Canon is getting owned in sensor technology

[nitsujwalker]

This thread went downhill fast.

[RuneL]

I've also given up on the whole technical aspect. I know how to use my camera, but knowing all kinds of weird S___ about it just doesn't interest me, I'm hard pressed to remember how many megapixels it has if someone asks, I know what my leses do, I know which to use and when and I know how to setup my camera and frame my shot, all of which not a score of 50.000 DxO-mark points can help anyone achieve. I've take some awesome pictures with a D30, 10D, some of my nicest ones are take with the 10D, I didn't magically get better because the 1D IV has better specs.

It is tiring, so tiring this S___, like the whole Apple / PC thing.

[typho]

I must say, I was already disappointed by Canon's sample pictures and I was stunned by Nikon's sample pictures.

I know Canon posted pics that were converted raw-to-jpeg in-camera, while Nikon did a raw-to-jpeg conversion probably on a computer. And some people suggested Nikon simply hired a better photographer than Canon. But please, why on earth would Canon post bad samples leading to somewhat incomprehensible justifications?

Also, Canon used some really expensive $10000, and not-yet-released 24-70 II lens for some photos, while Nikon exclusively used regular 14-24, 24-70 or 70-200 lenses that everyone's got.

Why do I feel more comfortable with Nikon when it comes to those two cameras?

By the way, I own neither of the cameras. I have simply been doing my research to figure out which one of them are better for me. The 4 fps and the fact Nikon has no RAW-M or so is a real pity. Otherwise I would've already made a clear decision.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm

[Alker]

I must say, I was already disappointed by Canon's sample pictures and I was stunned by Nikon's sample pictures.

I know Canon posted pics that were converted raw-to-jpeg in-camera, while Nikon did a raw-to-jpeg conversion probably on a computer. And some people suggested Nikon simply hired a better photographer than Canon. But please, why on earth would Canon post bad samples leading to somewhat incomprehensible justifications?

Also, Canon used some really expensive $10000, and not-yet-released 24-70 II lens for some photos, while Nikon exclusively used regular 14-24, 24-70 or 70-200 lenses that everyone's got.

Why do I feel more comfortable with Nikon when it comes to those two cameras?

By the way, I have neither of the cameras. I have simply been doing my research to figure out which one of them are better for me.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm

Remember the 5D Mark II samples where also not very good either.

[Alker]

Same procedure as every year. I wonder how its possible that people take good photos since the invention of photography. Reading here always seems like last years cameras are producing bad images.

Im going so far to say that if u see some award winning photo on the internet somewhere u cant even tell if it was taken with a nikon or canon or probably something else unless u read the exif information...

+1. I agree, this is all way too geeky for me by now. Portfolio is everything to me - I prefer seeing photography awards rather than test scores and shots of brick walls. Each to their own mind you... I knew someone who owned a Jaguar, but couldn't actually drive himself.

+1

[typho]

Remember the 5D Mark II samples where also not very good either.

I know. But it makes me sigh a lot. Why can Nikon do it...

You know, I only got the information on the internet to make my decision. But based on what's available to me, I went from "5d3 or nothing" to "probably d800".

[awinphoto]

You know, I only got the information on the internet to make my decision.

I wouldn't trust 90% of information you see on any one site on the internet...  Then again, there are plenty of formal and informal reviews, lots of conclusive info, and even digivalrev, predominately nikon fans had to side slightly towards the 5d3...  While the sample pics on canon's website wasn't earth-shattering, photos people are posting with the actual camera from real photographers are.   

[jimmylazers]

This thread went downhill fast.

Yes I am sorry about this.

But he tells me I am faking posts after he deleted his posts.
I just get carried away of this.

Sorry for my negative input.

Maybe a moderator can remove the topics.

There's no need for the abuse, chief. There's too much anger on this board without folk losing their temper and faking posts.

Just calm down and be nicer to your brothers.

[nitsujwalker]

I can honestly say I don't understand what DxO does except from what users here report.  Numbers are numbers and if you don't feel like Canon provides sensor technology that is sufficient for your needs then you can switch.  Personally, I've been down the Nikon road and came back to canon despite the D7000s DxO scores and am extremely happy that I did.  I love my Canon cameras and LOVE shooting.  Period.  The scores and 'better' sensor technology produces by Sony and integrated into Nikon's don't even make me want to go back to Nikon a little.  When shooting, I love the images produced by my 50d, 7d, and 5d mkii.  It's about taking images, printing (maybe) and enjoying what we do...  Just my 2 cents. 

[ippikiokami]

I must say, I was already disappointed by Canon's sample pictures and I was stunned by Nikon's sample pictures.

I know Canon posted pics that were converted raw-to-jpeg in-camera, while Nikon did a raw-to-jpeg conversion probably on a computer. And some people suggested Nikon simply hired a better photographer than Canon. But please, why on earth would Canon post bad samples leading to somewhat incomprehensible justifications?

Also, Canon used some really expensive $10000, and not-yet-released 24-70 II lens for some photos, while Nikon exclusively used regular 14-24, 24-70 or 70-200 lenses that everyone's got.

Why do I feel more comfortable with Nikon when it comes to those two cameras?

By the way, I have neither of the cameras. I have simply been doing my research to figure out which one of them are better for me.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm

Remember the 5D Mark II samples where also not very good either.

Did you look at any of the high iso samples of the d800? They start to fall apart really quick. I was actually convinced I would buy a D800 (before using the new AF and high iso of the 5d III). Cost to change would have been extremely minimal to none and I even went as far post on forums to get nikon lenses.

But then I saw the samples from some pretty well known photographers in even controlled studio situations....

I mean don't take my word for it. Look for them yourself.

This is just one of the ones I was looking at http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/7002918731/#in/photostream/
I can find more if you can't find them. It's Shinji Watanabe's Flickr

At 6400 what happened to the detail???

[typho]

I wouldn't trust 90% of information you see on any one site on the internet...  Then again, there are plenty of formal and informal reviews, lots of conclusive info, and even digivalrev, predominately nikon fans had to side slightly towards the 5d3...  While the sample pics on canon's website wasn't earth-shattering, photos people are posting with the actual camera from real photographers are.   

I agree. Well, I did talk to a Canon representative and he stated that he now feels comfortable taking pics at 800 ISO, which made me raise an eye-brow. It seemed like everyone else was talking about bigger numbers on the net.
Since all the talks on the net are so biased I have to rely on "probably scientific" measurements like DxO and take into account factors they don't measure such as FPS (canon!), grip/handling (canon!), raw-m (canon!) and better downsampling in videos to avoid moire (canon!). I also feel a bit more comfortable with canon lenses, although I don't really know why.
Everyone is telling that there's no need to switch camps but if you have to choose because you own no gear of either company, it's a real tough decision.

At 6400 what happened to the detail???

I did see some of that stuff. But I have to admit I don't intend to take pictures at 6400 ISO. I might need it in video, not sure. Again, not an easy decision in any case.

[unfocused]

This thread went downhill fast.

No. It started in the gutter and went downstream from there.

Honestly, I'm thrilled that Nikon is aggressively competing with Canon. It will only make for better cameras in the future.

But, let's be honest. The cheapest DSLR is way more than adequate for 90% of situations, regardless of brand. The 5D II and the D700 were more than adequate for probably 98% of situations. Now, the 5DIII and D800 are going to be more than adequate for 98.4% of situations. The margins continue to shrink as the technology matures and advances. That's just the way the world works.

People need to keep a little perspective here.

[awinphoto]

This thread went downhill fast.

No. It started in the gutter and went downstream from there.

Honestly, I'm thrilled that Nikon is aggressively competing with Canon. It will only make for better cameras in the future.

But, let's be honest. The cheapest DSLR is way more than adequate for 90% of situations, regardless of brand. The 5D II and the D700 were more than adequate for probably 98% of situations. Now, the 5DIII and D800 are going to be more than adequate for 98.4% of situations. The margins continue to shrink as the technology matures and advances. That's just the way the world works.

People need to keep a little perspective here.

Couldn't have said it better myself +1000

[nitsujwalker]

This thread went downhill fast.

No. It started in the gutter and went downstream from there.

Honestly, I'm thrilled that Nikon is aggressively competing with Canon. It will only make for better cameras in the future.

But, let's be honest. The cheapest DSLR is way more than adequate for 90% of situations, regardless of brand. The 5D II and the D700 were more than adequate for probably 98% of situations. Now, the 5DIII and D800 are going to be more than adequate for 98.4% of situations. The margins continue to shrink as the technology matures and advances. That's just the way the world works.

People need to keep a little perspective here.

Well said.

[birdman]

I like the quote of OP "Canon is a decade behind in sensor technology"

Hahaha. Really? 10 years ago there were not even full frame DSLRs were there? I know my Powershot S30 (3.0 MP) dates from that time. CMOS were not even predominate, were they? Get a clue, dude. I have a 5d2, a D800 on order, and both Canon and Nikon glass. I have owned both cameras. Started with Nikon D80, then Canon 40d, then Nikon D700, then Canon 5d2. Each generation has leap frogged the other, and frankly if Nikon is indeed in the lead, it will one day be surpassed.

What some people don't realize is that Nikon has Sony sensors. Nikon builds the processors, shutters, and body. Canon builds the whole camera. Anyway, Dxo reduces all tests to 8MP doesn't it? How does that measure real world examples. Go to dpreview.com and look at Full-size D800 RAWs vs. 5d2 vs. 5d3 vs. D4 all at same ISO. This will give you an inkling. Frankly, I am disappointed at how little ALL CAMERAS appear to have improved. The "otherwordly" detail of the D800 is lost on me. I just don't see it.

What's more important to me is Nikon's better UWA lens options. Canon has better glass on medium to long telephotos. Choose your liking.