Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear

[krjc]

I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.

The analogy of a car with more HP is a good one. Don't always need it, but when you do, you are extremely grateful to have it. Extra HP can save your life and more DR can save a photo.

I hope Canon improves DR someday, but until then I will happily use my Canon 5D3, it is a great Camera.

 

[TeenTog]

On a completely different note-

Could this camera be a replacement for the T3?

 

[Loswr]

I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.

But...everything else is NOT equal.

 

[krjc]

I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.
[\quote]

But...everything else is NOT equal.

Yes and that is why I said it!!! LOL

Bottom line Neuroa.., would you prefer a 5D3 with greater DR or not?

 

[Loswr]

Bottom line Neuroa.., would you prefer a 5D3 with greater DR or not?

Of course. But not if I had to give up better AF, better ergonomics, compatibility with lenses like the MP-E 65, a tilt-shift with on-the-fly orientation changes, and a handholdable 600mm lens to get that increased DR. Life is about tradeoffs. You pick what's important and live with the rest.

I do have to say that I don't generally find DR of my current cameras to be a problem for me. P

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.

The analogy of a car with more HP is a good one. Don't always need it, but when you do, you are extremely grateful to have it. Extra HP can save your life and more DR can save a photo.

I hope Canon improves DR someday, but until then I will happily use my Canon 5D3, it is a great Camera.

Actually, a car with too much power can easily be deadly if you don't know what you're doing with it. Plop your average, 50th percentile driver into a Formula 1 racer without some serious and intensive training, and I'd be surprised if the car survived a week. The driver probably would...those things can practically run head-first into a concrete wall at freeway speeds and the driver will probably walk away...but the car will be toast.

Plus, the average, 50th percentile driver is going to very, very soon miss the little niceties...like a radio, a place to put your bag lunch, and a turn signal....

Back to dynamic range...I would completely agree with you if Canon's dynamic range were inadequate, exactly the same as I'd agree with you about certain no-name off-brand electric "vehicles" that're really just golf carts with a different shell and have a top speed of 45 MPH. (I'm obviously excluding real electric vehicles like the Leaf, the Volt, and the Tesla.) Those things have inadequate speed and power and ought not be driven on a most roads and are illegal to drive on many.

But Canon's dynamic range is just fine, thankyouverymuch. Maybe not as much as some of the famous classic black-and-white films, but a lot more than color slides -- and most of the most iconic images from before the dawn of the digital age were made with color slide film.

As has been repeatedly asked and never answered: when has the lack of dynamic range of a Canon camera been a problem in real-world photography for you? When have you had a properly-exposed image that was ruined by the camera's narrow dynamic range?

Personally, I've yet to see such an example that wasn't more than simply a contrived snapshot. Closest I've come has been somebody who was doing photojournalism-type portraits in full noontime sun without any sort of light modifiers who was complaining that digital fill on the Canon was unable to make the images look like studio portraiture. Dude apparently hadn't heard of this novel invention called a "flash," and also didn't quite understand the concept of photojournalism....

b&

 

[krjc]

I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.

The analogy of a car with more HP is a good one. Don't always need it, but when you do, you are extremely grateful to have it. Extra HP can save your life and more DR can save a photo.

I hope Canon improves DR someday, but until then I will happily use my Canon 5D3, it is a great Camera.

"Actually, a car with too much power can easily be deadly if you don't know what you're doing with it."

"Back to dynamic range...I would completely agree with you if Canon's dynamic range were inadequate"

Regarding your first comment, I will take my chances with more DR. lol
Regarding the second comment, Canon DR is adequate, but I want great, not adequate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with my Canon, getting great photos with it, but there are times more DR would be welcome. End of discussion for me.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

so you say nikons higher DR turns all their images into strange looking HDR images....??

and we could be happy with a way lower DR.. if we accept just more shadows...is that what you say?

8)

<whoosh />

Let's try a car analogy.

Imagine we've got a group of people who hang out discussing a brand of cars well known for making reliable everyday commuters / family cars, and what they most care about is that the cars just work, and they don't get in their way. The types of features that get them excited are a better cruise control, better visibility, a simpler console, a smoother ride, that sort of thing.

Now imagine that there's a rival hotrod brand whose devotees care about nothing but speed.

Further imagine that all the cars in the "boring" brand have a top speed of 100 mph and handle beautifully at 85, but the hotrod brand's cars can do 120 mph, but they're squirrely as all get-out at 65 mph and the cupholders are all too shallow and so drinks spill really easily. Plus they don't have an hatchback model and none of them have removable or even fold-down seats.

Might you be able to understand why those discussing the "boring" brand really don't give a damn about that extra 20 mph at the top end of the speed range? When, ever, in the real world, outside of a racetrack or something else that's going to get you in real trouble, would it even occur to any sane person to drive that fast? And wouldn't any sane person prefer something that's nice and steady at normal freeway speeds anyway?

Look. You clearly care about that extra 20 mph. Whoopee, fantastic, great for you. So go get that hotrod. And enjoy it. But stop trying to convince the rest of us that we need it, when, really, truly, honestly, we couldn't care less. We'll never notice it missing, and we will and do notice the lack of all sorts of other things that you clearly don't give a damn about (but that we really and truly honestly do).

Cheers,

b&

8) Best analogy ever. I completely agree, especially about other people telling me what I need.

 

[Don Haines]

so you say nikons higher DR turns all their images into strange looking HDR images....??

and we could be happy with a way lower DR.. if we accept just more shadows...is that what you say?

8)

<whoosh />

Let's try a car analogy.

Imagine we've got a group of people who hang out discussing a brand of cars well known for making reliable everyday commuters / family cars, and what they most care about is that the cars just work, and they don't get in their way. The types of features that get them excited are a better cruise control, better visibility, a simpler console, a smoother ride, that sort of thing.

Now imagine that there's a rival hotrod brand whose devotees care about nothing but speed.

Further imagine that all the cars in the "boring" brand have a top speed of 100 mph and handle beautifully at 85, but the hotrod brand's cars can do 120 mph, but they're squirrely as all get-out at 65 mph and the cupholders are all too shallow and so drinks spill really easily. Plus they don't have an hatchback model and none of them have removable or even fold-down seats.

Might you be able to understand why those discussing the "boring" brand really don't give a damn about that extra 20 mph at the top end of the speed range? When, ever, in the real world, outside of a racetrack or something else that's going to get you in real trouble, would it even occur to any sane person to drive that fast? And wouldn't any sane person prefer something that's nice and steady at normal freeway speeds anyway?

Look. You clearly care about that extra 20 mph. Whoopee, fantastic, great for you. So go get that hotrod. And enjoy it. But stop trying to convince the rest of us that we need it, when, really, truly, honestly, we couldn't care less. We'll never notice it missing, and we will and do notice the lack of all sorts of other things that you clearly don't give a damn about (but that we really and truly honestly do).

Cheers,

b&

8) Best analogy ever. I completely agree, especially about other people telling me what I need.

When I went car shopping my criteria were can my bicycle fit in the basck without taking the wheels off, and can I carry two canoes on the roof.


but back to the main topic.... dynamic range.
I have had dynamic range problems in photography. Try taking a picture of a sparkling white waterfall and black rocks.... I couldn't cover the range at all with film, can get pretty close with a single shot now that I have digital, and no problem at all with HDR photography.

Yes, more range is nicer to have..... but at what cost?

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Try taking a picture of a sparkling white waterfall and black rocks.... I couldn't cover the range at all with film, can get pretty close with a single shot now that I have digital, and no problem at all with HDR photography.

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.

Pardon me while I try to remember how to swoon....

Cheers,

b&

 

[shtarker]

Why do the other brand owners spend so much time stalking Canon forums and bragging about how much better their cameras are? Some people need to get a life.

It's because Canon is number one in sales and they don't like being second.

 

[Curmudgeon]

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.

 

[timmy_650]

I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.

The analogy of a car with more HP is a good one. Don't always need it, but when you do, you are extremely grateful to have it. Extra HP can save your life and more DR can save a photo.

I hope Canon improves DR someday, but until then I will happily use my Canon 5D3, it is a great Camera.

Actually, a car with too much power can easily be deadly if you don't know what you're doing with it. Plop your average, 50th percentile driver into a Formula 1 racer without some serious and intensive training, and I'd be surprised if the car survived a week. The driver probably would...those things can practically run head-first into a concrete wall at freeway speeds and the driver will probably walk away...but the car will be toast.

Plus, the average, 50th percentile driver is going to very, very soon miss the little niceties...like a radio, a place to put your bag lunch, and a turn signal....

Back to dynamic range...I would completely agree with you if Canon's dynamic range were inadequate, exactly the same as I'd agree with you about certain no-name off-brand electric "vehicles" that're really just golf carts with a different shell and have a top speed of 45 MPH. (I'm obviously excluding real electric vehicles like the Leaf, the Volt, and the Tesla.) Those things have inadequate speed and power and ought not be driven on a most roads and are illegal to drive on many.

But Canon's dynamic range is just fine, thankyouverymuch. Maybe not as much as some of the famous classic black-and-white films, but a lot more than color slides -- and most of the most iconic images from before the dawn of the digital age were made with color slide film.

As has been repeatedly asked and never answered: when has the lack of dynamic range of a Canon camera been a problem in real-world photography for you? When have you had a properly-exposed image that was ruined by the camera's narrow dynamic range?

Personally, I've yet to see such an example that wasn't more than simply a contrived snapshot. Closest I've come has been somebody who was doing photojournalism-type portraits in full noontime sun without any sort of light modifiers who was complaining that digital fill on the Canon was unable to make the images look like studio portraiture. Dude apparently hadn't heard of this novel invention called a "flash," and also didn't quite understand the concept of photojournalism....

b&

If you need more DR put it in. It is rather simple to do. You look back at people like Ansel Adams, I would say his great work happened in the dark room and the same is today, it is happening in the dark room (CS, lightroom ect)
But I agree it would be nice to have superb pictures straight out of the camera but i am fine with great and making them superb.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

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.

Hmm, I'm not sure why you write like that. I think very few people will deny that the D800 has a better dynamic range but I also think, like I've stated before, that when there is a discussion about any new technology or whatever some people always walks in a starts talking about the superior DR of the D800 which often is completely irrelevant for that actual discussion. The subject is emptied out already, everyone knows that. I know my 5D3 has limitations, but I am not man enough yet to take it there. I know though that its' great AF and high ISO capabilities has helped me many times to capture photos that I with my old 60D wouldn't have been able to get good. I think 'Stay on subject!' is what many are trying to say.

 

[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.