Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?

[Sporgon]

Well if you want a real world comparison, as part of our digital imaging company we've just been working with company who has had its products shot by a guy using a D4s, and I can assure you that the files from the humble 6D are substantially better. No doubt some on here will question why a D8xx wasn't being used, but that's the reality of - well, reality.

Funny how we never hear of the D600/ 610 isn't it.

 

[daniela]

ee the next generation sensors or similiar. Although I have to admit that the Dual AF is quite a tech already.

....In my family, you can find the D810, D800 (both my husband), 5DIII (my son), 6D &7 D (myself), and A7r (my daughter).

Quite the family you know ;-)

Please explain, my English is not very good.
My husband is an Nikon fetishist, my daughter´s boyfriend works for Sony.... And MY father bought Canon. I took my first shot with an F-1, back in 1973 at an age of 9. My father gave me all his lenses and cameras, so I stayed with Canon.

 

[daniela]

Well if you want a real world comparison, as part of our digital imaging company we've just been working with company who has had its products shot by a guy using a D4s, and I can assure you that the files from the humble 6D are substantially better. No doubt some on here will question why a D8xx wasn't being used, but that's the reality of - well, reality.

Funny how we never hear of the D600/ 610 isn't it.

The 600 was an excellent camera. My husband took a lot of shots with it, but then the stain problem appeared and he switched to the D800 as an special offer from our local camera store as Nikon did not know what to do in the frist few weeks.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

85mm? Nikon 1.4 and 1.8 are more modern and better than the Canon equivalents which were released sometime during the 2nd word war it seems.

The 851.2 L is great, but heavy and unless you really really need 1.2, it only exists for wank value, something anyone with more money than brains will laud over everyone else.

Yes, I've used one extensively. Shame phase focus can't really nail the accuracy that F1.2 desperately needs very much, making it a slow job to actually use it and get it in focus, and if you're not at 1.2 the F1.4 is sharper anyway through 1.8-4.

You've not really used one, have you? I mean, seriously used one. Because I've been amazed at how dead-on accurate the focus is. Even on the first generation 5D, it was pretty good. But with the Mk III, the hit rate is excellent. You just have to know what you're doing to get the most out of it. And it's quite sharp wide open.

I'd be happy if Canon offered one at f/1.4, but with the f/1.2, they offer a lens that nobody else does. That's kind of Canon's thing, offering more options than the competition.

I'd have sold mine were it not a reliable AF lens. As it is, it's going nowhere. It's a key lens in my ultra-low light kit.

70-200 F2.8? About the same, although I do think imho, that Canon's IS is superior. I guess by a stop or maybe even 2.

Did you forget about that lens' infamous focus breathing, where at minimum focus distance, it has the same FOV as a 135mm lens? The Canon doesn't suffer from this. Canon is known for its teles, and this one is still king of the hill.

Wide Primes? I'm not a big user so won't offer an opinion. My 14-24 fulfils all my wide needs, so I look no further.

The Canon 24mm f/1.4 is another cornerstone in my ultra-low light kit. Like the 85, it nails focus, and looks great even wide open.

My point is that this assumption that Canon lenses are superior is uninformed at best and delusional logo fandom at worst.

It's actually complicated, and depends on where your usage is.

There's truth to this, but Canon seems to be catching up on its weaknesses much faster than Nikon is. The 16-35 (I think?) f/4 IS STM is getting superb reviews, for example. It's about time Canon addressed the ultrawide zoom weaknesses, and it seems they are.

They also offer more specialty lenses, such as the 17mm TS-E.

For me, my 14-24, 35mm Sigma Art, 50mm Sigma Art, 85 F1.8G, 70-200 F2.8VR2, 60mm 2.8G Macro covers MY needs, Canon don't make better lenses in those ranges.

The Canon 70-200 really is better.

Canon have so many old lenses, and no one talks about that. All their 50mm are ancient, their 85mm's are getting long in the tooth, and many of their L lenses are not nearly worthy of the L, when cheaper Tamrons and Sigmas match or exceed their performance.

The 50mm f/1.2 is ancient?

The 17-40 F4? I hated that lens and all it's issues for the 5 years I had it, and that was on 21 meg, let alone what it would look like on 36 meg with no OLPF.

It's the "bargain L," and it's on its way out. It was really designed for the 10D, with its sharpness high on the APS area of the image circle, but not so much in the corners. But it's lightweight and a good performer for the price. Not the best in its class, but the newer lenses are getting there.

Ditto the 24-105. Distortion, CA, soft at the edges, it has the lot, although it's IS is pretty great.

That's the most-used lens in my bag. Distortion is my only complaint about it; it's pretty heavy. But it's quite a sharp lens, and it has an extremely useful range. I could just about shoot a wedding with just this lens. And it's superb on my IR-converted Mk II, as is my 17-40. Those two make a great two-lens kit.

Well, I'm sure it's time for you all to tear me a new arse as you are duty bound to do, but before you do, how many have used all these lenses and cameras for paying work?

I imagine it's not many, but I am one of them.

All of them? No. Most of them? Yes. I think the original point was about the breadth of the available high quality lenses, as well as the performance.

 

[xps]

Well, I'm sure it's time for you all to tear me a new arse as you are duty bound to do, but before you do, how many have used all these lenses and cameras for paying work?

Let me be the first.

Actually, not really. First, I give extra points to anyone who actually has to earn a living in photography who participates on this forum. I'm not sure why they bother, but I appreciate that.

As for me, I never have and never will criticize Nikon. It is a great system and I frankly don't see a lot of point in dwelling on the small differences. Some people prefer Nikon, some people prefer Canon. Everyone has their reasons and that's fine with me.

Sony is also fine, but I do believe that people take a bigger risk investing in Sony lenses. I am willing to bet thousands of dollars that Canon will be around for the rest of my life. (In fact, that is what I have done by buying a lot of their lenses). I'd be willing to take that same bet with Nikon. But, I'm old enough to have seen most of the other camera manufacturers come and go to not feel comfortable investing in Sony lenses. That's just me.

I like Canon. That's why I buy Canon. I don't understand people who would buy equipment they don't like. Yet this forum (not you, whomever you are) is filled with people who have bought Canon equipment (or so they claim) and seem so caught up in having the newest technology that they are incapable of enjoying what they have out of fear that the next release by some competitor might be marginally superior in some way.

I think anyone with half a brain and a bit of honesty must admit that for 99% of photographers under 99% of shooting conditions, the cheapest Nikon or Canon DSLR will product results indistinguishable from the flagship full frame model of either manufacturer. Perhaps you are in the 1% and shoot in the 1% of conditions where that is not true. Congratulations to you.

I won't speak for Neuro. But, I think a lot of the people on this forum grow frustrated with commentary that dwells on insignificant differences. In the past several days we've had pages and pages of commentary about how terrible Canon is because you can't shoot straight into a setting sun and have leaves that are in shadow come out properly exposed. Well...boo...hoo.

This particular topic was clearly started with the sole intent of generating anger and frustration from forum participants. And, unfortunately the original poster has gotten exactly what he wanted.

The ongoing commentary on this forum has become particularly ridiculous of late and for me that was underscored because I happened to attend a Scott Kelby seminar earlier in the week. I am sure there will be those who rush to criticize Kelby, but the fact is, the guy is a damn good photographer.

A sizable portion of his commentary was spent on making the point time and time again that equipment is the least important part of photography. He not only says that, but demonstrates it time and time again. He showed incredible images shot with lenses that no one on this forum would dare admit to using out of fear of being massacred because "that lens is a piece of crap."

So, from my perspective, if you find Nikon better for your purposes, that is great. I honestly don't care.

+1

It is not always the technique that helps to shoot an good picture. The lesser your knowledge is, the more you need the technology to help you. If you are experienced, you can go to its limits. In other situations the technology allows to shoot things that you will not be able to do without the cams features.

My wishes for the future of CR forum will be:
- A collumn, where YOU experienced photographers can tell us how you shot an good picture. Not only the Camera settings, but all of the things you needed to get this shot and where you placed it.... And your intention why
- A column where we all can post favourite menue-presets for each camera and situation. THAT would be an great help for newbies. Or good lens/Cam combinatiuons. Or good presets you use when you shoot in an special situation.


p.s.: Many of us are a unsatisfied, because we want to see an marvellous camera (an goldenegglayingwollmilksaw) for an moderate price. And an fast upgrade time like the rebels have.
But: This brand is not like the computertechnology or telephone brand , where each 2 years the performance doubles.

 

[xps]

Put another way, it took Nikon two generations to come up with a camera that approaches the 5DIII in overall utility...and I bet the 5DIII outsells the D810 just as it did the D800/E.

Same thing one step up – it took Nikon until the D4s to approach the 1D X.

That said I really hope that we will see the next generation sensors or similiar. Although I have to admit that the Dual AF is quite a tech already.

....In my family, you can find the D810, D800 (both my husband), 5DIII (my son), 6D &7 D (myself), and A7r (my daughter).

Quite the family you know ;-)

.....Nikon or Canon are very similar to a religion. You believe it or you don't. ....

My religion is called Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon

Mine my new Apo SonnarT ZE 135mm 2.0 )))

Edit: But if this lens will make my shots better, I don´t know

 

[Sporgon]

Well if you want a real world comparison, as part of our digital imaging company we've just been working with company who has had its products shot by a guy using a D4s, and I can assure you that the files from the humble 6D are substantially better. No doubt some on here will question why a D8xx wasn't being used, but that's the reality of - well, reality.

Funny how we never hear of the D600/ 610 isn't it.

The 600 was an excellent camera. My husband took a lot of shots with it, but then the stain problem appeared and he switched to the D800 as an special offer from our local camera store as Nikon did not know what to do in the frist few weeks.

Good to have another person on CR who has real world experience of the front runners in the race

 

[daniela]

Well if you want a real world comparison, as part of our digital imaging company we've just been working with company who has had its products shot by a guy using a D4s, and I can assure you that the files from the humble 6D are substantially better. No doubt some on here will question why a D8xx wasn't being used, but that's the reality of - well, reality.

Funny how we never hear of the D600/ 610 isn't it.

The 600 was an excellent camera. My husband took a lot of shots with it, but then the stain problem appeared and he switched to the D800 as an special offer from our local camera store as Nikon did not know what to do in the frist few weeks.

Good to have another person on CR who has real world experience of the front runners in the race

My husband liked the D600. This Camera was really great. I took a lot of great pics of my children and landscapes with it too.
The early handling of the stain issue was not one of Nikons greatest moments. My husband was very angry about the blaming letters he received from Nikons service center. So he was glad to get an offer to exchange the D600 for a few hundred Euros to an D800

 

[Diko]

ee the next generation sensors or similiar. Although I have to admit that the Dual AF is quite a tech already.

....In my family, you can find the D810, D800 (both my husband), 5DIII (my son), 6D &7 D (myself), and A7r (my daughter).

Quite the family you know ;-)

Please explain, my English is not very good.
My husband is an Nikon fetishist, my daughter´s boyfriend works for Sony.... And MY father bought Canon. I took my first shot with an F-1, back in 1973 at an age of 9. My father gave me all his lenses and cameras, so I stayed with Canon.

Deine Familie ist etwas ungewoenlich. Das gefealt mir.

You all are photographers?

Because forums like this one need people like you that have a quite close experience with different DSLR brands.

You from all users here have a broader look on different systems with different people. Especially if they are family members.

It's one thing to have a NIKON friend that you see 3-4 times a month and quite the opposite to have SONY, NIKON, CANON under the same roof.... literally.

 

[daniela]

ee the next generation sensors or similiar. Although I have to admit that the Dual AF is quite a tech already.

....In my family, you can find the D810, D800 (both my husband), 5DIII (my son), 6D &7 D (myself), and A7r (my daughter).

Quite the family you know ;-)

Please explain, my English is not very good.
My husband is an Nikon fetishist, my daughter´s boyfriend works for Sony.... And MY father bought Canon. I took my first shot with an F-1, back in 1973 at an age of 9. My father gave me all his lenses and cameras, so I stayed with Canon.

Deine Familie ist etwas ungewoenlich. Das gefealt mir.

You all are photographers?

Because forums like this one need people like you that have a quite close experience with different DSLR brands.

You from all users here have a broader look on different systems with different people. Especially if they are family members.

It's one thing to have a NIKON friend that you see 3-4 times a month and quite the opposite to have SONY, NIKON, CANON under the same roof.... literally.

I understand ))))
Not only in photography, we differ a little bit ;-). I met my husband when I nearly bashed his new Nikon F20 (I think this was the name of it) back in 1985 at an party .
My husband is using Apple computers for almost as long as I know him. I prefer an PC.
My son likes Linux as he studies infromatics and physics....

 

[c.d.embrey]

I'm still waiting for the Nikon D400 The Canon 70D is at least two generations better than the Nikon D300s

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Is this going anywhere?

This is pretty ridiculous. Who even really cares about which camera has the current technological edge. I'll wager money that I can give my father's old (a decade old or so) Konica Minolta 5D with the kit lens to a top notch photographer and he'll wipe the floor with some hobbyist with either a 5D3 or d810 who spends more time worrying about whether his camera is the technological best (has the best sensor, or the most dynamic range, etc.) than time getting out there taking photographs.

 

[David Hull]

It is hard to take any of this seriously...

Want to know what I tell people when they ask me what camera to buy? I tell them to figure out how they are going to use it, and then look for the lenses that suit their needs.... and then to worry about the body. I tell them that the lenses are a long term investment that they will be shooting with for decades, and that the camera is an expendable item that will be obsolete in a few years....

Don't try to bring logic where it clearly doesn't belong.

 

[Vgramatikov]

Hello.
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

This is a joke or what?
Canon is not two generations behind Nikon and i will explain why.

Lets start with the main advantage for Canon.
- Lenses
Canon have mostly better and more lens in their EF line than Nikon in their FX line.
Just compare some of them:
16-35/4 IS, 24-70/4 IS, 24-105/4 IS, 70-200 4L,70-200 4L IS, 70-200 2.8L, 70-200 2.8 L IS II
35/2 IS, 35 1.4 ,35/2
50 1.4 USM, 85 1.8 USM, 100 2.0 USM
135/2 USM
100 2.8 USM, 100 2.8 L USM IS

i don`t want to speak of IS mk1 and IS mk2 super telephoto lenses. ))

Seems here Nikon is still have a lot more work to do to compete with this much of them better, cheaper lenses and all this you can find eazy second hand for good price!

Lets speak for other features and history of lenses.
Canon have their own USM designs of many lens way way before Nikon.
Some of them even are not available for Nikon like 100/2 USM and 135/2 USM.

Canon unveiled STM lenses for video and smoother af. Where is the Nikon here??? They just unveiled their AF-s versions of many lenses before 2-3 years. And much of them are much worse than than canon optics.
Just compare old 24-105/4 L with Nikon 24-120/4 AF-s ...fatal error.

Enough for lenses.

Lets check the cameras.

I will skip the entry levels DSLR`s
We all know that 7d is already better camera than old but good d300s. ( i was owned both)
60d was more balanced than d5100 and 7d was better camera than d7000.
Yes Nikon have now d7100 with 6fps and 6 RAW buffer... one big joke on the field.
Do let finish with the crop sensor cameras because 7d ii is coming. (and 7d is still better from d7100)
I have 70d now because my 7d was dropped in the water.

lets check the FF cameras.
For the entry d610 is somehow better overall than 6d. But in practice ( i have 6d) they are not much different.
But here may be point for Nikon for better value. But they messed up a lot with dust/oil sports with d600.

The major improvement in Nikon is d800/E, d810 cameras. Here canon can not compete like value and performance.

Nikon now will announce d750. Like a answer for 3 years old 5d3.

And the end i will say that d4s was introduced because 1dx was better than d4.

Let`s speak about technology.
Nikon have better Sony sensors than Canon for sure. But better for me usually means better for 100-800 iso and DR department. Nothing really more but still very important for some photographers.

Canon have unique Dual Pixel AF in live view. I own 70d and this working great!
With the STM lens combination is really a unique advantage for may types of photography.
I can use mu 70d almost like mirrorless camera for slow moving subjects, when i`m shooting stock and so one.

Nikon are behind with video capabilities and wi-fi interpretations. Their model usually get the wi-fi one generation behind Canon.

So...with one word. Nikon have d800/d810 but Canon just make everything other usually better and much earlier.

So the main disadvantage for Canon is sensor tech. But still there are not big difference when we are on the field.

 

[dank]

It is hard to take any of this seriously...

Want to know what I tell people when they ask me what camera to buy? I tell them to figure out how they are going to use it, and then look for the lenses that suit their needs.... and then to worry about the body. I tell them that the lenses are a long term investment that they will be shooting with for decades, and that the camera is an expendable item that will be obsolete in a few years....

Don't try to bring logic where it clearly doesn't belong.

Though for new SLR shooters, I emphasize the question of ergonomics and weight.

 

[SwampYankee]

Hello.
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

This is a joke or what?
Canon is not two generations behind Nikon and i will explain why.

Lets start with the main advantage for Canon.
- Lenses
Canon have mostly better and more lens in their EF line than Nikon in their FX line.
Just compare some of them:
16-35/4 IS, 24-70/4 IS, 24-105/4 IS, 70-200 4L,70-200 4L IS, 70-200 2.8L, 70-200 2.8 L IS II
35/2 IS, 35 1.4 ,35/2
50 1.4 USM, 85 1.8 USM, 100 2.0 USM
135/2 USM
100 2.8 USM, 100 2.8 L USM IS

i don`t want to speak of IS mk1 and IS mk2 super telephoto lenses. ))

Seems here Nikon is still have a lot more work to do to compete with this much of them better, cheaper lenses and all this you can find eazy second hand for good price!

Lets speak for other features and history of lenses.
Canon have their own USM designs of many lens way way before Nikon.
Some of them even are not available for Nikon like 100/2 USM and 135/2 USM.

Canon unveiled STM lenses for video and smoother af. Where is the Nikon here??? They just unveiled their AF-s versions of many lenses before 2-3 years. And much of them are much worse than than canon optics.
Just compare old 24-105/4 L with Nikon 24-120/4 AF-s ...fatal error.

Enough for lenses.

Lets check the cameras.

I will skip the entry levels DSLR`s
We all know that 7d is already better camera than old but good d300s. ( i was owned both)
60d was more balanced than d5100 and 7d was better camera than d7000.
Yes Nikon have now d7100 with 6fps and 6 RAW buffer... one big joke on the field.
Do let finish with the crop sensor cameras because 7d ii is coming. (and 7d is still better from d7100)
I have 70d now because my 7d was dropped in the water.

lets check the FF cameras.
For the entry d610 is somehow better overall than 6d. But in practice ( i have 6d) they are not much different.
But here may be point for Nikon for better value. But they messed up a lot with dust/oil sports with d600.

The major improvement in Nikon is d800/E, d810 cameras. Here canon can not compete like value and performance.

Nikon now will announce d750. Like a answer for 3 years old 5d3.

And the end i will say that d4s was introduced because 1dx was better than d4.

Let`s speak about technology.
Nikon have better Sony sensors than Canon for sure. But better for me usually means better for 100-800 iso and DR department. Nothing really more but still very important for some photographers.

Canon have unique Dual Pixel AF in live view. I own 70d and this working great!
With the STM lens combination is really a unique advantage for may types of photography.
I can use mu 70d almost like mirrorless camera for slow moving subjects, when i`m shooting stock and so one.

Nikon are behind with video capabilities and wi-fi interpretations. Their model usually get the wi-fi one generation behind Canon.

So...with one word. Nikon have d800/d810 but Canon just make everything other usually better and much earlier.

So the main disadvantage for Canon is sensor tech. But still there are not big difference when we are on the field.

Just what I predicted. Canon is better because they have better lenses and the Nikon D600 had spots on the sensor. I predicted this fanboy answer this morning. Nikon has excellent lenses. Sigma & Zeiss have better lenses that either one. The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect. The sensor is 2 generations better. Canon is rolling out their newest offering...at 20MPX a full 4 MPX less that what Nikon offered last year and has inferior low light performance if it is the 70D sensor. Lets look at each companys best sensor offering and the Nikon D810 is years ahead of Canon. But keep telling yourself the lenses are better when any subjective lens test site says otherwise. BTW, I own a 5DIII and am thrilled with it. It's just not as good as the Nikon D10

 

[Daniel 78d]

D800 -> D810

The 5dm3 is looking really old.

You have officially made it to the wrong site

 

[RLPhoto]

Hello.
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

This is a joke or what?
Canon is not two generations behind Nikon and i will explain why.

Lets start with the main advantage for Canon.
- Lenses
Canon have mostly better and more lens in their EF line than Nikon in their FX line.
Just compare some of them:
16-35/4 IS, 24-70/4 IS, 24-105/4 IS, 70-200 4L,70-200 4L IS, 70-200 2.8L, 70-200 2.8 L IS II
35/2 IS, 35 1.4 ,35/2
50 1.4 USM, 85 1.8 USM, 100 2.0 USM
135/2 USM
100 2.8 USM, 100 2.8 L USM IS

i don`t want to speak of IS mk1 and IS mk2 super telephoto lenses. ))

Seems here Nikon is still have a lot more work to do to compete with this much of them better, cheaper lenses and all this you can find eazy second hand for good price!

Lets speak for other features and history of lenses.
Canon have their own USM designs of many lens way way before Nikon.
Some of them even are not available for Nikon like 100/2 USM and 135/2 USM.

Canon unveiled STM lenses for video and smoother af. Where is the Nikon here??? They just unveiled their AF-s versions of many lenses before 2-3 years. And much of them are much worse than than canon optics.
Just compare old 24-105/4 L with Nikon 24-120/4 AF-s ...fatal error.

Enough for lenses.

Lets check the cameras.

I will skip the entry levels DSLR`s
We all know that 7d is already better camera than old but good d300s. ( i was owned both)
60d was more balanced than d5100 and 7d was better camera than d7000.
Yes Nikon have now d7100 with 6fps and 6 RAW buffer... one big joke on the field.
Do let finish with the crop sensor cameras because 7d ii is coming. (and 7d is still better from d7100)
I have 70d now because my 7d was dropped in the water.

lets check the FF cameras.
For the entry d610 is somehow better overall than 6d. But in practice ( i have 6d) they are not much different.
But here may be point for Nikon for better value. But they messed up a lot with dust/oil sports with d600.

The major improvement in Nikon is d800/E, d810 cameras. Here canon can not compete like value and performance.

Nikon now will announce d750. Like a answer for 3 years old 5d3.

And the end i will say that d4s was introduced because 1dx was better than d4.

Let`s speak about technology.
Nikon have better Sony sensors than Canon for sure. But better for me usually means better for 100-800 iso and DR department. Nothing really more but still very important for some photographers.

Canon have unique Dual Pixel AF in live view. I own 70d and this working great!
With the STM lens combination is really a unique advantage for may types of photography.
I can use mu 70d almost like mirrorless camera for slow moving subjects, when i`m shooting stock and so one.

Nikon are behind with video capabilities and wi-fi interpretations. Their model usually get the wi-fi one generation behind Canon.

So...with one word. Nikon have d800/d810 but Canon just make everything other usually better and much earlier.

So the main disadvantage for Canon is sensor tech. But still there are not big difference when we are on the field.

Just what I predicted. Canon is better because they have better lenses and the Nikon D600 had spots on the sensor. I predicted this fanboy answer this morning. Nikon has excellent lenses. Sigma & Zeiss have better lenses that either one. The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect. The sensor is 2 generations better. Canon is rolling out their newest offering...at 20MPX a full 4 MPX less that what Nikon offered last year and has inferior low light performance if it is the 70D sensor. Lets look at each companys best sensor offering and the Nikon D810 is years ahead of Canon. But keep telling yourself the lenses are better when any subjective lens test site says otherwise. BTW, I own a 5DIII and am thrilled with it. It's just not as good as the Nikon D10

Right because canon has

Better T&S lenses
Better standard zooms
Better macros
Better super teles
Better wide aperture primes.
Better integration with its eos system, non screw drive body issues.
Better Flash system.
Better AF system.
Better resale value.
Canons can mount nikkors but not vice verse.
Canons can mount just about any lens due to its large design.

third party's don't count, they make lenses for both systems.

 

[Loswr]

The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect.

That's the second time you've made that ridiculous claim. Let's start with some really, really simple questions.

• How is the D810's 5 frames per second better than the 5DIII's 6 frames per second?
• How are the D810's 15 cross-type AF points better than the 5DIII's 41 cross-type AF points?
• How are the D810's zero f/2.8-sensitive AF points better than the 5DIII's five f/2.8-sensitive AF points?

I look forward to your explanations...you can back up your claim, right??

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Hello.
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

This is a joke or what?
Canon is not two generations behind Nikon and i will explain why.

Lets start with the main advantage for Canon.
- Lenses
Canon have mostly better and more lens in their EF line than Nikon in their FX line.
Just compare some of them:
16-35/4 IS, 24-70/4 IS, 24-105/4 IS, 70-200 4L,70-200 4L IS, 70-200 2.8L, 70-200 2.8 L IS II
35/2 IS, 35 1.4 ,35/2
50 1.4 USM, 85 1.8 USM, 100 2.0 USM
135/2 USM
100 2.8 USM, 100 2.8 L USM IS

i don`t want to speak of IS mk1 and IS mk2 super telephoto lenses. ))

Seems here Nikon is still have a lot more work to do to compete with this much of them better, cheaper lenses and all this you can find eazy second hand for good price!

Lets speak for other features and history of lenses.
Canon have their own USM designs of many lens way way before Nikon.
Some of them even are not available for Nikon like 100/2 USM and 135/2 USM.

Canon unveiled STM lenses for video and smoother af. Where is the Nikon here??? They just unveiled their AF-s versions of many lenses before 2-3 years. And much of them are much worse than than canon optics.
Just compare old 24-105/4 L with Nikon 24-120/4 AF-s ...fatal error.

Enough for lenses.

Lets check the cameras.

I will skip the entry levels DSLR`s
We all know that 7d is already better camera than old but good d300s. ( i was owned both)
60d was more balanced than d5100 and 7d was better camera than d7000.
Yes Nikon have now d7100 with 6fps and 6 RAW buffer... one big joke on the field.
Do let finish with the crop sensor cameras because 7d ii is coming. (and 7d is still better from d7100)
I have 70d now because my 7d was dropped in the water.

lets check the FF cameras.
For the entry d610 is somehow better overall than 6d. But in practice ( i have 6d) they are not much different.
But here may be point for Nikon for better value. But they messed up a lot with dust/oil sports with d600.

The major improvement in Nikon is d800/E, d810 cameras. Here canon can not compete like value and performance.

Nikon now will announce d750. Like a answer for 3 years old 5d3.

And the end i will say that d4s was introduced because 1dx was better than d4.

Let`s speak about technology.
Nikon have better Sony sensors than Canon for sure. But better for me usually means better for 100-800 iso and DR department. Nothing really more but still very important for some photographers.

Canon have unique Dual Pixel AF in live view. I own 70d and this working great!
With the STM lens combination is really a unique advantage for may types of photography.
I can use mu 70d almost like mirrorless camera for slow moving subjects, when i`m shooting stock and so one.

Nikon are behind with video capabilities and wi-fi interpretations. Their model usually get the wi-fi one generation behind Canon.

So...with one word. Nikon have d800/d810 but Canon just make everything other usually better and much earlier.

So the main disadvantage for Canon is sensor tech. But still there are not big difference when we are on the field.

Just what I predicted. Canon is better because they have better lenses and the Nikon D600 had spots on the sensor. I predicted this fanboy answer this morning. Nikon has excellent lenses. Sigma & Zeiss have better lenses that either one. The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect. The sensor is 2 generations better. Canon is rolling out their newest offering...at 20MPX a full 4 MPX less that what Nikon offered last year and has inferior low light performance if it is the 70D sensor. Lets look at each companys best sensor offering and the Nikon D810 is years ahead of Canon. But keep telling yourself the lenses are better when any subjective lens test site says otherwise. BTW, I own a 5DIII and am thrilled with it. It's just not as good as the Nikon D10

Right because canon has

Better T&S lenses
Better standard zooms
Better macros
Better super teles
Better wide aperture primes.
Better integration with its eos system, non screw drive body issues.
Better Flash system.
Better AF system.
Better resale value.
Canons can mount nikkors but not vice verse.
Canons can mount just about any lens due to its large design.

third party's don't count, they make lenses for both systems.

I didn't know about the Canon being able to take Nikon but not the other way around until after I bought my 5D3. It just tickled me even more at a time when I was already so happy with my camera. Both companies make excellent lenses, and each company has an advantage over the other in some regard. For example, the Nikon 14-24 UWA/WA zoom and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II USM zoom. Being able to use them both is great.