamron: bought and sold in 2011)  and they are NOWHERE near the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, be it IQ, built quality or the AF performance. Also those 2 lenses have had numerous quality control issues including but not limited to front focus, back focus, noisy stabilization & noisy AF issues. Spending $600 - $700 on those lenses is not worth it, when one can get a gem of a lens by spending another $300 more to get the EF 17-55 f/2.8 L IS

With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers.

First you were questioning Canon lenses "below $1500", when I gave you proof you quickly turn around and drop your figure to below $1000 ... no problem lets go through those lenses ... but let me agree with you on Nikkor 18-300 VR, I recently purchased this lens and it is a decent performer (not as good as 18-200 VR but decent nevertheless), yes Canon does not have an equivalent of 18-300 VR in price or size.

Here are some great lenses from Canon under $1000, both zooms and primes:
1. Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens = $649
2. Canon EF-S 10-20mm lens = $719
3. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = $699
4. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L = $674
5. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L IS = $899
6. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 = $449
7. Canon EF 24mm IS = $649
8. Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS = $579
9. Canon EF 24mm f/1.8 = $449
10. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 = $339
11. Canon EF 50mm Macro = $269
12. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 = $94
13. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro = $399
14. Canon 85mm f/1.8 = $359
15. Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 = 149
16. Canon EF 70-300 = $499
17. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L = $949
Now here are a couple of bonus lenses for you: Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS & Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS normally sell for under $1049 but there are dozens of online stores and regular stores who are selling it for $949 (i.e. below "1 grand"). By the way I have not listed several other decent lenses that are under "1 grand" and also those that can be purchased during sale or refurbished for under "1 grand" e.g. Canon EF 400 f/5.6 L or the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
If someone tells me that they cannot make great images with any one of those above lenses, then they first need to check all the millions of FANTASTIC images made with those lenses on flickr and many other sites, then they need to sign up for a course on some basic understanding of photography.

+1 and excellent points ... But IMHO you are wasting your time and barking up the wrong tree. This debate almost always ends up with hand waving and chest beating in a viscous circle usually something like this-

Comment: I have 4 canon bodies and they have poor IQ?
Q. Huh? Why do you say that?
A. Nikon has 14 stops of DR.
Q. So do you need those stops?
A. Well yes. I need to recover shadow detail from my shots I underexposed by 3 stops.
Q. If you shot correctly how would canon limit you?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon.
Q. But has Canon limited your shots in any way?
A. Always
Q. Can you post some pics where this has happened?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon
Q. But do you have any pics where you've been limited by Canon? If yes, post some shots.
A. Look at DXO, FM
Q. Don't you get it? Can you post any pictures where you have been limited by Canon?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM, the Internet is full of stuff ... Please google it yourself.
Q. You still don't get it. Can you post any pictures where YOUR shots have been limited by Canon?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM
Q. I give up
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM. And you have the gall to accuse me of trolling
Q. You haven't posted any shots where you have been limited in your creativity by Canon ... How do you say Canon's IQ is bad?
A.  But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM
Q. But how do you claim Canon's IQ is bad?
A. It is, Nikon has more DR than Canon.
Q. Then why don't you go ahead and shoot Nikon?
A. Silence
Q. Ohk, maybe that's the end of that.
A. How can you call me a troll? You have nothing in your response ... Canon is bad, Nikon has more DR than Canon, look at DXO, FM and other internet sites, and oh yes, I think Canon is expensive!
Q. I give up

[Rienzphotoz]

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

I've used both those lenses (Sigma: bought and sold in 2010, Tamron: bought and sold in 2011)  and they are NOWHERE near the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, be it IQ, built quality or the AF performance. Also those 2 lenses have had numerous quality control issues including but not limited to front focus, back focus, noisy stabilization & noisy AF issues. Spending $600 - $700 on those lenses is not worth it, when one can get a gem of a lens by spending another $300 more to get the EF 17-55 f/2.8 L IS

With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers.

First you were questioning Canon lenses "below $1500", when I gave you proof you quickly turn around and drop your figure to below $1000 ... no problem lets go through those lenses ... but let me agree with you on Nikkor 18-300 VR, I recently purchased this lens and it is a decent performer (not as good as 18-200 VR but decent nevertheless), yes Canon does not have an equivalent of 18-300 VR in price or size.

Here are some great lenses from Canon under $1000, both zooms and primes:
1. Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens = $649
2. Canon EF-S 10-20mm lens = $719
3. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = $699
4. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L = $674
5. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L IS = $899
6. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 = $449
7. Canon EF 24mm IS = $649
8. Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS = $579
9. Canon EF 24mm f/1.8 = $449
10. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 = $339
11. Canon EF 50mm Macro = $269
12. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 = $94
13. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro = $399
14. Canon 85mm f/1.8 = $359
15. Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 = 149
16. Canon EF 70-300 = $499
17. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L = $949
Now here are a couple of bonus lenses for you: Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS & Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS normally sell for under $1049 but there are dozens of online stores and regular stores who are selling it for $949 (i.e. below "1 grand"). By the way I have not listed several other decent lenses that are under "1 grand" and also those that can be purchased during sale or refurbished for under "1 grand" e.g. Canon EF 400 f/5.6 L or the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
If someone tells me that they cannot make great images with any one of those above lenses, then they first need to check all the millions of FANTASTIC images made with those lenses on flickr and many other sites, then they need to sign up for a course on some basic understanding of photography.

+1 and excellent points ... But IMHO you are wasting your time and barking up the wrong tree. This debate almost always ends up with hand waving and chest beating in a viscous circle usually something like this-

Comment: I have 4 canon bodies and they have poor IQ?
Q. Huh? Why do you say that?
A. Nikon has 14 stops of DR.
Q. So do you need those stops?
A. Well yes. I need to recover shadow detail from my shots I underexposed by 3 stops.
Q. If you shot correctly how would canon limit you?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon.
Q. But has Canon limited your shots in any way?
A. Always
Q. Can you post some pics where this has happened?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon
Q. But do you have any pics where you've been limited by Canon? If yes, post some shots.
A. Look at DXO, FM
Q. Don't you get it? Can you post any pictures where you have been limited by Canon?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM, the Internet is full of stuff ... Please google it yourself.
Q. You still don't get it. Can you post any pictures where YOUR shots have been limited by Canon?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM
Q. I give up
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM. And you have the gall to accuse me of trolling
Q. You haven't posted any shots where you have been limited in your creativity by Canon ... How do you say Canon's IQ is bad?
A.  But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM
Q. But how do you claim Canon's IQ is bad?
A. It is, Nikon has more DR than Canon.
Q. Then why don't you go ahead and shoot Nikon?
A. Silence
Q. Ohk, maybe that's the end of that.
A. How can you call me a troll? You have nothing in your response ... Canon is bad, Nikon has more DR than Canon, look at DXO, FM and other internet sites, and oh yes, I think Canon is expensive!
Q. I give up

Ha ha ha ... very true ... I liked your Q&A session, made me laugh

[Rienzphotoz]

Rienz, forget it. It's pointless. Some people will spend an awful lot of time badmouthing Canon and its' products and they're clearly not interested in listening to reason. I'm glad you listed the 15-85 first, it's simply an awesome lens and I miss mine every day simce I went FF.

Although I never owned the EF-S 15-85mm lens, I got to borrow it from a friend of mine for a day ... this was when I had the 7D ... I really liked that lens and almost bought it, but since I always wanted to go FF and was building my EF lenses for quite some time, I gave up the idea and stayed with EF 24-105 f/4 L IS. If I were to stay with APS-C, my first lens would be 15-85 for its versatility and great image quality ... it really works well with the EOS 7D ... one of the best camera, lens combos out there.

[Sella174]

On the subject of the sub-$1500 lens segment ... Low-light "performance" is unimportant to me, just as high ISO capabilities. (I'd love an affordable DSLR that can shoot ISO25.) With this in mind, Canon recently "updated" several of the old Ugly-Duckling primes and added IS to them! I do not need IS and in my opinion (and vantage point) Canon just did it as a reason for upping the price.

Canon is also sticking with APS-C sensors, but are not coming to the party with EF-S primes. Why not? Oh yes, they want me to buy an FF prime with IS ... making me pay for optical glass I do not need and for functionality I do not need.

[Rienzphotoz]

Canon is also sticking with APS-C sensors, but are not coming to the party with EF-S primes. Why not? Oh yes, they want me to buy an FF prime with IS ... making me pay for optical glass I do not need and for functionality I do not need.

Canon already has several prime lenses without IS that work both on FF & Crop and are quite reasonably priced.